The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 2732 - Zionist Macklemore Cancellation Backfires, What it Takes To Build a Democratic State w/ K Sabeel Rahman

Episode Date: September 16, 2026

Welcome back to The Majority Report On today's program: Billionaire stadium owners, led by Robert Kraft, threaten to cancel Ed Sheeran's tour dates over his opening act, Macklemore's, vocal support of Palestinians. Sheeran caves to Kraft & Co and as a result his backing band and other opening acts quitting the tour. Rep. AOC asks the public to consider what it means for free speech when billionaires can collude to silence people as powerful as pop stars, and to imagine what they could do to people who aren't multimillionaires. K. Sabeel Rahman, Professor of Law at Cornell University and author of the forthcoming book "Remaking the State", joins for a conversation about his article co-authored with Sam Berger published by Just Security, "Building Governing Machinery for the Next Pro-Democracy Moment". In the Fun Half: Senator Roger Marshall is booed at a debate at the Kansas State Fair. Republicans are so disliked that a statewide race in Kansas is in play. Abdul el-Sayed has a brilliant response to Mike Rogers backing out of a debate because he was scared of media bias. Scott Bessent is questioned at a House hearing about whether or not the money "we" have taken in from looting Venezuela's oil reserves is getting distributed to U.S. persons. A Gen-Z strat all that and more. On Sunday, October 4, Emma will be in Los Angeles doing a Bitchuation Room Live with Francesca Fiorentini at the Lodge Room. Get tickets here. To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AM Quickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: TREES.COM: Get 20% off your first purchase. Trees.com code MAJORITY SUNDAYS FOR DOGS: sundaysfordogs.com/MAJORITY or use code MAJORITY at checkout. SUNSET LAKE CBD: Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and use coupon code 'Left Is Best' to save 20% your entire order.  Follow the crew on X @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's YouTube channel: https://ww.youtube.com/Th3Discourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here: https:/www.youtube.com/@avaraiza  

Hey, tell me something. Is your dog a picky eater? Or maybe your dog's not a picky eater. Maybe they'll eat anything. But then you look at the ingredients that you've been feeding your dog on your dog food. And after the first ingredient, well, you can't even tell what it is. Kibble, they make using extreme high heat to keep it shelf stable and inexpensive. So brands add back synthetic vitamins and minerals and all forms of strange chemicals. whose names you don't understand. Your dog has no idea what it is, and you definitely cannot pronounce. Sundays for dogs is different,

founded by Dr. Torrey Waxman. Sundays was created to meet her high standards as a veterinarian and a dog parent. Sunday starts with 80% plus all natural meats, then add superfoods like kale and ginger and blueberries. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. Sundays is gently air-dried instead of using high heat.

So it doesn't look or smell like dog food. It really looks like beef jerky. And the best part, Sundays requires no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. You get the quality of home-cooked meal with the scoop and the surveys of kibble. It's what dog food should have been all along. Sundays has just launched a brand new fish recipe. It's made with 80% whole and mince fish, including eco-friendly invasive carp, source from American rivers. For a naturally rich flavor, it's packed with omega-3 fatty acids that support healthy skin, shiny coats, joints, brain function.

It's complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages. I will tell you, I am a stepdad of two dogs, although it, uh, That is controversial when I say that. Claimed to be the owner. But I consider myself the stepdad. And we feed both of them Sundays. They love it. And it is so much easier than, you know, we had the kibble and then the like the frozen food that you get.

The frozen food, it comes at a huge box. You got to then put it in the freezer. Then you got to defrost it. Then you got to remember 24 hours in advance. You're going to defrost it. It was a huge pain. This stuff is fantastic. The dogs love it.

It is healthy for them and so much easier for us. You can make the switch to Sundays right now. By going to Sundays for Dogs.com slash majority, get 50% off your first order, or you can use the code majority at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for Dogs.com slash majority. Sundays for dogs.com slash majority or use the code majority at checkout. We'll put all that information in the podcast and YouTube description. Now time for the show. Majority Report with Sam Cedar.

It is Wednesday. September 16th, 2006. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the Indeastern. dust really ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, K. Sabil Rahman, Professor of Law at Cornell University, author of the forthcoming book, Remaking the State. His article co-authored with Sam Berger, published by

Justice Security, Building, Governing Machinery for the next pro-democracy moment. Also on the program today, EU proposes making Canada its first associate member in the wake of the U.S. trade attack against Canada. New report hundreds of buildings and widespread damage at U.S. bases in the Middle East. This, as Saudi Arabia cancels oil shipments to Europe. Kennedy Center votes to close for renovations. Federal employees were paid nearly $10 billion. Not to work by Doge. Government efficiency.

Trump approves $2.8 billion arms sale to Israel. 2,000 pound bombs in the biggest shipment ever. Ever. Meanwhile, Trump bars some South African officials over claims of anti-white discrimination in that country. Senate cloture vote on the Clarity Act fails. Kristen Gillibrand pounding the page. for another vote. Gotta let Trump get away with his crypto scams.

Well, also, her son, I think, has got a lot of cash riding on this, maybe. DOJ accuses Russian intelligence of murder plot to murder U.S. based dissident. And Johnson cuts the House's final day of session to avoid Thomas Massey's Hegson impeachment resolution and another vote. vote on the Epstein files, Congress now set for a six-week vacation following their eight-week vacation that they just got back from. That's a run for Congress. Nice work if you can get it.

And on that note, I am declaring my candidacy. All this and more on today's majority report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, it is. Humph day. Humpty. And to celebrate, Matt's back in studio. I thought I'd stop by. Yeah, get to see. We had him on Wachie Talkie.

We actually now don't let Matt leave the studio without a string and a cup. Then wherever he goes, he's trailed by that string and cup, and it reaches all the way back to the studio. So we've got to figure out of a way to make that a little more secure. Nevertheless, we're back. a lot of stuff today. Today's interview with Ksabiel Rahman is going to be hopefully the beginning of a series of interviews that I hope will be able to do and really frankly find the type of people to do them over the course of the next two years to talk about how we repair our government to function

in addition to like what kind of policy prescriptions we want from a Democratic Party that hopefully could take power in 2028. Obviously there's a good chance that the Democrats will take over the House and possibly the Senate in 2027, but not in a position to necessarily get stuff signed by the president. So on one hand, you have a policy sort of like menu prescription. And then you also have a structural prescriptions and also just like how do you reconstruct agencies that have been destroyed and how do you reconstruct them in such a way that they function that much better to provide trust in the agencies and our government. and also protect themselves in the future from some, I don't know, the wealthiest douchebag in the world coming in and randomly firing everybody by doing a word search and deciding if this word shows up twice in any of your documents, you're fired. I mean, that's basically what we saw.

Yeah, AI scraping in the name of government efficiency, which really just ended up killing a bunch of people in the global south. So exactly. And so all of that, this will be the sort of the, the first of hopefully many interviews like this. In the meantime, apparently there is a pop culture controversy. A pop culture controversy that is informed by politics. I'll give you the low down here because this may not be your. exact area of expertise. Who's Macklemore? Okay. So McElmore is a rapper. Um, he did thrift shop. What's thrift shop? Infamously, he beat out good kid Mad City at the Grammys, which is a travesty that even McElmore acknowledged. He's, um, yeah, that's an awards show. Okay. Got it. Um, so, uh, this is a big story. And, and, and, and, and McElmore, you know, it's, it's, he's now been kind of famous for doing

social justice work through his music and has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian liberation, really since the start of the genocide. He wrote a song called Hins Hall about Hinnrajab's killing. An aside, Aziz al-Shayr of the Houston Texans was just fined over $11,000 for having Hinn-Rajab on his eye black. The NFL is going to come into this conversation in just a second. So, Maclemore has been doing Palestine activism for at least two to three years, and it is well known that it's a part of his act. With that knowledge, Ed Sheeran, who is one of the most, the wealthiest singers on the planet, hired him as his opening act, including some other artists as well. And the, or a few, like last week, the artist Pink went after Maclemore and it drew new attention to this. his activism.

He said Free Palestine on stage, basically. Exactly. And so with these upcoming shows on Shiren's North American tour, he had to play at Jolette Stadium, which is owned by Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots. He also is the guy behind

the so-called stop anti-Semitism TV ads that you might see with the Blue Square. He is a mega Zionist, and he, because Sheeran, was had Maclemore as his opening act, basically said, you drop him or you can't play at my stadium,

and I'm going to enlist all these other billionaires to blackball you if you don't acquiesce here. So these are a lot of the wealthiest NFL donors. Warren Gunnells, who was on Bernie staff, pointed this out, that their collective net worth for these billionaires that agreed to blackball McElmore and Ed Sheeraneran, if he didn't acquiesce, are worth $80 billion. So it's Robert Kraft, David Tepper, owner of the Panthers, Jerry Jones, of course,

Arthur Blank, Falcons owner, Jeffrey Lurie, who owns the Eagles, the Glazers, who own the Bucks and the Colts owner, although I think the Glazers may have not been declarative about their decision. Regardless, you know, Ed Sheeran acquiesced. And he put out this statement that was so tone-deaf and milk toast that you would think that somebody who wrote this was like in their 60s or 70s, no offense. You also just described his music. Yes.

This is, you know, the most inoffensive music possible, essentially. He opened for Taylor Swift and that's how he got famous, if that gives you any indication. He wrote, I am appalled, after he kicked McElmore off the tour, he wrote, I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The suffering and pain caused on both sides is a human tragedy. so he does the both sides thing without any sense of irony. We don't need to read this whole thing, but he lays out how Robert Kraft spoke to him and then says, oh, it was really my event,

the promoter's decision. It was not mine. McElmore's contract for the tour was with the promoter, not me. And then at one point in the statement, he literally says the words, I am not complicit. Can I read it?

Yes. I'm not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn't mean I don't have them. And it doesn't mean I don't care, nor does it mean I don't support causes

in my own personal way. Yeah, which is actually true because he made, he says in the statement that he's not political and he doesn't want to subject his fans to such politics, but he's stood up for Ukraine in the past. And Ed Sheeran performed at Robert Kraft's wedding. Robert Kraft, who is in his 80s,

got remarried a few years ago, and Ed Sheareran is the performer, well into it. I also just want to say a thing about Gillette Stadium. The stadium itself was built supposedly with private funds, but tax dollars went in as far as I remember to almost, I think it was 80 million to deal with all the infrastructure that needed to be upgraded to support the stadium. And so, you know, these, the idea that there would be no public involvement in these type of decisions,

which are pretty controversial, it seems to me, is absurd. But go ahead. But, yeah, I mean, this is a larger conversation, too, about taxpayer money going to these stadiums that billionaires are profiting from. And the state sometimes doesn't have any guardrails to prevent them from just picking up and leaving if they get another deal. like what happened with the Rams and the Chargers and the Raiders and the Oakland A's and the MLB. But people are realizing that billionaires might not be creators, but instead massive consumers of everything we love. So Ed Sheeran took the coward's way out.

He's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And it wasn't just McElmore that he hired on this tour to open for him. There now have been following this statement, there's been this wide condemnation. It's been really heartening to see. And so his remaining supporting acts have also said that they're not going to be a part of his tour anymore. Phineas, Lucas Graham, Aaron Rowe, and his backing band. And I think the backing band or some of the other artists are Irish in and of themselves.

And so they posted about how it was anathema to their Irish heritage to not support Palestinian liberation. And I just love the idea that like, Sheer and hired all these people that would be inclined to be pro-Palestine for his tour. and then it took the Cowards Way Act. It's like Cowards Way Out. It's like putting like eggs and flour and sugar and butter in a pan and putting it in the oven being like, I didn't know that the cake was going to come out. I digress.

AOC had a great response here asked by TMZ about what the real political story about this is. And it is a story also. It's not just a story of censorship, of out-of-control wealth, of artists being silenced by billionaire Zionists. It's also a story of monopolistic power, and I think she hits on all the notes here

when asked about it yesterday. Hey, if Ed Sheeran comes on the radio while you're driving along, are you changing the channels? I am. You are? Yeah, I am. Why is that?

I think that what we've seen, especially, it's not just what has happened with the act and not just in removing McElmore from the lineup, but when you see what Robert Kraft did to line up all of the stadiums to censor speech in that one specific way, it's become clear that this is not just about one music artist or two music artists,

but this is about how just a handful of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive issue. issue. In this case, the genocide in Gaza, but it doesn't stop there. It could be speaking out about AI. It could be speaking out about any issue that you can now just get a handful of stadium owners to ensure that an entire person's career can be jeopardized if they speak out about any issue. The supporting acts have dropped out, but Ed Sheeran, I think, will still continue with the tour. What do you think his responsibility is in all of this? Um, you know, I, I, I don't know. Um, but, you know, I think that because you never see these contracts and some, I have no idea what the financial entanglements of that of all that is. But I do think that, um, you know, I think that the right thing to do is to speak out about it. And I think the right thing to do is, at the very least to speak out about this abuse of power. Because if they're saying that to him, right?

then they can say it to anybody. And at what point does it stop? I have a huge amount of empathy for the situation because I think people want the focus here to be about Ed Sheeran, and he, of course, plays a role. But they're not putting the focus on Robert Kraft and, you know, the actual people who are kind of twisting things here. Yeah, I think that's good.

that hits on all the notes that I guess I would have wanted to I mean I would have also maybe brought up how bad Ed Shearine was in his Game of Thrones cameo was really terrible Oh don't worry it was when the show was completely collapsing and they gratuitously threw him in to sing a song

And that's when we all knew that things were going poorly But you know What his statement said It reminds me of the classic quote by Martin Luther King About the white moderate who prioritizes so-called unity and peace, which are things that have to be fought for,

that are not static, that are not unceasing, that prioritizes that vaguely over notions of justice. And the way that you achieve peace, peace is secondary to justice. Unity is secondary to justice. And this is a guy that has like hundreds of millions of dollars, Ed Sheeran. And what is that worth if you can't stand up for your fellow artists and your friends? So, you know, just another indication here, I think, of how Zionists are no longer even attempting to win the debate.

This is all about punishment and enclosure and using brute force and finances to silence any kind of dissent at this point. What next? Are they going to buy TikTok? Huh. Oh. How about CBS News? Twitter. All right. Okay.

Well, okay, I'm a little behind the curve. Live venues is on the bill. We'll have more clips on that in a bit. In just a moment, we're going to be talking to Kaye Sabiel Rahman, Professor of Law at Cornell University, author of a forthcoming book, Remaking the State, based on his article co-authored with Sam Berger, published in Just Security,

entitled Building Governing Machinery for the next pro-democracy Movement. We'll be talking to him about that. First word from our sponsor, you've heard me talk about fast-growing trees for years now. It was one of those sponsors that I was using before they became a sponsor. And sometimes we reach out. Sometimes they reach out. Just coincidental.

But now they're no longer fast-growing trees. They're just trees.com. Same trusted online nursery, but just with a simpler name. Trees.com is America's largest and most trusted. online nursery. They got thousands of trees and plants and over three million happy customers. I am one of them. They have all the plants your yard or home needs. They got fruit trees. They got privacy trees. They got flowering trees. They got shrubs. They got house plants. All grown with care, guaranteed to arrive healthy. And the beauty of their trees, in my experience,

is that you can buy five or six-year-old trees. They will ship them. They are very careful with the way they pack them. They have a live and thrive guarantee, which promises you that the plants arrive happy and healthy. No green thumb required, just quality plants you can count on. I have gotten fruit trees from these guys. I have gotten two bloomerangs, which are lilacs,

that bloom both in like May and then in July. And they've got house plants. You can get like an indoor fig plant. There are some figs that you can do outdoors in zone, you know, five and six, but do yourself a favor. Do it inside. You can get ongoing support from trained plant experts who can help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants, learn how to care for them.

For me, the idea going to a big box store or, you know, getting a plant that is very thin selection, you get one or two different apple trees, and then come on. And then all the dirt falls out in your Subaru, and then you got all the dirt there, and then the plant's broken, and then you got no guarantee. Trees.com just do it so much better. and they've got thousands of plants for every climate, every growing zone. They have plant experts that you can call to help you plan your landscape. And they're available seven days a week via email, chat, or phone.

Right now they have great deals on planting essentials up to half off on select plants. And now is actually a very surprisingly good time to plant a tree, incidentally, going into fall. stays dormant. The roots get a little bit settled and then it stays dormant and then bam, spring, they just go crazy. Our audience gets 20% off their purchase when using the code majority at checkout. That's an additional 20% off better plants and better growing at trees.com using the code majority at checkout. Trees.com. Code majority. Now is the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use majority to save today. offer valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.

We'll put that information at the podcast and YouTube description. Quick break when we come back, Kay Sabil Rahman. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the majority report. It's a real pleasure to welcome back to the program, Kay Sabil Rahman, professor of law at Cornell University, author of the forthcoming book, remaking the state on his piece co-authored with Sam Berger. building governing machinery for the next pro-democracy movement over at just security, which is part of a larger series entitled Reinvention Blueprints that covers something that we've

been talking about on this program, really for the, I mean, frankly, going back to the first Trump administration, but it has gotten so much more dramatic in these two years than I think it did during the Trump years, which is the dissolution of the administrative state and the apparatus in which government provides everything. So when I saw that you had written this piece and had this series, I got, you know, sort of, I guess, embarrassingly excited that there were people that I really appreciate, you know, we've had you on to talk about your book, Democracy Against Domination, and I think politically there is, you know, you're more aligned than we are, let's say, with Center for American Progress and Larry Summers coming in.

So let's talk about this and just give us the overview where you've started with this, because this is sort of like the 20,000 foot view to begin this conversation, one which I hope we're going to have over the next couple of years. Yeah, well, first, Sam, Emma, thanks for having me back. It's always great to be in conversation with y'all. And these are the questions I think we need to be grappling with. So I'm excited about this series as well. And, you know, shout out to my co-editors and co-authors.

I mean, I think, look, everyone is very much eyes open about the deep harms that we're seeing across the country, you know, both from this administration's active efforts, but also from the ways in which government is failing to serve us, right? It's not protecting us from, you know, foodborne illness, nor from, you know, actual disease, nor from the kinds of changes that we're experiencing from climate and AI and growing inequality. But in a next governing moment, a big challenge, right, is going to be that the machinery of government, one, has been actively dismantled before our eyes, but two, was never actually fit for purpose to begin with. It's not actually the machinery we need to transform the country to make a more equal society of the kind that we ought to want. And so this series

attempt to try to put some meat on the bones of what would it look like to actually stand back up, or I shouldn't even say back, stand up a new machinery that actually serves the public for what we need to do right now. And I think a shorthand for this to talk about a bit in the piece is a next administration, a next Congress. Once the Washington is back in the spirit of actually trying to govern again, three big things need to happen. One, we need to remake our institutions to actually deliver the meaningful, tangible, big results that people demand and desperately need, right? We've got to change people's lives for the better. That actually requires a very different administrative state, even than what we add. Number two, we need to dismantle the

kinds of harmful state powers that we're seeing weaponized against Americans all over the place, the surveillance apparatus, you know, mask thugs on the streets. A lot of things that, truthfully, both parties helped contribute to over many years, right? We're 25 years after 9-11, got to have a reckoning with the Patriot Act and the authorities of that created that maybe it shouldn't have. And then the third is democratized.

We've got to transform our institutions, and that's going to be a generational project, right? Got to restore voiding rights, but we're going to have to change the structure of government and the structure of the bureaucracy. So there are a lot of ideas in the piece. I think our hope is sort of spotlight, some of the really great creative thinking

that people are doing, doing in civil society, coming out of social movements, coming out of folks who really understand government but want to imagine a very different government than what we used to have. And the hope is to sort of spark that conversation in advance of what hopefully will be an opportunity to make those changes. And let me just set some expectations for the audience, because what we're talking about, again, is at a certain level when we talk about the structure of government, as opposed to say, which I think is certainly not mutually exclusive and perhaps necessary, but it's a different conversation for a different day in the future.

We need a democratic administration with a certain set of politics and one that is willing to early on do make political changes that reinforce its power within a, within the you know sort of underneath this substructure or you know this superstructure to implement these things because the the the job of of doing this stuff and and then well I want to get into those three prongs but the job of doing this stuff is is it just there's no analog where you have like I mean you could look to business and say okay I've got this massive business I mean someone who's take, you know, Amazon, for instance, and hollow it out, expect it to maintain its operations, have somebody come in with a hundred-day honeymoon, have to bring in a whole new set of personnel that in some ways has to be approved by other divisions.

Right. And then stand it all up and do this stuff. I mean, it's almost impossible to imagine that this can go well at first. But with that said, let's talk about the first thing, which is the restructuring of the way we deliver material benefits or protections for Americans. What does that look like as we start to sort of, I guess, move downstream from the idea that we need to do that. Right. Right. And I appreciate that framing too, Sam, because I think we do need folks to sort of champion in those progressive bold ideas and win that debate in the public square, but then we need to be able

to execute it, right? And so let me give a couple of examples, right? One of the things we know we need is we need a much more robust safety net, whether that's in context of, say, Medicare for all or reimagined disaster relief after FEMA has been gutted and weaponized, right? We're going to need supports for people that are suffering. To do that really well, you actually want a whole different machinery. It shouldn't take 50 forms and months to get disaster relief after hurricane hits, right? But folks should get that automatically. Similarly, it shouldn't take a lot of, it takes right now the wait list to get on disability

even before these programs were gutted by the current administration is often years, right? That's a design problem, an institutional execution problem. And one of the pieces in the series goes right into some of those questions about actually the delivery architecture to get people automatically enrolled, seamlessly get the benefits they need, the supports they need at times when they are most struggling, right, after disaster is hit or when they need health care, right? That actually has a, you need a different apparatus to automatically enroll people to deliver those benefits and, you know, not be sort of all twisted and knots about, you know, ways front and abuse, like we, you know, in ways that the right

kind of keeps talking about for 40 years. That's on the affirmative provision. side. A different example on the protection side, you know, we think about all the harms that people are not having to navigate on their own. We're scared of our lettuce and we're scared of our kids getting sick because, you know, the government is not on the job, right, in terms of keeping us safe. To do that well, you actually need more expanded legal authorities for some agencies. You need a lot more staff. You know, the Department of Labor never had enough people, even in the days where it cared about protecting workers on the job, never had enough inspectors

to actually do that well and at scale. Right? I think the figure is, you know, one inspector for hundreds of thousands of workers. It's not enough, right? So as we reboot those systems, part of it is actually, oh, if we care about protecting Americans,

we're going to need more authority and more staff who care about that and bring them in in a way that they, that is not just going back to the 2024 or 2015, you know, status quo ante. And so those are very in the weeds implications, but especially if we want to make progressive change, the kind that many of us want to see happen, we're going to need a set of folks ready to roll with those proposals and ideas because it's going to be a really, really hard job. The degree of difficulty, you said, is very high because we've got government actively

sabotaged, right, so that it can't do those things in the next, in the future. So, so there There's two sides of this coin. There's the delivery mechanism and there's the protection mechanism. On the delivery mechanism side, we don't have to go too deep into the weeds, but we can start to get introduced to the weeds. If there was a broad operating principle in terms of making that more efficient, would the idea be to federalize? the delivery mechanisms for these programs because it seems to me that when you talk about the hurdles that are involved in getting whatever it is, disability or, you know, unemployment insurance or Medicaid, all of this goes from the federal to the state and then the state administer it.

And so we have 50 different regimes across the country that do it in a different way, very often reflective of how the the state government is disposed ideologically towards the delivering of this of these benefits is that like is is that is that is there a principle and if so what is the principle that is sort of downstream from the idea that we got to do this better yeah yep yep yeah that's a great question and I'll just shout out another piece in the series read by tarma goodness and amira bolin that gets right at the this exact question. They have a bunch of great ideas deep thinking there, a bunch of which has also been tested with sort of folks on the ground. Like what do people actually need and want from

the government that provides them with services? I'd say there are a couple of like kind of design principles here. One is that you actually, this is what I think you're alluding to about block grants and sort of moving, you know, a lot of programs. One reason why they don't actually reach Americans is that they've been designed in a way that the money just goes to state or other entities to push out. Sometimes it states, sometimes it's private, uh, contracted out delivery, uh, uh, implementers who kind of don't care that much about, um, about actually, uh, giving people help and might even be ideologically opposed to the program. So part of is you actually need a bureaucracy that is commit fully dedicated to the actual mission of getting those benefits to folks.

And that that bureaucracy should have the authority to do that and should not be messed with, you know, by other outside actors. So that, number one. Number two is that I think that has a bunch of implications then even within the bureaucracy. So let's say we're talking a more empowered federal delivery mechanism. Even within the agency, you actually need to restructure kind of how authority flows, right? For a lot of the delivery agencies, it's not really their primary mission. There's an office that provides some benefits, you know, food stamps tucked into the USDA, right?

And there's a lot of just kind of org chart machinery that ends up diluting the mandate and the will and the energy behind delivery. So there's a bit of reorganization, even at the federal level, that would be important and useful. Then there's a technical piece, right? The federal government already has a lot of data that it needs to automatically enroll folks. There are ways that you can do that without compromising privacy in the way that this administration has been very reckless about. But there are ways that you could auto enroll folks based on existing data so that people don't have to jump through many, many hoops to get their benefits. And then there's like a change in mindset or ethos. One of the things I really love about the thinking in this space is that to deliver those benefits really well,

you actually want to engage the Americans who you're trying to serve in the design of the program, right? Who knows best what they need and how they can most readily get it? then the moms who are trying to get WIC for their families, right? Or then the folks who have experienced a hurricane or a natural disaster and know how hard it is to navigate the FEMA system. That kind of partnership with the American public actually requires skill. It requires staff who know how to do that. It builds trust, right, because people can see that they're actually being heard. But it's just a very different approach.

And awareness of like who's doing the approach. programs. You know, we famously have that line like, you know, a government off my, you know, get your hands off my Medicare, you know, that type of, how much of that will need to be, some of that, I guess, is legislative. How much of that executive, how much of that authority exist to restructure in that way? Yeah, yeah, yep, yep. So this is, this is going to be really important question where we'll know a lot more after November and hopefully in the coming years about how much room to maneuver there is. Some of this can be done through existing authorities, right? Many agencies already have very broad statutory mandate. So on the protection side,

for example, I would argue that agencies have actually been failing for many years to meet their already existing statutory mandate to protect workers, to protect consumers, to make, make sure that there is fair competition in the marketplace and we don't have corporate conglomerates, you know, running the table. A lot of those authorities already exist and have actually just often been under-enforced, especially in Republican administrations, but, you know, not enforced as much as we would like, even in prior Democratic administrations. There are other things where actually new legislation would be hugely helpful and transformative if there's an opportunity to do so, right? I would love to see, for example, a future Congress create new agencies or consolidate

agencies in more effective ways, right? On this benefits delivery idea, for example, one of the ideas in the series is, should we have a dedicated department that does this service delivery, that is, this is what they live and breathe, they wake up every morning, thinking about how do we deliver those services better? You centralize that machinery across like the, the main, many different programs that are now scattered across many different agencies. And then that allows you to sort of be much more effective and engaged with the public in doing that, right? That kind of some of that reorganization you might be able to do under some existing executive authority. But in our dream world, I think you really would want Congress to start legislating again.

And I think part of the message for future Congresses, you know, if we have a different Congress, maybe even very soon, is you can do, you Congress can do. you Congress can do a lot more than just, you know, plusing up or reducing the budget of different agencies, right? Part of how we got the new deal is Congress created a bunch of things that didn't exist before because it knew that we needed different machinery to meet the moment. And I would love to see that level of ambition from a future Congress as well. And creating a more centralized machinery, at least in terms of providing benefits, means much easier to access data that we already collect. It's just that we can put it to use.

And I would imagine also provides for the opportunity for more universal programs, because once you have it centralized, scaling it up at that point is a much easier task. You're not having to pull one thing from USDA and one thing from over here from CMS and one thing from over there. Okay. So let me just ask this question. This may be, this is sort of slightly outside a portfolio maybe, but why has it been structured in this way? Like, is the efficiency inefficiency that we see just like, you know, what happens with Medicaid block grants and then or unemployment insurance in Florida makes it really, really hard to get that unemployment insurance so they can cut those numbers down? Why has it been created this way just because we were sloppy?

or has it been created this way because it's a reflection of political forces that want to inhibit the functioning of government? And if so, how do we avoid that when we recreate it? Yeah, I think, so I love, I love this point because I think it's much more the second one that you offered. Like, so, yes, there's absolutely sort of some not great design choices that were baked in because of a compromise that happened early on when different programs were passed. Some of those inertia, right, the world has just changed a lot, right? And it's changing very fast. But I think the biggest reason for these inefficiencies or limited capacities is actually that we have

been dealing with for the last 40, 50 years in the neoliberal era in particular, an ongoing sort of almost guerrilla fight against these policies and systems, right? The reason why it is so hard and so administratively burdensome in terms of paperwork and everything to enroll in programs is because since Reagan and before, there's been a whole long movement on a lot of money behind the idea that we shouldn't have those programs in the first place, right? There are very powerful interests who do not want working class folks, people of color, people who are struggling to get those benefits.

And the way they have tried to undermine that goal is by introducing a lot of a sludge and a lot of friction in the machinery. And so part of the, part of the opportunity, the need, I think is to like, let's just take that out all at once, right? We're going to have to rebuild these systems anyway. It's not like we can just walk back in and flip the light switch back on. So we should take advantage of that opportunity to actually root out some of these deeper structural barriers. Now, part of your question about how we do that is also a one of political will and popular mandate. And while I think a lot of these ideas really ought to be welcomed by people across, you know, left, right, and center political spectrum, I also think,

you know, I'm a firm progressive and a social Democrat, and I do think, like, part of the task for progressives is to make the case from first principles that we affirmatively want a government that protects us from harm in the marketplace and in the private realm protects us from discrimination, affirmatively provides us the things that we need to be free and to be equal. And to do that, we then need a different machinery. But we have to win both of those arguments, right? We need to win the political will. And then we need to have the machinery blueprints ready to go so that we can deliver on that promise in a reasonable time frame. Well, my question, too, is I know this is about the administrative state as well and building this machinery in that context. But, you know, I think about

the Supreme Court and that's a whole, the legislature has to deal with court reform, if any of this is going to come to pass. Because like, but I guess even though that's a separate thing that you're not dealing with explicitly in this analysis, how do you factor the courts into your vision? Yeah, that has to be part of the story, absolutely. It's referenced sort of obliquely in this particular piece, but I mean, I agree with you, Emma, that at this point, court reform and especially Supreme Court reform, I think, is table stakes for getting anything through. Because the reality is that part of why we're in this

mess is that whenever we have an affirmative attempt to create this different approach to government, often it is a set of courts or a set of specific ideological folks on courts who have been introducing that friction, right? Remember the Supreme Court gutting Obamacare. in important ways that actually really undermined the efficacy of that program and also hurt a lot of people, right, in terms of Medicaid expansion and other things. So that was in the before times when the court was relatively benign compared to now, where it is actively, I think, a handmaid into the kind of authoritarian reactionary excesses that we're seeing. So court reform really has to be front and center. This goes a little bit to your question too, Sam, about the legislature. You know,

I think in a future Congress, I would love to see a democracy reform agenda that takes on court reform. Yes, structurally changes our electoral and voting rights rules to fix them. And then that's also how we sort of deal with this problem of the overreaching presidency is by putting Congress in the front seat again. I will say one other thing, though, about courts, which is part of what we do talk about in the piece is whether or not we get court reform, which I think we really need to, we need legislation for that. I do think a next executive branch that cares about this stuff needs to have a very different mindset when it comes to the courts. We should be walking in with the understanding and be eyes wide open that a subset of folks in the judiciary are going to strike down on minute one any of these things that you try to do. And so we need to think about

what is the broader political and public case we want to make so that if you're going to lose in court, you need to lose in a way that is building more and more, a bigger and bigger movement to, in fact, reform the court. And that's the model of progressive change, right? The new deal only happens, in part because FDR, you know, confronts the court. That only happens because actually for 20 years prior, progresses were advocating for a lot of these social policies, but also were mobilizing against what they called our judicial oligarchy, right? Robert Lafellette runs for president in the 20s as the author of that book, and that's the centerpiece of his agenda. And so I say that to say, bringing the court back into its proper role of, you know,

responding to individual disputes as opposed to being the super legislature that rules all of us, bringing the court back into its proper role is one of the preconditions for actually achieving this vision of a more equitable government. So part of this agenda calls for a, boldness that would require a court to expose the problems in our judicial in many respects. Yeah, yeah. Just getting back to the, to the, that other side of that coin about like the protection part of what our government does as opposed to deliverables.

And I know you got just a few minutes, but we're going to have to do more of these in the future. Yes, absolutely. But so when we talk about protection, we're talking about everything from consumer financial protection bureau to the FDA to the USDA. I mean, part of the problem is there's so many different agencies that have, you can have one factory and have three different types of agencies that have to go in there to make sure that like our meat is okay. I would imagine streamlining is important. But what is that top line principle in that instance,

just below, we need to protect our citizens from corporate, you know, corporations cutting corners, privatizing their profit, socializing the expense in, you know, diarrhea or, or death or whatever it is. Totally. But what is the like sort of administrative principle that you apply there? Yeah. Yeah. So like to take that kind of one step down, right, like how we start to do this, I think it's a couple of things. Number one is, I think. at a minimum, agencies should be fully executing their already existing legal mandate to protect us. As I mentioned earlier, I think across the board, whether it's in labor or consumer protection or

market regulation, some agencies have done a better job than others, but many agencies have still not fully met their existing mandate. And so that's a mindset about prioritization, about what you think the mission is. Number two, a related piece to that is, I think for some agencies, just because of how they've gotten used to doing business, they often see private sector actors as their main partners and clients, as opposed to people as their main partners and clients. If you're HUD, your client is like homeowners and tenants.

That's who you're there to serve. You might sometimes partner with some intermediaries, but you've got to be clear that, like, if they're not doing what they're supposed to do, you should use your enforcement authorities to bring them back, in line. And that's true for every agency. So there's a mindset shift. Number two, I think we talked a little bit about staffing before. To me, this is like a very simple, but a big one. A lot of enforcement offices are just not big enough. We don't have enough bodies to actually be sort of the cops on

the street for some of these questions. And we also don't have enough technical expertise, right? The CFPB was a bit better at this. But, you know, think about all the new kinds of crypto scams and financial engineering and the ways that folks are at risk now, in some ways, worse than they were before the 08 financial crisis, we're going to need a level of sophistication and an understanding and knowledge to bring that expertise back into the agencies so that the agencies are ahead instead of playing catch-up. And that's a staffing question as much as it is like a data and technical question. So I can say more, but I think there's a bunch of these things where it's like, you know, if we were a new administration who cared about this, there's a bunch of brass tax

things that you would do very different. And I want to make sure just to highlight and we're putting it up on the sort of on the shelf here, an administration that cares about these things. That's the sort of like next level political question that will come, we will get closer to in 2028. All right, you just have a minute here and there's a lot we haven't covered. We're going to have to have you back. But fortunately, your book is coming out. We'll have more time than two. And we're going to hopefully talk to more people from just security and cover different elements of this series. Right. But this plan, you know, this sort of level of the plan. And if we look at his concentric circles to getting down to sort of actual execution,

who do you hand this off to? Like what, what is the, what is the profile of that person? Is that a political person? Is that a, you know, a nascent campaign for 2028?

Like, who takes this apparatus in, um, either, uh, you know, do they give it? to someone who then downstream starts to do the more, like break it out more, or is it a political

person or is it both? Yeah. Yeah, I think it's a bit all of the above. And that's partly why I think it's good we're having these conversations, right? I do think you need a popular will and mandate for a political leadership who cares about this as we've been talking about. So that's one dimension. I think then whether it's, you know, legislative staffers on the Hill or future staffers of a future

executive branch, I think you need the implementers. to be starting to think about this. So what would you draft in a next bill? How would you write that executive order or regulation differently or restructure the org chart of your agency that you know very well, you know, because you've been deep in it forever, right? So I think we at that level.

But I think it's also like appropriate for we the public more broadly to be demanding, you know, I know this is weedsy stuff, but, you know, one of the things is interesting is part of how we got here in the first place is, you know, the FDA only gets created because the public was so, ex-sized about, you know, literal lead and poison in cosmetics and in their food and in their

drugs that they demanded action. Kyahoga River had to be on fire and that's how we get the EPA. Absolutely. So I think it's totally fair game for all of us to demand of whoever we are electing or whoever we're advocating for or supporting in an executive branch or in a legislature that that they respond with this level of sophistication and ambition. Okay. Last question.

This is sort of a how the sausage gets made question. You don't have to, if you're not comfortable saying the specific names, again, profiles. But when you guys are sitting there, because there's competing outfits doing what you're doing. You know, and I don't think Larry Summers is involved in that one at the Center for American Progress. Project 2029 for his, you know, he had some complications aside from other issues I had with him. But there are other entities out there that are competing. And so when you're creating this, do you guys have a list of these five senators, these 25 congresspeople? We're going to get the plan in these hands.

These are going to be, you know, the horses that we're batting on to carry this forward. that's the way that we're going to get in on the inside and hopefully they become they get empowered in an election you know maybe right maybe the the presidential nominee has to negotiate with these guys because they got so far in the primary whatever it is is that the way it works yeah i appreciate that question i mean i think i think part of why it's good we're having these conversations now i think this next year you know going into 2027 going into 2028 now is actually the time to be building these plans and to be having these debates precisely because I think you

want future Congress people, future candidates, future staffers, you want anyone who wants to go into policy coming out of this crisis to be marinating in these ideas. So I think that's number one. Number two, I'll say there are many

different proposals out there, but to me the criteria is really two criteria. One is, do you, as a matter of North Star Moral Compass, do you, in fact, care that these are the kinds of substantive things that government should be doing. Should it actually be protecting us and providing for us and being more inclusive and democratic?

Because not everyone does, right? So that's like a moral question. But then it's kind of going to Emma's point, too. Are you clear-eyed about the power apparatus that will be deployed against these ideas? And your earlier question, too, Sam, whether it's the court, whether it's corporations, whether it's sort of the kind of neoliberal or conservative sort of apparatus. that hated welfare all alarm, right? Like, are you clear about that power structure?

And does that give you the right level of ambition to kind of take a more aggressive approach? There are a lot of people who could fit that bill. I would welcome many, many people fitting that bill, right? I think some folks are starting to talk about this more on the stump, so that's great to see. But to my mind, as long as you meet those two criteria, moral North-Stum, are and an understanding about how power needs to be changed, then I think, great, let's talk. Kate Sabil Rahman, the piece is building governing machinery for the next pro-democracy movement. We will link to that. Look forward to talking to you when the book comes out and to talking

to some of your colleagues over at Just Security on some of these other issues. Really, I just this conversation is, I think, the most important one in many respects, and certainly one that is not being held in enough spaces. And I enjoy it so much. It almost makes me want to go back to law school, but not quite, not quite, I got to see if, I have one year and to see if I can apply those as credits, but appreciate it. Appreciate you. And Sam. Thanks. Thank you. We'll look forward to it. Okay. Bye. Bye. All right, folks. It occurred to me in our conversation.

If people want more from Casabio Rahman, they should check out. We interviewed him for a piece he did in dissent magazine on the case for a third reconstruction. That's another interview that we had. That's pretty, I think, timeless and applies also to his analysis here. Yeah, both of his, and his book is also fantastic. Yeah. And, you know, just like, this is somebody who we saw, folks like

Sebel O'Roman get into the Biden administration via Elizabeth Warren trading her endorsement ultimately for Biden or dropping out or whatever. I don't know the specifics. This is just a broad strokes. That's Lena Khan. That's Jonathan Cantor.

Exactly. All of the antitrust apparatus, the financial, the DOJ and the FTC, and we saw this on the labor side with Bernie Sanders. And so the, you know, the, this gets to the point, when we get to 2028, people have to understand, you are not voting for an individual who is running for president. You are voting for all of the people that they're going to bring in.

to the administration in one form or another in the ideas that they're bringing in. And this is, all of this stuff is happening over the course of the next eight months, where, you know, this outfit, I am sure, is looking around shopping these ideas to various candidates. And the candidates, you know, and they're looking for buy-in from candidates. and then this is what you're voting for at the end of the day it's not personalities

or I can have a beer or whatever it is it's not you know someone hasn't been divorced before or you know they're a douchebag or not a douchebag

or they're impolite or whatever you know like all of that stuff and it's not even just their rhetoric it is what like what ideas and from whom are those ideas coming and what personnel is going to come in because everything that uh rahman is talking about has to have personnel that buy into this like he said you know the the two things they're looking for is somebody who understands um who believes that the government should be functioning

in this way, should be providing material benefits for people, should be providing protection against corporations whose essential job is to eat up as much as of other people's

stuff as possible. So that could be like, you know, we're going to make our profits. Yeah. We need to use PFOs for our data centers. Well, yeah, it sucks for human beings that it It's in your bloodstream and in your, you know, your testes or wherever it ends up. But we're going to make profits on that.

Somebody has to, you know, genuinely believe it is a government's job to make sure that, no, they privatize those costs. They do not put them on society. And then the other part of it is a genuine understanding of power and the power dynamics in our society. That's the latter. That's the part that Biden never had, I think. I mean, he was able to, he understood how to trade with, you know, these influential senators that he'd worked with for a while, who he ran with and knew that he needed to give them something in exchange. His decades in politics primed him for that understanding. But the overarching vision and the urgency that Case of Bill Rahman lays out in his analysis was not understood by the administration. That's reflected. in Merrick Garland. That's reflected in every area that was not influenced by Bernie and inviting the Republicans in for Bill Back Better and then Portman and Cinema. And you see how fragile these things can be, especially when there are existing cracks that liberals have only kind of put duct tape over or maybe even not that like packing tape or scotch tape. It's worse than that.

And then the cracks and okay, so scotch tape. So then the the cracks just get worse and worse until it shatters. We're going to have, you know, I don't know, we've got to figure this out, but I want to have like a series of those people on and and see if there are competing outfits. In fact, in the fun half, we're going to talk about

our friends with Searchlight who are, I think, trying to get into, it's unclear what this is about. It's sort of fascinating. It's being bold and radical. Bold and radical. That's what I think of when. I think of them.

All right. Well, quickly, then I'll plug my two things before I forget, because I could very easily forget. So first, this is just from my friend Matt Bernstein. Everybody knows. Love Matt Bernstein. Check out a bit fruity, his podcast. On Friday, do we have that link?

I sent it to you, Brian. On Friday, he is moderating a panel for a film. that is one of the watermelon production films. So this is a movie that, you know, was about Palestine, it's for Palestinian rights. It's called Traces of Home. And he's going to be at the Angelica in New York moderating this panel. So I just wanted to give a quick plug because I shouldn't get out my assassination coordinates,

but I will be there supporting my buddy, Matt. and this is just another important film about the ethnic cleansing and Israel's genocidal actions against the Palestinians. And then the other plug for me is I'm going to make the big reveal about who the comedian is. I know you would have preferred that I tease this out, but Francesca told me it's time to reveal who the comedian will be for our show in L.A. on the 4th of October. not going to be happy about this Sam guess well based on you saying Sam's not going to be happy about it I'm going to guess

Tim Heidecker Yes it's Tim Heideker Tim Heidker will be the third person and we may have a fourth mystery person Tim Heidker Tim Heidiker Have you heard of that guy?

Oh oh oh oh Yeah that guy Yeah so You know we get along just fine And it's going to be a really fun show, Tim's going to be gabbing with the girls at the lodge room in L.A. at 1 p.m. on the 4th. How it's being promoted? Yeah. Gabbing with the girls. It's like that Harris Faulkner show or whatever where there's one guy's right of by three four. This is our version of

her take. It's fun to try to come up with the most like patronizing women's show title name. That's like clearly for a male audience. Right. Just a couple IMs. Right on time, Sammy. Many colleges allow anyone 60 plus to audit classes for free. So it's not, it's still not too late for law school. And Phil from Delaware, Delaware, DSA went three for four last night, beating a few incumbents and winning a state Senate seat, center of Wilmington, biggest city, state representative seat, and a Newcastle County Council, a biggest county seat. WFP had some overlap and had some good wins, good night for progressives in Delaware. Dave Wigle wrote about it for more details. Also, don't forget, you can support this program by becoming a member.

Join the Majority Report.com. When you do, you only get the free show free of commercials. You also get the fun half. Join the Majorioport.com. And just coffee. Dot co-op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority, you get 10% off.

Check it out. Just coffee. Dot co-op. Great coffee. You can buy the Majority Report blend. Good stuff. Matt. Yeah.

No left. Reckoning this week, probably the first Tuesday we've taken off in a long time. Technical difficulties? No, I just was home. I've started producing over there. Well, we were counting on Brian. But we did do a Sunday show for patrons where we talked about Trump and the story of him being saved by Burley Fireman as a building threatened to collapse over on top of him, which I still think is sort of under remarked upon. So yeah, check that out, patreon.com.

So, it's left reckoning. And, yeah, you can get us, and we also talk some Texas politics, too. Just his latest egregious lie about it is that two hot men picked him up. Yeah, you didn't see this? No, I did. I'm just saying it's, it's, like, amazing how we could just psychoanalyze him from afar at this point. So that was a dream you had.

Yeah, right. Did you guys also see, we just saw a guy, I am from June Oliver about Mitch McConnell, that like as soon as he was wheeled back in. So he was like absent. Someone wheel him into a closet and shut the door. He looked to a smile on his face. That was a very nice smile. He's happier this way, less stimulated.

Hey, say cheese, Mitch. When I see him just standing upright, like sitting at like this, not moving at all, you know what I think? closed cell spray foam insulation. I think they just like just closed cell in and he is literally just rigid. He's a mannequin. Yeah.

Okay. You're saying that they stuffed him like Yeah. Stuffed Mitch. Like a taxidermy. Like a taxidermy situation. Well, so he's embalmed and stuffed and being wheeled around. Yeah. I think that's possible.

I mean, has anyone seen his mouth move? Did he give a speech or was I'm looking at a speech from like a long time. Definitely not. He did not give a speech. It's a sort of thing where, like, if this was happening like 1910, it'd be all in the history books of like he was very clearly not right. And they were propping him up. And we have 4K cameras now.

Like, what's our excuse? A court of bees are going to fly out of his mouth. Somebody doing ventriloquism with him. He's just like, he's just like this. It's Thomas Massey putting forth a. Yeah, why is Jeff Dunham his new assistant? All right, folks, see you in the fun half. You are in for it.

All right, folks, 646, 25, 739, 20. See you in the fun. Are you ready? Who sent us this? Alpha males are back, back, back, back, back, boy is back. And the alpha males are back. Just as delicious as you could imagine. The alpha males are back, back, back.

The alpha males are back, back, back. You just want to degrade the white man. Alpha males are back, back, back. I take all of it by device, bro. Alpha males are back. Snowflakes as what? The alpha males are back, back, back, back. You're out of Sam Cedar.

What a, what a fucking nightmare. We bring back DJ, DJ. Yeah, or a couple of them. Just put them in rotation. DJ Denner. problem with those is they're like 45 seconds long so i don't know if they're enough for the brakes to be that's fucking nonsense you see white people doing drugs that look worse than normal white people and all white people look disgusting and the alpha males are psych fuck them fuck um snuffleg says what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what what

Snoplin. He says what? Okay, I'm making stupid money. Hell of a lot of bank. Have you tried doing an impression on a college campus? I think that there's no reason why reasonable people across the divide can't all agree with this. Psych? And the alpha males are back, back, back, back, back, back, back.

And the Africans are black, black, black, black, black. Africa. The males are black, black, black, black, black, black. And the Africans are back, back, back, black. When you see Donald Trump out there, doesn't a little party you think that America deserves to be taken over by jihadists? Keep it at 100. Can't knock the hustle.

Come up. Fuck them. Fuck them. Things I do for the bigger game plan. By the way, it's my birthday. Happy birthday to me, Joe boy. I have a thought experiment for you. And the alpha males are back, back.

Africa. Black? Forci. Possue. Pass you.