The Left is Terrified

In today’s episode we are going to be talking about Gerrymandering and the Census. We will also discuss the opening of a grand jury.

Email, Website & Other Links
[e-mail]
https://WSPRadio.com
https://TheHohOShow.com
https://link.thehohoshow.com/Rumble
https://link.thehohoshow.com/WSPChronicles

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-hoho-show--2639419/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yes, Welcome to the show, grated the number one most
listened to podcast on Fluida. So join us now as
we discuss news, politics, current events, and so much more
so through the airwaves and strapped in as we do
because broadcasting live from WEAPONI Sloft Production Studio B. Welcome

(00:38):
to the Ho Host Show and as oh as I'm
your host, Ho Ho. So, Hey, y'all's doing I hope
you're doing good? I really do. Today We've got some
stuff to talk about, we really do. We're going to
be talking about the Department of Justice opening up a
grand jury. I'm excited about that one, I really am.
We're going to be talking about an appeals court decision.

(01:00):
We're also going to be talking about Jim at Costa
in his interview with a Dead Kid. Yes you heard
that right. It is as weird as it sounds. We're
also going to be talking about the redistricting and jerrymandering.
But first we're going to start off with talking about

(01:23):
the census, the census that took place April first, twenty twenty,
and just how the Shenanigans went on and holy crap,
this is actually I mean, it's okay. You all know
how I like to start the show. I like to
start off with a little bit of satire, a little

(01:45):
bit of ha ha, a little bit of funny. And
my go to source of satire news is the Babylonbee
because I use it in a way that is satire
with a purpose. That's how I use y'all know this
by now. So let's start off with this headline from

(02:05):
the Babylon bi. Democrats warned new Trump census couldn't negate
all the illegal alien votes that Biden brought in. But
I mean it wasn't just him though, right, it was
it was you know who was that president before Trump?
Oh yeah, that's right, Obahama, Because you know he had

(02:29):
different policies that he put in place, and you know
it was more than just policies, right, I mean, let's
be honest about something, because what well, any of these people,
what they are supposed to do is faithfully execute the
office that they have been elected to or appointed to.

(02:55):
That's what they're supposed to do. Faithfully execute the laws
in the form of the president. That's what they are
supposed to do. And if the laws are hey we
have immigration laws, this is what the law is. This
is what dictates somebody breaking that law, and this is

(03:19):
what we prescribe to be done. If that happens and
the president or anybody decides that they are going to
ignore that and institute their own law, that is unconstitutional.
Let's be honest. So whenever Obama did the whole daka
thing that was an unconstitutional order, he didn't have the

(03:42):
authority to do that. He was supposed to execute the
laws of the land, passed by Congress and signed in
the law by the president. That's how it's supposed to
be done. No ifs, no ends, and certainly no buds.
That's what's supposed to happen. Unconstitutional, right, And for the

(04:06):
most part, there are many presidents that are guilty of
allowing this kind of thing to happen. And in my opinion,
you know, President Trump is the most conservative president that
we have had in modern history. And I am even
including the daddy, the godfather of conservatism in my day
and age, Ronald Reagan, because Ronald Reagan he fell for

(04:34):
the same stunt that many other presidents has fallen for,
you know, and that's the whole you know, you give
us amnesty, will give you a border wall, And he's
like Okay, I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to do that.
That's fine, let's go ahead and do that. Well, the
Democrats got their amnesty, but we never got a border wall,

(05:00):
and basically they tried to do the exact same thing
with Trump, and Trump was like, uh no, huhuh. I've
seen how this game was played in the past. I've
seen how the amnesty was given but the wall was
never built. I seen that. So I'm not falling for
the same trick. And of which case applaud Donald Trump. Right,

(05:22):
you know, it's you know, fool me once, shame on you,
fool me twice, shame on me. And he wasn't falling
for it. He wasn't having it. He's like, no, we're
not No, we're not doing that. We're not doing that
at all. And one of the points that I've always
brought up in this argument is, look, okay, so I

(05:46):
will at least acknowledge that that maybe we have some
issues with our immigration system. Okay, Su're fine if you
want to say that whatever, that's fine. But the sad
fact of the matter is one of the groups of
people that fight and argue about the immigration system being
broken is the very people that have the power to

(06:11):
fix it, right. I mean, if AOC has a problem
with the immigration law, well then maybe you should get
with your colleagues, maybe you should reach across the aisle,
and maybe you should get together and write a new law.
And they've been bitch and moaning and complaining about this

(06:33):
since at least the eighties. For basically my entire life,
this has been an issue. And of which case, it's like, dude,
they're not interested in fixing the immigration problem, because if
they were, they would have done it by now, I
mean my entire life. This has been an issue at

(06:54):
least since the eighties. This has been an issue. This
is something they complain about NonStop all the time. Oh,
we need to allow these people to come over because
they're just hurt, destruct they're fleeing persecution, and they're fleeing crime,
and they're fleeing all kinds of things. And it's like, okay, well, no,

(07:17):
there's nothing in our constitution that says we need to
let these people across the border. And oh yeah, by
the way, if it's a problem, if it's so hard
to do the legal and right way, then why don't
you change the law. Instead of just expecting the president
to ignore the law, why don't you write a new one? Well,
they don't want to do that. I mean, that's really

(07:39):
what the bottom line is, because if they wanted to
fix the problem, they would have fixed the problem just
saying just going out out there. So let's get into
the topic of hand with talking about the census. So
I've got this article headline from National Review, headline trump

(08:04):
orders new US census that excludes illegal immigrants. Fantastic, This
headline from MSNBC. Trump's demand for a new census is
unconstitutional and impossible. And okay, look we're going to go
into there. Okay, let let's let's be honest, all right.

(08:26):
So the last census April first, twenty twenty. Why they
do it on April first, I have absolutely no idea.
But April first, Fool's Day, April Fool's Day, right, Why
they decided, I have no idea. I don't even know.
But here's the thing. Okay, they decided to go ahead
and count illegal aliens in the census. They wanted to

(08:48):
count residents, not legal citizens, but residents. And their reason
that they gave for doing this is because, well, you know,
the census. It directs resources, and if we have a
lot of people living in various areas, we need to
have the resources there to take care of them with infrastructure.

(09:10):
And of which case, Okay, look, I understand the argument,
and I'm not really against it altogether. But at the
same time, if you look at what the other thing
a census does, then it is completely unfair, unconstitutionally shouldn't
be done because the census not only allocates resources to

(09:31):
various areas where heavier population is, it also allocates representation.
You may have heard of the House of Representatives, where
we have representatives in each state that is based off

(09:55):
of the population of said state. And whenever you have
illegal aliens represented in the federal government, that's wrong if
you are here illegally, and I'm going to be honest
with you, I'm not even going to say that it's

(10:16):
only illegal aliens, because in my opinion, if you are
not a US citizen, I don't care if you're legal
or not, you have no right, no authority, no say whatsoever.
And how our government is ran and very much so
on the federal level, and you could also argue very

(10:38):
easily that on the state level as well. You don't
have the right to say how this country is ran
I mean that is you know that is. Oh there's
a word for that. Oh God, I hate it whenever
my mind does a brain fart and just things go
right out the head. But you know, I mean, you're
talking about influence from a foreign nation, from foreign dignitaries, influencing,

(11:06):
however indirect or direct it may be. But you still
have foreign nationals influencing the political landscape of the United
States of America. That's wrong. And before you have these
knee your tear reactions, I want to ask you this.

(11:32):
These countries that these people are fleeing from for whatever
reason doesn't really matter, how would they treat people just
flowing across their border. Let's just take Mexico for instance.
The only reason Mexico allows people from Honduras, from El South,

(12:00):
from all these other various countries that they come from,
the only reason why they allow them in in the
first place is because all they're doing is transporting them
to the US. If they were staying in Mexico, you
can be sure that they wouldn't be doing it. Mexico
has a wall on one of at least one of

(12:22):
their borders. They have a border security wall. If it's
so bad for us to have it, why does Mexico
have it? So many different countries out there have the
same thing, and there is not one country out there
that is so loose with how their government is operated,
so loose with their fundings as to allow foreigners to

(12:48):
participate in the government. They don't allow it. None of
them do. China uh Uh, Japan Nope, Taiwan uh, Mexico hell,
no El Southadorton not even close the Congo, You would
be wrong. There's not one out there that allows it.

(13:11):
It's just not done. So why is it that the
United States doesn't. Well, they have a reason, obviously, in
its political power. I mean that's really what it amounts to.
It's political power. If the illegals, if foreign nationals, if
non United States citizens were not allowed to be counted

(13:37):
in the census, then we're talking in twenty twenty, roughly
no less than twenty seats would have been lost by
the Democrat Party. You think about the slim majority that
we have going on right now, the slim majority that
we had after the twenty twenty election, those twenty seats

(14:01):
could have made a huge difference, and that's why they
wanted to keep the census as it was. They wanted
to keep it to where this census counted residents, even
though it is constitutional for illegals be counted. Why because

(14:21):
it's influence from a foreign power in US government. That's illegal.
It is unconstitutional. It is not what our founding fathers wanted.
It's not what they advocated for, certainly not. But there's

(14:48):
another reason why President Trump wants there to be another census,
and that is because after the twenty twenty census, the
whatever the Department is that actually you know, did the
whole thing. You know, they acknowledged it. Well, we screwed up.
We miscounted We apparently we forgot how to count in

(15:11):
certain states. Some states we counted high, some states we
counted low. We are aware that we screwed up. However,
we're not going to recount even though we know that
there were errors. You're just going to have to wait
until the next census. And that would be all fine
and dandy if the errors didn't only benefit one political

(15:37):
party and hurt the other political party. Because that's what
we seen in every single instance where a mistake was
made in the counting of the census. It was in
favor of Democrats. They counted low and Democrat run cities
and states. They counted I'm sorry, they counted high and

(15:58):
Democrat controlled cities and states, and they kunt of low
in Republican controlled cities and states. It only benefited one party.
I mean, it's kind of like all this fraud that
we heard take place in twenty twenty, in the election
of twenty twenty, All of these things, the fraudulent things
to this, that and the other, the miscountings, the machines

(16:20):
that had errors, all of this stuff happened in favor
of one political party over the other one. If it
favored both in certain situations and circumstances, then I would
be willing to accept circumstance. But that's not what we've seen.

(16:43):
I mean, why is it that every time there's some
type of an error, every time there's some type of
a misstep, a happenstance, especially spanning multiple states, multiple counties,
multiple districts, single time it happens, they want to tell
us that it's coincidence, even though it always benefit benefits

(17:09):
the Democrats, and we're supposed to accept their word that
it was just a happy accident somehow Bob Ross was
involved in accounting and favored the Democrats. But it's every
single time they expect us to believe that it was
just a quinctin no, it's not a quincting. It's not

(17:34):
a coincidence at all. And so President Trump is demanding
that there be a recount. And he's not the only one.
There's other people that you know are in this position,
not not necessarily, you know, as President of United says
South America, but in the the various positions in government,
they're like, oh yeah, Ron Desantus is one of them. Hey,

(17:57):
we need an accurate count in the census. If you
shouldn't be counting illegals, then we need to do a
census where we're not counting illegals. If the Census Department
is acknowledging that they screwed up, and they are, they
publicly admitted to it, and in every single instance I
favored the Democrat Party. If they're going to acknowledge that,

(18:17):
then they need to fix the problem instead of just
going oops, my bad, let's fix the problem. They don't
want to do that. Why because they're in bed with
the Democrat Party, Because they are the Democrat Party. That's
what's going on here. It really is that simple. The

(18:43):
Democrats know that if the census was recounted, if it
was accurate, if they only counted for the sake of
representation legal United States citizen, since that, the Democrat Party
is in head for ruin and they know it, and

(19:08):
they know But that's not the only way that the
Democrats kind of push the envelope in order to stay
in power or increase their margin, the margin of error.
That's not the only way. Whenever we get back, we
are going to talk about one of the other ways

(19:28):
where we see time and time again the Democrats pushing
the envelope doing something that they really shouldn't be doing.
And what's funny in this one is this is like
a reverse psychology thing because they are condemning Texas for
what they are trying to do with redrawing congressional districts.

(19:51):
We'll get into that right after this, just a couple minutes.
We'll be right back.

Speaker 2 (20:02):
Sun's beating down on the tractor seat, dusty road rising,
no shade or treat worked up.

Speaker 3 (20:09):
Sweat Lord, it ain't fair.

Speaker 2 (20:11):
Now there's a swamp brewing under there.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
Boots are dragging through the mud.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
Off it from all this work.

Speaker 3 (20:22):
The sweat starts to stick.

Speaker 2 (20:24):
Cheaping and burning got a real high cost. Feels like
a milk lost in the salt swamp fast blues. Oh
it's tough, too bad, sweat soaking through my underwar.

Speaker 4 (20:39):
I take a cool breeze over this damn heat.

Speaker 1 (20:45):
But it's a light about here in the farmer seat.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
I'm my shirt to dry on the old fence post.
Try to cool down with the sun still roast every
steps battle this swamp won't quit losing the fight in
this summer grit. Neighbor's waves think I've lost my mind,

(21:18):
But it's the heat that's made to me grime. Buckets
of ice won't even come close the drying of this
southern coast.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
Of swam past blues.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
I can't take much more.

Speaker 4 (21:31):
My jump in the creatus to restore wish for that
rain on and.

Speaker 3 (21:39):
On ubridge, to dry these.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
Blues and fine some peace.

Speaker 3 (22:06):
A neighbor's way.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
You think I've lost my mind, Bud, it's to heat
that's making meat grind.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
Puckets of ice won't even come close to drying up
this southern.

Speaker 4 (22:17):
Coat sounds blues I can't take much more my job
and created jo just to RAI store, wish for that
rain and all of brings to dry these blues and

(22:38):
find some peas.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
Have you ever sat down in the throne just to
find out that you are dangerously low one shift tickets
making it to where you have to make them mad,
dash to the store just to pick yourself up some
if this has ever happened. You pick up the number
one most rated toilet paper found in Uranus and use
what the professionals use, angel Soft. See, I'm just not
a fan of sung toilet paper. Some of the us

(23:14):
like putting a pedal between your nice rosie. Others like
John Wayne toilet paper. It's like using sandpaper. But do
what the professionals use. Use the type of toilet paper
that is the Goldilocks of brands. Angel Soft available wherever
toilet paper is sold. All right, and we are back.
So one of the other ways that the Democrat Party

(23:40):
uses in order to stay in power increase their lead
over Republicans. Another one of those is in how they
strategically drawed Well, none of that, let me not get
into that. Let me start with this, okay, because done
in Texas the Texas State Congress. The Republicans in it

(24:01):
are wanting to redraw congressional districts in Texas, and the
Democrats are kind of upset about this because they're like, oh,
we may lose seats and we don't want to do that.
We're going to lose power, We're going to lose influence.
We don't want to do it. And you know, they
they claimed that the Republicans in Texas are jerrymandering the

(24:24):
congressional lines in order to give them an unfair lead.
And they decided to go ahead and flee Texas and
go to Illinois in order to protest what they call

(24:46):
is jerry mannering. And this is hilarious for multiple reasons.
But before that, this isn't the first time that we
have seen the Democrats in Texas do a move like this,
you know, flee to Illinois, which is a bastion of
Democrat policies and everything else. I know this because I

(25:09):
live in Ilifornia, not a fan of Illinois. And what
makes this exceptionally hilarious is because Illinois. I mean, the
nerve that Democrats in Texas have of accusing Texas Republicans

(25:32):
of jerrymandering the the voting districts and then fleeing up
to Illinois to protest is laughable. It would be laughable
if it wasn't so dampathetic because Illinois. Have you ever

(25:53):
looked at the voting district lines? It makes no sense.
Now you want to talk about jerry mandering. Oh my god,
it is absolutely freaking ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
It really is.

Speaker 1 (26:09):
Let me see if I can. Let me see if
I can pull this up, because I mean it really is.

Speaker 5 (26:15):
Okay, a Ohnoi map of oging districts. Yeah, sure, cool,
all right, Yeah, that's not the map I'm looking for.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
That is. Let's do images. Hey, yeah, let's let's let's
do let's do images. What wow? Well okay, okay, I
guess this kind of works out. Okay, here we go.

(27:02):
This map is as well as twenty twenty two. This
isn't you know, from the census, but you know whatever.
Let me see if I can full screen this better? Yeah?
This is better? All right? Now, are you ready to
look at what jerry mandering looks like? Are you ready
to look at it? Are you ready to see it?

(27:22):
Because this is the most ridiculous thing that makes absolutely
no sense. Whatsoever. It really doesn't. It doesn't. I mean,
in all honesty, if you're talking about voting districts, it
should be separated by counties. I don't remember how many
counties are in Illinois. Doesn't really matter. But that's more
or less how it was to be, you know. I mean,
kind of like each state in a federal election. That's

(27:48):
how it really should be. On a state level. It
should be divided up by the county. Its county is
its own district. There you go. There's a reason why
counties is this in the first place. The county seat
all that good. It makes logical sense to me, right,
But no, you have Illinois doing this kind of shit.
Let me pull it up. There you go, there's the
map of Illinois. Of course I got the bottom tip

(28:10):
of a cut, but it's still District twelve. That's what
ILLINOI looks like. How ridiculous is this? You mean to
tell me that this isn't jerry mandering. Look at District
thirteen right there in the freaking middle between District fifteen.
You got fifteen on the left, fifteen on the right.
I mean, it's and they want to complain about Texas

(28:34):
and accuse them of jerry mandering. Look at this shit.
This is the very definition of jerry mandering, are you
I mean, do you see what I see here? I mean,
if you look up the definition of jerry mandering and
what it looks like, you would see a picture of

(28:56):
Illinois districts. That's what you would see. It's pathetic. I mean,
seventeen you mean to tell me that there wasn't a
reason that they drew the map and it wasn't to
you know, distribute Democrat voting to where it would make

(29:19):
Republicans vote irrelevant, Because that's exactly what this is. That's
what they did. That's why they did it. And of
all places to flee to to demonstrate against Republicans jerry

(29:40):
mandering in Texas, they go to Illinois. And the Illinois
map looks like this, Are you kidding me? The very
definition of jerrymandering. And okay, so this area around Chicago

(30:03):
where you can't see my mouth, my mouse, my mouth,
you can't see my mouse rotating around, but like that
whole entire area, that huge cluster of crap, that's basically
I mean, like, okay, looking at the actual map of
Illinois and how people vote and all that other kind
of good stuff. Illinois is red through and through. Hands down.

(30:29):
The only places where the Democrats have a strongholders around Chicago,
Chicago and the suburbs. Obviously you got Peoria and around Champagne,
and you have around Springfield. Peoria is a is a

(30:50):
you know, a bigger metropolitan area. Champagne is college town,
Springfield is the state capital. Those are your Democrats strongholds.
Outside of there, the rest of the entire state is
read and really even Springfield is read too. I mean,
if you're being perfectly honest about it, yes there's more

(31:11):
Democrats over there, but Republicans and they still you know,
they still got to beat, right, they still got to
beat Why because people are kind of sick and tired
of the crime, sick and tired of how Pritzker does things.
They don't like him, and a lot of people up
in Chicago are starting to change their tune too. But
you look at that map and you see how ridiculous

(31:33):
it is. And the only reason why they drew the
map that way was to dilute the Republican vote distribute
the Democrat vote, so that this way the Democrats could
stay in power. The very definition of jerrymandering. Hello, And

(31:56):
if the lines weren't drawn like that, if the Democrats
in Illinois was not jerrymandering, the voting districts Illinois based
on population would be more down the center. Illinois would

(32:17):
be a swing state if it wasn't for Democrat jerrymandering.
Just being honest with you, I mean, those population dense
areas are Yeah, they're Democrats strongholds, they very much are.
But whenever the rest of the state votes Republican, it's

(32:40):
pretty level playing field. Illinois would easily be a swing
state if it wasn't for the Democrat jerry mandering. That's
a fact. He can take that to the bank. I
find a pretty stinking ridiculous that in protest of jerry

(33:03):
mandering in Texas they fled to Illinois, the very definition
of jerrymandering. Yeah, I mean, that's it's just it's absolutely pathetic.
It really is. This article from uh where is this

(33:23):
to Washington Free Beacon, this is this is hilarious, speaking
of you know, the whole jerrymandering thing headlined Chicago is
so jerrymandered its main airport is parking backlogged planes in
two different congressional districts. I mean, I showed you what
the map looked like. Look at that, and you want

(33:45):
to tell me that's that's not jerrymandering, you know, yeah,
it's it's so yeah, Chicago is so jerrymandered. And I
mean that that's just Chicago. I mean, good grief. Can
I can I zoom in on No? No, I can't.
Of course I can't zoom in on that. But I mean,
there a bunch you see a lot of different colors
in there. That's Chicago. And I mean that's not really

(34:07):
all that unusual. I mean, it really isn't. That's not
even something that I'm overly concerned with with how they
drew the district lines around Chicago. And let me tell
you why. You know, it's it's a representative per percentage
of votes there, you know, per per number of votes.

(34:29):
You know, you got this many people, they get a representative.
This many people they get a representative, this many people
they get a representative. I get that you're going to have,
you know, various sizes of voting districts. I understand that.
I mean that's kind of how it's done, right, you know.

(34:53):
And obviously, the further south you go, the farther away
from the metropolitan area is you get going to see
the voting districts get bigger and bigger, So Chicago is
going to have a bunch of them crammed into a
small space. I get that. I'm not even considering what's
going on in Chicago as jerry mandering. But you look

(35:14):
at District seventeen, You look at District sixteen, look at
District fifteen and thirteen twelves or whatever, you know, but
definitely fifteen, thirteen, seventeen, sixteen that is obvious jerry mandering

(35:37):
is sixteen even, I mean, good grief, I mean, that's
just that's absolutely pathetic. So the Democrats are bitching, voting
and complaining down in Texas, trying to stop because there's
too many people leave Texas than they can't. You know,

(36:00):
there has to be a certain amount of representatives present
in order for them to have a vote, right, you know,
and and that keeps one party rule. You know that
that eliminates that one party is just going to claim
a recess. Everybody come on back and then do a
vote with one side not even being there. That's why

(36:22):
they do that. I get that. I'm okay with that.
I'm fine with that. That makes sense. I mean, that's
how it's done, right. You don't want a runaway party
writing laws, voting on laws, not giving the you know,
other representatives the ability to vote on it. I mean,

(36:43):
that's that's taking away people's representation, right. But they're throwing
a fit in taxes, claiming that oh it's jerry mandering,
you know, okay, and you're going to tell me that
it's not being done by the Democrat Party. Have you

(37:06):
seen Illinois? Now, I honestly, you know, Now this is
just me. I mean, let me know where you're at,
you know, let me know what state you live, and
let me know, you know, if it's a Republican controlled
state a Democrat controlled state. Because I'm actually kind of
curious about this. Let me know where you live. And

(37:29):
have you looked at the voting district maps in your state?
Do you see the same type of thing taking place?
Because Illinois bad? But I don't know if it's the worst.
I know Illinois bad. I mean I would assume that
California and New York would be probably pretty bad too,
because a lot like Illinois. You get away from New

(37:51):
York and a lot of people are more conservative, you know,
I mean the rest of dude. New York State is
a gorgeous state. It really is. You know, for the job,
I go to New York quite often, and it's it's
a gorgeous state. It really is. A lot going on there,
a lot of wildlife, a lot of landscape, pretty scenery.

(38:13):
I like it. Illinois kind of sucks. You get you get,
you know, patches of woods, and you get some hills,
but primarily you get fields, cornfields and soybeans. That's that's
that's what you see that you know, Central Illinois, that's
that's what that's what we got. And and sometimes you
don't even have to sometimes you don't even have to

(38:36):
leave town to see a cornfield. We've got one like
in the middle of the freaking town at Cornfield in Middletown.
That's that's yeah, that's that's where I live. It is
what it is. But where do you live, what state

(38:57):
are you in? And are they as Jerry Manderds as Illinois?
Are they that bad? Do you see anything that resembles
common sense? And how they draw district maps? Because my
personal opinion is, if you're going to draw these maps,
it should be done basically on the federal level, because
the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government in every state.

(39:23):
It does, and how it's done on the federal level
is you know, you got you know, the the Electoral College, Sure,
yes you do. And but it's you know, each state
is how it's done by each state, the population of

(39:48):
each individual state, and has done that so that this way,
each state isn't marginalized. That each state has a voice,

(40:13):
one based off of population, one based off of presence.
That's the Senate. Every state has an equal voice. No
state is able to drown out the voice of another state.
Each state has an equal space in how things are done.

(40:39):
Why can't they do the same thing. I mean, I
don't know about your state, but I know here in Illinois,
you know, we have these things called you know, each
one of ours. You know, our state is divided up
in the counties. I don't remember exactly how many counties

(40:59):
Illinois has, but we you know, we got quite a few.
I think one hundred and twenty something. How many count
tease does Illinois have? Question mark one hundred and two?
All right, so I was close. It was over one hundred,
one hundred and two counties. Most popular is Cook County,

(41:24):
with the least populous is Harding County. I bet I
know where Harding County is. That's funny. Largest county by
land area is McLean County and the smallest is Putinham County.
I know where putin them is Putnam County. All right,
so there you go. But that makes sense, right, I mean,
it's already a line, a dividing marker that was established

(41:51):
a long freaking time ago. Why don't we use that
in the same way that the federal government divides it
with states and borders. It's a border that's already there.
Why aren't districts done like that? Because that's really how

(42:15):
it's supposed to be done, a republic form of government,
to where everybody in essence has an equal say, that's
how voting lines are supposed to be done. I mean, dude,
you remember the Illinois voting district again? You know you
remember that? What does some of those people have any

(42:41):
idea on how the others live whenever they're drawn like that? Ridiculous?
I mean, it really is. Each county should be its
own voting district, and maybe if you want to, you
can divide some of them is up by municipalities, whatever,

(43:08):
But to draw them the way that they did in
Illinois is the very definition of jerrymandering. Prove me wrong.
And like I said, if it was actually done correctly,
Illinois would be a swing state hands down. The only

(43:31):
reason why ILLINOI is a Democrat stronghold jerrymandering. That's it.
And truth be told, I mean, it's you can't even
actually go off of you know, like voting records. You

(43:53):
can't really go off voting record, you really can't. You
can't go by based off of that. You really can't.
And I'm sure that the same thing applies in California.
I'm sure the same thing applies in New York. I'm
sure the same thing applies in other Democrat controlled states.
That whenever it really comes down to it, that a
lot of people choose not to participate in the election

(44:15):
because they know that it just doesn't matter. I mean,
I really wish people didn't have that frame of mind,
but I can't. I can't condemn him for it because
I get it. I mean, really, if if it wasn't

(44:35):
for the fact that I wanted to just bump up
Trump's numbers, that hey, here's one more person that voted
for President Trump. If it wasn't for that, I don't
think I would have participated in the election. I wouldn't
have counted. I wouldn't have voted. It wouldn't have mattered
because I know that I live in a Democrat controlled stronghold.

(44:55):
I know what Illinois is. My vote on the local
let like that doesn't count, or at least on the
state level. It doesn't count local level, sure federal level.
I wanted to make my voice heard, but it was
only about state politics. No why And regardless of how

(45:17):
you feel about that, I understand that there's a lot
of people that do have that opinion that you know
in a Democrats stronghold where I know my voice really
doesn't matter, there's not enough of us to really put
up a fight. Why bother, Why take the time out
of my day? Why inconvenience myself? Why get out of bed,

(45:42):
Why put clothes on, why put on makeup? Why make
myself presentable to the world, just to have my voice
drowned out by the Democrats. I get it. I'm not
condemning you for that frame of mind. I'm really not.

(46:03):
But if the district lines in Illinois were actually wasn't jerrymandering.
If it actually made sense, if there was some logic,
some rhyme to the reason, I would guarantee you that way,
more Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians would actually get out and vote

(46:29):
because they wouldn't feel silenced. They would feel as though
they are able to participate in the political process. They
would feel as though their voice actually mattered. And so
I get it. I understand why people stay away. I

(46:54):
wish that they didn't. I commend what's going on in
Texas because I really don't think that they're going to
be doing the whole jerrymandering thing. They're wanting to try
to make a sense. They're wanting to try to make
it make sense. There we go. I can speak, Yeah, Illinois,

(47:31):
the very definition of jerrymandering. Do do do do? I
did cover that lawsuit, but I mean, I really don't care.
A lawsuit was filed in Illinois by Texas to force

(47:51):
these people to get their ass back home, which I mean,
that's the thing though, I mean, it's you know, it's
in session. These people have an obligation, you know, these
representatives have an obligation to do their job, right. I mean,

(48:15):
after everything's all. I mean, like, how would they feel
if Republicans fled to Florida in order to make it
to where Democrats couldn't do what they wanted to do?
How would they feel? They would throw a fit, you know,
they would they would demand the same thing. They would
demand some type of retribution, they would demand some type

(48:37):
of accountability. They would demand that people get you know,
thrown in a squad car, put in handcuffs, and had
their ass escorted back to Texas. That's exactly what would happen.
And you know, darn gonwilla would I mean even still though,
I mean, it just it just cracks me up that
Texas congress people fled to Illinois in protest of what

(49:05):
they called jerrymandering when ELLINOI is fucking horrible. I mean,
I'm not surprised, But at the same time, it's like, yeah,
you guys, were they really thinking that thing through? I mean,
maybe that's a really good question. Were they thinking it through?

(49:27):
Did they think about where they were going before they
went there to protest something in a state that is
the very definition of what it is they fled to
protest in the first place. Were they really thinking I
doubt they were. I mean, I really do. I doubt
they were. I doubt they were paying attention at all whatsoever.

(49:50):
I really do. So we are going to move on
and we are going to talk about Oh my god, yeah,
I got I'm going to I'm not going to spend
a lot of time on this just because of how
ridiculous this whole thing is. I'm not going to spend

(50:10):
a lot of time on it. But when I tell
you this thing was cringe, please believe me. This was cringe.
This headline from the Excuse Me, this headline from the
Washington Examiner Restoring America. Jim Acosta's interview of a dead

(50:33):
kid is a shameless stunt. So FORMERCYNN anchor Jim Acosta
interviewed an AI recreation of I'm probably going to screw
up his name Joaquin Oliver on Monday about gun violence
and gun control. Joaquen was a student at a majority

(50:57):
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Hill High School in Parkland, Florida, when
had going to kill seventeen people there on February fourteen,
twenty eighteen, Joaquin was one of those who lost his life.
Monday would have been Joaquin's twenty fifth birthday, and Jim Acosta,

(51:21):
for whatever reason, figured that to promote a Democrat talking
point would be a good idea to have a I
talk in the place of this student that was killed

(51:43):
in the Parkland shooting. And like I said, when I
tell you, this thing was absolutely cringe. It was absolutely cringe.
I heard the thing and it was just I mean, dude, ridiculous.
Doesn't even shine a light on it. And you know,
for some reason, the the parents like was okay with this, right,

(52:08):
I mean, apparently they were okay with this because you know, okay,
oh man, this this is one of the aspects where
I can't believe this is even a thing. I mean,
I really can't. I mean, this is worse than the

(52:30):
than the you know, the jerry mandering in Illinois. This
is so bad. So I mean I would I would
invite you to listen to the interview. I really would.
I mean, I'm sure that it is all over the place,
over on social media, YouTube, wherever. I mean, it is
all over the place. I have no doubt that it is.

(52:52):
It would not be hard to find. I heard it,
I didn't see it. Just throwing that one out there too,
because I don't know how cringe. The whole thing looked.
I don't know how ridiculous it looked. I just heard
the interview, and one of the truly ridiculous points of

(53:13):
it was, you know, like at the end, Jim Acosta
was talking and I don't remember if he was talking
to the guy's father or you know, the kid's father,
or if he was talking to somebody else. I don't know,
but it was, you know, he said something to the
effect of it. You know, the interview. AI did such
a great job that it was so lifelike, Like he

(53:34):
was surprised that it was an AI generated responses, that
it was so lifelike, it was so real, it was
so on point with what he would have done and said,

(53:55):
and all this other kind of stuff AI generated responses. Cringe.
And when I tell you the whole thing was a
political stump, believe me when I tell you, I mean, like,
you know, apparently this kid, only because he he died

(54:17):
horrifically in the park like shooting, Parkland shooting, Apparently he
would have been against the Second Amendment and would have
been pro gun control. I mean, dude, somebody, how do
you know somebody's actual political leanings when they're in school.

(54:41):
I mean they don't. They don't vote for a reason.
You know, they haven't been introduced to this thing we
call the real world. You know, they they live a
life now. Granted, everybody's experience is different, and I'm not
discounting that. I'm not discrediting that everybody goes through hard times.

(55:04):
Everybody has trials and tribulations. I get that. But basically,
generally speaking, when you are a child, you live in
your parents' household, or at least a household of a guardian.
You are provided for, you are taken care of, you
are fed, you are closed, you have a roof over

(55:25):
your head. There you go socialism. You may work, but
for the most part, your main life expenses are provided
at somebody else's dime, not your own. There aren't many

(55:47):
children out there who pay rent, who have to go
to the store with whatever money they have been able
to earn in the type of jobs that they are
able to get, go to the store to buy food
for the entire house or even just themselves. That's not

(56:08):
the life of most children. So when you enter the
real world, a lot of people's lives actually change. I mean,
that's why you know, more kids are Democrats. More college
age students are Democrats because they haven't been introduced into
the real world. Most of them are living on somebody

(56:31):
else's dime, taking advantage of somebody else's time. That's just
how it is. I'm not necessarily knocking it. It's just
it is what it is. I mean, in a matter
of speaking, what I would really like to know is
how much did they prompt the AI on their responses.

(57:04):
I mean, I could only assume that, you know, Joaquim
was Joaquin was a you know, had Democrat parents, because
I mean, otherwise, I'm sure the parents would have been
infuriated by the interview instead of being okay with it,
accepting it, hell even proud of it. I mean, I

(57:28):
know that if my child died and anybody right or
left tried to use my child's death to promote a
political agenda, I would be pissed. Whether it was the
Democrat Party, whether it was a Republican party, I wouldn't care.

(57:50):
I would be pissed. You're not going to politicize my
child's life. You're not going to diminish what happened politicizing it.
You ain't going to do that. I'd be pissed. I mean,
how would you feel if this were to have happened

(58:11):
to you, if you were that parent, a relative, an aunt,
an uncle, a sibling. How would you feel if any
Democrat party politicized a tragedy that happened? I'd be infuriated.
I wouldn't care who did it. Maybe that's just me

(58:33):
Let me know. Send me an email ho Ho at
the ho Ho show dot com, because I am I'm curious.
I want to know would you be okay with something
like this? Me? Definitely not. So we're gonna go ahead
and take a quick break. When I return, we are
going to talk about the Appeals Court and a ruling

(58:56):
that they made regarding the get the hell out of
here of illegal aliens. We're also going to be talking
about the Department of Justice opening up a grand jury.
And I tell you what I am, So, which one
did I do last time? Did I do hot Southern Days? Hey,

(59:18):
let's just do this one. This a couple of minutes
and I'll be right back.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
Oscar walk these dusty trails and with a stride so
full of pride, A man built tough from him to toe.
Nothing he had to hide below his knee he'd had
some strife, a leg nod of his own.

Speaker 3 (59:41):
But every step he took in life, you'd never see him.

Speaker 6 (59:45):
On leather boots and iron will his spirits never flag
or fields and farms.

Speaker 2 (59:58):
He'd till the ground beside an old plows drag. Folks
would whispered on the street, how does he stand so tall?

Speaker 3 (01:00:08):
But Oscar just grin eared it here.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
I'm stronger than you all.

Speaker 7 (01:00:18):
Oster boots keep moving on, no matter what comes down
through the night so dark and cold, or the sun
baked golden ground.

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
He's got a harder, solid bronze and a mine, sharp
and vast.

Speaker 8 (01:00:35):
Oscar shows us every day the future is not the past.
He drove an old Ford pickup truck, a rusty butted ran,
hauling every loading dream this mighty simple man.

Speaker 3 (01:00:56):
Kids would gather around his feet just to hear him talk.

Speaker 2 (01:01:01):
About the days he fought in one, the life within
his walks.

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
He's let gonna slow his spirit down.

Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
Can't keep a good man still, And every morning up
and dawn flowing through sheer will, worn out jeans and callous.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
Hands an emblem of pure grit.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
Oscar's story traveled far, a fire that never quit.

Speaker 3 (01:01:38):
Oscar's boots keep moving on, no.

Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
Matter what comes down through the night so dark and cold,
or the sun baked golden ground.

Speaker 3 (01:01:49):
He's got a heart, a solid bronze, and a mind
that's sharp and vast.

Speaker 2 (01:01:55):
Oscar shows us every day the future's not the past.

Speaker 3 (01:02:02):
Futures not the past.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
Have you ever had an ailment that a normal over
the counter remedy just couldn't fight? If this is the case,
then boy, have I got the solution for you. It's Tousin,
that's right. Tousin cough, tousing, cold, Tousin, runny nose, Tousin itchy,
watery ice, Toussin broken leg, Tousin. Tussin is the ultimate cure,

(01:02:38):
all guaranteed to stop anything that ails you. Tousin available
wherever OTC's are sold. All right, and we are back,
So we are going to go ahead and jump right
into this. We are talking about this headline from NBC
News headline up Hills court blocks contempt proceedings against Trump

(01:03:02):
officials over deportations. The two to one decisions find that
Judge James Bosberg, if I'm even pronouncing his name correctly,
which I don't care, abused his powers in seeking compliance
with a core order that had been thrown out by
the Supreme Court. So this isn't even something that should
have been brought up as an issue because this had

(01:03:24):
already been thrown out by the Supreme Court, as in, hey,
Trump didn't do anything wrong, We're throwing this thing out.
And instead of you know, bosperd taking his lashings and
moving on and trying a different, you know, you know,
a different idea, he doubled down and held Trump officials

(01:03:49):
in contempt of court, and of which case rightfully. So
they appealed. So the headline continued, I'm sorry. The article continues,
a federal judge abused his authority in pursuing content proceedings
against Trump administration officials over deportation flights carried out under

(01:04:11):
the Alien Enemies Act. A federal appeals court ruled friday,
and this article came out. Yeah, okay, so yeah, it
came out Friday. So the three judge panel of the
US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Court Circuit
was so, let me go ahead and try that again.

(01:04:32):
The three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit was split two to
one with two Trump appointees in the majority and an
Obama appointee discerning I'm gonna be honest with you, that
doesn't mean shit. It doesn't mean what they would want
you to believe it means, because I mean, it's kind
of like, you know, it's a give and take, it's

(01:04:55):
a compromise. You know, you want this person, You're going
to give me that person. You know you want to
get this person in whom is a staunch supporter of you.
Then you're going to give me this person who, regardless
of the whatever party affiliation he has, is more you know,
malleable to our cause, is more sympathetic to the Democrat party.

(01:05:20):
You want this person, You're going to give me that person.
So it doesn't really matter who appoints who. Just because
it was a Trump appointee doesn't mean that it wasn't
somebody that was flown in under the radar. Back to
the article. The decision overturns Washington based Chief Judge James
Boseburg's finding of probable cause that officials could be held

(01:05:42):
in criminal content over flights that remove illegal gang members
from the US. After Boseberg had ordered the Trump administration
to halt the deportations. I don't know about you, but
I am getting sick and tired of these out of

(01:06:06):
controlled judges acting as though they are more powerful than
really any of the three branches of the federal government.

(01:06:27):
Bosberg acting as though he is more powerful than the
Supreme Court, acting as though he has any say in
how the executive branch fulfills its duty to carry out
the law and punish criminals. I'm sick and tired of

(01:06:49):
these lower court judges exceeding their actual power and authority,
and not only just making ridiculous claims, but claiming as though,
even though he is a DC district Court judge, that
he has any say in what goes on down in Florida.

(01:07:12):
Doesn't Florida have district court judges of their own, Yes,
they do. They're exceeding their power, They're exceeding their authority,
they are exceeding the scope of what they even have
the ability to rule on. And the funny thing is,
the sad empathetic thing is these type of things has
already been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and these

(01:07:35):
judges have already been smacked down and say, you don't
have the power and authority to do this, but do
they care? Obviously know Otherwise Bozburg would not have tried
to hold Idy administrators into Trump administration for contempt of court.
And oh yeah, by the way, they were doing their job.

(01:08:00):
That's what Bosberg and others of his ilk seemed to
ignore in what they're doing. They're doing their job. I mean,
that's like the district court judge and I don't remember
which one actually tried to do it, but you know
the law that was passed, you know, the big beautiful
bill that took away funding from Planned Parenthood, and he

(01:08:23):
tried to say that, oh no, you can't do that.
One of these federal judges tried to put a halt
to it. It's like, dude, this is a law. It's
not a bill. A bill is a bill. But this
was a law. It was passed by the House, it

(01:08:47):
was passed by the Senate, it was signed by the president.
This judge who tried to say that, oh no, you
can't remove funding from Planned Parenthood had no standing. It
was a law. If it's a question of the constitutionality
of the law, well then that's for the Supreme Court

(01:09:09):
to decide. You have no standing. It's ridiculous. I was
hearing something that Denesh Desuza said. Now I remember his name. Now,
I know I talked about this before, but I'm going
to bring it up again just because if its sheer ridiculousness.

(01:09:29):
But the person was like, you know, condemning the big
beautiful bill for removing funding for planned parenthood. And he
and he rightfully so brought up a couple key points.
He was like, look, let's remove the claim that it's
a constitutional right to an abortion. Let's remove that claim

(01:09:50):
even though it's wrong. It doesn't exist in the constitution.
It's not there. You can't find it, you can't point
it to me. If you could, I'll shut the hell
up right now. Oh he said, I'm just throwing that
in there myself. But he said, look, you have you know,
according to the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, you

(01:10:10):
have the freedom of press. The federal government is not
going to fund you to buy a printing press, a
newspaper company to do magazines or newspapers. You have the
freedom of speech. But the federal government is not going
to buy you a computer, an interface, a USB interface mixer,

(01:10:33):
is not going to buy you a microphone. So that
this way or a camera so you can do a podcast.
You have the freedom of religion, but the federal government
is not going to give you money to build a church.
You have the Second Amendment, the right to keep in

(01:10:53):
bear arms, but the federal government is not going to
buy you a gun. So what the hell makes you
think that you are so damned special to think that
the federal government should pay you, should fund you to
have an abortion. One of the best arguments I've heard

(01:11:13):
on that I paraphrased it absolutely I did. He was
way cleaner, way nicer about that argument than what I
obviously was. But the point still stands. You have the
freedom of speech, but the government isn't going to buy
you a microphone. You have the freedom of press, it's
not going to buy you a printer. You have the

(01:11:37):
right to a firearm, but it's not going to buy
you a gun. Why do these why do these libtards
think that that it's their right for the government to
fund them to have an abortion. It's ridiculous. Taking the

(01:11:58):
other argument off the table doesn't matter. What the hell
but these judges has already been put in their place
rulings by the Supreme Court that said, look, stay in
your lane. You have a job. You have you know,

(01:12:20):
a lane you're supposed to be in. You're not operating there.
Slow your roll, shut your hole, stay in your lane.
Whatever other you know, colorful language you want to throw
in there, do your job. It's not that hard, it's

(01:12:42):
not that difficult. These federal judges has already been smacked
down once by the Supreme Court, and now again we
have them getting smacked down the PSH by the US
Court of Appeals. That's awesome a victory, it really is.

(01:13:10):
And while we are speaking of victory, I heard this
and I was extremely happy. I really was extremely happy
whenever it comes to things that the Democrats are doing

(01:13:31):
in their pursuit to go after to humiliate, to try
to convict a Republican of something. You know, when the
Democrats went after January six ers, whenever they went after Trump,
they did it hard. They did it fast. They did

(01:13:52):
it wasn't something that they took their time to do.
That wasn't something that they waited until they had all
their ducks in a row to start. They they did
it fast and hard. So you see how fast and
how serious the Democrats take their stances in their attacks

(01:14:19):
against Republicans and somebody like Trump. But yet all we
see on the left is a bunch of do nothing
cowards that, oh, we have to rise above No we don't.
Oh we got to do it the right way. Well,
yeah we will. They broke the law, let's hold somebody accountable,

(01:14:40):
and we can't really do that. It is going to
set a bad precedence. They already started the presidents. They
already set the presidents. They already went after Trump, they
already went after their you know, their their political opponents.
The president's been set. You're not setting a new precedent.
You're making the Democrats operate within the president. They already,

(01:15:10):
Like I've said time and time again, I've said it
a hundred times. I want to say it a hundred
more times. I don't give a shit about more investigations.
I don't care about more hearings. I don't want another
special counsel. I don't care about a special prosecutor. I
don't care about another hearing. I mean, yeah, you may

(01:15:34):
dig a little deeper, you may find out something more,
but I'm not going to find out anything different, not really.
I mean a lot of the information that we've we've
heard about coming out over the past numerous years. You know,
it's it's not really been anything new. And in all honesty,

(01:15:57):
it's like in many cases, we know the what, we
may not know the why, but the why isn't necessarily
it is not necessary for us to go after these
bad actors in the Democrat Party. We don't have to
know the why to I mean, like we know the
why Trump derangement syndrome. They have a disdain for Trump

(01:16:18):
and all his supporters. I mean, that's what the why is.
We don't need to what more do we need to know.
I'm sick and tired of the investigation. I'm sick and
tired of the of the do nothing approach, the I'm
better than you and I'm just going to shame you

(01:16:41):
into behaving properly. Shame shame. You know that reference. It
doesn't work. I don't remember who it was. I was
listening to some prominent person. That's that's way smarter than
I am. He goes. You can't use shame to correct

(01:17:06):
somebody when the person you're trying to correct has no shame.
And that's what we're up against. These people have no shame.
They don't care if you know their dirty laundry because
after everything's all of a sudden done, they know they're protected,
they know the Democrats are in charge. They're not going

(01:17:26):
to face any justice, nothing's going to come of it.
So when I heard this news and I've seen this headline,
I was excited as hell because of what it meant.
Headline Are you ready for this? Are you sitting down?

(01:17:47):
Are you ready? Are you ready? Department of Justice opens
grand jury investigation into Letitia James tied to Trump civil
case and in unison. The Democrats went, now, this case,

(01:18:17):
this grand jury, now you've heard of said that that,
you know, the grand jury could indict a ham sandwich.
And it's true they could because basically, a grand jury
can indict anybody they damn will please if they want
this person to be indicted, that they want this person to,
you know, stand before a judge, if they want him

(01:18:40):
to be tried, you know, in front of a jury
of their peers, they can make it happen regardless of anything.
That's why they say that a grand jury would indict
a ham sandwich. It's not about right wrong, left, right center.
It's not about this that or the other. It's just
about what the prosecutors and the defense what they want.
That's what it's about. It's about how they spend it whatever.

(01:19:02):
That's what it's about. That a grand jury can investigate
or they can indict a ham sandwich. And this case
is actually tied to the raid on mar Lago. That's

(01:19:22):
what this is tied to. And here's the amazing thing
that since this grand jury is or at least this
case is tied to something that happened down in Florida,
this case is going to happen not in DC, where
it's a bunch of liberals that don't care about justice,

(01:19:46):
that the only thing they care about is party politics.
This isn't taking place in California, is not taking place
in New York. This is taking place down in Florida,
because that's where the grief is happened. Do you do,
Oh crap, that was the wrong button? Are you picking

(01:20:11):
up what I'm throwing down? People? These indictments against Trump,
these these court cases that has happened against Trump that's
taken place in New York, that's taken place in DC.
It's DC judges that are going after Trump because these

(01:20:33):
are Democrats strongholds. They don't have to worry about a
little thing like evidence getting in the way, a little
thing like right and wrong and actual criminality playing apart.
They don't have to worry about it because it's a
bunch of libtars that have Trump derangement syndrome that it
doesn't matter what happened. The ends justify the means. Orange

(01:20:56):
man bad. He's hitler. We have to take him out
by any means, no necessary. That's what the frame of
mind is. I mean, take that into consideration. Everything that's
happened against Trump has taken place in Democrats strongholds, primarily
New York, New York City, in Washington, d C. I'm

(01:21:18):
like ninety sei percent of the people in DC are
registered Democrats. And you want to tell me that Trump
in a world of Trump derangement syndrome, is going to
get a fair shake a fair trial. Are you kidding me? No?
But considering this, and by the way, the raid on

(01:21:39):
mar Lago actually happened because it was I'm pretty sure
it was the d C Field Office went down and
took control of the Florida Field Office to do the
raid in the first place. Do you remember that little
tidbit of information that's what happened. That's what it amounted to.

(01:22:02):
So this case is going to be held down in Florida.
I'm not worried about the Republicans doing the same thing
to Letitia James that the Democrats did to Trump in DC.
I'm not worried about that why because, well, let's just

(01:22:24):
face it, Republicans are way more principled in their beliefs
in how they do things than what Democrats are. Democrats
don't care about truth, they don't care about evidence, They
care about feelings, They care about their emotion. They have
Trump derangement syndrome. They believe Orange Man bad. They believe

(01:22:47):
that the ends justify the means. That's what they believe. Republicans,
by and far aren't like that. We're not. I mean,
have you ever when you see hate, most of the

(01:23:11):
time it comes from somebody who's a Democrat. Most of
the time. You know, we don't ostracize our own. I mean,
you do something wrong, you do something stupid, we'll call
you out on it, sure, but we're not just going
to blatantly kick you out of the party unless you
are like a rhino Republican in name only. But if

(01:23:32):
you don't have the view that the Democrat Party wants
you to have. Then they boots you out of the party.
They deplatform you, they silence you, they censor you, they
take away your ability to speak, and they they hound you.
They punish you for having a dissenting view. Republicans don't

(01:23:58):
do that, oh. I mean, if you have a dissension
of you, we're going to call you out on your Bravosierra.
Kind of like this case with the Texas Democrats fleeing
Texas to get out of the vote and make it
to where the vote can't happen by going to Illinois,
the very definition of jerrymandering. Whenever that's what they're accusing

(01:24:21):
the Republicans are doing, we'll call you out on your
bravos Sierra. You can do stupid shit, but we're going
to call you out on it. We're more apt to
call balls and strikes. We're principled. It's not the ends
justify the means, because we don't want the country to

(01:24:42):
be torn apart just to get our way. We're not
willing to do that. We're not the type of people
to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I know
contextually that doesn't makes sense, but I mean you understand
my meaning, or at least historically it doesn't make sense.

(01:25:08):
But anyway, yes, I do know the origin of that story.
We're not going to cut off our nose to despite
our face, We're not going to sell the tires of
the car for gas money. We ain't going to do
that or principled, we have more sense than that. We

(01:25:32):
don't have to break the law to make sure that
the laws get followed. The Democrat party is the ends
justify the mean. They were willing to and they did
break the law. They exceeded their authority, They did things
they were not supposed to do in order to put
somebody away that they do not like. I mean, that's

(01:25:58):
the reality of this. That's what happened. So the Department
of Justice opens a grand jury investigation into Letitia James
Tied to Trump civil case. And one of the things

(01:26:19):
that I'm actually kind of excited about on this is
because this case, even though the transgression happened in Florida,
this goes all the way to the Biden administration. And

(01:26:39):
what I am excited about is in discovery, there's a
lot of places this case can go. Do you honestly
understand the gravity of this, This can uncover hugely uncover

(01:27:01):
a part of a conspiracy that went all the way
to the White House, multiple presidencies. That's why this is
significant because in investigating this, in using evidence to prove

(01:27:25):
what happened, the politicize attack on Trump, I mean, Letitia
James went to DC and spoke to the President multiple meetings.

(01:27:47):
Discovery is going to air out the dirty laundry, and
the Democrats are terrified of what they're going to find out, terrified,
and this trial is not taking place in a Democrat stronghold,
so they won't be able to control the outcome. This

(01:28:09):
has taking place in Florida. They are not going to
be able to control the media. We have mainstream media
now we have x Or. We don't just have mainstream
media now we have x we have Rumble, we have
all kinds of other private publications and places to get

(01:28:31):
the word out. They will not be able to control
the narrative. They won't be able to control the outcome
because this is not taking place in a Democrat stronghold
and they don't have control of the messaging anymore. They
are freaking out, They're terrified, running scared because this case

(01:28:52):
goes all the way to the White House and can
expose so many different things. It can lay bare just
how far up the food chain this thing goes. That
is all I got for y'all today. That is, it's
do me a favorite. Head on over to the ho
Host Show dot com. Check out the website. I got
some things that I'm working on on this side, trying
to get some things put together. I'll have more on

(01:29:14):
that at a later date. Anyway, I'm over on social
media a handful of different places, the ones that I
actually participate on, which isn't many of them. I'm going
to be honest with you, the ho Host Show. We're
at the ho Host Show or ho Host Show, whichever,
truth X, Facebook, all these other kinds of places. Anyway,
you also have yourself for a great one, and I will,

(01:29:34):
dang it, I'll see you in the next one. This
has been the ho Host Show. For more information, 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.

Speaker 3 (01:30:04):
As at at