The Prepper Broadcasting Network - The Rising Republic: Ab Absurdo

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

www.pbnfamily.comwww.disastercoffee.com

The American people are entitled to transparency. We can't sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of politicians, lobbyists or interest groups. They're entitled to be able to figure out where their dollars are going, and they're entitled to accountability to make sure that we're using the dollars for what we said it was for. We are going to go through our federal budget, as I promised during the campaign, page by

page, line by line, eliminating those programs we don't need and insisting that those that we do need operate in a sensible, cost-effective way. Hey, hey, hey, welcome to the rising republic. Kyle Ryan, how's it going today, bud? I'm doing good. Hey everybody. Thanks for joining us on the show today. Man, have you been paying attention to what the, with all the federal overreach and the

circuit courts office and it's just, it's crazy. I'm getting all these emails from Politico. Yeah, it's kind of interesting to see. I mean the, like for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction, right? No matter what, I mean, in physics, you know, you love life, your work experience, you know, everything. And people don't realize that that also applies

to the political scale. I'm getting this stuff from the Epic Times and I'm getting this stuff from Politibolt, I'm getting this stuff from, I mean, you can go on and on and on with all these emails of the Daily Wire, of course you're not gonna dig all this stuff up, you're gonna find exactly the opposite, like just opinionated stuff from CNN and stuff,

but you gotta ask yourself, why are the courts trying to do these things? Yeah, it's kind of a weird setup I mean obviously you have checks and balances of government but this seems to be a little bit like you say a bit of an overreach. So what specifically are kind of coming at you? John Carpenter Well on March 19th I get a couple emails so once you know in this subject line judge attempts to block deportation efforts.

Okay, well first of all, that's not, you have no powers in the Constitution afforded to you to judge deportation of illegal immigrants. Also, I got federal judge orders Trump to reinstate thousands of probationary employees. Again, there's nothing in the Constitution given judges power to stop the executive from performing his official duties, right? March 18th, I get one that says,

judge blocks dismantling of UCEDD. Why would a judge want the dismantling of UCEDD blocked? I mean- Tell you, there's probably money in his back pocket because of it. Exactly. The Trump administration, or any presidential administration can request

information from any other agency that they desire to request information from. That's an executive privilege. I get judge finds mass, judge finds mass firings of federal employees unlawful. And again, they were probationary employees. So it's probably the probably along the same lines as the federal judge email that I got on February 19th, but this was like almost a week later. February 24th, they go on federal judge blocks

two agencies from sharing data with Doge. I think that's what the February 27th email was. Judge ordered the agency to rescind the request because the Trump administration was requesting data via Doge and the judge didn't like that so he's putting the kink to it. And it's like the whole point of this is to come in see what you got see what's working and what's not where all that waste is and every department that he that that team has evaluated has shown significant levels of waste

and government misspending and, you know, fraud. So what I'm kind of curious why those particular ones are being picked out by those judges. And all the judges I'm sure are definitely left leaning judges. You said in Doge, I mean, yeah. So if we've covered in the past all the things that Doge has uncovered that you said was,

and this is USAID, you know, so this agency that was designed by the president, a president as an executive order can also be dismantled by a president via executive order. And that's how these things work. It's executive power. He creates agencies with the swipe of a pen and he dismantles agencies with the swipe of a pen.

And so if one president doesn't like an agency, then the next president can dismantle it. So any of these employees that come into these jobs and like most government agencies they come in under probationary terminology they have to do a good job performed for a certain amount of time and at the end of that probationary period they get promoted to whatever job title they were seeking to employ into. The gamble with that is and everybody that employees with with a government job goes through

the same thing a probationary process you don't know if you're going to make the cut or not. More than that when you hot side on with any government job goes through the same thing, a probationary process, you don't know if you're gonna make the cut or not. More than that, when you side on with any government agency, it's a gamble because that agency can be dismantled. And so you really want to look and see, well, how long has this been here? Is it well established? Has it been around for two years, five years, 20 years, 50 years?

How long has this agency been here? Because if you don't, you're really gambling with your career. You don't wanna get invested in some agency that's been around for a year or two and you got a family that you're trying to take care of because you could maybe possibly be wasting a year or two of your life trying to get established

where you could be getting established somewhere else. I would go for something a little bit more that's been around a little bit longer, just for the sake of peace of mind. Well, and government jobs have always been, in my lifetime, a cash cow. Just basically a cush ride, a downhill slope kind of thing for anybody that's done working in the private sector.

And I can tell you firsthand that that's very true. First, the private sector is not easy, and for some people, they get used to working in institutions and you know things get easier and easier and they get fatter and fatter and they get paid pay increases like normal no performance requirements just every year they get a raise kind of thing and that's unheard of in most private sector environments. So now these people who have just had cush jobs for however long for their probationary period now they gotta figure it out like the rest of us you know.

And that's the thing with like I don't know how Walmart has done it for so long I kind of do because I used to be a Walmart employee when I first got out of the Marines it's not easy trying to find a job when you're coming out of the military with your only background being trained in how to kill. How to destroy things. The closest thing I could get, you know, was police officer, correctional officer, that kind of thing. And so I had my, I threw my net out,

but in the meantime, right, I got on with Walmart and got into loss prevention, where I was basically just walking around catching shoplifters. If somebody talked about starting a union and it got heard, you got terminated. Oh yeah, zero tolerance. Exactly, and so that's,

Walmart's a multi-billion dollar business and the thing with government agencies, they're controlled by, we'll say ideals. So if you get, for example, unions are big lefties, or big time Democrats, almost all Democrats will back a union, almost all unions will back a Democrat. And so when you get like say in Illinois or Washington, you'll get like a Democratic governor in place,

well the state agencies aren't gonna fire someone if they start talking about unions, right? And that's how it was in the beginning. And so now it's just a well established, everybody that hires on with the government gets in a union. And there's a lot of unions, a lot of unions. Oh yeah. I could tell you from working, you know, 25 years

with the state of Illinois, the state employee, there's a lot of unions out there. I was in ASPE, American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, but there's others. There's other unions, other unions for trades, and everybody's got some kind of protection. But once you get into those union type jobs, that's the problem to me,

and the way I've always just talked about it, and before you joined me on the show, I had a topic one time about unions, and I've expressed my opinion about unions. It's kind of a necessary evil. I get the point of a union, I really do. But to me, the whole idea of a union in itself is kind of like a socialist construct in a smaller scale.

And the reason why I think that way is because whenever employees come in, they pay union dues, suddenly you got really good working employees and you got really bad employees. And everybody's treated equally. There's no merit based anything. Everybody's promoted on seniority.

Everybody gets treated the same. No, but it doesn't matter if you do really, really good work and you come in 30 minutes early and you stay over 30 minutes a day, trying to make sure that everything's taken care of or you get somebody who comes in and kicks his feet up and doesn't do it or comes in every day tardy. You see, I'm saying you get these really crappy employees.

They get the same exact benefits, the same exact pay. They're treated exactly the same. And that's the monster of it all. And it's a sad, sad situation. Well, and the weird thing is, is there are so many safety rules and regulations out there to protect workers at the state and federal level, that there's no need for unions beyond why they were originally created,

because it was, you know, and workers who got together to go against companies who were making them work 14, 16 hour days and in horrible working conditions, you know, people losing body parts in each in machinery and equipment and whatever and not having any repercussions or no, you know, benefits, insurance, you know, retirement, nothing. But now because of the way most federal laws and state laws are written to protect employees, there's really no need for unions beyond the original intent. So it's kind of a, like you say, it's just this socialist construct.

And when you start introducing that into private sector or public sector, like the private sector shuns it, because it can be extremely destructive to productivity. But like you say, the public sector, well, you know, you're pretty much already living a union lifestyle and you bring a union in and maybe you get more, you know, pay benefits or something like that out of it. But it's really, it doesn't,

there's no additional protection as a result of that. You just wind up having kind of the security of being able to keep a cush job longer, I guess. Well, and the reason why, makes perfect sense. The reason why this whole union thing came up is because when you talk about wasteful spending and promotions, I saw it happening through the years.

I know what I started off with, and I was a benefactor of getting annual raises and getting all these extra benefits and things. Like I said, I see it as a necessary evil for when it comes to having some power to keep the balance, so to speak. So there's a balance in the force, right? So that their buddies aren't getting, like administration buddies aren't getting promoted unfairly while other people who don't have the political connections, you know, the grunts, for example, that don't have the political connections, the grunts for example,

that don't have political connections, they need a fair shot too. That's the reason why I think it's necessary to a degree. But there's way too much power and influence whenever the union will say, hey, we'll throw our weight behind you if you give us these benefits. And of course, the guy that's running

for the Democrat office wants that backing. So yes, I'll give you an annual raise. Yes, I'll give you a 3.5% raise or a 7% raise over the next four years when I'm in office. He makes these promises and reduces the price of insurance on behalf of the employee. The state will pay this much instead of this much. And it turns out to be waste, fiscal waste.

And it gets worse every year because the more inflation that we have, and it's like a snowball effect, and it symbiotes off of each other. Whenever the government, the unions come in and say, hey, we'll throw our backing behind you if you give us this. So we're going to pay less when it comes to our medical bills,

but the government's gonna pay this much more, well then that causes the taxes to rise, so if there's, to keep things even. And when the taxes rise, well there's an inflation. And when there's inflation, well suddenly the unions say, hey this raise you give us isn't working anymore, we need more of a raise. So they give them more of a raise and the taxes

go back up there, and there's never an equilibrium. There's never a balance. And that's the problem with it. Yeah, they're always chasing a dollar. Yes, socialism at its finest. Yeah. Well, I mean, people, with all the bad stuff that is happening, the fallout from these executive orders,

people aren't really looking at the other side of that. Sometimes people in those types of positions need the nudge to get out and do more, be productive, change their life, do something that they're capable of doing that benefits them and their family. Yeah, they're gonna have to figure out how to do something in the private sector or find a different government job or a more permanent one if they were temporary

or what do you call it, probationary. But the thing is, is in some ways that's actually a good thing, not only for the economy, but for those people because in the end we're gonna see more people who are doing shoddy work and living off of the government. And I think people are just so used to living off of the government in a major scale,

especially with what we're finding now, that people don't know how to not live off the government. And that to me is scary. Yeah, it puts too much trust and investment into the government. And that's what we've been trying to say all along, is that you can't do that. Like, government owes overreach.

Like, they love the control. So when you put all this trust in the government, that means you got a nanny, a nanny state kind of situation going on where they're taking care of you and you're investing all your trust and you're giving basically all your rights to them, surrendering all your rights to them

so they can regulate you and take care of you. They can tell you what to eat, what to drink, how much to live, what you're gonna be taxed. And they're basically taking care of us in that regard and making us, giving us the illusion of a freedom when all along, it's just, like I said, it's just, freedom's just an illusion. You're actually enslaved now to the grind.

Yeah, and it's weird to think that, I mean, when you look at how communism and socialism works in Russia and other countries, and then you kind of look at what communism and socialism works in Russia and other countries, and then you kind of look at what's been happening here, the slow boil of federal overreach and these programs that are just funding people out of nowhere to do essentially nothing, that's basically communism. And people are getting an unfair shake and all the burden is winding up on the people

who aren't part of the federal government monster machine. So I mean it's kind of I mean obviously federal and state employees still get taxed but you know it's tough to me to justify that we're feel bad for people who are getting that nudge to basically knock off and find another job because this job doesn't exist anymore. Let's do this, Ryan. Let's take a quick break and when we come back, I wanna talk about, I saw a little bit of an interview with the Chief of Staff, Steven Miller,

with Katie Hunt on CNN, and she's trying to dog the President on what he's doing with the deportation of all these illegal immigrants, and he's pretty much trying to explain it to her, but she's not, I don't know if she's set in her ways of trying to make him look bad or make the president look bad, that she can't see what he's trying to explain to her. Let's do that when we come back.

What if I told you you could own land for $200 down and highly affordable monthly payments? Yourcheapland.com is your answer to bug out land, hunting, recreation, and whatever else your prepper mind can dream up. YourCheapLand.com has properties in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah. Go to YourCheapLand.com, check out the properties, use the promo code PBN, and get $100 off your purchase. Welcome back to The Rising Republic. Okay, here is Stephen Miller, like I said, on CNN talking to Katie Hunt. Keep in mind she's a die-hard left-wing liberal CNN anchor, and so she's not going to be convinced unless she's being paid to act this way.

I've seen that happen in the past. Being paid to act this way against Stephen've seen that happen in the past, being paid to act this way against Stephen Miller and talking to him and trying to get him, trying to sway him or trap him. But he's got, like he's bringing the receipts and he calls out all the constitutional law, he calls out the US codes. He's got the backing for what he's trying to explain to her

but she's just not hearing it. So you called the judge's order just earlier today, quote, patently unlawful end quote and said that it was an assault on democracy itself does that mean that the administration... Pause okay I'm gonna pause this periodically just so I can put some narrative on this. This is talking about that that executive order or I'm sorry the judge's order that I talked about earlier remember whenever he he's trying to stop or to block the deportation judge's order that I talked about earlier. Remember whenever he's trying to stop or to block the deportation, Trump's deportation of it.

That's what this is about, all right. So Stephen Miller's saying, this judge cannot do this. It's unconstitutional what he's trying to do, okay. So I'm gonna restart that real quick. So it's this for so early and I'm gonna pause it periodically as we continue to go. So you called the judge's order just earlier today,

quote, patently unlawful, end quote, and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order and might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out? The President of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the

President the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review. So, Stephen, when you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges and then continues up. At what point...

All right. Just, you see what she did there? It starts with the judge and works up Wow, what's your thought on that real quick? It didn't start with the judges. No, it starts with legislation It starts in Congress a bill is written a law is passed and a district court judge is nothing I mean, that's like somebody in the county over, you know decides to throw something in there So he's trying to get some attention here, get their name out there so that they can get a better seat

next election. But unless it comes from a Supreme Court standing, and that's I think the intent is to get it to be denied on the next court level up and up and up until it gets to the Supreme Court. But I mean, it's just kind of a, it's a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it doesn't make any sense to me But I mean, it's just kind of a, it's a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, that's absolutely absurd. Yeah, it starts here, it works its way up. No, no, Katie Hunt, it does not. All right, let's continue on. Does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment? And I fail to see how there's any other way but to start with where we're starting here before you get

to eventually the Supreme Court. Well, so first of all, there's a term in law, justiciable. This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the president is exercising his Article II powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country. He's exercising his core Article 2 powers as commander in

chief. It's Venezuela and... Okay, she's getting really stupid again. But Article 2 powers, okay, I got the Constitution pulled up right now. Article 2, Section 1, the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years and together with the vice president chosen for the same four be elected as follows." And then he goes on to talk about the election process.

But the very first part of that is what he's referring to. The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. That basically means he's the executor of the laws. He's the executive. Like, he's the CEO pretty much of the country. And now she's about to talk about Venezuelan laws and are they enemy. She's missing the point entirely.

But he'll- Yeah, the thing is the judge can't just sit there and be like, oh, I don't like this. So we're gonna throw something out there. You have to have case work to come forward and be like, oh, this is actually like someone who denies that they're being extradited unlawfully or there's some sort of basis for it.

That's what he means by judiciable. And here's another thing, they're illegal aliens. They're not protected under the laws of this country. And that's why we round them up and we send them back according to the Illegal Aliens Act of 1798. We round them up and we send them back. It's that simple.ens Act of 1798. We round them up and we send them back. It's that simple. I got that pulled up too.

We'll talk about that here in a little bit. But it's the president's job to enforce these, to execute these laws. And she's not seeing or understanding this. But he takes care of this. Stephen Lowe does a good job bringing the receipts and calling out these things. Let's continue on. Say, in the U.S.? This is a very important point.

This is a Title 50 authority. It's a commander in chief authority. I'm going to pause again right there because the Title 50. I got Title 50 pulled up right here too. So I just want to read this, Chapter 3 under alien enemies, and this will be Article 50, US Code, Section 21. Wherever there is declared war between the United States and or any foreign nation or government or any invasion of predatory incursion is perpetrated that's where we're at right now an invasion or predatory incursion is

perpetrated attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government and the president makes public proclamation which he's done of the event all native citizens denizens or subjects of the hostile nation or government being of the age of 14 years and upward who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized shall be liable to be apprehended restrained secured and removed as alien enemies. The president is authorized in any such event by his proclamation thereof or other public act to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States toward

the aliens who become so liable. The manner and degree of the restraint to which public act of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases and upon what security their residence shall be permitted and to provide for the removal of those who not being permitted to resign within the United States refuse or neglect to depart there from and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises for the public safety.

So basically round them up at your discretion, jail them if necessary and take them out of this country, ship them out of this country as you see fit. Plain as day. Plain as day and that's what he's referring to. So now he's referred to Article II, section of the presidential powers, the executive office. He's referred to this this Alien Enemies Act here in Title 50 and pretty soon he's going to be talking

about something else again. I'm gonna have try to stop this where I can and provide a little bit of context. To ask you a simple question. You talk about how the system works. Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no? Well Stephen my question is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would apply this way? So I'll answer yours and you'll answer mine. Under the terms of the statute, Trane de Arroagua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government. By a state or a government, right? Are they a state or a government? Yes, it is documented that TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the Proclamation.

And here's an even more important point. Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander in chief of the army and navy? The president and the president alone the united decision of what triggers that decision and they are actually at war with venezuela the nation's you know i don't know you're not hearing me and you're not understanding me read the statute

alien enemies act seventeen ninety eight it says predatory incursion is perpetrated by foreign government so it was a three this three qualifying actions. It does say in the very beginning there has to be a declared war against a nation or a state.

No. Wrong. Look up the statute on my account on social media. That's actually where we found it earlier. Yes. It says, or a predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alien Enemies Act. One is an act of war, which by the way an invasion is an act of war, but put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is. One is a predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all three statutory criteria, but with respect to this particular statute, the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute.

So big picture Stephen. But this is a very important question, because no, no, no, hold on. This is a very important question. You said the way our system works is the President of the United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to district court review. That is fundamentally untrue. I never said that, Stephen. I did not say...

That has never been true. This was not a military oper... I mean... A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil that he can direct the movement of Air Force One, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, that he can direct Marco Rubio to engage one that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier that he can direct a mark or review out i think it is a good thing or have any say over this or not like if does the supreme court united states have any say over the things that

you were just outlining right here no i believe that the server will say is what i just said which is that the president's contact here is not subject to the u r you are not even the play you in fact you have a say here even if you think they may agree with you. What we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say... He's trying not to be disrespectful to the SCOTUS. You know what I'm saying?

Because she's trying to do a bait here on him, trying to get him to defame himself to the SCOTUS, to the Supreme Court of the United States. That's what she's trying to do. But I'm not afraid to do that right here right now. No, they cannot do that. They have no say over what the president decides to do with illegal aliens. And what I read to you earlier on Title 50, I'm gonna read to you here a little section from the Alien Sedition Acts of 1798, section 2, and it says, and be it further enacted that it shall be unlawful for the president of the

United States whenever he may deem it necessary for the public safety to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who may be imprisoned pursuant of this act, and called to be arrested and sent out of the United States, such of those aliens as shall be been ordered to depart therein, and shall not have been obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where where in the opinion of the United States the public safety requires a speedy removal and if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the president shall voluntarily return there to unless by permission of the United States such alien on conviction thereof shall be imprisoned so long as in the opinion of the president the public safety may require and why is that because they

don't have a right to fair and speedy trial. The president can incarcerate them for as long as he wants to. And they don't like the sound of that. And she's trying to get him in this bait trap thing. Well, the thing is, this isn't the first time this has happened. People forget that. Back in World War II, we had our own concentration camps

right here on American soil. And it's kind of been buried, but- Pearl Harbor. Yeah, Pearl Harbor. Yeah Pearl Harbor I mean any Japanese national in anywhere in the United States got rounded up collected taken to a temporary camp where they had to figure it out and they had minimal resources they had just basically a suitcase or the clothes on their back and that's it because it was deemed by the president at the time that they were a national security threat.

Now that's not to say it was a good thing because a lot of these people were just American citizens or maybe they hadn't completed their citizenship or something like that. They were contributing to the economy and all this kind of stuff and there were good people. It's not to say but there was a significant potential threat because we were at war with that nation. And it was something that probably they didn't have citizenship type mechanisms like they do today.

I'm not entirely sure on that, but it's not like this is the first time. And the thing is, is that that is a power of the president and it is something that can happen. And people are just up in arms about it thinking that, Oh, this isn't right because it's socially unacceptable. But the reality is from a constitutional standpoint or viewpoint, it is a hundred percent acceptable. And it is a power that has been delivered to the president just because previous

presidents ignored it and didn't do anything about it doesn't make it right. Right, they think that makes it lawful because Biden, for example, sent forklifts over to the border to lift up Constitucino wire. So if the illegals could have a route in after you remember after Texas set up the Constitucino wire. Yeah, he sent the border patrol over there with a directive to use these forklifts to lift it up.

That doesn't make it lawful. So the president then becomes complicit in breaking the laws of the US code. Yeah, it's almost the opposite, with a directive to use these forklifts to lift it up. That doesn't make it lawful. So the president then becomes complicit in breaking the laws of the US code. Yeah, it's almost the opposite, but he didn't get any guff about that. No, he didn't. No, of course not.

So I mean, it's flat out treason, but nobody's really talking about that. Nope. All right, let's get on with this. It's always been the case, which is when the president is using his powers as commander in chief, those determinations are not subject to judicial review. This There is no way. So at what point in the system, Stephen, how are you going to expel, hold on. How are you going to expel?

They don't, Katie. The courts do not give power to tell the president what he can and cannot do with illegal aliens, especially in invasions. If it's been designated as a terrorist threat, they're done. That's why it's really interesting to me that they're considering the people who are violating all these Teslas

are now considered terrorists, domestic terrorists, because now terrorism laws apply to those people. And it's gonna be an interesting turn of events once more people, you know, these, once Antifa gets determined to be in a terrorist organization like they should have been back in 2020, you know, it's gonna be, it's gonna be lights out for a lot of this chaos

and anarchy that we're seeing in the streets. But it should, because when you resort to violence over ideals, in the United States, you still have everybody, even right wingers, conservatives, Republicans, have a right to speak their mind. It's not just the people on the left. Everybody, every resident of the United States, every citizen of the United States, I gotta be careful about my language here, every citizen

of the United States has a right to express their rights and their views and their ideals and the way they believe and the way that they think. They have a right to say anything that they want to. Granted, there may be consequences to something, you just can't randomly threaten somebody's health or safety for example. There's consequences to that, correct? However, generally speaking, talking about what you believe politically, that transgenderism for example is a mental illness or that boys can't be girls and girls can't be boys. That stuff is backed scientifically, it's backed medically. And the fact that you don't believe it or you think that you can force people to believe

your views, your imaginations, your dreams, what have you, that right there, and when they don't believe it, then you can resort to violence and that's okay, as long as you're a liberal. That's not how this thing works. The first amendment applies to everybody. It applies to everybody that thinks freely. Let's get on with this because we're a little over halfway done.

So, illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls, if each and every deportation has to be a Jude kid and a district court judge, that means you have no country, it means you have no sovereignty, it means you have no future. It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single district court judge. Can you imagine that? If she got hurt was to have her way, if CNN was to have her way, if anybody on the left was to have their way on this issue right here, and each one of these cases would be

tried in the circuit court, there would be no end to it. There would be no room for court hearings of four US citizens, born of five US citizens. Yeah, there would be no physical room in jail houses because they would be jam-packed full of all these illegal aliens because they'd be waiting on trial for the next person. So, I mean, it would be, it's insurmountable. There's no mechanical way to do that

unless you get into just mass deportations or some sort of group legislative, or not legislative, but group court session or something like that. But good luck, I mean, it's just not feasible. And that's what this guy's saying, is you'd have to have every individual get tried and confirm that they are an illegal alien.

They have to go and do this all. It's just, it's absurd. We would lose our sovereignty, like he said. We'd basically be like a world court. So any citizen of any country could come here and we'd be trying them. Like that's not what our system is built for. It's built for citizens, United States citizens.

Yeah, and the biggest thing is that this move, bringing all these illegal aliens is designed to be able to set up every swing state to be a permanently blue state. And I think that's why there's so much push against it. There's not a humanities type of thing. She can say that people are getting raped and killed all day long, and she doesn't care about that.

She cares about the rapists' rights in the court of law. It's a bass-ackwards way to look at it. And it's just, yeah, it's absurd. It is bass-ackward. All right, let's get on. It is impossible. I want to figure out at what point in the system do you, because what does the Trump administration believe? Because we do have separation of powers in this country.

I hear what you're saying. Yes, separation of powers. You're saying the district court does not have authority. This is the judiciary interfering in the executive function. Let me finish. That is the separation of powers. That is the separation of powers. Did you ignore the judge's order here because you thought you could?

So the judge's order and the actions taken by the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security are not in conflict. And the Department of Justice has been clear that they are not in conflict. So you think that you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration defied this order? As the justice department said, there is no conflict between the judge's order and the action is taken by the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper and more fundamental point. The district court has no ability to in any way restrain the president's authorities under the alien enemies act or is ability to conduct the foreign

affairs of the United States. Let me paint a picture for you. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had engaged in intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge can join that bilateral security agreement again that we do not have a democracy we do not have a foreign policy heard you say this i did it did you ignore that did the administration ignore

the order from the district judge he got so some questions i answered but i've answered it i've and i'm sure this is a department has made a filing in the court but let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lives of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes? Did he know the flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he know how many crew hours? Did he know the need for crew rest? you know any of that no this judge violated the law

he violated the constitution he defied the system of government that we have in this country because that does seem to be what you're arguing about these same district court judges didn't do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Ungaree or Laker Riley or anyone else the aliens to the district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of johnson and reagan like a lot of our anyone reports is that we're saying she'll get a little is

that what you said there's a separation of powers the the judiciary exercises satin and really i don't think i would like to know if you are here is i will do you're here to speak about it i will i just want to answer that one simple question i a ready here we go You are here to speak for the White House. I just want you to answer that one simple question. Ready? Here we go. Under a proper reading of the Constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority as a general matter to enjoin the function of the executive branch but their authority is at its lowest point

when the president is exercising his powers as commander in chief and i asked you question never answered can a judge in joint troop movements overseas get district court judge in joint you with the overseas stand yesterday i'm not going to get into the of just a little bit of a number of other just a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit't know that i'm a little bit i know that i'm not going to have another other truth the president i need to ask you about something else that president was issued a

proclamation deep delineating in detail how the venezuelan regime this day at this terrorist organization to our shores and by the way and i i love being here but all the outreach that we are seeing from the democrat party and from the corporate media See that's enough. Yeah. Yeah, that's going nowhere. That's basically like talking to a normal liberal It's like talking to a rock. It's like she's got it said in her mind that I'm gonna get him in this gotcha

I got to get him to say yes We ignore the judge's ruling and he's trying to say his ruling has no authority. Nothing, none. Because there's no complaint being brought. There's just a circuit court judge. Pretty much, yeah. That's how I see it, saying what Joe Biden did whenever he sent that forklift,

told the border czar, Kamala Harris, his vice president to not enforce any immigration laws. She never even went over there. And I can't remember how long she was in office before she finally visited once. We don't even know for sure and I can't remember how long she was in office for. She finally visited once, and we don't even know for sure that she really did. I think she was several miles from the border

and kind of set up in a makeshift kind of area where it looked like she was at least there. What would the gods of the left, the liberal leaders, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, what would they have to say about all this illegal immigration? Because it's funny. It's funny how we kind of flip the script where President Trump is in office here. Let's listen to what each of these, and this is over a span of several

years because Bill Clinton was the president back in the 90s when I was in the Marine Corps. Hillary Clinton was in office as the Secretary of State when Obama was in it was the President United States and Obama was President for eight years leading up to 2020 when Trump's first I'm sorry to 2016 when Trump's first round of office began Let's hear what these guys had to say because this hasn't been all that long ago in the budget I will present to you We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes. Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?

No. I think we've got to have tough conditions, tell people to come out of the shadows. If they've committed a crime, deport them. No questions asked. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable, especially those who may be dangerous. And there's a lot more that they have said in the past I just took a really quick compilation here of the things that they've said in the past but they were hard Obama and Clinton both I mean

they threw out there a lot of anti-illegal immigration and pro-deportation of illegal immigrants. There was a lot of it because they didn't want that because they knew that that would be a problem during their administration. And who wants to deal with that during their administration? Yeah, and the thing is, it's just a talking point. They didn't do anything. No, I mean, Obama did.

Obama did. Obama deported more in illegal immigrants and President Trump did in his first term I don't know if you know they're not he sure did you can look up the stats on it I'm gonna throw us a round of applause up or a round of applause I don't care if you're Democratic president or Republican president Obama did deport I'm not saying that he didn't I'm also I'll say right now he didn't deport, I'm not saying that he didn't, I'll say right now, he didn't deport enough. I think that there should have been a whole lot more deported.

However, it increasingly drew, grew, whenever Biden became President of the United States because this whole new idea that the left had, we all know that Biden wasn't the President, he wasn't really running things. He might have been the President of the United States, but the power of the executive was not invested in him, not in the background. Somebody else is running things in the curtain behind the curtain.

And he was just the fall guy. Oh yeah, absolutely. And you know, I mean, think about it. Say, say Biden, they knew Biden was going to dump out, you know, they knew it was going to be a joke. So when he started to decline, then all of a sudden the immigration started skyrocketing because essentially what they've done is put the current administration in a predicament where they have to take action,

which can be seen as unhumanitarian in order to save the country. Well, you remember the smear tactic that Pelosi threw out in the air? You know, me and you both have talked about that in the past. There's actually sound bites out there on previous shows that we've had

on the rise of public. The roundup smear. The roundup smear, that's it, yes. So basically you're accusing, you do something and then you accuse the opposing party of it. And you get the media involved and they amp up the antics and they throw a lot of coverage on that and they smear them and do all the finger pointing. So basically the right hand's doing this and the left hand's

doing this also but they're not they're just pointing fingers back the other way so the one party is being accused of it and that's how they're doing things. Yeah, I mean it's a it's a Nazi tactic it works, you know, but It only works for people who are dumb enough to not be able to see the truth What about Chuck Schumer on a different note? Have you been seeing he's been he's been getting out he's been stepping out of his comfort zone if he went on the MSNBC I think it is with the one full big Goldi Goldberg, The View. The View. Oh those cackling hens. I think yeah so Chuck Schumer went on The View and he's really running his mouth about going after Trump supporters and making them pay and that kind of thing like the antics

again are starting to amp up and it's clear to see that they're, I guess it's been too quiet and they did pass, they actually worked together to get a bill passed so the government wouldn't shut down. That's good, so kudos to them for working out something. However, he quickly moved on from there and went onto The View and started talking about going after Trump supporters.

So I got a couple soundbites. I got one where he's on PBS, and I got this one right here where he's on The View. So let's do The View first. And you know what their attitude is? I made my money all by myself. How dare your government take my money from me? I don't wanna pay taxes.

Or I built my company with my bare hands. How dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, my, the land and water that I own, or my employees. They hate government. Government's a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from doing things. They want to destroy it.

We are not letting them do it, and we're united. Wow. I can't believe he said that on live television and they aired it. Wow. Yeah, that's unbelievable. The government stopped you from doing things. How much we get taxed, you know, you get taxed on the money that you make

and then you go and spend it on something that you get to pay extra tax on after you've already paid tax on it. If it's something that is a large purchase like a house, you get taxed on that annually or as a car for example, you get taxed on that every year through your, whatever your registration and stuff like that. And then everything else plus the company

that you just gave your tax dollar to winds up having to pay a tax for making money on them on that sale. So I mean, it's just this trickle down to the point where there's taxes, the same dollar gets taxed three or four different times for one transaction. Yeah. And he's acting like this exorbitant amount of taxes that's going on with the United States is some normal thing that the government has a right to it. Like it's somehow constitutional. And he's all he's all the government's here to stop people from doing things.

And he acted like, like did I say, he said the quiet part out loud. I know that's what Chuck Schumer thinks, that's the way that he is, that's the way that he thinks on the inside, but to say that out loud, and the people on the views like, yeah, yeah, and shows Whoopi Goldberg, you know,

and they're all going, there's, which I, I'm getting tired of people's posting videos that she's finally getting fired, and shows Whoopi Goldberg, you know, and they're all going, which I'm getting tired of people posting videos and she's finally getting fired, and all this other stuff, like Joy Behar is getting fired. I'll believe it when I see it. Here's one, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, Chuck Schumer, the only thing I think about is an uncooked burger

with cheese on top, and that's it. I mean, the guy is, that is that guy. Everything that comes out of his mouth is an uncooked burger. It's distressing. Yeah. Here's Chuck Schumer on PBS, and he's talking with Jeff Bennett.

Not sure Jeff Bennett is, but he's here on PBS talking with him. And it's very interesting. This is where he's talking about going after the Trump folk. And we're gonna go after him in so many different ways. We are doing much better on the social media, led by Cory Booker and Tina Smith in our house, and so we're reaching people who were not reached before. We are mobilizing in New York.

We have people going to the Republican districts and going after these Republicans who are voting for this and forcing them to either change their vote or face the consequences. This is a long, relentless fight that we fight every day. And I am confident that we will bring Trump's popularity, numbers, and strength down if we keep at it and keep at it and keep at it. So basically attack, physically attack the voting population until they submit.

Well it's already been said, oh it was probably five shows ago or so, I can't remember who the gentleman was that said it. He wanted us to, wanted his listeners to bring physical, like literal weapons. Remember that? He'd bring literal weapons. Because he believes would like this is this is a real fight a literal fight And so, you know, it's in his argument It's same as Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters is part of this you can always see her out there with her cackling voice I don't even know how she has a voice at all the way that she screams and heck was like she does Telling people to get up in the faces of these people and run them out of their businesses. This is evil.

This isn't, these guys are the ones that always talk about how Trump is a threat to democracy. You don't hear Trump telling his followers to get up in the faces of Congress people or telling people to go into business and shut them down or we're gonna come after you and tell you to change your vote or you're to face the consequences

No, what he says is things like peacefully and patriotically protest, but that gets cut it up right that gets edited Oh, yeah, and so that part never makes the news. Yeah, and I mean on the opposite side of things if people on That tend to lean right don't like something. They just don't buy it. I mean, Bud Light is still trying to recover from their woke ideology. And anything that's coming out, if it's like, no, this is just a bunch of woke bullshit, leftist agenda pushing, whatever, people just don't support it.

Snow White, what's the other one that I was glomming about? What was it? Oh, God. white. Uh, what's the other one that I was glomming about that I, what was it? Oh God. Uh, you start seeing this kind of stuff and people like, wow, this is just a bunch of woke woke propaganda. So we don't want it. And the way you vote is by not buying it and it cripples these people and they don't like that. And so they're like, oh, we need to return the, we need to retaliate by physically chasing people down and ripping their hats off their head,

or screaming or spitting at them in the street, or whatever, ripping their signs out of their yard. It's physical violence versus making a statement with your beliefs. That's just the thing with conservatives, because conservatives, like you said, if they don't like it, they just don't buy it with your beliefs. That's just the thing with conservatives because conservatives, like you said, if they don't, if they don't like it, they just don't buy it from your business. And that's what's been happening with, with Disney, you know, um, for, for years,

you know, conservatives and liberals have been, have been bringing Disney into their homes, but then all of a sudden, you know, with this woke movement, they started integrating this woke stuff, this woke ideology into their programming. And when they started doing that, the conservatives stopped feeding it to their kids. Right? And when that happens, their sales go down. And it just did stuff. So Disney bought Marvel Cinematic Universe, they bought Star Wars, and they started pushing all this woke garbage into these huge franchises.

Billions of dollars. Star Wars was huge. The Marvel Cinematic Universe was huge, right? And all of a sudden, they're doing awful. Nobody's going to theaters anymore to see Marvel Cinematic Universe. Why? Because they're bringing in characters

who a four time were not gay, all of a sudden, all of a sudden are now gay, right? Or, you know, Captain Marvel, for example. I didn't have problems, per se, with Captain Marvel, other than the fact that the original Captain Marvel character was not a female. Captain Marvel was a male. But they cast these roles, and it's woke stuff,

where they're trying to make a male into a female. I don't care, it's not a big deal so much to me if you're swapping races, whatever, I don't care about that. But when you start pushing certain agendas and it becomes obvious that the agenda has been put in front of the story, and so the agenda is more important than the story, that's a problem.

And that's what the viewers in this, all this, the fans of these, the types of programming in these types of movies, they're seeing this. And so when you lose half or more than half, because it's obviously more than half of the population doesn't like this woke garbage, because they're plummeting, they're tanking, and people are getting fired. Star Wars, some of these woke directors and writers and things are being replaced, but they're not replacing them with the right people.

And so they're perpetrating the same issues over and over again. And so they get caught in this cycle, what's going on, what's going on? People, open your eyes and see that America is tired of this woke garbage, stop serving it to us. We love our Marvel characters, we love the Star Wars universe.

We love these old Disney movies of Snow White and the Wizard of Oz. Nobody wants to be spoon-fed this wokeism though. And I think yeah, I mean you're right, it's just we're done, we're fed up and that's kind of where we're at. That's a nation and I think a lot of the changes and things that we're seeing now yeah it hurts but whatever I guess you deal with not having bud light deal with not having disney you deal with Not having a bunch of illegal aliens exactly people just stopped by him. Like you said because who was that the uh, The gay guy that bud light used he was a drag queen something dylan

Dylan mcvaney Yeah, yes And which was crazy. Why would you serve Dillon McVaney in commercials to your beer drinkers? Like that's the opposite of what, that's the opposite thing you wanna feed them. And of course that's gonna hurt your sales. Why would you do that?

What makes you think that America's accepting of this thing? I actually- And then they doubled down and said, oh yeah, no, we support this. And it's like, okay. Right. Are you up and up on the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe thing? Are you a fan by?

I'm not. No, okay. So let me get a quick rundown here of Captain America. In the comic books, Captain America passed off his shield. I can't remember what the storyline was in the comic books, but in the movie, he passed off his shield to a Falcon't remember what the storyline was in the comic books but in the movie he passed off his shield to Falcon instead of the Winter Soldier. In the comic books he passed things off to his buddy Bucky Barnes who was a buddy of his back in World War II. Alright so they took this, Captain America took this serum back in World War II and he

was frozen ice for a long time and he came back to modern times, right? Bucky Barnes was his best friend in World War II, but Hydra got ahold of him, okay, and they brainwashed him, and they made him do very bad things. Hydra is like the bad guy, to, you know, like the antithesis of the good guys, okay, or shield, and so he's doing these bad things, but he snaps out of it eventually,

he kept America safe, so he got all these high morals. He refused to see Bucky as the villain here, and he's got this good stuff on the inside of him still, and Hydra forced him to do these bad things. But he passed his shield off to him whenever he kept America died. However, in comic books, they passed it off to the character of Anthony Mackie, who's a phenomenal black actor. And it didn't bother fans that they passed it off to him

instead of to Winter Soldier. What bothered them was this. I'm gonna play you a sound bite right here of Anthony Mackie. This is what made the new Captain America 4 sales. Cause remember, Captain America's dead. The new Captain America is now the character, the Falcon, played by Anthony Mackie.

And he says this right here, and this is what killed Captain America 4. For me, Captain America represents a lot of different things and I don't think the term, you know, America should be one of those. That's it. That's as simple as it is. Captain America represents a lot of things

and there's even a longer version of that, where he talks about how Captain America stands for justice and truth, the American way and all this other stuff. And he goes on to say, Captain America is a lot of things, but whatever he said here, America is not one of those things. That's the wrong thing to say about the most patriotic,

iconic Marvel or cartoon character in the United States. That you're supposed to be representing. Right. And there is a slight, I haven't seen Captain America yet because of this. Like you said, don't drink it. If you don't like, just don't buy that product. And so because of this, I'm not gonna buy that product

because I already pay for, I'll wait for it to go where I can stream it and some of my stuff that I pay for. I'm not gonna go into the theaters and give them a dime of my money because of this comment right here. This is bull crap. And the fact they're being allowed to say things like this.

And back in the day, actors were given an NDA pretty much where they couldn't say too much and they were more muzzled than anything. Just shut up, let the sales fly on this, at least until the movie's been out for a while, then you can go do your interviews and stuff like that. But they released this type of interview before it hit the box office.

And the box office, because of stuff like this, it tanked badly, awful. And they're trying to sell it, like it's still doing well, but it's not. Yeah, I mean, it could've been a great movie, a great story, and personally, if I was on the fence about going to sell it like it's still doing well, but it's not. Yeah, I mean, it could have been a great movie, a great story, you know, and personally, I, if I was on the fence about going to see it, I sure as hell wouldn't know.

My brother saw it and he told me that, cause I guess Harrison Ford, well, I don't guess I know, Harrison Ford played the Red Hulk in this and the Red Hulk pretty much, Harrison Ford, carried the movie. And I guess they reshot this so many times and there was so much money put in this budget. They went way over budget trying to make this thing work

right because they kept getting everything wrong and I don't know what was going wrong along the way. Maybe that will never be released to us. But Harrison Ford being the iconic actor that he is, carried the movie according to my brother. I'm gonna take his word for that. But Anthony Mackie, the whole purpose, and I would see it just to see Harrison Ford.

I love Harrison Ford. I've been a big fan of his since since he was Han Solo in the night in the night early 1970s. I watched him in the Star Wars movies in theaters. I love every one of his movies. I'm a big fan of his 1923 series the spin-off from from Yellowstone. I love Harrison Ford and I'd go see it for him but this thing right here that Anthony Mackie said, it stirs me, it rubs me really the wrong way. So I can't do it.

I'll just wait for it to stream. Yeah, and I think people don't realize that those aren't microaggressions to people like us. I mean, that's a big deal to make a statement like that. It's not like you're just, you know, your product placement is just so in the movie or something like that. It's, you know, you've got something going on

upstairs if you've got actors that are basically don't care, and just not. And I'm not gonna go out and protest. That's fine if that's your opinion, but keep it to yourself, because people are putting actors on pedestals that they should never be on. They should just be ignored. They're not politicians, and that's where they put them up there like they're politicians and they somehow think

they're bigger than they actually are. Nobody cares. You might have a small group of people on the left that care what politicians say but most people have no no they don't care and I'm one of them. I don't care what you think, what you say, keep your mouth shut because if you if you open your mouth I'm not gonna buy your product. Am I gonna go picket your house and protest your house and protest where you're filming? No, that's not how I, as a conservative, will work. I will cast my ballot and not buy your product. Yeah, and I mean, I've seen it in comedy, too.

I mean, nobody made any jokes or snide comments about Biden over the last four years. And the way we are three months in and it's like nonstop, just every comedian, because I like to listen to comedy on the way home, or way home or way to work or whatever, but anymore it's like okay, I'm just gonna throw another dose of that in, guess I'm changing the station, you know?

So, that works for me too. That will do it, Ryan, for this hour of the rise of the republic, man, I wanna thank everybody that's listening to the rise, I do have some good news, I wanna throw this out there real quick, Ryan I remember last week we talked about the audiobooks man I just had I had a German publisher reach out to me say hey would you be interested in putting up your No Light Beyond it's a zombie novel that I wrote back in 2017 putting it up in in German have it translated into German so so I'm holding a physical copy in my hand here, Kain Leit Dahinter, No Life Beyond, the German version of it in my hand. It's

really neat to look at to have a version of the German book that I wrote back in 2017 doing pretty well in having a second edition in German, 2025. It is really cool, Die Evolution der Zombies, I guess. It's really cool and I got two more books besides that on the way. I submitted because that was doing really well. They wanted to link in my After the Pulse series, which are survival post-apocalyptic books. They wanted to tie those in. Very cool. Congratulations, that's awesome. Thank you, yeah, but those, I got one of those

is called, Homestead, Giehoft. Giehoft, G-E-H-O-F-T, I don't have a physical copy of that yet, I have ordered it, it's on the way, should be delivered I think tomorrow. And I have book two, Deadfall, is on the way. And there's no German translation for the word dead fall that we have, we know that to be like a trap that you make in a survival situation.

But however, in German there's no dead fall, that's an English word, an American word, there's no word in German to translate dead fall. So they asked me, what do you mean by this, dead fall? I said, well in America, in survival terms, it's a trap. So they said, okay, so the perfect word, dead fall, I said, well in America, in survival terms, it's a trap. So they said, okay, so the perfect word for dead fall in German is Todesfou, and Todesfou in German means death trap, which pretty much is the same thing.

Yep, it translates, it's just different American words, but that's how it translates. And so both those books are, Gehofft is in German right now, it's available. And also Kindleight, Dovinter is available also, No Light Beyond and Homestead both available in German versions and tomorrow, I believe, book two of After the Pulse,

you guys would know it as Deadfall, now Todesfell will be available tomorrow. And Kindle, probably the day after that in print, so in paperback. So I'm really excited about that. That's good news. That's awesome. All right, that does it for this episode of the Ryzer Public.

I'm L. Douglas Hogan. And I'm Ryan Buford. Thanks for joining us, everybody.