Tiroteo en Dallas contra ICE | Violencia política y el legado de Charlie Kirk

I said, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, I suppose I'll say, well, States. The latest information we have, you have been following it all day, and that's how you see things, is that it was approximately 6.41 in the morning when a sniper, in front of an ICE building, some ICE facilities in Dallas, started shooting. We are talking here about a sniper whose name has been identified by several media The information is terrible. We know that two ICE officers died. One is in a serious condition and the gunman committed suicide after committing this terribly criminal act.

And the debate about the origin of political violence begins again. The issue of the political violence committing this terribly criminal act. And the debate begins again about the origin of political violence and who is responsible. Before we can accuse and point with a finger who is responsible, we have to know the reasons of the gunman. Why Joshua Yan decided to do this? We have to read his social media, we have to see if he left a letter,

we have to see exactly why he did it before he could accuse a group or another of being behind this murder. The White House has quickly come out to say the following. A statement from Karen Leavitt, who is the spokeswoman for President Donald Trump said, Democrats must stop demonizing ICE men and women who are only doing their job to keep Americans safe. Again, I want to emphasize here that the two deaths reported so far are not ICE agents, but the two deaths are detainees

in an ICE facility in Dallas, Texas. The Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, has come out and said, enough, and it's the same thing we're all saying. We've said it constantly on this show, and this is our message,

not to violence, not to political violence in the United States, and we have to denounce violence, wherever it comes from.

Senator Ted Cruz dijo esto. This needs to stop. Violence is wrong. Politically motivated violence is wrong. It was two weeks ago today that we saw a political assassination in Utah that tore the heart out of much of this country. This is the third shooting in Texas directed at ICE or CBP. This must stop. To every politician who is using rhetoric demonizing ICE and demonizing CBP, stop. To every politician demanding that ICE agents be doxxed and calling for people to go after their families, stop. This has very real consequences.

These are the statements of Senator Ted Cruz. He is absolutely right. This political violence has to stop. We can disagree with migratory policies, with operatives, with certain protocols, but violence is never acceptable from any point of view against anyone in this country. Ted Cruz's message is very clear. Kash Patel, who is the FBI director, has taken a photo on his social media, in which four alleged bullets that he had bought or that the gunman had taken appear.

One of them, the third if you look, the fourth, from left to right, says anti-ICE. Let's see in what context and if it can be proven that these bullets correspond to the sniper. And here I would like to say something about the sniper. Are they repeating themselves? Are there what they call in English copycats? Because they have received a lot of attention, first with the two attacks against the president of the United States, Donald Trump. One that took part of the ear, which was very dangerous, very serious.

Another, of course, the murder two weeks ago of Charlie Kirk. Another sniper. And now in this attack against one of the facilities of Eisen Dallas, again, there is a sniper. We are finding certain patterns of conduct that would suggest that these criminals, that that these terrorists are using more or less the same methods. Despite all this, the governor of the state of Texas continues with his migratory policy and said the following, I'm going to read them to you. This is the statement of Greg Abbott. It says, Texas fully supports ICE, both the Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard

work in close collaboration with ICE. This murder will not stop our arrest, detention and deportation of illegal immigrants. We will work with ICE and the Dallas Police Department to find the motive of this murder. I think this is extremely important. We have to know what the motive of this murder is to try to find the reasons for this political violence that continues to spread in the United States. Many of us would have liked, and this was suggested during the funeral of Charlie Kirk, that this was the culmination, the end of political violence in the United States.

And yet we realize, if what we have seen with the photographs that the FBI director put up is true, that this new attack also has political motivations. We have to understand again exactly who did it and why he did it. In another of the news that would have been perhaps the news of the day, but that unfortunately has disappeared has been put aside for what happened in Texas is the return of Jimmy Kimmel to

television returned yesterday if the objective was to criticize Jimmy Kimmel for his comments with which many did not agree and then try to prevent them from being on television the result was totally counterproductive because Jimmy Kimmel got some impressive ratings in his monologue last night, he returned to the ABC network despite the fact that a quarter of the affiliated stations decided not to broadcast Jimmy Kimmel's program and this is a new conflict between ABC and the affiliated stations that we will of course continue.

What happens, I will explain it to you quickly, the affiliated stations, many affiliated stations hire the programming of the ABC network in this case, but they have the right not to pass it if that is what they decide. Well, one of every four ABC stations decided not to pass Jimmy Kimmel, but Jimmy Kimmel came out to say this and millions saw it. And now I just want to say this about the return of Jimmy Kimmel, who is undoubtedly a triumph, a success of freedom of expression here in the United States, which is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution.

We are all experiencing it. For example, after leaving television, I have not been silent. We continue to speak, like many journalists. activo que nunca y millones de personas que me veían en la televisión ahora tengo el honor de que me están siguiendo también a través de las redes sociales y en un mundo digital. Este, esto que están viendo ustedes, este es un espacio sin censura, sin autocensura, sin presiones corporativas, sin influencias por parte del gobierno, es decir, seguimos con los mismos principios del periodismo independiente, igual que lo hacía antes en televisión, ahora lo We continue with the same principles of independent journalism, just as I used to do on television, and now I'm doing it in this very space. I'll tell you a personal story. I came to the United States in 1983, and I came from Mexico, a country that was not a democracy and where there was no freedom of expression.

I didn't want to be a censored journalist. I didn't want to be a journalist pressured by any government. I came to the United States to live in a democracy, and I have lived like that for more than 40 years. I want to continue exactly the same. I don't want to be in a country where there is no democracy and where there is no freedom of expression. That's why Jimmy Kimmel's return is symbolic, because he tells us that this freedom, for which many of us came to the United States, is still present. So, in the face of so many doubts and in the face of crisis, for me, more journalism. I'll continue with the news. Let's jump to Ukraine.

In Ukraine, there has been a fundamental, essential change in the position of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. I don't know if you remember that famous press conference where President Donald Trump fought with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the middle of the White House, and President Donald Trump told him, you are putting the world at risk, and the possible detonation of the Third World War. It was a moment in which many of us assumed that Donald Trump was in the middle... ...and was not criticizing the invader, Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader... ...not president, but the Russian leader, and suggested, then, the president and some experts...

...that some kind of negotiation could be reached. Well, Vladimir Putin, of course, did not respond. He did not do what President Donald Trump wanted. It was not possible to resolve everything in 24 hours. And now everything seems to indicate that Donald Trump has a position in favor of Ukraine. He said the following, let's see what the president said.

He says, after knowing and fully understanding the military and economic situation of Ukraine and Russia, and after seeing the economic problems that it is causing in Russia... ...I think that Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight... ...and win in order to recover all its original territory. This is new. This position of the White House is totally new. It is suggesting that the territory that Russia has invaded, because it is an invasion, both in Crimea and in the north of Ukraine,

be recovered by Ukraine. And this position is new for the United States. The question is, after this statement, where are we going? That is, what will be the support that the United States provide to NATO countries, the Organization of Countries of the North Atlantic Treaty, to prevent not only Russia from expanding within the Ukrainian territory, but for Ukraine, as President Trump says, to recover the lost territory? Vladimir Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, is recognizing this change of attitude of

President Trump and acknowledging this change of attitude and said this. I don't have. But good that we will work on some types of it, and sometimes of drones, and sometimes of some types of weapon, what we need for security guarantees, and some types of them what we need

before. security guarantees. beyond words, providing military material and supporting NATO, NATO countries, so that not only does the invasion end, but the territory is recovered. For this to happen, many things have to happen. But the change of attitude of the United States is much more in accordance with what many European countries had said before, that you couldn't trust Vladimir Putin and that something had to be done about it. You have surely followed the news with such enormity and the enormous confusion that the medical statement of the President of the United States has caused, who is not a doctor.

Yesterday in this program we had a doctor who clearly told us, the president of the United States is not a doctor. And the question is very simple, who are we going to believe? A politician with information that has no evidence, or the scientists and doctors. Chemview, which is the corporation that produces Tylenol, has released the following statement, and we are going to read it completely. que produce Tylenol ha sacado el siguiente comunicado y lo vamos a leer completo. Dice,

creemos que la ciencia independiente y sólida demuestra claramente que tomar acetaminofén no causa autismo. Estamos en total desacuerdo con cualquier sugerencia que indique lo contrario y estamos profundamente preocupados por el riesgo para la salud que esto representa para las futuras madres. Este es el comunicado de la corporación que produce Tylenol, and that puts in question what was communicated by the President of the United States, who two days ago, in a press conference, told pregnant mothers not to take Tylenol, and told them not to give their give Tylenol to their children. The debate continues, but again, it's very simple. We go with the data and science, or we go with the political statements. Until now, and always, we have to go with science and not with political statements.

I'll finish with some very good news for Latinos and the idea of political representation. I'll put it more or less like this. In the United States, we are about 20% of the population, that is, one in five people in this country is like us, Latinos, Hispanics, Latinx, as you want to use the term you want. I know you don't like Latinx, but I put it out there. So, the point is that we should have more political representation,

more representation in movies, in all kinds of celebrations, more representation every time there are economic groups or musical groups. I think we should be represented in everything. And what we just saw in Arizona is that Adelita Grijalva, the daughter of Raul Grijalva, who died last March, has just won a special election against the Republican candidate. This happened, of course, in the state of Arizona.

Adelita Grijalva is a Democrat. She wants to continue with the legacy of her father, Raul grijalva con quien tuve innumerables conversaciones y esto nos ayuda a los hispanos a tener mayor representación política y a tener más voces como la nuestra así que aquí en este programa seguramente muy pronto vamos a hablar con con adelita grijalva quien es de es una de esas nuevas voces nuevas caras de los latinos aquí en los eeuu who is one of those new voices, new faces of Latinos here in the United States.

We will continue with our interview with a friend of Charlie Kirk and we will talk about the new political violence that, as we saw this morning, occurred in Dallas, Texas. So, the context of the next interview is the political violence that continues to live in the United States. Not only the attacks against the President of the United States, Donald Trump, nor the murder against Charlie Kier, but also the latest information that we have been following during the last hours regarding the shots of a sniper against an ICE facility in Dallas.

But to talk about the legacy of Charlie Kirk, to talk about the rejection of political violence, and to tell us what is going to happen in the future here in the United States, we are joined by the State Representative of Florida, Juan Carlos Porras. Juan Carlos, several years ago, founded, along with Charlie Kirk, the chapter of Turning Point at the University of Florida. Representative, thank you for being here.

Jorge, thank you very much for the invitation. I'm always happy to be here.

I know that there is a lot of information missing about what happened in Dallas, but your position, and mine, and everyone's, is not to political violence. Why is there so much political violence in the United States? What's happening, Representative?

Yes, unfortunately, it's another example we've seen of the lack of humanity that we've seen, obviously, in our community, starting with the shooting of various elected members, like Steve Scalise in Congress, even President Trump, and obviously the murder of Charlie Kirk. For some reason, we've seen an increase

in this political violence and an inability of people in both parties. Obviously, we've seen a lot of this violence coming from the extremists on the left, but obviously, the violence has to be renounced by both parties.

And what's happening today in Dallas is another tragedy, against ICE people, who are somehow police officers, they are people and we have to make sure that our residents are protected, obviously.

I agree and I would just like to emphasize that the violence has come from both sides. I am remembering the representative of Minnesota who was murdered along with her husband. But I wanted to ask you, maybe this is where we start to have this conversation and this debate, but Representative, when there are so many weapons in the United States, does it make sense to continue with the second amendment without restricting it? I suppose, that is my argument and I want to ask you what you think, that the fewer weapons there are, the fewer murders, but I don't know what you think.

Well, Jorge, that's where we have our differences, obviously. On several of these occasions, we have seen snipers and people who have committed these horrors in places where there is no longer, you can no longer have a weapon. In several universities throughout the country, this In this case, these horrors still happen. And obviously, what we have seen, not only here in the United States, but around the world, is that this violence does not stop just by taking away a person's weapon. It can obviously happen in many other topics. The topic, I think, is not a topic of taking away weapons.

I think it is a topic of mental health, of education, and obviously of escalating rhetoric and the words we use as citizens against people who have different opinions, I would say.

My argument would be that if there is a problem of mental disorders, which I totally agree with you that exists, or there is some kind of conflict, one thing is to fight or have a mental disorder, and another is to have direct access to weapons. algún tipo de conflicto una cosa es pelearse o tener un trastorno mental y otra es tener acceso directo a las armas si si no se tuviera acceso directo a las armas tan fácilmente desde mi punto de vista habría menos asesinatos

bueno Jorge ya hoy en día es muy difícil tener un arma no cualquiera obviamente las personas que tienen que tienen ciertos defectos mentales o ciertos problemas mentales ya no pueden tener armas en no solamente en el estado that have certain mental defects or certain mental problems and can no longer have guns, not only in the state of Florida, but in the country

there is something called the red flag. It's easy to get guns, it's easier to get guns, easier than getting medicine without a medical prescription.

Well, I wouldn't say that, but there are several requirements that have to be taken and mental exams, and several people who can't have guns because they've had problems with the law or problems with their mental health in the past. Obviously, I would say that I don't agree with that.

But we have to be sure that people who have these reasons of violence or have committed similar acts in the past obviously shouldn't have guns. And that's something I think both parties

agree with. The state of Florida even passed those laws in the past, obviously, they shouldn't have guns. If that's something I think that both parties agree on, the state of Florida even passed those laws after Parkland, restricting guns for certain people and for certain ages. Obviously, the issue continues to occur. Obviously, there was someone who even tried to take the president's life, right here in Florida too.

So, obviously, the topic hasn't stopped. And as I'm going to repeat, obviously, the topic is not the gun. The topic is how we can talk to our youth, how we can talk to the future generations that have these reasons, such violence, or are indoctrinating it,

through the education of our country or through social media, which in my opinion has been a plague in our generation.

I understand your point of view, Representative. I respect it. I think the issue is the weapons. But I wanted to ask you about this. In the incident that took place in Dallas, there was a sniper from a building in front of this place. Dallas Or does it? Alfred a deste lugar en el caso de charlie kirk un francotirador en el caso del presidente de los estados unidos otro francotirador Crea usted que estamos viendo copycats que estamos viendo personas que se dan cuenta de la tensión que han recibido otros eventos Y que los están empezando a repetir

Bueno, sí, eso es lo que hemos visto ha sido caso similar y como ha dicho repeat on group La mayoría que hemos visto las similarities son que han tenido los mismos mensajes políticos también

Representante lo habíamos invitado le agradezco mucho que haya conversado conmigo de estos temas porque en realidad lo hemos invitado para que nos Hablara de charlie kirk, pero de pronto las noticias no san se nos han venido encima quiero quiero preguntarle sobre charlie kirk Yo sé que usted consideraba charlie kirk como como su mentor ustedes dos You considered Charlie Kirk as your mentor. You two founded Turning Point at the International University of Florida. I wanted to ask you about when you found out about the murder of Charlie Kirk, where was he and what was your first reaction? I was in a meeting here in Miami.

To give you the context, Charlie and I met more than 10 years ago. When I was at the University of Fayou. And together with him, we started the first branch of the organization Turning Point USA in the state of Florida together. I was only 18 years old, he was 20 years old. At that time, it was the same principle of the organization. And well, at that time, and it continues now, it was an organization that the same motive was to fight the extreme of politics, of both parties.

And the extreme of the power that the government has, the slogan, as they say, is, big government sucks, that the big government doesn't work. And he had no political motive, he was not for any candidate. And well, obviously it is ironic what has happened. And since those years that I started with him, the organization has assembled one of the most successful groups of young people. I'm on to a group of my ex-husband's Okay, when the idea that president Trump let it be a mutual Charlie Kirk, but I

Obviously, we Taught me

You to it on a last one of my class not a mass. I don't know what I'm so ya represent under a Tennessee, I'm a photographer Is this a photography don I don't know if you remember the day.

Yes, I remember. It was the last time I saw it. It was only three or four months ago. It was in Mar-a-Lago. It was a meeting of the organization Turning Point. I was with my girlfriend. And they were recognizing elected members who founded Turning Point. And the two guests of the night were me and congresswoman Ana Paulina Luna.

You said, Representative, someone who could not be defeated with words, unfortunately, had to be defeated by force, with a bullet. It's the reality, Jorge. He was a man of many words, in any university and any place we went. He debated anyone, right? He debated anyone, he wasn't afraid.

He debated anyone, he wasn't afraid, he wasn't interested in the point of view of one. He wanted to listen to people who didn't agree with him. He wanted to talk to them first. He would say, cut the line, come and explain to me why you think the way you think. And of the most times I listened to him, he could at least find something that made sense. Or he could find a place in the middle where we could all agree. He was a great reconciler, I would say.

And yes, obviously he was too successful in his work and that's why I think that the extreme left or the person with their mental problem thought that it was a danger to the country.

Representative, I want to try to understand why people as young as you and millions of young people decided in the past elections to vote for President Donald Trump. There was the perception in the United States that most of our young people are liberals. But I have heard the President, I have heard Charlie Kirk in video speeches, I hear you say no, that many young people feel more comfortable now with conservative ideas. And after seeing

those impressive images of Charlie Kirk's funeral, I want to try to understand it. Representative, you have said the following, I think that students my age and younger will continue to feel the weight of your

words. Why are they going to the right? Well, it's a big rejection, I would say, Jorge, of the system and policies that we have seen in the past. More behind Biden, more behind Obama. We have seen, as young people, I would say, at least in my life, no type of relief, no type of policy, which is actually for the future of our country. Our country is in more debt than ever. It's more expensive every day to be able to buy a house, to be able to find a job.

And life hasn't been better for young people. So I think it's a total rejection of the system of governance, of the government that we've had. That's why President Trump was so successful the first time he was elected. to I've seen that it hasn't been something that has been good for the future of our country. And President Trump and the young people see the Conservative Party, the Republican Party, as a movement that obviously wants the best for our country, and patriotism, but also keeping in mind the opinions of the young people,

who think that the Democratic Party has failed so clearly, obviously, and they are going to the other extreme, which I think is not the right thing they are doing as a party. And obviously they have not been able to reach the messages and the problems that people my age have.

Representative, it helps me understand what Charlie Kirk thought about immigrants. I've seen videos, and I have to admit that I didn't see the full speeches, but I've seen videos in which Charlie Kirk was telling immigrants to go back to their country of origin. On the other hand, he accepted that many immigrants who had quickly integrated

to the United States would stay here. What did Charlie Kirk think of immigrants? Did he reject them? Well, just like President Trump, and I think the vast majority of Americans today, Charlie Kirk was obviously against the massive number of illegal immigrants that we see now in the United States. Obviously, he was someone pro-immigration to the people who want to come to this country to work, to have a family, and to assimilate to the values of the United States. I think that was the important thing. Charlie was a man of great faith. He wanted to be recognized as a man of great faith. And what we've seen in many cases of illegal immigrants is that they don't want to assimilate to American culture. Obviously, they don't want to learn to speak English

or they don't want to have certain customs that they used to have in their countries in Latin America or in the Middle East. So, that's what we've seen. And, well, obviously, Charlie was a person who thought that they had to arrive to this country legally. So, the rejection of Charlie Kierkegaard, I think we were hearing a lightning alarm.

Yes, sorry for the alarm. No, no, no, it goes beyond your control and mine. The alarm has passed. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no the first branch of his organization in the state of Florida. He thought that the reason and the history of the immigrants who came to the south of Florida, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, who came fleeing communism, fleeing extremist politics, is so critical and so important to the history of our country, especially

here in the state of Florida. And well, he chose Miami to be one of the first branches of his organization, which I had the honor to work with him. But of course, he was not someone against immigration, but he wanted people who emigrated to this country to do it in a legal way and wanted the best for this country, and I think everyone can agree with that.

Representative, I know you were born in Florida. Where is your family from? What is the origin of your family?

All of my family is of Cuban origin. They immigrated here legally in the 90s. And obviously fleeing the Castro dictatorship, I have lost my family. I have had family that have been political prisoners in the past. So for me, obviously, it's something very personal.

Very well. I'm glad you're telling me this. I totally agree with you. I think the United States has had a very long history of supporting refugees and accepting people who are fleeing dictatorships, like the terrible dictatorship in Cuba or the terrible dictatorship in Venezuela or Nicaragua. If we agree on this, Representative, why does the government of President Donald Trump want to deport Cubans? Why does he want to deport Venezuelans? Why does he want to deport Nicaraguans?

That's a good question, Jorge. Obviously, it has to be done case by case. We are not seeing that Cubans or Venezuelans being deported en masse. Obviously, there are people who have come to the United States for various reasons.

I don't think Cubans are being allowed to return to the island, but Venezuelans, I have information from Venezuelan leaders that two planes are leaving directly to Venezuela weekly.

Well, I'm going'll remind you, Jorge, that it was President Obama who removed the policy of dry feet, wet feet, which was one of the many laws that Cubans used to enter this country legally. President Obama at that time decided that Cubans didn't have that right or that need at that time. Obviously, many of those benefits were taken from that community

and well, President Trump, until today, has not yet completely eliminated the TPS from Venezuelans and we have mostly tried to ensure that more people come to this country legally and those who are here can stay if they come legally so I would say that President Trump has obviously done more for the Latino community De la manera legalmente y lo que están aquí se puede Si vienen legalmente, so yo diría que obviamente el presidente trump ha hecho más para la comunidad latina aunque

Star is that a star deportando a venezolanos quiere deportar a cubano esta deportando a gente que está viendo dictaduras quizás quizás mi argumento es que no deberíamos de portar de nuevo a una dictadura un venezolano un cubano un is that we should not deport a Venezuelan, a Cuban or a Nicaraguan to a dictatorship. They are asking for help from the United States and the government is deporting them.

Obviously, Jorge, I think that it has to be based on case by case. The federal government has not yet designated any type of asylum for these communities. I would say that the congressmen, obviously the congressmen of South Florida are pushing for members of Venezuela or Nicaragua to have their TPS or have some type of movement. I know that congresswoman Maria Vila Salazar has had legislation that has put on the basis of that the law of dignity yes, the law of dignity

but unfortunately, that doesn't mean that someone from those countries that comes illegally and doesn't want to go through the process that we already have as a country doesn't have any more benefit than someone from another part of Latin America unfortunately, but President Trump has been very strong

in what is happening in Cuba and Venezuela, as we have seen, especially with drug traffickers.

But we have to have a system. I don't agree that Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans should be deported. I don't want them to be deported. In Florida, where you and I live, we have had a long history of protecting people who flee from dictatorships.

And I think it's terrible that now Venezuelans, Cubans and Nicaraguans are being deported.

Of course, obviously, as I have said on many of these occasions, people have committed some type of crimes. Not only, many of them, obviously, I know you are going to say that they have put it on, obviously, just to be here legally, and yes, it's true. But the vast majority of the time we are focusing on people who have committed various crimes of all kinds, such as murder, thieves, drug traffickers. That's the focus of a lot of this. Obviously, there are people who have found themselves in very difficult situations with ICE, especially here in South Florida.

And my office and the Congressmen's office, obviously, we are always in contact with many of those families. But the focus, as President Trump said in the campaign, has to be the people who have come with no intention of assimilating this country and have only wanted to commit, obviously, things against this country or certain crimes. And those people, obviously, we can both agree, they should not be here.

Representative, before you leave, let me return to the topic for which we invite you to this conversation. What is the legacy of Charlie Kirk? When people, within 10 or 20 years, think of Charlie Kirk, what will they think? You met him personally, you were friends with him, you worked together. What is his legacy?

I think, Jorge, that we are going to see a gigantic increase in the youth movement involved in politics, and not only that, an increase in people of faith, going to churches, an increase in young people who are now going to go to church, who are going to be more involved with their faith. And obviously, in turn, that will involve many of them becoming conservatives. So I think that this Turning Point movement is not going to die

from the murder of Charlie Kirk, a crear un movimiento más fuerte que nunca Yo pienso que lo vamos a ver ahora en los midterms que vamos a ver un incremento de registrarse para votar pero también ayudar a sus amistades para estar involucrado en la política también

El representante Juan Carlos por gracias por estar aquí Pero sabe que más que nada lo que le agradezco es que usted y yo tenemos varias conversaciones The representative Juan Carlos, thank you for being here. But you know what? More than anything, what I appreciate is that you and I have several conversations. We don't agree on many things, but it's always a very respectful way. And I really appreciate this dialogue we've had for so long.

Of course, Jorge. It's always nice to be here.

Thank you. I thank you very much. And here on this program, we will continue to analyze exactly what happened in Dallas, Texas and why political violence, although everyone says that it must be stopped, continues strong, sadly strong here in the United States. We have your comments, there are several, there are many. We choose three or four for each program to read.

Good profit says the following, let us remember that the president recommended that we take foreign desinformar y fomentar el miedo. Aquí este comentario es sobre las recomendaciones médicas del presidente Donald Trump y la oposición muy muy grande que ha surgido por expertos, por científicos y por doctores. El siguiente comentario es de Susana Pérez de López, dice, y así quiere el premio Nobel en vez de unir disunites. Susana refers to Erika Kirk's statements. Do you remember during the funeral of Charlie Kirk, her wife comes out to speak, and in a statement that I remember perfectly and that has had a gigantic political impact,

Erika says, I forgive the murderer of my husband. Very hard. I mean, she just lost her husband and she has the moral interest to go out and say what very few would dare and she says she does it for her Christian values.

What happens is that shortly after, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, comes out to speak and he says that he doesn't like his opponents, that he is against his opponents, and that he doesn't want his opponents to do well. That is, the idea of forgiveness that Erika suggested is not followed by the president of the United States, and this comment by Susana is that. And so he wants the Nobel Prize instead of uniting, disunites. We finish with Edgar Ferrer who says the following,

he refers to Jimmy Kimmel's return to television, he says, Disney changed its decision because many Americans began to cancel Disney Plus subscriptions in protest for the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel's program. They saw that they were going to lose millions of dollars and they were forced to back down. If we were like this in Mexico, united, another rooster would tire us out. This is the comment of Edgar Ferrer.

Before I go, I want to tell you, as immigrants, you know that we have a lot of jobs, we do a lot of things, and I chamba con con iHeart en que hago un podcast un vídeo podcast todas las semanas con mi hija Paula y lo pueden encontrar aquí mismo en esta cuenta de Jorge Ramos Así veo las cosas y suscríbanse por favor pero si le bajan un poquito se escrolean hacia abajo lo van a encontrar se llama The Moment es un es un podcast en inglés y la semana

pasada tuvimos a Zoran Mamdani, the candidate for mayor of New York, who, according to the polls, can win. And this time we have Anthony Romero, the executive director of ACLU, who is this organization, who has presented demand after demand who is this organization, who has presented demand after demand against several of the proposals of the government of President Donald Trump.