February 18, 2025 • 40 mins
Join us as we break down the latest legal showdown facing the Trump administration, as District Judge Tanya Chutkan signals she may side with Trump and the Department of Justice on sweeping federal budget cuts. We take a broader look at the relentless legal challenges to Trump’s policies—averaging more than one lawsuit per day from liberal and Democratic leaders—designed to stall his administration’s progress. We analyze how these legal battles are being used as a political strategy and why Trump’s success poses a major threat to his opponents.
We also discuss Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s threat to sue Google after the tech giant adjusted its maps to reflect Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America."
Finally, in "This Day in History," we remember the tragic crash of NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt at the Daytona 500.**
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:14):
Music.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back here to the full story on WYAB 103.9.
As we get into this Tuesday morning, back into the cold weather down here.
Definitely not a fan of cold weather. Ready for it to be over.
(00:37):
When I was stationed in the Army, they asked you, you know, where do you want to be stationed?
I'd always say anywhere that's not cold.
And luckily they just sent me to Fort Polk, Louisiana, and then Hawaii, until they finally sent me to D.C.
That was way too cold for me.
Both cold in temperature and cold in just a cold and dark place.
(01:00):
At least it once was.
And it's going to be even colder probably as thousands and thousands of federal workers
are continuing to reel from the massive cuts that Elon Musk has made.
We talked about that a little bit yesterday.
Today we're going to talk about a federal judge who has kind of indicated they will allow that to continue forward.
Not that they could stop it even if they wanted to.
(01:23):
These people can be angry all they want.
I think a lot of them have a right to be angry, right?
If you just have a probationary employee and then you just get axed.
But it is within the authority of the executive branch.
From a legal standpoint, it may suck for you.
From a reality standpoint, it may suck.
But from a legal standpoint, that's part of the executive branch.
(01:46):
And the reason they focus on probationary employees is because they don't have civil service protection.
I've said yesterday that honestly I think it should be not necessarily the probationary workers to be looking at.
But the ones that have been there for 15 or 20 years who have been the ones not showing up to work.
And those who are just kind of just relaxing and taking federal money.
More so than the probationary employees.
(02:08):
But the probationary employees are much easier to get rid of.
Because again, they don't have any of those civil service protections.
But even those that do at the end of the day, it's still an executive branch function.
So we're going to talk a little bit about that this morning.
Just briefly, when we get back from the breakout, we'll get some updates on the Delta plane that flipped upside down in Toronto.
(02:34):
As we've seen, it seems like there's been a lot of aircraft incidents the last month or so.
And I think people are paying real heavy attention to it at this point after what happened at DCA when they hit a helicopter.
As I said, on Friday I was at DCA. I was flying out of there.
(03:01):
And we had a three hour ground stop.
DCA is a very busy airport if you've ever flown there.
It's a great airport. I always give DCA really high marks.
It's a very, very well run airport.
One of the best run airports, honestly, I've ever been to.
And I've flown to many throughout the country.
The worst one is probably the Jax International Airport.
The Medgar-Wiley-Evers International Airport, if you will.
(03:26):
That's probably the worst run one I've ever been through.
But the DCA is actually a really, really well run airport.
It's clean. You get through it smoothly.
Security is a breeze. Hardly ever have issues.
They had a three hour ground stop on Friday for, they said, security reasons.
Some people are saying that Donald Trump's helicopter was flying through.
(03:48):
And they've essentially halted any kind of aircraft and helicopters going at the same time, which has slowed things quite a bit down.
I think they're just doing that until the tide passes over.
Because helicopters, military aircraft, is going through the Potomac all the time.
And it's unfortunate you had an incident.
But that's just a freak chance of circumstances more than anything.
(04:12):
But now we have a Delta aircraft that has been flipped upside down in Toronto.
So we'll cover just some basics of that.
I don't want to spend too much time on it just because it's being covered elsewhere.
But it is the top news story in the nation right now that's not entertainment related.
So we will cover that briefly.
(04:33):
I also want to talk about other things that's going on with Doge.
And that the acting candidate of Social Security has quit after clashes with Doge.
He's just going through.
I guess it's unclear to me if Elon Musk is getting paid at all for this.
(04:56):
Probably not. He doesn't need the money.
For a guy who's in an advisory role, they are busy. I'll give them that.
They haven't slowed down.
He got a directive from Donald Trump.
And it's not like a lot of these rich guys are going to act on an advisory capacity.
They just kind of show up every once in a while.
And just make broad statements.
(05:18):
And just act like they're just a figurehead.
Elon Musk isn't the nitty gritty.
He's getting down there sending his people out and making these cuts.
Like him or don't like him.
You can't argue that man has been very active in getting the job done.
If we have time, I also want to revisit the LA wildfires.
(05:39):
As people are starting to move back in or trying to move back in.
Or can't move back in more I should say.
As they are struggling with what's going on there in California with affordability.
And just how poorly that government is run.
And I like to bring it up because it's always important to remember how Democrats run places.
(06:05):
Right now, obviously we've talked a lot about Trump.
Now that the Republicans are back in power.
But we can't forget how Democrats can run places.
And something that affects not just that but other places too.
Which is affordability.
Especially California with owners regulations and laws.
(06:26):
And other things that are just not pro-growth or anti-citizen really.
I would say they're always pro-illegal immigrant.
But they're very anti their own citizens.
So if we have time we'll cover that as well.
As always, if you want to call in during the break, number 601-879-0002.
(06:47):
We take those calls mostly during the break.
You can catch on the live stream.
Which is being streamed on Rumble and YouTube.
And of course you can go to our website.
RegulatorsProductions.com
You have links to those streaming sites if you want to go there.
Probably the easiest way to find it.
Especially on YouTube.
As Rumble you can just search the full story.
(07:11):
And you can find it there.
Also on RegulatorsProductions.com you have the links to the podcast.
Which is the show.
That gets uploaded right after we...
About 30 minutes after we're done with the show.
It gets uploaded there on your favorite podcasting host or website.
Or what have you.
(07:32):
We're on all of them.
Amazon and I Heart Media.
iTunes.
All that fun stuff.
Is it iTunes?
Whatever Amazon is now.
Whatever they call it now.
All of those and you can find it there.
In case you miss an episode.
Or don't get up in time.
Or something like that.
So we're going to go ahead and take our first break right here.
(07:54):
When we get back we'll get into our first story.
But keep it tuned here to the full story on WIAB 103.9.
Alright ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome back here to the full story on WIAB 103.9.
So to get started this morning.
I just want to give a brief update on the Delta plane.
That has flipped over in a crash in Toronto.
(08:15):
So authorities say at least 18 people are injured.
After the plane flipped upside down while landing.
Amid wintery conditions.
Monday at Toronto Pearson International Airport.
The Federal Aviation Administration says.
I should say.
Says 80 people were aboard flight 4819.
Which originated from Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport.
(08:36):
According to Deborah Flint.
Who is president and CEO of Toronto Pearson International Airport.
The plane was carrying four crew and 76 passengers.
Among them 22 Canadians.
The other passengers were multinational.
Flint said airport emergency workers mounted a textbook response.
Reaching the site within minutes and quickly evacuating the passengers.
(08:58):
She added that the 17 passengers who were injured.
Have been taken to a local.
Have been taken to local area hospitals.
Peel Regional Paramedic Services.
Initially classified two adults and one child.
As being in critical condition.
The hospital for sick children.
That a pediatric patient received is now in good condition.
(09:20):
The rest of the injuries are minor to moderate.
The critically injured individuals.
Which is a woman in her 40s and a man in her 60s.
Were airlifted to the hospital.
Man that's a little nervous.
You just crash and they airlift you to a hospital.
Maybe I think I may be a little scared.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
Is deploying a team to investigate the incident.
(09:43):
Delta Airlines later released more information.
Saying the single aircraft accident occurred around 1.15 PM Central Time.
Four of the people on board were crew members.
Delta says all of its remaining flights on Monday.
Going in and out of Pearson are cancelled.
The entire Delta family is with those affected by the incident.
(10:06):
This is just...
Seems like there's been a lot of...
At least in the news you had one in Alaska.
You had this.
Obviously we had the major crash in DCA.
It's important to note that these are still...
The thing about how many aircraft incidents you have.
Especially compared to car accidents.
(10:30):
It's really still quite rare.
As much as it makes the news.
In this case it was very snowy conditions.
You don't often see one flip upside down though.
That's very interesting.
Looking at the pictures I was kind of surprised how well the fuselage stayed intact.
Didn't even crush under the weight.
(10:52):
No telling where the wings went.
Very impressive for the integrity of that aircraft.
We don't know what caused the crash.
They were literally landing on an icy landing strip.
You can probably guess what went wrong on that one.
Credit to the...
(11:13):
I don't know if it said what type of aircraft that was.
It's a very small regional jet.
It was...
I give credit to whoever designed it.
It held up very well.
Everybody survived.
Which I think is a testament to the manufacturing and design of that aircraft.
(11:38):
I was just trying to see if they said what type of aircraft it was.
I couldn't see.
According to meteorologists at the time, the visibility was down to 6 miles at the time of the incident.
With winds at 20 mph and gusts at 37 mph.
(11:59):
Temperatures were well below freezing at 17 degrees Fahrenheit.
I think it's just important to understand why these aircraft accidents and incidents always make the news.
(12:20):
I think one of the reasons they make the news is because they're so rare.
If you had crashes all the time, you wouldn't be seeing it in the news all the time.
Over the last few weeks, it's been up there.
Generally, as they always say, aircraft travel is a lot safer than most other forms of travel.
(12:44):
Now, the comfort of it? Completely different story.
It's a miserable experience most of the time with the tiny seats.
I'm not a very tall person.
I'm like 5'9 on a good day.
If my knees are touching the seat in front of me,
and I am average height male, slightly below average height male,
(13:07):
and my knees are touching the seat in front of me, that's a problem.
Not to mention having to get nicely fondled.
You have a great relationship with TSA.
I'm pretty sure anytime I can lock eyes with one while they're just nicely patting me down.
(13:30):
It's a touch that I didn't think I needed, but it's there in a time of comfort.
As I look at the 52-year-old 350-pound male who was feeling me up and down,
I never realized how much I needed such a touch, but you get it there.
(13:51):
You get that type of love at the TSA.
They love all passengers.
You want a little bit of loving, you just go to the TSA and you'll get it there.
The experience of flying is quite miserable.
The safety of flying is quite well, is quite good.
Those are two separate things.
(14:17):
It's not going to slow down.
Everybody is so dependent on flying these days.
Part of the thing too is people are competing for the cheapest fares
and keep going lower and lower.
Obviously, Boeing has had their issues with quality control with doors flying off,
but these last few incidents have nothing to do with manufacturing of planes more so than this one weather,
(14:40):
and of course, DCA being pilot error.
It's so rare and shouldn't scare anybody off from flying in general,
unless you just don't want the completely miserable experience of having your knees dug into the seat in front of you
and then the person putting their seat back.
(15:03):
You can almost just reach over and give them a little kiss.
That's how close it is.
Just to remind them you're there.
Just say, hey, I'm here.
I'm back here for you.
Just give them a little kiss next time they do that.
Just let them know that we're in this miserable experience together.
I appreciate you folding your seat back while I'm trying to eat my one little bag of pretzels with my tray table down.
(15:29):
Just to remind them how you appreciate them, just give them a little kiss next time it happens.
Spread the love.
Just like the TSA agent spread his love to you or her love to you,
you just give it to the passenger in front of you.
All right.
Let's get to our main story, or not our main story,
but let's get to a story that has more to do with politics, I should say.
(15:50):
And that is a federal judge in Washington yesterday appeared to be inclined to deny an urgent request
to temporarily block Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency,
not governmental, government efficiency, DOGE, from firing employees or accessing sensitive records at a half dozen federal departments.
(16:12):
So after a nearly hour long virtual hearing, US judge Tanya Chutkin, if her name sounds familiar,
that's because she was the judge in Donald Trump's DC federal criminal trials case.
We wouldn't do it.
And I think this is interesting.
She's starting to kind of go on his side a little bit.
She's probably a little nervous.
Anyway, Tanya Chutkin, famous for that, said she planned to issue a ruling within 24 hours on a request by 14 state attorneys general
(16:40):
to issue a temporary restraining order that would block DOGE from firing employees or accessing data from the Departments of Education,
Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM,
as part of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to slash the federal government.
The 14 states on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Musk's expansive authority is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution,
(17:09):
which calls for anyone deemed a principal officer of the US government to be formally nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
So describing the state's request for a temporary restraining order as prophylactic,
Judge Chutkin expressed skepticism about issuing a wide-reaching order while the plaintiffs struggled to prove a concrete harm stemming from DOGE's conduct.
(17:32):
She said, The court can't act based on the media reports. We can't do that.
The things that I'm hearing are concerning indeed and troubling indeed, but I have to have a record and I have to make a finding on the facts before I issue something.
The judge said, In order to issue such an urgent temporary restraining order, the states would have to prove a threat of extreme and imminent harm that can't be undone.
(17:57):
And although having to scramble to rehire laid-off employees might be difficult and challenging, it can in fact be done.
And she said, I am not seeing it so far.
If she denies the restraining order, Judge Chutkin could temporarily give Musk and DOGE a green light to continue to embed within the federal government in implementing the large-scale cuts.
(18:21):
Now, while she appeared inclined to deny the plaintiffs' request, she sharply questioned why the government lawyers appeared to have few details about DOGE's overall conduct.
She said, The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing. You haven't been able to confirm that.
I think it will be very relevant to me to know whether thousands of federal workers have been terminated on Friday.
(18:43):
But here's my thing with that is, again, we have to separate law, legal, right? What's legal and what's just policy?
Because this is where the judges are starting to get too involved, right? And I think this is where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to back, is going to really restrict them here.
(19:07):
Is that, hey, it's not your job as a judge to determine what's good policy or what's bad policy.
It may in fact be very bad policy. It may be the worst policy ever, but it doesn't make it illegal, right?
As we like to say, as lawyers like to say, it's legal but stupid, right? You can do that.
I'm not saying it's stupid. I'm just saying in general, right? It's not the judge's position to get in.
(19:31):
Well, I don't think it's right. I don't think you should fire that many employees. Well, it's not what you think. It's does the law allow it?
And again, this is the executive branch, which is in charge, and the president is the head of the executive branch. He's in charge of it.
And he has pretty broad authority to fire whoever he wants. Now, the Supreme Court has limited that in the past, right?
(19:52):
In the Nixon administration, when Nixon fired his attorney general for investigating him,
the Supreme Court said you can't fire someone who's investigating you. Essentially was the Supreme Court ruling on that.
But otherwise, it's pretty, pretty broad, right? Especially, especially, like I said, these probationary employees,
good policy or bad policy is irrelevant. It's the authority within it itself.
(20:17):
Just like the executive branch has the authority to determine how to spend the money, it's granted, it's appropriated by Congress.
Congress gives them a certain amount of money and it's up to them how they want to spend it or how much of it they want to spend.
You know, Congress can say, hey, we're going to give, you know, I'm just saying we're going to give $200 million to this department.
(20:38):
And if you want to spend only 50 million of that, well, you save the taxpayers money.
You don't have to spend every single dollar that Congress appropriates. That's what the appropriation means.
We we appropriate it to you. We have it available to you. But you don't have to spend the full thing. Right.
And that's exactly what they're doing. Now, it's it's you. You can't necessarily mix and match it. Right.
(21:03):
So if they give you two hundred million dollars for Department A and 50 million for Department B and you only want to spend a hundred million for Department A,
you can't then give that hundred million dollars to Department B because it wasn't appropriated department to Department B.
So that's something you can't do from the executive. You have to keep it generally within the little pots that the you know, that the that the Congress gives you.
(21:26):
So they have different pots of money and we get we get stuff in this pot and that pot in this pot.
And you can't really take one thing from one pot and give it to the other. But you don't have to empty out the pot. Right.
You can keep money in the pot and the you don't have to spend it. And the next year Congress can say, OK, this is this is the crazy thing.
If you if you ever worked in the federal government, you know this or if you've worked in the military, you know this is that, you know,
(21:51):
they give every department so much money per year and that goes all the way down. Right.
All the way down to like your individual department. OK. And the way it normally works is is that if you don't spend all of your money,
then you get less money the next year. So the thought being what they look at it as well.
You didn't spend all that money. So you obviously don't need that much money.
(22:16):
They don't look at, OK, well, we spent something big on the last year. So don't need this year. But we need it again the next year.
So what that ends up doing is a lot of these federal departments, they end up spending unnecessarily to try to meet that appropriate that appropriate number.
Right. Because they're so afraid they'll lose that money the next year.
So they spend it on really, really stupid things just to get to that level. And it's a waste of it's a waste of it's a waste of money.
(22:45):
And again, it's just a stupid idea of how they look at things. They look at things at a very, very base level. It's not like a company.
Right. It's not like a company we're looking at. OK, what departments are more successful?
We're going to invest more in that department because they were so efficient. Right.
So maybe we can invest more in there to take advantage of that efficiency like you would in a private in a private setting.
(23:07):
Now, I've said this before, you can't necessarily run the federal government like a business. OK.
Certain things do transfer over. Right. Don't get me wrong. Right.
Certain things absolutely can transfer a certain business sense absolutely can transfer over.
But the other day, it's not the government's job is not to make money. Right.
It's to provide a service to its people at the end of the day.
(23:32):
So, again, it's not the federal government's not there to make money, but that efficiency standards that you can have in a private business can apply.
Or how can we make something more efficient? How can we get stuff done with lower amounts of resources and still be quite effective?
And that's what that's what Elon Musk is doing. And Elon Musk, you know, he's a disruptor. He's always been a disruptor.
(23:57):
We saw that with we saw that with when he bought Twitter. Right.
It was come in, fire every single individual that's in there, almost every single individual and are 80 percent.
I can't remember what it was, how many he fired with Twitter. I think it was like 80 percent or something of the workforce there.
And Twitter now X didn't seem like it slowed down at all. Right.
(24:22):
And you can if you can remember when he first bought it, everybody complaining about how he's firing everybody and how he's how he's, you know, not not not taking into account people.
And he doesn't understand what they do.
Well, obviously he did because X is still running and it's running just as smoothly as it was before he bought it.
(24:44):
And so there was a glut of people. Now, again, Twitter or X, they're there to make money.
They're a private industry. So in a private company, I was always going to see, especially with human resources, which is your biggest cost.
Your biggest resource cost is human resource.
They have cost a lot to employ people, not only their salary, but benefits and everything else and to match their social security and everything to the federal government.
(25:10):
It is a it is quite an expense to to go to the federal government.
I mean, to to hire people. So the same thing applies to the federal government.
And that's why Elon Musk has done these mass firings. But that's a wrap it around to get back to the story there, which is that it's not the job of the courts or these judges to get into managerial practices.
(25:43):
Their job is to only look at the bare minimum, which is the legal standard.
The legal standard is the bare minimum. Right.
That that has to that has to happen.
It's not their job to say this. I don't believe this is a right thing to do.
Well, sure. But no one cares what you think. What does the law say?
That's what it matters at the end of the day. And that's to me one thing about these attorneys general that they're suing.
(26:10):
If they if from a political standpoint, this is what I'm thinking. Right. If I'm them as is that I don't necessarily want to challenge this in courts because if I win, then it doesn't get implemented.
And then I say, oh, look, I won. Look at this court case. I won.
And then it doesn't get implemented. And then the economy is still doing bad or whatever happens. And they'll just blunt. Then that gives Donald Trump a reason to point the finger back at you and say, look, I tried to do reforms and you fought me in court for three years.
(26:43):
That's on you, my friend. And he would have that would be a legitimate argument that that that Trump would have or the Republicans would have.
So if it's me, if I'm if I'm doing you know, if I'm thinking strategically from the Democrats like, hey, let them do it. If I if you honestly believe that what Donald Trump is doing is dangerous, then let him do it and then let him fail.
(27:06):
Right. If you truly believe that. But if something tells me that they know something tells me they know that this will be better for the for the country.
And there that's to them again from a political standpoint. And that's how we got to look at this.
To them, that is the worst outcome. The worst outcome is you let him do it. Right. And then he's successful. They cannot have Donald Trump be successful.
(27:32):
That would be that would be the worst political outcome for them imaginable because they've said how bad this guy is for so long.
Right. And they call him every single name you can think of. Right. And how he's going to rid this country of democracy is essentially the next Hitler.
And the American people didn't believe you. First off, he won that he won the he won the popular vote.
(27:58):
So the American people didn't believe you. And then if he's successful, that shows just how right the American people were and how wrong you are. And they cannot have that.
That would be the worst possible situation for them politically. So I think they are honestly afraid that this may work.
(28:21):
And that's why they have to fight it from a they have to try to file as many lawsuits as they can because the idea that this could work is is something that just it cannot.
It just cannot happen. So the latest state's lawsuits on that thing is just one of at least 73 suits that have been filed challenging Trump's executive actions in his first month back in office.
(28:48):
That's right. Seventy three lawsuits. They have filed more lawsuits. There have been days in his presidency.
That's more than one lawsuit a day that they have been fine. That's calendar days, mind you, not counting business days.
They have been filing more than one lawsuit per day. I mean, come on. I mean, they just again, it's it's that's going to show you how much they just cannot have this work.
(29:15):
And over the last weeks, courts have ruled that Doge is temporarily barred from accessing Treasury Department information, that agencies that maintain public health data must restore their website and databases, that the State Department must pause the implementation of Trump's 90 day foreign aid freeze, which again, that was completely that's going to get if there's anything to get overturned, it's going to be that one.
(29:39):
That's very clear that Trump doesn't have to give aid to federal to say the court say, oh, you must give federal aid. I mean, you must give aid to other countries.
No, that's not how the Constitution works, my friend. That's not how that's how anything works. You can't force me to give money to to to a foreign country.
That's just not a thing. But again, that's the that's the that's that was that that was the courts getting into getting into policy and not talking about the law.
(30:11):
So the the Trump administration has not some wins in court, including rulings that allow Doge to continue accessing some sensitive records and giving the green light for the federal buyout. But the Donald Trump said that he will be fighting these things in the Supreme Court.
And Trump wrote on social media over the weekend, quote, he who saves his country does not violate any law. That's interesting quote there. But over the weekend, the Trump administration in an application of Supreme Court lambasted the series of legal setbacks the president has faced telling the high court that the lower court rulings irreparably harmed the presidency by curtailing the president's ability to manage the executive branch in the earliest days of his administration.
(31:00):
He said the this is from Solicitor General Sarah Harris, by the way, she's the one who's writing this. She said the district court's order exemplifies a broader weeks long trend in which plaintiffs challenging President Trump's initiatives have persuaded district courts to issue TROs as temporary restraining orders that intrude upon a host of the president's Article Two powers.
(31:23):
And that's essentially what they're trying to do is they're trying to the courts are trying to say, oh, we don't agree with your policy. So we're going to stop it. But again, that is all that I think the vast majority that is going to be overturned, including the stuff with the firing of the employees, because it's all within there, right.
And if it's bad policy, time will tell. But the Democrats, they just cannot, they cannot in any kind of instance, have Donald Trump be successful within these policies, because that would be a political suicide.
(31:58):
And in two years, when when when our you know, it's even less than two years now, right, we get to the midterm elections and Trump is successful and the economy gets better in our position in the world gets better.
It is going to be a red red wave, a red wave that's going to happen. And they just can't have that. So you have to try to stop him and then let him just say, hey, you wouldn't allow me to do it, they can deal with that, that that part, but they cannot deal with success, because success is the ultimate is the ultimate test to see how policies work.
(32:38):
And they cannot risk that success. All right, we're going to take another break right here if you want to call in during the break number 601-879-0002. But keep it tuned here to the full story on W.Y.A.B. 103.9.
All right, legend, welcome back here to the full story on W.Y.A.B. 103.9. I just want to mention real quick, you know, in the live stream, we can't hear the we have the bottom of the news brief there, but CBS yesterday we covered the talks that that Mark Arubio is having with Russia in Saudi Arabia today.
(33:13):
But on the news, it just said, oh, like, like the United States may be bamboozled by the Russians, or they could be fooled into a deal. It's like, who do they think they're dealing with here? I mean, at what point has Marco Rubio or the Trump administration been fooled at any point by any foreign government?
If anything, they have been forcing federal government, other foreign governments to go to their will than any other president, at least in the last, you know, 50 years. They have they've gotten Mexico to move. They've gotten Canada to do what they need to do.
(33:43):
You know, actually got Canada appoint a border czar, you know, as someone to to go with the help of the spread of fentanyl got Mexico to start taking these people back.
Venezuela start getting his people back. They've had success after success. And again, we're just talking the first month, first month that they've been in an office.
(34:04):
And they have already had all these successes with all these with with having strong lines with these with these governments.
So what do they get off that that that Trump is the Marco Rubio and Trump administration be fooled by the by the Russian government? So who do they think they're dealing with here? This is not the Biden administration. You're dealing with someone completely different.
(34:28):
That just goes to show the complete bias of like you don't need to report that. Right. All you got to say is what is the facts, man? Just tell me the facts.
It's journalism 101. Right. I mean, at least when I went to journalism school, it was always, hey, it's your job. They call it you know, you have hard news. Right.
And you report the facts. You don't put adverbs in it. You don't put adjectives in it. You just report what the facts are. And then people can decide for themselves.
(34:58):
Right. That's why you're here on this show. I try to provide you the facts first, and then I'll put my flavor onto it. I'll give you what I think about it. But I want to make sure we all understand the facts. Right.
Before putting that flavor into it. But it's getting getting such just no it's like that that type of journalistic ethics, our integrity is just almost like oxymoron now. Right. Our journalism integrity, just an oxymoron. No one actually follows it.
(35:29):
So I was going to talk about earlier. I just want to mention briefly the acting head of Social Security has also now quit with a clash with Doge. Of course, Social Security is kind of funny because something that my generation will never see because, you know, they keep robbing the money from it.
But so I find it funny that he's quitting after Doge started getting to their records. But we see that time and time again now. Right. Doge is starting to look at records of people and now they're they're heading for the door.
(35:55):
They're going to find out guys. Time to head. Time to get out of here. You know, time to pop the joint. Let's get out of here. Right. And so that's just another example of that. But I just talked about Mexico and everything.
And just this interesting story. We only have a couple minutes. So this is a nice little quick story. But Mexico is now threatening legal action against Google over the Gulf of America map change following Trump's order.
(36:22):
So the Mexican president said they want to sue Google for the change of that on their on their on their maps. It says now Gulf of America. If you look on your if you look on the Google Maps, it will say Gulf of America.
So Mexican President Claudia Scheinberg said that Mexico will sue Google if the check diet does not change the Gulf of America label to cover only the portion of the body water over US jurisdiction.
(36:52):
Like I don't know. What's she going to sue them over? Right. So Gulf of America right now only gets shown if you're in the United States and the government and the president can call it you know whatever he wants to call it.
And what's interesting to me though is again he did start he's not calling it Gulf of the United States of America or Gulf of USA or anything like that.
(37:17):
It's Gulf of America which news flash to Claudia Steinbaum is America covers the whole continent.
We're all part of America right. This is North America. We have South America. So reality is is that Gulf of America is actually more inclusive than than Gulf of Mexico because it includes the continent itself.
(37:42):
And the fact is that Gulf is in the continent of North America. So Gulf of America to me is actually the better term for it anyway because it is more it's not just talking about one country which I think is more which I think is more interesting and I think more inclusive.
(38:05):
So it's going to be like who like hey who cares. But it's just like what is like she doesn't have enough going on her country with the you know with the with the drug cartels everything else to say hey maybe we should fight them in court instead of trying to fight Google in court for just following Donald Trump's executive order for a name that is inclusive of the whole continent.
(38:30):
We're going to take our last break right here we get back we'll do this day in history but keep it tuned to the full story and wib 103.9.
Alright ladies and gentlemen welcome back here to the full story and wib 103.9 as we get to this day in history so on this day, February 18 2001. This is what occurred.
(38:51):
Michael.
(39:15):
That's Michael that's Dale Walter there on the wind of his brother.
The daytona 500 that unfortunately cost Dale Earnhardt his life so he was killed in the final lap crash in the daytona 500 known as the Intimidator Aaron Hart was in the most sports most feared and beloved drivers a seven time Cup Series champion and as a race near his final moments as you heard there.
(39:48):
But coming out of turn four contact with Sterling Martin and kenn schrader sent Earnhardt car into the wall at one hundred and sixty miles per hour and the impact was devastating rescue rescue crews rushed to his car but earn hard was unresponsive.
P.O.'s transport to the Halifax Medical Center was pronounced dead at 5.16 p.m. from a basal
(40:10):
skull fracture, a fatal injury that changed the sport forever.
Following his death, NASCAR implemented major safety improvements including the mandatory
use of the HANS device, safer barriers, and improved crash protections.
And that's what happened today.
We'll see you again tomorrow.
Until then, my name is Matthew Bishop and you've heard the full story.
Music.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back here to the full story on WYAB 103.9.
As we get into this Tuesday morning, back into the cold weather down here.
Definitely not a fan of cold weather. Ready for it to be over.
(00:37):
When I was stationed in the Army, they asked you, you know, where do you want to be stationed?
I'd always say anywhere that's not cold.
And luckily they just sent me to Fort Polk, Louisiana, and then Hawaii, until they finally sent me to D.C.
That was way too cold for me.
Both cold in temperature and cold in just a cold and dark place.
(01:00):
At least it once was.
And it's going to be even colder probably as thousands and thousands of federal workers
are continuing to reel from the massive cuts that Elon Musk has made.
We talked about that a little bit yesterday.
Today we're going to talk about a federal judge who has kind of indicated they will allow that to continue forward.
Not that they could stop it even if they wanted to.
(01:23):
These people can be angry all they want.
I think a lot of them have a right to be angry, right?
If you just have a probationary employee and then you just get axed.
But it is within the authority of the executive branch.
From a legal standpoint, it may suck for you.
From a reality standpoint, it may suck.
But from a legal standpoint, that's part of the executive branch.
(01:46):
And the reason they focus on probationary employees is because they don't have civil service protection.
I've said yesterday that honestly I think it should be not necessarily the probationary workers to be looking at.
But the ones that have been there for 15 or 20 years who have been the ones not showing up to work.
And those who are just kind of just relaxing and taking federal money.
More so than the probationary employees.
(02:08):
But the probationary employees are much easier to get rid of.
Because again, they don't have any of those civil service protections.
But even those that do at the end of the day, it's still an executive branch function.
So we're going to talk a little bit about that this morning.
Just briefly, when we get back from the breakout, we'll get some updates on the Delta plane that flipped upside down in Toronto.
(02:34):
As we've seen, it seems like there's been a lot of aircraft incidents the last month or so.
And I think people are paying real heavy attention to it at this point after what happened at DCA when they hit a helicopter.
As I said, on Friday I was at DCA. I was flying out of there.
(03:01):
And we had a three hour ground stop.
DCA is a very busy airport if you've ever flown there.
It's a great airport. I always give DCA really high marks.
It's a very, very well run airport.
One of the best run airports, honestly, I've ever been to.
And I've flown to many throughout the country.
The worst one is probably the Jax International Airport.
The Medgar-Wiley-Evers International Airport, if you will.
(03:26):
That's probably the worst run one I've ever been through.
But the DCA is actually a really, really well run airport.
It's clean. You get through it smoothly.
Security is a breeze. Hardly ever have issues.
They had a three hour ground stop on Friday for, they said, security reasons.
Some people are saying that Donald Trump's helicopter was flying through.
(03:48):
And they've essentially halted any kind of aircraft and helicopters going at the same time, which has slowed things quite a bit down.
I think they're just doing that until the tide passes over.
Because helicopters, military aircraft, is going through the Potomac all the time.
And it's unfortunate you had an incident.
But that's just a freak chance of circumstances more than anything.
(04:12):
But now we have a Delta aircraft that has been flipped upside down in Toronto.
So we'll cover just some basics of that.
I don't want to spend too much time on it just because it's being covered elsewhere.
But it is the top news story in the nation right now that's not entertainment related.
So we will cover that briefly.
(04:33):
I also want to talk about other things that's going on with Doge.
And that the acting candidate of Social Security has quit after clashes with Doge.
He's just going through.
I guess it's unclear to me if Elon Musk is getting paid at all for this.
(04:56):
Probably not. He doesn't need the money.
For a guy who's in an advisory role, they are busy. I'll give them that.
They haven't slowed down.
He got a directive from Donald Trump.
And it's not like a lot of these rich guys are going to act on an advisory capacity.
They just kind of show up every once in a while.
And just make broad statements.
(05:18):
And just act like they're just a figurehead.
Elon Musk isn't the nitty gritty.
He's getting down there sending his people out and making these cuts.
Like him or don't like him.
You can't argue that man has been very active in getting the job done.
If we have time, I also want to revisit the LA wildfires.
(05:39):
As people are starting to move back in or trying to move back in.
Or can't move back in more I should say.
As they are struggling with what's going on there in California with affordability.
And just how poorly that government is run.
And I like to bring it up because it's always important to remember how Democrats run places.
(06:05):
Right now, obviously we've talked a lot about Trump.
Now that the Republicans are back in power.
But we can't forget how Democrats can run places.
And something that affects not just that but other places too.
Which is affordability.
Especially California with owners regulations and laws.
(06:26):
And other things that are just not pro-growth or anti-citizen really.
I would say they're always pro-illegal immigrant.
But they're very anti their own citizens.
So if we have time we'll cover that as well.
As always, if you want to call in during the break, number 601-879-0002.
(06:47):
We take those calls mostly during the break.
You can catch on the live stream.
Which is being streamed on Rumble and YouTube.
And of course you can go to our website.
RegulatorsProductions.com
You have links to those streaming sites if you want to go there.
Probably the easiest way to find it.
Especially on YouTube.
As Rumble you can just search the full story.
(07:11):
And you can find it there.
Also on RegulatorsProductions.com you have the links to the podcast.
Which is the show.
That gets uploaded right after we...
About 30 minutes after we're done with the show.
It gets uploaded there on your favorite podcasting host or website.
Or what have you.
(07:32):
We're on all of them.
Amazon and I Heart Media.
iTunes.
All that fun stuff.
Is it iTunes?
Whatever Amazon is now.
Whatever they call it now.
All of those and you can find it there.
In case you miss an episode.
Or don't get up in time.
Or something like that.
So we're going to go ahead and take our first break right here.
(07:54):
When we get back we'll get into our first story.
But keep it tuned here to the full story on WIAB 103.9.
Alright ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome back here to the full story on WIAB 103.9.
So to get started this morning.
I just want to give a brief update on the Delta plane.
That has flipped over in a crash in Toronto.
(08:15):
So authorities say at least 18 people are injured.
After the plane flipped upside down while landing.
Amid wintery conditions.
Monday at Toronto Pearson International Airport.
The Federal Aviation Administration says.
I should say.
Says 80 people were aboard flight 4819.
Which originated from Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport.
(08:36):
According to Deborah Flint.
Who is president and CEO of Toronto Pearson International Airport.
The plane was carrying four crew and 76 passengers.
Among them 22 Canadians.
The other passengers were multinational.
Flint said airport emergency workers mounted a textbook response.
Reaching the site within minutes and quickly evacuating the passengers.
(08:58):
She added that the 17 passengers who were injured.
Have been taken to a local.
Have been taken to local area hospitals.
Peel Regional Paramedic Services.
Initially classified two adults and one child.
As being in critical condition.
The hospital for sick children.
That a pediatric patient received is now in good condition.
(09:20):
The rest of the injuries are minor to moderate.
The critically injured individuals.
Which is a woman in her 40s and a man in her 60s.
Were airlifted to the hospital.
Man that's a little nervous.
You just crash and they airlift you to a hospital.
Maybe I think I may be a little scared.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
Is deploying a team to investigate the incident.
(09:43):
Delta Airlines later released more information.
Saying the single aircraft accident occurred around 1.15 PM Central Time.
Four of the people on board were crew members.
Delta says all of its remaining flights on Monday.
Going in and out of Pearson are cancelled.
The entire Delta family is with those affected by the incident.
(10:06):
This is just...
Seems like there's been a lot of...
At least in the news you had one in Alaska.
You had this.
Obviously we had the major crash in DCA.
It's important to note that these are still...
The thing about how many aircraft incidents you have.
Especially compared to car accidents.
(10:30):
It's really still quite rare.
As much as it makes the news.
In this case it was very snowy conditions.
You don't often see one flip upside down though.
That's very interesting.
Looking at the pictures I was kind of surprised how well the fuselage stayed intact.
Didn't even crush under the weight.
(10:52):
No telling where the wings went.
Very impressive for the integrity of that aircraft.
We don't know what caused the crash.
They were literally landing on an icy landing strip.
You can probably guess what went wrong on that one.
Credit to the...
(11:13):
I don't know if it said what type of aircraft that was.
It's a very small regional jet.
It was...
I give credit to whoever designed it.
It held up very well.
Everybody survived.
Which I think is a testament to the manufacturing and design of that aircraft.
(11:38):
I was just trying to see if they said what type of aircraft it was.
I couldn't see.
According to meteorologists at the time, the visibility was down to 6 miles at the time of the incident.
With winds at 20 mph and gusts at 37 mph.
(11:59):
Temperatures were well below freezing at 17 degrees Fahrenheit.
I think it's just important to understand why these aircraft accidents and incidents always make the news.
(12:20):
I think one of the reasons they make the news is because they're so rare.
If you had crashes all the time, you wouldn't be seeing it in the news all the time.
Over the last few weeks, it's been up there.
Generally, as they always say, aircraft travel is a lot safer than most other forms of travel.
(12:44):
Now, the comfort of it? Completely different story.
It's a miserable experience most of the time with the tiny seats.
I'm not a very tall person.
I'm like 5'9 on a good day.
If my knees are touching the seat in front of me,
and I am average height male, slightly below average height male,
(13:07):
and my knees are touching the seat in front of me, that's a problem.
Not to mention having to get nicely fondled.
You have a great relationship with TSA.
I'm pretty sure anytime I can lock eyes with one while they're just nicely patting me down.
(13:30):
It's a touch that I didn't think I needed, but it's there in a time of comfort.
As I look at the 52-year-old 350-pound male who was feeling me up and down,
I never realized how much I needed such a touch, but you get it there.
(13:51):
You get that type of love at the TSA.
They love all passengers.
You want a little bit of loving, you just go to the TSA and you'll get it there.
The experience of flying is quite miserable.
The safety of flying is quite well, is quite good.
Those are two separate things.
(14:17):
It's not going to slow down.
Everybody is so dependent on flying these days.
Part of the thing too is people are competing for the cheapest fares
and keep going lower and lower.
Obviously, Boeing has had their issues with quality control with doors flying off,
but these last few incidents have nothing to do with manufacturing of planes more so than this one weather,
(14:40):
and of course, DCA being pilot error.
It's so rare and shouldn't scare anybody off from flying in general,
unless you just don't want the completely miserable experience of having your knees dug into the seat in front of you
and then the person putting their seat back.
(15:03):
You can almost just reach over and give them a little kiss.
That's how close it is.
Just to remind them you're there.
Just say, hey, I'm here.
I'm back here for you.
Just give them a little kiss next time they do that.
Just let them know that we're in this miserable experience together.
I appreciate you folding your seat back while I'm trying to eat my one little bag of pretzels with my tray table down.
(15:29):
Just to remind them how you appreciate them, just give them a little kiss next time it happens.
Spread the love.
Just like the TSA agent spread his love to you or her love to you,
you just give it to the passenger in front of you.
All right.
Let's get to our main story, or not our main story,
but let's get to a story that has more to do with politics, I should say.
(15:50):
And that is a federal judge in Washington yesterday appeared to be inclined to deny an urgent request
to temporarily block Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency,
not governmental, government efficiency, DOGE, from firing employees or accessing sensitive records at a half dozen federal departments.
(16:12):
So after a nearly hour long virtual hearing, US judge Tanya Chutkin, if her name sounds familiar,
that's because she was the judge in Donald Trump's DC federal criminal trials case.
We wouldn't do it.
And I think this is interesting.
She's starting to kind of go on his side a little bit.
She's probably a little nervous.
Anyway, Tanya Chutkin, famous for that, said she planned to issue a ruling within 24 hours on a request by 14 state attorneys general
(16:40):
to issue a temporary restraining order that would block DOGE from firing employees or accessing data from the Departments of Education,
Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Commerce and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM,
as part of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to slash the federal government.
The 14 states on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Musk's expansive authority is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution,
(17:09):
which calls for anyone deemed a principal officer of the US government to be formally nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
So describing the state's request for a temporary restraining order as prophylactic,
Judge Chutkin expressed skepticism about issuing a wide-reaching order while the plaintiffs struggled to prove a concrete harm stemming from DOGE's conduct.
(17:32):
She said, The court can't act based on the media reports. We can't do that.
The things that I'm hearing are concerning indeed and troubling indeed, but I have to have a record and I have to make a finding on the facts before I issue something.
The judge said, In order to issue such an urgent temporary restraining order, the states would have to prove a threat of extreme and imminent harm that can't be undone.
(17:57):
And although having to scramble to rehire laid-off employees might be difficult and challenging, it can in fact be done.
And she said, I am not seeing it so far.
If she denies the restraining order, Judge Chutkin could temporarily give Musk and DOGE a green light to continue to embed within the federal government in implementing the large-scale cuts.
(18:21):
Now, while she appeared inclined to deny the plaintiffs' request, she sharply questioned why the government lawyers appeared to have few details about DOGE's overall conduct.
She said, The firing of thousands of federal employees is not a small or common thing. You haven't been able to confirm that.
I think it will be very relevant to me to know whether thousands of federal workers have been terminated on Friday.
(18:43):
But here's my thing with that is, again, we have to separate law, legal, right? What's legal and what's just policy?
Because this is where the judges are starting to get too involved, right? And I think this is where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to back, is going to really restrict them here.
(19:07):
Is that, hey, it's not your job as a judge to determine what's good policy or what's bad policy.
It may in fact be very bad policy. It may be the worst policy ever, but it doesn't make it illegal, right?
As we like to say, as lawyers like to say, it's legal but stupid, right? You can do that.
I'm not saying it's stupid. I'm just saying in general, right? It's not the judge's position to get in.
(19:31):
Well, I don't think it's right. I don't think you should fire that many employees. Well, it's not what you think. It's does the law allow it?
And again, this is the executive branch, which is in charge, and the president is the head of the executive branch. He's in charge of it.
And he has pretty broad authority to fire whoever he wants. Now, the Supreme Court has limited that in the past, right?
(19:52):
In the Nixon administration, when Nixon fired his attorney general for investigating him,
the Supreme Court said you can't fire someone who's investigating you. Essentially was the Supreme Court ruling on that.
But otherwise, it's pretty, pretty broad, right? Especially, especially, like I said, these probationary employees,
good policy or bad policy is irrelevant. It's the authority within it itself.
(20:17):
Just like the executive branch has the authority to determine how to spend the money, it's granted, it's appropriated by Congress.
Congress gives them a certain amount of money and it's up to them how they want to spend it or how much of it they want to spend.
You know, Congress can say, hey, we're going to give, you know, I'm just saying we're going to give $200 million to this department.
(20:38):
And if you want to spend only 50 million of that, well, you save the taxpayers money.
You don't have to spend every single dollar that Congress appropriates. That's what the appropriation means.
We we appropriate it to you. We have it available to you. But you don't have to spend the full thing. Right.
And that's exactly what they're doing. Now, it's it's you. You can't necessarily mix and match it. Right.
(21:03):
So if they give you two hundred million dollars for Department A and 50 million for Department B and you only want to spend a hundred million for Department A,
you can't then give that hundred million dollars to Department B because it wasn't appropriated department to Department B.
So that's something you can't do from the executive. You have to keep it generally within the little pots that the you know, that the that the Congress gives you.
(21:26):
So they have different pots of money and we get we get stuff in this pot and that pot in this pot.
And you can't really take one thing from one pot and give it to the other. But you don't have to empty out the pot. Right.
You can keep money in the pot and the you don't have to spend it. And the next year Congress can say, OK, this is this is the crazy thing.
If you if you ever worked in the federal government, you know this or if you've worked in the military, you know this is that, you know,
(21:51):
they give every department so much money per year and that goes all the way down. Right.
All the way down to like your individual department. OK. And the way it normally works is is that if you don't spend all of your money,
then you get less money the next year. So the thought being what they look at it as well.
You didn't spend all that money. So you obviously don't need that much money.
(22:16):
They don't look at, OK, well, we spent something big on the last year. So don't need this year. But we need it again the next year.
So what that ends up doing is a lot of these federal departments, they end up spending unnecessarily to try to meet that appropriate that appropriate number.
Right. Because they're so afraid they'll lose that money the next year.
So they spend it on really, really stupid things just to get to that level. And it's a waste of it's a waste of it's a waste of money.
(22:45):
And again, it's just a stupid idea of how they look at things. They look at things at a very, very base level. It's not like a company.
Right. It's not like a company we're looking at. OK, what departments are more successful?
We're going to invest more in that department because they were so efficient. Right.
So maybe we can invest more in there to take advantage of that efficiency like you would in a private in a private setting.
(23:07):
Now, I've said this before, you can't necessarily run the federal government like a business. OK.
Certain things do transfer over. Right. Don't get me wrong. Right.
Certain things absolutely can transfer a certain business sense absolutely can transfer over.
But the other day, it's not the government's job is not to make money. Right.
It's to provide a service to its people at the end of the day.
(23:32):
So, again, it's not the federal government's not there to make money, but that efficiency standards that you can have in a private business can apply.
Or how can we make something more efficient? How can we get stuff done with lower amounts of resources and still be quite effective?
And that's what that's what Elon Musk is doing. And Elon Musk, you know, he's a disruptor. He's always been a disruptor.
(23:57):
We saw that with we saw that with when he bought Twitter. Right.
It was come in, fire every single individual that's in there, almost every single individual and are 80 percent.
I can't remember what it was, how many he fired with Twitter. I think it was like 80 percent or something of the workforce there.
And Twitter now X didn't seem like it slowed down at all. Right.
(24:22):
And you can if you can remember when he first bought it, everybody complaining about how he's firing everybody and how he's how he's, you know, not not not taking into account people.
And he doesn't understand what they do.
Well, obviously he did because X is still running and it's running just as smoothly as it was before he bought it.
(24:44):
And so there was a glut of people. Now, again, Twitter or X, they're there to make money.
They're a private industry. So in a private company, I was always going to see, especially with human resources, which is your biggest cost.
Your biggest resource cost is human resource.
They have cost a lot to employ people, not only their salary, but benefits and everything else and to match their social security and everything to the federal government.
(25:10):
It is a it is quite an expense to to go to the federal government.
I mean, to to hire people. So the same thing applies to the federal government.
And that's why Elon Musk has done these mass firings. But that's a wrap it around to get back to the story there, which is that it's not the job of the courts or these judges to get into managerial practices.
(25:43):
Their job is to only look at the bare minimum, which is the legal standard.
The legal standard is the bare minimum. Right.
That that has to that has to happen.
It's not their job to say this. I don't believe this is a right thing to do.
Well, sure. But no one cares what you think. What does the law say?
That's what it matters at the end of the day. And that's to me one thing about these attorneys general that they're suing.
(26:10):
If they if from a political standpoint, this is what I'm thinking. Right. If I'm them as is that I don't necessarily want to challenge this in courts because if I win, then it doesn't get implemented.
And then I say, oh, look, I won. Look at this court case. I won.
And then it doesn't get implemented. And then the economy is still doing bad or whatever happens. And they'll just blunt. Then that gives Donald Trump a reason to point the finger back at you and say, look, I tried to do reforms and you fought me in court for three years.
(26:43):
That's on you, my friend. And he would have that would be a legitimate argument that that that Trump would have or the Republicans would have.
So if it's me, if I'm if I'm doing you know, if I'm thinking strategically from the Democrats like, hey, let them do it. If I if you honestly believe that what Donald Trump is doing is dangerous, then let him do it and then let him fail.
(27:06):
Right. If you truly believe that. But if something tells me that they know something tells me they know that this will be better for the for the country.
And there that's to them again from a political standpoint. And that's how we got to look at this.
To them, that is the worst outcome. The worst outcome is you let him do it. Right. And then he's successful. They cannot have Donald Trump be successful.
(27:32):
That would be that would be the worst political outcome for them imaginable because they've said how bad this guy is for so long.
Right. And they call him every single name you can think of. Right. And how he's going to rid this country of democracy is essentially the next Hitler.
And the American people didn't believe you. First off, he won that he won the he won the popular vote.
(27:58):
So the American people didn't believe you. And then if he's successful, that shows just how right the American people were and how wrong you are. And they cannot have that.
That would be the worst possible situation for them politically. So I think they are honestly afraid that this may work.
(28:21):
And that's why they have to fight it from a they have to try to file as many lawsuits as they can because the idea that this could work is is something that just it cannot.
It just cannot happen. So the latest state's lawsuits on that thing is just one of at least 73 suits that have been filed challenging Trump's executive actions in his first month back in office.
(28:48):
That's right. Seventy three lawsuits. They have filed more lawsuits. There have been days in his presidency.
That's more than one lawsuit a day that they have been fine. That's calendar days, mind you, not counting business days.
They have been filing more than one lawsuit per day. I mean, come on. I mean, they just again, it's it's that's going to show you how much they just cannot have this work.
(29:15):
And over the last weeks, courts have ruled that Doge is temporarily barred from accessing Treasury Department information, that agencies that maintain public health data must restore their website and databases, that the State Department must pause the implementation of Trump's 90 day foreign aid freeze, which again, that was completely that's going to get if there's anything to get overturned, it's going to be that one.
(29:39):
That's very clear that Trump doesn't have to give aid to federal to say the court say, oh, you must give federal aid. I mean, you must give aid to other countries.
No, that's not how the Constitution works, my friend. That's not how that's how anything works. You can't force me to give money to to to a foreign country.
That's just not a thing. But again, that's the that's the that's that was that that was the courts getting into getting into policy and not talking about the law.
(30:11):
So the the Trump administration has not some wins in court, including rulings that allow Doge to continue accessing some sensitive records and giving the green light for the federal buyout. But the Donald Trump said that he will be fighting these things in the Supreme Court.
And Trump wrote on social media over the weekend, quote, he who saves his country does not violate any law. That's interesting quote there. But over the weekend, the Trump administration in an application of Supreme Court lambasted the series of legal setbacks the president has faced telling the high court that the lower court rulings irreparably harmed the presidency by curtailing the president's ability to manage the executive branch in the earliest days of his administration.
(31:00):
He said the this is from Solicitor General Sarah Harris, by the way, she's the one who's writing this. She said the district court's order exemplifies a broader weeks long trend in which plaintiffs challenging President Trump's initiatives have persuaded district courts to issue TROs as temporary restraining orders that intrude upon a host of the president's Article Two powers.
(31:23):
And that's essentially what they're trying to do is they're trying to the courts are trying to say, oh, we don't agree with your policy. So we're going to stop it. But again, that is all that I think the vast majority that is going to be overturned, including the stuff with the firing of the employees, because it's all within there, right.
And if it's bad policy, time will tell. But the Democrats, they just cannot, they cannot in any kind of instance, have Donald Trump be successful within these policies, because that would be a political suicide.
(31:58):
And in two years, when when when our you know, it's even less than two years now, right, we get to the midterm elections and Trump is successful and the economy gets better in our position in the world gets better.
It is going to be a red red wave, a red wave that's going to happen. And they just can't have that. So you have to try to stop him and then let him just say, hey, you wouldn't allow me to do it, they can deal with that, that that part, but they cannot deal with success, because success is the ultimate is the ultimate test to see how policies work.
(32:38):
And they cannot risk that success. All right, we're going to take another break right here if you want to call in during the break number 601-879-0002. But keep it tuned here to the full story on W.Y.A.B. 103.9.
All right, legend, welcome back here to the full story on W.Y.A.B. 103.9. I just want to mention real quick, you know, in the live stream, we can't hear the we have the bottom of the news brief there, but CBS yesterday we covered the talks that that Mark Arubio is having with Russia in Saudi Arabia today.
(33:13):
But on the news, it just said, oh, like, like the United States may be bamboozled by the Russians, or they could be fooled into a deal. It's like, who do they think they're dealing with here? I mean, at what point has Marco Rubio or the Trump administration been fooled at any point by any foreign government?
If anything, they have been forcing federal government, other foreign governments to go to their will than any other president, at least in the last, you know, 50 years. They have they've gotten Mexico to move. They've gotten Canada to do what they need to do.
(33:43):
You know, actually got Canada appoint a border czar, you know, as someone to to go with the help of the spread of fentanyl got Mexico to start taking these people back.
Venezuela start getting his people back. They've had success after success. And again, we're just talking the first month, first month that they've been in an office.
(34:04):
And they have already had all these successes with all these with with having strong lines with these with these governments.
So what do they get off that that that Trump is the Marco Rubio and Trump administration be fooled by the by the Russian government? So who do they think they're dealing with here? This is not the Biden administration. You're dealing with someone completely different.
(34:28):
That just goes to show the complete bias of like you don't need to report that. Right. All you got to say is what is the facts, man? Just tell me the facts.
It's journalism 101. Right. I mean, at least when I went to journalism school, it was always, hey, it's your job. They call it you know, you have hard news. Right.
And you report the facts. You don't put adverbs in it. You don't put adjectives in it. You just report what the facts are. And then people can decide for themselves.
(34:58):
Right. That's why you're here on this show. I try to provide you the facts first, and then I'll put my flavor onto it. I'll give you what I think about it. But I want to make sure we all understand the facts. Right.
Before putting that flavor into it. But it's getting getting such just no it's like that that type of journalistic ethics, our integrity is just almost like oxymoron now. Right. Our journalism integrity, just an oxymoron. No one actually follows it.
(35:29):
So I was going to talk about earlier. I just want to mention briefly the acting head of Social Security has also now quit with a clash with Doge. Of course, Social Security is kind of funny because something that my generation will never see because, you know, they keep robbing the money from it.
But so I find it funny that he's quitting after Doge started getting to their records. But we see that time and time again now. Right. Doge is starting to look at records of people and now they're they're heading for the door.
(35:55):
They're going to find out guys. Time to head. Time to get out of here. You know, time to pop the joint. Let's get out of here. Right. And so that's just another example of that. But I just talked about Mexico and everything.
And just this interesting story. We only have a couple minutes. So this is a nice little quick story. But Mexico is now threatening legal action against Google over the Gulf of America map change following Trump's order.
(36:22):
So the Mexican president said they want to sue Google for the change of that on their on their on their maps. It says now Gulf of America. If you look on your if you look on the Google Maps, it will say Gulf of America.
So Mexican President Claudia Scheinberg said that Mexico will sue Google if the check diet does not change the Gulf of America label to cover only the portion of the body water over US jurisdiction.
(36:52):
Like I don't know. What's she going to sue them over? Right. So Gulf of America right now only gets shown if you're in the United States and the government and the president can call it you know whatever he wants to call it.
And what's interesting to me though is again he did start he's not calling it Gulf of the United States of America or Gulf of USA or anything like that.
(37:17):
It's Gulf of America which news flash to Claudia Steinbaum is America covers the whole continent.
We're all part of America right. This is North America. We have South America. So reality is is that Gulf of America is actually more inclusive than than Gulf of Mexico because it includes the continent itself.
(37:42):
And the fact is that Gulf is in the continent of North America. So Gulf of America to me is actually the better term for it anyway because it is more it's not just talking about one country which I think is more which I think is more interesting and I think more inclusive.
(38:05):
So it's going to be like who like hey who cares. But it's just like what is like she doesn't have enough going on her country with the you know with the with the drug cartels everything else to say hey maybe we should fight them in court instead of trying to fight Google in court for just following Donald Trump's executive order for a name that is inclusive of the whole continent.
(38:30):
We're going to take our last break right here we get back we'll do this day in history but keep it tuned to the full story and wib 103.9.
Alright ladies and gentlemen welcome back here to the full story and wib 103.9 as we get to this day in history so on this day, February 18 2001. This is what occurred.
(38:51):
Michael.
(39:15):
That's Michael that's Dale Walter there on the wind of his brother.
The daytona 500 that unfortunately cost Dale Earnhardt his life so he was killed in the final lap crash in the daytona 500 known as the Intimidator Aaron Hart was in the most sports most feared and beloved drivers a seven time Cup Series champion and as a race near his final moments as you heard there.
(39:48):
But coming out of turn four contact with Sterling Martin and kenn schrader sent Earnhardt car into the wall at one hundred and sixty miles per hour and the impact was devastating rescue rescue crews rushed to his car but earn hard was unresponsive.
P.O.'s transport to the Halifax Medical Center was pronounced dead at 5.16 p.m. from a basal
(40:10):
skull fracture, a fatal injury that changed the sport forever.
Following his death, NASCAR implemented major safety improvements including the mandatory
use of the HANS device, safer barriers, and improved crash protections.
And that's what happened today.
We'll see you again tomorrow.
Until then, my name is Matthew Bishop and you've heard the full story.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com