The Trump team uses humor and facts to win the shutdown debate. Besides, which side suffers more from a shutdown? Not the GOP. The US Supreme Court is back and everything from the tariffs to boys in girls sports will be decided. And, flood insurance is a total waste of money……until you have a flood.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
You know, when I used to do a live radio program,
we would call this breaking news. But I think in
a podcast nothing can be breaking news, right because anybody's
got to hear it long after it was breaking. Anyway,
this story has just come down, and I want to
comment on a briefly. I don't have the opportunity to
dive into everything about it because it just happened, but
(00:44):
I do want to address the story. A Wakashaw County
Circuit judge, in a lawsuit that was filed many many
months ago today, did rule that the Wisconsin Election Commission
must verify the legal citizenship status of all Wisconsin registered voters.
That's a big deal. Now, before you go too far
(01:06):
on it, though it's a circuit judge, All lawsuits in
Wisconsin start in circuit court. Every county has a circuit court.
Above the circuit court is the state Court of Appeals.
There's several districts to that, and then the state Supreme Court.
I do not believe that this ruling will stand up
on appeal. The reason I don't believe it is I
just don't believe that the leftists Wisconsin Supreme Court will
(01:26):
not overturn it. I don't believe that the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
controlled by leftists, is going to do what is ever
in the political interests of the Democrats. They've made that clear. Nonetheless,
in the short term, this is a victory. The ruling
by Judge Maxwell does state that before the next election,
which would be the spring primary February eighteenth, the Wisconsin
(01:48):
Election Commission has to verify citizenship. Doesn't say how they
have to do it, but they have to do it.
Everyone knows that there are people who are non citizens
registered to vote in Wisconsin. What we don't know is
how many you know that school superintendent in Iowa with
(02:09):
the criminal record who not only is not a citizen,
but an illegal immigrant and everything else he was voting.
He voted in multiple states before he got to Iowa.
Some people think that this issue pertains solely to illegal immigration,
no legal immigrants, any nons visitors. In order to vote
in America, you've got to be a citizen. We don't
(02:31):
do anything to verify citizenship. When people register to vote,
you got to show a bunch of things, but you
never have to show that you're actually a citizen. So
how you go back and retroactively do it, I don't know.
In any event, we need to clean up our voter
rules by, among other things, getting non citizens off the ballot.
(02:52):
So this is a good ruling today, I am not
confident it will stand up on appeal, not because the
ruling isn't correct, but because we voters in Wisconsin can't
get conservatives to show up in voting Supreme Court elections
in the spring, and the lefties control the state Supreme Court.
All Right, more on that maybe on Wednesday's podcast. As
that story was just developing, let's roll into the content
(03:14):
that we had planned for today's program. I want to
start with this, Paul. By the way, do not remind
me that I need to do the spot. I'm in
complete control of things today. I know that I'm going
to be doing the spot. Don't remind me, unless, of course,
it becomes a parent that I've forgotten. Anyway. One of
(03:35):
the things that's becoming more common almost I didn't say entirely,
almost entirely from the left is just lie to get
a governmental decision that you want li An obvious example
was the Hunter Biden laptop was not real. It was
Russia collusion. A bunch of national security experts signed that
(03:57):
they it was a total lie. It was aimed at
getting Joe Biden elected president and not allowing this disclosure,
which of course led to all the other things that
we found out about the corruption and the Biden crime
family to influence the twenty twenty election. That's just one example,
but it's all over the place. I'm not doing it
right now. This is kind of teasing content within the podcast.
(04:21):
You can, I suppose, scroll ahead and try to search
it out, but I got to bury it in the
middle of the podcast in there. I want to tell
you about that, but I want you to hold that
thought as we think through the entire podcast, because almost
every issue that we have right now requires analysis with
an independent mind rather than simply accepting what you're told.
(04:42):
Sometimes what you're told is true. You know, it would
be a good example of sometime what you're told is
true whenever I'm telling it. The first thing I want
to address is there's a term out there called flipping
the script. Whenever a term got starts getting used too much.
(05:05):
I don't like it, but in this case it works.
It has to do with how the Trump administration is
flipping the script on the government shutdown. We'll get to
that momentarily. Here you Line moves fast so your business
doesn't miss abeat. From shipping and industrial supplies to office furniture,
You Line offers a wide range of products that are
in stock, ready to ship the same day if you
(05:25):
order by six pm, even the big stuff. You Line's
expert customer service team is available twenty four to seven
to answer your questions, help you quickly and easily place
an order, or assist with any other business needs. Visit
you line dot com. As long as there have been
government shutdowns, and these government shutdowns occur every six months
(05:49):
to two years, depending we don't have federal budgets in
the United States anymore, we pass these continuing resolutions to
keep funding the government for three months, six months, nine months,
to hope whatever it is. And whenever you get to
the deadline, we have these debates should we continue to
fund the government again. Sometimes it involves raising the debt limit.
In other cases, he just means reappropriating money that now expires.
(06:16):
I actually don't remember when this started. It just seems
to me as a kid, this was never an issue
that both political parts. I don't know it's because we
passed budgets then that both political parties never let the
government shut down. I don't know when it started, but
it's been decades and as long as it's gone on,
there's been one thing that's just true. The Republicans get
the blame. It doesn't matter who the president is, who
(06:37):
the Congress is, the Republicans always get the blame. Trump
is flipping the script on this. One of the things
about PROMP that he does not get credit for from
the kind of establishment conservative media. Of course he never
opened the left, but even the establishment conservative media, I mean,
(06:59):
you know, like National Review, Wall Street General Editorial Page,
which is barely conservative anymore, is their extraordinary ability to communicate.
The only Republican that I thought this had this type
of ability to communicate was Reagan. You know, Reagan had
(07:21):
Michael Deaver and others in which their job was to
do like image making and communication, et cetera. When I
was in Illinois they had a governor down there is
a Republican. This is before liberals. He was, as Republicans go,
kind of a liberal Republican. But Jim Thompson he was
great at that too, but almost no others. They're just
(07:42):
terrible at it. And in part there's you're the visiting team.
It's not home field advantage. The media is the mouthpiece
for communication, so everything you'd go through you do go through,
goes through them. So it is more difficult if you're
a Republican to communicate. I grant you that. So here
we have this thing I'm going to shut down because
(08:06):
in the Senate you need to get sixty votes to
pass a bill, and the reason for that is they
still have the filibuster rule. To end debate, you need
sixty votes. The Republicans narrowly control the House, narrowly control
the Senate, but in the Senate you need to have
a larger majority than normal in order to pass legislation.
(08:27):
The Republicans passed the bill to it just says we're
going to keep funding the government the same way the
last document did. The Democrats, of course, want to put
in all these things the Democrats believe in. There's not
an agreement. The Republicans didn't cave the Democrats won't pass
the clean spending bills. So here we are, and as
I say, normally, this means the Republicans get the blame.
(08:51):
Trump and his people are just better at this. And
we're going to use an example one of the things
that Trump and his people and I say his people,
that's a lot of them, because they're all part of
the same communication here in Caroline Lovett, the White House
Press Secretary, is an example of this, and we're going
to hear from her in a minute. One of the
things that the Democrats put in their version is using
(09:17):
Medicaid funds to provide healthcare for illegal limits. It's right
in there. So Caroline Levett was asked in the White
House press room last week and challenged on this notion
that that's what the Democrats are trying to do. We're
(09:40):
going to play a cut of about three minutes here.
You're going to hear the question, which is put in
an antagonistic fashion to her, and I want you to
listen to how well she explains the administration position. I
don't know if I'll stop and interjecting them in the
meaning republic spokes people just generally are not this good.
(10:06):
Let's listen to it. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
At the top of the briefing, you made a statement
about that the Democrats are interested in giving health care
to illegal immigrants.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Yes, they are.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
US law already prohibits that. It's a nineteen ninety six
law saying that they cannot give unauthorized immigrants any federally
subsidized healthcare coverage through Medicaid, the Affordable Care or the
Children's Health Insurance Program. There seems to be a disconnect
in the message.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Are you declined? Are you denying that Medicaid money has
never gone to illegal aliens in the United States of
America on anything?
Speaker 3 (10:41):
I'm asking you if you can explain the disconnecting the message, I.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Most certainly can. The Democrats proposal their continuing Resolution, Let
me just reiterate the Republican's continuing Resolution was a clean
continuing resolution. There was no partisan politics injected into it.
There were no conservative wish lists injected to it. What
the report Republicans want and still want to this very second,
is a clean continuing resolution to fund the United States government.
(11:06):
What did the Democrats want in their continuing resolution? They
inserted a provision to undo a provision in the Work
in Families Tax cut the One Big Beautiful Bill that
ended taxpayer funded healthcare illegal benefits for legal aliens. Democrats
proposal would require Medicaid to pay more for emergency care
provided to illegal aliens than Medicaid does for American patients
(11:29):
who are disabled, elderly, or children. And this bill would
have also allowed California to continue a gimmick that funds
its Medicaid for illegals program. Those are things that we ended.
The Trump administration ended with the passage and the signage
of the One Big Beautiful Bill. And it is an
undisputed fact, a fact that under the Biden administration, illegal
aliens were absolutely receiving taxpayer funded health care benefits. In fact,
(11:54):
in fiscal year twenty twenty four, Medicaid costs for emergency
services for legal immigrants sky I rocketed by one hundred
and forty two percent from the previous year to nine
point one billion dollars. That's nine point one billion taxpayer
dollars that were going to emergency services for illegals. Between
President Trump's last full fiscal year under his first administration
(12:16):
in Joe Biden's last full fiscal year, Medicaid spending on
emergency services for illegal immigrants nearly tripled. There was an
increase of one hundred and ninety six percent between twenty
twenty and twenty twenty four. And I have a chart
here for you, and I'm more than happy to email
it to you. I'd also like to add, because some
were asking dishonest questions yesterday about emergency rooms in Southern California.
(12:38):
According to healthcare professionals, in twenty twenty three, under the
Biden administration, Southern California's quote, entire healthcare system was being
bombarded with illegal immigrants, enforcing American patients to endure longer
wait times. In Denver, Colorado, the CEO of Denver Health
stated that eight thousand illegal immigrants made twenty thousand visits
(12:59):
to the city's health system in twenty twenty three, leaving
an uncompensated bill totaling over ten million dollars. So when
a legal alien goes to the emergency room, who's paying
for it? The American taxpayer. The main safety net hospital
in Denver had to turn away patients due to the
massive influx of illegal immigrants into the community. And you see,
health hospitals in twenty twenty four reported their system was
(13:22):
under stress from an increasing number of migrants as a result.
According to the head of emergency departments and urgent cares
across the hospital system, quote, access is impeded for everyone.
These are healthcare professionals who dealt with this directly, and
there's a lot more where that came from. It is
an undisputed fact that Democrats want to give taxpayer funded
healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants, period.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
A.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
First of all, my career is to explain things and
make a case. That's what I do, so I know
who's good at doing what I do. That was very good.
She not only knocked down the leftist talking point, she
backed it a point by point by point by point
(14:08):
by point in a clear and understandable fashion. Now, on
this issue of shutting down the government, that whole provision
that the Democrats put in US Medicaid funding to provide
health care for illegal immigrants, there's a term for that.
It's called a poison pill. Kind of comes from the
business world. This attempts to stop hostile takeovers and so on.
(14:29):
The poison pill is inserting a provision that the other
side can't accept. You know, they can't accept it. Why
would the Democrats put that in the government funding bill.
The only reason they put it in is that they
wanted the Republicans to shut down the guvernment. If the
Republicans had agreed to that, there would have been a
revolt from everyone in mega in this country. Can you
(14:50):
imagine if Ron Johnson voted for that, Glenn Grothman, etc.
There's no way they knew the Republicans wouldn't accept it,
and they knew the trumpn't accept it, But they put
it in because they wanted this shutdown to occur. Because
they just say there's a shutdown. They'll blame the Democrats,
they'll blame the Republicans, they'll blame Trump. But you see that,
(15:12):
first of all, of all the things that the Democrats
picked out, Caroline chooses and the White House has chosen
the most obnoxious of the provisions and then lays out
the case. You can run around and try to claim
Trump lies, Trump lies, Trump lies, Trump lies. Everything Caroline
said there she is able to back up, and everyone
knows that it's true. Everyone knows there are illegal immigrants
(15:33):
that are collecting on Medicaid funds right now. Now. A
second point that I want to make is just again,
part of you can say, well, why don't Republicans do
this all the time. Here's the answer. I'll use a
football analogy. Why doesn't every quarterback? So why didn't every
quarterback throw as many hail Mary's as Aaron Rodgers talent
(15:56):
comes into this. Not everybody is as good at this
as Caroline Levitt. Trump recognized it and gave her that job.
Can you imagine just put the pre you know, I've
always said in the past that if you take a
new job, you always want to replace somebody who was
just terrible at it. You know, you've got the very
(16:17):
very bottom of you. Then you know where do you
can you go but up? The immediate predecessor of her
was KJP working for Joe Biden, who couldn't get her,
who couldn't work her way through a heads or tails
type of question. Anyway, on where we are on the
government shutdown over the weekend, Kevin Hassett, one of Trump's
economic advisors, says the layoffs will start to go out soon.
(16:42):
Layoff notices will start to go off soon. Again, a
very good tactic. They're attempting to put the pressure from
government workers onto the Democrats. And again he says soon.
What does soon mean? Well, that's key. He's making it
open ended. He's giving the opportunity the Democrats an opportunity
(17:03):
to cave in here on this next here's a text
from Eric Dhardy left wing federal bureaucrats are fury. Oh,
before I get to that, I want to make this point.
When the government is shut down in the semi capacity
that it is right now, some essential services are running,
(17:24):
the ones that you most notice, but other things are
shut down. Who's more affected by this by political party?
Well let's start with me, Paul. Have you been affected
at all by the shutdown? Not yet, not at all.
I'm not saying that you won't be. I don't know
every single agency. I know that like replacement Medicare cards
(17:47):
and stuff like that are delayed. It can happen. But
the biggest people affected by the government shutdown are the
federal workers who don't get a paycheck. Now, I think
they're not that badly affected because they all know that
when these things end, they get their pay retroactive to
all of the time that they missed and they got
to sit in their butt in the meantime. But this
(18:09):
time around, Trump is threatening layoffs where you won't come
back all right, who what political party do? Most federal
government workers vote for the Democrats. So again I'm not
saying there are no Republican federal workers. I'm saying most
of them are not Republicans. So if you're going to
(18:31):
have a situation here, if the Democrats want to play
with this fire, whose people are going to be burned?
If there is a burning Again, Fortunately, when we shut
down the government, we're not shutting down TSA, We're not
shutting down air traffic controls, so the planes keep flying
and so on. The military is continuing to go, the
National Guard is continuing to go. The postal service is
quasi independent of the government, so the mail keeps getting
(18:53):
et cetera. The benefit checks like Social Security and so on,
they continue to flow and so on. In the meantime,
getting back to the effectiveness that Trump and his people,
this is just I just can't fathom w Bush doing this,
and for that matter, any other Republican. You know how
(19:15):
if you work for a company, or sometimes you do
it voluntarily and sometimes it's automated. If you're out of
the office for like a week on an email that
when you send an email to someone, they'll get a
kickback message on there saying I'm out of the office
in a tentheil, so forth and so on. You've seen
those things, right, do you put those up on your
(19:35):
own email? You used to when you stop. I've never
once done such a thing. I mean, what do I
care if people send me an email and I don't
see it for five anyway? All right, all these federal
workers that are out of the office, this is just beautiful.
This is, as I say, you wonder why some of
us just love Trump. This is so beautiful. The Trump
(19:59):
administer has put a kickback on all the emails of
all the federal employees who are shut down because of
the government shutdown. This is what the message reads, thank
you for contacting me. Now again, let's suppose I'm just
sending this to somebody who works for HUT or something
like that. Thank you for contacting me. Democratic senators are
(20:22):
blocking passage of HR fifty three seventy one, which has
led to elapse and appropriations. So they, yeah, it's not
all of them. It's an automated thing. So what's happened
is some of the lefty employees have tried to manually
(20:42):
change the message, but they are not able to do
so because they've set it up that this you know,
it's not their email, it's the government's email. The Fed
Trump runs whatever system the government has for government employees
on their email thing. So anybody who emails a federal
employee who is shut down right now gets a message
that the devil that's a I got, like just fury.
(21:03):
By the way, the lefties are furious over this. This
is the crap they've done forever. And as I've explained
to you guys a million times, the lefties condition out
of they can't take it. It's Paul. He's not only
a step ahead of everybody, he fights in a way
of effectiveness that is not the norm for Republican politicians.
(21:26):
And again I'll use the term flip the script because
I've used it several times here it is appropriate. This
is a related issue. These memes prompted this meme, and
a meme is like it's a fake thing that you
create and put on the internet, showing the two Democratic
(21:49):
congressional leaders that Kim Jeffries, the House Democratic Leader and
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, and the first one
had Schumer saying a bunch of ridiculous things about why
nobody's voting for Democrats anymore, which is why they're reaching
out to illegal immigrants. And he and Jeffries both have
some barros on and Jefferies is strumming a guitar and
(22:12):
you're hearing mariachi music. This has been viewed by like
everybody on the planet. So the lefties say it's racist,
it's racist, it's racist, it's racist. And Trump doubles down
by putting out another one. And it shows like four
different Trumps wearing wearing like hats behind him, playing the
guitar and so on, singing the mariachi music, turning trumpet
(22:34):
of the mariachi band behind them. In other words, rather
than oh, I'm sorry for offending you for putting this thing,
they doubled down. Here's a comment on CNN from Caitlyn Collins.
You all know who she is. She's the only one
anybody knows him. Everybody else Scott Jennings, the token host Conservatives,
(22:55):
Caitlyn Collins is the She's the only left anybody can
name who works over there anymore. She seems to do
everything that they have. She's like their White House correspondent.
She's on a show, and so so on. Calen Collins
commenting on this phenomenon of Trump not backing down on
the memes, but in fact doubling down and putting on
another one quote. They simply don't care about the criticism.
(23:18):
That's it. This has been the key forever, and I've
just tried to lecture Republicans on this forever and ever
and ever. Stop sucking up to the news media. You
will never get their approval. And that is the answer.
And it's one of the whole flips that we've seen
(23:39):
in cancel culture and so on, where it isn't hitting
people on the right anywhere near as much as it
did in the past because we're simply ignoring their crap.
Who you're offended by it? So what you're offended? What
do we care? It's funny and it was an effective
way of communicating, and it's the kind of thing you
(24:00):
guys have been doing forever. The only difference between the
attempts to use humor to mock Republicans and the attempts
to use human to mock Democrats is that the Republican
attempts tend to be funny, whereas the Democrat at it's
so snad and so snarly. So Whoopy Goldberg and Joy
(24:21):
behar Ish. You know, they're both comedians. That's what their
careers were. Behart kind of and Whoopee was a comic
actress and she didn't stand up you. They're not funny.
It's just a yeah. Like I said this, Caitlyn Collins saying, well,
and I'm sure that again, this is a frustrating thing
for the We'll just claim that it's racist. They did
and what a Trump do? Came out and did another one.
(24:49):
I want to turn my attention to the future. The
Supreme Court is back. The Supreme Court has sessions. This
is the fall session. There are a number of major
cases here. Clearly Trump is testing the limits of his authority.
(25:11):
I'm all for it. Why not if he goes to
a level that the Supreme Court says that the Constitution
doesn't allow him to go, will.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
So be it.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
But the only way you know what the limit is
is for the Supreme Court to say what the limit is.
That's their role. It's, by the way, their only rule.
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the
Constitution in cases that come before it. And there are
some huge cases that are going to determine the future
not only of Trump's presidency and how he governs, but
of the nation. The Epic Times put together a list,
(25:45):
and I don't have time to walk through every one
of the issues. I'm just going to give you a
bullet point of them. The Trump tariffs. We've had all
these lower court rulings block this, take this, and so on.
There's not yet been a definitive ruling as to whether
or not Trump has the authority to unil O I
really compose these tariffs. And when I say unilaterally, do
it without the approch of the Congress. It's just the
(26:06):
Constitution hasn't said you can interpret it one way or another.
The Supreme Court will rule and whether or not Trump
can impose these tariffs. Obviously, if they rule against him,
it means most of the tariffs are gone too. Removal
of high level bureaucrats. You have all these federal agencies
that are not directly part of the administration. What's directly
(26:26):
the White House present I just mentioned Caroline Love at
the White House Press Secutor. She's directly part of the administration.
The Treasury Secretary of BESSI, he's directly a part of
the administration. What about all of these agency heads that
have terms of appointment? Can Trump just remove them? Again,
it's unclear. The Constitution sets aside the role of the president,
(26:50):
but it doesn't dot every i and cross every tea
about every specific instance, because some you wouldn't anticipate. The
Supreme Court is a case, will have a case in which, again,
lower courts have ruled on this. Some are ruled one ways,
others have ruled an other than the stays issued and
sometimes it's allowed in the meantime, but there hasn't been
a definitive ruling that one is coming. In this term
(27:11):
girls athletics, this is one of the big ones. President
Trump has threatened to take away federal funding from states
that allow males to continue to participate in girls athletics.
The issue seems to have come to an end at
the NCAA level college sports, where there's been generally compliance,
(27:34):
but in many state high school associations they're refusing to
follow the Trump dictum. In addition to that, in other states,
the Republican legislatures and governors in those states have banned themselves.
Can they There's never been a ruling from the Supreme
Court on this and why would there have been. The
founding fathers could not imagine we would live in a
(27:56):
world in which there's thousands of guys running around pretending
to be girls. There will be a ruling on that
can a person self identify their gender? And can the
federal government withhold funding from states if they allow that
to occur. I would hope that the Supreme Court would
affirm that one's gender and one's sex are the same,
(28:21):
and restrictions in participation at certain events because of these
are allowable, and I would claim fear to women. Pregnancy
centers donor lists another case? Can pregnancy centers keep their
donors lists confidential? Confidential? Obviously some of the donors, and
(28:49):
a pregnancy center is a facility that helps all women
who perhaps they were considering having an abortion and they
decide to carry the baby to term. There are a
couple of very good ones here in I know of too.
There may be more in southeastern Wisconsin. Many of the
donors to these organizations don't want to be outed because
of the hate directed at them from the pro abortion crowd.
(29:12):
Do they have a right to keep their individual donors confidential?
They're not political organizations. They're charities that perform medical services.
There have been states that have issued edicts ordering these
pregnancy centers to lay out their donors' names. Supreme Court
rule on whether or not that's legal. Ban on conversion
therapy in some states. This is not a federal case,
(29:34):
but it comes from some states. In some states, conversion
therapy has been banned. Conversion therapy is let's imagine I'm
a guy and I think I'm gay, like a fourteen
year old kid. Medical experts can counsel you to talk
(29:55):
you through that. No, no, no, maybe you're not. Some states
have banned Can you ban a counselor from trying to
talk a kid out of thinking that he or she
is gay? I would argue that you can't do that,
that the parents have a free speech right to provide
(30:17):
this type of counseling if they think that their kid
is simply messed up. In the end, the kid can
reject the counseling. That's a case in front of the
Supreme Court. Next, the Hawaii gun law. It's hard to
say which states have the most restrictive gun laws, but
Hawaii's got to be right there at the top of
the list. I mean, I've been to Hawaii a couple
(30:39):
of times on our cruise, but you can't like take
the guns on the plane. And it wasn't like I
was going to go into a gun store in Hawaii.
This is one that would not affect me. But of
course a Supreme Court ruling is what precedent setting Hawaii law.
States that have concealed Carrie permit holders want to take
(31:00):
guns onto private property, including stores, restaurants, and hotels, they
need permission, either verbally or through a side no. The
way the law works in most states is if you
want to tell somebody. For instance, many buildings will say
you can't bring a gun in here. The courts have
allowed that. In Hawaii, you have to go the other way.
You have to ask permission before you go in. In
(31:22):
other words, rather than require the store to put up
aside it. I mean, anytime you went into a building,
you'd have to ask the building can I bring my
gun or my knife or my maze or whatever it
is that's in there. The Supreme Court will rule on
whether or not that is a violation of gun rights.
Death penalty and IQ this is another big one. Should
(31:44):
one's IQ affect whether or not they can get the
death penalty? What do you think. Paul said, absolutely not.
In some states the death penalty cannot be applied to
people whose IQ is below a certain level. Now I
contend your IQ doesn't affect your moral compass. At some level,
(32:07):
people may simply be the old term as vegetable. They
may not be able to fathom anything. And then there's
also insanity. But insanity is not the same as IQ.
You can be extremely intelligent and be mentally insane. I
don't think a lack of intelligence makes one less culpable
(32:28):
for committing a murder. This is not a ruling on
whether or not we should have the death penalty. It's
a ruling on whether or not you can get out
of the death penalty because your IQ is low. The
Supreme Court has never addressed it. That's up in this
term as well. There's another campaign spending rule, and I
won't get into the dictims of all of this, but
the biggest campaign spending rule of Supreme Court ever turned
(32:48):
down was thought to be good for the Republicans at
the time, and it turned out to be a god
send for the Democrats Citizens United because the Democrats raised
way more money from third party groups than do Republicans.
Is another ruling on campaign spending coming up. Defense contractor liability. Again,
I won't go into that in great detail, but it
has to do with companies that are contractors to the
(33:09):
Department of Defense. Can they then be held liable for
what has done with their equipment after it's turned over
to the military. There's a number of other cases involving
Trump as well. My point is is that this term
of the Supreme Court against only a month, We're going
to get rulings on all of these things. It's going
to be enormous. Let me get to the Loop Puncher.
You heard about the Loop Puncher. You have not the
(33:33):
story will be a benefit twenty Cubs fans that are
in town for the game. There's somebody in Chicago. There
may be more than one of them, but there's one guy.
They know for sure because there's video evidence of him.
He's called the Loop Puncher, but downtown Chicago was called
the loop. He walks up to people and punches him
in the face in many cases women. He keeps doing
(33:55):
it and he gets arrested. Now, for those of you
that are naive as to what's going on in liberal
states in the United States, you may be wondering how
is he able to keep doing it if he keeps
getting arrested, And the answer is, Illinois passed cashless bail.
You don't have to put up cash to bail out.
And because his cases drag on forever and ever and ever,
(34:18):
they arrest him and he comes, gets out and then
punches somebody in the face. Again. It just shows you
how idiotic no cash bail is. By the way, we
will have cashless bail in Wisconsin if the Democrats fit
the state legislature next year, which many people think they
will do with the new maps that are in place,
it will be one of the first things that they do.
(34:38):
And I guarantee you the left of Supreme Court will
approve of it. So the problem that we have now,
if judge's not setting high enough bail in Wisconsin, you'll
get to where we are in Illinois. But there's just
no bail. There are certain crimes in which they don't
set a bail, like murder, but other than that, people
don't have to put up any cash, and it's just
fueling the crime problem. There's now a case here of
(35:00):
some young men confronting the loop puncher. What can they do?
They literally caught him. Here he is, and the police
are in the position of, okay, we can take him
back into custody, and he's going to be released as
soon as he sees the judge the following morning, because
(35:20):
you don't have cash bail in the state of Illinois.
And now let me get to this story. You may
have noticed that healthcare premiums for those of you that
are signing up in your open enrollment periods and so on,
and all of them, the ones for governments, there's three
types of Almost everybody is in one of three cat
(35:42):
well four, I guess. The three big ones are Obamacare,
private employer provided health insurance, and Medicare. All of them
are coming into the open enrollment periods right now. And
you may have noticed, if you're already started to look
into this, or if you've already gotten the notice from
the state of the company that you're in and so on,
(36:04):
the rates are exploding. They're going way, way, way up.
It's driven by Obamacare. And for the people under Obamacare,
their premiums are exploding. We're talking in some states twenty
to fifty percent. Why when Obamacare was passed, which is
now nearly a decade ago, they put in place a
(36:25):
series of tax credits for the people covered by Obamacare.
What's a tax credit? People confuse credits and deductions. A
credit is like cash. He means you just get it.
You get it to the filing of your taxes. And
the credit was aimed directly. You're only eligible if you're
on Obamacare. So the people who had Obamacare were getting
(36:46):
a huge chunk of cash to pay for their portion
of Obamacare. You followed me on this. These credits expire.
Now you may wonder why did the Democrats when they
passed Obamacare have these credits expire. You have no capability
of understanding this because you just not understand how Democrats think.
(37:08):
Why would they have them expire? No, no, no, they
want them to expire because they think that if Republicans
try not to extend the credits, they can plan and
they were planning this all they think ahead. So now
the Republicans have to decide whether or not to extend
these credits. In other words, spend a fortune when you
(37:30):
provide these credits. That's money straight out of the federal
but government budget makes the deficit explode even more. Or
do they allow them to expire the problem with Obamacare,
as we said at the time, is that it was
a pyramids game, that there was no way you could
ever have this thing pay for itself. You can't simply
put all of these people that are above the level
of Medicaid health care for poor people in other words,
(37:53):
the lower income working poor, the lower income working I
shouldn't say poor, because not everybody in Obamacare is poor,
but they're like below the middle of the middle class,
and then give them this subsidized healthcare without eventually having
the whole system financially topples. So what is happening now
(38:15):
is private health care insurance is going up because of
the losses that they're taking on Obamacare. They have to
be able to make ends meet. And secondly, healthcare costs
of course generally going up. And third the ending of
these credits, which were in the many many zeros in
terms of the of the number here, are to expire.
(38:36):
It will be an interesting test of not only the
Republicans but Trump whether or not they want them to continue.
My guess is that they will continue the credits in
order to mitigate against the massive increase in costs under Obamacare,
but they'll still get the like you'll still still get
the blame anyway. The problem with Obamacare constantly going up
(38:58):
is that it is Obamacare, and the way that it
was set up was unlike what Obama said, to take
away your ability to choose your doctor, to limit the
ability to get certain kinds of treatments, all the craft
that was put in there, and the fact that there
was no way financially to make it pay for itself.
Thus that what an incredibly comprehensive first segment? What wasn't it?
(39:25):
By the way, one of the most effective ways of
saying something is to say you're not going to say it.
You follow that you did. What did I just say?
What does that mean? I? Well, I just said, well,
I meant did you get that? I didn't mean could
you repeat it? I meant did you understand the point
(39:47):
of it? You think so, well, then explain it.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
No.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
The opposite, one of the most effective ways of saying
something is to say that you're not going to say it.
I didn't say not. I said to not say it.
I'm going to give you an example of that. I
today am not going to say anything about the fact
that in our football contest, I'm five and one. Do
you not understand what that who's saying that I'm not right?
(40:15):
This is the Mark Belling podcast. This is the Mark
Belling podcast. Now here's an interesting story. There are certain
products that are out there that aren't worth it, and
when you decide if something is worth it, you're it's
not the same answer for everyone else. For example, is
(40:40):
a cruise worth it? Well, it depends how long is
the cruise, what cruise line are you going on, what
are your destinations, what's the cost, what's your means? And
mostly do you want to do it more than the
cost hit that you will have to take? Any number
(41:02):
of things would work like that. So somebody may say, I,
for example, don't think going to Starbucks is worth it.
I just don't not understand. I'm paying eleven dollars for
a frappuccino, this and that, and another six dollars for
a dry scone. I don't get it, and I've never
got it. I said, well, you could afford to go.
I know I could afford to go there, but I
(41:23):
don't think it's worth it. If I'm in an airport
or something else and there's no other alternative, we'll go
to Starbucks. But usually even in the airport. I'll look
for like the non Starbucks down the thing to buy
the coffee, or if I'm the Delta sky Club, they
give it to you for free there. If I'm not
flying Delta, I think or just okay, I'm not going
to have the coffee. I'll wait to get anyway. That's
(41:45):
an example of that. Here's another example. Almost everybody who
is in the business of advising people what to spend
money on, say flood insurance is not worth it. Why
because hardly anybody who does not live in a floodplain
(42:09):
ever collects on it. It's very expensive relatively speaking, it's very
expensive because the insurance companies have to price it at
a level to cover the hit that they take if
there is flooding. Now, it's controversial in areas that are
prone to flooding because the rates there are extremely high
Florida and so on. But now let's take a situation
(42:32):
like Wisconsin, especially if you don't live along a river
or something like that. Is flood insurance worth it? Almost
anybody would tell you, no, what is it. You're paying
a fortune over the years for doing something for which
you'll hardly how many people have flooding? Hardly anybody except
(42:52):
what if you do. And we obviously had a big
rainstorm here in southeastern Wisconsin a couple of months ago,
and there are parts of the area the turk. It
was one of those storms in which the rain totals
were all over the map, but they were high many people.
A big area was the southern half of Milwaukee County,
but there are others were hard hit. And in many
(43:15):
instances the flooding was such that the some pumps were
not able to keep up. Some pump is trying to
pump the water out from underneath your building and pump
it out of the air faster than it can get in.
And in some cases the water is just working faster
some pumps. In other cases maybe the some pump doesn't work.
But usually it's just the some pump can't keep up
because they're not created for all of this water. There's
(43:37):
also what do you call those things flood tiles? Is
that it drain toils? Is that it for sure? It's
like it's just that it's under the floor, say, of
your basement. It's an attempt to This is a real
technical but stop up and stop the water from getting in.
Most people aren't going to encounter. You have a basement,
(43:58):
don't you Did you get any flooding from this recent storm?
Did not well, but some people did. There's a story
in JS online today about some people who are facing
massive hardship because they didn't have flood insurance. One woman
here sixty thousand dollars in coverage. The story also points
out that some people took you know, and with regard
(44:18):
to getting this, it's usually a rider on your homeowner's insurance.
You get homeowners insurance, and they do you want to
pay extra for this and this and this and this
and this and this. One of the cheapest riders is
some pump insurance. You probably don't even know if you
have this, And this is part of the problem. Most
people when they get their insurance, they don't even know
what they saw. Do you know you don't have it,
(44:41):
or you don't know if you have it, positive you
don't have it. The some pump insurance is not flood insurance,
but some people think it is. The some pump insurance
is if your some pump breaks. It's not if the
some pump can't keep up. It's if you get the
flooding because the some pump broke. Well, many people sign
up for the According to the story and Jazz Online,
(45:01):
they sign up for the SOMEU pump insurance and they
think that they're getting a They think that they're getting
flood insurance. And the story also points out the insurance
salespeople don't really push flood insurance because the insurance companies
are offering it because they have to. The insurance companies
don't make it much either, because it's unpredictable. One massive flood,
(45:21):
they can take a big hit pan out all of
these claims. It's just an interesting story because it's one
of those deals in which you're paying for something that's
a bad deal in order to stop the slim chance
of being hammered. There's lots of things like that in life,
(45:47):
where you're going through a whole lot of trouble to
pre you know, on the off chance something bad would
happen to you. I would also say it's like the
second end smoke thing. Very few people die of second
d smoke. They can bring up all this stuff that
your chance is, well, yeah, your chances are greater if
you're living with a smoker than if they're not, but
it's still not very likely to kill you. Okay, throwing
the guy out of the house and telling me he
can't smoke because of your fear of the second hand smoke.
(46:09):
Is it worth breaking up a marriage and so on? Again,
it all depends on you know, your own take on
these things. I don't think that there's a governmental response here.
People want flood insurance, They can buy flood insurance. I know,
living a high rise before I did, I never took
(46:32):
it at a basement in the last place, I didn't
take flood insurance. What am I going to get? A flooded?
And often when you're flooded, the cost isn't great. Sometimes
it's just letting the water clean out, you rip out
the carpeting and so on. But in other cases the
damage is massive, unfortunate. At least the people who tend
(46:55):
not to take flood insurance are lower income people because
you know, if you're really, really rich, well you could
afford it, and those are the people that our hardest
hit by this. If there's a teaching moment in this,
you have to understand that your homeowner's policy doesn't cover everything,
but almost all the things it doesn't cover. You can
(47:19):
buy a rider to put it on, and you need
to be aware of this. You say, well, that's probably not. Yeah,
you're likely not to be hit by lightning either. By
the way, that's a thing in which you just changed
our entire attitudes. All these football games that they stop
because there's lightning in the area, Paul, that's a new
thing prior to nineteen. I don't know what it was.
(47:39):
I was at a college football game on the cross
where there was lightning going. They didn't clear the stadium
because what are the chances it's gonna hit you here?
And we just always that was always the example you're
likely to have this than being hit by lightning, and
hit by lightning was like one of the most remote
things that's possible. The difference, of course, is golf. As
long as I can remember, you had to come off
the golf course and there was lighting. You're holding a metal,
(48:02):
lightning ritting your hand in your wide open spaces, you're
much greater. It's like you have a lightning rode out
in the field when you're holding the golf club. But
they didn't do that because the chances of an individuals Okay,
you play the game, what are the chances? But no, well,
safety first, it's the same thing with regard to the
flood insurance we're leaning over and to take this safety
safety safety, make sure something bad that even the possibility
(48:24):
of his remote this story is big Berry Wise, I
know you're thinking very white, Remember very remember that he thought,
I said, remember very white. I claim the deepest voice
in the history of voices. Yeah, and you just I
don't know if it's because he only sang like I
was gonna say love songs. It's a different term for it.
(48:46):
It's actually bleep songs. Very I don't know if we
associate deep voices with sexiness because very white, or if
just because the guy with the deepest voice sang like
sexy songs. I don't know if they like if I
just walk deep, would that be sexy? Or do we
just assume they're talking deep and sexy because Barry White
would say very it says not. However, about very white.
(49:09):
I just throw it in because I'm an incredibly funny
and humorous guy. Somebody else doing a podcast, They're going
to do a very white story without going on for
ninety seconds, so totally waste the time of a very
white plus. You know, guys, a deep voices tend to
be big guys. Right. I don't know why that he is.
It doesn't seem to like they would go together. Yeah,
(49:31):
just but why would your side? That's always surprised, you know,
in radio there's a lot of deep voice, because it's
always surprising when I'll see a guy with a deep voice,
especially back in the day when you never saw the
picture of the person in radio and it was always
a little skinny ruddy. I'm thinking of one guy. I've
talked about it in the past, the guy. He did.
It was country music station that I worked at. The
(49:51):
guy drank the entire time he was on the air
and smoked the entire time he was on the air.
You were allowed to smoke, and by the way, in
that era, everyone in radio except me smoke. You got
in right when smoking stopped being a requirement for working
in radio, but you were never allowed to drink. The
guy would he put. He drank, of course, vodka, which
(50:13):
doesn't have a real odor to it, and he'd put
it in some of it like a water bottle or something,
and hammered at the entire four hours that he was
He was the most effect I couldn't. You would not
have known had I not known, you would. He never
slurred his speech, but the combination should have constantly drinking
and smoking. You're just a skinny runt of a guy, Paul.
(50:34):
His voice was so deep. I mean, should I get
to Barry Weiss here or should I keep going on
on these completely? Barry Weiss used to work for the
New York Times. She's not a conservative. I describe her
as a moderate. She was at the Times a brilliant
(50:54):
journalist and one of the few that asked questions that
were difficult for the left. She was not politically correct.
She wrote a couple of opinion pieces challenging conventional wisdom
of the left, and they forced her out. She was
(51:15):
like in terms of journalism or of the New York Times,
she was a superstar. The staff of the New York
Times simply could not abide a prominent voice on the
paper that was not from the far left. So, of
course getting fired for Barry Weiss, forced out is the
better term. It's the best thing that could ever have
happened to her. She moved into the alternative media world
(51:35):
and she's become very, very huge. She's got a podcast,
but she also started a news organization. For those of
you that follow a lot of news sources online, the
free press, very big so and if you've ever heard
her talk, she's just she's one of the few people
that's in the field of journalism which I entered, you know,
(51:57):
half a century ago, that still has journalistic integrity, willing
to pursue stories without regard to who likes the outcome
where she was chasing. It's just a high quality person
and a strong reporter. Paramount, as you know, recently bought CBS.
Paramount's subsidiary, Skideans. Skuidance is run by I keep forgetting
(52:21):
his name. He's Larry Ellison's son. Larry Ellison is the
second richest guy in the world. Oracle. His son has
taken over Skydeans, and Skydance owns Paramount, and Paramount bought CBS,
so CBS CBS News lefty as can be, is now
under control of this company. And Ellison is not a lefty.
I don't think he's conservative, but he's bought CBS and
(52:44):
he's doing what I suggested forever and ever and ever
that one of the networks should do. Stop being leftist
and just play it down the middle. Stop chasing away
half your audience. Among the things that have happened since
they took this over. Colbert got fired and so on.
(53:06):
So I'm putting two stories together. Who do you think
paramount just hired to be the editor in chief of
CBS News Barry Wise. Now this is a big deal.
I am skeptical as to whether or not Berry can
fix this. Here's why. The problem with bias in the
news media is hiring a staff that isn't biased. Almost
(53:31):
everybody that goes into journalism is a left wing shell.
Now when I went into it, I think most people
went into it or left wing as well, but there
was generally integrity in which you were more interested in
breaking stories and being a spectacular success as a reporter
than carrying who won an election or whose ox was
getting gord. When I went to Benton Harbor, Michigan, and
(53:55):
I did reporting that I managed to get the mayor
and the city manager both forced out of office. Was
it my golden doing this thing? Was they were bad?
Speaker 3 (54:06):
Well?
Speaker 2 (54:06):
They were. I think every single person in Bretton Harbor
was like borderline corrupt. It was just one of those
things that happens when an entire city runs on federal
and state funds. But I liked both of them personally,
there's good stories and they are true stories. What do
I care what side of the issue they're on. But
now these people are all activists. So how do you
(54:27):
staff up CBS News without having left wing biased when
a everybody who works there is a left wing shell
who refuses not to be biased. Some people say, well,
how does Fox do it? The problem is foxes. You
know a lot of people who work for Fox and News.
They're liberal, but they're required to try to play the
news down the middle. I think every last person who's
(54:48):
willing to do it Fox already stapped up. So she's
going to be tasked with trying to turn this around. Now,
I would think one of the places she could start
at sixty minutes. Sixty minutes and it does a profile
piece of a conservative, it's a hit job. If it's
a liberal, it's a puff piece. Its just been the
case forever. She can simply require that we do a
(55:08):
few puff pieces on conservatives and hit jobs on liberals.
Just start from that point, because see, because sixty minutes
has like eighteen minute stories and they do what three
or four show, putting in one or two or three
that work. The other way would be one of the
easier things to do. Now this story revenge porn and
(55:34):
so called fake porn that we've talked about this forever,
we have a concrete case of it. Revenge porn is
you know what revenge porn is? Don't you? Getting back
at your actually posting? You know, Let's suppose you had
an AX and you were in a man and she
sent your naked pictures and all of that stuff. See,
(55:54):
you're married. I can't fathom a married couple doing it.
What's the point of if you're married sending them naked
pictures wandering around in the same host naked all the time?
See what like in your dating? They send it because okay,
I'm not here, And Paul ask me if I've ever
done this? If I didn't know, can you imagine me
being stupid enough to do it, or for that matter,
(56:15):
being enough of a dork? Oh look at me here,
here's my thing. Well, just a lot of people I
have you. I'm just saying, would you can you imagine
me doing it? No? All right, that's revenge porn? Say,
and then you break up when the person answering stuff
and they put it out there, and here's a that's
revenge porn. The other one is fake porn, which is
(56:36):
porn involving non humans. AI is getting better and better
and better, and we're debating in court whether or not
it should be illegal. For example, if you create fake
porn involving children, in other words, fake children, should that
(56:57):
be child porn? Not here to answer that. This involves
a combination of fake porn or AI generated porn with
revenge porn. Now you may be wondering how the two
can come together. The guys from Franklin, I'll get to
his name in a minute. He had a woman who
was dating back in twenty twenty two. Here's another thing,
these guys who can't let go by the way I say, guys,
(57:19):
it's women too fatal attraction be can't let go another
thing I don't get. See you now, you don't have
to get this. You've been married for eight hundred and
fifty seven years. I get people that get involved in
they're serious and all of that stuff. And I also
get your heart broken and you're angry and all of that.
There's a statue of limitations that most people are able
(57:41):
to live by on that, and it's usually distraught for
three weeks angry for three months, totally over it by
nine months. That's what I've observed in my life is general,
and the more serious the thing, you know that it
affects the timeline. But that's what I've generally seen. And you,
even as a merry guy, you've kind of seen, right,
(58:02):
You've observed that. Then there are people who can't let
go all right. Twenty twenty two. Guy dates a woman.
Apparently it wasn't for real long, they break up and
she dumbs him. Quoting from the story and JS online,
the two dated briefly in twenty twenty two. See now,
what I'm guessing is the guy has a hard time
(58:23):
getting women briefly is the key here? The other thing,
how can you get obsessed with somebody when you only
went out briefly? Wouldn't you think that would be hard?
I mean, I have dated in my life. You just
generally don't can to get an obsession if you've gone
out four times. That's what I'm saying. I don't know this,
but it's my guess. When she broke up with him,
(58:46):
he began to call her racial slurs and text her NonStop.
The texting thing, well, I don't know how long blocking
has been on the phones. You know how long it's
been on there a while. Well, she's out of a
black So now he's really frustrated because he can't communicate.
(59:08):
When you block on the text, you also blocked on
the phone calls. This leaves generally stalking. Okay, they keep
driving around, I don't. He doesn't appear to be accused
of that. He is accused, however, of both revenge porn
and AI porn. He doesn't have didn't have any photos,
according to this of her naked or in a compromising position,
(59:28):
but he does have photo of her, so he took
the photo allegedly this is a criminal allegation, and then
used AI to put her face on a body of
someone doing the nasty and porn and you know, in
the you can make this look very real right now,
and then distributed. So he's distributing a photo of his
(59:49):
ex in sexually compromising faces and it actually is her face,
but it's not her body, it's AI generated. There are
criminal charges against him. He's from Franklin. His name is
Kevin I think pronounced Schultz Sccholz, forty five of Franklin.
He's charged with by the way, we just passed this
law in Wisconsin dealing with the whole issue of revenge
(01:00:10):
point and so on. And it's going to have to
be tested in the court as to whether or not
this is legal. And I hope that this is something
to be illegal. To imagine just taking someone's face and
then presenting them doing things it can't be legal, capturing
an inter representation of someone without consent, and disorderly conduct.
In late September, he used to work as a cop.
(01:00:31):
That's from the js online story. His Lincoln page shows
he previously worked in law enforcement in Milwaukee and Walworth Counties.
He worked for the town of Norway the Southwest Milwaukee
in the south West Milwaukee metro as a boat patrol
officer between twenty seven and twenty nineteen, before he resigned
before an internal investigation was completed. So you ever a
bit of him twenty nineteen. I don't know if it
had anything to do with this, because this happened years
(01:00:53):
before the thing in twenty twenty two. My advice to
him and anybody else kind of let it go. Let
me say, well, it's easy for you to say yes,
it's easy for me to say I know. This podcast
(01:01:18):
seems some of you don't think it last long enough.
Others off you think I go on and on it forever.
What did I tell you at the beginning of the podcast,
you with the mind of whatever the opposite of a
steel trap is, what would that be? Like a mesh netting,
kind of sieve, kind of like gelatinous thing that everything
just kind of pours through. I don't remember I said
(01:01:47):
that I would work in the story somewhere. It's coming
up in a second here about lying as a way
of getting what you want in governmental activity, how it
has been, especially on the left, just become common to
the point of acceptance. It's almost as well if we
can get away with it, so what, because we're doing
(01:02:08):
the right thing. I have an example of this in
a moment For those of you who do not even
remember that, I teas that, like Paul, I wonder what
percentage was sitting back there thinking I remember, I bet
more than half. It wasn't. What was it the longest
amount of time. I could have done it two minutes
ago and you would not have remembered it. This is
(01:02:30):
why I write things down, or I would then forget
go do a teasing. At the beginning of the podcast
and then forget to do it at the end. But
I haven't written right down for the third segment. You know,
do this so if you want to know what this
is right here next to the Marked Belling podcast, this
is the Mark Belling podcast. I need to I'm not
(01:02:53):
going to name the person, but a listener found this
for me and forwarded it. I'm going to give you
the background of the story, and then I'm going to
give you the live The story itself is happening in
a lot of communities in Wisconsin. All these municipalities, cities, counties, etc.
They all claim they're out of money, and they're up
(01:03:16):
against the limits that are in place as to how
much governmental bodies can raise their spending. They can only
raise the tax levy by a certain amount each year
without going to the voters and seeking approval. And I'm
just telling you all over the place, they're claiming we
need to raise, we need to raise, we need to raise.
When they're not able to get voter approval to do
(01:03:38):
the raising. What's been resorted to in a number of
communities is to try to take something that is a
city service that you're already paying for under your property
tax and breaking it out and charging it as a
separate fee. In other words, take a service that's in
there and take it out of the regular city budget,
(01:03:59):
so you've now lowered you're spending and therefore you can
spend that money on something else, but then charging it
out as a separate fee, separate from your property taxes.
Some of these have been challenged in court what Wisconsin
Institute in Law and Liberty that have been struck down
as unconstitutional. Whether or not the one that I'm going
to discuss here will be or not, I don't know.
I don't know exactly whether or not you can charge
(01:04:20):
for these things or not. The story is some Waukeshaw
City of Waukeshaw, not to be confused with washing Wakashaw County.
City of Wakshaw is proposing a garbage fee. Currently, garbage
services are included in the city budget and covered by
people's property taxes. Wakshaw is proposing to break out the
(01:04:44):
garbage from the city budget and instead charge all property
owners a fee to have the garbage picked up. The
fee would be one hundred and sixty dollars. This story
is not about whether or not they should or shouldn't well,
I will say they should and do it, but that's
not the point of the story. In order to gain
support for this, they've created a website in which they
(01:05:09):
make the case for creating the garbage fee. And one
of the things that they do is, we're gonna talk
about a chart.
Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Here.
Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
I'm gonna describe a chart. And obviously I don't have
a video podcast. You can't see this, but just pay
attention to me. I think you can follow this. I'm
very good at simplifying things. I'm right up there with
Caroline love It. What they do is they create a
chart and the chart show. The chart shows two squiggly lines.
(01:05:36):
One of the squiggly lines is the increase each year
in the property tax levee. The other squiggly line is
the CPI, the Consumer Price Index. Obviously both go up
over time. So one graph charts and they go back
let's see it starts in twenty fourteen, so they go
(01:05:57):
back eleven years and they're tracking the cp and that's
one of the lines in the graph, and then the
property tax levee and the other. And the point that
they're trying to make is the property tax levee increases,
not keeping up with inflation so far fair enough. On
the left side of the chart, before the line start,
(01:06:19):
they have a graph that shows percentages, and I'll read
here like zero point five one, one point five to two. So,
in other words, as the as the lines on the
graph move up, that indicates the corresponding higher number of
percentage increase. You're with me, so far right, So they've
got the two lines. Would you believe that they bleeped
(01:06:44):
with the lines on the line with regard to the
city property tax levee for all eleven years that line
is below the other squiggly line for the CPI, creating
the impression that in every one of those years the
tax levee went up less than the CPI. But there
(01:07:06):
are several years here in which the CPI went up
at a lower rate, yet on the graph its graphed
out is a higher level. So I remember when I said,
over on the left, they've got the percentage chart. The
city tax levee does correspond to what the percentage is,
and it's generally in the range of one to two percent,
(01:07:27):
and you see it on the graph at that point.
But the CPI number does not correspond to the chart
on the left. In one year. In fact, the highest
increase in the CPI was Biden's zero when it went
to seven point seven. But they've got it on the
graph as over nine and every year that I looked
(01:07:48):
at on here, the CPI number is higher on the
chart than the corresponding percentage is off to the left.
It creates the impression that the CPI is all always
way higher than the property tax level. Now, if you
looked at the number and under each of them they
have a tiny little number, you would see that the
that the chart is actually a lie in several years,
(01:08:11):
that the two lines should be crossing against one another
because the CPI is lower than the increase in the
property text. Let me, but they haven't higher the entire
time around. And then at the end they average out
the increase in the years, which is only one percent.
But the lines are like miles apart. Could this just
(01:08:33):
be a walker Shaw bureaucrat who's an idiot who doesn't
know how to track, you know, create charts. We've seen
these charts all the time. In fact, you'll see it
a lot with regard to say a mutual fund versus
the S and P. Five hundred and some years, the
mutual fund will do better than the sp and the
charts go zig zag back and forth. We have them
with interest rates and so on any number of charts
you'll see that they'll cross over from time to time.
(01:08:55):
This one never crosses, even though the numbers crossed. I
think this is deliberate. I think that whoever did it,
Anthony Brown's the city administrator. Sean Riley is the mayor.
Whoever did it is a liar. By the way, prior
to today's podcast, I both called and emailed the both
(01:09:17):
of them. I did not at the beginning as of
the start of the podcast get a response some either
of them on this. So again, the people in the
City of Walking show passing this garbage fee may or
may not be a good idea under your position, But
the material that they're putting out of the website is
a deliberately dishonest chart trying to create. Here's the thing. Actually,
(01:09:38):
over the last eleven years there was the CPI did
go up a little bit more than the property tax levey,
but only a little bit, so they could have said
that it went out more than that. But they have
to stack the deck by creating this chart to make
it look like it went up every year more than that,
and that the end result it's a way higher in
carease rather than the mere one percent that I cited
(01:09:59):
a annualized basis. And again, I just there's there was
a time in which government officials, the local governments would
not do this, that they have an obligation to be
honest with the public with regard to their funds. We're
in an error right now, and this is you know,
they lefties at Riley's finally leave it as mayor, thank god.
In Waukeshaw, they've had two lefty mayors in a row
(01:10:19):
in that city, even though the city votes Republican. The
city administrator, they go through those things like it's gonna say,
like I go through socks, but that's a bad analogy.
I hang on to socks until there's a hole. That's
my theory on it. Isn't that your theory? You toss
them before the whole? No, I think your wife mid
tosses it before them. Well exactly, I do not know
(01:10:42):
the whole. That's when they get tossed. But the level
of being a pathetic single guy is to wear them
even after the hole. I am not at that level,
So I don't really go through socks that fast. So
that's the point that I am making is is that
I was mentioned in the city managed they've had a lot.
I'm brown is rather new. Just you know, go out
(01:11:05):
there and we've seen and you know the what's the term?
This whole notion was created by the school referendums that
they put out there. They're never honest about that. They
never include the borrowing costs. They always work with the
numbers and massage them to try to do a cell
job on them. That's what the City of Wakashaw is
doing here make the case for creating the garbage fee. Again,
(01:11:25):
whether it's legal or not, I don't know, but you
don't have to go and create this chart. That's a
load of crap. And again I credit a listener who
sitting at home read the chart and he noticed this.
My guess is because most people don't look at this
and they're not analytical, and who's going to go in
there and see what the actual number is? Never picked
up on it, but this guy did. If walk a
(01:11:48):
Shaw retracts, apologizes and if necessary, I may file an
open record's request to see who designed this so we
know which particular city employee is an absolute lying piece
of you know what or not. And if they want
to say that the guy is just so stupid, well,
if you're in charge of making grafts and you're too
stupid and know how to make a draft, maybe rather
than raise the garbage sheet, we should just get rid
(01:12:09):
of you. Add with that podcast us now quite a
good one. I think, what do you mean very good?
I said up very I only said good myself. I
think you should say it was a great one. Here's
a great one. You didn't even say that with any
sense of enthusiasm. What's the There's a lot of rotten
(01:12:31):
ones out there. Just scroll around and start listening to them.
You want to know really bad one? I think she
stopped doing it. The Michelle Obama one was really really
all right by.
Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
The Mark Belling Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio Podcasts,
Production and engineering by Paul Crownforest. The Mark Belling Podcast
is presented by you Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies.
You Line has everything in stock. Visit you line dot com.
Listen to all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
(01:13:07):
favorite podcasts,
The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
You know, when I used to do a live radio program,
we would call this breaking news. But I think in
a podcast nothing can be breaking news, right because anybody's
got to hear it long after it was breaking. Anyway,
this story has just come down, and I want to
comment on a briefly. I don't have the opportunity to
dive into everything about it because it just happened, but
(00:44):
I do want to address the story. A Wakashaw County
Circuit judge, in a lawsuit that was filed many many
months ago today, did rule that the Wisconsin Election Commission
must verify the legal citizenship status of all Wisconsin registered voters.
That's a big deal. Now, before you go too far
(01:06):
on it, though it's a circuit judge, All lawsuits in
Wisconsin start in circuit court. Every county has a circuit court.
Above the circuit court is the state Court of Appeals.
There's several districts to that, and then the state Supreme Court.
I do not believe that this ruling will stand up
on appeal. The reason I don't believe it is I
just don't believe that the leftists Wisconsin Supreme Court will
(01:26):
not overturn it. I don't believe that the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
controlled by leftists, is going to do what is ever
in the political interests of the Democrats. They've made that clear. Nonetheless,
in the short term, this is a victory. The ruling
by Judge Maxwell does state that before the next election,
which would be the spring primary February eighteenth, the Wisconsin
(01:48):
Election Commission has to verify citizenship. Doesn't say how they
have to do it, but they have to do it.
Everyone knows that there are people who are non citizens
registered to vote in Wisconsin. What we don't know is
how many you know that school superintendent in Iowa with
(02:09):
the criminal record who not only is not a citizen,
but an illegal immigrant and everything else he was voting.
He voted in multiple states before he got to Iowa.
Some people think that this issue pertains solely to illegal immigration,
no legal immigrants, any nons visitors. In order to vote
in America, you've got to be a citizen. We don't
(02:31):
do anything to verify citizenship. When people register to vote,
you got to show a bunch of things, but you
never have to show that you're actually a citizen. So
how you go back and retroactively do it, I don't know.
In any event, we need to clean up our voter
rules by, among other things, getting non citizens off the ballot.
(02:52):
So this is a good ruling today, I am not
confident it will stand up on appeal, not because the
ruling isn't correct, but because we voters in Wisconsin can't
get conservatives to show up in voting Supreme Court elections
in the spring, and the lefties control the state Supreme Court.
All Right, more on that maybe on Wednesday's podcast. As
that story was just developing, let's roll into the content
(03:14):
that we had planned for today's program. I want to
start with this, Paul. By the way, do not remind
me that I need to do the spot. I'm in
complete control of things today. I know that I'm going
to be doing the spot. Don't remind me, unless, of course,
it becomes a parent that I've forgotten. Anyway. One of
(03:35):
the things that's becoming more common almost I didn't say entirely,
almost entirely from the left is just lie to get
a governmental decision that you want li An obvious example
was the Hunter Biden laptop was not real. It was
Russia collusion. A bunch of national security experts signed that
(03:57):
they it was a total lie. It was aimed at
getting Joe Biden elected president and not allowing this disclosure,
which of course led to all the other things that
we found out about the corruption and the Biden crime
family to influence the twenty twenty election. That's just one example,
but it's all over the place. I'm not doing it
right now. This is kind of teasing content within the podcast.
(04:21):
You can, I suppose, scroll ahead and try to search
it out, but I got to bury it in the
middle of the podcast in there. I want to tell
you about that, but I want you to hold that
thought as we think through the entire podcast, because almost
every issue that we have right now requires analysis with
an independent mind rather than simply accepting what you're told.
(04:42):
Sometimes what you're told is true. You know, it would
be a good example of sometime what you're told is
true whenever I'm telling it. The first thing I want
to address is there's a term out there called flipping
the script. Whenever a term got starts getting used too much.
(05:05):
I don't like it, but in this case it works.
It has to do with how the Trump administration is
flipping the script on the government shutdown. We'll get to
that momentarily. Here you Line moves fast so your business
doesn't miss abeat. From shipping and industrial supplies to office furniture,
You Line offers a wide range of products that are
in stock, ready to ship the same day if you
(05:25):
order by six pm, even the big stuff. You Line's
expert customer service team is available twenty four to seven
to answer your questions, help you quickly and easily place
an order, or assist with any other business needs. Visit
you line dot com. As long as there have been
government shutdowns, and these government shutdowns occur every six months
(05:49):
to two years, depending we don't have federal budgets in
the United States anymore, we pass these continuing resolutions to
keep funding the government for three months, six months, nine months,
to hope whatever it is. And whenever you get to
the deadline, we have these debates should we continue to
fund the government again. Sometimes it involves raising the debt limit.
In other cases, he just means reappropriating money that now expires.
(06:16):
I actually don't remember when this started. It just seems
to me as a kid, this was never an issue
that both political parts. I don't know it's because we
passed budgets then that both political parties never let the
government shut down. I don't know when it started, but
it's been decades and as long as it's gone on,
there's been one thing that's just true. The Republicans get
the blame. It doesn't matter who the president is, who
(06:37):
the Congress is, the Republicans always get the blame. Trump
is flipping the script on this. One of the things
about PROMP that he does not get credit for from
the kind of establishment conservative media. Of course he never
opened the left, but even the establishment conservative media, I mean,
(06:59):
you know, like National Review, Wall Street General Editorial Page,
which is barely conservative anymore, is their extraordinary ability to communicate.
The only Republican that I thought this had this type
of ability to communicate was Reagan. You know, Reagan had
(07:21):
Michael Deaver and others in which their job was to
do like image making and communication, et cetera. When I
was in Illinois they had a governor down there is
a Republican. This is before liberals. He was, as Republicans go,
kind of a liberal Republican. But Jim Thompson he was
great at that too, but almost no others. They're just
(07:42):
terrible at it. And in part there's you're the visiting team.
It's not home field advantage. The media is the mouthpiece
for communication, so everything you'd go through you do go through,
goes through them. So it is more difficult if you're
a Republican to communicate. I grant you that. So here
we have this thing I'm going to shut down because
(08:06):
in the Senate you need to get sixty votes to
pass a bill, and the reason for that is they
still have the filibuster rule. To end debate, you need
sixty votes. The Republicans narrowly control the House, narrowly control
the Senate, but in the Senate you need to have
a larger majority than normal in order to pass legislation.
(08:27):
The Republicans passed the bill to it just says we're
going to keep funding the government the same way the
last document did. The Democrats, of course, want to put
in all these things the Democrats believe in. There's not
an agreement. The Republicans didn't cave the Democrats won't pass
the clean spending bills. So here we are, and as
I say, normally, this means the Republicans get the blame.
(08:51):
Trump and his people are just better at this. And
we're going to use an example one of the things
that Trump and his people and I say his people,
that's a lot of them, because they're all part of
the same communication here in Caroline Lovett, the White House
Press Secretary, is an example of this, and we're going
to hear from her in a minute. One of the
things that the Democrats put in their version is using
(09:17):
Medicaid funds to provide healthcare for illegal limits. It's right
in there. So Caroline Levett was asked in the White
House press room last week and challenged on this notion
that that's what the Democrats are trying to do. We're
(09:40):
going to play a cut of about three minutes here.
You're going to hear the question, which is put in
an antagonistic fashion to her, and I want you to
listen to how well she explains the administration position. I
don't know if I'll stop and interjecting them in the
meaning republic spokes people just generally are not this good.
(10:06):
Let's listen to it. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
At the top of the briefing, you made a statement
about that the Democrats are interested in giving health care
to illegal immigrants.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Yes, they are.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
US law already prohibits that. It's a nineteen ninety six
law saying that they cannot give unauthorized immigrants any federally
subsidized healthcare coverage through Medicaid, the Affordable Care or the
Children's Health Insurance Program. There seems to be a disconnect
in the message.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Are you declined? Are you denying that Medicaid money has
never gone to illegal aliens in the United States of
America on anything?
Speaker 3 (10:41):
I'm asking you if you can explain the disconnecting the message, I.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Most certainly can. The Democrats proposal their continuing Resolution, Let
me just reiterate the Republican's continuing Resolution was a clean
continuing resolution. There was no partisan politics injected into it.
There were no conservative wish lists injected to it. What
the report Republicans want and still want to this very second,
is a clean continuing resolution to fund the United States government.
(11:06):
What did the Democrats want in their continuing resolution? They
inserted a provision to undo a provision in the Work
in Families Tax cut the One Big Beautiful Bill that
ended taxpayer funded healthcare illegal benefits for legal aliens. Democrats
proposal would require Medicaid to pay more for emergency care
provided to illegal aliens than Medicaid does for American patients
(11:29):
who are disabled, elderly, or children. And this bill would
have also allowed California to continue a gimmick that funds
its Medicaid for illegals program. Those are things that we ended.
The Trump administration ended with the passage and the signage
of the One Big Beautiful Bill. And it is an
undisputed fact, a fact that under the Biden administration, illegal
aliens were absolutely receiving taxpayer funded health care benefits. In fact,
(11:54):
in fiscal year twenty twenty four, Medicaid costs for emergency
services for legal immigrants sky I rocketed by one hundred
and forty two percent from the previous year to nine
point one billion dollars. That's nine point one billion taxpayer
dollars that were going to emergency services for illegals. Between
President Trump's last full fiscal year under his first administration
(12:16):
in Joe Biden's last full fiscal year, Medicaid spending on
emergency services for illegal immigrants nearly tripled. There was an
increase of one hundred and ninety six percent between twenty
twenty and twenty twenty four. And I have a chart
here for you, and I'm more than happy to email
it to you. I'd also like to add, because some
were asking dishonest questions yesterday about emergency rooms in Southern California.
(12:38):
According to healthcare professionals, in twenty twenty three, under the
Biden administration, Southern California's quote, entire healthcare system was being
bombarded with illegal immigrants, enforcing American patients to endure longer
wait times. In Denver, Colorado, the CEO of Denver Health
stated that eight thousand illegal immigrants made twenty thousand visits
(12:59):
to the city's health system in twenty twenty three, leaving
an uncompensated bill totaling over ten million dollars. So when
a legal alien goes to the emergency room, who's paying
for it? The American taxpayer. The main safety net hospital
in Denver had to turn away patients due to the
massive influx of illegal immigrants into the community. And you see,
health hospitals in twenty twenty four reported their system was
(13:22):
under stress from an increasing number of migrants as a result.
According to the head of emergency departments and urgent cares
across the hospital system, quote, access is impeded for everyone.
These are healthcare professionals who dealt with this directly, and
there's a lot more where that came from. It is
an undisputed fact that Democrats want to give taxpayer funded
healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants, period.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
A.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
First of all, my career is to explain things and
make a case. That's what I do, so I know
who's good at doing what I do. That was very good.
She not only knocked down the leftist talking point, she
backed it a point by point by point by point
(14:08):
by point in a clear and understandable fashion. Now, on
this issue of shutting down the government, that whole provision
that the Democrats put in US Medicaid funding to provide
health care for illegal immigrants, there's a term for that.
It's called a poison pill. Kind of comes from the
business world. This attempts to stop hostile takeovers and so on.
(14:29):
The poison pill is inserting a provision that the other
side can't accept. You know, they can't accept it. Why
would the Democrats put that in the government funding bill.
The only reason they put it in is that they
wanted the Republicans to shut down the guvernment. If the
Republicans had agreed to that, there would have been a
revolt from everyone in mega in this country. Can you
(14:50):
imagine if Ron Johnson voted for that, Glenn Grothman, etc.
There's no way they knew the Republicans wouldn't accept it,
and they knew the trumpn't accept it, But they put
it in because they wanted this shutdown to occur. Because
they just say there's a shutdown. They'll blame the Democrats,
they'll blame the Republicans, they'll blame Trump. But you see that,
(15:12):
first of all, of all the things that the Democrats
picked out, Caroline chooses and the White House has chosen
the most obnoxious of the provisions and then lays out
the case. You can run around and try to claim
Trump lies, Trump lies, Trump lies, Trump lies. Everything Caroline
said there she is able to back up, and everyone
knows that it's true. Everyone knows there are illegal immigrants
(15:33):
that are collecting on Medicaid funds right now. Now. A
second point that I want to make is just again,
part of you can say, well, why don't Republicans do
this all the time. Here's the answer. I'll use a
football analogy. Why doesn't every quarterback? So why didn't every
quarterback throw as many hail Mary's as Aaron Rodgers talent
(15:56):
comes into this. Not everybody is as good at this
as Caroline Levitt. Trump recognized it and gave her that job.
Can you imagine just put the pre you know, I've
always said in the past that if you take a
new job, you always want to replace somebody who was
just terrible at it. You know, you've got the very
(16:17):
very bottom of you. Then you know where do you
can you go but up? The immediate predecessor of her
was KJP working for Joe Biden, who couldn't get her,
who couldn't work her way through a heads or tails
type of question. Anyway, on where we are on the
government shutdown over the weekend, Kevin Hassett, one of Trump's
economic advisors, says the layoffs will start to go out soon.
(16:42):
Layoff notices will start to go off soon. Again, a
very good tactic. They're attempting to put the pressure from
government workers onto the Democrats. And again he says soon.
What does soon mean? Well, that's key. He's making it
open ended. He's giving the opportunity the Democrats an opportunity
(17:03):
to cave in here on this next here's a text
from Eric Dhardy left wing federal bureaucrats are fury. Oh,
before I get to that, I want to make this point.
When the government is shut down in the semi capacity
that it is right now, some essential services are running,
(17:24):
the ones that you most notice, but other things are
shut down. Who's more affected by this by political party?
Well let's start with me, Paul. Have you been affected
at all by the shutdown? Not yet, not at all.
I'm not saying that you won't be. I don't know
every single agency. I know that like replacement Medicare cards
(17:47):
and stuff like that are delayed. It can happen. But
the biggest people affected by the government shutdown are the
federal workers who don't get a paycheck. Now, I think
they're not that badly affected because they all know that
when these things end, they get their pay retroactive to
all of the time that they missed and they got
to sit in their butt in the meantime. But this
(18:09):
time around, Trump is threatening layoffs where you won't come
back all right, who what political party do? Most federal
government workers vote for the Democrats. So again I'm not
saying there are no Republican federal workers. I'm saying most
of them are not Republicans. So if you're going to
(18:31):
have a situation here, if the Democrats want to play
with this fire, whose people are going to be burned?
If there is a burning Again, Fortunately, when we shut
down the government, we're not shutting down TSA, We're not
shutting down air traffic controls, so the planes keep flying
and so on. The military is continuing to go, the
National Guard is continuing to go. The postal service is
quasi independent of the government, so the mail keeps getting
(18:53):
et cetera. The benefit checks like Social Security and so on,
they continue to flow and so on. In the meantime,
getting back to the effectiveness that Trump and his people,
this is just I just can't fathom w Bush doing this,
and for that matter, any other Republican. You know how
(19:15):
if you work for a company, or sometimes you do
it voluntarily and sometimes it's automated. If you're out of
the office for like a week on an email that
when you send an email to someone, they'll get a
kickback message on there saying I'm out of the office
in a tentheil, so forth and so on. You've seen
those things, right, do you put those up on your
(19:35):
own email? You used to when you stop. I've never
once done such a thing. I mean, what do I
care if people send me an email and I don't
see it for five anyway? All right, all these federal
workers that are out of the office, this is just beautiful.
This is, as I say, you wonder why some of
us just love Trump. This is so beautiful. The Trump
(19:59):
administer has put a kickback on all the emails of
all the federal employees who are shut down because of
the government shutdown. This is what the message reads, thank
you for contacting me. Now again, let's suppose I'm just
sending this to somebody who works for HUT or something
like that. Thank you for contacting me. Democratic senators are
(20:22):
blocking passage of HR fifty three seventy one, which has
led to elapse and appropriations. So they, yeah, it's not
all of them. It's an automated thing. So what's happened
is some of the lefty employees have tried to manually
(20:42):
change the message, but they are not able to do
so because they've set it up that this you know,
it's not their email, it's the government's email. The Fed
Trump runs whatever system the government has for government employees
on their email thing. So anybody who emails a federal
employee who is shut down right now gets a message
that the devil that's a I got, like just fury.
(21:03):
By the way, the lefties are furious over this. This
is the crap they've done forever. And as I've explained
to you guys a million times, the lefties condition out
of they can't take it. It's Paul. He's not only
a step ahead of everybody, he fights in a way
of effectiveness that is not the norm for Republican politicians.
(21:26):
And again I'll use the term flip the script because
I've used it several times here it is appropriate. This
is a related issue. These memes prompted this meme, and
a meme is like it's a fake thing that you
create and put on the internet, showing the two Democratic
(21:49):
congressional leaders that Kim Jeffries, the House Democratic Leader and
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, and the first one
had Schumer saying a bunch of ridiculous things about why
nobody's voting for Democrats anymore, which is why they're reaching
out to illegal immigrants. And he and Jeffries both have
some barros on and Jefferies is strumming a guitar and
(22:12):
you're hearing mariachi music. This has been viewed by like
everybody on the planet. So the lefties say it's racist,
it's racist, it's racist, it's racist. And Trump doubles down
by putting out another one. And it shows like four
different Trumps wearing wearing like hats behind him, playing the
guitar and so on, singing the mariachi music, turning trumpet
(22:34):
of the mariachi band behind them. In other words, rather
than oh, I'm sorry for offending you for putting this thing,
they doubled down. Here's a comment on CNN from Caitlyn Collins.
You all know who she is. She's the only one
anybody knows him. Everybody else Scott Jennings, the token host Conservatives,
(22:55):
Caitlyn Collins is the She's the only left anybody can
name who works over there anymore. She seems to do
everything that they have. She's like their White House correspondent.
She's on a show, and so so on. Calen Collins
commenting on this phenomenon of Trump not backing down on
the memes, but in fact doubling down and putting on
another one quote. They simply don't care about the criticism.
(23:18):
That's it. This has been the key forever, and I've
just tried to lecture Republicans on this forever and ever
and ever. Stop sucking up to the news media. You
will never get their approval. And that is the answer.
And it's one of the whole flips that we've seen
(23:39):
in cancel culture and so on, where it isn't hitting
people on the right anywhere near as much as it
did in the past because we're simply ignoring their crap.
Who you're offended by it? So what you're offended? What
do we care? It's funny and it was an effective
way of communicating, and it's the kind of thing you
(24:00):
guys have been doing forever. The only difference between the
attempts to use humor to mock Republicans and the attempts
to use human to mock Democrats is that the Republican
attempts tend to be funny, whereas the Democrat at it's
so snad and so snarly. So Whoopy Goldberg and Joy
(24:21):
behar Ish. You know, they're both comedians. That's what their
careers were. Behart kind of and Whoopee was a comic
actress and she didn't stand up you. They're not funny.
It's just a yeah. Like I said this, Caitlyn Collins saying, well,
and I'm sure that again, this is a frustrating thing
for the We'll just claim that it's racist. They did
and what a Trump do? Came out and did another one.
(24:49):
I want to turn my attention to the future. The
Supreme Court is back. The Supreme Court has sessions. This
is the fall session. There are a number of major
cases here. Clearly Trump is testing the limits of his authority.
(25:11):
I'm all for it. Why not if he goes to
a level that the Supreme Court says that the Constitution
doesn't allow him to go, will.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
So be it.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
But the only way you know what the limit is
is for the Supreme Court to say what the limit is.
That's their role. It's, by the way, their only rule.
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the
Constitution in cases that come before it. And there are
some huge cases that are going to determine the future
not only of Trump's presidency and how he governs, but
of the nation. The Epic Times put together a list,
(25:45):
and I don't have time to walk through every one
of the issues. I'm just going to give you a
bullet point of them. The Trump tariffs. We've had all
these lower court rulings block this, take this, and so on.
There's not yet been a definitive ruling as to whether
or not Trump has the authority to unil O I
really compose these tariffs. And when I say unilaterally, do
it without the approch of the Congress. It's just the
(26:06):
Constitution hasn't said you can interpret it one way or another.
The Supreme Court will rule and whether or not Trump
can impose these tariffs. Obviously, if they rule against him,
it means most of the tariffs are gone too. Removal
of high level bureaucrats. You have all these federal agencies
that are not directly part of the administration. What's directly
(26:26):
the White House present I just mentioned Caroline Love at
the White House Press Secutor. She's directly part of the administration.
The Treasury Secretary of BESSI, he's directly a part of
the administration. What about all of these agency heads that
have terms of appointment? Can Trump just remove them? Again,
it's unclear. The Constitution sets aside the role of the president,
(26:50):
but it doesn't dot every i and cross every tea
about every specific instance, because some you wouldn't anticipate. The
Supreme Court is a case, will have a case in which, again,
lower courts have ruled on this. Some are ruled one ways,
others have ruled an other than the stays issued and
sometimes it's allowed in the meantime, but there hasn't been
a definitive ruling that one is coming. In this term
(27:11):
girls athletics, this is one of the big ones. President
Trump has threatened to take away federal funding from states
that allow males to continue to participate in girls athletics.
The issue seems to have come to an end at
the NCAA level college sports, where there's been generally compliance,
(27:34):
but in many state high school associations they're refusing to
follow the Trump dictum. In addition to that, in other states,
the Republican legislatures and governors in those states have banned themselves.
Can they There's never been a ruling from the Supreme
Court on this and why would there have been. The
founding fathers could not imagine we would live in a
(27:56):
world in which there's thousands of guys running around pretending
to be girls. There will be a ruling on that
can a person self identify their gender? And can the
federal government withhold funding from states if they allow that
to occur. I would hope that the Supreme Court would
affirm that one's gender and one's sex are the same,
(28:21):
and restrictions in participation at certain events because of these
are allowable, and I would claim fear to women. Pregnancy
centers donor lists another case? Can pregnancy centers keep their
donors lists confidential? Confidential? Obviously some of the donors, and
(28:49):
a pregnancy center is a facility that helps all women
who perhaps they were considering having an abortion and they
decide to carry the baby to term. There are a
couple of very good ones here in I know of too.
There may be more in southeastern Wisconsin. Many of the
donors to these organizations don't want to be outed because
of the hate directed at them from the pro abortion crowd.
(29:12):
Do they have a right to keep their individual donors confidential?
They're not political organizations. They're charities that perform medical services.
There have been states that have issued edicts ordering these
pregnancy centers to lay out their donors' names. Supreme Court
rule on whether or not that's legal. Ban on conversion
therapy in some states. This is not a federal case,
(29:34):
but it comes from some states. In some states, conversion
therapy has been banned. Conversion therapy is let's imagine I'm
a guy and I think I'm gay, like a fourteen
year old kid. Medical experts can counsel you to talk
(29:55):
you through that. No, no, no, maybe you're not. Some states
have banned Can you ban a counselor from trying to
talk a kid out of thinking that he or she
is gay? I would argue that you can't do that,
that the parents have a free speech right to provide
(30:17):
this type of counseling if they think that their kid
is simply messed up. In the end, the kid can
reject the counseling. That's a case in front of the
Supreme Court. Next, the Hawaii gun law. It's hard to
say which states have the most restrictive gun laws, but
Hawaii's got to be right there at the top of
the list. I mean, I've been to Hawaii a couple
(30:39):
of times on our cruise, but you can't like take
the guns on the plane. And it wasn't like I
was going to go into a gun store in Hawaii.
This is one that would not affect me. But of
course a Supreme Court ruling is what precedent setting Hawaii law.
States that have concealed Carrie permit holders want to take
(31:00):
guns onto private property, including stores, restaurants, and hotels, they
need permission, either verbally or through a side no. The
way the law works in most states is if you
want to tell somebody. For instance, many buildings will say
you can't bring a gun in here. The courts have
allowed that. In Hawaii, you have to go the other way.
You have to ask permission before you go in. In
(31:22):
other words, rather than require the store to put up
aside it. I mean, anytime you went into a building,
you'd have to ask the building can I bring my
gun or my knife or my maze or whatever it
is that's in there. The Supreme Court will rule on
whether or not that is a violation of gun rights.
Death penalty and IQ this is another big one. Should
(31:44):
one's IQ affect whether or not they can get the
death penalty? What do you think. Paul said, absolutely not.
In some states the death penalty cannot be applied to
people whose IQ is below a certain level. Now I
contend your IQ doesn't affect your moral compass. At some level,
(32:07):
people may simply be the old term as vegetable. They
may not be able to fathom anything. And then there's
also insanity. But insanity is not the same as IQ.
You can be extremely intelligent and be mentally insane. I
don't think a lack of intelligence makes one less culpable
(32:28):
for committing a murder. This is not a ruling on
whether or not we should have the death penalty. It's
a ruling on whether or not you can get out
of the death penalty because your IQ is low. The
Supreme Court has never addressed it. That's up in this
term as well. There's another campaign spending rule, and I
won't get into the dictims of all of this, but
the biggest campaign spending rule of Supreme Court ever turned
(32:48):
down was thought to be good for the Republicans at
the time, and it turned out to be a god
send for the Democrats Citizens United because the Democrats raised
way more money from third party groups than do Republicans.
Is another ruling on campaign spending coming up. Defense contractor liability. Again,
I won't go into that in great detail, but it
has to do with companies that are contractors to the
(33:09):
Department of Defense. Can they then be held liable for
what has done with their equipment after it's turned over
to the military. There's a number of other cases involving
Trump as well. My point is is that this term
of the Supreme Court against only a month, We're going
to get rulings on all of these things. It's going
to be enormous. Let me get to the Loop Puncher.
You heard about the Loop Puncher. You have not the
(33:33):
story will be a benefit twenty Cubs fans that are
in town for the game. There's somebody in Chicago. There
may be more than one of them, but there's one guy.
They know for sure because there's video evidence of him.
He's called the Loop Puncher, but downtown Chicago was called
the loop. He walks up to people and punches him
in the face in many cases women. He keeps doing
(33:55):
it and he gets arrested. Now, for those of you
that are naive as to what's going on in liberal
states in the United States, you may be wondering how
is he able to keep doing it if he keeps
getting arrested, And the answer is, Illinois passed cashless bail.
You don't have to put up cash to bail out.
And because his cases drag on forever and ever and ever,
(34:18):
they arrest him and he comes, gets out and then
punches somebody in the face. Again. It just shows you
how idiotic no cash bail is. By the way, we
will have cashless bail in Wisconsin if the Democrats fit
the state legislature next year, which many people think they
will do with the new maps that are in place,
it will be one of the first things that they do.
(34:38):
And I guarantee you the left of Supreme Court will
approve of it. So the problem that we have now,
if judge's not setting high enough bail in Wisconsin, you'll
get to where we are in Illinois. But there's just
no bail. There are certain crimes in which they don't
set a bail, like murder, but other than that, people
don't have to put up any cash, and it's just
fueling the crime problem. There's now a case here of
(35:00):
some young men confronting the loop puncher. What can they do?
They literally caught him. Here he is, and the police
are in the position of, okay, we can take him
back into custody, and he's going to be released as
soon as he sees the judge the following morning, because
(35:20):
you don't have cash bail in the state of Illinois.
And now let me get to this story. You may
have noticed that healthcare premiums for those of you that
are signing up in your open enrollment periods and so on,
and all of them, the ones for governments, there's three
types of Almost everybody is in one of three cat
(35:42):
well four, I guess. The three big ones are Obamacare,
private employer provided health insurance, and Medicare. All of them
are coming into the open enrollment periods right now. And
you may have noticed, if you're already started to look
into this, or if you've already gotten the notice from
the state of the company that you're in and so on,
(36:04):
the rates are exploding. They're going way, way, way up.
It's driven by Obamacare. And for the people under Obamacare,
their premiums are exploding. We're talking in some states twenty
to fifty percent. Why when Obamacare was passed, which is
now nearly a decade ago, they put in place a
(36:25):
series of tax credits for the people covered by Obamacare.
What's a tax credit? People confuse credits and deductions. A
credit is like cash. He means you just get it.
You get it to the filing of your taxes. And
the credit was aimed directly. You're only eligible if you're
on Obamacare. So the people who had Obamacare were getting
(36:46):
a huge chunk of cash to pay for their portion
of Obamacare. You followed me on this. These credits expire.
Now you may wonder why did the Democrats when they
passed Obamacare have these credits expire. You have no capability
of understanding this because you just not understand how Democrats think.
(37:08):
Why would they have them expire? No, no, no, they
want them to expire because they think that if Republicans
try not to extend the credits, they can plan and
they were planning this all they think ahead. So now
the Republicans have to decide whether or not to extend
these credits. In other words, spend a fortune when you
(37:30):
provide these credits. That's money straight out of the federal
but government budget makes the deficit explode even more. Or
do they allow them to expire the problem with Obamacare,
as we said at the time, is that it was
a pyramids game, that there was no way you could
ever have this thing pay for itself. You can't simply
put all of these people that are above the level
of Medicaid health care for poor people in other words,
(37:53):
the lower income working poor, the lower income working I
shouldn't say poor, because not everybody in Obamacare is poor,
but they're like below the middle of the middle class,
and then give them this subsidized healthcare without eventually having
the whole system financially topples. So what is happening now
(38:15):
is private health care insurance is going up because of
the losses that they're taking on Obamacare. They have to
be able to make ends meet. And secondly, healthcare costs
of course generally going up. And third the ending of
these credits, which were in the many many zeros in
terms of the of the number here, are to expire.
(38:36):
It will be an interesting test of not only the
Republicans but Trump whether or not they want them to continue.
My guess is that they will continue the credits in
order to mitigate against the massive increase in costs under Obamacare,
but they'll still get the like you'll still still get
the blame anyway. The problem with Obamacare constantly going up
(38:58):
is that it is Obamacare, and the way that it
was set up was unlike what Obama said, to take
away your ability to choose your doctor, to limit the
ability to get certain kinds of treatments, all the craft
that was put in there, and the fact that there
was no way financially to make it pay for itself.
Thus that what an incredibly comprehensive first segment? What wasn't it?
(39:25):
By the way, one of the most effective ways of
saying something is to say you're not going to say it.
You follow that you did. What did I just say?
What does that mean? I? Well, I just said, well,
I meant did you get that? I didn't mean could
you repeat it? I meant did you understand the point
(39:47):
of it? You think so, well, then explain it.
Speaker 3 (39:52):
No.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
The opposite, one of the most effective ways of saying
something is to say that you're not going to say it.
I didn't say not. I said to not say it.
I'm going to give you an example of that. I
today am not going to say anything about the fact
that in our football contest, I'm five and one. Do
you not understand what that who's saying that I'm not right?
(40:15):
This is the Mark Belling podcast. This is the Mark
Belling podcast. Now here's an interesting story. There are certain
products that are out there that aren't worth it, and
when you decide if something is worth it, you're it's
not the same answer for everyone else. For example, is
(40:40):
a cruise worth it? Well, it depends how long is
the cruise, what cruise line are you going on, what
are your destinations, what's the cost, what's your means? And
mostly do you want to do it more than the
cost hit that you will have to take? Any number
(41:02):
of things would work like that. So somebody may say, I,
for example, don't think going to Starbucks is worth it.
I just don't not understand. I'm paying eleven dollars for
a frappuccino, this and that, and another six dollars for
a dry scone. I don't get it, and I've never
got it. I said, well, you could afford to go.
I know I could afford to go there, but I
(41:23):
don't think it's worth it. If I'm in an airport
or something else and there's no other alternative, we'll go
to Starbucks. But usually even in the airport. I'll look
for like the non Starbucks down the thing to buy
the coffee, or if I'm the Delta sky Club, they
give it to you for free there. If I'm not
flying Delta, I think or just okay, I'm not going
to have the coffee. I'll wait to get anyway. That's
(41:45):
an example of that. Here's another example. Almost everybody who
is in the business of advising people what to spend
money on, say flood insurance is not worth it. Why
because hardly anybody who does not live in a floodplain
(42:09):
ever collects on it. It's very expensive relatively speaking, it's very
expensive because the insurance companies have to price it at
a level to cover the hit that they take if
there is flooding. Now, it's controversial in areas that are
prone to flooding because the rates there are extremely high
Florida and so on. But now let's take a situation
(42:32):
like Wisconsin, especially if you don't live along a river
or something like that. Is flood insurance worth it? Almost
anybody would tell you, no, what is it. You're paying
a fortune over the years for doing something for which
you'll hardly how many people have flooding? Hardly anybody except
(42:52):
what if you do. And we obviously had a big
rainstorm here in southeastern Wisconsin a couple of months ago,
and there are parts of the area the turk. It
was one of those storms in which the rain totals
were all over the map, but they were high many people.
A big area was the southern half of Milwaukee County,
but there are others were hard hit. And in many
(43:15):
instances the flooding was such that the some pumps were
not able to keep up. Some pump is trying to
pump the water out from underneath your building and pump
it out of the air faster than it can get in.
And in some cases the water is just working faster
some pumps. In other cases maybe the some pump doesn't work.
But usually it's just the some pump can't keep up
because they're not created for all of this water. There's
(43:37):
also what do you call those things flood tiles? Is
that it drain toils? Is that it for sure? It's
like it's just that it's under the floor, say, of
your basement. It's an attempt to This is a real
technical but stop up and stop the water from getting in.
Most people aren't going to encounter. You have a basement,
(43:58):
don't you Did you get any flooding from this recent storm?
Did not well, but some people did. There's a story
in JS online today about some people who are facing
massive hardship because they didn't have flood insurance. One woman
here sixty thousand dollars in coverage. The story also points
out that some people took you know, and with regard
(44:18):
to getting this, it's usually a rider on your homeowner's insurance.
You get homeowners insurance, and they do you want to
pay extra for this and this and this and this
and this and this. One of the cheapest riders is
some pump insurance. You probably don't even know if you
have this, And this is part of the problem. Most
people when they get their insurance, they don't even know
what they saw. Do you know you don't have it,
(44:41):
or you don't know if you have it, positive you
don't have it. The some pump insurance is not flood insurance,
but some people think it is. The some pump insurance
is if your some pump breaks. It's not if the
some pump can't keep up. It's if you get the
flooding because the some pump broke. Well, many people sign
up for the According to the story and Jazz Online,
(45:01):
they sign up for the SOMEU pump insurance and they
think that they're getting a They think that they're getting
flood insurance. And the story also points out the insurance
salespeople don't really push flood insurance because the insurance companies
are offering it because they have to. The insurance companies
don't make it much either, because it's unpredictable. One massive flood,
(45:21):
they can take a big hit pan out all of
these claims. It's just an interesting story because it's one
of those deals in which you're paying for something that's
a bad deal in order to stop the slim chance
of being hammered. There's lots of things like that in life,
(45:47):
where you're going through a whole lot of trouble to
pre you know, on the off chance something bad would
happen to you. I would also say it's like the
second end smoke thing. Very few people die of second
d smoke. They can bring up all this stuff that
your chance is, well, yeah, your chances are greater if
you're living with a smoker than if they're not, but
it's still not very likely to kill you. Okay, throwing
the guy out of the house and telling me he
can't smoke because of your fear of the second hand smoke.
(46:09):
Is it worth breaking up a marriage and so on? Again,
it all depends on you know, your own take on
these things. I don't think that there's a governmental response here.
People want flood insurance, They can buy flood insurance. I know,
living a high rise before I did, I never took
(46:32):
it at a basement in the last place, I didn't
take flood insurance. What am I going to get? A flooded?
And often when you're flooded, the cost isn't great. Sometimes
it's just letting the water clean out, you rip out
the carpeting and so on. But in other cases the
damage is massive, unfortunate. At least the people who tend
(46:55):
not to take flood insurance are lower income people because
you know, if you're really, really rich, well you could
afford it, and those are the people that our hardest
hit by this. If there's a teaching moment in this,
you have to understand that your homeowner's policy doesn't cover everything,
but almost all the things it doesn't cover. You can
(47:19):
buy a rider to put it on, and you need
to be aware of this. You say, well, that's probably not. Yeah,
you're likely not to be hit by lightning either. By
the way, that's a thing in which you just changed
our entire attitudes. All these football games that they stop
because there's lightning in the area, Paul, that's a new
thing prior to nineteen. I don't know what it was.
(47:39):
I was at a college football game on the cross
where there was lightning going. They didn't clear the stadium
because what are the chances it's gonna hit you here?
And we just always that was always the example you're
likely to have this than being hit by lightning, and
hit by lightning was like one of the most remote
things that's possible. The difference, of course, is golf. As
long as I can remember, you had to come off
the golf course and there was lighting. You're holding a metal,
(48:02):
lightning ritting your hand in your wide open spaces, you're
much greater. It's like you have a lightning rode out
in the field when you're holding the golf club. But
they didn't do that because the chances of an individuals Okay,
you play the game, what are the chances? But no, well,
safety first, it's the same thing with regard to the
flood insurance we're leaning over and to take this safety
safety safety, make sure something bad that even the possibility
(48:24):
of his remote this story is big Berry Wise, I
know you're thinking very white, Remember very remember that he thought,
I said, remember very white. I claim the deepest voice
in the history of voices. Yeah, and you just I
don't know if it's because he only sang like I
was gonna say love songs. It's a different term for it.
(48:46):
It's actually bleep songs. Very I don't know if we
associate deep voices with sexiness because very white, or if
just because the guy with the deepest voice sang like
sexy songs. I don't know if they like if I
just walk deep, would that be sexy? Or do we
just assume they're talking deep and sexy because Barry White
would say very it says not. However, about very white.
(49:09):
I just throw it in because I'm an incredibly funny
and humorous guy. Somebody else doing a podcast, They're going
to do a very white story without going on for
ninety seconds, so totally waste the time of a very
white plus. You know, guys, a deep voices tend to
be big guys. Right. I don't know why that he is.
It doesn't seem to like they would go together. Yeah,
(49:31):
just but why would your side? That's always surprised, you know,
in radio there's a lot of deep voice, because it's
always surprising when I'll see a guy with a deep voice,
especially back in the day when you never saw the
picture of the person in radio and it was always
a little skinny ruddy. I'm thinking of one guy. I've
talked about it in the past, the guy. He did.
It was country music station that I worked at. The
(49:51):
guy drank the entire time he was on the air
and smoked the entire time he was on the air.
You were allowed to smoke, and by the way, in
that era, everyone in radio except me smoke. You got
in right when smoking stopped being a requirement for working
in radio, but you were never allowed to drink. The
guy would he put. He drank, of course, vodka, which
(50:13):
doesn't have a real odor to it, and he'd put
it in some of it like a water bottle or something,
and hammered at the entire four hours that he was
He was the most effect I couldn't. You would not
have known had I not known, you would. He never
slurred his speech, but the combination should have constantly drinking
and smoking. You're just a skinny runt of a guy, Paul.
(50:34):
His voice was so deep. I mean, should I get
to Barry Weiss here or should I keep going on
on these completely? Barry Weiss used to work for the
New York Times. She's not a conservative. I describe her
as a moderate. She was at the Times a brilliant
(50:54):
journalist and one of the few that asked questions that
were difficult for the left. She was not politically correct.
She wrote a couple of opinion pieces challenging conventional wisdom
of the left, and they forced her out. She was
(51:15):
like in terms of journalism or of the New York Times,
she was a superstar. The staff of the New York
Times simply could not abide a prominent voice on the
paper that was not from the far left. So, of
course getting fired for Barry Weiss, forced out is the
better term. It's the best thing that could ever have
happened to her. She moved into the alternative media world
(51:35):
and she's become very, very huge. She's got a podcast,
but she also started a news organization. For those of
you that follow a lot of news sources online, the
free press, very big so and if you've ever heard
her talk, she's just she's one of the few people
that's in the field of journalism which I entered, you know,
(51:57):
half a century ago, that still has journalistic integrity, willing
to pursue stories without regard to who likes the outcome
where she was chasing. It's just a high quality person
and a strong reporter. Paramount, as you know, recently bought CBS.
Paramount's subsidiary, Skideans. Skuidance is run by I keep forgetting
(52:21):
his name. He's Larry Ellison's son. Larry Ellison is the
second richest guy in the world. Oracle. His son has
taken over Skydeans, and Skydance owns Paramount, and Paramount bought CBS,
so CBS CBS News lefty as can be, is now
under control of this company. And Ellison is not a lefty.
I don't think he's conservative, but he's bought CBS and
(52:44):
he's doing what I suggested forever and ever and ever
that one of the networks should do. Stop being leftist
and just play it down the middle. Stop chasing away
half your audience. Among the things that have happened since
they took this over. Colbert got fired and so on.
(53:06):
So I'm putting two stories together. Who do you think
paramount just hired to be the editor in chief of
CBS News Barry Wise. Now this is a big deal.
I am skeptical as to whether or not Berry can
fix this. Here's why. The problem with bias in the
news media is hiring a staff that isn't biased. Almost
(53:31):
everybody that goes into journalism is a left wing shell.
Now when I went into it, I think most people
went into it or left wing as well, but there
was generally integrity in which you were more interested in
breaking stories and being a spectacular success as a reporter
than carrying who won an election or whose ox was
getting gord. When I went to Benton Harbor, Michigan, and
(53:55):
I did reporting that I managed to get the mayor
and the city manager both forced out of office. Was
it my golden doing this thing? Was they were bad?
Speaker 3 (54:06):
Well?
Speaker 2 (54:06):
They were. I think every single person in Bretton Harbor
was like borderline corrupt. It was just one of those
things that happens when an entire city runs on federal
and state funds. But I liked both of them personally,
there's good stories and they are true stories. What do
I care what side of the issue they're on. But
now these people are all activists. So how do you
(54:27):
staff up CBS News without having left wing biased when
a everybody who works there is a left wing shell
who refuses not to be biased. Some people say, well,
how does Fox do it? The problem is foxes. You
know a lot of people who work for Fox and News.
They're liberal, but they're required to try to play the
news down the middle. I think every last person who's
(54:48):
willing to do it Fox already stapped up. So she's
going to be tasked with trying to turn this around. Now,
I would think one of the places she could start
at sixty minutes. Sixty minutes and it does a profile
piece of a conservative, it's a hit job. If it's
a liberal, it's a puff piece. Its just been the
case forever. She can simply require that we do a
(55:08):
few puff pieces on conservatives and hit jobs on liberals.
Just start from that point, because see, because sixty minutes
has like eighteen minute stories and they do what three
or four show, putting in one or two or three
that work. The other way would be one of the
easier things to do. Now this story revenge porn and
(55:34):
so called fake porn that we've talked about this forever,
we have a concrete case of it. Revenge porn is
you know what revenge porn is? Don't you? Getting back
at your actually posting? You know, Let's suppose you had
an AX and you were in a man and she
sent your naked pictures and all of that stuff. See,
(55:54):
you're married. I can't fathom a married couple doing it.
What's the point of if you're married sending them naked
pictures wandering around in the same host naked all the time?
See what like in your dating? They send it because okay,
I'm not here, And Paul ask me if I've ever
done this? If I didn't know, can you imagine me
being stupid enough to do it, or for that matter,
(56:15):
being enough of a dork? Oh look at me here,
here's my thing. Well, just a lot of people I
have you. I'm just saying, would you can you imagine
me doing it? No? All right, that's revenge porn? Say,
and then you break up when the person answering stuff
and they put it out there, and here's a that's
revenge porn. The other one is fake porn, which is
(56:36):
porn involving non humans. AI is getting better and better
and better, and we're debating in court whether or not
it should be illegal. For example, if you create fake
porn involving children, in other words, fake children, should that
(56:57):
be child porn? Not here to answer that. This involves
a combination of fake porn or AI generated porn with
revenge porn. Now you may be wondering how the two
can come together. The guys from Franklin, I'll get to
his name in a minute. He had a woman who
was dating back in twenty twenty two. Here's another thing,
these guys who can't let go by the way I say, guys,
(57:19):
it's women too fatal attraction be can't let go another
thing I don't get. See you now, you don't have
to get this. You've been married for eight hundred and
fifty seven years. I get people that get involved in
they're serious and all of that stuff. And I also
get your heart broken and you're angry and all of that.
There's a statue of limitations that most people are able
(57:41):
to live by on that, and it's usually distraught for
three weeks angry for three months, totally over it by
nine months. That's what I've observed in my life is general,
and the more serious the thing, you know that it
affects the timeline. But that's what I've generally seen. And you,
even as a merry guy, you've kind of seen, right,
(58:02):
You've observed that. Then there are people who can't let
go all right. Twenty twenty two. Guy dates a woman.
Apparently it wasn't for real long, they break up and
she dumbs him. Quoting from the story and JS online,
the two dated briefly in twenty twenty two. See now,
what I'm guessing is the guy has a hard time
(58:23):
getting women briefly is the key here? The other thing,
how can you get obsessed with somebody when you only
went out briefly? Wouldn't you think that would be hard?
I mean, I have dated in my life. You just
generally don't can to get an obsession if you've gone
out four times. That's what I'm saying. I don't know this,
but it's my guess. When she broke up with him,
(58:46):
he began to call her racial slurs and text her NonStop.
The texting thing, well, I don't know how long blocking
has been on the phones. You know how long it's
been on there a while. Well, she's out of a
black So now he's really frustrated because he can't communicate.
(59:08):
When you block on the text, you also blocked on
the phone calls. This leaves generally stalking. Okay, they keep
driving around, I don't. He doesn't appear to be accused
of that. He is accused, however, of both revenge porn
and AI porn. He doesn't have didn't have any photos,
according to this of her naked or in a compromising position,
(59:28):
but he does have photo of her, so he took
the photo allegedly this is a criminal allegation, and then
used AI to put her face on a body of
someone doing the nasty and porn and you know, in
the you can make this look very real right now,
and then distributed. So he's distributing a photo of his
(59:49):
ex in sexually compromising faces and it actually is her face,
but it's not her body, it's AI generated. There are
criminal charges against him. He's from Franklin. His name is
Kevin I think pronounced Schultz Sccholz, forty five of Franklin.
He's charged with by the way, we just passed this
law in Wisconsin dealing with the whole issue of revenge
(01:00:10):
point and so on. And it's going to have to
be tested in the court as to whether or not
this is legal. And I hope that this is something
to be illegal. To imagine just taking someone's face and
then presenting them doing things it can't be legal, capturing
an inter representation of someone without consent, and disorderly conduct.
In late September, he used to work as a cop.
(01:00:31):
That's from the js online story. His Lincoln page shows
he previously worked in law enforcement in Milwaukee and Walworth Counties.
He worked for the town of Norway the Southwest Milwaukee
in the south West Milwaukee metro as a boat patrol
officer between twenty seven and twenty nineteen, before he resigned
before an internal investigation was completed. So you ever a
bit of him twenty nineteen. I don't know if it
had anything to do with this, because this happened years
(01:00:53):
before the thing in twenty twenty two. My advice to
him and anybody else kind of let it go. Let
me say, well, it's easy for you to say yes,
it's easy for me to say I know. This podcast
(01:01:18):
seems some of you don't think it last long enough.
Others off you think I go on and on it forever.
What did I tell you at the beginning of the podcast,
you with the mind of whatever the opposite of a
steel trap is, what would that be? Like a mesh netting,
kind of sieve, kind of like gelatinous thing that everything
just kind of pours through. I don't remember I said
(01:01:47):
that I would work in the story somewhere. It's coming
up in a second here about lying as a way
of getting what you want in governmental activity, how it
has been, especially on the left, just become common to
the point of acceptance. It's almost as well if we
can get away with it, so what, because we're doing
(01:02:08):
the right thing. I have an example of this in
a moment For those of you who do not even
remember that, I teas that, like Paul, I wonder what
percentage was sitting back there thinking I remember, I bet
more than half. It wasn't. What was it the longest
amount of time. I could have done it two minutes
ago and you would not have remembered it. This is
(01:02:30):
why I write things down, or I would then forget
go do a teasing. At the beginning of the podcast
and then forget to do it at the end. But
I haven't written right down for the third segment. You know,
do this so if you want to know what this
is right here next to the Marked Belling podcast, this
is the Mark Belling podcast. I need to I'm not
(01:02:53):
going to name the person, but a listener found this
for me and forwarded it. I'm going to give you
the background of the story, and then I'm going to
give you the live The story itself is happening in
a lot of communities in Wisconsin. All these municipalities, cities, counties, etc.
They all claim they're out of money, and they're up
(01:03:16):
against the limits that are in place as to how
much governmental bodies can raise their spending. They can only
raise the tax levy by a certain amount each year
without going to the voters and seeking approval. And I'm
just telling you all over the place, they're claiming we
need to raise, we need to raise, we need to raise.
When they're not able to get voter approval to do
(01:03:38):
the raising. What's been resorted to in a number of
communities is to try to take something that is a
city service that you're already paying for under your property
tax and breaking it out and charging it as a
separate fee. In other words, take a service that's in
there and take it out of the regular city budget,
(01:03:59):
so you've now lowered you're spending and therefore you can
spend that money on something else, but then charging it
out as a separate fee, separate from your property taxes.
Some of these have been challenged in court what Wisconsin
Institute in Law and Liberty that have been struck down
as unconstitutional. Whether or not the one that I'm going
to discuss here will be or not, I don't know.
I don't know exactly whether or not you can charge
(01:04:20):
for these things or not. The story is some Waukeshaw
City of Waukeshaw, not to be confused with washing Wakashaw County.
City of Wakshaw is proposing a garbage fee. Currently, garbage
services are included in the city budget and covered by
people's property taxes. Wakshaw is proposing to break out the
(01:04:44):
garbage from the city budget and instead charge all property
owners a fee to have the garbage picked up. The
fee would be one hundred and sixty dollars. This story
is not about whether or not they should or shouldn't well,
I will say they should and do it, but that's
not the point of the story. In order to gain
support for this, they've created a website in which they
(01:05:09):
make the case for creating the garbage fee. And one
of the things that they do is, we're gonna talk
about a chart.
Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Here.
Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
I'm gonna describe a chart. And obviously I don't have
a video podcast. You can't see this, but just pay
attention to me. I think you can follow this. I'm
very good at simplifying things. I'm right up there with
Caroline love It. What they do is they create a
chart and the chart show. The chart shows two squiggly lines.
(01:05:36):
One of the squiggly lines is the increase each year
in the property tax levee. The other squiggly line is
the CPI, the Consumer Price Index. Obviously both go up
over time. So one graph charts and they go back
let's see it starts in twenty fourteen, so they go
(01:05:57):
back eleven years and they're tracking the cp and that's
one of the lines in the graph, and then the
property tax levee and the other. And the point that
they're trying to make is the property tax levee increases,
not keeping up with inflation so far fair enough. On
the left side of the chart, before the line start,
(01:06:19):
they have a graph that shows percentages, and I'll read
here like zero point five one, one point five to two. So,
in other words, as the as the lines on the
graph move up, that indicates the corresponding higher number of
percentage increase. You're with me, so far right, So they've
got the two lines. Would you believe that they bleeped
(01:06:44):
with the lines on the line with regard to the
city property tax levee for all eleven years that line
is below the other squiggly line for the CPI, creating
the impression that in every one of those years the
tax levee went up less than the CPI. But there
(01:07:06):
are several years here in which the CPI went up
at a lower rate, yet on the graph its graphed
out is a higher level. So I remember when I said,
over on the left, they've got the percentage chart. The
city tax levee does correspond to what the percentage is,
and it's generally in the range of one to two percent,
(01:07:27):
and you see it on the graph at that point.
But the CPI number does not correspond to the chart
on the left. In one year. In fact, the highest
increase in the CPI was Biden's zero when it went
to seven point seven. But they've got it on the
graph as over nine and every year that I looked
(01:07:48):
at on here, the CPI number is higher on the
chart than the corresponding percentage is off to the left.
It creates the impression that the CPI is all always
way higher than the property tax level. Now, if you
looked at the number and under each of them they
have a tiny little number, you would see that the
that the chart is actually a lie in several years,
(01:08:11):
that the two lines should be crossing against one another
because the CPI is lower than the increase in the
property text. Let me, but they haven't higher the entire
time around. And then at the end they average out
the increase in the years, which is only one percent.
But the lines are like miles apart. Could this just
(01:08:33):
be a walker Shaw bureaucrat who's an idiot who doesn't
know how to track, you know, create charts. We've seen
these charts all the time. In fact, you'll see it
a lot with regard to say a mutual fund versus
the S and P. Five hundred and some years, the
mutual fund will do better than the sp and the
charts go zig zag back and forth. We have them
with interest rates and so on any number of charts
you'll see that they'll cross over from time to time.
(01:08:55):
This one never crosses, even though the numbers crossed. I
think this is deliberate. I think that whoever did it,
Anthony Brown's the city administrator. Sean Riley is the mayor.
Whoever did it is a liar. By the way, prior
to today's podcast, I both called and emailed the both
(01:09:17):
of them. I did not at the beginning as of
the start of the podcast get a response some either
of them on this. So again, the people in the
City of Walking show passing this garbage fee may or
may not be a good idea under your position, But
the material that they're putting out of the website is
a deliberately dishonest chart trying to create. Here's the thing. Actually,
(01:09:38):
over the last eleven years there was the CPI did
go up a little bit more than the property tax levey,
but only a little bit, so they could have said
that it went out more than that. But they have
to stack the deck by creating this chart to make
it look like it went up every year more than that,
and that the end result it's a way higher in
carease rather than the mere one percent that I cited
(01:09:59):
a annualized basis. And again, I just there's there was
a time in which government officials, the local governments would
not do this, that they have an obligation to be
honest with the public with regard to their funds. We're
in an error right now, and this is you know,
they lefties at Riley's finally leave it as mayor, thank god.
In Waukeshaw, they've had two lefty mayors in a row
(01:10:19):
in that city, even though the city votes Republican. The
city administrator, they go through those things like it's gonna say,
like I go through socks, but that's a bad analogy.
I hang on to socks until there's a hole. That's
my theory on it. Isn't that your theory? You toss
them before the whole? No, I think your wife mid
tosses it before them. Well exactly, I do not know
(01:10:42):
the whole. That's when they get tossed. But the level
of being a pathetic single guy is to wear them
even after the hole. I am not at that level,
So I don't really go through socks that fast. So
that's the point that I am making is is that
I was mentioned in the city managed they've had a lot.
I'm brown is rather new. Just you know, go out
(01:11:05):
there and we've seen and you know the what's the term?
This whole notion was created by the school referendums that
they put out there. They're never honest about that. They
never include the borrowing costs. They always work with the
numbers and massage them to try to do a cell
job on them. That's what the City of Wakashaw is
doing here make the case for creating the garbage fee. Again,
(01:11:25):
whether it's legal or not, I don't know, but you
don't have to go and create this chart. That's a
load of crap. And again I credit a listener who
sitting at home read the chart and he noticed this.
My guess is because most people don't look at this
and they're not analytical, and who's going to go in
there and see what the actual number is? Never picked
up on it, but this guy did. If walk a
(01:11:48):
Shaw retracts, apologizes and if necessary, I may file an
open record's request to see who designed this so we
know which particular city employee is an absolute lying piece
of you know what or not. And if they want
to say that the guy is just so stupid, well,
if you're in charge of making grafts and you're too
stupid and know how to make a draft, maybe rather
than raise the garbage sheet, we should just get rid
(01:12:09):
of you. Add with that podcast us now quite a
good one. I think, what do you mean very good?
I said up very I only said good myself. I
think you should say it was a great one. Here's
a great one. You didn't even say that with any
sense of enthusiasm. What's the There's a lot of rotten
(01:12:31):
ones out there. Just scroll around and start listening to them.
You want to know really bad one? I think she
stopped doing it. The Michelle Obama one was really really
all right by.
Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
The Mark Belling Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio Podcasts,
Production and engineering by Paul Crownforest. The Mark Belling Podcast
is presented by you Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies.
You Line has everything in stock. Visit you line dot com.
Listen to all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
(01:13:07):
favorite podcasts,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.