April 3, 2025 • 45 mins
Ep. 278 - Tariffs, Teslas, and Tyranny: When the Government Comes for Your Squirrel
The Sirens of Sanity take aim at the political circus of modern America, from Trump's unapologetic tariff policies to the morbidly obese vigilante ramming Teslas in Texas. David and Brad dissect the stark contrast between conservative boycotts and liberal "terrorism" against Elon Musk, while examining the absurdity of a death row inmate claiming lethal injection would aggravate his sciatica. The duo exposes the hypocrisy of sanctuary cities refusing to help with deportations while showering illegals with benefits American citizens can't access. Plus, justice for Peanut the Squirrel remains elusive as New York officials finally apologize for their door-kicking, pet-confiscating government overreach. Elections have consequences, but so does drinking spoiled milk, as David learned the hard way.
The Sirens of Sanity take aim at the political circus of modern America, from Trump's unapologetic tariff policies to the morbidly obese vigilante ramming Teslas in Texas. David and Brad dissect the stark contrast between conservative boycotts and liberal "terrorism" against Elon Musk, while examining the absurdity of a death row inmate claiming lethal injection would aggravate his sciatica. The duo exposes the hypocrisy of sanctuary cities refusing to help with deportations while showering illegals with benefits American citizens can't access. Plus, justice for Peanut the Squirrel remains elusive as New York officials finally apologize for their door-kicking, pet-confiscating government overreach. Elections have consequences, but so does drinking spoiled milk, as David learned the hard way.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheef.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Brad There it is age of confusion.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
I know that this week I have been somewhat confused
about when milk goes bad. There's a lot of Yeah,
just after like sixteen hours sitting out in the sun,
it's apparently, no, you can't.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Consume it anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Regardless of the Louis pasteur stuff. Regardless of that, you
still can't. You just can't let it sit out. No,
it becomes not good for you. I mean you can
consume it. You did that, in fact, you did consume it.
I mean you you can consume it. But there are consequences, consequences.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
As with everything, elections have consequences.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
The famous words of the Darling of the left one,
Barack Obama have consequences, Barack US saying Obama indeed, Yeah,
elections have consequences. And the fact that, you know, the
folks who are not fans of Donald Trump are up
in arms about what.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
He is doing.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
I think one of the interesting things about Trump. And
I'm sure you know I don't pay attention to everything
he does. I certainly cannot you make this statement definitively,
but my yes is that most of what he is
doing not down to the specifics because you don't, you know,
there's just no time to get into that, even if
he wanted to on the time trail.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
He's just doing what he said he was going to do, right,
I mean, you know.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
Maybe people didn't believe that he was going to do
what he said he was going to do, but and
are therefore upset. Maybe some people thought he was going
to do what he said he was going to do,
and are there for upset. But my overall impression of
the Trump administration to this point is that he's simply
doing what he said he was going to do, and.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Most people voted for that. So there you go.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
You know, you'll have a shot if you don't like him.
You'll have a shot in another three years to.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Vote for someone else.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
So well, you will have a shot to vote for
someone else because he might have served out his second term.
And whether or not you want to continue with you know,
whoever Trump puts forward as his successor, or you want
to go a different direction, that will be up to
the American people. But for now, this is the dude
that we elected.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Look, and one of the great things about our relationship
is that I know from that last statement that you
have not been reading the newspaper.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Correct, Yeah, well, I mean you know just because of
our relationship that I have not been reading the newspaper.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
In fact, I think the last time you you you
picked up a paper probably was related to the JFK files,
because if you had been reading the paper and I listen,
I was on my deathbed in the last twenty four hours.
As people know that I was poisoned by my own hand,
which is ironic as it.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Means it's ironic, there's some irony there for sure.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Poisoned by my own hand and by the uh one
of the loves of my life, the coffee machine, the Mela,
the Mela coffee machine poisoned tried to take me up,
but they didn't do it. You know what, you better
get the King. You better get the king if you
take a shot at the cabot at the King. I
was right back at that thing this morning, cleaning the
mid pipe work, emptying the drip tray, just just really
(04:06):
like sale, a student right in front of.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
It, you know.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
And then I went right before we were leaving to
take the kids to school, I went with Mike to
go cup to make a second cup of coffee, and.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Of course, like the second, I stepped towards the.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Thing, and it hit the forty five minute marks, so
it started rinsing and then turned itself off Like the second.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
I turned towards it as if as if it knew.
And then you know there's AI involved. There is, absolutely
there is. There is.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
But if you had been reading the paper, you would
see the President Trump gave an interview over the weekend
to the lady the chick that does the meet the press,
who's just not not does meet the Probably what happened
sim Russell died.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Who stepped in for him was it wasn't that guy
who was a former White House correspondent, Todd.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
He was Tim Russell's he took over, and he he
was I mean, no one watched to meet the press anymore.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Well, there's a reason for that. So they fired him
and put some gallon there. Yeah, and still no one
watches to meet the press.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
But for some reason, Trump still calls these people, right,
and so he calls this woman for meet the press
over the weekend.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
And I can't tell. I'm assuming he just he intended
to do this, right, let's go with that.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
But he ends up in a conversation about how he
could serve a third term, right, and so you know,
and Trump has you know, there are a lot of
there are and listen, you know, I know this is
not something that people really have looked at since the
what is the twenty second Amendment?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
With the twenty second Amendment, well.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
I was going to ask you, when when did the
term limitations come into play?
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Because FDR served three terms? Right?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Yeah, After FDR left office, the Republicans took over Congress
and most of the states, and then they ratified they amended,
sorry the Constitution to ratify the twenty second Amendment, which
says that no one can be elected more than twice presidency. Yeah,
and then there's also part of it that says if
you've served more than two years, that counts as one
(06:13):
of those terms. So you know, for example, LBJ, well
that bit it's a bad example. But Truman, right, Truman
took over FDR the first year of his fourth term.
If the twenty second Amendment had taken had been an effect,
he could have been re elected in forty eight, but
then could not have run in fifty two, which he
didn't anyway. But yeah, so it basically says it's a
(06:34):
fifty percent role for one of those terms.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And so you know, the obvious and clearly what.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
This was was an attempt the Republicans didn't like what
Roosevelt did. He served four terms, and they amended the constitution,
which is the toolbox. In the toolbox, we have to
change things.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That's what they did. And it wasn't just easy thing
to do. You need three quarters in the states or
just two three? No, you need I think it's two
thirds of the states and you need that's a good question.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
I'm not let's see, but you need super majorities in
both Houses of Congress. So that's you know, that's something.
It's two thirds of each house. And then no, you're right,
three fourths of the states. So yeah, so you need
it's a process. So they go through this process, they
get this thing passed. It impacts Reagan and eighty eight,
(07:28):
It probably impacted Clinton in two thousand, It probably impacted
Obama in sixteen. But now Trump is wanting is having
this conversation with this left wing reporter about how he
could run again for a third term.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
And you know, she's like, well, there's the twenty second Amendment,
isn't that.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
He goes, well, you know, there are ways around that,
and the woman is like, well, what do you mean.
He starts coming up with He comes up with this scenario,
which is clear that he's not coming up with this
scenario right the the somebody's telling him this is a
good idea. And so the scenario is jd Vance or
(08:12):
somebody else runs for president. Trump is the vice president,
and then the second they take the oath, jd Vance resigns.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Raft Raft.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Yeah, probably unlikely. There are no termaments on being the
vice president.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I presume that there are no for now they're not.
But this comes out.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Of a The Minnesota Law Review nineteen ninety nine wrote
an article It is I think related more to Bill Clinton,
but the twice in the future president.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
But that basically is the is the uh is the.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Theory or events could also get get They could pull
it Kennedy at JFK, but that would probably be a
little more elaborate and involved of some criminal culpability.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
Well, and you know, you're less likely to get Advance
to agree to it. It's sort of like the you know,
the classic story of the ham and egg breakfast where
the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Yeah,
you know, so jd Vance may be willing to be involved,
but probably not that committed.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Doesn't want to be the doesn't want to be the
bacon well in any event. So that's that's where that's
all at. So that's kind of.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
You know, that's get that on purpose, you know, and
and sometimes it's good and sometimes it serves him less well,
but he loves to push people's buttons, loves it. Oh yeah,
he may considering it. I mean, I'm not saying he's
not considering it. He he may well be considering it.
But even if he's not, even if he's absolutely already
said to himself, I'm gonna do this freaking term. I'm
(09:50):
gonna get everything down I can do, and I'm gonna
go back to, you know, full time golf playing and
having myself awarded with black belts in jiu jitsu. He
loves to push people like I'm sure I don't know
who it is, but I'm sure whoever is doing Meet
the Press is a rabid lefty because that's how that
show is. And she must have just been apoplectic.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yeah, well she she's I mean, it's all over. I mean,
it's all anyone is talking about now, is the fact
that he's going to do it. Maybe that's what he's
trying to do. Yeah, you know, he's he's going for
a third term, and what are we going to do?
And this is this is the anti democracy you said,
the people that are the most anti democratic in the world, right,
I mean just some of the worst people on the
(10:35):
on the planet. And it's just you know it it
is if you look at what he's doing. As to
your point, he is doing exactly what he said he
was going to do with tariffs.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
I mean it may be a little bit of you know,
a little jittery.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
For those with stock portfolios, but I you know, I
sense that'll balance out at some point and and you know,
in terms of the border, I saw a report that
they had arrested one hundred and fifty thousand people now
and they've deported over one hundred thousand in the first
three months of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
And these are all what they're calling.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Criminal illegals, people who had committed some other crime in.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Addition to being here illegally.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
And I mean that's a big that's a big number
for three for three months, and you know.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
It's almost ten thousand people a week. It's a lot.
I mean, it's especially when the mayors in these cities
are not helping.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
It's pretty remarkable, like to live in one of these
cities and just be looking around, going, okay, there's a.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Lot of people who you know, don't.
Speaker 5 (11:42):
Belong here, have not been here long, and many of
them are criminals, known criminals, folks who have been arrested
and ironically, were they citizens, would have then been held
over for trial, had a trial, likely been convicted and
(12:02):
then punished in some way, jailed, fine, whatever the case
may be.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
But because they are not here legally, so they've already
you know, violated the.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
US law, they are being just released into the streets again.
I'm not sure I would be comfortable with that, especially
if I had children.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
But I don't live in one of those cities, so
I guess it doesn't matter what I think.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
I mean, some of some of these, like Boston is
one where you know that may or Mayor, she's it's
a long it's a long way they've come from Flynn,
Mayor Flynn. And then Tom Nino mumbles, Menino, he was
this the Italian guy who took over for Flynn, and
he was there forever and uh but you know he
(12:50):
was a Democrat, he was a ward politician, but he
was There's no chance in hell he would have allowed
this gangbanging to go on. And this this nonsense with
all these illegals in there, and you never even get
a conversation about the resources.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
And you know the fact that.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
You know, you've got resources being taken from tax paying citizens.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
And given to people who are here illegally.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
And you know, if you look at what Dosee is doing,
they're finding these people on the social security roles. They're
getting social Security numbers so they can work.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
They were I mean, it's it's un unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
And you see this stuff that's been going on, and
I think part of it is just people are trying
to cover up for what's been going on in the
last four years.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
But this the.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Social Security thing, with illegals getting Social Security numbers getting
benefits from it, not necessarily social Security benefits, but using
that number to get other community wide, statewide, federal benefits
and also to get access to other benefit pools.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
I mean, it's crazy that we.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Allowed this to happen, and that's what we did, and
that's what people voted for an end to that craziness.
And you know the tariff thing, Am I crazy about it?
You know, not not really, But I do think there
should be fair level playing fields between countries that trade
with one another. I'm all for that. And if there
are no tariffs, there are no tariffs. If there are
(14:16):
twenty five percent tariffs, you know, whatever it is, that
type of thing makes sense.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
To makes sense to me.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
And every stop he had he said, you know, my
favorite word is tariff, and he talked about that over
and over and over again. So you know, you can't
really say that you're surprised by any of this stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Well that's it.
Speaker 4 (14:37):
I mean, as we open the show with elections, have consequences.
The people who were elected you know, over the last
you know, four to six years that are now mayors
of Boston, mayors of Chicago, mayors of New York, et cetera,
are doing what they said they would do, right. I
mean there, you know you can. You can hold them
(14:58):
up to ridicule for their Paul See choices, as many
people are doing with Trump. But they're they're liberals. They're
they're saying no, we for whatever reason. I mean, I
would love to have someone sit down, maybe we can
even get someone on the on this very fine program
to sit down and say, Okay, here is the well reasoned,
(15:19):
rational reason, you know, rational platform.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
For upon which we are standing to justify.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Basically having an open border, and then once the folks
come across that border, showering them with taxpayer funded benefits
of all kinds, you know, from free cell phones to
free housing, to free healthcare, to free cars, you know,
to all these things that our own people, our own citizens,
(15:54):
are not entitled to.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
This is our well.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
Reasoned, rational approach and why we think this is a
good idea.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
I would love to have someone do that.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
I've never been able to find anyone who is capable
of doing that. Every time I've asked that question of
someone who is sort of for it, right, Because when
you pose the question of okay, so you're for people
just coming across the border.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Willy nilly, no one ever really signs up for that.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
At least I have not found someone who says, yes,
that I am pro that what they do. This was
very similar to the conversation I used to have with
people who were, you know, advocating strongly for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
And I would say, well, okay.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
I mean what about her platform? You know, what about
her politics.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
What about her approach, what about her you know the
things that she's gone out in public and said she's
gonna do. What about that? You know?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Get you going, well, why are you anxious to see
her in the White House? And as with those conversations,
when you ask somebody about open borders, they just flip
it and go with you're a racist. It's just it's
literally like saying do you ride the bus to work
or take your lunch? It's just a complete non secuitur
And and so early on in these conversations I would just.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Be taken aback.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
I'd be like, oh, well, what but now I just expected,
I just expect to be told that there's, you know,
not going to be any answer to my question. It
is going to be flipped back on me that the
only reason I would ask the question is because I'm
a racist, and you have a very difficult time getting
beyond that. But even if you can, even if you
(17:35):
can somehow, and so the approach that I've started takings
to say, Okay, let's assume, for the sake of the
argument that I'm a racist, that I personally, Brad Chief
am a racist. Let's so that we can take that
absolute red herring off the table. Let's just assume for
the purpose of discussion that that's true. Now, now that
we've assumed that the reason I'm asking the question is
because I'm a rabid racist and I hate everybody doesn't
(17:57):
look like me, let's assume that, now, please answer my question,
why are you? Okay, So now we're done talking about me,
I'm the racist.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Why are you for this?
Speaker 4 (18:09):
You cannot get an answer, You cannot get one, And
so I would love to have someone sit down and
explain this is the benefit to the people of the
United States of showering free stuff on folks who have
entered the country illegally, when we would not do the
(18:31):
same for citizens of the country who are also, by
virtue of their citizenry, paying the taxes that support the
free stuff that we give to the people who came
in illegally. There may be an awesome explanation for that,
but I can't get it from anyone, and so I
(18:51):
would love to hear it. But to go back again
to the original point, Trump is doing what he said
he was going to do, and he said he liked tariffs.
And I'm not enough of a macro economist. Well I'm
not a macroeconomist at all, but I'm certainly not enough
of macroeconomists to comment intelligently on whether or not that's
a good idea.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
I know it's a game of leverage, and I know
that's what Trump's trying to do. He's trying to leverage
other countries into behaving in a way that he feels
will be better for the United States. And if he
has the leverage, he can probably do it. And if
he does it, it may backfar on him. I guess we'll see.
But Trump is doing what he said he was going
to do, and Frankly, the liberal mayors and governors and
(19:35):
federal officials are doing what they said they were going
to do, because elections do in fact have consequences.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
And then on the other side, you've got I mean
you haven't heard. I mean, there are some big elections today,
I guess if you call him big elections. But there's
like a couple of those Florida seats in the House
are up in special elections. Remember Matt Getz Skates, It's yeah,
his seat is up. There's another Florida to see. You
remember the guy who started that whole signal calling out
(20:07):
of the reporter. His seat in Florida is up today.
And they've these are Trump districts. He's won them both
by like twenty thirty points. But the Democrats were putting
a lot of money in putting up a fight so
those could be closed. And then there's some Wisconsin Supreme
Court seat and that's a big deal because they're about
to redistrict in Wisconsin that could take away it's either
(20:30):
going to be more balanced or take away a couple
of Republican seats. So with the House being you know,
three or four seats either way.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
That's a big deal.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
But I guess we'll just sort of have to sit
back and see what is uh, you know, what's gonna happen.
But so far in terms of doing if you grated
Trump simply on the basis of is he doing what
he said he was going to be doing, I think
the answer is a unequivocal yes, yeah, he gets today.
Speaker 4 (20:56):
Plus, let me sandbag you here, buddy, I'm gonna announce
publicly to the listener to the podcast, and I am sandbagging.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
You have no idea that I'm gonna ask you this question.
So if you're not the fire away in a position
to answer it, that's fine.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
But how is redistricting in a state supposed to work?
Speaker 2 (21:13):
I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. I mean, I
understand jerrymandering.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
I understand that you know the party that's in control
often and when you look at district maps in some states,
they're hilarious, like you've got this blob with this long.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Arm that kind of stretches out over here.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
It makes no sense unless, of course, you're trying to
make sure that either a Republican or a Democrat wins
that seat.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
So I get jerrymandering.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
But my presumption is that's not supposed to be the
way that it works. So how is it supposed to work.
Is it based on the census or something?
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Well, it's the number of congressional seats. Yeah, and each
state gets is based on the census, and that if
you look at what happened every ten years, if what
happened in the last census, states like Rhode Island, bright,
I'm supposed to lose a seat, and somehow it kept
both seats. Every state has at least one rep some
have two senators.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
But and then it's up to the state to create
the congressional districts within a state based on the number
of seats allocated to it by the census. And so,
you know, states like Rhode Island are pretty straightforward because
it's a very democratic state.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
You draw the line somewhere in the middle of boom,
you're there.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
But states like you know, larger states with with a
dozen or so seats, states like Wisconsin are.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
A little more difficult.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
You because you have the the big metropolitan centers like
you got Milwaukee and Madison, but then you have a
lot of rural areas where you don't have as many
people and so if you want to do it even handedly,
you can. You can simply draw maps that, uh, you know,
create a couple of districts in the in the metropolitan
(22:55):
areas and then and then larger districts in the rural areas.
But what more create native people do if the Democrats
control the state legislature, because it's all done in the legislature,
is they will they will try to take a majority
in a district out of a created create some district
(23:16):
like you talked about some really warped district where you
take a majority, get create a majority that's in the
metropolitan area, but then rope in enough of the rural
so that they will be a minority in that congressional district.
And you do that enough times and you're creating more
Democratic leaning districts. And then the flip side is, you know,
Republicans when they control a state house, like in Texas,
they try to do the opposite where they try to
(23:37):
offset a lot of the urban vote that's typically Democratic
with more of a suburban suburban suburban and rural portion
of that district so that you have a Republican leaning district.
And so it goes back and forth and then it
ends up in the courts in a given state, and sometimes.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
It goes to the Supreme Court, but usually they're deferential.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
So that's the reason that Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which
is they're elected, which is and that's why that's being
viewed as an important bell weather because that's going to
decide how those districts are drawn and Wisconsin over the
next year, which will be impacted, which will directly impact
the twenty twenty six midterm elections. Right, So you could
(24:24):
have if the Democrat wins, the theory is that you
could lose a couple of Republican seats, and if the
Republican wins, it would be more the status quo.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
And that's why Elon Musk is up.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
There giving away a million dollar checks, and that's why
Soros is up there giving you know, all sorts of spending,
you know, tens of millions of dollars on a Supreme
Court race for one Supreme Court judge and Wisconsin.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
I hope that answered your question answered my question very well.
So I to you know, sort of just that each
state has laws.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
About how they draw their congressional districts and the legislature
has the power to draw those districts nominally if they
do it inside the confines of that legal framework, and
if there is an argument that it was done outside
the confines that legal framework, which I would guess happens
literally every single time that someone doesn't like the way
(25:22):
congressional districts are john and then goes to the courts,
perhaps percolates its way all the way up to the
Supreme Court, and then a decision as they're made, and
hence the Soros Musk Clash of the Titans. In the
great state of Wisconsin, which most people know only is
the home of the Green Bay Packers, are.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
The great bags of Badgers, the Badgers, the Wisconsin Badgers.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
They are. They are the Badgers.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
They were not great this year, which you know, if
you're a Badger fan, I'm sorry for that, but you know,
hopefully they'll bounce back.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
They were not great in basketball or football, but well.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
They were not great in basketball, but I was specifically
talking about football.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, I don't know next, Brad. So I've been looking
at you know, the whole Tesla thing is getting a
little crazy, right, you know, how they're boycotting Now that
we're talking about the people that are attacking Trump.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
That's just boycotting. They're burning them to the ground. It's correct. No,
that's that's exactly that's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
They're burning them, They're they're they're vandalizing the Trump calls
these people domestic terrorists.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
They probably are, right, I mean, they probably are. But
one man, and I don't know if you've heard of this,
So this is because you you were just recently in Texas, correct,
I was, Yeah, I was there last week. Did you
run into Demarquian Marquees Cox? Not to my.
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Knowledge, I ran into a number of people that I couldn't,
you know, identify by name, but but not to my knowledge.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
You you probably would have known this even First of all,
you probably wouldn't have run into unless you were in
the penitentiary near texar Cana.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
But uh, you would know.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
He's a thirty three year old gentleman on an eight
one of those little well they're.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Not really an ATV. It's like I guess it's like
one of those ATV scooter things. Okay, and you would
know him because he's five foot two four and fifty pounds.
Ah okay, Yeah, he's recognizable.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
And he went to a Texas a Tesla dealership in Texas, Texas, Canada,
which is on the Texas Arkansas border.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
I'm not sure if you know that.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
He's the name. Yeah, yeah, and he and he just
started ramming his little ATV into the Tesla's in the
parking lot, causing quite a bit of rammed head on
and into the side of a red Tesla and then
also MPEd into the side of a gray one.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
Well, my guess is that the scooter itself caused, you know,
a little no damage to the Tesla, but the four
hundred and fifty pounds object placed in the middle of
the scooter that gets you some inertia. You get four
hundred and fifty pounds moving. There's some inertia there, buddy.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
One way or the other, that one way or the other.
So in any event, he has been hauled away to prison.
And I mean then when I say hauled, I mean
probably hall.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah, it's not easy.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
But anyway, he's in prison and then also on a
similar along a similar vein if you will, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
So there's now this big.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Litigation in Florida surrounding convicted killer Michael tanzy K and
z I. He's on death row scheduled to be executed
in early.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
April.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
It quite frankly, Brad, depending on when people are listening
to the podcast, this may have already taken place or
maybe not.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Who knows. We don't at this point, we don't.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
But his his legal team, you know, they have these
legal what they call dream teams, and they try to
you know, they get together and they you remember Johnny
Cochran and all that stuff and it fits you got
to acquit and all that stuff. Yeah, well this team
is trying to figure out a way to get this
guy Tanzi off of his off a death row.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
And potentially even is he guilty. Well he's on death row.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Well, I mean then, you know, my first question with
all this is always why why are we expending I
don't know what he did, and maybe there's some question
as to his innocence.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
You know, maybe this is one of these sketchy.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Cases they are out there for sure, But many of
these cases, like the person murdered like seven people in
cold blood and lit their house on fire and raped
and pillaged and all this stuff, and you say, well,
they get guy's on death row.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
And I think the vast majority of people would go,
whoa who you know, that's good for.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
Society, and then you get these dream teams together, like
you know, we gotta do instead of expending our resources,
you know, perhaps trying to help someone who's you know,
a single mom who's actually being oppressed by some a
whole landlord, I mean something like that. So doing that,
we're going to try and get this guy who raped
in pillage and murdered and burned and all that. We're
trying to get him off. Why well, I mean I
(30:10):
know the answer. Why speak for publicity, but it is wrongheaded,
would be my argument. But anyway, I'm sorry I interrupted you.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Yeah, I mean to answer your specific question. He was
found guilty and sentenced for the murder of forty nine
year old Janet Acosta two thousand and three. He took
her hostage, threatened her with a razor blade, and strangled
her in her own car.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Yeah, so we need this guy back out there. I mean,
we're missing the skill set he brings to the table.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
But what is very interesting about this, very interesting about
this is that there is a theory that is being.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Used that is similar to the Trump thing, right with JD.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Vance and whether or not you kill him, right, you know,
what I mean, But there is a theory being used
by his legal team which is one that could be
replicated in future, you know, go arounds with some of
these uh.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Death row appeals.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
I don't know, maybe maybe not, but it's a it's
an interesting legal theory. And the theory that they're using
is that what they're saying is that he cannot and
the way they execute in Florida is lethal injection, right,
lethal injection. So he cannot be subjected to execution by
lethal injection because it would be cruel, unusual in the
(31:33):
fact that he is morbidly obese, and the use of
lethal injection could impact negatively his quote severe chronic sciatica,
his uncontrolled hypertension, and his acid reflux disease, and.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
So you know, there it is.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
I mean, yeah, it seems tangential to the issue. Right,
we try to kill him, so you know, if his
siatica flares up in the course of killing him, you know,
that's like saying you don't want to use a rusty
needle in case he gets lockjab like he's you know,
(32:18):
we're we're trying again. You can disagree with this and
that's fine, but the state of Florida is trying. Their
objective is to kill him. So if he if his
blood pressure skyrockets in the last seventeen seconds of his existence,
(32:40):
I don't know there's anything particularly cruel about elevating someone's
systolic pressure on their way to being dead. Right, You
can make the argument that killing someone is cruel unusual,
but elevating their blood pressure and or their sciatica on
the way.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
To killing them is, you know, somewhat tangential to the issue.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
And you know, just go back briefly to four hundred
and fifty pounds, five foot two people ramming Tesla's.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
I hope that people are paying attention to the.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
Meta narrative if you will here, right, we sort of
have a comparison that can be made. As you may recall,
back in the day, bud Light made the decision, perhaps
unwise decision to have a transactivist as their spokesperson. And
when the majority of your product buying customers view the
(33:40):
world in such a way that they're not big fans
of transactivists, probably not good for your business. And so
what those people did was they said, you know what,
you know what, we don't like that, and so we're
not going to buy your product, okay, And now we're
feeling very demonstrative. We might purchase it with our own
money and you know, video ourselves shooting him with a
(34:01):
shotgun or something like that. But generally speaking, you know,
we either going to destroy our own property, which we
purposed legally, or we're just not going to buy your product.
That's our response. That is we are conservatives and we
will vote with our wallets. Now you transition to the
same issue with Tesla. Right, Elon Musk owns it. The
(34:22):
left doesn't like him. That's not the way they view
the world. And so they could very reasonably say, well,
we're not going to buy your product, or we'll spend
our own money to buy it and we'll blow it
up or something on video, just to you know, make
a point. We'll do that, but they don't. You know,
what the left does they become isis okay. I mean
they start terrorizing people who own Tesla's or dealers of
(34:47):
Teslas and destroying property that is not theirs, that they
have not paid for. That is the difference in these
two what I think are relatively comparable examples of the
conservative approach to a commercial outfit taking a position they
don't like, and the liberal approach to a a commercial
(35:11):
outfit taking a position they don't like. In this case,
it's even worse on the liberal side because they don't
like Elon Musk. It's it's not that Tesla's are running
Doge or Tesla dealers or Tesla drivers.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
It's that the owner of.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
The company is doing something that they don't like, and
so that is pay attention to that. I mean, that
is that's material and meaningful. What is the conservative response
to commercial.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Behavior they don't like?
Speaker 4 (35:38):
Stop buying the product, see what happens. What is the
liberal response to a commercial outfit they don't like terrorism,
have a.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
More beast person go out there and yeah the thing,
and then try to get off.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Death row with some bogus bs, which isn't going to work.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
And then here here's another question. Then, I mean, I
I totally get your point on the commercial aspects here
and the two different approaches. But if the guy chooses
to have a large last meal, is that something that
would be admissible in one of these appeals.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
Well, I think it would be admissible, but it would
be something that the state would put in evidence because
they would say, listen, if you really were worried about
your sciatica, your hypertension, and your acid reflux, this is
not the meal that you would eat.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
This meal right here now.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
If the guy chooses to have you know, eggs with
no seasoning and oatmelk, well then his dream team could put.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
That in evidence, saying, look, this is how concerned.
Speaker 4 (36:41):
The guy is about his weight and all of the
you know, tangential health issues you have from being morbidly obese.
Look at what he's eating for his last meal. He
clearly does not want to suffer a little bit of
odjita on his way to a casket.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
So you could take that point. But if he has
a huge last meal.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
You know, that's almost an admission against interests in this
particular case.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah, well, I guess we'll keep monitoring that, Brad, But
we don't have much time because that's the eighth is
coming up very soon. In a little update, remember Peanut
the squirrel, Yeah done, seven the couple things. Remember the
state of New York in the height of the election season,
kicked in the doors of this guy's house and upstated U.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Take to take away his pet squirrel then and then
to capitate.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Take away his pet squirrel and his his raccoon and
euthanize the two of them.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
There is now an update.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
The New York officials last week issued a statement basically
saying that he you know, basically apologizing for you know,
the the activity, saying, quote, we know that we can
do better moving forward.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
End quote. Now that's funny, it.
Speaker 3 (37:59):
Is It is one hundred percent what they said. They
said that, you know, we've further on. We have carefully
reviewed and all public feedback, and we understand the distresses
may have caused to communities throughout the state.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
And you know, they can be better going forward.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
The owner, Mark Longo, remember Mark would come home and
then the squirrelul just launch itself at him.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Yeah, and you have so much fun, he said. He
is still still a little upset.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
Because he's not he's not received the remains yet of
the raccoon or the squirrel, because there's the as as
of as of December, the last time he's heard about
the whereabouts the headland.
Speaker 2 (38:47):
The quote The.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
Headless bodies of Peanut and Fred, friends of the raccoon,
were being preserved as evidence in a refrigerated room someplace upstate.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Said a d you see evidence of what I don't know.
Speaker 4 (39:06):
I hope this guy long ago, God bless him. I mean,
he has been victimized by the government. I mean, of
all the many pieces, all the many examples of folks
who purport to have been victimized by the government, this
guy truly was Okay. So his castle, his home, and
(39:28):
we're pretty serious about that. In this country, the government
kicked in the door. They did not knock, they did
not ask him could they come in. They kicked in
the door as though not. And I used to do
this for a living, buddy.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
I was a.
Speaker 4 (39:42):
Swat team leader for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This
was my job. I had to know all the rules.
And let me tell you, there are some pretty stringent
rules around kicking in people's doors.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
And you know what else there should be.
Speaker 4 (39:56):
And one of the reasons why we trained and equipped
ourselves is we did because we were going to put
ourselves in harm's way because of those rules.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Right, because you have to knock, and you have to announce, you.
Speaker 4 (40:06):
Have to give warning, even if you have a warrant
to search the premises. The law in this country is
that you cannot just kick in the door. You have
to knock and announce yourself in almost all occasions, thereby
theoretically or potentially giving these bad guys the opportunity to
set up shop so that when you walk in there,
(40:28):
they just open fire.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
Okay, So that is the risk you run as.
Speaker 4 (40:32):
A you know whatever you might call it, and you're
various and sundry law enforcement, emergency services, special missions, swap,
whatever it is. Those guys are running that risk. They
are knocking on the door and they are asking to
be allowed in. Now, if no one comes to the door,
you can kick it in, and to complete the story,
you can ask the court for a no knock warrant.
(40:53):
You can say, listen, there's such risk here either to
people inside or to the folks themselves that we want
to just be able to kick in the door. But
that's not an easy thing to do to get one
of those. And guess what else, You're not allowed to
make the argument that evidence might be destroyed if you knock.
You're not rescuing evidence, right. Judges will look at you
(41:16):
and go, hey, that's this is the way you want
to do it. This is the way you want to
investigate the case. You want to do a search warrant,
you you are owning the risk law enforcement folks that
as you are knocking and announcing yourself and asking permission
to be let in, that people are flushing the drugs
down the toilet and it would happen all the time.
But that's just the law. That's the way it is,
because we try to protect people under the fourth and
(41:37):
fifth Amendments from the government. Okay, So it's a complicated
process that puts law enforcement and the potential to convict
someone of the crime they have committed at risk because
we feel like in this country that your privacy and
your personal ability to joy the things that you have
(42:02):
the ability to join this country is worth that risk.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
That's what we do.
Speaker 6 (42:06):
New York's take kicked in the door this dude's house
to take his pet squirrel. Okay, this guy's a victim
of governmental abuse. No ifs ands or butts about it.
They have now, you know, months later, apologized for having
abused him using their governmental authority.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
And I hope he never lets it go.
Speaker 4 (42:31):
I hope that he sets a timer on his smart
watch for every week he raises the issue and rubs
New York's face in it and reminds people that this
is what governmental abuse. Looks like taking away free stuff
from an illegal alien is not governmental abuse. Right, Removing
(42:55):
you from your position as a federal government employee because
you're actually not doing anything for the people of the
United States who are paying your salary is not governmental abuse.
Kicking in the door of someone's house to take away
his pet because you don't like it is governmental abuse.
(43:17):
And I hope this guy never lets people forget about that.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
You know, it's interesting he rescued Peanut when Peanut's mother,
it says, got hit by a car in the New
York City street and Peanut was a baby.
Speaker 4 (43:30):
Yeah, see, these are That's the kind of behavior that
we want the government to forestall. You not want people
rescuing animals after their mother has been killed.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
That's horrible. What we do want.
Speaker 4 (43:44):
Is criminal illegal aliens living for free in a hotel
next door to a school. That's apparently what we do want.
But what we do not want are people having hearts
and compassion and manifesting that by deciding to raise a
baby squirrel. We do not want that.
Speaker 3 (44:07):
Well, we shall listen, We'll keep monitoring that, and hopefully
they'll those animals will come home and get a proper burial.
Speaker 2 (44:15):
There's a lot more to talk about.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
We are unfortunately out of time, but we have listen,
we're going to talk about the Ark of the Covenant.
We'll learn more about that, and Brad, I think we
are at the end of our time, but so much more,
so much more to get to, so.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
Much more to come.
Speaker 4 (44:30):
But again, we have limited time, which may or may
not be unfortunate, depending on whether or not you enjoy
this very fine program, but we do. We have limited time,
and we try to get to the things we have
to get to, and you know, we'll have to pick
up some of these other things, like the Arc of
the Covenant when we come back next week.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
Right here on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
This has been IP frequently, once again, clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
You are welcome.
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheef.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Brad There it is age of confusion.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
I know that this week I have been somewhat confused
about when milk goes bad. There's a lot of Yeah,
just after like sixteen hours sitting out in the sun,
it's apparently, no, you can't.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Consume it anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Regardless of the Louis pasteur stuff. Regardless of that, you
still can't. You just can't let it sit out. No,
it becomes not good for you. I mean you can
consume it. You did that, in fact, you did consume it.
I mean you you can consume it. But there are consequences, consequences.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
As with everything, elections have consequences.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
The famous words of the Darling of the left one,
Barack Obama have consequences, Barack US saying Obama indeed, Yeah,
elections have consequences. And the fact that, you know, the
folks who are not fans of Donald Trump are up
in arms about what.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
He is doing.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
I think one of the interesting things about Trump. And
I'm sure you know I don't pay attention to everything
he does. I certainly cannot you make this statement definitively,
but my yes is that most of what he is
doing not down to the specifics because you don't, you know,
there's just no time to get into that, even if
he wanted to on the time trail.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
He's just doing what he said he was going to do, right,
I mean, you know.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
Maybe people didn't believe that he was going to do
what he said he was going to do, but and
are therefore upset. Maybe some people thought he was going
to do what he said he was going to do,
and are there for upset. But my overall impression of
the Trump administration to this point is that he's simply
doing what he said he was going to do, and.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Most people voted for that. So there you go.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
You know, you'll have a shot if you don't like him.
You'll have a shot in another three years to.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Vote for someone else.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
So well, you will have a shot to vote for
someone else because he might have served out his second term.
And whether or not you want to continue with you know,
whoever Trump puts forward as his successor, or you want
to go a different direction, that will be up to
the American people. But for now, this is the dude
that we elected.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Well.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
Look, and one of the great things about our relationship
is that I know from that last statement that you
have not been reading the newspaper.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Correct, Yeah, well, I mean you know just because of
our relationship that I have not been reading the newspaper.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
In fact, I think the last time you you you
picked up a paper probably was related to the JFK files,
because if you had been reading the paper and I listen,
I was on my deathbed in the last twenty four hours.
As people know that I was poisoned by my own hand,
which is ironic as it.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Means it's ironic, there's some irony there for sure.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Poisoned by my own hand and by the uh one
of the loves of my life, the coffee machine, the Mela,
the Mela coffee machine poisoned tried to take me up,
but they didn't do it. You know what, you better
get the King. You better get the king if you
take a shot at the cabot at the King. I
was right back at that thing this morning, cleaning the
mid pipe work, emptying the drip tray, just just really
(04:06):
like sale, a student right in front of.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
It, you know.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
And then I went right before we were leaving to
take the kids to school, I went with Mike to
go cup to make a second cup of coffee, and.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Of course, like the second, I stepped towards the.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
Thing, and it hit the forty five minute marks, so
it started rinsing and then turned itself off Like the second.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
I turned towards it as if as if it knew.
And then you know there's AI involved. There is, absolutely
there is. There is.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
But if you had been reading the paper, you would
see the President Trump gave an interview over the weekend
to the lady the chick that does the meet the press,
who's just not not does meet the Probably what happened
sim Russell died.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Who stepped in for him was it wasn't that guy
who was a former White House correspondent, Todd.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
He was Tim Russell's he took over, and he he
was I mean, no one watched to meet the press anymore.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Well, there's a reason for that. So they fired him
and put some gallon there. Yeah, and still no one
watches to meet the press.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
But for some reason, Trump still calls these people, right,
and so he calls this woman for meet the press
over the weekend.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
And I can't tell. I'm assuming he just he intended
to do this, right, let's go with that.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
But he ends up in a conversation about how he
could serve a third term, right, and so you know,
and Trump has you know, there are a lot of
there are and listen, you know, I know this is
not something that people really have looked at since the
what is the twenty second Amendment?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
With the twenty second Amendment, well.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
I was going to ask you, when when did the
term limitations come into play?
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Because FDR served three terms? Right?
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Yeah, After FDR left office, the Republicans took over Congress
and most of the states, and then they ratified they amended,
sorry the Constitution to ratify the twenty second Amendment, which
says that no one can be elected more than twice presidency. Yeah,
and then there's also part of it that says if
you've served more than two years, that counts as one
(06:13):
of those terms. So you know, for example, LBJ, well
that bit it's a bad example. But Truman, right, Truman
took over FDR the first year of his fourth term.
If the twenty second Amendment had taken had been an effect,
he could have been re elected in forty eight, but
then could not have run in fifty two, which he
didn't anyway. But yeah, so it basically says it's a
(06:34):
fifty percent role for one of those terms.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And so you know, the obvious and clearly what.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
This was was an attempt the Republicans didn't like what
Roosevelt did. He served four terms, and they amended the constitution,
which is the toolbox. In the toolbox, we have to
change things.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
That's what they did. And it wasn't just easy thing
to do. You need three quarters in the states or
just two three? No, you need I think it's two
thirds of the states and you need that's a good question.
Speaker 3 (07:04):
I'm not let's see, but you need super majorities in
both Houses of Congress. So that's you know, that's something.
It's two thirds of each house. And then no, you're right,
three fourths of the states. So yeah, so you need
it's a process. So they go through this process, they
get this thing passed. It impacts Reagan and eighty eight,
(07:28):
It probably impacted Clinton in two thousand, It probably impacted
Obama in sixteen. But now Trump is wanting is having
this conversation with this left wing reporter about how he
could run again for a third term.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
And you know, she's like, well, there's the twenty second Amendment,
isn't that.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
He goes, well, you know, there are ways around that,
and the woman is like, well, what do you mean.
He starts coming up with He comes up with this scenario,
which is clear that he's not coming up with this
scenario right the the somebody's telling him this is a
good idea. And so the scenario is jd Vance or
(08:12):
somebody else runs for president. Trump is the vice president,
and then the second they take the oath, jd Vance resigns.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Raft Raft.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
Yeah, probably unlikely. There are no termaments on being the
vice president.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
I presume that there are no for now they're not.
But this comes out.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
Of a The Minnesota Law Review nineteen ninety nine wrote
an article It is I think related more to Bill Clinton,
but the twice in the future president.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
But that basically is the is the uh is the.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Theory or events could also get get They could pull
it Kennedy at JFK, but that would probably be a
little more elaborate and involved of some criminal culpability.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
Well, and you know, you're less likely to get Advance
to agree to it. It's sort of like the you know,
the classic story of the ham and egg breakfast where
the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Yeah,
you know, so jd Vance may be willing to be involved,
but probably not that committed.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Doesn't want to be the doesn't want to be the
bacon well in any event. So that's that's where that's
all at. So that's kind of.
Speaker 4 (09:29):
You know, that's get that on purpose, you know, and
and sometimes it's good and sometimes it serves him less well,
but he loves to push people's buttons, loves it. Oh yeah,
he may considering it. I mean, I'm not saying he's
not considering it. He he may well be considering it.
But even if he's not, even if he's absolutely already
said to himself, I'm gonna do this freaking term. I'm
(09:50):
gonna get everything down I can do, and I'm gonna
go back to, you know, full time golf playing and
having myself awarded with black belts in jiu jitsu. He
loves to push people like I'm sure I don't know
who it is, but I'm sure whoever is doing Meet
the Press is a rabid lefty because that's how that
show is. And she must have just been apoplectic.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yeah, well she she's I mean, it's all over. I mean,
it's all anyone is talking about now, is the fact
that he's going to do it. Maybe that's what he's
trying to do. Yeah, you know, he's he's going for
a third term, and what are we going to do?
And this is this is the anti democracy you said,
the people that are the most anti democratic in the world, right,
I mean just some of the worst people on the
(10:35):
on the planet. And it's just you know it it
is if you look at what he's doing. As to
your point, he is doing exactly what he said he
was going to do with tariffs.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
I mean it may be a little bit of you know,
a little jittery.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
For those with stock portfolios, but I you know, I
sense that'll balance out at some point and and you know,
in terms of the border, I saw a report that
they had arrested one hundred and fifty thousand people now
and they've deported over one hundred thousand in the first
three months of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
And these are all what they're calling.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Criminal illegals, people who had committed some other crime in.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
Addition to being here illegally.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
And I mean that's a big that's a big number
for three for three months, and you know.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
It's almost ten thousand people a week. It's a lot.
I mean, it's especially when the mayors in these cities
are not helping.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
It's pretty remarkable, like to live in one of these
cities and just be looking around, going, okay, there's a.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Lot of people who you know, don't.
Speaker 5 (11:42):
Belong here, have not been here long, and many of
them are criminals, known criminals, folks who have been arrested
and ironically, were they citizens, would have then been held
over for trial, had a trial, likely been convicted and
(12:02):
then punished in some way, jailed, fine, whatever the case
may be.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
But because they are not here legally, so they've already
you know, violated the.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
US law, they are being just released into the streets again.
I'm not sure I would be comfortable with that, especially
if I had children.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
But I don't live in one of those cities, so
I guess it doesn't matter what I think.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
I mean, some of some of these, like Boston is
one where you know that may or Mayor, she's it's
a long it's a long way they've come from Flynn,
Mayor Flynn. And then Tom Nino mumbles, Menino, he was
this the Italian guy who took over for Flynn, and
he was there forever and uh but you know he
(12:50):
was a Democrat, he was a ward politician, but he
was There's no chance in hell he would have allowed
this gangbanging to go on. And this this nonsense with
all these illegals in there, and you never even get
a conversation about the resources.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
And you know the fact that.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
You know, you've got resources being taken from tax paying citizens.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
And given to people who are here illegally.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
And you know, if you look at what Dosee is doing,
they're finding these people on the social security roles. They're
getting social Security numbers so they can work.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
They were I mean, it's it's un unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
And you see this stuff that's been going on, and
I think part of it is just people are trying
to cover up for what's been going on in the
last four years.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
But this the.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Social Security thing, with illegals getting Social Security numbers getting
benefits from it, not necessarily social Security benefits, but using
that number to get other community wide, statewide, federal benefits
and also to get access to other benefit pools.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
I mean, it's crazy that we.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Allowed this to happen, and that's what we did, and
that's what people voted for an end to that craziness.
And you know the tariff thing, Am I crazy about it?
You know, not not really, But I do think there
should be fair level playing fields between countries that trade
with one another. I'm all for that. And if there
are no tariffs, there are no tariffs. If there are
(14:16):
twenty five percent tariffs, you know, whatever it is, that
type of thing makes sense.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
To makes sense to me.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
And every stop he had he said, you know, my
favorite word is tariff, and he talked about that over
and over and over again. So you know, you can't
really say that you're surprised by any of this stuff.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Well that's it.
Speaker 4 (14:37):
I mean, as we open the show with elections, have consequences.
The people who were elected you know, over the last
you know, four to six years that are now mayors
of Boston, mayors of Chicago, mayors of New York, et cetera,
are doing what they said they would do, right. I
mean there, you know you can. You can hold them
(14:58):
up to ridicule for their Paul See choices, as many
people are doing with Trump. But they're they're liberals. They're
they're saying no, we for whatever reason. I mean, I
would love to have someone sit down, maybe we can
even get someone on the on this very fine program
to sit down and say, Okay, here is the well reasoned,
(15:19):
rational reason, you know, rational platform.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
For upon which we are standing to justify.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
Basically having an open border, and then once the folks
come across that border, showering them with taxpayer funded benefits
of all kinds, you know, from free cell phones to
free housing, to free healthcare, to free cars, you know,
to all these things that our own people, our own citizens,
(15:54):
are not entitled to.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
This is our well.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
Reasoned, rational approach and why we think this is a
good idea.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
I would love to have someone do that.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
I've never been able to find anyone who is capable
of doing that. Every time I've asked that question of
someone who is sort of for it, right, Because when
you pose the question of okay, so you're for people
just coming across the border.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Willy nilly, no one ever really signs up for that.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
At least I have not found someone who says, yes,
that I am pro that what they do. This was
very similar to the conversation I used to have with
people who were, you know, advocating strongly for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
And I would say, well, okay.
Speaker 4 (16:38):
I mean what about her platform? You know, what about
her politics.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
What about her approach, what about her you know the
things that she's gone out in public and said she's
gonna do. What about that? You know?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Get you going, well, why are you anxious to see
her in the White House? And as with those conversations,
when you ask somebody about open borders, they just flip
it and go with you're a racist. It's just it's
literally like saying do you ride the bus to work
or take your lunch? It's just a complete non secuitur
And and so early on in these conversations I would just.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Be taken aback.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
I'd be like, oh, well, what but now I just expected,
I just expect to be told that there's, you know,
not going to be any answer to my question. It
is going to be flipped back on me that the
only reason I would ask the question is because I'm
a racist, and you have a very difficult time getting
beyond that. But even if you can, even if you
(17:35):
can somehow, and so the approach that I've started takings
to say, Okay, let's assume, for the sake of the
argument that I'm a racist, that I personally, Brad Chief
am a racist. Let's so that we can take that
absolute red herring off the table. Let's just assume for
the purpose of discussion that that's true. Now, now that
we've assumed that the reason I'm asking the question is
because I'm a rabid racist and I hate everybody doesn't
(17:57):
look like me, let's assume that, now, please answer my question,
why are you? Okay, So now we're done talking about me,
I'm the racist.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
Why are you for this?
Speaker 4 (18:09):
You cannot get an answer, You cannot get one, And
so I would love to have someone sit down and
explain this is the benefit to the people of the
United States of showering free stuff on folks who have
entered the country illegally, when we would not do the
(18:31):
same for citizens of the country who are also, by
virtue of their citizenry, paying the taxes that support the
free stuff that we give to the people who came
in illegally. There may be an awesome explanation for that,
but I can't get it from anyone, and so I
(18:51):
would love to hear it. But to go back again
to the original point, Trump is doing what he said
he was going to do, and he said he liked tariffs.
And I'm not enough of a macro economist. Well I'm
not a macroeconomist at all, but I'm certainly not enough
of macroeconomists to comment intelligently on whether or not that's
a good idea.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
I know it's a game of leverage, and I know
that's what Trump's trying to do. He's trying to leverage
other countries into behaving in a way that he feels
will be better for the United States. And if he
has the leverage, he can probably do it. And if
he does it, it may backfar on him. I guess we'll see.
But Trump is doing what he said he was going
to do, and Frankly, the liberal mayors and governors and
(19:35):
federal officials are doing what they said they were going
to do, because elections do in fact have consequences.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
And then on the other side, you've got I mean
you haven't heard. I mean, there are some big elections today,
I guess if you call him big elections. But there's
like a couple of those Florida seats in the House
are up in special elections. Remember Matt Getz Skates, It's yeah,
his seat is up. There's another Florida to see. You
remember the guy who started that whole signal calling out
(20:07):
of the reporter. His seat in Florida is up today.
And they've these are Trump districts. He's won them both
by like twenty thirty points. But the Democrats were putting
a lot of money in putting up a fight so
those could be closed. And then there's some Wisconsin Supreme
Court seat and that's a big deal because they're about
to redistrict in Wisconsin that could take away it's either
(20:30):
going to be more balanced or take away a couple
of Republican seats. So with the House being you know,
three or four seats either way.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
That's a big deal.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
But I guess we'll just sort of have to sit
back and see what is uh, you know, what's gonna happen.
But so far in terms of doing if you grated
Trump simply on the basis of is he doing what
he said he was going to be doing, I think
the answer is a unequivocal yes, yeah, he gets today.
Speaker 4 (20:56):
Plus, let me sandbag you here, buddy, I'm gonna announce
publicly to the listener to the podcast, and I am sandbagging.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
You have no idea that I'm gonna ask you this question.
So if you're not the fire away in a position
to answer it, that's fine.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
But how is redistricting in a state supposed to work?
Speaker 2 (21:13):
I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. I mean, I
understand jerrymandering.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
I understand that you know the party that's in control
often and when you look at district maps in some states,
they're hilarious, like you've got this blob with this long.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Arm that kind of stretches out over here.
Speaker 4 (21:28):
It makes no sense unless, of course, you're trying to
make sure that either a Republican or a Democrat wins
that seat.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
So I get jerrymandering.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
But my presumption is that's not supposed to be the
way that it works. So how is it supposed to work.
Is it based on the census or something?
Speaker 3 (21:47):
Well, it's the number of congressional seats. Yeah, and each
state gets is based on the census, and that if
you look at what happened every ten years, if what
happened in the last census, states like Rhode Island, bright,
I'm supposed to lose a seat, and somehow it kept
both seats. Every state has at least one rep some
have two senators.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:09):
But and then it's up to the state to create
the congressional districts within a state based on the number
of seats allocated to it by the census. And so,
you know, states like Rhode Island are pretty straightforward because
it's a very democratic state.
Speaker 2 (22:24):
You draw the line somewhere in the middle of boom,
you're there.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
But states like you know, larger states with with a
dozen or so seats, states like Wisconsin are.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
A little more difficult.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
You because you have the the big metropolitan centers like
you got Milwaukee and Madison, but then you have a
lot of rural areas where you don't have as many
people and so if you want to do it even handedly,
you can. You can simply draw maps that, uh, you know,
create a couple of districts in the in the metropolitan
(22:55):
areas and then and then larger districts in the rural areas.
But what more create native people do if the Democrats
control the state legislature, because it's all done in the legislature,
is they will they will try to take a majority
in a district out of a created create some district
(23:16):
like you talked about some really warped district where you
take a majority, get create a majority that's in the
metropolitan area, but then rope in enough of the rural
so that they will be a minority in that congressional district.
And you do that enough times and you're creating more
Democratic leaning districts. And then the flip side is, you know,
Republicans when they control a state house, like in Texas,
they try to do the opposite where they try to
(23:37):
offset a lot of the urban vote that's typically Democratic
with more of a suburban suburban suburban and rural portion
of that district so that you have a Republican leaning district.
And so it goes back and forth and then it
ends up in the courts in a given state, and sometimes.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
It goes to the Supreme Court, but usually they're deferential.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
So that's the reason that Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which
is they're elected, which is and that's why that's being
viewed as an important bell weather because that's going to
decide how those districts are drawn and Wisconsin over the
next year, which will be impacted, which will directly impact
the twenty twenty six midterm elections. Right, So you could
(24:24):
have if the Democrat wins, the theory is that you
could lose a couple of Republican seats, and if the
Republican wins, it would be more the status quo.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
And that's why Elon Musk is up.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
There giving away a million dollar checks, and that's why
Soros is up there giving you know, all sorts of spending,
you know, tens of millions of dollars on a Supreme
Court race for one Supreme Court judge and Wisconsin.
Speaker 2 (24:50):
I hope that answered your question answered my question very well.
So I to you know, sort of just that each
state has laws.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
About how they draw their congressional districts and the legislature
has the power to draw those districts nominally if they
do it inside the confines of that legal framework, and
if there is an argument that it was done outside
the confines that legal framework, which I would guess happens
literally every single time that someone doesn't like the way
(25:22):
congressional districts are john and then goes to the courts,
perhaps percolates its way all the way up to the
Supreme Court, and then a decision as they're made, and
hence the Soros Musk Clash of the Titans. In the
great state of Wisconsin, which most people know only is
the home of the Green Bay Packers, are.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
The great bags of Badgers, the Badgers, the Wisconsin Badgers.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
They are. They are the Badgers.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
They were not great this year, which you know, if
you're a Badger fan, I'm sorry for that, but you know,
hopefully they'll bounce back.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
They were not great in basketball or football, but well.
Speaker 4 (25:59):
They were not great in basketball, but I was specifically
talking about football.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Yeah, I don't know next, Brad. So I've been looking
at you know, the whole Tesla thing is getting a
little crazy, right, you know, how they're boycotting Now that
we're talking about the people that are attacking Trump.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
That's just boycotting. They're burning them to the ground. It's correct. No,
that's that's exactly that's exactly right.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
They're burning them, They're they're they're vandalizing the Trump calls
these people domestic terrorists.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
They probably are, right, I mean, they probably are. But
one man, and I don't know if you've heard of this,
So this is because you you were just recently in Texas, correct,
I was, Yeah, I was there last week. Did you
run into Demarquian Marquees Cox? Not to my.
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Knowledge, I ran into a number of people that I couldn't,
you know, identify by name, but but not to my knowledge.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
You you probably would have known this even First of all,
you probably wouldn't have run into unless you were in
the penitentiary near texar Cana.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
But uh, you would know.
Speaker 3 (26:59):
He's a thirty three year old gentleman on an eight
one of those little well they're.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Not really an ATV. It's like I guess it's like
one of those ATV scooter things. Okay, and you would
know him because he's five foot two four and fifty pounds.
Ah okay, Yeah, he's recognizable.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
And he went to a Texas a Tesla dealership in Texas, Texas, Canada,
which is on the Texas Arkansas border.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
I'm not sure if you know that.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
He's the name. Yeah, yeah, and he and he just
started ramming his little ATV into the Tesla's in the
parking lot, causing quite a bit of rammed head on
and into the side of a red Tesla and then
also MPEd into the side of a gray one.
Speaker 4 (27:48):
Well, my guess is that the scooter itself caused, you know,
a little no damage to the Tesla, but the four
hundred and fifty pounds object placed in the middle of
the scooter that gets you some inertia. You get four
hundred and fifty pounds moving. There's some inertia there, buddy.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
One way or the other, that one way or the other.
So in any event, he has been hauled away to prison.
And I mean then when I say hauled, I mean
probably hall.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Yeah, it's not easy.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
But anyway, he's in prison and then also on a
similar along a similar vein if you will, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
So there's now this big.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Litigation in Florida surrounding convicted killer Michael tanzy K and
z I. He's on death row scheduled to be executed
in early.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
April.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
It quite frankly, Brad, depending on when people are listening
to the podcast, this may have already taken place or
maybe not.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Who knows. We don't at this point, we don't.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
But his his legal team, you know, they have these
legal what they call dream teams, and they try to
you know, they get together and they you remember Johnny
Cochran and all that stuff and it fits you got
to acquit and all that stuff. Yeah, well this team
is trying to figure out a way to get this
guy Tanzi off of his off a death row.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
And potentially even is he guilty. Well he's on death row.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
Well, I mean then, you know, my first question with
all this is always why why are we expending I
don't know what he did, and maybe there's some question
as to his innocence.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
You know, maybe this is one of these sketchy.
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Cases they are out there for sure, But many of
these cases, like the person murdered like seven people in
cold blood and lit their house on fire and raped
and pillaged and all this stuff, and you say, well,
they get guy's on death row.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
And I think the vast majority of people would go,
whoa who you know, that's good for.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
Society, and then you get these dream teams together, like
you know, we gotta do instead of expending our resources,
you know, perhaps trying to help someone who's you know,
a single mom who's actually being oppressed by some a
whole landlord, I mean something like that. So doing that,
we're going to try and get this guy who raped
in pillage and murdered and burned and all that. We're
trying to get him off. Why well, I mean I
(30:10):
know the answer. Why speak for publicity, but it is wrongheaded,
would be my argument. But anyway, I'm sorry I interrupted you.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Yeah, I mean to answer your specific question. He was
found guilty and sentenced for the murder of forty nine
year old Janet Acosta two thousand and three. He took
her hostage, threatened her with a razor blade, and strangled
her in her own car.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Yeah, so we need this guy back out there. I mean,
we're missing the skill set he brings to the table.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
But what is very interesting about this, very interesting about
this is that there is a theory that is being.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Used that is similar to the Trump thing, right with JD.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Vance and whether or not you kill him, right, you know,
what I mean, But there is a theory being used
by his legal team which is one that could be
replicated in future, you know, go arounds with some of
these uh.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
Death row appeals.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
I don't know, maybe maybe not, but it's a it's
an interesting legal theory. And the theory that they're using
is that what they're saying is that he cannot and
the way they execute in Florida is lethal injection, right,
lethal injection. So he cannot be subjected to execution by
lethal injection because it would be cruel, unusual in the
(31:33):
fact that he is morbidly obese, and the use of
lethal injection could impact negatively his quote severe chronic sciatica,
his uncontrolled hypertension, and his acid reflux disease, and.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
So you know, there it is.
Speaker 4 (31:56):
I mean, yeah, it seems tangential to the issue. Right,
we try to kill him, so you know, if his
siatica flares up in the course of killing him, you know,
that's like saying you don't want to use a rusty
needle in case he gets lockjab like he's you know,
(32:18):
we're we're trying again. You can disagree with this and
that's fine, but the state of Florida is trying. Their
objective is to kill him. So if he if his
blood pressure skyrockets in the last seventeen seconds of his existence,
(32:40):
I don't know there's anything particularly cruel about elevating someone's
systolic pressure on their way to being dead. Right, You
can make the argument that killing someone is cruel unusual,
but elevating their blood pressure and or their sciatica on
the way.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
To killing them is, you know, somewhat tangential to the issue.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
And you know, just go back briefly to four hundred
and fifty pounds, five foot two people ramming Tesla's.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
I hope that people are paying attention to the.
Speaker 4 (33:13):
Meta narrative if you will here, right, we sort of
have a comparison that can be made. As you may recall,
back in the day, bud Light made the decision, perhaps
unwise decision to have a transactivist as their spokesperson. And
when the majority of your product buying customers view the
(33:40):
world in such a way that they're not big fans
of transactivists, probably not good for your business. And so
what those people did was they said, you know what,
you know what, we don't like that, and so we're
not going to buy your product, okay, And now we're
feeling very demonstrative. We might purchase it with our own
money and you know, video ourselves shooting him with a
(34:01):
shotgun or something like that. But generally speaking, you know,
we either going to destroy our own property, which we
purposed legally, or we're just not going to buy your product.
That's our response. That is we are conservatives and we
will vote with our wallets. Now you transition to the
same issue with Tesla. Right, Elon Musk owns it. The
(34:22):
left doesn't like him. That's not the way they view
the world. And so they could very reasonably say, well,
we're not going to buy your product, or we'll spend
our own money to buy it and we'll blow it
up or something on video, just to you know, make
a point. We'll do that, but they don't. You know,
what the left does they become isis okay. I mean
they start terrorizing people who own Tesla's or dealers of
(34:47):
Teslas and destroying property that is not theirs, that they
have not paid for. That is the difference in these
two what I think are relatively comparable examples of the
conservative approach to a commercial outfit taking a position they
don't like, and the liberal approach to a a commercial
(35:11):
outfit taking a position they don't like. In this case,
it's even worse on the liberal side because they don't
like Elon Musk. It's it's not that Tesla's are running
Doge or Tesla dealers or Tesla drivers.
Speaker 2 (35:24):
It's that the owner of.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
The company is doing something that they don't like, and
so that is pay attention to that. I mean, that
is that's material and meaningful. What is the conservative response
to commercial.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Behavior they don't like?
Speaker 4 (35:38):
Stop buying the product, see what happens. What is the
liberal response to a commercial outfit they don't like terrorism,
have a.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
More beast person go out there and yeah the thing,
and then try to get off.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Death row with some bogus bs, which isn't going to work.
Speaker 3 (35:57):
And then here here's another question. Then, I mean, I
I totally get your point on the commercial aspects here
and the two different approaches. But if the guy chooses
to have a large last meal, is that something that
would be admissible in one of these appeals.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
Well, I think it would be admissible, but it would
be something that the state would put in evidence because
they would say, listen, if you really were worried about
your sciatica, your hypertension, and your acid reflux, this is
not the meal that you would eat.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
This meal right here now.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
If the guy chooses to have you know, eggs with
no seasoning and oatmelk, well then his dream team could put.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
That in evidence, saying, look, this is how concerned.
Speaker 4 (36:41):
The guy is about his weight and all of the
you know, tangential health issues you have from being morbidly obese.
Look at what he's eating for his last meal. He
clearly does not want to suffer a little bit of
odjita on his way to a casket.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
So you could take that point. But if he has
a huge last meal.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
You know, that's almost an admission against interests in this
particular case.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Yeah, well, I guess we'll keep monitoring that, Brad, But
we don't have much time because that's the eighth is
coming up very soon. In a little update, remember Peanut
the squirrel, Yeah done, seven the couple things. Remember the
state of New York in the height of the election season,
kicked in the doors of this guy's house and upstated U.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Take to take away his pet squirrel then and then
to capitate.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Take away his pet squirrel and his his raccoon and
euthanize the two of them.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
There is now an update.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
The New York officials last week issued a statement basically
saying that he you know, basically apologizing for you know,
the the activity, saying, quote, we know that we can
do better moving forward.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
End quote. Now that's funny, it.
Speaker 3 (37:59):
Is It is one hundred percent what they said. They
said that, you know, we've further on. We have carefully
reviewed and all public feedback, and we understand the distresses
may have caused to communities throughout the state.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
And you know, they can be better going forward.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
The owner, Mark Longo, remember Mark would come home and
then the squirrelul just launch itself at him.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
Yeah, and you have so much fun, he said. He
is still still a little upset.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
Because he's not he's not received the remains yet of
the raccoon or the squirrel, because there's the as as
of as of December, the last time he's heard about
the whereabouts the headland.
Speaker 2 (38:47):
The quote The.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
Headless bodies of Peanut and Fred, friends of the raccoon,
were being preserved as evidence in a refrigerated room someplace upstate.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Said a d you see evidence of what I don't know.
Speaker 4 (39:06):
I hope this guy long ago, God bless him. I mean,
he has been victimized by the government. I mean, of
all the many pieces, all the many examples of folks
who purport to have been victimized by the government, this
guy truly was Okay. So his castle, his home, and
(39:28):
we're pretty serious about that. In this country, the government
kicked in the door. They did not knock, they did
not ask him could they come in. They kicked in
the door as though not. And I used to do
this for a living, buddy.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
I was a.
Speaker 4 (39:42):
Swat team leader for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This
was my job. I had to know all the rules.
And let me tell you, there are some pretty stringent
rules around kicking in people's doors.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
And you know what else there should be.
Speaker 4 (39:56):
And one of the reasons why we trained and equipped
ourselves is we did because we were going to put
ourselves in harm's way because of those rules.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
Right, because you have to knock, and you have to announce, you.
Speaker 4 (40:06):
Have to give warning, even if you have a warrant
to search the premises. The law in this country is
that you cannot just kick in the door. You have
to knock and announce yourself in almost all occasions, thereby
theoretically or potentially giving these bad guys the opportunity to
set up shop so that when you walk in there,
(40:28):
they just open fire.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
Okay, So that is the risk you run as.
Speaker 4 (40:32):
A you know whatever you might call it, and you're
various and sundry law enforcement, emergency services, special missions, swap,
whatever it is. Those guys are running that risk. They
are knocking on the door and they are asking to
be allowed in. Now, if no one comes to the door,
you can kick it in, and to complete the story,
you can ask the court for a no knock warrant.
(40:53):
You can say, listen, there's such risk here either to
people inside or to the folks themselves that we want
to just be able to kick in the door. But
that's not an easy thing to do to get one
of those. And guess what else, You're not allowed to
make the argument that evidence might be destroyed if you knock.
You're not rescuing evidence, right. Judges will look at you
(41:16):
and go, hey, that's this is the way you want
to do it. This is the way you want to
investigate the case. You want to do a search warrant,
you you are owning the risk law enforcement folks that
as you are knocking and announcing yourself and asking permission
to be let in, that people are flushing the drugs
down the toilet and it would happen all the time.
But that's just the law. That's the way it is,
because we try to protect people under the fourth and
(41:37):
fifth Amendments from the government. Okay, So it's a complicated
process that puts law enforcement and the potential to convict
someone of the crime they have committed at risk because
we feel like in this country that your privacy and
your personal ability to joy the things that you have
(42:02):
the ability to join this country is worth that risk.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
That's what we do.
Speaker 6 (42:06):
New York's take kicked in the door this dude's house
to take his pet squirrel. Okay, this guy's a victim
of governmental abuse. No ifs ands or butts about it.
They have now, you know, months later, apologized for having
abused him using their governmental authority.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
And I hope he never lets it go.
Speaker 4 (42:31):
I hope that he sets a timer on his smart
watch for every week he raises the issue and rubs
New York's face in it and reminds people that this
is what governmental abuse. Looks like taking away free stuff
from an illegal alien is not governmental abuse. Right, Removing
(42:55):
you from your position as a federal government employee because
you're actually not doing anything for the people of the
United States who are paying your salary is not governmental abuse.
Kicking in the door of someone's house to take away
his pet because you don't like it is governmental abuse.
(43:17):
And I hope this guy never lets people forget about that.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
You know, it's interesting he rescued Peanut when Peanut's mother,
it says, got hit by a car in the New
York City street and Peanut was a baby.
Speaker 4 (43:30):
Yeah, see, these are That's the kind of behavior that
we want the government to forestall. You not want people
rescuing animals after their mother has been killed.
Speaker 2 (43:41):
That's horrible. What we do want.
Speaker 4 (43:44):
Is criminal illegal aliens living for free in a hotel
next door to a school. That's apparently what we do want.
But what we do not want are people having hearts
and compassion and manifesting that by deciding to raise a
baby squirrel. We do not want that.
Speaker 3 (44:07):
Well, we shall listen, We'll keep monitoring that, and hopefully
they'll those animals will come home and get a proper burial.
Speaker 2 (44:15):
There's a lot more to talk about.
Speaker 3 (44:16):
We are unfortunately out of time, but we have listen,
we're going to talk about the Ark of the Covenant.
We'll learn more about that, and Brad, I think we
are at the end of our time, but so much more,
so much more to get to, so.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
Much more to come.
Speaker 4 (44:30):
But again, we have limited time, which may or may
not be unfortunate, depending on whether or not you enjoy
this very fine program, but we do. We have limited time,
and we try to get to the things we have
to get to, and you know, we'll have to pick
up some of these other things, like the Arc of
the Covenant when we come back next week.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
Right here on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
This has been IP frequently, once again, clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
You are welcome.
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.