05-22-25 - *FULL SHOW* Doomberg; What is MAHA Anyway; OK Charter School Is Not OK

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Last night, a communist lunatic from Chicago who happened to
be in DC for some reason, murdered a young couple
who were Israeli staffers at the Israeli embassy.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
They were at an event in Washington, DC.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Was actually an event, as I understand, to try to
help raise money to help the people in Gaza. And
this guy, who is part of a communist party. They
don't have the word communist in their party name, they
have the word socialists, but they're a communist party in
Chicago somehow found out about the event. Pacing around apparently

(00:40):
outside the event for a while. This young couple who
I'm sure he didn't know, came out and he murdered them.
These two were apparently about to get engaged. Now they're dead.
This guy then pretended to he sort of tried to
fade into the crowd at first and pretend to be
an online look or a bystander.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Well, when the cops.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
Showed up, he sort of gave himself up and he
I guess he started waving around you know, red cafea
that I sometimes call a terrorist rag and started yelling
things like there is only one solution into Fada revolution
and as he's being dragged away by police. Based on

(01:22):
the video that we have online that for now I
think is really him. He's yelling free Palestine as they're
dragging him away after committing a couple of after murdering
two innocent young people who were about to be engaged.
And I have so many thoughts on this, I'm going
to try to not dwell on any one of them

(01:45):
too much and just go through a few things. First
of all, I've been, to put it, gently, annoyed over
the past several years when we keep hearing from well
the Biden administration and then certain think tanks and even a.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Guest I had on the show at some point.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
I don't remember his name, but I challenged him pretty aggressively.
We keep hearing from them that the real violent threats
in America.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
Are on the right.

Speaker 1 (02:18):
I am not saying, and have never said that there
are not violent threats from the right. Clearly there are,
and they go back in modern in the most modern times,
at least as far back as Timothy McVeigh and the
bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
By the way, there's quite.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
An interesting documentary about that. I think it's on Netflix.
Maybe it's on Amazon. I forget it's on one of them,
and I watched it recently and it's worth watching.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
It's quite interesting.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
So, of course there are unbalanced and dangerous and hateful
and potentially violent people on both political fringes. But I've
been really sickened by being told over and over and
over that we only need to worry about the right
when it seems obvious to me that the left poses
a bigger threat, and they keep demonstrating it. I mean

(03:10):
a perfect example the other day when this crazy person
killed himself unfortunately nobody else, not for lack of trying though,
blowing up an IVF clinic.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
In California.

Speaker 1 (03:29):
I gotta say my first thought was that it was
some kind of radical Yeah, I'm not going that it
was some kind of radical extremely conservative Christian fundament unless
who hated IVF because because you know, some of those
folks think that IVF is is the ending of human life.

(03:49):
In fact, this actually was brought home to me perfectly.
It turns out, let me finish my sense. It turns
out that that guy was not a conservative. He was
he was a crazy these very strange, nihilistic and pro
death views. But politically, if anything, he was on the left,
not the right. And I'll tell you when this was

(04:10):
brought home to me in a way. I love listening
to Barry Weiss's podcast and it's called Honestly, and I
was just catching up on a few episodes behind and
its kind of binge listening, and I was just listening
to one that she did a month ago or so
with Leonard Leo, who was the guy who gave Donald
Trump the list of Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump

(04:31):
picked from in his first term to get us Gore
such and Kavanaugh and Amy Coney, Barrett Leonard Leo was
a very conservative, devout Catholic, a huge player in conservative politics,
apparently not as close with Trump as he used to be.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
But a very very very powerful.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Guy who was recently given the responsibility of being the
caretaker of a over one billion with a bee dollar donation.
Two I think to the Federalist Society for Leonard Leo
to take care of, to make sure that he can
spread the values of conservatism and push back on the

(05:11):
radical left dominance of so many of our institutions and government.

Speaker 2 (05:16):
And the reason I mentioned this is.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
IVF came up in the conversation and he said, I'm
against it.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
I think it's the taking of human life.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
And never once in any of that, even though I
don't agree with him, never once did I think, oh,
he might go out and hurt somebody over that view.
But this other creature, again, an unbalanced person. And I
am not saying that many or even most people on
the left are like him, but he was of the left,

(05:49):
went and tried to kill people over his view that
there actually shouldn't be any life. And so now we
have this in Washington, d C. With a true hardcore leftist,
the type of person who is and would be expected

(06:11):
to be involved with BLM and Antifa and all these
leftist groups murdering two innocent young people just because they're
Jewish or just because there Israeli.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
Those are not entirely the same, since some.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Moderate percentage of the Israeli population is not Jewish. And
now they're gone, and this guy's out there yelling free Palestine.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
Now I hope a couple of things here. One.

Speaker 1 (06:42):
I hope that there are some people who are involved
in the same groups that this guy is involved with,
who think to themselves, who have just a couple brain
cells left to rub together and think to themselves, Wait
a minute, I don't want to be associated with murder. Like, Okay,
I'm against I'm against how the people in Gaza are

(07:03):
being treated, but I don't want to be associated with
the murder of two happy young people who are about
to get engaged to or not soldiers and have nothing
to do with Maybe there are just a few people
who still have two brain cells to rub together that
they will extricate themselves from these communist parties in BLM
and Antifa and all that. Maybe I don't think it's

(07:24):
going to be a large number, but it'll be a
few because they're already obviously stupid enough to be members
of those groups to begin with, which doesn't say much
for them. The other thing I'm gonna say, then, do
this quickly. And this comes up from time to time
when there's something like this. But anti Semitism is massively
on the rise in the United States of America. And
I don't say that as a paranoid thing. And I'm

(07:45):
not a person who lives greatly in fear, but I
have to say I have my concealed carry permit, and
I should carry more than I do, more often than
I do, and I think part of the reason I
don't carry that often is that I used to live
in Manhattan before Rudy Giuliani cleaned it up.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
It was a very dangerous place.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
Then I used to live in Chicago near one of
the worst ghettos in the country. It's gone now, it's
gone now, but it was called Cabrini Green. Could hear
gunshots coming out of there all the time. That was
just a few blocks from where I lived. You really
couldn't carry there, but I would have. So the one

(08:24):
thing that I want to say on this right now,
in this segment is this to all my fellow Jews.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
Two things.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Learn to use a gun, buy a gun, and get
a concealed carry permit. You must do all of those, Okay,
learn get your permit. Part of getting your permit will
involve some learning. And get a gun that's suitable for
concealed carry and get competent with it. And second, stop

(08:55):
voting for socialists and other leftists who are determined to
take away your Second Amendment rights because the bad guys
will always have them. And what yesterday reminded us of,
or should have reminded us of, is that just by
being Jewish. The bad guys are out there gunning literally

(09:20):
for you and me. Protect yourself. Rockies, Memorial Day weekend
tickets and parking.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
Guys.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
The parking is worth more than the tickets. Maybe not,
but parking is awesome. And you can win that right
now if you can enter to win it right now,
if you go to Koa's Instagram page.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
So Instagram dot com slash Koa Colorado.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
So we're gonna give a pair of tickets away that way,
and then we're gonna give another pair of tickets away
tomorrow Tomorrow afternoon between three and six on KOA Sports.

Speaker 2 (09:57):
So that's Yankees Rockies tickets.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
Come Koa Instagram dot com slash kay Colorado and you'll
see the You'll see the pinned posting with all the
rules on how to enter.

Speaker 2 (10:09):
I'm gonna mention this story very quickly because.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
I really don't know very much about it, but I
just wanted It's a local story and I just wanted
to mention it. Some of you may know about it
or be involved in this in this world, but I
guess the Salvation Army is a pretty big contract with
the city of Denver to operate a homeless shelter and
from Axios Denver. They say a plan to add four
point six million dollars to that contract includes terms intended

(10:38):
to improve safety. The city Council yesterday pushed forward a
bill to the full council was actually a committee to
extend the contract to run a place called Crossroad Center,
raising that amount to nineteen point four million dollars. And
Axio says why it matters is that it's an eyebrow

(11:00):
raising some for a nonprofit facing criticism over its poor
safety record in other Denver area shelters. They say a
sexual assault and multiple shootings occurred at shelter sites operated
by the Salvation Army just in the past year. So
I'm gonna stop there, but I just wanted you to
be aware of it.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
It's up on the blog.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
At Rosskiminsky dot com if you want to learn a
little bit more about that. Let me take a moment
here and talk about the so called big beautiful bill,
And I'm gonna do a little change of pace for
you here because you are well aware that I've said
and that Mandy said that this bill is a bleep sandwich,
and I want to just stick with the analogy for

(11:43):
a minute. Let's say you asked me for a peanut
butter and jelly sandwich. Producer Shannon likes peanut butter and
jelly sandwiches, although he tends to eat them with creamy
peanut butter and I tend to eat them with crunchy
peanut butter.

Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yes I do. You did not know that about me, Shannon? Yeah,
but I have crunchy bread right.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
Shannon will sometimes put his on rice cakes, and he
has lately become a fan of chocolate flavored rice cakes,
which I do think sounds delicious with peanut.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
Butter in a Reese's kind of way.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
And then he will put jelly on that too, so
I have to try all that. So why was I
talking about that? So imagine that you asked me for
a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and I made you one,
a really nice one. But then I went out into
my backyard and I found a tiny piece of dog
poo that I had forgotten to clean up when when

(12:33):
I was pooper scooping after my dog. There was a
small piece of dog poo in the backyard that I missed,
and I put it on the sandwich. Now the sandwich
is still ninety percent peanut butter and jelly or eighty percent,
whatever the number is. Are you going to take a
bite of that sandwich even though it's ninety percent peanut
butter and jelly.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
You would still you would call that a crap sandwich,
not a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a little
pollutant on it.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Right, That's what you.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
Would call it. That's how I think of this one
big beautiful pail and what I mean. And I'm gonna
stick with the analogy.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
For a second.

Speaker 1 (13:05):
I really like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I would
like the ninety percent of that sandwich that hasn't touched
that poop. But that poop poisons the whole thing for me. Okay,
So I've said all that. I've said it for a
couple of days. I've told you about the parts of
the bill that I don't like. I want to take
a minute and talk about the parts of the bill
that I do like. And there is a lot to like.

(13:27):
Just like my peanut butter and jelly analogy, there is
a lot to like. First thing, obviously, is that it
extends the current tax rates. I will note that when
you hear the media and Democrats tell you that this
thing massively raises the deficit, well, it does raise the deficit,
but most of that in terms of the current scoring

(13:48):
at least, is because the scoring assumes that the Donald
Trump tax reforms of twenty seventeen would expire, that tax
rates would be higher, and that this day is a
tax cut, which counts as raising the deficit, even though
for you and I it seems really more like just

(14:10):
a continuation of current tax rates.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
So that's one thing.

Speaker 1 (14:13):
I also expect that the scoring understates the economic gain
from lower tax rates that causes people to start more businesses,
expand businesses, spend more money, invest more, and in general
make up some of the loss of tax revenue due
to the lower rates. And in fact, if you look

(14:34):
at the chart of tax revenue to the federal government
after the last Trump tax cuts, which this would just
extend income to the government, didn't go down nearly the
way it was projected.

Speaker 2 (14:45):
So there's that.

Speaker 1 (14:46):
There are a couple other things I like in this bill,
and I'll just do these very quickly because I'm really
excited for my next guest. There are provisions to make
it much easier to drill for oil and gas. There
should be provisions to make it easier to do nuclear
permitting stuff. And check this out, Channon. There is a
provision in this bill to remove the two hundred dollars

(15:08):
excise tax that you have to pay when you buy
a firearms suppressor.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
They snuck that in there. I love it. That is
long overdue. That is ever you should.

Speaker 1 (15:18):
It's rude to shoot a gun without a suppressor, all right,
And Germany and in much of Europe they think about
it that way.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
It's just a hearing protection device.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
People on the left who have never even seen one
think it's some kind of James Bond assassin thing. But
how about that for a little good news from this bill.
So look, just there are parts of this bill that
I don't like, and I think I would have probably
voted against it, But I want to make sure we
know that there's a lot of good stuff in this
bill too. When we come back a green chicken, my

(15:48):
next guest is not just the most successful green chicken
on substack key or they, And I don't mean that
as sort of woke pronoun change, but rather there there
could be a group here.

Speaker 2 (16:03):
Even though I'm only talking to one chicken.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
Uh, but not just the most successful green chicken on substack,
but actually the most successful of any form of poultry
on substack. I'm very pleased to welcome back to the
show Doomberg. Just the clearest, most interesting analysis of energy

(16:27):
and related geopolitics, and occasionally some other things as well
that you are going to find anywhere Doomberg dot substack
dot com. Hello Chicken.

Speaker 3 (16:37):
Ross.

Speaker 4 (16:37):
Great to be back with you. I was about to say,
go on always, always great the chat with you, sir.

Speaker 1 (16:44):
Uh Okay, Let's let's start with some news. Actually you
probably noticed this because as Doomberg you probably have a
Bloomberg terminal and you probably see some news. But it
looks like just maybe in the past hour or so,
the Senate voted fifty one to forty four to overturn well,

(17:05):
the way this news article describes it as California as
Electric Vehicle Mandate, I'm not sure if this is actually
an overturning of the entire waiver from the EPA, which
was what I thought they were dealing with. And I
will just note for listeners that the parliamentarian.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
Said they can't do this, and.

Speaker 1 (17:23):
The Republicans in the Senate went ahead and.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
Did it anyway.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
So do me tell me if you think this is important,
and if so, why.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
Yeah, great question.

Speaker 4 (17:34):
I just saw the headline myself and haven't had time
to fully digest it.

Speaker 3 (17:37):
But I have some thoughts. I believe what the.

Speaker 4 (17:40):
Parliamentarian must be referring to as the fact that since
this is not sort of a finance or reconciliation bill,
that it should require sixty votes in the Senate. And
I think the Republicans are either circumventing the filibuster or
making the case that the filibuster rules do not apply
to this.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Well, that's legislation, that's close. It's the Congressional Review Act.
And she's saying the Congressional Review Act, which kind of
similar to philibuster stuff. But the Congressional Review Act can
be done with a simple majority. But she's saying the
CRA doesn't apply to this, and they're saying, yeah, it does.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
You're being too differential to the GAO.

Speaker 3 (18:15):
Yes exactly.

Speaker 4 (18:16):
I mean, essentially, it's a it's an argument about whether
sixty votes are required. Her yes, fifty one, and the
Republicans are taking the stance that it's just fifty one
of course, this is going to end up in the courts.
Just to give people the relevant background. In the Clean
Air Act, California was given the ability to apply for waivers,

(18:37):
and the EPA, if they approve such waivers, effectively delegates
national emissions control over the over the entire US auto
fleet because carmakers aren't going to make cars just for California,
and so over the decades since the Clean Air Act
has been passed, the rest of us in the country

(18:58):
have been subject to the whims of an organization called CARB,
the California Air Resources Board, and in the name of
do gooding and clean air and puppies and unicorns, the
entire automotive industry has been reworked to the whims of
the bureaucrats who were appointed to the position of the

(19:20):
board on CARB and Trump committed to overturning this, and
the big fight has been whether it could get through
the Senate. I thought that Trump and Republicans might have
buried it in a reconciliation bill so that the questions
of the applicability of the filibuster would not apply, But

(19:42):
perhaps that would make such a bill more difficult or
challenging to get through the Senate and Trump didn't want
to risk it.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
That's my view.

Speaker 4 (19:49):
But again I would say I haven't had a chance
to read too deeply into today's developments, you know, getting
ready for this interview, right.

Speaker 2 (19:55):
And I think this is all good news.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
Colorado is one of these states that I had a
previous governor say we're basically going to go buy whatever whatever.
California does not quite everything, but a lot of things.
There are people here who want to you know, ban
gasoline powered lawnmowers and so on, all of this craziness.
All right, let's do let's do some other stuff. Probably
the most important question I'm gonna ask you today, as

(20:20):
I know you to be a football fan, is what
do you think of the tush push being allowed to
remain as part of the NFL after they failed to.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
Ban it yesterday?

Speaker 4 (20:34):
Well, I mean, who doesn't like a good tush push?
And you know, in such such things occur all the time,
and I think this is just sort of a a
reflection of the reality of the game. It's got a
bit of a rugby feel to it, I suppose, and
football isn't rugby, but I think, you know, it just

(20:57):
happens so often it's kind of like holding happens on
every play. You know, let's just go ahead and acknowledge
that it's a part of the game. And in fact,
it opens up opportunities, I think for coaches to strategize
around it and so on. And it does change, for example,
it might change a roster spot or two.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
As well.

Speaker 4 (21:14):
Right, I mean, the short the ability to predictably gain
short yardages positively is just pretty powerful in football, and
I think it's it's actually a meaningful development.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
When's the last time an interviewer asked you a football question?

Speaker 4 (21:32):
Actually, I appeared on one of the top football substacks
and their podcast. The name of the substack escapes me,
but I had a whole discussion about the power of
the University of Texas endowment system.

Speaker 3 (21:46):
What's the university worth?

Speaker 4 (21:49):
We peg the value of the University of Texas at
somewhere around one hundred billion, and then you'd be surprised.
Actually the university system in the US is unique and fascinating.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Wow, we're talking with doom or he's a green chicken
or they are a green chicken. And the website where
you should absolutely subscribe, and I am a paying subscriber
is Doomberg dot substack dot com. I think you can
just go to Doomburg dot com and you can get
through that way as well. Let's talk about China a
little bit. You've written a couple of very interesting pieces recently,

(22:22):
one being on the ascend and another piece about the
wrong end of the Telescope.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
About about China, I want to start.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
With the with the second one because you and I
were going back and forth a little bit in the
comments on your substack and you said something that I
think should attract a lot of people's attention, and I'll
let you word it yourself, but it was along the
lines of why China might have a little bit less
incentive than some people think to go to take Taiwan

(22:52):
to get control of advanced semiconductor manufacturing.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (22:57):
Well, again, because we've used sanction as a weapon, and
I should say we are basically opposed to all sanctions.
Once you weaponize the US dollar system, you weaken it,
and sanctions are effectively an active war, and you put
the target of your sanctions on a war footing. And
by sanctioning China's semiconductor industry, we provoked Gigiping into spending

(23:23):
scores of billions of dollars to develop one where that
probably wouldn't have happened if we had focused inward on
developing our own capabilities.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
To extend and keep our lead.

Speaker 4 (23:34):
China wouldn't be nearly as close to the US as
they are now. Our view is they will soon surpass
the US, and sanctions have played a role in catalyzing that.

Speaker 3 (23:44):
And I just think.

Speaker 4 (23:46):
Even President Trump overestimates the power of sanctions. They never
work against strong countries and almost always rebound against the
country doing the sanctioning, in this case the US.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
So, just to paraphrase, saying that China might get might
advance so quickly in the development of semiconductors that they
won't even have the need to go take TSMC.

Speaker 3 (24:15):
They wouldn't have to take it, They just have to
blockade it.

Speaker 4 (24:17):
Because if they can supply their own ships and they
choke the rest of the world off of its supply,
then they get a two for one deal on the trade.
And they would never have been in a position to
do that had we not provoked this ferocious response. And
by the way, many in the West suffer from what
I call techno arrogance, where we radically assume that the

(24:38):
US and Europe and the Western nations have this great
technological advantage over countries like China and India or Russia
that the opposite is true. I mean, it's just an
army of scientists and engineers China speed is a real thing.

Speaker 3 (24:50):
They won't surpass the US.

Speaker 4 (24:53):
We are forcing the US is forcing them to surpass US.
And anybody who's worked in and around China, travel to
China as I have, knows that just sitting idly on
a lead when China is motivated and the Chinese Commis
Party makes it a national ambition to achieve a scientific objective,
they're going to crush it, and we best get ready

(25:16):
for it.

Speaker 1 (25:18):
I want to go back to the sanctions thing for
a minute, because I think this is really interesting and
important at a macro level, and it's something you clearly
think and write about a lot, and what I would
like to figure out, and let's maybe focus.

Speaker 2 (25:34):
A little more on Russia for the moment than China.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
And you have made consistent points against sanctions on Russian oil,
and maybe we'll get to that in a second. But
what I wonder about is what other forms of leverage
do we have that could perhaps change the behavior, if
not of Russia themselves, then maybe of other countries that
are helping Russia, or other countries that are helping Iran

(26:01):
and so on.

Speaker 4 (26:03):
So the only leverage we had at the beginning of
the war in Ukraine, and that leverage is fleeting now
three plus years later, was to radically drive the price
of oil lower as quickly as we could. And the
best and only way to do that is to flood
the market with supply, not try to sanction Russia's volume.
And we have half jokingly said the US Navy should

(26:25):
be escorting Russian oil tankers to the market to reduce
the friction of getting every molecule we can to the market,
lower the price, strip Russia of oil profits which we're
feeding the war machine three and a half years on
oil is far less of a concern to Russia. Broadly speaking,
the best leverage is strengthening yourself. The US should be

(26:46):
looking inward. Why don't we have a manufacturing sector. Why
does the US lag in producing patrolley engineers. Why is
it so hard to build a nuclear reactor in the
country today, which is what we published about this morning.
China is cranking out nuclear reactors at a speed and
for a cost that is unbelievable compared to what can
happen over here. Fix your own house, and don't necessarily

(27:11):
try to interfere in the home construction of others, because
they will circumvent you.

Speaker 3 (27:15):
Russia is wholly independent.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Now.

Speaker 4 (27:19):
Russia is producing three times the artillery shells of all
of Natal combined. They have oil, gas, fertilizer, farm land, chemicals, munitions, steel, aluminum,
They have.

Speaker 3 (27:32):
Everything they need.

Speaker 4 (27:34):
And by sanctioning the Russian economy, the West has forced
Russia to become totally self sufficient and they have achieved it.
And the arrogance of assuming that access to the US
dollar system would somehow cripple, you know, Russia taking away
their access to it is just deeply naive and totally

(27:54):
misread history.

Speaker 1 (27:56):
This conversation, folks, is probably the main and I wanted
to have Doomberg on today because that line of thinking
I find very interesting and I don't hear it anywhere else,
and it's coming from a source that I trust, even
though I'm looking at a green chicken. And so I
want to keep going with this, and I hope, I

(28:18):
hope you all who are listening are thinking about this
deeply and again doomberg dot com would be a good
place to start, or just go to your favorite search
engine and type in Doomberg and you'll get to their
sub stack. And if any of this interest to you,
you should subscribe. I am as I said, a paying subscriber.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Do me. Is there any even slightly better argument?

Speaker 1 (28:40):
Or maybe slightly better is irrelevant, because like a terrible
idea and then you get one that's slightly better, is
still really bad.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
But what about this idea.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
Of kind of secondary sanctions that Trump has talked about
a little bit. For example, you know, if you buy
Russian oil, then we will sanction you rather than sanctioning Russia.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
As a matter of more real politic.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
If these countries other perhaps than China, maybe subject to
that kind of influence, could we starve Russia financially that
way or does it just play into the original problem
where all that would really do is raise the price
of oil, and so it ends up benefiting Russia anyway,
because they'll just find a way to sell it one
way or another.

Speaker 4 (29:24):
Threatening secondary sanctions against Russia is effectively threatening sanctions against
Indian China, because they are the two largest procures of
Russian oil and By the way, the US Northeast was
bailed out of a diesel crisis when shipments of Indian
diesel refined in India, starting with Russian oil, arrived shortly

(29:47):
after the war started. It just sort of shows you
just how complicated and interconnected the world is. Trump just
raised tariffs, which is effectively equivalent to a sanction on
China tow one hundred and forty five percent, and they didn't.
They didn't they didn't bunch. So they just negotiated in
Switzerland a ninety day day taunt on the whole tariffs thing,

(30:11):
and then We're gonna go ahead and raise tariffs on
China because they're buying Russian oil. It's it's incongruent with
Trump's broader agenda, and I think it's a bluff. Hecludly
doesn't want to implement the sanctions the Russians and the
Chinese and the Indians frankly don't care. There's all manner

(30:32):
of things the US wants from India, for example, and
the whole hot war with Pakistan that broke out briefly
that would that would make sanctioning them very difficult. Just
give you one example. Apple is moving. You know iPhone
production out of China and the India, So we're gonna
go ahead and sanctioned India before Apple even.

Speaker 3 (30:53):
Sets up shop it. Sanctions don't work.

Speaker 4 (30:55):
Ever, it's long past time we stopped listening to the
Lindsay Grahams of the world world and just set about
the business of improving American excellence across all dimensions, which
Trump is clearly for and trying to do.

Speaker 3 (31:08):
And we wholeheartedly applaud that.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
I will I will offer one minor quibble, and then
I want to switch gears with you. For our last
couple of minutes. You said that Trump doesn't want to
impose tariffs. Did you say tariffs are sanctions?

Speaker 2 (31:24):
Either.

Speaker 3 (31:24):
He doesn't want to impost sanctions on Russia. He wants
out of Russia.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
M h.

Speaker 4 (31:28):
And I don't think he wants to reimpose tariffs on
China when they're in the middle of sensitive negotiations and
close to an outcome that Trump could credibly call right.

Speaker 1 (31:36):
So I think I think he does want to impose
tariffs in the sense that for forty years he's been
talking about and writing about how much he dislikes and
mistrusts free trade. I think at this point.

Speaker 2 (31:48):
He's starting to get a little bit of a dose of.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
Reality of the downsides of imposing tariffs. So maybe he's
looking for sort of a graceful way out right now
where he can claim that it was always negotiating leverage
and that he was just trying to get a good
deal even though he wasn't. He was imposing them because
he really believes in them. But at this point now,
as a matter of just dealing with reality, I think

(32:10):
he would like to find something of a graceful way out.
You want to just comment in on that briefly, and
then I want to do something else, sure.

Speaker 4 (32:17):
Sure, Just to clarify, I was talking specifically about new
tariffs on China and India. Now, okay, got his broad
objective of getting tariffs. And by the way, just the
ten percent tariff across all imports is a huge game
changer for Trump to get done, and in reality, the
chaos that he caused on liberation to hiss cover for that,
and nobody's talking about it.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
But here we are, right, Okay, let's switch gears. We
got about two minutes. You wrote a piece a couple
of days ago actuarial examinations, and you mentioned nuclear power
in passing a few minutes ago. But just give us
a minute or so on what we should want in
what we should expect for the development of new nuclear

(32:59):
generation in America.

Speaker 3 (33:01):
Yeah, great question. Appreciate the opportunity to talk to it.

Speaker 4 (33:05):
Trump can leave a lasting legacy on par with Dwight
Eisenhower if he plays his cards right, and the early
signs are that he will.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
So.

Speaker 4 (33:12):
What we wrote about actually published this morning, is that
we believe that Trump is going to issue and it
has been widely reported, Trump is going to issue four
new executive orders changing the way in which new nuclear
reactors are brought online, specifically reforming this crazy linear no
threshold safety model that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has effectively

(33:35):
used to halt all new construction of reactors.

Speaker 3 (33:38):
In the United States.

Speaker 4 (33:38):
But most importantly and most interestingly, we think the Defense
Production Act is going to be leveraged. The military will
host the Googles of the world to build giant data
centers on military sites, powered by rapidly approved and built
nuclear reactors. And once a reactor is built, history says
it almost never gets turned off. And if you could

(34:00):
just let the military do it to circumvent the civilian, legal,
bureaucratic malaise. You might end up in a situation where
if you told me two years ago off Fox and
Friends weekend host would be on the critical path of
the US nuclear renaissance, I would have laughed. But it
looks like Pete Hegseth is going to be given the
job to on stick US nuclear energy.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
Remarkable, remarkable. I hope you're right. I hope you're right.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
We need we desperately, the world needs more nuclear power.
Doomberg is an energy analyst a group of energy analysts
who turned what initially was maybe a little more than
a hobby into the most successful finance category Substack.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
It is a must read and a must subscribe. You
can go to.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
Doomberg dot substack dot com, or just search Doomberg and
you will find the Green Chicken.

Speaker 2 (34:54):
Please do subscribe. Do me. Thank you so much as
always for making time for me anytime.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
I'm ross.

Speaker 4 (35:00):
You're a great host, and I'm sure you have the
smartest audience in radio.

Speaker 1 (35:03):
I like to think so, but smarter after talking to you.
All right, go eat some corn or whatever it is
you eat.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
You bet bye? All right, that is the great Doomberg.
Let me do just this story very very quickly.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
One other thing I only learned this morning from Marty
and Gina, actually that the Supreme Court has already ruled
in the case of the Oklahoma charter school that wanted
to start up it was to be a virtual Catholic
charter school, explicitly religious charter school. A lower court. Actually
it's not a lower federal court. The state Supreme Court there,

(35:38):
if I remember, correctly, said no, you can't do this,
it violates the Constitution. During the oral arguments, it became
clear that the key vote here was going to be
Chief Justice John Roberts, that the liberals would all be
against it, that four Conservatives would be for it, Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas,

(36:00):
and Gorsuch. Amy Cony Barrett recused herself. We believe it's
because she has a personal friendship with somebody involved in
the project. So she's out, and so it came down
to Roberts. Now, the ruling today is very long in detailed,
and I'm going to read you the whole thing right now.
Quote the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
That's the whole thing.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
So four to four on a tie, it means the
Lower court ruling stands, and that means that this school
cannot open.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
We'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
I always found it useful as a parent of young
children to make sure they had some fear of zombies.
But at some point they were really afraid of zombies.
And I, oh, I remember this is I think I
actually talked about this probably close to ten years ago
on the radio, like when I first got to iHeart

(36:57):
and one of my.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
Kids watched I think it was Dawn of the Dead.
Good movie.

Speaker 1 (37:04):
Good movie, but you know I'm talking about you know,
kid was seven. Oh bad parenting, right, And so here
here's what I came up with. Oh, this is going
to lead me to a question to ask you. I'm
going to have a question for you after I tell

(37:25):
you this story.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
I told my kids that you will.

Speaker 1 (37:34):
Notice in the movies you never see zombies wearing jackets,
and so since zombies, I know, I know, I'm just
telling you what I told them.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
I'm just telling you what.

Speaker 1 (37:46):
I'm just telling you what I told them. Remember their kids,
and you can lie to them and get away with it.

Speaker 2 (37:50):
It's fine.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
And I said, zombies, zombies don't wear jackets, and but
they are kind of sort of humans, so they are
susceptive to cold, and therefore you don't find zombies in
places with cold weather. In fact, where zombies are endemic
is Texas, and I said, that's why everybody in Texas

(38:14):
has a gun.

Speaker 2 (38:15):
That's why you.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
Know the pickup trucks in Texas have gun racks in
the back. You will find probably a very very high
level of baseball bat sales in Texas and the zombies.
It's true that zombies can walk a long way. They
don't need food, they don't need much. But to get here,
you know, they would have to cross into some territory

(38:39):
that would get them arguably much colder, and they probably
wouldn't survive that. And therefore, you know, if as long
as you want to avoid zombies, you're probably okay in Colorado,
but be very careful in Texas.

Speaker 2 (38:53):
What sure? Yeah? I mean that checks out. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (38:56):
I just made it up as I went along, and
my kids absolutely believed it for a few years. The
same way I one of my kids was interested in unicorns.
I said, they only live in the wild in New Jersey.
I've told you that story before. But we're never going
to New Jersey, so you're never going to see one
that was basically that was that was that how.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
Did I get to the zombie thing? Or were you
talking about?

Speaker 1 (39:18):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (39:18):
Okay, so here's my here's my question.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
Here's my question for you, and I want you to
text me your answer at five six six nine zero.
What's the most ridiculous story you ever told your kids?

Speaker 2 (39:33):
You know that kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
What's what's the most ridiculous story as a way of,
you know, explaining something or or lying about something just
for fun, which is really, I mean it it's really
fun the lie the kids. Yeah, it's don't you think
lying the kids is? I mean even Steve Martin did
a whole thing about that, right where you teach a
kid the wrong words and you know, we need to

(39:57):
go to the bathroom and go to the teacher and say, ma'am,
dog face the banana patch.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
Like, it's great fun.

Speaker 1 (40:04):
It's great fun lying to kids, and everybody should do it.

Speaker 3 (40:08):
It's one of the joys of having kids.

Speaker 5 (40:11):
Dragon, did you I nothing comes to my mind. What's
just just a you know that doesn't seem right. They
make fun of themselves when they try and pronounce a
word completely wrong or yeah, they insert a swear word
into what would be a normal word by accident. That's
the funny part. I don't think I ever did anything
on purpose really like that. Okay, all right, fine, it's

(40:36):
fine if you do. But I just can't recall this
to if I ever did.

Speaker 1 (40:41):
All right, I want to know from you folks who
are listening right now, what's the wackiest story you ever
told your kids?

Speaker 2 (40:47):
Just to make.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
Something up to them, Text me at five sixty six
nine zero and tell me I actually missed a very
interesting financial market story, and Mandy told me about it
yesterday after the show.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
I don't know how I.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
Missed it, but I did, and I wanted to mention
it to you in the context of the story that
I did tell you about yesterday, which was the weak
Treasury bond auction.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
Oh, I need to offer a correction.

Speaker 1 (41:14):
Yesterday I called the twenty years that the Treasury sold.
I called them notes because I thought that the cutoff
was anything over twenty, but the cutoff for bonds to
call them bonds instead of notes.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
But the cutoff is.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
At twenty rather than just over twenty, So they're actually
twenty year bonds rather than twenty year notes. But there's
no difference. In what they do, how they work, and
any of that, all right, So I did want to
correct myself on that there twenty year bonds, we had
a bad auction yesterday. There was less demand for the
bonds than you would expect, and there was a spike
in interest rates, and that's why the Dow was down

(41:48):
eight hundred points yesterday or so. It's up a little
bit today, up a little bit less than one hundred
right now. So the international story that Mandy mentioned that
I had somehow missed was there is a really really
bad Japanese bond auction a few days ago, and Japan's
interest rates on their long term bonds in particular have

(42:12):
absolutely exploded.

Speaker 2 (42:14):
Now Japan offers these very long term bonds.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
They've got forty year bonds, and basically there's very, very
very little demand for them right now, because do you
want to loan money for forty years when you don't
know what inflation is gonna be And by the way,
they're all the way up to like three percent. Do
you want to loan money for forty years at three percent?

(42:38):
Or It's amazing, it's stunning how long these things traded
like one percent one and a half.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
I mean one and a half percent. It's crazy.

Speaker 1 (42:47):
Now, here's the reason that this didn't turn in to
some kind of global contagion that royaled the world. Because
the move was enormous. In Japan has a lot of
debt and as a percentage of GDP, Japan is close
to two hundred percent of GDP. They're in a much
worse position than the United States, even though the United.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
States position is quite bad.

Speaker 1 (43:08):
And the reason that it didn't turn into a massive
global contagion is that unlike American debt, the vast, vast
majority of Japanese debt is owned by Japanese people in
the Japanese Central Bank. They do not have the kind
of large foreign ownership of Japanese debt that America has,
in part because their interest rates are so low that

(43:28):
there isn't great reason to buy Japanese debt if you're
an international investor. So that's why it didn't turn into
a worldwide catastrophe. But Japan is in a lot of trouble,
and it was a warning sign to the United States
of America what could happen if we don't get our
fiscal house in order. And that's part of the reason
I really don't like this so called big beautiful bill.

(43:49):
It does have plenty of good stuff, but it doesn't
cut spending enough. Like you're listening to KOAA fifty am
and ninety four to one FM where we rock the rockies.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
We'll play your request, we'll play your request.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
We'll give you a shout out if you if you
send producer Dragon your name with your music requests, he'll
give you a shout out on the air, like sixties
and seventies style rock and roll radio.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
Sending this one out to Andy or whoever. It's probably
an Andy. You know what would be awesome? You know
what I would really like.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
I would like some music requests, some song requests from women.

Speaker 2 (44:29):
See what the women want to hear?

Speaker 1 (44:31):
Send them in including your name, just your first name,
and producer Dragon will do a shout out to you
on the air if he chooses to use you.

Speaker 5 (44:37):
So this wide spectrum of musical taste we've got, We've
got green Jelly, and we played some Sinatra yesterday.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
Yeah was that sinataw Wayne Newton both probably well, yeah, yeah,
all kinds of all kinds of stuff. Yeah, So keep
sending those keep sending those requests in At five sixty
six nine zero. When there's a good chance that Dragon
will play something.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Let's just do a few.

Speaker 1 (44:57):
Minutes here, Dragon talking about some of these listener answers
that have come in to the question that we asked
of what is the wackiest story you've ever told one
of your kids. Maybe you want to alternate, You and
I can alternate, and I'll just start with the first one. Okay,
the ice cream truck only plays music when they're out.

Speaker 2 (45:14):
Of ice cream. That's beautiful. I love that one.

Speaker 5 (45:18):
Brown cows make chocolate milk. That's not true. I bet
tech out of me. I'm just reading the text line.

Speaker 2 (45:27):
I always.

Speaker 1 (45:30):
When my kids were little, we were looking through old
photographs that were all in black and white, and I
told them that was before the world was in color.

Speaker 2 (45:37):
I like it.

Speaker 5 (45:39):
I told my kids lightning was God's flash on his
camera when God was trying to take pictures.

Speaker 1 (45:45):
Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh, I.

Speaker 2 (45:49):
Don't I ross.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
I told my kids and friends that I met their
mother in a gay bar.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
Okay, congratulate, congratulations.

Speaker 5 (45:58):
I told my son and nephew that if they did
fasten their seatbelts, the car would explode.

Speaker 1 (46:04):
My gosh, I told my kids I had magic glasses.
That way, if they did something wrong, I would ask them,
and if I thought they were lying, I I told
them let me go get my magic glasses, and they
would immediately tell me the truth.

Speaker 5 (46:18):
This one is by far my favorite to the bunch. Okay,
I told them that cantelopes were antelope eggs that didn't hatch.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
That's fascinating.

Speaker 1 (46:29):
Can't get a lope antelope?

Speaker 2 (46:33):
Ross?

Speaker 1 (46:33):
If you noticed, American zombies can run and you have
to shoot him in the head.

Speaker 2 (46:37):
British zombies only walk and.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
They usually drag a leg and they have to cut
the head off with an axe.

Speaker 2 (46:42):
Or a sword. Dragon. Does that sound about right to you?
Pretty accurate? Yeah? Yeah, all right?

Speaker 1 (46:48):
Ross. My niece was a bit of a troublemaker, and
when she was like five I told her there were
monsters in the basement and that's why she couldn't go
down there. It backfired though, because then she was excited
to see.

Speaker 2 (46:59):
Them on Ross.

Speaker 5 (47:03):
Sorry, but as a parent, I very much disagree about
lying to your kids. You can tease and joke with
them all you want, but telling them false stories breaks
their trust in you.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
So what's your point? Reading the text this is This
is one of my favorites. I told my little brother
that electrical outlets were key cleaners.

Speaker 2 (47:26):
He only cleaned one key.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
That's a little mean. That's a little that's probably even
meaner than lying to my kids.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
How do they get how do they make almond milk?

Speaker 5 (47:37):
If you look closely enough, you'll find and see the
tiny little nipples.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
Oh my gosh, unbelievable. All right, I think that's probably good.
Oh ross, Wait until you become a grandpa to a
four year old. So much fun. You can lie to
a kid all over again. But the best part, your
grandkid will then retell that story to his parents as
if it's true.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
So much fun. I can't wait.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
I'm probably not going to be a grandparent for a
while because I you know, I'm an old dad. My
first kid was born when I was forty, and I
don't know if my I think it's fifty to fifty
whether my older kid will become a parent young younger kids,
you know, still in high school. So I don't want
I don't want him to become a parent real soon.

Speaker 5 (48:23):
I got an eighteen month old grand kid right now,
so that's well, you did the opposite exactly.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
You did the opposite, Like, how am I allowed to ask.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
You how old you were with sixteen?

Speaker 1 (48:32):
You were sixteen when you became a dad, right, and
so and I was and I was forty.

Speaker 2 (48:38):
So you're.

Speaker 1 (48:42):
Let's see your oldest kid. Uh, your oldest kid is
old enough to be one of my kid's parents.

Speaker 2 (48:54):
My oldest kid's twenty five.

Speaker 1 (48:56):
Okay, so no, yeah, not quite Wow, yeah, fabulous.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (49:04):
I don't have children. But one of the best things
that was told to me was the first time I
had a takeito from a real, authentic Mexican restaurant. My
dad told me they were made from monkey meat. That's
not nice. That's not nice. You know why, because that
will instill in a child a lifelong desire to eat
monkey meat, and.

Speaker 2 (49:25):
Then this kid is gonna be on a.

Speaker 1 (49:26):
Quest for the rest of his life, Like like that
scene in one of the Raiders of the Lost Dark
movies where they go there and there's got all the
little monkey skulls and the monkey heads in front of you,
and they take the top of the skull off, and
then you're supposed to eat the brain. And now your
kid is going to be the one who actually gets
the spoon and eats the brain because now he wants
or you rather, because they did that to you. I mean,

(49:48):
are you out there now? Are you out there now
seeking monkey meat? That just doesn't seem very nice? What what? Dragon?

Speaker 2 (49:56):
It's break time? All right? All right? I want to
read to you sentence quote.

Speaker 1 (50:01):
After a century of costly and ineffective approaches, the federal
government will lead a coordinated transformation of our food, health
and scientific systems. That is a line from the new
Make America Healthy Again Commission report that was just released today.
Joining us to talk about the report and the MAHA

(50:22):
movement in general is Mary Holland. Mary is President and
General Counsel of Children's Health Defense.

Speaker 2 (50:30):
Mary. Very good to see you. Thanks for joining us
here on.

Speaker 3 (50:32):
KOA, Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (50:36):
So just a couple of quick, top level things, and
then I want to get into the report. Can you
help me understand MAHA a little bit better? It seems
to me a very interesting aggregation of folks who.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
In normal situations you might not think of them together
as a group.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
And you, you know, maybe people who haven't been politically active.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
But are getting so now.

Speaker 1 (50:59):
Maybe some like crunchy granola suburban moms, and maybe some
mega people who don't know who to trust after COVID,
and maybe just all kinds of different people coming together
around an issue.

Speaker 3 (51:13):
I think you're absolutely right.

Speaker 6 (51:15):
So MAHA stands for make America Healthy Again. And health
really isn't a partisan issue. We all want to be healthy,
we want our children to be healthy, and that's what
this movement is about. It's really not a partisan movement.
It's really about getting back to being healthy. More than
half of all Americans and American children are sick. We

(51:37):
have some kind of chronic health condition, whether it's allergies
or asthma, or ADHD or autism, and we want to
get to a place where that's no longer the case
and it's doable.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
So let's talk a little bit about the report and
then I'll have some follow up questions. But I know
the report just came out today and you told me
you have a summary of it. You haven't read the
whole report yet, obviously, and it just came out today,
right read.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
I haven't even read a summary.

Speaker 1 (52:01):
So just tell us a few bullet points that you
think we need to know, and I'll follow up with
you on some things.

Speaker 6 (52:07):
Sure, So there are five bullet points. First is ultra
processed foods that's causing a lack of nutrition. Second is
toxic chemical exposures that are through the food and other sources.
The third is having more gold standard science that that
has to be really the basis for decisions. The fourth
is overuse of medications, especially for children. And the fifth

(52:31):
is corporate influence, that there's been too much corporate overweening
in these agencies and not enough real science and radical transparency.

Speaker 1 (52:40):
Let's start at the end, and I won't remember all those,
so you can remind me of them perhaps as we
as we go through. And I know I only have
you for about seven more minutes. I do think that's
a I mean, I think all of those are very interesting,
and all of them have either some or a lot
of merit. I am reminded of some of these studies
that were funded by breakfast cereal companies that magically concluded

(53:03):
that breakfast is the most important.

Speaker 2 (53:05):
Meal of the day.

Speaker 1 (53:05):
And that's hardly the most harmful version of what you're talking.

Speaker 6 (53:09):
About, right, Oh, absolutely, yeah. Corporate influence is really about
how big drug, big cam, big AD have more or
less taken over these agencies of the federal government, and
in some cases they have foundations that give them money,
they have to pay user fees, they have to you know,
people leave the agencies and they go for big paying

(53:31):
jobs in all of these corporations.

Speaker 3 (53:33):
So the corporations have really.

Speaker 6 (53:34):
Gotten too much influence and there's not been enough government
regulation where the regulators are really in charge. So that's
one of the things they're going to look at.

Speaker 1 (53:44):
And I think in addition to the regulation, there should
perhaps be just a lot more transparency. I mean, all right,
if Coca Cola wants to fund a thing, they're welcome
to fund what they want, but we should know that
when there's a study that comes out that says soda
isn't bad for you, that Coca Cola paid for it
exactly right.

Speaker 6 (54:05):
So one of the things that Secretary Kennedy has said
repeatedly is radical transparency. We need radical transparency in these
regulatory health agencies. And also we need gold standard science.
So those are two things that are absolutely necessary so
that people can make educated, informed choices. We all believe
in informed consent for health interventions, whether it's food like

(54:28):
what's in your food, or whether it's your medicine, what's
in your medicine, and he's going to ensure.

Speaker 3 (54:32):
That that happens.

Speaker 1 (54:34):
One of the things that concerns me a little bit,
and I love you repeated emphasis on gold standard science.
And I actually heard a great interview with Jay Bodicharia
who was on Bari Weiss's podcast a couple of days ago,
and he's talking about the same thing, gold standard science
and replicability. So if somebody finds something, then another study
should be able to find the same result, right, And

(54:57):
I do think that stuff's going to be very interesting.
One of the things I'm a little concerned about, just
sort of big picture, is how do we get people to,
on the one hand, believe there's good science, believe we're
working towards figuring out what's good and bad, but without.

Speaker 2 (55:13):
At the same time making them afraid of everything.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
Like I it really troubled me when people stopped giving
their kids MMR vaccines because there is no data to
show that MMR is associated with autism, and there's a
lot of data to show that it isn't. And I
just I want the truth. I don't have an ax
to grind here. I just want the truth. How do
we make sure that we you your group in the

(55:38):
whole Maha movement seeks the truth without unnecessarily scaring people
out of doing good things.

Speaker 6 (55:46):
Right well, I think that people really have lost trust
in government agencies during COVID. I think that's one of
the huge casualties, and so I do think that Secretary
Kennedy and President Trump have a big job to do
to restore true and the way that they're going to
do that is making real science available to the American people.

(56:06):
Having the transparencies as these are the fact in so
many of these areas, we don't really know enough. We
don't have the facts in front of us. And I
think they're committed to making that happen, not hiding records,
really having Freedom of Information Act that's going to work
communicating with the American public.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
I think that's at the heart of what they're.

Speaker 6 (56:25):
Trying to do with Make America Healthy Again.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
We're talking with Mary Holland, who's President and General Counsel
of Children's Health Defense today being just this morning, I
guess the release of the Make America Healthy Again Commission report.
Mary says it's sixty eight pages and I'll probably try
to try to read it later today.

Speaker 2 (56:48):
Tell us a little bit about the Maha Institute. What
is that?

Speaker 6 (56:53):
So the Maha Institute was just formed, and it's a
coalition of groups that have been working for decades children's
health defense to make America healthy again. So this is
looking at farming, looking at food, looking at kids' issues,
looking at medications, looking at all of these different issues,
bringing them together under one roof to try to really

(57:13):
advance this non partisan issue of making America healthy again.

Speaker 1 (57:18):
Okay, I want to go back to a different version
of something I asked you a moment ago. So, Okay,
I'm a parent. I want to be healthy. I want
my kids to be healthy. I want everyone to be healthy.
And I do believe that there is probably some stuff
going on in our food supply system and other things
that are making us less healthy. I think the ultra
processed food thing is probably a real issue.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (57:40):
I haven't seen enough data on seed oils yet, but
I'm open to hearing about that. What I would like
to know from you is how we can feel comfortable
that we won't have the same problem from the other
side when it comes to Maha Institute or anybody else.

Speaker 2 (57:57):
Right, So, what I don't want, like I.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
Don't want Kelloggs and Coca Cola and Big Sugar telling
me what is the right thing to eat, because I
don't trust them. I also don't want sort of radical
fringe anti vax groups and you know, groups who only
will ever eat any you know, all vegans all the
time and all. I don't want to have the data
manipulated from the other side. How can you make me

(58:23):
feel comfortable that what you guys are gonna do is true,
honest science and not just the other side, the other fringe.

Speaker 6 (58:32):
Right, Well, I think that the Maha Institute is part
of a broader freedom movement to be honest with you,
and so I think the gold standard science is so
in the radical transparency is about having you evaluate the facts.
Nobody should be making these decisions for you, not Kellogg's,
not some institute. It's about giving you the information so

(58:52):
that you can make an educated choice for you and
for your family. That's what Children's Health Defense is about.
That's what the Maha Institute is going to be about.

Speaker 3 (59:01):
Giving you the.

Speaker 6 (59:02):
Information that's truthful information, that's science based information, and then
you decide what's right for you.

Speaker 1 (59:08):
What would be a website or two where my listeners
could learn more if they are so inclined.

Speaker 6 (59:14):
Maha Institute dot us for Maha Institute, and Children's Health
Defense dot org for Children's Health Defense.

Speaker 1 (59:21):
Mary Holland is President and General Counsel of Children's Health Defense.
Thanks for your time, interesting conversation. I think we both
look forward to reading that report. So thanks for being here.

Speaker 3 (59:32):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (59:33):
All Right, we'll take actually we're not taking a break
right now, but we're gonna let Mary go because.

Speaker 2 (59:36):
She's got to go there.

Speaker 1 (59:38):
Since this report is being released today, they are doing
interview after interview after an interview, and I have very
specific time restraints there, so I will let me just
respond to a thing or two there, and you can
if you want to respond to anything you heard there,
please text me at five sixty sixty nine zero and
I can share some of your texts on the air
and I can maybe respond to some of your texts.

Speaker 3 (01:00:00):
So here's I want to be really careful with this.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
So Robert F.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Kennedy Junior was for a long time a very fringy
figure and I didn't like him, and frankly, I don't
forgive him for what he did in the past telling
parents not to vaccinate their kids. And I'm not talking
about COVID all right, COVID vaccine for kids was a
waste of time. I'm talking about pre COVID. For years,
even decades, this guy was telling parents that vaccines cause autism.

(01:00:31):
There is no data to show that, and at least
with the most common vaccine, which is MMR measles mumpson rubella,
there's lots of data to show that it doesn't cause autism.
So he was a liar and a grifter for a
long time, and I don't forgive him, and I still
don't think he should have the job.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
But he does have the job.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
Okay, So now we live in the world we're in,
and that's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
We're here now, and.

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
It does seem like, at least the way he's talking
is a little bit more science oriented and actually seeking
the truth rather than just pretending to seek the truth,
which is what I think he was doing before. It
is also extremely positive, an extremely positive sign for me
that Ja Bodicharia is running an IH and Marty mckarey

(01:01:22):
over at CDC. These are both really legit doctors and scientists.
Those two guys, not RFK, but the fact that these other.

Speaker 2 (01:01:33):
Guys are in those positions.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
Means that you don't have these wild eyed anti vaxxer,
anti science types actually running everything. So I think that's
great now. I also think that there's a real chance,
In fact, I would say there's a probability, not just

(01:01:56):
a possibility, that the way Americans eat them these days,
and not even primarily fast food, although there's some of that,
but this extremely highly processed forms of sugar and the
high fructose corn syrup in our soda and so many
other things.

Speaker 3 (01:02:18):
Is a is bad for us.

Speaker 1 (01:02:22):
It's bad for our kids, it's bad for adults, and
we're paying a lot of attention to kids, but bad
for adults too. And think about, by the way, what
it costs American businesses and taxpayers if we have, as
we do, have an enormous percentage of obese people, including
obese kids. It's not it's partly, but not only that

(01:02:44):
a lot of kids are much more sedentary than they
used to be, and of course that was that was
amplified and exacerbated during COVID, when kids, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:02:52):
Basically couldn't go out and play, at least.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Not with other kids, and that made them want to
go out and play less and you're just gonna be
out by yourself better nothing, I guess. Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
So we have a sedentary lifestyle, and we have all.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
These new jobs of people sitting behind computers, and all
these new ways that kids entertain themselves by playing video games,
sitting behind computers.

Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
And not going out.

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
And I think that you add in all this highly
processed stuff that again I'm not an expert. I'm speculating now.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that
this highly processed stuff in a way is designed to
addict you to the highly processed stuff, and it's not

(01:03:37):
as healthy as it should be. And again, I don't
want to go too far potentially calling something causation when
there's just correlation. Right. It could just be that we've
changed our foods at the same time that we've had
more diabetes and more fat people. Or it could be

(01:03:58):
that changing our foods call CAU the diabetes and the
fat people.

Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:04:03):
I don't Oh, yeah, FDA, you're right, I said CDC
FDA for Marty McCarey. My bad, Marty McCay had a
Food and Drug Administration. Sorry about that. You're absolutely right.
So I think this is legit stuff. Now, I do
still worry that the same people who believed and raised

(01:04:23):
money off of claims like RFKS that vaccines cause autism,
when they know that they don't, at least this one
vaccine that they talked about the most, they absolutely positively
knew they were lying, because there's lots of science out
there saying the MMR vaccine has no correlation with autism.

(01:04:46):
There was one famous study that said it did, and
it was an outright fraud, and everybody knows it was
an outright fraud with made up data by a doctor
who lost his medical license because of the outright fraud.
It wasn't just a little error. It was made up.
Who's completely made up. Now here's the other thing though,

(01:05:07):
that I think we need to be a little bit
careful with a lot of sort of mega types and
Tucker Carlson types have this thing going where they say, oh,
I'm just asking questions, and they say, do your own research,
and it's a very easy thing to say, and it's
kind of it's appealing at first. It's appealing at first,
and you heard Mary Holland say it. You know, don't

(01:05:30):
believe us, don't believe any institute don't believe a corporation
do your own research. But most people can't do their
own research in any way that is very that is
highly likely to lead them to the right answer. And
I don't mean they're stupid, and I don't even mean
they're too busy, although that is a real thing.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
But if you ever actually tried to do good research.

Speaker 1 (01:05:57):
On a medical thing where there have been a lot
of papers written, it is really hard.

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
To find good research.

Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
And then if you do, or you find some research,
it is really hard, almost impossible, unless you're an expert,
to determine which research is the good stuff and which isn't.
Which research can you trust in which can't you What
if you find one story that says canola oil is
bad for you and another story that says canola oil

(01:06:27):
is fine for you, how do you determine? How are
you to determine which one is right or if the
truth is somewhere in between?

Speaker 2 (01:06:36):
How am I to determine that?

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
I'm probably a little better at reading medical and scientific
research than the average American. Maybe not then my average listener,
because I have very smart listeners, but I'm probably a
little better than the average American at reading this stuff,
and it's still difficult. I mean I had to spend
a long time. This is not sarcasm here. I had
to spend a long time trying to research what the
medical recommendations are for prostate cancer testing for older men

(01:07:02):
because of all this stupid stuff going on about it
was a cancer cover up by the Biden administration. They
lied about a lot of stuff. If I had to bet,
I would bet they didn't lie about that. It also
doesn't matter very much the others that. I'm not saying
them lying doesn't matter very much. I'm saying whether or
not they lied about prostate cancer doesn't matter very much
because it pales in comparison to the significance.

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
Of all the other stuff they lied about.

Speaker 1 (01:07:25):
Now, when our guests said we would just want people
to do their own research, that's not really the right answer.
People need to have some trust, maybe not as much
as they did before, but some trust in experts. You've
got to be able to trust your doctor. You've got

(01:07:46):
to be able to trust the American Diabetes Association. You've
got to be able to trust the American Cancer Society
on it like that. You've got to be able even
if you are gonna do your own reason search.

Speaker 2 (01:08:00):
That research has to be able to send you to places.

Speaker 1 (01:08:04):
That give you not just densely written scientific studies about
this molecule and that protein and this form of fructose,
but to a summary in plain English that says, based
on our best understanding of the best science we can
find out there, here's the recommendation. And that's what I
ended up finding regarding prostate cancer, but it took a

(01:08:28):
long time. By the way, the recommendation on prostate cancer
is that man over seventies should not be tested because
the risk of a false positive is high, and the
risk of getting treatment when you don't have it is high,
because prostate cancer tends to be a slow growing cancer
and if you only catch it, you know, like in

(01:08:49):
your seventies or older, then probably something else is going
to kill you rather than prostate cancer, Whereas if you
get treatment for a cancer you don't have, it can
cause physical and psychological harm. And that's why it's not
crazy for Biden's doctor to not have tested him for
prostate cancer, which is what they're claiming. They might be lying,

(01:09:09):
by the way. They are a huge bunch of liars,
and they could be lying. But if they're telling the
truth that Biden didn't get tested. That's not ridiculous. Biden
was at the time of taking office the oldest president
at the time of taking office by a full eight
years over the second oldest, who was Trump in his
first term. Now, Trump beat Biden by a few months

(01:09:31):
as far as now being the oldest, but obviously Trump
seems a lot younger than Biden did.

Speaker 2 (01:09:36):
But at this point, neither one.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
Of them really should be tested for prostate cancer based
on the recommendation in any case. That's my one concern
with this whole movement and the whole influence of Tucker
Carlson when he says, do your own research. Most people
are not good at doing their research, and many or
most people will be fooled by bad.

Speaker 2 (01:09:57):
Research or fake research.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
And that's where I hope that these groups do better
as far as doing really good science and then explaining
it in plain English, rather than having one hundred different
studies out there and telling us to make up our
own minds.

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
Heart of Gold. I appreciate.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
I appreciate seriously, now seriously now that the listener asked
for the Johnny Cash version of the Neil Young song,
So that's very good at least it's.

Speaker 2 (01:10:32):
Not I don't hate that song.

Speaker 1 (01:10:34):
I just can't handle I just can't handle the voice dragon.
I don't know if you saw this one, but there
was a listener text responding to the question that we
asked earlier. What was the one of the great stories
slash lies that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:48):
You told your kids?

Speaker 1 (01:10:49):
And some people have sent in stories about lies that
were told to them, And there are a couple of
good ones here, and I just want to shore I
want to share.

Speaker 2 (01:10:56):
A couple home. Let me just lost this here for
a second.

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
When I was a kid, the next door neighbors, a
retired couple, told me that beer was coming out of
their faucet. Knowing my dad loved beer, I ran home
to tell him. Dad shook his head, said it wasn't true,
and after I insisted it was because I believed everything
I was told back then, my dad had to explain
that I was being a pest and the neighbor told
me the story to get me to go home. I
learned a couple of life lessons that day, very good,

(01:11:22):
and then this one might be my favorite.

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (01:11:27):
As a child, I was told that bits of green
pepper like bell pepper in food were chopped up space people.
Oo chop suwey is to this day not a favorite,
not a favorite.

Speaker 5 (01:11:46):
And I do appreciate not one, not two, but three
different texts out there commenting on Chad's story about those
horrendous vile creatures. Moths are back in town, So I
do appreciate you, guys.

Speaker 1 (01:12:01):
I haven't seen enough of them yet to really bring
that back to the show. I'm just waiting by the dragon.
I did send you the Facebook marketplace link for somebody
selling a bug assault huh for only twenty bucks.

Speaker 2 (01:12:13):
It's cheap for a bug assault three point zero.

Speaker 5 (01:12:15):
So yeah, it's the new version, advanced moth detecting capability.

Speaker 1 (01:12:19):
You know. If that's if nobody's bought that yet, I
actually might buy it, not to give to you, not
to I don't like you that much. I mean, I
appreciate that, and it's not it's not so much for
the moth thing. But in springtime you get flies in
the house. Yeah, and wouldn't it be fun to just
blast those little sobs out of the air with some
fine salt powder.

Speaker 5 (01:12:38):
Yeah, it just fires salt, so it's not gonna really
destroy anything, but the evil, vile disgusting moth.

Speaker 2 (01:12:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
Now here's a very long listener text and I haven't
read it yet, but I'm gonna. I'm gonna take a
chance and read it. Actually a short one first. When
my son was little, he was afraid of bad guys.
I got a can of air freshener and made a
label that said extra strength bad guy spray works on
monsters too. Not sure he believed it, but it helped.
Let's see, here.

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
We go ross. I made up a story.

Speaker 1 (01:13:06):
I told my co workers at a company where I
used to work, we were allowed to wear Broncos jerseys
on the Friday before game day. My kids have given
me a custom Broncos jersey with my last name on
the back. Co workers asked me about that, and I
told them that when I worked for a US bank,
the bank was the official bank of the Broncos, and
that was true. I told them that as an employee,

(01:13:27):
I got to go on the sidelines during the game.
I said, I noticed that all the towels were plain white.
I told him it was my idea to put advertising
on towels. The Broncos liked the idea and suggested it
to the NFL. The NFL sold the idea of advertising
on the towels to gator Rye and made millions of
dollars because I came up with the idea that made me,
That made the Broncos in the NFL millions of dollars,

(01:13:50):
and the Broncos gave me a jersey with my name
on the back to thank me for that. It was
all a lie, and it was fun to lie to coworkers,
just as it's fun to lie to your children. Very good,
thank you for that. Dave appreciate it. Oh my gosh.

Speaker 2 (01:14:07):
Oh let me let me do this just for a
minute and a half.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
And the part of the reason I'm just going to
do this as a short story is that I'm trying
to get a guest on the show to talk about it.
So this is from CPR dot org Excel the power
company peak use rates set to spike electricity costs at
some times for Colorado residential customers. Now there's a couple

(01:14:33):
of very interesting points in this story. So you are
probably aware that our power company over the last several
years has gone to something called time of use rates,
and that means that you that the price you pay
for your electricity is per kilo one hour. Let's say

(01:14:54):
that's the normal. That's the normal unit is based on
the time and day that you're using it, especially the time.
So currently we've got summer on peak hours almost twenty
one cents a kill a what hour. We got summer
off peak at seven point seven. We've got winter on

(01:15:14):
peak at thirteen point two, and winter off peak being
the same as summer off peak in the current pricing
at seven point seven. Part of the reason that summer
on peak is so high is that people are running
their air conditionings to cool down in the summer, and
they want to try to There's two things they want

(01:15:36):
to discourage people from using it all the time, Like
if you could turn it off for half an hour
or turn it on half an hour later or something
like that, it would save you a lot of money.
And they want you to do that because they because
if you use more, if everybody is using more and
more electricity all at the same time, then that means
they won't have the capacity to generate all that electricity

(01:15:59):
and they'll have to build more power plants and such,
and that's expensive. Now. Of course, excel it also has
the foot on the other hand, in that they want
to they don't mind actually having to build more stuff
because then they can just go charge us for the stuff.
But what I want to tell you about is they
are changing this pricing a bit, and one bit of

(01:16:20):
it is extremely dramatic.

Speaker 2 (01:16:22):
Okay. For summer on peak, there.

Speaker 1 (01:16:25):
Is a slight increase, a little bit less than two
percent increase from twenty point nine cents to twenty one
point three cents.

Speaker 2 (01:16:32):
Per kilowat hour.

Speaker 1 (01:16:33):
For summer off peak, there is also a one to
three quarter percent increase seven point seven cents to seven.

Speaker 2 (01:16:39):
Point nine cents.

Speaker 1 (01:16:41):
For winter off peak, there is actually a decline, a
twelve percent decline from seven point seven to six point eight.

Speaker 2 (01:16:51):
But here's the thing you need to know. Winter on peak.

Speaker 1 (01:16:57):
First of all, they're changing the on peak hours, which
are currently three pm to seven pm, They're changing them
to five pm to nine pm, And the price is
going up basically forty percent, from thirteen point two to
eighteen point three. Now, Excel claims that overall people are

(01:17:22):
gonna have very little change in their electricity bill, but
a forty percent increase in winter on peak evening hours,
which would be where you are likely to turn on
the heat to your house and of course, most people
don't heat their homes with electricity directly. You heat your
home most people with gas. All right, there is some

(01:17:45):
electric heating, but what you do You turn on the furnace,
and what does the furnace need an electric blower to
blow the heat into your house.

Speaker 2 (01:18:00):
And now we're talking five pm to nine pm.

Speaker 1 (01:18:02):
That's you know, maybe you had a warm day in
the winter, a sunny day, you've got passive solar, your
house actually stayed pretty warm. Even though it's thirty eight
degrees outside. It was sixty eight degrees in your house,
and that was fine because of the sun. And then
the sun goes down and starts to cool off fast.
And now you're wanting to heat your house. And maybe
when you're gonna go to bed a little after nine,
a little after ten, whatever it might be, you lower

(01:18:23):
the temperature again because you don't mind sleeping in a
cool house. But when you're really gonna want to warm
your house is five to nine in the winter, and
now you're gonna have a forty percent increase.

Speaker 2 (01:18:32):
The other thing, I'm a little late on this.

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
I need to just hit this and hit a break here,
Excel claims in this article EXCEL claimed that they actually
did not want an increase that high, and that the
regulators put it in here I'll quote from CPR dot org.
EXCEL said it preferred a less expensive winter on peak
rate than that adopted by regulators. So we'll see, I'm

(01:18:54):
gonna try to get a guest on this. We'll be
right back. We have time for this. Let's say we
can do one minute here.

Speaker 2 (01:19:00):
So I mentioned.

Speaker 1 (01:19:00):
Earlier in the show that the so called big beautiful
one big beautiful bill passed the House last night by
the narrowest possible margin, passed by one vote. And the
only reason it passed by one vote is there was
a Republican who was probably a no vote but decided
to vote present instead. If he had voted no instead
of present, then it would have failed, but he didn't
want to. I guess take the responsibility. So right now

(01:19:25):
we've got Caroline Levitt, the White House Press Secretary, offering
a few comments, are we good?

Speaker 3 (01:19:30):
Good?

Speaker 7 (01:19:33):
President Trump is saddened and outraged over the brutal murder
of two Israeli embassy staff and here in Washington, DC,
last night, Uran Lisinski and Sarah Milgram were a beautiful
young couple In fact, we learned that Iran was planning
to propose.

Speaker 1 (01:19:50):
Let me let me just say, im you' very glad
she started by talking about this.

Speaker 2 (01:19:53):
Let's go back.

Speaker 7 (01:19:54):
Daniel spoke about the young couple's devotion for one another.
This morning. He said they were love one for the other.
The embassy told us they were like a star couple.
At the embassy, I never expected something like this. He
had his whole life before him. These words, especially every
parent knows our heart wrenching. The evil of anti Semitism

(01:20:17):
must be eradicated from our society. I spoke to the
Attorney General this morning. The Department of Justice will be
prosecuting the perpetrator responsible for this to the fullest extent
of the law. Hatred has no place in the United
States of America. Under President Donald Trump, everyone here at
the White House is praying for the victims, friends and

(01:20:39):
families during this unimaginable time. Now for some scheduling announcements.
On Saturday morning, President Trump will deliver the commencement address
at the United States Military Era.

Speaker 2 (01:20:49):
I we'll step away from this for a bed.

Speaker 1 (01:20:51):
I think I assume she's going to go on to
talk about the one big, beautiful Bill. But maybe we'll
come back to that, maybe we won't, But in any case,
I am very glad actually that she talked about the
terrible double murder in Washington, DC yesterday. I'll probably talk
about it a little bit more. I spoke about it
a lot at the top of the show. If you

(01:21:12):
missed that and you want to hear my more in
depth thoughts, you can go to my podcast and go
to Rosskiminsky dot com and the whole show podcast will
be up after the show after a little while, or
any place that you subscribe to podcasts, you can add
the Ros Kiminski Show to your feed and and there
you will be able to listen to the entire show,
or we, or I should say, And we also typically

(01:21:36):
post interviews as standalone podcasts, so that, for example, if
you want to hear my conversation with Doomberg from this
morning and you missed it, you will be able to
hear that as a standalone and you won't have to kind.

Speaker 2 (01:21:47):
Of scroll through the show to just find that interview.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
So please do subscribe to my podcast wherever you listen
to podcasts, that's the Ross Kiminsky Show. And we'll take
a quick break we'll be right back on Kowa. Okay,
who's that one going out to Dragon?

Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
Their name? I didn't leave their name, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
If you want to shout out with your name on
your music request and you are free, you are free.
I should I shouldn't say this because this is Dragon's
job and not mine.

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
But Dragon can tell me if I have this wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
You are free to recommend any song as bumper music
as long as it doesn't have swear words in it
pretty much, and Dragon has the say it again, I
prefer it to be in our system, yes, but they
don't know if it is or not correct, right, part
of part of the issue, people, Just so you understand,
if it's in our system, we know we can definitely

(01:22:36):
play it and it will be quote unquote clean and
nothing's gonna come out of it where we're gonna, you know,
get in trouble. And if it's a song that you know,
seems like it's probably okay, but it ends up being
from some other source and then there's a bad word,
then we get in trouble. So basically, we aim to
play things that are anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):
We aim to play things that are in our system.

Speaker 1 (01:22:59):
So you can send in your music requests of any
style of music that doesn't have swear words in it,
and producer Dragon will decide whether to whether to play
it for you.

Speaker 2 (01:23:11):
What will you look like? You're about to say something?
He is going to read this most recent text.

Speaker 5 (01:23:14):
Hey, Dragon, thanks for adding White Zombie PRIMI request a
couple of days ago.

Speaker 2 (01:23:18):
I like the direction it's going. Yes, I did see
the White Zombie.

Speaker 5 (01:23:21):
I didn't have time to play it then, but it
did stick in my mind because it is an odd
ball choice for Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:23:28):
Anyway, Yeah, and we did talk about zombie.

Speaker 1 (01:23:30):
So Dragon, I think you've still got Caroline Levitt ready
to go. This is the White House Press Secretary, and
I don't want to take a long time on this,
but just a little bit of her commentary about the
House of Representatives yesterday passing by a one vote margin,
the narrowest possible margin, the so called One Big Beautiful Bill.

Speaker 2 (01:23:51):
Let's have a listen.

Speaker 7 (01:23:52):
Last night, Republicans in the House passed the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act, the most significant piece of legislation in years.

Speaker 2 (01:24:00):
There were a lot.

Speaker 7 (01:24:01):
Of good faith negotiations in the Republican conference leading up
to the final passage, but as always, President Trump came
in at the end to bring all sides together and
get this seal done. This One Big Beautiful Bill will
implement President Trump's Make America Great Again agenda by delivering
the largest tax cut in American history for middle class families,

(01:24:22):
the working class, and small businesses. The One Big Beautiful
Bill fulfills President Trump's promises of no tax on tips,
which was applauded today by the CEO of Uber, no
tax on overtime, a Maid in America, auto tax break,
Trump savings accounts for newborn babies, and substantial tax cuts
for our amazing seniors social security benefits. The One Big

(01:24:43):
Beautiful Bill will permanently secure the border by delivering the
largest border security investment in history, funding at least one
million annual removals of legal aliens to carry out the
largest deportation campaign ever, finishing the Trump Border Wall, and
giving pay raises and bonuses for our incredible Ice and
Border patrol agents. The One Big Beautiful Bill protects the

(01:25:05):
Medicaid program and its benefits for the most vulnerable Americans
that the program was designed for by kicking off one
point four million illegal aliens from receiving benefits and implementing
common sense work requirements for able bodied Americans.

Speaker 2 (01:25:20):
The One Big.

Speaker 7 (01:25:20):
Beautiful Bill also helps get our fiscal house in order
by carrying out the largest deficit reduction in nearly thirty
years with one point six trillion dollars in mandatory savings.
Every single Democrat in the House of Representatives who voted
against all of these common sense, in massively popular policies.
The Democrat Party has never been more radical and out

(01:25:42):
of touch with the needs of the American people. The
One Big Beautiful Bill is the final missing piece toward
ushering the Golden Age of America. The Senate should pass
this as quickly as possible and send it to President
Trump's desk for a final signature.

Speaker 2 (01:25:58):
All right, we'll leave that there what you expect her
to say.

Speaker 1 (01:26:01):
I do have a few comments on One Big Beautiful Bill,
and I'll get to that in a second.

Speaker 2 (01:26:04):
I just want to.

Speaker 1 (01:26:05):
Make sure to remind you that if you would like
to win a pair of Yankees Rockies tickets per Memorial
Day weekend, we've got if you go to our Instagram
page right now Instagram dot com. Slash koa Colorado a
Rod has put up there a pinned post, so you
should see it right at the top, and it has
instructions on the few easy steps you need to take

(01:26:27):
in order to win a pair of Yankees Rockies Memorial
Day weekend tickets. If you don't win them that way,
make sure you're listening here on Kowa tomorrow KOA Sports
three pm and six pm. They're going to give away
another pair of tickets during that show. All right, let
me make a few comments on one big.

Speaker 2 (01:26:44):
Beautiful bill.

Speaker 1 (01:26:45):
I don't usually spend a ton of time on federal legislation,
but this is a big deal, actually.

Speaker 2 (01:26:51):
And I do want to talk about it.

Speaker 1 (01:26:53):
And first let me just say, let me just say
my listeners know that I want to put this carefully.

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
It's not that I hate the bill. It's that there's
a bunch.

Speaker 1 (01:27:04):
Of bad stuff in the bill that doesn't need to
be there, along with a bunch of good stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:27:09):
That I do support.

Speaker 1 (01:27:10):
And the way I described it earlier in the show
before Dragon got here is if you asked me for
a delicious peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I made
a delicious peanut butter and jelly sandwich for you, and
then I went out in my backyard and picked up
a tiny piece of dog poo that I missed when
I was pooper scooping after Agnes did her business. Just
a small, really small piece, right, really small, like the

(01:27:33):
size of the end of your thumb or something. There,
Just a little chunk of dog poo and put it
on your sandwich. And it's only taking up five percent
of the surface area of your sandwich. Are you going
to take a bite of that sandwich. No, you're not
gonna take a bite of that sandwich. And if anybody
asked you what kind of sandwich I made for you, you wouldn't.

Speaker 2 (01:27:54):
Say it was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You'd
say it was a poos sandwich. Right. It's like say, one.

Speaker 1 (01:28:00):
Bad apple spoils the bunch. That's how I feel about
the bill. But I don't want to dwell on that, Okay,
And I'm not being sarcastic here. You know the stuff
I don't like it in it. I don't like no
tax on tips. I don't like no tax on overtime.
I don't like making some auto interest deductible.

Speaker 2 (01:28:16):
I don't like raising the state and local tax.

Speaker 1 (01:28:20):
Deduction because that's just a tax giveaway to well off people.

Speaker 2 (01:28:25):
In high tax states. Okay, that's what I don't like.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
Now let's talk about what I do like, because there
is a lot of good stuff in this and it's
a big billy, it's one big, beautiful bill.

Speaker 2 (01:28:36):
I will say.

Speaker 1 (01:28:37):
Most Republicans have campaigned against this exact kind of bill.
They've said over and over and over again, we are
sick of these omnimous bills that include everything in one
single bill, and now and when they're that big, nobody
knows what's in them, and we don't like any of that.
But that's what they're doing. One other political thing I'll mention,
So Caroline Levitt said essentially, this isn't a quote, but

(01:28:59):
she said this is well. She said directly, this is
the most important piece of legislation in many years. That's
probably true. And she talked about this as a as
a massive political win for President Trump. That's probably true too,
especially if it passes.

Speaker 2 (01:29:17):
And you know, we.

Speaker 1 (01:29:18):
Had Ron Johnson on the show who says his own words,
he doesn't mind being the being the skunk in the
room and saying Republicans should not support this bill.

Speaker 2 (01:29:26):
It doesn't cut spending nearly enough.

Speaker 1 (01:29:28):
And I agree with him, and I like to think
I would have the courage to vote no on this bill,
but I want to be honest about that too. I
saw I saw a story yesterday in the Colorado Sun
that had let's see who was in the picture? Jeff heard,
Jeff Crank and who am I missing? Jeff heard Jeff

(01:29:52):
Crank and one other member of the Colorado delegation.

Speaker 2 (01:29:55):
Who is it?

Speaker 1 (01:29:56):
Who is it?

Speaker 2 (01:29:56):
Who is it? I don't know?

Speaker 3 (01:29:59):
Mean four?

Speaker 1 (01:30:00):
So anyway, they were, they were in DC taking a
picture and I'm gonna, I'm gonna.

Speaker 2 (01:30:04):
I promise you, it'll come to me in a second.
It'll come to me in a second.

Speaker 1 (01:30:07):
And they were taking a picture of themselves and and
this was a story I think it was at the
I think it was Colorado's son.

Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
Oh, Gabe, Gabe Evans of course, CD eight.

Speaker 1 (01:30:17):
Duh right, I'm not even used to thinking of an
eighth Congressional district because it's that new.

Speaker 2 (01:30:21):
So Gabe and both jeffs are standing there in Washington,
d C.

Speaker 1 (01:30:26):
Kind of taking a selfie of the three of themselves,
and someone took a picture of them while they're taking
a selfie, and the headline is Colorado Republicans back.

Speaker 2 (01:30:33):
Trump's big, beautiful bill.

Speaker 1 (01:30:35):
Colorado Republicans also would include Lauren Bobert.

Speaker 2 (01:30:37):
She's not in the picture. But the reason I.

Speaker 1 (01:30:39):
Mentioned these three guys is not to exclude Lauren, but
rather to note that these three guys are all freshmen.
All right, Lauren is in what her third term now,
so these three are all freshmen. And and and Gabe
Evans put out a thing about how proud he is
to have voted for the bill. And I just want
to say, even though I don't like the bill, or
I don't hate the bill either, it just should be

(01:31:01):
a lot better.

Speaker 2 (01:31:02):
I get it.

Speaker 1 (01:31:03):
When you're a freshman member of Congress, you if you
don't do what leadership says, you're not gonna get on
the committees you want to get on. It's gonna be
life is gonna be much harder for you. And that's
in the best of times for somebody who wants to
do something different from what leadership wants. Right now, if
you're a Republican and you stick your head out like that,

(01:31:23):
it's not just that you're going against Mike Johnston Johnson,
sorry Johnson, it's that you're.

Speaker 2 (01:31:28):
Going against President Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:31:30):
And there are very, very very few Republicans who are
going to have the courage to go against President Trump,
especially in the House where they have to get re
elected every two years. And also this is kind of
in the weeds stuff. But even though President Trump is
never going to run for another office again, his political

(01:31:50):
campaign associated packs the sort of the Trump machine, not
the business side. The political side has an insane amount
of money. I don't know how much, at least hundreds
of millions of dollars that they can spend on primaries,
and they will spend on primaries. And Donald Trump has
immense influence over what happens in Republican primaries.

Speaker 2 (01:32:12):
He has a very very high success rate.

Speaker 1 (01:32:14):
It's not one hundred percent, but it's extremely high, a
very big percentage of candidates he endorses when and sometimes,
you know, if it's early enough and people are trying
to decide when whether to get in, if he endorses
somebody that will just keep other people from even getting in.

Speaker 3 (01:32:34):
He has.

Speaker 1 (01:32:36):
Real control over the Republican Party. And I offer that
neither as praise nor criticism, just as an observation. So
I get it when these guys vote for this bill
even though they know it has a lot of bad stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
In it.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
Now, let me I've been saying I was going to
get to the stuff that I like, So let me
get to some of this now, because there really is
a bunch of good stuff in it, and I think
it's important to just for me, it's important to be
absolutely honest about that. Right, just because something has bad
stuff doesn't mean it's all bad.

Speaker 2 (01:33:10):
And so let's talk about some things.

Speaker 1 (01:33:14):
So it's interesting actually to hear Caroline Levitt say this
is going to be the biggest tax cut in American history.

Speaker 2 (01:33:20):
And that could be right.

Speaker 1 (01:33:23):
But the reason it's a little bit misleading it is
that what it's really doing, the primary thing it's doing
in tax is not the only thing, is extending the
current tax rates. So what this will mean if this
bill passes is that your income tax rate next year
will be the same as it was this year, right

(01:33:43):
or two years after that whenever it's going to expire
twenty twenty seven. Maybe it just means your income tax
rates won't change.

Speaker 2 (01:33:49):
So what does she.

Speaker 1 (01:33:50):
Mean when she says the biggest tax cut in history?
What she means is that if Congress were to do nothing,
so you may go back to twenty seventeen when this
thing passed because of the math games you have to
play the pass stuff. What they did was they made
the corporate tax cuts permanent and the individual income tax

(01:34:10):
cuts temporary. And the bet they made was that no
matter who was in charge, even a democratic administration, wouldn't
be willing to take the political risk of going along
with just letting these things expire and having what would
effectively be the biggest tax hike in American history if
you let the tax rates expire. Because something over two

(01:34:34):
thirds of Americans did get a tax cut. In fact,
there is a piece that I refer to all the time,
and I have it on my blog today at Rosskominsky.

Speaker 2 (01:34:41):
Dot com and actually put it up there.

Speaker 1 (01:34:42):
With a gift links so you don't need a New
York Times subscription to read it. And you could tell
the pain in the in the minds of the authors
as they as they wrote this thing. And it's entitled
face it. You probably got a tax cut and then,
and this story is years is from twenty nineteen.

Speaker 2 (01:35:02):
Studies consistently find the twenty.

Speaker 1 (01:35:04):
Seventeen law cut taxes for most Americans, and then it
says most of them don't buy it. Now, isn't that
a weird thing, because like, either you got a tax
cut or you didn't, right, and if you're paying taxes,
you should know it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:17):
But here's a weird thing.

Speaker 1 (01:35:19):
And this is back from from twenty nineteen or maybe
this is twenty eighteen data. Just listen to how dumb
our country is if this can happen again.

Speaker 2 (01:35:27):
This is about your actual taxes that you pay.

Speaker 1 (01:35:32):
Sixty percent of Republicans believe they got a tax cut.
All right, that's too low, but all right, twenty five
percent of Democrats believe they got a tax cut, and
only forty percent of Americans overall believe they got a
tax cut, when actually, when actually the vast majority of

(01:35:54):
Americans got a tax cut.

Speaker 2 (01:35:58):
Now, the only group where.

Speaker 1 (01:36:02):
Only a minority of them got a tax cut was
people earning less than thirty thousand dollars. Now within that
group is probably like the and only about a third
of them got a tax cut. But those people don't
pay very much in tax. And of the tax that
is paid by that group, almost all of it is
paid by the top of that group, right between let's
say twenty five and thirty thousand dollars below that not
only are they not paying paying taxes.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
They're collecting taxes, right.

Speaker 1 (01:36:25):
The taxman steals my money and gives it to them.
People making thirty to fifty thousand dollars, almost seventy percent
got a tax cut.

Speaker 2 (01:36:34):
Fifty to seventy five thousand.

Speaker 1 (01:36:36):
Dollars eighty two percent, seventy five to one hundred thousand
dollars eighty seven percent, more than one hundred thousand dollars,
eighty nine percent.

Speaker 2 (01:36:43):
Got a tax cut.

Speaker 1 (01:36:46):
So if this had expired, the vast majority of Americans
would have gotten a tax hike, and it would have
expired with no change in the law. Which is why
Caroline Levitt says that this is the biggest tax cut
in history, because their baseline assumption is this expire.

Speaker 2 (01:37:00):
So that's one of the great things.

Speaker 1 (01:37:02):
That's the best thing in this bill is extending the
income tax rates. And when Democrats tell you that this
is just a tax cut for rich people, it's a lie,
and they know it's a lie, do not believe it.
There are other good things in this bill. The bill
includes expediting permits for energy development, and I haven't read

(01:37:28):
the details, but some stuff that will make it easier
to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act, which is
known as NPA ANYPA NEPA is a law that was
well intended to begin with, but has become a cudgel
that radical environmental groups use to bash energy companies over
the head. And they make it so that doing anything
takes two or three or four times as long as

(01:37:49):
it should and cost billions of dollars more, and you
have to do all these stupid, duplicative studies, and that
make it often so that these companies say, you know what,
it's just not worth dealing with, and I'm not going
to go get the oil or gas out of the ground.
And this bill includes stuff to make it easier to
comply with all that. There's even a provision, and I

(01:38:10):
or at least there was. I haven't seen the final
version of the bill that and I don't know if
this will be deemed to be unconstitutional as far as
as far as a violation of First Amendment freedom of speech,
but I but I like it. If they can put
it together in a constitutional way. It would impose a
penalty on protesters who disrupt work for like pipelines.

Speaker 2 (01:38:37):
Let's say, right there's a pipeline being.

Speaker 1 (01:38:38):
Built, all these people show up the pipeline builders have
to stop for a day or a week or a month.
It would impose a penalty on those people, not for speaking,
but for stopping the work.

Speaker 2 (01:38:51):
And I think that's great too. What else does it do.

Speaker 1 (01:38:56):
It should make it easier still in the energy area
to start building nuclear power in the United States of America,
although I think most of that will come from will
come from other executive orders and other law. And then
here's one small thing I will mention that I just
learned this morning.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
And so, first of all, I love.

Speaker 1 (01:39:19):
The thing that I'm about to tell you, but it
also does point to just how much stuff can get
shoved into a bill when a bill is this big,
and not everything that gets shoved into a bill is
going to be stuff that you like or that I like.
Lots of times it will be parochial, log rolling, nonsense,

(01:39:39):
ear marks, stuff like that that will have a congressman
who pretends to be a fiscal conservative go get something
for a little.

Speaker 2 (01:39:48):
Extra spending for his district, and then he.

Speaker 1 (01:39:51):
Can claim, oh, I got this for us, so I'm
voting for the bill even though I campaigned against everything.
That's just like this, and so you get all this nonsense.
They call it a Christmas right, all the ornaments hanging
on the tree.

Speaker 2 (01:40:02):
It's like that.

Speaker 1 (01:40:03):
But there's a there's something in this Christmas tree that
I think is awesome and way overdue, and it's this.
There will no longer be a two hundred dollars xcize
tax on buying a suppressor for your firearm. You will still,
if you're someone who's into this at all, you will
still have to go through the fingerprints and the stupidly

(01:40:26):
long process, although I think it's shorter than it used
to be during COVID. I one of my suppressors I
got during I have quite a few. One of them
took thirteen months to get approval. Before that, the average
was five or six months. I do think it's faster now.
You will still have to go through that process and
file the paperwork, but you will not have to pay
the two hundred dollars fee, by the way, the two

(01:40:46):
hundred dollars fee to get.

Speaker 2 (01:40:48):
Us and this is just a tax.

Speaker 1 (01:40:50):
It's not included in the price of the suppressor, and
they're already expensive. A cheap suppressor is probably five hundred
for a low caliber weapon, five or six hundred. They
can easily be one thy twelve hundred dollars, that kind
of thing. So there's another tax, two hundred dollars. Oh,
how about this? How about how stupid this is. Let's
say you're gonna go buy two suppressors the same day,

(01:41:12):
and it's the same You're doing the same background check,
same everything, same fingerprints, you're sending the two pieces of
paper that are absolutely identical to the government that day.
You have to pay a two hundred dollars tax on
each one. So it's clearly not about background checks, right. Instead,
this is something that came out of the National Firearms

(01:41:32):
Act in the nineteen thirties, where they were basically doing
what they could to make machine guns and a few
other things not exactly illegal, but close to illegal and
so expensive that most people wouldn't get them. And so
in then in nineteen thirty something they added they put
suppressors in that, and they put a two hundred dollars tax. Now,

(01:41:53):
in nineteen thirty something, a two hundred dollars tax is
going to mean almost nobody's gonna buy one, because that
was a lot of money in nineteen thirty seven. I
haven't done the math, but that might be the equivalent
of two thousand dollars today, So that two hundred dollars
number was never adjusted over time. It was intended to
just be, you know, disincentive and just we you don't

(01:42:15):
want you buying this. Now two hundred dollars is just
a little bit of annoyance, and people are realizing suppressors
are fine. They're not James Bond's style assassin tools. These
are things that you use on a firearm to preserve
your hearing. You go hunting in Europe without a suppressor,
people will think you're a rude sob because that gun
is much too loud. Anyway, there's one little thing in

(01:42:38):
one big beautiful bill that is a small beautiful thing.

Speaker 4 (01:42:41):
The Mandy Connell Show is sponsored by Bell and Pollock
Accident and Injury Lawyers.

Speaker 2 (01:42:45):
No, it's Mandy Connell Man.

Speaker 1 (01:42:51):
On KOAM ninety four one FM.

Speaker 8 (01:42:55):
At Wayne Got the Free and Ronnell keeping sad bing.

Speaker 2 (01:43:06):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome. I'm not Mandy and I'm not Randy
Cromwell either.

Speaker 1 (01:43:11):
I'm Ross and I'm your host for the next I
don't know how long because a Rod hasn't told.

Speaker 2 (01:43:16):
Me yet, but maybe eighteen.

Speaker 1 (01:43:17):
Minutes or so until the start of today's Rockies game
pregame coverage right here on KOA. So thanks for.

Speaker 2 (01:43:28):
Spending a little time with me. If you spent any
part of the last three hours with me, thank you
for that as well. Yeah, we'll see if the Rockies
can beat the Phillies.

Speaker 3 (01:43:37):
They're a pretty good team and the Rockys aren't, so
we'll see.

Speaker 2 (01:43:41):
I actually want to take a moment and.

Speaker 1 (01:43:42):
Follow up what we just heard on the news there
about Denver and what's going on with Denver's budget. Again,
I realize a little dry, perhaps but super important, and
I just want to I just want to kind of
share this with you a little bit or give you
give you some of some of my own thoughts on it.

(01:44:04):
And the Denver Post headline from just this morning, and
again you heard from Keenan and you heard from Rob Dawson,
who went to the press conference where Mayor Johnston was speaking.
But the Denver Post headline puts it this way, layoffs
and furloughs coming for Denver employees amid budget crisis, and
sort of the short version of the story. And Rob

(01:44:26):
sent me some texts that were pictures that he took
of graphics that were put up on a screen at
the press conference, and it showed the growth in Denver
of expenses and the growth of revenue. And for the
last few years, the growth of expenses has exceeded the
growth of revenue. And now you just heard in our newscast,
you heard the mayor talk about this massive economic downturn

(01:44:50):
in Denver.

Speaker 2 (01:44:50):
Now that's a weird thing. I have to say.

Speaker 1 (01:44:52):
I'm not saying he's lying or wrong or anything. I
just think it's odd it. So on the one hand,
you know, we did have a period of time where
this dock market got crushed with all the fear of
trade wars and stuff. But then Trump backed off the
tariff's affair bit, and consumer.

Speaker 2 (01:45:06):
Spending is I think it's down a little, but not
that much, not that much.

Speaker 1 (01:45:11):
And this stock market came back a lot while I
was down yesterday, but still it regained the vast majority
of its losses from the Trump trade stuff after Trump
backed off. And there are only if you look at
the macro, there's sort of broad signs of just a
little economic weakness. So if there's just a little economic weakness,

(01:45:34):
then what explains what Mayor Johnston said about this massive
decline in tax.

Speaker 2 (01:45:42):
Revenue in Denver. I don't know. I don't know, but
let me just share with you from the Denver Post.

Speaker 1 (01:45:49):
Denver City officials will have to lay off employees, institute
of hiring freeze, and require unpaid furloughs as they stare
down and projected two hundred and fifty.

Speaker 2 (01:45:57):
Million dollars budget hole over the next two years.

Speaker 3 (01:46:01):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:46:02):
It's not yet clear how many layoffs will be necessary
or how city services will be affected, but the mayor
said deep cuts are unavoidable. He said that sales tax revenue,
which makes up more than half of Denver's income, has
slumped while the city's costs are growing.

Speaker 2 (01:46:22):
Okay, A few things to say about this.

Speaker 1 (01:46:25):
First, of course, it's always possible that a situation can
change in a way that's unexpected. And if there is
this sudden, truly unexpected decline in sales tax revenue, and
also especially if the decline is far more than you
would expect based on nationwide averages, then I get it

(01:46:45):
that they weren't ready for this. On the other hand,
you have had a few years in a row of
massively increasing expenses in Denver, with the city council and
the mayor and the previous mayor spending all kinds of
money and not having enough new income for the city
to city in County of Denver to cover it. And

(01:47:09):
it's just, I mean, they're in a bad spot now,
you know, in a way, this is kind of happening everywhere. Right,
We've been already talking about how the state government had
to deal with one point two billion dollars less.

Speaker 2 (01:47:22):
Than they thought they were going to have to spend.
Although the state budget was still.

Speaker 1 (01:47:25):
A lot bigger than than it was the previous year,
something like six hundred and fifty million dollars bigger, but
they thought it was going to be one point two
billion dollars bigger, or one point something over one point
eight billion dollars bigger. So they had to cut back
a lot. And next year is going to be much worse.
Next year, the state budget is going to have some
serious trouble and I think they are going to have

(01:47:47):
to reform mediciate. Okay, so there's that.

Speaker 2 (01:47:50):
Then you've got the federal side, right, We've.

Speaker 1 (01:47:52):
Got this insane deficit, this insane debt. We've got this
new one big, beautiful bill that doesn't do as much
as it's to cut spending. We had long term interest
rates go up in the United States yesterday as the
market seems to get a little bit concerned that at
some point, at some point America will have just borrowed
too much. And you saw this massive spike that actually

(01:48:15):
Mandy told me about that I had missed, but earlier
this week, a massive spike in Japanese bond yields huge
record highs even though there's still low rates, record highs
for Japanese forty year bonds, which are relatively new products.

Speaker 2 (01:48:28):
And now you get this here on the city level
in Denver.

Speaker 1 (01:48:32):
The difference between the country and the city, or the
country and the state is that the city and the
state have to unbalanced budgets. Now, the city can fudge
a little bit if they've got a rainy day fund
and they're draining money out of the rainy day fund.
But they've done that, and at this point the rainy
day fund is down to about ten percent, and the
mayor has called that the hard deck and says that

(01:48:56):
without changing stuff, the rainy day fund would drop down
to like two percent. And he said again in an
interview with the Post, he said, no one's ever gone
below ten percent before that.

Speaker 2 (01:49:06):
The Post also reports that.

Speaker 1 (01:49:09):
Every city employee except for uniformed law enforcement, fire and
nine to one to one personnel, are going to be
required to take at least two unpaid days of furlough
and those are going to be at least to start
the Friday before Labor Day and the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Speaker 2 (01:49:27):
And there's going to be more there.

Speaker 6 (01:49:28):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:49:28):
The other thing I want to.

Speaker 1 (01:49:29):
Jump in on, and you heard this in our news
broadcast here on KOWA, is the mayor is still pushing
ahead with some things that he thinks are going to
help grow the city's economy and be positive to the
economy over time. And I'm just a little skeptical. I'm

(01:49:50):
a little skeptical. Seventy dollars to pay for the land
and some improvements, or for the location and the Baker
neighborhood where they want to put a fourteen plus thousand
seat women's soccer stadium. I got nothing against women's soccer.
I My issue here has nothing to do with just

(01:50:13):
what they're going to do with that.

Speaker 2 (01:50:15):
It is does it make.

Speaker 1 (01:50:17):
Sense for a city that is having this massive budget problem.
By the way, didn't they know about the budget problem
like before a week and a half ago or whenever
it was that they voted to go ahead with this
seventy million dollars, didn't they know?

Speaker 2 (01:50:32):
I mean, they could still stop it now.

Speaker 1 (01:50:36):
I think I mentioned on my show that there was
only one vote against the City Soccer Stadium, and that
was by Sarah Parody, who I think I've never agreed
with her on anything, but I agree with her on this.

Speaker 2 (01:50:48):
I'd be a no vote on that.

Speaker 1 (01:50:49):
Does it really make sense if the city is facing
a two hundred and fifty million dollars shortfall to go
spend seventy million dollars on land and improvements and then
hope that after a few years, whenever you get this
thing built and you get a team here, that that
suddenly that it's going to make enough money to cover
all the costs and all the investment, where normally stadiums don't,
at least in recent years, normally stadiums have not turned

(01:51:12):
into the economic positivity that you would expect to justify
the taxpayer money.

Speaker 2 (01:51:18):
So do you really want to do that?

Speaker 1 (01:51:19):
Do you really want to keep going with something like
eight hundred million dollars in bonds where the city government
is going to have to be paying off these bonds, right,
and then you've got the homeless stuff. It's like, according
to the Denver posts against fifty.

Speaker 2 (01:51:35):
Seven million dollars a year. I don't know. It seems
to me that these folks are not being careful enough
with how they spend money. They haven't been. I wouldn't
expect them to be.

Speaker 1 (01:51:49):
Right, Denver is voting actual socialists, people who wear the
pin for the Democratic Socialists of America.

Speaker 4 (01:51:55):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:51:55):
I'm not just calling them socialists because they're the left,
because they're to the left of me.

Speaker 2 (01:51:59):
They're actual socialists. Keep putting him on city council.

Speaker 1 (01:52:03):
And and then you had a chance in your mayoral
election to elect somebody who was a little bit more centrist,
but you didn't. You went with Mike Johnston, who, by
the way, is a very smart man. And I like
Mike Johnston.

Speaker 2 (01:52:15):
I do like him.

Speaker 1 (01:52:16):
Now, if there's one good thing to say here, it
is that reality is biting at least the mayor.

Speaker 2 (01:52:22):
On the butt.

Speaker 1 (01:52:23):
And now he's out there saying we're gonna have to
make some very hard choices. The question then is going
to be what's what's the city council gonna do? All right,
so that's probably enough about that for now, but I
thought that was super interesting stuff coming out coming out today.

Speaker 2 (01:52:37):
Let me ask you a question. I could probably got
eight minutes with you.

Speaker 1 (01:52:40):
I want to run a silly story by you, and
I'm gonna ask you to text me at five six
six nine zero and tell me your opinion on this thing. Oh,
I joined late, Hold on, let me find this listener text.

Speaker 2 (01:52:50):
I joined late.

Speaker 1 (01:52:52):
How come you're on and not Mandy at this time
because there's only about eighteen or twelve minutes of Mandy's
show today, because we've got the Rockies against the Philadelphia
Phillies coming up in.

Speaker 2 (01:53:08):
Less than fifteen minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:53:10):
And Mandy asked me if I would do the half
an hour for her today because she had some other
stuff that she wanted to get done. And I said,
of course, because Mandy is awesome and I'm always happy
to help out. So that's why you've got me. But
you can thank your lucky stars that you don't have
me for very long. You just had me for a
little while, So don't worry. It'll be okay. You'll be fine,

(01:53:30):
all right. Speaking of the Rockies, I saw this story
a few days ago. A couple days ago, again, I
saw it at the Denver Post, and it's about a
dude named Timothy rock Kel or recall r Oe c
k e l.

Speaker 2 (01:53:46):
Now.

Speaker 1 (01:53:46):
He was at a Rockies game two years ago. Happened
to be against the New York Yankees, if you want
to know. And he was up in some like luxury
bock area and he was hit by a foul ball.

(01:54:07):
And according to the Denver Post reporting of this, he
says he couldn't see it coming because and I'm quoting
now from a lawsuit. Actually, I'm quoting from the lawsuit.
Architectural elements, including the ceiling of the luxury box and
the overhang of the stadium's bleacher seats made it so
that it was not possible for him to see the

(01:54:28):
foul ball coming at him from the.

Speaker 2 (01:54:31):
Seat that he was in wherever that was. And so
now he's suing the Rockies.

Speaker 1 (01:54:36):
And my question for you, and I want you to
tell me, and I've got more information for you, but
I want you to tell me at five six, six
nine zero, do you think this is a legit suit
or do you think this is frivolous? And I really
want to give this because my initial my initial inclination,
of course, is that it's frivolous. But and i'd also
note again from the post, Colorado law protects stadiums from

(01:54:59):
liability when fans are injured during games. But the attorneys
for this guy are trying to argue that this is
an exception because they say the Rockies didn't make a
big enough effort to keep the stadium safe. And specifically,
what they're saying is that they didn't put enough netting
around to protect the fans behind home plate, despite having

(01:55:23):
been warned by engineers that a foul ball could injure
somebody back there.

Speaker 2 (01:55:29):
And the other thing.

Speaker 1 (01:55:30):
And this is a kind of a wacky argument they're making,
but you can make any argument you want, and you
see how it goes. But what they're arguing is that
check this out as just as imagine bringing this into
a court. What they're arguing is that by putting these
luxury boxes and stuff back there, they're encouraging fans to

(01:55:51):
engage in what they're calling non spectating behavior, eating, hanging out,
talking to people watching TV. And these luxury boxes also
obstruct the view of the field in some part of
their construction, some part of their design. And what they're

(01:56:14):
arguing then is that because you put all this nice
stuff back there that causes people to want to hang
out and talk to each other and watch TV and
have a beer and kind of keeping one eye on
the game, maybe turn away from the game, talk with people,
turn back to the game. They're arguing that by encouraging
people to just hang out and do that stuff, they

(01:56:35):
are then discouraging people from actually looking at the game.
And if they hadn't been discouraging this dude from looking
at the game, maybe he would have been looking toward
the game instead of what everybody was looking at and
saw the.

Speaker 2 (01:56:45):
Ball coming his way. But they're saying at the same
time that he couldn't.

Speaker 1 (01:56:49):
Have seen the ball coming his way because of the
structure of the design of the place. And then, as
if that's not crazy enough, I think you get the
hint that I think this is frivolous, But I would
still like to note get your take because they do
have maybe a quasi legitimate point that maybe the stadium

(01:57:09):
doesn't have protective netting spread out quite as far as
it should, and some teams, including the Rockies actually to
some degree, have put up more netting. But how about
this for an argument too, And again in a sense.
In a sense, I admire the hutzba of the lawyers
bringing this, but what they're saying is, and I'll a

(01:57:32):
quote a quote from the attorneys, this is really kind
of funny defendant. And okay, so the defending this case
of the Rockies, defendant's long standing poor performance on the
field has contributed to a game day environment in which spectators,
particularly those in luxury suites, are less engaged with the
actions on the field. Wow, So what they're arguing now

(01:57:58):
is that the team is so bad that that is
causing people who go to the game and are in
the luxury boxes to turn to look a different direction
while they're having a beer, having a snack whatever, talking
with their friends, and the fact that the team is

(01:58:19):
bad is causing them to look away from the game,
which probably contributed to the guy not seeing the foul
ball coming at him, and so then the foul ball
hit him in the face and caused what he calls
catastrophic and permanent injuries. I have no idea what his
injuries really are, but that's what he's claiming. So how
about that they're claiming not enough netting, they're claiming bad structures,

(01:58:42):
so that you.

Speaker 2 (01:58:42):
Can't see the ball coming at you.

Speaker 1 (01:58:45):
But at the same time, they're claiming that the Rockies,
both out of an intentional desire to have people have
more fun there and also an unintentional thing of having
a terrible team, is causing spectators to not watch the game,
and that contributed. The fact that they're encouraging people to
not watch the game contributed to his getting hit in

(01:59:05):
the face with a ball.

Speaker 2 (01:59:07):
Don't you'll love it? Don't you love it?

Speaker 3 (01:59:10):
Oh my gosh, Hi.

Speaker 1 (01:59:15):
Ross, my husband took a baseball to the face during
batting practice in twenty eleven. He was paying attention, but
the ball ricochet. It's on the guy, not the Rockies. Ross.
This is a frivolous lawsuit. He didn't pay for his ticket.
I don't know if that's true, but maybe you know,
and like with any game, you should be paying attention
so you don't get hurt. I think it doesn't matter

(01:59:37):
if he paid for his ticket because to get and
he had a ticket. I don't think it matters whether
he paid for it because the ticket says in fact,
as a as a listener noted, the back of the
ticket weaves liability and that's right, and that's right. So
I don't think it matters if he paid for the ticket.
Frivolous lawsuit. Any game you go to, especially baseball and hockey,

(01:59:57):
they announced before the game, keep an eye on the
ball or the puck because they can leave the field
or rink. Maybe he has a case because the Rockies suck,
but not for the injury. But maybe they should add netting,
was he involuntarily at the game? Like?

Speaker 2 (02:00:14):
Was it the condition of his parole? That's pretty good.

Speaker 1 (02:00:17):
Ross.

Speaker 2 (02:00:18):
Have you been watching the Rockies lately?

Speaker 1 (02:00:19):
If you have, you may have noticed that the opposing
teams fans far outnumber Rockies fans and I don't see
them getting hit by foul balls. Ross.

Speaker 2 (02:00:27):
When you walk into.

Speaker 1 (02:00:28):
Curls Course field that there are so many signs letting
you know about the risks.

Speaker 2 (02:00:32):
This is so dumb.

Speaker 1 (02:00:35):
Doesn't MLB have a warning of risk at every stadium
of possible injury?

Speaker 2 (02:00:40):
Okay, so that's pretty much what I expected to that.
I'm with you. I'm with you on all that.

Speaker 1 (02:00:45):
And yeah, let me answer one other last question, Ross,
I love your show. I have similar political views to yours,
to yours. How do you say that someone is smart
yet they make bad decisions, like the mayor of Denver.

Speaker 2 (02:00:59):
That's a question.

Speaker 1 (02:01:01):
If you ever talked to Mike Johnson, you will be
able to tell immediately that he would score very very
highly on an IQ test. But sometimes some of these folks,
more on the left and on the right, but it
can happen on both sides, just don't have very much
common sense or very much understanding of economics, or they
just choose not to think of it, and they prioritize
the politics over real world.

Speaker 2 (02:01:23):
Stick around for the Rockies, Phillies Go Rockies,