Denver Post op-ed on ICE is reckless; Central City residents vote to ban strip clubs on Main Street

Dan takes issue with a dangerously irresponsible Denver Post op-ed claiming ICE is randomly snatching up illegal aliens off the streets of Colorado with impunity.

Central City residents vote to ban strip clubs on Main Street, prompting Dan to ask listeners whether this type of vice is any better or worse than legalized gambling establishments for society and in residential areas.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. Yeah, and fighting
for the American way means standing up for law enforcement.
Listen to every profession. There's going to be a couple

(00:20):
of knuckleheads here and there, and yeah, you got to
deal with them, but overall, come on the thin blue line.

Speaker 2 (00:26):
Right.

Speaker 3 (00:27):
So when you see the Denver.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Post go after Ice the way that he did in
a house editorial, a way that they had to know
would endanger ICE agents across the state, now, how can that.

Speaker 3 (00:41):
Possibly be justified?

Speaker 1 (00:43):
And also just a very unfair way, Just kind of analytically,
but I want to dive into that and get your
take on why you think the Denver Post did this,
because I understand they're playing good folks in the audience.
They just don't like the Denver Post and view it
as hard left idea line, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
And I get that.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
I can tell you I know a lot of people
at the Post who I really like and admire. We
disagree politically, but there are a lot of fine journalists there.
So when they cross a line like this and write
something that clearly endangers ICE agents operating in the state
of Colorado, I just try to think to myself, how

(01:23):
could this happen? How and why would they go that far?
And then you look at the intellectual sloppiness of the
editorial itself. So we're going to dive into that. We're
getting a lot of text and calls also on kind
of our real life topic of the day, which is, hey,
would you take this all winter in the front range?
No snow, all winter in the front range? If we
could get the moisture through rain, would.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
You take that?

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Obviously, big caveat the mountains have to get what they
need right for lots of different reasons, But would you
be okay with this in the front range? Three O
three seven one three eight two five five text d
an five seven seven three nine Praising our friends in
Central City, the voters they are rejecting a strip club
on Main Street, and it then leads to why do

(02:07):
you think they did that? But the broader topic of hey,
wait a second, is shouldn't we do the same thing
with legal marijuana here until we can get rid of
it all together. Shouldn't we just you know, pass whatever
we need to pass in order to zone it out,
to zone it out to industrial areas. And so it
was never about the whole freedom. Somebody should be free

(02:29):
to have some marijuana if they want kind of thing.
In the beginning, it was about big marijuana, wanting to
normalize it, wanting to cash in on it, wanting big
political change through it, wanting to normalize it for kids,
Hook the kids young, hook them forever.

Speaker 3 (02:45):
If it was just.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
About freedom, how somebody really wants marijuana, needs to be
able to get it without going to a drug dealer, well,
then you know it would have been set up so
that it's only out in industrial areas. But what do
you think about that? What do you think about that
kind of change now in Colorado? So we've got all
that going for us threer all three seven three eight
two five five text d an five seven seven three nine.

(03:07):
Here's a KUSA report on that wise decision in Central City.

Speaker 4 (03:12):
Central City voters want to keep sobs out of their community.
Sexually oriented businesses sobs and that's why Rix Cabaret and
Steakhouse in Central City will be Rix Steakhouse for the
foreseeable future. Central City's ballot Question two A might seem
kind of vague, but it.

Speaker 5 (03:28):
Is pretty straightforwardly about Rix.

Speaker 4 (03:31):
It asks voters to allow sobs on Main Street, and
voters are like not interested. Went down by fourteen points.
The cabaret and steakhouse opened a location on Main Street
earlier this year in defiance of the city's zoning rules
for sexually oriented businesses.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
RIX has been fighting.

Speaker 4 (03:49):
For one of these SOB permits for years now. In
the meantime, they say that they are staying within the
rules because their dancers are covered.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
Up in latex.

Speaker 4 (03:59):
That quote works so well people think they're nude. Feels
like something that we should investigate.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Maybe you should write, I just don't understand how that
would work latex? Are you talking about talking about like
saran wrap? What do you think that means? Covered up
in latex? And you really limit your pool of applicants,
don't you be Don't a lot of people have latex allergies.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
We may have to deploy you. Ran does this.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Tremendous radio show Monday through Friday two to four. I'm
sure you know about it. On six point thirty Kitsch,
it'll be in Denver. Have you done a remote chet
a true remote, like a good old fashioned remote, you think,
And I should start here, I'm thinking because I'll tell
you we had some of the greatest shows we ever
had on Capitalists and Silverman when we went remote as
we were part of fighting against a big strip club,

(04:52):
mother of ball strip clubs, they were going to put
into Centennial, Colorado. People Centennial didn't want it, but there's
a lot of big money to be made for Centennial.
So we took the show on the road. We took
the show out to I think City Hall in Centennial
and helped the effort to fight spearmint rhino peppermint rhinos rhino.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
Yeah it's one of those.

Speaker 1 (05:14):
Okay, so it's some kind of mint, but big these
clubs are enormous, as I understand it. And then the
people of Centennial won that fight, and we were proud to.

Speaker 3 (05:22):
Be a part of that.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
If called upon, I will serve, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well I think you're called upon.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yeah, we need some live reportings, and we need some
live reporting there. My friend, let me get to this
Denver Post editorial and hey, maybe you're going to say, Dan,
you're over sensitive to this, since you're the son of
a cop.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
But I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
I think that anybody and everybody, including the people who
wrote this House editorial for the Post, had to understand
that this was going to put Ice in more danger.
And then when you get beyond the danger creation enormous
danger creation problem here, then you get to, Okay, what
kind of mental would lead to an editorial like this?
Because here's what I think is going on in Colorado.

(06:05):
I think you have the left in Colorado and many
places around the country saying, no, you don't get to
enforce any federal law in our state. As long as
the Left controls the state, you don't get to enforce
any federal law we don't like. That's the attitude, you
know where I think that attitude began. I mean, obviously

(06:25):
this dates back in another form, in a whole other form,
to George Wallace, you know, and the racist in the
Deep South. I'm not comparing these people to racist, but
the racist in the Deep South to say, no, federal government,
you can't enforce your laws here unless we like your laws.
And then I admired the heck out of John Kennedy,

(06:45):
you know, And I think it was John Kennedy, wasn't it, Yeah,
who sent federal troops in to make sure those schools
were integrated. Because if you don't like a federal law,
you got to change it. If you establish the precedent
of no, states don't have to enforce federal laws they
don't like, well then it's going to be a slippery
slope and things are going to fall apart in a hurry,
which young Ryan is exactly the point I made back

(07:06):
when Amendment sixty four passed and Okay, well, hey, you know,
marijuana sales and Colorado is still a violation of federal law.
And I said at the time, once that decision was made,
and it was made by Republican presidents as well as
Democrat once that decision was made, that the federal law
wasn't going to be enforced if a state didn't want

(07:26):
that federal law enforced.

Speaker 3 (07:28):
At that point, it's a slippery slope.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
And I think that's part of where this very dangerous
attitude of the left in Colorado and elsewhere comes from.
Now it's in the form of ice. Okay, no, they
don't they don't like federal immigration laws, so they're not
going to allow the federal government to enforce federal immigration
law in Colorado. That's the attitude of the left to

(07:51):
the highest levels. Look at Mike Johnston, you know who
dresses his radicalism up in you know, the different haircut
and suit kind of stuff. But Mike Johnston coming out
and saying, no, we'll send We'll send the police to
the county line. We'll get fifty thousand Colorados to rise
up to stop stop federal law enforcement from coming in.

Speaker 3 (08:12):
Yeah. So that's the attitude of the left.

Speaker 1 (08:13):
No, you can't enforce federal law here, constitution, blank the constitution.
That's their attitude. So listen to the way this House
editorial starts. Federal immigration officials are out of control and
America's third branch of government needs to rein in the
gross abuse of power on display in Colorado and across

(08:34):
the nation. Wait a second, These are you know, our brothers,
our sisters. These are moms and dads, These are somebody's children,
these ice agents. And think about first, how fundamentally inaccurate,
intellectually dishonest this statement is before we even get to

(08:57):
the dangerousness of it. Blanket statement. And this isn't by
some drunk at a barstool. This is the Denver Post,
and you may disagree with everything they have to say, etc.
But the Denver Post mast head, that's still a very
big deal. And it says federal immigration officials are out
of control. How it's not backed up anywhere in the editorial,

(09:24):
but it's just not true. But once the Denver Post
makes a statement like that, federal immigration officials are out
of control. And this piece is all about ice agents
and what ice agents are doing on the streets of Colorado.
They know they are putting those agents in more danger. Hey,
the Denver Post says, they're out of control. They're snatching

(09:45):
people off our streets wrongly, because that's what the rest
of us. It goes on to say, rate in the
gross abuse of power on display in Colorado and across
the nation. Again not accurate, not fair, but but again
green lighting wackos. So okay, So these Ice agents they're
out of control, Denver Post says so, and they're grossly abbused.

(10:09):
They're grossly abusing their power in Colorado. And then what
does this editorial go on to say, And I'll reach
you in the next paragraph when we could pack. But
the editorial goes on then to tell the reader that
wait a second, ICE agents they just snatched this father
up off the street. They just snatched them up, and

(10:30):
they did it without a warrant and then they kept
them anyway. So think of this picture they're painting, of
these out of control ICE agents grossly abusing their power,
acting lawlessly. That's the picture the Denver Posts sat down
to paint. It's inaccurate, and I'll show you exactly how

(10:53):
it's so provably inaccurate. It's unfair, and it creates this
danger for these law enforcement officers across our state. So
welcome back, and I'll break it down further, but you'll
see how very wrong this is. You're on the Dan Kaplas.

Speaker 6 (11:09):
Show and now back to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast talking.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
About this Denver Post editorial that really infuriates me as
the son of a compet It should infuriate everybody because
it obviously puts ICE agents operating in Colorado in more danger.
These are law enforcement agents, and you know, reasonable people
can disagree over Okay, do you track down and deport

(11:37):
only those who have committed other crimes? While here I'm
in that camp, others say, you know, deport everybody who's
here illegally. But the fact is these are law enforcement
officers lawfully enforcing the law. So when a major newspaper
in Denver post you may disagree with that, lots of
people do, and I get it, but it is still

(11:58):
a major massthead and issues an editorial like this that
is clearly portraying our ICE agents as lawless, out of
control thugs snatching innocent people off the street and disappearing them.
That is beyond irresponsible. Even if we didn't have a
situation where you have ICE officers being shot at other places,

(12:20):
that is beyond irresponsible. It's also fundamentally unfair. I'm not
going to read the whole editorial, but just a few
key excerpts, and they're all in very fair context to
make my point about this, But it starts with federal
immigration officials are out of control and America's third branch
needs to rein in the gross abuse of power on

(12:42):
display in Colorado. So you see what I mean that
they're portraying these ICE agents as out of control.

Speaker 3 (12:47):
Where's the proof of that.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
They give a couple of isolated cases they disagree with,
but let me give you their lead case, and you
can see how intentionally deceptive this is. And it hurts
me to say that about the Post because I know
and like and respect a lot of people there.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
But listen to this. Listen to their first paragraph.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
Gregory Davis, high level federal official overseeing deportation rest, told
a judge last month's month that Immigration and Customs enforcement
officials did not have a warrant to arrest Fernando or
Amilo Solano, but the agents arrested him anyway after mistakenly
pulling the Durango man over while he was on his

(13:26):
way to drop off his twelve year old and his
fifteen year old. ICE detained all three and they spent
weeks in Durango before they were shipped to Dilley, Texas.
They don't mention, by the way, that Dilly, Texas is
where they have the family facility, and I thought it
was the Left that wanted families together. I understand their
point is they don't think he should be picked up
at all, but to give people the impression, not the impression,

(13:50):
to be implicitly telling people that this was an illegal arrest.
Listen to this again. Told a judge last month that
ICE officials did not have a warrant to arrest Fernando,
but they did. Anyway, that's going to give ninety nine
out of one hundred readers the belief that you have
to have a warrant to make that arrest. The Denver

(14:11):
Post knows darn well no warrant was required to make
that arrest. No warrant is required to arrest an illegal
immigrant who's out in public.

Speaker 3 (14:23):
Now, you can't do that in the home.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
You would need a warrant. But why did the Denver
Post choose to mislead like that? For obvious reasons, Right,
they're trying to paint this picture of eyes out of controlling,
legally snatching innocent people off the street. And then if
there's any doubt about that, listen to how they end
the editorial.

Speaker 3 (14:41):
The sad truth is.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
That unless the courts step up, these abuses will likely
continue and thousands of people like Orties and Harmilo Solano
will never get home.

Speaker 3 (14:54):
So they're trying to paint this picture that A is
wrong and B.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
The way they do this, making these unfounded statements about
out of control it it's endangering our ice agents. And
I just I just wanted to be on the record
on that because I'm afraid of what is to come,
of what is to come, you know, with the attitude
of the left toward law enforcement in general, and we've

(15:20):
talked about that a lot on this show. And now
vilifying these ice agents and painting that picture of these
these lawless thugs snatching people off the street to never
be seen again as the implication, right, illegally snatching them
off the street is the implication. Yeah, very very dangerous
stuff and just flat wrong. And I've always wondered that

(15:41):
as the son of a cop, and this goes back
to young memories, but as a son of a cop,
I've always wondered, you know, about these these folks. And
you know, since I was probably seven, eight, nine, ten,
I can't remember the age when I would look at
all these media types back in Chicago or hammering cops
and just thinking, you know, and I don't remember the

(16:01):
words I had at that age in my head, but
you know, those that the whatever the words are, for
these arrogant snob elitist you know, who have no life.
They don't get to go home to their nice places,
they don't have their nice jobs, the nice cars, anything
without my dad out there on the street and the
same thing here in Colorado. You know that the people

(16:23):
they are endangering, these ICE agents everything else, And I
like a lot of those people are on the editorial
board personally, but none of us have any of this
good stuff, None of us have any kind of normal
life whatsoever without the men and women in law enforcement
willing to put their lives on the line. And so
for people in power then to knowingly increase the danger

(16:45):
to the people who allow us to have these very freedoms,
that to me is so very wrong. And it comes
back to where I started this whole conversation, the left
in Colorado and around the country, that they truly believe
the federal government has no right to enforce any federal
law in their state that they don't approve of. You know,

(17:07):
this kind of entitlement attitude that the law doesn't apply
to them unless they want the.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
Law to apply to them. Yeah, dangerous stuff.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
And by the way, everybody involved in writing that editorial,
everybody involved now in attacking ICE, they are all absolutely
dependent on ICE for their safety. In terms of the
great work ICE is doing and tracking down and getting
rid of violent illegals, which the Denver poet, the Denver
Democratic Party, and the Colorado Democratic Party is adamantly opposed,

(17:40):
and then they start mouthing some mealy mouthed kind of
qualifiers after Trump wins. But year after year after year,
the Democratic Party in Colorado has stood up for criminals
people here illegally who then commit violent crimes.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
Has made them heroes.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
And was the Denver Post speaking out about that against
the Democratic Party on that?

Speaker 3 (17:59):
You tell me.

Speaker 6 (18:03):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
CNN got them all in a bunch over a whistleblower,
says Glenne Maxwell getting custom meal, special gym time, and
puppy plate time in prison, puppy playtime.

Speaker 3 (18:18):
Oh yeah, that sounds so fair. I'm with them on that.
You know, she's a child rapist in my view, that's
my constitutional.

Speaker 6 (18:26):
So you're saying she should not No, No, I hey.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
I'd ever in the toughest prison anywhere. Yeah, she's a
child rapist certainly at least an accessory to that, right. Yeah,
So no, I don't like any of that. Three out
three seOne three A two five five d A N
five seven seven three nine daan wake up. Dems are
protecting their voter base. That's abe checking in via text.

Speaker 2 (18:55):
I really watch for those abe texts we're talking to.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
Oh I do we're talking about That's the first one
I've been able reading two months.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
That's why I did that.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
But we're talking about this really reckless, dangerous Denver Post
House editorial making ICE agents in Colorado out to be
this roving, lawless band of thugs illegally snatching people off
the street, none of which is true.

Speaker 3 (19:15):
And so but it goes back to remember.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Ryan, when I had posted on X I had posted
what I had found because I actually like read these
bills we're talking about on air, and I found buried
in this one bill that Bennett and Hickenlooper. Bennett and
Hickenlooper had wanted a provision in a bill that would
prevent ICE agents from enforcing the law at polling places.

Speaker 6 (19:42):
That is not so you.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
Have to laugh or you'll cry, because we all know
folks there illegally should not be voting.

Speaker 3 (19:49):
Okay, what do we have here, Dad?

Speaker 1 (19:53):
How much of the documented marijuana problems is for miners
that are not legally allowed to have it?

Speaker 3 (19:58):
If so, that sounds like.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
A pres problem and shouldn't be used to punish reasonably
responsible adults. Please text her will buy you a phone
call this show. There's one thing I can be one
hundred percent share of Ryan. That text has never had children.
If that text really thinks that, no, you can legalize
anything in Kylorado, you can legalize all drugs, you can

(20:21):
legalize marijuana, et cetera. As long as the parents are
good parents that it's not going to harm kids. That
person has never had children, and we've been blessed in
our little family that our kids have not gotten into
that stuff.

Speaker 3 (20:33):
But I know so many the very.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
Best parents you will ever meet in your entire life,
and they come from all walks of life, whose kids
have gotten into this Krakawana And how do they not?

Speaker 3 (20:46):
Right?

Speaker 1 (20:46):
I mean, the whole state is sending the message this
stuff's great. John Hickeloop's official slogan was marijuana good to know.

Speaker 3 (20:56):
Everything screams this is great.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
Yeah, more and more these stores and Starbucks and McDonald's
combined best parents in the world. When you flood the
state with legal dope, best parents in the world are
not going to be able to stop their kids from
getting exposed to it. So yeah, that I would love
to hear from that person, and I would strongly recommend
that they have kids. Hey, wanted to talk to you

(21:20):
about this this story here Sonny host And if you
don't know her, congratulations. But she's on the View and
she makes millions of dollars a year, and she was
complaining today about the Dems caving.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
And they did cave.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
I mean, you know, none of the lefty outlets are
trying to deny that the Dems caved and Trump won.
But anyway, she was in the course of that conversation
on air today, she mentioned that she had relatives getting
Snap benefits.

Speaker 3 (21:51):
Nah, I'd love your take on this.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
Three up three seven three eight two five five tegt
Dan five seven seven three nine. So this got me
to thinking, first, why aren't you taking care of them? Second,
why in the world would you say that in error? Hey,
I got relatives who actually need Snap benefits to be
able to eat, and I want you to know that.

(22:15):
I want you to know I'm not taking care of them.
Why would you do that? But that led me to
this big factual question Ryan, that I'm sure you know
the answer to because you were chat Ryan long before
chant TPT even was a twinkle in somebody's eye. But
how much do you think SNAP benefits pay each month
and I'm going to read you maximum amounts nationwide? No

(22:39):
like to a beneficiary, Oh, each individual beneficiary?

Speaker 3 (22:42):
What do you max out at?

Speaker 1 (22:43):
Cause, Sonny Holston, she has these relatives who need these
benefits to eat. She apparently has decided not to share
the wealth. I thought, didn't she back, mom, Donnie? I
thought they were all about you know what, her now
sharing the wells. I looked at each according to their
need her net worth?

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Dan, you want to guess that one?

Speaker 3 (23:02):
Oh I already know, Sonny Hostin's no, you do. I
already know.

Speaker 5 (23:05):
Six million dollars yeah, minimum minimum sure. So you're you're
saying Snap benefits per individual per month? Well one person, Okay,
what's their maximum? And it's going to be lower than
this because you get I.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
Think a thirty percent reduction up to a thirty percent
reduction based on your.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
Earn, say four hundred dollars.

Speaker 3 (23:23):
This is a guest ninety eight pretty good guests, right?

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Little do they still have? Let's make a deal, right, Yeah,
I can do that. Let's make a deal. Good person
household five forty six max cometh three person households seven
eighty five max per month. Now, these numbers are almost
always lowered because there's an income offset. So all right,

(23:47):
So should Sonny host it who's making by most accounts,
at least a couple of million bucks a year, probably more.
Should she be helping these relatives so they don't have
to have those snap benefits.

Speaker 5 (23:59):
She's a terrible person if she doesn't. In my view,
that's my I'd love to hear from people on that day.

Speaker 3 (24:03):
What are you doing?

Speaker 5 (24:04):
You're watching your family members suffer?

Speaker 3 (24:06):
Yeah, I and then and then you want to get
about it.

Speaker 1 (24:09):
But that aside, if it's true, right, well, let's it's
always more likely that somebody's telling the truth when what
they're saying makes them look bad.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
Yeah, but I don't think she's thought there's true.

Speaker 5 (24:24):
You got to play the clip now, Dan, because Sarah
Haynes is going on, and what it's in the context
of it is is that Sarah Hanes say, hey, it's
easy for us, we're rich, and then Sonny tries to
be relatable because some of my family members wrong.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
Now, I'll play the clip. I thought the clip was
a little soft. I mean, what we're saying is true,
but the clip's a little hard to follow. But here
it is by popular demand.

Speaker 7 (24:45):
Latly disagree with you, Sonny for this reason what you
rattled off. The Republicans run the executive branch, the legislative judicial.
According to you, they have all the power right now.
The problem here is it's a privilege to say our
food's not affected our health. And sure, you know the
people in my family that receives I'm not just saying
I'm not meaning family. We're all affected by you know,

(25:06):
as we go out. But I'm saying right here to
say it's a privilege that they don't have healthcare and
now they don't have food.

Speaker 5 (25:12):
Yeah yeah, so no, no, why doesn't she help mouth this exactly?
This is why somebody like Sarah Haynes drives me nuts,
because she's this kind of figurehead like, oh, quasi conservative,
former conservative, Trump hating conservati. What the minute somebody like
Sonny Hostin and her net value says something like Sarah
should have gone, take it off your train of thought.

(25:33):
Look at somebody go, wait, what some of your family
members are on?

Speaker 2 (25:37):
Snap?

Speaker 3 (25:37):
Yeah didn't even think to do that.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
Yeah yeah, Hopefully somebody else follows up on it, because
how can you justify not helping those people out?

Speaker 3 (25:47):
But it's so typical the left.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
Correct you look at you know, the Michael Bennett's, the
John Hick and Lupers, virtually anybody on the left. I'm
sure there's a noble exception somewhere, but who are all about? Oh,
they're more superior to you and everything else, they're so enlightened,
and they're so share the wealth and everything else. And
then look, whenever they do release their tax or turns,

(26:09):
look at how much you're given to charity. Now, in
all fairness, you can be making charitable payments that there
are not tax deductions for. But at least look at
how much they're doing for charity that's tax deductivele because
it's going to show up on their tax returns. Ben,
what are you going to do when Trump shows up

(26:30):
in the Epstein files? Same thing I'm doing now, nothing,
I mean, what do you mean shows up in the
Epstein files? We all know there's a there's some core truths,
and one of those is if Donald Trump was guilty
of anything wrong with regard to Jeffrey Epstein, we would
already know it.

Speaker 3 (26:50):
Wait a second.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
They they tried to jail the man, They tried to
have them die in jail, so he couldn't beat them
at the polls. They were in total control of the
Epstein files. You don't think they were going to put
it out there if there was something that hurt him.
I have no doubt his name shows up somewhere in
there because he knew Epstein. So what does that mean

(27:14):
shows up in the Epstein files if you're talking about
doing anything wrong? We all know there's zero chance because
we would already know about it. Oh, I do want
to get into this tomorrow, not right now. We're going
to do some deep dive on it tomorrow because I
think it's a fascinating idea and it's when Trump's at
his best, which is often. It's one thing he's been

(27:34):
known about from the beginning, is these fresh ideas, known
for those and we all know so many good people
now are having trouble buying a home because of these
high interest rates. So Trump is now getting behind a
fifty year mortgage. So just to heads up, we're going
to do a deep dive on that tomorrow. Obviously, the
idea is to you know, make the purchase doable for

(27:56):
a lot of people right now, and then he's under
fire from the left on it why, So just want
to let you know we're going to get into that
a bit tomorrow. I know there are probably a lot
of people listening who want to buy a home right
now and just can't because of those interest rates. I'm
not trying to say that this fifty year mortgage, which
obviously carries higher interest if you stay in it, but

(28:17):
who's going to stay in that right because eventually these
rates are going to come down and then everybody's going
to refinance. So we'll do that in more detail tomorrow
when we come back. Just it is so funny, this
striking lack of self awareness and love. Will play some
fun sound of the left reacting today to Trump giving
a preemptive pardon to a lot of his allies in

(28:39):
connection with this lawfare brought against them in connection with
the twenty twenty election, and we'll also talk about the
next big case coming up for President Trump at the
Supreme Court.

Speaker 3 (28:51):
You're on the Dan Capla Show.

Speaker 6 (28:54):
And now back to the Dan Tapla Show podcast.

Speaker 3 (28:57):
Glad you're here.

Speaker 1 (28:59):
There's something real, really good happening out there. I want
to give you part of this clip. This is a
guy you've never heard of, best quarterback in college football,
Fernando Mendoza from Indiana, and they had this huge win
against Penn State. They were losing in the last few
seconds of the game and Mendoza drove him down the
field and really a heroic drive and one of the
greatest catches you'll ever see to win the game. And

(29:21):
then he's there, and he's there with his receiver, and
here is.

Speaker 3 (29:26):
What he had to say. And you'll hear him referring
to the receiver.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
Yeah, afric good looking kid, African American kid who's standing
there nodding along with all of this.

Speaker 3 (29:34):
So this really comes from both of them.

Speaker 4 (29:37):
First of all, I know we.

Speaker 8 (29:38):
Both are this want to give all the glory to
God without him and want.

Speaker 2 (29:41):
To be here right now, and it's just it's so
amazing that.

Speaker 8 (29:44):
He's give us this opportunity platform to do this.

Speaker 7 (29:46):
There's the lady in the game.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
I threw a pitch, you know, that's all man. The
teams do have believe ladinas.

Speaker 6 (29:52):
I believe it's chose teams.

Speaker 3 (29:53):
I believe this guy.

Speaker 7 (29:54):
Believe he was up and I missed a couple.

Speaker 5 (29:55):
Of times, but it all came around the end with
the glory of God. I wasn't a as a coach
is groving a rally, I get the one here, and
also I guess a greats here.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
And to have his receiver standing there just smiling and
nodding long as he gave the glory to God.

Speaker 3 (30:11):
It was just really cool.

Speaker 1 (30:12):
But I think it's also symbolic of something that's happening
much more broadly among lots and lots of young people
in America who are now.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Much more open about it.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
So it's one of the things I want to talk
about tomorrow is is why this big surge right now
in faith and very very visible in Christian faith. I'm
not saying it's limited to that, but why this big
surge in faith? Obviously fantastic thing to see boats very
well for society in the future.

Speaker 3 (30:42):
But why do you think this is happening? So we'll
get into that.

Speaker 1 (30:46):
We've had point just an explosion of texts today and
calls on this topic of Okay, we haven't any snow yet,
would if you could get the moisture, get it through rain?
Would you want that all winter on the front range?
We all want them to get hammered with snow, right,
but would you take that all winter on the front range,
and so far the only dissenting vote was from our

(31:08):
friend Ty Winter, Assistant House Minority Leader.

Speaker 3 (31:11):
And yeah, he would just miss the snow too much
for me.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
As long as I could pop up to the mountain
see all that amazing beauty everything else, I'd be very
happy with this all winter. And again quick note, tomorrow
we're going to be talking about we are going to
be talking about the fifty year mortgage proposal from President Trump.
It seems like it's kind of genius on its face
right now, right to just allow more people to start

(31:37):
getting into homes and then under attack from the left
saying it'll increase cost too much. But don't those people
understand you can refinance when rates come down. Talk about
a striking lack of self awareness here. This is on
MSNBC this morning, talking about Trump giving these preemptive pardons
to all the victims of law fear his administration type,

(32:02):
folks who got arrested and prosecuted after he lost in
twenty There's.

Speaker 2 (32:06):
A lot to sift through here.

Speaker 8 (32:08):
You know, we know that President Trump has stacked his
administration with some of those previous twenty twenty election deniers,
those who claim falsely that he won the election, and
symbolic or not, this is another symbol here that he's
simply not going to play via the rules and that
these are people who he is yet another example.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
But he's not going to play by the rules. Wait
a second, who is he pardoning. He's pardoning people who
the left went after legally trying to destroy them, bankrupt them,
send them to prison. After the left launched this concerted,
determined effort to turn us into a banana republic, to

(32:49):
jail everybody as a warning to all others, to jail
everybody they possibly could who have been part of the
Trump administration, to make Trump himself die in so he
couldn't beat them at the polls. So it's Trump who's
shown once again he won't play by the rules. They're
the ones who shattered all the rules because they knew
they couldn't beat them at the ballot box.

Speaker 5 (33:11):
And are we going to talk about the Joe Biden
autopen pardons that he didn't even know who he was partying,
probably except for his son Hunter.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
Yeah yeah, wow, Denial's not just a river in Egypt.
And I hope they just keep on denying. Now, one
thing we didn't get to today, and I want to
do it tomorrow. So I really want to get your
take on this is why did the Dems cave? Why
did they cave to Trump? On the government shutdown? We
played some of that FuMB sound of lefty heads exploding

(33:40):
because the Dems did cave.

Speaker 3 (33:42):
But why do you think they did it?

Speaker 1 (33:45):
I think part of it goes back to the conversation
that we had together on Wednesday, when I pointed out,
wait a second, the Dems are politically.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
Family show. I'll choose a different.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
Word in ecstasy right now because they feel their back.
Wait a second, they one places they were to win,
and I think this acknowledges that right if the Dems
really thought they were on a roll, would they cave
right now? So we'll get into a bit more depth
than that tomorrow. Ryan, thank you for your phenomenal job,
as always, have a wonderful, safe evening. Join us tomorrow

(34:14):
at four on another snow free day on the Front
Range on the Dan Kapla Show.