Talking Purple

Beth Guide
  • 0,0 (0)
  • POLÍTICA
  • SEMANAL

Talking Purple with Beth Guide cuts through partisan noise to deliver honest, balanced conversations about politics, community, and truth. Hosted by Houston business owner and advocate Beth Guide, each episode dives into issues like Texas politics, flooding, transparency, and accountability — without the spin. Real talk. Real facts. Real purple. 💜

Episodios

  1. HACE 4 D

    Kingwood Flooding Truth: Crenshaw vs. Toth CD2 Primary, Elm Grove, Lake Houston Gates

    Kingwood Flooding Truth: Stop the Talking Points. Start the Facts. If you live in Kingwood, here’s the uncomfortable truth: your house doesn’t care about campaign slogans. Water doesn’t care about Facebook “hot takes.” And flooding sure as hell doesn’t stop because someone repeats the same blame script loud enough. My podcast is blunt for a reason. The misinformation about Kingwood flooding, SJRA, Lake Houston, and what actually protects this community is out of control. And no—this isn’t abstract politics. It’s about whether Kingwood gets the money, coordination, and leadership needed to avoid being wrecked again. Why This Matters: Kingwood Is One Flood Away Kingwood is not “fine.” Kingwood is not “overreacting.” And Kingwood is not protected by vibes. Kingwood is one major event away from: flooded homes, destroyed property values, residents displaced for months, businesses wiped out, and the kind of community trauma that people outside flood zones never understand. So when candidates (and their supporters) toss around lazy one-liners like “SJRA did it” and call anyone who disagrees a liar—here’s what that is: political theater. And political theater doesn’t install flood gates. The Actual Flood Timeline: What Happened (1994 → 2017 → 2019 → Imelda) 1994: Releases + “Handshake Agreement” Mentality In October 1994, heavy rain forced officials to release water from Lake Conroe and it flooded parts of Kingwood. Rescues happened. It was ugly. Then a “post-mortem” mindset took over: don’t release like that again and we’ll be fine. That’s not infrastructure. That’s hope. Hope is not a flood plan. 2017: Hurricane Harvey — The Event Everyone Remembers In 2017, Hurricane Harvey hits. Water releases happened. Homes flooded. Boats launched. People stranded. Deaths. Evacuations. A disaster that scarred the area. Harvey exposed a brutal reality: Lake Houston’s aging dam and gates can’t discharge fast enough coordination between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston matters and when it goes wrong, Kingwood pays the bill 2019: Elm Grove Flooding — A Different Story People Keep Lying About Here’s where the “SJRA did everything” crowd loses the plot. Elm Grove flooding (2019) wasn’t a Harvey rerun. It wasn’t just “the river.” It was tied to development and drainage: land cleared and elevated, runoff directed, and downstream neighborhoods taking the hit. Beth describes: being on the Elm Grove HOA board, two rain events exposing the problem, water flowing into neighborhoods through a large drainage pipe, and Montgomery County officials refusing responsibility. You can argue the politics. But pretending every flood has one single cause is ignorant or dishonest—pick one. Imelda: “You Barely Recovered—Now Do It Again” After residents rebuilt from earlier flooding, Tropical Storm Imelda hit and the damage expanded—hundreds more homes affected. This is the part people who “debate” flooding from safe neighborhoods don’t get: these aren’t “weather events.” These are life events. They erase years of work in hours. The Ugly Part: Development + Drainage + Enforcement Failures According to the transcript, a core issue wasn’t just rainfall—it was how runoff was handled when land was developed and elevated. This is the simplest way to explain what Beth is accusing: developers elevate land (so their lots are “safer”), runoff gets pushed into adjacent neighborhoods, and enforcement in the upstream jurisdiction is weak or nonexistent, meaning downstream residents become collateral damage. If you represent a district touching these problems and you refuse to engage, you’re not “conservative.” You’re not “pro-family.” You’re useless. Crenshaw vs. Toth: The Tale of Two Candidates This transcript isn’t “neutral.” It’s an argument. And it’s built around one big comparison: who shows up and listens vs who repeats talking points and shuts people out. What Beth Says Dan Crenshaw Did Per the transcript, Beth credits Dan Crenshaw with: showing up to help residents (including muck-outs), supporting community recovery efforts through local networks, and pursuing/obtaining funding and support for mitigation-related projects (including dredging-related impacts and broader federal involvement). The point isn’t that Crenshaw is perfect. The point is: he engaged with the problem. What Beth Says Steve Toth Did (And Didn’t Do) Beth describes reaching out to Steve Toth to discuss flooding—specifically the Elm Grove / North Park side issues that weren’t just “Harvey.” The transcript claims: Toth refused meaningful engagement, dismissed or ignored residents’ distinctions, pushed a simplified blame narrative, and even banned critics from his page after they challenged claims. Here’s the blunt reality: someone who won’t listen to constituents on life-and-property issues has no business asking for their vote. Stop the SJRA-Only Script: It’s Not a Solution, It’s a Crutch Beth’s argument is not “SJRA is irrelevant.” Her argument is: SJRA is not the only cause, and blaming SJRA for everything is a dodge. Why does that matter? Because if your fix is “fire a guy” and scream “SJRA” forever, you’re not doing mitigation—you’re doing branding. Flood mitigation involves: discharge capacity, gate modernization, sediment management, watershed management, drainage coordination across jurisdictions, enforcement of development standards, and funding. If a candidate can’t talk through that like an adult, they shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power. Flood Warning Systems and the “Personal Responsibility” Line One of the most abrasive parts of the transcript is Beth’s reaction to Toth’s “personal responsibility” framing in flood-death contexts. Here’s the thing: personal responsibility matters—but it’s not a substitute for: warning infrastructure, accurate real-time gauges, coordinated evacuation routing, and public systems that prevent mass casualty scenarios. Blaming victims as a political posture is not “tough love.” It’s lazy. The Real Question Kingwood Voters Should Ask Forget the memes. Forget the consultant talking points. Ask this: “When I tell you my neighborhood flooded, do you listen—or do you lecture?” Because water doesn’t care whether a candidate “won” a debate online. It cares whether: the gates get upgraded, the drainage gets enforced, the sediment gets managed, and the funding gets secured. Beth’s conclusion is simple: Kingwood needs a representative who can actually deliver resources and coordination, not someone who turns everything into a one-note grievance campaign. Bottom Line: This Is Not a Hobby for Kingwood People outside flood zones treat flooding like content. People who’ve lived it treat flooding like survival. If you’re in Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita, or nearby areas affected by these systems, this is not theoretical: Your home is your biggest asset. Your neighborhood stability matters. Your insurance and recovery timelines matter. Your life during a major event matters. And if your elected representative can’t handle the complexity—Kingwood loses. FAQ Is Elm Grove flooding the same as Hurricane Harvey flooding in Kingwood? No. According to the transcript, Elm Grove flooding involved a different chain of events tied to drainage/development issues rather than being simply a repeat of Harvey dynamics. Why are Lake Houston gates important? Lake Houston’s discharge capacity is a major factor in how quickly water can be released and managed during extreme events. Aging infrastructure can increase downstream flooding risk. What does “SJRA” stand for and why is it controversial? SJRA is the San Jacinto River Authority. It’s often discussed in relation to releases and water management, but the transcript argues that blaming SJRA alone ignores other major causes of flooding. Why does the CD2 primary matter for Kingwood flooding? The transcript argues that federal relationships and funding priorities can impact mitigation projects, and leadership style (listening vs. dismissing) affects whether local problems get addressed.

    1 h 28 min
  2. When the Story Becomes the Star: Media, Protests, and the Vanishing of Common Sense

    3 FEB

    When the Story Becomes the Star: Media, Protests, and the Vanishing of Common Sense

    “Make sense common again” isn’t just a tagline—it’s a response to something a lot of people feel every day: the volume is up, the facts are blurry, and the incentives behind what we’re seeing don’t always match what we’re being told. In this episode of Talking Purple, Beth Guide walks through a wide set of headlines and local conversations that share one common thread: confusion between performance and purpose. Whether it’s a media figure arguing that personalitymakes the news, students being encouraged to protest without a clear objective, or award shows drifting into political messaging, the underlying question is the same: What are we trying to accomplish—and who benefits when we don’t ask? Below is a breakdown of the main points from the transcript, reorganized into a clear narrative you can read, share, and think through. 1) Journalism vs. Personality: When the Reporter Becomes the Product Beth begins with a critique of Don Lemon and a statement he made on his podcast that caught her attention: the idea that “the news is the news,” but the reporter—or the personality—is what “sets the story apart.” On the surface, that might sound harmless: after all, good writing and good storytelling matter. But Beth argues there’s an important distinction between journalism and commentary. Journalism should strive to present verifiable information, context, and competing viewpoints. Commentary is explicitly a lens—an interpretation shaped by values, worldview, or ideology. Beth openly places herself in the commentary category. She’s not pretending otherwise. Her point is that when a public figure claims the personality is what makes the story, they’re implicitly making the case that the “news” is being sold as a product—one built around the brand of the host, not the integrity of the reporting. That distinction matters because it affects trust. If audiences can’t tell the difference between reporting and persuasion, then the public information ecosystem becomes a competition for attention rather than a search for truth. Beth also connects this to a bigger shift: the decline of traditional news standards in the era of the 24-hour news cycle. When the format demands constant content, news can drift into entertainment—especially once ratings, sponsorships, and revenue become dominant incentives. And while Beth acknowledges her own platform may eventually be monetized, she stresses a key principle: transparency and independence—no “pay-for-play,” no hidden influence, no pretending an opinion is neutral if it’s shaped by money. 2) The FACE Act and the Limits of Protest Tactics From media, Beth moves into a discussion of protest tactics—specifically how and where protests occur, and how that intersects with law and public safety. She references the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) and the fact that it was designed to prevent obstruction and intimidation at reproductive healthcare facilities, while also including protections related to places of worship. Beth’s argument is less about the politics of abortion itself and more about the principle: You don’t have the right to disrupt people in a way that crosses into intimidation or obstruction—especially in spaces where safety risks are real. In an era where public violence is a genuine concern, storming into a church service or causing chaos in enclosed, emotionally charged environments isn’t just “expression.” It can escalate quickly. Beth emphasizes how easily a dangerous situation could occur when people feel threatened. Her frustration is directed at what she sees as an attitude of moral entitlement: the idea that it’s acceptable to make others uncomfortable simply because you believe your cause justifies it. She pushes back on that premise: Going to church on Sunday shouldn’t come with fear of disruption. A protest is not automatically “good” just because it is a protest. Rights come with responsibilities—and limits. 3) Student Walkouts and the Question No One Wants to Ask: “What’s the Goal?” A major portion of the transcript centers on reports of coordinated school walkouts planned for Friday—across multiple districts—framed around immigration and opposition to ICE. Beth notes how unusual it is for walkouts to appear simultaneously across districts without some organizing force behind it. Her concern isn’t that young people have opinions. In fact, she supports teaching kids to question authority. But she draws a bright line between questioning authority and performing rebellion without understanding. Her core critique is simple: “Protest is not a result. What change are you trying to bring about?” Beth argues that too many modern protests treat the act itself as the goal—as if marching is inherently virtuous, even if no one can explain what policy change they want or which branch of government has the authority to deliver it. This is where she turns the issue into a civics lesson: In the U.S. system, Congress makes laws. If the immigration system is broken, Congress must fix it. If people want reform, the pressure must be applied to lawmakers, not just the president. Beth frames this as a “teachable moment” schools often miss: instead of encouraging mass walkouts, why not teach students how change actually happens? Write a letter to your representative. Call your representative. Organize a meeting. Learn the legislative process. Define a specific policy outcome and advocate for it. She contrasts this with historical movements she views as outcome-driven: women’s suffrage and civil rights. In her view, those protests had identifiable goals: voting rights, desegregation, equal access. They weren’t simply performances of outrage—they were campaigns aimed at clear outcomes. 4) “It’s a Wedge Issue”: Incentives, Midterms, and Narrative Warfare Beth then zooms out to a broader political analysis. In her opinion, one reason immigration reform doesn’t get solved is because it functions as a wedge issue—useful for elections precisely because it remains unresolved. She suggests that both political parties sometimes benefit from conflict more than resolution, and she ties current protest momentum to election-cycle incentives: if chaos, unrest, or fear shifts public sentiment, it can affect turnout and outcomes. Whether one agrees with her political conclusion or not, the structural argument is worth examining: If a problem is constantly discussed but never legislatively addressed, and if the same cycle repeats every election season, then it’s fair to ask whether the incentives favor permanent conflict. Beth also criticizes Republican messaging, arguing they often fail to respond effectively to emotionally driven narratives. Her proposed response strategy is repetitive and direct: What are you protesting—specifically? Did you contact your representative? What law are you demanding be changed? 5) The Grammys and Celebrity Activism: A Disconnect Powered by Money Beth shifts to culture, calling out the Grammys as a moment where entertainment leaned heavily into political signaling. She describes watching an award show she’s loved for decades and feeling like it wasn’t about music anymore—it felt like agenda. Her sharpest critique is aimed at what she views as the disconnect between celebrity rhetoric and public reality. When wealthy entertainers make sweeping claims about immigration, safety, and society, Beth argues they’re insulated by security, gated neighborhoods, and wealth. In other words: They can afford policies that others can’t. Beth also mentions confusion she observed online about citizenship and Puerto Rico, using it as an example of how weak civic knowledge has become—especially when commentary spreads faster than understanding. For Beth, the Grammys were not just annoying—they were symptomatic of a larger breakdown in education, critical thinking, and the ability to separate moral posturing from practical consequences. 6) Leadership and Competence: New York Snow as a Symbol Beth then brings in a vivid metaphor: New York City snow removal. She describes videos of snow piled high days after storms, cars buried, garbage piling up—contrasting that with her own memory of how quickly the city used to mobilize plows and salt trucks. Her point isn’t nostalgia. It’s competence. In her framing, this is what happens when leadership values ideology over execution, or when inexperienced management fails at basic operations. Whether it’s sanitation, emergency response, or infrastructure, the public pays the price when competence isn’t prioritized. Beth extends that idea into her local political environment: county leadership, party leadership, and congressional races—repeating her theme: Experience matters. Competence matters. Results matter. 7) A Throughline: Protest, Politics, and the Loss of Civic Literacy By the end of the transcript, the episode’s central argument comes into focus: We’re training a generation to express outrage, but not to understand systems. We’re consuming “news” shaped by personality, not standards. We’re applauding activism that isn’t tied to a goal. We’re rewarding leaders for branding and ideology more than competence. And we’re surprised when the outcomes get worse. Beth’s call isn’t for silence or compliance. It’s for clarity. She wants people—especially young people—to learn that protest is a tool, not a trophy. That democracy requires knowledge of how power works. And that if your actions don’t aim at a concrete outcome, you’re often being used to fuel a narrative rather than change policy. Final Thoughts: Make Sense Common Again You don’t have to agree with every political conclusion in the episode to recognize the deeper questions it raises: Are we consuming information—or perf

    42 min
  3. Don Lemon, the First Amendment, and the Crisis in Modern Journalism

    31 ENE

    Don Lemon, the First Amendment, and the Crisis in Modern Journalism

    Happy Saturday. A few headlines collided this week in a way that exposes something bigger than any one person: we’re living through a time when journalism, activism, and click-chasing are getting mashed into the same bowl—then served to the public as “news.” And it’s not just a media problem. It’s a civic literacy problem. I want to walk through the Don Lemon situation from a perspective that I don’t hear much in the commentary space: I have a journalism background, and I’ve seen firsthand what the profession is supposed to be. I graduated with a journalism degree, worked for newspapers in North Jersey, and even interviewed Gerald Ford when I was 19. I know what it means to cover a story, to write a story, and to stay out of the story. That last part matters more than ever. The real problem isn’t “left vs. right” A lot of people want to shove every conversation into a predictable partisan script: “your side is bad, my side is good.” I’m not here for that. I’m here for balls and strikes. Because whether you’re progressive, conservative, libertarian, or someone who hates every label, most Americans actually want a pretty similar list of things: Safer communities A stable economy A future for their kids Laws that are enforced consistently A government that doesn’t treat citizens like chess pieces The loudest online voices don’t represent the middle. They represent the algorithm. And the algorithm rewards outrage. Social media is an echo chamber with a profit motive One of the biggest lies we’ve absorbed as a society is that “the internet shows you what people think.” It doesn’t. It shows you what the machine predicts will keep you scrolling. So the system becomes a feedback loop: it repeats what it’s fed, it amplifies what performs, and eventually it manufactures a “narrative” that feels like reality. In extreme cases, it becomes propaganda-by-incentive. People used to roll their eyes when you mentioned propaganda. Now they retweet it. That’s why messaging matters—and why people who understand messaging can move public opinion fast. Love him or hate him, Barack Obama was a master at messaging. He understood how language shapes perception. He knew how to speak in a way that broadened his appeal and softened resistance. And that messaging skill didn’t start in the White House. It started in a world where organizing, persuasion, framing, and narrative are central tools. Journalism 101: you don’t become part of the story When I was trained, the rule was simple: your job is to document what happens, not to cause what happens. A journalist observes. Records. Verifies. Reports. A journalist does not coordinate, join, or incite the event they’re covering. That’s the backbone of credibility. Because once you participate, you’re not reporting anymore—you’re involved. You’ve got a stake. You’re no longer independent, and the audience can’t trust the frame you’re presenting. The Don Lemon controversy (and why “I’m press” doesn’t end the conversation) Here’s the core of what I’m reacting to: reports and commentary circulating online claim that Don Lemon was connected to an incident where a group entered a church service and disrupted worship. Some accounts allege there was filming, planning, and an attempt to turn the moment into content. If those allegations are accurate—and I’m choosing my words carefully here—then the question becomes: Does labeling yourself a journalist grant you special legal immunity? No. Even if you are media, you are still bound by law. “Press” is not a magic word that suspends consequences. And this is where I part ways with a lot of simplistic takes, including some I heard from Megyn Kelly. People argue over whether he “knew” what he was doing. I’m not in his head. But I do think it’s possible he believed the modern myth that a camera makes you untouchable. That myth is everywhere now. The First Amendment is powerful—and widely misunderstood We throw around “First Amendment” like it’s a shield against reality. Let’s break down what it is and isn’t. Freedom of speech Freedom of speech means the government generally can’t punish you for criticizing it. That’s the heart of it. But it does not mean: You can defame people without consequences You can disrupt any space you want You can trespass or intimidate others and call it “speech” Rights exist inside a system of laws. A right is not a blank check. Freedom of the press Freedom of the press means the government can’t suppress reporting simply because it doesn’t like what’s being reported. But it does not mean: You can break the law because you’re filming You can trespass because you have a “platform” You’re immune from subpoenas, court orders, or civil liability The press is protected from censorship—not protected from accountability. “Freedom of religion” doesn’t mean “freedom to attack people at worship” Here’s something I’ll admit openly: I didn’t previously know the details of every law around disrupting worship. But even without knowing the statute number, common sense should kick in. People go to worship services for something personal. It is not a public stage for your stunt. If you can’t imagine doing it in a mosque or synagogue, you probably shouldn’t be doing it in a church, either. And if someone enters a service aggressively, people could reasonably fear violence—because we live in a time where attacks in public spaces are real. That’s not “protest.” That’s trampling someone else’s rights. The click economy is eating the news alive Here’s one of the most corrosive shifts of our time: news became content, and content became money. The second you monetize news, the incentive shifts away from truth and toward performance. Outrage performs. Conflict performs. “Gotcha” performs. Nuance doesn’t. So you get a world where: People do things for clicks They film themselves committing acts that harm others Then they act shocked when consequences arrive And they hide behind “journalism” after the fact The audience can feel it. That’s why trust in media is collapsing. Politics, immigration, and the “change the law” principle Another thread running through this week is the chaos around immigration enforcement, particularly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations and the response from activists. My view is pretty straightforward: if the law exists, the executive branch enforces it. If lawmakers don’t like the law, the remedy is also straightforward: Pass new legislation. If you want to change immigration outcomes, ask why lawmakers won’t do the hard work of legislating. Put microphones in front of policymakers—like Elizabeth Warren—and demand clear answers: Where is the bill? Where are the votes? What’s the actual plan? Because chaos isn’t a plan. Naturalized citizens shouldn’t be treated like collateral damage This is personal for me. I’m a naturalized citizen. I’ve been here basically my whole life. I was adopted, raised American, and naturalized as a child. I pay taxes. I run a business. I employ people. I live the responsibilities of citizenship. So when I hear talk about threatening naturalized citizens broadly—especially in ways that treat them as disposable tools in a political fight—I’m not going to pretend that doesn’t hit home. If someone is breaking laws or acting to undermine the country from within government, handle that person using the laws and constitutional mechanisms we already have. But don’t build a sweeping approach that punishes people who are here legally, quietly living their lives, and contributing. That’s not justice. That’s sloppy power. The judiciary and the illusion of neutrality A separate but related issue: many Americans still assume judges are always neutral and detached from ideology. In real life, we’re watching more and more judges behave like political actors in robes. When courts become perceived as partisan weapons, public trust collapses. And once trust collapses, every decision looks like “the system” choosing sides. That’s dangerous—no matter which side you’re on. The “big tent” reality most Americans live in One of the most interesting conversations I had recently came out of political organizing and community life here in Houston, including discussions around Log Cabin Republicans and what a true coalition looks like. The truth is: most Americans are not extremists. They live in the middle. They’re practical. They’re tired. They want a functioning country. Whether you like Donald Trump or not, his political success revealed something real: people want a coalition that prioritizes country, safety, and stability—even if they don’t love every word or style choice. And yes, politicians use negotiation tactics. They set markers, they negotiate down, they message big to land where they want. That’s not new. What’s new is the way media and social media distort it into nonstop hysteria—because hysteria pays. What journalism is supposed to do (and what it’s doing now) Journalism was meant to hold power accountable. Not to run cover for it. Not to act as PR. Not to selectively enforce “standards” based on who you like. If you failed to challenge an aging leader’s fitness while in office—like Joe Biden—and then act shocked later, you didn’t do journalism. You did narrative protection. That’s why people are angry. Not because they hate truth—because they don’t believe they’re getting it. The bottom line: rights don’t cancel responsibility If there’s one message I want to land, it’s this: The First Amendment protects your right to speak. It protects the press from censorship. It does not make you immune from law. It does not give you a right to trample other

    48 min
  4. Making Common Sense Common Again: Power, Manipulation, and the Crisis of Truth in America

    28 ENE

    Making Common Sense Common Again: Power, Manipulation, and the Crisis of Truth in America

    At the start of this year, I found myself behind on publishing my podcast—not because I lacked topics, but because events were moving faster than anyone could realistically keep up with. Politics, media, and public narratives are colliding at an unprecedented pace. And while the headlines shift daily, nearly everything happening right now traces back to one central issue: manipulation. We are not simply dealing with immigration disputes, protests, or election drama. We are dealing with a systemic problem in this country—one fueled by power, money, and a media ecosystem that no longer values truth. Social media algorithms, selective outrage, and narrative engineering have made it nearly impossible for everyday Americans to know what is real. This blog exists for one reason: to cut through the noise and make sense of what’s actually happening. The Illusion of Crisis and the Reality of Manipulation Take Minnesota as a case study. For weeks, the public was inundated with stories about massive financial fraud tied to Somali-run daycare programs—billions in taxpayer dollars misappropriated. It was a serious issue with serious implications for government oversight, legal immigration, and public trust. Then, almost overnight, that story disappeared. Why? Because it was replaced with a new emotional narrative: viral videos of ICE confrontations, chaotic protests, and tragic deaths framed without context. The timing was not accidental. The goal was not clarity—it was obfuscation. This is how manipulation works. When one story becomes politically inconvenient, another is manufactured to dominate attention. Outrage replaces investigation. Emotion replaces facts. The ICE Narrative and the Weaponization of Emotion Americans do not want to see people killed in the streets. That reaction is human and understandable. But emotion without context is dangerous. In several high-profile ICE-related incidents, what the public often sees is a short clip: someone holding a camera, yelling, chaos unfolding. What they don’t see is that the individual was armed, that whistles were blowing, that law enforcement was surrounded, or that the person voluntarily inserted themselves into an active enforcement action. If you put yourself in the middle of a law enforcement operation—especially while armed—bad outcomes are not surprising. That is not a political statement. That is reality. I carry a firearm regularly. I have for years. I have never once been shot, threatened, or involved in chaos—because I don’t insert myself into volatile situations. Rights do not override responsibility. Yet social media strips away this context. A gun becomes a phone. A confrontation becomes victimhood. And suddenly, the narrative is rewritten. Selective Outrage and Historical Amnesia Here’s a statistic worth reflecting on: 57 civilians were killed during ICE enforcement actions under the Obama administration. There were no nationwide protests. No viral outrage. No media hysteria. If that number is accurate—and it appears to be—it exposes something deeply uncomfortable: outrage today is not about principle. It is about political utility. The same actions are framed differently depending on who holds power. That alone should make Americans pause. Immigration, Crime, and the Question No One Wants to Answer Crime has gone down in areas where ICE enforcement has increased. That is not conjecture—it is measurable. This is not about families mowing their lawns on Saturdays. It is about criminals released from foreign prisons and funneled into American communities. That reality does not disappear just because it’s uncomfortable to discuss. Why is it considered compassionate to protect criminal offenders over American citizens? Why is public safety treated as negotiable? I say this as a naturalized American citizen and an immigrant myself: people who come here legally understand the rules. They understand that chaos and confrontation with law enforcement are not rights—they are choices. The Solution Everyone Avoids There is an obvious solution to this entire crisis—one that lawmakers refuse to touch. Legalize undocumented immigrants without granting voting rights. That’s it. If Congress truly cared about people instead of power, they would pass legislation creating legal residency without citizenship privileges. This would stabilize communities, remove the need for aggressive enforcement, and end the manufactured outrage cycle. But they won’t do it. Why? Because some politicians want future voters, not solutions. That truth was said out loud by figures like Keith Ellison—and once you understand that, everything else falls into place. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about demographics and elections. Manufactured Protest and Coordinated Chaos When protests appear “shockingly organized,” they usually are. Buses. Scripts. Discord channels. Political operatives. This is not organic grassroots activism—it is structured political theater. And when elected officials encourage or participate in this chaos, it becomes something far more dangerous than protest. It becomes an attempt to destabilize public order for political gain. That tactic worked in 2020. Now it’s being reused ahead of midterm elections—because the left cannot win on ideas alone. Americans do not support child mutilation, radical gender ideology, or lawlessness. So those topics are avoided. Instead, chaos is weaponized. The Collapse of Truth in Local Politics This manipulation isn’t limited to national politics. It’s metastasizing at the local level—especially in campaign strategy. The new model is simple: Say whatever you want Flood social media No one will fact-check Lies become “truth” through repetition Candidates no longer campaign on policy. They campaign on character assassination. In Montgomery and Harris Counties, we’re watching coordinated misinformation campaigns designed not to inform voters—but to emotionally manipulate them. This isn’t mudslinging. It’s moral bankruptcy. Experience Matters—and Lies Don’t Build Communities Good governance requires experience. Period. Putting unqualified people into powerful roles because they generate outrage is how communities suffer. We’ve seen it before, and we’re seeing it again. Flood mitigation, public safety, infrastructure, and taxation are not activist slogans. They are operational responsibilities. When politicians lie about their records, misrepresent votes, or weaponize tragedy, they are not serving the public. They are serving themselves. Why Common Sense Feels Radical Now Americans want simple things: Safe neighborhoods Honest elections Kids who can ride bikes home from school Leaders who tell the truth That shouldn’t be controversial. Yet we live in a moment where common sense has been reframed as extremism, and truth is drowned out by volume. That’s why this work matters. A Call for Accountability—Not Chaos Congress is a co-equal branch of government. If lawmakers wanted to fix immigration, they could. If they wanted to end chaos, they could. President Trump has said—repeatedly—that he would sign immigration legislation if it reached his desk. The problem is not executive power. It is legislative cowardice. Stop ginning up outrage. Stop lying to voters. Stop pretending chaos is compassion. Do your jobs. Making Common Sense Common Again That phrase came to me over the holidays, and it stuck—because that’s exactly what we need. A return to facts. A return to responsibility. A return to truth. I don’t take money to push narratives. I don’t speak for donors. I speak for myself—and for people who are exhausted by lies disguised as activism. If we don’t demand better, this manipulation will only get worse. And that is something none of us can afford.

    44 min
  5. Episode 13: Happy 2026: When “Truth” Gets Scripted—And How to Think Clearly Anyway

    28 ENE

    Episode 13: Happy 2026: When “Truth” Gets Scripted—And How to Think Clearly Anyway

    It’s January 12th, and Beth Godd is back with the first Talking Purple episode of 2026. The vibe is familiar: a little behind, a lot to catch up on, and a theme she keeps returning to because she believes it’s the central problem of modern life: We don’t know what’s real and what’s fake anymore. And once you accept that, a lot of what’s happening—online outrage, street protests, political fundraising cycles, even viral “news” stories—starts looking less like organic public debate and more like a machine. This post breaks down the main ideas from Beth’s episode: immigration, propaganda, “optics,” political tribalism, assimilation, and the uncomfortable truth that in today’s attention economy, emotion is currency. The Big Theme: Reality Has Become Hard to Verify Beth frames the episode around a cultural shift she says we’re all living through: the collapse of shared reality. Not because people are dumb—but because the information environment is now built to reward distortion. Social media algorithms don’t prioritize truth. News cycles compete for clicks, not clarity. Political groups use outrage to fundraise. And everyday people get pulled into narratives that may be incomplete, exaggerated, or outright staged. Beth’s point isn’t that “everything is fake.” It’s that we’re less able to tell what’s true, and that creates the perfect conditions for manipulation. The “Renee Goods” Story: How One Incident Becomes a Weapon Beth spends a big chunk of the episode on what she calls the Renee Goods situation: a woman who allegedly inserted herself into an ICE raid and ended up being shot in the face. Beth’s core argument is blunt: The left uses it as proof ICE is evil. The right uses it as proof activists are reckless. But the truth is more complicated—and the public gets pushed to pick a side instead of asking basic questions. Beth’s framing is that a dangerous environment has been created where people feel justified taking matters into their own hands, stepping into law enforcement actions they don’t understand, and treating real-world conflict like content. And that’s the part she keeps coming back to: we’ve lost the boundary between civic life and performance. Where Beth Starts the Immigration Conversation: “I’m a Naturalized Citizen” Beth emphasizes her own immigration story—she’s a naturalized American citizen—and uses that to anchor a broader criticism: The U.S. immigration system is broken because it’s not being legislatively solved. She points to a familiar political pattern: leaders say “Congress should act,” but Congress doesn’t act, because nobody benefits from actually fixing the system. The problem is too useful as a campaign weapon. Beth’s proposed “middle” position (her “purple” lens) sounds like this: The country needs clear laws. There should be an orderly pathway for some people—especially visa overstayers stuck in bureaucracy. But border chaos creates real public safety issues and shouldn’t be normalized. Her frustration isn’t simply about immigration—it’s about how the issue is used: as fuel for propaganda instead of something adults solve. The Real Driver: Optics → Outrage → Fundraising Beth tells a story about protests in her community—small town, heavily Republican—where a group shows up on the roadside, generating visible “outrage.” The next thing she sees? A fundraising push. And that leads to one of her sharpest claims in the episode: People on the ground are being mobilized to create optics… so someone else can raise money. That’s the “script” she wants listeners to see. Not everything is staged, not every protest is fake—but Beth’s argument is that a lot of modern political action is less about policy outcomes and more about creating the appearance of crisis to monetize attention. If you’ve ever wondered why it feels like nothing gets solved, Beth would say: because the problem is profitable. “Civil Disobedience Without Purpose” Is Just Content Beth draws a line between meaningful activism and performative chaos. If someone truly wants change, she says, the target should be legislation: Call Congress. Protest for a bill. Demand an actual policy pathway. But running into a live law enforcement situation, filming it, escalating tension—Beth calls that a form of disobedience without strategy. And she ties it back to social media: If the motivation is going viral, you’re not doing civic engagement—you’re doing entertainment with real-world consequences. Democracy vs. Mob Rule: A Warning About Emotional Politics Beth takes a detour into political philosophy, arguing that many people use the word “democracy” as if it means “whatever the loudest group wants.” Her warning: When people shout down opposition, When outrage replaces debate, when “the crowd” becomes the authority, you don’t get justice—you get mob rule. Whether you agree or not, her underlying point is consistent with the whole episode: Emotion is overpowering reason. And the more emotional the public becomes, the easier it is to manipulate. Assimilation: The Part People Avoid Saying Out Loud Beth’s comments on Somali communities in Minnesota and immigrant assimilation are intense and controversial, but her principle is straightforward: If you come to the United States, you should become part of the United States. She praises immigrants who learn English, adopt local norms, and build lives through work—not fraud. She contrasts that with what she sees as exploitation of systems and a refusal to integrate. Again, you might disagree with parts of her characterization, but the broader theme remains: A healthy society depends on shared culture, shared rules, and shared buy-in. Without that, everything becomes fragmented, and conflict becomes constant. Venezuela, Oil, and “3D Chess” Foreign Policy Beth also touches foreign policy, arguing that Venezuela matters because of global oil dynamics and China’s strategic interests. She frames sanctions and energy pressure as tools to constrain adversaries. You don’t have to accept every piece of that analysis to recognize what she’s doing: trying to pull listeners out of the “feed” and into big-picture cause-and-effect thinking. Beth’s complaint isn’t just about policy—it’s about people not looking past headlines. Local Politics: Purity Tests Are Eating the Party Alive Beth criticizes what she sees as “purist” politics: the idea that if a politician doesn’t align with you 100%, they’re a traitor. She quotes Ronald Reagan’s famous idea (paraphrased): if someone agrees with you most of the time, they’re an ally. And she applies that to Texas GOP dynamics—calling out what she sees as opportunistic attacks and “echo chamber” narratives meant to fracture coalitions. Her point: division is a tactic, and it works because people get addicted to conflict. So What’s the Takeaway? Beth’s episode is a long, looping, passionate warning about a society being programmed: programmed to react instead of reflect programmed to pick sides instead of solve problems programmed to consume narratives instead of verify reality And the solution she’s aiming for is simple but hard: 1) Slow down before you share If something makes you instantly furious, it’s probably engineered to. 2) Ask: “Who benefits if I believe this?” Outrage is often a fundraising funnel. 3) Demand laws, not vibes If people want change, the goal should be legislation, not viral moments. 4) Don’t confuse performance with civic engagement A camera doesn’t make something righteous. 5) Return to critical thinking Beth’s core plea is basically: stop outsourcing your brain to the algorithm.

    49 min
  6. Ep 12: Breaking the Echo Chamber in Houston: Harris County Politics, Flooding, Crime, and Voting by Results

    19/12/2025

    Ep 12: Breaking the Echo Chamber in Houston: Harris County Politics, Flooding, Crime, and Voting by Results

    In this episode of Talking Purple, host Beth Guide says the “echo chamber is getting loud again” in Houston—and she uses a fast-moving, wide-ranging conversation to make one core argument: party labels are becoming less useful than performance, competence, and outcomes. The video centers on Harris County, local leadership, and the tension between ideological politics and practical governance. (She also briefly detours into nonprofit management and how experience changes results—then ties it back to the public sector.) Below is a structured breakdown of the episode, the major themes, and the key takeaways—written as a blog-style summary you can share with people who want the “what does this actually mean?” version. The Big Theme: “Echo Chambers” Make Voters Easy to Manipulate Beth frames the episode around an “echo chamber” problem: people repeat talking points, slogans, and party narratives without checking whether the claims match reality. Her frustration isn’t just ideological—it’s procedural. She argues that modern politics often becomes branding (“Democrat,” “Republican,” “conservative,” “progressive”) while ignoring: whether the candidate can run something whether policies improve daily life whether public dollars are managed efficiently whether public safety and infrastructure are treated seriously Her message is essentially: stop voting by team jersey. Start voting by measurable results. Harris County Context: Why Local Government Here Matters Beth emphasizes that Harris County is massive and complex (she describes it as among the largest in the U.S.). In her telling, that scale is exactly why competence matters: running a county is not the same as running a campaign or building a social media following. She contrasts leaders with operational track records against those she sees as inexperienced—and says Harris County’s recent controversies make the “experience vs. ideology” debate unavoidable. Flooding, Flood Bonds, and the Cost of Delays A major section of the episode focuses on flood mitigation—a particularly emotional topic for many Houston-area residents. Beth discusses a flood bond passed after Hurricane Harvey and argues that time is not neutral in public infrastructure projects. Even if funding exists, delays reduce impact because: construction costs rise over time inflation erodes buying power postponing mitigation can leave neighborhoods vulnerable for longer She also criticizes what she describes as a shift toward prioritizing projects using an “economic distress” test. Importantly, this is her opinion and interpretation of how priorities are set—and she frames it as an example of politics interfering with problem-solving. Her broader point: flood mitigation should be handled as a risk-and-impact issue, not a political litmus test. Key takeaway: In the video, Beth argues that how flood money is prioritized—and how quickly projects are executed—can determine whether the bond delivers real safety improvements or just headlines. Crime and “Quality of Life” Governance Beth pivots from flooding to public safety and day-to-day governance, suggesting Harris County has become “rough” compared to earlier years. She also connects public safety to visible enforcement and city services—like traffic enforcement, garbage pickup, and water billing reliability. This segment becomes a case study in her “outcomes first” philosophy. She argues that voters shouldn’t care if a policy sounds conservative or progressive—they should care if it works: Are streets safer? Are services consistent? Are taxes managed responsibly? Are public systems (billing, sanitation, enforcement) stable? The “Old-School Democrat vs. Progressive” Split (As She Sees It) A recurring thread is Beth’s distinction between what she calls “old-school Democrats” and the modern progressive wing. She cites a few Houston political figures and describes a perceived internal conflict where certain Democrats are attacked for being insufficiently ideological. Whether someone agrees or not, this is central to her argument: some voters feel they’re being forced to choose between ideology and competence, even within the same party. She repeatedly comes back to this idea: leadership should be judged by character and results, not by whether the candidate performs loyalty to a national political script. Candidates and the “Running as One Party, Governing as Another” Complaint Beth spends significant time on the claim that some candidates “run as one thing and govern as another”—and she says this creates confusion for voters trying to make informed decisions. To her, this is not a minor annoyance; it’s a structural problem: It distorts primaries It rewards vague messaging and “tribal” voting It discourages honest policy talk It makes it hard for regular people to know what they’re actually getting She argues the remedy is citizen discipline: evaluate records, not rhetoric. A Quick Detour That Actually Reinforces Her Point: Experience Changes Outcomes Early in the transcript, Beth chats with a retired friend and discusses business realities: selling services, managing budgets, and how operational competence matters. Later, she describes a thrift-store/nonprofit scenario involving unrealistic budgeting and growth assumptions. Why does that matter in a political episode? Because she uses it to reinforce a central theme: If you wouldn’t accept fantasy budgeting in retail or nonprofit management, why accept it in government? Even if viewers don’t care about thrift stores, the analogy is clear: leadership without grounded experience can produce unrealistic plans that collapse under real-world constraints. The “Conservative Score” Critique: Voting Records vs. Real Governance Beth criticizes what she describes as “grading” systems and scorecards that reward people for voting “no” rather than passing workable policy. Her argument is that a politician can chase a label (“most conservative,” “most progressive”) while not actually improving outcomes. Her broader takeaway: politics is incentivizing performance for activists and donors, not performance for residents. Her Call to Action: Rebuild Critical Thinking (Especially in the Middle) The ending is essentially a rallying cry for the “purple middle”—the majority of people who don’t fit neatly into partisan extremes. Beth argues that: most citizens share common priorities (safety, affordability, infrastructure, stability) extremes gain power when the middle disengages voters must learn to “distill” information instead of repeating it She also suggests that modern media incentives and “pay-for-play” dynamics make truth harder to find—so citizens have to do more work to verify claims, check records, and evaluate consistency. Her bottom line: vote for the person who seems most genuine and most capable, even if it means crossing party lines. Key Takeaways (Quick Summary) The episode argues Houston politics is trapped in an echo chamber where narratives outrun reality. Flood mitigation is framed as an urgent, outcome-driven issue where delays and inflation reduce impact. Crime and daily services are used as evidence that competence matters more than ideology. Beth claims voters are being confused by candidates who brand one way but govern another. She critiques political “scorecards” that reward symbolism over results. The call to action is for “purple” voters to reclaim critical thinking and vote by performance. FAQ What is the video mainly about? A Houston-area political commentary focused on Harris County governance, flooding, crime, candidate authenticity, and how echo chambers distort voter decision-making. Is this video endorsing a party? No. The host’s main argument is to evaluate candidates by competence and outcomes rather than party labels. Who should read this summary? Houston-area residents, Harris County voters, and anyone interested in how local politics intersects with flooding, public safety, and public spending.

    48 min
  7. Lack of Talent? The Economy and Dual Citizenship

    06/12/2025

    Lack of Talent? The Economy and Dual Citizenship

    As always in Trump world, there’s a lot going on. Between campaign events, Christmas parties, and speaking engagements, I’m running a little behind on my podcast schedule, but I wanted to sit down and unpack something that’s been bugging me all week: this idea that America “doesn’t have the talent” anymore. Trump recently went on Laura Ingraham’s show and talked about H-1B–type visas, especially for more blue-collar, factory-related work. When pressed about bringing in foreign workers, he said America doesn’t have the “talent” here at home — especially for things like making missiles. The media pounced. Some on the right did too. But I think if you get past the soundbites, there’s a deeper, uncomfortable truth buried in what he was trying to say. Did Trump Really Mean “America Has No Talent”? Let’s start with the word talent. When a business owner like me hears “talent,” we’re not thinking about American Idol or “America’s Got Talent.” We’re thinking about people who are qualified — trained, skilled, and able to do the job safely and correctly. Could Trump have phrased it better? Absolutely. Saying “we don’t have enough skilled workers” would have been more accurate than “we don’t have the talent.” But if you look past the phrasing, he’s pointing at a real problem: We do not have a large, ready-to-go pool of Americans who can walk into a missile factory tomorrow and start building advanced weapons systems. You can’t just pull folks off the unemployment line and drop them onto a precision manufacturing floor. That’s not how any of this works. So the real question is: why don’t we have that talent anymore? That’s where the conversation actually needs to start. How “College for Everyone” Hollowed Out America’s Skilled Workforce I’m a product of the culture that said: “You’re going to college. Period.” When I graduated high school, I told my parents I wanted to get a job. They told me, “No, you’re going to college.” I was still 17, so guess whose opinion won? I went to a private Catholic high school. Almost everyone in my class went on to college. A few went into trades. A few went straight into the workforce. But the message was clear: college is the path, everything else is second-tier. For decades, we’ve pushed this idea relentlessly. We’ve raised whole generations to believe that if you don’t go to college, you’ve somehow failed. And here’s what we forgot to do along the way: Train electricians Train plumbers Train machinists Train welders Train people who can build houses, fix machines, and run advanced factory lines My grandfather had an eighth-grade education. He could build a house, fix anything mechanical, and even repair my old turntable. That kind of practical, skilled, hands-on talent has been quietly disappearing — not because Americans are lazy or dumb, but because our entire culture has been telling young people that work like that is “less than.” Now we’re shocked that we don’t have enough people who want to work in factories building highly technical systems. We engineered this problem. Wages, Buc-ee’s, and Why Your Groceries Cost So Much Now let’s talk about wages. You’ve probably seen this: Amazon advertising starting wages around $23/hour with benefits. Buc-ee’s here in Texas paying $19–$20/hour for cashiers. On its face, that sounds fantastic. I’m not against people making good money. But we need to be honest about what’s happening underneath. Jobs like: Cashier Entry-level warehouse worker Basic service roles …were never meant to be end-point career jobs that support a family of four and a mortgage. They were meant to be entry-level jobs — for students, for people starting out, for those in transition. When we push starting wages that high for low-skill roles, it doesn’t just make people “more comfortable.” It also: Raises the cost of doing business Forces businesses with thin margins (like your local grocery store) to increase prices Fuels the very inflation we’re all complaining about If Buc-ee’s pays $19 an hour for a cashier, the supermarket down the road has to compete. But a grocery store might only operate on a 2% profit margin. So where does that increased wage come from? Your grocery bill. We can’t pretend that wages happen in a vacuum. When every entry-level job gets pushed up, we create a cycle: higher wages → higher prices → higher cost of living → demand for even higher wages. And meanwhile, the skilled machinist who spent years learning a trade is making not a whole lot more than someone scanning items at a register. That’s not just economically unsound — it’s unfair. The Real Education Crisis: Not Outcomes, Just Attendance Now, let’s turn to education. We keep hearing about “more funding” for schools, but in many inner-city districts, the money is already there — and plenty of it. The problem is where it’s going. Too often: Administrators are pulling down enormous salaries, sometimes living in million-dollar homes Student outcomes are flat or declining Kids are being pushed through the system just to move them along Schools get paid because students show up, not because those students learn. We’re not teaching: How to think How to learn How to remember How to behave, communicate, and function in the real world We’re certainly not exposing kids to trades and real-world skills in any systematic way. So we graduate students who: Can’t do basic math reliably Struggle with reading and comprehension Have no clear direction for their future Believe college is the only path, and then leave with massive debt and no marketable skills And then we act shocked when we don’t have a talent pool for high-skill manufacturing, machining, or technical work. This isn’t just an economic failure. It’s an education failure. Congress, the Filibuster, and Why Nothing Ever Gets Fixed Let’s zoom out to Washington for a moment. We have another structural problem that quietly makes all of this worse: we don’t really make laws anymore. We rule by executive order. Congress is supposed to: Draft legislation Debate it Pass it through the House and Senate Send it to the President for signature Instead, we have decades of gridlock, with both parties using the filibuster as an excuse to do nothing while presidents of both parties rule by pen and executive order. Here’s my view: It’s time to nuke the filibuster. Let Congress pass laws. Let us see where people actually stand. If Republicans control Congress and the presidency, pass the agenda you ran on. If Democrats take over later, they can pass theirs. That’s how representative government is supposed to work. Executive orders are not a substitute for lawmaking. They’re a band-aid on a broken process. Immigration, Dual Citizenship, and Assimilation Now let me bring this back to a subject that’s personal to me: citizenship and immigration. I was born in Italy. I was adopted and brought to the United States. My father chose for me to become an American citizen. I took my citizenship test at seven years old — the same one adults take. I stood there, raised my hand, and swore to uphold the Constitution. To this day, I am also still, technically, an Italian citizen. Not because I chose dual citizenship as some clever legal hack, but because Italy doesn’t automatically cancel your citizenship when you naturalize elsewhere. So when I hear people say, “End dual citizenship, make people choose or strip them of their American status,” I bristle. Not because I don’t understand the security concerns, but because real people with real histories get caught in the middle of that slogan. I also have strong views on assimilation: If you come here, you should adopt American laws, norms, and values. You do not get to import Sharia law or recreate the exact political and cultural systems you fled. You don’t get to build “little Mogadishu” or “little Mecca” that rejects the Constitution while enjoying its protections. I feel the same way about Dreamers. If you’ve been here since childhood, built your life here, and are now 30 or 40 years old, we need a sane, permanent solution — like long-term permanent residency without automatic voting rights. We can be compassionate and serious about sovereignty at the same time. So Where Do We Go From Here? When Trump says we don’t have the “talent,” I don’t hear an insult to Americans. I hear an indictment of: A culture that devalued trades An education system that fails kids while enriching administrators An economy that distorts wages for low-skill work while starving high-skill trades A government that hides behind procedures like the filibuster instead of fixing laws We’re not out of talent. We stopped developing it, respecting it, and rewarding it. If we want a country that can build its own missiles, manufacture its own goods, and give its people a future beyond flipping burgers or waiting for the next government check, we have to: Restore respect for trades and technical work Fix our schools with a focus on outcomes, not bureaucracy Align wages with skills, responsibility, and productivity Reform immigration with common sense and loyalty to the Constitution Demand that Congress do its job and govern by law, not executive whim That’s not anti-immigrant, anti-worker, or anti-progress. It’s pro–common sense, pro–middle class, and pro–American future. And if you’ve read this far — don’t forget to share this post, and if you’re watching the video version, please like and subscribe. We’ve got a lot more to talk about.

    55 min
  8. Ep 10- The Great Who Dun It?

    29/11/2025

    Ep 10- The Great Who Dun It?

    The Empty Chair at Thanksgiving: What No One in Washington Wants to Own Thanksgiving is supposed to be about gratitude, family, and full tables. But this year, a lot of American families sat down to eat with empty chairs at their tables—chairs that should have been filled by loved ones who got up, went to work, went for a jog, or drove home from school and never made it back. And the hardest part? Many of those losses trace back to decisions made by people in Washington who will never feel the consequences of the chaos they created. I’m Beth, a naturalized American citizen, and I host Talking Purple. I came here legally, did everything by the book, and I love this country deeply. That’s why I refuse to just shrug and accept what’s happening as “normal.” Because it isn’t. Today, I want to talk plainly about three big things: Our broken asylum and vetting system The scandal of government by autopen The way political games hurt real people—from border towns to nursing students to young women in sports When “Likely Vetted” Means “Nobody Really Knows” Recently, we learned that two National Guard troops were shot in Washington, D.C. while helping support law enforcement. The alleged shooter? A man who came into the United States during the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal—the same withdrawal where people were literally clinging to airplane wings trying to escape. We’re being told he was “likely vetted.” Let’s pause on that word: likely. “Likely vetted” is not a process. It’s a shrug. It’s someone in an office saying, “Yeah, he probably went through something, somewhere,” but no one can actually tell you who looked at what, when, or how thoroughly. Some articles say he was “likely granted asylum” because of alleged CIA ties or some special status. All of this based on “three unnamed sources”—which often just means one outlet said something, and two others repeated it. Voilà, we have “three sources.” This is not how you run a serious country. We airlifted tens of thousands of people out of Afghanistan—around 76,000 by many counts—and we did it so fast and with so little documentation that even the media admitted we didn’t know who was on which plane. We didn’t know who was a U.S. citizen, who had a valid visa, who worked with us, and who just ran onto the tarmac. Try getting information from Afghanistan now that the Taliban are back in charge. You can’t exactly call up and say, “Hi, can you verify this guy’s identity?” And yet, those same people are now walking around inside our borders. Some may be perfectly decent people. But some aren’t. And when one of those “some” kills an American citizen, who answers for that? It’s not the politicians with armed security details. It’s not the commentators in D.C. bubbles. It’s families in places like West Virginia who spend Thanksgiving holding their daughter’s hand as she dies in a hospital instead of passing the mashed potatoes. The Duty to Provide for the Common Defense We learned in basic civics—some of us even from Schoolhouse Rock—that the federal government exists, in part, to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Well, explain to me how: Letting tens of thousands of unvetted people into the country Losing track of who they are and where they are Allowing some to brutally murder American citizens …checks either of those boxes. You can be compassionate, you can support legal immigration, you can respect genuine asylum seekers—and still say: “You don’t let people flood into your country when you have no idea who they are.” But instead of fixing the problem, we get spin. We’re told that halting asylum processing is cruel or un-American. No. What’s un-American is refusing to protect the very citizens you swore an oath to serve. Stopping a broken, abused system so it can be fixed is not cruelty. It’s basic responsibility. Government by Autopen: Who Was Actually Running the Show? As if the border and asylum chaos weren’t enough, we now have another scandal: government by autopen. We’re finding out that somewhere in the ballpark of 92% of Biden’s orders, appointments, judges, and pardons were signed by an autopen. For those unfamiliar, an autopen is a device that reproduces a person’s signature. It’s been around a long time and used in limited contexts—but not to essentially outsource the responsibilities of the President of the United States. Here’s the constitutional problem: The Constitution vests certain powers in the President, not in “whoever manages the pen.” That includes things like executive orders and pardons. If Biden wasn’t in the room, wasn’t aware, or wasn’t mentally capable of understanding what he was supposedly signing, then who was actually running the country? A staff committee? A spouse? A team of unelected insiders? Trump’s response has been to cancel anything signed by autopen where the legality and awareness of the president can’t be clearly proven. And you know what? On a constitutional level, that makes sense. If you can’t even confirm that the person elected was truly exercising the power, then those acts deserve to be questioned. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Whether you love Biden or can’t stand him, America is supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a government-by-group-chat with a robot pen. The Senate, the Filibuster, and the Broken Machinery of Government Then there’s the Senate—the chamber that seems to specialize in blocking everything and solving nothing. Most Americans don’t realize this, but originally, Senators were not directly elected by the people. They were chosen by state legislatures. That meant they were supposed to represent the states as political entities, not become just another layer of national campaigning. The 17th Amendment changed that, and now we’ve got a hybrid mess: a chamber that still has tremendous confirmation and oversight power, but functions like a never-ending election campaign. The filibuster, confirmation battles, judicial appointments—they’ve all become weapons. And while they’re busy playing games, the courts are now behaving like a kind of unelected shadow presidency, blocking or delaying policies at the district court level just to slow everything down until a higher court can weigh in. Meanwhile, the American people are stuck living with the consequences of paralysis. Mark Kelly, Unlawful Orders, and the Danger of Political Theater Let’s talk for a moment about Senator Mark Kelly. He’s a former pilot and astronaut—smart guy, accomplished résumé. But that doesn’t give him a free pass for reckless rhetoric. He put out a video telling military members they don’t have to follow “unlawful orders.” On paper, that’s technically true; service members are not obligated to obey illegal commands. But here’s the problem: Most of the young men and women in uniform are 18 to 25 years old. They’re not lawyers. They are trained first and foremost to follow orders, because hesitation in combat can get people killed. So when a sitting U.S. Senator goes on camera essentially implying that helping ICE or the National Guard enforce immigration law might be “unlawful,” he’s not just expressing an opinion. He’s sowing confusion in the ranks. If he truly believes these laws are wrong, he has a simple solution: Introduce legislation and change the law. But grandstanding on social media is easier than doing the hard, messy work of legislating. So instead of using his power as a senator, he chooses to inflame tensions and undermine lawful authority—and then acts outraged when people call him out for it. No, Nursing Wasn’t “Canceled” – But Women Are Being Undermined Elsewhere Recently, social media exploded with claims that a “big, beautiful bill” had ended nursing as a profession. That’s not what happened. What actually changed was the loan classification for advanced nursing degrees—mainly master’s-level programs and above. The concern is that when schools know they can charge sky-high tuition and students can still borrow enough to cover it, they keep raising prices. Then nurses graduate with massive debt their salaries can’t realistically support. Reining in that classification is an attempt (whether perfect or not) to control costs, not erase the profession of nursing. We desperately need nurses—and educated ones at that. But here’s where I get frustrated: Some of the same people screaming that this is a “war on women” are totally silent about something that actually isdevastating to women: Biological males competing in women’s sports Men in women’s locker rooms Scholarships being taken from young women because they never had a fair chance to win against someone with male physiology If we care about opportunities for women—education, athletics, scholarships—then we need to be honest about where the real threats are. It’s not a technical loan classification change. It’s policies that erase fairness for women and girls in the name of ideology. A Thanksgiving Reflection and a Call for Accountability As I record and write this, it’s the weekend after Thanksgiving. I’m headed to a wedding of one of my best friends, thankful for her happiness, grateful for my community, and proud of my city councilman who actually answers calls and works for the people he represents. But I’m also deeply aware that for too many families, this season is filled with grief—empty chairs that didn’t have to be empty. We can debate policy details all day long, but at the end of it, we owe American citizens some very basic things: Secure borders Honest government Leaders who sign their own orders A justice system that follows the Constitution Real protection for women, kids, and families I may joke sometimes. I may use

    38 min
  9. From Comey to Cornyn: Lawfare, Border Battles, and the Death of Real Journalism

    25/11/2025

    From Comey to Cornyn: Lawfare, Border Battles, and the Death of Real Journalism

    Charges Dropped ≠ Innocent: What They’re Hiding From You Good morning, everyone. I’m Beth Guy with Talking Purple, and today I want to walk you through something that sounds simple on the surface but is anything but: what it really means when the media tells you “the charges were dropped.” We’re going to talk about James Comey, Letitia James, John Cornyn, Wesley Hunt, Marjorie Taylor Greene, immigration, and why journalism as a profession is on life support. All of these pieces connect to one big theme: you are being managed, not informed. “Charges Dropped” Does NOT Mean “Innocent” Yesterday, the news broke that charges were dropped against James Comey and Letitia James. For most normal Americans, that sounds like this: “Oh, they must have been innocent. The system worked. They got cleared.” That’s how TV and movies have trained us to hear those words. But in reality, that’s not what happened here. These cases didn’t end because a jury listened to the evidence and said, “Not guilty.” They didn’t end because the facts cleared them. They ended on technicalities: Arguments over whether the U.S. Attorney was properly appointed Questions about a grand jury process that, it turns out, did know what it was voting on Statute of limitations running out because of timing and politics And a judge who, in my opinion, seemed more interested in helping the defense than being neutral Notice what’s missing from that list: Anything about whether Comey or Letitia James actually did what they were accused of. When you can’t win on the facts, you attack the process. That’s what happened here. And it’s a huge part of why so many Americans have lost faith in our justice system. Lawfare, Technicalities, and a Politicized Judiciary What we’re watching more and more is lawfare—using the legal system as a political weapon. Instead of standing up and saying, “I didn’t do it, I’m innocent, bring on the trial,” people with power are lawyering up, working the angles, and trying to get cases tossed before a jury ever hears them. In Comey’s case, the statute of limitations ran out on September 30th. Right before that, Trump replaced the Southern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney with someone more aligned with his agenda. That new U.S. Attorney brought charges right up against the deadline. So what did the defense and the judge focus on? “Revenge prosecution” Whether the U.S. Attorney’s appointment followed every procedural rule Whether the grand jury process had an internal technical flaw Again, none of that says: “This man is innocent.” It says: “We found a loophole.” The same pattern shows up with Letitia James. We’ve put Real Housewives in prison for mortgage fraud, but suddenly when it’s a powerful political figure, we’re deep in “technicality-ville.” That’s how you take a supposedly blind system of justice and turn it into a political game. The Filibuster, Appointments, and a Broken System Part of this mess comes back to how we appoint U.S. Attorneys and judges. The President nominates. The Senate confirms. Simple, right? Except it isn’t, because we’ve turned the Senate into a procedural choke point with the filibuster. Instead of doing its job, the Senate drags confirmations out forever, forcing temporary appointments and weird workarounds. That’s where these 120-day appointments and court-selected placeholders come into play. And that gray area becomes fertile ground for legal challenges later. I’m a conservative. I don’t love the idea of changing rules just because my side isn’t winning today. But let’s be honest: The filibuster is being used to avoid governing, not to protect debate. We’d be better off with a simple majority and accountability at the ballot box than this endless procedural warfare that gives us badly structured appointments—and then “charges dropped” because something on page 97 of the rulebook wasn’t followed perfectly. Texas Republicans: Cornyn, Paxton, and Wesley Hunt Let’s bring it home to Texas, because the same disconnect between voters and elites is playing out right here. You have three big figures in the conversation: John Cornyn – Longtime senator, classic Bush-era, country-club Republican Ken Paxton – Our current Attorney General, aggressive, effective, but with that undeniable “ick factor” Wesley Hunt – Younger, ex-military, charismatic, unapologetically aligned with the conservative base Cornyn is spending millions on ads trying to convince us he’s been some kind of border hawk and Trump ally. Texans lived through the last decade. We watched what he supported—and what he didn’t. These ads aren’t just ineffective; they’re insulting. Meanwhile, Paxton is the guy a lot of conservatives support in spite of his personal baggage because he’s been willing to go to the mat legally to keep Texas from getting dragged into the worst of the national nonsense. Then there’s Wesley Hunt. I’ve met him in person. He’s grown a lot over the years—more confident, more commanding, still personable. He supports secure borders, stands with the president, and doesn’t come with the “Clintony marriage” weirdness Paxton does. If you want someone who represents today’s conservative, populist, America First base, Wesley Hunt looks a whole lot more like the future than John Cornyn. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Why I Don’t Like Quitters I’ll say something that may not be popular in some circles: I like Marjorie Taylor Greene personally. She’s bold, she’s willing to fight, and she doesn’t tiptoe around the issues. But when she walked away after Trump pulled his support, that crossed a line for me. You don’t quit mid-term. Voters sent you there to do a job. You don’t bail because the political winds shifted or your sponsor isn’t as enthusiastic as he used to be. Don’t run again? Fine. Hand off the baton gracefully. But quitting mid-stream is not leadership. If we expect courage in Washington, quitting can’t be part of the playbook. A Real Immigration Compromise No One Wants Let’s talk immigration for a second, because this is another place where the political class just uses us. We have people protesting with ice scrapers at Home Depot to “make a point” about ICE. We have politicians on both sides using migrants as props. But where’s the actual solution? Here’s the compromise nobody in power seems to want: Legalize those who are here, but do not grant the right to vote. They get out of the shadows, into the system, paying taxes, living their lives—but they don’t instantly become a political weapon in the next election. Most normal Americans could live with that. The people who can’t live with it are the political strategists who want permanent voter blocs and never-ending outrage. The Death of Real Journalism All of this brings me to the last piece: journalism. Only 28% of Americans say they trust the media. Honestly, I’m shocked it’s that high. I went to school for journalism. I was taught you don’t use the microphone to steer people—you give them facts and let them decide. I spent an hour this morning just trying to find a clear, unbiased explanation of why this particular U.S. Attorney’s appointment was considered improper. It took digging through multiple sites, old rulings, and reading between the lines to get the truth: the appointment process didn’t match the spirit of what Congress intended. That’s a factual thing. But nobody would just say it plainly. Why? Because we don’t have news anymore. We have: 24-hour entertainment channels Outrage as a business model Newsrooms catering to “their side” instead of the truth Left and right both do it. They’re not trying to inform you. They’re trying to keep you watching. That’s how we ended up with the media insisting Joe Biden was razor-sharp when anyone paying attention could see the decline. That’s why I half-joke about needing a “Joseph Goebbels Award” for the politicians and pundits who repeat the biggest lies the longest. Gratitude, Skepticism, and What Comes Next As I’m recording this, it’s Tuesday, November 25th, just two days before Thanksgiving. So let me end here. We do have a lot to be grateful for: our families, our faith, our communities, the freedoms we still have—even when they feel under attack. But gratitude doesn’t mean blindness. Be grateful. But also be skeptical. Don’t take headlines at face value. Don’t let “charges dropped” automatically translate to “innocent.” And don’t let elites in politics, media, or Hollywood tell you that you’re too dumb to understand what’s really going on. You’re not. You’re the backbone of this country. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your families. Stay thankful, stay sharp, and if you want more straight talk like this, stick around—because I’m not done talking about it yet.

    42 min
  10. No, Dan Crenshaw Isn’t Banned: How Media Lies Are Destroying Our Community

    21/11/2025

    No, Dan Crenshaw Isn’t Banned: How Media Lies Are Destroying Our Community

    Subscribe to our PODCAST: Good morning, everybody. This is Beth with Talking Purple – and I want to put into writing what I’ve been saying into this little microphone here in Kingwood, Texas. Because if you’re anything like me, your phone is dinging all day long with “breaking news,” breathless headlines, and forwarded screenshots… and half of it is flat-out fake. The other half is twisted just enough to get you mad, scared, or divided from your neighbors. That’s why I started this podcast – and that’s why I’m writing this. We’re Living in a Weaponized Information Age We are living in a time where information is being weaponized. And it’s not just “the left vs. the right.” It’s the left doing it to the left, the right doing it to the right, and everybody using social media as a battlefield. Once something goes out into the echo chamber, it never comes back. If someone posted tomorrow that “Beth murders puppies on the weekend,” there is no way for me to pull that back. I can deny it, I can explain it, I can scream from the rooftops – but once the lie is out there, it sticks to you. That’s the world we live in. And the worst part? Half the time we can’t even tell what’s real and what’s not. Silly Examples… That Aren’t So Silly Every day I watch nonsense go by my feed: “Gilmore Girls reunion confirmed.” No, it’s not. “New season of My Next Guest Needs No Introduction.” Not happening. “Macaulay Culkin is dead.” No, he’s not. “Neil Diamond cancels all concerts. Alan Jackson cancels all appearances.” Fake, fake, fake. You’d think that kind of stuff is harmless, just silly internet gossip. But it’s training people to live in confusion. Real, fake, half-true – it all gets thrown in the same blender. And then we move from fake celebrity news to fake political news, and that’s where the damage gets very real. We just watched it with the latest Epstein document dumps and the way both sides twisted names, redactions, and half-truths to tell whatever story they wanted people to believe. Facts don’t matter. Narratives do. You Can’t Get an Audience Unless You Say Something Crazy Somewhere along the line, people figured out that if you want clicks, likes, followers, and donations… you have to say something outrageous. If you don’t have depth, knowledge, or the ability to connect with people, you just light a fire and hope the flames bring attention. The louder and dumber the statement, the better the engagement. This is my eighth episode of Talking Purple, and I’m grateful it’s getting traction – hopefully because people are hungry for someone who will just shoot straight. I’m not perfect, but I know what I believe and why I believe it, and I’m not afraid to defend it. I also don’t need to lie to you to get you to listen. Kingwood, Flooding, and Dan Crenshaw So let’s talk about something close to home: flooding in Kingwood and my congressman, Dan Crenshaw. Someone tagged me on social media, suggesting I’m still a “fan” of his like I’m some blind groupie. No. What I am is a fan of my community getting the help it needs. We have a serious flooding problem here. That’s not theoretical, and it’s not national headline stuff. It’s real people losing homes, businesses, and lives. Because our federal government has its hands in everything, a local flooding issue ends up requiring approvals and action from Washington. FEMA, HUD, the Army Corps of Engineers – you can’t get anything done without them. Like it or not, we need a representative in Congress who understands that and actually fights for us. Dan Crenshaw has done that for Kingwood. You don’t have to like him personally. You can disagree with him on a dozen issues. But this district cannot afford to pretend flooding isn’t a life-or-death issue just because some wealthy outsider with political ambitions wants to play games online. And then comes the latest rumor: a so-called “travel ban” on Dan Crenshaw. My phone blew up with people panicking. Guess what? There. Is. No. Travel. Ban. He can get on a plane and go wherever he wants in the world. This was nothing more than a political hit job – a made-up story fed into the media machine, amplified by a local talker on the radio, and swallowed whole by people who never stopped to ask, “Is this even true?” Pay-for-Play Media and the Outrage Business Let me pull back the curtain a bit. A lot of the people you see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in the paper are not just reporting. They’re performing. They’re getting paid – directly or indirectly – to push certain narratives. That “outraged” radio host? Sometimes he’s being paid to attack or promote specific candidates. That glowing feature article about a “remarkable business leader” or “award-winning expert”? Many times, they PAID a publicist to place that story. Those “honors” and “awards” some people brag about? I get emails offering those to me all the time, for a price. This is called pay-for-play, and it’s everywhere. It blurs the line between news, advertising, and propaganda until the average person has zero idea what’s real. And while all that’s going on, real people are dealing with flooding, crime, addiction, and loss – with no spotlight and no help. The Catholic Church, Immigration, and Hard Truths Now let’s talk about another third rail: the Catholic Church and immigration. I’m Catholic. I was born in a Catholic orphanage, adopted, brought to the United States, and I still go to Mass every week. I love my faith. But that doesn’t mean I turn my brain off. Recently, the bishops came out condemning Donald Trump over deportations and immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, the Vatican has a wall around it, and you and I can’t just stroll into Vatican City and set up a tent in St. Peter’s Square. This country has had millions of people walk in, unvetted. That is a problem. It’s not “anti-Christian” to say so. It’s common sense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that those who find themselves in another country should respect the laws, contribute to society, and carry their share of the civic burden. That means: Don’t commit violent crimes. Don’t live off the system if you’re capable of working. Seek legal status where possible. Respect the culture and laws of your host country. Now here’s the catch: there is no clear path to legalization for many of these people. That’s on Congress. Instead of blocking ICE and crying on television about deportations, maybe pick up the phone and ask your representatives why they haven’t created a workable, realistic path to legal status that doesn’t automatically hand out voting rights. But let’s be honest: both parties would rather campaign on the problem than solve it. Democrats think they’re importing future voters. Republicans think they’re scoring points by yelling about the border while doing nothing meaningful long-term. Meanwhile, people are dying, families are broken, and communities are strained to the breaking point. NGOs, Money, and the Moral Mess Here’s another uncomfortable truth: a lot of so-called compassion is funded. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receive federal money to “do what the government can’t do.” Sounds noble. Until you see how much money is flying around and how little accountability there is. When the bishops or Catholic Charities get upset, very often it’s not just about souls and theology. It’s about grants, contracts, and funding streams drying up. That’s your tax money. That’s why I say people need to start following the money – in politics, in churches, in media, and in every organization that claims the moral high ground. So Where Do We Go From Here? I know this is a lot. I’m fired up because the consequences are real: People have died in our floods. Families have empty seats at Thanksgiving because of crime, border chaos, and policy failures. Communities like Kingwood are left holding the bag while the political class plays games with narratives and headlines. Here’s what I’m asking you to do: Stop believing everything you see online. Do your own homework. When a story sounds too perfect, too outrageous, or too convenient… pause. Hold your own side accountable. It’s not just “them.” Sometimes it’s your guy, your party, your favorite host. Demand solutions, not slogans. On flooding, immigration, crime – all of it. There is no travel ban on Dan Crenshaw. There is, however, a full-on assault on truth, nuance, and adult conversation in this country. That’s why I’m here. That’s why Talking Purple exists – to try to have real conversations in a world that would rather scream. If you’ve made it this far, thank you. Share this with someone who’s tired of being lied to and ready to think for themselves. And maybe, just maybe, we can start putting truth back on the table.

    33 min
  • 10 episodios

Información

Talking Purple with Beth Guide cuts through partisan noise to deliver honest, balanced conversations about politics, community, and truth. Hosted by Houston business owner and advocate Beth Guide, each episode dives into issues like Texas politics, flooding, transparency, and accountability — without the spin. Real talk. Real facts. Real purple. 💜

Ficha técnica

  • Creado por
    Beth Guide
  • Años en activo
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodios
    10
  • Clasificación
    Apto
  • Sitio web del podcast
    Talking Purple
  • Proveedor