Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Underreported Stories, where I cover the news that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News failed to report on or just don't report on enough. Joining me today is the host of Crafty Thinking. Carolyn Kraft is here on the show today. Welcome, friend. Hi, guys. Thank you for having me. I'm really excited. Yeah. Of course. So, I really wanna give the audience an insight into what you do with your platform.
So I I kind of say what you do, I correct me if I'm wrong, is providing people with opposing arguments. Right? You're not just giving maybe your point of view or the right point of view or the left point of view or even what you may deem to be the good and moral point of view. You are giving everybody every side so as to help make them informed decisions. And I've always subscribed to the idea that hearing opinions that you don't like sharpens your own opinions.
Is that what got you motivated into doing this and everything? Yeah. So, I mean, honestly, you said that better than I could have said it myself. That's exactly what I do. That's my goal. What really motivated me to do this was the fact that so I went to law school starting in 2020, so I'm a lawyer. And I noticed when I was in law school, how many people did not wanna engage in arguments with people that they disagreed with. And I was like, we're in law school.
This is literally your job to understand the opposing side's argument and to be able to debate that. And people were just, like, shutting down. Yeah. You you would think. But people were just shutting down any opposing argument, which at the time was conservative. All of them, like, conservative, more libertarian perspectives or just not mainstream shut down all the time. And so in that experience, I was like, okay. If law school's like this, I'm sure it's like this elsewhere.
And, I mean, I went to UCLA undergrad, so I experienced it there as well. It actually it wasn't till 2020 really was the tipping point for a lot of places. Like, UCLA wasn't that crazy. And then after 2020, it was just, like, a lot more censorship and stuff and, like, no room for engagement or disagreement or conversations.
And so that's really what kind of motivated me because I was like, if law school students and lawyers are not willing to engage in these conversations and understand opposing arguments, then I know, like, most people probably aren't given the opportunity to look at these things or talk about it. So I decided that I wanted to and I'm also a huge first amendment, like free speech and just the freedom to think.
Like, that's kind of my big thing is, like, I want to give people the necessary information so that they have the freedom to think instead of being influenced by outside actors, like sensationalized news or politicians or anything like that. So it's kind of a combination of that, like, free speech and understanding opposing arguments and being able to think for yourself. Absolutely. Help. And no. No. No. That was amazing.
And I think that's we need more of that on all social media apps, not just the ones, that are dying a slow death, by the way. I'm wearing green, but, full transparency, friends. We are recording this on Friday 17th. I know the show is gonna come out on January 21st, but I'm going to the inauguration of president Trump, so I'm not gonna be in town to do this. But, you know, I said I was wearing green because it's Friday.
We found out that the TikTok ban is going into place, so I should be in black because I am mourning the loss of this app. I know not everybody agrees with me, but I I'm just really, really sad about this, and I'm trying to keep the energy positive. I got some extra coffee for this afternoon shits we're doing here because I was like, I I'm just, like, a little depressed right now. So I need to talk about happier subjects.
And what I wanted to do is pick your brain, miss Carolyn, on if you had any, like, bold or out of pocket predictions for the first 100 days of the Trump administration, because that's what we're in now. I mean, this episode, like I said, coming out the 21st, what are your predictions for the first 100 days? Okay. So I have a predict I actually have a theory that's kind of bold. Love it. And I've been, like, kind of, like, thinking about this for a while and trying to remember it.
And I looked it up and I was like, okay. Yes. This is exactly what I'm thinking of. I'm thinking that what Trump is going for right now because he's, like, going out there, like, we're gonna acquire Greenland. We're gonna acquire Canada. All of these things. And everyone's, like, kinda freaking out, which first of all, I wanna say, he's a businessman. He's, of course, going full mergers and acquisition on everyone. Like, why are we that surprised? But besides, like, putting that to the side.
Like like, everyone's, like, freaking out right now. It's in the news and stuff. And something I learned when I went to UCLA, so I was one of my majors was political science, and I took a class on psychology and political science. Essentially, the psychology or, like, the psychology that a lot of leaders use in order to, you know, to show themselves in certain lights or convince the population.
And one of the theories is the madman theory, which is this idea that like if you're perceived as an irrational leader, it gives you an an an advantage in the international realm when it comes to coercive bargaining. And so I I keep thinking this idea that, like, okay, maybe with all this whole, like, he's gonna acquire Greenland and maybe the military is gonna be involved. He's gonna acquire Canada or whatever.
He's kind of trying to put himself out there as this madman individual who cannot be predicted. And if you can't be predicted, that gives you a lot of power, especially in the international realm. And domestically, the news source the news outlets are eating this up and making him sound even crazier. Mhmm. And so and he's kind of adding to it, of course, as well.
And so part of me is kinda wondering, like, I think part of it is he's trying to flex his muscles, flex America's muscle muscles, be like, remember, like, we actually can do these things. You guys should be concerned about this or take us more seriously. Then he's also trying to become or be or come across as unpredictable so that he has more power. And so I don't think he's gonna end up or we are gonna end up acquiring Greenland, Canada.
I actually think it might be a psychological move so that we have more power in, like, Russia and Ukraine or some of these other international things that are happening right now. Right. Also, something really interesting is that Denmark has boosted Greenland's military as a result of this.
And I know this has been this has been a huge, point, like, talking point for a lot of conservatives and Trump, which is a lot of these western countries or developed countries rely on America for our military. We have the largest military in the world. And so by doing this, he essentially made Greenland or Denmark increase the military and make Greenland stand on their own two legs instead of depending on America. And that's, like, kind of a really smart move.
So Yes. I think that, like, that's not really a prediction of what he's gonna do per se a little bit because I don't think he's actually gonna acquire those countries. But it's a prediction as to, like, where his mind's at and what he's actually doing strategically in the international realm. But that's something I find really fascinating. Yeah. So I am with you on that.
I think that that was highlighted in the first Trump administration, and we're getting it, like, tenfold now in the second Trump administration because they've workshopped out what's gonna work and what's not gonna work. But last night, I was, like, putting this together, and I was thinking to myself, okay, what are my predictions? And I was sitting in bed typing.
And my first and only prediction is that there's gonna be a massive switch up in the way that the newsroom is done for press briefings. I think they're gonna get rid of reporters, and there's gonna be more reporters and influencers alike getting opportunities. I think people like, not necessarily myself, but people like me, people that do things similar to me are gonna now have a seat at the table, which I think is awesome for people disseminating and getting information.
But I'm also predicting that there's gonna be some sort of temper tantrum coming from the mainstream media because Trump is going to punish the bad actors, the bad, journalists who are just not asking hard questions, but asking stupid questions and sending them to the back of a classroom. And it's just gonna be the funniest thing. I think it's gonna be so funny.
My second prediction was that, there's not gonna be so much of a temper tantrum from the left over the push to protect minders from gender affirmation surgeries and whatnot. I actually do think that the left is more on board with this than you would think. And Yeah. Not necessarily the far left, but, like, the average liberal and democrats know that that was a losing issue. So I don't think there's gonna be as much pushback, but totally happy to be wrong.
Before we move on from this though, Carolyn, I'm sitting in bed making these predictions, reading them to my husband, and Jake I asked Jake. I was like, what, like, what are your predictions? Just think he would he would be like, I don't know. He had some of the funniest fucking predictions ever. I had I literally wrote them down and had to share them. Guys, these are are so funny.
He goes, I think that the way that Donald Trump is gonna reinstate the TikTok ban is by posting a video of himself dancing to the YMCA on the app and saying, I saved you. Like, this. Honestly, I kinda I hope Trump is watch like, watches this and takes some notes and does that because that's kinda genius. Like, he should know. And the best I mean, I say the best for last. I love my husband so much for so many reasons that this is so funny.
He said, when Trump buys and acquires Greenland, he's going to change the name to Redland since it gets for the Republican Party. I was crying. I don't know why I thought it was so funny. Maybe it's just because I love him and it's really not funny, but it's funny. I feel like that would be a fair thing to do because we all know Greenland's not actually green. It's actually very white. It's I it's like ice.
So it's like, well, Greenland already doesn't really make sense, so might as well change it to whatever. You can't call it white land, though. I mean, that's just too racist. You cannot do that. Don't do that. No. No. But you're watching, don't do that. I'm dying. Okay. Before we head into underreported stories, there were a couple of breaking news items that came across my desk before we got into this. So I didn't kill it. I didn't send you these before, so I'm sorry about that.
But these are just really fascinating stories. So if you guys know who Sam Altman is, he is the CEO of, OpenAI.
And on January 17th, so, obviously, the day we're recording this, he received a letter from senators Elizabeth Warren and senator Michael Bennett basically saying that he needed to respond as soon as possible to questions about why OpenAI contributed to Donald Trump's inauguration fund, seemingly imputing on Sam Altman that OpenAI was trying to buy power within the future or within now the current administration, the Trump administration, and
sent a letter saying, when and under what circumstances did you did your company decide to make these contributions to the Trump inaugural fund? What is your rationale for these contributions? Which individuals within the companies chose to make these donations? Was the board informed of these plans? Did officials with the company have any communications about these donations to Trump? So on and so forth.
And this is obviously crazy because it's not just Sam Altman that's doing this, but also we saw Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, lots of different millionaires and billionaires contributing this. But what I found to be so interesting was Sam Altman's response to this. It was, quote, funny.
They never sent me one of these when I was contributing to Democrats, which means he'd been giving money to Democrats this entire time, and they took no issue in thinking that maybe he was talking and donating to Democrats for, political or power benefits to his company. But now that he does the same thing for Trump, all of a sudden, it's con considered something that would warrant investigation by Liz Warren and by Michael Bennett.
What's also crazy, just caveating this because I wanna make sure we get all the information out to you guys, Sam Altman tweeted, it was a personal contribution as stated. I am confused about the question given that my company did not make the decision. Sam Altman of OpenAI gave money. OpenAI did not give money to Trump's inaugural fund.
So not only do they have just they're making a story out of nothing, but also the Democrats are just giving rationale as to why the government will weaponize you or will go weaponized on you if you try to have or think for yourself or like another side. Caitlin, I know I didn't prepare you for this, but if you have any thoughts, please let me know. Well, I do. I think I have thoughts on, like, everything. But as you know as you know I know.
I think I find this kind of funny because it's like the Democrats are telling on themselves, but, like, in the future. Because first of all, like, there's nothing new about companies donating 1,000,000 of dollars to the president or to the future president or whatever, administrations, politicians. Nothing new about this. And so I know the Democrats are going to get donations in the future. And so now I'm kinda like, okay.
So are they just saying that they're supposed to deny all of these future donations because of some kind of conflict of interest or something? Or, like and they're kind of opening themselves up for future criticism of, like, hey. Guess what, Democrats? You went after Trump for this, and now you're doing the exact same thing. And so it's like it's a very shortsighted thing to do, and I don't like, I I get they're probably they're just I know what they're doing.
They're just trying to generate more kind of sensorialized responses and trigger people and kind of feed into that confirmation bias that a lot of people have against Trump and the Trump administration. But I think it's gonna bite them in the butt in the future, and so I think it's very shortsighted, and it's kinda odd. I agree. I've kinda felt that same way.
I know this is very cultural, but I felt the same way about people that are very anti Carrie Underwood or some of these country artists that are performing at Trump's inauguration as well. People are saying, oh, all of a sudden, I'm on the side of the man that cheated on Carrie Underwood, like, referencing her before before she or before he cheats song. And and they're trying to say this is, like, being a part of the Trump administration makes you, inherently evil.
That line of thinking, I think, was actually very effective in 2016, sadly. It's not working. It doesn't have the same impact or same effect that it does in 2024, and I don't think that that's something that any social media app or any amount of outrage stoked by Elizabeth Warren or Michael Bennett can do. We all feel differently about the people in power right now. It's just the truth.
Yeah. It's it's a very different environment right now, and I think I think the Democrats have been on their heels for a while. I mean, that's why they lost the election. They haven't been able to actually see the environment and respond to the environment in front of them. They're responding to things like 4 years ago.
And so they're continuing to be on the losing side if they don't take, take a beat, look around, survey the environment, and then update their responses as a result result of that. They aren't they're doing it now, and they're gonna have to start responses as a result result of that. They aren't they're doing it now, and they're gonna have to start doing that if they actually want to come to the table and start, you know, winning a little bit.
I know. And I I was listening to Politico this morning, which, yes, vomit. I know. It sucks, but I do it for you guys. For you. Okay? And I was listening to it this morning, and, basically, their whole thing was they had done this panel in Chicago with all the DNC, because the DNC is having elections for the Democratic National Committee is having elections for their new leader. And they held a panel with all the different leaders.
And even Politico was sitting there going, y'all don't even have a vision for the future. You're dealing and hashing out things that happened 4 years ago. And then when it comes to understanding why and what lost you this last election, you have no idea. You just blame Joe Rogan's audience. That was literally what this political piece read.
And I'm like, you guys, if political thinks you're problematic with the way that you're handling and responding to this, I just I don't know what else to tell you. I do wanna get into this other story that, again, throwing it right at you. But this was a quick story that came across my desk today. NewsNation is reporting, and I I trust this source specifically, guys, because I used to work with the NewsNation reporter that is reporting on this.
I trust him explicitly when it comes to stories like this, and he's on the ground in El Paso, Texas or Eagle Pass, Texas, sorry, reporting to us that migrants are self deporting in the days surrounding Trump's inauguration. That is nuts. I think that just speaks volumes to me about the fact that migrants were here taking advantage of of the Biden administration. Look at it. They're just leaving now. What do you make of this? I mean, I just find that really interesting.
I don't really understand the reason behind that. I don't see the like, I don't know why they would do that because I I did read that essentially they are not gonna be able to or probably won't be able to reapply for asylum or to be a legal immigrant. And so they're kinda shooting themselves in the foot. I would like to learn a little bit more about some of the reasons as to why they're doing this to have, like, a better understanding. I find it very interesting. That's for sure.
But I don't I don't honestly, I don't have a ton of, opinion on that because I just don't think I know enough to to really say much. We don't honestly either. We are just reporting this. Again, like I said, breaking news across the desk. And, guys, I am going to reach out to Jorge, chat with him, see if he gets any more reporting out on the ground, talking a little bit more maybe with these migrants, or illegal immigrants that are walking back over, and we will keep you updated.
Okay. Let's get into our docket for today. So here's the stories that we've got going on. A Pentagon aide is getting the boot for admitting he's anti Trump, kind of. He said this in an undercover video, so we're gonna unpack all of that. Plus, we've got more updates on the incompetencies going on in Karen Bass' Los Angeles, as well as a crazy story out of Australia, where the courts have sided with a ped over a child because of gender issues. We have those stories and more.
So without further ado, let's get into the 5 underreported stories that you need to know. Today's show is brought to you by Based, my merch line. And we've just unveiled our winter line with a new beanie, a hoodie, a shirt, and a tote bag. I'm an independent creator, and one of the best ways, if not the best way to support the show, is by purchasing my merch line that represents your views.
Instead of just asking you guys for donations to fund my independent journalism, my business partner and I created a line of merch called Based Apparel. Based basically means the opposite of woke. It means you're based in logic, based in truth, based in facts. You get it. Anyway, head over to basedandlogicapparel.com to check out our latest apparel. My personal favorite right now is our base 2 tone shirt, which I'm wearing right now.
And remember, when you buy merch, you are directly supporting this show. And when you get your apparel, please be sure to tag me on Instagram so I can repost it. A contractor in one of the Pentagon's highest offices has been terminated from his firm. So this all came from an under under undercover journalist at O'Keefe Media Group, OMG. That's what they call themselves. Not gonna lie. That's pretty iconic. But this reporter with OMG had a camera and went on a date with a man named Jamie Mania.
And in the video, you can hear Jamie Mania say he was working with retired generals to stop Donald Trump, who he called a, quote, sociopathic narcissist from winning the presidency. Now I was thinking about showing you guys this video, but it's long and there's a lot of nuance to it. So I'm just gonna break down and distill a few of the statements that were made so that you have all the information.
Long story short, he said he serves as a special adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. So that is his role, very prominent role, allegedly. This is what he said. I don't and a 100% know if this is true. And he worked with a nonprofit called National Security Leaders for America that was actively trying to defeat Donald Trump. And a quick caveat for people out there, remember that he said he is working with a nonprofit, and nonprofits are not supposed to be political. Right?
They can advocate for policies, but they cannot advocate for politicians without a for profit wing. So bad statement on his end, but Carolyn obviously sent you this story. What did you take away from this at first? Well, honestly, my first question or my first comment is just, like, classic O'Keefe situation, like, always having the undercover dates. Genuinely, I'm wondering how good looking these women are.
Because, like, how are these people just, like, giving the most, like, detailed private information that screws them over, especially at this this point when, you know, O'Keefe has been or OMG has been doing this for a while. It's like, okay. If a really hot girl asks me out on a date and starts asking me about what I think about Trump, maybe I should hold off a little bit. Like, I I I that's, like, that was the first thing that went through my mind.
I was like, classic classic, wondering what's going on here. But, I mean, it's interesting because he did say that he was going to get a pretty big job if Harris won. And that's not necessarily, like, a new thing. Right? Both sides do this. This has been since the dawn of time. But it is something that's concerning because, obviously, like, if you are promised a good position, high paying position or something like that, it's gonna sway your opinion and what you're doing in your position.
And that's obviously really problematic. And so, you know, obviously, that's concerning. Also, the fact that he is a contractor and that kind of, like, insulated him is very interesting.
I think, like, whenever we have changes in power, we need to look at all the contractors that are insulated or potentially insulated, and we need to do, like, a brief on every single one and who's kind of, like, working it for that contractor with the administration so that you know that when you're going into it, they're not, like, crossing any ethical boundaries or or they are going to be fighting against you or actively fighting against you,
which is sounds like this guy was kind of planning to actively work against Trump in the administration, which obviously you don't want someone like that on your administration. It's okay to have actually, you should want people who disagree with you because you wanna have educated conversation. But someone who's acting against you actively because they think you're gonna be a dictator, which he thinks that Trump is gonna become a dictator, Yeah.
You don't really want someone like that on your team. I think that's so fair and very valid because the the media will go after people like the or instances in situations like this and be like, Trump is trying to get rid of adversary, like, political adversaries in his administration, and I don't think that's fair or true. You don't need to employ people that think the worst of you.
It I think it's I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it's good to have people around you, maybe not employed in your administration, but around you that might think differently from you so that you can take from that what you will.
But that, I think, stems more from a friendship or a relationship outside of somebody working, you know, with the Joint Institute of Staff office where we're making decisions that will impact not only our American military members, but also the legacy of Donald Trump. Right? Which I could give a shit about the legacy of Donald Trump if I'm being honest, but, like, more so the impact on the American people. But still, I think that that is the mindset of people that are very anti Trump.
And I do wanna really quick touch on that dating point you made. Because part of me wonders with this O'Keeffe thing. This is, like, so I don't know how to put it. Like, not a high brow of me to say. But but don't you think, like, some of these are kind of embellishes or lies? Like, I feel like some of these videos are more embarrassing than they are scary. Because these are people going on 1st, 2nd, maybe 5th dates or whatever.
And they're still trying to, like, you know, peacock to the woman in front of them and, like or sometimes it's a man. It's a lot of gay dating, we have noticed with OMG Media. But they're just trying to, like, showcase that they're a big deal. Like, this guy could be an absolute nobody that has very like, he's the secretary of, you know, taking notes in there, and he has no power at all. But he's just trying to peacock towards the woman that he's dating.
I always want like, I want answers on that before I take seriously what this person is saying. Well, it's like, can we, like, take notes? Can we look at the psychology of this situation? Like, exactly what you're saying. It's like a form of peacocking. Like, how much are they embellishing just to get clout or just to get the girl or guy to like them, and how much of it is actually, like, totally legitimate and true? That's I I wonder the same thing. I find it very interesting. I know.
Well, guys, if you are interested in watching the full video, it is linked below. So feel free to go check it out, and let us know whether you think it's peacocking or real. Anyway, let's get on to our next story, which is up an update on the incompetency that is happening in Los Angeles. So the New York Post is reporting that a crisis response team that rep so this is a separate team, crisis response team, reports to LA mayor, Karen Bass, and this response team has been sidelined for weeks.
This is a team of 100 of trained volunteers with a nearly $1,000,000 budget that has not been deployed until January 14th, which is over a week after all of these fires began. And I think it's pretty safe to assume that Karen Bass may not have even had an intention of using this group at all, because the timeline of it is really precarious. So you had volunteers being sidelined from the beginning.
Some of them then blew the whistle on the fact that this massive volunteer group was not being utilized by the city to help stop these wildfires. They blew the whistle to the New York Post on this. The New York Post then reached out to Karen Bass, and then the very next day, Karen Bass says, oh, okay. You know what? We're actually gonna utilize that team. The timing of it, very precarious. Right?
And so, Caroline, I know you've been doing a little bit of research on the response and how this has been handled writ large. What like, if you could give the city a rating, how would you rate it? F in my book, but Out of out of oh oh, okay. I was, like, out of 10 or 8? Okay. It's your f. Yeah. An f. I mean, it it really and it has, like I mean, you mentioned I've been doing research. I actually so one of my political science was one of my majors. The other one was environmental studies.
So and I went to UCLA. So I I've looked at this for a while. And so a big aspect of this is that it's both the, state and federal government and just kind of their failure to do controlled burns and clear out the the the brush. And so it's creating like liter it's literally Tinder just waiting to ignite. Yeah. But in this particular situation, I think it's really it's crazy that because I and I and I read that the mayor had full ability to deploy these individuals at any point in time.
She did not have to get, you know, any kind of confirmation from anyone or any request. She coulda just done it. And so I'm just wondering why Los Angeles has someone in a position of leadership that just like, I'm not saying that she had any malice intent in this situation. It was probably negligence because I think most people are just pretty negligent in their positions, especially when it comes to bureaucracy.
But, like, how can you be so negligent so as to forget that you have volunteers that would help save people's lives. I just that's very frustrating to to witness and to realize. And it's it's nothing new though. I mean, it happened when I lived in LA as well. And I think one thing is she said that they're going to work to correct the accountability by doing, like, an in-depth review after the wildfires and after they've contained everything.
And I'm, like, asking the Californian people, the people from Los Angeles to please hold her feet to the fire and make sure this review actually happens. And we are actually, you know, holding individuals accountable, including her. Right? Yeah. Because I don't want us to, like, forget about this in a couple weeks and be like, oh, the next crazy thing's happening. Oh, the news cycle, so entertaining.
And forget that she literally promised that she's going to do a review of this and that she's going to essentially hold individuals accountable or reprimand people who are at fault. I'm like, okay. Hold your feet to your fire. Do it. I wanna see it happen. Absolutely.
And, actually, that really leads me to the part of the conversation I was really interested in having with you is that I saw this morning that there are a bunch of conversations, and I think this was Axios that I was reading it on if I remember correctly.
And I was reading my news this morning, and, there were just conversations happening about whether the right is blowing this out of proportion by talking about Karen Bass's failures because, you know, people are already eyeing what's gonna happen in 2026. As soon as one election's done, you know, we're already on to the next. And a lot of people think that, you know, this is gonna weaken Democrat's stronghold in California.
And when I was thinking about it, I was like, why are the 2 mutually exclusive? Like, why can we not call out incompetence where incompetence is due? Because I have no problem. Like, I wanted Rick Caruso to be the mayor of Los Angeles, and I've had no problem calling him out. And it's not even calling him out necessarily, like, as a negative thing, but showing that he has been using private firefighters on his personal dime to extinguish the flames around his house.
And I asked, you know, if you think that's morally right. The audience has by and large, people have been saying, you know, like, I think it's totally fine. I would use it. You know, people are just people, etcetera. But you call out people when they do something that might be questionable, might be wrong, might be really morally wrong, might be negligent, as you say. I don't understand why those two things have to be exclusive from one another.
We can call out incompetence while simultaneously I mean, that competent incompetence does politically benefit Republicans. Yeah. No. I I like, I agree with that. I think a lot of this this has just been like this is a sticking point for me or just kind of a pet peeve of mine in general. It seems people are really obsessed with looking at things in black and white or very binary. Like, if one thing is exists, then this other thing cannot exist.
And it's like, no. Actually, both of these things can be true at the same time. Can we please have more nuanced conversations so we can move towards an actual solution or compromise rather than trying to, you know, separate these two things and deny the existence of 1 in order to bolster the existence of another? I think it doesn't it's not doing anyone any like, it's not helping anyone else. So, yeah, I I would agree with you.
I just I think that you should be able to have both of these two things at the same time. Absolutely. And that is such a perfect segue into our 3rd story, which should be about common sense, which is usually what I think like, it's synonymous in my brain, like, gray area, common sense. Like, some things are black and white, and I get that. But, like, there are sometimes where gray areas, like, coming together, finding mutual agreement, like, that is good and smart and common sense.
But what a city is not is this city is not common sense. Chicago. Okay? It's a sanctuary city. We all know that Chicago has this sanctuary city status, and that means that they local law enforcement is not allowed to work with federal law enforcement or ICE when dealing with illegal immigrants.
But I thought we were gonna have a mutual meeting of the minds because these 2 very common sense Democrats in Chicago proposed a bill in the city council that would have allowed for the city to cooperate with ICE only when dealing with illegal immigrants who have been arrested or convicted of crimes. And, of course, the city council shot it down. And to me, I was like, this is there's no common sense here.
And I was really hoping maybe you could help break down the opposing argument for this, because there are some things that I I look at and I can come to the I I can look at the other side and I'm like, oh, okay. Get their their opinion on this. This to me makes no effing sense. Why are we not getting rid of or utilizing federal law enforcement to get rid of illegal immigrants that commit crimes? Yes. So I yeah. And 2 things to point out about this that I found really interesting.
My cat just jumped on the table. Sorry. Oh, that's okay. Hey, Jag. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Look at Jag. Oh. Y'all are gonna love that. I don't know. I don't think they let I know they love Harper. I don't know. Are you guys cat people too? Let me know in the comments. Yeah. I, he gets really jealous when I talk to people on the phone. He will literally start walking in front of, like, my Zoom calls, like, back and forth. And I'm like, you need to chill.
He now is facing away from me, sitting, looking away because he's mad that I just took him off. And also maybe he wants to be famous. I don't know. Know. Oh my gosh. He already is famous in my eyes. Sorry to cut you off. Okay. I just like Jag you off. Yeah. It was actually Jag's fault. But, I have two points I wanna make. I'll start with kind of like the other side of the argument.
So a big concern here for the Democrats is that the proposal allows police to work with ICE in cases of arrest, not only conviction. And so the fear here is that if there is kind of a like, if someone suspects or if the police suspects someone is, you know, guilty of a crime, that they're gonna end up being called in, like, with ICE and then deported. And, essentially, what that's gonna do is violate their due process. And so then you go into this question of, like, okay.
Do illegal immigrants have due process? Do they have constitutional rights? And the answer is yes. They do. The constitution says it says persons and people when it comes to the constitution and our rights in America. It does not say citizens.
And that kinda does make sense because if we had undocumented immigrants that didn't have specific protections under the constitution, we'd essentially have, like, a really aggressive 2 tiered system where people could be very well abused because they don't have certain rights. And this isn't even a progressive or liberal viewpoint.
It's actually a very conservative viewpoint because justice Scalia himself said that illegal immigrants have under the 5th amendment, the due process like, they have due process in deportation hearings. And so I think what the democrats are concerned about is that this is going to be abused. And essentially, police are gonna be like, oh, I suspect this individual of x, y, and z. I'm gonna contact ICE because now I can do it under this proposal.
ICE is gonna deport them, and they're not gonna get the necessary hearing for the the potential conviction and also for the deportation. So I think that's kind of the big concern. My question is That's really good. I'm just gonna cut you off really quick because my first line of thought, and I'll let you get back into it, was just like, that's, like, valid. Totally. But have you seen the Chicago police department and how underutilized and understaffed they are?
They're not gonna be going after some willy nilly illegal immigrant. They're gonna be going after, again, convicted felons, but continue. Yeah. Well, so what I was gonna say is essentially, like, why can't we find a middle ground here where we essentially allow the police to work with ICE in cases of convictions, and then we just remove the arrest aspect of it?
That way we can protect illegal immigrants' due process rights, and we can also make sure that convicted individuals who are I mean, they're guilty of terrible crimes are are getting deported from America, and we can protect people in Chicago or people in America. I just I'm like, me, can we find a middle ground here? Yeah. I know. It's part of it reminds me a lot of and this might be a bold parallel, but it kind of reminds me of when liberals say they won't carve out abortion up until birth.
Like, there there's broad consensus in America that, you know, abortion up until 15 weeks is okay. I'm not arguing for or against that, but that is largely where the majority of Americans fall on this issue. And putting that restriction on it even though it allows abortion, and it's not good for the pro life group, but it's also and it's better for the pro choice group, but it's not all the way up until birth.
You know, when you ask for those carve outs, most liberals or leftists will just say, oh, well, well, no one wants that, so no one's gonna use it anyway. I'm like, okay. Great. Then outlaw. Like, I don't understand what the problem is if you just wanna outlaw. And I think that's kinda where I look at this law in the same way or this, should be law or carve out in the sanctuary city status is, like, okay. Well, no one this isn't gonna be used or weaponized against it.
And if it does, you know, like, we can make adjustments for it. That's not what this is, though. Like, the Democrats are just shutting this down altogether, shutting down the conversation of it, shutting down the happening of protecting Chicagoans over illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, that is what they have done in this situation. And so, yeah, sure, a more nuanced conversation about it would be great where we have carve outs for, obviously, for due process and whatnot.
But if that was what they were interested in, we would have had a conversation about it, not just a complete shutdown of the bill. Right? Well, also, I think what's really interesting about this, and this goes into my second point, is so my next series is gonna be on immigration. So I've been doing research on immigration and the economic impacts of immigration. Really excited about that. It's Yeah. I think in, like, February, it's gonna start.
But my question is, why is Chicago a sanctuary city? Like, why is any city a sanctuary city? Because the statistics, the studies show that the federal economy benefits from immigration, including illegal immigration, but local and state governments, their economies do not benefit from it. Or if they do a 6 a little bit Explain that to me. So the the federal government benefits from it, but the state and local governments don't? Explain that. I really understand.
Yeah. So a big reason why state governments don't benefit is because they essentially they provide more of the public benefits to immigrants than the federal government does. So the federal government gets to tax immigrants when obviously on their income. Okay. But then the state governments, most do tax on income, but they also provide a lot of public benefits. And so that includes, like I think it's something like 25 states have, in state tuition for undocumented immigrants.
Yeah. About 35 states, they have, like they allow immigrants to have Medicaid and also, another kind of kind of health insurance provision for children without any waiting period. You also have the, or is it Medicaid or Medicare? Honestly, I get those. Medicaid, I'm pretty sure. It's in California and Oregon. At least it's all in those West Coast states. Yeah. And then they have they have to match Medicaid as well. So around 35% of Medicaid is paid for by states, not the federal government.
And so they're doling out so much money in benefits, and all they're getting back is, taxes on income. I mean, I guess, there there are sales tax and and and, I guess, property taxes, but they're still not getting enough. So it's and on top of that, they're actually spending a ton of money on accommodation and housing. Chicago spent a $150,000,000 on housing and accommodation since August of 2022. New York City did it sub in the billions, like 1,000,000,000 or more.
And I talk about this more in reels. 1,000,000,000 or more in accommodation and, housing for immigrants. And so they're just doling out tons of money, so it doesn't help their economy. So that's why I'm like, why are they sanctuary cities? And then I found out, interestingly enough, in 2023, the city council voted against asking voters to weigh in during the March election on whether Chicago should remain a sanctuary city. So they're not even asking the people if they want this or not.
The city council is making these decisions for them. And so I'm like, shouldn't we be asking the people what they want? Is this a democracy, or are we just gonna let the city council decide whether they're gonna spend all this money on undocumented immigrants at the expense of the individuals who are living in Chicago and who are legally there? Oh, it's so frustrating.
No. Thank you for doing that research and and, like, informing us because I I always wondered how that argument was made, and I think a lot of people, like Los Angeles, very recently actually became a sanctuary city, which I was I just assumed they always had been. And the big argument was that there are immigrants in the community who help benefit the local economy, But being able to debunk that with your research, like, thank you.
Please do a reel on that specifically because I'd be so fascinated, and then, obviously, gotta share that with the audience. You guys, I am gonna be very blunt with you. I do not know what we're gonna do here. These next two stories are very sensitive top topics. They're very sad stories. And with that being said, there is a chance that certain platforms, I'm not gonna name names, but certain platforms will limit our reach because of our willingness to discuss these stories.
So we're gonna try to use as many euphemisms as possible, but if the show does automatically just jump to the end right here, you will know that means that we got demonetized. So please please please support this show, so we can have these conversations by buying base merch. Again, it really helps fund this show, and allows us to bring stories like these. If it is not available on the platform that you are watching, you can always always always get it as a podcast on Spotify and Apple.
Thank goodness they don't censor over there. Okay. Let's get into story 4, hopefully. We're getting into this, and you're here listening. So, a Washington Post cartoonist named Darren Bell was arrested for possession of child corn. You know what I mean? An investigation from the Internet Crimes Against Children determined that this individual, this cartoonist, uploaded a total of a 134 videos of child corn to the Internet.
Detectives then went and did a search on Bell's home, and he was arrested for the possession of corn. He is currently being held on a $1,000,000 bail. Obviously, this is appalling. Obviously, is this is disgusting. I know you like to take this from, like, a down the middle point of view, but I I can't help but note that there is so much perversion in liberal politics here, because this is like, how do you defend this? Like, how how do you think as a lawyer?
Like, what is the legal system look like for somebody who did this? There are some topics I'll do it down the middle approach. There are some topics I will not. One of the topics is child corn. It I like, there's no down the middle approach. Okay, at all. Yeah. I find this I find this story really interesting. Like, my personal like, my lawyer brain going like, oh my gosh.
It's so interesting is the fact that, like, the AI corn aspect of it, like, the new aspect that it was AI child corn and how, like, that's a new law that was put in in place and that you you can be convicted of that. And what I remember actually is like so a big portion of my life, I lived in Seattle. Okay? And so a lot of what's going on in America right now, actually, I was exposed to it at a very young age. Like, I like, all these all these top, like, huge hot button social issues right now.
Like, like, OnlyFans, honestly, sex working, pornography, child porn, all that kind of stuff. It's I've already seen all of it. The the everything. One of the things that I read when I was in Seattle and actually, this might have maybe was when I was at UCLA, but LA, whatever, same thing, Is essentially people were trying to make arguments that there should be, like, sex dolls essentially in the form of children.
So that peds will divert their attention to the sex dolls rather than harming children. Oh, my gosh. Yes. Shut up. Yes. And I remember reading this and I was like, appalled. And in this situation, I'm wondering if we're gonna have some people coming out of the woodworks trying to argue that AI child corn should be legal because it is a safer, like, alternative towards instead of peds going to actual child pornography. That's like what I'm wondering.
And, again, I'm wondering this because I've already seen similar arguments literally in, like, when I was, like, 15 years old or 16 years old. I already saw this. And so this makes me wonder. Like, we get into we get into a situation where we ask a question. What mitigates something bad? And then what in what further encourages something bad? So the argument for it, like, in support of this would be like, well, it mitigates it. It makes peds go elsewhere instead of harming children.
But it's like, actually, I think it just encourages bad things. And you this gets into even a larger argument, which is essentially like it it goes into the whole sex working argument or kind of only fans, which is the idea of, like, you shouldn't make only fans or sex work illegal because it's hurting the women. We should legalize it so that you know you know that whole argument stuff. But the thing is is, like, we know that child corn is, and sex trafficking is associated with corn.
We know that corn is very addictive. It has negative mental and medical conditions related to corn, and we know that it increases the objectification of women's bodies. So it's like, is it harmful enough to say that women should not engage in OnlyFans as a result? Right? And you have the one side saying it mitigates it. We should legalize it. We should, you know, get rid of the shame.
And then you have the other side saying, well, actually, there are all these very all these consequences as a result. We shouldn't do that. And I'm just I guess, this is making me wonder if there's gonna have a whole AI child corn debate coming out of the woodworks because we've already seen some, honestly, crazy debates out there. I wouldn't be surprised. There's one at the Supreme Court. It might it might be by the time this episode airs, completed, and we might know the answer.
But, the corn industry right now is arguing that it's against free speech to verify somebody's age before using the site in hopes of, yeah. No. And I've been advocating for this with the American Principal Project that has been, you know, suing the supreme court. We just did an x spaces on it last for this week, technically, talking about just how crazy and insane that is. I just don't think that you can make those arguments, like, without getting to a majority.
Again, the the common sense people of America are just kind of like, no. That's not good. And I don't think these, like, freedom of association or freedom of speech rules when you're talking about the core industry are winning arguments by any stretch of the means no matter where you are in the country. I really don't think that they're gonna work. I do wanna move on to our next story for time's sake, but I just wanted to note one thing. The irony of the situation in that last story.
Darren Bell, the man that is convicted or not convicted, arrested right now on these AI child porn charges has also accused president Trump of being perverted in different cartoons, which the irony. Sorry, guys. I just had to say it. Alright. Let's get to our final underreported story, because we do have a bonus story for you guys as well. Again, this is another really sick story.
So we're gonna be using a lot of euphemisms, including the word crayons, which sounds a lot like another move, another word that you guys are very familiar with, but I'm not gonna use. Okay? You're smart. You're gonna figure out what talking about pretty pretty quickly. So a crayon identifying biological male in Australia has been sentenced to just 4 years in prison for the abuse of this individual's 5 year old daughter. The offender goes by the name Autumn Tulip Harper.
Autumn, and I'm gonna say Autumn the whole time because I could never use the name Harper. Harper would never do this. That's my dog. But Autumn reportedly created and disseminated corn images of the daughter via Discord. Police in the US actually notified Australian authorities about their findings, and an examination of Autumn's cell phone found 77 files of categorized corn. Autumn was reportedly in an online relationship with an American creep, who encouraged Autumn to abuse the daughter.
Now here's where the massive problem kicks in. This has happened back in 2023. Australia kind of uncovered all of this about Autumn. But Australia did not lock away this person and throw away the key. Instead, this person was released on bail and allowed to remain free throughout the trial, and the lawyers representing Autumn made the defense that Autumn committed these crimes to be, quote, validated as a woman.
And worse, the jury bought it and highlighted that gender dysphoria contributed to this. Now, Carolyn, you are a woman, I am a woman. Women do not do this to their children. You do not get validated as a woman by abusing your child. Why would that make you feel more like a woman? I am very lost on this on how the Australian court system or the jurors of Australia could come to the idea that abusing a child of this age would only result in 4 years in prison.
Yeah. I mean, I think the the biggest part of it for me is it's like the psychological mess of that entire case. Like, I don't understand. They're talking they're like, oh, the psychologist came out and said this. And, you know, obviously, this individual is gonna have to get a psychologist, needs therapy, yada yada. And I'm like, okay. Let's pretend you're a psychologist for a second, and you're sitting down across from this individual. How do you unravel what is actually psychological?
Like, what's a psychological impairment? What's a mental illness? And what's not? Are they gonna sit down and say, okay. The fact that a biological male identifies as a female, is that going to be considered a psychological problem? According to the, court, that's not considered a psychological problem. According to the jury, that's not. It's actually the the phobia that the individual was experiencing that actually caused these psychological problems.
And it's this idea that the individual was incredibly submissive or easy to manipulate manipulate that is a psychological problem. And so that's where I'm like, okay. How how do you really unravel the psychological aspect of this, for a psychologist, and how do you make someone better in that situation?
Another aspect of it that I thought was just, like, crazy, and and this is kind of like zooming out at a high level view is that it's another situation of blaming society for an individual's actions. Yeah. On in this situation, on an in innocent child.
This kind of ideology, this kind of belief and framework has become really common in Western countries right now, which is the idea that, like, you're an individual is not held accountable to their actions, for their actions, and instead it's the society's problem. And that's incredibly risky because it takes away the individual's agency, which essentially you're it's this idea that you're stuck where you are. You're always gonna be stuck where you are.
You can't make yourself better unless you rely on society, which that's also incredibly just hopeless. It gets rid of individual accountability. I already said that. It also just makes individuals rely on the government for stuff, which then makes them incredibly easy to manipulate because the government can just say, hey, I'm gonna do x, y, and z for you. Vote for me. You know? And that's this is I think this is a perfect example of that as well. Wow. That was so eloquently put. It's so true.
It is all about getting dependent. And, you know, with the Australian government and and everything that I just witnessed, I was just thinking to myself, there is no society I wanna live in where the people that we're prosecuting it's not like this 5 year old girl could go and prosecute her father for this or her mother whatever the person is. That person doesn't have the knowledge or, like, consent to any of this.
But the fact that the the state or in the state the state of Australia or whatever, subsector that I think their province is there. But the fact that the province or the state as we know it here in America wouldn't go after this person with every fiber of their being and get people on there that can debunk these arguments of transphobia or, anything like that.
The fact that there are people out there that aren't going so hard and that there is an inherent bias in the system over there that would allow the state or the province to not go so hard on somebody like this. I don't wanna be in a country where we are not punishing people to the utmost degree because of because of their perceived gender identity. I don't I don't wanna be a part of that. I think it's just so the west is losing. The west is losing.
Well, the concern is it it's concerning as well because they're not taking into account the trauma or the effect this is gonna have on the victim, the 5 year old child. Instead, they're just doing this entire psychological analysis analysis on an individual and essentially saying, oh, because they psychologically are experiencing this, this, and that, they can't be held accountable for abusing a 5 year old. It's like, I don't personally, I do not care if you are psychologically messed up.
If you are psych if you are abusing a child, you should go to jail for your actions. There should be a consequence to your actions. You should not be able to have some kind of psychological defense that says that you're allowed to essay a child. Like, sorry. Can't do it. Just totally with you. I'm totally with you. And this conversation does not end here. I'm gonna get like, when I get to our last story, or bonus story, I guess, because this one is crazy.
It's got some euphemisms, but let me explain this to you guys because it's just kinda in the same vein as this 4th 5th story that we already talked about. So there is this Instagram account called disabled crayons boy. Obviously, crayons says something else, but it's disabled_kranz_boy. And it follows the journey of a Kranz identifying person who has severe cerebral palsy. And doctors have now injected testosterone and amputated the breasts off of this individual who has cerebral palsy.
And we were debating this a little bit, me and my friends offline, about whether this was more on the parents or the individuals or the caretakers of this individual with the cerebral palsy to allow this to happen, or if this is on the doctors. And I'm curious on your point of view. You know, I have my own, but where did you have sit on this? I mean, my biggest question my first question was, you know, so cerebral palsy affects the brain, obviously, because it affects your motor control.
Mhmm. And from my reading, in 50% of the situations, it also affects your intellect. Right? Your actual your ability, your intellectual abilities, and all of that. And so my question is, in this situation, is the individual affected? Is their brain affected? Or is it just gonna be their motor skills? And I read that in situations where like their motor skills are really really really negatively affected. There's a very high chance that they have intellectual disabilities as well.
And so then it gets to the question of how are you asking for consent? Can you ask someone who has intellectual disabilities to consent to gender affirming care? Can you do that? I think that's I think that's a question we all need to ask ourselves and answer, and we have to have as a society an answer to that. It's something that actually is becoming a big issue in a lot of different areas.
I know there's been a debate when it comes to individuals with Down syndrome if they have the ability to consent to sexual relations. Actually, in one of my classes in law school, we looked at a case where an individual was completely paralyzed essentially, except for ability to, like, move some of their hands. And they essentially it's interesting. They had relations intimate relations with a woman who was supposed to be the guardian of the individual who's disabled.
And she argued that because he was able to, like, talk with his hand, he said he consented. But she's the only person that's talking to him in that way. And so it it created a huge controversy of, like, can that individual actually consent? How is this individual interpreting consent? And, like, is it okay to engage in these intimate relationships with someone who is disabled? I think it's a similar question when it comes to gender affirming care.
Yeah. I think you're spot on about there's a cultural shift happening with this medical consent, and not just medical consent, but, like, consent in general. I do think that better consent laws for TikTok and getting people on TikTok would have in some way, shape, or form changed where we are right now. I was even thinking this, and, you know, this is a much more mundane level than what we're talking about, the the story that brought us to this conversation.
But, my dog has a, like, a lot of ear problems, and so we took him to the vet to, get his ears cleaned out and a specialist vet that was there to kinda help us figure out why the ear problem kept coming on. And they told us what, medication we were on and or the vet we sorry. We told the vet what medication the dog was on with his ear stuff. And she goes, oh, okay.
Well, we're actually going to swap him over to this other medication because I don't know if the other doctor told you that the medication you're currently on, if you use it long term, causes deafness in dogs. And I was like, I know this is such a minute thing, and, like, my dog's fine. This is, like, again, such small balls. But why is it not contingent on doctors to tell you every side effect of the drugs that you are taking?
Be it a dog, be it, you know, the Chinese government telling you point blank, yes. We are taking your data, and this is what we were doing it with warm consent when you sign on to TikTok. Or, you know, I'm getting on birth control, doc. Okay. Cool. These are all the side effects you're gonna have, and you're likely gonna have to get on the antidepressants to be on this birth control because of all the litany of side effects, and blah blah blah.
I don't understand why there's not informed consent in more capacities. And I do think that with the Make America Healthy Again movement, with the crunchy movement, with just generally speaking our discontentment with the medical system in America, we are gonna have to see a massive shift in the next 4 to 8 years on how this this happens in America. Yes. I I completely agree.
And I really hope that individuals are willing to have sit down and have legitimate conversations about this and have like, talk to people they disagree with so we can actually have a solution. Because I swear, if this just turns into another screaming fight of this side against this side and we never find any solutions, I might go insane. But I totally agree with you. Well, Caroline, thank you so much for joining. If people wanna find you on social media, what's the best place to find you?
Right now, Instagram. It's at craftythinking, but I will be starting to do long form on YouTube, and I'm doing short form on YouTube right now. Again, also at craftythinking. So if you, you know, follow me on it on Instagram or YouTube, I would really appreciate it. Yeah. Well, definitely tag the YouTube channel below. And, guys, if you just go to my Instagram, you will find hers because, you know, we are 1 and the same.
But, you guys, if you are a real one and you made it to the end of today's show, will you drop an ice cube emoji as an homage to our story about ice? Actually, actually, if you're even bigger real one, put 2 ice cubes and a baby emoji. Okay? Because ice, ice, baby. Alright, friends. Well, see you back here on Thursday, and stay tuned tomorrow. We have a vlog dropping about inauguration. I will see you then. Bye. Thanks so much for watching.
If you liked what you heard, please be sure to give this video a thumbs up, and leave a comment about how beautiful, stunning, and funny I am. And if you want more content based on logic, be sure to click over here for more videos and clips of my show. If you have the means to financially support the show, consider purchasing from my merch line, Based Apparel, linked right below. I really appreciate it, and I'll see you back here next time. Bye, friends.