10-10-25 - *FULL SHOW* Jack Carr; Judicial Independence; Ned Fire

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We've got a former senior federal judge. We're going to
talk about the independence of the judiciary. I know that's
very in the weeds, but it's an important thing. And
how often do you get to talk to a guy
who was, you know, on I.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Guess what I would call the second most important court
in the United States of America.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Okay, Then at ten thirty something, we're going to have
best selling author Jack Carr, former Navy seal sniper. He's
out with a new book called cry Havoc, which might
be his best book yet. I finished reading it. It
is unbelievable.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
What else? Rick Lewis is.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Going to join us from the UK talking about this
Sunday's Broncos game, and perhaps the highlight for me on
today's show, believe it or not, will be to give
to one of you a pair of tickets to see
Paul McCartney tomorrow night.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
At Is that a course field? Shannon? Is that right? Corsefield? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (00:49):
And I don't have tickets for me. If I can
get tickets for me somehow, maybe I will. But anyway,
I'm I'm actually shockingly excited to give you, whoever you are,
a pair of Paul McCartney tickets, So there's a lot there.
I want to just follow up on a couple things
in the news, if I might so. First, the Nobel

(01:10):
Peace Prize thing. So, the Nobel Peace Prize went to
a woman named Maria Corneita Maria Corina Machado, who is
a pro democracy activist, was a candidate for president until
the dictatorial Venezuelan regime of Maduro of Nicholas Maduro blocked her.

(01:31):
She lives in hiding, but she is She has been fighting,
at the risk of her own life for democracy in
Venezuela for about twenty years. And I think she's a
great choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. And this is
separate from what I have said and continue to say
about Donald Trump probably deserving the Nobel Peace Prize, especially

(01:55):
if this Israel Hamas thing works out even kind of
sorto well. And I would just have in mind that
nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize are done on January
thirty first, and so I wouldn't really have even though
Trump probably was nominated, I didn't expect. I would have

(02:16):
been really really shocked, even separate from what we think
about the you know, politics, I would have been really
shocked for Donald Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize
this year. But I do think there's a very good
shot at it next year. And in the meantime, I
think the woman who won it this year absolutely deserves it.
This is not like when the Nobel Committee gave the
Peace Prize to Yasir Arafat, the terrorists who never wanted peace,

(02:40):
or to Al Gore for lying to the world with
his junk science about climate change, or to Barack Obama.
Barack Obama, you may recall Barack Obama got the Nobel
Peace Prize. I don't even know if he had been
inaugurated yet. I think he had been maybe elected, but
not inaugurated, or if he had been inaugurated, he had

(03:01):
been in office very long. So Barack Obama got the
Nobel Peace Prize for two things. Do you remember? This
is how I've always enjoyed wording this. Do you remember,
and you don't hear this as much these days, But
you would have a football play, a trade between football
teams where one team would give up, you know, an

(03:23):
excellent player in return for getting from the other team
a very good but maybe not quite as good a player,
and a player to be named later. Do you remember
that terminology A player to be named later?

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Haven't heard that so much lately.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
Barack Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for two reasons.
One was a good deed to be named later, because
he hadn't done anything, And second was because he's black.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
He got elected. He had elected.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
President of the United States as a black man, and
apparently that deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. And I'm not
being sarcastic that it was really kind of a joke.
All of those things are you know, All of those
things add up to the Nobel Peace Prize not being
worth nearly as much in my mind as let's say
a Nobel Prize in physics as an example. Anyway, but

(04:17):
the lady who got it this year deserves it, and
Trump probably will deserve it as well. So yesterday the
Israeli knesse It their parliament voted to approve the first
phase of the I don't know if I really want
to call it a peace plan, but this cessation of
hostilities with Hamas, the Israeli military pulled back to the

(04:38):
line that they are required to pull back to, and
now it is incumbent upon Hamas to release all the
living hostages and as many of the dead hostages as
they can.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Find right now, and we will see what happens.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
The other thing that was interesting to learn yesterday, and
I'll go to Times of Israel for this, an American
military team of two hundred people will be deployed in
the Middle East to oversee the Gaza ceasefire deal between
Israel and Hamas after.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
A hostage deal. YadA, YadA, YadA.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
Admiral Brad Cooper, head of Sentcom, said that the military
quote will initially have two hundred people on the ground
and the admiral and their mission will be to oversee, observe,
and make sure there are no violations. It is unclear
to me right now where these two hundred people will be,

(05:32):
and I don't know that they will all be in
the same place. I have read and heard Israel, I
have read and heard Egypt, but I do not believe
they will go into Gaza. I would be absolutely shocked
if you had American troops in Gaza, notwithstanding like one

(05:53):
guy or you know, like going along with some foreign
group as an advisor, but I mean like a platoon
of Americans, and God, I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
I'd be very, very surprised if that happened.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
Anyway, it still seems on track for now, and we'll
see what happens, all right. We still we have an
immense amount to do on today's show. It's gonna be
a really fun show. I hope you stick with me.
Remember coming up in the I shouldn't say remember because
you didn't know yet. Coming up in the next few
minutes is this hour's chance to win one thousand dollars
in our keyword for cash thanks to Mercedes Benz of

(06:24):
Littleton that is Mercedesoflittleton dot com. I'm off next week,
by the way, but we're gonna have some great folks
filling in for me. So I want to mention for
this Sunday, the Broncos game is in London, which means
it'll be very early here, like a seven, seven thirty
kickoffs something like that, somewhere in that area. And if
you want to hang out with Ben Albright and Nick

(06:48):
Ferguson on Sunday morning, just wake up and watch the.

Speaker 2 (06:50):
Game with them.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
They're gonna be at burn Down, Denver off a Broadway
from seven am to nine am, and when you're there
you can enter to win a Broncos Raiders trip to
Vegas to see the Broncos.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
Raiders game in Vegas.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
And this is all presented by Arta Tequila, the official
tequila of the Denver Broncos. So that's Sunday, two days
from now, seven am to nine am with Ben and
Nick at burned Down Denver. I gotta I gotta go
to one of those I like hanging out with those guys.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Are a lot of fun. So what else do we
want to talk about today?

Speaker 3 (07:21):
All right?

Speaker 2 (07:22):
Let me do this one. From time to time I
talk about the death penalty.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
And I'm.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Not getting to get into my usual hole spiel about
the death penalty. I just really want to tell you
this particular story. So there's a guy on death row
in Texas named Robert Robertson R O B E R
S O N.

Speaker 4 (07:44):
And he was.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
Scheduled to be executed a week from yesterday.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
Right now that's been blocked by the highest level criminal
court in Texas and they're gonna send his case back
to the trial court. And this is a very interesting case.
This is not the u usual kind of case that
you hear about. You know, somebody committed some kind of
bloody murder or or somebody there was some kind of
bloody murder and then somebody is convicted of it, but
they say they didn't it didn't do it, and the

(08:11):
evidence is shaky or this that it's not like that,
it's not like that. This is a guy who was
convicted of capital.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
Murder twenty two years ago.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
When his two year old daughter died and was diagnosed
that the or the cause of death was given as
shaken baby syndrome. And this guy was convicted of shaking
his two year old daughter so hard that she died. Now,
it turns out that the science around so called shaky

(08:46):
by shaken baby syndrome has changed dramatically, and it very dramatic,
like to the extent that you probably could not convict
him and maybe anybody else of this particular thing if
the trial were happened, if the trial were to happen. Now,

(09:07):
so that's a very interesting thing. And Texas passed a
law in twenty thirteen. It's kind of called the Junk
Science Law. I don't think that's the official name, but
the junk Science Law, and that allows for a new
trial when the science that drove a conviction has since
been debunked, which appears to be the case regarding shaken baby.

(09:31):
But there's actually even more here, it turns out, and
I don't think this even came up in the trial.
And I'm going to quote from the Texas Tribune. Experts
found that the two year old girl her name is Nikki,
had undiagnosed chronic pneumonia and was prescribed medications that are
no longer prescribed to kids her age because of their risks.

(09:55):
The medications suppressed her breathing, which led to brain swelling.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
The other thing is.

Speaker 1 (10:01):
When this guy was convicted, part of what was used
as evidence against him was some internal bleeding, but this
particular condition, according to the medical experts, devolved into sepsis,
which is internal infection causing a bleeding disorder that made
her bruise easily. And mister Robertson's attorneys say none of

(10:25):
these circumstances were identified or even considered in assessing her condition,
and that the discredited and unreliable forensic science underpinning his
conviction means that there was no homicide, only the tragic
death of a very ill little girl. So again, you

(10:47):
know what I think about you know what I think
about the death penalty.

Speaker 2 (10:51):
If you don't know, I'll say it real quick.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
There are people who deserve killing, but we need to
make sure that the government gets it right. And if
there's any risk of the government and getting it wrong,
it shouldn't happen. And this guy has been on death
row for twenty two years for something that there's a
pretty good chance he didn't do and that he almost
certainly would not be convicted of based on current science

(11:17):
and that evidence about the medical condition of his daughter.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
And so I just wanted to share that with you.

Speaker 1 (11:22):
This is going to be sent down to a trial court,
which apparently will decide whether there should be a new trial.
Some of course, will depend on what the prosecutors want
to do. It's Texas, and they tend to be very
aggressive in wanting to try people and wanting to kill
as many people as he can. But will We'll see
how it plays out. I just wanted to share that
story with you. Let's see what else Dida. I'm going

(11:44):
to see if I can do this next thing, like
in thirty seconds. I don't think it deserves a lot more.
But a grand jury in that same eastern district of
Virginia that indicted Jim Comey has now indicted New York
Attorney General Letitia James. Leticia James is again the Age
of New York who premised her campaign for office on

(12:05):
going after Donald Trump, which should have disqualified her by
the way, in.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
Any case, she ran on that, and then she did it.

Speaker 1 (12:13):
And she's the one who brought this case that that
ridiculous leftist Kamala supporting judge found him, found Trump guilty
of some nonsense, and then and then he was fined.
Trump was fined like five hundred million dollars. The amount
of that amount has since been overturned. The actual verdict
hasn't been overturned. But anyway, Leticia James is very much

(12:35):
getting a taste of her own medicine here. And as
with Jim Comey, I'm really torn about it in the
sense that I really really hate the weaponization of our
justice system and I really really liked these people getting
a taste of.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
Their own medicine. They deserve it. Karma is a you
know what, and she's getting some of that. Now.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
Here's what I think the difference is between the Leticia
James saying in the James Comy thing, the James Comy
indictment does not specify really what he did wrong. They say, well,
we're accusing him of perjury, but they don't say how.
They don't say what he did. And that's part of
a reason I think there's a decent chance that Jim
Comy indictment might be thrown out before there's even a trial.

(13:20):
The Letitia James one is quite different. The charges against
Leticia James. While I think they're actually not particularly serious,
they're very clear. It's clear what they are, we know
what they are, and there's a decent chance that this
will get to trial. So in any case, Letitia James,
whether you like it or not, as far as the
weaponization of the justice system and I don't, is getting

(13:43):
a taste of her own bitter medicine. When we come back,
we're going to talk with a very interesting guy, a
former senior federal judge. Well that's actually a good it's
a good lead in what we just talked about with
Letitia James, because we're going to talk about the independence
of the judiciary. Morning, Happy Friday. I'm ross you're listening
to Kowa. Thank you so much for being here. I

(14:05):
have the distinct privilege of welcoming to the show for
the first time. Judge David tatell and Judge Tateell was
formerly on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit,
a court that is not officially but I think of
as the second most important court in the United States

(14:27):
of America after the Supreme Court, because they get so
many cases in that particular court that deal with the
proper constitutional functions of the federal government.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
He's also a member of the.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
Article three Coalition for Keep Our Republic and is going
to be one of three federal judges participating in what
promises to be a fantastic event next Tuesday evening at.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
The University of Denver. And I'll give you more details
on the event in a bit.

Speaker 1 (14:56):
But with that much too long introduction, Judge tates Hell,
welcome to Kawa, and thank you for making time for us.

Speaker 4 (15:04):
Nice to be here this morning. Ross and it's Spruce Tail,
if that's okay.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
Oh, I'm very sorry, Tail, I'm sorry about that. So
I have so many things I want to ask you about.
There are obviously a lot of things going on, you know,
in government, in our judicial system right now that are
raising a lot of interesting questions. And I'll probably you know,
go through them in no particular order with you, but
maybe I would just like to start with the highest

(15:29):
level thing, and that is the topic of your event,
judicial judicial independence. What's on your mind at the macro
level that has you concerned.

Speaker 5 (15:46):
So there's two levels of concern ross. First of all,
the Article three coalition is a coalition of about fifty
retired federal judges like myself, pretty evenly divided between judges
who are appointed by Republican presidents and judges who are

(16:09):
appointed by democratic presidents. And this diverse group of judges
is deeply concerned at one level about the threats to
judges and judges safety that we've.

Speaker 4 (16:24):
Seen in the past eight months.

Speaker 5 (16:29):
Coming from the highest levels of government, from the President,
from the Attorney General, from members of Cabinet, from senators, uh,
and from thousands of people around the country who are
calling judges chambers and threatening them, sending them threatening letters.

Speaker 3 (16:46):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (16:47):
This is a dangerous time.

Speaker 5 (16:49):
UH, and we're all deeply concerned about that and its
impact on the.

Speaker 4 (16:56):
On the judicial system.

Speaker 5 (16:59):
You know, are are one of the great ideas the
frames of our constitution had was the best protection against
authoritarian power is to split power among more than one person.
So that's why we have three branches of government. We
have a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch of government,

(17:22):
and they all have to agree with each other in
one form or another to act. And without an independent judiciary,
the independent judiciary can't perform its function. And these threats,
these constant threats, are could could undermine the independence of

(17:42):
the judiciary. Now it's not doing that at this point.
The federal judges around the country who are receiving these
threats are not being intimidated. I know many of them,
and I can assure you ross they are not being
intimidated by any of us.

Speaker 4 (17:57):
But it's frightening to them and their family.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
I can imagine on a personal level.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
I mean, and we all know the story of the
guy who went to try to kill Justice Kavanaugh and
then ended up turning himself in and just got sentenced
the other day.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
And there was now this next thing.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
We don't know if it was actually intentional, but there
was a house of a judge in what South Carolina
maybe recently that just burned down. Again, we don't know
that that was intentional, But we have we have a
president of the United States who attacked judges all the
time when they make a ruling that he doesn't like.
But we have also seen the same from the left
with Chuck Schumer attacking the Supreme Court when they make

(18:35):
a ruling that he doesn't like or the left doesn't like.
So how much of the blame for the threats and
the risk to an independent judiciary that you perceive and
that I perceive with you? How much of that do
you ascribe to other politicians? Well, two pots shouldn't say
other because you're not a politician.

Speaker 4 (18:56):
Hi, that's for sure. So here's one more example.

Speaker 5 (19:00):
Ross this morning's paper, I just read reports one of
the district judges in Chicago ordered issued an order against
the president on the deployment of the militia in Chicago.
She says her chambers have been flooded with vicious threats
on the phone, email and everything. Now you know that

(19:24):
judge isn't going to be intimidated either, But.

Speaker 4 (19:27):
That sort of stuff has to stop. So which side
the kind of Look, what.

Speaker 5 (19:31):
Schumer did was inappropriate, shouldn't have done it, and so
I recall he apologized for it. And over our history,
threats to judiciary haven't come from just one side or
the other. I acknowledge that they're inappropriate from any side,
and but for the since January twentieth, the threats have
come all from one side. They've come from from the

(19:54):
President and his cabinet and the people around him, and
they've come from from his supporters. So the answer to
your question is these days are all coming from one source.

Speaker 1 (20:10):
We're talking with Judge David Tatle, formerly of the US
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and a member
of Keep our Republic's Article three coalition. So let me
ask you a bigger picture question. Now, it seems to
me that over the years, and accelerating under Trump, but

(20:31):
not only under Trump, there has been this trend of
presidents of the United States accumulating power going back at
least to Obama, but maybe to FDR or right. President's
accumulating power in the executive that probably the Framers would
have thought belonged in the legislature, and many members of

(20:51):
the legislature seeming to be okay with it. I think
a lot of these folks liked being invited to all
the best cocktail parties, and if they can hand over
to the president some of what might cause them a
headache in an electoral primary or an election, they're happy
to do it. So I find that Congress does not
guard its prerogatives nearly to the degree that it should,

(21:15):
and it seems to me that that ends up causing
the judiciary to have to jump in more than you
might otherwise have to or want to. So obviously I'm
not a lawyer and I'm not an expert, but I
would like to know what you think of that theory,
and if you think it's right, you know, what should
we do.

Speaker 4 (21:33):
Now.

Speaker 5 (21:36):
There's a lot of questions embedded in that question, but
I totally agree Ross was your last point about Congress.

Speaker 4 (21:45):
Congress has become it's worse than dysfunctional.

Speaker 5 (21:49):
It's as if we don't have a Congress right now.
Congress is one of the three independent branches of government.
It's supposed to check the abuses of the others, and
Congress has failed completely in that part of its responsibility.
And as a result of that, you know, much more
pressure is put on the course in the Supreme Court.

(22:13):
But also at this time in our history, we have
a court. Now let me just say something about this. Yes,
I'm here as a member of the Article three coalition,
and because we're more from different parties and judges with
many different views, there are many aspects of this we
don't necessarily agree on. And my answer here is going

(22:35):
to be David Tatle speaking for himself, not for my colleagues.
But we have a time right now in our history
where the Supreme Court is itself failing to check the
abuses of the president and in fact is enabling those abuses.

Speaker 4 (22:51):
Now.

Speaker 5 (22:52):
Over history, You're right, there have been many times when
presidents have tried to exceed their constitutional powers over our history.
You mentioned the New Deal. Well, during the beginning of
the New Deal, the Supreme Court.

Speaker 4 (23:06):
Blocked President Roosevelt's efforts.

Speaker 5 (23:09):
During the Nixon administration, there was there was tremendous abuse
of presidential power.

Speaker 4 (23:15):
But there the courts checked him. I mean, just compare.

Speaker 5 (23:20):
This Supreme Court's decision regarding presidential immunity to you know who,
to the United States versus Nixon.

Speaker 4 (23:29):
The Nixon Tapes case, where.

Speaker 5 (23:31):
The Supreme Court, unanimously composed not just of Democratic and
Republican appointees, but of several justices appointed by president ruled
against President Nixon and told him to turn over the tapes.

Speaker 4 (23:44):
So The difference between now.

Speaker 5 (23:46):
And the other times in history when we've had threats
of president presidential abuse of power is that they were checked.

Speaker 4 (23:54):
They were checked by by the by the courts.

Speaker 5 (23:58):
As in both the Nix and Roosevelt, and by both
branches of government. During Nixon it wasn't just the court,
but remember the Congress passed articles of impeachment. So this
is the first time that I know of, it's surely
in my lifetime ross where the checks and balances are
sailing from both the congressional and.

Speaker 4 (24:20):
The judicial branch of government. I've never seen that happen before.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
So as I watched some of the things going on
in the US right now, and some cases going to
federal district courts, the lowest level of federal courts, and
separate from what I might think of any given policy,
I'm probably one of the few people who's fairly ambivalent
about Donald Trump, in the sense that I love some
of what he does and I hate some of what

(24:45):
he does, and I try to think clearly about all
of it. I see cases go to these district courts,
and the district courts put a you know, make a
ruling that Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I read
a lot of constitutional law, and I pay very close
attention to this stuff.

Speaker 4 (25:01):
Right and good for you? Yes's good for you.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
And I see rulings from district courts that strike me
as plainly wrong that then end up being struck down
pretty quickly by the appellate courts, even before it gets
to the Supreme Court. And I think it causes a
lot of folks to look at some of these judges
as being sort of activist, anti Trump judges. And I

(25:24):
wonder what your thoughts are on that. I get the
sense that you're not a big Trump fan, but I
wonder what your thoughts are on these Why so many
district court judges seem to be making rulings that get
overturned not by the Supreme Court, maybe eventually by them,
but by the next level of appellate court above them.

Speaker 5 (25:44):
I'm gonna answer your question, but I want to make
clear to you Ross that my views about all of
this today are not influenced by my political views about
the President of the United States. What I care about,
as a US citizen and as a retired federal judge
is the rule of law. Yes, that's what I care about,
and I care about preserving our constitutional system, and regardless

(26:07):
of one's political views. I think everybody agrees now that
we are facing a serious constitutional crisis, and that as
a non political observation, and I suspect and I know
there are judges across the political spectrum who agree with
me on that. Now, answering your specific question, look, district

(26:28):
judges around the country are being flooded with cases. There
are hundreds of them all around the country, and district
judges are doing their very best.

Speaker 4 (26:41):
To process these cases.

Speaker 5 (26:43):
Correctly, to try to understand what the law is and
to apply it to the facts. Now, have some of
these decisions been wrong, Yes, there's no doubt about that.
I think some of these cases that have filed have
been filed prematurely. Think the cases that are filed against
the administration are marriorless and some of them have produced

(27:06):
decisions that are wrong and have been reversed. That's exactly
the way the legal system works. But there are far
more district court decisions that are correct that are being
reversed by the appeals courts and the Supreme Courts that
it is not a balanced situation.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
You know, that's a very interesting position to take in
the sense that in the sense that we tend to
think of the Supreme Court as the final answer. And
I think you and I will both say the Supreme
Court has been wrong many times over its history. You know,
you go back at least as far as dred Scott,

(27:46):
and the Supreme Court has been wrong plenty of times.
But I do find it how do I want to
put this, If a district court is overturned by an
appellate court that is then up there, and the appellate
court is overturned is upheld by the Supreme Court, I
find it.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
A little bit difficult.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
To argue that the district court was right and two
courts above them were both were both wrong.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
It seems like it could be true, but you.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
Would think the benefit of doubt probably needs to go
with the two higher courts that agreed with each other.

Speaker 4 (28:21):
What do you say to that, I actually don't agree
with that at all. You just you can't tell unless
you look at the cases.

Speaker 5 (28:28):
There are situations where you know, a district court's decision
is reversed by an appellate court and then the Supreme Court.
The district court may well have been read correct about that.
They're just the opposite situations. You have to look at
each decision ross to know. But let me tell you
something that's happening in the past six months that hasn't

(28:49):
happened before, which deeply concerns me.

Speaker 4 (28:52):
And that is quite a few of the Supreme Court's.

Speaker 5 (28:57):
Decisions in the past four or five months reversing lower
federal courts.

Speaker 4 (29:06):
In decisions involving President the.

Speaker 5 (29:11):
Trump administration either firing government employees or terminating funding or
deporting people. And these cases are decided by district courts,
affirmed by courts of appeals, and reversed by the Supreme
Court without an opinion.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
Yeah, I don't like that either.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
Look, the only.

Speaker 5 (29:29):
Thing, there's many things that distinguish judges from legislators. One
of them is that judges have to explain themselves. Judges
are elected, federal judges are appointed for life.

Speaker 4 (29:42):
We don't have to run for office.

Speaker 5 (29:44):
A senator or a congressman can vote yeah or nay,
and if we don't like it, we can vote against them.
Judges can't do that. Judges have to explain their decisions.
The public has to believe that judicial decisions are legitimate
of judging and not simply the result of judges policy preferences,

(30:05):
and we won't know that unless.

Speaker 4 (30:07):
The judge explains him or herself. I agree we have
too Yeah.

Speaker 5 (30:11):
We have too many Supreme Court opinions with no analysis.
And to make matters worse, these decisions that have no
opinions are almost all six to three with the Republican
appointees and the majority that they're Democrats in Zerkast. So
you could forgive the public loss for thinking that the

(30:32):
Supreme Court has become And I'm not saying you could
forgive the public for thinking that the Supreme Court looks
like a political body.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
Right, Maybe, yes, you could forgive the public for thinking that. Yeah,
I don't think that myself.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
I think that what we have as a Supreme Court
that has.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
A very different conception of the limitations of executive power
than previous than previous Supreme courts had, which will cause
people to feel the way that you describe. But I
think it's just an absolutely fascinating conversation.

Speaker 5 (31:07):
But don't you think, don't you think ross as a
citizen you would be. I actually agree with what you
just said about your instinct about the court. It does
have a different view about presidential power than I do.

Speaker 4 (31:19):
For sure.

Speaker 5 (31:20):
But don't you think both you and I would be
much better off if the Court explained these decisions.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
Yeah, one hundred percent. And I actually think the Court
would like to explain. I think part of what's going
on is that you've got this massive crush of cases
in this rushed shadow docket that don't get processed in
what in Congress you might call regular order. And I
think that's a problem for absolutely everybody.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Everybody.

Speaker 5 (31:45):
Of course, the Court doesn't have to take all these cases.
I mean, it could just affirm right, it doesn't have
to take all these cases. And I've heard some of
the justices say, well, you know, we need.

Speaker 4 (31:56):
To be careful. It's complicated.

Speaker 5 (31:58):
We need to take the time to write opinions and
we just don't have that time right now. Well, they're judges,
and number one, they have to explain themselves. And number two,
the dissenters don't seem to have trouble writing descents. They
can get twenty thirty page descents written in this short
of time. The court, I think the Court has an

(32:19):
obligation to explain itself.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
I couldn't agree with you more And I think, as
I said, I think the whole country would be well
served by it. And I am somebody who fears, Yeah,
fears is probably right. An accumulation of power in the executive.
I realize we have three co equal branches of government,
but in my mind Article one.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Is about the legislature for a reason, and if.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
I'm going to have a little extra accumulation of power,
I'd rather have it there than in the presidency.

Speaker 5 (32:50):
Judge Dvich And I agree with that. I agree with
that the framers thought it was. It was the people's department.
Article one is the people's branch. Yeah, absolutely, That's where
the power is it. That's where the power to declare
war is. That's where the power to spend money is. Right,
that's where it's supposed to be in a democracy.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
Judge David Tatle and two other senior recently retired or
not so recently, with one of them federal federal judges
can be participating in an amazing event next Tuesday at
the University of Denver. It's five point thirty pm to
six forty five pm at the Rickittson Law Building and
this is a public forum on judicial independence and checks

(33:34):
and balances.

Speaker 2 (33:35):
All the information is easily found.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
On my website at Rosscominsky dot com. Probably easier than
going to look it up any other way I would
be I'm going to be out of state, Judge Tatle,
or I would be there to listen in person. But
I'm very grateful for your time and for your many
years of service on the DC circuit.

Speaker 5 (33:55):
Well, thanks, Ross, I've enjoyed this, and I hope your
listeners will come Tuesday night.

Speaker 4 (33:58):
I think it'll be really interesting and informative.

Speaker 1 (34:00):
I do too. Thank you so much, Judge tatl I
appreciate your time. All right, folks, if you go to
Roskimisky dot com you can get more information on the
event next Tuesday evening evening.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
I do understand lots.

Speaker 1 (34:11):
Of listeners kind of picked up some kind.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
Of let's call it liberal bias there.

Speaker 1 (34:15):
From that Judge and I pick it up too, But
it doesn't It doesn't.

Speaker 2 (34:19):
Mean he's wrong.

Speaker 1 (34:20):
It might mean he's a little bit more sensitive to
certain things than you and.

Speaker 2 (34:23):
I might be.

Speaker 1 (34:24):
But these are really important, serious issues for our country.
When we come back, speaking of important, serious issues, the
Broncos are playing in London on Sunday. Rick Lewis is
going to join us from London to talk about it.
He'll try phone. I hope he knows. We only have
like six minutes, so I hope he gets here in
a hurry. We're we're oh okay. One ringing dingy, two

(34:47):
ringing Dingy's and I think I see a button, so
maybe I got Maybe I got him by phone.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
So the Broncos are playing.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
The Broncos are playing this Sunday in London, and I
really wanted to go to the game, but I won't.
I won't bore you with the ways I'm not going
to the game. But one guy who is going to
the game is my friend Rick Lewis, and he's out
there right now drinking warm beer or something.

Speaker 3 (35:09):
Hi. Rick, Hey, Ross, listen, man, I'm not in London.
We're in the English countryside, oh way outside of London. Nice. Yeah,
it's totally different here, man. It's beautiful, but there's nothing
to do here but drink beer. And you know, people
in the UK love to drink beer. I love to

(35:31):
drink beer. And I might need a liver cleans when
I get back. That's how much beer we're drinking this week.
What's literally nothing else to do.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
What's the closest town.

Speaker 3 (35:41):
There's a town called Waltham Abbey, which is a little village.
It's about maybe two miles from here. It's a historical
little village, so it is best known for They have
this seventh century church in town where King Harold is buried.
He was killed in the Battle of I think it
was a Battle of Hastings in ten sixty six. They

(36:03):
buried him there and other than that, it's kind of
a ghost town. There's a couple of pubs there. We
went to a pub there that's five hundred years old
the first night we were there, and it's kind of
like a scene right out of a movie. These are

(36:23):
working class guys smoking drink and cuss and playing darts.
We walked in, I wasn't sure if we were going
to have to fight or run. When we walked in
that bar, they looked at us. Everything stopped when we
walked in.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
Who's we? Who is we? Who walked in?

Speaker 3 (36:40):
Me? Okay? Me, Susie Wargen, my wife, Alan Jackson, Susie's
husband Mike, and our producer Jesse Trahiel. They were really friendly,
but they told us we were the first Americans in
that bar in over a year, so they were wondering

(37:02):
what are you guys doing here? You know that type
of thing, and it was pretty interesting.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
Man, Are you near the stadium?

Speaker 3 (37:10):
No?

Speaker 1 (37:12):
Okay, because I thought the stadium was in or right
next to London, so that's why I thought you were
going to be there.

Speaker 3 (37:18):
Yeah. No, we're nowhere near the stadium. I think the
stadium's a good thirty minutes from here.

Speaker 1 (37:24):
And did you just pick that spot just to have
a nice little little vacation.

Speaker 3 (37:31):
No, we didn't pick the spot. The NFL picked the spot.
These games in London, the NFL controls it. And this
is the hotel they picked for us. Now the players
are staying even farther out of town, like they're about
thirty minutes north of us at like a golf resort.
So we're in a different hotel. This is what they

(37:53):
would call the spillover hotel. This is for like the
media people that are here and some of the some
Broncos employees are here too, And so this is where
we've been all week. I've been doing my radio show
from here all week. And it's kind of like Groundhog's Day.
You get up, eat breakfast, go to the gym, do

(38:13):
the radio show, eat dinner, go to bed all we've
been doing all week here. Man, it's been wild.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
Did you go several days early just to help adapt
to the jet lag or just for fun or a
little both.

Speaker 3 (38:29):
No, we flew here with the team, you know, right
after the game at Philly. We flew all night to
get here. So, no, we travel with the team, and
we'll travel back with the team on Sunday. After the game.
We'll fly back to Denver, and I think we get
in like about midnight Sunday. Because of the time change,

(38:51):
we're seven hours ahead of you guys here, so we'll
get in about midnight Sunday. No, we didn't pick this hotel.
They picked it for us.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
Okay, And I've got about two minutes left, and maybe
theoretically we should talk just a little about football. So
you know, what do you want us Broncos fans, you know,
with us in the cheap seats over here, to be
thinking about this game versus the Jets.

Speaker 3 (39:15):
Yeah, you know, it was a big win Sunday in Philly.
The Broncos put it all together really in the fourth quarter.
They beat the Super Bowl champs. And what I'm a
little concerned about Sunday is possibly a letdown from the
team after a big win like that, and then you
travel all the way across the pond to play the

(39:37):
winless Jets. The Jets are zero to five. They could
easily have won two or three games out of those five,
just like every team in the NFL. You know, all
these games come down to typically one score. Le Broncos
could easily before and one. At this point, I feel
like the Broncos are going to go on a run

(39:59):
starting to week. But you certainly can't overlook the winless Jets.
These guys want to win just as bad as the
Broncos want to win. They're a professional football team. Any
given Sunday, you've heard the turn Ross. Any team in
the NFL can beat another team in the NFL. So
I'm concerned about that. The Broncos are the better team
and they should win the game. They're heavily favored, but

(40:20):
you never.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Know, Yeah, you never know. And clearly the Eagles are
having their struggles. They lost yesterday to a New York
Giants team that had only won one game before before yesterday.
But like you say, I mean, I mean, that's that's
an example. Even the Eagles are definitely the better team,
but they lost, So it's that's what you're getting at.

Speaker 2 (40:40):
Give me one more very.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
Specific question I want to ask you tell.

Speaker 2 (40:44):
Me your thoughts right now.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
And I've got less than them in here, but tell
me your thoughts on the on the Broncos running game.

Speaker 2 (40:49):
Because JK.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
Dobbins had this massive game for and I was on
the sidelines for that game and was listening you call
it where he went over one hundred yards, first Bronco
to do that in a few years, and then the
game they barely ran him, right, So what are you
thinking about the Broncos running game right now?

Speaker 3 (41:06):
Well, Dobbins had a really good game against the Eagles,
and they're starting to use both running backs R. J.
Harvey and JK. Dobbinson. They're running the ball effectively. I
think they had like one hundred and fifty plus rushing
in that game against the Eagles. I think they'll continue
to do that. I think they found their identity a
good run game and elite defense with an incredible pass rush.

(41:29):
That's who the Broncos are. Bow Knicks getting better every week,
the team getting better every week. I feel really good
about the Broncos for the rest of the season. Here
as long as they stay healthy. Yeah, yeah, you have
to say that too.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
I can't remember the last time, Rick, that I said
I feel good about the Broncos running game right when?

Speaker 2 (41:49):
When's the last time you said that? Right before this year?

Speaker 3 (41:54):
I can't. I think you have to go back to
the Peyton Eddie era, you know, and that in those
teams we're winning basically because Peyton Manning was so damn
good and the defense was good as well, with the
no fly zone and all that. I mean, it's been
a while, it's been a while. It's been quite a
while since the Broncos have had a really good running game.

(42:14):
And I think they're top five in the league rushing
right now. So let's keep it.

Speaker 1 (42:17):
That way absolutely, Rick, enjoy the rest of your time
in England.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
We'll see you when you get back.

Speaker 3 (42:23):
It sounds good. Ross all right on your show? All right?

Speaker 2 (42:25):
Thanks man.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
All right, that's Rick Lewis broadcasting from not London but
somewhere outside outside of town and looking forward to the
Broncos game Sunday morning, seven something kickoff.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
I'll get the exact time. I should know it, but
I don't. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right
back on KOA.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
The Dow is down about five hundred points, which is
not as much as it used to be. Right, five
five hundred points used to be well in percentage terms, right,
used to be a really big number.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Now it's one and a quarter percent.

Speaker 3 (42:55):
Right.

Speaker 2 (42:55):
The Nasdaq is down two percent. That's noticeable. And I
think I think there's two things.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
Probably going on, two and a half things. One, I
think there's some profit taking. The market has been kind
of straight up for a while, and a lot of
people have a lot of profits, so they could be
taking some of those profits here and similar, you know,
kind of related to that. I think some people are
a little bit concerned about the.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
State of the economy right now.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
We are we didn't get the jobs report today that
you normally would get today on but because the of
the government shutdown so or was it last Friday, anyway,
we we didn't get Yeah, no, now, and people are
concerned because they see these little bits of data. This
isn't obvious, it's really you can't look at the economic

(43:46):
data right now and say we have a huge problem.
What you can look at is, you know, if the
whole smoke and fire metaphor, you can look at the
economic data right now and say not even like I
see a bunch of smoke billowing out of a building.
It's like, I think, maybe I smell a little bit
of smoke. I think it's like that, right. So, our

(44:07):
jobs numbers have been pretty weak for several months. More
than all of the private sector jobs created over the
last several months, basically since Donald Trump began these trade wars,
more than all of the net jobs have been created
in healthcare, which is obviously not a particularly productive segment
of the economy. That's not really not where you want

(44:28):
the jobs to be growing. It's all in healthcare, so
people are looking at that. And then also I think
in part because of the tariffs. Again, the impact of
the tariffs has not been as bad as it could
have been so far because the manufacturers have lowered their
prices a little bit to offset some of it. In
the end, the middleman have absorbed some of it as well,

(44:49):
so only some of it is being passed along to
purchasers so far. But I think that's going to start
getting a little bit worse. And Trump does keep adding tariffs.
I didn't talk about it, but the day he talked
about adding a big tariff on heavy trucks and this
sort of thing. And what you what you have noticed
in the data, though, is that the inflation numbers have
stopped going down and they're kind of persistently annoyingly high,

(45:15):
closer to three percent than to two percent. And I
do think some of that is the tariffs. And again
I'm not saying that we're in a catastrophe here, I'm
just saying I think people maybe a little worried, like
maybe things aren't quite as good as we thought. The
other thing, very specific to today, is that President Trump

(45:38):
sent out a social media post that kind of looked
like he was calling off a meeting with Xijian Ping
of China after Xijian Ping of China appears to have
made it more difficult or more expensive or both for

(46:00):
the United States to get rare earth minerals. Rare earth
minerals are things we absolutely need for many industrial processes.
The best magnets for many industrial processes, and things like
electric vehicles, for example, are made of these materials, and
China absolutely dominates them. China produces the most of the

(46:21):
ore and also has most of the world's processing. So
even if you had the ore yourself, if you don't
have the processing facility, I have to send it to
China to get processed. And it looks at this point
as if China is going to impose additional export controls
and Trump is talking about retaliating with more tariffs. And

(46:42):
Trump said, and I quote, I was to meet President
she in two weeks at APEX in South Korea, but
now there seems no reason to do so. So I
think that is part of a trigger for today. There
is almost never just one reason for stocks doing stuff.
Sometimes you get a trigger for something that might have
happened anyway, Like people see the Shiji and Ping news,

(47:03):
they think it's kind of bad. The market goes down
a little, but there's also people looking to take profits
coves to the market has gone up so much.

Speaker 2 (47:09):
Anyway, There you go for those people.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Who've asking what's going asking what's going on in the
market today, I think that's it. When we come back
former Navy Seal best selling author Jack Carr, I usually
have them by zoom, but I got on my phone
today and we are talking with my good friend Jack Carr,
who is a former Navy Seal sniper, both as an
enlisted man and as an officer and leader of men.

(47:32):
He is a multiple time best selling author and one
of the few folks who is a best selling author
in both fiction and non fiction. And his latest book
that I'm holding in my hand is called cry Havoc.
And for those of you who are reading and or
watching the Terminal List write the books the Amazon stuff,

(47:56):
cry Havoc is kind of like a pre prequel because,
as the main character and terminalists the protagonist James Reese,
this book is about James Reese's dad in the Vietnam War. Anyway,
that's enough talking from me, Hi, Jack, thanks for being here.

Speaker 6 (48:13):
Thanks so much for having me.

Speaker 3 (48:14):
I'm in the back of a speeding.

Speaker 6 (48:16):
Suburban in the rain, going from Orlando Airport to Vero
Beach for the night's book signing a vat Telfa'm so
glad we got to do this, so it's always great
to talk to you.

Speaker 2 (48:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
Likewise, for the next question, you're allowed to say, I
could tell you, but I'd have.

Speaker 2 (48:29):
To kill you.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
I am aware that recently you were traveling. Are you
allowed to tell us anything about why and where you
were traveling? Or is that I could tell you, but
I'd have to kill you. This Morocco the referring too,
if you're allowed to say it.

Speaker 3 (48:47):
I think so.

Speaker 6 (48:48):
So we finished up filming True Believer over in Morocco.

Speaker 3 (48:51):
He started filming.

Speaker 6 (48:52):
Back in February and South Africa. Got some amazing stuff
over there. Just be incredible for that part of the book.
And now the TV show that focuses on that part
of the world where James Rees goes to learn to
live again and put the films from Wrack in Afghanistan
into use against the poachers in Mozambique, and we filmed
right up there in the Poco Province. Incredible. Then what

(49:14):
to Toronto and then Morocco for a few months and
it is looking incredible. So I guess if that would
come out next summer. I don't have any exact dates yet,
nothing confirmed, but we're in post production right now. We
have all the ingredients to make an incredible show. That's
always the goal is to make the next show better
than the last one. So it's we're on that path.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
And is that Chris Pratt back, you know, like full
time in the show?

Speaker 6 (49:39):
That is that it's Chris Pratt And also Tom Hopper's
in there. We have Luke Hemsworth in there as Jules
Landry and for those people who thought we would never
ever film a torture scene the way I describe it
in the book, Well.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
Yeah, all right, So I read Cry Havoc, and for me,
this might be your best book. I mean, it's certain,
it's this is an unbelievable book.

Speaker 2 (50:08):
And you did an immense amount of research.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
And we talked a little bit about that the last
time I had you on where we were talking about
Darkwolf as much as the book. But tell me a
little bit about writing a Vietnam War story.

Speaker 6 (50:21):
Yeah, this is something I wanted to do and not
just say that there was Creeden's Clear Out of Revival
playing in the background and then it's nineteen sixty eight
to kind of leave it at that. I wanted to
immerse the reader and then myself in the writing and
the research into nineteen sixty eight. And I thought that
I had a very solid foundation when it came to
the Vietnam War, a lesson to the sixties in general.

(50:45):
And I realized that I started to write and started
the research process, that that was up the case. I
had just scratched the service. And that is why we're
talking here in October instead of in June. Because the
book took a lot longer than I thought. At the outset.
I wanted to great character to see the world only
through the lens of their life up until nineteen sixty eight,

(51:07):
so without the benefit of fifty plus years up hindsight.
So that's all they could bring to a problem set, discussion,
and advanced situation, whatever it might be, was their life
experience up until nineteen sixty eight. And that took a
lot more work than a contemporary thriller.

Speaker 1 (51:22):
Well, you can tell you did the work, you know,
when you read this book, you can tell, you can
really tell you did the work. And I think again
you and I mentioned this where you mentioned it briefly
last time we talked. But there's something that must have
been sort of liberating for you as a writer, and
also I think liberating for me as a reader. Do
not have to worry about the Internet and cell phones

(51:46):
and facial recognition and all this stuff, And it's just
like an old school war slash spy story exactly exactly.

Speaker 6 (51:56):
I didn't have to worry about test was and GPS's
and our bones and all the things that you just mentioned.
It could be pure trade craft, pure spycraft, and early phones,
and this technology of the day has to be woven
into every chapter in a contemporary thriller because it's so
all consuming in our lives, to say nothing of what
it does to an intelligence operation or the military apparatus

(52:18):
in general. And this time not having to deal with
that was amazing, And I wanted to drop an sp
and I story into the heart of Southeast Asia. Nineteen
sixty eight is the most bloody year of the war
for the United States, started with the USS Publow, which
kicks off in January and then goes for a full year.
But I wanted to drop somebody right into nineteen sixty

(52:38):
eight for someone who lived through that timeframe. I wanted
them to know that I put in the work to
try to get that right. And also to anyone who
went down range in Iraq and Afgan to Vietnam, I
wanted them to know that I've put in the work
to get the details right, so that I would on
their service and not draw them out of what I

(52:58):
thought at the beginning was a complete fictional story. But
as I moved forward, I realized there might be a
lot more fact and fiction in the story I lay
out as Julian story. Dropped into the heart of Ssaya.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
We're talking with Jack Carr about his new thriller novel,
cry Havoc. And you know, all of Jack's books are great,
but I put this up, you know, add or among
the very best. I thoroughly, thoroughly loved this book for
those who were only modestly acquainted with Jack Carr. In
addition to Jack wanted to do two things when he

(53:32):
was a kid. When he grew up, he wanted to
be a navy seal and he wanted to be a
best seller, best selling thriller author. And there's lots of
people who try one or the other, and most people
who try either one fail at either one, and Jack
has succeeded at both, which is a remarkable thing.

Speaker 2 (53:50):
But Jack's mom is a librarian.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
So when you read Jack's work, there's there are all
kinds of literary references in it that you just don't
normally get in thriller in thriller novels. And I just
want to share a little bit from page one oh
three here that that made me, that made me laugh.
Let's see, you seals, have anybody like Maggie Graves asked no,
but maybe we should nobody writes books about us though.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
And then and then it goes on, hey, are you kidding?

Speaker 1 (54:22):
They're they're talking about who's writing books?

Speaker 2 (54:24):
And then Tom says, are you kidding?

Speaker 1 (54:26):
No Seal would ever write a book, and then Graves says,
you have to learn how to write first, anyway, That's hilarious, dude.

Speaker 6 (54:34):
Yeah, yeah, I believe that sort of thing in there,
like to humanize the characters, particularly through dialogue. That's where
I really get to know the characters because I know
who they are and how they're going to move the
story forward. But I don't really get to know them
until I put them in conversation with one another. So
in this one you find out about where James Reese,
obviously decades later, is going to uh get that connection
to a tomahawk, to an at sixty eight Rolex stufmart

(54:57):
or to honey in the coffee. So there's all these
little things that are woven in there like that. Of course,
there's some nods the popular culture like Magnum Pi and
a few other things as well. But if you walked
into my office anytime over the last year, you would
have thought that I was invading North Vietnam or getting
ready to invade North Vietnam. I had maps from the
sixties all over the walls with red pins in them.
I had Car fifteen right there. I had Browning High

(55:19):
Power right there, Randall knives, Seiko watches, the sixty eight
Rolex Waltham compass that had manuals from night the sixties
on Motnyard tribes, customs, and cultures.

Speaker 3 (55:29):
And it was quite something to behold.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Wow, did you have a moduce?

Speaker 6 (55:36):
I could have probably got one, And now that we
live in Utah, I haven't had time to figure that
out yet.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
That's funny, all right.

Speaker 1 (55:43):
So one thing that stood one of many things that
stood out in cry Havoc for me and listeners know,
from time to time when we talk with authors fiction authors,
I will sometimes bring up something where I say, it's
very obvious that this is the author talking to me
at least as much as it's the character talking to me.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
And Jack does that from time to time in the books.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
And I don't have the page in front of me,
but there's a part where the characters the let's see
what is it? The Russian characters are talking about how
much work the American media is doing to hurt the
United States and turn the American public against the government

(56:29):
and all that you talk about that, do you know
what I'm talking about?

Speaker 6 (56:33):
I do, And it was I think it's really the
first time that I'm aware of, at least where it's
obvious that the press is not just a check on
government power. Their job is not just reporting. And he
saw a shift if you remember the newsreels from World
War Two with the matinees, a very different tone to

(56:53):
those than the reports on Vietnam during the sixties.

Speaker 3 (56:58):
And I think there's something.

Speaker 6 (56:59):
Morphs there, maybe fifties, early sixties, certainly around the Kennedy assassination,
where the press realizes that they and I shouldn't say
the press in general, I'm generalizing here, let's say certain
personalities in the press and realize that they aren't just
a check on government power. They can influence events, they
can influence policy, they can influence the perception of events.

(57:21):
And it's sound like that's saying where you barely get
to know somebody someone's character when you give them power.
And I think the press realized their power back then
and realized that they could use it not just to
report and check on government, but to influence the populace
and influence policy, and we really see that in nineteen sixties,
particularly nineteen sixty eight around the tet offensive.

Speaker 1 (57:44):
So do you I mean, I think this is maybe implied,
but I want to make sure I'm not reading more
into it than you intended to put there.

Speaker 2 (57:52):
So, on the one hand, you just described a.

Speaker 1 (57:54):
Recognition that the media can use their influence to change
public perception and maybe even change the behavior of government.

Speaker 2 (58:02):
Is the next step? Are you? Are you implying that
the media did that in a way.

Speaker 1 (58:09):
That you disapprove of, And if so, is it because
you think the media should never do that kind of thing,
or because of specifically what they did regarding the Vietnam
War is something that you think was bad, wrong, unethical,
something like that.

Speaker 6 (58:25):
I'm just really saying how it was really an outside
observer pointing out that shift. And of course, later we
get to news organizations where where we have opinions and
we know that someone's host is an opinion that sort
of a thing, but we're not really there yet. In
nineteen sixty eight, people think the press is the press
of World War two, and they're getting the facts from

(58:46):
those reporters on the ground, But really they're being manipulated.
And of course now it's moved well beyond that, with
the tech overlords now dominating news and being able to
through different social media PLAPF forms to be able to
influence not just someone's buying habits, but thoughts as well
as behaviors. So it's really it's morphed. And there's another

(59:09):
sentence in there that it's right around the same time,
I have the two characters on China Beach and they're
talking and talking about the difference between the Department of
Defense and Department of War precision and language being precisioned
in thoughts. So as soon as that was announced from
the administration, of course people started texting me about that,
because I've mentioned it back in two thousand and one

(59:30):
when I wrote articles about the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I
mentioned it on many news programs. I think we've even
talked about it on this show. And of course that happens.
And I'm not saying that the administration got that idea
from me. I'm just saying that I had never heard
anybody talk about it before I did back in two
thousand and one.

Speaker 3 (59:50):
That's all I'm.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
By the way, it's kind of additionally fun for me
to read this book because I've been to Denying, the
Trang Marvel Mountain, China, p H Saigon, Hanoid Lot, which
is have you been to De Lot?

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
Have you been to Vietnam?

Speaker 3 (01:00:07):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (01:00:08):
No, No, I was planning on going for this book,
and then one deadline whipped right by, then another, then another,
and so I never got to go. Oh and that
was really something I was planning on doing in January.
I was planning going in February. I was planning on
going in March, and it just never happened for this book, unfortunately.

Speaker 1 (01:00:24):
Well, hopefully you get there. A Lot is an incredible town.
You really really got to see De Lot?

Speaker 3 (01:00:30):
All right?

Speaker 6 (01:00:31):
I got two more day. Yeah, as I planned at
some point go back to tom Reeves. Not for a
few years, because yeah, it's a lot out of me,
a lot, or I bet a lot out of me.
So I'll be recovering from this one for a while.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
Oh my gosh. All right, two more questions.

Speaker 1 (01:00:44):
As you're writing this book, how often did you find
yourself having to remind yourself No, that's a thought that
somebody would not have had in nineteen sixty eight. That's
a twenty twenty five, thought I need to get that
out of there.

Speaker 6 (01:00:58):
Yeah, that was pretty much constant. It was, but it
wasn't something I catched myself doing. It was just something
I was aware of the entire time. So it wasn't like, oh,
I wrote that, Oh I got to take that out
because someone wouldn't think that back then. It was through
the very first day that I started writing this, I
was aware that I needed to take that view and
I needed to put myself back in nineteen sixty eight

(01:01:18):
in order to write the kind of book that I
wanted to write this time. So I essentually did everything
I could have transport myself back to that year so
I could transport readers back to that year. So it
never came up as oh I caught myself and I
had to take this out to something that was part
of the writing process the entire time.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
Okay, my last question for you, I'm going to come.

Speaker 1 (01:01:36):
Back to literary stuff. Who is Jean Larteguie.

Speaker 6 (01:01:44):
An author, a journalist and someone who I think and
the authors know and I forget if he was there exactly. Oh,
he was kind of mysterious. That's why I left it
mysterious because I didn't know if he was actually in
Saigon in nineteen sixty eight. He could have he possibly
could have been, but it was too hard to tell.
But he was in and out of Vietnam, in and

(01:02:04):
out of Central South America, and just everybody should look
him up and add the Centurions, uh At Victorians to
their bookshelves.

Speaker 3 (01:02:12):
I think I think.

Speaker 6 (01:02:13):
Betrayus is that talks about him quite a bit as well.
But I think I have some quotes from from those
books in in in this book and just just a
just an incredible guy before such colorful characters back then.

Speaker 1 (01:02:24):
Yeah, well, whenever you mentioned a book, you know, I
feel like I need to add it to my list.

Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
My list is infinitely long, as is as is yours.

Speaker 1 (01:02:33):
But I think you actually mentioned the Centurions two or
three times in cry Havoc, So clearly that's a bit
means something to you.

Speaker 3 (01:02:43):
It sure does.

Speaker 6 (01:02:44):
It really talks about the you know, the difference between
that uh well, the insurgents and uh and the counter
insurgent and those who sit back behind the desks and
those who go out there and do the job, and
particularly the paratroopers which we can substitute special operators for
for the word paratroopers essentially in the way that they're
they're described in those books. So yeah, a lot of

(01:03:05):
people in special operations in military circles read them.

Speaker 1 (01:03:07):
I guess I haven't you mentioned mac V SAG. I mean,
which is important to mention. Do you want to say
anything real quick about about that before we go.

Speaker 6 (01:03:15):
Absolutely, absolutely maxise dogs a very innocuous type of a name.
But these guys were doing denied operations that means going
into places where Americans were not supposed to go to
LB Cambodia, allows North Vietnam, and they did some of
the most audacious missions of the Vietnam War. So I
have Tom Reese Navy COEO attached to this unit. And

(01:03:36):
also I found out that a lot of these units
were disappearing without a trace, and that's where I came
up with this storyline about how the Soviets might have
been able to compromise these missions and then come up
with a plan to actually bring some of these guys
captured to the Soviet Union from Vietnam. So it's that's
where it all kicked off. And I think there's a
lot more fact in there in fiction.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
Yeah, I believe that, and we won't dwell on it now.
But then the numbers that you give in the book
about the casualty rate among Macvsog warriors are really stunning.
It takes a special kind of person who have done that.
I mean, it takes special kind of person who have
done what you did too. But there's something about the

(01:04:19):
way you tell the story perhaps that just seems in
my mind to raise the Macvsag guys to a special level.

Speaker 6 (01:04:27):
Well, I got the very fortunate to get to know
a lot of those guys, have them on my podcast,
read all their books, and then be able to ask
them questions throughout the writing process, send them chapters to check. Yeah,
sure I was doing them justice the way I described
their operations. So just hats off to them and everyone
who went down range during the sixties and seventies in Vietnam.
That was the day late the foundation for the rest

(01:04:48):
of us and everything that's going to come after September
eleventh when it comes to technic techniques and procedures. But
it gets to come home to the way that we did.
So pass off to all of those guys.

Speaker 1 (01:04:58):
Jack Carr's new thriller Not It's sort of partly military
thriller and very much spy thriller is called Cry Havoc.
I think it's one of Jack's very very best books,
and they're all great again. It's out now, Cry have it,
go buy it, go read it. Last ning, Jack, I
know you're going to do an event with my buddy Leland.

Speaker 2 (01:05:18):
Viddert, and I sure wish.

Speaker 1 (01:05:19):
I was thinking of flying down to Florida come meet
up with you guys, but I got to travel with Mike.
I don't have to, but I'm traveling with my kid
to go look at some colleges. So I'm going to
miss you, but have a lot of fun. You guys
should have an amazing conversation together.

Speaker 4 (01:05:33):
Thank you.

Speaker 6 (01:05:34):
Really looking forward to that one.

Speaker 2 (01:05:35):
Jack Carr, thanks for your time, Thanks for your service.

Speaker 3 (01:05:39):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (01:05:39):
Take care of talk.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
All right, all right, we're gonna take quick break. I
still have a ton of stuff. Boy, the show is
going so fast, unbelievably fast. I have an immense amount
of stuff I still want to talk about, including including
and I know this is going to sound weird when
I put it this way, but why I am so
grateful in a sense, in a sense for the fire

(01:06:02):
in Nederland, Colorado yesterday, which is right near where I
used to live.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
I'll tell you what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Right after this kadivr Our News partners Fox thirty one
up on one of the TV's in the studio here,
and it turns out that's Jim Hooley, I think, and
who used to work here. And he's in Nederland right now,
pointing at what I.

Speaker 2 (01:06:25):
Want to talk with you about. So I used to
live right near there. I didn't live in town, but
my mailing address was Nederland and we were there all
the time at this shopping center that burned down, and
I described it a little bit yesterday.

Speaker 1 (01:06:36):
I don't want to take too long on this, but
if you're coming either direction on the road in front
of the shopping center, the thing that's right up towards
the front of the road, there's two things. There's a
train car that's a coffee shop, and then there's this
fantastic merry go round. It's called the Carousel of Happiness.
It is a lovely, joyful place, with all of these
carousel animals having been hand carved by one guy over many,

(01:06:58):
many years. It's wonder Right next to that, running perpendicular
to the road is a long building, and I was
guessing one hundred yards long. I don't know, and I'm
not good, but it's a long building. And then at
the back of the parking lot, at the far end
of that long building, and now parallel to the road
is a supermarket.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
So the long building that I just described that.

Speaker 1 (01:07:21):
Had all kinds of businesses in it burned to the ground. Now,
if you go to my blog at Rosskominsky dot com,
you're gonna see a few pictures there of this. A
family friend lives less than one hundred yards from there,
and she woke up at three something in the morning

(01:07:43):
and was very confused because on the one hand, she thought, gosh,
it's very early, and on the other hand, she thought, it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
Seems like the sun is coming up.

Speaker 1 (01:07:51):
And she went out and realized that it wasn't the sun,
it was the light from the fire and this whole
building basically burning at once in this massive tower of fire.

Speaker 2 (01:07:59):
And she gathered up her dogs.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
And put on some shoes and got out of the
house and eventually went back later after.

Speaker 2 (01:08:05):
The evacuations were lifted.

Speaker 1 (01:08:07):
But I've got some of her pictures that you won't
see anywhere else up on my blog at Rosskominski dot com.
She didn't want to come onto the radio show to
talk about it, which is fine. So anyway, that building,
that huge building, Caribou Village Shopping Center had and I'm
gonna go through this list quickly, but just to give

(01:08:28):
you a sense of the damage. Remember, these are all
really small businesses that tend to employ like the business
owner and one or two other people. You know, a
restaurant will have a few more than one or two
other people.

Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
But these are locally owned businesses in a small town
that really rely on the people rely on this money
for their incomes, and the town relies on the sales
tax to fund the town as well. So these are
and let's see which.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
Let me just make sure I've got the right give
the right attribution here Daily Camera, all right. Lost lost
businesses O'Neill, Rocky, Mountain Art Kaleidoscope Fine Arts Gallery, Trace
Gringo's Restaurant, Oriental Healing Clinic, Columbine Family Care, wild Bear
Nature Center. I've been there, Mountain Man Outdoor Store, I've

(01:09:17):
been there. Very nice brewing company, I've been there. The shop,
I've been there, the damn liquor store, that's dam because
it's right near a dam. I've been there to Toatasana
Mountain Yoga. I've been there. My wife's friend runs that place,
works at that place, Brightwood Music, Augustina's Winery. I've been
there the laundry room that's a laundromat. And then also

(01:09:42):
in that building, I think, if I remember right, used
to be the police station.

Speaker 2 (01:09:48):
But I think what.

Speaker 1 (01:09:48):
Happened was they closed the police department and made it
a sheriff's sheriff's deputy substation.

Speaker 2 (01:09:54):
So that whole building is gone. That whole building is gone.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
Now, if I'm going to look on the bright side,
I will say there are two things. One is the
building is I didn't realize this until yesterday. The building
is owned by Steven Tebow. Stephen Tebou is one of
the richest guys in Colorado, one of the biggest real
estate developers in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:10:18):
He's a local guy.

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
And so makes that gives me some decent amount of
confidence that that building will be rebuilt and that he
will do everything he can to help the people who
were in his tent, who were his tenants, to get
going again. I was afraid that this maybe was going
to be owned by like one person who's owned it
for forty years.

Speaker 2 (01:10:38):
And I never heard of him.

Speaker 1 (01:10:38):
And they don't have any money, and they don't have
any resources, and they're going to turn it into apartments
or something.

Speaker 2 (01:10:43):
But no, Steven Tebou owns this.

Speaker 1 (01:10:46):
And if there's anybody in Colorado who can afford to,
you know, just make sure this gets rebuilt and knows
how to do it, it's him. So that's good. Here's
the other thing though, that occurred to me yesterday. How
on God's green earth did nothing else burn? It is
an absolute freaking miracle. That is a whole old town, especially.

Speaker 2 (01:11:13):
In that part of town where.

Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
Especially right across the street, you are talking about hundreds
of small old houses made out of wood and all
around there forest, and I mean the supermarkets made out
of wood.

Speaker 2 (01:11:31):
Was the city market unaffected? I didn't see any.

Speaker 1 (01:11:35):
I think there was a little bit of smoke damage
to the BNF Supermarket, if that's what you're talking about. Yeah,
I think it had a little bit of smoke damage,
but it didn't burn down. And the same thing with
the Carousel of Happiness, a little bit of smoke damage,
but it didn't burn down. I mean you think about
what happened with the Los Angeles fire and this guy
who just got arrested and all that. With the Palisades fire,
that is, this guy started a different fire that they,

(01:12:00):
I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:12:00):
Thought was put out, but winds kicked up.

Speaker 1 (01:12:02):
A day or two later and blew the embers that
started the Palisade Fire that destroyed thousands of homes and
billions of dollars of damage with a little bit of wind.

Speaker 2 (01:12:12):
And look, I mean, you're talking about Netherland, Colorado.

Speaker 1 (01:12:14):
You're talking about the heart of National Forest and near
the Oldorra Ski area and all this and nothing else burned.
It's a miracle. Really, Just how does that happen? So
so lucky? And they have a small fire department, They
have a small volunteer fire department. Right, I'm sure that

(01:12:35):
lots of other resources were brought to bear as soon
as possible, But the fact that nothing else burned, nobody died,
I don't even know if anybody was injured, is just
I'm not the kind of person who really believes in miracles,
but oh my gosh, that's as close to a miracle
as I can imagine. That nothing else burned, and this

(01:12:57):
is a terrible thing for the for the people who
have these businesses in that building, right the breweries and
the winery, in the restaurant, and the.

Speaker 2 (01:13:05):
Mountain Man and all this.

Speaker 1 (01:13:07):
The guy who owns Mountain Man, his name is John Thompson,
and he's quoted in this Boulder Daily camera piece. He said,
because he got a text in the middle of the
night that the shopping center was on fire, he said,
I jumped up, throwing a sweatshirt and pants, walked over there,
and by the time I got to it, the entire
western side.

Speaker 2 (01:13:25):
Of the building was engulfed in flames.

Speaker 1 (01:13:28):
And he sold new and used outdoor clothing there for
twelve years. And he described it as watching my hopes
and dreams melt away in front of me. The guy
who owns very nice brewing company said it's probably close
to half of all businesses in Netherland that were in
that building and were destroyed overnight. He said the impact

(01:13:50):
can't be overstated, and for all the people who worked there.
That brewery was going to turn thirteen years old later
this month. He said, I'm just very numb right now
and confused.

Speaker 3 (01:14:00):
Used.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
Yesterday I had a brewery there, and now I don't
It's like a limb has been cut off. And I
have no idea about like insurance coverage for any of
these people for what they had of their own stuff.
I assume Steven Tebow had insurance on the building overall,
but that's not gonna protect the guys. I assume that's
not gonna protect the guy's brewing equipment that was in

(01:14:20):
the unit. I don't know what insurance any of those
people had. But again, as terrible as this fire was,
it and it was, all I keep thinking is that
could have been so much worse. Coming up sometime in
the rest of the show, and there's not that much

(01:14:42):
show left, I'm going to give away a pair of
tickets to see Paul McCartney, Can you Believe It?

Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
Tomorrow night?

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
Paul McCartney McCartney Tomorrow Night at Corsefield, So you don't
want to stick around to be able to win those.
Also coming up, coming up in the next several minutes
is this hour's chance to win a thousand bucks in
our keyword for King Gosh, thanks to Mercedes of Littleton
that's Mercedesoflittleton dot com. At some point during today's show,
and today's show only has thirty five minutes left in it.

(01:15:09):
I'm going to be given away a pair of tickets
to see Paul McCartney at Coursefield tomorrow night, so you
might want to stick around for that. Let me just
do a few minutes here kind of news, and I'm.

Speaker 2 (01:15:23):
Gonna do this first thing, and then we're gonna.

Speaker 1 (01:15:24):
Talk about why the stock market is down so much.
Right now, I talked about it a little more. I
talked about it before. I've read a little more during
the break, so I have a somewhat clearer picture I
think goes right before, but got a little more to say.
So from the Wall Street Journal, though this is not
the stock market part. The other thing Wall Street Journal,
and this was posted twenty minutes ago. White House starts

(01:15:44):
firing government workers. Now, this has been threatened for a while,
right the head of Offices, Management and Budget, his name
is Russell Vaught, and he came from Heritage Foundation, was
very much involved with Project twenty twenty five and very
conservative guy, budget cutting guy, government cutting guy. And they
have threatened. They've threatened the Democrats essentially, if you don't

(01:16:08):
vote to open the government, we're just gonna start firing
government workers. Because government workers not just in the perception
of Trump and Russ Vought. But government workers are Democrats
by and large, not all federal government workers mostly, and.

Speaker 2 (01:16:25):
That's not wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:16:26):
And it was interesting actually to hear Trump say it
out loud yesterday. He said, if this government shut down
keeps going, he said, We're not just going to start
cutting programs. Trump said, We're going to start cutting Democrat programs. Now,
to be clear, there was a very stupid thing to
say out loud.

Speaker 2 (01:16:42):
I don't blame him for thinking it. I don't even
blame him for doing it.

Speaker 1 (01:16:46):
Pretty dumb to say it, because some liberal judge is
going to say, well, that's not a legitimate reason to
cut a government program, and therefore we're going to restore it,
and then it'll go to a higher court, and a
higher court at some point the Supreme Court will probably say,
I'm guessing I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will probably say,

(01:17:07):
it doesn't matter why he did it. He has the
authority to do it, That's my guess, much like when
they did the immunity case.

Speaker 2 (01:17:13):
Where I think they actually went too far. But in
the immunity case, remember they.

Speaker 1 (01:17:18):
Said that as an example, well, this was this was
in a dissent. But what one of the dissenters, what Sodomayor,
said was that the ruling in the immunity case means
that a president could take a bribe for a pardon
and there'd be nothing you could do about it. Now,
let's just assume that that's right. The immunity case said

(01:17:38):
anything that is within the president's constitutional authority to do
as president, to order the FBI to do something, for example,
or to give a pardon, you can't criminally charge him
over anything he does that falls within those powers, no
matter what it was he ordered them to do, and
no matter why it was, he ordered them to do it.
And I think that this kind of thing will fall

(01:17:59):
under that. They quoted Russell Vought saying the riffs reduction
in force, so that means firing people on mass.

Speaker 2 (01:18:05):
The riffs have begun, he posted on x.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
A top White House official and they're talking about him now,
said today that mass layoffs of federal employees have started
in response to the government shutdown, following through on weeks
of threats meant to ramp up pressure on Democrats. So
this has started now, and it'll be very interesting to
see how this plays out. Politically over the weekend. These guys,

(01:18:31):
and when I see these guys, I mean President Trump
his administration.

Speaker 2 (01:18:35):
Are not well.

Speaker 1 (01:18:37):
They are playing hardball. They are not messing around. They
don't want the Democrats to win this argument. They don't
want the Democrats to win anything. And frankly, Republicans have
historically have lost these battles in terms of public opinion.
The Democrats have always been better at it than Republicans have.
And I think Trump and a few Republicans are sick

(01:18:58):
of it. So they're going down this road. It is
really quite remarkable at this moment. I have no idea
what they're cutting, but they're clearly cutting some and they're
just firing people.

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
Now, they're just firing people.

Speaker 1 (01:19:12):
So I'll tell you what, because I want to give
this the time that it deserves, and because it's super interesting.
When we come back, I do have many things still
to talk about, and well, it'll be the last segment
of the show, so I'll be giving away Paul McCartney
tickets in this upcoming segment, but I am going to
spend a little time talking about what blew up the

(01:19:32):
stock market today.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
We'll be right back on Kowa.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
Ross for name that tune. Consider that Judas Priest is
playing tonight. That's from Matt.

Speaker 3 (01:19:41):
Matt.

Speaker 1 (01:19:42):
I did not know that my name that tune song
is chosen already and it is not Judas Priest. But
I appreciate that Ross. With today's regulations and restrictions, that
building in Netherland will never be rebuilt. Well, they really
have to build some kind of multi tenant commercial there.
It's not going to be rebuilt with that construction right,

(01:20:03):
made out.

Speaker 2 (01:20:03):
Of old wood and all that stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:20:05):
Of course, it'll be built to much higher standards now,
but I sure do hope that they rebuild something that'll
work for all those tenants who were there, assuming they
still want to they want to come back.

Speaker 2 (01:20:15):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (01:20:16):
This is a kind of a wacky listener text, but
I'm gonna share it with you.

Speaker 3 (01:20:19):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
They say good things come to those who wait, But
what about mediocre things? Last night after work, I went
to pick up pizza for Pizza and beer Day for
my wife and I. I went to a highly rated
on a restaurant that's highly rated on Yelp four point
seven out of five.

Speaker 2 (01:20:34):
They told me it would.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
Be twenty minutes, which I agreed to, and I had
a beer, but it took about forty minutes instead, And
then when I got home we had pizza and meatballs,
and I think they were just okay. So if we
waited less, I think they would have tasted better.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
Do you agree? And I'm not sure whether.

Speaker 1 (01:20:50):
The question is like actually about the food or whether
it's a psychology question.

Speaker 2 (01:20:56):
And I think it might be a.

Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Psychology question, And that is I think think maybe what
the listener is asking is, do you think maybe somehow
the food just didn't taste as good to us because
they made us wait a lot longer for it, and
so we just weren't quite as positive a mood about it.
And I do think that's possible. Actually, I definitely think
that's possible. Ross for those of us who rely, at

(01:21:20):
least in part on federal agencies for grants and contracts
for business, the threatened firings will trickle down, and we
are already laying people off here in Colorado. Yeah, for sure,
the governments shut down by itself, and then true layoffs,
not to be confused with temporary furloughs, but actually firing people,
which the.

Speaker 2 (01:21:40):
Government is federal government is doing.

Speaker 1 (01:21:42):
Right now in order to pressure Democrats in devoting to
reopen the government.

Speaker 2 (01:21:48):
This will have downstream.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
Effects in lots of places in America, lots of places, right,
and it'll be roughly proportionate to the number of people
who work for the government or work for contractors or
other businesses that live off of government funding. And there
surely are some of those here in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
If I had unlimited money, I would bribe Paul McCartney
to play the Cars for Kids jingle as his opening number.

Speaker 2 (01:22:17):
Why would you do that? Why would you do that?

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
And you know what, I think that Paul McCartney is
so rich that he wouldn't care how much you offered him,
even if you did have unlimited money, and that Paul
McCartney would not stoop to the level of playing the
Cars for Kids jingle.

Speaker 2 (01:22:33):
That's my that's my guess. That's my guess.

Speaker 1 (01:22:37):
So, Shannon, I need you to brainstorm with me. I
need you to brainstorm with me. How should we give
away a pair of Paul McCartney tickets. I got a
pair of Paul McCartney tickets there he's playing tomorrow night
at a at coursefield and I have a pair to
give away, and I have to say I'll be slightly

(01:22:59):
jealous of whoever wins, because I don't have any tickets.
But that's one of the fun parts of this job
is giving stuff away. So how do you think we
should You have any clever idea, Shannon, how.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
To give stuff away?

Speaker 3 (01:23:10):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:23:11):
Maybe little?

Speaker 1 (01:23:13):
Then we had fun this morning asking people his middle name. Yeah,
but people probably heard that already. Okay, I have an idea.
Here's what we're gonna do. I would like you listeners
to text me at five six six nine zero right

(01:23:34):
now with your suggestion for what I should do to
give away Paul McCartney tickets, like maybe a trivia question
or something. Text me at five six six nine zero
and tell me how you think I should give away
the McCartney tickets. And I'll do that in a little bit,
because obviously there's only fifteen or so minutes left in
the show and I got to do it today. Let
me talk about the stock markets a little bit. So

(01:23:54):
I had noticed earlier the market was kind of weak
starting the day, but no big deal. Just seemed like
a little profit taking, nothing really worth calling home about,
as they say. And then suddenly the market started sinking
much more aggressively. And let's see it's a commercial right
now on the financial network that I have in going

(01:24:15):
on here in the studio. But it looks like the
DAO is maybe down somewhere around somewhere around five hundred points.
A few minutes ago I saw it down around six
hundred points. But anyway, so it's not a huge sell off,
but it's noticeable. And the Nasdaq is down, particularly the
Nasdaq is down over two percent. So what has set

(01:24:36):
this off today? And I'm going to go to the
Wall Street Journal now a piece that they put out
just a bit of go Trump threatens higher tariffs on China,
sighting restrictions.

Speaker 2 (01:24:46):
On rare earth elements. So this is what's going on.

Speaker 1 (01:24:51):
China announced new export restrictions on rare earth minerals, which
are critical components of products from semiconductors to electric vehicles
and jet fighters. China dominates processing capabilities for rare earth minerals,
giving it leverage over the US and other nations.

Speaker 2 (01:25:07):
So let me just take a step back here.

Speaker 1 (01:25:08):
We've talked about this in the past when Trump's first
started some of these trade wars, and the President had
said that since we buy so much more from China
than they buy from us. Trump's perception was that we
had essentially all the leverage in any kind of trade
negotiation with China, and.

Speaker 2 (01:25:30):
What I said at the time was, well.

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
Yeah, the fact that we buy so much from them
gives us some leverage, but we definitely don't have all
the leverage because, and this is the Kena, a lot
of what China buys from us they can buy from
other places. And one perfect example of that is China
stopped buying American soybeans and they have up their purchases

(01:25:55):
of Brazilian soybeans and now Argentinian soybeans, right, And so
that's part of the reason that Trump is probably gonna
have to go bribe the farmers with taxpayer money in
order to keep them from turning against him because he's
hurting their income so much with this trade war with China.
But in any case, my point is China can buy
much of no, maybe not everything, but much of what

(01:26:16):
it buys from us they can buy elsewhere. And the
stuff that they buy from us that they can't buy elsewhere,
they probably don't care about all that much.

Speaker 2 (01:26:27):
There are some things they will really need.

Speaker 1 (01:26:28):
Maybe certain semiconductors, things like that it wouldn't surprise me
if Donald Trump goes back to Nvidia and companies like
that saying Okay, you can't sell any chips to China,
which is a double edged sword because when you do that,
you push China to develop its own chip industry much faster,
and they are doing that in any case. The flip
side of this coin is it's true that there's lots

(01:26:51):
of stuff that Americans buy from China that we don't
really need, you know, you know, some cheap thing you're
gonna buy on Sheian or where. But there is an
immense amount of stuff that American businesses in particular buy
from China that cannot be sourced anywhere else at this time,

(01:27:16):
and rare earth minerals fall into that category. There was
there is almost no other global supplier right now, and
certainly not a global supplier of a scale to support
all the United States' economic needs for rare earth minerals,
for all this stuff I was telling about right in semiconductors,

(01:27:38):
electric vehicles, jet fighters, and so on. So this is
why China has a lot of leverage, right China has
a lot of leverage because even though we buy more
from them by a lot than they buy from us.
What we buy from them and what they can refuse

(01:27:58):
to sell to us is at least some stuff that
we basically cannot do without and cannot sup and cannot.

Speaker 2 (01:28:07):
Provide for ourselves.

Speaker 1 (01:28:11):
Mhm h Shannon, can you look at the listener texts
and pick a trivia question for Paul McCartney A pick
a trivia question that we should use to give away
Paul McCartney tickets. I'm gonna I'm gonna let you make that,
make that decision about how we should give him away.

Speaker 2 (01:28:27):
Well, I keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:28:28):
So so President Trump now said that he's looking at
imposing massive tariffs on stuff coming from China, and the
problem with that, and as far as the stock market,
as far as the economy is keep in mind that
a tariff is a sales tax, and China and the
importers can try to absorb a little bit of it.

(01:28:51):
But if he's imposing a massive sales tax on stuff
coming from China, it's going to increase the cost to
everybody who needs to buy any of this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:29:02):
And at some point either companies will say.

Speaker 1 (01:29:04):
I can't afford that, and I'm going to shut down
my company and we're just going to go out of business,
or they will raise prices and they will have to
pass that along to the consumer, and then the consumer,
if it's something you must have, will end up having
to buy that thing at a higher price, but then
not having the money to buy some other thing. And
in short, this has a real chance of turning into stagflation,

(01:29:29):
essentially higher prices in a slowing economy. And I think
that's part of what the stock market is looking at
right now. I note as an indicator of how people
feel about the economy, oil prices are getting crushed today.

Speaker 2 (01:29:47):
Okay, let me go look great here, hold on, come on,
I'm on a particular website that I like looking at
called investing dot Com. Oil is down.

Speaker 1 (01:29:58):
The US oil contract is down four percent, right, that's
a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:30:02):
Four percent in a day is a lot. I'm trying.

Speaker 1 (01:30:05):
And the front month crude oil contract right now is
trading fifty nine dollars a barrel. Yesterday it was sixty
one and a half, So fifty nine dollars a barrel,
and I'm trying to look at the last time it
traded this low was very very briefly this past April.

Speaker 2 (01:30:27):
All right, very briefly this past April.

Speaker 1 (01:30:29):
It traded this low, but that was like for maybe
a day or two days, and before that you have
to go back. I don't know how far you have
to go back some years, a few years to get
an oil price this low. And so to me, that's
saying we think that this is going to put significant

(01:30:51):
downward pressure on the economy and perhaps push us into recession.
So that is why the stock market is down, and
just a thing to keep an eye on. I note
also that President Trump was supposed to meet with with
the Chinese premiere Shijien Ping at the APEC meeting, and
Trump has now said I don't really see any point
in doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:31:12):
So there's that. Shannon, have you come up with with
an answer? Is there a you read this stuff? What
do you mean?

Speaker 4 (01:31:20):
I don't know it?

Speaker 2 (01:31:22):
Well, it did something?

Speaker 1 (01:31:23):
Did did anything jump out at you?

Speaker 4 (01:31:27):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:31:27):
Uh, you're not being very helpful.

Speaker 1 (01:31:29):
Why yeah, sudden sudden change in my disposition?

Speaker 2 (01:31:35):
That's right, all right? People are asking about the Broncos
game name. Oh my gosh, all right, hang on, let's see.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
I expected a little more help from listeners and from Shannon,
But I have an I have an idea. There is
there is a question here that I that I kind
of like, so, all right, why don't we Why don't
we do this? This is a pretty good question. All right,
here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna and don't do
anything yet because I'm gonna give you a time delay.

(01:32:04):
This is like a little time delay fuse that I
do so that people who are listening on the stream
as well have a chance to win. As I speak,
it is about eleven forty seven AM. So let me
write this down. So what we're gonna do is we're
gonna take texter number Texter number seven, Texter number seven

(01:32:29):
at eleven fifty three AM. Texter number seven at eleven
fifty three AM at five six, six nine zero. That
has the correct answer to this question. And this is
a listener suggestion. What is the name of Paul McCartney's

(01:32:53):
first solo album? What is the name of Paul McCartney's
first solo album? Texter number seven at eleven fifty three AM.

Speaker 2 (01:33:05):
By my clock, not yours.

Speaker 1 (01:33:08):
If you're listening on well, wherever you're listening, and you
want to do a little synchronizing with me, I will
say beep when it's exactly eleven forty eight on my clock.
All right, here we go three two one beep.

Speaker 3 (01:33:23):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:33:24):
Five minutes from that beep, text number seven at five
six six nine zero. Oh, I do need if you
would please, I would like in your text your name
and your email address. Your name, your email address, and
the name of Paul McCartney's first solo album. And I
gotta says it's rare than I'm kind of jealous of
a giveaway, but I am of this one. This is
a ridiculously great, great giveaway. Oh my gosh, is this awesome?

Speaker 3 (01:33:50):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:33:52):
All right, I promised this story earlier, and I don't
usually do like this slightly serious stuff towards the end
of a show on a Friday, but I I want
to try to be a little bit better because I'm
not very good at this. I want to try to
be a little bit better at making sure that if
I promise you a story at some point during the show,
that I actually get to it. And so I promised

(01:34:13):
this much earlier and I want to get to it now.

Speaker 2 (01:34:16):
And the way I.

Speaker 1 (01:34:17):
Sort of teased it was, Hey, I'm going to explain
why Denver Public Schools is mad at ICE, ICE being
immigration and custom Enforcement and here's the headline at the
Denver Post. DPS warns of financial catastrophe that's their word,
after unexpected enrollment drop and possible funding cuts, and the

(01:34:39):
sub head of the subtitle of the article, Denver Public
Schools Superintendent Alex Morrero says the district will need to
close to close schools if a trifecta of budget threats materialize.
So there are a few things that pose threats to
the Denver Public Schools budget.

Speaker 2 (01:34:57):
Declining student enrollment.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
Anticipated budget cuts from the state and the federal governments.
And as the Denver Post puts it, so far, only
one of those has happened. And this is the key.
Now Denver Public Schools is down twelve hundred students and
because of that, they will get eighteen and a half
million dollars less per year in the funding that comes

(01:35:22):
to the school districts to the school district based.

Speaker 2 (01:35:24):
On the per pupil funding formula.

Speaker 1 (01:35:28):
And what's interesting about this, right, so they're very, very
worried and they're mad at ice.

Speaker 3 (01:35:34):
Like.

Speaker 1 (01:35:35):
In fact, Morero, who's the superintendent, said, if this is
not evidence of how impactful ICE raids and threats are
and the reason that they're down Mandy, you're really short today,
You're really short.

Speaker 2 (01:35:50):
He's not kidding. There, we go try that again. All right,
that's better.

Speaker 1 (01:35:54):
So the reason that Denver Public Schools is scrambling is
because they had a huge influx in the prior couple
of years of illegal alien kids. And now what's going
on with Ice and the Trump people and the actual deportations,
but also the self deportations of people who don't want
to get caught up by the government. They're leaving and

(01:36:17):
they're taking their kids with them. So these twelve hundred
students that DPS is losing, and the money that they're
going to lose because of it is almost entirely based
on this article illegal alien kids leaving.

Speaker 2 (01:36:33):
And I can't feel bad about that.

Speaker 3 (01:36:38):
I can't.

Speaker 1 (01:36:38):
I mean, it sounds a little heartless, but I hope
they go somewhere, and I hope they have a good education.
But I don't need my tax dollars and your tax
dollars to be paying for the education for twelve just
in that district, twelve hundred illegal alien kids who were
invited here by Mike Johnston and his predecessors.

Speaker 7 (01:36:57):
Hi, Mandy, I hope they go home. Yes, they don't
have to live in the shadows. They can go home,
right and then maybe if they go home, then they
can reapply for actual asylum and go through the Yeah,
we'd love to have you at that point.

Speaker 1 (01:37:12):
Couldn't agree more. I'm very pro immigration. As Mandy said,
do it the right way. Hey, folks, if you're listening
on the podcast right now, that's the end of today's show.
Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget 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

(01:37:34):
old fashioned way on your radio.

Speaker 2 (01:37:36):
Thanks so much for listening to the show.