Freedmen's affairs radio
This program will focus on political, social and cultural concerns for descendants of American slaves who are the freedmen of 1863 and the foundational black Americans of this nation. The intended targeted demographic are generation x, millennials, and like minded people who are committed to the fight for reparations and justice for FBA and freedmen
Freedmen's affairs radio
Lost and Turned Out
Only the other sleep. Got distracted on the way to grandmother's house. Oh, and that golden king who might have changed the ways. And now she's turned out. Peace, peace.
Speaker 2:Peace and welcome back Freedman's Affairs Radio Freedman's Affairs Radio Freedman's Network Out the gate. We want to thank you for tapping back in again this week for a short visit and a nice little sit down and the music you hear, that you hear playing in the background is that of the Whispers and as you know, as you know, a few days ago we lost one of the twins who one of the founders of the Whispers, and that was Walter Scott of the Whisperers. And that was Walter Scott and he has passed away due to stomach cancer and some other ailments. Brother was 81 years old and we're going to miss him dearly and we don't have any statements from the family as yet.
Speaker 2:I'm not sure when the memorial. I don't have any statements from the family as yet. I'm not sure when the memorial will be. I don't know if they already did a memorial for him or not. I don't have that information. But nonetheless our brother's gone and we dedicate this program this morning up here for you, our beloved brother Walter Scott. Oh man, beautiful music, beautiful. This was a beautiful song. It was about a young girl. I think she was out there in that life and to listen, close they're calling you Olivia.
Speaker 2:Oh man, great music, great music.
Speaker 1:Lost and turned out. Olivia, where's your wind? She's lost and turned out. Don't buy that guy. No, it's a lie. Lost and turned out. Olivia the slave. Lost and turned out. Don't let him drive you to your grave. Lost and turned. Olivia, where's your mind? Lost and turned, he pulls you down all the time. Lost and turned. Olivia, stop and think. Lost and turned, he's taking you to his grave. Lost and turned.
Speaker 2:Oh man, I can never get enough of that. I can never get enough. One of my favorite tunes from the Whispers and that was some of their earlier works Olivia, that was the name of that that song lost and turned out and um, yeah, so we dedicating this, this, this morning's program, to our brother, walter scott. Um, I think he passed on june 25th. Let me see, let let's get the skinny on our brother. Let's get the skinny. Hold on, let me get the details. Hold on, let's see, can I. Okay, here it is yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, here it is All right. Let's see, can we get. What are they saying here? Okay, I don't want to play any videos or any statements. I don't want to play any videos or any statements. It's yeah, okay.
Speaker 2:Walter Scott of the R&B group the Whispers has died at age 81. People can conform. The musician died six months after being diagnosed with cancer, according to the Los Angeles Sentimental. The R&B group is known for hits like and the Beat Goes On and Rock Study. Oh yeah, oh yeah. He died in. He was born in Fort Worth, texas, in 1943, september 23rd, and he passed away at 81 years old. Northridge, los Angeles, california. And the music group Whispers was founded in 1963. And they've been going strong ever since. I believe they was touring up until recently.
Speaker 2:But, yeah, that's it with our brother. Man, that's it with our brother and, once again, family, thank you for coming back and tapping back in with us. Coming back and tapping back in with us and we're glad to announce that we are now in 34 cities, no, 34 countries, 34 countries globally and 310 cities. So, thank you everyone, thank you all of you. All of you, united states, all from all around the globe colorado, our family up there in greeley, colorado, and and um, the british indian ocean territory. United kingdom, um, they listening to us in the philippines, uh, every, any. Bangladesh, I seen people listening in bangladesh. So, yeah, yeah, we, we appreciate all of you, we appreciate, we love all of you. Keep coming back, keep coming back, and we're going to always try to make things real special for you up here.
Speaker 2:And you know, before we, we're going to take a short time out and go to some of the sponsors. We're going to take a short time out and go to some of the sponsors and before we do that, before we do that, we want to give you the knowledge, the math for today, and that is. That is what is going on. What is going on? Okay, yeah, all right, yeah, the knowledge. The math for the day on today is the uh 70 first day of july of 2025, and the math for today is knowledge the the first day of of the month of july in 2025. The math is knowledge and, uh, most people.
Speaker 2:When you ask them what is knowledge, what does it mean, what does that word mean, they will tell you well, knowledge is information. You know, we have an old saying and how we used to say knowledge is power. Knowledge is power to a degree, to a degree, but knowledge is not information. Information is data. Knowledge can, can put you on a track to understanding information, but knowledge is not information. Information is data on a track to understanding information, but knowledge is not information. Information is data.
Speaker 2:What knowledge?
Speaker 2:Knowledge is synonymous with things like fact or the condition of knowing something, with familiarity gained through experience, or or association, acquaintance with, with, with, with something, or an understanding of a science, art or a technique, the, the fact or condition of being aware, a conscious awareness, consciousness, um, the range of one's understanding of something, the circumstance of your apprehension of something, or truth or fact through reasoning, cognition.
Speaker 2:These are what are synonymous with knowledge. So let us keep that in mind as we go forward for the day. Let us keep that in mind and go forward for the day. Let us keep that in mind, and we're going to go hear from the sponsors real quick and then we can come back and we're going to have a little talk. We're going to have some little talks, but right now we're going to go and hear from the sponsors Before we get started. We'll be right back. We get started. We'll be right back because we can't. Focus is to cultivate an environment of ease and comfort for respect to individual culture and style and to bring about a mastery of your passions and effect, developing a connoisseur's lifestyle.
Speaker 3:since the connoisseur's lifestyle, since the connoisseur's lifestyle is one of refinement, distinction and class with the ability to bridge the gap of race creed or status we at Cosby can incorporate and instill this ideology while maintaining a sense of sophistication. We are dedicated to networking new ideas about business, drinking, partying, fashion and living life, Because we can't wait.
Speaker 4:Empress Hair Salon. Come down to Empress Hair Salon where the hairstyles will have you looking like royalty. We specialize in Afro-American hairstyles that turn heads and set trends. Services include relaxers, washing sets, lock maintenance, quick weaves, sew-ins, lace front and glueless wig installs and lashes. Grand opening special starting May 5th 2025. Get 20% off all services. Just share your Empress experience on any of our social media platforms to claim your glam discount. Location Barker, cypress and Morton, right off the Katy Freeway. Call the Empress 832-267-2887. Step into Empress Hair Salon and step out looking like royalty, because your hair deserves the crown.
Speaker 1:You got it, you got it, you got it, you got it. Your hair deserves the crown. If you didn't want to be in here, I know you got gold. If you didn't want to shake that thing, hit me with the beat.
Speaker 2:Hey, cause it makes me sing. I know you got gold. Hey, if you didn't want to be in here, I know you got. Hey, if you didn't want to be in here. I know you got the feeling the way you move over there. Yeah, we back family back in and, once again, thank you for tapping back in today and we're just going to. We're not going to stay long, just going to have a brief little talk about a few things. Get a bed up in here. Where do we start first? I got a couple of things to talk about.
Speaker 2:You know, it's been a very big, very big month for President Donald Trump. Right, he's got some major, major wins in the Supreme Court I think they were at the end of this section session and court, uh, I think they were at the end of their section session and, um, he, he got the um, the thing done with the birthright citizenship. They, they crushed that and um, now I want you to understand something this is not. This is executive order. I think it goes back up to the Supreme Court in October for to for them to decide whether this is going to be codified into law or into legislation. I should say so. It's not legislation as as we speak now, but but the executive order goes into an effect in 30 days from now and about, well, about 29, 28 days from now, because I think it was, um, as of friday, it was 30 days. So now, uh, you know he's been talking about how the the 14th amendment has been, was something that was created for the babies of slaves, or the enslaved, I should say, and the descendants. Now you got some legal people out here. I think they're left-leaning and they're trying to say, well, this is, this opens up the door for for American citizens, black American citizens, fba, the freedmen, for some of us to be deported, and I think I think there may be some language that that that can be interpreted that way if you play with the language, but that's not what I don't. I don't think that's the intent for this play with the language, but that's not what I don't. I don't think that's the intent for this and I think that's a a fear-mongering tactic that some of the people that that are anti-Trump are trying to uh push that narrative. Um, I'm trying to see if I can find something where he was talking about that. Oh, that was no, that was too long ago. Okay, um, you know, he pushing that mega bill, that big, beautiful bill they've been talking about. And let me see, I can't find any.
Speaker 2:Now that I'm I'm in the show and I'm trying to find clips for it. I can't. Let's see. Let's see here, what do we got here? No, that's not it.
Speaker 2:Birthright citizenship I can't, it seems like I can't find anything. A quick clip, because I don't want to go into a whole, a whole drawn out, you know, for him to be be doing a long speech on it. Shakespeare, that's not it. No, no, no, no, because those are left-wing. See, because I'm trying to find something that's not left-wing friendly, I should say I should just go to ground news. That's not it.
Speaker 2:What was recently come on? No, I'm, I'll tell you what I do, but anyway, um, to make a long story short, this is what the ruling has been and it is took in the way the power of the lower courts to, to, to put on on injunctions to block things that he's trying to do in regard to the birthright citizenship Right. That's, that's what. That's what this ruling was about with the Supreme court, and I think, I think, all of them ruled on it, except for like three of them, and judge, katarji Brown, wrote a dissension on it. She wrote a dissension and her, if I'm not mistaking her dissension, stated that if parents no, no, that was for something else, that was for something else. I'll cover that right after there was another Supreme Court ruling she wrote the dissension on.
Speaker 2:But as far as the birthright citizenship, I'm trying to find something that will give us a quick little rundown of that. Okay, let me see, it's not. Um, okay, here it is, here, it is all right, let's go to this. And the left, the democratic left, uh, they're pulling their hairs out about this. Hold on, let me see. This is from ABC. I didn't want to use them, but you know, what can you do? What can you do? I'm trying to get this done for you guys so we can get you out of here. Hold on, give me one second, it'll be right up.
Speaker 7:This is an ABC News special report. Good morning, I'm Wade Johnson in New York. We're coming on the air because the Supreme Court has just released a potential landmark decision impacting the future of birthright citizenship in the US. The justices were asked to roll back nationwide injunctions against the president's attempt to redefine the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. It's been in place for more than 150 years, but now, in a 6-3 split, the conservative majority ruled that President Trump can move forward with implementing his birthright citizenship change, except for those who brought the case the 22 states and a group of pregnant immigrant women who brought that case. So it's not directly getting at the 14th Amendment here, but this will have a nationwide impact. Let's go ahead and bring in our Devin Dwyer, abc's senior Washington reporter, who's been following the Supreme Court on this Devin. It's not as straightforward as I think a lot of people were perhaps expecting or hoping to hear, so break down what this actually means.
Speaker 3:Well, this was a big surprise, whit, and this is coming from the youngest conservative justice on the Supreme Court, justice Amy Coney Barrett. Six to three, as you said, in a big win for Donald Trump, saying he can move forward with that executive order that he issued on day one changing the definition of citizenship in this country. Practically speaking, it means the president can, in the next 30 days, begin to develop guidelines for how he would implement that. It does not mean, however, that this executive order is free from future legal challenge. Legal cases in three different districts will continue.
Speaker 3:On the merits, the Supreme Court, in oral argument in this matter, did signal that it was skeptical that it could stand up to legal muster. But at this point the court is really weighing in on the ability of individual judges in districts around the country to block a president's action nationwide. And what Justice Barrett said today is that an individual federal court judge does not have that authority to broadly block a president, the judge. He or she can block an individual while a case is being litigated and in this case that was upheld. So you know, this order, as it's implemented, cannot apply to those 22 states. It's going to be messy. It cannot apply to those particular pregnant women that are challenging this. But elsewhere in the country, and at the very least in the planning stages, the president can move forward, and that is a significant and surprising win for him.
Speaker 7:It sure is, devin Dwyer, thank you. Please stand by for a moment because I think it's worth going back to the language here in the 14th Amendment, again ratified after the Civil War, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Of course, the Trump administration trying to make changes to that, that's what triggered these series of lawsuits and then ended back at the Supreme Court. Let's bring in our ABC News legal contributor, sarah Isger, because, sarah, many are going to be asking now where does the process go from here? And getting back to the root of that question in the 14th Amendment, Right.
Speaker 8:This was only about whether the district judge could enjoin the enforcement of that nationwide. What we'll now see is the actual question of what the 14th Amendment means whether a president acting alone, without Congress, without an amendment to the Constitution, can change our understanding of how we've implemented that for the last 150 years. That question will go back to the Supreme Court. Amy Coney Barrett, in her majority opinion, making clear this decision has nothing to do with the merits of that legal question. The Supreme Court can prevent enforcement of that executive order nationwide. I expect we'll hear more about the merits of that question in the fall as you read it. The real legal question is on what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means Is someone who is in the country unlawfully subject to the laws of our country? Like a diplomat would not be subject to the laws at the time of the 14th Amendment, Someone who belonged on tribal lands did not was not subject to our laws. So that's the question that the justices will now have to look at in the fall.
Speaker 7:Sarah, thank you, I want to go back to that.
Speaker 2:Oh man, this thing is going to be something, is going to be some kind of battle. It's going because you got to look at the language. See, a lot of the language has been left up to interpretation up until this point. All persons see they're going to. I don't know if they're going to change those amendments or whatnot, but let's hear something. Let's hear from my sister, Sabby Sab. Hold on.
Speaker 6:Has made a ruling that could lead the way for Donald Trump to change birthright citizenship. This has a lot of people concerned. We're going to talk about both sides of this and also the bigger picture. Let's go ahead and get into this clip here.
Speaker 7:Good morning. I'm with Johnson in New York. We're coming on the air because the Supreme Court has just released a potential landmark decision impacting the future of birthright citizenship in the US. The justices were asked to roll back nationwide injunctions against the president's attempt to redefine the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. We already heard this. I'm going to fast forward it.
Speaker 2:We already heard that, so I'm going to fast forward it. Give me just a second. I'm going to fast forward. We already heard that, so I'm going to fast forward. Give me just a second, I'm going to fast forward. Hold on, because I want to get back to Sabrina. Hold on.
Speaker 6:Some people are going to try to fight back doing this. It has been suggested, or recommended, that people do a class action lawsuit. I just want to explain to people that class action lawsuits don't happen overnight. Those things take time, and so just prepare yourself for that. Also, this raises the question as who is this going to apply to? Because I'm going to show you someone in particular that this new ruling would apply to, but I'm sure they're probably going to get a pass because of who they are. Also, we need to ask another question. Donald Trump has continued to say that the border is closed. If the border is closed, then you shouldn't have to worry about this issue. Right, if the border is closed, you shouldn't have to worry about people that are here illegally having babies here. Right, come on, guys, we got to start thinking, you got to start opening up our minds here a little bit. But this would really change things, and I'm going to get into what the 14th Amendment actually says in just a second.
Speaker 7:A Washington reporter who's been following the Supreme Court on this Devin, it's not as straightforward that a federal judge cannot block the president of the United States.
Speaker 6:This can apply to other rulings as well. So I want people to really get the big picture here. So this isn't just about birthright citizenship, and that's what I want everybody to understand, because, let's remember, the reason why Mahmoud Khalil was able to be freed from the detention center in Louisiana is because a judge, they came in and they said no. So if this is the case now, that a federal judge cannot come in and block these decisions, that can apply to anything that can apply to free speech. You know they're cutting, they're pushing back heavily on pro-Palestinian speech. Whatever anything they're saying, a federal judge cannot come in and block it. So I see a lot of people when they're talking about this on social media, they're focusing just on the birthright citizenship issue, but they're not looking at the big picture. Basically, that means that the president, in no way, shape or form, can be stopped from making said decisions. So people need to be careful. What you ask for. I will say that let's go on to this clip here.
Speaker 10:He issued over 20 executive orders, including one that sought to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the US to people here illegally. A federal judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction blocking the president's order.
Speaker 9:In practice, this meant that if any one of the nearly 700 federal judges disagreed with the policy of a duly elected president of the United States, he or she could block that policy from going into effect or at least delay it for many years, tie it up in the court system. This was a colossal abuse of power.
Speaker 5:There are 94 judicial districts across the country and 35 out of the 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this country. These injunctions have blocked our policies, from tariffs to military readiness, to immigration, to foreign affairs, fraud, abuse and many other issues. Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation.
Speaker 6:So nationwide. That's the important part. That being said, this doesn't just apply to President Trump. This applies to any president going forward, unless the next president were to try to reverse this, but this applies to any president going forward. So keep that in mind, folks, because there are things that Republican presidents try to push forward through executive order that you may be against, and there are things Democrat presidents try to push through via executive order that you may be against. So I want to be very clear about this. This is not just about Donald Trump. This applies to any president of the United States. Now check this out, as you'll see. This has been done before with Democrat presidents as well. Federal judges coming in to block or delay. Obama had six excuse me, bush had six, obama had 12, trump had 64, biden had 14, and then Trump again, so far, 15.
Speaker 10:Nationwide injunctions have become a problem for Republican and Democratic presidents, but Trump has received the most by far. A Harvard Law Review from 2024 found that 93.6% of nationwide injunctions issued during Trump's first term and during the Biden administration were issued by judges appointed by a president of the opposing political party.
Speaker 9:We can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.
Speaker 10:Some of those policies include dismantling the Department of Education and the US Agency for International Development, freezing federal funding to sanctuary cities, suspending refugee resettlement in the US and restricting taxpayer funding of gender affirming care fair funding of gender affirming care.
Speaker 6:So just something to pay attention to. Now I'm going to give you the other side of this as well, because, again, on the show we try to give, I try to do my best at giving both perspectives, right? Who is this going to apply to? Would it apply to people that would fall under this new qualification for citizenship who are, I don't know, public figures? What about people who are politicians? And the reason why I ask that question is we can name quite a few, right, we can name quite a few. It very clear he didn't come here legally. He didn't come here legally. Are they going to apply this to him? Probably not, but someone who qualified under birthright citizenship was Vivek Ramaswamy. Vivek Ramaswamy was just running for president.
Speaker 2:He was supposed to be a part of Doge, but he came to the curb.
Speaker 6:There was some disagreements there between him and Elon and things just got crazy right. But I just want to remind you, vivek Ramaswamy would also fit under this new category. He would fit under this. If this goes forward, he technically Would not be able to stay here.
Speaker 2:And that is good. Get him out of here. I can't stand him, can't stand him.
Speaker 2:He was a bootlicking for the Trump. He was man, he had his nose all the way up the crack of Trump's behind, right, and look what happened, what I try to explain to the so-called black conservatives and the and the, the Trump lovers and the black maggots, you know, the, the bootleg brigade, right? The Sambo society and the Kuhn clan. So what are you, what are we trying to explain to them? You know when, when they do on all that, that boot licking, for, for, for butter, biscuits and bacon bits, right, I'm trying to explain to them, man, there is no solid future in Kooning and bootlicking. But you can't tell them that they're running around here with MAGA hats on. They're doing all this stuff. But let's go back to Sabrina. I don't want to stay too long with this because we got a couple other things we got to talk about up here. But let's go back to it, come on.
Speaker 6:But I don't think they're going to apply this to him. This is where I'm coming from. Folks Listen to this.
Speaker 3:I believe in being consistent about my policies where so your father is not a citizen of the United States.
Speaker 8:He's not OK. And your mother? When did your mom take the citizenship test? Was it before or after you were born? After I was born Well, well, well.
Speaker 6:People forget after he was born. So that means that Vivek Ramaswamy also benefited from birth right citizenship. Remember, vivek's parents were here studying as college students, and that brings up another question what about those who are here as college students that are part of a PhD program? Phd programs in the US can take from five to seven years. A lot of times, some of these PhD students are married. What happens if they have a baby, which these things have happened. That's why I'm bringing this up. They have a baby, just like Vivek Ramaswamy's parents did. That means that their, their child, would not automatically get citizenship in this country. So, to my point, how would Vivek Ramaswamy be allowed to stay? And the only thing that I can think of is that they would say well, we're not going back, it's not going to be retroactive, so if you're already here, then you're grandfathered in, and I think that's what they said.
Speaker 2:I believe that's what they said. The grandfather didn't nothing to worry about.
Speaker 6:According to Donald Trump, who would this apply to? And then there's also the case of the future administration. The next administration 2028, let's say, if the Democrats won in 2028, they're probably going to try to roll this back. And then now you have this chaos. This is what we've been doing the past couple of years Presidents implement something, the next president takes it away, then they bring it back and they take it away, and they bring it back and take away, and it creates a chaotic situation. So I want people to think about this from the bigger picture, like, don't just look at this and say, oh, it's just birthright citizenship. Think about who this is really going to be applied to, because I got a feeling, remember, he's running for governor.
Speaker 2:So think about that for a second After that said, we're going to, we're going to stop on that. That's enough of that, because I don't want to step on her stuff too much. I like Sabrina she's. Don't want to step on her stuff too much. I like, uh, sabrina, she's great, she's great, she's. You know, she's great, uh, she's. Uh. I think she was for stomping for bernie sanders at one particular point in time, because she's down the middle with it. I think she's independent or something. I'm not sure what her political stance is, but yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:The other thing with the supreme court let me get a bed back up in here and the other thing with the supreme court family was um, in marathon in the state of maryland, in some county I forget the county, but the supreme court ruled on a case that some uh parents of some school children there in Maryland that brought a suit, a case in the Supreme Court, against the public school system there. Right, check it out, check this out and this. Because what the states were doing, what these Democratic states were doing, was they, they, they wanted to take away the parents right to opt their children out of certain curriculums that were being taught in school, namely the LGBT curriculum, the, the literature in the books and stuff. Some parents didn't want their children learning that particular curriculum. Right, and the school system of these districts took away that right from the parents. Because how did they do it? They, they circumvented it in a way that they said, well, we're not going to tell the parents that we, the parents, just won't, we put on notice about the curriculum and that takes away their right or if they have certain religious beliefs, to to opt their children out of that particular lesson or out of that class. So the other day the Supreme court ruled that down. Now parents have the right to opt their children out of that particular lesson or that class or whatever that, that particular curriculum about LGBT, because some of those, some of those books are very graphic and you know you're talking about elementary school children. You know grade school, uh, children, you know. You know I should have a say in what my children are ingesting in school, because this is why you pay taxes. You know in certain districts you're paying all these high taxes. You got a home and you're trying to raise your family and whatever you should have. Parents should have some say so in the what's going on in these classrooms with the education of their children. This is why I don't mind them dismantling the Board of Education, because look what they're doing. Look what these people have done and what they continue to try to push Right now.
Speaker 2:Like I said earlier, judge Katonji Brown-Jackson wrote a dissension in this and and her stance? Her stance check this out family. Her stance was if parents don't want their children learning certain things in in a particular public school curriculum, they should take their children out of that school and put them in a, in a private school or or what have you right? No, no, absolutely not.
Speaker 2:If you people who are pushing this agenda, the LGBT thing, now, I don't have any qualms about what people do in their personal life. If you're an adult, you're old enough to make those decisions. My thing always been, and I used to tell saint laurence this leave the children alone, hands off. Now, once you become an adult and you're a young adult and you want to make certain decisions about your sexuality or whatever you know, whatever alternative lifestyle you want to live, or whatever the case might be, that is your right to do so. That is your business. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or who you choose to to to um love or whatever the case might be right. That's not, that's never been an issue.
Speaker 2:But when it comes to the children, hands off, let them. They only have a few years to be children. Allow them that, that, that, that liberty to be children. Allow them that god-given freedom to be children. Don't pump your agendas in these young children. And can they? They they already have enough trying to learn themselves and learn certain lessons in life and, because of the formative years, let them have the freedom to do that Instead of you ramming this down them. You know constant pushing this, pushing this, pushing this, this down, and you know constant pushing this, pushing this, pushing this. And you know you're confusing them.
Speaker 2:Because in the district that the Supreme Court made this ruling in, I think it was something like 90% of the parents did not want and, mind you, this is, this is a was a very wealthy district in the state of Maryland, right, and they 90, I think it was not, if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong, but it was a very high number 90 of the parents in this, in this uh litigation in this district, uh, voted in favor, wasn't not voted, but were in favor of the opt-out option 90%, maybe a little less. I'm not quoting an actual number, but it was a very high percentage. So that's telling you the people don't want this. Why are you trying to push this?
Speaker 2:Now, what I was about to say was this you telling people to take their children out of the public school system and put them in private school. No, if you want that agenda a transgender uh type of thing then you, you open a charter for that. You start up a private institution for transgender people, an educational institution for transgender people, and if there are parents that want their children to be involved, to participate in those curriculums, they are free to allow their children to attend that school. But you don't put this on the public like that. The same way I see it as the transgender men in women's sports. If you want a transgender sports league, create that. And if women want to want to participate in that league and you don't have a problem with that they're allowed to do that.
Speaker 2:But don't, don't, don't come and push transgender men in women's sports, and why? Why, you don't want to go to the men's sports and box men. You see how that guy you know that transgender beat up that little girl, that little I think she was an Asian girl. He beat up on that little. That girl couldn't stand a chance. It was, I think it was like Olympic boxing or something like that. But why are you not boxing in the men's divisions? That's the whole thing. Because you can't. You can't compete with the men.
Speaker 2:So you want to go to the women's sports, the perceived weaker gender, and you want to uh get in there and and these, a lot of these girls don't stand a chance against these guys, or these, these people I should say I shouldn't call them guys because they reserve the right to be referred to as they would have it. So I'll say people, transgender people. So you want that create a league and that's the transgender boxing association or the transgender wrestling or the transgender swimming team, whatever the case might be, whatever the case might be, go compete and make the, the, those institutions, just like you could do a private, uh, education institution, right, and we're gonna, we're gonna leave that there. But those were too big. There was a bunch of other stuff. I don't, I can't get in, we don't have enough time because we're about to roll out of here. But those were two big things. He had a big week last week. He had a big month period, but the things going over there between Israel and Iran, that was big, that was a big thing for him and you've seen how upset he was with that. But I won't get off into that. But now the last thing, the last thing we're gonna, we're gonna get on here, is um, uh, the, the uh, you know the.
Speaker 2:The case with with sean Combs has gone. They're in deliberations right now. I think it was as of yesterday, I think Friday they sent it up and I think yesterday the jurors got it and they're deliberating and maybe they'll come back with something today. Who knows, by the time the courts open up it's still early now, but maybe by the time the courts open up it will be something. Who knows, by the time the courts open up it's still early now, but maybe by the time the courts open up it will be something. Who knows, hold on, let me try to get the story in here. Ok, hold on. And they're having problems with the jury. Some of the I think Jura 25 is having problems with the judge's instructions. But let's take a gander at that. Let's take a look at that, come on.
Speaker 11:Hi everyone. Thanks for sticking with us. I'm your host, sierra Gillespie, bringing you Law and Crime coverage of the P Diddy trial. You guys, we are in the final countdown. We could have a verdict as early as today, that's right. We're already in deliberations. And, by the way, thank you everyone who's been watching our live stream so far. I know we have people from all over the world.
Speaker 11:You guys have been following all day, so you of course know that there recently was a question from jurors. We're not even quite two hours into deliberations and they already had a question. So Jesse Weber kind of left you on a cliffhanger and I'm going to tell you what it's all about. Here's an update from the courthouse right behind me because, by the way, I'm live in the Southern District of New York. So here's what happens Now.
Speaker 11:The judge says we have received a note from the jury that we have a juror specifically juror 25, who we believe cannot follow your instructions. I would like to meet with the court about it. So the judge says I suggest asking for more information. So that's kind of crazy, you guys. I mean this morning we reported about jury instructions right, this is so important going into deliberations almost two hours in and it sounds like one of these jurors jury number 25, says they might not be able to follow the instructions, which is the most important thing we have here. I got a lot of questions and I want to break down the jury, so let's do that quick before we get to our all star panel of guests who, by the way, I'm going to have a lot of good questions for them, and if you guys have, questions, just throw them into our chat.
Speaker 2:I think this is going to be a mistrial.
Speaker 2:I think it's headed for mistrial. If not, he should walk. He should walk. Now some law legal beagles are saying that he's going to go to prison. I don't see it because, well, it's very, very strange. It's very strange, hold on. It's kind of weird because he was charged on a RICO status, right, charged on a RICO status. Now, he's one person. Now, rico is usually a group of people, a criminal enterprise, right, and he was the only one charged in this thing, right. But here's what I think happened All of those, those witnesses that they called the government, called because the prosecutor I mean the defense called no witnesses.
Speaker 2:Not one witness did the defense call. It was all the prosecutor, the government or the government, and I think those people they called would have been indicted in the RICO had they agreed to testify on behalf of the government. So that's one thing we got to pay attention to. But from what I've seen so far and I haven't really covered the case tight like that I've been covering it about as much as would be expected, but I haven't covered it as as intensely as most have I, because I didn't like the fact how they, how they did it. Um, I think he had some some, some very high profile people under some pressure with those with those tapes and videos and audio and video and stuff, and this is why Homeland Security went and raided his properties to get possession of those those, those that material that could have harmed some, some folks in some very high places. That's my analogy of it. I'm not saying I'm right folks in some very high places. That's my analogy of it, I'm not saying I'm right. However, I think because reason why I'm saying I'm doubting all of this is because, from what I've seen thus far, they have not proven their case of guilt.
Speaker 2:Now, all you need is one. Now, here it is Already, one juror can't follow the instructions Right and all you need is one. So I think this is headed for a mistrial. If not, I think he should walk, and not that I'm here putting a cape on for Puff or for Brother Love, whatever you call him you want to call him. But I'm here putting a cape on for Puff or for Brother Love, whatever you call him you want to call him, but I'm not putting a cape on for him. But I don't like the dirty play of how they went about prosecuting him. You know, is he some kind of sexual deviant or whatever, with the baby, all thing and the freak off stuff?
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 2:Yeah, of course he is. I don't care nothing about his sexuality, whether he's half gay or what I don't know, and I don't really care about that. What I care about is the legality of the case and how they and how they trying to use, uh, certain statutes to to box him in. Now, if you're charging him for, if he was being charged for domestic violence we saw the video he beat the brakes off of that girl. He beat in that video in the hotel. He beat the brakes off of her. So if that's what y'all charging with, he's guilty. The other stuff, uh, the baby, all the naysays sensationalized it and all of this and all of that, and the drugs and the transporting across state lines and this and that and that and this, none of this stuff was, was proven. And then, uh, last week, late last week, the, the prosecutors had to drop some of those things because they, they had, they made no, uh, no lead way in any of those charges. So, in other words, they, they, they fluffed it up. They fluffed these things up all the way up to the top and couldn't deliver. Now some of the legal experts are saying that he's going to, they're going to convict him on something, because all they need is maybe because I think it's what a total of five charges in the top charges, a total of five complaints, and all they need is, I think it's two or more incidents, two incidents of whatever the complaint is, and then they can probably get the case prosecuted and get a guilty verdict, depending on the jurors. So this is something we're going to be watching and maybe they'll have a verdict by today or they'll come and the judge will come back with some more instructions. We don't know. And that'll bring me to the last and final thing. And oh, wow, we got to get out of here this Carmelo Anthony thing out there in Texas over the Austin Metcalf homicide, the unaliving Now that family. They got to get that Dominique Alexander out of here. They got to get away from that guy. Get and and get somebody else, because that camp is hemorrhaging right now. That now you'll hear I was on a panel on on on the righteous perspective the other day with wise and salute my man.
Speaker 2:Wise, good brother, good brother, he just he's, um, I don't the wise, I don't, I don't say wise is a bootlicker or a coon. I don't, I don't, I don't believe that, I just believe he, he believes in, he has a reverence for the, the right, for the republicans, he has a reverence for that and he's one of the people that don't believe there's racism, and you know stuff like that and most black people. All we do is complain about racism and you know we pull a race card all the time and he's one of the people he don't believe in that. He just he doesn't believe in black against white. You know they're christian people over there so they don't see things. Uh, they don't see reality the way some of us see it. They see their reality in their in, in, you know, in in the light of, you know, biblical perspective. I should say right, but anyway, now here's the problem. Right now you got a bunch of goofy people that get online. They're getting these chats and stuff in there.
Speaker 2:Oh, the family done spent money on a new house and cars and all of that's not what happened. The car they, when this case happened, they, the family, moved to another home. Rental was I think it was nine thousand, nine hundred thousand rent, dollar rental, annual rental or whatever they had, because they were getting death threats and this, the gifts and gold money wasn't even touched yet it wasn't available to them. So all you, you bozos and and goofballs out there, they're saying that they spent the money on that and the car. The father had already brought the car before the money was available from the, from the um, the fundraiser, to give sin go right now. You did. They did raise, I think it was 5, thirty or something thousand dollars. They raised in this Gibson Gold campaign. Now the boy filed an application for a court appointed attorney. How, where is the money? And this is see, now, you can't play with black folks. A lot of people donated to that gibson go. I donate money to it, to it because I want, I, I, I see the play. I see the play.
Speaker 2:This white kid was, was, was killed in this incident and and boy, you y'all better know. No, we got to get him. He has to go, he has to go. This is the sentiment, right, how dare he defend himself, how dare he, the little black thug.
Speaker 2:This is the talk. And that talk is not coming from white people, it's coming from black people who did that, like I said, the boot lick brigade, right, the sambo society and the coon clan. That's where this talk is coming from. Now you have, when you just like when I'm on wise's's YouTube channel when we're doing the panels. Sometimes he invites me up to sit in the panel with them or whatever, and I go up there, but then in the comments now I'm the only one that disagrees, because most it's a Christian group and they are Christian people and I'm the only one up there that has a difference of opinion, except for that, brother Jason. Salute to him. He kept it real the other day and he disagrees with me a lot sometimes, but when it's real he'll tip his hat to where realness is. The rest of them just racism doesn't exist.
Speaker 2:Black people are thugs, the culture, they hate the culture. And you know the talking points. We have victims, perpetual victims, um, with no zero accountability, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's all of that white talking points. But then when you go into the chat and see the comments, and then some of the comments are so vicious now, these supposed to be christian people, right, but the comments be so venomous, right.
Speaker 2:I press on the ceo. Why are they coming? They tell me I'm full of hate, I'm a racist and this and that because I want to see this young man be treated fairly. So I'm a racist because of that. This is the trope. I'm white and I say so. This was a disaster. He's a murderer, he should be jailed, he should get the death penalty. How dare he kill Austin like that? This is the talk. They talk and it's all in the chat, right.
Speaker 2:And then you press on some of these people's profile and you go to their, to their on youtube channels. Some of them have channels and pages and different things and profiles and they, they, they are straight up white supremacist. Spoke under the guise of christianity. Now, I'm not knocking out Christian brothers and sisters, but these supposed to be Christian people and they straight up racist, nationalist, white supremacist. But now what reason why they like channels, like like my brother, is because they get the things can be said from them that they don't have the courage to say I don't, instead of them coming out and say look, I'm black. People ain't supposed to have nothing, we ain't supposed to stand up for nothing. We supposed to take abuse whenever, and you know, our lives don't matter. Kill us when you get good and ready, and that's that, we're white. And we say so, see, that's that. But they can't. They. I don't know if they feel guilty about it, because some people don't really feel guilt, because, just like with this guy who wrote this book about empathy being a form of sin I forget his name uh, that there's a book. Uh, he wrote empathy is a sin. This is elon musk. Even has said, had made that statement that empathy is a is a form, is a sinful thing to have. Empathy is a sinful thing, right? This is why I tell you, man, y'all gotta really check with y'all back in, but anyway, right. So the the thing is, you spent this money. Why are you filing for public defender for a court-appointed attorney? That money was supposed to be for his defense.
Speaker 2:Now you got this dude, dominic Alexander, who's hanging around him, who's a Timo version of Al Sharpton, and that's the ass network. We're going to be down there marching, going down there Sunday morning at the church. We're gonna be down there marching, going out that sunday morning at the church. Let out, we're gonna be marching. Now he's he don't talk like that, but he's he's like a team version of al sharp. He's supposed to be some kind of activist.
Speaker 2:This dude was convicted of um, some kind of child abuse, I think it was, and he did some time, which I don't hold that against him, but he is not good for that family. Get him out of there, because I'm not sending another dime to them until they get that dude away from them. He's going to hurt them. This dude, now, the way I see it and I've been paying close attention to this lately there's some people, some legal people, who've been holding panels in different this lately. There's some people, some legal people, who've been holding panels in different X spaces and talking about this thing and the way Wiser and them talk about it like this is a slam shot man. This is a slam shot case man. He's going to jail. You know he did the murder and you know he had no business. He was there illegally. And then this and that Come to find out. None of that's true. None of that's true.
Speaker 2:Now, this kid was up under that tent at a at a school sanction track, meet right, he had every right to be there. Now, now, the the on the misinformed amongst us will say that, uh, let me get a bed in here. The misinformed amongst us will say that he shouldn't have been under that tent. But here's the thing, the legality of it. He had every right to be under that tent, every right, even though it was the opposing team. He wasn't a part of that team. He had every right to be under that tent because it's a public space and they didn't have the right to discriminate and tell him he couldn't be up under there.
Speaker 2:Now, first of all, it was raining and it started raining. He went up under there to for shelter from the rain. What happened to the sportsmanship? All right, man, it's raining, you know, you from the other team, but come on in, man, what happened to the sportsmanship? Now you hear some of these misinformed people. Oh, he wasn't even supposed to be there because he's on the football team. No, you, moron, he's on the track team. He was the captain of his track team. Those two twins were not competing in the competition that day, so he had more of a right, technically, to be there than them. What were they doing there? They were there, like a lot of people have said that know them. They were there being bullies and this is why they stepped at a kid in the first place was they had no right to. They shouldn't have said anything to him and if they felt that he was not supposed to be, they were supposed to go get an authority or someone from faculty or staff or whatever to remove him. But that wasn't the case because he had every right to be under that tent. Thank you, the bootlick brigade, sambo society and the coon clan.
Speaker 2:You study on these YouTube channels and you buck dancing for butter, biscuits and bacon bits, but you don't have all of the legal facts of the matter. Now they're saying, well, he confessed to. No, he did not confess. It's to me, it's a clear case of self-defense. Now the judge, the prosecutor, has, has set a trap. Let me tell you what they're doing, family and and we're supposed to be out here, but I got to say this, I got to get this out and I'm going to let you go. The prosecution has set a trap.
Speaker 2:They went for murder one, top charge murder one, that's it. So now the jury has no really wiggle room because they know this is not a murder one. There was no intent or premeditation for him to do this. He didn't go there with the intent of killing someone. He didn't even know it was going to rain. So how can you say it was an intent? Now, some of the witnesses there I was listening to the panel the other night Some of the witnesses at this thing that were there said there was like four or five guys that ready to jump on him that actually chased him out of the tent. So this will apparently it will come out in the trial because the family is saying they're going to trial but in order for me to send another dime to them, they got to get this dude out of there.
Speaker 2:This Alexander dude. He's no good for it and know I was on wise channel the other day. I was on his channel the other day and I'm gonna, I'm gonna give wise a call and and speak to him. Maybe tomorrow he had people they're talking about? Oh, the father. You know he got to take some contrition and he hasn't shown any responsibility and contrition.
Speaker 2:The father went to the press conference to try to pray with them. Oh, get, move your ass around, man. Don't come in here trying to pray with us. You should have prayed with your son. You should have prayed with your son. Maybe your son would still be here if he was an abiding Christian. Pray with your son. Don't come here to this press conference trying to pray with us. And then you did it in public. But let me show you hypocrisy in it. Let me show you hypocrisy Because you had to put the back to the boot the bootleg brigade, the Kuhn clan and the Sambo society. Oh, that good man tried to come and pray with them and look how they act. Oh, that good man tried to come and pray with them and look how they act. Oh, really, oh really, really. Come to find out.
Speaker 2:This man has been tweeting on X, sending tweets to Camillo Anthony's father, that Austin Metcalf father, that Jeff Metcalf. He's been sending tweets. Oh, how's it? Yeah, you raised a murderer. Wait a minute. I thought you forgave him because that's what you were saying when this thing started. I forgive him. I just want to pray with the family now. All of a sudden, you raised a murderer and all Camelo Anthony's father tweeted back. I saw the tweets. His father tweeted back. Listen, man, leave us alone, please leave us alone, and we'll see you in court and and and you know.
Speaker 2:But what happened to all this, this Christian stuff, though, see, all of that was? It was a bunch of cap from this from the start. I don't never fall for that stuff. You coming to pray, you coming to pray with me, for go pray with your son now. And let me tell you something else too that other son, the hunter, he should be charged the same way. Uh Camillo was charged. He should be charged with murder one. Now they got to push for that. They got to push for it and I bet you this that will change the landscape of this thing push for that because he should, because he was, uh, a a participant in in this murder that was done in an act of a felony. Now y'all want to talk about legal, legal legalese. Let's get to that like, like my man, uh, uh, what's what's my man name? Uh, um, zip, zip, zip with the drip on his youtube channel. Zip with the drip funny thing about that is man.
Speaker 2:Salute to that brother man, you know, I don't know him. Um, they were children, but I grew up with his uncles and I knew his father and them, uh, uh, michael and daryl. I knew his, his father, and I know their mother. Salute, salute their mother. I'm not going to say her name up here, their grandmother, miss Eva, she's gone, she's passed on. I knew their grandmother, I know their uncles Scrooge and them man shout out salute, that's my man, him and Kenny. Those are my mans, those are my folks.
Speaker 2:I don't know zip and his brother. I don't know them. They were children. Uh, I know of them. I don't I'm. You know how are they? They some, they some wild cats, man, but I don't know them. But yeah, he has a very successful, uh, youtube channel. He's doing good with that and, um, you know, salute to the brother, salute to them. But I, I know the family. Well, I knew that. I know the family, good folks, good, solid folks and, uh, yeah, family. So so back to it.
Speaker 2:Uh, you know this thing wise, this thing ain't ain't, ain't open and shut, the way y'all perceiving it to be, that that brother has a very, very good case for self-defense. Stand your ground in a stand your ground state. Now we I don't have time to go in and break it down here because we're gonna get out of here. I don't kept y'all too long already, um but the prosecutor has set a trap now I I think if he goes to trial, unless he gets a good paid attorney and they able to push this thing and get that brother arrested, I think they're going to convict him and they're going to throw the book at him because of the state. Now he would have a great appeal at that point. He would have an outstanding appeal. But you know he's very young and and you know it would break that family.
Speaker 2:So I this, this is the trap that the prosecutor set. He set the bar so high with murder one. So if the jury, even if they know it's not a murder one, there's nothing else they can do other than come back guilty or not guilty. Either they either they convict him or they let him go. And I don't think in in um, that county, where that it is, is 70 percent white. So that's not going to happen. That's not they. They're going, they're gonna convict him unless he can get a good, nice team of lawyers in it and and fight this thing. That's the only way. That's the only way and then, and then it's up to the jury and, like I said, they might luck up and get one black person in there, even if that, if you know, if that person is a, is a, is a, got some bootlickish ways about them and they hate black coaching and all that.
Speaker 2:You can forget it. You can forget it. But, yeah, family. So that that's what it is. That's what it is up here and we're going to get ready to go. We're going to get ready to go. Family, as always, respect life, love justice, cherish freedom and treasure peace. Vaughn Black, y'all come back and see us. Y'all come back next week and we're gonna try to do it again. Hopefully, malik will be up here with us.
Speaker 1:Peace out, take care, thank you. Just like my love, everlasting as it goes on, still moving strong. All in all, do you ever wonder? Got to win? Somebody's got to lose? I might as well get over it, just like fishing in the ocean, there'll always be someone new. You did me wrong, but I've been through stormy weather. I'm going to be frozen, just like my love. Everlasting Time to be good. Son Gonna believe it. Still moving strong, on and on. Don't stop for nobody. This time I keep my feet on solid ground. Now I understand myself. Without Like the sweet sound of hit music, There'll always be something new To keep the tables turning. Hey, it's a song, but there'll never be an ending. It goes on. Hey, yeah, just like my lover Lasting. There'll never be an ending. The beat goes on. Just like my lover Lasting, and the beat goes on, still moving strong, on and on. The beat goes on. The beat goes on.
