Hour 4-The Judge

The Jusge joins us this hour and he and Jamie talk all abou the Surpreme Court decison that came down yesterday 9-0. Also, Judge gives Jamie some legal advice on speeding tickets.

Episode Transcript

(00:18):
Don't good morning, everybody, gethappy Tuesday to you. It is super
Tuesday, and for a lot ofus it was also a super Monday as
the Supreme Court nine to zippo sideswith President Trump on the whole Colorado battle

(00:41):
ballot issue. And guess what itwas. Probably I may look home hope
this thing, but it ain't toobold. But you go for this judging
freedom, the great Judge of Politano. And first of all, I know
for the people who are on Facebookand who who are able to see the
judge, I hate to be misterBlackwell all the time with the judge's clothing.

(01:06):
That's another great color on you,you know, that rustic orange round
rusted color. I could, Icould, I did, I did think
of you this morning about five pointthirty when I selected this shirt to where
I said, we find a shirtthat I'm not going to take on my
trip to Italy and I'll wear itfor Jamie. All right, that's awesome,
man, that is that is great? Well good now you know so

(01:29):
I'm always checking it out. Judgeof Politano. Yes, this was a
big decision, but not anything thatyou didn't expect. Correct, correct,
you know, by by ruling juston the meaning of the words in the
in the Amendment. The Chief Justicewas able to get a decision that was

(01:53):
unanimous, and it was important thatit was unanimous in order to avoid the
allegation that, oh, the Republicanson the court save Trump. So the
issue here is, can the Statesinterpret the fourteenth Amendment in their own unique

(02:13):
way, even if they disagree witheach other, in such a manner as
to affect a national election, Andthe Court said no, there needs to
be one uniform interpretation of The statescan interpret the fourteenth Amendment how they want
for their own elections. So somebodyrunning to be the mayor of Boulder,
Colorado, or somebody running to bethe governor of Colorado could be removed from

(02:37):
the ballot by a court in Coloradoif the court found that that person aided
or abetted an insurrection after they tookan oath of loyalty to the Constitution.
There's no dispute about that. Theyjust can't do it for federal office.
Why because the fourteenth Amendment says Congressshall have the authority to enforce the Amendment,

(02:58):
and Congress has yet to speak onthis issue with respect to the presidency.
Now, sometimes I don't want tobe the skunk at the garden party
here, Jamie. But sometimes oneneeds to look as much as at as
much at what the court didn't sayas what it did say. It did

(03:20):
say what I just did my bestto explain. It didn't give Donald Trump
all the relief he wanted. Remember, a trial judge in Colorado found that
he aided and abedded an insurrection.He asked the Supreme Court of the United
States to reverse that finding. Theydid not. The Supreme Court of Colorado
found that the president is an officerof the United States. Trump asked them

(03:44):
to reverse that. They did not. They only ruled on that narrow issue
of whether the states can interpret aclause of the Constitution different from each other
in the manner so as to affecta national election. By ruling in that
way, it's obvious that they can't. Otherwise we'd have fifty different meanings to
the Constitution. So that's how theygot their unanimity. So they didn't even

(04:11):
It wasn't even about whether or nothe was convicted of an insurrection either.
It was just on the remerits ofthat Fourteenth Amendment element right correct. It
was almost as if this was alaw school hypothetical exam, not one based
on actual facts, because there's noanalysis here of what Trump did or didn't

(04:36):
do. It's just whether or notit's just what the state of Colorado did.
Now, of course this effects allstates. There's a ruling in Maine
that has now been invalidated, andthere's a ruling in Illinois that has now
been invalidated. Those even though thoserulings aren't even mentioned in the case because
they came about after the case wasargued and after the case was decided,

(05:01):
but before it was published. Right, So it's interesting what the words of
Amy Carr. I don't know abouther and tell you the truth of Amy
Cony Barrett. And she did kindof do what some people are calling kind
of a passive aggressive take on theballant issue. Where do you think that

(05:26):
came from. There's a principle oflaw that appellate courts follow, which say,
you decide cases on the narrowest issue, and you don't decide more than
you need to decide in order todecide the narrow issue. She chastised the
majority for deciding more than they neededto. What does she mean when the

(05:49):
court said only Congress can address this. The Court actually said what it will
accept and what it won't accept fromCongress. Now unprecedented, but it's very
unusual for the Court to pre guess, to prejudge what Congress is going to
do. Courts don't do that becausethe Court and the Congress are equal branches

(06:13):
of the government. So the Court'snot in the business of saying to Congress,
don't do this is what we expectyou to do. The Court can
evaluate the constitutionality of what Congress hasdone in the past, but it can't
prescribe what Congress needs to do inthe future. That's what she chastised them
for. There's a part of SupremeCourt opinions called dicta diicta Latin word just

(06:40):
meaning it has been stated, ithas been said, But dicta is the
part of a Supreme Court opinion thatis not binding on future Supreme Courts because
it wasn't necessary for the Court togo there. That's what Justice Barrett and
the other actually the men against thewomen. The four concurring justices chastised the

(07:04):
five in the majority of four femaleand five male justices, the four concurring
justices, three liberals, one conservative, chastise the five male justices, all
Conservatives, for going beyond where theyneeded to go. This is hair splitting

(07:25):
that is of interest only to thoseof us who are in this business of
monitoring what the Court does and commentingon it. This really doesn't mean anything
in my view, to the publicor to the outcome of the case.
Well, she did mention something thatto me is disturbing. I obviously don't
like chaos and strife and that kindof thing. But when she said that,

(07:48):
particularly in this circumstances, writings onthe Court should turn the national temperature
down, not up. Since whenis it the Supreme courts job to have
any thing to do with a nationaltemperature? I mean, isn't that The
problem sometimes with the Supreme Court isthat it's making decisions not necessarily by law

(08:09):
or even writing them by law.It's making them on the whim of the
public, which is disturbing to me. Which must explain why she went ahead
and allowed I can't remember what stateit was to bar people singing in church
during COVID. It was it wasIndiana. That's the case you're talking about.

(08:35):
It very upsetting to you and me. It was particularly upsetting because she
was brand new on the Court.It was especially upsetting because it was inconsistent
with some other rulings of the court. The Court should have no concern with
the temperature of the public. Thecourt should. The Court is the anti
democratic branch. It does not existto reflect what the public wants. Its

(09:00):
job is to protect life, liberty, property, and the Constitution from the
overreaching of the popular branches of thegovernment or the state. And the Court
should do the right thing though theheaven's fall. Now I say, though
the heaven's fall. There's a modelof the justice. The model of the
Justice Department is, uh, letthere be justice though the heaven's full,

(09:22):
meaning we are not concerned with popularity. We are only concerned with doing the
right thing. Yeah, I mean, and that's why, you know when
you look back. For instance,we've talked about this before, to the
Bush Gore decision. That was asuper gutsy decision given the volatility. Uh.

(09:43):
And they they did it anyway,and it took the case. And
so you said, actually, inhedsight, I never forget you talked about
this, because I was brilliant whenyou said, actually, they should never
have taken the case. You shouldjust let it play out. But still
I think that was one where Idon't think they really paid attention to the
national temperature at all. I thinkRovers's way was right. Well. Rovers's

(10:09):
Wade was decided at a time whenabortion was very rare and almost novel in
the United States, and there wereonly very few states in New York among
them that permitted abortions. And youand I have condemned the opinion. There's
one or two parts of it unworthyof condemnation. But what it ultimately did,

(10:31):
of course, was to permit theslaughter of fifty million babies in the
womb in the United States. However, it was written without regard to what
the public thought, and the SupremeCourt should not have regard for what the
public thinks. That's why they havelifetime tenure. They can't be removed from

(10:52):
office because what they did was unpopular. Again, the whole purpose of an
independent judiciary is to be anti democratic, gets to put breaks on the popular
will when that popular will interferes withrights guaranteed by nature or guaranteed by the
Constitution. Yeah, it was.It's really kind of shocking. It was

(11:16):
very uncomfortable seeing her say that andjust knowing as a Supreme Court. The
demand is that it be really assertivelyand aggressively independent from any opinion outside of
it. So that's crazy to be. So the Democrats now in their grief,

(11:39):
are trying to come up with waysthat Congress can move in and what
is the constitutionality of how that works. If Congress were to step in and
do something about this, what wouldwhat would what would it be? Well,
I can't imagine it would be anything, because the Congress can't agree on
the time of day, or couldn'tagree on a speed limit. Even those

(12:03):
speed limits are outside the constitutional competenceof Congress. But I think what the
Supreme Court was inviting was a statutesaying in order to be disqualified under Section
three of the fourteenth Amendment, thefollowing would have to happen. A the
person would had to have taken anoath to uphold the Constitution. B they

(12:26):
would have had to have avetted aninsurrection, and we define an insurrection as
follows. Then they have to defineit. Then they'd have to define a
betting, and then they'd have togive the standard a proof. Can this
be proven in a criminal trial bya preponderance of the evidence. That's like
fifty one percent of evidence, ordoes that have to be proven in a
criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt,which is like ninety seven, ninety eight,

(12:48):
ninety nine percent of the evidence.So Congress would have to lay lay
that out. Congressman Jamie Raskin ofMaryland, a former professor of constitutional law,
is introducing legislation to that effect thisweek. But again it's not it's
not going to pass. This wouldbe irrelevant for Donald Trump and for twenty

(13:11):
twenty four. They may want toaddress this for the future, but it's
a fool's errand to think that they'regoing to get anything done between now and
the time ballots are printed for thegeneral election, which would be six or
seven months from now. In Octoberof this year, you mentioned speeding.
I want to ask you a quickquestion, a quick personal question. So

(13:33):
I was going up to des Moines, Iowa to see Cardinal Burke, not
to Moines, Iowa too to Wisconsinto see Cardinal Burke. Had to go
through Iowa because my mapping took meall through these almost these crazy rural areas,
and I wound up. I gotback home and I had two speed

(13:56):
camera tickets taken by a camera andthey even showed me video of me speeding,
and that was taken by some cameraand it was on some kind of
rural road and all that kind ofstuff, and so I don't want to
pay them. I've gotten red lightcameras before, and I don't really run

(14:16):
red lights that much, but youknow how, it happened sometimes way back
in the day. And I neverpaid a red light camera ticket, never.
And I did look it up though, and there are apparently some cases
that uphold the robot issued ticket,aren't there. Well, it's different in
different states. The robot issued ticketsare unlawful and invalid in New Jersey,

(14:41):
so theoretically it doesn't even happen becauseit would be a waste of the government's
money even to have these cameras.So under Governor CHRISTI, the cameras were
reverted from giving tickets to just monitoringwhat happens in an intersection. So god
forbid, you have an accident there, your lawyer can get a video of
what happened and help decide whose faultit is, but the camera can't issue

(15:03):
the ticket. But my understanding isthat these are valid in other states.
I don't know what the law ofIowa. Is it is repellent that something
like this can happen, but itdoes happen. Yeah, well, okay,
well I guess I got to rethinkmy position on that. Then I

(15:24):
suppose I mean you don't you don't. What you don't want is and here
I am giving one of my bestfriends in the world legal advice on a
nationally broadcast. But what you don'twant is for them to adjudicate you guilty
in your absence, and then thisthing is hanging out there and they may
suspend your license in Iowa, andGod forbid your driving in Iowa. Was

(15:48):
it Iowa or Idaho? It wasto Iowa people that I'm saying this,
but I'm from New Jersey. Iowaand Idaho is the same. Okay,
getting exaggerating. You don't want themto suspend your life in that state.
You might end up driving in thatstate and the next thing you know,
you'll be arrested a license, Sothey never take me atter to bite the

(16:08):
bullet and pay the fine then thanrisk the consequences. On the other hand,
you want to hire lawyers to challengethis thing. There are civilibrities,
lawyers who will challenge the power ofthe state to use a robot to give
you a ticket. Yeah, goall the way to Supreme Court. Man.
Maybe that time, Amy Cony Barretwill be on my side, all

(16:29):
right. And then and then theNew York case. It just so happens
that this ruling came down almost amazinglyon the very same day that Trump's trial
on the insurrection issue was supposed tostart yesterday. Well, yeah, the
original trial. Yeah, I mean, you're talking about the federal the federal

(16:53):
case now, not the Georgia case, right right, Yeah. And when
that federal case is on hold becauseof the issue of immunity, she has
indicated she'll be ready to the trialjudge. She'll be ready to go as
soon as the court rules. Unlessthey really has total and absolute immunity,
I don't think they will. Thatwould be a radical change from the law.

(17:15):
But he has a very busy springand summer. He has a criminal
trial starting on March twenty fifth,and he has to be in court one
percent of that trial time starting Marchtwenty fifth. That's the New York It's
the Stormy Daniels case. Stormy Danielsis going to testify, Michael Collen is

(17:36):
going to testify. The former president'sgoing to testify. This is going to
be a bit of a circus.Wow, Yeah, no doubt so.
Now, last time I talked toyou about the Fanny Willis case in Georgia,
you were not You didn't have theopinion that this was actually while even
if it disqualifies her, it wasn'tgoing to make the case totally go down

(18:00):
the tubes. Since that time,have you heard anything and some of this
information's got a little testier and crazierwith all these people testifying. Has your
mind changed on that at all?Or is this going to be a case
it sticks, but the people mightnot be there to prosecute it. I
don't think he's even going to removeher from the case. I think that

(18:26):
he may refer her to the ethicspeople for an ethics investigation, but I
don't think he's going to remove herfrom the case. I don't think it
affects the case at all. Ialso think he totally mishandled this. I'm
generally reluctant to criticize other judges,particularly a judge who's so young and new.
Yeah, I'm sure that I madea lot of mistakes early on in

(18:47):
my time on the bench. Butthis thing should have taken about two days
instead of a month. He really, really really dragged it out in ways
that, in my view, wereunnecessary, and he should have rolled by.
Now. You have a lot,a lot of human beings and a
lot of assets involved in prosecuting anddefending this case, and everybody has a
right to know who's the prosecutor,when's the case happening, where are we

(19:10):
going? What's taking you so long? So I but my view is there's
not enough misbehavior on her part hereto remove her, and there's no evidence
of contamination of the case itself.I have to think the case against Trump
and the others is very weak,but there is no evidence of its having
been contaminated by the personal relationship betweenthese two prosecutors. Yeah, her attorney,

(19:38):
in listening to some of the courtroomappearances, her attorney actually did a
pretty good job of establishing that regardlessof what, for instance, her boyfriend's
colleague in the law office said,there's no way actually that he would know.
And there's a lot of Really,he really did a good job in

(20:00):
establishing the plethora of hearsay that wasgoing on. And I was I was
kind of impressed, tell you thetruth, And that's what I was thinking.
Oh no, she's not going tobe disqualified then probably Yeah, listen,
I'm not saying that the judge wasunfair or that the proceedings were unfair.

(20:22):
I'm just saying they took far,far too long. But then again,
I'm Italian, so I don't havea lot of patience. This is
a good old Southern boy, andhe moves at a different pace than we
two in the northeast. Yeah.Well, and and again, even if
she's not disqualified, though there aresome real problematic transactions and element office.

(20:48):
You know, I don't know howshe can run for reelection. I would
think I'm going to assume she's aDemocrat, and I'm going to assume that
the Democrats would want to challenge herin the primary, maybe not even give
her the party line. I don'tknow, but I would think politically she
is seriously damaged over this. Yeah, well, this is a system where
processed. It's alien to me.And New Jersey has the federal system where

(21:14):
judges are appointed for life. Broskersare appointed for five years. They don't
they don't seek a political base orseek political public political endorsements, but in
Georgia they do well. And thenyou have the aspect of the Biden operative
or the alleged Biden operative who wasalso in her office, and there was

(21:36):
this sense or this insinuation somehow therewas a commanding presence of this Biden operative
kind of running the show there.But I guess that's for somebody else to
investigate. Correct, correct, correct? I don't. I don't know how
that again infects the case. Maybemaybe it does, but it certainly is

(21:57):
not at a lie level where itwould require dismissal of the case. Yeah,
gotcha, at least not at thisstage. I mean, something may
come up during the trial which wouldshock the conscience of the court. I
think the great example of this isthe trial of Daniel Ellsberg for stealing the
Pentagon papers and giving them to theNew York Times. They had already been

(22:21):
published. The Supreme Court said theTimes and the Washington Post can publish them.
The thief can be prosecuted, butnot the publisher. So the papers
were out there. The next administrationwas humiliated, the LBJA administration was humiliated,
the generals who were humiliated. Elsberg'son trial, and the government is
really claboring him in the courtroom,and then a couple of FBI agents decide

(22:44):
we're going to help the government out. We're going to break into his psychiatrist's
office and get the records of whathe told is Shrink. Well, the
judge was so outraged that what theydid. He dismissed the indictment right there,
and the FEDS decided not to appealand not to reprosecute. So occasionally
government behavior so shocks the conscience ofthe court, And admittedly what I just

(23:08):
told you is an extreme example.Rarely happens, but occasionally government behavior so
shocks the conscience that the court throwsthe case out, even though it has
nothing to do with the merits ofthe case. There is no question but
that Daniel Ellsberg, and I thinkhe's an American hero, he's now deceased,
And there's no question but that DanielEllsberg committed espionage by stealing national security

(23:33):
secrets to which he was entitled yeto hold, but not to real All
right, well, judgeph Aaltello,what's happening on Judging Freedom today? Well?
Nothing, I'm on my way toRome. So you're actually leaving today?
Oh? Yes, yes, Igot a lovely note in the middle
of the night from our favorite memberof the College of Cardinals. So that
began with Unfortunately I am still inWisconsin in Rome, but he answered immediately

(24:00):
and it was a very upbeat,uplifting Jamie Ullman like email. Yes,
yeah, well that's good because wellI'm going to talk to you later on
this morning, or at least aboutabout an hour from now about what's we're
planning with you later on in thespringtime. But I'm glad you connected with
him, and he did tell methat he was probably going to be spending

(24:22):
more time in was content, especiallyafter the Pope basically kicked him out.
I don't know whether it became ofthat thing, but it was really just
a bad treatment on the part ofthe Pope. And yes, yes,
he did tell me he's going tobe back in Rome by the end of
March, so I missed him bya couple of weeks. Yeah, well,
he loves Lacrosse. I'll tell youthat that's his that's his home base.

(24:45):
So he built that magnificent, magnificentstructure there. Oh yeah, that
that is a beautiful place. Theshrine is just absolutely amazing. I managed
to be able to get through alot of it and and hang out there
and it's really truly moving and beautifulup there. Yes, all right,
judge. Well, I'll talk toyou a little bit and looking forward to

(25:07):
excited about you getting to Italy andit'll be a ton of fun. Where
exactly you're going to go or yougo all over? Where's your family from?
Again? Well, this is awork trip. My family three quarters
are from Naples, one quarter isfrom Florence. I'm giving a lecture on
natural law at the Pontifical Academy inthe Vatican. I am staying in the

(25:32):
guest house where the Pope lives inthe Vatican. Really, I'm told the
breakfasts are communal, but if hewants to talk to you, he'll send
a Swiss guard to come over andtap you on the shoulder three taps.
That means the Holy Father wants you. Wow. So do you think you're
going to see the Pope? Chancesare I will, but I don't want

(25:55):
to get my expectations up. It'snot a very large place I'm gonna be.
The Vatican's about the size of CentralPark and I'm going to be there
for four days. Wow. Well, Uh, how are you gonna tell
us staying to him? Are youjust gonna be just what? You know?
My traditionalist friends want me to say, Oh, your holiness, I

(26:18):
am a big fan of your immediatepredecessor, but I think he wants to
hear that. Yeah, yeah,well, maybe you can give him my
phone numbers. We can call intothe show sometime. He does speak English.
That'd be great coming up next tothe pope. Wow, all right,

(26:41):
buddy, my column scoped out mybreakfast with the Pope. But we'll
see if it happens. Okay,well that sounds great. All right,
Judge of Politano judging freedom, Iappreciate you so much and I'll talk to
you a little bit, my friend. You got it, Thank you,
Jamie. All right, then it'sJudge and Polito. Yeah, I mean
you know, it's for all ofour blood. Right about the Pope,

(27:03):
I don't know I saw him.I wanna be like, oh hi,
mister Pope, how are you?Oh Lordie, Good morning this morning,
everybody, Happy super Tuesday to allof you. It's Almond in the Morning
and it is Common Sense Radio.If you guys want to have a little
fun later on, you can tuneinto my appearances the next few days on

(27:30):
co Go in San Diego. SoI had the privilege of filling in for
the Great Lou Penrose there in SanDiego today. It'd be about five o'clock
our time, news radio six hundred. It's an AM station out there.
I'm sure you could pick it up. So I'll be filling in for Lou.
I'll be there on the year aboutthree hours because I'll follow up with

(27:51):
the election results with Mark Larson andin the evening time, well not evening
time, but it technically it'd bearound the time the holes close. Soon
enough, we'll have enough information thereand it'll be a blast, So tune
in later on today, Tomorrow andThursday, so it'll be be a blast.

(28:11):
I love those people out there inSan Diego and actually love California.
They've got some really good conservatives outthere. And the Republican of California is
a little different than other Republicans,are a little more lower key. Steve
Garvey is a great example of that. Garvey is polling two points ahead of

(28:33):
Adam Schiff in a general election race, and he is very soft spoken.
He's not you know, he's kindof He's a great guy. He's one
of my boyhood heroes because that wasback in my day man seventy one seventy
two, the heyday of my baseballlove and seventy two seventy three, and

(28:56):
so he's I remember him like yesterday. But he's very, very soft spoken,
low key. Republicans out there aren'treal fiery by any stretch. I
mean, even Reagan and Nixon werekind of demure by some of the other
conservative standards that we have. Butbut they're they're they're good people out there.

(29:18):
There's some strongholds out there, OrangeCounty, Huntingdon Beach, San Diego
still a little more liberal, butit's also a little purple too, and
so it's fun to fun to broadcastout there because the station's hot and and
and people like it in California asthere. I do love California. Uh,

(29:38):
Gavin k new some of these guyshave basically ruined the place, but
it's it doesn't It deserves so muchmore than Democrat ruin. It just is
really super sad to see because it'sa beautiful state on a number of different
levels, but the Democrat leadership hasrun it into the ground, and it's

(30:00):
it's really bad news. So that'sthat's how I'm going to say. But
San Diego is a cool place.And plus my son Ethan lives there with
my brand new granddaughter, Claire,who is the first family member to be
a native Californian. How does thatsound? How are them apples? All?

(30:22):
Right? So this is the thisis the anti science segment that will
be culminating in the revelation that plasticrecycling is bull crap and has been from
the very beginning, and the plasticsindustry is finally now admitting what we have

(30:44):
known all along. But first,let's begin with the one part of anti
science, which actually turned into acomment about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling. This
guy is really funny. He isSean Farrish, and he is a Trump
impersonator. And this is what hehad to say about the ruling yesterday.

(31:06):
It was mighty mighty five. Ohwait, when you think about it,
even Kataji Brown Jackson, who doesn'tknow what a woman is, knew that
I belong on that ballot. Andnow they're putting me back on there,
and they're going to put my nameon that ballot in twenty four characters.
That was my favorite part that they'regoing to be putting his name on the
ballot in twenty four carrot cold.I mean, it's this is so much

(31:30):
fun, But it is true thatyou've got a Kataji Jackson Brown who doesn't
know what a woman is, butshe does know what a anti constitutional authoritarian
piglet is in the form of thatin the form of that Secretary of state

(31:52):
there in Colorado. Here's more antiscience, this is anti math. So
these are all the people news mediawho yesterday and I heard some of them
on Fox News. I wish oneof you would tell me who that was,
because I can't remember which ditch itwas. Was it Emily Campagna or
whatever her name is, or wasit Macaninny or whatever her name is?

(32:15):
Both of them are I can't tellbetween their voices, but one of them
was like, yeah, this isreally technically five to four. It's like,
okay, shut anyway. This ison the other networks where they decided
that the nine to zero uh isreally five to four, And these are

(32:38):
it's no surprises. They're coming fromthe same people who don't believe a baby
in the womb as a human,who don't believe that a man is a
man and a woman as a womanwho believe in the global warming huax.
So it's no surprising that that they'renow just trying to turn this into something

(33:01):
that's not. This is a fiveto four ruling. I'm part of it.
This is actually a five to fourdecision. It's five to four.
Trump will take this. Yeah,it's five to four. That's what it
is. Five to four. It'sreally a five to four season based on
a couple of comments that people Ihave said on the court, the judges

(33:27):
have said. But that doesn't meanit's a five to four decision. But
again, these people don't care,they don't care about reality. They're the
ones who call us anti science,and they're precisely just that, all right,
And here's the final final knife inthe body of the recycling fans.

(33:53):
Nothing more. And I've said thisall along. There really is nothing more
anti sciences than they're recycling. Lie. We all know that even the plastic
bags, the reusable plastic bags,those kind of things, they wind up
in the landfills anyway. So allthese communities are passing, you know,

(34:14):
reusable plastic bag laws and all thatnonsense, they're winding up in the landfill.
Anyway, here's here's a story thatI'm bringing to you from instapundent.
For decades, plastic producers knowingly misledthe public about the feasibility of plastic recycling,

(34:35):
according to a recent study by theCenter for Climate Integrity. The nonprofits
report details how the plastic industry marketedrecycling as a solution to plastic waste for
decades, all while dismissing it internallyas both technically and economically unviable. So

(34:59):
we all know, oh that we'veall been you know, the pay not
only the paper of plastic, butwe also had the separate containers for plastic.
And it turns out there's really nomarket for recycled plastic. Most plastic
is either burned or it winds upin a landfill. Uh And and according

(35:23):
to the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development, which is this inter governmental group whatever
that means, they said, onlynine percent of plastic in the US is
ever recycled. Can you believe that? Uh And And of course this isn't

(35:44):
uh well, this isn't your faultthat it's that it's not recycled. It's
the fault of the marketplace because therearen't really there's really no market for recycled
plastic anymore, except for the peoplewho make those obnoxious water bottles that when
you open them, they squirt allover your face because the plastic is so

(36:07):
flimsy. That's maybe this is aboutthis water bottle babies constitutes about This is
your sum total of plastic recycling righthere. Nothing else is recycled. I
mean, I already told you awhile back that there's no market for recycled
glass. In fact, if thereis any market for recycled glass, they

(36:30):
use it for sand traps on golfcourses. They grind it up and that
becomes part of the of a sandtrap. It's ground up glass. And
same thing with park benches and thingslike that. They use it as a
resin for park benches, plastic parkbenches and plastic playgrounds and all that other

(36:52):
stuff. That's it. So therecycling on pretty much everything you're telling you
about pretty much has amounted to abig lie. So anyway, congratulations with
you your separate containers at home,I still do that. Why am I
doing that? President Trump on Foxand Friends this morning and was asked about

(37:21):
the situation Israel Gaza, and headded a few more gems as he always
does. You've got to finish theproblem. You had a horrible invasion.
It took place. It would havenever happened if I was president. By
the way, as you know,Iran was broke. Brian they were broke.
They had no money for Hamas forHesbila, they were broke. This

(37:42):
would have never happened. And foranother reason, they wouldn't have done it
to me. I guarantee you thatthey did this because they have no respect
for Biden, and frankly, theygot soft and what happened here is incredible.
That should never have happened. Likewise, Russia would never have attacked Ukraine
never. You know it, everybodyknows it, and that wouldn't have happened.

(38:04):
This is all on Biden. Doyou think the president's in the process
of abandoning Israel. I do believethat, But I don't think he knows
where he is. Frankly, Ithink you could ask him a question right
now, ask him the same question. I don't think he knows what to
say about many subjects. Actually,it's really the people that surround him.
It's the fascist and the communists thatsurround him. They're making the calls.

(38:25):
They're calling the shots, He's notcalling the shots. Yes, I have
no doubt that about what Trump saysis absolutely true. That really, and
I'm not trying to neither is Trumptrying to absolve Biden of responsibility for his

(38:45):
actions. But you got to knowthat this is all kind of all the
Obama leftovers that Jim Carafano warned usabout are all all there. And you
have to know that he's he's atrojan horse. You have to know that
this is whatever is happening is allbeing machined by these people who surround him

(39:12):
because the way that they create thiscomplicated level of gas lighting, manipulation,
passive aggressiveness, that kind of thing. Keep in mind, Joe Biden.
I don't know who was telling methis. I can't remember whether it was
Jim or somebody else, that JoeBiden was considered one of the dumbest members

(39:37):
of the US Senate, like mostof his colleagues thought he was dumb as
a bag of hair. And andI mean you just kind of look at
him, and you mean, you'veseen what was going on, and he's
a plagiarist, he's a weirdo.And I mean he's not very bright.
And the Biden family just seems kindof like, you know, a bunch

(39:58):
of East Coast hillbillies, and that'sthe level that they're playing at, and
kind of white trashy, you knowwhat I mean. And I do believe
that. But they're just kind oflike a white trash East Coast family and
that you wouldn't like want to playlawn darts with, you know what I
mean. So there's no way thathe could come up with any of these

(40:22):
complicated, convoluted ways of destroying hiscountry on his own. There's no way
there are people who I mean,imagine the kind of that you could you
could literally come out and say after, for instance, Israel was attacked and
watch your nuts comes out and says, well, you know, our biggest

(40:45):
concern now is blowback to the Islamiccommunity. It's like, we're really worried
about the Islamic community. That's aspeople were marching and chanting rivers to the
sea and calling for the extermination ofJews. Watch her hair was like,
well, you know, we're reallymostly concerned about Islamophobia. I mean,

(41:07):
it's like, who comes up withthat? It wasn't Joe Biden. Coming
up with that. It's all it'sall the plotters and his You know,
how could you possibly have a situationwhere you've got this guy, there's this
king manipulator like Majorcus, who isalmost a to on the verge of like

(41:29):
being mentally disturbed, it seems,who will sit there and be asked about
the death of this collision and justnot even take any kind of responsibility for
it or anything. And eight monthsago he declares the border secure when everybody
knows it's not true, like ourlying eyes right. And and that's why

(41:52):
Trump is doing so well right nowbecause all the things that the media and
others are trying to tell us,uh that our aren't there. We see
and and whether the news media ignoresit or not now at this point doesn't
even matter, because we live it. And and that's and I think that's

(42:13):
a good way we need to demandof our politicians, people who live that
way again for all of I think, what what Mitch McConnell did. I
think he did a pretty good job. I think one of the things he
did was he helped Trump get electedby deferring the Merrick Garland appointment and and
not letting it happen, and thatleft a seat open, and let that

(42:35):
that left the consequences of election tobe just that much more important. I
think it actually helped Trump. Butbut ultimately, the Lindsey Grahams and the
Mitch McConnell's and these guys need togo away, uh and be replaced with
people who have lived a real life. And it would help if Congress and
the Senate had to live like usto begin with, and didn't suddenly had

(42:57):
to go up to Washington, dc. And no longer buy a bag
of groceries, no longer fill theirtank of gas, uh, and and
no longer have to worry about illegalsoccupying their rec centers. So ultimately,
I believe that that once we getpeople who are living the real that be

(43:22):
That's that's really where it all stands. That we need to have people who
are who live real lives. Sowe also have this This is and and
this is great, and I'm gonnaprobably deal with this more tomorrow because we're
running out of time. But we'reThere's this woman, she's an elder woman,
and she is before the council,UH city council in the sanctuary City

(43:45):
of Denver, Colorado and she uhis trying to appeal to them to please
change your laws. Change help us, God help us. So I'll deal
with that tomorrow. Hopefully you guyshave a fantastic rest of your day.
Alex thanks a ton It's common SenseRadio. Have a good one, Happy

(44:07):
Super Tuesdays.