The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - January 28, 2022

Episode Date: January 28, 2022

This week on The Texan’s “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses a response from the Texas military addressing accusations levied at the department, how Texas suppressor manufacturers are responding to a new state law meant to exempt them from federal regulation, candidates refusing an endorsement from an advocacy group, Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick throwing their weight behind reconsideration of a ruling on the GOP’s election reform bill, an FBI raid of a congressman’s home, the inside scoop on an abortion ban proposal in Abilene, the Dallas man who provided the Colleyville terrorist with his gun being charged with a federal crime, Texas Democrats calling for an end to Operation Lone Star at the border, drama in Austin’s office of police oversight, the attorney general suing Google again, and a retiring Republican senator making waves with his statements in a deposition.

Howdy, howdy. Senior Editor Mackenzie Taylor here on our weekly Roundup podcast. This week, the team discusses a response from the Texas military addressing accusations levied at the department, how Texas suppressor manufacturers are responding to a new state law meant to exempt them from federal regulation, candidates refusing an endorsement from an advocacy group, Abbott and Patrick throwing their weight behind reconsideration of a ruling on the GOP's election reform bill, an FBI raid of a congressman's home, the inside scoop on an abortion ban proposal in Abilene, the Dallas man who provided the Colleyville terrorist with his gun being charged with a federal crime, Texas Democrats calling for an end to Operation Lone Star at the border, drama

in Austin's Office of Police Oversight, the Attorney General suing Google, again, and a retiring Republican senator making waves with his statements in a deposition. Thanks for listening, folks, and enjoy this episode. Why hello, folks. Mackenzie Taylor here with Brad Johnson, Daniel Friend, Hayden Sparks, and Isaiah Mitchell. What, Hayden? It just looked to me like I got somebody's name wrong. Why hello? What is this? It's howdy. I know. Well, because in the intro to the podcast, I usually say howdy, so I stop myself. Yeah, but then you usually say howdy again.

We don't need excessive howdies. It's just like howdy, howdy. Yes, that's true. Exactly. I could go back and like- Oh, instead of howdy, folks? Or what are you saying? I'm just saying you say howdy multiple times, and now you're diverging from that tradition. Correct. At least she's not saying good stuff anymore.

Watch me say it multiple times this podcast i try really hard usually i'll say it like once instead of every single ending to a segment i still it's still in my vocabulary clip of it i could just like drop it in after every little break well i think at the end of the year, Daniel, or maybe even six months through, we should do a blooper reel or even just a funny little montage and publish that. That'd be fun. Well, it might just be fun for us. Maybe.

Yeah. It might not be fun for you. Nah, that's true. A lot of them are probably inside jokes that the general public would not know because we're weird. We are. But every week, Daniel cuts out at least a clip or two and shares it with the rest of our team. Yeah.

Sometimes I share them. Sometimes I keep them for myself. See, that's the problem. I know that there's a folder of these things that you could very easily splice together and publish. And that could be entertaining or problematic.'m unsure of of which that might i actually need to like get it organized in a folder because right now i just like save the clips to like one giant folder and it's just it's messy got it well organization is is is king as i could tell you as my planner has arrived in the mail, I'm officially using my planner.

I wondered if you would mention your planner. Thank you. I wanted to make sure everyone knew that I am in fact planning my life once again. With all the inspirational quotes in it. That is exactly the opposite of what is true. No inspirational quotes whatsoever. Not yet.

You'll put them in there. No, here's the thing. I will guard my planner from all of you because I could see you guys handwriting inspiration. I could see you guys handwriting inspirational quotes. I could see Hayden handwriting inspirational quotes. Just remember, let go and let God. That was so quick. Okay, well, on that note, we're going to jump into the news.

Hayden, since you had such an inspirational quote to share with our listeners and me, we'll start with you. Let's talk about the Texas Military Department. What were the original complaints levied against the department that spurred a response from the Texas Military Department? Well, they were serious accusations because they involved suicide deaths, which are always tragic. And they stemmed in large part from reports from the Army Times and a press conference that was hosted by GOP gubernatorial candidate Alan West with former Command Sergeant Major Jason Featherston, who was a senior enlisted advisor in the Guard. They criticized the rapid deployments on Operation Lone Star, the ostensible denial systemically of hardship requests, and the apparent lack of necessary equipment, which they all contended had contributed to morale problems that culminated in the four suicide deaths and another attempted suicide.

So the suicide deaths were a large part of the criticisms of the handling of Operation Lone Star. They also detailed paycheck problems that are not disputed. The TMD, the Texas Military Department, has acknowledged that there were pay stub problems. However, they have disputed some of the other claims that have been made about paychecks being denied entirely. But what's important to remember about the nature of these criticisms is they are bipartisan. Beto O'Rourke, of course, who's a Democrat contending for the governor's mansion, has criticized Abbott on this point as well as West and Don Huffines. So these are bipartisan criticisms as the primary day contest gets closer and Operation Lone Star has been criticized overall as a political stunt by Abbott. Of course, there have been numerous tactical benefits to Operation Lone Star, but the nature of is they are all criticizing Abbott and Major General Tracy Norris. when during the second called session of the state legislature, a bill to provide billions

of dollars of additional funding received votes from both Republicans and Democrats. So the criticism of late has been bipartisan, but support for the funding was also bipartisan. So there are a lot of moving parts on this issue. Certainly. Let's talk about who spoke on behalf of the TMD and the highlights of their statement colonel rita holton is the public affairs officer for the tmd she gave a detailed and full response to many of the accusations in the media although she didn't name specific outlets or the specific reports she was referencing she did one by one go down the list of many of the claims that have been made. She stated with regard to the suicide deaths that only two of the four deaths were by people who were deployed on Operation Lone Star. And she further stated that there's no evidence,

those were her words, that they occurred as a result of the denial of hardship requests. And she said there have been 900 hardship requests, 75% of which have been approved. Last year, according to the colonel, there were nine suicide deaths, tragically, out of 22,000 personnel in the TMD. And she stated that information to place the numbers that we're discussing in perspective. The administrative pay challenges, which is how she referenced the paycheck issues, are being handled through their chain of command and through their paycheck hotline, which she provided for guardsmen to access if they are experiencing pay issues. She said that 75% of the paycheck problems have also been solved and guardsmen who were lacking pay or receiving back pay. And the reason for

these paycheck issues is there were more than 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed due to this mission. And they had to be deployed rapidly, according to Colonel Holton, because unlike an overseas disaster or something out of state where there may be more time to plan, this was happening, the words she used, in our own backyard, end quote, and the federal government's inaction, according to her, left the state no choice but to respond by deploying thousands of National Guardsmen. So, they are addressing the administrative pay challenges, according to her statement. And then finally, she stated that there are austere environments on the border. And I will say the tone of her comments were that this is something that Guardsmen train for,

and they are trained to face living conditions that may not be ideal. However, she did concede that there are areas of improvement that are being addressed by the chain of command. But she did deny that they are being deprived of necessary equipment. She said ammunition, armored vehicles, all the necessary equipment is being provided. COVID-19 protocols are being followed. That was another point of criticism. And that only 1% of the Texas military department is currently in quarantine for the coronavirus and they're being monitored by medical teams. So those are some of the highlights of some of the problems that have been reported and then Colonel Holton's response.

Yeah, so let's talk about Colonel Holton's specific response to a lot of the reporting that's going on about Operation Lone Star. What did she have to say about media coverage of the operation? Holton condemned what she called irresponsible journalism, specifically with regard to the suicide deaths. She stated that the media ought to respect the privacy of the family members at this time, and the deaths are under investigation, and that investigation process should be allowed to play out. Of course, the statement did not refute many of the problems that have been reported. There are living condition concerns, and many guardsmen have been asked to abandon their civilian lives within day's notice

for a mission that is uncertain from their perspective and that they will have to be serving on for possibly a year's period of time. So definitely a difficult situation for anyone to have to face that. Although she did dispute some of the factual claims and condemned the fact that many of these outlets were basing these reports on anecdotal information, documents that are questionable, according to her, and possibly information that is imperfect and incomplete from the Texas Military Department's perspective. Got it. Well, Hayden, thank you for following that. We'll continue to keep an eye on what's going on there.

Certainly interesting to see the back and forth. Isaiah, you published a piece this week that I think is fascinating, really interesting. You wrote on this a while ago, a new bill that specifically deals with Texas-made suppressors. Let's start there. Remind us real quick what this new law does regarding gun silencers and how this legislation works. So since the 30s, the federal government has required people looking to buy suppressors to pay a $200 tax stamp and go through a long registration process. So last year, the legislature passed a law meant to exempt silencers from this regulation if they're made and sold in Texas, kind of a 10th Amendment principle. It forbids state and local governments from enforcing federal law on these silencers. But before a citizen goes off and starts making these things meant to be exempt, the citizen must provide a written notice to the Attorney General

Ken Paxton of intent to manufacture exempt suppressors. Then Paxton has to seek a declaration from a federal judge that the law does abide by the Constitution. And the reason they have Paxton kind of test the waters first is because there are other states that have tried this. Kansas passed a similar law a while back. And afterwards, there were these two citizens that thought, oh, great, suppressors that we make here and sell here are fine. And so they engaged in a transaction without going through the whole ATF process. And both of them got federal convictions, like life-altering convictions. And so having Paxton get a judge say the law is constitutional

first is kind of a safeguard from that happening again. So that's the aim. Talk to us about what suppressor manufacturers have had to say about the law. Well, there are four or five based in Texas, and three of them got back to me, all with fairly negative opinions of the law, ranging from apathy to outright disagreement. The Texas Silencer Company is actually the biggest one in the state. They have not submitted a letter to the AG of their notice to manufacture made in Texas suppressors. They don't really have an interest in doing that. Interestingly, they suggested that an individual might be better suited to contact Paxton and go through this process than a federal firearms license holder, because the immediate penalty that they would face for going through this process and ignoring the

federal process would be losing their license and they'd go out of business or whatnot. They suggested, however, that I asked him if there was a particular reason why they hadn't attempted to get this process going with Paxton. And Seth DeSaro with the company told me that, or he suggested that doing so might raise eyebrows at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF, who governs this process. And I'll try and find his words here. He said, you could possibly catch the attention of somebody in the ATF who would see that as intent to sell the silencers without doing the paperwork. So, again, but he says that they haven't clarified to him that they would respond punitively to just reaching out to the attorney general. He's suspicious of it, though.

Torrent suppressors got back to me. That company has written to the AG. So they are interested in manufacturing these made inrent suppressors got back to me that company has written to the ag so they were they are interested in manufacturing these made in texas suppressors um they however had a negative opinion of the law really more negative um than the texas silencer company um they said that suppressors are governed by federal law not state law the only way we see this getting any traction is if the state issued licenses which they didn. Either that or the federal judge would have to impose jail time on ATF agents that violated the state law. So a couple of interesting alternatives that I don't know if the legislature explored. I don't know how workable those would be. But they went on to say

that in either of those cases, the ATF would just revoke the license of any participant, making it then illegal to do business outside the state. And either way, it's basically a no-win situation. The paper the law was written on was far more valuable when it was blank. And by that, the guy that spoke here from Torrent said that all this law has done at this point is have people kind of hunker down and avoid buying suppressors because they think that eventually they'll be able to buy a suppressor in Texas without going through this registration,

which is not going to happen anytime soon. The last company that got back to me was Dark Horse out of Santa Ana. It reminds me of that Katy Perry song from like 2012. Anybody know that song? I do. I've been to the pool. You've been to the pool? Who's Katy Perry?

Good question, Daniel. I like how Brad was the only one who nodded, because of course Bradad wouldn't for a while brad was listening to katie perry radio on spotify on repeat yes for like weeks yep i just remember it wasn't weeks it was like no brad it was weeks because i have it was weeks i guarantee you anyway dark horse isaiah yeah i mean i just remember like at the robert lee pool one year it was that cloud Cloud 9 one, and then it was Dark Horse. Anyway, I can't keep it straight. More importantly, Dark Horse Sons of Company said that the law wasn't well communicated. They have not written to the AG.

The guy that I spoke to from that company mainly objects to trying to change law through the courts, both on principle because he doesn't believe in making law that way. And for practical reasons, he said that he doesn't want to be a court case. And that's the only way he sees this getting changed is through federal courts. Now, has Paxton sought a judgment from a court yet that this law is constitutional? He has not announced that he has, and he did not respond to our inquiry about it. And as I mentioned, at least one of these companies, and I don't know how many citizens, if any, have submitted this notice of intent to him. The law says that the attorney general shall seek a judgment. That's the exact word. And we shall versus may question in law is always very interesting, especially when legislators are actually on the floor debating this right is yes it's compelled to or do they have permission to right and um and so

this bill which went into effect september 1st says that the attorney general shall seek this declaration from a federal court and um i i cannot confirm that he hasn't but he has not announced that he has and he did not respond to our inquiry about it. Well, thank you for covering that, Isaiah. Very interesting stuff and a great piece to read in terms of what these manufacturers here in the state are saying. Hayden, back to you. There was a lot of chatter this week about endorsements made from a group, and specifically, there was some drama surrounding the acceptance of these endorsements. But let's first talk about the entity. What is the Libra Initiative? Who did they initially endorse and why? The Libra Initiative is an interest group that operates under Americans for Prosperity, which is a nationwide advocacy group with conservative slash libertarian

philosophies. And they issued endorsements in Texas Senate races. Former Senator Pete Flores, a Republican of Pleasanton, who is running for Senate District 24, was endorsed by the group, as well as State Representative Tan parker who is a republican of flower mound running in senate district 12 and maize middleton a republican of wallaceville who is running in the galveston area for state representative for state senate was also received the endorsement of the group they rejected the endorsements prompting a response from the libra initiative yeah so tell us about this reaction from flores parker middleton um you know to these endorsements what did they have to say and what was the end result they roundly rejected them and two of them

went so far as to say that the libra initiative was not to use their names on campaign materials flores and parker i believe were the ones who stated that and essentially banned them from mentioning them in their campaigns even though the libra initiative stated that they had thoroughly researched their records and believed they agreed with their policy positions on key issues and were in fact ready to mobilize voters and other resources to help elect these candidates. That goes to how important it was to these candidates to make sure that people understood that they did not agree with these endorsements because of their position on immigration, which these three candidates

characterized as amnesty or letting people cut in line. Now, the Libra initiative is responded, and this goes to a broader debate over how do you handle not only keeping people from entering illegally in the first place, but the people who have already entered and perhaps even been here for years and built lives here and have friends and jobs, etc. The Libra initiative said that they do not support the status quo, and they also support a path for legal status for a group that is usually termed dreamers. There's been debate over that term, but essentially the people covered under President Obama's DACA program, which allowed people who arrived here as young children or as minors a path to legal status slash citizenship, depending on the proposal. This was never enacted into federal law, so there have been a variety of different proposals that have

been out there, but thera initiative said they supported that, but that the three Republicans who rejected their endorsements rejected it on the basis of a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization of their position. So this whole fracas was about immigration and whether or not the Libra initiative supports strong border security, which they claim that they do. But these candidates had very different beliefs about the Americans for Prosperity slash Libra initiatives stance on immigration. Well, Hayden, thank you for that. Certainly some scuttlebutt that we were paying very close attention to, and we'll see how that might influence campaigns. There have been candidates

who were endorsed by the labor initiative who have not rejected the endorsement. It'll be interesting to see kind of where that line falls and how it affects campaign messaging. Thank you, Hayden. Bradley, we're coming to you. Let's talk about some statewide elected officials. Texas Republicans are largely rallying behind a push for the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider a ruling on Texas's election reform bill passed by the GOP this last year, specifically about who may prosecute election fraud allegations. Who joined that effort this week? So the top two state elected officials in Texas joined it.

Both the governor and lieutenant governor lent their support to the effort that is currently spearheaded by Attorney General Ken Paxton. And the Republican Party of Texas is also a big player in this. Additionally, 14 state senators submitted an amicus brief siding with Paxton in his petition for reconsideration. Well, Patrick signed on to that amicus brief this week. And for the lieutenant governor to join in a dispute involving the Criminal Court of Appeals, that's not insignificant. And not only did Patrick jump in on that, so did the governor. Patrick said, of course, in announcing this, if the court's decision stands, certain rogue county and district attorneys will be allowed to turn a blind eye to election fraud and they will have the final say

on whether election fraud is prosecuted at all. And shortly after Patrick said that, Abbott joined in through a spokesman saying, Texas passed this nation's strongest election integrity law to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat, cracking down on voter fraud. Texas' highest law enforcement officer as the constitutional authority to enforce that election integrity law the court of criminal appeals needs to uphold texas law and the attorney general's responsibility to defend it of course abbott was also previously on the supreme court

of texas he is an attorney and so he has some previous experience in this, but the fact that the top two elected officials in the states are joining on to this is certainly notable. Yeah, and particularly after others have already joined, it's interesting to see these two, particularly in a heated primary, not that that specifically would hold any water, right? This is about the office, not the person on paper, but regardless this would give attorney general ken paxton more um more maybe not more power just restore a power that he previously held um it'll be interesting decision we're over yes overturned um well actually it's the next section we'll get into that so um the texas legislature passed the election reform bill that explicitly empowered the ag to prosecute

election fraud throughout the states it says it in the law um and then explicitly empowered the AG to prosecute election fraud throughout the states. It says it in the law. And then last month, the Court of Criminal Appeals, they ruled that only county and district attorneys may prosecute those offenses. And so this has a lot of Republicans worried because we've seen they're worried that district attorneys and county attorneys will turn a blind eye to election fraud allegations when they occur. State versus local. Yep.

And again, it's the theme of Texas and something I like to harp on quite a bit. But the Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court in the state on criminal issues. And so it's not like this can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. This is whatever they decide is final. And we'll see where they go, especially after this additional pressure. But Paxton has filed a motion to reconsider. And so that is where it stands at the moment. And we'll see what the court does with that. Very good. Well, thank you, Bradley. Daniel, we are coming to you. A South Texas Democrat has been in the news for some very interesting reasons. Talk to us about what is going on with Henry Cuellar's district. Last week, representative Henry Cuellar, whose district represents San Antonio,

and then it stretches down to Laredo, so a lot of South Texas. It's kind of a competitive seat still, even after redistricting. But Cuellar's house was actually raided by the FBI last week in a probe. The FBI agents investigated his home and also his campaign office. There's kind of sparse details about what this fbi investigation was going up actually about uh quayard did say however that he was going to be cooperating with law enforcement and he also released a statement later after this has kind of been in the spotlight for a little bit uh saying that he he committed no wrongdoing and that this investigation will show that um but uh the few details that we do have uh uh, some sort of an idea about it, it apparently

has something to do with Azerbaijan, according to one report. How do you say that? Azerbaijan. Got it. Yeah. It's a, it's a country, tiny little country over near Russia, Turkey, that kind of area. Got it. So what kind of ties does Quare have to Azerbaijan?

Yeah. Did I get to Azerbaijan? Yeah. Did I get it right? Yeah. Wow, go me. So he does have quite a bit of involvement with the country and some connections there. He's had several interactions with the ambassador from Azerbaijan. He also serves as the co-chair to the Azerbaijan Congressional Caucus. So he is involved with kind of the lobbying going on from that country with Congress. There's also some controversies that came up in the past decade, actually,

that are kind of related to this, potentially related to the FBI investigation. It could just be something completely unrelated because we're left with no details. So we're just kind of parsing together what we do know uh what's connected with azerbaijan and henry quay are uh trying to uh i know there's a gif out there with a the person with the red string trying to make all the connections it's a little bit what we're doing here just trying to like figure out yes yeah whatever it is i'm always saying philadelphia I knew you were going to jump in on that. Oh, I love that. I mean, there's Brad with the cultural reference, or the actual explanation of the reference I was trying to make. I just know the image.

You're doing great. So, the Red String, there are some controversies in the past with Henry Clare and also just other congressmen and Azerbaijan and kind of tangentially connected. So one of those was a congressional trip that was a spotlight of controversy back in 2013, where several members of Congress, including, I believe, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas, as well as you had South Texas Congressman Ruben Hinojosa, who was down, I think he was either in the 15th congressional district or the 34th, one of those down there in South Texas, um, went on this trip, uh, that was sponsored actually by an Azerbaijani, uh, oil company, state-owned oil company.

Um, but they were not apparently aware that it was being sponsored by this state-owned oil company and they went on this trip and then there was a kind of investigation about like why are these congressmen you know going on this trip sponsored by this company that's state-owned so it was a lot of controversy the house ethics committee later cleared the members of any wrongdoing saying that they acted in good faith and were actually misled about the source of the trip's funding um now this ties back to cuyar uh in a little bit of a way apparently actually one of his staffers was apparently on that trip um but besides that uh later in another kind of separate uh controversy that came out in 2015 from a report from USA Today,

showed that Kuer's campaign actually received several controversial donations that were tied to the Gulen movement, which is kind of a radical Islamic movement that's really heavy in Turkey, but then also Azerbaijan, kind of that general area of the world. It is worldwide, but that's where it's kind of biggest, I guess. Yeah. So Cuellar, along with several other congressmen, received these kind of controversial donations from individuals who, you know, they were making $35,000, $40,000 a year, but they were maxing out their federal donations to campaigns. And so there was a lot of questions about like, why are people donating this much? Are they actually contributing to this? So USA Today

did a little bit of a probe into that. And one of the individuals who donated to queer's campaign was a man who later became the president of a houston-based uh turquoise council of americans and eurasians which was actually one of the sponsors of that controversial congressional trip so there's some connections there with campaign money and azerbaijan because again azerbaijan is over with Turkey and the Gulen movement. So lots of red string here. Is any of that connected? We'll wait and see. But those are some things in the past that could be potentially part of this investigation that is in line with the FBI unit or the DOJ unit that is actually doing the investigation. They would do this type of thing of looking into campaign finances and violations of that sort. Okay, well, let's pivot to the more concrete

portion of this, which are the political ramifications, right? I mean, an FBI raid in a congressman's office or home is going to have some sort of consequence politically. What are we seeing so far? So the big things that we're seeing is obviously this is the now central issue of the campaign, both from Republican side and Democrat side. The interesting thing about this race is Henry Coyier is one of the most moderate Democrats in Congress. And so he has been the target of progressive primary challengers. In the past, actually in the last election cycle, he had a challenge from Jessica Cisneros, a very progressive candidate who had the backing of Elizabeth Warren and other progressive, just that side of the party. Democrats, yeah. And so she actually ran a pretty close primary election back in 2020, and now she's running again. So this is definitely going to become a pivotal issue in

the race of progressives are trying to pull the district. Now, the district, like I mentioned, is also very competitive in being South Texas. This is the part of the state that is swinging more toward Republicans. And so Republicans are trying to actively try and swing this part of the state. And so you even have on the Republican side, you have several different candidates. One of note is Cassie Garcia, who's a former Cruz staffer, Ted Cruz staffer, who has the backing of Senator Ted Cruz and is gaining momentum on the Republican primary. So you have this kind of tug of war going on between progressives and Republicans already. So you throw in a controversy like this into the mix, and that will create a lot more chaos. So it'll be interesting, you know, do Democrats say, hey, Henry Cuellar is going to lose a challenge because of this FBI probe to Republicans? Or does if progressive candidates

are successful in kind of ousting him, does that actually make it easier for Republicans to win? Because you now have someone who's more progressive on the ballot instead of someone who is more moderate that might reflect the voting population a little bit more. So that'll be interesting to see how things play out there. Very interesting race. Yeah, certainly. Well, thank you for following that for us and we'll see what we can find out as time goes on. Okay, Isaiah, we're coming back to you. You have written several very interesting in-depth pieces this week, and the second we'll talk about on this podcast today has to do with Abilene and its Sanctuary City for the Unborn movement. We've seen a lot of action go on, specifically in West Texas, with this movement. Talk to us about the you know, the citizens

of Abilene, they're considering outlying abortion within city limits. How does this process work in the city? Well, for those of y'all who followed the way it went in Lubbock, it's essentially the same deal. They've been trying for really over a year now to get the city council to consider it, the mayor to consider it. And now that those efforts have faltered, they year now to get the city council to consider it, the mayor to consider it. And now that those efforts have faltered, they are trying to get it onto a petition where a citywide vote will pass this ordinance, the proposed ordinance. So according to the Abilene City Charter, proposed ordinances can be submitted to the voters by a petition signed by 10% of the voting population of the last regular municipal election. And I talked to several people involved in this effort, and it's still up in the air whether or not they're going to, they're trying, obviously they're trying to gather signatures for the

petition. And if they don't get enough to get it on the May ballot in time, then they're going to go for the November ballot. And they're not sure, even at this point, which one of those they're going to shoot for. Yeah. So talk to us about what insiders are saying about the way city leaders feel about this ordinance, this movement. Well, what's interesting is that I reached out to Abilene Mayor Anthony Williams a couple times, and neither time he got back to me. But some people a bit closer to the situation say that he personally opposes abortion and is pro-life and is curious about the ordinance but reluctant reluctant to touch it to pass it and um so one of the one of his friends actually a local pastor named scott beard is the man leading the initiative to get petition signatures in abilene and he i guess hangs out with out with Williams all the time. I don't know if that's

the right way to put it, but he's been meeting with Williams a lot lately about, you know, this initiative and the petition process and everything and figuring out political stuff, but also talking to him about, he's been trying to convince him to, you know, again, for over a year now to try and get this on an actual city council agenda and he's called williams public silence on the issue puzzling but said the mayor has expressed wariness about possible litigation against the city taking caution from the advice of abilene city attorney stanley smith markley dixon is the founder of the sanctuary cities for the unborn initiative abilene would be the 40th and he has traveled to all the other 39 towns in Texas to personally introduce this.

He's the guy behind the initiative statewide. And he echoed Beard's remarks about the city attorney discouraging the passage of the ordinance in Abilene, despite curiosity on the part of Mayor Williams. Shannon Thomason is the mayor of Big Spring, another town that passed this a while back. And he says that after Big Spring passed this, Mayor Williams actually called him, curious about the ordinance. And they had a brief conversation about it. Thomason obviously spoke positively of the ordinance, but said he wouldn't be surprised to learn that Smith opposes it. So that's the situation in Abilene with Mayor Williams. Talk to us about how common it is for city leaders to avoid this proposal in solid Republican areas. Well, it's extremely common, actually. And normally,

most of the 39 existing so-called sanctuaries in Texas passed their local abortion ban ordinances through the city council. And so it's rare for this, or it has been rare for this kind of process to go this way. And the reason that they went this way in Lubbock, and the reason that they're going this way in Abilene, and also San Angelo, Lindale, and Plainview, the petition route, is because city leadership, again, according to people familiar with the situation, mainly because of the advice of city attorneys, has been reluctant to people familiar with the situation, mainly because of the advice of city attorneys, has been reluctant to touch these ordinances. And there are obvious reasons why, you know, namely Roe v. Wade, and they're just reluctant to think that they can truly outlaw

abortion in city limits. It's obviously an upstart, long shot kind of attempt. And we'll get into some legal context behind that here in a little bit but what's interesting about this phenomenon is that it's taking place in very deep red areas yeah and so in lubbock for example um the city council rejected it twice first after executive session with a law firm and then in an actual city council meeting but when it went to a general vote it was passed by almost 64% of the population. If I recall right, it was 63% and some change. So this initiative is very popular in these areas, but it's still commonly snubbed by city leadership. And I've reached out to all the

city attorneys that I mentioned for these cities in this article. None of them got back to me. Obviously, what they advise city leadership in the executive session is privileged, so that can't be divulged. And the city leaders themselves, the mayors and the city council, are often very reluctant to explain their opposition to these ordinances. And so it was, I mean, just as a behind the scenes, like it was very difficult to try and achieve a degree of balance in this article with regards to support for the ordinance and criticism for it. Yeah. Because city leadership that opposes it in these Republican areas has been very quiet about why.

Very tight lipped. Right. And so, for example, in San Angelo, they're pursuing the petition process there as well, as I mentioned. And that was after they had made a lot of attempts to get it on the city council and there was kind of an 11th hour decision on the city council on October 5th where they're fixing to make a vote on or fixing to take a vote on this ordinance and it said at the last minute there was a consultation with the city attorney they went into executive session spoke to the city attorney Teresa James and came back out and instead agreed by a four to two vote to consider passing a resolution in support of the Texas heartbeat act

and in support of the right to life afterwards. And obviously an ordinance has legal effect and a resolution does not. I talked to the guy that's leading the petition process over there, another pastor named Brian Buck. And the way he characterizes the meeting was that he had, their movement had four council members in San Angelo on record supporting them. And when they brought up this alternative agenda item, the resolution, the way he puts it is that a couple of them had this deer in the headlights look. They didn't realize how quick it was happening. And so two of the counselors that were supportive of the ordinance voted for the proclamation. And Buck theorizes because they're

now like one of them has signed the petition. He can't remember if the other one had or not, but the other one that may or may not have signed the petition to this point was the one who got it on the city council agenda at first. So their support is obvious based on their public actions. And so Buck's theory is that there was a hasty process and the ordinance was glossed over due to advice of the city attorney, again, who also did not get back to me. So the legal context for this is important because for those who haven't followed this, the sanctuary city process across Texas so far, it would seem obvious why city leaders would be reluctant to pass it. And to a degree, that's, you know, it's been the reason so far in Lubbock and elsewhere when they do speak on this in meetings and such, that they're worried about Roe v. Wade and about litigation

from pro-trust organizations that could be costly to the city. Jonathan Mitchell, who is the former solicitor general of Texas, co-authored these ordinances and has maintained a promise to defend the cities that adopt them at no cost to the taxpayer. In addition, Lubbock was sued by Planned Parenthood after adopting the ordinance, won at district court, and then the news just came out very recently that Planned Parenthood dropped its case against them in the appellate court, which means that the ordinance is still effective. And so it's weathered that Planned Parenthood suit and another ACLU suit against seven of the cities a little while back that Daniel covered. And so it's got a modest but unbroken record of success in

court, which still has not persuaded city leaders, along with, on that same side of the scale, the popularity of the initiative among the general population. And so, but trying to get an explanation why from these city leaders has been difficult. Certainly. Well, thank you for following that. It really is a story worth reading. I think I say that about all our stories, but this is a fascinating story about the inside baseball of all of this sanctuary city for the unborn, you know, this movement. And we've covered it from the genesis of the movement till now. And you've done a great job of giving readers a little bit of an inside look at what is going on there.

So thank you for that. Brad, we're going to come to you. This week, we were given an update to the Colleyville hostage situation from a couple of weeks ago. Talk to us about what happened so authorities charged dallas resident henry michael williams for illegal possession of a handgun as a convicted felon he williams allegedly sold a taurus g2c pistol to the terrorist malik faisal akram which akram then used to take hostage congregation beth israel in collieville obviously that ended after 11 hours luckily all the hostages got out safely and then akram was killed when the fbi stormed the synagogue but the exchange of the weapon was made two days before the attack and the intersection in south

dallas talk to us very quickly about how authorities actually tracked him down. Using cell phone records, investigators tied Williams to Akram and brought him in for questioning shortly after the standoff ended. At that time, Williams said he recalled meeting a man with a British accent but could not remember his name. Akram, being that British citizen, he is a British citizen. He came here two weeks before the attack. Williams was arrested on January 24th for an unrelated outstanding warrant british citizen he is a british citizen he came here two weeks before the attack williams was

arrested on january 24th for an unrelated outstanding warrant and while in custody that is when he confirmed to authorities that he sold akram that weapon fascinating very very fascinating um any other updates on this investigation not a lot of new information out there so far but manchester police have arrested it's in england of obviously have arrested two men this week in connection with the crime nothing more on that so far well well thank you for that bradley very interesting stuff hayden let's talk more about the border shocker um shocker shocker why have texas house democrats asked the u.s attorney General and Secretary Mayorkas to shut down Operation Lone Star. Shock of shocks. Texas House Democrats wrote a letter critical of Abbott.

Yes, they have asked the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to shut down Operation Lone Star. They raised several constitutional concerns, including their fears that the procedural rights of illegal aliens are being violated, and that Abbott is encroaching on a federal responsibility by arresting people for trespassing and other state crimes with the express intent of deterring illegal immigration, which they believe is a federal responsibility only, and he should not be allowed to do. We discussed Colonel Holton earlier in her statement that the TMD put out. She also stated that 10,000 illegal aliens have been arrested and referred to federal officials, and 9,000 deportations can be tied directly to Operation Lone Star. So those are some of the results of Operation Lone Star and why it has

drawn the attention of Democrats. Yeah, the ire of these Democrats. It will be interesting to see what kind of determination is made specifically on the constitutionality of that. So Hayden, thanks for following that for us. Bradley, we're coming back to you. Man, back to back almost. That's not true. By definition, it was not back to back.

Yeah. Oh, boy. Words, they mean things. I need more coffee. Okay, let's talk back to back. Yeah. Oh, boy. Words, they mean things. I need more coffee. Okay. Let's talk about the city of Austin. So the city's Office of Police Oversight was found last month to have abused authority by a third party arbitrator. This week, you wrote a piece on the office's director and looked into her past specifically in her tenure heading into the department.

How did she arrive in this position so she took over the op excuse me opo as an interim director in 2018 which was then made permanent months later and that is the position she currently currently holds she previously however before she came to austin worked at chicago state university where she was involved in a controversy with professors and between professors and the administration. Muscadine and other administrators tried to shut down a faculty blog that was used to criticize the university presidents and other administrators in that side of the university. And they tried to shut it down using vague speech

codes, something about cyber bullying. Basically they invented this out of whole cloth just to get, get at that, uh, that blog and get it shut down. But they were sued by the professors who eventually won a $650,000 settlement. Uh, but during the case, it was discovered that Muscadine and other, the other admins, including the university president, tried to pressure another employee to file a false sexual harassment claim against one of the professors in the lawsuit. All of this was to try and get rid of that professor. And eventually she was let go, apparently due to budget cuts made by the state of Illinois. But then she made her way to

Austin and began working her way through the city ranks, eventually starting with former city councilman Jimmy Flanagan's office. Got it. Now, since she's taken over this department, there have been allegations of employee mistreatment, right? That's what a lot of this story centers on. Yeah, there's a section on it in there. A group of now four former OPO employees have alleged bullying conduct by Muscadine during their time at the department. The alleged conduct includes berating employees for taking a pre-approved vacation, pitting employees against one another and insulting employees. City Manager Spencer Cronk apparently did not, according to the employees, did not respond to their appeal.

This was made, I think, sometime last year. No, it was in 2020, I think. Yeah. So that's where that was. There wasn't a lot more detail to that, but it's still outstanding. Certainly. Now, the center of all of this is the feud between Muscadine and the police that she's tasked with overseeing, right? The officers themselves. Talk to us about the cliff notes of that section. Yeah, so Muscadine has been confrontational with the police, including exceeding her authority in officer misconduct allegations under the labor contract between the Austin Police Association and the OPO.

She can feel complaints, but not really anything more. There's no investigating involved. That's up to internal affairs in the police department. And so the arbitrator found that she had violated that. Additionally, she's really an activist involved in pushing critical race theory type strategies in the department in the larger effort to reimagine the police department. Some of these have included racial sensitivity trainings, both for the police department and its officers and using city funds to pay community members to attend them. And then when criticized back in 2020, her response was, I'm a black woman in Austin who's working in police oversight. And it's really unfortunate

that my credentials and attempt for my reputation to be in question. And it really begs the question, if I look differently, what would happen or if it would happen to anybody else. And so that's not really addressing any of these criticisms. I think it's also important to note that these criticisms, all of them are coming from not just white men. This is not just strictly black and white, as it were, in this situation and any of these criticisms levied at Muscadine. So, regardless, Cronk has maintained his support for Muscadine in that role, and she currently remains in the position, but we'll see if that continues going forward. Thank you, Bradley.

Isaiah, the Attorney General is suing Google once again. What is it this time? So, Ken Paxton claims that Google has been violating and continues to violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by harvesting location data of users while misleading users about their ability to turn location tracking off. And so I remember when I had a smartphone and I read about this, one of the reasons why I stopped having a smartphone, but you can turn off that little location deal. But then on the internet itself, there are websites that still, like if you're using Google Chrome or Pixel phone or so forth, there's still websites that know your location, even though the phone itself is not directly tracking. I'm not explaining this well, but you get the picture.

And so he's doing the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. TDTPA is what I'm going to call it from now on because I'm bad at speaking. And that is one of Paxton's handiest tools in the box. Not just him, just the attorney general, the office of the the attorney general and he has used this before another high profile um i think we can hazard to say political lawsuits um like against gritty after the winter freeze uh and the lawsuit regarding um that ended in the opioid company settlement um and in a more recent one against a couple of pharmaceutical companies that he claims have been marketing puberty blockers. And so this is one of the latest uses of this law in one of Paxton's suits.

Yeah. And Paxton has sued Google more than once, as we've already alluded to. Right. Yeah. So most recently, just last week or a couple of weeks ago, he sued Google for allegedly running misleading smartphone advertisements and so um on iheart radio there were some djs saying that they had used some google product i think it might have been the pixel phone i'll have to go back and look at his suit or his original complaint and but it hadn't actually come out yet and so he's claiming that that's false advertising because there's no way these djs could have used it and so this one was interesting because it's a little bit more substantial. It's not a one-punctual event. It's like a common long-standing Google practice. And I think more in line with the image that Paxton is trying to build of fighting big tech. This is more of a big techie kind of thing to do, tracking location and

so forth. Big techie. Right. I like's a it's an adjective it works it works well well thank you isaiah daniel we're going to come back to you kel seliger is back in the news a retiring state senator that we haven't heard from in just a little while um but he was the lone republican who voted against the senate redistricting plan last fall um and he had reason to according to him now in the ongoing lawsuit against this plan he was interviewed in a deposition and a lot of folks are reading it including you what are some of the things that he has brought up that are notable in that deposition so there's a few things that are notable uh the central part of the deposition or one of the central parts of the deposition

is actually this declaration that cinder Kelseliger signed back in November of last year. He actually signed a sworn statement that had a lot of different points to it. And notably at the end, he did claim that, quote, it was obvious to me that the renewed effort to dismantle SD-10 violated the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution. And so a lot of the commentary that he has in this deposition is kind of surrounded about that sworn statement. And so some of the interesting things that were kind of brought up in this deposition, that sworn statement, he said, was actually brought to him directly by Senator Beverly Powell. Now, just a little bit of background on the whole Senate redistricting plan and the

lawsuit that's going on right now. Beverly Powell is in Senate District 10, which is Tarrant County is where it's anchored. Now it reaches out into some rural counties. Republicans redrew that district in the Senate to favor Republicans so that Republicans can win it back. And so they completely kind of changed the whole district so that Republicans would be able to win. And that's the centerpiece of the lawsuit, the centerpiece of the complaints against the Senate district plan itself. So Beverly Powell and some other people are suing to try and change the plan and essentially get it back to what it had been. Now, that's not really the issue that Senator

Kel Seliger had with the map. Now, he does make that claim, or he did swear that statement that he believes that it violates the Voting Rights Act, and he's kind of positioned himself against the redistricting plan. But a lot of his basis for that is that he's really complaining about Senate District 31, which is his own district. And that was redrawn also in the Senate so that several of the panhandle counties up in his West Texas district, and he's from Amarillo, so that he's near these panhandle counties, were taken out. And other counties down in the Midland, Odessa area were added in. And he argues that this was done to favor his opponent, Kevin Sparks, who had launched a campaign against him and was running. Sparks actually got the endorsement

from former President Donald Trump. And then not too long after that, after the whole redistricting debacle and the endorsement from Trump, Seliger said that he was not going to be seeking re-election. So a lot of drama there. And he's basically blaming the senate of moving those counties out to favor sparks and that was his big problem with the redistricting plan is he blaming the senate or is he blaming the lieutenant governor what's his both so i mean his basis he says that uh dan patrick he he believes that dan patrick lieutenant governor uh instructed um jo Huffman, who is the Senate Redistricting Chair, to basically redraw the map in a way that would favor his opponent. So that is his claim. He doesn't go into too many details about why he believes that's the case.

But there is certainly no lost love between um seliger and pack and dan patrick yeah um one thing that's interesting in the deposition uh that uh it kind of ties back to the sworn statement in the sworn statement um he claims that uh there were several untrue explanations were given for why the lines were drawn in the way that they were drawn. And so. Is what Seliger is saying? Yes. So Seliger had said something along those lines in the said that there were untrue pretextual explanations so that Huffman and all the other senators who are backing this plan made false statements about like the reason for their plan. And so in this deposition,

he's asked by one of the attorneys, you know, what is, what district is at play here? Like what, what are the reasons the untrue pretextual explanations that were given? And he said, what lines, the attorney asked, what lines do you believe were drawn with untrue explanations? And Seliger says, oh, the lines in Senate District 31. So he's not saying that it's Senate District 10, which is really the question of a lawsuit. He's saying it was his district, Senate District 31, that were given the false explanations as to why they were changed. Because, again, he believes it is drawn from a political motivation to oust him rather than changing it from a perspective of agricultural and oil and gas perspective.

Got it. Which is kind of the explanation that the Senate gave. Very, very interesting. And there's a lot of other very interesting things in here. Yeah. If you're just a political nerd and you want some juice go read this deposition it's kind of fun juice some juice that's right okay it's very juicy thank you daniel for that um well one thing we do a lot in this office is argue now i won't say that um it's unhealthy whatsoever i think it's

just from the debate um unless you're isaiah then he would say it's very unhealthy and it is borderline unhealthy sometimes i would agree no it's not it's always unhealthy he's arguing with you oh my gosh i am so dense i feel so stupid oh my gosh well you should given your perspective on some things. Oh yeah. Well, let's talk about those perspectives, shall we? More than heaven. I cannot win. But I will say one thing that we do often is arguing in the office about topics we are going to talk about on the podcast.

And then we don't have as much ammunition once we actually have mics in front of our faces. And today, Daniel and I nipped that in the bud. I think we did well. I get to go see Hamilton this weekend. the musical very excited thrilled purchased the tickets prior to covid and finally get to see it like two and a half years after i purchased these tickets it's gonna be awesome i told daniel this and his immediate response was what daniel i don't remember yeah you'll have to come up with something well i think i was confused because i

didn't know what you were referring to with Hamilton. Oh yeah, you thought maybe I was going out to Hamilton, Texas. Which is not the case. I'm going to the play. Because the play was such a long time ago that I didn't know that was still a thing

that people were going to go see this. Or it was viral or took over popular culture so long ago everybody was listening to the same stupid songs from the play wow yeah you really are going for the drug killer i look you are throwing around the word stupid like it's going out of style sure yeah that's what i'm just waiting on like an explanation from both of you yeah we're gonna talk i mean yeah what's what's your point daniel you you hate hamilton i think it's way overrated it's like the play is overrated the musical is overrated or the founding fathers overrated or both both i think the well i think my opinion on musicals is probably

less informed because i just certainly i don't it's not my thing yeah so i think on a musical it's going to be overrated just because i don't like it's not your thing but i think because of the musical now hamilton himself has become way overrated among the founding fathers like there are many other founding fathers who i think are more significant more important actually had uh a, more important, lasting influence on the country. Interesting. And not unfair. Not an unfair characterization.

I don't disagree, especially if you come from a more, a different, I don't know, political inclination than those who Hamilton is kind of the father of their form of thought. But, also, it took me like 20 words to get to the point of that sentence brad i don't want you to ever say the word hoomps on a mic again i had to hear that hear that in my ears and that was very very disrespectful um i guess brad will drive us closer and closer into an opinion podcast exactly i'm trying very hard to thread the needle here so i'm going to ignore that question regardless um i don't know this is an honest question i don't hamilton fell into obscurity for nearly two centuries

before this came out before the ron chernow biography came out. Yes. And then the musical. So he doesn't really have a mark on, a clear mark on ideological trends. It's more just a pop culture thing. Any sort of financial, like the U.S. financial system, he had a huge hand in developing and forming. Huge hand. Oh, absolutely. That's different than ideology. And even the Federalist Papers were talking about. That's different than ideology.

Yes, but he, okay, we are getting into such weeds here but even the federalist paper is talking about how many he wrote is unbelievable and the federalist papers which are the anti-federalist papers have a huge impact on how the country was formed yeah i'm not arguing that i'm arguing that i'm not saying he's like my question was was about who... The Madison of the Constitution. I'm saying... Sorry, go ahead. Who he influences ideologically. Because I don't think that's... You are such a nerd.

I should not have to defend this position to you. Other than him being a pop culture phenomenon at the moment. You are such a nerd. That's going to go into the little clips that I have. Perfect. That's really good. But you are. I don't understand why we're having this conversation because he is the father of a lot of what became the u.s financial system i'm not arguing that he had absolutely had an effect on the founding of the country but you said people who um certain

ideologies today he has an effect on but he he fell into obscurity at least as the current makeup of you know who's a republican who's a democrat who's a conservative who's a liberal as that developed well he didn't really have any effect on on what that became today because nobody wow seriously every history teacher I ever had put Hamilton and Jefferson at opposite poles

as more and less government yeah and I don't know when this book came out this is a recent thing so well you know what

I'm just going to stop trying to explain this well I get what you're saying but I feel like that does predate whatever book this is because I heard about Hamilton when I was like a sophomore

yeah and Chernow came out in the 90s I think so it's out in the 90s, I think. So in the broadscape of this country, it's a very recent thing that Hamilton became this massive figure. All right. Interesting. I don't necessarily agree with that,

but I understand he's not like your Jefferson, your Madison, your Franklin, your Washington. Jefferson had a clear had a clear effect on the ideological trend all throughout to today totally agreed but he also did not have that but he also was president right i'm not arguing okay and here's my point we should have a musical about oliver ellsworth not alexander hamilton that's like if you're gonna lift someone up okay from a more obscure position because hamilton was was not president like thomas jefferson yeah james madison so if we're

gonna lift up one of the founding fathers why don't we lift someone up who's cooler okay and you would suggest all for ellsworth there you go yeah okay Yeah. Okay. Well, Daniel, I think we should, on the Texans' time and dime, I think you should start writing a musical. Okay, like, sure. And we can pick the top three funny fathers and go from there. We can produce them. We can hold little shows here at the office.

Bring in, I'm sure, huge crowds of people to watch us perform. I'm not going to perform in a musical. It's okay. You're right. That's your contribution. Brad can sing his Greek letter alphabet song and we can go from there.

Brad doesn't want to do that. No. Well, Isaiah or Hayden, do either of you have opinions on Hamilton? The musical or otherwise well um I will admit uh to some shame that Hamilton is one of those things where I just took a look at who liked Hamilton and what else they tended to like and it was in the same cultural corner as like John Green and Disney nostalgia and I thought I'm probably not going to like this it's not quite your again it's not your thing. Not my, it didn't seem like it'd be my thing.

And I say this having not seen a single minute of it. I did have a history teacher, like I alluded to before, who absolutely loved the musical. I have a feeling she really liked Hamilton too. And she also leaned on John Green quite heavily for her lessons. And so I thought like, oh, this isn't going to work. And then it turned out to be, what I heard from her I didn't like. And additionally, like Daniel, I'm not a big fan of musicals, with the big exception of Fiddler on the Roof.

I think that's great. But I haven't heard a musical other than, yeah, Yubbity Dibby. And I haven't heard a musical other than that one that I've taken to as much. Okay. That makes sense. They're quite fun i like them i'm not as much of a musical nerd as a lot of other folks i was homeschooled with are but regardless hayden any opinion i just gotta say no matter how you believe as far as what influence alexander hamilton has today or whether that's a recent phenomenon, he died in a duel, which is an incredibly lame way to die.

How is it? It's the opposite of that. I know. It's actually kind of one of the cooler parts. It's basically like, okay, you can shoot me with a gun. I mean, I don't, I just think that's incredibly dumb. I do agree. And to be killed by the vice president, like he wasn't even killed by the president.

He died in a duel with the nation's second in charge so i i just think that's a huge mark against alexander and for that reason i'm just enraged by this whole conversation wow the rules of dueling were pretty weird like you just walk 10 steps in one direction each way and then fire a gun at each other. Honestly, when I was swords is far more skillful. When I was in grade school or middle school, I don't know. When I first learned about the concept of a duel, I'm just like, it's so stupid. It feels like a total gamble. You turn your back to someone and then it's basically whoever is able to shoot first gets to kill you.

Or you can opt to shoot in the air which is entirely odd and self-defeating i don't know either you shoot in the air and you're the honorable one but you get shot or you both shoot in the air and there was no point for the duel whatsoever or you both shooted at each other and maybe both of you die i can't i can't even and honestly i can't even remember as i sit here why they were dueling. I'm sure that it was not worth getting shot over, whatever it was. So, that's my official position on duels. Not that anybody asked about that at all, but I felt like it should be stated.

Yeah. We should have a duel with Nerf guns. Well, you shoot me with a Nerf gun all the time. So, it's like a one-sided duel. Yeah, I'm saying we should make it fair i'll i'll let you have a chance have my own to shoot a nerf gun okay i agree mac are you up for this uh what am i up for an office wide well we're talking about daniel daniel and i dueling but we could just have a nerf gun as long as it's yeah as long as it's nerf guns i'm way good i just have a Nerf gun war. Yeah, as long as it's Nerf guns, I'm way good. I do have a Nerf gun in my drawer. I forgot about that Nerf gun.

I need to use it more often. Well, this has been entirely unproductive, which is the US state. Yes, Brad? I would like to give my opinion on the original topic, the original question. I thought you already did. Did you not? No, you already made a sub- oh okay some points that you made the comment that you made no you okay i'm not gonna okay i'm going to choose to bite my tongue and not argue

with you about this and i will absolutely open the floor for you please please bless us with your opinion and thought i don't see you biting your tongue just there's there's literally sarcasm dripping from her microphone right now i think that despite the historical inaccuracies of hamilton that the current state of today's civics education is so bad that anything that gets people excited to learn about the founding fathers is a net good um even if it's you know a musical and i admit i i like the music it's interesting um my dad who's a massive history buff loved listening to it uh so um we should listen to that on our road trip moving down here to texas so oh that's awesome i think it's it's a good thing even though i have not watched it and i will probably not watch it um but hamilton himself was a an incredible man with

horrible flaws like the motor he had was insane um the motor you mean the like uh discipline or ambition yeah to just work work work um but luckily there was someone in his life george washington to provide a rudder to that otherwise it would be directionless and just quite destructive so that is my opinion on hamilton uh and the musical itself separate from the bout that we had earlier on the subtopic of whether hamilton has influenced the current political ideologies i agree with that though like you saying that it's a net good because otherwise muse i mean i am not generally interested in musicals but you're right when you say people don't know enough about the founding fathers,

because a lot of our everyday vernacular and a lot of the things that we take for granted do have to do with the views of founding fathers. So even if it's a musical, yes, it's very, very true perspective. Very, very much.

And totally agree. I think it's a net positive. Wow. That's a drastic change from the way you started letting me answer that question. But Brad, I never know. With your disdain.

For you? Yes. Oof. So sorry about it. That's not true. Brad's grandma. I really appreciate your grandson. Okay.

On that note, everyone. I love the spontaneous shout out to his grandmother. She's doing damage control. I just really want to make sure she's clean up from the last 20 minutes that's exactly right oh boy well this has been quite the fun topic folks thank you for bearing with us if you've made it to the end of this podcast we applaud you vigorously and we will catch you next week thank you all so much for

listening if you've been enjoying our podcast it would be awesome if you would review us on iTunes. And if there's a guest you'd love to hear on our show, give us a shout on Twitter. Tweet at The Texan News. We're so proud to have you standing with us as we seek to provide real journalism in an age of disinformation. We're paid for exclusively by readers like you, so it's important we all do our part to support The Texan by subscribing and telling your friends about us. God bless you and God bless Texas.