Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Underreported Stories, where I cover the news that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News fail to report on, or don't report on enough. And, I wanted to start off this wonderful Tuesday by talking about something you guys wanted to know from me. And that is how I think the Trump administration is doing in this 1st week.
Now, if you clicked on this show to get under reported stories or listen to my take on John Fetterman wrecking Whoopi Goldberg on The View, remember you guys can always use the chapters feature to skip to the parts of the show that you want to watch. But I like I said, I'm here to serve you guys with my opinions And the Trump administration's 1st week was the topic most requested. Someone in our Instagram community asked me what I would rate the Trump administration's 1st week.
And I didn't know if they meant, like, a to f grading scale or numbers wise. But I feel very confident in saying that I'm going to I'm gonna use the number scale, and I'm going to give the 1st week, at least just the first, you know, one week of Trump's administration, a 9 out of 10. And a lot of people know that I am not, like, a Trump sycophant by any stretch of the means. Lots of people know I did not vote for him in 2020. He was, like, a 4 out of 10 for me in 2020.
So I'm here to give you the honest truth, that there are 2 really big wins that helped me craft my score and opinion, because the deportation plans that are happening right now, they are incredible. It's undeniable. I don't know if you guys saw one of the first busts that took place in Boston. There was a Haitian migrant that went viral for saying f Trump, Biden forever, and then yelling that he's not going back to Haiti.
Now first of all, the way Tom Homan, our new borders are, the way he handled these comments by going on Fox News and saying, well well, yes, you are going back. And responding in such a funny way, It was yet another example of the way the Trump administration's policies are not just political policies, but making a cultural shift. It's now okay in culture to admit that sending illegal immigrant criminals back to their country is a good thing. Now I never thought that this was a bad thing.
Like, this was never a problem for me in 2020. It's just that it wasn't happening to the extent that we wanted it to happen. These deportation plans are beautiful. And by the way, I did say that Tom Homan was on Fox News. He very well could have been on CNN. I'm not a 100% positive, so don't hold me to it. But he went on TV, you know, cable network and said that this guy is going back no matter how he protests.
Now, one of the other things we found out about this unnamed Haitian man getting arrested was that he was arrested with several of his friends, including a gang member who had, I'm not kidding you, an inter poll red notice for aggravated murder, and a second gang member that was also arrested with him facing firearm charges. So this is just good company that this Haitian migrant was keeping. They are all being deported back to their home countries.
Now, what I understand about this is that the left is in opposition to mass deportations. But the legacy that comes with not doing these mass deportations is exactly what that Haitian migrant said. It's like, we love the democrats because they're here helping illegal criminals with outstanding warrants.
And I feel like if those illegal immigrants with outstanding warrants want to publicly shower you with affection because you protected them, you're probably not on the right side of history there. And that's what we're really seeing in the culture now. That, yes, this this is a very political thing, these mass deportations. But even the people on the left are having to admit that they're not in favor of criminal illegals being in the country.
Now I have long said, and this is not a popular thing to say on mainstream TV, but I've been saying it on Newsmax for the, whatever, 3, 4 years I've been working there, that the issue of illegal immigration people want immigrants to come into the country. Most liberals, even most conservatives are, like, fine with it, generally speaking. But most average liberals with common sense agree that illegal immigrants with criminal warrants out for them should be deported right home.
Like, that is actually not a very controversial thing to say. The Democratic party is so radical and the media is so polarized that they want us to think that our average liberal neighbor is in favor of this. Now the blue headed shithead or the blue haired shithead down the street. Yeah. She totally doesn't understand deportation efforts. Selena Gomez, another cringe example of all of this. Yes. They're not your average liberal though.
Your average liberal who has an understanding of basic immigration into our country thinks 2 things. 1, immigration, legal immigration is far too hard. 2, no shit. We're sending criminals back to their home countries. They don't belong here. And like I said, this is all being exemplified in Selena Gomez. Because I don't know if you guys I know some of you guys don't have TikTok and you hate me for liking TikTok, but Selena Gomez was getting shellacked on TikTok. Okay?
TikTok is becoming more based. I'm telling you. I'm telling you now. I spend a lot of time on that app, more time than I'd like to admit. And it's so funny. I'm sure you guys have all seen this viral video of actress Selena Gomez crying and crying and crying about, how she's gonna we're gonna send her people back. She's like, what? What? It it's so many levels of what? But she's also a billionaire. Let's caveat all of that.
And she was crying saying, like, what can I do to help illegal immigrants getting sent home? And there were two responses to this. By and large, the right was like, girl, why are you crying for illegal criminals? And not someone like Lake and Riley who was deleted by illegal criminals. Right? First of all, why? And then the left was like, boo hoo bitch stop crying. Do something about it. With You have so You are a billionaire. You have so much money and power.
If you care so much about it, do something about it. And I think it's so funny because no matter what no matter what the political diatribe or what partisanship you fall into, people had the same response which was either do something about this and then that obviously will wake you up to the fact that like no Selena Gomez is not gonna help criminals who assault or have firearm charges. You would assume. Assume. I assume makes an ass out of you and me so maybe not.
But that is just by and large the feedback. It's not in favor of these but more, how do I put it? People are just not as up in arms as they were before. And, of course, you're gonna see the one off videos, and people are gonna be like, Chrissy, why am I this bro? I said, we are excluding the blue haired fox. Okay? Anyway Now just the deportation efforts alone, all of everything I just said, is enough to give Trump a good score on the 1st week.
But the other big Trump action was this pardoning slash communing of sentences for the January 6th prisoners. Now one of the people who served jail time for January 6th has refused Donald Trump's pardon, and this became an underreported story that I wanted to talk about. It was, like, her name's Pamela Hemphill. She goes by Maga Granny. She pleaded guilty, and she was ultimately sentenced to 60 days in prison for her actions on January 6th. I did a whole video about it.
Or not video, but a little real about it. And she said, you know, she pleaded guilty because she was guilty and if she accepted the pardon that would serve to contribute to gaslighting about what happened on that day even though she's not even in jail right now. Right? Now that under reported story got me doing some research on what's considered Trump's most evisid action yet within the Republican party.
There are many Republicans that were in agreement that pardons should be issued for the non violent offenses related to January 6th. But the pardoning or the commuting of sentences of people who hit police officers likely didn't deserve anything for their actions. Now typically, traditionally, that's probably where I've would've fallen on the spectrum of was this right or was this wrong.
However, the Trump administration put out a very eloquent statement explaining how they believe that the politicized nature of the convictions made sentencing more extreme and unfair than if the defendants held opposing political ideals, basically, if they were liberal. So I'm curious on where you fall on this. Like, did Trump do the right thing with sweeping pardons, or do you wish he had taken more targeted action?
Now I have come to the conclusion that he's doing the right thing by pardoning not only the nonviolent offenses. That is without a doubt, But also commuting the sentences. And I know people are probably surprised to hear me say that I agree with the sentence commutation. But if these prisoners got fair sentences for their actions, then maybe I would have a problem with Trump's actions.
But when politics become so enmeshed in the justice system that people can't even get a fair trial, nonetheless, a fair sentencing, it just makes it impossible to think that any part of this is fair. And I'm here for fairness, truth, and justice. Like, those are principles I want to stand on. And while it might not look politically expedient from the outside and, like, to a broader swath of people and the way the media is trying to portray it, I do think it was a good thing.
And I can explain in great detail how and why this is so bad. So don't feel afraid to stick up for this. I feel like this is still not a 100% culturally acceptable to stand up for the j 6 prisoners, but to a large extent, you're not standing up for individuals who may or may not have done something wrong. You're standing up for a justice system that is fair, and I think that's great. And that also tees us up perfectly for our first story today. So let's hop into the docket.
John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania senator, got into it with the cohost of The View over politicized lawfare. We also found out that the Biden administration earmarked $15,000,000 for contraceptives for the Taliban. And the USDA, the Department of Agriculture, just hired a seed oil lobbyist amid claims that they're gonna make America healthy again. What the hell? 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.
John Fetterman, the senator from Pennsylvania, went on The View yesterday and triggered the lefty lunatic hosts simply by pointing out the very obvious fact that Trump's New York City hush money trial was politically motivated. Well, senator, Trump's pardoning of roughly 1500 January 6 rioters on his 1st day back in office office is still reverberating. And when we last spoke with you in December, you were critical of Joe Biden having just pardoned his son, Hunter.
So although president Trump ran on doing this, there was a discrepancy, and a lot of people in his inner circle said he wouldn't do it for violent offenders. So there was some surprise in what he ended up doing. Of of course. I love how the view is teeing this up to a Democratic senator trying to say, well, you were against us for Biden, so what are you gonna do now?
Kind of as if if you don't tow the party line completely and utterly, aligned with how the Democrats want you to think and talk, that you're some sort of enemy, the way she posed the question. Now maybe some people would find it fair, but I just don't think she would ask a question like that to somebody that was just towing the Democrat party line and talking points. Of course not. I'm on record, criticizing, going after Hunter Biden.
And I also agreed that the the the trial, in in this city, in New York, was politically motivated that wouldn't otherwise have been prosecuted if it was someone else. And That was nuance right there, by the way. Something that the View hosts have no concept of whatsoever. So it's about to break their brain. I've been very front and center in in pardons. You know? I I chaired that process in Pennsylvania. You know? I was all about delivering second chances, and I'm very proud of that.
And I think that's really the the the cornerstone of criminal justice reform is is if you are following the rules and you've paid your debt, I do believe you do. If, I do believe there needs to be a path for redemption. And this process, you know, whether Joe Biden or whether president, Trump, You know, I don't agree with many of those pardons, especially on the j six ones. And I've called that out. I've been on record saying that that's just not true.
And if if you're going to abuse the process, you know, somebody that's been very committed as part of that, has made that part of my career. I think, it's sad because it's been politicized, and I think if anything, that might have set some things back, because people assume now, you know, depending on what team's in office, you know, those are the people that get, some redemption. It's true. Like, redemption should be redemption if you believe in redemption in the political justice system.
And to some extent, of course, I do to some extent. But it's very interesting because the idea of redemption has long been, kinda boogeymanned by people on the right saying that, oh, you know, these people have higher rates of recidivism. They're gonna go out and commit crimes again once they're, reentered into society. And for violent criminals, a lot of the time that is the case and that's why we don't necessarily just, like, let violent criminals out.
But it is by and large since 2020 been considered or probably long before, but in 2020 specifically is really when this argument of, you know, well, we shouldn't let violent criminals out because of recidivism. That became a racist trope. Something that you were going against black people for. But all of a sudden you'll notice that the commentary about recidivism within violent criminals has been it's no longer racist when you talk about it in terms of the January 6th stuff.
So just a interesting note that I have taken or taken note of in general since, this conversation started happening, and I think that what again, I've said it before. The nuance in this conversation of, you know, I don't entirely agree about it, what Trump is doing, but if I am in favor of x principle, I'm gonna stick by that principle, and that is a principle of restorative justice to some extent. And it this is fascinating. I'll let you guys keep watching.
I I just just for clarification, did you mean that the 34 count case in which, Donald Trump was found guilty of various, financial crimes was politically motivated here in New York? I I I found I found that that when the judicial system gets weaponized and targeted political enemies for political gain, I think that's inappropriate, and I think that degrades our collective trust.
And in this, a very important institution, whether that's on a democratic going after a republican or republican going after a democratic one. And I like to think I call it strikes and balls, where because either the judicial, The system has to remain impartial. I mean, that's really the cornerstone of our society. Mhmm. They just broke he just broke their brains.
And what's really interesting is that Whoopi starts commenting after, and I'll play that in a sec, but, Sunny, now her husband, is under criminal investigation on RICO charges in New York. And it's just gonna be interesting to see how her mindset on this changes as soon as as soon as it has something to do with her and not her favorite boogeyman Donald Trump. Would that be the way the things worked? Wouldn't that be great if that's the way the things actually worked?
I, again, just wanted you to hear that because she's she's acting as if the judicial system is only politicized by people on the right. What's really interesting though and I'm again, I'll join John Fetterman in calling balls and strikes as I see them.
The right tends to talk about political lawfare more than the left does, but the left is the one that actually takes action on that political lawfare whether it be back in the early 2010s and Obama weaponizing the IRS against conservative organizations. In the previous administration, when we saw them try to de bank conservative organizations, like, the left doesn't talk about it a lot, but they take a lot of political law fair action.
The right likes to talk about it, but then, and I think the best example is Trump was like, we're going after Hillary Clinton. She's a liar. She's a fraud. Lying Hillary. Whatever. Crooked Hillary. Whatever he he called her. And then he did nothing about it. And so it's very interesting, you know. Whoopi takes everything based on rhetoric and not action, and it just showcases how truly, truly illiterate this woman is. Okay. I found this next story yesterday.
And then overnight, it was announced that the White House was freezing federal grant money temporarily. So, basically, the Trump administration can do this due diligence of what each agency was spending, why they were spending it, and then where the money was actually going. It's kind of just like a little audit at the beginning of the year. And the media started doing this well, typical.
They started doing this, like, massive freak out saying it's undemocratic for the administration to stop this spending because Congress has the power of the purse, which is true. And if Congress ok'd this money, it needs to be spent. But but let me just give you this next story to explain why that argument is not the whole truth.
We just found out that America spent $15,000,000 in taxpayer funds on distributing birth control and condoms to Afghanistan, which means we were giving birth control and condoms to the Taliban. And it is illegal for the federal government to work with the Taliban, but in the grant for these condoms and birth control pills to Afghanistan, it was admitted that the administration has to work with the Taliban, which again is illegal.
So this happened when Biden was in office, actually, I believe either June or July of last year. He was in office. The administration approved taxpayer funds to distribute, quote, oral contraceptives and condoms, and then in the grant, acknowledged that the administration would have some coordination with the Taliban to implement these programs. So like I said, US law, technically, forbids taxpayer funds from going to the Taliban. And that made me think, shit.
Joe Biden should have pardoned himself. He should have issued a preemptive pardon because this is illegal, apparently, on paper. Right? Now the money, maybe it was meant to do the right thing. It was meant to support basic rights and freedoms and to empower women and girls living under Taliban control, which, good messaging. I'm totally on board. But without even opining on whether giving women birth control is a good idea or not, I just have a feeling that efforts like this are very futile.
Because these women can't go to school. They cannot go to work. They can't work in most professions. They can barely show their faces. Why did we think giving the men condom was gonna fix the long held suffering of these women? I don't entirely understand that. And I think it's because this lack of understanding exists in democratic circles about what other cultures want and need to be successful. We just assume, like, oh, if we give them modern day feminism, they'll succeed.
What a stupid thing to do. But it reminded me of this story of a girl who is oh, ow. I was taking a political science class, I think it was my senior year of college at Michigan State. And there was a girl in my group. We got put in groups. And we were tasked with creating an NGO. So like a little non governmental organization. And then we had a country that we created the NGO for. So we were given an African country, I can't remember.
And this girl in my group was like, we should make an NGO about abortion access for, let's say it was Ghana, for Ghana. And I looked at her and putting my my opinions about abortion to the side, I looked at her. I said, that might actually be really offensive to the people in Ghana because they have a very, whatever country it was had a very religious sect of people. And I was like, they don't want abortions over there. Like, that is not their biggest problem right now is not abortions.
Like, they need food and water. And I took everything in me to not call her a bunch of names. But I think that story to me was emblematic of what I see in even the highest echelons of power in democratic administrations. It's like, if we could just get the girls to girl boss, all the problems would be solved. That's just not it. And you can't change culture by giving people birth control.
I found it to be the most moronic story ever, but also at the same time perfectly emblematic of what and why the Trump administration is doing what it's doing. So if people are like, oh, Trump is anti democracy because he wants to stop the spending that Congress has approved. Just show them what they were we're working with. Now, not every program is going to be some crazy woke DEI East Coast Elite problem. I get that.
Some of these are good, good programs that we wanna keep, but we're gonna keep them if we if they don't violate our laws and they're not inherently evil. Okay? Like that's if if you have nothing to worry about, you should have nothing to worry about. When we have problems in programs like this, like, these have gotta go because there's a very large chance that this is illegal and we should do something about illegal programs. Am I wrong?
Anyway, let's move on to our next story because this one also this one had me personally triggered a little bit. I'm not gonna lie. So the US Department of Agriculture announced the appointment of a former seed oil lobbyist, the agency's chief of staff. Now, obviously, my first thought was what a slap in the face to the entire make America healthy again slash Maha movement.
This woman, her name is Kaley Katz Buller, worked as the president and CEO of the National Oil Seed Processors Association and the Edible Oil Producers Association, which are long words for saying she's a seed oil lobbyist. She also worked as a lobbyist for the Snack Industry Trade Group or Snack International. And she worked with a group called Corn Refiners Association, which is basically just a traders association that is behind junk food ingredients.
So high fructose corn syrup, a lot of people have heard of that. It's a product that is really considered the primary cause of obesity in America. It contributes to heart disease, fatty liver disease, diabetes, causes ton of other problems. And this woman, lobbied on behalf of these organizations, and then is gonna come in and be part of the Maha movement? Now the Federalist wrote the article about this that really piqued my interest.
And in that article, the, the writer of the story said that an RFKJ adviser said this is a slap in the face. Now I was just interested in how this even came to be because a lot of what we can attribute to malice can oftentimes be contributed to or attributed to negligence. And so, in my opinion, this is kind of an act of negligence and of back rubbing that goes on behind closed doors in political circles. This woman was appointed by governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia.
She was also in the first Trump administration, and now she's kind of, like, moved her way up in the agencies. But the reason that this is so problematic isn't even because of the political back rubbing that's taking place while I find it yucky. The big problem here is that Maha isn't just about eating healthy. I think a lot of people think it's like, we just want everybody to be hot and skinny. I mean, yeah, like, ideally.
But, also, the movement stands to eliminate corporate influence over the federal government agencies that regulate both food and medicine. That includes the Department of Agriculture. And so we can't get rid of this corruption that takes place with corporate influence when a lobbyist who is intrinsically captured by corporate influence is then at the USDA or other organizations within the government that make massive decisions about the food we eat and products we consume. Right?
Now I'm not saying this woman is irredeemable. Right? Cali Means. He's a big character in the Maha space, And he is a former Coke lobbyist who turned against everything that he had done in the past, realized the evils that he was contributing to, and has now since dedicated his life to making America healthier again and informing people about the evils and corruption that is taking place behind closed doors. Now I'm not saying that this woman can't burn her bridges and change her ways.
I would love that, but I haven't seen that. If anything, I've seen the opposite. I've seen that everyone including the USDA announcement for this woman, bragging about her work with the seed oil groups. And so back to the very beginning of the show when I said, I give the Trump administration a 9 out of 10. This is why I docked a point.
And I'm currently waiting to see what Trump does with this, because I do believe that he probably didn't know about this, and he can be nudged on things that are very important to his voting base. Making America healthy being a primary concern of a lot of crunchy moms that went and voted for him. So I do think that we will see this. And if RFKJ does get into place, I think that there is probably something that could be done about this to some extent as well.
Okay. Well, let's move on to our 4th story. There has been a lot a lot of accusations that the Trump administration is somehow evil for trying to politicize the civil servants by essentially forcing out anyone who isn't interested in acting out Trump's orders. Which to me is just it's delusional to think that this is not un that this is not fair. Right? It's delusional to think it's unfair. If you're a civil servant, you're not interested in following the rules.
Look, America and the federal government does not owe you a job. If you aren't going to do the job, you're out of the job. But what's happening is that these far lefties are trying to burrow themselves in the administration to, I'm gonna assume, hide and keep tabs on the Trump administration from the inside. And again, I cannot say this is fact. This is my assumption.
But I am going to assume that these people do this to leak what's happening to the press in an unflattering light, which is what we saw in Trump's first administration. And there have been 2 people who've been caught by the Daily Wire's investigative team, burrowing in the Trump administration. This is the first woman who was caught. Her name is Elizabeth Pena. This is what she looks like for those in the viewing audience. So the daily wire was the ones that actually exposed her scheme.
She was terminated. That is the end of the story. Right? She was terminated effective on January 23rd. But the firing is very indicative of what is happening in the background that we don't know about. So there are very strict rules around political appointees. These are inherently biased human beings. We're all biased, but some more than others. Let's be honest. Right?
There are very strict rules around political appointees converting to career employees to stay in the government after the president's term ends. This is designed so as not to subvert the intentions of the new administration. So you can't be working for Kamala Harris, get an appointment to the Department of Labor, and then try to subvert the current administration's, goals, and then leak it to the press.
That is not something that should be approved by the office of personal management, and it has to be reported to Congress, by the way. But obviously, another reason Biden should have just given himself a preemptive pardon because he's still what a dumbass. Between the election and inauguration day, the Biden department of later skirted that entire process by creating a 3 year position and appointing Elizabeth Pena to it.
So the Daily Wire revealed on January 15th, it contended that because it wasn't a permanent position, the rules didn't apply. The Biden administration said, well, we just created this position and the rules for this didn't apply. Even though, obviously, the rules apply for this. She had been a political appointee, after working for the Harris transition team. So she literally worked for Kamala's campaign, positioned herself for a top political slot with the Harris campaign.
Had she won the presidency, she would be working as a political staff member for Kamala Harris. But when Kamala lost, this woman, Elizabeth Pena, was left unemployed. And in between the election loss in Trump's inauguration, the Labor Department tried to sneak her into a non political role. This is wrong. It's not it's not normal. Like, it's it's not kosher. It's not cool. That is not allowed. The presidential personnel office should have reported this. This should not have been okay.
And this is not the first time that this has happened. Right? Luke Roziak is the reporter that was breaking this. And this has happened time and time again. Democrats say Trump is trying to politicize the civil service even as literal Joe Biden White House officials and political appointees embed into it. This is another person. Taylor Carter DeSanto. Just if you're in the listening audience, this or if you're on Spotify, click into the video just to see this. This is her profile. Okay?
It's got the, pride flag with the BLM fist in it, and her whole LinkedIn bio says, dedicated to social and economic equity advocate and public servant with a deep passion for creating more just and equitable world for all individuals regardless of income, race, or gender. Regardless of whether that is a morally right, good statement, or not.
Just tell me in your own honest thoughts if you think this person belongs in the Trump administration and is going to uphold the oath of office and or the oath of their job and help Trump enact the policies. I don't think so. I don't think so. Again, Kayler Taylor Carter DeSanto worked for the Biden campaign and inauguration committee. A political appointee. Then the Biden administration, worked again with this presidential personnel office and appointed her to the department of commerce.
Just before Trump took office, Commerce's minority business development agency hired her. I don't know if she's been fired from her position yet, but this is just yet another example of how Democrats are trying to stymie their way into the administration and subvert it from the inside out. Not cool. And this time, they're not going to get caught. This is not gonna happen. Again, not gonna happen. This is why Trump 2.0 is so awesome to watch. They learn from their mistakes.
And, they're not making those same mistakes. So, right on. Because this this is wrong. Like, truly wrong. And I have a feeling that story 1 and story 2 that we talked about, we're gonna be seeing. This is gonna become a repetitive pattern. So thank you to the journalists who are doing work exposing this. It needs to be done. Okay. Let's get to our final story today, which is a very interesting lawsuit that may have a big impact on the second amendment.
Now I know some of these lawsuit stories are not the most interesting, which is why I put it at the end of the show. But they really can make their way up to the supreme court and become a huge big thing. And part of underreported stories, or at least in my opinion, covering these stories is covering them when they're not big national news quite yet. But I'd like to keep you guys informed.
So the premise of the lawsuit is that 2 truckers filed this suit against the state of Minnesota, challenging the state's law that refuses to recognize firearm permits of another state. So these 2 guys, they have guns and they are registered and permitted to use them in Texas and Georgia. The problem is that Minnesota doesn't accept those permits from Texas or Georgia. You have to get it from within Minnesota.
And that is creating, allegedly, a unique burden on these individuals who drive their trucks across state lines and into Minnesota. A good write up of the lawsuit comes from the Federalist, and they pose the question, do rights granted under the US constitution end at the border of one state when a citizen enters another. Generally speaking, that's not true.
But the scope of the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms for self defense across state lines is the issue at heart here in this case. So it was filed on January 7th against Bob Jacobson in his official capacity as the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. So not necessarily the whole state is targeted at one person, but it's targeted at the state's policy. The complaint challenges Minnesota's refusal to recognize lawfully issued firearm permits of other states.
The plaintiffs, so these are the people that are suing, are professional long haul 18 wheel truck drivers who crisscross the country 300 days a year. And according to the complaint, they maintain firearm competency with regular safety courses and memberships to various firearm organizations. And they regularly pass background checks required by their employers. None of them have a history of violence, felony convictions, or even class 1 misdemeanors.
Their backgrounds include experience as firefighters and emergency medical technicians. These people are, generally speaking, good people Who have firearms in place in case there is an accident, to keep themselves safe. And for those reasons they feel like they should not have to get off and pull off on the side of the road before they enter Minnesota. Unload their firearms, stow them in a closed, fastened container, rendering them pretty much useless.
What's the point in having a firearm if you can't use it when you would need a firearm? And they're just wondering why? Why do we have to be so burdensome when they have the correct permitting and that's accepted widely across the country? That is odd. And they're wondering whether it's an infringement on the second amendment. Now I'm no lawyer, so I'm not gonna pretend to know whether this is legal or not. I'm super interested to see the outcome of this case.
But what strikes me as odd is perhaps the politicized nature nature of something like this. That if we were talking about, you know, abortion being illegal in Texas, but then, you know, go to Minnesota and you can get an an abortion there. It's like, you don't need permitting or something like that to cross state law. I just it seems inherently political.
It seems aimed at taking not at providing freedoms and rights to Americans that they are granted just by dint of being American, but simply to go after a policy that the state of Minnesota doesn't like. I don't think it's gonna end well for the state of Minnesota. I'm interested to hear the intricacies of this argument. But if other states are accepting of these permits and Minnesota has some special crazy laws in which you just can't have firearms in the same way. It's very difficult.
It reminds me a lot of the Virginia, Maryland, DC, like the DMV area is what they call it. There are very burdensome laws for one side of the aisle, or for one state versus the other versus the other. And if you've lived there, you know that you kinda like crisscross in between them like this. And you'll weave through, you know, DC and Virginia just to get back to Virginia. It's very odd, and to have to have different firearm laws for each is incredibly burdensome for people.
So I don't have much to add to this. I just think it's important that we know that these lawsuits are out there. We keep track of them because you never know which one's gonna end up at the supreme court. And I have a feeling that this one very well could. But, anyway, that's all I've got for you guys today. If you're a real one and you made it to the end of today's show, will you drop the dollar sign emoji as an homage to our story about NGOs and spending money on the freaking Taliban?
You guys, it's nuts. So thank you so much for tuning in, and I'll see you guys back here on Thursday. 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.