Episode 216

Let’s continue our Bonkers series with six headlines sure to have you scratching your head. We are one step closer to providing engineered babies to paying couples as Silicon Valley quietly pushes the legal barriers to genetic editing, A fourteen year old boy murders his elderly neighbor and show not a shred of remorse or concern. Don Lemon hits the streets and tries to convince people that crossing the border is not illegal because it’s a misdemeanor and not a crime (make it make sense!). Canadian laws render citizens sitting ducks to armed criminals. The Chicago mayor equates the term “illegal aliens” to “slaves” and slams a reporter for calling the illegal aliens illegal aliens. The world we are living in is bonkers, ladies and gentlemen. Join us and let’s discuss!

[Jay]

Teenagers, like people who have just turned, just become a teenager, committing this type of crime, premeditated, psychopathic, sociopathic, cold-hearted, whatever other adjective that we can describe. I know that these are actually specific words, but just the kind of murder that he committed and then go on to social media and talk about it as though he were talking about the breakfast he had that morning is bonkers to me.

Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG. And we’re attempting to remove barriers, so we can all have a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

This is episode 216 of the Removing Barriers podcast. And this is the 15th in the series of This World Has Gone Bonkers. And in this episode, we have lined up a number of news articles that we think show that this world is bonkers.

[Jay]

Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things Removing Barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removingbarriers.net/donate. Removing Barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

All right, Jay, what’s your first article?

[Jay]

My first article is from moneycontrol.com titled, How Silicon Valley is Inching Toward Engineered Babies, the tech, the risks, and the legal gray zones. I suppose at some point we all believed or realized that this was going to happen. The article reads, for nearly a year, a small San Francisco startup called Preventive has been preparing for something that would have seemed like science fiction a decade ago. Backed by Sam Altman, Oliver Mulherin, and Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong, the company has been exploring embryo editing in an effort to prevent inherited diseases and, over time, influence traits such as intelligence. People familiar with the effort said that executives were quietly working toward identifying a couple willing to participate in an embryo editing pregnancy, though Preventive now denies this. Their plan rests on editing an embryo’s DNA before implantation, something that’s already banned in the United States and in many other countries. It goes on to editorialize and explain why the science is powerful and dangerous. And I think that we know after the pandemic, we understand that gene editing is something that’s routinely done in research. The idea of taking a naturally occurring microorganism editing its genetic information and then seeing how it behaves is something that happens commonly in science. And I think in some realms, they would call it gain of function. In other realms, it would be called something else. But essentially, what it sounds like they’re doing is they’re editing the genetic information of the embryo before it implants into the uterine lining, which would initiate an actual pregnancy. And then Now, the article doesn’t and can’t explain how they would actually edit for certain preferable traits, which ultimately would come down the pike at some point. And I suppose that they can’t go into detail on how they would do that simply because this is being fiercely guarded by these companies trying to do the research. Everyone that is working in the company is under NDA. They did not hire from the outside, they hired from inside. Every single step has been monitored by law firms and lawyers and legal, everything that you would have to do to participate in such questionable research. Even scientists are not on the same page as to whether or not this is good science, whether it should be legal, whether we should be doing this at all. Let me go ahead and read how the article editorializes this. It says, gene editing is routine in research and increasingly used to treat severe diseases after the child is born. But altering embryos touches off much deeper fears. Changes made at that stage become heritable, passing down to future generations. Scientists warn that the technology is still unpredictable, with risks that include unintended edits, missing segments of DNA, and interactions between genes that researchers don’t yet understand. The only known case of children born from edited embryos happened in China in 2018, and the researcher that was responsible was jailed for illegal medical practice. And of course, that episode triggered debate far and wide globally about… this technology and whether we should be participating in it. So because it’s such a contentious issue, the company that’s stepping into the foray is seeking to do all of their research outside of the United States to find countries that have at least gray area when it comes to their law regarding this practice. The article mentions that they are even looking into doing real-world research in the UAE. because this kind of scientific experimentation or research, if you will, is legal over there. And I found that to be interesting that it would be legal in the UAE because there’s been a significant push from the Emirates to present itself as the premier location in the world for the latest and the most cutting-edge technology, entertainment, dining, tourist attractions and events. And recently, many famous and prominent American comedians were put on blast because they were paid by the UAE to go over there and perform a comedy show. And the UAE is antithetical in their stance to freedom of speech. and other freedom-loving principles when compared to the United States. So the fact that comedians from the US would agree to go over there and perform was a glaring hypocrisy that the audience in America definitely didn’t let these comedians forget. But it’s all a part of the UAE’s effort to change their presentation and their face to the world as not a backward, you know, Muslim or Middle Eastern country, but instead the cutting edge for all things that the West is known for. The idea that they would allow human trials for this particular technology is very, very interesting to me and not in a good way. I think it’s part of their effort to position themselves to be financial and cultural leaders in the world. which, if I put on my tinfoil hat, would probably make it easier for them to spread or implement Sharia law beyond their borders, but that’s just me. They have to win culturally first, and so perhaps this is one other Ave. that they can do that, but that’s my tinfoil hat. Let me go on with the article. It says here that Preventive has been exploring locations where embryo editing is legal, including the UAE. The FDA is barred from even reviewing applications from human trials involving embryo editing, which means that companies pursuing the technology must leave the country to conduct real-world tests. And preventive, it says here, incorporated quietly, operated with a small team under NDAs, and avoided public hiring. When contacted for comment last month, it acknowledged raising over $30 million, and it said that it was progressing cautiously. So my question is, where did all of that money come from? And who are the quacks that think that it’s a good idea to pursue this kind of science? The pandemic of 2019 and 2020 is a clear example of how we don’t have a handle on this kind of science or technology just yet, and many millions of people. Hundreds of millions of people have paid the price, whether it’s the ultimate price being their lives or a price in other ways, whether it’s extended illness or the economic impact of the pandemic. The failures of that kind of research, far-reaching. Now granted, when we’re talking about the pandemic, we’re not talking about an actual human embryo. We’re just talking about a virus that you can make the argument is not alive. And so perhaps within the realm of science, science, there’s a gray area that says, okay, well, I suppose it’s okay to do what they ended up calling gain of function research. But in this particular science is editing, messing with actual human beings, an actual embryo before implantation. And so of course, the spiritual and moral and social implications are that much greater. I think, and the fact that the company is pursuing this kind of technology without so much of a care for those things is alarming to me. As continues here, preventive is only one piece of a wider movement. Several startup founders, many of them backed by well-known tech investors, are developing embryo screening technologies that promise insight into a child’s future health and other traits. These companies do not edit DNA. Instead, they produce risk profiles by analyzing dozens of genes at once, from heart disease vulnerability to susceptibility to schizophrenia. Some also offer predictions about likely intelligence, height, or eye color, which has drawn sharp criticism from geneticists who say the science is not mature and risks encouraging a modern version of eugenics through the marketplace. How can we not see that something like this will eventually lead to people choosing to terminate a pregnancy because their risk profiles don’t fit what they’re looking for in their child or in their progenitor, let’s say, because they’re certainly not looking at the embryo as a child. They’re looking at the embryo as a product, and that can be edited or tweaked or changed to fit their particular desires. And that’s a terrible, terrible path to go down.

[MCG]

All right, so yeah, I think you hit the name on the head there because I was going to say that we need to call it what it is. This is messing with the DNA of a human being. And I guess the constant use of the term embryo, which there’s nothing wrong with the term embryo or bad or anything with the term embryo. I think it just kind of dehumanized the fact that it’s a human being. And they figure, well, we can freeze our eggs and discard them if we don’t want to use them anymore. and we can abort them, so why not edit them to get the desired result that we want? Yeah, I think eugenics is the way it’s going to lead to. If you want a boy and he’s a girl, why not get rid of it? Or why not fertilize it in such a way that, you know, it’s going to be a boy. But it’s amazing what men can do with their brain and their knowledge and stuff like that. And And the science of it to some degree is fascinating. But what come to my mind is that how much they deny the science on the basic level of gender, sexuality. But they use the science to the fullest degree when they want to do. Again, that’s called it what it is, evil. Evil. So it’ll be interesting to see how this goes. I don’t know, the UAE, if they’re successful or in China they’re successful, would he eventually make his way to the US? I wouldn’t be surprised, but also, I would see this also to be something like of a tourism element as well, where rich folks and wealthy middle class folks, hey, I want a baby and I want to determine every aspect of a baby before it is implanted. Let me fly to UAE, let me fly to China, let me fly to Russia. I’m not saying these countries allow it, but I I would imagine if any country is going to allow it would be those countries a little bit looser laws than the US or Canada or places like that. So yeah, that would be an interesting one, but the depravity of men is always going to be on display and he’s more so into this world with the amount of knowledge we have.

[Jay]

So we already know how it’s going to happen because we have lesser technology today and people are making permanent decisions based on the this knowledge. So for example, a woman who’s pregnant can opt to receive or to take certain genetic tests that would create a risk profile for the baby having developed any number of genetic abnormalities or genetic diseases. And I’ve experienced this myself. If there’s any risk or if you are in what they call a geriatric pregnancy, they often recommend termination some type of incredibly invasive medical procedure, if there’s even a chance that the baby will develop what they call an undesirable characteristic that would make, quote, life, what is it, the low quality of life. And all of these things have, at the root of it, playing God, because you’re determining whether or not a life is worth living. You’re determining whether or not you should deal with the things that life has brought to you, most of which are things that are a result of the fall. And so all of it, whether we have the technology to edit it when the child is just an embryo or not, all of it is a facet of playing God, which is ultimately forbidden by scripture.

[MCG]

Yep.

[Jay]

Okay, so what article do you have next?

[MCG]

All right, well, I don’t have anything as serious as that. Don Lemon, the former CNN now turn YouTube host. So he was fired from CNN some time ago. He was with CNN, I think, 20 plus years, had his own show and everything. And now he is a YouTuber and he has this segment of his show where he called man on the street. And he was talking to a couple and he claimed that crossing the US border is not a criminal act. All right, so I’m going to play the a conversation and pause along the way as he said some stuff but let me just say this actually I don’t know if it’s there 20 plus years in cable news or what but I have a feeling I wonder if this was always the case but the internet does kind of catch up with these people when I’m say these people I’m talking about journalists and news hosts and all these things because I I can’t imagine they’re as dumb as Don Lemon’s going to come across in this clip. But I wonder if it’s just a situation where we didn’t have the information at our fingertip to research and to prove them wrong right away. Because given the benefit of doubt, he’s an educated guy. So to do something and say something like this baffled my mind. But anyways, I’m not the sharpest knife in the draw, but here’s Don Lemon with that couple. I think they were in New York.

[Don Lemon: Man on the Street]

Okay, crossing the border illegally is not a crime? No, it’s not a criminal act. It’s a misdemeanor.

[Jay]

So why are they being sent back and saying that they’re… I’m sorry. It’s not a criminal act. It’s a misdemeanor. Isn’t a misdemeanor a crime?

[MCG]

All right. So in the U.S., since this is in the U.S., I don’t know about necessarily other countries. Let’s call them three levels. I’m no lawyer, so this is coming from a layperson.

[Jay]

This is not legal advice.

[MCG]

This is coming from a layperson. In the US, there are normally three levels of violations or let’s call it breaking the law, if you want to put it that way. The first one, which is the lowest level, is infection, a violation, is a breaking of a code or something like that. So you’re driving down the street in a posted 25 miles per hour limit, and you’re going 30 miles per hour. Police pull you over and he gives you a ticket. That’s an infraction. Meaning what you’re going to get is that you’re going to pay some money and they’re going to let you go on the way. The police officer’s not gonna slap handcuffs on you. They’re not gonna haul you off to jail. He’s just simply going to give you a ticket, tell you to slow down. Think about your neighbors playing music too loud. The police might just come and just write them a ticket, find them. Those are infractions. Those are kind of nothing burgers. Well, maybe not nothing burgers, but you get my point. Then you have misdemeanor. The difference between misdemeanor and a felony for most cases is the length of time you’ll spend in prison slash jail. For most states, if it’s less than a year, it’s considered to be a misdemeanor. If it’s more than a year, it’s considered to be a felony. So therefore, you’re crossing the US border, he’s right. It’s a misdemeanor on the first offense. But on the second offense, if you should come across the second time and get caught, it will be a felony. Of course, when we think about felonies, we think about, you know, bigger, greater crimes, and that does have an effect on it as well, the more severe crime. But the true difference is basically the length of time that you will spend in the locker. And if you get convicted on a misdemeanor, you will have a rap sheet, which is basically a record of arrest and persecution. You will have a criminal record. In some states, depends on what the misdemeanor is, it can even lose some of your constitutional rights, like your gun rights. You can lose some of them just on a misdemeanor. So Don Lemon is absolutely wrong here that it’s not a criminal act, but it’s a misdemeanor. Well, a misdemeanor is a, say it would be Don Lemon, a criminal act. Anyways, he continues.

[Don Lemon: Man on the Street]

Breaking the law. That’s the point. OK, as somebody that– We don’t know if they’re breaking the law because they won’t tell. There’s no due process. Where’s the evidence? That’s the whole point. And if they are breaking the law, most people will say, OK, then they need to go if they’re criminals. But if they’re not, why are they being rounded up and sent out, especially when he promised to deport the criminals? And now he’s not doing that.

[MCG]

All right, so let me read 8 U.S. Code Section 1325 improper entry by alien and this is by Cornell Law School any alien and which an alien is someone who is a non-citizen in the country we’re going to get to that term again in my next bunkers but let’s continue any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or or two, elude examination or inspection by immigration officers, or three, attempts to enter, or obtains entry into the United States by willful false or misleading representation, or the unlawful concealment of a material fact, shall for the first commission of any such offense be fined on the Title 18, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. And for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined on a title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years or both. So basically what I just explained. That’s the code right there in black and white that is illegal. And the first offense, they’ll give you a slap on the wrist. They might charge you. They may lock you up for less than six months and they send you on your way. Second offense, they do the same thing, but this time you could be up to two years.

[Jay]

He talked about there not being due process. Due process for someone crossing the border illegally is to be caught. And if they’re not legal, the process is to ship them out, is it not? I don’t think illegals have the same sort of due process that legals do.

[MCG]

They are required to have due process in certain cases. But for the most part, there are still millions of people, illegal immigrants, into the country that have already had their day in court and already have been served deportation orders that have been ignored. Like their favorite guy, Garcia, what’s his name?

[Jay]

Yeah, I think it Ibrego Garcia or something like that.

[MCG]

Yeah, the guy from Maryland. He was already served papers and many others have been served papers.

[Jay]

Yeah, that’s the due process, right?

[MCG]

Yeah, they’ve already been to court, they already get deportation orders. So he’s wrong here in the sense that they’re not being given due process. Plus, if you cross the border illegally, we don’t owe you that due process. Anyways, he continues.

[Don Lemon: Man on the Street]

I don’t think we’re going… Misdemeanor is not a crime, that’s what you’re saying. So misdemeanor is not a crime. It’s not a criminal act. No, if you get charged with a misdemeanor, that’s not a criminal act. I don’t get charged at all then if it’s not a criminal act. Because we have different levels of crime. Everything is not the same. We have different levels of, I shouldn’t say crime, but it’s not a crime. You’re not breaking the law. I mean, you are breaking the law, but it’s not a crime.

[MCG]

Which one is it, Don Lemon? You’re not breaking the law, but it’s a crime, but you’re not breaking up. Which one it is? Which one is it? Because I’m a little bit confused here. Because when I look up into the US code, it clearly says that It’s a misdemeanor for the first offense and the felony for the second.

[Don Lemon: Man on the Street]

Criminal act. So it’s breaking the law. No, you’re not breaking the law. A misdemeanor is not breaking the law. No. If you’re speeding, drinking, get pulled over, DUI. That’s not a criminal act. Well, no, if you’re speeding is a misdemeanor.

[MCG]

It’s a misdemeanor. No. Okay. Can speeding be a misdemeanor? Yes.

[Jay]

Yes.

[MCG]

But for most speeding-.

[Jay]

Speeding can also be a felony.

[MCG]

Most states, simple speeding is an infraction. See, that’s- And there are few states out there that will actually, if you’re going certain speed above the speed limit, like 20 miles above the speed limit or more, or you are speeding in a school zone, some of those would be a felony because they’re so egregious, like speeding in a school zone. But for most normal people driving down the highway, going 10 mph above the posted speed limit, it’s a simple infraction. It’s not a misdemeanor. Can it be a misdemeanor? Yes. Can it be a felony? Yes. But he’s saying here that a misdemeanor is not a crime, which he just contradicting himself all over the place.

[Don Lemon: Man on the Street]

So still breaking the law. Okay, if you want to qualify that, we’re doing semantics. But what I’m trying to tell you is everything is not the same. It’s all not one thing, an authoritarian nation. And that’s what we’re quickly becoming. Mexico has never had any dictators. Mexico has never been… Mexico is not a democracy in the sense that America is.

[MCG]

And he quickly changed the topic because he’s not winning the argument.

[Jay]

And America is not a democracy, but okay.

[MCG]

Exactly.

[Don Lemon: Man on the Street]

You’re comparing two places that are not the same. It’s not, you’re not, it’s not a crime. You’re not breaking the law. I mean, you are breaking the law, but it’s not a criminal act.

[Jay]

I wonder, does he hear himself when he…

[MCG]

I don’t know, but…

[Jay]

You know what I think? I think that this is done on purpose because those are the types of things that get engagement and eyes and clicks and impressions on social media now. I think perhaps he knows and perhaps he’s doing this on purpose. I can’t imagine that he’s out there willfully Just willfully spreading that kind of… Well, yes, I can believe it, actually. Never mind. I take it all back. I take it all back.

[MCG]

Yes, I can believe it. I think the problem is he ran into some, let’s should we say, educated people or informed people, and he didn’t know how to defend his weak drama and argument. Because just a quick search, an AI question will tell you that the misdemeanor is a crime. Now, do we need to show empathy to an illegal immigrant or whatever the case may be? yes to some degree no to some degree I think if you break the laws of a country that the country should have a right to send you back to where you come from but if we’re looking at the black and white letter of the law crossing the border is illegal plain blank and simple you’re listening to the removing barriers podcast we are in the midst of another Bonkers episode we’ll be right back.

[Jay]

Are you looking for a consistent and reliable place to get all your Christian materials? Try ChristianBook.com. Started from humble beginnings in 1978, ChristianBook.com now offers a wide range of books, CDs, DVDs, homeschooling, and church supplies, plus more. So whether you are a parent, a homeschooler, a pastor, or a layperson, ChristianBook.com can be a one-stop shop for all your needs. Click the link in the description section below and check out the vast array of Christian materials ChristianBook.com has to offer.

[MCG]

All right, Jay, what is your next article?

[Jay]

I am apparently Debbie Downer here in this episode because you have the articles that we can laugh at and point to, but I have really dark ones. This next article is titled, 14-year-old admits to murdering 64-year-old neighbor. This is according to, actually it’s all over the news. It’s all over local news, so multiple outlets have this article. A 14-year-old will be in juvenile detention until he’s 21 after admitting to murdering his 64-year-old neighbor earlier this year in Fairfax. The incident unfolds late February 1st into February 2nd, when officers responded to the home on Germania Street, I’m sorry, Germania Street, for a report of an unresponsive woman. Police say officers and medical personnel confirmed the woman, later identified as 64-year-old Sheila Denise Tenpenny, was dead. Tenpenny’s brother found his sister dead inside her home. He called 911. I think my sister’s been murdered, he said. She’s got her head covered with a pillow and her legs exposed. Ten days after Tenpenny was found dead, investigators announced her 13-year-old neighbor was charged with murder. In court, the teen admitted to charges of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, and strangulation. In exchange, the serious youthful offender indictment and remaining six charges will be dismissed. Prosecutor Linda Scott said months prior to the incident that the teen researched how to strangle someone, how to do it, how to find a victim. For months, the defendant did this sort of research, she said, in court. According to Scott, the teen went to the victim’s home, found her sleeping, struck her, and suffocated her. Scott said the victim fought throughout the struggle, caused injury to the teen’s face, and was even found to be holding his hair when she was discovered. The teen’s blood was also found throughout her house and his watch was under her body. The lawyer said after the incident that the teen notified social media saying, quote, this one was a fighter. Investigators followed the DNA to the teen, ultimately leading to his arrest. Agent Ward of the Bureau of Criminal Investigations also talked about the premeditation of the offense and posts to social media. Ward said that the teen also searched, quote, how to defeat police interrogation and communicated with others during the investigation, saying things like, quote, I think I just got caught. This woman with the last name Ward, he said, it’s very disturbing. My fear is that he made mistakes, but in the future, will he learn from those mistakes? Ward said that his team is looking into the people that the teen was communicating with, including one person they believe is overseas. Ward said that in his 25 years, he’s never seen premeditation like this with someone the teen’s age. There’s more to this article, but this is such a crazy article that we now have nascent teenagers, like people who have just turned, just become a teenager, committing this type of crime, premeditated, psychopathic, sociopathic, cold hearted, whatever other adjective that we can describe. I know that these are actually specific words, but just the kind of murder that he committed and then go on to social media and talk about it as though he were talking about the breakfast he had that morning is bonkers to me. And I would like to know what are the things that led to such a calloused, nonchalant, psychopathic expression that would lead to someone’s death at his hand.

[MCG]

Well, if he’s a psychopath, that may explain a lot. His marvel compass is broken at that point. However, there’s a lot of things going through my mind at this point. You know, what kind of home was this teen raising? What kind of shows were he watching? What devices were he allowed free range on? Stuff like that to find out really get to the root of it. Ultimately, we know that the root of it is a sinful nature and a sinful heart. The Bible says that the heart is deceitful above all things, but desperately wicked. Who can know it? And that’s true for a kid, a teenager and an adult. But I would like to know exactly what was going on in this young man’s home. Firstly, to get a better understanding of this, because the fact that you’ve been researching this for months, and bragging about it online and all that stuff. There’s a level of depravity that kind of make you scratch your head because, you know, but not only that, is there access to these things that is beyond me. Again, I don’t advocate for parents to be punished for crimes committed by the teenagers because I know and think that teenagers have agency. So I think they should be punished for their own crimes. But parenting is vitally important. And in a situation where we live in a country now where they teach you that you’re basically here by chance, little or no care for human life and all these things, maybe that’s the fruit of humanism, materialism, and all the other isms out there that we hold to. and run away from God. So what’s going on here? This one is well above my pay grade to definitely understand what’s going on here, at least under psychological and physical point. The spiritual part of it is clear because the Bible tells us we are all sinners and we all have that wicked heart. It’s in all of us, but also the nurture part of it is baffling me in terms of what did they feed this guy on? what video games were he playing and stuff like that. Again, I’m not necessarily causing blame on video games, I’m not necessarily causing blame on his parents, but I would have those questions to understand fully what led to this heinous crime by a teenager.

[Jay]

Who’s to know? You know, it’s clear that he was completely unsupervised in his home. the people that he was communicating with online were well beyond his age range and not even in his locale. Some of them were overseas. So it’s clear that there was no supervision there in terms of his online life, which I’m a parent, I shouldn’t speak because goodness, there are parents that do everything right and their children still walk away from the truth. And so I don’t want to be completely nonchalant about this, but if his online life lacked such supervision. I think it’s safe to say that his, I should say other areas in his life, went on unsupervised as well. And perhaps someone like that would get to the point of realizing that no one cares, no one would know if he… lived tomorrow or not, no one would notice. And so you develop this nihilistic outlook on life that not only endangers your life, but everyone else around you. When you get to that point, it seems that history repeats itself and you could see that when someone gets to that point, they’re not only content to take themselves out, but also people around them, which is what we see here in this very sad article. Maybe I’m being too much of A stickler about this, but I am not one to believe that someone like that should be allowed back into society. I don’t quite care how young he is. What he did was premeditated, just cold-blooded, that this is what the death penalty is for. And I realize that I’m speaking quite strongly for someone who is so young, but if we look at it from a biblical perspective, well, sin and the sin nature doesn’t care how young you are. And it doesn’t matter how young you are. Every single person from the newly born babe all the way up to the 94-year-old grandma are sinners before an angry God, sinners before a righteous God, I should say. And there is absolutely no leg that we could stand on apart from Christ. So it doesn’t matter if you’re 13 or if you’re 98. There are certain crimes that beg for the type of justice in which we see in Scripture where God says that the Lord put government in place to wield the sword. And in this particular instance, I don’t think it should be beyond the question that, the death penalty should be considered. I understand that he’s young, but the premeditation and the lack of concern is quite jarring. Many efforts should be made to witness to him to reach him, but the crime definitely, I don’t know, maybe I’m speaking out of my ear on this one, but I just could not read the article and not be stunned by just the level of the level of a lack of care that shocks me.

[MCG]

I’m not quite sure if I would say the death penalty is appropriate here. I could be wrong.

[Jay]

You’re magnanimous.

[MCG]

Not necessarily. He’s 13. Is he redeemable? And I say redeemable, I’m not necessarily even talk about spiritually because spiritually, of course, he’s redeemable. Christ died for him and he can be saved.

[Jay]

Absolutely.

[MCG]

But Is he redeemable in the eyes of the law and can be re-engaged in society? There’s a possibility. He is 13, well, 14 at this point. So 13, it seems like when the crime was occurred. If I had a say in whether or not he should face the death penalty or not, you know, he depends on the state. some state, maybe he would, but I think there’s some grace can be extended here. I’m not quite sure if the article said this or not, but I don’t know if at 21 he’s going to be let go or he’s going to be moving to adult facilities. I will more move for that than let him go. And I will move for that than to give him the death penalty. Yeah, I can’t get to the death penalty on this one, but I could be wrong. So that’s where I stand. I can’t get to the death penalty per se. Anyways. And I’m going to stick with the same team I started with my first bunkers. We have another one. Now, this one is Brandon Johnson. And if you don’t know who Brandon Johnson is, he is the great mayor of Chicago. And he was offended because someone used the term illegal alien. He basically says that it is racist and it’s the same like the term slave. Anyways, here’s Brendon Johnson with the exchange.

[Brandon Johnson: Press Conference]

So it’s come to our attention through our cauldron of sources, Mr. Mayor, that you’re supposed to have filed a report on spending on illegal aliens in Chicago at the White House by now. What’s happening with that? What has happened with that? We don’t have illegal aliens. I don’t know if that’s from some sort of sci-fi message that you wish you’ve had. Well, listen, the legal term for my people were slaves. You want me to use that term too? So look, let’s just get the language right. We’re talking about undocumented individuals that are…

[MCG]

The legal term for all people were slaves. I don’t think that’s quite correct, but anyway, continue to Johnson.

[Brandon Johnson: Press Conference]

Human beings, the last thing that I’m going to do is accept the type of racist, nasty language to describe human beings. And so as far as our spending on Chicagoans, I’ve put forth a $16.7 billion balanced budget that ensures that we’re investing in education, transportation, housing, youth employment, environmental justice, as well as ensuring that we have safe communities. And we are going to challenge the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share. He’s more than happy to look at that budget.

[Brandon Johnson: Press Conference]

Let me, just excuse me, excuse me.

[MCG]

So this is Rashid Talif and she is one of the… House representative and she’s part of the squad with AOC and all these other people. Anyway, she’s going to explain something here as well.

[Brandon Johnson: Press Conference]

Let me just say something here. It is very important that people in Illinois and across the country understand the immigration system is a civil system. Undocumented presence in the United States is not a criminal offense. And so thank you for the clarification on language.

[MCG]

All right. So I’m going to ask Rishi to leave, then I’m going to go to Brandon Jensen. Again, just like Don Lemon, they are using terms that they believe folks will not have the opportunity to look up and research and do all these things. Politicians, journalists, mayors, presidents. It’s 2025. We can simply talk to our phone and ask the AI or do a Google search. These are not difficult things. So she said that undocumented presence in the United States is a civil infraction. It’s not a crime. Plain and terms here. When we talk about Den Lamin, we already showed that crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor the first time and a felon is like a time. That’s clear in the US code. Undocumented president, what is considered undocumented presence? Because technically she’s not wrong. So that’s why it’s so misleading. So I not being a US citizen, I’m a US citizen now, but let’s say I’m not a US citizen. I fly to the US with a tourist visa, or whatever kind of visa that will allow me to be in the country legally. I go through a legal port of entry. So if I come in on a cruise ship, I have… Legal port of entry. I drive in from Canada, Mexico, go to legal ports of entry, flying into international airport, goes through custom, a legal port of entry. They stamp in my passport and they say you have six months to be in the country and then you must leave. As a student, I flew into the country and they stamped and I could have stayed as long as my student visa is valid. However, if this time when they say you have a month, six months, whatever, let’s go with six months in the country. If you stay in the country six months plus one day, you now have undocumented presence in the United States. You went to a legal port of entry, you went to custom, You have your paperwork and you overstayed your welcome. That is what she’s talking about. That is a civil infection, not a criminal infection. For most part, they might give you a small fine, slap you in the wrist and say, go out and come back. You need to leave the US and then you can come back in. That’s undocumented presence. When the guy that asked the question to Brandon Johnson said, illegal alien, he’s not talking about people with undocumented presence. Can you argue that all illegal aliens have undocumented presence? Yes, but they were undocumented from day one because they didn’t go to a port of entry. So because they didn’t go to a port of entry, their entry was illegal in the 1st place. That’s what the country call an illegal alien. What you call an undocumented presence is someone who went through a legal port of entry and overstayed their welcome. So they’re using the terms. And technically they’re right, but they’re relying on people not looking these things up. But hey, I’m an immigrant to this country. I look all these things up. There’s either something called out of status. Most Americans don’t know the immigration laws, but I have given the Department of Homeland Security thousands of dollars to maintain my legal presence in the country until I became a citizen. I have gone through the entire system. Anyways, to Brendan Jensen.

[Jay]

I think that they’re banking on most Americans not understanding the intricacies and the ins and outs of the legal or of the immigration system. And so they can say, oh, that’s such offensive language, and then just tug on the heartstrings of well-meaning but misinformed Americans in order to shape the narrative and make it what they want it to be. But it’s clearly I would like to think that Americans can see through that now. I think with these devices in our hands and with our ability to look things up almost instantaneously, no two, three, four companies have a vice grip on the flow of information any longer like it was in the past. I would like to think that we could see through their manipulating and their torturing of the language. They’re still operating in their same shameful ways and they haven’t learned. Meanwhile, the rest of us see straight through them and we’re not believing a word they say.

[MCG]

Yep. Well, to Brenda Jensen, he seemed to be triggered, offended, whatever term you want to use it by the term illegal alien. Now I’m going to story time because as I said, I’m an immigrant to this country. So I graduated college with a degree in software engineering, and I was going to my first job. This job was with a big company, big scientific research company. I was hired by one company, sent to this company as a contractor, and then subcontracted out to the federal government. Big company, even the street, the company’s on his name off of the company. That’s how big this company is. Branches all over the place and stuff like that. y’all can research and see if y’all can find out what it is. So I went there to do an interview. I was listening to the building, did an interview and allowed to go. Finally got the job the first day orientation. They gave me a badge, like a temporary badge, all of us a temporary badge that we’re starting and stuff like that. And then sometimes before the end of the day, the first day of Monday, they call us all us down and all of us got what we thought were permanent badges. So the Tuesday I reporting to work, and I got there, 8, whatever, due to the time people get to work, between 8 and 9. And there were a bunch of people going through, scanning their cards, whatever the case may be. And I was in line, I scanned my card, red, flash red. So I had my card again, flash red. People start panicking, security, jump into action. The front desk people start, you know, I’m trying to break in the building or something. I don’t know what’s going on here. My card wasn’t working. They took my card from me. They do all kind of stuff. And then one of the persons on the front desk blurred out, oh, he’s an alien. That didn’t sit well with me. It didn’t sit well with me. So I can sympathize with Brandon Johnson here, calling someone an alien into this world where the term is used to mean people with eye in the middle of the head, flying around in saucers. I can understand. I didn’t like when the term was used on me. Even USCIS, when you come into this country, they’ll give you something called an alien number. Now, they have changed it. The last time I went through the system to become a citizen, they changed it to call it a number, or sometimes they refer to it as applicant number because they want to soften their language, I guess, from alien. I would imagine that there are other non-nationals out there like myself, at least when I was a non-national, that don’t like the term alien. But to equate it and say it is the same as calling someone a slave or having someone being a slave is being disingenuous. Because if you look up the term alien, you will also see that it can mean a foreign national in the country. And just like if you look up the term slave, it’s basically have a meaning that if you want to put layman, you’re owned by someone else, have no rights, no freedom, nothing, you’re owned by someone else. I don’t see the connection here why he’s making it racist. I can understand you prefer to use a lighter term, undocumented immigrant, or whatever the case may be. But in the US code, they refer to as alien. Do I practically like the term? No. But to pretend if someone used the term that they’re being racist and being nasty is being disingenuous. And then they have Rashid to leave coming in and saying, oh, a civil offense and I want to talk about that. So it’s just a lot of things all around here that is like, really? And Chicago is bursting at the seams. The evidence that they’re supporting illegal migrants more than they’re supporting their own people from Chicago, especially in the black community. So if you’re so offended of that term and because you’re black, why don’t you help the black community in Chicago? Why is it that every weekend there’s so many shooting? There’s so much things in Chicago that you need to be fixed rather than giving money to folks that come into the country illegally. And not only that, it’s a big slap in the face for someone like me who have never been in the country illegally, who had to go through all the financial struggles and write all the checks for my application and biometrics. I talk about biometrics, your fingerprint doesn’t change. I guess you get older, your facial features change a little bit, but far as I know, your fingerprint doesn’t change. And every time I go to from one legal status to another legal status, it’s another check to the DHS, another check for them to do biometrics, and another check for the application fee. The same set of fingerprints, the same facial features. Why can’t you use the one I used just a year and a half ago the last time I applied? No, come in, pay a hundred or something dollars for the biometric fees. We’re going to take your picture, we’re going to take your fingerprint, then pay another hundreds or maybe thousands of dollars, whatever the case may be, for the the application fee, go to the doctor and prove all these things to me, send me your birth certificate again, send me all the stuff to prove your legal status in the country, all of which I’ve already sent to you. I have to go and pay a doctor. My immunization is up to speed. I have to go and pay someone to photocopy all my banking information and my birth certificate and my driver’s license. And not only that, after I get that, I still have to go to DNV and pay us to get another license to update the one I got a year and a half ago. Being legal in this country as an immigrant takes a lot of money and a lot of work, not only just the federal part of it, but the state part of it. And they just walk in and you’re giving them money and healthcare and all that stuff. The biggest people that aggrieve of all this illegal entry are people like me who did the correct rate and come in through the port of entry and try to be legal in the country and pay all this money and whatever the case may be, and they just come in and we start singing kumbaya and start hugging them.

[Jay]

I don’t know if you saw this in the news recently, but one of the actual perpetrators of the October 7th attacks in Israel was found living in Louisiana. And I think it was Louisiana, I might be mistaken, it might be one of the other southern states there, but clearly he came in through the unsecured border at the time. under Biden. He was recently caught by the Trump administration. So meanwhile, while you are paying all of this money and doing everything the right way, untold millions of people were pouring into the country, most of which we had no idea who they were, what they stood for. We could have been importing sleeper cells from all sorts of countries, and they were able to come in.

[MCG]

And if we could have been, we think we have.

[Jay]

We have, absolutely. And as a leader, His first thought is to be offended because we refer to them as illegal and undocumented. I think that’s absolutely bonkers. Well, it shows where his allegiance lies. It’s not with the United States. It’s certainly not with the United States.

[MCG]

Anyways, what’s your third article?

[Jay]

My third and final article is something that I hope will generate conversation. It surrounds the tragic flooding at Camp Mystic in Texas, in which 27 girls and counselors were swept away by the flooding of the river. From CNN, titled, families of nine Camp Mystic flooding victims file lawsuits alleging gross negligence after 27 girls and counselors died. The families of seven campers and two counselors who died in the catastrophic flooding that swept through Camp Mystic this summer are suing the Texas camp and its owners, accusing them of gross negligence, according to three lawsuits filed Monday. One lawsuit was filed by the families of five campers and two counselors who perished in the July 4th tragedy. And then it lists their names. And then a second lawsuit was filed by a different family of an eight-year-old who died in the disaster. The third lawsuit was filed for a different family of a nine-year-old girl. And each lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages. They mark the first legal action taken by victims’ families against the camp since the flooding that claimed their daughter’s lives. The lawsuit defendants include Camp Mystic and members of the Eastland family, which owns the 99-year-old camp in Kerr County, Texas. CNN reached out and tried to get responses. I guess understandably there was no response from Camp Mystic. More than two dozen campers and staffers. died in the pre-dawn hours of July 4th after torrential rainfall caused flash flooding at the century-old summer camp in Texas Hill Country. Many of the youngest victims were housed in cabins along the banks of the Guadalupe River. Richard Eastland, who co-owned all of the all-girls Christian camp with his wife Tweedy, died while he was trying to save some of the girls, a family spokesperson has said. The flooding, in general, had killed 136 people across the region. Parts of that river rose from 3 feet to 30 feet in just 45 minutes. The lawsuit alleges it accuses Camp Mystic of not having adequate safety plans and prioritizing money over safety. The other lawsuits also allege that, let me see if I can pull it up here because these are people talking about how it affected them. It says that these young girls, died because a for-profit camp put profit over safety. The camp chose to house young girls in cabins sitting in flood-prone areas despite the risk to avoid the cost of relocating the cabins. The camp chose not to make plans to safely evacuate its campers and counselors from those cabins despite the state rules requiring evacuation plans and not to spend time and money on safety training and tools. It also says that on July 4th the camp chose to take no steps to protect its campers counselors while it knew a storm and a life-threatening flash flooding were approaching. Instead, with the river rising, the camp chose to direct its groundskeepers to spend over an hour evacuating camp equipment, not the campers and the counselors. The camp chose not to evacuate them even as floodwaters reached the cabins until the counselors demanded it. And let’s see. The second lawsuit accused Camp Mystic of gross negligence by failing to implement modern safety measures or update its own flood protocols in light of known dangers. Defendants knew that the camp facilities were located in a flood zone. They knew the history of flash flooding in Kerr County. They knew of repeated prior flood events at the camp, and they received warnings from family members about flood risk. A third lawsuit, alleges that the camp directors and the owners should have been aware of an emergency response activation in the area ahead of the major flooding and should have been on high alert. The defendants had enough time to evacuate all the campers and prevent injuries and death. They obviously didn’t do that, and so that’s why they’re being sued. And so the reason I brought this up in a bonkers, it’s not bonkers that the lawsuit has been filed. I just wonder if it is indeed all of what they’re saying, or is this an opportunistic sort of effort by lawyers that are capitalizing on families’ grief in a natural disaster and seeking to make money off of it. I’m reading the article and I’m trying to figure out which one it is, because it seems like if the river went from 3 feet to 30 feet in 45 minutes, this was something sudden. There wasn’t much of an anticipation there. Now, the argument was that the first warning came, This is according to the article. It says the first warning came at 114 A.m. But there’s a question about who got the warning and who didn’t because it’s a very remote area with limited cell coverage. And it says also at 147 A.m. co-owner and his son Edward immediately convened the ground crew and started securing equipment and started coming up with a plan at about 2 a.m. And at about 2:19, they got first information that one of the houses was having water coming in. So it seemed like they were caught off guard by this. Perhaps initially they thought that this wasn’t going to be a particular concern, but then When the warning came in, the lack of cell phone coverage made it so that no one got the warning in time, and by the time they realized what was happening, things were already being swept away by the river. It’s similar to when the, I would imagine, when the Titanic hit the iceberg. They didn’t know for several hours. They didn’t know for like an hour, an hour and a half that the ship would actually sink. And by the time everyone realized what was happening, there wasn’t as much time to jump into the lifeboats as they would’ve had had they, you know, had everything been in place and prepared. And so I wonder if this is a situation where lawyers are capitalizing on family grief and giving them an outlet to express their sadness and their rage and their grief, or if there’s a legitimate argument to be had here that the camp was negligent.

[MCG]

Well, the Titanic is a different thing. I think the Titanic, they’re on the pack, their lifeboats and all that stuff. So that’s all different stuff. Much more people could have been saved in the Titanic, but Camp Mystic, I remember when this happened and remember looking into it. Just going from the article, if the article is true, I don’t see anything wrong with their lawsuit. Because if they know, and again, you can argue, you know, how much they didn’t know, maybe they think it was going to be 5 feet of water, and their cabin is 10 feet off the ground, so they’re fine. I guess, you can make an argument that they were acting in good faith. But you want to tell me that you believe the ground’s going to be flooded and you start taking your equipment to higher ground and leave the kids in the cabin? I don’t know. I think if anything, that you evacuate the kids and take them as high as possible that you can take them.

[Jay]

And then worry about the equipment.

[MCG]

And then if the equipment gets swept away, the equipment gets swept away, who cares? So if that’s true, they just need to be out of business. And I can understand this is a Christian camp. And from my research, when it happened, I think it was earlier this year, 2025, it seems like that they’re doing good work. But if that’s true, yeah, they need to be out of business because I can understand that. The problem is a lot of times a lot of Christian quote unquote ministries, they don’t make a lot of money. So you’re talking about, you know, thousands of dollars in equipment and all this stuff. And they’re probably wondering, hey, we’re not going to be able to replace these things at anytime soon. So let’s get rid of these things because the kids are safe in the cabin. I don’t know what the cabins were like. I would imagine that they were built maybe on stilts and stuff like that, so they’re somewhat off the ground. But I think that the first priority is there’s a possibility of flooding. Let’s get the kids away. And again, I don’t know if everything article is true, but if they didn’t move the cabins, because of money and stuff like that. this in my mind is negligence. And I doubt they would have the money for any lawsuit or be able to cover any lawsuit, but the lawsuit might just be to put them out of business permanently.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Get the land.

[Jay]

So it’s not really about money. It’s more about putting the camp out of business so that this doesn’t happen again. Right. Oh, I see.

[MCG]

Getting new owners for the land and maybe they will do. hopefully some good. And maybe next Sunday, if they ever revive it, they will definitely build the cabins, maybe a half a mile, a good half a mile away from the river, or whatever the case may be.

[Jay]

Is there an argument to be made, like when you are in a natural disaster sort of situation, that perhaps your best option is to shelter in place? Let’s think about the logistics of it. And I certainly don’t know. I wasn’t there, and I’m not trying to reopen old wounds of any sort. But if you, say, have 13 kids in a cabin, and it’s pitch black outside, it’s like one, two, something in the morning in a remote area. Is it wise to take the girls out in the rain, in the dark to get to higher ground when you have, there’s a possibility of not being able to see where you’re going and put yourself in an even worse position? Is it possible that some of the camp leaders were thinking, hey, we need to shelter in place instead? But then that ultimately ended up being the wrong decision.

[MCG]

Well, it depends on how much they knew. So I grew up in the Caribbean. I’ve been in hurricanes where we had to leave one shelter and also get to another shelter because the shelter we were in were being compromised.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

But you don’t run out in the middle of 154th wind.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

You know, you wait for some sort of calm and you change, you know. But that’s a little bit different than flooding. So it depends on how much they knew. Now, all these things, logistics, light and dark and whatever the case may be. I would imagine that if you go in a remote camp, that at least you’re bringing some sort of survival stuff. So I’m going to imagine that all the girls were required to have flashlights. I mean, imagine all the girls were required to have suitable clothing that they can slip in quickly.

[Jay]

Yeah, probably. I’ve never been to camp. I don’t know. I would imagine, yeah.

[MCG]

I would imagine that they have some kind of evacuation procedure that they will educate the girls on the first day. Again, and it seemed like these cameras were really close to the river. My thing is, take the precaution. I prefer they’d be wet than to be dead. So turn the flashlights on. Assuming again, there were at least two leaders per cabin, one at the front, one at the back, get the girls to fall in the line and hustle to higher grounds. I don’t think this was hard. But again, leaders do panic. I remember when I first came to this country and went to college, there was this rule that if the fire alarm ever goes off, that you don’t run. There’s a map on every door or whatever. I don’t remember the maps were. If you’re here, this is your evacuation. If you’re there, this is your evacuation. In during my first semester in college, there was an arson on campus. There was someone going around setting their chash chutes on fire. Either they will throw something down there on fire or they will lighten the fire. And I remember one Sunday afternoon, my entire room was filled with smoke. And I was sleeping, but I got up just as the smoke started coming in. I’m looking around like, what’s going on here? At the same time, the resident manager, which is the person who was over the entire building, came into my room and tell me I need to get out. All right, I jumped down, slipped my shoes on, and I walking out. And when we get to the door, the resident manager took off. like full speed down the hallway. Oh, goodness. And I’m like, oh, so I’m full speed right behind of him. So much so that when he stopped, I went right into him. I’m like, okay, I thought we were supposed to run, but I guess this is a situation where we run. Anyway, I say all that to say this. There was a situation where you break the protocol and what the case may be. So I put it on them to some respect. I understand this is a national disaster, but Depends on how much they knew, if they knew this was coming, and it seems from the article that they knew enough to put their equipment, the expensive equipment to higher ground, and they left the kids. I don’t see anything wrong with this lawsuit. Anyways.

[Jay]

Well, no, the article says that they didn’t move the equipment, they secured it.

[MCG]

Curing could mean they move it.

[Jay]

It could be.

[MCG]

How can they secure it from water? They would have to put it to higher ground outside. prevent different water.

[Jay]

That’s the thing that we don’t know. And I’m not making excuses for the camp. Believe you me, if it were my kid, I’d be in a lawsuit too. I’m just wondering if this is a situation where a lawyer is capitalizing on the family’s grief and trying to. It may not be. It may not be. This is coming from CNN. So it would lead me to think that perhaps there’s more than the story is letting on in terms of what happened to these poor souls. I remember visiting a friend who has a farm and the forecast was for rain. on her farm and I didn’t think anything of it. It’s just rain. It wasn’t torrential downpour. But simply because of the type of soil that she had on her farm, it was pretty much clay all throughout. You would step into the clay and it would suck your entire foot down and you would really have to struggle to get your foot out of there. In some cases, your shoe was stuck in the mud while you were trying to pull your foot out. And so what if it was a situation like that where even in trying to get out of the cabin, you end up in a worse scenario. Perhaps, I guess what I’m getting at is perhaps not all of it was negligence or malice or something along those lines. Perhaps some of it was, but perhaps not all of it. There’s also a very real human element there where they probably thought they were safe from the cabins. I don’t know. I just wonder.

[MCG]

I’m sure there’s a real human element there to it. I don’t know how the cabins were built, but one thing I know about flooding, your best bet is get to higher grounds. And if these cabins were close to the bank of the river, and I don’t know how close they were, there’s a lot of things we don’t know. I don’t know if they were on stilts or they were built, you know, on a foundation that, whatever, I don’t know. I don’t know if they were built on stilts of sticks or stilts of concrete. I have no idea. But I do know this. If it’s flooding, your best bet you get to higher ground. And I don’t know what the landscape of that thing is, but if the river rose to 30 something feet, I imagine that it overflow his banks and he was, well, a good probably 20 feet inland or whatever, I don’t know, but pretty wide. I remember some of the pictures I saw that was pretty wide. And I even saw bridges and stuff like that that was closed off in Texas. So this wasn’t anything small. If they knew and had enough time, They should have taken these kids first priority to higher grounds.

[Jay]

No doubt about that. The question is, did they? And they said that the camp was there for like a hundred years and nothing like this.

[MCG]

No, I don’t think that’s, I think they had been flooded before. I remember reading that, that they were flooded before. Maybe nothing like this, but they were flooded before.

[Jay]

All right.

[MCG]

Anyways, my last article, and this one is out of Toronto, Canada. So our Canadian friends, we love you, but this one is bunkers. And it has to do with gun rights and gun control. So this immigrant to Canada, her home was invaded and I think she had two daughters in there as well. Single mother from somewhere in the Middle East. And they were in the house for about 5 minutes and basically took some stuff. But the thing about it was 3 invaders, gun to the neck, gun to the head, trying to get to the safe. And she didn’t have any safe. She didn’t know what they were talking about.

[Jay]

She didn’t speak English or.

[MCG]

English is not her first language, but she finally understood what they were saying. But I’m going to play the article, the news article, and then talk a little bit more about it because I think gun control in Canada is going crazy at this point.

[Jay]

Okay.

[Home invasion in Canada]

Are you surprised that didn’t deter them? Like you did all the security, you had all the safety.

Yeah, but I realized that they don’t.

[MCG]

Yeah, the thing is that she had cameras, she had alarms and all these things. And you know, I have a little bit of pet peeve. Of course, I have cameras on my property. I have an alarm system and you call it security. What kind of security does these things provide? They’re not security. You can call it early warning. You can call it evidence gathering. But what kind of security does a camera provide? In my opinion, none. Except you might record some stuff that you can use in quotes or use show for evidence. But it doesn’t deter any determined person. Alarm system doesn’t deter anybody. At least some people might see alarm as, okay, well, I’m not going to do it because there’s alarm, but for most part, it doesn’t provide any security. in my opinion but anyway I’m going to let her continue don’t care about this.

[Home invasion in Canada]

Mariam alabi nab brought her two daughters to Canada from Iran 7 years ago she bought a home near York Mills and Leslie which she gutted and redesigned herself but last Wednesday her dream home became the scene of a traumatic home invasion a real life nightmare she won’t soon forget.

I can’t live here anymore.

It was 3.40 A.m. when four masked suspects got in through her back patio doors. They went upstairs and into her 12-year-old daughter’s bedroom, where Alavina…

[MCG]

Now this lady has cameras all throughout her house. You can see these people walking all around the place. Good security cameras, I guess. Security with coats.

[Home invasion in Canada]

Ab was asleep next to her child on a mattress on the floor.

I remember that somebody, you know, put the gun on my neck and asked me, Where is the safe? Two men came to my daughter’s room. The scariest moment?

Alavi Nassab says given English is not her first language, she was confused. She eventually understood and told them there was no safe. But not believing her, they took her into her closet, which had already been ransacked. Then down to the main floor and to the garage, looking for a safe. The chaos all captured on video surveillance.

But they couldn’t believe me, and they keep hitting me with the gun and, you know, help me. me and, you know, asking me, where is this safe?

After 6 minutes inside, the intruder suddenly left, making off with handbags, jewelry, and money. They did not take the Range Rover, despite the fact Alavina Sab says she offered them the keys. She then learned her 18-year-old daughter, who had been pretending to sleep, had called 911 while the thieves were downstairs.

She went to her bathroom and locked the door and called 911, but she told that she stays in the line for nobody answered the phone.

For how long?

4 to 5 minutes or maybe 3 to 4 minutes. I don’t know. Wow.

[MCG]

So her 18-old daughter pretended to be asleep and when they left she went in her bathroom. Call the police. I’m going to let it finish, and I’m going to have my comments on this.

[Home invasion in Canada]

I don’t remember exactly, but…

She was on hold.

She was on hold. No one pick up the phone.

Alavina Sab is also upset that no one from police has offered her family support except for the day of the crime.

I moved here for a better life, for a safe life, and I don’t feel safe anymore. And I was thinking that maybe somebody calls me and asked me to… Do you need anything? Do you have any place to go?

In a statement to Global News, Toronto police say the 911 caller was answered after being in the queue for exactly two minutes. Officers were immediately dispatched and arrived five minutes later. Police say victim services was offered and investigators will be following up with the family to ensure they have the support they need. Catherine MacDonald, Global News.

[Jay]

Oh my word, two minutes is an eternity.

[MCG]

Yep, so someone is in your home. Gun to your neck, pistol whipping you, trying to find some kind of safe, taking your stuff, and you call, I assume Canada has 911 or whatever the emergency service is. The US is 911. I think Canada might be 911 as well. And you’re put in a queue for two minutes. Two minutes. The average defensive encounter lasts about 30 seconds. It took them two minutes to just take the call and five minutes to get there. These intruders were in the house for six minutes. So it took you basically seven, eight minutes, depends on how long it took for them to get your address and get what’s going on and get someone to get out there. So the two minutes waiting, one minute of time explaining stuff and the five minutes drive, that’s eight minutes. By the time you got there, these people were long gone. Long gone. And the thing that, What griped me the most about this is that only Justin Trudeau, Canadians were disarmed. They were basically saying that you have to turn in your guns. They were basically a gun conversation. They call it a buyback, but it’s a conversation. Let’s call it what it is. When it’s mandatory, it’s not a buyback, it’s a conversation. And then you’re buying back something you never own. Anyway, I digress. Two minutes on the phone. And not only that, you know the crazy thing about it. The US have something, most states, if not all, have something called castle doctrine. Basically meaning that you’re home in a castle and if someone is forcing entry into your home, you as a homeowner can reasonably assume that either forcing that they’re coming in illegally and you can defend your home. You have a right to stand your ground and defend your home, basically. I think most states have it. There are some states like New Jersey and maybe Maryland say that you have to retreat a little bit until you can’t retreat any further before you can use deadly force. But deadly force is, for most states in the US, is assumed to be reasonable and legal if someone is breaking in your home. According to Brown Criminal Defense, it says, does Canada have castle law? Canada does not have a specific castle law. However, the criminal code does allow Canadians to defend themselves and their property under certain conditions. Section 34, self-defense. A person may use force if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that force is being used against them or against someone else, and their actions are necessary to defend. The court must then decide if the force was reasonable in the circumstances. So I live in the US, someone is kicking my door in, breaking in, whatever the case may be. I literally can pull my gun out and shoot them. There’s not going to be any court going to decide whether or not it was reasonable. If you force your entry into someone’s home, majority of states in the US, you can legally defend your home with deadly force. In Canada, well, if it’s necessary, you can, but then the court is going to decide whether it was reasonable or not. Section 35, defense of property. A person may use reasonable force to prevent someone from entering or damaging their property. or to remove someone who is trespassing. The key phrase here is reasonable. Unlike the US, there’s no automatic legal right to use lethal force against an intruder. The courts look closely at whether your actions were necessary and proportionate to the threat you face. And then I have another section here. Can you shoot an intruder in Canada? This is one of the most common question people ask. The short answer is you can only shoot an intruder in Canada in very limited circumstances.

[Jay]

If you have a gun. I’m sorry.

[MCG]

Canadian law does not give blanket permission to shoot an intruder. If you genuinely believe your life or the life of someone else in the home is in immediate danger and no less of force would stop the threat, then lethal force may be justified. So an intruder is coming in and I must go through my head and decide, okay, what is the best reasonable thing to do here to prevent this intruder when I don’t know what his intentions are? It says here, If you generally believe your life or the life of someone else in the home is in immediate danger and no less a force will stop the threat, then lethal force may be justified. Court considered a range of factors under Section 34 too, including the nature of the threat, whether weapons were involved, the size and physical capabilities of those involved, and their proportionality of the response, and whether there were other means available to respond, such as retreating or calling the police. We’re treating or calling the police. They’re going to put you in a queue for two minutes, and then take another five minutes to get there.

[Jay]

Seven whole minutes. Good night.

[MCG]

Anyways, as I said, that to me is crazy. And here’s Justin Trudeau disarming his people, and yet he walk around with a bodyguard that have guns.

[Justin Trudeau Gun Ban]

Our government banned 1,500 models of assault-style weapons, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique and the AR-15. We also expanded background checks to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. We did it because it was…

[MCG]

Justin, it didn’t work. It didn’t work. What you did effectively is put the guns in the wrong hand and take them out of the right hands.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[Justin Trudeau Gun Ban]

What responsible leadership required us to do. Last summer, during the camp…

[MCG]

And it’s not responsible leadership.

[Jay]

Well, if they pat themselves on the back.

[Justin Trudeau Gun Ban]

Some politicians said they would make assault-style weapons legal again. Not only did we stand up to them, but we promised to go even further to protect our communities. And so today, we’re moving forward. We’re introducing legislation– Today, we’re moving backward. -to implement a national freeze on handgun ownership. What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in Canada. As a further part of this new legislation, we’re also fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing maximum criminal penalties and providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearm crimes. and will require the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so they can never hold more than five rounds. These are actions that doctors, experts, and chiefs of police have been calling for years, and we’re acting on their advice. I also want to thank the advocates, many of whom are here today, for your tireless efforts.

[MCG]

So now, okay, you’re limited into 5 rounds. I wonder how much rounds your security guard?

[Jay]

How many rounds do they have? Yeah. Your security guards, I’m sure, have full magazines.

[MCG]

I’m sure they have standard magazines.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

Probably 17 round plus one. Well, anyways, say that to this Iranian mother.

[Jay]

Single mother at that. There was no man in the house.

[MCG]

Exactly. Who had to crying on live TV because she’s so traumatized by four intruders with gun to her neck in her house for six minutes and she couldn’t defend herself. What if she were able to have some sort of firearm to protect herself and her family that could run these guys off? This to me is crazy. And not only is that the little defense law is crazy as well, in my opinion. Basically, in my mind, it’s saying you have to determine why the person is coming in your house, how much force they’re planning to use against you so you can match the force. No, I think I kind of like the U.S. Catholic Doctrine. You break into my home where my kids and my wives are, you’re going to have to go through me. And you’re going to have to go through me and a valley of stuff coming back at you at a certain speed and heart. Anyways.

[Jay]

There’s nothing to say. I was saying it as you were speaking. Perhaps what’s the greatest tragedy in this is that we the people, and I know that this is Canada, but still, we the people have allowed our governments to disarm us like this. Canada, you could make the argument Canada is still under the crown.

[MCG]

They’re not on the crown. Well, you know, they’re the part of the Commonwealth, but it’s not right.

[Jay]

Part of the Commonwealth. Okay, part of the Commonwealth. And so it’s different there compared to here. But before we point any fingers at Canada and think, oh my, that’s terrible, we need to realize that the exact same thing is happening in cities and in other areas throughout the United States. on a daily basis. There’s a continual fight against it, but there are many areas in the United States all too happy to give up their Second Amendment rights.

[MCG]

Well, we’ll see what happened. I guess what does saying say from my cold dead hand? Anyways.

[Jay]

And I hope that everyone listening understands that we’ve lost all of our defensive weapons in a boating accident like we have.

[MCG]

Yeah, that happened years ago anyways.

[Jay]

It happened years ago, yeah.

[MCG]

And with all the tariff and all the inflation in the country, we haven’t been able to get any new ones.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

So anyways, dishonorable mentions. I have a couple now. Let’s go with them. Rapid fire here.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

ChatGPT coach teen as he prepares suicide and even praised the noose not. So he’s a teen that eventually kill himself by assistance from ChatGPT. And that’s what’s on the New York Post. Most of these are from New York Post. This one is from the Christian Post, actually. Pete Buttigieg. How do you say his name?

[Jay]

Yeah, Buttigieg.

[MCG]

He discussed how beautiful his gay parenting is like. And he likened it to, wait for it, the Trinity.

[Jay]

What? How? Okay, I don’t even, anyway.

[MCG]

If that’s not blasphemous, I don’t know what it is.

[Jay]

Big time.

[MCG]

Wow. beautiful gay parenting is likened to the Trinity anyways I move on another dishonorable mention Texas man dies in steak house as staff dump his body outside assuming he was a sleepless homeless man so this guy went to a steak house had a steak whatever the case may be and somehow he died right there and instead of checking on him or whatever the case may be At closing, they put his body outside and closed up and went home. Oh my. Until the next day they found him. And their excuse was that they thought he was a homeless man. Lack of humanity a little bit there, but anyways. Wow. And my last one is, I think we touched on this maybe the last bunkers a little bit. Bridgette Macron to present scientific and photographic evidence to US court proving she’s a woman. You know what? I think this Candace Owens is a little bit frivolous with this accusation. I don’t think Bridgette or Brigitte or whatever, how you pronounce it in French, is transgendered. The only good I want to come out of this is finally that the U.S. courts, and maybe even taking it to the high court, that they will be forced to define a woman. And we’ll have a bonkers for what Ketanji Brown Jackson would say. But anyways, That’s my dishonorable mentions.

[Jay]

I think Candace Owens has lost her mind, but if we can get the courts to identify what a woman is, I suppose we can thank her for this whole Brigitte Macron thing. I only have one, and I’ll just pull it from here. Single women resort to stealing men’s lunches to get asked out on a date. And they’re asking, why is it getting to this point? I think that if you look anywhere on YouTube or any type of social media, the relationship between men and women in this country has gone down the tube for decades now. And for women, they would say that men are the problem. Men, of course, would say women and feminism are the problem. I think now people are taking the way that dating is even done with these dating apps and swiping up and left, and let’s not even talk about hookup culture. The relationship between men and women has soured, and I don’t think that there’s any way back apart from the gospel and people going back to church and being discipled and being taught and having your family and your Christian brethren come together and help you find a spouse within the body. This has gone completely out of hand. I think that women having to steal men’s lunches. This is from the New York Post as well. And I’m not sure if they are stealing it in such a fashion so that the men will wonder, you know, how in the world did that happen or if it was an attention getting thing. But apparently that’s what they’re doing now because men have checked out. There was a move online where it’s called, I don’t know what the shorthand word for it, but it’s MGTOWMGTO. Men going their own way. They’re sick of the gaslighting and the entitled behavior and the expectation that the man is to do all of these things, to be a traditional man, while women today are not at all traditional. I think men are fed up and they’re done. And now women are left wondering what happened. They’re looking at each other and wondering what in the world happened. Meanwhile, the people, not saying that everything is all flowers and roses, but the people who were following God’s way of interaction with the opposite sex, let’s say we’re having a better go at it, we’ll say. Of course, again, you’re dealing with sinners. Not everything is roses and sunny skies, but I think we can clearly see that a world devoid of the influence of the scriptures and doing things God’s way will ultimately lead to disappointment, heartache, failure, and perhaps a more nihilistic and pessimistic outlook on life. So women having to go to extremes to get a date, to even have men look at them, sad, but that’s the reality that women are facing here today.

[MCG]

Well, I’m not a woman, so I don’t know, but it’s just the fruit of feminism. That’s what it is at this point. When, I hate to use this term, but in the days where men would, let’s say, catcall or hit on a woman in such a way to show that he’s interested. And again, these are all secular, early terms, but you get my point. To show that he’s interested, women start looking at that as being, you know, toxic masculinity, harassment, and all these things. Some men say, okay, well, I’ll stop.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

And I saw a video, I think it was linked to this article as well, this young girl, and she would go to work and come home and she’ll go for a walk and exercise and whatever the case may be. And she put on something she thinks would be attractive. And she complaining that not one man will say hi to her and everything. But just the other day, when they will say hi, They will be accused of sexual harassment and all that stuff.

[Jay]

So being creepy or being a.

[MCG]

Stalker or whatever the case may be.

[Jay]

So what do you want men to do?

[MCG]

If I were single, I wouldn’t. Not that I did, but I wouldn’t because I don’t want to be accused of those kind of things. So anyways, as we always ask in one of these episodes, do you agree with us? Do you agree that the world has gone bonkers? Now, it might not be because of Canadian weak gun laws and weak defense laws or lack of castle doctrine. It might not be because of Don Lemon can’t know the difference between criminal act and non-criminal act.

[Jay]

That was so crazy.

[MCG]

Whatever the case may be, or flooding at a Christian camp. But you might look around you and you might say, man, this world has gone bonkers. The question I always ask is, what are you doing about it? What are you doing about it? And my encouragement to you is to saturate your Jerusalem. your neck of the woods with the gospel of Jesus Christ. You’re just one beggar telling another beggar where to find the bread. You’re just going out in the community, telling folks how to be saved to Jesus Christ. Because if this world is going to be less bonkers, it’s going to have to be through the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

[Jay]

Thank you so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Make sure to rate us everywhere you listen to podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or Stitcher. Removing Barriers, A Clear View of the Cross.

[MCG]

Thank you for listening. To get a hold of us, to support this podcast, or to learn more about removing barriers, go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the Removing Barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.