Rep. Brandi Bradley (R-39) joins KBB to discuss the stunning move by Democrats to submarine a bill that would have reinforced sentencing for sex offenders who assault children.
Also, KBB explains what the end of the Department of Education at the federal level would mean for Colorado schools at the state and local level.
Also, KBB explains what the end of the Department of Education at the federal level would mean for Colorado schools at the state and local level.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Kaplis 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.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Here on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
I'm Christy Vernon Brown and for Dan today because he's
at trial.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Thanks for joining in.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
We have been talking about bills down to state legislature
and just a huge variety of crime bills that would
keep Colorado safe that have been killed almost entirely on
a party line vote in committee after committee retail, THEFT bills,
bill's fixing pr bonds, bill's fixing our sanctuary state status,
(00:40):
and they just are they're run.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
By good legislators. They would be supported by the.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
People, as we saw on the Truth and Sentencing and
other public safety ballot measures run last year. But when
you come down to a committee that is controlled by
the Democrats right now, they are being criminal friendly, not
victim friendly. And we see this in every single one
of these votes that we've been talking about. Right now,
we are joined by Representative Brandy Bradley Hooman to bring
(01:06):
on in just a second. She was running a really
good bill this year that would have stopped Colorado's insane
standard for giving probation to child rapists. And yes, you
heard that right, that's what Colorado does. Representative Bradley, thank
you so much for joining me on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
Oh thank you Christy for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
I appreciate it absolutely well.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
I think I was reading George Brockler's article talking about
your bill and he calls it probation for child rape
in Colorado.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Question mark, yes, really, and.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Goes on to explain how this is something that actually
happens in Colorado. Can you explain the situation a little
bit before we get into your bill.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Absolutely. We were approached by a Brockler's office. I'd done
some town halls and said, hey, what can I do
to run some bills for public safety? And his deputy
chief DA who is a godsend, was like, did you
know in our state that you can rape a child?
So you can rate ten children once and creed down
(02:03):
to probation. And I was like, there's no way that's true.
And we started digging in on it, and yeah, sixty
nine people got probation only seventy percent of child rapists
get probation only in our state.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
That is absolutely insane.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
And so the standard is if you do it once
to the specific child, you can get out of probation.
But if it's more than once to that specific child,
then you can't.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
That's the same.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Well, that is what that's what they say. But there's
they say that it's more than three times that you
actually get an actual sentence in the DOOC.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Oh my goodness, that's horrible. And so what I mean,
obviously your bill fixed it. Can you give a few
more details on what your bill would have done.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
Yeah, so we already have indeterminate sentencing for soolity four
and Solony three child assaults sexual folks on a child.
And so what Representative English and I have great by
person bill, we have by person people in the Senate
that were going to cover it. We were just removing
probation because we knew that seventy percent of these people
get probation only, and so we were going to make
sure that these sick individuals go to jail and then
(03:04):
go through sex offender treatment program and then are released
instead of a slap on the wrist. And the Democrats said, no,
that's not fair. We want determinate sentencing because criminals need
to know when they'll go to jail and how long
they'll spend in jail.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
And so indeterminate sentencing, I think that's probably a term
that not everyone is familiar with.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Can you explain it a little more?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Yeah, So for a selenty four, let's say position of trust.
You know, the public defenders try to come to the
scene and say, this is going to happen if you
stroll past someone on a bus and accidentally touch their buttocks.
That's not true in the state of Colorado. Soelenty four
I saw on a child is inappropriate touching through clothing,
but it's for sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse, and that's
(03:48):
really hard to prove in a court of law. So
you have to be the worst of the worst to
do that. So for that crime you get two to
six years. So it's an indeterminate amount of sentencing that
the judge uses his describe two sentence and we know
the majority of people's sentence for that crime served less
than a year on that. So then the public defender said, well,
these people are going to send their whole life because
(04:10):
the sentencing is to their natural light sometimes as well.
And we know that the person that has served the
worst amount of time is the worst offender served less
than twenty five years the sentencing.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Wow, no, it's crazy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
And it seems like time and time again, we have
the majority of the Democrats in the legislature, at least
those who are on the committees, voting on the side
of criminals and not on the side of victims. Apparently
not even when it comes to children. Now we're talking
to Representative Brandy Bradley, who is actually my state representative
in Douglas County. You're on the Dane Capel Show with
(04:45):
Christy Burton Brown. And this is a bill that I
believe just died yesterday in committee.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Well, this morning it went till two thirty am. And
I'll tell you that we didn't get witnesses to be
able to testify these people that signed up the testify.
It started at one point thirty the committe Sure, my
bill did not start until ten PM. And what a
disservice to the people that wanted to tell their story
in committee to wrap up at two thirty in the morning.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Right, instead of just continuing the next day or something
like that.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Right now, that's insane.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Did you get was anyone allowed to testify on the bill?
Speaker 4 (05:21):
Well, they were allowed to testify, but the public defenders
took so much of the time with their mistruths and
their false facts. I mean, one of the public defenders
talked about an autistic child that inappropriately touched someone that
was going to go to jail for forever. Well it
turns out he didn't go to jail because he went
to trial and a judge didn't find any proof. But
he neglected to talk about these. Another man a youth
(05:43):
pastor that raped many children in his church that he
got probation for. So these are the mistruths they bring.
They bring. There's plenty of people on the wait list
waiting in there. It's not fair that these criminals aren't
getting their treatment and getting out of jail, and it's
not fair to these criminals do not have determinate sentencing
in You know, we don't know that the recidivism. We
(06:04):
know that keeping these people in jail for longer periods
of time increases their recidivism. You know what it does, Christy,
You keep these people in jail It keeps them from
raping more children, is what it does, right.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
I mean, that's a fairly obvious conclusion that I think
the general public would agree with you on if they knew.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
And that's one thing I think.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
As completely unfortunate as it is that these kind of
bills don't pass committee because even though, as you mentioned,
Representative Bradley, you did have a Democrat co sponsor on
this bill, I think when it comes to the committees,
we are almost always seeing a party line vote on committees,
and then it's not going to the floor and the
majority of people aren't getting to talk about it. But
I think the fact that both you and District Attorney
George Brockler are talking about this issue, and I'm sure
(06:43):
you're not going to stop even though they're killing the bills.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
I think the more these things get exposed.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
To people, the more outrage is created, because the majority
of people actually do want to protect kids public defenders aside.
So I think this is just such an important issue
to highlight and thank you for your work on this.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Yes, well, I appreciate one more note that the Public
Defender's office actually said that they have criminals who can't
stand being on lifetime probation, So they actually asked to
go to jail, and Representative Codwell actually said, you're telling
me that someone that is accused of raping a child
would actually rather.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
Go to jail.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
I mean, this is the senseless stuff that they come
and speak about that the people of Colorado need to
understand that they're actually sitting there telling the committee members
that these poor people that rape children violently actually would
rather go to jail because probation is just too much
for them to endure.
Speaker 6 (07:37):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
No, that's yeah, just an insane outlook when you're completely
focused on criminals in their needs when they've already made
their own choice and they need to be punished for it,
and victim.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
People completely forget victims.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
I think in this whole equation, too many legislators obviously
not yourself and not some of your allies in the legislature,
but too many forget the victims and are like, oh,
we got to do the criminal justice system perfectly for
the criminal, but not take care of the victims and
stop people from being revictimized because we just give people
chance after chance after chance, and it just doesn't work.
I mean, no wonder Colorado is the third most dangerous
(08:12):
state in the nation right now, according to US News
and World Report, because bills like yours and so many
others that would keep our states safe are shot down
time and time again.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Well, and we're four highest for rape and we're ten
highest for human trafficking. So what are the Democrats doing?
You know, they come to the table and this bill
is not the answer. Well, what's the answer?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Because certain, right, what are you wating? Yeah, no, it's
so true, so true.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Well, we have to take a break here on the
Dan Kaplo Show. But thank you Representative Brandy Bradley for
joining us and telling us about your bill that would
have kept kids safe but got killed in committee.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Hey, thank you, Christy. I appreciate you getting the word. Oh,
thanks so much.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Absolutely, that was Representative Brandy Bradley from Douglas County. If
you have thoughts on this bill or and the others
we've been talking about, you can call in eight five
five four zero five eight two five five or text
to five seven seven thirty nine.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Of course, the criminal Justice laws.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Are only one of the entire set of laws that
are being considered by the legislature through the middle of May.
Their rights back in the middle of the legislative session
right now, Tabor of the taxpayer bill of rights a
huge issue. What do they get to cut in the
budget because of the shortfall, That's a huge issue. And
then of course public safety because despite all the claims
to make Colorado one of the top ten safest states
(09:24):
of the nation, which I think Polus has said for
the last few years, that's not what's happening. Instead, we're
the third most dangerous. Share your thoughts over the break.
You're on the dan CAAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
You're back on the dan CAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
I'm going to go to what a text is asking.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
He said, is there anyone in conservative Colorado looking at
all the laws and taxes figuring out what adjustments need
to be made with federal departments like education being dismantled
if any laws are no longer valid. You know, Polis
and the liberals won't willingly stop trying charging us.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
That is a very good point. They certainly won't do
it of their own accord.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
I think though, often what the laws that come down
from the federal departments, assuming there are laws there issue,
it would be regulations technically coming down from federal departments
that attach to the states. Often those rules and regulations
have funding attached to them, so it's like funding strings
per string, so they say, basically, if you comply with
this regulation, you get more money from the federal government.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
That's often how.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
It works, or regulations you have to comply with them,
but it doesn't necessarily charge the average person money. It
may require, like the state Department of Education to comply
with the rules and maybe to hire more staff people,
which of course, in the end our taxpayer dollars pay
for that, so in a roundabout way, we're paying for it.
(10:48):
But I think I'm not aware of anyone right now
where we could get rid of, like taxes and fees
that are connected to the federal government, if that's what
you're asking. Taxes and fees generally imposed by the state
here in Colorado, other than of course, are federal income
tax filing, and so that's a little different. So I think, yes,
it's something to watch for, but I think it'll more
(11:10):
be about the regulation side of things, like are there
regulations that the state continues to comply with that are
no longer rules under the new federal government. I think
those kind of things will take a little more time
to work through and figure out. But you're definitely right
that someone needs to be on top of it and
make sure that there's not a lot of busy work
still being conducted by the state that in the end
(11:31):
is costing taxpayers money because we have to pay for
the people who do it. So good question, and I
think Ryan had asked it in a different segment of
the show. What I think is actually going to happen
to education here in Colorado if the federal Department of
Education does get dismantled, what are the effects here? And
so I think the effects really will be to restore
a lot of control to the state and to local districts.
(11:54):
In Colorado, we're one of the few states in the
nation that actually put into our constitution local control of education,
which means that the local boards in school districts get
to choose curriculum. The state may not mandate that on them.
They can set standards, but can't tell them exactly how
to teach it and what books to use, for example.
So I think a state like Colorado that focuses so
(12:14):
much on local control, should welcome the dismantling of a
federal Department of education because it means less rules and regulations,
less bureaucracy, more decision making on the state because if
you eliminate some of those purse strings and you just
get the money because it's the federal allocation that goes
to the state, instead of the federal government being able
to say, well, only if you take these tests, will
(12:37):
we give you money. Only if you have like DEI
in your curriculum, will we give you this set of money.
Like you eliminate that when you eliminate bureaucracy, because there
aren't the people to make the rules and regulations and tie.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Money to that.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
In my view, instead, the federal portion of money should
go to the states and say, hey, you have this
many students in your state, therefore you get this much money.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And so cutting.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Bureaucracy actually opens up the ability for that to happen,
and more money to flow directly into the state, into
the local districts, into the classrooms, hopefully increase the teacher
pay that we can do. And so I think anytime
you're cutting administration, you're dismantling bureaucracy. It's not dismantling education.
It's not dismantling funding. It's dismantling bureaucracy. It's a really
really important point we need to emphasize, and it actually
(13:23):
often allows funding to be way more clear and go
directly where.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
It needs to go instead of passing through all these layers.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Oh, we need to hire this person to enforce this rule,
and hire that person to create this rule, and then
this person to process that funding.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Like, that's not what we need.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
And for anyone who's concerned about like special ed funding
that comes from the federal level, or like the Free
and reduced lunch program or things that help families or
kids who really are in need, there has been no
talk at the federal level of cutting those kind of funding.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Streams to the states.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
And you don't need the Department of Education to give
that funding to the state, like there are other federal
departments that grants to the states can come through. So again,
I think the main I keep repeating it, but the
main foundational line here is cutting bureaucracy is not the
same as cutting funding, and people need to stop claiming
that it's the same thing. Not yet, if you're listening.
(14:18):
You probably already don't think that's what's happening. But there's
a whole lot of people out there just listening to
the headlines and not reading the actual executive orders and
the actual things that are coming from officials themselves. And
if I could change something, I would love to change
the people would actually go to the original source and
read what's actually happening and what's actually being said, not
how it's being reported and explained by the media. If
(14:40):
you have thoughts, you can call in eight five five
four zero five eight two five five, or you can
text your thoughts to Dan at five seven seven three nine.
Here's another text saying, I'm not surprised that the child
rapists are not getting jail time. I mean, Colorado allows
abortion up until birth. The Democrats don't care about children.
Why would they care about children getting raped and holding
(15:01):
the rapists accountable?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
And this is in reference.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
If you missed our last segment, we had Representative Brandy
Bradley on and she was talking about a bill that
she ran. A District Attorney George Brockler is all over
this issue talking about how in Colorado, if you rape
a child, you can get out on probation, and apparently
that probation was great to sixty nine individuals last year
who did this to kids, and they were just immediately
right back out on the streets, right back out in
(15:24):
those homes and those schools wherever they were attacking children,
not sent to jail at all. So to the Texter's comment,
you know, I think you're right that when we create
a culture that devalues children, that doesn't view them as
the precious gifts that they are, and doesn't view ourselves
as having some sort of responsibility to protect them so
that they can grow up with all the opportunities that
(15:46):
they should be given in this life, it does bleed
over into other areas. And if you have a general
view that you know, children are only worthy of protection
at this age or in this environment, what is to
stop you from setting your own standards of when a
child becomes eligible for that kind of protection, or when
they're viewed as a fully equal human and what level
(16:09):
of protection we really want to give them. So I
will agree with you that when you see people choosing
abortion until birth, they are choosing adults over children. When
you see people choosing probation for child rapists instead of
putting them in jail. You are seeing them choose adults
over children, and I think instead we need to view
children as equal human beings with equal rights that ought
(16:31):
to be protected at every stage of their life against
any adults who would cause them harm. So thank you
for that comment. If you're listing and you have other thoughts,
text them to five seven seven three nine. Start it
with Dan. I think though it'll be interesting to see.
We talked really early in the show about the Continuing
Resolution at the federal level. So going back to the
federal level, now, if John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett are
(16:52):
going to split in their votes, Chuck Schumer actually just
announced that he is going to be voting with the
Republicans on the not actually sure if it's the cure
vote or the Continuing Resolution vote what, but he's yeah,
I just saw that in the break. I'm gonna look
it up again in this break to make sure I.
Speaker 6 (17:06):
Read the headline right. The heck just tappened. How did
he do that?
Speaker 2 (17:10):
I don't know, but I literally saw headlines.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
I will say I've been using AI for some research
and it will summarize things for me and give me
headlines and I go research it and it is completely wrong.
I was listening to a cl because I'm a layer
and I have to do these continuing education classes, and
it said AI wants to please you, so it will
often give you the answers that thinks you wants you want,
not the answers that are real.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Tell you what you want to hear, tell you exactly.
Speaker 6 (17:35):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
So I'm gonna double check. At the break, We'll see
if Chuck Shrumer really has come over, if that was
a fake AI headline, we'll find out. I'm Grauzy Burden Round.
You're on the Dan Caplass Show. You can call in
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
or text five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast here.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Back to the Day A Capital of show.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
I'm Christy Burton Brown, and yes, I was able to
confirm that Chuck Schumer has indeed come over to the
dark side and announced that he will be supporting the
Republican bill and to continue I guess continue resolution to
not shut down the government. And of course it's not
the dark side, it's the light side. But this is
what he would say. Oh, It's troubling and terrible, but
he just must to do it. Ryan, what comments are
(18:22):
you hearing?
Speaker 7 (18:22):
What a loser? First of all? I mean, secondly, shouldn't
he of all people know better? I mean, think about this.
As much as we dislike her, Nancy Pelosi knew how
the gears of government worked. She knew if she had
the votes or not. She knew if she could corral
the squad in dis place, and she did exactly she could.
Heard Kats, what the hell was Schumer thinking?
Speaker 6 (18:43):
What was he doing?
Speaker 7 (18:45):
Theater?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I think it's a show, I think.
Speaker 7 (18:47):
But if I'm a Democrat, I'm pissed off too.
Speaker 6 (18:50):
He's like pounding a shower. We're not gonna We're gonna
shut it down. This is a bad bill. Republicans do it.
And then ah jkl.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
And it goes back to what I said earlier in
the show, Ryan, that another I heard from another commentator.
I'm adopting it because I think it's right. Democrats don't
know how to deal with this president care. They just don't.
Speaker 6 (19:09):
Christy.
Speaker 7 (19:10):
Is there an argument to be made that they're even
worse this time around than the first time around with Trump?
Speaker 2 (19:16):
See?
Speaker 3 (19:16):
I think they are because I think the first time around,
they were consumed with taking him down personally, right, so
all the impeachments, all the like, he's so terrible, all
the personal attacks. This time around, they know he actually
has nothing to lose because he can't run again.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
He's term limited after this time.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
And they also know that he know he had four
years in between these two terms to figure out exactly
what happened, whatever mistakes he made in his first term,
like not cleaning house and not quickly going after policy
and demanding that it get passed. And he's not making
those same mistakes so far in these first couple months.
And I think they're shocked. I think they didn't expect it.
(19:54):
I think they didn't think he was like politically spurt
and strategic. Oh, he's just a business guy, doesn't know
what he's doing. Well, actually doesn't know what he's doing,
and he had four years to think about it and
to get the right people around him.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
And so I don't think they know how to respond
to that version of Trump.
Speaker 7 (20:05):
It's even proving Senator Elissa Slotkin, right, Democrat Michigan, when
she kind of gave away the game and said Democrats
are on their heels It's like they took one big
Mike Tyson punt circa nineteen eighty seven, Michael Spinks in
the ring, and they're just flustered and they're they're flailing
and they don't know how to respond.
Speaker 6 (20:23):
And this is further evidence of that. Christine.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
Again, if I was a diehard liberal Democratic voter and
I watched what Chuck Schumer just did, I go, what
is going on there?
Speaker 6 (20:31):
These people have no idea what they're doing or how
to do it right?
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Right, which is is I think really interesting that Trump's
like peeling back the curtain on all of this. Yeah,
like they were able, you know, I think with Joe
Biden in charge that the other Democrats could look better
if they could look like they were together, because Joe
Biden fell apart all the time and wasn't competent, so
they looked a lot better.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Than they were.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
But now you have Trump who knows how to play
them and knows like, again, he had four years to
study how to get all this stuff done. He figured
it out and brought the right people along with him,
and they're like, oh, shoot, we actually don't know what
we're doing. I mean, even when you see John Higginlober,
Michael Bennett split off. You see more Democrats following what
appears now to be the lead of John.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Fetterman instead of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I mean, wasn't a good move by Schumer to let
Fetterman go out ahead of him on this.
Speaker 7 (21:16):
When you look at it too, Christy, You've got three
incumbent Democrat senators who would be up for reelection in
twenty twenty six who are not running. Tina Smith in Minnesota,
Gerry Peters in Michigan, and I think Jeane Shaheen in Hampshire.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
That's three right there.
Speaker 7 (21:29):
You have John Ossoff, who's in a very tough battle
in twenty six for the Georgia Senate seat. He couldn't
afford to come out and block this cr. There's rumors,
I'm not sure if they've been confirmed yet that Brian
Kemp might run as the Republican nominee against him.
Speaker 6 (21:44):
I mean, I think he will walk all over.
Speaker 7 (21:46):
As off and Ostof has to have some kind of
pretense that he's a moderate, but that would not be
the case here. So Schumer, who's in New York, he
gets comfortably re elected. He didn't really think about these
purple state Democratic senators. They're going to have a tough
bill of goods to sell back to their purple state constituents.
You know, Mark Kelly in Arizona, Mark Warner even a
(22:06):
little bit in Virginia, or even you heard John Hickenlooper
vacillating and what should be a safe blue state.
Speaker 6 (22:12):
Well, I don't know, leaning toward maybe.
Speaker 7 (22:14):
And then I think Schumer recognized, like you said, the
math just wasn't there.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
Yeah, and something he probably should have known sooner rather
than later. But I mean works out for us. It
looks like one after the other they just cave to Trump,
which is, you know what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
But I think it is interesting the point.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
You bring up, Ryan, about those three incumbent Democrats already
announcing that they're not running for reelection. Right, it's my
understanding that next cycle was not supposed to be a
good pickup cycle for Republicans as originally designed.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
Like, right, that's what.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
And it's just interesting that on every level they're like
backing off it, caving and giving in so early and
so much.
Speaker 6 (22:49):
Now.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I think politics changes every single day.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
You could ever be like, oh, a year and a
half ahead of time, I can predict exactly what's going
to happen. You just can't do that. But it is
interesting seeing the writing as it gets put on the wall,
not all there yet, but seeing kind of where the
signs are pointing. And I think there's no question that
the Democrat Party has no idea of two things. First,
how to deal with Donald Trump, this new version, this
new together collected version of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
They do not know how to deal with him.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
And when I say new version, he's still the same
on all the issues, but I think how he's presenting
them and how he's tackling them, and who he's brought
along with him, that is what looks different right now
in my opinion. And then secondly, what they don't know
is how to message themselves. They have been all about
the doom and gloom policy for too long. They had
to go on defense about Joe Biden. No, no, he
really is competent. No, no, world leaders really do look
(23:38):
up to us, No, no, not.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Everything is falling apart.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
So they had the last couple of years of being
on the defense all the time, and then their other
mode was attacking Trump. He's terrible, he's horrible, he's awful,
He's a Nazi, everyone hates everyone, and now they're like, okay, shoot,
Republicans control all three branches of power. Normally, what you'd
want to do as a party is say, we're going
to build the block to pitch our own, better, more optimistic, successful.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Version of America.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
We're gonna make the deals we have to make, but
we're gonna make ourselves look like the stars in these deals.
And instead they're like falling apart, being insanely pessimistic, not
proposing any better plans, acting like everything and everyone is
dying and horrible and terrible.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
And I don't think the American people are buying it.
Speaker 7 (24:24):
It's exactly right, Christy, and just watch whatever Democrat comes out,
whether it's Jasmine Krockett, Rasheta to Leib exception being John Fetterman. Sure,
but any Chuck Schumer, any Hakeem Jeffries. Faces and voices
of this party. They have been I think stamped with
their reaction at that address to the Joint Session of
(24:44):
Congress with not applauding a thirteen year old boy with cancer.
They got a special appointment to the Secret Service. They're
negative Nellies, they have no positive vision for America. They're
only a card that they play is Trump, bad Trump,
evil Trump, Hitler, orange Man.
Speaker 6 (24:58):
And people are sick of that. They've tuned it out.
Speaker 7 (25:00):
So what vision, what plan do Democrats have that's a
better alternative? Christy, you know this as well as anybody
in politics. If you don't present that alternative vision, that
affirmative vision of a way forward, like Bill Clinton did
quite frankly ninety two, like Barack Obama did in two
thousand and eight, that's that's how you win elections. The
Democrats aren't offering that. It's lazy. That's the number one
(25:21):
thing that comes to mind. It's just lazy. It's like,
well we'll just rip Trump. Nope, that's not going to
do it right.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
And for all their I think you're right, Ryan, and
for all their claiming that, oh, we have the young generation.
So I was able to do some interviews this last
week for the Daniels Fund. They give scholarships out every years.
I've never done it before, so it's really really amazing
to see these young kids, but a number of them,
whether I'm talking to other interviewers who talk to these
kids or hearing from kids myself, so many kids in
(25:47):
that generation are saying what do I not like about politics,
how divisive it is, that everyone is constantly attacking everyone
else personally. And I think the Democrats are having no
forward looking vision when they don't have policy plans, they
don't have better messaging. But then they also are continuing
that divisiveness while claiming to be the party that young
people resonate with, Like it's getting old and people are
(26:08):
tuning it out, and right now with everything Trump is accomplishing,
if what the Democrats get is.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
People just tuning them out, they're not.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Setting themselves up for success, fine by me, but I
don't think it's a great strategy.
Speaker 7 (26:18):
And even when they're staking out political positions they're taking
like the twenty side of eighty twenty issues like trans
and athletes in female sports, they're dying on that hill
wasteful government spending. No, we need wasteful governments, we do. Okay,
if that's the argument you want to make, it's just silly.
This is fodder, this is the stuff of parity, and
(26:39):
they become a caricature of themselves.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Well in the eighty twenty issue is I think what
Trump has, you know, mastered, And he certainly did that
in his joint speech to Congress. So many of the
issues that he brought up were not just Republican issues,
they were literally eighty twenty they were American issues.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
And that's what he's doing a good job of.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
I mean even naming the while it was it a
wildlife reserve after the little girl who was killed by
an illegal immage who is a violent criminal. Yeah, most
Americans want little girls like that to be safe. So
these the Democrats just sit there and don't even clap
for that. It's beyond insane, Like, come on, these are
these are American issues. Let's be Americans together. And yes
it's Trump that's representing the American issues. Horrors that you
(27:15):
might have to align with him on something, but Americans
are going to tune you out if you don't. So
we have sake a break now. I'm Kristy Burton Brown
on the Dankaplai Show. I see I have a question
I need to answer when I come back. If you
have questions or thoughts, text them into five seven, seven
three nine or call in eight five five four zero
five eight two five five.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
And now back to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
You're back on the Dan Caplis Show. I'm Christy Burton
Brown in for Dan tonight because he's in trial, but
I think you get him back tomorrow. So thanks for
joining me. I'm going to go to the text line
and answer a question. We were talking about the federal
Department of Education being dismantled by the Trump administration. I
actually Democrats using that kind of language, always dismantling the
Department of Education, but I actually kind of like it, like, yeah,
(27:56):
it's an agency worth being dismantled. I don't think we
should high or go away from that language. There are
so many federal agencies that are bloated and huge. My
dad actually works for the federal government and he tells
me all these stories about federal employees who go from
cubicle to cubicle chatting all day long. There aren't enough
(28:18):
projects for the number of people they've hired to do,
and then it's super super hard to fire anyone until
Trump came in office at the federal government, and so
they absolutely need to be cut and dismantled. Some of
these agencies shouldn't exist, and the ones that do exist
need to be downsized. Like we always believe in downsizing
in our personal lives and business, in anything that's important
(28:41):
when you want to be more efficient and effective. It's
an answer, but somehow accordion fell either. It's a horrible,
horrible thing when it comes to the Department of Education.
Speaker 7 (28:48):
I'm so glad that your dad spoke up, because of
course there is going to be that level of just
waste and excess and bloat in a bureaucracy where these
workers are coming out and they're so tone off. Christ's
the rest of us who work in the private sector
saying we shouldn't be accountable for what we're doing. We
shouldn't have to answer an email of five things that
we did last Yeah, how dare they come in here
(29:09):
and tell us what we should be able to work
from our bathtubs at home like we have been.
Speaker 6 (29:13):
This is what they become accustomed to.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
No, I know, and I actually ask my dad, is
that you actually have to answer that email? Is that
a real thing?
Speaker 3 (29:19):
Because you know, we see all these things over social
media and or like, right, are they just like sending
that to a few people?
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Is it really real? Is it just a story?
Speaker 3 (29:26):
No, it's real, Like he literally had to answer the
email and he's happy to do it. If you actually
do your work how is that difficult? Here's the five
things I did this week.
Speaker 7 (29:33):
But more than what they were, that not that Elon
had a team going through to these things.
Speaker 6 (29:37):
Really really it was a pulse.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Check, literally, answer do you exist?
Speaker 7 (29:41):
Are you a human with a pulse who's still alive
collecting a government paycheck?
Speaker 6 (29:46):
It's just, oh, here's five things.
Speaker 7 (29:47):
And I was able to reply and respond to the
email because I'm a living human.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
Right exactly exactly. And you know the thing that's I
don't know. I think maybe this is from because I'm
from a younger generation. I don't think all remote work
is bad. I really don't, and I think it is
too bad when everyone gets panded with the exact same brush,
and they say, because there's so much bloat and waste
and so many people who do take advantage of the
fact that they get to work at home and therefore
don't really work at all, let's bring everyone back, like, Okay,
(30:14):
if you look at the modern world, it actually is
possible to do some jobs remotely. It actually is if
you have the right check ins in place, if you
have the good managers, it is actually possible to and
sometimes actually better to have people.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Doing it remote.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
They can travel to different sites better, They can do
it at different hours of the day that actually can
be more helpful than office hours. There's a whole lot
of reasons you can actually look into it. I'd apply
this to the business world, to the government, to really
any area of life.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
I don't think this is specific to government.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
But my problem is I don't think government should be
excluded and say, oh, we've come to a point in
the world where we know that remote work is possible,
but the government may not allow it. So I understand
why they're like swinging the pendulum all, you know, all
the way to the other way because of all the
abuses and bloat in the system that have occurred. But
I think they should get back to a balanced position
(31:02):
at some point and say, let's evaluate which positions actually
can be done accurately remotely. Are the safeguards management techniques
in place to ensure that people are actually doing their work,
because I don't see a point to penalizing people who
actually are hard workers and can do it remote and
then they also have a better quality of family life,
and they're also more likely to stay in the job
(31:22):
because it works for them. I guess I'm a fan
of having a work life balance, and I think remote
work can provide that for some people. So that'd just
be my personal opinion of I think they need to
swing to a balance. But I understand right now why
they're like doing the five point email, like let us
know you exist, like are you actually interested in keeping
your job? Are you willing to show back up at
work and show that you actually want this job. So
there's a very important things to what they're doing, but
(31:44):
I hope they balance after a little while. The question
I got though, is because we're talking about the Department
of Education, are the standardized tests administered by the Federal
Department of Education. Standardized tests a huge, huge issue in education,
So they're not administered by the Federal Department of Education.
They're administered by the state and in fact by the
local districts in Colorado. The Sea Mass is the one
you take in Colorado, and then sometimes the p SET
(32:05):
or SAT and I don't think they really do the
act here in Colorado too much, but some kids certainly do.
Depends on what college you're trying to get into. But
the Sea Mass is the big one that's required. What
happens is there the Federal requirement that you do the
state testing that states that get funding for the federal
government that they do this testing. Which test you do
can be decided by the state, so it's sort of
a balance. And I think we talked a lot about
(32:26):
when you shut down the Department of Education or dismantle it,
cut it in half, which is what's going on right now,
what do you lose with that? And I think the
thing that people are afraid of losing is the funding.
They don't want funding to be taken away from the
states and taken out of education. But what you should
want to happen is the bureaucracy and the rules and
regulations to get out of it, give more states the
(32:48):
ability to let teachers not constantly be teaching to a test.
That's a problem that if you talk to teachers across
the state, they really do feel like they can't always
teach the subjects to the kids.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
They have to teach each to the test.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
So instead of like do you really understand the science
of reading, do you really understand financial literacy? Do you
really understand science and history and how to evaluate literature
and let kids use their imagination and teach them how
to think, not always what to think.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
You don't have the freedom to do that.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Even as one of the best teachers in Colorado, it's
difficult to do that because you're constantly teaching to the test.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
I like tests.
Speaker 3 (33:24):
I'm not opposed to them. I think they are a
measure of achievement and accountability. But when they are so
common and administered as frequently as they are, you fall
into the run of teaching kids how to take tests
instead of teaching them how to think and how to learn.
So if dismantling the Federal Department of Education shakes any
of that up, it remains to be seen if it will.
I'm going to be a fan of that because I
(33:46):
think there's a reason that the majority of kids in
Colorado do not read and do not do math at
grade level. Only forty percent of kids do, and there's
a reason for that. So shake up the system. Let's
dismantle it and get something better in place. I'm Christy
Burton around you've been on the Dan Kapitala show. Thanks
for joining me, and I hope you enjoy having Dan
back tomorrow.
This is Dan Kaplis 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.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Here on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
I'm Christy Vernon Brown and for Dan today because he's
at trial.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Thanks for joining in.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
We have been talking about bills down to state legislature
and just a huge variety of crime bills that would
keep Colorado safe that have been killed almost entirely on
a party line vote in committee after committee retail, THEFT bills,
bill's fixing pr bonds, bill's fixing our sanctuary state status,
(00:40):
and they just are they're run.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
By good legislators. They would be supported by the.
Speaker 3 (00:44):
People, as we saw on the Truth and Sentencing and
other public safety ballot measures run last year. But when
you come down to a committee that is controlled by
the Democrats right now, they are being criminal friendly, not
victim friendly. And we see this in every single one
of these votes that we've been talking about. Right now,
we are joined by Representative Brandy Bradley Hooman to bring
(01:06):
on in just a second. She was running a really
good bill this year that would have stopped Colorado's insane
standard for giving probation to child rapists. And yes, you
heard that right, that's what Colorado does. Representative Bradley, thank
you so much for joining me on the Dan Kapla show.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
Oh thank you Christy for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
I appreciate it absolutely well.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
I think I was reading George Brockler's article talking about
your bill and he calls it probation for child rape
in Colorado.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Question mark, yes, really, and.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Goes on to explain how this is something that actually
happens in Colorado. Can you explain the situation a little
bit before we get into your bill.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Absolutely. We were approached by a Brockler's office. I'd done
some town halls and said, hey, what can I do
to run some bills for public safety? And his deputy
chief DA who is a godsend, was like, did you
know in our state that you can rape a child?
So you can rate ten children once and creed down
(02:03):
to probation. And I was like, there's no way that's true.
And we started digging in on it, and yeah, sixty
nine people got probation only seventy percent of child rapists
get probation only in our state.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
That is absolutely insane.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
And so the standard is if you do it once
to the specific child, you can get out of probation.
But if it's more than once to that specific child,
then you can't.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
That's the same.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
Well, that is what that's what they say. But there's
they say that it's more than three times that you
actually get an actual sentence in the DOOC.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Oh my goodness, that's horrible. And so what I mean,
obviously your bill fixed it. Can you give a few
more details on what your bill would have done.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
Yeah, so we already have indeterminate sentencing for soolity four
and Solony three child assaults sexual folks on a child.
And so what Representative English and I have great by
person bill, we have by person people in the Senate
that were going to cover it. We were just removing
probation because we knew that seventy percent of these people
get probation only, and so we were going to make
sure that these sick individuals go to jail and then
(03:04):
go through sex offender treatment program and then are released
instead of a slap on the wrist. And the Democrats said, no,
that's not fair. We want determinate sentencing because criminals need
to know when they'll go to jail and how long
they'll spend in jail.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
And so indeterminate sentencing, I think that's probably a term
that not everyone is familiar with.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Can you explain it a little more?
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Yeah, So for a selenty four, let's say position of trust.
You know, the public defenders try to come to the
scene and say, this is going to happen if you
stroll past someone on a bus and accidentally touch their buttocks.
That's not true in the state of Colorado. Soelenty four
I saw on a child is inappropriate touching through clothing,
but it's for sexual gratification, arousal, or abuse, and that's
(03:48):
really hard to prove in a court of law. So
you have to be the worst of the worst to
do that. So for that crime you get two to
six years. So it's an indeterminate amount of sentencing that
the judge uses his describe two sentence and we know
the majority of people's sentence for that crime served less
than a year on that. So then the public defender said, well,
these people are going to send their whole life because
(04:10):
the sentencing is to their natural light sometimes as well.
And we know that the person that has served the
worst amount of time is the worst offender served less
than twenty five years the sentencing.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Wow, no, it's crazy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
And it seems like time and time again, we have
the majority of the Democrats in the legislature, at least
those who are on the committees, voting on the side
of criminals and not on the side of victims. Apparently
not even when it comes to children. Now we're talking
to Representative Brandy Bradley, who is actually my state representative
in Douglas County. You're on the Dane Capel Show with
(04:45):
Christy Burton Brown. And this is a bill that I
believe just died yesterday in committee.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Is that right?
Speaker 4 (04:50):
Well, this morning it went till two thirty am. And
I'll tell you that we didn't get witnesses to be
able to testify these people that signed up the testify.
It started at one point thirty the committe Sure, my
bill did not start until ten PM. And what a
disservice to the people that wanted to tell their story
in committee to wrap up at two thirty in the morning.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Right, instead of just continuing the next day or something
like that.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Right now, that's insane.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Did you get was anyone allowed to testify on the bill?
Speaker 4 (05:21):
Well, they were allowed to testify, but the public defenders
took so much of the time with their mistruths and
their false facts. I mean, one of the public defenders
talked about an autistic child that inappropriately touched someone that
was going to go to jail for forever. Well it
turns out he didn't go to jail because he went
to trial and a judge didn't find any proof. But
he neglected to talk about these. Another man a youth
(05:43):
pastor that raped many children in his church that he
got probation for. So these are the mistruths they bring.
They bring. There's plenty of people on the wait list
waiting in there. It's not fair that these criminals aren't
getting their treatment and getting out of jail, and it's
not fair to these criminals do not have determinate sentencing
in You know, we don't know that the recidivism. We
(06:04):
know that keeping these people in jail for longer periods
of time increases their recidivism. You know what it does, Christy,
You keep these people in jail It keeps them from
raping more children, is what it does, right.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
I mean, that's a fairly obvious conclusion that I think
the general public would agree with you on if they knew.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
And that's one thing I think.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
As completely unfortunate as it is that these kind of
bills don't pass committee because even though, as you mentioned,
Representative Bradley, you did have a Democrat co sponsor on
this bill, I think when it comes to the committees,
we are almost always seeing a party line vote on committees,
and then it's not going to the floor and the
majority of people aren't getting to talk about it. But
I think the fact that both you and District Attorney
George Brockler are talking about this issue, and I'm sure
(06:43):
you're not going to stop even though they're killing the bills.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
I think the more these things get exposed.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
To people, the more outrage is created, because the majority
of people actually do want to protect kids public defenders aside.
So I think this is just such an important issue
to highlight and thank you for your work on this.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Yes, well, I appreciate one more note that the Public
Defender's office actually said that they have criminals who can't
stand being on lifetime probation, So they actually asked to
go to jail, and Representative Codwell actually said, you're telling
me that someone that is accused of raping a child
would actually rather.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
Go to jail.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
I mean, this is the senseless stuff that they come
and speak about that the people of Colorado need to
understand that they're actually sitting there telling the committee members
that these poor people that rape children violently actually would
rather go to jail because probation is just too much
for them to endure.
Speaker 6 (07:37):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
No, that's yeah, just an insane outlook when you're completely
focused on criminals in their needs when they've already made
their own choice and they need to be punished for it,
and victim.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
People completely forget victims.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
I think in this whole equation, too many legislators obviously
not yourself and not some of your allies in the legislature,
but too many forget the victims and are like, oh,
we got to do the criminal justice system perfectly for
the criminal, but not take care of the victims and
stop people from being revictimized because we just give people
chance after chance after chance, and it just doesn't work.
I mean, no wonder Colorado is the third most dangerous
(08:12):
state in the nation right now, according to US News
and World Report, because bills like yours and so many
others that would keep our states safe are shot down
time and time again.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Well, and we're four highest for rape and we're ten
highest for human trafficking. So what are the Democrats doing?
You know, they come to the table and this bill
is not the answer. Well, what's the answer?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Because certain, right, what are you wating? Yeah, no, it's
so true, so true.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Well, we have to take a break here on the
Dan Kaplo Show. But thank you Representative Brandy Bradley for
joining us and telling us about your bill that would
have kept kids safe but got killed in committee.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Hey, thank you, Christy. I appreciate you getting the word. Oh,
thanks so much.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Absolutely, that was Representative Brandy Bradley from Douglas County. If
you have thoughts on this bill or and the others
we've been talking about, you can call in eight five
five four zero five eight two five five or text
to five seven seven thirty nine.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Of course, the criminal Justice laws.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Are only one of the entire set of laws that
are being considered by the legislature through the middle of May.
Their rights back in the middle of the legislative session
right now, Tabor of the taxpayer bill of rights a
huge issue. What do they get to cut in the
budget because of the shortfall, That's a huge issue. And
then of course public safety because despite all the claims
to make Colorado one of the top ten safest states
(09:24):
of the nation, which I think Polus has said for
the last few years, that's not what's happening. Instead, we're
the third most dangerous. Share your thoughts over the break.
You're on the dan CAAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
You're back on the dan CAPLA Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
I'm going to go to what a text is asking.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
He said, is there anyone in conservative Colorado looking at
all the laws and taxes figuring out what adjustments need
to be made with federal departments like education being dismantled
if any laws are no longer valid. You know, Polis
and the liberals won't willingly stop trying charging us.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
That is a very good point. They certainly won't do
it of their own accord.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
I think though, often what the laws that come down
from the federal departments, assuming there are laws there issue,
it would be regulations technically coming down from federal departments
that attach to the states. Often those rules and regulations
have funding attached to them, so it's like funding strings
per string, so they say, basically, if you comply with
this regulation, you get more money from the federal government.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
That's often how.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
It works, or regulations you have to comply with them,
but it doesn't necessarily charge the average person money. It
may require, like the state Department of Education to comply
with the rules and maybe to hire more staff people,
which of course, in the end our taxpayer dollars pay
for that, so in a roundabout way, we're paying for it.
(10:48):
But I think I'm not aware of anyone right now
where we could get rid of, like taxes and fees
that are connected to the federal government, if that's what
you're asking. Taxes and fees generally imposed by the state
here in Colorado, other than of course, are federal income
tax filing, and so that's a little different. So I think, yes,
it's something to watch for, but I think it'll more
(11:10):
be about the regulation side of things, like are there
regulations that the state continues to comply with that are
no longer rules under the new federal government. I think
those kind of things will take a little more time
to work through and figure out. But you're definitely right
that someone needs to be on top of it and
make sure that there's not a lot of busy work
still being conducted by the state that in the end
(11:31):
is costing taxpayers money because we have to pay for
the people who do it. So good question, and I
think Ryan had asked it in a different segment of
the show. What I think is actually going to happen
to education here in Colorado if the federal Department of
Education does get dismantled, what are the effects here? And
so I think the effects really will be to restore
a lot of control to the state and to local districts.
(11:54):
In Colorado, we're one of the few states in the
nation that actually put into our constitution local control of education,
which means that the local boards in school districts get
to choose curriculum. The state may not mandate that on them.
They can set standards, but can't tell them exactly how
to teach it and what books to use, for example.
So I think a state like Colorado that focuses so
(12:14):
much on local control, should welcome the dismantling of a
federal Department of education because it means less rules and regulations,
less bureaucracy, more decision making on the state because if
you eliminate some of those purse strings and you just
get the money because it's the federal allocation that goes
to the state, instead of the federal government being able
to say, well, only if you take these tests, will
(12:37):
we give you money. Only if you have like DEI
in your curriculum, will we give you this set of money.
Like you eliminate that when you eliminate bureaucracy, because there
aren't the people to make the rules and regulations and tie.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Money to that.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
In my view, instead, the federal portion of money should
go to the states and say, hey, you have this
many students in your state, therefore you get this much money.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
And so cutting.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Bureaucracy actually opens up the ability for that to happen,
and more money to flow directly into the state, into
the local districts, into the classrooms, hopefully increase the teacher
pay that we can do. And so I think anytime
you're cutting administration, you're dismantling bureaucracy. It's not dismantling education.
It's not dismantling funding. It's dismantling bureaucracy. It's a really
really important point we need to emphasize, and it actually
(13:23):
often allows funding to be way more clear and go
directly where.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
It needs to go instead of passing through all these layers.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
Oh, we need to hire this person to enforce this rule,
and hire that person to create this rule, and then
this person to process that funding.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Like, that's not what we need.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
And for anyone who's concerned about like special ed funding
that comes from the federal level, or like the Free
and reduced lunch program or things that help families or
kids who really are in need, there has been no
talk at the federal level of cutting those kind of funding.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Streams to the states.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
And you don't need the Department of Education to give
that funding to the state, like there are other federal
departments that grants to the states can come through. So again,
I think the main I keep repeating it, but the
main foundational line here is cutting bureaucracy is not the
same as cutting funding, and people need to stop claiming
that it's the same thing. Not yet, if you're listening.
(14:18):
You probably already don't think that's what's happening. But there's
a whole lot of people out there just listening to
the headlines and not reading the actual executive orders and
the actual things that are coming from officials themselves. And
if I could change something, I would love to change
the people would actually go to the original source and
read what's actually happening and what's actually being said, not
how it's being reported and explained by the media. If
(14:40):
you have thoughts, you can call in eight five five
four zero five eight two five five, or you can
text your thoughts to Dan at five seven seven three nine.
Here's another text saying, I'm not surprised that the child
rapists are not getting jail time. I mean, Colorado allows
abortion up until birth. The Democrats don't care about children.
Why would they care about children getting raped and holding
(15:01):
the rapists accountable?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
And this is in reference.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
If you missed our last segment, we had Representative Brandy
Bradley on and she was talking about a bill that
she ran. A District Attorney George Brockler is all over
this issue talking about how in Colorado, if you rape
a child, you can get out on probation, and apparently
that probation was great to sixty nine individuals last year
who did this to kids, and they were just immediately
right back out on the streets, right back out in
(15:24):
those homes and those schools wherever they were attacking children,
not sent to jail at all. So to the Texter's comment,
you know, I think you're right that when we create
a culture that devalues children, that doesn't view them as
the precious gifts that they are, and doesn't view ourselves
as having some sort of responsibility to protect them so
that they can grow up with all the opportunities that
(15:46):
they should be given in this life, it does bleed
over into other areas. And if you have a general
view that you know, children are only worthy of protection
at this age or in this environment, what is to
stop you from setting your own standards of when a
child becomes eligible for that kind of protection, or when
they're viewed as a fully equal human and what level
(16:09):
of protection we really want to give them. So I
will agree with you that when you see people choosing
abortion until birth, they are choosing adults over children. When
you see people choosing probation for child rapists instead of
putting them in jail. You are seeing them choose adults
over children, and I think instead we need to view
children as equal human beings with equal rights that ought
(16:31):
to be protected at every stage of their life against
any adults who would cause them harm. So thank you
for that comment. If you're listing and you have other thoughts,
text them to five seven seven three nine. Start it
with Dan. I think though it'll be interesting to see.
We talked really early in the show about the Continuing
Resolution at the federal level. So going back to the
federal level, now, if John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett are
(16:52):
going to split in their votes, Chuck Schumer actually just
announced that he is going to be voting with the
Republicans on the not actually sure if it's the cure
vote or the Continuing Resolution vote what, but he's yeah,
I just saw that in the break. I'm gonna look
it up again in this break to make sure I.
Speaker 6 (17:06):
Read the headline right. The heck just tappened. How did
he do that?
Speaker 2 (17:10):
I don't know, but I literally saw headlines.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
I will say I've been using AI for some research
and it will summarize things for me and give me
headlines and I go research it and it is completely wrong.
I was listening to a cl because I'm a layer
and I have to do these continuing education classes, and
it said AI wants to please you, so it will
often give you the answers that thinks you wants you want,
not the answers that are real.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Tell you what you want to hear, tell you exactly.
Speaker 6 (17:35):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
So I'm gonna double check. At the break, We'll see
if Chuck Shrumer really has come over, if that was
a fake AI headline, we'll find out. I'm Grauzy Burden Round.
You're on the Dan Caplass Show. You can call in
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
or text five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (17:56):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast here.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Back to the Day A Capital of show.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
I'm Christy Burton Brown, and yes, I was able to
confirm that Chuck Schumer has indeed come over to the
dark side and announced that he will be supporting the
Republican bill and to continue I guess continue resolution to
not shut down the government. And of course it's not
the dark side, it's the light side. But this is
what he would say. Oh, It's troubling and terrible, but
he just must to do it. Ryan, what comments are
(18:22):
you hearing?
Speaker 7 (18:22):
What a loser? First of all? I mean, secondly, shouldn't
he of all people know better? I mean, think about this.
As much as we dislike her, Nancy Pelosi knew how
the gears of government worked. She knew if she had
the votes or not. She knew if she could corral
the squad in dis place, and she did exactly she could.
Heard Kats, what the hell was Schumer thinking?
Speaker 6 (18:43):
What was he doing?
Speaker 7 (18:45):
Theater?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
I think it's a show, I think.
Speaker 7 (18:47):
But if I'm a Democrat, I'm pissed off too.
Speaker 6 (18:50):
He's like pounding a shower. We're not gonna We're gonna
shut it down. This is a bad bill. Republicans do it.
And then ah jkl.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
And it goes back to what I said earlier in
the show, Ryan, that another I heard from another commentator.
I'm adopting it because I think it's right. Democrats don't
know how to deal with this president care. They just don't.
Speaker 6 (19:09):
Christy.
Speaker 7 (19:10):
Is there an argument to be made that they're even
worse this time around than the first time around with Trump?
Speaker 2 (19:16):
See?
Speaker 3 (19:16):
I think they are because I think the first time around,
they were consumed with taking him down personally, right, so
all the impeachments, all the like, he's so terrible, all
the personal attacks. This time around, they know he actually
has nothing to lose because he can't run again.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
He's term limited after this time.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
And they also know that he know he had four
years in between these two terms to figure out exactly
what happened, whatever mistakes he made in his first term,
like not cleaning house and not quickly going after policy
and demanding that it get passed. And he's not making
those same mistakes so far in these first couple months.
And I think they're shocked. I think they didn't expect it.
(19:54):
I think they didn't think he was like politically spurt
and strategic. Oh, he's just a business guy, doesn't know
what he's doing. Well, actually doesn't know what he's doing,
and he had four years to think about it and
to get the right people around him.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
And so I don't think they know how to respond
to that version of Trump.
Speaker 7 (20:05):
It's even proving Senator Elissa Slotkin, right, Democrat Michigan, when
she kind of gave away the game and said Democrats
are on their heels It's like they took one big
Mike Tyson punt circa nineteen eighty seven, Michael Spinks in
the ring, and they're just flustered and they're they're flailing
and they don't know how to respond.
Speaker 6 (20:23):
And this is further evidence of that. Christine.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
Again, if I was a diehard liberal Democratic voter and
I watched what Chuck Schumer just did, I go, what
is going on there?
Speaker 6 (20:31):
These people have no idea what they're doing or how
to do it right?
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Right, which is is I think really interesting that Trump's
like peeling back the curtain on all of this. Yeah,
like they were able, you know, I think with Joe
Biden in charge that the other Democrats could look better
if they could look like they were together, because Joe
Biden fell apart all the time and wasn't competent, so
they looked a lot better.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Than they were.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
But now you have Trump who knows how to play
them and knows like, again, he had four years to
study how to get all this stuff done. He figured
it out and brought the right people along with him,
and they're like, oh, shoot, we actually don't know what
we're doing. I mean, even when you see John Higginlober,
Michael Bennett split off. You see more Democrats following what
appears now to be the lead of John.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Fetterman instead of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I mean, wasn't a good move by Schumer to let
Fetterman go out ahead of him on this.
Speaker 7 (21:16):
When you look at it too, Christy, You've got three
incumbent Democrat senators who would be up for reelection in
twenty twenty six who are not running. Tina Smith in Minnesota,
Gerry Peters in Michigan, and I think Jeane Shaheen in Hampshire.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
That's three right there.
Speaker 7 (21:29):
You have John Ossoff, who's in a very tough battle
in twenty six for the Georgia Senate seat. He couldn't
afford to come out and block this cr. There's rumors,
I'm not sure if they've been confirmed yet that Brian
Kemp might run as the Republican nominee against him.
Speaker 6 (21:44):
I mean, I think he will walk all over.
Speaker 7 (21:46):
As off and Ostof has to have some kind of
pretense that he's a moderate, but that would not be
the case here. So Schumer, who's in New York, he
gets comfortably re elected. He didn't really think about these
purple state Democratic senators. They're going to have a tough
bill of goods to sell back to their purple state constituents.
You know, Mark Kelly in Arizona, Mark Warner even a
(22:06):
little bit in Virginia, or even you heard John Hickenlooper
vacillating and what should be a safe blue state.
Speaker 6 (22:12):
Well, I don't know, leaning toward maybe.
Speaker 7 (22:14):
And then I think Schumer recognized, like you said, the
math just wasn't there.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
Yeah, and something he probably should have known sooner rather
than later. But I mean works out for us. It
looks like one after the other they just cave to Trump,
which is, you know what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
But I think it is interesting the point.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
You bring up, Ryan, about those three incumbent Democrats already
announcing that they're not running for reelection. Right, it's my
understanding that next cycle was not supposed to be a
good pickup cycle for Republicans as originally designed.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
Like, right, that's what.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
And it's just interesting that on every level they're like
backing off it, caving and giving in so early and
so much.
Speaker 6 (22:49):
Now.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I think politics changes every single day.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
You could ever be like, oh, a year and a
half ahead of time, I can predict exactly what's going
to happen. You just can't do that. But it is
interesting seeing the writing as it gets put on the wall,
not all there yet, but seeing kind of where the
signs are pointing. And I think there's no question that
the Democrat Party has no idea of two things. First,
how to deal with Donald Trump, this new version, this
new together collected version of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:14):
They do not know how to deal with him.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
And when I say new version, he's still the same
on all the issues, but I think how he's presenting
them and how he's tackling them, and who he's brought
along with him, that is what looks different right now
in my opinion. And then secondly, what they don't know
is how to message themselves. They have been all about
the doom and gloom policy for too long. They had
to go on defense about Joe Biden. No, no, he
really is competent. No, no, world leaders really do look
(23:38):
up to us, No, no, not.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Everything is falling apart.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
So they had the last couple of years of being
on the defense all the time, and then their other
mode was attacking Trump. He's terrible, he's horrible, he's awful,
He's a Nazi, everyone hates everyone, and now they're like, okay, shoot,
Republicans control all three branches of power. Normally, what you'd
want to do as a party is say, we're going
to build the block to pitch our own, better, more optimistic, successful.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Version of America.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
We're gonna make the deals we have to make, but
we're gonna make ourselves look like the stars in these deals.
And instead they're like falling apart, being insanely pessimistic, not
proposing any better plans, acting like everything and everyone is
dying and horrible and terrible.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
And I don't think the American people are buying it.
Speaker 7 (24:24):
It's exactly right, Christy, and just watch whatever Democrat comes out,
whether it's Jasmine Krockett, Rasheta to Leib exception being John Fetterman. Sure,
but any Chuck Schumer, any Hakeem Jeffries. Faces and voices
of this party. They have been I think stamped with
their reaction at that address to the Joint Session of
(24:44):
Congress with not applauding a thirteen year old boy with cancer.
They got a special appointment to the Secret Service. They're
negative Nellies, they have no positive vision for America. They're
only a card that they play is Trump, bad Trump,
evil Trump, Hitler, orange Man.
Speaker 6 (24:58):
And people are sick of that. They've tuned it out.
Speaker 7 (25:00):
So what vision, what plan do Democrats have that's a
better alternative? Christy, you know this as well as anybody
in politics. If you don't present that alternative vision, that
affirmative vision of a way forward, like Bill Clinton did
quite frankly ninety two, like Barack Obama did in two
thousand and eight, that's that's how you win elections. The
Democrats aren't offering that. It's lazy. That's the number one
(25:21):
thing that comes to mind. It's just lazy. It's like,
well we'll just rip Trump. Nope, that's not going to
do it right.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
And for all their I think you're right, Ryan, and
for all their claiming that, oh, we have the young generation.
So I was able to do some interviews this last
week for the Daniels Fund. They give scholarships out every years.
I've never done it before, so it's really really amazing
to see these young kids, but a number of them,
whether I'm talking to other interviewers who talk to these
kids or hearing from kids myself, so many kids in
(25:47):
that generation are saying what do I not like about politics,
how divisive it is, that everyone is constantly attacking everyone
else personally. And I think the Democrats are having no
forward looking vision when they don't have policy plans, they
don't have better messaging. But then they also are continuing
that divisiveness while claiming to be the party that young
people resonate with, Like it's getting old and people are
(26:08):
tuning it out, and right now with everything Trump is accomplishing,
if what the Democrats get is.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
People just tuning them out, they're not.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
Setting themselves up for success, fine by me, but I
don't think it's a great strategy.
Speaker 7 (26:18):
And even when they're staking out political positions they're taking
like the twenty side of eighty twenty issues like trans
and athletes in female sports, they're dying on that hill
wasteful government spending. No, we need wasteful governments, we do. Okay,
if that's the argument you want to make, it's just silly.
This is fodder, this is the stuff of parity, and
(26:39):
they become a caricature of themselves.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Well in the eighty twenty issue is I think what
Trump has, you know, mastered, And he certainly did that
in his joint speech to Congress. So many of the
issues that he brought up were not just Republican issues,
they were literally eighty twenty they were American issues.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
And that's what he's doing a good job of.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
I mean even naming the while it was it a
wildlife reserve after the little girl who was killed by
an illegal immage who is a violent criminal. Yeah, most
Americans want little girls like that to be safe. So
these the Democrats just sit there and don't even clap
for that. It's beyond insane, Like, come on, these are
these are American issues. Let's be Americans together. And yes
it's Trump that's representing the American issues. Horrors that you
(27:15):
might have to align with him on something, but Americans
are going to tune you out if you don't. So
we have sake a break now. I'm Kristy Burton Brown
on the Dankaplai Show. I see I have a question
I need to answer when I come back. If you
have questions or thoughts, text them into five seven, seven
three nine or call in eight five five four zero
five eight two five five.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
And now back to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
You're back on the Dan Caplis Show. I'm Christy Burton
Brown in for Dan tonight because he's in trial, but
I think you get him back tomorrow. So thanks for
joining me. I'm going to go to the text line
and answer a question. We were talking about the federal
Department of Education being dismantled by the Trump administration. I
actually Democrats using that kind of language, always dismantling the
Department of Education, but I actually kind of like it, like, yeah,
(27:56):
it's an agency worth being dismantled. I don't think we
should high or go away from that language. There are
so many federal agencies that are bloated and huge. My
dad actually works for the federal government and he tells
me all these stories about federal employees who go from
cubicle to cubicle chatting all day long. There aren't enough
(28:18):
projects for the number of people they've hired to do,
and then it's super super hard to fire anyone until
Trump came in office at the federal government, and so
they absolutely need to be cut and dismantled. Some of
these agencies shouldn't exist, and the ones that do exist
need to be downsized. Like we always believe in downsizing
in our personal lives and business, in anything that's important
(28:41):
when you want to be more efficient and effective. It's
an answer, but somehow accordion fell either. It's a horrible,
horrible thing when it comes to the Department of Education.
Speaker 7 (28:48):
I'm so glad that your dad spoke up, because of
course there is going to be that level of just
waste and excess and bloat in a bureaucracy where these
workers are coming out and they're so tone off. Christ's
the rest of us who work in the private sector
saying we shouldn't be accountable for what we're doing. We
shouldn't have to answer an email of five things that
we did last Yeah, how dare they come in here
(29:09):
and tell us what we should be able to work
from our bathtubs at home like we have been.
Speaker 6 (29:13):
This is what they become accustomed to.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
No, I know, and I actually ask my dad, is
that you actually have to answer that email? Is that
a real thing?
Speaker 3 (29:19):
Because you know, we see all these things over social
media and or like, right, are they just like sending
that to a few people?
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Is it really real? Is it just a story?
Speaker 3 (29:26):
No, it's real, Like he literally had to answer the
email and he's happy to do it. If you actually
do your work how is that difficult? Here's the five
things I did this week.
Speaker 7 (29:33):
But more than what they were, that not that Elon
had a team going through to these things.
Speaker 6 (29:37):
Really really it was a pulse.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Check, literally, answer do you exist?
Speaker 7 (29:41):
Are you a human with a pulse who's still alive
collecting a government paycheck?
Speaker 6 (29:46):
It's just, oh, here's five things.
Speaker 7 (29:47):
And I was able to reply and respond to the
email because I'm a living human.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
Right exactly exactly. And you know the thing that's I
don't know. I think maybe this is from because I'm
from a younger generation. I don't think all remote work
is bad. I really don't, and I think it is
too bad when everyone gets panded with the exact same brush,
and they say, because there's so much bloat and waste
and so many people who do take advantage of the
fact that they get to work at home and therefore
don't really work at all, let's bring everyone back, like, Okay,
(30:14):
if you look at the modern world, it actually is
possible to do some jobs remotely. It actually is if
you have the right check ins in place, if you
have the good managers, it is actually possible to and
sometimes actually better to have people.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Doing it remote.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
They can travel to different sites better, They can do
it at different hours of the day that actually can
be more helpful than office hours. There's a whole lot
of reasons you can actually look into it. I'd apply
this to the business world, to the government, to really
any area of life.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
I don't think this is specific to government.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
But my problem is I don't think government should be
excluded and say, oh, we've come to a point in
the world where we know that remote work is possible,
but the government may not allow it. So I understand
why they're like swinging the pendulum all, you know, all
the way to the other way because of all the
abuses and bloat in the system that have occurred. But
I think they should get back to a balanced position
(31:02):
at some point and say, let's evaluate which positions actually
can be done accurately remotely. Are the safeguards management techniques
in place to ensure that people are actually doing their work,
because I don't see a point to penalizing people who
actually are hard workers and can do it remote and
then they also have a better quality of family life,
and they're also more likely to stay in the job
(31:22):
because it works for them. I guess I'm a fan
of having a work life balance, and I think remote
work can provide that for some people. So that'd just
be my personal opinion of I think they need to
swing to a balance. But I understand right now why
they're like doing the five point email, like let us
know you exist, like are you actually interested in keeping
your job? Are you willing to show back up at
work and show that you actually want this job. So
there's a very important things to what they're doing, but
(31:44):
I hope they balance after a little while. The question
I got though, is because we're talking about the Department
of Education, are the standardized tests administered by the Federal
Department of Education. Standardized tests a huge, huge issue in education,
So they're not administered by the Federal Department of Education.
They're administered by the state and in fact by the
local districts in Colorado. The Sea Mass is the one
you take in Colorado, and then sometimes the p SET
(32:05):
or SAT and I don't think they really do the
act here in Colorado too much, but some kids certainly do.
Depends on what college you're trying to get into. But
the Sea Mass is the big one that's required. What
happens is there the Federal requirement that you do the
state testing that states that get funding for the federal
government that they do this testing. Which test you do
can be decided by the state, so it's sort of
a balance. And I think we talked a lot about
(32:26):
when you shut down the Department of Education or dismantle it,
cut it in half, which is what's going on right now,
what do you lose with that? And I think the
thing that people are afraid of losing is the funding.
They don't want funding to be taken away from the
states and taken out of education. But what you should
want to happen is the bureaucracy and the rules and
regulations to get out of it, give more states the
(32:48):
ability to let teachers not constantly be teaching to a test.
That's a problem that if you talk to teachers across
the state, they really do feel like they can't always
teach the subjects to the kids.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
They have to teach each to the test.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
So instead of like do you really understand the science
of reading, do you really understand financial literacy? Do you
really understand science and history and how to evaluate literature
and let kids use their imagination and teach them how
to think, not always what to think.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
You don't have the freedom to do that.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Even as one of the best teachers in Colorado, it's
difficult to do that because you're constantly teaching to the test.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
I like tests.
Speaker 3 (33:24):
I'm not opposed to them. I think they are a
measure of achievement and accountability. But when they are so
common and administered as frequently as they are, you fall
into the run of teaching kids how to take tests
instead of teaching them how to think and how to learn.
So if dismantling the Federal Department of Education shakes any
of that up, it remains to be seen if it will.
I'm going to be a fan of that because I
(33:46):
think there's a reason that the majority of kids in
Colorado do not read and do not do math at
grade level. Only forty percent of kids do, and there's
a reason for that. So shake up the system. Let's
dismantle it and get something better in place. I'm Christy
Burton around you've been on the Dan Kapitala show. Thanks
for joining me, and I hope you enjoy having Dan
back tomorrow.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com