4-26-25 The Weekend Hour 3: Gun Crime Will Just Become Knife Crime.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night. Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Brownie, no Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job
The Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey's The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
Rules of engagement are pretty easy. If you want to
send me a message, you want to interact with the program,
the numbers three three, one zero three on your message app.
Just use keyword micro Michael. Tell me anything, Ask me anything.

(00:24):
If you want to engage on social media, go follow
me on x that's at Michael Brown USA, and then
do me a favor and subscribe to the podcast. The
podcast is The Situation with Michael Brown, The Situation with
Michael Brown. You hit the subscribe button when you find that,
and that will download all five days of the weekday
program plus the weekend program. And by the way, if

(00:46):
you'd like to listen to the weekday program, you can
listen to that on your iHeart app. Also, just search
for six thirty KHLWN Denver. Six thirty KHLW out of Denver.
I broadcast every Monday through Friday from six to ten
Mountain time. So in another in another example of how

(01:08):
everything that we talked in in the hour in the
in the second beginning of the second hour, we talked
about how there was just so much going on, like
a missile shooting out of a silo somewhere, that Trump
was just you know, bam bam bam executive order, and

(01:29):
you know, we were getting nominations done and everything was
beginning just happened full speed ahead. And then it kind
of seemed like, uh slowed down or something. Well, one,
it did slow down a little bit because we ran
into the barrage of court decisions and temporary restraining orders,

(01:50):
but not everything slowed down. Remember the markets and how
the markets were sea sawing up and down and they
were crazy. We had people were like, oh, my gosh,
he's gonna completely destroy the economy. These tariffs are gonna
be awful off rope. What are we gonna do?

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Well.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
Trump always said that, particularly when it came to the Chinese,
because he sees the Chinese Communist Party, he sees Ghi
Jene Ping as much as he calls him.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
You know, he's my good friend and we know each
other very well.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
My guess is he actually despises the guy, but he
has to treat him, you know, he has to treat
him like the little fragile doll that he is, because
he's the head of the Chinese Communist Party, which is
falling apart right now, and their entire economy is falling apart.
So Trump starts ratcheting up the tariffs, and everybody goes

(02:43):
in a panic. Oh my gosh, I saw a headline.
Store shelves are gonna be empty in the next three weeks,
and your iPhone instead of eight hundred dollars are gonna
cost you three thousand dollars, and everything's gonna you know,
it's just everything's gonna be bad, bad, bad bad. Well,
guess what. The Chinese Communist Party is now reevaluated its
tariffs on American goods and are planning to possibly exempt

(03:05):
certain critical imports. Why because their concerns over supply chain
interruptions caused by the increasing trade barriers between China and
the US appear to be the impetus for their tariff
walk back. Michael Harts, who's the president of the American
Chamber of Commerce in China, revealed in a speech in

(03:28):
Beijing yesterday suggesting that the Chinese Commerce Ministry was communicating
with the country's manufacturers so they could figure out determine
what US imports are indispensable and at risk from the
tariff barriers. He said this in the speech. There are
some companies who have said that if a long term

(03:51):
tariff war continued, their business model would not work in China,
and we could see them exit. We shared there with
the Chinese government because they are of course trying to
foster foreign direct investment. We meant, did you hear that.
I didn't hear it. The Cabal didn't report it because

(04:12):
they want you to believe that I find it. Lets
just say I find it mind boggling, but I shouldn't.

Speaker 1 (04:20):
That.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
The Kabal wants you to believe that's, for whatever reason,
that we're being mean to China, or that we're not
going to be able to buy Christmas toys if we
have these tariffs on China, because the Cabal is more
concerned about closing up to the Chinese Communist Party than

(04:41):
it is about our own national security, of our own
economic security, and so of course you don't hear about this.
Even earlier this month, Beijing announced that it would stop
accepting delivery of American made Boeing airplanes and parts. Now,
why well, that was probably aimed at harming the US

(05:02):
based aerospace giant Boeing and American manufacturing in general. The move,
which was backed by Hugene Ping, the president of the
chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, could likely cause significant
disruption to China's domestic aviation industry and then increase safety
concerns as the airlines in China would be forced to

(05:25):
turn to refurbished and aftermarket parts. So again, unless you're
reading deep deep into the financial pages of the Wall
Street Journal, probably didn't hear about that. But the intended
effect is taking place. And as when Trump says I've

(05:47):
got China backed into a corner, or when spokespeople say
I've got We've got China backed into a corner and
they're in the weaker position, there's the proof.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
There's the examples. You know, there's another.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
Among others, but among the critical sectors in China that
could see tariff relief or just even outright exemptions, maybe
in life saving pharmaceuticals or healthcare equipment, because the Chinese
healthcare system is already experiencing a strain under their country's
one point four billion or whatever it is people, and

(06:23):
they have a lack of access to critical medical devices
and drugs that could probably end up exacerbating their problems.
All of that's going on right under our noses. Trump
knows it. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bissent knows it.
Peter Navarro and the Trade reps know it, but they

(06:43):
don't want you to know it. But there's another place
that knows this, and I think that's one of the
markets have calmed down, and that's Wall Street. Wall Street
knows it too. The strategic reassessment, I think the right word,
the strategic reassessment that their undergoing arises in the context

(07:05):
of all these heightened trade tensions that everybody's screaming, you know,
everybody's hairs on fire, marked by our recent tariff increase
on over half of China's exports to this country now
at I think at one hundred and forty five percent. Well,
that ongoing trade spat presents substantial challenges not to US,

(07:28):
but to China's surplus style economy that crucially depends on
export performance. They can't export their economy, which is already
in the verge of collapsing, probably actually does collapse. So again,
when when when all you do is consume news from

(07:51):
the cabal, you're obviously going to get an anti Trump perspective.
Trump doesn't know what he's doing. He's crazy. He's got
to figure out what's he really gonna do with these tariffs.
And Trump's just sitting back. He doesn't smoke, but I
can see him sitting back, his feet up on the
resolute desk, smoking a big stogy and just kind of

(08:12):
laughing because everybody else is running around their hair on fire,
and he knows precisely what he's doing. He may not
be the most articulate guy in the world. He may
say some stupid stuff. He's the perfect troll. He's the
perfect mean creator. By the way, speaking of following me

(08:33):
on X, have you seen the photo of him in
Zelensky meeting. I don't think it was a Sistine chapel,
but they're meeting inside the Vatican the way Trump who
I assume it's the White House photographer. But Trump knows
precisely how to market and manage those photo ops. It's

(08:58):
gonna be an iconic photograph. Whither Ukraine succumbs to Russia
or Russia finally, agrees to a cease fire whatever. That
will be an iconic photograph. And Emmanuel Macrone, the president
of France, he's seen in a video trying to walk
up to and get into that meeting between Zelensky and Trump,

(09:18):
and Trump shakes his hand and puts his arm on him, like, oh,
it's good to see you, Emmanuel.

Speaker 1 (09:22):
How you doing?

Speaker 3 (09:23):
You know?

Speaker 2 (09:23):
But yeah, Baltimore and I are going to have a
meeting here. You know, you run along, now, you just
run along. We're going to have our own meeting. And
then the two of them sit down and the photographs
take place, and it just looks like Zelensky is well,
the principal is chewing him out. The principal's being nice,
not rude, not over the top, being nice, but chewing

(09:46):
him out. And the same thing's going on with the tariffs,
and Trump's just laughing the entire time that the cabal
tries to convince you otherwise. It's the Weekend with Michael Brown.
Go see that picture. You can see it on x
at Michael around USA. I'll be right back. Hey, welcome

(10:10):
back to the Weekend with Michael Brown. I appreciate you
tuning in. Have you ever thought about the similarity between
the attacks on our Second Amendment rights and the whole
all the activists and the congregants and the Church of
the climate activists. Have you ever thought that they're actually
trying to accomplish the same thing. Have you ever thought

(10:31):
about the fact that by attacking our Second Amendment rights,
which is, yes, the Second Amendment is about us being
able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, a well
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
The right of the people to keep in bear arms

(10:53):
shall not be infringed. That has to do with us
being able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. And
I always chuckle when the anti gunners laugh and say, oh, yeah,
what you guys got your ar fifteen's and you got
a glock nine millimeters or maybe you got a you know,

(11:16):
a nineteen eleven or something, and you think you're gonna
go up against a tank, you think you're gonna go
up against you know, a navy seal or whatever. And
I'm thinking it probably won't have to. I want, if
the nation gets to that point where civilians are taking
arms up against the government, then that means that probably

(11:38):
some unlawful orders have been issued and the military is
going to split. There will be some, I don't think
that many, but I think there'll be some that would
follow the tyrannical government down the road to hell. But
I think the vast majority of members of the military
would break off and help us defend against a tyrannical government.

(12:00):
And we always forget about the revolutionary war. So a
bunch of rag tag revolutionaries go up against at the time,
the world's greatest army and defeats them. You ever heard
of guerrilla warfare? That was guerrilla warfare, and we beat

(12:23):
the British Red coats. So don't give me this crap
about oh you know you and I'm not looking for
a fight. I'm just pointing out that that's what the
Second Amendment is really about. But the Second Amendment is
also preserving our right to keep him bear arms so
that we can exercise our god given natural law of

(12:46):
self defense. We have a god given right to defend ourselves,
our family, each other, our property against those who would
you know, rape, pillage, rob steele, murder, whatever they would do,
the thugs in the world that would take away our lives,
our livelihood, our property, whatever it might be. So they

(13:07):
are intertwined a little bit. But what about over here
on this energy thing, what about the climate scan that's
going on. Well, that's about control, as we talked about
when we were talking about the Pope in the first hour,
that's really about control. That's really about limiting where you
can drive, how you get to from point A to

(13:29):
point B, how you heat or cool your home, what
kind of food you eat, how many children you can have,
Can you have dogs and I have dogs? Can you
eat meat or not eat meat? I mean, it's all
about control. Well, what happens if they're both about control?
What happens if, like in Colorado, they're very successfully in

(13:54):
the interrum anyway, are very successfully attacking the Second Amendment
rights the Colorados. Well, all we have to do is
look across the pond to the United Kingdom and we
can see exactly what would happen. Knife crime. Knife crime
is on the rise in England and Wales. Last year,

(14:16):
an estimated fifty four thousand, five hundred eighty seven knife
crime incidents were reported. That's in the increase of two
percent from twenty twenty threes cases of fifty three, four
hundred and thirteen.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
The Office for National Statistics released those numbers this week. Now.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
Robberies with knives or sharp objects increased by five percent,
reaching over twenty three thousand, and increased from twenty twenty
three's numbers of twenty two thousand, and then threats to
kill using knives saw a modesty increase, rising three percent
from fifty seven hundred and twenty twenty three to fifty
nine hundred last year, and the offenses are categorized says

(15:00):
possession of an article with a later a point have
also shown an increase. There were twenty eight thousand of
those reported in twenty twenty four compared to twenty seven
thousand a year before that. What's the point? The point
that I want to make is we'll end up in
the same place.

Speaker 1 (15:21):
We will end up.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
In exactly the same place. And all we have to
do for everybody that tells us that, oh we've got
to you know, we need more gun safety laws, we
need more gun control laws, because we got to. We
got to make it safe for people. I've got a
better idea. Once you just eliminate all criminals, why once
you outlaw crime, make crime a crime, like, really enforce it.

(15:47):
The point is someone who wants to commit a crime,
whether that is an aggravated assault, a murder, you know,
an injury, a rape, whatever it is, you'll need a gun.
And if the anti gunners in this country succeed and
they were able to which I don't think they ever will,

(16:08):
but if they were able to successfully prohibit the private possession,
the individual right to keeping bear arms, then what's next.
Oh well, let's look at the UK and we can
see exactly what would happen next. And in fact, for
those of you that that listen from a metropolitan area,

(16:31):
listen to the breakdown of the data shows that London
the Metropolitan Police Department in London accounted for almost a third,
thirty one percent of the total knife offenses. They had
a knife crime rate of one hundred and eighty eight
per one hundred thousand individuals. Now, interestingly, there's also the

(16:56):
unintended consequences of this going on. Personal thefts substantially increased
in England and Wales. Last year they were up twenty
two percent. You don't need to see, you don't, The
point being, you don't need a gun. And for every
time they keep telling you that all these gun laws
are going to make you safer the criminals who will

(17:19):
always be among us. You know, it's like the Bible
tells us the poor will always be among us. Well,
criminals are always going to be among us. They'll just
shift their modus operandi. Well, we'll just use knives, and
then if you start outlawing certain knives, we'll just start
buying other knives, hells, bells. Maybe we'll just all start

(17:39):
clubbing each other with baseball bats. The point is, don't
buy into the crap that they're selling you, but how
they're going to make you safer. It's the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Takes the word Michael, Michael to three three
one zero three, be right back.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
Tonight, Michael and joins me here the former FEMA director
of talk show host Michael Brown.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing a heck of a job
The Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey, it's the Beacon with
Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. I appreciate
you tuning in. Give me a favor and go follow
me over on x formerly Twitter. It's at Michael Brown
USA at Michael Brown USA. And remember any time you're
listening to the program or even when you're not. You

(18:24):
think there's something you want to tell me, you can
always send me a text message twenty four hours a day,
seven days a week on your massive j AFT the
numbers three three, one zero three. Just use the keyword
either Mike or Michael. So one of the judges, well,
hello me back up, Tom signing an executive order last month,

(18:47):
and the executive order essentially required that if you want
to vote at any level in this country on any issue, state, local, national,
a ballid issue, whatever it is, the executive order required

(19:09):
proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, and
that was shut down.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
I don't have a problem with that, because I happened
to agree with the judge. But before you go ballistic,
hang on, the judge wrote, our constitution in trust Congress
and the States, not the President, with the authority to
regulate federal elections. Consistent with that allocation of power. Congress

(19:40):
is even currently debating legislation that would effect many of
the changes the president purports to order. I have to
confess I normally read these opinions, but this was one
hundred and twenty page opinion. I don't think she needed
that much. I read about the first third of it
and got the gist of everything I needed to know.
And yes, this Judge color Coatelli is a Clinton appointee.

(20:03):
I don't think that makes any difference, because I do
think she is right here. But there's a butt coming.
I want you to be aware of that. She added
this quote, No statutory delegation of authority to the executive
branch permits the president to short circuit Congress's deliberative process

(20:24):
by executive order. So where'd this case come from? Well,
it's the result of the consolidation of three cases filed
after Trump issued his election Integrity Order last month. The
Democrat National Committee Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House
Minority Leader Keen Jeffreys initiated one of the lawsuits. The

(20:48):
other plaintiffs, which is where we're going to start swerving
into the butt, included the League of United Latin American
Citizens and the National Association of the Advancement of Colored
People the NAACP. So the judge blocked the citizenship provision
in the executive order, she left the two other components

(21:10):
of the directive intact over those well, one was a
provision for DHS and the Department of State to provide
two doge with data the Department of Government Efficiency with
data that would aid it in identifying non citizens currently
on voting roles. But yeah, there's no constitutional prohibition against

(21:35):
doing that. In fact, that's going to get to the
butt that I'm going to drive out in just a second.
The other measure that she left intact in his executive
order requires the Department of Justice to initiate legal action
against state governments that ignore a Trump administration requirement that
mail in ballots be received before or on election in order.

Speaker 1 (22:00):
To be counted.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
Now, I found it interesting that this judge allowed that
one to stay because that really is again going back
to the Constitution. That really is kind of how you
conduct an election, and how we conduct elections is up
to Congress and the states, not up to the executive branch.

(22:24):
In fact, if you recall, when we have a presidential election,
we're actually having fifty different state elections, which is why
we're the Electoral College, so that we can balance out,
you know, highly populated states with thinly populated states. That's
why thinly populated states have two senators, just like California

(22:45):
has two senators. And then you divide the House of
representatives up based upon the population works beautifully, works exactly
the way it's supposed to do. So this idea that
you could you you can't require citizenship, which I fully
agree with the judge on this one, because that's up

(23:08):
to Congress, and that's up to the fifty different states
to decide whether or not they're they're going to require
ID to vote. Now I believe they should require ID
to vote. But again, if we're going to have a
system of federalism where the federal government has limited and
enumerated powers, this is a classic example where the states

(23:28):
and for everybody that is always looking to the federal
government to fix everything. This is one of those areas
where no, you should be looking to your state legislature
to fix this. The state of Colorado should require ID,
the state of Texas, California, may every state in the
Union should require ID that shows you're a citizen in

(23:50):
order to vote in I don't care whether it's a
municipal election or it's to vote for the president. But
again that's up to states and the Congress and then
identifying data to just be able to show who is
still legitimately on the voter rolls. Absolutely, they can do that.

(24:13):
There's no reason to not do that.

Speaker 1 (24:16):
But I found it.

Speaker 2 (24:17):
Interesting that she then allowed the mandate that mail imbalance
be received before on election day that those be counted,
because that seems counterintuitive to my theory and based actually
most Supreme Court decisions that elections are conducted by the

(24:38):
states and that Congress can set some basic standards about
how those elections are conducted. So I found it interesting
that she that that would stand and not the others.
But let's get to the butt, because the butt is
about fairness in representation. There's something quietly revolutionary in the

(25:05):
notion that in this country, the greatest constitutional in public
that's ever been devised would actually allocate our political power
not according to the number of citizens, but rather by
the raw number of persons who happened to reside within
its borders. That would be a very basic violation of

(25:25):
the first principles of this country that only citizens should vote.
But beyond that that the number of congressmen that any
state has should be determined by the number of citizens
in that state, not the number of people. Because let
me take it to its logical conclusion, if we're going

(25:47):
to count illegal aliens in California, Texas, Colorado. I don't
care where it is, and we're going to count those
to determine the totality of the number of people that
just physically reside in a state to determine how many
congressmen that state gets. Then why wouldn't you count tourists?

(26:07):
Why when you count vacationers, Why woulden't you count just
people that just, you know, kind of passing through. You See,
what makes this country unique is that we allocate political power,
and we allocate political power by the number of citizens
in the states, and then the states divide those citizens

(26:31):
up into congressional districts, or, to take it even down further,
the states divided up into the number of Senate districts
and the number of House districts in a state. If
sovereignty belongs to the people, then I would argue that
that sovereignty belongs to citizens alone. It doesn't belong to

(26:53):
people who aren't here legally. It doesn't belong to a diplomat.
Would you think that we should count a diplomat's family.
So let's say the British ambassador is living in Montgomery County, Maryland.
We should count him and his kids for the number
of people that are she and her kids, the number

(27:14):
of people living in that household in the totality of
people living in Montgomery County, Maryland. No, you'd think that
was absurd. Well, then, isn't it equally absurd that we
would count an illegal alien when it comes to allocating
the numbers the number of representatives at either the federal
or the state level. But there are states that are

(27:37):
voted by millions of non citizens, by millions of illegal aliens,
including those in violation of the law, some who are
even felons, who leverage their sheer physical presence to seize
more seats in Congress, more electoral votes, more control over
the machinery of government. You want to know why Democrats

(27:59):
want more illegal aliens in here, because most of the
Blue states don't ever want to have an ID requirement.
They just want to count the number of people. Let's
just have census takers just go through and just count
the number of people without caring about where they're from,
how long have they lived here or anything else. How
many on this day, at this point of time, are

(28:20):
there people living in Colorado? And that's going to determine
how many congressmen we get that's insane, But more than sane,
it's a distortion that's created on purpose. It's a conscious,
deliberate strategy pursued by the Democrats. It's kind of like

(28:40):
the old Tammany Hall in New York that has exchanged
ballots for bodies, citizenship for just presence, and I think
it's time we change that. Had, for example, had only
citizens been counted after the twenty twenty census, Democrats would
have lost at least ten seats in the House of Representatives. Today,

(29:00):
the House would stand with a Republican majority, not of
just that precarious few, but if twenty seven seats. So
I'm not exaggerating when I say that the fate of legislation,
the survival of this republic, the structure of American liberty itself,
hinges on this fundamental issue. Who counts as being in

(29:21):
the country in terms of our representation, in terms of
how many Congressmen Colorado gets. It should be citizens. It
should not be just who's here. And the founders they
weren't confused about that when they talked about we the
people of the United States. I'll be right back, Hey,

(29:52):
welcome back to Luekeim withth Michael Brown. As always, I
want to say thanks to everybody that tunes in on
the weekend or listens on the podcast, that follows me
on social media. I appreciate all of you participating in
the program. I really do. I want to close with this.
You know, if you're an enemy of the Marxist then
whatever property you have can be redistributed and given to

(30:17):
the favored groups.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
That's just how Marxism works.

Speaker 2 (30:21):
If you're talking about cultural and Marxism, the property of
your racial enemies can be redistributed to the preferred race.
In Washington State provides a mind boggling example of that.
Governor Bob Ferguson in Washington has signed into into law

(30:46):
the most I think outrageous illegal reparations program in the
entire country. It now gives down payments taxpayer money, down
payments of one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. It's a
hell of a down payment two black first time home buyers,
and you don't have to show any proof that you've

(31:07):
ever been discriminated when it comes to housing, right, Yeah, that.

Speaker 3 (31:11):
Part of its history. Now, this is great, Okay. Washington
State's covenant home ownership program provides down payment and closing
cost assistance for lower income first time hoone buyers. Lawmakers
create the program to address the disproportion impacts of racial
redlining in Washington. State House built sixteen ninety six modifies

(31:34):
the program by adjusting the area median income threshold for
program eligibility, introducing loan forgiveness, and modifying the oversight committee membership.
This modification will create more opportunities to close the racial
home ownership gap, which is a very important goal for
all of us here in Washing State. We so appreciate
everybody who made this legislation possible. We know it's been

(31:56):
like any legislation challenging. One has a share a challenge
as we know. But Repent Taylor is going to real
champion this legislation as we appreciate your leadership with particular
thank you very much for that. I'm pleased assign this
legislation into law epecualation.

Speaker 4 (32:13):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (32:15):
I'm must take a photo.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
Let's take a photo. You folks in Washington have a
really weird governor. Now.

Speaker 2 (32:22):
To translate that out of the Marxism, what Bob Ferguson
is saying is that blacks get their houses heavily subsidized
by other people on a coercive basis, because what they're
just lucky enough to have been born oppressed, and they
were born oppressed because they were born black. Now, the
website The Center Square reported on this before it was

(32:45):
even signed into law. Republicans tried to attach an amendment
that would at least exclude those convicted of sex crimes.
Can we can we at least if even if you're black,
if you've been convicted of a sex crime, can we
at least exclude you from this giveaway of one hundred
and twenty grand No. Democrats shut that down too, So

(33:10):
how how much gratitude do taxpayers get for that money?
This is representing Jamila Taylor. He's from the thirtieth district
Federal Way in the Washington State House.

Speaker 4 (33:27):
Maybe they might want to call me a monkey today
because I want to participate in our inclusive economy.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
This is getting ridiculous.

Speaker 4 (33:39):
The people in my community are asking for restorative justice.
They're asking for us to repair the harms that previous
members of this institution, and I would venture dare to say,
mister speaker, some current members.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
Oh so they're going to call Republicans racist and then
claim that the racist Republicans want to call the black
woman a monkey. I mean, this is how absurd things
are in Washington State. And remember that you'll never be enough,

(34:21):
because the more that Marxism is able to take a foothold,
the more they'll expand this to other things. Now, if
I just said to you, without any context at all,
I think we ought to have a government program that
just you know, government program, which means taxpayer money, so

(34:42):
that all taxpayers in your state will give one hundred
and twenty thousand dollars to Native Americans to put down
on a house. Now, whites, blacks, Asians you can't apply.
You'd find that horribly offensive, at least I hope you would.
What if I said, okay, well, instead, we're going to

(35:04):
take tax payer money even from poor white people who
maybe are paying some taxes. There's certainly paying some sales
tax or something. But we're gonna take whatever taxes they
pay at the state level, and we're going to give
black people one hundred and twenty thousand dollars for a
down payment on a home. But all you whites, Asians
and the other you can't do it either. Or let's

(35:25):
apply it to Presbyterians versus Catholics, or Protestants versus Catholics,
or let's apply it to gay versus straight, let's apply
it to well, you know, whatever immunable, immunable characteristic you
can think of you would find an offensive. Why do
we not find this offense? And why is it the
states continue to do this kind of corasive activity that,

(35:52):
you know, just reverse the roles for me, these two women,
these two state reps that use Republicans of being racist
and said that you might as well call me a monkey.
What if the roles were reversed, and what if we
were just going to take just take money from black
people and give it to first time white home buyers.

(36:17):
But they go ballistic, Oh, that's racist, that's discriminatory.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
You can't do that.

Speaker 2 (36:24):
Well, that's exactly what you're doing here. So why is
it right one place and wrong the other place? Oh
because it's cultural Marxism. That's exactly why. Good grief, don't forget.
Subscribe to that podcast and you can text me anytime.
Thanks for tuning in to the Leaguing with Michael Brown.
Tuning in the next weekend. I'll see you then, take

(36:44):
care