Back to episode — Episode 2939 CWSA 08/26/25
Context —
legal, but if there were any related crimes, make sure you press those. And there's also something about non-citizens. So if a foreign national is doing it, then Homeland Security and the Secretary of State can send them home, I guess. But I feel like that was also something they always could have done, right? Isn't it true that currently if the Secretary of State says, "Whoa, that's bad behavior…
← Previous segment →sh this. I will eliminate your federal funding. But I don't like it. I don't like it.
I do like it when, let's say, the sanctuary cities are defying the law of the land. If you're defying the law of the land by not letting the federal government do its constitutional duty to protect the borders, then maybe withdrawing your federal funding makes sense. If you're discriminating and you're a college and you're being anti-Semitic, well, yeah, maybe you lose your federal funding. But the places that have cashless bail, wasn't that decided by the residents? And isn't it totally legal? It's unwise. It's very bad, but isn't it totally legal? So if Trump starts using the threat of federal funding against people who are doing things that are totally legal within their state, I don't know. That feels like a new level. It feels like a you wouldn't want that president. But like I said, if he's taking funding away because somebody's breaking the law, they're either discriminating, they're anti-Semitic, they're protecting the illegals, then it's different.
Trump said he's going to file a lawsuit against California for their move to redistrict. Now, he didn't say what would be the cause of the lawsuit. Does it bother you at all that the government, because they have unlimited access to other people's money, meaning ours, that they can fight any legal battle they want any time? So they just fight everything in court. Everything. Doesn't matter who does what. Somebody's going to find some damn reason that the courts should reject it. And I'm thinking that this wouldn't happen if they were forced to be in a budget of some kind. You wouldn't take 100% of everything to court and sue over it if you had a budget you're worried about, but if you're spending somebody else's money, apparently there's no limit to how much you can sue people.
Well, CNN's data guy, Harry Enten, he made a devastating comparison. He said the Democratic Party is
Context —
about as popular as the Cracker Barrel logo rebrand. Ouch. How would you like to be the CEO of Cracker Barrel, who I refer to as the Owl Wannabe? If you've seen a picture, that's hilarious. Anyway, imagine being the architect of the rebrand that's so bad that CNN casually uses that as an example of the worst you can be. It's not even a conversation. It's not even the left and the right have differ…
Next segment → →