I'd like to welcome Connor back. We're going to talk about some stuff. We've already started a conversation and we decided just to go ahead and start having the conversation. We're gonna go back to what we talked about in Minnesota. My view in Minnesota at this point with all the video and everything else. We'll get in more into the video later, and this is where Connor and I disagree, and we're going to walk through it. I feel like as far as what's happening in Minnesota is that there is a federal law that puts ICE agents on the ground to enforce federal law. You have protesters that are saying, we in a civil society, do not feel like they've been the agents have been demonized. I think, can we at least a Greek honor that the agents have been demonized from people on the left for doing their job as civil servants that. Degree to a degree, I would, I would concur that the same stance that was taken during like BLM, when it was the defund the police and that whole uproar that got more than in my opinion, it should have been. I you know, the example of you know, the couple bad eggs, you know, and and the aspect of bad examples being applied to an entire situation. I'm sure that there are thousands of ICE agents doing exactly their job, respectfully and to the t that it is supposed to have been done. But I also feel that there are examples that can be shown where that is not the case. So what were But what I'm saying is, do you think when the left calls them the gestapo and they are uh, the word that was used by the kind we were going to we're going to talk about, was disappearing people. Is like what you're said to me, you're creating an environment that says these people are abducting people without calls, and that is not true. I disagree. Okay, so tell me in federal code, if you're here illegally and you were picked up and detained for that, why is that disappearing people? No, that's absolutely not disappearing people. If you are here illegally, you are found to be here illegally through proper means of you know, arrest, entertainment, what like justifiable suspicion, whatever the federal verbiage is. And it's yep, this dude's illegal. We are going to put him in a detention center and we are going to deport him. Absolutely, that is well within federal code. But that's not so. How so how is that not being done? Give me any in so? I think, if I may, I think that where we are right now, when we look at what's happening in Minneapolis, when we look at what's happening throughout the nation in regards to the protests and the interference being run by individuals on the left against ICE operations in various town cities and all that, we are looking at it from the perspective of the boots on the ground situation, the people in that town. And for me, where the conversation becomes very difficult is that like we're looking at Minnesota as Minneapolis. Sorry, We're looking at Minneapolis as if it happened out of nowhere, as if this was just a random of what was it sadder day that that happened, but that this is just popped about of nowhere. There was no pretext, no preamble to any of this. It's about island encountered that resulted in that lady's death? Correct? No, And I'd say there were forces on both sides that carried us to that point. The forces, well and talk about I will talk about the forces on the left that put us in that position. You talk about the forces on the right. So where I genuinely feel for ice officers, customs and border patrol, National Guard, any of these essentially just people like you and me doing their job. Where I genuinely feel for them is that, in my opinion, they're being used as a pawn in a bigger political teta tech struggle, back and forth, whatever you want to want to call it. You look at again. So it's the what happened in Minneapolis, I feel is being presented as this, this happened out of nowhere. She was just getting involved, blah blah blah blah blah, completely disregarding the build up that got us here, the build up over the last ten months of actions taken by the administration that have added, you know, bits and pieces to this fuel to this fire waiting for. These give me an example of what the administration has done. So just give me an example of like, what are they doing other than enforcing the law. Well, they're defying judges. We had the incident back in April May June somewhere there where two hundred and seventy three detainees were sent out of the country on C. One thirties directly while a federal judge was saying, hey, bring them back, do not send them out. I am blocking this until we look into it further. And the federal government set them out anyway. Come to find out, seventy five percent of the people on that plane didn't have a violent criminal charge or a criminal charge in the US at all. You look at well, all right, so let's just talk about it an incident. So so to me, that backs up the fact that there are judicial remedies to deal with what's going on with ICE. Like, if you have an issue, there's a judicial remedy. So like from my standpoint, I know we've gone back and forth on legal, illegal, and everything else. But like my question is, Okay, they didn't have a violent history, but where were they picked up at? And then the second question would be where they here illegally? Sure, but that's that's not the point of of of that example. What I'm saying is that because yes, you're absolutely right, we can look at the legality of them being here. There have been instances of US citizens being picked up. We can go about that isolated incident. So tell me. That's my point is it's not like when you get all the way to Minneapolis. It's no longer an isolated incident, because it is. But again, you're what you're doing is you're saying this was a bad event. So let's look at the bad event and say why it was a bad event. From the least, it's not the event that I'm talking about. I'm saying that the pattern of behavior from the administration has culminated in the event. Is the event is relevant if we're going to use that as an example of why people are protesting and everything else. Let's see if that event is truthfully what you say it is. If it is, then okay, that's a that's a valid point. So the part of that event that's the relevancy to the protesting is people were being deported or detained and then shipped out of the country legally, illegally like yet like that that was the thing, But the event was a federal judge said, hey, stop, bring those people back. We do not know the validity of all of these charges, and the administration said, nope, they're gone. Can't bring them back. Nothing we can do about it. And those people sat outside the country for days and weeks because the administration directly violated a federal judge's ruling to bring them back. That's the issue that. I don't, But I don't that is based on what again, based on what happened. But you can say, Okay, that was illegal, they shouldn't have done that. That's not how the judicial system works. The final authority is going to be the Supreme Court, and I think that's the whole point. The whole point is there are judicial remedies if the administration makes a mistake. If you're saying this is a mistake by the administration, my question is. Where direct ignoring of a federal judge's indictment or injunction. Okay, but that's not the whole story. The whole story is is that like you cannot again, you can argue whether you have venue or anything else. But what you're saying is is that there is there is an example of something that was done wrong, and you're based on your opinion and because of that, a judge said you can't do that, and you're saying that the administration did it. Anyway, My question to you is where are those two hundred and seventy people Now? I think a good chunk of them eventually got brought back. So what you're saying is there is a way, despite all the scare tactics, people are being disappeared and everything else, if a federal judge says I want these people back, there is a judicial remedy to get those people back. Look at the guy that was sent to Venezuela or else. Was it El Salvador or Venezuela or Burger? I'll never pronounce Garcia. Yes, honestly, I don't know he gotway. Well whatever El Salvador it wasn't It wasn't Venezuela. It was l Salvador because he was MS thirteen. But anyway, again was Mimes thirteen. You can put money on that based on professionals that identify these people in a consistence. Okay, So again there's a judicial remedy. So what in that, because that's one of the things that we talked about back in nineteen sixty three. You can bring up that as like, this is a protest the protests in sixty three in Alabama and what all happened there, And I agree that that was a protest. We're talking about civil society. People come in and protest things and they say, hey, this isn't right. So this is what we're going to do from a judicial remedy, from a like hey, we're not getting relief. This needs to happen. A protest needs to happen. In nineteen sixty three, there was a violation. The states were violating what the federal government said. So using that as an example, my feeling on all this is from a protest standpoint. You have people sharing stories of like, well, this is what they're doing, we have to do this. They're making it into a fire. They're yelling fire, and they're yelling fire with inaccuracies. For example, these guys are not These guys are not disappearing people. They are not. There been multiple people within the Ice Detention Center system where they track detainees whose family cannot find their names. Their names disappear from the records, they don't have any way to find where they're at, they cannot try. So let's use that as an example. If you're earllegally and you don't have proper identification, is it possible maybe the people that they can't find in there are because they have assumed a different identity and they've been logged in at something else. Sure, that's absolutely possible, is it is it? Is it possible that they just are being taken out of the system. So you're saying, so you're saying. I'm saying their names are being removed. That's you were saying that. But that's not that is not factual. It's not it is you are saying you have a family member that is coming in there and saying, I'm looking for this family member. They were picked up by ICE. I cannot find their name. I'm just saying that they are family members who said, hey, I found my person. They say that they're in Texas and then I went to look again and now their name is gone and we don't know where they are. So their name was in the system and now it is gone. And that has been documented as happening. From who from documented that well. So it's the claim of the individuals saying I can't find my family members. And what judicial remedies have been taken to get that cleaned up. I don't know. And see what I'm saying, and I'm not saying that things mistake when you have that math of a situation. Things happen, But my question is in a civil society, my feeling on what happened in Minneapolis is you have agents that are demonized. You have someone who is who is in is trying to do the right thing and has been trained to do the right thing by people who are not doing the right thing in my opinion, because they are calling they are calling these Ice agents fast fascist. I can't ever say the word right. They're calling them, they're calling them hitler, they're calling them all these different people. They're saying they're abducting them, so like they're creating, they're creating a problem. And then when somebody gets killed, they're like, well, the agents shouldn't have done this. And I think the problem in my opinion is protests are are a necessary as you look through our history, protests have been part of what our history is as a country. My question that we talked about was in nineteen sixty three in Alabama, that that is different than what we're experiencing now. In my opinion, I'm not saying it is. I don't have any All I can say is I feel like the United States said with this presidential election, he won the popular vote, He won the electoral vote without exception sixty more than sixty percent of it said fix immigration and close the southern border. That that was the sixty percent. And so from my standpoint, he is delivered on that promise. If you don't like that promise, then find somebody to run against them to make it stop, because he is following what the law says. People might not like the way the law is being implemented, but there's nobody out there, like they have these sticks scare things of like, well, this person disappeared. But then even with what you just gave me was an example of a court that said we think that you've gone too far, and it's corrected. Yes, there was an inconvenience there where two hundred and seventy people were removed from the country, but based on what you're telling me, they're back or whatever whatever the problem was with that, it is fixed. But again, like we've talked about before, when you have an enormous problem, there is it's like on a sinking ship. You're probably gonna throw stuff off that you'll think like, hey, I should probably kept that, but that at that point you're thinking like, hey, I just want to I just want to survive this, and so I'm trying to relieve weight or whatever else. And I think I think we both agree immigration is a huge problem. The number of people in this country that is a problem. It is, yeah, but it's a problem because you look at if you can't say. I don't see immigration as a problem. I see the systems we have in place for accessible immigration as broken and needing reform. Okay, I'm a proponent of bringing immigrants in. I think immigration built this country. But when you screw something up that bad and it is where it is, and I'm not just saying the previous administration or that, I'm just saying it hasn't been fixed, you have a huge problem. If you don't believe there's a huge problem, look at the amount of that, or look at the amount of money that's been pissed away in Minnesota for programs that don't work. That and that that is an immigrant population. It is like you you you can look at that and go, hey, this is it. And so from my standpoint, why aren't we talking about It's I think about this from a law enforcement standpoint. I remember a long time ago, this car that had all kinds of violations on it went by with their music thumping, and there was a guy that was a veteran and he said, that is a that is a missile lock. And I was like, what does that mean. He was like, it's like they want to get caught. And when he pulled him over, he had all these violations on the car. He wasn't licensed, So why would you want to draw attention to that because you know your violating law and so like, from my standpoint, let's talk about the fact that the reason the federal government is in Minnesota is because the state of Minnesota has failed miserably in using federal funds properly. We can, we can. I'm not going to go with the far right talking points of like, well they did this for votes and they did this for anything else. I think both of us are from a standpoint of if it works, let's let's it's performance based. And I would say, is it is it safe to say from your opinion the system that was created, the safety net that was created in Minnesota and the way those funds were distributed and everything else, and the amount of fraud that's involved, is that not a failure. It's a failure for security, Yes. For security from what security. Security and not in the sense of like locks and bars or whatever, but security in the sense of like a secure process that cannot be manipulated. Because at the end of the day, the programs work when it's when the funding is used the right way with people with good intentions. These aid programs do work. I don't disagree, and that's what it's the people that system that's the standpoint. Why aren't Why aren't more people saying I have got needy people in my community that didn't get aid, Because I've got somebody in Minnesota that made several hundred thousand, even millions of dollars that they pocketed. Where is the like, where are the name calling or anything else when it comes to that. Well, I think that it's there. I think it's just one of those situations. Right, Okay, So while we're talking, I want you to find me one Democrat that's come out and said the state of Minnesota has done a horrible job and they need to be held accountable. That's a tough ask, so anyway, but I feel like you're smart enough to figure to find that out. So, like I said, I think I think one of the things that we were talking about before. That I think is very important as we talk about and you can get as you're researching this. I just want to talk about the ice incident in Minnesota. Is your reviewpoint is she's parked in the middle of the road and she wasn't interfering with the ice operation and all this other stuff. But like from my standpoint. Well hold on to clarify that. My stance is that she was parked ilegally, so there is justification for questions to be asked. My stance is she was not doing anything that deserved to be shot in the face. No, that she did that after she tried to run over the officer, which is what the video showed. I disagree, But you aren't the one holding the cellphone that got hit by the car either. He changed hands. Hey what he changed hands? If you watch the video from his perspective, he was holding the phone in his right hand as he's circling around the back of the car. As he's coming up to the driver's side, he swaps to his left so that he has his gun hand free coming around the front of the vehicle. So what you're saying is is that it's a good chance again, I think you know who I thought did the best job of describing this as Steven Smith, the guy it's on ESPN. And one of the things that he said is he said, we can't vilify either one of these people because neither one of them wish this would have happened. I'm paraphrase, I'm my quote, And he said he doesn't believe the Ice agent, you know, had any ill intent, and what they did, it wasn't how they woke up and expected to start that morning. But at the end of the day, one of the things that he did say is like these protests and I and that's where I'm at, is like you cannot in a civil society continue to do things and go after people doing their job and say, I'm I it is okay that I did that because I was outside of what I was. You were making people were making decisions based on what the video show of, Like well he wasn't, she wasn't actually inside the perimeter or anything else. But like, having never been part of a situation like that, I feel like that is like me saying going into the operating room and saying, did you think about I read on the internet last night? I think you should do this and clap this off. And the doctor is like, I appreciate your input, but like you need to back up, and so like in this situation, I do think that like they didn't she didn't attract their attention. Like from my standpoint, what the video shows, this is just my opinion. The video shows is an agent is just documenting, Hey, this person is interfering with what we're doing. The agent that because you hear the victim's wife sitting there saying like, just do this, just do this, you know you can find a later. Yeah, but I'm just saying, like he is not doing any enforcement action. He's not. He's just video in it, which to be that's what an observer does. They they you know, because they have been demonized. He's like, let me show you what we deal with every day. And he's going around the car. This is my opinion on and then the other agents come up and are like, she's got to go. We can't get through. I'm assuming because they get out of their car and it's it and he again, we can break it down. But like from my standpoint, without going like piece by piece by piece, the issue is is like he is being an observer and then he transitions when he views her as a threat and that's when he engaged her and Opley ended up shooting so. Well, and that's and I think that this you know, did you find her online? By the way, Uh, let's see here, I'm gonna get too far off. Yeah, no, I got you. There have been people yes, short answers, Yes, there were people at various levels. The ag Keith Ellison back in twenty nineteen, I think he was the state ag. Maybe I don't remember. He said it was a problem. So so that's okay. So if we're you know, real quick on that one. Like this is also the aspect of where I think is important for like the conversations that you and I are trying to demonstrate and have is these again it's it's my premise with you know, Minneapolis is a result of the last ten months of activities. When you look at Minnesota, there's this. You know, from the beginning, I've looked at presenting the proper narrative in terms of how we have a discussion. So when you look at Minnesota, for instance, yes, there's absolutely fraud. It is absolutely a problem. There have been I think confirmed the high end estimate is like nine billion coming from conservative side of things, confirmed and like tracked for sitting at about a billion dollars over an extended period of time. That includes mismanagement of PPP loans from back in twenty nineteen when the rules around their usage were lessened. That was a Trump era change, but that was back in twenty nineteen. You do have your your frauds with from Biden era lessening of restrictions and stuff like that. So it goes through at least two administrations. Let's talk about that real quick. So I understand what you're saying. So what I hear you saying is I hear you say in twenty nineteen the Attorney General says we have a problem with fraud, Right, that's what it seems to be. Yeah, and that's during the Trump administration. Tell me again what happened in the Biden administration. So walking through. This, so throughout throughout these so we've got twenty nineteen, there were people I think it was this AG again, I'm rough looking at the. Still, I mean he's still he's been AG since I mean. Ellison, Yes, So he's sitting here going in twenty nineteen, his office prosecuted and convicted over three hundred people for medicaid fraud, So he was aware of stuff going on back then. In twenty twenty two, Feeding Our Future, which was the big one, like, that's the one that really like kicked it. That was a multi year investigation from what I understand by the US Attorney and the FBI, that involved two hundred and fifty million dollars in stolen funds from a child nutrition program. That was some white lady whose name I forget. Was like, when when did that happen? Twenty twenty two? This was Feeding our So twenty nineteen you have and I just confirmed he's been an Attorney general since twenty nineteen. Still, but he says there's a problem, right. Yes, Or he does an investigation of three hundred or so people in twenty nineteen. Yes, and so he says it's the problem. Three years later, we're still saying it's a problem. We're two three years later, we have convictions. Okay for those three hundred and fifty people. Uh no, No, for different people, for Feeding our Future, federal and state corruption case. Federal and state. Let's just give everybody the benefit of doubt, Like we see that there's a problem, yes, And my question is what did the state of Minnesota do from twenty nineteen to where we are right now to fix the problem of fraud, because it seems like it's exploded since then, since nineteen, Because I mean, I think that's what's important to me. What's important is is people want to look at I feel like people on the left one look at it as like, hey, somebody's just picking on Minnesota because of this, this and this, and then. No, I think Minnesota's probably one of the worst examples of this situation. But my point is is, and here's the connection. The connection because we talked about this with RICO on protests and stuff like that, but like this is a little bit different, but it's similar, and it's similar from a standpoint of the reason federal agents are in Minnesota is because it appears that there is a large immigrant population and a lot of these immigrants receive benefits through the fraud. And so from my standpoint, it is not just like a randomizer that said, hey, let's go to Minnesota. Minnesota is doing everything good. We're just going up there because we're trying to make a point. Because I think that is kind of what Governor Waltz has said and other people have said, is like, you're just picking on Minnesota. No, you have a problem. You identified the problem back in twenty nineteen. You haven't fixed the problem. It's it's it continues to be a problem, and now or government gets involved, and it is it is ramping up bigger and bigger. And so from my standpoint, and maybe you don't agree, but like, do you think that we just randomly selected I just DHS is like, hey, let's go to Minnesota. Or is it like an outcry from the population of like there's a lot of money missing. We probably need to deal with this. I think both of those are mildly inaccurate, and i'll and i'll how so, well. So free do the first one first? What what first one is inaccurate? Well, so go go through your two because I was half I was pulling up a thing while you were talking, so I was trying to go So your two points are. So the I think it's safe to say that the state of Minnesota has failed in dealing with the fraud that's up there. And it's not random from a standpoint of law enforcement going up there in mass from DHS to deal with the front because I feel like what you're going to find is after the fact, is that a lot the federal government's concerned in this whole situation is that this money. Somaya is not a friendly country. There's a lot of terrorism going on in Africa. We have special operations and other troops deployed to that area. So I feel like it's almost like a counter terrorism mission. And I think one of the things that I look at is is that that's what they're working towards. But again, because of the civil unrest costs by in my opinion, protesters and people on the left saying, don't there's nothing to see here, Well, no, there's a ton to see here. You were pissing away money that could be used the programs that you want, that the social programs that the left is constantly saying, this is what we need. You've pissed away the money and now, like, to me, it's almost like Mama has told you what the rules are. Mama is not fixed that daddy's coming home and Daddy's coming in there and taking care of business, and so it's not random that these agents are there because there is a nexus of criminal activity. So I agree that it is not random. I agree that from all reports it sounds like the state of Minnesota was not acting quickly or efficiently enough. Where I would disagree in the form of a question to you, as the law enforcement expertise in this conversation in this friendship, is that when you're conduct so you're trying to do a drug bust, right, the end result that people see is you and your fellow law enforcement officers made, you know, Penn, high profile arrests. You got twenty tons of or twenty twenty kilos of cocaine off the streets. We see the end result of this big pop of Wow, look what you guys did? What led up to that? Because my guess is that it was not an investigation you started one week prior. There was probably a lot of leadwork that got you to that conclusion. Correct. So in this instance, we're looking at what's going on in Minnesota, and I'm agreeing that the fraud is bad. I'm agreeing that they probably could have done more earlier on to get involved. I'm agreeing that it is not random that these ice officers have shown up now to start making arrests or more arrests. It's getting federal attention. A because it's a good talking point for Trump and his administration to go to go after walls. This is an easy lay up for them in terms of just getting some of that like talking point, you know, news YadA yadayapiy it gets him good headlines. Like that's a whole different part of it. That's irrelevant to my point, but it's the when you look at the series of events, you've got twenty nineteen, you've got twenty twenty two. They concluded an investigation into Feeding our Future and made arrests in that. I want to say, up to this point, up until this popped off, ninety three people had been arrested in association with these fraud schemes. So over the course of twenty nineteen, twenty twenty two, twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five, investigations, stuff was happening. It wasn't just nothing. There were investigations, there were arrests, there were convictions, there were all of this, And now it's culminating, culminating because it's getting more attention, it's getting more involvement, it's getting more it's seeming bigger, and like it just suddenly happened when I think it's fair to look at it and go has enough been done? Probably not? All right, And here's my question, and maybe you can answer this. My personal opinion is that the previous administration and the state of Minnesota has turned a blind eye to what the activities of people in the Samarian population. And because of that, they have they have allowed things. Because I've been reading a book lately that was written by a female and I'll i'll give your exact name, but basically she is a moderate Muslim and one of the things that she said is that that this is that the left and the Muslim Brotherhood and others have gotten together and have scared people from saying this is the way it is, because it is it, and it's on our side. I'll tell you this. It's the Israeli thing nobody wants to say anything about, Like, God forbid you say something about Israel, Like. I know, you're deemed to be an anti Semite if you say anything against us. I think it is safe to say that from a Muslim standpoint, Samaya is a predominantly Muslim country. The people in Samaya are in Minnesota. It is a predominantly Muslim group of people. I feel like from the Somalian population, I think if you broke down, if you broke down what their decisions were, it would be predominantly Muslim. That isn't like hey, Muslim bashing or anything else. It is though, when you create an environment where you're like, hey, these people are protected because they're Muslim, because I don't want to be accused of Islamophobia, doesn't that like the fact like on both sides, does that not create part of the problem. In my opinion, it doesn't give you if you give me just to say, you keep going, I'm gonna give you this lady's name, and so I would say that she's extremely moderate, and I felt like she was pretty fair about it. The problem is is that and that's one of the things you pointed out in her book is like, hey, they have made it so like they don't even admit that that like they don't want people like during the Biden administration and during the Obama administration, they did not want to refer to people that create that were that cited Islam as the reason for their negative actions, their terrorist actions. They said, you cannot use that word. They are radical. They are radical something like you couldn't say they're radical Muslims. You couldn't say there is you could. They wanted to keep those words out of there, and I think one of the problems with that is it creates an environment where people are afraid, sort of like the transgender and everything else is we're taking things off the table, and if you say anything, it is like, oh, you can't say that. Well, let's just deal with the facts. If the facts are there, then the facts say this is what it is. Let me keep going with what you're going to say in react. I think you to your point. Just now that there has been and it's been pushed from from my side, there has been a pendulum where there is such a worry about being accused of being homophobic, transphobic, racist, uh uh, anti semitic, anti Muslim, or Islamophobic that in investigations and in these moments, like people take take more time to make sure that all their teaser dotted, all their or all their tea's across, all their eyes are eyes are dotted because God, you know, God forbid you arrest someone. You're like, oh, well it's because he was black. Yeah, real quick, not to interrupt you, but the name of The book is called The Woke Army and it's Ozra and I'm probably masking her name, and I apologize for it. It's Ozra Nomani and it is a book and it's a great book. And one of the things she talks about is I feel like she is more like you from a point of like, hey, let's have an honest conversation. Let's not sit there. Let's admit that people on the on the side of Islam are saying, like, hey, you need they are. There are people that interpret Islam in a strict sense. And some of the countries that that are like that, like Iran and other countries, they're such they are so strict in their interpretation. They do suppress, suppress the will of women, they do, and and all that, and and that's what I what I struggle with the most is that people on the left will not say that's that's wrong, like you can't pick for me. And that's and that's example of from my from my standpoint is the story that I had from Fox News, and I'll give you the guy's name, is that this guy, this guy comes and says that. Yeah, what the headline of that news article. I'm trying the hold on it's it's it was Fox News and it takes the guy went in there and said that it is the same, that what we did is the same as what they No, I take that back. I apologize. I was one wrong. It is not it is. The Democratic National Committee chair compares us tie Iran. This guy's name is DNC chair Ken Martin compared the US to Iran and several social media posts Sunday claiming both countries are guilty of killing protesters. That is the guy that is is the face of the Democratic Party as it relates to stuff that you're running on. What his name is, Ken Martin? Yeah, no, I got that. Where where was the article he. Made the post? You can go to that, but the article was on Fox News. Democratic Committee chair compares you us to Iran, claims both are killing protesters, and this is what he said. He said he made his first comparison on Axis, expressing support for both protesters in the US and Iran for rising up against systems that wield violence without accountability. And my problem with that is there is accountability, you just describe the accountability. You felt like the administration went too far. Federal judge agreed with it and they said those two hundred and seventy five people came back. So I have a problem with that. I have a problem with a somebody that's in charge of the Democratic Party saying, hey, I just want to let you know that these are the same. They're not the same. Iran is an oppressive regime that kills homosexuals. They do. There's no freedom in Iran. That's why these people are protesting. And to compare freedom protesters to a group of people that are protesting what they believe is going to going wrong in a civil society that gives you other options besides protesting, you stick yourself in the middle of an ice operation. Granted, I again I defer to the part of From my standpoint, what happened in that ice raid was somebody that was pushed towards it who probably if they had it, obviously they had it to do over, they would have gone home to their child, their children. But that isn't going to happen. But again, you've got people stirring people up on both sides with stuff that's not act accurate, and that's my problem. My problem is you have the DNC chairman saying that these are the same, and there is nothing in it unless you can tell me something that you think is the same. Is there anything on your side that says, hey, these protests are similar and this is what let me give you this last quote is before you answer, He says, quote from Tehran to my birth place of Minnesota, people are rising up against systems that will violence without accountability, and Iran brave protesters can confront a far right theocratic regime. Far right not I mean it is right in the sense of conservative, Like it is very conservative over there, not like not like our conservative, but like it's. But I mean, that's to me, I don't disagree. But they're concerned. They're the far right. Over there are people that are executing and saying like, hey, you're going to follow Muslim law, it's your law, and all those different things. And those are the very people that your side, I feel like, on the right side, on the side of the right, we are willing to listen to moderate Muslims and people that aren't like, you know, flying into towers and stuff like that and creating havoc like that. But again, I think it's really I just wonder, But but fairness, let's talk about fairness. So fairness is for me. It's also having to this conversation of have we given? Have we given kind of like a blind hand to some of the stuff Israel's done. Yes, But again, at least the right admits that. I don't think the left admits like, hey, we are we are one with a group of people who deny, deny September eleventh happened. We have and we all the. Different things that September eleventh happened. Again, does the left deny that September eleventh happened? I said that you you associate with people that say that. Okay, and the right associates with people that say the Holocaust didn't happen. Okay. But what I'm saying, so this is my thing. So like where where where uh. Both sides say the Holocaust didn't happen. There are lunatics out there that say it didn't. But what I'm saying is is that some of the very the very people that were involved in Somalia, the very people that are that are funding things care and all these different Muslim organizations, Like from my standpoint, these Muslim organizations are dealing more with the left. You look at h Omar, She's from Minnesota, correct, I believe so yah, yeah, and who funded her? It was funded by the group that has ties to the terraces from September eleventh. So for certain, it's that's what that girl wrote in her book. I mean you can that's her research. And she's a Wall Street Journal investigative reporter that clearly showed connections between I and I can't remember the exact name. He's Muslim brotherhood, but that the people that started all that, all that is connected. One of the hijackers was connected to that mosque into that group of people. So where I think, where I think, unfortunately a lot of these types of conversations can devolve quickly, is when you are in a situation that you're trying to make that very bad Like I'm not going to argue that you are incorrect because a I don't know, but I'm going to take your word for it on this on this one that the organization that funded Omar's campaign or contributed to omars campaign also has contributed to other stuff that we would be very against, like terrorists cells or terrorist organizations. I'm not I'm not trying to say. I'm not trying to say the left is the only one that has connections with people that they would they were not to What I am saying is it's hypocritical in my opinion to say to say just in the context of these protests in Iran and the protests in Minneapolis are the same. That is to me, very hypocritical from the DNC chair when that is that is so far for me, and maybe you're gonna tell me that's not far removed from reality, but like for me, that is pretty far removed from reality. There is no connection whatsoever. You have a free society in the United States of America where you can choose who your leaders are. You might disagree with like, hey, I didn't sellect that one, but like you know, a large percentage did select them. If you say a year into Donald Trump's his term you say I don't like it, go to the midterm and elect somebody that keeps them from doing it, it's it. That's the thing is and I think it's on both sides. The problem is is I feel like the left is more inclined to like try to like go in and try to interrupt things and protest and not have voices be heard. And I mean, I hate to say it, but like, who is who? In my opinion, people can say anything that they want. But I feel like when you look at Charlie Kirk and you look at his life, he was engaging people. You might not like the way he did it, but he did engage with people, and what happened he got killed for it, you know. And I'm not saying I'm not blaming that on the left, but there are a lot of people on the left that like, from my standpoint, the stand that they took of like attacking a dead man and attacking his. Like just using that. There have been plenty of people on the right who have said Renee Good got exactly what she deserved. And I don't disagree that. To me, you can take that. It is never a good thing when somebody loses their life. I do not feel like there is any part of that lady that thought like, hey, I'm doing the wrong thing. I think she was genuine in what she was trying to get done. My problem is the leadership of the left, as indicated by what this DNC chair says, has created an environment where a civil society is not to me, a civil society does not benefit the left. A civil society which is why I feel like all this chaos is created. And that's a blanket statement, but I give me an example of where the left is said, like, hey, we like in this situation, what is the what is the endgame in Minnesota? Like you want the federal agents to leave so you can continue with the frog? What is the endgame up there? Well? And that's that's so that's where I think the endgame, short answer is better oversight, better clarity, and better UH guidelines to operations. Because again we talked about this last time that I read the d o J rulebook on policy for h or DHS whatever it was on policy. Where to me, I read it to say officers should have gotten out of the way of the car based on his own you know, based on the rules set forward. All right, let's stop there and let's just talk about that. So one of the things that we talked about before Hindsight's twenty twenty, and this is one of the times that Hindsight's gonna benefit me in my opinion. One of the things that was said by everybody is like, he had no reason to go to that car, Like in other words, the argument early on was he put himself in that situation. However, I think if you look at the video in hindsight, he is putting that position himself in that position to document what they were doing, which was blacking in ice operation. Her actions made him transition away from documenting into more enforcement type of well, so let's let's do this. Then let's let's circle back to this video, because I think I think this is a good example of I'm jumping to the thing. I'm gonna play the video and I'm going to walk through what I see. Okay, because we both watched the same video. Okay, so this is the the video put up on Fox News of the three and a half minutes of the approach minutes leading up right, So this is uh, this one here play canon? Can there we go? All right? So this is the video right off the bat. Oh, don't do that. I'm right off the back or looking down the street. You see all the operation is going on in this is there's I'm muting it because she's honking her horn and we just don't need to hear that. But she's honking her horn through all of this. So they're a street. Right now, who's honking their horn? I believe Renee is I believe or someone in the area is honking their horn. So they're making their they're making so they're making their job more difficult. They're making noise. Yeah, I mean, would you agree it makes a job more difficult if people are being noisy? Sure, but honking a horn again, like, yeah, that's a simple question. It makes this their job more difficult. It's an escalation. Go ahead. So this is happening down the street. We're seeing blah blah blah. He's panning down, panning. That's a big jump. They just panned about fifty to one hundred yards, multiple houses down the road. So she is not right up on this operation as it was. Percent this is what I'm seeing. She is an she's a ways down the road. She's not right next to them, right, because they just pan four or five houses down the road. Okay, so we're here, she's sitting, she is blocking the road. I'm not arguing that that is not a violation of some kind, blocking, impeding the flow of traffic. All that not disagreeing there's a big shark in someone's front yard. It's the totality of the circumstances, which means, yes, she's blocking the road. But not only is she blocking the road, she's also engaged in the activities that in the past these agents had dealt with that brought violence strue. So continue. So now we panned back. We're looking at the agents. They're all standing. Everything seems at this point, everything seems relatively calm. They're standing in a in an ice operation. What they do is they take custody to somebody and leave and take them to a detention facility. Yep. So it looks like they're whatever is happening is happening in this area down here, and it looks like it's pretty well wrapping up. Like everyone's just they're ready. They're ready to leave, they're ready to roll out. Okay, I would agree. So you see this black car is moving. This black car is moving. We panned back. There's a car waiting down the street. M this is an ice vehicle ICE vehicle. I think that black car that just drove by this SUV. This driving by ice vehicles. Okay, So as you're looking, so this guy comes by right here, drives in front of Renee. This black car is going in front of Renee. You can tell because they're on that side of the street. They're on the clear side of the street. Mm hmm. So they're all working to to x filtrate, to use a you know, termin out. There's the pickup truck that ends up rolling up on her. It's still well down the road. Mm hmm. Some dude just got out of this vehicle. This guy. Mm hmm. She's still there. Aren't even to her yet. There are no Ice agents around her right now. No, but she's walking. They're down the street, three houses walking. You're asking me from a from a law enforcement standpoint, she's impeding what she is? She is in the road. I'm not. I'm not at no point of my denying that she is creating an obstruction in the roadway. So as we're going here, m all right, So here's this vehicle. Here is the one that the dude, if I understand this video, this is the vehicle that the officer that ends up shooting her gets out of. Okay, he goes all right, Hold on just a second. You want my analysis, This is considered a chow point. The time that you're most vulnerable is in your vehicle. Tons of cops have been killed in their vehicle. The most vulnerable time for you is to be bottlenecked in a certain situation. These ice agents have taken fire in the past, and you have a single vehicle that is creating a bottleneck, which is extremely dangerous in any type of an environment. Fair enough, I don't just don't. Don't argue that point with you. So he goes. So this truck goes around. Mind. Look, so you've got black car here going in front of Renee, silver car here going behind Renee. She cannot move, even if she's trying to get out of the way. There is no safe path for her to get out of the way because she's got a car going behind her and a car going in front of her, So she has to stay put in this moment. She cannot move. Car goes in front, that other car is still going behind. So even as we see stop it, even as we see this sedan trying to leave, she still can't move because that suv, that goldish silverish suv is currently behind her, white suv leaving black car, leaving another black car leaving the pickup truck's working its way down the road. So all of these ice vehicles are trying to leave. You now have her block Here's that's not blocked. They're trying. I'm saying that that suv is is back to her passenger. Rear right and not like right now. All she has to do to drive forward and leave. Right, but there are multiple vehicles moving towards her. She has to do is pull forward and leave. That's all. You got a bottleneck of people, you got a bottle knock of people. You're leaving from a situation. You're in a choke point, and you've got to move out of it. Correct, I don't disagree. Where's the pickups right there? Coming up there? Yep. So she's sitting, she's trying to back up right as we pull up to that. Right as we get to that, she is go back ten seconds. So watch as we cut back, she is backing up to seeing in my opinion to seem to be getting out of the way. She's backing up right there, adjusting. Someone's talking to her. She waves this guy by. This white car goes by, so she can't leave. She's now backed up. She goes to try and pull away. She moved, waved this car through because they moved. She waves this truck because to just now, what I saw was she was trying to move and two cars cut her off, two cars drove in front of her, so she could not pull away without hitting them, so she waved them through. She then thinks, in my opinion, that this truck is probably going to do the same thing the two other officer vehicles just did while she was trying to leave, so she's waving him through as well. At this point, we are now caught up to the videos that we saw from the officer and from the close up perspectives of these guys now getting out and approaching. She backs up, and now we're back to where we were. So what I saw in that video was again not disagreeing that she was impeding the flow of traffic. I totally get what you're saying about the choke point, not disagreeing with that either, But what I also saw was multiple officers going both in front of and behind her vehicle, limiting her ability to safely move. I saw multiple vehicles go in front of her and as she's trying to leave, and she's waving them through because she's also trying to pull out. So where I look at this and I go my perspective. What I feel the the missed points in this conversation is that is she in the wrong for being where she is or creating a situation. Arguably, yes, I'm not going to disagree. She's blocking the flow of traffic, She's all that stuff. But to sit and say, like, what I think is also missed is she does attempt to leave. There are other reasons why she was there longer than she needed to be, because multiple vehicles drive in front of her. So it's I love you there. And one of the things that that close up video shows is she wasn't trying to leave because her passenger had got out of the vehicle to start filming ice. Yeah, she had let her out a while. Before, not a while before she when the officer gets out of that suv and starts filming, that's when her wife gets out of the car. Her wife was already out at that moment. Go back to the video. They get out almost that the wife is out of the car, so she's not trying to leave. She has every opportunity to leave before all that happens. The wife gets out of the car and then they start they start going back and forth with the officer that's filming it. It might not be immediately, but it's it's seconds between the time the wife gets out of the car and the agent gets out of his truck, the one that pickup truck people the other truck. What I see. What I see from this, in my opinion, from a law enforcement standpoint, is she pushed, she pushed, She pushed, she pushed the she pushed past where she should have been, over and over and over again, and finally they said, that's it, You're going to jail. They approached her and she's like, no, I'm not going to jail, and she tries to leave. I don't disagree she made a bad decision. I mean, I think the decision that she made, it was one that was made out of chaos and out of panic and everything else. I mean, the fact that she was leaving the way she was leaving, spinning wheels and everything else is the indication of her mind wasn't in the right place because she had just left wife on the side of the road and having you know, and so like. From my standpoint, the problem in it is that it wasn't an example of like, hey, I'm just trying to leave, when I think a reasonable ice agent would believe like, these people are not leaving. You now have a pedestrian that got out of that vehicle that's walking around. We don't know what they're doing. And again like this is not an environment where these agents are feeling secure because like Minneapolis, the police department, who would normally deal with these people and say hey, you need to move on, they are forcing people that haven't been identified by the left as these are the Gestapo. They disappear people and everything else and give people the idea like, hey, you don't have to listen to ICE because they're part of the Trump agenda and everything else, which is bullshit, Like no, you do have to listen to them. And if you don't listen to it, like obviously, like in a perfect world, the police department would step up and say, hey, we will provide a safe area for you to conduct your operations. We will have those interactions with those people. But ICE agents should not have to worry about their perimeter and actually where they're executing their operation. But they do. They're having to do all of it themselves, and therein lies the problem, particularly when you have an environment, in my opinion, where people have already said these people are bad, these people are Nazis, these people are this, and that's not who these people are so anyway. I mean, we can talk more about that video, anything else you want to wrap up with. I think two different views on things. My biggest issue in this whole situation is we have a civil society and if everybody one day decides, hey, I'm not going to pay attention to what the laws of the road are, it creates k And I feel like the people that are protests and are not protests and trying to make changes, I feel like they are trying to interrupt what is what they feel like is an unlawful thing. The difference between that and past protests is there was actually a law involved. This isn't a this isn't a law, and there's no recourse without the law. Because you pointed out somebody got some people got erroneously kicked out of the country, a judge intervened and they were brought back. So well, and I think the important the stuff in all of these situations that I think it's missed or that I think is not addressed enough to me is the fact that I feel this administration is using our public servants as pawns for a. No, he's just implementing a policy that he was elected to do. They're not pawns. They I can tell you from working with these guys. They didn't like working under the previous administration where they just let people when they are tasked with keeping the country safe and they weren't allowed to do it for four years, and then before that, they weren't allowed to do it in the Obama administration. I was at a school where I had a ton of those guys around me, and they were very thankful for the first Trump administration. So it's these people are not pawns. They are people that are like they're they're black and white. It is like, these are the laws. If I am tasked to enforce these laws, I want to enforce them. Flip side of it is if you have an administration that says catch and release, that's what they do. It's not what they believe. They don't believe it's best for the country. But you don't see them out protesting and rioting or anything else. They're like, no, we have to do our job. And I think to say that their pawns is not a safe thing. I think you look at it if you look at what the not what the administration is saying. Look at what the border Patrol Association and other people are saying that represent these agents. These agents will say without a question, this country is safer now with the new administration than it has in the past. And I think the biggest question, and we can talk about it another time, is how we move from this where we are right now, which is a broken system that is creating situations where people feel like they need to protest. And I think somebody needs to go out there and say, hey, it's not helping to call them ponds. And I'm not saying you said that to be anything other than that's what you look at. I just but I do think calling them comparing them to that the Iranian government that is killing protesters indiscurrently. To sit there and compare that, I think is a huge like I think back to the old school, like if you were on the playground, those would be fighting words if I was an ice that well. But I think the other consideration, though that from the left is frustrating that I see is a when someone tries to make a comparison, which I don't necessarily agree with the Iran US comparison, So I'm going to back burner that one slightly. But there is a seeming demand from the right that if I'm going to make a comparison, it has to be a one to one comparison, equal level, or it doesn't count. It doesn't matter, it's not applicable, It can't like the seeming unwillingness of flexibility of saying, yes, these things are similar and I can see how they might be. You know, give me one example of what you would like to see that is similar, like a one on one comparison. Well, so that's thing, isn't I don't believe that there is a one on one comparison. Is when anyone brings up you know health, Oh well, in you know gun control, Oh well, in Australia they've only had two shootings in thirty five. We aren't Australia. We're a different You cannot make that one to one comparison. But you can look at the actions they took and some of the approaches and say, okay, how can we apply those to this situation. I've always stood by the side of being like, you know, when someone tries to can compare universal health care whatever, Oh, look what they do in Europe. We have states that are bigger than countries in Europe. We can't make those comparisons because we're too vastly different. Is what what? What issue do you think the ride is failing on as far as one on one comparison. So I. This is gonna, this is gonna not please you. But I don't agree with calling Trump hitler. I don't agree with calling what's happening now uh Nazis. I think that is insulting and devalues the atrocities that those people committed. They are not a one to one comparison at all. Okay, but I do think that you can you know, there's there's the saying history doesn't always repeat itself, which I heard somewhere and I have now adopted, is history may not always repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. And there are aspects of things that I've seen happening that are kind of rhyming. For instance, this is a side tangent. Trump's obsession with taking Greenland to me rhymes with the annexation of Austria. Because the justifications are others. It's our it's our realm of influence, it's in our hemisphere. It's to protect us from this, that or the other. I'm not comparing him at all. To Hitler, I am saying that the actions and the justification seem similar to the actions and justifications of taking Austria. I disagree with them in both pays. But my question to you is it's one thing to say this is like to me. To me, I would agree if the actions were taking place. You know, what I'm saying is is that just a negotiation tactic that he uses? Is it no different than the negotiation tactic for example, one on one comparison when and I don't remember what I think it was Iran when President Obama said, if you use nuclear weapons, that is a red line. If you use biological weapons on your own people, that's a red line in the sand and so and that's what Obama said. They still use them. But I do think that I do think that, like from a one on one comparison, is those are words and in the same way, and he took actions, you know, took actions, moved resources and everything else. I would agree if we take over to actions. And again it's it's checks and there is exactly are we are we saying? Is the left saying that they believe and maybe all eat these words. There's the left saying that they think that President Trump is going to arbitrarily decide independent of congressional approval on everything else and actually be able to take over another country without any pushback from the courts, without ain't pushback from cougress And I think that's the so his own words were. But I'm not saying wud he do it. I understand that you believe one hundred percent that he would do it. But even the example that you gave earlier of something that you said that the administration did wrong, I think we forget how good our founding fathers did. You can you can, you can argue why they ended up in that situation, but at the end of the day, they created a system of some pretty good checks and balances. Even in the chaos of well over two hundred and fifty years later, you know, we still find ourselves in a situation where we well, I guess I said that wrong, it's next, it's this year. It's two fifty, right, almost two hundred and fifty years. And so from my standpoint, I think it's a pretty good indication that it survived tw hundred fifty years with the checks and balance. And I understand it's easy to say because because I've heard the like I heard the like Joe Biden gets elected, the country is going to disintegrate. I read an article the other day. Was going to be the death of the nation and we're all going. To bene have we do have checks and balances. What I would like to put out, and you can end it with yours, is let's utilize the system that we have in place, the checks and balances that we have in place, and instead of fear mongering on both sides, let's use the checks and balances we have. If you feel like the Trumpet administration is not doing a good job, support people that are going to go against them one hundred percent of the time or agree with what you have to say, and elect them into a position where they can stop what he's doing. Because the fact is it is it is like when I think about it, and I think about the fact that like people piss and moan about it, and they're like, well, that was a bidening for Tea. And that's the whole point of this country is we go through these flows. We do have judges on both sides that are pointed, and that's the whole point of the whole system. The whole system is set up to check and balance. And so one thing I'll say is everybody that's out there going, oh my gosh, it's the end of the no. Our democracy is working. It is really really messy right now, but it's working. Go ahead well. And I think for me, my my view on things is one of for better or worse proactivity, which is, you know, just with the with the Greenland thing, it's like, you know when he says, you know, I'd love to make a deal, but we can do it the easy way. You know, I'd love to make a deal the easy way, but if we have to do it the hard way, we can do that too. And so for me, when I look at something, it's I if all your buddies are telling you, hey, that girl you're going out on a date with, like she's got some red flags, right, maybe maybe walk away from this one, and then you still choose to date her and then she burns all your clothes on the lawn. You saw that you were you were giving a heads up that might happen. And so for me, I look at it and go, why do we need to wait for something to go potentially past a point of no return? If there were indicators that were heading that direction ahead of time, that we could try to stop gap before we got there. And the answer to that question is the democracy that we have a duly elected president elected by a majority of the population, and the electoral or board, the electoral Congress or whatever it's called, the electoral college, congress college. He's dually elected. If you disagree gets you know absolutely. And so that's the thing is I think we're thinking, well, I need to. We were creating an environment where people feel like it is urgent that they do something, and the urgency could be go out there and start supporting people and go door to door, knocking on doors and saying, hey, I found somebody. If you agree with me and this thing isn't working, then I'll walk you around to my neighborhood, the person that's running for office and say, hey, this is this is something that will impede what I think is going terribly wrong. If you feel like it's going really good, then find people that support it. And I think that's the whole point is. And I and I think we get it wrong too. I think it's asked Ie to sit there and say it's an activist judge. We need to impeach them. That's bullshit. That that is. That is a check and balance. It has been a balance, it's going to continue to be a balance. And to call it like that is one percent wrong. I appreciate there's a separation of powers, but this chaos that we we create, there are a lot of people like the one percent, like damn them. You know, let's let's go out there and like make this our country. It is our country. We have the ability to go out and make it better and let's do it. So yeah, no, I agree with all that. I think it's a great place to end this one. No, I think it is too, buddy. I appreciate it as always, and I actually a good week and I have a safe way
