55KRC Thursday Show - Warren Davidson, Jon Husted, Thomas Mack, Jay Ratliff

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Five O five fifty five k r C the talk
station Fridday.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Heath some say.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Will vacation, no idea?

Speaker 3 (00:28):
What's going on?

Speaker 1 (00:30):
Perfectly selected sound bite to start the morning show off
Just Trecker, Executive producer, because I really have no idea
what's going on? Long day yesterday had a fantastic time
at listening to launch. By the way, Brian Thomas here
hosted the fifty five CARC Morning Show fifty five Carsey
dot com. That's where you good podcast get your right
Heart media apps you can stream the content and listen
to what judge the Paul Tano had to say yesterday
about the event Azuela and boat blow ups. Viv Ramaswami,

(00:53):
next Governor of Ohio, on the program yesterday we talked
to the Help Squad. Give the Help Squad some help.
Brian Ibel could sure you some support so he can
help those on the West Side primarily deal with some
of the troubles they are facing in life. Notably, people
are getting ready to be evicted because well financial troubles
have landed in their lap. They do a lot of
great work on the West Side for those struggling and

(01:14):
on life's margins. So if you're looking for too, you know,
little Christmas love, holiday season love, or just because you
think giving the charity is good for you as well
as it is for the recipients of your charity. The
Help's blocket your use your help so they're try there
at Linkfitybofcarsey dot com. A lot more there as well.
I had a great time, you say, listener launch wonderful

(01:35):
seeing everyone appreciate the folks, pricesal chili, the return of
Rebecca Prime Grappy who actually took a whole bunch of pictures.
I put them up on my Facebook page, reposted from
whence she posted smiles around great time. Mister humanitarian himself
one of many Bob Wetter as Santa Claus handing out
candy canes. And of course he's the man behind the
wish tree. If you run into a wish tree, grab

(01:56):
an ornament and get a gift for someone in need.
They are all over town, hundreds of wish trees. And
I salute Bob for his efforts going all the way
back to the mid eighties. I think he was like
manager at Shilotos or something. Shilotos there's a name from
the past. Anyway, it was wonderful time. I had a
great time, put a smile on my face. Selfish, yes, perhaps,

(02:18):
but looking around the room looked like some people were
having a good time and cribbage. Mike my submarine or friend.
I beat him. Ah. I think I'm better than fifty
percent ahead of Mike for the calendar year twenty twenty five.
So we ended it on at least another positive note
for me coming up on the fifty five Casion Morning show.
Got a fast forward seven five. I will do my

(02:38):
best to come up with something to talk about between
now and then, but I could sure use your help
because after the listener lunch, it was the iHeartMedia Christmas
party that was very well attended too, And so I
was here and you know, if there was an open
bar and plenty of orders and things like that, and

(02:58):
I overslept this morning desperately. Five one, three, seven, two
to three talks Congressman Warren Davidson at seven oh five.
We're talking about Bitcoin for America Act. Yeah, we'll learn
together about that. One healthcare reform question, Mark, what do

(03:22):
we do to reform the healthcare system? It's a good question.
Maybe that's why it's just kind of hanging out there
on the topic list, does Congressman Warren Davidson have any
ideas about healthcare reform? I hope so. And taking out
narco terrorists with politicians all over the board on that one,
that was kind of again we talked about with Judge

(03:42):
ended of Politano that was a subject matter of his column.
I mean, you got you have politicians from across the
board taking multiple different positions, none of them really I
think saying like we have to engage in some act,
we have to file a lawsuit, we need to have
a hearing, we need to impeach. I don't know if

(04:03):
you don't like Trump dropping bombs on the narco terrorists
that are hanging out on the coast of Venezuela fifteen
hundred miles away, and I really think congressional action. I'm
one of the people who believes that there's a rule
of law. And those who out there screaming and worrying
about an imperial presidency. Oh my god, we've got Ji

(04:23):
Jinping running the show here. Fascist Donald Trump can do
whatever he damn well pleases. That's part of the argument
that I'm making, although I'm not you know, I don't
believe Donald Trump is the fascist that I know that.
There's a huge difference definitionally speaking between what we have here,
what reality is, what the definition of fascism and socialism
and communism are. I get all that, But is he

(04:52):
free to do this? Obama did it, Bush did it,
Biden did it. Everybody's running around dropping bombs on bad guys.
And the only justification, the only reason no one seems
to be resisting the whole concept of the president's ability
to randomly drop bombs on any given region to the
world because the motivations behind it. We approve of who

(05:16):
wants drugs in our country? Nobody except the drug users,
I suppose, and the dealers who sell it, very small
percentage of the population compared to the rest of us.
The rest of us would like a crime free environment
without drugs and around people dropping debt all over the place,
ruining the streets and taxing our social welfare state. Great.
The goal of ending drugs into our country is admirable.

(05:40):
I don't know anybody sheds a single tier when one
of those narco terrorists gets blown up, But what's the
legal predicate behind it? See, that's important to me. I
obviously it was important to founding fathers with checks and balances.
They didn't want a king, they just got rid of one.

(06:06):
So depending on who you talk to, you know, one side,
basically the screw it side. Representative Tim Burchett, Republican out
of Tennessee, so the strikes didn't require Congression approval, saying
that US had waited too long to confront what he
described as a drug trafficking and terror financing threat. Quote.
These guys are bringing drugs into our country. Pause factual statement,

(06:32):
no kidding, they're killing Americans. Factual statement, no kidding. It's
long overdue. It's of course, referring to blowing up boats
off the coast of Venezuela. Trump gets that. He said,
that's why he does executive orders, because we, meaning Congress,

(06:58):
ain't got the guts to do anything. And ah, maybe
he just stumbled upon the big problem we've got here.
There's so much division in this country. Anything Donald Trump
wants to do can't get legislative or congressional approval because
anything Trump wants to do, the Democrat's gonna say no to.
And you need more than we've got on the Republican
side of the legend to get it done. And just
of course, what I believe to be the constitutionally appropriate

(07:20):
view of a guy like Senator Ram Paul who says
you need congressional authority to start waging war out there,
and Democrats screaming and yelling about this but not proposing anything.
And again they can't look in the rear view mirror
because nobody said anything. Well, some Republicans did when Obama

(07:43):
was doing the same thing, except he was doing it
pursuing into the two thousand and one going way way
back to the post nine to eleven Terrorist Actions authorization
and used the military force to go after terrorists. I
suppose it turned into a terror generally speaking. So see
that's the lynchpin right there. Maybe Donald Trump still operating

(08:05):
under the prior authorization to use of military force, because
all you need to do, apparently is call someone and
label a group a terrorist organization, and then when you
blow them up, you can say I was blowing up terrorists.
What is the definition of terrorists under those the parameters

(08:27):
that we seem to have now for the bombing of
people anywhere in the world. It's a very confusing subject matter.
Is this is again why I wish we had I
suppose a more unified Congress looking at this practically, as

(08:49):
opposed to politically, looking at it from a legal perspective,
as opposed to the oh my god, evil Orange man
wants to do it. So no perspective, no response to
anything Trump does by way of policy. That's the platform
of the Democrats right now. It's Trump says it. It's good,

(09:10):
it's bad, So anyway you can listen. I get a
lot of grief from my grief pushback, shall we say,
from comments suggested to PAULA.

Speaker 4 (09:27):
Town.

Speaker 1 (09:27):
I'm not defending him and his positions, and we all
kind of appreciate the fact that he's not a huge
Trump fan himself. I mean, there is no question about
that in my mind. But he does raise important constitutional
and legal points about what is going on, and his
criticisms aren't completely exclusive to Donald Trump. Again, going back

(09:49):
to all the prior presidents and administrations, this seems to
be the norm because what we're trying to achieve is
collectively viewed by both republic and Democrats as a good thing,
i e. Keeping drugs out in this particular case, keeping
drugs out of our country. If you throw out the
constitutional reality of a need for a declaration of war.

(10:13):
If you throw out legal norms and international law and
all the other laws, ethics and morals and everything. If
you throw them out the window, and you have a
person in a position to wage a war against these
people who are bringing drugs in, then expedience wins a day.
What do you want? I want drugs out of my country.
Go ahead, do whatever it takes. Is effectively, where we

(10:35):
are a president that can literally do whatever he wants
in order to achieve the goal that we all agree upon.
There's your imperial presidency, at least in so far as
waging war. Is that something you really want? I mean,
you feel a little bit safe under the Trump administration,
maybe because in the case of my listening audience, he's,
you know, our guy, he's your guy. We'd much rather

(10:59):
have a Donald Trump and the pre and then see
that Joe Biden wandering around aimlessly being guided away from
little children by rabbits, someone who completely checked out of
the job and was being manipulated by puppet masters behind
the scene. The autopen is a really key example of that.
There's no records that he even approved a lot of
the autopen. That's why Donald Trump said the other day

(11:19):
that those autopen executive orders have been rescinded, so a
rudderless ship. Well, apparently we actually had rudders in the
form of the people telling Joe Biden what to do.
But because Trump is quote unquote our guy, I'm not
comfortable with him being able to do whatever the hell

(11:41):
he wants, even though what he's doing is something I want.
In other words, eradicating evil so and so's who bring
drugs into our country. There's when we get to that expedience.
Is he getting the job done? Yeah, he is, got
videotape proven it. Does he have the authority to get

(12:03):
the job done in the way he is doing it? Now,
that's where we kind of run off the rails. But
all the political commentators and all the politicians who've chimed
in on this will say something either it's okay and great,
go ahead and do it. Everybody's been doing it for
years and years now all the way over to this
is illegal. He shouldn't be doing. What he's doing is
committing murder. Nothing in there during this debate has resulted

(12:29):
in sort of how do you stop it? If it's
wrong what he's doing, What mechanism is in place to
stop him from doing it. And then there's just like
theory in the law called latches. If you let something
go long enough, if you've abided by what has been
going on long enough, then you're precluded from making an
argument that you can't do it.

Speaker 5 (12:47):
Now.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
Look, we've got precedent here, going all the way back
to George Bush at two thousand and one, the authorization
used military force. We've got precedent for this. That's not
a declaration of war. It just gives the president massively
that now has been going on for a couple of decades,
to pretty much do whatever he wants. This is the
bed that has been made, and Donald Trump obviously taking

(13:09):
advantage of the bed that's been made. Brian Thomas says, fine,
the results seemed to be working, but I don't find
it to be necessarily constitutional. Five point three seven fifty
five hundred. I told you I didn't get enough sleep
last night. I was busy and I didn't know what
I wanted to talk about. So there's your rambling introduction

(13:29):
to the fifty five Krsing Morning Show for this Thursday.
Feel free to call it a chime in. I'll be
right back after these words.

Speaker 6 (13:35):
This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio station.

Speaker 1 (13:39):
Each and every one of you. Let's start with New
Hampshire Gary, Jay, Dave hang On, be right with you,
New Hampshire, Gary, Welcome back to the Morning Show. Welcome.

Speaker 4 (13:46):
How you doing?

Speaker 1 (13:47):
How you doing, Brian, I've been better.

Speaker 4 (13:49):
I'm going to take I'm going to take you on
a little bit explode the exploding boat part.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (13:59):
I kind of unders stand you're you're coming from a
legal perspective because you are a lawyer. However, I got
to tell you, as a general, I think the mass
people who have voted for Trump or those type of people,
that this is exactly what they voted for. You want

(14:19):
to see these boats blow up? Okay, to the.

Speaker 1 (14:22):
Other hand, I'm this is the thing. You've got something
we all uniformly agree on from a you know, a
perception state. But do we want illegal narcotics out of
our country? Yes, it's illegal to use narcotics, it's illegal
to fery narcotics, illegal trafficking. I want them all dead.
But how do you get to that point? Lawfully? I'm

(14:45):
stuck with the law.

Speaker 4 (14:46):
And this is the whole thing, This is the whole thing.
In a nutshell, that people have absolutely zero confidence in
our law or in the judicial branch is completely failed
us time and time and time and time again because
how many people were executed or went to trial for

(15:09):
nine to eleven? Well, how many people have you seen?
The law has absolutely failed. And actually I think it's
a little intentional because we can go all the way
back to the college education system. Our leaders have failed
us in the legislative and that includes Republicans have absolutely

(15:30):
failed us. So when the system fails, you don't care
about the system that's failing you. You want a solution.
And the solution is I want somebody in there who's
going to kill people who are doing bad things.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
And why doesn't that embrace what doesn't that embrace what
I believe the left ultimately once, which is the complete
destruction of our country. You're talking about people's frustration with
our system, our constitutional system, separation of powers and all
of that. That what you're talking about is just ignoring
that because it is broken in the sense that there

(16:06):
is no you know, the Congress is not working collectively,
it's not working to our collective advantage. It's busy fighting
amongst themselves and not bringing about any results that benefit
the American people. So with that, you're like, well, throw
it all out. That's exactly what this division, this dividing
our country over every single issue is all about. Giving

(16:28):
people saying I give up the Constitution is screwing us
because there's too many impediments of getting something done. The
Congress doesn't work, it won't pass laws, it won't do
something to fix our overspending. It's broken. So somebody just
get in there and say we're going to do this
without any authority and do it. I hear it, I
see it.

Speaker 4 (16:46):
I think along with the theory it's called bottom up,
top down, and inside out, that that goes along with
that theory of how to create a revolution. Yeah, but
I'm not saying throw the Constitution out. I'm saying that
the will of our leaders are mostly Democrats, but there

(17:07):
are a lot of Republicans who want this system to
fail so that they can so they perpetuate. Bring the
drugs in. You know, it's the same thing we look
at Chicago with gun control. Bring the guns in. They
love when more guns come to Chicago. They just don't
want the law biting though them, right, they get control.

(17:28):
Same thing with Cincinnati, or if you want to see
a cess pool. Look at any major city like the
city of Cincinnati, the roving gangs and the mobs, and
they want that. The leadership wants that, you know, because
it's good for them. Well, okay, yeah, it creates embarrassment,
but they get control overall the city.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
Through fear, well and the fear of I guess the
narco terrorist is the president control without congressional authority to
go blowing things up. It's it's it's a breakdown of
our system across the board. And I don't think anybody,
I mean, I don't know this. This is the frustrating part.

(18:12):
But regardless of where you are on this, just giving
someone random authority to just do whatever to get it done,
whatever it happens to be, that ends up resulting in
an undermining of the core principles upon which this great
nation was founded. And that is the disturbing element in

(18:34):
all of this. And I don't know what the solution is.
It is politically expedient and effective, yes, for him to
blow up narco terrorists and before the boats even get
close to us. I guess I'm of the mind that
if you really have an executive that is in charge
of the military that can act on his own to

(18:56):
protect us from eminent harm. Then wait for the damn
boats to get close to our waters, and then you
can say, look, here it comes. They're getting ready to
flood our market and kill our people with the drugs. Okay,
now blow them up, or just get the coastguard to
pull them over, arrest them and prosecuting for drug crimes.
I mean, you know, that's the way things have been

(19:16):
working for a while. We got the border shut down
under Trump that did not require some extra constitutional effort.
It was just Donald Trump saying, no, we're going to
enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books,
something Biden could have done forever. But you know why
he didn't, because the Democrats wanted to naturalize and legalize
all the twenty million illegal immigrants that had already crossed

(19:36):
the border, and they weren't going to concede and close
the border under current law until they got what they want.
They never got what they wanted. Enter Donald Trump. He
enforces the law on the books that I can embrace
because the law's already there. If we had an open
border under the law, if everyone was entitled to come

(19:58):
in and Donald Trump shut it down and said no
one can come in. That'd be something different, that will
be sort of beyond the reach of the executive branch.
It will be him unilaterally doing something that the law
doesn't allow for. But that's not the circumstance. But in
this I argue that it's different, and I get where
you are coming from. I just don't like the undermining
of our constitution. Slippery slope, Jay and Dave hang on

(20:21):
five twenty eight right now. If you five cares so
the talk station, you would be right back straight to
the homes. Let's get Dave real quick here. Dave, Welcome
to the show. Everybody else, hang on for a minute.
I'll take all the calls I can get there today, Dave,
thanks for holding. Welcome to the show.

Speaker 7 (20:32):
Hi, thank you, Brian. Let me take a call. I'll
listen to you a lot on my way to work
every morning on Monday through Friday. The question I got
is that I know I voted for President Trump. I
like what he's doing and the Constitution. I think sometimes
he wants to do.

Speaker 8 (20:50):
What he's got to do, but he has to do.

Speaker 7 (20:52):
Like he said, like he's talking to the guy before Congress,
ain't doing anything, so he to do what he has
to do to get things going on. And the question
I got for you too, I guess this is more
of a domestic one. I know he's labeled some organizations
as domestic. Uh is he able to do the same

(21:13):
thing to them as he's doing with the drunk people.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Well, one could ask that question legitimately, Dave, because see,
once you get into the whole concept of fast and
loose a you went into the realm of kind of well,
maybe can you blow up somebody in the neighborhood. I
don't think so. We do have due process. And that's
another pesky little thing that I embraced because listen, if
I'm accused of a crime, I want due process. If

(21:39):
it's think it's some like what happened to the January
sixth protest is effectively the Biden administration labeled them a
bunch of terrorists. They prosecuted and they locked them up,
they treated them cruelly in prison, and most of them
really didn't do a damn thing. So was that right?

Speaker 4 (21:57):
Mean?

Speaker 1 (21:57):
No, I know, you see the fast and loose, the
slippery slope. That's why I cling to the idea and
the concept at least of these separation of powers and
the obligations of each branch to do what they're supposed
to be doing. When that breaks down, as it apparently
has in so many instances over the last well since

(22:19):
Trump showed up, Democrats have just used him as this
foil to divide the American people. Anything he does is
bad and evil and wrong, so they've got gridlock. Gridlock
results in something either not being done at all, or
someone like Donald Trump's saying, you know what'screwd You guys
aren't getting the job done. I'm gonna do whatever it
takes to get it done. I know you like the result,

(22:41):
but is it lawful? I don't know. Maybe he needs
to drop a bomb on who's been labeled a terrorist
organization of late Antifa. You got an Antiphah encampment packing
up and or you know, squatting in some parks somewhere.
Let's drop a bomb on them and we'll see what
happens after that. Maybe then the question will get answered
on whether or not it's a pro to do it
anyplace else. I'm obviously I'm expressing frustration, and they don't

(23:04):
even answer. I'm just pointing out the larger problem. That
I perceive. Who's next there, Joe Strecker, Oh a break?
Oh that I went over last time and I got
the Harry eyeball. So let's not do that. Let's get
Tom and Jay. You don't mind holding it right back
after I mentioned calling Electric because they've got a great
special going on right now at talk station by thirty

(23:27):
nine on a Friday Eve, Happy Friday, Eve three two
three talk. Jay didn't want to stay over the break,
but Tom did. Tom, welcome back, my friend, Happy Friday Eve. Well,
did we lose Tom, Joe, No, you gotta talk out loud.

Speaker 5 (23:51):
Tom. I'm in that bad cell spot up here in Middletown,
so you went right to me while I was in
the middle of it. Am I still there?

Speaker 1 (23:59):
Yes? You are go ahead?

Speaker 5 (24:00):
All right? Great? Great?

Speaker 4 (24:01):
Right?

Speaker 5 (24:02):
Sorry he dropped off what I would say. I don't
deserve that, but I probably do.

Speaker 1 (24:10):
Listen, we're just gonna declared that today a fast and
loose day. All right. We just let's just go on record,
because that's about how I feel today, Fast and lose,
a little hazy after yesterday.

Speaker 5 (24:23):
I'm about the I don't know, the fast part maybe
is in the loose part. Yeah, right, you know, I
have said this a bunch of times and I'll repeat
it again. The Constitution is only as good as the
people who are in place to uphold it.

Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yep.

Speaker 5 (24:39):
And it can be abused, it could be ignored, it
can be done all kinds of stuff to it. And
it's it really frankly, it's a piece of paper with
a bunch of work on it, and we need people
who are going to uphold it. There there is no
arguing that Trump is acting outside of his limitedations according

(25:01):
to the Constitution. I don't really think anybody can argue
with it. Yeah, we're all, we're all, I mean, at
least the people on the right side of the ledger
are like, yeah, blow them guys up, right, But if
you're gonna I mean, look, if the if the Democrats
get control of Congress, they're going to impeach him. You
know they're going to, and this is actually a good

(25:26):
reason to do it. How can you argue the stuff
they tried to impeach him with, you know before, Oh,
come on, that's bs and exactly right, exactly this one. Hey,
God him, he's outside of his boundaries. He I mean,
there's no there's no arguing it and I, and I'm like,

(25:48):
why would you, why would you give them something? Maybe
he doesn't care anymore, Well he should care because there's
a midterm election coming up. You have to do things,
you know, make decisions based on right and wrong, and
you have to use moral principles. I believe that's the
way you're supposed to make decisions. But you can't forget
about the political implications of it. It can't be politics first,

(26:09):
but it can also not be don't worry about the
politics at all because the rest of us are gonna
suffer from this. We're gonna pay the price if enough
people turn on Trump and turn on the Republicans and
then we go back to Democrat control, We're gonna suffer
for it. So come on, yeah, So, so what do
we do in the meantime, us unwashed masses? How do

(26:29):
we handle this? Well, we have to if we want,
let's make it legal. Let's let's put enough people in
there who are going to back Trump. Then at least
we can say, hey, they all voted on it, and
they agreed to it, and they gave him permission. Let's
let's whoever it is Trump or whoever it is after that,
let's get enough people in there who will agree with
our side, and that way we don't have to worry

(26:52):
about this garbage. So of course, the best answer for that,
the best solution is don't vote Democrat. Have a great day, Brian.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
Enough people that want to put in a guy who
agrees with their side, and let's just say their side
is the are the policies of Democrat socialists who would
trot upon our constitutionally protected rights in the name of
achieving whatever goal they want. That's that's the kind of
the danger that I'm talking about. Generally speaking, I want

(27:24):
Narco Terra's dead, but I want it done pursuing to
a legal authority, even if it's just an authorization to
use some military force, which the constitutional purest Brian Thomas
would argue isn't even constitutional itself. Nothing in there for
that five aout three seven hundred eighty three. Talk Jay,
If you want to give me a callback, that's fine.

(27:45):
Somebody else that's cool too. Let's get to a stack
of stupid story while I have a moment in time
and I don't get the hairy eyeball for going over
time with Joe. Three people arrested after authorities in what
state are we in Florida, specifically the Florida Keys. They
filed as this tradition. They were found having sex while
heavily intoxicated in a wind Dixie parking lot in the

(28:07):
middle of the day that I mentioned it was three people.
Debutie's called it the grocery store noontime Saturday, found all
three individuals engaged in sexual acts Plural Court of Moreau
County Sheriff's Office. They were all taken to jail. Sharon
hinz Zepplinski forty five, a Marathon, charged with unlawful exposure

(28:28):
of sexual organs, disorderly intoxication, and resisting without violence. Debutie
said it was her second arrest for similar public conduct
over the past three months. Recidivist Marshall Adam Lowry forty three,
a Key Largo, charged with committing unnatural lacivious acts and
disorderly intoxication. Yeah, I'm speculating on what unnatural lacivious acts

(28:54):
means myself. And finally, Michael McDonald Howard fifty nine, a
Marathon charged with unl awful exposure of sexual organs and
disorderly intoxication. Yeah. The only thing missing from this it's
a win Dixie parking lot, not a Walmart. Five forty
five fifty five kree E Talks Station. Jimmy care fireplaces though,

(29:16):
Jimmy caarefireplates is though the right people think about care
ce De Talk Station looking forward to seven oh five
Piresman Warren Davidson, followed by Senator John Houstead with his
balanced budget constitutional amendment proposal. Let's go to the phones. Cleveland.
Al is on the line. Al, welcome back. Good to
hear from you this morning.

Speaker 9 (29:34):
Good morning, Brian, and good morning everyone. Happy that dilated
Thanksgiving and hope we all have a blessed Christmas.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
A man t.

Speaker 9 (29:47):
Yes, well, I just wanted to touch base and give
you a little different perspective. I believe we already have
de facto king in the form of the Uniform Party
that has been pretty much dictating to us for the
last fifty to sixty years. And what I see Donald

(30:09):
Trump as is the modern day William Wallace fighting against
the tyranny, and he's doing the best he can with
the situation that's at hand. So, you know, if we
look at it from the perspective of we have abdicated

(30:36):
the control by giving it to four hundred and thirty
five tyrants that have become a BORG. You know, it's
a little less a discomforting given what djt's trying to

(30:56):
do at this point, I will leave it at that. Well,
fair enough, Yeah, and don't go yeah, don't quote democrat.

Speaker 4 (31:06):
Yeah, fair enough.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Maybe maybe if there were all Republicans there would be
it would be different. Maybe they would say, listen, we
got to rally around Donald Trump because he's trying to
keep drugs out of the country. So at least this,
let's pass an authorization for you some military force against
narco terrorists that would at least legitimize the thing. But again,
you get into the realm of fastor lowis when you
are right, whether it's a BORG, a unit party, we

(31:30):
we have what I would argue is maybe an abdication
perhaps and even intentionally of our representatives and their responsibilities,
just because perhaps they know Donald Trump will at least
get the job done because of political expedients and ignoring
the constitutional reality is how it's supposed to work. And

(31:51):
that opens the door for when the Democrats get their
guy or gal, as the case may be, in office,
for them to do the same thing. Again. This this
is not this this this whole quote unquote imperial presidency.
If we want to boil it down to that, this
isn't a creation of Donald Trump, going back to the
whole idea that this conversation has been involved or really

(32:11):
sprung from the bombing of boats in Venezuela. What president
preceding Donald Trump hasn't done pretty much the same damn
thing over and over and over again. The none other
hands are cleaned along these lines. The stage, the stage
has been set for him to continue doing the same thing.
I'm just again more of a purist when it comes

(32:32):
to the division and power, of the separation of power
and what you know, what is supposed to happen before
the bombs start flying. Okay, stack is stupid. We go
to Atlanta, specifically KNYE, Georgia, where police have a suspect
and custody after a shootout inside a crowded restaurant. When

(32:53):
the SWAT had to show up, SWAT team's got to call.
Shots fired at Chiquito's Cantina and grill fired shovel shot.
Several shots led to customers pulling out their own guns.
Please said the gunman fired more shots from outside, but
nobody got shot or hurt went back to the restaurant.

(33:14):
Bullet holes can be seen in the aftermath in the
windows and doors. One of the customers described it as
like the OK Corral, saying, boy, these people are crazy.
Officers called in the swat team look for the shooter.
They surrounded the house less than a mile away. That's
where they found him. Walked officers walked three people out
of the home. Police confirmed that one of them was

(33:37):
in fact the suspect. They haven't released his name yet.
I thought it was pretty funny because the customers all
pulled out their guns. Reminded me of listener lunch. I
always say I'm in the safest environment at a listener
lunch and thanks every day. He showed up yesterday because
while I was consuming beer at listener lunch, ergo it
did not have my concealed carry weapon with me because

(33:57):
I abide by the law. I know a whole bunch
of listeners in the room always have their concealed carry
weapons with them and they are not consuming alcohol. So
you have basically built in protection at a fifty five
KRC listener ontch. Thanks to price el Jelly for doing
that and real quick here ninety one year old man
arrested on suspicion of threatening a police officer and an

(34:18):
obstruction of justice after the officer saw him urinating on
the street and asked him about it. This why are
you doing that well? According to the police, the officer
on patrol sowdomn urinating on the street about three in
the afternoon on a Monday. Officer asked the men to
show some identification. The man became angry, threatened the officer,
saying he would knock him out, and then kicked the

(34:41):
police car. Arrested for public indecency. This happened in Japan,
ninety one years old. Yeah, give him prompts for being
feisty even at ninety one five fifty five right now,
fifty five KRCD talk station. Let's see if we can
muddle through the six o'clock hour. All the help I
can get his walk five one, three, seven, four, nine,

(35:01):
fifty five hundred, eight hundred and eighty two to three
talk time five fifty on AT and T phone. Donald
Trump doing us all props and getting rid of this
stupid arbitrary market force, ruining cafe standards. That more coming
up today today, you know fifty five krc D talk

(35:21):
station six or six FI fifty five kr CD talk station.
Happy Friday, E Brian Thomas right here, welcoming all the
phone calls. You want to give me a call and
talk about something, feel free to explain to me the
crazy constitutional crisis we seem to find ourselves in. Still
trying to make sense of it myself, of course, springing
from the last hours conversation that sort of sprung from

(35:43):
judgment Poulaitano's analysis and others commenting about the legality of
or lack there of the blowing up of boats. I
think it's a reflection of a broader constitutional crisis we
seem to be going through. But coming up one hour
from now, in terms of the upcoming guests on the
Morning Show, can't wait to get Congress Davidson back on
the program. Coming up one hour from now, seven oh five,

(36:04):
the Bitcoin for America Act. We'll get to learn together
about that one. Maybe you already know about it, but
I'm interested in hearing what Congressman Davidson has to say
about that. Will also talk healthcare reform and yes on
the list of topics with Davidson or Congressman Davidson taking
out narco terrorists will get his viewpoint on that one.
Senator John Houston talking about his new constitutional amendment behind

(36:26):
the well, a balanced budget amendment, talk yesterday with Americans
for Prosperity about that. I think it's a great idea,
and this is something that has been talked about for decades. Yeah,
it's like banning our elected officials from insider trading. They've
been talking about that for a long time. They never
did vote on that one. But how about a balanced
budget amendment? That'd be great. John Houston on that at

(36:46):
seven thirty eight oh five with Michael Park documentary the
last six hundred meters and then of course it is Thursday,
eight thirty means I heard media aviation expert Jay Ratliffe.
I love wrapping up a Thursday segue to Friday with
Jay Rattlift and a whole bunch of topics. I'll be
surprised that we can get them all in, but we'll
do our best on that. Some funny ones and some
interesting ones is typically the case. Five one, three, seven, four, nine,

(37:09):
fifty five hundred, eight hundred and eight to two three
talk found five fifty on ET and T phones. I'm
getting a kind of kick out of this. So we
have Donald Trump's announcement about Cafe standard yesterday. Cafe standards
started in nineteen seventy five, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,
regulations for the average fuel economy on a fleet of vehicles,
with the I guess now aim at lowering vehicle emissions.

(37:32):
I think originally it was designed to get better gas
knowledge out of automobiles. Remember automobiles in the seventies, Maybe
you don't. They were huge, They waited alive. There were
trunks that could hold eight ten dead bodies in them
if you wanted at least half a dozen sets of
golf clubs. But gas got expensive, remember the oil embargo

(37:53):
Opak early seventies, lines around the corner. We needed to
do something about getting more efficient cars because we were
reliant on Middle Eastern oil because I guess technology hadn't
caught up. But the whole idea of not drilling was
a real neat concept. Let's worry about I don't know,
the pollution, the environment. Whatever brought about the refusal to

(38:16):
drill and tap into our own resources led to this
sort of reliance on Middle Eastern oil, and we've been
reliant upon it ever since, but not so much of
late Trump's all above strategy. We produce more than anybody now.
We have access to oil and resources that we didn't
used to have access for. We have an abundance of
liquid or natural gas that we have so much of
that not only does it run electricity plants that used

(38:39):
to run on coal, it also is in such abundance
that we export it to other countries who apparently either
aren't tapping the resources or don't have the natural resources
to tap it themselves. So we're fueling the world with
our abundant resources. So what's with the cafe standards?

Speaker 4 (38:57):
Right?

Speaker 1 (38:58):
Why do we need cars that they claim, you know,
in defiance of the laws of physics, which maybe need
to be repealed, said one idiot behind the scenes environmental
regulator writer. But so he makes this announcement yesterday. Car
companies are on board. Jim Farley a Ford that's as
America's largest auto producer. We appreciate Trump's leadership and aligning

(39:21):
fuel economy standards with market realities. We can make real
progress on carbon emissions and energy efficiency while still giving
consumers choice and affordability. A win for customers and common
sense affordability can you afford a new car average new
car price fifty thousand dollars fifty now if you don't

(39:43):
have fifty grand to buy a new car, if there
was a car option available that didn't have bells and
whistles on it. I think cars are now mandated to
have backup cameras put in them, at great expense to you,
the consumer. You have to have one eat a backup camera.
Did we survive as a nation without backup cameras up

(40:03):
until the most recent moment in time? Were you able
to look out the side view mirrors or maybe ratchet
your head around and look out the rear window and
back your car out successfully? Yes, I know toddlers have
been run over by cars. Maybe it's incumbent upon us
to perhaps do a walk around our car to make
sure there are no obstructions and we know where our

(40:24):
children are before we start driving around. There's a thought,
that's the way it used to work. Accidents do happen.
An accident happens. It's tragic. We need a law, we
need a mandate. Let's mandate backup cameras. But there's an
abundance of additional options in cars, not options mandates and
cars that weren't there originally. You have to have abs breaks. Yes,
they're a brilliant technology. Personally, as a consumer, if I

(40:47):
was going out to buy a car and I had
an option between a car with anti lock breaks without,
I would choose the one with I would pay extra
to have that amenity. But we survived as a world
without those for a long time. Choice is important, especially
when it comes to affordability in this unbelievably inflationary world
we find ourselves in anyway, as the cafe standards that

(41:09):
really impacts the price of a car. Trump's claiming this
is going to say the consumer one hundred and eight
ten billion dollars. I don't know where the numbers come from.
I never do, but random, arbitrary, self inflicted wound they
have become. And of course, you know, once this green
you know, carbon output nonsense turned into a religion that

(41:30):
most people abide by. The push for all electric vehicles
came out of this. So cafe standards then became a
vehicle to force you into evs, to force manufacturers to
build something that the public wasn't demanding. Why because evs
don't emit pollution, Well, they do in the manufacturing process,

(41:50):
and they do in a whole bunch of other ways.
And there's a multitude of reasons why that EV is
not as environmentally friendly as they claim it is. But
at least it doesn't put out carbon die when you're
driving it around. That's the point. A CAFE standard is
for an entire fleet, you must achieve fifty miles per
gallon across your entire fleet. How do you do that

(42:12):
when the consumer demand for trucks is huge, Well, you
produce evs even though people don't buy them, and you
sell them at a loss That lets you offset, of course,
the overall carbon output from your entire fleet, making it
look as if you've achieved a random, arbitrary standard announced
by the EPA behind the scenes through a regulation subject

(42:36):
to change on a whim. Going back to the whole
idea of new presidencies mean new rules, Biden increased the
CAFE standards after Trump lowered the CAFE standards during his
first term. Welcome to Trump term two, lowering the CAFE
standards back to something that is at least reasonable and
will provide us a greater choice. Wait for it, Donald

(42:57):
Trump's presidency will end, and they'll be a new one
and a new CAFE standard to say this makes sense, No,
it doesn't. But there was another announcement the other day
along the lines of these environmental groups groups, there was
a letter from a multitude of groups Heartland Institute, Energy
and Environmental Legal Institute, Truth in Energy and Climate, and

(43:20):
the American Energy Institute, a coalition of what are described
as conservative groups representing the energy industry, hailing the regulatory
and fiscal wins for the Trump administration. According to Jason
Isaac's CEO of one of the groups signing the letter,
Hey Secretary Chris Wright has delivered the boldest course correction
in modern energy policy, and the results speak for themselves.

(43:42):
He has led the largest deregulatory initiative in a Department
of energy history, cut billions of wasteful green subsidies important
word that word subsidy, and restored a clear path to
American energy dominance. He halted dozens of harmful of clients rules,
streamline NEPA and EPA, canceled politically driven and I will

(44:07):
insert the word Chinese Communist Party benefiting wind, solar and
carbon capture spending, reignited us LNG and nuclear development and
use emergency authority to keep critical cold capacity online so
the grid stays stable when it matters most. What is
the goal here for the Trump administration? Stable abundant energy

(44:34):
production and output so the lights stay on, reducing the
insane regulatory roadblocks for us getting efficient and carbon neutral
nuclear power, for example. What's wrong with that? I would argue, nothing,

(44:56):
nothing at all. I love this though, according to Tim Donnighie,
Green Pieces USA research Director, these policies might be good
for Trump and rights rich corporate buddies, but they are

(45:17):
downright evil for working people. This is a quote from
this Greenpiece guy. The decisions made in the last nine
months are literally sucking money out of American's wallets and
putting it into oil industry bank accounts while pretending they're
making the country stronger. Now, pause for a moment. What's
the price of gas right now versus what it was
a couple of years ago?

Speaker 4 (45:37):
Right?

Speaker 1 (45:37):
A lot lower, a lot lower. I'd say, that's not
sucking money from my wallet. It's allowing me to keep
more of my money in my wallet. Why abundant above
across the board energy policy? He went on to say,
the sad thing is the Trump administration policies are creating

(45:58):
more pollution that will make America is sick. Every year,
three hundred and fifty thousand Americans die younger from being
exposed to toxic air pollution from burning fossil fuels. We
need that number to go down these winds, all but
guarantee it will go up. Really, anybody want to ask
out loud, where in the hell he pulled three hundred
and fifty thousand Americans dead, What specific orifice that figure

(46:23):
came from, and what statistics in reality it's based upon. Now,
with the advent of a catalytic converter, most of the
pollutants that automobiles used to produce aren't there anymore. The
whole thing boils down to over and over and over
and over again. They point to carbon dioxide, which again
I will point out as plant food. It is not
a pollutant's naturally occurring part of our atmosphere. Why are

(46:45):
we struggling mightily to get rid of it? Because it
works for the connected green energy folks. Not only is
it bad for our nation's security by taxing the grid
that we live on, moving more and more toward electric
in the name of this myth of catching all the
carbon dioxide makes us less stable, and it rises the

(47:06):
price of everything. What are they doing? They're taking your
appliances away from you. You can't use natural gas to cook? Really,
are you really taking away my natural gas stove? Is
going to change the world. No, it's going to make
things more expensive. There's been report after report after report
after report showing that these moves, and these so called
environmentally friendly changes directives issued, the mandates issued by behind

(47:33):
the scenes regulatory writers and drafters of rules make it
more expensive for you and I to live. Flies right
in the face with this Greenpeace guy is saying, give
us flexibility, give us choice. That's what this administration is about.
And I embrace that all day long, in spite of
the criticism I have along certain other line six p

(47:54):
nineteen Steve, I'm taking your call as soon as we
get back. I want to mention Gate of Heaven Cemetery
because tomorrow they're doing a wonderful, wonderful thing. I think
my wife and I may even attend. She mentioned she'd
liked to see the event. That event tidings of comfort
and joy for if you have KRCD talk station, Happy Friday.
Eve've gonna go straight to the phones given me little
amount of time we have in the Segon. Let's see
what Steve's got this morning. Steve, thanks for calling. Welcome

(48:16):
to the show.

Speaker 10 (48:17):
Absolutely before I get to my point, the three hundred
and fifty thousand number, perhaps they the guy dreamed it
and had one of those dreams like you had, where
he's so convinced it's surreal. Because my thing on on
the green movement is where's Pete with these windmills killing?

Speaker 5 (48:38):
Oh, I've heard millions.

Speaker 10 (48:40):
Of birds and mac are slaughtered by them, and you
don't hear a peep from them, which is amazing. Apparently
they don't. But with the Narco boats and it's a
gray area. But this, and this is related this guy
Mangioni that walked up behind the CEO of the medical

(49:02):
firm or insurance company and shot him in the back
of the head and it's on camera and they know
it was his gun and then you know he's dead.
The rights you always hear him described as the alleged killer. Yeah,
now now, and I'm gonna ask you a question. I'm
serious about this. You had Andrew Napolitano on there yesterday

(49:24):
and he said Pete heg Seth is a murderer. He
didn't say alleged, you know, And I'm like, you know,
be careful there is it?

Speaker 11 (49:35):
Is it?

Speaker 10 (49:35):
Because heg Seth is a is not a private individual.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
That he can say that if if this man's the
only guy walked around and admitted that he had blown
that guy's head off, the word alleged would not be
in the article. The word alleged is in there because
in the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty.
He hasn't been through the proven guilty part. Now you
and I might look at the video and say this
is a no brainer. It's open and shut. The jury's

(50:01):
going to be out for like five minutes and they'll
render a guilty verdict. But in these modern times, when
we do have question marks surrounding literally everything that's on
video because of artificial intelligence and deep fakes and things
of that nature, you got to give him his day
in court. If I think the press, in using the
word alleged, which happens all the time, is a mechanism
to prevent them from being sued, because if you accuse

(50:24):
someone of committing a crime, it can be in print libel,
per sweat, per se, so if he was found not
guilty of murder and you called him a murderer, they
might sue you because you've accused him of something that
falls into libel per se, meaning it's presumed to be
libelists unless the truth, the truth is a defense to

(50:47):
the libel per se. So that's just it's just a
I've been living with that reality for a long time.
You laugh when they say alleged, we all know the
guy did it, but give him his day in court
and then say murderer.

Speaker 10 (50:59):
You know what I roll my eyes on. And this
happens all the time, is when somebody is described as
a gentleman, I mean insantly, And I don't know if
these people don't just why don't they just say the
man or the individual. I don't, but if you listen,
and you'll hear the gentleman, and I'm like, this is

(51:19):
this is the polar opposite of what a gentleman would do.
One other thing about Napolitano. Yesterday, he indicated that he thought, uh,
he didn't really say that. He said Hegseth's time is
going to be short. The Secretary of Defense or or whatever,
I think he'll be there the entire four years.

Speaker 1 (51:44):
I'm inclined to agree with you. Listen, he's been on
this program now for what more than ten plus years.
He's made pronouncements along those lines before, and like Donald
Trump is in grave problems with whatever allegation in front
of whatever committee was sitting. No, he wasn't. Look he's
still around. He didn't get impeached, he didn't get thrown
out of office. So wrong on that prediction. I've made

(52:04):
erroneous predictions too. I think hag Zeth will be a
lot around, a lot longer than judging the Politanus. So
we can feel free to disagree with his tea leaf reading.
No problem with that. Appreciate the observations. Yeah, alleged murderer
until proven guilty. Six twenty seven, Bobby, your next hang
on five, one, three seven for nine.

Speaker 12 (52:23):
K the talk station.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
Six thirty two fifty five KCD talk station, Happy Friday,
Real Quickly, going back to that guy who from green Peace,
he said, three undred and fifty thousand people or you know,
die from asthma related complications or something like that, so
we can't cut the cafe standards. Chip said, well, that
figure hasn't changed for a long time. It's globally. Globally,

(52:48):
four hundred and sixty one thousand people in the world
die from asthma. Like, wait a minute, there's seven plus
billion people in the world, and it's a fraction of
that four and sixty one thousand people. If you acknowledge
it pollution cause the asthma and the complications that resulted
in death from asthma, and that it was pollution that
did it, I imagine the vast majority of that figure
globally lived in countries that are polluted hellholes, not the

(53:13):
United States, which is not a polluted hellhole. Bobby, welcome
to the program, Thanks for calling this morning.

Speaker 13 (53:17):
Happy Thursday, Happy Thursday, My brothers, fates, flag, family, and firearms.
You keep those who always be able to keep your freedom,
one would hope, Well, we had a couple shootings down
price Hell and everything, so it's hard to handicap the
shootings on Thursdays when the weather it's bad like it is,

(53:37):
so they'll have to keep all their activities mostly inside.

Speaker 4 (53:41):
I guess.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Yeah, there's no sports book on number of deaths in
any given area as far as I know. Maybe they'll
start doing that.

Speaker 14 (53:48):
We held off on during the holidays, you know, what
I'm saying, Thanksgiving and everything.

Speaker 1 (53:56):
Anything else. Bobby, Hey, well I got one more thing.

Speaker 14 (54:00):
Cincinnati, they're really progressive. One more thing, one more percent
they're going to charge you to spend money in Cincinnati.
They're just squeezing and squeezing the poor.

Speaker 1 (54:11):
People of the city, aren't they Seems to me.

Speaker 4 (54:16):
You know that extra percent where they go build another
hotel or something where nobody.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Well, yeah, that's each term about the voluntary tax, the
one percent voluntary tax. Yeah, within a certain segment within
the city. If you're a business, you can voluntarily give
a penny on every dollar it's spent at your business
to pay for the Marriotte Hotel. Okay, they're already building
the damn thing. That's why I said, is this a

(54:41):
retroactive way of coming up with the money that they
don't have to finance it? How many businesses will voluntarily
give up one point of their percentage of profits when
businesses such as restaurants barely survive with their typically average
five percent profit margin. I don't know that it sounds
like a good idea, but clearly that cost is going
to be passed along to the consumer. You're gonna get

(55:01):
a one penny per dollar order increase, and so that
costs will be passed off like all taxes are passed off.
So I always say, businesses really don't pay taxes. They
just pass that tax along to the end consumer of
the good or service that they're selling. That's the reality
of it, which is well, yeah, costly to everybody, So

(55:22):
go ahead, tax the billionaires will just pass along that
tax to you and I for whatever it is they're selling.
Thanks Bobby, faith flab fat flat flag and freedom. I
kind of agree with you on that. Six thirty five.
We can use a little bit more of all that
USA installation talking about saving money on energy, burning less
carbout KRC detalk station. I'm stuck on these these green

(55:44):
groups arguments about Trump's you know, slashing all of the
new the green energy crap. Of course, dealt with the
Cafe STANERG yesterday, which is a win for everybody. Gives
you a choice. You want to buy an evy buy one,
you buy an internal question engine, you cold buy one
that I have no problem with that take carbon dioxide

(56:05):
out of the equation. Now, if you can just give
up your religious leanings right now for a moment, and
if you take the argument that carbon dioxide's bad. Out
of the arguments that are being advanced here, they don't
have anything to rely on. And I find it almost
it's almost laughable, and that these arguments from the so
called green activists can even have any traction whatsoever. Environmental

(56:31):
Working Group Bernadette del Ciaro, she's the chairman of this,
I guess it's one of these environmental groups who's angry
about Donald Trump's efforts to roll back these ridiculous and
I would immediately point to inflationary creating green energy products
claims to the exact opposite, claiming it's a giveaway to
the fossil fuel industry that will result in greater pollution,

(56:53):
higher energy costs, and fewer choices for consumers. Now, fewer
choices for consumers if you can choose us from let's say, wind,
hydro power, solar, gasoline, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, that's seven.
Or if you have to go down the green energy
folks road, you've get hydro power, you get solar, and

(57:16):
you get wind. That's three choices. So let's throw the
nonsense out that it's fewer choices for consumers. More choice
means lower price, right, because it's the laws of supplying demand.
If seven different things can provide you an abundance of
energy or at least energy, and you take away five
of them or four of them, obviously the price is

(57:39):
going to go up. There's only a finite amount of
space for windmills and solar anyway. But let's move away
from that now. Is it a giveaway to the fossil
fuel industry? Same thing, laws of supplying demand. More natural
gas and more gasoline generally or oil generally speaking, means
less price. Check out. The global price of a barrel
of oil when we produce more goes down. When OPEK

(58:02):
agrees to increase production, the price tends to go down.
How does that benefit OPAK or the fossil fuel industry.
The price is lower, That means a profit margin is lower.
It's just insane. This del ciarro guy slashing support or
woman Bernadette. You never know these days, though, do you.

(58:25):
I don't know who Bernadette identifies as, but we'll just
say Bernadette. Then, slashing support for wind and solar cripples
US leadership in the rapidly expanding clean energy economy. The
fictitiously created economy brought about by the claim the carbon
dioxide's dangerous to everybody. There would be no wind in

(58:47):
solar industry if it wasn't for that nonsense, self inflicted wound.
These rollbacks kill jobs, strand private investment, and hand global
economic advantage to China, just as the rest of the
world races towards cheaper, cleaner and more competitive energy sources. Well,
let's wake Ms Bernadette delcherro up again and remind her

(59:10):
of what's happened in Europe, who follows her advice and
did try to end to the extent it possibly could
all carbon dioxide output. Their economy has been ruined headline.
Just the other day, I even commented about the article
Europe's green energy rush slashed emissions and cripple the economy.

(59:33):
Germany's economy has gone into the toilet. Energy prices in
Germany are double what we pay. How is it more
affordable going down the green energy road? How is it
more affordable? The only way it is affordable is when
government comes in and offers a subsidy to take away
the pain from the policies that they followed. Those subsidies

(59:54):
obviously dig their economy into a deeper hole, because well,
you're spending a whole ton of money sub pizing the
energy payers on the tail and to make it look
like your policies aren't impacting them. But you obviously have
to cut corners elsewhere in your budget. But you also
drive companies away that really would like to do business,
perhaps in Germany where yeah, they had a decent workforce

(01:00:16):
up until recently, but you might want to go there.
But when there are other options in the world, even China,
where they still burn coal and anything else, they want
to keep their economy rolling along while laughing at us.
And that energy industry that this Delchiara person's talking about,
of course, is the green energy the manufacturers of windmill,
solar panels and other green related technology that doesn't produce

(01:00:38):
carbon or captures carbon, an energy economy that is dominated
by the Chinese, benefiting our biggest foe out in the world.
If you want to look at things from an existential
threat to the United States of America, China be number
one again. Take concerns of carbon dioxide out of the equation.

(01:01:00):
They've got nothing at all to stand on six p.
Forty five right now fifty five cares to the talk
station Mike I see her on the screen. I'll be
more than happy to talk to if you don't mind
holding a moment and let me steer you in the
right direction. And that's share Facts Credit Union formally. Well,
I guess they merged with Emery, but I banked with
Emory forever. Share Facts no different than Emory. A better

(01:01:21):
way to bank shaffacx Credit Union. You are really more
than a customer. You're actually a member and a part owner.
See de talk station after the time of their news
Congressman Warren Davidson, followed by Senator John Houstad, and I
mean in answer to the question Kevin, I won the
cribbage game yesterday against cribbage Mike. Kevin, my pitmaster barbecue
friend was at listener to lunch. He didn't stay around

(01:01:41):
for the game, but he did ask. So I'm proud
of beating cribbage Mike. Mike, bring your a game next year.
Let's go to the phone. See what Mike's got other
different Mike, Mike, welcome to the show. Thanks for holding.
Good to hear from you.

Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
Hi, right, I'll think about the two in the atmosphere,
so video ones are there and dead. I think it
was the house had some climate experts in and one
centator or congressman asking was like, what's you know what
the percentage of DO two is in our atmosphere? None
of them do no, will take a guess. He's either're

(01:02:13):
like four percent, six percent, eight percent. He's like, no,
it's point five. That's up from point four. If it
gets the point three, plants start dying because that's their food.

Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
And illustrating the point that I make all the time,
it's not a pollutant naturally occurring part of our atmosphere
that literally is responsible for plant life on the in
the world. It's not. I mean, if plants lived on
if that's lived on mercury or lead, then we might
have a real problem, you know, coexisting with plants. Human

(01:02:47):
beings maybe weren't meant to exist in an environment like that.
But CO two doesn't bother you or me, especially such
low percentages. But boy, the plants are sure damn happy
that it's there. It's right, that's the insanity all this again,
I keep going back. If they were talking about eliminating
mercury or lead or harmful things that are dangerous to

(01:03:07):
both plants and humans, that is in you know, you
can make the argument all day long. We need to
get rid of that stuff from the environment to the
extent we can. That's why we don't have leaded gasoline anymore. Hey,
here's an idea. Let's not put lead in the gas
that is demonstrably dangerous to the environment, human beings, plants, everybody. Look,
we eliminated. We still have gasoline, got catalytic converters, wh's

(01:03:29):
burned up most of all the balance of the pollutants
coming out right? Well, okay, Pat, welcome to the show.
Happy or Happy Friday Eve to you.

Speaker 8 (01:03:38):
Good morning, mister Thomas. And that it is because I
don't work tomorrow, so I get to be non productive
in an employment.

Speaker 4 (01:03:45):
Good for you.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
Well, I hope you're off tomorrow, not because of your
loss of a situation, but because it's your day off.

Speaker 8 (01:03:52):
Well, I actually had extra vacation that needed to be burned.

Speaker 1 (01:03:55):
Good for you.

Speaker 14 (01:03:57):
Pat.

Speaker 1 (01:03:57):
You know what, now that you brought that up, I'm
taking Monday and Tuesday off for that exact reason. You
smoke them. If you got them, use them or lose them.
That's the philosophy at iHeartMedia. So I'm using them rather
than losing them. Monday and Tuesday.

Speaker 8 (01:04:10):
You know, exactly, just a real quick During the time
of the dinosaurs, when there were volcanoes going off everywhere,
the CO two level and the atmosphere was high, plants
were giant and so were dinosaurs. So that tells you
a little bit about CO two. But getting to what
I really wanted to expound on was politicians are whorees
because they come in, get elected, get on a committee,

(01:04:32):
make money, make stupid laws that don't benefit anybody, but
somebody paid them to pass legislation that's going to benefit
a select group, and in the long run, taxpayers end
up paying for it exclusively, and they don't care. You
got Warren Davidson's and some other men that are and

(01:04:53):
women that stand up, but they're in a minority, and Brian,
they're fighting, you know, they're fighting up.

Speaker 1 (01:04:58):
For battle, right. It's an uphill battle. Why because people
have been convinced that carbon dioxide plant food is bad.
It's a religion. It's in our children's curriculum, I mean,
the good They tried to.

Speaker 8 (01:05:14):
Convince my son of that climate change stuff. It's not
one volcano pukes out more pollutants than most of humanity
has in their whole existence. And when you've got seven
of them going across, going off across the whole world. Uh,
then you're you're gonna scratch your head and say, we
need to change our cars. We need to have electric
cars that you can only grib a couple hundred miles

(01:05:36):
if we have to recharge. I said, this is a lie.

Speaker 1 (01:05:39):
Well, and and you know you're right on the accuracy
of volcanoes in their carbon production. You're right at wildfires
do the same thing. But you can take one country,
China out of the equation. If you eliminated China, you
would eliminate the vast majority of the world's pollutants. Then
you have to worry about Turkey and India. But let's
just deal with China right now, the producer of the
vast majority of the so called green energy products that

(01:06:02):
we're being forced through well regulations and well, this this
faux religion that our children are being taught. That's why
we're embracing it. And it helps them while they build
coal plants and belch out more pollution than we could
ever hope to belch out in our lifetimes. There is
that fun fact from Australia. Australia all the carbon emissions
that they've eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions of Australia's elimited

(01:06:25):
are negated by China's production of carbon dioxide through their
energy like in eleven days. So congratulations, Australia crippled your
own economy, made energy more expensive, and China just eliminated
all of your efforts for a year in eleven days.
How's that working out for everybody?

Speaker 8 (01:06:41):
I think the disclosure needs to be made. Who pay
these people to come up with such stupid laws and
beliefs and then say, hey, you know this is going
to only benefit or whoever else, And in the meantime,
the rest of us have to say enough stupidity is enough.
You're strangling us. But that doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
Well whether whether or not a paycheck as a result,
Like you know, they're getting paid off to embraces. It's
useful idiots. Once you convince them that the hockey stick
or this particular hand picked, hand selected report which says
carbon dioxide is bad, you convince them of that, they'll
do anything to go down that road, and they'll keep

(01:07:22):
waving it around. Oh my god, the hockey stick. We're
all gonna die. The globe is going to incre and
how do they know what the globe temperature is going
to be one hundred plus years from now. They don't.
They make it up statistics kind of suggest if we're
on this direction, we're okay. Just convince somebody of that
you've already owned them. You don't have to write a
check for them. You don't have to get some lobbying

(01:07:42):
interest to say you need to support this windmill project.
You already won. They're member of the cult. Six fifty
six fifty five KRSED talk station. Congressman Warren, it's seven
oh six fifty five KRSEDE talk station. A man who's
become man, thankfully so a regular that you're on the
fifty five Cassee Morning Show. Appreciate his willness or come

(01:08:02):
on and talk about these really important topics representing and
proudly doing so the eighth Congressional District from the state
of Ohio. Congressman Warren Davidson, it is always a pleasure
having you on the fifty five Carsee Morning Show. And
welcome back, sir.

Speaker 5 (01:08:16):
Thank you, Brian.

Speaker 6 (01:08:17):
It's great to talk with you.

Speaker 1 (01:08:18):
And you're gonna have to do a little bit of
splaining to me. I have have admitted many times over
the years, the idea of cryptocurrencies like the peace of God.
It passes all human understanding, at least for Brian Thomas,
all types of different you know, cryptocurrencies out in the world.
You've introduced a bill called the Bitcoin for America Act,

(01:08:38):
and so I offer you an opportunity to explain why
this is important. Then maybe you can address some of
the question marks I have swirling around my ignorance over
cryptocurrency generally. How's that?

Speaker 6 (01:08:50):
Yeah, I mean, bitcoin is the one thing in crypto
that if you have to name one thing about crypto,
bitcoin comes up, and it accounts for half of, maybe
a little more than half of the market share of
everything known as crypto. And you know it, when I
first took office, you could buy one bitcoin for about

(01:09:10):
five hundred dollars, and in that time, now it's you know,
I'm approaching one hundred thousand dollars. Again, It's had some
movement up and down, but it's certainly accumulated value over
the long, longer.

Speaker 5 (01:09:22):
Period of time.

Speaker 4 (01:09:23):
And what does it do.

Speaker 6 (01:09:25):
It gives you a way to move money at the
speed of light. So you know, if you want to
pay cash, well, okay, you get a physically hand the
cash to somebody. We've been able to move money at
the speed of light in some ways for a long time.
That's what credit cards let you do. You can put
put your credit card in, you can do it on
the internet. You can save your credit card number in
your phone and click that and it comes up. So

(01:09:46):
you know, hou's bitcoin different than those things. Well, there's
no corporate headquarters for bitcoin. There's no intermediary that makes money.
You know, Visa and MasterCard make lots of money for
this risk. They provide and they make sure that you
are who you say you are, that you're not buying

(01:10:07):
something from somebody who's different than they say they are,
make sure you have credit. They do all that in
an instant so the work they do is amazing, but
they charge for it. Bitcoin lets you do that where
you could truly hold your own currency. Most people don't
own it that way.

Speaker 4 (01:10:22):
Though.

Speaker 6 (01:10:22):
Most people own bitcoin, you know, kind of the same
way they would own shares of ge they would have
a fidelity account or in this case, Coinbase is probably
the biggest thing people do, but it's essentially like a
fidelity targeted initially at just buying crypto things. Now virtually
everybody has the same kinds of service where you know, Fidelity,
Schwab whatever, you can have an account and buy bitcoin

(01:10:44):
or bitcoin ETFs or things like that. So people have
accumulated all this value in there. It's no secret. I
don't like the income tax, period. I don't like lots
of taxes, but you get to tax some things. But
bitcoin is one of those things where the federal government
when they would seize this and people say, oh, it's
used for I listed finance, Well, not in the same

(01:11:05):
rate that the dollar is. The dollars used massively more
for a list of finance. But okay, people have paid
money with bitcoin that way. We just see fifteen billion
dollars worth of it from Cambodia and a scam center
one hundred and twenty seven thousand bitcoins, and the government
was like every agency seizing little pockets of crypto, and

(01:11:26):
they were losing control of it. Some would say that
we're stealing it because if you don't have the keys,
it's electronic, it can get moved and you know, there's
no headquarters that will reset your password. You lose the password,
the money's gone, like losing a pile of cash.

Speaker 5 (01:11:40):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:11:41):
So when Trump came in, he changed that and put
an executive order saying, hey, we're going to let the
you know, Secretary of the Treasury set up a thing
at the Treasury Department where all of the bitcoin from
the Department of Justice or any other part of the
government it gets in possession of the federal government. We're
going to have one central testodium. And he caught it

(01:12:02):
a strategic Bitcoin reserve, and he said, hey, look, we're
going to sell off some of this other stuff that
nobody really knows what is. Some of it really is
just a pump and dump scam and needs to be regulated.
That's what I've tried to do is try to kill
the pump and dump scams and protect the good stuff.
And so that's what they wanted to do. But then
they're like, how do we fund it? Well, there are
some people that want the tax dollars to go buy bitcoin.

(01:12:24):
I don't think that's a great idea, But what about
people that already have bitcoins just paying taxes with the bitcoin.
And that's what this bill does. Let's you pay your
taxes with the bitcoin that goes to the bitcoin reserve.
And the upside of that is is if you say, well,
I'm tired of my tax dollars being wasted on xyz,
and you think those things shouldn't be wasted on. If

(01:12:46):
you put it into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, it doesn't
even get spent, it gets held. That's what the executive
order did, So it kindifies the executive order in that sense.

Speaker 1 (01:12:55):
Well, I always crypto is kind of weird because it's
always expressed in terms of dollars, which is our fiat currency.
And yet using bitcoin in little fiat currency seems a
mechanism to lead toward the demise of the fiat currency
because it is going to be used as an alternative form.
As you pointed out, it doesn't. It isn't centralized in
any given country.

Speaker 4 (01:13:16):
It is.

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
It exists independently and free of you know, any regulatory
control or government control anyhow. I mean, I like the
freedom associated with it. But if it becomes a more
stable form of paying for things, then you moving away
from the dollar, which has some I would I would think,
some pretty serious implications for the future of America's fiat currency.

Speaker 6 (01:13:37):
Well, there are futures. There are serious implications for the
future of the dollar period. I know that, and that's
part of what that's part of what the that's part
of what the logic was for the creators or creator
of bitcoin a pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. So we don't know
if there's one person or multiple people, or who did it.
It's still a mystery. But in two thousand and nine,
there's this white paper. You can read it at bitcoin

(01:13:59):
dot org. It's a short paper, but it explains the
logic of a permissionless system separated from any government, and
it establishes trust. It's a different computing architecture, blockchain, So
you can go way down into this and at the
end of the day, it's like, well, you can go
way down into the Internet. You don't need to learn
that there's a seven layer protocol and how IP addresses

(01:14:21):
work and everything to enjoy using the Internet. And you
don't have to do that to enjoy using bitcoin either
or other things. But that's the problem, right is we're
experiencing and affordability like housing. If you own the same
house that you owned fifteen years ago, it's probably worth
double what you paid for it fifteen years ago. And

(01:14:43):
even if you didn't do anything, you didn't fix anything,
you got the same water, heat, same furnace, same roof,
everything and it's worth double.

Speaker 5 (01:14:50):
You're like, how is that?

Speaker 6 (01:14:51):
Well, your money got destroyed. We measure things in dollars
because that's our currency, but the value of it is
getting crushed. That's what inflation does. And inflation really is
a tax. I mean, if Congress passed a set of
laws that said, you know, we're just going to take
groceries up about thirty percent over the next five years,
I mean, they would fire everybody. So they didn't do that.

(01:15:13):
What they did is they give two trillion dollar death
sits every year, plus a whole lot of trillions during COVID,
and it newd the value of your money. It is
essentially the same kind of tax, but it's even more
dishonest than a tax in a lot of ways. So
it's terrible. And look at inflation. If you've got assets,
if you've got a house already, and you have retirement

(01:15:37):
savings and four to one k's and those things, you're
looking at your portfolio and your value going, well, this
isn't too bad. But if you're still just like graduating college,
coming out starting out in life, you can't afford anything
because you didn't have any assets to get inflated, and
that's it grows the wealth gap. The money is getting destroyed.
And because the money was getting destroyed back when they

(01:15:58):
were doing quantitative easy in the OITO nine financial crisis,
that was sort of the inspiration behind bitcoin.

Speaker 1 (01:16:06):
Understand that and real briefly in terms of you know,
types of cryptocurrency. I mean, you started out by acknowledging
Bitcoin is pretty much the first. It's the most widely known,
obviously the most valuable among all the various cryptocurrencies. But
that volatility that I've seen in the market. You start
out it's five hundred dollars. Originally it's one hundred thousand
dollars now, you know, a month ago, and of course

(01:16:26):
I'm using random figures, pulled sphincter from sphincter, but it
was worth twenty thousand dollars, and then next it jumps
data fifty thousand dollars. There seems to be so much
weird volatility in the crypto itself. I guess I kind
of wonder, how do you what's it worth? I mean,
is it worth what it's worth the moment you say
pay your tax bill?

Speaker 6 (01:16:46):
Yeah, that's how That's how would be valued so that
you know, if you pay your taxes, you know today
you know view about ninety seven thousand dollars, but if
you paid it last week, two weeks ago, it would
have been like eighty seven thousand dollars. So that's the
kind of volatiley after. Part of that's because we haven't
created good regulations in the United States, and there's probably
a fair bit of market manipulation, so you don't have

(01:17:07):
the same kinds of controls over this that you would
on the stock market. But that's led to other innovations
like stable coins, so those are measured in dollars and
instead of being backed by nothing but math, they're backed
by treasury deposits in the bank. Or the one I
like the most is started by a guy from Cleveland
to Paxos Gold. So Chad Cascarilla has created this company, Paxos,

(01:17:31):
and they've got an ounce of gold and vaults that
are audited, not a promise to get some gold, but
real gold sitting in vaults. Unlike Fort Knox, they audit
it and it's tokenized, so the gold doesn't really move,
but like I could move, you know, one ounce worth
of gold to you and it's Essentially, here's permission to

(01:17:52):
that ounce the same way that bitcoin works. And so
you've seen a lot of innovations in the space, and
that's that's kind of what what drove the craze and crypto.

Speaker 1 (01:18:02):
Fair enough at seven to sixteen, we're gonna continue to
find out about healthcare reform and taking out the narco terrorist.
Was talking about that earlier in the program. I also
talked about that yesterday with Judgennapaula Tany You get that
podcast fifty five kr SEA dot com station fifty five
KRC detalk station Happy Friday e Brian Thomas with Congressman
Warren Davidson. Let's move over to healthcare reform. And I

(01:18:23):
don't call maintaining or even subsidizing insurance premiums to mask
the realities of Obamacare a good idea, because like green subsidies,
it hides the actual cost and the government ends up
eating the picking up the tab so premium subsidies, of course,
that led to the shutdown. Are we back to discussing

(01:18:44):
these Congress and Davidson and are we going to lose
some Republicans to the fear of reality setting in on Obamacare?
What's going on with this one.

Speaker 6 (01:18:54):
Yeah, I mean, look, yeah, that's exactly right. The subsidies
they were added during COVID because as they said, well,
there's going to be a pandemic and it's bad, and
so we're gonna we're just gonna have to prop up
health insurance companies so they don't raise everybody's premiums. Well,
that was a bad idea in the first place. No
Republicans voted for that idea. And it's like, if you

(01:19:15):
were going to send money the hospitals and doctors would
make sense. They're doing the treating or the patience would
make sense, right, but why would you give it to
the middleman? Like that would be like the worst idea,
And it, as you say, it masks the cost. You
just keep dumping cash in there. And it's sort of
like protection money protection from who the insurance companies like, well,

(01:19:38):
you know, if you guys pay up, I mean, we
could hold the rates down a little bit. Their version
of holding rates down. If you've got an insurance on
an Obamacare exchange, I guarantee over the past several years
you haven't gotten well, rates have been under control. You're
getting double digit increases, you're still getting claims denied, you're
out of pocket. Max is still there. You're still getting
ridiculous notifications that oh that was out in now work.

Speaker 4 (01:20:00):
Is like is it the same building?

Speaker 7 (01:20:01):
I was in the same room?

Speaker 6 (01:20:02):
How is it out of network? So all the frustrations
people have with insurance is still there and we haven't
fixed it.

Speaker 4 (01:20:10):
So it's been like, oh no, no, we fixed it.
We sent the subsidies.

Speaker 6 (01:20:12):
And that's exactly what will happen if we continue these
instead of having a debate about how would we fix it?
And you know, President Trump's done that on drug prices
for example, he said, and let's do most favored Nation, Like, hey,
you still own your company, price however you want. But
if you'll sell th Zimpic to London for you know,

(01:20:32):
eighty bucks, you can't charge an American eight hundred bucks.
So whatever you sell it for the best price in
the world is in America. You can have higher prices
in other countries. That's up to other countries. But if
you sell it for one hundred bucks somewhere, you're selling
it for one hundred bucks in America. And I honestly
think that would be great if we did it. For
all things, like you get your bill, and it always says,

(01:20:55):
you know, well it's ten thousand dollars, but since you
have you know, Anthem or United or whatever, well one
thousand dollars, right, And you know it's a made up
number for made up procedure or whatever. But you know
everyone's seen these explanation of benefits. The reality is, if
you work at Procter and Gamble, you've got great health
care coverage and PNG has a huge workforce and rightly

(01:21:17):
has a lot of buying power. But if you work
at a small business and you got twenty employees and
one of the employees gets cancer, they're trying to spread
that cost and risk over twenty people instead of the
whole state of Ohio. So if you had the hospital
provider saying, look, we charge you know, a thousand bucks,
whether you're paying cash, whether you work at a small
business with twenty people or you work at a big

(01:21:38):
business with two hundred thousand. Around the world, this is
the price, same price, whether you've got insurance or you
don't have insurance, whether it's this insurance or that insurance,
all the insurance companies, we sell it to you for
one thousand dollars, and you could pick your own price,
but it would be fair if you had a functioning market.
That's what would happen in a functioning market. That's the

(01:21:58):
way gas prices work, right. It's not like one guy's
going to get, you know, three bucks for a gallon
and the guy next door is going to get four
bucks for a gallon. It's going to quickly price it
pretty close to three bucks. And it's not that you
get charged a different price because you pulled up in
a Buick and this other guy pulled up in a
Toyota exactly.

Speaker 9 (01:22:16):
You know.

Speaker 6 (01:22:16):
So this is the way healthcare is broken because it
doesn't have real market forces. And so if we're not
going to do real market forces, we should try to
replicate it. And then lastly, what President Trump said is, look,
you should send the money to the person. You know,
we do it for food stamps, for example. We don't
send the money to Kroger. We send the money to
the person and they buy what they want. And they've

(01:22:38):
made it legal to buy what you want, so you
can't select and pick on your health insurance plans. They've
prescribed a set of every plan has to cover X,
y Z, and that rose prices because it said every
plan has to have all these features on it. Some
people don't want to need those features, and they made
it illegal to buy such a product.

Speaker 1 (01:22:59):
Well, okay, Currently there is a Democratic proposal to extend
the healthcare insurance premium subsidies, and that's the one that
we're going to be I guess voting on upcoming. Whether
or not you get Republicans capitulating to that insanity remains
to be seen. But is there currently an alternative along
the lines of the market force proposal you just suggested
of the Trump suggestion about letting the dollars go to

(01:23:20):
the individual as opposed to the healthcare companies. Have we
got something like that teed up and ready to go
as a foil to just continuing this nonsense of subsidies.

Speaker 6 (01:23:30):
Yeah, that's what they're working on. So there will be
a vote in the Senate, because that was the deal
that you know, soon reached with Schumer to get the
vote to reopen the government. Right, But we didn't agree
to anything in the House. Right And you know, frankly
for Speaker Johnson, generally the rule is if you can't
get fifty percent of Republicans, you're not supposed to put

(01:23:51):
it on the floor, And I don't think there's any
chance that he could get fifty percent of Republicans to
agree to this idea of just status quo funding for
Obama Care. Now they might put it in there in
exchange for market reforms, like okay, Well it'll take a
little bit for these to get implemented. So we'll do
another year, maybe two years on the outside of some

(01:24:13):
status quo kind of subsidies. But we're pivoting towards this
more market oriented approach over the next year, maybe over
the next two years. So those are the kinds of things.
There have been lots of bills for Republicans, we just
haven't put.

Speaker 5 (01:24:25):
Them into one.

Speaker 6 (01:24:25):
So what I mentioned to you in that little dialogue,
there is probably three or four bills of ideas. So
we're trying to pick those right now, saying what is
going to be the package, how would they interoperate with
each other, and can we get that to the floor.

Speaker 4 (01:24:40):
Can we do it before Christmas?

Speaker 6 (01:24:42):
So those are the kinds of things that are going on,
you know, back channel right now in order to hopefully
a good vote on the floor.

Speaker 1 (01:24:49):
Well, we can wait to see what happens, and I
can only anticipate what's going to happen in the Senate.
It's going to ruin the concept, will undermine the Democrats,
you know, dream of medicaid for all, which is of
course Obamacare's the vehicle to bring that reality about. So
ain't going to be smooth sailing regardless, I believe, Congressman
Warren Davidson. But we'll all be waiting with a popcorn

(01:25:10):
out and wish you the best of luck and bringing
about some more sense to them that problem we have
with healthcare coverage these days. Congressman Warren Davidson, I thank
you so much for joining the program and appreciate your
willingness to come on talk about these issues. I'll look
forward to another conversation. Have a wonderful, wonderful week between
now and our next talk.

Speaker 6 (01:25:29):
Yeah you as well, Brand always an honor. God bless
you and all your listeners.

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
Thank you, sir. Seven twenty eight. Right now we're hearing
from Senator John Hey's Ryan Thomas welcoming back to the
fifty five Cassey Morning Show. And what a great idea
he's got. Senator John Houston, who is introduced. Oh my god,
I've been dreaming about this my entire political life. A
balanced budget amendment. Welcome back, Senator Houston. It's great having
you on. I had a conversation the other day with

(01:25:53):
I think it was vv. Ramaswamy or I can't remember
specifically who I know Donovan and Neil from a Americans
for Prosperity, And I said, you know, Donovan, I my
entire political life, which began maybe when I was around
a junior in high school or something, I've been dreaming
of a balanced budget amendment. It sounds so common sense.
We have to run our households on a balanced budget,

(01:26:14):
at least most of us who were financially prudent. Anyway,
How can you argue with this? How could this possibly
bear a political stripe? It sound finance? Does this one
have any hope because this kind of thing's been tried
over and over again.

Speaker 12 (01:26:27):
So I think so, like I think so because so
So let me just set the stage here because this
is my you know, I worked in state government. In
state government, we had to balance the budget. So your
mentality going into the budget process when you work in
state government is okay, it's got to add up, it's
got a balance, right like that. You just you don't

(01:26:47):
even have the concept that that's not going to happen.
But at the federal level, because it doesn't have to happen,
no one even thinks about what the consequences are of
overspending because it's just what they do. And after spending
a little time here now, I realized that that it's
not going to get fixed until we force a solution.

(01:27:09):
And so the balanced budget amendment that I'm working on
proposed is not something where it says, hey, you pass
this and then the next year it's going to be
balanced and we're going to We're going to have ten
years to get there, right, You got to You've got
to get there over time, because there's no way you
can get the votes for this if you don't phase
it in. But I also know this that I've talked

(01:27:31):
to many people in my life who have said I'm
willing to do with I'm willing to take less from
the government, I'm willing to give more to the government,
but they don't trust the fact that it will actually
do anything because we're not forced to have a balanced budget.
So if you want to get people to make the
sacrifices necessary, you have to prove to them that you

(01:27:54):
will do you will act responsibly, and the only way
you can prove it is with a constitutional amendment.

Speaker 1 (01:28:00):
Well, it's save me from myself, because you know the
promises of fiscal responsibility. We've been hearing that for years
and on both sides of the Ledger, more so from
the Republican side, because it's been typically been part of
the Republican platform to engage in fiscal responsibility. And yet
we get stabbed in the back by the very Republicans
who articulate and argue about fiscal responsibility when they bring

(01:28:22):
back the projects to their state, when they get an
opportunity to do so, which is not necessarily fiscally responsible.

Speaker 12 (01:28:30):
It is exactly right, but nobody's forced to do it.

Speaker 4 (01:28:34):
Like you.

Speaker 12 (01:28:35):
If you could eat as much as you want, and
you know then you eat as much as you want,
you would never reck if you didn't have to exercise
to be healthy. If you could eat as much as
you want, you do it like But in government at
the federal level that there's no discipline, there's no mechanism
to force the discipline, and without it, eventually the discipline

(01:28:56):
will come when people will no longer allow us to
borrow money, or they'll jack up the rates that you
have that you're gonna have to pay to borrow money,
and that'll be a catastrophe. Then that will be a crisis. Actually,
the balanced budget amendment I'm proposing is the easy way.
The hard way will come when we eventually can no

(01:29:16):
longer borrow money, and then it will be catastrophic. The change,
the rate of change will be catastrophic to people. They
won't be able to adjust it. What I'm proposing as
a phase in.

Speaker 1 (01:29:26):
Well, that phase in that glide path, as it's quite
often referred to, is not tearing the band aid off.
You don't have to experience immediate pain. But you're exactly right.
Their failure to engage in fiscal responsibility is bringing about
that very crisis. We won't have creditors anymore. The Fiat
currency runs in jeopardy of becoming worthless and valueless, like

(01:29:48):
it has in so many other countries that have run
down this road and just run the printing press thinking
it's gonna work out and everybody's gonna be fine. No,
you need a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a
loaf of bread. How many times does that happen? And
yet it seems that everybody just ignores that painful, obvious reality.
I mean, we do not have a lock on the
default currency, with crypto out there and other currencies maybe

(01:30:11):
perhaps more financially managed better, maybe backed by something by
goal like gold or something. I don't know, but we've
just been blindly relying on that this is going to
go on into perpetuity when it clearly cannot.

Speaker 12 (01:30:23):
Yeah, and you know, as in preparation for this, I've
looked at how hard this will be to do. Do
you know that they're other than China? There's not another
So let me back up. We have over a trillion
dollars in interest payments a year in the United States
on our national debt. Thirty eight trillion trillion dollars a
year more than that go to interest in the national debt.

(01:30:45):
You know, there are only two countries in the world
who have a budget over trillion dollars, that's the United
States and China. Put in context the size of the
problem that we have. And you know, people on the
left have said, well, we just need to tax the billionaires, right.
Do you know if you confiscated all the money of
every billionaire in America, you still have a national debt

(01:31:06):
that's over thirty trillion dollars and then nobody to tax
for your free grocery stores. I mean, seriously, this is
a problem that we have to, you know, treat with
the urgency it deserves.

Speaker 1 (01:31:17):
Well, you get one bite at the apple with a confiscatory,
with a tax like that, because if you acquire and
take all of the billionaire's assets one year, they're not
going to be around next year to make any more money.

Speaker 12 (01:31:29):
But I'm just trying to use it as an it's
a well taken point. This is not going to You're
not going to get there just by taxing the rich.
You can't even come close to paying off the debt
by taxing them by confiscating all their money. So it's
it's just it's just it's time we got to do this.

Speaker 1 (01:31:50):
And as so many other Western nations are learning, you
go ahead and go down that path. The rich figure
out a way to leave the jurisdiction and take their
money and go elsewhere. Now, the one opponent of this,
it's balance the budget check, no problem, reasonable glide path
to reach the balance check. We've talked about that A
little bit concern I have, and I think you can
understand why I have it is the accept in emergencies part.

(01:32:13):
And I can see, you know, our elected officials figuring
out ninety zillion ways why every year we find ourselves
in an emergency? What's the check on that political concern?

Speaker 12 (01:32:25):
Well, it's it's a it's a two thirds majority, which means,
you know, that's a huge number to get to to break.
I mean, you would have to be a true emergency
to be able to get something like that done, meaning
like we were in a world war or something along
those lines. But you know, look, there has to be
some mechanism. Sure, because I'm I'm trying to live in

(01:32:47):
the world of pragmatism, right of like what can I do?
How can I how can I be behind a balance
budgetmendment that I have a chance of actually getting passed?
And so that's why the glide passed. That's why. That's
why because you know what someone will say, well, what
about what about if we go to war? What if
there's a you know, a huge natural disaster and we
need to have more money, you know, and we have

(01:33:09):
to borrow temporarily, Well, then that you have a trigger
mechanism to do that. But it's a two thirds majority,
It's a huge number.

Speaker 1 (01:33:17):
To try to get to and of course, since we're
talking about a constitutional amendment here, which will give it
the strength and the teeth that would need absence some
subsequent Supreme Court finding otherwise. But anyway, let's assume it
gets past, you have to have it ratified by the states.
Is there enough will out there among the states, Because
when I view this whole concept, you've dealt with the

(01:33:37):
concerns about the band Aid, ripping off of the liivepath
and all that, it sounds logical, it sounds reasonable, and
I can't believe fiscal responsibility at least taking only spending
what you take in has a political stripe. So what
do you anticipate being the biggest argument you're going to
face in terms of selling this to everyone? Let me
just say, what are the Democrats going to say in
opposition to this, assuming it goes down the traditional political course.

Speaker 12 (01:34:01):
Well, you know, they'll have a lot of different things
that they'll say about it. But what I believe, Look,
I don't You've made a really good point, like this
has been tried, it's not happened. But I do I
do believe that that now we're getting closed, Like I
don't know when it's going to be, Brian, I don't
know if it's going to be in two years, five years,

(01:34:22):
ten years. But if we don't change our spending habits,
like there is a day not too and then not
too distant future where people won't loan us money anymore, right,
Like they won't buy our debt because they can't trust
that we'll actually be able to pay it off. So
I think that the convergence of those events, because nobody's

(01:34:45):
going to trust to the government to if you ask
them to make a sacrifice, and you don't have a
mechanism like a constitutional amendment forcing the discipline, I don't
think that you'll get people to make those sacrifices. So
I think that there's a chance that the States will
recognize this day of reckoning and the voters of this

(01:35:05):
country will vote to approve it. I just believe that
that the convergence of events are going to allow for
something like that to happen in the next in the
next few years.

Speaker 1 (01:35:14):
Well, when asked as an isolated question, do you believe
in the concept of a balanced budget amendment or mandating
fice corresponsibility, I think most people agree percentage wise sixty
seventy percent of American so it's a sellable point. It's
the responsible thing to do. I can only pray that
this goes forward. And I want to thank you on
behalf of the listeners and everybody else who is concerned
about what you're concerned about, for bringing forward the balanced
budget amendment. We'll talk about it again in the future

(01:35:36):
and I'll look forward to having you on throughout the calendar.
Your twenty twenty six Senator, Who'ston And I also want
to thank you for joining the show today and I
wish you and your entire family a very very merry
Christmas and happy holidays. It's seven forty nine and fifty
five Carosit Talk Station. Very happy Friday Eve to you.
Thanks again everybody made the listener lunch yesterday for price
sale chili. Thank you Rebecca pro mcgroppy for the wonderful

(01:35:58):
photographs to take photographs all the time she was there
yesterday and it was great being able to see all
the pictures that she forwarded. I posted them on my
Facebook page and I just want to thank the folks
that showed up and thanks Cribbage Mike for throwing the
game and letting me win again. Five on three seven
two three found five fifty on eighteen t Funds So
I mentioned date of Eavan. I was thinking of the

(01:36:19):
Nativity scene article that I ran into. And there are
many moments of time in this segment, apps and calls
before we get to my next guest after the top
of the hour news Michael Parks got a documentary The
Last six hundred Meters, which honors US soldiers who fought
and died in the Iraq War. That should be an
interesting conversation with Michael, followed by Jay Ratliffe. But this

(01:36:41):
church and Nativity scene controversy, I think the folks involved
kind of missed the point to a certain extent. It's
Saint Susannah. It's a Catholic church in Boston. Outside of Boston.
They put a Nativity scene outside an empty manger, no Jesus,
with a sign that says Ice was here, Okay. Father

(01:37:07):
Stephen Josoma, pastor there, said the church's Peace and Justice
Group organize the display. They said they try to see
what it would be like if Christ was born into
the context of the world today, what would he be
facing And apparently in the minds of the Saint Suzannah folks,
he would be facing, I don't know, arrest by ice officers. Now,

(01:37:28):
can anybody provide me with a reasonable justification for an
ice officer? I mean, assuming that Jesus was born in
modern times for being picked up and arrested. Apparently they
left the magi and Joseph and Mary sitting there, but
they took the baby. Don't know how they get there.
Josoma said, it's religious art. It's designed to evoke emotions

(01:37:51):
in people. He said, it's supposed to affect people deeply.
It's supposed to move people. It's supposed to change people.
So if this evokes a strong reaction, it may be
good to take a look at that.

Speaker 12 (01:38:01):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:38:01):
There was another church which added to my confusion on
this one. In Illinois. Church displayed a major scene featuring
the baby Jesus, hands zip tied together, and gas masks
on Mary and Joseph. Church said the display reimagines the
Nativity as a scene of forced family separation. Associate minister

(01:38:25):
at the Lake Street Church, Evanston Jillian Westerfeld, speaking with
Fox News, said the church felt the imagery resonates with
the current time in the story of Jesus' birth. Quote
this installation is not subtle because the crisis it addresses
is not abstract. The Holy Family were refugees. By witnessing
this familiar story through the reality faced by migrants today,

(01:38:48):
we hope to restore its radical edge and to ask
what it means to celebrate the birth of a refugee
child well turning away those who follow the child's footsteps. Now,
no theologian am I. I made that point profoundly clear
over my time on radio. But as I recall and

(01:39:08):
I understand, why were marying Joseph in Bethlehem? Were they refugees?
Did they sneak into Bethlehem without authorization?

Speaker 4 (01:39:18):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:39:19):
Caesar Augustus ordered a Roman census and forced people to
go back to their hometowns to get registered. Joseph from
the lineage of David. He had to travel from his
home in Nazareth, where he lived where he was working,
to go to Bethlehem for the purposes of government regulation,

(01:39:42):
and because the ends were full, because everybody else showed
up from out of town. That's why he ended up
having to Mary to give birth in the manger right.
This census decree probably would have gotten locked up by
the Romans had he stayed in Nazareth. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey,
you're you're from the house today. You're supposed to be
in Nazareth getting registered. How come you're you're supposed to

(01:40:03):
be in uh, in Bethlehem getting registered? How come you're
here in Nazareth. Now, under those circumstances, his act of
defiance against the Roman emperor may have gotten him locked up.
That's where the reality would set in. You defied the
government decree. You didn't leave where you lived and go
to the place where you came from. This is a

(01:40:23):
batcrap insanity, and it's Christmas time, right, It's isn't it
supposed to be? At least you know?

Speaker 9 (01:40:34):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:40:34):
Going back to my peanuts nineteen sixty five, Charlie Bound Christmas.
What's it all about? Listen to Linus make the speech.
I think he quotes the Gospel of Luke. What's the point.
It's the birth of what many people of faith believe
to be the Savior. That's why you celebrate Christmas. But

(01:40:57):
I like the idea of looking at it him getting
a way or them getting arrested. Had they not left
where they lived and had not gone to Bethlehem to
get registered. You know what I don't believe in the census.
I don't want to be counted. They were going to
lock you up for that. Joseph, get in the patty wagon.
The Centurions have a couple of words for you, and

(01:41:20):
yet ay pride, Joe. He didn't know how to conjugate
Latin romandida and to whatever that was. That was part
of the funniest scenes from that movie. I love that anyhow,
just a little food to think about as we hopefully
engage in what would should be a celebratory time of
year where we all tried to maybe kind of act

(01:41:41):
like Scrooge did when he woke up and realized that
maybe his damnation or not was contingent upon him being
a decent guy. You know what he had at the
end of the movie, after all that he had a
smile on his face. He was embracing the holiday season.
He wasn't engaging in politics. It's a fictitious story, but
why not celebrating a time of year that provides us

(01:42:06):
with an opportunity to put a smile on our face
and reflect. Let's not ruin it, pastors, priests by mixing
politics up in a time of year when you should
be providing your congregation with an uplifting message. If I
may be so bold, Michael Park the documentary the Last

(01:42:26):
six hundred Meters plus. I heard media aviation expert Jay
Ratliffe coming up. I hope you can stick around today's
top headlines coming anywhere anytime. Take your infot to go.

Speaker 9 (01:42:37):
I'm listening to your heart powered.

Speaker 1 (01:42:39):
By fifty five krs The talk Station eight oh five.
You're a fifty five krs the talk Station. A very
happy Friday Eve to you. Brian Thomas here right here,
and please welcome Michael Pack. He is a renowned documentary
director and we're gonna be talking about his newest release,

(01:42:59):
The six hundred Meters The Battles of Ned Jaff and Fallujah.
He is the president of Manifold Productions, independent film and
television production company that he founded way back in seventy seven.
Manifold Productions, mister Pack have written, direct, and produced numerous
award winning, nationally broadcast documentaries, as well as corporate and
educational films. Also president of Palladium Pictures. I could go

(01:43:20):
through your film list, but let's dive right onto it. Michael, Well,
welcome to the fifty five care Some morning should talk
about a very important documentary. You released this Last six
hundred Meters. What caused you to gravitate to make this
particular film about the battles of Najaff and Fallujas are
good to have you on the program.

Speaker 2 (01:43:41):
Well, it's good to be on your program. Well, as
you say, I've made a lot of documentaries, fifteen have
been nationally broadcast by PBS, but this one had of
our unusual path. It's called The Last six hundred Meters
The Battles of the Joff and Fallujah because a Special
Forces snipers in the film, I don't make foreign policy,

(01:44:02):
I delivered the last six hundred meters of it, meaning
what he could see through a sniperscope, and we try
to stay true to that. It's not about should we
be in Iraq with the Iraq We're good or bad.
It was what it was like to fight these battles.
These are the biggest battles in America has fought since Vietnam,
and we try to tell the story from the point
of view the people who fought there, from corporals and

(01:44:24):
sergeants up to the one star generals in the field,
and we try to make it a battle story. As
if it were a great historic battle like b Rejima
or Gettysburg. And it is the hard great historic battles.
But the path that you asked about how we got
there is an odd one. We were researching a film
about the Iraq War while it was going on in

(01:44:45):
two thousand and four and five, and you know, I
thought the stories of these battles and these young men
and women being we're untold. And I conducted the interviews
with them in two thousand and seven, three years after
the battle, when they were still young and their memories
were fresh. And then we completed a version of film

(01:45:06):
in two thousand and eight. And even though it was
primarily funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting PBS initially
declined to broadcast it. They thought it was too pro military.
Not sure what that means with us what they said,
And over seventeen years we begged them to broadcast it,
and finally President the PBS, and what I considered to
be a courageous move, reversed seventeen years of no to

(01:45:29):
say yes, and we slightly updated it and we put
it on PBS. It was broadcast nationally and PBS the
day before veterans day in the two hundred and fiftieth
anniversary of the Marine Corps. And it is now streaming
on Amazon and soon elsewhere, so it's available, and it
had a very unusual history, but it's, if anything, more
relevant today than it was, you know, way back when.

Speaker 1 (01:45:52):
Well could part of the reluctance be and see I'm
trying to draw a parallel here between people's attitudes about Vietnam.
Why are we there? Why are we fighting this battle?
We don't care about why blah? And so the soldiers
took the brunt of that when they came back, and
I've always felt terrible about that. But insofar as us,
the idea of us going into Iraq was predicated on
weapons of mass destruction. Guess what, there weren't any there.

(01:46:14):
At least that's what we've all learned, is that part
of the reason you were met with resistance, like we
shouldn't have been in that conflict in the first place,
ignoring the pain, the peril, the death, and the just
the awful realities of what our men and women on
the front line had to deal with.

Speaker 2 (01:46:32):
I think that's very true. I think people couldn't see
the film because of their ideology whatever it happened to
be that, and so it was very much parallel to
the Vietnam War veterans. I think the Iraq war veterans
in the afghan Astian word veterans also don't get their
due because people don't like their wars. I'm like to
say World War two, but it doesn't change the fact

(01:46:56):
that these were heroic people, young men and women, putting
their lives on the line for us, the American people.
And I think now maybe.

Speaker 4 (01:47:05):
We can see that more clearly.

Speaker 2 (01:47:07):
I mean we you know, the these people are very impressive.
They've done, you know, they've they've put their lives a
huge risk for us, and you can hear their stories
and they're very dramatic on the film. I mean they're
you know, this is you know, people have been fascinated
by war from omer to today, and rightly so. These

(01:47:28):
people are an extremists doing unusual things. And I also
think it's important to even though it's beIN twenty one
years since these battles, I think the nation and the
world are often invested in these kind of wars and
will be in the future. I point to the Israeli

(01:47:48):
Hamas war in Gaza, you know, which is very similar,
and America and others will be sucked into the until
we should at least understand them.

Speaker 1 (01:47:57):
Amen to that. And you know, I've been in a
blessed to be in a position where I've been able
to talk to a lot of the men who what
I always refer to and kicking indoors in Fallujah, and
I always use it in the context of I think
I have although I do not experience, I can certainly
relate to the concept of post traumatic stress. If you
got to get out of bed at Reveli or whenever,

(01:48:17):
you start kicking indoors and you go into a room.
One story that was told to me by one of
these brave men. They kick a door in, they enter
the room, and beneath the floor they had mounted the
enemy and an anti aircraft gun, and they started shooting
at the man who entered the room. From beneath the floor.
One of the bullets penetrated hiss pants went right through it. Okay,

(01:48:38):
you live through that experience, You're doing it again five
minutes later in the next building. You're doing it all day,
and then you're getting up tomorrow and doing the same thing.
I cannot imagine operating at that level of adrennine and
experiencing and showing that amount of bravery day in and
day out. It is truly an amazing thing.

Speaker 2 (01:48:57):
I think that is very true. I mean, I break
down these doors and you don't know when you smash
the door in. Is the person that you're confronting a
civilian that you're supposed to help, or is it an
insurgent that's going to kill you and you've got to
kill him before he kills you. I mean, you have
to make these split level decisions, as you say, you know,
time after time after time, day after day. And it's

(01:49:20):
a lot to ask and a lot of the people
that are breaking down the doors, the corporal sergeants, et cetera,
are eighteen, nineteen, twenty year old young men in this
case this war, you know, just out of high school
or it's the best just out of college. It's a
lot to ask and it's a lot of pressure. But
I do think to the extent there's been attention to

(01:49:42):
these veterans, it's focused on their PTSD and difficulties coming back,
and maybe bad things that happen there like Abougrave and
Paditha and mat too has obscured the fact that, yeah
they have, those are true, but there's also the heroism
of what they did. We tell the story at the
end of Fallujah of Hell, a very dramatic firefight where

(01:50:03):
Marines were pinned for hours and had to heroically took
heroic efforts to rescue the Marines in the house. And
you know, you can see this guy, Jesse Grapes has
to break into the house through these bars and take
his kevler off and end up having to cross the
kill zone where insurgents have them pinned four times to

(01:50:23):
rescue the Marines. I mean it's very you know, yeah,
sure what is allowed to survive that? And after holl
House you can see the faces of these men, you know,
it's just you know, empty stairs and you know, drained
of all energy. But I think on the other hand, yeah,
there's the PTSD side, but there's also their heroism and valor,

(01:50:45):
and it's important to notice both.

Speaker 1 (01:50:49):
I couldn't agree more with you, and I'm supportive of
what they were, what they had done, and I understand
that the questionable circumstances and I guess suppose one to
gravitate over that some of them significantly profoundly affected to
the negative again post traumatic stress, for example. But did
you get a sense, you know, collectively, if you had
to put them on a scale that the folks that
you talked about when you were making the talk with

(01:51:11):
when you're making the last six hundred meters, that they
were indeed proud of what they were able to accomplish,
that they were proud and walked away with a higher
sense of bravery or reflective on their extreme bravery, but
their sense of purpose. Were they overall positive about the
whole experience and looking back on it and sort of

(01:51:32):
maybe patting themselves on the back that you know, damn it.
There was a tough mission, but I entered and I
did what I was told, and we prevailed.

Speaker 4 (01:51:40):
Well.

Speaker 2 (01:51:40):
I think they all have a variety of views about
the war. But we had a screening in Washington very
recently where we invited all the veterans that were in
the film to come, and many did.

Speaker 12 (01:51:51):
So.

Speaker 2 (01:51:52):
I hadn't seen them in seventeen years. I mean looked older,
of course, but they were very proud of it. They
and they were very bonded to each other, and it
was a very moving experience. Many veterans in the audience
got up to speak, and I think for a lot
of them, it was their most intense, most bonded experience.
As they said, these guys on the stage with them,

(01:52:14):
even if they haven't seen them for years, they have
a bond with them in some ways deeper than with
their own family. You know, they've gone through, you know,
this intense experience, you know. So on the other hand,
they all have had trouble talking about it. Many of
them were happy in my film finally came out so
they could show it to their families who they couldn't

(01:52:36):
really speak about the experience too. But yeah, I think
they thought. I think they, you know, especially the Marines
in the film, you know, we had wondering got on
stage and said, look, we can win any war, any battle.
You could put us in any battlefield that we will win.
Will we will get to the objective, whether the war
makes sense, whether those strategic objectives are right. That's other

(01:52:59):
people's job. But you put us there, and today we
could do it. And this guy has seventeen years years later,
he's still ready to do it. So I think they
are proud of what they did over there.

Speaker 1 (01:53:10):
I am so happy to hear that. Michael pak director
of the last six hundred meters. Since it is the
battles of Najaf and Fallujah, I have a kind of
a concept of Fallujah. Were these the same types of battles?
I mean, you know, when you look in different theaters
of conflict, you know your jungle warfare, you got desert warfare.
This is, you know, basically, from what I understand, a
lot of door to door as I sort of explained

(01:53:31):
it earlier in simplistic forms. Were Najaf and Fallujah the
same type of fighting or there are different types of
combat going on?

Speaker 2 (01:53:40):
Well, they were both urban warfare. I mean, okay, in
that sense they're the same. But it starts through the
first battle of Felujah in the north and against Sunni insurgents,
and then Najaf in the south against Shiai insurgents, and
then back to the second battle of Flujah in the north,
a six month period in the jaff You know, the

(01:54:00):
city had been sort of taken over by the Mahdi
militia run by Matanter al Fatter, and the fight first
began in this very weird cemetery, this huge cemetery, multiple
layers above ground and multiple layers below ground, and this
sort of surreal landscape. And then they finally pushed the
Mahdi militia into this mosque, the Grand Ali Mosque and

(01:54:23):
one of the most holy sides in Shia Islam. And
then it's a question of how to get him out
of the mosque, and it's a political battle, and so
it's not quite breaking and they're breaking down doors. I
mean there's a there's they sheltered for a while in
these huge kind of apartment like buildings that they had
that the Air Force levels, and there are fights underground

(01:54:44):
in those buildings. Seth Moulton, now a Democratic congressman, tells
the story of someone in his squad who's who encountered
in the surgeon underground in one of those buildings, and
it was so the quartas were so close they couldn't
get their gun, the machine, the weapons out, and so
it was turned into a knife fight until the marine

(01:55:06):
that killed the insurgent with his knife through the guy's eye.
So it gets to be pretty brutal, primitive combat and
very strange surreal circumstances. Not quite the ticking down the
doors symbol of the Second Battle of Fallujah, but a
variation on that, but still urban combat.

Speaker 1 (01:55:26):
Fair enough and from the bottom of my heart, I
personally can't thank you enough for documenting this in the
last six hundred meters of battles in the Joff and Fallujah,
and in my listening audience, I have lots of American veterans,
many of whom were probably there and can certainly relate
to it and will enjoy watching this film. And to
a lot of people who really don't get it, haven't
can't understand it, get a load of it. It's right

(01:55:47):
there for everyone to see, the last six hundred meters
of battles in the Joff and Flujia. My guest today,
the producer and director of the film, Michael Pack, Thank
you again for your service to the country and your
service to the men and women who were involved in
the conflict and put in the film together. And I
will encourage my listeners to check it out. I'm staring
at the page right now PBS Documentaries. It's easy to find,
and my producer will put a link on my blog

(01:56:07):
page at fifty five cars dot com to make it
that much easier. Michael, thanks again, and thanks for spending
time with my listeners.

Speaker 4 (01:56:13):
On me today. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:56:15):
It's really it's easiest to find on Amazon, and it
really was an honor to me to be able to
tell these stories. You know, the thanks go to them,
you know what.

Speaker 1 (01:56:25):
I understand that, but thanks again for doing it, and
I'm glad you enjoyed the experience and again to document it.
It's a nineteen right now. Fifty five KRCD Talk Station
may have a moment in time for a call at Maureen.
If you'd like to try to chime in, feel free
to do so. Jay Ratliffe coming up, I know that,
don't go away. Fifty five krc Sure you go. Hey,
twenty two fifty have KRCD Talk station straight to the phones,

(01:56:46):
a few callers online, going to try to get them
all in. Let's start with in the order which they receive. Matt,
Welcome to the morning show.

Speaker 5 (01:56:53):
Hey, good morning, Brian.

Speaker 15 (01:56:54):
The issue with the Holy Family being migrants was it
that they went from Nazareth to Bethlehem. They used that
from when they went from Nasareth to Egypt the fleet
King Herod. But the important point they forget to talk
about is they went home when the danger was gone.
They weren't permanent illegal immics.

Speaker 9 (01:57:13):
They weren't permanent migrants.

Speaker 1 (01:57:14):
They came home after the counting.

Speaker 5 (01:57:17):
That's yeah, no, no, after Herod slaughtered the innocent.

Speaker 4 (01:57:22):
I got you it was.

Speaker 15 (01:57:24):
It wasn't when they went to register in Bethlehem. It
was when they fled when Jesus was young and King
Herod spoke to the mage and wanted to find out.

Speaker 4 (01:57:34):
Where the baby was.

Speaker 1 (01:57:35):
Gotcha? Well, like I said, no theologian Ami, but are
you of the mindset that the priest got it wrong?

Speaker 12 (01:57:42):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:57:42):
Okay, fundamentally that seemed to be where I was going
on that one, but I appreciate the additional extra information.
Important it is. But you know, we have at least
two identifiably leftist I would argue backcraping, saying people respond
possible for the Nativity scenes that don't understand their own religion. Maureen,

(01:58:05):
welcome to the Morning Show. Time to squeeze you in
here as I thought I would welcome.

Speaker 11 (01:58:10):
Good morning, Brian. I missed the first hour of the show,
so I hope without repeating anything that anybody ever talked
about as far as Judge of Politanus call yesterday talking
about the constitutionality of President Trump taking out the Venezuelan
Narco trafficking boats, right, I listened to a monthly podcast
of various retired generals and their most recent podcast was

(01:58:34):
about this very subject, and I took notes from that podcast.
So I just wanted to pass on with.

Speaker 2 (01:58:39):
That information on to you right now, quick goad.

Speaker 11 (01:58:42):
Okay, it says yes, based on Supreme Court duck at
number two three nine three nine actions involving ordering the
military to interdict or destroy Venezuela and narco boats our
core commander in chief acts under counter Drug Mission authority.
They would receive absolute immunity under t versus United States
Supreme Court Supreme Court docket two three nine three nine.

(01:59:06):
That said, based on counter narcocotics maritime operations, if a
president orders military force to pursue, interdict, disable, or destroy
hostile or unlawful vessels that are part of the narcotics
trafficking network, these are military operational orders and that means
they fall squarely within commander in chief authority, national defense,

(01:59:27):
foreign operations, and executive enforcement of federal law through military assets.
These are all considered core presidential military actions. Key takeaway
is look at the Supreme Court docket two three dash
nine three nine.

Speaker 1 (01:59:40):
Hostile and unlawful? Are they hostile and is this engaging
in unlawful activity sinsor in international waters. Apparently the Venezuelans
don't have any criminality associated with the manufacturer or sale
of drugs, so I'm not sure the legal status there,
whether it isn't is unlawful. But in international waters fifteen
hundred miles away, are they indeed hostile? Are they actually

(02:00:01):
coming here? I don't know. I mean, that's the kind
of thing that I poses the biggest challenge for me.
Under certain circumstances. I will acknowledge the president does have
authority if someone's coming at the gate guns of blazon
or you know, strapped with a bomb to their vest,
witting to blow somebody up because it's right there, and
an apprehension reasonable bodily harm or murder or dismemberment, whatever, Yeah,

(02:00:22):
use deadly force. But I don't know that the circumstances
exist under these particular scenarios that we're reading about that
justifies the use of military force. It's a gray area,
without question. And I keep going back to somebody screaming
at me at the radio. These are drug dealers.

Speaker 2 (02:00:37):
I know.

Speaker 1 (02:00:38):
I don't want them alive. I don't want them coming
to the United States. But I also know that if
I was in a boat off the coast of Venezuela,
I wouldn't expect a rocket to come out of nowhere,
especially if I'm not going to America with my cargo,
and my cargo might not be drugs. I don't know.
Got to have a lot of faith in our intelligence
operations to know exactly who these people are, that they
have been identified as actual Narco terrace, And I don't

(02:01:01):
know how that happens this far away hell. We can't
even find find people that have moved away from their
home under ankle monitor restrictions, roam in the streets committing crimes.
We can't find them in our own backyard. How is
it that we know the identity and the definitive reality
like due process, that these people are Narco terrorists. It's crazy.
Welcome to a gray area eight twenty so I appreciate it.

(02:01:23):
Morning in eight twenty six fifty five kerc the talk station,
I heard me the aviation expert saving me from myself.
Coming up next, Jay Ratliffe, Although I will give you plugs.
He runs a company called day Trade Fun where he
can teach you how to trade stocks. I would turn
my car on. Yesterday, I'm I'm in the Towers of
Kenwood Building and I have this little sat NAV map

(02:01:44):
and it shows up right next to my radio setting
and I'm sitting there and the little bubble that points
up it says day Trade fun on it, and I'm like, what,
how did that pop up?

Speaker 16 (02:01:54):
So the officers are right there on the seventh floor.

Speaker 1 (02:01:57):
Yeah, but of all the offices in the building, I mean,
iHeart media didn't show up or none of the other
It's just like it was channeling you, Jay ratlift your car.

Speaker 16 (02:02:06):
Your car knows what's important.

Speaker 2 (02:02:08):
I know.

Speaker 16 (02:02:09):
Look, look, my students had a good December. I think
I made thirty two or thirty three thousand dollars flipping
stocks last month in a spare time effort. So that
that that's just a reminder that you know, when you
slow down, yeah, flip a few stocks, and you know,
fund your retirement.

Speaker 1 (02:02:24):
I'm going to get another earful for my wife, who
has been just pleading with me to take you up
on your advice and do the class someday.

Speaker 16 (02:02:32):
At least at least your car and your wife are
on my side.

Speaker 1 (02:02:35):
That's exactly I'm on your side too.

Speaker 4 (02:02:37):
Jays.

Speaker 1 (02:02:38):
Anyhow, Jay Ratliffe, apparently you had to file a lawsuit
for Southwest Airlines to provide the military leave for their pilots.

Speaker 16 (02:02:47):
Yeah, it's it's very un Southwest Airlines like to be honest,
because of course every airline has a specific number of
days they give their their pilots and employees that have
military service, and Southwest Airlines actually had to be taken
to court by some pilots trying to get more days

(02:03:07):
as far as military paid time or paid or military
leave of absence, and there was a class action lawsuit
that was brought by some of the pilots and the
ruling came in that Southwest has agreed now to provide
up to ten days of short term military leave and
pay up about almost nineteen million dollars in compensation to

(02:03:28):
twenty eight one hundred former employees who weren't able to
get a leave with pay where they could end up
serving their country. So it still has to be approved
by the government or by the courts. And Brian, what
we're hoping is if being the landmark decision, it is

(02:03:48):
that obviously that type of an arrangement would kind of
seep through to the other airlines where we would see that,
I would like to see more, but at least having
that as a basis, I think is a good starting point.
And look, a lot of this is negotiated in the
contracts as well, because when the pilot union and the
airlines are bouncing back and forth as far as the

(02:04:10):
compensation and benefit levels for their contract they're negotiating. I
am certain that this is a component of that deal.
Now I don't know that for sure, but I've seen
these arrangements and they cover everything, and I can't believe
that those deals would be hammered out absent of a
provision that would apply to some sort of military leave

(02:04:32):
for the employees when it was.

Speaker 1 (02:04:34):
Needed fair enough. Well, well, that loss it may have precedent,
as you say, going on FAA pualizing airlines who failed
to reduce flight operations during the shutdown as ordered. Well,
what's this, Jay Ratt left.

Speaker 16 (02:04:50):
Well, they sent letters out this week to airlines saying, look,
we told you at forty airports that we needed you
to reduce the number of flights to a specific level.
And the Federal Aviation Ministruation has looked into it, Bran,
and they found that not every airline did what they
were supposed to. So the letters that went out this
this week have shocker exactly. So right now, the fa says, look,

(02:05:13):
they sent the airlines that they are looking at a
letter saying you have thirty days to provide evidence that,
in essence, you did what you did or we're supposed
to do complying with our orders violators. They are indicating
risk fines up to seventy five thousand dollars per flight
that was operated over that threshold, and they went on
to say, quote, if we do not hear from you

(02:05:34):
within that specified time, our report will be processed without
the benefit of your statement. So I like the fact
that the FAA is looking at coming down hard. Now
here's what's going to happen. They'll find a number of
airlines that had a whole bunch of flights that probably
were above that threshold, and the FAA will propose a
very hefty and I think well deserved fine. We will

(02:05:54):
then later see that that find was negotiated down by
these same airlines with a deal the government that probably says,
if we don't do it again, blah blah blah, you know,
we have to pay a fraction of that fine rare?

Speaker 7 (02:06:07):
Is it?

Speaker 16 (02:06:08):
If ever, that the proposed finds from the Federal Aviation
Administration actually are imposed on the airlines.

Speaker 14 (02:06:15):
They're always negotiated.

Speaker 16 (02:06:16):
Down And it just drives me crazy because I'm thinking,
what's the incentive here for airlines to do what they're
supposed to if they know that they can skirt the rules,
get away with it, and pay a fraction of a
fine that might be coming their way.

Speaker 1 (02:06:29):
All right, simple enough, easily stated. That's what we get
from my Heart Media Aviation Expert Jay Ratliff. Coming up.
That does not fly. If you have Parkinson's real ID
and the TSA new travel record, we'll talk with that.
Plus get a hub delay with Jay Ratliffe in the
future segments. We've got a couple coming your way, Tay
thirty five right now. If you have KCD Talk Station

(02:06:49):
fifty fifty five KFCD Talk Station, have you ever been
in the cockpit before? Jay raylif has. He's iHeartMedia Aviation Expert.
He joins the fifty five CARSS Morning Show for a
segments every Thursday at this time. Real quick here, I said,
it wasn't going to throw your curveball, but well, I
couldn't recall since you mentioned Southwest before, if we had

(02:07:10):
talked about this. They're now charging what they call plus
size passengers for them to have to buy a second
seat because I guess they're spilling over into the next seat.
So is that something that's going to be a trend
into the future or Southwest going to be a loaner
on this, because I have heard, I mean, in my
life a lot of people complain about the spillover effect

(02:07:32):
when they're stuck on an airplane, and it can be
problematic for travelers, as I might imagine.

Speaker 16 (02:07:37):
Yeah, what's happened is if you know, for decades, if
you were of the size of passenger that would require
two seats, the airlines would charge you.

Speaker 4 (02:07:48):
For both seats.

Speaker 16 (02:07:49):
Sometimes they might charge you for one hundred and fifty
percent or things of this nature, and it really just
depends the airline to airline. Now, Southwest had a policy
that in essence that if if you were a person
that had to buy a second seat, that there was
a way that you could within a period of time,
if the flight wasn't full, or if there were so

(02:08:09):
many empty seats on board the flight, that you could
actually request some sort of a partial refund as far
as because you know it's it would be bad if
they charged you double and you get on there and
there's twelve people on the plane and you know you've
got all that you've got to row to yourself. So
they have changed some of that policy so that you know,

(02:08:29):
it's it in essence makes it harder for people to
uh get that partial that that part port part of
partial refund back and you know it's a departure from
what they have done before and they're making it a
little bit more difficult for people that require that second seat. So, uh,
this this policy is is kicked in and I think

(02:08:52):
it's next month, first of the year, and they've been
talking about it through the through the year with it
coming up. But you know, Brian, the seats are getting
smaller and the roads are getting more packed as far
as close together, and it makes it more and more
difficult for any person really to have a difficult time
being comfortable.

Speaker 4 (02:09:08):
And it's a challenge.

Speaker 16 (02:09:10):
And I've had to tell people many times over the
years at the airport that you know, given the fact
that the seats are getting smaller, and you know, if
you're a larger bone person is how I would normally
phrase it, that the only way you're going to be
comfortable is if you purchase that second seat. Now, for
people that have traveled a lot, that's certainly nothing that's
really news to them because they recognize.

Speaker 4 (02:09:32):
Okay, I've had to do that before.

Speaker 16 (02:09:33):
And again the policy on how it's how it's handled
varies from airline to airline, but you know it's at
least Southwest is giving you the opportunity to get a
part of that second you know, seat money back, depending
on how many seats are available once the door has closed.
But again you've got a very tight window to request that,

(02:09:53):
otherwise it becomes one of these My favorite thing are
the mail in rebates where we will overcharge you and
then if you think about it, you can send it
in and will give your money back, knowing a good
portion of that population will not do it. I hate
mail in rebate.

Speaker 1 (02:10:09):
Yeah, out with you on that. Have they revamped the
evacuation time We've talked about that before, but you know, people,
without question, statistically and I can just rely on that,
have gotten much much larger over the past decade or
two or three. But the ability to get the people
off of the plane. That's a little red flag for
me because I know it's a little more difficult to

(02:10:30):
evacuate a plane that's filled with maybe plus sized folks
rather than you know, waifs of people.

Speaker 16 (02:10:36):
Well, the requirements still ninety seconds. We have to get
everybody off the plane with half the exs blocked, and
the FAA does tests from time to time to make
sure that we are maintaining that speed because if not,
then there's a problem, you have too many seats, or
you've just you've got to do something. So, you know,

(02:10:57):
shocker that every single time the fa has done this test,
we've been able to hit that ninety second evacuation mark.
Now you have to take a step into it and
kind of look a little closer to see that none
of the people that are used in the FAA approved
tests to make sure we hit that ninety seconds. No
children of any kind, no service animals of any kind,

(02:11:20):
no elderly passengers of any kind. So when you start
looking at the types of passengers that are used to
make sure we hit the ninety seconds, it's not really
reflective of the traveling public. So there's been a lot
of people in Washington, d C. Who said wait a minute,
time out here. We can't use this as the metric
if that's not the kind of people that fly on

(02:11:40):
a normal basis. So we need to have elderly, We
need to have people that are that have some sort
of of a physical disability, it would slow them down.
We need children traveling by themselves. We need all of
these different components to really see if it's reflective of
what the actual emergency evacuation time would be. And Brian
time after time, the FAA is either play the crickets

(02:12:04):
or the last track. It's one of the two because
they're just they're just not moving in that direction. Because
if they did, and this really shows how much power
the airline industry has, then you've got to do two things.
You have to sell only a certain number of seats
to make sure in this revenue and there is the
bottom line.

Speaker 4 (02:12:23):
Drives me crazy.

Speaker 16 (02:12:24):
Don't tell me safety is are number one priority.

Speaker 1 (02:12:27):
It's revenue And apparently don't fly if you have Parkinson's
a sort of a thumbnail sketch of this one and
tell them about it.

Speaker 16 (02:12:36):
Yeah, this was a Turkish airline's flight. There was a
man and his son, and the man is a correspondent
for BBC and he is flying from London to Ismbul, Turkey,
and they go and they're on their way back and
as they check in at the gate, the man with
Parkinson's is exhibiting, you know, some of the tremors. And

(02:12:56):
the agent looked at him and said, do you have
a doctor's note that says it's okay for you to
fly and that doctor's note has to be issued to
you within the last ten days. And the man said, no,
I mean I have Parkinson's and the agent said, and
the agent was correct, it's on our website that if

(02:13:16):
you have Parkinson's you need to have that doctor's in
essence permission, that letter that you.

Speaker 4 (02:13:23):
Could show us.

Speaker 16 (02:13:24):
Now, he said, on time out here, I flew here
on you guys, and nobody in London said anything. And
he kept saying, it's you know, it's Parkinson's, I mean
what it's And I don't understand, O brien, because I
don't know any other airline that has this as a
posted policy. But they would not let him fly, so
we had to wait another day, came back to London

(02:13:44):
on another carrier, and of course this has gone viral.
Turkish airlines to my last check had not yet responded,
but it's it's on their website.

Speaker 14 (02:13:53):
It's there.

Speaker 16 (02:13:54):
It's a matter of policy for the airlines.

Speaker 4 (02:13:56):
So it.

Speaker 16 (02:13:59):
It just what if somebody has cancer, they needed what
it's got this I mean word, would it end if
if that was the case. And the thing is that
the gate or a ticket counter, you're you're trying to
make sure that nobody with a medical condition, maybe somebody
who's nine and a half months pregnant, gets on a plane,
because that could create a problem where you now have
a medical emergency in flight where you have to make

(02:14:20):
a diverse, diverted landing, which could put the passenger at risk.
It's going to cost the airline money, and it's going
to be an inconvenience to the passengers, kind of in
that order. So if you spot something that could be
a potential problem, the airlines have these safety checks where
agents are trained. Don't let that person who appears to
be inebriated on board the airplane, or somebody who's picking

(02:14:41):
a fight with another passenger or whatever it might happen
to be, so that you leave the problem in the
gate area at the airport and it doesn't get on
the plane. That's going to create an inflight problem. Parkinson's
is nothing that's going to create an inflight problem of
any kind. So that's why none of this makes sense.

Speaker 1 (02:14:58):
Doesn't make any sense to me either. One more segment
with Jay Ratliffe coming up. We're going to find out
about the real ID fee and apparently the TSA's got
a new record to talk about crow about that means profits.
I bet more with Jay Rattlifte right for these brief
words fifty seven above ter CD talk station talking aviation
issues with aviation expert at Jay Rattliffe TSA real ID.

(02:15:22):
I saw this from coming. Apparently getting a real ID
is probably a good idea. And unless you got an
extra what forty bucks laying around?

Speaker 16 (02:15:29):
Yeah, forty five if it would be. And what's happened
is the real ID where we had to have. The
TSSE approved driver's license took effect in early May, and
about ninety five percent of us have the new updated
approved TSA type driver's license that allow us to travel
using that as our identification. But there's still five percent

(02:15:51):
of the population that does not have that. They still
have a valid driver's license, but Brian has not yet
been upgraded. To that real ID A newer and the
TSA has since May tried to work with all those
passengers that have been flying with the non approved identification.
But what they're saying is as of February first, that's changing,

(02:16:12):
and they're really trying to encourage people to get the
new driver's license and just you know, less hassle when you.

Speaker 4 (02:16:17):
Get to the airport.

Speaker 16 (02:16:18):
But what they're saying is if you're gonna be traveling
after February first, and you're going to be using your
current but not you know, upgraded driver's license, you will
be charged forty five dollars.

Speaker 4 (02:16:31):
To in essence use that.

Speaker 16 (02:16:32):
You have to go online to TSA dot gub, fill
out the the the form application whatever, pay the forty
five dollars, and that's for every passenger eighteen years of
age and older. That's for a ten day period of time.
So that means if you're heading out to Grandmall's on
the West Coast and you're gonna be there two weeks,
you get to pay that twice. Now, the thing that

(02:16:53):
is going to be super inconvenient here is if your
family of six, you know, shows up at the airport,
you get in line, you're ready to go, and they say,
I'm sorry, we have to have you step out of line,
go online, fill out the form, pay the forty five
bucks per person, get back in line, and then hopefully
you'll make your flight. So this is something you absolutely
want to make sure of after February first. If you've

(02:17:16):
got a valid passport and you don't have the real
ID driver's license, no problem. Use your valid passport for
your identification. That's fine. In fact, the TSA shows at
TSA dot gov all the approved different things you can
use for identification when you fly. But Brian, a number
of people that are flying with their the old driver's

(02:17:36):
license is at a point where it's really an inconvenience
for the TSA to keep doing what they've been doing,
and it really makes the May deadline a bit silly
if you're still allowing people to fly. So the TSA
is saying, look, as a February first, this is what
we're going to be doing. Initially it was going to
be an eighteen dollars charge, but in typical government fashion,
it went up to forty five, and who knows, may

(02:17:57):
go up even higher than that. So the bottom line is,
get get that new driver's license. Get it out of
the way so you don't have to worry about it,
because I tell you a lot of people are going
to show up the airport and not know that needs
to be done in advance.

Speaker 1 (02:18:08):
Well, perhaps it's forty five dollars, because it will represent
enough money that people will relent and go to the
DMV and get the new license.

Speaker 16 (02:18:16):
Oh yeah, you've got a family of four and you've
got to pay that four times. They're all at eighteen years.
I mean that you know, in some brate you might
be having airfares that are cheaper than that when you
look at the total prices. So at the bottom line
is that it just knowing about it ahead of time
means you're not going to have that headache when you
get to the airport. We have plenty of time between

(02:18:37):
now in the first of February to fix whatever issue
it is. So what we're trying to do is avoid
headaches for people that might be flying, because when you
get to the airport, you have enough stuff going on
without worrying about getting out of line and filling out
some aggravating online form where you hope the internet connection
is going to allow all it to go through pretty.

Speaker 1 (02:18:55):
Quick right, got it all right? A new record set.
I'll Thanksgiving is the biggest travel I suppose time of year.
Is that what I read correctly, But apparently that is
true whether or not I read it correctly or not.

Speaker 16 (02:19:09):
Oh no, you're right, and we talk about it. That's
the busiest travel week of the year. Typically, the Sunday
after Thanksgiving is the busiest travel day. The Wednesday before
Thanksgiving is the second busiest travel day. And true to form,
TSA told us this week that we set a new
record last Sunday, the Sunday after Thanksgiving. We had three
point one million plus people that were screened for travel

(02:19:31):
that day. That breaks the old record, So we had
more people flying on Sunday than we've ever had before. Sadly,
it was also a day of a lot of storms
across the country that delayed twelve four hundred and I
think thirteen flights. It was so bad that some of
those people didn't get home until Monday or Tuesday because
the flights were so full. So if you travel on Sunday, congratulations,

(02:19:54):
you were part of a record. And I'm sorry some
of you had the issues you did because you had
to earn it. Because many people were delayed on Sunday.
We almost made it through that busy travel week. Well's
had a super bad weather, Brian, but it nailed us
right as we were finishing things up, and sadly on
the busiest travel day we've ever seen.

Speaker 1 (02:20:12):
Horseshoes in hand, Gernade. It's close enough and finally hubbed. Lads,
what's it looking like out there for air travel today? Jay?

Speaker 16 (02:20:18):
The South is going to be going to be the
problem children of the day, Brian. We've got Houston and
Dallas is going to be seeing some weather delays. Atlanta
minimal now but getting worse as the day progresses. So
if you're flying anywhere south through any of those hubs
on Delta, United or American or Southwest, you're going to
see some significant delays. Just to be prepared for that.
Anything through Chicago, the Northeast rough out West so far

(02:20:40):
looks at being pretty good shape.

Speaker 1 (02:20:42):
Well appreciate the update as always, Jay Ratliff, congratulations on
a banner month trading over there. Thirty grand in a month,
that's not bad. I could live on that.

Speaker 16 (02:20:50):
That's why I'm trading my students. But you know the
thing is, though you know we I don't know, I
just corporate America always bothers me, and I'm just glad
I'm not a part of it because this time of year,
when I hear people losing their jobs unexpectedly, it just
takes me off because you know, they look at us
as interchangeable parts, and it just it's bothered me my

(02:21:10):
whole life, and I just not the time of year
you want to hear somebody losing their job.

Speaker 1 (02:21:14):
No, you don't have to be a W two employee
and you can still make a decent living. Asked Jay,
I'll tell you about it all day long, Jay, rylef
until next Thursday. God bless you, sir, you have a wonderful,
wonderful week and