Is Another Civil War Possible?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yes, Welcome to the show, grated the number one most
listened to podcast on Fluid. So join us now. As
we discussed news, politics, current events, and so much more,
but through the airwaves and strapped in as we do
constitution because three Bird Broadcasting from WEAPONI Slaft Production Studio B.

(00:39):
Welcome to the Ho Host show. Hand has always I'm
your host, Ho Ho. So, how y'all's doing. I hope
you're doing good? I really do. Today we've got some
stuff to talk about. Holy crap. We're going to be
talking about organ and gun control. We're going to be
talking about some more russiagates subpoenas. We're gonna be talking
about ice and a possible civil war or at least

(01:02):
could that actually happen with what's going on. We're going
to be talking about snap briefly at least. We are
going to be talking about all the reply emails out
of the Department of Education. Going to be talking about
California redistricting and preferred pronouns in Ohio. But first we're

(01:24):
going to start here. Y'all know how I like to
start the program. I like to I like to start
off with a little bit of ha ha, a little
bit satire, a little bit of funny. And my go
to source for satire news is the Babylon B and
I like to use it as satire with a purpose. Now,

(01:47):
this article, it's it's funny because there's truth behind it.
It's funny because it's true. Right, That's that's that's where
this one starts off. This headline, of course, from the
Babylon B Nancy Pelosi prepares for sad future of outsider trading. Yeah,
I've seen this article and I'm like, this is this

(02:10):
is funny, but it's true, you know, I mean, we
all know that. You know, President or I'm sorry President, Wow,
she is not no staking president. We all know the
former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. She's been in
she she's been in the House of Representatives for for

(02:32):
quite a while. I'm actually kind of curious. Now I'm
going to look up how long she's actually been in
the UH in the House of Representatives. How long has
Nancy Pelosi been in office? There we go, evidently this
is something that other people have asked thirty years. Wow.

(02:57):
Nancy Pelosi, Patricia that's her middle name, okay, and an American,
an American politician who was the fifty second Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, serving from two thousand
and seven to twenty eleven. Okay, so yeah, thirty years

(03:20):
apparently in Congress. Okay, that's a long time. That's that's
definitely a long time, it really is. So yeah, but
we all know that, you know, through her her husband,
one of the means by which she has been able

(03:43):
to get rich and amass the wealth that she has
is because she gave information about things that were happening
to her husband to allow him to win a stock market.
That's basically what it amounts to, you know, And I

(04:04):
know I've talked about this previously on the show. I
brought it up numerous times because you know, insider trading
is illegal, right, I mean, we all know this. You know,
we've all heard different white collar crimes of this kind
of stuff actually happening, people going to prison, facing jail time,

(04:25):
finds losing their job, their livelihood, everything because they were
caught insider trading. And insider trading in short is, you know,
whenever you use information that is not accessible to the
public in order to win in the stock market, you're
not supposed to do that. You're not supposed to use

(04:49):
information that is not public in order to gain a
big fortune, in order to win on the stock market.
But yet Nancy Pelosi and other you know other. I mean,
it's not like it's only Nancy Pelosi. It's not like
she's only the guilty party that has ever done this.
A lot of people do this in Congress because apparently

(05:11):
even though it's illegal for you know, uh, people in
high levels of these different businesses, people who get insider information,
it's illegal for them to do it. But for some
reason Congress, you know, they do it. They get away
with it. And you know, here's the question I have

(05:32):
to ask, because are are people in Congress doing this
because they're confident that nobody's going to go after them
for insider trading? Because you know, these are the people
in Congress who makes policy choices that will and does

(05:54):
directly affect a company's ability to make money. You know,
government and contracts, different you know, rulings, red tape, what
have you, that may come down the pipeline. You know,
they know ahead of time what's about ready to happen,
because you know, these are the decision makers that ends
up making it happen. I mean, this is one of
the reasons why I've talked about that, you know, they

(06:22):
Congress really does need to get out of the business
of picking winners and losers. I mean, that's really what
it amounts. I mean, they really do. They do this
quite often. They do this a lot, you know, with
different subsidies that they distribute to companies that they choose
are well they would have you believe that as companies

(06:47):
that will do the job better. But in all honesty,
what it generally amounts to is is companies that are
going to give them a kickback for picking them over
somebody else. I mean, Congress really does need to get
out of the business of picking winners and losers. But
this is one of the ways that Nancy Pelosi has
a master of fortune using the information that she knows,

(07:09):
because you know, she's one of the decision makers as
you know, especially whenever she was you know, Speaker of
the House, she had a lot of control over this.
So you know, the question is has people in Congress
have you know, do they do it because they feel

(07:31):
as though they believe as though they're not going to
get called out on it. Do they believe that they
are above the law and that they can, or is
it a matter of they've made it legal for them
to do it and illegal for other people to do it.
I mean that that really is a question that I
have regarding this. You know, do they just do it

(07:53):
because they have the audacity to do it, believing they're
they're not going to get turned in and actually have
to face any criminal charges. Or did they write some
type of a loophole in there in a law that
allows them to do it without any repercussions whatsoever, even
though it is illegal for other people to do it.

(08:14):
And I mean, either way really wouldn't surprise me. I'm
just going to be honest with you. I mean, these
people do have the audacity to think that they are
above the law, that they can do virtually anything they
want to without consequences. I mean, why do you think
they do some of the stuff that they do. I mean,
it's it's appalling to me. How you have, you know,

(08:37):
a slush fund to pay off people whom are you know,
also forced to sign NDA's over any sexual charges that
maybe you know that somebody may be accused of, you know,
sexual assault charges or what have you. There's a slush

(08:57):
fund to pay this out and payer dollars money that
comes from you know, you and me is where this
money comes from. They do that to protect themselves, and
they don't give the American people, even though it's our
money that is being spent. We don't get the ability

(09:20):
to find out how this money is spent, whom the
accused was, whenever the payout happened. You know, we don't
get to find out any information about this. I know
I've talked about this previously on the show. This type
of stuff, this level of corruption, so many different levels
of corruption, really does need to end, you know. I mean,

(09:45):
I know that's one of the reasons why I myself
really want to see term limits put on members of
Congress absolutely I do. You know. I know that will
get rid of some people that we believe are good
at doing their job, but it's also going to get

(10:09):
rid of a lot of people that are very bad
about doing their job, that have very much abused the
power that they have seized for themselves through the election,
through getting in the office, strowing that out there, which
I know that we're never going to see that come

(10:30):
out of Congress itself. If this is something that the
American people want, we need to force a convention of
the States in order to make it happen, because again,
Congress is never going to limit their own power. They're
never ever, ever going to throw up an amendment to
the Constitution like that. They're never going to do it.

(10:50):
I know my grandfather, you know, he had an issue
with voting for voting for an incumbent, you know, somebody
who is being elected for a second, third, fourth, fifth term.
He's he's had an issue doing that for quite some
time because his belief was that if you weren't corrupt

(11:11):
going in the first time, you're sure a shit going
to be corrupt. Now. That's what his belief was, And
I think there's a lot of truth to that, I
really do. You know, because all these people are living
in the same areas, they're going to the same restaurants,

(11:34):
they're going to you know, they're sending their kids to
the same school. You know, it is an environment that
you know, not only just reeks of corruption, but there
comes a point in time. I mean, you know, they're
they're talking to each other, they're trying to persuade each
other to do this, that and the other. Yeah, they
may act like enemies on the you know, on the

(11:58):
floor of Congress. But are they really enemies or do
they believe at least on some levels, maybe not all,
but on some level levels that you know, they all
agree on things, both Democrat and Republican. I mean, think
about it, what the the uh the bipartisan numbers between

(12:24):
the two parties is. I mean, it's it's it's overwhelmingly Democrat,
overwhelmingly liberal. So I mean, how much disagreement is they're
really in Congress with a lot of these people, you know,
I mean most of these people believe the same thing.

(12:46):
I mean, you know, they believe in what it is
that they're doing. They believe that.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
Well.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
I mean like immigration for instance, you know, both parties
want it illegal immigration. Both parties want it. They they
may have difference differencing in opinions as far as to
why they want a legal immigration, but both of them
won it to an extent. I mean, otherwise they would
have gotten the border shut down along freaking time ago.

(13:12):
There wouldn't have been this battle going on, not to
mention between you know, just closing down the border, but
getting rid of these illegal aliens. They could have done
this a long time ago. All it would have taken
was you know, of course, basically a president willing to
do it, but stiff for crimes, stiffer punishment for doing
these types of crimes. And yes, I know with that aspect,

(13:37):
I mean it takes a president willing to do it,
willing to enforce the laws. Yes, I get it. But
even still, it's been an issue that has been going
on for quite some times. Let's move on. Let's move on,
let's get rid of that tab. Now there's something else
that I want to talk about, and that is the
whole well, let's just get into the article, this headlines

(14:02):
from the Daily Wire. School district can't force students to
use preferred pronouns of trans classmates, court rules. Yay. I
find this actually very very exciting. So the district introduced
no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt
school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. That's

(14:28):
what the court ruling said, you know, And I'm gonna
be honest with you, you know, I mean, I find
this whole thing, this whole preferred pronoun thing, it's ridiculous,
it really is. You know, I'm a gen x or
I live in this place called realvill in reality. You know,

(14:51):
let me think about it. Whenever you're talking to somebody
with somebody, do you use a pronoun at all? Because
I mean, I know, I don't. Why would I I'm
talking to you. If I'm going to ask you about
the weather, it's going to be, Hey, how's the weather,

(15:18):
what you're doing, how you been? There's no pronouns in there,
There is none. I mean, you don't use pronouns talking
to somebody. You use them talking about somebody in this
whole demand that these people have, that we live in

(15:39):
their delusional world, that they are something that they are not.
Biology is biology, all right, DNA's DNA chromosomes are chromosomes
xx or xy. Either you is or you isn't. I mean,

(16:00):
it's pretty simple, right, But to force people to participate
in a delusion that just isn't real. I mean, look,
if you want to call yourself a dog, find call
yourself a dog. This is a free country. You can
do what you want. But you don't have the right.
You don't have the authority to force other people to

(16:21):
participate in your delusion. You just don't. I mean, you
do you boo boo? I don't care. I mean I
really don't. It makes it makes no nevermind to me whatsoever.
I don't care. What you do in the privacy of
your own home is up to you. That's between you
and your maker. I don't care. But I'm not going
to participate in a delusion, you know, to see that

(16:44):
dude who's got the Hulk Hogan haircut, that's wearing a
skirt in the high heels, doing a very bad job
of impersonating a woman to demand that it's ma'am, not sir, dude.
I called you sir because you're you're not trying hard enough, right,
You're not fooling anybody. You look like a dude. It's

(17:05):
kind of obvious. Don't be all bad at me because
you fail to trying to look like a woman. You
ain't no Sheanai twain, all right, you know, it's just
it really is that simple, all right. And that's that's
the whole thing too. Freedom of speech. I mean, they
like saying that, Oh, it's my constitutional right for you
to call me, you know, ginger. They them, what the

(17:25):
fuck ever? No, I got the freedom of speech to
call you he or she or what the fuck ever.
You don't have the right to tell me what I
can and cannot say. I mean, this is America. It's
the freedom of speech, and you do not have the
freedom from speech. I mean, why don't we get why
why don't we understand that? So I mean to actually

(17:47):
see and this is this is where I'm going on this.
To actually see some resemblance of common sense is fan
freaking tastic, it really is.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
I was.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
I was, actually, you know, wu sad whenever I seen
this headline. Finally some common sense happening. I mean, we
went to the moon when it came to wokeness, we
really did. We went to the absurd when it came

(18:24):
to wokeness. We were interpreting constitutional rights in a way
that made absolutely no sense. You're going to condemn somebody
for exercising their freedom of speech while claiming that you
had the freedom from it. It's like that, where does
that make sense? Where's that written? Show me that in

(18:45):
the constitution? Right? Just I never, I never did understand it,
you know, I really didn't. I mean, common sense coming back,
that's actually pretty stinking awesome. Again, I don't care what
you do. I don't want to be honest with you,
I don't, but don't force me to live in your reality.

(19:06):
I have my own. I'll live in mine. I'm not
going to demand I mean, if we want to talk pronouns,
if we actually want to enforce that, then okay, I'm
a beautiful, gorgeous black woman. Why can't I be? I mean,
if you can be a woman even though you have

(19:27):
the wrong plumbing, that indicates that you is one, even
though you have the wrong the chromosomes, that makes it true.
If you're going to demand that I recognize you as
a woman even though you are a dude, then you know,
And if biology means nothing, well then why does Why
does me somebody who is a minimally melaninin melanated minimally melanin.

(19:57):
Why can't I just arbitrarily be black? Why not? I mean,
obviously chromosomes in DNA doesn't mean anything. Obviously your plumbing
means absolutely nothing. Then why does melanin levell have anything
to do with the color of your skin? I can

(20:19):
just declare myself to be black. If somebody can declare
themselves to be a woman, or declare themselves to be
a man, or declare themselves to be a freaking animal
for crying out loud, then I can declare myself to
be black or Asian or whatever else I want to be.
And if you're going to say that is absurd, how

(20:39):
dare you being grete thornbug? That bird? However the hell
you pronounce their name? Do I not have that anymore? Oh?
There it is?

Speaker 2 (20:51):
How dare you?

Speaker 4 (20:52):
There?

Speaker 3 (20:52):
You go?

Speaker 1 (20:52):
I do I have that? Then? Why can't you do
it for race? If you can do it for sex,
which is immutable, why can't you do it for race?
Throwing that out there, the absurdity israel right. Moving on
this next headline from the Daily Signal, California Republicans in

(21:19):
hot water thanks to newsome redistricting efforts. Now, look, I
know I've talked about this briefly and I didn't really
get into it a whole heck of a lot. But
you know, this is a thing, I gotta be honest
with you. This really really ticks me off. It really is,
you know, because what this amounts to is so Texas

(21:40):
was redrawing their lines, okay, and they were actually told to,
they were forced to by the you know, by the
Supreme Court. Why, because they did it in a way
that was unconstitutional. How they drew their district lines. It
was unconstitutional. It was it was discriminative. That's why they

(22:00):
were forced to redraw them. And there's a lot of
states out there, and you know that that do the
whole gerrymandering thing they all do. I mean, look at
Illinois's ridiculous, you know. But it's not like it's only
one side of the aisle that is guilty of this.
It really isn't. Both sides of the isle are just
as guilty. It is what it is. But whenever Texas

(22:27):
was forced to redraw their lines to be more accurate
to their voting block, which in turn made it a
you know, more fair, more representing of whom Texas really
was as far as they're oh, what's that word I'm

(22:52):
looking for, you know, more representing of their voting demographic. Okay,
there we go. That works. Then you know, one what
the problem is, right See, the issue was, at least
for the Democrats, is they were losing five seats because
it was a more accurate distribution of political bias in

(23:18):
the state of Texas. It was accurate. There wasn't jerry
mandering going on, you know, like what we see in Illinois,
like what we see in California, you know. I mean,
for instance, Illinois. You know, it's what I forget the percentage.
I forget the actual percentage. I think like thirty thirty

(23:45):
some odd percent of the of the population of Illinois
as Republican, yet they only have like far less amount
of seats percentage wise in in Congress. They you know,

(24:08):
Illinois did that to grant themselves more power to you know,
push whatever they wanted to do. It's not representative of
the voting block. It's not. It doesn't represent, you know,
the the actual people of the state. They drew the
lines in such a way to give the Democrats a

(24:30):
you know, a lead. There you go, all right. I
mean it's not rocket science. We all know that this
goes on. But California responded with what happened in Texas
by redrawing the district lines in order to take five
seats away from Republicans in an already gerrymandered state. I

(24:55):
don't know the numbers in California, I really don't. As
far as the population of voters, I don't know, And
I mean honestly, I don't really care, but I don't
know what it is. But you know, Gavin Newsom and
he even introduced a bill to allow them to do that,
which I thought was completely horseshit just by the way.

(25:15):
I think it was what Prop fifty Proposition fifty. I
think that's what the name of it is that California
voters voted on, and of course it passed. And why
wouldn't it, you know, because this using the Democrat or
I'm sorry, the yeah, the democratic system, the voters get
what they want, you know, which I mean, here's the thing,

(25:36):
and this is why it pisses me off, Okay, because
they're not doing this because they want to get a
better representation of the political bias in the state or
political voting in the state. They're not wanting to give
Republicans and Democrats equal seats based off of their percentage

(25:57):
of voters that are in the state. That's not what
they're doing. They're doing it specifically to counter the seats
lost in Texas. That's why they did it, not to
actually represent their people better, but because Texas did that
to represent their people better. They're losing seats in Texas,

(26:20):
They're going to gain them in California so that this
way they don't lose the majority in the in the
UH in Congress. That's what it amounts to. And it
pisses me off that they, you know, they put this
on the ballot, because, I mean, look, the Constitution grants

(26:41):
us you see, here's the thing I mean, if you
really want to come right down to, if you want
to boil it down, what they did is unconstitutional. What
they're doing in Illinois, right here, in my own home
state is unconstitutional. Redrawing maps like this to arbitrarily give
one party an advantage over another party just for pure

(27:05):
shits and giggles, just because they want to maintain keep
and and have control, just for power. It's unconstitutional, it
really is. If you want to boil it down for
what it truly is, it is unconstitutional. Because the Constitution

(27:26):
grants a republican form of government for every state, then
no matter what state you live in, you are guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States of America a
republican form of government. That's not a party thing, all right.
It's a representative type of government, and it is supposed

(27:51):
to be based off of the population. So if you
have a fifty to fifty split in your state as
far as Democrats and Republicans, then you are supposed to
have a fifty to fifty split of your representatives in
that state, that there should be an equal amount of

(28:12):
representatives for each. If you are a seventy thirty state,
then you're supposed to have seventy thirty representation. That's what
it's supposed to be and is not supposed to be discriminative,
as in, oh, black people get you know, they have
to be you know, is demanded that they have representation
a black caucus. YadA yadlah blah blah. It doesn't matter.

(28:32):
You're not supposed to pick these things based off of
your race, color, or creed. You ain't supposed to period
in the story no discrimination. That's why anti discrimination means
is you are not discriminating based off of race, color,
or creed. Anti racism is still racism. It is what
it is. I don't care what you think about it.

(28:53):
Just because your feelings may be hurt doesn't mean that
your argument is accurate. It is what it is. And
what Gavin Newsom is doing is blatantly a violation of
the Constitution because he's doing this making it to where
it is not an even split of representatives based off
of their political leanings. Democrats are over represented. That's unconstitutional,

(29:23):
it really is. And in all honesty, regardless of how
you feel about whether or not a state should be
able to do it, whether they should be able to
get away with it, let me tell you this one.

(29:43):
Because what California does is or at least will be
echoed in other places. Newsom is doing what he is
doing to counter what happened in Texas, but doesn't just
only affect California. It affects everyone because of DC a

(30:10):
representative shift. You gain them here, you lose them here.
He's doing this in such a way that it is
going to affect everybody on a national scale because now.

Speaker 2 (30:24):
You have.

Speaker 1 (30:27):
The representation in Congress to be heavily weighed towards Democrats
because Democrats don't want to lose power, or at least
they don't want Republicans to gain an overwhelming majority. That's
what this whole thing boils down to. It's disgraceful. I mean,

(30:53):
it annoys me. How you have the Democrat Party, who
whom are always you know democracy? See, this is what
democracy look like. It is what democracy looks like. Really
is it democracy if you're going to arbitrarily draw the
lines in order to give the Democrats the upper hand

(31:14):
so you don't lose power or give Republicans an overwhelming majority.
So your voice doesn't mean absolutely anything. Is it really
democracy if it doesn't represent the people that you're supposed
to be representing. Is it democracy? No, it isn't. I mean,
good grief. Whenever you know during twenty sixteen, all right,

(31:34):
this is great, this is wonderful. I love this, I
really do. Twenty sixteen, Hillary Clinton, did she actually win
the primary over Bernie Sanders? Before you answer that question,
let me tell you you're wrong, because if you say yes,
you're wrong, you're full of shit. That's not why Hillary

(31:55):
Clinton won. The majority of the people the Democratic Party
voted for Bernie Sanders. The only reason why the nomination
went to Hillary Clinton is because of the super delegates.
That's why it went to her. They didn't have anything
to do with what the democratic form of government with democracy,

(32:19):
because democracy is the majority gets what the majority wants. Right,
That's what democracy is. It's the majority rule. They claim
to be for democracy. They chant, this is what democracy
looks like. All the while the person who won through
the democratic process of majority rule, Bernie Sanders. He didn't

(32:42):
get the nomination because those in power put more weight
of their word over the word of the people. Because
that's what the super delegates do. They choose, not you.
They That's a huge difference between the two parties because

(33:09):
the Republican Party doesn't have super delegates. They let the
democratic process work as the democratic process is supposed to work.
Democrats don't care about democracy. If they did, they wouldn't
be doing the shit that they're doing today. Just throwing

(33:31):
that out there, that's why it infuriates me as much
as it does. That's why it ticks me off as
much as it does. The Democratic Party ain't got nothing
to do with democracy. And oh yeah, by the way,
this is not a democracy. This is a constitutional republic,
as in, it doesn't matter what the majority wants because

(33:53):
right is right and wrong is wrong. It's not about
what the majority wants. I have the freedom of speech.
You ain't got the freedom from speech. Offensive speech is
protected under the freedom of speech. I mean, in fact,

(34:16):
you could actually argue that offensive speech is the only
speech that's protected under the First Amendment. Why do I
say it like that, Well, it was pretty simple because
if it's speech that everybody likes and everybody wants to
listen to There's no reason to protect it. Is there?
You tell me? Is there? If everybody likes it, if

(34:37):
nobody's going to get offended, why it doesn't need to
be protected. But speech to people hates speech the people
that challenges people, that calls them out for their Bravo Sierra,
that's the speech that needs to be protected because people
don't want to hear it, especially Democrats. They need safe space.

Speaker 3 (34:57):
Is only gun and you need to say spe h,
I've been called out on my bullshit. I need safe spaces.
You can't say that to me. You can't call me
a heat whenever I am clearly.

Speaker 1 (35:09):
A she really read the First Amendment and tell me
that again? Uh huh, I thought not. So we are
going to take a quick interlude and when I return,
we are going to be talking about oh yeah, the

(35:29):
the emails. Yeah, the emails that went out from the
Department of Education. Are also going to be touching base
on snap benefits and some of the stuff that's actually
going on in in a court over that, in the
Supreme Court over that. You might be a little interested
in it, you know, to know what we are actually
fighting for. And fighting about you know there you go?
All right, So just a couple menutes? What do I

(35:52):
want to What do I want to play? Yeah, let's
play it this one, all right? So just just a
couple of minutes and I'll be right back.

Speaker 5 (36:17):
Sky's cry tear drops falling.

Speaker 6 (36:22):
Like a leagy Faci keeps on calling.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
Buddy, water rising around.

Speaker 7 (36:29):
My shoes, singing blue.

Speaker 6 (36:34):
Ain't got nothing left to lose, just singing blue, rain,
rain and rain, wash my paints wash.

Speaker 4 (36:50):
Away, I heard again, singing in the rains, singing in
the rain.

Speaker 6 (36:58):
Gotta make it through the pall and.

Speaker 5 (37:01):
Rain for the wail and a mournful sound.

Speaker 6 (37:24):
Lost my babe, and know where to be found? Street
light flicker casting easy glow.

Speaker 5 (37:32):
Where did she go?

Speaker 2 (37:37):
Lord?

Speaker 1 (37:37):
I don't know where did she go? Rain?

Speaker 5 (37:42):
Rain, rain, wash my pain, wash your ain?

Speaker 6 (37:48):
Heard again, singing in the rain, singing in the rain,
gotta make it through the poll and rain.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
Do you love your occasional Mexican dish or your musical fruit?
Are you tired of walking by family members and crop
dusting them? Well, if this has ever happened to you,
might I introduce you to Tampon's brand butt plugs Tampon's
brand butt plugs. Is that particular type of butt plug
that allows you to walk in public in confidence no
one that you're not going to accidentally crop does somebody?

(38:45):
Tampa's brand butt plugs now with the plastic applicator. Not
just for women anymore, Tampa's brand butt plugs. No, alright,
and we are back, all right, So let's go ahead
and dive right into it. Pick up another article. And
by the way, if you want to check out the
articles that I use in any show, you can head

(39:06):
on over to the host show at dot com and
just click on that news feed Tablet's at the right
top right hand part of the page. It's the top
top right, but just top right right under that, and
check out my magazine over there on flipboard. That is
my go to hub where I put everything for the
for the shows in there. There's like a bunch of
them in there. I mean, holy crap, I've been using

(39:28):
flipboard putting here since the beginning. I have been quite
a while. All right, let me see where are we at. Nope,
that's not it. There we go. Oh crap, I forgot
to get rid of those. Let me do that real quick.
All right, kab bam, cab bam, kabbam. I think that's it.

(39:54):
Nope and kabam. All right, there we go, one, two, three,
four different articles for this segment. All right, So this
first headline that we're going to get into is from
Independent Headline. Trump officials illegally wrote furloughed workers out of
office emails to blame Democrats for the shutdown. Judge rules.
So officials violated workers Firth Amendment rights by comment during

(40:19):
their emails to spread partisan messages. I'm gonna be honest
with you on this. I'm I'm kind of I'm kind
of mixed. I really am. All right, I'm kind of mixed,
and I'm going to bring up as an example that
we've seen not that long ago in the NFL. Actually,

(40:41):
So I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna bring receipts on
this because on one hand, you know, they shouldn't be
doing that, but on the other one, what's good for
the goose is good for the gander, because that's that's
really what happened. So let's go ahead and get into
this article a little bit. So officials a President Donald
Trump Department of Education violated the first Amendment rights of

(41:03):
furloughed federal workers by commandeering their email accounts to broadcast
partisan messages, according to a federal judge. So the ruling
follows a lawsuit accusing the agency of illegally taking control
of employees' email to send automatic out of office replies
that blamed Democratic members of Congress for the government shut

(41:25):
down without their consent. Now here's the thing, Okay, one,
it's a government email. It's not your personal email. It's
a government email. Now, granted, you know, on the surface,
I totally agree with this that you know, it's you
shouldn't be doing basically what it is that they're doing, right,

(41:46):
I mean, on the surface, I agree with this is
actually what happened. I mean, granted, if well, let's continue
with the article a little bit on the surface, at
least at this point, I'm agreeing with the lawsuit that
they shouldn't be doing that. But at the same time,
it is still a government email address. And to say that, hey,

(42:10):
this person is out of the office unable to reply.
You know, that's something that is done in businesses all
the time. If somebody's out of the office, they're going
on vacation. You know what have you. You know, somebody's
stepping down and somebody else is going into that role.
Automatic email replies happen all the freaking time, all right,

(42:32):
I mean, you can set that up on your own
email account. It's it's typical. It happens a lot. And
is it really a First Amendment violation?

Speaker 2 (42:45):
You know?

Speaker 1 (42:46):
One, it's not, you know, I mean, you're you got
certain rules that you're supposed to abide by, right, certain
things that you're supposed to be doing. Right. Is it
a violation of the First Amendment?

Speaker 7 (42:58):
Right?

Speaker 1 (42:58):
I mean, I think everybody knows those that would receive
that email that this didn't come from the person itself.
It's an auto respond They were furloughed. They may have
had a good idea that they were going to be furloughed,
but a lot of these people, I'm sure did not
do that themselves. I mean, granted, in a normal situation,

(43:22):
you know you're going on vacation, You're going to write
the reply for the the auto replier to put in
there for you. Not a big deal. But let's go
ahead and move into this article a little bit more so.
The messages followed a wave of partisan attacks from Trumpet
from the Trump administration websites that explicitly blamed Democrat officials

(43:44):
and their radical left for the federal shutdown, which have
drawn several complaints alleging violations of federal ethics laws, and
that one, Okay, sure, I can go along with that.
Ethics laws. Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of federal civil service.
It ensures that career government employees served the public, not

(44:07):
the politicians, District Judge Christopher Cooper wrote on Friday, And
of which case right there, okay, great, I agree with
that absolutely. Maybe they shouldn't have done what they did. However,
is what they said a lie? You know? Is that
a lie? That the only reason why the government shut

(44:29):
down is because Democrats wouldn't play ball and they were
demanding that the money, taxpayer money went to illegal aliens. No,
there's nothing untrue about what was written in there, you know,
about putting the blame on the Democrats. But at the
same time, I mean, you know, how would we feel

(44:50):
as Republicans if the Democrats did that? Yeah, I can
understand we would be unhappy with that. And you know,
throw you know, reversing that that Republicans did want to
play ball with the you know with Democrats, and yeah, okay,
I may be upset about that, but it gets a
little deeper. By commentdering its employees' email accounts to broadcast

(45:14):
partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation that
you're not supposed to bring politics into a job like that.
You're supposed to serve the public, not politicians. And that's
where I completely agree with that, that, oh, yes, you
should not be bringing politics into a public position, taxpayer

(45:37):
funded position, where your job is to serve the public.
He shouldn't be doing that. And on that one, I
completely agree with it. Political officials are free to blame
whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use
rank and file civil servants as they're unwilling spokespeople. The

(45:58):
First Amendment stands in the way. And again, it's not
their account. It's a government account. Just because their names
on it doesn't make it theirs. It's not a violation
of the First Amendment. Is it unethical? Sure?

Speaker 5 (46:20):
Ah?

Speaker 1 (46:22):
Yeah, sure? Unethical? Okay, fine, Is it a First Amendment violation? No?
Because it's not these people's email address. Joe Schmoe at
the Department of Education doesn't own that email address. It
is a government email address. They can't just go in
and delete shit without archiving, you know, the emails. It

(46:45):
all has to be saved. As for government law, if
it was theirs, they can do whatever the hell they
want to. They could respond however they want to. They
can answer however they want to. They can send out
emails however they want to. They can't do that. I mean,
the whole ethical thing applies. They're representing the people. It's
a government email address. It belongs to the government. In

(47:08):
other words, it belongs to the American tax payer. Period
in the story. Just because they don't like it doesn't
mean it ain't true. So his order permanently blocks the
Education Department from touching workers' email accounts to send out
similar partisan messaging. This thing, it continues. So I'm so pissed.

(47:31):
We as career government employees, need to be neutral when
carrying out our jobs. One Education Department employee told ABC
News last month, this is bullshit. The Trump administration's use
of government resources to spread its messaging was an unprecedented
violation of the First Amendment. I already covered that. No,
it ain't unethical, sure violation of the First Amendment. No,

(47:55):
because it's not their email, it is the government's email
belonging to the taxpayers. There you go, and the court's
ruling makes clear that even this administration is not about
the law. According to Everet Kelly, president of American Foundation
of Government Employees, nation's largest federal worker union, which is bullshit.
There shouldn't be federal unions. But that's a different topic

(48:17):
all amongst the stuff which sued the administration over the messaging.
The emails stated that the workers were on furlough status
because unfortunately Democrat senators are blocking passage of a temporary
funding bill that has led to a lapse in appropriations
the employees. The employee you have contacted will respond to

(48:40):
emails once government functions resumed. The email says, now, again,
nothing that was said there was untrue. But yet I
do understand if the tables were reversed, Republicans would be
a little upset about this too. I understand that that

(49:01):
language was so was also echoed on banners and pop
up messages on the website of the Department of Justice,
State Department, the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Small Business administration,
among others. Watchdog groups argue that the statements defy ethics
laws that prohibit political attacks and campaigning from inside federal facilities,

(49:26):
which Trump and administration officials have continued to do since
entering office without facing any consequences. Now here's where it
gets interesting. The White House has previously argued that officials
from Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations repeatedly assigned partisan
blame on Republicans in official fact sheets, press releases, and statements.

(49:52):
That's where it gets interesting. That is buried damn near
all the way down at the bottom of the article.
So here's where I say that what's good for the
goose is good for the gander. If these officials, if
the White House has done the same damn thing under
Barack Obama and Joe Biden and nobody threw a fit,

(50:17):
then what right do the Democrats have it throwing a
fit whenever President Trump does it. Here's why I say
I'm not against it anymore. Whenever I read that line,
which is the third from the bottom in a series
of short paragraphs, When I read that, I was like, oh,

(50:38):
now I have no problem with it whatsoever, because what's
good for the goose is good for the ganner. If
it's okay for the Democrats to do it under Obama
and under Biden, then I ain't got a problem whenever
it happens underneath Trump. I changed my stance one because
at first I was like, yeah, okay, unethically they shouldn't
be doing that. Regardless, it's not a violation to the

(51:00):
First Amendment, right because that email does not belong to you.
It belongs to the American people through taxpayer dollars. Yeah,
maybe you shouldn't have done it because it is ethically wrong.
But at the same time, whenever I read that paragraph,
oh fuck it, they can do it, and they should
do it. Because the Democrats are going to do the

(51:21):
same damn thing underneath Obama and underneath Biden. Then why
can't Trump put a message like that calling out the
Democrats for not going along with Republicans to get the
government opened back up? What say you? What do you

(51:42):
think about that? Now? I told you I was going
to tie this into something else the NFL, because the NFL,
they've got rules like this in place that you're not
supposed to put political stuff. You're not supposed to take

(52:03):
stances like that you're not supposed to do that, like
at all, right, I mean, that's their stance. You know,
you're not supposed to do that. And we have seen
for years as NFL stands. As you know, players have
put Pride stickers on their helmet, players have put all

(52:25):
kinds of different things on their helmets, and even though
you're not supposed to do political shit, even though you're
not supposed to do that, they do it anyway, and
it's accepted, it's tolerated, it's okay to make that kind
of a statement. But whenever you had other teams that

(52:47):
wanted to put stickers of like, you know, the thin
blue line American flag on their helmets, the NFL through
a fit and said, no, you can't do that. That
is a political statement. You can't make that on the NFL.
We have rules that you have to abide by. And
my response to that, and theirs as well, was wait
a second. If he can put the Pride flag on

(53:08):
his not supposed to make a political statement, why the
hell can't I do this? Because if it's okay over here,
it's the same damn thing it's okay here. What's good
for the goots is good for the dinner. You ain't
got no right to call me out on my Bravo

(53:29):
Sierra whenever I break a rule, if it's okay for
everybody else to break the rule. Just because you don't
like the message that I'm saying doesn't mean you don't
like messages being said because it has always pissed me off.
It has always pissed me off, you know. And this

(53:52):
is a big difference between democrat and republican. This is
a huge difference between a principled individual versus a non
principled individual, because a principled individual, regardless of the message,
is going to make sure that a rule is followed.
A democrat, an unprincipled individual doesn't give two shits about

(54:16):
the rule, only who's breaking it. And if it's a
rule or something that is being said that they agree with,
they don't see the problem. But if it's something they
don't agree with, then Ermiger, you're breaking the rule. You
can't do that. A principled individual, somebody like me, it's like, okay, yeah,

(54:42):
that is wrong, and I'm going to enforce it, but
I'm not going to let anybody get away with it,
regardless of whether I agree with the message. Or not,
I'm going to make sure the rule is followed. That's
what it means to be principled, and these democrats ain't.
So in response to what happened here, oh well, democrats,

(55:06):
you were okay whenever this was done under Obama and
under Biden. So because you were okay with it, then
I'm going to allow it. Now you allowed it, then
I'm going to allow it now. Now after the fact,
if you want to make sure that this rule stays
in place, then okay, fine, then we can enforce it.

(55:30):
But as for now, considering you let it slide then
you raised no objections and you were perfectly okay with it,
then you ain't got no right to say shit about
it now. I mean, that's what it a mouse do.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander,
and personally that overweighs whatever this is. You following me,

(55:56):
but I do want to know what you think. Do
you have issues with anything that I said on that
I want to know? Let me know in the comments
if you're listening over on Spreaker or over on Rumble, otherwise,
you can send me an email ho Ho at Thehoho
Show dot com and let me know, because I truly
I am curious and that whole why I would like

(56:17):
to know why, you know, defend your position, but let's
talk about it. Let's do that, all right. Moving on?
What else am I?

Speaker 2 (56:28):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (56:28):
Trump unprecedented move to withhold Snap benefits has nation's largest
food charity despairing. This situation is catastrophic. Yeah, I mean
I actually heard it. And by the way, this article
is from Fortune. But Trump's unprecedented moved to withhold Snap

(56:51):
benefits has nation's largest food charity despairing. The situation is catastrophic.
Now here's the thing. Let me let me break it
down to you for a moment. It's not that Trump
wants to withhold the Snap benefits from going from going
out and being paid out. It's not that he wants

(57:12):
that to happen. Okay, I want to be clear. Trump
isn't against Snap benefits being paid out. But what Trump
is against is illegal aliens benefiting from government payouts. That's
what President Trump is against, and unfortunately, he can't give

(57:37):
them to US citizens whom are in need without also
giving the money to illegal aliens. He can't do both,
so he's picking aside and he's picking the side of Americans.
He is the president of the United States of America.

(57:57):
His job is to represent a American citizens, to do
what is best for America. And it's high time both
parties in Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives do the
same damn thing. The constituents of these Democrats are not

(58:21):
illegal aliens. They're supposed to represent the American people and
the American people alone. That's it into story. But President
Trump was forced to make a very uncomfortable decision. Do
I pay out benefits, do I find a way? Do
I you know, life finds a way. You know in

(58:42):
the in the the first Jurassic Park movie, do you
find a way? Or do you do what's best for
America because you can't. Unfortunately, he just he was in
a no win situation because, yeah, there's families that are
struggling that are United States citizens, families that are struggling. Absolutely,

(59:05):
I'm not denying that. But he couldn't give them money
without giving the illegal aliens money, whom were also taking
an advantage of the situation. He couldn't do both, so he chose,
I'm not even going to try to give these payments out.

(59:26):
I mean, there may have been something he could have done,
but he's like, no, I'm not going to do that.
I'm not going to allow these illegal aliens to illegally
benefit from taxpayer money. I'm not going to do it,
nor should he. Right this headline from the Hill, Katanji Brown,

(59:53):
Sorry Kintanji Brown Jackson if I'm even saying her name correctly,
which I have no idea, Halt's order requiring full not
benefits for now? Why because again they know that there's
a good portion of this money, in fact, over half
of all benefits paid out or paid out to illegal aliens.
It's okay to do that for now. It's fine. Yeah,

(01:00:16):
you know, like I said, man, I'm not without a heart.
I really am not. But dude, we have people in
our own country, United States citizens, who are hungry, who
are homeless, who are having a hard time making ends, meat,
putting food on a table, roof over their head, staying healthy.

(01:00:37):
You know why in the hell with thirty eight almost
thirty nine trillion dollars in debt, are we catering to
illegal aliens Whenever we have our own people struggling, homeless
and dying in the streets because of poor health. It
is our job. As you know, it is the the

(01:00:59):
government's job to take care of Americans. And in the
horrible place that we are in, we have no money
to take care of anybody else. I mean, really, we don't.

Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:01:15):
I've used this example in the past, I'm going to
use it again. When you have no food in the fridge,
you're on your last twenty bucks, no food in the fridge,

(01:01:38):
your kids are hungry, you're hungry, a stranger shows up,
or you're on the way to the grocery stores to
spend your last twenty bucks, and on the way you
see a homeless guy, give me twenty bucks? Are you
going to do it? Some may say that's the Christian
thing to do. Absolutely I would say, nay, it's not

(01:02:04):
because your job, your duty is to take care of
your family, provide for your family. That's your job. That's
your duty, first and foremost. If you are in a
position of abundance, that's a different story, then absolutely make
a charitable contribution. But otherwise, no, your first duty and

(01:02:29):
responsibility is to take care of those under your home,
those in your household, those under your charge. That's your
damn job. You put food on the table for your kids,
you don't give your money to a perfect stranger who's
out on the street having a bad time. That's not

(01:02:52):
your job, that's not your duty. Is it a Christian
thing to do? Absolutely not. No argue with me if
you want to, doesn't change the truth. It's throwing that
out there. Would you actually make your children starve to

(01:03:21):
give twenty dollars to a perfect stranger? I want to
know is that something you would do? Is that a
trade off you would actually do? I mean maybe if
you're a piece of shit parent, or maybe you'd go
to a restaurant, have a burger for yourself and let
your kids starve. I mean, maybe you're that piece of shit.

(01:03:43):
But I want to know what would you do if
you were faced with that question? What would you do?
Let me know in the comments, send me an email
at the ho Host show dot com. Is that something
you would do? Now? Look at federal government thirty seven

(01:04:07):
thirty eight trillion, thousand, thirty eight trillion, hundred thousand, holy shit,
thirty eight trillion dollars in debt, homeless on the streets,
people that are having a hard time making his meat
because of the you know, because of the economic environment
that Washington d C has made for us with their

(01:04:30):
out of control spending. They're wanting to give tax payer
dollars to illegals. They're wanting to give taxpayer dollars to
pay for bullshit in other countries. And you're going to
tell me that's acceptable when first and foremost their duty

(01:04:52):
is to the American people. What do we owe Pakistan?
What do we owe Iran? What do we owe Iraq?
What do we owe oh? Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, Korea?
What do we owe them? Not a damn thing? So
why are we giving them money? Left? Right and center?

(01:05:15):
Homeless Americans on the street, homeless veterans on the street,
twenty two a day, self deleting, people going hungry because
they can't make ends meet, thirty seven thirty eight trillion
dollars in debt. What do we owe these people? Not

(01:05:37):
a damn thing. We owe our veterans everything we're supposed
to be taking care of Americans. Proved me wrong. This
next headline from Al Jazeera, Republicans swat down Democratic offer

(01:06:03):
to end US government shutdown? Yeah, we did. You want
to know why? Because they wanted to give taxpayer dollars
to illegal aliens, That's what they wanted. They wanted the
subsidies for the ACA Act not to expire. They wanted
them to continue to go because the only thing, the only,
the only reason any of this stuff even halfway worked

(01:06:26):
is because the government was subsidizing the Medicare, the Medicaid,
the Affordable Care Act people that enrolled for Obamacare. The
only reason why it kept some of the stuff low
was because the government taxpayers were paying ninety four percent.

(01:06:48):
I believe that's the accurate number of all premiums, and
it was going to drop down to like eighty percent.
And the Democrats are ticked off. Dude, Can I let
you in on a secret? Well, I'm gonna let you

(01:07:08):
in on a secret. The Affordable Care Act was designed
to lead America to government controlled health care period. It
was a stepping stone. The ACA. Obamacare was designed to fail.

(01:07:33):
Are you aware of that? Did you know? It was
designed to fail? It was designed to destroy healthcare in
the United States of America. I mean that's not to
say that healthcare previous to the Affordable Care Act was good,
not like it was great. I mean, here's the thing
we have not had. And I've made this point numerous

(01:07:55):
times on the show. We have never had free capitalists
represented in healthcare. We never have I mean ridiculous. You
go to the store, you buy a tile and all
you spend what fifty cents on that one pill. But
you go to the emergency room they give you a
tile and all the same damn thing. You can go

(01:08:15):
down the street to Walmart, down the street to you know,
CVS or Walgreens, and you can purchase for that low,
low price. You go to the er, it costs you
one thousand freaking dollars. What the hell are you talking about?
I mean, dude, you go into Walmart, you want to
buy a TV. Guess how much you're gonna pay. You

(01:08:37):
don't have to guess why, because there's a price tag
right there on the uning. There's a price tag. It's
right there. You can see it if it's on sale.
If it's not on sale, you know before you get
to the register what you're going to pay for it
minus taxes. You know this. It doesn't matter how much
money you have in your wallet. It doesn't matter your
social economic standing. It doesn't matter the color of your skin,

(01:09:00):
It doesn't matter what you got going on between your legs.
It don't matter, the price is what the price is.
But when it comes to healthcare, Ermie gerr, how much
does an X ray cost? Well, let me ask you
a couple questions. What's your race, what's your sexuality? How
much money you make? You man? You're a woman, You're gay,

(01:09:20):
you lesbian, you're black and white? All these things play
a factory. And of course are you insured or are
you not insured? And who's your health care provider? All
of that factors in to the price you're going to
pay for whatever it is you're needing to get. Why

(01:09:42):
why can't you give me a price? Why do I
have to? You know, I don't go through this bullshit
when I go to Walmart and buy a TV. Why
am I going through it now? Because it's all arbitrary
because they will charge you what they believe they can
get out of you based off of what kind of
healthcare you have, and they cater to those whom they
see as more worthy than other people. And that's discrimination,

(01:10:07):
ladies and gentlemen. Are you aware of that? I mean,
that's blatant discrimination. I thought discrimination was wrong here in America.
I thought we even fought a war over just how
wrong discrimination was. I thought we did. I could have
swore with maybe maybe I'm smoking crack, don't. I don't know, man,

(01:10:29):
I hope i'm not. But I thought there was this
thing that happened called the Civil War. I thought there was.
We're going to take another quick end or a little
when I get back, We're going to get into that
whole Civil war thing. Did we fight one already? I
don't know. Just a couple of minutes and I'll be

(01:10:53):
right back.

Speaker 2 (01:11:00):
Out.

Speaker 4 (01:11:03):
Sun's up, dog's tail or something.

Speaker 7 (01:11:06):
He knows what's coming, knows what's coming.

Speaker 4 (01:11:11):
Leashing my handboots least time another morning. Bathe than life.
You bathed in life? Sunshine out and hound beast medicine
around Sunshine.

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
And hound best medicine.

Speaker 4 (01:11:31):
No better way to spend the day than sunshine and hound.

Speaker 7 (01:11:39):
Dusty trail of the woods are deep secrets.

Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
They keep secrets.

Speaker 4 (01:11:45):
They keep birds of sweet and giantle breeze.

Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
Rustling leaves among the.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
Trees, among the trees, Sunshine and hound best bed.

Speaker 4 (01:12:00):
To shine around, Sunshine and hound bes medicine. No better
way to spend the day than sunshine and hound. He
sniffed the ground, a happy bark, chasing squirreled before it
gets to dark.

Speaker 2 (01:12:20):
Just a simple pleasure of perfect scene.

Speaker 3 (01:12:23):
Life.

Speaker 2 (01:12:23):
Ain't always mean, ain't always mean.

Speaker 4 (01:12:27):
Sunshine and Hound best made sun around, Sunshine and Hound
best medicine. No better way to spend the day than
sunshine and now.

Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
The Sunshine and Hound.

Speaker 4 (01:13:10):
Best medicine around, Sunshine.

Speaker 2 (01:13:15):
And Hound best medicine.

Speaker 7 (01:13:18):
No bed away to spill a day the sunshine and Hell.

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
Have you ever been so full of it? Your eyes
are brown? You ever sat on the toilet but nothing
comes out? Is a box of frosted treaded wheat just
not doing the trick?

Speaker 2 (01:13:37):
Well?

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
If I got the ultimate solution for you, Tide Pod
Bran colon cleans see tyight Pod Brain colon cleans is
that particular product that will break through the sphincter like
the kool Aid man through a brick wall. Oh yeah,
no more irregularity, no more cramping, just good old nice flow.
That's right. Tide Pod Brain Colon clanton please is responsibly

(01:13:58):
and used at home. This is a fast acted product
now available in Tropical Punch.

Speaker 5 (01:14:04):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:14:04):
Right, and we are back. We're going to go ahead
and jump right into this because we are getting into
the crux of the show right here. Headlined from just
thenews dot com. ICE sets new detainees record with sixty
six thousand illegal aliens in custody. Yes, I changed that word,
and I changed it on purpose because that's what they is.

(01:14:25):
They're not illegal migrants, they're illegal aliens. That is the
legal definition. I'm gonna call them as such. There were
thirty nine thousand individuals in ICE detention system when Trump
returned to power in January, and ICE has the capacity
to hold as many as seventy thousand people. That's a

(01:14:46):
lot of people, right, that's a lot of people. So
Immigration and Customs enforcement officials set a record this week
for most suspected illegal aliens suspected okay, whatever, illegal aliens
held into tension sixty six thousand. The previous record was
set during President Trump's first administration fifty six thousand people

(01:15:08):
in twenty nineteen. According to CBS News, there were about
thirty nine thousand individuals in ICE's detention systems when Trump
returned to power in January, and ICE has a capacity
to hold as many as seventy thousand people. The news
outlet report is seventy percent. Keep that in mind, seventy
percent of illegal aliens ICE has arrested have criminal convictions, convictions,

(01:15:35):
or pending criminal charges just in the US. This is
from Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLoughlin. This statistic does not
even account for those wanted for violent crimes in their country,
or their country of origin or another country Interpol notices

(01:15:57):
human rights abusers, ganged members, or terrorists. The CBS report
states that just over half of the individuals now in
ICE detention do not have criminal charges or convictions, and
were being held for alleged civil immigration violations like overstaying visas.

(01:16:25):
Wait a second, how could both of those be true?
Did you catch the math on that if seventy percent
of illegal aliens that they have that they have have
criminal convention? Man? Why am I having a hard time
with that word? That the seventy percent of people detained

(01:16:50):
by ICE have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges just
in the US. How can just over half of them
do not have criminal charges? Did you say no, because
it's like seventy because it's one right, that's that's the
complete pie, one hundred percent. So how can seventy percent,

(01:17:13):
which is you know, seven out of ten slices? How
can that be true? And over half of them in
you know, over five out of ten slices not not

(01:17:34):
have criminal charges or convictions. I don't understand how both
of those can be true, but whatever. In other words,
ICE is doing a pretty darn good job. That's my
point on this. But here is where things get interesting.
So this article from the Daily Signal America fought a

(01:17:57):
civil war so Trump could enforce federal law. The issue
has already been debated. All right, you can check out

(01:18:17):
this whole thing. And I do actually recommend you, you know,
reading this or not necessarily reading this, but you know,
watching this. I don't know how long this is. I
don't want to I don't want to click on it.
You know, I read the article. I did not listen
to the to the interview. But this is from an interview.

(01:18:41):
Uh Victor Davis Hansen.

Speaker 4 (01:18:43):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:18:44):
Successionist Democrats need a constitutional lesson. Okay, this is over
on YouTube. The video is so I definitely recommend you
heading on over to the host show dot com, click
on the news feed tab, get into the magazine or
Today's date eleven eight, twenty twenty five, and checking out
this article. You can see it and it will lead

(01:19:06):
you right to the YouTube the video over there on YouTube.
But this is a slightly edited transcript of the video
from Daily Signals senior contributor Victor Davis Hansen. And he
was interviewing who was he interview It doesn't say, oh,

(01:19:35):
Mayor Brandon Johnson, that's who he was interviewing. No, that's
not who is interviewing. I don't know who he was interviewing.
Maybe it's in the article a little bit later. I
don't know. Okay, but let's get let's get into this
article because this is there's something that I heard a

(01:20:05):
long time ago, and it was that the Civil War
was not fought over slavery. That's something that I was
told a long time ago. I believe it was my
father that told me that. You know, we were learning

(01:20:29):
about the Civil War in high school or in school.
I think it was junior high. I don't think it
was high school. But he told me that the Civil
War wasn't fought over slavery. And I'm like, what was
it fought over? I mean, you know, the schools would
have us believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
That's what I was taught, right, That's what it was

(01:20:50):
fought over. But my father didn't answer me. My father
did not answer the question for me. He said, that's
your question, you figure it out, Okay. He wasn't being cold,
he wasn't being heartless. It wasn't like he didn't know.

(01:21:13):
He wanted me to take the time to earn my
position and figure out what the Civil War was fought over.
But I'll save you the trouble. But I still would
like you to research it and look it up. I
really would, you know, read about it, Read between the lines. Right,

(01:21:33):
it was fought over supremacy. I mean, in short, that's
that's what the whole thing was fought over. It was
fought over control. I mean, look, yes, slavery was wrong. Absolutely,
white people owning black slaves. It wasn't the first, you know,

(01:21:55):
the first thing that had ever happened. You know, white
people weren't the first people to own slaves, and black
people were not the first slaves ever in history. Right.
This was something that has been going on to many
different races, many different people, in many different countries long
before America was established. Let's get that clear and out

(01:22:17):
of the way. First and foremost, slavery was not invented
by white people and Black people were not the first
people ever to be enslaved. Okay, we got that out
of the way. But in America, slavery wasn't a Okay,

(01:22:43):
it's not like there was a big percentage of people
that own slaves. It's not I mean, that wasn't the case.
I know that reading history books and listening to the

(01:23:06):
conversation about slavery. I mean, you know, there's a lot
of people out there that would want you to believe
that slavery was so huge in America that everybody owned
a slave, from rich to poor, everybody owned a slave.
That's just not the case. That's not the truth. I mean,
think about it. How many people own businesses in the

(01:23:28):
United States of America. You know, how many people own
Lamborghinis or Porsches in the United States of America. The
number isn't a big number. It's not a huge amount
of people. I mean it owning a slave was something

(01:23:49):
that only the rich got to do. Not every person
who owned a farm also owned a slave. Not every
house in America had a slave in it to do
daily household chores. That's just not the case. Owning a

(01:24:11):
slave wasn't cheap. I mean, think about it. You're you're
buying a person whom is going to you know, You're
you're wanting this person to be a stronger individual to
do manual labor with the possibility that they are going

(01:24:35):
to reproduce and make more for you. That that's a
long term investment and long term investments in the United
States of America and anywhere in the world. And all
honesty isn't a cheap thing. It's not cheap. It costs
money because it's not just the slave that you're selling.

(01:25:01):
It's the work that they are going to do and
the other slaves that they may produce that you know,
the reproduction right, they may have kids and give you
a slave. There you go. So it's not just about
the slave that you're selling or buying. And in all honesty,

(01:25:25):
it was a low percentage of people in America that
actually owned slaves. I mean, come on, think about it.
Black people only represent what seventeen percent of the population
here in America. I mean, wouldn't you think that if

(01:25:49):
more people owned slaves then you would have a higher
percentage of slaves in America? Doesn't that makes sense? It
makes sense to me. And don't get me wrong, Slavery bad. Right,
we all agree slavery bad. Let's not mix words here.

(01:26:12):
But it wasn't as though it was a huge portion
of the population, not even half that owned slavery. And
that is pretty evident whenever you look at the population,
the percentage of black people here in America. Just throwing
out out there, critical thinking people, critical thinking. So if

(01:26:41):
the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, what was it
fought over? It was fought over power. You see, states
wanted the ability to do whatever they wanted to. To hell
with the government, The hell with what the federal government said.

(01:27:07):
The states are supposed to be supreme, not the federal government.
That's what the argument was. If I want to have slaves,
I'm going to have slaves. If I am if I
want to do this, I'm going to do that. If
I want to operate my state in this way, then

(01:27:29):
that's how I'm going to operate my state. I don't
care what the federal government says, because we you know,
the states have more power than the federal government. We
are stronger than the federal government. We deserve to be
able to do whatever it is that we want to
The hell with the federal government. That is what the

(01:27:52):
Civil War was fought over, States rights versus federal law.
That's what the what the Civil War was fought over.

(01:28:12):
Just throwing that out there. It wasn't far over a
way of life. It was fought over who is going
to have the power. It was between he man eskeletor.

(01:28:32):
That's what the Civil War was about. So let's go
ahead and get into this article. So where do I
want to start in this thing? Okay, here we go.
Let's just start here. Okay, there we are. So for

(01:29:01):
Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, congresswoman from the
Bay Area in California, just said that she was going
to warn federal immigration and Customs enforcement agents that if,
in the opinion of state authorities, they acted in the
way the state felt was improper, then she would order

(01:29:23):
their arrest. That's what Nancy Pelosi said. Mayor Brandon Johnson
said that he was going to actively oppose the enforcement
of federal law within his jurisdiction. In Chicago, Ice, as
we remember two weeks ago, were blockaded under siege, and

(01:29:47):
local Chicago area law enforcement, which were requested by ICE
to help them get out from being surrounded by these
Antifa like protesters refused to come to their aid. Los
Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other Los Angeles City and

(01:30:09):
county authorities have proudly announced that they are going to
work on electronic apps and mechanisms by which anybody who
is here illegally would have prior notice of the location
of vice officers they were I'm sorry where they were
headed and therefore could evade federal apprehension. JB. Pritzker, the

(01:30:34):
governor of Illinois, on numerous occasions, has characterized these federal
officers as Gestapo Nazis, and they are acting, in his view,
illegally and will be held to account by his state authorities.
Mayor elect Zoron Mumdadi says that if he were to
be elected, he's going to sever the relationship between the

(01:30:58):
City of New York and federal jurisdiction and authority. I
don't think he meant on the beneficiary of receiving end
of billions of dollars of federal moneys, but rather cease
all cooperation with federal authorities at his picking and choosing.
This is all very dangerous. I suggest to all of

(01:31:24):
these entities, authorities, mayors, governors, police chiefs, read Article six
of the Constitution, especially the paragraph known as the Supremacy Clause.
In it, it details that local state authorities are subject
to treaties and the laws that the federal government makes

(01:31:44):
and therefore pursuing too those laws. They are so subordinate
and they must haven't taken the having taken an oath
to the Constitution follow it, and they usually have done that.
One time in our history, maybe in the nineteenth century

(01:32:08):
they didn't. The federal government had jurisdiction over Fort Suthter,
They had jurisdiction over armories in southern states. In eighteen
sixty one, the state of South Carolina tried to appropriate
Fort Suthter and fired on it, and we all know
what happened next. Seven hundred thousand deaths for the next

(01:32:31):
four years. We know in eighteen I'm sorry, we know.
In nineteen sixty one to nineteen sixty three, we had
another attempt to nullify the supremacy clause. Southern governors of
Mississippi and Arkansas and Alabama said federal law does not
apply here. The Supreme Court ruling does not apply here.

(01:32:54):
In our opinion, we can run our schools the way
local people want and were going to resist you, and
the Eisenhower and then later the Kennedy administration said no,
you're not. We have the federal government's military, and we
can federalize and hold you in contempt and arrest you

(01:33:15):
because of the supremacy clause. The article continues, So I
would give warning to all of us that we're headed
into eighteen sixty one or nineteen sixty one to sixty
three territory. Can you envision that if Mayor Johnson of
Chicago says that he's going to stop ICE from carrying

(01:33:38):
out their duties, or if a local sheriff or a
city policeman is ordered by authorities in San Francisco, according
to the prompt of Congressman Nancy Pelosi to arrest an
ICE officer because in their opinion, they feel that they
are deporting someone who doesn't have a criminal record. Of course,

(01:33:59):
it's a crime to enter the United States. So of
course anybody here who is residing without permission from the
federal government has committed a crime, both in crossing the
border without authorization and secondly residing here without authorization. But
if Nancy Pelosi was going to say, we don't like
the way you arrested him, we're going to arrest you.

(01:34:24):
So envision a local officer with a gun or a
shotgun body armor coming up to a federal officer with
a gun and body armor and a shotgun and said,
we're arresting you because you have broken San Francisco statutes.
And then the officer working for the federal government, that

(01:34:45):
is the ice officer, the Immigration and Customs enforcement officer,
said no, no, no, huh. You don't know the Constitution.
You didn't read the supremacy clause in Article six. You
have nor stiction in a federal law that's being enforced
by a federal officer coming out of a federal property

(01:35:07):
in your state, and therefore, if you impede me, you
are breaking a federal law. So then the local officer says, well,
you're violating our notion of how people should be arrested
in San Francisco. So we're going to have what two

(01:35:30):
armed officers, one from California, one from the federal government,
what shooting it out. This seems crazy, it's paranoid. But
when a congresswoman who was at one time the third
most powerful person in the United States and Jefferson Davis

(01:35:52):
style says that they're going to arrest ice agents and
their belief, that opinion that they're doing something wrong and
that's contrary to the Constitution. What is I supposed to do?
Let them be arrested and ain't going to happen. That

(01:36:15):
article is very it's well written, brings up, brings up
a scenario that is a very real possibility. It's almost

(01:36:40):
an aspect of who's going to back down first. If
I've said it once, I've said it a million times,
and I know I've brought this up numerous times on
the show, on the podcast, that these mayors, these governors,

(01:37:06):
what these congressmen and women have directed people to do
in their own districts to resist by providing apps, they
are committing a crime is called aiding in a betting.
They're giving them safe haven, that's what sanctuary city is,

(01:37:26):
and they're giving them an apps. That means that they
are giving them aid and comfort, aiding in a betting.
Those are breaking laws that is a crime. What we
really do need to see happen is people like Mayor
Brandon Johnson, people like Governor Pritzker going to jail for

(01:37:56):
violating the law. That's what we need to see happen.
There has already been a civil war about supremacy. Article
six is clear. That is the supremacy clause of the

(01:38:20):
United States of America. You know, remember I've talked about
this before. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government
in every single state. What does that mean. It doesn't
matter what the population want. Right is right, wrong is wrong.

(01:38:44):
The law is what the law is. It's clear. It
doesn't matter that the majority of the population in Chicago
wants illegal aliens to stay. It doesn't matter. I mean, one,
they're not supposed to be voting in federal elections anyway.
That's clear. Them doing that is a violation of the law.

(01:39:06):
It's criminal activity. It's a crime. They do not have
the authority to write these statutes, especially when it specifically
contradicts a federal law. And again, I've made this point

(01:39:35):
one hundred times too. If I said it once, I've
said it a million times. They have had years, the
majority of my freaking life, they've been arguing over amnesty,
and Democrats and even some Republicans have been claiming that
the immigration system is broken, we need to fix it.
And they continue to bitch year after year after year,

(01:39:56):
election cycle after election cycle after election cycle, and it's.

Speaker 5 (01:39:59):
Like, do.

Speaker 1 (01:40:01):
You're in Congress. Don't you have the ability to write
the laws. You can overturn a previous law, you can
write a new law, and you can fix the system
however you see fit. But you haven't done it yet.
On both sides of the aisle, they have refused to
fix a system that everybody agrees is broken. What the hell.

Speaker 5 (01:40:27):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:40:28):
You can't bitch about you know? Okay, So like if
you live alone and your house is a mess, you
can't bitch that your house is dirty. It's like, dude,
you did it. Nobody else lives there. You did it.

(01:40:51):
You can't bitch about it. You want to complain start cleaning?
Is that a hard concert to understand?

Speaker 5 (01:41:03):
Now?

Speaker 1 (01:41:03):
I mean, if you loan your house to somebody else,
you know, if you have other people living under your
roof and they make a mess and you can complain
to them that they made a mess and didn't clean
it up, Sure, yeah, you can do that. You know,
you give a buddy of yours, you let them borrow
your car, and you know, your only request, hey bring
it back with the full tank. And they don't, then

(01:41:24):
you complain about it. Otherwise, if you if you drive
your car all week and next thing, you know, you
run out of gas on the way to the market,
you can't complain about that. Why's my gas tank empty
because you didn't go to the gas station. Duh. These

(01:41:45):
people in Congress had the full ability to change the
law that they all agreed, you know, to fix a
system that they all agreed was broken, but yet they
failed to do it. I've talked about that in the past.
I'm not going to go over it again. But if
they truly wanted to fixed, they would have fixed it.

(01:42:09):
Hat tip Dan Bongino. If he's a good hitter, why
doesn't he hit good? Actually I think he said why
don't they hit well? But you know, whatever, same thing.
If they wanted to fix, they would have fixed it.
Why don't they fix it because they don't want to.
But all of these mayors across the country, like Mayor

(01:42:33):
Brandon Johnson, all of these governors across the country, like JB. Pritzker,
they're aiding in a betting. Sanctuary cities, that's a betting.
They're giving them a safe space, They're giving them apps

(01:42:55):
and telling them where ice agents are so they could
evade arrest. That's aiding. That's aiding and a betting. I'm
a fan of the Dresden Files. I have been for
for quite some time. Buddy of mine got me hooked
on him, and I've been hooked ever since. And uh,

(01:43:18):
there was one episode with that or one book. What
the hell was that book? Deadbeat? I think was was
the book. You know you got the uh, you got
your main guy, Harry Dresden, and you got you got
Waldo Butters And they're break you know, they're they're going

(01:43:41):
to a radio shack. They got to get something, a
piece of hardware they need to to do whatever it
is that they're doing, right, and and Harry goes up
to the door and he's like, how are you going
to get in? He's like breaks the windows, like, oh, breaking,
and then he walks in. He's like and entering, breaking
and entering, Oh my god, you know, and he's like,

(01:44:02):
a holy crap, man, really, how else did you expect
you were going to do this? It cracked me up right.
Aiding and a bedding, that's what they're doing. Last time
I checked. That's a violation of the law. You're not
supposed to aid in a bed at criminals. You're not

(01:44:23):
supposed to give them safe passage, give them help, give
them the tools to evade justice that is against a
law they are violating. Besides just the breaking the law,
they are violating the Constitution, as in it's the federal
government's job, a decision that was made during the Obama administration.

(01:44:49):
The supremacy clause is something that has already been decided.
There's going to come a time when this comes to
a head. And reading this article, I was like, you know,

(01:45:21):
immovable object meets an unstoppable force. That's what we're going
to end up seeing play out. And in the end,
somebody's going to have to give. And who's the righteous

(01:45:46):
one in this argument? Because what you have on one
side is a party that sees that we are in
a crisis, thirty seven almost thirty eight trillion dollars in debt,

(01:46:12):
a clear mandate from the people. Were over fifty percent
of the population voted for President Donald Trump to do
things he campaigned on and promised that he would do,
as in close the border and get rid of all
the illegal aliens, winning every single swing state. A clear

(01:46:33):
mandate from the people whom is representing and doing for
the very people he is supposed to be doing representing
and taken care of, i e. The American people. And
on the other side, you have some governors, some mayors,

(01:46:59):
some representatives and senators in Congress that are fighting for
people whom are not supposed to actually have the ability
to vote. They're fighting for taxpayer money to go to
illegal aliens. So let me ask you again, who is

(01:47:22):
the righteous party, who's doing what's right for the American people,
Who's doing what it is they're supposed to be doing.
I really hope that President Trump does not back down
do what he promised he would do. You know, here's

(01:47:46):
one of the things. Right, as a voter, if you
voted for President Trump, you knew what President Trump wanted
to do. Right, You knew President Trump wanted to close
the border, it forced our immigration laws, get rid of
the illegal aliens. You knew he wanted to drain the swamp.

(01:48:08):
You knew he wanted to get rid of the waste,
to fraud and the abuse, the corruption in government. You
knew that's what he campaigned on. Let me ask you
a question, did you honestly believe that the president would
be able to accomplish all of that without any pushback whatsoever.
If you thought that, you are an idiot on a

(01:48:30):
level I have never seen in my life. You are
a moron. You are the reason why preparation h has
a warning label on it that says do not take
orally for external use only. You're the reason why. You're

(01:48:51):
the reason why there has to be a warning label
on a stroller that says remove child before folding up
and putting in your trunk. You're the reason why there
has to be a warning label, a care label on
baby's clothes that says, take off your child before putting

(01:49:15):
in the washing machine or the dryer. You're the reason
this type of stuff exists. If you are really that stupid,
You're the reason why warning labels like that have to exist,

(01:49:39):
because common sense decrees that you knew, or at least
you should have known, if you were using your brain
any a orda whatsoever, that there was going to be pushback.
You was going to get resistance. Unstoppable force meets immovable object.

(01:50:05):
You knew that it was going to happen. All it
takes is one question. Are they going to go quietly
into the night? Have they ever? Did you really think
you were going to get your utopia without resistance. The
question wasn't whether or not they were going to resist.

(01:50:29):
The question was how much are they going to resist?
That really was the question. As little as I want
to see it, And let me be clear, no, I
absolutely do not want to see another civil war. The

(01:50:50):
first one was horrible. No, I was not alive during
that time frame, but I could only imagine. No, actually
I can't. I can't even imagine how bad it was
for people back then. Family against family, siblings against siblings.
I can't even imagine how bad it was. I really can't.

(01:51:15):
This time it's going to be worse. This time is
going to be worse. Say what you want to, you know,
have your bumper stickers as you want to. You know,
Republicans are the ones who have all the guns and
YadA YadA, blah blah, and say what you want to. Dude,
it ain't going to be pretty. Yeah, I like repeating

(01:51:39):
those bumper sticker slogans too. Makes you feel good, right,
makes you feel unstoppable. It ain't going to be pretty.
Arrest these people whom are breaking and allowing federal law

(01:52:00):
to be violated. Arrest these people, people like Brandon Johnson, JB. Pritsker.
They deserve to be arrested and thrown in jail. Period
into story. If you start doing that kind of crap,
maybe then these other states, these other mayors and governors

(01:52:21):
will realize, shit, he's serious, and he's right to throw
us in jail. Now they're not going to say he's
right to throw us in jail, but maybe they'll get
the hint they're breaking federal law. Throw them in jail,

(01:52:43):
make an example out of these people, and you have
the right to do it on a grand scale, because
this is something that affects every single American, not just
those in Illinois, not just those in California, not just
those in New York City. It affects everyone. I've already

(01:53:05):
talked about this whenever I was talking about California redrawing
their district maps in response to what Texas did with
their district lines. It's the same thing. It affects everyone.
Prosecute them down in Florida. Apps of freaking lutely do

(01:53:32):
me a great big favorite. Head on over to stinkpickle
dot com. That is s T I n K P
I k l E dot com. Pick yourself up some
merch that is the best way to support the channel. Anyway,
That's all I got for today. You also have a
good one and I will see you in the next one.
This has been the ho Host Show. For more information,

(01:53:52):
you can head to the hoo Hostshow dot com and
for the merchandise store, you can head on over to
stinkpickle dot com. That is s T I n K
P I k l e dot com. Until next time,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Is Another Civil War Possible?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

All Episodes

Is Another Civil War Possible?

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang