Landmark Supreme Court Decision Prohibiting Racial Gerrymandering plus Dems Go w the Nazi Communist in Maine & Out-of-Control DEI Homeless Policies

This is an I heart podcast guaranteed human.

Welcome.

It is verdict with Center Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you as well.

It's nice to have you with us.

If you're listening on the radio right now, welcome as well.

And don't forget this show you're listening to right now.

We do it as a podcast three days a week.

So make sure you download verdict with Ted Cruz wherever you get your podcast.

And if you want to watch a show, you can watch this episode as well on YouTube or on

Facebook.

We put it up there each and every episode that we record.

So you can watch it and make sure you subscribe on the YouTube channel as well.

Center, we've got a lot to talk about, including this Supreme Court on Wednesday in a pretty

significant ruling six to three.

It made levels heads explode.

The Louisiana 2024 congressional map, it was redrawn to create a second majority

black district, constituted an illegal racial, Jerry Mander.

That is what they've decided.

And of course, the left is furious right now for this saying that this is racism,

run a mock, the Supreme Court till legitimate.

I guess we should now pack the court again as soon as they get back in power, right?

Because that's what they're pointing on doing anyway.

Well, the Supreme Court's decision this week, outlying racial, Jerry Mandering was,

it was a landmark decision.

It was incredibly important for decades.

There has been a practice of drawing congressional districts based on race, deliberately

segregating people based on whether they're African American or white or Hispanic and

putting them into districts segregated based on race.

The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race.

And the Supreme Court today, in a landmark decision, said this racial, Jerry Mandering

has to stop.

As you noted, the Democrats are losing their mind over this because theirs is a party that

is built on racial discrimination.

And indeed, the fact that they are competitive, they're close to having a majority in the

House of Representatives is driven in a big part by their blatant Jerry Mandering, both

political Jerry Mandering and racial Jerry Mander.

We're going to break down what that decision means, what precisely the court held, and

why it was correct.

We're also going to talk about an amazing thing that happened this week in Maine.

The incumbent Democrat governor of Maine, Janet Mills, was running for Senate and she

dropped out, she dropped out because in today's Democrat party, she was not nearly crazy

enough to win a primary.

Instead, the Democrats want a self-declared communist with a Nazi tattoo.

That is now the beating heart of the Democrat party.

We're going to talk about that and what that means for the country.

And finally, we're going to talk about DEI programs run amok in homeless services.

And Portland, Oregon, giving special priority if you happen to be LGBT, if you happen

to be a racial minority, if you're just some poor white slub who's starving and out on the street,

nope, you rank last in the less hierarchy of who deserves care.

We're going to give you the facts and bring the receipts on that one as well.

It's like a PSA.

If you're homeless, tell them you're the opposite sex of what you are.

You'll get fed really well and get some great benefits in the liberal cities.

It's truly important.

How is that not a joke?

Like what you just said there is actually accurate.

And it's so insane that a normal rational person listening to it must be saying that makes no sense.

That's the reality we're living in.

And we're going to break it down.

It's an amazing story.

When I also talked to you about an awesome company and if you've got a cell phone,

just listen to me for a minute because you can have a big impact with every phone call you make,

with every text message you send for conservative values that you believe in.

And there's a company that it got started over a decade ago called Patriot Mobile.

America is entering the 250th year and the direction of this country is being decided right now in our culture and our economy.

And who we choose to support matters more than ever.

Most wireless companies don't care who you are or what you believe.

They just want your money.

Patriot Mobile, they're different from more than 12 years.

They've stood with Americans who believe freedom is worth defending.

Funding the Christian conservative movement when others stay silent.

That's what they do.

So here's the deal.

You don't have to give up quality or service when you switch to Patriot Mobile.

They deliver premium priority access on all three major US networks.

So you'll get the same or better coverage than you have today.

Thanks switching is a hassle.

It isn't anymore in 2026.

You keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade and their 100% US base support team can activate you in minutes.

Still paying off a device, Patriot Mobile even offers a contract buyout.

This is a defining year.

We must work together to save our country.

So go to PatriotMobile.com slash verdict and you are going to get a three month of service with a promo code verdict.

Or you can call them 972 Patriot.

That's 972 Patriot 972 Patriot or call them and go online at PatriotMobile.com slash verdict.

promo code verdict for a free month of service.

Make the switch and make a difference every time you pay your bill.

All right.

So let's get back to this Louisiana ruling.

You've got a lot to say on this and you broke it down a little bit in the intro there.

But but I want people to understand the core of this case.

How it got all the way to Supreme Court.

So can you kind of give it just a synopsis of what got us here so quickly?

So I can but but let me step back for a minute.

Let me give a little broader context.

So two decades ago in 2003 I started as the solicitor general of Texas,

which is the chief lawyer for the state in front of the US Supreme Court.

2003 was the first time Republicans had won a majority in the House of Representatives in decades.

And so we now had a majority in both the House and the Senate at the state legislature.

And so Texas redistricted in 2003.

It was a mid decade redistricting at the time that had not been done.

Very often and and they did it because Texas at the time in 2003.

Republicans were winning a significant majority of the statewide vote.

And yet the congressional delegation was majority Democrat.

It was the most egregious partisan Democrat partisan gerrymandor in the country.

The Democrats had drawn it to elect Democrats even though the voters were voting for the opposite party.

And so the state legislature came in, redrew the map.

The result of it was it elected five additional Republicans.

But but I was the the lawyer who was charged with day one.

Number one with advising the legislature while they were drawing the map.

Number two with defending the map in the federal district court when the Democrat plaintiffs challenged it.

And then number three, I argued the case before the US Supreme Court defending the map and ended up

winning a landmark five four decision upholding that map.

And so there was a good two years of my life when I lived in the world of redistricting.

And I got to tell you that the case law at the time was so convoluted and internally contradictory

that it made no sense.

So on one hand, the Supreme Court had said for a long time, the Fourth Amendment,

the protection of equal protection under the laws and the 15th Amendment,

the protection that no one shall be denied the right to vote based on race,

that that prohibited racial gerrymandering, drawing lines based on race.

And yet at the same time the prevailing Supreme Court precedent was that the voting rights act,

a statute passed by Congress essentially mandated redistricting based on race.

So you had these two lines of cases that just made no sense because they contradicted each other.

And I got to say, having been part of the process.

And at the time the legislature was drawing the lines, it was a very political process.

And I was instructed on behalf of the AG's office that I'd come in and say, look,

if you need legal advice, I'll give you my best legal advice.

Yeah.

If you want to make a political determination, do you want to take out this congressman or that congressman?

You're entitled to make that determination, you're an elected state legislator.

I'm not.

So if you're going to engage in those political determinations, I'm going to step outside.

And when you need me for a legal opinion, I will give it to you.

I will tell you, Ben, after going through that process, after going through the litigation,

I wanted to take a shower because there was so much of the litigation that was explicitly racial

in a way that normal civilized people, they don't talk about the black seat, the Hispanic seat, the white seat.

And yet it was all very explicitly racial.

That's what the court turned around.

We're going to explain more in just a minute.

All right, Senator.

So let's get back to it.

You were mentioning a moment ago, you're in the room.

You're seeing how the politics has worked in the past where they were, they were literally designing

districts all over the country based on race.

If it's a white district, a black district, a Hispanic district, the list goes on on.

And now the spring court has made it pretty darn clear.

Yeah, that way of doing business is not going to work anymore.

But by the way, I'll give you a little history as to how sorted racial gerrymandering has been,

particularly by Democrats.

So when we were trying the Texas redistricting case in 2003, we had testimony on the stand

from Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Eddie Bernice Johnson was an African American woman, a member of Congress from Dallas.

And she had been a state senator when the 1991 redistricting map was drawn, which,

which is what really put in place, the egregious Democrat gerrymander.

And she testified about how Martin Frost, Martin Frost was a, a,

Democrat congressman from Texas, he'd really driven the, the gerrymandered and she said,

Democrats knew how to ensure that they elected white Democrats,

which is they would draw a district where they would put just enough African Americans,

but not too many and just enough Hispanics, but not too many.

And she said the reason is in a Democrat primary, if you had a black candidate run,

the Hispanics and the white Democrats would all vote against the black candidate.

If you had an Hispanic candidate one run, the African Americans and the whites

would all vote against the Hispanic candidate.

And so Eddie Bernice Johnson testified that the Democrats knew how to put just enough

that neither a black candidate nor an Hispanic candidate could win the primary.

But then what would happen is when a white Democrat won,

every, all the Democrats would come together and support the white candidate,

the general, the white candidate would win.

So we had a system where in Texas, a, a large majority of Texans were voting Republican

and yet we were electing a congressional delegation that was majority Democrat and it was

a bunch of white Democrats.

And what the state legislature did in 2003 is they essentially obliterated the white

Democrats.

They ended that partisan gerrymander.

Yeah, and that racial gerrymander and it ended up electing a number of more Republicans.

But that, it, I hated litigating this kind of case because I don't like talking about the

black seat, the white seat, the Hispanic seat.

Look, I'm the first Hispanic Senator from Texas, but, but I don't consider myself.

I'm not a Senator for Hispanics.

I'm not a Senator for whites.

I'm not a Senator for blacks.

I'm a Senator for Texans.

I'm elected by 32 million Texans.

It's my job to represent everyone and, and the left is so bean counterie that what

happened in Louisiana, as you had a court decision that ordered Louisiana, they had one black

Democrat seat in the congressional delegation and the court said it is mathematically possible

to draw a second black Democrat seat.

Now, the seat was ugly as can be.

It ran diagonally, the entire length of the state.

It like reached out, you know, you look at the origin of the word gerrymander.

You know the origin of the word gerrymander, don't you, Ben?

Give me, give me that, give me the, the history.

So it was Elbridge Gerry, who was one of the founding fathers, one of the, the, the original

framers of our country, who was, who was a congressman at the beginning of the country.

And he had a district that was so ugly, it was drawn and it looked like a salamander.

And so gerrymander is a combination of his name, gerry, and salamander, and, and it's

a long practice, but, but what the court had ordered, the lower court had ordered the state

of Louisiana because it is mathematically possible to draw a line where you just look

for every black Democrat, you put them all in one district and they could win two congressional

seats.

It's possible to do it, you must do it.

That's what the court had ruled.

That went up to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court overturned that and, and,

and the technical legal question they were analyzing is whether complying with section

two of the Voting Rights Act constitutes a compelling interest under the Constitution.

Now what does that mean?

That sounds like gobbledygook.

So the Supreme Court had long held that both the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection

Clause, and the 15th Amendment, the prohibition, the protection of the right to vote based on

race, that both of those made it illegal to draw lines based on race.

And in order to overcome that prohibition, you had to clear what is called strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is a legal standard that takes a, a compelling government interest that

is as narrowly tailored as possible.

That's the only circumstance in which you can survive strict scrutiny.

Well, the court had never answered the question for 30 years.

Whether complying with section two of the Voting Rights Act constitutes a compelling state

interest that lets you essentially ignore the Constitution's prohibition on, on, on, on

racial discrimination and gerrymandered based on race.

And the court, six, three, a decision by Justice Alito said, no, no, a statute from Congress.

Look, the Voting Rights Act was enacted to protect people's rights to vote.

It was enacted to vindicate the Constitution.

It wasn't enacted to direct legislatures.

You must discriminate based on race.

And I got to say, Ben, the reaction of Democrats to this decision.

It has been hysterical, they are losing their mind.

They're basically saying that there's never going to be an African-American ever elected

office again in Louisiana is what they've, is, is how they're trying to play this right

now, which is also absurd.

Well, you know, it's interesting because the way the Democrats are, their view is the

only way an African-American or Hispanic can get elected is in a district that is drawn

only to elect an Hispanic or African-American Democrat.

How about winning statewide?

Look, I'm Hispanic.

I'm elected statewide.

Tim Scott is African-American.

He's a Republican.

He's elected statewide.

But you know what, when you're elected statewide, you have to appeal to people more broadly.

When you're in an egregiously gerrymandered congressional district, you end up only appealing

to the extremes.

That's how you get a vaccine waters.

That's how you get an AOC.

That's how you get an Ilhan Omar because their districts are drawn where the only voters

they're listening to are the radical zealots.

The Ilhan Omar is listening to the Somali fraudsters because that's who elects her.

The result of this is states now will not be able to draw districts based on race.

They'll draw them based on political issues, based on geography, based on history.

And you will end up hopefully having members of Congress that represent the citizens more

fairly.

All right.

I want to take a moment and I want to talk to you about the incredible impact that you

can have for the people of Israel right now.

Right now our Jewish friends are feeling forgotten.

There's a Jewish woman named Esther.

I'd like to tell you about and her home is in Israel.

Esther is living through days and nights of fear.

Sirens are sounding rocket screaming through the sky.

Long stretches spent in a bomb shelter.

She's 84 years old.

Esther is elderly.

She's fragile and all alone.

Now imagine that.

No help, no food deliveries, no medical care, no one knocking at the door.

It's a war zone, but because of friends like you, Esther is not alone.

Now through the IFCJ, they are there, bringing her food, meeting her urgent needs, and reminding

Jewish people like Esther, you are not forgotten.

In times of fear and uncertainty, your compassion brings hope and real help.

Esther asks that you hear these words, quote, to those who give, you are doing a very great

mitzvah, a good deed.

You give from your heart, may God protect you.

Friends, I want you to know that your gift to God's people is truly hope-giving and

life-saving.

So if you've not gotten involved with the IFCJ, please do it now and don't wait.

Call 888-488-IFCJ right now.

That's 888-488-IFCJ or go to IFCJ.org.

There's a very interesting story I want to get to now, Senator, and it is one that involves

with how crazy do you have to be to get elected in the Democratic Party now?

There's a very good chance we're going to have a Mendoni 2.0 running L.A. soon.

And now if you're just like a semi-crazy liberal, you may have to drop out because there's

no way you can win, apparently, with a Democratic mark to Socialist and Communist Party.

Well, something really significant happened this week, which is in the Democrat primary

in Maine, Janet Mills, the incumbent governor of Democrat, was running.

Now Janet Mills had been recruited to run by Chuck Schumer.

She had a ton of money.

She was Schumer said, this is the best candidate for we, the Democrats, to beat Susan Collins,

who's the incumbent Republican Senator.

Janet Mills, let's be clear, Janet Mills is not a moderate.

She's a back job lefty.

Look, Janet Mills, how did she get known nationally?

She got known nationally for fighting with Donald Trump at a gathering of governors where

she said, dammit in Maine, we will fight to the death so that boys can compete in girls

sports and men can compete against women in women's sports.

That's...

And that went viral, by the way.

There was a shouting match in an awkward situation with the president, and that was like

her moment.

Yeah.

So she is a hardcore left-wing Democrat, supported by Chuck Schumer, the Democrat leader,

the incumbent governor with a ton of money, in a normal world that's almost like designed

in a lab, the best candidate the Democrats could find to beat an incumbent Republican

Senator.

Yeah.

You've literally won statewide.

You could win statewide again.

This is not hard.

Except for the fact that Bernie Sanders and the wacko left-wing of the Democrat party recruited

this guy named Graham Platner.

Now, Graham Platner is being marketed as an oyster farmer, a blue collar guy.

Yeah.

Graham Platner is a self-described communist.

That's what he says he is.

Yes.

Graham Platner, by the way, believe them when they tell you who they are, because that's

exactly who this guy is.

Graham Platner has a Nazi tattoo on his chest.

He's a communist who is wearing a Nazi tattoo.

He is also viciously misogynist.

He is attacked women and said, said, said, when they, if they get raped, it's, it's women's

faults.

That's who he is.

He was running against Chuck Schumer's choice, and Janet Mill just dropped out because

the Democrat party, one of the most consequential things that has happened in the last few years

is the Democrat party has become radicalized and extreme, and it now, I think it's a very

good question.

Can anyone win a Democrat primary in Maine who doesn't have a Nazi tattoo?

Because that's the, that's the standard they're holding.

And I want you to listen to, this is an ad that the NRSC, the National Republican

Senatorial Committee put out in response to this.

And it's simply someone reading Graham Platner's Reddit post.

He's posted on Reddit.

I'm going to apologize.

And explain what Reddit is to people understand that maybe you're not familiar with that.

I want you to understand exactly what that is.

It's this sort of online chat room that is used, and it's used often by a lot of people

who are very fringe.

And so these are actual things that Graham Platner has typed in.

And I'm going to apologize.

A number of these things are pretty graphic, but this is what the now almost certain

to be Democrat nominee for Senate in Maine.

This is in his own words, word for word, what he said.

Give a listen.

And now for a dramatic reading of Graham Platner's Reddit comment.

Holy f**k.

How about people just take some responsibility for themselves and not get so f**ked up.

They wind up having sex with someone they don't mean to.

Wipe is a real thing.

If you're so worried about it to buy Kevlar underwear, you think you might not get blacked

out f**ked up around people you aren't comfortable with.

Why don't black people tip?

I work as a bartender and always amazes me how solid this stereotype is.

Living in white-rool America, I'm afraid to tell you they actually are.

I got older and became a communist.

Still got the guns though.

I don't trust the fascists to act politely.

I did use to love America, or at least the idea of it.

These days I'm pretty disgusted by it all.

Feel free to back it up with facts, f**ked.

This was the gaiest, not-a-fun, d**king-sucking-way thing I've ever seen.

This has been a dramatic reading of Graham Platner's Reddit comments.

Now, that is all real.

He wrote all of that and that is the credit party saying, this is the guy we want to send

to DC.

That may be the most we've had to bleep out anything on verdict since we've been doing

the show.

That's actually, yeah, probably very accurate, yes.

Like every post we have to bleep out because it's filled with profanity.

He's attacking women who are victims of rape.

He's attacking African Americans.

He's attacking homosexuals.

But understand, there is a hierarchy in the Democrat party.

And at the top of the hierarchy are Islamist and communists.

And if you're an Islamist and communist, then you can hate, you know, mandami has all

these comments slamming homosexuals.

But that's okay.

If you're an Islamist and communist, that is like the purist of the left wing.

I want you to listen now.

But for a party that likes to say that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler, I'm pretty sure this

is the only guy that I know that's running for office right now.

The Democrat or the Republican side that has a Nazi tattoo, just want to quit or fight.

To the best of my knowledge, no member of the Senate has a Nazi tattoo.

And I'm not aware of any candidate for Senator who has a Nazi tattoo.

I want you to listen to Chris Van Hollen, who's an incumbent Democrat Senator from Maryland,

defending his Nazi tattoo and defending his saying that women should, quote, act like

an adult to avoid rape.

Give a listen.

This is an incumbent Democrat Senator saying, oh, this is, this is just fine with us.

The dude has not had a Nazi tattoo.

I mean, let's be clear about what's going on here.

I mean, is that, how do you view that?

I mean, it seems, it seems to be at least somewhat disqualifying and traditional.

Certainly.

Let's take a couple of issues, including the comments he's made in the past.

I mean, he's been very clear that he went into combat on behalf of the United States.

He went through a really rough period, PTSD type period.

And he is himself said, there are lots of things he's done and said that he completely

regrets.

And I do believe people should have second chances and that people can learn from their mistakes.

And I think he's been doing that.

Senator, I love there how they're like at the beginning, they're trying to be nice

about.

They're like, I mean, it used to be like a disqualifying thing in politics if you had

a Nazi tattoo used to be, but not right now.

Now it's up for grabs with flip a coin and see what happens.

And then you have the center.

They're going, well, you know, you got to understand him.

He went through a lot.

So therefore, we're going to get him and get a jail free card because he went through

a lot.

And you know, when you go through a lot of Nazi tattoos or just one of the things you decided

to put on your body.

Look, the Democrat defense of this is people make mistakes.

That was just a phase.

By the way, they're not defensive about him saying, I am a communist like that.

That represents where the Democrat party is.

By the way, there's another image while he's on the campaign trail where he does what

is a flat out Nazi salute.

I mean, arms straight up, sig Kyle.

You remember when the media went crazy when Elon Musk was at a stadium and he beat his

chest and waived and they said, oh, that's a Nazi salute.

And like every media outlet.

This guy did, I don't know how to describe it other than he held his arm up in a folder

would have been proud.

That's the best way to put it.

And of course, Elizabeth Warren was campaigning with him saying, this is my kind of guy.

Understand, this is no longer fringe in the Democrat party.

Someone who says they're a communist, someone who says women effectively deserve to be raped,

someone who wears a Nazi tattoo and doesn't apologize for it.

That is now an unbeatable candidate in a Democrat primary, the incumbent Democrat governor

with the support of Chuck Schumer could not win and had to drop out.

And that's a dangerous dynamic that these people are no longer fringe in the Democrat party.

And I'm not saying every Democrat agrees with them.

But I don't know a single Democrat other than John Fetterman.

And again, we keep saying John Fetterman is the exception that proves the rule other

than John Fetterman that I don't know a single Democrat is said, you know, maybe he

shouldn't have gotten a Nazi tattoo like just they won't do that because all they care

about is power and the money, the energy, the volunteers, the activists in the Democrat

party are all on the extreme left.

And so every one of them is captive to them.

And I got to say, that's not healthy for America, Ben, I worry.

I would like to see two functioning rational parties in our country America's better.

Yeah, America's better when it's over now.

When you have Democrats that are not so far left wing as to be like on the other fringes.

And yet that's where they've gone.

And I don't see anyone in the Democrat party trying to pull them back.

And that's ultimately, that's very bad because these people, they're getting

elected and they're driving the Democrat party further and further into Crazy Town.

I want to take a quick moment and talk to you about an incredible organization.

And it is called Compassion International and how you can get involved.

I want to be honest with you for a second about how an act of compassion really

feels a couple of years ago.

I made the choice to partner with an amazing organization called Compassion International.

Why?

Because I wanted to sponsor a child in need.

It was a nice idea, sure, but I had no idea just how much that simple act would

change my life as well.

I sponsored Nadia and got to watch her life change right in front of my eyes,

going from starving literally alone on the streets to getting the healthcare and

education she needs to reach her God given full potential.

I got to be a part of that change and the light of that compassion,

not only illuminates in her, it illuminates now in me.

That is the power of compassion, the light of Christ shines on all of us.

Feel it for yourself and change literally a child's life, change the world.

And you also change yourself.

You can sponsor child today, visit compassion.com.

That's compassion.com.

Senator, this might be one of the most entertaining stories that I've seen in a long time.

If you want to know how bigoted the democratic party is,

look no further than how they treat homeless people.

They've got a scoring mechanism now.

You get bonus points for certain things while being homeless in America.

And then you get services, a K rewarded based on your race and your sexual identity.

Now, this is like English is a second language gets you two points.

So just think of that as a jumper.

If you're pregnant, that's a three pointer.

We give you more points if you're pregnant.

If you're a child under five, you get three points.

If you're a child under 18, you only get one point.

So in other words, and if you're head of household and you're under 18,

we give you bonus points, two points for that.

There's an actual quota list to point you received, depending on how you describe

yourself. And if you say that you're not your gay or lesbian or transgender,

that's bonus points as well.

So look, we talked a minute ago about the hierarchy of victim groups in the

Democrat party.

It's a notion that's called intersectionality.

And in the Democrat party, being LGBT or being a racial minority is,

is more privileged than simply being poor and being homeless.

And, and, and let's talk, we're going to talk about Portland, Oregon,

because Portland, Oregon is almost like a, a deranged faculty lounge

experiment gone awry.

Yeah, I'm going to read from an article in pro public up to be clear.

Pro publica is not a right wing outlet.

It is a left wing outlet.

But, but here's what they described.

Quote, as the city of Portland, Oregon clawed its way out of the pandemic.

It faced a new set of crises.

The city's homeless population was growing.

Tents lined some city blocks, high powered business associations held press

conferences demanding the city remove homeless people and touted self-funded

surveys saying that without action, businesses and residents would flee the city.

By late spring 2021, the city committed to a new strategy that then mayor

Ted Wheeler said would quote, reprioritize public health and safety among

homeless Portlanders, ultimately allocating $1.3 billion by the end of 2024.

Now, let's see what the results were.

Although the city spent roughly $200,000 per homeless resident.

Now, let's stop and think 200 grand per homeless resident.

You could house them and feed them 200 grand is a lot of money.

That's what they spent.

What do you think it did?

What do you think massively spending and saying we're prioritizing the safety of

homeless people?

What do you think it produced?

I'm going to guess close to nothing because it's a government program that

levels aren't charged.

Sorry, call me a cynic.

You're not cynical enough.

Nothing would be better.

Close to nothing would be better.

The death rate among homeless people in Portland, quadrupled,

went up 400%.

The death rate went up from 113 in 2019 to more than 450 in 2023.

So when liberals say we are going to focus on the homeless, if you're homeless,

God help you because at least in in Portland, what that meant was the death rate

quadrupled.

Now, they also put in places you referenced an elaborate point system.

I mean, and this is not a joke like it's literally, and they even tell you like,

Hey, you can't get double points.

If you get points in one category, compared to another category.

So if you're pregnant under 18, that's bonus points.

But only if you haven't already gotten points for being pregnant on another,

uh, another piece of paper for another point system.

It's just, it's unbelievable how well organized it is.

So look, and, and I'll say actually pregnant makes some sense.

Prioritizing pregnant women that that that has a reasonable basis.

You are more vulnerable, uh, but English is a second language.

That was worth two points, uh, head of a household under 18.

That was worth two points interest in LGBTQ services.

That was worth one point, uh, just interest.

So just make sure you say I, I, I, I think I've thought about being gay or

transgender or lesbian and then you get one bonus point.

So total disabilities impacting entire household ability to secure

housing. I don't even know what that means, but it's worth three points.

Yeah, there you go.

Um, interest in culturally specific services.

That's two points.

Again, I don't know what that means.

By the way, comparing that just so you understand how, how woke this is.

If you are over the age of 55, 55 plus, which is a higher vulnerable

category, I think we can all agree on that for homelessness.

You get two points for that.

You get the same number of points.

If you're interested in culturally specific services, you can just catch up to

somebody that's 55, 60, 70, 80, 85, 90 years old.

Yeah, and also worth two points is being a domestic violence survivor.

Now that actually is rational and makes sense that you would prioritize

domestic violence survivors.

But in the Portland world, interest in a culturally specific service is

equally prioritized to being a domestic violence server survivor.

Now, how about this?

Um, what do you think being poor is like like having, let's say something

crazy, zero income, like if you're trying to help homeless people having

zero income, you would think that would be one of the top scoring things

on a sheet because that would get you obviously to be homeless.

So you would think like that would be worse, something, right?

Yes.

Well, one point is not one point, one point, one point.

And if you're homeless for a year or more, you only get one point.

But if you are currently homeless, this is what's weird.

Currently homeless gets you two points.

Wouldn't that also mean you get one point for being homeless for like 12 months

or more or no income?

I don't know.

I like, this is DEI on a whole nother level of stupid.

Look, look, here's what they said they've done.

So, so Multnomah County, Oregon, which is home of deep blue Portland,

were deaths of homeless people quadrupled between 2019 and 2023.

The county screening tool for housing services is designed.

And this is a quote from the county to quote prioritize

BIPOC households, LGBTQIA2S plus and people with disabilities.

Yes.

Again, this is not, they're spending 200 grand per homeless person with 200 grand.

You can buy some of your house.

You could buy someone a house, but, but, but you could pay rent for too much sense.

You could pay rent for a long time.

You could get someone a hotel room.

You could feed them.

You could get the medical care.

And yet, the death rate quadrupled because they were more interested in LGBTQLMNOP,

like like the number of letters there.

I can't even, it reminds me of that crazy Canadian who got up and gave this incredibly long stream

that I'm pretty sure was her Wi-Fi password.

But they're more interested in their woke policies than they are actually in helping someone

who needs help.

And that's true.

You mentioned 200,000 a person just to put it in perspective with everything we know.

You got to ask yourself the question, how much fraud's involved here?

Massive, massive.

Yeah.

It's hard to spend that much money.

200,000.

It's going to be interesting to watch.

See what it's going to do.

Somebody's driving a Ferrari.

Somebody's driving a Lamborghini.

Yeah, there's, yeah, you're, you're absolutely right about that one.

Don't forget we do this show Monday Wednesday Friday.

Hit that subscribe, auto download button.

You've been listening to Vertiquatecruz.

We will see you on the podcast this week and back on this radio station next weekend.