December 5, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – The Vetted Migrant Myth
Seg 2 – A Third World Conundrum
Seg 3 – Venezuela and the America First Position
Seg 4 – Farewell to Trial by Jury
Seg 2 – A Third World Conundrum
Seg 3 – Venezuela and the America First Position
Seg 4 – Farewell to Trial by Jury
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeldes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, welcome the libertin Nation radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Anzildes. On
today's edition, we are talking at Venezuela, third world immigration
and a warning for America from across the Atlantic. Please
remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsored by libutinnation dot com. You
can access podcast breaking news, analysis and arranging fighting and
binanciows to what your appetites, freedom and your farmers for
(00:56):
the great American Constitution. And we're here on Liberty Nation
radio head Coast to Coast on the Radio America Network.
Com your host as always mister Mark Angeladies, joined today
as we often are by longtime host of this here
radio show and Libity Nation's senior physical analyst, mister Tim Donna,
thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Tim, Hello, Mark, good to be here again.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
It really is great to have you on. I'm hoping
we're looking for a big, wide ranging discussion, But the
first thing I have to zoom in on today is
the recent announcement by Christy Noham, the Homeland Security Secretary,
who posted out that I'm going to quote here, I
(01:34):
just met with President. I'm recommending a recommending a full
travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our
nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies. She goes on
to say that the Forefather's built the nation of blood, sweat,
and love, not four foreign invaders to slaughter our hero
(01:55):
suck dry hard and tax dollars or snaps the benefits
owed to America. We don't want them, not one. Tim.
Does she seem a bit upset to you?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
What is she really?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
What is she ready?
Speaker 2 (02:10):
What is she really? She was holding back in my opinion, Yeah,
she was demonstrating admirable restraint.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, just dropping subtle hints about what she wants. Right,
It's like they're trying to organize where you want to
go for dinner or an evening. What do you thought, Tim?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
It is tough to paint with such a broad brush
after an incident that was truly chilling, right, Nay, it's
tough to say, well, everybody that fits the same demographic
profile as that person should therefore be banned from entering
(02:50):
the United States. But the problem is really quite simple.
When all of these Appghans uh managed to escape during
the disastrous Afghan withdrawal by the Biden administration, they just
jumped on the plane or held onto it and were
(03:11):
basically rushed out of there to save them because they
had helped us to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan over
a number of years. But because of the absolutely butchered
withdrawal from Afghanistan, including the thirteen members of the military
(03:34):
were killed during the Abbey Gate debucle, it was impossible
to vet them properly. The Biden administration said, we did
vet them properly, but it's obviously clear that they didn't,
and probably even that they couldn't because it turned into
an emergency situation where you didn't have time to stop
(03:55):
and consider and do the careful research you need into
each since background, most of whom probably didn't have any
background information available about them. Because Afghanistan is not exactly
a democracy or a constitutional republic where record gets of
such a high value.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
There's really something to consider. There is and there It's
like when they say, when the bid administration says it
did the background checks. Now, I am absolutely positive that
they did the at least bare minimum of what's the
background check that they have determined is suitable in tails.
That doesn't mean that it's a suitable background checks, just
(04:38):
what they've deemed to be a super background check. Yes,
because you've got to as you rightly point out, this
is not a bastion of bureaucracy, which some may say,
well that's a good thing, right, Yeah, But it also
means that you know, if you say your name is
Muhammad al abdull the six thousand people with the same name,
and there's no central record keeping. These people didn't go
(04:59):
to a school, they haven't had hospitals, things like this,
there's no way of saying which one of him are you.
There's no way to determine that. So all they're basing
on is two things. One is what answers they give
when they're asked questions. Once they've landed in the United States.
Have you ever been part of a terrorist organization? Not
(05:20):
me Bus, you know, right? Correct? Great, do you wish
the United States any harm? Not me Bus? Not going
to happen, right, They're notswer, they're not going to answer
in the affirmative to those. And the other aspect is
some of these people they helped in Afghanistan, and so
we might say, well, you know, these guys helped us,
(05:43):
but you also have to think about why they helped
because Afghanistan for a very very long time has been
warring tribal sects with different beliefs, different political affiliations, different chiefs,
different regional different bonds to different parts of the land,
(06:05):
and they've been at war with each other. Now, if
somebody says, hey, I'm going to help the CIA operative
here to bomb, you know, to go and get these people,
because you know what, you know what, John Smith from
the CIA, these guys they're terrorists, they're you know, these
guys are really bad in this village that they've been
(06:25):
at war with, this tribe that they've been at war
with for two hundred years. We don't know what their
reasons for helping the CIA were or helping the American
troops were, what their motivations were, if they had ulterior
motives in trying to settle blood feuds that have been
ongoing for generations. We don't know that these people decided, hey,
(06:50):
you know, I love America and I'm going to help Americans.
It seems highly unlikely based on well, the entire history
of Afghanistan, Tim.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Well, Afghanistan has been a hellscape. Honestly, in a country
that no power has been able to take over and dominate.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
I beg to differ the Ingus Khan, Angus Khan. Wait,
this Ingus Khan although it wasn't An, was it it was?
It was his first son. It wasn't his heir. His
heir was Abadi.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
The third thing, now you're.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
Just showing off, yes, a little bit, but there was
his first son who took out.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
But I think you know, you look at Afghanistan and
let's give another example of what a hellhole generally has
been over the years. First of all, it's such a
mountainous company country. It's almost impossible to conquer, as we
just discussed. But let's not forget that. When the Soviet
(07:54):
Union invaded Afghanistan in nineteen seventy nine. We were hobbies
opposed to that and trying to kick the Russians. And
among the people who helped us was a guy named
Osama bin Laden. Now he was on our side, so
to speak, during the Soviet Afghanistan War or the invasion
(08:20):
by the Soviets. So does that mean that because Osama
helped us, we should facilitate, you know, a fine life
for him and give him everything he wants. Well, the
answer is that he was opposed to any foreign invasion
or any foreign occupation. So you have no idea what
(08:43):
these people really believe down deep. And this is a
problem that's going to fester for the entire four years
of the Trump administration because Afghan refugees are just one
part of a much larger ten million people at a
minimum were admitted into the United States during the Biden administration.
(09:07):
We don't know where a lot of those people are.
There were three hundred thousand children that were unaccounted for
by the time Trump took office. And so the electorate said,
to the tune of about sixty percent, we won all
illegal aliens, all of them, including the criminals and those
(09:29):
who are simply here illegally to be subject to mass deportation.
This is what people voted for. But now that Trump
is doing all the dirty work to clean up after Biden,
now suddenly the left is all up in arms. But
I would suggest that the left has forfeited its right
(09:51):
to criticize the Trump policy for cleaning up the mess
that Biden created. They had their chance for four years,
they did nothing. So now you know, have the grown
ups back in charge who are going to do the
hard work of basically making the country safer by trying
to get rid of the worst or the worst. And
(10:13):
some will be swept up who have done nothing more
than entered the country illegally. But it's still a crime.
It's a chip of a much larger iceberg that's not
going to fall out in the four years of the
Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, in the words of that notable peacemaker screaming at
Supreme Court justices, you will reap the whirlwind. We'll be
back with Tim after this short.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Break for your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with
Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
And you're back on Limited Nation Radio. Continue our conversation
with the Limited Nations Senior's little analyst, mis Tim Donner.
Now earlier Tim. We were talking about Christine Norms recent outbirth,
saying that she wants to stop all third world immigration. Now,
just a briefer side story. I remember once somebody attempting
(11:16):
to chastise me for using the term third world and
so they clearly didn't understand what that meant. That was
kind of fun. But do you have this situation where now,
how do we identify what is a third world country? Now?
I know that some organizations, supernational organizations, use the term
(11:37):
there are developed countries and developing countries, right, But so
what I mean, how does this look in practice? If
Donald Trump were to get behind Christine Norm's advice and
stop all third world immigration, what does that actually look like?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Well, hopefully what it looks like is something that's happened
before in the United States, which is and this happened
after the Great migration of Italians and Irish and Jews
to New York to the United States in the late
nineteenth early twentieth century. At some point you have to say, okay,
(12:21):
we're filled up. Now we're going to take a pause,
which they did for decades after the Great Migration the
United States. So at some point a responsible president and
his party have to say, Look, we have too many
people already here illegally, which we cannot bet, which we
(12:46):
don't know anything about. We know that there has been
a crime wave among illegal migrants, which is not surprising.
They come here with no job, no money, no nothing given,
you know, sustenance by various governments. But they have no jobs,
(13:06):
they have no grounded in the United States, and therefore
they become a danger to society at large because they
have to survive, and a lot of them will survive
by committing crimes or they will be subject to what
this man who shot the two National Guard troops in
(13:32):
d C. Where he's really apparently a victim of PTSD
and he's been sent to the United States. He was
then radicalized apparently while it was here.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Oh, I've been seeing that story that he was apparently
radicalized here. I think the only evidence for that is
that under the vet he didn't appear to be a
radical under vetting. Isn't that the evidence for it? The House?
Would you know where he was radicalized? Well, they've got
(14:10):
a point where they say, are you a radical? Back
to this point, have you commenced the terrorist defense? Are
you likely? You know? And he says no, that's the
only point they'd have of realizing whether he's a radical
or not. And so from there they'd say, well, he's
not a radical, and then he goes and does something radical.
Therefore they say he was radicalized in the United States.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Right, Well, when you do not vet, or you vet insufficiently,
or you ask questions that require a binary choice, yes,
sir no, obviously they're going to get the answer that
the person thinks that the question wants to hear, so
(14:52):
insufficient vetting meets We don't really know if he was
radicalized here. At this point, it doesn't matter because he
would have been subjected to radicalization here, certainly by certain
forces trying to undermine the United States government. But at
the same time, you know, is he is he an
(15:20):
exemple or for what so many of these Afghan refugees
really think or feel, or is he a one off?
The problem is we can't take a chance because I
remember seeing Dick Cheney speak during the aftermath of nine
to eleven, and he made a very profound point. He said,
(15:42):
you know, terrorists can try to strike here, try to
strike there. If they miss, they come back for more.
But when you're protecting against terrorism, you have to be
right one hundred percent of the time, not nine percent,
one hundred percent, and so we don't have anything near
(16:06):
that level of assurance about most of the people who
have come into this country unvetted, illegally or booked.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Yeah, it seems that I don't know why this is.
And this is particularly well, actually it's on the left
and right. On the right. It's on the political right
for different reasons. On there's this there's this overarching will
for unfettered immigration from all over the world on both
sides of the ours. On the right, it's a monetary thing,
(16:36):
you know, it's like the cheap labor, cheap labor. Let's
you know, it's make profits at the expense of of
whoever the hell gets ran over by that particular juggernaut.
But on the left, it's it's massively ideological, and it's
it's so strange to me that it seems to be
(16:58):
coming from what they can Those people on the left
who are for this massive immigration all over the world,
they consider it empathy, right, because they think, well, if
that person stays there, they might be killed. If they're
in that far off country and they stay there, they
might be killed, and then they don't seem to realize
(17:20):
that if you bring in hundreds of thousands, millions in fact,
of people you don't know who they are, they don't
have any particular reason for being here other than they
don't want to be where they are originally for whatever reason.
That's at least one of those people, if not more,
because as we've seen, it's hundreds upon hundreds upon thousands
(17:42):
will commit crimes and kill, name, hurt, victimize American citizens,
and so they have this empathy of if that person
stays there, they'll be victimized, without considering that when a
mass of these people come to here, then people in
America be victimized because the.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Answer bring their problems with it.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
But the thing is, if you ask how many people
will be victimized by bringing in, let's say, ten thousand
people from country X, how many Americans will be victimized
or murdered? The answer tim is not zero. It's not zero.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
It's not zero. But the problem is we can't solve
all the world's problems. We can't take on it every
every case of heartbreak that exists across the globe. It's
just not possible. Well, you know, some of them want
to live here for the right reason, some for the
wrong reasons. But how do you know if you are
(18:46):
not properly vetting these people.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Tim Dunno, we'll be back with you after this shipbreak.
Don't go anywhere. No, that's what was free.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterplas and
freedom is special and relate.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to
coast on the Radio American Network I Reminia host Mark Angelides.
We're continuing our conversation with longtime host of this here
radio show and Liberty Nations Seniphytic gland List mister Tim Donner.
Earlier in the show, we were talking about the influx
of immigrants to the United States and how that's well,
essentially that's been quite the burden on the American taxpayer
(19:50):
and American security. But now I want to go slightly
the opposite direction, Tim. And obviously there are at times
recording that there are a lot of rumblings in the
swamp regarding Venezuela and whether Donald Trump is seeking to
get rid of Venezuelan President Nichols Maduro. I think the
(20:11):
answer is yes, but quite clearly that he wants moves on.
And his justification here is that he says that Maduro is,
if not the actual head, then at least facilitating through
either turning blind eyes or allowing transports or even much
(20:31):
further in terms of paperwork and permissions to send drugs
from South America to the United States. And so Donald
Trump seems to be gearing up for something. And I
wonder that first question Tim would be, how does how
(20:52):
do you think his his magabase, his America first base,
thinks about what looks like the start some foreign interventionism,
because that's that was really Donald Trump's big setting point
in his first term was that you know, it's America.
It's all about America. It's not about the rest of
(21:13):
the world. And now he seems to be uh dipping
toes into international affairs. What's the situation.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
I think that's a false shot it's being presented, which is,
you're America first. You make America great again. Therefore you
need to to confine your actions to the actual United States.
But in fact you can look let's look at Iran,
(21:43):
and it's impossible to make the case that the United
States was not affected by the threat of nuclear weapons
from an enemy who has stated publicly, repeatedly that they
intend to destroy the United States and Israel and all
(22:06):
of its allies to the extent that it can. When
we come to Venezuela, I think it would be shortsighted
to say that because it's Venezuela that means it's not
an America First policy. It's a very simple answer. Actually,
mark that Nicholas Maduro has facilitated and been a safe
(22:29):
haven for fentanyl dealers who send their product northward and
have killed thousands, thousands of Americans. Now that to me
is America first. That you try to take down the
source of this poison that is killing off, in many ways,
(22:51):
significant parts of an entire generation. So it seems to
me that if you are America first, as the president
of the United Slates States, your first duty is to
protect the American people. Your first duty is the safety
of the American people above all else. And there's no
(23:12):
question that allowing Maduro to continue to facilitate to be
a safe haven for criminal narco gangs, the kind that
have been killed repeatedly on boats heading northward with cocaine
(23:36):
and probably fentanyl. We don't know exactly well on those
boats the Administration probably does. We don't, But I consider
this to be a real America First policy because it's
a major formal protection against one of the biggest killers
of Americans, particularly young Americans. But it's not limited to that.
(24:00):
It's older people who are shotting, booked unknowingly or unwittingly
on fentanyl, cocaine type products, opioids. So, you know, if
the Mega base really has an objection to this, I
think it's a bit short sighted by saying, well, if
(24:21):
it's not taking place in the United States, you shouldn't
really pay any attention. You shouldn't be over in Iran
bombit in their facilities. You shouldn't be trying to stop
the war, spending all this time, effort and treasure to
stop the war in Ukraine or to end the several
other conflicts, including between India and Pakistan, that Trump has
(24:45):
stepped into two broker peace or ceasefires at least, So
I can't tell you for sure whether the magabase is,
you know, eighty percent on board, fifty percent on board.
But it seems to me that this is a chief
responsibility of the President of the United States to protect
(25:09):
the American people, and by going after Maduro and giving
him an offer that hopefully he can't refuse, which is
free passage for him and his family oversees any place
they want to go. Just get out of Dodge. And
the difference between this and some other foreign entanglements is
(25:34):
that there is a woman in place who was duly
elected as president of Venezuela later one to know about
peace prize ahead of Donald Trump. There is a plan
that is ready to take shape almost immediately once Maduro flees,
(25:57):
and you know, Trump's just going to ramp the pressure
more and more and more, and hey, by the time
people watch this, it may be that he's already taken
reaction against Madua. Well, I have to see.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
Yeah, the idea that dealing with cutting off the flow
of fennel at the source was not an America first one.
That's pretty much the position I was in because there's
this there's this idea, isn't there And I don't I
don't think it's an accurate idea, but things should only
take place with an American borders. I don't think the
(26:33):
idea of fortress America is either a one that people
really want or be one that's practical to do, because
if you've got a fortress always has ways in, right,
it has ways in, has ways out. So the trafficking
of drugs and people, let's not forget that, will continue
to happen even if America is actively a fortress like situation.
(26:58):
But if you stamp out the people are actually bringing
the drugs and the people in at the source, that
means that you don't have the problems on your turf,
and that's a better situation to be. And I think
the bringing up Iran is a very good example of that,
(27:20):
because you don't want to wait until you have to
deal with the nuclear weapon coming in, whether that's like
a portable dirty bomb in a backpack something like that,
you want to deal with it as far away from
America's board as as possible.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Well, I think too, it's important to point out here
that since Trump has taken the initiative and the offense
to blow up these drug boats and the people on
them and the product they're carrying, the left has constantly
complained that these are illegal strikes. Now we have mentioned
(27:54):
of whether Pete Hagg said had ordered a second strike
when the first strike against one of these drug boats
did not kill everyone in the boat. The left is
focused on the legality of something that I think most
Americans would support if they knew the truth about it,
(28:14):
and they say nothing about the efforts that this administration
has done, between what they're doing with a dureau and
between completely closing down the southern border. That the flow
of drugs into this country will be reduced significantly by
(28:34):
the President's actions. But the problem that we have now
market seems to me, is not the supply problem so
much as the demand problem. If the demand is still there,
and Americans love their illegal drugs, if the demand is
still there, like you say, a ford can be penetrated somehow.
(28:57):
So we're taking care of the supply problem, it seems.
But what about the demand problem. That's what we have
to attack next, and that's really far more complicated.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Yeah, that's almost a moral situation. And I mean, let's
be clear, I don't think governments of any sort should
be what's the right word, administering or crafting legislation on
how we should think or feel, of course, but to
(29:30):
deal with there's something missing in society and people are
turning to substances. Yes, maybe a government could try and
fix the society, whether that's an economic solution, whether that's
a national pride, something to be part of, part of
a wider community of fellow patriots would be a wonderful,
(29:52):
wonderful thing, and you know, give people some vision for
the future, some hope for their children. And because that
we on top just to finish this up, Tim as
well as the drug overdose is what we don't talk about.
Are all the most people don't talk about a lot.
Are all the not just the suicides, which are rampant
(30:12):
and utly awful, but there's the deaths of despair, people
who essentially flush their lives down the toilet, chasing something
and they don't know what it is, and it's very
difficult on the families involved in that, and of course
the people who ultimately check out. We're going to be
back with Tim after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
For your freedom and your liberty, Liberty Nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
And we'rebet for our final segment on Liberty Nation Radio
continue our conversation with Liberty Nations senior political analyst, mister
Tim Do. Now, Tim, I want to actually shift to
the other side of the Atlantic for our last segment here, Tim,
but also specifically because it has it's poor tense. To him,
it's poor tense for what may come to America. There's
(31:09):
the old saying when America's needs is Britain catch as
a cold that does go the other way. Recently, this
last week, David Lammy, who is the Home Secretary of
the government also a Labor Party member, which is the
Labor Party for those who don't know, it's the equivalent
of the Democrats in the United Kingdom, and he is
(31:32):
making moves to do away with a trial by jury,
which is over an eight hundred year old system that
we've had in place to protect liberties that somebody can
be tried by a jury of their peers more than
eight hundred years. And he's determined that for almost all cases,
(31:56):
unless the most serious murder rate, terrorism things like that,
we can do away with it and instead just have
a single judge sit down and cast judgment. Now, Tim,
I can hear, I can hear droves of Americans, I
think sixth Amendment can't happen, but it couldn't happen in
(32:19):
the UK until it just did. Tim, what's your take
on this.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Well, what you do when you eliminate a jury as
you set up a system of judicial imperialism where the
judiciary reigns supreme and the ruling of a single man
or woman who and will inherently have their own beliefs, prejudices,
(32:50):
preferences and biases because we all have biases. I think
it's a terrible idea because if you can convince twelve
people or in a civil trial, it could be as
few as not whatever that you're not guilty, or on
(33:15):
the other hand, that you are guilty. If you convince
twelve people, I think most most everyone would agree you
you have you've been given a fair verdict. Yes, if
you're being judged by a jury of your peers, you
can be. You can complain about the verdict all you want,
but most people will simply say, Hey, a jury of
(33:37):
twelve people convicted you. That's enough for me. Okay, a
single judge making a ruling, well, we see what happened
with the Trump administration and trying, you know, to push
the bounds of presidential power. They've run into single judges
(33:59):
like Bozburg in the DC Court of Appeals, who sorry,
he's a federal judge, not in the Court of Appeals,
he's a district judge. He can single handedly change an
entire national policy. This is not to say that the
(34:20):
Supreme Court won't rule that that can't continue to happen,
But this is what happens when you have a single
person casting a judgment and a sentence on a person
who's being held for trial. I think it's a dangerous
idea and I don't think that it would I don't
(34:46):
think it would fly in the United States generally speaking,
because I think the left and the right would both
look askance at such a system.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Well, let's look at why it's being brought in in
the UK now. David Lammy says it's because we have
a backlog. We have too many cases and not enough courts,
and that's a situation that's very resonant in the United States.
But do you have this situation? So they're saying that
(35:15):
the best way to deal with this is not to
bring on more judges, not to have more courts, but
to switch to this version and I'm reminded tim of
how the judiciary always remolds itself. And I think a
good example of that is in California with the three
(35:37):
strike crawl that came in, and that was designed to
stop chronic recidivists being out on the streets after they've
managed to commit not one, not two, but three felonies.
But then they started the judiciary, not the legislats, not
the president, but the judiciary started saying, well, and I
(35:58):
think it was called the Ramiro rule, and that was what,
we won't count felonies that are in this particular field
of crime, and we won't count felonies that are in
that particular count field of crime. So it got watered
down and then it basically became something that it wasn't.
(36:20):
So now you can have somebody with fifteen felonies out
and about committing their particular brand of crime or a
new brand of crime they're branching out into, and the
idea of a three strike rule it's gone because the
judiciary managed itself. Now, if the judiciary starts determining these things,
(36:44):
they may get some pushback, like there's a sixth Amendment,
But if they startn't justice denied is justice delayed. So
we need to work on a backlog because crimes are
still happening tim even if we're not classing them as crimes.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
A proper judiciary should not be determining anything but the
guilt or innocence individual. That's what the Article three courts
judges in the United States Constitution, we're all about it.
(37:17):
They're supposed to be referees. They're supposed to determine when
there's a dispute between the President and the Congress or
an agency of the executive branch. When there's any issue
that hasn't been determined, they have to basically put on
(37:40):
the striped shirt and play referee and say, here's our
interpretation of it. They are not to say, here's what
you need to do, here's what the policy should be,
Here's what the proper way to do this should be.
It's just is in the case before us? Is person
(38:05):
a right? Or is person be right? When you have
the judiciary starting to act so independently, like so much
of the so many of the federal district courts have
since Trump entered the White House again, then you get
that same sort of judicial imperialism when the court strays
(38:29):
from its mission of playing referee to its mission of
determining policy. And that's a very slippery slope and a
dangerous road that we want to take the fork. Yeah,
Yogi Berra said, when you come to a fork in
(38:49):
the road, take it, take it, Inde. I think they
need to veer off before you know, the jud Sure,
it just becomes overly powerful. Indeed, and we're headed in
that direction with a president who admittedly it's pushing the
(39:13):
bound to presidential power as far as he can. He's
testing the limits, and so the courts feel they have
to push back.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
Yeah, indeed, Tim, Tim Donna, thanks ever so much for
joining us today.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
Always a pleasure, Mark, And that's.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
All we have time from this week's edition of Liutination
Radio Head Coast Coast on the Radio America Network. I've
been your host, Mark Antonidis. I'd like to thank our
guest today, Tim Donna, and of course thank you the
listeners at home for taking the time to tune in
and join us. Please remember the Livicination does not endorse campaigns, candidates,
or legislation. In this presentation is no endorsement
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeldes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, welcome the libertin Nation radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Anzildes. On
today's edition, we are talking at Venezuela, third world immigration
and a warning for America from across the Atlantic. Please
remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsored by libutinnation dot com. You
can access podcast breaking news, analysis and arranging fighting and
binanciows to what your appetites, freedom and your farmers for
(00:56):
the great American Constitution. And we're here on Liberty Nation
radio head Coast to Coast on the Radio America Network.
Com your host as always mister Mark Angeladies, joined today
as we often are by longtime host of this here
radio show and Libity Nation's senior physical analyst, mister Tim Donna,
thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Tim, Hello, Mark, good to be here again.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
It really is great to have you on. I'm hoping
we're looking for a big, wide ranging discussion, But the
first thing I have to zoom in on today is
the recent announcement by Christy Noham, the Homeland Security Secretary,
who posted out that I'm going to quote here, I
(01:34):
just met with President. I'm recommending a recommending a full
travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our
nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies. She goes on
to say that the Forefather's built the nation of blood, sweat,
and love, not four foreign invaders to slaughter our hero
(01:55):
suck dry hard and tax dollars or snaps the benefits
owed to America. We don't want them, not one. Tim.
Does she seem a bit upset to you?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
What is she really?
Speaker 3 (02:09):
What is she ready?
Speaker 2 (02:10):
What is she really? She was holding back in my opinion, Yeah,
she was demonstrating admirable restraint.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Yeah, just dropping subtle hints about what she wants. Right,
It's like they're trying to organize where you want to
go for dinner or an evening. What do you thought, Tim?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
It is tough to paint with such a broad brush
after an incident that was truly chilling, right, Nay, it's
tough to say, well, everybody that fits the same demographic
profile as that person should therefore be banned from entering
(02:50):
the United States. But the problem is really quite simple.
When all of these Appghans uh managed to escape during
the disastrous Afghan withdrawal by the Biden administration, they just
jumped on the plane or held onto it and were
(03:11):
basically rushed out of there to save them because they
had helped us to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan over
a number of years. But because of the absolutely butchered
withdrawal from Afghanistan, including the thirteen members of the military
(03:34):
were killed during the Abbey Gate debucle, it was impossible
to vet them properly. The Biden administration said, we did
vet them properly, but it's obviously clear that they didn't,
and probably even that they couldn't because it turned into
an emergency situation where you didn't have time to stop
(03:55):
and consider and do the careful research you need into
each since background, most of whom probably didn't have any
background information available about them. Because Afghanistan is not exactly
a democracy or a constitutional republic where record gets of
such a high value.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
There's really something to consider. There is and there It's
like when they say, when the bid administration says it
did the background checks. Now, I am absolutely positive that
they did the at least bare minimum of what's the
background check that they have determined is suitable in tails.
That doesn't mean that it's a suitable background checks, just
(04:38):
what they've deemed to be a super background check. Yes,
because you've got to as you rightly point out, this
is not a bastion of bureaucracy, which some may say,
well that's a good thing, right, Yeah, But it also
means that you know, if you say your name is
Muhammad al abdull the six thousand people with the same name,
and there's no central record keeping. These people didn't go
(04:59):
to a school, they haven't had hospitals, things like this,
there's no way of saying which one of him are you.
There's no way to determine that. So all they're basing
on is two things. One is what answers they give
when they're asked questions. Once they've landed in the United States.
Have you ever been part of a terrorist organization? Not
(05:20):
me Bus, you know, right? Correct? Great, do you wish
the United States any harm? Not me Bus? Not going
to happen, right, They're notswer, they're not going to answer
in the affirmative to those. And the other aspect is
some of these people they helped in Afghanistan, and so
we might say, well, you know, these guys helped us,
(05:43):
but you also have to think about why they helped
because Afghanistan for a very very long time has been
warring tribal sects with different beliefs, different political affiliations, different chiefs,
different regional different bonds to different parts of the land,
(06:05):
and they've been at war with each other. Now, if
somebody says, hey, I'm going to help the CIA operative
here to bomb, you know, to go and get these people,
because you know what, you know what, John Smith from
the CIA, these guys they're terrorists, they're you know, these
guys are really bad in this village that they've been
(06:25):
at war with, this tribe that they've been at war
with for two hundred years. We don't know what their
reasons for helping the CIA were or helping the American
troops were, what their motivations were, if they had ulterior
motives in trying to settle blood feuds that have been
ongoing for generations. We don't know that these people decided, hey,
(06:50):
you know, I love America and I'm going to help Americans.
It seems highly unlikely based on well, the entire history
of Afghanistan, Tim.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Well, Afghanistan has been a hellscape. Honestly, in a country
that no power has been able to take over and dominate.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
I beg to differ the Ingus Khan, Angus Khan. Wait,
this Ingus Khan although it wasn't An, was it it was?
It was his first son. It wasn't his heir. His
heir was Abadi.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
The third thing, now you're.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
Just showing off, yes, a little bit, but there was
his first son who took out.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
But I think you know, you look at Afghanistan and
let's give another example of what a hellhole generally has
been over the years. First of all, it's such a
mountainous company country. It's almost impossible to conquer, as we
just discussed. But let's not forget that. When the Soviet
(07:54):
Union invaded Afghanistan in nineteen seventy nine. We were hobbies
opposed to that and trying to kick the Russians. And
among the people who helped us was a guy named
Osama bin Laden. Now he was on our side, so
to speak, during the Soviet Afghanistan War or the invasion
(08:20):
by the Soviets. So does that mean that because Osama
helped us, we should facilitate, you know, a fine life
for him and give him everything he wants. Well, the
answer is that he was opposed to any foreign invasion
or any foreign occupation. So you have no idea what
(08:43):
these people really believe down deep. And this is a
problem that's going to fester for the entire four years
of the Trump administration because Afghan refugees are just one
part of a much larger ten million people at a
minimum were admitted into the United States during the Biden administration.
(09:07):
We don't know where a lot of those people are.
There were three hundred thousand children that were unaccounted for
by the time Trump took office. And so the electorate said,
to the tune of about sixty percent, we won all
illegal aliens, all of them, including the criminals and those
(09:29):
who are simply here illegally to be subject to mass deportation.
This is what people voted for. But now that Trump
is doing all the dirty work to clean up after Biden,
now suddenly the left is all up in arms. But
I would suggest that the left has forfeited its right
(09:51):
to criticize the Trump policy for cleaning up the mess
that Biden created. They had their chance for four years,
they did nothing. So now you know, have the grown
ups back in charge who are going to do the
hard work of basically making the country safer by trying
to get rid of the worst or the worst. And
(10:13):
some will be swept up who have done nothing more
than entered the country illegally. But it's still a crime.
It's a chip of a much larger iceberg that's not
going to fall out in the four years of the
Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, in the words of that notable peacemaker screaming at
Supreme Court justices, you will reap the whirlwind. We'll be
back with Tim after this short.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Break for your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with
Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
And you're back on Limited Nation Radio. Continue our conversation
with the Limited Nations Senior's little analyst, mis Tim Donner.
Now earlier Tim. We were talking about Christine Norms recent outbirth,
saying that she wants to stop all third world immigration. Now,
just a briefer side story. I remember once somebody attempting
(11:16):
to chastise me for using the term third world and
so they clearly didn't understand what that meant. That was
kind of fun. But do you have this situation where now,
how do we identify what is a third world country? Now?
I know that some organizations, supernational organizations, use the term
(11:37):
there are developed countries and developing countries, right, But so
what I mean, how does this look in practice? If
Donald Trump were to get behind Christine Norm's advice and
stop all third world immigration, what does that actually look like?
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Well, hopefully what it looks like is something that's happened
before in the United States, which is and this happened
after the Great migration of Italians and Irish and Jews
to New York to the United States in the late
nineteenth early twentieth century. At some point you have to say, okay,
(12:21):
we're filled up. Now we're going to take a pause,
which they did for decades after the Great Migration the
United States. So at some point a responsible president and
his party have to say, Look, we have too many
people already here illegally, which we cannot bet, which we
(12:46):
don't know anything about. We know that there has been
a crime wave among illegal migrants, which is not surprising.
They come here with no job, no money, no nothing given,
you know, sustenance by various governments. But they have no jobs,
(13:06):
they have no grounded in the United States, and therefore
they become a danger to society at large because they
have to survive, and a lot of them will survive
by committing crimes or they will be subject to what
this man who shot the two National Guard troops in
(13:32):
d C. Where he's really apparently a victim of PTSD
and he's been sent to the United States. He was
then radicalized apparently while it was here.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
Oh, I've been seeing that story that he was apparently
radicalized here. I think the only evidence for that is
that under the vet he didn't appear to be a
radical under vetting. Isn't that the evidence for it? The House?
Would you know where he was radicalized? Well, they've got
(14:10):
a point where they say, are you a radical? Back
to this point, have you commenced the terrorist defense? Are
you likely? You know? And he says no, that's the
only point they'd have of realizing whether he's a radical
or not. And so from there they'd say, well, he's
not a radical, and then he goes and does something radical.
Therefore they say he was radicalized in the United States.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Right, Well, when you do not vet, or you vet insufficiently,
or you ask questions that require a binary choice, yes,
sir no, obviously they're going to get the answer that
the person thinks that the question wants to hear, so
(14:52):
insufficient vetting meets We don't really know if he was
radicalized here. At this point, it doesn't matter because he
would have been subjected to radicalization here, certainly by certain
forces trying to undermine the United States government. But at
the same time, you know, is he is he an
(15:20):
exemple or for what so many of these Afghan refugees
really think or feel, or is he a one off?
The problem is we can't take a chance because I
remember seeing Dick Cheney speak during the aftermath of nine
to eleven, and he made a very profound point. He said,
(15:42):
you know, terrorists can try to strike here, try to
strike there. If they miss, they come back for more.
But when you're protecting against terrorism, you have to be
right one hundred percent of the time, not nine percent,
one hundred percent, and so we don't have anything near
(16:06):
that level of assurance about most of the people who
have come into this country unvetted, illegally or booked.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Yeah, it seems that I don't know why this is.
And this is particularly well, actually it's on the left
and right. On the right. It's on the political right
for different reasons. On there's this there's this overarching will
for unfettered immigration from all over the world on both
sides of the ours. On the right, it's a monetary thing,
(16:36):
you know, it's like the cheap labor, cheap labor. Let's
you know, it's make profits at the expense of of
whoever the hell gets ran over by that particular juggernaut.
But on the left, it's it's massively ideological, and it's
it's so strange to me that it seems to be
(16:58):
coming from what they can Those people on the left
who are for this massive immigration all over the world,
they consider it empathy, right, because they think, well, if
that person stays there, they might be killed. If they're
in that far off country and they stay there, they
might be killed, and then they don't seem to realize
(17:20):
that if you bring in hundreds of thousands, millions in fact,
of people you don't know who they are, they don't
have any particular reason for being here other than they
don't want to be where they are originally for whatever reason.
That's at least one of those people, if not more,
because as we've seen, it's hundreds upon hundreds upon thousands
(17:42):
will commit crimes and kill, name, hurt, victimize American citizens,
and so they have this empathy of if that person
stays there, they'll be victimized, without considering that when a
mass of these people come to here, then people in
America be victimized because the.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Answer bring their problems with it.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
But the thing is, if you ask how many people
will be victimized by bringing in, let's say, ten thousand
people from country X, how many Americans will be victimized
or murdered? The answer tim is not zero. It's not zero.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
It's not zero. But the problem is we can't solve
all the world's problems. We can't take on it every
every case of heartbreak that exists across the globe. It's
just not possible. Well, you know, some of them want
to live here for the right reason, some for the
wrong reasons. But how do you know if you are
(18:46):
not properly vetting these people.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Tim Dunno, we'll be back with you after this shipbreak.
Don't go anywhere. No, that's what was free.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterplas and
freedom is special and relate.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
And you're back on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to
coast on the Radio American Network I Reminia host Mark Angelides.
We're continuing our conversation with longtime host of this here
radio show and Liberty Nations Seniphytic gland List mister Tim Donner.
Earlier in the show, we were talking about the influx
of immigrants to the United States and how that's well,
essentially that's been quite the burden on the American taxpayer
(19:50):
and American security. But now I want to go slightly
the opposite direction, Tim. And obviously there are at times
recording that there are a lot of rumblings in the
swamp regarding Venezuela and whether Donald Trump is seeking to
get rid of Venezuelan President Nichols Maduro. I think the
(20:11):
answer is yes, but quite clearly that he wants moves on.
And his justification here is that he says that Maduro is,
if not the actual head, then at least facilitating through
either turning blind eyes or allowing transports or even much
(20:31):
further in terms of paperwork and permissions to send drugs
from South America to the United States. And so Donald
Trump seems to be gearing up for something. And I
wonder that first question Tim would be, how does how
(20:52):
do you think his his magabase, his America first base,
thinks about what looks like the start some foreign interventionism,
because that's that was really Donald Trump's big setting point
in his first term was that you know, it's America.
It's all about America. It's not about the rest of
(21:13):
the world. And now he seems to be uh dipping
toes into international affairs. What's the situation.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
I think that's a false shot it's being presented, which is,
you're America first. You make America great again. Therefore you
need to to confine your actions to the actual United States.
But in fact you can look let's look at Iran,
(21:43):
and it's impossible to make the case that the United
States was not affected by the threat of nuclear weapons
from an enemy who has stated publicly, repeatedly that they
intend to destroy the United States and Israel and all
(22:06):
of its allies to the extent that it can. When
we come to Venezuela, I think it would be shortsighted
to say that because it's Venezuela that means it's not
an America First policy. It's a very simple answer. Actually,
mark that Nicholas Maduro has facilitated and been a safe
(22:29):
haven for fentanyl dealers who send their product northward and
have killed thousands, thousands of Americans. Now that to me
is America first. That you try to take down the
source of this poison that is killing off, in many ways,
(22:51):
significant parts of an entire generation. So it seems to
me that if you are America first, as the president
of the United Slates States, your first duty is to
protect the American people. Your first duty is the safety
of the American people above all else. And there's no
(23:12):
question that allowing Maduro to continue to facilitate to be
a safe haven for criminal narco gangs, the kind that
have been killed repeatedly on boats heading northward with cocaine
(23:36):
and probably fentanyl. We don't know exactly well on those
boats the Administration probably does. We don't, But I consider
this to be a real America First policy because it's
a major formal protection against one of the biggest killers
of Americans, particularly young Americans. But it's not limited to that.
(24:00):
It's older people who are shotting, booked unknowingly or unwittingly
on fentanyl, cocaine type products, opioids. So, you know, if
the Mega base really has an objection to this, I
think it's a bit short sighted by saying, well, if
(24:21):
it's not taking place in the United States, you shouldn't
really pay any attention. You shouldn't be over in Iran
bombit in their facilities. You shouldn't be trying to stop
the war, spending all this time, effort and treasure to
stop the war in Ukraine or to end the several
other conflicts, including between India and Pakistan, that Trump has
(24:45):
stepped into two broker peace or ceasefires at least, So
I can't tell you for sure whether the magabase is,
you know, eighty percent on board, fifty percent on board.
But it seems to me that this is a chief
responsibility of the President of the United States to protect
(25:09):
the American people, and by going after Maduro and giving
him an offer that hopefully he can't refuse, which is
free passage for him and his family oversees any place
they want to go. Just get out of Dodge. And
the difference between this and some other foreign entanglements is
(25:34):
that there is a woman in place who was duly
elected as president of Venezuela later one to know about
peace prize ahead of Donald Trump. There is a plan
that is ready to take shape almost immediately once Maduro flees,
(25:57):
and you know, Trump's just going to ramp the pressure
more and more and more, and hey, by the time
people watch this, it may be that he's already taken
reaction against Madua. Well, I have to see.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
Yeah, the idea that dealing with cutting off the flow
of fennel at the source was not an America first one.
That's pretty much the position I was in because there's
this there's this idea, isn't there And I don't I
don't think it's an accurate idea, but things should only
take place with an American borders. I don't think the
(26:33):
idea of fortress America is either a one that people
really want or be one that's practical to do, because
if you've got a fortress always has ways in, right,
it has ways in, has ways out. So the trafficking
of drugs and people, let's not forget that, will continue
to happen even if America is actively a fortress like situation.
(26:58):
But if you stamp out the people are actually bringing
the drugs and the people in at the source, that
means that you don't have the problems on your turf,
and that's a better situation to be. And I think
the bringing up Iran is a very good example of that,
(27:20):
because you don't want to wait until you have to
deal with the nuclear weapon coming in, whether that's like
a portable dirty bomb in a backpack something like that,
you want to deal with it as far away from
America's board as as possible.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Well, I think too, it's important to point out here
that since Trump has taken the initiative and the offense
to blow up these drug boats and the people on
them and the product they're carrying, the left has constantly
complained that these are illegal strikes. Now we have mentioned
(27:54):
of whether Pete Hagg said had ordered a second strike
when the first strike against one of these drug boats
did not kill everyone in the boat. The left is
focused on the legality of something that I think most
Americans would support if they knew the truth about it,
(28:14):
and they say nothing about the efforts that this administration
has done, between what they're doing with a dureau and
between completely closing down the southern border. That the flow
of drugs into this country will be reduced significantly by
(28:34):
the President's actions. But the problem that we have now
market seems to me, is not the supply problem so
much as the demand problem. If the demand is still there,
and Americans love their illegal drugs, if the demand is
still there, like you say, a ford can be penetrated somehow.
(28:57):
So we're taking care of the supply problem, it seems.
But what about the demand problem. That's what we have
to attack next, and that's really far more complicated.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Yeah, that's almost a moral situation. And I mean, let's
be clear, I don't think governments of any sort should
be what's the right word, administering or crafting legislation on
how we should think or feel, of course, but to
(29:30):
deal with there's something missing in society and people are
turning to substances. Yes, maybe a government could try and
fix the society, whether that's an economic solution, whether that's
a national pride, something to be part of, part of
a wider community of fellow patriots would be a wonderful,
(29:52):
wonderful thing, and you know, give people some vision for
the future, some hope for their children. And because that
we on top just to finish this up, Tim as
well as the drug overdose is what we don't talk about.
Are all the most people don't talk about a lot.
Are all the not just the suicides, which are rampant
(30:12):
and utly awful, but there's the deaths of despair, people
who essentially flush their lives down the toilet, chasing something
and they don't know what it is, and it's very
difficult on the families involved in that, and of course
the people who ultimately check out. We're going to be
back with Tim after this short break. Don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
For your freedom and your liberty, Liberty Nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
And we'rebet for our final segment on Liberty Nation Radio
continue our conversation with Liberty Nations senior political analyst, mister
Tim Do. Now, Tim, I want to actually shift to
the other side of the Atlantic for our last segment here, Tim,
but also specifically because it has it's poor tense. To him,
it's poor tense for what may come to America. There's
(31:09):
the old saying when America's needs is Britain catch as
a cold that does go the other way. Recently, this
last week, David Lammy, who is the Home Secretary of
the government also a Labor Party member, which is the
Labor Party for those who don't know, it's the equivalent
of the Democrats in the United Kingdom, and he is
(31:32):
making moves to do away with a trial by jury,
which is over an eight hundred year old system that
we've had in place to protect liberties that somebody can
be tried by a jury of their peers more than
eight hundred years. And he's determined that for almost all cases,
(31:56):
unless the most serious murder rate, terrorism things like that,
we can do away with it and instead just have
a single judge sit down and cast judgment. Now, Tim,
I can hear, I can hear droves of Americans, I
think sixth Amendment can't happen, but it couldn't happen in
(32:19):
the UK until it just did. Tim, what's your take
on this.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Well, what you do when you eliminate a jury as
you set up a system of judicial imperialism where the
judiciary reigns supreme and the ruling of a single man
or woman who and will inherently have their own beliefs, prejudices,
(32:50):
preferences and biases because we all have biases. I think
it's a terrible idea because if you can convince twelve
people or in a civil trial, it could be as
few as not whatever that you're not guilty, or on
(33:15):
the other hand, that you are guilty. If you convince
twelve people, I think most most everyone would agree you
you have you've been given a fair verdict. Yes, if
you're being judged by a jury of your peers, you
can be. You can complain about the verdict all you want,
but most people will simply say, Hey, a jury of
(33:37):
twelve people convicted you. That's enough for me. Okay, a
single judge making a ruling, well, we see what happened
with the Trump administration and trying, you know, to push
the bounds of presidential power. They've run into single judges
(33:59):
like Bozburg in the DC Court of Appeals, who sorry,
he's a federal judge, not in the Court of Appeals,
he's a district judge. He can single handedly change an
entire national policy. This is not to say that the
(34:20):
Supreme Court won't rule that that can't continue to happen,
But this is what happens when you have a single
person casting a judgment and a sentence on a person
who's being held for trial. I think it's a dangerous
idea and I don't think that it would I don't
(34:46):
think it would fly in the United States generally speaking,
because I think the left and the right would both
look askance at such a system.
Speaker 3 (34:55):
Well, let's look at why it's being brought in in
the UK now. David Lammy says it's because we have
a backlog. We have too many cases and not enough courts,
and that's a situation that's very resonant in the United States.
But do you have this situation? So they're saying that
(35:15):
the best way to deal with this is not to
bring on more judges, not to have more courts, but
to switch to this version and I'm reminded tim of
how the judiciary always remolds itself. And I think a
good example of that is in California with the three
(35:37):
strike crawl that came in, and that was designed to
stop chronic recidivists being out on the streets after they've
managed to commit not one, not two, but three felonies.
But then they started the judiciary, not the legislats, not
the president, but the judiciary started saying, well, and I
(35:58):
think it was called the Ramiro rule, and that was what,
we won't count felonies that are in this particular field
of crime, and we won't count felonies that are in
that particular count field of crime. So it got watered
down and then it basically became something that it wasn't.
(36:20):
So now you can have somebody with fifteen felonies out
and about committing their particular brand of crime or a
new brand of crime they're branching out into, and the
idea of a three strike rule it's gone because the
judiciary managed itself. Now, if the judiciary starts determining these things,
(36:44):
they may get some pushback, like there's a sixth Amendment,
But if they startn't justice denied is justice delayed. So
we need to work on a backlog because crimes are
still happening tim even if we're not classing them as crimes.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
A proper judiciary should not be determining anything but the
guilt or innocence individual. That's what the Article three courts
judges in the United States Constitution, we're all about it.
(37:17):
They're supposed to be referees. They're supposed to determine when
there's a dispute between the President and the Congress or
an agency of the executive branch. When there's any issue
that hasn't been determined, they have to basically put on
(37:40):
the striped shirt and play referee and say, here's our
interpretation of it. They are not to say, here's what
you need to do, here's what the policy should be,
Here's what the proper way to do this should be.
It's just is in the case before us? Is person
(38:05):
a right? Or is person be right? When you have
the judiciary starting to act so independently, like so much
of the so many of the federal district courts have
since Trump entered the White House again, then you get
that same sort of judicial imperialism when the court strays
(38:29):
from its mission of playing referee to its mission of
determining policy. And that's a very slippery slope and a
dangerous road that we want to take the fork. Yeah,
Yogi Berra said, when you come to a fork in
(38:49):
the road, take it, take it, Inde. I think they
need to veer off before you know, the jud Sure,
it just becomes overly powerful. Indeed, and we're headed in
that direction with a president who admittedly it's pushing the
(39:13):
bound to presidential power as far as he can. He's
testing the limits, and so the courts feel they have
to push back.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
Yeah, indeed, Tim, Tim Donna, thanks ever so much for
joining us today.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
Always a pleasure, Mark, And that's.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
All we have time from this week's edition of Liutination
Radio Head Coast Coast on the Radio America Network. I've
been your host, Mark Antonidis. I'd like to thank our
guest today, Tim Donna, and of course thank you the
listeners at home for taking the time to tune in
and join us. Please remember the Livicination does not endorse campaigns, candidates,
or legislation. In this presentation is no endorsement
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.