Will Pritzker Cave?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty eight
six one seven two sixty six sixty eight sixty eight.
This is Sandy shack In for Jeff Cooner here on
the Kooner Report. The text number is seven zero four
seven zero. Illinois Governor Pritzker says, don't come to President Trump,
who has offered National Guard in order to help quell

(00:21):
crime which is rempant and costing people their lives in
Chicago and other cities too, But at the moment he's
focused on on Chicago. Governor Pritzker says that President Trump's
idea of a thirty day occupation of Chicago using the
Texas National Guard and other federal resources is committing terror

(00:46):
and cruelty against the residents of Chicago Cut sixty three. Please, Mike,
let's be clear.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
The terror and cruelty is the point, not the safety
of anyone living here as lawful citizens exercise their First
Amendment rights. Trump and his team will be looking for
any excuse to put active duty military on our streets,
supposedly to protect ice. We have reason to believe that

(01:17):
the Trump administration has already begun staging the Texas National
Guard for deployment in Illinois. I want to be very
clear on this point, and I want to speak directly
to the press right now. We know before anything has
happened here, that the Trump plan is to use any

(01:37):
excuse to deploy armed military personnel to Chicago.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Is anything that Governor Pritzker said based in reality there
If you saw the National Guard in your city assisting
law enforcement, not out there patrolling with guns to take
you in hand, but assisting a police officer, would you
view that as terror? Would you be terrified? Would you
view that as cruel? Because that's what Governor Prisker says

(02:06):
it is. Let's go to Chris in Tewksbury. Chris, Welcome
to w RKO. How are you, sir?

Speaker 3 (02:12):
I'm not doing that bad, ma'am. I do think that
if the police do their own then job, that they
were vote or that they were past the civil cervice
test to do that, they should do have the ad
national guid because if they can't do, if they can,

(02:32):
I clean up their own work, clean up their own
jobs in Chicago in the other states, I would not
be surprised if they came to Boston.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. That I came to Boston too.
I mean, we're not as bad as Chicago or New
York or LA. We're not on the top you know,
three or four list, but but yeah, no crime, you know,
it's it's no non crime paradise here either. So I
I understand what you're saying, But I think that what

(03:03):
Governor Pritsker said is crazy. I mean literally certifiable crazy.
That seeing armed or seeing National Guard assist armed police
is cruel. I personally believe that what's cruel is allowing
muggers and rapists and drug dealers to run free in

(03:25):
your city. Isn't that cruel? That actually fills me with
more fear than seeing National Guard does. And considering that
our earlier collar Joan, who was from Chicago, who was
hoping to move back there, and who ended up selling
her house because of crime, it sounds to me like
the crime on the streets fills her with terror too.
I don't want to speak for Joan, but I suspect that,

(03:47):
you know, she wouldn't find National Guard cruel if she
saw them on the street. So I think that the
governor is not does not have both feet planted in
the real world. I'm not even sure he is one
foot planted in the real world. Thank you for the call, Chris,
I appreciate it. Let's go to Lisa in New Hampshire. Lisa,
welcome to WRKO. How are you hi, Sandy.

Speaker 4 (04:10):
Nice job you're doing.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (04:14):
So basically what my thoughts are is nobody's talking about
the reason why the crime is so high, and that's
because of the cashless bill. And we could send anybody
we want in there.

Speaker 3 (04:26):
For what forever.

Speaker 4 (04:27):
It's never going to be forever. So yeah, we can
clean it up temporarily, and that's going to be the
case in DC. I mean the national well they ended.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
The cashle spail in DC. That ended there, So.

Speaker 4 (04:40):
That's my point. So Chicago, Boston, all these big cities
have cashless bill, and what we have to do now
is come up with the back door plan. We really
have to work on getting rid of these crazy Jeorge
Soros funded DA's because they are the ones that are
They're the reason. It's not even the main it's the

(05:01):
mayor's going along with the das.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
I think it's both. It has to do with both
of them. I wouldn't absolve the mayors. The mayors are
are a big part of what's happening. I mean, I
went through that just a little a while ago. The
mayors matter because local law enforcement is controlled by the mayor.
The DA may not, you know, may support cashlest bail

(05:24):
or decide who to prosecute, but you can't even get
them to the DA's office if you don't have the
police to do it. So I think the mayors are
just as respect I don't mean to, you know, take
the mic away from you, Lisa. I'm just saying that,
don't poo poo the mayors. They're a big part of
what the problem is. I'm sorry, honey, go ahead.

Speaker 5 (05:43):
You agree with that.

Speaker 4 (05:44):
However, they're all in cahoots, and so are the police chiefs.
You are not going to have a police chief that
goes against the mayor and the district attorney. All these
cops have been demoralized because they know if they arrest them,
nothing's going to happen. They're going to get with nobil,
They're going to go right back on the streets. So
now they're getting cops that really don't even care. And

(06:06):
if they do care, they care to a point, but
there's nothing they can do about it. So it all
trickles down. They're all in cahoots. And if you notice
no prominent Republicans ever go into these cities and campaign.
Why same with even even here, it's always like maybe

(06:27):
a moderate Democrat. So my point is is until Republicans
pack on some you know what and they get into
these cities and start running against these corrupted Democrats, it's
never going to change.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I think that George
Soros has been responsible along in conjunction, not only just
funding the Soros das, but also funding the whole anti
blue movement starting in you know, about twenty eighteen twenty nineteen,
when President Trump was still in office and up through

(07:06):
twenty twenty during the Summer of Love, when you saw
the defund movement take off and those protesters were financed
by sorrows. You saw that. I mean you saw them
the trucks going around and dropping off bricks and frozen
water bottles for them to throw at people. And this
is Sandy Shack filling in for Jeff Kooner. Democrats are
fighting President Trump's efforts to combat crime, and they're trying

(07:29):
to do so with sleight of hand, now, which is
it's ludicrous, and they think that you're going to buy it.
There's a kind of a defense attorney maxim and it's
in regard to how you argue, how you defend a case,
and it basically sets out a logical progression of denial.
And I just wanted to it's what the Democrats are

(07:50):
doing here and it's kind of reminding me of it,
so I wanted to share it with you. You say it's
a dog bite case, and you're as a defense attorney.
Your first response is you weren't. The second response is
you were not bitten by my dog, and the third
response is I don't have a dog. So that's kind
of the progression that goes through a. A doesn't work,

(08:12):
B doesn't work, so you go to see it. That's
kind of what I see them doing. So in this
particular case, I see the Democrats, in regard to crime
and particularly crime in Chicago, are saying there's no crime.
You know, what are you talking about? There's no crime?

Speaker 5 (08:25):
Hell?

Speaker 1 (08:25):
And then the second level is when you say, yeah,
there's crime right here, four people were just market you know,
they say, oh, well, we can handle the crime. And
so that's what their nextor is we don't need help
because we can handle the crime.

Speaker 5 (08:39):
Now.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
The third level that I'm just seeing come in now
is Trump doesn't really want to help the crime. That's
their third level of defense that I see happening, and
that started with Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. He was
He says that President Donald Trump's plan to deploy the
National Guard in Chicago is nothing to do with crime

(09:00):
that is politically motivated, and that the real crime is
in other states, not in Illinois, and that he really
cares about immigration, He doesn't really care about crime cut
number sixty five. Please, Mike, let.

Speaker 6 (09:18):
Me tell you I've learned in politics, there's a good
reason and a real reason. The good reason stated by
the president is reducing crime. We're all for that, aren't we.
The real reason is he's got a political agenda. Why
does he just pick states with democratic leadership? If you're
looking for the real crime rate across America, you would
include states with Republican leadership reported by the FBI Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas,

(09:44):
and South Carolina. I haven't heard much about those, have you.
The reason, obviously is Republican governors. The same thing is
if You're going to pick a city out there, cities
all across the country with terrible crime rates. If you're
a president wants to deal with those, let him work
with local officials in Fairbanks, Alaska, in McKee's for Pennsylvania, Dyersburg, Tennessee, Jackson, Mississippi.

(10:08):
This is as an agenda to put troops on the
ground for the mass deportation effort which the President is
trying to push through. That's the real reason.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
Really, that's the real reason. That's what you know, Is
he right?

Speaker 5 (10:23):
You know?

Speaker 1 (10:24):
Can I point out that the cities that he listed,
none of them are on the top twenty list for crime.
You know who is on the top twenty list, Washington,
d C, Chicago, you know, La Atlanta. These are the
top twenty list. And by the way, President Trump, as
we just pointed out, has said anybody who asks, and

(10:45):
the governor of Louisiana said, yeah, please come, we would
like you to come. We have an issue in New Orleans.
And they're gone because they asked for help. That said
take us two weeks, will help you out, and they're gone.
Kind of flies in the face of what you know,
Senator Urban is saying, isn't it, And can't the president
want to help criminals, I mean taking care of criminals

(11:08):
and taking care of illegals at the same time. You know,
aren't illegals also criminals? And doesn't this kind of work
out to being the same thing? Can they go hand
in hand? I think they can do. You let's talk
to Michael in framing him. Michael, Welcome to WRKO. How

(11:28):
are you, Michael?

Speaker 5 (11:31):
I'm well, Andy, how are you?

Speaker 1 (11:32):
I'm fine? Thank you. So what do you think can
the President Trump take care of immigration and crime at
the same time? And does is this reminding you of
that Democrat of that defendant Attorney Maxim? You know, just
go ABC, just keep going until you hit something that
sticks to the wall, because it doesn't matter if any
of them are true.

Speaker 5 (11:53):
But yeah, you're exactly right. And first off, a nice
job filling in for Jeff. You're doing great.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (12:00):
I was I heard when Pritsker the clip you played,
and he said, this is an affront to people of
Chicago's First Amendment rights, And I think, what on earth
does that have to do with freedom of speech? But
you see, they're just flooding the zone with everything and
anything they can because they're they're absolutely rudderless. It's got

(12:25):
no grounds.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
That's a really good catch on your part. That's a
very good catch that did. I was like, you start
to pick and choose which ones you're going to focus
on because there's so many, don't you think?

Speaker 5 (12:39):
And and they, you know, just like the old just
throw the spaghetti on the walls, see what sticks. Yeah,
And there's a lot of dumb people out there that
will say, oh, man, First Amendment rights, we can't have that.
You know, that's that's sacred to us. But it's got
nothing to do with First Amendment.

Speaker 1 (12:57):
No, it doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.
But you know, I think you're right and that that's
that is what he's hoping that you'll be distracted. It's all,
you know, sleight of hand. As I mentioned before, they
want to distract you from the real issues, which are
that you're aunt Mabel was just beaten to a pulp
and her purse was stolen when she tried to go

(13:18):
to the grocery store. They don't want you to focus
on that. They want you to think that that you
know that somebody is trying to impact you and your
ability to to talk you know your ability to say,
to speak your mind, and you know they have They
have a point, and that First Amendment is very important

(13:38):
to I think every breathing living American. But I just
don't see its application here either. So I appreciate the
fact that you caught that. Thank you so much, Michael.
I appreciate your call. Yeah, it's this is what they're doing.
They're throwing stuff at you, hoping that you will be
so overwhelmed by their diet tribe that you won't focus

(14:03):
on what's really the issue. And what's really the issue
is they have created an atmosphere that has allowed crime
not just to breathe, but to thrive. And that's what's happened.
And President Trump is coming in to fix it. Does
two things. One points the responsibility for the crime at them,

(14:23):
which they don't want. And two, he gets credit for
his success, which they would rather do anything including seeing
you die, seeing you muggs, seeing you assaulted, seeing you shot,
then have him be able to say that he helped
and he made things better for you. Let's go to

(14:44):
David in Wakefield. David, welcome to WRKO. How are you.

Speaker 7 (14:50):
My call? You're welcome, So I haven't thought because I
think a lot of your callers, you know, a lot
of Kooner Country all we all are aligned in belief,
we kind of know the information. My thoughts are if
our ideas are are correct, but the narrative is constantly

(15:14):
being questioned on our end. Why don't we ever go
on the offense, like from a marketing campaign perspective, and Trump,
you know, being kind of a showman himself, put out
ads on on the airways all over the airways and
flood the zone like the Democrats use MSM to flood

(15:35):
the zone, but we are always coming back in response.
They throw something out there and then we have to
debunk it. I'd say I've not seen us flood the
zone with the actual information, the data from Washington, DC,
to just showcase and be like, here's where we were,
here's where we are, et cetera, et cetera. What are

(15:56):
your thoughts?

Speaker 3 (15:57):
Like?

Speaker 7 (15:58):
Are the Democrats just so good being a marketing machine?
They stick it in the front end and then every
other output, you know, is delivered to all the outlets
and they're delivering a unified message, and then that causes
us to always be in response mode.

Speaker 1 (16:16):
I think that I think I think that could be
part of it, David. I think also there's a lot
of deep money on the Democrats side, the funds, things
like that, the funds, the packs, and that's who puts
the ads out. That's not those ads are put out
by campaigns and by and by packs. They're not put
out by by legitimate office holders unless they are in

(16:37):
fact running for office and they are a campaign. And
then again that's a campaign situation. That's why you're seeing
pack ads. And there's a lot of deep money, a
lot of sorrows money in deep pack ads. I think
that's a lot of what you see.

Speaker 7 (16:51):
I'm more saying in the fact that conservative radio, conservative media.
I don't watch mainstream media. I'm I'm you know, on
the internet age. But what my point is not so
much on kind of the media and the pack money
that's been spent on campaign ads. It's the fact that

(17:12):
we are talking about JD.

Speaker 5 (17:14):
Pritt.

Speaker 1 (17:15):
I got to hold you there, David. If you stay
in the line, we'll continue this discussion. On the other side,
we're up against a hard break six six six six
eight six eight. Just before the break, we were excuse me,
we were talking to Dave from Wakefield got a frog
in my throat, But regarding why the Democrats are better
at getting their false messages out and the GOP is

(17:37):
always playing catchup. Sorry, we were interrupted their date.

Speaker 7 (17:42):
Yeah sorry, I was gonna say that. You know, if
we're if we are truly on uh the eighty out
of the eighty twenty side of these issues, I just
it boggles my mind while we're always in a defensive
posture on that right, It's like you're in the eighty
percent majority on a on a policy idea, but you're

(18:06):
having to constantly be in a reactive, defensive positioning. Ye
done about that?

Speaker 3 (18:13):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (18:13):
Well, I think one of the things that that has
been done about that is President Trump himself. I mean
that's I think that's why he took to social media
postings and actually created true social was for that reason,
so that he could get his message out. I think
part of the problem was that there most of the
media outlets were anti Trump and were and don't want

(18:35):
to put out there the you know how people really feel?
You see that skewed all the time. How you know
people all people are upset about the economy. Well, if
you actually ask people, they're really not because they have
a job and prices are going down, and they would
like it maybe faster, but it's happening. And I mean,
I think that's what the press puts out there. I

(18:56):
think because they they don't want the Make a Man
Great Again movement to succeed because then it shows them
up for being on the wrong side of history before.
So I think that was a big problem, is that
the message may have been there, but it wasn't. It
wasn't getting broadcast because it didn't want to. It's just,

(19:17):
you know, point blank didn't want to. And I think
that's why President Trump started to directly tweet to people
or to make social media postings to people, because it
was his It was his direct conduit. And when Twitter
realized how effective that was and they took him down,
what did he do. He created true social so he
could keep that conduit moving. And he was right to

(19:39):
do so, because I think that was a huge reason
why he succeeded, because his message actually got through. Once
that started to happen, people liked what they heard and
they started following him. I think that's part of the problem.
And even though he won the election and a lot
of his policies that have been implemented have been sixces sssful.

(20:01):
That doesn't mean that the press is now his friend.
There are some that have come over a little bit
and decided that it's better off to just to be
fair and down the middle of the of the road
and try to broadcast both sides of any issue. But
there are a lot who still haven't. I mean, you
still see MSNBC in such bad shape that they had

(20:21):
to rebrand a ms now, which I think is you know,
basically jumping from you know, the pan into the fire.
I don't think they really helped themselves with that, but
I think I think that's the answer, Dave, what do
you think?

Speaker 6 (20:37):
You know?

Speaker 7 (20:37):
We're lucky first Trump, in his style and the strategy,
showed us the way. I think there's that there are
a lot of folks on the mag and goop side
that just need to pick up that you know, that
torch and run run with it. Right, He's like, here's
a pathway of doing this. My second point are thoughts

(20:59):
to in response MSM did this to themselves, because think
about that, if they didn't have such bad tds that
they just went up to every opposing position on Trump,
they would have still considered themselves neutral to a lot
of Americans out there, right, and you know it's because
they were. They caused so many self inflicted wounds that

(21:21):
they their credibility was completely shot. That's on them, right.
That that isn't anything that that isn't anything that the
GOP side or the Republicans did Trump helped to, you know,
magnify that. But my thing is, we are in a
position here, if we're looking at it, you know, kind
of in the art of war. We're in a position

(21:43):
here where we should be completely on offense. I don't
know what the you know, I'm not in marketing or
anything like that, so I don't know what the strategy
needs to be. And I hope, I believe and hope
there is one out there. But I feel that we
need to be in a offensive position with a huge
kind of branding and marketing campaign to set the record straight, right,

(22:07):
you know, and so we're less in the defensive posture,
then we can stop defending things. We can actually start
to have real uh nuanced dialogue right with opposing views
on you know, on the fringes and edges, right, because
that's where real issues are are handled, and it's only

(22:28):
handled through uh, conversation and debate and sharing of ideas
which we need to get back to. So that's that's
my thoughts, and that's that's where this kind of all
you know, THEND it from you know work.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
We are so right, David, I think you've put your
finger on I think you're exactly right. We do need
to get back to the place where we can actually
have a dialogue. The problem is, in order to have
a dialogue, you have to have somebody who wants to
have that dialogue with you, and has been demonstrated by
Pritzker and Johnson and a lot of other people in

(23:02):
officeholders and people who you would normally think you could
have a discussion with to solve something. They don't want
to have a dialogue. They want a diatribe.