12-4-25 - 11am - Government Should Not Be Compassionate and Pastor Arrested

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, did you see the story about the people in
the police chase crash in Aurora that tragically died and
the police chase the one guy has been arrested, had
been arrested seventy times in thirty years.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
How can that be that the guy is out with
seventy arrests over thirty years. It's hard for you to imagine.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
But I've seen this story in other communities as well.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
At some point, and I don't know what the tipping
point will be these stories. I mean, you're right, we
hear about these stories all over the country. Truck drivers
or illegal aliens or whatever that. But for their presence
illegally in the country, those accidents would not have occurred.

(00:53):
There's no way to get it beyond that logic. They're
here unlawfully, they're not supposed to be. And but for
the fact that they are here illegally, that particular accident
would not have happened, that chase would not have happened,
and so people would not have died. If anybody died
in that particular one.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:16):
What that tipping point is, but it has to be
at some level where we recognize I really thought that
the one where and I don't want to say that
it was someone who was illegal or who had a
a wrap sheet a mile long, but there was the
family of five that was killed over on US eighty five,

(01:40):
somewhere down between Islands Ranch and Castle Rocks somewhere. Then
you got the truck drivers. You've got the one that
smashed right into you know, the back end of that car.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
At some point that will change.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
But what we ought to do until it does is
recognize how that occurs. It occurs because we have too
many stupid people, too many people that don't understand the
consequences of their vote, and too many people that then

(02:15):
get elected based on those stupid votes that become prosecutors,
or they become governors, they appoint judges, and then those
judges and those prosecutors have the idea that, oh, it's
it's compassion once again. It's the abdication of compassion to
the government. And liberals believe very sincerely, but I think,

(02:38):
very sincerely incorrectly that compassion means that no one is
ever held accountable for their actions. And it drives me
absolutely backcrap crazy that you know, dragon and I you know,
we get one slip up of the tongue. You know,
one of my favorite phrases backcrap crazy. You know that

(03:00):
there's another word that actually fits in there. Well, if
we let that get that get out on air, it
might not necessarily beating into the world, but we're certainly
going to get in trouble for it. So that's why
we keep the dump button ready at all times, try
to avoid it from getting out of the air. So
we are held to a standard that says you'll follow
the rules, and I'm more than happy to follow the rules.

(03:23):
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about that. I'm
just saying that, why why is it that we have
all these different standards of rule following based on your
ethnicity or your citizenship status, or your legal status or whatever.
It drives me crazy, and I know it drives you
crazy too. It also makes me actually a little And look,

(03:44):
I don't drive around paranoid, but i'm driving. You know,
I'm on the road quite a bit to and from work,
going to see clients.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
All that sort of stuff.

Speaker 3 (03:52):
And I'm on the road quite a bit and I'm
always seeing potential accidents, and of course I do everything
I can defensively to avoid them, but I can't help.
But wonder do they have a legal driver's license? How
many times they been arrested? How many times have they
been driving drunk? I don't know what to tell you.

(04:18):
For those of you you've listened to me over the
almost two decades, now know that I think that every
single one of us has an obligation in whatever way
we can to make certain that the people that we
vote for. And I don't look, I'm not talking about Trump,
and right now I'm not even talking about members of Congress.

(04:39):
I'm talking about the people that are closest to you.
Your city council, your mayor, own council members, a local prosecutor,
a local district attorney, a county commissioner, a local sheriff,
the deputy sheriffs. Now I know the deputies aren't elected,
but the sheriffs are your school board, school board president,

(05:03):
school board members who I leave you as a state representative,
state senators, those are the people that you can have
the most direct influence over. But and I think part
of the problem is that those like you, I don't

(05:24):
know whether you work, whether you're listening to me as
you're driving around and doing your job. I don't know
what your circumstances are, but I do know that many
people have full time jobs, and for them to take
even fifteen minutes away from what they're supposed to be
doing to write an email or to make a phone call,
or to go to a you know that they'll have

(05:45):
a town hall or maybe they have a fundraiser. Go
to a fundraiser, you know, particularly at that level where
it's not really going to cost you a lot to
get in, you know, for a hundred bucks, you can
get into a school board race fundraiser. And you can
and I'm going to use the word browbeat, but I
don't really mean browbeat them, But you can get in

(06:05):
their faces in a professional appropriate way and make certain
they understand that you believe X, Y, Z, and that
your expectation is that they will do X, Y and Z,
and that if they don't, that you will use whatever
your sphere of influence is, whether that's your four neighbors

(06:26):
around you, or it's your worker, your coworkers, or it's
your church or your synagogue, whatever it is, you have
a sphere of influence. But we all talk among ourselves,
we all talk inward, and we don't talk outward, and
the more we talk outward, the more they'll understand. That's

(06:47):
why I think, Look, do I think that my tweets
meaning things to Jared Poulis? No, I'll tell you what
they do mean to other people that read them, or
his staff that read them. And I'm not saying that
extra Twitter is the end all and meal. I'm just
using it as an example. But when I specifically call

(07:09):
out Jared Poulis for some of the dumb assy that
he says, and give examples of where it's dumb assery,
then all of the useful idiots that are, you know,
kissing his butt and oh, you're.

Speaker 2 (07:21):
Doing a great job, governor, blah blah blah.

Speaker 3 (07:23):
Blah, maybe one of them will see that and think about,
oh maybe I should change.

Speaker 4 (07:30):
Oh my god, what did I just tune into? Michael's
talking about his widget and something about his widget dropping off.
I thought Rocky Mountain Men's Clinic would have helped him
out better than this.

Speaker 3 (07:46):
Well, they charge extra for widgets, and my widget is
particularly complicated, shall we say, it's a complicated widget? So there, Golly,
I can't escape any of this stuff, can I?

Speaker 2 (08:06):
There's no getting around any of it.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
Let me swerve from that conversation about each of us
have a responsibility to be more actively involved in the
political process and being willing to live in the real world,
about government cannot and should not be compassionate. If they were,

(08:35):
that means that it's a nanty state, and even a
nanny state is not compassionate. The one big, beautiful bill
signed by Trump back on July fourth is actually making
some really serious changes to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance program,
the SNAP program, the food the food stamp program, whatever

(08:56):
what do you want to call it. And under that bill,
recip now have to work, train or volunteer for at
least eighty hours per month. Now, I you know, because
I can't do mathem my head very well, that comes
out to something like two point six hours two point

(09:17):
six hours per day, eighty hours per month, and a
work day is about just eighty divided by thirty gives
you two point sixty sixty six six six six six.
So they get to do that to receive the maximum
benefits work train or volunteer. Now, for recipients that receive

(09:40):
less than the maximum amount, the require monthly number of
hours decreases based on the amount of benefits that somebody gets.
That means that people have to work over two and
a half hours per day before the government will force others.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
And this is the way I want to word this.
This is the way I want you to understand it.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
We're asking you here, you are, we are all asking
that you know it is, well, you just got paid,
or depending what your payroll system is, you're going to
get paid in another eleven days or so.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
And when you look at that.

Speaker 3 (10:16):
Payroll voucher that you're getting your email or however you
get it delivered or you actually get a check, and
there's the attachment to the check.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
I want you to look at it.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
Because those federal income taxes, let alone the state income taxes,
but the federal income taxes that are taken out are
not enough to cover all of the spending that Congress
and the President do, which means we didn't have to
go borrow that money. Now, the last I checked, it

(10:46):
was up as a fifty percent, not quite but getting close.
Maybe I s exceeded that by now I should go
check that. But but what we don't have we have
to go borrow, which means that we have to go
issue treasure and we have to put those up at auction,
and so we can borrow the money from the federal
reserve so they can print the money, so we can

(11:07):
You know, it's an inflationary spiral.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
That got way out of control under Biden.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
But I'm telling you, while it's while the rate of
inflation has decreased, if you wonder why things are still
so expensive, it's because while the rate of inflation has increased,
the value of the dollar that you have in your
wallet that you're going to go spend to buy a
diet coke is worth less today than it was a
year ago. That's monetary policy that's got to be fixed.

(11:38):
But back to the food stamps. So you are working
so that the money that you pay in your federal
income tax can then go to pay for someone who
is supposed to be working, training or at least volunteering
for eighty hours a week so they can get the

(11:58):
maximum benefits. That means that many people have to work
two and a half hours a day before the government
will force you to pick up their tab at the
supermarket as before work requirements were nullified by Biden. All

(12:22):
in the name of COVID. I don't want people to
go hungry. Don't misunderstand. Don't sit there and try to
claim that I'm in the a hole because I'm pointing
out that they're forcing you, a worker, to give up
some of your hard earned money so that somebody else

(12:43):
can go to the grocery store. I don't think that's
a government function. I don't think that. You know, when
I was the undersecretary, we had to do an audit.
I forget who, whether it was the GAO or OMB
or somebody required us to do an audit, and we
were supposed to divide all the programs that we did

(13:06):
between those programs that were inherently governmental, meaning that it
was well defined as a government function, versus all the
peripheral stuff that we did that was not inherently governmental.
I don't think it's an inherently governmental function to feed society.

(13:28):
I think that that is a function of society, not government.
Why do I spend so much time on that. Un
Once you listen to something, next.

Speaker 5 (13:38):
If you're listening on the iHeart app, you are forced
to listen to iHeart commercials. Now, all the commercials are
made by the same people because you recognize their voices
and they are the crappiest commercials in the world. These
people don't know how to.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Make a commercial.

Speaker 5 (14:00):
All the commercials I listen to make me go I'm
not buying that product for no reason.

Speaker 6 (14:10):
Okay, it is a bit of a bummer because the
streaming commercials are different than the over the air commercials,
and both of which we have no control over whatsoever
we have, I mean, have even less control over what
gets streamed.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
Oh, we have no control.

Speaker 3 (14:31):
I don't think we have any control over what gets
streamed other than what we are doing, like right now
as we are live.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
Correct.

Speaker 3 (14:38):
Yeah, and I and I remind people too. If you
don't hear my voice, then it's not something that I
endorse or that I have there. They're not sponsoring me.
That you have just bought time during the program, And
of course I like to buy time during the program
because we attract a very great audience, well with the

(15:03):
exception of a couple of you that we've had that
we're watching out for. I want to move on to
something going on in Canada, but before I do, I
want to close out about the whole thing with food stamps,
because I ran across this is from it's one of
the not local this one. It's one of the Fox
affiliates from around the country. I don't I just ran

(15:27):
across it last night looking through my X feed, and
I I'm a little hesitant to play it because I
don't want you to think that I'm that much of
a cold hearted bastard. But when when someone else and

(15:48):
this is this is really a great example of the
attitude of entitlement, when someone else is using my tax
dollars that you know, right driding my bust our bucks
to do a quality program, and the engineers and everybody
in this building really work hard to you know, do

(16:10):
I got saying you know, I've said to me, you know,
too many times, and that in this monologue, I'm dancing
around what's going to be a tough SoundBite.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
Let's just play it. Let's just rip the bandage off.
I don't think it's fair either.

Speaker 6 (16:24):
You do that.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
And you were saying, you think it's going to hurt
a lot of people.

Speaker 7 (16:27):
Oh yeah, definitely, definitely is gonna hurt a lot of
people because you never know, you know what, especially now
that ween the holidays and everybody wants to have a
good dinner and everything, and if you don't give it
to them, it's.

Speaker 2 (16:41):
Going to be really hard. It's very Sunday, and.

Speaker 3 (16:46):
If you don't give it to them, it's gonna be
very sad. The point I would make is this, that's
true for everyone, less of course, like yes, maybe you're
you're a billionaire and you've got, you know, pocket change

(17:06):
to go buy your groceries. Everyone struggles. But this sense
of entitlement really does bug me. And we've allowed that
to percolate and to exist. And then when we try
to start drawing in, drawing back and saying okay, we

(17:29):
you know, in exchange for what we're going to give you,
then we want you to do something train work, volunteer.
Oh my gosh, no, can't do that. Okay, well then
we'll just take it all the way. And that's really
the point that I'm getting to because I'm not I'm
not complaining on behalf of myself. I'm complaining on behalf

(17:51):
of all of those people out there that are living
paycheck to paycheck, that are struggling, that are worried about
whether they're they're working, they're being productive members of society.
And because we have allowed progressives and Marxists to now
take our compassion that we would normally, you know, by

(18:15):
donating to a food bank, or to a charitable organization,
or to our church or our sonagogue, whomever it might be,
they would help those in need. No, now we just
expect the government to do it, and we forget that
the people that are working their asses off out there
are struggling too. There's a pastor in Calgary. He's a

(18:37):
street preacher. He leads something called the Mission seven Ministries
was arrested on December third, yesterday, for breaching a court
order condition by refusing to write an apology letter to
a manager of a library in Calgary. This comes from
a twenty twenty three confrontation at Town Public Library library

(19:02):
excuse me, in Calgary during a reading with Royalty event.
This is where drag performers read to children. Now I'm
not dragging up the whole drag Queen's reading the children
issue again because I you know what you need to
go deal without your school board. Here's my problem. The pastor,

(19:24):
Derek Raymer rhymer, I'm not sure, questioned the librarian about
the program's content. So he posted his exchange with her
online and he urged protests and for doing that he
was convicted of criminal harassment and bail breaches. He was

(19:44):
released on conditions, including house arrest. During during that period,
uh released on conditions including house arrest that was supposed
to end soon. He defied the apology mandate. Okay, I understand,
and you didn't follow the rules. He decided that it
was compelled speech against his religious convictions, and that led

(20:08):
to him being taken into custody after the deadline had passed.
The arresting officer, UH, no, just the regular So you're
under arrest for your breach of CSL.

Speaker 2 (20:25):
Can you come inside with the speak.

Speaker 5 (20:29):
Sounds good?

Speaker 6 (20:29):
Are you able to drop that for me?

Speaker 5 (20:31):
Or tapping off the life?

Speaker 2 (20:35):
You know, while you're arresting this one for he apologies
for his religious.

Speaker 5 (20:46):
Understand How.

Speaker 2 (20:52):
You guys really understood what you're doing, you.

Speaker 7 (20:54):
Probably wouldn't be doing it.

Speaker 2 (20:56):
Apologist is not a pride thing to do. I like
the fact they asked the cops, are you aware of
why you're arresting him?

Speaker 7 (21:08):
Now?

Speaker 3 (21:08):
His legal troubles began back in twenty twenty three. Missed
all those protests that were going on about the drag
queen story hours we all heard about those.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
Well, he entered this event.

Speaker 3 (21:19):
He asked the librarian why taxpayer funded libraries hosted it.
The video is quite He's not confrontational, He's just wants
he wants to understand what's going on. He left when
he was asked to leave, but he shared the video
online criticizing her role.

Speaker 2 (21:38):
This is after she's nowhere around.

Speaker 3 (21:41):
She's back at the library, he's gone home, he's taking
his phone video and he's uploaded it and he asked again,
why are they allowing this to occur in taxpayer public libraries.
He was convicted in August of last year by this
justice who were rejected his Canadian Charter rights. He made

(22:05):
the argument on freedom of religion and conscience. As the
judge did that his religious freedom arguments and his conscience
was irrelevant. He faced a year long house arrest instead
of jail. With the apology do on November twenty eight,
twenty twenty five, his probation officer reportedly aimed to break

(22:31):
down his traditional views, highlighting the ideological pressures that he
was facing based on his deeply held religious beliefs. The
reason I bring you the story is the arrest underscores
Canada's prioritization.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
We're on this road.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
Kids, We're on the same damn road. Prioritization of hate
speech laws and anti harassment measures over our robust freedom
of expression protections under the First Amendment. Well, they have
something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the
courts in Canada have deemed that implicable here. So Reamer

(23:08):
now risks extended custody, stricter probation for non compliance. Now
I understand, don't get me wrong. As long I understand
he did not follow their probation rules, he did not
issue the apology. The reason he did not issue the
apology is because the requirements for the apology violated his
deeply held religious beliefs. I have a problem with a

(23:30):
judge ordering an apology. If the judges said apologized to
her and that was the only requirement, that I'd say fine.
But the apology went further. Had to go further than that.
It had to be pretty much a confession that he
was wrong in questioning why there were the drag queen
stories going on in a taxpayer public library. Now, if

(23:52):
that had occurred in this country, I firmly believe his
actions would likely be shielded by the First Amendments. Free speech,
free exercise clause protecting expressive protests against government funded programs
even if somebody finds them offensive. Courts per cases like
Snyder versus. Felt, that's the twenty eleven case that affirmed

(24:15):
offensive speech of public events. And then, of course, right
here in Colorado we've got Masterpiece Cake Shop versus Colorado
from twenty eighteen, safeguarding religious objections to LGBTQ messaging.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
I think that this case would.

Speaker 3 (24:31):
Have been struck down as a compelled apology that is
unconstitutional speech. And I think also you go all the
way back to West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnett,
no arrests for refusal harassment claims probably would fail absent

(24:51):
true threats, which did not exist here in my view,
preserving his right to public criticism without retaliation, and bolstering
religious nationwide. This contrast, this contrast reveals deeper free speech
divergences because Canada's so called balanced approach, which it does not,

(25:13):
yields incarceration for an unapologetic belief, while our system prioritizes
individual rights over your so called emotional harm claim. You
little snowflake, Oh you were you were offended by what
I say?

Speaker 2 (25:29):
It well, sucks to be you.

Speaker 3 (25:34):
We've got to be very, very careful because the First
Amendment is on tenuous grounds in this country. This is
occurring in Canada, it's occurring in the on the European continent.
It's way overboard in uh New Zealand and Australia, it's
way overboard in the United Kingdom. So a lot of

(25:54):
Western what we would consider to be our allies, our
western civilized nations, are beginning to take these hate speech laws,
and as I predicted for decades, would then start bastardizing
them to control speech. I would think that sometime today

(26:14):
I offended somebody, Well, you know what, if you're offended
by something that I say, or if I'm offended by
a talkback, well, if I'm offended by a talkbacking, damn, well,
be certain that dragon will play it just to try
to offend me and piss me off. True, absolutely, But
if it pisses him off, he won't play it. Really,

(26:37):
just ignore it. Just ignore it. That's the way it
should be. That's our heritage. And so we're sitting here
all dumb, fat and happy thinking that, oh, our rights
are being protected. Our rights are sanqui sanct no, they're not.
There is boiling up all around us civilized nations who

(27:02):
are now beginning to say, oh, we don't care what
the magnet cart has said. We don't care about you know,
the human right of speaking your mind about something. No,
it's beginning to get whittled away. And if we lose
that right in this country, if we lose the right
to freely express ourselves about something we have a deeply held,

(27:23):
particularly a deeply held religious belief. Because now you've gotten
from free speech to the free exercise provision of the
First Amendment. You are free to exercise your religion, of course,
as long as it doesn't you know, involved, you know,
marrying twelve year old girls. Yeah, when you compare our
laws to Canadian laws uncompelled speech and religious cases, they

(27:48):
have done exactly what I was fearful that would happen.
And now is anybody this is me? Remember it. Make
sure you have the right scene in your mind. He
didn't go bursting through the library door. He didn't yell
and scream at this person. He walked in and asked
the librarian what's going on here?

Speaker 2 (28:09):
What is this event?

Speaker 3 (28:11):
Oh, you're having drag Queen's read to children under the
age of majority. Okay, why is that being done in
a taxpayer, publicly funded library?

Speaker 2 (28:22):
That was it?

Speaker 3 (28:23):
She gave an answer. He takes the video that he
took of the question, goes home, posts that online, and
for that he's arrested and for that conviction of violating
the Canadian law. He is then forced to issue an apology,

(28:44):
the apology which goes against his dip deeply held religious beliefs. Now,
he was arrested and he'll face the consequences for not
following the order. But my question is simply this, would
you've apologized and would you have apologized in conformity with

(29:06):
the judge's order, because that's where I draw the line. Now,
the Canadian judge may feel perfectly within his rights that
you have to apologize and you cannot say anything about
your religion or anything else. Really, because now you're trampling
on my First Amendment rights, not just you're trampling on

(29:29):
them in two scenarios. One I'm being punished for going
in and having questioned something. Two I'm being punished for
having posted my objection online. And now three I'm being
punished because I refuse to follow your outline of what
my apology ought to say, because what you want me

(29:50):
to say offends my religious beliefs. It's way out of control,
and we've got to keep watching it, or soon it'll
happen here.