4-4-25 - 8am - What Will Be Lost with SB25-003 and ICE Agent In Contempt

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning from South Dakota. Michael. I saw where you
posted some information on a councilwoman in Loveland, Colorado. Now
you know why five years ago I moved away from
that city after I'd lived there for twenty seven years.
Don't miss a bit of it. Everyone have a great day.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
I scape Colorado. I don't live that bull crap anymore.

Speaker 3 (00:24):
I escape. I escape.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
No, I'm not I'm not envious.

Speaker 3 (00:32):
I'm not I'm not mad. I'm not doing anything of that.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
I'm gonna finish Senate Bill three because it fits in
with this. This is the radical left. These are the
Marxists that, for example, you think about and I still
want to go back to Nancy Plosi and Chuck Schumer.
We'll dragon if you slow that up. Is still gonna
do that at some point on the tariffs, all in

(01:03):
the name of safety, all the name of reducing violence,
gun violence. There's if I can get to it. There's
a story about people claiming that they have been a
part of a mass shooting because, for example, maybe they

(01:24):
heard the gun shots and so now they're calculating the
number of people who were quote involved air quotes involved
with a mass shooting. I mean it's we live in
a society where distinguishing fact from fiction is absolutely horrifically
time consuming. Well, let's go back to the gun, to

(01:47):
the gun bill for a moment. So I pointed out,
we've got again. According to the Joint Budget Committee and
their fiscal notes, the staff fiscal notes, they estimate revenue
from this bill of about two million dollars solely from
the collection of funds for the course Eligibility card. That

(02:12):
estimates based on forty dollars collected from fifty thousand citizens
every year, which I think is absolutely dubious. You, first
of all, you can never own too many guns, in
my opinion, and I certainly need more than the one
that I have. So if I want to go buy

(02:33):
a second gun and this bill, unless the implementation of
the bill is stayed by an injunction, I'm not going to.
I will never buy a gun in Colorado again as
long as this bill exists, and I will figure out

(02:54):
some way to buy a gun out of state and
not have to go through this bull crap. I'll find
a way, and if I don't, I know somebody else will.
Somebody else will figure out a way to avoid this,
or I'll just start. I'll just start buying my guns
from Hell's bills. If MS thirteen can do it on

(03:17):
Federal Boulevard and not get caught or get in trouble
for it, maybe I'll just start buying my guns on
Federal Boulevard. Maybe I'll just go to Albuquerque and just
you know a bunch of gang bangers down there. I'll
just buy them in Albuquerque and just haul them across
the state lines. Now, this thing about revenue from this
bill minus the expenditures, because this is where, again setting

(03:42):
aside all the constitutional issues, this is just about how
we have over regulated ourselves and bills that you would
not think. You would think, Okay, it's an anti gun bill.
How is this? How is this over regulation? And how
is it going to cost us money? So think about

(04:03):
the four hundred thousand dollars in additional revenue, an eight
hundred thousand dollars after that for this fiscal year. The
next fiscal year. The content and the cost of the
firearms class is still TBD. Nobody really knows what that

(04:28):
is yet. We're gonna we'll find out that out at
a later date. Which makes me suspicious to begin with.
But on average, a four hour hundred. If you do
one hundred safety class, that four hour course runs somewhere
between sixty and one hundred bucks. If you do a
six hour concealed carry permit class, that runs anywhere from

(04:51):
one to two hundred dollars. So a twelve hour class
over two days would just estimating what two hundred and
fifty to four hundred dollars. So let's do an average
of three hundred twenty five dollars. That equates to approximately

(05:13):
sixteen point two five million dollars in additional expenses levied
on the purchaser of a firearm three hundred twenty five
dollars times the fifty thousand, sixteen million, two hundred fifty
thousand dollars. Now, if you have any basic understanding of economics,

(05:39):
the rising cost of a good and then creating barriers
to the acquisition of that good will do what. It
will depress the demand for that good, so less fewer
weapons are going to be purchased in Colorado. Now you
get into the real problem. How's that going to affect

(05:59):
that firearm industry that I told you about earlier. Let's
go back and review that. Because the firearm industry in
this state is a lot bigger than a lot of
people think that it is. Let's see six thousand, eight

(06:19):
hundred and twenty eight full time jobs, four hundred and
thirty one million dollars in wages, and a contribution to
Colorado's GDP of about one point three billion dollars. That's
a pretty hefty contribution to Colorado's economy. But now we've
got all the expenses. I mean, you got the little

(06:42):
revenue streams that you have, then you have all of
the expenses of doing the course work, and you have
an additional cost to gun owners of about sixteen point
twenty five million dollars. Overall, you're going to see a
sale depth by some estimates of twenty to thirty percent.

(07:05):
Well what does that mean? If you look at one
chart the effects of decreased demand on the firearm industry
in Colorado due to Senate Bill twenty five to h three,
the businesses tax taxes collected if you estimate a twenty

(07:26):
percent reduction, and that's going to cost the state thirty
eight point four million dollars if you estimate because the
number of guns purchase is going to decrease by twenty
to thirty percent, So a twenty percent on the lower
end is going to cost the state more than thirty
eight million dollars in business taxes, or upwards of fifty

(07:47):
seven million dollars if you look at the thirty percent
figure sales tax. The baseline right now is eight point
three million. That will decrease between one point six and
two point five million dollars. CBI background checks, which is
a revenue source six million dollars, will decrease by anywhere

(08:10):
from one point two to one point eight million dollars
lost revenue. One of the economic impacts small FFL businesses,
currently nine hundred and twenty five of them will lose
anywhere between one hundred and eighty five and two hundred
and seventy eight Of those small businesses. Currently we employee

(08:32):
six eight hundred plus full time employees. They expect that
number to be reduced, depending on whether it's twenty or
thirty percent, thirteen hundred employees to over two thousand employees.
Earned wages right now, they estimate that the earned wages
from the firearm industry in Colorado is almost half a

(08:55):
billion dollars four hundred and thirty one million dollars. They
expect that to drop anywhere between eighty six million and
one hundred and twenty nine million, So the gross domestic
contribution would drop from one point three billion dollars to

(09:15):
it would drop by either two hundred and sixty two
million dollars at twenty percent or three hundred ninety three
million dollars by thirty percent. That's a huge that's a
huge decrease. So when the proponents of this bill tell
you that the programs are in that gain of five

(09:37):
hundred thousand to a million dollars annually, that's just simply
not true.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
That's going to.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
Cost jobs, revenue, businesses in the state of Colorado. And
that's not even thinking about just the constitutional aspect of it.
This is what I mean about. And by the way,
I'm going to retweet all of these numbers right now.
This is from t Hicks on X and I have

(10:06):
just reposted that on my timeline. If you want to
see those numbers, it's worth your time going through it
and looking at it, because it, again is a great
example of how overregulation is going to end up costing
us in the long run. And why in the hell
people don't I'm looking at the local media, why don't

(10:30):
they report on this. Why don't they talk about this.
Why doesn't Jared Polis take this into consideration when he
chooses to either let the bill get approved by sitting
on it or vetoing it or actually signing it. If
Jared Polus signs this bill or allows it to become

(10:52):
law by a silent veto by sitting on it, he's
going to cost the state money. A loss in our GDP,
a loss of jobs, a loss of tax revenue, a
loss of wages, everything all in the name of safety,
all in the name of protecting you from a non

(11:17):
existent threat. But the problem is they don't care. They
don't care in the least, and the media they won't
report on it.

Speaker 3 (11:31):
Not at all.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
I don't want to pick too much on our local newsroom.
But going back to the tariffs for a moment. So
I walk out at the top of the hour for
a break, and they're all excitedly talking back and forth about, oh,
the DOW was done. I don't know whether they were
talking about the DOW or the SMP or the NASDAC,

(11:55):
but one of them was.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
Well.

Speaker 2 (11:56):
Earlier it was down twelve hundred. Oh now it's down
only nine hundred. And of course that's going to become
part of their news story. So either on this station,
probably on this station, and on that other station, well
in fact, all three of these AM stations, you'll probably
hear a news report from those reporters out there, from
those news people out there, they're not really reporters. From

(12:18):
those news people out there, you're going to hear about
oh my gosh, the dolls down, whatever it is, blah
blah blah, feeding into the frenzy without any context about okay, well,
is that a record? Is that going to if, as
somebody's on the text line, you go back and look
at any of the index funds or look at any
of the indices at all over the past twenty years,

(12:41):
you know, particularly considering the past well, I don't know,
say ten years. At a minimum, this market was always
due for a correction. It was always overvalued. Now speaking
to the news media, learn about the Salvadoran national that

(13:02):
was identified by US Immigration and Customs authority as a
member of MS thirteen. Remember he was captured in Maryland
and he was deported, and then everybody starts screaming about,
oh it was it was a mistake. He's lawyered up,
he's a mistake. We can't get him back, blah blah blah.

(13:24):
But he was just a father. He's just a father.
He was a decent guy. Aristotle once wrote that the
truth consists in saying of what it is that it is,
and of what it is not that it is not.
The Atlantic Magazine, Yeah, that same magazine that was part

(13:44):
of Signal Gate, in its recent treatment of that Salvadoran
national identified by Ice as a member of MS thirteen,
has chosen the other part of Aristotle what it is
not that it is. The article in question in the
Atlantic Magazine, counting all these plaintive tones, seasoned with all

(14:05):
this language about victimhood, presents this guy as this beleaguer
Maryland father. But to anybody committed to the basic discipline
of factual coherence, this is not. This is not some
father in Maryland. But it is indeed an illegal alien who,
in twenty nineteen was deemed sufficiently entangled as one of
the world's most vicious criminal organizations that a judge actually

(14:28):
denied this guy bond and ordered him removed from the
United States in two thousand, nineteen, six years ago. Now,
the Atlantic Magazine, through sleight of hand, sold after would
make you blush, buries it under layers of all these

(14:49):
euphemism and of course all the emotional appeal. Now, to
be clear, the man's identity is not contested by some
rogue agent from Ice. The finding that he was a
member of MS thirteen came through formal legal proceedings with
all the procedural due safeguards and all the evidentiary thresholds

(15:09):
of the US immigration system. An immigration judge reviewed the
evidence that was presented by Ice, and the judge found
that evidence to be credible enough to deny him bond
and to issue a removal order. Now, you don't have
to be some kind of nut judge, you don't have
to be some sort of crazy Marxist leftist to look

(15:31):
at those facts and say, oh, I think instead we
should just couch him as a oh, a belieguer Maryland
father that accidentally got caught up in this dragnet that
Donald Trump is trying to push all these people out,
not caring who gets caught up in the dragnet. But
instead we got a journalistic mat and switch going on here.

(15:53):
And the distinction matters. It's the difference between saying, oh,
the court found him innocent court decided not to send
him back just yet. The Atlantic Magazine, in its zeal
to try to establish a narrative, is trying to present
him as this wholesome father, for whatever the hell that means.

(16:13):
To the Atlantic Magazine, Maryland father. That's not merely a descriptor.
Describing this gang banger as a Maryland father is a
calculated act of rhetorical word laundering. He just liked a barbecue,

(16:36):
He coached little league, He drove his kids to school
in a kiah. He had a Coexist bumper sticker on
this truck. It's some sort of really deviant behavior to
establish a narrative, to make people do what, to make

(16:58):
people look at a again? What we have been just
like a demand of change in terms of budgets and
taxes and spending, demanding change, demanding change. Hey, we want
the border sealed, we want people deported. And we find
someone who in twenty nineteen, after all the due process

(17:19):
he's entitled to his illegal alien gott it was ordered
to stay in jail, no bond, and ordered deported, gets deported,
and now everybody's screaming about it. What are we schizo?
Are we a skitzo nation. We're finally getting what we
ask for, and the cabal is bleeding like a stuck pig.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
You know, all those fireworks stands north of the border
of Wyoming and Colorado, You're gonna have gun stores right
next to all those fireworks stands come twenty twenty six.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Yeah, but what I've got, and I don't have the
bills out there on my desk. I'd have to go
thumb through it again. But I may be absolutely wrong
about this, but I thought that part of the language
and the bill, and now whether maybe in the final
version or not, I don't know. And again, so I'm

(18:20):
just telling you what I vaguely remember is that if I,
as a Colorado resident, let's say, go to Wyoming and
purchase again in Wyoming, the state law which that FFL
in Colorado is in Wyoming, with me, as a Colorado resident,

(18:41):
purchasing a firearm in Wyoming would be required under the
Senate bill to send that firearm to a Colorado FFL
in order to make me comply with the Colorado law
about the purchasing of a semi automatic weapon that's obviously
in common use. I may be wrong about that, but

(19:04):
that was on one of the readings. One of the
versions of the bill that I read had that in it. Now,
I think my solution might be I own property in
New Mexico, and I just happened to know as a
personal friend a FFL in New Mexico that might be
willing to sell me a firearm based on New Mexico residents.

(19:29):
Because I can sortainly put on the background check, I
can put that address, I can claim that as a resident,
I'm there, maybe half and a half, maybe more than half.
I register a car there, pay taxes there, pay utilities there,

(19:50):
eat their sleep there, do the radio programs sometimes from there. Yeah,
I think for purposes of purchasing guns, I might just
become a New Mexican resident. Along with this thing about
the Ice, the guy in Maryland in the Atlantic magazine
going ballistic over the fact that, oh we roughted a

(20:12):
believe your father, excuse me. A Boston judge, a Boston
municipal judge, to be more precise, known for supporting sanctuary cities,
has just found an ICE agent in contempt. What did
this Ice agent do? Detained an illegal alien facing deportation

(20:38):
as he walked out of the courthouse.

Speaker 4 (20:43):
It was a tense and unusual day in court as
an assistant district attorney took the stand for questioning. This
comes after Wilson Martel Lebron was arrested last Thursday outside
of fear by ICE agents even before his trial was over.
New video obtained from defense attorney maret Or Khan showing

(21:06):
the aftermath of his client, Wilson Martel Lebron, after ICE
agents took him away last Thursday. For KHN says Lebron
was leaving court for day one of his jury trial,
where he faced charges for providing false information on his
license application. Judge Mark Somerville called an emergency hearing at
Boston Municipal Court last Friday where Twoesday troopers were cross examined.

(21:31):
That continued Monday, with an assistant district attorney for Suffolk
County taking the stand about what information he knew prior
to ICE agents apprehending Lebron in the middle of the trial.
More prosecutors were supposed to be cross examined, but Judge
Somerville cut that short.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
It's a case of violating.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
To be president a trial and front witnesses against him
couldn't be more serious.

Speaker 5 (21:59):
Ultimately dismissed the case because of prosecutorial misconduct, pointing out
that he doesn't believe the assistant district attorneys took part
in the removal of Lebron. He says two state troopers
an ICE agent Brian Sullivan, were to blame, finding Sullivan
in contempt of court.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
This is freaking hilarious. So here's a guy who is
already facing deportation charge. He already has a deportation order.
He's on trial in a municipal court, the lowest level
of court you could possibly imagine, and he walks out

(22:43):
and there are a couple of state troopers I guess,
standing with him or standing around with Ice, and Ice
walks up, as you know, identifies him. They take him
into custody, putting in the back of an suv and
dry off. Now the judge is upset because they claim

(23:05):
that they're violating his right to a trial. Yet charges
get dismissed. So if the charges have been dismissed, how
are they violating his right to a trial? Now? I
don't know why, and quite frankly, it doesn't make any
difference to me why the charges were dismissed. Maybe the

(23:26):
DA said, hey, listen, I no longer have a defendant here.
I don't have anybody to prosecute because he's I'm joking
when I say this, but he's been disappeared. We're like
communists China. We sneaked away in the darkened night. No,
we just snatched him from the courthouse steps as he
walked out. Now what fascinates me is you're gonna this

(23:51):
municipal judge is going to hold an ice agent in
contempt of court.

Speaker 3 (23:57):
I don't know. Seems a little.

Speaker 2 (23:59):
Odd to me, because is if I recall, maybe I'm wrong.
It's been a while since I passed con law. But
the supremacy clause found an Article six, Clause two of
the United States Constitution establishes that the Constitution, federal laws,
they're made in accordance with the Constitution, and any treaties

(24:22):
which is not material here are the supreme law of
the land, and therefore are binding on all states and
all of their judges, regardless of any conflicting state laws
or state constitutions. Here is precisely what the US Constitution says.

(24:42):
This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which
shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made
or which shall be made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land,
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby

(25:03):
anything in the constitution or laws of any state to
the contrary, notwithstanding, seems pretty clear to me that in
this case, particularly something like immigration law, which is solely
reserved to the federal government. Was this is this unusual? Yeah,

(25:25):
I'd say it's unusual. But the guy obviously wasn't under
any incarceration. He freely walked out of the courthouse. He's
on trial for lying on a driver's license application in
municipal court. I don't know, but my guess is the

(25:47):
penalty for that is probably a fine, and he probably
wouldn't get a fine because again, this judge is a
sanctuary state guy, so he probably wouldn't do anything anyway
other than maybe find him and then say, okay, I
get out of my court room. Next case, so the guy,
you know, they take a break. Where's the end of
the day. It's a jury trial, to which I think
is hilarious. And he walks out of the courtroom and

(26:10):
I says, oh, hi, nice to meet you, turn around,
put the cuffs on, putt him in the car driving
him off. Now, judge and the jury or just you know,
they come back the next Well, mister defense counsel, where's
your client?

Speaker 3 (26:26):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (26:28):
Why isn't he here?

Speaker 3 (26:29):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement picked him up. They had a
deportation order issued by an immigration a federal immigration judge,
and so they whisked him away. I don't know where
he is. What bring that ICE I'm going to hold
that ICE agent in contempt for what?

Speaker 3 (26:47):
What?

Speaker 2 (26:49):
The ICE agent is carrying out his lawful authority. There
is a deportation order on this individual. He has the
authority to arrest, detain, and deport the guy. Just because
it happened to happen in the middle of a municipal
trial doesn't override the United States Constitution. But here's the problem.

(27:16):
Sanctuary cities think that they're greater than the US Constitution,
and sanctuary judges in sanctuary cities think that they are
above the US Constitution. And it gives back to the
entire theme of today's program. How many people, maybe you

(27:38):
think that this is why this is outrageous. Wait a minute,
I thought this is what we wanted. I thought we
wanted people they were here illegally, and in particularly those
criminal aliens who are here illegally, and in particularly those
who have already had their due process and already have

(28:00):
a deportation order to be deported. Yeah. So how long
do you think before this makes national news because Trump's
violating the constitution? Why he can't do that? He violated
this guy's rights to do process. No, he had already

(28:22):
lost those, He had already lost the right to do process.
He was a fugitive from justice. He was a fugitive
being pursued by an organization that is above a municipal judge.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
I don't know. Seems pretty clear to me. I'll be
right back, Michael. Just remember we're too stupid to survive.
We are, aren't we? We really we are we? I'm
sure we really are stupid. The World Economic Forum is
in the news just as a render a little bit

(29:00):
about what their agenda is. Let's go to the tape twining.

Speaker 6 (29:05):
Mean now is need Ryan America pre CEO need great
to see you tonight. It seems that the goal of
this crowd is to kind of create the same panic
about climate change that they successfully created around COVID.

Speaker 1 (29:22):
Do I have this wrong?

Speaker 4 (29:25):
No?

Speaker 7 (29:25):
You have a correct I mean, first of all, we
have to accept the World Economic Forum is a fanatical
political organization that uses fear and manipulation like COVID hysteria,
like the hoax of global warming to really facilitate people
thinking that somehow the saviors. But really all you're doing
is helping them accomplish their goal, which really is a

(29:46):
global public private fascist movement and fusion of big government,
big tech, big money to create a technocratic ruling elite,
which conveniently is them. And really, Laura, if you want
to look at a different way too, with the World
Economic Forum, they want to create feudalism two point zero,
in which we are serfs and they are the lord's

(30:07):
ruling over us. You'll have nothing and be happy, is
one of the things that comes out of Davos. That's
what they're aiming for. They're aiming for feudalism in which
we are serfs and we should be happy that they
are ruling over us.

Speaker 2 (30:21):
Yeah. Well, guess what they're in the news today. Klaus Schwab,
the founder of the World Economic Forum, has announced his
decision to step down from his role as chairman after
fifty years running the organization. They're starting to search for
a new chairman. I'm thinking about applying. They plan to

(30:42):
complete the process by January of twenty twenty seven, so
they're going to spend the year and a half trying
to find a new chairman. Now, interestingly, this resignation follows
an internal examination by their board into allegations of huh,
racism and gender bias in the work environment. Now, Schwab

(31:07):
in the Forum have consistently denied those allegations, but the
allegations are coming from the board. Now. Apparently the investigation
did not substantiate the claims against Schwap, though it did
prompt discussions on organizational leadership in workplace culture. Now, he

(31:28):
had initially announced his intention last May to transition from well,
I should just stop right there and thought about that.
Maybe he was just going to transition from class to Claudia.

Speaker 3 (31:42):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
No, he was going to transition from chairman to the
non executive chairman. They can never let go. But the
announcement now formalizes his eventual departure. Now, this is of
founder and really the chief organizer of the Great Reset,

(32:06):
and he's been the central figure in all of this
globalist activity going on now. In addition to his announcement,
which I find interesting, there are other leadership changes. The
chief legal officer and their chief technology officer and their
director of Digital Services are all resigning too. So here

(32:28):
you have this unelected, unaccountable gathering leaders from all across
the governments of major corporations who convene several times a
year all around the world, most notably at DeVos for
their annual globalist conflab, and suddenly they're subjective to the
same problems that other companies have. Or remember, he is

(32:51):
the initiator of the Great Reset, and now we have
kind of, in our own way, a opposite, a direct
but opposite reset started this week by Donald Trump. Could
it be I'm just thinking out loud here. Could it

(33:13):
be that Claus Schwab read the uh, they saw the chart.
He's watched Trump for the first But what areba now,
not quite three months into this presidency? Can you think
about that we're not even three months, we're not even
three months into this presidency, And think about everything that
we've bitch and moaned about for years and decades, and

(33:34):
now he's actually doing something about it, including a great
reset of his own. We're gonna reset the international trade alliances.
We're gonna reset all the trade deficits. We're gonna reset
all of this. So here, Klaus, you want a great reset, Here,
hold my beer. I'll do one. I just find it
interesting that after all of the globalist activity going on,

(33:58):
one guy, it took one guy. Now again, I don't
agree with everything that Trump does, but what I do
admire most about it it is you think about all
of the incoming, just like Elon Musk, all the incoming
that they're facing, and then boom, he just says, yeah, literally,

(34:18):
hold my beer and watch this, and suddenly border crossings
are down to virtually nothing. But we're actually deporting people.
We're actually taking them off the courthouse steps and sending
them back to El Salvador or Guatemala or wherever the
hell they came from. And then Claush Schwab resigns. I'd say, hey,

(34:39):
it's a good day. It's a really good day. Taxpayer
relief shots. Are we going to do that today?

Speaker 3 (34:44):
Dragon Giffy May's okay, all right,