06 07 25 The Jonathon and Kelly Show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Jonathan and Kelly Show.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Jonathan Rush, president and his administration are delivering on the
promises from the campaign and they are already bringing common
sense and a strong economy to the American people.

Speaker 1 (00:14):
Kelly Nash, once we get to the majority, which I'm
hoping in praying we get to next cycle, that allows
me to start to open up and do the things
that would look like an impeachment.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Jonathan and Kelly show, Boy, the midterms are going to
be here before you know it, and Jasmine's ready to
start with her impeachment process. Well, what about raising kan
What was that? What's the house member's name with the Caine?
Got it right, and tip my tongue, it's not Green.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
I remember raising Kane. Wasn't that the That's the general
that Trump used to take out.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
That's a different rate isis? Yeah, they tried to hijack
the nickname. Anyway, Hey, this is Jonathan Rush's Kelly Nash.

Speaker 4 (00:50):
Good morning.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
When segment three we can get into the big Beautiful
Bill and the way the president is delivering on all
the campaign promises he made that will be coming up.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
We're going to talk about the Big Beautiful Brawl.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Yes, that's a that's a disaster, the Clash of the Titans.
For Pete's say, come on, guys, and strangely enough, while
he was taught well, I say, we'll get install that.
In segment three, South Carolina Democrats seem to have a
crack in in uh in their in their bucket that
they want the media to carry water in.

Speaker 4 (01:19):
The South Carolina Democrats. I've I've heard a lot of
excuses before, but this was not what I was prepared for.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
We're going to get into that in the segment four.
We do have some pushback on this celebrated tort reform bill,
primarily having to do with a liquor license insurance liabilities
that a lot of these restaurants are dealing with. We
thought we had a celebration going on. It turns out
we're crying in our beer around here.

Speaker 4 (01:43):
That's a big, beautiful tort reform bill.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yes exactly, that's a great name for it. But we're
going to start off with and in pure recognition and salute,
I guess to our LBGTQ friends who will be listening.
I know we have a huge audience with them, do
we really Yeah, I'm going to use all the pronouns available.
This has turned into a he said, she said, they
text them text story between the City of Columbia, And

(02:09):
this goes back to something we've been talking about now forever,
seemingly with a conversion therapy banning of that availability within
the city limits, and then the proviso that came down
inside the big beautiful budget bill from the General Assembly
that made that money be three point seven million dollars
be withheld if the city did not reverse their policy.

Speaker 4 (02:30):
If you're new to the whole discussion, basic facts. Twenty
twenty one, the City of Columbia passes a bill or
law that says that anybody attempting to do conversion therapy
is in violation of city law. Conversion therapy is identified
as anyone trying to help a person who no longer
wants to be gay, so.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
It feels like they have gay tendency.

Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yeah, if you don't want to be gay and you
wanted to talk to a professional therapist about it, you
can't do that in the City of Columbia by law.
Now again, Daniel Rickman points out there's not a lot
of teeth in that bill, and he's pretty sure that
it's still happening. He also voted against it at the
time when he was a council member. However, now that
it's been passed as first off, the Attorney General said

(03:15):
it's in violation of the state constitution, and now the
legislation at the federal excuse me, at the state level
has said you cannot ban conversion therapy in this state
or you will lose state dollars. That's almost four million
dollars that the City of Columbia is going to lose
if they continue to use this ban. And we've been

(03:37):
kind of mocking Daniel Rickenman and the rest of the
council for not taking a vote. They've punted twice now
in the last.

Speaker 3 (03:45):
Month because of the calendar coordination here between the state
budget finally getting released and the budget process with the
City of Columbia. They had to postpone the first vote
because they had to figure out two things, how the
Senate is going to end up either leaving this provis
a win or taking it out. And then also, how
are you going to replace three point seven million dollars

(04:06):
if you want to stand on your principle of banning
conversion therapy, Because that proviso is going to hurt your
city budget.

Speaker 4 (04:14):
Yeah, they're the only city in the state that actually
passed this thing originally, and so they're standing on business.
But the thing that I've been going after the mayor
about is the fact that he hasn't led, meaning he
hasn't said what he would like to see city council do.
He's just keep saying, well, what are we going to do?
How we're going to replace that money? But you're not

(04:34):
telling me, as the leader, what do you think they
should do. Do you think that they should end this
ban on conversion therapy or do you think they should
stand on business? And then we've got to try to
figure out where to get the money from. It turns
out he doesn't want to deal with this, and it
seems like he's not the only one on city council.

Speaker 3 (04:49):
Yeah. The constituency on either side, the people that didn't
want to lose the money, the people saying, hey, we
got to have that three point seven million, So tell
the other crowd, the LBGTQ community to hush it for
am in it. Well, the OBGTQ community obviously wasn't standing
for that. Both of those constituency groups ends up yelling
at city council members, I guess in the meeting and
certainly the mayor to call the governor. We need to

(05:12):
get the governor to step in here. And Rickenon's like,
if I remember correctly, I'm not going to call the governor.
You're an advocacy group, y'all call the governor.

Speaker 4 (05:21):
But it turns out that Daniel Rickenman is apparently backdooring
a deal with the state legislator. You go ahead in
past this proviso, and then what we'll do on our
side is make you guys the bad guys, and then
we'll say we had the cave because we couldn't make
up the three point seven million we wanted to provide
social services here in our city. People need that money.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
Get Bruce Banister on the phone, help out a brother
over here. Man. I'm going to be coming up for
re election here soon.

Speaker 4 (05:49):
I wonder who leaked this story.

Speaker 3 (05:52):
That's what we don't know. How did you get this story?
This came from the state newspaper and it hasn't been
printed in the posting courier. But it just seemed like
in the beginning of this, when we were frustrated with
the way city council was handling it. There seemed to
be a very easy explanation. Now I realize I'm not
holding the office, so everything seems easy on this side

(06:12):
of the window, doesn't it. Outside? Looking in, you would
have thought you would have heard the mayor or Peter
Brown or somebody on city council say, look, we understand
that you don't agree with the way this is going
to come down, and we are the only city, by
the way, that has this band, so maybe we should
re examine our band that has no teeth, no mechanism

(06:33):
for enforcement, and we haven't even written a citation yet.
So whatever we wrote, is it really fixing any problems,
because to our knowledge, there are no problems. Meanwhile, the
state attorney General has already told you he's going to
sue you. Plus you got the proviso in the state
budget going to cost you almost four million. So the
bottom line is you're going to be out four million
out of your budget. You've got to pay for a

(06:53):
lawsuit to take on the attorney general who's already told
you this thing is unconstitutional. At the end of the day,
you're not going to have your ban or conversion therapy,
and you're going to be without probably five million dollars.

Speaker 4 (07:05):
And the interesting thing is that there are some people
in the Democrat Party who continue to say, I don't care.
I'd rather lose the money and stand up against tyranny.
And again, the tyranny that they're standing up to is
allowing free speech. If you allow free speech, that's now
a form of tyranny to the Democrat Party.

Speaker 3 (07:26):
I guess with your LGBTQ community, you're not spending your
own money, it really doesn't matter. You're only spending the
collectives money. So let's go ahead and waste that.

Speaker 4 (07:34):
I just was thinking about this because we are in June,
which is Pride Month, as you know, and I find
it so funny because Pride Month has been a big
money maker for the gay community for about what five
six years now, and they were one of the people,
one of the groups that were pushing the defund the police.

(07:55):
And if you've noticed, in June, it's actually become defus
fund Pride. They have lost tens of millions of dollars
in corporate sponsorships because the mood of the country has
changed to the point that they're not going to support
it anymore. They got defunded instead of defunding the police
Pride got defunded.

Speaker 3 (08:14):
The other part of the scenario from city council is
Teresa Wilson told you if we lose the three point
seven million, we got to replace it with something. It's
probably going to come from the h tax money. Well,
the hospitality tax money is the one that's been funding
a lot of these city events, in particular in June,
a lot of those city events real LBGTQ Pride to events.

Speaker 4 (08:33):
Please don't tell me we're gonna lose drag Queen's Story Hour.

Speaker 3 (08:38):
That's a possibility that's been placed on the table, Kelly.
We could lose it forever. For God's say. We got
a couple other things to talk about in South Carolina.
I thought we were going to be celebrated this new
tour reform. The governor held a big signing session.

Speaker 4 (08:52):
It's big. It's beautiful that we have an open bar
for that. I thought we should have because you should
be drinking.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
We're talking about it next the Jonathan and Kelly, Oh,
this is.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
An undocumented immigrant.

Speaker 5 (09:04):
I do want to note that I want to clarify
what you mean.

Speaker 3 (09:06):
So we're talking about the same thing.

Speaker 1 (09:07):
Are you saying this immigrant was here.

Speaker 3 (09:09):
I legally, yes, I am.

Speaker 4 (09:10):
And that's why I said that I clarify them.

Speaker 5 (09:12):
It just good undocumented, and I wasn't clear what that means.

Speaker 3 (09:15):
I want this to be a good faith discussion.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
Kelly Nash.

Speaker 2 (09:18):
When we use language the design to obscure the truth,
that's not good faith.

Speaker 3 (09:22):
And Kelly Show, do not play word games with Steven Miller.

Speaker 4 (09:26):
I know he wants you to call it like it
really is.

Speaker 3 (09:29):
All right, and we can get into a little more
Washington news coming up in a few minutes in segment three,
we have big news we've been following another one of
these stories we've been following for a while. This is
constant headlines in the past what two three years about
restaurants closing because of the increased cost for their liquor
license insurance. And with that, because hospitality is a huge

(09:51):
economic impact for our state, we began being concerned. Even
if you don't drink, you ought to be concerned about this.
What do you mean we got so expensive small business
people can't even stay in business.

Speaker 4 (10:02):
Well, thank god we fixed that, right, Yeah, that's all
them and taken care of hadn't it.

Speaker 3 (10:07):
We had the big signing and the governor signed it,
and everybody seemed to be happy. And then the first
article that pops up is we got more restaurants that
are thinking about closing because of the increased costs in
the insurance. Wait a minute, I thought we fixed this.
And then you read where Columbia restaurant owners and bartenders
cast doubts on the reform as South Carolina liquor liability

(10:29):
fight drags on. So we've got more quotes here and
some very interesting ones that we want to share with
you in this segment from bar owners, restaurant owners. And
also I've always thought this was really starting to get
down into the weeds when you have a balance of
how much food you serve versus how much liquor you serve, because.

Speaker 4 (10:51):
We got it, you got to make at least sixty
percent of your money has to come from food.

Speaker 3 (10:56):
Is that the way it's written, which is weird because
remember back of the day, you go to like a
comedy club and you'd see the sign where you're having
a two drink minimum. That's right, We're going to start
seeing restaurants now they have a two entree minimum because
not only is it so supervised that they look at
your books to see how much liquor versus how much
food that gets to be I would think a little

(11:18):
too much to manage for a state agency to have
to oversee. Why would you even want to get that
deep in the woods with these owners. They just wanted
to be able to do business and not be the
only one drug into court because the insurance companies settled
with everybody else, so by the time that it comes
to court, the restaurant's holding the bag. And basically the.

Speaker 4 (11:36):
Way the law was written before this tort reform was
put through was that everybody is now guilty. You're just
assumed guilty till proven innocent. Meaning if you owned a
restaurant and you sold some sort of alcoholic beverage to
somebody and they were sober, and they were sober when

(11:58):
they left, but then they went to their car and
they had a bottle of vodka and they power chugged it,
and then they wrapped their car into a school bus
or something, and there was death. All the affected victims
can then just find the people with the deepest pockets
and sue them, which is why the insurance is through
the roof for these people. So I'm being held accountable

(12:21):
even though I had nothing to do with it, that's right.

Speaker 3 (12:23):
And the insurance companies are being held up with the
out of court settlements to the extent where they know
they got to pay so much money out of pocket
that you have to raise the rates to the extent
that they can continue to absolutely be positive. So they can,
you know, this is why they're in business, why they
sell insurance, because they got to make a profit themselves.
But then because that goes, that only drives the rates up.

(12:45):
But a lot of insurance companies say, forget it, we're out.
We're not doing the business in South Carolina anymore. Now.

Speaker 4 (12:50):
Do prices usually go lower or higher when there's less competition,
I don't know, it seems maybe.

Speaker 3 (12:55):
I think we've had a study on that.

Speaker 4 (12:57):
Yeah, it seems like they go higher as well. So
in the store here they got the guy named I
think I'm pronouncing it right, Christian Nimi. He's the chef
and owner of Bourbon, Black Rooster and The Dragon Room,
and he says, ironically, it's tough to keep the forty
percent or less for alcohol sales, particularly when we have

(13:18):
the legislators coming in. They and along with the lobbyists,
spend a ton of dough on fancy cocktails, and they
throw me out of whack, meaning I got to pay
the higher premiums.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
That's right, because now they spent well. Kelly worked for
a record company. He can tell you the guy with
the expense card, he can buy all kinds of fancy
liquors for you. Yeah, it's me.

Speaker 4 (13:42):
Why about how much it cost? I mean it was
called a tne budget. Mean, he was traveling entertainment, and
so I was paid to influence people who picked the
music for the radio stations. And my first budget I've
been again in nineteen ninety nine was I think fifty
three thousand dollars. That's what I had to spend to
entertain clients. So if I went out with you and

(14:04):
we spent eight hundred bucks for the night, I still
got another fifty two weeks of fun to come.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
Not a problem. And when you take lobbyists and lawmakers
and put them together in in this particular case, you actually,
as a restaurant owner, don't want them to come.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
We don't.

Speaker 3 (14:19):
You're complicating it. I know it's going to be a
big night for me, but you have any idea what
you're gonna do on my insurance? Rate because you're spending
sixteen thousand dollars to night on drinks and high end champagne.

Speaker 4 (14:28):
It's one of those things where it's like, I forget
where the federal tax levels end right now. But let's
just say that it was an easy thing, like it's
one hundred grand, and then you get bumped into a
different tax bracket. If you make one hundred and seven thousand.
In that scenario, it's worse than if you made ninety
four thousand because of the tax rate. That's what he's
saying here on this insurance rate, that is that they

(14:50):
jacket so high. I would rather not even have your
ten thousand dollars in sales for the night because I'm
gonna it's gonna cost me twenty thousand.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
And this is what this law was supposed to do.
Figure out a way to make sure that we protect
our small business owners because let's say, one of the
guys said from the South Bar and Tavern Association, he said,
you're only going to end up with the chain stores.
Those would be the only ones that to be able
to afford the liability and be able to afford the
liability insurance to stay in business and in the state
of South Carolina where you have so much. As we

(15:21):
mentioned in the beginning, tourism is a big economic impact
to our state if you don't have restaurants at the
beach in particularly Charleston, Hilton and Columbia as well. But
when you think about the high tourism areas, if you
don't have all of the availability of small business owners
as well as chain stores actually being able to run
a restaurant with a bar attached, then that's going to

(15:44):
affect the way that people do their traveling in their
tourism dollars.

Speaker 4 (15:47):
Well, and especially if you're a chain restaurant. I wouldn't
want to mess with South Carolina at that point because
it's like, well, you know what TGI Fridays, what percentage
of our alcohol or is responsible for this. I'd rather
just not have outcohol sales at the TGI Fridays or
wherever out back steakhouse and it'll be dry and then
we don't have to worry at all, because if somebody,

(16:08):
I mean think about the size of the pocketbook you're
going after with your going after a corporate TGI Fridays
or somebody like that, that's big, big money you can
go get five ten million dollars out of them. But
you got a guy here pointing out that twenty nine
billion dollars a year in South Carolina comes from hospitality.

(16:28):
So this is not we're not talking about necessarily traveling here,
but just what we all spend going out to dinner,
going out for drinks. It's twenty nine billion dollars a year.
It makes up one out of every ten jobs in
the state. So if this industry starts to go down,
not only does it affect you know, the people directly involved,

(16:49):
it then affects everybody in the state because the tax
coffers are going to dry up, unemployment's going to go up.
There's all kinds of problems.

Speaker 3 (16:56):
And I'm having a flashback through a previous Johnathan Nick
Kelly show where Killy Nash had pulled up. I can't
remember the name of the chain restaurant, but if you
compare the price of a hamburger in South Carolina to
the same restaurant, same hamburger in Georgia, our hamburger was
more expensive because you have to cover the liability insurance

(17:18):
for the bar. And we're talking about buying hamburgers for
a family before and they're not even going to order
a liquor drink.

Speaker 4 (17:24):
Everything he suddenly gets more expensive because they can't just
pass it on to the liquor. Although they do that
at a high degree, that's not enough to cover what
their sudden increase in liability insurance is just for this state.
So again, even if you don't drink, this is negatively
affecting you. If you wanted to go to any place
that ever sells alcohol at any time.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
Well, a lot of the owners quoted in any particular,
I'm sure any article that you read, if they talk
to any restaurant and bar owners are going to say
this will begin again as the session begins again in January,
because we got to figure out a way to straighten
this out better than what this has done.

Speaker 4 (18:02):
Why is it again we say this every week? Why
is it that the lawmakers in South Carolina struggles so
much with writing effective laws? They're always open to some
crazy interpretation. I mean, was it was it last week?
We're talking about the guy who we took a guy
who a double murderer who's now been sentenced to go
live in an elderly facility. He's thirty five years old

(18:25):
these living and that's the law.

Speaker 3 (18:27):
And how many of our laws end up at the
state Supreme Court.

Speaker 4 (18:30):
Everyone, it seems, is being challenged at the Supreme wort
because it's so wide open and so poorly written. And
half of these guys, if not more and gals are
actual attorneys.

Speaker 3 (18:40):
That's what we keep hearing. If you're not an attorney,
they scoff at you in the hallways because you know
anything about the law. You're not an attorney. Do we
have any tell you what? We'll just talk about this
as we continue to track this problem for tourism, problem
for our state, problem for your family if you go
out and eat, because costs will continue to go up

(19:00):
if we don't get a rain on this. Hey, we're
going to get into the swamp talk in a few minutes.
And then we got to talk about the crack and
the we got to crack in the pot that carries
the water that the Democrats say the media refuses to
carry for them. We'll explain all that coming up in segment.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
Four The Jonathan and Kelly Show.

Speaker 5 (19:20):
Jonathan Rush, every single ICE agent who's engaged in this
aggressive overreach trying to hide their identities from the American
people will be unsuccessful in doing that, Kelly Nash, and
every single one of them, no matter what it takes,
no matter how long it takes, will of course be
identified the.

Speaker 1 (19:37):
Jonathan and Kelly show woc man.

Speaker 3 (19:42):
If nothing else, you got to say that Hakim as
always as usual we heard him before pushing for transparency.

Speaker 4 (19:49):
My god, I mean this guy can that guy docks
some ICE agents? I mean, this guy's a buffoon. The
idea that you're going to fight to expose the people,
not only just the actual agents, but then put their
wives and children in danger, because we've heard from Malta.
This is before uh, you know, even Trump got into office.

(20:12):
We've heard about cartel members targeting ICE agents because look,
those people paid us a good fee to get up
into America and or those are some of our people
that we want in America. If you're going to bring
them down, we're going to bring you down. So you
don't want to have your face recognized because you know
you're putting your wife and kids in jeopardy.

Speaker 3 (20:30):
Well, Kelly, you've heard checks from we're talking about an
how many different Democrats have told you that these unmark
vans with men with their faces covered, wearing no police markings.
They get out, They snatch Americans, regular tax paying americans,
off the street, shove them into a van like an
episode of Taken three, and then off they go. We're
we don't well, they've they've been sending them. What was

(20:53):
the description venezuelan Venezuelan torture dungeons?

Speaker 4 (20:57):
Okay too, Chuck and Hakeem and the rest of the
crew would be why is it important to see their face?

Speaker 3 (21:08):
What is it?

Speaker 4 (21:08):
What do you what do you think is happening here?
What are you alleging is even possibly happening here?

Speaker 3 (21:13):
You're taking regular Americans off the street.

Speaker 4 (21:15):
Yes, we are doing that. Now what why? Why do
you need to see their face? Do you think that
they're not agents? Do you think that they're that they're
performing a duty that because that really comes on under
the purview of the Department of Justice and those types
of people. Tom Holman would know. Oh wait a minute, that
was an unauthorized grab right there, right, So, no, we're

(21:37):
not taking the masks on.

Speaker 3 (21:38):
We're not taking regular persons off the streets.

Speaker 4 (21:41):
We may be taking regular persons off the streets if
they're involved with something going on here and we're gonna
talk to them. Why are you hanging like in lats
in South Carolina, there were some regular people hanging out
with the cartel members. Yes, when eighty seven got scooped up,
why were why were you hanging out here with all
these illegal immigrants? Why are you hanging out with cartel members? Well,

(22:02):
if you've got a great explanation, fantastic. If you don't,
you're going to go to jail.

Speaker 3 (22:05):
If we get your fingerprints somewhere at a murder scene,
now you get really got some spleen in the day exactly.
But also just like the family that's now going to
be deported, I mean, if you're here illegally, you've already
broken the law. I understand that's not a criminal offense,
it's a civil offense. But you're still you're going to
be deported. And Tom Homing even told you in the beginning,

(22:25):
we're going to go after the worst of the worst first.
If we scoop up other people who happen to be
associated with or in close proximity that are here illegally,
they then in fact will be deported. So is it
that the people that Hakeem talk about, who get out
of the unmarked vans wearing no markings on their clothing
and masks to cover their identities or actually doing something illegal,

(22:47):
or are they actually following the law that you probably
voted on, sir, that puts them in a position to
enforce said laws.

Speaker 4 (22:55):
Well, you know when I got my concealed weapons permit
years ago. One of the things that they do as
a test, And they were talking in the test years
ago about you see a woman in front of you
at a stop sign with her young child. A van
pulls up alongside with men wearing no distinctive clothing, black hoodies.

(23:16):
They jump out. The woman is very resistant. They smash
the window, they pull her out. You have your weapon
with you, should you fire at them? And several people said, yes,
I want to stop that kidnapping. The girl's crying, the
mom's screaming, so on and so forth. And he said, congratulations,
you just killed federal agents. Because that's the way federal

(23:36):
agents are always going to come. They're always going to
be undercover, they're always going to be in an unmarked van.
They have to do that because if you knew the
federal agents were coming, guess what, you'd never catch anybody.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
Now, obviously, tongues are still wagging, We're assuming because we
record this on Friday for Saturday broadcast. I can't imagine
that they would have already made amends. And there's there's
no even speculation that's going to happen until they have
a conversation next week. The big beautiful blow up between
Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Speaker 4 (24:09):
Yeah, and this is one of those things. I hate
to be so dismissive of it because I know tongues
are just absolutely wagging about this, and I totally get it.
I mean, it's the two most high profile people on
the planet right now what we'll call an uncoupling. But
it's really to me, it's just a distraction. It has

(24:31):
nothing to do. I mean, Elon Musk has a lot
of sway with certain individuals, and he certainly was a
tremendous help to Donald Trump getting re elected, although I
don't know to his point, because he's making the point
he wouldn't have won without me. Donald's making the point
I easily would have won without him. I don't know
that either one of those statements are true. But moving forward,

(24:52):
at this point, Elon Musk is really not involved. I
mean all he is now a private citizen. The fact
we have a private citizen yelling at the president and
then throwing out insane allegations like he's in the Epstein files.
That really kind of discredits Elon. It's like, you're not
being serious because if they if he was in the
Epstein files. You don't think Merrik Garland would have leaked

(25:14):
that a long time ago.

Speaker 3 (25:15):
You think Joe Biden would have kept that under wraps.

Speaker 4 (25:18):
I mean, think about how they had to concoct an
entire story about Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes. I mean,
if they had information of him doing actually anything illegal,
they would have leaked it a long time ago.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
Now you're certainly not gonna get DJ too you to
start quaking in his boots. But he does like to
throw around enough money and mention some names and tweet
directly at legislators who will be voting on the Big
Beautiful bill because he wants to remind him that he
will fund someone coming into primary.

Speaker 4 (25:44):
Though Elon does that and Donald does that, I mean, so,
I mean they're both playing the same game. They seem
to have different goals at this point. I know, I'm
sad to see this happening. I don't want to diminish
it in any Way, because it's like, you know, you
can actually almost hear the pain in Mike Johnson's voice
when he's talking about I called Elon. I tried to

(26:06):
explain this to him and what's going on. Elon Musk
is a emotionally immature person. He is one of the
smartest people on earth who's emotionally immature and does not
apparently grasp how politics works. And so politics is a
very frustrating game. It can get ugly and personal real quick,

(26:26):
and if you allow that to affect you the way
he has, then you're going to be in a bad
mood for a while.

Speaker 3 (26:32):
I think he's finding out just as DJT found out,
because for those of us who are outside looking in,
when you step inside the Beltway, that game is played
with different rules that change daily and constantly off of
the desk of about five different people who pull all
the puppet strings.

Speaker 4 (26:49):
Yeah, and your money can can have an influence, but
it's not going to change anything. I'm laughing now at
all the Democrats who were saying that Elon Musk was
the real president and that Donald Trump, you know, is
just his puppet. I mean, it didn't really turn out
that way.

Speaker 3 (27:03):
It all did it. Did you like the thirty seconds
play on television of will We'll win elon back over
to our Democrat party?

Speaker 4 (27:11):
Yeah, they had to put that away real quickly quick
as Leon says, no matter how bad the Republicans are,
you're all worse on the Democrat side. That's why he
wants to start his own party.

Speaker 3 (27:20):
Possibly, if we started off this segment with KJP introducing
her new book, which is called Independent Inside the Broken
White House.

Speaker 4 (27:29):
Inside the Minsilican Brain of Joe Biden, what the hell she.

Speaker 3 (27:32):
Should have just had that? I think the cover has
been printed, the rest of it has not, well, so
don't judge a book by its cover. It didn't have
anything in it yet. But she's going to get ready
for her fall release of her book, and I believe
that she probably should have titled it you ain't gonna
believe this. And it became plainly evident only a couple
of days into her job as a spokesperson that this

(27:54):
was so severely broken even she knew it was wrong.
Maybe that'd be a great name for the book, even
I knew.

Speaker 4 (27:59):
This was wrong, or she could just call it it
But wait, it's even worse than Jake Tapper said it was.
I mean, Jake Tapper is going to be in a
bunch of legal hot water here because now the Biden
presidency ended so poorly it's now considered a crime scene.
The Biden presidency has come off the rails. And now
with the whole you know, the whole autopen thing, who

(28:22):
signed it. Yesterday they discovered a third signature on the
auto pen. So now we know we have three different
autopen signatures. Some were one was used only for proclamations,
one was used for most of the bills, and then
there's a third one that was used sparingly. And then
they say, if you will look at actual writings of
Joe Biden, you can tell when he actually signed stuff

(28:44):
which was rare and it's in eligibly. Look, you can't
read it. It doesn't look like Joe Biden's signature at
all because he was falling apart.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
It's like the pardon for a hunter. You can't even
read that signature. Now, the other ones were playing the
auto pen.

Speaker 4 (28:58):
But Comer has now subpoena Biden's White House doctor. You're
going to have to testify in front of Congress. What
were the results? We want to know, not just about
the cancer. We want to know about his brain, We
want to know about anything that could have been stopped.
We also, I'm assuming Jake Tapper is going to be
brought up here on a subpoena. And the Supreme Court

(29:19):
ruled like fifteen years ago that investigative journalists cannot hide
their sources in a crime investigation. This is a crime.
This is a again, it's a crime scene. The White
House is a crime scene. He taped up the Oval Office.
That's what they should have done before that the Biden
administration ended. This is the yellow tape should have been
brought out. We live in some really incredible times.

Speaker 3 (29:40):
And Comber's already told you, he's already given you the
opportunity to voluntarily come in the list of the heavy
hitters inside the Oval Office. It's pretty waiting to see
if ron claim today actually schedules his appearance. Are we're
going to send out a subpoena for him as well?

Speaker 4 (29:54):
They might start self deporting.

Speaker 3 (29:58):
But a big salute before we get out of the
segment to cash Betel and some of the things that
are finally starting to come. I know a lot of
people are saying, we are the Epstein files records. He
explained again, he will bring all that information out when
it's ready to be presented to the American people, and
I have no doubt that he will. But we're starting
to learn more and more about some of the things
going on behind the scenes with the Biden administration, particularly
with the targeting of the Catholics by the FBI and

(30:20):
the like. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (30:21):
I mean that when that news started coming out a
couple of weeks ago, it was like, we kind of
had heard some of these things, But when you got
Tulsea Gabbard having to come out on television and say
the FBI is to no longer follow these protocols that
were put in place under Joe Biden that if someone
regularly attends church, they are now a suspect. That was

(30:43):
the policy of the FBI that if they regularly attend church,
they should be looked at as a suspicious person. If
they own a firearm, they should be considered suspicious. If
they consume a lot of conservative leaning media, that is
enough to open an investigation that would now again, I
don't want to say that the FBI people who were

(31:04):
doing it were wrong because they were just following orders.
But she's saying the orders now are clear that you
will not be approved for opening an investigation into somebody.
Because that was the bar before, it's not the bar anymore.

Speaker 3 (31:17):
We have retracted that memo. And I understand the frustration
of the people who want to see the Epstein files released.
How many people show off hands. Don't be afraid if
you're sitting even by yourself, because I'm gonna raise my
hand on the second. How many people show off hands?
Are very frustrated that James Comy wasn't arrested immediately after
his social media post.

Speaker 4 (31:33):
I saw on social media yesterday and we record this
on Friday, so it was on Thursday. Somebody with there,
I'll just call it the F Trump truck, and he
was rolling it out and that's one of the back
of the truck. The whole bed says eighty six forty seven,
and then he's got He doesn't just say f he

(31:53):
says the whole word. He's got that rapped. He went
and got it wrapped. So his pickup truck, he's got
like a really nice I don't know if that's a
ram or what he was driving, but it's a big,
brand new pickup truck that is devoted to saying f
Trump and eighty six forty seven. I don't know if
he's going to get a visit from the Secret Service
now or not, but I know that they've been visiting

(32:14):
a lot of folks who've been posting those types of messages.

Speaker 3 (32:16):
All Right, before we get out of here today, we
get a top. We got to talk about the South
Colline Democrats. Maybe we can help them. They got a
leadership problem.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
We'll discuss it next The Jonathan and Kelly Show. Jonathan Rush,
the author of a new book called Independent Kelly Nash,
I think we.

Speaker 3 (32:32):
Need to stop thinking in boxes and think outside of
our boxes.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
The Jonathan and Kelly Show.

Speaker 3 (32:39):
Do you think by next week KJP will be announcing
the name of her new independent party. He can't just
be an independent, Yeah, she'd.

Speaker 4 (32:47):
Have to come up with I mean, maybe her and
Elon will join forces.

Speaker 3 (32:50):
Hey, now that's an interesting idea. I'll ponder that over
the weekend before we get back together on Monday. Hey,
this is Jonathan Rush's Kelly Nash. This is our last
oportunity to speak with you on this segment. Now we
do also post this program as a podcast. Yes, same
place you go Monday through Thursday when we put new
podcasts up every week and we get to share a

(33:12):
little bit of that inside our rash Thoughts on WVOC.
Thanks again for being here and.

Speaker 4 (33:17):
For those of you who've never listened to a podcast,
which I'm constantly amazed at how many people I met
who've never listened to any podcasts. It's so easy if
you just download on your app, the free iHeartRadio app,
and that'll bring up every podcast in the world pretty much.
And then you could just put in Jonathan Rush or
Kelly Nash or rash Thought or any of those types

(33:39):
of things and you'll see the rash Thought podcast pop up.

Speaker 3 (33:42):
Now, we have apparently a crack in the leadership of
the South Carolina Democrat Party, in particular showing its face
in the House of Representatives. Is that what the writing
is on the wall for Todd, weutherford.

Speaker 4 (33:56):
Frustrating time they have no power there, I mean under
his lead, they've gone backwards.

Speaker 3 (34:01):
We do have the supermajority in the House and the Senate,
and some people who continually back Todd say that, you know,
you can't really get anything done when you're in the minority,
no pun intended. When you're in the minority party in
the House and the Senate to that degree. But there
seems to be two raging factions here. One wants leadership
to be able to somehow keep the Republicans from ruling

(34:25):
with such a strong arm, the strong arm of the
Republican Party. The other just wants complete chaos.

Speaker 4 (34:32):
Well, and that's the mood of the Democrat Party right now.
I mean you even see, like at the national level,
Chuck Schumer has become a loon, a total you know,
just how can I get into the fight because he's
pulling inside. The Democrats are so low. They love AOC,
they love this. I'm going to be disruptive in any way,
and that's what we got here.

Speaker 3 (34:52):
You know.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
I guess the answer to AOC at the Columbia level
level is Heather Bauer. Heather Bower is very frustrated, she says,
with Todd Rutherford's lack of leadership. He's not energizing the party,
she says, and quite honestly, she says, I understand that
we don't have the numbers, but my philosophy is we

(35:13):
should make the Republicans life a living hell every time
they come in.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
Here there's the chaos faction She said she was unsupported
because she was part of the push to impeach treasure
at Curtis Loftus. Todd Rutherford didn't come in and strongly
enough to help them in their effort to get that done,
they were unable to.

Speaker 4 (35:32):
I find that hard to believe that she didn't have
enough support in the sense that there were even some well,
there were several Republicans, not obviously a majority, but several
Republicans who want Look, they don't like him because he
is actually like the original Doge, and so they wanted
to get rid of him as well.

Speaker 3 (35:49):
Well, I'm wondering as we go forward with this, and
even Todd Rutherford said that he was surprised he won
that boat, but he won at nineteen to thirteen, the
last leadership of the Democrat Caucus closed door voting process.
But I'm wondering, as you point out the House members
that would have supported Heather Bauer in their efforts to
impeach Curtis Loftus, We're constantly being told that what the

(36:11):
constituency really wants, no matter your party, is for them
to reach across the island work together.

Speaker 4 (36:17):
Are you saying that they want Todd to reach across
the isle.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
We're being told constantly that's what the constituency wants.

Speaker 4 (36:23):
That's not what the Democrats.

Speaker 3 (36:24):
Want, they know, but you do have now, and you
brought up the House Freedom Caucus. You do have the
supposed honorary member Jermaine Johnson.

Speaker 4 (36:33):
Well, Jermaine's leaving, right, Jermaine's running for governor.

Speaker 3 (36:36):
Is the officially announced I think he has.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
I think he's pretty much said I'm running for governor,
So that would be the end of his House astradships. No,
I think that you're going to see, like Campbell Garvin
says he's going to run against Ruththerford. Now, so he's
probably the next leader. But look, if you're coming for
the king, you better not miss because the last person

(36:59):
who went against them lost in a narrow race and
then suddenly found her whole district redistricted. Was they just
redisted her right out of her seat? Yeah, I mean,
I wonder how that happened, Todd.

Speaker 3 (37:15):
And the bottom line of all of this is the
crack in the pot is carrying the water isn't being
carried by the media, according to Todd Rutherford.

Speaker 4 (37:23):
Well, yeah, Todd Rutherford, I've heard lots of excuses. This
is not one that I ever expected to hear. Todd
Rutherford says, a once robust state House press corps has
been greatly diminished, and they rarely take time to commit
on the minorities parties messaging.

Speaker 3 (37:41):
And you mean you can't get the Posted courier to
write a Democrat friendly article.

Speaker 4 (37:45):
Yeah, I mean this is insane because if you've we've
complained about it, how how obvious it is. Every one
of our television stations, not just in Columbia but Charleston, Greenville,
well less so in Greenville, but both of the big
state news papers, the posting career in the state, they
all write from a left leaning perspective. You can tell

(38:06):
what the agenda is and they want the Democrats to
do better, which is probably in part why they're doing
so poorly in this state.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
He should be complaining they're getting too much coveraged. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
All right, we'll ponder that again. We get a lot
of things to ponder before we get back together Monday.
Here's the thought. Bye bye, all right, that's it for me, everybody.

Speaker 1 (38:37):
The Jonathan as Kelly Show w VOC