All Episodes

June 13, 2024 101 mins
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Person I've heard, Actually I heardsomebody on Fox News as well, but
not in any other coverage that Isaw, say that there are probably more
lawsuits coming on this same issue,and so I just want to make sure
we're really clear on something. Sothe New York Times headline, for example,
says, Supreme Court upholds broad accessto abortion pill. And it's not

(00:24):
wrong, but it's misleading because whenyou read a headline like that, here's
NBC News, Supreme Court rejects bidto restrict access to abortion pill. That's
a little bit closer. The WashingtonPost Supreme Court retains full access to key
abortion medication MIFA pristone. Again,it's not wrong, but it's misleading.

(00:47):
A much better headline, and Iwas very happy to hear that our news
coverage handled it this way. Sowell done to our news team. But
here's a Fox News headline as anexample of what it should be. Supreme
Court rules an abortion medication case,finds group lacked standing to challenge FDA approval.

(01:07):
So why am I quittling over this? Because if you were to read
the New York Times headline and justgo based on the New York Times headline,
Supreme Court upholds broad access to abortionpill And assuming you knew what the
case was about, right that somefolks are trying to challenge the FDA's approval

(01:29):
of one of the two drugs usedin what are called medication abortions. They're
trying to challenge the initial approval,and then they're also trying to challenge rule
changes later on that made this drugeasier to get. By the way,
over half of abortions in the UnitedStates now are done with these two medications
as a combination, Mifa pristone andmisoprostal. Mifa pristone is the only one

(01:53):
that was the subject of this lawsuit. Anyway, if you read the headline,
you would be tempted to think thatthis Supreme Court heard the arguments about
whether the FDA rulings and procedures werecorrect and decided that they were and therefore
the drug can keep being available thesame way it's been available. But that's
not actually what happened. What happenedwas the people who brought this case a

(02:19):
group of doctors. They object toabortion. They are not directly impacted by
the FDA ruling. They are notrequired to treat anybody with these medications.
They are not required to treat anybodyafter a woman takes these medications, so

(02:43):
essentially they are not harmed. Andit is exceedingly difficult to properly get standing
if you are not harmed, toget standing to bring a lawsuit. What
happened in the case is that therewas a judge who was appointed in a

(03:05):
particular federal district. He was appointedby Donald Trump to a particular district.
I want to say it's Amarillo,but it's definitely in Texas. And this
judge, before he was a judge, was famous for being anti abortion.
I mean, I'm not saying everybodyknew who he was, but if you
knew anything about him, one ofthe things you knew about him is aggressively,

(03:27):
aggressively pro life, anti abortion.And he got named to a federal
judge ship. And by the way, I'm not saying being anti abortion is
a disqualifier from getting a federal judgeship, but he was put in that
spot, and in that district,he's the only judge. He's the only
federal judge in that district. Sothese plaintiffs did what they call forum shopping

(03:50):
or judge shopping, and they filedtheir case in that district, knowing that
he's the only judge available in thatdistrict. And then he ruled for them,
and then the government appealed an appealscourt throughout some of what the Amarillo
judge did, but not all,and then the rest ended up at the

(04:10):
Supreme Court. And let me justshare a little bit with you because I
think this is important constitutional law.This is I'm reading now from the Supreme
Court opinion. This is not froma news article. So they're holding is
that plaintiffs lack Article three standing tochallenge the FDA's actions regarding the regulation of
mifipristom. Article three standing is aquote bedrock constitutional requirement that this Court has

(04:32):
applied to all manner of important disputes. Standing is built on a single basic
idea, the idea of separation ofpowers. Article three confines the jurisdiction of
federal courts to cases and controversies.Federal courts do not operate as an open
forum for citizens to press general complaintsabout the way in which government goes about

(04:58):
its business. To obtain a judicialdetermination of what the governing law is,
a plaintiff must have a personal stakein the dispute, and essentially what the
court said here is well, here, I'll just read a little more.
Plaintiffs are pro life, oppose electiveabortion, and have sincere legal, moral,

(05:20):
ideological, and policy objections to mifipristonebeing prescribed and used by others.
And they put by others in italicsbecause plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifipristone.
Plaintiffs are unregulated parties who seek tochallenge the FDA's regulation of others.

(05:42):
Plaintiffs advance several complicated causation theories toconnect the FDA's actions to the plaintiff's alleged
injuries. None of these theories sufficesto establish standing. So there you go.
That's the big news out of theSupreme Court this morning. There were
two other cases that I will mentionvery very briefly where the opinions were released
this morning. One was a casein which the National Labor Relations Board wanted

(06:04):
to force Starbucks to hire somebody whogot fired after that person wanted to join
a union, and a court saidthey asked a court for an injunction while
they continued with the rest of theirwork, and the court granted the injunction,
but not using the usual standards.That are guidance for injunctions, and

(06:26):
the court gave some excuse for whythey didn't have to use the usual four
standards to give this kind of injunction, and the Supreme Court said, no,
you can't do that. You haveto use the four standards that are
always the basis for granting preliminary injunctions. And so basically the court ruled for
Starbucks in this case. And thenthe other one was a case where somebody

(06:49):
wanted to register a trademark to makeT shirts and hats and stuff that said
Trump too small on them, andthe Trademark and Patent Office said, you
cannot trademark that it has somebody's namein it, and you are only allowed

(07:09):
to trademark somebody's name if they givewritten consent for you to do so.
And the guy who wanted to trademarkit said, this is a violation of
my First Amendment rights, and theSupreme Court said, no, it isn't.
By the way, I believe,all three cases this morning were unanimous,

(07:30):
I believe, And that was onekind of error in the ABC News
reporter when they were talking about themifipristone case, he said, in a
unanimous ruling, and how often doyou see that? Way more Supreme Court
cases are unanimous than you think.It's just that a lot of the biggest,
most controversial ones that are in thenews have some division. But there
are a lot more unanimous Supreme Courtcases than you think. We'll be right

(07:54):
back on kaway. The Supreme Courtbasically throughout this case for lack of standing,
So they did not rule on themerits. They did not rule whether
the FDA's process and regulations around thisparticular abortion drug were proper. They just
threw out the case before ruling onthe merits because they said those people don't
have standing. What's gonna happen nowis that groups of states working together will

(08:20):
file more lawsuits with essentially the samearguments, and if the Supreme Court finds
that they have standing, which theymight I don't have a strong opinion about
that, then the Supreme Court willgo on to rule on the merits.
And it would not surprise me ifthat kind of ruling ends up not being
unanimous. So I just wanted tomake sure to make that real clear.

(08:43):
All right, let me do thisfor about three minutes. So normally,
with the unbelievable situation going on atour southern border, which, and I
say this without intent to be hyperbolic, what's going on in our southern border
is, in my opinion, thesingle biggest ongoing intentional policy failure by a

(09:09):
president of the United States during mylifetime. And I know there are going
to be some people out there whoare going to talk about, well,
what about January six, It's notwhat I'm talking about. I don't like
January six, but that's not whatI'm talking about here. I'm talking about
a president who for years has madea decision not to enforce our laws,
even when the result of not enforcingthat law is negative, highly visible happening

(09:35):
every day, including the Democratic cities, and it is one of the most
remarkable abdications of duty I have everseen. And Joe Biden deserves to be
impeached for it. He won't be. Impeachment has cheapened a lot over the
years, and also because of politics, whether or not he deserves it,

(09:56):
there are actually some Republicans who wouldn'tgo along with it. I'm not going
to get in to that anymore,but it's an incredible, massive failure.
But most news outlets aren't covering it, but yesterday they all had this one.
Here's ABC News. Eight Tajikistanis withsuspected ties to ISIS detained in the
US. Source says a little morefrom ABC Eight individuals from Tajikistan with suspected

(10:22):
ties to ISIS who crossed into theUnited States from the southern border last year
and this year have been detained inLos Angeles, Philadelphia, and New York
City. The suspects were initially allowedto enter the US after being vetted and
no national security issues were covered.Oh I'm sorry, We're uncovered, This
source says. Okay, so terroristgroups aren't stupid, and I'm not saying

(10:48):
that I know for sure that thesepeople are terrorists, But if even one
of them is, can you imaginean ISIS terrorist running around the United States.
Some have been here for a year. It's insane. And part of
the problem is the border patrol doesn'thave all the information. So they actually

(11:09):
probably did their what we'll call vettingto the best that they could with the
information they had. And what thatleft is eight that we know of Tajikistani's
with ISIS ties. Do you remembernot that long ago it didn't actually make
as much news in the US asit probably should have. There was a

(11:30):
massacre at a concert in Russia justa couple months ago. One hundred and
thirty people were killed. That wasISU's cake were those were ISIS affiliated people
from Tajikistan, exactly the same kindof people that we just found eight of
in the United States. After theywere allowed to cross our southern border.

(11:52):
They did not sneak across. Theywent through by proper channels and were let
through one very quick thing. BecauseI want to get to Cameron Canberra and
this is up on my blog andI encourage you to go look at it.
The Inspector General of the Department ofHomeland Security put out a report just
a week ago, and the titleof the report is DHS needs to improve

(12:16):
its screening and vetting of asylum seekersand non citizens applying for admission into the
United States and effectively. They saythat border patrol does not have the capabilities
to effectively screen and vet non citizens. Unbelievable and the last sentence of the

(12:37):
summary. Until the Department addresses thesechallenges, DHS will remain at risk of
admitting dangerous persons into the country orenabling asylum seekers who may pose significant threats
to public safety and national security tocontinue to reside in the United States of
America. Folks, we're at someserious risk. And this, my friends,
is not a partisan point. Let'stalk you charge with KOA on iHeartRadio

(13:03):
and the iHeartRadio app. All right, let's do this time to talk with
Cam Camviera Centennial Capital Partners. AndCam said, you told me you had
some interesting data points, and I'ma data nerd, so let's go.
Yeah, I'm a data nerd aswell. Roscom waned to you. But
yeah, I read a couple ofcool statistics about the SMP five hundred that
had to do with two things we'rein right now, a bull market in

(13:26):
an election year, and I thoughtthey were worth sharing. So the first
one. Since the bullmarket kicked offin October of twenty twenty two, with
the SMP five hundred has searched roughlyforty eight percent in just nineteen months,
and since nineteen fifty seven, theaverage SMP five hundred bullmarket has lasted fifty
nine point two months and produced anaverage cumulative gain of one hundred and sixty

(13:50):
nine point three percent or twenty eightpoint seven percent annually, and number two
since nineteen fifty two. The SMPfive hundred alone has generated an average return
of seven percent during presidential election years, and if you limit that to presidential
election years in which the incumbent presidentis running for reelection, the average jumps

(14:11):
to twelve point two percent. I'mnot picking size. This is just data.
So if history does indeed repeat itselfor maybe at rhymes, we're in
a pretty good spot right now.Of course, past performance is no guarantee
of future results. But let's notforget about what Sir John Templeton said about
bull markets. He said, bullmarkets are born on tessimism, they grow

(14:31):
on skepticism, they mature on optimism, and they die on euphoria. And
in my opinion, we're a longways away from euphoria. A Harris pulled
two months ago showed that fifty sixpercent of Americans think we're in a recession
right now. That doesn't sound veryeuphoric to me. That's a great analysis.
Maybe another time. I actually expectthe recession is coming, but I

(14:52):
could be wrong, and I've beenwrong in the past. In any case,
folks, this kind of big picture, long term historical analysis is just
part of what Cameron and Kurt,apply to your financial planning, at least
the investment side of it, becausefinancial planning involves a lot more than just
investments. If you want to sitdown and have a conversation about getting your
financial house in order, Kcambeer dotcom, Kcambier dot com or by phone

(15:16):
cam that's three zero three two sevenone ten sixty seven, give us a
call. We'd love to help.Awesome, great stuff. We'll talk with
you guys next week. Thanks RossDiscussions in the show. She not con
construed to specific recommendations or investment advice. Consult with a professional before investing.
Securities offers through Cambridge Investment Research Inc. Member fit SIPC advisory services through Cambridge
Investment Research Advisors Inc. Centennial Capitaland Cambridge are not affiliated. It's the

(15:39):
Rosses twenty twenty four Colorado Primary electionvoter Guide. I want to make something
very clear. There is a there'san enormous number of primary elections in the
state, and I did not tryto cover all of them. I did
not try to cover half of them. I've covered the ones that I know
about, the ones that I thinkare particularly important. More commentary on Republican

(16:00):
primaries than on democratic primaries because Iknow that side a little better, but
some commentary on democratic ones as well, and I hope you find it useful.
So again, if you go toRosskominski dot com towards the top,
in that there's a horizontal line ofdifferent things you can click on that includes
like the twenty twenty five listener tripand the book events. But in that

(16:23):
you will up near the top youwill see the voter guide, and then
also down where you see the picturesthat go with the blog entries, the
voter guide is in there too,although it'll overtime get pushed down and I'll
have to remember to move it backup, but it'll always be up there
near the top. So I'm sorryit took so long. Probably a lot
of folks have voted already, youknow, a couple of weeks until the

(16:45):
until the election, but I hopeyou find it helpful. So again,
go to Rosskimensky dot com near thetop, click on the voter guide.
If you think there's an important electionwith a really interesting primary, and I
don't mean there's just a candidate youlike really well, but I mean an
interesting primary and important primary. Maybeit's close, and maybe one person's really

(17:07):
clearly better than the other. Andyou think I should have talked about it.
You can email me and that's Rossat Koa, Denver dot com.
You can email me and say,Ross, you know, please consider adding
this race and you can tell mewho you like and why and I will
and I will definitely consider it.So again, Rosscomisky dot com and click
on all that. I also wantto remind you that we just started selling

(17:30):
our twenty twenty five listener trip.It's already a third sould and we just
started, and that's the Galapagos Islandsfrom March fourteenth to twenty second of next
year. We're gonna have an amazingtime. And I'll tell you, in
a world where everything seems really expensive, if I ask you two guests,

(17:51):
how much do you think eight nights, nine days, all your flights,
almost all your meals, tips,entrance to the National Parks, boat ride
to all the islands, private naturalists, just for our group going to all
the islands, how much do youthink a trip like that would cost you?
I bet you your guest is goingto be higher than the actual price

(18:11):
on this trip. It's really reallyexcellent value and we're gonna have a wonderful
time together. So go to rosstripdot com for that r O S S
t r ip dot com and Ihope you I hope you joined me there.
Let's see. I want you twothings. Responding to a couple of
listener texts, First, a personwho always sends me stuff from a liberal
point of view responded when I saidat the end of the last segment that

(18:36):
what Joe Biden had done on theborder was a massive dereliction of duty,
and I did not mean that asa partisan point. And when I said
I don't mean that as a partisanpoint, what I mean is if a
Republican had done such a bad jobas Joe Biden has done on the border,
I would have made the same comment. It happens that the guy I'm
commenting about as a Democrat. Butanyway, this person said, the GOP

(18:57):
literally voted against increas funding at theborder because Trump wanted political capital. Don't
lie to your audience, Okay,there is some truth to that. There
was a bill. It wasn't great. This is the problem, Okay,
so I'm gonna address this. Iactually think it's kind of interesting. There
was a bill. It was mostlynegotiated by Senator James Langford of Oklahoma,

(19:18):
who is not a squish by theway, the dude is a real conservative.
He's a Republican from Oklahoma. You'renot gonna get a lot of squishes
out of there. But remember thatJoe Biden and even back then, when
they were negotiating this thing some monthsago, Democrats already had the feeling that
I'm sure they still have that they'relikely to have a very bad election,

(19:42):
and that a big part of itis because Americans are so upset about what's
going on on the southern border.Think about even here in Denver. We're
not a border state, but thinkabout the fact that Denver, in some
areas around Denver are overrun with illegalalias who are having a negative impact on

(20:03):
our quality of life. I'm notsaying they're destroying everything, and I don't
hate them as people, but Ithink you get my point. So,
in swing states, and Colorado isnot one, but in swing states,
you can easily see even some Democratsor independents who might consider voting for Democrats

(20:26):
lean against Biden because of this failureat the border. So it is true
that Trump told Republican Wait, letme make my other point I didn't finish
my point. Since Democrats know whothey're losing and knew they were losing,
then Republicans had almost all the leveragein negotiating that border deal, to change

(20:49):
how the border is enforced, tochange the asylum rules, to change all
this stuff, and Democrats would havebasically had to go along with almost anything
short of, you know, billionsof dollars more to immediately finish the border
wall or something like that that there'sjust no way Democrats would go along with.

(21:11):
But anything short of that, Demswould have had to go along.
Republicans had all of the all ofthe leverage, and they got very little,
and that's part of the reason Republicansdidn't vote for it. But of
course it's also true that Donald Trumptold Republicans not to vote for it,

(21:37):
and I did not like that moveby Donald Trump. Frankly, that doesn't
mean I loved the bill. Thebill wasn't very good. Was it better
than nothing? Maybe a little,but not nearly as much better than nothing
as it should have been. Butthe other point, even though that's true

(21:57):
that Republicans voted against this thing andthat Trump told them to, the more
important point is this bill didn't comeup until three years into the Biden presidency
when they realized they were losing becauseof it. So what I said remains

(22:18):
absolutely true, and this text iswrong to imply that my point isn't valid.
Joe Biden has failed at the bordersince he's been president. He opened
the board, but while he wasa candidate, he said on the campaign

(22:40):
trail to all the illegal aliens,come on up. He invited them,
and then he opened the border tolet him in, and he didn't do
anything. He didn't try to doanything about it until his political advisors told
him, Hey, this is goingto kill your election chances. Hey,
I need to ask you a favorbecause a listener just texted me a thing

(23:03):
and I need to see if thisis happening to other people. Can you
do me a favor and click onmy voter guide and tell me if it
opens or if it asks you tosign in too micro to Microsoft one Drive
if it if it's asking you tosign up for Microsoft one Drive, it

(23:26):
shouldn't do that. If it does, then I may have to change something,
or maybe I've got links in twodifferent places. Chanon if you if
you get it, let me know, let me know what happens there.
And then the other listener question ross, why does the president want open borders?
That's that's unclear. I can thinkof a few possible reasons. One,

(23:48):
the hardcore left wing base of theDemocratic Party, whom Joe Biden seems
always to be pandering too, wantsopen borders. I'm not going to get
into a whole conversation of why theywant open borders, but why Biden does.
One reason might be for the samereason that he's trying to illegally cancel

(24:10):
student loans and all the incredibly farfar left wing stuff that he does,
because he thinks that's the base ofhis party and he's pandering to them.
So that's one. Another possible reasonhe would want open borders is if he
believes that at least someday this couldn'thappen soon, but if he believes that
someday these folks could be turned intoDemocratic voters. I think there's a little

(24:34):
bit too much emphasis on that fromRepublicans, but I can't rule it out
as a factor, even though Idon't think it's something that would happen anytime
soon. It would require massive changesto federal law, and I think changes
that the American people would not accept. So I just I don't think that's
a very real thing. Although thereare some places that are getting allowing them

(24:57):
to vote in municipal elections, right. There are some cities, for example,
that are allowing illegal aliens, Ithink Los Angeles allowing them to vote
in their city elections, which isnonsense. And then the other reason,
maybe again this is all speculation onmy part. Why why Joe Biden is
fine with open borders is that hecame in bound and determined to just do

(25:21):
the opposite of anything and everything thatDonald Trump was doing, so that could
be it too. He came inand just I mean, Donald Trump had
I would say, two big areasof domestic policy success. One was tax
cuts and the other was the border. And I get the border is borderline

(25:41):
actually, if you will pardon thepun, whether you would call that domestic
policy or international policy, but inany case, Donald Trump had the border
better under control than any president inmy lifetime probably. And Joe Biden,
just because he wanted to undo asmuch of Donald Trump as he could came

(26:04):
in and did that and that wasbad. So I don't know why does
he want open borders. I don'teven know that he's aware of very much.
All right, let's do something completelydifferent. Let's come back to a
local story. And I've got afew different sources for this. We're gonna
look at the Denver Gazette and theDenver Post and some other stuff. And

(26:26):
why don't we start with the DenverGazette headline proposed sales tax hike in Denver.
Inch is closer to November ballot box. So there's actually, I believe
going to be maybe three new salestax hikes proposed for Denver, not for
the state, but proposed for Denver. I will note, just as an

(26:49):
aside, that in one of thepieces of legislation that passed in the state
legislature a month ago, we aregoing to get I think next year,
a reduction in the state income taxrate and in the state sales tax rate.
I believe I have that right.So this is a this is a

(27:11):
Denver thing. And if you happento have Fox News on this morning a
little over an hour ago, youwould have seen me there talking with Dana
Perino about some of the impacts ofthe massive influx of illegal aliens into Denver,
which by the way seems to haveleveled off now there's not that many
more coming in, and I thinkpart of the reason is that the governor

(27:33):
of Texas has gotten involved with enforcingTexas's border, so more of the illegals
now are coming in through California,and from California there is not a Republican
governor busting them out to other places. So that's so we're kind of steady
now on the number of illegals thatwe've got in this town. But one
of the main impacts has been onDenver Health. So Denver Health is this

(27:56):
major safety net hospital in Denver.It's good hospital and it's a place where
people can go who don't have healthinsurance, and you know it's it's a
safety net hospital. And they have, according to a recent study from the
Common Sense Institute, spent forty eightmillion dollars on uncompensated care for illegals.

(28:21):
And I think you understand what thatterm means, But in case you don't,
what it means is what they wouldnormally charge for the medical services that
they have provided to illegal aliens whooften go into emergency rooms and use them
for everything, whether or not they'rereally emergencies, but what they would normally

(28:42):
bill for that or what it coststhem to provide the service, and could
be either way depending on how they'recalculating. And I actually don't know that
they are not getting paid back foror paid for is forty eight million dollars
so far. And you know,Denver Health was already losing a little bit

(29:03):
of money and now they're losing alot of money. And so a zero
point three four percent sales tax increasesbeing proposed for Denver just to help fund
Denver Health in large part because ofthe damage to their finances from the illegal

(29:23):
aliens. There's also going to beanother proposed quarter percent sales tax. Actually,
I take it back, there wasgoing to be another proposed quarter percent
sales tax for what the Denver Postcalls after school programs and youth violence prevention.

(29:44):
But it looks like that one isnot going to get through the city
council and not going to get tovoters this year. I guess. I
guess they don't want to have toomany sales tax increases on the ballot at
one time. There may yet beanother one coming our way. But even

(30:06):
if only the Denver Health one wereto pass, Denver would have a sales
tax rate of nine point one fivepercent. Are you kidding? Nine point
one five percent? It's nuts,It's absolutely nuts. Denver City Councilman Kevin

(30:26):
Flynn, who is i'd say oneof the two rational people on the city
council along with Daryl Watson, KevinFlynn said that he quote has a serious
concern about burdening Denver taxpayers. Ohyou don't say now. Again, keep
in mind that part of the reasonDenver sales tax is so high is because

(30:52):
Denver voters self flagellate so often.They routinely vote for tax increases on themselves.
That's what liberals do. But atsome point, especially with inflation already
being what it is, I'd haveto think that even Denver liberals are going

(31:15):
to say, sorry, we've hadenough. Find the money in the huge
pile of money you're already taking fromus with our sales tax rate of eight
point eight one percent. And ofcourse I acknowledge that of that eight point
eight one percent, some of itgoes to RTD, and some of it
goes to the state, and someof it goes to various other things.
So I get that I'm not sayingall eight point eight one percent goes to

(31:37):
the city or anything, but youget my point. Massive amounts of wealth
and income are already being extracted fromDenver rights, and now they're going to
propose more in order to shore upthe funding of a hospital system whose finances
are being degraded because Joe Biden failedto do the very basics of his job

(32:00):
enforcing the border. So here oneother thing actually want to I want to
mention, or maybe two. Isaw a quote from a woman who runs
Denver Health and I don't have thequote in front of me, but I'll
get it about right. And shesaid, well, one great thing about
a sales tax increase is that Denverhas lots of tourists, whether from out

(32:25):
of state or just out of Denver, coming into Denver for whatever the thing
might be that they're coming into Denverfor. And therefore, if we fund
Denver Health by a sales tax,we're getting some We're getting non Denver rights
to fund this. Wow. Imean, is someone that brain dead really

(32:49):
competent to be running a major hospitalor or that unethical? Like? Is
that really how this is supposed towork? You're supposed to pillage people who
might be your friends and neighbors,in order to fund a problem, put
a band aid on a problem causedby the local government, or the state

(33:12):
government or the federal government. Andat some point, don't you think if
you start punishing tourists that much,and they're looking at also adding fees on
rental cars at the airport, punishingtourists more. There at some point tourists
are gonna say sorry, your townis just too expensive, and conventions will
say, sorry, your town isjust too expensive. Why it is up

(33:37):
with these people. It's incredibly frustrating. Really, it's kind of remarkable,
and I'm I was so disappointed.I was so disappointed to read that quote
from the lady who runs who runsDenver Health. The other thing that I
want to make sure you're aware ofis that there is a proposed change to

(33:58):
the Denver City and County Charter thatwould put a ballot measure for Denver voters
that would allow unionization and collective bargainingfor some city employees, including Denver Water
and Denver Public Library, and nineof the current members of the city Council

(34:22):
are supporting that. I'm glad tosee that the couple rational people that I
mentioned, Kevin Flynn and Daryl Watsonare not. I don't know who the
other two are who are not becauseI don't know all the names of everybody
on the Denver City Council. Butthe socialists are still all there, supporting
unionizing and giving employees of Denver Water, your water company, the right to

(34:46):
strike. You really want to givethe right to strike to government employees working
for a monopoly who provide your freakingin water. Oh my gosh, Deenver,
Wrights, get smarter in who youelect, as I'm sure everybody who

(35:07):
listens to this show is aware.Colorado's fourth congressional district has a very interesting
Republican primary, interesting enough that it'sgaining a lot of national attention as well,
and I have made up my missionto have most of the candidates for
that race on the show. Joiningus right now is one of the candidates

(35:28):
I have not had yet. RichardHoldtorf is a state rep for Colorado House
District sixty three, which is muchof northeastern Colorado. He's a retired US
Army Lieutenant colonel, apache helicopter pilot, and a third generation rancher and farmer.
Representative. Holdorf welcome to KOA.Thanks for being here. Hello Ross,

(35:49):
thank you for inviting me to theprogram. I do want to mention
that I'm a retired colonel six.I did serve as a lieutenant colonel and
commanded at the battalion level, butthat I was promoted to six and continued
my service for twenty nine years.And I was also and still in the
Colorado House Republican whip on the leadershipteam. Very good. I don't recall

(36:09):
where I read lieutenant colonel. Ididn't make it up, but I will
acknowledge your your promotion to six,which was actually the rank at which my
father retired as well from the Navy, and thank you for your service.
So just beyond what I just said, what more do you want our listeners

(36:30):
to know about you? A lotof CD four voters listening to the show.
What should people know about you?Well, first of all, I
want everybody to know that there's asix horse race, and there's arguably too
many horses on the track. Butwhat the electorate and CD four has to
do, and they already know theyhad failed leadership under ken Buck and he

(36:51):
continued to slip as he served,and then the end that last year or
not even didn't even complete the lastyear. There was so many problems.
I early on started an exploratory committeeand announced, and I was the only
person in public office that announced thatI was going to run against ken Buck
last October in early November to helphim pack his suitcase. Everyone else was

(37:15):
on the sidelines until ken Buck says, I don't think I'm gonna run again.
I'm not having fun in Washington DC. Things aren't working my way,
and so I'm going to take aknee and not continue my service. And
then worse than he actually quit,so you know, he not only took
any but he walked off the fieldand did what I call the walk of

(37:35):
shame. Now we have a heckof a problem with this special election,
and that seats even at risk withGreg Lopez the front runner in that.
But with respect to my race,people need to know that there's a lot
of good candidates, but there's onegreat candy. There's one candidate that unlike
the sheet shopper from CD three,who's trying to keep your office in Washington

(38:00):
DC because she failed to represent CDthree and a man and it would keep
Pert the elector happy. I've passedover forty two bills, resolutions and tributes
in the state House over the lastfive years, and that young lady at
passed one bill and it was TickingLooper's bill. If people want to do
the research, wasn't even her billas a prime sponsor. She likes it

(38:22):
to out a lot of things,but most of them are false. Let
me just jump in for a second. Measures pound per pound, Yeah,
I think I'm the best candidate ifyou look at the resumes, if you
look at what I've done in theworld, if you look my geopolitical knowledge,
if you look at my efforts inthe state House, my leadership.
There's so many right, let mehold forf that you need to look at

(38:44):
all. Right, let me jumpin. We got about four and a
half minutes here. So interesting thatyou brought up ken Buck and that you
were going to run against him.I'm very interested to know what were the
main things that you didn't like abouthow ken Buck was doing his job that
made you think I need to bein this race. Well, first of
all, the way he protected theBiden money machine and said, oh,

(39:04):
there's nothing here, let's not supportthe House ways and means looking at a
special inquiry got to vote against that. And then my Orcus, he voted
twice not to impeach my Orcus forfailing to do his job and protect this
country with the rush on the southernborder. And then with Christopher Ray,

(39:25):
the FBI director, he has anopportunity to question him in the committee.
J didiary committee, I believe itwas a subcommittee, and he throws some
softballs and says, oh, ChristopherRay, it's just a hard job.
We know you're doing your best.All the while, the FBI is investigating
parents who were at school board meetingsstanding up and speaking out against transgender cultism

(39:47):
and the things that are going onin our schools. And now they're a
domestic terrorists. Then Buck, youcan do better, and you should have
done better. And I called himout, and I'll call him out today
when I go to Washington, dC. We don't have these leader failures,
all right. So now I willvote the district and I will stand
by the people of Colorado because theycome first, all right. So now,
and now let's look forward at thisrace. I think there's an immense

(40:09):
amount of uncertainty around this race.So a lot of people think that the
young lady who came here from CDthree may end up winning with thirty or
thirty five percent of the vote.We don't have runoffs here, just whoever
gets the most and that's it.And it's kind of like you've got her,
and then you've got everybody else who'snot her. And you know,

(40:32):
I've thought about this a lot.I don't know how you would tell any
of you guys and gals like youshould be the one to get out.
I mean, if it's going tobe five against that one person whose name
were apparently not using, then she'sprobably gonna win. So how do you
think about It's probably too late now, but how did you think about,

(40:54):
Well, who should stay in andwho should get out? If the goal
is to beat her, Well,you start with who stood up first and
said I'll go do the job,and who's got the resume to do it.
In that dangerous world, we've gotRussian warships in Havana, thirty miles
off off of Florida, you bettersend somebody to Washington, DC, who's

(41:15):
got veteran leadership, who's been asenior military officer, who's a graduate of
the United States Army Work College,who can serve on the Armed Forces Committee
today and make very key decisions forthe future of this world and the United
States, and it's security. That'sone thing I'd like to point out.
But a bigger issue is, youknow, one candidate from Laughlin hadn't won

(41:35):
a race his entire time and hasn'tdone anything and in public service. Don't
know why he's there other than he'ssitting on a pile of money and thinks
he wants to spend it because hehas to go to Congress. Another young
lady from Douglas County hasn't done anythingin government. I hadn't even served on
a school board. But she's beentrying to run for public office now for
going on six seven eight years.I don't know how long. Maybe she
ought to start do something else insteadof going for the top and starting.

(42:00):
Yes, you could say that toDonald Trump too, right, Well,
you could say it to anybody.You could say it to anybody. But
I think experienced matters, and Ithink leadership matters, and I think haven't
approven track record matters, you know, And there's other candidates in this thing.
I got a couple of buddies ofmine that I've served with them in
the General Assembly and Jerry Sonerberg Iwas in this thing a month and a

(42:21):
half before he decided to throw hisout in the ring. I said,
Jerry, what are you doing?I'm already in this thing, and oh
I got to do this. Hesays, you know, Washington needs me.
I said, well, way togo. You're gonna split votes,
right, Well, you're all you'reall splitting votes. I don't know whether
you know I was here first.Is a good enough answer for why nobody
else should get in or why othersshould get out? But clearly the risk

(42:45):
of having so many people in whoare not the person who came from CD
three is it just it allows allyou folks to split the money. And
by the way, I'm not saying, and have not said, that you
or any other you know, individualshould clearly get out. I mean,
if you're all doing kind of sortof well and kind of sort of the
same, it's really hard to sayto one of you or two of you

(43:05):
you should be the one or youshould be the two to get out.
So I think we're I think ifthe goal is for that the CD three
person to not win, I thinkthat goal is in trouble well, it
might very well be. Every horseis still wanting to run on this track.
Yeah, and you know there's personalitiesinvolved, there's egos involved, But
clearly if you look at on paper, who's done the most, who's been

(43:31):
in the most places. You know, I served twenty nine years in the
army. I've done five overseas tours, two combat tours. I've served the
Pacific Theater, the European Theater,the Middle Eastern theater. Nobody has that
experience. I've gone to the StateHouse. I tripped into politics when Kimmy
Clark Lewis passed away, tripped intoit, and I've been leading ever since.
And I'm not this establishment, youknow, old guard, old man

(43:54):
on the mountain that's been around forever, just waiting my turn. I'm trying
to save this country. I'm tryingto save the Republic. You want a
warrior to go back to Washington,DC, to represent Colorado and save the
Republic, I'm your huckleberry. Idon't know about all these other people.
You know, they claim their fightersand they want to fight, But I've
seen so many soft shoot actions atthe state Capitol for some of my contemporaries

(44:17):
that I've served with up there,and I tell him, don't bend the
knee, don't kiss the ring,don't go into the Democrat speaker's house or
the Senate President's house and grovel andsnibble and try to cut some backdoor deal.
Stand up, stand strong, standup for the republic, stand up
for the Republican Party. That's thekind of leadership I bring. If the

(44:38):
CD four Electric wants something else,if they want some deal maker that's going
to go back there, then Iguess I'm not that guy. Richard.
Over forty pieces of legislation, Ipartisan in a Democrat super majority, radical
state life Colorado. I got toleave it here, Richard, But do
that, yeah. Richard Holthorp isa retired Army colonel of patchy helicopter pilot,

(45:00):
currently state representative and minority whip.His website HOLDTORF h O L t
O RF for Colorado dot com ifyou want to learn more about his campaign.
Colonel, thank you for being here, and thank you for your service
to our country. Well, thankyou for inviting me, and God bless
you and keep doing what you're doing. Thank you, sir, Thank you.

(45:21):
We'll take a quick break. We'llbe right back on koa very very
interesting I have to say the listenertext line, I did not express any
opinion at all. I did avery polite, even handed, even complimentary
interview. I will say I'm nota fan of Richard Holdthorf's I don't like
his style. I have a feelinghe would be far less effective in Congress

(45:44):
than he thinks he would be.But I didn't express any of that.
And listener texts just one after anotherafter another, stuff like he's such a
blowhard, the fella likes to talkGod what else. Another person called him
a blowhard, Another person called himannoying. Another person said I've heard him

(46:09):
in three interviews. I can't standhim. Wow, there is something about
that particular guy who I mean.I guess he gets elected in his district,
but there is something about him thatwhen you put him on a bigger
stage, and I'm not saying Kowais the biggest stage, but also if

(46:31):
you saw him in the nine Newsdebate, the CD four primary debate,
and I decided not to ask himabout this when he was on with me,
but this thing came up where hestarted criticizing Lauren Bobert for how she
dressed and basically said she addressed likea prostitute. And you can think whatever

(46:52):
you want about how Lauren Bobert dresses, but is that really what you should
be bringing up in a primary debate? And then there was some comment he
made about how like the women inhis family dress. I don't know.
It was just very off putting anappealing to vision me. Right, maybe
there's a bunch of people like himin northeastern Colorado, but even there I

(47:15):
kind of get the feeling that hisstyle has just got to be a little
off putting to most people. SoI also want to mention related to this,
a bunch of people have asked meto do a voter guide for the
primary election, and I'm really reallybusy, and I wasn't going to do
it, but so many people askthat I did it. And so if

(47:37):
you go to Rosskominsky dot com andthis horizontal line of stuff across the top
where it says like email Ross andwhatever, go a little further right and
you will see the link for thetwenty twenty four vote primary election voter guide.
I did not attempt to cover everyrace in the state, Okay,
I covered all of the congressional races, where they're Republican primaries. I covered

(48:04):
a handful of state House and StateSenate races and a couple other races,
and I just did what I coulddo in a reasonable amount of time.
So if you want to suggest somethingelse to me to add to it,
I'm happy to listen. If youwant to send me a note at rosstkoaitenver
dot com. But if you wantto see my recommendations for congressional seats and

(48:28):
for some of the state House andstate Senate primaries and a couple other races,
just go to Rosskominsky dot com andyou can read it and share it
with whoever you want. And Ihope you I hope you find it interesting.
Let me do one minute on thisstory that I found quite interesting.

(48:51):
The website is Unusualwales dot com andthe Twitter account unusual Wales has I some
insane number of followers. It's basicallylike an economics Twitter account that finds interesting
data. It's a great Twitter accountto follow on usual Whales. So anyway,

(49:12):
they tweeted this thing that was anarticle or relates to data. The
headline is it's now cheaper to rentthan buy in all fifty of the top
metros nationwide. Isn't that incredible?If you're deciding whether to rent or buy
a home Right now, Renting isgenerally more cost effective in most major US

(49:34):
cities. According to a new analysisby bank Rate Nationwide, buying a typical
home costs nearly thirty seven percent moreper month than renting rents have. Rent
increases have slowed across the country overthe last year, while home high home
prices, elevated mortgage rates, andlow housing inventory creates significant obstacles for prospective

(49:57):
homeowners. So, just in theinterest of time, I'm going to wrap
this up, and I want tosay that when renting is much more expensive
than buying, the market will fixthat problem over time. Either rents are
gonna go up, or home pricesare gonna go down, or both.
I suspect it's going to be moreof the latter. I'm a little not

(50:21):
I don't think real estate's gonna crash, but I think it's overpriced compared to
people's incomes. And when you canrent for that much cheaper than buying,
people will do that. In manysituations, that will reduce demand for housing,
which will tend to also lower theprices. So I think it'll be
a little bit of both. Ithink rents will go up. I think
home prices will come down. Idon't think it'll be massive amounts of each,

(50:44):
but the current situation cannot be sustained. So, as my listeners know,
I'm not a particularly religious person,I'm not a socially conservative person.
But many of my listeners and myclose friends are Christian Conservatives, and so
I'm around a lot of people alot of times. I have different views

(51:06):
on things than I do, andthat's fine, we can all be friends.
But I'm always very interested to learnabout some of these views. And
I saw a piece over at theHeritage Foundation website written by Emma Waters,
who's a senior research associate at Heritage. In the website is Heritage dot org
and the title of her piece isa Christian's Practical Guide to Reproductive Technology.

(51:32):
And so I invited Emma to theshow. She kindly agreed, and in
what I guess you might call goodtiming, there was some news yesterday about
the Southern Baptist Convention voting to opposeIVF in vitro fertilization, which ties in
very closely to what we're going totalk about today. So, Emma,

(51:54):
welcome to Kaaway. Thanks for beinghere, of course, thanks having me
So first of all, I justwant to take a macro look. Why
did you decide to write a Christian'spractical guide to reproductive technology? So,
believe it or not, the wordsin vitro fertilization are not mentioned anywhere in

(52:15):
the Bible, and because of this, some Christians have concluded that this means
the Bible or Christian teaching is somehowagnostic on the question of reproductive technologies.
And ever since the Alabama Supreme Courtdecision in February that has really sparked a
national discourse on IVF. I thinka lot of Christians in particular, have

(52:36):
found themselves out of wits end,not really sure how to think about the
issue, because, on the onehand, IVF creates life, which is
something that Christians and those in thereligious world are huge fans of. But
on the other hand, there area lot of moral and ethical considerations that
come into play with IBF that manyChristians don't know how to spink about well.

(52:57):
And so I wrote this piece.As the title says, it's a
very practical guide to empower Christians tothink about in future fertilization as a technology,
but also from the lens of whatdoes the Bible say about infertility and
how we engage in these sort oflife creating technologies. Okay, I think
we probably don't need to spend aton of time on why Christians or anybody

(53:20):
else might like aspects of IVF.You know all that there will be agreement
on that part. So I thinkthe more interesting part for me and maybe
for you is the part about wherethere might be objections to it. And
I'm I'm guessing in part because itmakes sense and in part because I've read
your piece, but Christians could beconcerned about the fact that fertilized eggs could

(53:47):
be destroyed or discarded in the IVFprocess. So I told you before we
went on, I would probably askyou some stupid questions because I don't know
a lot about this, and Icertainly don't know a lot about a way
you know capital c Christians think aboutthis. But is that a major issue,
the destruction of fertilized eggs. Yeah, I think that probably gets at

(54:12):
the core of the issue. Soamong almost all Orthodox Christians, there is
a firm belief that life begins atthe moment of conception. That's the idea
that has really animated the pro lifemovement when it comes to abortion, and
for many denominations that tends to bethe stance that they take when it comes
to IVF as well. So mostProtestant denominations actually don't have firm teaching or

(54:36):
guidance on the use of reproductive technologies, but most of them will recognize that
life begins at conception, whether it'sconceived inside of a woman's body or inside
of a peatri dish and IVF,and that procedures like IVF that oftentimes do
involve the routine destruction of human lifeat that embryonic stage is inconsistent with Christian

(54:58):
teaching and Christian value. Now,of course IVF does not have to destroy
embryonic human life. Sometimes in routineIVF, they will choose to destroy human
life or the embryos perish just aspart of the natural process. But I
certainly don't think that all IVF necessarilyresults in the intentional destruction of human life.

(55:19):
But that question of how we're treatingembryos, I think it's probably the
primary concerned, primary interest that Christianshave when they think about this issue.
From your perspective in terms of faithslash philosophy, is there a difference between
a fertilized egg that gets destroyed intentionallyversus one that gets destroyed kind of as

(55:45):
you described, with sort of anatural part of the process, which could
be that it just is left aloneand then that results in the end of
it versus you know, throwing itaway. There's certainly a distinction to be
made between intentionally discarding an embryo atany point after it's been conceived and the

(56:08):
recognition that sometimes life ends embryos ceaseto develop. Right. This happens with
miscarriages inside a woman's body, verymuch outside of either person's control. So
there certainly is a distinction there.One is within your control, one is
outside of your control. The onething I would say to this, though,
is that it is worth considering.With IVF in particular, there is

(56:31):
a much higher rate of embryos evenunintentionally being destroyed, either through the use
of preimplantation genetic testing, or evenjust because of the process itself. Right,
There's a lot of stages from fertilizingthe egg to transferring the embryo,
freezing the embryo, defrosting the embryo, and planting the embryo in a woman's

(56:52):
life, and all of those stagesintroduce increased risk that the embryo will not
survive. And so I think itis worth be in mind our responsibility with
the embryos that we have created.If we're intentionally putting them in situations where
there's a much higher risk that theycould be destroyed or that they could cease
to live, then that's something Ithink that that's a moral responsibility that people

(57:15):
have to consider for themselves as they'reassessing whether or not they want to pursue
IBS. The Politico article that Ireferenced earlier starts with this. The Southern
Baptist Convention, the nation's largest andmost politically powerful Protestant denomination, voted wednesday
to oppose in vitro fertilization. Sowhat would you add to that? What

(57:37):
do you think is the most interestingand most important part of this story?
Yeah, it's you know, I'moverall very excited to see the Southern Baptist
Convention address in future of fertilization.Like I just mentioned, most Protestant denominations
don't go beyond saying we shouldn't intentionallydestroy life, and so they don't actually

(58:00):
address how should Christians think about thisfrom a moral and theological perspective. Now,
the Politico article is a little misleadingbecause the IVF resolution does not actually
prohibit IVF or say that Southern Baptistscannot use IVF. It doesn't go that
far. What the resolution does say, however, is that they recognize that

(58:22):
life begins a conception and has inherentworth and dignity from that moment of conception,
and so our use of these reproductivetechnologies should keep that front and foremost
in our thought. That we shouldnot pursue any technologies where we're intentionally destroying
human life. And like I mentioneda second ago, we should think very
carefully about how we use these technologieswhen it does increase the risk of destroying

(58:45):
life. So it's a really goodstart from the Southern Baptist to start,
I think discipling and encouraging Southern Baptiststo think in an explicitly biblical way about
the use of reproductive technologies. Weare talking with Emma Waters from the Heritage
Foundation Heritage dot org. Her recentposting is called a Christian's Practical Guide to

(59:09):
reproductive technology. I want to dragyou a little bit into the political not
specifics about any particular upcoming election,though I did note and you tell me
if I have this wrong, becauseobviously you pay attention to this every day
and I don't really, but Ithought that I saw maybe Ted Cruz,

(59:30):
who's pretty darn conservative and pro life, and maybe some other senator proposing a
bill. Was it Katie Britt?Maybe proposing a bill to protect IVF at
the federal level. So first,just correct me on anything I got wrong
there and tell me what kind oflegislation is being proposed and what you think

(59:50):
of it. Yeah, so you'reright. Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Katie
Britt introduced the IVF Protection app whichvery simply says that no state can ban
or prohibit IVF on the state level, and if they do, they'll lose
access to Medicaid funding. So that'swhere the federal part of this law comes

(01:00:14):
into place. Now. I havewritten on this piece at Newsweek in a
few other outlets, and the waythat we've really thought about this, and
it seems like a lot of otherRepublicans sendate offices have thought about this,
is that first IVF is not underattack in the United States. There are
no federal or state entities that arelooking to prohibit or ban the practice,

(01:00:35):
and indeed, IVF access is widelyavailable in all fifty states. And so
the first law was, what's thepurpose of this bill? If IVF isn't
under attack, then why go sofar as to threatened states with the loss
of medicaid funding if they attempt toregulate or think about it, or regulate
or like think about ways to regulatethe practice. And the second is the
bill doesn't address the ethical concerns inIVS. It talks about health and health

(01:01:00):
and safety concerns. But I thinkthere are a lot of conservatives who support
IVF, who want IVF access available, continuing to be made available, but
also recognize that there are serious ethicalconcerns in how it's practiced and that we
should take those into account. Forexample, most countries regulate and govern the

(01:01:22):
use of IVF, especially when itcomes to things like pre implantation genetic testing,
which can be used to select thesex of a child. In the
United States, there are no suchregulations limiting the practice, and so about
seventy three percent of all clinics offergenetic testing, and about seventy percent will
allow parents to electively use IVF justto select the ideal sex for their child,

(01:01:46):
and Slate actually had a really interestingpiece on this recently. But aside
from that, Democrats also have theirRights to IVF package, which radically expands
IVF not even as a medical treatmentbut just as an entitlement for people who
want to create children. But theprimary problem is that they prohibit any limitations

(01:02:07):
on the practice, and it explicitlyallows for any use of reproductive technologies,
including technology like designer baby, geneticediting or cloning, which are widely unpopular
in the United States. But thatyou're most exciting in this development is today,
actually Senator Hyde Smith and Senator Linkford, who are both supportive of IVF,

(01:02:32):
introduce something called the Restore Act.And the Restore Act actually focuses on
promoting restorative reproductive medicine that addresses reproductivehealth conditions in men and women that can
oftentimes contribute to infertility. So theirapproach is that IVF is already available,
so that's good, and instead weshould also be promoting restorative reproductive medicine that

(01:02:54):
can help us address those underlying causesand help people either conceived children naturally or
have much higher success rates if theystill turn to IVF. So, just
to make sure I understand what thisproposed bill would do, it would have
some kind of federal funding mechanism formedical treatments that could try to treat whatever

(01:03:16):
the underlying problem infertility problem is thatwould otherwise lead someone to IVF so that
they don't need IVF. Yeah.So the way the bill is structured has
a twofold approach, and actually what'sso brilliant about it is it doesn't require
any additional funding that works within existinggrants and data collection surveys. And so

(01:03:39):
the bill does two things. First, it expands grant eligibility for doctors or
medical students who are in training sothat they have access to medical training and
information to learn how to use andpractice restorative reproductive medicine, which addresses those
underlying causes. And in the secondpart of the bill has a focus on

(01:04:01):
accessed information and data collection, whereit ensures that men and women who are
suffering from reproductive health conditions or infertility, yeah, are able to access these
treatments through various government programs that alreadyexist. And then It also directs HHS
to conduct research, put together literaturereviews, and provide ongoing reports about the

(01:04:26):
accessibility of this treatment. Okay,so I've got a few questions, and
we've got about five minutes here,and I want to follow up on a
couple of things you said before.So give me relatively short answers so I
can get through all all three things. You said that Senator Cruz and Senator
Brits bill appears to be a solutionin search of a problem. But a
lot of people saw that IVF wasvery much about to be under attack in

(01:04:51):
Alabama, and then the state legislaturehad to change their law to make sure
that it was protected. And whenyou've got very very influential people like the
Heritage Foundation, like you, andthe Southern Baptist Convention now voting to oppose
in vitro fertilization, I think it'sperfectly reasonable to believe that there are lots

(01:05:15):
of people out there who would liketo regulate and limit in vitro fertilization.
And you said, yeah, it'sgood, it's available now, But you
didn't say that you personally, ifyou were king or queen, wouldn't want
to limit it or regulate it aggressively. So I think it's reasonable to think
it would be under attack. Yeah, it's a really good question. I
think this has been probably a lotof the misconceptions that have been around this.

(01:05:40):
First, again, the resolution thatthe Southern Baptists passed is not a
prohibit like, it does not prohibitIDF in any way. It CAUs Christians
not to destroy human life, whichis very consistent with Christian teaching. And
then says we need to think carefullyabout how we use this technology. But
how you use the technology and accessto the technology too, very different things.

(01:06:01):
And then yeah, when it comesto Alabama, right, like the
Alabama decision ultimately said there is adistinction between the loss of property and the
loss of human life, and thatfor the purpose of a wrongful death lawsuit,
right where like those embryos were destroyeddue to the negligence of the fertility
clinic, the parents should have properlegal recourse to hold them accountable. One

(01:06:24):
of the ways that a scholar atHeritage is put it's called the Hamburger test,
and in essence, he says thatthe way that the Alabama court ruled
was that there is a difference betweena hamburger and human life, And ultimately
they were saying that just because you'vedropped a hamburger on the floor, right,
not a big deal. You canjust reimburse the parents and move on.

(01:06:44):
But when you drop embryos on thefloor, when you destroy those embryos,
there's something different there that like reallydoesn't sit well with the parents who
had undergone IVF and felt the lossof their children deeply. And so the
decision wasn't prohibiting IDF right, Andso when it comes to then how we
think about this going forward, Ithink again there's just a very meaningful difference

(01:07:05):
between saying we want to ensure thatwe're practicing these reproductive technologies with the highest
standard of medical care that actually caresfor the parents, cares for the life
involved, and saying we want toprohibited in it. Right, let me
have that, let me jump indavailable regulated a second for a second,

(01:07:28):
just because we only had a coupleof minutes left. So I think that
again, I think that it isand it is reasonable to assume there would
be a tax on IVF coming whena court rules that an accidental destruction of
an embryo can result in wrongful deathlawsuit. Right, So, I think

(01:07:49):
you're going a little too far insaying IVF isn't really under thread. I
think I think it really I thinkit really is. I think that let's
and let's do let's do follow upon one other thing. So for people
like Katie Britt and Ted Cruz,very very pro life, very conservative Republicans,
to posit a federal bill to protectIVF, they must think that even

(01:08:13):
a whiff of opposition to if IVFis a huge political problem for Republicans.
Is that how you analyze what theyare thinking and do you think they're right
if that's what they are thinking.From what we've heard from the office and
from what they've said publicly, itseems that their perspective was that they wanted

(01:08:38):
to go above and beyond to showto show voters, to show Americans that
they were fully in supportive IVF.There were a couple of resolutions that have
been introduced that Republicans signed on towhere they stated their support and they wanted
to put some federal power behind itto show that they really meant it.

(01:09:00):
And so I don't think they atno point claimed that IVF is under attack
or that it's a threat or thatit's threatened. They've not said that anywhere.
That's not send the bill. Ithink they just wanted to provide the
best power behind their statement. Andnotably, Senator britt has a resolution affirming
her support for IVF, and thathas been widely embraced by Senate Republicans with

(01:09:20):
about forty three co sponsors. Andso while they did put forward the bill,
ultimately the resolution is what most peoplehave rallied behind because it's the most
clear statement of their support for IVF. Fascinating. All right, I could
keep going, but we're out oftime. Emma Waters are very interesting piece,
especially for people like me who don'thave a great grasp of the Christian

(01:09:45):
view of IVF, at least tothe way Emma explains it. It's up
at Heritage dot org. It's calleda Christian's Practical Guide to Reproductive Technology.
And talking about this in the contextof the vote yesterday by Southern Baptist was
pretty good timing. I'm thanks somuch for joining us. I really enjoyed
the conversation. I've got a lotmore to talk about. We'll have you
back another day. Sounds great.Thanks for having me on. All right,

(01:10:09):
glad to do it. All right, we're gonna take a quick break.
We'll be right back on Kawa.Normally we do well now, you
know, with intrepid Chad Bower onWednesdays, but we got preempted by the
Rockies game yesterday. So Chad ishere today to talk about medical stuff and
that's the bumper music. All right, fire when ready? Well, you
know you're not a huge TV guy, I know, but you've seen medical

(01:10:30):
dramas, right sure. And whatis the thing that they say everybody's running
around and they need something done immediately? What do they ask? Yes,
why do they yelse? We knowwhat it means. We know that means
now, But yeah, why dothey say the word stat stat Uh?
I don't know, you think you'llwell, maybe it's like asap or it's

(01:10:53):
an acronym, right, yeah,yeah, I would have thought it meant
right away. It does mean.It's not an acronym. It's actually,
uh, it's Latin. It's it'san abbreviation for the Latin word statum s
T A T I M, whichmeans immediately. Wow. All right,
and so you know why would theyyou know kind of what that means.

(01:11:15):
There's more specifics on the down justright now. It's used more for like
on TV, it's like people areyelling and screaming it everywhere about give me
this status. But in reality it'smore of a written thing with prescriptions.
Okay that there are different types ofmedication orders. That are the ones that

(01:11:35):
are They're called scheduled, which meansyou take this every four hours. There's
another one that's called PRN, whichis Latin for pro re nata means as
needed. So take this one PRN. And then there's one this one you
need to take it stat. Okay, So in dad's gonna die if he
doesn't take this pill in the nextfive minutes, get it to him stat.

(01:11:58):
So you may. You may hearit said out loud in a medical
setting, but nothing like it's onTV where they're yelling it and screaming it
constantly. It's coming over the intercomand you doctor so and so come here.
Yeah, yeah, all right,so you'll hear it, but just
not like imagine TV exaggerating stuff.So now we know that I want you.
I'm going to give you now somefancy medical terms and you have to

(01:12:21):
they mean something very common, verysimple. But of course we say the
complicated words. We'll see, we'llsee how good you know. I don't
do well under pressure, dragon,your family, and most of it is
like Latin terms. Okay, whathappens if you have this? What is
this? Pheno palatine, ganglio,neuralgia? Oh my god, uh pimple

(01:12:49):
butt some some nerve thing, anice cream headache. Oh my gosh.
That's a good one. Yes,that's a good one. How about unguise
incarnatis no idea that means you havea ingrown toenail? Oh my gosh,

(01:13:10):
another one, this one will I'llgive you a clue because the word is
gonna throw you. It has somethingto do with something in your mouth,
Okay, afth this stomatitis not nothingto new with your stomach, pissed off
taste, bud blocked taste, budcanker sore? Oh yes, cross.

(01:13:31):
How about what what happens when youhave transient diaphragmatic spasm hiccups? Yes,
no, nope, it's gotta behiccups. I'm coming back to hiccups.
You got the wind knocked out ofyou transient dia pragmatic spasm, So that's

(01:13:53):
the spasm. But I'm not buyingit. I think it's hiccups. All
right, dragon's gonna look it up. Okay, all right, keep going
sink in this diaphragmatic flutter. Thatwould be hiccups. That is a hiccup.
Yes, wow, fine, allright, all right? And what
happens when you sternitate? Burp close? Oh cough same orifice close not burt

(01:14:21):
not cough eaw. Sneeze, yeah, sneeze, yeah, sonate, hold
on, I need to sternitate.Yeah, that's what it's called. Let's
see what happens when you have orthostatichypotension low blood pressure. I'll give you

(01:14:42):
credit for that one. It's withthat head rush you get when you stand
up too fast, gotcha, Yes, all right. A couple of more.
Uh, this is called boor borme borborg stomach gurgling boom. How
did you know that? One?From George Carlin? Okay, George Carlin

(01:15:03):
mentioned in the seventies. Wow,yeah, or borgny he called it.
I don't know if it's the correctpronunciation, but that's how George Carlin said.
More of these, right from GeorgeCarlin? Then you did your own
parents. Yeah, yes, Andlet's see horror polation. I have no
idea. Sure you can say thaton the radio. Polation. Oh h

(01:15:26):
O r I h O r rI pollation. It's on your arms,
like when your arm hair stands up, goosebumps. All right, that's all
right, same thing, yeah,all right? Uh, what happens when
you have gustatory rhinitis? What doesgus? I mean? Yeah? But

(01:15:47):
what? But why gustatory? Isthat like running nose from eating hot food
or something? Correct? Yes,it's have to start calling doctor ross Ran
goodness more, all right? Thisis if you have this condition. You
have medial tibial stress syndrome, medialtibial funny bone, shin splints, shin

(01:16:16):
splints. Yes, oh yeah,that was leg and the last one.
Uh. You don't want to cometo work like this, having visalgia visalgia
V E I S A L GI A I don't. Can you give
us a clue? You don't wantto come to work in this condition?

(01:16:38):
Hungover? That's rights the word fora hangover, or maybe you do?
You do? Wow? A lotof good stuff there. I thought,
Chad, that stat would have beenshort for some long English word like statute
statutes. I couldn't. Yeah,but it turns out it's Latin, and

(01:16:59):
I did not know. Oh Ross, Now you know, I think I
would like some gustatory ryan ititis fromsome spicy Indian food at India's restaurant.
Don't you think that sounds good?It sounds like a plan. And yeah,
you get it here, Steve needit's I'm getting whatever the word is
for goosebumps just thinking about it.We'll be right back on KOA. Just
before we came back on the air, here h And I told the Boss

(01:17:23):
Dragon, I mean that I havea pair of tickets I have to give
away because because he told me,I have to give them away or I
don't know what who knows what Vikingpunishment awaits? If I don't want to
know, I don't want to know. So here's what we're gonna give away.
I'm so jealous. A pair oftickets to see Steve Martin and Martin
Short their new show called The Dukesof Funnytown Live live those two guys tomorrow

(01:17:47):
night at Red Rocks. Can youbelieve it? Tomorrow night at Red Rocks
Steve Martin and Martin Short. AndI asked the Boss if there's a particular
way that he wants to give themaway because I must defer. And he
said, yes, so Dragon,how are we gonna give these tickets away?
One of them is kind of talland one of them is kind of
short. So I want to knowfirst. You're gonna have to text us

(01:18:12):
to win these tickets and give usthe answer in the text, and text
us at eleven twenty four eighteen.Okay, seven number seven, text number
seven at eleven twenty four and eighteenseconds on our clock, right not your
clock, with the correct answer towhat question? What I want to know?
Because I said, one's a littletall, one's a little short.

(01:18:33):
Yeah, what's the hype difference betweenthe two of them? To the nearest
inch to the nearest plus or mineplus or minus answers an inch. So
if Steve Martin were forty three inchestaller than Martin short, or if Martin
Short were forty three inches taller thanSteve Martin, you could win. With
the answers forty two, forty threeor forty four or anything in between forty

(01:18:54):
two and forty four, you wouldwin. Yeah, Okay, Texter number
seven at eleven twenty four eighteen,And I will just tell you right now,
neither one of them is forty threeinches taller than the other guy.
All right, so don't guess thatthat wasn't a secret clue, right,
right, that's true. Right,the answer is in forty three. Answer
is not forty three. I mean, you're more than welcome to answer forty

(01:19:15):
three. Okay, you're not gonnawin. Is the answer more than one?
I know I'm asking you to givea clue on the air, but
I have no idea what the answeris. Seeing the two stand next to
each other, you know it's gotto be more than an inch, all
right, all right, so that'sa yes. Then the answer is more
than one. Okay, folks,I love it this. We're coming up

(01:19:40):
like a minute and a quarter orso until Dragon will start checking your text.
So a couple things I want tofollow up with you on. First
of all, don't forget my voterguide is out. I wasn't gonna do
one, but so many folks askedme to do one for the for the
primaries, and it's got a lotof stuff in it. It has the
key Republican primaries for Congress, andthen it has a handful of state House

(01:20:01):
and State Senate races. My friendDavid said he that I maybe forgot to
write up the state House race thatincludes Tim Hernandez because we need to defeat
that guy. So if I didn'tput that in there, then that was
a big oversight and I will gofix it. But in any case,
that's up there, and I hopeyou will. I hope you will find
it of interest. If you goto Rosskiminsky dot com, you will see

(01:20:24):
towards the top right you will seea link for the voter guide. I
want to take literally one minute justto follow up on conversation we had with
Emma Waters from the Heritage Foundation,not related to Jesse Waters of Fox News.
One of them has one T inthe last name, the other has
two t's in the last name,and we were talking about her very very

(01:20:47):
Christian perspective that there's a lot ofbig problems with IVF. I don't want
to overstate it. You can golisten to yourself. If you didn't hear
it, it'll be up on theblog. If it's not there already at
Rosskiminsky dot it'll be up soon.And basically what she said was from a
Christian perspective, and again I don'tknow exactly who she speaks for. And

(01:21:10):
frankly, in that whole world,I'm not even sure what Christian means,
right, And I'm not being sarcastic, Okay, What I mean is sometimes
you'll have let's say, Evangelicals willcall themselves Christian, or maybe Southern Baptists
will call themselves Christian, but theywon't conceive of Catholics as Christian. They
don't mean it that way. Whereto me, as a Jew, all

(01:21:32):
those people are Christian, right,they all believe that Jesus was the Son
of God, or the Second Coming, or however you want to put it
with something along those lines. Mypeople don't believe that. Everybody who does
believe that, to me is aChristian. But some of these people who
call themselves Christians wouldn't call Catholics Christians. So anyway, she wrote this Christian's
Guide to Infertility something like the PracticalGuide here. Actually I still have it.

(01:21:56):
I still have it in front ofme. I'll give you the exact
title. I don't want to bedisrespectful to it. Christian Practical Guide to
Reproductive Technology. So what we didn'tget into when I just want to mention
very very briefly here. You know, she's talking about various things that can
be done, should be done,how to think about it political stuff,
And I didn't get to it withher because I wasn't really sure whether I

(01:22:19):
even wanted to bring it up withher. But she talked about the thing
about how dropping a hamburger on theground is different from dropping a fertilized egg
on the ground. And I supposethat it's true that to the couple that's
trying to have a baby, ifthe embryo gets dropped on the ground and
is destroyed, it feels very different, qualitatively different, not just quantitatively different

(01:22:41):
from dropping a burger on the ground. I fully get that, but to
me, it's still property. Look, I know some people are gonna disagree
with me. I don't see thatembryo as life in the sense of that
if it gets destroyed, it shouldproperly be the subject of a wrongful death
suit. I don't get that atall. And I think it's a political

(01:23:01):
disaster for Republicans to be going downthat road. I think there are plenty
of Republican women who will vote againstRepublicans if Republicans really start trying to go
down that road. And I thinkit's part of the reason that you see
conservative senators trying to pass laws toprotect IVF because their hyper conservative base is

(01:23:23):
going to oppose it, as asthe Southern Baptist just voted to do yesterday.
And again, you know, MSWaters said they didn't exactly come out
and say they're against IVF. Theysaid, we got to be really careful
with it. And again, Iwant to be honest about that, but
I do think there's a bigger andbigger push here by the Christian right to

(01:23:44):
take an aim at IVF, andI think it will be a political disaster
for Republicans. I think it's partof the reason Donald Trump has been real
smart with how he's talked about abortion, saying let's just leave it to the
States. We'll be right back.I mean, Steve Martin is just one
of the great comedians of all time. And one of the things that I
remember from that show then I neverheard anywhere else, never heard on an
album or anything like that. Hecomes out on stage holding this small box

(01:24:11):
and I don't remember how it waspainted, but it was painted in a
way that made it look very easternand foreign and mysterious. Serious good.
Yeah, and he's holding this thingor maybe it's on a pedestal in front
of him, and he says tothe audience, he says, this is
this is the Chinese Mystery Box ofDoom, and then he like leaves it

(01:24:41):
there, walks around in front ofit, and then continues on with his
act and never says anything else aboutit, and never looks at it again,
never references it again, never.That's just beautiful. It was beautiful.
It was really really beautiful. Sothe trivia question that Todd got right

(01:25:02):
in order to win a pair oftickets to see Steve Martin and Martin Short
at Red Rocks tomorrow night was whatis the height difference between Martin Short and
Steve Martin? And you could beplus or minus one? And what was
your guest? My guess was Myguess was five and a half and I
would not have won. You wouldnot have won. The big difference between
the two is four inches four inchesAnd did Todd who won guess four?

(01:25:28):
Or did he guess five or three? Todd guests four? So he got
it right on the nose correct.Okay. Now there's one other thing.
Yeah, there's one other thing,Dragon, and I need to talk with
you about ye. Okay, we'renot mad. We're not mad, we're
just disappointed. Yeah. Look,we're all friends here. We can have
these frank conversations, right And look, if you're if you're new to the
show, okay, we get it, and we're we're not even really disappointed

(01:25:49):
if you're new to the show,right, yeah, but if you've been
around a while, you should knowbetter than this. And look, I'm
not trying to sound like the schoolmarm or like the none who's gonna wrap
you on the knuckles with a witha ruler, but Dragon, you told
me that there was a person whoactually would have been the winner, except

(01:26:09):
that they sit in multiple texts ofthe of their answer after the allotted time
too. The twenty four eighteen theysent a text, and then twenty four
to twenty they sent it a text. Yeah no, sorry, Sometimes my
wife makes that sound and I toldher I think that's the most annoying sound

(01:26:30):
in the world. That reminds melisteners text me at five six six nine
zero, obviously, ooh no,let's do it this way. Let's do
the talk back. Okay, We'regonna do it both ways. You can
either text me at five six sixnine zero, or you can go to
your iHeartRadio app and set it tokoway and click on the little microphone and

(01:26:53):
you can record up to thirty seconds. But please don't do thirty seconds with
what I'm about to tell you now, I'm afraid. What's the most annoying
sound in the world? Yeah,no, not the movie, not from
what is that? Dumb and Dumber? Yeah yeah, not from Dumb and
Dummer. What's the what's the mostannoying sound? What sound annoys you the
most? You can either text meyour answer at five sixty six nine zero

(01:27:14):
or send it in and we'll playannoying sounds on the air. Go to
the iHeartRadio app, and to makeit much more fun, I'll just do
them randomly throughout the show. Okay, the rest of the show. Okay,
So go to your iHeart radio app, tune it to KOA, click
on the little microphone, record thesound that annoys you most, or your
your best facts similar of it,because it's probably not a sound that you're

(01:27:35):
the one who's normally making. Butstill record it as best you can and
and and then just hit that sendbutton and we will we will play them.
We will play them. Uh.Steve Ross Steve Martin was at Red
Rocks in the late seventies and hedid this and he said, for the
people in the very back, here'smy dime trick. That's pretty funny.

(01:27:58):
That's pretty funny, all right.So yeah, just so to finish up
this point that Dragon and I weremaking when we were tisking you, and
that is, if you are playingour game texting in for a trivia question,
if you text in more than once, all of your texts will be
ignored. Correct, you are onlyallowed to text in one time. And

(01:28:18):
if you did not know the rulesof the game you're new to the show,
then we're not even disappointed you didn't. That's the reason you didn't win.
In fact, Dragon, let's makesomeone feel really bad. You want
me to text them? No,I just want you to say on the
air, the last three digits,the last three digits of the phone number

(01:28:39):
of the person who would have wonif he or she had only texted in
the very first time, because heor she just disqualified himself. That would
be two five zero six. Isaid, the last three digits five zero
six. Thank you, thank youvery little. All right. So anyway,

(01:29:01):
uh okay, so keep keep thoseannoying sounds coming? Please uh the
the talkback function again. iHeartRadio.Apportune its KOA and send us an annoying
sound. All right, I gota few topics I want to cover with
you, and whatever whatever time wehave left, it wouldn't surprise me if
we get some annoying sounds. We'llsee if people feel like playing the home

(01:29:26):
game. You just you just neverknow. I do have a bunch of
text messages, bagpipes, vocal fryvoice. I don't know what that means,
Diana to get I like that.I don't have a sound, but
I do have somebody saying something here. Well, are you vetting it first
to make sure we won't all right? All right? What you got,
without question, without debate, Themost annoying sound in the world is the

(01:29:51):
cackle from Kamala Harris. Wow,is that worse than than Hillary Clinton's laugh?
That's a tough call. Dragon.Do you have any food back there?
No? No, okay, becausethis person said the worst sound is
somebody eating on the radio. Ohand I actually had a little package of
like granola with some M and msin it that I ate before, not

(01:30:13):
on the not on the radio,but I would have just to annoy you.
Most annoying sound a rod's air horn. Most annoying sound is name that
tune on the Ross Kaminski show.That's not very nice. Oh, this
is one that I kind of agreewith. Either the dog licking peanut butter
off of his kong toy or himlicking his parts. My one eight seven

(01:30:40):
seven Cars for Kids k a rsCars for Kids awesome. I bet every
single person agrees with you. I'vegot a bunch of kamala cackle. Hero,
Really a lot of people are they? Are they just saying it or
are they trying to do it?They're just saying, They're just saying there's
a bunch of If somebody wants totry to emulate the Kamala cackle, go

(01:31:00):
for it. We will definitely playthat on the air. My little English
bulldog, Agnes, spends a lotof time during the day licking her paws
clean, and the sound drives mywife absolutely nuts. She can't take it
for ten seconds. She has totell the dog to stop, or she
just to tell the dog to goout, or my wife will my wife

(01:31:24):
will leave the room. You looklike you are about to do something,
Hey, dragon, just take theeasy softball and do a Kamala Hillary Montage.
Yeah, that would be one ofthe worst sounds in the world.
All right, let me lighten thisup, actually not, let me make
this much heavier for a moment,and then dragon probably don't interrupt this for

(01:31:44):
a moment and save up a couplesounds. I want to show this.
I'm actually trying to get this guyas a guest, but so far I
haven't heard back from him. Iwas gonna hold off and sharing this thing
with you, and it's pretty intense, and I don't normally do intense stuff
right at the end of the show, but I wanted to make sure to
get this in. This is apiece that was published at the Free Press
DFP dot com and it's written bya guy named Ahmed Fuad a'll al Khatib,

(01:32:09):
and the headline is Israel killed thirtyone of my family members in Gaza.
The pro Palestine movement isn't helping.The subhead is over the last two
decades, Western activists have only madethings worse for my people. And I
want to share some of this atlink with you because I think it's interesting,
I think it's important, I thinkit's courageous, and then we'll get

(01:32:31):
some more, some more of yourstupid sounds. The conflict in Gaza has
put my family through hell. Afew weeks ago, I flew to Egypt
to get my brother's wife and theirfour children, help them free Gaza and
get safely to the UAE. Itwas just one day before the Rafa border
closed on May seventh, so wewere cutting it close. My brother opted

(01:32:54):
to stay behind. He's a seniorprogram manager for a British NGO in Gaza,
like the American Red Cross, andhe felt he felt that without him
the whole operation might fall apart,but we all agreed it was time for
his family to get out. Ourfamily's home in Gaza City was hit by
an Israeli airstrike a week into thewar, injuring several uncles and cousins on
my dad's side and killing two.My brother's family walked away from the rubble

(01:33:17):
with minor injuries, but since thenthey've been displaced eight times as they've made
their way from Gaza City in thenorth to han Yunis, eventually reaching Rafa,
where my mom's family's house has alwaysbeen effectively my second home. That
home was hit by an airstrike inmid December, just weeks before they arrived
in Rafa. The attack killed twentynine of my relatives. All five of

(01:33:43):
my aunts and uncles perished ad dizzas did most of my cousins. Those
who made it out had the grimtask of digging through the wreckage, pulling
out the burnt and disfigured bodies offamily members. Almost everyone has known the
pain of losing a beloved reg relative, but so many lost in the blink
of an eye, all because theywere bystanders in a bloody conflict they wanted

(01:34:06):
no part of. It's almost unbearable. Whenever I share this story, people
assume I must be consumed with rage, eager to get revenge on those responsible.
I must despise all Israelis and considerthem my sworn enemies. Despite my
deep frustration and resentment with the Israeligovernment's action and the ongoing war in Gaza,

(01:34:30):
I don't. If anything, I'mmore critical of some pro Palestinian activists,
many of whom are making things worse, putting the people they claim to
defend in increasing danger. In fact, I'd argue that some aren't all that
interested in the well being of Palestiniansfor the first fifteen years of my life,

(01:34:54):
he says. Gaza was my home, and from a very young age,
I knew that my home wasn't safe. I was ten years old in
two thousand when the Second Intifada began. I remember it vividly, my friends
and older boys talking about the fightagainst Israeli occupation as if it were something
romantic and heroic, claiming that we'dbe part of a revolution that would live
forever in the history books. Thereality was anything but that. The conflict

(01:35:19):
was violent and bloody, with ongoingair strikes and scenes of death and destruction
all around. I never felt completelysecure or calm. One day in two
thousand and one, when I waseleven, I was walking home from school
with friends and we passed a policestation just as it was hit by a
massive Israeli air strike. Two ofmy friends were killed by the attack,

(01:35:42):
and though I survived, the blastleft me with asymmetric hearing loss in my
left ear and memories that want meto this day. Was I angry at
Israel? I was furious, Imourned my friends, and a part of
me wanted vengeance. But everything Iwas told as a kid every plan for
retail. All that I had heardadults and older boys discussing never made sense
to me. Wouldn't violence just leadto more violence and more dead children?

(01:36:06):
What sense did it make for thePalestinian people to fight the Israelis, who
clearly had far more military strength thanwe did. I was a preteen who
knew almost nothing about the world,but I knew everything I was being told
about the revolution in Gaza wouldn't work. I had realized I had no future
in Gaza, so I worked relentlesslyto get out in twenty fifteen when I

(01:36:29):
was sorry. In two thousand andfive, when I was fifteen years old,
I bordered a plane for California aspart of a high school cultural exchange
program. By the time it endeda year later, the thirty three Day
War was raging and I was unableto enter Gaza through Egypt after the border
closure. With the help of someamazing human rights advocates and friends in the
Bay Area, I applied for apolitical asylum in the United States. The

(01:36:53):
very day of my asylum interview Junefourteenth, two thousand and seven, Hamas
violently took over the Gaza strip andejected the Palestinian authority. There is a
lot, a lot more to thisarticle, so I think in the interested
time, I'm just going to skipahead to the very last two paragraphs.

(01:37:15):
Says I have a large and robustnetwork of friends within Jewish communities who are
devoted to Israel while viewing other Palestiniansand me as humans who deserve to exist.
I certainly don't agree with many oftheir opinions, but they, like
me, recognize our common humanity aswell as the desperate need to work toward
a shared future. We have ahistoric opportunity to push for the two states
solution. A secure and safe Israel, right next to a free and independent

(01:37:38):
Palestine is the only thing that wouldgrant my homeland sovereignty and independence. I
know how hard it is to notget caught up in the emotions surrounding this
conflict. I can't stop thinking aboutmy thirty one dead relatives. I wake
up every morning worried about my brother, family and people, and I tense
up every time the phone rings.But it's precisely those losses and fear that

(01:38:00):
make me want to find another wayand not be driven solely by emotions and
reactivity. I want to do somethingrealistic to look toward a better future when
we finally break the repeating cycle ofincitement, vengeance, anger and hatred.
Guys like that give me some hope. We need a lot more guys like
that. There are plenty of them, by the way, they're just not

(01:38:21):
in charge. We need more guyslike that in charge right in Gaza and
in the West Bank. And that'snot going to be an easy thing to
get done because they are not justyears, but decades of anti Israel,
anti Semitic, hateful brainwashing that Idon't know if it can be overcome in

(01:38:44):
the short or even medium medium term. But as I said, knowing that
there are guys like this out theredoes give me hope. All Right,
that was a very heavy story inthe middle of some incredible stupidity that we
were engaging in here on the DragonRedbeard show back to stupidity. Yes,
beautiful, I've got to talk backhere. The passage of time is significant

(01:39:08):
to the passage of time. Wow. And then this one came in,
and that really hurt. This onecame in as a text. Yeah,
I've found the sound for it.Okay, do you want to share the
text or do you want to justplay the sound. Mm hmmm, right,

(01:39:32):
Ross. The most annoying sound isa magpie outside my window in the
morning, screaming in other magpies.Yeah, uh, Ross, I totally
agree with cars for kids, exceptyou spelled it with a C. It's
k A r S cars for kids. K A R S. Are you
done? Yeah, that's all I'vegot to That's all You gots like Andy

(01:39:56):
saying that it's four am and you'resleeping and you hear it, that awful
and disgusting sound that makes you immediatelyleap out of bed. Yeah, it's
the sound of your dog or catbeginning to vomit somewhere nearby on the carpet
too. I'm glad that's not adaily thing. If it is for you,
you need a new dog or cat. The most annoying sound it is
a radio host that sings bumper musicon the air. Oh, I think

(01:40:17):
we can accommodate that. We rarelydo that, Yeah, we were,
very, very rarely. Every oncein a while, if you play a
song I really like, I'll singlike half a line. I mean,
we certainly can. Moving forward,Sure we can. I want to try
one right now to end the show. You got something we can sing along
to, and we'll call it theoutro bumper music? What's something we can

(01:40:39):
all in fact, why don't wedo this together, folks? Why don't
we do this all together? Justto annoy whoever this is, I want
all of you listening right now tosing along with me and Dragon with whatever
it is Dragon is about to play. So we're gonna make it not just
radio hosts, but radio hosts andlisteners singing bumper music together. What do
we got? Dragon? He's looking, he's like he's got a big Viking

(01:41:04):
beard. It's in his way.No, what nothing that. You've got
a million You've got a billion thingsand you don't what. Oh my gosh,
I know you're not gonna sing anyStone Temple Pilots because I'm here in
the S's so I'm just scrolling upand down. So really, steely Dan,

(01:41:27):
there's ses and that's st It can'tbe that far from Stone Temple Pilots.
We're running out of time here,Dragon, you got something? Are
we gonna have to come back tothis tomorrow, all right,

The Ross Kaminsky Show News

Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC
Let's Be Clear with Shannen Doherty

Let's Be Clear with Shannen Doherty

Let’s Be Clear… a new podcast from Shannen Doherty. The actress will open up like never before in a live memoir. She will cover everything from her TV and film credits, to her Stage IV cancer battle, friendships, divorces and more. She will share her own personal stories, how she manages the lows all while celebrating the highs, and her hopes and dreams for the future. As Shannen says, it doesn’t matter how many times you fall, it’s about how you get back up. So, LET’S BE CLEAR… this is the truth and nothing but. Join Shannen Doherty each week. Let’s Be Clear, an iHeartRadio podcast.

The Dan Bongino Show

The Dan Bongino Show

He’s a former Secret Service Agent, former NYPD officer, and New York Times best-selling author. Join Dan Bongino each weekday as he tackles the hottest political issues, debunking both liberal and Republican establishment rhetoric.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.