Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So I bought this thing from a local dude who
was selling off some electronic test equipment. And it's a capacitor,
an inductance tester, a pretty fancy capacitor an inductance tester,
and I had bought one already, believe it or not,
and this guy had one, and I thought he was
selling it too cheap, so I bought it.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
It didn't come with a power supply.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
The power supplies are hard to find, but I found
one on eBay from a guy who didn't know what
it was that he was selling, so he was selling
it for a lot less than it was actually worth
because he had the listing not really saying exactly what
it was. So other people who might have been searching
for what I was searching for didn't find it. So
I bought this thing for cheaper because I needed to
add it to the thing. So so the two of
(00:44):
them together, I paid about four hundred and fifty dollars
and I've been I listed it on eBay and I
listed on Facebook Marketplace, and I went to Facebook Marketplace
this morning to lower the price a little bit because
I hadn't sold, and then I went over chanon you
got to listen to this part of the story, Shannon.
So then I went over to eBay this morning to
(01:04):
lower the price there as well, so I could get
it sold, only to discover to my astonishment that.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I guess I hadn't been paying close enough attention to
some of my email, but to discover to my.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Astonishment that it had actually sold at full price two
days earlier, and actually I was due to ship it
out today. I hadn't noticed that it had sold already,
And if you don't ship it out on time, you
get in trouble with eBay and you get lower scores
and all that. So it turned out I had some
bubble wrap at home. I found a box at home,
I wrapped it up, and I dropped it off at
FedEx on the way to work today. So this thing
(01:40):
that I bought for four.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Hundred and fifty bucks.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
I sold for probably after fees, So what I will
end up with in my pocket.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
It'll be around eight hundred. I knew that thing was
too cheap, so.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
I like making the money, but I also I just
I feel like I.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Won a little bit, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
And three hundred and fifty bucks is nice too, especially
when I'm freaking remodeling a house, and my wife is talking.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
About all the trees she wants to buy.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Oh my gosh, she probably wants at least fifteen trees,
some of which will be fifteen feet tall. And by
the way, these things are like one hundred dollars a foot, right,
So she wants crazy. So I'm trying to I'm trying
(02:34):
to make every extra few hundred bucks I can, and
if I can do it by buying and selling electronic equipment,
then that's what I'll do.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Plus it's kind of fun. So anyway, that's that's what
I That's what I.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Did so far this morning, So I thought I would
share that with you because we're because we're friends.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So there were some breaking.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
News this morning that I wanted to share with you
a little bit. I'm gonna go to CBS News for this.
The Secret Service suspended six personnel.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Without pay.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
As the agency faced intense scrutiny after the assassination attempt
against President Trump and Butler Pennsylvania nearly a year ago.
Matt Quinn, the Deputy director of Secret Service, told CBS
News that their penalty ranged from ten days to forty
two days of leave without pay or benefits. The personnel
were placed into restricted duty or roles with less operational
(03:25):
responsibility upon their return. You know, I can't exactly tell
from that whether these people are being suspended right now
and then will come back, or whether they were suspended
before and have come back.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
I can't really, I can't really tell.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
And he said in this I think is interesting, He said,
we aren't going to fire our way out of this.
We're going to focus on the root cause and fixed.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
The deficiencies that put us in that situation.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
He said, Service is totally accountable for Butler.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Butler was an operational failure, and we.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Are focused today.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
On ensuring that it never happens again.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Now, I you know, there are these famous pictures from
that moment right after Trump got shot, got hit in
the air and got some blood running down his face,
and and you've got all of these Secret Service agents
around him and trying to cover him a little bit,
trying to get him.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Down to the ground, but he wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
And then he stood up and pumped his fist and
said fight. Which is you know that probably I won't
say it was the I think it was a factor
in his winning the election, but in any case, I
wonder if any of those people are among the suspended ones.
It wouldn't surprise me if they're not. But I but
(04:48):
I don't know if any of those close quarters protection
people were part of the team that well, yeah, there
was that, there was that lady Chen and his chen
is just stulating like a person trying repeatedly and failing
repeatedly to stick a pistol in a halster.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, so not very good. But what I.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Don't know, seriously, what I don't know about those people
who were around him. First of all, I don't know
if they did everything they were supposed to do in
that situation, because I.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Don't know their training.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
But what I really don't know is when or any
of those people were part of the team that were
doing perimeter security, because really the huge, huge failure here
was the Secret Service leaving that building alone and not
having people stationed either at or on that building.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I'm and I'm glad they're doing this.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
The other thing I'll say is typically in in let's say,
in military jobs, and I wasn't in the military, but
both my parents were, so I was around it a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Typically in the military.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
If you do something that gets kind of a like
a note in your file, a reprimand in your file,
something like that, you're not fired, right, but you know
there's there's an official note that you did something wrong.
Your career is pretty sunk, like you're the odds of
you even making six you know, captain and the navy
(06:11):
colonel in the army. You know, if this is something
that happens when you're a couple of ranks lower, it
really really impacts your job advancement possibilities. So for the
people who were suspended and then placed into restricted duty,
you know, this is a serious problem for them if
they were thinking about having a successful career in secret service.
(06:34):
And in fact, you can easily imagine that maybe these
are folks who were out in the field in some
of the more prestigious jobs in secret service, and now
they'll be seen by their colleagues kind of moping around
the office, you know, maybe not moping, but walking around
the office, and they I can easily imagine I'm pretty
(06:55):
you know, I'm trying to visualize this. I've never been
in that situation, but I can imagine someone like that
feeling just a little embarrassed, almost like every day like
I should be out in the field. Yeah, feeling a
little shorter channing like that. And I I it wouldn't
surprise me if many or most of these people end
(07:17):
up resigning because they know that there is very unlikely
to be any promotion ahead for them, you know, I
mean maybe if there's some others that. Look, I don't know. Again,
I don't know how much investigation they've already done.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
I don't know whether they put the.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
They suspended these people because at the beginning of the
investigation it seems like they did something wrong, or at
the end of the investigation they know they did something wrong.
I just there isn't that much detail here. But I
do think it's really good that the Secret Service is
being accountable, not just firing people, right, because sometimes you
(07:54):
can just fire people, say they did it and now
we're not.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Going to talk about it anymore.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
But instead what this guy is saying, we're actually not
fireing people. We're disciplining people. We're keeping them. Of course,
they can leave if they want to, but our real
goal here is to figure out what went wrong and
change the processes so that it doesn't go wrong again.
And I think that is some good management. Ross it's
not important but I'm curious. Have you watched any of
mister Carlson's lab on YouTube?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Seems like you two are made for each other.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Indeed, I have, and he takes money by Patreon and
they have all these different levels where you can pay him.
And I've never done any of his projects, but I
pay him two bucks a month just for the sheer entertainment.
Mister Carlson's lab is pretty fabulous if you are a
serious nerd. One other listener text Ross, don't you believe
he was left unprotected intentionally? If you want to.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Protect him and other non internationalists, so.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
You would have to take out the Council of Foreign Relations,
the FED, the remnants of the Rothschild, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, CAVAL,
the UK Foreign Affairs Office in half of the UN.
So I responded to this listener saying, one, I don't
believe he was left unprotected intentionally. And second, and anybody
who goes down this road of Counsel of Foreign Relations
(09:06):
and mentions Rothschild.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
I don't take you seriously.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
You're just I'm not saying you're dumb, but you're being
misled or you're intentionally following something. And by the way,
you know half of the people who believe that stuff
for anti Semites as well. And a lot of times
you hear people mention rothschild they just mean it as
a synonym for Jews, although this person is mentioning so
many other things. And thank you, just a wild eyed
(09:31):
conspiracy theorist. So no, I don't believe any of that,
and you shouldn't believe any.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Of that either.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
And then the same listener, is it the same listener?
Would you be open to reading a couple of books
that could possibly make you reconsider? And here is my
answer in life, I don't mean in this particular question.
In life, I promise to keep an open mind, but
not so open that my brain falls out. And you're
asking me to have my mind so open that my
(09:58):
brain falls out. Of course, I will not waste my
time with all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about the Rothschilds
and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Don't waste my time.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
And more importantly, more importantly, you don't waste your time.
Life is short, enjoy it. Don't wallow in the mud
of idiot conspiracy theories that don't help your life at all.
Is your ego that fragile or is your life that
empty that you're gonna fill it with thinking about the
(10:30):
as you put it, the remnants of the Rothschild GP
Morgan Rockefeller cabal. Don't you have anything better to do? Seriously,
don't you have anything better to do? And I don't
mean don't you have anything better to do than message
me about it? I don't really care, right interesting or not?
I can mention it on the air, nod, I don't care.
But don't you have anything better to do in your
(10:52):
own life than to wallow in this nonsense? Seriously? All right,
let me do something completely different. I say frequently on
the show that Colorado might have the worst upper level
state courts in the country. The state Supreme Court is
(11:12):
really bad all those it was actually probably slightly worse
a few years ago, if you can imagine, it's still terrible,
And the Colorado Court of Appeals really really terrible. They've
gotten a couple of cases wrong lately. There was a
case involving Lindsey Dako, who was just one of the
great education activists in Jefferson County doing everything she can
(11:36):
to protect kids and improve their education, fighting all the
time against the really really terrible management of the Jefferson
County School.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
District, and she had a.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Really angry, evil, nasty reporter writes some flagrantly untrue, you know,
libelous stuff about her, and she sued, and two lower
courts said, yeah, this stuff is clearly intentionally malicious and wrong.
And then the Colorado Court of Appeals just throughout the
local the lower courts saying no, lindsay, can't sue them,
(12:14):
they were wrong. And then this thing that I want
to share with you right now, and this is from
I'll just share with you from a law firm called
Clark Hill. In a significant victory for the Colorado Department
of Revenue, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled this week
that Netflix subscriptions are quote tangible personal property and therefore
(12:34):
taxable under Colorado law, reversing a lower court decision that
had exempted the streaming giant from taxation.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Netflix versus Department of Revenue.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
That's the name of the case centered on a seemingly
simple question with complex and implications. Are digital streaming services
or subscriptions tangible personal property under Colorado's nearly century old
sales tax law, And the Court of Appeals said yes.
The answer, by the way, is obviously no. This court
is obvious. It's not just wrong, it's obviously wrong. And
(13:07):
the Court of Appeals found, and I'm still quoting from
Clarkhill dot com, that Colorado's nineteen thirty five sales tax statute,
which taxes quote, corporeal personal property, should be interpreted more
broadly than Netflix desired, Drawing on they claim, drawing on
(13:29):
legal dictionaries from the nineteen thirties, the court determined the
corporeal encompasses anything perceptible to any of the bodily senses,
not just touch. That is not what corporeal means. Corporeal
means it has a physical it exists in a physical state.
It has a body like corpus right or corpse right,
(13:52):
it's the body. And this court is obviously wrong. But
our courts act almost always like a money grubbing extension
of democrats in the state legislature all the time. And
I sure hope Netflix chow. I don't know how much
higher they can go. I don't know if they can
(14:12):
go to Supreme Court with it, the state Supreme Court.
I don't know if they can go to federal court
with it. But the Netflix ruling could make it so
that the state of Colorado could try to impose sales
tax on every digital subscription service operating in the state
of Colorado. A little bit of news that just popped
up on the screen I wanted to share with you.
(14:33):
You know, there was a Supreme Court thing recently where nominally,
just very superficially, it was a birthright citizenship case, but
really it was a case about nationwide injunctions. And I
just saw this news update here and hold on, let
me finish that thought, Actually, let me do this that's
the same time, because this wasn't going to be our topic.
(14:54):
But my next guest, Josh Hammer, is, among other things,
an attorney, so it'd be great to bring him in
on this, even though it's not the primary thing we're
probably going to talk about today. So Josh, in addition
to being Senior editor at Large at Newsweek, you also
hosts his own podcast, The Josh Hammer Show, and he's
the author of a book, Israel and Civilization. And I
(15:15):
always enjoy having Josh on the show, and we actually
we agree most of the time on stuff. And I
saw a tweet of his the other day that I
didn't really well that I half agreed with and I
thought it would make for a fun conversation, and we'll
get to that in a second. So, first of all, Josh,
welcome back. It's good to see you here.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Ros's great to see you as well, My friend. Always
appreciate your very informed takes, whether we agree or disagree.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
So let me just share this with you and then
you can comment, as somebody who's smarter on the law
than I am. So, the Supreme Court a couple of
weeks ago basically said no nationwide injunctions from district court
federal judges more or less. So this today said as
a federal judge named US District Judge Joseph Laplant has
(16:05):
just issued a new nationwide injunction against President Trump's executive
order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
And it looks like the way he's.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Trying to do it is he has turned it into
a class action, and he has said that he will
He has granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to
certify a nationwide class that quote will be comprised only
of those deprived of citizenship.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
That's quoting from CNN.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
So, mister attorney Josh Hammer, what are your immediate thoughts
on this that you might not even have seen before.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
I just shared it with you.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
So this is breaking just over the past twenty thirty minutes,
give or shake. So I haven't had a whole lot
of time to read and digest, but I can kind
of give you my very quick initial assessment.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
So the issue of.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Turning injunctive relief into Rule twenty three class action was
oppressionally foreseen by Justice sam Alito, who had his recurring
opinion in the nation wide and Judge Caase I don't
really want to call it the birthright scision case because
they can actually talk about purposes and ship but Alito
spends his entire concurrence here talking about how we actually
are also going to have to crack down on Rule
(17:17):
twenty three class actions. Now, this has been an issue
how to define a legitimate class for class action purposes,
essentially since the federal rules of silk procedure were first
implemented roughly ninety years ago or so, back during the
New Deal and back when I was in law school
studying silk procedure. These were debates between the conservatives and
the liberals in the court. These were Scalia Ginsburg, you know,
majority versus to sent the opinion. So there's a long
(17:39):
standing difference of opinion between shall we call it Article
three hawks, people who are a little bit more reluctant
to give massive access to federal digitial reliefs. Those are
typically the more conservative judges versus the standing and Article
three doves. The liberals were typically more willing to just
kind of, you know, free wheel and give more relief.
So I'm not surprised that is happening. I will also
(18:01):
say that the majority opinion from Amy Cony Barrett in
the Nasue junctioning case, while it was it was very good.
It was very good. I would greated it probably a
B plus win a minits. It was not an A
plus because it failed to do what I think I
and many others wanted to do, which was just very
cleanly and unapologetically say the judicial power of Article three
(18:23):
means this, It does not mean that. And there was
some literally legal lies there in the emy Coony Barret
majority pinion, essentially saying that Nation one junctions are presumptively
contrary to Article three unless they are truly absolutely necessary
given the nature of the litigation, the beliefs. There's basically
some runway there. Ross is what I'm saying there was
(18:43):
some runway for liberal NGO's ACLU type outfie to try
to take it from there. So I'm not shocked that
we're here. I am a little surprised at how soon
it's gotten in back though. All right, So two quick things.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
So First, when Andy McCarthy, who you probably know a
good friend of mine and of the show, wrote about
the Supreme Court recent opinion, what he said was, Yeah,
now they're going to turn to class action lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
And then he said, but normally, at least it's.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
A they're a little bit more in terms of guidelines
and eyes. You have to dot and tease, you have
to cross to certify a class versus just this willy
nilly stuff that had been going on before. But it
sounds like you think that doesn't offer as much protection
as maybe Andy had been hoping.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Well, we'll see, we'll see how it plays out. Again.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
The class action part of the Nachtwind judge opinion was
really just sam Alito's been curring opinion. Barrett doesn't really
spend much of any time on an HR opinion. A
lot of these plaintiffs, especially when they're suing the Trump
administration executive orders and policy there. They're not actually filing classes,
they're not actually organizing classes and traditional rule twenty three
class actors. They're basically just putting out an NGO or
(19:58):
a left wing plaintiff and then as an banking on
a judge to declare a name you want junction, which
is probably not an unreasonable bet, frankly, be based on
the president of what we've seen thus far.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
So we'll see how it plays out.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
But look, the class action debate again, has been a
debate in federal courts for a very very long time.
I feel like it's not going to go anywhere anytime soon.
I am a little surprised though, with just the pure
hutzba ross frankly, the hutzba of this opinion coming out
what like a week and a half, two weeks the
most after the last opinion. I mean, that's a bold
move from a fairly rogue I would presume lower court judge.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
All Right, one last thing on this, I wasn't planning
on talking with you about it, but clearly you I mean,
I knew you would know a lot, but it seems
like you know even more than I thought you would
about this particular area of law. So so I do
have one more question. All of these people who work
in the federal government take an oath to protect and
defend the Constitution, and you could probably count on one hand.
(20:54):
That might be a little cynical. You could probably count
on two hands out of the five hundred and thirty
five members of the House and Senate, how many of
them really put the constitution first.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
That might maybe one hand. So, and federal judges are
supposed to do that too. And one of the.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Things I wonder I'm not saying the Supreme Court was
wrong in their rolling, but what I wonder about is
whether four years from now, if a Democrat is president,
that whether Republicans are really going to rule this. For example,
I'm just going to make up a hypothetical. Let's say
President Kamala Harris. I don't think it's going to be Harris.
(21:30):
I do think a Democrat could win. I don't think
it'll be here. President whoever, does an executive order that
bars the federal government from answering any requests from states
for background checks for gun purchases, effectively making it impossible
to buy a gun. And then let's say Josh Hammer
(21:52):
wants to buy a gun and Ross Kaminski wants to
buy a gun, and Josh Hammer is a smart lawyer,
and he does the paperwork and he's pro se, and
he goes and files in court in fifteen minutes, and
he's at the front of the line. And meanwhile, more on,
Ross Kaminsky's a little slow. And by the time Ross
Kaminski gets his case to court, there are seven thousand
(22:13):
people in front of him in line at the Federal court.
And then the federal judges hearing Josh's case, even though
the facts of your case in mind are identical. Here's
Josh's case and said Josh can buy a gun, but
Ross caad even though the facts are the same, because
the Supreme Court is said, I can't do a nationwide injunction,
and Josh is in you know, whatever court circuit you're in,
(22:33):
and I'm in the tenth Circuit, and so only Josh
can buy a gun.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Go ahead. So this is a great question.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
So my response is basically twofold, which is, I do
not begrudge conservative originalist constitutionalist judges for taking advantage of
the tools for relief for plaintiffs at their disposal while
all the options are on the table. So to give
kund of a very concrete example. Back when Barack Obama
was president, so I was. I was in law school
twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen, so towards the second the
(23:03):
tail end of the Obama presidency, and I remember back
then a lot of Obama executive ors were oftentimes challenged
by the Attorney General and Slicter General of Texas. The
Texas Slister General's Office ends up being one of the
most effective tools, it's still to say, actually against democratic
presidents engaging in various forms of executive overreach, and the
Texas Lister General's Office typically litigates in very specific divisions
(23:25):
of North Texas. I know as well, because I clerked
for a federal appeals judge in the Dallas Fort Worth area,
Judge James C.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Hoe, amazing judge.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
So back then it was oftentimes Judge Read O'Connor. These
days and sometimes it's Judge Read O'Connor, sometimes Judge Matthew Kasmherck.
They're both amazing judges. I don't begrudge judges like that
from issuing a nation one junction at least prior to
like a week and a half weeks ago, given that
this was the reality that we are living in. But
I would prefer to live in a principled reality where
(23:52):
these tools are simply not on the table. Ultimately in
a situation the like switch or hypothetical like you've described there.
And you know, I'm a Secondmendment guy, Ross, I want
my gun, and I'm sure that you want your guns
as well. There, the best way to fast track that
would be to try to seek some sort of emergency
relief at the United States Supreme Court, because once the Supreme.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Court's rules, the lower courts are.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Essentially just going to immediately follow and the order will
simply not be enforced really in the first place there,
so that that would be the proper mechanism is to
try to see them seek emergency relief and on what
the lawyers call the rocket docket for emergency appeals at
the Supreme Court there. But I hear you, unfortunately, I'm
sure that you can appreciate this kind of the The
inherently slightly slower working of the gears of government is
(24:35):
very much a feature, not a bug, of our system,
and so too, I think it would be here as well.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
And I'll add one other thing.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Part of the reason some of this stuff happens is
that Congress doesn't do its job reigning in the president.
And also impeachment has gotten so cheapened that you know,
supporting you know, some if if a president were to
issue an executive order that was intentionally designed to prevent
everybody from being able to buy a gun, the impeachment
(25:03):
paperwork should be filed within ninety minutes. But it won't be.
And we don't really have the checks and balances. And
despite the implications of my question, which is more reflection
of reality than how I would like it to be,
we are all far more dependent on the judicial branch
than we should be because the other branches don't uphold
(25:25):
their oaths to the Constitution. We're talking with Josh Hammer.
He is senior editor at Large at Newsweek. He hosts
the Josh Hammer Show podcast. Josh, give me before we
get to the other topic, give me forty seven seconds
on the book that I see over your right shoulder.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
So the book ross is Israel and Civilization, The Fate
of the Jewish Nation, The Destiny of the West. It
came out in March, but it's truly timelier than ever,
And in fact, they had someone in Congress messaged me
a couple of weeks ago and said, Josh, did you
pressI intially orchestrate the events of the last month just
to sell more book copies there? So you know, the
book really is, I think timelier than ever. There's a
whole chapter making the America first nationalist realist case for
(26:05):
US israelations, which is a very, very very hot topic
on the political right these days.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
So it really is timely.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Israel and civilizations, a lot of Bible, a lot of scripture,
a lot of foreign policy, We touch a lot of
topics ros but it's available everywhere books are sold.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Israel and civilization.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
All right, So let's do like five minutes on the
topic that I actually asked here to be about. But
I thoroughly enjoyed that conversation. I'm glad we did that.
You posted on x formerly Twitter, and I'm gonna paraphrase,
and you can tell me if I've misquoted you.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
But that.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
If Trump goes down the road of amnesty, we're talking
about illegal immigration now, that will be a betrayal of
what people were voting for when they voted him into office.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Is that correct enough? That's definitely crust enough.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Yes, okay, So describe what's going on and do this
briefly here, not in the lawyer mode, but in the
podcast or something. What you are, what you are contemplating
as falling into the category of amnesty.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
So to me, I would define anes as either not
choosing to not enforce immigration law against people who are
here illegally wilfully kind of what Barack Obama did to
DAPPA DACA programs like that, or to actually go ahead
and affirmatively codify some sort of legal status that could
be sure of citizenship. But to either deliberately and wilfully
(27:29):
announce that you are non forcing the law against people
here are illegally, or to affirmatively codify legal status.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Okay, So let's start with the second then, because I
think what you were reacting to and I didn't see
if there was context in that thread. But President Trump
said recently that he was looking at possibly creating some
kind of special visa that would allow people to stay
here and work.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
I did not see it.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
And by the way, I would not support something that
put illegal immigrants, say farm workers, he was talking about
farm workers, hotel workers. I wouldn't support them being on
any kind of past the citizens. I would support something
that lets them stay and work.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
You're saying that.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Either you wouldn't, or at least Trump's voters probably wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Well both, I would not support then. To be clear,
I can't speak for every Trump voter, obviously, but I
definitely think I definitely think that the median Donald Trump
voter supports essentially the Tom Holman position of systematically deporting
as many illegal aliens as possible, subject to budgetary constraints
and just general realities of personnel and the amount of
ICE agent and so forth. So he naturally follows that you,
(28:34):
of course would start with criminals. But I think the
key thing ross is that this policy that Donald Trump
ran on, it is not necessarily just a deport criminal
aliens policy. It's to deport as many illegal aliens enforce
immigration law, which again the law requires that they be deported.
That's black letter immigration law as much as possible, given
the amount of resources that ICE and DHS has from
(28:55):
Congress and so forth. There and the polling on this,
the thing is actually quite instructive. If if you look
at the aggregate of polls, roughly sixty percent sometimes up
the two third, and some poles of Americans now tel
polsters they support deporting all all, like literally all illegal
aliens in this country. It's a very high percentage. It's
one of the biggest shifts in American public sentiment over
the past decade or so.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
It has been absolutely remarkable to see how Joe Biden
is personally responsible for that polling by opening the border
so wide that a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
I mean me, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
An immigration hawk, so I'm very much against illegal immigration,
and I'm very much in favor of increasing legal immigration.
We need more, especially skilled immigrants, and we need more
people to prop up our Ponzi scheme of a government.
But Joe Biden did what he did and turned a
lot of people like me more in favor of more
aggressive deportation. That said, Josh, I bet you that wants
(29:52):
not for all, not for the Trump based but I
bet you the majority or at least plurality of.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
The American public.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
If asked at this point, do you want the federal
government to do workplace enforcement on farms, hotels, and home
depot parking lots to round up people who are working
and not committing crimes. I bet you most Americans would
say no to that. And I think that this will
be a negative for Republicans in coming elections. I also
(30:22):
think that part of the problem. And tell me if
you agree here Stephen Miller. It sounds like, by the way,
I can't stand him, but Stephen Miller seems like.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
He has put a quota on this.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
We want three thousand a day or something like that,
and it's quite hard to go find lots of criminals
they're hiding. So if you're just going for sheer numbers,
you're gonna go to the farm, you're gonna go to
the hotel, you're gonna go to the home depot. And
because you need to meet this moron's quota. And so
I think that Stephen Miller is going to actually hurt
(30:55):
Republicans in the next election with this.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I actually love Steven Miller, but that's a very you know,
that's a very reasonable person for us to disagree on.
So no harm, no foul there. Look, I mean, Ross,
I think that immigration is a politically winning issue for Trump,
but if anything, I think it's arguably is number one
winning issue right now. The last I checked the Real
Clear Politics data, as far as approval disapproval on immigration,
Trump is up double digits in a lot of polls
(31:20):
based on his approval rating. So whatever he's doing right now,
and the rhetoric is tough. We've all seen these Christy
Nome DHS ads on TV. If you're here illegally, get
out before we find you, at least at least here
in Florida where I live. Those ads are all over TV.
And the people see this, they see the iations, they
see Tom Holman talking the big game, and apparently they
love it there. And I think it's worth noting ross
(31:41):
looking up at the legal immigration issue that as the
Republican Party has moved in this Trumpian direction of being
very tough in both word indeed enforcing immigration laws and
deporting legal aliens, the Hispanic vote has moved historically tooth
Republican Party. It's actually the exact opposite right of the
twenty twelve Republican National Committee so called autopsy from Mitt
Romney loss there. So it's very counterintuitive. A lot of
(32:03):
kind of DC Belway consulting case free types maybe don't
necessarily understand why that is, but it happens to be
what's actually happening out there in real time, right, And
I should.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Say I'm kind of quibbling around the margin because in
the big picture, I'm in favor of the overall kind
of goal of the Trump administration on and I want
illegal immigration stopped. There's again, it gets a little subtle
when you start talking about should we deport people who
have been here for twenty years and are working and whatever,
(32:31):
And the Fed just put out a report about how
much that might hurt GDP, And I do care a
little bit about a little bit about that. So I
am kind of qubbling on the margin, and I'm not,
of course, it's it's I'm not at all surprised.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
That it's one of his best issues. And I'll say
one other thing. Can I toss out a possibility to you?
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Actually?
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Yeah, sure, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
So one way, I think, because I hear what you're saying,
right with these twenty years here home depot work or whatever. Fine,
I'm not gonna say that I would be willing to
grant them legal status. That's not my stance. But I
wonder if something like the Taiwan Policy of Strategic Ambiguity
or you know, however the foreign policy people phrase that, yeah,
(33:08):
you know, basically deliberately not saying what your actual stance is.
I wonder if that is actually a somewhat reasonable middle
ground position there.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
I'm not terribly I'm not It could be right, It could.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Be, as long as they don't suddenly start showing up
at workplaces and taking away the people.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
I'll mention one other thing, and then I'm out of time.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I'm not surprised, and you're probably not surprised either actually
about the Hispanic vote moving towards Trump.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Because when you're talking.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
About the Hispanic vote, you were talking about people who
are allowed to vote, which means you're talking about citizens,
which means you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
People almost all of whom did it the right way.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Very few illegal aliens become citizens, not impossible, but it
doesn't happen a lot. And so the people who are
here and voting did it the right way. And there's
no reason for a Hispanic immigrant who did everything the
right way to suddenly, you know, carry the water for
an illegal alien trying to cut in line and doing
(34:05):
it the wrong way, just because they also happen to
be Hispanic.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
No, it's totally right, and you know, more generally, Ross
just kind of zooming out a little bit here. Hispanic
citizens like any other US citizen. I mean, they see
the crazy direction of the current Wolke Democratic Party, so
they're probably trending left for the same re or training
rite for the same reason that anyone else basically is
trending right these days.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Josh Hammer is the author of Israel and Civilization. Go
buy it wherever you buy your books. You can check
out his writing it Newsweek as well, and at the
Josh Hammer Show podcast you can listen to it more.
Thanks for being here. There was a fabulous conversation, you bet, brother.
All right, take it easy. All right, we're gonna take
a quick break. We'll be right back on KOA and
follow up a little bit on that interview that I
(34:45):
thoroughly enjoyed with Josh Hammer. It went a little longer
than I thought because we added a second topic, but
that's that's that's actually good. It was a fascinating topic.
So let me just address a couple of listener texts. First, Ross,
speaking of buying guns, do you know of supre us
are legal now without permit or tax stamp?
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So here is my understanding.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
The version of the so called Big Beautiful Bill that
the House passed would have had suppressors completely removed from
coverage by the National Firearms Act, and you would have
been able to buy one, I believe, without any kind
of special paperwork. I think you would have been able
to buy one at Walmart. I don't think you would
(35:27):
have even had to go to a gun store. And
that is how it is in much of Europe, by
the way, you can go buy a suppressor in a
hardware store. In many countries they don't have lots of
guns over there. But you know, in Germany, for example,
you go hunting, it's just considered rude to hunt without one.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
It is.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
It's a hearing protection device.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
And you got a lot of people who have no
experience with guns and no experience with suppressors, and all
they know is an assassin into James Bond movie threading
a suppressor onto twenty two and then they use a
subsonic round to go shoot someone in the head and
it's really quiet. And that's almost the other and that
is kind of legit actually, in terms of how quiet
that would be. A twenty two with.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
A subsonic round and a suppressor.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
Is very very quiet, maybe a little louder than the
movie would show, but not much. But almost everything else
it's still kind of loud. It's just not blown out
your ear drums loud, and that's why it's considered rude
to shoot without one. So the Senate screwed this up.
What I believe the situation is now is that you
(36:25):
still have to do the paperwork, the federal government paperwork,
and the special extra intrusive bend over background check for
the suppressor and for short barrel rifles, but you don't
have to pay the tax two hundred dollars per item.
I understand, of course, leaving with short barrel rifles a
(36:47):
stupid concept. This is just something that people put into
place because of the al capone days, and people have
a sawt off shotgun and stuff like this.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
So the Senate screwed it up. So the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Is I think you still have to jump through the hoops,
but you don't have to pay the tax.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
The other thing I want to mention to add to that, I.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
Saw an email blast yesterday from Silencer Shop, and Silencer
Shop is an amazing business, and I've got a couple
of things from them, and I'm going to try to
get the CEO of Silencer Shop back on the show.
I haven't had them on the show in probably five
years since since I was on the other station, And
(37:27):
what they said is they're going to sue the federal
government over this to try to get silencers.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
They're not silencers. That's not the right term.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
They call themselves silencer shop. But the proper term is
suppressor because it doesn't make anything silent. It just suppresses
the noise to a certain degree. They're going to sue
the federal government. Now, I want to ask you a
question tying into the conversation we.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Just had with Josh Hammer.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
I would like to ask Trump voters, and only Trump voters,
this question.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
Okay, No, your three.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Hundred blackout with subs is not movie quiet.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
It is not. I have one I have I have two.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
I have two rifles that shoot three hundred blackout. One
has an integrated suppressor or another I put a suppressor on,
so I know what I'm talking about. It's okay, it's
movie quiet for three hundred blackout, which still means it's
kind of loud, like it wouldn't blow out your ear drum,
but somebody you know, across the building, you know, across
(38:31):
the field or something definitely gonna hear it. It's not
like it's it's not like a twenty two with sub signing. Okay,
So back to this thing. Here's my question, and it's
just for Trump voters. When you were voting for Trump.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
Did you.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
Want part of his did you want his immigration enforcement
plans to include raids at workplaces like farms, hotels, maybe
meat processing plants and things like that, or did you
(39:09):
think that the campaign promise and what you were really
voting for was an intense focus first on illegal aliens
who had committed crimes, especially violent crimes in the United States,
and then after that, maybe second the most recent kind
of Biden arrivals who just got to the country. Now,
(39:32):
Josh Hammer was absolutely right. It's been consistent in these polls.
It's been consistent in these polls that.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
The public supports the Trump administration's immigration program.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
These polls, however, mostly before this stuff started happening, where
they were going to farms and all this. Now, Josh
and I disagree on this, and I want to ask
for a very non scientific poll here. Obviously, people who answer,
you know, my question and text at me are a
(40:09):
self selected group. So I don't assume that my audience
represents the world. But what I would like to know
is if you are a Trump voter and you can
answer one or both of these related questions. Did you
expect is one thing? And do you want is another thing?
Work Place enforcement in places like farms and hotels that
(40:35):
are absolutely reliant on immigrant and sometimes illegal immigrant labor.
That's what I want to know. That's what I want
to know. Text me at five six six nine zero.
I really want to know your thoughts on this. Listener says,
come with me. Mine is I can shoot it in
my backyard and no one could hear it?
Speaker 2 (40:54):
All right? That would be interesting. And then another person says.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
That they're still loud as hell, just less loud, So
I would I would like to know what you think
on this question about immigration. It's it's again, I want
to I want to make sure I'm wording my question clearly.
Did you expect and or do you want specific workplace
(41:21):
enforcement at places like farms and hotels? Okay, in addition
to everything else, I'm not saying, excluding the criminals all that.
Are you okay with that? Did you want that? Did
you think he was running on that? And I will
tell you I thought two things. I thought the enforcement
(41:42):
priority was going to be people who have committed crimes
while they were in the United States of America, and
I know for a fact that there are enough of
them that that ICE could spend all their time going
after them and not be done finding them during the
Trump present and see because there are enough. So I
(42:03):
thought that would be the focus. And then I thought,
of course, the other focus would be shutting down the border.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
Some more wouldn't be coming in.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Then I thought maybe eventually a secondary focus would be
getting out, especially the more recent ones. I did not
think there would be significant numbers of deportations of illegal
aliens who have not committed crimes while in the United States,
who have been here for a long time and are
working in our members of their community.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
I want to know what you think. Five six six
nine zero.
Speaker 1 (42:28):
All right, I'm gonna lighten it up for a minute
because we still had lots and lots of stuff to
do on the show.
Speaker 5 (42:33):
Today.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
I saw a really fun article over.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
At the Colorado Sun coloradosun dot com and the headline
is once scarce wild turkeys show up on mass in
northern Colorado and their neighbors have stories and the subhead
for the article as the charismatic birds reintroduced to the
region in the nineteen eighties, pop up more frequently.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
Human turkey encounters are on the rise now. I have to.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
Say, I'll please love it when I see a wild turkeys.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
If I'm driving around in a rural area or or
a little.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Less often, but let's say hiking, sometimes you will see them.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
I just think they're awesome.
Speaker 1 (43:09):
And it is kind of funny in a way because
they're they're oddly shaped, and they're they're kind of ugly.
And yet when this subhead of the article calls them
charismatic birds, it's not.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Wrong but oh so delicious. No, turkey's not good. Turkey's
not that's.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
One of the all right, But in a way, they
are charismatic, and I think it's part of the reason.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey to
be the American national bird. Let me just share I've
got ninety seconds or two minutes here. Let me just
share a little of this with you from the Colorado Sun.
Turkeys generally get the spotlight for one day of the year,
and it's not for the most desirable outcome, at least
(43:47):
if you're the turkey. But Colorado residents are reporting more
turkeys in their towns than ever before, at least in
recent years along the Front Range, and it's getting them
some mad publicity, even though Thanksgiving is months away.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
When the Greeley.
Speaker 1 (44:01):
Police Department posted about turkeys on Facebook, it got more
responses than well anything, except perhaps when police found a
car in a lake at one.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Of the city's most popular parks.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
The post was shared nearly eight hundred times, and about
half that number of people commented, many offering stories about
their own encounters with the big birds.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
EMTs said the turkeys, I love this story.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
EMTs said the turkeys liked to chase them from their
ambulances and not allow them back inside the garage. Cody Wilson,
a popular Greeley freelance weatherman, said he had a standoff
with the turkeys in his car and lost.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
He didn't offer.
Speaker 1 (44:41):
Details and was too busy to talk, but he did
live to post about it. Others said turkeys chased them,
but then others said the resident Canada geese not only
had greater numbers, but they seemed far sasas here. I
am much more in favor of the wild turkeys than
the Canada geese. I mean speaking of like, what is
all this stuff about, you know, deporting massive numbers of
(45:02):
illegal aliens? Right, We're doing that, and yet we've got
these millions of certainly illegal alien Canada geese here running around,
pooping on the lawns, pooping on the walkways.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
Do you think these birds showed their.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
Passports when they crossed the border from Canada to get here. No, So, look,
Trump administration, instead of doing workplace enforcements at hotels and
farms and stuff for people who are doing jobs that
we actually need, why did you get busy at deport
all these Canada geese backward they below?
Speaker 2 (45:33):
Seriously, we're going.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
To talk about the intersection of law and tariffs. Careful
listeners to this show know that this is an area
I care a lot about. You know what I think
about most of Trump's tariffs. I'm not going to get.
Speaker 2 (45:46):
Into all that right now.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
But a whole separate question from whether or not they
are good policy is whether or not they are legal.
I have an opinion that you probably know, but I'm
not going to deal with that right now. Joining us
talk about his opinion and his organization's opinion and his
client's opinion is Andrew Morris who is Senior Litigation Council
(46:08):
at NCLA, the New Civil Liberties Alliance. We've had multiple
guests from NCLA on the show in recent years. So,
Andrew Morris, welcome to Kowa. It's good to have you here.
Thank you, Ross, thanks for having me. So I'd like
to talk to you about two things, but you can
pick which one you want to talk about first.
Speaker 2 (46:30):
So you filed the first.
Speaker 1 (46:32):
You filed the first case challenging the Trump administration's legal
authority to impose most of these tariffs in federal court.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
That was simplified. And then more.
Speaker 1 (46:41):
Recently you find it you filed an amicus brief in
a case where you're not the lead. You can talk
about one or the other, or you can combine them
as you wish.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Sure it be happy to Well, I'll start with the
first where you started, And we did file the first
caste challenging these tariffs, that is, these emergency tariffs, and
we filed them briefly. Not because our organization has a
view on tariffs. We're not really taking a position. We're
not taking a position on tariff policy at all. Our
(47:16):
concern was that this president has ordered tariffs, not by
going through the hoops that Congress set out in a
lot of detailed tariff laws, but by using an emergency
statute that no president has ever used before. And we
have concerns with the executive and of overreaching by using
these general sort of emergency statutes to get around restrictions
(47:40):
in the law. And here, to finish up on your
first point, ross the Constitution places tariffs completely in Congress's lap.
They're completely in Congress's control, so the president can do
only what Congress permits them to do. So our concern
is protecting the role of Congress and they'll control and
the role of the president. That's why we got involved
(48:01):
in the first place.
Speaker 1 (48:02):
Okay, so before we go to the amicust brief question,
let's stick with Let's stick with this. I'm going to
play President Trump's attorneys. Okay, sure, okay, but Andrew, we
are acting under authority delegated to the executive branch by Congress.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
So what's the problem.
Speaker 4 (48:24):
Well, the problem is that you don't your client, the
president doesn't have authority delegated from Congress. The president has
cited a statute that gives him authority in case of
foreign threats to respond to emergencies. By imposing sanctions, he
can freeze assets, he can have a he can block
trade with Russia or with Iran. But it doesn't permit
(48:47):
him to tax Americans by imposing a tariff. It doesn't
use the word tariff. When Congress wants to permit the
president order tariffs, it has a lot of laws that
use the words tariffs and duties. This statute said as
the president can respond to an emergency, but it does
not permit him to order tariffs. That's the mistake. That's
the basis of the whole problem here.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
Okay, I'll move away from being Trump's lawyer for a second.
So it sounds like there are two primary arguments, although
maybe for you maybe one is more primary than the other.
But it sounds like to challenge Trump's use of this
particular law, the Emergency Economic Powers Act or the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, it sounds like there's two potential
(49:31):
avenues to challenge. One is, what's the definition of an emergency?
Is this you know, is it actually an emergency? If
you know there's flow of fentanyl from some country to
our country and it's been going on for ten years,
is at an emergency? And then the other question is,
even if it is an emergency, does the law give
you the authority to use tariffs as a remedy? So
(49:53):
are those both aspects of the challenge or are you
only focusing on the second one?
Speaker 5 (50:00):
Eactly right?
Speaker 4 (50:00):
Are those are the two pieces of the kind of
the issues in these cases? And you're also right, we
are challenging only the second, and that's.
Speaker 5 (50:07):
A simpler challenge.
Speaker 4 (50:09):
The question of what's an emergency, as you're kind of
implying you're exactly right, does kind of raise questions about, well,
is that presidential judgment at some point?
Speaker 5 (50:17):
What's an emergency?
Speaker 4 (50:19):
So we put that aside and we said, even if
there's an emergency, Congress, all Congress said was you can
do things like composed sanctions and address foreign threats as
the law says. It doesn't say you're allowed to start
imposing taxes. Okay, So that's what we stick with the
second point.
Speaker 1 (50:35):
All right, So I'm looking right now at a filing
in the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit and amarchist brief, and it is signed by you
as amaricist brief and support of the plaintiffs in a
different case called Vos Selections and some others against President
(50:56):
Trump and some others.
Speaker 2 (50:58):
So tell us what is in.
Speaker 1 (51:00):
This amicus, especially brief, especially to the extent that it
might be any different from what you just described, you know,
or is it is it exactly the same or is
there some new stuff here?
Speaker 4 (51:13):
It is exactly the same as we described, with additional
kind of background about why it makes sense to it
adds some additional history and some things that your listeners
won't want to kind of get into today. But that's
how we filed that additional brief. The case we filed
in the Vos Selections is another case that raises very
similar challenges and that's gone faster than our case, so
(51:34):
that's now an appeal.
Speaker 5 (51:35):
The court in that case, at the.
Speaker 4 (51:37):
Trial level ruled against the tariffs, struck them down. We
think they should have visioned a broader ruling. So as
an amicas as a friend of the court, we file
this to lend to lend support to striking down the tariffs,
to protecting the trial court order to strike sit down,
and give additional background to the court. That's why we
(51:59):
filed that. To help about in this other case that's
now on appeal.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
We are talking with Andrew Morris, Senior Litigation Council at
NCLA New Civil Liberties Alliance INCLA dot org.
Speaker 2 (52:11):
So will all.
Speaker 1 (52:13):
Such cases go to this particular court? I think even
people who follow law a little bit closely might not
actually have heard of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, which is not the same as the Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Speaker 2 (52:30):
So do they all go here before they go to
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (52:35):
It is confusing even for lawyers, and actually that's one
of the issues that parties are fighting over. There's a
split where some courts have decided these cases should be
decided in this court that goes to the Federal Circuit,
whereas a court in Washington decided that this case can
be decided in the district. The trial level court in
(52:56):
Washington then go to a different court of appeals, which
is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
So there's actually a split even about where it should
be decided. But at the moment, there are two cases
on appeal and two different appellate courts, And the gist
of what has happened so far is two courts of
bission to ruling on what we call the merits gotten
to the point of the case, and they both ruled
(53:17):
against the administration and said that the tariffs are unlawful
for slightly different reasons. But that's where that's what's teed up,
and so both cases are on appeal. Where if the
parties who won below went on appeal, the tariffs continue
to be ruled unlawful.
Speaker 5 (53:35):
That's we're waiting to see what will happen.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
At what point if the Trump administration loses, At what
point would it be at a court that has the
authority to order them to stop or do you think
that's not until the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (53:51):
Well, that's also an issue that the parties are fighting over.
Speaker 4 (53:55):
At the Court of Appeal to the level there's broader
reach given the nature of the two courts of appeals
that both have special national standing.
Speaker 5 (54:04):
So that's an open question what the effect would be.
Speaker 4 (54:08):
But the Federal Circuit, for example, was designed to be
the national court for trade issues.
Speaker 5 (54:15):
That's why the government wants to be there.
Speaker 4 (54:16):
So there's a strong argument that should be a nationwide
ruling against the administration. So we will see, and we'll
know in a month or two their oral arguments coming up.
But the whole point of that court was for it
to be a nationwide court, and so there should be
a nationwide relief. Seems logical, but that's still being fought over.
Speaker 1 (54:37):
What do you think the chances are that either the
Federal Circuit rules in favor of your plaintiffs or the
plaintiffs who you're siding with in your amateurst brief. What
do you think the odds are that that court rules
for you guys, and then the Supreme Court refuses to
(54:58):
hear the case, leave that standing as as it is.
Speaker 4 (55:04):
Well that that gets into the prognosty, you know. That's
that's what a lot of lawyers spend time arguing about.
The conventional wisdom, which seems to have a lot of
force here is that this is a very.
Speaker 5 (55:17):
Important case about presidential power.
Speaker 4 (55:20):
This could apply to other presidents who try to use
emergency statutes.
Speaker 5 (55:23):
For other reasons.
Speaker 4 (55:24):
So there seems to be a strong likelihood that the
Supreme Court will find this to be the kind of
case that it would take that that seems right to me.
Speaker 5 (55:32):
To give a little bit of color.
Speaker 4 (55:33):
The next president from another party could come in and
declare a crime and a climate emergency and say, well,
of course that has foreign implicated foreign policy implications. It
affects the whole world, and so there's a climate emergency,
I'm going to start issuing various orders based on that emergency.
So this has this case has far reaching implications beyond tariffs.
Speaker 1 (55:54):
Okay, last question for you, And again I'm not a lawyer,
but I think, as you gather, I probably think about
this stuff a fair bit and have reasonable questions most
of the time.
Speaker 2 (56:07):
So I don't know where this is in the.
Speaker 1 (56:11):
Thinking about it as a full case going for the
merits versus an early kind of injunction. And what I'm
getting at here is it seems to me that to
the extent that Trump is imposing tariffs, whether or not
they're illegal, but they are definitely causing harm, and for
(56:32):
some businesses it may be it may be irrepairable harm.
And it seems to me that a lot of times
courts do issue injunctions saying Okay, the government can't do
this for now, because if the government loses, and we
think they will, then the harm that will have been
(56:52):
done in the interim wall we're hearing the case could
be the kind of harm that in this kind of
case would put businesses out of business, and therefore we're
going to say for now you can't impose the tariffs.
Speaker 2 (57:03):
But that doesn't seem to be happening. So so what
is this like.
Speaker 1 (57:07):
Kind of potentially leading to an injunction, a preliminary injunction,
or is this only possibly leading to a full case
on the merits and leaving the tariffs in place until then.
Speaker 2 (57:18):
Sorry for the long question.
Speaker 4 (57:21):
Now that's a really perceptive question because a couple thanks
running together that the ultimate answer is that this this
case was a pretty clear legal question, didn't have to
get into some of these issues that.
Speaker 5 (57:33):
Come up from preliminary in junction cases.
Speaker 4 (57:36):
So the courts were able to rule on the merits
but didn't issue a preliminary injunction, but went but did
did strike them, did strike the the trial court level,
did strike the tariffs down declare them un lawful, but
those order the order them in the Federal Circuit, for example,
has been stayed until the Federal Circuit rules, so they
(57:58):
don't get to your question.
Speaker 5 (58:00):
So we've skipped past that that prelominer and.
Speaker 4 (58:04):
Johnson phaz and gotten the ruling on the merits from
the Court of the National Trade they and yes, narrow rule.
Your point is exactly right that these are devastating, particularly
the small businesses who in a year, who cares if
they can get their tariffs back that they pay because
they've run out of money.
Speaker 2 (58:21):
They'll be gone by then they've run out of customers, right,
And so.
Speaker 1 (58:26):
I mean, is there a move by n c l
A or by whoever is representing the clients in the
other case that you just issued an amatist briefund is?
Speaker 2 (58:34):
I mean, is there anything.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
You can do to get the tariffs and joined in
the meantime or is what you're doing already the fastest
possible thing to try to get the if it ends
up being ruled illegal. And I hope they are ruled illegal,
and I think they probably will be. But like, you know,
what can you do to make sure your clients aren't
put out of business in the meantime?
Speaker 4 (58:55):
No, you raised the phenomenal central point, and there are
with the cases that are up on appeal now, the
parties have fought over the state, particularly in the Court
of International Trade and then the Federal Circuit, making exactly
your arguments. You're exactly right saying this The Court of
National Trade said these terriffs are unlawful. They should stop
(59:17):
now rather than require the small businesses and others to.
Speaker 5 (59:21):
Keep paying them.
Speaker 4 (59:23):
But the Federal Circuit reached out and stayed them anyway
over exactly your objections. Now, there are other litigation out there,
including our case, that are that have been stayed by
the Federal Circuit by I'm sorry, by the Courternational Trade.
Speaker 5 (59:37):
While these others are on appeal.
Speaker 4 (59:38):
We're trying to dislodge them and move them forward, so
we'll see what happens. But you put your finger on
exactly what is a we think a major central injustice
and all these these cases, which is courts have already
decided these are unlawful. Our clients are small businesses, for example,
and they're not They can't go to the White House
and cut a deal, or they don't have capital resources
(01:00:01):
to look for sources in other countries. They're running out
of top and so you put your finger on what
we think is a big injustice in the way these
cases are being handled.
Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
Andrew Morris is Senior Litigation Council at n c L
A n c L A Legal Dot Org, n c
l A Legal Dot org, I think I might have
given the wrong U r L earlier in c l
a legal dot org to learn more. Andrew, great conversation,
Thanks so much for taking time. We will definitely keep
in touch. I'm extremely interested in these particular cases.
Speaker 5 (01:00:34):
Thank you, Roth, be happy to help you again.
Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
All right, thank you, Andrew. All Right, that's that's some
good stuff. A lot of legal ease there, I think.
But I hope you. I hope you followed it, and
I hope you found it interesting and worthwhile. All right,
let's do a couple of other things. Let's see I
did Netflix. Oh, here's a here's a fun thing. So
there's this really terrible lady who works for the United Nations.
(01:00:58):
Her name is Francesca Albanese, and she is a raging
anti Semite, anti Israel pro Palestinian lunatic.
Speaker 2 (01:01:08):
And she is she has a title of.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapport Tour and, as
is typical of the United Nations, right, this is the
group that will put Iran or Libya on the Human
Rights Council.
Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
Right, So these people are a joke.
Speaker 1 (01:01:25):
And the United Nations generally is one of the largest,
one of the largest clubs of anti Semites.
Speaker 2 (01:01:32):
You know, a whole bunch of anti Semites get.
Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
Together in one building in New York of all places,
which has so many Jews. But that's where we're gonna
decide to put all the anti Semites in one building.
Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
And this lady is particularly bad.
Speaker 1 (01:01:43):
She has made all kinds of anti Israel and anti
Semitic remarks.
Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
And this is probably ten years ago now.
Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
She wrote about the US being subjugated by the Jewish lobby,
and she's taught, she speaks at pro Palestinian confert and
says and she talks about, you know, concentration camps in God.
Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
Just terrible. She's absolutely terrible.
Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
So what I wanted to let you know is that
yesterday on X Marco Rubio, Secretary of State now wrote
that miss Albanese has been quote involved in a campaign
of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel,
and he announced sanctions against her.
Speaker 2 (01:02:27):
Sanctions against her in response.
Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
To her quote illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt ICC,
which is the International Criminal Court action against US and
Israeli officials, companies, and executives. And apparently a Rubio says
that Albanese engaged directly with the ICC in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain,
(01:02:51):
or prosecute Americans and Israelis, though actually neither of those
countries is a signature, is a signat toy to the
agreement that established the ICC and determines its jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (01:03:05):
So Israel is not part of the ICC. America is
not part of the ICC.
Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
That is also an anti Semitic club run by lately.
I think it's a South African and there's an immense
amount of anti Semitism in South Africa these days for
some reason. In any case, this lady, as I understand it,
will no longer be given visas to visit the United
States of America. I don't think Rubio can impose any
(01:03:32):
other sanctions as Secretary of State, but it's a good
start to show that we are not going to tolerate
this stuff anymore. And let me share one other story
with you. This is kind of interesting. You may have
heard yesterday that Joe Biden's doctor, the former White House
doctor named Kevin O'Connor, was called into a closed door
(01:03:54):
hearing of the House Oversight Committee.
Speaker 2 (01:03:59):
And I'm going to quote from Fox News.
Speaker 1 (01:04:01):
O'Connor pleded the fifth to multiple questions about his time
with Joe Biden during his sit down. It resulted in
a hasty end to what could have been an hour's
long deposition. So the chairman of the committee is a
guy named James Comer from Kentucky. And obviously, when the
Republicans are in the majority in the House, every committee
chairman is a Republican.
Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
That's how it works.
Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
So he's a Republican from Kentucky. And he told reporters
after the meeting this is what he said, and I'm
quoting Comber. Now, I'm gonna read the first two questions
that were asked. First, were you ever told to lie
about the President's health? He pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He
would not answer that question. The second question, did you
(01:04:40):
ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?
Speaker 2 (01:04:45):
Again?
Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
President White? President Biden's White House physician pled the Fifth.
This is unprecedented, and I think this adds more fuel
to the fire that there was a cover up, And
I would like to approach this with a little.
Speaker 2 (01:04:57):
Bit of subtlety.
Speaker 1 (01:04:59):
There are certainly important federal laws on the books. HIPPA
is the primary one protecting patient information from being disclosed
by a doctor unless the patient says you can, And
if I were Joe Biden, I wouldn't give him permission
to say he could.
Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
However, if you.
Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
Think about the two questions that Comer said were asked
to me, these are very different questions, and I'm going
to take the second question first, did you ever believe
President Biden was unfit to execute his duty? If I
were that doctor, I would refuse to answer that question.
Speaker 6 (01:05:37):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
I don't know whether I would.
Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
Take the fifth, but the fifth is an easy way
to refuse to answer, right, because I think that question
gets too close to disclosing private patient information. Did you
ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?
I wouldn't answer it either. I'd like to know the answer.
As an American, I'd like to know the answer, but
(01:06:00):
if I were that doctor, I wouldn't answer. However, the
first question, were you ever told to lie about the
President's health?
Speaker 2 (01:06:08):
That does not.
Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
Require him to disclose proprietary patient information, because it's not
even necessarily about the patient. It could well be a
question did the chief of staff ever ask you to
lie about Joe Biden's health?
Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
And in that one, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
That's a tough call because if you answer yes, I
was told to lie about it, the next question obviously
would be, well, then did.
Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
You lie about it?
Speaker 1 (01:06:38):
And in that case, if you're going to then say
you lied to let's say Congress about it. Now, you
may have a legal problem on your hands, and that's
why you might actually take the fifth.
Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
But these are very very.
Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
Different questions, and I think we should understand that kind
of subtlety. I don't blame him for refusing to answer
the question did you ever think Biden was unfit?
Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
Even though I'd like to know the answer, But we.
Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
Really deserve the answer to the question of where you
ever told to lie about the president's health? And therefore
what Congress should do. What they can do is they
can give this guy immunity from prosecution from anything having
to do with any of this, and then call him
back and ask him this question.
Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
Again, were you ever told to lie?
Speaker 1 (01:07:26):
Because once they've given him immunity, he can't plead the
fifth anymore because he is not at risk of self
incrimination when the government has already guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
He won't be charged. All right, no fingers in the area.
Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Yet, make sure you do this the professional way and
not the semi professional way. Intrepid Taad Bauer joins us
for another edition of Well now you know, we got
about six minutes to jump right in.
Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (01:07:50):
So the last time we did this, we were talking
about the origin of the name of the city of Denver,
and just the short version is the guys that built
the city wanted to be its county seat. So they
said we're going to name this after the territorial governor,
James Denver. When they went down to lobby and he
had already quit, so it was a moot point. But
that's how Denver got his name. But we also had
(01:08:11):
a bunch of other ones that we didn't get the
time to get to.
Speaker 2 (01:08:14):
Okay, we're going to do that. Now.
Speaker 6 (01:08:16):
Do you know how the city of Aurora got its
name for the sky?
Speaker 2 (01:08:23):
No, it actually originated.
Speaker 6 (01:08:25):
It started off as a subdivision in the town of Fletcher.
Now that was an area built up by a real
estate developer named Donald Fletcher who made his money in
the silver boom, and so the subdivision of Aurora was
part of Fletcher in eighteen ninety one. And they think
that they called it Aurora because there's a lot of
(01:08:46):
people from Illinois that settled there so after Aurora, Illinois.
But back in eighteen ninety three, the price of silver
began to crash, and so this Fletcher guy left the
town in heavy debt to Denver Water, went to ca Alifornia,
got out of town, and so the people there decided, well,
you know, let's not call ourselves Fletcher anymore.
Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
So they changed it to Aurora.
Speaker 6 (01:09:11):
And then when it became an official town in nineteen
that was in nineteen oh seven. And then when they
reached the threshold to become an actual town, which it
was two thousand people back in the nineteen twenties, it
became an official city, the City of Aurora.
Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
Love it all right, that's one.
Speaker 5 (01:09:29):
That's one.
Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
Now I live in Parker.
Speaker 6 (01:09:30):
I had no idea what Parker was named after, but
now I do.
Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
Do you not a clue.
Speaker 6 (01:09:36):
It's named after a guy by the name of James Sample.
Parker and ex Bullwhacker went to there's a thing called
the twenty mile House that's kind of the centerpiece of
the area back then. And so he bought this thing
and made improvements to it. It grew, it prospered. He
(01:09:56):
put in a blacksmith shop, he put a g store,
and this also became the first official post office, was it.
Speaker 2 (01:10:05):
Did he did mister Parker call the place Parker? No?
Speaker 6 (01:10:08):
No, they named it after him when when it became
a town. Yeah, it was just like an area of
Douglas County back then, in the twenty mile House. So
if you've been to Parker, there's a lot of twenty
mile things there. And so he actually built the first
school across the road from the twenty mile House and
even paid the teacher's salary for the first year out
of his own pocket.
Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
What year years we talking about here?
Speaker 6 (01:10:30):
That was he bought the building in eighteen seventy four. Wow,
And so he really built it up. He became became
the first postmaster there. And so when they did when
it became the area became a town, they thought that
this knew would be the guy to name it after.
Speaker 2 (01:10:43):
So Parker is named after James Sample. Wow, two years
before Colorado actually became state.
Speaker 6 (01:10:49):
Yeah, indeed, yeah, how about Estes park mister Estes, missus Estes. Well, actually,
you're you're sort of right. The town was established by
William Byers, the founder The name was established by William Byers,
(01:11:09):
the founding editor of The Rocky Mountain News. He named
the town after its first residents, Joel and Patty Estes,
and they added the word park to capture the essence
of the town.
Speaker 2 (01:11:22):
So that was Rocky Nation.
Speaker 1 (01:11:24):
Rocky Mountain National Park already a thing before the town
was a thing, or or not which came first.
Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
That's a good question. What year does it say the
town was made early nineteen hundreds?
Speaker 6 (01:11:38):
Nope, the Rocky Mountain National Park was established in nineteen fifteen.
Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
Okay, so the town the town first, but it just
felt park.
Speaker 2 (01:11:45):
Like or something. Yeah, that's thought.
Speaker 6 (01:11:47):
The area was very park like, all right, okay, like it.
And then this is the weirdest one, Arvada no clue
less than no clue. So the town site was established
along Ralston Creek and they named the town what become
the town Ralston Point. But apparently there's a whole bunch
(01:12:07):
of other things named Ralston along Ralston Creek and they
didn't want to confuse it. So one of the settlers,
I don't know why they decided this, but the one
of the settlers wives brothers middle.
Speaker 2 (01:12:20):
Name was Arvada.
Speaker 6 (01:12:22):
No I swear makes complete sense, yes, yep, wow, Yeah,
the middle name of the brother in.
Speaker 2 (01:12:29):
Law of the city founders. Why unbelievable?
Speaker 1 (01:12:33):
Can I share something with you that I just found
here on the oh Google thing?
Speaker 5 (01:12:36):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (01:12:37):
In Colorado, Ralston most likely refers to Lewis Ralston, a
gold prospector who discovered gold along a creek that was
later named Ralston Creek near what is now the city
of Arvada. His discovery in eighteen fifty is considered the
first documented gold find in Colorado and sparked the Pike's
(01:12:57):
Peak gold Rush.
Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
I'll leave it there.
Speaker 6 (01:13:00):
Yeah, And so this guy's full name was hire him
Arvada Haskin, the brother in law of settler Mary Wadsworth
for the Wadsworth What there you go? Benjamin Wadsworth was
the was one of those one of the founders of
Ralston Point, which became Arvada Love the first postmaster of
the town.
Speaker 1 (01:13:19):
Fabulous. Yes, I can't believe it. A town named for
somebody's middle name, Chad, brother in law's middle name, Chad.
Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
I did not know that. Well, now you know, fingers.
Speaker 1 (01:13:32):
In the air, everybody will be right back on KOA.
You're trying to make me follow the show sheet by
playing that true. And second of all, that wasn't even
supposed to be in this segment.
Speaker 2 (01:13:41):
That's in the next segment.
Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
So now you're trying to get me to do something
that I.
Speaker 2 (01:13:47):
Might or might not do, not even at the time.
Speaker 1 (01:13:49):
I'm going to do it, but you know what, because
you're in charge and I don't want to get fired,
I'm gonna do it, all right, I'll do it.
Speaker 2 (01:13:56):
That's fine, that's fine, I'll do it.
Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
I just want to mention mentioned two listener texts that
are very very similar to each other. Ross listener text,
I thought Arvada was a foreign word that meant no
straight roads. And then another one that I will paraphrase Ross,
I thought Aurora was a foreign word.
Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
That meant come and get shot in the face. So
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
I haven't heard that about either of these places. And
I think intrepid Chad Bauer would have told us if
that's really where those names came from. But I do.
I do like that concept, Arvada meaning no straight roads.
You can imagine that actually in some Native American language, right,
there were probably Native Americans around where Arvada is now
and and nore. Yeah, I like it. I like it
(01:14:44):
all right. So Dragon's gonna make me do this thing,
all right, So if you didn't recognize that music's theme
from Superman movies. And there's some interesting stuff going on
with this new Superman movie that I think is released tomorrow,
I think is when it opened in the theaters. But
of course they do some preview kind of stuff. They
(01:15:04):
show it to some people, they show it to movie
critics and such. Every once in a while, I get
to go to a movie every once in a while,
actually I get to take listeners to a movie a
day or two or three days before it opens to
widely to the public. I think Dragon and I have
gone to some movies together like that. And so there
are some early reviews out of the of the Superman movie,
(01:15:27):
and they're actually quite good.
Speaker 2 (01:15:29):
Okay, they're quite good.
Speaker 1 (01:15:30):
A lot of people think the script is good, the
acting is good, it's a lot of fun. The way
they have done the color filtering for this movie makes
it seem like a comic book coming to life, you know.
One critic says, a breath of fresh air and an
era saturated with dark anti heroes, Superman is refreshingly idealistic,
(01:15:51):
not in a saccharin way, but in a way that
feels rebellious, even radical. The reporter from Variety, which is
one of the very very top Hollywood newspapers or magazines,
says gun that's the director, James Gunn, with two wins,
knows that the world has grown weary of comic book
film culture, and in the New Superman, he's out to
(01:16:13):
reset not just one studio's fortunes, but the very idea
of what a comic book movie is. And I'll share
one more from the Hollywood Reporter.
Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
Another huge publication out there.
Speaker 1 (01:16:26):
Perhaps its biggest strength is that its sidesteps all the
revisionist murk of superheroes on screen in the last decade
or two and reverts almost to an enchanting state of
childlike wonder. And so you get the idea a lot
of very good reviews.
Speaker 2 (01:16:45):
So now what's the issue.
Speaker 1 (01:16:48):
The issue is that the director James Gunn, in an interview,
talked about immigration and he said in an interview, people
who say no to immigrants are against the American way.
And this was an interview with The Times, which is
(01:17:10):
a British newspaper, not the New York Times or all
the Times, just the Times, or I think it maybe
used to be called The Times.
Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
Of London.
Speaker 1 (01:17:16):
He says, Superman is the story of America and immigrant
that came from other places and populated the country. But
for me, it's mostly a story that says basic human
kindness is of value and is something we have lost.
And he also said that the film is about politics
and about morality, and he said that he knew that
(01:17:37):
some parts of the country would view it differently from
other parts.
Speaker 2 (01:17:40):
Of the country.
Speaker 1 (01:17:41):
He says, and I'm quoting again, Yes it plays differently.
Speaker 2 (01:17:45):
It's about human kindness. And obviously, he.
Speaker 1 (01:17:47):
Says, there will be jerks out there who are just
not kind and will take it as offensive just because
it is about kindness, but screw them. But see, here's
the problem. He's clearly not really talking about kindness. He's
really talking about immigration policy. And where this thing gets
a little sticky is that he doesn't make in these interviews.
(01:18:09):
I mean, I'm not talking about the movie. I haven't
seen the movie, But he doesn't make any kind of
distinction that I think is a real distinction in a
lot of people's minds between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
And it kind of sounds like he's criticizing people who
are not big fans of illegal immigration, and he's not
backing down at all.
Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
And his brother, who is one of.
Speaker 1 (01:18:31):
The actors in the movie, didn't back down at all.
And it's causing some consternation on the political right a
little bit. And Fox News was all over this and
they called it super Woke instead of Superman.
Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
Now, I gotta say, I do think that some.
Speaker 1 (01:18:49):
Of the folks on Fox News who are criticizing this
are doing and to some degree to kind of pander
to the current anti immigrant mood among some Fox News watchers.
Speaker 2 (01:19:03):
And I think they're making too much of it.
Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
And you know what, as the as the brother, as
the director's brother said, Hey guys, it's just a movie, right,
But as much as they're making too much of it. Again,
going back to what I said a moment ago, it's
certainly true that the director injected politics into the conversation, right,
(01:19:29):
And I don't think that's very I don't think that's
very bright. Ben Shapiro, obviously a very kind of sober,
rational kind of guy, talks about this a little bit
on his own YouTube channel, and I'm quoting from Forbes now.
He accused the cast and crew of making an attempt
to separate Superman from America, alleging that Gunn likened the
(01:19:51):
character to.
Speaker 2 (01:19:52):
An illegal immigrant.
Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
Shapiro said, Superman is an immigrant who assimilates in American values.
But he's suggesting that gun the director is kind of
promoting something a little different. But that's a hard thing
to do because Clark Kent is like an all American
guy right in these in these stories. The other thing
(01:20:13):
that some people are talking about, and I just want
to clarify a little is in the Superman movie here
he doesn't say or is a truth justice in the
American way? Right, He'll say truth justice and things like
that or whatever. But what I want to make really
clear is that Superman, first of all, in the history
of Superman, he didn't really say truth justice in the American.
Speaker 2 (01:20:37):
Way very much.
Speaker 1 (01:20:37):
It's not a very common thing in the original comic
books a.
Speaker 2 (01:20:40):
Time or two here and there, but even in the movies.
Speaker 1 (01:20:44):
I don't think Superman has said truth justice in the
American way in the movies for at least twenty years,
and maybe not since the eighties. But I don't think
it's happened once in the two thousands, So it's not
a new thing in this movie. So look, here's what
I think both sides are making a mistake. I think
the director is making a mistake injecting politics in it
(01:21:04):
and thumbing the nose of conservatives who like going to
movies too right, So that's dumb. And I think Fox
News is making a mistake, but it's a more understandable
one because they had their noses thumbed by the director
really going after him and saying, why are you making
this you know, woke nonsense, pro illegal immigration whatever. I
think my agreement is with the brother his name is
(01:21:28):
Sean Gunn, who said, hey.
Speaker 2 (01:21:29):
Guys, it's just a movie.
Speaker 1 (01:21:31):
I had forgotten a strange visitor from another planet.
Speaker 2 (01:21:35):
So that's pretty cool. And for sure, Superman.
Speaker 1 (01:21:39):
Was associated with truth justice in the American way a
lot in the forties and fifties, quite a bit in
the forties and fifties, and the comic book people and
the movie people took out the American way thing like
I think could have been the nineties, but definitely by
the two thousands, and I think part of the reason
for I know that part of the reason for that
(01:22:02):
is they they didn't want to, I don't know, upset
or offend. That's probably a little too strong they wanted
to make movies that they could sell around the world,
and they didn't want to have you know, the French
or the whoever or whoever is just thinking, ah, Superman
just you know, only about the American and they just
feel like, as a marketing thing, it'd be better to
(01:22:23):
take out the American way and just make it something
kind of.
Speaker 2 (01:22:26):
More more generic than that.
Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
But for sure, he said it a lot in the
forties and fifties, no doubt about that. Another listener says,
and I looked this up and it's right. Arvada comes
from the term arvad Heites. And here I'll just rather
than the listener text, I'll go to some ai here.
The arvad Heites were an ancient people mentioned in the
Bible as descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. They are
(01:22:50):
associated with the island city of Arvad also known as Arridus,
located off the coast of.
Speaker 2 (01:22:57):
Modern day Syria.
Speaker 1 (01:22:59):
So apparently somebody gave their kid the middle name Arveda,
relating to this ancient people in the Bible, and then
somebody else used his That was his brother in law.
The person who named the town used his brother in
law's middle name to name the town of ar Veda.
I think that's a pretty cool story. I really do
like that story. Okay, let me you know, we've done
(01:23:20):
a fair bit of politics and a lot of law.
Actually on today's show, I'm going to do something different
for a moment.
Speaker 2 (01:23:27):
I thought this was.
Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
An interesting story. And this is from the Free Press,
from a guy named Zach Bissonett. And you know, as
a kid, I was a kid not just pre Internet,
but way way way pre internet. Right, So if you
were going to read a book, you either were going
to go to a bookstore and buy it, which I
didn't do as a kid, or you would go to
(01:23:49):
the library and you know, check out a book and
read it and return it. So I you know, I
grew up going to library quite a bit, school library,
public library. And I think lots of folks listening to
me right now had that same experience, and you.
Speaker 2 (01:24:03):
Know, even folks a lot younger, a lot than I am.
Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
I've spent lots of time in the library, and libraries
evolved in quite a few ways. For example, some of
the public libraries around here have a really cool system,
and I don't entirely understand how it works where you
can check out a digital book, so you can check
out a book that you can read, like on your
kindle or something like that, and then it expires after
a period of time, just.
Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
The same way.
Speaker 1 (01:24:28):
You know, if you had to return a library book,
you can't just download it and have it forever.
Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
That's some pretty cool stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
So anyway, this piece now by again Zach Bissonette is
his name, is entitled the Death of the Public Library.
And yeah, I don't know if if the situation is
quite as generalizable as he might make it seem, but
it wouldn't surprise me depending on the location. So let
(01:24:57):
me just share this story with you. It's not it's
not very long. I might read.
Speaker 2 (01:25:02):
I don't know. I probably won't read the whole thing.
Actually it's a little too long for that, but I'll
do some bits and skip ahead.
Speaker 1 (01:25:08):
I was excited about the Mandel Public Library when I
moved to West Palm Beach, Florida in early twenty twenty three.
The city was on the rise, and Foters Travel had
named mandal the fourth most beautiful public library in America.
Speaker 2 (01:25:21):
Then I started going there.
Speaker 1 (01:25:23):
I watched a security guard tell a man who appeared
to be homeless that he wasn't allowed back.
Speaker 2 (01:25:27):
For another month.
Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
In the new books section, a guy yelled into his
phone that he'd been kicked off the bus for arguing
with a driver. Other homeless people slept in chairs and snored.
The smell made you hold your breath. Beautiful though it was.
With high, rounded ceilings and a coffee shop in the lobby,
I wondered how people could use this library as a
place to read and study. The answer I soon discovered
(01:25:52):
is that increasingly they don't. Between twenty twelve and twenty nineteen,
according to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, visits
to the Mandel Library declined twenty seven percent, and total circulation,
the number of items including e books borrowed by library
patient patrons, fell by a similar twenty six percent, even
(01:26:14):
as newcomers poured into South Florida. The trend is not reversed,
with visits following another thirty one percent since twenty nineteen,
meaning that visits have declined a staggering fifty percent since
twenty twelve, even though the population has risen. This and again,
let me just interject here, this isn't him, just me.
You would expect visits to drop anyway because of the
(01:26:37):
ability to buy ebooks and to listen to audible books.
So there are a lot of ways to get books
now that don't involve needing a physical copy of a book.
I already mentioned the ebooks at the library, of course,
but you know, you've got these other systems where you
can just download them and you sort of own them
then and you can take your time and all that.
(01:26:59):
So it's not suprising that visits to the library are down,
but down fifty percent, especially in a place with rising population,
that does start to feel.
Speaker 2 (01:27:10):
Then like something else is going on.
Speaker 1 (01:27:13):
So the statistics showing a dramatic increase, on the other hand,
is not one you want to see. According to the
library's director, quote behavior incident reports, everything from sleeping in
the library to harassment of other patrons or staff, has
risen by forty one percent over that time. It's another
reason the library director, her name is Lisa Hathaway, told
(01:27:35):
the reporter we hired a social worker now, he says,
my local library is hardly an aberration. All over the country,
libraries are seeing fewer visitors and more problems per resident.
Visits to public libraries fell by fifty six point six
percent in the ten years ending twenty twenty two. Meanwhile,
(01:27:58):
a report from the Urban Library Council found that between
twenty nineteen and twenty twenty three, security incidents at its
one hundred and fifteen member libraries rose well rose, even
though visit spelled thirty five percent. So you get the idea, right,
A bunch of well here, I'll read this sentence. A
(01:28:18):
major reason libraries are in decline is that a former
librarian who wrote in the Los Angeles Times in as
far back as two thousand and seven.
Speaker 2 (01:28:28):
This librarian wrote, libraries.
Speaker 1 (01:28:30):
Have become a de facto daytime shelter for the city's homeless.
So I'm gonna skip ahead a little bit in the
interest of time, and he talks about The writer talks
about two different library trainers named Ryan Dowd and Steve Albrecht,
(01:28:51):
and he says these two were friends, but their approaches
are very different. Dowd, who once ran a homeless shelter
in Aurora, Illinois, though not Colorup, is the author of
a book. Now listen to this like this to me,
this is beyond woke. But listen to this The Librarian's
Guide to Homelessness, an empathy driven approach to solving problems,
(01:29:13):
preventing conflict, and serving anyone. He told me, not me,
but he's the reporter is writing this. He told me
he originally wanted to title the book how to Run
Your Library Like a Homeless Shelter. When I asked if
he was joking, he said he wasn't sure. He's given
seminars for roughly half of the nation's librarians, including those
(01:29:33):
running most of the largest systems.
Speaker 2 (01:29:35):
His influence is unquestioned.
Speaker 1 (01:29:40):
Dowd's essential belief is that not only do the homeless
have every right to spend their days in libraries, but
that librarians should be should view their needs as a
critical part of the of the job. He believes librarians
should be trained to dispense narcan Actually, that's fine.
Speaker 2 (01:29:56):
I don't mind that.
Speaker 1 (01:29:57):
There's a difference between being able on an urgency basis
to save the life of somebody who is overdosing. There's
a difference between that and inviting all the homeless people
into your library.
Speaker 2 (01:30:08):
Okay, those are two very different things.
Speaker 1 (01:30:11):
One of his seminars is called Jerks with Holmes, How
to deal with members of the public who are being
jerks about homeless folks. His scripts for addressing problematic behaviors
include examples like, Hey, I don't care if you urinate
on the Harry Potter books, but the politicians have a
no urinating policy. Therefore I have to ask you to stop. Wow,
(01:30:31):
it sounds like a joke. It sounds like it sounds
like someone No, it's not the Babylon bee, it's not
the onion, right, it's it sounds like someone making a
ridiculous caricature of a woke librarian. But when the reporter
(01:30:52):
pointed out that library visits were in steep decline, this
guy said he was unaware of that data.
Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
And then the reporter.
Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
Says, could any institution take comfort in smells?
Speaker 2 (01:31:05):
That quote aren't that bad?
Speaker 1 (01:31:07):
And that's a response to this guy Dowd saying, there's.
Speaker 2 (01:31:11):
A listen to this. This is it's a good point, dragon.
This is not the Babylon be Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:31:19):
As for the body odor that perminates so many public
libraries these days, mister Dowd writes that quote, there is
a certain amount of odor that we can expect whenever
we go out in public. Other people use odor as
an excuse to vent their prejudices. Don't let someone's hypersensitivity
or bias rule today. If the smell really isn't that bad,
(01:31:45):
dragon's laughing. And as the reporter says, can any institution
take comfort in knowing that the smells that are wasting
through their edifice are quote not that bad? And then
mister Dowd says, to me, community means it's literally for all,
including people that might make us uncomfortable. Okay, So that's
(01:32:09):
one guy. The other guy, last name is all Brecked.
And if these two guys are friends, but they don't
think the same way, but they know each other because
they're in this kind of small business of you know,
library training, and this guy does also, this guy all Brecked,
does library security training as well. He's a former cop
in San Diego and he's been doing library security training
for a quarter century and still quoting from the Free
(01:32:32):
Press article, he advises librarians to stop apologizing for measures
designed to make their libraries safe and appealing environments. Some
topics he covers in his webinar program include our list
of challenging patrons from pets to pedophiles, and.
Speaker 2 (01:32:51):
Issues enforcing our code of conduct.
Speaker 1 (01:32:53):
And he said, we are losing control of a facility
that has always been benevolent and peaceful for the community.
While mister Dowd's trainings include strategies for reducing police calls,
Allbrecht worries that many librarians aren't calling the police enough.
Albrecht says people in the library world sometimes misunderstand that
(01:33:16):
one of the primary functions of the police is to
preserve the piece.
Speaker 2 (01:33:20):
Police can do.
Speaker 1 (01:33:21):
A lot of good by just telling someone they have
to leave now. The reporter says, most librarians I spoke
to were nervous about discussing these problems because they've seen
the consequences of bucking the progressive tide that has swept
America's libraries. Amanda Oliver, a former Washington, DC librarian, as
(01:33:42):
author of Overdue Reckoning with the Public Library, a book
that describes the problems that come with the homeless takeover
of the library. She told me I was only able
to write this book because I was no longer a librarian,
but she still had to be careful. The book was
published in twenty twenty two, and it explains that while
hiring a police officer did reduce violent incidents and made
(01:34:04):
some patrons feel safe for quote, the officers did very
little or maybe nothing to address the systemic issues in
the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (01:34:12):
She it seemed like a tall order.
Speaker 1 (01:34:14):
The reporter says, to expect systemic issues to be addressed
by a library cop and she agreed, this is this
is pretty crazy. There's a lot more to this, actually
a lot more. And I posted a link to the
article on my website. I probably just shared with you,
(01:34:35):
maybe even maybe even a third of it.
Speaker 2 (01:34:38):
Let me just share with you the very end.
Speaker 1 (01:34:41):
Current practices aren't solving homelessness, but seem well on their
way to destroying.
Speaker 2 (01:34:45):
The public library.
Speaker 1 (01:34:47):
As one anonymous librarian said in response to a survey
about mentally a library guests, quote, this problem, not the
invention of the internet, could prove to be the final
demise of the public library, as we know. Another person
who we had talked about in the article seemed sad
when I asked her about the declining visit numbers. She said, quote,
(01:35:09):
I really understand why so many library workers want to
keep saying yes, But ironically it's always giving in, always
saying yes. That's what will lead to the destruction of libraries.
We don't want to be subsumed. We don't want to
be a community center. So there you go, There you go.
(01:35:31):
I thought that was a really good piece. So I'm
going to come back to something that I did near
the very beginning of the show.
Speaker 2 (01:35:41):
I think I need to do this a little bit more. Actually,
is to find.
Speaker 1 (01:35:43):
Something that I think is particularly interesting or important in
the first hour and do it again in the last hour,
because if you're listening now, you might not have been
listening to and a half hours ago. Plus Mandy just
walked in, so I don't know if she knows the
story at.
Speaker 7 (01:35:55):
Our favorite listeners were listening to and a half hours ago. Yes,
sudd you know, did You're not our favorites? Wait you
I'm not afraid to say.
Speaker 2 (01:36:06):
What other talk show hosts won't.
Speaker 7 (01:36:08):
Okay, I'm just letting you know.
Speaker 1 (01:36:09):
No, I know, but but you forgot to say what
you're supposed to say when you walk in you go.
So last week, Mandy, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned
rulings of I know as soon as I say that,
you know, the news is gonna.
Speaker 7 (01:36:24):
Be bad, Right, It's gonna be It's going to be
the worst decision. It's gonna Beanji Jackson decision.
Speaker 1 (01:36:29):
It's gonna be awful. So actually, let me just tell
the story in a slightly different order. In the in
the nineteen thirty five law that establishes the rules for
sales tax in Colorado, it says that.
Speaker 2 (01:36:42):
The things that can have sales tax.
Speaker 1 (01:36:44):
Applied are what are called corporeal personal property. Of course,
but corporeal means that it's physical, you can touch it, it
has a body, right, court right, Okay.
Speaker 4 (01:36:54):
So.
Speaker 1 (01:36:55):
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled last week overturning lower
court sorts that your Netflix subscription.
Speaker 2 (01:37:04):
Is taxable.
Speaker 1 (01:37:05):
And so if this doesn't get overturned by some other court,
then potentially every digital subscription of any kind that you
have in Colorado will be taxed as tangible property. Tangible
personal property, like if you bought a hammer.
Speaker 7 (01:37:21):
Did you also know that the Colorado Democrats, as a
preemptive strike, added into a bill this past session. Now,
if you get over time, which the federal government will
not be taxing up to a certain point, the Colorado
government is forcing you to count the hours that you're
not being taxed by the federal government so they can
tax you here in Colorado.
Speaker 1 (01:37:40):
Yes, and there's a good chance they will try to
do that. With taxes on tips. If they call a
legislative session.
Speaker 7 (01:37:47):
They're trying to lower our prices.
Speaker 1 (01:37:48):
Wrong yet a load of crap, that is right, And
Michael Fields in Advanced Colorado is going to bring a
ballot measure to undo those things. But this is going
to be I don't have time for the whole thing now,
but this is gonna be one of those times where
I don't support the ballot measure because I.
Speaker 2 (01:38:02):
Don't support not taxing tips. In overtime, I will.
Speaker 7 (01:38:05):
Be supporting the ballot measure purely out of spite.
Speaker 2 (01:38:08):
Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 7 (01:38:09):
I mean, I'll be honest about it. I will because
I'm with you. Like lower taxes for everybody. Yeah, you know,
don't carry pick who gets these tax breaks. And I
used to be a server. I understand, I get it.
I feel your pain. But lower taxes on everybody. Yeah,
you shouldn't get a carve out just because you're a
tipped employee and nobody reports all their tips anyway, right,
I mean, come on, right, Although now credit cards, you's
(01:38:29):
kind of made it difficult.
Speaker 2 (01:38:31):
Using a library story, you just had go for it.
I love public libraries.
Speaker 7 (01:38:35):
I've always viewed them as giant boxes of knowledge, but
my last three experiences outside of Douglas County. Douglas County
has an amazing library system. I just want to give
them a big shout out. They do an incredible job.
But when I have wandered into branches of the Denver
Public Library in different areas every single time, they are
full of homeless people and the stench alone made me
(01:38:57):
turn around and walk out.
Speaker 2 (01:38:59):
Until they saw that problem.
Speaker 7 (01:39:00):
You have librarians that have been turned into cops instead
of dispensers of information. I have a friend who was
a longtime librarian in New York City and she finally
hit her limit when a homeless guy punched her in
the face and she was just like, I'm out, I'm
done and left. They got to fix that problem before
anything else happens. And I'm so sad about that story
about libraries.
Speaker 1 (01:39:19):
Because one quick listener text, this is old news for
my family.
Speaker 2 (01:39:23):
Ross.
Speaker 1 (01:39:24):
In two thousand and two, I wrote a letter to
the editor in the Fort Collins, Colorado newspaper complaining that
I couldn't allow my kids to use the public library
anymore because of mentally ill homeless that looked in every
corner and used the public computers to watch porn. I
was mocked by the librarian for being intolerance unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (01:39:44):
Okay, great, all right, what you got coming up? We're
gonna have a long.
Speaker 7 (01:39:47):
Conversation with Barb Kirkmeyer, my favorite senator here in Colorado
because she is as much a fiscal hawk as I am,
and she knows more about the budget, yeah, than anybody.
And we're gonna talk what is going to be coming
up in the special session, which is definitely going to
happen because we've spent ourselves into oblivity in Colorado.
Speaker 1 (01:40:05):
What time you got bar o'clock? I got bared all right,
I gotta listen to that. Everyone stick around for ma Andy.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
So I bought this thing from a local dude who
was selling off some electronic test equipment. And it's a capacitor,
an inductance tester, a pretty fancy capacitor an inductance tester,
and I had bought one already, believe it or not,
and this guy had one, and I thought he was
selling it too cheap, so I bought it.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
It didn't come with a power supply.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
The power supplies are hard to find, but I found
one on eBay from a guy who didn't know what
it was that he was selling, so he was selling
it for a lot less than it was actually worth
because he had the listing not really saying exactly what
it was. So other people who might have been searching
for what I was searching for didn't find it. So
I bought this thing for cheaper because I needed to
add it to the thing. So so the two of
(00:44):
them together, I paid about four hundred and fifty dollars
and I've been I listed it on eBay and I
listed on Facebook Marketplace, and I went to Facebook Marketplace
this morning to lower the price a little bit because
I hadn't sold, and then I went over chanon you
got to listen to this part of the story, Shannon.
So then I went over to eBay this morning to
(01:04):
lower the price there as well, so I could get
it sold, only to discover to my astonishment that.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
I guess I hadn't been paying close enough attention to
some of my email, but to discover to my.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Astonishment that it had actually sold at full price two
days earlier, and actually I was due to ship it
out today. I hadn't noticed that it had sold already,
And if you don't ship it out on time, you
get in trouble with eBay and you get lower scores
and all that. So it turned out I had some
bubble wrap at home. I found a box at home,
I wrapped it up, and I dropped it off at
FedEx on the way to work today. So this thing
(01:40):
that I bought for four.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Hundred and fifty bucks.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
I sold for probably after fees, So what I will
end up with in my pocket.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
It'll be around eight hundred. I knew that thing was
too cheap, so.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
I like making the money, but I also I just
I feel like I.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Won a little bit, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
And three hundred and fifty bucks is nice too, especially
when I'm freaking remodeling a house, and my wife is talking.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
About all the trees she wants to buy.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Oh my gosh, she probably wants at least fifteen trees,
some of which will be fifteen feet tall. And by
the way, these things are like one hundred dollars a foot, right,
So she wants crazy. So I'm trying to I'm trying
(02:34):
to make every extra few hundred bucks I can, and
if I can do it by buying and selling electronic equipment,
then that's what I'll do.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Plus it's kind of fun. So anyway, that's that's what
I That's what I.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Did so far this morning, So I thought I would
share that with you because we're because we're friends.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So there were some breaking.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
News this morning that I wanted to share with you
a little bit. I'm gonna go to CBS News for this.
The Secret Service suspended six personnel.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Without pay.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
As the agency faced intense scrutiny after the assassination attempt
against President Trump and Butler Pennsylvania nearly a year ago.
Matt Quinn, the Deputy director of Secret Service, told CBS
News that their penalty ranged from ten days to forty
two days of leave without pay or benefits. The personnel
were placed into restricted duty or roles with less operational
(03:25):
responsibility upon their return. You know, I can't exactly tell
from that whether these people are being suspended right now
and then will come back, or whether they were suspended
before and have come back.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
I can't really, I can't really tell.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
And he said in this I think is interesting, He said,
we aren't going to fire our way out of this.
We're going to focus on the root cause and fixed.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
The deficiencies that put us in that situation.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
He said, Service is totally accountable for Butler.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Butler was an operational failure, and we.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Are focused today.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
On ensuring that it never happens again.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Now, I you know, there are these famous pictures from
that moment right after Trump got shot, got hit in
the air and got some blood running down his face,
and and you've got all of these Secret Service agents
around him and trying to cover him a little bit,
trying to get him.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
Down to the ground, but he wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
And then he stood up and pumped his fist and
said fight. Which is you know that probably I won't
say it was the I think it was a factor
in his winning the election, but in any case, I
wonder if any of those people are among the suspended ones.
It wouldn't surprise me if they're not. But I but
(04:48):
I don't know if any of those close quarters protection
people were part of the team that well, yeah, there
was that, there was that lady Chen and his chen
is just stulating like a person trying repeatedly and failing
repeatedly to stick a pistol in a halster.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, so not very good. But what I.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Don't know, seriously, what I don't know about those people
who were around him. First of all, I don't know
if they did everything they were supposed to do in
that situation, because I.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Don't know their training.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
But what I really don't know is when or any
of those people were part of the team that were
doing perimeter security, because really the huge, huge failure here
was the Secret Service leaving that building alone and not
having people stationed either at or on that building.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I'm and I'm glad they're doing this.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
The other thing I'll say is typically in in let's say,
in military jobs, and I wasn't in the military, but
both my parents were, so I was around it a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Typically in the military.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
If you do something that gets kind of a like
a note in your file, a reprimand in your file,
something like that, you're not fired, right, but you know
there's there's an official note that you did something wrong.
Your career is pretty sunk, like you're the odds of
you even making six you know, captain and the navy
(06:11):
colonel in the army. You know, if this is something
that happens when you're a couple of ranks lower, it
really really impacts your job advancement possibilities. So for the
people who were suspended and then placed into restricted duty,
you know, this is a serious problem for them if
they were thinking about having a successful career in secret service.
(06:34):
And in fact, you can easily imagine that maybe these
are folks who were out in the field in some
of the more prestigious jobs in secret service, and now
they'll be seen by their colleagues kind of moping around
the office, you know, maybe not moping, but walking around
the office, and they I can easily imagine I'm pretty
(06:55):
you know, I'm trying to visualize this. I've never been
in that situation, but I can imagine someone like that
feeling just a little embarrassed, almost like every day like
I should be out in the field. Yeah, feeling a
little shorter channing like that. And I I it wouldn't
surprise me if many or most of these people end
(07:17):
up resigning because they know that there is very unlikely
to be any promotion ahead for them, you know, I
mean maybe if there's some others that. Look, I don't know. Again,
I don't know how much investigation they've already done.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
I don't know whether they put the.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
They suspended these people because at the beginning of the
investigation it seems like they did something wrong, or at
the end of the investigation they know they did something wrong.
I just there isn't that much detail here. But I
do think it's really good that the Secret Service is
being accountable, not just firing people, right, because sometimes you
(07:54):
can just fire people, say they did it and now
we're not.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Going to talk about it anymore.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
But instead what this guy is saying, we're actually not
fireing people. We're disciplining people. We're keeping them. Of course,
they can leave if they want to, but our real
goal here is to figure out what went wrong and
change the processes so that it doesn't go wrong again.
And I think that is some good management. Ross it's
not important but I'm curious. Have you watched any of
mister Carlson's lab on YouTube?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Seems like you two are made for each other.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Indeed, I have, and he takes money by Patreon and
they have all these different levels where you can pay him.
And I've never done any of his projects, but I
pay him two bucks a month just for the sheer entertainment.
Mister Carlson's lab is pretty fabulous if you are a
serious nerd. One other listener text Ross, don't you believe
he was left unprotected intentionally? If you want to.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
Protect him and other non internationalists, so.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
You would have to take out the Council of Foreign Relations,
the FED, the remnants of the Rothschild, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, CAVAL,
the UK Foreign Affairs Office in half of the UN.
So I responded to this listener saying, one, I don't
believe he was left unprotected intentionally. And second, and anybody
who goes down this road of Counsel of Foreign Relations
(09:06):
and mentions Rothschild.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
I don't take you seriously.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
You're just I'm not saying you're dumb, but you're being
misled or you're intentionally following something. And by the way,
you know half of the people who believe that stuff
for anti Semites as well. And a lot of times
you hear people mention rothschild they just mean it as
a synonym for Jews, although this person is mentioning so
many other things. And thank you, just a wild eyed
(09:31):
conspiracy theorist. So no, I don't believe any of that,
and you shouldn't believe any.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Of that either.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
And then the same listener, is it the same listener?
Would you be open to reading a couple of books
that could possibly make you reconsider? And here is my
answer in life, I don't mean in this particular question.
In life, I promise to keep an open mind, but
not so open that my brain falls out. And you're
asking me to have my mind so open that my
(09:58):
brain falls out. Of course, I will not waste my
time with all kinds of ridiculous nonsense about the Rothschilds
and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Don't waste my time.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
And more importantly, more importantly, you don't waste your time.
Life is short, enjoy it. Don't wallow in the mud
of idiot conspiracy theories that don't help your life at all.
Is your ego that fragile or is your life that
empty that you're gonna fill it with thinking about the
(10:30):
as you put it, the remnants of the Rothschild GP
Morgan Rockefeller cabal. Don't you have anything better to do? Seriously,
don't you have anything better to do? And I don't
mean don't you have anything better to do than message
me about it? I don't really care, right interesting or not?
I can mention it on the air, nod, I don't care.
But don't you have anything better to do in your
(10:52):
own life than to wallow in this nonsense? Seriously? All right,
let me do something completely different. I say frequently on
the show that Colorado might have the worst upper level
state courts in the country. The state Supreme Court is
(11:12):
really bad all those it was actually probably slightly worse
a few years ago, if you can imagine, it's still terrible,
And the Colorado Court of Appeals really really terrible. They've
gotten a couple of cases wrong lately. There was a
case involving Lindsey Dako, who was just one of the
great education activists in Jefferson County doing everything she can
(11:36):
to protect kids and improve their education, fighting all the
time against the really really terrible management of the Jefferson
County School.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
District, and she had a.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Really angry, evil, nasty reporter writes some flagrantly untrue, you know,
libelous stuff about her, and she sued, and two lower
courts said, yeah, this stuff is clearly intentionally malicious and wrong.
And then the Colorado Court of Appeals just throughout the
local the lower courts saying no, lindsay, can't sue them,
(12:14):
they were wrong. And then this thing that I want
to share with you right now, and this is from
I'll just share with you from a law firm called
Clark Hill. In a significant victory for the Colorado Department
of Revenue, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled this week
that Netflix subscriptions are quote tangible personal property and therefore
(12:34):
taxable under Colorado law, reversing a lower court decision that
had exempted the streaming giant from taxation.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Netflix versus Department of Revenue.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
That's the name of the case centered on a seemingly
simple question with complex and implications. Are digital streaming services
or subscriptions tangible personal property under Colorado's nearly century old
sales tax law, And the Court of Appeals said yes.
The answer, by the way, is obviously no. This court
is obvious. It's not just wrong, it's obviously wrong. And
(13:07):
the Court of Appeals found, and I'm still quoting from
Clarkhill dot com, that Colorado's nineteen thirty five sales tax statute,
which taxes quote, corporeal personal property, should be interpreted more
broadly than Netflix desired, Drawing on they claim, drawing on
(13:29):
legal dictionaries from the nineteen thirties, the court determined the
corporeal encompasses anything perceptible to any of the bodily senses,
not just touch. That is not what corporeal means. Corporeal
means it has a physical it exists in a physical state.
It has a body like corpus right or corpse right,
(13:52):
it's the body. And this court is obviously wrong. But
our courts act almost always like a money grubbing extension
of democrats in the state legislature all the time. And
I sure hope Netflix chow. I don't know how much
higher they can go. I don't know if they can
(14:12):
go to Supreme Court with it, the state Supreme Court.
I don't know if they can go to federal court
with it. But the Netflix ruling could make it so
that the state of Colorado could try to impose sales
tax on every digital subscription service operating in the state
of Colorado. A little bit of news that just popped
up on the screen I wanted to share with you.
(14:33):
You know, there was a Supreme Court thing recently where nominally,
just very superficially, it was a birthright citizenship case, but
really it was a case about nationwide injunctions. And I
just saw this news update here and hold on, let
me finish that thought, Actually, let me do this that's
the same time, because this wasn't going to be our topic.
(14:54):
But my next guest, Josh Hammer, is, among other things,
an attorney, so it'd be great to bring him in
on this, even though it's not the primary thing we're
probably going to talk about today. So Josh, in addition
to being Senior editor at Large at Newsweek, you also
hosts his own podcast, The Josh Hammer Show, and he's
the author of a book, Israel and Civilization. And I
(15:15):
always enjoy having Josh on the show, and we actually
we agree most of the time on stuff. And I
saw a tweet of his the other day that I
didn't really well that I half agreed with and I
thought it would make for a fun conversation, and we'll
get to that in a second. So, first of all, Josh,
welcome back. It's good to see you here.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Ros's great to see you as well, My friend. Always
appreciate your very informed takes, whether we agree or disagree.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
So let me just share this with you and then
you can comment, as somebody who's smarter on the law
than I am. So, the Supreme Court a couple of
weeks ago basically said no nationwide injunctions from district court
federal judges more or less. So this today said as
a federal judge named US District Judge Joseph Laplant has
(16:05):
just issued a new nationwide injunction against President Trump's executive
order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
And it looks like the way he's.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Trying to do it is he has turned it into
a class action, and he has said that he will
He has granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to
certify a nationwide class that quote will be comprised only
of those deprived of citizenship.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
That's quoting from CNN.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
So, mister attorney Josh Hammer, what are your immediate thoughts
on this that you might not even have seen before.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
I just shared it with you.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
So this is breaking just over the past twenty thirty minutes,
give or shake. So I haven't had a whole lot
of time to read and digest, but I can kind
of give you my very quick initial assessment.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
So the issue of.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
Turning injunctive relief into Rule twenty three class action was
oppressionally foreseen by Justice sam Alito, who had his recurring
opinion in the nation wide and Judge Caase I don't
really want to call it the birthright scision case because
they can actually talk about purposes and ship but Alito
spends his entire concurrence here talking about how we actually
are also going to have to crack down on Rule
(17:17):
twenty three class actions. Now, this has been an issue
how to define a legitimate class for class action purposes,
essentially since the federal rules of silk procedure were first
implemented roughly ninety years ago or so, back during the
New Deal and back when I was in law school
studying silk procedure. These were debates between the conservatives and
the liberals in the court. These were Scalia Ginsburg, you know,
majority versus to sent the opinion. So there's a long
(17:39):
standing difference of opinion between shall we call it Article
three hawks, people who are a little bit more reluctant
to give massive access to federal digitial reliefs. Those are
typically the more conservative judges versus the standing and Article
three doves. The liberals were typically more willing to just
kind of, you know, free wheel and give more relief.
So I'm not surprised that is happening. I will also
(18:01):
say that the majority opinion from Amy Cony Barrett in
the Nasue junctioning case, while it was it was very good.
It was very good. I would greated it probably a
B plus win a minits. It was not an A
plus because it failed to do what I think I
and many others wanted to do, which was just very
cleanly and unapologetically say the judicial power of Article three
(18:23):
means this, It does not mean that. And there was
some literally legal lies there in the emy Coony Barret
majority pinion, essentially saying that Nation one junctions are presumptively
contrary to Article three unless they are truly absolutely necessary
given the nature of the litigation, the beliefs. There's basically
some runway there. Ross is what I'm saying there was
(18:43):
some runway for liberal NGO's ACLU type outfie to try
to take it from there. So I'm not shocked that
we're here. I am a little surprised at how soon
it's gotten in back though. All right, So two quick things.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
So First, when Andy McCarthy, who you probably know a
good friend of mine and of the show, wrote about
the Supreme Court recent opinion, what he said was, Yeah,
now they're going to turn to class action lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
And then he said, but normally, at least it's.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
A they're a little bit more in terms of guidelines
and eyes. You have to dot and tease, you have
to cross to certify a class versus just this willy
nilly stuff that had been going on before. But it
sounds like you think that doesn't offer as much protection
as maybe Andy had been hoping.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Well, we'll see, we'll see how it plays out. Again.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
The class action part of the Nachtwind judge opinion was
really just sam Alito's been curring opinion. Barrett doesn't really
spend much of any time on an HR opinion. A
lot of these plaintiffs, especially when they're suing the Trump
administration executive orders and policy there. They're not actually filing classes,
they're not actually organizing classes and traditional rule twenty three
class actors. They're basically just putting out an NGO or
(19:58):
a left wing plaintiff and then as an banking on
a judge to declare a name you want junction, which
is probably not an unreasonable bet, frankly, be based on
the president of what we've seen thus far.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
So we'll see how it plays out.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
But look, the class action debate again, has been a
debate in federal courts for a very very long time.
I feel like it's not going to go anywhere anytime soon.
I am a little surprised though, with just the pure
hutzba ross frankly, the hutzba of this opinion coming out
what like a week and a half, two weeks the
most after the last opinion. I mean, that's a bold
move from a fairly rogue I would presume lower court judge.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
All Right, one last thing on this, I wasn't planning
on talking with you about it, but clearly you I mean,
I knew you would know a lot, but it seems
like you know even more than I thought you would
about this particular area of law. So so I do
have one more question. All of these people who work
in the federal government take an oath to protect and
defend the Constitution, and you could probably count on one hand.
(20:54):
That might be a little cynical. You could probably count
on two hands out of the five hundred and thirty
five members of the House and Senate, how many of
them really put the constitution first.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
That might maybe one hand. So, and federal judges are
supposed to do that too. And one of the.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
Things I wonder I'm not saying the Supreme Court was
wrong in their rolling, but what I wonder about is
whether four years from now, if a Democrat is president,
that whether Republicans are really going to rule this. For example,
I'm just going to make up a hypothetical. Let's say
President Kamala Harris. I don't think it's going to be Harris.
(21:30):
I do think a Democrat could win. I don't think
it'll be here. President whoever, does an executive order that
bars the federal government from answering any requests from states
for background checks for gun purchases, effectively making it impossible
to buy a gun. And then let's say Josh Hammer
(21:52):
wants to buy a gun and Ross Kaminski wants to
buy a gun, and Josh Hammer is a smart lawyer,
and he does the paperwork and he's pro se, and
he goes and files in court in fifteen minutes, and
he's at the front of the line. And meanwhile, more on,
Ross Kaminsky's a little slow. And by the time Ross
Kaminski gets his case to court, there are seven thousand
(22:13):
people in front of him in line at the Federal court.
And then the federal judges hearing Josh's case, even though
the facts of your case in mind are identical. Here's
Josh's case and said Josh can buy a gun, but
Ross caad even though the facts are the same, because
the Supreme Court is said, I can't do a nationwide injunction,
and Josh is in you know, whatever court circuit you're in,
(22:33):
and I'm in the tenth Circuit, and so only Josh
can buy a gun.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Go ahead. So this is a great question.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
So my response is basically twofold, which is, I do
not begrudge conservative originalist constitutionalist judges for taking advantage of
the tools for relief for plaintiffs at their disposal while
all the options are on the table. So to give
kund of a very concrete example. Back when Barack Obama
was president, so I was. I was in law school
twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen, so towards the second the
(23:03):
tail end of the Obama presidency, and I remember back
then a lot of Obama executive ors were oftentimes challenged
by the Attorney General and Slicter General of Texas. The
Texas Slister General's Office ends up being one of the
most effective tools, it's still to say, actually against democratic
presidents engaging in various forms of executive overreach, and the
Texas Lister General's Office typically litigates in very specific divisions
(23:25):
of North Texas. I know as well, because I clerked
for a federal appeals judge in the Dallas Fort Worth area,
Judge James C.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Hoe, amazing judge.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
So back then it was oftentimes Judge Read O'Connor. These
days and sometimes it's Judge Read O'Connor, sometimes Judge Matthew Kasmherck.
They're both amazing judges. I don't begrudge judges like that
from issuing a nation one junction at least prior to
like a week and a half weeks ago, given that
this was the reality that we are living in. But
I would prefer to live in a principled reality where
(23:52):
these tools are simply not on the table. Ultimately in
a situation the like switch or hypothetical like you've described there.
And you know, I'm a Secondmendment guy, Ross, I want
my gun, and I'm sure that you want your guns
as well. There, the best way to fast track that
would be to try to seek some sort of emergency
relief at the United States Supreme Court, because once the Supreme.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Court's rules, the lower courts are.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Essentially just going to immediately follow and the order will
simply not be enforced really in the first place there,
so that that would be the proper mechanism is to
try to see them seek emergency relief and on what
the lawyers call the rocket docket for emergency appeals at
the Supreme Court there. But I hear you, unfortunately, I'm
sure that you can appreciate this kind of the The
inherently slightly slower working of the gears of government is
(24:35):
very much a feature, not a bug, of our system,
and so too, I think it would be here as well.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
And I'll add one other thing.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Part of the reason some of this stuff happens is
that Congress doesn't do its job reigning in the president.
And also impeachment has gotten so cheapened that you know,
supporting you know, some if if a president were to
issue an executive order that was intentionally designed to prevent
everybody from being able to buy a gun, the impeachment
(25:03):
paperwork should be filed within ninety minutes. But it won't be.
And we don't really have the checks and balances. And
despite the implications of my question, which is more reflection
of reality than how I would like it to be,
we are all far more dependent on the judicial branch
than we should be because the other branches don't uphold
(25:25):
their oaths to the Constitution. We're talking with Josh Hammer.
He is senior editor at Large at Newsweek. He hosts
the Josh Hammer Show podcast. Josh, give me before we
get to the other topic, give me forty seven seconds
on the book that I see over your right shoulder.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
So the book ross is Israel and Civilization, The Fate
of the Jewish Nation, The Destiny of the West. It
came out in March, but it's truly timelier than ever,
And in fact, they had someone in Congress messaged me
a couple of weeks ago and said, Josh, did you
pressI intially orchestrate the events of the last month just
to sell more book copies there? So you know, the
book really is, I think timelier than ever. There's a
whole chapter making the America first nationalist realist case for
(26:05):
US israelations, which is a very, very very hot topic
on the political right these days.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
So it really is timely.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Israel and civilizations, a lot of Bible, a lot of scripture,
a lot of foreign policy, We touch a lot of
topics ros but it's available everywhere books are sold.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Israel and civilization.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
All right, So let's do like five minutes on the
topic that I actually asked here to be about. But
I thoroughly enjoyed that conversation. I'm glad we did that.
You posted on x formerly Twitter, and I'm gonna paraphrase,
and you can tell me if I've misquoted you.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
But that.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
If Trump goes down the road of amnesty, we're talking
about illegal immigration now, that will be a betrayal of
what people were voting for when they voted him into office.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Is that correct enough? That's definitely crust enough.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Yes, okay, So describe what's going on and do this
briefly here, not in the lawyer mode, but in the
podcast or something. What you are, what you are contemplating
as falling into the category of amnesty.
Speaker 3 (27:08):
So to me, I would define anes as either not
choosing to not enforce immigration law against people who are
here illegally wilfully kind of what Barack Obama did to
DAPPA DACA programs like that, or to actually go ahead
and affirmatively codify some sort of legal status that could
be sure of citizenship. But to either deliberately and wilfully
(27:29):
announce that you are non forcing the law against people
here are illegally, or to affirmatively codify legal status.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Okay, So let's start with the second then, because I
think what you were reacting to and I didn't see
if there was context in that thread. But President Trump
said recently that he was looking at possibly creating some
kind of special visa that would allow people to stay
here and work.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
I did not see it.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
And by the way, I would not support something that
put illegal immigrants, say farm workers, he was talking about
farm workers, hotel workers. I wouldn't support them being on
any kind of past the citizens. I would support something
that lets them stay and work.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
You're saying that.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Either you wouldn't, or at least Trump's voters probably wouldn't.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
Well both, I would not support then. To be clear,
I can't speak for every Trump voter, obviously, but I
definitely think I definitely think that the median Donald Trump
voter supports essentially the Tom Holman position of systematically deporting
as many illegal aliens as possible, subject to budgetary constraints
and just general realities of personnel and the amount of
ICE agent and so forth. So he naturally follows that you,
(28:34):
of course would start with criminals. But I think the
key thing ross is that this policy that Donald Trump
ran on, it is not necessarily just a deport criminal
aliens policy. It's to deport as many illegal aliens enforce
immigration law, which again the law requires that they be deported.
That's black letter immigration law as much as possible, given
the amount of resources that ICE and DHS has from
(28:55):
Congress and so forth. There and the polling on this,
the thing is actually quite instructive. If if you look
at the aggregate of polls, roughly sixty percent sometimes up
the two third, and some poles of Americans now tel
polsters they support deporting all all, like literally all illegal
aliens in this country. It's a very high percentage. It's
one of the biggest shifts in American public sentiment over
the past decade or so.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
It has been absolutely remarkable to see how Joe Biden
is personally responsible for that polling by opening the border
so wide that a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
I mean me, I'm not.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
An immigration hawk, so I'm very much against illegal immigration,
and I'm very much in favor of increasing legal immigration.
We need more, especially skilled immigrants, and we need more
people to prop up our Ponzi scheme of a government.
But Joe Biden did what he did and turned a
lot of people like me more in favor of more
aggressive deportation. That said, Josh, I bet you that wants
(29:52):
not for all, not for the Trump based but I
bet you the majority or at least plurality of.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
The American public.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
If asked at this point, do you want the federal
government to do workplace enforcement on farms, hotels, and home
depot parking lots to round up people who are working
and not committing crimes. I bet you most Americans would
say no to that. And I think that this will
be a negative for Republicans in coming elections. I also
(30:22):
think that part of the problem. And tell me if
you agree here Stephen Miller. It sounds like, by the way,
I can't stand him, but Stephen Miller seems like.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
He has put a quota on this.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
We want three thousand a day or something like that,
and it's quite hard to go find lots of criminals
they're hiding. So if you're just going for sheer numbers,
you're gonna go to the farm, you're gonna go to
the hotel, you're gonna go to the home depot. And
because you need to meet this moron's quota. And so
I think that Stephen Miller is going to actually hurt
(30:55):
Republicans in the next election with this.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I actually love Steven Miller, but that's a very you know,
that's a very reasonable person for us to disagree on.
So no harm, no foul there. Look, I mean, Ross,
I think that immigration is a politically winning issue for Trump,
but if anything, I think it's arguably is number one
winning issue right now. The last I checked the Real
Clear Politics data, as far as approval disapproval on immigration,
Trump is up double digits in a lot of polls
(31:20):
based on his approval rating. So whatever he's doing right now,
and the rhetoric is tough. We've all seen these Christy
Nome DHS ads on TV. If you're here illegally, get
out before we find you, at least at least here
in Florida where I live. Those ads are all over TV.
And the people see this, they see the iations, they
see Tom Holman talking the big game, and apparently they
love it there. And I think it's worth noting ross
(31:41):
looking up at the legal immigration issue that as the
Republican Party has moved in this Trumpian direction of being
very tough in both word indeed enforcing immigration laws and
deporting legal aliens, the Hispanic vote has moved historically tooth
Republican Party. It's actually the exact opposite right of the
twenty twelve Republican National Committee so called autopsy from Mitt
Romney loss there. So it's very counterintuitive. A lot of
(32:03):
kind of DC Belway consulting case free types maybe don't
necessarily understand why that is, but it happens to be
what's actually happening out there in real time, right, And
I should.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Say I'm kind of quibbling around the margin because in
the big picture, I'm in favor of the overall kind
of goal of the Trump administration on and I want
illegal immigration stopped. There's again, it gets a little subtle
when you start talking about should we deport people who
have been here for twenty years and are working and whatever,
(32:31):
And the Fed just put out a report about how
much that might hurt GDP, And I do care a
little bit about a little bit about that. So I
am kind of qubbling on the margin, and I'm not,
of course, it's it's I'm not at all surprised.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
That it's one of his best issues. And I'll say
one other thing. Can I toss out a possibility to you?
Speaker 4 (32:47):
Actually?
Speaker 2 (32:48):
Yeah, sure, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (32:48):
So one way, I think, because I hear what you're saying,
right with these twenty years here home depot work or whatever. Fine,
I'm not gonna say that I would be willing to
grant them legal status. That's not my stance. But I
wonder if something like the Taiwan Policy of Strategic Ambiguity
or you know, however the foreign policy people phrase that, yeah,
(33:08):
you know, basically deliberately not saying what your actual stance is.
I wonder if that is actually a somewhat reasonable middle
ground position there.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
I'm not terribly I'm not It could be right, It could.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Be, as long as they don't suddenly start showing up
at workplaces and taking away the people.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
I'll mention one other thing, and then I'm out of time.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I'm not surprised, and you're probably not surprised either actually
about the Hispanic vote moving towards Trump.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Because when you're talking.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
About the Hispanic vote, you were talking about people who
are allowed to vote, which means you're talking about citizens,
which means you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
People almost all of whom did it the right way.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Very few illegal aliens become citizens, not impossible, but it
doesn't happen a lot. And so the people who are
here and voting did it the right way. And there's
no reason for a Hispanic immigrant who did everything the
right way to suddenly, you know, carry the water for
an illegal alien trying to cut in line and doing
(34:05):
it the wrong way, just because they also happen to
be Hispanic.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
No, it's totally right, and you know, more generally, Ross
just kind of zooming out a little bit here. Hispanic
citizens like any other US citizen. I mean, they see
the crazy direction of the current Wolke Democratic Party, so
they're probably trending left for the same re or training
rite for the same reason that anyone else basically is
trending right these days.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Josh Hammer is the author of Israel and Civilization. Go
buy it wherever you buy your books. You can check
out his writing it Newsweek as well, and at the
Josh Hammer Show podcast you can listen to it more.
Thanks for being here. There was a fabulous conversation, you bet, brother.
All right, take it easy. All right, we're gonna take
a quick break. We'll be right back on KOA and
follow up a little bit on that interview that I
(34:45):
thoroughly enjoyed with Josh Hammer. It went a little longer
than I thought because we added a second topic, but
that's that's that's actually good. It was a fascinating topic.
So let me just address a couple of listener texts. First, Ross,
speaking of buying guns, do you know of supre us
are legal now without permit or tax stamp?
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So here is my understanding.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
The version of the so called Big Beautiful Bill that
the House passed would have had suppressors completely removed from
coverage by the National Firearms Act, and you would have
been able to buy one, I believe, without any kind
of special paperwork. I think you would have been able
to buy one at Walmart. I don't think you would
(35:27):
have even had to go to a gun store. And
that is how it is in much of Europe, by
the way, you can go buy a suppressor in a
hardware store. In many countries they don't have lots of
guns over there. But you know, in Germany, for example,
you go hunting, it's just considered rude to hunt without one.
Speaker 4 (35:41):
It is.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
It's a hearing protection device.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
And you got a lot of people who have no
experience with guns and no experience with suppressors, and all
they know is an assassin into James Bond movie threading
a suppressor onto twenty two and then they use a
subsonic round to go shoot someone in the head and
it's really quiet. And that's almost the other and that
is kind of legit actually, in terms of how quiet
that would be. A twenty two with.
Speaker 2 (36:03):
A subsonic round and a suppressor.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
Is very very quiet, maybe a little louder than the
movie would show, but not much. But almost everything else
it's still kind of loud. It's just not blown out
your ear drums loud, and that's why it's considered rude
to shoot without one. So the Senate screwed this up.
What I believe the situation is now is that you
(36:25):
still have to do the paperwork, the federal government paperwork,
and the special extra intrusive bend over background check for
the suppressor and for short barrel rifles, but you don't
have to pay the tax two hundred dollars per item.
I understand, of course, leaving with short barrel rifles a
(36:47):
stupid concept. This is just something that people put into
place because of the al capone days, and people have
a sawt off shotgun and stuff like this.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
So the Senate screwed it up. So the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Is I think you still have to jump through the hoops,
but you don't have to pay the tax.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
The other thing I want to mention to add to that, I.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
Saw an email blast yesterday from Silencer Shop, and Silencer
Shop is an amazing business, and I've got a couple
of things from them, and I'm going to try to
get the CEO of Silencer Shop back on the show.
I haven't had them on the show in probably five
years since since I was on the other station, And
(37:27):
what they said is they're going to sue the federal
government over this to try to get silencers.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
They're not silencers. That's not the right term.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
They call themselves silencer shop. But the proper term is
suppressor because it doesn't make anything silent. It just suppresses
the noise to a certain degree. They're going to sue
the federal government. Now, I want to ask you a
question tying into the conversation we.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Just had with Josh Hammer.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
I would like to ask Trump voters, and only Trump voters,
this question.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
Okay, No, your three.
Speaker 1 (38:02):
Hundred blackout with subs is not movie quiet.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
It is not. I have one I have I have two.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
I have two rifles that shoot three hundred blackout. One
has an integrated suppressor or another I put a suppressor on,
so I know what I'm talking about. It's okay, it's
movie quiet for three hundred blackout, which still means it's
kind of loud, like it wouldn't blow out your ear drum,
but somebody you know, across the building, you know, across
(38:31):
the field or something definitely gonna hear it. It's not
like it's it's not like a twenty two with sub signing. Okay,
So back to this thing. Here's my question, and it's
just for Trump voters. When you were voting for Trump.
Speaker 2 (38:46):
Did you.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
Want part of his did you want his immigration enforcement
plans to include raids at workplaces like farms, hotels, maybe
meat processing plants and things like that, or did you
(39:09):
think that the campaign promise and what you were really
voting for was an intense focus first on illegal aliens
who had committed crimes, especially violent crimes in the United States,
and then after that, maybe second the most recent kind
of Biden arrivals who just got to the country. Now,
(39:32):
Josh Hammer was absolutely right. It's been consistent in these polls.
It's been consistent in these polls that.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
The public supports the Trump administration's immigration program.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
These polls, however, mostly before this stuff started happening, where
they were going to farms and all this. Now, Josh
and I disagree on this, and I want to ask
for a very non scientific poll here. Obviously, people who answer,
you know, my question and text at me are a
(40:09):
self selected group. So I don't assume that my audience
represents the world. But what I would like to know
is if you are a Trump voter and you can
answer one or both of these related questions. Did you
expect is one thing? And do you want is another thing?
Work Place enforcement in places like farms and hotels that
(40:35):
are absolutely reliant on immigrant and sometimes illegal immigrant labor.
That's what I want to know. That's what I want
to know. Text me at five six six nine zero.
I really want to know your thoughts on this. Listener says,
come with me. Mine is I can shoot it in
my backyard and no one could hear it?
Speaker 2 (40:54):
All right? That would be interesting. And then another person says.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
That they're still loud as hell, just less loud, So
I would I would like to know what you think
on this question about immigration. It's it's again, I want
to I want to make sure I'm wording my question clearly.
Did you expect and or do you want specific workplace
(41:21):
enforcement at places like farms and hotels? Okay, in addition
to everything else, I'm not saying, excluding the criminals all that.
Are you okay with that? Did you want that? Did
you think he was running on that? And I will
tell you I thought two things. I thought the enforcement
(41:42):
priority was going to be people who have committed crimes
while they were in the United States of America, and
I know for a fact that there are enough of
them that that ICE could spend all their time going
after them and not be done finding them during the
Trump present and see because there are enough. So I
(42:03):
thought that would be the focus. And then I thought,
of course, the other focus would be shutting down the border.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
Some more wouldn't be coming in.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Then I thought maybe eventually a secondary focus would be
getting out, especially the more recent ones. I did not
think there would be significant numbers of deportations of illegal
aliens who have not committed crimes while in the United States,
who have been here for a long time and are
working in our members of their community.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
I want to know what you think. Five six six
nine zero.
Speaker 1 (42:28):
All right, I'm gonna lighten it up for a minute
because we still had lots and lots of stuff to
do on the show.
Speaker 5 (42:33):
Today.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
I saw a really fun article over.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
At the Colorado Sun coloradosun dot com and the headline
is once scarce wild turkeys show up on mass in
northern Colorado and their neighbors have stories and the subhead
for the article as the charismatic birds reintroduced to the
region in the nineteen eighties, pop up more frequently.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
Human turkey encounters are on the rise now. I have to.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
Say, I'll please love it when I see a wild turkeys.
Speaker 2 (43:02):
If I'm driving around in a rural area or or
a little.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Less often, but let's say hiking, sometimes you will see them.
Speaker 2 (43:08):
I just think they're awesome.
Speaker 1 (43:09):
And it is kind of funny in a way because
they're they're oddly shaped, and they're they're kind of ugly.
And yet when this subhead of the article calls them
charismatic birds, it's not.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Wrong but oh so delicious. No, turkey's not good. Turkey's
not that's.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
One of the all right, But in a way, they
are charismatic, and I think it's part of the reason.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey to
be the American national bird. Let me just share I've
got ninety seconds or two minutes here. Let me just
share a little of this with you from the Colorado Sun.
Turkeys generally get the spotlight for one day of the year,
and it's not for the most desirable outcome, at least
(43:47):
if you're the turkey. But Colorado residents are reporting more
turkeys in their towns than ever before, at least in
recent years along the Front Range, and it's getting them
some mad publicity, even though Thanksgiving is months away.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
When the Greeley.
Speaker 1 (44:01):
Police Department posted about turkeys on Facebook, it got more
responses than well anything, except perhaps when police found a
car in a lake at one.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Of the city's most popular parks.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
The post was shared nearly eight hundred times, and about
half that number of people commented, many offering stories about
their own encounters with the big birds.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
EMTs said the turkeys, I love this story.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
EMTs said the turkeys liked to chase them from their
ambulances and not allow them back inside the garage. Cody Wilson,
a popular Greeley freelance weatherman, said he had a standoff
with the turkeys in his car and lost.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
He didn't offer.
Speaker 1 (44:41):
Details and was too busy to talk, but he did
live to post about it. Others said turkeys chased them,
but then others said the resident Canada geese not only
had greater numbers, but they seemed far sasas here. I
am much more in favor of the wild turkeys than
the Canada geese. I mean speaking of like, what is
all this stuff about, you know, deporting massive numbers of
(45:02):
illegal aliens? Right, We're doing that, and yet we've got
these millions of certainly illegal alien Canada geese here running around,
pooping on the lawns, pooping on the walkways.
Speaker 2 (45:13):
Do you think these birds showed their.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
Passports when they crossed the border from Canada to get here. No, So, look,
Trump administration, instead of doing workplace enforcements at hotels and
farms and stuff for people who are doing jobs that
we actually need, why did you get busy at deport
all these Canada geese backward they below?
Speaker 2 (45:33):
Seriously, we're going.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
To talk about the intersection of law and tariffs. Careful
listeners to this show know that this is an area
I care a lot about. You know what I think
about most of Trump's tariffs. I'm not going to get.
Speaker 2 (45:46):
Into all that right now.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
But a whole separate question from whether or not they
are good policy is whether or not they are legal.
I have an opinion that you probably know, but I'm
not going to deal with that right now. Joining us
talk about his opinion and his organization's opinion and his
client's opinion is Andrew Morris who is Senior Litigation Council
(46:08):
at NCLA, the New Civil Liberties Alliance. We've had multiple
guests from NCLA on the show in recent years. So,
Andrew Morris, welcome to Kowa. It's good to have you here.
Thank you, Ross, thanks for having me. So I'd like
to talk to you about two things, but you can
pick which one you want to talk about first.
Speaker 2 (46:30):
So you filed the first.
Speaker 1 (46:32):
You filed the first case challenging the Trump administration's legal
authority to impose most of these tariffs in federal court.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
That was simplified. And then more.
Speaker 1 (46:41):
Recently you find it you filed an amicus brief in
a case where you're not the lead. You can talk
about one or the other, or you can combine them
as you wish.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
Sure it be happy to Well, I'll start with the
first where you started, And we did file the first
caste challenging these tariffs, that is, these emergency tariffs, and
we filed them briefly. Not because our organization has a
view on tariffs. We're not really taking a position. We're
not taking a position on tariff policy at all. Our
(47:16):
concern was that this president has ordered tariffs, not by
going through the hoops that Congress set out in a
lot of detailed tariff laws, but by using an emergency
statute that no president has ever used before. And we
have concerns with the executive and of overreaching by using
these general sort of emergency statutes to get around restrictions
(47:40):
in the law. And here, to finish up on your
first point, ross the Constitution places tariffs completely in Congress's lap.
They're completely in Congress's control, so the president can do
only what Congress permits them to do. So our concern
is protecting the role of Congress and they'll control and
the role of the president. That's why we got involved
(48:01):
in the first place.
Speaker 1 (48:02):
Okay, so before we go to the amicust brief question,
let's stick with Let's stick with this. I'm going to
play President Trump's attorneys. Okay, sure, okay, but Andrew, we
are acting under authority delegated to the executive branch by Congress.
Speaker 2 (48:21):
So what's the problem.
Speaker 4 (48:24):
Well, the problem is that you don't your client, the
president doesn't have authority delegated from Congress. The president has
cited a statute that gives him authority in case of
foreign threats to respond to emergencies. By imposing sanctions, he
can freeze assets, he can have a he can block
trade with Russia or with Iran. But it doesn't permit
(48:47):
him to tax Americans by imposing a tariff. It doesn't
use the word tariff. When Congress wants to permit the
president order tariffs, it has a lot of laws that
use the words tariffs and duties. This statute said as
the president can respond to an emergency, but it does
not permit him to order tariffs. That's the mistake. That's
the basis of the whole problem here.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
Okay, I'll move away from being Trump's lawyer for a second.
So it sounds like there are two primary arguments, although
maybe for you maybe one is more primary than the other.
But it sounds like to challenge Trump's use of this
particular law, the Emergency Economic Powers Act or the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, it sounds like there's two potential
(49:31):
avenues to challenge. One is, what's the definition of an emergency?
Is this you know, is it actually an emergency? If
you know there's flow of fentanyl from some country to
our country and it's been going on for ten years,
is at an emergency? And then the other question is,
even if it is an emergency, does the law give
you the authority to use tariffs as a remedy? So
(49:53):
are those both aspects of the challenge or are you
only focusing on the second one?
Speaker 5 (50:00):
Eactly right?
Speaker 4 (50:00):
Are those are the two pieces of the kind of
the issues in these cases? And you're also right, we
are challenging only the second, and that's.
Speaker 5 (50:07):
A simpler challenge.
Speaker 4 (50:09):
The question of what's an emergency, as you're kind of
implying you're exactly right, does kind of raise questions about, well,
is that presidential judgment at some point?
Speaker 5 (50:17):
What's an emergency?
Speaker 4 (50:19):
So we put that aside and we said, even if
there's an emergency, Congress, all Congress said was you can
do things like composed sanctions and address foreign threats as
the law says. It doesn't say you're allowed to start
imposing taxes. Okay, So that's what we stick with the
second point.
Speaker 1 (50:35):
All right, So I'm looking right now at a filing
in the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit and amarchist brief, and it is signed by you
as amaricist brief and support of the plaintiffs in a
different case called Vos Selections and some others against President
(50:56):
Trump and some others.
Speaker 2 (50:58):
So tell us what is in.
Speaker 1 (51:00):
This amicus, especially brief, especially to the extent that it
might be any different from what you just described, you know,
or is it is it exactly the same or is
there some new stuff here?
Speaker 4 (51:13):
It is exactly the same as we described, with additional
kind of background about why it makes sense to it
adds some additional history and some things that your listeners
won't want to kind of get into today. But that's
how we filed that additional brief. The case we filed
in the Vos Selections is another case that raises very
similar challenges and that's gone faster than our case, so
(51:34):
that's now an appeal.
Speaker 5 (51:35):
The court in that case, at the.
Speaker 4 (51:37):
Trial level ruled against the tariffs, struck them down. We
think they should have visioned a broader ruling. So as
an amicas as a friend of the court, we file
this to lend to lend support to striking down the tariffs,
to protecting the trial court order to strike sit down,
and give additional background to the court. That's why we
(51:59):
filed that. To help about in this other case that's
now on appeal.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
We are talking with Andrew Morris, Senior Litigation Council at
NCLA New Civil Liberties Alliance INCLA dot org.
Speaker 2 (52:11):
So will all.
Speaker 1 (52:13):
Such cases go to this particular court? I think even
people who follow law a little bit closely might not
actually have heard of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, which is not the same as the Court
of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Speaker 2 (52:30):
So do they all go here before they go to
the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (52:35):
It is confusing even for lawyers, and actually that's one
of the issues that parties are fighting over. There's a
split where some courts have decided these cases should be
decided in this court that goes to the Federal Circuit,
whereas a court in Washington decided that this case can
be decided in the district. The trial level court in
(52:56):
Washington then go to a different court of appeals, which
is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
So there's actually a split even about where it should
be decided. But at the moment, there are two cases
on appeal and two different appellate courts, And the gist
of what has happened so far is two courts of
bission to ruling on what we call the merits gotten
to the point of the case, and they both ruled
(53:17):
against the administration and said that the tariffs are unlawful
for slightly different reasons. But that's where that's what's teed up,
and so both cases are on appeal. Where if the
parties who won below went on appeal, the tariffs continue
to be ruled unlawful.
Speaker 5 (53:35):
That's we're waiting to see what will happen.
Speaker 1 (53:37):
At what point if the Trump administration loses, At what
point would it be at a court that has the
authority to order them to stop or do you think
that's not until the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (53:51):
Well, that's also an issue that the parties are fighting over.
Speaker 4 (53:55):
At the Court of Appeal to the level there's broader
reach given the nature of the two courts of appeals
that both have special national standing.
Speaker 5 (54:04):
So that's an open question what the effect would be.
Speaker 4 (54:08):
But the Federal Circuit, for example, was designed to be
the national court for trade issues.
Speaker 5 (54:15):
That's why the government wants to be there.
Speaker 4 (54:16):
So there's a strong argument that should be a nationwide
ruling against the administration. So we will see, and we'll
know in a month or two their oral arguments coming up.
But the whole point of that court was for it
to be a nationwide court, and so there should be
a nationwide relief. Seems logical, but that's still being fought over.
Speaker 1 (54:37):
What do you think the chances are that either the
Federal Circuit rules in favor of your plaintiffs or the
plaintiffs who you're siding with in your amateurst brief. What
do you think the odds are that that court rules
for you guys, and then the Supreme Court refuses to
(54:58):
hear the case, leave that standing as as it is.
Speaker 4 (55:04):
Well that that gets into the prognosty, you know. That's
that's what a lot of lawyers spend time arguing about.
The conventional wisdom, which seems to have a lot of
force here is that this is a very.
Speaker 5 (55:17):
Important case about presidential power.
Speaker 4 (55:20):
This could apply to other presidents who try to use
emergency statutes.
Speaker 5 (55:23):
For other reasons.
Speaker 4 (55:24):
So there seems to be a strong likelihood that the
Supreme Court will find this to be the kind of
case that it would take that that seems right to me.
Speaker 5 (55:32):
To give a little bit of color.
Speaker 4 (55:33):
The next president from another party could come in and
declare a crime and a climate emergency and say, well,
of course that has foreign implicated foreign policy implications. It
affects the whole world, and so there's a climate emergency,
I'm going to start issuing various orders based on that emergency.
So this has this case has far reaching implications beyond tariffs.
Speaker 1 (55:54):
Okay, last question for you, And again I'm not a lawyer,
but I think, as you gather, I probably think about
this stuff a fair bit and have reasonable questions most
of the time.
Speaker 2 (56:07):
So I don't know where this is in the.
Speaker 1 (56:11):
Thinking about it as a full case going for the
merits versus an early kind of injunction. And what I'm
getting at here is it seems to me that to
the extent that Trump is imposing tariffs, whether or not
they're illegal, but they are definitely causing harm, and for
(56:32):
some businesses it may be it may be irrepairable harm.
And it seems to me that a lot of times
courts do issue injunctions saying Okay, the government can't do
this for now, because if the government loses, and we
think they will, then the harm that will have been
(56:52):
done in the interim wall we're hearing the case could
be the kind of harm that in this kind of
case would put businesses out of business, and therefore we're
going to say for now you can't impose the tariffs.
Speaker 2 (57:03):
But that doesn't seem to be happening. So so what
is this like.
Speaker 1 (57:07):
Kind of potentially leading to an injunction, a preliminary injunction,
or is this only possibly leading to a full case
on the merits and leaving the tariffs in place until then.
Speaker 2 (57:18):
Sorry for the long question.
Speaker 4 (57:21):
Now that's a really perceptive question because a couple thanks
running together that the ultimate answer is that this this
case was a pretty clear legal question, didn't have to
get into some of these issues that.
Speaker 5 (57:33):
Come up from preliminary in junction cases.
Speaker 4 (57:36):
So the courts were able to rule on the merits
but didn't issue a preliminary injunction, but went but did
did strike them, did strike the the trial court level,
did strike the tariffs down declare them un lawful, but
those order the order them in the Federal Circuit, for example,
has been stayed until the Federal Circuit rules, so they
(57:58):
don't get to your question.
Speaker 5 (58:00):
So we've skipped past that that prelominer and.
Speaker 4 (58:04):
Johnson phaz and gotten the ruling on the merits from
the Court of the National Trade they and yes, narrow rule.
Your point is exactly right that these are devastating, particularly
the small businesses who in a year, who cares if
they can get their tariffs back that they pay because
they've run out of money.
Speaker 2 (58:21):
They'll be gone by then they've run out of customers, right,
And so.
Speaker 1 (58:26):
I mean, is there a move by n c l
A or by whoever is representing the clients in the
other case that you just issued an amatist briefund is?
Speaker 2 (58:34):
I mean, is there anything.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
You can do to get the tariffs and joined in
the meantime or is what you're doing already the fastest
possible thing to try to get the if it ends
up being ruled illegal. And I hope they are ruled illegal,
and I think they probably will be. But like, you know,
what can you do to make sure your clients aren't
put out of business in the meantime?
Speaker 4 (58:55):
No, you raised the phenomenal central point, and there are
with the cases that are up on appeal now, the
parties have fought over the state, particularly in the Court
of International Trade and then the Federal Circuit, making exactly
your arguments. You're exactly right saying this The Court of
National Trade said these terriffs are unlawful. They should stop
(59:17):
now rather than require the small businesses and others to.
Speaker 5 (59:21):
Keep paying them.
Speaker 4 (59:23):
But the Federal Circuit reached out and stayed them anyway
over exactly your objections. Now, there are other litigation out there,
including our case, that are that have been stayed by
the Federal Circuit by I'm sorry, by the Courternational Trade.
Speaker 5 (59:37):
While these others are on appeal.
Speaker 4 (59:38):
We're trying to dislodge them and move them forward, so
we'll see what happens. But you put your finger on
exactly what is a we think a major central injustice
and all these these cases, which is courts have already
decided these are unlawful. Our clients are small businesses, for example,
and they're not They can't go to the White House
and cut a deal, or they don't have capital resources
(01:00:01):
to look for sources in other countries. They're running out
of top and so you put your finger on what
we think is a big injustice in the way these
cases are being handled.
Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
Andrew Morris is Senior Litigation Council at n c L
A n c L A Legal Dot Org, n c
l A Legal Dot org, I think I might have
given the wrong U r L earlier in c l
a legal dot org to learn more. Andrew, great conversation,
Thanks so much for taking time. We will definitely keep
in touch. I'm extremely interested in these particular cases.
Speaker 5 (01:00:34):
Thank you, Roth, be happy to help you again.
Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
All right, thank you, Andrew. All Right, that's that's some
good stuff. A lot of legal ease there, I think.
But I hope you. I hope you followed it, and
I hope you found it interesting and worthwhile. All right,
let's do a couple of other things. Let's see I
did Netflix. Oh, here's a here's a fun thing. So
there's this really terrible lady who works for the United Nations.
(01:00:58):
Her name is Francesca Albanese, and she is a raging
anti Semite, anti Israel pro Palestinian lunatic.
Speaker 2 (01:01:08):
And she is she has a title of.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapport Tour and, as
is typical of the United Nations, right, this is the
group that will put Iran or Libya on the Human
Rights Council.
Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
Right, So these people are a joke.
Speaker 1 (01:01:25):
And the United Nations generally is one of the largest,
one of the largest clubs of anti Semites.
Speaker 2 (01:01:32):
You know, a whole bunch of anti Semites get.
Speaker 1 (01:01:34):
Together in one building in New York of all places,
which has so many Jews. But that's where we're gonna
decide to put all the anti Semites in one building.
Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
And this lady is particularly bad.
Speaker 1 (01:01:43):
She has made all kinds of anti Israel and anti
Semitic remarks.
Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
And this is probably ten years ago now.
Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
She wrote about the US being subjugated by the Jewish lobby,
and she's taught, she speaks at pro Palestinian confert and
says and she talks about, you know, concentration camps in God.
Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
Just terrible. She's absolutely terrible.
Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
So what I wanted to let you know is that
yesterday on X Marco Rubio, Secretary of State now wrote
that miss Albanese has been quote involved in a campaign
of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel,
and he announced sanctions against her.
Speaker 2 (01:02:27):
Sanctions against her in response.
Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
To her quote illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt ICC,
which is the International Criminal Court action against US and
Israeli officials, companies, and executives. And apparently a Rubio says
that Albanese engaged directly with the ICC in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain,
(01:02:51):
or prosecute Americans and Israelis, though actually neither of those
countries is a signature, is a signat toy to the
agreement that established the ICC and determines its jurisdiction.
Speaker 2 (01:03:05):
So Israel is not part of the ICC. America is
not part of the ICC.
Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
That is also an anti Semitic club run by lately.
I think it's a South African and there's an immense
amount of anti Semitism in South Africa these days for
some reason. In any case, this lady, as I understand it,
will no longer be given visas to visit the United
States of America. I don't think Rubio can impose any
(01:03:32):
other sanctions as Secretary of State, but it's a good
start to show that we are not going to tolerate
this stuff anymore. And let me share one other story
with you. This is kind of interesting. You may have
heard yesterday that Joe Biden's doctor, the former White House
doctor named Kevin O'Connor, was called into a closed door
(01:03:54):
hearing of the House Oversight Committee.
Speaker 2 (01:03:59):
And I'm going to quote from Fox News.
Speaker 1 (01:04:01):
O'Connor pleded the fifth to multiple questions about his time
with Joe Biden during his sit down. It resulted in
a hasty end to what could have been an hour's
long deposition. So the chairman of the committee is a
guy named James Comer from Kentucky. And obviously, when the
Republicans are in the majority in the House, every committee
chairman is a Republican.
Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
That's how it works.
Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
So he's a Republican from Kentucky. And he told reporters
after the meeting this is what he said, and I'm
quoting Comber. Now, I'm gonna read the first two questions
that were asked. First, were you ever told to lie
about the President's health? He pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He
would not answer that question. The second question, did you
(01:04:40):
ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?
Speaker 2 (01:04:45):
Again?
Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
President White? President Biden's White House physician pled the Fifth.
This is unprecedented, and I think this adds more fuel
to the fire that there was a cover up, And
I would like to approach this with a little.
Speaker 2 (01:04:57):
Bit of subtlety.
Speaker 1 (01:04:59):
There are certainly important federal laws on the books. HIPPA
is the primary one protecting patient information from being disclosed
by a doctor unless the patient says you can, And
if I were Joe Biden, I wouldn't give him permission
to say he could.
Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
However, if you.
Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
Think about the two questions that Comer said were asked
to me, these are very different questions, and I'm going
to take the second question first, did you ever believe
President Biden was unfit to execute his duty? If I
were that doctor, I would refuse to answer that question.
Speaker 6 (01:05:37):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
I don't know whether I would.
Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
Take the fifth, but the fifth is an easy way
to refuse to answer, right, because I think that question
gets too close to disclosing private patient information. Did you
ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?
I wouldn't answer it either. I'd like to know the answer.
As an American, I'd like to know the answer, but
(01:06:00):
if I were that doctor, I wouldn't answer. However, the
first question, were you ever told to lie about the
President's health?
Speaker 2 (01:06:08):
That does not.
Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
Require him to disclose proprietary patient information, because it's not
even necessarily about the patient. It could well be a
question did the chief of staff ever ask you to
lie about Joe Biden's health?
Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
And in that one, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
That's a tough call because if you answer yes, I
was told to lie about it, the next question obviously
would be, well, then did.
Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
You lie about it?
Speaker 1 (01:06:38):
And in that case, if you're going to then say
you lied to let's say Congress about it. Now, you
may have a legal problem on your hands, and that's
why you might actually take the fifth.
Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
But these are very very.
Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
Different questions, and I think we should understand that kind
of subtlety. I don't blame him for refusing to answer
the question did you ever think Biden was unfit?
Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
Even though I'd like to know the answer, But we.
Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
Really deserve the answer to the question of where you
ever told to lie about the president's health? And therefore
what Congress should do. What they can do is they
can give this guy immunity from prosecution from anything having
to do with any of this, and then call him
back and ask him this question.
Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
Again, were you ever told to lie?
Speaker 1 (01:07:26):
Because once they've given him immunity, he can't plead the
fifth anymore because he is not at risk of self
incrimination when the government has already guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (01:07:35):
He won't be charged. All right, no fingers in the area.
Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Yet, make sure you do this the professional way and
not the semi professional way. Intrepid Taad Bauer joins us
for another edition of Well now you know, we got
about six minutes to jump right in.
Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (01:07:50):
So the last time we did this, we were talking
about the origin of the name of the city of Denver,
and just the short version is the guys that built
the city wanted to be its county seat. So they
said we're going to name this after the territorial governor,
James Denver. When they went down to lobby and he
had already quit, so it was a moot point. But
that's how Denver got his name. But we also had
(01:08:11):
a bunch of other ones that we didn't get the
time to get to.
Speaker 2 (01:08:14):
Okay, we're going to do that. Now.
Speaker 6 (01:08:16):
Do you know how the city of Aurora got its
name for the sky?
Speaker 2 (01:08:23):
No, it actually originated.
Speaker 6 (01:08:25):
It started off as a subdivision in the town of Fletcher.
Now that was an area built up by a real
estate developer named Donald Fletcher who made his money in
the silver boom, and so the subdivision of Aurora was
part of Fletcher in eighteen ninety one. And they think
that they called it Aurora because there's a lot of
(01:08:46):
people from Illinois that settled there so after Aurora, Illinois.
But back in eighteen ninety three, the price of silver
began to crash, and so this Fletcher guy left the
town in heavy debt to Denver Water, went to ca Alifornia,
got out of town, and so the people there decided, well,
you know, let's not call ourselves Fletcher anymore.
Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
So they changed it to Aurora.
Speaker 6 (01:09:11):
And then when it became an official town in nineteen
that was in nineteen oh seven. And then when they
reached the threshold to become an actual town, which it
was two thousand people back in the nineteen twenties, it
became an official city, the City of Aurora.
Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
Love it all right, that's one.
Speaker 5 (01:09:29):
That's one.
Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
Now I live in Parker.
Speaker 6 (01:09:30):
I had no idea what Parker was named after, but
now I do.
Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
Do you not a clue.
Speaker 6 (01:09:36):
It's named after a guy by the name of James Sample.
Parker and ex Bullwhacker went to there's a thing called
the twenty mile House that's kind of the centerpiece of
the area back then. And so he bought this thing
and made improvements to it. It grew, it prospered. He
(01:09:56):
put in a blacksmith shop, he put a g store,
and this also became the first official post office, was it.
Speaker 2 (01:10:05):
Did he did mister Parker call the place Parker? No?
Speaker 6 (01:10:08):
No, they named it after him when when it became
a town. Yeah, it was just like an area of
Douglas County back then, in the twenty mile House. So
if you've been to Parker, there's a lot of twenty
mile things there. And so he actually built the first
school across the road from the twenty mile House and
even paid the teacher's salary for the first year out
of his own pocket.
Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
What year years we talking about here?
Speaker 6 (01:10:30):
That was he bought the building in eighteen seventy four. Wow,
And so he really built it up. He became became
the first postmaster there. And so when they did when
it became the area became a town, they thought that
this knew would be the guy to name it after.
Speaker 2 (01:10:43):
So Parker is named after James Sample. Wow, two years
before Colorado actually became state.
Speaker 6 (01:10:49):
Yeah, indeed, yeah, how about Estes park mister Estes, missus Estes. Well, actually,
you're you're sort of right. The town was established by
William Byers, the founder The name was established by William Byers,
(01:11:09):
the founding editor of The Rocky Mountain News. He named
the town after its first residents, Joel and Patty Estes,
and they added the word park to capture the essence
of the town.
Speaker 2 (01:11:22):
So that was Rocky Nation.
Speaker 1 (01:11:24):
Rocky Mountain National Park already a thing before the town
was a thing, or or not which came first.
Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
That's a good question. What year does it say the
town was made early nineteen hundreds?
Speaker 6 (01:11:38):
Nope, the Rocky Mountain National Park was established in nineteen fifteen.
Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
Okay, so the town the town first, but it just
felt park.
Speaker 2 (01:11:45):
Like or something. Yeah, that's thought.
Speaker 6 (01:11:47):
The area was very park like, all right, okay, like it.
And then this is the weirdest one, Arvada no clue
less than no clue. So the town site was established
along Ralston Creek and they named the town what become
the town Ralston Point. But apparently there's a whole bunch
(01:12:07):
of other things named Ralston along Ralston Creek and they
didn't want to confuse it. So one of the settlers,
I don't know why they decided this, but the one
of the settlers wives brothers middle.
Speaker 2 (01:12:20):
Name was Arvada.
Speaker 6 (01:12:22):
No I swear makes complete sense, yes, yep, wow, Yeah,
the middle name of the brother in.
Speaker 2 (01:12:29):
Law of the city founders. Why unbelievable?
Speaker 1 (01:12:33):
Can I share something with you that I just found
here on the oh Google thing?
Speaker 5 (01:12:36):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (01:12:37):
In Colorado, Ralston most likely refers to Lewis Ralston, a
gold prospector who discovered gold along a creek that was
later named Ralston Creek near what is now the city
of Arvada. His discovery in eighteen fifty is considered the
first documented gold find in Colorado and sparked the Pike's
(01:12:57):
Peak gold Rush.
Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
I'll leave it there.
Speaker 6 (01:13:00):
Yeah, And so this guy's full name was hire him
Arvada Haskin, the brother in law of settler Mary Wadsworth
for the Wadsworth What there you go? Benjamin Wadsworth was
the was one of those one of the founders of
Ralston Point, which became Arvada Love the first postmaster of
the town.
Speaker 1 (01:13:19):
Fabulous. Yes, I can't believe it. A town named for
somebody's middle name, Chad, brother in law's middle name, Chad.
Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
I did not know that. Well, now you know, fingers.
Speaker 1 (01:13:32):
In the air, everybody will be right back on KOA.
You're trying to make me follow the show sheet by
playing that true. And second of all, that wasn't even
supposed to be in this segment.
Speaker 2 (01:13:41):
That's in the next segment.
Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
So now you're trying to get me to do something
that I.
Speaker 2 (01:13:47):
Might or might not do, not even at the time.
Speaker 1 (01:13:49):
I'm going to do it, but you know what, because
you're in charge and I don't want to get fired,
I'm gonna do it, all right, I'll do it.
Speaker 2 (01:13:56):
That's fine, that's fine, I'll do it.
Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
I just want to mention mentioned two listener texts that
are very very similar to each other. Ross listener text,
I thought Arvada was a foreign word that meant no
straight roads. And then another one that I will paraphrase Ross,
I thought Aurora was a foreign word.
Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
That meant come and get shot in the face. So
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:14:20):
I haven't heard that about either of these places. And
I think intrepid Chad Bauer would have told us if
that's really where those names came from. But I do.
I do like that concept, Arvada meaning no straight roads.
You can imagine that actually in some Native American language, right,
there were probably Native Americans around where Arvada is now
and and nore. Yeah, I like it. I like it
(01:14:44):
all right. So Dragon's gonna make me do this thing,
all right, So if you didn't recognize that music's theme
from Superman movies. And there's some interesting stuff going on
with this new Superman movie that I think is released tomorrow,
I think is when it opened in the theaters. But
of course they do some preview kind of stuff. They
(01:15:04):
show it to some people, they show it to movie
critics and such. Every once in a while, I get
to go to a movie every once in a while,
actually I get to take listeners to a movie a
day or two or three days before it opens to
widely to the public. I think Dragon and I have
gone to some movies together like that. And so there
are some early reviews out of the of the Superman movie,
(01:15:27):
and they're actually quite good.
Speaker 2 (01:15:29):
Okay, they're quite good.
Speaker 1 (01:15:30):
A lot of people think the script is good, the
acting is good, it's a lot of fun. The way
they have done the color filtering for this movie makes
it seem like a comic book coming to life, you know.
One critic says, a breath of fresh air and an
era saturated with dark anti heroes, Superman is refreshingly idealistic,
(01:15:51):
not in a saccharin way, but in a way that
feels rebellious, even radical. The reporter from Variety, which is
one of the very very top Hollywood newspapers or magazines,
says gun that's the director, James Gunn, with two wins,
knows that the world has grown weary of comic book
film culture, and in the New Superman, he's out to
(01:16:13):
reset not just one studio's fortunes, but the very idea
of what a comic book movie is. And I'll share
one more from the Hollywood Reporter.
Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
Another huge publication out there.
Speaker 1 (01:16:26):
Perhaps its biggest strength is that its sidesteps all the
revisionist murk of superheroes on screen in the last decade
or two and reverts almost to an enchanting state of
childlike wonder. And so you get the idea a lot
of very good reviews.
Speaker 2 (01:16:45):
So now what's the issue.
Speaker 1 (01:16:48):
The issue is that the director James Gunn, in an interview,
talked about immigration and he said in an interview, people
who say no to immigrants are against the American way.
And this was an interview with The Times, which is
(01:17:10):
a British newspaper, not the New York Times or all
the Times, just the Times, or I think it maybe
used to be called The Times.
Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
Of London.
Speaker 1 (01:17:16):
He says, Superman is the story of America and immigrant
that came from other places and populated the country. But
for me, it's mostly a story that says basic human
kindness is of value and is something we have lost.
And he also said that the film is about politics
and about morality, and he said that he knew that
(01:17:37):
some parts of the country would view it differently from
other parts.
Speaker 2 (01:17:40):
Of the country.
Speaker 1 (01:17:41):
He says, and I'm quoting again, Yes it plays differently.
Speaker 2 (01:17:45):
It's about human kindness. And obviously, he.
Speaker 1 (01:17:47):
Says, there will be jerks out there who are just
not kind and will take it as offensive just because
it is about kindness, but screw them. But see, here's
the problem. He's clearly not really talking about kindness. He's
really talking about immigration policy. And where this thing gets
a little sticky is that he doesn't make in these interviews.
(01:18:09):
I mean, I'm not talking about the movie. I haven't
seen the movie, But he doesn't make any kind of
distinction that I think is a real distinction in a
lot of people's minds between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
And it kind of sounds like he's criticizing people who
are not big fans of illegal immigration, and he's not
backing down at all.
Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
And his brother, who is one of.
Speaker 1 (01:18:31):
The actors in the movie, didn't back down at all.
And it's causing some consternation on the political right a
little bit. And Fox News was all over this and
they called it super Woke instead of Superman.
Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
Now, I gotta say, I do think that some.
Speaker 1 (01:18:49):
Of the folks on Fox News who are criticizing this
are doing and to some degree to kind of pander
to the current anti immigrant mood among some Fox News watchers.
Speaker 2 (01:19:03):
And I think they're making too much of it.
Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
And you know what, as the as the brother, as
the director's brother said, Hey guys, it's just a movie, right,
But as much as they're making too much of it. Again,
going back to what I said a moment ago, it's
certainly true that the director injected politics into the conversation, right,
(01:19:29):
And I don't think that's very I don't think that's
very bright. Ben Shapiro, obviously a very kind of sober,
rational kind of guy, talks about this a little bit
on his own YouTube channel, and I'm quoting from Forbes now.
He accused the cast and crew of making an attempt
to separate Superman from America, alleging that Gunn likened the
(01:19:51):
character to.
Speaker 2 (01:19:52):
An illegal immigrant.
Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
Shapiro said, Superman is an immigrant who assimilates in American values.
But he's suggesting that gun the director is kind of
promoting something a little different. But that's a hard thing
to do because Clark Kent is like an all American
guy right in these in these stories. The other thing
(01:20:13):
that some people are talking about, and I just want
to clarify a little is in the Superman movie here
he doesn't say or is a truth justice in the
American way? Right, He'll say truth justice and things like
that or whatever. But what I want to make really
clear is that Superman, first of all, in the history
of Superman, he didn't really say truth justice in the American.
Speaker 2 (01:20:37):
Way very much.
Speaker 1 (01:20:37):
It's not a very common thing in the original comic
books a.
Speaker 2 (01:20:40):
Time or two here and there, but even in the movies.
Speaker 1 (01:20:44):
I don't think Superman has said truth justice in the
American way in the movies for at least twenty years,
and maybe not since the eighties. But I don't think
it's happened once in the two thousands, So it's not
a new thing in this movie. So look, here's what
I think both sides are making a mistake. I think
the director is making a mistake injecting politics in it
(01:21:04):
and thumbing the nose of conservatives who like going to
movies too right, So that's dumb. And I think Fox
News is making a mistake, but it's a more understandable
one because they had their noses thumbed by the director
really going after him and saying, why are you making
this you know, woke nonsense, pro illegal immigration whatever. I
think my agreement is with the brother his name is
(01:21:28):
Sean Gunn, who said, hey.
Speaker 2 (01:21:29):
Guys, it's just a movie.
Speaker 1 (01:21:31):
I had forgotten a strange visitor from another planet.
Speaker 2 (01:21:35):
So that's pretty cool. And for sure, Superman.
Speaker 1 (01:21:39):
Was associated with truth justice in the American way a
lot in the forties and fifties, quite a bit in
the forties and fifties, and the comic book people and
the movie people took out the American way thing like
I think could have been the nineties, but definitely by
the two thousands, and I think part of the reason
for I know that part of the reason for that
(01:22:02):
is they they didn't want to, I don't know, upset
or offend. That's probably a little too strong they wanted
to make movies that they could sell around the world,
and they didn't want to have you know, the French
or the whoever or whoever is just thinking, ah, Superman
just you know, only about the American and they just
feel like, as a marketing thing, it'd be better to
(01:22:23):
take out the American way and just make it something
kind of.
Speaker 2 (01:22:26):
More more generic than that.
Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
But for sure, he said it a lot in the
forties and fifties, no doubt about that. Another listener says,
and I looked this up and it's right. Arvada comes
from the term arvad Heites. And here I'll just rather
than the listener text, I'll go to some ai here.
The arvad Heites were an ancient people mentioned in the
Bible as descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. They are
(01:22:50):
associated with the island city of Arvad also known as Arridus,
located off the coast of.
Speaker 2 (01:22:57):
Modern day Syria.
Speaker 1 (01:22:59):
So apparently somebody gave their kid the middle name Arveda,
relating to this ancient people in the Bible, and then
somebody else used his That was his brother in law.
The person who named the town used his brother in
law's middle name to name the town of ar Veda.
I think that's a pretty cool story. I really do
like that story. Okay, let me you know, we've done
(01:23:20):
a fair bit of politics and a lot of law.
Actually on today's show, I'm going to do something different
for a moment.
Speaker 2 (01:23:27):
I thought this was.
Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
An interesting story. And this is from the Free Press,
from a guy named Zach Bissonett. And you know, as
a kid, I was a kid not just pre Internet,
but way way way pre internet. Right, So if you
were going to read a book, you either were going
to go to a bookstore and buy it, which I
didn't do as a kid, or you would go to
(01:23:49):
the library and you know, check out a book and
read it and return it. So I you know, I
grew up going to library quite a bit, school library,
public library. And I think lots of folks listening to
me right now had that same experience, and you.
Speaker 2 (01:24:03):
Know, even folks a lot younger, a lot than I am.
Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
I've spent lots of time in the library, and libraries
evolved in quite a few ways. For example, some of
the public libraries around here have a really cool system,
and I don't entirely understand how it works where you
can check out a digital book, so you can check
out a book that you can read, like on your
kindle or something like that, and then it expires after
a period of time, just.
Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
The same way.
Speaker 1 (01:24:28):
You know, if you had to return a library book,
you can't just download it and have it forever.
Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
That's some pretty cool stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
So anyway, this piece now by again Zach Bissonette is
his name, is entitled the Death of the Public Library.
And yeah, I don't know if if the situation is
quite as generalizable as he might make it seem, but
it wouldn't surprise me depending on the location. So let
(01:24:57):
me just share this story with you. It's not it's
not very long. I might read.
Speaker 2 (01:25:02):
I don't know. I probably won't read the whole thing.
Actually it's a little too long for that, but I'll
do some bits and skip ahead.
Speaker 1 (01:25:08):
I was excited about the Mandel Public Library when I
moved to West Palm Beach, Florida in early twenty twenty three.
The city was on the rise, and Foters Travel had
named mandal the fourth most beautiful public library in America.
Speaker 2 (01:25:21):
Then I started going there.
Speaker 1 (01:25:23):
I watched a security guard tell a man who appeared
to be homeless that he wasn't allowed back.
Speaker 2 (01:25:27):
For another month.
Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
In the new books section, a guy yelled into his
phone that he'd been kicked off the bus for arguing
with a driver. Other homeless people slept in chairs and snored.
The smell made you hold your breath. Beautiful though it was.
With high, rounded ceilings and a coffee shop in the lobby,
I wondered how people could use this library as a
place to read and study. The answer I soon discovered
(01:25:52):
is that increasingly they don't. Between twenty twelve and twenty nineteen,
according to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, visits
to the Mandel Library declined twenty seven percent, and total circulation,
the number of items including e books borrowed by library
patient patrons, fell by a similar twenty six percent, even
(01:26:14):
as newcomers poured into South Florida. The trend is not reversed,
with visits following another thirty one percent since twenty nineteen,
meaning that visits have declined a staggering fifty percent since
twenty twelve, even though the population has risen. This and again,
let me just interject here, this isn't him, just me.
You would expect visits to drop anyway because of the
(01:26:37):
ability to buy ebooks and to listen to audible books.
So there are a lot of ways to get books
now that don't involve needing a physical copy of a book.
I already mentioned the ebooks at the library, of course,
but you know, you've got these other systems where you
can just download them and you sort of own them
then and you can take your time and all that.
(01:26:59):
So it's not suprising that visits to the library are down,
but down fifty percent, especially in a place with rising population,
that does start to feel.
Speaker 2 (01:27:10):
Then like something else is going on.
Speaker 1 (01:27:13):
So the statistics showing a dramatic increase, on the other hand,
is not one you want to see. According to the
library's director, quote behavior incident reports, everything from sleeping in
the library to harassment of other patrons or staff, has
risen by forty one percent over that time. It's another
reason the library director, her name is Lisa Hathaway, told
(01:27:35):
the reporter we hired a social worker now, he says,
my local library is hardly an aberration. All over the country,
libraries are seeing fewer visitors and more problems per resident.
Visits to public libraries fell by fifty six point six
percent in the ten years ending twenty twenty two. Meanwhile,
(01:27:58):
a report from the Urban Library Council found that between
twenty nineteen and twenty twenty three, security incidents at its
one hundred and fifteen member libraries rose well rose, even
though visit spelled thirty five percent. So you get the idea, right,
A bunch of well here, I'll read this sentence. A
(01:28:18):
major reason libraries are in decline is that a former
librarian who wrote in the Los Angeles Times in as
far back as two thousand and seven.
Speaker 2 (01:28:28):
This librarian wrote, libraries.
Speaker 1 (01:28:30):
Have become a de facto daytime shelter for the city's homeless.
So I'm gonna skip ahead a little bit in the
interest of time, and he talks about The writer talks
about two different library trainers named Ryan Dowd and Steve Albrecht,
(01:28:51):
and he says these two were friends, but their approaches
are very different. Dowd, who once ran a homeless shelter
in Aurora, Illinois, though not Colorup, is the author of
a book. Now listen to this like this to me,
this is beyond woke. But listen to this The Librarian's
Guide to Homelessness, an empathy driven approach to solving problems,
(01:29:13):
preventing conflict, and serving anyone. He told me, not me,
but he's the reporter is writing this. He told me
he originally wanted to title the book how to Run
Your Library Like a Homeless Shelter. When I asked if
he was joking, he said he wasn't sure. He's given
seminars for roughly half of the nation's librarians, including those
(01:29:33):
running most of the largest systems.
Speaker 2 (01:29:35):
His influence is unquestioned.
Speaker 1 (01:29:40):
Dowd's essential belief is that not only do the homeless
have every right to spend their days in libraries, but
that librarians should be should view their needs as a
critical part of the of the job. He believes librarians
should be trained to dispense narcan Actually, that's fine.
Speaker 2 (01:29:56):
I don't mind that.
Speaker 1 (01:29:57):
There's a difference between being able on an urgency basis
to save the life of somebody who is overdosing. There's
a difference between that and inviting all the homeless people
into your library.
Speaker 2 (01:30:08):
Okay, those are two very different things.
Speaker 1 (01:30:11):
One of his seminars is called Jerks with Holmes, How
to deal with members of the public who are being
jerks about homeless folks. His scripts for addressing problematic behaviors
include examples like, Hey, I don't care if you urinate
on the Harry Potter books, but the politicians have a
no urinating policy. Therefore I have to ask you to stop. Wow,
(01:30:31):
it sounds like a joke. It sounds like it sounds
like someone No, it's not the Babylon bee, it's not
the onion, right, it's it sounds like someone making a
ridiculous caricature of a woke librarian. But when the reporter
(01:30:52):
pointed out that library visits were in steep decline, this
guy said he was unaware of that data.
Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
And then the reporter.
Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
Says, could any institution take comfort in smells?
Speaker 2 (01:31:05):
That quote aren't that bad?
Speaker 1 (01:31:07):
And that's a response to this guy Dowd saying, there's.
Speaker 2 (01:31:11):
A listen to this. This is it's a good point, dragon.
This is not the Babylon be Okay.
Speaker 1 (01:31:19):
As for the body odor that perminates so many public
libraries these days, mister Dowd writes that quote, there is
a certain amount of odor that we can expect whenever
we go out in public. Other people use odor as
an excuse to vent their prejudices. Don't let someone's hypersensitivity
or bias rule today. If the smell really isn't that bad,
(01:31:45):
dragon's laughing. And as the reporter says, can any institution
take comfort in knowing that the smells that are wasting
through their edifice are quote not that bad? And then
mister Dowd says, to me, community means it's literally for all,
including people that might make us uncomfortable. Okay, So that's
(01:32:09):
one guy. The other guy, last name is all Brecked.
And if these two guys are friends, but they don't
think the same way, but they know each other because
they're in this kind of small business of you know,
library training, and this guy does also, this guy all Brecked,
does library security training as well. He's a former cop
in San Diego and he's been doing library security training
for a quarter century and still quoting from the Free
(01:32:32):
Press article, he advises librarians to stop apologizing for measures
designed to make their libraries safe and appealing environments. Some
topics he covers in his webinar program include our list
of challenging patrons from pets to pedophiles, and.
Speaker 2 (01:32:51):
Issues enforcing our code of conduct.
Speaker 1 (01:32:53):
And he said, we are losing control of a facility
that has always been benevolent and peaceful for the community.
While mister Dowd's trainings include strategies for reducing police calls,
Allbrecht worries that many librarians aren't calling the police enough.
Albrecht says people in the library world sometimes misunderstand that
(01:33:16):
one of the primary functions of the police is to
preserve the piece.
Speaker 2 (01:33:20):
Police can do.
Speaker 1 (01:33:21):
A lot of good by just telling someone they have
to leave now. The reporter says, most librarians I spoke
to were nervous about discussing these problems because they've seen
the consequences of bucking the progressive tide that has swept
America's libraries. Amanda Oliver, a former Washington, DC librarian, as
(01:33:42):
author of Overdue Reckoning with the Public Library, a book
that describes the problems that come with the homeless takeover
of the library. She told me I was only able
to write this book because I was no longer a librarian,
but she still had to be careful. The book was
published in twenty twenty two, and it explains that while
hiring a police officer did reduce violent incidents and made
(01:34:04):
some patrons feel safe for quote, the officers did very
little or maybe nothing to address the systemic issues in
the neighborhood.
Speaker 2 (01:34:12):
She it seemed like a tall order.
Speaker 1 (01:34:14):
The reporter says, to expect systemic issues to be addressed
by a library cop and she agreed, this is this
is pretty crazy. There's a lot more to this, actually
a lot more. And I posted a link to the
article on my website. I probably just shared with you,
(01:34:35):
maybe even maybe even a third of it.
Speaker 2 (01:34:38):
Let me just share with you the very end.
Speaker 1 (01:34:41):
Current practices aren't solving homelessness, but seem well on their
way to destroying.
Speaker 2 (01:34:45):
The public library.
Speaker 1 (01:34:47):
As one anonymous librarian said in response to a survey
about mentally a library guests, quote, this problem, not the
invention of the internet, could prove to be the final
demise of the public library, as we know. Another person
who we had talked about in the article seemed sad
when I asked her about the declining visit numbers. She said, quote,
(01:35:09):
I really understand why so many library workers want to
keep saying yes, But ironically it's always giving in, always
saying yes. That's what will lead to the destruction of libraries.
We don't want to be subsumed. We don't want to
be a community center. So there you go, There you go.
(01:35:31):
I thought that was a really good piece. So I'm
going to come back to something that I did near
the very beginning of the show.
Speaker 2 (01:35:41):
I think I need to do this a little bit more. Actually,
is to find.
Speaker 1 (01:35:43):
Something that I think is particularly interesting or important in
the first hour and do it again in the last hour,
because if you're listening now, you might not have been
listening to and a half hours ago. Plus Mandy just
walked in, so I don't know if she knows the
story at.
Speaker 7 (01:35:55):
Our favorite listeners were listening to and a half hours ago. Yes,
sudd you know, did You're not our favorites? Wait you
I'm not afraid to say.
Speaker 2 (01:36:06):
What other talk show hosts won't.
Speaker 7 (01:36:08):
Okay, I'm just letting you know.
Speaker 1 (01:36:09):
No, I know, but but you forgot to say what
you're supposed to say when you walk in you go.
So last week, Mandy, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned
rulings of I know as soon as I say that,
you know, the news is gonna.
Speaker 7 (01:36:24):
Be bad, Right, It's gonna be It's going to be
the worst decision. It's gonna Beanji Jackson decision.
Speaker 1 (01:36:29):
It's gonna be awful. So actually, let me just tell
the story in a slightly different order. In the in
the nineteen thirty five law that establishes the rules for
sales tax in Colorado, it says that.
Speaker 2 (01:36:42):
The things that can have sales tax.
Speaker 1 (01:36:44):
Applied are what are called corporeal personal property. Of course,
but corporeal means that it's physical, you can touch it, it
has a body, right, court right, Okay.
Speaker 4 (01:36:54):
So.
Speaker 1 (01:36:55):
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled last week overturning lower
court sorts that your Netflix subscription.
Speaker 2 (01:37:04):
Is taxable.
Speaker 1 (01:37:05):
And so if this doesn't get overturned by some other court,
then potentially every digital subscription of any kind that you
have in Colorado will be taxed as tangible property. Tangible
personal property, like if you bought a hammer.
Speaker 7 (01:37:21):
Did you also know that the Colorado Democrats, as a
preemptive strike, added into a bill this past session. Now,
if you get over time, which the federal government will
not be taxing up to a certain point, the Colorado
government is forcing you to count the hours that you're
not being taxed by the federal government so they can
tax you here in Colorado.
Speaker 1 (01:37:40):
Yes, and there's a good chance they will try to
do that. With taxes on tips. If they call a
legislative session.
Speaker 7 (01:37:47):
They're trying to lower our prices.
Speaker 1 (01:37:48):
Wrong yet a load of crap, that is right, And
Michael Fields in Advanced Colorado is going to bring a
ballot measure to undo those things. But this is going
to be I don't have time for the whole thing now,
but this is gonna be one of those times where
I don't support the ballot measure because I.
Speaker 2 (01:38:02):
Don't support not taxing tips. In overtime, I will.
Speaker 7 (01:38:05):
Be supporting the ballot measure purely out of spite.
Speaker 2 (01:38:08):
Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 7 (01:38:09):
I mean, I'll be honest about it. I will because
I'm with you. Like lower taxes for everybody. Yeah, you know,
don't carry pick who gets these tax breaks. And I
used to be a server. I understand, I get it.
I feel your pain. But lower taxes on everybody. Yeah,
you shouldn't get a carve out just because you're a
tipped employee and nobody reports all their tips anyway, right,
I mean, come on, right, Although now credit cards, you's
(01:38:29):
kind of made it difficult.
Speaker 2 (01:38:31):
Using a library story, you just had go for it.
I love public libraries.
Speaker 7 (01:38:35):
I've always viewed them as giant boxes of knowledge, but
my last three experiences outside of Douglas County. Douglas County
has an amazing library system. I just want to give
them a big shout out. They do an incredible job.
But when I have wandered into branches of the Denver
Public Library in different areas every single time, they are
full of homeless people and the stench alone made me
(01:38:57):
turn around and walk out.
Speaker 2 (01:38:59):
Until they saw that problem.
Speaker 7 (01:39:00):
You have librarians that have been turned into cops instead
of dispensers of information. I have a friend who was
a longtime librarian in New York City and she finally
hit her limit when a homeless guy punched her in
the face and she was just like, I'm out, I'm
done and left. They got to fix that problem before
anything else happens. And I'm so sad about that story
about libraries.
Speaker 1 (01:39:19):
Because one quick listener text, this is old news for
my family.
Speaker 2 (01:39:23):
Ross.
Speaker 1 (01:39:24):
In two thousand and two, I wrote a letter to
the editor in the Fort Collins, Colorado newspaper complaining that
I couldn't allow my kids to use the public library
anymore because of mentally ill homeless that looked in every
corner and used the public computers to watch porn. I
was mocked by the librarian for being intolerance unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (01:39:44):
Okay, great, all right, what you got coming up? We're
gonna have a long.
Speaker 7 (01:39:47):
Conversation with Barb Kirkmeyer, my favorite senator here in Colorado
because she is as much a fiscal hawk as I am,
and she knows more about the budget, yeah, than anybody.
And we're gonna talk what is going to be coming
up in the special session, which is definitely going to
happen because we've spent ourselves into oblivity in Colorado.
Speaker 1 (01:40:05):
What time you got bar o'clock? I got bared all right,
I gotta listen to that. Everyone stick around for ma Andy.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.