One week has passed since the tragic loss of the esteemed civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In the wake of this profound event, he has decided to bring to light the truth about Minkah. This disclosure, he believes, is of significant importance and he is prepared to share it with everyone. The details surrounding Minkah have been shrouded in mystery, and he feels that now is the appropriate time to reveal them. He hopes that this revelation will provide clarity and foster understanding among all.

Support the show

Mosi is inclined to disclose the information; however, the appropriate time for such revelation has not yet arrived.

Support the show

Mosi reflects..

Support the show

Minkah is here.

Support the show

The argument that Trump's lawyer made for why the former president has immunity reminded me of a child caught in a lie by an adult, but the child is trying to explain his way out of it. I am glad I missed most of it because the part I heard was unconvincing and dangerous. How can he claim that impeachment was the only appropriate remedy when he opposed his impeachment by saying he could only be held accountable for criminal acts after leaving office?
This is a clear example of contradictory rhetoric. I am deeply concerned that many of my fellow citizens are being deceived by this. I hope that they will soon realize the truth and act accordingly. One might assume that only uneducated people are susceptible to the former president's deception. But that is not the case. Many well-educated people have abandoned their rationality and prioritized a false narrative over what they know is right.
It is undeniable that the founders, despite their shortcomings, were opposed to the concept of a monarchy. The notion of complete immunity would have been considered absurd to them.

Support the show

We must all understand that we rule...nothing. Have you ever experienced an epiphany? A moment when you're engrossed in profound contemplation, and suddenly, a metaphorical light bulb illuminates. Each day, I pose the question, What's on my mind today?' This practice serves as a method of self-reflection, a means of directing my focus toward examining an issue and understanding the factors that influence its trajectory.
Through this introspection, I've come to realize that the most significant events transpire within the confines of our minds. However, the challenge lies in the common misconception that the majority of us exercise complete control over our thoughts. While there is a degree of truth that a small amount of us may be able to do this, the reality is that a majority of us willingly surrender a portion of our cognitive control to external influences. We often find ourselves swayed by factors such as wealth, religion, carnal desires, substances, and other sources of pleasure.
It is anticipated that a significant number of individuals might respond with a denial, asserting, "No, not me." However, I would like to assure you that this is a misconception. Irrespective of one's position or status, a universal willingness exists to relinquish a degree of control to attain perceived desires. Despite the notion that being subservient may be unappealing to many, the reality is that we have all experienced it to some extent and continue to do so. This is an undeniable truth of our existence.

Support the show

The task of people trying to revise historical events, such as the Jan 6th event, is increasingly challenging and verging on the impossible. As demonstrated by Katt Williams, when evidence exists, it will inevitably be discovered. Therefore, any attempts by the former president or his minions to reinterpret the events of January 6th, are destined to fail. There's a well-known adage about online content: "The internet is forever."

Attempts to portray violent incidents as peaceful or to label the perpetrators as victims are futile. Encouraging individuals to disregard their own perceptions in favor of a prescribed narrative is not only ineffective but also dismissive of their cognitive abilities. It's tantamount to asking people to distrust their own senses, which is an unrealistic expectation. The truth has a way of revealing itself, regardless of attempts to obscure it.

Support the show

The U.S. Constitution, in its original form, imposed certain restrictions on individual actions. For example, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution stipulates the prerequisites for presidential candidacy:

Natural Born Citizen: The candidate must be a U.S. citizen by birth, not through naturalization at a later stage. This requirement is fulfilled by any individual born within the United States or to U.S. citizen parents abroad.
Age: The candidate must be at least 35 years old on Inauguration Day (January 20th) following the election.
Residency The candidate must have resided in the United States for at least 14 years prior to taking office.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution also provided a mechanism for the government and the people to amend the Constitution as needed. This adaptability has led many to refer to the Constitution as a "living document". The efficacy of this mechanism was demonstrated with the ratification of the 11th amendment in 1795 and the 12th amendment in 1804, underscoring the Constitution's capacity for modernization.

Following the Civil War, the U.S. government recognized the need to address certain issues within the Constitution, leading to the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments. These amendments introduced changes to broaden the scope of the Constitution, but also established additional eligibility criteria for holding office, akin to earlier stipulations. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, outlines the conditions under which an individual is deemed ineligible to hold public office in the United States. The clause states:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Support the show

As citizens of the United States, we may feel as though we are encountering an individual like Trump for the first time, but this is not the case. Trump embodies the archetype of the indulged child who believes he should always be prioritized. He struggles to comprehend how someone outside his social stratum could perform equally well or surpass him. However, we deceive ourselves by considering this as a novel phenomenon. It isn't. Trump is a direct product of privilege. He exemplifies the outcome when a child is never denied. His belief that wealth can procure anything isn't entirely unfounded; this approach has seemingly served him well throughout his life. A majority of his followers are individuals of a similar disposition. His admiration for autocratic governance suggests a lack of understanding of the essence of American values. It implies that many of his zealous supporters may not fully comprehend the sentiment expressed in Lee Greenwood's song, "God Bless the U.S.A." Trump and his adherents are mistaken in their understanding. Merely uttering words does not constitute patriotism. True patriotism is embodied by advocating for the less privileged, marginalized, and minorities. However, to fulfill these requirements, one must prioritize the needs of others above one's interests, and prioritizing the needs of others above one's interests is a significant challenge for Trump and his supporters.

Trump perceived individuals such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden as inferior to him for reasons that are ostensibly clear to him but not to the rest of us. He fails to understand why he isn't universally adored. The distinction between someone who has genuinely exerted effort and someone for whom the work has been done is evident. He stands as the foremost and most compelling argument against participation awards.

Support the show

They are after your money. That's the only thing I'm certain of. They will use any means and any words to get it. They are hypocritical and dishonest. They don't care about your well-being, your expenses, your savings, your lifestyle, your family, or even yourself. They will exploit you while you live, and they will pursue you after you die. They are greedy, and they will scare you into thinking that you need them to survive or to avoid suffering. They will make you hate or fear one group of people, while inviting those same people to this country to work for low wages.
The truth is, there are only two sides in this conflict: you and them. You outnumber them by far. But they have what you want and they know that many of you will do anything to get it. They also know that by giving some of you what they have, they achieve two things: one, they make you dependent on them, and if you disobey them, you are finished. I am astonished by how many of you are willing to accept that offer. They have power over you. Two, they take from you, and you will always end up giving whatever they gave to you, back to them.
The most important takeaway is that you always have more power than they do. Sure, they can buy off a few of you guys, but not all of you. Not enough of you.

Support the show