10-14-25 - *FULL SHOW* Jimmy Sengenberger Filling In For Ross

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good to be with you.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
On the program with again another day of so much
to discuss. Got some local issues, some national stuff. We're
going to run the gamut as per usual, and look,
the reality is that we live in a day and age,
as I was saying just yesterday, where things happen, the

(00:27):
world changes, and it's never a dull moment. Five six
sixty nine zero is the KOA common Spirit health text line.
If you want to join in to the festivities, you know,
yesterday we spend a good amount of time talking about
the significant achievement of the Trump administration with the peace

(00:52):
deal between Israel and Hamas and the involvement of the
Golf Arab countries, actually more than just the Golf, dozens
of countries, including I think all the Arab nations that
were party to a big summit yesterday after President Trump

(01:14):
spoke to the Kanesse the Israeli Parliament in a barn
storming address.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
And to me, it was significant, as we discussed.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yesterday, that you had these partners brought to the table
because it seemed to be a change to reflect a
changed dynamic in all of this where you have Arab
countries wanting to be a part of this and maybe
helping to assure longer term peace. But in the process,

(01:47):
of course, of these kinds of events, you never know
what Trump might say.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
And I found it interesting and kind of.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Entertaining to see and hear the resident of the United States,
a notorious critic of the media for their bad unfair coverage,
compliment the media on their coverage, because quite frankly, how
could you spend this bad unless you are in fact

(02:17):
an outright Jew hater, which there are far too many,
And we'll get to that on the program today about
continuing anti Semitism, But barring that, how could you spin
this as anything but positive?

Speaker 1 (02:33):
And you're even going to get Trump's compliments.

Speaker 3 (02:37):
I want to thank the media for you've been so
respectful on this year. You know the importance of the deal,
and I really.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
It was so.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Pleasant to watch.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
I was on the plane for quite a while listening
to the various newscasts and.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
They were all fair.

Speaker 3 (02:51):
They were talking about how incredible this is.

Speaker 4 (02:53):
This is an.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
Incredible day for the world, let alone in the Middle East.
So I just wanted to thank the media. They really
treated it with respect.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
I wish you could be like that on other things.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
But that's perhaps too much to ask for, But on
this tremendous everybody feels the same, just tremendous respect, and
we appreciate it very much.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
Now here's the thing, though, of course Trump will want
to praise the media if they actually give him positive
coverage or fair coverage, as.

Speaker 1 (03:21):
He sees it.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
But if you actually listened to how he said that,
I would suggest to you that he was speaking genuinely,
like this is a proud achievement, something he's really upbeat about,
with good reason, with good cause, and he's sharing the
credit with his staff, with his secretary of Stage, with

(03:48):
Steve Whitkoff, the Special Envoy for the Middle East, and
on and on it goes. And I think that actually
showed a genuine side to Trump, while also giving in
to his impulses for coverage that he approves of or
to denounce coverage he disapproves of.

Speaker 1 (04:08):
But he said something else.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
When I was able to go back and watch more
of the speech from the Kanesse earlier in the day,
the President said something about Israel and Jerusalem that is
important context here, and we hadn't thought about yesterday.

Speaker 3 (04:29):
Booking promises from many other American presidents you know that
they kept promising.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
I never understood it until I got there.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
There was a lot of pressure put on these presidents.
It was put on me too, but I didn't yield
to the pressure. But every president for decades said we're
going to do it.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
The difference is I kept.

Speaker 3 (04:48):
My promise and officially recognized the capital of Israel and
moved the American embassy to Jerusalem.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
That was massive.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
Do you remember when he did this during his and
it was as though all hell was going to break loose.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
How dare he move the capital Jerusalem?

Speaker 2 (05:08):
What is the Arab world going to say, They're going
to be infuriated, They're going to retaliate, They're going to
reject Trump all the more. And yet they did not.
And here we are where his ability to rope them
in continues to bring more into the fold. You had

(05:32):
the Abraham Accords, which were around the time of and
I think even after.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
That it really launched. If I recall correctly.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
The move of recognizing the capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,
and the fact that he was able to retain them
to keep it, to keep the relationships intact now years
life later, with his second term, I think is pretty

(06:04):
noteworthy and remarkable, and it's interesting sometimes how some of
the people on TV news will talk about it. And
I think there's a point to what Newt Gingrich says
about how historians will look at what Trump is accomplished here.

Speaker 5 (06:23):
Historians are going to study for the next fifty years
to try to understand what was the magic that President
Trump brought. You know, he first talked about this in
a speech that Jared Kushman wrote for Apex during the
campaign in two thousand and ten sixteen, So he was

(06:43):
thinking and talking about peace in the Middle East all
the way through. And the amazing thing about President Trump,
and maybe it's because he's Agemini, so has twins. He
can focus totally on the moment, and yet the other
part of him is strategically thinking years and decades ahead,
and the two somehow come together in a way that's

(07:04):
almost magical.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
I mean, it's a little bit hyperbolic to say almost magical,
But then again is it because this was a historic
achievement when you put in the in the context of
everything that has happened since that speech he mentioned in
twenty sixteen, onto the speech in Riodd Saudi Arabia, the

(07:27):
first country, first region that Trump visited as president of
the United States, the Jerusalem move.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
We just talked about.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
Pulling out of the Iranian nuclear Deal, which he also
talked about yesterday, and this year, what he's done as president,
including the strike on Iran, which everybody said, not everybody,
A lot of people I sure didn't said this is

(08:04):
going to start World War three? Didn't you have the
resolution of the war in Gaza with some positive potential?
I mean, it really is remarkable. So is magical too hyperbolic?
I don't know if it really is. I do believe

(08:26):
that Trump deserves and I've said it for years and years,
just on the Abraham Accords alone.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
Now this as well.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, and the fact that
he was willing to stick it to Iran is significant
as well. Here's something he said yesterday.

Speaker 3 (08:39):
The setbacks really started when President Obama signed the rand
Nuclear Deal. This was a disaster for Israel and it
was a disaster for everyone. And I remember that Bbnett
Yahoo came to the United States and worked so hard
to try and get Obama not to do that deal.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
He worked so.

Speaker 3 (09:07):
Hard, but it was like talking to a wall. I
remember I'm telling them it was like talking to a wall.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
They wanted to go with Iran.

Speaker 3 (09:17):
They chose Iran, frankly, over a lot of other good nations,
but specifically Israel. And that was the beginning of a
very bad period of time. You had Obama go out
and the Iran nuclear deal turned out to be a disaster.
And by the way, one terminated the Iran nuclear deal,
and I was very proud to do it.

Speaker 1 (09:39):
Entirely worth mentioning.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
I don't know if he also mentioned it at the
Gaza summit with golf Arab countries present, who were clearly
pleased about that. I doubt he did, but I think
he would have still gotten applause there had he done so,
because they didn't like the nuclear deal. And one of
the reasons that the Abraham Accords came about is because
the Trump administration came in. They saw how concerned Arab

(10:05):
countries were, Saudi Arabia and their allies were about the
Iranian nuclear deal and the threat of Iran their common enemy,
that they were already engaging in back channel negotiations and
discussions with Israel. And the Trump administration saw that and
turned everything on its head by saying Okay, let's go

(10:25):
ahead and withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal, and let's
see what we can do to make it official for
these Arab countries as many as we can get to
start making peace with Israel. And I think the objective
now of this term of Trump is to expand the

(10:46):
Abraham courts, and that is underlying just about every policy
that you see from Trump in the Middle East, to
expand the Abraham accurts. And I think this resolution over
the weekend helps to accomplish that a great deal at
least in terms of laying groundwork for expansion.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
Filling in for Ross Kaminsky, just getting started here on KOA. Well,
guess what folks prepare for the price of housing, furniture,
things like that to possibly get even more expensive. This
from the Wall Street Journal. President Trump ushered in new
terriffs on imported furniture, kitchen cabinets, and lumber on Tuesday,

(11:31):
adding a fresh round of levees as he once again
threatened to expand this trade war with China is trade
war terrorists ranging from ten to fifty percent on foreign
wood products and furniture snapped into effect just after midnight overnight.
The terriffs are meant to encourage more domestic logging and

(11:55):
furniture manufacturing, but critics say that the levees will raise
prices for American consumers and could slow industries, including home building,
that rely on materials from abroad. That's the key thing here.
Whether it is an American manufacturing company that say, I
don't know, makes cans and happens to get aluminum from

(12:20):
Canada and it's a lot more expensive with terrafts for
them to wholesale that material, or it's a furniture manufacturer
here in the United States or housing a homebuilder, or
the list goes on. For those who use raw materials

(12:42):
for whatever.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
They are making.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
We often think about the obvious, Oh well, okay, the
iPhone's coming in from China, so let's tear if the iPhone.
But how about the components that are made in the
United States and the materials that are sourced from overseas.
For those components, read eye Pencil by Leonard Reed. If

(13:08):
you haven't, I'm sure Ross has talked. I know he's
talked about eye pencil.

Speaker 1 (13:11):
I've heard it.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Eyepencil is one of the most legendary economic writings of
all time, because it lays out all the little parts
of a pencil, then you might not even think of,
from the lead to the wood, to the rubber, to
the metal at the top part of the pencil, to
other smaller components that are pulled in from all around

(13:37):
the world and then ultimately manufactured into what we know
as the full pencil.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
And that's a great powerful reminder.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Of the fact that the world is in fact interconnected,
that the economies of various countries can't just be separated.
There's a reliance that is in place intrinsically, and by
the way, that's not a bad thing in and of itself.

Speaker 1 (14:11):
There are some goods that, of course we.

Speaker 2 (14:13):
Want to have ready and easy access to, but the
idea that most of our manufacturing might be overseas is
actually not a bad thing for a variety of reasons
I don't have time to get into now. But the
point I'm really getting at in this moment is that

(14:33):
there is either an ignorance or a complete willful disregard
for the fact that you have components for things that
are brought in from all around the world, that when
their prices go up, then the prices of the end
goods here in the United States or anywhere in the world.

Speaker 1 (14:55):
Let's say we have.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
A component that's manufactured overseas, then then X component is
manufactured here using that piece, and then the rest of
the product is put together in another country, and then
it comes to the United States and the final product.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
There are tariffs at all those levels.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
If they're coming into the United States and taxed, and
then that adds to the price of the end good.

Speaker 1 (15:20):
Well, we only think about the end good.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
This is an example here with the tariffs on lumber,
for example, that underscore it's not just about the end good.
It's also about the components that go into the things
that we buy and we use. And with housing as
expensive as it is, let alone, when you want to
furnish your house, it's just absurd need to redirect. That's

(15:46):
for darn shore. Speaking of housing, what if single family
homes were to be eradicated or not to be the
requirement rather. While that's happening across the state of Common, Colorado,
and so residents in Littleton are pushing back. We will
talk with one of the folks from rooted in Littleton

(16:07):
behind a ballot Measure three, a dealing with that exact topic.
Could this effect auxiliary dwelling units we'll talk about that,
are accessory dwelling units. We'll talk about that coming up
with Mark Harris on the other side on KOA. One
of the things that Colorado has been advancing is an

(16:28):
effort to change local zoning codes in a manner pushed
by the legislature, the General Assembly, with the direct involvement
and support of Governor Jared Polis, particularly over the past
couple of years, mandating all kinds of changes to land

(16:49):
use rules, from housing units per parcel to how parking
set up, things along those lines. The Denver Gazette, where
of course I'm a columnist, recently editorialized about this in

(17:10):
a piece titled Don't heard Colorados into density zoning, noting
that it doesn't make sense for local governments to pull
the rug out from under neighborhoods where longstanding zoning rules
have protected the property values and the historic right to
peaceful enjoyment of one's property of single family homeowners for generations.

(17:36):
So there are efforts across the state to protect the
ability to engage in and ensure single family zoning, including
one ballot measure in Littleton three A concerning the preservation
of neighborhood land use restrictions. There are several questions in

(17:59):
subjects that you here, including whether or not this could
impact the ability to construct accessory dwelling units, those additional
buildings that a lot of folks have increasingly been constructing
on their property which could potentially be used for housing
somebody else. Let's talk about this proposal and its potential

(18:21):
implications with Mark Harris. He's a Littleton homeowner, a board
member with rooted in Lyttleton, which is advancing this measure
three A, and he helped draft three A in the
view of the proponents, to protect single family neighborhoods.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
Mark, good morning, welcome to KAA.

Speaker 6 (18:39):
Good morning Jimmy.

Speaker 2 (18:41):
Thanks for taking some time to join us. So lay
it out for a moment. What would three A do
fundamentally and why is this important in your review?

Speaker 4 (18:51):
Well, first and foremost, there is an election going on
right now.

Speaker 7 (18:54):
Yes, ballots or mail ballots are already being sent out
to homeowners for thee for November fourth, and we are
advocating to vote yes on three A. Three A is
simply and solely about preserving single.

Speaker 4 (19:10):
Family residence neighborhoods in Littleton. That's it. We did not
intend to write the amendment to affect any us past, present,
or future or bees, goats, horses, donkeys, community gardens, and
all the other things our opposition has has brought up
and has said that we are or somehow preventing that

(19:33):
is that is simply not true. We drafted it to
directly focus on single.

Speaker 7 (19:40):
Family neighborhoods, and in fact, the first.

Speaker 4 (19:42):
Sentence says it is the intent of the citizens to
preserve single family residential land use. That's their intent. You know, a
lot of times when you look at a law, you
have to wonder what the drafter's intent was. Well, you
don't have to in this instance because we put it
in the first sentence. It's just a fourth sentence amendment,

(20:03):
and the person tells you exactly what we're trying to do.
We're not trying to hide anything or interfere with development
in any fashion other than.

Speaker 7 (20:11):
Preserving single family neighborhoods.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
At bottom, why is that so important to you? And
what are the risks of eradicating that kind of zoning
requirement for protection really for single family homes.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
If some folks get their.

Speaker 4 (20:27):
Way, well, what Littleton has experience over the last year
has been an effort by the city council to further
the interests of the state in adding density to its areas,
specifically here in Littleton. The city council proposed an Ordnance

(20:47):
thirty one, which would have, if passed, imposed duplexes, triplexes,
and quadruplexes in every single family neighborhood throughout the city
of Littleton. So imagine you have a nice little neighborhood
with ranch homes uh, and all of a sudden, Oregon's
thirty one passes, uh.

Speaker 7 (21:06):
And you've got a quadruplex next door. A developer comes
in by the buys the little ranch house, scrapes it
and puts up a quadruplex and sells it for four
times what that ranch.

Speaker 4 (21:18):
House is worth. Uh. That's what we believe is going
to happen. In fact, has already happened in certain circumstances
here in Littleton when it's been tried. So that's that's
what's the stake.

Speaker 7 (21:32):
People move into Littleton for its beautiful single family neighborhoods.
We have, we have several of them. There's about forty
six percent of the landmass of Littleton are single family
neighborhoods if we.

Speaker 4 (21:46):
Want to preserve them. If or thirty one had passed,
or if the city council gets the chance to do
that type of rezoning again, we would have duplexes, triplexes
and quadruplexes throughout those neighborhoods, which which we think we'll
just destroy the character of those neighborhoods that everybody bought
into years ago. I've been here for eight years. There's

(22:08):
folks I've talked you have been here for twenty thirty years.

Speaker 7 (22:11):
They've invested in their homes that they've invested in their neighborhoods,
and it's just wrong to come forward with a wholesale
rezony switch on existing homeowners.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Well, what do you think, Mark Harris, our guests from
rooted in Littleton advancing ballot Measure three A in Littleton,
what do you think is motivating the effort to remove
the single family zoning requirement and allow for the situation
that you just described.

Speaker 4 (22:41):
Well, we researched that last year when we latedly found
out about this push on Orton's thirty one, which was defeated.
We found out about this push for density and discovered
that it is a nationwide issue that's being present coast

(23:01):
to coast.

Speaker 7 (23:03):
I think developers, builders, hedge fund owners want to make money,
uh in the way to do it in areas like Middleton,
which is which is a built out suburb of Denver.

Speaker 4 (23:15):
Uh.

Speaker 7 (23:16):
You know, it's a well established, built out a place
with with the existing fine neighborhoods. Well, the only way
to uh add density is to come in, buy a home,
scrape it and.

Speaker 4 (23:28):
Put up a multi family unit, a duplex, a triplex,
or a quadruplex or something even worse like an applex,
which was talked about at one time. So uh, that's
what's going on. I think folks want to want to
make money, and some of our opposition has brought us like, oh, well,
if we add density, maybe we'll get some affordable housing.

(23:51):
And that just simply has not worked anywhere that we've
looked at, including in Littletown. When you when you build
a quadr you're going to sell those units for four
times what a single family home was worth. Sure, and
that's what we see here in Littleton.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Let's talk for a moment about those successory dwelling units.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
The first time I ever saw.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
Or was in an adu was a couple of years
ago in Aurora at a friend's house, and he has one,
and you could live in there. It has a bathroom,
it has the space that it's small. It's not like,
you know, there's so much room or a bunch of
rooms or anything like that.

Speaker 1 (24:32):
It's pretty self contained.

Speaker 2 (24:34):
But theoretically somebody could rent out that ADU and say
I'm gonna let you stay here. Here are sort of
my least requirements. And I think the concern from some
advocates of ADUs is that.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
In effect, if that's.

Speaker 2 (24:52):
Sort of the interpretation of what an ADU could be
used for, that by saying that you're trying to preserve
single family residential land use, that could, in effect, if
that's the interpretation, bar ADUs from being constructed on private
property zoned for single family use.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
How do you look at that concern?

Speaker 4 (25:16):
Sure, and first let me start with eating us. As
you mentioned, are rental opportunities for folks, not.

Speaker 7 (25:23):
Creating some additional home for people to list in and buy.
So it's just a rental issue. I think are some
of our opposition They want affordable housing to purchase and own,
which I'm all for that, but this density approach isn't
the answer on eighty US. Milton already had ADUs zoned

(25:46):
into most, not all, of the areas that are subject
to three A, the small lot, medium lot, large lot
in increased lot areas.

Speaker 4 (25:55):
That comprise about forty six percent of the land mass
of Littleton. So we we didn't intend to affect eighty US.
We didn't say the word evy US, We didn't discuss
it in three D. We didn't ban anything. But uh,
but we have heard that criticism from from our opponents. Uh,

(26:15):
we we have no dog in that site. We are
simply trying to preserve single family residential land use, all right, uh,
in since eighties were already already in allowed land use
as of January one, Aaron Milton, I don't think as.

Speaker 7 (26:33):
We interpret three A as we wrote it and intended were,
we're not trying to affect eighty US SU. And we
we f we filed this, uh, this charter Amendment three
A back in May, and that was before the city
got together and passed a couple of expansions to ADU
laws this summer. So again our charterment was filed before

(26:59):
they did that. But that's simply an expansion of eight us.
It doesn't create.

Speaker 4 (27:03):
They didn't create a new land use.

Speaker 7 (27:07):
MAYBEU is a land use as of January one, twenty
twenty five. So going forward, we think they're they're allowed.
We're we're certainly not arguing that they're banned, are disallowed
as we interpret three A eight ues are fine and
people can have them.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
Final question for you, Mark Harrison, then I'll give you
a chance for some final words. Again, we're talking with Mark,
who's with rooted in Little Ten. How do you think,
with the advancement of the effort to in essence undermines
single family zoning and allow for residential zoning and allow
for multi family circumstances at the state level, how do

(27:46):
you evaluate how much leeway the fact that Littleton is
a home rule city gives Little Ten to trump state
law on a question like this.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
Give me I'm glad you asked that question. There are
at least six there might be seven other cities similar
to Littleton, Aurora, Arvada.

Speaker 7 (28:09):
Glendale, Greenwood Village, Lafayette, and at least Westminster and maybe
another one.

Speaker 4 (28:15):
They have already sued the state to push back against
the state's density efforts. Middleton has not. Now I asked herself,
why is that. Why isn't Littleton like those other cities,
home rural cities, protecting their home rural status and protecting
their single family neighborhoods, which I believe is a huge

(28:37):
asset of our town. I think they should be joining
in that lawsuit, but they're not. Our mayor.

Speaker 7 (28:47):
Is an employee of the States. He was appointed to
the Wine Development Board by Governor Polis and he works.

Speaker 4 (28:55):
For the state. I don't know if that has anything
to do with his not wanting to sue the state.
But Wilson's a lot like those other cities, and it
is a home real city, and they should be protecting
our citizens in our neighborhoods. Now. I do want to
say one thing.

Speaker 7 (29:11):
Yesterday the city lawsuit against three A was dismissed. They've
abandoned it, and that is a victory for three A.
It will now remain on the ballot, the votes will
be counted. I ard everybody to get out there and
vote yes on three A now that the city has

(29:32):
abandoned their effort.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
You know, I'm glad you mentioned that because I saw
that and it meant to bring it up that the
city was trying to bar this from even being counted
for the votes being counted, and as the City of
Littleton describes it, they voluntarily decided to withdraw its petition
seeking judicial review of ballot Question three A October thirteenth,

(29:57):
upon consideration that a completed review of the issues was
unlikely before the November fourth election.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
So with that in mind, go ahead, please.

Speaker 4 (30:07):
Yeah, let me let me just say that's the saving
faith statement of the city council. They sued three to
a on September fifth, and on October thirteenth they dismissed it.
It was unnecessary, it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.
They hired a law firm to pursue that worthless lawsuit,

(30:30):
and it was unconstitutional in the first place. It was
a direct infringement on the Littleton citizen's right to an
initiative to vote to mend their own charter. As soon
as rooted in Wilton, our group that we that has
created three A. As soon as we filed the motion
to dismiss the city gave up. So that's what that
lawsuit was all about. I believe it was to impune

(30:53):
three A, to suggest to the to the public that
there might be something wrong with three A. But you
know at the first sign of ed diversity.

Speaker 7 (31:01):
To the city, they gave up and dismissed it. So
just a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Speaker 2 (31:06):
Yeah, Mark Harris thirty seconds, what's the final pitch from you?
And rooted in Littleton for ballot Measure three A and
preserving as you see it, single family residential zoning.

Speaker 4 (31:20):
All that rooted in Littleton has ever wanted is for
the citizens of Littleton to have a say in the
character and nature of their neighborhoods. So we created a
charter amendment that's put up to a public vote. All
the citizens please come out and vote your conscience. If
you like your neighborhood, if you like your single family

(31:41):
residential neighborhood, the beautiful neighborhoods that we have here in Littleton,
vote yes on three A. Protect Middleton from the city
council wants to impose blanket density thround our city. That's
not the right way to go. Preserve your neighborhood and
vote yes on three A.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
Is the our website, you guys have that pit folks
can go to if they want to learn more from
your vantage point.

Speaker 4 (32:05):
Yes, there are actually two there's a rooted in Lilton.

Speaker 7 (32:07):
Website and there's also a yes on three A website.
Either one you'll get information about this ongoing election.

Speaker 2 (32:16):
Is that rooted in Littleton dot com? And is that
one of them? And then the other would be yes
on three a dot com? Do you know?

Speaker 6 (32:25):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (32:26):
Okay, yes, I mean that's correct. Okay, I'm sorry, rooted
in lil dot org dot org.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
That makes more sense actually as an organization, all right.
Mark Harris with rooted in Littleton. Thanks so much for
taking some time to join us this morning. Fascinating topic
and one that, look, I agree, single family residential housing
is essentially under attack right now and it is incumbent
upon an essential for citizens to push back.

Speaker 1 (32:53):
So thanks for joining us.

Speaker 4 (32:55):
Thanks, Jimmie, appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
It is really interesting when you get into a question
of interpretation, isn't it could a proposal like this restrict
something that they don't intend to restrict, like accessory dwelling units.

Speaker 1 (33:11):
I tend to think that they're in the clear on that,
But at the same time, there.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
Is a strong case to be made that just a
plain simple reading would forbid ad us because of the
potential that you could say, well, when you rent out
this unit or use it for some other purpose than
this ADU, then it could be violating that. But then again,

(33:39):
people rent out a basement or a room in a house.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
So I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
It is a fascinating question, though, And it's a problem
with a state interfering in these ways and opening doors
and that shouldn't necessarily be opened. So we'll see what
happens with little to in three to a Similarly, Lakewood's
City council just recently last month, by a nine to

(34:08):
two vote, as the Denver Gazette editorialized, erased the use
of single family zoning, allowing for multi family homes like
duplexes and condos to be built in those areas. Many
Lakewood citizens are justifiably angry, they wrote. The council majority

(34:28):
claims the move somehow will make housing in the West
Metro suburb more affordable in a strictly textbook kind of way,
It's plausible theoretically it could increase the number of dwelling
units at some point more supply lower prices. Right, But
connecting those dots in the real world, with all the
practical factors that figure into the Front Range's real estate market,

(34:52):
is quite a stretch. Far more likely the sweeping policy
shift will only disrupt the American dream. I do think
that there is a lot of truth in that. I mean,
affordable housing is a critical issue. It is insanely expensive
to buy a home in the Denver Metro area, Colorado generally,

(35:17):
but especially in the Denver Metro area. And if you
want to buy a new home, build a new home, construction.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
All the more can be challenging.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
This environment requires creative solutions for affordable housing. But more
than anything, you need to yes, address zoning issues in
certain areas, but not in a way that will disrupt
the neighborhoods that people have come to expect. At the

(35:49):
same time, it is important again to address zoning because
that is one of the big issues behind why affordable
housing is expensive. But there's a variety of different aspects
to zoning.

Speaker 1 (36:02):
That impact the price of housing.

Speaker 2 (36:05):
And if you're looking at zoning regulations to change, to me,
this doesn't seem to be the same.

Speaker 1 (36:13):
Or the right way to go.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
And I was just talking about Lakewood the KOA commets
Beird Health text line five sixty six nine zero Lakewood
resident texting, and we got the exact same zoning issue
in Lakewood. Our elected officials are fully behind Polist one
hundred percent for the last fifteen years. I always hear
from city council that we need more affordable housing, but
affordable housing is never built. I'm Jumie Sangenberger in Feros Kaminski.

(36:41):
Hour number one under wraps. Two more hours up ahead
as we continue KOA. By the way, the next three days,
I'm in for Mandy Connell from noon until three. And
the man, the myth, the legend, Dragon Redbeard has materialized.
He's been beamed in behind the glass.

Speaker 3 (37:02):
The setbacks really saw.

Speaker 1 (37:07):
I blame dragon for that one. That's all your fault.

Speaker 4 (37:09):
Track c.

Speaker 2 (37:11):
He comes in, he beams in and he gets all distracted.

Speaker 1 (37:15):
Start pushing buttons.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
So have you heard about Killy Norwood Dragon, the not
the she, but the it.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
I hadn't.

Speaker 8 (37:24):
I kind of recognized the name, but couldn't really place
it anywhere until you told me exactly what it is.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
Yes, and it is an AI actress. It is hot. Yeah,
there you go.

Speaker 2 (37:37):
Okay, if you like that sort of thing, well, AI,
I mean, gosh, can you tell the difference half the
time with the way technology is going now? It's increasingly
as we're going to talk about, reminding me of holodecks
and holograms from Star Trek.

Speaker 8 (37:50):
In those Jurassic Park movies. I can almost always tell
when those dinosaurs are cgi.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Almost always almost almost I'm not perfect, almost always exactly
better and better with the technology. There was an interesting
piece by Holman Jenkins, who writes for The Wall Street Journal,
entitled Tilly Norwood and US Renewal, published over the weekend.
But what is the case against Tilli Norwood? And this

(38:18):
is the key question, why should screen actors be exempted
from adapting to new technologies when adapting has been the
fate of industrial man for three centuries.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Not as she but an it.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
Tilly Norwood was created by the London based Particle six Productions.

Speaker 1 (38:41):
Introduced at the.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
Zurich Film Festival a couple of weekends ago. She appeared
fleetingly in a two minute satirical video. One observers said
the twenty something computer generated actress might be cast as
a sweet kindergarten teacher or a non means Sorori sister
queue the algorithmic press outrage Jenkins rights across one hundred

(39:07):
and seven print stories in the fact of a database
in the next few hours, all were negative, all in
the same way. One writer on Deadline in New Zealand
was at least a weak enough to notice the obvious
calculation by Tilly's creators. Their gimmick paid off beyond all
expectations in global publicity.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
Now I am so confused as to.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
How an AI actress can be a thing, Like why
not just create your own AI actress or get some
sort of a general model and then do to the development.

Speaker 1 (39:44):
I guess it cuts out that work and you.

Speaker 2 (39:47):
Don't have to pay your own production people, and you
have an AI that becomes people become familiar with and
they can follow and like on social media. Heck, so
many Instagram pages are all a fake nonexistent women, but
they get followers out the wazoo.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
TikTok, what have you.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
Like, People are not nearly as good as they need
to be when it comes to identifying what is real
or isn't real when it comes to AI. But in
this case, I still don't get it. It's like, Okay,
how do you insert the AI actress into your movie?
Can be a real world movie with real actors that

(40:26):
include Tilly and you just have them talk to nothing
like we do sort of now with a lot of
CGI characters Star.

Speaker 8 (40:32):
Wars Prequels episode three, I mean the most the majority
of those fight scenes were just green screens in the background,
so it could.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
Work true, And now they have the volume that they
have used, which is these moving screens that actually have
video on them, so you can have like a background
and it gives you that realism that you couldn't have
when you were you and McGregor and hating christiansen dueling
it out in episode three, in and around all sorts.

Speaker 1 (41:01):
Of blue and green.

Speaker 2 (41:03):
It's true, but still like, do you incorporate that AI
actress in that way or does it need to be
all AI based films and TV shows because we're heading
in that direction.

Speaker 1 (41:17):
That's what I'm not quite clear on.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
But one thing I am clear on is that for
Star Trek fans, these ideas of AI are nothing new.
There are things in Star Trek, if you don't know,
called holodecks where you go into this room and it's
just a big square room and it has these lines

(41:40):
on the walls and whatnot, but it can simulate the
holograms that look real that you can touch them. You
seem to even be able to eat food and drink
even though it's not real food. It's one of the
weird little Quartze replicators. But it's massive. But this is
all holograms. But anyway, this is you can go through

(42:01):
a massive world. There's no restrictions even though you're in
this confined space. You can have a bunch of people
in that space and you might not notice them because
you're in different parts of whatever the simulation is. So
you can create characters in these holographic worlds that are
totally fake. You can recreate your crush. And this was

(42:26):
done with Reginald Barkley on many an occasion where he
felt you pointed this out to me more comfortable on
the holid deck than in the real world.

Speaker 8 (42:35):
Well then you pointed out directly after that, and our
quick conversation off the air when we were bringing this up.
It's like he programmed people he knew to like him
more than what they were in reality, so that he
exactly these people.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
So he was able to make his crush love him
and adore him and all of that. You can see
that in the AI world, I will make Rachel McAdams
love me. Now it is an AI and it is
on a computer, and it's not the same as a hologram,
but it's the similar idea where people are now getting

(43:10):
AI girlfriends or boyfriends and having these relationships, cutting themselves
off from the outside world. These are things that have
been explored in science fiction for one hundred years. Star
Trek especially all kinds of scenarios. Will Reiker number one,

(43:32):
Captain Piccard's first officer, fell in love with a holographic woman,
Minuet Good Memory Well died. Then on that Star Trek
next generation they had he wasn't a hologram, but they
had Commander Data, who built friendships even had relations And

(43:56):
then you had in Star Trek Voyager the Doctor, fully
a hologram who, because they were stranded in another quadrant
of the galaxy trying to get back to Earth, was
the doctor and managed to expand, like Data beyond his programming.
But in the Doctor's case, he has emotions, and he
has an irascible personality and a bedside manner that can

(44:18):
often make you grumpy if you're the patient. But he
became a valued member and friend of the crew. There's
an episode where he wrote his own hollow novel, a
hologram created an interactive hollow novel where you are in
that imagine a novel, but you're the main character and
you're actually living it out kind of like a virtue

(44:41):
reality video game, but you're actually moving because everything looks
real around you in the holidack A hologram created that.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
What is going to happen?

Speaker 2 (44:53):
Are we going to get to a point, Dragon, where
Chillie Norwood will have rights to work product as an
AI like that kind of situation with the doctor fighting
for his right to own his hollow novel?

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Does she get to own the rights? And I say
she it get to own the rights to.

Speaker 2 (45:14):
An AI created story because that character was the creator
of it or something. I don't know, Dragon, Final question.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
For you, how much of a brave new world is this?

Speaker 2 (45:29):
Are we basically seeing Star Trek played out in real time,
just not with real looking people in the same way,
but on a computer screen.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
It's not far off, my friend, it's not far off.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
May we live long and prosper in interesting times? Oh
my goodness, I don't know. What do you think? The
koa common Spirit health text line five six six nine zero.
If you want to chime in on this question, of AI,
the Brave New World killing Wood. Are you excited to
go see her movies? Would you date Tilly Norwood? Would

(46:05):
you say yes, you should have the rights to the
work product you create, Tilly Norwood.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (46:16):
Jimmy sanging Berger And for Roskominski dragging behind the glass
keep it here on KOA best bumper music in Colorado Radio.
Thanks Jimmy. Yeah, I mean it's one of those fun,
fun things I do when I come in and it's
always a blast, and Dragon is a good sport with it.
Next hour he will even surprise me with a bumper.
But here we were talking about Tilly Norwood, the AI actress, revolutionizing.

Speaker 1 (46:44):
The sphere of acting, right, that's what they are trying
to claim.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
Now the film should that be immune from the AI
revolution like other industries, because oh, we want authentic actors.

Speaker 1 (47:06):
Here's the question for you. Would you listen.

Speaker 2 (47:10):
To Jimmy Norwood the radio host, an AI radio host
on a station like this for two or three hours
talking about news of the day, taking texts, maybe even

(47:30):
doing call lens, interviewing guests. Would you listen to AI
radio Dragon? Do you think it is possible? That people
would actually tune in to a show like this if
it was hosted by Jimmy Norwood or Ross Norwood.

Speaker 1 (47:50):
I'm the AI.

Speaker 8 (47:50):
I'm pretty biased because I've been in this industry for
almost twenty years. I really don't think so. We've seen
some of the longevity around here, and we've got people
we've worked here for thirty plus years on air on
the same station, on the same time slot, because it's
live and because it's local. So if you don't have
those two things, it's not going to work.

Speaker 2 (48:13):
But what if it is a live AI, locally generated
from the studio. I just now, it's the human connection
that matters more than anything, because when folks are listening
to radio or radio show like this, you're listening for
the personality that is behind the microphone.

Speaker 1 (48:29):
People have great BS meters.

Speaker 8 (48:31):
I mean, you and I can say, yeah, we went
to pancake house for breakfast, got some delicious pancakes, and
the AI is not going to be able to relate
like that and be like, yeah, I went to pancake
house and got great sourdo pancakes.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
No, it's just not gonna work.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Even if the voice was good enough to mimic Jimmy
singin Berger's voice, which terrifies me, by the way I am.
That is one of my terrified things is the mimicry
of a voice from you know, when it's done thousands
of hours in the radio. But I think you're exactly
right that human connection is key. You may go onto

(49:07):
YouTube and seek out an AI debate over philosophy or
some particular topic because you're interested in what AI is
gonna do. You're not interested in the personality, You're not
interested in that kind of figure.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
You're curious about the novelty.

Speaker 2 (49:22):
And I wonder if that novelty will even wear all
out where eventually people will be I don't want to
have anything to do with such a such a thing.

Speaker 8 (49:31):
I mean, it may kind of kick off a little
bit when like the first CG stuff came at the
CG animation when he went from hand drawn to actual
computer like toy story versus Tom and Jerry. So it
may be it may kick into gear and go, all right,
this is pretty good. But it's got its niche and
it can stay there where it doesn't really it doesn't
grow much past that, and it's not taken over the

(49:52):
entire media that it is trying to replace.

Speaker 2 (49:55):
AI in acting can't get here fast enough. Text says
the industry is in sight, give me a quality product
and save the sanctimonious ps. Well what about those people
who say, oh, those radio blowhards always given the sanctimonious bs.

Speaker 8 (50:10):
You just had yesterday? This what Texas saying you're drinking
the kool aid? Well, yeah, what kool aid is that?
If the AI can do the same thing, if they
don't want the one sidedness, well it very well could have.

Speaker 2 (50:22):
Yeah exactly. May we live long and prosper in interesting times. Dragon,
that's for darn sure. We've got some.

Speaker 1 (50:30):
Other fascinating text. We'll get you later.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
But David Bnson's up next on the other side with
some economic and political perspective. Always insightful. Keep it here,
Jimmy and vos A koa. Maybe that's because tariffs are
causing prices to rise. I don't know, but somebody who
does understand tariffs, AI and so much more is joining

(50:52):
me now.

Speaker 1 (50:53):
David L.

Speaker 2 (50:54):
Bonson is the founder, managing partner and chief investment officer
of the bonds In Group. He has written for numerous
publications and is a frequent guest all over cable news
including CNBC and Fox Business, and the author of several books,
including most recently Full Time Work and The Meaning of Life.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
David Bonsen joins me. Now, sir, good morning, welcome to Kawa.

Speaker 6 (51:24):
Well, good to be with you, Jimmy.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
So I want to ask you.

Speaker 2 (51:27):
We were talking in the last half hour about AI
and off air, you made an interesting point about AI
being a bubble.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
What do you mean by that?

Speaker 6 (51:39):
Well, I think that the possibility that an awful lot
of money is being spent that will result in malinvestment
is not a small possibility. Now, it's also not a guarantee. Okay,
there was never a time that pets dot com was
going to grow to its valuation, but nobody necessarily or

(52:03):
at least a lot of people didn't know it at
the time. But then when all that washed out, there
were just you know, people that had invested, they lost
their money. The difference here is the four or five
biggest companies in America are spending one and a half
trillion dollars on capital expenditures for computing power to drive something,

(52:26):
and they have absolutely no idea how they're going to
monetize it. What the revenue stream is going to be,
so I wrote a rather lengthy treatise on the subject
on Friday at dividendcafe dot com, where I suggested that
there is a possibility that the whole thing is a
bubble that blows up real badly. There's also the possibility

(52:49):
that nothing goes badly and this thing is just every
bit worth the hype.

Speaker 4 (52:54):
And then some. But I think the far most likely.

Speaker 6 (52:57):
Scenario is that there are going to be winners and users,
ups and downs and unexpected outcomes.

Speaker 4 (53:03):
But right now people just don't.

Speaker 6 (53:05):
Seem to understand what's really going on. That open Ai
announces they're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars
the Oracle one hundreds of billions they don't have to
give the Oracle to build computing power that Oracle doesn't
have the ability right now to build the data centers
that are not yet built with power that doesn't yet exist.

(53:28):
And then Oracle says we're going to buy all these
ships from Nvidia, and Nvidia is giving one hundred million
dollars to invest in open Ai. There's a cyclicality, a
circularity to this that is incredibly concerning. So do I
think it's a bubble? I think there's some bubble characteristics,

(53:48):
but do I also think chat GPT is really really impressive,
of course, but that doesn't justify two or three trillion
dollars of revenue, and I will be very skeptical if
all of the revenue that needs to happen to justify
these investments does materialize.

Speaker 2 (54:07):
You did a callback to pets dot com, and it
brings up the early days of the Internet, and people
didn't really grasp what that technology was at their fingertips
and how revolutionary would be. But it's also a very
different kind of technology than artificial intelligence is, and so

(54:28):
many understandings of AI are very simplistic and limited at
this point. Do you think that we can look at,
say the Internet or other significant technological advances as guides
for how AI might progress and how people might approach it,
or is this just something dramatically different because of the
kind of technology it is.

Speaker 6 (54:51):
Well, there's always a guide, meaning it rhymes but doesn't
totally repeat. Yeah, And one of the things that has
in common is it in the nineties, a lot of
people didn't know exactly what the efficacy of the Internet
would be, and the way in which the investors were
piling in were on the people that powered it, your

(55:11):
ciscos and Juniper networks, and the people that made the
switches and routers, and again the kind of computing power
behind it. And the analogy I use is if I say,
the only people making money on a restaurant are people
that make stuff for the kitchen, but no one's actually
doing anything that people care about out.

Speaker 4 (55:30):
In the dining room.

Speaker 6 (55:32):
That's not necessarily a situation that's long for this world.
At some point people got to buy the food that
comes out of the kitchen. Well, right now, we know
that a lot of people use shatt ept for information,
they use some of the different language models for you know,
creating content. But trillions of dollars. You got to understand,

(55:54):
one and a half trillion dollars is more than the
gross revenue of all these company and he's put together
not their AI business, all of the business a Facebook
and Amazon and Microsoft. I mean, these are the largest
companies in the world. They don't do one and a
half trillion. They need to get to two to three

(56:14):
trillion in five years just from AI revenue. Well, are
people going to end up paying a subscription fee for
chat upt I'm sure they will. Are they going to
pay two or three trillion dollars? No possible way.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
Fascinating David bonson our guests, Let's turn to China and trade.
There are escalations going on in the trade war, and
of course this all started because President Trump declared a
national emergency to justify his unilateral implementation of tariffs, not
just on the Chinese Communist Party at least in theory

(56:52):
that CCP is the one that's being tariff, but also
on numerous other.

Speaker 1 (56:58):
Countries and products and so forth.

Speaker 2 (56:59):
Well, Sunday jd Vance, the Vice President, explained how the CCPE,
the Chinese Communist Party, justifies a national emergency declaration.

Speaker 9 (57:11):
The fact that the People's Republic of China, the fact
that they have so much control over critical supply in
the United States of America, that is the definition of
a national emergency. The President has taken very decisive action
to correct that problem over the last eight months. But
unless we have access to this tariff authority, it's going
to be very hard to negotiate with China, and it's

(57:33):
going to be very hard for us to re shore
some of these critical supplies and goods that we absolutely
need for our own economy.

Speaker 2 (57:39):
Of course, rare earth minerals are a big part of
this from your perspective, David bonson what's really going on
here at this point, Well.

Speaker 6 (57:47):
China has leverage on the United States and they're pulling
the exact same move that the United States is pulled.
They're pressing that leverage. They're doing it to get a deal.
They fully intend to sell rare minerals. It doesn't do
them any good to not and yet they want the
best terms. They made queer over the weekend. We're talking
about asking for licenses, not banning exports. Export controls means

(58:11):
some additional form of regulation. And they got this play
straight out of the Trump administration's playbook. So turnaround as
fair play, as they say. I think that both sides
are jocking for more positioning in an eventual deal. I
think that what is so incredibly ironic about all of
this is that the end of result here is going

(58:33):
to be far more trained with China, not less, which
is very different than what a lot of the isolationists
and protectionists and nationalists in the MAGA movement thought they wanted.
You don't hear people talking about decoupling from China anymore.
Now to the extent that there's any component of imports

(58:53):
from China that are matters of critical infrastructure national security,
for the US to go about finding alternative means of
production or trading partners with allies, I would fully support
the idea that we believe textiles or t shirts or
coffee fit into that narrative is just so disingenuous and

(59:16):
pretextual it's not worth taking seriously at all.

Speaker 2 (59:20):
Is it part of the problem too, though, David Bonnson,
that we have for some things, do you think of
extracting some.

Speaker 1 (59:25):
Of the rare earth minerals that the United States.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
Does have a nimby mentality not in my backyard and
we don't want to have it here, Well, you got
to get it somewhere.

Speaker 6 (59:36):
Well, that's true of all sorts of things about the
damaging and corrosive effects of nimbiism, And are there some
things that we have a capacity to generate here we're
choosing not to do it?

Speaker 4 (59:50):
Yes?

Speaker 6 (59:51):
Are there other things that there's just a comparative advantage
other countries might have and that's why you have trade
with other competing countries. I believe that's most certainly true too.
But what is happening right now at this present stage
of the trade war is the United States attempted to
make it very difficult for China when it came to

(01:00:13):
semiconductors and chips in twenty eighteen and nineteen in the
aggressive actions they took against Tua. And I will tell
you that giving your a competitor and leading foe who
I will remind people of a communist country the incentive
to go build that capacity on their own did not
prove to be good domestic policy for the United States.

(01:00:35):
So this thing is far from over. I at least
can appreciate now there with a few exceptions, most of
what we're talking about is at least what we're actually
talking about. Where we wasted about eight months, and in
a lot of ways, we wasted ten years having fake
conversations about bringing jobs back to Ohio or about being
concerned with human rights. We used five different for a

(01:01:00):
trade war to get to the final reality of we're
trying to get a better deal on rare earth minerals.
We're trying to get open up more markets for soybeans
and liquifinancial gas. So the negotiations will continue.

Speaker 1 (01:01:13):
On that question, though David of leverage.

Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
You pointed out that China has a significant amount of
leverage over the United States, but you hear folks in
the administration such as JD. Vance the other day, talk
about how much more leverage the United States has, that
China is actually very reliant upon the United States. I mean, frankly,
it goes both ways. I mean, that's part of trade,

(01:01:38):
is that you have mutual benefit and mutual gain from
exchanging things. But how do you evaluate that question of leverage,
because it sounds like you're actually pretty optimistic that we're
going to reach a resolution at some point in this
trade war with China.

Speaker 6 (01:01:55):
Yeah, I'm very confident that a deal will end up
getting resolved in will be more about a headline and
a press release than anything else. I hope that there's
certain elements that do matter to me that will get resolved.
I don't think Vice President of Vans believes for a
second that the United States has more leverage on China
than they do on us. But I most certainly defend

(01:02:17):
him saying, so you don't go admit that your opponent
has more leverage. That would not exactly be art of
the deal negotiating.

Speaker 4 (01:02:27):
But here's the big issue.

Speaker 6 (01:02:28):
Does China want us as a customer. Of course, if
the United States went a recession, if the stock market
drops thirty percent, if we were unable to put things
on the shelves for Christmas holiday season, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera, it does absolutely brutal, fatal political damage to

(01:02:50):
American political leaders.

Speaker 1 (01:02:52):
It does no.

Speaker 6 (01:02:53):
Such thing in communist China. So the biggest issue is
not whose GDP is going to be impacted more, it's
that they have a political system that they don't care
how the economy suffers. And we have a political system
where the American people don't like the price of milk
going up for thirty days. So President Trump weren't that

(01:03:16):
the hard way In the aftermath of Liberation Day, he
cares deeply about markets being an affirmation of his presidency.
And China knows this, and that's why he threatened one
hundred percent tariffs and on you know, Monday, and now
here again today markets are up. Nobody takes this seriously anymore.
He's lost the ability to flex. Now, that's fine that

(01:03:40):
he does have some real leverage as to what you
get done. China does want to sell to US, but
I will point out that their exports year over year,
we're up eight percent, and that's with the US portion
of that being down ten percent. They increase their customer
base to Africa by fifty six percent, to Europe by

(01:04:01):
fourteen percent, to Southeast Asia by over twenty percent. So
all things been equal, of course China wants to sell
more or not less to the US. We have leverage too,
but we don't have leverage that is disconnected from political reality.
They do.

Speaker 1 (01:04:22):
Real quick.

Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
David Bond said, when we look at the US Supreme
Court case, and within the next month or so, we
could hear it handed down as to whether or not
President Trump has the authority, and I believe what he's
done is both a legal and unconstitutional What do you
think the implications of this.

Speaker 6 (01:04:38):
Would be very little? Unfortunately, because the administration has already
made it queer, they have a backup plan to go
find another manufactured justification for some of this, and then
they have a backup plan to their backup plan. Primarily
instead of using emergency economic powers, which is the just
farcical nonsense that a trade deficit is announ yeah emergency.

(01:05:01):
When we've had a trade deficit for ninety nine percent
of the last seventy five years. But they would they
can move to three h two and they use national
security measures and it does have to be renewed more often.
There is more red tape, it's shorter term. Certain parts
of these tariffs they've announced will go away. I would

(01:05:24):
say it's a coin flip as to what the Supreme
Court would do. First of all, by the way, they
ought to get three votes for the tariffs, for this
what you and I believe to be unconstitutional. They ought
to get three votes from the left wing Democrats because
there's nothing the left would like more than to hear

(01:05:44):
the Supreme Court say that all you have to do
is call something an emergency and then Article one of
the Constitution goes out the window. That was good, positive
news to the Democrats who would use it in the future.
Now three Democrats on this three quarter not going to
give the president of victory here. The question is whether

(01:06:05):
or not there's at least five who will. So you're
gonna get three bad votes for the You're gonna get
three good votes for the wrong reason. And the question is
of the other of the other six justices, will at
least two of them do the right thing, and I
would say it's a coin flip and we'll see what happened.

Speaker 1 (01:06:22):
I think that's what I said real quick.

Speaker 2 (01:06:23):
David bonson the politics of it all. We have the
phenomenal news about the release of the living hostages from
Hamas captivity. We have a deal in the Middle East,
we have other things going on. How do you handicap
where President Trump is politically right now in the mind
of the American.

Speaker 6 (01:06:44):
People, pretty strong on that front, and for good reason.
The Hamas deal is a wonderful deal. I think that
what he did there is classic Trump there. There's much
to be said. Obviously, we've spent some time here today
is I want to do calling balls and shrikes, and

(01:07:05):
I'm pretty critical of some of the things he's done
here on the economic front with trade, but with the
Hamas situation, I think he deserves credit. Now. Obviously we
want this to last. But he had, you know, multiple
issues that he had to kind of find tune and handle,
both with bb and with the American public and even

(01:07:27):
just the issue with what they did with I Ran
And the most impressive thing that the President did to
get us to the position of getting these hostages released.
ANNs fire with a moss is. He allowed Israel to
bomb the hell.

Speaker 4 (01:07:40):
Out of them for the last year to weaken them.

Speaker 6 (01:07:44):
To a point that the leverage was where it was.
So I give the President full props for that, and
his overall standing is difficult because you don't get a
good read on how people feel about the economy. After
seven eight nine months. We're going to go into twenty
twenty six. We're going to see the impact of tariffs,

(01:08:04):
and a lot of people think, oh, if this inflation area,
that's going to hurt him, and if it isn't, he's
going to be great. I don't agree. I think some
things will be higher prices and some things will not.
But it's those things where they're not higher prices. You
got to be really careful because in corporate profits are
declining because they don't have the ability to pass on
the impact of customers and they're absorbing three four hundred

(01:08:27):
billion dollars of new cost That is going to lead
to declining investment, declining capital expenditures, declining industrial production, declining
hiring when we already have very vulnerable labor markets. That's
a big story Jimmy for twenty twenty six, A.

Speaker 1 (01:08:44):
Big story to watch indeed.

Speaker 2 (01:08:46):
David Bonson, Founder, managing partner, chief investment officer of the
Bonson Group read his commentaries at Dividendcafe dot com. Always
great to check in with you, sir, Thanks so much
for your time today.

Speaker 4 (01:08:58):
Well, always a pleasure take.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
You as well.

Speaker 2 (01:09:01):
Once again, David Bonnsen joining us and really interesting food
for thought there.

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
That's for darn sure. And huh, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:09:17):
What, Let's go to the break and I'll get some
texts in the next hour. I'm Jimmy sanging Burger filling
in for Ross Kaminski.

Speaker 1 (01:09:25):
More up ahead in.

Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
Our number three of the show as we continue on KOA,
Jimmy sang In Burger filling in for Ross Kaminski. And
then the next three days for Mandy Connell, who's up
at noon. I'll be in from noon to three Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday. Looking forward to that and some great
times to be had. And by the way, it is

(01:09:50):
time and Dragon needs to participate in this. To remind
you where you can go twenty four to seven three
sixty five to follow yours truly, to keep tabs on
my content, the latest columns, podcasts of shows.

Speaker 1 (01:10:04):
When I feel into contact me directly.

Speaker 2 (01:10:07):
Is my website Jimmysangenburger dot com. Keep in mind there's
no a, I or you in Sangenburger. It's all ease,
all the time. Once you know that Sangenburger is an
easy I love the enthusiasm dragon. Every time he's waiting

(01:10:28):
for it, you can just seeing just everything everything.

Speaker 1 (01:10:32):
He's on the ball. You gotta stand up for it too,
and I hope you are too. Of course you are.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
You're listening to koh A this was interesting. Five six
six nine zero koa common Spirit health text line. I
am a police officer in an agency with sixty five officers.
We use a product called draft one for report writing.
It is basically chat GPT. We pay about one hundred

(01:10:59):
thousand dollars a year to use it. Is that like
taking your notes on a crime or from an interview
that you've done, or something like that and restating it
in a report form. I could see how that could
be more efficient for a police as long.

Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
As you're reviewing it right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:18):
Look over your work to make sure that it is
all accurate and true, whether that's this or it's a
blog post you're writing or whatever. It's like Mike Lindell's
legal team. He's the my pillow guy, and when he
was down at federal court this summer, he was being

(01:11:42):
sued by former Dominion Voting Systems now Liberty Voting.

Speaker 1 (01:11:47):
They've been purchased.

Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
Dominion Voting Systems vice president Eric Coomer and Lindell's legal
team actually filed a document that was riddled with errors
and false cases that were represented and so forth, like
literally made up cases.

Speaker 1 (01:12:03):
So did you use AI?

Speaker 6 (01:12:04):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:12:05):
It was AI. And that's the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:12:08):
If you're using AI for subkide of work product, make
sure to check your work.

Speaker 1 (01:12:13):
If you're a lawyer representing.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
Clients, especially in federal court, you better check and make
sure that you're using the kind of case references that
are I don't know, actually real.

Speaker 1 (01:12:27):
I was joking. Did he seriously use AI? Seriously?

Speaker 4 (01:12:30):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:12:30):
Little team used AI ended up getting no seriously and
ended up having multiple fake cases referenced in this filing.
They were definitely chastised by the judge. Pretty crazy, huh.
And that is not uncommon. Increasingly you hear these stories
of lawyers who are putting in cases, whether it's a

(01:12:52):
footnotes or some other references and the case law they're referencing.

Speaker 1 (01:12:56):
Is made up, made up. Just check your.

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
Work just a little bit. Please make sure you're on
the ball there. So the government shutdown is continuing. I
didn't mention that phrase at all yesterday. It was kind
of nice not mentioning government shutdown at all. But I'm
gonna mention it now because it is ongoing and Congress
is not working it out and coming to a deal.

Speaker 1 (01:13:26):
Now, me personally, I'm okay with that.

Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
We're better off when there's gridlock, when Congress isn't doing
jack fill in the blank. We're better off when government shrinks.
Do I like the political nature of some of the
firings for Trump?

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
No, I don't think that's good. I think that's wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:13:45):
I don't think you should be using politics as a
basis for firing people, but I do think you should
be or for who to fire that is. But I
do think it's entirely appropriate where possible to say help
sign or by sorry, we don't need your job anymore,
and then never bring the job back, ideally eliminated if

(01:14:05):
you can't fair enough.

Speaker 6 (01:14:08):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
It was interesting. Speak of the House.

Speaker 2 (01:14:11):
Mike Johnson yesterday talked about the split screen that is
the contrast between the Middle East deal of Trump and
what's happening with the Democrats and the shutdown.

Speaker 10 (01:14:23):
When even Chuck Schumer has to praise Donald Trump, you
know that the President has done something incredible. This is
truly a landmark, historic foreign policy achievement, bringing the hostages
back to their families after two years, securing our ally
Israel again, and laying the foundation for a permanent peace
in the Middle East. I mean, it's an incredible thing.
This has been an objective that everyone's had for generations.

(01:14:46):
President Trump is showing peace through strength again and it
is resolving conflicts around the world. Guys, America is watching
a split screen right now. You see President Trump and
Republicans delivering for the American people, reducing their taxes, in
in the crime crisis, in in the border, and cutting fraud, waste,
and abuse out of government now settling conflicts around the world,
and on the other screen you see Chuck Schumer and

(01:15:07):
the Democrats playing partisan games with the lives of Americans.
I mean, there's never been a stronger contrast between the parties.

Speaker 2 (01:15:13):
Quite honestly, he has a point, and the point is
not in so far as he's right on all of
the facts.

Speaker 1 (01:15:20):
Well, broadly speaking, he is.

Speaker 2 (01:15:22):
And I do think that the Democrats are more to
blame for the shutdown than the Republicans, although both sides
in every shutdown always have some blame. But I think
what he's getting at is something for hours, for days,
Trump is the headline, the positivity, look at the deal,
look at the great things that are happening. Meanwhile, the

(01:15:44):
government shutdowns happening, and the Democrats aren't getting their message
out because Trump is for the good, for the right reasons,
hashing it all out and hashing it out, celebrating, focusing

(01:16:08):
on a positive accomplishment, remarkable accomplishment. And so you have
that juxtaposed against the shutdown and the Democrats not being
able to get their message out there. And yet the
reporting continues of oh, well, we're in a government shutdown.

(01:16:29):
It's never a good look for one side that isn't
able to get in the conversation while the other sides
looking really good. And I think Johnson is pointing to
a political reality that is advantageous to Republicans, disadvantageous to Democrats.

(01:16:50):
And that's pretty clear. I don't think there's any weigal
room there. And this split screen Jimmy Singenberg in for
Ross Kaminski. We'll pick it up on the other side
as we continue KOA. That is awesome.

Speaker 8 (01:17:05):
Dragon tell us who that is Jack Bruce Robin Trauer
and the song name politician, And you were just talking
about the baseline.

Speaker 1 (01:17:13):
The baseline beautiful. I love it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
Beautiful politician, very fitting, very fitting.

Speaker 1 (01:17:23):
Good to be with you right here on ko A.
And uh, you know, I find it interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
Donald Trump Junior tweeted this out back over the holidays
last year.

Speaker 1 (01:17:38):
In December, Alista Farah, former.

Speaker 2 (01:17:43):
Trump administration official in the first term turned never Trumper who's.

Speaker 1 (01:17:47):
On the view, pledged this.

Speaker 11 (01:17:51):
I say I'm not going to be at my point
when I say I'm not going to be apocalyptic. It's
not changing a tune, it's not making every single thing
a five alarm SI. If he does good, if he
gets the Israeli hostages out, I promise I will wear
a MAGA hat for one day on the show.

Speaker 4 (01:18:05):
And say thank you for doing it. You'll not right off.

Speaker 11 (01:18:09):
You have to be able to cheer for wins when
they happen and then call out relentlessly the wrong dude.

Speaker 2 (01:18:14):
Pretty sure that yesterday and today when the view happens
to be on one of the TVs in here. I
did not see Alyssa Farah wearing a maga hat. Go figure,
I promise, I promise I.

Speaker 1 (01:18:29):
Will wear a maga hat. Well, I don't know. I
have not seen a maga hat on Alissa Farrah.

Speaker 2 (01:18:37):
It's really interesting just when you hear those kinds of
things that I would never expect her to do. So
why would she? Well, you shouldn't make a promise like
that and then not quite be willing to follow through
with it. Meanwhile, earlier we had talked with David Barnston

(01:18:58):
about the trade stuff, and I think Trump is really
playing with fire here. David seemed to be a little
optimistic about the prospect of reaching a resolution because the
incentives are there, but there's going to be a lot
of damage for people as we go ahead. I mean,

(01:19:20):
affordable housing is a massive challenge, and you only increase
that when you boost the price of lumber because you
put tariffs in place on lumber.

Speaker 1 (01:19:33):
Just it just doesn't make sense, it's not effective. It's
the wrong way.

Speaker 2 (01:19:40):
To go when it comes to economic policy, plane and simple,
and I hope the Supreme Court will strike down the terraffs.
But at the same time, as Bonson also pointed out,
the Supreme Court doing that doesn't mean the Trump administration
doesn't have backup plans to find other ways to do this,
which the Obama administration did.

Speaker 1 (01:20:00):
I remember on Oh, there were a couple of issues
they escaping me at the moment. Every president does this.

Speaker 2 (01:20:07):
Oh, the court says no, well I really really want
Oh at Biden with the student loan stuff, he kept
finding other ways to get workarounds and workarounds and kept
getting shot down.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
But in that span of time he.

Speaker 2 (01:20:21):
Was at least able to prolong people having to pay
student loan debt.

Speaker 1 (01:20:25):
Yeah. Similar in this situation.

Speaker 2 (01:20:28):
The more that Trump can allow the tariffs to go
on because of legal battles where he changes strategy and whatnot,
the longer he's able to keep tariffs in place.

Speaker 1 (01:20:42):
I don't like it. Both parties play this game, and
it's a dangerous game. And the dangerous game is.

Speaker 2 (01:20:50):
In part because every single president will escalate. Oh the
past president did this, Well, I'm going to do them
one better. Joe Biden goes after political opponents, including Donald Trump.
Donald Trump's going to go after political opponents using the
legal system in both of those.

Speaker 1 (01:21:11):
Cases, and on and on and on it goes. It's
sort of a dangerous.

Speaker 2 (01:21:20):
Cycle that unfortunately, unless something named the American people intervene,
it's simply going to continue, probably without end, and then
the party out of power is going to cry foul
about how the party in power, the president that's in office,

(01:21:43):
is doing too much and going too far, never remembering
or rarely remembering that their.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
Side paved the way for the other side.

Speaker 2 (01:21:54):
Isn't it funny how politics works those politicians to go
back to the fortune that dragon picked. Speaking of great
music on the other side, my dear friend Rabbi Jonathan
Hausman of a Havath Torah congregation in Stoton, Massachusetts, is
going to be joining us over the phone. He's a

(01:22:16):
big blues fan. I always love talking music too with
Rabbi Jonathan Houseman, and we have a lot to discuss
with recent events on the other side, and he's a
fantastic guest.

Speaker 1 (01:22:27):
So keep it right here on Koa Jimi and.

Speaker 2 (01:22:29):
For Ross as per usual, some of the best bumper
music known to man, the great late Muddy Waters bringing
us back with Trouble No More and look, I'd love
to be able to say that Hamas.

Speaker 1 (01:22:50):
Will trouble Israel and the Jews no more. But that
is a very tall order to be sure.

Speaker 2 (01:22:58):
Rabbi Jonathan Houseman, my dear friend of a Hava Torah
congregation in Stoton, Massachusetts, joins us.

Speaker 1 (01:23:05):
Now, sir, welcome back to Kowa.

Speaker 6 (01:23:09):
Jimmy, always nice to be with you.

Speaker 4 (01:23:10):
How are you?

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
I am doing pretty well.

Speaker 2 (01:23:14):
And before we get into the serious stuff, let's talk
about the legend Muddy Waters, shall we?

Speaker 4 (01:23:21):
Well?

Speaker 12 (01:23:22):
Listen, I'd love to talk about Muddy Waters. I also
like to talk about his his harp player, little.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
Little Walter Man, one of the greatest legends of all
heart playing.

Speaker 6 (01:23:33):
Oh yeah, I mean and yeah listen.

Speaker 12 (01:23:37):
Since since I do live and Stoughton is within the
greater Boston, you know, you can't talk about heart players
out of Boston unless you talk about guys like Jerry Portnoy,
who actually was born in Chicago but lives over here. Now,
I mean he played with He played with all the greats.

Speaker 6 (01:23:54):
During his career.

Speaker 12 (01:23:58):
Muddy Waters, Pinetop Perkins and whatnot also toured with Eric Clapton.
You can find some of Clapton's touring from the nineties
and there's.

Speaker 6 (01:24:08):
Jerry Portnoy right there.

Speaker 12 (01:24:11):
He played with Bonnie Ray as well, and also one
of the big guys out of here, Magic Dick, who
played with the Jay Giles band. Yes, if you write so,
if you listen, if you listen to if you listen
to the heart playing and all the day of Jay
Giles music that you're talking about Magic Dick.

Speaker 6 (01:24:34):
Yeah, I mean he was, you know, Richie Solway, Jewish.

Speaker 12 (01:24:37):
Guy from the London, Connecticut. I believe, if I'm not mistaken,
Salwitz rather Salwitz and yeah listen and wammer jammers.

Speaker 1 (01:24:49):
Yeah, I didn't even begin to learn that one in
the harmonica. Okay.

Speaker 12 (01:24:54):
So, so, as a harp player as you are, and
as a blues officient otto that I am, I will
tell you this that when I have blues harp players
coming into my synagogue, before they come in, because you
know we I I produce shows, music shows and comedy
shows out of the synagogue. When when it comes to

(01:25:16):
when it comes to blues harpists, yeah, I'm really good,
I'm really good. Great play whammer jammer.

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
Yeah, to be really good. I'm decent.

Speaker 4 (01:25:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:25:28):
Well, but you know, here's here's the thing about whammer
jammer if you if.

Speaker 6 (01:25:34):
You listen to it, you can hear he took a
lot of these influences, uh and just included them in
the song with specific grips and whatnot tells, and it
just it just ends up coming out, uh it said,
I mean, what can I tell you, It's just it's

(01:25:56):
just an amazing, amazing piece of harp playing.

Speaker 1 (01:25:59):
It is phenomenal. Indeed, a cut of love it and
little Walter right very much.

Speaker 12 (01:26:07):
I mean Richie Salwitz's Magic Dickie. I think it's the
same kind of notoriety as the others, but he is just, yeah,
one of the best, one.

Speaker 6 (01:26:16):
Of the best. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:26:17):
I've talked to Tommy Castrow, who we've interviewed on I've
interviewed him on KOA two or three times now about
Magic Dick because he brings him up as one of
those hard players that he's liked playing with over the years,
and with good reason.

Speaker 1 (01:26:32):
He's a phenomenal harmonica player. That's for darn Shore.

Speaker 2 (01:26:36):
And of course bye bye, Jonathan Ounceman.

Speaker 1 (01:26:38):
You and I could just talk blues for the entire segment.

Speaker 13 (01:26:41):
But we do have some But things are going on
in the world, Yes, things are going on in the world,
and there are some positive developments.

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
I think it's really good that we've got thank god,
we finally have at least the living hostage have been released,
although we have to temper that a little bit by
recognizing that they are not, especially some of them in
good physical condition.

Speaker 1 (01:27:11):
They were not treated well in any way, shape or form.

Speaker 2 (01:27:13):
To put it very mildly, it is tragic to see
some of the photos of released hostages. But they are home,
and we do have a cessation of the fighting and
so forth. And now as of this morning, we have
I think it's a five or excuse me, four dead
Israeli hostages that have been returned, with many more still

(01:27:34):
to go.

Speaker 1 (01:27:35):
Your overarching thoughts this afternoon, Rabbi.

Speaker 12 (01:27:40):
Well, look, it's certainly Actually let me take a step back.
I was going to go make one comment.

Speaker 4 (01:27:49):
I'm going to make a different comment.

Speaker 12 (01:27:50):
So were a number of phone calls, texts and emails
that I received yesterday regarding the release and of the
living hostages and the relief that listen, my relatives and
Israel expressed on seeing these young men crossed the thresholds

(01:28:17):
again into the arms of their families and girlfriends and
children and spouses and whatnot. And listen, it is a relief,
It is certainly, absolutely one hundred percent relief. But people

(01:28:37):
need to understand that the deal was that all of
the living and listen, twenty came out alive. You need
to understand or people need to understand that. Really, on
Israel's and on the Jewish people's end, the question became,

(01:28:59):
are there nearly twenty.

Speaker 6 (01:29:00):
People still alive?

Speaker 12 (01:29:02):
Right?

Speaker 6 (01:29:03):
That was that was the estimate. But who knew who?

Speaker 4 (01:29:09):
Who really knew?

Speaker 12 (01:29:12):
So there was a sense of relief, and I heard
it from my cousins who were texting me from and
I have a lot of family and as well, texting
me about what a.

Speaker 6 (01:29:21):
Great day it was. And to be sure, it was
a great day.

Speaker 12 (01:29:27):
And you know, we also have this notion of Jewish
mystical mathematics and the living hostages who were released yesterday.
Was there seven hundred and thirty eighth day in captivity? Right,
seven hundred and thirty eight? Well in Jewish mystical mathematics,
seven hundred and thirty eight.

Speaker 6 (01:29:47):
In Hebrews ten shin lama fete with vocalized properly means
means you will be free.

Speaker 1 (01:29:56):
Really think about that.

Speaker 6 (01:29:58):
Yes, yes, just saying.

Speaker 4 (01:30:02):
The only thing I have to add to that is,
you know nothing, there.

Speaker 12 (01:30:05):
Are no such things as as coincidences, even if you
think they are, there are They're just no such thing
as a going on.

Speaker 1 (01:30:14):
Well it is. It is remarkable. I had had no
idea about that.

Speaker 2 (01:30:19):
And look, one of the things also that I think
is striking is the fact, and this is always the
case whenever hostages from Hamas are released back to Israel,
there are thousands of Palestinian prisoners that we are being
released or have been released now by Israel as part
of this deal, which to me is very striking when

(01:30:40):
there's always the claim about genocide, but they that Israel
engaged in genocide, and yet they go through all kinds
of lengths to minimize the vision civilian casualties.

Speaker 1 (01:30:53):
They ended the war and and are not fighting anymore,
and the.

Speaker 2 (01:30:58):
Israelis allow thousands of Palestinians to go while only getting
twenty living hostages in return.

Speaker 12 (01:31:06):
Yeah, you know, and that that happens to be a
point that lots of people in Israel are making, have
been making over the over the over the past twenty
four to forty eight hours.

Speaker 4 (01:31:23):
Okay, what's the cost.

Speaker 12 (01:31:30):
What will be the future cost of releasing all these people?
And look, you know, in judausm we do have this
concept that you know, we do our best to ransom
back our captives and we don't want to leave anybody
behind it. And I'll tell you that is the operative
principle of Taha, of the IDF, of the Israel Defense Forces,
that young men and women will put their lives on

(01:31:52):
the line, and the state will do and the military
will do everything they need.

Speaker 6 (01:31:57):
To possibly do to ensure that these people come home
dead or alive their home. But the recidivism rate of
those people that have Israel's released is just astronomically high,

(01:32:17):
I mean. And indeed, the.

Speaker 12 (01:32:21):
Brains behind, as it were, the attack that took place,
the pagrum that took place on October seventh, twenty twenty three,
was none of them than Yahya sin Ra, who happened
to have been traded one of the eleven hundred imprisoned
Arabs traded for Gully Shalit, the soldier who was imprisoned

(01:32:46):
by Hamas for how many years in Gaza. Okay, so
you have this is what she ended up happening. And listen,
this doesn't minimize the fact that And listen, I honestly
I said this on a web in our Sunday night
as a matter of fact, that Tanya, who did what
he needed to do, doesn't mean that there won't be

(01:33:08):
repercussions in the future. No, that's not what it means.
But he did what he needed to do because you
have these live hostages war back and at least, and
at least there are four there are four of you know,
bodies that were kept that are now back and can

(01:33:29):
receive top proper funerals from their families. Yeah, and you
know the state of Israel. But listen, you have to
understand that. Then everybody needs to understand. You can't forget
the other twenty four that are still there. The deal
was forty eight living and dead would be would be
returned yesterday, and you'll still that you have twenty.

Speaker 1 (01:33:51):
Four without a doubt. President Trump needs to hold them
to that.

Speaker 2 (01:33:55):
Rabbi Jonathan Houseman, our guest here on KOA, I want
to talk for a few minutes about the reaction from
those who, well, let's just be straight up jew haters
that are just beside themselves that you would possibly have
this happen and we see anti Semitism rearing its ugly head.

Speaker 1 (01:34:17):
In New York City.

Speaker 2 (01:34:19):
There is the Democratic Socialists of America member and anti
Semite Zoron Mum Donnie, who is running for mayor and
very good chance probably he will get elected mayor well DSA.
The Democratic Socialists of America put out a statement yesterday

(01:34:43):
entitled until Palestinian Liberation, and it was summed up by
the account on x of Jews fight back this way.
The statement demands one the end of Israel. Two the
decolonization of all Arab lands. They mean Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, everything,

(01:35:05):
The so called number three write of return code for
flooding Israel with millions of foreigners whose grandparents may have
once lived under the British Mandate of Palestine solely to
eliminate its Jewish majority. Four the boycott, sabotage and isolation
of Israel on every possible front. Five they call Hamas

(01:35:26):
the resistance. Excuse me and pledge unconditional support for that resistance.
I don't think anti Semitism is going anywhere in America
or around the globe even after this deal.

Speaker 6 (01:35:39):
Rabbi, well, how do you how do you respond to
such I mean, I don't know pure unbridled hatred.

Speaker 12 (01:35:53):
Look, the bottom line is the bottom line is jee
hatred is the constantly metastasizing virus that listen, just new
cakes from AIDS to age and era to era.

Speaker 6 (01:36:09):
You know.

Speaker 12 (01:36:10):
And we're lucky to have you know, friends like you
and listen, I know that. Yeah, general slow com on
last week and whatnot. I mean, we're lucky to have
people on our side who really understand the ebb and
flow of all of this, and the fact that these
people even use forget the fact that they're using technology

(01:36:30):
that would primarily developed and or refined in Israel, like
the cell phones, their computer operating systems and things of
that sort. Even the language they use when they accuse
the Israel of genocide, you know anything about that word?

Speaker 6 (01:36:45):
That word was corned by.

Speaker 12 (01:36:46):
A Jewish lawyer, Paul all Right, raised in Poland, who
survived World War Two, and he introduced the term.

Speaker 4 (01:36:54):
In his book. The guy's name was, Oh God, Rafael Lempkin.

Speaker 6 (01:37:01):
That's it. Sorry to me.

Speaker 12 (01:37:02):
I'm a bit older, so sometimes I can't remember that
not to Okay, Well, Rafael Lentkin is the guy who
admits this environment of World War two and what was
perpetrated specifically against Jews, to ridden.

Speaker 6 (01:37:18):
The world of every single Jew.

Speaker 12 (01:37:21):
He's the one who coined the word, came up with
this neologism genocide, and now.

Speaker 6 (01:37:26):
They're even adopting that.

Speaker 12 (01:37:29):
By the way, you'll find the term first used in
Lempkin's book Access rul and Occupied Europe. I'm looking at
it right now on my on my bookshelf yard.

Speaker 1 (01:37:37):
Really, okay, I did not know that, to be honest. Yeah,
that he originated that term, yep, yep, yep.

Speaker 12 (01:37:44):
So you want to know something, find your own word,
don't use your word, okay, and not.

Speaker 6 (01:37:50):
Developed for this.

Speaker 2 (01:37:51):
But it's not even just Rabbi Jonathan ouncement that there
there shall we say, appropriating that word. But they are
doing so not in step with the definition of genocide,
which includes the intentional eradication of a people.

Speaker 12 (01:38:09):
What they're right, what they're promoting, what the Dsay is promoting.

Speaker 6 (01:38:13):
Okay, there's nothing sort of policide.

Speaker 12 (01:38:16):
Okay, the you know you have the side, you have suicide,
you have fatricide. This is poliicide, the intentional destruction of
a probably the most legal state in terms of its
foundation in world history. Because remember, okay, Israel, the establish
Minesra had the blessing of the United Nations back in

(01:38:38):
nineteen forty seven.

Speaker 2 (01:38:39):
Yes, yes, Rabbi Jonathan Ounceman. We just have a few
minutes left, and I want to ask you from your perspective,
and this can be in regards to the Middle East
and the notion of peace in the Middle East and
what President Trump hopes to achieve, or anti Semitism in
America and around the world. But broad question for a

(01:39:01):
short answer, as short as you can make it.

Speaker 1 (01:39:06):
Where do we go from here?

Speaker 12 (01:39:08):
Well, I'll tell you where do we go from here?
I think Israel and all people who understand what this
is all about.

Speaker 4 (01:39:16):
Need to be very clear, all right, and clearly.

Speaker 12 (01:39:19):
Focused on what Hamas and Hamas officiles are saying. And
you may not want to focus on what they say
in English. And listen, I said this last night and
a briefing that I mean yesterday afternoon and a briefing
I was giving. Okay, I don't care what they say
in English, French, Spanish, I don't care. I don't What
I care about is what they're saying in Arabic. What

(01:39:40):
are they saying in Arabic? And already in Arabic Okay,
Hamas officiles are very clearly stating that they only agree
to a part of Phase one. But certainly Hamas will
be willing. They're not will not be willing to disarm.
They fully intend to be part of some kind of

(01:40:02):
functioning government and Gaza. We already know that approximately seven
thousand Hamas supporters and fighters have flooded into Gaza City.
There is a pretty much a civil war taking place
where Commas fighters are shooting people who oppose their rules.

Speaker 6 (01:40:22):
Okay, we already know that.

Speaker 12 (01:40:26):
Hamas officials reported in Arabic speaking press where Arabic written
press that they're calling this a hood no, which is
just a temporary sustention of hostilities while they while Hamas
regroups and plans its next attack. We know all of
that stuff, We know all of those things. So the

(01:40:47):
question then becomes, if this is all lining up like this,
what does Israel need to do to be able to
get those other twenty four bodies out? And listen, I
have to be honest with you. I have a lot
of relatives in Israeless I keep unmentioning. Okay, the majority
of them are of the left. Well, we're all saying
now they want their own state. Fine, let's get the

(01:41:07):
rest of the bodies back. Let's build a fifty foot
high wall. Let them figure out their own electricity, water,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's what they're saying,
complete complete separation.

Speaker 7 (01:41:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:41:21):
Well, and you know the complicating factor in all of
this real quick?

Speaker 6 (01:41:25):
What is the real What is the real role of
Tatar and Turkey and all of this? You know, and listen,
we can only make some positions. That's it.

Speaker 2 (01:41:35):
Well, we have much to be grateful for at this moment,
for the work of President Trump and his team, for
the ability of beving in in Yahoo to get us
to this point, and the soldiers that have given so much,
and the families that have sacrificed, and thank God for
all of them for bringing us to this point.

Speaker 1 (01:41:55):
But there is a rocky road ahead, that's for darn short.

Speaker 12 (01:41:59):
Without question, you gotta give Trump a lot of credit,
but theyrman's credit has to go to Netanyahu and his
vision with regard to what he wanted the state of
visitor to accomplish in all of this.

Speaker 1 (01:42:11):
Yes, indeed, and I'll tell you, I'll.

Speaker 12 (01:42:12):
Be honest with you, it's nothing sort of amazing. He
is as close to a Churchillian a Churchill as possible.

Speaker 2 (01:42:20):
There you go, Rabbi Jonathan Houseman, always the pleasure, my friend.
Thank you so much for joining us, and we'll talk
to you again down the.

Speaker 4 (01:42:27):
Line, I hope.

Speaker 12 (01:42:28):
So take care, Jimmy.

Speaker 1 (01:42:29):
That is it for me today.

Speaker 2 (01:42:31):
Mandy is up next, and by the way, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
the next three days, from noon to three I will
be sitting in the chair for Mandy Connell, so be
sure to tune in then. My thanks to Dragon and
Shannon behind the glass today and to you for listening,
see it tomorrow

Speaker 1 (01:42:49):
And may God bless America.