April 3, 2025 • 34 mins
In the second hour of today's edition of The Dan Caplis Show, Dan takes a closer look at Trump's tariffs and past business successes to explain why American's should have faith in his plan and vision.
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. Well, the American
way is to take big problems head on, don't don't
(00:22):
bury your head in the sand, or you get your
you know what kicked, and to endure some pain in
order to a survive, be thrive, and three, you know,
get more freedom. That That has been the history of America.
It's the only reason that any of us are here
right now, speaking English and having the freedoms we do,
et cetera. And anybody who cannot see that we are
(00:44):
headed toward the cliff in multiple ways economically, just isn't
paining attention. Now, does that mean the tariffs are the solution?
I don't know. I'm no expert on tariffs, but I
know we need a solution. And everybody's talking about the
price of tariffs right now. Hey, I had to look
at my four oh one k right. I didn't want to,
but we're doing taxes. So my wife said, okay, give
(01:05):
me the phone. Then I'll open your schwab app, I'll
send them what they need. And then unfortunately I saw
what she opened up. Yeah, it's real painful right now,
but there is no way that we're going to get
from here to there economically and get the stability we
need to get the national security we need to get
(01:26):
this strong America and American manufacturing. We need to get
the national debt down the way we need to get
it down. There's no way we're getting from here to
there without some kind of pain and some big fix
right now. I just respect Trump for being willing to
endure some political pain to try to get us fixed. Now,
(01:50):
why do I have confidence that this play is going
to work? Simply because I have confidence in Trump when
it comes to economic stuff. He's not God, he's not perfect,
but he's got a lot more success in anybody else
we've had a long time around here. I also have
a lot of confidence in his personal desire to win
and to succeed, right, I mean, that's been proven over time.
(02:11):
He wouldn't be doing this unless he really believed it
was going to work and he had a plan. And
then when it comes to the critics, most of whom
on the Democrat side are hoping the economy fails. On
the Republican side, and there are critics they want the
economy to succeed. They just think he's wrong. But when
it comes to the critics, think about all the critics
from both parties who have told you from the beginning
(02:32):
this is going to be a disaster.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
ANDERR.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Trump, he's going to start World War three, you know,
he's colluding with Russia, etc. And then look where we
end up. Right, So no, I do trust him on this,
and we'll find out, I think pretty soon, whether it's
well placed or not. I want to shift gears for
a second. Go to Jarvis Caldwell. He's a Republican in
House District twenty elected there and I really appreciate you
representative posting some sound that I caught on X last night,
(02:58):
and I'll let you describe it. But I think folks
really need to hear about this and then we can
talk about what to do. But please, sir, thank you
for being here and set the stage.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Yes, sir, thank you so much for having me. So.
The context of this was on Tuesday, House built thirteen
twelve legal protections for transgender individuals, which I will say
is probably the most radical bill we've seen so far
this session, and we've seen some pretty bad ones. And
so what I did on X yesterday was I posted
(03:27):
a side by side of a portion of my closing
statement where I was basically saying, you know what we
heard witness testimony today that this has been stakeholdered for
over a year, even though the bill just got introduced
on Friday evening after we went home, and then on
Monday we found out that this bill was going to
(03:48):
be heard on Tuesday, and we didn't even realize this
bill had been introduced. And so I basically said, I
I posed the question, you know, has this bill been
stakeholdered with the non LGBT community, specifically the printal rights groups?
And what the clip demonstrates is the closing statements from
Representative Yarozo Kai and the Chairman Javier Maybury, and they
(04:12):
said just flat out, you know, we don't need to
stakeholder with hate groups. And then Representative o Kai basically
compared these printal rights groups to the KKK and she said,
we wouldn't we wouldn't go to the KKK if we're
writing civil rights legislation. And it was just absolutely stunning.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Well, it's just it's just nutty, haiti stuff. I can't
access thirty two on my screen. Rank can you punch
it for us? Here's the sound, and again this is
representative Jarvis with us, but but it is it is
just hateful, nutty stuff. And as we get that queued up,
we're having a little technical glitch, which means it's my fault, right,
(04:55):
because I can assure you, representative, anytime there's a technical
glitch here, somehow it is my fault in reality, in reality.
But let's talk about it before we get this sound
cued up. So tell us about the people who would
do this, tell us about the parental rights groups that
they're comparing it to, that they're comparing to the KKK,
(05:18):
et cetera. And tell us about the people who are
doing that. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I mean, so they didn't say explicitly who these these
parents groups were. I imagine it's like the Colorado Parents
Advocacy Network SEAPAN, which are just really concerned parents and
they're a great group of people. They may have been
talking about, you know, moms for Liberty groups or something,
but just in general, all I said was, did you
(05:44):
talk to the you know, basically the non leftist activist
parents rights groups, and that was their response to say
their hate groups, because if you don't fully believe what
they believe, then you're obviously a part of a hate group.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Which is incredible.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yeah, it was incredible to hear.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Let's listen to that together.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
How willing would you be to look at a new
food pyramid and instituting.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
We're doing that right now when we okay, okay, it's
getting better. And by the way, we are going to
ask you about the new food period food pyramid, Ryan,
would you fire that we'd heard.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
From multiple witnesses that this bill has been worked on
for over a year. I will say I learned about
this bill yesterday. It was introduced Friday evening. I really
am curious about how much stakeholding went on both sides
of the issue, and if parent groups that are that
are not a part of the LGBT community, if they
(06:40):
were involved.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
A well stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed
with hate groups. And we don't ask someone passing civil
rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
But I agree there's no reason to go to the
table with people who are echoing the hate rhetoric going
around about the trans community.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Remarkable representative chargists who who are the I assume from
their comments hateful idiots my words, not yours who made
those remarks.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Yeah, so that is Representative Yarozo Kai and the Chairman
of Judiciary, Representative Javier Maybury. I know Maybury is from Denver.
I believe so Kai is from maybe a Rapahoe County.
I don't know specifically the area or their house district
numbers off the top of my head, but you know,
(07:39):
they are just very left wing Democrats in the legislature
and in the bill in general. Is just it's very extreme.
I mean it basically it says that if you missgender
your child, your own child, if you miss gender your child,
that's considered coercive control, which is a form of child
(08:00):
abuse by definition. And I think the and this is
my cynical side here, I think the intent is to
basically get rid of the ability to try to get
your child help if you're having a gender identity crisis
or gender dysphoria, because how can you get them help
if you have to tell them, no, you're not actually
(08:23):
a girl, you're a boy. We're going to go get
you help, because just the act of doing that is
misgendering them, which they are saying in this bill that
that is child abuse. It is very extreme. And that's
just one portion of the bill.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
But let's talk about that key point you just made,
because that's exactly what's going on, and it also, in
my mind, explains they're extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that they're engaging in.
And otherwise I assume smart people saying very idiotic things
because in my experience, that's what you see. When they
know that they can't win the argument, they can't win
(08:56):
the argument on logic or reason or moraleity or law,
is they start spewing venom like this, right, because it's
the same thing it's up in the US Supreme Court now,
as you know, same thing they're trying to do with
counselors in Colorado. Oh no, a counselor can't be speaking
the truth to kids about their real gender and telling them, no,
(09:18):
you really are a boy, and here's how we can
make sure you're a boy. They try to outlaw that speech,
which fortunately got the attention of the US Supreme Court,
which is about to reverse that.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
Yeah, So they started with the counselors, and now they're
going to the parents. And this bill specifically says that
if you're in a custody dispute that they call it
paramount consideration. So basically, the preference goes to the parents
who affirms the gender, and so they're giving them, they're
(09:49):
putting the sum on the scale in a legal situation
to favor the parent who is continuing this gender confusion for.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
The child representative. Can you stay for another segment because
I'd like to deep dive this with you and I
want to play that sound again. But they representative either
obviously very knowledgeable when it comes to what's going on there.
But the headline today is the elected Colorado Democrats attacking
the parents groups that'd say, no, wait a second, we
should be able to talk to our children about their
(10:20):
true gender, labeling them as hate groups, comparing them to
the KKK. What does that tell you? You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
And now back to the dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
I'm twenty two. Glad you're here. Special guest Representative Jarvis Caldwell,
he's Republican House District twenty, has been deep diving with us.
He's extraordinarily radical trans rights bills. And I put that
in quotes because obviously it's a gross deprivation of parental rights,
of business owner rights, etc. But we're talking about a
(11:00):
twist to this, and in committee a number of elected
Democrats comparing parents groups to the KKK and other hate
groups and saying that's why they won't consult with them
on this bill. They're trying to sneak through at the
last minute. So representative for those who may have just
joined us during the break, I'm going to replay the
sound that you posted and then ask you to fill
(11:23):
us in on what occurred and what comes next with
these bills. So here's what happened in Part and committee.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
We'd heard from multiple witnesses that this bill has been
worked on for over a year. I will say I
learned about this bill yesterday. It was introduced Friday evening.
I really am curious about how much stakeholding went on
both sides of the issue, and if parent groups that
are not a part of the LGBT community, if they
(11:51):
were involved.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
A well stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed
with hate groups, and we don't ask someone hassing civil
rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
But I agree there's no reason to go to the
table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going
around about the trans community.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
And I'd ask you to identify those elected officials in
a second. But the point being that clearly the reason
they label these parents groups and these opponents says KKK
and hate and everything else, is that's their excuse to
not engage because they know they would lose the argument
on the merits. But again for those just joining us,
(12:36):
who are the presumably smart people saying those really hateful,
dumb things.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Yeah, So the first the female there is Yara Zokai.
She is a Democrat, a new legislator that she's a
freshman like I am, and I believe she's out of
a rappa hole county. She's an attorney. And then the
second on there was Javier Mayby who's out of Denver.
(13:03):
He's an attorney, Democrat and he's actually the chairman of
how judiciary. So that is that's the situation with our
judiciary right now.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Wow. Wow. And then again for those just joining, a
quick recap of just how radical these bills are. And
again I take when people make extreme flame throwing obviously
false in my view, statements like that they're projecting right,
that they're projecting because they know that what they're doing
(13:34):
is indefensible. But give people a quick summary of some
of the worst of these bills.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Yeah, So this bill is how billed thirteen twelve legal
protections for transgender individuals. As we talked about on the
last segment, it makes misgendering of your own child considered
child abuse and you can specifically lose custody over that.
It also negates other states laws and court orders. So
(14:02):
you have two people who live in Kansas, they both
have custody, two parents. One takes the child to Colorado
to get gender affirming care. The Kansas court rules that
you have to bring that child back. We're saying that
Colorado will now ignore that court order, which in my opinion,
is a violational Article four, Section one of the US Constitution,
the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And there's some other
(14:25):
really concerning things like the gender based dress codes. So
I'm ade charter school board member. We have boys uniforms
and girls' uniforms, and I specifically asked the bill sponsor
Lorraina Garcia, another Democrat on Judiciary. Does this mean, if
this bill passes, we have to do away with boy
uniforms and girl uniforms and just have a uniform and it's,
(14:47):
you know, the wild West, and you can wear anything
you want. She explicitly said.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Yes, insane. Would that apply to private schools as well
in the bill?
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Off the top of my head, if I recollect it
is your public district, rand schools and charter schools specifically.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
It's just outrageous. And when you say representative misgendering, you
mean if a parent refers to their child by their
correct gender, that would then cost them in a custody dispute.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Exactly so, And as we talked about a lesson, I
think the intent here is to basically try to do
away with getting treatment for a child if they have
confusion about their gender, because how can you get them
treatment if you can't tell them that they're wrong and
call them the gender that they are. And so you
(15:35):
can literally lose custody over this, and it should be
alarming for every parent. Frankly not.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
And in our last minute, can you tell me why
do you think Democrats are willing to go to these
bizarre preposterous, illogical child hurting extremes on this issue? What's
driving it? Because it's clearly out of step with the
American people, as the election just proved, and I think
out of up with the people of Colorado. So why
are they so obsessed with this lunacy that hurts so
(16:05):
many kids?
Speaker 7 (16:07):
You know?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
I think it's very it's a very left wing ideological
belief system, and it drives me crazy because the bill
sponsor UH doesn't doesn't have kids, but almost all for
bills target children with these left wing ideologies, and so
that that aspect of it is very concerning U. And
(16:28):
I want to make sure I get in there before
we run out of time. That this bill is coming
to the House floor tomorrow for debate for second readings,
and so we are gearing up and we're ready to
fight it all day tomorrow. So if anybody can get
down to the Capitol or at least tune in and
listen to us, because we're going to be fighting this
thing with everything we have.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Well, I appreciate what you're doing, and let's stay in
touch on this, Okay. We'd love to get you on
for regular updates. How can people follow you on X Yes,
it's at Rep.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
Caldwell.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Okay, fighting the good fight, my friend.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Thank you, you take care and well we will continue
to follow. That kind of makes sense, he tells us.
The bill sponsor doesn't have children. That kind of makes sense, right.
Wouldn't you think anybody would parents with their hate group?
Dan Man, Yeah, you would think just anybody who cares
about children, whether they have children or not, would know
(17:26):
that a bill like this is insane. But then when
you look at the Left, so much of what they
do is radically anti child, radically from their holy grail
being the mass killing of children before birth and children
of color in you know, to afford to one rate,
and then you look at if the child's lucky enough
to get born under Democrat policies, all the different ways
(17:50):
the Left's policies just overtly harm children. So where do
you think that comes from? Well, we'll talk about that
as well, Hey, perfect iy. After the break is a
segue George Brockler DA. In the twenty third we'll talk
about these Tesla terrorists and under Colorado law, what kind
of charges can be brought? Personally, I want to see
(18:10):
them charged to the max. Three oh three someone three
eight two five five text dam five seven seven three nine.
You're on the Dan Capliss Show.
Speaker 6 (18:25):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (18:28):
The next couple of months, we're going to offer our
customers the same deal that our employees get. And as
you say, that's worth thousands of dollars, you come into
our store, you get employee pricing. This is kind of
to call a little bit of a time out. We've
heard some uncertainty from our customers and we want we
want them to be assured that Ford, the most American
auto company, is going to do right by them. As
(18:49):
our dealers, we make the most cars here, we employ
the most, we export the most, and so we here
at Ford we're in a good position to address customers
concern and give them a really great deal on a
great vehicle.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Glad to hear that, since I owned Ford stock and
own a Ford Bronco. But GM says it's also going
to crank things up here in the US of A.
Speaker 8 (19:12):
A General motorspokesperson is now confirming there was a webcast
to employees a short time ago.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
GM.
Speaker 8 (19:18):
We'll be making operational adjustments at at Fort Wayne Assembly,
including hiring temporary employees to support current manufacturing and business.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Glad to hear that, let's go to the VIP line.
Always a privilege and a pleasure to welcome George Brockler
the DA in the twenty third and wanted to talk
to George today about these Tesla terrorists and under Colorado
state law, what are the most hell, let's just say,
toughest charges that could be brought George, Welcome back to
the show.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Thanks for having me on Quick Story, Dan the way,
if you could. I jumped into a trial, you know,
as a d I like to do things with the
younger prostitutors, and I had done one since STEM because
of the term limits, I was out of office. I
jumped in on a DUI case and we got a
conviction and talked to the jury afterwards, and this guy
on the on the jury recognized me a little bit,
(20:11):
and I said, I always ask questions like, Hey, is
there anything we could have done better? Is or things
that we did that we're distracting, you know, you want
to learn from the jury. And at one point he goes, well,
I really have. It's not a question about the case,
and I go, yeah, yeah, and he goes, do you
do you.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Know Dan Kaplis you're making this up.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I am not making this up.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Man, Yeah, do you know Dan CAplus?
Speaker 2 (20:35):
I go, no, Dan, I worked for Dan twenty years ago. Man,
the guy with Dan.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that's that's awesome. And I'm not
sure where it went from there, but thank you for
saying that. No, it's great, that's awesome, And and you
must have really enjoyed being in court because obviously you're
an elite trial lawyer plus, and there's just nothing like it.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
There isn't And you know this, you know you and
I can say things that resonate with us that other
folks that have never been there and done that it's like, oh,
that sounds great. You just there's nothing like it. Standing up,
making an argument, trying to anticipate what the other side's
going to do, dealing with things on the fly, putting
out evidence, the nerves that you always have because no
matter how good your evidence is and how will you
(21:19):
think you've presented it, you're always like, man, JERRYS can
do it.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
That's right. They want No, that's that's right. And that's
how I try to explain it is. It's just one
of the most and it's one of the ways, right, George.
It's such a healthy saying. It's one of the most
humbling things a person can do, because you walk into
that courtroom and no matter how well you do, whatever
you do, you are at the mercy of that jury,
the wisdom of the founders, right, they get to make
(21:44):
that call, and it's it's a very humbling, moving kind
of thing. But speaking of moving, I'll bet that defense
attorney was not pleased to see you walk in to
try it.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
She made no comment, how did and she I'll tell
you she did a great job for the case that
she had. There just wasn't a ton there. And it's
not like it was a murder or something. It was
a series d why But I'm telling you, the Douglas
County Sheriff's deputies did such a good job. The jeerors
had nothing but praise for him, and I just thought
that this is great.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
I'm glad I'm back in the corn put to your
question well and leading from in front, right, because I
think it's great when das do that and go in
and try cases. It's just a great example to their
team because no matter what the case or whatever, and
everybody listening probably has a real hard job, right, but
trying a case is a hard job, and so it's
just great to set that example. But what's the max
(22:39):
that can be done to these Tesla terrorists? Particularly since
I may get a cyber truck.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
I think that we're going to find that the Feds
have the biggest hammer in this one. As long as
it's property damage. And here's why. If you were to
do damage arson damage in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars only looking at a third class felony which is
presumptively punishable by four to twelve years, but it's a
(23:05):
probation eligible.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Wow. Crazy, I know it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
If you can tie these people together, and it feels
like there's a Tesla takedown moment. If you could tie
them together and somehow find a way to charge our
organized crime statue which people might know as RICO but
we call it Colorado here. That elevates it to a
second class felony, but also probation eligible in the state
(23:30):
of Colorado under these facts. Crazy, if someone weren't thank god,
they weren't to be hurt or there was some allegation
of an attempt murder or crime of violence. That's probably
the only way we could inch our way into some
mandatory time. So when you look at the federal charges
and you see that they're big one the uh what
(23:50):
is that eight forty four I carries a five to
twenty year mandatory sentence? You think, Yeah, if we have
to decide which venue to do this in, probably best
to do it us court.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
What do you have to prove at the federal level?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
You know, for the federal level, the three charges that
these guys are indicted on, two of them are firearms
relating charges. But the other one, the count number three,
is that they attempted to damage or destroy by means
of fire and explosive material vehicles in unterstate commerce. So
(24:26):
it's an arson specific total.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Gotcha. And I saw an interesting article today on the
civil side about somebody pursuing a civil case for large
damages because it's politically motivated type of terrorism. But you know,
Colorado civil law may not lend itself as well to that.
So charge shifting away from Tesla for the moment, what's
the most important thing going on right now that most
(24:50):
of us probably don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
About in the twenty third judicial district.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
Or anywhere in your view, because I know you are
kind of a renaissance man. You're watching every saying yeah, yes, so,
And what's going on right now legislature, you know, because
obviously we have and it's just so surreal. What seems
to me a very criminal friendly, you know, state legislature,
criminal friendly governor. It seems like they're always playing hold
(25:18):
my beer and watch this. So what's going on down
there right now concerns you the most?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Well, there's a nexus here between local control and criminal
justice that the legislature is poised to blow up, and
that is they have a bill that they want to
make a law that would strip away from municipalities the
ability to prosecute and punish crimes at variance with the state.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
So if Aurora wanted to have a mandatory Hey, you're
going to mandatory jail for ten days for retail theft.
And that's not the state outcome, and I'm here to
tell you it's not the state outcome, then Auroras wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Be no good.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
They have to change their laws to get to match this.
Here's what's going to happen, And we've started to see this.
When the state started meddling around with telling Aurora basically
how to prosecute DV cases, Aurora said, guess what, We're
just going to get out of the business of prosecuting
DV cases and we're going to save three million Aurora
taxpayer dollars. And they shifted those hundreds of important cases
(26:19):
over to the DA's office. So now the DA's office
is going to the county going, hey, we need to
hire a ton more prosecutors to handle this. I suspect
that if the state legislature continues down this road and
they continue to chisel away at this, two things will happen. One,
you'll see more counties doing what Douglas is doing, and
that's trying to become a home rule county. And I
(26:40):
think you'll also see more municipalities look at the state
and say you want all these cases, good luck, and
they're going to get out of the business of any
municipal prosecution and shove them all on to prosecute.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
State proust, which then triggers all sorts of disasters. Right
because the judiciary right now in Colorado was swamped nowhere
near enough judges, and it's you know, they're making it
so hard for judges to do their job because they're understaffed.
You know that you're going to be losing good judges
and making it harder to attract good new judges. So yeah,
(27:13):
just just the dominos that they're tipping over, you know that,
just horrible in so many different ways. But George, appreciate
the time today and hope we connect soon.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
We'll do it. Hey, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Thank you, my friend. Take care of that's George Brockler
doing a great job in the twenty third and the
tremendous point he was making about the governor and well,
assume he's going to sign this disaster, but the left
of the legislature, you know, trying to take this power
away from these local jurisdictions. My law partner, John Kellner
until recently was the DA in the eighteenth which included
(27:47):
at that time a repo on Douglas wrote a great
piece on that as well, which you can read in
the Gazette. You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast all the.
Speaker 9 (28:05):
Way to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton used them to raise revenue.
He used them to protect the industry, and present Trump
is added the third leg of the stool, which is strategic.
So you know, if we are thinking about a ten
percent global tariff, and let's assume we we import about
three trillion a year, so that's three hundred billion, and
(28:30):
that's a substantial revenue raiser that could then be used
for working Americans on no tax and tips, no tax
on social security, no tax on overtime, and for those
buying autos that they can reduce their bills because interest
on American made cars will be tax deductible. So this
is really a working class the.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Tariff and tax plan in terms of goals for all
those stated goals, et cetera. That's why the things that
really excites me is that this tariff move appears to
be geared in a very significant part to working class America.
And that's the reality, right, is that if there's not
a fair shake for working class America, not fair opportunity
(29:16):
for working class America, and not just words, not just cheerleading,
but real tangible progress and gains and earning gains and
stability of jobs, et cetera, this country cannot This country
cannot endure the way it's envisioned, it just can't. And
then we get to the issues of we're headed for
an economic cliff otherwise, so something major needs to happen.
(29:39):
Tariff's the answer. I sure hope. So I trust that Trump,
who's had a lot of success in the economic front
and office, you know, it knows what he's doing, and
obviously he really wants to be a great success. But
we know one thing status quo No, that is not
going to work, and it's not going to work long term,
especially for working people. That was Treasury Secretary. Here's commerce.
Speaker 10 (30:01):
So what's happened to the world is the global governments
have backed taking our factories away from US. I mean,
there's nothing about Taiwan that they should be making semiconductors,
there's nothing about Korea they should be making all of
the appliances and the electronics.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Of the world.
Speaker 10 (30:19):
What's happened is they had a policy of their governments
to let's back our companies and let's take this business
from America while America is not paying attention. So our
factories went overseas. But what you're going to see is
the most modern factories of the world come back here.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
But you know there seems to me to be a
lot of truth in that, and that's one thing that
I think often gets forgotten, even allies. Right, they're competitors,
I mean, and there's nothing wrong or immoral or dishonest
about that. They're competitors. They're competing with us. They want
what's best for their own It's just like state to state. Hey,
we're all brothers and sisters united as Americans. But you
(30:58):
can bet there's cutthroat com petition between states for the
best jobs, the best companies, et cetera. And you've you
can't just sit back and let yourself get plucked like that.
All right, let's go back to the phone lines. So
we'll let's start in Inglewood, Colorado, got at least in
the metro doing the show out of Denver. I was
in Colorado Springs the Great caseysj today in court down there.
(31:22):
But in the Denver Metro, we've got a decent little
snow going. Ron and Inglewood's are on the Dan Kaplis show.
Speaker 11 (31:27):
Welcome, Thank you, Dan. I'll say that truck has a
striking profile.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Oh the cyber truck. Do you think it's good look?
I don't think it's good look. And I just want one.
Speaker 11 (31:40):
Well, I'm curious about it. I've never seen me inside.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Yeah, it's nice. It's it's kind of bear and spartan,
but it's nice and it's roomy and it's comfortable.
Speaker 11 (31:50):
Well, I think you should get one in Well, I
do too.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Do you happen to know my wife? It is literally
impossible to have a better wife than I have, And
I'm not going to disrespect her by getting a vehicle
that she thinks is the ugliest thing she's ever seen.
But I am, But I am still hoping to be
able to persuade my way there. I'm sure you will, no,
(32:15):
because I really want to get it. I want to
stand up to these Tesla terrorists. Now, admittedly I'm not
as as excited about standing up to him by but
why buying one of the other Tesla cars. I'd rather
stand up to him by buying a cyber truck.
Speaker 11 (32:28):
Well, I think if you were apt it, it'd be great.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Yeah, think of the possibilities. I know, and a cyber
truck is unmistakably strong. Right, nobody will ever look at
that and think anything other than strength. Yes, I agree,
I know that's what you called about.
Speaker 11 (32:45):
Go ahead, my friend, Okay, thank you. I wanted to
make a comment. When the Supreme Court decided in favor
of Jack Phillips. He was based on the Civil Rights
Commission and one of the members named Rice, who likened
Jack to the Nazis. Yeah, lay, and they called it unprofessional.
(33:09):
So this language that they're using in the committee is
just a perfect setup for the Supreme Court to say
you can't do that.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Well, right, what a great point. What Ron's referring to
is we were talking earlier with the Colorado State Rep.
Jarvis Caldwell, and we played sound and committee of Democrats
saying no, they're not going to talk to parents groups
about these radical trans rights bills because you don't talk
to the KKK about civil rights bills, is what they said. Now,
to Ron's point, the common denominator between that and comparing
(33:42):
Jack Phillips to a Nazi, when Jack Phillips is obviously
a great American hero is the Left uses those kind
of tactics and language because it knows it can't win
the argument, not on logic, not on values, not on law,
not on morality, So they will not engage in the
conversation because they know they can't win the argument. And
(34:02):
that's where the US Supreme Court is to step in. Said,
you can bet. I mean, this will be so facially unconstitutional,
this bill that apparently is on track to pass and
become law, because you're going to tell a parent. Now
you can't say to your own son. You can't say
to your own son's son, you're really you're really a boy,
You're not a girl, right, you miss gender that's now
(34:24):
going to be used against you to in a custody battle. Okay, runs,
Oh well, good question. I don't think the bill gets
to this point unless they expect him to sign it.
Thank you, Ron for your call. Enjoyed it right, You're
the best as always, Kelly, thank you. Please be careful
out there. It looks like there's going to be some
tricky weather tonight. I know it's already started in Denver.
(34:46):
Hope to have you back here tomorrow 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. Well, the American
way is to take big problems head on, don't don't
(00:22):
bury your head in the sand, or you get your
you know what kicked, and to endure some pain in
order to a survive, be thrive, and three, you know,
get more freedom. That That has been the history of America.
It's the only reason that any of us are here
right now, speaking English and having the freedoms we do,
et cetera. And anybody who cannot see that we are
(00:44):
headed toward the cliff in multiple ways economically, just isn't
paining attention. Now, does that mean the tariffs are the solution?
I don't know. I'm no expert on tariffs, but I
know we need a solution. And everybody's talking about the
price of tariffs right now. Hey, I had to look
at my four oh one k right. I didn't want to,
but we're doing taxes. So my wife said, okay, give
(01:05):
me the phone. Then I'll open your schwab app, I'll
send them what they need. And then unfortunately I saw
what she opened up. Yeah, it's real painful right now,
but there is no way that we're going to get
from here to there economically and get the stability we
need to get the national security we need to get
(01:26):
this strong America and American manufacturing. We need to get
the national debt down the way we need to get
it down. There's no way we're getting from here to
there without some kind of pain and some big fix
right now. I just respect Trump for being willing to
endure some political pain to try to get us fixed. Now,
(01:50):
why do I have confidence that this play is going
to work? Simply because I have confidence in Trump when
it comes to economic stuff. He's not God, he's not perfect,
but he's got a lot more success in anybody else
we've had a long time around here. I also have
a lot of confidence in his personal desire to win
and to succeed, right, I mean, that's been proven over time.
(02:11):
He wouldn't be doing this unless he really believed it
was going to work and he had a plan. And
then when it comes to the critics, most of whom
on the Democrat side are hoping the economy fails. On
the Republican side, and there are critics they want the
economy to succeed. They just think he's wrong. But when
it comes to the critics, think about all the critics
from both parties who have told you from the beginning
(02:32):
this is going to be a disaster.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
ANDERR.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Trump, he's going to start World War three, you know,
he's colluding with Russia, etc. And then look where we
end up. Right, So no, I do trust him on this,
and we'll find out, I think pretty soon, whether it's
well placed or not. I want to shift gears for
a second. Go to Jarvis Caldwell. He's a Republican in
House District twenty elected there and I really appreciate you
representative posting some sound that I caught on X last night,
(02:58):
and I'll let you describe it. But I think folks
really need to hear about this and then we can
talk about what to do. But please, sir, thank you
for being here and set the stage.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Yes, sir, thank you so much for having me. So.
The context of this was on Tuesday, House built thirteen
twelve legal protections for transgender individuals, which I will say
is probably the most radical bill we've seen so far
this session, and we've seen some pretty bad ones. And
so what I did on X yesterday was I posted
(03:27):
a side by side of a portion of my closing
statement where I was basically saying, you know what we
heard witness testimony today that this has been stakeholdered for
over a year, even though the bill just got introduced
on Friday evening after we went home, and then on
Monday we found out that this bill was going to
(03:48):
be heard on Tuesday, and we didn't even realize this
bill had been introduced. And so I basically said, I
I posed the question, you know, has this bill been
stakeholdered with the non LGBT community, specifically the printal rights groups?
And what the clip demonstrates is the closing statements from
Representative Yarozo Kai and the Chairman Javier Maybury, and they
(04:12):
said just flat out, you know, we don't need to
stakeholder with hate groups. And then Representative o Kai basically
compared these printal rights groups to the KKK and she said,
we wouldn't we wouldn't go to the KKK if we're
writing civil rights legislation. And it was just absolutely stunning.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Well, it's just it's just nutty, haiti stuff. I can't
access thirty two on my screen. Rank can you punch
it for us? Here's the sound, and again this is
representative Jarvis with us, but but it is it is
just hateful, nutty stuff. And as we get that queued up,
we're having a little technical glitch, which means it's my fault, right,
(04:55):
because I can assure you, representative, anytime there's a technical
glitch here, somehow it is my fault in reality, in reality.
But let's talk about it before we get this sound
cued up. So tell us about the people who would
do this, tell us about the parental rights groups that
they're comparing it to, that they're comparing to the KKK,
(05:18):
et cetera. And tell us about the people who are
doing that. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I mean, so they didn't say explicitly who these these
parents groups were. I imagine it's like the Colorado Parents
Advocacy Network SEAPAN, which are just really concerned parents and
they're a great group of people. They may have been
talking about, you know, moms for Liberty groups or something,
but just in general, all I said was, did you
(05:44):
talk to the you know, basically the non leftist activist
parents rights groups, and that was their response to say
their hate groups, because if you don't fully believe what
they believe, then you're obviously a part of a hate group.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Which is incredible.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yeah, it was incredible to hear.
Speaker 1 (06:01):
Let's listen to that together.
Speaker 4 (06:03):
How willing would you be to look at a new
food pyramid and instituting.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
We're doing that right now when we okay, okay, it's
getting better. And by the way, we are going to
ask you about the new food period food pyramid, Ryan,
would you fire that we'd heard.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
From multiple witnesses that this bill has been worked on
for over a year. I will say I learned about
this bill yesterday. It was introduced Friday evening. I really
am curious about how much stakeholding went on both sides
of the issue, and if parent groups that are that
are not a part of the LGBT community, if they
(06:40):
were involved.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
A well stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed
with hate groups. And we don't ask someone passing civil
rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
But I agree there's no reason to go to the
table with people who are echoing the hate rhetoric going
around about the trans community.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Remarkable representative chargists who who are the I assume from
their comments hateful idiots my words, not yours who made
those remarks.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Yeah, so that is Representative Yarozo Kai and the Chairman
of Judiciary, Representative Javier Maybury. I know Maybury is from Denver.
I believe so Kai is from maybe a Rapahoe County.
I don't know specifically the area or their house district
numbers off the top of my head, but you know,
(07:39):
they are just very left wing Democrats in the legislature
and in the bill in general. Is just it's very extreme.
I mean it basically it says that if you missgender
your child, your own child, if you miss gender your child,
that's considered coercive control, which is a form of child
(08:00):
abuse by definition. And I think the and this is
my cynical side here, I think the intent is to
basically get rid of the ability to try to get
your child help if you're having a gender identity crisis
or gender dysphoria, because how can you get them help
if you have to tell them, no, you're not actually
(08:23):
a girl, you're a boy. We're going to go get
you help, because just the act of doing that is
misgendering them, which they are saying in this bill that
that is child abuse. It is very extreme. And that's
just one portion of the bill.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
But let's talk about that key point you just made,
because that's exactly what's going on, and it also, in
my mind, explains they're extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that they're engaging in.
And otherwise I assume smart people saying very idiotic things
because in my experience, that's what you see. When they
know that they can't win the argument, they can't win
(08:56):
the argument on logic or reason or moraleity or law,
is they start spewing venom like this, right, because it's
the same thing it's up in the US Supreme Court now,
as you know, same thing they're trying to do with
counselors in Colorado. Oh no, a counselor can't be speaking
the truth to kids about their real gender and telling them, no,
(09:18):
you really are a boy, and here's how we can
make sure you're a boy. They try to outlaw that speech,
which fortunately got the attention of the US Supreme Court,
which is about to reverse that.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
Yeah, So they started with the counselors, and now they're
going to the parents. And this bill specifically says that
if you're in a custody dispute that they call it
paramount consideration. So basically, the preference goes to the parents
who affirms the gender, and so they're giving them, they're
(09:49):
putting the sum on the scale in a legal situation
to favor the parent who is continuing this gender confusion for.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
The child representative. Can you stay for another segment because
I'd like to deep dive this with you and I
want to play that sound again. But they representative either
obviously very knowledgeable when it comes to what's going on there.
But the headline today is the elected Colorado Democrats attacking
the parents groups that'd say, no, wait a second, we
should be able to talk to our children about their
(10:20):
true gender, labeling them as hate groups, comparing them to
the KKK. What does that tell you? You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 6 (10:34):
And now back to the dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
I'm twenty two. Glad you're here. Special guest Representative Jarvis Caldwell,
he's Republican House District twenty, has been deep diving with us.
He's extraordinarily radical trans rights bills. And I put that
in quotes because obviously it's a gross deprivation of parental rights,
of business owner rights, etc. But we're talking about a
(11:00):
twist to this, and in committee a number of elected
Democrats comparing parents groups to the KKK and other hate
groups and saying that's why they won't consult with them
on this bill. They're trying to sneak through at the
last minute. So representative for those who may have just
joined us during the break, I'm going to replay the
sound that you posted and then ask you to fill
(11:23):
us in on what occurred and what comes next with
these bills. So here's what happened in Part and committee.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
We'd heard from multiple witnesses that this bill has been
worked on for over a year. I will say I
learned about this bill yesterday. It was introduced Friday evening.
I really am curious about how much stakeholding went on
both sides of the issue, and if parent groups that
are not a part of the LGBT community, if they
(11:51):
were involved.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
A well stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed
with hate groups, and we don't ask someone hassing civil
rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
But I agree there's no reason to go to the
table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going
around about the trans community.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
And I'd ask you to identify those elected officials in
a second. But the point being that clearly the reason
they label these parents groups and these opponents says KKK
and hate and everything else, is that's their excuse to
not engage because they know they would lose the argument
on the merits. But again for those just joining us,
(12:36):
who are the presumably smart people saying those really hateful,
dumb things.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Yeah, So the first the female there is Yara Zokai.
She is a Democrat, a new legislator that she's a
freshman like I am, and I believe she's out of
a rappa hole county. She's an attorney. And then the
second on there was Javier Mayby who's out of Denver.
(13:03):
He's an attorney, Democrat and he's actually the chairman of
how judiciary. So that is that's the situation with our
judiciary right now.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
Wow. Wow. And then again for those just joining, a
quick recap of just how radical these bills are. And
again I take when people make extreme flame throwing obviously
false in my view, statements like that they're projecting right,
that they're projecting because they know that what they're doing
(13:34):
is indefensible. But give people a quick summary of some
of the worst of these bills.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
Yeah, So this bill is how billed thirteen twelve legal
protections for transgender individuals. As we talked about on the
last segment, it makes misgendering of your own child considered
child abuse and you can specifically lose custody over that.
It also negates other states laws and court orders. So
(14:02):
you have two people who live in Kansas, they both
have custody, two parents. One takes the child to Colorado
to get gender affirming care. The Kansas court rules that
you have to bring that child back. We're saying that
Colorado will now ignore that court order, which in my opinion,
is a violational Article four, Section one of the US Constitution,
the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And there's some other
(14:25):
really concerning things like the gender based dress codes. So
I'm ade charter school board member. We have boys uniforms
and girls' uniforms, and I specifically asked the bill sponsor
Lorraina Garcia, another Democrat on Judiciary. Does this mean, if
this bill passes, we have to do away with boy
uniforms and girl uniforms and just have a uniform and it's,
(14:47):
you know, the wild West, and you can wear anything
you want. She explicitly said.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Yes, insane. Would that apply to private schools as well
in the bill?
Speaker 3 (14:57):
Off the top of my head, if I recollect it
is your public district, rand schools and charter schools specifically.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
It's just outrageous. And when you say representative misgendering, you
mean if a parent refers to their child by their
correct gender, that would then cost them in a custody dispute.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Exactly so, And as we talked about a lesson, I
think the intent here is to basically try to do
away with getting treatment for a child if they have
confusion about their gender, because how can you get them
treatment if you can't tell them that they're wrong and
call them the gender that they are. And so you
(15:35):
can literally lose custody over this, and it should be
alarming for every parent. Frankly not.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
And in our last minute, can you tell me why
do you think Democrats are willing to go to these
bizarre preposterous, illogical child hurting extremes on this issue? What's
driving it? Because it's clearly out of step with the
American people, as the election just proved, and I think
out of up with the people of Colorado. So why
are they so obsessed with this lunacy that hurts so
(16:05):
many kids?
Speaker 7 (16:07):
You know?
Speaker 3 (16:07):
I think it's very it's a very left wing ideological
belief system, and it drives me crazy because the bill
sponsor UH doesn't doesn't have kids, but almost all for
bills target children with these left wing ideologies, and so
that that aspect of it is very concerning U. And
(16:28):
I want to make sure I get in there before
we run out of time. That this bill is coming
to the House floor tomorrow for debate for second readings,
and so we are gearing up and we're ready to
fight it all day tomorrow. So if anybody can get
down to the Capitol or at least tune in and
listen to us, because we're going to be fighting this
thing with everything we have.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Well, I appreciate what you're doing, and let's stay in
touch on this, Okay. We'd love to get you on
for regular updates. How can people follow you on X Yes,
it's at Rep.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
Caldwell.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Okay, fighting the good fight, my friend.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Thank you, you take care and well we will continue
to follow. That kind of makes sense, he tells us.
The bill sponsor doesn't have children. That kind of makes sense, right.
Wouldn't you think anybody would parents with their hate group?
Dan Man, Yeah, you would think just anybody who cares
about children, whether they have children or not, would know
(17:26):
that a bill like this is insane. But then when
you look at the Left, so much of what they
do is radically anti child, radically from their holy grail
being the mass killing of children before birth and children
of color in you know, to afford to one rate,
and then you look at if the child's lucky enough
to get born under Democrat policies, all the different ways
(17:50):
the Left's policies just overtly harm children. So where do
you think that comes from? Well, we'll talk about that
as well, Hey, perfect iy. After the break is a
segue George Brockler DA. In the twenty third we'll talk
about these Tesla terrorists and under Colorado law, what kind
of charges can be brought? Personally, I want to see
(18:10):
them charged to the max. Three oh three someone three
eight two five five text dam five seven seven three nine.
You're on the Dan Capliss Show.
Speaker 6 (18:25):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 7 (18:28):
The next couple of months, we're going to offer our
customers the same deal that our employees get. And as
you say, that's worth thousands of dollars, you come into
our store, you get employee pricing. This is kind of
to call a little bit of a time out. We've
heard some uncertainty from our customers and we want we
want them to be assured that Ford, the most American
auto company, is going to do right by them. As
(18:49):
our dealers, we make the most cars here, we employ
the most, we export the most, and so we here
at Ford we're in a good position to address customers
concern and give them a really great deal on a
great vehicle.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Glad to hear that, since I owned Ford stock and
own a Ford Bronco. But GM says it's also going
to crank things up here in the US of A.
Speaker 8 (19:12):
A General motorspokesperson is now confirming there was a webcast
to employees a short time ago.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
GM.
Speaker 8 (19:18):
We'll be making operational adjustments at at Fort Wayne Assembly,
including hiring temporary employees to support current manufacturing and business.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Glad to hear that, let's go to the VIP line.
Always a privilege and a pleasure to welcome George Brockler
the DA in the twenty third and wanted to talk
to George today about these Tesla terrorists and under Colorado
state law, what are the most hell, let's just say,
toughest charges that could be brought George, Welcome back to
the show.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
Thanks for having me on Quick Story, Dan the way,
if you could. I jumped into a trial, you know,
as a d I like to do things with the
younger prostitutors, and I had done one since STEM because
of the term limits, I was out of office. I
jumped in on a DUI case and we got a
conviction and talked to the jury afterwards, and this guy
on the on the jury recognized me a little bit,
(20:11):
and I said, I always ask questions like, Hey, is
there anything we could have done better? Is or things
that we did that we're distracting, you know, you want
to learn from the jury. And at one point he goes, well,
I really have. It's not a question about the case,
and I go, yeah, yeah, and he goes, do you
do you.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Know Dan Kaplis you're making this up.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I am not making this up.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Man, Yeah, do you know Dan CAplus?
Speaker 2 (20:35):
I go, no, Dan, I worked for Dan twenty years ago. Man,
the guy with Dan.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that's that's awesome. And I'm not
sure where it went from there, but thank you for
saying that. No, it's great, that's awesome, And and you
must have really enjoyed being in court because obviously you're
an elite trial lawyer plus, and there's just nothing like it.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
There isn't And you know this, you know you and
I can say things that resonate with us that other
folks that have never been there and done that it's like, oh,
that sounds great. You just there's nothing like it. Standing up,
making an argument, trying to anticipate what the other side's
going to do, dealing with things on the fly, putting
out evidence, the nerves that you always have because no
matter how good your evidence is and how will you
(21:19):
think you've presented it, you're always like, man, JERRYS can
do it.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
That's right. They want No, that's that's right. And that's
how I try to explain it is. It's just one
of the most and it's one of the ways, right, George.
It's such a healthy saying. It's one of the most
humbling things a person can do, because you walk into
that courtroom and no matter how well you do, whatever
you do, you are at the mercy of that jury,
the wisdom of the founders, right, they get to make
(21:44):
that call, and it's it's a very humbling, moving kind
of thing. But speaking of moving, I'll bet that defense
attorney was not pleased to see you walk in to
try it.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
She made no comment, how did and she I'll tell
you she did a great job for the case that
she had. There just wasn't a ton there. And it's
not like it was a murder or something. It was
a series d why But I'm telling you, the Douglas
County Sheriff's deputies did such a good job. The jeerors
had nothing but praise for him, and I just thought
that this is great.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
I'm glad I'm back in the corn put to your
question well and leading from in front, right, because I
think it's great when das do that and go in
and try cases. It's just a great example to their
team because no matter what the case or whatever, and
everybody listening probably has a real hard job, right, but
trying a case is a hard job, and so it's
just great to set that example. But what's the max
(22:39):
that can be done to these Tesla terrorists? Particularly since
I may get a cyber truck.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
I think that we're going to find that the Feds
have the biggest hammer in this one. As long as
it's property damage. And here's why. If you were to
do damage arson damage in excess of one hundred thousand
dollars only looking at a third class felony which is
presumptively punishable by four to twelve years, but it's a
(23:05):
probation eligible.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
Wow. Crazy, I know it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
If you can tie these people together, and it feels
like there's a Tesla takedown moment. If you could tie
them together and somehow find a way to charge our
organized crime statue which people might know as RICO but
we call it Colorado here. That elevates it to a
second class felony, but also probation eligible in the state
(23:30):
of Colorado under these facts. Crazy, if someone weren't thank god,
they weren't to be hurt or there was some allegation
of an attempt murder or crime of violence. That's probably
the only way we could inch our way into some
mandatory time. So when you look at the federal charges
and you see that they're big one the uh what
(23:50):
is that eight forty four I carries a five to
twenty year mandatory sentence? You think, Yeah, if we have
to decide which venue to do this in, probably best
to do it us court.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
What do you have to prove at the federal level?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
You know, for the federal level, the three charges that
these guys are indicted on, two of them are firearms
relating charges. But the other one, the count number three,
is that they attempted to damage or destroy by means
of fire and explosive material vehicles in unterstate commerce. So
(24:26):
it's an arson specific total.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Gotcha. And I saw an interesting article today on the
civil side about somebody pursuing a civil case for large
damages because it's politically motivated type of terrorism. But you know,
Colorado civil law may not lend itself as well to that.
So charge shifting away from Tesla for the moment, what's
the most important thing going on right now that most
(24:50):
of us probably don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
About in the twenty third judicial district.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
Or anywhere in your view, because I know you are
kind of a renaissance man. You're watching every saying yeah, yes, so,
And what's going on right now legislature, you know, because
obviously we have and it's just so surreal. What seems
to me a very criminal friendly, you know, state legislature,
criminal friendly governor. It seems like they're always playing hold
(25:18):
my beer and watch this. So what's going on down
there right now concerns you the most?
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Well, there's a nexus here between local control and criminal
justice that the legislature is poised to blow up, and
that is they have a bill that they want to
make a law that would strip away from municipalities the
ability to prosecute and punish crimes at variance with the state.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
So if Aurora wanted to have a mandatory Hey, you're
going to mandatory jail for ten days for retail theft.
And that's not the state outcome, and I'm here to
tell you it's not the state outcome, then Auroras wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Be no good.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
They have to change their laws to get to match this.
Here's what's going to happen, And we've started to see this.
When the state started meddling around with telling Aurora basically
how to prosecute DV cases, Aurora said, guess what, We're
just going to get out of the business of prosecuting
DV cases and we're going to save three million Aurora
taxpayer dollars. And they shifted those hundreds of important cases
(26:19):
over to the DA's office. So now the DA's office
is going to the county going, hey, we need to
hire a ton more prosecutors to handle this. I suspect
that if the state legislature continues down this road and
they continue to chisel away at this, two things will happen. One,
you'll see more counties doing what Douglas is doing, and
that's trying to become a home rule county. And I
(26:40):
think you'll also see more municipalities look at the state
and say you want all these cases, good luck, and
they're going to get out of the business of any
municipal prosecution and shove them all on to prosecute.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
State proust, which then triggers all sorts of disasters. Right
because the judiciary right now in Colorado was swamped nowhere
near enough judges, and it's you know, they're making it
so hard for judges to do their job because they're understaffed.
You know that you're going to be losing good judges
and making it harder to attract good new judges. So yeah,
(27:13):
just just the dominos that they're tipping over, you know that,
just horrible in so many different ways. But George, appreciate
the time today and hope we connect soon.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
We'll do it. Hey, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Thank you, my friend. Take care of that's George Brockler
doing a great job in the twenty third and the
tremendous point he was making about the governor and well,
assume he's going to sign this disaster, but the left
of the legislature, you know, trying to take this power
away from these local jurisdictions. My law partner, John Kellner
until recently was the DA in the eighteenth which included
(27:47):
at that time a repo on Douglas wrote a great
piece on that as well, which you can read in
the Gazette. You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast all the.
Speaker 9 (28:05):
Way to Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton used them to raise revenue.
He used them to protect the industry, and present Trump
is added the third leg of the stool, which is strategic.
So you know, if we are thinking about a ten
percent global tariff, and let's assume we we import about
three trillion a year, so that's three hundred billion, and
(28:30):
that's a substantial revenue raiser that could then be used
for working Americans on no tax and tips, no tax
on social security, no tax on overtime, and for those
buying autos that they can reduce their bills because interest
on American made cars will be tax deductible. So this
is really a working class the.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Tariff and tax plan in terms of goals for all
those stated goals, et cetera. That's why the things that
really excites me is that this tariff move appears to
be geared in a very significant part to working class America.
And that's the reality, right, is that if there's not
a fair shake for working class America, not fair opportunity
(29:16):
for working class America, and not just words, not just cheerleading,
but real tangible progress and gains and earning gains and
stability of jobs, et cetera, this country cannot This country
cannot endure the way it's envisioned, it just can't. And
then we get to the issues of we're headed for
an economic cliff otherwise, so something major needs to happen.
(29:39):
Tariff's the answer. I sure hope. So I trust that Trump,
who's had a lot of success in the economic front
and office, you know, it knows what he's doing, and
obviously he really wants to be a great success. But
we know one thing status quo No, that is not
going to work, and it's not going to work long term,
especially for working people. That was Treasury Secretary. Here's commerce.
Speaker 10 (30:01):
So what's happened to the world is the global governments
have backed taking our factories away from US. I mean,
there's nothing about Taiwan that they should be making semiconductors,
there's nothing about Korea they should be making all of
the appliances and the electronics.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Of the world.
Speaker 10 (30:19):
What's happened is they had a policy of their governments
to let's back our companies and let's take this business
from America while America is not paying attention. So our
factories went overseas. But what you're going to see is
the most modern factories of the world come back here.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
But you know there seems to me to be a
lot of truth in that, and that's one thing that
I think often gets forgotten, even allies. Right, they're competitors,
I mean, and there's nothing wrong or immoral or dishonest
about that. They're competitors. They're competing with us. They want
what's best for their own It's just like state to state. Hey,
we're all brothers and sisters united as Americans. But you
(30:58):
can bet there's cutthroat com petition between states for the
best jobs, the best companies, et cetera. And you've you
can't just sit back and let yourself get plucked like that.
All right, let's go back to the phone lines. So
we'll let's start in Inglewood, Colorado, got at least in
the metro doing the show out of Denver. I was
in Colorado Springs the Great caseysj today in court down there.
(31:22):
But in the Denver Metro, we've got a decent little
snow going. Ron and Inglewood's are on the Dan Kaplis show.
Speaker 11 (31:27):
Welcome, Thank you, Dan. I'll say that truck has a
striking profile.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Oh the cyber truck. Do you think it's good look?
I don't think it's good look. And I just want one.
Speaker 11 (31:40):
Well, I'm curious about it. I've never seen me inside.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Yeah, it's nice. It's it's kind of bear and spartan,
but it's nice and it's roomy and it's comfortable.
Speaker 11 (31:50):
Well, I think you should get one in Well, I
do too.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Do you happen to know my wife? It is literally
impossible to have a better wife than I have, And
I'm not going to disrespect her by getting a vehicle
that she thinks is the ugliest thing she's ever seen.
But I am, But I am still hoping to be
able to persuade my way there. I'm sure you will, no,
(32:15):
because I really want to get it. I want to
stand up to these Tesla terrorists. Now, admittedly I'm not
as as excited about standing up to him by but
why buying one of the other Tesla cars. I'd rather
stand up to him by buying a cyber truck.
Speaker 11 (32:28):
Well, I think if you were apt it, it'd be great.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Yeah, think of the possibilities. I know, and a cyber
truck is unmistakably strong. Right, nobody will ever look at
that and think anything other than strength. Yes, I agree,
I know that's what you called about.
Speaker 11 (32:45):
Go ahead, my friend, Okay, thank you. I wanted to
make a comment. When the Supreme Court decided in favor
of Jack Phillips. He was based on the Civil Rights
Commission and one of the members named Rice, who likened
Jack to the Nazis. Yeah, lay, and they called it unprofessional.
(33:09):
So this language that they're using in the committee is
just a perfect setup for the Supreme Court to say
you can't do that.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
Well, right, what a great point. What Ron's referring to
is we were talking earlier with the Colorado State Rep.
Jarvis Caldwell, and we played sound and committee of Democrats
saying no, they're not going to talk to parents groups
about these radical trans rights bills because you don't talk
to the KKK about civil rights bills, is what they said. Now,
to Ron's point, the common denominator between that and comparing
(33:42):
Jack Phillips to a Nazi, when Jack Phillips is obviously
a great American hero is the Left uses those kind
of tactics and language because it knows it can't win
the argument, not on logic, not on values, not on law,
not on morality, So they will not engage in the
conversation because they know they can't win the argument. And
(34:02):
that's where the US Supreme Court is to step in. Said,
you can bet. I mean, this will be so facially unconstitutional,
this bill that apparently is on track to pass and
become law, because you're going to tell a parent. Now
you can't say to your own son. You can't say
to your own son's son, you're really you're really a boy,
You're not a girl, right, you miss gender that's now
(34:24):
going to be used against you to in a custody battle. Okay, runs,
Oh well, good question. I don't think the bill gets
to this point unless they expect him to sign it.
Thank you, Ron for your call. Enjoyed it right, You're
the best as always, Kelly, thank you. Please be careful
out there. It looks like there's going to be some
tricky weather tonight. I know it's already started in Denver.
(34:46):
Hope to have you back here tomorrow on The Dan
Kapla Show
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.
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
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.