Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Listen all day.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Get the app now at ninety four to three WSC
dot Com.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Back to Kelly and Blaze.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Welcome in six 'in fourteen here on ninety four to
three WSC. We appreciate you joining us.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We're covering this morning's Tom stories. President Trump is calling
Zorhan Mondani a communist again and is implying that he's
elected mayor of New York City that could trigger a
federal takeover. Trump criticized the thirty three year old New
York State assemblyman at a news conference on Tuesday, saying
he's not very capable, in my opinion, other than he's
got a good line of bowl expletive deleted. And at
(00:38):
the same time, the President said he's not getting involved
in the race for mayor, but Warren voters not to
cast their balance for a Mandami, a self proclaimed Democratic
socialist who's leading in the polls. Trump also said if
a communist gets elected to run New York, it can
never be the same. I mean claim the White House
has tremendous power to run places if they have to.
(01:00):
Governor Kathy Hokele responded by saying the voters decide who
run New York City, not a president who wants to
be king.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Oh Kathy Hokel.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
So are we to assume the responses she has there
that she's a mom dommy fan, the Marxist mom dommy.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I don't know. You know, the Democrats find themselves in
a very strange position with this guy, because they're going
to have to admit that they embrace socialism if they
support him. And on the other hand, according to the voters,
you know, he's popular. Now, you know one equation that's
(01:45):
different here is the ranked choice voting that they have
in New York.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Now, right, I was going to say, you know how
exactly how many votes and voters are really for this guy.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Well, with the ranked choice he had to rank up
there and the top of their choices, right, even if
he was not their first choice, because the way it works,
you know, is who gets the most votes and it's
like a process elimination.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
So it's convoluted. It truly is their voting the rank
choice voting, Well.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
It is convoluted. But anyway, the Democrats created this for themselves.
So I don't know if she supports him or not.
I mean, I don't think she's publicly come out and
endorsed him or anything. I think this is more a
pushback of President Trump.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well we'll see how far. I'm kind of surprised. I mean,
to me, these comments very much are him getting involved
in the New York race. And I think that good
good on him for you know, putting a light, shining
a light on this New York City marks this mayor.
This will just I mean, this could continue across our country.
(02:52):
I mean, this needs to be called out for what
it is and it stinks like rotten eggs.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well, I think the Democrats smell a winning with this guy,
so it's tempting for them to jump on his side. Now,
you know, are the powers that be, and by the
powers that be, I mean the people that control the
purse strings, are they going to allow this to happen? So,
you know, I've heard reports of developers and in real
(03:20):
estate professionals and everybody else getting behind Mayor Eric Adams,
who they did not necessarily support before, but in light
of this development with this mom Donnie guy, now they'refore
Eric Adams and they're going to do everything they can
to get Eric Adams reelected.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Well we know that, I mean, they at least try
to intimate that Eric Adams and Trump, you know they
have they're sort of aligned in some fashion, which politically,
come on, are they No? Did Trump have, you know,
sit down with Eric Adams and in some way who
knows what kind of hand he may have had in
Eric adams future, what it would look like.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Well, he helped bail him out. You know, he was
under indictment, he was, he was in political trouble and
legal trouble.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Tacitly, it's almost as if, you know, he's aligned in
some way in people's minds with Trump. So interesting. Trump
is saying I'm not getting involved in this. To me,
that's saying I'm not publicly coming out for you, Eric Adams.
So I we'll see.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Well, getting involved to me is campaigning and taking party
money to you know, make sure that one candidate wins
over another. It's not expressing your opinion as he's as
he's doing here.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
It's it's throwing out an endorsement, right, and the idea
that Trump would go and endorse you know, Eric Adams
over the Republican. Do you see what position that puts
him in? So you know, maybe this explains why he's like,
I'm not getting involved in this.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Yeah, Well, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
You know, you also have to go with who you
think is going to win and who you think you
can get along with best to one things correctly.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Kathy Hogel, I don't know how he works with her.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
He doesn't calling him mc king, she won't work with him. Well,
I mean, New York's full of these kind of people, right, So,
whether it's Letitia Adam or Letitia what's her name is,
James James, or you know, Kathy Hochel or Alvin Bragg
or whomever it may be, you know, he has plenty
(05:28):
of enemies in New York, which is his home states.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
Ironic, it is ironic.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
We're covering this morning's top stories. The Supreme Court will
allow the Trump administration to resume plans to carry out
mass job cuts across federal agencies. Justices lifted a district
judge's order blocking the large scale federal layoffs. They could
potentially impact hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Supreme Court
said it was not assessing the legality of any specific
(05:54):
plans for layoffs at federal agencies. President Trump signed an
executive order in February direct agencies to prepare for the
government overhaul. The case landed at the Supreme Court after
a district judge in California ruled in favor of the
union's municipalities and advocacy groups that sued over Trump's workforce
reduction plans, and an appeals court subsequently allowed that ruling
(06:16):
to remain in place. The plantiffs argued the Trump administration
must receive congressional approval for its reorganization plans, including those
seeking to lay off federal workers. The only justice that
dissented was Kaitanji Brown Jackson.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Wow, that's a little shocked. I'm not shocked she dissented.
I'm a little shocked she was the only justice to dissent, are.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
You, Uh yeah, kind of yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I mean, it's no surprise that there are more conservative
leaning judges and more liberal leaning judges, and that's being
put lightly in some of their instances. So I'm paying
attention to that one. But here we go again with
the judicial law fare. And that's a win for this administration.
And it makes me think of that phone call we
had yesterday when was it seven or eight o'clock hour
(07:06):
of the guy calling. He said, I'm a fiscal conservative
and I'm upset about Trump's spending and you know, we
didn't get into and he was I think most specifically
talking about the Big Beautiful Bill and how it adds
to our deficit. Look at what Trump. We didn't even
get into the cuts that Trump is attempting to make,
what is in his control with regards to spending, well.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Exactly, I mean I was thinking the same thing is that,
you know, that's just one piece of his plan. So
that's not the entire plan. The Big Beautiful Bill, and
part of his plan is to make federal government more efficient.
And by doing so, I mean, they're going to have
to lay off, you know, some of this bloated workforce
(07:52):
in the federal government now federal workers. And we've heard
from him before when we talk about this, they get mad.
We're not saying all federal workers are bad. The federal
government's bloated, and he did this through executive orders. So
that's what the argument is about. They're saying that he
doesn't have that he has the ability as the executive
(08:14):
to run the federal government, but he doesn't have the
decision to overhaul these departments and make all these changes
that he's doing. So the Supreme Court says, we're not
ruling on that. We're just ruling on whether he can
proceed if he and whether he has to follow this
injunction by these lower courts. So they say, no, he
doesn't have to follow these injunctions. They come back and
(08:38):
rule against him that he doesn't have the power to
do this at some later date. But at that time,
you know, the people that are opposed to this are
saying it's too late because have already laid off all
these people.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Think about that. So, by checks and balances in our government,
we have you know, multiple branches, right Congress ism one
that checks the purse and so, and it's not the
president who's out here, you know, cutting checks we can't cash.
And I go back to that call yesterday where the
fiscal conservative is upset saying we're on the wrong side
of things if we supported the big beautiful bill and
(09:13):
all that stuff. Well, now, this ruling, whichever way it
may fall here is attempting to say that the president
doesn't have to have the ability or powers either to
cut from cut either. So he doesn't have the money,
he doesn't have the power to spend, he doesn't have
the power to cut. It's just like, well, how in
(09:35):
the world is one supposed to govern.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Yeah, they're arguing that he can manage it, but that
it's up to Congress in order to make these cuts
and reform the government like Trump is trying to do.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
So see where they have a role in this. But
you know the idea that he's working within a cabinet
and his agencies to let's just say, hit a budget goal, well,
I you know, it's a little surprising. Well to me,
it is surprising. And by the way, many people, including
Stephen Miller, he's one of my favorites on staff with
(10:12):
the president, close advisor to the president. He's laid this
case out multiple times in ways saying this is within
his purview. Think of the things that happened to the
previous administration by executive order, and now we know an
auto pin potentially run by someone else.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
And I want to say this real quick too, about
Katanji Brown Jackson. Twice now in the last couple of weeks.
She's been pushed back on by other justices, which is
kind of unheard of. They usually don't attack each other.
Amy Coney Barrett made comments about how Katanji Brown Jackson
was wrong and judge so to my ear, actually schooled
(10:51):
Katanji Brown Jackson and how she was wrong on the law.
And that's a fellow liberal judge. And like I said,
it's not very often that you see Supreme Court justices
criticizing each other in public, but Katanji Brown Jackson's managed
to raise the ire of two of her fellow justices
so much back that they commented in public.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
I want her to pull it together.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
You can finally keep your shoes on. The TSA is
going to end at shoe removal policy at some airport
security checkpoints. According to multiple reports, The agency sent an
internal memo to security officers about testing the new policy
in a soft launch at security checkpoints. Several locations where
shoes will no longer need to come off include Baltimore
Washington International Airport, New York's LaGuardia LAX, Philadelphia International Airport,
(11:40):
in Fort Lauderdale International Airport. On Monday, the TSA said
it's exploring new and innovative ways to enhance the passenger experience.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Okay, that's a good start.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
No pun intended about walking it back here, But I
feel like, if the shoes are coming off, they're all
coming off.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Why do we have to do a soft launch of this.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Let's go ridiculous that they're still doing this. Of course,
twenty something years later.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Anybody really, twenty years did it make you feel safer
to take your shoes off? No, the whole thing was
never made me feel safer. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Well, it's funny, I mean, because they have to act
like they're not profiling, right, so everybody has to go
through all this ridiculousness so that nobody gets profiled or anything.
There's certain people that are more prone to committing terrorist
acts than other people. Sorry, and to make us all
(12:39):
jump through these hoops for twenty four years.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Now, Yeah, this goes back to I mean, it's just more.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
And I think this goes back not quite as far
because if I remember correctly, this is over an incident
in Detroit. Remember when the guy had something in his
in the soul of his shoes, light it on fire
with matches, and then so now y'all have to take
your shoes off.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Well, I mean this goes back to think about nine
to eleven the Patriot Act. I mean, the amount of
rights that we've lost in the name of safety. I
just it never made me feel safer. It was frustrating,
I'm sure to everyone. And all I can say now is,
you know, let's forget the soft opening. Let's just get
back to keeping our shoes on. And I'm ready to
it's summertime. I'm ready to wear some sandals when I travel,
(13:29):
because I'm not walking on those nasty floors barefoot, unlike
Clay and Buck. Oh, Clay yesterday said that he walks
on those those airports floors barefoot.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
Act, well, sandals aren't much better.
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Well, that's what I'm saying. Now, I can wear sandals.
I will not travel in any kind of open toed
shoes now because you have to take your shoes off,
so I have to go find a pair of socks
at match. I don't like wearing socks.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Yeah, well, I don't quite get why the sandals? That
why you or socks with your sandals?
Speaker 1 (14:01):
No, are you from Ohio? Are you a tourist from Ohio?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
When you travel, you have to wear shoes with socks
so that you're not walking on a dirty barefoot.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
You a barefoot on the dirty floor.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, well, I'm just saying, you know, in open toe
sandals aren't much better if you get filthy walking around.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Now I can now wear them if I no longer
have to remove my shoes.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Some Amazon sellers are scaling back Prime Day discounts, blaming
tight margins and rising costs from President Trump's tariffs. Bloomberg
reports third party sellers, who account for about sixty percent
of Amazon's inventory, are offering fewer discounts this year. A
Missouri based ice tray company says it's skipping deals for
the first time due to a fifty percent aluminum tariff.
(14:44):
A maker of air purifiers is also cutting back on
promotions to reduce losses. Sellers told Bloomberg they see this
Prime Day as a key test of consumer demand heading
into the fall. Amazon Prime Days are going on now
until the eleventh.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
I was thinking about Amazon Prime Day yesterday. We were
discussing with our national correspondent, Roy O'Neil, and I thought, well,
maybe I'll jump on. There's some things that I need.
Maybe I'll go through Prime and see if I can
get them cheaper. And I just ran out of time
and didn't really care that much.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Well, I mean, so these third party sellers, it comes
down to, you know, their business model is based on
buying cheap stuff from China and selling it to you,
So do you feel sorry for them? Do you think
that it's wrong to place these tariffs on these products
and drive some of them out of business? Some of
(15:36):
them have to look for new business models. I was
reading about online retailer Timu, and there was another one
I can't recall the name. I never heard of it before,
but where they're having trouble because that's their whole business model.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Well, this is.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
The business model with which needs to be disrupted or
else we won't be able to bring wealth and opportunity
back to the United States of America that's been degris
dated by these cheap, crappy products.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Well, people want higher wages and a robust economy, but
then they also want cheap stuff from China, and a
lot of times that two don't jive.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Well, and this is going to be I've realized that
this was an easy quick way to say, Oh, it's
Trump's fault. You know that our prices are going up,
that you're having to change your business model.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
It's not Trump's fault.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
He's trying to fix something that has been decades in
the making of a problem in our country.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Well, I would say that I don't disagree with you,
But I'd say that comes down to opinion, right.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Well, and we're talking about going through unprecedented times that
a lot of people have no idea what to expect.
We don't know. We're sort of bracing. Are we to
expect that things are going to go higher? Are we
to expect that people are going to be losing jobs
or gaining jobs? I mean, this is new for a
lot of people who don't like change. I would rather
(16:58):
just keep going along with buying cheap, throwaway products. And
I mean, I get it, you're making money. It's a
business model. Guess what when times change? So to do
your business models? And many think about what COVID did
to businesses.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Well, I recall the story I told on the air.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
This was maybe a month or two ago, where one
of the Sunday news programs featured some woman who supposedly
invented some baby product I don't know, I don't remember
what it was, a matt for the for the high chair,
something like that, And she got her product out of
China and then the prices went up so much that
(17:39):
she couldn't afford to continue on her business model. And
she said how she sat down in the middle of
her living room floor and cried. And I'm like, you know,
maybe you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
If that's your reaction to a challenge in your business
is to sit down in the middle of your living
room and cry, Oh geez, how about it.
Speaker 3 (18:01):
You're how to make it in America right, whether you
agree or disagree, or like it or not. If you
want to continue with your business, this is the way
it's going.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
And maybe that changes in three more years. Who knows.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Businesses have to adjust and adapt all the time, and
a lot of them do it without sitting in the
middle of their living room floorer and crying shre I'm
glad that you're listening this morning. If you're interested in
acquiring a brand best associated with fraud, listen up. The
infamous fry Fest brand is now up for auction on eBay.
Creator Billy McFarland said on Monday that a seven figure
(18:37):
deal to sell the brand fell through, leading them to
go through with the auction. McFarlane pleaded guilty to wirior
fraud charges related to the first Fry Festival in twenty eighteen.
A planned second attempt at holding the festival in Mexico
was indefinitely postponed in April of this year. As of
Tuesday afternoon, bidding it reached fifty thousand, four hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Who would buy this thing?
Speaker 3 (19:04):
I was just thinking, who is whose idea was it
to attempt to sell it?
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Well it was Billy McFarland's I know, but what but
who would buy? So the Fry Festival, if you're not familiar,
it's a total fraud.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
It was a mess.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
So in twenty eighteen they promised all these great things
and they sold tickets and collected all this money, and
the festival never materialized. And then Billy McFarland went to
jail over it, and then he tried to resurrect it
this year and the same thing happened almost, I mean,
not quite the same. He didn't go to jail or anything,
(19:44):
but the festival never materialized. So this Fry Festival, you know,
I guess it has name recognition, but beyond that, the
recognition is tied to fraud. Who would pay fifty four
hundred dollars for a brand that is known for fraud
and failure?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
It's all the bad fs. It's just to me.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
He doesn't see who knows someone might buy it. They
may see the uh, well, some potential deal here.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Somebody already has bid fifty four hundred dollars on it,
so who knows what they're going.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
To do with it, But the price of failure is worse.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
That seems like a bad idea to me.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Thanks for listening to the Charleston Morning Use podcast. Catch
Kelly and Blaze weekday mornings from six to nine