This is the FCB Podcast network a Bressoda day that we won't with math and then we won't to say, oh we got it? Does? No one can tag that? Owen this gonna be okay? Arasa that we won't with say, then we won't to say oh we got it does? No one can take that oway be okay. Hello, Welcome back, everybody to another episode of Just Listen to Yourself with Kira Davis. And this is part two of last week's episode. Technically it's a part two and I'm not sure how long it's gonna be, but last week went so long I definitely couldn't tack this on. So last week we talked about Martin Luther King some of the controversy around Martin Luther King Day that was ginned up by guys like Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh. I responded to that, so I won't relitigate that here. I'll let you go back and listen to last week's episode. But one of the things I talked about was messaging and how important it is to be aware of how we're messaging to the voters we want to go get and to my mind, when I'm speaking, I think we need to be going and getting black voters, particularly because, as I've said before, this country is still majority white. Everyone y'all need to deal with that. It's still majority white. But it's not going to be like that forever, probably through my lifetime. Of course, it's going to take several generations, but eventually, if America is still here, yeah, no, we're not going to be a majority white country. And so if the GOP has a future, you better start recruiting voters who are going to stand the test of I'm with you. So for a lot of reasons, I just feel like black outreach particularly is really really important, and I think about that all the time when I'm talking about things. I mean, you guys just have to look at the episode lists to know that, right. I think about it all the time, from what I'm watching on the news to how I see the GOP operating. Because obviously I'm a conservative, which means I vote Republican and I want Republicans to win. So I wanted to frame all of this discussion with that in mind. And the Civil Rights Act is also something that Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk and many people complain about and Charlie Kirk's claim is, Hey, the Civil Rights Act has been used as a trojan horse for all of this DEI stuff, and it was a bad idea. I thought to myself when he said that, I don't know when the last time I read the Civil Acts, right was maybe in school sometime maybe maybe like in college. Yeah, So I thought, okay, I'll go back and read it. And when I was reading it, I had I was having some interesting thoughts. And I really feel as though conservatives and Republicans have left a lot of really important stuff on the table. The Civil Rights Act. It passed and we sort of just accepted it and then moved forward, and it's just been something people complain about, and they and conservatives and Republicans especially complain about the Civil Rights Act being used against American sovereignty, American individual freedoms. And I thought to myself, why does the Civil Rights Act only seem to work one way? Then if one side can use it, can't the other. So it's going to go through that before we get started, Just a couple of housekeeping items. Go subscribe to my substack please, It's a great way to support me. Just Karradavis dot subsac dot com, share this show if it's not this particular episode, If you wouldn't mind just picking an episode and sharing it with your friends and your family. Again, just choose one. I've got fine ones on there that aren't political at all. I can't believe it to this day. It still blows my mind that one of my most popular episodes was the one on small Talk. So that's always a good one to start with, I think. But if you would, if you would, just share this show, and if you haven't subscribed, please do that. That helped so much. And also, don't forget to follow me on Twitter at real Kira Davis and buy my book if you haven't yet Drawing Lines. You can find that wherever you buy your books. Okay, let's get into the Civil Rights Act. It's helpful, I believe, to read a summary of the Civil Rights Act, and then let's dig into the text. I'm not gonna to read the whole thing. That's not necessary and it's a lot of wordage, but most of it's just the legal ease, you know, And we've been through enough legal documents on this show to understand how that works. So I won't read the whole thing. But a summary, I think is helpful. So as I read the summary, just sort of make notes, keep the main themes in your mind, and then as we read and go through the Civil Rights Act, ask yourself if you think that's what the Civil Rights Act has produced. So this is from Botanica Britannica dot com. Remember site Encyclopedia Britannica. Remember those days when all of the information that that you could possibly have access to was in a set of books that was either in your house gathering dust or at the library, the good old days. Kind of missed those days. I kind of missed the days where this is a whole other episode, isn't it now I'm getting on a tangent, but I sort of missed. I miss the days where you have to go and make an effort to know something. I definitely believe that is one of the biggest detriments of the Internet era. It's the main reason why we've had more access to more information than ever and we've never been done. We don't have to work for the information so that the ease with which we receive it reflects the ease with which we think about it requires no effort, so we don't put a lot of intellectual effort into the thoughts either and since, especially these days, I think this is a consequence of my age, but especially these days, I see everything, everything, every idea is connected to some kind of biblical value or story. It kind of reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. And if you're like me, and I think everyone is, you always have that little thing in the back of your mind. What's the big deal if people know things? And I'm not saying this is the point of the story, but this is how it strikes me. In the context of this conversation about information, I think about what we've turned into by having more access to more information than any human beings in the history of planet Earth. Think about what we've turned into in just the last ten years having that incredible power. So now imagine who we would turn into if we knew everything God knew. I don't know. I think about it a lot. This big sidebar Britannica dot com everyone, here's how they describe the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four is comprehensive US legislation and tended to end discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It is often called the most important US lot in civil rights since reconstruction, and it's the hallmark of the civil rights movement. Title I guarantees voting rights. Title II prohibit segregation and discrimination in places of accommodation involved in interstate commerce. That's a really important phrase if you understand what state's rights are. And Title eight bands discrimination by trade unions. I think if you go back to my episode on unions, you'll hear me talk about how unions were really the main purveyors of discrimination and why that's why I don't support public unions. They were originally formed to keep black people out of the labor market, and honestly, their mission hasn't really changed, just the race of a lot of the people involved. But still it's still public unions are still organizations designed to shut certain people out. Okay, So here is in pieces not going to do the whole thing. Here is some of the transcript of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four available in the National Archives. I don't know if you ever have a chance or wouldever want to sit down, but if your board sit down and go through the National Archives website. There's so many cool documents there, and one of the things I love to do is go find recordings and it's just really hunting and beautiful to hear the voices of people, our ancestors who lived one hundred years ago or more. And I love doing that, so I highly recommend it. It's kind of a fun thing to do, and you'd you'd be so fascinated to know some of the things that are in there, just things you wouldn't even think would be in the National Archives. It's not all politics. It's pretty cool. One of my favorite things I did a Black History Month report on the FISC Jubilee Singers. They were the first black college choir from Fisk, which was an HBCU, and they traveled the country singing Negro spirituals and really credited with introducing the larger population to Negro culture, spirituals, that kind of thing at the time. And then they ended up saving their school with their choir because their choir toured and earned money and that money went back to the school. And you can go and you can hear the original Fisk Jubilee Singers and these are slaves, these are former slaves and it's just amazing to hear them and know that that's the Those are the voices that you're hearing, and they're singing at university. It's pretty cool, all right. Civil Rights Act and Act to enforce the constitutional right to vote. To confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States, to provide injunctive relief against discrimination and public accommodations. To authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education. To extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, To establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that this Act may be cited as the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, Title I. Voting Rights. No person, acting under color of law, in determining whether any individuals qualified under the state law or laws to vote in any federal election, apply any standard practice or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such laws or laws to other individuals within the same county, perish or similar political subdivision who have been found by state officials to be qualified to vote a This is basically saying you can't you can't present a voting test for people because obviously you had a whole population who were uneducated now being integrated supposedly right into the American fabric. They have voting rights or they need them, And even in the places where they could vote, a lot of times there were these strange tests that they would have to pass. They'd have to they'd have to have all of the weird by laws of the city memorized, and they just used to do horrible things. Or you'd have to be able to write your own name, and we made a concerted effort to not educate black people to read or write in this country at that time. So this is sort of to counter that they shall not deny the right of any individual to vote in any federal election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other acts requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote in such election. Under state law, some things are required for you to vote if you live in a sane state, that would be an ID, but other states have other requirements for you to vote. To me, this bolsters the case for voter ID here. It is right here in this federal legislation that obviously the government has absolutely the right to determine whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote, which would be an ID. So that's it's right there. This is one thing, This is one of the things I feel the GOP leaves on the table when we ignore the Civil Rights Act, where we pretend that it was just a legislation just to pacify other people, pacify the weirdo liberals, but largely we just we don't care for it, and we want to ignore it because instinctually a lot of us understand that we do. The Constitution as it stands already provides for all of this. If our government would simply honor the Constitution and the letter of that law, then we could move forward. But we all know how well government does well honoring the law. And right now I'm not arguing whether or not the Civil Rights Act was necessary. It's here, so I'm going to deal with that reality. And maybe that's sort of an intellectual hypothetical argument if we needed it or not. I don't think I am intelligent enough to argue that point in an interesting way. I'm a constitutional purist, obviously, but I think there's definitely probably a lot of good arguments to be made around this topic. But that's not what I'm talking about today. I'm talking about this is here, This is the reality we have to live in. Why doesn't the GOP, instead of complaining about it or ignoring it, why don't they go and pick pick out some of these things, just like Democrats do and start prosecuting cases on them. You start law there, start filing discrimination suits. LGBTQ uses the Civil Rights Act. They did it in twenty twenty right to say you can't fire a transgender in your business because of their sex, which is a which is a protect a category under the Civil Rights Act. So they used it. I'm just I'm really confused as to why we have allowed ourselves, as conservatives and Republicans, are people on the right to assume that all the bad guys can use the Civil Rights Act for what they want and we can't use it for anything it. I think we're framing it all wrong. I think we do that with a lot of stuff. You can't employ a literacy test as a qualification for voting in any federal election unless one it's administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing. A certified copy of the test and of the answers given by the individual is furnished to him within twenty five days of the submission of his request. Hey y'all, this is Ali Michelle. I'm a conservative social media influencer that has been censored by a big text So I broke away from the restrictions and started a podcast called pillow Talk with Ali Mischell. My show is a space to have real conversations about the issues that impact our everyday lives without the fear of being canceled by the big tech tyrants. Subscribe to pillow Talk with Ali Michelle and FCB podcast on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or wherever you getch podcasts. That's Ali ALII. Come check out my show. I'll see you there. Here is something I found interesting and I might not be making all the connections that might brain correctly, but I would love for you to hear this and tell me what you think of it. This is still in title one and there's this little section that they add and it talks about how literacy is. I don't know quite how to do this. Should I just read this language or interpret it for you? I'll read it. This is I'm the sentence is fragmented, but I cannot read the whole thing. It wouldn't even make sense. This is barely going to make sense. But here it says, if any such preceding literacy is a relevant fact, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any person who has not been a judge incompetent. So I'm going to assume mentally ill, and who has completed the sixth grade in public school in or a private school, a credit in a public school or a private school accredited by any state or territory, the District of Columbia, or here's where I want you to pay attention, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any federal election. I didn't even know that was there. I thought that was really interesting. The reason why I think it's interesting is this not it has nothing to do with Puerto Rico. But I live in California, where illegal aliens can vote. They can vote in uh local elections. And to me, and I'm not a legal expert, and I could be wrong. Again, write me if I am and and sort me out. Jlty at ProtonMail dot com. Jlty at ProtonMail dot com if I'm wrong, I really would like to know the answer to this question, because I don't. I'm not a legal scholar, obviously, but here in California they say, oh, it's not We're not. These people are part of the community and they should be able to vote on what happens in their communities. But what happens when our community elections fall in a federal election year. It's all one ballot. So is it just the honor system? These people fill out their ballots and then somebody at the registrar's office says, oh, this was an illegal alien that voted, so we're not going to count their vote for Joe Biden or whatever. Clearly these people are voting in federal elections. I just don't see how it. It doesn't make sense to me how they couldn't be if you can vote in a local election in your state, I don't know how your state does it. But we get one ballot in California every election cycle. So it might be just a local election cycle, it might be midterms, or it might be the federal cycle. But you get one ballot. All your choices are on the one ballot, including all the measures that you vote for. I'm sure it's the same where you live. How do these people possibly not be voting in federal elections. They shouldn't even be voting in local elections. But that's another show. My point is this, We're talking a lot about this topic, right, and it's a real problem, especially in states like California. Why can't Republicans dig into this provision right here in the Civil Rights Act which requires it's actually listed as a protection against taking advantage of people with a lower education. I don't know why the GOP can't use this legally to insist that that be the standard, the base standard for voting, which is having been educated in a predominantly English speaking program zess sufficient literacy and comprehension in English, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy comprehension and intelligence. That's what it says. Then there's a bunch of language about how the proceedings if anyone brings lawsuits about this kind of stuff, how that will be adjudicated, and basically just says, you know, you can if you have a discrimination case, you can take that all the way to the Supreme Court. That's the end. But you can take it all the way there. Title two is injunctive relief against discrimination in places of public accommodations. I don't think I have to read all of this for you to get what this is. And the language here is very very basic. Basically, you know, no, you can't tell people they can't sit at a lunch cout counter, or stay in your hotel or stop at your gas station. Remember this was developed in the time when we had Jim Crow. To me, what this is doing is detailing your constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So again there's a conversation, I suppose, strictly a hypothetical one to be had about whether or not the Civil Rights Act was needed. But I do when I when I read this whole title, to me, it didn't do much more than detail our most basic rights. Now, of course we know lawyers, right, and we know Democrat lawyers, and so we know the very definition of lawyering something to death. So obviously, the more language you put into our constitution, the more it gets lawyered to death. And we obviously are living with the results of people lawyering the Civil Rights Act to death. It just says, you know, you can't discriminate any inn, hotel, motel, or any kind of lodging facility. No, any restaurant, cafeteria, lunch room, lunch counter, or soda fountain. Isn't this These words are now in the Constitution, and they are so culturally specific, they are so time specific, it's actually hilarious. It's like someone wull google in the constitution any motion picture house, theater, I mean some of them are already moot A soda fountain. That really, that's cute. A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, any establishment which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered in this subsection. So basically, hey, y'all, anywhere you can't tell a person to leave your establishment because of the color of their skin, their race, their gender. We all like that. The LGBTQ Lobby has used sections like that to sue for discrimination in certain cases across the country, and it's been quite effective, and which of course turns my stomach because it was absolutely not the intention of this. But this is again what happens another point for our hypothetical conversation one day. This is the thing that happens when you do stuff like this, Right when you open a good legislation up to being lawyered to death, it necessarily ends in that someone else will we'll use it against you. We're seeing this right now. In fact, I think I did I tell you guys about the Satan club that's in our district. I haven't heard any news about whether the school board's going to move on that, but we went to school board meeting last week. We were like, we don't want the Satan club in or even the liberal parents were at the very least quiet. One or two got up there and said, hey, I just I think everybody should be able to have their say, and I believe in all the rights. I am uncomfortable though with this. Even they were up there saying that, I but the founder of the Satan Club is this weirdo named Doug Mesner, but of course he goes by Lucian Greeves. And Lucian Greeves gave an interview to Vice magazine many years ago about his strategy to bring Satan into the schools, and he said, we use the First Amendment as a poison pill, and that's how we get in there. And he's been executing that strategy quite well over the last decade. I don't understand why if guys like that weirdo can do it, why can't we Why can't we use what is here in the Civil Rights Act to sue right to engage in law there for the things that we want, for the things that matter to us, for the things that we think need to be righted. Because we are the side of we don't believe in segregation. We don't believe in in dividing people up by groups right conservatives. That's my impression. We do turn up our noses when these gen z flakes demand their safe spaces and demand to isolate each other, isolate from each other as some kind of odd form of respect. That's our side. So it seems to me we could be using this in this with the same sort of strategy that the alphabet lobby has used, or other lobbies like the critical theory lobby have used, because what we're seeing happening now across the country are people losing their jobs, livelihoods, their schooling, losing their bank accounts, losing lines of credit, losing their reputations because of discrimination. And you may say, well, Kiera, there's no provision for viewpoint discrimination in there. It's race, sex, religion, ethnicity. But the alphabet crowd took that word sex, which in nineteen sixty four meant you can't discriminate against women. They took the word sex and they twisted it to mean sexuality literal having sex, and they won cases on that. So if they can find an imaginary thing in there, can't the GOP. Oh no, I'm just thinking out loud. Title three, Desegregation of public facilities. Again, I'm not going to read you all of this, but it's it's exactly what it. It sounds like. You can't say, you know, you can't have your whites only doors and fountains and stuff like that. So if republican or i better say right wing activists, that's a better term. If right wing activists are so concerned about this strange critical theory, critical race theory turn that we're all taking that's leading us to basically to basically segregate ourselves again. Then I think some lawsuits need to be launched based on the Civil Rights Act. I really do now some are. I'm not saying those things aren't happening. I happen to work with car Meet Dylan's out there. They do a lot of that. I don't know how much of the Civil Rights Act they use. I'm going to imagine quite a bit, since Harmona is way smarter than me. But I guess I'm speaking to more the general crowd, sort of the Charlie Kirks of the world. Instead of always painting the Civil Rights Act as something we have to work against, let's weaponize it. It's been weaponized against the good citizens of America for a very long time. Why can't we weaponize it too to do the things that we know are right. We're not that we know are right, be segregating. There should be no college in this country that is allowed to segregate their students by rates. Even the HBCUs don't do that. Now, there aren't a lot of white kids at kids at HBCU, but there are people who go to them, for sure, they have I think you would be shocked at the at the percentage of black colleges that historically black colleges that have white students at them, because ultimately many of them are are very good schools, or we're at one point. I don't know how many colleges are left that are really good. You guys may have heard this interview I did with Alexander Hobberbush, and I was covering that case that happened in our district. It's still being it's still going through the courts. But where that little girl drew her friend a picture and then it was a black Lives Matter thing, and this little girl got shamed at school for drawing her friend a picture that said all lives matter on it. And so they're going through this huge lawsuit. But I interviewed her lawyer, the mom's lawyer, and he said something I'll never forget, and I think a lot of lawyers hear this when they enter into constitutional law. He said, my dad was a lawyer, and one day he took me to Washington, d c. And we went to visit the Constitution, and my dad pointed to it, and he said, look at how fragile that is. If we touched it, if we opened this, this sealed box, it would disintegrate. He said, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It takes people to defend the Constitution. A piece of paper can be ripped up, a piece of paper can be thrown away. It is flesh and blood, men and women who to protect and defend the Constitution every day. And if we don't do that, then it is just a piece of paper. So absolutely, I will pin this on the GOP. They should have an entire legal wing that does nothing but sue colleges for segregation. You have to enforce the constitution, you have to defend it. This is another reason why the GOP ticks me off so bad. They have simply retreated from these battles. And it wasn't a retreat. It wasn't a winning retreat, right, It wasn't a retreat to regroup and figure things out. They simply took a knee, and unfortunately that meant the rest of us had to as well. And now we're seeing the results of this. So yeah, we are in a position where we're going to actually have to go to battle over this stuff. It would be nice not to, but I just think there needs to be a concerted effort use what's here for you instead of complaining about it. Use it cleverly, Use it the way the other side has used it. The language is there, the provisions are there. Every American has a right to this. We're still in the mindset that the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, and that's what I heard Charlie saying too, not directly, but reading between the lines. We're still in the mindset that the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four was for black people, and when they passed it in nineteen sixty four, that's what I believe. Of course, that's what they thought. They were passing something for black people. How could they have ever looked a mere sixty seventy years ahead and saw what we saw now that we're arguing over whether or not a man can be a woman by cutting his penis off. I'm quite sure that Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Lenny by Johnson, and any of these players and civil rights era had no clue that was coming down the road. So I think conservatives are still in the mind because conservatives we really are. I know, we like to say we're colorblind, but we really are always talking about race, not always our fault. There was this mindset that the Civil Rights Act was just for black people, and that's why it's annoying for right wingers because we just have no more. We have no moral authority in the black community anyway, or in a lot of moral a lot of minority communities anyway. And so I think it has caused us to collectively sort of wave our hands and sort of poo poo it away. This is something that's there and we'll just deal with it. But look at what again, the alphabet lobby, the LGBT, and all the other letters lobby has been able to accomplish by using the Civil Rights Act. It didn't apply to quote them, and they made it apply to them anyway. So you have to make people live by their own rules. This is what I'm saying. I think this is what I'm saying. You have to make people live by their own rules. Did you guys see that clip? You know what I'm I'm gonna play this right now, total sidebarb. You get it. You guys listen to the show all the time. I'm gonna play this Josh McBroom. He's a council city council member from Naperville, Illinois. Naperville is a wealthy suburb of Chicago where they voted plus twenty for Biden in twenty twenty and voted themselves a sanctuary city. I do believe alongside Chicago, and it's a very wealthy liberal neighborhood. And this guy, Josh McBroom. As you may well know, Chicago is struggling mightily with our immigrant crisis. It was our here in the border state of California. It was our immigrant crisis, and they had all that leeway in the world to pontificate about how we should deal with the border until the border came to them. And now it's a whole different story, isn't it the same thing happening in New York. Everybody's judging California for the state of this state, and yet you know, we're expected to house this unlimited stream of illegals to pour over the border. We have a huge human trafficking problem here in southern California. Huge that's the border. So the borders come to these people now, and suddenly the reality of the situation is slapping them right in the face, it's standing right on their doorstep, it's getting off a bus next to their house, and suddenly people feel differently, and so their response is, we need more money, we need to raise taxes. So this is councilman Josh McBroom, and he got a little black for this on Twitter because Twitter's a reactionary platform, and some he misinterpret some conservative misinterpreted this. I felt like I knew what I was watching right away, but not everyone did. Some conservatives misinterpreted this as a liberal guy demanding that innocent Naperville residence house these illegal immigrants. It's not. It's Josh McBroom, a law and order guy saying, okay, the problems here, now put your money where your mouth is. Let's just listen to him. I do know that there's a lot of people that do care, and I I think we live in a compassionate community. So, you know, before we go down the road of you know, doing what you know, following suit on some of these other cities are taking action on, you know, my idea would be, let's let's find out. Let's find out who's going to help, you know, so you know, we do hear from constituents on both sides of this, what are we going to do to preemptively stop this? And then we hear from people that tell us we should do more. So, you know, we do have a very affluent community, a lot of big homes, and what I'd like to do is direct staff to create a sign up sheet, so, you know, for individuals that would be willing to house migrant families. And if there's people that would do that, God bless them. So if we could raise awareness in that way, I think we need to find out. I think we need to find out who would be willing to house migrant families, and so that that would be my new business. I'd been looking for, you know, support from from the dais any questions, discussion have? He got so much crap for that, but eventually it sorted itself out. It's just sort of another funny example of how reactionary we can be. When I was reading it, I was reading the responses and people were giving him such a hard time. They're like you first, And I was thinking, am I the only person who sees what he's doing here? He's making those people play by their own rules. That is the only way any of This works if you want, and all you have to do is look at the Left, look at their playbook. They've done it so well. Hats off, they do it so well. They have used the rules that we hold sacricynct to weasel their way in to our girls' bathrooms and our changing rooms, and our universities and our workplaces. They've used legitimate legal methods to do this. I don't understand why conservatives are so reticent to do the same. Generally speaking, this is me talking as a layperson, but has absolutely no power or influence in the GOP. I fully understand that I don't know all the inner workings. I don't know who's doing what. I know there's people out there like har Meet working their butts off to defend civil rights. I know those people are out there, But still people like that are an outlier. That's not what people associate with Republicans. It's not what people associate with conservatives. But we do associate it with Democrats, that they're going to use the letter of the law to twist it to whatever they want it to mean. And if they can do it, then we can too. And all we want it to mean is what it meant in the first place. So we're good. More language on getting rid of Jim Crow title for desegregation of public education. This one, to me is the biggest one. I'm not going to read it. Y'all know the story abround the Board of Education and how segregation and desegregation has affected American schools. Again, here is another tool that has been used against us. So this is supposed to gate schools, right. This was meant for black people, but it has been used against little girls to force them to accept men. Little girls and women to force them to accept men in women's spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, sports. This has been used for that. It's been weaponized. It's been weaponized against good people by perverts. If they can weaponize this, can we not do the same. Again, I apologize this isn't sort of a technical we should do this and that because I'm not a lawyer or particularly smart. I'm just I'm thinking out loud here. Y'all could maybe fill in the blanks for me. So as we're moving back into this, I don't know. Something just occurred to me. I wonder if the federal government had been more aggressive in prosecuting the Civil Rights Act in all cases, if we would be in such a terrible device the situation racially speaking these days. The thing that comes to mind, again digging out loud, The thing that comes to mind is a story I saw many years ago, now, maybe fifteen even twenty years ago, about a school in South Carolina, North Carolina, one of the southern states, and the story was on CNN, because at the time I was a faithful CNN watcher. The story was this small town doesn't allow black people at their high school proms, so they have two separate proms, they have segregated proms, and it was it was about how shameful that was and how racism is still alive and well in the South. That was the story. That's the story I have carried with me almost this entire time until very recently, and by very recently, I mean maybe a year or two or two ago. I saw that story pop up in context of another one was a hyperlink, and what I realized was it was the black students that had their own separate prompt right Kira, Now, that would be my first assumption. Kira, then a raging liberal with a CNN addiction, obviously was outraged. And this is why we need more rights, more rights, more protection, I wonder, and those things happen all the time, and they still do obviously, and they're celebrated now. I wonder if the federal government had the moxie. And there's lots of reasons why they don't, but this is me thinking, if the federal government had the moxie actually go in and prosecute people who do that under the Civil Rights Act, Yes, even black people. Hey, we're applying this equally to everybody. You cannot discriminate. We do not allow this here. It is in the Civil Rights Act right there. You cannot discriminate in public institutions of education. You cannot separate students by their race in school activities in school. I just wonder if we would be in a slightly different place if our government had been aggressive in prosecuting this across the board. That is, to be fair. That is the part that people like Charlie Kirk don't like and find repulsive, right, that this has been applied unevenly and unequally. But I think by now, at this point, at least in this show, we've proven that if you don't stand up for your rights, very few people are going to do it for you. So I'm not even going to use that as an excuse. This is just bad planning. This is something that GOP should have been doing from the start. They should have had a concerted strategy to be to be enforcing the Civil Rights Act. Okay, if we're going to do this, if we're going to slip this extra legislation into the constitution, then we're going to use it. It's clearly not just for black people. It's clearly a point of this is an American value. This is what we believe, and so we won't do everything in our power as the federal government to make sure that our citizens respect this constitutionally enshrined right. I don't know. If I had money, education, talent, and nothing but time, that's what I'd be doing. And then after that, it's a lot of rules on the Commission. I mean a lot, a lot, a lot. I'm still scrolling. I'm scrolling down, scrolling, man. Just people in government love words. Title ten establishes a new government. To part meant probably where all of this hell started. People be aware anytime anything the government does anything that quote establishes a new department, run far away. It's just that's money. You don't need a new department anyways. I suppose an interesting exercise before. I'm just thinking of it now, and I'm sorry. The interesting exercise would have been to go see if this department is still in play. Well, this is interesting, okay. I went and looked it up. I had not looked this up. It didn't even occur to me to this moment to be curious about this Community Relations Service. I went to their website. It's still there. Obviously, it's part of the DOJ, so it's under the DOJ's umbrella. The mission the CRS serves as America peacemaker for communities facing conflict based on actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS works towards its mission by providing facilitated dialogue, mediation, training, and consultation to assist these communities to come together, develop solutions to the conflict, and enhance their capacity to independently prevent and resolve future conflict. All CRS services are confidential and provided on a voluntary basis, free of charge to the communities. CRS is not an investigatory or prosecutorial agency and does not have any law enforcement authority. CRS works with all parties to develop solutions to conflict and serves as a neutral party. I didn't even know such a thing existed. This is the creepiest thing. Let me play this video serve youtubeing people shaking hands, police officers with kidsmartinly thinking. Quote. Action Service, also known as CRS, is an agency within the Department of Justice. CRS was authorized under the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act and also the Matthew Shepherd and James Bird Junior Hate Crimes Prevention Act in two thousand and nine. CRS provides for services facilitation, mediation, consultation, and training. We don't prosecute. We don't have any law enforcement authority. Also, we're neutral where third party mediators. Our services are free, and so we really are able to help communities when there is conflict and tension. We address conflict and crisis on the basis of race, national origin and color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disabilities, and religion. CRS has ten regional offices across the country in four field offices and a headquarters office in Washington, DC. GEEZ any community that is experiencing a conflict or crisis crs can provide services there. We bring a set of expertise, a set of skills, a set of connections, and a brand name based on our work since the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act and the trust of communities for us. This guy is talking from San Francisco, people together who have differences and they're looking for a way to get to ys. Conflict is natural. You know it's going to occur, and if conflict is managed, probably getting worked out most of the time. If it's unmanaged, people go to a dark place. Being able to implement the collective wisdom of the stakeholders and being receptive to the tools that they bring and the insights that day bring is wow. It's four minutes long. The website is its Department of Justice, but just look up the Community Relations Wow wow, Community Relations Service. Uh, creepy, creepy, creepy, had no idea this is there. This is not what the government should be doing. The government should know the DOJ should be freaking prosecuting discrimination cases this other stuff of like reconciliation. Do you see? This is the Government's why the government always wants to push out faith. Right if you if God is your God, government can't be your God. But if government's even the one that's teaching you how to forgive, then you don't need God for anything. And this is creepy. Who calls these people? That's what I want to know. Who calls the CRS? I didn't even know they existed. Who so you know who knows the CRS exists? And maybe I'm dumb. Maybe you all already knew this, And if you did, write me jlty at proton mail dot com. This is this is a revelation to me. This is my first time seeing this. So if you've already known about this, tell me what you knew and how and how it works. Have you had experience with this? Who do you think calls CRS? I know it's not no dang conservative because we would preferred just to deal with this crap on our own in our own private businesses, and we certainly would not welcome the government to come in and do quote negotiations and mediations. If you go and look at the video, you can look at their their They filmed a training session, and you don't need to be the smartest person in the world to look at the makeup of the people in that room and know exactly what direction this CRS agency leans in. And yes, I know how that sounds, And no, I don't care because I'm an intelligent person and I've learned, you know, to understand what patterns are and why we have something like stereotyping. So I'm actually not afraid to stereotype when when it's meaningful. Yeah. I looked at that room and I thought, oh, yeah, I who who would want CRS to come to them to quote mediate? Here's another thing, why aren't we using this? Shouldn't there be some kind of concerted Republican or Republican activist strategy either to infiltrate this service, which is probably what we'll have to do infiltrate it. Right, all right, if we get to go into communities and talk to people about race, well maybe we need to start appointing people to these positions on this team, supposedly volunteer team. We need to put thoughtful people in those places who will go into communities instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting white fragility and Ebrahm Kendy, go in and really talk about what racial reconciliation is and really make all people face their discriminations and demons. I mean, some people would literally melt. But it would be fun, wouldn't it. I don't know, gosh, and it makes me wonder who would call them? And maybe we should be calling them? Maybe we should. Maybe that's a strategy we should be calling this. Maybe more people should be calling this agency to preside over some of the blatant civil rights violations of certain communities and certain universities in certain workplaces. I'm sure there are so many other sub sections of American government I don't know about that are equally as disturbing, But this, really you are hearing this in real time, folks. Me discovering this, I literally did not think about that language until just sitting here to record the Community Relations Service. Well that's enshrined in the constitution. Now, so what are we gonna do? Right? What are we gonna do about it? Are we gonna are we gonna cry? And are we gonna say? Oh no, this terrible thing is here and it makes me so mad. And progressives just use it so badly, and they and they use it as a weapon. I mean, what purposes that serve except messaging wise? What it looks like is it looks like we're saying, oh ugh, we hate it when people try to talk about racism. It doesn't even matter. That's what it sounds like in the messaging sphere. So I don't know, maybe we could use this. We should use this to the advantage of saying America instead of letting insane America rule over all of these things. This is here, It's clearly here to stay. So what are we gonna do? Hey, y'all, this is Ali Michelle. I'm a conservative social media influencer that has been censored by a big tech so I broke away from the restrictions and started a podcast called pillow Talk with Ali Mischell. My show is a space to have real conversations about the issues that impact our everyday lives without the fear of being canceled by the big tech tyrants. Subscribe to pillow Talk with Ali Michelle and FCB podcast on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or wherever you getch podcasts. That's Ali ALII. Come check out my show. I'll see you there. This is how I feel. I'm wrapping this up now because the rest is legalise. I hope that there's some food for thought in here and it wasn't too jumbled, but literally just thinking this throughout loud. I think my whole point of the podcast, so we're not using the Civil Rights Act the way we could to our advantage. Instead, a lot of people like Charlie Kirk and Matt Walsh, they just want to complain about it, but they don't seem to hi the willpower or the intelligence to use their influence to help people understand how we could use this to get what we want. But it reminds me of the current angst over the Dobbs decision coming out of conservative corners. It's been interesting to see how many conservatives are not pro life. Not that I've ever felt that was a requirement to be a Republican or Conservative, but because we think of the pro life movement as on the conservative side, I'm always surprised, and I was surprised at the reaction of many people who claim to be pro life and are actually upset at the Dobbs decision because it's having electoral consequences, and it is having electoral consequences. Me, I don't have a problem with it because I know it was the right thing constitutionally speaking. Is forget about morally constitutionally speaking, that was the right thing to do. It was always the right thing to do. The wrong thing to do was Roe v Wade me that was the right thing to do, And it's not a valid argument. So we should have kept bad legislation because it was better for elections. I wouldn't let Democrats get away with that. I don't know why would I would let Republicans get away with that. But also, this is just my opinion on this. But because I am pro life, and when I say pro life, I don't mean with exceptions. I mean every baby has the right to be born. I don't believe in any circumstance under which it is acceptable to kill a baby. So if someone said to me, Kira, I got to kill your daughter who's sixteen, now, I need to kill her. But if you elect Biden for another four years, or if you vote for Biden for another four years, I'll leave her alive. Yeah, I probably would vote for I'd put up with another four years of the Democrats to save my daughter's life. So I have no problem with the electoral consequences of dobbs if and it does if it means saving lives, literally, saving the lives of the most weak and innocent and unrepresented voices among us. Horton, here's a who. A person's a person, no matter how small. So I feel very strongly about that. And I think when it comes to God, you know we're this is these are the affairs of man, but we must be cognizant of the affairs of God. So I don't care if we never win an election. I'm not I'm not turning my back on God and his laws. I'm not going to do that. That has far worse consequences than losing this election or future elections to the Democrats, far more eternal consequences. I have no problem. I know I'm beating this dead horse, but this is the point I'm getting to. I do not understand conservatives who are complaining and whining about the Dobbs decision and how it's going to make it harder for Republicans to win elections. And we didn't think it through. We did think it through, but we don't. But it doesn't matter if what we think right, It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what Skotis thinks. I didn't go to Scotus and tell them you need to change us. They chose to take up the case and then they chose to rule on the case. So there's nothing literally anyone could have done. You couldn't what were we supposed to do. Were we supposed to walk into the Supreme Court and say, hey, oh we're taking this off the docket. We don't want you to. There's no branch of government that has the authority. It's people who respect life but aren't necessarily willing to go to the map for it. And they're mad and fair enough that the Democrats are going to run on this and run effectively. But you know why they get to run effectively on this because the GOP has failed to message effectively on this. So rather than sit here and wine and cry and complain about all all of us extreme right wing pro lifers in the party, instead of sitting there and complaining about us, why don't you deal with the world the way it is? Dobbs is here, Abortion is the state's right issue. Instead of whining about how difficult it's going to be to win elections with that issue looming large, we should use their strategy against them and start messaging this, start messaging what it is a states rights issue. Dobbs is here, so use it. I guess all I'm doing these last two episodes is complaining about a bunch of complainers. And I know I went pretty hard in that last part about pro life, but I don't. I think this is part of my you know, I'm turning fifty, my midlife crisis. I don't have much patience on this issue anymore. Anyway, tell me what you think, jlty a proton mail dot com. Jlty at ProtonMail dot com. What do you think? I actually don't. I'm not asking you if you agree with me, because I think this podcast has been one of those that's just me searching through the topic and not necessarily having definitive answers. So this is more of an open ended question. Give me your thoughts. How did I say anything that made sense or maybe was wrong? Because I don't understand a lot of legally, so I fully admit that I might have been misinterpreting some of this. So if you want to correct me on something, I'm in fact asking you too, so I can learn as well. And let's see, don't forget all of course the regular stuff. Subscribe all that good stuff Christians, Christian listeners, if you are really interested in what's happening in Christendom and the Kingdom and things that are going on. Darby and I have been talking lately about how we think all of these cultural and political issues are converging right now because something spiritually is happening. This is including the decline of Christendom in the West, and so it's an interesting topic. It's something I've been fascinated. So I interviewed my friend Cameron, who moved from southern California to Norway to be a missionary, and I thought. My first question to him, of course, was what are you going to do in Norway, Because when I think of missionary work, I think of well, you're going to go to Africa and build wells. You're going to go to South America and deliver medicine and medical treatments and doctors without borders and all of that stuff. I know that's a bit naive, but that's how I that's always my first thought. And he said, well, Norway is a ripe mission field because it's a secular country that is Christian. They call themselves Christian, but that's just a nationalistic identifier like you might say German or American or their guests were Christians. Because we have the Church of Norway. Anyways, how do you minister to people who a have quote have it all from the outside, right, They have free healthcare, unemployment benefits. It's a small country, five million people. They have this high quality life or what we view as high quality from the outside. So they have all of their physical needs provided for and they already think they're Christians, even though they don't know what who Jesus is, or what the Cross is or what Christianity is. How do you minister to people like that, They don't even know they need Jesus. Cam just talked about what it's like to wait in there and how people the physical our physical comforts are a blessing, but oftentimes they keep us from examining our spiritual discomfort, which is why we have such high rates of addiction and uh, you know, alcoholism and all of that stuff in this country. Guys, are you noticing, Oh man, I feel like COVID, the what's happened in COVID. We're only now seeing the really seeing the results come to fruition. And culturally, I am continually struck by how lonely everyone is. I just can't believe it. And maybe it's because for the first time in a long time, I have not been completely absorbed with my own pain, and I'm suddenly looking around me and people that I thought had it together, people that who I thought were fine. When you just dig in a bit, a tiny bit with them, you start to see the crushing depths of loneliness. We do not know how to relate to one another anymore. I'm actually frightened by this. This is a big problem. My cousin Ben started a church in Pasadena, but he opened the church because he noticed how only people work, and so his goal was community. And that's sort of the whole theme of the church, community, bringing people back into community with each other. We're so lonely, and I think the loneliness obviously is I can't tell you if it's if it's a consequence of the distance or correlation to the distance, I don't know. But the loneliness certainly does make it easier for evil people to legislate evilly and to do evil things to us, and to make us do evil things to each other, because the lonelier we get, the fewer people we see, and the less compassion we have for each other. I'm so deeply concerned about this I've wanted to do an episode on loneliness for quite a while, but I just don't know the way in So I don't know. I will keep thinking on it. Maybe I need to interview somebody, a pastor, or somebody is working. Maybe Ben I don't want to. I don't want to. I love Ben. I don't want to drag him into the best that comes when you get on conservative media. M Hey, everybody, you know the drill until we meet it again every once in a while, just stop and listen to yourself. OP prayers as that we won't with say, then we won't to say, oh we got it? Does no one get dig that? Owen it gonna be okay? O praiders as that we won't with pay then we won't to say, oh we got it? Does no one get dig that? Owen it gonna be okay? This has been a presentation of the FCB podcast Network, where Real Talk lifts visitors online at Fcbpodcasts dot com.
