May 22, 2025 • 34 mins
In the second hour of today's edition of The Dan Caplis Show, Kristi Burton Brown discusses the bill Jared Polis could sign to cement Colorado's sanctuary state status.
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 (00:15):
Welcome back to the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Verton Brown.
Thanks for joining us tonight. Dan is in trial, so
you are stuck with me. I would like to play
a clip that Ryan found for us over the break.
He always is great at finding all the clips you
could ever possibly want. But this one is from a
new representative in Colorado, Cecilia Espinoza from HT four.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Which I believe is right in the heart of Denver.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
She is talking about the patriarchical British monarchy of old
as a perfect example of how we should view children
here in Colorado, you know, rather than parental rights or
any crazy idea like that, the patriarchal British monarchy is
apparently the way to go.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
So the notion that parents have rights have always reigned
supreme is not in our English Saxon history, but rather
that there was always a recognition that the state had
an interest in protecting the rights of children, and that
was balanced by the best interest of the child doctrine
which we see in much of the case, which my
colleague from never referred to, which balances the rights of
(01:18):
the parents and the child in this other context of.
Speaker 5 (01:20):
Issues, And in light of all of.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
That and my knowledge of the history of how those
rights of children have been balanced over time, I would
just I will have to say that I will be
ann tonight.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
So balancing rights of parents and kids, that's her opinion
of what you should do. And to look for an example,
she decides we should base it on English history, the
very country that we rebelled against, had a revolution against
to establish our own better system of governments. It's not
like Britain was some you know, novel, wonderful place of
(01:53):
how they treated children and what rights they gave children
back in the seventeen hundreds. So no idea what she's
actually talking about there, as far as you know, good
examples and quality law, but even the idea that she's
trying to set this out as well, you know, in
English history, if we pay attention to that, as opposed
to I don't know, maybe American history, because we live
(02:13):
in America her idea that we should be balancing the
rights of parents and kids. Note that they are specifically
not talking about life and death situations. In fact, when
you talk about life and death situations abortion, for example,
they hugely reject the idea that you should balance the
rights of the mother and the child and try to
help them both live, and you know, let's make sure
(02:34):
they both have the right to life constitutionally, so that
the child can then go on to live and have
a right to liberty and a right to own property
and all these rights we supposedly, you know, hold so
dear on this side of the aisle. But no, they
are not talking about that. In fact, they'd come down
completely on the opposite end of the spectrum if you're
talking about that kind of a kind of a situation.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Instead, when they're talking.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
About balancing the rights of kids with their parents, they're
talking about what names kids get to call themselves in school.
They're talking about gender transitioning. If the child agrees with
the gender ideology the state has decided to adopt and
the parent doesn't like, well, let's go ahead and take
custody away from the parents. That is literally a bill
that was run this session and very nearly passed. In
(03:14):
that version the bill House Bill thirteen twelve did actually pass,
but that portion was stripped out close to the last minute.
Actually still ended up being a terrible bill at least
that was taken out. But Representative Espinoza like wanted those
kind of things. So when they talk about balancing the
rights of parents and kids, they are not talking about
like the death situations. They are talking about ideology situations
(03:35):
when they think they've got the child on the side
of the state and they want to let the kid
go against the parent. So that is actually what they're
talking about. I think a valid question as well that
we should be asking, is okay if people in control
of the legislature here in the government in Colorado think
that the government should be in charge of children, be
in charge of implementing their rights or religious wards of
(03:57):
the state. If you actually listen to a longer clip
represented Espinosa as she goes into even more detail double
the time talking about children as wards of the state,
the government like sharing responsibility for children instead of parents,
we should it's develop thant to ask the question, how
well does the state of Colorado actually protect kids? What's
their track record. What kind of laws do we have
here in Colorado.
Speaker 6 (04:17):
Well, there's a lot of stories in news recently about
schools not doing such a great job of protecting kids,
specifically Jeffco Schools and to that point, Jeffco Kids First,
Lindsay Datco founding that organization. Over thirty different cases of
child abuse, sexual and otherwise by adults and positions of
(04:39):
trust be the administrators, faculty members, staff, and a lot
of times these stories are buried because they're inconvenient to
the school districts themselves. We saw the grooming story at
a Columbine high school where a high school sophomore age fifteen,
had a social studies teacher who was grooming her. A
female teacher and a lesbian relationlationship that ultimately saw the
(05:02):
young woman turn eighteen and move in with the teacher
that groomed her. Yes, And but for the efforts of
those uncovering the facts of this case, that teacher wasn't disciplined,
that teacher wasn't fired. That teacher simply was allowed to
leave of her own accord, and then subsequently he had
her teaching license removed.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
But she moved to California.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, she did to.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Get away from it all, to hide from the situation
that she was creating, and who knows how many other
kids it was created with.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
I kind of turned into the sheriff from Stranger Things
and I go back in time, you know, like I said,
as part of gen X. And I'm pretty old now,
I'm fifty, but still like my parents, especially my mom,
but they would be like, my kid has the rights
that I give him, yeah, and nothing more and nothing
less than that.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
That's it.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
We make the call and the decisions on him, what
he can do and what he can watch, on the
medical procedures that he might have, the things that he
might do to his body.
Speaker 5 (05:56):
Talking about me, talk about.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Me, I know, well, I mean that's part of being
a child, is we all go through. And it's actually
a healthy thing to go through in life. You are
actually a subject to someone else's authority for a part
of your life when you are learning and growing and
becoming an adult, like you're a normal part of it.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
You're a child, you're a minor, you're a dependent.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
You're not an adult. You're not capable of making those decisions.
That's why you have parents. I don't understand the whole
mindset or argument. No, these kids are their parents' kids
until or unless that you can show that there's a
gregious abuse, and in those cases you remove them from
the home. But different short of that, I'm talking like
a very high bar Christie. Oh yeah, not just I
(06:35):
disagree with my son or daughter's gender identity, and.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
I we'll let them have something they want. I won't
pay for their surgery right now?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
No?
Speaker 5 (06:43):
What?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Hell?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
No? Well, and you brought up Jefferson County schools and
I'm glad you did.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
Ryan.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
I have met with Lindsay dat Co personally, which I
think is a really good thing to do. You hear
these stories people say, and then you're like, Okay, I
want to meet with you in person and see how legitimate.
This is extremely legitimate. She has data to back up
research story. She knows what she's talking about. Anyone listening
should look her up and look up everything she's uncovered
in the Jefferson County schools. But specifically, here's a piece
that she put out recently. There's a paper called the
(07:10):
McKinney Vento Paperwork, and basically what it is is a
school can sign this paper and basically help declare a
child homeless so it is supposed to be in situations
where the child actually does not have a parent or
guardian taking care of them.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Of course, those situations exist on occasion.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Shocker, Jefferson County School District has the highest number of
McKinney vento paperwork filed of any school district in the
entire state, and they do not, at the same time
have the highest homeless population in the state Denver, actually,
does I believe if I read it right, And Jefferson
County way above Denver with a number of pieces of
paper filed four children. And there's story after story in
(07:48):
jeffco where the parents didn't even know that administrator's teachers
whoever at the school was helping kids get this paperwork
signed so that the kids could get away from the
parents and not be under the parents' authority. Often involve
gender ideology, though it's not actually the issue that was
there In every single case, they're just uncovering the different
situations where this happened. They don't even know all the
(08:09):
scenarios and details yet, but just to shear, a number
of times this paperwork has been filed by jeff coo
administrators with kids and without parents knowledge It's like, if
you have a parent that doesn't know about it, you're
not supposed to be signing this paperwork because there's a
parent that's in charge of this kid, that's taking care
of this kid, that this kid is living with. So
a complete misuse of the paperwork. From everything I've heard,
(08:32):
the details are still being uncovered, but just one more
example of how Jeffco is literally creating this wall the
Jeffco School district, this wall between the schools, the kids
and the parents, and the parents are the ones finding
themselves on the outside.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
They're boxed out.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I think personally, I know there's a lot of messed
up school districts in the state. I think Jeffco and
Cherry Creek are two of the worst. And I say
this from having talked to a number of people on
the inside, being on the state Board of Education, and
there's so many problematic things going on in both of them.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
And that is so devastating because when I first moved
here Christy in twenty eighteen, I moved I live in
Greenwood Village. I am in the Cherry Creek School district.
I was told and I saw in publications and magazines
that Cherry Creek schools.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
Yeah, that's what I heard with the elite, premier.
Speaker 6 (09:15):
Public school system in the state of Colorado and even nationwide.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
And now we watch what it's become, right right.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
And when I say they're two of the worst districts
in the state, I am talking about four districts. When
you're looking at the perspective of districts that separate parents
from the equation and say we no longer need parents
to get involved. So if you're a parent, you're not
sending your kid to school just for academic success. I mean,
look at the troubling numbers of academic success in these
schools too.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
But like, let's set that to the side, because.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
You know, in some schools they perform better than other
schools across the state, but not in every Cherry Creek
and Jeffco school but in some of them they do.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
But if you're a parent, you care about more than that.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
You're like, I'm trusting these people to do the right
thing with my child while I'm at work and they're
at school. You cannot trust that in many instances in
Jeffco and Cherry Creek school districts, in particulars Doc mended evidence,
documented stories, not saying it happens in every school with
every teacher, but it is way too widespread in these districts.
Parents should be on notice, questioned it themselves, and go
(10:10):
find out what kind of a scenario your child is
in if they're in any school district, but particularly these two.
I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
We'll cover more when we come back. You can call
in over the break eight five five four zero five
eight two five five.
Speaker 5 (10:29):
And now back to the dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
The government's view, or at least a view shared by
sub legislators here in Colorado, that children are just well
wards of the state, or at least that's how we
should consider them, because after all, that's what the British
monarchy did, and since that's in our English history, that's
what America should do. No no thought to the point
that we threw off all those restraints when we had
our revolution and created our own constitution, and you know,
(10:53):
our own Supreme Court has said that the constitution actually
recognizes parental rights. I mean, novel idea. These these people
who raise these children in their homes, maybe you should
have the right to actually make some decisions for them,
rather than the government that doesn't even meet every child.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
So, Celia, you're breaking my heart.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
I think you got to play the whole bit, the
long because a long form of it really gets into
the details, and again it'll make your head spin.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
I think we should.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
I'm going to do that, and then I want to
tell people I said the question should be, so listen
to this clip with this thought in mind. The question
should be, if the government thinks it is qualified to
do this for your children and take care of your children,
it is valid to ask the question, how well is
the government actually protecting our kids?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Right now?
Speaker 2 (11:32):
We talked about school districts in the last clip of
this show, but I also want to talk about actual
state law when it comes to crimes against children. So
keep that in mind. We'll cover that after we play
this long clip of Representative Espinoza talking about how children
should be treated in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Under English common law, it was recognized that the care
of all infants is lodged in the king has parents
patriari and by the King, this care is delegated to
the Court of Chancery. In protecting neglected independent children, chance
three courts use what are called equitable powers, the essential
ideas of which our flexibility, guardianship and the balancing of
(12:10):
interest in the general welfare with a view to getting
a fair result than could be obtained by applying applying
older and more rigid roles. So the notion that parents
have rights have always reigned supreme is not in our
English Saxon history, but rather that there was always a
recognition that the state had an interest in protecting the
rights of children, and that was balanced by the best
(12:33):
interests of the child doctrine, which we see in much
of the case law which my colleague from Denver referred to,
which balances the rights of the parents and the child,
and this other context of issues.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
And in light of all of that, and my knowledge.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Of the history of how those rights of children have
been balanced over time, I would just I will have
to say that I will be a known tonight.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
I can't get over the fact that she would really
rather us consider English history.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
English Saxon.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Are you you're the English Saxon history, not Anglo Saxon.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
No English English sex.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
I'm really sure that's a discrete and actu people that
can be used.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
But nonetheless, I can't get over the fact that she
wants to focus.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
On that instead of US Supreme Court precedent.
Speaker 6 (13:12):
Well, hold on, you're a lawyer, you on that she
mentioned some precedent of case law in Colorado that supports
what she was saying.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
Is that true?
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Not that I'm aware of. And I think she's confusing
a few things too.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
When you look at like custody cases and abuse cases,
courts do look at the best interests of children, like
it is a standard that is used.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
She's just misusing it.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So my opinion is that she's misquoting cases in Colorado
law that were or precedent that were very specific to
abuse and custody and like which you know which parents
should get more time with the children? Well, it's look
at the best interests of the children. Are the children
suffering and neglect or abuse? Okay, Well, then is it
in the best interests of the child to put them
in someone else's care? Like again, in abuse and neglect cases,
(13:55):
that is a legitimate consideration. And it's sort of like
one of the few responsibilities government does have when it
comes to children is they are also people and citizens,
and when their lives are at risk and their you know,
bodies are being abused, and yeah, the government.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Should step in and do something about it.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
But that is a rare scenario, and she's using that
to say, oh, that's a blanket standard that when we
look at anything involving parental rights.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
I mean, no, it should really be the best.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Interest of the child, defined as what the child like
to be called by a different name than the parents
gave them at birth, with a child like to have
their parents pay for some surgeries to you know, follow
the state's gender ideology instead of the parents' own beliefs.
Like that's where she would like to take it and apply.
So I think she's miss speaking when it comes to Colorado.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Okay, slaw.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
You know, there was a movie in the eighties called
soul Man which could never be made today. I think
Kelly remembers this one, but.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
I do not. There is a moornient.
Speaker 6 (14:47):
But tell me what if the kid, I mean, tell
me how this is different or how it's worse.
Speaker 5 (14:52):
I don't think it's worse. I think it's not as bad,
but it's still ridiculous. Goes to a pery. You know,
it's a white kid.
Speaker 6 (14:58):
I'm black, and I want melanin and and I want
to become a black young person who you pay for
those for me, and I want to.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Freak out, Well, yeah, it can be transracial.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
You can only be Transfender, according to rails Now, showed us.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
All that she could succeed in that endeavor.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I know right, yes, now, I will say I know
someone who at a at a very important workplace in
Denver actually went to their HR manager because they disagreed
with some of the standards that were being set out.
And they said, well, I'd like to ask a question
if I wanted. And this person was like white as
white can be, and they're like, if I wanted to
(15:34):
say that I was black for the HR department for
for whatever my own purposes are, can I do that?
Speaker 3 (15:39):
And she was like, well, that would be up to you.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
You could do And this was actually a black HR
director talking to a white guy. Wow, and she's more
liberal and he just wanted to see what the answer
would be. Of course, he would never do anything like that.
He just wanted to see, like, would she come down
on at least the consistent side. That's what I'm saying,
Like she was at least consistent, but most aren't. They're
like to be horrified by question.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
Like, well, credit to her because she kind of probably
thought that through a few if you moves ahead on
the chessboard, going oh, I see where this is going,
and if I'm going to be intellectually honest.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Then yeah, craft r own identity regardless of your biology.
Then that applies to gender, it applies to race, it
applies to ethnicity. It should apply to height, It should
apply to weight, like I mean literally, it should.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Apply to eight. And there's so many problems if you
actually go down that road, and.
Speaker 5 (16:24):
That's the road. That's the road.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
The Senator Elizabeth Warren for years identified as an American Indian,
benefited from scholarships and jobs because of it, and this
is why she's rightfully.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Called Pocahontas by President Trump.
Speaker 7 (16:37):
It's interesting that you bring that up because my son
got into Florida State because he mistakenly me like checked
the application as American Indian.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
Oh no, yeah, did he hold the Pocahontas.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Did he have to tell them that it wasn't real?
Well he didn't go oh it didn't go okay, yeah,
but it was like, oh you did what? Oh no,
I mean yeah, it gets you places as Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Is found.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
But it was not good.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Yeah, no, I mean and honest reason will people correct
that wouldn't pull us with Warren in that category. But
since we are talking about children, and I want to
get back to the state law on kids, this is
the point I really want to make because I think
few people know about it. George Brockler's a DA He's
brought a lot of attention to this issue. But it
is the law in Colorado concerning child sexual assault and
online solicitation of children. If you commit that in Colorado,
(17:31):
you are most likely going to be out on probation.
The sentencing guidelines in Colorado for people who do some
of the worst crimes against our children, they just get off.
They get to go right back out on the street
with probation. It is a it's against the law. Sure,
the state bans it, and it's not going to allow it.
But if you buy children online for certain activities that
you want to do to abuse them, if you actually
(17:53):
commit sexual assault against a child, you are most likely
to get off in probation in Colorado. It is a
horrible state of things. They had the opportunity to change
that in the legislature this year and they refuse to
do it. So the organization I work for, Advanced Colorado
is planning to bring a ballot measure to fix this
in Colorado because our state laws do not protect children.
It's unacceptable. Giant majority of voters across every political spectrum
(18:14):
think this is horrible and we've got to change it.
I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
You can call in over the break eight five five
four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
We've been talking about a few things with the legislative
session since it's over, but one more thing I want
to cover today, and I actually have something somewhat funny
about the Rockies to.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Show you what a disappointing team. It's so sad.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
I want to really want to like them because I
actually like baseball, but oh, that's so bad. But before
we go there, let's cover one more serious thing. In
the last segment, we talked about the terrible state of
Colorado's laws when it comes to people who assault children
and just get out on probation. Hundreds of people every
year do horrible assaults against children and just get out
of probation and not taken.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Seriously at all by the state.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Terrible.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
The organization I work for, Advanced Colorado. We plan on
changing that through a ballot measure that we have already
gotten through title Board. We'll see where that goes. But
that is something that a lot of people across the
state really want. The legislature simply hasn't listened to them.
But here's the other thing. It's one of the bills
that Polus hasn't signed yet, and there's definitely a question
as to whether or not he will. It is a
bill that would cement Colorado's sanctuary state status into law.
(19:31):
It would be the fourth law in Colorado that would
make us a sanctuary state. I know Police hates that label.
It's like, oh, you're not a sanctuary state because he
likes to you know, let people know that. Well, if
there's a court order that they have to cooperate with
ICE or the Department of Homeland Security, then in that case,
Colorado law enforcement will cooperate. But in every other case
(19:52):
they don't. State law literally prohibits them from doing it.
He signed the sanctuary state bills into law a period
of years, and now there's another one on his desk
that would go even further and fine local government officials
if they decide to cooperate with ICE. If they decide, hey,
there's not a court order that I have to do it,
(20:13):
but there's this dangerous criminal that ICE needs to know about.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
I want to go ahead and report them.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
The bill would find them for doing so, literally find
them thousands of dollars personally for doing their duty and
protecting citizens in their local community. So if the governor
decides to sign this, he hasn't said if he's going
to or not yet. If he decides to do it,
he will literally be cementing Colorado's sanctuary state status into
law in an even deeper and more terrible way, if
(20:40):
that's even possible after the three laws that have already
been signed.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
So that's one to keep your eyes on.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
I think you should, you know, let the governor know
if you have thoughts about that bill, because that is
one of the worst things we could do right now
is make Colorado even more dangerous.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
The US News and Rule Report just released their rankings
on states. Last year, we were the third most dangerous.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
State in the nation. Want to know where we are
this year in the new report, number two most dangerous
state in the nation. So despite all of Governor Pullis's
claims in his State of the State address, oh, I
want to make Colorado the top ten safest states in
the nation, we are going absolutely to the bottom of
the barrel, not just the third worst, the second worst
in the nation. So the you know, terrible idea to
(21:23):
then go ahead and cement sanctuary state status. We are
penalizing local officials for trying to help make Colorado safe.
Terrible idea, But you know that's that's on the table.
We'll see if he signs it or not. As I'm
going to look through my texts right now, lots of
thoughts and opinions here, people just talking about, you know,
(21:44):
the terrible laws that they'd like to enact in Colorado,
giving children the decisions to do whatever they want, whatever
parents think doesn't matter anymore.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
And I think it's really important.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
To acknowledge, based on all of these texts, how close
we came in Colorado. A literally declaring parent who had
a different opinion from the state on gender ideology abusers
of their kids. That is what thirteen twelve almost did.
It would have taken. You know, parents who refused to
agree with their children's you know, gender transition, don't want
to cooperate with it, don't want to call them a
(22:16):
different name. If you didn't agree with that as a
parent and you were in a custody battle, the law
they proposed literally said that that would then be considered
the same as physical abuse.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
On par with that, you don't want.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
To call your child by a different name, You're now
in the same category of someone who physically beats their
child every night.
Speaker 6 (22:35):
Hold on you hear a mom, you named the kid,
you gave the kid that you created that child, Christy
within your body, You gave birth.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
To the child, you chose the name. I think you
deserve to keep that title.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
I mean I certainly do too, So just like on
a common sense basis, it's like really, I mean, I
don't know. It's just some times it's so laffable. It's like,
what's what as a response to that that's even good?
Other than even you guys are just insane.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
I want to ask Center left people like why do
you keep voting for this? Because you are And this
is where I do have some frustrations with Dan, like
no somebody that continues to vote Democrat. Now with all
of this evidence before your very eyes, you are voting
for this well, especially in Colorado.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Yeah, no question about it. You live in Louisiana, you
have like you.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Know, Okay, maybe maybe maybe it's different. Still on the
national level, it's not different at all, But at least
on the state level, maybe you can claim there's some difference.
But here is pretty clear what's going on quite you know,
And I think what's just such the dichotomy to me
is when you look at the same people who insist
at a three year old and according to this legulation,
a three year old literally as soon as they can
(23:46):
speak and say they want to be called by a
different name because they think they're a different gender, then
the pair would have to do it, and if they didn't,
they would be, you know, considered a child abuser under
the law that almost passed in Colorado. That's where they
want to go without but back it up for a
couple of years. The baby before they're born, no best
(24:06):
interest to the child, don't care about their rights, all
about the mother's decision.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
I talk about parental rights here.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
Then where does that change, like magically somehow.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
As soon as the child can speak and decide it
agrees with the state.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
Can we talk about all the things that a three
year old can do versus what a three year.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
Old cannot do? I mean just functionally functionally, and if.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
We're talking about how how insane it is too, It's
like they didn't write into the provisions of the bill
that what if a child literally wants to be trans
species okay, like wants to be treated like a dog
or a cat.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
What if a three year old wanted to walk around
Cedar Point Amusement Park all by him or herself?
Speaker 5 (24:45):
Would we let that three year old do that?
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Well, I can guarantee you the same legislators, you know,
her talking about all this, would say, well, that's not
in the best interest of a child. They might get kidnapped,
they might get stolen. It's like, okay, so who is
determining this best interest of the child standard they want
They want the government.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
To determine that.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
The government to be like, well, the risk that you
are kidnapped, that you get lost, that you fall into
a pond and drown, Okay, that's not in your best interest.
So we get to say, hey, three year old, you
don't actually have the you know, experience in life, the knowledge,
the wisdom, the age to make these decisions for yourself.
We know better than you do, not your parents, but
we do as the government. So you know, we're not
going to let you be a dog. We're not gonna
(25:22):
let you run off by yourself. But hey, because we
as a state think that people can switch their gender,
we're going to say that you absolutely have all the experience, age, knowledge,
wisdom to go ahead and make that decision. And if
your parents want to disagree, well then they're the abusers. Like, actually,
it's crazy how close we got to passing a law
like that in Colorado, and because a whole ton of
people spoke out against it, that is not the version
(25:43):
of law that passed. Still a bad law, still leaves
open the idea that parents might be able to be
accused of discriminating against their children for so called misgendering
or dead naming them.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
But at least it.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Took away the abuse portion and the custody portion at
crazy times we're living in. But let's go ahead and
move to the Rockies. I'm going to play this clip
for you. A man who wants to sue the Rockies.
In part because they're a terrible team new.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Tonight the Rockies can't catch a break for a ball
for that matter. But their poor performance now being cited
in a lawsuit. A Parker man says he was hitting
the face with a foul ball while sitting in a
course field luxury box and is suffering quote catastrophic and
permanent injuries. This happened in twenty twenty three during a
game against the Yankees. The lawsuit claims the Rockies did
(26:31):
not keep the stadium safe, citing quote a lack of
netting to protect the fans, and it also claims that
the Rockies' longstanding poor performance on the field has contributed
quote to a game day environment in which spectators are
less engaged with the.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
Action on the field. End of quote.
Speaker 8 (26:50):
We reach out to the Yankees for comment. They have
not responded tonight.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
So you're playing so terrible, I don't actually pay attention
to what's going on at the game. Therefore it's your
fault if you hit me with the foul ball. That's
a unique argument in court.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
Plus, I think it happened two years ago. So the
Rockies they were bad, but they weren't this bad.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
No, I mean according so Kyle Clark is posting on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Saying that we are now witnesses to history, and here's
the history. The Rockies fall to eight forty two, which
is the worst fifty game start to a season in
the modern era of baseball.
Speaker 5 (27:18):
That's correct.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
I think I looked it up the Kentucky Kernels of
eighteen ninety five. So that's not the modern era, that's
the ancient era. Ability the National League was founded in
eighteen seventy six, they were one game worse at seven
and forty three through fifty games than the Rockies are
now at eight and forty two.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
I will just throw forty two horrible.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
I will just throw out there. Every game my daughter
has ever been two of the Rockies they win.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
Why are you not taking her?
Speaker 9 (27:44):
I know?
Speaker 5 (27:45):
This weekend against the Yankees.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I feel like I should talk to whoever owns the
Rockies and be like, she might be very lucky charm.
Come on, it's happened for years in a row. She
goes to they win, oh yeah every time, and when
she wasn't there and the rest of us went and
they lost. When she's there, they win. Taker this week
I don't know. Okay, you're on the Dan Kapla Show.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. When we come back, I'm going
to talk to you about the weapon that is commonly
(28:08):
used in assault crimes. But there's no effort by the
Democrats to ban this like they're trying to ban guns.
Speaker 5 (28:19):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
So I have a great question from a Texter. If
Colorado is the second worst state, the second most dangerous
state in the nation, which is the worst state? The
answer is New Mexico. New Mexico is the only state
in the US News and World Report New Report that
that is more dangerous in Colorado, and they look at
a wide range of crimes, criminal activity, law enforcements, different
laws in the state to determine which is the most dangerous.
(28:45):
For example, I don't think Colorado has the most violent
crimes in the nation. We have a ton of property crimes.
So just when you look at total amount of crimes
and so therefore whether it's safe to be in Colorado,
we get the second worst, moving down from third worst
last year. So New Mexico is the only one that
beats us out. Another texture saying dead naming what a term.
(29:06):
I agree.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
They come up with all this.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
This is one thing the Left loves to do is
invent their own language and invent their own dictionary terms
and assume that everyone you know just needs to use
these and understand what they are. And I think in
the bill they passed thirteen twelve, in the version they
actually passed, they didn't even put a definition to dead
naming because there was so much controversy, even within the
LGBTQ movement, as to whether or not it was smart
(29:29):
to define it and what the definition really was. But basically,
when they say dead naming, what they mean is you
are calling someone by a name they no longer choose,
and a name that is from their biological gender. So
if you dare to say that, and if you're a parent,
and you dare to say that, this state will say
that you are dead naming and therefore discriminating against people.
(29:51):
So I mean, you know, I feel like it's a
human thing to get people's name wrong all the time.
Is at a doctor appointment this morning, someone got my
name wrong. Even when I tried to correct them, they
got it wrong again. Like they're not discriminating against me
because they don't know, can't remember, can't pronounce my name
it It shouldn't.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Be made into this giant deal.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
And I get that their point is like, well, it's intentional,
and you're intentionally trying to offend me by using a name.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
I don't like.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
They also assume that a lot of stuff is intentional
when people are just going with what makes the most
sense to them or what they remember. So there's just
a lot of I think, attribution of hate to people
that really aren't doing things to be hateful. They're doing
things because they messed up or have a different opinion.
And I think in society we need to stop saying
that everyone who disagrees with us and doesn't do exactly
(30:35):
what we want actually hates us. Those accusations typically come
from the left, and I think it's really, really terrible.
I do want to play you a clip with Idris
Elba suggesting that kitchen knives represent twenty five percent of
assault crimes and yet they are not even attempted.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
To be banned like guns are all the time. I
think this is pretty funny.
Speaker 9 (30:58):
The truth is is that kitchen knives are perhaps twenty
five percent of the knives used in most of the
terrible crimes. That's one of the stats in the films,
and those kitchen knives are usually a domestic situation. Okay,
so kitchen knives, of course, it's very difficult their domestic knife.
I do think there is areas of innovation that we
(31:20):
can do with kitchen knives. I hate to say, not
all kitchen knives need to have a point on them.
That sounds like a crazy thing to say, but actually
it would reduce you know, you can still cut your
food without the point on the knife, which is an
innovative way to sort of look at it. And in
a country in crisis, I'm sorry, but yeah, let's look
at that. But the truth is all knives. You know,
(31:43):
the loophole on the heritage knives allows the sale of
zombie ninja swords to be sold. So while you know
you've got your granddad's sword on there and you want
that as fine, of course, but it is leaving a
loophole for someone to carry a ninja sword. So let's
ban them all and if you need, if you have
one of those knives, get a license for it. Simple
(32:05):
as that, And I think it's a small contribution to society.
Speaker 5 (32:09):
If you say I'm going.
Speaker 9 (32:11):
To back that, I'll get a license from my granddad's
sword because it is leaving you know, these kids vulnerable.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Well, and so most people who keep their granddad's swords
aren't actually keeping them so they can murder people with them.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
They're keeping them because it's a you know, I.
Speaker 5 (32:23):
Mean, doesn't everybody have their granddad's sword. I do.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
No, I've never met anyone who does.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
Okay, because he went from like zombie knives to granddad's sword. Like,
wait a minute, where did you started at zombie? Now
it's a granddad's sword.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Are you talking about? Well, And here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
If you're a liberal and you think, you know it's
a weapon that's the problem rather than the person that's
the problem, then you're just going to continue to go
down the line and be like, Okay, now, let's get
rid of guns. Now, let's get rid of kitchen knives,
or let's eliminate the point on the end of them, like,
let's go ahead and make sure you have a license
to your grandfather's sword. And it just people still are
going to have hay and people use their hands to abuse,
(33:04):
harm and kill people all the time. If there are
evil people or in other cases, people who are mentally disturbed.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
And need help.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
They often find a way to do the evil they're
going to do, whether you take that particular weapon from
them or not. So I think the main point is
that we need to find better solutions to changing how
people act and get people to help they need and
the treatment they needed some cases, and rehabilitation they need.
And you need to focus on the people instead of
the objects, because it's really people that make things happen,
(33:34):
not the objects. It is like the driver of the
car who gets into a wreck, not the car itself, unless,
of course, you're dealing with driverless cars.
Speaker 6 (33:41):
Like or if you're following the liberal media headlines and
the driver's identity is inconvenience.
Speaker 5 (33:46):
So you'll see on the AP.
Speaker 6 (33:48):
Car drives into crowded street in New Orleans on New
Year's Yes, the car did it all by itself.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Nobody was driving it.
Speaker 7 (33:56):
I know.
Speaker 5 (33:56):
Wait, somebody was driving it.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
That's how you know if it was a Mega supporter.
Oh we know the name they where they're from.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Oh yeah, Well, speaking of dealing with things differently, I
do think a lot of stuff spend the news recently
with attacks on Jewish people is treated so differently by
the media than attacks on any other set of people. Thankfully,
the Trump administration cracking down on Harvard and actually saying
they can't admit international students anymore because they don't stop
the violent protests against Jewish students. It's about time we
(34:26):
see something like that. But society as a whole does
not push back on attacks on Jewish people as much
as they should. That needs to change. Thanks for listening today.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You've been on the Dan Kapli Show.
I hope you have a great rest of your week,
and thanks for being with us tonight.
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 (00:15):
Welcome back to the Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Verton Brown.
Thanks for joining us tonight. Dan is in trial, so
you are stuck with me. I would like to play
a clip that Ryan found for us over the break.
He always is great at finding all the clips you
could ever possibly want. But this one is from a
new representative in Colorado, Cecilia Espinoza from HT four.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Which I believe is right in the heart of Denver.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
She is talking about the patriarchical British monarchy of old
as a perfect example of how we should view children
here in Colorado, you know, rather than parental rights or
any crazy idea like that, the patriarchal British monarchy is
apparently the way to go.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
So the notion that parents have rights have always reigned
supreme is not in our English Saxon history, but rather
that there was always a recognition that the state had
an interest in protecting the rights of children, and that
was balanced by the best interest of the child doctrine
which we see in much of the case, which my
colleague from never referred to, which balances the rights of
(01:18):
the parents and the child in this other context of.
Speaker 5 (01:20):
Issues, And in light of all of.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
That and my knowledge of the history of how those
rights of children have been balanced over time, I would
just I will have to say that I will be
ann tonight.
Speaker 5 (01:32):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
So balancing rights of parents and kids, that's her opinion
of what you should do. And to look for an example,
she decides we should base it on English history, the
very country that we rebelled against, had a revolution against
to establish our own better system of governments. It's not
like Britain was some you know, novel, wonderful place of
(01:53):
how they treated children and what rights they gave children
back in the seventeen hundreds. So no idea what she's
actually talking about there, as far as you know, good
examples and quality law, but even the idea that she's
trying to set this out as well, you know, in
English history, if we pay attention to that, as opposed
to I don't know, maybe American history, because we live
(02:13):
in America her idea that we should be balancing the
rights of parents and kids. Note that they are specifically
not talking about life and death situations. In fact, when
you talk about life and death situations abortion, for example,
they hugely reject the idea that you should balance the
rights of the mother and the child and try to
help them both live, and you know, let's make sure
(02:34):
they both have the right to life constitutionally, so that
the child can then go on to live and have
a right to liberty and a right to own property
and all these rights we supposedly, you know, hold so
dear on this side of the aisle. But no, they
are not talking about that. In fact, they'd come down
completely on the opposite end of the spectrum if you're
talking about that kind of a kind of a situation.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Instead, when they're talking.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
About balancing the rights of kids with their parents, they're
talking about what names kids get to call themselves in school.
They're talking about gender transitioning. If the child agrees with
the gender ideology the state has decided to adopt and
the parent doesn't like, well, let's go ahead and take
custody away from the parents. That is literally a bill
that was run this session and very nearly passed. In
(03:14):
that version the bill House Bill thirteen twelve did actually pass,
but that portion was stripped out close to the last minute.
Actually still ended up being a terrible bill at least
that was taken out. But Representative Espinoza like wanted those
kind of things. So when they talk about balancing the
rights of parents and kids, they are not talking about
like the death situations. They are talking about ideology situations
(03:35):
when they think they've got the child on the side
of the state and they want to let the kid
go against the parent. So that is actually what they're
talking about. I think a valid question as well that
we should be asking, is okay if people in control
of the legislature here in the government in Colorado think
that the government should be in charge of children, be
in charge of implementing their rights or religious wards of
(03:57):
the state. If you actually listen to a longer clip
represented Espinosa as she goes into even more detail double
the time talking about children as wards of the state,
the government like sharing responsibility for children instead of parents,
we should it's develop thant to ask the question, how
well does the state of Colorado actually protect kids? What's
their track record. What kind of laws do we have
here in Colorado.
Speaker 6 (04:17):
Well, there's a lot of stories in news recently about
schools not doing such a great job of protecting kids,
specifically Jeffco Schools and to that point, Jeffco Kids First,
Lindsay Datco founding that organization. Over thirty different cases of
child abuse, sexual and otherwise by adults and positions of
(04:39):
trust be the administrators, faculty members, staff, and a lot
of times these stories are buried because they're inconvenient to
the school districts themselves. We saw the grooming story at
a Columbine high school where a high school sophomore age fifteen,
had a social studies teacher who was grooming her. A
female teacher and a lesbian relationlationship that ultimately saw the
(05:02):
young woman turn eighteen and move in with the teacher
that groomed her. Yes, And but for the efforts of
those uncovering the facts of this case, that teacher wasn't disciplined,
that teacher wasn't fired. That teacher simply was allowed to
leave of her own accord, and then subsequently he had
her teaching license removed.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
But she moved to California.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Yeah, she did to.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Get away from it all, to hide from the situation
that she was creating, and who knows how many other
kids it was created with.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
I kind of turned into the sheriff from Stranger Things
and I go back in time, you know, like I said,
as part of gen X. And I'm pretty old now,
I'm fifty, but still like my parents, especially my mom,
but they would be like, my kid has the rights
that I give him, yeah, and nothing more and nothing
less than that.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
That's it.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
We make the call and the decisions on him, what
he can do and what he can watch, on the
medical procedures that he might have, the things that he
might do to his body.
Speaker 5 (05:56):
Talking about me, talk about.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Me, I know, well, I mean that's part of being
a child, is we all go through. And it's actually
a healthy thing to go through in life. You are
actually a subject to someone else's authority for a part
of your life when you are learning and growing and
becoming an adult, like you're a normal part of it.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
You're a child, you're a minor, you're a dependent.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
You're not an adult. You're not capable of making those decisions.
That's why you have parents. I don't understand the whole
mindset or argument. No, these kids are their parents' kids
until or unless that you can show that there's a
gregious abuse, and in those cases you remove them from
the home. But different short of that, I'm talking like
a very high bar Christie. Oh yeah, not just I
(06:35):
disagree with my son or daughter's gender identity, and.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
I we'll let them have something they want. I won't
pay for their surgery right now?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
No?
Speaker 5 (06:43):
What?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Hell?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
No? Well, and you brought up Jefferson County schools and
I'm glad you did.
Speaker 5 (06:48):
Ryan.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
I have met with Lindsay dat Co personally, which I
think is a really good thing to do. You hear
these stories people say, and then you're like, Okay, I
want to meet with you in person and see how legitimate.
This is extremely legitimate. She has data to back up
research story. She knows what she's talking about. Anyone listening
should look her up and look up everything she's uncovered
in the Jefferson County schools. But specifically, here's a piece
that she put out recently. There's a paper called the
(07:10):
McKinney Vento Paperwork, and basically what it is is a
school can sign this paper and basically help declare a
child homeless so it is supposed to be in situations
where the child actually does not have a parent or
guardian taking care of them.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Of course, those situations exist on occasion.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Shocker, Jefferson County School District has the highest number of
McKinney vento paperwork filed of any school district in the
entire state, and they do not, at the same time
have the highest homeless population in the state Denver, actually,
does I believe if I read it right, And Jefferson
County way above Denver with a number of pieces of
paper filed four children. And there's story after story in
(07:48):
jeffco where the parents didn't even know that administrator's teachers
whoever at the school was helping kids get this paperwork
signed so that the kids could get away from the
parents and not be under the parents' authority. Often involve
gender ideology, though it's not actually the issue that was
there In every single case, they're just uncovering the different
situations where this happened. They don't even know all the
(08:09):
scenarios and details yet, but just to shear, a number
of times this paperwork has been filed by jeff coo
administrators with kids and without parents knowledge It's like, if
you have a parent that doesn't know about it, you're
not supposed to be signing this paperwork because there's a
parent that's in charge of this kid, that's taking care
of this kid, that this kid is living with. So
a complete misuse of the paperwork. From everything I've heard,
(08:32):
the details are still being uncovered, but just one more
example of how Jeffco is literally creating this wall the
Jeffco School district, this wall between the schools, the kids
and the parents, and the parents are the ones finding
themselves on the outside.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
They're boxed out.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I think personally, I know there's a lot of messed
up school districts in the state. I think Jeffco and
Cherry Creek are two of the worst. And I say
this from having talked to a number of people on
the inside, being on the state Board of Education, and
there's so many problematic things going on in both of them.
Speaker 6 (09:00):
And that is so devastating because when I first moved
here Christy in twenty eighteen, I moved I live in
Greenwood Village. I am in the Cherry Creek School district.
I was told and I saw in publications and magazines
that Cherry Creek schools.
Speaker 5 (09:12):
Yeah, that's what I heard with the elite, premier.
Speaker 6 (09:15):
Public school system in the state of Colorado and even nationwide.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
And now we watch what it's become, right right.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
And when I say they're two of the worst districts
in the state, I am talking about four districts. When
you're looking at the perspective of districts that separate parents
from the equation and say we no longer need parents
to get involved. So if you're a parent, you're not
sending your kid to school just for academic success. I mean,
look at the troubling numbers of academic success in these
schools too.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
But like, let's set that to the side, because.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
You know, in some schools they perform better than other
schools across the state, but not in every Cherry Creek
and Jeffco school but in some of them they do.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
But if you're a parent, you care about more than that.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
You're like, I'm trusting these people to do the right
thing with my child while I'm at work and they're
at school. You cannot trust that in many instances in
Jeffco and Cherry Creek school districts, in particulars Doc mended evidence,
documented stories, not saying it happens in every school with
every teacher, but it is way too widespread in these districts.
Parents should be on notice, questioned it themselves, and go
(10:10):
find out what kind of a scenario your child is
in if they're in any school district, but particularly these two.
I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
We'll cover more when we come back. You can call
in over the break eight five five four zero five
eight two five five.
Speaker 5 (10:29):
And now back to the dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
The government's view, or at least a view shared by
sub legislators here in Colorado, that children are just well
wards of the state, or at least that's how we
should consider them, because after all, that's what the British
monarchy did, and since that's in our English history, that's
what America should do. No no thought to the point
that we threw off all those restraints when we had
our revolution and created our own constitution, and you know,
(10:53):
our own Supreme Court has said that the constitution actually
recognizes parental rights. I mean, novel idea. These these people
who raise these children in their homes, maybe you should
have the right to actually make some decisions for them,
rather than the government that doesn't even meet every child.
Speaker 5 (11:07):
So, Celia, you're breaking my heart.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
I think you got to play the whole bit, the
long because a long form of it really gets into
the details, and again it'll make your head spin.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
I think we should.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
I'm going to do that, and then I want to
tell people I said the question should be, so listen
to this clip with this thought in mind. The question
should be, if the government thinks it is qualified to
do this for your children and take care of your children,
it is valid to ask the question, how well is
the government actually protecting our kids?
Speaker 3 (11:32):
Right now?
Speaker 2 (11:32):
We talked about school districts in the last clip of
this show, but I also want to talk about actual
state law when it comes to crimes against children. So
keep that in mind. We'll cover that after we play
this long clip of Representative Espinoza talking about how children
should be treated in Colorado.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
Under English common law, it was recognized that the care
of all infants is lodged in the king has parents
patriari and by the King, this care is delegated to
the Court of Chancery. In protecting neglected independent children, chance
three courts use what are called equitable powers, the essential
ideas of which our flexibility, guardianship and the balancing of
(12:10):
interest in the general welfare with a view to getting
a fair result than could be obtained by applying applying
older and more rigid roles. So the notion that parents
have rights have always reigned supreme is not in our
English Saxon history, but rather that there was always a
recognition that the state had an interest in protecting the
rights of children, and that was balanced by the best
(12:33):
interests of the child doctrine, which we see in much
of the case law which my colleague from Denver referred to,
which balances the rights of the parents and the child,
and this other context of issues.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
And in light of all of that, and my knowledge.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Of the history of how those rights of children have
been balanced over time, I would just I will have
to say that I will be a known tonight.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
I can't get over the fact that she would really
rather us consider English history.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
English Saxon.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Are you you're the English Saxon history, not Anglo Saxon.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
No English English sex.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
I'm really sure that's a discrete and actu people that
can be used.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
But nonetheless, I can't get over the fact that she
wants to focus.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
On that instead of US Supreme Court precedent.
Speaker 6 (13:12):
Well, hold on, you're a lawyer, you on that she
mentioned some precedent of case law in Colorado that supports
what she was saying.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
Is that true?
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Not that I'm aware of. And I think she's confusing
a few things too.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
When you look at like custody cases and abuse cases,
courts do look at the best interests of children, like
it is a standard that is used.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
She's just misusing it.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
So my opinion is that she's misquoting cases in Colorado
law that were or precedent that were very specific to
abuse and custody and like which you know which parents
should get more time with the children? Well, it's look
at the best interests of the children. Are the children
suffering and neglect or abuse? Okay, Well, then is it
in the best interests of the child to put them
in someone else's care? Like again, in abuse and neglect cases,
(13:55):
that is a legitimate consideration. And it's sort of like
one of the few responsibilities government does have when it
comes to children is they are also people and citizens,
and when their lives are at risk and their you know,
bodies are being abused, and yeah, the government.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Should step in and do something about it.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
But that is a rare scenario, and she's using that
to say, oh, that's a blanket standard that when we
look at anything involving parental rights.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
I mean, no, it should really be the best.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Interest of the child, defined as what the child like
to be called by a different name than the parents
gave them at birth, with a child like to have
their parents pay for some surgeries to you know, follow
the state's gender ideology instead of the parents' own beliefs.
Like that's where she would like to take it and apply.
So I think she's miss speaking when it comes to Colorado.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Okay, slaw.
Speaker 6 (14:38):
You know, there was a movie in the eighties called
soul Man which could never be made today. I think
Kelly remembers this one, but.
Speaker 3 (14:45):
I do not. There is a moornient.
Speaker 6 (14:47):
But tell me what if the kid, I mean, tell
me how this is different or how it's worse.
Speaker 5 (14:52):
I don't think it's worse. I think it's not as bad,
but it's still ridiculous. Goes to a pery. You know,
it's a white kid.
Speaker 6 (14:58):
I'm black, and I want melanin and and I want
to become a black young person who you pay for
those for me, and I want to.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Freak out, Well, yeah, it can be transracial.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
You can only be Transfender, according to rails Now, showed us.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
All that she could succeed in that endeavor.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
I know right, yes, now, I will say I know
someone who at a at a very important workplace in
Denver actually went to their HR manager because they disagreed
with some of the standards that were being set out.
And they said, well, I'd like to ask a question
if I wanted. And this person was like white as
white can be, and they're like, if I wanted to
(15:34):
say that I was black for the HR department for
for whatever my own purposes are, can I do that?
Speaker 3 (15:39):
And she was like, well, that would be up to you.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
You could do And this was actually a black HR
director talking to a white guy. Wow, and she's more
liberal and he just wanted to see what the answer
would be. Of course, he would never do anything like that.
He just wanted to see, like, would she come down
on at least the consistent side. That's what I'm saying,
Like she was at least consistent, but most aren't. They're
like to be horrified by question.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
Like, well, credit to her because she kind of probably
thought that through a few if you moves ahead on
the chessboard, going oh, I see where this is going,
and if I'm going to be intellectually honest.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Then yeah, craft r own identity regardless of your biology.
Then that applies to gender, it applies to race, it
applies to ethnicity. It should apply to height, It should
apply to weight, like I mean literally, it should.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Apply to eight. And there's so many problems if you
actually go down that road, and.
Speaker 5 (16:24):
That's the road. That's the road.
Speaker 6 (16:25):
The Senator Elizabeth Warren for years identified as an American Indian,
benefited from scholarships and jobs because of it, and this
is why she's rightfully.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Called Pocahontas by President Trump.
Speaker 7 (16:37):
It's interesting that you bring that up because my son
got into Florida State because he mistakenly me like checked
the application as American Indian.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
Oh no, yeah, did he hold the Pocahontas.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Did he have to tell them that it wasn't real?
Well he didn't go oh it didn't go okay, yeah,
but it was like, oh you did what? Oh no,
I mean yeah, it gets you places as Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Is found.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
But it was not good.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
Yeah, no, I mean and honest reason will people correct
that wouldn't pull us with Warren in that category. But
since we are talking about children, and I want to
get back to the state law on kids, this is
the point I really want to make because I think
few people know about it. George Brockler's a DA He's
brought a lot of attention to this issue. But it
is the law in Colorado concerning child sexual assault and
online solicitation of children. If you commit that in Colorado,
(17:31):
you are most likely going to be out on probation.
The sentencing guidelines in Colorado for people who do some
of the worst crimes against our children, they just get off.
They get to go right back out on the street
with probation. It is a it's against the law. Sure,
the state bans it, and it's not going to allow it.
But if you buy children online for certain activities that
you want to do to abuse them, if you actually
(17:53):
commit sexual assault against a child, you are most likely
to get off in probation in Colorado. It is a
horrible state of things. They had the opportunity to change
that in the legislature this year and they refuse to
do it. So the organization I work for, Advanced Colorado
is planning to bring a ballot measure to fix this
in Colorado because our state laws do not protect children.
It's unacceptable. Giant majority of voters across every political spectrum
(18:14):
think this is horrible and we've got to change it.
I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
You can call in over the break eight five five
four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
to five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
We've been talking about a few things with the legislative
session since it's over, but one more thing I want
to cover today, and I actually have something somewhat funny
about the Rockies to.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Show you what a disappointing team. It's so sad.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
I want to really want to like them because I
actually like baseball, but oh, that's so bad. But before
we go there, let's cover one more serious thing. In
the last segment, we talked about the terrible state of
Colorado's laws when it comes to people who assault children
and just get out on probation. Hundreds of people every
year do horrible assaults against children and just get out
of probation and not taken.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Seriously at all by the state.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Terrible.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
The organization I work for, Advanced Colorado. We plan on
changing that through a ballot measure that we have already
gotten through title Board. We'll see where that goes. But
that is something that a lot of people across the
state really want. The legislature simply hasn't listened to them.
But here's the other thing. It's one of the bills
that Polus hasn't signed yet, and there's definitely a question
as to whether or not he will. It is a
bill that would cement Colorado's sanctuary state status into law.
(19:31):
It would be the fourth law in Colorado that would
make us a sanctuary state. I know Police hates that label.
It's like, oh, you're not a sanctuary state because he
likes to you know, let people know that. Well, if
there's a court order that they have to cooperate with
ICE or the Department of Homeland Security, then in that case,
Colorado law enforcement will cooperate. But in every other case
(19:52):
they don't. State law literally prohibits them from doing it.
He signed the sanctuary state bills into law a period
of years, and now there's another one on his desk
that would go even further and fine local government officials
if they decide to cooperate with ICE. If they decide, hey,
there's not a court order that I have to do it,
(20:13):
but there's this dangerous criminal that ICE needs to know about.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
I want to go ahead and report them.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
The bill would find them for doing so, literally find
them thousands of dollars personally for doing their duty and
protecting citizens in their local community. So if the governor
decides to sign this, he hasn't said if he's going
to or not yet. If he decides to do it,
he will literally be cementing Colorado's sanctuary state status into
law in an even deeper and more terrible way, if
(20:40):
that's even possible after the three laws that have already
been signed.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
So that's one to keep your eyes on.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
I think you should, you know, let the governor know
if you have thoughts about that bill, because that is
one of the worst things we could do right now
is make Colorado even more dangerous.
Speaker 3 (20:55):
The US News and Rule Report just released their rankings
on states. Last year, we were the third most dangerous.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
State in the nation. Want to know where we are
this year in the new report, number two most dangerous
state in the nation. So despite all of Governor Pullis's
claims in his State of the State address, oh, I
want to make Colorado the top ten safest states in
the nation, we are going absolutely to the bottom of
the barrel, not just the third worst, the second worst
in the nation. So the you know, terrible idea to
(21:23):
then go ahead and cement sanctuary state status. We are
penalizing local officials for trying to help make Colorado safe.
Terrible idea, But you know that's that's on the table.
We'll see if he signs it or not. As I'm
going to look through my texts right now, lots of
thoughts and opinions here, people just talking about, you know,
(21:44):
the terrible laws that they'd like to enact in Colorado,
giving children the decisions to do whatever they want, whatever
parents think doesn't matter anymore.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
And I think it's really important.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
To acknowledge, based on all of these texts, how close
we came in Colorado. A literally declaring parent who had
a different opinion from the state on gender ideology abusers
of their kids. That is what thirteen twelve almost did.
It would have taken. You know, parents who refused to
agree with their children's you know, gender transition, don't want
to cooperate with it, don't want to call them a
(22:16):
different name. If you didn't agree with that as a
parent and you were in a custody battle, the law
they proposed literally said that that would then be considered
the same as physical abuse.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
On par with that, you don't want.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
To call your child by a different name, You're now
in the same category of someone who physically beats their
child every night.
Speaker 6 (22:35):
Hold on you hear a mom, you named the kid,
you gave the kid that you created that child, Christy
within your body, You gave birth.
Speaker 5 (22:45):
To the child, you chose the name. I think you
deserve to keep that title.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
I mean I certainly do too, So just like on
a common sense basis, it's like really, I mean, I
don't know. It's just some times it's so laffable. It's like,
what's what as a response to that that's even good?
Other than even you guys are just insane.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
I want to ask Center left people like why do
you keep voting for this? Because you are And this
is where I do have some frustrations with Dan, like
no somebody that continues to vote Democrat. Now with all
of this evidence before your very eyes, you are voting
for this well, especially in Colorado.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Yeah, no question about it. You live in Louisiana, you
have like you.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Know, Okay, maybe maybe maybe it's different. Still on the
national level, it's not different at all, But at least
on the state level, maybe you can claim there's some difference.
But here is pretty clear what's going on quite you know,
And I think what's just such the dichotomy to me
is when you look at the same people who insist
at a three year old and according to this legulation,
a three year old literally as soon as they can
(23:46):
speak and say they want to be called by a
different name because they think they're a different gender, then
the pair would have to do it, and if they didn't,
they would be, you know, considered a child abuser under
the law that almost passed in Colorado. That's where they
want to go without but back it up for a
couple of years. The baby before they're born, no best
(24:06):
interest to the child, don't care about their rights, all
about the mother's decision.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
I talk about parental rights here.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
Then where does that change, like magically somehow.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
As soon as the child can speak and decide it
agrees with the state.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
Can we talk about all the things that a three
year old can do versus what a three year.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
Old cannot do? I mean just functionally functionally, and if.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
We're talking about how how insane it is too, It's
like they didn't write into the provisions of the bill
that what if a child literally wants to be trans
species okay, like wants to be treated like a dog
or a cat.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
What if a three year old wanted to walk around
Cedar Point Amusement Park all by him or herself?
Speaker 5 (24:45):
Would we let that three year old do that?
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Well, I can guarantee you the same legislators, you know,
her talking about all this, would say, well, that's not
in the best interest of a child. They might get kidnapped,
they might get stolen. It's like, okay, so who is
determining this best interest of the child standard they want
They want the government.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
To determine that.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
The government to be like, well, the risk that you
are kidnapped, that you get lost, that you fall into
a pond and drown, Okay, that's not in your best interest.
So we get to say, hey, three year old, you
don't actually have the you know, experience in life, the knowledge,
the wisdom, the age to make these decisions for yourself.
We know better than you do, not your parents, but
we do as the government. So you know, we're not
going to let you be a dog. We're not gonna
(25:22):
let you run off by yourself. But hey, because we
as a state think that people can switch their gender,
we're going to say that you absolutely have all the experience, age, knowledge,
wisdom to go ahead and make that decision. And if
your parents want to disagree, well then they're the abusers. Like, actually,
it's crazy how close we got to passing a law
like that in Colorado, and because a whole ton of
people spoke out against it, that is not the version
(25:43):
of law that passed. Still a bad law, still leaves
open the idea that parents might be able to be
accused of discriminating against their children for so called misgendering
or dead naming them.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
But at least it.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Took away the abuse portion and the custody portion at
crazy times we're living in. But let's go ahead and
move to the Rockies. I'm going to play this clip
for you. A man who wants to sue the Rockies.
In part because they're a terrible team new.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Tonight the Rockies can't catch a break for a ball
for that matter. But their poor performance now being cited
in a lawsuit. A Parker man says he was hitting
the face with a foul ball while sitting in a
course field luxury box and is suffering quote catastrophic and
permanent injuries. This happened in twenty twenty three during a
game against the Yankees. The lawsuit claims the Rockies did
(26:31):
not keep the stadium safe, citing quote a lack of
netting to protect the fans, and it also claims that
the Rockies' longstanding poor performance on the field has contributed
quote to a game day environment in which spectators are
less engaged with the.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
Action on the field. End of quote.
Speaker 8 (26:50):
We reach out to the Yankees for comment. They have
not responded tonight.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
So you're playing so terrible, I don't actually pay attention
to what's going on at the game. Therefore it's your
fault if you hit me with the foul ball. That's
a unique argument in court.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
Plus, I think it happened two years ago. So the
Rockies they were bad, but they weren't this bad.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
No, I mean according so Kyle Clark is posting on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Saying that we are now witnesses to history, and here's
the history. The Rockies fall to eight forty two, which
is the worst fifty game start to a season in
the modern era of baseball.
Speaker 5 (27:18):
That's correct.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
I think I looked it up the Kentucky Kernels of
eighteen ninety five. So that's not the modern era, that's
the ancient era. Ability the National League was founded in
eighteen seventy six, they were one game worse at seven
and forty three through fifty games than the Rockies are
now at eight and forty two.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
I will just throw forty two horrible.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
I will just throw out there. Every game my daughter
has ever been two of the Rockies they win.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
Why are you not taking her?
Speaker 9 (27:44):
I know?
Speaker 5 (27:45):
This weekend against the Yankees.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
I feel like I should talk to whoever owns the
Rockies and be like, she might be very lucky charm.
Come on, it's happened for years in a row. She
goes to they win, oh yeah every time, and when
she wasn't there and the rest of us went and
they lost. When she's there, they win. Taker this week
I don't know. Okay, you're on the Dan Kapla Show.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. When we come back, I'm going
to talk to you about the weapon that is commonly
(28:08):
used in assault crimes. But there's no effort by the
Democrats to ban this like they're trying to ban guns.
Speaker 5 (28:19):
And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
So I have a great question from a Texter. If
Colorado is the second worst state, the second most dangerous
state in the nation, which is the worst state? The
answer is New Mexico. New Mexico is the only state
in the US News and World Report New Report that
that is more dangerous in Colorado, and they look at
a wide range of crimes, criminal activity, law enforcements, different
laws in the state to determine which is the most dangerous.
(28:45):
For example, I don't think Colorado has the most violent
crimes in the nation. We have a ton of property crimes.
So just when you look at total amount of crimes
and so therefore whether it's safe to be in Colorado,
we get the second worst, moving down from third worst
last year. So New Mexico is the only one that
beats us out. Another texture saying dead naming what a term.
(29:06):
I agree.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
They come up with all this.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
This is one thing the Left loves to do is
invent their own language and invent their own dictionary terms
and assume that everyone you know just needs to use
these and understand what they are. And I think in
the bill they passed thirteen twelve, in the version they
actually passed, they didn't even put a definition to dead
naming because there was so much controversy, even within the
LGBTQ movement, as to whether or not it was smart
(29:29):
to define it and what the definition really was. But basically,
when they say dead naming, what they mean is you
are calling someone by a name they no longer choose,
and a name that is from their biological gender. So
if you dare to say that, and if you're a parent,
and you dare to say that, this state will say
that you are dead naming and therefore discriminating against people.
(29:51):
So I mean, you know, I feel like it's a
human thing to get people's name wrong all the time.
Is at a doctor appointment this morning, someone got my
name wrong. Even when I tried to correct them, they
got it wrong again. Like they're not discriminating against me
because they don't know, can't remember, can't pronounce my name
it It shouldn't.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Be made into this giant deal.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
And I get that their point is like, well, it's intentional,
and you're intentionally trying to offend me by using a name.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
I don't like.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
They also assume that a lot of stuff is intentional
when people are just going with what makes the most
sense to them or what they remember. So there's just
a lot of I think, attribution of hate to people
that really aren't doing things to be hateful. They're doing
things because they messed up or have a different opinion.
And I think in society we need to stop saying
that everyone who disagrees with us and doesn't do exactly
(30:35):
what we want actually hates us. Those accusations typically come
from the left, and I think it's really, really terrible.
I do want to play you a clip with Idris
Elba suggesting that kitchen knives represent twenty five percent of
assault crimes and yet they are not even attempted.
Speaker 3 (30:53):
To be banned like guns are all the time. I
think this is pretty funny.
Speaker 9 (30:58):
The truth is is that kitchen knives are perhaps twenty
five percent of the knives used in most of the
terrible crimes. That's one of the stats in the films,
and those kitchen knives are usually a domestic situation. Okay,
so kitchen knives, of course, it's very difficult their domestic knife.
I do think there is areas of innovation that we
(31:20):
can do with kitchen knives. I hate to say, not
all kitchen knives need to have a point on them.
That sounds like a crazy thing to say, but actually
it would reduce you know, you can still cut your
food without the point on the knife, which is an
innovative way to sort of look at it. And in
a country in crisis, I'm sorry, but yeah, let's look
at that. But the truth is all knives. You know,
(31:43):
the loophole on the heritage knives allows the sale of
zombie ninja swords to be sold. So while you know
you've got your granddad's sword on there and you want
that as fine, of course, but it is leaving a
loophole for someone to carry a ninja sword. So let's
ban them all and if you need, if you have
one of those knives, get a license for it. Simple
(32:05):
as that, And I think it's a small contribution to society.
Speaker 5 (32:09):
If you say I'm going.
Speaker 9 (32:11):
To back that, I'll get a license from my granddad's
sword because it is leaving you know, these kids vulnerable.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Well, and so most people who keep their granddad's swords
aren't actually keeping them so they can murder people with them.
Speaker 3 (32:21):
They're keeping them because it's a you know, I.
Speaker 5 (32:23):
Mean, doesn't everybody have their granddad's sword. I do.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
No, I've never met anyone who does.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
Okay, because he went from like zombie knives to granddad's sword. Like,
wait a minute, where did you started at zombie? Now
it's a granddad's sword.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Are you talking about? Well, And here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
If you're a liberal and you think, you know it's
a weapon that's the problem rather than the person that's
the problem, then you're just going to continue to go
down the line and be like, Okay, now, let's get
rid of guns. Now, let's get rid of kitchen knives,
or let's eliminate the point on the end of them, like,
let's go ahead and make sure you have a license
to your grandfather's sword. And it just people still are
going to have hay and people use their hands to abuse,
(33:04):
harm and kill people all the time. If there are
evil people or in other cases, people who are mentally disturbed.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
And need help.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
They often find a way to do the evil they're
going to do, whether you take that particular weapon from
them or not. So I think the main point is
that we need to find better solutions to changing how
people act and get people to help they need and
the treatment they needed some cases, and rehabilitation they need.
And you need to focus on the people instead of
the objects, because it's really people that make things happen,
(33:34):
not the objects. It is like the driver of the
car who gets into a wreck, not the car itself, unless,
of course, you're dealing with driverless cars.
Speaker 6 (33:41):
Like or if you're following the liberal media headlines and
the driver's identity is inconvenience.
Speaker 5 (33:46):
So you'll see on the AP.
Speaker 6 (33:48):
Car drives into crowded street in New Orleans on New
Year's Yes, the car did it all by itself.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Nobody was driving it.
Speaker 7 (33:56):
I know.
Speaker 5 (33:56):
Wait, somebody was driving it.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
That's how you know if it was a Mega supporter.
Oh we know the name they where they're from.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Oh yeah, Well, speaking of dealing with things differently, I
do think a lot of stuff spend the news recently
with attacks on Jewish people is treated so differently by
the media than attacks on any other set of people. Thankfully,
the Trump administration cracking down on Harvard and actually saying
they can't admit international students anymore because they don't stop
the violent protests against Jewish students. It's about time we
(34:26):
see something like that. But society as a whole does
not push back on attacks on Jewish people as much
as they should. That needs to change. Thanks for listening today.
I'm Christy Burton Brown. You've been on the Dan Kapli Show.
I hope you have a great rest of your week,
and thanks for being with us tonight.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!