55KRC Wednesday Show - Ken Kober, Jack Atherton, AFP, Massie, Judge Napolitano

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Five O five I fIF about k r C the
talk station. Happy Wednesdays, some call Kenny Loggins because you're

(00:30):
in the danger zone. Perhaps Happy Wednesday. Brian Thomas right here,
glad to be reminding you. Fifty five Carosy dot com.
And you can't listen live, head on over there, get
your heart media. You can listen to podcasts through that.
Listen to the content live and lots of iHeartMedia content.
You spend your entire day listening to that, never get
all the way through it. And you can listen to
Dusty Roads So on the show yesterday talking about property

(00:50):
taxes and h Just a quick shout out if you
are interested in the next listener lunch Ron's Roost. I
did mention it to Dusty because he quite often shows
up at listening to lunch Ron's Roost. On the four
of February. That's what we're going to be next, and
Dusty said he'd commit to go. So anyhow, if you're
interested in saying hi to Dusty, another reason to go.
If you want to avoid him, then there's a reason
to not go. You make the call. Daniel Davis Deep

(01:13):
Dive yesterday, of course with retired Lieutenant colonel getting an
update in the war situation question mark swirling around. Well,
he's in line with Senator Ran Paul on why do
we need to even be involved in her on in
terms of you know, regime change or whatever, fighting for freedom.
I understand that to a certain degree. You got the
whole legal issues which are the genesis of Senator Paul's criticism. Look,

(01:33):
you're gonna need congressional approval on that, a conversation we've
all had many times at connection with the wage the
war and then need for I expose expediency. Can't be
bothered with that pesky constitution Updates on that one as well.
Most notably, I'm kind of confused about where we are

(01:54):
in so far as lines in the sands. Most notably
since yesterday the Trump was apparently warned about them hanging
the Iranian administration hanging protesters. Now there's also been reports
of them shooting protesters, but there seems to be some
kind of distinction between hanging and shooting and what our
reaction might be on that. I'll get into that in

(02:14):
a second. Inside Scoop with Bright Part News financial editor
John Carney on some really good news. Price of gasoline
down and some numbers. In so far as the economy
looking good, I suppose it depends on where you look.
Very confusing world we live in when you can go
to one website and read one thing where everything's all,

(02:34):
you know, rainbows and unicorn, and then flip over to
another page talking about the exact same information where we're
all going to die. Kind of like the reporting on
the whole ice situation where that woman got shot in
the face for trying to run over an ice agent
doing his job. Some people's were it was that Scott
Adams said, you know, we're looking at life as if
we're viewing two separate movies. Everybody's in the same theater.

(02:59):
It just depends on your interpretation of what the actual
video in front of you is saying or reflecting. So,
and that problem is only going to get worse with
artificial intelligence. And I'm sure I haven't seen any, but
I guarantee you as sure as I'm sitting here, someone
around out there is talking about how whatever footage you're watching,
depending upon which side of the ledger you're on, it

(03:20):
was an appropriate thing for that officer to protect his
life by shooting her, or it was not. It was
unjustifiably it was murder. You're arguing over the same footage,
but someone's going to be arguing no, no, no, no no.
The one you're relying on is fake. You can see
that coming ten to fifteen, twenty miles away with AI. Anyway,

(03:41):
Tom's awast asking from the weak the people convention right there,
fifty five k see dot com talking about some state
issues and a comedian, local historian, comedian, really funny guy
has some books that he'd like you to read and
join the program. Yesterday, mister hand, I was thinking about
fast times at Ridgemont High and he's got he's a

(04:04):
comedian doing stand up Greg hand is his name. He
may have seen him. They do this stand up to
history segment around town and they got a couple of
events coming up. You might want to do that. Plus
Christopher Smithman with a follow up smith event. That was
all yesterday. Your calls are always welcome here in the
fifty five Carenessey Morning Show five and three seven four nine,
fifty five hundred, eight hundred eight two three Talk or

(04:26):
go with Tom five fifty on AT and T phones.
Before we get to a word about affordability, we may
hear from Chuck Ingram. I don't know, but I woke
up to find out that northbound I seventy one is
closed because of a semi crash with a fuel spill
light Ole Tunnel. Yeah, great place to get shut down
northbound I seventy one. Are the all northbound lanes closed

(04:47):
the lt Ole Tunnel, Dude with semi crash and the
fuel spill. This was from a reporting an hour ago,
so I have no way of knowing right now what's
on going on on the ground. Didn't have time to
check the cameras. That's why we have Chuck there. Any
problems in Chuck has a moment in time, we may
hear from him next. But pivoting over to this ongoing
screaming and yelling from the left, of course, they have

(05:07):
very few arguments as we approach November. Obamacare subsidies and
the price of healthcare exacerbated by the reality of Obamacare.
That's one, of course, the whole ICE. Do you agree
with cracking down on illegal immigrants, most notably the most
dangerous and criminal elements among within our community, or are
you against ICE and them doing their job. That's an issue.

(05:29):
And then affordability, it's a difficult one to get around.
Democrats seem to be getting away with the argument about affordability,
ignoring the fact that they're the ones that pumped in
what eight trillion additional dollars into the American accountant under
the Biden administration, massive inflationary reality brought about by that.
Of course, something's completely out of political hands. How can
you control the price of the eggs when the bird

(05:51):
flu swirling around and all our chickens are dying. So
it depends on which direction you're looking at. Some things
within the control of government, other things not. Piv it
over to California. Great illustration of insane prices and insane
inflationary realities not brought about by natural economic forces, Like, oh,
my god, the price of eggs has gone through the

(06:11):
roof because of bird flu. No, that's not the case.
Now you can make an argument that, oh my god,
the price of eggs have gone through the roof because
the shipping costs associated with the price of fuel have
gone through the roof. Then you might point to a
political reality. Politics and environmental laws and regulations have brought
about an increase in the price of gasoline. That's a reality.

(06:34):
It could be dealt with move away from the green agenda,
and the price would come down because we wouldn't have
such an aversion to using fossil fuel. So, you know,
some things within the control of political or politicians, others not.
And Gavin Newsom is waking up to this reality in California.
He is in a well, I think, a state of panic.

(06:56):
They're planning on pushing forward with his ballot initiative that
would take five percent of the gross overall assets of
billionaires one time, one time only. Sure, it is five
percent of everything that they own, which means many of
them would have to liquidate their assets in order to
pay this outrageous one time charge. And Newsom realizes this

(07:20):
is going to drive people out of the state, is
waking up to the reality that it's already driven people
out of the state. Last week, knew Some delivered his
final State of the Union address. He said this, we
don't run from change, We drive it. We are providing
that we are proving rather that inclusive democracy works. We
are proving that expanding human rights works. We are proving

(07:43):
that illegal immigration I'm sorry, he said legal. We are
proving that legal immigration works. And we're proving that a
progressive tax structure works, not Mike clinging onto that last one.
More fundamentally, we could talk about the other things he
thinks he's proving, but just that proving and a progressive
tax structure works well. Progressive tax structure might include the

(08:05):
idea of taxing billionaires and taking five percent of everything
that they own in the form of a tax. Quite progressive,
that one. It's part of the class warfare. They're billionaires,
they can afford it. We need the money here in California.
We got a budget deficit to deal with, and they do.
It's pretty substantial one too, which is only going to
get worse. And I think that's primarily the problem with

(08:25):
Whykevin Newsom is now arguing against this five percent. Well
theft the States weigh in his ballot initiative that would
oppose the five percent tax on wealth of residents with
a net worth of a billion or more. We already
see Silicon Valley leaders taken off Google co founder Sergey
Brinn and Larry Page. Both of them reportedly appear to

(08:48):
be reducing in their California footprint. That's courting The New
York Times. Co founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel already opened
an office in Miami for his investment firm, David sa
Billionaire venture capitalists relocated from San Francisco to Austin, Texas.
That happened late last year. A guy named Chamath bear

(09:08):
with me, Paala happy tiya ya ta ya close enough anyway,
he's quoted by The Washington Times Tech investor is the
total wealth of California that has left in the past month,
a trillion dollars in total wealth walking out of the state,
saying we had two trillion dollars worth of billionaire's wealth

(09:30):
just a few weeks ago. Now fifty percent of that
wealth has gone, taking their income tax revenue, sales tax revenue,
real estate tax revenue, and all their staffs and their
salaries and income taxes with them. In other words, by
starting this ill conceived attempt at an asset tax, California's
budget deficit will explode. What's going on with the current

(09:53):
state of California in terms of their budgeting shortfalls this
year of three to eighteen billion dollars. California millionaires pay
thirteen point three percent of their income to the state
every year, and with them gone, the middle class is
going to have to foot the bill. You don't have
the wealthy to get the money from folks. Isn't this

(10:16):
sort of a logical exercise? I mean, couldn't have you
seen this and talked about it coming from miles away?
Why did people leave high tax, high regulatory states during
COVID nineteen Why because they got to work from home.
Home can be anywhere. Do you want to live in
a home with outrageous regulations and income tax or do
you want to live in a state that doesn't have

(10:36):
any Welcome to Texas and Florida becoming the destination states
for all of these very wealthy people when they found
out they didn't have to work at work and could
work from home. This problem, this, this upcoming five percent
tax on billionaires, is exacerbating that, at least among the
very wealthy class. California's middle class apparently also fleeing. Still.

(11:03):
Last year, California ranked the first among the states in
terms of outbound migration Texas number one, with inbound Florida
number two. Cost doing business already too high in California,
noting that this proposed billionaire tax, with them leaving and

(11:24):
taking their tax revenue with them, would increase the taxes
on the middle class to maintain this ridiculous, outrageous money
stealing machine that is the state of the state of California.
They continue to pay the highest prices for a gallon
of gas. Now, going back to my economic reality, we
out here, we're down in the middle of two dollars,
some as low as two dollars and thirty cents. I

(11:45):
saw two dollars and nine cents here. Locally, California average
four dollars and twenty two to more than five dollars.
Why is that that's a regulatory reality? A dollar twenty
six of every single gallon the Californias paced to fees
and costs associated with environmental programs. That's a self created problem.

(12:08):
That is a throat cutting problem. If you think the
environment and get rid of carbon dioxide is a real thing,
then you enact these programs. It's sort of limited failing
to appreciate the globe is one big, giant, singular pocket
of air, which means the Chinese, the Indians, the Turkey,
and folks maybe in Texas and other states that don't
have such stringent regulatory rules to drive the price of

(12:28):
gasoline up are still belching out all this evil carbon dioxide,
negating any effort that the Californians do, making it a
complete exercise in stupidity and futility. Do they ever talk
about that now? So twenty seven percent of the total
cost per gallon going to environmental crap just in the
state of California. Welcome to why their gas is so expensive?

(12:50):
California climate change agenda leading to refinery closures. On top
of it, two plants going offline soon. Twenty percent of
the capacity in California gas refining gone because of not
market forces, fake market forces created by environmental regulations and
chasing your zero carbon emission tail. Home ownership also extraordinarily

(13:15):
expensive in California. Right, California home prices double the national average.
Why might that be, Well, you got supply and demand problems.
They won't let you rebuild. Say, after the Palisades and
Eating fires. One year ago, thirteen thousand homes destroyed, Fewer
than twelve have been rebuilt. It was a year ago.

(13:36):
Fewer than fourteen percent of the homes that got burned
into Palisades fire have received permits to rebuild, So you
got twelve actually built. Fourteen percent of the thirteen thousand
got permits to rebuild, and the groundbreaking hasn't begun yet
on the rebuilding effort. That's a supply demand problem right there.

(13:57):
California homeowners renters spend more than fifty percent gross monthly
income on housing compared with only thirty percent in other states.
Must have at least a six figure into income there.
That's ford even a modest home. So you got the
housing shortage, lengthy permitting process, mostly environmentally related. I might
not complex building codes. You can't have natural gas, you

(14:18):
can't have this, you can't have that. You must conform
oh Man connected communities to a specific plan. These are unnatural,
non related to natural economic forces. They've cut their own throats.
Gavin newsom pleating with the residents of California to reject
the very tax that he at one point I believe
was in favor of, because people have an opportunity to

(14:39):
get the hell out. Chuck Ingram with a quick update
on the situation at I seventy one in the Little Tunnel.
In a moment, have you a rand new kitchen?

Speaker 2 (14:50):
There nothing to it.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
Overnight with isolated snowshowers tomorrow mostly clouds twenty six for
the high overnight Little seventeen with clouds and the chance
of isolated flories and and mostly cloudie on Friday, and
an opportunity for some isolated snow showers thirty six for
the high Friday. Right now, it's forty five degrees. Look
about KERCBE Talk station. Chuck Ingram is here. He is

(15:11):
in studio. It's not time for first traffic yet, but
we're gonna get a first traffic because I woke up.
Chuck Ingram. Welcome to the studio and happy Wednesday to you.
Northbound I seventy one closed due to a semi crash
right at the light Old Tunnel, apparently involving a fuel spill.
I thought it happened recently, since the article I read
was only about an hour long when I got here. Okay,

(15:32):
apparently it happened last night late.

Speaker 3 (15:33):
Yeah, it was in the eleven o'clock hour round eleven
thirty last night. So Cruz have been working all night
long to get this overturned semi back up on its wheels,
which they just did in the last few minutes. So
I saw a picture for Modot that has that truck
backing up, and it looks like they're going to be
able to tow out of the way without a major problem.

(15:53):
The wild card in that is the fuel spill that
you brought up.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
I don't know how long that will take to clean up,
to make has met happy and everything to be able
to go through the tunnel again, so that may take
some time.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
Sure, Well, the details on the fuel spill were very sparse.
It just said there was a fuel spill. But you
came in and he said the truck was carrying papers,
so it wasn't a tanker truck like we have to
deal with a massive tanker truck like spill. It's talking
about the diesel fuel used in the pool. Yeah, yeah, right,
so maybe several hundred gallons as opposed to thousands of gallons.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
Correct, There's nothing like that to deal with this morning.
So hopefully that will mean that before your show is done,
we're gonna have the highway open again. What I'm really
surprised was so far as the backup isn't bad. So
everybody overnight hours, I.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
Mean they paid attention overnight, yes, exactly, because the detour
is would be the easiest, would be northbound seventy five
right up to the lateral and then go eastbound and
continue whichever way you have to go on seventy one.

Speaker 3 (16:55):
But I was really surprised there's not even a delay
coming out of Covington across the brand Spence right now
because of it, So like, okay, well maybe we are
going to have this out of the way rather quickly.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
Well let's hope it is out of the way. Otherwise
I was gonna say, I'm looking at the clock as
twenty five after five. I say give it a minute,
and that backup is probably going to materialize. That could
very well be all right, Well steer around it seventy
five or take seventy five north of the lateral and
then choose which direction you need to go. Simple solution.
It's not nearly as complicated as closing down the Fourth

(17:27):
Street bridge, Newport.

Speaker 3 (17:30):
Nothing like that. You won't you won't need a tank
bus to get around and real quick.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
Do you get any update of out of how that's
been going, my friends? It appears to be going fairly
well good. There was a lot of publicity for that one.
They're set it down, so I think that really helped
there too. All right, Chuck Ingram, were looking forward to
your traffic reports throughout the morning, and of course at
eight thirty your special introduction for Judge and Paulatano. The
Judge is back on this morning. Can't wait and another

(17:55):
day think up something, probably another day. My listeners aren't
going to be really pleased with him, but I'm getting
used to that. Chuck. God, bless you, sir, Thank you.
We'll be hearing from you later in the morning. Look
forward to it. It's five twenty five right now, fifty
five k see the talk station. Calls are welcome. Five
one three, seven four nine fifty five hundred eight hundred
e two three talk pound five fifty on AT and
T phones. I'll do local stories in little phone calls,

(18:17):
but I take the phone calls before the local stories.
Either way, I'd be right back fifty five KRC once
you get Chuck back on. It's supposed to be nine
on Monday. Oh good, thanks Joe, real quick before I
go to the phones. Yes, Tom is on the line

(18:37):
five one three, seven four fifty five hundred eight hundred
two to three talk since FOP President Ken Kober is
going to join the program in an hour. On the
comment on the topic, everyone gets one point four to
five million. Yes, the city has entered into get another
settlement agreement. One point four to five million. This is
a decade after the police shot and killed a North
north Side resident by the name of Kwan Davier Hicks,

(18:58):
who was twenty two when the SINN showed up at
an apartment June nineteenth at twenty fifteen to investigate a report
of menacing. Caller told them Hicks had threatened to kill
a couple after they accused him of stealing from their home.
The encounter ended with an officer fatally shooting Hicks in
the chest. City Manager Cheryl Long yesterday's press release. While

(19:19):
balancing the needs and resources of our law department and
the minimization of financial risk that's funny, and the legal
options available to us, I've concluded, I have concluded that
this difficult decision is nevertheless the best one. I can't
repeat that one, Joe, that pesky FCC getting in the

(19:41):
way of me passing along your editorial comments to the
listening audience. Settlement says the cities you mean from liability
emits no liability means no wrongdoing for the police, and
it is subject to council approval or appropriation. Seth Walls
already on record saying yeah, I'll sign on to it,
I'll prove it. Went the Hicks apartment to have vestigate

(20:04):
the report of this menacing. Officers found what they believed
to be Hicks in the North Side apartment. They entered
without a warrant. Now there are some exceptions to the
warrant requirement, and I imagine that's what might be argued
should they take this thing to trial. Early officer Doris Scott.
Doris Scott and a couple of other officers went up

(20:25):
the stairs. They reached the second floor landing, they heard
someone descend from another stairway behind a nearby door. Staoid
door opened and Scott saw the barrel of a rifle
appointed at her face. According to the wrongful death lawsuit,
neither Scott nor more recall any of the officers announcing
their presidents or identify our presidents, or identifying themselves to

(20:46):
the police as police. Inside police reported that one of
the officers grabbed the barrel of the what found out
to be twenty two caliber rifle and shot Hicks in
the chest. So then the next year, Hicks family fouled
a federal lawsuit charging the police with the use of
excessive force creating a dangerous situation that lawsuit, initially dismissed
by a federal judge. However, back in twenty twenty sixth

(21:10):
US Circuit Court of Appeals to the city may be
liable for the officers violating hicks constitutional rights. Peals Court
determined that the officers had qualified immunity related that the
officers had qualified immunity related to the claim of unlawful
or denied. The officers had qualified immunity. So if you're
doing something that is not within your qualified immunity, in

(21:32):
other words, violating civil rights, and you can be held
accountable as a police officer for your actions. So I
suppose it was the entering without a warrant. However, were
their exegen circumstances which required the police to enter the
room and go after this guy in the absence of
a warrant. They're not going to make that argument. They're
writing a check for one point four to five million,
So get in line, everybody sue the city. Tom, Thanks

(21:56):
for bearing with me, Welcome to the morning show.

Speaker 4 (21:59):
I got a little, uh paper cut while I was
working on the convention center.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
Can I say the city said, well, actually, they would
argue that you're barred by workers compensation so file a
workers comclaim Tom sucks to be you.

Speaker 5 (22:11):
I know.

Speaker 4 (22:11):
So you know, I'm going to go out on a
limb here and I'm going to say that the vast
majority of Joe Strecker's commentary cannot be repeated on the air.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
On unfairly label. Then, but we'll say a sizable quantity, well,
you know, in a sizeable quantity of what I say
to Joe, whether I'm using the mute button or I talked. Yeah,
I got a button, a talkback, which means I can
say something to Joe Strecker while I'm here in the
middle of a sentence like now, and I can go
and say hey, Joe, and you don't know it because

(22:43):
it hit the talkback button. Yeah, this happens frequently.

Speaker 4 (22:47):
Yeah, the the marvels of modern technology. So, speaking of
the convention Center, I'm hearing rumors that there's some complaints
about it and people curious about the price and what
we got in return for it. Of course, you know
that's that's pretty much true for any project where government
money is dumped into it, right, So you're going to
pay a lot more than you you probably normally would.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
But I mean remodeling the remodeling the said building. Apparently
that's a seven hundred million dollar cost overrun at the.

Speaker 4 (23:15):
Very lead, and I don't even know what building you're
talking about, but at the very lead. So yeah, I mean,
for all intentsive purposes, it was a glorified facelift. I
mean maybe it was needed. I don't know that was
actually working on. That was the first time I'd ever
been in that place. So it's it's pretty nice looking,
but I have I can't really compare it because, like
I said, I've never been in there before. But anyway,

(23:36):
I saw it last weekend from the outside, it looked
pretty nice. So switching over to our buddy Gavin Newsom,
who is just a flat out liar, that statement you
read was just lie after lie after lie. No, we
are not proving that this stuff works. I know, you
are actually proving that it doesn't work exactly. You're you're yeah,
and by the way, you did not use legal immigration.

(24:01):
You were you were whatever doing illegal immigration. You you
were incentivizing it illegal immigrants. Oh, you're you're in this country,
you're in this state illegally. I'll here's some money. That's
not proving that legal immigration works. You knucklehead, You're a liar.
You are exacerbating, as you use the word a lot,

(24:21):
you are making the problem worse. You are creating the
problem for or for one thing, and then you're just
making it worse. And then you're like, oh, we need
everybody's money to solve the problem.

Speaker 5 (24:31):
No you don't.

Speaker 4 (24:32):
You're just going to continue to make it worse. Why
after lie after lie, And that's what Democrats do. That's
that's how they roll, That's how they get in office.
They lie to you, that's how they stay in office.
They continue to lie to you. And then all of
a sudden, oh my gosh, well look at the situation
we're in. Yeah, you know why because all you people
out there keep voting for Democrats. This is why we're

(24:55):
in the trouble we're in. Please stop, don't vote Democrat.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
Have a great you do the same time. And if
you look at the the the welfare still I'll use
the word welfare, go ahead criticize me. The welfare state
of justice Somali community in Minnesota. I mean, the statistics
have been fore and widespread. A tremendous percentage of the overall,
not all local peng with a broad brother saying, every

(25:21):
Somali person in Minnesota is on welfare, but the vast
majority of them are recipients of some of the multiple
government programs that take handouts. Is that the recipe for
success putting more people on the taxpayer dollar doll No,
it's not. This is the increase in population and a

(25:41):
greater expense of the taxpayers of the state. And I
would argue the federal government five thirty six. Right now,
if you five kr CD talk station, get in touch
with the Chimney Care Fireplace in Stove locally owner and
operated talk station five forty two. If if you five
kr C the talk station, shout out to my submarine
or friend Curbage Mike, who let me know about fifteen

(26:04):
to ten minutes ago that the little tunnel was back open,
said he had read it, he heard it elsewhere. So
there you go. Confirmation. You should be in decent shape
by seventy one north. No more wreck to clean up
in the little tunnel, absent phone calls, which we are, well,
I'm going to deal it to the local stories. I'm
sorry the stack is stupid. Forget what I'm diving on.

Speaker 6 (26:23):
Into as this tradition.

Speaker 1 (26:28):
Thanks Joe, I appreciate the vote of confidence. Marion County, Florida.

Speaker 6 (26:36):
As this tradition.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
News release survey surveillance footage showing mom in a Marion
County dere Shriff's deputy shot inside his cruiser. Incident happened
when deputy stopped Rihanna Harden, twenty two years old, on
highway for forty one, initially arrested for possession of methan fetamine, marijuana,
drug paraphernalia, and providing a false idea, as well as

(26:58):
driving with a suspended life. While being transported to the
Marion County jail, Harden, who was handcuffed in the back
seat of the patrol vehicle, managed to slip one hand
out of her cuffs, opened up the plexiglass partition between
her and the deputy corner to the rest STAFFI David.
Footage apparently from inside the car shows Hardened removing her

(27:20):
visor and covering the rear seat camera before producing a
handgun concealed in her clothing and then firing multiple shots
through the partition. Why are you doing that? Because the
deputy apparently didn't sufficiently search her before putting the back
of the cruiser. My first reaction, Deputy returned fire. The
vehicle eventually crashed into a utility bowl. Both hardened and

(27:42):
the deputy sustained non life threatening injuries, taking an area hospitals.
The corner of the Sheriff's office revolver with six spent
shell casings werecovered at the scene near where Harden was
removed from the vehicle. She ended up receiving an additional
charge no kidding of attempted first degree murder of the
law enforcement officer. Idiots doing idiot things because there idio is. Yeah,

(28:05):
you know that's double idiots. I hate to be critical
law enforcement officers, but she was able to conceal conceal
a revolver on her person. Joe, any questions about where
she might have been stowing that thing? You think prison
perse what's all right? I end this segment there. We

(28:35):
got a couple of more coming up. You can chime
in if you want. Uh first cover Seedy Talk station.
It's five fifty here fifty five Kara City Talk Station.
Very Happy Wednesday to been remiss and not mentioning beyond
can cob or FLP President Joint program at six thirty.
Everybody gets one point four to five million dollar check

(28:56):
if they sue the City. Big Picture with Jack Adaman
coming up at seven zero I filed by Donvan and
Eil The Return of Americans for Prosperity DONVD and Eil
calling out the Democrats for using the affordability rhetoric, which
I pointed out in connection with my comments about California.
You know, affordability can be dealt with if you don't
put economic regulations and rules and limitations and pursue green

(29:18):
agenda and let the market forces work themselves out. But
we can't have that in California. Congressman Thomas Massey, where
are the Epstein documents? Great question? The latest anti Massy
Trump tweet he's after Congressman Massey government shut down. We're
going to get one of those. Plus Venezuela in Iran,
plus Judge Enninapolitanos. Certainly irking many of my listeners today.

(29:41):
Let's go to see what mister cribbage Mike's got my
submarine or friend, welcome back. It's always great to hear
from you.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
Good morning, Brian.

Speaker 7 (29:48):
I guess Chuck shitting and jinks himself by no backups
due to light a ton of and now we got
on because.

Speaker 2 (29:53):
Of the weather.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Yeah, Okay for at least it's not an overturned semi absolutely.

Speaker 7 (30:01):
Hey, you know there's all different ways.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
That's a stretch tracker.

Speaker 2 (30:06):
Come on, hey, he gave me a good tip.

Speaker 7 (30:09):
Give him a break.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
Ah See, we can go to a down depending on
what you say.

Speaker 7 (30:18):
Well, this is a stack of stupid segment, So I
guess it's all all is fair in love and war.
There is a lot of way for politicians to get elected,
and you would hope the best way is for what
they can do to their area and their constituents. But
clearly what's been on display here is of late in
Minnesota as far as locking down that voting block, by
all the fraud that everybody just turned a blind eye to,

(30:40):
and what we have going on here locally now to
lock down a greater voting block within Hamilton County basically,
especially what Signal ninety nine spouse last Friday, what mayor
emeritus Iris Rolie is being able to run this city
with an iron grip, all the money that is flowing
out there, you know, basically with her contract, her T

(31:03):
shirt deal that her husband got her, what her son
got you know. And that's just what we know. Who
knows what else is going on. And now these payouts,
I mean, I don't even want to dare use the
R word, but it is almost like borderline reparations, you know,
as far as let's let's take these things to trial
and let the chips fall where they may, because if

(31:24):
we already know the money is going to go out
the door, I'll take my chance in court.

Speaker 2 (31:28):
And if that's what.

Speaker 7 (31:29):
They're hanging her hat on with this latest one point
four or five billion and a million, excuse me. And
if we have any doubt that the other gentleman is
probably going to get his payday, let alone on top
of the other paydays that are coming for the police
chief and the fire chief. When you look at the
track record when they were up for election, there should
have been no way in the world that anybody on
council or that mayor should have been re elected. But

(31:51):
they already got locked down a greater majority of the
voting block because of all the money that is pouring
out of Plump Street. And when I could not I
almost fell off my chair. When you had Charlie lukean
on the end of a day in my sixty nine
and a half years a walk in this arch when
have you ever heard a politician or a group of
politicians that had a stack of money and it's not

(32:11):
spending it.

Speaker 1 (32:13):
Well, you know, remember there was spent. And then, in
the words of the city managers spokes fashion the person,
there's money allocated.

Speaker 7 (32:20):
You know, they don't know what to do with it.

Speaker 2 (32:22):
We're incompetenty or you know.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
The greater response from my perspective would have been, you know,
we have allocated, and here are the programs and the
amount of allocation we have assigned to them, so we
at least would know what programs that are that are
under consideration. The fact that the money's allocated only means
that it hasn't been in and they haven't entered into
a formal contract and shovels haven't broken the ground. The
money has not been spent, the allocations have not been

(32:48):
formally approved yet. But I I'm curious to know what
specifically it is they're going to that they're going to
prioritize and prioritize in terms of the money that's already
come in. Big mystery swirling around around that one.

Speaker 7 (33:00):
I bet you that's a very small list, because this
goes back to the Obama administration. Look how many shovel
ready jobs that were there out there? How much of
the broadband Internet was supposed to be done? What about
the high speed rail train in California. It's easy to say,
put words out, but they can't produce anything because it's
the I word, not independent and competent. And as I

(33:20):
mentioned before the last time I called, when you asked
my ten years of working the elections here in Claremont County,
I have one thousand percent faith in our election system
here in Ohio, everything that's been set up, all the
stop measures, even though that we have voting months, so
Independents and Republicans in Hamilton County, this is just as

(33:41):
much on you when I see turnout like that that
you cannot complain. We have the ability, it's all right
in front of you. If you don't vote, this is
what you get. To quote a famous Christopher Smithman, elections
have consequences.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Amen. Couldn't set it better myself. So I appreciate my
listeners calling in and chiming in and letting us know
how they feel. And I certainly love hearing from you.
Cribbage Mike, Look for are you going to be there?
February fourth at the ron ZERUS for a cribbage game bockstation.
It's six six at five KRC the talk station. Very
Happy Wednesday to you all right, Thomas and VII. You

(34:18):
stick around all morning, get some great guests, as is
the case typically here in the morning show. From my perspective, anyway,
thanks to Joe Strecker for lining them up. Executive producer
Joe Strecker Ken Kober at the bottom of the hour,
apparently everyone in the city's going to get money from
the city. Just sue them. You got an officer involved issue,
Just sue the city one point four to five million.
The most recent settlement they've appear to be getting ready

(34:39):
to enter into. A council needs to approve it, and
at least the one council person on record has said yes,
I'm going to approve it. Big Picture with Jack adad
and coming up at seven oh five, The Price of Purity,
followed by Donald and Neil AFP Americans for Prosperity calling
up the Democrats for using affordability rhetoric. Going back to
my comments about you know and you impact affordability or

(35:02):
are there affordability problems brought about by government intervention? And
I would argue it's the latter is the biggest problem.
You can't control necessarily the price of eggs, but you
can have a tremendous impact on the price of old
I don't know, refining gasoline for example. Anyhow, Donovan at
seven thirty two hours eight oh five with Congressman Thomas Massey.

(35:22):
Where in the hell are the Epstein files? I'm curious
latest on the anti Massey Trump tweet. Trump going after
Congressman Massy yet again. The government's shut down heading our way,
this time apparently over funding for ICE. Yeah, would we
be okay with shutting the government down because the Democrats
want to defund ICE? That's the thing, plus Venezuela and

(35:47):
Iran if we can get it all in before we
get the judge in Inapolitano and assault of the Republic again,
having another go at Donald Trump. Just the heads up
on that one. I know it, you know it, Donald Trump.
No huge fan of or Nepolton. I'm a huge fan
of Donald Trump. He's got specific reasons for that, and
that's what we're going to talk about him with. You
can field agree to feel free to agree or disagree

(36:09):
as long as the juices of thought are stirred, which
is and what was that? Joe? Oh yeah, And don't
take it out on Joe, Lord Almighty. Joe has no
control over what the judge does. Neither do I, and
I always pointing out to bring him on. As controversial
as you may be, from time to time, it gets

(36:31):
the intellectual juices flowing. Things that make you go hmm,
things that sharpen your argument to the contrary. That's the
great thing about having someone on who doesn't agree with you.
This is why I comment all the time. Yeah, we'll
take democrats on. We'll take candidates for Democrat offices. Go ahead,
bring it on. Silence usually is deafening with the request

(36:52):
being sent out. So there's your rundown for today. Let's
head it over to the phones real quick here New Hampshire, Gary,
Welcome back to the Morning Show. Happy Wednesday, sir, Hey,
good morning, Brian.

Speaker 2 (37:01):
Hey.

Speaker 8 (37:02):
I want to say, first.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
Of all, you're in my prayer, thanks man.

Speaker 1 (37:08):
You know tomorrow I start the treatments back up, and
I presume you're talking about like cancer treatments. And I
try to keep people involved because I want people to
take care of their health and health and it's amazing.
What you go into the doctor's office thinking is a
minor thing can turn out to be cancer, which was
my case. So you know, so I got five years
out of the last treatment, total remission, and now they

(37:29):
the liftotes pop back up. So tomorrow I find out, Gary,
I got to sit there in the treatment room. Are
you ready? Six hours? Six? So I'm not thrilled about that,
but you know what, I recognize it could be a
lot worse. If I was in some other country. I
wouldn't even have the availability of the cancer agents they're
going to be giving me, and I probably wouldn't even

(37:51):
able to get an appointment for a doctor in the
first place. So you know, things are good in spite
of the fact that things may be a bit gloomy.
So I will deal with it. Thank you for the
well wish is Gary, I really appreciate it.

Speaker 8 (38:03):
Well, we really love you, and I think this is
evident of your character to show a strong outcome or a.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Strong outlook on this.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (38:15):
Man.

Speaker 8 (38:17):
Yeah, And I love critics, Mike, but I'm going to
agree disagree with one thing. He said that most of
our politicians are intentionally incompetent or they're incompetent. I would
I would go with most of our politicians who are
intentionally corrupt, they know what they're doing. Nobody's going to

(38:39):
hold them account by the time you get them into court,
if you ever get them into court, most of them
will likely settle out of court, you know, ninety percent
of them. I know there was a couple of characters
up in Columbus. They got sentenced for the nuclear power
the House years ago. Yeah, but I think if we

(39:03):
look at the vast majority, but giving away of all
the money to the Browns, to giving away money to
you know, subtle lawsuits, I think there's even a lot
of grief that goes around there. You know, you're one
point five you know, one point four five million dollars.

(39:23):
I'm sure there's money that gets sloshed around with that.
With lawyer fees, oh you can.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
You can expect the lawyers got a third of that.
It's typical in a contingency fee agreement that the lawyers
will get roughly a third. It could be even more
in some cases, sometimes a little bit less. But yeah,
you can haggle over that. When you retain a plaintiffs
lawyer over the contingency fee, but you can usually count
on one third, so they get one third of the
one point four to five million. Not bad.

Speaker 8 (39:51):
I would even say you got to wonder if the
law firm or the law firm didn't give money to
another law firm to get to politicians' campaign You know,
things have a way of being laundered like that.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
Well there's not even wandering and you have sure Gary.
Quite often law firms will you know, report their campaign
contributions because they're all goetty to do. So you give
to like the Republican Party, they have to note who
gave the money and how much it is because there
are caps on that, and it's been widely reported for
years and years. You know, ex law firm, you know,
donated primarily to Democrats. You know ninety percent gave money

(40:31):
to the Democrat Party and ten percent to the other.
So yeah, you can see the political bias in law
firms like you can with corporate donations and other donations.

Speaker 8 (40:40):
Well, I'm saying that that you know, if you if
you if I represent client B getting one point four
or five million, or if I represent the Browns giving
getting six hundred million dollars off of politicians, Right, I
don't want to dirty my hands, so I give it
to a third party who gives it to uh, you know,

(41:04):
either the Democrat or Republican candidate.

Speaker 1 (41:07):
Yep, legally that's all about.

Speaker 8 (41:11):
Yeah, things like that happen all the time. So I'm
saying there's intentional corruption. Whether you know, you get sued
as the city, you as a politician win. You don't
complete a project, you as a politician win. As long
as you keep winning your constituents block that votes for you,
nothing else matters.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Well, all, right, Elections have consequences. Is the more people
paid attention to the stuff they the minutia where they
would argue that you and I follow because we're we
dwellers and we care about things like this, the more
people would not vote for the status qual the election
in downtown Cincinnati, for example, maybe more people than one
out of four registered voters would have showed up and
cast their vote in opposition to the provol regime. No

(41:54):
they didn't.

Speaker 8 (41:55):
Well yeah, well, you know, if you get strong blocks
of the commun unity like the Urban League or the
Business administration, if you're giving money to them, they're going
to go out and tell their voters, hey, vote for this.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
That's exactly that's Iris Rollie right there. By all accounts
from people of all political spikes strifes, she holds a
tremendous amount of power over whoever the Iris roly acolytes are,
and there are apparently a lot of them in the
city of Cincinnati. They look up to her. They'll do
what she says, and of course when she says vote
for the current administration, apparently they're going to do that,

(42:30):
and they'll bother to show up to cast their vote
along those lines. But yeah, that happens every single day.

Speaker 8 (42:36):
Well not only that, then you've got lobbyists. I mean,
people have lobbyists on top of that. You know, they're
paid for their constituents to influence politicians. You know, the
vast majority of people who go out and vote, right,
they don't have any lobbyists that looks out after them.
They just like they'll probably show up like city council

(43:00):
and they'll vote for no more than five Okay, here's
one through five, and then they move on here. Somebody
told me to vote, Okay, that's what it is. They don't.
The only thing they want to be is left alone
so that they can continue life. However it is they
want to do. They don't want to take time to
see all the money that's being funneled in their healthcare

(43:23):
everything else.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
That goes back to the low information voter. They have
no time for politics generally, let alone the specifics of
any given thing that you and I might not call
them the farius or say is unethical, immoral, or in
inappropriate allocation tax payer dollars. They don't care about that.
They're not looking at the one point four million dollars
settlement that we're just getting ready to enter and into.

(43:44):
They don't care about what Ryan Hinton's family is doing
with regard to the city manager and talking about settlement.
They don't even know what happens. You know, you're lucky
if you find reporting on it locally, and then you
have to bother to read the local reporting on it
and then think about it in the context of is
this the right thing to do or not? That whole
exercise is going to take. Oh, I don't know, maybe
ten or fifteen minutes. Um, I don't have time for that.

(44:08):
I got another Netflix episode to watch, or I've got
a family to deal with. I gotta go to work
on my second job. We could go on for hours
and all the reasons people don't want to pay attention
to politics, or they've just reached the conclusion that it
is a colossal exercise in futility, which I think the
point the residents of the city of Cincinnati have gotten to.
If they're conservative, if they're independent, and they aren't far leftists,

(44:28):
they're like, well, screw it. This Cincinnati city has gone
all blue. The Democrats are just going to get elected
any way, regardless of how I cast my vote. Screw it.
I'm not showing up. I'm going back to my Netflix binge.
There you go. Gary. We need to get people to
pay more attention and cast smarter votes. Six seventeen fifty

(44:50):
five cars to detalk station five one three, seven, four
nine fifty, five hundred, eight hundred and eight to two
three talk pound five fifty on eighteen and T phone station.
It's six twenty two here kersee de talk station. A
very happy Wednesday, FLP President of Ken kober Or coming
up next. Yeah, we have yet another settlement agreement recommended
by the city manager. One point four to five million

(45:11):
going to the family of Kwandavier Hicks, who was killed
by since a police officers is following a report of
a menacing investigation. He threatened to kill some people. They
encountered him. They ultimately fatally shot him in the chest.
Question seems to be a possible civil rights violation because
they didn't have a warrant. The officers found out what

(45:31):
they believed to be hicks North Side apartment. They did
enter without a warrant, where a warrant, where they were
confronted with a guy with a rifle. They saw the
barrel of the rifle pointed at her face and of
course that's when the deadly shot was fired. So a
lawsuit initially dismissed by a federal judge, but the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals said the city may be liable
for the officer violating his constitutional rights, with the appeals

(45:54):
court saying that, well, the officer doesn't have qualified immunity
related to unlawful entry. Words that will be extra constitutional.
They broke the constitutional law regarding civil rights, the Fourth
Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
in well going into the apartment without a warrant. So
with that looming issue which could have been litigated, they've

(46:17):
entered in an agreement which must be approved by counsel.
And it seems to me that according to the Fox
nineteen reporting, the only person who's chimed in out loud
Councilman Seth Wals, which said or who said he'll vote
for that amendment. Now here's something strange. Greg Landsman coming
to the rescue of the city of Cincinnati. He is
a congressman. You know him. Greg Landsman announced yesterday the
US House Representatives passed a federal funding bill that will

(46:40):
include money for the installation of cameras in Cincinnati. He said,
the bill includes one million dollars for a project that
will provide Cincinnati police with new cameras and more mental
health resources. Huh, corner Landsman and his statement, recent tragedies
in our city make it clear how critical this funding
is for new police cameras and improving the existing ones. Hey, Joe,

(47:04):
didn't we have some top of the hour reporting that
they're already installing a bunch of new cameras, like ninety
of them, and five point four million dollars allocated by
have tab Pervo to put in some cameras at least
in the West End. That happened last fall and does
the city have enough money to deal with public safety
that it could find somewhere in the budget one million dollars.
We seem to find that kind of money everywhere when

(47:26):
it comes to settling lawsuits. Don't we have the resources
where we the City of Cincinnati, if we exercised the
appropriate oversight of priorities, might have figured out a place
to find a million dollars on our own and build
and put up our own cameras. We need federal taxpayer
dollars from Greg Landsman to do something that the city
is eminently capable of doing within its own financial resources.

(47:52):
You're just glad we found them, Joe. He has been
kind of quiet, hasn't he, Greg Landsman? So this is
a smart and bipartisan federal investment in public safety that
brings tax payer dollars back to our communities. So local
law enforcement has what it needs to keep our children
and family safe. Which sounds to me like a Greg

(48:14):
Landsman criticism of the City of Cincinnati failing in its priorities.
Law enforcement doesn't have what it's needs. This suggest just
my take. You can feel free to have your own take.
I know somebody's got to take on this most recent
settlement announcement, Ken Cober FLP President Ken Cober returns after

(48:39):
these brief words starting with fast and pro roofing unqualified,
unconditional recommendation for the best six point thirty one. If
you have kre or ce the talk station taking me back,
just tracker with the bumper music. This was the theme
song for the cop Show back when Chief Tom Straker

(49:02):
was chief of the CINCINNT Police Department and really missed
that segment. Eddie, how you think we can get the
current police chief to start a cop show up? Joe, Yeah,
with a search warrant. I can't get one of those.
Let's see what at Ken cob Fraternal Order of Police
President Ken Koba, representing the Cincinnati Police Officers. God bless
you and the CINCINNTI Police Department. Ken Cobra, welcome back

(49:24):
your reaction to this proposed settlement another one, not the
ones we've been talking about, but this new one point
four to five million dollars settlement with a family of
Kwon Davier Hicks, who was shot by a CINCINNT Police
officer and died as a consequence apparently of him pointing
a gun at him. Ken welcome back. This apparently needs
to be proved by Cincinnati City Council. We only heard

(49:44):
about it yesterday, but at least one councilman, Seth Walsh,
has said he will vote to approve the settlement. What
was your reaction to this? What is your reaction to
this or is this just another payoff by the city
that's unwarranted. Good to have you back on.

Speaker 2 (49:58):
Thy good morning, Brian. Thanks have me. This is.

Speaker 9 (50:03):
This is at least one where I can I can
understand why they did it, Unlike some of these other ones,
you know, in this case, this is something that's been
going on for ten years. The Federal Court had said
since the onset of this, the police officers they did
absolutely nothing wrong. Their their decision to use force was

(50:24):
absolutely justified. This all came down to it. And let
me back up in this second though, Judge Barrett from
the Federal Court initially ruled and said a summary judgment,
I'm dismissing this. The officers did actually nothing wrong. In
twenty so that was in twenty sixteen to twenty twenty,
the plaintiffs for this appealed it to the Sixth Circuit Court.

(50:50):
They then returned it back to Judge Barrett basically said,
we're not really sure if the officers had a right
to go in to the residents that they went into,
because they came into play as to whether or not
this was a multi family or single family, and whether

(51:11):
this was a common area or not a common area.
So they returned it back to Judge Barrett, and Judge
Barrett's like, I don't have a problem with what the
cops did. So they appealed it again in twenty twenty
four and they came back with basically the same decision.
Cops did nothing wrong. But here there's still this question
that's lingering out there as to whether they had the

(51:33):
right to do this.

Speaker 2 (51:33):
So based off of.

Speaker 9 (51:35):
That, and not only that question, but also as to
you know, we had one of the officers that retired
that was involved in this that basically said, listen, I
would like to move on with my life. This has
been hanging over my head for eleven years.

Speaker 2 (51:50):
You know. The courts have already said.

Speaker 9 (51:51):
I did nothing wrong, right, and the city's like, look
what this is eleven years in the making.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
What do we do or are we going to have.

Speaker 9 (51:58):
This officer retired officer back that certainly presents a challenge.
You know, the fop's legal team was involved in this
since day one, and they all mutually agreed, you know,
this is probably the best decision. So you know, as
you well know, I'm not usually shy about criticizing the
city when they do things that I don't agree with.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
In this case, I can understand why they did it.

Speaker 1 (52:23):
Well, there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment right to
be to get a search warrant. Correct, Like if you're
in hot pursuit of an individual, that individual enters into
a room of residents or otherwise, you can go in
there without waiting around for a warrant.

Speaker 9 (52:38):
Correct, Yeah, without a doubt, and understand, I stand by
these officers. I believe they did absolutely nothing wrong. Like
I said, the court even agreed that they're appropriate. There
was an appropriate use of force.

Speaker 1 (52:48):
Yeah, okay, okay, okay, this is where we need to
break it down use. Of course, they were clearly faced
with eminent apprehension, grievous bodily harm or murder because there
was a rifle pointed at them. So if your fear
for your life, legitimately so and reasonably so, that's when
you can use deadly force. They did, so that was fine.
It was the entering the room whereupon they came upon

(53:12):
this guy pointing a rifle at them. The entry of
the room is the question mark. Was it a civil
rights violation to not get a warrant before going in there?
Were they in hot pursuit or do they just believe
he might be in there? Isn't that really fundamentally what
we're talking about here?

Speaker 2 (53:28):
It is, and this is where an officer's job.

Speaker 9 (53:31):
You are damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. Yep,
you know, they were there for a radio run. This
wasn't like some kind of investigation.

Speaker 2 (53:37):
They were called there.

Speaker 9 (53:39):
They were called there to investigate somebody that was threatening somebody.
I believe it was with the firearm. So they're there
in good faith, acting off of a nine to one
one call. Like I said, This wasn't some drug investigation
or some kind of other investigation where they're doing some
kind of proactive work.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
They were called to go there. They didn't ask to go.
They were.

Speaker 9 (54:00):
And that's where I said, I stand by what these
officers did. And even if you read this statement that
came out from city Manager Cheryl Long, she said the
officers acted appropriately. We stand by them, We stand by
the work that they did. This comes down to this
is nothing more than really just a business decision, and
for that I can at least I can understand. This

(54:22):
wasn't something as we know last week that I was.
I was certainly pretty upset about, you know, doing things
kind of quietly, and this is something that was done
over eleven years, and it certainly wasn't done quietly. The
FOP was involved in this from the get go, so
it's certainly a different situation than what we've seen recently.

Speaker 1 (54:42):
All Right, well, I pause, I'm going to bring you back.
I want to get updated on the whole hint in
silence is deafening thing in city hall, and also your
reaction to Greg Lansman apparently bringing back the bacon because
the City of Cincinnati won't pay money for the for
city cameras. Want to get your reaction to that as well.
We'll get another segment here with FOP as in Ken Kober.
I want to first stay big picture with Jack add

(55:04):
In coming up at the top of the air news meantime.
FOP President Chapter six and nine that represents the Sin
Sinti Police Department Ken Cobra on the program, kent your
reaction they did go into executive session, since any council did.
They did not tell anybody why they were going into
executive session, which apparently violates Cincinnati council requirements. The public

(55:24):
needs to know what they're talking about. There are limitations
for why you can go into executive session, like speaking
about legal matters. We don't know what they talked about,
but they went in. They were there for two hours,
and not a peep from anybody from council, the city
manager's office, the mayor. Nothing revealed. What was your reaction
to that? Since they were talking apparently, we guess about

(55:45):
this Hinton settlement.

Speaker 9 (55:48):
Yeah, two hours of executive session. I wholly disagree that.
When they're discussing city matters, discussing how to spend city
tax dollars, presumably to be able to do that in secret,
I completely disagree with it. And of course, you know,
the media was there and I talked to some of
the media outlets, and of course I'm not talking about

(56:10):
I'm not talking about it. How they're able to get
away with it has ben me. I mean a lack
of transparency. You ask every other city you ask every
other city department be transparent, which they should be. We
all should be transparent. We're spending people's harder money. They
have a right to know how it's being used. And
this just I completely disagree with how this is being handled.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
Well.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
That and they need a justification if they're going to
approve a settlement. I don't care if it's a dollar
or ten million or whatever. We need a justification because
right now no one seems to be able to come
up with one, most notably given the fact that a
recipient of some of the settlement money someone who allegedly
has suffered damages and damages as a consequence of Ryan
Hinton's death, his dad who killed and murdered, literally murdered,

(56:54):
I would argue, a police officer literally ran them over
a sheriff's deputy because his son had been shot by
a Cincinnai police officer. You can't even find any logic
or reason in that one. But that really irks people
knowing that the man who killed a sheriff's deputy might
get a chunk of the money.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
No aout a doubt it, I said.

Speaker 9 (57:12):
And that's probably the biggest exception I take to all
of this you know, like I said, this settlement that
they came out with yesterday, I can rationalize and I
can understand why they did it. No, it was something
that was done with full transparency. You know, the FOP
was aware of it. They came out what they explain
why this happened over eleven years, and now we have
this that there's absolutely no transparency whatsoever. It's being done

(57:32):
behind closed doors. It's being discussed. Nobody knows what's going on.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
And that's it.

Speaker 9 (57:37):
Just this is not how a city government should be
operating well.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
And the city government ship you operating more with public
safety in mind. We obviously know that they have to
have purvol didn't even acknowledge we had a crime problem
until after the July last year beat down, where he
then said, all right, here's five point four million dollars.
We're going to put this towards some public safety, including
the installation of some street cameras, cameras which had been
promised for years and years. I found out yesterday Greg

(58:04):
Lansman said he has secured one million dollars in federal
taxpayer money for a project that will provide Cincinnati police
with new cameras and some mental health resources. This is
Greg Landsman coming to the rescue of Cincinnati City Council
and actually, more importantly, the residents of the city who
are clamoring for this. Just yesterday it was announced on

(58:24):
the top of the air news. You heard it. We're
already installing I guess ninety new cameras. We had the money,
just no one bothered installing them. Is this Greg Landsman
trying to score political points in advance of the November
election saying I acknowledge there's an issue downtown with crime.

Speaker 4 (58:40):
Well, to be.

Speaker 9 (58:40):
Fair, to be fair, this is something that Greg Landsman
has actually worked on the last two years to try
to get this, and for one reason or another, it's died.
Dies in the Senate, dies in the House. Oh yeah,
I will give him credit. He has been trying to
do this for two years and who knows, it may
die in the Senate again. The House approve this, but
is the Senate can to prove? And this is where

(59:03):
the bureaucracy of government is just it's astounding to see
that it takes this long to allocate a million dollars
out of a brillion dollar budget.

Speaker 1 (59:11):
I listen all day long. I'll agree with you. On that, Yeah,
you expect something of the federal government. You're bound for
disappointment because they can't agree that two and two is
four yet if he's been clamored to try to do
this via federal taxpayer dollars for a couple of years,
the City of Cincinnati has been promising cameras, for example
on the West End for a couple of years. Everyone

(59:32):
appears to acknowledge that they are beneficial in at least
deterring crime to some To some extent, they are great
in terms of finding people who commit crimes because you
got video evidence of it. Ken Cober, do you think
over the last couple of years the city of Cincinnati
could have found the million dollars Greg's been pushing for
for the last couple of years within their own budget

(59:52):
and prioritize the cameras, Ken.

Speaker 9 (59:55):
Oh, without a doubt, a doubt. And I talked about this,
I think it was last week with you about how
they we only have two people, you know, two civilians
to maintain and operate these cameras. However, because it's now
a priority, they've now detailed some officers that have some
pretty tech savvy abilities that are now going to be

(01:00:15):
detailed from their administrative assignments to go out and install
and repair these cameras. So now you're right to your point. Now,
all of a sudden, it has become an absolute priority.
And because now it's a priority, it's getting done. When
to be quite honest, this is something investigators have begged
for for years to get cameras fixed, to get cameras up.
But now it's finally becoming a.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
Priority, finally becoming priority. And then there's all that Ohio
state money that's are in resources have been offered by
the governor. We don't know the total value of that,
but it isn't going to cost the city taxpayers a dime.
You would think that the administration would embrace every single
bit of that free resource offer from the state. I
guess though, they're a little upset because they probably wouldn't
be able to control it because it would be the

(01:00:58):
high state control as opposed to these since saying police.

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
No without a doubt.

Speaker 9 (01:01:04):
And that's that's something that I've certainly been critical of
the mare as well as you're you're getting resources in
the city that they have to pay for, and I
understand you have pay taxes in Ohio we're still paying
for this, but we're actually getting a return on our investments. Yeah,
by having these extra resources, and why it hasn't been
utilized center is something I've certainly been critical of. I'll
never understand, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:01:26):
Yeah, a better return on investment than the six hundred
million dollars that you have taxpayers are going to pay
to build us of the Cleveland Browns Stadium.

Speaker 9 (01:01:35):
Yeah, there's no doubt about that. Or what is it
like three hundred and fifty million dollars that the county's
now invested into a pay course stadium that we saw
that they did not exactly have the best season this
year either.

Speaker 1 (01:01:48):
Priorities, priorities, priorities. You folks on the west end, suck
it up, you know, maybe someday GOTHLP President ken Cover,
thank you so much for the willingness to spend some
time with my listeners and me on this and keep
up the great work representing the police of the police force.
And as I always point out, you got my audience
is back, or my back, audience has your back, and
all the police departments back. We'll have we'll have you

(01:02:09):
on again real soon. Keep up the good work.

Speaker 2 (01:02:11):
Thanks Brian, it's always a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (01:02:13):
It's six fifty right now, fifty five KRC detalk station.
Right after seven oh six here at fifty five k
see DE talk station. Always a special time here on
the fifty five CARSS Morning Show because we get a
dose to the brilliance of Jack other and it's called
the Big Picture with Jack Avian And every Wednesday it's

(01:02:34):
seven oh five, it's seven oh six today the Price
of Purity, Jack Adaan, welcome back to the fifty five
Cars Morning Show. My friend always look forward to this segment,
and I know a lot of my listeners feel the
same way.

Speaker 10 (01:02:44):
Thanks for having me back, Pal, and we're all pulling
for your upcoming cancer treatments. But you're getting better and better.
Amesley is now a ten year survivor and you've got
decades to come of waking up at two am.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
That's very kind of you. Yeah, pray for me for
a cure for boredom tomorrow. Six hours with the drip.
I just you know, I'm happy that I've got the drip.
I'm happy that I've got doctors. I'm happy that I
can access medical care in this country. He was joking
if I was in Venezuela or a cube. I'd be
dead by now, but the idea is sitting in that

(01:03:19):
room for six hours. He's just really got me a
little depressed. But you know what sucks to be you, Thomas,
and I'm not worthy of any pity. I'm just not
looking forward to it. I'm taking my laptop though, so
at least a bit of watch movies and maybe prepare
for the morning show for Friday.

Speaker 10 (01:03:34):
We're just happy to have you, thanks man. Let's talk
this week once again about conservatives whose unbending principles would
leave our country paralyzed. They follow in the footsteps, well,
footsteps actually is not the way to put it, because
they don't get anywhere, and they stand right next to

(01:03:55):
an ancient Greek philosopher named Zeno who famously that we
can never get anywhere because first you need to go
half the distance, and to go half the distance, you
first have to go one quarter of the distance, and
before that one eighth, one sixteenth, smaller and smaller distances,

(01:04:15):
until finally you're stuck standing still, paralyzed. In political terms,
if your country is paralyzed and there's an emergency, you're
unable to defend yourself. Now, at the opposite extreme way
of thinking. The Greeks also had Alexander the Great, the

(01:04:35):
kid Conqueror, was confronted by a puzzle, a hank of
rope tied into a knot. This so called Gordian knot
was so complicated it was prophesied that anybody who could
undo it would.

Speaker 9 (01:04:48):
Rule all the known world.

Speaker 10 (01:04:51):
Well, Alexander had never been a boy scout, and it
didn't know how to one tie complicated knots, So instead
he took out his sword and cut the kN two.
Then Alexander conquered the knowe world known to him. The
Gordian not today is our constitution. We don't want to
cut it, but we also don't want to be tied

(01:05:13):
up in knots adopted by our founders during the time
of divine right monarchs and other autocratic rulers, the US Constitution,
this miracle of state craft, presents a framework for limited, decentralized,
divided government. Still, the founders never wanted the Constitution to

(01:05:34):
paralyze us, so Madison and the other framers included a
way to amend it. A constitutional amendment can be proposed
by two thirds of both the House of Representatives and
the Senate, or an amendment can be proposed by two
thirds of the state legislatures, then the amendment must be
ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures or by

(01:05:58):
conventions held in three fours of the states. Easy pasy, right, No,
This tough ratification process explains why we have so few
constitutional amendments, just twenty seven and actually the first ten amendments,
what we call the Bill of Rights, they were adopted
right away. So Congress and the states have since then

(01:06:19):
ratified just seventeen constitutional amendments all since our founding. And
that's a good thing, Brian, as you know, because making
it so tough to amend the Constitution has preserved our
basic rights. For instance, millions of leftists today would gladly
scrap the right to bear arms, especially after a school shooting.

(01:06:43):
It took the Supreme Court ruling just seventeen years ago
in the Heller case to finally affirm that under the
Second Amendment, the right to bear arms belongs to individuals,
not just state militias. But that Supreme Court vote was
five to four. The Heller decision could be reversed any

(01:07:04):
time if the Supreme Court becomes more liberal, just as
Roe v. Wade was reversed when the Court became more
pro life. This raises the thorny issue of judicial interpretation.
We like to think the courts are impartial, just following
the law, but sorry, your honors, they are not. Ever

(01:07:25):
since the eighteen oh three decision Barbarie Versus Madison, we
have accepted that laws, including the Constitution, mean whatever a
shifting bare majority of Supreme Court justices say they mean.
Still having to propose an amendments of the Constitution and
then having to get it ratified, and then getting the

(01:07:45):
US Supreme Court to agree on an interpretation. All that
makes the United States a comparatively stable republic of laws,
not whims, passions and reverendums. However, it also means that
America is not the most agile government. It's often hard
for us to take quick emergency action. As Zeno would say,

(01:08:09):
we cannot get from point A to point B, even
if we need to dodge a bullet, even if Iranian
nuclear plans may have been weeks away from being weaponized.
Donald Trump's answer was to launch secret lightning fast airstrikes
without a congressional declaration of war or even prior notice

(01:08:29):
to Congress. This strike followed a long tradition. As we
discussed last week, we noted that only thirteen years after
the Constitution was adopted, Thomas Jefferson, on his own, deployed
US Marines to the shores of Tripoli to free Americans
from barbary pirates in Libya. More recently, Democrat and Republican

(01:08:51):
presidents have claimed the constitutional power as commander in chief
to fight without a Congressional declaration of war in I'm
taking a big breath now, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Iran,

(01:09:15):
and now Venezuela. Each time presidents declared national emergencies. In response,
Congress has sometimes appropriated funds after the fact, or it's
attempted to place constraints on presidents, as with Vietnam the
War Powers Resolution. However, since nineteen seventy three, presidents have

(01:09:36):
argued that this resolution is primarily about notifying Congress before
or after the fact, and they've claimed that under the
separation of powers, an Act of Congress cannot diminish a
president's own constitutional powers. So the debate continues. But Folks,

(01:09:57):
the real problem is that in twenty six, we have
no more debates. In the past, many Republicans, however, reluctantly
supported Democrat presidents, from Harry Truman in Korea to Barack
Obama and his five hundred and forty drone strikes in
seven countries. On the other hand, Richard Nixon fought an

(01:10:19):
undeclared war in Vietnam with help from Democrats like Scoop
Jackson and Ronald Reagan. He was able to gain so
much support a whole wing in Congress came to be
called Reagan Democrats. Today, this kind of bipartisanship is unthinkable.
That Democrats chief campaign strategy is polarization chaos Trump derangement

(01:10:43):
syndrome Exhibit A Minnesota. Today's Democrats have no agenda, and
when I say no, I mean no agenda they can
admit to. In their quest for power, they favor big
state socialism, corruption dependency, open borders to swell their base,
and shipping jobs overseas to win support from multinational corporations.

(01:11:08):
On these issues, they will not compromise. So, given this
legislative paralysis, what we have to rely on now is
not arguing in front of a shifting majority on the
Supreme Court, not with Democrats once again threatening like FDR
to expand and pack the High Court with liberals if
they win, We must win elections, however rigged they may be.

(01:11:31):
In blue states, we still do have congressional elections every
two years, including this year. Voters will have the power
to follow Trump's agenda or change the country's direction, and
this spring will also have the power to primary incumbent lawmakers,
including Republican members, who would stand in a way of

(01:11:54):
fellow Republicans getting things done. Because these mavericks cannot persuade
their own colleagues to see things their way, and failing that,
they refuse to compromise even to just keep the government
from shutting down. These gadflies proclaim their principles, but in
effect they vote for paralysis. To sum up, governing is

(01:12:18):
a messy business. Lincoln ignored habeas corpus, Franklin Roosevelt threw
innocent American citizens of Japanese descent into internment cabs. I
am not proposing that presidents become dictators. I am arguing
for principled compromise because our constitution is not a suicide fact.

(01:12:40):
It's not a Zeno trap that keeps America from moving
from point A to point B. If Republican paralysis lets
Democrats win in November, much less twenty twenty eight, they
will pack the court. They will try making Washington, DC
and Puerto Rico states. They will outlaw free speech, and

(01:13:00):
the Constitution will go the way of the Gordian Knot.
Each exercise of power by a president, Congress, and even
the Supreme Court has to be judged on its own merits,
ultimately at the ballot box, because for now, thankfully, voters
still had the final say if they show up to

(01:13:21):
say it. What do you say, brother?

Speaker 1 (01:13:23):
I say, the latter part is a big challenge. I mean,
this is a common reoccurring theme here everywhere, certainly here
on the fifty five KCY Morning Show. These complex issues
in this gridlock, and these other issues behind which they
should be talking about and maybe compromising that it's all
lost in the American people generally speaking. And I don't
mean to paint with so large a brush. It includes everyone,

(01:13:44):
but so many people are not inclined to even pay
attention to politics. We're all victims of social media, getting
our political ideology from memes as opposed to thoughtful analysis.
Something like a meme can push people like to think,
oh my god, I ser a bunch of Nazi, you know,
estoppo thugs, when any measure of thoughtful analysis would reveal No,

(01:14:04):
they are enforcing federal law. Law that's on the books,
and that was passed by Congress and enacted by a
prior president. That's the law they're enforcing. That was the
political process in place back when the laws went to effect.
That they disagree with them currently, that's going to require
some political process and perhaps compromise by our elected officials
in Washington, d C. None of which is happening right now.

(01:14:27):
But you know, people who don't pay attention who would
prefer to be you know, I'm just I don't pay
attention to politics. They can easily be duped. But going
back to your prior you know, illustrations of compromise, I
think a Tip O'Neill. You know, I didn't like Tip
O'Neil at the time, but ultimately he did reach across
the island worked with Ronald Reagan to get some stuff
done to our collective economic recovery benefit. No one's in

(01:14:50):
the mood for working together because I think it's a
consequence of this radical leftward shift in the Democrat Party.
Democrats aren't just a party of you know, the little
guy and fighting for big government programs anymore, although they
still do that. They seem to be made up in
large part, at least the predominant wing of the party,

(01:15:11):
or the loudest voice of people who do not wish
to continue the constitutional framework we live in. So this
concern of yours, legitimate as it is, over the eradication
disappearing constitution, that's a desired thing by many members of
the left. We're going to rise like phoenix from the
ashes once we get rid of that pesky constitution and

(01:15:31):
their stupid protection of rights, individual rights like the right
to keep them bare arms. Once that's eradicated, we're going
to have something new here that is a level that
this country I don't think has ever seen before. Yes,
there were always fringe elements screaming for that kind of
thing back in the day, but you know, even going
back to the turn of the century in nineteen hundreds,
we had a lot of socialists and communists running around,

(01:15:53):
a lot of bomb throwers. We had, you know, back
in the sixties, the Symbian Littleanese Limionese army and the
weather underground, you know, planning bombs in the Senate, you know,
bathroom I mean big things like that. But they were
such a minority. The social media has caused these minority
groups that hate America to look like they're much stronger

(01:16:15):
than they are, or they become a lot stronger. So
any compromise by that wining the Democratic Party is going
to be a betrayal of what they ultimately run, which
is the downfall of America.

Speaker 10 (01:16:25):
Jack, Yeah, the primary process may ultimately bring us a
Democrat nominee who, like Joe Biden, pretends to be a moderate,
but the Democrat Party has presently constituted has no future.
What I'm talking about right now, because this is what
we're facing during our primary season, is maverick Republicans. And

(01:16:50):
you might say, well, there's just a few of them. Well,
we don't have much of a margin right to give
up a few votes, and I can't blame these mavericks.
Ideal logical purity makes life easy. The Constitution gives Congress
the right to declare war.

Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
That's it.

Speaker 10 (01:17:07):
Well, that's not it. As we've been trying to show,
problems cannot be reduced to a formula. As every lawyer, judge,
and congressman knows, there's a saying we learned in law school.
Hard cases make bad laws and bad executive orders. Sometimes
that saying does not mean we can stick our heads

(01:17:27):
in the sand and ignore the hard cases. It means
in the real world, the world of Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR
and Trump, if you're going to be not an academic,
but what Teddy Roosevelt called the man in the arena,
you have to balance black letter law with life and
remain as principled as possible given circumstances. Then in America

(01:17:51):
you have to face the voters, and we voters have
to turn out.

Speaker 1 (01:17:55):
Have to turn out, and hopefully we turn out informed.
I had that in the big picture. Every Wednesday at
seven o five beginning love your commentary, Jack, and I
and my listeners love it as well. Share the link
with your friends podcast up at fifty five KRS dot com. Jack.
Until next week. Best of health and love to your
better half, and you appreciate your willingness to talk with
us every week. It's all right KRC the talk station

(01:18:20):
seven twenty nine. It's Wednesday, and a happy one to you.
After the top of the air news suffering the slings
and arrows of outrage from Donald Trump. Congressman Thomas Massey,
we'll talk about his latest anti Nassy treat Where in
the hell are the Epstein documents. That's a good question
for Massy government shutdown coming your way. Compliments of the
Democrats wanting to defund ice. Yeah, that's the thing. Plus

(01:18:44):
maybe a common or two about Venezuela in Iran. But
in the meantime, welcome back to the fifty five Carse
Mornings from American from Americans for Prosperity. Donovan O'Neil, it's
always a pleasure to have in you on the show, Donovan, Brian,
Happy Wednesday to you. I got I'm happy you bringing
up the topic today that you wanted to bring about,
the affordability argument. Democrats have just a couple of things
that hang their hat on as we move toward election.

(01:19:05):
Of course, the anti Ice and their immigration policy standpoint.
I'm not sure if that's going to benefit them or not.
I know the anti ICE rhetoric is getting hotter and
hotter every day, but it seems to me, based on
prior pulling the vast majority of Americans are happy to
get rid of murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, illegal immigrants,

(01:19:26):
most notably with criminal records representing a danger to society.
Most people want them out. So will the Democrats be
able to win on that anti Ice strategy remains to
be seen. The other one, of course, subsidies for Obamacare,
which doesn't fix the problem of the expense of healthcare.
Will that work for them? Don't know. But the third
one that I can come up with, other than just

(01:19:46):
Donald Trump, evil orange man, the affordability argument. Everything's unaffordable.
You know this overlooks at least the initial argument is
disingenuous because well, of course, Joe Biden's responsible for a
large portion of the massive recent prices of goods and
services we face, because he's the one that threw an
additional eight or so trillion dollars into the world, which

(01:20:06):
of course waters down the value of the currency. So
moving aside from that, they're the ones that put in
all kinds of rules and regulations forcing the price of
gasoline to go through the roof environmental regulations which increase
the cost of electricity, housing restrictions, water flow restrictions. Lord Almighty,
I could go on for hours and hours about things
that politicians due to us, Donovan, which increase the cost

(01:20:30):
of living in our world, which would not have happened
in normal economic factor situations. I used the price of
eggs earlier. Sorry for the rant, Donovan, but I'm a
little hot into the collar onto this one. You can't
control the price of eggs unless you somehow get involved
with environmental regulations or rules about egg production, et cetera,
et cetera. If you got bird flu and the chickens die,

(01:20:51):
the price of eggs is going to go up. So
there's no legislative solution for that. But most everything else,
people are complaining about a self inflicted wound from overly
zealous regulators, people who want to get rid of plant
food from the environment. I could go on and on, Donovan.
How come this isn't you know resonating with the American
people that these are self inflicted wounds, and well, our

(01:21:13):
politicians and elected officials could easily relieve the burden of
all of this stuff just by removing the regulatory burdens
they threw in our way.

Speaker 11 (01:21:24):
Well, I share the uh, I share the sentiment. On
a Wednesday morning, it is rantworthy because you just kind
of slap your face and wonder, how the heck are
we in this situation? You know, Chuck Schumer Center Schumer
Anti Pelosi Democrats. We've noticed they've started an uptick in
talking about things to the lens of affordability.

Speaker 6 (01:21:43):
And you look at that and you say, well, wait
a minute, Wait a minute.

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
You are the fools who, you.

Speaker 11 (01:21:49):
Know, over the Biden Economy eras era enacted five point
five trillion in new spending that pushed us up to
forty year record high inflation. You're the same folks who
believe that top down government policies on emission standards and
the kinds of vehicles we can buy, and the tax
credits for evs and the desire to like, over the

(01:22:10):
next decade or two eliminate, you know, affordable gas powered vehicles.

Speaker 6 (01:22:14):
You're the folks who did this.

Speaker 11 (01:22:16):
Like, the affordability crisis that Americans have been feeling for
the last several years that we're beginning to find our
way out of, was caused by the policy, the very
policies that folks like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffreys, Greg Landsman,
Sharr Brown and others want to see brought back to
this country, and it's just it's why we're in the
situation we're in, these top down policies, mandates pushed from Washington,

(01:22:40):
d c. Or Columbus, Ohio, that make life less affordable
for so many people.

Speaker 1 (01:22:45):
Well, and the economic reality of all this is revealed
in the h Well the most recent statements from the
Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Last week he did the
State of the State address, and among the other comments
he made, we California are approving that you that out
of the mouse in his pocket, are proving that a
progressive tax structure works, and that in the following week
he is advocating against voting for the five percent tax

(01:23:08):
on the wealth of residents with a network of the
worth of a billiona more. Why because they all the
billionaires started leaving the state of California last December. Because
this would be a retroactive tax to anybody who is
still residing in California. It's been reported. I saw the
Washington Times report on this that one bill a trillion
dollars of the two trillion dollars in billionaire wealth that

(01:23:29):
existed in California has left. So those folks have gone
to Texas and Florida, among other places. They're running away
from outrageous regulation, outrageous taxation, all these things that the
government did to them. And now they've got this bounty
on their heads taking five percent of their gross ownings
or everything of their material wealth, which means a lot

(01:23:52):
of them would have to liquidate things they own. We've
talked about this in the past. They don't have cash
on hand to pay billions of dollars in this tax.
They're gonna have to sell stuff they owned to do it.
I it's a recipe for disaster. As Governor Newsom is
finding out, this is what they did to themselves. Can
we not learn a lesson from the cautionary tale that

(01:24:12):
is the state of California and it's colossally screwed up
budget deficits in spite of how much they exact from
their citizens.

Speaker 11 (01:24:21):
Well, and just look at the Obamacare debacle and this
current debate around the ACA subsidies, right, you know, I
look at the election in twenty twenty four is where Ohioans,
you know, had been told for a decade by people
like Shared Brown that Obamacare, the affordable so called affordable
character is going to lower costs in their healthcare.

Speaker 6 (01:24:43):
We knew that wasn't going to be the case.

Speaker 11 (01:24:46):
We called that those of us who know that when
you force mandates down on people, and you you constrain systems,
and you you don't let the free market operate, costs
go up, pain ensues. But they were rejected those ideas, right.
They had finally said enough is enough, there's no more
making a bad system work. We need to change course.

(01:25:08):
And they did that right least so by electing Senator
Bernie Moreno. I think these same policies, though, are you know,
around affordability or a challenge in that It's easy to
say to to the voter, to the citizen, just give
me a little more control, right, let me pass some
more laws, some more rules, some more regulations.

Speaker 8 (01:25:25):
I can.

Speaker 11 (01:25:26):
I can fix your problem. That's the politician at large, right,
the Washington d C. Environment What we really want, though,
And I think what voters will reward come November isn't
all their problems or pass a law, or spend more
of their harder and tax dollars, you know, robbing Peter
to pay Paul. I think what voters are going to

(01:25:46):
reward are bold lawmakers who charted different course. It's why folks,
you know, even when they're upset with Trump, still love them, right,
because he's doing something and he's moving he's moving the
country in a in a different way than that sort
of status quo.

Speaker 2 (01:26:02):
Right.

Speaker 11 (01:26:02):
And but what it also takes isn't just bold leaders
who are going to chart a different course. We've got
to go out there and we've got to talk about
these things. We have to actually communicate with voters say hey, yeah,
you know, putting a subsidy on one thing isn't the
best course rush. You need to unravel that system and
free let the free market.

Speaker 1 (01:26:19):
Lead, well at free market lead, but also don't mask
the reality of what's going on here. They promised to
lower health care costs. They're not lowering health care costs.
The reason the premiums have gone through the rules because
the cost of healthcare hasn't come down. That's what happens.
They are masking the cost. Masking by giving you a
subsidy to cover the premium does not eradicate the underlying

(01:26:41):
problem with the outrageous increase in the cost of medicine.
Why is the cost of medicine so damn expensive, Donovan,
that's the root of the problem. That's what needs to
be a dealt with. Donald Trump reacts by saying, Okay,
I want Most Favored Nation status for pharmaceuticals. If X
country gets to buy a pharmaceutical for ten bucks and
we're paying one hundred in the state or in the States, No,

(01:27:01):
it's going to become ten. That's a solution. Agree with
it or not. From a market force perspective, However, the
pharmaceuticals run, We're never going to have any new pharmaceuticals.
If you do that, it's still a solution that goes
directly to the cost of the good getting rid of
pharmacy benefit managers, pointless stupid middlemen who are making the
price of pharmatacles pharmaceuticals go through the roof. I haven't

(01:27:24):
heard a whole lot of talk about that. That would
is what I would think. It would be an easy
legislative solution to part of the healthcare cost problem. But
then you got this whole affordability thing, resulting in Donald
Trump doing things that Democrats might typically do, like mandating
ten percent cap on credit card fees. Now, I know
it's not an executive order, it's just an ask, but

(01:27:45):
that's government telling business how to run itself. Telling institutional
investors that they can't buy real estate sounds like a
Democrat idea. Might it cause a little relief in home
ownership issues maybe down the road, but you know, times
call for desperate actions. But you know, this affordability argument
they've got has sort of has sort of sent Donald

(01:28:06):
Trump over into the realm of Democrat proposals. Donovan O'Neil pause,
answer that or address that. We come back, as Joe's
screaming at me, I have gone way over seven thirty
nine right now. Fifty five krc DE talk stations Zimmer
Heating and Area k Talk station see here fifty five
KRCD talk station Bryan Thomas with Americans for Prosperities. Donald
and Neil. Sorry to rant and unload on you at

(01:28:28):
the end of their bran h Donovan, but this is
one that just irks me to know when if people
paid attention and had some basic economic understanding, they would
fully appreciate that most of this affordability crisis, if they
want to call it, that is self inflicted. And I
rambled on a little bit toward the end there. But
your reaction to the states, you can manage one.

Speaker 11 (01:28:51):
Well, no, I think what you're pointing out there, right is,
this isn't a problem that is unique to one political party.

Speaker 6 (01:28:57):
It's human.

Speaker 11 (01:28:57):
It's natural human nature right to say, you know, I'm
feeling some pain, and if somebody can come along and
make those promises to alleviate that pain, I'm gonna yield
some of my freedom, some of my autonomy to them.

Speaker 2 (01:29:09):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:29:09):
And the problem here is is as Chuck.

Speaker 11 (01:29:12):
Schumer and the Democrats, I think the thing the illustrate
here right is is Chuck Schumer Democrats in this election
year start making that authoritability argument and saying, hey, give
us back that power, give us that ability.

Speaker 1 (01:29:23):
We're going to pass some laws, we're going to tax
the rich, we're.

Speaker 11 (01:29:25):
Going to regulate and secure the economy, and it's all
going to get better.

Speaker 6 (01:29:30):
That's the playbook.

Speaker 11 (01:29:31):
We know that put us in the situation that we're
in today, right, And so you know, challenging that, pushing
back against that, and pointing out that the way you
actually solve this supportability crisis isn't a quicksilver bullet of
an executive action or.

Speaker 6 (01:29:45):
A new bill being passed.

Speaker 11 (01:29:47):
It's actually unwinding the disastrous effects of Bidenomics. Right by unleashing,
permitting reform, by eliminating subsidies to Obamacare that are masking
the true costs of health care, by unleashing our economy,
and allowing people to innovate and grow and create wealth
once again in this country. Those are the things you

(01:30:08):
got to do. It's really getting the government out of
your life rather than inviting it further and deeper into
our pocketbooks.

Speaker 1 (01:30:14):
Yeah, I mean, you know, looking at the environmental nonsense
that I keep referring to the religion that we've all
apparently following with the exception me heretic, I am blasphemer.
But windmill and solar farm subsidies the only reason those
things were even economically viable, it's that government manipulation. For
whatever reason, they want to get rid of carbon based fuels,

(01:30:36):
or you want to get rid of gasoline and natural
gas and all the things that work. They won't allow nuclear,
even though we all know that that doesn't produce carbon dioxide.
So we go to windmills and solar panels, and they
sell the idea that it's affordable and it will work
because you and I are subsidizing the building and creation
and acquisition of these windmill farms and solar plants. If
real market forces were at work, and if government didn't

(01:30:57):
subsidize them with our ever growing deafests dollars, then they
wouldn't be there as an option because they can't compete
and they are unreliable well, and.

Speaker 6 (01:31:08):
Subsidies drive up the costs.

Speaker 11 (01:31:09):
You know, one of the things that Santa Moreno had
had mentioned to me and I did, I'd looked into it,
and that it appears to be true is not that
I have any reason not to believe among this prime
but the the EV subsidies, seventy EV subsidies. Guess what
happened when they eliminated those EV subsidies did the price
day seventy five dollars higher? The price dropped subsidies artificially

(01:31:32):
increased price of goods and services. Right, because if if
you're a company and you're looking at that and you're saying, well, hey,
look it's not going to hurt my customers. They're going
to get it on the back end through these you know,
through the taxpayer subsidies funded subsidies.

Speaker 6 (01:31:44):
We'll just jack the prices up a little more and
push our profits up.

Speaker 8 (01:31:47):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:31:47):
The funny part about that DATAVA is in spite of
the subsidies, all the automobile manufacturers were losing money, losing money.
They couldn't make money with a subsidy. Billions of dollars
written off by all these major automobile manufacturers because they
chase this elusive zero carbon world that the government forced

(01:32:08):
them to chase. A CAFE standards make it so much
so that you can't have an internal combustion engine that
could ever And because physics comes into equation, you can't
change the law of physics. I'm sadly for some congressmen
that don't understand that. But physics prevents you from getting
whatever the CAFE standard is, so you've got to default
to EV. So you manufacture a bunch of evs to

(01:32:29):
make your overall fleet look like it's compliant. But nobody's
buying the dm evs, which means you end up making
a loss on the production of EV's great Yep, yep.

Speaker 11 (01:32:41):
It's the lunacy of top down control, right with folks
in Washington, bureaucrats in the you know, the deep state,
say just trust me, right, you know, the people don't understand.
It's the trust the experts. Brian where have We.

Speaker 2 (01:32:57):
Been with that.

Speaker 1 (01:32:57):
We've heard that before. Trust the ivy for those who
want to look back at the hockey stick when that
was the religion and gospel for global warming. Yeah, they
don't use that anymore. Donovan and Neil AFP call to
action for our listeners. How can they get involved in
matters here in the state of Ohio. Please let them know.
Well if you if you.

Speaker 6 (01:33:17):
Like Ranton and you like good food, you can join us.

Speaker 11 (01:33:20):
We don't, I promise though, to your listeners. We don't
just redn't just complain about the no no, no. We
get to the work about it. Buckeye blueprint dot com.
Go to Buckeye blueprint dot com, get caught up with
our calendar, join us at an event near you, or
reach out and ask to start a chapter in your community.

Speaker 2 (01:33:34):
Today.

Speaker 1 (01:33:35):
It's easy to do. AFP makes it so easy. Donovan' neil,
thanks for everything you're doing. Thanks for coming to the
program every week. We'll look forward to next week in
another discussion and another perhaps endorsement. Stay tuned Folk Congressman
Massey after the top of the hour news that's going
to be fun, and I will ask him where in
the hell of the FSC talkstation at five here a

(01:33:56):
fifty five kr CD talk station, A very happy one.
See if you always an extra special when we get
what might call my favorite hour of radio with Congressman
Thomas Massey, followed by Judge edit of Paula Tano. Say
what you want about the judge. He's got his own opinions.
He's entitled to them. Welcome back, Congressman Thomas Massey. Say
what you want about Congressman Massey. I know Donald Trump
says what he wants about you, sir. It's great to

(01:34:17):
have you back on the program. Always a pleasure, my friend.

Speaker 2 (01:34:22):
Great to be on. You know. Occasionally I get a
mean tweet from the President, but then I get about
eighty thousand dollars a donation sent to my website every time.
That happens, mostly by people who like the President and
like me as well.

Speaker 1 (01:34:36):
Right that. See, that's me. Although I don't I haven't,
you know, submitted to fealty to Donald Trump. I do
have my occasional criticisms of him, and I'm entitled to them.
I do share your profound appreciation and respect for the
ultimate law of the lamb, which is the Constitution. I've
got a lot of questions legal and otherwise about some
of the things Donald Trump has done. And you know,

(01:34:58):
we're entitled to have these discussions because it does exist
within a discussion of the Constitution and what the Constitution
allows and does not allow. But you know, I can
really appreciate you, but also appreciate the work that Donald
Trump has done, because he's got a lot accomplished for
the good of all the humanity in the United States
since he took office. So you just can't step out

(01:35:19):
alive with him. When you're a politician, you're not allowed
to suggest something independent of his idea.

Speaker 2 (01:35:27):
I vote with the party ninety one percent of the time.
I'm almost embarrassed to tell you I do it that
many times. Yeah, it's the nine percent where they're bankrupting
a company or starting another war or trying to cover
up for pedophiles where I disagree with the party, and
then I get in trouble for taking the other path,

(01:35:48):
which is the constitutional path or the path of transparency.

Speaker 1 (01:35:54):
Well, it's never the path of the Democrats necessarily. Although
going over to the Epstein files been a real puzzler
for literally everyone. We can go through the brief history
of it. Donald Trump even campaigned on getting the Epstein
files out there. The Democrats were in power under Joe Biden.
They could have released them during that entire period of time,
because they were sitting in a back room somewhere. They
didn't lift a finger to release them. Donald Trump gets selected,

(01:36:16):
he then sort of does a one to eighty and
says no, no, there's nothing to see there. And then
the Democrats immediately say, well, Donald Trump doesn't want to
release them, so we all want to release them, resulting
in your discharge petition because you know that we are
entitled to see the Epstein files. And then everyone, with
a notable few exceptions, House and Senate votes to release
the Epstein files. Congressman Thomas Messey, he did sign that

(01:36:38):
piece of legislation. It was the law, or it is
the law of the land that those documents were supposed
to have been produced already. Am I wrong?

Speaker 2 (01:36:48):
You're correct. The President signed my bill at which said
that the Epstein files were due by December nineteenth. We're
almost what, we're a month passed that date, and they've
released like maybe one percent of the files and things,
and the files that they're releasing are not the files

(01:37:08):
that we need. We've told them specifically, we want the
draft indictments. We want the three O two forms that
FBI fills out after they interview the victims. We want
the stuff that has the names in them. And we've
told them you can't redact them because you're trying to
protect internal deliberations. We want the internal deliberations. The law says,

(01:37:28):
give us the internal deliberations. So, because they've missed the deadline,
but more importantly, because they are over redacting these files,
we have asked the judge, Judge Ingelemeyer in the Southern
District of New York to appoint a special master to
oversee the reactions and the release of these files. And

(01:37:50):
the judge responded to us this week and told us
and the doj okay, give me your arguments within a
week and then and he may make some kind of
decision here. So that's our next step. There are other
avenues available to us legislatively and legally, legislatively, we could

(01:38:10):
find Pambondi in contempt. She is in contempt of Congress now,
especially because our law that the President signed also said
fifteen days after the original thirty day deadline, they've got
to give a report to Congress listing all the political
folks that they found in their files, and they have

(01:38:31):
to justify all the reactions. So they've missed both deadlines
now and one was specifically for a deliverable to Congress.
So they're in contempt of Congress. We can find them
in contempt. There's another level called inherent contempt, where you
could find her from the House of Representatives or send
the Sergeant at Arms to arrest her. We could do that.

(01:38:52):
It doesn't have to go to the Senate. We could
impeach her. That's a steep hill to climb in the Senate.
The threat of that might compel her to start following
the law. Or we could bring a lawsuit. The victims
could bring a lawsuit, or myself and the co author
of my build, Rokana, could bring a lawsuit if we

(01:39:14):
can establish standing in a court and then compel the
release of them. There's so many avenues. We're trying the
most polite avenue right now, which is to say, judge,
can you point a special master just to see what
they're doing over there?

Speaker 1 (01:39:27):
Well, the law is on the books. I'm going back
to this whole idea that they swore to uphold. The
Constitution and faithfully execute the laws. That would include a
swear by Donald Trump as well as Pam BONDI right,
she took the oath as well, didn't she?

Speaker 2 (01:39:44):
Yes. Here's another thing about the Well, go ahead, Brian.

Speaker 1 (01:39:48):
I guess absence some argument that the law in and
of itself is unconstitutional, which I don't think anybody has
made that argument, although you can correct me if I'm wrong.
The laws says what the law says. There's really nothing
to review here other than try to figure out a
remedy based upon the various people involved making the decisions

(01:40:09):
refusal to follow what the law specifically says.

Speaker 2 (01:40:13):
They are making a legal argument that a first year
law student when no, doesn't hold any water. The legal
argument they're trying to make is that the Privacy Act
protects these people, the perpetrators who've not been indicted. Here's
the problem. Our bill, which is a newer law, overrides
the old law. They're saying because you didn't repeal the

(01:40:36):
Privacy Act, that the Privacy Act overrules your new bill.
But our new bill is the law of the land
supersedes you don't have to yeah, supersedes it. And the
judges every judge in the country knows this. We just
need one judge to tell them. What's what. The other
thing they're doing is they're saying that our Foyer Standards

(01:40:58):
Freedom of Information Act allow us to redact things because
of internal deliberations. Well, here's the problem with this that
this is not a Foyet This is not information law.
This freaking law the President signed.

Speaker 12 (01:41:14):
And second of all, it says internal communications, including decisions
about whether to indict, decisions about this, and decisions about that.

Speaker 2 (01:41:26):
It's all we need is like some judge somewhere to say, Pambindy,
you're full of it. And so that's hopefully we get
to that point soon. But here's what I was going
to say when I interrupted you. I'm sorry. I was
going to say, this is a law. And here's the
other feature of a law. Until it's repealed, it goes

(01:41:50):
on forever. So Pambondy, even though we could we could
refer contempt charges on her to the DJ, she's not
going to find herself contempt right, But the next Attorney
general could prosecute a prior attorney general for not following
this law because, unlike a congressional subpoena from the Oversight

(01:42:11):
Committee or the Judiciary Committee. This thing doesn't expire at
the end of our congrerect It goes on forever. Well,
so they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy, and you can
be darn sure there are going to be future attorney
generals who will prosecute this thing when they get in
that seat. Now, Pambonni hasn't arrested or indicted anybody, not Fauci,

(01:42:33):
nobody for any of the things that you know, we
claim that's been going on, and we know that have
been going on. But I can guarantee you there will
be ags who will be aggressive.

Speaker 1 (01:42:43):
Well, I guess to suppose the elephant in the room
is this amid all of this overwhelming legal support for
producing the damned documents, given what we just you know
what you and I just just talked about here, the
big looming question is why would you even go down
this impeachment or contempt or whatever legal action road is
going to be in front of us inevitably? What is

(01:43:06):
the reason they aren't being produced? The real reason? Who
are they trying to cover or hide? These are the
questions that always pop up when you try to hide
the ball from the American people.

Speaker 2 (01:43:18):
That's the thing. Pam Bondi's not in these files. Todd Blanche,
her deputy, is not in these files. Why are they
putting their heads their necks in a news literally, yes,
by violating this law, they could be charged criminally. Why
are they doing that? Who are they covering up for?

(01:43:38):
Why is this so important to them? Why don't they
just comply with the law because they will get in
trouble in the cover up. Not for releasing the things.

Speaker 1 (01:43:49):
And going back to whether or not you like Donald
Trump or not, isn't a little bit revealing perhaps, or
one can might reach the conclusion that it's revealing that
Donald Trump hasn't come out and say, what's the damn
problem here? Get the documents out? Like the law that
I signed says to.

Speaker 2 (01:44:04):
Do well, that's the thing that payin BONDI worked for him.
We know that he does just need to walk down
the hall and say do it or come out and
say do it right, So, in the absence of him
compelling her, he's complicit. Now he and this thing, it's

(01:44:28):
like everything in the world is happening. I call these
weapons of mass distraction. And now they're trying to just
completely ignore the document production. It's literally ground to a halt,
and they've admitted they've only released about one percent of
the files. They say there are a million files they've found. Oh,
we didn't know we had a million files on st right,

(01:44:50):
which brings another question. How does how is there an
FBI file? It's a million files big okay, a folder
with a million files in it, which may be five
million pages, and there's only two people guilty. I'm not
buying it. Oh, no, show us the draft indictments where
they had other people to indict that they didn't indict.

(01:45:13):
What happened with those indictments?

Speaker 1 (01:45:16):
Well, I think if you're betting, and you're you wanted
to put your money on a safe bet, I would
argue that anybody else who was facing an indictment probably
reached an out of court settlement with the victim and
a which also included a confidentiality agreement. Just one thought.
You can't get someone to testify you in a criminal trial.
You've already bought them off. There isn't going to be one.

(01:45:39):
Let's see Congress and Masthews.

Speaker 2 (01:45:41):
Well, yeah, and so our bill requires disclosure of those agreements.
Like we are pioneering here. This had This has never
been done, as far as I know, in the history
of your country. Nobody actually got a law passed that said,
for a specific case, you have to give us the
grand jury material, you have to give us everything.

Speaker 1 (01:46:04):
Well, that may answer some of the questions about Donald
Trump's unleashing ire upon you and calling you the worst
Republican congressman. Just a thought. We'll continue with Congressman MASSI.
We'll find out what the government shutdown based upon defunding ICE.
Really maybe a word er chowing Venezuela and perhaps Ron
Thomas Massey Moore after this quick oh no, after these
brief words.

Speaker 7 (01:46:24):
This is fifth station.

Speaker 1 (01:46:27):
Hey twenty here fifty five krc DE talk station. Happy Wednesday,
Judgenna Paulatano coming up next after well, may we finished
the conversation we're having right now with Congressman Thomas Massey.
Looks like are we going to face another government shutdown?
I know it was all about the Obamacare COVID era
subsidies before masking the reality of the epic failure that
is Obamacare and doing nothing to lower the cost of healthcare,

(01:46:49):
just masking it. That was one reason we went through that.
Are we going to do that? Again, or is it
now going to be over ice funding, which I've heard
some elected officials argue it should be.

Speaker 2 (01:47:01):
I would argue it should be over something else. By
the way, the deadline is January thirtieth. The House is
proceeding by passing mini buses, okay, but these aren't necessarily
being passed in the Senate. And I think we could
hit an impasse here pretty soon because I don't know
how many of my colleagues are going to agree to

(01:47:21):
fund the fraudulent daycare centers in Minnesota, and how many
will agree to fund the National Endowment for Democracy. This
is like a three hundred million dollar fund that has
been widely recognized now as a leftist but also a
neocon source of meddling in the world. But the money

(01:47:42):
also comes back and influences our own government. I've offered
an amendment and I've co sponsored an amendment to take
out the money for the National Endowment for Democracy. It'll
be interesting to see how that plays out this week
and then in quin weeks before January thirtieth. I've already

(01:48:03):
got my amendments written to target basically to reduce and
eliminate this fraud in Minnesota. I don't know if you
saw the president. This administration tried to withhold funding from
five of the states where it's clearly fraudulent, and a
judge ruled that you can't withhold the funding. He's got

(01:48:26):
to send the funding there. And people are like, how
can a judge have this much power? The reason the
judge has that power to make that ruling.

Speaker 13 (01:48:34):
Is the President signed to freaking bill that funds all
the fraudulent daycarees and Congress passed it. And we've got
a chance January thirtieth to basically stop that. And then
the judge can't make the president spend the money. All
we got to do is change it in law. Spending
bills are law, and that is coming up. That deadline
is coming up January thirtieth.

Speaker 1 (01:48:55):
Hey, is it too much of an ask when drafting
legs in connection with any large government program where a
lot of money is going to be flowing out to
the masses, to put in upfront protection measures that would
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse before the money goes out
the door of Congress from MASSI.

Speaker 2 (01:49:14):
That is, I've already drafted the amendment to do that. Literally,
it mirrors what the president is trying to do that.
The judge has shut down. I draft an amendment that says,
if you find fraud in a state, you can implement
these safeguards, these guard rails before the money flows to
that state. I literally wrote that into legislation. It's ready

(01:49:35):
to go into the bill if the Rules Committee will
allow it. It would get a vote on the floor
of the House. And it's just common sense. But here's
what I predict what happened, Brian. I predict there will
not be a shutdown. I predict myself and several other
Conservatives at the end are going to say, this is insanity.

(01:49:55):
We cannot fund all the fraudulent stuff that we just found.
We're not voting for this. And what they'll do is
they'll go over to the other side of the aisle
of the Democrats, and of course the Democrats will vote
for it. If it's got the fraudulent funding and the
refugee resettlement funds and all that other stuff in it,
they'll lap that up. It'll be the unipart it'll be

(01:50:16):
a uniparty bill on January thirtieth, and then the President
won't complain until after he signs the bill and it
Judge says, no, wait, you're signing the build that funds
all this stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:50:29):
Oh great, this is why we have you Congress with
Messi to boil it down to its darkest terms.

Speaker 2 (01:50:36):
You also wouldn't know, you wouldn't have somebody introducing legislation
that's bold enough to take out the fraudulent stuff. They
will literally probably shut me down in the Rules Committee.
I was on the Rules Committee for two years. I
know how that works. This is where Republicans need to
make their stand. There are nine Republicans and four Democrats
on the Rules Committee. It would be so easy. You

(01:50:59):
don't even need every Republican. You only need seven Republicans
on the Rules Committee to put these amendments in there.
That's that's where the stronghold is. But I'm going to
predict all nine Republicans cave on the Rules Committee, don't
put it in there, and then complain later that the
fund that the money's in there.

Speaker 1 (01:51:19):
Well, why don't you use social media to out the
names of the Republicans that are on the Rules Committee
so we can bring about some measure of pressure from
at least my listening audience and everybody else who follows
you on social media to get their phones ringing, their
emails lit up, and the social media accounts overwhelmed with
you know, basically not threats but demands and and and

(01:51:40):
please to get what you want done.

Speaker 2 (01:51:44):
I I linked. I didn't put their names on there,
but I put a link to the Rules Committee website
which has their names on it, so that folks can
find out if it's one of their congressmen that's on
the Rules Committee. But just go to the Rules Committee website.
It's right there. The nine republic that need to hear
put this in there. It's where it's where Lucy takes

(01:52:05):
the football from the voters every single time. It's in
the Rules Committee and.

Speaker 1 (01:52:12):
Apparently where Republicans. Republicans stabbed their own constituents in the
committee in the back. Congressman Thomas Massey find the Rules
Committee listeners, get in touch with Republicans on the Rules Committee,
tell him to heed Congressman Massey's warning and get it done.
Congressman Thomas Massey can't thank you so much for joining
the program. Keep fighting the good fight, and keep believing

(01:52:35):
in the supreme supreme law of the land because so
many people just conveniently like to ignore it.

Speaker 3 (01:52:41):
In Milford, today is National Dress Up Your Pet Day. Well,
our next guest was able to find a costume. This
is just so cute and dressed up his dog as
Thomas Massey. Oh, you've got to go to Brian's blog
page and the Thomas Paulsy The judges next Chucking ramon

(01:53:05):
fifty five KRC, the talk station, A.

Speaker 1 (01:53:12):
Thirty one fifty fout cars, the toss station. Judge Ednapolitano.
Can you hear me? Are we experiencing technical difficulties this morning?
Judge Trecker is trying to iron them out as we speak.
Judge cannot currently hear my voice, although I see his
face on the zoom connection. He's kind of fading in
and out. Congressman Massey, I know you're busy holding on

(01:53:34):
online waiting to hear from the judge.

Speaker 5 (01:53:37):
Something about a dog dressed up with Thomas Maddy.

Speaker 2 (01:53:40):
Did I catch that you did?

Speaker 1 (01:53:42):
It's your dog apparently dress up your Pet Day or something.
But Congressman Thomas Massey is literally listening right now. Is
he decided to hold after my conversation in the last
segment with him because he wanted to hear what you
had to say today. Welcome back to the Morning Show. Sir,
it's a pleasure having you.

Speaker 5 (01:53:58):
Well, thank you, Brian. Sorry that we can't see each other.
I don't know what their technical glitch is. And I
did not know that the greatest defender of the Constitution
the modern era was on right before me, or would
have come on a little bit earlier so that I
could hear what he was saying. But Emerson Massy, thank
you for taking the time to listen to us.

Speaker 1 (01:54:21):
Well, you know you would have been You would have
enjoyed the conversation and your column, which I read an
assault on the Republic. You're very critical of Donald Trump,
and I understand that, and you know I occasionally, and
I'm warning my listening audience, do not call Joe Strecker
and complain about the judges thoughts and commentary. Joe has
nothing to do with it. It's kind of crazy. Anytime
you're critical in any way, shape or form of Donald Trump,

(01:54:43):
the phones light up and Joe Strecker gets the brunt
of the of the of the argument. But quite often
they're not seeing through to the legal arguments that you
are making. They're only hearing the criticism of the person
who is caught runs contrary to you your perception of
the law. The one thing I wanted to take from
your column, which can spring from it. In the last segment,

(01:55:05):
we talked to Congressman Thomas Massey about the law that
is on the books which forced the government to release
the Epstein files by I guess it was the nineteenth
last month or something. They didn't do it. There's apparently
a million plus documents behind the scene. Bondie won't release them.
No one will release them. They're going to have to
go to court. They might have to file a contempt hearing.

(01:55:26):
There is no fidelity to the rule of law. This
is not faithfully upholding the Constitution and the laws of
the United States of America. And I quite frankly am
puzzled by the whole thing. But here's yet another illustration
of fast and loose with the well the power.

Speaker 5 (01:55:45):
You know, I have been arguing, and I do this
with deference and respect here listeners, not to arouse them,
but I've been arguing that there is a direct line
to be drawn between what's happening in the street to
Minneapolis and what happened in a bedroom in Caracas. This
is all and what happened in the speedboat and fishing

(01:56:10):
boat killings in the Caribbean. This is all a specie
of might makes right. This is all a specie of
rejecting the laws. When the president takes his oath of office,
he promises to faithfully exercise his duties. The customers that
convention debated over the word faithfully, and Madison quite properly

(01:56:33):
was worried that without that word in there, presidents would
take the oath as carte blanche to enforce the laws
they liked and forget about the laws they disliked. But
by putting the word faithfully in there, the president and
everybody in the executive branch, including the Attorney General, is
subject to the laws, whether they like them or not.

(01:56:53):
Congressman Massey happens to have ridden the crest of a
wave which resulted in all members of Congress but one
voting for this legislation, legislation that three days before it
was voted on, the President was still twisting arms to
try and get people not to vote or not to

(01:57:13):
sign the discharge impetition. So the Congress's voice is loud
and clear. Oh yeah, the President reluctantly signed this legislation
as the law she has no choice but to comply
with it. He can leak all he wants to the
Wall Street Journal that he doesn't like her. He can

(01:57:35):
tell us attorney's all he wants. You guys are losing
too many cases. But when it comes down to brass tacks,
the DOJ is not enforcing the law when it has
to be enforced against themselves.

Speaker 1 (01:57:48):
Yeah, and as Massey pointed out, you know, it's a
new law, so it supersedes some of the earlier laws
that were on the book. Did some are arguing are
being violated because the new law says, release all the
Epstein files, including the FBI records, and maybe the settlement
agreements that have been reached between some noted notables and
anybody who might have been molested. You know, as he

(01:58:10):
pointed out, you know, you can't tell me with a
million files and maybe five million documents, only two people
have been held accountable for this, Juleane Maxwell and Epstein.
I mean, there's just too much there there and it
just ends up demanding the American public demands of all
political stripes. Give us the damned documents, let us draw

(01:58:31):
our own conclusions. That's what the law says.

Speaker 5 (01:58:33):
Correct and Congressman Nasi is correct. As a matter of law,
a newly enacted legislation, just like a subsequently enacted amendment
to the Constitution. Trump's lowercase t that which preceded it.
Congress is presumed to intend to have overridden whatever might

(01:58:57):
be inconsistent with what it has, just so, the Epstein
Transparency Act is the law of the land. In the
Attorney General, she keeps claiming she has four hundred lawyers
and one hundred FBI agents going through the files. Nobody
believes that it couldn't possibly be taking them that long.

(01:59:17):
What are they redacting when they redact? Congressman Massing knows
that's better than I. They have to say what it is,
not who it is, but what it is. This was
redacted because it identified a thirteen year old girl who
was abused on the day. They have to put that
in the margin. They have done that. None of these
redactions explain in the margin what is being redacted or

(01:59:40):
why it was redacted. It is clear they don't want
to do their job. Dan Bongino resigned over this. I'm
not a Dan Bongino fan, but I believe he's been
intellectually honest in this respect. It is clear something's being hidden,
and they're going to drag their feet as long as.

Speaker 1 (01:59:59):
They can, obviously, And of course that just ends up
raising burning questions like how come Donald Trump campaign to
releasing the Epstein files and then immediately did one to
eighty after he was elected and said there's nothing to
see there. I'm sorry, man, I can't abide by that,
whether it's a Republican or Democrat or anybody else in office.
And apparently, as you point out, overwhelmingly approve the legislation

(02:00:23):
to produce them. This is the first time I've seen
an exercise and bipartisanship along this level in as far
back as I can remember.

Speaker 5 (02:00:30):
Correct, you know, Congressman Massy, in the most divisive partisan
era in modern memory in the Congress, demonstrated that when
you articulate clearly a value, and when the value resonates
in people's hearts hear the truth, you can achieve a

(02:00:53):
bipartisan goal. I can't imagine the Congressman Massy's voting record
coincides with Congressman Roe Kahana no All, but in this respect,
they achieved a marvelous by partisan role because they appealed
to people's sense of truth and honesty and fairness. And

(02:01:15):
they did this in the most radically partisan Congress in
recent memory. Congress so radically partisan that the leadership of
each party doesn't even want to talk to each other.

Speaker 1 (02:01:29):
Well, going back to Congressman Massey's record, he did bring
that up in s by the way Donald Trump might
lead you to believe, calling him, I believe the worst
Republican congressman that exists, ninety one percent of his votes
went with the Republican Party judge of Politizer. So he's
got a sound record. If you just don't look at
any one given piece of legislation or anyone given position,

(02:01:51):
can I pivot of a real quickly, sir? The oral
arguments on in connection with upholding the transgender sports bands
that exist in a multitude states, argued yesterday. And in
spite of the fact that I did practice law for
quite a long time, I don't consider myself a constitutional lawyer,
but I will profess in reading not just the entire opinion,

(02:02:13):
in just reading the summaries of it. A lot of confusion.
Considering that someone calling themselves a sex that they're not
already confuses me. The line of questioning back and forth.
I'm sorry I had a difficult time working my way
through it, even though the general consensus from the legal
experts is the Supreme Court looks like it'll be upholding
the transgender sports bans. Any reaction from what you've read

(02:02:36):
about the arguments yesterday, sir well.

Speaker 5 (02:02:39):
I could not agree with you, mal Thank you. Much
of what Justice Kavanaugh said was psychobabble out of the
editorial pages of newspapers, have nothing to do, nothing to
do with the law. Even my former debate partner and
longtime friend and Princeton classmate, Justice Alito, I thought, got

(02:03:02):
off into the weeds. The issue here is the right
of the states to legislate for health and safety versus
the commands of the Congress that the state not discriminate
on the basis of sex.

Speaker 2 (02:03:18):
What does that.

Speaker 5 (02:03:19):
Word mean In nineteen sixty four, when the first of
these statutes was written, and in nineteen seventy two, when
the second of these statutes was written, it meant gender.
Today it has such a broad meaning that it has
anything whatsoever to.

Speaker 2 (02:03:37):
Do with sex.

Speaker 5 (02:03:39):
My person I admire most on the Court was did
not tip his hand yesterday, Justice Gorsuch. He's the one
who wrote the opinion along with the liberals on the Court,
applying the Civil Rights Act of sixty four to LGBTQ,
even though the Senate expressly rejected that. In sixty four,
twice they used a word sex, which today means sexuality.

(02:04:05):
So it's it's hard to fathom what is meant by
this word today compared to what it was meant by
it two generations ago. But it's pretty clear this will
be five to four, the Chief Justice with the Conservatives
and Corsage with the liberals, upholding the right of the

(02:04:26):
state to protect little girls from competition by biological boys.

Speaker 1 (02:04:32):
Well, let's hope that common sense prevails. And look how
far we've come. Where you and I would have agreed
all day long, as would every single physician on the planet,
that sex is whether you're a male or female, defined
by your chromosomal reality. Boy, we have gone way, way,
way the hell away from that. But that's what was
thought about and discussed when they passed the title nine, right,
that's all they were considering context right.

Speaker 5 (02:04:55):
Now when they passed it. When they passed this stuff
in sixty four and seventy two, the concept of gender
transitioning wasn't even in the wildest imaginations of Ballmaker's much.

Speaker 2 (02:05:08):
Less doctors.

Speaker 1 (02:05:10):
Reinvent history, much in the way they're reinventing the language
and definitions that we use radically, sounding like or well
in the Ministry of truth. The judge entered Apolitano. God
bless you, sir. I know the Congressman mass has been
enjoying the conversation, and I appreciate your support to him,
and he appreciate heates his I know you appreciate his

(02:05:31):
support of you.

Speaker 7 (02:05:32):
Sir.

Speaker 1 (02:05:32):
We'll have you on next Wednesday. Do it again. God
bless you, and thanks again for your commentary.

Speaker 2 (02:05:36):
Sir.

Speaker 5 (02:05:37):
Thank you all the best to Congressman Massy, to you
and to your audience.

Speaker 1 (02:05:41):
Brian appreciate it much. It's eight forty four right now
if you have kc DE talk station