KBB steps in for Dan on a Friday and breaks down the various opinions from both the left and right, inside and outside of government, and among those in the media on potential strikes against Iran's nuclear reserves by the American military. Will President Trump authorize such action over the next two weeks? Should he?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown
filling in for Dan today. Good to be with all
of you on this extremely hot day. I hear it's
going to get up to ninety nine degrees tomorrow, so
I think that probably means a swimming pool weekend for
my kids. Hopefully you guys have plans to either be
at the pool or indoors in this kind of crazy.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Weather, or maybe in the mountains.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
That'd be a great place to be and call her
out of this weekend as well. But we have so
many national issues to talk about on the show today.
Federal cuts to Medicaid? How is that going to impact Colorado?
Are all the I guess claims that you're hearing about
that really true? Is it really a medicaid cut or
(00:53):
is it really a change to eligibility for Medicaid? Which
is something that we have deeply needed for a long time.
We're also, of course, going to talk about Iran and
President Trump's announcement the other day that everyone will know
within the next two weeks what he's going to do.
We're going to talk about some of the options the
US would have go through some different elected officials on
(01:14):
the federal level, people like Charlie Kirk, and their different
opinions about what the US should do. If you have
opinions on what the US should do or not do,
you are very welcome to call into the show or
text today the numbers eight five five four zero five
eight two five five, or you can text five seven
seven three nine and start it with Dan. Another thing
we're going to cover on the show today is sanctuary
(01:35):
state laws here in Colorado, because New York has the
governor of New York has announced that they're going to
provide fifty million dollars in taxpayer money to provide legal
services for illegal immigrants. I'm sure this is in response
to the Trump administration in Ice actually doing what they
promised and cracking down on illegal immigrants, removing them from
(01:57):
the United States and focusing specifically on the criminal But
states like New York want to go ahead and fund
their legal services to keep them here in the country.
All the while, at least here in Colorado, citizens often
are losing services, but we're paying even more for people
who are not supposed to be here in the first place.
So that's definitely an issue that New York is taking on,
(02:17):
but it's already been handled here in Colorado by Democrats
and the legislature who at least every two years pass
another slew of sanctuary state laws, all the while Governor
Polis continues.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
To claim we're not a sanctuary state.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well, the facts reveal and the laws reveal that we absolutely,
very clearly are, and so we'll get into the details
of that a little bit later in the show.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapli Show.
Some specific news that was released today.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Some of the Minnesota lawmakers who were shot, Senator John
Hoffman and his wife Yeavette, have been recovering in the hospital.
I believe State Senator Hoffman is still in critical but
stable condition. So they actually talked to the news today
and revealed more about what happened when the gunman came
to their door. So I guess what they've said happened
(03:08):
is he came to their door at about two am
in the morning and made a lot of noise, banged
on the door, and yelled out that he was a
police officer, and he demanded that they opened the door
and that he'd be allowed to enter. And so, as
most people would do in that kind of a scenario,
they opened the door. They were there in their home
with their adult daughter, and as soon as they opened
the door, they saw that he had a gun pointing
at them, and I believe he began to shoot, and
(03:30):
the state senator like lunged at him to try and
get the gun down because his wife and adult daughter
were also there. He was shot eight or nine times,
and then his wife was also shot eight or nine times.
And by that point their adult daughter was able to
shut the door to the house a locket and call
the police, and the shooter went on to actually go
to another legislator's house and kill her and her husband.
(03:52):
But I think this brings up something that's really unexpected
for a lot of people, Like what do you do
if a police officer is at your door in the
middle of the night and you don't expect it. I mean,
most people would answer the door. That's what you're supposed
to do. But I think one thing about this scenario
that no one would have known this ahead of time,
but now I think we could really think about and
evaluate it. Police officers usually don't come to a house
(04:13):
alone in the middle of the night. They come together,
and so I think if you're ever in a scenario
and hopefully no one ever is in another scenario like this,
but if you are and there's a single police officer
outside your door yelling for you to open the door,
A lot of police organizations actually recommend that you go.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Ahead and call your local police officers.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
You call your local sheriff's office and ask if they
send anyone to your home. That's a very acceptable thing
to do so that you know you don't find yourself
in this kind of a scenario. I know that's what
Minnesota police are now recommending specifically the legislators, but I
think people in general do is go ahead and make
that call, ask if they're supposed to be there. So
sometimes it's just such strange things we have to consider
(04:54):
in today's society, with so much violence and terrible behavior
that goes on. Whether we're talking about said at protests
that should have been peaceful, whether we're talking about gunmen
coming to doors of people. They disagree with a lot
of very unnecessary, in tragic violence in our society. Now,
this actually leads me to Iran, which I think is
(05:14):
going to be a big, big topic today. What would
be the purpose of the United States engaging in Iran?
Of course, there are a lot of people both on
the left and the right, who are saying, no, not
another endless war in the Middle East. The US should
stay out, leave it alone. Israel's got it under control.
They believe that President Trump is more of an isolationist,
so to speak, make America great again, not the world
(05:37):
great again. And so you know a lot of either
hesitancy or objections from people saying, well, let's hold back.
What are we doing jumping in the Middle East again?
I think it's really important for that reason that people
know the very specific involvement that President Trump is suggesting.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Now.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
I also will say that I think sometimes President Trump
isn't necessarily I don't know, explicit in all the detail
that he gives when he says, hey, here's exactly what
we're considering. Sometimes I think he talks a lot in
general terms without sharing some of the details with people.
Of course, some of that's going to be for national
security reasons, and sometimes it is because that's just how
he is. But the biggest thing that the United States,
(06:14):
at least that has been reported in some outlets and
sometimes by the White House and press conferences, is the
bunker buster bomb.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
I don't know how many of you are aware.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
I had to look up what that was, but it's
this extremely giant bomb that can actually could take out
Iran's one of their most dangerous, dangerous nuclear facilities that
is in.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
The side of the mountain.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
It's actually kind of like the facility we have Cheyenne
Mountain and down in the close to the springs here
in America that we have in Colorado. Iran has a
facility like that, but they have a nuclear facility similarly
built into the side of a mountain. Very very hard
to take out. I mean, there's a reason countries do that.
It's difficult to get taken out.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Well.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Israel doesn't have these kind of bombs, the bunker buster
bombs that can blast into the side of a mountain
and take out whatever is beneath.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
We do in the United States.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Furthermore, we have the B two bombers that actually carry
these bunker buster bombs. Your average bomber can't carry them
because they're much too big, much too heavy. So Israel
has neither the weapon that is needed nor the aircraft
that's needed to bring it.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
In the US does have it.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
We also have it currently located within flying distance of
Iran's facility. So this is the specific request that Israel's making,
At least I think Israel's making it of the United States.
I'm pretty sure it's exactly what they would want is
for this nuclear facility to be taken out. So that
is specifically what President Trump is considering doing. I for
one thing, there is a giant, giant difference in a
(07:40):
very targeted, specific strike and a whole long war.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
In the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
So I think when we're talking about US involvement in Iran,
it's really important to know exactly what we're talking about
and not.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
I think blow it out of proportion.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
And we're going to get into some clips after the
break of what how different people are analyzing this, what
they're saying about it, and would love to get your
feedback too.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
You can plan on calling in after the break if
you'd like.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Eight five five four zero, five eight two five five,
or text your thoughts to Dan at five seven seven
three nine. But I think we should just be very
specific about this situation that's actually at hand. I really
don't think with President Trump's view of foreign a US
involvement in foreign wars, that he's actually thinking about putting
our troops on the ground. The US commonly sends special
(08:26):
forces into places like Ukraine and trains their soldiers how
to fight against Russia. We commonly send our special forces
over to Israel and actually learn from the Masade, while
we also teach them, you know, things that we know
how to do.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
So there's a lot of coordinations.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
If you want to consider that troops on the ground,
I guess you can, but it's really not the conventional
definition of troops on the ground, and I have not
heard that that's something that President Trump is really considering.
So I think we need to separate our idea of
some big long war in the Middle East with a
very targeted strike that would be useful for the entire world.
When a country like I Ran continue used to say,
on one hand, oh no, no, no, we're only using
(09:02):
this for our defense.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
We're peaceful.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Our production of nuclear is just peaceful, just for our
own country. And then two months later they say oh again,
they repeat their wish that Israel be wiped off the
map and say we have the ability to create these
weapons and we can and will anytime we want. I mean,
this is a very volatile, dangerous situation. You're on the
Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown. When we come back,
we'll listen to a variety of congressmen and commentators on
(09:24):
the situation with Iran and hopefully get your thoughts too.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
You're back on the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Before we get into more discussion on Iran and contrast
what different congressmen are saying about the US potential strikes
in Iran, I'm gonna go to something one of our
textures said on a very different topic. They said, why
is nobody talking about them selling off millions of acres
of BLM land and US Forest Service land in this bill,
the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
This is something I won't support if they saw off
the public land.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
I happen to be a hunter and a conservationist, but
nobody on the right wants to talk about that. Actually
think this is a great question, and it's one that's
been coming up over the last couple weeks with provisions
in the Big Beautiful Bill so called, to sell off
some federal land. So anyone else who has thoughts on
this would love to hear from you as well. But
I think there's a few facts that are necessary. I'm
sure that texture is probably aware of this, but the
(10:18):
Big Beautiful Bill is actually considering selling off zero point
five percent, so half a percent of all the federal
land that is owned by the United States in our
nation now. Still, I don't think most people are aware
of that small of an amount. But a recent poll
show that seventy one percent of Americans oppose the sale
of public land.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
They don't think this is a good idea.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
So I think when we're talking about it, there are
a few things to consider, like why in the world
would we do this in the first place. Why are
they even considering it? Well, there are a few reasons.
One of them is that selling off some federal land
could allow for more energy production in the United States.
Some of the federally owned land is very oil rich, actually,
and so we could get more oil and either use
(10:57):
it in our nation or sell it export it is
one possibility. Another one is, of course, the money from
the sale of the land could be significant, depending on
how much it is and who we sell it to.
Housing availability and affordability is the reason that most people
are talking about right now, because they're specifically talking about
selling federal land in the Western States, to include Colorado,
where we do have a lack of affordable housing, and
(11:19):
so they're saying, well, if we sold some of this land,
you can make more affordable housing. I'm personally curious who
actually wants to move onto this land, like it is
way in the middle of nowhere for the most part,
so I'm not even sure it's close to jobs or
anything like that. So I don't know how much I
buy that reason. But that's the reason that's being talked about.
And then another one that I think a lot of
people probably could identify with is that states and or
(11:41):
private entities can manage the land better than the federal
government when the federal government has millions and millions of acres,
and for many years a number of the portions of
the land, certainly here in Colorado, have not been managed
well when it comes to wildfire risk and other things
like that.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
So it depends on which state.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Though, I mean, would Colorado acts they manage that better,
would California actually manage that better? We've certainly seen that
California doesn't. So what a state actually take care of
the land and minimize the risks better than the federal
government has done. Now, if we're going to talk about
reasons why not to sell the land, in addition to well,
it's considered US land, the land that belongs to everyone.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
So what's going to be the limit? When is the
US going to stop selling the land?
Speaker 2 (12:23):
There's been some talk of it being used as like
leverage and debts, and so some people are saying, we've
better make sure that doesn't happen, because if it does,
then China could actually get a hold of the land.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
That would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
But another reason, and I think this is the biggest
one that applies to Colorado of why a lot of
people are saying don't sell this land. There are a
lot of ranchers and cattle owners, specifically in Colorado who are.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Able to lease the federal land.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
And that's actually the way that they're able to run
their operation and have their ranch and run their cattle.
Is because they have a good deal to lease with
the federal government beneficial for the land. It's beneficial for
the ranchers if any of that land was sold.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
I mean, is the state going to allow ranchers to
continue to lease the land?
Speaker 2 (13:05):
I don't think so. The state is very anti agriculture
here in Colorado. And then of course there's some hunters
and fishers who also have concerns about what would happen
if the land were sold.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
So it is a big issue.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
If you have any thoughts, feel free to call in
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
or text Dan at five seven seven three nine. I'm
Christy Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Kapli Show.
I honestly don't have a hugely strong opinion on whether
or not we should be selling off federal land. To me,
what matters more is who would get a hold of
it and who would own it, Because there's any risk
(13:39):
of China or an other country getting a hold of it,
that's absolutely awful. If it really does take away the
benefits that United States citizens enjoy from the federal land.
I'm not a big fan of that. I think we
should keep a lot of nature. I think we should
keep a lot of access, but half of a percent
of the land to allow for energy production, maybe some
more affordable housing and things like that, better management of
(14:01):
the lands. To states, I would actually do it, I'm
not sure that is a terrible idea. Senator Mike Lee,
who tends to come down on a good side of
less government involvement, is supporting this provision, and he comes
from one of the western states that would be affected
by this. So I think as long as it's kept
very minimal, very specific who buys it, it might actually
be a decent idea. But we'll see what actually happens.
(14:23):
Let's go ahead and move to it. Back to Iran. Now,
I'm going to do first by taking a caller, Robert
from Denver. Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
Hey are you I'm good?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
How are you good?
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Good? I just wanted can I comment on the Iran situation? Yes?
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Please?
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Do? I think the United States is going to have
to deal with it? And because if you look it up,
Iran who's launched seven satellites? Okay, yeah, WELLUS are you
using hypersonic whiles against Israel right now, right five percent
(15:05):
years at least six thousand miles an hour, and they
can change the direction as they need to avoid the
by a dome and whatever you use. So I think,
and here the fact that brand took over our embassy
(15:28):
the Eyotel did, right, and we held our embassy staff
hostage for four hundred and forty four days, and they
call us the Great Satan, right, I think we're going
to have to deal with it. I don't think we
can just say we need to make peace and they're
able to stand down. I don't think that's going to
(15:50):
work when they're already launching, according to Wikipedia, seven satellites
in this space.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah. Well, they continue to develop their technology. Despite all
their claims for peace, their intentions are quite obviously to
attack Israel first in the US second. So I think
you're right when we combine the technology they have, what
they've already shown they're willing to do, and what they
have done in the past with the specific situation, I
think that's going on right now. Israel was able to
(16:19):
cut down on the power of Hesbalah of the hoodies
in Yemen, and with the Assad regime toppling in Syria.
I mean, that's a lot of Iranian allies that have
been taken out or significantly weakened. So in many ways,
it's a prime opportunity to you know, take away this
threat that absolutely exists, as you're saying, Robert, to the
United States as well as Israel.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
All right, well, I agree with everything.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Thank you, awesome, thanks for calling in. Good to have you.
All right. You also could call in.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
If you have thoughts on the conflict in Iran and
what the US should do eight five five four zero
five eight two five five, or text your thoughts five
seven seven three nine to Dan.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
Let's let's see.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
I don't think I quite have time to play a
clip right now, but we have a Democrat congressman, a
Republican congressman, and then Charlie Kirk, all of whose opinions
we will get to you on the Iran conflicts, see
if they match up with any of yours, or if
you have a completely different idea. But I think to
Robert's point, to our last callers point, this really is
not just in Iran Israel conflict. That's been a lot
(17:21):
of American's objections to some of the former wars in.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
The Middle East. They say, well, while.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
It started out as the war on terror or weapons
of mass destruction, at least we believed they were there
in Iraq, it then became nation building. It then became
very focused on other countries problems in other countries' conflicts,
not something the US should be directly involved with, according
to a lot of these people who don't want to
see involvement right now. But I don't think anyone is
suggesting that we need to go build a nation in Iran.
(17:47):
There are a ton of people in Iran who would
love to see the current regime overthrown, but they can't
do it, and if the regime is fully taken out,
they can actually take care of their own country and
rebuild their own country. I don't think anyone suggesting the
US should go in and do that. I also think
it should be deeply considered, like what is your responsibility
in the world when you are the top superpower. I
don't think you can sit back as an isolationist and
(18:09):
just say, well, you know, let's let the world take
care of themselves, like you don't have to go in
and fight every conflict. But you also can't sit back
and just take care of yourself. The world falls to
pieces if you do that, and you eventually lose your
superpower status. So we'll continue this discussion Iran when we
get back from this break. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're
on the Dan Caplis Show. Make sure you call in
if you have thoughts over the break eight five five
(18:30):
four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
on Iran or any other topic to Dan f five
seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
Welcome back to the Dan Kapless Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Let's get us some commentary with different congressman and Charlie
Kirk about the Iran conflict. Now, before I play these
clips for you, I'm going to tell you just think
the difference in these two congressmen. That Democrat Congressman Jim
Heimes is from Connecticut and the Republican Congressman Mark Alford
is from Texas. So think to yourself about how Connecticut
and Texas might respond differently.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
And let's see how different it really is.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Here is Representative Jim Heimes from Connecticut.
Speaker 6 (19:24):
There's some chance you could have the best case scenario
setting aside right and wrong, in justice and injustice and
all that. There's some chance you could get the dream
scenario right, which is that the Iranian people finally decide
they've had enough and they overthrow this regime, and you know,
you get a situation where you know, this incredibly educated,
very capable people decides that we're going to rejoin the
Company of decent Nations.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
But you know, we're in the Middle East.
Speaker 6 (19:46):
You know, there are fifty other scenarios that range from
you know, our naval base in Bahrain and their airbase
and Cutter being attacked, to the fall of the King
of Jordan. You know, the King of Jordan is hanging
on by his fingernails for a the larger reasons. I mean,
I could just go on for an hour about the
different scenarios that if you are knowledgeable on the Middle East,
you would say, hey, there's some chance of that too.
(20:08):
So long winded way of saying, if you know, we
can sort of joke about taco and you know, everything
is two weeks or four weeks or never. But I
think when you're talking about war in the Middle East,
going slower than rather than faster is not a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Okay, fair point that the ideal scenario would be for
the Iranian people themselves to overthrow the regime. But I
do think they have tried that, and there's a lot
of people there who would love to do that, and
it's not the kind of regime that is easily overthrown
for many reasons, one of the many being I mean,
think about North Korea.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
How are those people supposed to overthrow that regime.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I'm not saying those kind of things are impossible, but
these are two of the hardest nations in the entire
world for citizens who very deeply might want to overthrow
the regime to actually be able to do it.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
So I mean, yes, ideal.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Scenario, sure, practical scenario, I don't think so. That doesn't
mean that Representative Heim's, Democrat congressman from Connecticut is wrong
that slow walking this a little bit. It's giving some
time to think about impulsively reacting to a scenario in
the Middle East is the one is the right thing
to do? I mean, yes, a little bit of time
is good to make sure we're doing the right thing,
coordinating with allies I'm doing well. It's necessary and not
(21:15):
crossing lines that involves the US permanently in the Middle
East again, but too much time also, you can lose opportunities.
So let's listen to his one other comment before we
move on to Congress and Mark Alfred from Texas.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
I guess I'm not surprised, right and you know, the
fact that we're not reading about a US attack on
Iran right now actually gives me a little bit of comfort.
I was asked this morning, you know, if you're advising
the president, what.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Do you do?
Speaker 6 (21:39):
And the advice I would give the president is, you know,
you are in a point of maximum leverage right now,
right and off of you know, the regime has been
badly hurt, badly embarrassed. They're probably worried about what's going
to happen inside Iran with the Iranian people, So now
is the time to call them up and say you
give up any enrichment, which by the way, is the
(22:00):
deal from the old JCPOA and yes that had a
fuse on it, but you give up any enrichment. And
this stops today point a maximum leverage. So you know,
the fact that we're not talking about a US attack
leaves me to believe that maybe that's what's happening, which
I think is good because Jim, I mean, listen, I'll
try to make this quick, but yeah, war in the
Middle East is a hell of a roll of the dice.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Okay, So I'll just point out one thing from his comments.
He's saying he thinks perhaps by buying this two week window,
what President Trump may be doing is trying to negotiate some.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Sort of deal with Iran.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
It may very well be true, but to his point,
the exact thing that we would want in a negotiated
deal like that has been agreed to before. Iran has
said previously that they wouldn't make nuclear weapons. They've agreed
before to let inspectors in. We've seen where that's gone.
It is always only a temporary band aid when you're
talking about Iran. So is that really the right answer?
Speaker 3 (22:54):
I'm here.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
Let's move to a Congressman Mark Alford. He's talking to
John Berman on CNN, and let's get his thoughts.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Do you think they have a nuclear ward?
Speaker 7 (23:03):
Now I don't have any way of knowing that for sure,
but I'm not going to wait around and find out.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
The intelligence suggests that they certainly don't have a warhead,
and there's discrepancy over that.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Way they've made that threat.
Speaker 7 (23:13):
They want instead we're the great Satan in their eyes.
Speaker 8 (23:15):
Do they have an intercontinentibalistic missile?
Speaker 7 (23:18):
Not to my knowledge, I don't have any intelligence.
Speaker 8 (23:20):
Sim Burchett again, and these are his words here. He
was noting that the Iranians right now can't shoot a missile.
He said, past Greece. You know, obviously they're hitting Israel
right now. But his point was that the United States,
he does not believe, is that a direct threat to
the Iranian weaponry.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
So that was really more John Berman from CNN than
Congressman Alford. Will get to more of his comments in
a second. But part of the problem with that kind
of thinking is okay, so even if Iran doesn't right
now have an intercontinent o ballistic missile, do we wait
until they do to take out their nuclear facility, the
most dangerous one in their nation? When we currently have
an opportunity to do it? And if you weren't here
on the last segment, one thing we talked about with
(23:59):
the opportunity that is being handed right now to Israel
and the United States is that typically Iran has much
more I guess, much stronger allies. I mean Syria, with
Asad used to be an ally, the Hooties and Hezbollah
and Hamas used to all be there in the alliance
in a way in different ways with Iran, and right
now all of them have either been weakened or eliminated.
(24:19):
So that is a very unique opportunity that currently exists.
Here's more about what Congress ban Alfred said.
Speaker 7 (24:26):
Well, look, it is best to chop the head off
the snake now before it turns into a Medusa. And
once that starts, there is no turning back. I would
rather deal with the situation now, a problem that we've
been dealing with now for four to five decades, and
get a leader in Iran who can truly lead the
(24:47):
people and the will of the people who want normalcy.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
And I was just over there in.
Speaker 7 (24:51):
October in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, meeting with leaders, the
President of Egypt, King of Dellah. They want normal in
this region. They want someone to deal with Iran. They
won't come out publicly and say remove the Ayatola, but
they want some normalcy.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Right, and this is I think that's right. That's part
of the exact problem that goes on. There's a lot
of countries that aren't going to take it on themselves
to do it, and in some cases can't, but they
don't really like the situation there either. And this is,
of course, as we all know, what happens when you
have a dictator cemented in a country for decades upon
decades upon decades. It becomes even more difficult for the
people of that nation to overthrow that kind of a
(25:30):
regime because the control is more intense than most Americans
could even imagine. And the ability to just you know,
throw off the bans of that particular government isn't something simple.
I mean, it's something we love to think about as Americans.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
That's how we started our own country. Throw off the
bands of a nation who thinks they can govern us,
who thinks they can send soldiers into our homes, who
thinks they can imprison us whenever they want, And we're
going to take into our own hands, create a constitution
and create this nation. And here we are the most
successful nation in the world who is able.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
To do it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
But it is not that easy when you are under
the kind of control that Iran, that North Korea are under.
And I think a lot of people who are more
isolationists in their opinion. Don't like this kind of thought,
but I really do think it is part of the
job of being the world's greatest superpower is to say, yes,
our own nation should be our priority. Yes it should
(26:21):
be America first, but America first doesn't mean America only.
And so saying we do have summer responsibility to make
the world a secure place.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
And Iran is a threat to us as well.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Whether again, whether or not they have that intercontinental ballistic
missile now, which I really don't think anyone thinks that
they do have that capability at the moment, they would
love to develop it. How do we know where their
alliance with Russia is going to take them one day.
There's a lot of volatility in this situation. Iran has
proven that they're not the kind of nation to stick
to the agreements they make. They're not the kind of
(26:53):
nation that listens to the other nations around them, like
Saudi Arabia and Jordan and says, you know, maybe we
should take less of a hardline approach and actually take
it upon ourselves to create peace.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
They're nowhere near.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Going to do that with the current leadership they have,
and that effects not only Israel but also Europe and
also us here at home in America. So we'll get
your thoughts in the next segment. If you want to
call in a five five four zero five eight two
five five, or you can text them to Dan at
five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Keep it here.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
Welcome back to the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
I'm Kristy Burton Brown talking about Iran and what exactly
the United States should do. In the last segment, we
contrasted some thoughts from Representative Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut,
and Representative Mark Alford, a Congressman from Texas. I want
to I have some texts actually to get to both
on Iran and on the sale of federal land. Lots
(27:52):
of thoughts on that today, which is a very important
issue and something that's definitely in the big Beautiful Bill
as they call it right now, which would specifically affect
Western states like Colorado. So loo get to that in
a minute, but I do want to play some of
Charlie Kirk's thoughts on ran here we are.
Speaker 9 (28:08):
If we were to do forceful regime change sounds good,
Lindsay Graham is cheering for that. What would happen to
the refugees? Where would they go? Millions of people going
to the West. The country could fall into civil war.
And understand, there they're warriors there, These.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
Are the Persians.
Speaker 9 (28:24):
They were a great power for a thousand years. Not
even the Romans could defeat Persia. And I'm not saying
they're comparable to our marines or to our air force,
but is that really the battle that we want.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
In front of us?
Speaker 9 (28:33):
And President Trump understands this astute lee. He is again
he understand that so many people are saying, you must
bomb right now, you must bomb right now, and other
people equally say, oh, don't worry about it. Who cares
if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? So President Donald Trump
has something that the history books will write about. This
is what legends are made of. This is the moment
that President Trump was elected for.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
I mean, I can agree with him.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
This is certainly going to be a historical moment, whether
or not the US jumps in and actually does the
one thing we can do that Israel cannot do, which
has use those bunker buster bombs to take out Iran's
nuclear facility in the mountains. We're the only ones with
that bomb. We are the only ones with the bomber,
the B two that can take it in and do that.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
So it grew very.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Historical moment that will set the stage for the future
because it will either completely eliminate Iran's ability to produce
nuclear weapons or will leave them with a limited ability
to do so, which I'm not at all condenced.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Is good for anyone in the world, including ourselves.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
I'm not sure I fully agree with Tarlie Kirk on
the whole. Not even the Romans could defeat Persia. These
are warriors. I mean, any country is going to deeply
go ahead and defend themselves fight.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
Could there turn into a civil war?
Speaker 2 (29:41):
And Iran sure there could, there's any Persians on both
sides of that. I'm not really sure that's a legitimate
reason to not do a strike, a targeted strike. Most
people in the US are actually not talking about US
going in and an acting regime change, us going in
and doing nation building. That's really not the issue here.
You'll always hear a few people out there talking about it. Yes,
I'm sure Lindsey Graham is talking about it. That doesn't
(30:02):
mean that the prevailing thought among people in the US government.
It's like, we're talking about a very targeted strike and
very targeted involvement, not even a full scale war, something
the United States very specifically can do to go in
and eliminate the ability of Iran to develop the kinds
of weapons that could attack US. I also think it's
very important for people to remember what Iran has been
involved with over the year since at least the eighties,
(30:23):
if not before, with American soldiers and with American citizens
launching attacks and an embassy holding people hostage. They were
the ones who were launching a lot of the attacks
on our soldiers in Iraq like that was done by
proxies of Iran, and I think a lot of people
forget that that that was them doing it.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
It's the same regime that's in charge right now.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Every opportunity that they have to attack Americans when we're
anywhere near close by, they take it. And it's been
extremely deadly for a lot of our military members. So
this is not just a threat to Israel. It's been
a threat to the US and our military men and
women for quite some time. Let's listen to another clip
from Charlie Kirk, though, talking about how Trump needs to
balance two specific things as he's looking about potential involvement
(31:07):
in Iran.
Speaker 9 (31:08):
The highest level statesman can only handle and can only manage,
and that is to be able to balance two things.
Number One, America does not want Iran to get a
nuclear bomb, but number two, America does not want, in
any way, shape or form to have a long quagmire
in the Middle East to try to get into another
(31:28):
Iraq or Libya or Syria or Afghanistan. And so it
is a very difficult thread to needle a high wire act.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Sure, we can agree it's difficult, but actually I'm not
sure that it's quite that difficult. To be perfectly honest
with you, I think if you there is always a
middle ground. It's not always like, oh my goodness, we
do nothing, or oh my goodness, we do complete regime change.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Yes, Charlie Kirk is right.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
People don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb or
even the ability to build it, because, as we discussed
on an earlier segment, that's what Iran constantly goes back
and forth between, Oh, we have the capability to build it,
but it's really only for self defense. It's really only
for ourselves. Oh wait, now we can absolutely build it,
and we could launch it on Israel anytime we want it.
Like they talk out of both sides of their mouth,
(32:09):
because they absolutely would take any opportunity they could to
destroy Israel or destroy.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
The United States.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So yeah, we don't want them to have a nuclear
bomb for a whole lot of reasons.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
And so I think there's a very clear path.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
It's really not an either or, it's go straight up
the middle to a very targeted strike that eliminates the
potential for them building a nuclear bomb, and Israel's going
to go ahead and continue to take their entire regime out.
They've been very successful so far. I know they're going
for the Ayatola himself, so hopefully it is real successful
in that. I think Israel can handle a lot of this.
They already are handling a lot of it. But there
(32:42):
are some specific things that only the US can do
that Israel cannot do, and one of those is taking
out this very specific and nuclear facility. So I think
that is a very clear balance between doing absolutely nothing
and letting them have the capability to build a nuclear
bomb and going so far as to be like, oh,
let's nation build, let's resume change. We have seen that
be unsuccessful in the Middle East, and we've gone that
far even with good intentions. So just shoot straight up
(33:04):
the middle and do a very targeted strike, do what
only the US can uniquely do. I really don't think
that's a super hard call. Now, I am not the president.
Donald Trump is, so we'll see what he decides to do.
But I just don't think it's that complicated or that
difficult to make a decision like that.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
I'm going to go to the.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Text line in the limited time I had before I
have to take another break. Someone saying Iran is currently
occupied by an illegal Islamic regime. Obama had the chance
to help the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors, but he
turned his back on the Iranian students and left them
to be slaughtered. Completely agree with you that President Obama
greatly mishandled every opportunity that he had to help there
(33:39):
be any change in Iran, did a horrible deal with them,
gave them lots of money, bad decisions all up and
down there. You know, again, I'm not the president, so
I'm sure it's much harder when you're on the inside
actually having to weigh all the information, all the security
intelligence and everything that you're getting.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
So I think it is.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Easy to be sort of an armchair quarterback and say, well,
he never should have done any of that. I still
don't think he should have, but it probably was a
harder decision than it appears.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
To be from my end.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
But I've always thought that Obama made a huge, huge
mistake with Iran. Another text saying, I think Iran in
the world is calling Trump's bluff, believing he will do
nothing over the nukes, bankrupting our already lost country like
he did his company in the ninety funny comment there
at the end. But you know, I actually think I
agree with you that Iran probably believes that, because of
(34:23):
Trump's more isolationist America First policies, that he isn't going
to do anything, that He's going to threaten, that he's
going to try and get them to negotiate and agree
to some sort of inspection, which would be very humiliating
for Iran even.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
To go that far.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
But I do think they're not completely convinced that he
will actually order a strike like this. I'm not completely
convinced that he's going to order a strike like this
just based on, you know, probably some of the pressure
he's going to get from his own party to like
remain focused on America America only. But as I've said before,
I just don't think that America first means America only.
(34:57):
We can still do limited, targeted things around the world
that help our allies, that keep the world safe, that
accept the responsibility we have as a superpower. So yeah,
I agree with you saying that they're probably calling his bluff.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
But he's very.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Sometimes he's very unpredictable, and I think that you know,
he calls their bluff too and says, okay, fine, here,
here's what I'm actually going to do, and often takes
a very strong position that does advance American interests, not
only here.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
At home but abroad.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
So we'll find out apparently the next less than two
weeks what's going to happen here the Dan Kaplis Show.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. Keep your comments coming, text them
to five seven seven three nine, address them to Dan
or call over the break eight five five four zero
five eight two five five will dive back into the
sale of federal lands when we come back over the break,
because a lot of Texters have interest in that as well.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown
filling in for Dan today. Good to be with all
of you on this extremely hot day. I hear it's
going to get up to ninety nine degrees tomorrow, so
I think that probably means a swimming pool weekend for
my kids. Hopefully you guys have plans to either be
at the pool or indoors in this kind of crazy.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Weather, or maybe in the mountains.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
That'd be a great place to be and call her
out of this weekend as well. But we have so
many national issues to talk about on the show today.
Federal cuts to Medicaid? How is that going to impact Colorado?
Are all the I guess claims that you're hearing about
that really true? Is it really a medicaid cut or
(00:53):
is it really a change to eligibility for Medicaid? Which
is something that we have deeply needed for a long time.
We're also, of course, going to talk about Iran and
President Trump's announcement the other day that everyone will know
within the next two weeks what he's going to do.
We're going to talk about some of the options the
US would have go through some different elected officials on
(01:14):
the federal level, people like Charlie Kirk, and their different
opinions about what the US should do. If you have
opinions on what the US should do or not do,
you are very welcome to call into the show or
text today the numbers eight five five four zero five
eight two five five, or you can text five seven
seven three nine and start it with Dan. Another thing
we're going to cover on the show today is sanctuary
(01:35):
state laws here in Colorado, because New York has the
governor of New York has announced that they're going to
provide fifty million dollars in taxpayer money to provide legal
services for illegal immigrants. I'm sure this is in response
to the Trump administration in Ice actually doing what they
promised and cracking down on illegal immigrants, removing them from
(01:57):
the United States and focusing specifically on the criminal But
states like New York want to go ahead and fund
their legal services to keep them here in the country.
All the while, at least here in Colorado, citizens often
are losing services, but we're paying even more for people
who are not supposed to be here in the first place.
So that's definitely an issue that New York is taking on,
(02:17):
but it's already been handled here in Colorado by Democrats
and the legislature who at least every two years pass
another slew of sanctuary state laws, all the while Governor
Polis continues.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
To claim we're not a sanctuary state.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Well, the facts reveal and the laws reveal that we absolutely,
very clearly are, and so we'll get into the details
of that a little bit later in the show.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapli Show.
Some specific news that was released today.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Some of the Minnesota lawmakers who were shot, Senator John
Hoffman and his wife Yeavette, have been recovering in the hospital.
I believe State Senator Hoffman is still in critical but
stable condition. So they actually talked to the news today
and revealed more about what happened when the gunman came
to their door. So I guess what they've said happened
(03:08):
is he came to their door at about two am
in the morning and made a lot of noise, banged
on the door, and yelled out that he was a
police officer, and he demanded that they opened the door
and that he'd be allowed to enter. And so, as
most people would do in that kind of a scenario,
they opened the door. They were there in their home
with their adult daughter, and as soon as they opened
the door, they saw that he had a gun pointing
at them, and I believe he began to shoot, and
(03:30):
the state senator like lunged at him to try and
get the gun down because his wife and adult daughter
were also there. He was shot eight or nine times,
and then his wife was also shot eight or nine times.
And by that point their adult daughter was able to
shut the door to the house a locket and call
the police, and the shooter went on to actually go
to another legislator's house and kill her and her husband.
(03:52):
But I think this brings up something that's really unexpected
for a lot of people, Like what do you do
if a police officer is at your door in the
middle of the night and you don't expect it. I mean,
most people would answer the door. That's what you're supposed
to do. But I think one thing about this scenario
that no one would have known this ahead of time,
but now I think we could really think about and
evaluate it. Police officers usually don't come to a house
(04:13):
alone in the middle of the night. They come together,
and so I think if you're ever in a scenario
and hopefully no one ever is in another scenario like this,
but if you are and there's a single police officer
outside your door yelling for you to open the door,
A lot of police organizations actually recommend that you go.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Ahead and call your local police officers.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
You call your local sheriff's office and ask if they
send anyone to your home. That's a very acceptable thing
to do so that you know you don't find yourself
in this kind of a scenario. I know that's what
Minnesota police are now recommending specifically the legislators, but I
think people in general do is go ahead and make
that call, ask if they're supposed to be there. So
sometimes it's just such strange things we have to consider
(04:54):
in today's society, with so much violence and terrible behavior
that goes on. Whether we're talking about said at protests
that should have been peaceful, whether we're talking about gunmen
coming to doors of people. They disagree with a lot
of very unnecessary, in tragic violence in our society. Now,
this actually leads me to Iran, which I think is
(05:14):
going to be a big, big topic today. What would
be the purpose of the United States engaging in Iran?
Of course, there are a lot of people both on
the left and the right, who are saying, no, not
another endless war in the Middle East. The US should
stay out, leave it alone. Israel's got it under control.
They believe that President Trump is more of an isolationist,
so to speak, make America great again, not the world
(05:37):
great again. And so you know a lot of either
hesitancy or objections from people saying, well, let's hold back.
What are we doing jumping in the Middle East again?
I think it's really important for that reason that people
know the very specific involvement that President Trump is suggesting.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Now.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
I also will say that I think sometimes President Trump
isn't necessarily I don't know, explicit in all the detail
that he gives when he says, hey, here's exactly what
we're considering. Sometimes I think he talks a lot in
general terms without sharing some of the details with people.
Of course, some of that's going to be for national
security reasons, and sometimes it is because that's just how
he is. But the biggest thing that the United States,
(06:14):
at least that has been reported in some outlets and
sometimes by the White House and press conferences, is the
bunker buster bomb.
Speaker 3 (06:22):
I don't know how many of you are aware.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
I had to look up what that was, but it's
this extremely giant bomb that can actually could take out
Iran's one of their most dangerous, dangerous nuclear facilities that
is in.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
The side of the mountain.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
It's actually kind of like the facility we have Cheyenne
Mountain and down in the close to the springs here
in America that we have in Colorado. Iran has a
facility like that, but they have a nuclear facility similarly
built into the side of a mountain. Very very hard
to take out. I mean, there's a reason countries do that.
It's difficult to get taken out.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Well.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Israel doesn't have these kind of bombs, the bunker buster
bombs that can blast into the side of a mountain
and take out whatever is beneath.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
We do in the United States.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Furthermore, we have the B two bombers that actually carry
these bunker buster bombs. Your average bomber can't carry them
because they're much too big, much too heavy. So Israel
has neither the weapon that is needed nor the aircraft
that's needed to bring it.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
In the US does have it.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
We also have it currently located within flying distance of
Iran's facility. So this is the specific request that Israel's making,
At least I think Israel's making it of the United States.
I'm pretty sure it's exactly what they would want is
for this nuclear facility to be taken out. So that
is specifically what President Trump is considering doing. I for
one thing, there is a giant, giant difference in a
(07:40):
very targeted, specific strike and a whole long war.
Speaker 3 (07:45):
In the Middle East.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
So I think when we're talking about US involvement in Iran,
it's really important to know exactly what we're talking about
and not.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
I think blow it out of proportion.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
And we're going to get into some clips after the
break of what how different people are analyzing this, what
they're saying about it, and would love to get your
feedback too.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
You can plan on calling in after the break if
you'd like.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Eight five five four zero, five eight two five five,
or text your thoughts to Dan at five seven seven
three nine. But I think we should just be very
specific about this situation that's actually at hand. I really
don't think with President Trump's view of foreign a US
involvement in foreign wars, that he's actually thinking about putting
our troops on the ground. The US commonly sends special
(08:26):
forces into places like Ukraine and trains their soldiers how
to fight against Russia. We commonly send our special forces
over to Israel and actually learn from the Masade, while
we also teach them, you know, things that we know
how to do.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
So there's a lot of coordinations.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
If you want to consider that troops on the ground,
I guess you can, but it's really not the conventional
definition of troops on the ground, and I have not
heard that that's something that President Trump is really considering.
So I think we need to separate our idea of
some big long war in the Middle East with a
very targeted strike that would be useful for the entire world.
When a country like I Ran continue used to say,
on one hand, oh no, no, no, we're only using
(09:02):
this for our defense.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
We're peaceful.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Our production of nuclear is just peaceful, just for our
own country. And then two months later they say oh again,
they repeat their wish that Israel be wiped off the
map and say we have the ability to create these
weapons and we can and will anytime we want. I mean,
this is a very volatile, dangerous situation. You're on the
Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown. When we come back,
we'll listen to a variety of congressmen and commentators on
(09:24):
the situation with Iran and hopefully get your thoughts too.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
You're back on the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Before we get into more discussion on Iran and contrast
what different congressmen are saying about the US potential strikes
in Iran, I'm gonna go to something one of our
textures said on a very different topic. They said, why
is nobody talking about them selling off millions of acres
of BLM land and US Forest Service land in this bill,
the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
This is something I won't support if they saw off
the public land.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
I happen to be a hunter and a conservationist, but
nobody on the right wants to talk about that. Actually
think this is a great question, and it's one that's
been coming up over the last couple weeks with provisions
in the Big Beautiful Bill so called, to sell off
some federal land. So anyone else who has thoughts on
this would love to hear from you as well. But
I think there's a few facts that are necessary. I'm
sure that texture is probably aware of this, but the
(10:18):
Big Beautiful Bill is actually considering selling off zero point
five percent, so half a percent of all the federal
land that is owned by the United States in our
nation now. Still, I don't think most people are aware
of that small of an amount. But a recent poll
show that seventy one percent of Americans oppose the sale
of public land.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
They don't think this is a good idea.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
So I think when we're talking about it, there are
a few things to consider, like why in the world
would we do this in the first place. Why are
they even considering it? Well, there are a few reasons.
One of them is that selling off some federal land
could allow for more energy production in the United States.
Some of the federally owned land is very oil rich, actually,
and so we could get more oil and either use
(10:57):
it in our nation or sell it export it is
one possibility. Another one is, of course, the money from
the sale of the land could be significant, depending on
how much it is and who we sell it to.
Housing availability and affordability is the reason that most people
are talking about right now, because they're specifically talking about
selling federal land in the Western States, to include Colorado,
where we do have a lack of affordable housing, and
(11:19):
so they're saying, well, if we sold some of this land,
you can make more affordable housing. I'm personally curious who
actually wants to move onto this land, like it is
way in the middle of nowhere for the most part,
so I'm not even sure it's close to jobs or
anything like that. So I don't know how much I
buy that reason. But that's the reason that's being talked about.
And then another one that I think a lot of
people probably could identify with is that states and or
(11:41):
private entities can manage the land better than the federal
government when the federal government has millions and millions of acres,
and for many years a number of the portions of
the land, certainly here in Colorado, have not been managed
well when it comes to wildfire risk and other things
like that.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
So it depends on which state.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Though, I mean, would Colorado acts they manage that better,
would California actually manage that better? We've certainly seen that
California doesn't. So what a state actually take care of
the land and minimize the risks better than the federal
government has done. Now, if we're going to talk about
reasons why not to sell the land, in addition to well,
it's considered US land, the land that belongs to everyone.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
So what's going to be the limit? When is the
US going to stop selling the land?
Speaker 2 (12:23):
There's been some talk of it being used as like
leverage and debts, and so some people are saying, we've
better make sure that doesn't happen, because if it does,
then China could actually get a hold of the land.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
That would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
But another reason, and I think this is the biggest
one that applies to Colorado of why a lot of
people are saying don't sell this land. There are a
lot of ranchers and cattle owners, specifically in Colorado who are.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Able to lease the federal land.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
And that's actually the way that they're able to run
their operation and have their ranch and run their cattle.
Is because they have a good deal to lease with
the federal government beneficial for the land. It's beneficial for
the ranchers if any of that land was sold.
Speaker 3 (13:01):
I mean, is the state going to allow ranchers to
continue to lease the land?
Speaker 2 (13:05):
I don't think so. The state is very anti agriculture
here in Colorado. And then of course there's some hunters
and fishers who also have concerns about what would happen
if the land were sold.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
So it is a big issue.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
If you have any thoughts, feel free to call in
eight five five four zero five eight two five five
or text Dan at five seven seven three nine. I'm
Christy Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Kapli Show.
I honestly don't have a hugely strong opinion on whether
or not we should be selling off federal land. To me,
what matters more is who would get a hold of
it and who would own it, Because there's any risk
(13:39):
of China or an other country getting a hold of it,
that's absolutely awful. If it really does take away the
benefits that United States citizens enjoy from the federal land.
I'm not a big fan of that. I think we
should keep a lot of nature. I think we should
keep a lot of access, but half of a percent
of the land to allow for energy production, maybe some
more affordable housing and things like that, better management of
(14:01):
the lands. To states, I would actually do it, I'm
not sure that is a terrible idea. Senator Mike Lee,
who tends to come down on a good side of
less government involvement, is supporting this provision, and he comes
from one of the western states that would be affected
by this. So I think as long as it's kept
very minimal, very specific who buys it, it might actually
be a decent idea. But we'll see what actually happens.
(14:23):
Let's go ahead and move to it. Back to Iran. Now,
I'm going to do first by taking a caller, Robert
from Denver. Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
Hey are you I'm good?
Speaker 3 (14:33):
How are you good?
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Good? I just wanted can I comment on the Iran situation? Yes?
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Please?
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Do? I think the United States is going to have
to deal with it? And because if you look it up,
Iran who's launched seven satellites? Okay, yeah, WELLUS are you
using hypersonic whiles against Israel right now, right five percent
(15:05):
years at least six thousand miles an hour, and they
can change the direction as they need to avoid the
by a dome and whatever you use. So I think,
and here the fact that brand took over our embassy
(15:28):
the Eyotel did, right, and we held our embassy staff
hostage for four hundred and forty four days, and they
call us the Great Satan, right, I think we're going
to have to deal with it. I don't think we
can just say we need to make peace and they're
able to stand down. I don't think that's going to
(15:50):
work when they're already launching, according to Wikipedia, seven satellites
in this space.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah. Well, they continue to develop their technology. Despite all
their claims for peace, their intentions are quite obviously to
attack Israel first in the US second. So I think
you're right when we combine the technology they have, what
they've already shown they're willing to do, and what they
have done in the past with the specific situation, I
think that's going on right now. Israel was able to
(16:19):
cut down on the power of Hesbalah of the hoodies
in Yemen, and with the Assad regime toppling in Syria.
I mean, that's a lot of Iranian allies that have
been taken out or significantly weakened. So in many ways,
it's a prime opportunity to you know, take away this
threat that absolutely exists, as you're saying, Robert, to the
United States as well as Israel.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
All right, well, I agree with everything.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Thank you, awesome, thanks for calling in. Good to have you.
All right. You also could call in.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
If you have thoughts on the conflict in Iran and
what the US should do eight five five four zero
five eight two five five, or text your thoughts five
seven seven three nine to Dan.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
Let's let's see.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
I don't think I quite have time to play a
clip right now, but we have a Democrat congressman, a
Republican congressman, and then Charlie Kirk, all of whose opinions
we will get to you on the Iran conflicts, see
if they match up with any of yours, or if
you have a completely different idea. But I think to
Robert's point, to our last callers point, this really is
not just in Iran Israel conflict. That's been a lot
(17:21):
of American's objections to some of the former wars in.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
The Middle East. They say, well, while.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
It started out as the war on terror or weapons
of mass destruction, at least we believed they were there
in Iraq, it then became nation building. It then became
very focused on other countries problems in other countries' conflicts,
not something the US should be directly involved with, according
to a lot of these people who don't want to
see involvement right now. But I don't think anyone is
suggesting that we need to go build a nation in Iran.
(17:47):
There are a ton of people in Iran who would
love to see the current regime overthrown, but they can't
do it, and if the regime is fully taken out,
they can actually take care of their own country and
rebuild their own country. I don't think anyone suggesting the
US should go in and do that. I also think
it should be deeply considered, like what is your responsibility
in the world when you are the top superpower. I
don't think you can sit back as an isolationist and
(18:09):
just say, well, you know, let's let the world take
care of themselves, like you don't have to go in
and fight every conflict. But you also can't sit back
and just take care of yourself. The world falls to
pieces if you do that, and you eventually lose your
superpower status. So we'll continue this discussion Iran when we
get back from this break. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're
on the Dan Caplis Show. Make sure you call in
if you have thoughts over the break eight five five
(18:30):
four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
on Iran or any other topic to Dan f five
seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (18:51):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
Welcome back to the Dan Kapless Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Let's get us some commentary with different congressman and Charlie
Kirk about the Iran conflict. Now, before I play these
clips for you, I'm going to tell you just think
the difference in these two congressmen. That Democrat Congressman Jim
Heimes is from Connecticut and the Republican Congressman Mark Alford
is from Texas. So think to yourself about how Connecticut
and Texas might respond differently.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
And let's see how different it really is.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Here is Representative Jim Heimes from Connecticut.
Speaker 6 (19:24):
There's some chance you could have the best case scenario
setting aside right and wrong, in justice and injustice and
all that. There's some chance you could get the dream
scenario right, which is that the Iranian people finally decide
they've had enough and they overthrow this regime, and you know,
you get a situation where you know, this incredibly educated,
very capable people decides that we're going to rejoin the
Company of decent Nations.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
But you know, we're in the Middle East.
Speaker 6 (19:46):
You know, there are fifty other scenarios that range from
you know, our naval base in Bahrain and their airbase
and Cutter being attacked, to the fall of the King
of Jordan. You know, the King of Jordan is hanging
on by his fingernails for a the larger reasons. I mean,
I could just go on for an hour about the
different scenarios that if you are knowledgeable on the Middle East,
you would say, hey, there's some chance of that too.
(20:08):
So long winded way of saying, if you know, we
can sort of joke about taco and you know, everything
is two weeks or four weeks or never. But I
think when you're talking about war in the Middle East,
going slower than rather than faster is not a bad thing.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Okay, fair point that the ideal scenario would be for
the Iranian people themselves to overthrow the regime. But I
do think they have tried that, and there's a lot
of people there who would love to do that, and
it's not the kind of regime that is easily overthrown
for many reasons, one of the many being I mean,
think about North Korea.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
How are those people supposed to overthrow that regime.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I'm not saying those kind of things are impossible, but
these are two of the hardest nations in the entire
world for citizens who very deeply might want to overthrow
the regime to actually be able to do it.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
So I mean, yes, ideal.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Scenario, sure, practical scenario, I don't think so. That doesn't
mean that Representative Heim's, Democrat congressman from Connecticut is wrong
that slow walking this a little bit. It's giving some
time to think about impulsively reacting to a scenario in
the Middle East is the one is the right thing
to do? I mean, yes, a little bit of time
is good to make sure we're doing the right thing,
coordinating with allies I'm doing well. It's necessary and not
(21:15):
crossing lines that involves the US permanently in the Middle
East again, but too much time also, you can lose opportunities.
So let's listen to his one other comment before we
move on to Congress and Mark Alfred from Texas.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
I guess I'm not surprised, right and you know, the
fact that we're not reading about a US attack on
Iran right now actually gives me a little bit of comfort.
I was asked this morning, you know, if you're advising
the president, what.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Do you do?
Speaker 6 (21:39):
And the advice I would give the president is, you know,
you are in a point of maximum leverage right now,
right and off of you know, the regime has been
badly hurt, badly embarrassed. They're probably worried about what's going
to happen inside Iran with the Iranian people, So now
is the time to call them up and say you
give up any enrichment, which by the way, is the
(22:00):
deal from the old JCPOA and yes that had a
fuse on it, but you give up any enrichment. And
this stops today point a maximum leverage. So you know,
the fact that we're not talking about a US attack
leaves me to believe that maybe that's what's happening, which
I think is good because Jim, I mean, listen, I'll
try to make this quick, but yeah, war in the
Middle East is a hell of a roll of the dice.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Okay, So I'll just point out one thing from his comments.
He's saying he thinks perhaps by buying this two week window,
what President Trump may be doing is trying to negotiate some.
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Sort of deal with Iran.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
It may very well be true, but to his point,
the exact thing that we would want in a negotiated
deal like that has been agreed to before. Iran has
said previously that they wouldn't make nuclear weapons. They've agreed
before to let inspectors in. We've seen where that's gone.
It is always only a temporary band aid when you're
talking about Iran. So is that really the right answer?
Speaker 3 (22:54):
I'm here.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
Let's move to a Congressman Mark Alford. He's talking to
John Berman on CNN, and let's get his thoughts.
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Do you think they have a nuclear ward?
Speaker 7 (23:03):
Now I don't have any way of knowing that for sure,
but I'm not going to wait around and find out.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
The intelligence suggests that they certainly don't have a warhead,
and there's discrepancy over that.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Way they've made that threat.
Speaker 7 (23:13):
They want instead we're the great Satan in their eyes.
Speaker 8 (23:15):
Do they have an intercontinentibalistic missile?
Speaker 7 (23:18):
Not to my knowledge, I don't have any intelligence.
Speaker 8 (23:20):
Sim Burchett again, and these are his words here. He
was noting that the Iranians right now can't shoot a missile.
He said, past Greece. You know, obviously they're hitting Israel
right now. But his point was that the United States,
he does not believe, is that a direct threat to
the Iranian weaponry.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
So that was really more John Berman from CNN than
Congressman Alford. Will get to more of his comments in
a second. But part of the problem with that kind
of thinking is okay, so even if Iran doesn't right
now have an intercontinent o ballistic missile, do we wait
until they do to take out their nuclear facility, the
most dangerous one in their nation? When we currently have
an opportunity to do it? And if you weren't here
on the last segment, one thing we talked about with
(23:59):
the opportunity that is being handed right now to Israel
and the United States is that typically Iran has much
more I guess, much stronger allies. I mean Syria, with
Asad used to be an ally, the Hooties and Hezbollah
and Hamas used to all be there in the alliance
in a way in different ways with Iran, and right
now all of them have either been weakened or eliminated.
(24:19):
So that is a very unique opportunity that currently exists.
Here's more about what Congress ban Alfred said.
Speaker 7 (24:26):
Well, look, it is best to chop the head off
the snake now before it turns into a Medusa. And
once that starts, there is no turning back. I would
rather deal with the situation now, a problem that we've
been dealing with now for four to five decades, and
get a leader in Iran who can truly lead the
(24:47):
people and the will of the people who want normalcy.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
And I was just over there in.
Speaker 7 (24:51):
October in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, meeting with leaders, the
President of Egypt, King of Dellah. They want normal in
this region. They want someone to deal with Iran. They
won't come out publicly and say remove the Ayatola, but
they want some normalcy.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Right, and this is I think that's right. That's part
of the exact problem that goes on. There's a lot
of countries that aren't going to take it on themselves
to do it, and in some cases can't, but they
don't really like the situation there either. And this is,
of course, as we all know, what happens when you
have a dictator cemented in a country for decades upon
decades upon decades. It becomes even more difficult for the
people of that nation to overthrow that kind of a
(25:30):
regime because the control is more intense than most Americans
could even imagine. And the ability to just you know,
throw off the bans of that particular government isn't something simple.
I mean, it's something we love to think about as Americans.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Right.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
That's how we started our own country. Throw off the
bands of a nation who thinks they can govern us,
who thinks they can send soldiers into our homes, who
thinks they can imprison us whenever they want, And we're
going to take into our own hands, create a constitution
and create this nation. And here we are the most
successful nation in the world who is able.
Speaker 3 (25:58):
To do it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
But it is not that easy when you are under
the kind of control that Iran, that North Korea are under.
And I think a lot of people who are more
isolationists in their opinion. Don't like this kind of thought,
but I really do think it is part of the
job of being the world's greatest superpower is to say, yes,
our own nation should be our priority. Yes it should
(26:21):
be America first, but America first doesn't mean America only.
And so saying we do have summer responsibility to make
the world a secure place.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
And Iran is a threat to us as well.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Whether again, whether or not they have that intercontinental ballistic
missile now, which I really don't think anyone thinks that
they do have that capability at the moment, they would
love to develop it. How do we know where their
alliance with Russia is going to take them one day.
There's a lot of volatility in this situation. Iran has
proven that they're not the kind of nation to stick
to the agreements they make. They're not the kind of
(26:53):
nation that listens to the other nations around them, like
Saudi Arabia and Jordan and says, you know, maybe we
should take less of a hardline approach and actually take
it upon ourselves to create peace.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
They're nowhere near.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Going to do that with the current leadership they have,
and that effects not only Israel but also Europe and
also us here at home in America. So we'll get
your thoughts in the next segment. If you want to
call in a five five four zero five eight two
five five, or you can text them to Dan at
five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Keep it here.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
Welcome back to the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
I'm Kristy Burton Brown talking about Iran and what exactly
the United States should do. In the last segment, we
contrasted some thoughts from Representative Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut,
and Representative Mark Alford, a Congressman from Texas. I want
to I have some texts actually to get to both
on Iran and on the sale of federal land. Lots
(27:52):
of thoughts on that today, which is a very important
issue and something that's definitely in the big Beautiful Bill
as they call it right now, which would specifically affect
Western states like Colorado. So loo get to that in
a minute, but I do want to play some of
Charlie Kirk's thoughts on ran here we are.
Speaker 9 (28:08):
If we were to do forceful regime change sounds good,
Lindsay Graham is cheering for that. What would happen to
the refugees? Where would they go? Millions of people going
to the West. The country could fall into civil war.
And understand, there they're warriors there, These.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
Are the Persians.
Speaker 9 (28:24):
They were a great power for a thousand years. Not
even the Romans could defeat Persia. And I'm not saying
they're comparable to our marines or to our air force,
but is that really the battle that we want.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
In front of us?
Speaker 9 (28:33):
And President Trump understands this astute lee. He is again
he understand that so many people are saying, you must
bomb right now, you must bomb right now, and other
people equally say, oh, don't worry about it. Who cares
if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? So President Donald Trump
has something that the history books will write about. This
is what legends are made of. This is the moment
that President Trump was elected for.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
I mean, I can agree with him.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
This is certainly going to be a historical moment, whether
or not the US jumps in and actually does the
one thing we can do that Israel cannot do, which
has use those bunker buster bombs to take out Iran's
nuclear facility in the mountains. We're the only ones with
that bomb. We are the only ones with the bomber,
the B two that can take it in and do that.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
So it grew very.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Historical moment that will set the stage for the future
because it will either completely eliminate Iran's ability to produce
nuclear weapons or will leave them with a limited ability
to do so, which I'm not at all condenced.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Is good for anyone in the world, including ourselves.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
I'm not sure I fully agree with Tarlie Kirk on
the whole. Not even the Romans could defeat Persia. These
are warriors. I mean, any country is going to deeply
go ahead and defend themselves fight.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
Could there turn into a civil war?
Speaker 2 (29:41):
And Iran sure there could, there's any Persians on both
sides of that. I'm not really sure that's a legitimate
reason to not do a strike, a targeted strike. Most
people in the US are actually not talking about US
going in and an acting regime change, us going in
and doing nation building. That's really not the issue here.
You'll always hear a few people out there talking about it. Yes,
I'm sure Lindsey Graham is talking about it. That doesn't
(30:02):
mean that the prevailing thought among people in the US government.
It's like, we're talking about a very targeted strike and
very targeted involvement, not even a full scale war, something
the United States very specifically can do to go in
and eliminate the ability of Iran to develop the kinds
of weapons that could attack US. I also think it's
very important for people to remember what Iran has been
involved with over the year since at least the eighties,
(30:23):
if not before, with American soldiers and with American citizens
launching attacks and an embassy holding people hostage. They were
the ones who were launching a lot of the attacks
on our soldiers in Iraq like that was done by
proxies of Iran, and I think a lot of people
forget that that that was them doing it.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
It's the same regime that's in charge right now.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Every opportunity that they have to attack Americans when we're
anywhere near close by, they take it. And it's been
extremely deadly for a lot of our military members. So
this is not just a threat to Israel. It's been
a threat to the US and our military men and
women for quite some time. Let's listen to another clip
from Charlie Kirk, though, talking about how Trump needs to
balance two specific things as he's looking about potential involvement
(31:07):
in Iran.
Speaker 9 (31:08):
The highest level statesman can only handle and can only manage,
and that is to be able to balance two things.
Number One, America does not want Iran to get a
nuclear bomb, but number two, America does not want, in
any way, shape or form to have a long quagmire
in the Middle East to try to get into another
(31:28):
Iraq or Libya or Syria or Afghanistan. And so it
is a very difficult thread to needle a high wire act.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
Sure, we can agree it's difficult, but actually I'm not
sure that it's quite that difficult. To be perfectly honest
with you, I think if you there is always a
middle ground. It's not always like, oh my goodness, we
do nothing, or oh my goodness, we do complete regime change.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Yes, Charlie Kirk is right.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
People don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb or
even the ability to build it, because, as we discussed
on an earlier segment, that's what Iran constantly goes back
and forth between, Oh, we have the capability to build it,
but it's really only for self defense. It's really only
for ourselves. Oh wait, now we can absolutely build it,
and we could launch it on Israel anytime we want it.
Like they talk out of both sides of their mouth,
(32:09):
because they absolutely would take any opportunity they could to
destroy Israel or destroy.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
The United States.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So yeah, we don't want them to have a nuclear
bomb for a whole lot of reasons.
Speaker 3 (32:18):
And so I think there's a very clear path.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
It's really not an either or, it's go straight up
the middle to a very targeted strike that eliminates the
potential for them building a nuclear bomb, and Israel's going
to go ahead and continue to take their entire regime out.
They've been very successful so far. I know they're going
for the Ayatola himself, so hopefully it is real successful
in that. I think Israel can handle a lot of this.
They already are handling a lot of it. But there
(32:42):
are some specific things that only the US can do
that Israel cannot do, and one of those is taking
out this very specific and nuclear facility. So I think
that is a very clear balance between doing absolutely nothing
and letting them have the capability to build a nuclear
bomb and going so far as to be like, oh,
let's nation build, let's resume change. We have seen that
be unsuccessful in the Middle East, and we've gone that
far even with good intentions. So just shoot straight up
(33:04):
the middle and do a very targeted strike, do what
only the US can uniquely do. I really don't think
that's a super hard call. Now, I am not the president.
Donald Trump is, so we'll see what he decides to do.
But I just don't think it's that complicated or that
difficult to make a decision like that.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
I'm going to go to the.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Text line in the limited time I had before I
have to take another break. Someone saying Iran is currently
occupied by an illegal Islamic regime. Obama had the chance
to help the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors, but he
turned his back on the Iranian students and left them
to be slaughtered. Completely agree with you that President Obama
greatly mishandled every opportunity that he had to help there
(33:39):
be any change in Iran, did a horrible deal with them,
gave them lots of money, bad decisions all up and
down there. You know, again, I'm not the president, so
I'm sure it's much harder when you're on the inside
actually having to weigh all the information, all the security
intelligence and everything that you're getting.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
So I think it is.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Easy to be sort of an armchair quarterback and say, well,
he never should have done any of that. I still
don't think he should have, but it probably was a
harder decision than it appears.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
To be from my end.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
But I've always thought that Obama made a huge, huge
mistake with Iran. Another text saying, I think Iran in
the world is calling Trump's bluff, believing he will do
nothing over the nukes, bankrupting our already lost country like
he did his company in the ninety funny comment there
at the end. But you know, I actually think I
agree with you that Iran probably believes that, because of
(34:23):
Trump's more isolationist America First policies, that he isn't going
to do anything, that He's going to threaten, that he's
going to try and get them to negotiate and agree
to some sort of inspection, which would be very humiliating
for Iran even.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
To go that far.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
But I do think they're not completely convinced that he
will actually order a strike like this. I'm not completely
convinced that he's going to order a strike like this
just based on, you know, probably some of the pressure
he's going to get from his own party to like
remain focused on America America only. But as I've said before,
I just don't think that America first means America only.
(34:57):
We can still do limited, targeted things around the world
that help our allies, that keep the world safe, that
accept the responsibility we have as a superpower. So yeah,
I agree with you saying that they're probably calling his bluff.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
But he's very.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Sometimes he's very unpredictable, and I think that you know,
he calls their bluff too and says, okay, fine, here,
here's what I'm actually going to do, and often takes
a very strong position that does advance American interests, not
only here.
Speaker 3 (35:21):
At home but abroad.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
So we'll find out apparently the next less than two
weeks what's going to happen here the Dan Kaplis Show.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. Keep your comments coming, text them
to five seven seven three nine, address them to Dan
or call over the break eight five five four zero
five eight two five five will dive back into the
sale of federal lands when we come back over the break,
because a lot of Texters have interest in that as well.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
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
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!