We're talking on all political subjects and taking on all colors.
This is Matt Flynn Direct with your host, Matt Flynn.
Welcome to Matt Flynn Direct, committee statewide and live on Civic Media.
Our lines are open, 844-967-2789.
No subject is off limits, all points of you are welcome.
Remember, you're not woke if you don't know history.
You're not woke unless and until you know history, going right to the front lines of history
and the making.
And boy, was there a lot of it made this weekend.
We start out with the drone attack, killed three American service members, three soldiers,
three members of the U.S. Army in Jordan wounded as to the latest count more than 40, several
of them quite seriously and they had to be medived to maybe some more that reveal wounds.
A lot of these are brain injuries.
This is a drone, the drone came in probably from Syria.
If you think of the geography of the area, Jordan bumps right up against Syria and Iraq.
This is in Northeastern Jordan.
It's something like 10 or 12 miles from the Syrian border.
And one of the things that's always concerned me and think about this.
We have about 2,500 military personnel in Iraq, about 900 in Syria.
We have several 3,000 in Jordan, but they're at these little outposts.
And this one, I think they call it tower 22 or something like that, is a logistical base,
directs intelligence.
It only had a couple hundred people and it's 12 miles maybe from the border.
It's inevitable that we are going to get more attacks as long as we do this in that
area of the world.
This was all orchestrated by Iran, all orchestrated by Iran, a couple of strategic geopolitical
reasons for their doing it.
And then I want to talk about what we should do to them.
One thing, they are a strong ally of Russia.
Russia wants to attack the United States whenever it can without doing it directly.
And it encourages Iran to do this, Iran is providing them drones to kill Ukrainians.
This is a drone that came in, somehow it got through the air defenses.
We have these air defense systems, Israel does, Ukraine does, we do.
Think about this, air defenses are only as good as their operation, 100% of the time.
If they win 99% of the time, the one missile gets through, one drone gets through, it's
a failure.
It's kind of like commercial aviation, when you get on a plane, you expect to fly safely
in land.
And in general, you do that in our success rate for commercial aviation is 99.9%, but
occasionally there is a lapse.
And you can't have a lapse in this.
Iran is petrified that the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia are very, very close to a peace agreement
with Israel.
Remember that the Islamic world is divided between Sunnis and Shiites, 90% of Muslim people
in the world are Sunnis, 10% are Shiites.
The dispute between Sunnis and Shiites goes back 1,300 years, and it's based on how
you believe there should be a successor to the prophet.
When he passed away, should it be a blood relative of the prophet, or should it be a trusted
lieutenant?
And people took different sides of that, and that is why there's been the split for 1,300
years, and it's been characterized by extreme violence.
Iran is deathly afraid that if Saudi Arabia, a Sunni nation with some of the holiest
sites in Islam, were to conclude a peace agreement with Israel, they would be absolutely
further marginalized.
They're doing everything they can to interfere, and that was one of the reasons, you know,
they support Hamas.
They support Hezbollah in Lebanon.
They support these proxies in Yemen, proxies in Syria, proxies in Iraq that they use to
attack Americans.
They're doing everything they can to disrupt it.
In fact, the attack on Israel on October 7 was partially maybe largely directed by Iran
because they were afraid, they saw the handwriting in the wall, and they thought that Saudi
Arabian Israel would come to some kind of an agreement.
And if that happened, that gives cover for Egypt, well, Jordan and Egypt already have good
relations with Israel, but at least with these regimes, and the United Arab Emirates,
Bahrain, Homan, all of the rest, and Iran would be isolated.
Now what should we do?
I'll tell you what the mechanics are right now, Biden met with the National Security
Council and with his top Pentagon security aids today, he did yesterday, and he's weighing
what to do.
What he's done in the past, when there have not been casualties, he's attacked, missile
attacked these proxies in Iraq, in Syria.
This drone did not come out of Jordan.
Jordan does not have an indigenous anti-American military force that's trying to banale us.
It came from Syria, and in the past, it's come from Iraq, and it comes from Yemen.
In my view, it's time to do more than simply strike back at the proxies when they've killed
somebody, killed Americans.
We can't tolerate that.
Now you could bomb people in Yemen that are doing it to our shipping, but we've done
that.
You could bomb missile strike proxies in Iraq, but we've done that, and you could bomb
or missile strike proxies in Syria, but we've done that too.
If we attack Iran, this is an act of war in the part of Iran in my opinion.
Syria is trying to push the foot around and say, well, yeah, they were involved, but
they fund it, but maybe they didn't know about this particular thing.
That's a lot of baloney.
They didn't know about it, and they exalted it in it.
Now let me give you the descending orders of things of what we could do.
You could hear Oshima, Iran.
You could obliterate it.
Iran is originally the Persian Empire.
The thousands of years it's been a thorn in the side of every civilization that's encountered.
It has done nothing of value that I can see throughout its history, certainly recent history.
But not only is there more or less shown that if nuclear weapons were used, it might
excite Russia to use them in Ukraine, could excite China to use them.
Pakistan would get nervous, and it would be a severe wedge in our NATO alliance and our
other military alliances.
So we can't do that.
We could Dresden, Tehran, treat them the way we bombed Dresden in the Second World War
level of the city.
We could do that.
There would be retaliation from Iran, some of our ships.
The Persian Gulf would be hit, they'd be casualty of ours, but you could hit every form
of their infrastructure, their legislature, their leaders, their airports, their navy,
their ports, their city.
The problem with that is, it's conventional weapons, but at the same time, that lays down
a gauntlet and it would dramatically escalate the war in the Middle East.
What I think we should do, and I'm not alone in saying this, is there are certain targets
in Iran that are long overdue for being attacked and removed.
Two of them are they have drone factories.
These drone factories supply drones to Russia, to savage Ukraine, and they supply drones,
and they supply missiles to Hamas, in Gaza, to Hezbollah, to Yemen.
Where do you think these people have come up with their weapons?
They don't make them themselves, they get them from Iran.
So one possibility for military strike against Iran is a massive attack on their drone factories
and, frankly, on their nuclear facilities, although many of them are underground, it could
be hard to get at.
You can certainly bomb the entrances.
We have bunker buster bombs that most people don't have, but we could do severe damage,
severe damage to their airport, damage to their ports, but spare the civilian population,
although there would be casualties.
Other proposals are that we impose a blockade on them, like we did in Cuba back in 1962 when
the Ruskies were going to be putting nuclear weapons in Cuba to threaten the U.S. mainland.
That would be considered an act of war, but you could stop everything going in.
You could mine their harbours, or you could hit their proxies in a lot, in a lot more lethal
barrage of weapons, simultaneously in Yemen, simultaneously in Iraq and Syria.
The ideas you don't want Hezbollah, which has several hundred thousand terrorists,
to suddenly try to sweep into Israel, and then we would be involved in a war there.
So what do you do?
If we withdraw our troops from Syria, Iraq, in the Persian Gulf, our ships, the Red Sea,
you see what happened in Afghanistan.
These cultures are fueled by hate, by and large.
They're fueled by hatred, western civilization, of Europe, of the United States, in the
middle.
The minute that you let the more terrorist elements disarrise to the surface, you get Afghanistan.
Simply merchants of hate want to impose a caliphate around the world.
So in my view, you've got to keep a military presence, but I don't think you need to keep
900 people in Syria exposed that way, or a couple hundred people in northeastern Jordan.
You may need more, and you may need more immediate military response.
And I think that's what Joe Biden is considering right now.
Coming up, we're going to step away briefly, but coming up, the Tisha James compares Donald
Trump to Bernie Mellon, Trump responds, and there's a decision coming down, coming
up.
Welcome back to Matt Fender.
Director, lines are open 844-967-2789.
You're going to recognize Dave of Madison.
Thanks for calling Dave.
What's in your mind today?
Well, you know, I think obviously there's just really, really, really, really bad
opposites.
That's a Biden administration, even, you know, horrific actions, I would say, fundamental
problem really right now, that you really haven't mentioned much, is I ran, I ran
and their acquisition of nuclear weapons because look at the, what their network is doing
all over the Middle East, you know, what are we going to do when I ran acquires nuclear
weapons?
I think a closer and closer as time goes by, they now have way, way, way more than a sufficient
amount of enriched uranium even to almost make a bomb.
And we're going to really have to do something about that.
And I know there's a huge, huge threat from Hasbola, but Hasbola, Hasbola's are only getting
stronger and stronger and stronger now they can probably launch missiles that can hit
maybe downtown Tel Aviv skyscrapers, you know, it'll be a huge, huge, huge problem.
But you can't just leave them there forever because ultimately, they're going to
attack.
They have, they don't have those missiles for nothing.
I ran and didn't provide them essentially with military, military technology and weapons
systems so they could be a conventional military for nothing.
And because there's no, you know, defensive reason that Hasbola is necessary if there's
no war, if there's no war with Israel, you know, so I think once we, I think I would
have to take on Iran eventually, it's inevitable, do we want to take them on when they have
nooks?
Of course not.
And once we suppress their anti-aircraft capabilities, we can go after their tunnels and, you
know, and we will have all the time in the world to do that as long as we have your superiority.
So it's a horrible, horrible, horrible option, and a lot of people will die, but you like
Iran get nuclear weapons and then we'll really have problems.
And then what do you think Saudi Arabia is going to do?
Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the whole region will be nuclearized, and I guarantee you there's
going to be nooks detonated if we allow that.
That's a good point.
Let me address that.
It's a very important point, and I'm going to compare it to North Korea.
North Korea was preparing nooks and we knew they were, but North Korea has a real problem
that Iran doesn't have.
North Korea has a border with China, and China is, North Korea is a client state of China.
China busts the sanctions, gets some food and everything else.
China right now does not want them to employ nooks, so they keep talking and they keep shooting
their mouth off, but China, at some extent, constrains North Korea on nooks.
That's number one.
The thing about Iran is there's nothing to constrain it and it's fueled by hate.
It's fueled by sadism.
Every year they have a holocaust joke day where they make jokes about the slaughter of
Jews in Nazi Germany.
These are a sick culture.
It's not a normal culture, and you're right, it's developing nuclear weapons and it's
in rich uranium.
Israel wants to strike it now.
The United States has stopped that.
However, if and when they finally develop nooks, remember you also have to have a delivery
system and they're working on missiles and all of that, we have intelligence that knows
even in Russia, if it looks as if somebody's going to deploy a nook.
And the question is, how much an advance of that do you hit first?
You want allies.
The thing about this kind of a war and it's true of any war, you want two things.
I mean, you want allies, you want military superiority, so maybe three things, allies military
superiority, and the time you're choosing, time has to be on your side.
If we attacked Iran now to destroy its nuclear capability, they're allied with China, they're
allied with Russia, even if we use conventional weapons, we start up what would look like
a preemptive war.
We don't want to alienate NATO.
We don't want to alienate France and Germany and the UK in particular.
They're very vulnerable, they're very vulnerable because of proximity to Russian missiles.
When you do it, you want the element of surprise, so you're going to bomb some friendly embassies
there when you're going after the stuff.
It is not an easy option.
I'm less concerned, you say there'll be some collateral damage.
Yeah, there will be, but you know, when you go back to warfare, and especially in the
last couple of centuries, go back to Sherman Sacking of Atlanta, the ultimate victory
in war has always been with the destruction of the civilian cities of the other.
Take a look at the Second World War, what we did in President and Cologne, what we did
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it took that to stop Imperial Japan and stop the Nazis from
continuing their ideas of racial superiority.
People in the Middle East understand that very well, look what Russia did with Chechnya,
look what Syria does this to his own cities, where a side will, you know, cities is against
him, stands up to him and they'll destroy it.
Kill 30,000 people as far as father did the same thing.
We have a different moral code, we are the West, we are Western civilization, we don't
lightly do that.
But I agree with you, right now, there is one Islamic country that has a bomb and that's
Pakistan, so that is an effective Sunni bomb, the Pakistan has a real problem, they have
India right next door to it, which also has nuclear weapons, and when they have China next
door to it, China tries to make a rapprochement to be friendly with Pakistan and for their
pains when Chinese engineers go to Pakistan or Afghanistan, they're frequently murdered.
All three of those countries are different religions and cultural backgrounds and they're
all very different from China itself.
So there is some constraint on North Korea and Pakistan from using nuclear weapons, there's
no similar constraint against Iran.
You have to remember something else, Saudi Arabia hates Iran more than it hates Israel.
Why is that?
Because they are Sunnis and Iran or Shiites.
But we need allies with the UK be willing to bomb Iran with us.
Israel would be, but Saudi Arabia be willing, they're not even willing to bomb Yemen and
yet they did for 10 years before this.
Very very complex choices, I will say that if Joe Biden decides to bomb Iran to put a
stop to this and their army to the proxies, what's going to have to happen is in addition
to going after their drone factories and some of their infrastructure, he'd also have
to go after their nuclear facilities with budget, with bunker busters and other technology
that we have.
As far as Hezbollah is concerned, remember Lebanon was originally supposed to be a haven
for French Christians and the minute there was an influx of people like Hezbollah, they
became militant, military, attack people, murdered them and they are a terrible force on the
border and they're going to have to remove too.
The question is, how much we will need to do right now and that is going to be Joe Biden's
decision.
Coming up, a lot of news, a lot of weather, we'll talk about the decision of James and we're
also going to talk about access to the Texas border by the U.S. government coming up.
Welcome back to Madeline Director, lines are open, 844-967-2789, I don't know a couple
of things, first of all, Latisha, James closing argument, this is in front of Judge
Ingeron, fraud case, where she's asked for about $370 million as a penalty against Donald
Trump and bar him from business in New York, the real estate business for his life, a death
blow to him through his business interest and in her summation, and I thought this was
very good and normally it might not be effective, it just sent him to the moon, he was so angry
compared Donald Trump to Bernie Madoff, you may not remember Bernie Madoff, but I represented
a guy who had been swindled by Bernie Madoff on his behalf, we were trying to get his money back,
but in any event Bernie Madoff had a multi-billion dollar fraud and believe it or not what he would do is
he would pretend to buy securities, people send the money and then he'd just keep the money,
do whatever he wanted and if anybody wanted to redeem, then he'd use money, it was a Ponzi scheme,
he'd use money that had come in from other people to pay them off and so suddenly the stock market
went down and he got caught, but he is kind of the poster child of securities fraud of the worst
of the white collar criminals. Now normally if you say something like that in closing argument,
it can look so over the top that it hurts you, people go, come on, that'll Trump is fraud on the
hoof, Donald Trump is a walking crime scene, so comparing him to Al Capone isn't over the top,
if you do it in front of a jury, there's some judges who will try to shut you down on it,
but remember this is a bench trial, that means there's no jury, judge Engoran is defined or
a fact as well as the guy who decides in the law and the application of the law to the facts,
and that isn't because Donald Trump was somehow eukard out of a jury, Donald Trump waived a jury,
you can waive a jury and his genius lawyers, Lena Habba, and there was a great meme that went
around said with a picture of her, he said, hire Lena Habba, she'll plea bargain your speeding ticket
to first degree murder, and that's basically the opinion lawyers have of Habba, in any event,
for some reason these idiots thought, well, we'll give up a jury, and the judge of course will
see the good about Donald Trump, well no, El Rongo, he doesn't see the good about Donald Trump,
because there is no good about Donald Trump, so Trump filed a brief objecting to being compared
to Bernie Madoff, and the response to that is, judge has been around the track, he did not fall
off the turn of truck on the way into town, okay, and so he goes, all right, people say stuff,
there's no jury here, tell me why you're not Bernie Madoff, and the idiot Trump in this brief goes,
well, Bernie Madoff did this, and I did that, but you're only saying that I did this, and I mean,
that's not the kind of judgment or decision you want to get into, and most of you might say,
they're over the top, but he made a federal case at it, he wants to create an appeal issue,
but then he went after Latisha James, Trump did, and judge Engoron, and you might say, look,
going after the judge that's going to make the decision, because there's no jury, you know, how do you
mind? Well, though this be madness, yet there's method in it, the barred was correct, though,
this be madness, yet there's method in it. So there's a series of social media posts on Sunday,
today's Monday, 24 hours ago, social media posts, in advance of the verdict, called it a witch hunt,
again, this is not America, he said, Latisha James is corrupt, and then he says, she sat comfortably
and confidently in court with her shoes off, arms folded, a Starbucks coffee, and a big smile on
her face, and then he said, falsely said, just like she knows exactly what the decision will be,
end quote, if you want to take off a judge, I don't know why you want to, you want to take off a judge,
that is a primer, that's 101 on how to do it, calling a distinguished attorney general who
is elected by the people in the York corrupt, really gets hackles up, because if the judge does
anything against her, he doesn't want to look as if he's verifying it, because it's false.
Well, she sat comfortably and confidently because she done a hell of a summation of a close argument,
I sit comfortably and confidently too, and have on many occasions, with her shoes off,
I doubt it, I've never seen a lawyer take their shoes off in court, arms folded, fine, so what,
a Starbucks, I doubt that very seriously, nobody brings food, or some, the only thing you drink in court
is water, that's provided by the court in pictures with paper cups, so the criminal defendants,
because this used to happen in the past, would break a glass and then try to hold it to a juror's
throat, so you have paper cups and water, that's it, here in end of case. Big smile on her face,
fine, she gave a good summation, but then he says, just like she knows exactly the decision will be,
she doesn't know anything, she's asked for 370 million, she's proven fraud, the clown Trump has
continuously be raided the judge personally, he raided his clerk to the point where she's afraid to
go home at night in the subway, he berated Latisha James, yeah, she probably feels pretty good at
her position, I do too, then he called the case rigged on Sunday, again, a hoax on Sunday,
and said her closing argument was pathetic, let me say something, he thought her closing argument
is pathetic, why is he going off on this, it was not pathetic, it was a very good one,
then he called Angeron badly influenced, which is a sneaky way of hitting that it's clerk again,
which he's barred from doing because of the gag order, you know, this is a performance that is
designed to anger a judge to such an extent that if there's any hint of nuance or mercy, Trump's
not going to get it, Angeron is an ethical judge, he's a good judge, he's not going to do anything
that's not supported by the evidence, but she believes Latisha James had a $370 million penalty
and barring for life, the New York real estate market is warranted, and if it is under the facts
as judge Angeron listened to him, and obviously I haven't listened every fact in that case, but
I think there's a strong argument made, and if it is, he'll do that, and then Trump thinks he's
some of what creating appeal issue by trashing the judge, you know, the pellet judges are judges too,
they don't like to be trashed and they take care of their own, if their own are honest,
they don't take care of their own if they're dishonest, but if they're honest, and I can't imagine
a number thing to do, the final thing I'll say about it is that he obviously was doing it for his
base, but who is his base? His base is a solid group of people know where near a majority,
the New Hampshire show that he does not have a base among independence, it's not of a base
among moderate Republicans, it doesn't have a base among Democrats who are more moderate and
would look at a Republican who is honest, it's not a thief, it's not sadistic, I know the
bars low, but I mean, not a thief, not sadistic, and didn't want to destroy our democracy,
maybe a Liz Cheney, but he ain't Liz Cheney, the old adage, this Cheney's a friend of mine and
sir, you are no Liz Cheney, that has been, that has been flagged a lot. I want to go to the
Texas border, this is unbelievable, unbelievable. We have arguments being made now by these states
that have not been made since 1861, here's what's happened.
The Biden administration has demanded access to the Texas border to take away the razor wire,
that the Supreme Court ruled, even the Sixth Tarantulas rule, obviously the administration
has the ability to do that because the supremacy clause and the fact that things like immigration
and things like the border, exclusively in the provenance of the federal government,
not the states, this is what was at issue in 1861. So Texas is blocking access, they will not let
federal agents, which are in this case, ICE and the border patrol near their border in certain
areas. Abbott chooses mouth off the governor, he's auditioning for vice president with another
complete lunatic, hater of America, somebody who has said he'll shred the constitution,
it gets in his way, Donald Trump. Abbott threatened Biden and said, quote, don't federalize the
national guard suggesting that what, suggesting that what, he'll use what, the Texas Rangers and
the Evaldi police who distinguished themselves in Evaldi, the chicken hawks who wouldn't go in and
let him kill 19, I think was fourth graders and two teachers. This happened in 1861 and listen to
the arguments, listen to the arguments that Abbott is using and believe it or not, believe it or not,
many, if not most of the other Republican governors in the state are standing with Abbott.
This is a constitutional crisis in the making. What they are saying is an argument that was used by
the Confederacy in 1861 to secede from the nation. It's identical to the language that South Carolina
used in 1860 in its declaration of secession and its attack on Fort Sumter and it's this, it says,
the US government has broken the compact between the United States and the states, broken the compact
and therefore that compact and the constitution is over. This is 2024. This is 160 years since the
Civil War. All of these states have thousands of federal employees. All of these states
have a living under a constitution with the President of the United States as the commander in
chief of the armed services that he can federalize any national guard. Eisenhower did it in Alabama
in late 1950s. I think it was 1958 when Alabama used the national guard to block black students
from trying to enroll in the University of Alabama despite Brown versus Board of Education.
And Ike said, all right, he snapped his fingers. He said, you're federalized, stand down.
Think about this. Think about the ramifications. Think about the things that Biden has to decide
right now and think, God, Joe Biden is the President. Not just with it, Obama ran.
Not just trying to negotiate an aid package of Ukraine to stop Russia,
but he's facing two virulent enemies immediately. One of them is the government of Iran.
The other is the Republican Party in the United States. A party, this is a party for 10 months,
wouldn't promote admirals and generals. This is a party that won't fund the government.
Except for small tranches and not pay our troops who are being killed in the Middle East.
This is a government that is about to impeach the head of Homeland Security.
This is the government, this is the Republican Party, who criticized Biden half of them,
criticized him for fanning a war in the Middle East and the other half of him,
criticized him for not doing enough against Iran.
The Republican Party, especially through its leadership, is a clear and present danger
to the United States. And what they're doing right now at the border, but they're doing at the
border by denying access to the troops of the United States, the agents of the United States,
the border patrol is freezing. Now, in a different environment, Biden could order the armed forces
down there, federalize the Texas National Guard if they didn't arrest them, arrest the governor.
Lincoln would have done that, Grant would have done that. What if the Texans start to shoot our soldiers?
Should we shoot them back? We don't want this. We're stepping away very briefly. I see you on the line.
Do not hang up. Do not hang up. Coming up, we're going to talk about this a little more. Take your calls
and I'll tell you about a group called the Army of God, a thousand trucks going down to the border. Coming up.
Welcome back to Madison Director, lines are open, 844-967-2789. We're going to go right to the lines, Bob,
Madison, my friend. Thanks for calling. What's your mind, Bob?
Well, I'm wondering about this deal. Trump's trying to kill this bill and I don't think it's going to work that way.
The bill is to help all our democracies across the world, Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, particularly.
If you stop that, you reward all of Trump's friends. It wasn't that nice.
But the problem is the sweetener was the border deal and the republic concentrators took that seriously.
They really have what they say they have. They'll never get a deal like this. Democrats won't go along with this
without all the other things attached. And they know that. So I think they're going to keep pushing and pushing and push this bill through.
And if they get it over to the house, there's always a discharge petition, it seems. Or they may just roll in with the political pressure.
Congressmanship was on. I see it's been a couple of times recently complaining that it's a do nothing Congress.
We've got to have something we can run for reelection on. And this is it. And they got to realize at some point that Trump isn't everything.
Their own reelection is more important than Trump.
Yeah, thanks for the call. And we're going to get to that in a second about the bipartisan nature of that thing.
I want to set up right now exactly what's happening down the border and wait, wait, so necessary to get that thing passed.
But you have Republican governors and not just Southern governors. Remember, you have governors in who are Republicans in South Dakota.
You have Republican governors in Iowa, if you'd say these Republican governors are all standing with Trump and they're all standing with Abbott.
Repeating an argument that was put to rest in the 1860s.
There was a Supreme Court opinion after that and they they considered this question.
Do the states have a right to secede from the union? Now, you may think, come on, Matt, you know, I got that in high school history. Well, yes, you did.
But up until Abraham Lincoln, that was an open question. And a lot of people thinking back to 1776 and then 1788 said, well, the states went into it voluntarily.
But they can also withdraw. And they can withdraw over slavery or anything they want because the Constitution and talked about slaves.
They talked about counting say slaves or Indians is three fifths of a person and it's pretty clear that they that there was a compromise in slavery.
So they had Lincoln coming along who look like he might be an abolitionist, although he wasn't as fervent as some people initially.
And they all, hey, we're right to secede the US Supreme Court after the Civil War rule as a matter of constitutional law.
The states do not have a right to secede.
There is a succession party that's active right now in Texas, but this business of quote the US government has broken its compact with the states that the compact is dissolved.
They can do whatever they want. That was resolved between 1861 and 1865.
That was resolved in a US Supreme Court opinion in the 19th century.
It's time to stop guys. It's time to put a stop to all that.
So what do we have?
If Biden sends troops down to get the the border patrol to the border and that and the you've all the police, the chicken hawks, but you know the Texas Rangers or whatever they call themselves stand in the way.
Biden federalizes the National Guard. What if a shot rings out?
What if a shot rings out?
You can't have that.
Biden can go back to the US Supreme Court. The six tarantulas.
I think on this one, they would quake in their boots if they went with Texas on this one.
So they give a declaratory judgment. That'll take months months.
The Republican Party is a clear and present danger to the United States.
Any Republican who talks about, well, maybe the election was rigged by there.
You are betraying the country. I don't want to hear from you. I don't want to talk to you.
Get out of my face. I'm tired of treason.
I'm tired of this kind of stuff. Threats of violence from Trump and his running dogs.
We're threatening the United States. We go into the lines and take you in order.
Mark from the sack. Thanks for coming. What's in your mind?
I'm wondering if that would be a violation of an article for the Constitution.
Section three, which refers to that.
Can any state be combined with other states to form a new state or split up pieces of state?
Yeah, it goes on without consent of the legislature. The state's concerned as well as that of the Congress.
So that unless they get approval of the full Congress.
Yeah, look at, Mark, even if they get approval of the full Congress, this has been decided.
It was called the Civil War and it was a 19th century thing and all this stuff about the legislatures have to approve if the UP wants to be part of Wisconsin and all that has nothing to do with it.
This is absolutely a violation of the Constitution itself with these people that try and dick of medicine.
My friend, thanks for going. What's your mind?
You know, last week when Trump was savoring to over this border thing and just obstructionist crap and he was calling for red states and Texas, you know, to take over and take charge of that.
Wouldn't that be an active insurrection right there?
It would. That's treason. Right, but here's the problem. Think about this.
There's such a thing as political legitimacy. Somebody like Dwight Eisenhower just won the Second World War.
Everybody thought he was God. The Democrats even wanted him as their nominee in 1952. Right now Joe Biden is a superb president, but there is not the unification.
There's not the unanimity in the country is there was in the 1950s in the 1950s.
There's a handful of southern states that didn't like it, but everybody else was in sync with Dwight Eisenhower.
Now this tremendous disagreement sewn by Trump and the Republican party unconstitutionally, criminally in my view.
Biden has to tread very, very carefully.
We don't want to circumstance for American troops are firing on Texas National Guard after Biden federalizes them.
Biden has some very, very tough decisions to make and depending on what he decides, I think this will solve the presidency away for him.
Get rid of the traitor Trump. The traitor Trump belongs in prison. We're coming.
So a lot of news, a lot of weather and then this bipartisan border deal that Bob Madison was talking about.
I want to get into that a little more because it may come to pass coming up.
We'll stand my ground and I won't back down.
No I won't back down.
