Speaker 1: What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to dpeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. But it's Monday, it's two o'clock and that's
the time when we usually chat with Ap Dylan. She
is a reporter at the North State Journal. You can
read her work at nsjonline dot com, and you can
also subscribe to her substack newsletter. It's called more to
the Story, Ap. How are you good?
Speaker 2: How are you doing?
Speaker 1: I'm doing all right. I mean you know, we had
another stabbing on our train.
Speaker 2: Yeah I saw.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Man, if only I don't know, somebody would have
targeted criminal, illegal aliens or something and maybe been allowed
to go around and and maybe round up some people
without having to worry about being assaulted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it wasn't this person in the country for a
third time illegally correct at this point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we don't. Yeah, he had twice been removed, so
he had gotten back in we don't know, sometime after
twenty twenty one. He has a criminal rap sheet in
North Carolina, but I don't know if all of the
crimes occurred prior to his, you know, his re entry.
So I'm not sure he like did he re enter
the country after twenty one and then engage in more
criminal activity but then not be deported again, Like, I
don't know. The crinology and security.
Speaker 2: Was a little bit vague about the crime. I mean,
they listed some of the crimes that they didn't say
A where they happened and b if it was in
North Carolina. And I dug around in some of the
filings and the court systems, and there's a bunch that
match his name, but not exactly identically. That's one of
the problems that I've had in reporting on these crimes
is because, uh, the say, the sheriff will, we'll put
it under you know, x Y dash Z you know
is his last name, and then in the court systems
it's just x y.
Speaker 1: Z h A B.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the guy's got four names. This guy, Uh, this
the the suspect and the stabbing. He's got four names.
One of them is there, you know, two of the
names are hyphenated together, and I've seen you know him
it reported as just his last name. But then I've
seen others that like track all three of the like
the hyphenated two names plus the last name, so I don't. Yeah,
it's it's difficult because those are cultural standards from you know, Honduras,
where the guy is from, and so that's that's how
they they name their kids with, you know, multiple names
and such.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it makes trying to track the person down though,
very very difficult.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, well let's uh, let me start with
a story that I've I've been reading your reporting on, uh,
these nihilistic violent extremism groups or vees, and the big
one is this seven sixty four cult, and I had
never heard of it before I started reading some of
your reporting. You've been following this stuff for a long time.
And then the other day I saw the FBI director
Cash Pattel issues a bunch of stats on these kinds
of enve saying there's been this massive increase in arrests
with these nihilistic violent extremist groups like seven sixty four.
So for people who don't know what is seven sixty
four and what are these envees?
Speaker 2: Okay, an mve is a nihilistic, violent extremist group, and
that basically means that they want to tear down society,
tear down families, they want to just burn it all
to the ground. So they're intent on collapsing society is
basically in a nutshell. And the seven sixty four cult
targets young people, almost specifically, just young people under the
age of twenty five usually, but they've had victims as
young as the age of seven, and they get them
online in places like roblocks, Minecraft, on Discord Fortnite, even
simple chess games online. Chess games was in one of
the affidavits that I read. So they use sextortion, blackmail,
and other means to brainwashing coerce they're victims into committing
acts like killing pets, trying to harm their family or
relatives or their siblings, school shootings, suicide, et cetera. They
also do this thing where they get them to commit
to cutting themselves and what they call fan signing, where
they cut the seven sixty four cult members name into
their body as a show of.
Speaker 1: Ownership, yes, and ownership. Yeah, so the use of the
and South Carolina just passed a law on this sextortion
stuff because one of the South Carolina state lawmakers had
a kid who committed suicide because of this kind of.
Speaker 2: Thing.
Speaker 1: And what they do is they they they find the
kids that are in these video game chats and stuff.
They're playing, you know, online with all these other people,
and they they start talking to the kids. They get
them alone in a group chat or in a single
one on one chat, and then they start getting them
to send pictures and then they blackmail them, and then
they force them to escalate and you know, and they
threaten exposure. I'm going to send this out to all
of your friends. I'm going to show these pictures to
you know, everybody in the group chat, and you know,
they docks them and then they they docks the family
in I.
Speaker 2: Have and they've sent them to parents as well.
Speaker 1: Right, And so yeah, so I was gonna so this
is one. Seven sixty four is but one. There's this
other one that's affiliated called Maniac Murder Cult MMC, and
that's way it was sort of.
Speaker 2: The basis for seven sixty square as an offshoot Maniac
Britcal was around before that, and that's got more of
a neo Nazi vibe to it. They they're more into
violence and gore, and they were found to be loosely
based or formed in the Russia Ukraine region.
Speaker 1: You also write that a link exists between Arda k
who went on a stabbing spree near a Moscin, Turkey,
injuring five people, and also Natalie ruppnow the Abundant Life
Christian school shooter, and also what linked to Solomon Henderson,
the seventeen year old shooter at the Antioch High School
in Nashville, Tennessee. So, yeah, this seems like, well is
this a It seems like it's a growing problem.
Speaker 2: It's a worldwide problem. These people are operating on a
global scale. Seven sixty four has been more something that
we've seen in the United States, But as we saw
earlier this year, there was a seven sixty four cult
member arrested here in North Carolina and one of his
associates that was also arrested was located in Greece. So
these people are communicating internationally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, and you want to if people want
to read more about this trend in these stories, AP
has been on it for quite a while. It's Ceter
sub Stack called more to the story over at North
State Journal online. You took a look at the North
Carolina Democrat Attorney General Jeff Jackson AKAA baby Jesus, and
he is I didn't know. That's not my name for him.
That was what his fellow Democrats named him in the
state legislature. That's what they called him, baby Jesus. So
I mean not to his face, but behind his back.
So maybe like the death cult thing, that could be
something that our attorney general could look at, maybe spend
some time, you know, doing that kind oflaw enforcement related
work instead of what seventeen lawsuits now against Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in this for some eleven months. I went through
all of its press releases and all the filings, and
he entered the state into at least seventeen different lawsuits
involving the Trump administration. Most of them had mixed results
and are still working through the court. I've got the
full list with the press releases in the article at
North State Journal, which is titled Jackson takes on Trump
as ag He's aside from doing that, he's done the
typical things that his predecessor did with you know, robook
calls and scams and that typical kind of thing. He's
also done some work on scammers that have drifted people
out of home renovations and repairs. He's engaged in some
of the medical issues, medical debt issues in the western
part of state with hospitals. So I mean he's done
some other things. But you know, without fail, almost every
month there was at least one lawsuit, yeah, that he
entered the state into ended up in tros being issued.
Sometimes the suit became moot because the Trump administration within
days had fixed the problem where you know, it usually
had to do with funding. The funny had been released
after a review and made the lawsuit moot. But it
was it was more about just making an example.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, and you've got the list there at the side.
I mean you're talking about the grants for law enforcement agencies.
I mean even the NPR funding stuff, the NGO funding stuff,
the Education Department freezing the money while they're reviewing grants
and stuff. So all this stuff didn't didn't the legislature
they were trying to stop Jeff Jackson from from engaging
in this kind of political law.
Speaker 2: Fair No, Yeah, there was a bill that was filed
and it's stalled out in mid March, it's still sitting
in the House Rules Committee. It sought to prohibit him
from suing or participating in a lawsuit against the Trump
administration that would result in the invalidation of a presidential
executive order or that could you know, upend any kind
of state law enacted by the General Assembly.
Speaker 1: Well, if it's sitting in rules, I'm thinking it's dead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, typically, yeah, that's both. So did I you know
John Bell is the represent John Bell is the chair
of that committee, and should he seek to revive that bill,
that's his prerogative, but it may be something that ends
up next session's agenda.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And then of course Jackson would follow a lawsuit.
So if they were to pass this thing, and I
don't even know if you would be able to get
the governor. Governor wouldn't sign it. I don't know if
you'd be able to override the veto. So I suspect
that's probably dead. But all right, AP, we're gonna leave
it there. I appreciate your time as always, check out
or word work at North State Journal nsjonline dot com
and more to the story over on substack. Thanks AP,
Thank you all right, take care. That's ap Dylan. You know,
stories are powerful. They help us make sense of things,
to understand experiences. Stories connect us to the people of
our past while transcending generations. They help us process the
meaning of life, and our stories are told through images
and videos. Preserve your stories with Creative Video started in
nineteen ninety seven and Minhill, North Carolina. It was the
first company to provide this valuable service, converting images, photos
and videos into high quality produced slide shows, videos and albums.
The trusted, talented and dedicated team at Creative Video will
go over all of the details with you to create
a perfect project. Satisfaction guaranteed. Drop them off in person
or mail them. They'll be ready in a week or two.
Memorial videos for your loved ones, videos for rehearsal, dinners, weddings, graduations, Christmas,
family vacations, birthdays, or just your family stories all told
through images. That's what your photos and videos are. They
are your life told through the eyes of everyone around
you and all who came before you, and they will
tell others to come who you are. Visit Creative video
dot com. So Ap Dylan, I did not have time
to get to this story. We ran out of time
with her, but she's got this story. This is a
bizarre story. I don't know what's happening with this guy,
Norman Sanderson. He's a state senator from Pamlico County, Republican.
So first he got arrested for a DUI the other day.
Let's see in October, right, he got arrested on DWI
charges in October. He's seventy four years old. This guy,
Norman Sanderson, and now his legislative assistant, was just arrested
for arson arson charges. And this isn't like, oh, I'm sorry,
I kind of messed up with some open flameer something. No, no, no,
this is like I'm trying to burn a house down
kind of arson. Diane Elizabeth Cook, thirty eight, was arrested
by Raleigh police on November twenty fourth, Happy Thanksgiving, and
charged with first degree arson for allegedly attempting to set
two adjacent town homes on fire. This occurred in the
eighty three hundred block of book A Point in northeast Raleigh.
Because she's a she's a legislative assistant for him for Sanderson.
So while he's from Pamlico. The legislative assistants are in Raleigh.
They work for the you know, for the lawmakers at
the state capitol. So it's so according to surveillance footage,
this occurred around six a m. On November twentieth, Okay,
six am, where she allegedly took a care lit said
candle and placed it against the siding of a town home. Right, so,
she lights a candle and puts it right up against
the house a townhome to try to catch it on fire,
but it failed to catch fire. So then she takes
the candle and moves it to the neighboring unit and
then was able to start a fire at that unit,
which spread to the back door filled the home with smoke.
The couple named in the court documents as the owners
or the residents of that townhome that was targeted, Misty
and Thomas Patinelli. They escaped without serious injuries after they
were woken up by the smoke. I'm assuming these smoke alarms,
smoke detector, and they found you know, flames outside there
on their exterior wall. They say that the estimated damage
is about a thousand dollar. So now this woman is
charged with first degree arson Class d felony in North
Carolina and can carry a potential prison sentence of thirty
eight to one hundred and sixty months. So like at
least three years, why isn't she charged with murder or sorry,
attempted murder. Shouldn't it be attempted murder. I'm going to
go like I have that's all the information I have
about this story, but I'm going to suggest I'm gonna
spitball here just theorizing. I'm thinking HOA related issues, right,
I'm thinking that they are neighbors in this townhome unit,
and she's had problems with two with these two townhome neighbors. Otherwise, like,
I don't understand why you're trying to light one on fire.
When it doesn't catch, you go to another one and
try to light that. So it's like you're you're either
just wanting to burn anything down or you're targeting two
individual homeowners. It's just bizarre. I don't know what's happening
with the Sanderson office there up in Raleigh, but you
got now the lawmaker and his assistant both facing various charges.
Diane Cook thirty eight, Yeah, don't get it. Apparently she
I think she did bond out one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars secured bond yeah, which she later posted. Here's
a great idea. How about making an escape to a
really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina? Just
a quick drive up the mountain and Cabins of Asheville
is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon,
maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get
family and friends together for a big old reunion. Cabins
of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you
can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that
truly matter. Nestled within the breath taking fourteen thousand acres
of the Pisga National Forest, their cabins offer a serene
escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally
located between Ashville and the entrance of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. It's the perfect balance of seclusion and
proximity to all the local attractions with hot tubs, fireplaces,
air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and
your own private covered porch. Choose from thirteen cabins, six cottages,
two villas, and a great lodge with eleven king sized bedrooms.
Cabins of Ashville has the ideal spot for you for
any occasion, and they have pet friendly accommodations. Call or
text eight two eight three six seven seventy sixty eight
or check out all there is to offer at cabins
Offashville dot com and make memories that'll last a lifetime.
So we're going to get a Supreme Court case on
birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take
up the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's order on birthright Citizenship,
which declared that children born to parents who are in
the US illegally or temporarily, that those kids are not
American citizens. Okay, So if somebody you know is pregnant
a birthing person, I believe, as the Democrats call them,
or as everybody else refers to them, women, a woman
is you know, wanting to take a tour of America,
wants to come on a tourist visa to take the
tours to vacation, and she just so happens to be
like nine months pregnant, and she just wants to travel
to America to see the sights before the baby arrives.
So that's why she waited until she's just about to
give birth, and then she arrives in America and has
the child like land, they land the plane, she gets
off the plane and goes in and they induce the pregnancy,
and then she's now she's got an American citizen child.
Never happen, I know, I know that would never happen.
People wouldn't just come here to have the babies. Actually
they do. They people actually do that. And so this
is going to now be argued. The justices are going
to hear Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling which
struck down the citizenship restrictions. Right, So he's been Trump
has been losing through the lower courts, but they keep appealing,
specifically to take this to the US Supreme Court. So
none of his executive order has not taken effect anywhere
in the country. Okay. The case is going to be
argued in the spring, and a ruling is expected to
be sometime in the summer. Birthright citizenship is the first
Trump immigration related policy to reach the Supreme Court for
a final ruling. The Associated Press report by Mark Sherman
says that Trump's order could up or would upend more
than one hundred and twenty five years of un standing
that the Constitution's fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on everybody born
on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of
foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force,
which is always like, this is one of those questions
that like, Okay, if I'm a foreign diplomat and I'm
working in America, like i am, I'm the ambassador for Petistan,
and I am here with my family. We're living in
you know, Washington, d C. Where I act, as you know,
a liaison, a spokesperson for all of the good people
of Petistan. And then we have a child, and of
course my child would be a citizen of Petastan. But
also why not American if they're born in America. No, no, no,
that's different because you're a foreign diplomat. And that was
specifically like a car vout. Okay, so if I'm not
a diplomat, then my kid is a citizen of America
and not just Peedistan. That seems to be like, it
seems to be kind of discriminatory to Pedestanians, Right, So
every lower court that has looked at this issue has
concluded that Trump's executive order violates or likely violates, the
Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to ensure that
black people, including specifically former slaves, that they had citizenship.
That was the point, to make sure that they had citizenship.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anybody born an American an American citizen,
including children born to mothers that are here illegally. The
case under review comes from New Hampshire. A federal judge
in July blocked the citizenship order in a class lawsuit,
including all children who would be affected. The ACLU is
leading the legal team to represent the children and their
parents who challenged Trump's order. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He
posted on Twitter that the Supreme Court has the chance
to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment that was enacted after
the Civil War to overrule the dread Scott case, whether
this Fourteenth Amendment requires the automatic granting of citizenship to
the children of illegal aliens who are born on US soil.
He says, the framers of that amendment intended no such thing,
but it has been interpreted to be a blanket grant
of birthright citizenship. For any child born on US soil
to illegal alien parents. He said, correcting this would reduce
the incentive to enter America illegally. And that's true. Now
you can disagree with with the the interpretation of the
fourteenth Amendment, but it would limit the incentive. If there
were no Fourteenth Amendment, no birthright citizenship, then there would
be much less of an incentive for parents to bring
their kids here or have kids once they get here
in order to connect them with American citizenship, which then
unlocks all of the welfare programs. Right now, John Goose
over at the John Locke Foundation john lock dot org.
He's a senior Fellow for Legal Studies and he's got
a jd with honors from Duke Law School. He practiced
law in Durham for more than twenty years. And he
took a look at the birthright citizenship debate, and there
are so First off, to understand sort of the underlying component,
you got to look at English common law, where citizenship
was determined by where one was born. That's a principle
called I'm not gonna well, I will try to pronounce it.
I think it's Latin just solely, which means law of
the soil, and that became the norm throughout the English
speaking world, including the US. And this is what is
birthright citizenship. You're born on the soil, that's what makes
you American. You're a citizen. But under Roman law, citizenship
was something that you inherited from your parents Jus sanguineous
or law of the blood. That principle became the norm
throughout continental Europe and eventually in much of the world.
So these are the two things that sort of guide
this understanding of birthright citizenship and why people are considered
to be American when they're born here. So here's the
fourteenth Amendment. Quote, all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
That's the fourteenth Amendment. And the question here is about
that second part that says subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That is what is going to be hashed out that
interpretation of what that line means. Under Trump's order, only
people born in the US two US citizens and lawful
permanent residence only they will be recognized as US citizens
by birth. That's the difference. All right, if you're listening
to this show, you know I try to keep up
with all sorts of current events, and I know you
do too, And you've probably heard me say get your
news from multiple sources. Why Well, because it's how you
detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed
with ground News app. And it's a website and it
combines news from around the world in one place, so
you can compare coverage and verify information. You can check
it out at check dot ground, dot news slash pete.
I put the link in the podcast description too. I
started using ground News a few months ago and more
recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because
it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and
by whom. The blind spot feature shows you which stories
get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself.
Check dot ground, dot news slash pete. Subscribe through that
link and you'll get fifteen percent off any subscription. I
use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature.
Your subscription then not only helps my podcast, but it
also supports ground News as they make the media landscape
more transparent. All right, So John Goose over at John
Locke Foundation, he's a senior Fellow for Legal Studies. Gave
a guide to the birthright citizenship debate. Under Donald Trump's
executive order, only people born in the US two US
citizens or born to lawful permanent residents. Only those would
be recognized as US citizens by birth. Okay. Now, originalists
who oppose the executive order, who say it's unconstitutional, they
generally emphasize the plain meaning of the citizenship clause. They
will cite historical evidence that they argue that the subject
to a country's jurisdiction, that that has always meant subject
to that country's judicial authority or to their laws. That's
what the phrase meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified
in eighteen sixty eight, and that's what it still means today. Okay.
So that's the originalist argument against the order. In this view,
the phrase was added to the citizenship clause to reflect
the reality that some children born in the US were
immune to America's judicial authority at the time, and it
remains relevant because some of them still are. The children
of foreign diplomats are one example. On the other hand,
the children of illegal aliens, as well as children of
temporary visitors have never been immune to our laws. There
were no federal immigration laws in eighteen sixty eight, none,
and no one was classified as an illegal alien or
a temporary visitor. Nevertheless, he says, it seems safe to
assume that if such classifications had existed at the time,
children born to such persons would have been subject to
American judicial authority. And today those children certainly are subject
to American judicial authority. If they violate a US law,
they can be detained, they could be arrested, they could
be punished.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So that's the originalist argument against Trump's order. Now there
are other originalists who argue the opposite. They say Trump
can do this. They argue that the plain meaning of
the citizens of the citizenship clause may not be what
the people who ratified the fourteenth Amendment had in mind.
They will cite historical evidence, and they've come up with
a number of alternative interpretations that would render Trump's order
constitutional if they are accepted by the Supreme Court. The
most interesting and imaginative of these ideas, these arguments, is that,
in the context of the citizen ship clause, the line
that says subject to the jurisdiction thereof the American jurisdiction,
that it did not mean subject to American judicial authority. Instead,
what it meant was entitled to the protection of the
United States. Okay, that you are entitled to the protection
of the US. And under this view. The phrase was
added to the citizenship clause to reflect the long standing
understanding that only children born in the US to parents
who have formally or implicitly pledged allegiance to America only
they are entitled to that protection. Illegal aliens and temporary
visitors right, they have not made such a pledge, and
so because they have not made the pledge, they cannot
make the pledge. Therefore their children are not entitled to
birthright citizenship. Man, I like I just wish they had
written the fourteenth Amendment to be a little clearer. You know,
this subject to the jurisdiction Thereofugh's created a lot of
problems just the way they wrote it. Now, what does
he think is going to happen? He says, My expectation
is that when the case eventually reaches the Supreme Court,
the court is going to find that it does violate
the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that happens, those who want
to restrict birthright citizenship will have no choice but to
amend the US Constitution. And like, if that were to happen,
I don't think that they would be able to. I
don't think that we are in a place in America
where any constitutional amendment is going to be is able
to be passed. I just don't think that we're We
don't get along enough for that to happen. But that
would be the place to do it. Look, I've said
this about the Second Amendment opponents, right the gun grabbers.
If you guys want to repeal the Second Amendment because
you don't like gun ownership in you know, among private citizens,
then the way to address that is to repeal the
Second Amendment. You should file a bill in the Congress
and then go through the steps to ratify an amendment
to change the Constitution. That's a very high bar, no
doubt about it. But that's the process you're supposed to follow,
and depending on what the Supreme Court determines here. And
I've seen a lot of people write about this over
the last year, and it seems like most of the
people that I have been reading, they seem to think
even if they even if they don't like the birthright
citizenship the way it's operating right now. A lot of
them seem to believe that they may not like it,
but this is probably going to be struck down. Trump's
order is probably going to get struck down as unconstitutional,
in which case then you got to repeal it via
the way that is spelled out in the constitution. Again,
that's the consistent argument. If you don't like the law,
then you change it via the process. All right, that'll
do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening.
I could not do the show without your support and
the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast,
so if you'd like, please support them too and tell
them you heard it here. You can also become a
patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecleanershow dot com. Again,
thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything
while I'm gone.