Speaker 1: 0:13

is kind of my winter jacket, so right, and it's cold out, okay.

Speaker 2: 0:18

So anyway, back to the subject at hand, adam boogus, here, where's what the furnace is, did you? Did you click it to off? I mean, oh, there we go. Oh, now you hear how quiet it got. Now, all right, hokey pokey politics podcast here, episode four, episode four adam boogus Filone.

Speaker 1: 0:36

Welcome to the show, let's jump right in. Oh, okay, so last episode we ended saying that we were going to talk about the TikTok ban, so you have an issue with this?

Speaker 2: 0:49

I'll let you fire away. I mean, I don't know if it's an issue. I do have an issue, you're right. I mean it was all a ploy. The whole thing was a ploy. The law never said anything about TikTok having to shut it off. It just said it had to come out of the Apple Store and the Google Play, whatever. That's all it had to do. But TikTok came out and they were like we're going to shut it down because of Biden, and they didn't say that. But more or less, they're going to shut it down because nothing happened because of biden, and they didn't say that. But more or less they're going to shut it down because nothing happened. And then, I have no doubt, when trump met with them, it was like hey, here's what I need you to do. I need you to shut it down, and then I need you to make me the hero and bring it back and give me a thanks for bringing it back, even though he didn't do a damn thing. That is what I think happened.

Speaker 1: 1:38

Naturally. What else would it be? Because if you can attach anything nefarious to Trump, you will do it, even without any evidence, even without any support, even without any reasonable logic behind it. Reasonable logic, yeah, you have zero evidence. That that's the case. I'm not even saying that's not the case. I'm just saying you like to, you like to do that, you like to make all these nefarious propositions about trump twice now, well it is. It's nefarious in your mind, is it not nefarious in your mind, is? Is?

Speaker 2: 2:18

nothing. Has trump never done anything in the world? That is really ignorant. Or has he ever done anything to gloat his ego?

Speaker 1: 2:25

I don't have you a problem with you calling out things that he does. What I have a problem with is you only play it on one side. What do you mean?

Speaker 2: 2:36

oh my god what do you mean? What are you talking about?

Speaker 1: 2:38

really did. Joe biden is one of the most unscrupulous people on the planet and you have means you have. No, you have nothing to say about him.

Speaker 2: 2:50

Yeah, I don't like. I don't like a lot of the things he did. I'm not a huge fan.

Speaker 1: 2:54

I think he was just but you, but you never, you never attach you know. Nefarious is the only word I can think of today. Apparently, that was on the calendar. That's the day that was on the word of the day you you never attach intent to things that happen without evidence when it comes to people on the left, but you always do it to people on the right. It's a constant thing. We we talked about it in the last episode okay, I'm, I'm yeah genuinely curious, because I I I don't that.

Speaker 1: 3:29

That was the end of my statement oh, that was the oh.

Speaker 2: 3:32

Okay, fair, I don't, I don't. I don't see that as being a true statement. I've been plenty later in this episode. You will see that as being a true statement.

Speaker 1: 3:38

I've been plenty critical. Later in this episode you will see it as being a true statement.

Speaker 2: 3:43

So it's coming, it's coming, it's coming. It's a freight train, it's coming. There's another example coming.

Speaker 1: 3:48

I am ready for it, yeah, so anyway, can we get there already?

Speaker 2: 3:51

TikTok, we can if you're done with TikTok. No, I mean, I think TikTok, the guy started it. The guy started the fight. He started the fire Sure, Years ago when he was pissed off because a bunch of TikTokers came out against him and he got really upset about it. This was 21, 2020. He got really mad about it because they were they were taking seats at his rallies. Like it became a big TikTok thing where they were taking the seats from his rallies and people really weren't showing up. So his rallies were small because these young millennial whatever the age I don't remember what's even under millennials, but the next one, Gen Z, Gen Z people were getting, like they were being funny and being smart, but they were taken away from him. So he got pissed off. Let's ban TikTok. Well, he started it. He got the fire rolling, got his, his people involved. The left got involved because you know, now it's, oh my gosh, the Chinese have our data. They have our data. If they want our data, they've got every one of our phones. They've got, they made every.

Speaker 1: 4:48

They make half the equipment in our cars, Like if they want the data, they're going to get it. So there's another example where the reason, the reason Trump said he wanted TikTok banned was for national security. Okay, but you've got this behind-the-curtain. Look, you know Wizard of Oz style where you go no, no, no, no, no, it's not because of national security, it's because of his ego. Okay, he just wanted it done because of his ego.

Speaker 2: 5:16

And when you allow it to continue, then I mean this this is exactly right so. So, if it's such a natural, it can't be true because it's donald trump. It's a national security risk. We can just kick the can down the road another 90 days.

Speaker 1: 5:30

Well, that's, that's. That's what I'm saying. I mean, that's a valid point. I have an issue with that because if he started the ball rolling for that reason in 2020 and then Joe Biden picked up that mantle, he did but didn't ban it. That's the issue I have is it is. If this truly is a national security issue, why are we toying?

Speaker 2: 5:52

around with it? Right, we are, because it's not a national security issue, right.

Speaker 1: 5:57

That's my point.

Speaker 2: 5:59

You can't tell me that. There's a 20-something-year-old person out there right now that gives a crap. If China has the info and the data on their phone, they don't care. It's out there for the world. You're on all these other websites and they went to freaking Red Note. It literally says on there that you have to condone the Chinese government, you have to agree with their policies to be on it and they're like, except like.

Speaker 1: 6:24

If your claim is that china is a national security threat through tiktok, okay, and you carry a samsung or an iphone in your pocket everywhere you go, yes, then to me you're not serious about that issue 100.

Speaker 1: 6:40

Why are we agreeing? We're agreeing Stop Right, so we have to change the topic because it's not as fun. It's not as fun, but it's still the same thing. And Trump didn't stop the law. I mean he didn't. He didn't say we're not going to ban it. What he said was I'm going to give them 75 additional days to find a buyer or to sell it.

Speaker 2: 7:02

That's the problem. He doesn't have that authority number one. And he didn't have to have the authority, which is the only reason he could do it. All they did was go back to what the original law said, and that is that it can't be in the Google Play and the iPhone app store. That's the only thing the law said. So they came and they said we're going to get rid of it. And then Trump's like I'm going to work on bringing it back. And then the guy whatever his name, whatever what's his name I have no idea, I don't remember his name Xi Jinping or whatever, I don't know. I like the guy, I follow him even.

Speaker 2: 7:38

I've don't know I the guy. I like the guy like I follow him, even like I. I've liked him all along. He seems like the communist dictator. No, he's, he's not like. I watched him go up against congress when they were talking about all of this and he is like china has nothing to do with this. Our servers are here in the states. Like he fought a really good battle changing.

Speaker 1: 7:53

I can't like what it's well, china has a long-standing history of telling the truth.

Speaker 2: 7:59

Don't get me wrong, I agree, but the thing is so. He meets with Trump. Trump's like I'm going to save the day, I'm going to save the day and then I'm going to go back to just doing what the law says already and thanks to Donald Trump, we're back. No, it's not thanks. Donald Trump did nothing. He did not help you here. You are just using this as a crutch to help him out because you're going regardless of whether he did or not.

Speaker 1: 8:23

Regardless of whether you believe he did or not, tiktok believes he did no, and so it's okay for them to say that.

Speaker 2: 8:31

Fair. It is a private company. You're absolutely correct. They can 100% you. You that is. You're absolutely correct, they can 100%. And I can also say that I don't necessarily want to open their app anymore because I don't agree with what they did. I think they're jumping into politics when it isn't their business. This guy started this and now you're jumping on his freaking back like he's the king and he's not a king. He doesn't have the authority to overrule law. A law was passed in Congress. He didn't overrule anything. He doesn't have that authority.

Speaker 1: 8:59

The law was passed. The law was upheld by the Supreme Court. He signed an executive order and I'm agreeing with you here. I don't know that he has the authority to do that. He signed an executive order giving them an additional 75 days. I think that's going to be legally challenged which these executive orders have gone way overboard.

Speaker 2: 9:18

It's not just.

Speaker 1: 9:19

Trump, stop, stop. Listen. Fair is fair. I don't like the executive order style of getting stuff done. This show sucks. It does. I want things done properly and I think executive orders. Now, the problem is both sides are doing it, so both sides have to play that game. It's not my favorite way of getting things done.

Speaker 2: 9:37

You know what you haven't seen, though. You haven't seen anybody on the left go to an arena and have them read off what the what the executive order is, as he signs it and then holds it up to show a stupid freaking signature on every right, because the right believes in transparency. So they'll just oh they'll just tell you ahead of time what they're gonna do. Do His ego.

Speaker 1: 9:56

No, absolutely not. Yeah, absolutely not. That's called transparency, which is what the left claims to want but never has.

Speaker 2: 10:02

That's like calling a loose boat bark walnut tree self-pruning. That's what that is. I have no idea what that means.

Speaker 1: 10:10

That's what that is. That's exactly what that is. It is not.

Speaker 2: 10:18

I'll give you that one if you'll give me nefarious. I'm so ready for the next chapter. Are we done with TikTok Sure?

Speaker 1: 10:24

It is what it is, all right. So let's talk about the Elon Musk Nazi salute that you claim he did. Did you watch it? I did.

Speaker 2: 10:33

Did you watch his entire speech? Yes, did you watch his entire speech? Yes, and you're going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that was not a Nazi salute no-transcript.

Speaker 1: 10:56

It really bothers me that you would jump on this bandwagon, have you? I watched it. I watched it too, and I also heard him say from my heart to yours, after he said it.

Speaker 2: 11:08

After he said it, it doesn't matter.

Speaker 1: 11:10

That still explains the intent.

Speaker 2: 11:12

And I have watched Hillary Clinton say those exact words and go yeah, that's not. I have watched chest pound and straight arm.

Speaker 1: 11:20

I have watched aoc give a speech where she shot her hand straight out three times in a row while she was speaking, just like this. Okay, and I'm not telling you she did a nazi salute, I'm telling you she just made a josh's, like he is.

Speaker 2: 11:38

I mean, you're right, sorry, sorry, no, I said that said it back.

Speaker 1: 11:41

Exactly right. Oh, I'm glad you finally admit it. You're right. She's not anti-fascist like he is. Yeah, did you know? Did you know he was? He was one of the one of the people that came out strongly against the anti-Semitism that the left was demonstrating on college campuses when israel and hamas went to war this last time. Okay, what does that have to do with germany? That's not what nazis do. Nazis are are semitic, they're not. And or nazis are nazis you got me, nazis are. Are, you know, anti-semitic?

Speaker 2: 12:15

okay, he is not okay, so the one one that's.

Speaker 1: 12:19

That's the issue we're using Okay, so so again, context and intent matter.

Speaker 2: 12:24

You realize the alt-right, that the actual Nazis are cheering what he did.

Speaker 1: 12:30

Of course they are, because they're doing the same thing you're doing, which is jumping on some nonsensical gesture and trying to turn it into something it's not.

Speaker 2: 12:39

So of course they are then why wouldn't he come out immediately after and say guys, just so you know, that was not a nazi salute, he did he did?

Speaker 1: 12:46

he came out and talked about how nonsensical the left is. This is what the left does. You lose. Who lose? The? Uh? You lose the election, and so now everybody is a nazi. So here's what the right does.

Speaker 2: 12:58

This is what the left does. The, the right, the literal right, goes out. They, they, they, they, they dump a bunch of their cash to win an election. Okay, that's what elon did he dumped a bunch of his cash, yeah, to win an election and you're right, nobody with money invested in the democrat election.

Speaker 1: 13:17

and, and you're right, you're right.

Speaker 2: 13:18

So he comes out, he says the stuff he says, he acts the way he acts. You want to see Trump get upset. When they start talking about president Elon and president Musk, trump goes through the roof. They've been doing it for a while. The right, the left has been doing it. It's freaking hilarious because they are saying that he, he is Elon's puppet because Elon got him elected.

Speaker 2: 13:40

Fair, I don't disagree at all. But when you have the right, we see what it is. I saw him say what he said slap his heart straight, arm out, turn around, slap his heart straight, arm out and then say, from my heart to yours, if I guarantee to you, if you go to the streets of Germany and do exactly what he did, you're going to jail Period Point blank. If any one of these business owners that are here in town that are like, oh, it wasn't a big deal, I want you to stand out in front of Hy-Vee and I want you to do the exact same gesture he just did and see how it works out for business it ain't going to fly, but the right wants us to look at that and say no, no, no, no.

Speaker 2: 14:20

That's not what he meant, that's what he said. That's what he meant.

Speaker 1: 14:24

No, what he said was from my heart to you. After he did it, what does it matter if it was before, during or after?

Speaker 2: 14:30

Because he's doing the Nazi freaking salute.

Speaker 1: 14:33

He's a goofy dude who makes goofy gestures all the time, and it wasn't straight. Why can't we say way off to the side, then why can't?

Speaker 2: 14:41

we say you know what people do salute? People do stupid stuff all the time. We do say that that's all we got to say this we don't have to agree with you.

Speaker 1: 14:49

Salute. This is where it went. It went straight out to the right.

Speaker 2: 14:52

It was not in front of him, okay, it was straight out to the right so do you want to start posting all the pictures of obama doing this and hillary doing this when they they're out there? I know and you know what, every single one of them. There's video of them and they're waving at the crowd and they just catch it at the right second. That's what the right does. So you want to talk?

Speaker 1: 15:09

about what the left does. That is exactly what the right does. I've only seen that posted, since this isn't just to show how ridiculous right because they.

Speaker 2: 15:17

What they won't do is they won't take accountability for their. I will take when. When Biden does something stupid, when Obama did something stupid, I would take accountability and say you know what? I agree that was dumb. But if Trump or Elon does it, oh no, that's not what they meant, that's not what they're, that's not what they're doing. Look at all these times the left did that. It's not, hey man, that guy was an idiot.

Speaker 1: 15:38

I just told you that I've watched AOC. Do this. I've watched Trump. I've watched Hillary do this.

Speaker 2: 15:48

I've watched Obama do this and I do not put that intent on them. I don't think they're Nazis.

Speaker 1: 15:50

None of them have. Don't know his mindset. You don't know it at all. I see You're going to sit. This is what I mean. You sit here. You're the man behind the curtain who knows everybody's deep motivations that they don't actually speak. And what they do speak doesn't matter. He said from my heart to yours, I think. Well, he said it after, so that doesn't matter, because his intent is he's a fascist and he's a dictator and he's a Nazi.

Speaker 2: 16:16

I think he is a Nazi sympathizer.

Speaker 1: 16:18

That's honestly one of the most deplorable things that you can call someone, and in this case, without any evidence, without with and actually with knowing his intent and knowing his meaning, you're still going to sit there and do that, I know that's what bothers me because I know you better than me.

Speaker 2: 16:35

Here's, here's here's my belief you were better. Here's my, let me put it that way. Here's my belief. If you have 10 germans and one nazi sitting at a dinner table eating, you don't have 10 germans and one nazi, you have 11 nazis. That's what you have, because they're okay with it. That's what I see in the right hand and in the right government right now. I see the fascist activities. I see them dismantling the government.

Speaker 1: 17:04

I see.

Speaker 2: 17:04

Trump coming in and trying to be a King. I see him already. He's coming in right now. He's signing executive orders.

Speaker 1: 17:11

Biden didn't do that, did Biden? Biden didn't sign any executive. Let me finish. Biden didn't just, didn't just give immunity or whatever. What pardons, ignorance? Didn't give pardons to people who didn't even need.

Speaker 2: 17:29

Absolutely, because he's not a king. I can. I can look at that and say that's absolutely ignorant and that that should be not allowed. One hundred percent. Why? Why is our judicial system so broken that I cannot?

Speaker 1: 17:36

First of all, I can't even believe this is. This is a discussion topic, because it's such a non-issue. It's so ridiculous that the this is what the left is clamping onto as the problem of the day. The problem of the day is this is it.

Speaker 2: 17:50

You have Donald Trump signing an executive order for the 14th Amendment, which is the birthright citizenship okay, which is where we're going next, and he has zero authority to do that. That is a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment has laws and it has and it has avenues to change it. What he is doing is saying I'm going to change it through an executive order, knowing the states are suing, which the states did. Can we? Can we?

Speaker 2: 18:14

and now it goes hold on the next session now it goes to the supreme court, where again they're bought and paid. So now we have just just subverted the entire constitution. We have just subverted it because this man wants to be king and this is the way he just. This might be the last episode of our pod.

Speaker 1: 18:34

This might be where it ends. Yeah, because these assertions you're making are just so ridiculous. They're not. I can't, even. I don't even. I thought we were going to have reasonable conversations and I can't have a reasonable conversation with somebody who makes the assertions that the Supreme Court is bought and paid for. I can't do that when all of the most ridiculous decisions by the Supreme Court have come from the Democrats on the supreme court and you're going to tell me that it is bought and paid for now only because it's majority republican no, I think it's bought and paid for because they regardless, because the democrats don't have backbones.

Speaker 2: 19:13

That's why it's okay. I misspoke.

Speaker 1: 19:15

I don't care why you think it's bought and paid for. Okay, I'll say that. Right, the fact that you think it's bought and paid for is asinine. It's just so asinine. Can you it's so hard to have a conversation have a reasonable conversation with someone who asserts Our Supreme Court justices taking lavish trips with people that have cases under their belt. Don't just say they are, show me they are.

Speaker 2: 19:41

There are 50 examples, literally 50 examples.

Speaker 1: 19:45

But show me that only one side is doing it. That's what you have to do. Show me that only one side is doing it.

Speaker 2: 19:52

I can't show you that two sides are doing it. I can't.

Speaker 1: 19:56

I'm telling you to show me that only one side is doing it. That's the only thing.

Speaker 2: 19:59

I can show you, please do. That's literally it, please do. I want to see it.

Speaker 1: 20:04

For next episode. But you can't just make statements like that. It's not a statement Without having evidence.

Speaker 2: 20:10

There have been Senate hearings over exactly this, and they're showing.

Speaker 1: 20:15

And tell me that that affected some outcome. It affects huge.

Speaker 2: 20:20

Then show me, listen, if you are the judge, any judge that is presiding over a case, and the defendant of that case comes to you and says, hey, I want to take your wife and family out for a trip, and you're like, sure, let's do it.

Speaker 1: 20:36

Yes, that's wrong. Show me that it happened.

Speaker 2: 20:39

That's what I'm saying. I will bring you that. That's why?

Speaker 1: 20:41

that's why judges recuse themselves from cases they should yeah, absolutely, just like the judge in new york should have recused himself.

Speaker 2: 20:49

Yes, but he did. Sure, I mean I don't, I don't, I don't know that case, but I, but I judge you definitely don't just say it. You have to show it to. Okay, I will show it to you and I will bring it to a later episode.

Speaker 1: 21:00

Otherwise it's just an asinine assertion. Okay, just like the Nazi salute Fair, it's absolutely asinine.

Speaker 2: 21:07

I think it's asinine to condone it. All right, we're there.

Speaker 1: 21:10

I'm not condoning it. I'm saying it's a non-issue. Okay, condoning it. Okay, if it was a nazi salute, I'd be the first one saying he shouldn't be doing it. It wasn't a nazi salute. He literally made his intent known. Fair, apparently it's not. I mean, no, we get, we, we have, we have the ability, we, we can disagree, but but don't sit here and suggest that I'm condoning a nazi salute either. I mean, in my opinion, that's what I see and I'm telling you that if it was a nazi salute, I would absolutely not condone. Okay, fair, and that's but it's not a nazi salute.

Speaker 1: 21:47

Okay, okay, that's fine if he, if he shows up tomorrow wearing a third right, you know what's funny. You know what's funny. I read an article today where a guy was trying to say that he made you know that he made a nazi salute. The guy's name was robert right, that's pretty you can't make that you can't, you can't make, you absolutely can't. All right, before we get into tiktok, or citizenship.

Speaker 2: 22:09

That might be a whole nother episode moving on to birthright citizenship.

Speaker 1: 22:17

Go ahead. You have all the contention today. I know I have.

Speaker 2: 22:20

I have the contention he doesn't have the authority to do that, and if he wants to end birthright citizenship, I think he absolutely should have that conversation, and it should be done by two-thirds vote in the house and senate and by 75 of the states, just like the every other constitutional amendment we have. So simple as that. Okay, so let's. The contents of the amendment are irrelevant in my mind so what did he?

Speaker 1: 22:45

what did he effectively do? I don't even know. So what do you? What was the executive order?

Speaker 2: 22:49

the executive order said that the birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is no longer allowed. So, but the constitution says all persons born here shall have citizenship period. There is no, it's not, it's not separated out, okay, so that's where the problem is. Now we come into a. What does that mean? What is the intent of that? Well, the intent of that for the last 100 years has been exactly what it is today.

Speaker 2: 23:27

But now, in order to please the very far right and we can poke at immigrants as much as we can we need to get rid of birthright citizenship, which, again, if that is something that the government or the states want, okay, I understand, I get it. The president doesn't have the authority to make that decision. That is a decision, that is an amendment. That's no different than Biden coming in and saying you know, I think I'm gonna get rid of the second amendment. I'm going to make an executive order to nullify the second amendment. I'm going to take it to the Supreme court that I just you know he had the ability to pack the Supreme court to take 12 other justices and bring them on. He could have done that. He could have written an executive order eliminating the second amendment and then it going to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court saying you know what he's right, it really doesn't say that. And now you just effectively dismantled the constitution through an executive order. That is my fear.

Speaker 1: 24:15

Well, I think that's exactly what he's doing. I think he's putting that in place in order to get the ball rolling, to get it up the chain, so that it is challenged.

Speaker 2: 24:24

But what happens when a Democrat does that with the Second Amendment? Well, they do.

Speaker 1: 24:29

No, they've never went to nullify it or nullify it. I'm actually glad you brought up the Second Amendment because I think it's a perfect example. So what does the second amendment say about the right to bear arms? It shall not be infringed, right, which means you can't do anything, okay. But democrats are constantly like where we're going to ban this, we're going to ban that, we're going to ban. Remember when trump banned bomb stocks? Yeah, we're, we're good, that's, it's a good example. We're going to ban bomb stock.

Speaker 1: 24:55

I'm not saying it's always on the left, no right, but whenever, but whenever anyone says you know what? Second Amendment yeah, you have the right to bear arms, but we're going to put these caveats in. Right, you've just violated the Constitution. The fact that we live in Illinois and I have to have a and you have to have a concealed carry permit to carry. That's an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. Okay, it's, that should go to the courts, to the Supreme Court, and then they decide Okay, and really there's no interpretation there. This is what you were talking about the other day in our last episode is you were saying you know, these things shouldn't be open to interpretation. Right, I agree with you, but they are, and that's why the Supreme Court is there to make that interpretation. So what does it mean when something shall not be infringed Right? Does that mean that the states now have have right to say you have to go through a 12 hour class, you have to pay us $400. We're going to give you this identification. I mean, ultimately you can protect yourself.

Speaker 1: 26:01

We will not infringe on your rights and, if you do, protect yourself we're going to put you in jail anyway.

Speaker 2: 26:04

That's going to happen 100%, ultimately. And I don't disagree with you. And, for those who don't know, I am one of the weird people that like guns. I had guns, but I'm also prior military, so I've had plenty of training our military, so I've had plenty of training. Uh, but anyway, I, I think the, the states have gotten away with it by saying I'm not going to infringe on your rights, I'm just going to make it what you can have it. I won't infringe on them. But in order to do that, you have to go through these hoops, which is an infringement. Not saying it's right, wrong or indifferent, like that's an infringement. Full disclosure. I don't necessarily want anybody any tom Dick and Harry carrying an AR-15 down the middle of an aisle at Walmart Even though they do anyway Sometimes.

Speaker 1: 26:46

Yeah, but you know what I'm saying, right, but the issue is, if I'm a law-abiding person which I am then I jump through all these hoops, right, the people who don't follow laws don't jump through those hoops and they carry guns anyway. 100%. The people who don't follow laws don't jump through those hoops and they carry guns anyway. And so now I'm taking the risk that I can't protect myself and my family because I'm trying to follow the law against people who don't follow the law A hundred percent. Okay, we can't change the subject.

Speaker 1: 27:09

So, anyway, back to citizenship. Back to citizenship. Yes, we've been practicing it that way. This is, I think that's. The issue, though, is that we've been practicing it a certain way that goes way beyond the intent of the amendment, and I think that's what he's trying to undo. I think he's trying to and I read an interesting article about it because somebody had asked I can't remember where it was, but you know had asked. You know, is this going to happen? And this person doesn't think it is. Well, yeah, he doesn't think it is, but he did lay out OK, the intent of this amendment was for slaves.

Speaker 1: 27:51

Ok, that was the whole intent, because back when slaves were freed, the Democrats didn't want the slaves to have citizenship. In fact, they were terrified that the slaves would be citizens, and so the Republicans said okay, let's have this amendment where this is how you get citizenship, but we're going to put in this caveat, and the caveat is so it's all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So that means that they are, they are underneath, you know, they, they recognize the United States as their legal authority and they are, they are allegiant to the United States, right? So that was the intent, right, and so that gave slaves the opportunity to become citizens, which I think we can agree is a good thing. But the only time it was challenged that I'm aware of in the Supreme Court was there was a Chinese man that his parents were here. They were not citizens. He was born here, he wanted to leave and come back, and there was a question about whether or not he would be allowed to, and so that was challenged. I honestly can't even remember the outcome as I'm sitting here, but the point being they were here legally. So the intent of the law is that if you're not a citizen but you're here legally and you have a child and your allegiance is to the US and you are under the jurisdiction of the US, then you are a citizen. That's the intent.

Speaker 1: 29:32

What this person laid out is, and I thought this was interesting because in case law, you have to adopt the meaning of the text. If the text is unambiguous, you have to adopt that meaning, and I think in this case we can agree. It's an unambiguous text, right, unless it leads to absurd circumstances, and he made the point that in this case you can make the argument that it does. It does lead to absurd circumstances, and that absurd circumstance is you prohibit unauthorized people from entering your country. There's a law it doesn't stop them from doing it, but you have a law that is supposed to prohibit that from happening, but at the same time, you're incentivizing them to do it by saying if you can get here and you can have a baby, that baby's automatically a citizen. Well, that's absurd.

Speaker 2: 30:23

Right, and the thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with that at all yeah I mean I think there are. There are going to be extenuating circumstances. I don't think you're going to have a blanket case. I think you could have somebody that is in the process and I don't even know if, if his son, if baron, was completely legal when baron was born, because his, his, his wife, was in the process of getting her citizenship when he was born here in the states but she was here legally, but she was going to.

Speaker 2: 30:48

Well, she's a citizen right going through the process. A citizen, what do you mean? Trump is a citizen, yeah, but he's not the one birthing the child.

Speaker 1: 30:57

So that's what I'm saying I think he's still the child, but again it needs to be so absurd that it needs to be something in my mind.

Speaker 2: 31:04

You have to admit that that is an absurd. I'm just saying you can't, you can't put a single blanket over it all. Yes, you can it needs? That's an absurd. It needs to be not an executive order, it needs to be a constitutional amendment that changes it and clarifies it, that's it. I'm not saying the merit of it is not, is not right.

Speaker 1: 31:27

But I wouldn't want people to be wrapped up that don't deserve. I think what he's doing is he's making the case that if you are here legally, then that amendment applies, but if you are an illegal, if you are illegal, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states and so therefore, that amendment doesn't apply to you, and so therefore, by executive order, I'm saying that amendment doesn't apply to you, and so therefore, by executive order, I'm saying that amendment doesn't apply to you anyway, and so you're not.

Speaker 1: 31:47

If you have a child, you're not getting citizenship. That child's not getting citizenship.

Speaker 2: 31:50

And I'm saying you can't supersede a amendment. But that's my point, he's clarifying an amendment with an executive order and that's not legal.

Speaker 1: 31:59

He's not superseding the amendment, he's saying the amendment doesn't apply.

Speaker 2: 32:04

Right and I'm so. That nullifies the amendment. If, if, if there is a child born today in Springfield, illinois, that isn't from an illegal family both, both parents, are illegal that child is here, he, he has single handedly taken his pen and changed the constitutional amendment that did support that that kid before to now.

Speaker 1: 32:26

Not I'm saying he doesn't have that authority, not saying it's not right, I'm not saying that the merit of it is not correct at all and I'm saying that according to what I've read, according to the intent, that it's been being done wrong for so long that he's making it right and he's doing it because he believes he has the authority, because the amendment doesn't apply Right now. That could be wrong, that could be right, I don't know, but in this case I'm good with it because I've always thought it was ridiculous that you can come here illegally and now your kids are suddenly citizens. I think that's absolutely deplorable.

Speaker 2: 33:11

It's a very weird law. No question it's a stupid law.

Speaker 1: 33:14

And the thing is, when that amendment was made, there were no immigrant laws Right, so they couldn't even foresee something like this being an example, that's.

Speaker 2: 33:27

the whole point in the amendment process is that the Constitution was never meant to be a finite document. It's always meant to be a living document that changes over time.

Speaker 1: 33:36

Yeah, I hear what you're saying and there's a procedure for doing it and there's a procedure and I would hate to get away from that procedure.

Speaker 2: 33:47

I think this gets the ball rolling and I'm okay with it suspending that opportunity until then. If the Supreme Court comes in and the Supreme Court says we don't have the authority to make this decision, we're kicking it back to Congress and Senate. That, in my mind, is the best case scenario. I think if Trump wants to get something started, he needs to do it the old school way and he needs to go to the politicians and say look, I want you guys to sign a law right now. That starts the process of making a constitutional amendment. Let's do it right. Instead, he didn't do it that way. He went, he went on the backside of things, which I can, I can promise you if, if that was on the other side and it was for an amendment that people didn't, this isn't. This amendment isn't a hill to die on. For me, the amendment obviously is important. This particular part of the amendment, it is what it is. I think it happens. I think it happens here quite a bit. It happens all the time, right, but I don't know how much it. I don't know like I don't know how a person who was born here goes to get a social security number without having all of the proper documentation of who your parents are and like I just don't know, like that I'm ignorant on, but I just there's a way to go about it and this isn't the way I get. Let's have the conversation. Let's get it started.

Speaker 2: 34:55

I don't think an executive order. I think an executive order is meant for federal only. That's why executive orders. When they say, you know, when he comes out and he says the federal government only recognizes two sexes, that has nothing to do with the states. That has nothing to do with an application that we put out today. That is federal government only and that's what executive orders are generally for.

Speaker 2: 35:14

Is executive stuff or federal stuff only? So when obama came out and said, hey, I'm making some new executive orders, that was that had to do with um, the military. That only affected them. It didn't affect anything in the states. It didn't affect me and you. It only affected federal employees and that's what executive orders are meant to be. Now they like I hate that they're gaining more and more power. I don't know that they're gaining power, they're just gaining. I don't understand how this one affects more than federal. What do you mean? Because it's a state level. It's all the way down to a single person. It's federal immigration law, okay, but I mean I'm talking federal, like federal employees and stuff is generally what executive orders, like they'll come in and say hey, I want federal employees to start doing this and I want them to, you know, knock it over time, or I want them, whatever it is I hear, and I want them to, you know, knock it over time, or I want them whatever.

Speaker 1: 36:04

it is like that I hear what you're saying. I don't understand what this has to do with birthright citizenship amendment.

Speaker 2: 36:12

What's that? What you're saying? The executive orders? They're not meant in my mind.

Speaker 1: 36:29

They were never meant to to, to go out and try to change something within the Constitution or try to change something that is a state related issue as well. Well, again, that's because I I don't think he is. I think the way he looks at this is I'm not trying to change the amendment, I'm trying to enforce the amendment as it's written because I I think he believes that. No, he's, he's obviously a nazi. I think he believes that the way the amendment is written was hitler. He believes that the way the amendment is written Was Hitler a king. That the way the amendment is written, that it doesn't apply to illegals and their children that are born here when they're here illegally. Okay, I think that. So he's not trying to change anything, right, he's trying to enforce it the way that he believes it's written. Okay.

Speaker 1: 37:04

So now that's going to. I'm sure that's going to enforce it the way that he believes it's written. So now that's going to, I'm sure that's going to find its way up the chain. I'm sure it is. Again, I like the idea that this puts a stay on what I believe is nonsense, which is you come here illegally, you have a kid, that kid's now a citizen. I think that's nonsense. If this puts a stay on that, that's fine, and I think the reason that he's feeling the pressure to do it is because it's been such a crap show the last four years and those borders have been so open and there are so many more illegals here now that we are going to be overrun by birth citizenship from illegal aliens if we don't do something about it right now.

Speaker 2: 37:49

Okay, all the more reason to have a constitutional amendment. I don't agree, we do. We do have one To amend it.

Speaker 1: 37:55

I don't think it needs to be amended. I think that's the point. I think it just needs to be enforced the way it was intended to be in the beginning, and I think that's what he's doing, or that's what he's making an attempt to do.

Speaker 2: 38:05

Okay, I mean it makes sense.

Speaker 1: 38:10

Yeah, I mean. Meanwhile you have you know how many, how many Democrats voted against the Lake and Riley act.

Speaker 2: 38:19

Oh, those are so stupid.

Speaker 1: 38:20

No, those aren't stupid.

Speaker 2: 38:21

Those are freaky. Those are so stupid. No, those aren't stupid. Those are freaking ignorant. Those are not stupid. Those are only those are not stupid. Those are no different than the little. How many voted against it? I have no idea, because I don't care, of course you don't, because it's another one of those ignorant? Of course you don't. It's a soundbite. It's the same thing they do every year, right?

Speaker 1: 38:46

matter but Musk giving a speech where he makes some ridiculous gesture that has to be the national news for the next five weeks.

Speaker 1: 38:49

This is why I didn't want Trump to win right here. This exact example, this Elon Musk example, is exactly why I didn't want Trump to win, why I didn't want him to run again, why I wanted it to be someone else. Because I like what Donald Trump does. I like what he does for the country, I like the policies he puts in place. What I don't like is the left's stupid, ridiculous overreaction to every tiny thing that happens and the way they try to spin it and the way they lie and the way they claim this faux virtue, signaling BS that we now have to endure for the next four years that we had to endure the first four years he was in office. I can't stand it. Here it goes. I mean, it took two days and it's already starting.

Speaker 2: 39:32

Do you remember when Obama wore a tan suit? No, do you remember when Obama's wife showed her shoulders?

Speaker 1: 39:39

No, I try not to pay too much attention. Both times.

Speaker 2: 39:42

It was a week of news that, oh my God, obama wore a tan suit. I mean, that's how ignorant both sides get.

Speaker 1: 39:51

What they didn't say was Obama wore a tan suit. He's a Nazi.

Speaker 2: 39:55

No, because he's not doing Nazi stuff.

Speaker 1: 39:57

That's what they didn't do. Okay, they called him a socialist, and it's going to be constant. I will point it out on this show when it happens. They called him a socialist and it's going to be constant. I will point it out on this show when it happens. Okay, and I'm telling you, it's going to be constant. It's going to be ridiculous. It's going to be a bunch of faux outrage by the left over everything that he and anyone in his Remember Benghazi Does, and it's going to be nonstop and it's going to drive me crazy, right.

Speaker 2: 40:19

The right does it when they're not in power. The left does it when they're not in power. It happens every time. Benghazi went on for years and it was a witch hunt. That's all the news wanted to talk about.

Speaker 1: 40:34

Those are actual issues, though. Are you talking about when Hillary landed under sniper fire? Is that what we're talking about? No, oh, you mean when she didn't respond to the call for more? Security and people got killed, okay, so that's not a real issue. We shouldn't have been talking. No, I'm not saying. I'm saying that that's something we should have just the right and not, though.

Speaker 2: 40:54

Well, but then as soon as trump hits office, there's 14 soldiers killed and but like no, it just happens it's that that's war. It sucks. But when it happens under Hillary, it's like, oh, she's a secretary of state and she doesn't know what she's doing. She's terrible when somebody requests help.

Speaker 1: 41:09

When somebody requests additional security because they know something's about to happen and when nothing is done about it, and when there's people on the ground nearby saying please, let us go. And they're being told no, you have to stay where you are.

Speaker 2: 41:24

Yes, that's a problem and that thing is, I don't disagree, it's a problem either, but and that's an issue but it doesn't need to be a four year. Does it need to be a four year investigation and a and yes, a new cycle where ultimately, she was found that she didn't do anything wrong in the end. Yeah, and that was, that was legitimate regardless.

Speaker 1: 41:44

That Regardless, that's not her making some goofy gesture that then gets turned into six weeks of we are entering the Third Reich of the United States. Well, we'll see. I hope it's wrong, it's total insanity. That's what it is.

Speaker 2: 41:58

I don't disagree.

Speaker 1: 41:59

And it's full outrage. Nobody really cares on the left. You guys don't really care, you're just acting like you care because it plays good for your base.

Speaker 2: 42:08

I think this guy this guy being who he is, you don't know who he is I'm saying just as a person you know buying Twitter. You know the clearly I mean he obviously he's on the spectrum. He said it, everybody says it, it's fine. He uses that as a people, use that as an excuse of why he is the goofy in the way he is. Whatever, I don't care, but I, if you're going to be in the national spotlight, you have to watch what you say and watch what you do, or you're going to fan the flames of the people who get excited over stuff like this, which is the very far alt-right, is really excited right now. The left is like dude, that guy's an idiot and he's the one that's making a lot of calls in this country right now and that's terrifying. No, the left isn't saying he's an idiot.

Speaker 1: 42:57

They're saying he's a Nazi. I mean, okay, huge difference, he's an idiot.

Speaker 2: 43:00

He's an idiot. I mean, okay, Huge difference, he's an idiot. He's an idiot Like is he a Nazi? Do I think Elon Musk is a Nazi? Absolutely not.

Speaker 1: 43:08

You've been you just do. I you said for the first 15 minutes of the show you thought he was a Nazi.

Speaker 2: 43:13

Do I think he's doing this to to fan the flames of of their fan base? That's a question, oh my.

Speaker 1: 43:20

God, that's the question. That's, yeah, he's. He's dog whistling, that's what he's doing. That's your favorite word, dog whistle. Here we go. He's doing something. We have to end this show. We're too long already. They're just. We're too long already. Nobody's gonna even listen to them.

Speaker 2: 43:33

They're gonna love it yeah, they're gonna be like these guys. How are these guys friends? I still like he's gonna kick him in the nuts when he leaves. I still like you. I still like he's going to kick him in the nuts when he leaves.

Speaker 1: 43:43

I still like you.

Speaker 2: 43:44

I still like you too, all right.

Speaker 1: 43:45

Next week or next episode, I guess we'll talk about a Supreme court. You brought it up. Okay, I'm happy to talk about anything else. No, it's fine, we can. We can talk about anything else, you know what.

Speaker 2: 43:55

Hold on. It comes up there's like four days where there's going to be.