55KRC Thursday Show - Warren Davidson, Dan Hils, Destry Edwards, Jay Ratliff

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The talk station five o five at fifty five krc
DE talk Station, Happy Friday, evellation.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Winter is coming.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yeah, I guess it is twenty nine degrees. It didn't
feel like twenty nine when I got out of the house.
Matter of fact, I walked around the driveway to make
sure the uh, well, it wasn't slippery and icy. Kind
to make a decision on which car is going to
drive today. So uh, anyway, I took a chance and
drove my car and didn't have any problems at all. So,
you know, mind the roads at your own risk. You
understand that overpasses might be icy. Uh maybe a little

(00:57):
ice out there on the roads. That's just something you
gotta well plan for, take care of, keep your eyes peeled,
and don't be an idiot. Don't be that guy. Anyhow.
What's coming up with the fifty five caresee Morning Show
today seven o five the return of Congressman Warren Davidson.
I really enjoy having Congressman Davidson on the program. I'm
glad he's willing to do so. Got to make it
a regular segment out of this weekly and today we'll

(01:17):
talk healthcare. A couple of different proposals floating around out there.
They promised to vote, remember to open the government back up.
The Republicans said, yeah, we'll vote on whatever you put forward.
In terms of extending the healthcare subsidies or not. Republicans
have a proposal that they've put forward the Democrats. Democrats
is a pretty lean proposal. It's just keep the subsidies
in place three years, three years, not two, not five,

(01:40):
not permanent. Three so which suggests to me that three
years if their proposal passes, and neither proposals is expected
to pass, neither of them has sixty votes for the Senate,
So this is a wasted exercise. I think we could
have predicted and read our own tea leaves after the
reopening of the government that well, it's not going to
go anywhere. There's not an agreement among Republics Democrats in
which direction to go. So okay, But I just kind

(02:04):
of laughed the whole idea three year extension of the
subsidies as if it's going to make the problem go away.
So anyway, and the Democrats aren't putting anything in there.
In terms of the fraud, waste, and abuse that's been
identified left and right, literally billions of dollars in fraud, waste,
and abuse. Republicans proposal at least has some measures in
they're designed to prevent those who are not eligible for

(02:24):
the subsidies from not getting the subsidies that they're not
eligible for. Interesting. Wow, they're looking out for fraud. There's
an interesting thought. Keep going back to my ongoing and
recurring theme of late why not start with that? Damn it?
You know, you start talking about a proposal, let's start
with preventing fraud wasteed abuse number one. There will be

(02:47):
no fraud wasted abuse. And here's how we're going to
prevent it. We are going to double down on our
efforts to follow up after the subsidies or whatever money's
flowing out to the masses, We're going to make sure
it's not flowing out to I don't know, people who
aren't eligible for it. There's an interesting thought. Anyhow, at
least the Republican's proposal has some of that. We might
dive into the We will dive into the details of
that with Congressman Davidson. Topic number one plus bombing smugglers. Yeah,

(03:10):
we talked about that yesterday, of course, with Judge Jennen
of Politano and Congressman Thomas Massey. Now we're boarding Venezuela
and boats. I just interesting thought exercise. Yes, the oil's sanctioned,
so Venezuela's oil. We decree that there are sanctions on
Venezuela and oil. Multitude of reasons for that, sanctions one

(03:35):
of the most off used mechanisms for foreign policy in
our arsenal. So the oil sanction. They put the oil
into a boat. Boat floats and we take over the boat.
A lot of questions swirling about what's going to be
done with the contents of the both the oil. I

(03:57):
don't know, just isn't that really just kind of like
a warlike operation as well? We can seize vessels. I
don't know. I'm just maybe it's just me and my
brain not firing on all cylinders this morning, But I
I don't know. Apparently the Russians are violating sanctions and

(04:21):
other countries a violating the sanctions on oil. What does
it mean to be sanctioned? And does a violation of
the United States sanction give the United States military the
right to board and seize any vessel that they believe
to be violating the sanctions anyway? You know, Venezuela's a
sovereign country, I think, and if our trading partners, that's

(04:45):
not everybody in the world, right because you know, countries
like India and China and Turkey are buying sanctioned oil
Russia sanctioned oil. Soys the European Union too. This is
very complicated. You know, we need they at the EU
keeping its lights on by buying Russian gas while screaming

(05:05):
and yelling and pulling their hair out over Russian war activity.
You know, the situation has devolved into absolute insanity. So
if you can help me figure out how all this works,
I would love to hear from you. I love to
hear from you about anything. Five one three, seven, four,
nine fifty five, eight hundred and eight two three taco
a tound five fifty on at and t phones. Former
FOP president Dan Hills. He's out, he's alive, he's well.

(05:27):
He's going to respond to the city council. What is
my notes suggests rubber stamping the eight point one million
dollars settlement, And yes they did. That will be in
connection with the protests and the riots. And I really
do believe this is a settlement of civil rights violations. Now,
remember when the city recently, in the aftermath of the
late July beat down and other related to activities, put

(05:51):
in a place of curfew. Certain areas of the city
would be subject to a curfew would apply to minors
congregating within certain hours. But what was in that plan
an exception for constitutionally protected activities, and I do believe
that's what this is all about. So the eight point

(06:11):
one million dollars settlement Hamilton County. Thank you Alisia Reis
for appearing on the fifty five CASCENME morning show yesterday
to talk about other issues. I appreciate her willingness to
do that. She seems to be one of the only,
if not only, saying Commissioner, but county only has to
pay sixty five thousand dollars the city is stuck with
the rest. Why well, the City of Cincinnati's police department

(06:33):
arrested the people for the curfew violations the county. All
they did was hold them, which is typically the case.
They're in Cincinnati police custody handed over to the Sheriff's department,
which is who owns who operates the jail, right the sheriff.
So I understand why the County isn't liable. If Charmee
McGuffey and the deputies went out and rounded all these

(06:54):
people up and arrested them, then maybe the Sheriff's department
might be responsible. But it is and was pursuant to
John Cranley's ten pm curfew again for specific neighborhoods. So
the May twenty ninth, twenty twenty daytime protests well resulted

(07:15):
in a bunch of people running around vandalizing downtown businesses.
So the following day, that's when Cranley announces ten pm
curfew for specific neighborhoods. Following that, hundreds of people were
arrested for what curfew violations? Now, you got to take
the reporting for what it is. Let's assume they're accurate.
These weren't people vandalizing, They were actually arrested for curfew violations. Well,

(07:39):
is your First Amendment right to free assembly and speech
limited to certain hours of the day. No, That's why
the most recently enacted curfews after the July beatdowns and
other criminal activity contained specifically an exception for constitutionally protected gatherings.
And I think maybe the law that was filed by

(08:00):
eleven people that ultimately resulted in this eight point one
million dollar settlement. Might have been the impetus for them
including an exception for constitutionally protected gatherings. Right, So I
understand perhaps on some level, why they settled this lawsuit.
You violate civil rights, you are well, you can file
a lawsuit. So I think that's the explanation behind that.

(08:28):
So we're gonna hear from Dan Hills on that topic,
because I remember talking Dan back and forth after the
whole COVID nineteen birth thing broke out, and I early
on said, listen, you can't. People are entitled to go
outside and scream and yell and protest the whole thing.
Oh my god, we're in lockdown. Oh my god, we're
all gonna die. Oh my god, it's a social gathering. Yep,

(08:50):
there's no constitutional prohibition for a social gathering. Look at
your first Amendment. It wasn't a declaration of martial law.
It was our idiots and elected officials who said you
can't stand within six feet or ten feet or some
other random arbitrary number that meant nothing scientifically. When you're
in a crowd, move away from each other. Remember those days.

(09:12):
Your business can't be open you're shut down and since
people are considering voting for Amy Acton for governor. Here
in the state of Ohio, you can't drink after ten
pm at a bar, but you can stay at the bar.
Crazy days we lived through. But I remember going back
and forth with Dan about that real early on. He
was like, I can't believe these people are gathered together.

(09:33):
And he came around very quickly after that because I advocated, no,
they have a right to do that, even with COVID raging. Yeah,
so we'll see what he says about the one point
eight million dollars settlement. That'll be a seven thirty follow
by Destry Edwards filmmaker Destriy Edwards Competitive Enterprise Institute Award

(09:54):
winning documentary Dear Mister President, The Letters of Julia sand
You know what that means? I don't either. We'll hear
from Destri on that at eight oh five, follow by
Yes It's Thursday, Friday Eve. I heard media aviation expert
Jay Ratliffe joins the programm at E three with a
multitude of topics. Brand new laws in the state of
Ohio regarding HEMP that's coming up. We got some details

(10:17):
on that, A whole bunch of other things going on
this morning. But if there's a topic you want to
talk about, we'll call it open line Thursday. I'll take it.
Five one three, seven, four nine fifty five hundred, eight
hundred eighty two to three Taco pound five fifty on
AT and T fons and E mentioned Lisaeris. Go to
fifty five care sea dot com and listen to my
conversation with her, Judge Enna, Paul Atano, Congressman Thomas Massey

(10:40):
plenty going over there, and old larrdy is Jack Atherton
with a big picture love and terror. It's great guy,
Jack etherdon you can hear this podcast fifty five care
sea dot com. We'll get your iHeartMedia app while you're there.
Stream the audio. Listen to this podcast as well as
all of the iHeart content wherever you happen to have
your smart device. Don't go away, be right back, kr

(11:01):
A Happy Friday Eve to you. Five on three seven
two three to hauld play fifty on AT and T phones.
Let us go to the phone. Looks like Jay is
on the line. Jay, welcome back, my friend, and Happy
Friday Eve to you.

Speaker 3 (11:14):
Happy Friday Eve. Brian.

Speaker 4 (11:16):
I read an article on Breitbart, where Secretary Rawlins was
commenting on the eleven billion dollar bailout that the Trump
administration gave to American farmers. Yeah, and I don't know
if you've read it or not, but I read it
and it was pretty bad. It was I swear to
you that it sounds like she went to the Kamala

(11:38):
Harris School of Communications.

Speaker 3 (11:41):
It a want a bailout?

Speaker 1 (11:42):
Because go ahead, No, Just generally speaking, I have observed,
at least my perception of my reading of various articles,
is that the journalistic journalism is in a state of
massive decline. Generally speaking, I've read some really really awful reporting.
So it structured of a sentence structure, he botched and incorrect,

(12:07):
improper verbiage, and I think it's artificial intelligence generated stuff.
I can't quite tell. But just I was laughing because
even this morning I read a couple of articles like,
I don't really even understand what they're trying to say
in this article. It made so little sense. But anyway,
go ahead, I know this wasn't your point check.

Speaker 4 (12:23):
No, well, I hope that's the case. But you know
it's bright barred, which better than most. And they have
quotes around the words like this is what she said
during an interview. So it's not a bailout because we
have five trillion dollars of tariff money coming in and
I'm thinking we have five We've cashed five trillion dollars

(12:45):
worth of checks. I try to stay up with everything.
Brian has a national debt gone from forty trillion to
thirty five trillion, and an honest way down that we
can broke checks. And when government strokes eleven million dollar
checks and decides what industry they want to send that to,
and it goes from taxpayers on one set of taxpayers

(13:05):
to another set of constituents, that's not a bailout. But
who's got trillion dollars there are? We are good times here. Now,
should we celebrate cutcakes?

Speaker 1 (13:16):
Well, it seems to me like the fog of war.
It's impossible to keep track of how how much teriff
for revenue we're getting. I don't even understand, quite honestly, Jay,
It's like the peace of God passes all human understanding
how the tariffs are collected. But that sounds that the
function of handing money out, whether you think it's an
appropriate idea or not, isn't that a power of the
purse congressional kind of thing. How is it that appros

(13:39):
that can utilaterally decide what industry and what specific What
is a farmer anyway, who qualifies to get their hands
on the slice of the pie in this particular case?
Is it soybean farmers? Is it all of them? Are
we going to give corn producers more money than they
already get in terms of subsidies because they're growing I
don't know, fuel for our gasoline?

Speaker 3 (13:58):
Eye's it was it was row crops. They made sure
the tip point out.

Speaker 4 (14:04):
That's because for some reason that justifies that it's just
row crop farmers are getting this, not bail out. And
here's what really bothered me is that Trump said that
this will give the American farmers the certainty they deserve.
Now that phrasing is exactly what Sharon Brown said back
in twenty twenty. Yeah, because I think I called in

(14:24):
on your show and said, what does that mean?

Speaker 3 (14:28):
Certainty that we deserve?

Speaker 5 (14:29):
Brian?

Speaker 3 (14:29):
Do you are you getting the certainty that you deserve?

Speaker 2 (14:32):
Strucker?

Speaker 3 (14:33):
Or how about Tom? I bet Tom's getting the certainty
he deserves.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
Yeah. I love my life as if I was always
you know, a moment away from being you know, discharged
or let go. I've been through reorganizations. I've seen people
around me and the jobs that I've held get let
go and fired. I was never promised any certainty whatsoever
other than if you work hard and do your best
and hopefully perform to your employer's expectations, that you will
get paid, and if you don't, you won't and you'll

(14:59):
get let go. The fear of being let go was
the only thing I had certain in my life, so
it forced me to try to do it as possible.

Speaker 4 (15:07):
You're never gonna make it as a farmer, brother.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
Massive respect, Jay, massive respect for the American farmer.

Speaker 4 (15:15):
You too, Hey, I grew up on farms, but right
now I think what farming is. It's a great, big
magnet for money that's going to be pouring into farming,
because when you buy a farm, you're not buying in land,
you're buying subsidies.

Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well, what we're saying, maybe Jay, you're thinking of farming
in the traditional small farmer perspective. You're not thinking of
farms as the corporate entities that they've become over the years.
You know, you're the days of my deceased God rest
his soul father in law. And it's fifty cows working
a small dairy farm in Avella, Pennsylvania. That's not the

(15:48):
farmer that's getting the subsidies that I from my understanding,
I don't care about roe crop or not. These are
massive lobbying, massive you know, conagracize corporate farms and maybe
that's how they get the level used to put some
money in their pocket through I don't know, a handout.

Speaker 4 (16:04):
Well, my favorite example was Scotty Pippin, the great NBA
player from the Chicago Bulls, when he bought a farm.
So why did Scotty Pipping buy a farm keep that
NBA money in his pocket versus being you know, taxed
to death and that think then Scotty got some of
the certainty that he deserves to.

Speaker 3 (16:24):
Keep some of that money around.

Speaker 4 (16:25):
But anyways, it's this is why I am celebrating.

Speaker 3 (16:29):
I hope this.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
Government shuts down because it doesn't matter if we've got
Republicans in charge or Democrats in charge.

Speaker 3 (16:35):
If the government's open.

Speaker 4 (16:36):
They are spending money we don't have. And I will
keep my ears open to see when that five trillion
hits the books and we go you know, this thing
starts going from you know, thirty five trillion to forty
trillion on a way to fifty trillion. When it starts
to reverse, then I will maybe have some grace and understanding.
But in the meantime, we are running for a fiscal

(16:58):
cliff that our kids, grandkids, eight grandkids.

Speaker 3 (17:00):
Are going to have.

Speaker 4 (17:01):
This mess and a certain day they deserve, which is
the freedom that we've all enjoyed, continues to disappear as
this money gets spent like drunken sailors from the even
the Trump administration undeniable.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
But now let me ask you this. If there is
massive quantities of money coming in, which is the suggestion,
don't you think that money should go to pay down
the deficit that we've dug ourselves into to reduce our
debt way right? Why? Because we've all, all of us
have been living larger than we should have, because they've

(17:33):
been running the printing press and printing dollars that, you know,
because they can't they don't take enough revenue in to
cover whatever it is they want a fund. So we've
all been living too large. We have experienced the you know,
it's like running a credit card. Oh, I bought this
I bought that, ah, this is and we used it
and we enjoyed whatever it was. We bought off of it,
but we didn't pay for it. We're now paying debt

(17:53):
service on it. So for every generation prior that built
us this thirty seven trillion dollar hole enjoyed all of
it while you enjoyed it. Now it's time to say,
we're not going to give that money back to the
American people, which is really the politically, you know, the
politically appropriate thing to do if you want votes. Look,
Tariff's brought us money. Here, have some of it. But
wait a minute, what about the credit card debt? Oh no, no, no, no,

(18:15):
don't worry about that. We're gonna continue this game we've
been playing. We're gonna offer you a subsidy. Really, that's
just merely buying votes. That's my perception. Anyway, Jay, I
appreciate your observations as always, have a wonderful day. Five
on three, seven, four nine, fifty five two to three talk
got local stories coming up or phone calls? Either way
we go. We'll go fifty five KRC the talk station,

(18:39):
five point thirty submarine or Mike Cribbage. Mike quit calling
them drunken sailor spending congress does not spend like a
drunken sailor, says retired submariner aka sub mariner. Why because
when I was out of money, I couldn't spend anymore. Amen, Mike,

(19:02):
Well you didn't have a credit card. Gives you the
faux sense he actually have money, doesn't it? Continue right,
give the bar tender your credit card, open a tab,
continue to spend beyond the money that you've got to
pay the tab. Anyhow, apparently you can find out where

(19:23):
the drones in the city of Cincinnati have been flying.
We have a four point eight million dollars drone program.
You may have heard about that first Responders program. Now,
apparently it is a core part of the city's emergency
response since it launched in late July. Yes, the beatdowns
brought about a drone problem, our drone program problem, depending
on your perspective. So they're always recording, equipped with high

(19:46):
quality zoom and thermal cameras since a police officer remotely
pilots the drone from the department's command center. According to
the Cincinni Inquiry, they reviewed more than four thousand flights
so far found the drones who have helped officers apprehend suspect,
been the first on the seen as shootings, and perform
aerial patrols across neighborhoods. Most notably, they cite over the Ride,

(20:09):
also the West Side and Downtown. Apparently that's where most
of the flights have been over the Rhyde, Downtown and
West Side neighborhoods. I'll let you draw your own conclusions
as to why those are the areas of concentration. They
say there are a few restrictions on police drones when
it comes to your privacy. The technology is new corner
to Electronic Frontier Foundation senior researcher Beryl Lipton, quoted in

(20:30):
the article by The Inquirer, a proposed bill in the
Ohio State House would add requirements for police get a
load of this to get warrants for some flights, like
when observing the inside of a home through a window.
Someone wrote, wtf after that? Oh that was me. I

(20:53):
wasn't even thinking of it a privacy because you generally
don't have a right to privacy outdoors. But I'm going
to be a little disturbed and I might consider a
civil rights violation if I see a drone staring at
me from outside of my house into my home. I
don't know what the current state of the law is
like that, but you know that Ohio bill in the
State House, to the extend it prohibits that kind of activity,

(21:14):
then I welcome it. Anyway, you don't get real time information.
I was kind of hoping that they said, well, there's
an app you can see where the drones are. Considering
the most recent app that City of Cincinnati launch didn't work,
that will be the snow tracking app. Joe, what are
the odds that that's going to work tonight? Zero? Okay,
that just quick. Let's see what Tom's got this morning. Tom,

(21:36):
now the other top. Yeah, that's the toime. Hold on,
we got two Toms on the line for a change,
So hang on. So regular Tom, Welcome to the Morning Show,
Regular Tom.

Speaker 6 (21:46):
So have I to answer Jay's question? Hopefully I don't
get what I deserve. First of all, that's pet So
there's a lot of people that know me, and you go, yeah, yep,
I understand that right. And as far as a certainty, yeah,
just like you said, I gotta do what I got

(22:09):
to do to keep my job every day now, I mean,
I'm doing doing this as long as I've been doing it,
I have earned keyword, earned some leeway on some areas,
and and shown that I have some capabilities and and
all that. But this just didn't come because I deserve it.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
No, you prove yourself. Let me guess you showed up
on time. You learned the skill that you were hired
for it. You you now know that skill better than
a new guy that just walks in, so you have
you do it more efficiently. You're You're more valuable because
you can perform the task quicker. You're reliable, You've established
that you can maintain. See all of these things, it's
called merit, right, Tom.

Speaker 6 (22:48):
Correct, Absolutely correct? Yes, so. And one of the things
you may not I may not have told you this.
I don't know if Joe mentioned this to you. Where
I am right now. I am up northwest of Indianapolis
listening on the I heard me yap, so I can
I can catch your show, but I'm up here on
the job. And then for the circumstances the reasons I'm

(23:08):
up here, I agreed to do this to help out
my company, and this further gives me more. Hey, this
is like a man little seither in my cap or
something like that, whatever you want to call it. But
I'm doing this stuff to help my position in my job.

Speaker 7 (23:23):
I don't think.

Speaker 6 (23:23):
I don't think I deserve it. I don't think I
just walk into it and I get it. Because here
I am, I have to do stuff to prove that
I've earned it merit, like you said. So, uh yeah,
with that in mind, the main reason I wanted to
talk about is for your health care thing. And kind
of after talking about the farm thing, farm farming is

(23:46):
seems like it's turning into what healthcare is turned into,
and a bunch of government money get pumped into it.
And I am pulling into a site right now, a
four point five billion dollar project up here northwest of Indianapolis,
and it's all about healthcare. It's uh, it's it's for
a company that's gonna make pharmaceuticals. And a lot of

(24:08):
money has been pumped into this project, and uh, I
mean billions, and I mean this is this is extremely
huge job and all that and and a lot of
this stuff is coming out of our pockets. You know,
health care. Health Care is not cheat. I'm not happy
about how expensive it is up here.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Do what make your point? We're out of time.

Speaker 6 (24:29):
My point is, uh, we gotta we gotta be careful
how much how much of our money we're letting these
people take and uh, you know, people like what can
we do about it? Yeah, you got to get more
involved in in in the process of of how people
take your money and your vote is is probably the
easiest thing to go to. And you got to look
at who's taking your money and who's voting what on

(24:50):
how to get rid of your money and take it
out of your pocket and give it to somebody else.
Don't vote Democrat.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Have a great day, Brank, good luck on the job.
Don talk station five forty coming up a five forty
one to fifty five KR City talk station five one
three seven hundred two three talk and a pair of
times this morning. Couldn't get the other time in the
last segment, So Tom, thanks for holding over the break there.
Welcome to the program, Jarn Bryan.

Speaker 8 (25:17):
So during Thanksgiving, I was sitting there thinking about the
things I'm thankful for. One Number one was Kamala Harris
did not get into the office.

Speaker 1 (25:26):
Amen.

Speaker 8 (25:27):
And number two, Donald Trump did not pick Judge Napolitano
for the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (25:36):
Never would have happened. Say what that never would have happened.
He was he never had a chance.

Speaker 8 (25:43):
Well that's good because I kind of think that he
does not have much of a spine when it comes
to taking care of drug dealers and blowing up boats.

Speaker 1 (25:51):
It's not a question of it's not a question of spine.
It's a question of constitutional theory and law. He is
a constitutional purist, and I'm happy with him on this.
There is no I mean, I even say authorization for
you some military forces and constitutions. Isn't nothing in the
Constitution that allows for the basically a sub declaration of war.
You either a war or not. But they have a

(26:12):
workaround because we deal with a weird, ever evolving, crazy,
crazy world, and that's where political expedience tends to substitute
itself for what the Constitution actually allows for. So, I mean,
he's like almost a lone voice in the wilderness Congress
from Massey, Ran, Paul and Me to a large extent,
agree with his position on the Constitution as it relates

(26:33):
to dealing with these drug dealers off the coast of Venezuela.

Speaker 9 (26:37):
Well, when they're out there in non territorial waters, anything
can go, and we are paying massive amounts of money
on drug rehabilitation facilities, broken families, drug addictions.

Speaker 8 (26:50):
Just look on the county websites any time and look at.

Speaker 1 (26:53):
Isn't that the problem? Why do we pay for that?
Why am I paying for let just theoretically, say your
medical bills. Why am my response was a taxpayer to
pay for narcan and drug rehabilitation. I mean there's a
very harsh reality that could go along with this, and
it sort of springs from the Politanus point like, and
it used to be my position, which is, listen, I

(27:16):
don't want to criminalize you're abusing your own body. You
want to abuse your body, You're going to do so
your own detriment, and you might die. That's a consequence
of using drugs. The problem is that we as a
society need to be oh my god, we need to
help the people. We need to do something about it
that comes at a taxpayer expense. Throw out the altruism
and throw out that, you know, perhaps Judeo Christian based

(27:38):
need and desire to help people from themselves, and you
don't have any problem with legalizing drugs. Darwin will kick
in and they will die. So if there's no cost
associated with it. Then you don't have to make you
don't have to criminalize drugs. You let them in the country,
and the people who choose to use them, well, they'll die.

Speaker 8 (27:58):
Yeah, I understand that, Okay, But when you're blowing up
a drug boat, when you're hit by a bomb, that's
pretty much an instantaneous depth.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
No one can do. No one's denying that, Tom. The
reality of it is stark. There is the drug boat.
It's gone. It's much much more complicated that from a
legal philosophy when you start considering we have a constitution
and the only reason that drug boat ain't there no
more is because we are fighting the drug war because
it's killing people in the United States. Yes, but it's

(28:29):
also costing us a ton of money for the reasons
I just pointed out. Now we want to take the
harsh road and say sorry, sucks to you. We're no
longer going to have drug rehabilitation programs, no longer to
provide free NARCAN. The taxpayers are no longer gonna be
on the dole or the on the on the hook
to pay for those expenses. Then you can legalize drugs.
We no longer need to blow up the drug boats

(28:50):
and the death and the aftermath of a terrible problem
will be quite evident. You be shoveling bodies off the
streets as opposed to empty narcan containers or something. So
it's very complicated. It's not just simple. And the the
simple answer is blow them up before they get here.
Why because we've got this crazy system that we live under.

(29:11):
But I don't think that makes it legal.

Speaker 8 (29:14):
And so that's why we have a Supreme Court, and
we need smarter people like not to Johnnie Brown on
the court system, but we need more people that are
going to rule in favor. And you know, you can
always bend the law. I see it every day in
these court systems. They let criminals out of jail all
the time. So you know, you pick and choose which

(29:36):
way you want to go down the road.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
Yep. And for whatever reason, we have chosen to try
to rehabilitate drug users, and uh we are. It comes
at a significant expense. We have chosen collectively, I guess
because of Obamacare, to pay for other people's medical bills.
We make the arguments all day long, but once you
start shouldering the taxpayer with someone else's expensive that's a

(29:59):
slippery slope. Go down, and you might you find yourself
with a thirty seven trillion dollar hole in the ground.
Just saying I'm not being evil. I'm not saying I
advocate for that necessarily, but these are the practical results
of that direction. Five forty six right now, fifty five
kerr CD talk station, Chimney Care, Fireplace and Stove. Love
those folks at Chimney Care, Fireplace and Stove, and they

(30:19):
are well loved by five fifty one, fifty five KARSD
talk station, Happy Friday, Aeve Congressman Warren Davidson at seven
oh five, first guest in the morning before I get
back to the phone. It's gotta go with this one
because I don't do door dash for a variety of reasons,
not the least of which is I don't want cold
food delivered. I mean, it's tough enough. You pull into
a fast food restaurant, which I avoid at all costs.

(30:42):
It's not even going to be hot when they handed
to you, at least rarely is. Anyway, we've got a
DoorDash driver now banned after being accused of spraying a
customer's order of pepper spray. It is all caught in
a doorbell camera outside their home in Evansville, Indiana. So
the driver, who's yet to be charged with a crime,
dropped off and Arby's delivered and Mark Carton and his wife,
Mandy doordass. Driver snapped a photo of the delivery, then

(31:08):
pulled an object out of her pocket spray the order.
The worker, described as blue haired, placed the spray back
into her jacket, walked away. Couple brought the order inside,
didn't know anything was wrong with it, started eating the order.
That's when Mandy began struggling to breathe. According to her husband,
I noticed my wife had started eating, and she started
choking and gasping, and after she had a couple of

(31:30):
bites of her food, she actually threw up. So they
checked the doorbell ring camera. He said. I had a
look at the bag and looked at there was some
kind of spray or something. The bag had been tampered with.
So I pulled out my doorbell camera and saw the
lady who dropped the food off had actually tampered with
it on purpose. For some reason, shared the photos on
social media looking for help identifying the driver. He tried

(31:52):
to contact her, but apparently she had already blocked him
from the app. Hmm, so off to the Vandberg County
Sheriff's office, who's now looking to well find the driver.
Driver has since been banned from the app after this
footage surfaced, with Eat or Dash spokesperson saying they have
zero tolerance for that type of appalling behavior. He didn't

(32:14):
know what was sprayed on the food, mister Cardon, fearing
it could have been worse than it was, calling it horrific.
So we assume with pepper spray more likely what it is,
but now this day and age, it could have been anything. Yeah,
another reason why a third party intermediary period. Yes, Joe,
the biggest douche.

Speaker 10 (32:30):
Of the universe, in all the galaxies, there's no bigger
douche than you. You've reached the top the pinnacle of
douche them. Good going, Deuce, your dreams have come true.

Speaker 1 (32:47):
Apparently, if that foreign spray resulted in harm, it could
be a level five felony. Let's see what Patrick's gott Patrick,
thanks for calling this morning, Welcome on the Morning Show.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
Hey, good morning, Brian.

Speaker 7 (32:59):
Hey.

Speaker 11 (32:59):
The reason that ill is that I don't know if
you were aware, but over in Indiana, in lawrence Burg,
there is a methodone clinic and it's a in Greendale
and back in the mid two thousands, I oversaw the
security for Deacon a Hospital while I did private security contracts,

(33:23):
I was contracted out to do security for that methodone clinic.
And I will tell you the amount of money, and
it is federally owned, and the amount of money that
place brings in that one clinic is insane. It's about
and this was back in like the mid two thousands,
it's about five point six million dollars. Wow, because you

(33:46):
had seven hundred people plus going through there at thirteen
dollars a shot of methadone per day, three hundred and
sixty five days. And one of the reasons that everybody
he was going to Indiana's because Indiana privacy laws is
that they did not require anybody's information to be released

(34:08):
to their employer, so you didn't have to put down
that you were seeking drug counseling.

Speaker 2 (34:12):
No.

Speaker 11 (34:13):
I don't know if you're familiar with what methodone treats,
but back then was heroin, heroin, oxy codeone, anything that
was a opioid, and they were actually starting to treat
cocaine addictions, but they were up in the doses to
about thirty dollars a doze per person. So just imagine,

(34:37):
because you know the people, there's a clause once a
methodone clinic owns, you cannot operate another methodone clinic within
one hundred miles of that location, and for that very
reason because of the amount of money it brings in.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
So they create monopoly jurisdictions for the methodone treatment clinics.
That doesn't make much sense absolutely considering probably folks that
are in need of a methodone treatment probably don't have
a vehicle of their own having sold it to buy drugs. Yes, okay,
so basically the state has become the drug dealer.

Speaker 11 (35:16):
You would say so because it's amazing how addictive methodone is.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
Oh yeah, I'm sure it is. Yeah, layers and layers
and layers of complication because the state steps in to
solve a problem. Just think about it. It's food for thought.
Fiveifty six fifty five kr CD talk station plenty more
coming up at six o'clock hour. Love to hear from you.
We can dive further into details of that conversation or others.

(35:41):
Either way we go, I'll be back after the news.
Today's top headlines come New.

Speaker 5 (35:46):
Cat's hold Trump does is negotiate every.

Speaker 1 (35:48):
Day, and he's an extremely small businessman. Fifty five KRZ
the talk station, the six o five fifty five r
CD talk station. It's Friday. The guests began one hour
from out here in the fifty five caer see morning
should return. It's that's a weekly segment anymore. I love it.
Congressman Warren Davidson returns and we're talking about the healthcare

(36:10):
bills that have been offered. Democrats have theirs keep the
subsidies in place for three years with no effort to
deal with fraud, waste, and abuse. Republicans have their own
versions that are floating around, many of which include extensions
of the subsidies to some degree variations of that. Congressman
Davidson and his thoughts and where he is on that subject.

(36:30):
That'll be topic number one. And then bombing the smugglers,
of course, that we talked about that yesterday with Congressman
Warren are with with Judge Nita Palatano and Thomas Massey
Congressman Massey and Judge Poulton of both in the same
page on that one. I tend to agree with him.
Going back to the last hour, really I think the

(36:50):
whole problem. And Neapolitany even brought it up. He doesn't
believe in as it was kind of my former position.
I don't believe in criminalizing self abuse. That's my you
have libertarian philosophy, you want to kill yourself? I suppose
it's you know what drugs do to you. It's impossible
to escape all the information out there about how dangerous
drugs are. I guess the real problem springs from the

(37:17):
fact that we as a society try to help those
people get out of that addiction syndrome. It's a huge
societal cost. And you know, my sort of flip on
that reality is when you do legalize, and we saw
the experiment like in Portland. Look what happened to Portland.
Say what you want about it, but the legalization of drugs,

(37:39):
they were everywhere. People were laying around on the streets.
And when you got a fentanyl problem, you're not a
productive member of society. But you still have to eat
and people worry about you sleeping out on the streets.
Oh my god, we got to deal with the homeless problem.
Oh my god, we gotta deal with addiction problem. Oh
my god. We need an NGO to come and solve
the problem. There's all your taxpayer money flowing into the situation.

(37:59):
It's not that I don't understand where that desire to
help comes from. But if we lived in a world
where there was no government fix not that it's fixed
the problem, we wouldn't be blowing boats up off the
coast of Vona as well, would we? Just saying what

(38:21):
makes it complicated? It's the criminalization of the drugs and
everything that flows from that. And once they're criminalized, and
you've got to deal with the drugs trying to get
in the country, to try to stop the people who
are making a profit off of something that's in huge demand.
If you can't get rid of the demand because people
are well inclined to use drugs, it seems to me,
and I'm not offering this as a valid solution, so

(38:43):
don't call me cruel and evil, But if you just
let Darwin work, then the problem sends to solve. It
tends to solve itself. And I believe there was a
president of I think it was Philippines or some other
country when asked about how come you don't have any
you know, interdiction programs, you don't have any you know,
treatment programs. How come the taxpayer dollars aren't being used to,
you know, solve the addiction problems. The problem solves itself.

(39:08):
In other words, Darwin kicks in o't. But the legality
of it is what Massey and Napolitano and I are
talking about. When it comes to blowing up boats off
the coast of Venezuela. That whole concept of due process
was the boat really? Did the boat really have drugs?
Who do you trust on that? Do you trust your government? Really?

(39:28):
After everything we've learned, I mean, if you're a big
Trump fan, you saw what government can do. And we're
still learning more and more every single day about all
these plots that were hatched against Trump to undermine him
as a viable candidate at the outset. Whoops, he got elected,
then to undermine him get doing literally anything he wanted
to do during his first presidency. And of course that

(39:49):
conduct continues, so springing from the idea that I have
little trust in my government, most notably depending on who's
at the helm. Do you trust the government when they
tell you they're a drug terrorist, they're a narco terrorist?
That boat was filled with drugs? Well, I'd like to
see the information confirming that so called fact, and then

(40:12):
there springs from that the whole idea. Okay, if you
literally have identified someone as a narco terrorist and they
are in fact ferrying drugs, where was that boat going?
Is there a demand elsewhere in the world for these drugs?
Of course there is, so it is extraordinarily complicated. But
again theoretically moving away from the reality of how we're

(40:35):
trying to deal with the drug problem in the world.
Absent government intervention, then you are looking at a situation
where it probably would solve itself. I don't know. I
don't know. Dan Hills, former FOP president Dan Hills putting

(40:55):
his well former FOP president had on, former police officer
had on and talking about since at council approven the
one point eight million dollars settlement for arresting people that
were congregating in the streets. Again, I do believe fundamentally
civil rights violation. The curfew laws do have an exceptional
least the current ones for gathering within one's First Amendment

(41:15):
right to free assembly and free exercise speech. So I'm
guessing that is the impetus behind the settlement, and because
the sinsint police officers enforced the curfew, arrested people who
were assembling, not committing crimes, just violating the curfew. That's
why it ultimately ended up in the settlement. The city's
on the hook for the vast majority of it. In
spite of the question marks from some of the members
of council when discussing this and approving it yesterday. How

(41:38):
come the counties only on the hook for sixty five
or for just a small slice of this. The reason
it's because, well, the Sheriff's department was merely holding those
that were arrested by the CINCINNT Police Department who were
enforcing the curfew law. So Dan Hill's on that topic
coming up. Seven point thirty. Destiny Edwards, filmmaker from Competitive
Enterprise Institute, an award winning doc documentary, Dear Mister President,

(42:01):
The Letters of Julia saying that'll be an eight of
five fall by iHeart Media aviation expert Jay Ratliffe five
on three, seven fifty fred two three Talk Pound five
fifty on eight and T phone. Speaking of drugs, we
give new Us the House centate to prove the HEMP regulations.
Looks like it's going to be signing the law by
Governor de Wine. I'll get to that in a moment.
I we'll see it, Steve Scott, Steve, thanks for calling
this morning. Welcome to the show.

Speaker 12 (42:22):
Yes, sir, I hope you enjoyed your four days off.
Of course, we're always sad when you're gone. But at
the same time, I say, we like, I like, I
speak for the audience, but happy for you that you
get to enjoy some time off and recharge yourself. That's
a day off the wonderful thing when you work. I'm
semi retired. I would be scared to be off seven

(42:44):
days a week. So I'm off four days a week.
So I really enjoy the days off, but I enjoy
going to work.

Speaker 1 (42:49):
That's funny, Steve. We my wife irrelevant but certainly substantive reason.
I bring this up. Met with our financial planner the
other day and we talk about retirement because getting close
to the retirement age, and the one thing that frightens
me about retirement it's not you know, not having resources
deliver anything. It's what in the hell are you going
to do with yourself, Thomas, you know, staring into the mirror,

(43:10):
wondering how I'm going to deal with retirement. Since I
really literally have no idea what I'm going to do.
That's the thing that's keep keeping me from retiring.

Speaker 12 (43:17):
I think, well, I'm I'll tell you what I think long
and hard about that. I mean, because now I stopped
doing what I did, which had a little bit of
pressure on it, and I do menial work now, which
they are desperate for people that'll do grunt work. And generationally,
and this is funny. I mean, I you know, I
can tell you what I do.

Speaker 7 (43:38):
I do food.

Speaker 12 (43:38):
Delivery for Croker. I mean, you know, we all we
all buy food from them, and you know, and I'm
an AM talk radio junkie. So three days a week
I'm driving around, you know, five thirty in the morning
till like two thirty in the afternoon. I meet nice people,
and I listen to the radio and they're they're paying
me to listen to the radio. That's great, and you
get you get a heck of a workout physically too,
with a lot of stairs, and but it's fun. I

(44:01):
enjoy it.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
I'm glad you out.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
You know, Yeah, I'm really glad you enjoyed. I think
that that human element, dealing with people and meeting new
people is really I think that's a compelling thing to
as a reason to want to work. And you hear
being on the morning show now coming up in twenty years.
The one thing I still miss from my old job
at Anthon Blue Cross, Blue Shield is being in the
legal department with all the other people and interacting with
them every day. You know, I interact with Joe Strecker

(44:27):
and which is a great thing. But that's about it
because I'm out of here before everybody else shows up
in the morning. So it's a weird, weird thing. But
I do. I do love that interaction with people, and
I think that's a great thing that you're doing. And
I'm glad you're doing it in retirement and enjoy it.

Speaker 12 (44:41):
No, it's fun. Yeah, And I'm just three years older
than you, so I mean you you know, think about that.
I've done this like eighteen months now, so it is fun.
I enjoy it. But you really appreciate a day off.
If I had seven days off a week, I would
walk around the house and my wife would would throw
me out of the house, right, I would, because I
walk around and look at the way to the neighbors
and you know.

Speaker 6 (45:01):
Why, why is he leaving it?

Speaker 12 (45:03):
Seven thirty today. He left at seven thirty five yesterday.
I meant, I'm like the Monty Python people where they're
they're they're writing everything down, they've got telescopes and they're
watching everybody. Yeah, okay, just a real quick point. I
live in Independence, Kentucky. Thomas Massey is my representative. I've
talked to you a couple of times about him, and

(45:24):
I really like him, you know, and and I want
that to come across. But I am frustrated with him.
But the gist of the story is about three weeks ago,
knock on the door and it was somebody representing Thomas
Massey campaigning for him. And I am very, very welcoming

(45:45):
to anybody, be it the candidate or a representative that
that would that would spend their time. You know, walking
around knocking on doors can't be easy, so I'm very polite.
I'm polite to anybody. But but you know, we had
a conversation and I said, my frustration with him is
with the votes he is making. I know he's a

(46:08):
man of principle, but he's got Maxine Waters and AOC
on his side all the time, and the Dems don't
care how they peel off those votes. They don't care
how they get that person on their side. I said,
there's a frustration from my wife and I and we're
going to think long and hard in the primary and
see what we're going to do.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
Well, what caught on before? You look at who's joining
with him? What is it that you find offensive about
some particular piece of legislation that he's behind with this?

Speaker 12 (46:40):
And I'm going to quote him about a year ago.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
And we're almost out a time here, so get to
the point here real quick.

Speaker 12 (46:45):
They're Steve okay, Well, about a year ago McConnell said
he's going to retire. And you asked Massey if he
was going to run for the seat in the Senate.
He said, no, same circus, different set of clowns. So
he is in a circus. I understand that he's in
a group four p. Thirty five. You gotta put on
the big floppy shoes and the red nose because you
voluntarily joined the circus and when your party needs that vote,

(47:11):
you gotta you gotta do it.

Speaker 1 (47:13):
Well, you're missing the point of why Congress from mess
he does what he does. He doesn't need that job.
It doesn't pay much at all, it's a hassle, it's
a headache. It draws national focus on a single guy.
I would avoid that headache, like the plague. He's got
fifty five.

Speaker 12 (47:26):
Keep running for reelection, I.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
Know, because he is a constitutional puristy you want to
demonstrate that. That's his motivation for running.

Speaker 12 (47:34):
His constituents are fed up. I will, well, then they
can vote.

Speaker 1 (47:38):
Him out, that Steve, Then they can vote him out.

Speaker 12 (47:40):
We're hearing a lot of this, aren't you. And the
guy said, yes, yeah, we'll see what happens exactly.

Speaker 1 (47:45):
We will. And I have confidence in the voters in
northern Kentucky. They like him for his firm stance on
the constitution. I think that's why he keeps being brought
back time and time again. Somebody's got to speak the
truth to power six seventeen and Democrats will only join
him when they find it expeeding for them.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
If you have Karsty talk station No. Constant hundred two
to three talk time five fifty on AT and T phone,
see what Dick's got this morning. Dick, thanks for calling.
Welcome to the Morning Show.

Speaker 13 (48:12):
Morning Brian, Good day to you. My comment to Steve
is that's why we likes Thomas Massey, unlike Rand Paul
and Judge the Politano who have our tendency to complain
but not resolved. Thomas said something yesterday on your show
that made me reflect on why it is that I

(48:33):
am a normal supporter of Thomas, and that is he
agrees with the Polatono that the actions in the Caribbean
are in violation of the Constitution. The difference, though, is
Thomas does what the legislature is supposed to do. He
enables the president to do what he's doing legally by

(48:54):
putting together a resolution that says he could do that.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
Yeah, good point, Dick. That's I mean, that's right. He's
a purist. When it comes to the Constitution. There is
a mechanism to engage in war. It's either a declaration
of war or the constitutionally questionable authorization for you military force.
I would much rather have Congress chime in and issue
an authorization for you military force. Setting the parameters on

(49:18):
where bombs can get dropped and not get dropped. We're
gonna end up in a shooting war. If you have
a president who's free to drop bombs anywhere. He might
drop a bomb on a country that could actually defend
itself like China or Russia. You know, I mean we
end up in World War three over stuff like that.
You're a safe bomb in Venezuela because then you have
a military to speak of it. It's a corrupt government.
That's shawn shaky grounds anyway, right, agreed.

Speaker 13 (49:42):
So that's why I've been in favor of Thomas actually
taking the job that mister Johnson has right now, because
he's consistently the person in Congress, and there's a couple others,
but it's a small few. But Larren Davidson is also
in that pile of people that actually follows his who
is upbringing does the right thing. And so those two

(50:04):
guys are my favorite candidates for Speaker of the House.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
That would be wonderful, wouldn't that send shockwaves through the
rest of the House.

Speaker 13 (50:11):
Dick Johnson has proved himself unable to lead. There's not
much difference than between him and the last several that
we've had, going back all the way to the age
of Clinton.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
Yeah, it is not an enviable possession. Is a treasure, Yeah,
he is. He'd be firm in his convictions and that
he would run the House the way he well runs
his seat. You could count on him and you would
know what was coming a mile away when congressomme, Messy's
at the helm. But that is not a job that
I would take. You could quadruple the salary and I
still wouldn't take that job. Speakers were all sucks. It's

(50:44):
like constantly hurting cats and all the cats are angry
and hate each other. That's just within your own party.
Six twenty five AFT you five k se the talk station,
feel free to give me a call. Also another call
you and I want to make if you're dealing with pain,
how about making calendar your twenty twenty six of pain
for the talk station thirty if you have a pair
CD talk station always welcoming phone calls. I do have

(51:08):
local stories in front of me. But if you want
to call field three five one, three, seven, four nine
fifty five hundred, eight hundred eight two three talks. City
Council approved the settlement yesterday eight point one million dollars settlement,
Hamilton County paying sixty five thousand dollars of the settlement.
This relates to the lawsuit that was filed by eleven people,
joined later by four hundred plaintiffs. Who were all claiming
that the curfew set in place by Mayor John Cranley

(51:29):
at the time was unconstitutional and led to unlawful imprisonment
of protesters. So you had the May twenty ninth protest,
which devolved into vandalization and other crimes being committed love
and people got arrested. That was May twenty ninth of
twenty twenty. I can't believe it's been that long. This
is George Floyd related protest, you may recall that. So

(51:49):
Cranley the next ding announced a ten pm curfew four
just specific neighborhoods. So there after hundreds of people across
the city got arrested for curfew violations and the component
of this regarding the county. They were held at the
Hamilton County Justice Center in what they called sally Port,
which is described as an area with four walls no

(52:12):
roof that was supervised by the Hamilton County Deputies. Some
claimed they were denied food, water, and bathroom breaks. That aside,
but the Lion's share of this settlement if it's approved
by the federal court, which, of course city council rubber
stamped yesterday eight million dollars, but also there's a non
monetary portion of the settlement which includes policy changes within

(52:36):
the sin Sinnty Police Department specifically, and I don't know
what this ultimately will mean. That's why we're having Dan
Hills joined the program in one hour to talk about this.
The creation of a Civil Disturbance Operation Procedure Guidebook described
as standardizing and formalizing sin sint Police Department operations during
protests and similar events. Creation of a standard dispersal order

(52:59):
in a cap on that same with the CDP that
the officers will use during civil disturbances. Standard dispersal order.
I guess it's like Miranda Rights. They will read a
specific dispersal order during civil disturbances. Uniformity, I suppose is important.
I guess updated procedures to notify and collaborate with Hamilton

(53:20):
County Municipal Court, Justice Center, Juvenile Court in Hamilton County
Juvenile Detention Center when the Sinni Police Department anticipates mass arrests.
I find no problem with that coordination anyway. All the
information provided the City of Cincinnati by the City of
CINCINNAI spokesperson Molly Laire when the settlement was announced this
past Friday, so members of council, Scottie Johnson and jam

(53:44):
Michelle lemon Kearney questioned the committee about why Hamilton County
only paying sixty five thousand dollars. Johnson brought up the
protesters being held in the sally Port at the Hamilton
County Justice Center. Werner, the spokesperson, said, though the settlement
agreement does not contain any admission of wrongdoing on behalf
of the city, there are allegations in the complaint that
exceed the issues in the sally Port, and I think

(54:06):
that's the constitutionality of Cranley's order. I notably, I use
the words I think, and I contrast whatever Cranleigh's order
was on curfews with the ones that were announced over
this summer, which also included an exception for exercising one's
First Amendment rights to free assembly. And I think that's
really the genesis behind this lawsuit City curfew. Cincinnati police

(54:29):
executed the or rather arrested people for the violation of
the curfew. If the law itself was unconstitutional, then of
course the actions of the city since city since any
police department interesting people deemed a civil rights violation. Now
I'm prepared to be corrected on my analysis of that,
but that's the way I see this unfolding. Former FOP
President Dan Hills one hour from now will chime in

(54:50):
on that topic. New security measures which are hoping to
keep residents safe in the City of Bellevue. Last night's
city voted to add Flock cameras, described as a form
of license plate readers. They're going to be on the
city limits. Apparently it was a difficult decision for the council,
and in fact they say it's the first time the
City of Bellevue mayor had to break a tie vote,

(55:10):
ultimately voting in favor of a contract with Flock Incorporated.
Described as a public safety technology system, it's the license
plate scanning scanners. Bellevue Police Chief John McClain quota of saying,
we like putting the bad guys that need to be
behind bars behind bars, and any tool that helps us
do that streamline and get it done faster, we're thrilled
to have. So they're going to be placed at the

(55:30):
City of Bellevue's entrances and exits to help insure more
security for the residents. Cameras designed to read every license
plate going in and out of the city. According to
Brooklyn Andres reporting for Fox nineteen, in an effort to
track the stolen vehicles, the system will alert police within
thirty seconds if a stolen vehicle enters Bellevue limits. And

(55:52):
we need something like that with ankle monitors, don't we
wouldn't that be cool? And then if somebody violates an
ankle monitor, the police are alerted within thirty seconds that
a bad guy is on the rome in violation of
his or her probation. Wow, what an interesting concept that
so coming to the city of Bellevue. I love this.

(56:15):
Flock cameras or similar systems are currently being used in
many areas of surrounding areas surrounding the tri State. Are
you ready? Fun fact although the use of these cameras
does not ensure vehicles won't be stolen or broken into
no excrement on that six point thirty five If five

(56:35):
kre se de talk station oto eggs think five care
see de talk station. Tryan Thomas right here wishing everybody
very happy Thursday. Stick around. Congressman Warren Davidson coming up
at seven oh five. We'll talk about the various healthcare
reform bills that are going to be voted on very soon.
That was part of the agreement to reopen the government.
If you recall and neither the Democrats nor the current

(56:56):
Republican proposal, or as the case may be, looked like
they have enough votes to move forward. So back to
square one is which is what I think everybody expected
after the government reopened. Former FOP President Dan Hills Cincinnati
Council approving that one point eight million dollars settlement. I
mentioned at the bottom of the hour on the local news.
Filmmaker Destri Edwards at eighth five from the Competitive Enterprise

(57:17):
Institute got an award winning documentary to talk about. We'll
learn together what dear mister President, the Letters of Julius
sand is all about. At eight h five Jay Ratliffe,
I heard media aviation expert at eight thirty love hearing
from you if you got a comment five one, three, seven, four, nine,
fifty five hundred eight eight two three talk pound five
fifty on eight and T phones. So the new THCHC ban.

(57:39):
Lawmakers on Tuesday sent the legislation over to Governor Mike
Dwaine's desk. It's Senate Bill fifty six passed on what
they say, party lines twenty two to seven vote will
prohibit the sales of all hemp based items containing more
than point four milligrams of total THHC. Of course, most
people know the main psychoactive drugging cannabis that's more than

(58:01):
point four milligrams per container, as well as those containing
synthetic canbinoids outside of a licensed medical marijuana dispensary. So
no longer will you be able to go to your
local convenience store and by THHC hemp derived products. So
the legislation, they say, will allow for five milligram hemp
derived THHC drinks they have those now to temporarily remain

(58:27):
legal in Ohio through the end of the year. That
says those beverages will be permitted to be manufactured, distributed,
and sold until December thirty, first of next year. They
say the bill largely mirror change is passed by Congress
last month that essentially banned intoxicating hemp products with more
than point four milligrams total THHC. However, this bill states

(58:49):
that the federal government reverses itself and legalizes hemp beverages
with a higher THCHC limit than what's contained in this
SB fifty six, the General Assembly will, well, here's the
operative word here, consider making changes to the state law.
That's like Hamilton County, the commissioners will consider giving you

(59:09):
the tax rebate you were promised when you voted to
build a Palm Brown stadium. So you can take that
promise to that consideration for what it's worth anyway. Changes
include prohibiting people from bringing weed into Ohio from other
states like Michigan. They note that Michigan weed is cheaper
than Ohio weed, so a little protectionism there for the

(59:30):
Ohio dispensaries. Allowing landlords to ban marijuana smoking, vaping, or
growing on their property landlords do own the property, erasing
protections in current state law prohibiting marijuana use as a
grounds four, being rejected for housing, being disciplined by state

(59:52):
licensing board, having a court rule that a child is
being abused or neglected, disqualifying someone from medical care or
an organ transplant. So those protections that previously existed are
no longer there. So you better not smoke weed if
you need an organ transplant, I guess, Or if you
are well, you hate your spouse and you're hoping to

(01:00:12):
get custody, don't be smoking weed because now apparently they
can use that and claim that the children are neglected
because of it. Also requiring people to store all marijuana
products in their original containers. And I scratch my head
over that one. I guess that's so children don't grab
your zip block baggy that you took your thc edibles
out of and placed into the ziplock baggy as opposed

(01:00:34):
to the original container, which also looks like it's candy
for children. What about weed that you grow at home?
Because under Ohio law you're allowed to grow quite a
few plants in your own house. There is no original container.
It is a marijuana product, is it not. It's marijuana.
Struggle with that one on your own. Forbidding people in
Ohio from growing, cultivating, or possessing homegrown marijuana on behalf

(01:00:56):
of another person, I don't know how you can approve
that one. Let's the other person turns you in and
claims that you were growing weed for them, Prohibiting people
who are fired for marijuana use from obtaining state unemployment benefits,
Creating new criminal penalty for drivers caught smoking or vaping cannabis,
punishable by up to sixty days in jaenital five hundred

(01:01:18):
dollars fine. That doesn't say anything about being intoxicated, it's
just caught smoking. And my understanding of Ohio law and
OVI law is if you're in a car and you
are drinking, even if you're not drunk, it's the drinking
of alcohol in a car that is makes your criminal
criminally liable or at least liable for to get a ticket.
Now is a criminal penalty if you're caught smoking or
vaping in a car. Visions of fast times at Ridgemont

(01:01:45):
High and the van opening up and the smoke billowing out,
punishing people caught transferring marijuana to someone younger than twenty one,
and finally removing Ohio's current criminal penalties for parents or
guardians who knowingly allow underage people to use marijuana at
their home or on their property, removing that criminal penalty anyway,

(01:02:06):
quite a few people up in arms, including the THHC
beverage manufacturers who are making a lot of money off
brewing up those THC and fused beverages. Several of them
were interviewed locally by some of the news and found
out that well, they're making a heapload of money, and
now they're worried that, well this we're going to lose
all kinds of money with this change. Do you agree
with the changes anyway? If Dwine signs the bill, it'll

(01:02:31):
take effect as soon as March next year. Some people
are saying this is an insult to those many voters
in the state of Ohio who voted for Issue Too,
which legalized marijuana for recreational use in the state of Ohio. Mike,
hang on, I'll take your call as soon as they
get back. It's already six forty six amount of time.
And I want to mention Colin Electric because they've got
a great special going on now. Don't blame Andrew Collin

(01:02:52):
at six fifty one IF fifty five pair CD talk
station five one, three seven eight two to three Talk
cont Fact fifty on AT and T phone. Here'son Warren
Davidson after the top of the UR News. Welcome to
the program, Mike, thanks so much for calling this morning.

Speaker 14 (01:03:06):
Hi, Brian, talk about the new laws for marijuana and
or anything. Right after they passed the law to legalize that,
Butler County commissioners got together and they made it so
you can't sell it in Butler County.

Speaker 1 (01:03:22):
Yeah, I guess they wanted to avoid a dispensary or yeah, well.

Speaker 14 (01:03:29):
The problem is you gots like the Meyers across from
forest for them all. You can throw a stone across
in the forest park at a dispensary right there and
it reeks over there.

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
Shocking no one. It's you know, when I grew up,
there were a lot of quite a few dry counties.
We have relatives in the UH in the Greater Jellico,
Tennessee area, and there are a lot of teetotalers down there,
and they're dry counties. Guess what, You drive a couple
of miles at most and you're in a wet county.
That's where you buy your beer, your wine and your
liquor and then you take it home.

Speaker 14 (01:04:04):
But nice not having to smell it there out Mother
County though.

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
True. But I mean, listen, it's like casino gambling way bit,
Southeast Indiana's got gambling and we don't hear in Ohio.
Guess we need a legislat bill pass to allow gambling
in the state of Ohio. Why because all the revenue
is going to Southeast Indiana used to be Vegas and Reno.
But I guess everybody else figured it out. The Indian
Native American Indian tribes figured it out first. They have

(01:04:28):
different laws on Native American lands. You don't have to
follow federal law to prohibit gambling. Wait a second, they're
getting all the gambling money. We need to do something
about that. It is pretty funny when you think about it,
but I love that one. You can't transfer marijuana from
Michigan into the state of Ohio a measure of protectionism.

(01:04:49):
Are there going to be cops at the border? I
remember the old days a minuder standing as they used
to park police officers outside of the liquor stores over
in northern Kentucky because you used to be able to
save a whole lot of money going across the river
to get booze and then bring it back in the
state of Ohio. They called that bootlegging. So a word
was it that they would follow you from the liquor
store into the state of Ohio and arrest you for

(01:05:09):
bootlegging a measure of protectionism, maybe for the state of
Ohio's minimum price for booze. Yeah, all right, from the
stack is stupid. I gotta get this one in because
it just absolutely drove me crazy. A multitude of reasons why.
First off, what in the hell is Pantone headline Pantones

(01:05:30):
white Cloud Dancer twenty twenty six color sparks progressive backlash
and look like, what the hell is that Pantone? I
don't know who Pantone is or what Pantone is, but
apparently they were a response for choosing the twenty twenty
six color of the year. Does anybody follow this stuff?
This is actually a Fox News article. It's a shade

(01:05:52):
of white Cloud Dancer, and so of course people have
to be upset about the particular color that was chosen
by whatever Pantone is on Thursday, Pantone, the media company
that specializes in naming colors. That's the description. What all right?

(01:06:15):
Clearly irrelevant? Who gives a piece of excrement about it?
But of course Cloud Dancer being a shade of white,
it sparked progressive backlash. La Trese Eisman, executive director of
Pantone Color Institutes, and in the press release, the cacophony that

(01:06:37):
surrounds us has become overwhelming, making it harder to hear
the voices of our inner selves. A conscious statement of simplification,
Cloud Dancer, the color enhances our focus providing release from
the distraction of external influences. Well, inspite what they were
hoping it will come to bring about. By naming a

(01:06:58):
color white as the do the year to provide a
release from the distraction of external influences, it immediately generated
a mass quantity of external influences. Don't we have enough
to complain and yell about, so let's yell about how
this is an act of racism, which is really what
this boils down to. Nothing else going on in the world.

(01:07:23):
I suppose en Yeah, I did read about it. I'd
like to think for different reasons. Six point fifty six
Congressman Warren Davidson, what are the couple of healthcare bills
being proposed to deal with the elimination of the expiration
rather of the subsidies ender December under Obamacare. We'll talk
about healthcare. We'll talk about bombing smugglers, hot topic of

(01:07:44):
late here in the morning show. Plus former FOP president
Dan Hills on the council's approval of the one point
eight million dollars settlement with the various protesters. That's coming
up in the next hour. Who we can stick around
Today's top headlines coming It's seven five I fifty five

(01:08:12):
kre ced Talks station Friday Eve. It is that time
a week and I so thoroughly enjoyed Congressman Warren davids
and joining the program on a regular basis. Welcome back,
Congressman Warren Davidson. It's a distinct pleasure to have you
on the show again.

Speaker 15 (01:08:25):
Yeah, always an honor brand. Nice to talk with you.

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
You're not a senator yet, but apparently the Senate's going
to be voting on two proposals as part of the
agreement to open up the government again after the forty
three days that was shut which actually put a smile
a lot of my listeners' faces, I have to say,
Congressman Davidson. But that aside two proposals floating around the
Senate won the Republican proposal, which is a little more complicated,
a lot different than the Democrats proposal, which is simply

(01:08:50):
to extend the healthcare supplements for an additional three years,
no other terms of conditions, just a straight three year extension,
which is what they were arguing for in essence when
they shut the government down. I guess initially if that
one was to win the day, and they say so
far there is no way either of these proposals got
the votes necessary to pass. But theoretically, if that one

(01:09:11):
did pass, we're just merely kicking the can down the
road again for another three years, only to have this
argument again in three years, I presume, right.

Speaker 15 (01:09:20):
Yeah, I mean, Congress is pretty good at the king aim.
But so I couldn't totally bet against that happening because
there are a couple of Republican proposals too that were
introduced as discharged petitions in the House. Brian Fitzpatrick, a
moderate from Philadelphia, wants to get Democrats to back his
proposal to do a two year extension. And then Jen

(01:09:41):
Keggin's a moderate from Norfolk, Virginia. She's got some other
scheme to basically continue. It's basically the Obamacare bailout Act, right,
I mean, clearly Obamacare failed. It hasn't made the care
more affordable. Let's, as I say, for no good ideas
in Obamacare. There were things that did need fixed in
our health care system. But this isn't like all of

(01:10:03):
Obamacare goes away, right, I mean, this is just a
bonus subsidy that affects about It affects about five percent
of the people that get Obamacare, and generally the five
percent of people that it affects are you know people
if the only income I had was pay from Congress
and the only you know, no big set of assets
are haying. If you're making one hundred and eighty thousand

(01:10:25):
dollars a year and you have a family of four,
you could still qualify for these kinds of subsidies. This
is crazy. This is bonus round stuff. And yeah, okay,
people that are making one hundred and eighty two hundred
thousand dollars a year, the idea that the government wouldn't
keep subsidizing them shouldn't scare people. Right. So the traditional
Obamacare person who's you know, making you know, fifty thousand

(01:10:48):
dollars a year, working in a job that doesn't offer healthcare,
say a restaurant or something, they don't have benefits, and
they sent it for Obamacare, regular Obamacare is in jeopardy.
But that doesn't mean it works well. Ask people their
healthcare is terrible, They get high out of pocket expenses,
their premiums go up double digits every year. But this
isn't the program that affects that.

Speaker 5 (01:11:10):
It's just status quo.

Speaker 15 (01:11:12):
Obama Care is terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:11:13):
Well, my understanding, and I've said it many times, this
is what I understand the argument to be, and why
some Republicans would extend the subsidies in spite of everything.
You just point out that, like the Continuing Resolution that
led up to the government shutdown, the Republicans approved the
twenty twenty four spending levels didn't try to pair it back,

(01:11:35):
much to the chagrin of folks like you, maybe Thomas Massey,
which would have liked to have seen some cuts. They
wanted to take all arguments away from Democrats as we
approach the expiration of the subsidies. So here we are.
You know, we're shutting down, but we left your funding
levels the same as last year. You have nothing to
complain about. And they really didn't. That pushed the burden
back over them to say, well, wait a minute, no,
these subsidies a going to inspire. We're all going to die,

(01:11:56):
blah blah blah. But you're the one that put the
expiration date in. The only reason they were sended and
broadened was because of COVID nineteen. Now long over, they
had no argument. Now pivoting over to this, the Republicans
would extend the subsidies because they want to get past
next November. They want to take the win out of
the argument that the Democrats will run around screaming, oh
my god, those evil Republicans took away health care from

(01:12:18):
millions of Americans. But going to that five percent figure
you just mentioned, if this is only going to impact
five percent of the voters, those who are getting subsidies
in excess of the original cap of sixty one five,
is that really an election influence percentage? Do the Democrats
really have that much traction making that argument going into

(01:12:38):
next year.

Speaker 15 (01:12:40):
Well, here's what's succeeding in doing is you know, in
twenty seventeen, Republicans campaign on repealing Obama Obamacare. Some said
they campaign on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Either way, it
neither happened, right, So since then, people have had bills
to try to address our healthcare system. But Republicans have
done everything possible to not talk about healthcare since twenty

(01:13:03):
seventeen because they tried and failed to get rid of Obamacare,
and so they're like scared to even talk about it.
Bills don't even come up for hearings in the committee's
of jurisdiction. So I've been pushing to say, well, then
just create a healthcare committee, because here's the reality is,
Obamacare didn't fix healthcare. It fixed a couple problems, like
people that had pre existing conditions and had hard times enrolling,

(01:13:26):
and adverse selection where you already get sick and you
can't even get insurance. So things like that were better,
but none of the Republican plans really wanted to get
rid of that that were out there. But because of that,
Democrats have kind of claimed some ground on healthcare. It's
one policy area where they generally get feedback because they're

(01:13:50):
united behind a plan. Republicans haven't done the debate to
say we're united behind one plan. We've got dozens, frankly,
that are just languishing in the hopper waiting to have
a debate. So I think the Democrats are going to
force a debate here. Because people love their doctor, they
like their hospitals, they like the technology, but when the

(01:14:12):
billing time comes, they're baffled. They're like, wait, wait, so
my premiums are going up, you know, fifteen to twenty
percent every year. My out of pockets crept up from
four thousand to six thousand to now ten thousand. You're
still denying claims. You're still saying this is out of network.
I was in the same building the whole time. How's
it out of network? All these kinds of things about

(01:14:32):
paying for health care are still terrible. And what Democrats
are wanting to do is hang that entire problem around
Republicans and if Republicans don't do anything about it and
just try to avoid the problem, stick your head in
the sand. Well it's gonna work.

Speaker 5 (01:14:47):
Right.

Speaker 15 (01:14:47):
So, like, I think the challenge for the Speaker, and
this is a meeting I was in with him this week,
is you're going to have to do something about healthcare?
Why not create a select committee? Why not go in
ahead and roll out here are ways to address some
of the problems, because that's what people want. They're dealing
with this problem. And you know, not necessarily everybody. I
mean a lot of the folks that work at Proctor
and gamb or Kroger or something have great plans, they

(01:15:09):
love them, and the company kind of eats a lot
of that cost. But most of America doesn't work in
a place that has that kind of benefits. Most Americans
get their insurance through work, and that is way better
than Obamacare on balance, but it still has these kinds
of problems, and Congress isn't addressing them.

Speaker 1 (01:15:26):
Well, Congressman David Sentem, isn't the elephant in the room
the fact that nobody wants to go back to pre
existing conditions. I mean, if you don't. The analogy I
draw all the time is you can't get fire insurance
for your home if your house is already on fire.
The incentive is to get it ahead of time, so
you're covered if the catastrophe happens. That was the incentive
behind pre existing conditions. Look, if you get sick and

(01:15:49):
you don't have medical insurance, you're going to be on
the hook for that. They're not going to cover a
pre existing condition. You can't actually account for what that
cost is going to be across an entire population. And
yet out the door went pre exclusions. Welcome to a
flood of houses on fire that are now required to
be covered by the insurance company or Obamacare is the
case maybe, which is the American taxpayer. That's why premiums

(01:16:10):
have gone up.

Speaker 15 (01:16:13):
Yeah, that's a big factor. I mean, you know there
are things like that, and you know there are tons
of programs like that. In the federal government where you're
creating incentives to do to wait dysfunctional bad things, and
so the government says, well, let's create a government program
for it. And for a lot of people that say,
well we have free xyz. Now there's no free there's

(01:16:33):
a chance transfer of who the payer is. And sometimes
the reality is, oh, well we're going to soak the rich. Okay,
Well that's briefs okay, and they are on balance paying
most of the taxes. But the reality is they're not
paying all the taxes. We have massive depth CITs every
year and this causes inflation. People are like, well, gee,

(01:16:53):
why is a five dollars foot long twelve dollars? Well,
because the federal government spends seven trillion every year and
only collects five trillion in revenue, and they keep subsidizing
thing and the things they subsidize healthcare, housing, education, The
rate of inflation there is way bigger than the rest
of the economy. But okay, yeah, if you get the subsidy,

(01:17:13):
it feels a little better. So that's kind of the race.
Now it's like, well, we need more free stuff for
more people. Well, it's because it's not free. So there's
a cost and that's what's happening, and the inflation, in
frankly is going to keep going because the free stuff
for people is popular.

Speaker 1 (01:17:28):
It is, indeed, and that's why once you start a
government program, even if it has an expiration date, it
tends to go on forever, much like the Bombacare subsidies.
But real quick here, one of the proposals over in
the Senate is to provide individuals with between one thousand
and fifteen hundred dollars to help pay for the premium,
put them in accounts like a health savings account. You
can use that money to pay for insurance premiums. That

(01:17:49):
would create a market force because very few people are
aware even that there is a whole world of private
insurance companies out there that provide medical insurance policies that
can cost a lot less. Us this flexibility with the money,
if you're not bound to spend that HSA funding on Obamacare,
you can go out into the open insurance market and

(01:18:09):
find a much better plan of coverage for less money
and use that money, and the market forces could then
drive the cost down.

Speaker 2 (01:18:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 15 (01:18:18):
I mean, this is one of the bills that Republicans
have united behind for a long time, some not so
much because of the subsidy part. But if you are
going to spend federal dollars and subsidize something, it would
make sense to send the money to the doctors or
hospitals because they're the ones incurring the cost, and then
they wouldn't pass it on to consumers. Would be agreement there,

(01:18:38):
or you would give it to the consumers. But the
worst idea of all would give it to the insurance company. Yes,
because I mean and the evidence is in. It's not
debatable whether the insurance companies have done a good job
with the money that you give them. They've been terrible.
So I think the dumbest play call possible would be
to do the three year status quo a reform plan.

(01:19:02):
But if you go out to the betting markets, I
would say it's probably considered the more likely option. But look,
Chuck Schumer has pushed for that in the Senate. He
got Thune to agree to call the vote as part
of opening up the government. I don't know whether it'll
pass the Senate or not. The reality is it doesn't
have the votes to pass in the House. Right the

(01:19:24):
Speaker doesn't have to put any of this on the floor.
But that's what discharge petitions do. It takes the power
away from the speaker. It gives the power really to
the minority party. And then a handful of Republicans that
would sign on with the discharge petition. And so that's
the concern. You got like six Republicans that are pretty
public about wanting to do this, maybe a dozen or

(01:19:45):
so they want to do this, and you know, if
the alternative is that Republicans are going to do nothing,
it's hard to peel those Republicans that feel like, well,
we better do something on healthcare. I got a lot
of constituents that are getting hit by this, and that's
I think part of the pressure is, like the speaker,
hey man, you're gonna have to call a player. You're
gonna have to do something. And if you give them

(01:20:07):
a viable alternative to say, Okay, we are going to
do something, let's talk about that, then I think we
have a chance to do something smarter on healthcare that
really will help solve problems for the whole population instead
of this stupid play to keep pretending Obamacare works.

Speaker 1 (01:20:23):
Well, one might be dealing with fraud, waste, and abuse upfront.
At least the Republican proposal over in the Senate that
provides this cash pain and to deal with premiums, also
requires states of valor verify citizenship immigration status before coverage
will even be issued. One small, but could be potentially
effective measure in keeping fraud, waste and abuse out of
the system, not notably in a wealthy small population of Minnesota.

(01:20:47):
We'll continue with congress Warren Davidson find out out a
bombing smugglers after a brief break, beginning with Susette lows Acamp,
She's fantastic if for a mortgage related issue Friday Eve
to you Congressman Warren Davidson on the phone talking about
some of the issues flowing around healthcare. The real quick here,
Congressman Davison, because I want to find out your position
on bombing the smugglers off the coast of Venezuela. Have
we got a moment of clarity or moment of awakening yet?

(01:21:08):
In government? Can we please please pay focus primarily and
upfront on ferreting out and following up on fraud, waste
and abuse. Shouldn't it be job one making sure the
American taxpayer dollar isn't being ripped off Because every damn
program that the government comes out with turns out to
be some great opportunity for someone to rip off the
American taxpayer. Let's start with COVID funds. Let's look at

(01:21:29):
the NGOs receiving money and not following through with what
they promised it. And we could go on ad nauseum. Please,
Dear God, can't we make that a focus and make
it a bipartisan focus.

Speaker 15 (01:21:39):
Bipartisan I don't know about that, but for Republicans, yes,
And this was the whole point of DOGE. The rumors
of its demise are inaccurate. They're still cranking away at DOGE.
It's going to have been normalized. It's kind of running
within regular departments. It's officially called the US Digital Service,

(01:22:00):
which is something Barack Obama created, right, So they're they're
still doging out there, and that's part of how you're
finding some of these problems where you know Medicaid, they're
like doing tests and frankly, the Government Accountability Office is
an ongoing operation like that where they provide this kind
of oversight, they are exposing it. The question is what

(01:22:20):
are you doing about it? And a lot of this
comes to states, and I'll give a shout out to
you know, our auditor, you know, done very good. Keith
Favors rooted out a lot of this when he was
auditor in Ohio. But some states, when it comes to
you know, welfare fraud, say food stamps, they don't really
have an incentive structurally to get rid of it. That's
why states like California are like, you know, giving it

(01:22:43):
to illegals, because all this federal money comes into the
state and it gets spent in the local economy, so
they don't even really want to turn it off. They're
wanting the cash to flow, and they want it to
flow even bigger. They want more checks from DC there.
So it's essentially another way for Californi you to steal
money from Ohio.

Speaker 1 (01:23:01):
Amen, Congressman David, send your thoughts on blowing up boats
off the coast of Venezuela. I had massy on yesterday,
Congressom Mass Judge and Poltanoho and Polton has been on
a tear on this one of late. He believes it
to be unconstitutional. We don't have an authorization for you
some military force. There is no declaration of war. If
this was a country that could defend itself, if it
had nukes, I don't think this will be happening. But

(01:23:21):
you know, no sympathy for Venezuela. But we can pick
on someone with no military and they are indeed sending
drugs to our country. But can we definitively say the
boat that was floating off the coast fifteen hundred miles
away was coming here? Did they represent an imminent threat?
What's your take on all this, Congressman.

Speaker 15 (01:23:38):
Well, look, generally I agree with all that cast of characters.
I do think these are legitimate targets. I do think
they're operating as part of the enemies of our country.
Whether they're terrorists or not, they're clearly enemies of our country,
and their activities are clearly killing Americans. People aren't intentionally
taking Xanax's laced with Sentinel in dying right. My friend's daughter,

(01:24:01):
did you know, not smart to take his annex at
a party. But it's not supposed to kill you, right,
And that's the thing. You've got tens of thousands of
Americans dying from this. You need to take out the
organizations that are doing it, and these boats. Frankly, when
it comes to targeting, these aren't like Venezuela and flagged boats.
So this isn't an act of war against Venezuela. They're

(01:24:22):
essentially pirates. They're running unflagged. They want to go undetected,
and they want to get the drugs out of you know,
Central South America into the United States market, which is big.
I mean, there's a lot of demand from drugs. It's
a fair point that's part of the problem, but that
doesn't mean it's okay. So I think they're legitimate targets.

(01:24:43):
I do agree that if you want to do a
regime change war in Venezuela with traditional military forces, that
would require a declaration of war. But there are a
lot of reasons why you would want to go to Venezuela.
People say, oh, it's about the oil. It's really a
big nexus for the whole operation. So with the cover
of a nation state, you can do the money laundering easier,

(01:25:05):
and when you've got oil flowing, you can attach laundered
money to that transaction. And a lot of this is
flowing to China, just like the fentanyl's coming from China.
You know, it used to be that to launder money,
you know, it would cost the cartels ten to twenty percent,
so they had to say a million dollar drug sale,
they would get eight hundred thousand, and you know, a

(01:25:25):
couple hundred thousand would go to the guys that launder
the money. China's eating that cost because there's so much
demand for dollars out of Asia that they're working in
operation to launder the money there. So these are things
and I think, you know, look the economists, which I
wouldn't count on and being a reliable source, you know,
for all kinds of information, but they had a good

(01:25:45):
write up on this recently. It's you know, so this
is the kind of thing that's going on. Does that
mean we should go to war with Venezuela. I don't know,
but I do think we should take we shouldn't tolerate
this to continue happening.

Speaker 1 (01:25:58):
Couldn't it work so into an authorization used the military force,
which would set forth the parameters like the back of
the one back from two thousand and one, which a
lot of us to go after terrorists, Islamic terrorists in
the aftermath of nine to eleven. I mean, isn't that
compressional stamp of approval with parameters the appropriate thing to
work under.

Speaker 15 (01:26:17):
I think it's a great way to do it. I
have such a bill whether I've worked on for years. Rightly,
I've wanted to go after the cartels in this way
for a long time. They should be treated as enemies
of our country. And I've got the legislation to do it.
But you know, the administration isn't interested in the legislation.
They say, we have the executive authority, we don't really

(01:26:37):
want to have the debate. Yeah, and I think, look,
the reality is you've got colleagues who don't believe that
they should do it in the first place. So I
think they're right. They may not be able to pass.
There are Democrats who generally had supported but if it
allowed announce the discretion for Trump, they're like, oh, I can't,
I can't support that.

Speaker 1 (01:26:56):
Trump and syndrome.

Speaker 15 (01:26:59):
It's in play every time. I think, look, they're finally
going after these guys, and I think that needs to
be done.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
Got some more and Davidson. Appreciate your thoughts and comments.
As always, I look forward to having another conversation with you,
hopefully next Thursday, and between now and then, best of
health you and your loved ones, and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 15 (01:27:15):
Thanks Brian gob less Shore and all your listeners.

Speaker 1 (01:27:17):
And you, sir, Thank you, seven twenty eight right now
fort five KR City Talks CD Talk Station. Very happy
Friday Eve to you. Brian Thomas, happy to welcome back
to the fifty five CARC Morning Show former FOP President
Dan Hills. Dan Hills, Welcome to the morning show. It's
great to have you on, Brian.

Speaker 2 (01:27:32):
It's always great to be on your show. And I
hear I might even have an opportunity to do a
little little debate with my dear friend and an awesome attorney,
Brian Thomas.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
Great, let's do.

Speaker 2 (01:27:45):
That about this. Let's do this about this settlement.

Speaker 1 (01:27:49):
This settlement eight point one million dollars improved by since
an council yesterday, sixty five thousand covered by the county,
the balance covered by the city tax payers, all springing
from you. Remember Brionna Taylor and George Floyd. There were
couple of incidents in the aftermath of their killings, of course,
protests in downtown Cincinnatio as well as elsewhere. Protest devolving
into criminal activity, which resulted in John Cranley imposing a curfew,

(01:28:12):
and pursuant to the curfew, we had people arrested for
violating the curfew. Those people heard it up and placed
in the Hemlin kind of justice center, what they call
Sally's Port. Those folks sued, and the cities decided to settle.
This springs from I believe a civil rights violation. The
free the First Amendment allows to you know, for us
to gather together and speak, and I'm guessing that's why

(01:28:36):
they've resolved this. Did they not have an exception to
the curfew for people who are exercising the right to
free assembly?

Speaker 2 (01:28:44):
Dan Hills, Well, you know, I think there was plenty
of opportunity for people to have free assembly and protest.
What happened, and you just said it was that the
legal behavior that was happening became a safety issue, you
not only for the police, but for the community. And
therefore I thought John Cranley's actions were just. And this

(01:29:06):
is where my you know, my confusion lives was Scottie Johnson.
And maybe you're maybe not you as well that thinking
that this settlement is just. I think that I think
the settlement, the settlement is a rip off of the taxpayers.
And I think at some point, you know, law departments
like the City of Cincinnati needs to draw the line.

(01:29:27):
These folks knew the rules as they were being put
out there that there was there was some you know,
uh big boy and big girl games going on, and uh,
it was within the mayor's rights and it was within
the police department's duties to enforce this this curfew to
help me keep the community safe. And so, uh, you know,

(01:29:50):
I did a little break down with the numbers. It
was actually eight million, one hundred and forty three thousand
once you include that mass of sixty five thousand dollars
from the county kicking in. I don't know what that's
all about. And you deducted the attorneys fees two million
dollars I think to two million and thirty five thousand.
So there's where a lot of the motivation comes from.

(01:30:12):
You have attorneys willing, yeah, all these vass's and if
if this city in the law department would really effectively
battle some of these things, I don't know if these
folks could come up, you know, with attorneys that are
willing to do this. So that leaves six million, one
hundred and eight thousand dollars divided by four hundred and
seventy nine people. And this is where I actually have

(01:30:32):
to ask you a question, Brian. The twelve seven hundred
and fifty one dollars and I rounded up the fifty
seven cents. Is there is there taxes taken out of
a settlement like that for these individuals?

Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
I do not believe so.

Speaker 2 (01:30:46):
Okay, I didn't think so either, But I want to
ask you for sure.

Speaker 1 (01:30:49):
It's supposed to be an award for damages. It's an
award for damages. You know that. I guess the process
is I see it. You had the protest going on
which devolved into illegal behavior, you know, property damage, will
you know, throwing bottles of people, whatever the case may be.
Then Cranley comes in and says ten pm curfew, ten

(01:31:09):
pm curfew is violated. Not in my understanding is that
the folks were arrested for a curfew violation, not because
they engaged in criminal activity. You could, of course, you know,
if you threw a bottle and broke a window, arrest
them for property damage, that'd be fine and no one
would settle that. But merely because they were out congregating
and protesting, speaking their voices about Breonna Taylor and George Floyd,

(01:31:32):
they were gathered up and arrested for a curfew violation. Now,
I don't know that Cranley has the right to trump
the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly. He can't
do that. And that's why the curfew that he that
was issued by the mayor over the summer of evolving
the teens gathering in Government Square, that contained an exception

(01:31:54):
for First Amendment gatherings. So maybe that's what was absent
from the Cranley proposal. You can't arrest me for being
out past ten pm if I am engaging in a
you know, a political protest. That's I think the point
of the plaintiffs.

Speaker 2 (01:32:09):
Well, I think the I think the motivation for mister
Cranley and then the police was that there were criminal
activity that was spawning from these political protests, and there
was there was plenty of time and room for political protests.
Nobody was stopping political protests. We were picking the time
and the and the groups where there was also criminal

(01:32:31):
activity coming out of And Brian, you have to realize this.
You can't always sit there and pick out in a
large group, who is it that's just thrown a bottle
of urine at the cops. When a group has people
starting to act in that fashion, and citizens are risk
and cops are at risk. At some point you have
to take control of the situation. And it's not to

(01:32:53):
squaw anybody's first amendments, right, it's it's it's for the
safety of the citizens. Look, I think a lot of
these people, even before their twelve thousand dollars, had checked
stubs from George Soros in our pocket.

Speaker 1 (01:33:06):
Moreld Well, there.

Speaker 2 (01:33:08):
Are professional protesters in these groups, and they know what
they're doing. And part of it they know what they're
doing is they know that cities like the City of
Cincinnati are going to settle.

Speaker 1 (01:33:17):
Roll over. Hold on, we'll continue. We're not done with this,
and since way over time in this segment, I don't
want to get the Harry eyeball from Joe, So hold
on a second. We'll continue with Dan Hills on this
seven thirty eight right now. If you have KERCD talk station,
let me recommend the best roofing company that exists, Fastened
pro Roofing, Superior Work and I love seven forty. If

(01:33:37):
you have KCD talk station, Brian Thomas with former FOP
President Dan Hills. He was around back in twenty twenty
when we had the May twenty ninth, riots and protest
resolving into criminal activity, resulting in the issuance of a
curfew by John Cranley ten PM curfew resulting in a
bunch of people getting arrested for curfew violations real quick.
Since a couple of people instant messaged me about the

(01:33:58):
whole idea of the paid protesters, I will acknowledge and
agree without knowing specifically that there were probably a lot
of them there. We do have the freedom to travel
in this country, and I think the fact that they
had to pay people to show up at any given
protest is an illustration of the failure. Their message isn't
what drew the people there. It's the fact that they
got a check. But that's lawful behavior too, so you

(01:34:20):
got to acknowledge that. So they're all there milling around,
Can you arrest them for milling around? Or do we
have to As you point out how difficult it is
to figure out which is the guy who threw the
bottle of urine, But that's the person that should be
charged with a crime. Arresting everyone for violating the curfew,
I think that's where you run a foul. But to

(01:34:42):
your point, eight point one million dollars divided by the
multitudes twelve thousand dollars roughly per person. I guess the
reason you settle, And I'm not happy about this Dan
in any way, shape or form. But how much money
might they have gotten if a jury decided the award.
I think that's why they ended up. Now, maybe the
mount was a capitulation.

Speaker 2 (01:35:02):
That's what they're that's what they're reporting why they settled.

Speaker 1 (01:35:05):
Well, for a long time, a lot of my clients
agreed to settle over their best belief that they didn't
do anything wrong because the potential downside outweighed the check
they had to write.

Speaker 2 (01:35:19):
Look, I'm not an attorney or a jurist or anything
myself as as as we debate this, I'm just an eldergred.
But in my mind, a society has to be able
to institute emergency orders such as Cranley did. I think
the police department has to be able to tell a
crowd to dispersed when there's legal, illegal activity coming out

(01:35:42):
of that crowd. Yeah, when the community is had danger
and the cops are at danger, and the only way
to enforce that in the end is an arrest. So
I was down there, I saw all this stuff at
taking place, I thought, just as Scotty Johnson and the
Vice mayor, all these people who are voting on this
settlement are saying that the cops did everything right. I mean,

(01:36:05):
I think some of the greatest suffering apparently came from
when they already were handed off to the county. You
only asked to basically five thousand dollars because they had
to wait a long long time and cramp up before
they could go potty while they were sitting in the sallyport.
But if I knew I was getting twelve thousand dollars
cash at the end of it, and you know me
and Joe wanted to go protest to weather or something

(01:36:26):
like that, I'd be filling out my bottles of yurine
right now, because that's quite the payday for him to
sit around in May. Now. I don't think I want
to sit in a sallyport in December, especially not this December.
But ifting I'm sitting down there, I don't know. I
believe in the end that this is way too much
money for way too little of any type of constitutional

(01:36:49):
violation by the state in this case, which is the
City of Cincinnati in Hamilton County. They were doing what
was necessary at the time. John Cranley made the difference
between what happened in Cincinnati and there I go. When
I'm preparing my legal brief, one of the things of
evidence I'm going to bring Brian, is what was happening
in other cities. There are cities were literally burning down,

(01:37:13):
and the City of Cincinnati did it because we got
pro proactive in stopping these crowds and stuff. It's just
not as easy as you and I would like it
to be. We'd like to be able to reach in
with a crane and pick up the pick up the
worst actors in a crowd like that, but it doesn't
work that way. When you're dealing with full large crowds

(01:37:34):
and at some point you have to make the decision
to disperse the crowd, and the crowd doesn't disperse, you
have to make a rest.

Speaker 1 (01:37:40):
Okay, And I get all that.

Speaker 2 (01:37:41):
I believe what we did was just.

Speaker 1 (01:37:43):
You did what you did was appropriate within the the
orders that you had and the issuance of what everyone
thought was a lawful curfew. You followed what the mayor said.
He instituted the curfew that comes with the possibility of
arrest if you violated. There's I don't think anyone's pointing
a finger at you specifically. I think it's the underlying
curfew that is being challenged. And I don't for a minute.

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
Proper do you think or that that's the part I
don't understand. Was it worded improperly? I think because it
was well, it was necessary to stop the city from
ending up like the other places. We didn't want to
look like Minneapolis. We didn't want to be burning to
the ground. And and you know, all all hail to
a Democratic leader at the time, John Cranley, who who

(01:38:30):
took the bull by the horns. And if the law
department prepared his curfew order improperly or if you know,
somehow it was was put out there where the criminal
charges we were told to use were not the right
criminal charges. I didn't see that in any of the
articles I read. It just sounded like we're going to

(01:38:51):
pay these people off because they filed a lawsuit. And
and if that's what happened, it just invites more of
this because there will be another reason the tests, like
you know, nin Joe might protest this weather. There's all reasons,
and you're down the.

Speaker 1 (01:39:06):
Road, and you would be allowed to do that. And
then if you and Joe started throwing urine bottles and
hitting people, you would be subject to arrest for you know,
as salt battery or whatever comes along, or whatever charges
exist for for engaging that type of behavior. But if
you just standing there screaming about the weather too, that
was my next question.

Speaker 2 (01:39:24):
Testing the weather that's too big to pick me and
Joe out of. Somebody's going to have to do some
sort of order or something to break up, right, That
was my next question.

Speaker 1 (01:39:34):
But that was my next question. The dispersal order. You
were there were people blocking the streets, preventing people from
free movement. There you go, then it's a dispersal order.

Speaker 2 (01:39:43):
Then their way to the expressways.

Speaker 1 (01:39:45):
Then then you arrest them for free refusal to violate
a dispersal order and for blocking traffic and other things
that already exist on the book, as opposed to you're
being arrested for being not past ten pm.

Speaker 2 (01:39:58):
I see your point. Once it got past ten pm,
there's a little thing that comes called darkness that made
it harder and harder to identify who was it that
was causing a lot of these issues and lots not
forget not only what was happening in other cities. We
had a policeman and got shot. Here in Cincinnati, we

(01:40:18):
had a whole whole lot on our hands. And I
was one of the ones that was there, that was
also there in two thousand and one, So I saw
the difference between the two different occurrences. And in two
thousand and one, things got way out of hand, and
a lot of people got hurt, really really badly, and
a lot of businesses got burned, and things happened that

(01:40:38):
did not happen because again Cranly made steps and gave
us orders, and we went out there and enforced them,
including the curfew. But I was also there, Brian, and
I saw a whole lot of demonstrations, purely demonstrations. Now, grant,
they might have been blocking Central Parkway, but we we

(01:41:00):
even put up with that so that they could speak
their voice. Nobody, nobody in their right mind that witnessed
all that could honestly say that people did not have
an opportunity to express their First Amendment rights. They expressed them,
and expressed them and expressed them all along as they
shouted nastiness at the cops and everything else. There was.

(01:41:22):
There was no heavy boot of of you know, some
communist governments stepping on, stepping on people and saying you
can't speak. They were able to speak. But when it
got to the point where we were concerned that that
there was going to be uh, mass criminal activity, that's
when that's when that had to be stepped up and

(01:41:44):
there had to be arrest. And again, they're playing a
big boy, big girl's game. A lot of these folks
were paid protesters, and so they they had to wait
a long time till they want the potty. I have
no sympathy for them whatsoever. You're hanging with a group
like that. If I went down there because I really
believed in their message and I wanted to demonstrate for
a while, and then I start to see the activity

(01:42:06):
of some of the people around me, and I saw
the police starting have to gear up because of that activity,
I would leave. And for those folks who chose not
to leave, you get caught up in it, I'm sorry,
that's that's that's the way it went for you. But
you know, I'm not in a position to argue, you know,

(01:42:27):
legal stuff about whether or not the order was put
out correctly or something like that. The city screwed that up.
That's not You're not going to see my shock face
on that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:35):
And I think that's really all.

Speaker 2 (01:42:36):
That's all.

Speaker 1 (01:42:37):
I really think that's all this being addressed is the
city issued in order that may have Listen, the constitution
doesn't say anything about ending at ten pm your free
assembly rights. That's I think that's the legal thing behind this.
You and I can agree all day long, bad things
were happening, that people were blocking the streets, all of
which we should have resulted in dispersal order and then
being perhaps arrested for failure to heed the dispersal warning

(01:42:58):
and order. Don't know, it's complicated, it's steeped in legal challenges.
But let me just observe this real quick as we
part comedy, Dan Hills, and I appreciate your willingness to
talk about this. Eight million dollars, as stupid as that
amount may be and as unsettling as you and I
might find it considering the money that's going to these people,
perhaps paid post protesters. I bet the fact that you
did break the crowd up saved the city a lot

(01:43:20):
more than eight point one million dollars in terms of
the damage that was avoided.

Speaker 13 (01:43:25):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:43:26):
That is good.

Speaker 2 (01:43:28):
You got me all right.

Speaker 1 (01:43:29):
Fair enough. If that's what we have to live with,
that's how we'll get through. At Dan Hills On behalf
of my listening audience and my family to yours. Very
Merry Christmas brother. I hope to have you on again
real soon.

Speaker 8 (01:43:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:43:40):
Great, Merry Christmas to you and Joe as well.

Speaker 1 (01:43:42):
Thanks man. Seventy to fifty five KRCD Talk have KARSD
Talk Station. It's Friday e Bottom of the Hour, Jay Ratliff.
I heard media aviation expert join us every week. Today,
I'm really excited to welcome to the fifty five KRC
Morning Show. Formerly with Freedom Works and Blaze Media, he's
been with the Competitive Enterprise Institute for a while. His
name Destri Edwards. He's the media production and studio manager

(01:44:03):
with a Competitive Enterprise Institute. As a passion for film
and politics, he tries to use storytelling as a way
to bridge the gap between people and policy. And he
is here to talk about an award winning documentary and
the timing couldn't be better. Man, Dear mister President, the
Letters of Julius Sand And while I don't know who
Julius sand is, you're going to explain that, Destrie. Welcome

(01:44:24):
to the fifty five case morning. So I said, the
timing is great because I literally just got done watching
Death by Lightning on Netflix. I loved that welcome. It's
good to have you.

Speaker 5 (01:44:32):
On Hey, great to talk with you.

Speaker 3 (01:44:35):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:44:35):
Did Death by Lightning? For my listeners who don't know,
it was about the president James Garfield and how he
ended up being president and then getting assassinated. It could
come across as a work of fiction. The story was
a really cool one, but it really happened. Did that
series inspire dear mister President, The Letters of Julius sand
Or was this project a concept you were working on

(01:44:57):
or had already completed before that one came out?

Speaker 5 (01:45:00):
Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, it's by the
timing of things that can look that way. But actually
I was probably two three months into pre production on
my documentary when Death by Lighton was announced, so there's
a pretty good chance they were in the works on
things behind the scenes before I was. But as far
as official announcements, I was not aware of it when

(01:45:20):
I started.

Speaker 1 (01:45:20):
So I imagine your documentary or your film, your mister President,
Letters of Julison. You're getting a lot of extra love
because people have to be intrigued by the twenty first president,
Chester Arthur, who succeeded after the assassination of President Garfield.
He came across as a really really corrupt so and
so Destri, did they accurately and I will move before

(01:45:42):
we move over to your film, did they accurately portray
his level of corruption in Death by Lightning?

Speaker 5 (01:45:48):
Yeah, so it's interesting how they did that. So it
is true that he was a corrupt person coming up
into the vice presidency and he was not a supportive
of Vice President. I will say Death by did overplay
some things. For instance, very like Sport was very like,
but he never had any of Garfield's cabinet members kidnapped.

(01:46:10):
He also never spoke ill of Garfield to the press.
He else didn't try to resign at that point either.
So there's a lot of things that overplays, but the
general concept is true. He definitely was. He definitely had
a corrupt past with the spoils system coming into.

Speaker 2 (01:46:27):
All of this.

Speaker 1 (01:46:28):
And again Death by Lightning really revealed the New York
political machine for what it was, which was very, very powerful,
and Chester Arthur part of that, and one would have
expected him to sort of continue that level of corruption.
But as I believe you point out, and dear mister President,
the letter of Julius Sand, that didn't it didn't turn
out that way. He actually turned out to be a
bit of a reformer. Playing into that Julia Sand. Who

(01:46:51):
was Julius Sand and how did she become so influential
on how his presidency turned out?

Speaker 5 (01:46:57):
Yeah, So drawing back to death by lightning again, as
you have seen in the final episode of Garfield's wife,
Lucretia speaks to Arthur in that episode and he gives
like a quick speech encouraging him to step up and
reform himself. So that never happened in real life. He

(01:47:17):
never had that kind of conversation with Christia Garfield. But
what the filmmakers did there actually drew those words of
a paraphrase from what Julius Sand had written. So after
Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau, the country was fearful
about what was happening. Arthur was also fearful because he
had no intention of becoming president. He had never wanted that.

(01:47:39):
He felt fully unqualified to be the president. And so
a few weeks into Garfield being on his deathbed as
everyone was fearing that he would pass aways. Of course,
she eventually did. This woman Julius sand who was just
a normal constituent from New York City, she started writing Arthur.
She wrote to Arthur and encouraged well. She started out

(01:48:01):
by telling him that, Hey, people are about in grief,
but do you realize it not so much because See
is dying, but because you were a successor. And that's
kind of I imagine a gut punch to anybody reading that.
But she went on also to encourage him, telling him, Hey,
I'm not asking to her, is up to you to resign.
I'm asking you to her reform and be better, to

(01:48:21):
be the president that this country needs you to be.
And she continued writing those letters. She wrote twenty three
letters to him over the next couple of years, being
a conscience to him, giving him admonishment for things to
do wrong or might be wrong, but also give him
encouragement that she believed he could rise to the occasion.

Speaker 1 (01:48:37):
Well, I find it fascinating, you know, my listeners and
I struggle regularly with you know, reaching out to our politicians,
you know, call to action, call your congressman, call to action,
call your senator, send him an email, send him a letter.
No one believes that works. I'm just surprised that the
president of the United States. And granted the population was
much smaller, and I don't know how many people actually
wrote the president, but how is it that she was

(01:49:00):
able to get his attention and have such a profound
impact on it?

Speaker 2 (01:49:04):
Was?

Speaker 1 (01:49:04):
It was? It kind of a unique thing for someone
to reach out. What caused him to be to gravitate
and take what she had to say by way of
recommendation to heart.

Speaker 5 (01:49:14):
It's a good question. So even in her first letter,
she assumes that he's received other letters like this, and
maybe he did. We don't have any record of any
other letters he at least nothing else that he kept.
He kept all of her letters, but he did nothing
from anyone else. And as I was doing this story
and talked with several historians who have broad knowledge of

(01:49:36):
the presidency, I was asking them, Hey, do you know
any other story like this where a president was influenced
in this way by just a normal constituent, And no
historian I talked to had any other example of this level.
Like the closest thing I make a point to was
a Lincoln growing a beard, which looks cool, But that's

(01:49:57):
a set of choice. This is a unique situation in
history that we're looking at here, but there's no reason
it has to be unique. I think that's part of
the lesson here, is that we assume that we have
no influence on our elected leaders that we actually do.

Speaker 1 (01:50:13):
Now, did she have some unique political insight? Was she
connected in any way, because apparently she had a sufficient
knowledge of the corruption in how he should reform himself
and move away from that corrupt New York political machine
that he was part of. I mean, what was she
unique in some regard in terms of her knowledge? I
guess I'm just wondering how she was able to push

(01:50:33):
his button.

Speaker 5 (01:50:36):
Yeah, I mean she her family was decently well off,
but they had no political connections whatsoever. She would she
herself was actually fairly sickly and didn't get out of
the house an exceptional amount of time, and when she
did it really took the energy out of her. She
read the newspapers, but she wasn't informed in some kind

(01:50:56):
of way beyond that, like some kind of insight source.
So she, you know, didn't know more than an average
person could have.

Speaker 1 (01:51:03):
So what policies that Chester Arthur embraced and during his
period of reform moving away from his prior corruption, what
policies did he embrace that you can trace directly to
the recommendations of Julia.

Speaker 5 (01:51:14):
Sand Yeah, so the biggest thing we can look at
is the Peneltan Act. That was a reference to the
end of death by lightning, which is kind of an
interesting arc for Arthur himself because that goes against his
entire career. At that point, he had been at the
head of the spoil system where people get government jobs

(01:51:36):
not based on their qualifications but based on political favors
and who they knew and who they had helped in
the past, regardless to whether or not they had qualification
for their job. And so the Penlan Act is what
kind of started the path away from that to make
actual qualifications and this wasn't about the political favors being
paid out. I don't know if his necessarily some much

(01:52:00):
throughout Julius Hand's letters in Arthur's career that he did
things specifically because Julius Fan asked him to. More so,
she was kind of a conscience to him and.

Speaker 15 (01:52:12):
Was giving him.

Speaker 5 (01:52:14):
Support to Hey, this is what the people want, this
is what you are capable of doing. So there were
things like that, I think chief among them, as well
as the first Chinese Exclusion Act. The Second Chinese Exclusion
Act is a different matter that we discussed in the documentary,
but there are things like that as well as some

(01:52:34):
different corruption investigations where she would encourage him to, hey,
make sure your administration moves forward.

Speaker 1 (01:52:41):
The right way on this, I guess I'm kind of
curious did he not have advisors and other elected officials
around him who might have been offering similar suggestions that
Julius sand was offering. And I just find it so
unusual that some lone voice in the wilderness was able
to impact him in such a profound way that he

(01:53:02):
wasn't surrounded by other people who might have influenced them
in the same way.

Speaker 5 (01:53:08):
I think, particularly in the beginning when he was still
a vice president and Garfield was dying. Arthur's wife had
died just the year before. He didn't really have any clothes, like,
he didn't really have any close family other than that.
I mean, he had his children, but that's not really
that was a different scenario. And then his friends were

(01:53:29):
all the people in the political machine. So they in
this moment where the machines understrut scrutiny, they weren't really
people he could go to for this kind of support.
So he was kind of isolated at the time of
Garfield's assassination, and that he was at this point where
he really needed somebody to reach out to him and
be encouragement to him and point him in the right direction.

(01:53:52):
And just what Julius Hand was able to be. And
as his administration kind of took off, all of Garfield's
appointees didn't trust him and end up all resigning. So
the entire cabinet over the course of a couple of months,
leaves office with the exception of one person, and so
he has to rebuild the cabinet basically from scratch. And

(01:54:14):
so in that time he's kind of loss for advisors
and they lost for allies, and so Julius Sand's voice
kind of stands out because of that.

Speaker 1 (01:54:23):
That's just so intriguing. Now, how is this will reveal
my honest political ignorance with regard to Chester A or
Chester Arthur's presidency. How is he remembered at least in
terms of his presidency overall? Is he looked on with
favor or one of the more overlooked presidents. I mean,
how do you sort of I know it's a subjective measure,

(01:54:43):
but how do you rank him in terms of his
success as president considering the level of corruption he was
involved with before he became president.

Speaker 5 (01:54:51):
That's a great question. So this is probably changing now
because of death by Lightning and him being a major
character in that. But before the show of these, he
has been consistently ranked as the least known US president
of history.

Speaker 1 (01:55:06):
Well, thank you, that made you feel better. He made
me feel better.

Speaker 5 (01:55:11):
But as far as people actually look at the achievements,
I mean the biggest thing being the Penalton Act, which
I would say, you know, there are presidents who have
made some negative choices on civil service reforms since them,
but I think it's pretty easy for all sides to
be able to look at Arthur's reform and say, yeah,

(01:55:32):
that was a good direction he was taking this. So
I think that civil service reform, when you look at
his record, as the major key cornerstone of what he
was able to accomplish, and despite all the evidence, like
if you look at this, you know, if you're looking
for someone to vote for in a primary or general election.
Looked at this person's past, all the coruestion they've been

(01:55:53):
involved in. Plus not a good vice president either. He's
not the person you would say, yes, this is going
to be a good president, guy at the back. But
he actually did end up being a good president. And
even people like Mark Twain were saying, and Mark Twain
not someone who was eager to just give, you know,
praise to politicians, acknowledge that, hey, like it would be

(01:56:14):
hard to do better than Arthur's presidency.

Speaker 1 (01:56:16):
How about that? Well, I've learned a lot and I
know it's going to it's a great companion piece for
those who've seen Death by Lightning or haven't seen it.
I'll encourage him to watch it. I just thought it
was a great story to tell. But also you get
a little insight into who Chester A. Arthur was, and
that'll segue perfectly into Destri Edwards film. Dear Mister President,
The Letters of Julius Sand Should my listeners be inspired

(01:56:37):
by Julius Sand in the sense that, yes, it's worth
it to take the time to write that letter and
offer your suggestions.

Speaker 5 (01:56:46):
Absolutely, And I would say, obviously things are different today
than they were in the eighteen eighties. So the methodology
might be different, it might not be a letter of
maybe it is, but I would say the big takeaway
there is people do have a voice. You are able
to impact your critical representatives around you, whether that's the president,

(01:57:07):
whether that's your senator, whether that's your mayor. But be involved,
be an encouragement. Don't just be there to slam them.
Like you can, be honest, but you know if you're
you're going to listen to you, if you're going to
encourage in the right direction, not just beat up on them.
Be tactical as far as exactly. Yes. And for people

(01:57:27):
who are interested in seeing the film, it's available now
on YouTube. So all you have to do is just
look up dear mister President, The Letters of Julius Sand
or look up the organization Competitive Enterprise Institute, and you
know you will find it there for free on YouTube.

Speaker 1 (01:57:40):
Competitive Enterprisidency to CEI dot org. YouTube is a place
to find the movie, Dear mister President, The Letters of
Julius sand I'm going to watch it today because again
fascinated by death by lightning, destri Edwards filmmaker. I really
enjoyed talking with you today and thanks for you know,
filling in the blanks on the obvious questions we all
had after watching Death Black Lightning. This is perfect timing.

Speaker 15 (01:57:59):
Man really is well.

Speaker 5 (01:58:02):
Thank you so much, being great to talk with you.

Speaker 1 (01:58:03):
It's been a real pleasure having you on the show. Sir,
get on YouTube. Check it out, dear mister President, the
letters of Julius saying take care of destry. It's been
a pleasure stick around. I heard media aviation expert Jay
right lyft coming up. It's eight twenty right now, I
fifty five KCD talk station fifty five krc A twenty
nine on a Thursday of love this time of week.
I heard media aviation expert Jay Ratliff joins us every
week to talk aviation issues when we're not talking stocks. Right, Jay,

(01:58:27):
welcome back, my friend. Love having you on the show.

Speaker 7 (01:58:29):
I will talk about either one of them my friends,
but it's it's always good, always good to be here.

Speaker 1 (01:58:35):
Jay always follows up the segment sometime in the morning,
like an hour from now. He's say, look, I'm made
eight grand today. It took me five minutes.

Speaker 7 (01:58:43):
Actually I'm using I'm using a stock as we speak,
so they can do anything with it for the end
of the segment. I'll let you know.

Speaker 1 (01:58:50):
It only takes you a couple of minutes to turn
it around. I like the report you.

Speaker 7 (01:58:54):
That's Brian. When I tell people that I I reduce
the risk of my stock trading by day trading, they
look at me like I'm nuts. But if you can
take a small bit of it, put it in the
market for you know, eight ten minutes at a time,
you're reducing your risk big time and that's better protecting
your portfolio. So to me, that's the way to do it.

(01:59:15):
I'm not a part of the long term by holding
prey crowd. And now the last six weeks, I think
I'm averaging seven thousand dollars a week. So look, Northwest
Airlines didn't pay me that. Ye, I mean it's worth it.
But I know, I know, I know how corporate America is, right,
I do care what we think.

Speaker 1 (01:59:36):
You don't care, and Southwest Airlines, I guess, is not
going to be cunning an eleven million dollar check. What's
the story on this? I know it's I know you're
really pleased about this outcome, so you.

Speaker 7 (01:59:44):
Had and you just had to start with this one.

Speaker 2 (01:59:46):
Right.

Speaker 7 (01:59:47):
Let's get Jay's blood pressure up. Southwest Airlines two Christmases ago.
It was the week of twenty twenty three Christmas week
they had a computer meltdown. I mean, no other way
to put it. The computer system that we later found
out was last updated in like I dont on nineteen ninety four,
had crashed. This is a computer system for scheduling that
was developed right, I think at a time when Southwest

(02:00:09):
was a third of the size of what they are now.
So the Department Transportation under the Biden administration stepped in
and said, time out here, you really dropped the ball
with regards to your customers. We're finding you thirty five
million dollars. They were holding the airlines accountable. I was thrilled,
and look, Southwest is a great airline, but when you
don't devote the resources that your employees need, yeah, you've

(02:00:32):
got to pay for it. So Southwest has paid twenty
four million of that. The next payment of eleven million
was due in next month in January, and the U. S.
Department Transportation stepped in said, you know what, You've already
paid enough. You don't need to pay any more. You
promise never to do it again. It's going to be okay,
just forget about that last of eleven million dollars. Now, yeah,

(02:00:53):
that bothers me a great deal. But this is the
trend of the Trump administration, which I'm a big fan
of with regards to the treatment with the airline industry.
The airlines almost get a free pass. Not from a
safety related standpoint, Don't get me wrong there, because the
FAA is still doing their job there trying to keep
everything safe as they can. But Brian, it just it
drives me out of my mind. When we've got a situation,

(02:01:16):
when you have just time after time after time of
having a situation where you've got this ongoing issue of
airlines getting away with what they do. It just it
drives me crazy.

Speaker 1 (02:01:29):
Yeah, I can imagine. So this was a proprietary software
that Southwest itself developed, yes, okay, part of their system.

Speaker 7 (02:01:38):
And I can't remember if it was the the flight
control system, not flight control system, but if it was
a crew management system or something they were using for
their flight control as far as the using that, but
it was a system that was woefully outdated and over
the years Southwest has had issues with this. But Brian,
they have an all star team at Southwest and every

(02:02:00):
single time the men and women would find a way
to pull it out. They would rise to the occasion
and save the day. And sadly, that's what worked against
Southwest Airlines because they could always rely on that happening. Well,
it just got to the point where it was just
too much, too quick, and there was no way they
could get past it. And yeah, you had a lot
of passengers that were, in essence, put in a situation

(02:02:23):
over the busy Christmas seat travel season. All the flights
were filled. Where you gonna put them? I mean, you've
got a flight of one hundred and fifty three people
just canceled. Every single flight around, just full. I don't
know where you're gonna put them.

Speaker 1 (02:02:34):
I understand the reason for the fine. Then that becomes
crystal clear, Unlike, for example, if it was the outdated,
ancient air traffic control system. So when's the federal government
going to find itself for not improving that one?

Speaker 7 (02:02:45):
Oh, they'll find it and then they'll wave the fine
and will all feel better because they find themselves. That's
how it works.

Speaker 1 (02:02:51):
I learned that from you, brother, Amen. And meanwhile, there
they're busily scrambling around looking for five and a quarter
its floppy disk to keep the thing up and run.

Speaker 7 (02:03:00):
Uh seven seven Still yeah, still are at a at
a point where they do get their updates through that.

Speaker 1 (02:03:08):
So yes, indeed, I'll tell you what. Rather than go
extra long and draw the hairy eyeball from executive producer
Joe Strecker, will pause right now, we'll bring you back.
We'll find out about this Quantus flight which is given
faulty load and balanced numbers before takeoff. That sounds frightening.
Plus Tampa Airport award bonuses to some workers, et cetera.
We got multiple topics to go over with. I heart
media aviation Expert Jay Ratlet's stick around right back, fifty

(02:03:30):
five KRC Champion Windows seasons, the talk Spatial. Have you
ever been in the cockpit before Jay Ratliff, has I
heard Media Aviation Expert. We had the pleasure of his
company every Thursday for a few segments. Segment number two here,
this one's kind of weird. I don't know how this
works in terms of the load distribution on a plight
on a flight, but apparently you have to watch that

(02:03:52):
kind of stuff. What happened with this Quantus flight, Well,
we had we.

Speaker 7 (02:03:57):
Had a situation where you know Quantus, which is known
as what the safest airline in the world. Yeah, that's
absolutely the case. What ended up happening was that the
crew was given the detail. Well, what we're hearing is
a Quantus flight in December took off with fifty one

(02:04:18):
more passengers than were reported. Now, the weight and balance
calculations for each flight are exact, I mean, to the
last pound, and a lot of times, if there's bad weather,
the crew can say, you know what, we could use
some extra fuel because we may have encounter delays. So
since we've got a lighter load, let's go ahead and
put on some more fuel. And the problem is you

(02:04:39):
could then exceed your maximum allowable takeoff weight, and you've
got a problem because they had ten pounds of extra
weight they did not know about. Now, they could have
also said, since we have a lighter load, let's take
off from a shorter runway. So yeah, just the the
ramifications of this being off this much could have been

(02:05:02):
could have been tragic, could have been horrific. Now, the
crew did taxi, they took off, there was no problem,
and it wasn't until they were airborne that they realized.
When they were told what had taken place. So as
a result, you know, Quantas is investigating. They're trying to
look at this, trying to see exactly what's taken place
so that they can try to avoid this kind of
mistake from happening. In the airline industry, as you and

(02:05:24):
I have talked about forever, constantly shares mistakes so that
people at other airlines can learn from what took place
at Quantas, so that they can make sure they can
take necessary steps to try to reduce the likelihood of
that you know, taken effects so horrific.

Speaker 1 (02:05:41):
Cum Yeah, the airline, the flight ended up with fifty
one more people than originally expected.

Speaker 2 (02:05:48):
Is that?

Speaker 1 (02:05:48):
Is that what I understand?

Speaker 7 (02:05:50):
Know, then the manifest showed let's say that they were
expecting two hundred and fifty one people. The paperwork showed
two hundred, so that two hundred people boarded, but they
really had two hundred and fifty one, So the manifest
itself didn't match with what they had. And you give
the crew the total number of passengers, the bags, the cargo,
all the stuff, so that they can compute what their

(02:06:13):
maximum takeoff weight's going to be, and it dictates everything
that they do on the flight deck. So when that's off,
then the most critical moment of flight takeoff has been
in essence compromised if you're not careful. So that's one
of the reasons that so often, you know, we tend
to overlook sometimes just how good flight crews are and

(02:06:34):
all the inner workings of what goes on in the
airline industry, and it's got to be exact, and sadly,
in this case for some reason, yeah, they through ten
thousand extra pounds on the aircraft and passengers and bags,
and the flight crew is unaware they were operating on
a different set of data.

Speaker 1 (02:06:53):
It seems unusual to me, just based on all the
stories that you've talked about in this segment over the years,
that they would rely on the manifest and determining how
much extra fuel in this case they could put on
the plane, because well, listen, there's always a scramble at
the end, people coming up in the gate lay, they
buy a ticket last minute, some people don't show up,
they overbook a flight, in which case I imagine they
wouldn't add extra fuel. But just to rely on that

(02:07:15):
manifest and not rely on a head count, that just seems, well, no, what.

Speaker 7 (02:07:18):
The crew gets is exact. So the people at the
gate may be expecting three hundred people, but if one
hundred and eighty three get on board, that's the number
of the crew uses the crew's given exact numbers. We
have one hundred and eighty three souls on board. You've
got all of that stuff squared away so that everybody's
operating from the same you know, the same thing. The
problem was what was put on the airplane. The information

(02:07:42):
gave the pilots was ten thousand pounds off. It was
an operation issue where they did not Yeah, and that
was really the problem.

Speaker 1 (02:07:50):
Well, I mean the horror that you know, I can
imagine might happen as a consequence of this. You know,
the planes' is not going to have lift off, right,
I mean, isn't that really what you're talking about?

Speaker 7 (02:07:59):
Yeah, I mean remember the horrific comm air crash in
Lexington that happened because the crew took off on the
wrong runway which was too short. And yeah, I mean,
had Quantas done something like that where they needed more
run Brian, It's just it's you know, flying is incredibly
incredibly safe. My apologies to anybody who's on their way

(02:08:21):
to the airport right now, because it's not like something
that happens. But you know, when you have the number
of flights that we have in the course of the day,
and you have eight or ten million people a day
that are flying worldwide, how often do we talk about
an accident that takes place? Very very rarely do we.
And that's a result of the training that the crews have,
the incredible equipment that we have, and you know, just

(02:08:44):
all the things that go on behind the scenes to
keep things safe. But one of the things we have
to have is a very exact count of everything that's
on the airplane so that the crew at the last
moment can do their weight and balance calculations they can
go from there. A lot of times with those comm
air jets would have a situation with those fifty passengers,
which were great to have, but boy, they were painting

(02:09:04):
the butt because if you had a long flight with
a lot of fuel, you'd have to leave four or
five people off the plane because of the weight and
balance requirements because they had to take extra fuel. Or
you could take all the passengers and no bags, or
you could take forty seven people in some of the
bags I mean were there was always this tight rope. Now,
the bigger the airplane gets, the more relaxed you can

(02:09:27):
be on that where the airplane is going to be
able to be big enough that it can take everything
that you have, but those weight and balance numbers that
you give to the crew have to be exact.

Speaker 1 (02:09:36):
So yeah, well it just reminds me that the de
icing the winging thing. Since we're getting a big winter
storm tonight. You know, my dad and I were on
that flight bringing the Bengals back from Denver long long
time ago, and we sat on the runway in this
snow and it kept snowing. We kept sitting there and
sitting there, and sitting there and sitting there. My dad
has this just pale white, you know, power to him,

(02:09:57):
and he's kind of holding onto this armrest. We finally
took off. I'm like, Dad, what is wrong with you?
He said, they didn't de ice the wings. They didn't
de ice the wings, and I was like, what are
you talking about. So explained me the icing procedures and
apparently there's a time limit that you have to follow
and you're going to get the ice the wings. I'm
on a flight several many years later, same situation, sitting
on the runway and this this it's kind of a
sleety snow coming down. And I just looked at the stewardess.

(02:10:20):
I said, is the pilot going to have the wings
the ice before we take off? And she goes, oh,
don't worry about that. The pilot knows what he's doing.
And then you know, five minutes later she disappears, and
then the captain comes on, we're going to be taking
a brief break to pull over and have the wings
the ice. And I always think that I was responsible
for getting the wings the ice because my dad brought
that to my attention. He didn't say a word.

Speaker 7 (02:10:40):
Well, I mean, and you've got to be aware of that,
because Brian, it's just it's a critical thing. And I've
said before, if you really want to have a lot
of fun on a plane you're not on you can
go to YouTube and look up. I think it's a
Russian aircraft that is taking off and it has, like,
I don't know, a put of snow on the wing.

Speaker 1 (02:10:59):
Oh lord, yes, how can you get lift?

Speaker 7 (02:11:04):
How that airplane got off the ground? I tell you this,
I would have been the next aviation story because I
had I been anywhere near an exit, I would have
been out the door before they pressurize that aircraft to
get out of there, because there's no way I would
have been on that aircraft.

Speaker 1 (02:11:18):
All right, food for thought for people who are flying
later in the evening.

Speaker 7 (02:11:21):
Again, apologies, get I get lots of fun emails like
stop it.

Speaker 1 (02:11:26):
Yeah, I know, I know, yeah, And I'm no huge
fan of flag anyway, let's pause, ring Jay Back. I
got a couple more stories to talk about and get
our hubsh see ice A forty nine if you have
KCD talk station Brian Thomas with j ratliftar aviation expert
the entirety of iHeart Media's aviation expert. He's on all
over the nation. We get him for a few segments

(02:11:47):
on Thursdays, and I love it. Let's talk real quick
since tomorrow's Tech Friday with Dave Hatter, the TSA's warning
about using public Wi Fi while traveling through airports.

Speaker 7 (02:11:57):
You and I talked about the the the charging ports
that are at the airports and how to be careful. Yeah. Yeah,
because some somehow we've had hackers that have put out
some of these things, like the fake atm things or
things you put at gas pumps. Where people can unexpectedly,
you know, put something in and your your private information

(02:12:19):
is subject to hackers. Well, we've had that where the
TSA said, look, if you're going to charge your phone
at an airport, use your own charger. But they're also saying,
the TSA that they're getting reports of people that are
connecting to the public Wi Fi and airports are placing
themselves at risk as well because it's not as secure,
and they've had it. Would know all about that because
the TSA saying that, look, a lot of these people

(02:12:41):
are connecting to things that aren't as secure and it's
allowing hackers to more easily access our personal information. Now,
when you've got the hectic pace of an airport, that
can cause a lot of people to let their guard
down because looks hits the time of travel exhaustion, the
last thing you're thinking about is protect your identification. So
I think that the TSA's comes at a good point

(02:13:01):
as we're approaching the end of the year with we've
got a lot of people traveling because you simply can't
be too careful, and that's something that I think we
can repeat over and over and over again, because you've
got to be careful when you're dealing with you know,
trying to protect your identification.

Speaker 1 (02:13:17):
All right, Well that's a warning we all need to heed.
So and I think Dave has brought that kind of
thing up before too.

Speaker 7 (02:13:23):
So yeah, he's yawning right now because you're so boring
to have. But I like to talk about it because
it was. It was a TSA warning and it's just
reminding people when you're at the airport, just protect yourself.

Speaker 1 (02:13:35):
You're electronic hygiene, so to speak. All Right, I guess
some of the Tampa Airport TSA workers are happy.

Speaker 7 (02:13:43):
Some Yeah, but I think twenty one of them up
till now they've got a ten thousand dollars bonus for
their their performance during the government shutdown. This is something
that was recommended by their supervisors and others and it
was a nice ten thousand dollars check and others are
looking to get the same. And it's nice because not

(02:14:04):
one time during that six week period of time did
we talk about too much the letdown of the TSA
checkpoints where you know, there were miles or three mile
long screening lines. Know, most of the focus was on
the air traffic controllers. The TSA did their job. I
mean they I don't know how most of us would
be if you showed up for work for six weeks

(02:14:25):
and you weren't getting paid at that time, and you
still were expected to be as professional and good at
what you do as as you would do normally. I
mean that it's a lot of pressure and a lot
of stress. So the fact that they're getting rewarded, I
think is great and I think I'd love to see
it more often.

Speaker 1 (02:14:41):
Yep, I agree with you on that. Finally, wait a second,
good news from Spirit Airlines.

Speaker 7 (02:14:46):
Yeah, they were only three hundred and sixty five pilots off,
the latest of a bunch of layoffs. They've decided they
don't need to do that. And I'm thrilled to death
to hear it, because Spirit right now is a good airline,
but they're struggling right now now and it's going to
take some time for them to regain their footing, and
they're really headed in the right direction, and I hope
that it continues because you want Spirit Airlines to be

(02:15:09):
around because all the low cost carriers that are out
there helped to keep the faverage fares down. Yes, that's
why when we get a carrier here at CBG. If
it's Frontier Allegiance Southwest, whoever it is, we talk about
let's support them. And if it Breeze has got a
great fair to the West coast, and you think, well,
I'm a Delta freaking flyer. They matching the fair, I'll
fly Delta. Okay, you do that, But then in six

(02:15:32):
months when an airline says, you know, we're not getting
the loads we thought, we're going to leave, please don't
email me because I'll remind you that it's up to us. Well,
that happened with air Tran. Air Tran came in in
nineteen ninety five in February trying to compete with Delta
Airlines with forty nine dollars fares from Cincinnati to Orlando,
please forty nine bucks. The problem was Delta matched the fares,

(02:15:54):
So are you gonna fly Delta or an air Tran
which maybe you hadn't heard the you know, you didn't
know who they were. They were spent off of of
Northwest Massaba Airlines, so it was a great airline. But
the problem was everybody flew Delta. So air Train ran
practically empty flights back and forth to Orlando for a
year and a half before they said enough. And the
minute they left, people started complaining about where'd air train go?

(02:16:17):
Excuse me, I mean, I'll me where they went. They
left because of us. But look, the community has done
such a great job. Because when Frontier came here with
their one flight of day to Denver, bringing it from
the Dayton Airport, I was pleading, please, this is our
opportunity to support because it took a lot of work
to get Frontier to come here. This is a place
where on where you had low cost carriers came to die.

(02:16:39):
You never bought a low cost carrier in here. Frontier
came in here started having success. Here comes a legion
all of a sudden Southwest up roots to their entire
dating operation, brings them down here. You've got great things happening.
Why because the community is supporting the low cost carriers.
I'm preaching to the choir because we've done a great job.
But I'm on when I'm on the air around the country,
I tell them to do what's what's happening right here?

(02:16:59):
Since anat Because we've we've got the model and the
community is an incredible service.

Speaker 1 (02:17:05):
Yeah, it's demonstrable success. We were the highest like airport
in the country. In terms of the cost of airfare.
People used to drive the Dayton to get a cheaper
flight and then lay over in Cincinnati on the way
to wherever they were going.

Speaker 7 (02:17:15):
They would go anywhere. Well, now Dayton's a ghost town. Yeah,
and you come down here and look at the license
plates in the barning lot. They're from all over the
Tri state area because they're coming here. Look when you
can jump on a flight to go to Vegas for
you know, one hundred and eighteen bucks round trip, or
Orlando for ninety nine dollars on trip. But during certain
times of the year you factor in inflation, it's cheaper

(02:17:36):
to fly now than it ever has been in the
history of aviation. That curreribly made possible by low cost carriers.

Speaker 1 (02:17:41):
Support your low cost carrier, Keith from Iowa says he well,
he loves you, and Eric wants to know if you
have your own podcast.

Speaker 7 (02:17:47):
I do not. I've been asked to, have been encouraged,
in fact, by several of our producers to do so.
Sleep is already an interruption of my day. Do you
think I'm gonna have time for a podcast?

Speaker 1 (02:17:57):
Listen, you're making fat bank in the markets need that job, Jay,
I understand completely.

Speaker 7 (02:18:03):
Can I can I give you the amount that I
made in the time we've been talking, go ahead, six
dollars and twenty one.

Speaker 1 (02:18:10):
I've been talking to them since eight thirty this morning.

Speaker 7 (02:18:13):
I sent I sent, I sent you screenshot because I
want you to know that we've got a few other
stocks that my students and I are looking at as well.
Hopefully they when they make their gains, they leave I come.
Just protect your portfolio. Just go enjoy the rest, say
opening bells. Not for what thirty four minutes.

Speaker 1 (02:18:26):
Or so, Wow, athlete named day trade fun. That's where
you find Jay had a little plugs, a little plug
for you. Jay. All right, well, hub delays, I guess
I gotta worry about real quick just at a real
quick time.

Speaker 7 (02:18:37):
Nothing nothing. With apologies to Bizmarck North Dakota. We're in
good shape.

Speaker 1 (02:18:41):
Wonderful news, Jay Ratlift, love you man, appreciate you being
on the program. We'll talking in next Thursday. Best of
health and love to you and your better half. Man
eight fifty six. You didn't get a chance to look