We're not even a week into Trump's tenure as 47th President, and the effects of his leadership and alpha energy are already being felt around the world. Dan explains why.
Pro-lifers targeted by President Biden's weaponized Department of (In)Justice receive a full pardon from President Trump on Thursday, an executive order exonerating 23 people in violation of their free speech rights.
Pro-lifers targeted by President Biden's weaponized Department of (In)Justice receive a full pardon from President Trump on Thursday, an executive order exonerating 23 people in violation of their free speech rights.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. For got kind
of a cornucopia going today. We got birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
It's in the news because you know, President Trump as
the executive order saying no, we're not doing that anymore.
You know, if a child's born to folks here illegally,
they're not automatically an American citizen. That's not the law,
that's not the Constitution. And then you know, predictably, a
court enjoined that today put it on hold, a court
out of Seattle, and now the hope is it gets
(00:41):
to the US Supreme Court quickly. I'm just here to
tell you, I would bet you my car and all
the repair bills that go with it that the US
Supreme Court would easily and quickly make it clear that
the fourteenth Amendment does not say that if somebody's here
illegally and the child's born here, that they're a US citizen.
(01:02):
And then we in the first hour we deep dolve
it and so I'm sure we'll touch on some of
that again. Anyway, we're talking birthright citizenship if you want
to jump in on that.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
We're also talking about, Hey, what do you expect to
find out?
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
What do you think really happened with the JFK, MLK
RFK assassinations? Now that Trump has said he's going to
release a lot of unclassified stuff talking about and playing
the very compelling sound from the inaugural address President Trump
saying that God saved him, and God saved him so
he could make America great again.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
So diving into.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
That, and I've got one of the most fascinating, I
think stories of the year coming up. And this is
I won't say a breaking news story because it's not
going to make anybody breathless. I just think it's fascinating
and important Denver Post story that dropped today about a
landlord suing a seven to eleven owner in Boulder for
(01:55):
making the story a quote magnet for homeless people. And
it's really interesting once you get into it. So hopefully
if we don't get to it today, we'll get to tomorrow.
But I want to get to phones and text. Let's
start with Brian and Arvada. You're on the dan Kaplis.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
You'll welcome.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Hey, Brian, can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I can hear you know.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Hey, Hey, it's not that hard. It'll be interesting if
they do let it out, because I guess he's going
to let it out the first term, so we'll see
it happens. But to me, it's all very simple. It's
the same reason they tried to kill Donald Trump. It's
the industrial war complex. She didn't want to get it
(02:36):
into another war, and there's a lot of money in war,
so he's just easiness into it. He's going to expose.
It's another step in exposing the corruptness that we've been
living with in our government for many and many years,
more than any of us even know. That's what's genius
(02:59):
about it.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Brian, appreciate the call, Thank you, my friend, and we'll
see how much we learned from the classified info. When
it comes to Trump, you know, when you stop and
think about it, Trump is the single greatest threat in
terms of humans on the face of the earth today.
Trump is the single greatest threat to so many different
forms of evil. So when it comes to you know,
(03:25):
who is actively trying to assassinate him? Now, and I mean,
this is just public record that Iran is trying to
but I believe there are probably more nation state actors
than Iran trying to assassinate Trump and others who might
have a motive if others were involved in either Butler.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Or the Florida attempt.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
You've got so many different forms of evil that are
probably trying to end Trump that it actually probably makes
it harder to sort out, right, and then you always
have the possibility that it's an individual actor.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
That's always possible.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
But but right now, Yeah, would any sane person have
trusted the Biden administration to get to the bottom of
that when it came to the two assassination attempts on Trump. No,
I don't think any sane person would. So let's just
hope under this administration we can get there. Want to
get to some text as well. Eight five five four
zero five eight two five five the number text d
(04:20):
an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Let's go to Oh, somebody unhappy with me? Where is that?
Speaker 5 (04:29):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
I know this may be.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Nitpicking a bit, but the quote founders did not right
slash ratify the fourteenth Amendment. This was passed in eighteen
sixty eight. Roughly seventy years after what we would traditionally
refer to as the time of our founders.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
You and Ryan keep up the great work. Thank you, Texter.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
But I did actually know that the Fourteenth Amendment came
later in eighteen sixty eight. But no, the Fourteenth Amendment
is referred to as the Second Foundings, So I and
many others have traditionally referred to the people who passed, wrote,
and passed the Fourteenth Amendment as founders. It's known as
(05:07):
the second Founding. Though I appreciate your point. Some might
distinguish framers from founders that sort of thing, but it was,
I think in reality and is known as the second
Founding the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Thank you, though, thank you for your note. Dan.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
What type of marksman was Oswald with the rightfully used
in a moving target? Raises my suspicions, Bob, I just
come back to as a practical matter, I'm just one guy, right,
I haven't had the access to the stuff I knew
to do the real forensicnic directly. But I just personally
believe that Oswald did not act alone. And let's see
if these files shed any light on that. I don't
(05:45):
believe that James Rolray acted alone in the killing of
doctor King. I don't believe that for one single second.
Certainly not, Sir Hans Sir Han with RFK. So let's
hope we're heading into a new era of God trustworthiness.
It has been a long time, Dan, some of these
(06:06):
Fourteenth Amendment notes just get too long, and I understand
it because there's a lot to talk about there.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Dan, I agree with you to some extent.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
However, if the parents are here illegally, I believe the
child should not receive citizenship until they reach the age
of adulthood and then have the opportunity to reject it.
I'm not sure where the Texter is coming from that
because my position is really clear, and that is, the
Constitution was never intended to provide that a child born
(06:37):
to people here illegally automatically be an American citizen. I
understand that's the current interpretation. I just think it's a
drastic misread and misunderstanding of the Constitution, which are current
US Supreme Court will correct as soon as they get
that case. So yeah with me and listen when it
comes to the child, he may be referring to an
(06:58):
earlier true said, Hey, what if the mom's here legally
and the dad's here illegally.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
And I said, that's an easy one. That the child
is an.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
American citizen because the child's born to an American citizen.
So I think that also is an easy one. Now,
I do want to add this note as we go
to other calls and text, and that is, listen to
child who happens to be born here to parents here illegally.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
My heart breaks for that child. I mean, nothing I
say now.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Is should be intended or interpreted rather as somehow viewing
that child as lesser. You know, my heart breaks for
the child. It's not the child's doing that the parents
are here illegally. The parents may in fact be absolutely
wonderful people. You've probably had the same experience. I mean,
some of the greatest people I've ever met in my
life came to this country illegally, and should they have. No,
(07:55):
everybody should follow the law. I agree. I'm just say
in the truth, and I bet it's true for you
as well. Some of the greatest people I've ever met
came to this country I legally. That does not and
obviously we all know some of the most awful people
to ever set foot in the United States of America,
came to this country illegally, just like some of the
(08:16):
best people we know did.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
But all I'm saying is none of that.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Should change the truths behind all of this, the true
legal constitutional analysis that the founders, including the second Founding,
never intended to incentivize illegal immigration. It was all about
black people who'd been enslaved and the children of black
people who'd been enslaved. It is clear what their intent was,
(08:44):
and nobody in the right mind ever would have sat
there back in nineteen sixty a and says, oh, yeah, hey,
let's come up with something that encourages people to come
here illegally so that their children can be born on
American soil and they can get this precious, this precious
right known as Americans citizenship.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
No, it's goofy to think that was their intent.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Not to disrespect anybody, but I truly think that's goofy
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
text d A N five seven seven three nine. And
for the record, I'm not calling any person, any lawyer,
any jurist who has interpreted it that way goofy. I'm
just saying, when we step back and look at it logically, practically, historically. No,
(09:26):
that's not what was intended with the fourteenth Amendment. Oh
my goodness, Ryan, we have so much red hot sound
today and we need a chance to squeeze all of
it in. So what I want to do is I
want to come back from the break your fingers. I
assume I rested and nimble. We can get through a
bunch of sound.
Speaker 6 (09:44):
Oh we're going to fire away baby.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Oh man, that is That is music to my ears.
Because there's so much fun stuff happening right now. I
want to give people a taste of kind of the
broad breadth and depth of it.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
A great time to be alive. You're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (10:04):
Lastly, sir, we have an executive order ordering the declassification
of files relating to the assassinations the President John F.
Speaker 5 (10:11):
Kennedy, Senator Robert F.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Kennedy, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. It's
a big one, huh. A lot of people are waiting
for this for along.
Speaker 8 (10:21):
For years, for decades, and everything will be revealed.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Okay, give that you all right, k G. Such a role.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
And as important as that is, and it is, it's
it's not even the most important signed today. The most
important was the pardons of the many different pro life
activists who were persecuted by the Biden administration. Even a mother,
a young African American mother, put in jail for a
very long time for protesting at a clinic. And it
(11:08):
just horrific stuff. And we talked about it in depth earlier.
And the fact that Trump is standing up to this evil,
unequal application of the law by Biden and the hard
left is is so critical, even beyond the individual cases
of these pro life protectors. It just just defending equal
(11:29):
application of the law and striking back against what Biden
and the left have done. So great day for America
and so happy for those individuals. All right, let's get
back to the phone lines there in Fuego. We're talking
about so much different stuff. Now, I don't want to
burn the whole segment setting it up, so let's go
straight to Robert in Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
You're on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Welcome, id I wanted to ask you about the right,
So yes, I mean, I'm I'm not kids, But anyways,
what about the permanent residence. I mean, oh, a good.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Question, good, good question, my friend, and your line's chopping up,
so we'll have to put you on hold while I
address that. And what a smart question from Robert in Denver,
because the quick setup is that, yeah, we've we've been
talking about since a court today in Seattle, the Federal
Court has put on hold President Trump's executive order striking
down birthright citizenship, saying that is not the law in America.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
That's not what the constitution says.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
You don't become an American citizen just because your parents
here illegally give birth here.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
So this will now get to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
And my point was the US Supreme Court, I think
will quickly and easily find that it is an incorrect
interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment to say that a child
becomes an American citizen simply because their parents are is
simply because they're born here, particularly when it's of parents
(13:04):
who are here illegally. Now, great question from the caller,
which is, hey, what if the parents have legal status here?
And he talked about I think he referred to a
permanent resident. That would completely change the equation in my mind,
because when you look at the fourteenth Amendment, and then
you track just the different court cases and arguments over
(13:26):
the years. Fourteenth Amendment, as you know, says all persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof. So it all comes down to what
does what does and subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean?
And I think by far the best interpretation is that
(13:49):
it means your exclusive loyalty is to the United States
of America. So by definition, somebody here illegally, that would
not be the case. If somebody's here permanently with some
other type of legal status, I think that would be
the case. So I think the US Supreme Court is
(14:09):
not going to have any trouble with this. The challenge
is going to be how quickly it can be brought
to the court, and hopefully it's the current constitution of
the court. Let's go to Allen in Kenyon City, Colorado.
Hopefully he's in Kenyon City and not in Kenyon City.
You're on the dan KAPLA Show.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
Welcome Allan, Hello, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Sure thanks.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
Got a story that came from my grandma when she
was eight years old. Her family came here to the
United States from Germany landed in New York. Yeah, and
my grandmother told me this story when I would in
my early twenties.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
So, anyway, after because they have to, you know, take
all the testing and everything to be kin citizens, it
was a big celebration amongst the Tagline family. And from
there after the celebration, they all got together and moved
to Hayes, Kansas. My point is that automatically makes me
(15:11):
a US citizen because they took the tests and that,
you know it, it required them to become citizens.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Well, yeah, you know that. That's I think that's the
way it should be. That's the way the cons Constitution
states it. And yeah, you know, I totally agree with it,
you know, with the Constitution because you know, well that's
only fair.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Yeah. Neat story, my friend.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
And what you're correctly referring to is the or naturalized
language all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and naturalized means being made citizens pursuant to the applicable law.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
And you've led us to a bigger point here.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
And Andy McCarthy makes this this point great, which is, hey,
congres can do whatever Congress wants to do on this front.
They've been given that constitutional power. So Congress can come
in and say, we've got the power to decide pass
laws to say who's a citizen or not. So if
Congress wanted to come in and say, Okay, anybody who's
born here is a citizen, even if your parents are here,
(16:17):
you're legally, Congress has that power. But the point obviously
is no Congress is going to say that right because
it just wouldn't make any sense for this nation. And
that's not disrespecting the child who's born here of parents
who don't have legal status.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
It's it's a practical matter. Hey, my friend, thank you
for the call.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Really appreciate that we've got to hit this break, but
thank you for calling from Candas City, Colorado.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Ran.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
You've got to tell me this is actually a great story.
Remind me sometime to tell my Hayes, Kansas story and
the crime that was committed against me in Hayes, Kansas.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
No reflection on that beautiful town.
Speaker 7 (16:54):
Was that it for me and Hayes State University?
Speaker 3 (16:57):
No? No, no, no.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
It was at a truck stop and he's Kansas. I
was hitchhiking back to Colorado. Oh yeah, great story. But
we don't have time for now.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
Thank you?
Speaker 4 (17:07):
All right?
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Do you want to get some more texts and more
calls in?
Speaker 2 (17:09):
But when we come back, quick setup because we only
have a few seconds here, Well continue the birthright citizen citizenship,
you know conversation because it is in the news today
with that federal court action. But there's more I want
to get to. I want to get to this fascinating
story out of Boulder where the building owner is suing
(17:29):
the seven eleven because the seven eleven is actively and
intentionally the allegation goes attracting homeless people to the seven
to eleven, who are then becoming a problem in different ways.
That's the allegation. I'll come back, I'll set it up.
It's fascinating and who should win that case.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 6 (17:55):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Boy, what a weak hun You remember a week like this?
Speaker 2 (18:01):
And we've been talking about this since election day, right
when the Trump effect kicked in and it was clear,
as we expected, there would be an immediate concrete improvement
in America and the world, not that we're gonna have
puppies and rainbows and unicorns everywhere, but we've got a
lot more of them flying around and things are moving
much more in the right directions. So yeah, just what
(18:23):
a great fun, amazing time to be alive. And more
fights to come, sure here in Colorado and beyond. But
we have not seen this kind of rapid progress. I
don't know if we've seen it ever in our lifetime.
Eight five five vers five A two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
It'll be fun. Tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
We're going to have Heidi Ganal in the house. Hedi
was back in DC for the inauguration, as Ryan was
as well, and you're be getting her take on all
of that and.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
What is to come.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
And the nice thing is that what is to come
it's so concrete, right like if you just joined the show.
We're having a deep dive today on birthright citizenship, the
idea that somebody the Constitution would say somebody automatically becomes
a US citizen just if they're born here, even if
their parents happen to be legal. We've been analyzing that
because now that Trump signed the executive order saying no way,
(19:18):
and a court in Seattle has enjoined that order. You know,
we're hoping it gets to the US Supreme Court quickly,
because I would bet you a ton the US Supreme
Court says, no, the current interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment
that if you're born here, you're a citizen no matter what,
is not a correct interpretation.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
I expect that will soon. I'll put that in quotes
be the law of the land.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
And of course President now he's going to release classified
info from the assassination files jfkrfk MLK and just kind
of kicking around what that's likely to bring. I do
want to squeeze in a couple of texts if we can, Dan,
how many celebrities and other elites have left the country
who said they would if Trump was president again.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
They've had two.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Plus months to pack that from Alexa Ryan, the only
person I've ever known who actually lived up to that
was my brother, who promised he would move his family
out of the country of Trump one in sixteen and
he did that.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Did that? Yeah, he did that.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Dan. Since you're a lawyer, can you explain when the
J six prisoner slash hostages will be released in full
and maybe also answer what seems to be taking so long?
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Thank you in advance.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
You know, it's it's interesting on that, and you know,
my own take is that there should not be pardons.
And as everyone knows, pardon means as it's as if
it never happened. Commutation means they cut the sentence in
the penalty. But my belief is there should not be
full pardons for people who engaged in violence, particularly people
who attack police officers.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
But that is done.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
It's interesting now you have some judges some of the
courts involved are dismissing the charges, but dismissing them quote
without prejudice, which means they could be refiled. Now that's
a legal fiction. The law is clear the charges could
not be refiled. President Trump has the power to simply pardon,
(21:21):
but some of the courts are in fact pursuing thee
without prejudice. In terms of other hang ups, Thanks Texter,
But I'd want to know some of those individuals individuals
specific cases, because.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
I'm not familiar with those.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
If there are some right now that haven't simply been released,
I'm not familiar with the details. Dan, if they rented
as a seven eleven, seven to eleven will win that case,
should sue for not providing security? What the Texter is
referring to is to me one of the most interesting
stories in a long time, and there isn't time to
do it full justice today, but I want to introduce
(21:56):
you to it, so you have it in the back
of your mind. We'll kick it around some more next week.
This is a well put together piece by Justin Winingerder.
In the Denver Post, landlord complains that seven to eleven
near cu is magnet for homeless people. In a legal
dispute that is nearly identical to a case playing out
in Lodo, a local landlord is accusing seven eleven of
(22:19):
allowing one of its most prominent Boulder stores to become
a homeless hangout, drug market, and crime scene, harming the
landlord's leasing efforts. Urban Frontier at Denver firm owns the
former Flat Irons Theater near the University of Colorado. The
building is now in ninety three hundred square foot retail space.
It is also quote a magnet for homeless people, according
(22:42):
to a lawsuit Urban filed against seven eleven's corporate office.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
The landlord blames seven eleven's altruism.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
And this is part of what I think makes this
so interesting, and I want to kick around with you.
Quoting the lawsuit, defendant incentivizes and allows homeless people to
hungergate on and near the property by providing free or
price reduced items, including food and water. Defendant provides homeless
people with special information reducing the cost of goods, and
(23:12):
has provided homeless people with free rubber gloves and disinfectant. Ok.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
What do you think the gloves are for?
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Ryan Defendant's employees have personal relationships with homeless people, It complains.
As a result, transiencurinate and defecate on the buildings, sleep outside,
trespass inside graffitia's walls.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Drink alcohol there, and do drugs.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
According to Urban which says it has been twenty grand
on security, the landlord accuses seven to eleven of siding
with the homeless, and then it goes on to assert
some legal claims.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
So who should win that?
Speaker 7 (23:48):
Well, in my view, what you just described, what you enable,
you encourage, and you deserve what you enable. And if
that's the case here, then I think anybody who would
allow for this to happen, or encourage it to happen
by enabling people to be there, should be held responsible
(24:08):
for That's just my view on it. Yeah, you know,
it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Obviously, a business owner has the right to be altruistic
and kind toward homeless people, et cetera. And I'm sure
that's what it's born of up there, you know, having
been a student up there, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
But you don't have a right.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
It's the old thing right, the freedom to swing your
your arm stops at the tip of my nose, and
so you don't have the right then to create.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
What the law would call a nuisance right.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
That then, you know, interferes with others free access to
public accommodations, lowers property values, et cetera. So, without knowing
more and just accepting the allegations from the complaint, we
haven't heard the other side, right, but I would love
to hear the other side next week.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Hopefully we could get seven to eleven in on this.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
If everything they described is true, I would expect the
landlord's gonna prevail and probably not have to go all
the way to a jury trial. There's probably going to
be some sort of settlement where seven eleven just changes
the way it approaches all this.
Speaker 7 (25:15):
These are human beings, and I hate to use this analogy,
but I think it fits, and it makes a point
and that is you start feeding stray cats, they're gonna
keep coming back, and they're.
Speaker 6 (25:25):
Gonna know that that is a source of food and they.
Speaker 7 (25:27):
Can come back and come back again. And no matter
the altruistic motives. To your point, Dan, if you're creating
a nuisance situation by designating this place kind of a
haven or a magnet for such people come in and
then engage in these behaviors of defecating and urinating and
whatever else, then I think the person that is encouraging
(25:47):
that behavior should be held responsible.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Yeah, you know, and obviously, Ryan, I know you're not
comparing these human beings to cats, but I just.
Speaker 6 (25:57):
Gave the disclaimer.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
I tried my best, but then you went ahead and
did it. But that's what is.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Wrong.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Is that wrong?
Speaker 6 (26:05):
Is it an inaccurate comparison?
Speaker 3 (26:08):
Yes? Oh yes it is. Yes, yes it is, my friend,
How is it inaccurate?
Speaker 4 (26:12):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
It is?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
It is inaccurate because of the fact we're talking about
human beings here, right, We're going to have a different
legal standard apply.
Speaker 9 (26:20):
And also, yeah, the legal standard I'm talking about that
is just the actual standing point, the actual effect of
what you're doing, right, And I.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
Don't mean to get into the weeds with this.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
But but the other reason why, I mean, I think
there are a lot of reasons that the comparison doesn't apply.
And I know you did not mean it in a
harsh way, but but the other reasons it doesn't apply
is because these are human beings. It's it's not just
kind of an instinctive thing. Okay, the cat knows there's
going to be milk over there. You know, There's there's
a lot of other reasoning that goes into it. But
(26:51):
then there's a lot of other harm, unfortunately, that can
be caused by by the human beings as they pursue this.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Because we're talking.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
About and we're all broken to one degree another, right,
but we're talking about badly broken human beings at a
very bad point in their life, who are probably many
of them drug, alcohol, other addicted, and so their behavior
wants there is the behavior of many is just going
to be more destructive. And so I get the landlord's concern,
(27:21):
assuming that the seven to eleven they're nobly motivated, there's
got to be a way to carve this out, right,
But listen, if a landlord is sitting there looking at
everything it describes, it is in my view, a right
to take action, and no matter how well intentioned the
seven to eleven, they still have to pursue their mission
work in a way that is fair to all of
(27:44):
the surrounding businesses. That's all I'm saying. But Ryan, let
me do this, okay, because there is have you seen
this texter who's really going after me?
Speaker 3 (27:52):
This is fun?
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Says he's a lawyer who could run circles around me
in a courtroom and wants to bet his fancy cars.
This is going to be a lot of fun because
I'm going to give them a chance to do that.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (28:07):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful.
Speaker 7 (28:13):
Pro life protesters who were prosecuted by the Biden administration
for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Do you know how many I believe it's twenty three, sir.
Speaker 10 (28:24):
Twenty three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted.
Many of them are elderly people. They should not have
been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this.
They'll be great happy.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
So they're all in prison.
Speaker 7 (28:45):
Now, some some are out of custody.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
It's ridiculous, what a great moment.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Today's so important what President Trump did on multiple levels.
But keep in mind, some of these people think of
about the threat to this nation that the Biden administration
created when it decided to misuse DOJ to mount politically
motivated prosecutions and then hypercharged, prosecuted, and sentenced the people
(29:13):
such as this young African American mother in jail four
years until being freed by Trump, who's in jail for
protesting at one.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Of these abortion facilities.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
And then the elderly woman convicted as well, and then
I believe on home detention now.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
But at the same time, and here's the point.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Even if you could look at any one of those
prosecutions and say, oh, yeah, there's a law violation there,
that the big question then becomes is the law being
applied equally? And the answers are resounding, no, you have
the politically favored They would never even think of charging
for far worse offense as let alone pursuing sentencing and
putting in jail. And it's that kind of of unequal
(29:57):
application of the law, abuse of the law law for
politically motivated prosecutions that threatens the existence of this nation.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
Let alone that what they're trying to.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Do here is persecute and prosecute and jail some of
the greatest civil rights heroes of our time, because that
the fight for innocent life is the civil rights movement
of our lifetime on multiple levels, including but not limited,
the fact that you know, five times more children of
color are killed before birth than other children, and none
(30:29):
of them should be killed.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
But my point is, a.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Great blow was struck today for good over an evil practice.
And did this evil practice of unequal application of the law.
And by the way, does anybody really that Biden's DOJ
could not have tracked down the people who burned that
pro life pregnancy center up in northern Colorado the day
(30:51):
after Roe was struck down. Really, really, you think that
all the resources, all the great people in the DJ
and there are many, Biden couldn't have tracked down the people.
And it's just I think, from what I can see
from the outside, another example of that unequal application of
the law, which is ending now with Trump and hopefully
for many years to come. All right, let's try to
squeeze in. Oh, I've got to deliver on this teas
(31:12):
and then I'll go to the phone lines. Yeah, so
I get a text from this guy who says, Dan,
I'm an ex DC lawyer, would run circles around you
in a courtroom, would love to come out of retirement
to battle against you in a courtroom about birthrights to
those born here. Guaranteed win for me. Okay, tough guy,
easy enough, You don't even have to come out of retirement.
(31:35):
You don't even have to go into a courtroom. Just
call the darn show. Call the darn show, tough guy
or Gale. Eight five five four zero five eight two
five five. I'll slow down so you can hear it
clearly and write it down. Eight five five four zero
five eight two five five. Just call the show. We
(31:55):
can have our own trial right here. And you know what,
instead of six wonderful jurors in the box and a
great judge on the bench, and maybe it can fit
one hundred people in the courtroom, we can have the
whole state. We can have the whole country here because
they can get us on the iHeart app. So come on,
tough guy or Gail, let's let's have our own little
trial right here. And then he or she writes back
(32:15):
to say, Dan, okay, I'll bet you my McLaren seven twenties.
The Supreme Court will side with me.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
What do you drive?
Speaker 2 (32:24):
So you know what I'm picturing, Ryan, I'm picturing a
couple of those like little models you get from the
gas station.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
You know what, McLaren's seven twenties.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I'm picturing that right now.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
And oh, by the way, plenty of.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
DC lawyers have walked out of courtrooms very very disappointed
in the outcome when we have shared that wonderful space.
So yeah, please do please do my friend call the
show and what do I drive?
Speaker 3 (32:51):
You are welcome to what I drive. I will tell
you that right now.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
It's probably the best car I've ever driven when it works.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
But but Ryan, I.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Think now, over the last three months it has spent
more than half that time in the shop.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
What the heck's wrong with that? So I what isn't
wrong with it? You know?
Speaker 2 (33:09):
I bought it used back during COVID because you couldn't
find them new, and I saved a bunch of money
on it.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
But here's the key. Here's the key.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
I got that four year warranty, you know, because Mercedes
gives this on certain certified used cars. As you know,
they'll give this full bumper to bumper warranty. I guarantee
you they are regretting the day they ever gave that warranty.
But and I'm kind of regretting the day I ever
bought the car. But it is such a great car
when it works right. It's one of these questions.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
I told you, I know people I can help you.
Speaker 9 (33:42):
Yeah, with Martino people, I'll let's talk about I'd say tomorrow,
but Hedia is the show tomorrow, which is going to
be awesome, So we'll figure that one out.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Thank you, Kelly next week, Brian, tremendous job, as always,
my friend, and Kelly, you are human sunshine. You're brighten
everybody's day every single day. Hey hiving ganal in tomorrow,
thoroughly enjoy that. Thanks for your time today on The
Dan Kapla Show.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. For got kind
of a cornucopia going today. We got birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
It's in the news because you know, President Trump as
the executive order saying no, we're not doing that anymore.
You know, if a child's born to folks here illegally,
they're not automatically an American citizen. That's not the law,
that's not the Constitution. And then you know, predictably, a
court enjoined that today put it on hold, a court
out of Seattle, and now the hope is it gets
(00:41):
to the US Supreme Court quickly. I'm just here to
tell you, I would bet you my car and all
the repair bills that go with it that the US
Supreme Court would easily and quickly make it clear that
the fourteenth Amendment does not say that if somebody's here
illegally and the child's born here, that they're a US citizen.
(01:02):
And then we in the first hour we deep dolve
it and so I'm sure we'll touch on some of
that again. Anyway, we're talking birthright citizenship if you want
to jump in on that.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
We're also talking about, Hey, what do you expect to
find out?
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
What do you think really happened with the JFK, MLK
RFK assassinations? Now that Trump has said he's going to
release a lot of unclassified stuff talking about and playing
the very compelling sound from the inaugural address President Trump
saying that God saved him, and God saved him so
he could make America great again.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
So diving into.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
That, and I've got one of the most fascinating, I
think stories of the year coming up. And this is
I won't say a breaking news story because it's not
going to make anybody breathless. I just think it's fascinating
and important Denver Post story that dropped today about a
landlord suing a seven to eleven owner in Boulder for
(01:55):
making the story a quote magnet for homeless people. And
it's really interesting once you get into it. So hopefully
if we don't get to it today, we'll get to tomorrow.
But I want to get to phones and text. Let's
start with Brian and Arvada. You're on the dan Kaplis.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
You'll welcome.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Hey, Brian, can you hear me?
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I can hear you know.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Hey, Hey, it's not that hard. It'll be interesting if
they do let it out, because I guess he's going
to let it out the first term, so we'll see
it happens. But to me, it's all very simple. It's
the same reason they tried to kill Donald Trump. It's
the industrial war complex. She didn't want to get it
(02:36):
into another war, and there's a lot of money in war,
so he's just easiness into it. He's going to expose.
It's another step in exposing the corruptness that we've been
living with in our government for many and many years,
more than any of us even know. That's what's genius
(02:59):
about it.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Brian, appreciate the call, Thank you, my friend, and we'll
see how much we learned from the classified info. When
it comes to Trump, you know, when you stop and
think about it, Trump is the single greatest threat in
terms of humans on the face of the earth today.
Trump is the single greatest threat to so many different
forms of evil. So when it comes to you know,
(03:25):
who is actively trying to assassinate him? Now, and I mean,
this is just public record that Iran is trying to
but I believe there are probably more nation state actors
than Iran trying to assassinate Trump and others who might
have a motive if others were involved in either Butler.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Or the Florida attempt.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
You've got so many different forms of evil that are
probably trying to end Trump that it actually probably makes
it harder to sort out, right, and then you always
have the possibility that it's an individual actor.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
That's always possible.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
But but right now, Yeah, would any sane person have
trusted the Biden administration to get to the bottom of
that when it came to the two assassination attempts on Trump. No,
I don't think any sane person would. So let's just
hope under this administration we can get there. Want to
get to some text as well. Eight five five four
zero five eight two five five the number text d
(04:20):
an five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Let's go to Oh, somebody unhappy with me? Where is that?
Speaker 5 (04:29):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
I know this may be.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Nitpicking a bit, but the quote founders did not right
slash ratify the fourteenth Amendment. This was passed in eighteen
sixty eight. Roughly seventy years after what we would traditionally
refer to as the time of our founders.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
You and Ryan keep up the great work. Thank you, Texter.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
But I did actually know that the Fourteenth Amendment came
later in eighteen sixty eight. But no, the Fourteenth Amendment
is referred to as the Second Foundings, So I and
many others have traditionally referred to the people who passed, wrote,
and passed the Fourteenth Amendment as founders. It's known as
(05:07):
the second Founding. Though I appreciate your point. Some might
distinguish framers from founders that sort of thing, but it was,
I think in reality and is known as the second
Founding the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Thank you, though, thank you for your note. Dan.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
What type of marksman was Oswald with the rightfully used
in a moving target? Raises my suspicions, Bob, I just
come back to as a practical matter, I'm just one guy, right,
I haven't had the access to the stuff I knew
to do the real forensicnic directly. But I just personally
believe that Oswald did not act alone. And let's see
if these files shed any light on that. I don't
(05:45):
believe that James Rolray acted alone in the killing of
doctor King. I don't believe that for one single second.
Certainly not, Sir Hans Sir Han with RFK. So let's
hope we're heading into a new era of God trustworthiness.
It has been a long time, Dan, some of these
(06:06):
Fourteenth Amendment notes just get too long, and I understand
it because there's a lot to talk about there.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Dan, I agree with you to some extent.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
However, if the parents are here illegally, I believe the
child should not receive citizenship until they reach the age
of adulthood and then have the opportunity to reject it.
I'm not sure where the Texter is coming from that
because my position is really clear, and that is, the
Constitution was never intended to provide that a child born
(06:37):
to people here illegally automatically be an American citizen. I
understand that's the current interpretation. I just think it's a
drastic misread and misunderstanding of the Constitution, which are current
US Supreme Court will correct as soon as they get
that case. So yeah with me and listen when it
comes to the child, he may be referring to an
(06:58):
earlier true said, Hey, what if the mom's here legally
and the dad's here illegally.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
And I said, that's an easy one. That the child
is an.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
American citizen because the child's born to an American citizen.
So I think that also is an easy one. Now,
I do want to add this note as we go
to other calls and text, and that is, listen to
child who happens to be born here to parents here illegally.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
My heart breaks for that child. I mean, nothing I
say now.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Is should be intended or interpreted rather as somehow viewing
that child as lesser. You know, my heart breaks for
the child. It's not the child's doing that the parents
are here illegally. The parents may in fact be absolutely
wonderful people. You've probably had the same experience. I mean,
some of the greatest people I've ever met in my
life came to this country illegally, and should they have. No,
(07:55):
everybody should follow the law. I agree. I'm just say
in the truth, and I bet it's true for you
as well. Some of the greatest people I've ever met
came to this country I legally. That does not and
obviously we all know some of the most awful people
to ever set foot in the United States of America,
came to this country illegally, just like some of the
(08:16):
best people we know did.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
But all I'm saying is none of that.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Should change the truths behind all of this, the true
legal constitutional analysis that the founders, including the second Founding,
never intended to incentivize illegal immigration. It was all about
black people who'd been enslaved and the children of black
people who'd been enslaved. It is clear what their intent was,
(08:44):
and nobody in the right mind ever would have sat
there back in nineteen sixty a and says, oh, yeah, hey,
let's come up with something that encourages people to come
here illegally so that their children can be born on
American soil and they can get this precious, this precious
right known as Americans citizenship.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
No, it's goofy to think that was their intent.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Not to disrespect anybody, but I truly think that's goofy
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
text d A N five seven seven three nine. And
for the record, I'm not calling any person, any lawyer,
any jurist who has interpreted it that way goofy. I'm
just saying, when we step back and look at it logically, practically, historically. No,
(09:26):
that's not what was intended with the fourteenth Amendment. Oh
my goodness, Ryan, we have so much red hot sound
today and we need a chance to squeeze all of
it in. So what I want to do is I
want to come back from the break your fingers. I
assume I rested and nimble. We can get through a
bunch of sound.
Speaker 6 (09:44):
Oh we're going to fire away baby.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Oh man, that is That is music to my ears.
Because there's so much fun stuff happening right now. I
want to give people a taste of kind of the
broad breadth and depth of it.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
A great time to be alive. You're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (10:04):
Lastly, sir, we have an executive order ordering the declassification
of files relating to the assassinations the President John F.
Speaker 5 (10:11):
Kennedy, Senator Robert F.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
Kennedy, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. It's
a big one, huh. A lot of people are waiting
for this for along.
Speaker 8 (10:21):
For years, for decades, and everything will be revealed.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Okay, give that you all right, k G. Such a role.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
And as important as that is, and it is, it's
it's not even the most important signed today. The most
important was the pardons of the many different pro life
activists who were persecuted by the Biden administration. Even a mother,
a young African American mother, put in jail for a
very long time for protesting at a clinic. And it
(11:08):
just horrific stuff. And we talked about it in depth earlier.
And the fact that Trump is standing up to this evil,
unequal application of the law by Biden and the hard
left is is so critical, even beyond the individual cases
of these pro life protectors. It just just defending equal
(11:29):
application of the law and striking back against what Biden
and the left have done. So great day for America
and so happy for those individuals. All right, let's get
back to the phone lines there in Fuego. We're talking
about so much different stuff. Now, I don't want to
burn the whole segment setting it up, so let's go
straight to Robert in Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
You're on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Welcome, id I wanted to ask you about the right,
So yes, I mean, I'm I'm not kids, But anyways,
what about the permanent residence. I mean, oh, a good.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
Question, good, good question, my friend, and your line's chopping up,
so we'll have to put you on hold while I
address that. And what a smart question from Robert in Denver,
because the quick setup is that, yeah, we've we've been
talking about since a court today in Seattle, the Federal
Court has put on hold President Trump's executive order striking
down birthright citizenship, saying that is not the law in America.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
That's not what the constitution says.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
You don't become an American citizen just because your parents
here illegally give birth here.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
So this will now get to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
And my point was the US Supreme Court, I think
will quickly and easily find that it is an incorrect
interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment to say that a child
becomes an American citizen simply because their parents are is
simply because they're born here, particularly when it's of parents
(13:04):
who are here illegally. Now, great question from the caller,
which is, hey, what if the parents have legal status here?
And he talked about I think he referred to a
permanent resident. That would completely change the equation in my mind,
because when you look at the fourteenth Amendment, and then
you track just the different court cases and arguments over
(13:26):
the years. Fourteenth Amendment, as you know, says all persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof. So it all comes down to what
does what does and subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean?
And I think by far the best interpretation is that
(13:49):
it means your exclusive loyalty is to the United States
of America. So by definition, somebody here illegally, that would
not be the case. If somebody's here permanently with some
other type of legal status, I think that would be
the case. So I think the US Supreme Court is
(14:09):
not going to have any trouble with this. The challenge
is going to be how quickly it can be brought
to the court, and hopefully it's the current constitution of
the court. Let's go to Allen in Kenyon City, Colorado.
Hopefully he's in Kenyon City and not in Kenyon City.
You're on the dan KAPLA Show.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
Welcome Allan, Hello, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
Sure thanks.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
Got a story that came from my grandma when she
was eight years old. Her family came here to the
United States from Germany landed in New York. Yeah, and
my grandmother told me this story when I would in
my early twenties.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
So, anyway, after because they have to, you know, take
all the testing and everything to be kin citizens, it
was a big celebration amongst the Tagline family. And from
there after the celebration, they all got together and moved
to Hayes, Kansas. My point is that automatically makes me
(15:11):
a US citizen because they took the tests and that,
you know it, it required them to become citizens.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Well, yeah, you know that. That's I think that's the
way it should be. That's the way the cons Constitution
states it. And yeah, you know, I totally agree with it,
you know, with the Constitution because you know, well that's
only fair.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Yeah. Neat story, my friend.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
And what you're correctly referring to is the or naturalized
language all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and naturalized means being made citizens pursuant to the applicable law.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
And you've led us to a bigger point here.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
And Andy McCarthy makes this this point great, which is, hey,
congres can do whatever Congress wants to do on this front.
They've been given that constitutional power. So Congress can come
in and say, we've got the power to decide pass
laws to say who's a citizen or not. So if
Congress wanted to come in and say, Okay, anybody who's
born here is a citizen, even if your parents are here,
(16:17):
you're legally, Congress has that power. But the point obviously
is no Congress is going to say that right because
it just wouldn't make any sense for this nation. And
that's not disrespecting the child who's born here of parents
who don't have legal status.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
It's it's a practical matter. Hey, my friend, thank you
for the call.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Really appreciate that we've got to hit this break, but
thank you for calling from Candas City, Colorado.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Ran.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
You've got to tell me this is actually a great story.
Remind me sometime to tell my Hayes, Kansas story and
the crime that was committed against me in Hayes, Kansas.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
No reflection on that beautiful town.
Speaker 7 (16:54):
Was that it for me and Hayes State University?
Speaker 3 (16:57):
No? No, no, no.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
It was at a truck stop and he's Kansas. I
was hitchhiking back to Colorado. Oh yeah, great story. But
we don't have time for now.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
Thank you?
Speaker 4 (17:07):
All right?
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Do you want to get some more texts and more
calls in?
Speaker 2 (17:09):
But when we come back, quick setup because we only
have a few seconds here, Well continue the birthright citizen citizenship,
you know conversation because it is in the news today
with that federal court action. But there's more I want
to get to. I want to get to this fascinating
story out of Boulder where the building owner is suing
(17:29):
the seven eleven because the seven eleven is actively and
intentionally the allegation goes attracting homeless people to the seven
to eleven, who are then becoming a problem in different ways.
That's the allegation. I'll come back, I'll set it up.
It's fascinating and who should win that case.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 6 (17:55):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Boy, what a weak hun You remember a week like this?
Speaker 2 (18:01):
And we've been talking about this since election day, right
when the Trump effect kicked in and it was clear,
as we expected, there would be an immediate concrete improvement
in America and the world, not that we're gonna have
puppies and rainbows and unicorns everywhere, but we've got a
lot more of them flying around and things are moving
much more in the right directions. So yeah, just what
(18:23):
a great fun, amazing time to be alive. And more
fights to come, sure here in Colorado and beyond. But
we have not seen this kind of rapid progress. I
don't know if we've seen it ever in our lifetime.
Eight five five vers five A two five five text
d A N five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
It'll be fun. Tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
We're going to have Heidi Ganal in the house. Hedi
was back in DC for the inauguration, as Ryan was
as well, and you're be getting her take on all
of that and.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
What is to come.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
And the nice thing is that what is to come
it's so concrete, right like if you just joined the show.
We're having a deep dive today on birthright citizenship, the
idea that somebody the Constitution would say somebody automatically becomes
a US citizen just if they're born here, even if
their parents happen to be legal. We've been analyzing that
because now that Trump signed the executive order saying no way,
(19:18):
and a court in Seattle has enjoined that order. You know,
we're hoping it gets to the US Supreme Court quickly,
because I would bet you a ton the US Supreme
Court says, no, the current interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment
that if you're born here, you're a citizen no matter what,
is not a correct interpretation.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
I expect that will soon. I'll put that in quotes
be the law of the land.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
And of course President now he's going to release classified
info from the assassination files jfkrfk MLK and just kind
of kicking around what that's likely to bring. I do
want to squeeze in a couple of texts if we can, Dan,
how many celebrities and other elites have left the country
who said they would if Trump was president again.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
They've had two.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Plus months to pack that from Alexa Ryan, the only
person I've ever known who actually lived up to that
was my brother, who promised he would move his family
out of the country of Trump one in sixteen and
he did that.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
Did that? Yeah, he did that.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Dan. Since you're a lawyer, can you explain when the
J six prisoner slash hostages will be released in full
and maybe also answer what seems to be taking so long?
Speaker 3 (20:35):
Thank you in advance.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
You know, it's it's interesting on that, and you know,
my own take is that there should not be pardons.
And as everyone knows, pardon means as it's as if
it never happened. Commutation means they cut the sentence in
the penalty. But my belief is there should not be
full pardons for people who engaged in violence, particularly people
who attack police officers.
Speaker 3 (20:58):
But that is done.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
It's interesting now you have some judges some of the
courts involved are dismissing the charges, but dismissing them quote
without prejudice, which means they could be refiled. Now that's
a legal fiction. The law is clear the charges could
not be refiled. President Trump has the power to simply pardon,
(21:21):
but some of the courts are in fact pursuing thee
without prejudice. In terms of other hang ups, Thanks Texter,
But I'd want to know some of those individuals individuals
specific cases, because.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
I'm not familiar with those.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
If there are some right now that haven't simply been released,
I'm not familiar with the details. Dan, if they rented
as a seven eleven, seven to eleven will win that case,
should sue for not providing security? What the Texter is
referring to is to me one of the most interesting
stories in a long time, and there isn't time to
do it full justice today, but I want to introduce
(21:56):
you to it, so you have it in the back
of your mind. We'll kick it around some more next week.
This is a well put together piece by Justin Winingerder.
In the Denver Post, landlord complains that seven to eleven
near cu is magnet for homeless people. In a legal
dispute that is nearly identical to a case playing out
in Lodo, a local landlord is accusing seven eleven of
(22:19):
allowing one of its most prominent Boulder stores to become
a homeless hangout, drug market, and crime scene, harming the
landlord's leasing efforts. Urban Frontier at Denver firm owns the
former Flat Irons Theater near the University of Colorado. The
building is now in ninety three hundred square foot retail space.
It is also quote a magnet for homeless people, according
(22:42):
to a lawsuit Urban filed against seven eleven's corporate office.
Speaker 3 (22:47):
The landlord blames seven eleven's altruism.
Speaker 2 (22:50):
And this is part of what I think makes this
so interesting, and I want to kick around with you.
Quoting the lawsuit, defendant incentivizes and allows homeless people to
hungergate on and near the property by providing free or
price reduced items, including food and water. Defendant provides homeless
people with special information reducing the cost of goods, and
(23:12):
has provided homeless people with free rubber gloves and disinfectant. Ok.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
What do you think the gloves are for?
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Ryan Defendant's employees have personal relationships with homeless people, It complains.
As a result, transiencurinate and defecate on the buildings, sleep outside,
trespass inside graffitia's walls.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Drink alcohol there, and do drugs.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
According to Urban which says it has been twenty grand
on security, the landlord accuses seven to eleven of siding
with the homeless, and then it goes on to assert
some legal claims.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
So who should win that?
Speaker 7 (23:48):
Well, in my view, what you just described, what you enable,
you encourage, and you deserve what you enable. And if
that's the case here, then I think anybody who would
allow for this to happen, or encourage it to happen
by enabling people to be there, should be held responsible
(24:08):
for That's just my view on it. Yeah, you know,
it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Obviously, a business owner has the right to be altruistic
and kind toward homeless people, et cetera. And I'm sure
that's what it's born of up there, you know, having
been a student up there, et cetera.
Speaker 3 (24:27):
But you don't have a right.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
It's the old thing right, the freedom to swing your
your arm stops at the tip of my nose, and
so you don't have the right then to create.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
What the law would call a nuisance right.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
That then, you know, interferes with others free access to
public accommodations, lowers property values, et cetera. So, without knowing
more and just accepting the allegations from the complaint, we
haven't heard the other side, right, but I would love
to hear the other side next week.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Hopefully we could get seven to eleven in on this.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
If everything they described is true, I would expect the
landlord's gonna prevail and probably not have to go all
the way to a jury trial. There's probably going to
be some sort of settlement where seven eleven just changes
the way it approaches all this.
Speaker 7 (25:15):
These are human beings, and I hate to use this analogy,
but I think it fits, and it makes a point
and that is you start feeding stray cats, they're gonna
keep coming back, and they're.
Speaker 6 (25:25):
Gonna know that that is a source of food and they.
Speaker 7 (25:27):
Can come back and come back again. And no matter
the altruistic motives. To your point, Dan, if you're creating
a nuisance situation by designating this place kind of a
haven or a magnet for such people come in and
then engage in these behaviors of defecating and urinating and
whatever else, then I think the person that is encouraging
(25:47):
that behavior should be held responsible.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
Yeah, you know, and obviously, Ryan, I know you're not
comparing these human beings to cats, but I just.
Speaker 6 (25:57):
Gave the disclaimer.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
I tried my best, but then you went ahead and
did it. But that's what is.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
Wrong.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Is that wrong?
Speaker 6 (26:05):
Is it an inaccurate comparison?
Speaker 3 (26:08):
Yes? Oh yes it is. Yes, yes it is, my friend,
How is it inaccurate?
Speaker 4 (26:12):
Dan?
Speaker 3 (26:13):
It is?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
It is inaccurate because of the fact we're talking about
human beings here, right, We're going to have a different
legal standard apply.
Speaker 9 (26:20):
And also, yeah, the legal standard I'm talking about that
is just the actual standing point, the actual effect of
what you're doing, right, And I.
Speaker 3 (26:28):
Don't mean to get into the weeds with this.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
But but the other reason why, I mean, I think
there are a lot of reasons that the comparison doesn't apply.
And I know you did not mean it in a
harsh way, but but the other reasons it doesn't apply
is because these are human beings. It's it's not just
kind of an instinctive thing. Okay, the cat knows there's
going to be milk over there. You know, There's there's
a lot of other reasoning that goes into it. But
(26:51):
then there's a lot of other harm, unfortunately, that can
be caused by by the human beings as they pursue this.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Because we're talking.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
About and we're all broken to one degree another, right,
but we're talking about badly broken human beings at a
very bad point in their life, who are probably many
of them drug, alcohol, other addicted, and so their behavior
wants there is the behavior of many is just going
to be more destructive. And so I get the landlord's concern,
(27:21):
assuming that the seven to eleven they're nobly motivated, there's
got to be a way to carve this out, right,
But listen, if a landlord is sitting there looking at
everything it describes, it is in my view, a right
to take action, and no matter how well intentioned the
seven to eleven, they still have to pursue their mission
work in a way that is fair to all of
(27:44):
the surrounding businesses. That's all I'm saying. But Ryan, let
me do this, okay, because there is have you seen
this texter who's really going after me?
Speaker 3 (27:52):
This is fun?
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Says he's a lawyer who could run circles around me
in a courtroom and wants to bet his fancy cars.
This is going to be a lot of fun because
I'm going to give them a chance to do that.
You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 6 (28:07):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful.
Speaker 7 (28:13):
Pro life protesters who were prosecuted by the Biden administration
for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Speaker 3 (28:20):
Do you know how many I believe it's twenty three, sir.
Speaker 10 (28:24):
Twenty three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted.
Many of them are elderly people. They should not have
been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this.
They'll be great happy.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
So they're all in prison.
Speaker 7 (28:45):
Now, some some are out of custody.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
It's ridiculous, what a great moment.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Today's so important what President Trump did on multiple levels.
But keep in mind, some of these people think of
about the threat to this nation that the Biden administration
created when it decided to misuse DOJ to mount politically
motivated prosecutions and then hypercharged, prosecuted, and sentenced the people
(29:13):
such as this young African American mother in jail four
years until being freed by Trump, who's in jail for
protesting at one.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Of these abortion facilities.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
And then the elderly woman convicted as well, and then
I believe on home detention now.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
But at the same time, and here's the point.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Even if you could look at any one of those
prosecutions and say, oh, yeah, there's a law violation there,
that the big question then becomes is the law being
applied equally? And the answers are resounding, no, you have
the politically favored They would never even think of charging
for far worse offense as let alone pursuing sentencing and
putting in jail. And it's that kind of of unequal
(29:57):
application of the law, abuse of the law law for
politically motivated prosecutions that threatens the existence of this nation.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
Let alone that what they're trying to.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Do here is persecute and prosecute and jail some of
the greatest civil rights heroes of our time, because that
the fight for innocent life is the civil rights movement
of our lifetime on multiple levels, including but not limited,
the fact that you know, five times more children of
color are killed before birth than other children, and none
(30:29):
of them should be killed.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
But my point is, a.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Great blow was struck today for good over an evil practice.
And did this evil practice of unequal application of the law.
And by the way, does anybody really that Biden's DOJ
could not have tracked down the people who burned that
pro life pregnancy center up in northern Colorado the day
(30:51):
after Roe was struck down. Really, really, you think that
all the resources, all the great people in the DJ
and there are many, Biden couldn't have tracked down the people.
And it's just I think, from what I can see
from the outside, another example of that unequal application of
the law, which is ending now with Trump and hopefully
for many years to come. All right, let's try to
squeeze in. Oh, I've got to deliver on this teas
(31:12):
and then I'll go to the phone lines. Yeah, so
I get a text from this guy who says, Dan,
I'm an ex DC lawyer, would run circles around you
in a courtroom, would love to come out of retirement
to battle against you in a courtroom about birthrights to
those born here. Guaranteed win for me. Okay, tough guy,
easy enough, You don't even have to come out of retirement.
(31:35):
You don't even have to go into a courtroom. Just
call the darn show. Call the darn show, tough guy
or Gale. Eight five five four zero five eight two
five five. I'll slow down so you can hear it
clearly and write it down. Eight five five four zero
five eight two five five. Just call the show. We
(31:55):
can have our own trial right here. And you know what,
instead of six wonderful jurors in the box and a
great judge on the bench, and maybe it can fit
one hundred people in the courtroom, we can have the
whole state. We can have the whole country here because
they can get us on the iHeart app. So come on,
tough guy or Gail, let's let's have our own little
trial right here. And then he or she writes back
(32:15):
to say, Dan, okay, I'll bet you my McLaren seven twenties.
The Supreme Court will side with me.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
What do you drive?
Speaker 2 (32:24):
So you know what I'm picturing, Ryan, I'm picturing a
couple of those like little models you get from the
gas station.
Speaker 3 (32:30):
You know what, McLaren's seven twenties.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I'm picturing that right now.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
And oh, by the way, plenty of.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
DC lawyers have walked out of courtrooms very very disappointed
in the outcome when we have shared that wonderful space.
So yeah, please do please do my friend call the
show and what do I drive?
Speaker 3 (32:51):
You are welcome to what I drive. I will tell
you that right now.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
It's probably the best car I've ever driven when it works.
Speaker 3 (32:59):
But but Ryan, I.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Think now, over the last three months it has spent
more than half that time in the shop.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
What the heck's wrong with that? So I what isn't
wrong with it? You know?
Speaker 2 (33:09):
I bought it used back during COVID because you couldn't
find them new, and I saved a bunch of money
on it.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
But here's the key. Here's the key.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
I got that four year warranty, you know, because Mercedes
gives this on certain certified used cars. As you know,
they'll give this full bumper to bumper warranty. I guarantee
you they are regretting the day they ever gave that warranty.
But and I'm kind of regretting the day I ever
bought the car. But it is such a great car
when it works right. It's one of these questions.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
I told you, I know people I can help you.
Speaker 9 (33:42):
Yeah, with Martino people, I'll let's talk about I'd say tomorrow,
but Hedia is the show tomorrow, which is going to
be awesome, So we'll figure that one out.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Thank you, Kelly next week, Brian, tremendous job, as always,
my friend, and Kelly, you are human sunshine. You're brighten
everybody's day every single day. Hey hiving ganal in tomorrow,
thoroughly enjoy that. Thanks for your time today on The
Dan Kapla Show.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.