07-11-25 - *FULL SHOW* Delete Your 23 & Me Data; Is it Amnesty; Trafficking Children

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're all friends. Well you could see me through the
window anyway. I didn't even need I don't even know
I bothered telling you that you already knew. Thanks so
much for spending a little time with me on this Friday.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Which is it?

Speaker 1 (00:10):
It is Fry Day National French Friday producer Shannon Actually,
and Gina, while you're here, do you have an opinion
who makes the best French fries?

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Like if you were just had a hankering.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
For French fries and you were just gonna go get
some and nothing else, just French fries, where would you go?

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Someone with waffle fries? I don't know who because I
don't do a lot of fast food like places. So yeah,
does the waffle fries? Okay, so stick with me with
this for a second. It's interesting that you said that.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
So I think what our Arby's I think has waffle
fries curly fries?

Speaker 3 (00:45):
Oh yeah?

Speaker 1 (00:45):
So who oh chick fil Yes, and I do love
the Arby's curly fries.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
So I was talking with my wife.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
The other day and she said, a waffle fry is
not actually a French.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Fries and it should not be allowed to compete.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
It's more like a giant hunk of potato that they're
just calling a French fry. But it's really not fair
to let them compete against French fries because there because
they're not.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
Okay, she could be wrong. Well, what about like the
potato wedges or like the flat the really thick flat fries?

Speaker 3 (01:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:14):
So are those actually fries or are they like a
different I don't know. So are you saying that you
might go to Chick fil a or some other place
with that stylus fry with the waffle fry?

Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yep?

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Channon, do you have an opinion Arby's Arby's for the
curly fry?

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:32):
I like the Arby's curly fry, and the two Arby's
that were closest to me are both out of.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
Business now, So clearly I wasn't buying enough curly fries
to keep them in business. So let's ask let's ask listeners.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
This question on this National French Friday, Get It Friday,
five six six nine zero. And my question is the
same question I asked Gina, and that is, if you
were going to go somewhere just to get French fries
and nothing else where, would you go? Text me at
five six six nine zero and let me know your thoughts.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
And I'm not even sure of my answer.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
I think I like Shannon's answer of Arby's, and I
would certainly like it even more if it were closer
to me. But if every fast food place were equidistant
to me, I think Arby's would be right up there
around the top of the list.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
You know, I think it's.

Speaker 1 (02:26):
It's been said for many, many years, but that doesn't
make it untrue that of the kind of regular fast
food places, McDonald's that does regular shape french fries, McDonald's
has the best french fries of the things you would
normally just call french fries, and it does, it still does.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
And they buy the most expensive potatoes.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
McDonald's buys the best potatoes, and however, they and they're great.
They really are great. The best thing about McDonald's probably
is their french fries. But I want to know what
you think. Five six six nine zero. So if you
were going to go somewhere to get french fries, and
you know what, if you want, you can ignore my wife, okay,

(03:07):
so you can include curly fries, waffle fries, any other
kinds of thing that you can be your own definer
of French fry. You don't have to listen to my
wife as part of giving your answer.

Speaker 2 (03:21):
Where would you go? Okay, let's do something else.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
This is just a quick thing because I've talked about
it in the past, but I have discussed how twenty
three and meters filed for bankruptcy and they are going
to be purchased by Was it Regeneron?

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Maybe I think so.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
And there's been some question about what's going to happen
with the data from all the people who spit in
the tube and all of your genetic data. Now the purchaser,
and again I think it's Regeneron, but that's just from memory,
and I could be wrong.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Has said that they are going.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
To protect the data, but I didn't well before I
knew who a buyer was, and I just knew that
twenty three and meters was going to collapse financially.

Speaker 2 (04:08):
I went onto the website. I did two things.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
I ordered their full data download of everything that they
processed from my spit and that took a few days,
maybe the better part of a week for them to
put together, and then send me the email that had
the link that I can click to download this big
file and it might take longer now depending on how
many people are trying to do it. But I did that,

(04:34):
and then I went through and deleted my data. And
the reason I mentioned this to you is twofold. First
of all, I recommend that you do this. Okay, I
do recommend that you delete your data. It's not because
I have any particular level of distrust of the new buyer.
But why bother leaving that data out there? You probably
got everything out of it that you're going to get

(04:54):
out of it already. You can try to download the
thing the data set the way I did, or you
might just say that you know what I know what I.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Need to know.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
But the reason I mentioned this is that the Attorney
General of the state of Colorado yesterday put out a
press release and it says Attorney General Phil Weiser alerts
consumers on deleting data shared with twenty three and me,
and he put out a one page PDF with the
steps that you go through to delete your data, including

(05:25):
how to find the option to download the data if
you want to. And I have posted this. It's called
a one pager, right. I have posted this on my
right here at the top of today's blog note at
Rosskaminsky dot com, so you can access this one page
thing that tells you about Oh, it looks like the
buyer is not regeneron now. It looked like it was

(05:48):
going to be, but now this thing says it's it's
a sale to a nonprofit that was created by the
founder and CEO of twenty three and meter, So it
looks like she's kind of selling it to herself. So
that's different than the original news. The original news had
this going to some too, I think to Rea Generon

(06:09):
to a drug company.

Speaker 2 (06:10):
In any case, if.

Speaker 1 (06:11):
You want to delete the data, and I recommend that
you do, go to Rosskominsky dot com and.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
Just have a quick read of that.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
Another thing I posted much further down in my blog
today and I'm just gonna mention this briefly, but there
was a cool little piece over at the Denver Post
and I don't know if it requires a subscription to
access it, but it's entitled three brand new hiking trails
to try in Boulder, Fort Collins and Golden I'm literally
gonna take thirty seconds on this.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
So there's a place there.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
In Fort Collins, the Bay to Bay Trail at Horsetooth
Reservoir one point eight mile trail, So there's that. And
then in Boulder, the Shale Trail is a three quarter
mile trail that connects Boulder Valley Ranch Trail head to
Eagle Trail says, once you reach the top, there's a

(07:01):
panoramic view, and I'll come back to that in the second.
And then the Jawbone Ridge Trail in gold and a
half mile out and back on South Table Mountain Road
is now open to hikers, although they are still doing
a little bit of work on it. And so that's
I posted that on my website if you want to

(07:21):
go check that out. But you know, I love hiking. Yeah,
I'm not necessarily the twenty five mile giant hikes with
backpacks and stuff.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
But you know, you go.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
Out on a weekend for a one to three hour hike,
you know, kind of the middle of that being the
sweet spot for me an hour forty five two hours.
I usually bring some sunflower seeds and eat them and
spit out the shells while I'm walking and I just
dig it.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
So just a thing to think about. And the other
thing that I wanted to mention, just very briefly in
the context to this piece. They were talking about.

Speaker 1 (07:52):
The shale trail in Boulder, and it said if you
go at the right time of year, you might see
the rare bells twin part in bloom and I thought.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
This was cool. I never heard of it before.

Speaker 1 (08:05):
This flower It says, this yellow flowering plant is only
found in Boulder, Larimer, and Jefferson Counties in Colorado, and
apparently nowhere else in the entire world.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
And I think that's pretty neat. We'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
I'm just gonna mention one very quick thing because on
one of the TVs here in the studio I have
Fox News on and I just saw an ad for
Charles Paine, who is more of a Fox business guy,
but he's on Fox News sometimes and I really like
Charles pain interesting guy, very nice guy. And I saw
a tweet that was referencing, believe it or not, Charles Paine,

(08:48):
who's an investor and a business reporter, as potentially under
consideration by Donald Trump to be the next chairman of
the Federal Reserve. Trump is trying to lean on Jerome
Powell to resign early, and some other Senators are kind
of jumping in pressuring Powell. I don't think Powell will

(09:08):
resign early. But I think Powell has done this year anyway,
this year or next year anyway, he doesn't have much
longer in his term no matter what. And anyway, it'll
be very interesting whether Powell leaves early or Powell leaves
on schedule.

Speaker 2 (09:22):
It's going to be an incredible thing.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
To see who Trump wants to name as the next
head of the Federal Reserve.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
And there will.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
Probably be some expected names in there, like maybe Larry
Kudlow will be in the conversation, but can you imagine
Charles Payin? And that would be very interesting, actually, it
would be very interesting. For the record, By the way,
the Fed sucks. They've always sucked. They don't really do
much to help us out. They haven't prevented recessions. They

(09:51):
keep interest rates much too high for much too long,
and then much too low for much too long, and
now they're too high for too long. And when Trump
says rate should be lower, Trump was saying that when
it wasn't true. But it is true now rates should
be lower. And anyway, all right, enough of that, so Ross,
I respectfully disagree with your wife. French fries are defined

(10:13):
as potatoes cut into various shapes fried and seasoned. Waffle
fries are just a variation where the potatoes cut into
a lattice shape, thereby increasing the surface area for crispiness.
They are made from the same base ingredient of potato
and prepared in the same way deep fried. Therefore, I
must conclude that waffle fries are indeed French fries, and

(10:38):
that's signed Andy.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
Another listener says, oh, by the way, if you're just tuning.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
In, the reason I got the French fries stuff going
here today is National Friday, Get it Friday, National French Friday.
And I have asked if you were going to go
somewhere just for French fries and nothing else.

Speaker 2 (10:57):
All you wanted was fries, where would you go?

Speaker 4 (11:00):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (11:00):
Ross I grew up in Indiana where there was a
local chain called Penguin Points. I loved their fries, large,
crinkle cut and very crispy. Ross I would go to
any restaurant that knows how to make their own fries
using only Kennebec potatoes by far the best potato for fries.
The same potatoes laze uses for their chips. There are
no better chips around. Yes, I'm a French fry nerd,

(11:24):
and I replied to that listener, are they from Idaho?
And the listener says, yes, Idaho and eastern Washington. And
actually that friend that potato started in Maine.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
I guess he just went to look it up. And
that was the reason I asked, because Kennebec did.

Speaker 1 (11:40):
Not sound like an Idaho name. It sounded more like
a northeastern United States name.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
So let's see a whole bunch of people. By the way,
said five guys.

Speaker 1 (11:48):
People really like five guys, and also that they kind
of give you a bunch extra.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
And I like five guys too, but they're just too expensive,
so I don't go there anymore.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
Their burgers are so stupidly priced, and I don't I
generally don't go anywhere just for fries.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
But that's the hypothetical.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
Ross Crownberger for steak fries, all right, find a whole
bunch of people, said good times, wild fries, Denver Beer Company,
Duck fat fries. Yum, Okay, I will second the yum
on duck fat fries. I am unaware of those particular
fries at that particular place, Denver Beer Company, Duck Frat Fly,

(12:26):
Duck fat fries, but I think I'm gonna have to
I'm gonna have to go check that out. One very
quick story I mentioned to you the other day, Well,
actually there were two different stories but about well there
were more than two, but two that came up on
this show about people who said really terrible things, to
put it, gently, insensitive things about what happened with the

(12:48):
Texas flood. There was a doctor whose name is Christina
props pro p s T and I don't recall what
state she is, but she posted a tweet that said,
and I quote, may all visitors children now actually the Facebook,
not Twitter, may all visitors, children, non MAGA voters and

(13:11):
pets be safe and dry.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Kurrent County. MAGA voted to gut FEMA, they deny climate change.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
May they get what they voted for now? To be fair,
which doesn't mean I'm excusing any of this.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
Okay, she's ridiculous, but just to give be sure that
we're absolutely fair here.

Speaker 1 (13:33):
She tweeted that before the flood happened, when there were
warnings that things may get bad over there, so she
didn't tweet it after the flood had happened and after
people were already dying, but it was still a very
terrible thing to tweet, not least because she's a doctor.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
She's a pediatrician.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
She's supposed to care about people and take care of people. Anyway,
I would like you to know that her employer, which
is named Blue Fish Pediatrics, has announced that she is
no longer employed there. She was suspended immediately as soon
as this kind of made the news a week at
the beginning of this week, but apparently.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
She has been fired now. This doctor apologized.

Speaker 1 (14:18):
She said in her apology that politics have never impacted
her judgment or actions as a medical provider, adding that
she is tirelessly committed to children's medical care and would
never be so callous as to make such a remark
about lives cut so terribly short. And you know what,
I believe her, But in the world that we live

(14:39):
in now, you know, even though she did in fact
post that before people had died and before the actual flood,
to say, may they get what they voted for, which
is clearly hoping for harm. Maybe not mass death, but
at least some kind of harm.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
You who are just not going to get away with that.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
A goofy little story for you, A little.

Speaker 2 (15:06):
Combination of.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
Paleontology and local news from Axios Denver. Back in the
Late Cretaceous eras sixty seven and a half million years ago,
Joe Biden no dinosaurs roamed Denver's modern day City Park.
The Denver Museum of Nature and Science, on the eastern
edge of the park, announced Wednesday that it unexpectedly discovered

(15:31):
a partial bone fossil seven hundred and sixty.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
Three feet below the surface of its parking lot.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
So The discovery occurred when the museum was doing a
drilling test earlier this year to see if it could
tap into geothermal energy, and it took core samples going
down as deep as as a thousand feet into the ground.
Museum scientists later identified the fossil as part of a
vertebra from a plant eating din similar to and gosh,

(16:02):
I'm not sure if I should attempt to pronounce this,
but I will Fescalosaurus or Edmondtossaurus like Edmonton, Canada.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
Maybe I'm in my thirty and this is a quote
from a research associate at the museum named Bob Reynolds.
He said, in my thirty.

Speaker 1 (16:20):
Five years at the museum, we've never had an opportunity
quite like this to study the deep geologic layers beneath
our feet with such precision that this fossil turned up
here in City Park is nothing short of magical. The
fossil is now on display at the museum in the
Discovering teen Rex exhibition. So there you go, and I'll

(16:41):
just add my own one particular comment here.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
How amazing is it?

Speaker 1 (16:45):
Seriously, how amazing is it that they can bring up
apparently a part of a vertebra, not even a whole vertebra,
like just a part of a bone, and be able
to tell you not only is this part of a vertebra,
and of course vertebra are a particular shape and so on,
but not only is it part of a vertebra, but

(17:06):
it's from a dinosaur that eight plants.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
We can tell you that just for that's amazing.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
That's amazing because there's hardly any dinosaurs running around now
that they can go catch one and see this, and
you could see it eating plants, and you can catch
it and then check out its vertebra and say this
is what plant eating dinosaur vertebra look like. There's very
few of those, and so for them to be able
to come out and say we know that anyway you

(17:35):
get it, you get it all right, let me let
me do another thing now. So I saw this just
this morning. I wasn't planning on talking about it. To me,
this whole Epstein thing, it reminds me of the thing
from The Godfather, where you know, just when you think
you're out, they drag you back in.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
And so I wanted to share a little of this
with you because.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
So many people still seem fascinated with the Epstein story.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Separate from the question is of dinn Er.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
Didn't he kill himself, which doesn't seem to be what
the primary focus is right now. It was for a
while a lot of people were saying, oh, he definitely
killed himself, or the Clinton's had him killed or whatever.
Now that you know Dan Bongino and Cash Purtteller saying
he committed suicide, Maga in particular, but not just Maga,
are focusing on some other parts of the story beyond

(18:23):
how he died, and that is who, if anyone is
being protected by the lack of public release of information
about all this. So Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Professor of Law emeritus,
who was on my show just a couple of weeks ago,

(18:43):
was on Sean Spicer's podcast.

Speaker 2 (18:46):
You remember Sean Spicer. He was Donald Trump's.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
First press secretary, and he was the guy who was
sent out to tell the world that Trump had the
biggest crowds for his inauguration. So Spicy has his own show,
has his own podcast, and Dershowitz was on, and this
Epstein stuff came up, and what I have for you
here is a rather long clip. Actually it's a little

(19:10):
bit longer than what I normally play for you.

Speaker 2 (19:14):
But have a listener.

Speaker 4 (19:17):
This is not an opinion. This is a fact I
have seen.

Speaker 5 (19:20):
Remember, I was accused falsely and the scene and ultimately
I was completely cleared. The woman admitted that she may
have mistook me for somebody else and withdrew all of
her lawsuits. And so from day one, from the day
I was accused, I said, I want every document apt because.

Speaker 4 (19:33):
I knew every document would prove I was innocent.

Speaker 5 (19:36):
So let me tell you I know for a fact
documents are being suppressed, and they're being suppressed to protect individuals.
I know the names of the individuals, I know why
they're being suppressed, I know who's suppressing them. But I'm
bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I
can't disclose.

Speaker 4 (19:54):
What I know, but I pant to God.

Speaker 5 (19:56):
I know I know the names of people who files
are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that's
wrong just.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
Out of carry out through that name.

Speaker 5 (20:06):
Are these politicians, business leaders, both, they're everything.

Speaker 1 (20:12):
Let me just interject here before we continue. So when
you hear that first part, and that first part will
definitely be quoted a lot, and I understand why it
will be. When you hear that first part of Dershowitz's commentary,
he says, I know that there is information being suppressed,
and I know about whom, and I know who's doing it,

(20:34):
but I can't tell you because of orders from judges
and various kinds of confidentiality that he's bound to. Now,
when you hear that, I think many or most people
will assume that what he's talking about is documents that
implicate people.

Speaker 2 (20:56):
In one of two things. At least would.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
Be documents that implicate people in having participated in either
sex trafficking or sexual activity with underage girls. So that
would be one, and the other one could be people
who are implicated as being.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
Victim.

Speaker 1 (21:22):
I don't know about victim manipulated by or leveraged or
blackmailed by Epstein. So you would think of those two
sort of very negative things as to the information that's
being suppressed. And while there may be some of that,
if you keep listening to what Dershwitz says, it actually

(21:46):
gets to something very different from what I think most
people will assume.

Speaker 2 (21:50):
So let's continue and.

Speaker 5 (21:52):
Let me tell you a lot of them are at
least one of them is somebody who was accused.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
Let me jump in.

Speaker 1 (22:00):
He said, at least one is somebody who was accused.
Now previously right, he's saying, oh, there's he's implying there's
quite a lot of information about a lot of people.
But then he says, at least one is somebody who
was accused of doing something wrong. Well, if it's only one,
then what else others are accusers?

Speaker 5 (22:21):
And the judges have said if somebody calls themselves a
victim a victim, we're not going to give any information
about them. But they may not be victims, they may
be perpetrators. So we don't have information about false accusers.
And we know there have been many false accusers who
have accused innocent people from money, and those records are
being deliberately willfully suppressed.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Okay, I'm gonna jump in again. So this is the
main thing here that Dershowitz seems concerned about. So you
may recall when this Epstein stuff first blew up, Dershowitz
was named as a guy who was a friend of
Epstein's or on the island or something like that, and
he said consistently that's nonsense, that is absolute nonsense, and

(23:08):
a lot of people didn't believe him. I actually kind
of did believe him, you know, he kind of want proof,
but I did believe him now, and I didn't follow
up very much since then. But now he's saying.

Speaker 1 (23:20):
The person who made that accusation about me has recanted
it and said, you know what, I probably mistook him
for somebody else in and dropped all the accusations against him.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
Right.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
So but remember also Dershowitz is a very prominent defense
attorney as well as doing constitutional LOSSUF but he was
on OJ Simpson's team, for example. He's a very very
prominent defense attorney, and so in his mind, one of
the worst things that can happen to people, and not
just because it happened to him, but because it's the
mindset of a defense attorney is for somebody to be

(23:52):
falsely accused of something. And so what he's talking about
now is he's saying that a lot of the information
that he is aware of, and perhaps most of the
information that he is aware of that is being suppressed,
is information that comes from and is about accusers, not
the accused. And he wants this stuff out because he

(24:17):
wants people who have been falsely accused to be able
to defend themselves.

Speaker 4 (24:25):
And they shouldn't be suppressed.

Speaker 5 (24:26):
If the accusation is allowed out, so should the material
that diminishes the credibility of the accuser. We want total
transparency on this, every single document, no redaction.

Speaker 4 (24:39):
That's what I've said from day one. I waive any
of my rights of privacy.

Speaker 5 (24:43):
Anything there is about me, I'm happy because it will
be exculpatory because I know I haven't touched.

Speaker 4 (24:48):
A woman other than my wife from the day I
met Jeffrey Fte. I don't even hug people.

Speaker 5 (24:53):
But I was falsely accused and I was able to
prove it, and I was able to prove it through documents,
and I want other people to be able to disprove
false accusations through documents.

Speaker 4 (25:03):
But these documents are being suppressed and with pell.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
Okay, so the reason I wanted to share this with
you is that I think only the first part of
this will be widely replayed. And let me just go
back to that for a second, just to remind you,
this is not an opinion.

Speaker 4 (25:16):
This is a fact I have seen.

Speaker 5 (25:18):
Remember, I was accused falsely and the scene and ultimately
I was completely cleared. The woman admitted that she may
have mistook me for somebody else and withdrew.

Speaker 4 (25:27):
All of her lawsuits. And so from day one, from
the day I was accused, I said I want every
document app because I knew every document would prove I
was innocent.

Speaker 5 (25:34):
So let me tell you I know for fact documents
are being suppressed, and that being suppressed to protect individuals.
I know the names of the individuals. I know why
they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them. But I'm
bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I
can't disclose what I know.

Speaker 1 (25:53):
But so it's remarkable, right, But so if you only
play that, you will think that Dershowitz, who is a
very credible guy. I know not everybody loves him, but
dershowitz'z a very credible guy.

Speaker 2 (26:04):
People are gonna say.

Speaker 1 (26:05):
Oh, look, Dershowitz says he knows, But if you listen
to the rest, it sounds like what he's saying is
that of the documents that he is aware of that
relate to people that are one way or another involved
with the with the Epstein situation, it sounds like a
very small minority of what he's concerned about. Right, he

(26:26):
said at least one, okay, so that means one. It
could be too, but he only knows of one where
he's saying there are documents related to somebody who was
accused of something that is not being released. And by
the way, just because someone was accused of something doesn't
mean he actually did it. In fact, Dershowitz was accused
to begin with as well and prove that he didn't

(26:47):
have any and that it was mistaken identity. So I
think there's a lot less to this Dershowitz thing than
will be made of it. And I wanted you to
be aware of that in case you start hearing this stuff,
especially on conservative of social media, where they'll only play
the first part and they won't play for you the
second part, where he's talking about, really what his main

(27:07):
concern is.

Speaker 2 (27:08):
All right, now, let's do let's do something else.

Speaker 1 (27:12):
I spent a lot of time on the show yesterday
talking about immigration. I asked you for listener texts yesterday and.

Speaker 2 (27:19):
I read them. I didn't talk about them on the show,
but I did read them.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
And the question I asked yesterday was specifically asking of
Trump voters, did you expect and separately, do you want
massive workplace enforcement by the Trump administration, in essence trying
to remove from the country every illegal alien they can find,

(27:45):
including illegal aliens who have not committed any crimes while
they've been here, and who have been here ten years,
twenty years, thirty years, doing jobs and contributing to society.
Do you want and did you expect the Trump administration
to be as a great on those people as they
have been lately. And the results were kind of interesting.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
I would say it was somewhere in.

Speaker 1 (28:08):
The neighborhood of thirty percent, maybe a little more thirty
five percent people saying yes, I wanted that I expected
that any illegal alien should be removed from the country.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
And then I would say somewhere in the sixty to
sixty five percent range. People who said, no, I didn't
expect that and I don't want that. And again keep
in mind.

Speaker 1 (28:37):
I specifically asked Trump voters, so I'm not asking, you know, Democrats,
how you feel about that.

Speaker 2 (28:42):
I asked Trump voters.

Speaker 1 (28:43):
So it was somewhere in the neighborhood of two to one,
maybe a little bit less of Trump voters.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
And this is not a scientific survey, it's just my audience.

Speaker 1 (28:51):
But Trump voters saying they're not really down with this
very aggressive immigration enforcement against illegal aliens who have not
committed a crime while they've been in the country and
who are doing jobs and so on. And you might
think that my reaction to that is, Wow, that's a

(29:12):
much bigger group saying they don't want it than that
they do.

Speaker 2 (29:15):
But it's not really my first take.

Speaker 1 (29:17):
My first take is the group of people who are saying, yes,
I want.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
Every illegal alien.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
Deported, no matter what I think. That group, to me
is actually very large.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
It was still it was smaller than the group that
said they didn't think that way, but it was a
very large group. And that's a big part of the
hardcore Trump base, right, and I think that makes the
politics of it very interesting. So so President Trump has
been making a lot of noises about this for a while.

(29:51):
Here's just a few seconds. I won't play the whole clip.

Speaker 1 (29:54):
Of President Trump on with Maria Bartiromo about a week ago.

Speaker 4 (29:58):
I cherish a farm.

Speaker 6 (30:00):
And when we go into a farm and we take
away people that have been working there for fifteen and
twenty years, who were good, who possibly came in incorrectly,
And what we're going to do is we're going to
do something for farmers where we can lets the farmers
sort of be in George, the farmer knows you're not
going to hire a murder all right.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
So there's more there, but in the interesting time, I'll
stop there. And then yesterday during this cabinet meeting I
think was yesterday.

Speaker 2 (30:25):
President Trump, a reporter brought it up.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
President Trump talked for a moment and then asked Secretary
of Homeland Security Christy Nome to jump in.

Speaker 3 (30:34):
But there's no amnesty.

Speaker 2 (30:35):
What we're doing is we're getting rid of criminals.

Speaker 3 (30:37):
But we are doing a work program.

Speaker 4 (30:40):
Do you want to explain that place.

Speaker 7 (30:41):
Yeah, this morning we talked about of course, this is
the top of mind question. This morning we talked about
protecting the farmers in the farmland. But obviously this President's
vision of no amnesty, mass deportation continues, but in a
strategic way. And then ensuring that our farmers have the
labor that they need. Secretary chob is to has been
a leader on this. Obviously this comes out of the

(31:02):
Labor Department, but moving toward automation, ensuring that our farmers
have that workforce, and moving toward an American workforce.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
So all of the above gear the.

Speaker 3 (31:11):
Farmers the people they need. But we're not talking.

Speaker 1 (31:14):
Amnesty, all right, So I want to stick with this
for a minute. I'm to do about two more minutes
on this, and I may come back to it later
in the show.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
Because it's a big deal and it's very important both.

Speaker 1 (31:23):
In terms of policy, in terms of economics, and in
terms of politics. And this issue is going to be
maybe the leading issue, perhaps other than tariffs, which are
blowing up again right now, but for a while now,
at least for the next few weeks. I think you're
going to hear about this most. So here's how to
think about this. President Trump has heard from a lot

(31:45):
of people, from ranchers, from farmers, and people in other
industries hotels and so on that their ultra aggressive immigration
enforcement is doing great damage to their workforce and it's
going to make it impossible for them to do what
they need to do to raise the crops and all that.
And I'm sure they're telling the truth. I'm not one

(32:05):
of these people who thinks, just you know, get rid
of the illegals and raise wages and you'll get Americans
to do to do this stuff. First of all, don't.
I don't think that would work at any price where
you could still end up affording the product.

Speaker 2 (32:18):
If you raised the if you raised the wages.

Speaker 1 (32:20):
Enough to actually get Americans to go do that, then
you wouldn't be able to afford the vegetables or the
bee or whatever it is that we're talking about. And
we don't have the workers for it anyway. We have
fairly low unemployment in this country. But so Trump keeps
hearing these things and he knows that something needs to
be done, and they're trying to thread the needle here

(32:40):
because the reporters question that Trump was responding to right
there included the word amnesty, which is why Trump said
there's no amnesty. And it's why when we had Josh
Hammer on the show yesterday and Josh is very much a.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
Deport them all kind of guy, and I'm not.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
But what's gonna happen is you're gonna find the political right,
not just Josh, but people too. Josh is right, and
the Steed, the people who are fans of Steven Miller
and so on, talking about anything that intentionally lets any
illegal aliens stay.

Speaker 2 (33:09):
They're gonna call it amnesty.

Speaker 1 (33:11):
So what you're going to see developing over time now
and I probably will come back to this later in
the show because I have more to say, But what
you are going to see developing over time, and I
mean when I say time, I mean the next week.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
Or two, I don't mean year or two.

Speaker 1 (33:28):
You're going to see the Trump administration fishing around for
a way to allow some illegal aliens to stay with
the employer taking the responsibility of sponsoring them and vetting
them and all that. And they're going to be looking
for a way to not call it amnesty, and to

(33:48):
try to get their base supporters to not call it amnesty.
And that is going to be a difficult needle to thread.
But I wish them good luck because I am in
favor of what they are trying to do. But it
is not going to be easy. I also want to
let you know coming up at some point during today's show,
I'm going to be giving away this week's entry into

(34:09):
the end of the month drawing from Flatirons Fire for
a forty five hundred dollars gorgeous hand finished electronic ignition
fire pit. So I have one entry to give away today,
and there will be two entries that will be chosen
by Producer a Rod at random at the end of
today's show, one on X and one on Instagram. So

(34:33):
you go to x dot com slash koa Colorado or
instagram dot com slash koa Colorado and you can win
an entry that way. We will give away twelve entries
over the course of most of the month, and then
at the end of the month, Flat Irons Fire will
do a random drawing among only twelve entries, so you've
got a strong chance of winning to win this forty

(34:55):
five hundred dollars fire pit. So my entry will be
given away at some point during today's show. Producer Dragon
sends me some stuff that I routinely ignore.

Speaker 8 (35:04):
I try and find stuff that you wouldn't find on
your own.

Speaker 2 (35:07):
Well, no, that's stuff I don't ignore. I like that stuff.

Speaker 1 (35:09):
Dragon sends me some topics, but he also sends me
a list of national days, which I shouldn't ignore because
it's quite interesting sometimes, but I don't intentionally ignore it
except that I do, and then he also so anyway,
and then he sometimes Dragon sends me videos a lot
of actually very often videos that you see at the
end of my blog because almost every single day I've

(35:32):
got videos, usually at least one and sometimes more than
one of those were found by Dragon. Anyway, I want
to focus on the national Days thing because we've been
talking about National French Friday, National French Friday.

Speaker 2 (35:43):
Because it's fry Day. And I did ask folks Dragon
before you got here. The way I worded the.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
Question was this, if you were going to go out
to get French fries and nothing else where would you go.
And the reason I ask it that way is someone
will get French fries and that are not quite as
good because the burger's better over.

Speaker 8 (36:02):
There, right, So do the French fries and frosty. Where
the French fries might not be delicious, the frosty might
not be delicious, but you put the two together, they may.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
Like that that too, That too, and you may go
to a place that has second best French fries and
first best burger. Because so if you were going to
go to a place to only get French fries, where
would you go? And I would like to know listeners'
answers to that at five six, six nine zero and Dragon,
does anything come just immediately to mind for you when
I ask you that question?

Speaker 8 (36:29):
One and two would be Chick fil A waffle fries.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
Okay, few people have said that. Gina said that too,
and then Arby's curly fries okay, and a lot of
people said that, I think I think I'm I like
the Arby's. Yeah, as Shannon likes the Arby's. The Arby's
curly fries too.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
As I mentioned earlier in the show, the two Arby's
that were closest to where I live are both out
of business, So apparently I didn't buy enough of.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
Their curly fries.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
You now, as I'm just looking, I'm just that was
a funny interjection.

Speaker 3 (37:01):
Welcome.

Speaker 8 (37:02):
I'm glad I could waste time even though I'm not
here in that first hour of the show too, So
that's that's great.

Speaker 1 (37:07):
But as I, as I noticed, wait, don't patch yourself
on the back too much, in the sense that my
knowledge that it was National French Friday did not come
from your list.

Speaker 2 (37:17):
It came from David.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
It came from David Kale out in the newsroom telling
me is National French Friday. Dang it, I can't take
credit for this one, then, no, you can't, but you
can take credit for the next bit. So I'm looking
at your list here and I noticed that, in addition
to it being National French Friday, you have listed above
that free Slurpy Day.

Speaker 2 (37:35):
Uh huh, I did not know.

Speaker 8 (37:38):
A good standing Jew boys yourself. You didn't know that
it was free.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
Oh my gosh. Really that's where we're going with this.
That's fair, Now, that's fair.

Speaker 8 (37:49):
It used to be free Slurpy Day where you could
bring in whatever size you know, gallon jug you wanted,
really would do it. But no, no, no, Nowadays it's you know,
here's cup.

Speaker 1 (37:57):
So you're saying Jews love slurpies are saying something else,
slippys are delicious.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
This is from USA today.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
Fridays are always cool, but this one, July eleventh, is
especially so because it's slurpy Day on what will mark
the convenience store changed ninety eighth birthday. It's first store
opened in Dallas in nineteen twenty seven, participating seven eleven
Speedway or Stripes stores. Have you ever heard of a
store called Stripes? No, listeners, have you ever heard of
a store called Stripes? Text me at five sixty six

(38:24):
nine zero and tell me and Dragon where you have
seen the store called Stripes.

Speaker 2 (38:27):
I have never heard of it.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
We'll be giving out a free small slurpee, so no
more bringing in your gallon jug. Dragon seven eleven has
celebrated its birthday with free slurpee.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
Since two thousand and two.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
As a special twist this year, Select seven eleven in
Speedway locations will also give members of the Seven Rewards.
I am a member of that because I if I
go to a gas station that's at A seven eleven
and I use the app, I get five cents a
gallon off or five something like that.

Speaker 2 (38:53):
So I do that.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
We'll get Oh my god, check this out, Dragon, you
gotta go, you gotta go. Select seven elevens will give
members of the Seven Rewards and Speedy Rewards at Speedway
loyalty programs special slurpy activated temporary tongue tattoos.

Speaker 8 (39:15):
Slurpy activated to know the technology behind that, because it's
not just like a cold drink activated or ice activated
specific to slurpy.

Speaker 2 (39:23):
Well, I'm guessing it's got like slurpy Slurpy actor will
only be slurpy.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
But it better not actually only be Slurpy activated, right,
because that would imply that there's some chemical in a
slurpee that isn't in anything else, right, which which of
course must be true if you look at them, which
is not a negative. It's fine with me. I mean
I drink diet mountain dew for God's sake. So anyway,
the S shaped tattoos when placed on the tongue after
sipping the frozen drink up here.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
In blue, green, red, or purple.

Speaker 1 (39:52):
Visit a participating seven eleven today and get a small slurpee,
one per customer, no purchase necessary while supplies last. Also,
if you are in these rewards programs, you can do
something in your app today and you will get a
cupon for another free Slurpy that is redeemable until the

(40:15):
end of the month.

Speaker 8 (40:17):
So are all over Texas, West Texas, Okay.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
And this thing does not say that, Oh look at
this Members of seven Rewards and speedy rewards can get
a tongue tattoo at locations in these cities.

Speaker 2 (40:31):
And Denver is on the list. Wait, so what they
say about stripes.

Speaker 8 (40:36):
They're on West, They're all over West Texas, all over
West Texas. I'm not driving to Texas though, No.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
Not even for a slurpy activated tongue tattoo.

Speaker 2 (40:46):
What could be better?

Speaker 3 (40:47):
No?

Speaker 1 (40:48):
No, All right, folks, please do keep in mind that
at some point during today's show, and it might even
be kind of soon, I will be giving away this
week's entry into Flatirons Fire Massive Firepit give a It's
a forty five hundred dollars concrete, hand finished electronic ignition
fire pit. And over the course of the month, we

(41:08):
are only doing twelve entries into the drawing, so anybody
who gets into the drawing has a good chance of winning.
And then at the end of the month, Flatirons Fire
is going to pick the winner in any case at
some point in today's show, and like I said, maybe
soon we'll be giving away today's entry, and there will
be two other entries given away on our social media.

(41:32):
A rod will choose the winners randomly right around the
end of today's show, go to x dot com slash
koa Colorado or Instagram dot com slash koa Colorado and
you will see the pinned posts at the top of
either one of these and you may enter into both
of them, but you can't have more than two entries

(41:52):
in the final drawing. But you can enter into both
of the X and Instagram things to try to win
an entry, and you'll want to do it before the
end of the show today.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
We'll be right back. Please keep these.

Speaker 1 (42:02):
Cards and letters coming at five six, six nine zero,
and let me and Dragon know the answer to this question.
If you were gonna go out somewhere just for French fries,
so that your decision is not colored by who has
a better burger or a better milkshake. If you were
going somewhere only for french fries, where would you go?
And I said, of the ordinary French fries, the regular

(42:23):
shape French fries, the best at least of chain restaurants
is is McDonald's. They buy the most expensive potatoes. And
everybody knows that of the regular shaped french fries, which
is different from the waffle fries and the curly fries.
But of the regular shape, Dragon McDonald's is the best.

Speaker 8 (42:42):
Why are you qualifying it with regular shape fries? No
French riders and French fries, French fries and French fries,
and you people choosing choosing to solely go to McDonald's
for French fries.

Speaker 2 (42:52):
Look where are you growing?

Speaker 1 (42:54):
If you want the curly fry or you want the
waffle fry, You're gonna go elsewhere.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
And I'm not a big of the waffle fry shape.
I have to such a French I want to be
able to put the whole darn thing.

Speaker 1 (43:04):
And you're just know what, no, no, what, No, nobody
goes to McDonald's to get those chunky, crappy fries.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
So only absolutely do. You're just probably more than any
other place.

Speaker 8 (43:18):
You've been conditioned for the last forty to fifty years
to enjoy those nasty ass fries.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
I'm only twenty nine years old, so I've not been
conditioned for that long.

Speaker 8 (43:27):
Oh man, gross, and there are better fries out there.

Speaker 2 (43:30):
Oh gosh, All right, fine, as long as you want
to talk about as long as you want to talk
about gross, let's do a gross story.

Speaker 3 (43:38):
Chum.

Speaker 2 (43:38):
Why not did you send me this thing about suitcases.

Speaker 3 (43:43):
Or did that site?

Speaker 2 (43:44):
Yeah, you did so, and then I went.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
And researched it and okay, so I met a story
here called Insure and go like and it's a British
I think it's a British website. Anyway, here's what this says.
Going on holiday, that's what it just called. Going on
vacation is exciting, but it also means being exposed to
all sorts of germs and grime, especially when it comes

(44:06):
to your luggage.

Speaker 2 (44:07):
Your suitcase rolls through airport.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Bathroom station platforms, pavements and public transport, picking up far
more than just memories. But how often do we actually
need to clean our luggage and how dirty does it yet?
So basically what they did was they partnered with a
microbiologist some university or whatever. They partnered with a microbiologist
to study how dirty suitcases are. And the microbiologists sampled

(44:32):
both hard side suitcases soft shell suitcases at a busy
train station at an airport, right, so people just coming
out of the airport and going home on the train
or coming to the airport to take off, to reveal
the bacteria that can be found on our travel bags.
As I said, she sampled hard and soft in each case.

Speaker 2 (44:53):
A sterile cotton bud was used to take.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
A swab and then those were spread onto the agri
plates and then bacteria grow. They were incubated for five
days to identify them.

Speaker 2 (45:03):
And here's what we found. What they found.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
The wheels of the suitcases are heavily contaminated with bacteria.

Speaker 2 (45:13):
This is my favorite data point in the whole story.

Speaker 8 (45:15):
You mean those things that touch the ground constantly or
heavily contaminated with.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
Back to iyem.

Speaker 2 (45:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (45:20):
Check this out though, carrying nearly fifty eight times more
bacteria than a public toilet seat.

Speaker 3 (45:26):
Ooh, that's beautiful, isn't that.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
The wheels consistently grew the most diverse and abundant colonies
of bacteria and fungi.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
These range from.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
Presumptive Staphylococcus species to Sera tilla marsens.

Speaker 2 (45:41):
Often found in moist environments like bathrooms, and even large black,
fuzzy molds. Wow.

Speaker 1 (45:48):
The testing confirmed that the suitcase wheels are the dirtiest
part of a traveler's bag, and it goes on to
talk about other dirty parts of the suitcase, which include
the bottom of the suitcase, but not the wheels, like
the parts that's just above the grond that's almost as
dirty as the wheels, and then the handle is almost
as dirty as that, and that sounds really gross.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
But I'm still not cleaning my suitcase.

Speaker 1 (46:09):
The previous segments sponsored by Lysol, it kills all that
suitcase grossness. And then some another listener text ross, you
don't even clean your legs. All of us out here
in radio land kind of figured you weren't going to
clean your luggage. That's absolutely right as a very very
fair assumption and solid logic.

Speaker 8 (46:28):
It's not. Yeah, all right, I'm partial to the back
to back texts, Yes, all caps, dragon is spot on right,
and then immediately previous to that, dragon is so wrong.
McDonald's fries are by far the best. See there you go, there,
you go, all right, gonna agree with that one, but
not the other one. What the other one said, Dragon

(46:50):
is spot on right, all caps, which means you know
that they're they're weighted more.

Speaker 3 (46:54):
There, you know the.

Speaker 8 (46:56):
Their opinion means more because they're all caps yelling in text.

Speaker 1 (46:59):
Yeah, but I was checking the number that sent it
in and that's your wife, so it doesn't count.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
All right.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
I'll tell you what, Dragon, I want you to brainstorm
for a second, how do you want to give away
this entry?

Speaker 8 (47:12):
Because it's your show, and you're not gonna be talking
about fries for the entry, that's for sure.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
What we might or we might talk about the other
thing that you can get for free today that we
talked about in a previous segment.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
So here's what we're gonna do.

Speaker 1 (47:25):
Dragon's going to decide in the next few seconds while
I'm explaining what we're doing here. So what we're doing
here is we are going to give away an entry
into the end of the month drawing for flat irons
fires giveaway of a gorgeous forty five hundred dollars fire pit.

(47:46):
It is hand finished concrete. It's some high end brand.
I'm blanking on the name of it. I think it's
called a Prismas series, and I'm blanking on the name
of the manufacturer or maybe prism As the manufacturer anyway,
and it has the electronic ignition, which is what makes
more expensive than many of the ones you'll see online
where you have to go over to it with a
match or a lighter or something.

Speaker 2 (48:05):
This has the electronic ignition. Anyway.

Speaker 1 (48:07):
Over the course of the month, I'm giving away four
entries during the show, and then we're doing another eight
entries on our social media accounts at x dot com
slash koa Colorado and Instagram dot com slash koa Colorado.
We're doing two of those today, Okay, right at the
end of the show probably, So get those entries in
and at the end of this time there will only

(48:29):
be twelve people entered, so you will have a one
out of twelve chance of winning a forty five hundred
dollars fire pit. So, Dragon, how do you want to
give away the entry that we're going to do right now?

Speaker 8 (48:40):
I think what you alluded to just a little bit
ago is probably a really great way to do this. Okay,
that other free thing that we were talking about, yeah,
earlier in the show for today only that you can
get four free, Yeah, tell me what that is in
the text message, plus your name and your email adress.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
Okay, textra number, what at what time? Five?

Speaker 1 (49:00):
Text number five at forty two, ten forty two, Textra
number five at ten forty two. Who has the right
answer to what is the thing that you can get
four free today and only today that we talked about
a little bit earlier in the show. And you must
include your name and email address in the text. The
fifth person with all of that stuff five six six

(49:23):
nine zero at ten forty two will win today's in
show entry. To the end of the month drawing, there
will only be twelve people in the final drawing.

Speaker 8 (49:33):
And I probably shouldn't have to say this, but I
think we do because it's kind of been lacks of
day's more recently.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
One text please, there you.

Speaker 8 (49:40):
Go in multiple texts, you will be disqualified. And also,
if you already are entered into the firepit contest, don't
text it right.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
You cannot have more than two entries in the final drawing.

Speaker 1 (49:53):
And as Dragon said, only one text right. Do not
spam us with text. We will ignore all of your
text will be ignored for the entry if you keep
sending us that all right, I'll tell you what looks like, Uh,
looks like My guest is a couple of minutes early,
and I think we'll just go to him a couple
minutes early. Let me just get this thing, let me
get this going here, all right? So I got to Okay,

(50:18):
thank you Dragon, I'm gonna I'm gonna mute myself there
and then I'm gonna do this and then I'm gonna
do this.

Speaker 2 (50:23):
This is semi professional radio. All right, you get what
you pay for. Yeah, yeah, it's free, right, you know.

Speaker 1 (50:30):
Not only is it free, we tell you, we tell
you how to get you.

Speaker 2 (50:33):
Know, free things. Right.

Speaker 1 (50:35):
And I'm not gonna tell you what the thing is
because that's gonna be in that. You got to answer
that in the in the text message. All right, let's
do something completely different. So careful listeners to the show
may recall that several months ago, I had a gentleman
on the show named Morgan Lorette. And and Morgan wrote

(50:55):
a book called Guns Girls in Greed. I was a
blackwater mercing in Iraq. A very interesting book, a very
irreverent book, full of all kinds of art X rated
stories and really a lot of fun to read. And
Morgan has kind of a normal job now. But I
wouldn't I wouldn't say that makes him a normal person.
But he has kind of a normal job right now.

(51:16):
And Morgan sent me a link to a newspaper article
at the New York Post yesterday where he's quoted and
the headline of the article.

Speaker 2 (51:26):
Is thousands hold on a second. Thousands of kids vanished
during Biden's border chaos condemned to conveyor belt of rape
and abuse. And this is a pretty intense story I
have to say.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
And what Morgan believes is happening is something I want
to let him share on the show, and we'll talk
about as well his level of certainty regarding what he's
going to share with us. Now, Morgan Lorette, welcome back
to KOA. It's good to have you here.

Speaker 3 (51:55):
Well, thanks for having me Ross, I appreciate it.

Speaker 9 (51:58):
I know, I know this sounds like a spiracy theory
and your listeners can't see me, but I do not
have a tenfoil hat.

Speaker 1 (52:04):
On, So jump right in and tell us what you
believe is has been and maybe continues to happen.

Speaker 3 (52:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (52:14):
So, essentially, the government incompetence has brought in so many
migrants under the Biden administration, and specifically migrant children, and
they've lost over four hundred thousand of these kids. And
you've seen this in the news and RFK Junior has
talked about it, Tim or Yeah, Tim Homan is also

(52:34):
talking about it. Because right now what's happening is the
Trump administration is trying to find all of these children
that were brought in that were lost in the system,
and the problem is is that these kids, once they
were lost, have been shown to be sold into sex trafficking.
There was just a big bust in California where there
were eight unaccompanied miners that were working at a marijuana farm.

Speaker 3 (52:58):
And these kids are being.

Speaker 9 (53:00):
Exploited once they got into the United States by the
very smugglers and the cartels that were that were bringing
them in.

Speaker 2 (53:08):
So, okay, I believe all that.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
It's disgusting and it's believable, and the cartels will do
anything to anybody for a few dollars, so that's all believable.
You continue, though, with how you think this is happening,
in that you believe that private military contractors, that Americans

(53:32):
are being paid by the federal government government to perform
a function that at least indirectly and maybe even directly
helps the cartels and others who don't have the best intentions,
let's say for these unaccompanied illegal alien minors one hundred percent.

Speaker 9 (53:53):
So you have to understand that the cartels are a
business and they look at these children as being a commodity.

Speaker 3 (54:00):
So I'll walk you through the supply chain.

Speaker 9 (54:02):
So a cartel member drops off an unaccompanied miner at
the border. Border patrol cannot question them, they cannot fingerprint them,
they can't do biometrics data. This all goes back to
the kids in cages. Under the Obama administration, also, you
have to have those kids out of custody for border
patrol within seventy two hours. So Department of Homeland Security

(54:25):
contracted private military contractors. The company is MVM Mike Victor Mike,
and they move these children from the border to a
location within the United States. Now this is where it
starts getting obscured because once they get them to that location,
they hand them off to a nonprofit and that is
contracted through Health and Human Services under the Office of

(54:49):
Refugee Resettlement. And I know everybody's a little bit lost,
but you could, you could document all of this. What
happens is those contractors, those nonprofits are supposed to identify
the sponsors of those children and then hand them off.
What's not happening is they are not going through and
vetting the sponsorship in order to make sure that hey,

(55:11):
you're dropping this kid off with their grandparents, with their
aunt with something. And there's been a number of news
articles that talk about the application process where these locations
and these people are storage units or they're a strip club,
and those are you know, those are the outliers. But
at the end of the day, what happens is that
cartel member can tell the child once you get to

(55:32):
let's say, Kentucky, this is your sponsor, Tell DHS this,
tell that nonprofit that this is your sponsor, and then
they're able to grab them on the other side. And
that's where you see them extorting the family saying, hey,
I know you pay those ten thousand dollars to get
your kid across. Your kid is across, but we're going
to make you pay another ten thousand or if they
can't pay, that's when they start.

Speaker 3 (55:52):
Selling them to individuals that will use them.

Speaker 9 (55:55):
For labor or sex trafficking or any other nefarious that
you can think of.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
All right, So let me just make sure I understand
what you're saying here.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
So, and this I think was a much bigger problem
during the Biden administration than now, just because the border
is so much more secure, right, correct, Okay, So what
I think you're saying, tell me if I've got this right.
So unaccompanied minor would show up at the border. Border
patrol has rules that they have to abide by. We've
got to process these kids and have them out from

(56:27):
our custody within seventy two hours. The government pays private
military contractors Americans to truck them somewhere, you know, from
El Paso to Seattle or Chicago or who knows, and
then they hand them off to a nonprofit that is
also being paid by the government that is supposed to

(56:48):
make sure that the kids then get delivered to actual
sponsors and safe situations. But you're saying, at least some
of the time, and maybe a lot of the time,
the nonprofits either don't or can't to actually verify that
and end up handing these kids back into the tender
mercies of the cartels somehow?

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (57:08):
That is correct?

Speaker 9 (57:09):
It's like that Spider Man meme where everybody's pointing at
everybody else saying, oh, you're supposed to find their sponsor.
You're supposed to find their sponsor, and then nobody actually
does it. And this is what happens when you start
contracting out. I would say morality, right, you're contracting out
the morality of moving these kids and making sure that
they have a sponsor. But the people that are assigned

(57:30):
to do it through that third party.

Speaker 3 (57:33):
Do not feel that.

Speaker 9 (57:33):
Same obligation as somebody that, say, works for border patrol
or works for health in human services, So they just
are getting them through the conveyor belt to make sure
that they're getting paid.

Speaker 1 (57:43):
I wonder a little bit, and I'm sure you wonder
more than a little bit, since you were a private
military contractor. I mean, even in your book, as wild
as your book, Guns, Girls and Green Is, there's this
thread that runs through it that you have.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
A code that that not only you live by.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
But that you expect members members of the military to
live by, members of our government.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
To live by, and so on.

Speaker 1 (58:12):
And I'm very curious how you think about the private
military contractors who take these jobs to transport these kids
from the border to wherever they're.

Speaker 2 (58:22):
Going, because I can imagine on the one hand, these
these PMCs think, well, it's just a government contract and
I'm helping Ice, I'm helping border patrol and performing a
service that they need. Or I can imagine a PMC
kind of knowing what the other end looks like and saying,
I wonder if I'm kind of sort of a low
level trafficker of children here.

Speaker 9 (58:46):
Yeah, No, I mean it's it's if you look at
it holistically, there's a lot of scumbaggery. And I don't
know if that's a real word, but uh, at the
end of the day, I would never take a job
like this. They're they're they're just the moors, and the
morale of something like this is something that is a
bridge too far for me. And when I reached out
to people that were doing this job, their excuse was, well,

(59:09):
if I didn't do it, somebody else would do it right.
And that's kind of the folly of being a private
military contractor is is you can justify almost anything to
make sure that you're getting your paycheck, but you don't
have to answer to anybody like MVM, and those guys
aren't answering to Department of Homeland Security because it's all legal.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
It's it's a.

Speaker 9 (59:31):
Difficult situation and maybe I'm going to give somebody these
guys a benefit of the doubt. Maybe they didn't understand
what was happening on the back end when they dropped
these kids off. But at the same time, it's your
job to sit there and look at it holistically and say,
am I doing that good? Or am I doing that bad?
And why nobody has blown the whistle on this that
actually had that job is beyond me. Somebody should be

(59:54):
raising their hands saying this is bad.

Speaker 1 (59:57):
What's the scale of this problem as you see at eye,
either're in percentage terms or in absolute number terms as
far as unaccompanied illegal alien miners who end up being
dropped off with or into a situation that is not
what you would want or expect, right like not with grandparents,
not with an aunt, but into something that's either bad

(01:00:19):
or unknown.

Speaker 3 (01:00:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:00:21):
So based on the current numbers, there was approximately four
hundred and fifty thousand on a company miners that were lost.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
You know, they couldn't find them.

Speaker 9 (01:00:28):
DHS went out and tried to contact the sponsor, go
to the location.

Speaker 3 (01:00:32):
Couldn't find these kids. So four hundred thousand.

Speaker 9 (01:00:35):
As they have flexed the resources to go and find
these children, I think it's approximately eighty five thousand kids
are still unable to be found. So you're looking at
one out of every five of these kids came through
and we still can't find them. I mean, we found
eight of them yesterday when we did the drug bust
at the marijuana facility in California.

Speaker 3 (01:00:57):
Yeah, but that's the problem.

Speaker 9 (01:00:58):
Is you got eighty five thousand people and you're finding
onesies and twosies. It's not like they're just sitting in
one spot where you go in and say, oh, hey,
we found fifty thousand of them.

Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
That's never going to happen.

Speaker 9 (01:01:08):
It's going to take years and years to be able
to get through and find these children.

Speaker 3 (01:01:13):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
The article in the New York Post, which is linked
on my blog today, is entitled thousands of kids vanished
during Biden's border chaos condemned to conveyor belt of rape
and abuse. And that alone is a horrific enough headline
and concept, and then you start thinking about, as Morgan
is exposing here, the involvement of the United States government

(01:01:37):
and private military contractors and nonprofits in apparently delivering many
of these children into situations that no child.

Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
Should ever be delivered into.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
Morgan Lorette's book, which is by the way, a really
fun read, but you better be ready for some art
X rated stuff, is Guns Girls in Greed. I Was
a Blackwater mercenary in Iraq. A fun summer read if
you if you have you know what you're in for.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
It's a really fun book. Morgan, last question for you,
how much, if at all, do you miss that life?

Speaker 8 (01:02:15):
You know?

Speaker 9 (01:02:15):
It kind of tries to pull me into it a
little bit. They have the contractors in Gaza. Every time
there's a contract, somebody reaches out and says, hey, do
you want to do this? And that was twenty years ago,
so uh, there's a little tiny part of me that
says I can still do it. I'm still cool. And
then I wake up in my back hurts because you know,
I slept wrong, and yeah, maybe I don't want to be.

Speaker 3 (01:02:33):
Part of that world.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
What's the what was the last phone call you got
about an open contract where you spent more than two
minutes considering whether you might do it?

Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
Oh, the Gaza contract.

Speaker 9 (01:02:46):
Those guys are making fifteen hundred dollars a day right
now moving humanitarian aid from Israel into Gaza. Fifteen hundred
dollars a day.

Speaker 2 (01:02:54):
That's half a million dollars a year.

Speaker 3 (01:02:56):
Yeah, you got you gotta think that went through for
at least four minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
Wow, and you decided know because of the risk or
your age or you just.

Speaker 2 (01:03:05):
Or what Yeah, well it's the legal ambiguity.

Speaker 9 (01:03:08):
What we're seeing with private military contractors is they're starting
to work for foreign governments, not just the US now,
so UG Solutions has that contract.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
Yeah, and if you're in Israel or you're in.

Speaker 9 (01:03:20):
Gaza and something happens, who has legal jurisdiction over you?

Speaker 3 (01:03:24):
Is it the US? Is it Israel? Is it the
palest Indians? Is it?

Speaker 4 (01:03:28):
You know?

Speaker 3 (01:03:28):
The un who knows?

Speaker 9 (01:03:30):
And the concern is that if something bad does happen,
the US government has enough plausible diet deniability.

Speaker 3 (01:03:37):
The same way with these kids where they.

Speaker 9 (01:03:39):
Can say, oh, that was just a bad apple, that's
a bad contractor do.

Speaker 3 (01:03:42):
What do what you want with him?

Speaker 4 (01:03:44):
So wow, are you?

Speaker 2 (01:03:45):
I wouldn't do it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:46):
Just based on that.

Speaker 9 (01:03:46):
Plus I don't want to be on YouTube, you know
where the guys behind me scream at all the akbar
with a K bar.

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Yeah, no, that's that's for sure. I wouldn't want that either.

Speaker 1 (01:03:55):
I don't and I don't recall if you're married, but
if you are, your wife wouldn't want that either.

Speaker 3 (01:04:00):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:04:00):
Some days, yes, somedays. Morgan Lorette's book is Guns, Girls
in Greed. I was a blackwater mercenary in Iraq. Thanks
for getting in touch, Thanks for the great conversation. Take
care of us all right, you two Morgan, all right,
that was that's interesting, huh. And I'll tell you I
had a I don't do this very often, by which
I mean maybe three times a year.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
I will have a phone call with a guest in
advance of the guests coming on the show. Normally I
don't do that, but.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
I did yesterday about this to get a sense of
how much of this is conspiracy theory versus how much
is data. And I'm still not entirely sure. But what
Morgan told me is he has spent days and days
and days researching through publicly available online.

Speaker 2 (01:04:51):
Databases of government spending. And sometimes you have to go
to this agency and that agency, and you find this
contract in that contract, and you have to know how
to read this stuff and tie the things together. But
he says he really believes this stuff is true based
on his own research into databases of government spending, government
contracts and that sort of thing. And to the extent

(01:05:14):
that our government was hiring private military contractors to deliver
illegal alien minors to.

Speaker 1 (01:05:21):
Nonprofits that weren't properly making sure these kids got to
a safe place, that's really bad. As to whether anybody
will ever answer for it, that's a different question.

Speaker 8 (01:05:32):
Yes, Dragon, we have our firepit winner. Chuck texted in
at the proper time and was able to say that
we were talking about the Slurpyes, free Slurpy Free, spyree
Slurpy Day, and.

Speaker 1 (01:05:44):
Just to be clear, chucked it out when the fire pit.
He won an entry into our end of the month drawing.

Speaker 2 (01:05:48):
There will only be twelve entries, so you have a
one out of twelve chance if you win the entry.
Now you have a one out of twelve chance of
winning a forty five hundred dollars gorgeous fire pit. Remember,
two other entries will be given away within about the
next hour, not on the air, but on our social media.

(01:06:09):
So go to x dot com slash kwa Colorado or
Instagram dot com slash kwa Colorado. There are pinned posts
at the top of each of those that tell you
what you need to do to enter and try to
win an entry. You may not win more than one
entry into the final drawing, right, you can't have two
of the twelve. But you can try on both X

(01:06:33):
and Instagram to win one entry, and I encourage you
to do so. Do you want to add an eating dragon?

Speaker 8 (01:06:39):
Oh, you can to entry and enter on air too.
I mean, not just the Instagram and X on air,
not anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
Today, not anymore today, right.

Speaker 1 (01:06:46):
We do that once a week on only Fridays for
two more weeks. So next Friday and the Friday after
we'll do two more on air, and next Friday and
the Friday after we will do two each day of
the social media stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
So we're halfway done with entries. After today, we'll be
right back. Listener email.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
That a very interesting that's very very interesting, and it's
from It's from Matt. And first of all, Matt did
try the website version with the Silent three. It did
not work, but I think it was the wrong URL.

Speaker 8 (01:07:20):
It was it the proper place for the Silent three.
I thought it would be.

Speaker 1 (01:07:23):
The proper place for the Silent three if the rest
of the URL weren't wrong, but the rest of the
URL were what was wrong? All right, But on a
slightly but only slightly more serious note. So Matt works
in the payroll industry, and he told me something I
didn't know and I think you might like to know

(01:07:44):
as well, and I went and verified it. I mean,
I trusted him anyway, but I just wanted to go
look it up, and it is in fact true. So
when I tell you that the federal government in the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act inpascity provision that says no
tax on overtime, what would you think that means when

(01:08:09):
you hear that?

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:08:11):
So, for example, let's say, let's say you're in a
job and you make thirty dollars an hour is your
regular job, and then you work overtime and it's time
and a half, and so you get forty five.

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
Dollars an hour for the for the overtime hours.

Speaker 1 (01:08:28):
And let's say, you know, nor Let's say you work
forty hours a week and they ask you to work
fifty hours this week. So you've done forty hours at
thirty hours thirty dollars an hour, and and you've did,
I say, fifty hours and you've done and you've done
ten hours at forty five at forty five dollars an hour,
like that kind of thing. So, based on everything you've
heard President Trump say and everybody else say, and even

(01:08:51):
me say, no tax on overtime, what would you think
that means about how much tax you will pay on
that ten hours of overtime at forty five dollars an hour.

Speaker 8 (01:09:06):
At ten hours, I get forty five bucks.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
But how much tax will you pay?

Speaker 4 (01:09:10):
No?

Speaker 8 (01:09:11):
None, none on that forty five none on those ten
hours at for.

Speaker 2 (01:09:14):
Ten hours and forty five zero tax. That's wrong. What
that's wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:09:20):
I didn't know it until Matt just said it and
I went to look it up. The part that you
don't pay tax on is the overtime premium above your
regular wage. So in this case, if you get thirty
dollars an hour normally forty five dollars for overtime hours,

(01:09:41):
the premium is that extra fifteen dollars an hour. It
is only that fifteen dollars an hour that you don't
pay tax on. It is not the thirty. So you
would in this case stick with the example. You did
forty hours at thirty bucks an hour, ten hour hours
at forty five bucks an hour, you would pay tax

(01:10:03):
on fifty hours at thirty bucks an hour. I did
not know that, and clearly Dragon did not know that either.

Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
Actually, here's what I want. Here's what I want you
to do. Here's what I want you to do. I
want you to text me.

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
I want you to text me at five six six
nine zero and say I knew that, or I.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
Didn't know that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
That's all just text us at five sixty six nine
zero with I knew that or I didn't know that.

Speaker 8 (01:10:30):
With so many people not knowing that the no tax
on overtime was capped, what was it twenty let's see,
I think it's twenty five thousand.

Speaker 1 (01:10:41):
I want to say it's twelve and a half for
overtime and twenty five on tipsy.

Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
Overtime was different.

Speaker 8 (01:10:46):
So yeah, so for people that didn't know that it
was capped for X amount of years, they might not
even know that there's the difference between that premium overtime
and just overtime.

Speaker 3 (01:10:54):
This is just going to cause so many headaches.

Speaker 1 (01:10:57):
Right, and so the other thing that listener Matt said,
who works in, as I said, in the payroll business,
is that what if you get a paycheck and it
shows you here's your regular here's your salary for all
the regular hours, and here's your salary for all your
overtime hours, but it doesn't break the overtime out between

(01:11:21):
the base and the premium, right, So then.

Speaker 2 (01:11:26):
You're gonna have to go through people are gonna have
to go through.

Speaker 1 (01:11:28):
And do the math and figure out how much of
that overtime salary is really their base pay? How much
is the premium that they can not have to pay
tax on? And a lot of people are probably gonna
get that wrong, you know, people who do their own taxes.

(01:11:51):
Depending on how you do it, depending on how smart
the software is, some people might make some mistakes and
try to just not claim the whole forty five dollars
in that example. I think it's going to cause an
immense amount of confusion, and I think it's it's.

Speaker 2 (01:12:09):
Actually in a way, in a way, it's kind.

Speaker 1 (01:12:12):
Of remarkable that I try to stay.

Speaker 2 (01:12:15):
Pretty on top of this stuff. And politicians have been
talking about.

Speaker 1 (01:12:18):
The big beautiful bill a lot, and I've never heard
this until just now.

Speaker 2 (01:12:23):
I've never heard this until just now.

Speaker 1 (01:12:26):
And we've got I don't know twenty texts so far,
and ninety percent of them are people who say I
didn't know that. And one listener says, I knew that.
It makes perfect sense. Well, it does make sense. Actually,
if you sit down here you think about it for
a minute. Now, yeah, I feel like, Okay, I get it, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:12:43):
I get it. That makes sense.

Speaker 1 (01:12:45):
But how many people out there who are an overtime
know it from an accounting perspective, but also from a
political perspective. I have a feeling there's going to be
an immense number of people out there who are thinking
that this is a much bigger tax benefit for them
than it actually is. Right, there are probably people out

(01:13:07):
there who thought they were going to not pay tax
on forty five dollars, when in fact they're only going
to not pay tax.

Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
On fifteen dollars, and so they're still paying it.

Speaker 1 (01:13:17):
Effectively, is like a marginally lower rate or a one
third lower rate.

Speaker 2 (01:13:21):
On that thing, but it's not no tax on that
thing anyway. You get the idea. I think I've I
think I've done enough on that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
Yeah, a lot more people saying I didn't know Ross,
I didn't even know when to put my trash out
let alone.

Speaker 2 (01:13:37):
What's in the tax code? You're my hero.

Speaker 3 (01:13:40):
We're talking about the taxes.

Speaker 2 (01:13:41):
Okay, as long as we're talking about the taxes.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Another listener, Michael says, regarding the overtime stuff, he said,
don't forget that on the overtime, separate from whatever that
income tax part is, you will still have whatever your
payroll tax is. Right, So for the employee, that's seven
point six percent or some number like that, so that

(01:14:04):
that doesn't.

Speaker 2 (01:14:04):
Get waived anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:14:05):
So the bottom line is the no tax on overtime
is probably not nearly as good as a lot of
people think it is. Let me share kind of a
fun story with you, and I have a video at
the end of the blog today again if you go
to Rosscominsky dot com. And actually it's not nearly as
gross a video as you might think it would be

(01:14:26):
based on the subject matter. The subject matter is AI
powered robot perfectly performs surgery after being trained by videos.
That headline is from a Canadian website, CTV News. The
UK Guardian version of the headline robot surgery on humans

(01:14:48):
could be trialed within a decade after success on pig organs.
So here's what they did. This is from is out
of England. The no, Actually, I take it back, it's
not out of England. The article is out of England.
But the surgery we're talking about was that Johns Hopkins
in Baltimore, and there's a team there that's been working
with AI to do surgery for a while and developing

(01:15:09):
it kind of over time, and it's getting better and
better better as you as you might expect it will.
And they trained this system using the same underlying thing
that chat GPT uses. And what they did, which was
very interesting, they trained the robot to do surgery, not

(01:15:30):
by having it scour the web and reading articles and
not by typing into it. Here's what you do. But
believe it or not, I have no idea how this works.
They trained this robot to do surgery by showing it
videos of surgery. They showed it thousands of hours of

(01:15:54):
videos of surgery and in particular gallblad or gallbladder resection,
gall bladder removal. And so then what this robot did
was and it was in a bunch of surgeries time.
I forget how many, eight or ten different surgeries I
think this robot using I guess pig cadavers.

Speaker 2 (01:16:18):
I don't think the pigs were alive. Yeah, eight operations.

Speaker 1 (01:16:22):
The robot went and did eight surgeries and did them
all perfectly. Now, it made a couple of small but
not important mistakes that a human might not make.

Speaker 2 (01:16:34):
Where, for example, a robot arm would.

Speaker 1 (01:16:37):
Go in and grab onto something that wasn't the thing
it was supposed to grab onto, but it recognized it
and it let go and went in and grabbed the
correct thing, and so it ended up doing these eight
surgeries perfectly, and it's quite an incredible thing. We talked
about this actually the other day on the show. I

(01:16:57):
don't even remember what the context was exactly, but it
was robot heart robot, not open that's actually the point.
It was heart surgery done by a robot. And since
it's not open heart surgery, they don't have to do
a big incision, don't have to crack open the chest
and break the breastbone, which is no fun at all
for healing. And instead they were able to make a

(01:17:17):
small incision and go, I guess under the ribs or.

Speaker 2 (01:17:20):
Something like that. And this is stuff that robots can
do when you can work with you know, small arms
instead of human sized hands having to get inside the
chest cavity and so on. And I just think this
is absolutely amazing. In the Johns.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
Hopkins trial, this is quoting from the UK Guardian. Now,
the robots took just over five minutes to carry out
the operation, which required seventeen steps, including cutting the gallbladder
away from its connection to the liver, applying six clips
in a specific.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
Order, and removing the organ.

Speaker 1 (01:17:54):
The robots on average corrected course without any human help
six times in each operation. A guy named Axel Krieger,
Assistant Professor of mechanical engineering at Johns Hopkins, said, we
were able to perform a surgical procedure with a really
high level of autonomy. In prior work, we were able

(01:18:14):
to do some surgical tasks like suturing.

Speaker 2 (01:18:17):
What we've done here is really a full procedure.

Speaker 1 (01:18:19):
We've done this on eight gallbladders where the robot was
able to perform precisely the clipping and cutting step of
gallbladder removal without any human intervention.

Speaker 2 (01:18:28):
So I think it's a really big landmark.

Speaker 1 (01:18:30):
Study that's such a difficult soft tissue surgery is possible
to do autonomously. I think I don't need to add
any more commentary to that. I just think it's a
fabulous story and points the direction to medicine in the future.
And I will add one thing, and this already exists
a little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
But imagine this.

Speaker 1 (01:18:49):
Imagine being able to transport a robot that can do
surgery without necessarily having to transport a surgeon, and maybe
being able to bring these robots into places where let's
say there isn't a lot of money for Madison. Somebody
needs some surgery, you can send a lower level person
over there.

Speaker 2 (01:19:07):
Whose time is much less valuable. Maybe you can do
some basic stuff, and maybe you probably need an anesthesiologist.

Speaker 1 (01:19:13):
But the surgeon can be wherever he is or she is,
and can guide multiple machines and multiple places. So not
only can it make surgery more available, can also make
it much less expensive. Man, I saw him do that
at Red Rocks the other day. Lucky, Yeah, that was
pretty cool. I have a whole bunch of stories that
I want to try to work my way through kind

(01:19:35):
of quickly. Dragon and I each have a name that
tune today as well. I would like to just take
one moment to respond to a listener text regarding this
tax on overtime stuff we were talking about, because I
want to make sure I'm very clear about something here.
The listener says, Ross, I disagree with you completely about

(01:19:56):
the benefit of no tax on overtime. It's clear you're
a salaried employee. It's a huge deal that hourly workers.
For hourly workers who work overtime, it'll be a huge benefit.
Could be as much as twelve five hundred dollars a year.
So I want to be very clear on something. I
never said that this is not potentially a big benefit.

Speaker 2 (01:20:20):
For workers who work overtime. Of course it is.

Speaker 1 (01:20:23):
What I said was I think most people, including me,
until half an hour ago, thought that what it meant
was a person who worked overtime would not pay any
federal income tax on the earnings that you earned during.

Speaker 2 (01:20:41):
Those overtime hours. That's what I said. But in fact,
what the law is is that you will not pay
federal income tax on the part of your overtime earnings
that is in excess of your hourly rate for your
regular job.

Speaker 1 (01:20:59):
I said before, if you make thirty dollars an hour
and then overtime, let's say you get time and a
half some it's usually it's time and a half.

Speaker 2 (01:21:07):
Can be more. I don't think it can be.

Speaker 1 (01:21:09):
Less anyway, So you get forty five dollars an hour
during overtime. I thought that you wouldn't pay any income
tax on those forty five dollars overtime hours.

Speaker 2 (01:21:18):
But in fact, you still are.

Speaker 1 (01:21:20):
Going to pay income tax on the first thirty dollars
an hour that's the same as your regular wage, and
you will only not pay tax on the extra fifteen
dollars of the you know when if it's time and
a half in this case, or time plus whatever, it's
only the plus part that you don't pay income tax on.
So I did not say that this is not a

(01:21:43):
benefit or potentially a big benefit. What I said is,
I bet most people who earn overtime think that the
benefit is bigger than it actually is.

Speaker 2 (01:21:54):
That's all. That's all, all right. So let's let's go
through some some stories here.

Speaker 3 (01:22:01):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:01):
So the Attorney General of the state of Texas is
a guy named Ken Paxton, and I don't like him
at all. I think he's the worst kind of political creature.
And he is challenging Senator John Cornyan in the Republican
primary for US.

Speaker 2 (01:22:18):
Senate next year.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
So John Cornyan is very So I'm pretty sure John Cornyn,
if I remember correctly, I think he was a judge
on the Texas State Supreme Court. He's a very serious guy.
He's in Senate leadership, and I think you would put

(01:22:40):
him in a category like establishment.

Speaker 2 (01:22:44):
He's not maga. He's conservative. He's very conservative, but he's
not maga. He's not anti Trump. He seems to work
pretty well with Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:22:51):
But he's not kind of the flame throwing ultra maga
stuff that is the flavor of the month with the
Republican Party base. And so in recent poll it has
shown Ken Paxton leading John Cornyn, with Paxton's somewhere like
high forties, fifty percent, maybe even fifty one or fifty

(01:23:12):
two in a.

Speaker 2 (01:23:12):
Couple of polls, and Cornyn maybe high thirties something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:23:18):
So the reason I mentioned this to you because obviously
I'm not in Texas, and I don't know how many
folks listen to me right now are in Texas, but
I bet there's more than zero. So Ken Paxton's wife
is State Senator Angela Paxton, and she posted a note
on x formerly known as Twitter. She posted this yesterday,

(01:23:44):
almost exactly twenty four hours.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
Ago, and I quote today, after.

Speaker 1 (01:23:49):
Thirty eight years of marriage, I filed for divorce on
biblical grounds. I believe marriage is a sacred covenant, and
I have earnestly pursued reconciling, But in light of recent discoveries,
I do not believe that it honors God, or is
loving to myself, my children, or Ken to remain in
the marriage. I move forward with complete confidence that God

(01:24:11):
is always working everything together for the good of those
who love Him and who.

Speaker 2 (01:24:16):
Are called according to His purpose.

Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
So that is set.

Speaker 1 (01:24:20):
That is State Senator Angela Paxton announcing her divorce from
Ken Paxton. Now, there are a few things I want
to say about this. First, I went to look at
the comments, and the comments are almost all the comments
fall into one of two categories. One is, you're obviously

(01:24:44):
only doing this because you want to hurt your husband's
chances of winning the primary, and that makes you a
bad person because there's no there's no legitimate reason for
you to do this in public other than trying to
hurt his political career, to which I say good for her.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
That I'm down with the tactic.

Speaker 1 (01:25:01):
But anything that will stop Ken Paxton from winning will
be good with me because I think he will be.

Speaker 2 (01:25:05):
A terrible, terrible senator.

Speaker 1 (01:25:08):
So anyway, so a lot of people were saying that
you shouldn't be doing this in public, and then it
was interesting, Look, I don't know really much of anything
about you know, Christian conservatives deepest feelings. You know, how
do Christian Conservatives think in Texas? I don't know, That's
not They're not my people, right, I don't mean I
don't like them. I just mean I'm not tied into

(01:25:30):
that community.

Speaker 4 (01:25:31):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:25:31):
So, so for somebody who says I filed for divorce
on biblical grounds, I I think, like, I probably know
some people out there, but among my close friends, let's say,
I don't know anybody who would ever utter a sentence
like that, right, I just don't know anyone who thinks

(01:25:53):
that way. And so, but there are lots of people
who think that way, and lots and lots.

Speaker 2 (01:25:59):
Of them Texas.

Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
So the other kind of comment that was very common
was it's your responsibility to stay in a marriage, and
a bunch of people were saying there's no such thing
as biblical grounds for marriage, although a few other people
said yet, in fact, uh, cheating infidelity is a biblical
ground for marriage. And and some several years ago, and

(01:26:21):
I don't remember what the context was, several years ago,
there was some kind of lawsuit involving Ken Paxton, and
as part of the lawsuit there came out some insinuations
that he had a mistress. And so that is certainly
what people are inferring from.

Speaker 2 (01:26:40):
This, that that he had a miss that he had
a mistress.

Speaker 4 (01:26:44):
So and.

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
In my mind, it's the only thing it can be
that he was cheating on her.

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
Let's see, Mandy just sent me a text. I don't
I just don't know. He's had an affair that was
well known within political circles, so I'm not sure this
changes anything.

Speaker 1 (01:27:04):
Right, So Mandy is making two points at the same time.
One almost it seems very very likely that he cheated
on her. And then the question is will people care?
And this is the point Mandy is getting at, right,
will people care? On the one hand, you can imagine
Christian conservatives saying, wow, I thought Ken Paxton was a

(01:27:25):
Christian conservative guy who lived by the precepts of the Bible,
and now I see he's a lying, cheating whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:27:32):
But this has been known for a while.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
As I said, this came out originally in sort of
discovery I think, for a different kind of lawsuit a
few years ago, and it's been known in.

Speaker 2 (01:27:45):
The public at least a little bit for some time.

Speaker 1 (01:27:47):
And Mandy says it's been well known within political circles,
and I believe that too. And yet he's already ahead
of John Cornyn. And here's the other thing to keep
in mind.

Speaker 2 (01:27:57):
Paxton supporters are Trump supporters corn And supporters not as
much corn And supporters maybe have Trump supporters, but a
lot of more kind of mainstream Republican. And do you
actually think that a Trump supporter is going to not

(01:28:18):
vote for someone because that guy cheated on his wife?

Speaker 1 (01:28:22):
Right? Donald Trump is cheated on every wife more than once.
And his supporters don't care. Nobody cares anymore they you know,
all those Christian Conservatives used to care. You remember family values,
remember Jerry Folwell, Remember Focus on the Family, which is
still here of course. Do you remember all those people

(01:28:42):
and how much they used to talk about family values?

Speaker 2 (01:28:46):
No, not anymore. Now once their guy doesn't have any values,
then they seem to forget all about that. And so
I agree with Mandy or Mandy's implication that this, like
here's how I think about it. It will probably move
the polls against Paxton, but probably not enough to cause

(01:29:08):
him to lose to Cornyn. We'll see. I think.

Speaker 1 (01:29:12):
I think the only thing that saves Cornyn is if
Trump endorses him, which he has not done yet.

Speaker 2 (01:29:21):
So there's that.

Speaker 1 (01:29:23):
I don't like doing too much, you know, econ and
stuff on Fridays, and especially in the last segment. So
I'm just gonna mention this in passing, but I do
have to mention it. You know, what I think of
tariffs as an economic policy, right, short version is I
think they're really bad policy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:40):
I won't dwell on that. But yesterday President Trump announced
I think it was yesterday, President Trump announced the dumbest
of all tariffs. Actually, you know he announced it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:55):
He announced it a day and a half ago, announced
it Wednesday, Wednesday afternoon. So the dumbest of all tariffs
that he's announced so far. And it's a tariff on copper. Now,
we produce a lot of copper in America, but only
maybe a little less than half of what we use,

(01:30:17):
but a fair bit. And most of what we import
comes from not China, not Russia, Chile, also some from Mexico,
some from Canada, but basically it comes from allies. And
President Trump announced a fifty percent tariff on copper. And

(01:30:42):
I think that he thinks that that is somehow going
to magically cause a huge increase in copper production in
the United States of America. First of all, it's not.
Second of all, even if it were going to, it
would take many years, because you're talking about.

Speaker 2 (01:30:57):
You know, expanding minds and stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
And also if it were economic to expand the minds,
they would be doing it already. Now the price has
gone up a lot because of the tariffs. And you
might say, Okay, now they'll start more. But even if
they do, and I don't think they will, it would
take years and years to produce more. This is just
mind development is a very slow thing. And in the meantime,

(01:31:24):
copper is in everything. Copper is in everything from chips,
it's huge in electric vehicles, it's in the wiring in
your house, it's in almost anything electrical. It is, as
Trump himself said, the second most used.

Speaker 2 (01:31:40):
Material by the Department of Defense. That's what he said.

Speaker 1 (01:31:45):
And because of these tariffs, copper is now trading at
a new all time high. This is not like putting
a tariff on let's say, shoes or something where maybe
somebody can Nike can move or build a shoe factory
in Tennessee in a year.

Speaker 2 (01:32:05):
It's not like that at all.

Speaker 1 (01:32:08):
It takes so long, and it's a product that we
must have. And I got to say, of all the
tariff policies that President Trump has come out with so far,
and they're all dumb. This one is by far the dumbest.
All right, another quick federal government thing, This very quick story.

(01:32:29):
The State Department notified its staff, this is from the
Daily Caller, notified its staff yesterday that it is beginning
widespread layoffs. According to a notification obtained by the Daily Caller.
The Supreme Court allowed President Trump to move forward with
his executive order directing agencies to prepare large scale reductions
in the workforce in a ruling just this past just
tuesday here, and the State Department began getting ready for

(01:32:53):
this in a reorganization that would close seventeen percent.

Speaker 2 (01:32:56):
Of its offices.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
And they are now alerting people, Hey be ready, We're
going to start laying people off. And I will say
that is absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:33:05):
Fine with me. But they just need to do it
in a smart way, right, they need to do it.
They need to do it in a way where that
where it doesn't damage the mission.

Speaker 1 (01:33:15):
Okay, that's the key thing. Don't damage the mission. Make
sure the State Department can do all the stuff that
State Department needs to do, but fire as many people
as you can. That still leaves the State Department able
to do this stuff. And for sure, in any bureaucracy
that big. They have lots of offices that duplicate efforts,
and for sure they will be able to fire some

(01:33:36):
of them. Hold on, I have a text from Mandy.
I'm stuck in traffic on I twenty five. I may
or may not be there for the game. You want
to try to get her on the phone. See yeah,
many If you're listening right now, and if you want
to play the game by phone, then then just call in.

(01:33:58):
You know, you know the number one more quick story
I want to I want to share with you.

Speaker 2 (01:34:04):
Also, No, actually, I'm gonna do a local story. I
was gonna do a federal story. I'm an a local story.

Speaker 3 (01:34:08):
I'll do it real quick.

Speaker 1 (01:34:10):
So in Denver, the city council passed I think it
was a twelve to one vote a new law that
says that new gas stations can't be within a quarter
mile of an existing station or within three hundred feet
of what they call a protected residential zone. So basically,
if you've got a gas station in Denver right now,
you're good. But if you're gonna you were thinking about
putting a gas station in Denver, you can't if it's

(01:34:32):
within a quarter mile of an existing station and you've
probably seen a whole.

Speaker 2 (01:34:36):
Bunch of these.

Speaker 1 (01:34:36):
Quick Trips around, and Quick Trip already was in negotiations
and planning for four gas stations I think in Denver,
and they sued saying this is retro like because the
city council passed it retroactively. So even if you already
had plans in the city, if the city hadn't already
approved them, then they can say sorry. Even if you

(01:34:59):
bought the land, and they did already Quick Trip already
bought the land. Even if you already bought the land,
even if you've already been working on leasing or.

Speaker 2 (01:35:07):
Improving land, you still can't go ahead.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
And yesterday a court ruled in favor of the city,
not in favor of Quick Trip, in favor of the city,
that this kind of retroactive taking of their property rights
can happen. Hey, folks, if you're listening on the podcast
right now, that's the end of today's show.

Speaker 2 (01:35:28):
Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget.

Speaker 1 (01:35:30):
You can catch us every day on the podcast as
you are right now, on your smart speaker, on your
iHeartRadio app, even on the computer at Koa, Colorado, and
the good old fashioned way on your radio.

Speaker 2 (01:35:42):
Thanks so much for listening to the show,