Ep. 15 "Supreme Court Shockwave: 3 Rulings That Changed America"

The United States Supreme Court has issued a series of landmark decisions that could reshape the future of America for decades to come.

In Episode 15 of The Sparks Show, Spencer Parks and Cameron Collier break down three of the most consequential Supreme Court rulings in recent history and discuss what they believe these decisions mean for the Constitution, immigration, election integrity, women’s sports, and the future of the United States.

This episode covers:

• Birthright citizenship and executive authority
•  The Supreme Court’s impact on immigration policy
•  Mail-in ballots and postmarked-by-Election-Day election laws
•  Transgender athletes competing in women’s sports
•  Constitutional interpretation and judicial power
•  What these rulings could mean for future elections

Are these decisions restoring constitutional limits, or deepening America’s political divide?

Join Spencer and Cameron as they discuss the legal, political, and cultural implications of one of the most consequential Supreme Court terms in modern American history.

Subscribe to The Sparks Show for weekly conversations on American politics, current events, constitutional issues, culture, and the stories shaping our nation.

Watch on YouTube: The Spencer Parks Show

Listen on: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Buzzsprout.

The fight for truth isn’t over — it’s just beginning!

Join our growing community of truth-seekers who put God, Country, and Family first.

Be part of The Sparks Show movement — follow the podcast on Buzzsprout, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify to stay up to date with every new episode, and subscribe on YouTube for exclusive video shows, behind-the-scenes clips, and live discussions.

 Follow. Subscribe. Share. Carry the Torch.

Together we’re igniting truth, defending freedom, and carrying the torch forward.

YouTube.com/@TheSpencerParksShow

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Good morning, everybody. This is Spencer Parks, your host of The Spark Show. Welcome to episode 15 and welcome back, our co-host, Cameron Collier. Good morning, Cameron. Good to be here. Well, we've had a few things kind of shake up the world. Supreme Court has unleashed quite a few rulings in the last few weeks that have turned the tides on several big topics. And I wanted to get your take, first and foremost, on birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court voted in a 5-4 ruling to uphold birthright citizenship, struck down Trump's unlawful executive order, which would not allow for anchor babies or illegal immigrants to have babies and just become citizens right away as they're born on U.S. soil. It's almost like there's some sort of magic dirt in the United States that magically makes you a U.S. citizen nowadays. What are your thoughts?

SPEAKER_01 0:56

Braindead. Right? I mean, it just goes completely against just common sense. But I don't know. I got into this argument, and it's almost it's like policy versus precedent. So you have a double-edged sword when you put a conservative panel, and conservatives are very concerned with upholding court precedent and not sort of upsetting the apple cart. So that's exactly what I saw. That was my first thought. I was like, okay, well, this has been the law of the land for however long it's been, and the two conservative justice just don't want to upset the precedent. It's has nothing to do with the policy because if you go to their arguments or their question, questioning during arguments, they were talking about how they were highlighting the policy implications of this lunacy. It's obviously there's national security implications, there's social welfare implications, social cohesion implications, so it's just okay, this is just it makes no sense. But justices aren't policy makers. They're there to what's it called? They're there to interpret the law.

SPEAKER_02 2:14

And so they actually made a good point. Brett Kavanaugh was one of the justices who came forward and said, We understand you may not agree with this specific ruling, which was more focused on Trump's unlawful executive order claiming what the law was, where they basically had to interpret that for him to say whether this was a legal move or not. But what Brett Kavanaugh came out and said after is you just need to either abolish the 14th Amendment or you need to come up with a constitutional amendment to alter this and do it appropriately and legally through co Congress. Is that all?

SPEAKER_01 2:56

You just got to get through a constitutional amendment. So you gotta get what half of Democrats on your side?

SPEAKER_02 3:00

Right. We're gonna need Abraham Lincoln back in the house for this one.

SPEAKER_01 3:04

Yeah. The party of illegal immigration is going to stop one of its biggest, what is it, moths to the light bulb?

SPEAKER_02 3:13

Indeed. You know what's so interesting is because the 14th Amendment was ratified back after the Civil War, which would allow for the babies of slaves to become American citizens. And many would argue the Civil War has been long gone. This was the 1800s, and now this amendment does not apply to our modern day immigration policy. Would you agree with that?

SPEAKER_01 3:42

Well, yeah, obviously. There's a modern context, but this is the funny pendulum swing, right? Because one of the liberal, it's a liberal argument. The liberal argument is well, history changes and you have to reinterpret these old laws for modern contexts. So that's actually a liberal progressive stance. And now here we are as conservatives going on, hey, we need to interpret from historical modern stance. Well, the reality is there is absolutely historical precedent. And I don't know, it's just one of those things where it's you gotta just bite the bullet and then I mean what does it really change? All it reinforces is that we need to this is actually kind of what concerns me is it now puts more pressure on having an even stronger security state, an even stronger police state with surveillance and knowing who's coming in and out and digital ID and all these sort of implications. So it's oh great. Now you're like, I mean, what are we gonna do? Right? Because we have to know who's coming. We got to know, right?

SPEAKER_02 4:50

So well, we don't want to encourage birth tourism. That's the national security threat, right? That's the biggest, yeah. And this doesn't apply just to South Americans, Mexicans, anybody coming from the southern border, coming and trying to have children here just to create anchor babies. This actually applies to Chinese agents who actually one of the scariest stats is that Chinese have the highest rate of paying for American surrogacy for them to have babies here. Yes. But what happens for a Chinese citizen who pays an American as a surrogate? What happens to the baby when it's born here? Scary scenario, right? So there's a lot at play here, and I don't think that liberals are contemplating all of these scenarios, which could really, like we're saying, create a scary national security threat.

SPEAKER_01 5:40

Well, never accuse a liberal of questioning unintended consequences. I don't know. My biggest thing is now it's going to it's now it's going to push more surveillance. It's gonna push more lockdown security measures to understand. But kind of the way I see it, it's okay, how do we preserve civil liberties at the same time preserving national security? Right? And the best thing I can come up with is a strong border. I mean, like we we need to see ourselves as a walled garden with strict immigration, strict customs and border enforcement and all that good stuff, and and this porous nonsense, and it's a well if we can either turn the cameras inward or we can turn the cameras outward. And if we have an open porous border, then the cameras are gonna be necessarily turned inward.

SPEAKER_02 6:44

And what have the liberals not identified as an unintended consequence of this birthright citizenship ruling? Well, I can tell you this right now: the call from conservatives and the Republicans, as of this morning after yesterday's horrific news for the conservatives, is to ramp up deportations. Yeah. They want to double down, deport them all, and go harder than you ever saw. You thought Tom Homan was going hard before this? Oh, the new stance, the new strategy from the conservatives is to get the airports filled with deportation flights. I want a flight an hour out of here of illegals. I want to make sure that we finish that border wall. I want to make sure that we increase border security. They want to ensure that if we have illegal aliens here, whether or not you just arrive pregnant or not, that you're getting deported as swiftly and without due process as possible.

SPEAKER_01 7:51

I mean, it just kind of melts my brain. I mean, these guys just calm down. You know what I mean? It's embarrassing. You're embarrassing yourself. You're so you get so triggered. Emotional snowflakes. Was I happy about it? No. But it is what it is. I mean, nothing's changed. I mean, it was the law of the land before, so it's not like something is getting upset here. It's not really the ground, the sands are shifting beneath our feet. It's they're just upholding what already exists.

SPEAKER_02 8:22

So, I mean Well, don't forget, the king did something unlawful. So how dare the king? He made it.

SPEAKER_01 8:33

I mean, if you look at the injunctions or whatever it is, the charts, it's just there's been like less than a dozen for every single president, and then Trump is like a hundred and fifty.

SPEAKER_02 8:44

I was explaining this to one of our liberal friends who was having a complete meltdown on one of our posts the other day, that oh, Trump does illegal this, illegal that, illegal this, all these illegal executive orders, and it's okay, dude. But listen, there's a strategy to this. Trump understands that through his executive powers, that he's not going to be imprisoned by writing an executive order that's struck down by a federal judge or the Supreme Court. He's just going to get a slap on the hand. But the point why Trump does this, even though he may know he's pushing the bounds of the law, he knows that it's going to force the hand on the issue, which is why he does it. He wants there to be light brought to these issues. And if no one's going to do it, he'll literally write an illegal executive order, knowing it, and then wait for either the Supreme Court or a federal judge to either uphold it or strike it down.

SPEAKER_01 9:34

Well, hey, I thought no one was illegal on stolen land, right?

unknown 9:37

Ooh.

SPEAKER_01 9:38

So is that can you have can illegality even exist on stolen land? Right? If you're gonna go with that argument.

SPEAKER_02 9:45

Go march onto the steps of the Supreme Court and scream, baby.

SPEAKER_01 9:49

This I mean, this is another, okay. Well, no room for nuance. He's it's illegal. You're like, huh. Okay, it's illegal. Okay, well, what is what are you talking about? You know what I mean? Is he going down is he committing a misdemeanor or is it a felony? 34 time convicted felon for the same crime. It's guys, get over yourself. It's just a one big masturbation session of all these guys just flatellating over themselves. The way I see it, Cameron forget, he's a pedophile rapist. Oh, I forgot about that. And we're cultists. Yes.

SPEAKER_02 10:29

You can't even get through a conversation without these people spilling the beans.

SPEAKER_00 10:32

Yeah. Oh man.

SPEAKER_01 10:35

Isn't it mind-numbing? It's just mind you're like you're trying to make an argument on the merits, and it's just like all of a sudden you're just getting hyperbolic nonsense thrown at your face, and you're just like, I mean, it's a tactic, right? You're losing a debate, so it's just like, all right, let's derail this thing and get thrown into the what it what is that called? What kind of fallacy is that? Red herring? I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 10:57

Straw man. No. Oh, the red herring.

unknown 10:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 10:59

Is that what it is? I believe so. Well, what I was gonna say, oh man, I'm I kind of lost my train of thought there as well, was the uh oh geez. Oh, I'm gonna lose my train of thought. Hello, this is Joe Biden speaking. It's an early morning.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

Hey, you win some, you lose some. It is what it is.

SPEAKER_02 11:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 11:20

I don't know. See, this is what happens when you start talking shit, all of a sudden you lose your train of thought and you can't stay academic on the merits of the argument. So there we go. Back onto the merits.

SPEAKER_02 11:31

I right when this all right, I got the regroup thought coming.

SPEAKER_01 11:34

There it is. After got the wheels back on the train.

SPEAKER_02 11:37

Well, yeah, I had to melt down myself after the birthright citizenship ruling, right? And I got on there on social media. Yeah, dude, I said, Abolish the 14th Amendment. And then you know what I get smacked in the face with reality. They're like, well, there's like you're saying, there's historical precedent here, and they're like, well, if you're gonna make that argument, then say bye-bye to the second amendment. And I'm just like, hush, I don't want to argue that right now. Yeah. All right, well, we'll just take it as it comes and we'll do this the legal and proper way.

SPEAKER_01 12:03

Yeah, I mean, it is what it is. It's it's just it's that weird tug and pull. And that's a good thing about having a conservative panel, right? Where you're you have historical precedent, things aren't gonna be upset, you're gonna continue, you can actually assume what's gonna happen. So I'm not too upset about it. I mean, it is what it is. We'll just move on.

SPEAKER_02 12:30

Yeah, well, really quick before we move on to our next Supreme Court ruling, how about Katanji Brown, Justice Katanji Brown's response to this ruling and her justification on the merits of why she upheld birthright citizenship, she made an example of Japan saying that if she committed theft in Japan, that she would be held to their standards of their laws, which inherently would make her Japanese, essentially, or a citizen of Japan or something of that nature, just something completely ludicrous. That's a far stretch for making the merits of this case.

SPEAKER_01 13:09

Well, the argument is you're under the jurisdiction thereof, right? So you're within the borders of any given country, but that does that make you a citizen because you're subject to their laws? I mean, it doesn't make sense. So it's okay. So if I'm in any other country and I break a law, I now have a right to vote in their elections or gain employment or housing. I don't know. I don't understand it. That's a that's an interesting one. I'd have to look at it, see what her reasoning is, because everything's taken out of context, clips are taken out of context. She could have had the paragraph underneath it or above it leading into who knows. She went far and wide on that one. Let's give the benefit of the doubt. There's not enough benefit of the doubt out there, so let's give the benefit of the doubt.

SPEAKER_02 13:54

All right, benefit of the doubt. Let's move on to the next one. The one that struck a bat chord with Trump. Supreme Court ruled that they were gonna uphold mail-in ballots, can be received as long and counted after election day, so long as they were postmarked by election day. What ludicrous madness. Why can't we have election integrity and just have same-day voting?

SPEAKER_01 14:16

Well, that's up to our rhino Republican senators that refuse to pass common sense legislation because they obviously want to enable the cheating because they benefit from it, or their interests benefit from it.

SPEAKER_02 14:33

Because are you siding with the liberals and saying that election fraud occurs on the Republican side as well?

SPEAKER_01 14:39

States' rights versus federal rights, and the states have the right to their elections, and you can't impose anything on them. I think wasn't there something happening with Joe Biden as well, and he was he wanted to push something, and the conservative argument was exactly this. I don't know. Do you remember that? Is that that ring a bell? I'm pretty sure there was something that had to do with this, but I don't know. I guess I should have looked it up before the show, but I don't know. It's the states have their rights, they're their individual republics, and just whoever's in the White House just can't dictate to them how to enact their voting rules.

SPEAKER_02 15:24

So while they do operate and run their elections by the Constitution, the federal government does have a role to play in elections as well because they do uphold like the Voting Rights Act and election integrity in a sense that they create guardrails that the states do need to adhere to.

SPEAKER_01 15:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 15:41

So there is regulation essentially by the federal government. And this is what's so interesting is that Trump is always playing with these rules, right?

SPEAKER_01 15:50

I mean, this couldn't have played any better into Trump's hand because, okay, well, let's strategically look at what Trump was doing leading into this ruling. He's been hammering the Save America Act, hammering it. I'm not gonna sign the housing bill. I'm not gonna sign this. You have to do this, putting pressure on the rhinos, and they're just staying strong. Lisa Murkowski up there, absolutely not.

SPEAKER_00 16:13

Excuse me, call it. Hey, I got a I have a Nazi I'm going against. Well, I can't write this as ridiculous. This is a bridge too far. 80% of Americans approve. That's too much. I'm gonna really piss off the Nazis.

SPEAKER_01 16:26

Uh and so you're looking at this, and boom, the ruling comes in and it just enrages the base. And then it's just get it passed, boys, get it passed. So we'll see. I mean, there is nothing quite like the bubble of Washington, DC. The rhinos think the reason why Trump got elected is because of them. And MAGA thinks the reason why Trump got elected is because of themselves, not the rhinos. I kind of side with the MAGA guys, because the it the rhinos are just these dinosaurs that are just in the way.

SPEAKER_00 17:04

They're like, hold on, we have we gotta uphold the institutions. Okay, the institutions. I'm an institutionalist, sir. We have to have a filibuster. There's nothing I can do about it. Wait, Cameron.

SPEAKER_02 17:18

You identify as magga? I'm a maggot. A magga maggot. Dirty magga maggot.

SPEAKER_01 17:26

Dude, these people, they can't. I know. They're seething. Did you forget history class about how what the Nazis did with the Jewish people depicting them as rats and vermin that needed to be exterminated? That's like the first thing that comes into my head, I mean, I could call you a demorat, but I'm not going to because you're an American that has a different point of view, you fucking psycho.

SPEAKER_02 17:49

I think the best part about conservative strategy on opposing democrats has become just calling them liberals. And how triggering being called a lib has become.

SPEAKER_00 18:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 18:02

It's almost like a it's a slur to them, even though it's what they are. You're just calling them what they are. Like, I wish they would just call us conservatives.

SPEAKER_00 18:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 18:10

You conservatives.

SPEAKER_01 18:11

No, we're cons. Cons. Cons. Cons. I mean, the left can't meme, but it's just the dumbest shit you've ever seen. Yeah, it was told.

SPEAKER_02 18:22

After advocating for the abolishment of the 14th Amendment. Wait, that's right.

SPEAKER_01 18:25

No, that's triggering. You have to do what are the jazz figures or whatever. Snapping of the fingers. Massage your nibbles.

SPEAKER_02 18:33

Oh man, that I we hate the constitution, apparently, on the show. Could you believe that? You know what? Maybe I should just get a framed constitution and make it the centerpiece of our flag here. Above the Second Amendment.

SPEAKER_01 18:48

Hate the Constitution. I mean, it's just it's epithets that they throw out because they're just getting emotionally triggered. It is what it is.

SPEAKER_02 18:54

Oh, speaking of emotionally triggered, how about the next SCOTUS ruling on transgender athletes playing against states' rights, right?

SPEAKER_01 19:04

In sports. It's states' rights.

SPEAKER_02 19:06

And what happened? What did the Supreme Court say? They said that states have a right to choose in their public school education systems or these sports institutions on whether or not you can determine who plays in what sports based off of biological sex, that there is no discriminatory in doing so.

SPEAKER_01 19:25

Mm-hmm. Well, I mean, you have okay, this whole thing and discrimination. What are you talking about? You need discrimination. Discrimination is necessary. You just you don't want bigoted discrimination. But you have to balance, it's like, how do you reduce harm? This is the thing is we operate in this world of black and white where it's like there's a good choice and there's a bad choice. It's no, there's not. There is there's only trade-offs, some good things, some bad things. And it's like you have to somehow meander your way through just this swamp of shit and shit choices to hopefully reduce as much harm as possible. And I'm sorry, but sacrificing my daughter's chances at a scholarship so that a someone who identifies as a woman can take that spot from her. That's an in that's increasing harm on a protected class, women. You know what I mean? So I don't know. I guess I guess from the liberal perspective, it's like you have to whoever's the most extreme minority needs to be propped up, I guess. I don't know. It's just it's identitarian politics at the end of the day. It's all about my identity, my feelings, it's all about self-worship.

SPEAKER_02 20:48

And it's like Well, I was having a friendly argument in some of our comments section on the show's social media with a friendly liberal who claimed that we're making a 1% issue of the Democrat Party, being transgenderism, our main talking point of our platform. And we're like, no, you have made that your main identity for your party. You have taken the LGBT movement and prioritize this transgender nonsense above everything else, creating this mental gymnastics that everybody does not want to do with you when you keep trying to force it down our throats. That is getting exhausting. So you hold on, you said earlier that this nonsense that you can't caucus with the Democrats because they believe men can get pregnant. Well, one of the liberals chimed in and goes, We don't believe men can get pregnant. Dude, make up your mind. Okay? Tell us what you mean then.

SPEAKER_01 21:45

That's obviously a boomer. That's gotta be a boomer. Because the Gen Zers, the Democratic Socialists, absolute and it is dogma. And if you go against it, they are vicious. They are rabbit vicious dogs. Have you seen the Scott Wiener up in San Francisco. No. If you don't know who Scott Wiener is, look up this guy. I mean, it's in the name. He passed or got legislation passed in the state house to reduce I believe it's the age of consent for like homosexual relationships. I know I'm getting off into the weeds here. But you gotta look into it because it's absolutely has something to do with that, with like protections. Basically, it's so older men can be with younger men. Right? Like 16, 17, something like that. Yeah, it's very interesting. And let me tell you, and then something about making sure, like protecting trans people or whatever, from being put on like a sexual pedophile list and like all sorts of stuff, like reducing what's it called? Reducing fuck, what is the word, dude? Whatever. Anyways, he's done all this good stuff, right? And he's goes to a trans parade in in San Francisco, and he is just being ravaged by these people. Why? Because he refused to say free Palestine. Because he just happens to be a Jew as well. And let me tell you, I mean, that in the video, it's kind of wild. The guy is I supported everything you did for trans people, and how dare you? You can't stand up for oppressed people, and they're just screaming at him, and you're just like, I mean, this is insane. And okay, so that's not the rest of the country.

SPEAKER_02 23:40

FBI San Francisco. Can we get somebody to check this guy's hard drives?

SPEAKER_01 23:44

Oh, yeah. Oh no, dude. I mean, the guy is. I mean. So what about I don't want to get into attacking the guy's character, but there there are definitely some questionable things going on where you're like Well, it was kind of like during COVID when they were pushing this whole maps, minor attracted person's identity. Yes, exactly. And that's his exactly.

SPEAKER_02 24:09

And lessening sentences or saying that they're cute, yes. Yes, yes.

SPEAKER_01 24:13

Scary stuff. Yes, exactly. And so this is what kind of he ha was advocating for in his community, because he's a gay man, is advocating for these quote unquote protections. And you're like, well, that's a little spicy or rotten or putrid.

SPEAKER_02 24:31

Well, yeah, it's what do these Democrat liberals do? Well, they catch wind that Idaho is re-engaging firing squads for child rapists, and that's pretty close to home. So what do you do? Squabble, make new laws that make it difficult to prosecute child rapists. Get us closer to that age of consent. Yeah. Fucking 12 years old, fucking pervert sick fucks.

SPEAKER_01 24:52

Yeah, it's crazy. It's wild because it's the same thing like Jeffrey Epstein, right? He was a minor attracted person. So should he be afforded the same protections? Or did he he needed to first identify as a woman to get those protections, right? So the thing with the Democrat Party and the Democrat Socialists of America is it's like a trend, right, to the extreme positions of just I mean, talk about not making any sense. Gays for Palestine, you're like, you do realize these people hate you. They hate who you are, they hate who you stand for, they see you as an abomination against God and they want to murder you.

SPEAKER_02 25:34

Well, no, what's the correlation between Islam and so Muslims and what's it called? The pride movement, the LGBT community. It's that they do not align with their views whatsoever. They're minorities. Yeah. What do they have in common? Violence. They come together because they both love violence. They, the Muslims, see these people will go and burn down cities. And they did during COVID. We literally had massive. Okay. So we don't want to generalize Muslims because not all Muslims are bad. We will acknowledge that.

SPEAKER_01 26:14

But Islamists, the radical extreme ones that want to push an Islamic law on down all of our throats are Islamists. Yes. And they absolutely pose a threat to our society and our values because we don't have Islamic values. We're not an Islamic nation. And that is what it is. So it's it's this weird, it's this weird juxtaposition where you're like, well, they're both minorities, so we want to try to protect minority rights, but then you're like, what happens when the minority rights start to impose themselves on the majority's values and majority's positions? Well, I guess you gotta just start pushing back. And it's no, absolutely not. You have every right to be here, you have every right to express yourself, equal protections under the law, but that's the line in the sand. You don't get to cross that.

SPEAKER_02 27:11

So I wonder if this transgender sports ruling uh will have any impact on the way that transgender issues are treated in our prisons and uh jails. Uh, because this madness has been going on a l for quite a while now. Yeah, since uh, you know, all this started becoming pretty mainstream that we've got these men and women who identify, mostly men identifying as women, to end up into the women's prison. You're like, oh, and then women impregnated themselves.

SPEAKER_01 27:42

You're like, what?

SPEAKER_02 27:42

Do you do you really have to think that hard as to why a man would do that? Like really, just to take advantage of this loophole in the system to not end up in a prison with a bunch of men? I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 27:52

I just it's I always see it's it seems to be kind of like uh a Democrat thing where it's just like they open up this thing because they won't want to help the smallest percentage and then it gets exploited. And it's just like you understand why they're doing it, or it's out of the it's out of kindness, and it's okay, we want to try to help, and then it's well, this is a problem. You have to think about reducing harm. How do you reduce harm? Kind of like this utilitarian perspective. And it's just well, you reduced harm for that small percentage, but then you created an incredible amount of harm for this percentage. So it's I'm sorry, that's just the way that's the way it works.

SPEAKER_02 28:36

Yeah, it kind of brings me back to the birthright citizenship about how you're talking about harming maybe a smaller minority or doing less harm to a smaller minority group, but then doing a greater harm to a larger portion of the country. Yeah. I just think that this birthright citizenship ruling really steals the very essence of what it means to be a citizen of the United States.

SPEAKER_01 28:55

Well, policy-wise, the biggest thing I think that matters is the voting. I think it's quite interesting, actually, if we go south of the border down into South America. I wonder if there's a correlation between us shuddering or the administration shuddering USAID and all of a sudden just a right-wing wave taking over South America. Because if you go and you look back at the trends, it was left wing, left wing, left wing, left wing, left wing, and then all of a sudden we start turning off our foreign money dispenser. Huh. And then things start almost like they're more conservative down south, and there was a constituted effort to push left-wing politics on them. I wonder.

SPEAKER_02 29:44

Well, all that money would go into all of these ridiculous programs that would be like propaganda machines that would just flood these countries, which I'm sorry, like the propag propaganda machine funded by the United States is going to be very strong. And so these institutions that are being pushed on these very conservative countries, then just get all of these younger generations to start voting liberal and not only just voting in these other countries, but it makes the liberal ideologues more powerful because then they have all of this money coming in that they can fight back or maybe rig their elections or squash the opposition, right? If the election doesn't go their way.

SPEAKER_01 30:24

Yeah, it's a full court press. That's honestly that's that's my conspiracy theory. I think that's exactly what was happening. I think they were rigging elections because it's a hell of a lot easier. And what we see kind of like the with the strategy of the NGOs and foreign governments, is it's always kind of like a breech head for our intelligence services, where it's like, oh no, we're just here to give aid. And then you just got the CIA working in the background, doing whatever they're doing. And so you turn off that spigot. The United States was turning it was funding all of this. Well, the problem is we still see those efforts happening here in the United States. Well, that's because you have the likes of these the billionaire, American billionaire Chinese guy who lives in Singapore. What is the guy's name? Seville or whatever the fuck his name is, and then you got the guy over here, George Soros. So they still have their money pouring in, pushing the grassroots no kings movement and all that nonsense. So they all have signs that look the same, and they all have all these crazy resources and or the Antifa riots with all their resources. Well, you gotta love the CIA.

SPEAKER_02 31:37

They released a statement yesterday, and I guess people had made inquiries to the CIA about whether or not they had influence or any sort of boyas going on in our elections domestically, and the CIA goes, We conducted an internal investigation and found that the CIA has not, you know, reinvestigated ourselves and we gave ourselves a clean bill of health.

SPEAKER_01 32:02

We've never done anything sketchy ever. Thank you, CIA, for the clarity.

SPEAKER_02 32:07

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 32:09

I mean, it it isn't it crazy when you start thinking about the come the levels of complexity that are going on. And it's just, I don't know, when you see these clowns on the internet that are just like, Trump's not doing this and up and that, you're like, dude, you are literally dealing with the most complicated puzzle that you've ever seen. And it's like you have this bureaucracy of 50 years that has entrenched itself. Oh, wait, that's right. That's another Supreme Court ruling. He gets to fire the heads of all these bureaucratic institutions at will. With some exceptions. Well, now he it's okay. Yeah, you go ahead.

SPEAKER_02 32:45

You tell me. Well, no, I was just gonna say I think it was he tried to fire the governor of the board of this institution, right? But they said that Shehika. That's the Federal Reserve. Okay. Okay, so then go ahead, because I wasn't really too read up on this one that you're talking about.

SPEAKER_01 32:58

Okay, yeah. So this is you're I'm talking about for the civil service of the federal government, right? Because the whole argument is they need to be separate so that you have this professional federalized workforce that's not constantly being churned every four years, and that they had passed a law. Maybe it's like the foreign fuck, I'm gonna mess that one up. Who anyways, there's protections for like unionized federal workers and stuff like that. The president can't just fire them. However, the Supreme Court ruled that he can absolutely fire the executives of those offices, basically. And good thing, right? Because now you can actually so you have these entrenched interests that lean heavily Democrat, because we already know what the voting of Washington, D.C. is and the surrounding areas, because they live in Virginia and shit like that. So we're pushing them, getting those people out, and then we're getting our people in, and then they can clean house.

SPEAKER_02 34:04

Well, it's a good thing because those aren't the institutions, those aren't the institutions that create checks and balances in the system, right? Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER_01 34:10

Well, no, they almost rule us by agent through agent agency or law. They make law through agency or whatever the fuck that's called.

SPEAKER_02 34:18

And that's my point, is because we expect Trump to be able to do a lot and to move mountains when he has the House, the Senate, and the White House, right? Yeah, exactly. But then it's these institutions.

SPEAKER_01 34:27

Do you control the workforce? They go, well, sir, here's my hand. Let me sit on it. I'm I've been doing my research and I found I can't do anything. Well, if the president is telling you to move, you move. Well, and then, but the president has no right to fire your ass. You see what I'm saying? So then Trump tries to fire them, and then they bring this lawsuit, and then it takes how long has he been in office for? This happened early in his administration, and now he finally gets the ruling, yeah, you absolutely can fire this person.

SPEAKER_02 34:58

So Well, that's always what it is, right?

SPEAKER_01 35:00

So they stall exactly. It's stalling tactics, and that's exactly that's the main tactic that they have, and that is why Trump's doing the whole throwing as much shit on the board and seeing what sticks. And if you look at his success rate, it's something like 30% or something real low. But it doesn't matter because that's just the tactic.

SPEAKER_02 35:20

It's a third of these things you're put pressing the hand on. Yeah. That's a third of things that wouldn't have ever gotten frickin' done. Exactly. We'll take 30% on these going his way.

SPEAKER_01 35:30

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 35:30

Because no one else is doing it. No Democrats are doing this, and no Republicans are doing it either. No. And so these are things that need to happen. We need the judgment from the Supreme Court on this to be able to move.

SPEAKER_01 35:39

Yep.

SPEAKER_02 35:40

So this is a good thing.

SPEAKER_01 35:41

Yeah, no, it's absolutely a good thing. And then the last thing I think we need to talk about is the one about money in our elections. I don't know how I felt about that one. It's something about corporation or political parties being able to not have a cap on their spending for their political candidates, I believe it was something like that. I don't know how I feel about it. Supposedly it helps the conservative cause, but it's still I'm a little squeamish when it comes to money and politics because obviously, you know.

SPEAKER_02 36:14

I'm squeamish too about corporations having the same voting rights as American citizens, the taxpayers. Yeah. Because corporations are taxpaying organizations. You're just like, yeah, well, with exemptions. Like in the ultimate loopholes, tax loopholes.

SPEAKER_01 36:29

Well, okay, they should be afforded one fucking vote then, not unlimited funds to candidates of their choice. Right. And then they create the choices for us. You know what I mean? It's what is it? The candidates aren't elected, but they're selected. Mm-hmm. And it's the corporations that select for us. Right. It's very questionable.

SPEAKER_02 36:51

Yeah, money in politics is always going to be one that's up in the air. Really dilutes the American vote, the citizen vote. But that's one that's always gonna be a pendulum swinger. Right. Mm-hmm. But last but not least, there was one last one actually beyond this, and it had to do with geo tracking and cell phone usage and whether or not the DOJ could use location services to basically track you down without a warrant, which the Supreme Court said no, you most certainly need a warrant to be invading people's personal privacy, which uh includes their geo-tracking their location. Yeah, which CIA FBI, we know what you're doing. You can't get us ditty.

SPEAKER_01 37:32

NSA.

SPEAKER_02 37:33

Yeah, I mean, come on. This is a tale as old as time. And uh we've heard from CIA operatives and people being interviewed on shows like Tucker's Tucker Carlson Network, former CIA operatives. I mean, these people tap into everything that has a microphone in it, your car, your phone, your laptop, your iPad, whatever it is, maybe our microphones here on the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 37:52

Well, it's not connected to the internet because that shit's got batteries.

SPEAKER_02 37:55

Yeah, well, so we think.

SPEAKER_01 37:56

Yeah, exactly. So No, yeah. I was at first I was like, shit. And then I was like, wait a minute. Just it's okay, so I puckered my butthole because all the guy my candidate of choice is in office, but then I was like, oh yeah, actually, it's probably a good thing that just some Tom Dick and Harry can't just be investigating just because you're a political opponent. Yeah. Because we saw how they weaponized government. So I don't know, maybe that's because you know what's interesting is some of these it's have you seen like the red states suing Trump's DOJ? And then the then Trump's DOJ is like, oh shucks, you won. And it was like, yeah, it was a good thing. Thank you for suing us because we didn't agree with that decision. Something about Texas, Texas sued over something that Biden's DOJ had put in, and then they got a ruling against it, and the DOJ is just, oh man, you guys won.

SPEAKER_02 38:51

Yeah, I mean, well, we know there's things still going on from back in Biden's administration. It's not necessarily Biden's DOJ anymore, but you know, the DOJ is almost its own entity. It's not really owned by any president, but it is at the direction and discretion of the presidency. Mm-hmm. Like we see with Governor Gavin Assum right now.

SPEAKER_01 39:09

What's so hard about our system is because it our bureaucracies lean so heavily left. So it's just it's like the assumption, it's exactly what you see with what the liberals say, oh, you're breaking the laws, you're a felon, like all this sort of stuff. So the automatic assumption is that you're a criminal and we're gonna find your crimes. And it's like the same thing that they're saying if we get into power, you're getting impeached, so you're like, because you've broken the law how many times? They can never point to what's been broken, but they're damn sure you did it. And you're like, so that's the promise to the American people from the Democrats: endless investigations because Congress can do nothing else. But that's going to help affordability, I promise.

unknown 39:56

Uh-oh.

SPEAKER_02 39:57

Well, we will see. Yeah. But all in all, I think that I don't know if I'm going to call it progress. I mean, there was some progress. There were some things that needed to happen to let us know how Congress and the presidency needs to move forward now with some of our strategy regarding voting, mail-in process. The transgender athletes issue was a big one that's been kind of dividing the country for a long time now. Now we've got some clarity from SCOTUS on that. And birthright citizenship. Now we know what the strategy needs to be moving forward and how we need to create the new process that's got a constitutional amendment.

unknown 40:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 40:29

Good fucking luck with that one.

SPEAKER_02 40:30

One that's going to serve the American people. We definitely don't want to see this country turn into, you know.

SPEAKER_01 40:35

I don't know. Maybe if the Democrats just go full into their whole communist thing, maybe then we'll be able to create because the Republicans will just be the American Party, and then the Democrats will just devolve into the Communist Party. And maybe that's when we'll have a two-thirds majority to be able to have an amendment to the Constitution.

SPEAKER_02 40:56

Well, we'll see. And I'm sure there's going to be some movement as we keep moving forward and see what evolves over the next few weeks. But this was episode 15 of the Spark Show. I'm excited to have made it this far. We appreciate everyone following along and listening. We hope that you subscribe, that you download every episode of the Spark Show on your favorite streaming platforms, and that if you have any questions or remarks, that you comment in on our Instagram page, Facebook, and YouTube. And we'll be here on the next episode of the Spark Show.

SPEAKER_01 41:25

And I'm not afraid for you guys to flame me. I enjoy it. I'm a masochist. So Cameron's here for all the grilling. I love it. All right, everybody. We'll catch you on the next episode of the Spark Show.