Peasants Perspective
Peasants Perspective: A Voice from the Edge of Freedom
Join Taylor Johnatakis, a self-proclaimed “peasant” turned podcaster, on an unfiltered journey through family, faith, and the fight for American ideals. From the depths of DC Jail—where he recorded during a 14-month sentence tied to January 6—to his triumphant return home after a Trump clemency in 2025, Taylor delivers raw, heartfelt commentary for the common man. Expect a mix of gritty storytelling, reflections on liberty lost and reclaimed, and timeless lessons drawn from his life as a septic designer, father, and reluctant rebel. Whether he’s reading Dr. Seuss to his kids or dissecting the state of the republic, Peasants Perspective is a bold, unpolished call to stay grounded amidst chaos. Subscribe for a front-row seat to a story that’s as real as it gets—no filter, no apologies.
Peasants Perspective
Birthright Citizenship, Biden's Cover-Up, and Government Accountability
Are we witnessing the slow erosion of individual sovereignty in America? The latest Peasants Perspective episode tackles this question head-on through a riveting exploration of constitutional principles under siege.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's powerful reminder that "We, the people, are the sovereigns of this country" frames our discussion about who truly holds power in America. As ordinary citizens, we possess extraordinary potential to affect change—but only if we understand and defend our constitutional rights.
We dive into Jake Tapper's stunning admissions about the Biden administration's systematic deception regarding the President's cognitive decline. After years of mainstream media gaslighting, the truth emerges: White House officials deliberately misled not just the public but their own staff and Democratic allies about Biden's deteriorating condition. This betrayal of public trust exemplifies why institutional credibility has collapsed.
The Supreme Court's examination of birthright citizenship reveals another constitutional battleground. We analyze the original intent of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause and how birth tourism exploits this provision in ways the framers never intended. This case could redefine American citizenship for generations.
Nicole Shanahan provides a fascinating perspective on technology and constitutional rights as we approach what some call the technological singularity. Her warnings about AI and human merging highlight why protecting individual sovereignty matters now more than ever. As she notes, "This is really important for the AI age—that we protect the Constitution, because that is what is going to protect humans against AI."
Meanwhile, congressional hearings expose shocking government waste, including an $858 million ICE bonus budget that could provide $42,000 bonuses per employee—sixteen times the average American's Christmas bonus. This disconnect between government spending and economic reality for everyday citizens underscores why budget accountability matters.
Join us as we navigate these critical issues that will shape America's future. Whether you're concerned about constitutional rights, government transparency, or technological threats to individual liberty, this episode offers insights you won't find in mainstream coverage. Remember: we are the sovereigns of this country—if we care enough to act.
https://1776live.us/peasants_perspective
www.PeasantsPerspective.com
www.LeftBehindandWithout.org
www.givesendgo.com/GEJWJ
www.DollarsVoteLouder.com
buymeacoffee.com/peasant
And when they went to the queen To tell her Ruth Bunchik had no bread. Do you know what she said? Let them eat cake. Here you take the bomb. We're getting screwed man.
Speaker 5:Every time we turn around, we're getting screwed. All the revolution's gonna be through podcasting for sure. That's the only way we talk. It's the little guys. The little guys that take the brunt of everything. It's gotta stop.
Speaker 5:Peasants, man, we're just peasants, every one of us. You watch those old movies. You see the peasants in the background with the kings and queens walking around. We're those people. You watch those old movies. You see the peasants in the background with the kings and queens walking around. We're those people. We're those people. Good morning, peasants. Welcome to another episode of the Peasants Perspective. We are here doing another recording. Yes, we are, we're here, all right. So let's start out. Let's just jump right in. Is neil gorsuch? Again a man of the people seems to be hitting on all the right things. I might get a copy of his book that he's kind of doing his little book tour with. It's pretty good. I like. I like what he's saying. So he's gonna say something here that is self-evident and obvious to most elementary children. But it escapes the spirit of the country right now. It escapes the people who want to create the fences to keep the sheeple in right. It escapes their concept of who's really in charge. This is just a quick little clip from Neil Gorsuch.
Speaker 6:I hate to give you a homework assignment, but it is we, the people. Those are the first three words of the Constitution. You are the sovereign in this country and if you don't care, it ain't going to happen. Nothing's going to change. But it is amazing what ordinary people can do to affect change.
Speaker 5:But we, the people, are the sovereigns of the country. It's amazing what ordinary people can do to affect change. This whole system is ours. I think that's one of the things that, going through this, I had to really understand is it's not them versus us, it's us versus ourselves. We have to wrangle the government. We do talk a lot about the government, the smoke monster, but it's all people. The whole thing is people. Heaven forbid we move into AI, but you know, right now, the government is mainly just people making decisions, and so it is just people making decisions.
Speaker 5:And so when we start talking about the people, like, think about the president of the United States, what did we just go through the last four years? We just went through a president that half the country, at least, didn't think was completely all there, right, but half the country was watching mainstream news, being gaslighted, thinking it was. It's wild, what was going on. Yeah, right, so this is a um. This right. Here is a clip from, uh, laura trump, and actually I'm going to play this last. We're going to go through a couple other clips here. This right here is chuck schumer that's now in retrospect being asked about joe biden when did you know, jo? Know Joe Biden wasn't able to do things. This is Casey Hunt asking Chuck Schumer. This is quite the revelation here. It's a bit of a person. You guys can see it. It's quite the revelation here.
Speaker 8:Cover up of Biden's health and his cognition and his fitness, quite frankly, to be president in the United States. You sat next to Biden in the Oval Office February 27th 2024, just a handful of months before the president took that debate stage and it was later reported that you and other Democratic leaders were talking before the debate about having a plan. You and Hakeem Jeffries, nancy Pelosi, barack Obama I understand you later denied that that ever happened, but I am curious. I'm interested to know whether the man that you saw sitting there on that couch on that day you were in there, you saw him up close and personal Did you really not have any idea that he was not fit to serve a second term?
Speaker 9:Casey, we're looking forward. We have the largest Medicaid cut in front of us. We have the federal government.
Speaker 8:You're facing all of this because you lost a presidential election, and is that not Joe Biden's responsibility for deciding to run again? We're looking forward. That's it.
Speaker 5:That's it, that's we.
Speaker 8:All right, I know you got to go. I appreciate your time today. Thank you, and I hope, casey Hall, the original is about five pounds in the last four months.
Speaker 7:That's the camera.
Speaker 5:So, casey, you know she does a CNN morning show right alongside with the. I don't know anything about that. Well, in prison, right, we'd go to the tv room every morning at 5 30 am to watch some news. And you've got these tvs and you're tuning in on your fm. So there's our tv and there was a neutral tv, so an unaffiliated tv, which is basically where the muslims sat. It was just. It was just a black tv that got taken over by a certain faction of the blacks, but anyways, they would have it on cnn and we'd be flipping through Fox and Newsmax and MSNBC and CNN as well, but CNN was almost always on that TV. So I often catch in and listen to Casey Hunt. She was absolutely covering for Joe Biden, no doubt about it. So it's interesting watching her and other CNN panelists Now that Jake Tapper's book is out, talking about Joe Biden and oh, you know it was the staff was covering it.
Speaker 7:What you're saying is Chuck Schumer didn't see that one coming. Yeah, I didn't see that one coming.
Speaker 4:So this is this is Jake Tapper talking about his new book, and there's two clips we're going to play here where he's just kind of talking about some of the anecdotes. We have an entire White House press corps though following him around and I'm just curious as to whether or not this kind of trying to hide what was happening with the president at the time had an impact on the press corps. Like why didn't we hear some of these details from what they actually saw and were dealing with trying to get information.
Speaker 10:Well, alex Thompson and I were on the case, as were lots of other reporters trying to figure out what was going on behind the scenes. But the bottom line is the White House was lying, not only to the press, not only to the public, but they were lying to members of their own cabinet, they were lying to White House staffers, they were lying to Democratic members of Congress, to donors, about how bad things had gotten.
Speaker 5:And in fact, the way you think about that. He's saying they saying they were lying, they were lying. They were lying about his mental state. So the people that you just shield for four years, saying that trump lies but biden tells the truth, isn't it great to have decency back in the white house?
Speaker 7:but yet the entire premise of his existence was a lie yeah, and you could, and you couldn't suss that out, and he couldn't suss that out even though people were constantly coming on the show and mentioning it and referencing it, you couldn't suss that out, but now he's open and willing to talk about how it's all. Oh, there was a cover-up and they were lying. Yeah, they were lying to me. Oh, yeah, come on crazy.
Speaker 10:Alex and I started writing this book, uh, after the election of 2024, and we spoke with more than 200 people, most of almost all of whom were Democrats and almost all of whom wouldn't be honest with us or wouldn't be candid with us until after the election. And then, after the election, we found out all of these things that when you looked at what was going on with President Biden at the time, it probably doesn't surprise you the extent to which he was deteriorating. But now we have anecdotes and facts about what was really going on behind the scenes, with details that Democrats wouldn't share with us until after Election Day.
Speaker 5:We wouldn't share with us until after Election Day. And here's the thing this Jake Tapper, this man, this reporter, this man who's really after the truth Journalist.
Speaker 11:Here's a couple of here's a couple couple hits from him. Yeah, I think what we see on stage with joe biden, jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline that's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable. You are, no, I can't.
Speaker 10:This is so amazing, it's so amazing to me that and try and figure out an answer, a cognitive decline?
Speaker 11:you're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was.
Speaker 10:I think you were mocking his stutter. Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter. Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter, and I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline. But I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses Diagnosing politicians from afar, from afar In our 2020 lead.
Speaker 10:Today, president Trump's niece, who is a clinical psychologist, is calling on the American Psychiatric Association to drop the so-called Goldwater rule, which bars mental health professionals from diagnosing public figures that they have not examined in person. Mary Trump says that psychiatrists quote know what's wrong with my uncle and she says it's time they tell voters. And Mary trump joins us now. She's also the author of too much and never enough.
Speaker 5:How my family created the world's most dangerous man yep, so it was just the white house lying to us right.
Speaker 7:Is any of this surprising to anybody?
Speaker 5:on stage with joe a clip yesterday if you tell the democrats that trump doesn't want to eat the dog crap, they'll go eat it. That's so. The white house is lying to you and you're just shilling for the lie non-stop, constantly, 24 7 for the last nine years and none of it is surprising and none of it.
Speaker 5:But that's the thing. Nine years ago, when trump came down to escalator, the mainstream media had well above a 50 trust rate. Well, they had complete capture back then. Bro, that's capture, yeah, it was just once. You see it, you can't unsee it. So here's Jake Tapper continuing to talk about the revelations in his book and just how bad it was with Joe Biden.
Speaker 7:This is why say whatever you got to say to boost sales.
Speaker 10:Advisors were saying at the time as you look at this, as you reported out this book, so the White House physician, dr Kevin O'Connor, was telling White House aides that President Biden's deterioration of his spine, the degeneration was so significant that if he fell one more time that he might have to be in a wheelchair and serve in a wheelchair for his second term. But everybody pushed off the notion that he used a wheelchair until after the election. This is all part of a larger hole where the Biden White House tried to hide the extent of his deterioration, both physical and cognitive, as much as possible. In fact, as we all know, we all saw as his shuffling gait got worse and worse from 2003 to 2004.
Speaker 5:As we all know, as we all saw.
Speaker 10:Yeah, they started putting aids around him as he walked to Marine One, the helicopter that was to kind of hide from public view how bad his gait was, how bad his walking was, his shuffling, and also in case he stumbled again to make sure somebody was there. And this is just of a piece of an overall campaign to try to conceal from the American people the extent to which the president was really struggling to do his job.
Speaker 7:He's turning back to dust before he dies.
Speaker 5:So the thing is, it's not unprecedented in US history to cover up the illness of a president. No, franklin Roosevelt was in a wheelchair. With what did he have? Polio you had. Jfk had some medical issues You've had.
Speaker 5:I mean, this is not like the worst thing. You don't want every sniffle that the president gets to be worldwide news and opportunistic, and I can see why you want to project strength, I understand it. But the problem is you were lying. You were lying and lying and lying. Your entire regime was built on lies. Were you actually in control? Were you pushing the voters?
Speaker 5:Well, we're looking around at an open border. We're looking at inflation hitting record highs. You're getting jerked around on the Inflation Reduction Act, which you then later said we should have just called it the Green New Deal, which is what it was right. You're signing pardons with auto pins. Who's in charge? So yes, there's precedent for covering up a president's illness, but it's assumed that they were still mentally competent. I would understand. Not wanting to roll him out there in a wheelchair, I get it. I not wanting to roll him out there in a wheelchair, I get it. I totally get it. But it's assumed you're competent. Look, americans don't have a problem electing somebody with a handicap, governor Abbott, yeah, right, right, it's not a problem. It's not a problem, but he's all there upstairs. I mean, at the end of the day, we know these guys aren't riding the horse in the front of battle. I mean, not everybody is a Donald Trump. That a donald trump that can take a bullet and say fight fight, fight.
Speaker 7:But guys like abbott are willing to make good decisions, hard decisions and stand by them.
Speaker 5:Yes yes, exactly, we might not agree with everything, but he appears to be a relatively principled man. And here's the thing all politicians to some degree have some principles they stand on. It's called screw you, help us, okay. So that's fine, as long as their help us helps me, okay. Like you're gonna go get a big boeing deal and save the state of washington, I like it, okay. I'm sure there's a lot of union democrats right now going woof. I'm gonna make it to my pension you're watching state with boeing, right?
Speaker 7:yeah, he's saving washington state single-handedly when we don't deserve it.
Speaker 5:Oh yeah, through the boeing contract that he just signed with qatar. So this is the kind of stuff where it's like, okay, good man, I get we would cover up a wheelchair situation. We don't want him to fall. All of that is totally valid, totally valid. I would expect secret service and the people setting up these events to make sure there's not stumbling things for people to trip on and there's ramps with grip and I get all that. These are older men, but it wasn't just stumbling and bumbling, it was full on his mental acuity.
Speaker 7:How come all the leaders of all these other nations are so willing to and open about saying, like we're so grateful for Donald Trump coming here. We're making these deals. This is so great. We could never get this out of the Democrats. No no not at all this is from other leaders of other countries.
Speaker 5:Everybody knows it's the right thing. The problem is it's like you've compromised the right thing for your thing, right? All these politicians that are on the grift, I mean you hear it, it's so broad and deep. Right, you've got a politician in britain whose wife has a podcast, who's receiving a million dollars annually from usaid. Why Soft power influence?
Speaker 7:Because she's got the same number of shares we got. So basically what you're?
Speaker 5:telling me is USAID is paying off this politician through his wife. That's what that tells me and he's like oh, we need to get these grants flowing again. What Politico getting $8 million again through USAID? So it's a soft influence deal. So, basically, you're putting out articles being pumped by the government for its purposes. Well, that's all fine and dandy, assuming those aligned with the people, but they clearly do not.
Speaker 7:They clearly do not. Please send us some of that soft cheddar. I can't promise that we're going to say anything that you like, but send us the money anyways, okay.
Speaker 5:Yeah, ok. So this is Laura Trump reacting on Fox News to this kind of ongoing, almost four year tiff back and forth between Laura Trump and Jake Tapper regarding Joe Biden's mental acuity here, lara, do you think?
Speaker 11:Jake Tapper owes you an apology. Well, you can see for yourself in that clip. It wasn't just enough for him to deny the cognitive decline that was obvious to everybody with eyes and ears in the United States of America and, quite frankly, around the world, jesse, he had to go a step further. He had to shame me and insinuate, in an astonishing insinuation, that I was mocking someone with a stutter. Nobody knew Joe Biden even had a stutter. I don't believe, but that got me a lot of hate from a lot of people. Captain Sully went on to write an op ed to shame me even further after that interview.
Speaker 11:So I'm expecting a full throated public apology at any point. I'm holding my breath from Jake Tapper and maybe from Captain Sully as well. But this is the reason that the legacy media has lost the trust of the American people. Only about 25 percent of the country believes these people anymore and thinks they can actually trust them. Because there's only one of two options here Either Jake Tapper is just about the worst journalist who's supposed to investigate and research and I mean maybe was totally blind for about five years there or he denied, like they all did, tried to cover up what we all saw ourselves, and now that he can make a buck off of it. Now, all of a sudden, he was duped by the white house. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 7:Of course, jesse I wouldn't call him the worst, I'd just say he's on par he tries to be credible.
Speaker 5:Right, he'd be like a center think tank. But here's the thing steve bannon called it right, right, look at, look at that joe biden we were calling dementia joe, right along with the beijing biden jokes like it was pretty serious when we called it. So when you look back at the 2020 election, when you look at the numbers from 2016 to 2024, there's just steve bannon makes this point and he's absolutely spot on about it because the facts are on our side.
Speaker 12:Joe biden never got 15 million votes, more votes than barack obama. Impossible we didn't pick up net 12 house seats when we lost the presidential. Impossible we didn't win 19 of the 20 bellwethers and lose the presidency.
Speaker 5:Impossible Because the facts are on our side. It's impossible, man. It's impossible that you didn't see what was going on with Joe.
Speaker 7:Biden, you just were not paying attention. Bannon's looking good.
Speaker 5:So a little follow-up to our story. Yesterday we talked about John Brennan and he was upset that Tulsi Gabbard fired those two top CIA analysts. Well, john Solomon broke a little news report where he talked about. King Solomon intercepted an email Again, everybody's watching. Everybody intercepted an email and in a stunning exchange, cia Director Mike Morrell turns to fellow director John Brennan and asks if he's willing to assist in overthrowing the united states government during the november 3rd 2020 election. Brendan not only agrees but also expresses his gratitude. So this is mostly over covering up the hunter biden laptop and again, we knew this. But it's another one of these smoking gun documents. This is your cia. This is the guy that's on msnbc complaining the top analysts were fired. Well, well, look at this, the 51 intelligence officers. These are your, you know best of the best analysts. They're like oh, that laptop smells of Russian disinfo. It's clearly authentic. The government's got a copy of it. Clearly, they're the worst of the lamest.
Speaker 15:Yeah, a short while ago, just the news obtained this email. This is a very important email. It comes from the former cia director, mike morel yes, the guy that organized that letter from the 51 intelligence professionals who tried to take you into thinking that the hunter biden laptop was russian disinformation, when it wasn't. Uh, it is between him and john brennan, one of the signatories. You know who john brennan is. He was obama cia director. Right, he's a guy that told obama hey, hillary clinton is doing a dirty trick on Donald Trump, called Russia collusion.
Speaker 15:Well, this is just before the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Hunter Biden's laptop is flinging out there. This is what Mike Morrell, former CIA director, tells his successor, john Brennan hey, sign this letter because I'm quote trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue. A man with a security clearance, a man with the title of CIA director, knew that he wasn't creating an intelligence product, an American civic duty, with 51 people. He was trying to create a political moment. Damning evidence. We'll try to find out if Congress has this letter, but this is a very important piece and it's the ultimate proof that what went out on that letter was a political dirty trick coordinated with the Biden campaign.
Speaker 5:Political dirty trick, otherwise known as treason, or maybe sedition?
Speaker 15:I don't know it was like there was an insurrection that day.
Speaker 5:Nicole Shanahan, who keep in mind she was to sergey brin yeah, the ceo of google, okay, and she was the.
Speaker 5:She was the patent attorney that patented all their blue light screen technology and a whole bunch of stuff. So she's been deeply invested in this world and there's a couple things that happened to her that I've just learned cursory. So I'm no you know deep dive fan or gone in any depth with her, but she's had this huge conversion to MAGA through the Maha movement. Primarily, obviously, she was RFK is running mate and she's a multi, multi-millionaire, if not billionaire in her own right.
Speaker 5:I think she's just saying yeah, and she's really saying so. Her and Sergei had a child and the child had autism. And when the child had autism, and when the child had autism, sergei this is from her own mouth basically was like, eh, what are you going to do? And just ignored the child like whatever, right, so there's a life, great, whatever, like didn't matter. But obviously her, as a mother, she's trying to figure out the autism, fix it, something like that and the road of all the, the harms that are caused, and she's like why can't we get any help? That's what eventually.
Speaker 5:So she just started asking, some started asking questions, okay, and it all kind of centered around having this autistic child, so she's also very aware of all the cutting edge technology.
Speaker 5:Right, this is google, yeah so she's a patent master yes, and there's a book called sapiens, is it, or is it? Oh, it's right here, okay. So this book called sapiens right, it's by uh yoval noah harari and he's associated with the world economic forum. He wrote this book. Sapiens wrote another book called homo deus. I love this book. Okay, I disagree with him politically. I disagree with him on what should the future of humanity be? All that kind of stuff. But this book, right here, as far as a history of mankind it walks, it is an amazing book. Like. It's one of those books where, if somebody ever wants to you know, work with me, you know, work with the peasants like this is top of the reading list.
Speaker 7:It's about as thick as the Hobbit and I never finished that one.
Speaker 5:Yeah, it's like. It's like you need to read Sapiens. You need to read the Ayn Rand collection, fountainhead, atlas Shrugged. You know these are big books but these are like foundational things to get on the same page. So Sapiens is a book that people around the world have gotten on the same page with it. I mean it's endorsed by bill gates, barack obama, it's got quite the list. Obviously it was written before. You know it's trump era, when everybody went crazy, but it's got. You know. The list of endorsements is, and people who have talked about is incredible. So they're all playing off this sheet of music.
Speaker 5:This is the. This is the pretty close to accepted narrative of humankind. And what does it say? Okay, so at the end of this book it gets to these chapters where it talks about the meaning of life. It talks about knowing thyself and it presents us with an interesting concept. It's called the end of homo sapiens. So it's basically talking about. We're getting to the point with technology. Right, here's got a picture of a mouse with a human ear growing on the back. Right, they're growing appendages that can be put on. He shows the bionic people that have appendixes electronic arms and things like that.
Speaker 7:Appendices, yeah, appendices.
Speaker 5:And of course you've got Neuralink, which is right on the horizon from this book being written. But conceptually, it was there.
Speaker 5:So he's saying look, we're reaching a point where there's a merger of technology and man. So it's like are we going to be technology? Is technology using us or are we using it? He's asking you know, how far do we want to go in correcting our genome and what do we consider bad or good?
Speaker 5:And the way when I read this book at the end I was like, listen, humanity is like we just got through our teenage years, like we just turned 18, we just barely figured out who we are. But we have no wisdom. We have knowledge, we have capacity, we have ability. You're 18, you can go vote, you can go guys cigarette you know what I mean. Like you've got all the capacity, you're, you're there, you're a full adult, but you have no wisdom. You're not ready to make big life decisions, right to affect your entire future. There's decisions you can make when you're 18 that can carry with you to the day you die. Are you really ready to make massive decisions that can't be reversed? And that's where we're at with humanity. Are we really ready to rewrite the genome? Are we really ready to start messing with viruses? Are we? Do we really understand all this?
Speaker 5:And that's what he's saying is history is this messy string of things. No one ever would have thought 2 000 years ago that in a couple hundred years the predominant world religion would be christianity, right at the turn of the zero mark. You know what I mean. In fact, we date all this time from this. I did her at preacher from the east right and he's like no one would have picked that. No one would have seen the rise of islam. No one would have seen all these different movements, the nuclear power, all these things. They're not predictable, right? I mean you? You go through the quotes in recent times, where people like at ibm are no one will ever have a computer in their home. This is stupid.
Speaker 8:Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 7:Like nobody on the on the wall in the engineering department at my college there was a famous quote from Bill Gates said 32 K ought to be enough for anybody, anybody Right.
Speaker 5:We live in a world where we're like what's the point of neural link? Well, have. We live in a world where we're like what's the point of Neuralink? Well, have you tried using it? I don't know, it might be really awesome. You know, you walk around the most knowledgeable person in the world. Now, you got the knowledge. Do you have the wisdom? Okay, so in this book he's presenting this question here and Shannon Nicole Shannon is kind of asking the same question is look, we're at the verge of doing a lot of amazing things, things. Are we really ready?
Speaker 17:foremost thought leaders in ai, transhumanism and spirituality you can say that ai, the ai, invasion, is a form of mass immigration and this is why this last election, in my opinion, was so important for exactly this reason. We're in a very good position to protect against the downsides of these technologies, but at the same time, america is where it's happening this is really important for the AI age that we protect the constitution, because that is what is going to protect humans against AI.
Speaker 17:You have to have faith in the human spirit, the human soul and the God that is within and above and moving through it.
Speaker 16:People always ask me well, what are you doing? Are you running for this? Are you doing that? I'm working on all of the things that I feel are necessary conditions for organic humans to have a life on earth that is the conversation that they're having.
Speaker 5:To allow the conditions to have organic life on earth, we have to protect the constitution so we can be AI Guys. This is one of those things where it's like I've talked about the divide, individualism, collectivism. This is a woman who, despite all of her economic views, despite all of her views on regulation and different things like that, when it comes down to it she says we're individuals and we matter. We matter and we can't let the collective, the technology or anything take us over. This is the conversation. This is the world that we are entering into, a world where you can be erased, when your DNA can be used against you with custom viruses, just for you. You know the story of the Iran nuclear reactor and how Israel knocked that thing out a decade ago, 15 years ago, something like that.
Speaker 7:I don't know.
Speaker 5:They knew that Iran was using Microsoft software in their nuclear reactor. So they created a virus to go after their specific facility and their specific program and scramble their database and they release this virus into the entire microsoft ecosystem. Because these guys had an airtight system, right, it wasn't connected to the internet, so they couldn't hack it. It was a it was a it, you know a tight system. So the only way data transfers in and out is through thumb drives and things like that. So they wrote this bug. I think.
Speaker 7:I think I have heard this now In the entire Microsoft ecosystem.
Speaker 5:Let it just circulate throughout the world. So there's a good chance on your computer right now you have this virus in the code. But when that virus eventually made its way onto a Word document or some Microsoft product onto a thumb drive and got put into that facility, facility, it erased the database or did whatever it did. They can, they can produce real viruses that are just as targeted for your dna. They could release it somewhere in zimbabwe and at some point you will come in contact with it. Right, that's your operating system, that's your, and at some point it's just, it will happen.
Speaker 5:That is how advanced we're getting. We're getting to the point where you can use a technical, technological interface to interface with your brain, to send electrical signals to control uh limbs. Right, so that's all great if you're just replacing one limb, but what if you're adding limbs? You know, the bionic man suits like this starts to get to a point of like, wow, there's a lot of ability. Are we really ready to make these decisions? And here's where principles matter. I am, so. My duty is to be selfish and and not sacrifice anything that compromises who I am. That's why the founding fathers diffused power for in the constitution to prevent the king from telling you who you are right. That's, the constitution was built around you, the individual. So it's so important right now for us to enforce that constitution, find out what it really means, settle some of these major issues that even that trump is bringing up, because we're at that point.
Speaker 5:We're at this, the singularity where technology and man are starting to merge, and technology is the borg. It really will be because it's a collective thing. So we've got to maintain the democratization, the individualization of technology. This is why we don't want monopolies. We don't want an india east trading company equivalent in google or facebook or any of these. We don't want monopolies. We don't want an India East trading company equivalent in Google or Facebook or any of these. We don't want three names with one operator. Basically, the way I saw it was Twitter, facebook, google and that's it.
Speaker 7:That's the Holy Trinity.
Speaker 5:That's the Holy Trinity. We're all the United States federal government intelligence operations. I mean, we clearly know from the Twitter papers and the admissions from Facebook that they were basically being, you know, supervised by the government to the point of micromanagement. Right, that's a monopoly. That's an India East India trading company situation going on there. Same thing we have to protect ourselves from the corporation, from the machine, from the fiction, from the smoke monster corporation, from the machine, from the fiction, from the smoke monster cool stuff. So that's a long thing. That was just the opening highlights, but it hit on those, those different topics. There is a huge coalition of people that are starting to, whether they can identify and articulate it or not, are starting to realize that this is a better battle of me and we versus it. The thing right, and that's really. You've got to keep that perspective. We can disagree on optimal tax rates and we can disagree on a lot of different things, but if we can't agree that I am me and you are you and we're separate but equal, we can't even start.
Speaker 5:We can't even start Exactly, which is why collectivist ideologies, theologies, mindsets clash so hard with individual ones, because it really is a battle for the soul of a nation or the soul of a country. Am I in this for me or am I in this for you? When I'm in this for you, the you becomes bigger and bigger and bigger, until pretty soon I'm living for everyone else, but never for me, and that's the downfall of communism and any of those collectivist orders is, you're always self-sacrificing, you're always self-cannibalizing for the greater the others, and you never meet those others. Everybody's poor together, everybody suffers together, but of course, the people who administer end up being the fat cats. Just the way it works, okay. So another thing that's constantly coming up, and I have some opinions on this. I don't really know what's right or wrong.
Speaker 5:I heard jordan peterson say one time that the idea that anybody can comprehend the entire economy in one one mind is, you know, I see idea which is true, right I? We can barely remember a hundred and something names. You think you're going to be able to track trillions of transactions all the way as money flow. It's quite astonishing and so you've got these different systems that the government uses to score budgets and all you know the Office of Budget and Management and blah, blah, blah. And they do these scores and what's our obligations into the future, and how much is social security going to cost based on all the living people that are going to collect and actuary tables, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It all factors into some report that says whether the budget's balanced or not.
Speaker 5:It's a really hard game to tell because, listen, the government lies about all of its economic data. I mean, look at the job numbers over the Biden term, they got adjusted down and then got adjusted down again. You know, you look at the inflation numbers. They'd be one thing and then they'd come out higher. Right, it was like everything is flux, everything is moving. You're not tracking expenses. How can you create a budget when elon musk is telling me at the treasury, they don't even have to tell them what the checks are for, let alone if they're appropriated, right, so you're all the. We can't balance the budget. Look at all this debt we have. Is it tied to anything? What is this? Okay, so Donald Trump has a different opinion. I remember I think it's called the Lafferty curve. It's what establishes that? Basically, you can only raise about 17% in taxes, otherwise people will cheat and avoid the taxes and if you lower the, you know what I mean.
Speaker 5:So it's like it always ends up being 17. That that's the tolerance that you can take from people before they start finding robin hoods in their communities.
Speaker 5:Right, or you start, yeah, so it's a little bit of calculus yes, but there's also the question of what happens if you default on the debt. What does it mean to default on the debt when it's not backed by anything? What is what does any of this mean, right? So I'm super critical of the monetary system. I think the federal reserve system is stupid. Everything should be gold backed. The fact that we have a collectivized economic system. That's global, by the way. All you Christians reading the Book of Revelations hello, it's backed by air.
Speaker 5:Hello it's backed by air. Here's your mark to buy and sell. It is what we're dealing with. So I don't like that. But it also is a situation as the United States being the prime reserve currency, the currency everybody's using, it's kind of convenient, right. So what does it mean to run up the credit card? What does it mean to have the national debt? I don't know. You can't pay it off. It's impossible. If you paid it off, all the dollars would go out of circulation. I guess it's backed by itself. It's backed by it.
Speaker 5:Donald Trump is talking about growth and his concerns over the national debt. Now, you know you've got members of Congress like Chip Roy and other people raising the alarm. We're not cutting the budget. You've got Ron Johnson talking about we got to do this. And you know we've got Medicaid cuts. Prescription prices are coming down. That's going to affect these OMB things. If they calculate it, of course inflation just hit a four year low back down to reasonable rates, but of course your interest rate. Nothing's right. Yeah, okay. So when you look at something like that, I've been a company president before I've run my own organizations that we were looking at a very, very red number and I thought, okay, you have to create a business plan around how to climb out.
Speaker 5:You have to start thinking big generalized sweeps and then you've got people who go in and handle the gotta make hard decisions and nitty gritty details.
Speaker 5:So Trump's a big picture guy. I don't view Trump as somebody who sits line by line on his tax returns Right but he's a person who understands big numbers. I'm going to charge a hundred million. It's going to cost me 90 million. I net 10. Pretty good. He's someone who just understands the big picture stuff. So he's running the United States as it is, as a corporation. It's a business entity, he's going out and he's getting these deals done. So he has a certain opinion on the national debt, the budget and where we should be. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 18:Howard likes the idea. I'm less. I want to really make a lot of money, pay off debt and just get it.
Speaker 5:He's talking about the sovereign wealth fund that they've talked about the United States making, which would allow us to basically be a corporate investor all over the world and then the United States would get a dividend. Okay, it's kind of like Alaska they have a state investor all over the world and then the united states would get a dividend okay, it's kind of like alaska. Is this like they have a state wealth fund that the oil revenues go into and then every state resident alaska gets a little check?
Speaker 7:is this like how universities have like uh, what do they call it? When they got their?
Speaker 5:endowment yeah they're.
Speaker 7:No, this isn't like an endowment, this is like a fund like
Speaker 5:you know the united states has a hedge fund, but we're all shareholders, okay, so it's like the state of alaska does oil revenue for these residents. There's a alaska wealth fund or alaska wealth reserve or some.
Speaker 7:Somehow they've you know, yeah, and every citizen gets a oil, or every year the beneficiaries are the residents.
Speaker 5:So that's what a wealth fund would do. Okay, we'd be the beneficiary. So if we go build a port in abu dhabi and that port creates revenue, it becomes revenue for the United States rather than peeled off into some corporation.
Speaker 7:I could probably be on board with something like that.
Speaker 5:Absolutely Most countries have sovereign wealth funds, literally sovereign wealth funds. We're the sovereigns. That's our fund for us to invest.
Speaker 7:You sovereign citizens.
Speaker 5:So, anyways, out of the Neil Gorsuch's mouth to your ears. Okay, so he's saying that's a good idea, but we're going to pay off debt. Think of how he's talking about this. You're hearing all this hand-wringing about budgets and reconciliation. We can't get the rescission package passed. Yeah, I don't even know if all these congressmen are going to be here in like six months, the way dan bongino apparently is working right. I mean, who knows?
Speaker 5:let's be honest about this most of them do belong in bracelets. I mean, wasn't it burkhart said? The self is like, well, what they're finding at doge, half this place should be hauled out of here. This afternoon it's like yeah, so I don't know if trump's really I don't know where he's at in this like it. To me it's like he's just pushing forward and he's like you either get with me or not. I heard someone analyzing say he's going to come clean house if they don't pass the budget. It sounds to me the way he's talking is he doesn't care what the numbers really are. It's because in his mind, as a business owner, it doesn't matter. I've been this place before. There's nothing to cut. Yeah, I might be able to save a few pennies here or there, but it's all on the margins. The only way out of this is growth. Okay, which? No-transcript it here?
Speaker 18:right, he's doing all of this kind of stuff, working for us and then you do it to find you know these people have no debt.
Speaker 18:It's nice to have a fund I say to Howard, we're a little early because we have debt and really it sounds like a lot, but relative to the kind of income and everything that we have, it's not really that much, but it's still a lot and I'd rather pay the debt off and then do the fund after the debt's paid off. And you know, to me the fund is just pay off debt. We're making a lot of money. We had a situation six months ago we were losing five billion dollars a day on trade. Now we're making money on trade. Don't forget, we were losing a trillion dollars to China. So we essentially went cold turkey with China for a period of a month. Therefore, we weren't losing a trillion dollars. You know, I think that's pretty simple, scott, right?
Speaker 7:even the banner.
Speaker 5:There we make the best fighter jets what's interesting about that when he says we're not losing a trillion dollars in trade, so does that come off the debt? No, because, remember, the debt never actually gets paid off. Okay because the money is the regulation it's that the us debt gets paid off. Right, that's. That's a different story. So it's like okay, paying off the debt means we don't have to owe, which means our tax bill has to go down right, because the debt service goes down right, because if there's nothing to pay down, the debt service goes down.
Speaker 5:There's nothing, there's no reason to collect right and if you sit. So what spreadsheet is he working from when he? When you've got josh holly saying we're going to deliver a balanced budget, I guarantee it. When you've got trump saying we're going to pay down that, how do you pay down debt? If we're upside down? I mean we're talking like 50 years from now? Is this one of those? Like you know, invest today and when it's paid off, you'll finally make money like a ponzi scheme.
Speaker 7:What is this?
Speaker 5:I'm not 100 certain because he's not revealed his method. He knows where he's going. We don't that's. We're watching someone navigate through this, where he's got a lot of variables working, but every time something happens he's plucking right along this tariff revenue. How real is it? I've heard people say it's not that much, but then you know, you hear trump talking about it being like it's the other way around. Well, if you're getting money coming. For the last 60 years, money has flowed one direction out of the United States. One direction. Okay, we buy more things from other places than we buy from ourselves. It has been that way since, like the 1970s.
Speaker 7:So we keep printing money, so we can keep up to keep up with our prices, right, and?
Speaker 5:and so now if money's coming in? Just so we keep printing money, so we can keep up, to keep up with our prices, right. And so now, if money's coming in, it's like a business is in the red and all of a sudden they're in the black. If you've never been in the black before, how do you calculate when your entire system is based on debt? How do you readjust, how do you project out your budgets when you're at that inversion? You see what I'm saying.
Speaker 5:You've never had money to reinvest. You've always had to borrow. Now you have cash, okay, you're a lot cleaner on your on your payment system, so that cash is not immediately getting drained out. That's one of the things I feared is that, even if we had a balanced budget allegedly getting drained out. That's one of the things I feared is that even if we had a balanced budget allegedly is it's not really balanced because there's no accountability on the spending right right. So this is pretty. I don't know where this goes, but I feel like it's good. And I feel like donald trump is someone who actually has a track record of, you know, coming out of bankruptcy and thriving. So I don't know what number he's working on, but when he talks about just paying down the debt, he's not talking about it like like house representatives. People do where. It's like our great-grandchildren.
Speaker 7:It's like no, like we'll start doing it now, like it'll happen very quickly, a couple years decade even without knowing the numbers, though, my gut just tells me that we're going to be in a better spot than we would be with biden if you get say he gets a trillion dollars in excess trade.
Speaker 5:Yeah, you know, I mean they're all I don't know it's. It's interesting, I guess we'll see. I mean, they're talking about eliminating the IRS, but I don't see a plan or I don't see where the revenues come. To get there Conceptually, yeah, I get it. Well, we'll just spend the money that we. I get that. But you have real budgets, have an inertia happening. These people you can lay a hundred thousand people off, but that's still a dent in this massive budget. How are you getting to the idea that we're going to be having such a surplus? We're going to pay down debt. That means put back more than we take out. Oh man, I'm excited to watch. We'll see, we will see.
Speaker 5:Going on, uh, when you listen to this, yesterday the Supreme Court had opening arguments in the injunction, so Donald Trump did an executive order eliminating birthright citizenship, and this is based on the premise that the 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized and under the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered citizens thereof and equal under the law, or something close to that. So the idea here is that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is considered a citizen under the law, or something dang close to that. So the idea here is that anyone born or naturalized in the united states is considered a citizen under the law. Well, that's all fine and dandy. But then it has that extra little kicker. It says and under the jurisdiction thereof. So in theory, if you're traveling here, right, and you're on vacation and you have a baby, the way it works now is that the virtue of that baby simply being born here the parent could have been in this country for two seconds. That child is now a citizen with full birthright status. Even if the child then retreats back to the parental home country, that child maintains birthright status.
Speaker 5:So when the founding fathers created the 14th Amendment, they were thinking about children of immigrants or children of slaves. They were not considering tourists, because at the time you didn't tour here, casually, okay, and if you did tour here, you were basically a permanent fixture, months, right. So it wasn't the idea that there was this huge class of people that they needed to exclude. It was such a minor problem, it wasn't a big deal. It was. It was assumed, you know, and the jurisdiction thereof that, for example, diplomats from france that their children would not by default become citizens of the united states because they're not technically under the jurisdiction of the united states. And back in the common law era this was the case. The jurisdiction was not over you. It might be over a crime you commit on the soil here, but it wasn't over you.
Speaker 7:They couldn't tax you, they couldn't draft you because they didn't have jurisdiction over you right back then it was also if you made it here somehow, they figured you were staying yes.
Speaker 5:So in this, in this regard, if we take this and we go, well, everybody's equal under the law. So here's the way I would put it okay, if I'm born here, I'm supposed to register to draft for the draft, which means I'm eligible to be taken from my home and sent to the front lines and shot in the face on behalf of my country, because they have jurisdiction over me. So if I'm an illegal immigrant and I come here and my child is born here and I fail to present them so they're not naturalized, they haven't received all the proper documentation aside from the fact that they were born so we can prove that right. So now they're a citizen. They turn 18. We go to war, I get hauled off.
Speaker 5:What about my neighbor that hasn't naturalized? Does the government consider themselves to have jurisdiction? Can they just come in and take them? Hey, our recruiting's low. Why don't you recruit off the banks of the freaking Rio Grande? I see a lot of people there that are hungry and looking for a better life. Why not just pluck them straight up into the draft Because they're citizens, right, they came here, came here, right.
Speaker 5:That's not how that was supposed to work. Dope, because back in the day common law jurisdiction. You had the land okay. If you commit a crime, we'll punish you because you're here, but we didn't have jurisdiction over you to tax you, to draft you to, to call you for jury duty or any of those things. That's the burden that comes along with citizenship. If you're not under our jurisdiction, as the way they saw it, in that framework, they don't work. So the idea that immigrants can come here illegally that aren't under the the common law jurisdiction of the united states, you'd create an anchor baby exactly. So it's been totally abused. So they heard opening arguments in this today and and this is the solicitor general John.
Speaker 13:Sauer Universal injunctions blocking this order and a cascade of such universal, excuse me.
Speaker 5:There's two issues at play here. So there's not only the birthright citizenship, but the birthright citizenship was blocked by one of these many injunctions to stop the executive branch from executing the law. Ok, so so it's two issues the birthright citizenship and then what about the injunctions? There's a little bit of political play here, because it's possible that the Supreme court will split the baby. They'll decide against Trump on the birthright citizenship but for Trump on not having nationwide injunctions, or they could go the other way. So they can do that whole split decision thing here, because you're really looking at two issues.
Speaker 13:Promptly issued nationwide or universal injunctions blocking this order, and a cascade of such universal injunctions followed. Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article 3, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority and they create a host of practical problems.
Speaker 13:Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions. They circumvent Rule 23 by offering all the benefits but none of the burdens of class certification. They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere while the plaintiffs can win anywhere. They invert the ordinary hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments. They increase the pressures on this court's emergency docket. They create what Justice Powell described as repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government, and they disrupt the Constitution's careful balancing of the separation of powers. I welcome the court's questions. General Sauer the.
Speaker 5:Those are the two issues at hand you have the birthright citizenship and you have the injunctions, our.
Speaker 5:My opinion is pretty clear I don't like birthright citizenship to me doesn't make sense in our modern era. Might have made sense before there was unadulterated invasion into this country, but to me it's like, okay, it's a relic now it doesn't serve its purpose. That's, that's my current opinion on it. Um, I do think that you should be able to have, you know, birthright citizenship without registration, for example, the amish and all these kind of things. But it's one of those things.
Speaker 5:There's something called a patent of nativity where you prove that you've been here generationally. You know, that might be a solution for people who are, you know, illegal immigrants. Uh, too deep, you know what I'm saying. Like, mom came here illegally, so I'm, I'm an, I'm the anchor baby. Well, now, if they make that decision against, uh, anchor babies, then where's my status? So there could be a grandfathering there. I mean, there can be a solution to this right. They're going to lean. Democrats are going to lean on the. The process is too complex, you know. There's too many people that could get deported or sent out that are citizens and have operated as citizens for a long time.
Speaker 5:Right, those are the arguments they're going to make. Listen, go legislate it, figure it out, but the principle is the concept of birthright citizenship they must be under the jurisdiction thereof.
Speaker 7:I'm surprised they haven't started a new department, you know, like the department of illegal immigration or something.
Speaker 5:I think they called that homeland security. It was the welcome house, okay. So this is um. We're going to listen to a couple of these clips because this is a very important case. This is another one of those like cases that will be written in the history books that kids will have to study in a hundred years If it gets decided to get rid of birthright citizenship. It can also be viewed by historians a thousand years from now is the equivalent of literally opening the gates to the to the vandals invading Rome right. The gates to the to the vandals invading rome right. This could be the thing. Well, this, this was what did him in. Yeah, this was it right here. This was the moment. I mean, that's how serious of a decision is.
Speaker 5:This could be the solidification of the, the, what it means to be american yeah, and somehow rome just didn't claim our place amongst the ethno states, right, where you've got an actual inheritance on the land, which is what we believe through christian values, right? Not the idea that we stole the land. But this point is like well, now we're the natives. Okay, we've been here long enough. Like I'm not greek anymore, I'm actually american.
Speaker 7:We've been here 400 years, 500 years I've only been here for 50, but I feel like I'm american, yeah but you get the point yeah like this idea of legacy Americans.
Speaker 5:You know, you'll finally be what you are, or what we claim to be, so to speak. Ok, so it's a big, it's a big deal. So here is Justice Thomas asking his questions. General when were the first universal injunctions used?
Speaker 13:we believe that the best reading of that is what you said in trump against hawaii, which is that warts in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about perkins against lucan's oil when people say things like oh, it's in the constitution has been around forever.
Speaker 5:The people that want to lean on, you can't change things. Well, what we're doing was changed like in our lifetimes that's what this whole discussion is about this whole discussion is about just that. It's like don't sit here and tell me things don't change and they can't change and it's rule of law. A crap on your premise. It's constantly changing. People, do you still transact in gold and silver?
Speaker 13:that's what I'm all about going back to 1940 and of course we point to the court's opinion that reversed that, that that universal injunction issued by the dc circuit and said it's it's profoundly wrong. Now, if you look at the, the cases at the either party site, uh, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite, like national treasuries, treasuries, employment union, uh, perkins against Lukens Oil, frothingham and Massachusetts against Mellon, going back to Scott against Donald and all of those, those are cases where the court considered and addressed the sort of universal in that case statewide issue of provision of injunctive relief. So when the court is considered and addressed this it is consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy. So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction.
Speaker 13:That's exactly correct and in fact those are very limited, very rare, Even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007.
Speaker 5:In our petition in Summers against Revival Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims so really, all these injunctions grew out of environmental claims, which is where the chevron deference case in, where the court basically said, ah, we, we're not experts, let the executive branch be the experts and figure out the rule making. And then it just led to injunctions and this, this cascade effect, to where now you've got pundits on tv. Being like this is a core part of the constitution. It's wild. People need to realize there is a. If you ever heard of the overton window, do you know the overton window is?
Speaker 7:I have heard of that. We're not here but that, oh, that is that. Um, what's that smart dude with the curly hair? I don't know. My cousin luke what are you talking? About. Oh shoot, he does the. I don't freaking forget so we have to be careful. Maxwell, yeah. Malcolm gladwell, yeah okay.
Speaker 5:So we have to be careful of constant encroachment, right, you have to realize that things are constantly changing, like there's so many things in our life that have changed that it's almost. Change has become normal, right, advancing technology becoming more and more restrictive in the rules. I mean, when was the last time we had some major law passed that made you more free where you actually felt it? Pretty rare, maybe the last tax cut was oh, I got a little more freedom with a few extra bucks, okay, so keep in mind, we're doing this right, we're complying with this, we're consenting.
Speaker 5:Sometimes it's good ideas, sometimes it's bad ideas, and we forget the slow erosion. It's the, it's the frog in the pot. Analogy, right. So here's an example of something a little bit off the wall that we can all agree is a bad idea, but at the same time remember, once you start getting legislation involved, it's a little bit out of control and and our parents, I think, understood the difference between individualism and collectivism intuitively, which is why you get stuff like this any attempt to restrict drinking and driving here is viewed by some as downright undemocratic.
Speaker 12:It's kind of getting common when a fellow can't put in a hard day's work, put in 11, 12 hours a day, and then get in your truck and at least drink one or two beers.
Speaker 21:They're making laws where you can't drink when you want to.
Speaker 11:You have to wear a seatbelt when you're driving. Pretty soon we're going to be communist country seatbelt when you're driving.
Speaker 14:Pretty soon we're gonna be communist country.
Speaker 5:You know the grandmas that followed donald trump around the front row, joes and stuff. Yeah, that's her, right there, that's her she's got it, she's doing it for a while. You can't drink and drive. What is this communist country? Yeah, you're trying to take my rights for the people with the other people safe with their kids sitting next to her in the front seat.
Speaker 5:Yeah, way of seat belts. You can't have a beer when you drive. What is this communist? Pretty soon we're going to be a communist country. The slow erosion. We watch the courts peel it back. When you hear gorsuch saying things like you're sovereign, there's too many lawyers okay, he's talking about that stuff. I mean, where was the petitions to keep drunk drinking and driving legal or not necessarily illegal? Just let it happen. It's crazy. Obviously I'm not a you know. I think you should be drinking and driving, but I want to live in a world where you choose not to drink and drive because it's a bad idea, not because someone tells you not to. Yeah, that's the world I want to live in, a world where you choose not to drink and drive because it's a bad idea, not because someone tells you not to. Yeah, that's the world I want to live in. So let's continue on here. Here is Tanji Brown Jackson, and she has a little bit of a different take on this court thing. Why does this happen to me? I hit refresh. Sometimes they disappear.
Speaker 7:I don't know, maybe you just got to dump that Apple product.
Speaker 5:All right, give me a second here. All right, we're going to jump ahead and we're going to listen to Amy Coney Barrett, and this is care of CNN. And then I'm going to find this Judgments here.
Speaker 14:Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion Our general?
Speaker 13:practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that is not this administration's practice or the long-standing practice of the federal government, and I'm not talking about in the fourth circuit.
Speaker 14:Are you going to respect a second circuit I'm talking about within the second circuit and can you say, is that this administration's practice or a long-standing one?
Speaker 13:as I understand it, long-standing policy of the department of justice. Yes, that we generally as it was phrased to me generally respect circuit president, but not necessarily so what she, what he's saying is we don't respect court opinion.
Speaker 5:I mean, we respect it, we generally respect it, but but we respect their judgments, but not always their opinions, because they'll sometimes challenge the judgments because they disagree with the opinion, but they were they. They respect the judgment, right, generally. Is there exceptions to that? That's why we say, generally what are the exceptions? I can't really go into them, we'll get you know what I mean. Like, but if you give a bad judgment and we have to not comply with it, like we're open to it. Okay, like, essentially, that's why we have appeals. You know what I mean we're coming up to here, and so that's what he's clarifying. She's trying to say are you going to respect every judgment and every opinion that's given? He's like, well, yes, but not really, because that's the answer is not really. They appeal things, they get things decided against them and then the government appeals it because they disagree. Now they'll abide by the judgment, but they disagree with the opinion. They don't abide by the opinion. They follow the judgment. Do you understand the difference?
Speaker 5:yeah, yeah, yeah the opinion is why they made the decision. The judgment is the decision.
Speaker 13:Yeah, yeah, the opinion is why they made the decision. The judgment is the decision. Yeah, in every case. And certain examples. Some examples might be a situation where we're litigating to try and get that circuit president overruled, and so forth.
Speaker 14:Well, ok, so I'm not. I'm not talking about a situation in which you know the Second Circuit has a case from 1955 and you think it's time for it to be challenged. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about, in this kind of situation I'm talking about this week the Second Circuit holds that the executive order is unconstitutional, and then what do you do the next day or the next week? Generally, we follow. So you're still saying generally yes, and you still think that it's generally the policy, longstanding policy, of the federal government to take that approach. That is my understanding. Okay, so, but it sounds to me like you accept a cooper versus aaron kind of situation for the supreme court but not for, say, the second circuit, where you would respect the opinions and the judgments of the supreme court and you're saying you would respect the judgment but not necessarily the opinion of a lower.
Speaker 13:And again, and I think the vast majority of instances our practice has been to respect the opinion as well, in the circuits as well, but my understanding is that has not been a categorical practice in the way respect for the precedents and the judgments of the Supreme Court has been so you're not hedging at all with respect to the precedent of this court, that is correct. I believe the quotation from our application directly addresses that and we stand by that completely Okay.
Speaker 5:Okay. So do you understand the nuance there? I think so. She's trying, in my opinion, she's setting up a situation to split the baby again, where they're gonna they're gonna chastise the trump administration for not having done something you know, either complying or not complying, or challenging or something, and so they're gonna you know what I mean. She's setting up the split, the baby ruling and she's also, I think.
Speaker 7:I was following it, but I could not explain it, and it sounded like I mean, it sounded like they were arriving at a point where they were finally agreeing on what they were both talking about if you accept the premise that we're running through a living judicial coup where the judicial branch is trying to get supremacy over the legislative and the executive branch through the function of marbury versus madison, which right in this instant right.
Speaker 5:In this instant they're trying to take power, the ability to be the, the deciding factor. These nine judges from the executive branch and from the legislative branch right what our opinions are and our judgments are do. Will you abide by them?
Speaker 5:right in an instant so, therefore, they can override the legislature because they can call it a constitution, or they can essentially rewrite law, which we've seen them do right. We know that they can change long-standing court uh concepts like innocent till proven guilty, common law this also sounds like that there would be an ability to challenge, like executive orders everything, everything right and it also allows them to get out of their lane.
Speaker 5:There are some things that are delegated to the office of the presidency that the legislative branch and the judicial branch don't touch. For example, alien and enemies act, expulsion on evasion. You can't wait around for the court.
Speaker 7:You're not going to go through that same process right, which is, I think, exactly why they're talking about it yes, okay so, but she's.
Speaker 5:But I really do think that she's setting up a situation here where she, they can have a split decision. I really think they're playing some politics with this. That's what it feels like to me and they're trying to come to an understanding in public.
Speaker 7:It's kind of wild how they're working it out in public like that. What did I do? I?
Speaker 5:lost that clip again. This is opinions and judgments here did I understand you correctly?
Speaker 14:to tell you, all right watch this.
Speaker 5:I'm gonna get it stand back okay, so this is katanji brown jackson giving a pretty full-throated defense of these nationwide injunctions. Now, oh, nope, sorry, that's totally wrong. That's a transgender case, you know. I've only found it like six times today already okay, good, gravy, she was popping up like so.
Speaker 7:Weird how my brain goes blank when we're sitting here, you're trying to look up a video and I'm like dead air sorry guys, I should talk because, uh, you know dead air and I'm like, do me a favor, read this all right, while I'm grabbing this video. Okay, good, the text is big enough. Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America and bringing their families with them all the time, laughing at the suckers that we are. The United States of America is the only country in the world that does this. For what reason? Nobody knows, but the drug cartels love it. We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a stupid country, but in actuality we, uh oh, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America. Birthright citizenship is about the babies of slaves.
Speaker 7:As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865. The bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that. It had nothing to do with illegal immigration from people wanting to scam our country from all parts of the world, which they oh my gosh, this is so hard to read, it's so small on my screen uh, from all parts of the world, which they have done for many years. It had to do with civil war results and the babies of slaves who had our politicians, who had our politicians felt correctly needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States Again. Remember the Civil War ended in 1865 and the bill goes to Congress in 1866. We didn't have people pouring into the country from all over South America and the rest of the world. It wasn't even a subject. What we had were the babies of slaves. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Good luck with this very important case. God bless the USA, donald Trump.
Speaker 5:Okay, so that's his official opinion. Sorry, that was rough, I'm not.
Speaker 7:I'm not a good reader.
Speaker 5:I know you're good at math. It's usually one or the other. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 21:So finally, the much teased katanja brown jackson clip giving a full-throated argument for injunctions I would think we'd want the system to move as quickly as possible to reach the merits of the issue and maybe have this court decide whether or not the government is entitled to do this under the law. Wouldn't having universal injunctions actually facilitate that? It seems to me that when the government is completely enjoined from doing the thing it wants to do, it moves quickly to appeal that to get it to the Supreme Court, and that's actually what we would want. What I worry about is similar to what Justice Kagan points out is that if the government is saying no lower court can completely enjoin it, it actually means that the government just keeps on doing the purportedly unlawful thing and it delays the ability for this court to reach the underlying issue. I would think we'd, in my opinion if there's, my opinion does that mean that people can't ask questions?
Speaker 7:I don't understand what she's trying to say. I mean, doesn't it? I mean, just because people can't use this to make decisions doesn't mean that it's not important to listen to?
Speaker 5:So the idea here is the idea with the idea, with our current the court system, what it's supposed to be is a claimant comes in and that claimant can get relief. So the judge can absolutely do an injunction saying you can't be deported or your property can't be taken, right. But when they, when they extrapolate and go oh, because you're an immigrant, all immigrants can't be deported, yeah. Ok.
Speaker 5:So this is where, in the beginning, is opening statement says they get the benefits of being a class without the burdens of actually all having been the same. Like you're protecting trende, agua and the almond picker. They're kind of different, you know what I mean. But if you're going to stop us from deporting the almond picker, right, the almond picker might be able to go and get relief based on a class that they contribute economically. They haven't broken the law, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 5:The only thing is a is a is a felony trespass. Okay that. But then you've got the Trendiago guys. They're not in the same class, they're not, but they want to make it that is. And she's like well, just get it in the courts and then we'll injunct it and then we can decide Well, that makes the court very political. That's why we vote. We vote for these things, these hard decisions. And then you're supposed to back up the executive orders and the laws in their lane. Like, when it's executive order appropriate, you back it up. When it's the law, when it's legislative or uh, enactments, then you do that?
Speaker 5:yeah, it sounds like she's saying that they want the ability to make the law rather than just enforce it she wants to be able to come in and do the, the nationwide injunction, and do class action type benefit without the burden, and that, oh, this will be good because it'll always put it in front of us. So now you're always deciding, so you're involved in everything, because everything will be litigated from both sides and it'll be injunctions both ways. But what'll happen is she's saying, well, the government moves fast when you injunk them. Well, why don't you move fast when they injunk the defendant? Why don't you move fast? Why do you put the burden on the government?
Speaker 7:they won't, even you could just schedule a hearing they won't even listen to all the cases that come before them not even close, just the ones that have political merit. Yeah, this will just make it easier for him to cherry pick and be more powerful supreme court hears basic arguments on birthright.
Speaker 5:This is coming from cnn and uh, it's saying that they seem favorable to deciding up for trump supreme court on thursday seemed to hear open, uh, open to lifting series of open to lifting a series of nationwide orders blocking president trump enforcing his birthright citizenship policy, even as several of the justices rested on the practical inflammation implication of allowing the government to deny citizenship to people born in the US. So basically, again, it's one of those like they're probably going to say no more nationwide injunctions or put some parameters around it, but then there might decide against them on the birthright issue, right. So they cherry picked this one to bring to their case because it covers all the other 60 injunctions. Picked this one to bring to their case because it covers all the other 60 injunctions. But it's this one hot topic injunction that if they decide we're keeping birthright citizenship, maybe the will of the people will stick with it.
Speaker 5:You see what I'm saying splitting the baby. Don't like it? Okay? So the next thing along with that is there's a caller that called into C-SPAN talking to John Malcolm, who's an expert on this, apparently talking about how nefarious it is, not just with people in South America actually migrating, but actual birthright tourism, where they come seven, eight months pregnant, hold up in a hotel and then go home immediately after the birth yes, I was just wondering.
Speaker 3:I would like to know if your guest knows what a chinese maternity house is. There are houses where the chinese government takes citizens that when they're in their seventh or eighth month, they ship them here for a month, they let them have their children and then, once they have their children, they take them back to china, where now they're us citizens, but they're raised in China and they're loyal to China. We know they're doing it, but they're still getting away with it. And on the other one, that two-year-old kid, I noticed how, when you read the thing that the daughter was from the two-year-old where the baby was here, we kept her here because the mother was from Trinidad and Guam. And why would we send a baby back with a mother like that?
Speaker 20:Thank, you Well, with respect to the latter, it's just my opinion. A mother is still a mother. It would be a bad person, but still a mother. And you know, unless you're engaging in active child abuse, she's still a mother, you know. With respect to your first comment, yes, one of the.
Speaker 20:There is a birth tourism industry where people will pay to come to our shores in their seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, when it's still relatively safe to travel, and they will then stay in hospitals until they give birth and they will go back into their countries, and there are certainly evidence out there that there are some countries surprise me if it was China that are in fact sending people here to give birth so that at some point, they can take those children who have been living back in China for many, many years and bring them back to the United States and then claim that the people that are coming back to the United States are, in fact, us citizens by dint of the fact that they were born on our shores. I believe it is exactly abuses like that, among many, that led President Trump to enter the executive order that he did.
Speaker 8:All right, that's John Malcolm, president of the Institute for Constitutional.
Speaker 5:The fact that they're doing that right and that they can't legislate against it Like the oh, because you got this 14th amendment thing that would be against the constitution, invasion, foreign wars, people's war. Do you not understand why we? He would use the alien enemies act to remove these people? Like there's nothing good about this? Best case scenario they're going to use citizenship benefits to get scholarships and programs and things like that, right? Best case scenario. That's all they're going to do.
Speaker 5:Worst case scenario. Here you go, manchurian candidates. Oh, look at this great presidential candidate. He's such a patriot. Oh, you know he was born in Ohio and then went back and graduated high school in China, but he learned from his experience in China. Graduated high school in China, but he'd learned from his experience in China. That you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 5:We programmed him good yeah he'd learned from experience in China the value of freedom and democracy and he's running for the Communist Party of America. But you know he's a real patriot. But he was born in America, don't worry.
Speaker 7:Do you see what I'm saying? We're going to rename the Gulf of America the Gulf of China.
Speaker 5:It becomes the most nefarious thing you can possibly imagine. It could be as benign as oh, they just want benefits and they want to scam us out of some scholarships and some you know in-state tuition and some you know some corporate perks that come from being a US citizen. That's all. They just want to use the access to the system. You know. They want to develop some credit scores. Best case scenario. Best case scenario they're just fraudsters.
Speaker 5:Worst case scenario they're just fraudsters. Worst case scenario we're screwed. Yeah, that's the worst case scenario. Not just china, every country's been doing that. Yeah, I mean, I used to find these videos of like buses coming across the border full of pregnant women. We're claiming asylum. It's an entire bus with 46 pregnant women like seven, eight, nine months, and then they go and they get dropped off in you know el paso, some care center, and you know they unload the bus, they're walking out. You know they just look like you're migrant crew.
Speaker 7:Well, they're not going to play in parenthood, you're like yeah then you got a whole.
Speaker 5:you got them going in and then you got a line of women coming out with their newborn baby, a little manila envelope with paperwork, loading up the bus going back. You know it's like that's going on, that is going on.
Speaker 7:We got our contraband.
Speaker 5:There was a adoption center in salt Lake years ago that the guy was arrested because he was bringing in. He was bringing in foreigners on a basically a work visa. He was paying them and pregnanting them and then adopting out his own children that then had birthright citizenship he wasn't on any certificates.
Speaker 5:He did like 47 times to mormon parents in utah. He adopted out his own half kids to these immigrants that he then sent back right. He was bringing them here, putting them up in his own little apartment thing and impregnating them, and you know oh my gosh, why do people have to be so skeezy?
Speaker 5:no kidding. Okay, here's another thing. This happened earlier this week in a hearing and this is going along with all the doge cuts and the things they found, and there's some interesting things that happen. I remember I was talking to one of my ceos one time and he was talking about getting a bonus at the end of the year and he was saying he was going to buy a laser engraver and these things were like 14 to 20 grand. He was going to buy it with his bonus and I was like I couldn't quite bonus for what? Like you're a ceo, you're correctional officer. Bonus for what? And I was like and how would it be that big?
Speaker 13:yeah, you know.
Speaker 5:I mean you get paid over time. It's not like I. I was like what kind of bonus? Well, it turns out some departments in the government get these really big bonuses.
Speaker 7:They got incentive plans.
Speaker 5:So here is Representative Muscovich and he's saying hey, we've got a bonus problem with ICE.
Speaker 7:What could possibly be the metrics that would get you a bonus?
Speaker 5:Yeah, I know, that's what I couldn't figure out. I was like what would be the metrics? Yeah, okay, so this is uh, using some doge information, trying to put an amendment in to cut down on bonuses for ice and then this one's my favorite.
Speaker 19:I don't know if you know this, but you guys have 858 million dollars again almost a billion, okay, of money to give out bonuses to people. And so, listen, bonuses are great when people do good work, but 858 million sounds like a lot of money. That's like a 40 000 bonus to every employee in all of in all of ice, so I would have it 500 the total numbers from the director on down to the secretaries.
Speaker 5:You could give every one of them a forty thousand dollar bonus I bet they're not all getting them to to the for bonuses.
Speaker 19:Okay, we can do this together. We can show the american people there's like a little bit of waste here, a little bit of waste, so I can help you capture, mr chairman, 903 million dollars. We can save a billion together.
Speaker 2:Show the american people we're serious but will the gentleman yield for a question? Of course I will. Um, you raise a profoundly serious point in your inimitable way, mr moskowitz. Um well, the, the bonuses, that, that that is a huge bonus budget. What does that work out? Have you done the math to see what that works out in terms of bonus per?
Speaker 19:ICE employee $42,000 for every employee in a bonus in addition to their salary. A $42,000 bonus yeah, $42,000. And because you and I Look at his face, he knows what the average salary is in America.
Speaker 5:And he's like okay, doing. He's like okay, that's one thing. If it's like ice agents, bring it in, but it's like this is just. That's a huge number potentially ice agents. Are people getting six figure bonuses? Because there's zero chance. The secretary's getting 42?
Speaker 7:grand hold on taylor. So there is a. There's a stat that gets floated around quite often and the status is that if you make more than thirty four thousand dollars a year, you're in the top one percent of the world.
Speaker 5:These guys's bonus are bigger than that, yeah which then makes you wonder is it all going to bonuses? Right and all going to bonuses?
Speaker 19:times are symbiotic. You're probably going to ask me what is the average bonus for the american worker in this country? Do you know what that is? It's twenty five hundred dollars. That's the average christmas bonus is twenty five hundred the average christmas bonus, because christmas is back. The average christmas bonus is twenty five hundred dollars, but they want to give forty two thousand and what I would suggest in my amendment is instead of forty two thousand, they get twenty five thousand.
Speaker 2:That sounds like a lot of money well, it seems to me you probably hit upon the one thing we really could effectuate a compromise on, although I don't know we're gonna be able to talk to them about it, but maybe they'll just vote for it.
Speaker 19:I mean listen, if no one there wants to talk, bring in comer, he'll definitely talk to me comer and raskin do not like each other, and then?
Speaker 7:this one's my hey. So, taylor, have you ever gotten a bonus anywhere?
Speaker 5:no, I've never gotten a bonus either. I take that back. I have paid myself a bonus from time to time yeah, all right.
Speaker 7:Well, I mean, if you're the company owner that's called company morale. I would not really call that a bonus, I would just call a dividend yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5:No, I've never gotten a bonus, but I've never really worked in a situation where there would be one, so fairness there. But either way, $2,500 Christmas bonus average for people who do get bonuses, right, and then you look at $42,000 is the average if you divide all ICE employees and you know they're not all getting bonuses.
Speaker 7:Some of those secretaries and people that just work administrative staff for ice.
Speaker 5:You know they're not even making 42 grand a year. That's more than I made my first year for sure. Wow, and they're gonna cut it. I don't want to cut money from ice, especially now. But if you need the money, don't call it bonuses, call it salary, what you know, what I mean, yeah, just split it up in the salary to start with.
Speaker 7:Weird.
Speaker 5:Weird. Sometimes you see like government jobs and it's like, oh, they don't make that much, Well, if they're getting bonuses like that.
Speaker 7:Well when my CEO could afford a laser. When there is a bonus category, that means that those funds are basically discretionary.
Speaker 5:Yeah, uh huh. Oh, you won the company picnic drawing you discretionary, yeah, oh you won the company picnic drawing.
Speaker 7:You get the big bonus million dollar raffle. Yeah, one guy gets a big screen tv and somebody else gets a bugatti yeah, so yesterday we also.
Speaker 5:We also had the undercover video of james o'keefe took, of the person in the dod, you know the spy hunter oh, yeah, yeah so this little article. So that guy actually sued james o'keefe for, or you know, editing the video and blah, blah, blah. So he said, he said we do not.
Speaker 5:So um, he's claiming that o'keefe uh, tricked him, basically, um, okay his words were taken out of context, edited and pieced together in a manner designed to paint him in a false lie, including a written description on youtube that accompanied the publication of one of the recordings. O'keefe founded the O'Keefe Media Project, project Veritas. He basically says O'Keefe told the Associated Press on Wednesday that Manania voluntarily offered the comments in the recording and that it was important for the public to hear Mania's remarks. O'keefe pointed out that the District of Columbia requires the consent of only one party, not both, for a conversation to be recorded. He called the lawsuit an attack on the First Amendment and said he said what he said. We do not take him out of context. The words that we reported came out of his mouth, o'keefe said, adding we stand by reporting.
Speaker 7:He seemed pretty happy to share those words at the time too.
Speaker 5:So the funny thing is the complaint arises from a pair of dates that Manny had in January with the woman and a a series of videos no key for lease in the following days. So he went on a date with her. The lawsuit alleges the woman expressed her distaste for trump and repeatedly pressed mania on his political views and about his work with the government. Okay, so what?
Speaker 5:we could as a spy catcher several years earlier, when he was an fbi counterintelligence agency. He's telling a spy that he's a spy catcher. This guy sucks at his job ideologically mess ideology. Not only is his ideology messed up, yeah but, he actually is incompetent. He got busted by an amateur spy bro, worst spy hunter ever worst spy hunter ever. Just this alone disqualified from ever putting that on your resume again. You're done, bro. You should put it on his resume.
Speaker 5:Oh my gosh, his overall assessment of trump. He's a sociopathic narcissist who's only interested in advancing his name, his wealth and his pain. Can we say projection anyone? He's sociopathic. Oh, I was just lying to impress her. Okay, he's a narcissist and you were making it all about you and how great you are, even so far as claiming you were a spy catcher, yeah, and we're going to the tank tomorrow, where I can't talk about it right now.
Speaker 5:Wink, wink yeah, he's, and he's going to do everything he can to protect the American people. You suck, bro. If James O'Keefe is pulling this off, imagine what Russia and China are pulling off. I mean, we know about Feng Feng, bang Bang, exactly.
Speaker 7:This is so bad.
Speaker 5:These people are the worst. Oh, we're led by morons folks. We're led by morons Folks were led by morons Okay, they're just people, they're just people.
Speaker 5:People are people, policy is people. It matters who's in charge, and it's not a moral thing. It's not like, oh, this guy's got a piccadillo. No, that's not what we're talking about. Be strong, stand firm on your beliefs. Stand on principle. Be consistent. You know it's that kind of thing. Make hard decisions, stick with it. Think in the future. Be selfish, self-interested Unless you're in a public position, then don't be. But the point is is see it for what it is.
Speaker 5:Yeah, we're running into a constitutional crisis. We are living through a judicial coup. We've lived through an intelligence coup. We've lived through a lot of things. The world is changing right now. So many things are happening. We are definitely at a crossroads, like Nicole Shannon says, and we need to defend the principles of the constitution, to remember who we are as a people, right and so that we can be, protect ourselves against the machine. Don't forget the fault. Don't forget to visit peasantsperspectivecom. Follow us on all the socials you can find the links and, of course, visit left behind and withoutorg. We look forward to seeing you guys again next week.
Speaker 1:Old woman, man, man, sorry, what knight lives in that castle over there. I'm 37. What? I'm 37. I'm not old. Well, I can't just call you man. You could say Dennis, I didn't know you were called Dennis. Well, I can't just call you man. You could say Dennis. I didn't know you were called Dennis. Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you? I did say sorry about the old woman, but from behind you looked.
Speaker 1:What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior. Well, I am king, oh king. Eh, very nice. And how do you get that? Eh, by exploiting the workers. Exploiting the workers, by hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society, if there's ever going to be any progress. There's some lovely filth down here. Oh, how do you do? How do you do? Good, lady, I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle is that? King of the? Who the Britons? Who are the Britons? Well, we all are. We are all Britons and I am your king.
Speaker 1:I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class is. Oh, there you go bringing class into the gang. That's what it's all about. If only people would Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle? No one lives there. Then who is your lord? We don't have a lord. What I told you? We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. Yes, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting. Yes, I see, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs. Be quiet.
Speaker 1:But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major. Be quiet. I order you to be quiet. Order, who does he think he is? I'm your king. Well, I didn't vote for you. You don't vote for kings. Well, I can become king. Then the lady of the lake, her, the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest, shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying, by divine providence, that I, arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I'm your king.
Speaker 1:Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Be quiet. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Shut up. If I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Shut up, will you Shut up? Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Shut up. Oh, come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed, bloody peasant. Oh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that? Did you hear that? Eh, that's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
