Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast.
- [00:02]
B
Guaranteed Human birthright citizenship at the top of the news fold today. And libs losing their mind freaking out over President Trump just showing up to the oral arguments. He's trying to intimidate the people that he has absolutely no control or intimidation mechanism over. Also, California get hit with a massive federal fund fine, which is both good and bad, I guess bad considering I live in the godforsaken hellhole that is Californian will be stuck with the bill for that crime. And also a bit of personal news. This actually will be my last broadcast. I will be joining Ms. NOW as their evening anchor, but we'll discuss that a little bit more during the show. My name is Joe Bob. Thanks so much for tuning in. The show starts right now. Several of you may have already emailed or at least figured out in your head or thought that what I teased last was an April Fool's joke. Actually, it wasn't. It wasn't an actual fool's book. I was set to go host Ms. Now shows, but unfortunately during the intro for this show I received an email saying I'm fired for being a right wing radical extremist. So anyways, what definitely was not an April Fool's joke. But you know, I guess we'll be back here tomorrow. TPTP USA.com is the email address. If you'd like send along your thoughts, comments, concerns, criticisms. I don't think that that little dumb bit about April Fools did not go nearly as well as I thought it would, but throw some criticism my way. Tptp USA.com and if you have any thoughts about anything we talk about or things that we should be talking about, would love to hear those thoughts, comments, concerns, and like I said, even criticisms. And if those emails are vile, bigoted, some of you are really leaning into that. I don't know vulgarity is the best way to do that. Just pure vulgarity. But I get, you know, hey, you're, you're following the site, the assignment as instructed. So send all of those emails tpt@tpusa.com before we get started, just a note on the day. Yeah, there's, it's a very heavy news day and just because there's not a ton of time between the President's address and right now, we're not gonna talk about what the President just stated in his address to the nation and instead focus on the very old news of this morning. Obviously the Supreme Court was making headlines this morning as they are picking up the topic of birthright citizenship. What does the 14th amendment actually say the Supreme Court is trying to sort that out. Now before we get to the specifics of that, or at least the best I can describe that, I want to get to the breaking story that was this morning. When President Trump for the first time in history showed up to hear the oral arguments, the Internet libs lost their absolute minds. Several posters, we could have picked about a hundred thousand of these, said things like this Trump attending the Supreme Court is the godfather attending the court case to intimidate the witnesses. But in Trump's case it's the judges, his judges he wants to intimidate. Ah yes, the all maga extremist right wing court that has said no to President Trump on numerous occasions, including very recently with the terrorists. But they're in his, his judges he's trying to intimidate. But it wasn't just crazy radical online libs, it was actually elected members of the House of Representatives. Again this is one of many, but this is our favorite lib to pick on. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett said this. DC's biggest bully just pulled up to the Supreme Court. Pulled up back to those Ebonics style phrasing to try to intimidate the justices into ending birthright citizenship. Okay, well hey look, you know, if there are elected officials at the federal level saying that this is clearly intimidation tactics, I, I for one would, would like to know about that and would like to dive in very briefly into the mechanisms that the President can and probably will use to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States of America. But to kind of highlight that, I think it's probably easier if we take a look at to what the President can't do. Because remember, intimidation requires a realistic threat of some kind. In order to intimidate somebody you have to have some sort of ability to do something that would warrant such intimidation, that would validate, justify it being called intimidation. So let's get to the things that the President can't do but still again is intimidating the court. Well, he can't fire or remove any of the Supreme Court justices. They serve a life term. So there's no actual presidential power to remove them. So he can't intimidate them with that. He also can't supervise or manage the internal processes and operations of the Supreme Court. The judicial is an entirely independent branch. The President has no administrative control over even the court docket, the court procedures, ethics rules or their day to day functions. So he, he can't intimidate them by that. He also can't intimidate them by dictating or influencing or controlling any specific Supreme Court rulings or decisions. President has no power to do that in any way, shape or form, even when they reach a particular outcome on any given issue. He also can't intimidate them by overriding. He cannot override, nullify or veto any of the Supreme Court decisions. Court rulings are final. Their interpretations of the Constitution, of the laws and cases before it, are final. The President has no authority to cancel, reverse, or ignore them. So, so there's that. He, he also cannot strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction or limit its powers unilaterally. If any of those sorts of things were to happen, it would, it would take an act of Congress. So he, so he can't do that, which is really leaving his intimidation tactics very, very thin here. He also can't disobey or refuse to enforce any of the Supreme Court rulings. The President is constitutionally obligated to faithfully execute the, the laws, which is Article 2 of the Constitution, which means complying with valid court decisions. So he can't. This is getting really thin here on his ability to intimidate these folks. He also can't punish or retaliate against the Justices and their ruling. There's no constitutional mechanism for a President to sanction, investigate or target Justices personally for any decisions that he doesn't like. So dang, what can he do? He can't even reduce or interfere with the Justices con compensation. He can't reduce their pay at all. The, the ability to intimidate the Court here is really, is boiling down to one thing that we'll get to in just a second. But yeah, Article 3 protects the Supreme Court Justices salaries from being diminished during their tenure. President cannot cut pay or use financial pressure against them in any way, shape or form. What it boils down to is, you know, if it were true, as Congresswoman Crockett stated so bluntly in her tweet X post, that the President is clearly trying to intimidate the Justices. Well, he, he can't intimidate them by any of the reasons that we just given. So I think what it boils down to is his intimidation is really just relegated to mean looks. He can, he can scowl at the Supreme Court Justices if they say something that he doesn't like, but that's about it. And quite honestly, if a scowl from an individual who happens to be sitting in the room while you're making your oral arguments, conducting oral arguments sways the Supreme Court in any way, shape or form, I think we have Bigger problems. So, yeah, I, I don't understand that. The intimidation element, but yet that is the story that the libs ran with, probably because they didn't really want to talk about what's actually in front of the Supreme Court, which is birthright citizenship. Okay, just to catch people up really quick, actually, let me say this first. As far as occupations go, generally speaking, stand up comedian, not attorney. Right. So we're clear on that. Not an attorney. Having said that, I also obviously have some thoughts here, but just going forward in perpetuity, I am not an attorney. I don't exactly know what I'm talking about, but maybe that makes me the perfect conduit for this sort of thing to, hey, dumb guy. Trying to boil it down and explain it in a way that maybe makes sense to those of us who don't follow the news every waking second of the day. And I don't know, maybe that's, maybe that's an exact fit. But anyways, just want to get that clear out of the air right now. But to set this up, this is all hinging on President Trump's executive order, January 20, 2025, which directs federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States. After February 19, 2025, which leaves some buffer room for any of the administrative stuff that needs to happen, it denies that birthright citizenship, the kind of the, I guess the logistics of it, if the parents are undocumented immigrants, illegals, or only hold temporary visas, like tourist visas, if you're here on vacation, you're just, you're not a citizen. That's what this executive order is saying. It interprets the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which it excludes, the administration says the children who are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That is from the 14th Amendment. If you're not familiar with that, the constitution or the 14th amendment to the Constitution says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Keyword, operative word. And born or naturalized. Okay, makes sense, but it doesn't say or says. And so both, both. And naturalized. Born and subject to the jurisdiction. The United States of America. Those people are citizens of the United States. Now, the question, of course, is, okay, well, is a person who's here illegally, who could have their allegiance to another country, do they fall into that category which the first 14th amendment stipulates? Now, of the many clips that we could play from the oral arguments, I did want to play this one. I think this kind of boils down the majority of what's going on Here in these oral arguments. This is Justice Alito who interestingly enough talked the most during the oral arguments. Here's a short about two minute clip which will pause intermittently as I see fit of him discussing this with ACLU attorney Cecilia Wang. Now the first comment, the question that he's kind of posing is actually from the verbiage is from Section 1 of the Civil Rights act of 1866, which was the predecessor to the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights act of 1866 says this, all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power. That law then became what was ultimately the 14th amendment. That was passed several years later or a couple years later. But anyways, that's where the language that he's using at the beginning of this video comes from. That's probably all you need to know until we jump in with some clarifying things. This is cut 13.
- [12:23]
C
Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. So let me give you these examples. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power?
- [12:51]
D
Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act, Justice Alito, and that's clear from Wong Kim Ark, and it's clear from the debates what the framers meant by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception. If it meant what the government contends basically not a subject of any foreign power that you were that another country considers you a you sanguineous citizen, then lawful permanent residents, all foreign national, ordinary public.
- [13:19]
B
Okay, so, so hold on before we get back into lido because he interrupts with a very poignant question, let me just lay some things out what she is referencing. Cecilia Wang, the ACLU attorney that's arguing against the administration here saying birthright citizen. Her case against birthrights for birthright citizenship as it has been recognized in the past is alluding to a. Or using one of the Supreme Court cases as like the basis of her argument. Wong Kim Ark, which was decided in 1898, was basically this just again, brief summary here. This guy's parents had permanent domicile and residence in the United States. They ran a business here. And they were not diplomats of the Chinese government. And so he was born here. This guy, Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States. And the question was, okay, well, is he a citizen? His parents are permanent residents. They have permanent domicile in the United States. Does that make him a citizen as it squares with the 14th Amendment. However, there is a big stipulation here that a lot of people aren't talking about. At the time when all of this was happening, the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882 legally barred most Chinese immigrant immigration and prevented Chinese residents from national or naturalizing as US Citizens. In other words, a separate law. And again, the constitutionality of that law, not entirely important that that was the law at the time, said, okay, well, Chinese people can't be naturalized citizens, which would obviously factor into the supreme court's decision in 1898. The parents had domicile and residents in the United States, and it was illegal for them at the time to be naturalized citizens. The question then is how rel, how relatable is that to the modern question of eh, Pablo and Maria hopped across the border really quick, didn't have any permanent legal status here. Uh, they can be US Citizens if they did it the right way, had a baby, and look, now that baby's a citizen, and they can bring over the chain migration, their entire families. Now how related are those two cases exactly? But that is the main case that the ACLU lawyer is attempting to make. She also uses the term you sanguineous, which is blood, right? The right of blood. It's the legal principle that grants citizenship based on ancestry rather than the birthplace, allowing children to inherit the national, inherit their nationality from their parents. Now, the problem with this is that that's not the way the United States was designed. We are a creedal nation. We are not an ancestry nation. In other words, to be an American is to adopt the creed of America. We hold these truths to be self evident. All men are created equal. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence. All men created equal, no matter who your parents are, no matter where you're from. If you buy in to what we're doing here in the experiment that is the United States of America, you're an American. And obviously that needs to be delineated a little bit more, which is what some of the Constitution is dedicated to. But just getting those out there, that's what she's talking about. If you're a little bit confused by some of the verbiage she's using. But Alito's case, Alito's point is pretty relevant here. When it comes to, okay, citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof, what does that mean if the they also can be subject to another foreign nation. Anyways, that explanation out of the way, let's move on.
- [17:12]
C
The ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass that boy, would it not?
- [17:19]
D
Justice Alito, if you think that the language of the 1866 act was ambiguous, as Wong Kim Ark says, the shift to the language of the 14th Amendment, which is the operative text, certainly clears up any ambiguity.
- [17:33]
B
And again, that's subjective. I do not believe it does, and it appears Alito does not believe it does.
- [17:39]
C
Said about a boy born to an Iranian father is true of children born here to parents who are nationals of other countries, if I'm correct, it's true. To a child who's born here to Russian parents, it's true. To a child who's born here to Mexican parents, they're automatically citizens or nationals of those countries and have a duty of military service. It sure seems like that's a, that makes them subject to a foreign power.
- [18:11]
B
But again, which clearly, yeah, you can't be. Now, ultimately, and we'll get to this a little bit later on in the kind of the culmination of this, this is going to bring in the whole dual citizenship thing. Can you be, can you have your allegiance to both the United States of America and another country? Short answer, no, but that's effectively what I believe Justice Alito is getting at here.
- [18:36]
D
And Justice Alito, that would have meant that the children of Irish, Italian and other immigrants which Wong Kim Ark refers to and the debate the framers refer to would not have been citizens either. Because if the only test is whether that US Born child is considered a citizen by another country under their EU sanguineous laws, then no foreign nationals children would be.
- [19:04]
C
Well, in all of those cases, the parents could be naturalized and then the children would be derivative.
- [19:10]
B
Which of course makes sense if the argument is that, well, you know, nobody that can come to this country is therefore a non not a citizen of the country that they came from because of the usanguinist laws. Okay, well, they can relinquish those. They can forfeit their ability to be a citizen of whatever country. And that's what Alito was arguing saying. Yeah, I mean, if you're going to make the argument, well, you know, people from Ireland therefore wouldn't be American citizens. Well, yeah, they would if they relinquished their allegiance to the country of Ireland. That's, that's kind of the whole thing that we're discussing here. So whether or not, you know, this argument is compelling remains to be seen. I did think that that very, very brief interaction was a pretty good encompassing of all of the oral. Now that's not fair. It was a good summary of the debate going on at the Present moment. And, you know, we'll see how it kind of goes. Most legal scholars don't think the court will rule in the side of the Trump administration. But as evidenced by Alito's questioning, I don't know. It could be that legal scholars are wrong, which, you know, would be a first in the history of this country. The legal scholars are never wrong. The bottom line here, I think, is that, yeah, we need to figure out if somebody who crosses the Rio Grande, has a baby in El Paso and then goes back is now afforded the full rights of an American citizen. That would be crazy if that were the case. However, does this specific ruling that the court will make adhere to all of that remains to be seen. I kind of think it's going to be narrow, but I'm jumping ahead of myself because we're going to get to kind of the bottom line. But I did want to play this first. All citizens born in the United States, naturalized, just jurisdiction thereof, to me says, well, it's. Where does your allegiance lie? But how is that interpreted by the court's dumbest Justice Katanji Brown Jackson? Well, as I mentioned, that was an interesting dialogue between the attorney, agree or not? Interesting dialogue between the attorney and the justice Alito. Some not interesting dialogue. And for all intents and purposes, stupid dialogue coming from Ketanji was this cut.
- [21:45]
A
I was thinking about this, and I think they. There are various sources that say this that you can have. You obviously have permanent allegiance based on being born in whatever country you're from. That's what everybody recognizes. But you also have local allegiance when you are on the soil of this other, other sovereign. And I was thinking, you know, I'm, I'm. I, U. S. Citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the. The Japanese authorities can't arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance meaning can they control you as a matter of law? I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there's this relationship based on. Even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance.
- [22:53]
B
Oh, my gosh. First of all, I have to ask the question, why is her go to scenario stealing somebody's wallet? I'm just gonna ask that. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. That's just the scenario that she brought up. But yes, ah, of course, Justice Jackson, if I Commit a crime in another country, the punishment that I'm issued by that local jurisdiction implies my allegiance and therefore citizenship. You know, I, I'd like to be a Japanese citizen, but the immigration process is just oh so difficult. So instead I sucker punched Haruto on the streets of Osaka and boom, now I'm a citizen because I, I was punished under the laws of Japan for sucker punching generic Japanese man name in larger city in Japan. Obeying the law of the land does not, it's not the same as allegiance. Allegiance. That, that, that's, that's crazy, right? Like, if my family and I are on a European trip and we're, we're driving through Poland and happened to get pulled over, don't do I then say to my kids, all right, well, now we're Polish. That's how this works. No, it's, it's, it's decided on the, the, your, your fealty to the Constitution of the United States of America. Yes. We don't have bloodline or ancestry in our, in our founding. Right. We are founded on a creed of what it means to be an American. What, what we stand for. That's what the Constitution is. And unfortunately that is allowed us as a. For that freedom has afforded us justices like Kataji Brown Jackson. All right, so the, the prediction here, because I know we're running a little bit long for this segment, unfortunately, I think this is probably going to be a pretty narrow ruling that doesn't actually address the root cause. What I hope happens is that Congress finally gets involved. Dual citizenship is going to come up whether or not you can be. Have allegiance to both the United States and another foreign country. Seems to be not a great stance for people to take. I don't think you could do that. But ultimately, prediction wise, Congress is going to have to get involved and it's going to dictate the trajectory of where this country goes, if you can. If birthright citizenship which leads to birthright birth or citizenship tourism, birth tourism that other countries do in the United States, if that continues to be acceptable, we have a much bigger problem on our hands. That this I think, is unbelievably important. I ultimately, prediction wise, think that this is a way to market the idea of this is not how a sane country acts. Hopefully to prompt Congress to craft legislation that clarifies what exactly it is that this means. So there's that. TBT. TBSA.com is the email address. Wow, we're way over. So gonna have to, we're gonna jet through getting to the point we'll be right back after the break. Don't go away,
- [26:27]
E
Day or night. VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And, hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [27:04]
F
Check this out. What do you think those people are doing? Surviving or looting?
- [27:09]
B
They're surviving.
- [27:11]
F
This was taken during the Rodney King riots. What do you think these people are doing? Looting or surviving?
- [27:19]
A
Well, they're looting, of course.
- [27:20]
F
Well, it's the media. See, when it's white people, it's survival, and when it's black people, it's looting.
- [27:26]
B
No, Frank, it's because the white people are stealing bread and the black people are stealing speakers.
- [27:30]
A
If the white people were stealing stereo equipment, I would say they were looting, too.
- [27:33]
F
How do you know the blacks don't have bread and no speakers?
- [27:36]
A
What are you talking about? What are we talking about right now?
- [27:40]
B
I. You can't make a show like this is Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I actually. Okay, I think there was a time period where you couldn't make jokes like that. And I also fortunately think we're on the other side of that time period. I think in, like, I don't know, up to, like, 2025, you couldn't make that. But now in 2026, you can make those jokes again. But there was a time period where you couldn't make those jokes on tv, that the TV show had to be old enough for those types of jokes to be acceptable on television. All right. Hey. Got a lot of points to get to, a lot of. Some fun ones, some less fun. It's time to get to the point. Get to the point.
- [28:21]
G
Get to the point.
- [28:24]
B
All right, first point. On the topic of the White House ballroom, which I believe some judge, like, shut down for some reason yesterday, Trump says the White House ballroom plans in plans to include a massive underground military complex. President Trump confirmed massive military underground complex constructed beneath the plant 400 million East Wing Ballroom at the White House, describing the ballroom itself as a shed covering the military project. Now, this is either true or not, but this is the, in my opinion, one of two stories. It get to the point of President Trump, at the very, very minimum, just yanking the media around because, of course, if Trump says it, it has to be the worst thing ever. Again, this is either true or not. Kind of makes sense why there would be a pretty big military installation where the President lives from like a being able to get there, like proximity wise. I mean, I know they have the Situation Room, but yeah, it kind of makes sense. But whether or not it's true, the media went all over this. Oh, this is just destroying our history. How can the worst thing in the world. And the president knows better than anybody how to jerk the media around. Um, yeah, we'll see, we'll see. I don't know, maybe we won't see. Maybe it's going to be entirely top secret, which also would make sense. So, you know, either it's going to happen or isn't relevant to the news of the day. Not so much. But a bunch of the news media jumped on this and ran with it for the last couple days. Um, all right, next point here. This is both satisfying and upsetting at the same time. California is ordered to pay $4.5 million in attorney fees after losing gender secrecy case. This according to the California Post. Federal court in the Southern District of California ordered the state of California to pay $4.5 million in attorney fees to the Thomas More Society after it successfully challenged the state's school gender secrecy policy. In at the Supreme Court level. Basically it was kids are, kids are transitioning, which isn't a real thing. And teachers were keeping those that secret of the students from their parents. And the state said, well, yeah, not only are we going to encourage that, we're going to make it unlawful for you to tell the parents if the students want to keep it a secret. The Supreme Court ultimately said, what? No, that's crazy, you can't do that. And because of that, now California has to pay four and a half million dollars in attorney fees. Now that sounds great, but unfortunately California taxpayers are going to be the ones actually paying for that. No, nobody personally will be paying for that, which is unfortunate. And by California taxpayers, uh, it probably means you folks around the country. California is infused with lots of federal money to which yes, it is good that California is being held accountable and unfortunately we have to foot the bill for it. More me than you because I live in California, but yay, great, California knocked down legally, but oh, cool, now they have to pay. By they, I mean we. All right, next point. This happened a couple days ago. First images of President Trump's library revealed the library in downtown Miami gonna be about two and a half, three acres somewhere around there on Biscayne Boulevard. Previously a parking lot owned by Miami Dane Dade College, I think. Well, the imagery is good here. Producer Glenn was nice enough to put up some. The video of the AI renderings. AI rendering. Just the rendering of the Trump library. President John J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation. You know what would have been great is if I had pulled the Obama library, because, you know, this, this is about what you'd expect from President Trump. A sharp, sleek, nice, nice looking building in a great location. Guys built an entire career off of that. Compared to the Obama monstrosity. There's just freaking horrible. So I should have, I should have put pictures back to back emails. Tptbc.com if you'd like a link to that. If you haven't seen the brutalist structure in Chicago that is the Obama library. Um, all right, hey, since we're running low on time, let's go. Yeah, let's skip this last one. Skip this one and then go to the last one because I think this is just funny. Uh, Florida hospital patient finally leaves room after five months amid a legal battle. An unnamed woman who was medically discharged from a Tallahassee Hospital on October 6, 2025, refused to leave her hospital room and remain there for five months, occupying a much needed inpatient bed. So not only is it difficult to evict somebody from rental property, hospitals have an even tougher time evicting patients who have been medically cleared and discharged from the hospitals from the hospital bed. But she finally left. The evicted hearing wasn't until April 6, 2026. It was canceled, though, because she left the bed, which is crazy that you can just do that. And again, all fun and games until you find out who you think is going to be on the hook for that. You think this type of person had private insurance? Absolutely not. My guess, my guess is on the government dole, which means it's on here in my tax bill. So funny and interesting story out of Florida coming up. Official business, which I think we may have. We may have recouped some time here. Getting through. Get to the point relatively quickly. Official business coming up next. Don't go away. We'll be right back after the break. Have you noticed a change in. In sort of demographics, the people who live here and so on?
- [34:45]
C
Not in. Not particularly.
- [34:49]
B
I don't see it hasn't even changed in any great deal, to be honest with you. Another one. Okay. The timing impeccable there. Yeah. All right. Eglin hasn't really changed very much. Two, two Burger Beekeeper outfits walk by in that very, very brief interview, like, of course. Okay. All right. Hey, let's see. Official business is when the government officials or people running for bureaucrats. A lot of different types of people can be included in official business, but it's when they conduct their official business by saying things in front of cameras that we generally roundly mock. This is official business. I think producer Glenn has an affinity for Jaime Tara Rico, which is how I think you're supposed to pronounce his name. I think there's some personal animosity because this guy, who is a blubbering idiot, shows up in official business quite often thanks to producer Glenn's either wants to dismantle his arguments or potentially, I don't know, secret crush. I don't know. This is. Producer Glenn is aghast. You can't see him off screen, but he's offended by my implication there. This is Senate candidate Jaime Tararico in Texas talking about why we need to get rid of oil effectively altogether. Scott six, you can't call yourself a Christian and destroy God's creation with greenhouse gases. Okay, so what does that mean? We need to instill communism? Because I think we're all hip to the fact that all of this climate hullabaloo is really just a globalist attempt to reign over the world. It's because it is. It's not to take this to an extreme level or to a broader level past the point of the Senate race in Texas, but the globalist elites that want a globalist society say, well, we need to stop using fossil fuels because of climate, whatever. Except for the fact that that damages the most the people who are the poorest. Let me. That was clunky. The people who are hurt the most by that eliminating fossil fuels are the poorest people. The same people that the globalists advocate for and say, hey, we can help the most people if you just give us more power. Except for the very things that you're doing, the very policies that you are putting in place. Eliminating fossil fuels that you'd like to put in place would hurt all of those people. All right, let's see. Congressman Fang Fang. Sorry, Congressman Swalwell. I keep, I always mix those, those up. But Congressman Fang Fang. Here's him on Ms. Now, the channel that, you know, I would have been on had it not been for me getting fired for being a right wing
- [38:00]
H
extremist to try and smear a political opponent. It's just absurd. It's absolutely absurd. But is my lawyer, one of our lawyers told me today, and this really kind of stops you right in your tracks. He said, if they do this, it'll be the greatest abuse of power by an FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover. And so those are the stakes that we would allow the FBI to just go after the president's political enemies or
- [38:29]
B
the country's public enemies. I, I don't one of those things may maybe political enemy of the president, but also, I don't know, colluding with a foreign spy or canoodling with a corn spy, foreign spy, I should say, is that's the worst threat to our democracy. Get out of here. Mr. Swalwell. All right. Hey, since we're running low on time here, entirely my fault. But again, I think this, I think a lot of the stuff that we talk a lot about is necessary and important, which is why we talk about it. But since we're running out of time here, we'll cut to a break, get to woke Wednesday before we get to several emails from you fantastic folks. TBT tbsa.com is the email address. If you'd like to send along your thoughts, comments, concerns, even criticisms, all are welcome to tbtpusa.com we will be right back after the break. Don't go away.
- [39:37]
G
So I bought a house and moved to the suburbs. And so now I do stuff like run in my free time around my nice neighborhood, right? But not only do I run, I cosplay as a nice suburban individual. I'm running, little boy running towards me. He sprints right past me. He no more than four. His parents are walking like 20ft behind him. They're all like, oh, that's so cute. So when I get to the parents, I say to them, I say, hey, you got to get that one track, am I right? And they're like, of course, of course. We got a runner on our hands. Well, you have a good day.
- [40:12]
B
Barb
- [40:15]
G
and I just keep running. And this is so fun. They ate it up. I ate it up. I've been pointing and clicking and waving at neighbors. I'm walking around, hey, I was the kids. You know what I'm saying? I'm walking around my smolch. Who did yours? Oh, my gosh, I love the suburbs. This is so fun.
- [40:34]
B
This is, this is coated red pilling. This, this lady, clearly I by her own admission, moved from, I don't know, a more urban area, maybe the inner cities, out to the suburbs, bought a house, which congratulations. And is realizing firsthand, oh, all of the things that I've been told my entire life about these people are one, not true. And two, this is kind of nice. Yes, suburban living is nice. Your neighbors say hello to you. The thing is, she's says I'm cosplaying as suburban. She's not cosplay. She's accepted it, she's embraced it. Congratulations and welcome to conservatism. I would guess. I don't know, but I would guess that's kind of the general trajectory of folks who start realizing life is better when it's not top down management. That's so many big lib cities generally are. All right, hey, it's. It's Wednesday. What does that mean? Does that, does that mean anything particular? I think it's, oh, it's woke Wednesday. This is just too funny. Now. The, the governor of Idaho signed a bill, which means it passed. The bill passed House Bill 561, which basically said in the state of Idaho that, well, we've got some flags that are acceptable and flags that are not acceptable. Acceptable Flags. POW flag. Sorry, sorry. The US Flag, POW flag, state flag. These things are acceptable. City flag emblem. Acceptable, acceptable. What's not acceptable is random movements and I use movements in quotations there that include but are not limited to the Alphabet community flag. And because of that, the mayor of Boise was told, hey, you got to take the not official flag down, which was the rainbow Alphabet community flag flag. And rather than just be like, ah, yeah, okay, fine. State law says I have to. They did a whole flag d raising lowering ceremony. And it is in fact, hilarious. These are the folks that we make fun of and mock roundly on woke
- [43:04]
I
Wednesday for being here. I didn't plan on making a remark beforehand because this is a symbol of who we are. And it's not political, it's not religious, it's not ideological. This is a flag that says clearly that we are a city that's safe and welcoming for everyone. And the steps that were taken to seek to erase who we are, who you are, to make minimize the values of the city cannot and will not change who we are.
- [43:55]
G
We're here with our courage.
- [43:59]
B
I don't even, I don't even know what to say. Producer Glenn, can we stay on this clip for a little bit? Because I do want to point out, um, why they probably needed to take off, take the flag out. Um, it's because if you notice on here, this flag does not display all of the colors. Uh, I believe since this, they don't, they don't have the Ukraine part of the flag and they don't have the little circles that say the two spirit thing. So that's really why they should have taken this flag down. Not because of state law bars them from putting up woke propaganda in government facilities, but instead because it wasn't woke enough. I don't even see. Oh no, I see my bars on there. I am included in the Alphabet flag. The brown, brown bar there, that's. That one's for me. I wish they wouldn't, honestly. It's. It's. It's kind of embarrassing, honestly. But also, yeah, there's no the little two circles which I think are depicted elsewhere. Let me see if I can find that part in the video clip. Yeah, there we go. See though, there's that little circle. That little circle is not on the flag that was in front of the Boise City hall, which is why, of course, it should have actually been taken down. The lack of adherence to the WOKE propaganda is the true reason why this flag should have been taken down. There's my little stripe that I hate. All right. I also do like others singing. Whatever. Whatever it is that they're saying. I don't care. Email us tbt tbsa.com if if your small town in Idaho is still flying one of these communist propaganda flags, alert us. Let us know. We'll. We'll let the state of Idaho know that they are in violation of the state law and their flags should be removed immediately. Such as this one is how the wokes are hilarious. When will the mockery end? I don't know. I don't know if it ever will. If they keep doing this stuff, we're going to keep making fun of them. TBT tbsa.com if you have any thoughts, comments, concerns, criticisms, we'll be right back with some emails from you fine folks after the break. Don't go away. Little help from my friends. Get high from my friends. Gonna try my friend. Overcoming my lifelong fear of going upside down and working towards independent somersault. I. If somebody invited me to their house to participate in what looks like a ceremony for your middle aged friend doing a somersault, we are no longer friends. Like if I get well, okay, actually, let me rephrase that. If one of my friends said, hey, I need your help. We are gathering this evening at a cigar lounge with several of our friends from either church or college and I'm going to do a somersault, which means hang out and smoke cigars, I actually would participate, but if they were serious, now we're not friends anymore. All right, speaking of people who are no longer friends with me, several of you emails just. I know you're following instructions on the disgusting nature that I ask for, but like I said, just strict vulgarity. I Have some meaning to the emails. That. That's the only. That's the only other stipulation. Right. Be vile, nasty, and cruel. But also you get to a point. You know who I'm talking about, if it's you. Uh, all right, in the. Oh, first. First off, to address the. To address the thing that we talked about yesterday. The turning point tonight, email has been included in some ongoing legal email with some dude versus hoa. Weird. That's. We're still getting that email chain, and I think the deadline was Friday, which we will possibly do a longer segment on what the. The problem is in this guy's HOA because we've been included this email. So I said, if you take us off the email, I won't air your dirty laundry. But if not. And again, it's not that dirty. We. We may have some fun discussing this guy's fight with his hoa. All right, from the email chain, Diana says, well, I actually appreciate this. She's impressed with my superpowers. She said, joe Bob, you made me laugh super big with your superpowers of visibility. I. I don't know why that made you laugh. Diana, be completely honest with you. It's just. It's an ability. It's a skill that I have. If you weren't. If you're not hip to this. Yesterday was trans day of visibility. I didn't know that the trans folks were invisible. I've been able to see them the entire time. It's very easy to point out, pick them out of a lineup. But apparently that is a superpower, and I, putting my superpower out there to the world, was met with some folks who laughed at that. So, Diane, again, I'm not sure why you were laughing, but, you know, this is just. This is a skill that I was born with. Let's see, Suzanne, more praise coming in here. And, Diana, by the way, I'm kidding. Suzanne, more praise going on. The Somali stuff. Our country deserves restitution. That is correct. Any country receiving US money who also received money through American fraud should not receive our actual money, which is a great point. Let's see. Anything else here that's pertinent that we have time for? Wow. Not really. There's some interesting stuff. Jay sent a great email about the implications of no Kings, but we don't have time to get to it in its entirety. John is actually okay with folic acid, to be completely honest with you. I don't even know what that is. But he says he's a conservative, but he's. He's. For it. So anyways, thanks so much for tuning in. Tptvsa.com is the email address. If you'd like send along your thoughts, comments, concerns, criticisms, we will see a same time, same place right here tomorrow. God Bless America.