Nevada lawyer Sam Mirojovsky discusses restorative justice, bullying, and abuse of SNAP benefits.
Follow Maverick Broadcasting Network on Pickax to catch the full lineup of shows and breaking news: https://pickax.com/maverickbroadcasting
Protect your financial future with precious metals! Get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from My Gold Guy today and take control of your financial destiny! https://mygoldguy.com/mbn
Indulge in the finest quality with Freedom First Beef – sous vide, freeze-dried, and ready to savor today or in a decade. Order now using code MBN for a 25% discount. https://maverickbeef.com
Be ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code BOBANDERIC for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/mbn.
Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Supermassive Black Coffee. Order now using code MBN and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://supermassiveblackcoffee.com.com
Follow Maverick Broadcasting Network on Pickax to catch the full lineup of shows and breaking news: https://pickax.com/maverickbroadcasting
Protect your financial future with precious metals! Get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from My Gold Guy today and take control of your financial destiny! https://mygoldguy.com/mbn
Indulge in the finest quality with Freedom First Beef – sous vide, freeze-dried, and ready to savor today or in a decade. Order now using code MBN for a 25% discount. https://maverickbeef.com
Be ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code BOBANDERIC for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/mbn.
Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Supermassive Black Coffee. Order now using code MBN and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://supermassiveblackcoffee.com.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Ha keep Americ. Can you keep America?
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We'll keep Amrin congrae.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Ha keep himnic. Can you keep America? We'll keep him
ever cold gray Ah, keep Americ. Can you keep America?
We'll keep Emervin.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Cocree, Good morning and good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Everybody. Let me bring my co host in. There is
a waiting for him.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Yeah, tuck it that you were way down there.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I had to had to bring you in. How you
doing all right?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Welcome to the Bomb and Eric Save America Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
My name is Bobdaa and my name is Eric WATHEI.
Thank you all for tuning in.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Guys, if you haven't already, please hit up the Patreon
patroon dot com slash Bob Neerkay. That you give helps
Joe continue to come to you week in and week out.
And one thing I don't push enough is subscribe. Subscribe,
subscribe subscribe. On iTunes, we're back on Spotify. We've been
back on Spotify for a while. I really thought it
was a badge of honor that we've been kicked off,
but apparently the powers that be let us back on.
(01:10):
So yeah, so that's it. And with that being said, guys,
we are live and we want to thank you again
for joining us. Some big things in the news this week,
and the one thing I want to talk about, which
is getting a lot of traction, is what's going on
in Texas with Carmelo Anthony. So we see, obviously everybody
knows the story by now, two young kids get into
(01:31):
an argument.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
And a track meet.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Carmelo Anthony is a black teenager and the other young
gentleman is a white teenager.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
White teenager's name is Austin. Apparently asked him to move
or something.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
A little altercation ensued, and Carmelo pulls out a knife
and stabs him in the heart.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
And kills him.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So there's a million dollar bond. In the state of Florida.
There will be no bond because we don't have bond
on murder cases. So they have a million dollar bond.
And then there's a huge public outcry from people who
are supporting.
Speaker 4 (01:59):
Carmelo Anthony seeing it some kind of a racial retribution case.
I guess I'm drying equivalencies, like the opposite of Trayvon Martin,
that kind of thing, Except the rains are reversed and
the judge reduces the bond from a million to two
hundred and fifty thousand, and now they've retained like these
branding experts, these community organizers who are putting rallies together.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
They have a GoFundMe. It's almost half a million dollars.
Apparently the families and an eight hundred thousand dollars house
escalated the works and restorative justice has taken on a
number of meanings in the modern era, not just with sentencing,
but with the way courts react to public pressure. I
want to bring in right now a fellow attorney, Sam Mirajowski,
(02:43):
is a lawyer with twenty years experience based out of
Las Vegas, who has experience not only with cases involving bullying,
because they're alleging that Austin Metcalf, the kid who was killed, sadly,
was bullying Carmelo Anthony, and you've dealt with this in
firsthand restorative justice policy.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
Es.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
First, we'll Sam, Welcome to the show, and good to
have you here.
Speaker 6 (03:05):
Great to be with you guys, Love the show, Love
everything you guys do. Thanks for having me my pleasure.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Now, obviously you being a lawyer and watching that going
on in the news right now, when you saw the
judge take that bond from a million dollars to two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars on a murder case. And
typically I don't know how it is in Las Vegas,
but here in Florida, murder is non bondable. You really
have to go through some hoops if you're even able
to get a bond in a case like that, and
the judge goes ahead and reduces it from a million
(03:32):
to two hundred and fifty thousand.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Do you see in your experience and just generally in
the legal profession, that judges and judicial decisions are being
heavily influenced by how much media pressure exists in a
particular case.
Speaker 6 (03:46):
Well, I mean, yeah, obviously media pressure is a part
of it. I always think for me, like, I've been
following this case very closely because it kind of resembles
in some ways a case that I'm working on right now.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
And I'll get into that in a moment.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
But what what I see is I see judges a
lot of times, you know, make decisions based on on compassion.
I think that's what they would call it. They make
decisions based on what, you know, they think is is
fair and right. The problem is that you know, I
(04:23):
judges ought to be looking out for the victim and
the victims families, and so I, you know, I see
a lot of judges out there, really, you know, getting
too deep in the weeds of of being, of being woke,
of being, of being overly sensitive about taking factors into
consideration that really don't matter. For example, race, to me
(04:47):
doesn't matter. Somebody's socioeconomic background doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
You know.
Speaker 6 (04:52):
An an allegation of murder in the first degree is
a is a big fricking deal, right, So, and I
sort of remem in my head. For me, it's justice
is colorblind. And so I remove all those factors, and
I think the judge here, without getting into her mind,
I think it's not.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
Just the public pressure of it.
Speaker 6 (05:10):
But she obviously, you know, feels bad for you know,
the purp, and you know, in my world, I feel
more bad for the victim, you know, I you know.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
And I understand it.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
And I'm a criminal defense attorney, sam, I mean that's
what I do. So I, you know, being a political
and social commentator on one side, but being a defense
attorney the oother I have to think about it. Okay,
So Carmelo Anthony is innocent till proven guilty, He's got
all the rights in the world. And the purpose of
a bond is the overlying purpose is to make sure
that the accused appears in court. However, other factors judges
(05:43):
have to consider is the nature of the crime, prior history,
ties to the community, and of course are they a
danger to the community. So if I'm a judge, I
have to look at it. Look, you have no prior history,
obviously have ties to the community. The carrying a knife
on schools, a little teenage shoving match, all of a
sudden turns into murder, which should have been maybe a
(06:05):
disorderly conduct or a battery. Now you're looking at murder.
The thing about it is a million dollar bond means
one hundred thousand dollars premium paid to the bill bondsman.
And at the time that the attorneys were moving for
the bond production, they had over four hundred thousand dollars
in their GoFundMe They had the ability to post a
million dollar bond. So I think it's disingenuous for them
to come in asking for a bond production when they
(06:26):
have well more than the one hundred thousand dollars needed
to post the bond unless it was a cash only
bond and they weren't accepting surety. But from what I understand,
it was a standard million dollars surety was accepted. So
if they had four hundred thousand dollars at the time
they're moving for a bond, that doesn't make sense to me.
The judge should say, well, how much is in that account?
You have the financial ability to make the bond a
(06:47):
million dollars on the charges fair and leave it.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
As it is.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
Yeah, the entire point of it, just for the audience
center stand is for the cash amount to be painful
enough to not for people to not want to lose it, right,
I mean, that's that's the whole point. So if if
you have four times the available cash amount, then then
you know this almost is it should be a non issue.
That's what I'm getting on. I just think it was performative.
(07:11):
I think that the judge here is bound to public
pressure and looking at this through a through a a
separate prism, then she ought to There are, like you mentioned,
there are factors for why you you know, for when
bail is appropriate and when it ought to be granted,
and things that are weighed, and I just don't think
she did it here.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
I agree, you know, Bob, looking at it from from
a non lawyer perspective, I mean, what is what is
the general public to make of this? From a million
dollars to two hundred and fifty thousand. But you look
at similarly situated cases where the races are flipped, do
you see.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
This being a racial issue.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
I think the judge is just woking, rooting through the
black kid says she's a Republican.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Though than a Rhino. Do you think that?
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, I mean, here's the thing, and just to say
way briefly, and then Sam, I want to get your
perspective on these bullying cases.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
And we're sort of justice because I know you have
what you're dealing with.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
But my concern, and we saw it with Derek Chauvin,
we've seen it with other high profile cases where race
is involved, is that it's a strategy in some of
these cases where the family, you know, doing these play
by play NBA press conferences every day is not a
good look. They need to be quiet and let the
lawyers do their jobs. But they've hired like these pitch
people who are these social justice community organizers who are
(08:35):
coming out as spokespeople for the family, they have a
press conference where they kick the father and the victim out.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Mind you, after the father.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
The victims that I forgive and then they kick them
out of the press conference. What I see sam as
a dangerous trend. We're in these high profile race cases
where race is obviously, you know, a factor in the case,
where they can put enough pressure on the public and
(09:01):
create this outcry and sort of try their case the
media before it ever goes to trial. We're one of
the chances of finding an impartial jury is slim next
to none. But then also what you're gonna see when
this case goes to trial. These social justice warriors are
going to be outside the courthouse every day in huge,
huge numbers, protesting, and you're gonna here, remember whether it
was Chovin and with Rittenhouse, in some of these cases,
(09:23):
the jurors would say, hey, someone's following me or someone's
taking my picture, to the point where the jury's intimidated.
I see a dangerous trend in that direction. When we
put a case like this out in the public and
it becomes tried in the media before it's ever tried
to court.
Speaker 6 (09:37):
A law Yeah, well so There's two parts to that, right,
I mean, I think obviously we're in a place right
now in our country beyond just the car you know's
Anthony case.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
Carmen Anthony.
Speaker 6 (09:50):
We have a far bigger problem that the left, and
I sincerely believe this is using really terroristic threats to
get their way doing it. I mean, look, the entire
organized attacks on Tesla, on Tesla owners, on dealerships, on
you know, individuals, have nothing to do with Elon Musker,
(10:10):
Donald Trump. The purpose behind it is to terrify the
public into causing economic pain to an opponent, to a
political opponent. And you know, you know this is from
the side of course, it's screens democracy. So when you
go back to the Chauvin case, right, and and you're
exactly right, jurors were terrified. Can you imagine if somebody voted,
(10:34):
you know, not guilty. You know, people were, people on
that jury were afraid for their lives. Absolutely, So is
it do we have a democracy? Because you know, we've
heard a lot about democracy in the last four years.
Do we have a democracy? Do we have you know,
do we have you know, are people on a jury
actually allowed to exercise their independent judgment? You know, under
(10:57):
the Constitution to to to render you know, a verdict.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
I don't think so. So you're You're absolutely right. And
these people, these people are our professional agitators. Now the
First Amendment allows them to do what they do. You know,
it is it is, you know, the world that we
live in. But they are they're absolutely, in my view,
just just despicable and and I you know, I think
(11:24):
it's you know, I think obviously, you know, to say
the country, we're all going to need to grow spine.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
You know, Sam, your one hundred percent right about the
terrorism and resorting to that to get their way. And
you know, with with twenty one percent approval Democrats, they
lost the House, they lost the Senate, they lost the presidency.
They have a rare opportunity now to take a step
back and go, why are.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
We losing people? Why are we bleeding support?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
We used to have issues that a significant portion of
Americans could believe it.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Where did we go wrong?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
And rather than taking that approach, they've gone to we're
firebombing Tesla plans and we're sending Congress people down to
l Salvador.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Now, we had.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
January six ers American citizens who protested an election, sit
in solitary confinement from January twenty twenty one until Trump
pardoned them. And maybe you know, I think Marjorie Taylor
Green paid a visit one time Congress our Republican congressmen
and women pretended like they didn't exist. Say what you
will about the Democrats, but you know, when they go
all in on something, they certainly do. And I think
(12:24):
we are seeing a more and more desperate, terrified Democrat
party that sees a country that they want to create
no longer being a possibility because so many people have
rejected their vision and they're willing to do whatever it
takes to get it. And we saw what they did
in the summer of twenty twenty. We see what they're
doing in the courts, We see what they're doing with
the justice system, and certainly that the pivots Back to
what I want to talk to you about is about
(12:45):
restorative justice policies and how there's a death that you're
dealing with as an attorney. So tell us about this
case that you're dealing with in the state of Nevada.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
Yeah, So.
Speaker 6 (12:57):
You know, restorative justice, you know, is a woke agenda
that's seeping its way into schools. We you know, we
are familiar with it in the constant in the context
of the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Right.
Speaker 6 (13:09):
We know, everybody's heard of the Soros Das that are
running around and letting you know, repeat offenders out on
the street, making it a policy to allow criminals to
basically get get away with committing crime, all in the
name of you know, understanding their plight, right, their background, whatever,
(13:30):
you know, whatever, you know, disadvantages they had, you know,
growing up, whatever it is. So this, this idea has
been and it's not just here in Nevada, It's been
It's been happening across the country. Is getting into the
school districts and guys, I think this is the most
this is one of the most dangerous things that has
(13:51):
been quietly happening in America. And I think it's it's
it's a real threat, and I'm glad it's finally getting
some attention. So what we have here I represent the
father of a boy who was who was viciously murdered
back in twenty twenty three. You know, he was a
student at a local high school here in Las Vegas,
(14:12):
and he you know, intervened in a in an incident
of we'll call it a bullying incident, but basically a
bunch of kids were picking on a smaller, younger kid,
and my client's son bravely intervened in the event and
was beaten to death in broad daylight. Now, you know, I,
I don't want to say it's funny, I I it's
(14:34):
it's tragic for me because even before twenty twenty three,
you know, on my show, I had already been talking
about this restorative justice crap because you know, these kids
in these schools, they, you know, and particularly by the way,
the kids that come from a broken home, the kids
that come from the wrong side of town, the ones
(14:55):
that have it rough, they ought to be going to
school and be taught how to be productive people, meaning
accountability for your actions, meaning there are you know, corrective
steps taken when you misbehave and when when we passed
this you know this this bill our Democrat legislature here
in Nevada, it was called AB one sixty eight. This
(15:17):
is back in twenty nineteen. Everything went off the rails here.
And you know I have had I have had easily
fifty educators across southern Nevada. You know, email me, write me,
send me anonymously, send me, you know, packets of information
from from the school district. They cannot remove disruptive students.
(15:40):
And I you know, the case here with with with
Jonathan and his death is that when you look at
the at the background of these kids, it it didn't
start with murder, right, It didn't start with beating somebody
to a pulp. It started with, you know, disrespectful behavior
in the classroom, disruptive behavior.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
It started.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
It's small, but when you don't correct it. I mean,
I have three kids, right, If I left my kids
get away with anything and run amok and be disrespectful
to their mother, you know, eventually I'm going to have
a bigger problem than just a mouthy kid. And that
is what's going on in our schools. And it's and
I actually, honestly, this is where the left absolutely loses
me and ought to lose everybody with a little with
(16:22):
a shred of common sense. You know, guess who this
hurts the most, you know, because it's it's the kids
from good families and good homes that still have you know,
a parent that's going to step in and say, hey,
cut it out. But these people who have you know,
who have parents that are missing that. And it's it's sad,
it absolutely is, but it is not compassionate to let
(16:46):
them just get away with it and you know, and
and not do anything about it as a matter of law,
right because the idea behind AB one sixty eight was, well, geez,
we've got a whole bunch of you know, minority kids
that keep getting expelled. What are we going to do
about it? I guess we're gonna prevent the schools from
expelling bad kids. I mean, that's that's the world upside down.
(17:10):
So the way I look at it is I actually
think that my client's death was preventable, and it was
preventable at the policy level, at the political policy level
of our state and perhaps of our country.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
And it's tragic and it braced my heart and it does.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
And the problem is that they've put so many roadblocks
where you know, it starts out with disruption, school fights,
it doesn't just turn into murder overnight. And the teachers,
the school districts have really had their hands tied behind
their back that they can do nothing. I mean, and
the parents or the parent unfortunately in many situations, are
are very quick to rush to the kids aid, Yay,
(17:48):
your kid was disruptive. Well, no, he wasn't. You're a
bad teacher. I remember when I was a kid. You know,
I was a good kid. But if I ever like
the teacher the princi Will ever called home, I was guilty.
To prove it innocent, I was. I was more afraid
of my parents than anything the school could do for me.
And you know, my wife has worked in education, and
I've seen it from that side where it starts at home.
(18:11):
You know, you hey, your kids, and your kids disruptive,
although you can't say that about my kid. And then
they get a lawyer and they threaten to sue the
school district, and the school district ocave every time. They're
terrified of litigation. They're terrified of being branded as you know,
God forbid that. You know, the kids of a different background,
they're being branded, oh you're racist or picking.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
On the black kid. So I think a lot of
school districts have thrown their hands up and said we
no longer care. And for whatever reason, the Democrat Party,
the teachers' unions embraced that mentality that we're not going
to help your kids, We're not going to make them better.
We're going to lower standards and we're going to pass
them through. I mean, how many of these kids, sam
are graduating high school? They can barely read, you know,
(18:48):
they they've.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Done away with flunking these kids who should who should
be repeating grades. But no, that's discriminatory.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
Well, Eric, I mean you've just spoken so much truth there.
I love everything you said. You know, my parents, imigrant
parents from Eastern Europe, come to this country with nothing.
And uh and if I if the teacher said jump,
you know, I had a jump, and it was the
teacher was always right, and I was always wrong. So
that's how I grew up. And I you know, but
(19:16):
but you know, there is a difference between a fear
of lawsuit and you know some you know, parents being
you know, being angry and suing, and and a and
a government policy a law that literally ties the teacher's
hands behind their backs and cannot remove a disruptive student
from the classroom. So I think it's we've even taken
(19:38):
it a step further by, you know, by a legislative fiat.
And that that is the part that is just where
it's gone completely over the over the edge. And then
you know, I think again, I come back to the
fact that this this hurts the very people that they
purport to want to help, and and that, by the way,
(19:58):
isn't that kind of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
The whole Yeah, yeah, I mean we've talked about that
for years. That's they they are not helping. They are
not helping, they are hurting, They're enabling. But you've got
to understand, Sam, that behind all of this and sort
of the umbrella under which they fall is the idea
that the government is here to take care of you.
And if you're independent, if you're self reliant, if you
(20:22):
can succeed on your own, then you don't need the government.
They want to create a dependent class that cannot survive
on its own. And that's the problem. That's where we're
no longer dealing with these stylistic differences between left and right.
These are substantial differences. These are two different countries that
we want to exist in.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
Yeah, they want they want these graduates. And you know,
your wife's a teacher. My wife volunteers in our schools here,
public schools in Las Vegas once a week to do
reading and she you know, there's there are fourth and
fifth graders that cannot read and these are not e
sl students, right, just plain old born raised, you know
(21:01):
in America, kids who cannot read not special at not right,
I just it's horrifying and to your point, you almost
if one was cynical, like maybe we are sometimes occasionally
when when looking at what Democrats do, you'd think it
was all part of a grand plan. Because the less these,
(21:22):
you know, kids can do for themselves graduating high school,
the more likely they are to vote for the party
that promises free stuff, yeah and care and don't worry,
We got your back. And the party that says we
just want you to be independent, succeed on your own
and get the hell out of your way, and facilitate
your success by not interfering with you, that party starts
(21:46):
to lose political power the fewer independent people there are
in society.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
That's one hundred percent true. So what's going on with
the Nevada bill right now? What's the state of that
law as we sit here today.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
Well, they've peeled some of it back, thankfully, So it's
you know, they're they've they've they've passed a subsequent bill
a couple of years back. The new governor, we have
a Republican governor now Lombardo.
Speaker 5 (22:12):
Joe's a great guy.
Speaker 6 (22:14):
So that AB three thirty and it you know, it's
called the Safer and Supportive Schools Act, you know, but
we had six years of damage. So it's it's almost
too soon to tell. And you know, my listeners that
communicate with me about this and and give me the
inside scoop, you know, teachers and people inside the district
(22:35):
tell me that it's just it's still there and and
it's you know, the the.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
The restorative There still is restorative justice.
Speaker 6 (22:43):
It's just less, it's less of it. So I think
we have I think we have a way. I think
we've got a way to go. And I think, you know,
education is one of those things where you know, number one,
I don't think you know, we focus a lot on
test scores and how we're behind compared to other countries.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
That of course is true. But you can't learn in.
Speaker 6 (23:05):
A classroom that has you know, in thirty five students
forty students in some high school classrooms where there are
two constant disruptive you know students, right, you can't learn
in that environment. And so we need to actually turn
this on its head. We need to say enough is enough,
and we are giving more tools legislatively to school districts
(23:27):
to to get rid of, you know, problematic students, to
punish them, to hold parents accountable. I've always thought, you know,
I've always thought was one of the best things. And
you know, certain states have it, you know, going after parents,
you know, liability for you know, for things that their
kids are doing, and and and it and it. You know,
(23:50):
I think there has to be something here that turns
the tide on this because you know, it's it's you know,
it's funny because you said bull and that this was
a bullying case.
Speaker 5 (24:02):
You know, I really I hate that word. I don't
know why.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
I hate that.
Speaker 6 (24:08):
It's such a weasly word because or you know, because
what is bullying?
Speaker 5 (24:13):
We've overused it.
Speaker 6 (24:14):
I remember what I remember bullies, and I remember what
my parents told me about bullies. We'll just pop them
on the nose. And I said, well, if I do that,
we all get suspended. And maybe that was because I
grew up in the eighties and nineties in school, you know,
and maybe that was the beginning of the end where
we didn't look at right and wrong and we sort
(24:34):
of just said no fighting, right, no fighting so then kids,
you know, you know. Then then the next step from that,
right as we devolved towards this restorative justice thing, is
we as we then really got into you know, the
background of the kid and what you know, understanding and
being being so sensitive to everything. I think, I don't know.
(24:55):
I think we got to get bullying. Is you got
to teach kids to be resilient. We got to teach kids,
you know, sticks and stones can break my bones, but
words can't hurt me. Remember that we use that all
the I had a teacher tell me that I complained,
Oh Johnny's being mean to me.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Is you like, get over it?
Speaker 6 (25:09):
You know, And now it's oh my gosh, you say
something and it's the end of the world. And you know,
and and and we are, we across the board are
making our kids less resilient, and that is is tragic
and it's actually, I mean, that's separative restorative justice. Even
that you know, we've we've called everything bullying, right, you know,
(25:31):
somebody being mean is bullying.
Speaker 5 (25:33):
And you know, and you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
I mean the first thing you do coming out of
law school is you run into a bully judge and
all of a sudden, you want bullying, go go to
federal court as a lawyer, as a first year lawyer. Yeah,
I'll show you bullying right. It's it's it's hilarious to me.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
It is.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
And look, the world is nasty and cruel, and you
got to have a thick skin.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
And we've done that.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
We've really weakened our kids' abilities, and we've taught them,
you know, under no circumstances should you engage in a fight.
And I don't believe in that. I come from the
eighties and nineties as well, and I think that you know,
someone calls you a name, you walk away. But I've
told both my kids, and they're both high degree black
belts in taekwondo, but I've told them, you know, if
someone starts a physical fight with you or threatens your safety,
(26:17):
you do what you need to do, and I.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Will have your back. To school will suspend you. I
get it. I will have your back. But the idea
about bullying, you know, someone who'll called me a name
and it hurts my feelings and things like that and
make anyone so sensitive. We got a tough of these
kids up, We really do. And I and we over
use that term bullying all the time, and honestly, to
some degree, you know, before you start getting into the
serious violence.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
Unfortunately we've seen it devolved into. But back in our day,
I think a little bullying was healthy because it kept
you on your toes, It kept you on your toes,
It made you tougher, and you know it just it
makes you. You develop a thick skin and you're able
to handle the world. And Sam, I fear for that too.
I have a two boys, fourteen and twelve, and I
fear for the world they're coming into. Are we doing
(27:01):
enough as parents to give them the coping mechanisms they need?
But growing up in the eighties and nineties, we had
so much more independence than we give our kids now.
Our kids really don't have a lot of independence from
their parents. I feel like we're very involved in their lives.
I remember being five six years old, kind of like
roaming my neighborhood no cell phone, no no, no. My
parents would if I got abducted, they would never know.
I mean, but we turned out okay. I mean we
(27:24):
rely on those skills every day.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
Yeah, and I think about it, you know this, I
always go by the way I've got two girls that
are twelve and fourteen, so we shall talk, and a
seventeen year old boy and I so, you know, and
I've I hold off on giving him the phone. Bob
lifted up his Phone's great. It reminds me of do
you guys use the Life three sixty app? Right, because
(27:48):
this is if you don't know. But parents use this
app and they track their kids and where they're at
and how fast they're going where, And you know, it's great,
but you know, the kids have no autonomy allmost they
have no freedom, and so at some point in life,
suddenly they will have freedom. Right you can't have You
(28:08):
can't keep them under your control forever. Isn't it better
to give them a little bit of freedom when they're twelve,
to ride their bike around the neighborhood. At fourteen, to
go to the mall, you know, on a Saturday with
friends without you stalking them as a parent. Right at
at sixteen, you know, to start the driving thing, and
you know, to gradually work them up into adulthood. Our
(28:31):
kids are capable of independence, they're capable of developing and
understanding limits. In fact, it's very important and it ties
into this restorative justice conversation because you know, again, why
would you legislate away from school districts, authority figures, right,
teachers and administrators in junior highs and high schools the
(28:55):
ability to you know, give you know, kids some corrective
you know, consequences that would help them become better decision
makers as they become adults. I think it's it's just
so it's so regressive.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
It is, It absolutely is.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
And yeah, that's that's a problem that we're seeing more
and more. And I think a lot of what we're seeing,
certainly in young boys, kind of this failure to launch,
like coming out of school and not having direction, not
having success, you know, getting into relationships. They say something
whether what was there was a stat that came out
something as a huge percentage of boys like eighteen to
(29:35):
twenty nine have never asked the girl out on a
date before. I mean, these are things like our parents
and grandparents' generation. I mean, by the time they were
like twenty one, they were married with three were married yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
My grand both my grandparents were my mom's parents. That
they were married at like nineteen or twenty, which was
what you did back then. And then by the time
(29:56):
they were twenty four to twenty five, had three kids,
you know, full job and more, all making like seventy
dollars a week whatever you made back then, juryful world
back then.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Yeah, and then they bought a house. But that's a
separate that's a separate conversation. But you know, you know,
one of the downsides too of technology and not to
get far afield, but two is the is just the
dating apps. And you know, I thankfully dated and got
married before all of that hit and today one of
the most tragic things, particularly for young women.
Speaker 5 (30:27):
So those of you out.
Speaker 6 (30:28):
There who are fathers of girls, you know, be aware
of this and tell your kids early on. These guys
are on there, you know, and they're they're they're got
four or five girls a week.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
It's so easy.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
You just click and you know, and you know, being
being done and and then there's no courtship. There's no
effort on the part of the guys, and the girls
all think that they're that they're meeting people and they're
they're working toward the goal of you know, finding the
one and starting a family and whatever, getting on the
path of life. And all of a sudden, you know,
(31:00):
they hit thirty and they've just been churned and burned
in them in a dating mess. It's all part of this,
this kind of this new world that we're in, and
you know, it's it's not it's not good. And I sense,
maybe it's my optimism, but I sense that there's younger
men now, or or the younger people now are seeing
this damage happen and are you know, there's more independence,
(31:23):
more desire to kind of be more traditional, you know,
trad wife, trad life type of stuff. I see that
becoming a thing more than it was ten years ago.
So fingers crossed that. You know, we're we're gonna, we're
gonna get find our way out of this.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
But it is scary, it is.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
I think there is definitely some pushback, and I think
people are yearning for a time that was simpler. And certainly,
I know my kids all the time we're asking about
the world before the Internet, and it was a it
was a great place.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
It was a great place, and we loved it here.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
So anyway, I wanted to before I let you go,
I wanted to talk about one thing that was in
the news a couple of weeks ago, is snap benefits,
and there were some conservative influencers online who apparently got
propositioned by Big Soda to push like, hey, it's freedom,
do what you want for your SNAP benefits. So you've
got some experience with that. Obviously your parents are immigrants
(32:14):
and you came here in the US, and I don't
know they did they have a SNAP when you were
a kid or how did that work?
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (32:22):
Well, I first off, I didn't get bought off by
Big Soda. I thought it was so odd that accounts did.
I typically trust in people that I think are common sense,
that they were completely diametrically opposed to my in the
moment opinion about it, which by the way, hasn't changed.
And it's very simple. You know, my parents came to
this country, you know, the right way, the legal way,
(32:45):
and and we were, you know, very poor. My mom
was a post doc at a big university and making
them just I mean, we were below the poverty line.
My parents never took any benefits. But I remember growing
up once, you know, I was a little bit older,
and my parents telling me stories about how they would
(33:05):
go to the store and they would see people lining
up with food stamps and they would have all of
the things in the cart that my parents couldn't even
afford right a lot of goodies. So you know, I've
grown up and anyway, my parents weren't resentful about it,
but they're just pointing it out that that is, you know,
when they're teaching me about the failings of welfare. You know,
(33:25):
they pointed this out as an example that poverty is
meant to suck, right, and government help. And this is
going to sound terrible, but government help is not there
to make you live a great life. Government help is
there when it comes to food, to make sure you
don't starve. So if you're accepting other people's hard earned
(33:49):
wages via taxation that has been channeled into a public
benefit or service, you're not entitled to get potato chips.
You're not entitled to get your favorite soda or ice
cream or anything. You can get pasta, you can get rice,
you can get flour, you can get bread, you can
get the basics. And so I even feel I'm even
(34:11):
actually more restrictive when it comes to what I would
do and a perfume. If I were the king of everything,
I would you know, Look, I think you know, I
I think you know, the the help that you get
from the state and if you look at like, you know,
maybe like the LDS Church has a great model for this,
you know, the Bishop Storehouse, And I can you basically
(34:33):
give somebody enough so that they don't starve, so that
they are able to function and they're able to live,
but you're not, you're not sustaining you know, lifestyle, and
that we have to change our thinking on that. I
think it actually goes beyond the SODO.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
I I agree. I think that you know, you said
something that's very unpopular but needs to be said.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Poverty is meant to suck.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
And you know, the same thing we argue when they
talk about, you know, restaurant wants to jack up their
minimum wage and then they have to raise prices, they
go out of business. Minimum wage is not meant to
be permanent. Poverty is not meant to be permanent. Temporary
assistance is meant so you don't starve, so your kids
have something to eat, so you have nutrition, and you
can move on and better your circumstances. And we've created
(35:16):
a welfare state, and the Democrats, like we talked about
earlier in the show, have embraced the idea of creating
complete government dependents. But I agree with you. I thought
it was to be careful who you follow out there
and who you listen to, the quote unquote influencers that
you know, someone sends them a message and says, hey,
I'll pay one hundred dollars to put out this post.
And you know, snap should really be for the basics
(35:37):
that you need so you don't starve, and you've got
to take an ISI to get off of it. I
remember back in the nineties it was a big Democrat
talking point under Clinton when they were talking about work
requirements for welfare recipients.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
And that's gone by the wayside.
Speaker 6 (35:51):
Hey, Eric, you and I are old enough apparently to
remember a time when a Democrat was talking about cleaning
up welfare. I don't know where where are we now?
And there's a there's another component to it too, of course, right,
which is, you know, if if you want me to
pay for your soda, but you also want me to
(36:12):
pay for your all of your health care, for example,
that's messed up. I I don't drink soda, and I
don't drink soda because I kind of want to live
a little bit longer and I want my you know,
my later years in life to be you know to
be to be high quality, and so you know it
is a fact if you're obese, you're going to have
higher medical expenditures.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
And so if.
Speaker 6 (36:34):
You're you're wanting me to subsidize the very lifestyle that
then will require further state money. My money, your money, right,
your listener's money, everybody's money, taxpayers money, to uh to
to to keep you alive. It's just not right and
it doesn't pass the common sense test.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
Yeah, Sam makes a good point.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yeah, if we're paying for your health insurance and we're
paying for your food, we have a vested interest in
your health. We have a monetary interest in your health,
and it doesn't make sense. But again, Sam, this is
what the left wants. They want a full society where
there are no consequences, there's no accountability. Tax the hell
out of hard working, law abiding people, and give to
(37:18):
everyone else. I've said it so many times. I think
the law abiding, honest, tax paying American citizen is the
biggest sucker on the planet because you're paying into a
system that hates you, abuses you, and that the drop
of a hat, an illegal immigrant will get deported to
El Salvador and they'll come to their aid, But you're
out of luck. If you're in Maui when it's burning,
or North Carolina or chemical spill in Ohio, you're completely
(37:41):
on your own. And again, because we have nothing of
value to offer the government other than our tax dollars,
our minds, and the words we speak are dangerous to
their power structure, and they want people who are simply
going to listen because they're dependent upon them. And if
you're not dependent upon the government, you're an enemy of
the government. Sam, I want to thank you so much
for coming on. Where can people find you to hear
more from you?
Speaker 5 (38:00):
My pleasure? You guys are great, Thank you, So where
can we find you at? What's Right? Sam?
Speaker 6 (38:06):
That's my Twitter handle And I have a show on
all the platforms. I'm actually haven't been kicked off of
Spotify yet, so that's the What's Right Show. I'm based
in Las Vegas, but I talk about national issues and
lifelong conservative and son of immigrants and I have a
I think we have got a great program and I
love what I do.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Nice Sam, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate your.
Speaker 5 (38:30):
Take take care, see you guys here.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
You know what what is your thought that bring bring
shame back.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
I thought. I've been saying that. I've been saying that
since day one of our show. We need more shame.
We don't have enough shame. We need we need shame
of every kind. We need to shame people for how
they eat, their lifestyle. Lifestyle was that how they look, buddy.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
We were a stronger society when there were shame and
you got made fun of. And it goes back to bullying.
There should be a little bit of bullying. Yep. That
being said, guys, I want to thank you all for
tuning in. We will not have a show next week.
I will be out of town. I'm going to a wedding.
I haven't been to a wedding in so many years
because I'm forty three and most of my friends have
(39:15):
gotten married by now. But dear dear friend of mine,
who I've known my entire life, finally, at my age
forty three, is getting married for the first time, so
hopefully the only time. So I am going to that wedding.
So I'll be in Los Angeles for quick forty eight hours,
so we will see you the following week.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
Guys, take care and enjoy your weekend. Thank you. I'm blessed.
Speaker 1 (39:35):
Yeah, keep America. You keep America. Welcome americ Co, Gray
(39:58):
cap America.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Don't keep America.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
We'll keep americ to gree
Ha keep Americ. Can you keep America?
Speaker 2 (00:06):
We'll keep Amrin congrae.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Ha keep himnic. Can you keep America? We'll keep him
ever cold gray Ah, keep Americ. Can you keep America?
We'll keep Emervin.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Cocree, Good morning and good afternoon.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Everybody. Let me bring my co host in. There is
a waiting for him.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Yeah, tuck it that you were way down there.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I had to had to bring you in. How you
doing all right?
Speaker 3 (00:41):
Welcome to the Bomb and Eric Save America Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
My name is Bobdaa and my name is Eric WATHEI.
Thank you all for tuning in.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Guys, if you haven't already, please hit up the Patreon
patroon dot com slash Bob Neerkay. That you give helps
Joe continue to come to you week in and week out.
And one thing I don't push enough is subscribe. Subscribe,
subscribe subscribe. On iTunes, we're back on Spotify. We've been
back on Spotify for a while. I really thought it
was a badge of honor that we've been kicked off,
but apparently the powers that be let us back on.
(01:10):
So yeah, so that's it. And with that being said, guys,
we are live and we want to thank you again
for joining us. Some big things in the news this week,
and the one thing I want to talk about, which
is getting a lot of traction, is what's going on
in Texas with Carmelo Anthony. So we see, obviously everybody
knows the story by now, two young kids get into
(01:31):
an argument.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
And a track meet.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Carmelo Anthony is a black teenager and the other young
gentleman is a white teenager.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
White teenager's name is Austin. Apparently asked him to move
or something.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
A little altercation ensued, and Carmelo pulls out a knife
and stabs him in the heart.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
And kills him.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So there's a million dollar bond. In the state of Florida.
There will be no bond because we don't have bond
on murder cases. So they have a million dollar bond.
And then there's a huge public outcry from people who
are supporting.
Speaker 4 (01:59):
Carmelo Anthony seeing it some kind of a racial retribution case.
I guess I'm drying equivalencies, like the opposite of Trayvon Martin,
that kind of thing, Except the rains are reversed and
the judge reduces the bond from a million to two
hundred and fifty thousand, and now they've retained like these
branding experts, these community organizers who are putting rallies together.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
They have a GoFundMe. It's almost half a million dollars.
Apparently the families and an eight hundred thousand dollars house
escalated the works and restorative justice has taken on a
number of meanings in the modern era, not just with sentencing,
but with the way courts react to public pressure. I
want to bring in right now a fellow attorney, Sam Mirajowski,
(02:43):
is a lawyer with twenty years experience based out of
Las Vegas, who has experience not only with cases involving bullying,
because they're alleging that Austin Metcalf, the kid who was killed, sadly,
was bullying Carmelo Anthony, and you've dealt with this in
firsthand restorative justice policy.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
Es.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
First, we'll Sam, Welcome to the show, and good to
have you here.
Speaker 6 (03:05):
Great to be with you guys, Love the show, Love
everything you guys do. Thanks for having me my pleasure.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Now, obviously you being a lawyer and watching that going
on in the news right now, when you saw the
judge take that bond from a million dollars to two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars on a murder case. And
typically I don't know how it is in Las Vegas,
but here in Florida, murder is non bondable. You really
have to go through some hoops if you're even able
to get a bond in a case like that, and
the judge goes ahead and reduces it from a million
(03:32):
to two hundred and fifty thousand.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Do you see in your experience and just generally in
the legal profession, that judges and judicial decisions are being
heavily influenced by how much media pressure exists in a
particular case.
Speaker 6 (03:46):
Well, I mean, yeah, obviously media pressure is a part
of it. I always think for me, like, I've been
following this case very closely because it kind of resembles
in some ways a case that I'm working on right now.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
And I'll get into that in a moment.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
But what what I see is I see judges a
lot of times, you know, make decisions based on on compassion.
I think that's what they would call it. They make
decisions based on what, you know, they think is is
fair and right. The problem is that you know, I
(04:23):
judges ought to be looking out for the victim and
the victims families, and so I, you know, I see
a lot of judges out there, really, you know, getting
too deep in the weeds of of being, of being woke,
of being, of being overly sensitive about taking factors into
consideration that really don't matter. For example, race, to me
(04:47):
doesn't matter. Somebody's socioeconomic background doesn't matter.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
You know.
Speaker 6 (04:52):
An an allegation of murder in the first degree is
a is a big fricking deal, right, So, and I
sort of remem in my head. For me, it's justice
is colorblind. And so I remove all those factors, and
I think the judge here, without getting into her mind,
I think it's not.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
Just the public pressure of it.
Speaker 6 (05:10):
But she obviously, you know, feels bad for you know,
the purp, and you know, in my world, I feel
more bad for the victim, you know, I you know.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
And I understand it.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
And I'm a criminal defense attorney, sam, I mean that's
what I do. So I, you know, being a political
and social commentator on one side, but being a defense
attorney the oother I have to think about it. Okay,
So Carmelo Anthony is innocent till proven guilty, He's got
all the rights in the world. And the purpose of
a bond is the overlying purpose is to make sure
that the accused appears in court. However, other factors judges
(05:43):
have to consider is the nature of the crime, prior history,
ties to the community, and of course are they a
danger to the community. So if I'm a judge, I
have to look at it. Look, you have no prior history,
obviously have ties to the community. The carrying a knife
on schools, a little teenage shoving match, all of a
sudden turns into murder, which should have been maybe a
(06:05):
disorderly conduct or a battery. Now you're looking at murder.
The thing about it is a million dollar bond means
one hundred thousand dollars premium paid to the bill bondsman.
And at the time that the attorneys were moving for
the bond production, they had over four hundred thousand dollars
in their GoFundMe They had the ability to post a
million dollar bond. So I think it's disingenuous for them
to come in asking for a bond production when they
(06:26):
have well more than the one hundred thousand dollars needed
to post the bond unless it was a cash only
bond and they weren't accepting surety. But from what I understand,
it was a standard million dollars surety was accepted. So
if they had four hundred thousand dollars at the time
they're moving for a bond, that doesn't make sense to me.
The judge should say, well, how much is in that account?
You have the financial ability to make the bond a
(06:47):
million dollars on the charges fair and leave it.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
As it is.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
Yeah, the entire point of it, just for the audience
center stand is for the cash amount to be painful
enough to not for people to not want to lose it, right,
I mean, that's that's the whole point. So if if
you have four times the available cash amount, then then
you know this almost is it should be a non issue.
That's what I'm getting on. I just think it was performative.
(07:11):
I think that the judge here is bound to public
pressure and looking at this through a through a a
separate prism, then she ought to There are, like you mentioned,
there are factors for why you you know, for when
bail is appropriate and when it ought to be granted,
and things that are weighed, and I just don't think
she did it here.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
I agree, you know, Bob, looking at it from from
a non lawyer perspective, I mean, what is what is
the general public to make of this? From a million
dollars to two hundred and fifty thousand. But you look
at similarly situated cases where the races are flipped, do
you see.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
This being a racial issue.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
I think the judge is just woking, rooting through the
black kid says she's a Republican.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Though than a Rhino. Do you think that?
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Well, I mean, here's the thing, and just to say
way briefly, and then Sam, I want to get your
perspective on these bullying cases.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
And we're sort of justice because I know you have
what you're dealing with.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
But my concern, and we saw it with Derek Chauvin,
we've seen it with other high profile cases where race
is involved, is that it's a strategy in some of
these cases where the family, you know, doing these play
by play NBA press conferences every day is not a
good look. They need to be quiet and let the
lawyers do their jobs. But they've hired like these pitch
people who are these social justice community organizers who are
(08:35):
coming out as spokespeople for the family, they have a
press conference where they kick the father and the victim out.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Mind you, after the father.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
The victims that I forgive and then they kick them
out of the press conference. What I see sam as
a dangerous trend. We're in these high profile race cases
where race is obviously, you know, a factor in the case,
where they can put enough pressure on the public and
(09:01):
create this outcry and sort of try their case the
media before it ever goes to trial. We're one of
the chances of finding an impartial jury is slim next
to none. But then also what you're gonna see when
this case goes to trial. These social justice warriors are
going to be outside the courthouse every day in huge,
huge numbers, protesting, and you're gonna here, remember whether it
was Chovin and with Rittenhouse, in some of these cases,
(09:23):
the jurors would say, hey, someone's following me or someone's
taking my picture, to the point where the jury's intimidated.
I see a dangerous trend in that direction. When we
put a case like this out in the public and
it becomes tried in the media before it's ever tried
to court.
Speaker 6 (09:37):
A law Yeah, well so There's two parts to that, right,
I mean, I think obviously we're in a place right
now in our country beyond just the car you know's
Anthony case.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
Carmen Anthony.
Speaker 6 (09:50):
We have a far bigger problem that the left, and
I sincerely believe this is using really terroristic threats to
get their way doing it. I mean, look, the entire
organized attacks on Tesla, on Tesla owners, on dealerships, on
you know, individuals, have nothing to do with Elon Musker,
(10:10):
Donald Trump. The purpose behind it is to terrify the
public into causing economic pain to an opponent, to a
political opponent. And you know, you know this is from
the side of course, it's screens democracy. So when you
go back to the Chauvin case, right, and and you're
exactly right, jurors were terrified. Can you imagine if somebody voted,
(10:34):
you know, not guilty. You know, people were, people on
that jury were afraid for their lives. Absolutely, So is
it do we have a democracy? Because you know, we've
heard a lot about democracy in the last four years.
Do we have a democracy? Do we have you know,
do we have you know, are people on a jury
actually allowed to exercise their independent judgment? You know, under
(10:57):
the Constitution to to to render you know, a verdict.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (11:02):
I don't think so. So you're You're absolutely right. And
these people, these people are our professional agitators. Now the
First Amendment allows them to do what they do. You know,
it is it is, you know, the world that we
live in. But they are they're absolutely, in my view,
just just despicable and and I you know, I think
(11:24):
it's you know, I think obviously, you know, to say
the country, we're all going to need to grow spine.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
You know, Sam, your one hundred percent right about the
terrorism and resorting to that to get their way. And
you know, with with twenty one percent approval Democrats, they
lost the House, they lost the Senate, they lost the presidency.
They have a rare opportunity now to take a step
back and go, why are.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
We losing people? Why are we bleeding support?
Speaker 3 (11:49):
We used to have issues that a significant portion of
Americans could believe it.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Where did we go wrong?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
And rather than taking that approach, they've gone to we're
firebombing Tesla plans and we're sending Congress people down to
l Salvador.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
Now, we had.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
January six ers American citizens who protested an election, sit
in solitary confinement from January twenty twenty one until Trump
pardoned them. And maybe you know, I think Marjorie Taylor
Green paid a visit one time Congress our Republican congressmen
and women pretended like they didn't exist. Say what you
will about the Democrats, but you know, when they go
all in on something, they certainly do. And I think
(12:24):
we are seeing a more and more desperate, terrified Democrat
party that sees a country that they want to create
no longer being a possibility because so many people have
rejected their vision and they're willing to do whatever it
takes to get it. And we saw what they did
in the summer of twenty twenty. We see what they're
doing in the courts, We see what they're doing with
the justice system, and certainly that the pivots Back to
what I want to talk to you about is about
(12:45):
restorative justice policies and how there's a death that you're
dealing with as an attorney. So tell us about this
case that you're dealing with in the state of Nevada.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
Yeah, So.
Speaker 6 (12:57):
You know, restorative justice, you know, is a woke agenda
that's seeping its way into schools. We you know, we
are familiar with it in the constant in the context
of the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Right.
Speaker 6 (13:09):
We know, everybody's heard of the Soros Das that are
running around and letting you know, repeat offenders out on
the street, making it a policy to allow criminals to
basically get get away with committing crime, all in the
name of you know, understanding their plight, right, their background, whatever,
(13:30):
you know, whatever, you know, disadvantages they had, you know,
growing up, whatever it is. So this, this idea has
been and it's not just here in Nevada, It's been
It's been happening across the country. Is getting into the
school districts and guys, I think this is the most
this is one of the most dangerous things that has
(13:51):
been quietly happening in America. And I think it's it's
it's a real threat, and I'm glad it's finally getting
some attention. So what we have here I represent the
father of a boy who was who was viciously murdered
back in twenty twenty three. You know, he was a
student at a local high school here in Las Vegas,
(14:12):
and he you know, intervened in a in an incident
of we'll call it a bullying incident, but basically a
bunch of kids were picking on a smaller, younger kid,
and my client's son bravely intervened in the event and
was beaten to death in broad daylight. Now, you know, I,
I don't want to say it's funny, I I it's
(14:34):
it's tragic for me because even before twenty twenty three,
you know, on my show, I had already been talking
about this restorative justice crap because you know, these kids
in these schools, they, you know, and particularly by the way,
the kids that come from a broken home, the kids
that come from the wrong side of town, the ones
(14:55):
that have it rough, they ought to be going to
school and be taught how to be productive people, meaning
accountability for your actions, meaning there are you know, corrective
steps taken when you misbehave and when when we passed
this you know this this bill our Democrat legislature here
in Nevada, it was called AB one sixty eight. This
(15:17):
is back in twenty nineteen. Everything went off the rails here.
And you know I have had I have had easily
fifty educators across southern Nevada. You know, email me, write me,
send me anonymously, send me, you know, packets of information
from from the school district. They cannot remove disruptive students.
(15:40):
And I you know, the case here with with with
Jonathan and his death is that when you look at
the at the background of these kids, it it didn't
start with murder, right, It didn't start with beating somebody
to a pulp. It started with, you know, disrespectful behavior
in the classroom, disruptive behavior.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
It started.
Speaker 6 (16:00):
It's small, but when you don't correct it. I mean,
I have three kids, right, If I left my kids
get away with anything and run amok and be disrespectful
to their mother, you know, eventually I'm going to have
a bigger problem than just a mouthy kid. And that
is what's going on in our schools. And it's and
I actually, honestly, this is where the left absolutely loses
me and ought to lose everybody with a little with
(16:22):
a shred of common sense. You know, guess who this
hurts the most, you know, because it's it's the kids
from good families and good homes that still have you know,
a parent that's going to step in and say, hey,
cut it out. But these people who have you know,
who have parents that are missing that. And it's it's sad,
it absolutely is, but it is not compassionate to let
(16:46):
them just get away with it and you know, and
and not do anything about it as a matter of law,
right because the idea behind AB one sixty eight was, well, geez,
we've got a whole bunch of you know, minority kids
that keep getting expelled. What are we going to do
about it? I guess we're gonna prevent the schools from
expelling bad kids. I mean, that's that's the world upside down.
(17:10):
So the way I look at it is I actually
think that my client's death was preventable, and it was
preventable at the policy level, at the political policy level
of our state and perhaps of our country.
Speaker 5 (17:23):
And it's tragic and it braced my heart and it does.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
And the problem is that they've put so many roadblocks
where you know, it starts out with disruption, school fights,
it doesn't just turn into murder overnight. And the teachers,
the school districts have really had their hands tied behind
their back that they can do nothing. I mean, and
the parents or the parent unfortunately in many situations, are
are very quick to rush to the kids aid, Yay,
(17:48):
your kid was disruptive. Well, no, he wasn't. You're a
bad teacher. I remember when I was a kid. You know,
I was a good kid. But if I ever like
the teacher the princi Will ever called home, I was guilty.
To prove it innocent, I was. I was more afraid
of my parents than anything the school could do for me.
And you know, my wife has worked in education, and
I've seen it from that side where it starts at home.
(18:11):
You know, you hey, your kids, and your kids disruptive,
although you can't say that about my kid. And then
they get a lawyer and they threaten to sue the
school district, and the school district ocave every time. They're
terrified of litigation. They're terrified of being branded as you know,
God forbid that. You know, the kids of a different background,
they're being branded, oh you're racist or picking.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
On the black kid. So I think a lot of
school districts have thrown their hands up and said we
no longer care. And for whatever reason, the Democrat Party,
the teachers' unions embraced that mentality that we're not going
to help your kids, We're not going to make them better.
We're going to lower standards and we're going to pass
them through. I mean, how many of these kids, sam
are graduating high school? They can barely read, you know,
(18:48):
they they've.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Done away with flunking these kids who should who should
be repeating grades. But no, that's discriminatory.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
Well, Eric, I mean you've just spoken so much truth there.
I love everything you said. You know, my parents, imigrant
parents from Eastern Europe, come to this country with nothing.
And uh and if I if the teacher said jump,
you know, I had a jump, and it was the
teacher was always right, and I was always wrong. So
that's how I grew up. And I you know, but
(19:16):
but you know, there is a difference between a fear
of lawsuit and you know some you know, parents being
you know, being angry and suing, and and a and
a government policy a law that literally ties the teacher's
hands behind their backs and cannot remove a disruptive student
from the classroom. So I think it's we've even taken
(19:38):
it a step further by, you know, by a legislative fiat.
And that that is the part that is just where
it's gone completely over the over the edge. And then
you know, I think again, I come back to the
fact that this this hurts the very people that they
purport to want to help, and and that, by the way,
(19:58):
isn't that kind of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
The whole Yeah, yeah, I mean we've talked about that
for years. That's they they are not helping. They are
not helping, they are hurting, They're enabling. But you've got
to understand, Sam, that behind all of this and sort
of the umbrella under which they fall is the idea
that the government is here to take care of you.
And if you're independent, if you're self reliant, if you
(20:22):
can succeed on your own, then you don't need the government.
They want to create a dependent class that cannot survive
on its own. And that's the problem. That's where we're
no longer dealing with these stylistic differences between left and right.
These are substantial differences. These are two different countries that
we want to exist in.
Speaker 6 (20:38):
Yeah, they want they want these graduates. And you know,
your wife's a teacher. My wife volunteers in our schools here,
public schools in Las Vegas once a week to do
reading and she you know, there's there are fourth and
fifth graders that cannot read and these are not e
sl students, right, just plain old born raised, you know
(21:01):
in America, kids who cannot read not special at not right,
I just it's horrifying and to your point, you almost
if one was cynical, like maybe we are sometimes occasionally
when when looking at what Democrats do, you'd think it
was all part of a grand plan. Because the less these,
(21:22):
you know, kids can do for themselves graduating high school,
the more likely they are to vote for the party
that promises free stuff, yeah and care and don't worry,
We got your back. And the party that says we
just want you to be independent, succeed on your own
and get the hell out of your way, and facilitate
your success by not interfering with you, that party starts
(21:46):
to lose political power the fewer independent people there are
in society.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
That's one hundred percent true. So what's going on with
the Nevada bill right now? What's the state of that
law as we sit here today.
Speaker 6 (21:58):
Well, they've peeled some of it back, thankfully, So it's
you know, they're they've they've they've passed a subsequent bill
a couple of years back. The new governor, we have
a Republican governor now Lombardo.
Speaker 5 (22:12):
Joe's a great guy.
Speaker 6 (22:14):
So that AB three thirty and it you know, it's
called the Safer and Supportive Schools Act, you know, but
we had six years of damage. So it's it's almost
too soon to tell. And you know, my listeners that
communicate with me about this and and give me the
inside scoop, you know, teachers and people inside the district
(22:35):
tell me that it's just it's still there and and
it's you know, the the.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
The restorative There still is restorative justice.
Speaker 6 (22:43):
It's just less, it's less of it. So I think
we have I think we have a way. I think
we've got a way to go. And I think, you know,
education is one of those things where you know, number one,
I don't think you know, we focus a lot on
test scores and how we're behind compared to other countries.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
That of course is true. But you can't learn in.
Speaker 6 (23:05):
A classroom that has you know, in thirty five students
forty students in some high school classrooms where there are
two constant disruptive you know students, right, you can't learn
in that environment. And so we need to actually turn
this on its head. We need to say enough is enough,
and we are giving more tools legislatively to school districts
(23:27):
to to get rid of, you know, problematic students, to
punish them, to hold parents accountable. I've always thought, you know,
I've always thought was one of the best things. And
you know, certain states have it, you know, going after parents,
you know, liability for you know, for things that their
kids are doing, and and and it and it. You know,
(23:50):
I think there has to be something here that turns
the tide on this because you know, it's it's you know,
it's funny because you said bull and that this was
a bullying case.
Speaker 5 (24:02):
You know, I really I hate that word. I don't
know why.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
I hate that.
Speaker 6 (24:08):
It's such a weasly word because or you know, because
what is bullying?
Speaker 5 (24:13):
We've overused it.
Speaker 6 (24:14):
I remember what I remember bullies, and I remember what
my parents told me about bullies. We'll just pop them
on the nose. And I said, well, if I do that,
we all get suspended. And maybe that was because I
grew up in the eighties and nineties in school, you know,
and maybe that was the beginning of the end where
we didn't look at right and wrong and we sort
(24:34):
of just said no fighting, right, no fighting so then kids,
you know, you know. Then then the next step from that,
right as we devolved towards this restorative justice thing, is
we as we then really got into you know, the
background of the kid and what you know, understanding and
being being so sensitive to everything. I think, I don't know.
(24:55):
I think we got to get bullying. Is you got
to teach kids to be resilient. We got to teach kids,
you know, sticks and stones can break my bones, but
words can't hurt me. Remember that we use that all
the I had a teacher tell me that I complained,
Oh Johnny's being mean to me.
Speaker 5 (25:08):
Is you like, get over it?
Speaker 6 (25:09):
You know, And now it's oh my gosh, you say
something and it's the end of the world. And you know,
and and and we are, we across the board are
making our kids less resilient, and that is is tragic
and it's actually, I mean, that's separative restorative justice. Even
that you know, we've we've called everything bullying, right, you know,
(25:31):
somebody being mean is bullying.
Speaker 5 (25:33):
And you know, and you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer.
Speaker 6 (25:35):
I mean the first thing you do coming out of
law school is you run into a bully judge and
all of a sudden, you want bullying, go go to
federal court as a lawyer, as a first year lawyer. Yeah,
I'll show you bullying right. It's it's it's hilarious to me.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
It is.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
And look, the world is nasty and cruel, and you
got to have a thick skin.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
And we've done that.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
We've really weakened our kids' abilities, and we've taught them,
you know, under no circumstances should you engage in a fight.
And I don't believe in that. I come from the
eighties and nineties as well, and I think that you know,
someone calls you a name, you walk away. But I've
told both my kids, and they're both high degree black
belts in taekwondo, but I've told them, you know, if
someone starts a physical fight with you or threatens your safety,
(26:17):
you do what you need to do, and I.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Will have your back. To school will suspend you. I
get it. I will have your back. But the idea
about bullying, you know, someone who'll called me a name
and it hurts my feelings and things like that and
make anyone so sensitive. We got a tough of these
kids up, We really do. And I and we over
use that term bullying all the time, and honestly, to
some degree, you know, before you start getting into the
serious violence.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
Unfortunately we've seen it devolved into. But back in our day,
I think a little bullying was healthy because it kept
you on your toes, It kept you on your toes,
It made you tougher, and you know it just it
makes you. You develop a thick skin and you're able
to handle the world. And Sam, I fear for that too.
I have a two boys, fourteen and twelve, and I
fear for the world they're coming into. Are we doing
(27:01):
enough as parents to give them the coping mechanisms they need?
But growing up in the eighties and nineties, we had
so much more independence than we give our kids now.
Our kids really don't have a lot of independence from
their parents. I feel like we're very involved in their lives.
I remember being five six years old, kind of like
roaming my neighborhood no cell phone, no no, no. My
parents would if I got abducted, they would never know.
I mean, but we turned out okay. I mean we
(27:24):
rely on those skills every day.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
Yeah, and I think about it, you know this, I
always go by the way I've got two girls that
are twelve and fourteen, so we shall talk, and a
seventeen year old boy and I so, you know, and
I've I hold off on giving him the phone. Bob
lifted up his Phone's great. It reminds me of do
you guys use the Life three sixty app? Right, because
(27:48):
this is if you don't know. But parents use this
app and they track their kids and where they're at
and how fast they're going where, And you know, it's great,
but you know, the kids have no autonomy allmost they
have no freedom, and so at some point in life,
suddenly they will have freedom. Right you can't have You
(28:08):
can't keep them under your control forever. Isn't it better
to give them a little bit of freedom when they're twelve,
to ride their bike around the neighborhood. At fourteen, to
go to the mall, you know, on a Saturday with
friends without you stalking them as a parent. Right at
at sixteen, you know, to start the driving thing, and
you know, to gradually work them up into adulthood. Our
(28:31):
kids are capable of independence, they're capable of developing and
understanding limits. In fact, it's very important and it ties
into this restorative justice conversation because you know, again, why
would you legislate away from school districts, authority figures, right,
teachers and administrators in junior highs and high schools the
(28:55):
ability to you know, give you know, kids some corrective
you know, consequences that would help them become better decision
makers as they become adults. I think it's it's just
so it's so regressive.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
It is, It absolutely is.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
And yeah, that's that's a problem that we're seeing more
and more. And I think a lot of what we're seeing,
certainly in young boys, kind of this failure to launch,
like coming out of school and not having direction, not
having success, you know, getting into relationships. They say something
whether what was there was a stat that came out
something as a huge percentage of boys like eighteen to
(29:35):
twenty nine have never asked the girl out on a
date before. I mean, these are things like our parents
and grandparents' generation. I mean, by the time they were
like twenty one, they were married with three were married yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
My grand both my grandparents were my mom's parents. That
they were married at like nineteen or twenty, which was
what you did back then. And then by the time
(29:56):
they were twenty four to twenty five, had three kids,
you know, full job and more, all making like seventy
dollars a week whatever you made back then, juryful world
back then.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Yeah, and then they bought a house. But that's a
separate that's a separate conversation. But you know, you know,
one of the downsides too of technology and not to
get far afield, but two is the is just the
dating apps. And you know, I thankfully dated and got
married before all of that hit and today one of
the most tragic things, particularly for young women.
Speaker 5 (30:27):
So those of you out.
Speaker 6 (30:28):
There who are fathers of girls, you know, be aware
of this and tell your kids early on. These guys
are on there, you know, and they're they're they're got
four or five girls a week.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
It's so easy.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
You just click and you know, and you know, being
being done and and then there's no courtship. There's no
effort on the part of the guys, and the girls
all think that they're that they're meeting people and they're
they're working toward the goal of you know, finding the
one and starting a family and whatever, getting on the
path of life. And all of a sudden, you know,
(31:00):
they hit thirty and they've just been churned and burned
in them in a dating mess. It's all part of this,
this kind of this new world that we're in, and
you know, it's it's not it's not good. And I sense,
maybe it's my optimism, but I sense that there's younger
men now, or or the younger people now are seeing
this damage happen and are you know, there's more independence,
(31:23):
more desire to kind of be more traditional, you know,
trad wife, trad life type of stuff. I see that
becoming a thing more than it was ten years ago.
So fingers crossed that. You know, we're we're gonna, we're
gonna get find our way out of this.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
But it is scary, it is.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
I think there is definitely some pushback, and I think
people are yearning for a time that was simpler. And certainly,
I know my kids all the time we're asking about
the world before the Internet, and it was a it
was a great place.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
It was a great place, and we loved it here.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
So anyway, I wanted to before I let you go,
I wanted to talk about one thing that was in
the news a couple of weeks ago, is snap benefits,
and there were some conservative influencers online who apparently got
propositioned by Big Soda to push like, hey, it's freedom,
do what you want for your SNAP benefits. So you've
got some experience with that. Obviously your parents are immigrants
(32:14):
and you came here in the US, and I don't
know they did they have a SNAP when you were
a kid or how did that work?
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (32:22):
Well, I first off, I didn't get bought off by
Big Soda. I thought it was so odd that accounts did.
I typically trust in people that I think are common sense,
that they were completely diametrically opposed to my in the
moment opinion about it, which by the way, hasn't changed.
And it's very simple. You know, my parents came to
this country, you know, the right way, the legal way,
(32:45):
and and we were, you know, very poor. My mom
was a post doc at a big university and making
them just I mean, we were below the poverty line.
My parents never took any benefits. But I remember growing
up once, you know, I was a little bit older,
and my parents telling me stories about how they would
(33:05):
go to the store and they would see people lining
up with food stamps and they would have all of
the things in the cart that my parents couldn't even
afford right a lot of goodies. So you know, I've
grown up and anyway, my parents weren't resentful about it,
but they're just pointing it out that that is, you know,
when they're teaching me about the failings of welfare. You know,
(33:25):
they pointed this out as an example that poverty is
meant to suck, right, and government help. And this is
going to sound terrible, but government help is not there
to make you live a great life. Government help is
there when it comes to food, to make sure you
don't starve. So if you're accepting other people's hard earned
(33:49):
wages via taxation that has been channeled into a public
benefit or service, you're not entitled to get potato chips.
You're not entitled to get your favorite soda or ice
cream or anything. You can get pasta, you can get rice,
you can get flour, you can get bread, you can
get the basics. And so I even feel I'm even
(34:11):
actually more restrictive when it comes to what I would
do and a perfume. If I were the king of everything,
I would you know, Look, I think you know, I
I think you know, the the help that you get
from the state and if you look at like, you know,
maybe like the LDS Church has a great model for this,
you know, the Bishop Storehouse, And I can you basically
(34:33):
give somebody enough so that they don't starve, so that
they are able to function and they're able to live,
but you're not, you're not sustaining you know, lifestyle, and
that we have to change our thinking on that. I
think it actually goes beyond the SODO.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
I I agree. I think that you know, you said
something that's very unpopular but needs to be said.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Poverty is meant to suck.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
And you know, the same thing we argue when they
talk about, you know, restaurant wants to jack up their
minimum wage and then they have to raise prices, they
go out of business. Minimum wage is not meant to
be permanent. Poverty is not meant to be permanent. Temporary
assistance is meant so you don't starve, so your kids
have something to eat, so you have nutrition, and you
can move on and better your circumstances. And we've created
(35:16):
a welfare state, and the Democrats, like we talked about
earlier in the show, have embraced the idea of creating
complete government dependents. But I agree with you. I thought
it was to be careful who you follow out there
and who you listen to, the quote unquote influencers that
you know, someone sends them a message and says, hey,
I'll pay one hundred dollars to put out this post.
And you know, snap should really be for the basics
(35:37):
that you need so you don't starve, and you've got
to take an ISI to get off of it. I
remember back in the nineties it was a big Democrat
talking point under Clinton when they were talking about work
requirements for welfare recipients.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
And that's gone by the wayside.
Speaker 6 (35:51):
Hey, Eric, you and I are old enough apparently to
remember a time when a Democrat was talking about cleaning
up welfare. I don't know where where are we now?
And there's a there's another component to it too, of course, right,
which is, you know, if if you want me to
pay for your soda, but you also want me to
(36:12):
pay for your all of your health care, for example,
that's messed up. I I don't drink soda, and I
don't drink soda because I kind of want to live
a little bit longer and I want my you know,
my later years in life to be you know to
be to be high quality, and so you know it
is a fact if you're obese, you're going to have
higher medical expenditures.
Speaker 2 (36:34):
And so if.
Speaker 6 (36:34):
You're you're wanting me to subsidize the very lifestyle that
then will require further state money. My money, your money, right,
your listener's money, everybody's money, taxpayers money, to uh to
to to keep you alive. It's just not right and
it doesn't pass the common sense test.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
Yeah, Sam makes a good point.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yeah, if we're paying for your health insurance and we're
paying for your food, we have a vested interest in
your health. We have a monetary interest in your health,
and it doesn't make sense. But again, Sam, this is
what the left wants. They want a full society where
there are no consequences, there's no accountability. Tax the hell
out of hard working, law abiding people, and give to
(37:18):
everyone else. I've said it so many times. I think
the law abiding, honest, tax paying American citizen is the
biggest sucker on the planet because you're paying into a
system that hates you, abuses you, and that the drop
of a hat, an illegal immigrant will get deported to
El Salvador and they'll come to their aid, But you're
out of luck. If you're in Maui when it's burning,
or North Carolina or chemical spill in Ohio, you're completely
(37:41):
on your own. And again, because we have nothing of
value to offer the government other than our tax dollars,
our minds, and the words we speak are dangerous to
their power structure, and they want people who are simply
going to listen because they're dependent upon them. And if
you're not dependent upon the government, you're an enemy of
the government. Sam, I want to thank you so much
for coming on. Where can people find you to hear
more from you?
Speaker 5 (38:00):
My pleasure? You guys are great, Thank you, So where
can we find you at? What's Right? Sam?
Speaker 6 (38:06):
That's my Twitter handle And I have a show on
all the platforms. I'm actually haven't been kicked off of
Spotify yet, so that's the What's Right Show. I'm based
in Las Vegas, but I talk about national issues and
lifelong conservative and son of immigrants and I have a
I think we have got a great program and I
love what I do.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Nice Sam, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate your.
Speaker 5 (38:30):
Take take care, see you guys here.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
You know what what is your thought that bring bring
shame back.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
I thought. I've been saying that. I've been saying that
since day one of our show. We need more shame.
We don't have enough shame. We need we need shame
of every kind. We need to shame people for how
they eat, their lifestyle. Lifestyle was that how they look, buddy.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
We were a stronger society when there were shame and
you got made fun of. And it goes back to bullying.
There should be a little bit of bullying. Yep. That
being said, guys, I want to thank you all for
tuning in. We will not have a show next week.
I will be out of town. I'm going to a wedding.
I haven't been to a wedding in so many years
because I'm forty three and most of my friends have
(39:15):
gotten married by now. But dear dear friend of mine,
who I've known my entire life, finally, at my age
forty three, is getting married for the first time, so
hopefully the only time. So I am going to that wedding.
So I'll be in Los Angeles for quick forty eight hours,
so we will see you the following week.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
Guys, take care and enjoy your weekend. Thank you. I'm blessed.
Speaker 1 (39:35):
Yeah, keep America. You keep America. Welcome americ Co, Gray
(39:58):
cap America.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Don't keep America.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
We'll keep americ to gree
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.