Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, this is Goober seven, three nine six and Lewisville, Kentucky.
I think we should seize this opportunity to convince all
these people who are crying and moaning and belly aching
and shaking their fists towards the heavens that we need
a smaller central government. That way, it wouldn't matter quite
as much in our personal day to day lives who's
in power.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Oh my god, what a dream.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
That's far too rational.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
It's too rational, and it's too it's too original intent,
it's too much about it's too close to what the
Founding Father's actually envisioned this country would be governed.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
I want to finish up.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
On Sunny Houstin and then I want to get to
a text message because it kind of feeds into that
into your talk back about a decentralized federal government. So
Sunny Austin is crying all these uh that I was
gonna say crocodile tears, But I don't think that's right.
I think this woman is sincere, which makes it even worse.
(01:02):
If you were faking it, i'd be a little less okay,
But no, this woman is serious. She thinks that both herself,
her daughter. They they've they've lost civil rights. They they're
gonna live in some sort of tyranny, and the country
as they know, it's coming to an end. You know
(01:24):
what I find funny about it is, you know there
they're effective tax marginal. Tax rates will probably actually go
down if Trump, you know.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Trump tax cuts stay in place.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
She doesn't realize that her tax rate would probably go
up under a Herros regime. So all these great things
are going to happen, free speech will flourish, But no,
she thinks everything the opposite. Why have you ever thought
about just why. I think it's because they can't differentiate
(02:01):
an individual from the policies.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
I've often told you.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
For example, I can't tell you that I, although I've
really grown to dislike the man, I can't tell you
that I like I've described with Joe Biden, for example,
I personally dislike Joe Biden. I personally disliked Joe Biden
because I know Joe Biden, and I worked with him
not as president but as a US Senator.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
And he was an empty suit.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
I despise Barack Obama's policies, but I can't tell you
that I despise Barack Obama personally, because even though he
was a senator while I was the Undersecretary, he was
always off campaign to become he was just never had
any interaction. I can't tell you that. I honestly cannot
(02:53):
tell you.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
That.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
I mean, I think about all the current senators other
than those who came into office after I left, and
even some of those I've had encolories with, But I
cannot tell you that I ever, in the two years
that Barack Obama would have been a US Senator while
I was in DC, that I ever even saw him
in person, let alone have any interactions with him. Sunny Hawston.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
So again, I am profoundly diserved that the fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution did not prevent someone who participated in
an insurrection from becoming president of the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
You have to give them credit. And this is why
language is such a bugaboo with me. It was not
an insurrection. If it was, it was the most amateury,
poorly thought out, subjected to infiltration from the very people
(04:01):
they were supposed to be rising up against.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
At best, it was a mostly peaceful riot.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
And it was a mostly peaceful riot at best, in
which only an insurrectionist was actually killed.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
There were no fires, so as much as I can recall,
So it wasn't mostly peaceful.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Well that's right, there, weren't. They didn't even burn anything. Dang,
we don't yet. We don't even have any like burn
marks on the side of the Capitol to take our
children to go. You know what on January sixth, twenty
twenty one, guess what happened right here?
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Broken glass though, Well.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
They may have swept it up by them. They may
have swept it that by them. They have succeeded in
some quarters, obviously, not these quarters. They have succeeded in
making January sixth not a riot, not a demonstration that
got out of control, not a mostly peaceful demo.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Whatever.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
You know, they've they've turned it into an insurrection. And
that was with malice of forethought, because they thought they
could twist the fourteenth Amendment into a prohibition of Donald
Trump ever getting near the Oval office. Again, Think about that,
Think about how powerful words still are. No wonder they
(05:24):
want to censor speech, No wonder. They want to control
what you see, what you hear, what you write, what
you listen to. No wonder, they want to control all
of that because They've taken one single word insurrection, yanked
it out of the Constitution and said, Aha, this is
what we can tie him to. These people are nuts,
(05:47):
absolutely utterly nuts. And those that hate listen or those
who are of a different political persuasion than I am,
or disagree with everything that I'm saying. You would be
(06:10):
hard pressed to come up with some sort of rationalization
for the five ws of who want, where, when, and
why of their thinking because it does not make any sense.
And I can tell you, as the guy with the
lawyer brain, I have tried to make sense out of
(06:31):
it so that I could more accurately or more decisively
rip it apart. You can't make any sense out of
it because it's nonsensical.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Dragon. Do you have your sunny houstin you? I'd love
to hear it.
Speaker 6 (06:52):
Some pundits are asking what the vice president could have
done differently to break through with the voters.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Of course, she only had three.
Speaker 6 (07:01):
Once the campaign rallied, she kicked his butt all over
the country over the course of those two months. She
did every debate, every interview. People kept saying they didn't
know who she was, so then she told her who
she was, So how much more could she have done
or should she?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
I mean, can you tell her just a moment, She's
crazy already.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
She's already crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Done every debate.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
She did, every interview she did, really.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
His butt all over the place.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
All those days, Little lux and everybody kept counting down
during the campaign was have I been on vacation and
didn't know what? Have I been on a different planet?
Clearly Holy cow would be used to loss your freaking mind.
Speaker 6 (07:46):
What gets better from buck naking dancing on the top
of the table.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
I don't know what.
Speaker 7 (07:51):
Else she could have done, she could have done more.
I think she left it all out on the field.
I think she raised a billion dollars in three months.
I think that she did. She ran a flawless campaign.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And I maintained she ran a campaign, a flawless campaign.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Oh my god, these people are delusional.
Speaker 7 (08:10):
Yeah. I think now it's the time for us to work.
I think now is the time that we must stay vigilant.
We have to speak truth to power and speak out.
I intend to continue doing that. I think we need
to stick up to bullying. We have to make sure
that our institutions hold. I think that we have to
watch very carefully the Supreme Court and the federal judicial appointments.
(08:31):
And I think that we need to protest when we
and exercise our right of freedom of speech and protests
as is required or embedded.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
In the Constitution.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
And I think in two years, if we see this
country in a direction that we don't want it to be,
then we must stand up and we must vote again
in the midterms.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
You know, there you go.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
You know what, I don't disagree with any of that.
I one under integree with everything she just said. I think,
if I heard it right, she's saying that if if
she sees like any violations of free speech, we.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Should we should oppose that, agreed.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
If we see any any sort of bullying going on,
we should oppose that.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Uh, if we see any sort of you know, uh,
decisions that we don't like in the Supreme.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Court, Okay, what are you gonna do?
Speaker 4 (09:24):
You should watch judicial appointments, well, you should, of course
you should. You should be involved in the civic life
of this nation. You don't like the fact that there
is now a Republican controlled United States Senate? That will
I they better, or even I will be denouncing them.
(09:47):
Had Berry rapidly and quickly approve Trump's cabinet. You know,
Trump has learned a lesson from his first term, and
that is don't stop, do not slow down, do not
let them distract you. And I think the Senate has learned,
do not allow the Democrats to keep you from governing.
(10:13):
That's the one flaw from the well, there are a
couple of flaws from the first term.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
COVID, I would say, is the main one.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
But the other flaw from Trump's first term that I
think he's learned a great lesson is fight, fight, fight,
And if they come at you with these things, you're
going to have to learn to do two things at
the same time, which I know that he can do,
and that is fight whatever the law, fair is, or
anything else they try to do, and govern the same time,
(10:48):
which means you're going to have people around you. Need
people around you that are going to be loyal soldiers
that will do as you finally decide. You can have
all the debate you want, but then you'll make a decision,
mister president, and then you expect that cabinet and all
those sub level of cabinet appointees to go carry out
(11:09):
that mission. And I think he's learned that lesson so
I don't know that I disagree with anything she Now,
I think Whoopy's crazy in her in her post election
diagnoses of what went wrong, because I think that every
single thing that Whoopy said, I don't think Kamla did
(11:32):
any of those things. And I think the Democrats recognize that. Now,
before I swearve on off into the Jack Smith cases
and the New York Attorney General and the Alvin Bragg cases,
I'm going to go to a couple of text messages
(12:04):
Michael speaking of insurrection. Yesterday at four thirty three pm,
Eric Swolwell posted, not period going period quietly period, You're
not either period. Let's get loud, period, and let's get going. Okay,
let's get it on. You know, you and I as
(12:28):
conservative libertarians, constitutionalists, however you want to describe ourselves. I say, sure,
we're not going either, and we're not going quietly, and
we're gonna get loud, and we're gonna get going and
we're gonna get some stuff done. And and if that
means we're going, you know, remember go back to.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Again.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
I'm still shocked by these numbers. Well, in a way
I'm shocked. In the way I'm not shocked, but go
back to that Fox News voter analysis in which they wanted,
you know, the question was, do you want the uh,
do you want a little bit of change, no change,
or do you want like drastic upheaval? And I remember
(13:14):
the word upheaval was the other extreme from no change
to upheaval. And a vast majority of like well beyond
two thirds of Americans want vast upheaval.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
I'm one of those.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
I think we need to drastically do things, and we
need to drastically do things. They're going to break a
lot of the entrenched administrative deep dark however, you want
to describe at state that rules our lives, for example.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
The.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Let me see if I can find the text message,
because this this is really good. Actually it's a combination
of two text messages. Same person, Guber ninety two forty nine, Michael,
can you explain what it will look like if public
schools are eliminated on the federal level. Now, let me
(14:19):
go and tell you what The next text was from
the same goober, Michael, my niece is flipping out because
Trump might eliminate the Department of Education. I need a
good way of explaining what it would look like if
left to the states, it would look like the way
it's supposed to be. Now, let's go back to the
(14:41):
first point, though, Can you explain what it will look
like if public schools are eliminated on the federal level, Patty,
There are no schools on the federal level. Every school
in the entire country, with maybe the exception of the
Naval Academy.
Speaker 2 (14:59):
The academies.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Public schools are run at the state and local level,
and primarily at the local level. Funding, however, has greatly
shifted to the federal level. Now you're looking at your
property tax bills, particularly in Colorado and going, holy thesis, Batman.
(15:25):
You mean most of my property taxes are going to
fund local education. And then on top of that, part
of the income tax that I pay every year that's
going to fund public education.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Also, where are the hell is all that money going?
Speaker 4 (15:38):
That's a great question, and it's a question you should
be asking because the creation of the Department of Education
and programs like Bush's stupid no Child Left Behind policy
are destroying public education. Now we can have a I
(16:00):
want to separate this discussion. I'm not discussing whether or
not we should have what in essenor government runs schools
set that aside for a moment. Let's not discuss that.
Let's assume for a moment that we have government run schools.
So the question really is at what level should those
(16:20):
schools be managed. Well, the founding fathers and all the
way through most of American history, public education was left
to the states, and in particular to the localities. Why
for the same reason that abortion should be an issue
(16:44):
that is left to the states, Because every state, every
locality should be able to decide on their own for that.
You know, the lowest level of going is the best governance.
Why because that's where you get the best response. If
(17:08):
you don't like what's going on, he is the easiest
way of changing it. So if you don't like the
way a local school's being run, what do you do?
He kicked out the school board because the school board
is the most responsive. You think about a US congressman
and all of the issues that a congressman has to
deal with, you create the Department of Education. Congress doesn't
(17:32):
give a rats ass about education. No, they've advocated that
to the Department of Ed. So what happens if we
get rid of the Department of Eds?
Speaker 8 (17:39):
Michael, your honor in point of fact, one does not
have the right to protest. One has the right to
peaceably assemble, and one has the right to petition the government,
not protest.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
I would disagree with you. Protest is a form of speech,
and it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. So I can
protest all I want to and it's guaranteed by the Constitution.
So you can play some antics with the lawyer all
the day long if you want to. But protest is
a form of speech. If if uh, if a figure
(18:17):
of Christ in a jar of piss is protected by
the First Amendment, my ability to go protest and demonstrate
is also protected by the First Amendment. Protests can take
the form of uh, of a sit in, of a demonstration,
of a speech, of a of a picket line. Those
are all protests and they're all protected by the First Amendment.
(18:39):
So I'm not quite sure what the point is that
you're trying to make. Protest is a First Amendment right.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
And yeah, you have the right.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
You have the right to peaceably assemble, you can do
that too. It all fits in together. But go back
to the Department of Ed. YEA, the elimination of the
Department of Ed has not been directly as far as
I can recall, it's not been directly addressed other than
indirectly with Elawn Musks and Bobby Kennedy Jr. And for
(19:12):
that matter, Trump too, wanting to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse,
trying to make the government more efficient.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
We'll go back to schools.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
If the Department of Education were to disappear tomorrow, what
would happen?
Speaker 2 (19:26):
You know?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Ironically, during the break, I checked, you know, I'm checking
my email, my personal email, and I you know, I
get my daily digests from the USPS about what mail's coming. Well,
guess what's in my mail today? My property tax bill
and that fantastic yay yay.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
That makes me happy.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
So that money is going to go pay for schools
in Douglas County, Colorado. Most of it's going to when
when you create when they when they created the Department ed,
the idea was we wanted to you know, set standards,
we wanted to do. But what it really became was
(20:07):
another outlet by which the teacher unions could go to
another source of funding and start getting grant money.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Direct transfers, what.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
Any way you want to transfer money from the federal
government to the states, and then the states, in compliance
whatever the terms of the grants were, would then distribute
that money out to local school districts. Now, you know
that federal money comes with strings attached. So you might have,
(20:41):
for example, let's just use DEI, you might have a grant.
You know, a school district's desperate for some money. They
you know, their property tax bases eroding and or their
school enrollment is exploding, whatever the situation before. What what
a reason a local school district is needing additional funds?
(21:04):
State doesn't have it? So is the state?
Speaker 9 (21:07):
Do?
Speaker 4 (21:07):
The state applies for a grant and they look around.
They got they got these little grant writers everywhere, and
they scour the they scour everything that the government puts
out as potential grants, and they'll focus on education and
then they'll find a grant does make any difference what
the grants for, they don't care. Here's a grant for
(21:28):
a bazillion dollars, but it requires us to implement DEI. Okay,
we'll take it. Now, why are they willing to take it?
Because if they get let's just say a million dollars
for a State of Colorado education grant from Doe Colorado
gets that million dollars. They then apply the same requirements
(21:52):
to local school districts. So now local school district will say, okay, well,
how can we take this money and comply with the
grant requirements and still apply the money to our general fund. Oh,
we'll hire a DEI assistant principle, or a DEI assistant superintendent,
(22:14):
or a DEI curriculum director or you know whatever, whatever,
I don't care what it is that they'll they'll hire
a person to administer the grant and they'll pay that person,
you know, one hundred thousand dollars a year, whatever it
might be, and then they'll take the balance of the
grant and as long as in the curriculum they somehow
(22:37):
can show whether it's true or not, doesn't make any difference.
If they can just show that they've used that money
to somehow implement DEI, even though it might be a
penny on the dollar. The other ninety nine cents is
now used for general fund. So all we've done is
(22:59):
we've create a new source of money. But it's much
more complicated than just creating a new source of money.
Have you ever seen the Department of Education in Washington,
d C. Go on to Google Earth and go search
(23:19):
for I forget what the address is, search for Department
of Education, and then do a Google Earth view of
that building and imagine in that building, if there's anybody
showing up for work today're probably all still working from home,
sitting in their pjs, having some green tea or coffee
right now. All of those people get salary benefits. There
(23:46):
are political appointees, there are contractors, There are hundreds of
thousands of I don't even know what the employment I
don't have to.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Go google it real quick.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Let's just say there's hundreds of thousands of people that
work within the US Department of Education. So when you
pay your tax, your income tax bill, you first have
to pay all of those people. So you pay a
dollar of income tax to the Department of Education. Probably
(24:21):
at least a nickel, if not ten cents of that
dollar goes to do nothing more than just to pay
the bureaucrats in DC that are then going to take
the other ninety cents that's left over turn that through contractors,
so contractors will take part of it. They'll then send
(24:43):
let's say, let's just I'm just pulling numbers out of
my butt here. Now they've got seventy five cents left.
They'll send that seventy five cents back to Colorado for
that million dollar grant. Well, you go look at the
Department of Education in Colorado that is paid for by
(25:04):
Colorado income taxes. And by now some of the grant
money that they get from the Feds, again, your income
tax dollars are going to pay those salaries. So now
by the time they grant finally gets out to be
awarded to a school district somewhere, it might be and
I'm being generous in my I'm being very liberal in
(25:26):
my numbers. Here, fifty cents of that one dollar in
income tax now actually ends up in a school district.
Let's just money laundering. That's just pure unadult rate of
money laundering to support a gigantic bureaucracy that's doing nothing
except telling local school districts how to run your school district.
(25:49):
And here's some money that will give you an exchange
for you complying with our federal mandate. It is utterly absurd.
There is no reason for it whatsoever. If you want
your school district to be run by people that you
(26:13):
elect in that school board race, then you want to
do everything you can to demand that the United States
Department of Education be completely eliminated, because now you've got
people sitting inside the Beltway in DC dictating how your
local school is going to be run. And that's how
(26:36):
the administrative state, the deep state, gets their claws into everything.
You don't think the little goobers that work at the
Colorado Department of Education don't gin reflect and bend over
and grab their ankles for the bureaucrats at the federal level.
And you don't think that school boards and local superintendents
(26:59):
and all the people that work for them don't bend
over and grab their ankles for both the state and
the federal bureaucrats, then you're not paying attention to what's
going on in your school district. The one the only
(27:19):
thing that when you strip away all of the nicely
titled programs, the grants and everything else, all it amounts
to is money. That's all on top of the money
requirements requirements that are imposed not by the people that
(27:44):
you elect at the local school district to run your schools,
but by a bureaucrat in Washington, DC. And if you
think that John Hickenlooper or Michael Bemmont or Diana de
Gett or anybody else really gives as asked about what
the Department of Education is doing, they don't. They'll point
(28:05):
to some wonderful program, Oh, look we have. Do you
think reading skills have improved? Have math skills improved? Has
anything improved? No, because there's no accountability, no accountability whatsoever.
Eliminate the Department of Education. Now, I've heard that since
(28:26):
Ronald reag and I've heard that for forty efing years
about how we're going to eliminate the Department of Education.
Now go back to what voters say they want upheaval.
Now I question whether they really do or not, because
if Trump and whoever he points is his secretary of
Education were to embark on a mission to dismantle the
(28:52):
Department of Education, the teacher unions would.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Squeal like stuck pigs.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
In fact, I would even argue that even the most
conservative district in Colorado, wherever that might be used to think,
might be Douglas County, but not anymore. Maybe it's al
Paso County. Maybe they might start screaming a little bit,
but not too much, because just in case it doesn't
get eliminated. They don't want to be on the bad
(29:19):
side of the bureaucrats at the state level or the
federal level that are building out the dollars.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Oh, and it is break time.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
So to answer your question, there are technically no federal schools,
except when you look at funding, you'll realize that property taxes,
while still the bulk of funding, is slowly losing influence
(29:52):
to state and federal funding, which again is you except
its income taxes instead of property Texas.
Speaker 9 (30:02):
Michael, over one hundred thousand K through twelve schools in
this country every month. There are literally tens of thousands
of pages of reports being compiled and collated and transmitted
to the federal Department of Education. If you eliminated the
federal Department of Education, you could cut hundreds of administrative
heads from those local schools and local school boards.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
Amen enough about the Department of Ed for a moment.
Let's go back to the protest. Give a number eight
zero three zero, Michael. One does not have the right
to interfere with another's lawful endeavors of commerce, even when
that endeavor is the target of the protest. I never
said that you had the right to interfere with commercial
(30:47):
activity or to infringe on someone else's rights. Protest is
a protected First Amendment right, but that protected right does
not give you the authority or the right, or the
privilege or whatever word you want to use to go
interfere with someone else's right to engage in commerce. For example,
(31:09):
if I want to protest working conditions in this studio,
I have a First Amendment right to do so. And
I can go out here on the public sidewalk and
I can make I can get a little you know,
I'll get a union worker to give me a sign
of protest about lousy working conditions at iHeart, and I
(31:29):
can march up and down the street, and that's exercising
my First Amendment right all I want to. However, if
I then walk to the front door and keep dragging
from coming in, that crosses the line. This all started
with somebody saying that protest was not a First Amendment right.
(31:51):
It is a First Amendment right, but protest does not
mean that you can then go infringe on someone else's right,
for example, to engage in commerce or.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
To go to work. You see, this is why.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
I think that the liberal media and public education and
I'm not picking on you eight zero three zero, but
I do believe, very sincerely that this nation has lost
its absolute intellectual capability to critically think about what the
(32:33):
Constitution means, because they've so conflated words a protest. When
I say protest, people then think and I can hear
dragons saying it right now, Well it's a mostly peaceful demonstration.
Those mostly peaceful demonstrations were unlawful.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Criminal activities. They weren't.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
They were protests, but they weren't constitutionally protected protests. Oh,
Jack Smith, let's talking about law fair coming up next?
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Because boy, is the sword going to hit the fan
now
Michael, this is Goober seven, three nine six and Lewisville, Kentucky.
I think we should seize this opportunity to convince all
these people who are crying and moaning and belly aching
and shaking their fists towards the heavens that we need
a smaller central government. That way, it wouldn't matter quite
as much in our personal day to day lives who's
in power.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Oh my god, what a dream.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
That's far too rational.
Speaker 4 (00:24):
It's too rational, and it's too it's too original intent,
it's too much about it's too close to what the
Founding Father's actually envisioned this country would be governed.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
I want to finish up.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
On Sunny Houstin and then I want to get to
a text message because it kind of feeds into that
into your talk back about a decentralized federal government. So
Sunny Austin is crying all these uh that I was
gonna say crocodile tears, But I don't think that's right.
I think this woman is sincere, which makes it even worse.
(01:02):
If you were faking it, i'd be a little less okay,
But no, this woman is serious. She thinks that both herself,
her daughter. They they've they've lost civil rights. They they're
gonna live in some sort of tyranny, and the country
as they know, it's coming to an end. You know
(01:24):
what I find funny about it is, you know there
they're effective tax marginal. Tax rates will probably actually go
down if Trump, you know.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Trump tax cuts stay in place.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
She doesn't realize that her tax rate would probably go
up under a Herros regime. So all these great things
are going to happen, free speech will flourish, But no,
she thinks everything the opposite. Why have you ever thought
about just why. I think it's because they can't differentiate
(02:01):
an individual from the policies.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
I've often told you.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
For example, I can't tell you that I, although I've
really grown to dislike the man, I can't tell you
that I like I've described with Joe Biden, for example,
I personally dislike Joe Biden. I personally disliked Joe Biden
because I know Joe Biden, and I worked with him
not as president but as a US Senator.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
And he was an empty suit.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
I despise Barack Obama's policies, but I can't tell you
that I despise Barack Obama personally, because even though he
was a senator while I was the Undersecretary, he was
always off campaign to become he was just never had
any interaction. I can't tell you that. I honestly cannot
(02:53):
tell you.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
That.
Speaker 4 (02:56):
I mean, I think about all the current senators other
than those who came into office after I left, and
even some of those I've had encolories with, But I
cannot tell you that I ever, in the two years
that Barack Obama would have been a US Senator while
I was in DC, that I ever even saw him
in person, let alone have any interactions with him. Sunny Hawston.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
So again, I am profoundly diserved that the fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution did not prevent someone who participated in
an insurrection from becoming president of the United States.
Speaker 4 (03:36):
You have to give them credit. And this is why
language is such a bugaboo with me. It was not
an insurrection. If it was, it was the most amateury,
poorly thought out, subjected to infiltration from the very people
(04:01):
they were supposed to be rising up against.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
At best, it was a mostly peaceful riot.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
And it was a mostly peaceful riot at best, in
which only an insurrectionist was actually killed.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
There were no fires, so as much as I can recall,
So it wasn't mostly peaceful.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Well that's right, there, weren't. They didn't even burn anything. Dang,
we don't yet. We don't even have any like burn
marks on the side of the Capitol to take our
children to go. You know what on January sixth, twenty
twenty one, guess what happened right here?
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Broken glass though, Well.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
They may have swept it up by them. They may
have swept it that by them. They have succeeded in
some quarters, obviously, not these quarters. They have succeeded in
making January sixth not a riot, not a demonstration that
got out of control, not a mostly peaceful demo.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Whatever.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
You know, they've they've turned it into an insurrection. And
that was with malice of forethought, because they thought they
could twist the fourteenth Amendment into a prohibition of Donald
Trump ever getting near the Oval office. Again, Think about that,
Think about how powerful words still are. No wonder they
(05:24):
want to censor speech, No wonder. They want to control
what you see, what you hear, what you write, what
you listen to. No wonder, they want to control all
of that because They've taken one single word insurrection, yanked
it out of the Constitution and said, Aha, this is
what we can tie him to. These people are nuts,
(05:47):
absolutely utterly nuts. And those that hate listen or those
who are of a different political persuasion than I am,
or disagree with everything that I'm saying. You would be
(06:10):
hard pressed to come up with some sort of rationalization
for the five ws of who want, where, when, and
why of their thinking because it does not make any sense.
And I can tell you, as the guy with the
lawyer brain, I have tried to make sense out of
(06:31):
it so that I could more accurately or more decisively
rip it apart. You can't make any sense out of
it because it's nonsensical.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Dragon. Do you have your sunny houstin you? I'd love
to hear it.
Speaker 6 (06:52):
Some pundits are asking what the vice president could have
done differently to break through with the voters.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Of course, she only had three.
Speaker 6 (07:01):
Once the campaign rallied, she kicked his butt all over
the country over the course of those two months. She
did every debate, every interview. People kept saying they didn't
know who she was, so then she told her who
she was, So how much more could she have done
or should she?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
I mean, can you tell her just a moment, She's
crazy already.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
She's already crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Done every debate.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
She did, every interview she did, really.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
His butt all over the place.
Speaker 4 (07:31):
All those days, Little lux and everybody kept counting down
during the campaign was have I been on vacation and
didn't know what? Have I been on a different planet?
Clearly Holy cow would be used to loss your freaking mind.
Speaker 6 (07:46):
What gets better from buck naking dancing on the top
of the table.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
I don't know what.
Speaker 7 (07:51):
Else she could have done, she could have done more.
I think she left it all out on the field.
I think she raised a billion dollars in three months.
I think that she did. She ran a flawless campaign.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And I maintained she ran a campaign, a flawless campaign.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Oh my god, these people are delusional.
Speaker 7 (08:10):
Yeah. I think now it's the time for us to work.
I think now is the time that we must stay vigilant.
We have to speak truth to power and speak out.
I intend to continue doing that. I think we need
to stick up to bullying. We have to make sure
that our institutions hold. I think that we have to
watch very carefully the Supreme Court and the federal judicial appointments.
(08:31):
And I think that we need to protest when we
and exercise our right of freedom of speech and protests
as is required or embedded.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
In the Constitution.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
And I think in two years, if we see this
country in a direction that we don't want it to be,
then we must stand up and we must vote again
in the midterms.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
You know, there you go.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
You know what, I don't disagree with any of that.
I one under integree with everything she just said. I think,
if I heard it right, she's saying that if if
she sees like any violations of free speech, we.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Should we should oppose that, agreed.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
If we see any any sort of bullying going on,
we should oppose that.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (09:17):
Uh, if we see any sort of you know, uh,
decisions that we don't like in the Supreme.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Court, Okay, what are you gonna do?
Speaker 4 (09:24):
You should watch judicial appointments, well, you should, of course
you should. You should be involved in the civic life
of this nation. You don't like the fact that there
is now a Republican controlled United States Senate? That will
I they better, or even I will be denouncing them.
(09:47):
Had Berry rapidly and quickly approve Trump's cabinet. You know,
Trump has learned a lesson from his first term, and
that is don't stop, do not slow down, do not
let them distract you. And I think the Senate has learned,
do not allow the Democrats to keep you from governing.
(10:13):
That's the one flaw from the well, there are a
couple of flaws from the first term.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
COVID, I would say, is the main one.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
But the other flaw from Trump's first term that I
think he's learned a great lesson is fight, fight, fight,
And if they come at you with these things, you're
going to have to learn to do two things at
the same time, which I know that he can do,
and that is fight whatever the law, fair is, or
anything else they try to do, and govern the same time,
(10:48):
which means you're going to have people around you. Need
people around you that are going to be loyal soldiers
that will do as you finally decide. You can have
all the debate you want, but then you'll make a decision,
mister president, and then you expect that cabinet and all
those sub level of cabinet appointees to go carry out
(11:09):
that mission. And I think he's learned that lesson so
I don't know that I disagree with anything she Now,
I think Whoopy's crazy in her in her post election
diagnoses of what went wrong, because I think that every
single thing that Whoopy said, I don't think Kamla did
(11:32):
any of those things. And I think the Democrats recognize that. Now,
before I swearve on off into the Jack Smith cases
and the New York Attorney General and the Alvin Bragg cases,
I'm going to go to a couple of text messages
(12:04):
Michael speaking of insurrection. Yesterday at four thirty three pm,
Eric Swolwell posted, not period going period quietly period, You're
not either period. Let's get loud, period, and let's get going. Okay,
let's get it on. You know, you and I as
(12:28):
conservative libertarians, constitutionalists, however you want to describe ourselves. I say, sure,
we're not going either, and we're not going quietly, and
we're gonna get loud, and we're gonna get going and
we're gonna get some stuff done. And and if that
means we're going, you know, remember go back to.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Again.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
I'm still shocked by these numbers. Well, in a way
I'm shocked. In the way I'm not shocked, but go
back to that Fox News voter analysis in which they wanted,
you know, the question was, do you want the uh,
do you want a little bit of change, no change,
or do you want like drastic upheaval? And I remember
(13:14):
the word upheaval was the other extreme from no change
to upheaval. And a vast majority of like well beyond
two thirds of Americans want vast upheaval.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
I'm one of those.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
I think we need to drastically do things, and we
need to drastically do things. They're going to break a
lot of the entrenched administrative deep dark however, you want
to describe at state that rules our lives, for example.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
The.
Speaker 4 (13:55):
Let me see if I can find the text message,
because this this is really good. Actually it's a combination
of two text messages. Same person, Guber ninety two forty nine, Michael,
can you explain what it will look like if public
schools are eliminated on the federal level. Now, let me
(14:19):
go and tell you what The next text was from
the same goober, Michael, my niece is flipping out because
Trump might eliminate the Department of Education. I need a
good way of explaining what it would look like if
left to the states, it would look like the way
it's supposed to be. Now, let's go back to the
(14:41):
first point, though, Can you explain what it will look
like if public schools are eliminated on the federal level, Patty,
There are no schools on the federal level. Every school
in the entire country, with maybe the exception of the
Naval Academy.
Speaker 2 (14:59):
The academies.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Public schools are run at the state and local level,
and primarily at the local level. Funding, however, has greatly
shifted to the federal level. Now you're looking at your
property tax bills, particularly in Colorado and going, holy thesis, Batman.
(15:25):
You mean most of my property taxes are going to
fund local education. And then on top of that, part
of the income tax that I pay every year that's
going to fund public education.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Also, where are the hell is all that money going?
Speaker 4 (15:38):
That's a great question, and it's a question you should
be asking because the creation of the Department of Education
and programs like Bush's stupid no Child Left Behind policy
are destroying public education. Now we can have a I
(16:00):
want to separate this discussion. I'm not discussing whether or
not we should have what in essenor government runs schools
set that aside for a moment. Let's not discuss that.
Let's assume for a moment that we have government run schools.
So the question really is at what level should those
(16:20):
schools be managed. Well, the founding fathers and all the
way through most of American history, public education was left
to the states, and in particular to the localities. Why
for the same reason that abortion should be an issue
(16:44):
that is left to the states, Because every state, every
locality should be able to decide on their own for that.
You know, the lowest level of going is the best governance.
Why because that's where you get the best response. If
(17:08):
you don't like what's going on, he is the easiest
way of changing it. So if you don't like the
way a local school's being run, what do you do?
He kicked out the school board because the school board
is the most responsive. You think about a US congressman
and all of the issues that a congressman has to
deal with, you create the Department of Education. Congress doesn't
(17:32):
give a rats ass about education. No, they've advocated that
to the Department of Ed. So what happens if we
get rid of the Department of Eds?
Speaker 8 (17:39):
Michael, your honor in point of fact, one does not
have the right to protest. One has the right to
peaceably assemble, and one has the right to petition the government,
not protest.
Speaker 4 (17:53):
I would disagree with you. Protest is a form of speech,
and it's guaranteed by the First Amendment. So I can
protest all I want to and it's guaranteed by the Constitution.
So you can play some antics with the lawyer all
the day long if you want to. But protest is
a form of speech. If if uh, if a figure
(18:17):
of Christ in a jar of piss is protected by
the First Amendment, my ability to go protest and demonstrate
is also protected by the First Amendment. Protests can take
the form of uh, of a sit in, of a demonstration,
of a speech, of a of a picket line. Those
are all protests and they're all protected by the First Amendment.
(18:39):
So I'm not quite sure what the point is that
you're trying to make. Protest is a First Amendment right.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
And yeah, you have the right.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
You have the right to peaceably assemble, you can do
that too. It all fits in together. But go back
to the Department of Ed. YEA, the elimination of the
Department of Ed has not been directly as far as
I can recall, it's not been directly addressed other than
indirectly with Elawn Musks and Bobby Kennedy Jr. And for
(19:12):
that matter, Trump too, wanting to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse,
trying to make the government more efficient.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
We'll go back to schools.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
If the Department of Education were to disappear tomorrow, what
would happen?
Speaker 2 (19:26):
You know?
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Ironically, during the break, I checked, you know, I'm checking
my email, my personal email, and I you know, I
get my daily digests from the USPS about what mail's coming. Well,
guess what's in my mail today? My property tax bill
and that fantastic yay yay.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
That makes me happy.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
So that money is going to go pay for schools
in Douglas County, Colorado. Most of it's going to when
when you create when they when they created the Department ed,
the idea was we wanted to you know, set standards,
we wanted to do. But what it really became was
(20:07):
another outlet by which the teacher unions could go to
another source of funding and start getting grant money.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Direct transfers, what.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
Any way you want to transfer money from the federal
government to the states, and then the states, in compliance
whatever the terms of the grants were, would then distribute
that money out to local school districts. Now, you know
that federal money comes with strings attached. So you might have,
(20:41):
for example, let's just use DEI, you might have a grant.
You know, a school district's desperate for some money. They
you know, their property tax bases eroding and or their
school enrollment is exploding, whatever the situation before. What what
a reason a local school district is needing additional funds?
(21:04):
State doesn't have it? So is the state?
Speaker 9 (21:07):
Do?
Speaker 4 (21:07):
The state applies for a grant and they look around.
They got they got these little grant writers everywhere, and
they scour the they scour everything that the government puts
out as potential grants, and they'll focus on education and
then they'll find a grant does make any difference what
the grants for, they don't care. Here's a grant for
(21:28):
a bazillion dollars, but it requires us to implement DEI. Okay,
we'll take it. Now, why are they willing to take it?
Because if they get let's just say a million dollars
for a State of Colorado education grant from Doe Colorado
gets that million dollars. They then apply the same requirements
(21:52):
to local school districts. So now local school district will say, okay, well,
how can we take this money and comply with the
grant requirements and still apply the money to our general fund. Oh,
we'll hire a DEI assistant principle, or a DEI assistant superintendent,
(22:14):
or a DEI curriculum director or you know whatever, whatever,
I don't care what it is that they'll they'll hire
a person to administer the grant and they'll pay that person,
you know, one hundred thousand dollars a year, whatever it
might be, and then they'll take the balance of the
grant and as long as in the curriculum they somehow
(22:37):
can show whether it's true or not, doesn't make any difference.
If they can just show that they've used that money
to somehow implement DEI, even though it might be a
penny on the dollar. The other ninety nine cents is
now used for general fund. So all we've done is
(22:59):
we've create a new source of money. But it's much
more complicated than just creating a new source of money.
Have you ever seen the Department of Education in Washington,
d C. Go on to Google Earth and go search
(23:19):
for I forget what the address is, search for Department
of Education, and then do a Google Earth view of
that building and imagine in that building, if there's anybody
showing up for work today're probably all still working from home,
sitting in their pjs, having some green tea or coffee
right now. All of those people get salary benefits. There
(23:46):
are political appointees, there are contractors, There are hundreds of
thousands of I don't even know what the employment I
don't have to.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Go google it real quick.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Let's just say there's hundreds of thousands of people that
work within the US Department of Education. So when you
pay your tax, your income tax bill, you first have
to pay all of those people. So you pay a
dollar of income tax to the Department of Education. Probably
(24:21):
at least a nickel, if not ten cents of that
dollar goes to do nothing more than just to pay
the bureaucrats in DC that are then going to take
the other ninety cents that's left over turn that through contractors,
so contractors will take part of it. They'll then send
(24:43):
let's say, let's just I'm just pulling numbers out of
my butt here. Now they've got seventy five cents left.
They'll send that seventy five cents back to Colorado for
that million dollar grant. Well, you go look at the
Department of Education in Colorado that is paid for by
(25:04):
Colorado income taxes. And by now some of the grant
money that they get from the Feds, again, your income
tax dollars are going to pay those salaries. So now
by the time they grant finally gets out to be
awarded to a school district somewhere, it might be and
I'm being generous in my I'm being very liberal in
(25:26):
my numbers. Here, fifty cents of that one dollar in
income tax now actually ends up in a school district.
Let's just money laundering. That's just pure unadult rate of
money laundering to support a gigantic bureaucracy that's doing nothing
except telling local school districts how to run your school district.
(25:49):
And here's some money that will give you an exchange
for you complying with our federal mandate. It is utterly absurd.
There is no reason for it whatsoever. If you want
your school district to be run by people that you
(26:13):
elect in that school board race, then you want to
do everything you can to demand that the United States
Department of Education be completely eliminated, because now you've got
people sitting inside the Beltway in DC dictating how your
local school is going to be run. And that's how
(26:36):
the administrative state, the deep state, gets their claws into everything.
You don't think the little goobers that work at the
Colorado Department of Education don't gin reflect and bend over
and grab their ankles for the bureaucrats at the federal level.
And you don't think that school boards and local superintendents
(26:59):
and all the people that work for them don't bend
over and grab their ankles for both the state and
the federal bureaucrats, then you're not paying attention to what's
going on in your school district. The one the only
(27:19):
thing that when you strip away all of the nicely
titled programs, the grants and everything else, all it amounts
to is money. That's all on top of the money
requirements requirements that are imposed not by the people that
(27:44):
you elect at the local school district to run your schools,
but by a bureaucrat in Washington, DC. And if you
think that John Hickenlooper or Michael Bemmont or Diana de
Gett or anybody else really gives as asked about what
the Department of Education is doing, they don't. They'll point
(28:05):
to some wonderful program, Oh, look we have. Do you
think reading skills have improved? Have math skills improved? Has
anything improved? No, because there's no accountability, no accountability whatsoever.
Eliminate the Department of Education. Now, I've heard that since
(28:26):
Ronald reag and I've heard that for forty efing years
about how we're going to eliminate the Department of Education.
Now go back to what voters say they want upheaval.
Now I question whether they really do or not, because
if Trump and whoever he points is his secretary of
Education were to embark on a mission to dismantle the
(28:52):
Department of Education, the teacher unions would.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
Squeal like stuck pigs.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
In fact, I would even argue that even the most
conservative district in Colorado, wherever that might be used to think,
might be Douglas County, but not anymore. Maybe it's al
Paso County. Maybe they might start screaming a little bit,
but not too much, because just in case it doesn't
get eliminated. They don't want to be on the bad
(29:19):
side of the bureaucrats at the state level or the
federal level that are building out the dollars.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Oh, and it is break time.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
So to answer your question, there are technically no federal schools,
except when you look at funding, you'll realize that property taxes,
while still the bulk of funding, is slowly losing influence
(29:52):
to state and federal funding, which again is you except
its income taxes instead of property Texas.
Speaker 9 (30:02):
Michael, over one hundred thousand K through twelve schools in
this country every month. There are literally tens of thousands
of pages of reports being compiled and collated and transmitted
to the federal Department of Education. If you eliminated the
federal Department of Education, you could cut hundreds of administrative
heads from those local schools and local school boards.
Speaker 4 (30:24):
Amen enough about the Department of Ed for a moment.
Let's go back to the protest. Give a number eight
zero three zero, Michael. One does not have the right
to interfere with another's lawful endeavors of commerce, even when
that endeavor is the target of the protest. I never
said that you had the right to interfere with commercial
(30:47):
activity or to infringe on someone else's rights. Protest is
a protected First Amendment right, but that protected right does
not give you the authority or the right, or the
privilege or whatever word you want to use to go
interfere with someone else's right to engage in commerce. For example,
(31:09):
if I want to protest working conditions in this studio,
I have a First Amendment right to do so. And
I can go out here on the public sidewalk and
I can make I can get a little you know,
I'll get a union worker to give me a sign
of protest about lousy working conditions at iHeart, and I
(31:29):
can march up and down the street, and that's exercising
my First Amendment right all I want to. However, if
I then walk to the front door and keep dragging
from coming in, that crosses the line. This all started
with somebody saying that protest was not a First Amendment right.
(31:51):
It is a First Amendment right, but protest does not
mean that you can then go infringe on someone else's right,
for example, to engage in commerce or.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
To go to work. You see, this is why.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
I think that the liberal media and public education and
I'm not picking on you eight zero three zero, but
I do believe, very sincerely that this nation has lost
its absolute intellectual capability to critically think about what the
(32:33):
Constitution means, because they've so conflated words a protest. When
I say protest, people then think and I can hear
dragons saying it right now, Well it's a mostly peaceful demonstration.
Those mostly peaceful demonstrations were unlawful.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Criminal activities. They weren't.
Speaker 4 (33:01):
They were protests, but they weren't constitutionally protected protests. Oh,
Jack Smith, let's talking about law fair coming up next?
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Because boy, is the sword going to hit the fan
now
Popular Podcasts
Good Game with Sarah Spain
Good Game is your one-stop shop for the biggest stories in women’s sports. Every day, host Sarah Spain gives you the stories, stakes, stars and stats to keep up with your favorite women’s teams, leagues and athletes. Through thoughtful insight, witty banter, and an all around good time, Sarah and friends break down the latest news, talk about the games you can’t miss, and debate the issues of the day. Don’t miss interviews with the people of the moment, whether they be athletes, coaches, reporters, or celebrity fans.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.