August 7, 2025 • 36 mins
In the second hour of today's edition of the show, Dan Caplis responds to Krista Kafer's article about the 'Do Better Denver' scandal.
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. Better Denver is
doing so. We'll follow up on that shortly. Christa Kafer
writing a piece for The Post defending the Post action
(00:22):
here in as much as I like Christa, I believe
there are multiple Fato logical flaws in her piece. Doctor
Catherine Wheeler will go too shortly, one of my favorite
guests ever on this show. Doctor used to perform abortions
and now saves lives. We do a segment each week
where we talk about just the medical facts, just the medicine.
Is that pertains to the abortion issue? I'm hoping David
(00:44):
is okay. I'm going to take a quick detour because
we held David over from the last hour. David in Pueblo. David,
you have a quick thought on Governor Polis Or You
doing okay there?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Sure? Sure well.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Governor Pawler specifically with this call on a special session,
you signed to blame it on the Republicans and Trump.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
How about just for phiscal management mismanagement by the Democrats
and not telling the truth about taxing overtime in the
state of Colorado. And the list is long.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yeah, and not preparing did Paul Us in the left,
thank you, my friend, not preparing for the possibility of
a Trump administration, which obviously was going to do the
things that Trump said he would do. Let's go to
the VIP line again. Doctor Catherine Willer joins us every
Thursday at five oh six. We look forward to that
each week. Doctor. How are you doing this week?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I'm doing great. How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (01:42):
I Am living the dream and uh, but appreciate you
being here today because this is very much in the news,
and that is this important federal court decision in favor
of Bella Health. And I've had folks from Bella Health
on before. But can you just take the floor from
your your medical perspective, just take the floor and explain
what's going on there in white matters?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
I well, thank you. So Bella Health is an organization
that provides comprehensive healthcare in Denver area. But there's also
a midwife who's involved. Her name is Chelsea Minnick. So
this whole case was about Senate a Bill twenty three
one ninety, which was a law few years ago that
made it unprofessional conduct and punishable if a medical professional
(02:28):
tried to reverse a woman's medication or drug induced abortion,
and we do that with a natural progesterone. So went
on when that passed, which were the only state in
the country that actually bands trying to reverse a drug
induced abortion when a woman changes her mind, which happens,
and if you can imagine the horror of that, And
(02:50):
so when that passed, immediately Bella filed a lawsuit with
Beckett so that they could get an injunction to continue
to prove the progesterone to these women. And then they
got a temporary injunction. This is now the permanent injunction.
Chelsea Minute her lawsuit was handled by Alliance Defending Freedom
(03:13):
and she actually again the midwife wasn't aware of this law.
I think she thought that the bellasuit had made it mute.
So she ended up providing progesterone to a desperate woman.
The baby survived, and then somebody not this patient reported
her to the Department of Nursing, to the medical board.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
And giving the mother work she wanted.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
I thought it was about exactly exactly, and she has
a wonderful She told her story on the Alliance Defending
Freedom website, and I think it's worth people looking at
because these women, if you can imagine, in these horrible situations,
they decide they can't continue being pregnant, and then they
realize what they've done and what a horror, and so
(03:59):
she actually shares her story. It's worth looking at. So
the good news is there was a permanent injunction. So
now both of these can continue to prescribe progesterone to
save women's babies, and that applies, unfortunately, only to them,
and it applies on religious grounds, not on the medical evidence,
(04:20):
which there is plenty of evidence of safety of the
drug which we have used. This is a natural progesterone.
It's the natural hormone that women make that maintains their pregnancy.
And all we do is we give them the natural
progesterone to overcome the blockade of the drugs, the myth
of Perstone. And any woman who has only taken the
(04:44):
first drug, has not taken the second one and is
within seventy two hours, she has about a two thirds
about a sixty seven percent chance that her baby will
survive if she takes natural progesterone, which we've used in
obgin for all of reasons in pregnancy for well over
fifty years, is declared safe for use in pregnancy except
(05:08):
for this one circumstance they carve out, which there's no
evidence of harm.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Doctor Catherine Willer, not doctor How long again between the
first and the second? How long and wide is this window?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
It's seventy two hours, essentially three days. And that's where
it's been studied. You know, they say there's no medical evidence,
but there's been a case study so reporting on over
seven hundred and sixty women who again in the situation
when they were desperate, took natural progesterone and the outcome
was between sixty four and sixty eight percent had a
(05:47):
surviving baby without complications to the woman. It's just amazing.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
And the ruling that doctor Whiller's referring to came from
federal judge in Denver, Federal court judge in Denver, Daniel Domenico,
who is I think recognized as one of the great
young judicial minds in the country. And so if we
could shift away from medicine for a second, doctor and
I know you have a unique perspective, having done abortions
in the past, et cetera. What I'm trying to find
(06:16):
out is is how these politicians can slip so deeply
into darkness that they would tell a woman who decided
you can get that I'll keep talking, who decided to
get an abortion, that she cannot now change her mind.
She's taken that first step, she realizes the mistake she's made.
(06:37):
She wants this baby to live, and Jared Poulos is
going to tell her, no, no, no, you took that
first step, read the fine print. You're stuck. Now, how
deeply into darkness does somebody have to be?
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well? I think one of the hard things. I thank
you for that, that thing that you're saying. But I
think the problem is the American a College of OBQUI
and other medical associations have declared that this is unsafe,
that it's unproven, that it's unethical without having the evidence
(07:10):
to back it up, and because a medical organization says so,
that everybody aligns under that. And as we talked about
last week, there are big ties between the abortion industry
and the medical organizations.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well how many how many states, though they have gone
as far as Colorado to tell a mother no, no,
you have the choice to kill that baby, but you
don't have the choice now to save that baby. How
many other states are doing what police wants to do here, Well, we're.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
The only one, so it is I think. So it's
really important that we do everything we can so this
doesn't spread. You know, we have when the Reproductive Health
Equity Act past, part of it is that women have
a constitutional right now to decide what they do with
their pregnancy, and it includes whether they continue their pregnancy.
(08:01):
And I think that's one of the things that the
judge noticed. He also noticed that this is a drug
that's essentially considered to be safe in pregnancy, and for
some reason, a different standard is being applied to its
use to save pregnancies. Well, so he noticed those inconsistencies.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
And you go back to those associations, you know, what's
their motive? So I apply my same question to them.
And I know you don't have to go there. You
come on the show to talk medical facts, and that's
great and invaluable to us, But what would drive these associations?
How does anybody ever get to the point where they
want to say to a pregnant woman who's changed her
(08:40):
mind and wants to save the baby. No, you can't
try to do that because obviously these associations don't have
the medical evidence to back up their denial of her
choice to try to save this life.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, there's a deep ideological conviction obviously, and when you
look at the research, especially related to abortion, most of
the people doing it at our big abortion facilities like
you see San Francisco, most of them are abortionists, so
that you've got some really significant bias there, and you
also have a financial incentive. So you know, the ideologies
(09:16):
have gone very deep in the United States right now,
and there's a suppression of what's true if you're trying
to like I was just talking to somebody today about
trying to publish some really important medical information, but it
bucks the narrative that is being told and they can't
get it published. And then they say, well, there's no
published research that shows anything different. And that's I believe
(09:39):
because of the biases within you know, who can get
things published, and it's not based on quality sometimes as
much as the ideology.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Tremendous point is always doctor Wheeler. Thanks for your time today.
We'll look forward to next Thursday at five oh six.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Take care, Thank you you take care. Doctor. Yeah, just
great to have the perspective. I know I slipped into
some ideology at the end, but the doctor's medical perspective
is so valuable in this discussion because one thing we
know for sure is that once people look at the
medical facts, life wins. Not with each and every person,
but with enough people that life is going to win.
(10:16):
Life's going to win at the ballot box, Life's going
to win across the board. That's how we had this
seismic shift in America. Right, is ultrasounds medical evidence. Nobody
has ever shown you the ultrasound and said, hey, look
at my fetus. Right, So great to have her take
three or three seven, one, three, eight, two five five
the number when we come back and the latest one
do better. Denver Christa Kaefer with the piece in the
(10:38):
Post today defending the Post on this, I think there
are fatal flaws in that logic. You're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast August seventh.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Already, man, it's flying, think about it. Just could have
snow four weeks from now. My sister Mary's birthday. Happy birthday, Mary,
tremendous school teacher in the Chicago area. Opposite politics pretty
much three or three someone three eight, two, five five,
But that just makes Thanksgiving even more fun. Glad you're
here talking about a whole lot of stuff. Quick recap
(11:20):
in case you want to jump in on any of this,
but if you have some new work for that too.
Kind of talk in a second about the latest on
Do Better Denver and I sure hope you go and
you follow them an x and on Instagram. This is
a tremendous I'm not going to say perfect. There's never
been a perfect human endeavor of any kind, but this
is a tremendous resource in Colorado. It's crowdsourced, as it
(11:42):
says on the site, so people submit their video of
the reality of things going on in Denver, reflecting the
failures of these Democrat administrations, and it's it's just a
great opportunity to get the side of the story that,
for example, I think the Denver host will almost never
tell you, and most of the media outlets will not
(12:05):
tell you often enough. Plus in fairness to let's say
your local TV outlets, you know they only have limited
time on each newscast, but something like Do Better Denver.
You know, crowdsource. People can send in stuff and there's
no limit on the amount of material, the amount of
content you can have there, which is critical because there
is so much bad stuff happening in Denver. You need
(12:26):
a source like that where you can just pull it
all together. So Christa Kaefer, who I respect and enjoy.
We obviously disagree strongly on plenty of things and agree
on others, but you know, disagreement starting with her belief
people should not have had the chance to vote for
Donald Trump. That lawsuit the US Supreme Court lined up
(12:46):
nine zip against. But I like christ I respect Krista.
We've done radio together. I enjoy her company. I think
she's way off base on this piece supporting the Denver
Post over Do Better Denver, And I'll get to that
in a second. I do want to go back to
David and Beautiful Pueblo. You're back on the Dan Kapla show.
How you doing, David. You're riding a horse or something?
(13:11):
This is Dan. Yeah, Sorry, I didn't mean to call
you a bad time. I'm sorry. David Kelly. Can you
work with our friend David and maybe get a little
bit better connection there. He's probably out working in the field,
and I get it, it's windy down there. But listen,
I'll just start today. What we'll get into more detail
(13:31):
over the coming days. This CHRISTA Kaefer Denver Post and
the headline. The headline is the start of the logical
fallacy in this piece, and there are many, and all
of them, in my opinion, rise to the level of
fatal flaws. The headline is do better Denver more anonymous
troll or citizen journalist? Wait, wait a second, those are
(13:52):
the two choices. No. Do better Denver is what it
says it is. Do Better Denver are private individuals who
want to remain anonymous so they aren't subject to abuse
from the government and aren't subject to violence from crazy
(14:12):
lefties out there. They're people who, as they say, they
do crowdsourcing where people can submit videos and other materials
regarding the decay in Denver, and that you will not
find report it on very often at all in the
Denver Post, for example. So that's the irony here, isn't it?
(14:33):
That Do Better Denver is not only a threat in
every positive way to the Johnston administration and other elected
Democrats because they expose the truth about their failings. But
Do Better Denver is also a threat to the Denver
Post because people want news. People can see right, people
understand that Denver is spiraling down, and they know they
(14:56):
can't find that reported on very often in the Denver Post.
So that's why a site like do Better Denver gets
more and more followers. So then you get Denver Post
out there doing this hit job. By the way, understand
what happened here. You have three completely private people these
you know, ones a housewife, the other are private women.
They're just working behind the scenes, submitting public records requests
(15:20):
and the like, and against their will, the Denver Post
outed them, made them public in a piece where the
Denver Posts made it a point to bring in an
expert to say that they're partial public figures and as
such they should expect threats. So think about that. Why
do you think the Denver Post brought that expert into
the piece. I think the messaging is loud and clear. Hey,
if you're going to be running aside, if you're going
(15:42):
to be even contributing to a site, because the women
they outed aren't the people running it, if you're going
to be contributing to a site that makes the Johnston
administration look bad at that point, yeah, expect to be
outed and get threats. I mean, think about how bad
that is. That's my view of what the Post was
saying with that piece. Anyway, let me go back to
(16:04):
Christa's take on this, and I'm quoting in part here.
You can read the whole thing on the post. She's
defending Shelley Bradbury, crime reporter at the Denver Post. Keep
in mind, the Denver Post had their crime reporter do this.
There's no allegation whatsoever that these people Do Better Denver
have committed any crime. And I don't think there's any
(16:24):
meaningful allegation of any kind against them. That they're simply
taking on the administration and reporting him much much, much
of the truth that's going on out there. So Christa
writes in part She's taking hit the heat this week,
referring to Bradbury from Do Better Denver and its supporters
for investigating the contributors and content of the controversial influencer
(16:48):
that posts more than one hundred and forty four thousand
followers on Instagram and Twitter, now called x and has
caught the attention of city officials. First false premise that
the heat that the Post is taking isn't for investigating
the contributors, it's for outing them. These are private people.
These are women who wanted to remain private so they
(17:09):
would not be subject to retribution from the government or threats.
The Post outed them. That's why they're taking the hit.
So this premise is falls to begin with. And then
it goes on to say, rather than criticize the journalist
for doing her job, do Better Denver needs to do better,
which is really ironic, right, because if Do Better Denver
wasn't doing a really good job, you think they'd have
(17:30):
one hundred and forty four thousand followers. Again that this
presumption that the one hundred and forty four thousand who
follow Do Better Denver are some kind of idiots who
are going to mindlessly follow something. No, there are one
hundred and forty four thousand people who have decided, Yeah,
this looks true to me, and I'm glad somebody is
documenting it and I want to learn more. And then
here is is probably the most flagrant of the false premises.
(17:54):
Here it says, if it's administrator wants to be the
quote citizen journalist he or she claims to be, then
the social media organization must try to meet the same principles.
Real journalists strive for transparency, accuracy, and objectivity. Let's break
this down, okay, first of all, and we'll get to
the rest after the break. All the people that Do
(18:17):
Better Denver are trying to do is to operate ayms
anonymously to provide crowdsourced information in the community. So the
truth about the failings of Denver that the mainstream media
won't report get exposed. We'll pick it up next.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
And for Ryan today, and I was talking to Zach
about Super Bowl thirty two, and he pointed out he
had not been born yet at the time of Super
Bowl thirty two. Oh man. One of the great sporting
events in human history. Let's get back to the fall lines.
We have so much going on. Part of it is
is do Better Denver and I just hope that you
(19:01):
follow them on x and on Instagram. I'm not saying
they're perfect, no human endeavor is, but they play such
an important role crowd sourcing in the video, the photos,
the info about Denver in decay that most of the
mainstream media won't report on, let alone the Denver Post.
So the Denver Post doing what I thought was a
terrible hit job on them in all of the ways
(19:23):
that I've detailed. And now Christa Kaefer, who I like
and respect, disagree with on lots of things, obviously, but
krista critical of Do Better Denver and a piece today,
and I've been exposing what I believe are the obvious
fatal logical flaws in her piece. So I'll pick that
up in a second. But I want to work in
some calls, including justin in Denver. You're on the Dan
(19:44):
Kapalist you'll welcome.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
And Denver's been a charity for a long time and
grew up here. I myself, I don't know if you
saw what happened in Cincinnati, but i'll play it back together.
I was assaulted like that on Broadway in southbound. Oh
really luckily, Oh my face looked like hers, you know,
black on one side. The detective called me foods. Later
(20:08):
he said, we didn't see anything in the cameras. Sorry,
hung on. That was ten twelve years ago, right, Yeah,
so I completely agree. It's do Better Denver. You know
what I think and I'm going to go back to that,
since anything real quick that ladies have gotten hit, she
should kind of play by the tactics day the side
that she should civil and sue every one of those
(20:29):
people that were there that didn't call the police that
hit her for everything that works. Ten million. Of course
you'll never get it ten million dollars, million dollars. They're
probably don't have much money, I'm guessing, but I think
we kind of have to. Yeah, we have to play
by their tactics. That's what do Better Denver is doing.
They're exposing it on social media. That's what the left
(20:49):
is done for years. When we start doing it all
of a sudden, there's a problem with it. So if
you're my two solutions and then I'll ill, let's stuck
here in a seconds. But number one, if you have
video a crime like a fight or prettymut any crime,
I'm not saying you got to jump in the middle
of it and put yourself at risk. There should be
a good Samaritan law that says, if you have a
(21:10):
smart coote, you're crime and you don't call the police
at least and you didn't call the police and run away,
that should be in afraction on you, and number two
is a little bit worse.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Man.
Speaker 5 (21:21):
I'm looking at Wyoming. Looks pretty good view days.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Oh hey, Wyoming is great. Thank you, justin appreciate the call.
So many interesting things in Justine's call. First, in terms
of using the civil justice system to try to get
justice where the criminal justice system fails. He is so
right about that, and it's so vital and I've been
doing it for forty plus years now. Because the criminal
(21:46):
justice system can be subject to politics, right the good
day's Democrat and Republican, they're above that. They view it
as a sacred position, as it should be. But we
have too many das now who let politics get involved,
and then they don't bring charges where they should or
they bring charges where they shouldn't. But the civil justice
system can be a tremendous vehicle for trying to get
(22:10):
to the truth and trying to right wrongs where the
criminal justice system has failed. Or in addition to the
criminal justice system, and here's a key point there, in
the civil system, you actually get more power than most
das have to investigate because das they can only call
witnesses in and put them under oath short of trial.
(22:31):
If there's a grand jury and they can only convene
so many grand juries. In a civil case, the civil
lawyer in most cases get subpoena power for documents and witnesses,
So you get this powerful tool to get to the truth,
which puts you in a unique position to try to
protect others. And that's what in my forty years, a
(22:52):
vast majority of victims have been motivated to do. And
in every single wrongful death case I've ever handled, the
victim's been motivated to others. They never want any other
parent going through this, they never want any other husband
or wife going through this. So you get this power
to go in subpoena people, subpoena documents, get down to
the truth and make the world safer and hopefully gets
(23:13):
some economic justice for people along the way. Though that's
you know, usually the prime motivator is, hey, let's make
the world safer, especially in these wrongful death cases. So
he's right about using the civil justice system. Now, Justin's
point about could it be used in a case where
there are bystanders who don't intervene or don't call nine
(23:33):
to one one. That's really tough because to be able
to bring a lawsuit. You have to have a cause
of action, a claim that the law recognizes under civil law.
And when it comes to a duty to report a
crime or a duty to take affirmative action like that, boy,
state to state, those laws are going to differ a lot.
(23:57):
And that's a very uncertain area. I'm not sure there
would be a good civil action there, But in so
many different arenas there is a civil action to try
to do justice. So yeah, good point there, my friend,
thank you, But do better Denver. Getting back to the
starting point, Listen, the reason do Better Denver is so
popular is because it's it's filling a need. People know
(24:20):
what they've seen with their own eyes. Denver is in decay,
and you know the how often do you see that
in the Denver Post? How often do you see that
in other Denver media? And so they're filling a need.
They're crowdsourced, people are submitting and they're reporting things that
people are seeing with their own eyes. So they go
to that site because yeah, that's reality and it's important.
(24:42):
And so that's why they're succeeding, and I think that's
why the left is determined to crush them, Which brings
us back to my friend Christa's piece today in the
Denver Post that I think is is so fatally flawed
in so many different ways. You know, starting with this
with the fundamental presumption, if its administrator wants to be
(25:04):
the quote citizen journalist he or she claims to be,
then the social media organization must try to meet the
same principles real journalists strive for transparency, accuracy, and objectivity.
Before we get to who are quote real journalists, right,
let's start with Do Better Denver and what they claim
to be. See, that's the first false premise in this piece.
(25:26):
It Do Better Denver claims to be exactly what it is.
It is a crowdsource platform for people to submit video,
photos and other information about what's really going on in Denver.
That's what they claim to be. That's what they are.
They don't claim to be the Denver Post or Channel nine.
(25:46):
They don't claim to be a public news organization that's
operating for profit. They don't claim to be any of
those things. They acknowledge they are crowdsourced. So that's just
a fundamentally false comparison between say, Do Better Denver or
Channel nine or the Denver Post. And then it goes
(26:08):
on to say, and again, keep in mind, this is
part of a proud American tradition where you have real
people who want to remain anonymous while reporting the truth
to the public. They want to remain anonymous so that
the government doesn't punish them for reporting the truth about
government failures. They want to remain anonymous so that people
(26:29):
don't threaten and harm them because they're reporting the truth
about government failures. That goes all the way back to
our founders. And then we get to the second point.
Here meet the same principles real journalists strive for. Who
are the real journalists anymore that the piece doesn't define
the real journalist? Transparency, accuracy and objectivity. Transparency. Shelly Bradbury
(26:57):
has not returned to calls. She's not coming on show
to answer the questions. You think Shelley Bradbury is going
to take any questions about, Hey, what communications has she
had directly or through a conduit from the Johnston administration
in connection with this piece? Was the Johnston administration directly
or through a conduit behind it? You know, Denver Post
(27:19):
can answer those kind of questions. They aren't. So far.
Accuracy and objectivity, give me a break. Listen. There are
some great journalists at the Denver Post who I have
praised on air before. But any human endeavor. You could
take the very best newspaper, television station, whatever in the
country and it is occasionally going to have some mistakes
(27:40):
and all of the sudden, does that mean that they
deserve to be punished? Because that's what the Denver Post,
in my constitutionally protected opinion, was out to do, was
to expose and punish and make an example of these
women who just wanted to stay private and submit their
public records or quests, including a story that then called
in an expert to talk about. No, you should expect
(28:01):
threats if you're going to do things like submit material
to an outlet like this crazy stuff. And then when
we come back, I'll take some calls as well. But
this business about real journalist. What qualifies is that you
tell me three h three someone three eight two five
five text d A N five seven seven three nine.
What qualifies as real journalist? And is the Denver Posts
(28:21):
living up to that. You're on the Dankaplas Show.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
And now back to the dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Continue this conversation tomorrow when it comes to do Better Denver.
The latest piece in the Denver Post going after do
Better Denver, and what a compliment to Do Better Denver.
Right that the Posts and the rest of the left
are so afraid of Do Better Denver. It's such a
valuable source, and please do go there. If if you
don't follow that account on xt, please do it Do
(28:54):
Better Denver and Instagram as well. And I'll continue to
go through Christi Kaefer's criticism of Do Better Denver. I
think I've already exposed just fundamental logical flaws in it
and will go more in depth tomorrow. Now I want
to take some text and calls as well on all
of that. In the last few minutes of the show today,
(29:15):
how about Dan the Post thinks the folks that do
Better Denver should expect to be threatened. I think journalists
who endanger the safety of a concerned citizens should expect
to be fired. It really was so out of bounds
from the Denver Post, and I still can't believe that
it happened, really because it's so far beyond But again,
I think it just reflects the panic on the left,
(29:35):
the panic in the Johnston administration. I saw one commentary
today suggesting that Hey, maybe this says the polling on
this big bond measure is not going very well. Is
that the timing involved? Is that why we see this
like panicked, crazy attack on Do Better Denver? It does
it tie into this bond issue? I don't know. Give
(29:57):
me some poena power and I'll find out. But there's
no way to get subpoena power here and Dan to
answer Christa's question, Denver Post needs to do better? Why
did they basically take the info from Mayor Miikey's office
and write an article. Why aren't they telling Colorado residents
the truth about what's going on regarding crime and Colorado
turning into a crab whole area? That from Alexa listen
(30:17):
and again, without subpoena power, I can't prove a tie
between Johnston's administration and the attack and Do Better Denver.
I believe with all my heart that's what happened directly
through a conduit whatever. But you think the Denver Post
is going to come on and answer those questions, I'd
be very very surprised. But the core point there is
the critical one, right, the reason Do Better Denver has
(30:39):
one hundred and forty four thousand followers between Instagram and
Twitter is because people know the truth when they see it,
they're living it, they experience it in Denver, and how
often can you find that in the Post or other outlets,
so that site then has a credibility with them. It's
serving an important purpose because unless you get the truth
out there about how awful things are under these lefty policies,
(31:03):
things aren't going to change. And the left is scared
to death of the truth. Right. So yeah, so that's
what's going on here, and I just hope at backfire.
So please, if you have a second, just you know,
shoot the account out to a bunch of people and
ask them to follow it. Anything you can do to
(31:24):
get more followers for do better Denver, the better that
that is the best way to show the left these
tactics don't work. And again you come back to one
of the fatal flaws in Christa's piece. No, do Better
Denver doesn't claim to be the Denver Post or Channel
nine or anything else. There are people, private citizens who
want to remain anonymous so that the government doesn't punish
(31:46):
them for telling the truth. What's wrong with that? Nothing's
wrong with that. This false premise that oh no, there
now needs to be transparency. You have to be public
about who you are. Well. That is simply so the
left can squash any honest reporting about the failings of
the left right, because what's going to happen if people
(32:09):
make their names public, if they become public, They're going
to be subject to this intimidation, They're going to be
subject to these threats, and so you can understand why
people would want to be anonymous. I remember getting dragged
into I don't have time to finish the story here,
but I'm very very proud of some work I did
(32:30):
a Channel four and I'm very proud of Channel four
four allowing me to do the work and air it.
And it was about whether there were securities in proprieties,
whether lives were being told by the city about DA
when it was under construction. It was very important, very
serious reporting. And then I get dragged into the mayor's office,
(32:53):
not his actual office, but his legal counsel's office. And
I mean, listen, I wasn't under rest or any thing,
but they asked me to come and I went in
there and I was there for hours, and I'm being threatened,
not physically, but being threatened in terms of being ruined,
you know, in ten different ways, and all because I
was doing honest, accurate reporting that hurt the city administration
(33:18):
by exposing the truth. And I'm on Channel four, So
how do you blame these women for not wanting to
be public so the administration can't come after them. And
to his credit, by the way, I want to put
a PostScript on that. First, we did not back off
the story. And this was just before I got married,
and they're threatening to sue me and everything else, and
(33:40):
my wife was terrified to bride. Should be able to
enjoy your wedding day, which she did, but she's terrified
with all these threats. They're going to serve me as
I'm walking down the aisle because they're threatening to sue me.
We didn't back off the story. Channel four didn't back
off the story. Koa wait, didn't back off the story.
Very proud. That is real journalism. But to his credit,
(34:00):
Mayor Webb called me up one day, can't remember when
it was later and said, hey, man, I heard you
talking about that on air. Let's go to lunch. And
we went to lunch and he just said, hey, if
that happened, I'm sorry, and I just thought that was
big of them, right, But how do you blame these
are whether they're women or men, these are just private
people working at home, just trying to help tell the
(34:23):
truth about what's going on in Denver. So yeah, I
hope you reach out to everybody you know and ask
them to follow the account on acts and follow the
Instagram account. I really hope you do that is do
better Denver, much more as you would imagine coming in
on the Colorado SNAP program. And Dan, I work in
human services. People abuse their benefits, anything to motivate people
(34:45):
to get off government assistance. I'm four, even if it
is soda and listen, I understand that there are good
arguments and strong feelings out there that if somebody is
going to be getting their food through taxpayer money, that
government has a right to tell them what they can
eat and drink. And all I'm saying is is I
(35:06):
don't agree with that. I don't If you have a
government program on food and people truly qualify, then isn't
it government overreached to say you can't have soda you
get with food stamps when the same food stamp program
called SNAP now allows you to get candy and ice
cream and cookies. To me, that's a very dangerous precedent
(35:29):
and I just don't like it. And where does that end?
Right now? Again, if you want to say we're going
to limit this to just meat and fish and milk
and chicken, I got no beef with that, because then
at least you're being clear and consistent and logical. But
to just allow these political spasms where you say, oh,
(35:51):
no coke for you poor kid, when you're letting them
have cookie and candy and ice cream, I don't go
for that. I just don't like precedent. And as I've
said before, does anybody sing Zach Kelly, do you think
in our final few seconds Jared Poulis would stop with
coke for poor people? I think he should keep his
hands off everybody's coke. It's polls or someone else. It's
(36:14):
not stopping there. Yeah, yeah, I'm with you, my friend. Hey,
great to see you. Thank you, Brian being honored this afternoon. Kelly,
great to see you as well. Please join us tomorrow.
We're gonna have a very happy Friday on The Dan
Kapla Show.
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. Better Denver is
doing so. We'll follow up on that shortly. Christa Kafer
writing a piece for The Post defending the Post action
(00:22):
here in as much as I like Christa, I believe
there are multiple Fato logical flaws in her piece. Doctor
Catherine Wheeler will go too shortly, one of my favorite
guests ever on this show. Doctor used to perform abortions
and now saves lives. We do a segment each week
where we talk about just the medical facts, just the medicine.
Is that pertains to the abortion issue? I'm hoping David
(00:44):
is okay. I'm going to take a quick detour because
we held David over from the last hour. David in Pueblo. David,
you have a quick thought on Governor Polis Or You
doing okay there?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Sure? Sure well.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Governor Pawler specifically with this call on a special session,
you signed to blame it on the Republicans and Trump.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
How about just for phiscal management mismanagement by the Democrats
and not telling the truth about taxing overtime in the
state of Colorado. And the list is long.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yeah, and not preparing did Paul Us in the left,
thank you, my friend, not preparing for the possibility of
a Trump administration, which obviously was going to do the
things that Trump said he would do. Let's go to
the VIP line again. Doctor Catherine Willer joins us every
Thursday at five oh six. We look forward to that
each week. Doctor. How are you doing this week?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
I'm doing great. How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (01:42):
I Am living the dream and uh, but appreciate you
being here today because this is very much in the news,
and that is this important federal court decision in favor
of Bella Health. And I've had folks from Bella Health
on before. But can you just take the floor from
your your medical perspective, just take the floor and explain
what's going on there in white matters?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
I well, thank you. So Bella Health is an organization
that provides comprehensive healthcare in Denver area. But there's also
a midwife who's involved. Her name is Chelsea Minnick. So
this whole case was about Senate a Bill twenty three
one ninety, which was a law few years ago that
made it unprofessional conduct and punishable if a medical professional
(02:28):
tried to reverse a woman's medication or drug induced abortion,
and we do that with a natural progesterone. So went
on when that passed, which were the only state in
the country that actually bands trying to reverse a drug
induced abortion when a woman changes her mind, which happens,
and if you can imagine the horror of that, And
(02:50):
so when that passed, immediately Bella filed a lawsuit with
Beckett so that they could get an injunction to continue
to prove the progesterone to these women. And then they
got a temporary injunction. This is now the permanent injunction.
Chelsea Minute her lawsuit was handled by Alliance Defending Freedom
(03:13):
and she actually again the midwife wasn't aware of this law.
I think she thought that the bellasuit had made it mute.
So she ended up providing progesterone to a desperate woman.
The baby survived, and then somebody not this patient reported
her to the Department of Nursing, to the medical board.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
And giving the mother work she wanted.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
I thought it was about exactly exactly, and she has
a wonderful She told her story on the Alliance Defending
Freedom website, and I think it's worth people looking at
because these women, if you can imagine, in these horrible situations,
they decide they can't continue being pregnant, and then they
realize what they've done and what a horror, and so
(03:59):
she actually shares her story. It's worth looking at. So
the good news is there was a permanent injunction. So
now both of these can continue to prescribe progesterone to
save women's babies, and that applies, unfortunately, only to them,
and it applies on religious grounds, not on the medical evidence,
(04:20):
which there is plenty of evidence of safety of the
drug which we have used. This is a natural progesterone.
It's the natural hormone that women make that maintains their pregnancy.
And all we do is we give them the natural
progesterone to overcome the blockade of the drugs, the myth
of Perstone. And any woman who has only taken the
(04:44):
first drug, has not taken the second one and is
within seventy two hours, she has about a two thirds
about a sixty seven percent chance that her baby will
survive if she takes natural progesterone, which we've used in
obgin for all of reasons in pregnancy for well over
fifty years, is declared safe for use in pregnancy except
(05:08):
for this one circumstance they carve out, which there's no
evidence of harm.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Doctor Catherine Willer, not doctor How long again between the
first and the second? How long and wide is this window?
Speaker 2 (05:24):
It's seventy two hours, essentially three days. And that's where
it's been studied. You know, they say there's no medical evidence,
but there's been a case study so reporting on over
seven hundred and sixty women who again in the situation
when they were desperate, took natural progesterone and the outcome
was between sixty four and sixty eight percent had a
(05:47):
surviving baby without complications to the woman. It's just amazing.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
And the ruling that doctor Whiller's referring to came from
federal judge in Denver, Federal court judge in Denver, Daniel Domenico,
who is I think recognized as one of the great
young judicial minds in the country. And so if we
could shift away from medicine for a second, doctor and
I know you have a unique perspective, having done abortions
in the past, et cetera. What I'm trying to find
(06:16):
out is is how these politicians can slip so deeply
into darkness that they would tell a woman who decided
you can get that I'll keep talking, who decided to
get an abortion, that she cannot now change her mind.
She's taken that first step, she realizes the mistake she's made.
(06:37):
She wants this baby to live, and Jared Poulos is
going to tell her, no, no, no, you took that
first step, read the fine print. You're stuck. Now, how
deeply into darkness does somebody have to be?
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Well? I think one of the hard things. I thank
you for that, that thing that you're saying. But I
think the problem is the American a College of OBQUI
and other medical associations have declared that this is unsafe,
that it's unproven, that it's unethical without having the evidence
(07:10):
to back it up, and because a medical organization says so,
that everybody aligns under that. And as we talked about
last week, there are big ties between the abortion industry
and the medical organizations.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Well how many how many states, though they have gone
as far as Colorado to tell a mother no, no,
you have the choice to kill that baby, but you
don't have the choice now to save that baby. How
many other states are doing what police wants to do here, Well, we're.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
The only one, so it is I think. So it's
really important that we do everything we can so this
doesn't spread. You know, we have when the Reproductive Health
Equity Act past, part of it is that women have
a constitutional right now to decide what they do with
their pregnancy, and it includes whether they continue their pregnancy.
(08:01):
And I think that's one of the things that the
judge noticed. He also noticed that this is a drug
that's essentially considered to be safe in pregnancy, and for
some reason, a different standard is being applied to its
use to save pregnancies. Well, so he noticed those inconsistencies.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
And you go back to those associations, you know, what's
their motive? So I apply my same question to them.
And I know you don't have to go there. You
come on the show to talk medical facts, and that's
great and invaluable to us, But what would drive these associations?
How does anybody ever get to the point where they
want to say to a pregnant woman who's changed her
(08:40):
mind and wants to save the baby. No, you can't
try to do that because obviously these associations don't have
the medical evidence to back up their denial of her
choice to try to save this life.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, there's a deep ideological conviction obviously, and when you
look at the research, especially related to abortion, most of
the people doing it at our big abortion facilities like
you see San Francisco, most of them are abortionists, so
that you've got some really significant bias there, and you
also have a financial incentive. So you know, the ideologies
(09:16):
have gone very deep in the United States right now,
and there's a suppression of what's true if you're trying
to like I was just talking to somebody today about
trying to publish some really important medical information, but it
bucks the narrative that is being told and they can't
get it published. And then they say, well, there's no
published research that shows anything different. And that's I believe
(09:39):
because of the biases within you know, who can get
things published, and it's not based on quality sometimes as
much as the ideology.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Tremendous point is always doctor Wheeler. Thanks for your time today.
We'll look forward to next Thursday at five oh six.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Take care, Thank you you take care. Doctor. Yeah, just
great to have the perspective. I know I slipped into
some ideology at the end, but the doctor's medical perspective
is so valuable in this discussion because one thing we
know for sure is that once people look at the
medical facts, life wins. Not with each and every person,
but with enough people that life is going to win.
(10:16):
Life's going to win at the ballot box, Life's going
to win across the board. That's how we had this
seismic shift in America. Right, is ultrasounds medical evidence. Nobody
has ever shown you the ultrasound and said, hey, look
at my fetus. Right, So great to have her take
three or three seven, one, three, eight, two five five
the number when we come back and the latest one
do better. Denver Christa Kaefer with the piece in the
(10:38):
Post today defending the Post on this, I think there
are fatal flaws in that logic. You're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast August seventh.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Already, man, it's flying, think about it. Just could have
snow four weeks from now. My sister Mary's birthday. Happy birthday, Mary,
tremendous school teacher in the Chicago area. Opposite politics pretty
much three or three someone three eight, two, five five,
But that just makes Thanksgiving even more fun. Glad you're
here talking about a whole lot of stuff. Quick recap
(11:20):
in case you want to jump in on any of this,
but if you have some new work for that too.
Kind of talk in a second about the latest on
Do Better Denver and I sure hope you go and
you follow them an x and on Instagram. This is
a tremendous I'm not going to say perfect. There's never
been a perfect human endeavor of any kind, but this
is a tremendous resource in Colorado. It's crowdsourced, as it
(11:42):
says on the site, so people submit their video of
the reality of things going on in Denver, reflecting the
failures of these Democrat administrations, and it's it's just a
great opportunity to get the side of the story that,
for example, I think the Denver host will almost never
tell you, and most of the media outlets will not
(12:05):
tell you often enough. Plus in fairness to let's say
your local TV outlets, you know they only have limited
time on each newscast, but something like Do Better Denver.
You know, crowdsource. People can send in stuff and there's
no limit on the amount of material, the amount of
content you can have there, which is critical because there
is so much bad stuff happening in Denver. You need
(12:26):
a source like that where you can just pull it
all together. So Christa Kaefer, who I respect and enjoy.
We obviously disagree strongly on plenty of things and agree
on others, but you know, disagreement starting with her belief
people should not have had the chance to vote for
Donald Trump. That lawsuit the US Supreme Court lined up
(12:46):
nine zip against. But I like christ I respect Krista.
We've done radio together. I enjoy her company. I think
she's way off base on this piece supporting the Denver
Post over Do Better Denver, And I'll get to that
in a second. I do want to go back to
David and Beautiful Pueblo. You're back on the Dan Kapla show.
How you doing, David. You're riding a horse or something?
(13:11):
This is Dan. Yeah, Sorry, I didn't mean to call
you a bad time. I'm sorry. David Kelly. Can you
work with our friend David and maybe get a little
bit better connection there. He's probably out working in the field,
and I get it, it's windy down there. But listen,
I'll just start today. What we'll get into more detail
(13:31):
over the coming days. This CHRISTA Kaefer Denver Post and
the headline. The headline is the start of the logical
fallacy in this piece, and there are many, and all
of them, in my opinion, rise to the level of
fatal flaws. The headline is do better Denver more anonymous
troll or citizen journalist? Wait, wait a second, those are
(13:52):
the two choices. No. Do better Denver is what it
says it is. Do Better Denver are private individuals who
want to remain anonymous so they aren't subject to abuse
from the government and aren't subject to violence from crazy
(14:12):
lefties out there. They're people who, as they say, they
do crowdsourcing where people can submit videos and other materials
regarding the decay in Denver, and that you will not
find report it on very often at all in the
Denver Post, for example. So that's the irony here, isn't it?
(14:33):
That Do Better Denver is not only a threat in
every positive way to the Johnston administration and other elected
Democrats because they expose the truth about their failings. But
Do Better Denver is also a threat to the Denver
Post because people want news. People can see right, people
understand that Denver is spiraling down, and they know they
(14:56):
can't find that reported on very often in the Denver Post.
So that's why a site like do Better Denver gets
more and more followers. So then you get Denver Post
out there doing this hit job. By the way, understand
what happened here. You have three completely private people these
you know, ones a housewife, the other are private women.
They're just working behind the scenes, submitting public records requests
(15:20):
and the like, and against their will, the Denver Post
outed them, made them public in a piece where the
Denver Posts made it a point to bring in an
expert to say that they're partial public figures and as
such they should expect threats. So think about that. Why
do you think the Denver Post brought that expert into
the piece. I think the messaging is loud and clear. Hey,
if you're going to be running aside, if you're going
(15:42):
to be even contributing to a site, because the women
they outed aren't the people running it, if you're going
to be contributing to a site that makes the Johnston
administration look bad at that point, yeah, expect to be
outed and get threats. I mean, think about how bad
that is. That's my view of what the Post was
saying with that piece. Anyway, let me go back to
(16:04):
Christa's take on this, and I'm quoting in part here.
You can read the whole thing on the post. She's
defending Shelley Bradbury, crime reporter at the Denver Post. Keep
in mind, the Denver Post had their crime reporter do this.
There's no allegation whatsoever that these people Do Better Denver
have committed any crime. And I don't think there's any
(16:24):
meaningful allegation of any kind against them. That they're simply
taking on the administration and reporting him much much, much
of the truth that's going on out there. So Christa
writes in part She's taking hit the heat this week,
referring to Bradbury from Do Better Denver and its supporters
for investigating the contributors and content of the controversial influencer
(16:48):
that posts more than one hundred and forty four thousand
followers on Instagram and Twitter, now called x and has
caught the attention of city officials. First false premise that
the heat that the Post is taking isn't for investigating
the contributors, it's for outing them. These are private people.
These are women who wanted to remain private so they
(17:09):
would not be subject to retribution from the government or threats.
The Post outed them. That's why they're taking the hit.
So this premise is falls to begin with. And then
it goes on to say, rather than criticize the journalist
for doing her job, do Better Denver needs to do better,
which is really ironic, right, because if Do Better Denver
wasn't doing a really good job, you think they'd have
(17:30):
one hundred and forty four thousand followers. Again that this
presumption that the one hundred and forty four thousand who
follow Do Better Denver are some kind of idiots who
are going to mindlessly follow something. No, there are one
hundred and forty four thousand people who have decided, Yeah,
this looks true to me, and I'm glad somebody is
documenting it and I want to learn more. And then
here is is probably the most flagrant of the false premises.
(17:54):
Here it says, if it's administrator wants to be the
quote citizen journalist he or she claims to be, then
the social media organization must try to meet the same principles.
Real journalists strive for transparency, accuracy, and objectivity. Let's break
this down, okay, first of all, and we'll get to
the rest after the break. All the people that Do
(18:17):
Better Denver are trying to do is to operate ayms
anonymously to provide crowdsourced information in the community. So the
truth about the failings of Denver that the mainstream media
won't report get exposed. We'll pick it up next.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
And for Ryan today, and I was talking to Zach
about Super Bowl thirty two, and he pointed out he
had not been born yet at the time of Super
Bowl thirty two. Oh man. One of the great sporting
events in human history. Let's get back to the fall lines.
We have so much going on. Part of it is
is do Better Denver and I just hope that you
(19:01):
follow them on x and on Instagram. I'm not saying
they're perfect, no human endeavor is, but they play such
an important role crowd sourcing in the video, the photos,
the info about Denver in decay that most of the
mainstream media won't report on, let alone the Denver Post.
So the Denver Post doing what I thought was a
terrible hit job on them in all of the ways
(19:23):
that I've detailed. And now Christa Kaefer, who I like
and respect, disagree with on lots of things, obviously, but
krista critical of Do Better Denver and a piece today,
and I've been exposing what I believe are the obvious
fatal logical flaws in her piece. So I'll pick that
up in a second. But I want to work in
some calls, including justin in Denver. You're on the Dan
(19:44):
Kapalist you'll welcome.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
And Denver's been a charity for a long time and
grew up here. I myself, I don't know if you
saw what happened in Cincinnati, but i'll play it back together.
I was assaulted like that on Broadway in southbound. Oh
really luckily, Oh my face looked like hers, you know,
black on one side. The detective called me foods. Later
(20:08):
he said, we didn't see anything in the cameras. Sorry,
hung on. That was ten twelve years ago, right, Yeah,
so I completely agree. It's do Better Denver. You know
what I think and I'm going to go back to that,
since anything real quick that ladies have gotten hit, she
should kind of play by the tactics day the side
that she should civil and sue every one of those
(20:29):
people that were there that didn't call the police that
hit her for everything that works. Ten million. Of course
you'll never get it ten million dollars, million dollars. They're
probably don't have much money, I'm guessing, but I think
we kind of have to. Yeah, we have to play
by their tactics. That's what do Better Denver is doing.
They're exposing it on social media. That's what the left
(20:49):
is done for years. When we start doing it all
of a sudden, there's a problem with it. So if
you're my two solutions and then I'll ill, let's stuck
here in a seconds. But number one, if you have
video a crime like a fight or prettymut any crime,
I'm not saying you got to jump in the middle
of it and put yourself at risk. There should be
a good Samaritan law that says, if you have a
(21:10):
smart coote, you're crime and you don't call the police
at least and you didn't call the police and run away,
that should be in afraction on you, and number two
is a little bit worse.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Man.
Speaker 5 (21:21):
I'm looking at Wyoming. Looks pretty good view days.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Oh hey, Wyoming is great. Thank you, justin appreciate the call.
So many interesting things in Justine's call. First, in terms
of using the civil justice system to try to get
justice where the criminal justice system fails. He is so
right about that, and it's so vital and I've been
doing it for forty plus years now. Because the criminal
(21:46):
justice system can be subject to politics, right the good
day's Democrat and Republican, they're above that. They view it
as a sacred position, as it should be. But we
have too many das now who let politics get involved,
and then they don't bring charges where they should or
they bring charges where they shouldn't. But the civil justice
system can be a tremendous vehicle for trying to get
(22:10):
to the truth and trying to right wrongs where the
criminal justice system has failed. Or in addition to the
criminal justice system, and here's a key point there, in
the civil system, you actually get more power than most
das have to investigate because das they can only call
witnesses in and put them under oath short of trial.
(22:31):
If there's a grand jury and they can only convene
so many grand juries. In a civil case, the civil
lawyer in most cases get subpoena power for documents and witnesses,
So you get this powerful tool to get to the truth,
which puts you in a unique position to try to
protect others. And that's what in my forty years, a
(22:52):
vast majority of victims have been motivated to do. And
in every single wrongful death case I've ever handled, the
victim's been motivated to others. They never want any other
parent going through this, they never want any other husband
or wife going through this. So you get this power
to go in subpoena people, subpoena documents, get down to
the truth and make the world safer and hopefully gets
(23:13):
some economic justice for people along the way. Though that's
you know, usually the prime motivator is, hey, let's make
the world safer, especially in these wrongful death cases. So
he's right about using the civil justice system. Now, Justin's
point about could it be used in a case where
there are bystanders who don't intervene or don't call nine
(23:33):
to one one. That's really tough because to be able
to bring a lawsuit. You have to have a cause
of action, a claim that the law recognizes under civil law.
And when it comes to a duty to report a
crime or a duty to take affirmative action like that, boy,
state to state, those laws are going to differ a lot.
(23:57):
And that's a very uncertain area. I'm not sure there
would be a good civil action there, But in so
many different arenas there is a civil action to try
to do justice. So yeah, good point there, my friend,
thank you, But do better Denver. Getting back to the
starting point, Listen, the reason do Better Denver is so
popular is because it's it's filling a need. People know
(24:20):
what they've seen with their own eyes. Denver is in decay,
and you know the how often do you see that
in the Denver Post? How often do you see that
in other Denver media? And so they're filling a need.
They're crowdsourced, people are submitting and they're reporting things that
people are seeing with their own eyes. So they go
to that site because yeah, that's reality and it's important.
(24:42):
And so that's why they're succeeding, and I think that's
why the left is determined to crush them, Which brings
us back to my friend Christa's piece today in the
Denver Post that I think is is so fatally flawed
in so many different ways. You know, starting with this
with the fundamental presumption, if its administrator wants to be
(25:04):
the quote citizen journalist he or she claims to be,
then the social media organization must try to meet the
same principles real journalists strive for transparency, accuracy, and objectivity.
Before we get to who are quote real journalists, right,
let's start with Do Better Denver and what they claim
to be. See, that's the first false premise in this piece.
(25:26):
It Do Better Denver claims to be exactly what it is.
It is a crowdsource platform for people to submit video,
photos and other information about what's really going on in Denver.
That's what they claim to be. That's what they are.
They don't claim to be the Denver Post or Channel nine.
(25:46):
They don't claim to be a public news organization that's
operating for profit. They don't claim to be any of
those things. They acknowledge they are crowdsourced. So that's just
a fundamentally false comparison between say, Do Better Denver or
Channel nine or the Denver Post. And then it goes
(26:08):
on to say, and again, keep in mind, this is
part of a proud American tradition where you have real
people who want to remain anonymous while reporting the truth
to the public. They want to remain anonymous so that
the government doesn't punish them for reporting the truth about
government failures. They want to remain anonymous so that people
(26:29):
don't threaten and harm them because they're reporting the truth
about government failures. That goes all the way back to
our founders. And then we get to the second point.
Here meet the same principles real journalists strive for. Who
are the real journalists anymore that the piece doesn't define
the real journalist? Transparency, accuracy and objectivity. Transparency. Shelly Bradbury
(26:57):
has not returned to calls. She's not coming on show
to answer the questions. You think Shelley Bradbury is going
to take any questions about, Hey, what communications has she
had directly or through a conduit from the Johnston administration
in connection with this piece? Was the Johnston administration directly
or through a conduit behind it? You know, Denver Post
(27:19):
can answer those kind of questions. They aren't. So far.
Accuracy and objectivity, give me a break. Listen. There are
some great journalists at the Denver Post who I have
praised on air before. But any human endeavor. You could
take the very best newspaper, television station, whatever in the
country and it is occasionally going to have some mistakes
(27:40):
and all of the sudden, does that mean that they
deserve to be punished? Because that's what the Denver Post,
in my constitutionally protected opinion, was out to do, was
to expose and punish and make an example of these
women who just wanted to stay private and submit their
public records or quests, including a story that then called
in an expert to talk about. No, you should expect
(28:01):
threats if you're going to do things like submit material
to an outlet like this crazy stuff. And then when
we come back, I'll take some calls as well. But
this business about real journalist. What qualifies is that you
tell me three h three someone three eight two five
five text d A N five seven seven three nine.
What qualifies as real journalist? And is the Denver Posts
(28:21):
living up to that. You're on the Dankaplas Show.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
And now back to the dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Continue this conversation tomorrow when it comes to do Better Denver.
The latest piece in the Denver Post going after do
Better Denver, and what a compliment to Do Better Denver.
Right that the Posts and the rest of the left
are so afraid of Do Better Denver. It's such a
valuable source, and please do go there. If if you
don't follow that account on xt, please do it Do
(28:54):
Better Denver and Instagram as well. And I'll continue to
go through Christi Kaefer's criticism of Do Better Denver. I
think I've already exposed just fundamental logical flaws in it
and will go more in depth tomorrow. Now I want
to take some text and calls as well on all
of that. In the last few minutes of the show today,
(29:15):
how about Dan the Post thinks the folks that do
Better Denver should expect to be threatened. I think journalists
who endanger the safety of a concerned citizens should expect
to be fired. It really was so out of bounds
from the Denver Post, and I still can't believe that
it happened, really because it's so far beyond But again,
I think it just reflects the panic on the left,
(29:35):
the panic in the Johnston administration. I saw one commentary
today suggesting that Hey, maybe this says the polling on
this big bond measure is not going very well. Is
that the timing involved? Is that why we see this
like panicked, crazy attack on Do Better Denver? It does
it tie into this bond issue? I don't know. Give
(29:57):
me some poena power and I'll find out. But there's
no way to get subpoena power here and Dan to
answer Christa's question, Denver Post needs to do better? Why
did they basically take the info from Mayor Miikey's office
and write an article. Why aren't they telling Colorado residents
the truth about what's going on regarding crime and Colorado
turning into a crab whole area? That from Alexa listen
(30:17):
and again, without subpoena power, I can't prove a tie
between Johnston's administration and the attack and Do Better Denver.
I believe with all my heart that's what happened directly
through a conduit whatever. But you think the Denver Post
is going to come on and answer those questions, I'd
be very very surprised. But the core point there is
the critical one, right, the reason Do Better Denver has
(30:39):
one hundred and forty four thousand followers between Instagram and
Twitter is because people know the truth when they see it,
they're living it, they experience it in Denver, and how
often can you find that in the Post or other outlets,
so that site then has a credibility with them. It's
serving an important purpose because unless you get the truth
out there about how awful things are under these lefty policies,
(31:03):
things aren't going to change. And the left is scared
to death of the truth. Right. So yeah, so that's
what's going on here, and I just hope at backfire.
So please, if you have a second, just you know,
shoot the account out to a bunch of people and
ask them to follow it. Anything you can do to
(31:24):
get more followers for do better Denver, the better that
that is the best way to show the left these
tactics don't work. And again you come back to one
of the fatal flaws in Christa's piece. No, do Better
Denver doesn't claim to be the Denver Post or Channel
nine or anything else. There are people, private citizens who
want to remain anonymous so that the government doesn't punish
(31:46):
them for telling the truth. What's wrong with that? Nothing's
wrong with that. This false premise that oh no, there
now needs to be transparency. You have to be public
about who you are. Well. That is simply so the
left can squash any honest reporting about the failings of
the left right, because what's going to happen if people
(32:09):
make their names public, if they become public, They're going
to be subject to this intimidation, They're going to be
subject to these threats, and so you can understand why
people would want to be anonymous. I remember getting dragged
into I don't have time to finish the story here,
but I'm very very proud of some work I did
(32:30):
a Channel four and I'm very proud of Channel four
four allowing me to do the work and air it.
And it was about whether there were securities in proprieties,
whether lives were being told by the city about DA
when it was under construction. It was very important, very
serious reporting. And then I get dragged into the mayor's office,
(32:53):
not his actual office, but his legal counsel's office. And
I mean, listen, I wasn't under rest or any thing,
but they asked me to come and I went in
there and I was there for hours, and I'm being threatened,
not physically, but being threatened in terms of being ruined,
you know, in ten different ways, and all because I
was doing honest, accurate reporting that hurt the city administration
(33:18):
by exposing the truth. And I'm on Channel four, So
how do you blame these women for not wanting to
be public so the administration can't come after them. And
to his credit, by the way, I want to put
a PostScript on that. First, we did not back off
the story. And this was just before I got married,
and they're threatening to sue me and everything else, and
(33:40):
my wife was terrified to bride. Should be able to
enjoy your wedding day, which she did, but she's terrified
with all these threats. They're going to serve me as
I'm walking down the aisle because they're threatening to sue me.
We didn't back off the story. Channel four didn't back
off the story. Koa wait, didn't back off the story.
Very proud. That is real journalism. But to his credit,
(34:00):
Mayor Webb called me up one day, can't remember when
it was later and said, hey, man, I heard you
talking about that on air. Let's go to lunch. And
we went to lunch and he just said, hey, if
that happened, I'm sorry, and I just thought that was
big of them, right, But how do you blame these
are whether they're women or men, these are just private
people working at home, just trying to help tell the
(34:23):
truth about what's going on in Denver. So yeah, I
hope you reach out to everybody you know and ask
them to follow the account on acts and follow the
Instagram account. I really hope you do that is do
better Denver, much more as you would imagine coming in
on the Colorado SNAP program. And Dan, I work in
human services. People abuse their benefits, anything to motivate people
(34:45):
to get off government assistance. I'm four, even if it
is soda and listen, I understand that there are good
arguments and strong feelings out there that if somebody is
going to be getting their food through taxpayer money, that
government has a right to tell them what they can
eat and drink. And all I'm saying is is I
(35:06):
don't agree with that. I don't If you have a
government program on food and people truly qualify, then isn't
it government overreached to say you can't have soda you
get with food stamps when the same food stamp program
called SNAP now allows you to get candy and ice
cream and cookies. To me, that's a very dangerous precedent
(35:29):
and I just don't like it. And where does that end?
Right now? Again, if you want to say we're going
to limit this to just meat and fish and milk
and chicken, I got no beef with that, because then
at least you're being clear and consistent and logical. But
to just allow these political spasms where you say, oh,
(35:51):
no coke for you poor kid, when you're letting them
have cookie and candy and ice cream, I don't go
for that. I just don't like precedent. And as I've
said before, does anybody sing Zach Kelly, do you think
in our final few seconds Jared Poulis would stop with
coke for poor people? I think he should keep his
hands off everybody's coke. It's polls or someone else. It's
(36:14):
not stopping there. Yeah, yeah, I'm with you, my friend. Hey,
great to see you. Thank you, Brian being honored this afternoon. Kelly,
great to see you as well. Please join us tomorrow.
We're gonna have a very happy Friday on The Dan
Kapla Show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!