All Episodes

June 19, 2024 97 mins
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
I got a whole show with lotsof stuff, but I figured just for
fun, since a holiday, Chad, Or don't you and I start off
with something silly? So you justtried to toss to traffic guy right and
he wasn't there, correct, Sowhy don't you and I just really quickly,
for like thirty seconds, make upa ridiculous traffic report like a Jackknife

(00:23):
water buffalo on Kipling just north ofjust north of High seventy. What would
you add to our traffic report thismorning after a foot of snow this morning
at Denver there's some slippery side streets. Bigfoot appearance. I'm twenty five at
Spear All right, folks, textus at five six six nine zero with

(00:45):
what you want to be in today'straffic report. If you could have any
traffic report you want, and maybein the future, when traffic Guy isn't
there, maybe one of us willjust come up with one thing and we'll
just make it an ongoing bit hereon the show. I think that sounds
fun. Wait, anything we want, anything you want? Anything? How
about anything in my life? Now? That sounds still traffic today? That's

(01:10):
much harder to believe than a bigfoot sighting. Why are you so right?
There was no traffic when I gothere at three thirty this morning.
Oh you win, you win,all right, Thanks for playing a loon,
Thanks for playing alon. So wehave a jackknife, water buffalo,
a foot of snow, and abigfoot sighting. That's what you would have
gotten in today's traffic report, hadtraffic guy been there or maybe not.

(01:33):
Today is Juneteenth, and I gota few minutes here, and I want
to share a piece with you justto start the show, because I think
it's so good. I think thatthis holiday should have been a holiday a
long time ago. I think it'sa legit holiday. I think it's more
legit than some of our other holidays, like Columbus Day, which to me

(01:56):
shouldn't have a holiday, And mostof us work Columbus Day anyway, and
for most of us it's just aday where we're all working and paying taxes
for government workers that were getting apaid day off. So I don't like
Columbus Day, but I do likethis day. I want to share a
piece with you that was published thismorning, no yesterday afternoon, but about
today. It was published last night, about today, written by Conda Leeza,

(02:20):
Rice Condi Rice published at the FreePress VFP dot com. Headline is
June tenth is our second Independence Day, and I want to share this with
you. I think it's a goodway to start today after that traffic report.
Of course, toward the end ofmy term as Secretary of State,
I had the opportunity to visit theNational Archives in Washington, d c.

(02:40):
Permanently displayed in the rotunda, alongsidethe Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of
the United States, and the Billof Rights is the Emancipation Proclamation. As
I stood reading, I felt thepresence of my ancestors. I said a
little prayer of thanks to them andto God for the great fortune of being
born American. Oh, let mejust enterg for a second. Did you

(03:00):
know a rod Did you know thatCondoleeza Rice went to Saint Mary's High School
on University near Hampden. I thinkshe was local. I didn't know.
Yeah, at school? School,Yeah, she went. She went to
Saint Mary's. So she went toschool here, all right, back to
the article. Most Americans are familiarwith the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President

(03:22):
Abraham Lincoln in eighteen sixty three.It declared freedom for millions of slaves living
in the South today, However,many Americans remain unaware that two more years
would pass before the enslaved living inTexas learned of their freedom. Oh,
let me interject one other thing.At some point during today's show, and
this is a super huge bonus forpeople who are listening to me on a

(03:44):
holiday when maybe a lot of folksmight not be listening. It's a holiday,
right, But for people who arelistening to today, boy, are
you going to get a special bonusbecause at some point during today's show,
I'm going to give away a pairof tickets to see the Rolling Stones at
empower Field at Mile High tomorrow night. And the reason I'm mentioning that right
now in the middle of the CondoleezaRice article is that there is something that
I am going to mention over thecourse of this article that is going to

(04:10):
be the answer to the trivia questionI'm going to ask later in the show
that will be the trivia question usedto win Rolling Stones tickets. Okay,
so I continue. It was onJune nineteenth, eighteen sixty five, that
Union soldiers arrived in the farthest territoryof the Confederate States in Galveston Bay,
Texas, bringing with them the newsthat slavery had been abolished. Major General

(04:33):
Gordon Granger read General Order number three. Quote, the people of Texas are
informed that, in accordance with aproclamation from the Executive of the United States,
all slaves are free. This involvesan absolute equality of personal rights and
a property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them

(04:55):
becomes that between employer and hired labor. The freedomen under advice to remain quietly
at their present homes and work forwages. End quote. While there was
still a long road ahead, itwould be nearly one hundred years until the
Civil Rights Act was passed. Thiswas an important step for the quarter million
people still enslaved in Texas, andone they probably didn't believe. Whatever come

(05:19):
to pass. A century after GeneralGranger marched into Galveston Bay with those Union
soldiers, I was growing up inBirmingham Birmingham, Alabama, which was then
the most segregated city in the country. My father couldn't vote with reliability.
We couldn't go to the movie theater, sit at the lunch counter, or
go to school with white children.I was eight years old when, on

(05:43):
a Sunday morning in September nineteen sixtythree, the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was
bombed. I felt the blast afew blocks away in the church where my
father was the pastor. Four littlegirls, two of whom I knew,
were killed. But our community ralliedand we held close to one another.
Despite the struggles of those years,we knew how far we had come from

(06:04):
that fateful day in eighteen sixty five. Every year on June teenth, my
parents and I talked about what ourancestors must have felt the moment they found
out they were free, and usedit as an inspiration to keep seeking a
better life here in America. Buteven though my family has been celebrating Juneteenth
since my childhood, it wasn't untiltwenty twenty one that Congress voted almost unanimously

(06:26):
to make June teenth National Independence Daya federal holiday. So that's the whole
name juneteenth National Independence Day. Becausemany Americans are unfamiliar with its significance,
some perhaps understandably wonder why it needednational recognition at all. After all,
all Americans celebrate the fourth of July, the ultimate celebration of our nation's founding
of our independence and our liberty.To me, June teenth is a recognition

(06:50):
of what I call America's second founding. Despite our nation's extraordinary founding documents about
equality, this country was founded asa slave owning state. That is our
birth defect. But the words inthose carefully crafted documents, written by great
men who were themselves flawed human beings, ultimately lit the way toward a more

(07:11):
perfect union. In some sense,the history of the United States is a
story of striving to make their soaringwords, we the People real To every
American, it's the story of becomingwhat we profess to be. When I
was sworn in as sixty sixth Secretaryof State by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, I glanced up at aportrait of Benjamin Franklin in the State Department.

(07:33):
I wondered what he would have thoughtof this great granddaughter of slaves and
child of Jim Crow Birmingham, pledgingto defend the Constitution of the United States,
which had infamously counted her ancestors asthree fifths of a person. Actually,
I have a comment on that.A little bit later, I wanted
to believe that Franklin would have likedhistory's turn toward justice and taken my appointment

(07:56):
in stride. Today, just asI once did with my parents, I
will celebrate Juneteenth. I will thinkabout my ancestors and what they must have
felt when they were liberated from slavery, and I will give thanks for being
born in a country where such moralprogress as possible. That is worth celebrating,
not just by Black Americans, butby all of us. That note

(08:16):
is published at VFP dot com.That's the site of the Free Press.
That was written by Conda Liza Rice. She directs the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University and was America's sixty sixth Secretaryof State. Will be right back on
KOA. In that last segment ofthe show, we were supposed to have

(08:37):
a traffic report. The dude wasn'tthere, so we did our own traffic
report, and I asked you,what would you like in our own made
up traffic report today? And Ijust want to share a couple of listener
responses with you. First, Iwould like to give a shout out to
the listener who recognized that my commentabout a Jackknife water buffalo is actually from

(08:58):
the movie Good morning, Vietnam.Robin Williams does a fake traffic report while
he's doing radio in Vietnam during theVietnam War, and he talked about a
jackknife water buffalo blocking blocking traffic.So very good to the person who recognized
that. Here's a couple others fromlisteners, Freed Slaves Clogeye twenty five excellent.

(09:18):
All AUDI and BMW drivers are obeyingthe laws and not driving like they
think they own the streets. Okay, no one's gonna buy that. All
big rigs are restricted from my routeat all times. Very good, as
as like every other day, everyoneis driving at the speed limit and is

(09:39):
allowing two car links between cars andusing turn signals to change lanes. No
one's gonna buy that either. UFOlanding at Callfax and Lincoln directly in front
of the Colorado State Capitol. GoodLet him take Let him take Faith Winner
away, and Elizabeth Epps and TimHernandez let him take him away and give
him a very aggressive anal probe.What else. There's a self titled scooter

(10:03):
gang called the Vesperadoes heading northbound onN twenty five between Colfax and twenty third
in all lanes moving at about twentytwo miles per hour, backups to Colorado
Boulevard stacking up quickly. That's ridiculous. That's the Vesperados. Did you just
make that up? That's absolutely ridiculous. All right, let's do something a

(10:26):
little more serious. So you've probablyheard of Ben Stein. Ben Stein was
a well known actor back in theday. He's an economist, and probably
his most famous role was as FerrisBueller's teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and
in that classroom scene where he's he'sgoing Bueller Bueller. And then at some

(10:50):
point he asked a question, anyoneanyone? Hey, Rod, do you
think you can find that on YouTube? Look for look for ben Stein in
the big Ferris Bueller. You knowthat? Yeah, you're and god,
that movie probably came out when youwere four, but you know the Bueler
bit. Let's see, yeah,let's see how old that movie is.
Anyway, while you're looking that upand getting the and getting the audio,

(11:11):
I'll keep talking. So ben Stein'sdad was minus seven. Okay, is
it? Wait? What year didthat movie come out? Six eighty six?
Wow? Oh yeah, okay,So ben Stein's dad is a dude,
named Herb Stein, who was aneconomic advisor, maybe the chief economic
advisor, I don't remember, toPresident Nixon, and he said a thing

(11:35):
that became known as Stein's law thatsounds trite but is actually kind of deep.
And what he said was, ifsomething cannot go on forever, it
will stop. Now again, Irealize it sounds obvious, real I realize
it sounds silly, but there's there'sa real point to it. And the

(11:58):
real point is that a lot oftimes people will act as if a thing
that can't go on forever will infact just keep going, and they forget
that at some point it will stop. And a perfect example of this comes
from a headline I'll share this withyou from the Associated Press Congressional Budget Office

(12:18):
raises this year's federal budget deficit projectionby four hundred billion, and a headline
even more important from the Washington Postnational debt will exceed fifty trillion dollars by
twenty thirty four. According to theCongressional Budget Office, they say this year's
deficit will hit one point nine trillion, So that's like twenty five percent more

(12:39):
than they had previously predicted. AndI just want to say I'm not going
to get into all the economics ofit right now. I am just going
to say that this is the majorpolitical sin being committed against our children's futures
by politicians of both parties. JoeBiden is the worst president ever when it

(13:01):
comes to fiscal responsibility, and DonaldTrump was the first Republican president ever when
it comes to fiscal responsibility. Andthese numbers could should scare the Jesus out
of you, because, as Herbsteinsaid, if something cannot go on forever,
it will stop. And when thisparticular thing stops, the amount of

(13:22):
pain, financial pain that is goingto be visited upon the United States,
is going to be something much moreon the order of the Great Depression than
on the order of the recession wehad fifteen years ago. Adams here,
Adam Lee here, Adam Awski,Adamson here, Adler here, Anderson Anderson

(13:52):
here, Bueller, Buehler, Bueler. Jack Phillips, the owner and proprietor
and creative genius at Masterpiece Cake Shop, and his attorney, Jake Warner from
Alliance Defending Freedom. They've both beenon the show with me plenty of times

(14:13):
before. I would just like tosay Jack that the reason I haven't been
in lately to get my chocolate mintbrownies is that we moved and I don't
live as close to the store asI used to. But I promised to
get in there soon because I needmore of your chocolate mint brownies. Okay,
I'll need a written excuse when youcome in. So you guys were

(14:35):
at the State Supreme Court yesterday becauseJack is still being harassed by the same
particular attorney. And for listeners whoare new to the show, I make
the same point every time. I'mnot a social conservative. I don't share
Jack's views about some of these underlyingissues. But in the United States of

(14:56):
America, Jack ab he absolutely hasthe right to refuse to endorse a message
he doesn't believe in, and Isure wish liberals would understand that. All
right, So with that, whydon't actually start with Jake. Jake,
what exactly was an issue in theoral arguments yesterday? And the government force

(15:20):
an artist to express a message hedoes not believe. That's the bottom line
question that the Colorado Supreme Court mustdecide, And yesterday we argued that free
speech is for everyone, that thestate cannot misuse its law to force Jack
to express something he doesn't believe.And this is a freedom that not just
protects Jack, but like you mentionedopening the show, it protects all Americans,

(15:43):
including those who disagree with Jack onsome of these underlying issues. So
we very much hope that the ColoradoSupreme Court will get this right and uphold
freedom for everybody. So one thingthat I think a lot of people are
gonna wonder about, and maybe I'llgo to Jack this Jack, how this
this comes down in a significant wayto the idea that you're making a cake

(16:07):
and we're talking specifically about custom cakesmade for not just a particular person,
but for a particular reason. Howdo you how do you explain how that
is similar to or the same asactual speech that everybody understands is protected.

(16:29):
Because some people might say, howis that like speech? Well, Jake,
an answer to like art being speechprobably better than I can. But
when the conversation happened with this attorney, who's assuming you currently, the conversation
started with can you make this?Can you make a cake on this stage?
Sure? Can you make a pinkcake? Yes? Can you make
it with blue license? Yeah,we can do that. Those colors are

(16:49):
symbolic and they are to express acelebration of a transition from male to female.
And when the symbolism and the colorsand the message came out, that's
when we had to tell this personwe can't create that cake for you,
but we're glad to create other cakesfor you, even pink and blue cakes
with a different message. But wecan't express that message. So it's always

(17:11):
the message, it's the what,not the who. We tried to make
that clear to the attorney who's sillinessthat it was not anything about that person's
identity because we had gladly served themin any other way that we would serve
you Ross or any of your listeners. But we can't express every message if
people ask us to. Yeah,look to me again, I think this
point is rather basic. But Jake, let me go to you as as

(17:34):
a question of law here, Sothe Federal Supreme Court already ruled in three
h three creative case, and Ithink ADF represented Laurie Smith right exactly.
Yeah, So, and we hadyou are one of your people and Laurie
on the show more than once,and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
LORI, who makes websites that asa person who does not believe, based

(18:00):
on her religious faith, does notsupport gay marriage, she cannot be compelled
by the state to make wedding websitesfor gay weddings. So, first of
all, as far as what Isaid there is that correct. Yeah,
that's exactly right. Okay. Sothen my question of law for you is
this, how could the Colorado StateSupreme Court not issue in forty seven seconds

(18:27):
an immediate judgment in favor of JackPhillips based on the three zero three creative
decision. Yeah, three or threecreative directly controls the outcome of this case.
Even in that case, the USSupreme Court said that the government can't
compel even symbols that express messages thatsomeone disagrees with. And here the court

(18:48):
found that this is a highly symboliccake, a cake that symbolizes a transition
from male to female. And thecourt said blue means male, pink means
female. And people often come tothe cake artists requesting custom cakes expressing messages
that goes back as far as Romantimes for wedding cakes and then more recently
gender reveal cakes. Why do peoplecome to artists like Jack? They want

(19:11):
to express messages that celebrate things,And of course symbols can communicate ideas just
as easily as words or anything else. That's why we have flags and other
things, and we all know whatblue and pink reveal about gender in our
culture. So the fact that thiscake expresses the message, and the fact
that three or three creative says thatthe state can't even compel symbols promoting messages

(19:34):
that someone disagrees with, is ityou open and shut the case? Jack?
I'm gonna ask you something that's alittle bit more of a personal question.
For as long as I've known you, and for even longer when I
were following the cases before I gotto know you, you have always said
that this is about the message inthe cake and not about the person.

(19:56):
Right, So, a transgender personwants a birthday cake that doesn't necessarily have
any message on it except happy birthday. You have always said, I don't
care that person's transgender. I'll happilymake you a birthday cake like that.
But if you want me to makea cake that is celebrating gender transition,
I won't do that. My sortof personal question for you is, how

(20:18):
in your mind do you separate theperson for whom that event is important from
the event itself. Well, inthe case of our current lawsuit, the
person that's suing us told us thatthere was a message involved. They said,
these are the colors that are symbolicof this celebration. I'm separated for

(20:40):
us right there, and we explainedto the attorney suing us, well,
glad, we make you any othercake that we make anybody else, sell
you anything in our shop. Soit was pretty clear that this was a
message that we're at to express.Okay, so I should ask the question
more clearly, so I understand whatyou just said. That wasn't an That
wasn't the question I meant to ask. I don't mean, how can you

(21:03):
tell whether the cake is a messageor not a message. Let's just assume
you know this cake a cake isa message. But in your mind,
what is the important distinction between theperson and the message The person wants to
have commemorated in a cake. Soif the message they want is a birthday,

(21:25):
Happy birthday, that's great. Ilove to celebrate birthdays. That's one
of the reasons I open the shop. But when I'm told that there's a
message, and then the message issomething that goes against my deeply held religious
beliefs, personal beliefs, core convictions. Then that's when I have to draw
the line. When I'm told thatthere are other cakes besides to the one
that took us to the spring,I don't do cakes with profanity on them.

(21:48):
I won't say it, not Ican write it cakes that are on
an American. So it's not afine line, it's a clear line.
And when that line is crossed,then I have to try and go another
direction. Can we make another cakefor you for another celebration, Jim and
Russ ad here. You know,celebrating a person no matter who they are,

(22:10):
Like, that's just a simple messagethat Jack would express for anyone.
But when the message changes to notjust celebrating someone for who they are,
says no, a person can transitionfrom male to female, then that's a
totally different message. So really itcomes down to what is this cake expressing.

(22:30):
Is it expressing an idea just ageneral celebration for someone. Sure,
Jack is going to create that happily, and the Chial Court found that.
But when the cake expresses a messagethat Jack doesn't believe, for example,
that someone can transition from male tofemale. That's the one cake that he
can't create for anyone that expresses amessage that Jack can't express for anyone.

(22:51):
So Jack really tries to know whatis this cake going to communicate? Right?
And my understanding, having followed thisstuff pretty closely, is that no
court has ever ruled, and Idon't think any lawyer has ever argued in
court in these cases that Jack hasany kind of bias against these people as
people, right. I don't thinkanybody's arguing that. Just to be clear,

(23:17):
Yeah, certainly Jack serves everyone.He loves all people. You know,
these courts have held that Jack servespeople from all backgrounds. He just
can't express every message. In fact, the court here found that Jack would
create birthday cakes celebrating someone who identifiestransgender. It's not who the person is,

(23:37):
and it's just always about the message, right, And that's as a
matter of as a matter of law, and also I think as a matter
of ethics, I think that distinctionis really important for those just joining.
We're talking with Jack Phillips, theproprietor of Masterpiece Cake Shop. By the
way, they're they're near Hamden andWadsworth. And if you're ever going to
be anywhere near there. Go oninto Masterpiece Cake Chop and buy you know,

(24:03):
a cake, a pastry. Trythe chocolate mint brownies. They will
not let you down. They're oneof my favorite things on earth. So
I was kind of struck by someof the questioning from the state Supreme Court
justices. William Hood said, andI'm quoting from a Reuter's article, public

(24:25):
accommodation laws are designed to get usaway from your kind isn't welcome here,
And it feels to many like thisjust substitutes kind with the word message.
So I think I'll stick with Jakefor this question for a second. It
seems to me again that this justiceis completely missing the point, and that

(24:48):
someone who is smart enough to bea Supreme Court justice of the State of
Colorado, I think he must beintentionally missing the point. You probably won't
go that far on a radio show, but haven't we just answered this question
already by everything we just talked aboutregarding Jack will happily make a birthday cake
for a gay or trans person,but just won't make a message he doesn't
agree with. Absolutely. I wasshaking my head pretty vigorously when that comment

(25:14):
came up. That is or argument, because the reality of it is,
col Raud's non discrimination law is goingto still protect millions of transactions every day.
We're just asking the court to recognizethe distinction that the US Supreme Court
has held for decades that someone canserve all people but declined to express certain
messages for anyone. This is nota we're not breaking ground here. We're

(25:37):
just asking the court to recognize asimple distinction that when the law is misused
to compel someone to express an idea, if that person serves everyone generally,
it shouldn't be a violation of thelaw. At the very least, the
First Amendment ensures that that decision isprotected. Let me go back to Jack
Jack after the first version of thiscontroversy, which was about a cake for

(26:00):
a same sex wedding, and youcorrect me if I'm wrong here, but
my recollection is that in order toprotect yourself from an overreaching government, you
stopped making wedding cakes. So isit right that you stopped making wedding cakes?
And did you ever, if so, did you ever start making wedding

(26:21):
cakes again? Well, we hopeto start making them again once this is
all cleared up in our favor andit should be cleared up whenever they figure
out how to write their opinion.But I want to bring out something else
about serving days and trans In ourcurrent lawsuit, we had a gay man
testify on our behalf. He camein initially to see who this man is

(26:41):
who won't serve days. He realizedafter we got to know each other,
that's not the case. He's becomea good friend. I've made many cakes
for him, many other things,and he was convinced enough of my desire
to serve everybody and not create everymessage that he was even deposed testified on
our behalf in court. So thatreally, in my mind, just goes

(27:04):
a long way that the court shouldrecognize I serve everybody and I just can't
create express every message that they ask. Well, that information makes Justice Hood's
comment even more even more outrageous.Jack, this is not a legal not
a legal question, and I knowyou and I have talked about this in
the past, But for folks whoare kind of new to your story,

(27:26):
can you just describe what it hasmeant to your business? You could talk
about profitability if you want, butalso employment, like how many people don't
have jobs anymore because you stopped makingwedding cakes. Well, the day before
David and Charlie, the two menwho sue me the first time, came

(27:48):
in. I had ten people onmy payroll. That went down to four
including me. Now I have more, but they are mostly part time people
who work one or two days,so between all the hours, it's like
four people. Maybe. Beyond that, when you get a wedding cake order,
bride comes in, they've never beenin before. You agree to do
their wedding cake. You sit downand you go through all the details that

(28:10):
they want. You create the weddingcake, and if you do it right,
and it's not long before you're doingan anniversary cake and a baby shower
cake, the first birthday and thenhusband's birthday's, life birthdays, anniversaries,
and they get to become part ofyour family almost. They come in,
you know, by name, house, kids and all that. And without
the weddings, we've also lost thataspect of this, besides having the energy

(28:33):
and the creativity involved in all thepeople that are here to just there's a
lot at stake besides money. Wow. Yeah, I just think it's a
a tragedy and a travesty what hasbeen done to you, Jake, if
all were to go to according toa typical time timeline, when would you

(28:56):
expect a ruling from the State SupremeCourt on the case that was heard yesterday.
Yeah, unlike the US Supreme Court, there's no like standard deadlines that
I know of from the calabot ofSupreme Court. But I would expect,
you know, we're probably not lookingat anything less than two months. It's
probably going to be closer to thesix to eight months in that timeframe before
we hear a decision. And Iwant to highlight for your listeners just the

(29:18):
extreme nature of what the other sideargued before the court yesterday. They said
that the government could compel a Jewishartist to promote a Nazi event, but
yet at the same time they seemto recognize that Jack could be protected if
the same attorney had just come inand said, hey, can you create
a custom take celebrating a gender transition, but you make the design? Well,

(29:41):
that's kind of a worst thing there, right, or is the worst
thing here? Because Jack was askedto create a cake with a particular design
that everyone would know would symbolize atransition from male to female. So the
other side just didn't have clear lines. We're protecting speakers, and we're the
principal ones coming in here asking thecourt to protect free speech for everyone,

(30:02):
including those who disagree with us.All right, I have about ninety seconds
left, so I'll just say twothings in response to what you just said.
It's it's very difficult to make cogentarguments when you're not arguing from principle,
right, and the state is notarguing from principle. The state only
has an outcome they want to getto. They don't care how they get
there, so they will they willmake arguments that even conflict with one another,

(30:29):
but that's what they're forced to dobecause they're not arguing from principle.
The question I want to ask youis, I saw these very stupid questions
from Justices Hood and Heart, wherethere was there other questioning from other Supreme
Court justices were that seemed more likeunderstanding of the actual Federal Supreme Court ruling
and the First Amendment. They giveyou some hope that this is going to

(30:52):
come out the right way and you'renot going to have to go to the
Federal Court again. Absolutely, JusticeMarquez really seemed to get it well yesterday
you know, she was asking somevery probing questions of the other side,
you know's what's the line here,and really drew out some pretty big concessions
from the other side that hurt theircase. Justice Marquez realized, like,
this is symbolic expression and the governmentshouldn't be able to compel it. You

(31:17):
know, I'm optimistic that she understoodthat the significance of this case, and
I'm hoping that she will be ableto collaborate and persuade some of her colleagues
that it's right to protect speech.Here, Jack Phillips, since this case
is about you, I'll give youthe last nineteen seconds to say anything you
want. Well, I just wantto say a shout out to Alliance Depending
Freedom AF Hake Warner and the wholebunch. How prepared Jake was for this

(31:42):
this argument, and how supportive andgood Alliance Depending Freedom has been to me,
Laurie Smith, Baronel's Stutsman, theFlorist Washington, all of their clients.
There's ADF is the best, folks. If you want to learn more
about the Alliance Defending Freedom a dS Legal dot org, ADF legal dot
org. If you go there rightnow, you will see you will see

(32:06):
Jack Phillips's smiling face right there atthe top of the web page. Jack,
thank you so much again. I'mI'm sorry you're still going through all
this. I hope to get outto Masterpiece Cake Chop soon and buy a
brownie. All right, Rod sthanks for having us. Glad to do
it. See you gentlemen. We'lltake a quick break. We'll be right
back on KOA. We're talking aboutweddings, yeah, because it's June,

(32:29):
and when you think of June,that's one of the main things you think
of, right, is weddings.No, No, maybe for some people.
I get married in September. Whatmonth did you get married in August?
Okay? Yes, hey Rod?What month did you get married?
In? January? But it isa very popular how popular We'll get to

(32:50):
that in a moment. Okay,But what is the reason why becoming a
June bride became so prevalent? Andit goes way way back like middle age?
Really yeah, if it's Middle Ages, and it's not going to be
the answer I was going to say. I was going to as it's like
all these people are having sex inSeptember and the kids are born in June.
And so they got to get married, like they got to have a

(33:12):
shotgun wedding so that they're married whenthe kids are born. But I don't
think that's the right answer. It'syou're in the ballpark. Really, yes,
because it was a practical thing,and with a bride married in June,
she was more likely to give birthto her first child in the following
early spring. How to give hertime to recover before they fall harvest.
Wow, right, you know,hundreds of years ago. And some people

(33:37):
think that it goes even all theway back to ancient Rome because the Roman
goddess Juno, who is the connectedto feminine vitality, fertility and a protectress
of women, and also the equivalentof Hera, who is the Greek goddess
of love and marriage. Oh soJune Juno got it, okay. And

(34:00):
that's another thing. Uh In theMiddle Ages, apparently back then bathing was
not exactly frequent. If you wererich, you probably bathed once a month.
I wonder if they washed their legs. Probably so. But the peasants
sometime only bathed once a year,and so that and that bath usually happened

(34:24):
in late spring. So it madesense to get married in June because people
would have smelled better for their weddings. Oh my gosh, that's that's infrequent
bathing, even for me. Yeah, I can't imagine how a Rod must
feel about that. That he isso obviously June must be the most popular
month for weddings in the US.Right. Well, the way you word

(34:46):
the question, the answer has tobe no, No, it's third.
Oh okay, yeah, I meanhistorically, you know, it has been,
but over the past you know,decades, it's gone to it kind
of they go back and forth everyyear. But in twenty twenty three,
September and October we're tied with seventeenpercent each of weddings. Okay, and

(35:09):
June had eleven percent of the weddings. I wonder if that's a weather thing.
I wonder, I mean, Idon't know. Does does your research
say, like why they think theswitch is happening? No, I think
it's yeah, it was because theydon't need some of those you know,
ancient customs to apply, So it'sjust convenience. Okay. And I think

(35:32):
actually a Rod's month is the leastpopular month. Nice, he's a renegade.
Yeah, And so let's get intosome other wedding related stuff, wedding
rings, third finger, left hand? Why is that? Why the finger?

(35:52):
Why the left hand? Why bothboth? Why is the third finger
the so called ring finger? Left? Third finger, left hand? Do
you call that your third finger versusyour white I know, I know,
I guess it depends whether you countyour thumb. I've always thought of that
as my fourth finger, and I'vealways thought of the middle finger as my

(36:13):
third finger. Oh, I thinkthe middle finger is my second way.
So, listeners, I want youto text us at five six six nine
zero. Do you call your ringfinger your third finger or your fourth finger?
But to answer your question, Ihave no idea. It's because the
ancient Egyptians believe that the vein inthat hand ran directly to your heart.

(36:35):
Really it doesn't, but that's whatthey believed. But why that finger then
that they believe that that particular finger, and so they that's why they wanted
because it, you know, symbolizesthe love heart. Oh, so the
vein goes into that finger, notjust the left hand, but into that
artcular finger. They thought the ancientEgyptians went that they went right from that
from your finger directly to your heart. Wow. So that's why they started

(36:59):
doing that, and it's gone,you know, every one viral. And
also part of a wedding is thebest man. Why do we have a
best man? Uh? How didthat originate? In case the groom realizes
what he's getting into, has aheart attack on uh up there, and
the bride still needs to marry somebody. No, actually, this goes way

(37:22):
back. Wait, I'm wrong.You are marriage way back and wasn't always
a voluntary event where they would likeliterally, you know, grab somebody and
say you know you're marrying me.Wow. And so the best man was
often enlisted to kidnap an unwilling bridefrom her home or whisk away a willing

(37:44):
bride from relatives that weren't a fanof the wedding, And so during the
ceremony, the best man stood guardon the groom to ensure that the bride
stayed put and that family members didnot steal her back. And it wasn't
necessarily your best friend that was yourbest or whoever was the best fighter.
Wow, that's how that originated backin the Middle Ages. Yeah, I

(38:06):
was gonna ask you is when yeah, oh I like that. Yes,
And how about the bridesmaids. What'sthe purpose of the bride'smaids mueler That means
no idea. Okay, Back inancient Rome and feudal China, where they

(38:28):
think this tradition started, a brideoften traveled some distance to the grooms town,
and so for protection and disguise,she was accompanied by a band of
female guardians who dressed just like her. The idea was to confuse evil spirits
who might have it out for her, and also to avoid rival suitors looking

(38:49):
to kidnap her or thieves looking tosteal her dowry. So it was like
a whole group of women traveling together. You didn't know which one was the
bride. So they got to thegroom's hometown safely. For the No one's
wearing white and all of them arein a different color. So yeah,
but traveling, Yeah, all right, I got time for one more.
Okay, why do you why howdid the origin of brides tossing their bouquets

(39:13):
begin? Well, I like thatquestion, and I have no idea what
the answer is, because back inthe day, it was apparently luck to
tear off pieces of the wedding dress. You'd go and they would like swarm
the bride and start ripping her dressupon it, and so to distract them,
she would toss the bouquet and whilethey are going to get that,

(39:35):
then she would flee and get outof there so her dress would not get
literally ripped off her body. Youknow one wedding question that occurs to me,
and I don't know if you havethe answer, and I'm not even
sure if we have time, butwhy throwing rice? Did that ever come
up in your in your investigation?I saw it, but it was it
wasn't very interesting, so I believeit didn't. Yeah, all right,

(39:55):
So I'm going to end today's editionof the in a slightly different way because
usually I tell you about something thatI learned. But it occurs to me
in ancient China, when the bridesmaidsand the bride would all be traveling together
disguised as one another and then oras all being the same, and then

(40:19):
you get to the actual ceremony,there would have been people in the audience
who said, oh, so thatone's the bride. I had no idea,
And if you were at the wedding, you would have said, well,
now you know, all right?I hope everybody put their fingers up
in the air for this juneteenth editionof will Now you know? Thanks Chad.

(40:42):
Fabulous as always, Chad's wearing aRome hard Rock Cafe T shirt.
Have you been to that hard rockCafe? You have? The one in
Rome, Georgia? Oh for real? No medal? Yes, yeah,
I actually collect these. Every timeI go to one across the country of
the world, I buy one.How many do you have? Probably a
twenty and you know, my wife'snot a big fan. That's awesome,

(41:05):
We'll be right back. I hardlyever get fifty to fifty responses to a
question. I asked listeners and weasked, is your ring finger your fourth
finger or your third finger? I'vealways called it my fourth finger. I
asked you do you call it yourthird or your fourth? And I asked
you to text me at five sixsix nine zero and waiting get a ton

(41:27):
of texts because it's a holiday.But we we got a bunch of texts,
and it's about fifty to fifty.Half the people said it's the fourth
finger. Half the people said it'sthe third finger. As it examples.
One person said it's the third finger. I know my thumb is a finger,
but it has its own name,so it doesn't count. Is anyone
else on the text line. I'dnot identify with numbers because I've never done

(41:49):
that, because everyone has a name, thumb, index, middle, ring,
and pinky. I've never associated numbersin fingers, I think, although
I think it's rare. I thinkI've called my ring my fourth finger at
some point. But then another personwho maybe is a doctor or a nurse
or something I don't know, saysit's the fourth finger, and that's also
medically correct. Please note that youdo hear an ad running with some frequency

(42:16):
here on KOA and elsewhere. Thatis talking about Republican candidate Ron Hanks,
who is running for running for theRepublican nomination for Congress for the third congressional
district, which is the district thatLauren Bobert is representing now, but she's
leaving to run in the fourth.In any case, Ron Hanks is this

(42:40):
kind of Dave Williams kind of guy. They're close friends. They're all about
ultramaga, hardcore religion in government,stolen election and grifting. And I can't
stand Ron Hanks. He's everything that'swrong with the Republican Party in this state.

(43:00):
And what I want you to understandwhen you hear that AD, and
if you haven't heard me talk aboutit before, the AD is intended to
sound like criticism sort of. Andthey play something Ron Hank's talking about how
he's a you know, against immigration, I mean really what he's talking about
illegal immigration or whatever. And thenthey say, yeah, let's hear that

(43:22):
again from Hanks, and Hank says, you know, we need to stop
this immigration, and and and theythey play these soundbits of Hank saying basically
normal conservative stuff, and they saysomething like, you know, if Hanks
gets in hell, he won't justbe conservative, he'll be a conservative warrior
and he'll support Donald Trump. Andand they're they're making it a very very

(43:45):
very thin veneer of making it soundlike criticism, but what it really is.
Let's make sure we all understand what'sgoing on here. That AD is
run by a Democrat organization that wantsRon Hanks to be the nominee because they

(44:06):
believe they can beat Ron Hanks inthe general election because he's such a bad
candidate. And I think they're right. Ron Hanks is the worst candidate in
that district. Ron Hanks is conservative, all right, So They're running this
ad to try to appeal to theTrump Bass, the hardcore Trump Bass,

(44:28):
who aren't really paying attention to therest of the dynamics in the race and
maybe don't know just how weaky candidateRon Hanks will be in the general.
So this ad is designed by Democratsto help Ron Hanks get the nomination because
they believe they can beat him inthe general election. Do not help the

(44:49):
Democrats win another seat in Congress.Do not vote for Ron Hanks. If
you live in the third congressional district, my recommendation is Jeff Hurd, But
Frank, you should vote for whoever, but not Ron Hanks. Do not
let that ad fool you. Allright, let's do something very different.
My listeners know that I am somethingof a constitutional law nerd. I'm not

(45:12):
an attorney, but I think Igot a pretty good brain for this stuff.
And I love following this stuff.I love Supreme Court decisions and thinking
about them. And I was actuallytelling a friend yesterday that if I were
going to have a different career inlife, or if I were going to
go back and do my life differently, And I'm not saying I want to,

(45:34):
by the way, I'm happy withhow my life has worked out,
But one of the things I certainlywould have considered would to have been a
constitutional law attorney who spent all daysuing the government to protect people's rights.
And this is a story that fitswell into that. In fact, what
the government is doing here is sogalling that, even though it's a little

(45:55):
bit in the legal weeds, Iwanted to share it with. Thank you
so joining us to talk about thisparticular case. Peggy Little, who has
been on the show multiple times inthe past. She's a senior litigator with
the New Civil Liberties Alliance NCLA Legaldot Org n c l A Legal dot

(46:17):
org and the headline on a piecethey had recently in CLA asked Ninth Circuit
to end SEC's illegal gag rule.Peggy, with that long introduction, welcome
back to Kaway. It's good totalk to you again. Thank you,
bess. So tell us what's anissue. Well, the SEC fancies that

(46:38):
it has the power to require thatanybody who wants to settle with the agency
after they've been charged by the SEChas to agree that they will never question
any of the charges the SEC broughtagainst them for life. They are gagged

(46:59):
for life. I was astonished tolearn that they had this rule. I
published an op ed piece about itin the Wall Street Journal in twenty eighteen,
and at the same time petition ofthe agency to get rid of the
gag. And this has been avery long journey. I've tried to sue

(47:20):
in the second Circuit, the FifthCircuit, and now we're in the Ninth
Circuit. The earlier charge challenges morehad some procedural issues that the courts just
were not happy about reopening old judgmentsto free people from their gags. So
this time it's a different approach.We're in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(47:43):
The SEC after five years, deniedmy petition that I had filed on
twenty eighteen, and they said,no, this is perfectly constitutional, and
we're going to keep on doing it. Commissioner SEC Commissioner Hester Perce issued a
state defense and we are now upat the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(48:04):
We do not have the same proceduralhurdles we had in our earlier challenges.
So this is a very promising wayto get rid of this rule, which
I don't think your reers will evenbelieve our listeners will even believe this.
But the SEC has been doing thisfor fifty years. Yeah, I couldn't
believe it when I read in yournote that this rule has been around since

(48:25):
nineteen seventy two. But just toframe this in a kind of plain English
scenario for listeners, so let's imaginethat the SEC comes at me with some
civil charges and that they're not They'renot a kind of thing that's going to

(48:45):
destroy my life. I think I'mconvinced that the SEC is absolutely wrong,
but the impact to me of settlingis not that bad, and I feel
like I'm not in a position tospend two hundred thousand dollars on lawyers to

(49:06):
defend me. So I agree tosettle with the SEC, even though I
know, or at least deeply believe, that they are wrong. But I
settled because and this happens all thetime in court. People come to settlements
because they don't want to pay lawyersanymore. Absolutely, and so in this
scenario, under the SEC rule,I would be gagged so that for the

(49:30):
rest of my life I could notsay in public I settled with the SEC,
but the charges were wrong. Unfortunately, that's true, and they can
either reopen their case attempts to you, or if it was a court case,
whether or not the SEC decides todo so, the court can charge

(49:52):
you with contempt for violating the order. So this is one of those thing
things that, as a sometimes studentof the Constitution and very much a constitutionalist,
makes my head explode. Tegye.This gag rule is so obviously unconstitutional.

(50:15):
How could it possibly how could ithave lasted fifty hours, much less
fifty years? Aha, Well,the first trick deployed by the SEC was
in nineteen seventy two. They justslipped it into the Federal Register, which
is very fine print daily publication ofthe federal government, and they said,

(50:37):
well, this is just a housekeepingrule, and so we don't have to
do notice in comment and it's effectiveimmediately. So it was deceitfully put into
the Federal Register under the false representationthat it wouldn't find anyone outside of the
agency. And since it gags anyonewho's settled with the agency, that is

(50:59):
of the and if a company,if an American company pulled a stunt like
that, the SAC would charge themwith fraud. Wow. But okay,
So that answers part of the question. That maybe people didn't figure out to
begin with because they snuck it in. But it doesn't fully answer the question

(51:20):
as to how it's lasted over fiftyyears. Why weren't their previous challenges,
Why wasn't there a challenge, Whywasn't there a prime of facial First Amendment
challenge to this the first time itwas imposed on somebody? Well, I
think it tells you a lot abouthow administrative power grows. I think that

(51:40):
a lot of people who are representedby lawyers say, oh, you got
to sign it. It's a rule, Okay. They don't look into whether
it's a constitutional rule. It's arule. And everybody is so anxious to
settle in those situations. They don'twant to mess up what is already a
painful and constantly process by objecting tosomething that's in the fine print. And

(52:07):
unfortunately it's through that kind of acquiescencein government power. And I think the
bar on the attorney's representing people whosettle are carry some blame too for not
saying, you know, I'm notgoing to tell my client find that that's

(52:27):
unconstitutional. And I will also saythat in this case, we have nine
individuals, but we're also representing thepress one a small local newspaper called the
Cape Gazette. And there is aReason magazine who want to report on people
who settle with the SEC. Andso we're representing a lot of people who

(52:53):
have been gagged with some one ofus been gagged for well over twenty years.
And also the gag has in threeof the cases people try to negotiate
a gag out of their settlement.They said to the SEC, I'll settled
with you, but I'm not goingto go read to a gag. And

(53:14):
the SEC said, no gag,no settlement. Wow. So it is
a required condition that is unconstitutional.It's really insane, and it's really infuriating.
I'm glad Reason is on this Reasonis the premier libertarian publication in the
world, and I love Reason soand again, just so for listeners,
imagine imagine this. Imagine somebody ischarged with some a violation of an SEC

(53:39):
rule by the SEC, and imagineeither that the person didn't do the thing,
or that the rule itself is insane. And I think Peggy has actually
taken on a couple of those casestoo. But you go ahead and settle
because you want to get on withyour life, and you don't want to
pay the attorneys or for whatever otherreason, I don't care. Gosh heck,

(54:00):
maybe even you did it and yousettle because you did it, but
you think the rule itself is wrong. And a reporter learns that you settled,
comes to talk to you and says, I'd love to tell your story,
And all they want to do iswrite a factual story about here's the
SEC rule, and here's the personwho was charged with it, and here
was their penalty, and not evenoffering any opinion about the rule, straight

(54:23):
up news coverage. That person whohad to settle is not allowed to tell
the story of the reporter about anactive government. I'm just oh, I
want to scream, or I wanta drink or or something. Well say,
as it gets worse, because,oh my gosh, regulates, believe
it or not, it regulates theviewpoint you express. You actually can say,

(54:46):
if you settled, you know,good for the SEC. I'm a
bad guy and they caught me.You can say that. You just can't
criticize the government, oh my gosh. Now, as one of the scholars
that has written in support of ourchallenges said, criticizing the government is not
only core First Amendment speech. Itis the core of the core a First

(55:12):
Amendment speech. The First Amendment isall about the ability to criticize the government.
Indeed, and I say it allthe time. I mean it's a
little bit trite, I suppose atsome point, and I'm sure it's taught
in every con law class there is, and that is that you don't need
a law to protect speech that everybodylikes, right, You only need laws

(55:36):
to protect speeches that people don't like. And that's the whole purpose of the
United States of freaking America. Thepurpose of this country is the exact opposite
of what the SEC is doing inany case, Peggy, Before I have
an aneurism, I'm gonna let yougo, Peggy. Peggy Little is a
senior litigator with the New Civil LibertiesAlliance ncl A Legal dot or you can

(56:01):
read about this case, Peggy Will. We will definitely keep in touch as
this as this makes its way through. Has there been oral argument already at
the Ninth Circuit? No, wejust filed our opening brief. Okay,
SEC gets to respond. But wewere prised that the court put this on
a pretty fast schedule for an appellatecourt so we're hoping that there'll be oral

(56:24):
argument in the fall. Fantastic,I hope. So we'll keep in touch,
Thanks Peggy, Okay, thank you? Is that not infuriating? Can
you really? People? I don'tcare whether you're a liberal or a conservative
or a libertarian. Ross are yousaying FCC or SEC SEC? The security
is an exchange commission? Sorry andsay that you know, spell it all

(56:45):
out before. Security is an exchangecommission. But even if you are a
liberal Democrat, no matter where youare, I mean gosh, in a
way, especially if you're a liberalDemocrat who are supposed to be people who
care a lot about free spece,this should not be a partisan question.
The idea that a government agency willsettle with you on some charges that they're

(57:08):
bringing against you a civil case,but only if you agree that you can't
say anything negative about about your casein public, that you can't criticize them.
And this is disgusting and I cannotbelieve this rule has been around for
over fifty years. Absolutely shocking,absolutely freaking shocking. All right, Ay,

(57:34):
Rod, you want to give awaya pair of tickets, let's do
it. You want to do phoneor text, let's do phone today.
Why not? Okay, and okay, don't don't start calling in yet people.
Yeah, you have to listen tothe whole the whole thing. But
before we go, but when weget to this a rod, it'll be
caller number what. How crazy dowe want to be today? I don't

(57:57):
know it's a holiday. I don'tknow how many people are listing. Let's
do caller number six, caller numbersix. Okay, this is how it's
gonna work. Right now, it'sten forty nine. We're gonna give you
some time so people who are listeningon the stream have a chance to play
along. So we're gonna make thisright now. It's it's just about ten
fifty actually, so we're gonna we'regonna say at what right at the top

(58:22):
of the hour. No, let'sdo fifty five. Okay at ten fifty
five. At ten fifty five am, the sixth caller at three oh three
seven one, three eighty five eightyfive with the correct answer to this question
will win a pair of tickets tosee The Rolling Stones tomorrow night at Empower

(58:45):
Field at Mile High. This hasgotta be one of the best giveaways we've
ever done. The I mean,can you imagine how in demand tickets are
to see the Rolling Stones on whatI would think would be their last tour,
although you never really know. Okay, at ten fifty five, Caller
number six with the correct answer atthree h three seven one, three eighty

(59:07):
five eighty five will win that pairof tickets if you answer this question.
Today is juneteenth. On this day, June nineteenth, In eighteen sixty five,
Union General Gordon Granger read aloud GeneralOrder number three that announced the end

(59:28):
of slavery? Where was he in? What city was General Granger when he
read aloud General Order number three thatsaid, the people of Texas are informed
that, in accordance with a proclamationfrom the Executive of the United States,
all slaves are free. There's moreto it, but I won't read more.

(59:50):
Where was he The name of thecity, just city, not the
state. I just said it's inTexas. You did say the city.
What was the name of the citythe General Granger was in when he read
General Order number three on this dayin eighteen sixty five, which is the
reason that we celebrate this holiday Juneteenth. I did give the answer at

(01:00:12):
the beginning of the show. Ifyou were listening, then if you know
your history, you might know theanswer already. So so let me do
another thing here for two minutes.Let's switch gears. I don't hate electric
vehicles. I actually like electric vehicles. There's a lot, there's a lot

(01:00:37):
of positive about electric vehicles. Idon't think I would want an EV as
my only car, but if Iwere in a position to have more than
one car, I would definitely consideran EV for one of them. There's
a lot more of the conversation thatI'm not going to get into right now.
My objection is not to EV's.My objection is to government doing two

(01:01:00):
things, spending our children's future earningson subsidies to get usually middle class and
upper middle class and rich people likepeople who can afford more than one car
to buy evs. And they're basicallyreducing the price of EV's today by taking

(01:01:22):
money that they will have to takefrom our children in taxes later to reduce
the price of the vehicles today.And I think that's a political sin.
And they're passing laws to try toforce the adoption of evs, doing things
like telling auto companies that some percentageof your fleet must be electric. Effectively,

(01:01:45):
it's more complicated than that, butit's effectively what is that some percentage
of all the vehicles you produce mustbe electric and even though there isn't demand
for them, And I just hatethat. I hate that kind of push
from government. People will buy evswhen the people are ready and when the
EV's are ready, and that's howit needs to work. And again,

(01:02:07):
I have nothing against evs themselves.I have nothing against EV companies. I
do have a bit of a problemwith Elon Musk's entire business model when it
comes to Tesla, Solar City,SpaceX. Almost every business Elon Musk gets

(01:02:28):
into is reliant on government spending andgovernment subsidies. And nobody, nobody has
made more money by getting massive,like a trillion dollars of government subsidies attributed
towards the industries that he's in,maybe more than a trillion. So you
may have heard of an EV companycalled Fisker. Actually there was a previous

(01:02:51):
one called Fisker Automotive and that failedin twenty thirteen. It's actually named for
a dude, mister Fisker, HenrikFisker. He started another company called Fisker
Group and they another EV company EVand nice looking cars. Anyway, two
days ago they filed for bankruptcy.They're the second US EV maker to fail

(01:03:15):
this year. They've had, youknow, different reasons for failure. But
here's an incredible thing from the WallStreet Journal. Traditional automakers are also pumping
tens of billions of dollars into evsto comply with government mandates, which they
subsidize with profits from gas powered cars. So let me just interject. In
other words, for example, Chevroletwill make plenty of money selling its regular

(01:03:40):
pickup trucks and SUVs and whatever,and they'll use some of the profits from
that to subsidize the fact that theylose money when they sell an EV.
Ford. Check this out. Halfof all the profit that Ford made in
regular vvehicles last year it lost intheir EV market. Can you imagine half

(01:04:05):
of everything they made selling pickups andcars and whatever was lost in being in
the EV business. So how aboutthis from from Fisker. So Fisker only
makes evs, so they can't crosssubsidize it by selling regular vehicles. In
March, they cut prices by fortypercent, but their growing losses were unsustainable.

(01:04:26):
They lost about one hundred and fiftythousand dollars per vehicle that they delivered
last year. Government needs to stoppushing people to buy evs until people are
ready and the market is ready.I don't spend a ton of time talking
about local races on the show becauseyou know, lots of people might not

(01:04:49):
live in any one county people whoare listening to the show. But Douglas
County always has very interesting politics.And also I find that from time to
time Douglas County politics kind of spillout and impact other conversations. So joining
us to talk about her race forDouglas County Commissioner is Priscilla Ron. And

(01:05:10):
Priscilla has actually been on the showin the not too distant past because she's
a public school teacher and we weretalking about the impact of illegal alien kids
showing up in the classrooms and allthat. We're not going to get into
that today. But if the namesounds familiar for reasons other than Douglas County
politics, you've heard her on theshow, that's where Hi, Priscilla,
welcome, Welcome back. Hi,that's good to talk to you. All

(01:05:32):
right, So we just have afew minutes and I just you know,
since you're a graduate of leadership programof the Rockies. You need to be
able to make your case in ashort period of time. And I want
to ask you about two particular issuesregarding Douglas County. First, property taxes
a huge issue there. Doug COhad something like forty close to forty percent
average property tax increases. What dowe need to know from the position of

(01:05:56):
a doug CO commissioner candidate about propertytaxes? Well, yes, commissioners can
make a positive impact on reducing propertytaxes. We can reduce mills, which
I support our current commissioners have done. I will continue to do that and
support trying to put the genie backin the bottle, meaning happy how much
our property taxes can increase in thecounty. And I definitely want to further

(01:06:20):
support our seniors and veterans who arehit the hardest because they're on fixed income.
So that's my plan. People canread it on my website, Priscilla
fordugtow dot com. Well, whathave you heard from people in the district
as far as the impact on themof what's happened with property taxes so far?

(01:06:41):
Well, what we're seeing are alot of seniors are very fearful.
Several people have told me at thedoor that they're selling their homes. They're
moving out of state, which isreally sad because they've been Douglas County residents
for twenty thirty years. The otherthing I'm seeing is that this is the
first generation that's not doing better thanour parents. Typically, generation for generation
does a little bit better than theirparents. But we're seeing young people living

(01:07:03):
at home with their folks because theycan't afford to get into their own private
property, owning either a town homeor a single family home, so they're
living with their parents. And we'reseeing a lot of that as young people
are trying to juggle getting a greatpaying job and being independent. So let

(01:07:25):
me switch gears. I've heard differentthings from different people, and I'm not
that close. I'm not close enoughto the issue to have a strong opinion,
but it does seem like there arecertain interests that are pushing a project
that would move water from the SanLuis Valley to Douglas County. Clearly was
an issue at the Douglas County Commissionersand then not too distant pass. It

(01:07:45):
did not pass, although it seemedlike it might for a while. What
do we need to know about thatissue in your position on it, right,
So, I mean, we dohave water issues in the state,
and we are seeking to make surewe are providing safe, of affordable drinking
water to every resident in Douglas County. There was a proposal that was brought

(01:08:05):
before the county I think over ayear ago. It was voted down.
So there is no active proposal tobring water into Douglas County from the San
Luis Valley, and people keep talkingabout it like it's an active thing,
but it's so One thing I amvery excited about is there is a new
water commission made up of water experts, people who are representing different water providers,

(01:08:29):
engineers, a former commissioner, andthey're putting their heads together to provide
Douglas County with their first ever waterplan. And that's what I'm excited to
see because we do have issues inunincorporated parts of Douglas County that we're going
to have to problem solve. Ido see some interesting names on your list
of endorsements. I don't typically puta lot of stock in endorsements for big
offices, but local offices are alittle different. When local people endorse candidates

(01:08:55):
for local office, they probably knowthem fairly well. And I see that
the Doug Coast share has endorsed you, as has the current DA, as
has the previous DA George Brockler,who's running for for DA again. What
is it that you think these peoplesee in you versus versus the other candidates.

(01:09:17):
You know, when we were comingout of COVID, we saw this
big anti defund the police movement,a lot of hatred, hatred towards our
law enforcement. But our law enforcementneeds our support. They're the people that
we call in order to keep ourcommunity safe. As the former vice chair
of the State Party, I've beento many many pro law enforcement rallies trying

(01:09:41):
to support our law enforcement and makingsure they have the training and the funds
that they need to do a greatjob. And so I backed the Blue
and the Blue backs me and theyknow when I say I support our law
enforcement, that I mean it.And it means the world to me to
have the support of several lawns agencies, including our Fraternal Order of Police,

(01:10:01):
the state and Local Lodge forty seven, and all of these wonderful people who
give their lives every day to keepus safe. And I think that's the
second most important thing that I hearfrom residents is they want safe communities.
All right, last thing I wantto ask you. You just mentioned something
in passing, and I'm going toask you one and only one follow up

(01:10:23):
to what you just said. Yousaid you were vice chair of the state
Party. You said you used tobe vice chair of the state Party.
So my one question for you isdid you step down as vice chair of
the state Party in order to runfor office because you believed it would be
unethical to be in party leadership whilealso running for office competing against other Republicans.

(01:10:46):
You know, there was definitely someconversation amongst some leadership that it would
be a conflict of interest for meto continue to serve as the state Party
vice chair and run for local office. And I felt like it would be
just better for me to step downand focus on my local race so that
there wouldn't be a cloud over mycampaign that people knew I was very serious

(01:11:12):
about being a strong candidate. Iapplaud you for that and for being a
role model with that sense of ethics. Priscilla Ron is a candidate for Douglas
County Commissioner. Priscilla for dougco dotcom is the link. If you forget
any of this, you can goto Roscomminsky dot com and look at today's
blodcast and I've got links to Priscilla'swebsite there. Thanks so much for your

(01:11:35):
time, good luck in your campaign, and I appreciate your friendship too.
Thank you you too. Ros havea good one. Okay, bye,
We're gonna take a quick break.We're right back on Kowa. Some people,
many people call him maybe the secondgreatest professional baseball player of all time
after Babe Ruth. Quite an amazingplayer. He played in the big leagues

(01:11:59):
four twenty two years. He camein with the New York Giants in nineteen
fifty one and then obviously went toSan Francisco when they moved there, and
then he ended his career back inNew York with the Mets in nineteen seventy
three and three ZHO one career battingaverage six hundred and sixty home runs,
which is sixth most of all time, the thirty two hundred and ninety three

(01:12:23):
hits twelfth most of all time,nineteen hundred and nine RBIs eleventh most,
and scored twenty and sixty eight runs, seventh most He also recorded seven thousand,
one hundred and twelve putouts as anoutfielder, topping other legends. I'm

(01:12:43):
quoting now from let's see whose articleis this. I want to make sure
I give credit where it's due.This is from NBC News. Let me
go find this topping legends such asTris Speaker and Ricky Henderson. He also
won twelve gold gloves. There wasa catch that he made and this is
up on my blog. The videowas up on my blog. There was
a catch that he made in thefirst game of the nineteen fifty four World

(01:13:08):
Series against the Cleveland Indians, justyou know, running towards the wall and
catching this thing out in front ofhim as he's running right toward towards the
wall away from the hitter, andsometimes people still call it the catch.
Anyway, Willy Mays has passed awayat the age of ninety three, and

(01:13:28):
I just wanted to share one briefthing with you. This is a note
that was written by a guy namedTim Kirkcheon who writes for ESPN, and
actually I'm not sure if he wrotethe original, but there was a There
was a piece written at ESPN's websiteon the occasion of Willy Mays's ninetieth birthday,

(01:13:54):
and I just wanted to share justa little bit of this. And
here's what it says. To appreciateWilly Mays is to remember him at twenty.
When he joined the New York Giantsin nineteen fifty one, the game
had never seen an athlete like him. Breathtaking, league, graceful, the
greatest combination of power, speed anddefense ever to wear a Major League uniform.

(01:14:15):
And seventy years later, to many, he remains precisely that quote.
You'd sit on the bench and watchWillie Mays. Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson
said, it was so exciting justto watch him. People did that with
Jim Brown, They did it withthe aerobatics and greatness of Michael Jordan.
It's like players today want to watchthe pregame warmups of Steph Curry, to

(01:14:40):
watch Willy warm up, to throwthe ball underhand, to make a basket
catch, the beauty and the grace. For the kids today, it was
like watching Simone Biles. It waslike watching Borishnikov. It was poetry in
motion. It was so beautiful,so pretty to watch this athlete just run
on the field, catch a ble, I loved to play against Willie Mays

(01:15:02):
because it meant that I got towatch Willie Mays. M That's pretty that's
pretty fantastic. Ken Griffy Junior,another great player, said I call him
the godfather of center fielders. That'sanother great line, right, and uh
Hall of Famer one Mareschal said Williewas the best number one all time.

(01:15:25):
And I know I was there fora lot of Willie. Johnny Bench said
he was magical, he was perfect. Tim McCarver, who was a catcher
and then became a Hall of Famebroadcaster, I'm sure you know, said
he is the best player I've everseen. He could do all the things
that other guys couldn't. There's more, but I guess I'll leave it there.

(01:15:46):
But I just, you know,for fans of baseball, for fans
of sports, for fans of justgood people, just wanted to say Willie
Mays rest in peace. Congratulations toCynthia who just won a pair of tickets
just but maybe forty minutes ago,won a pair of tickets to see the
Rolling Stones. The answer to thetrivia question as to where General Granger was

(01:16:08):
when he announced that all the slavesin Texas were free. He was in
Galveston or some call it Galveston Bayin Texas, and we're going to talk
about some of that more with mynext guest. So I could probably spend
entire fifteen minutes just introducing him.So I'm going to try to make this
short. My good friend, doctorTom Cranewitter as PhD in political science,
taught it at Hillsdale, taught ithere in Colorado. He's the proprietor of

(01:16:30):
Speakeasy Ideas. You can check thatout at Speakeasyideas dot com. He has
a fantastic new substack that we willtalk about in more detail in a minute.
He is one of the only peoplewho I really consider to be a
mentor when it comes to the studyof politics, history, political philosophy,
and he's a true expert in andscholar of Abe Lincoln, the Civil War,

(01:16:58):
and slavery. There's a lot more, but we also went to see
britt Floyd together the other day.Anyway, it's so good to see you,
thanks for coming into the studio.Great to be here. Ross.
So I got I got a listeneremail that I wanted to share with you
because I thought it was so ontarget. With today, And I don't
think this listener's email was an angryemail, but I think the email is

(01:17:23):
a little bit off target in away that I think a lot of people
are off target on this particular holiday. And you wrote a substack about it.
But this ties in so perfectly towhat you and I want to talk
about today. This listener says,I feel like this holiday is yet more
ways to focus on victimhood. Oncewe get beyond focusing on being a victim

(01:17:45):
and focus on products, I'm sorry, on progress, possibilities, how to
create positive change, we may actuallystrengthen our country. The holiday, though,
seems like another flavor of reparations.It doesn't change anything. It only
focuses on some of Themerricans. Itcosts American businesses and government services you know
for that were shut down, butthey're paid. Most I suspect will not

(01:18:09):
be celebrating freedom from slavery. Butjust having a vacation supporting victimhood does not
do anything to strengthen the victim.So I said, very politely back to
this listener, I said, Icouldn't disagree more, and just so we
can get into our conversation, I'llstop there and I just said, please

(01:18:30):
listen at eleven thirty. Yeah,well, thank you for that. Look,
look, let's pick up one pieceof that and sort of sort of
see where this thread leads us.That was the comment that this holiday is
only about some people or some Americans. I disagree, and certainly Abraham Lincoln
disagreed. Lincoln made it a pointrepeatedly throughout his professional political career to remind

(01:18:50):
Americans that so long as there's ajustification to enslave some Americans, there will
be justifications to enslave any Americans.Any excuse you use, whether it's the
color of skin, or intelligence,or you know, any other characteristic,
can be used by someone. Infact, we have a wonderful little thought

(01:19:14):
piece that he was writing out.It's unclear if it was a letter or
the beginning of an essay. It'sjust a fragment of writing from Lincoln,
and he says, pick any argumentyou want to justify in slaving someone else.
You say with skin color, Yousay that people with lighter skin color
have the right to enslave people withdarker skin color, Very well, take
care the first person who comes alongof lighter skin color than you has an

(01:19:36):
argument to enslave you. If yousay, oh, well, it's intelligence.
The more intelligent have the right toenslave the less intelligent. He says,
again, take care. The firstperson who comes along more intelligent than
you has the right to enslave you. We either stand on the principle of
liberty for every American, or westand on the ground of slavery. This

(01:19:59):
was the whole theme of his HouseDivided speech. Remember he said in that
speech, I don't think the houseis going to fall, but I do
think the house is going to becomeall one thing or all the other.
If slavery is right, then weneed to stop all this talk about freedom
and individual liberty, and we needto stop that. If freedom is right,
well then we need to abolish slavery. We can't let I mean,

(01:20:20):
slavery is fundamentally intrinsically wrong and itneeds to go away. We're going to
become all the one or all theother. So June teenth is not merely
a reason for those two hundred andfifty thousand black slaves in Texas who were
you know, they heard the newsby Gordon Granger that they were free.

(01:20:42):
This is a reason for all Americansto celebrate when the United States becomes a
regime of liberty, when it's constitutionand its laws aligned with the principles the
Declaration of Independence, that is worthcelebrating by all Americans of all colors.
That's a good thing. So regardingwhat you said that Lincoln said about you

(01:21:04):
know, if you think that peoplewith lighter skin color can enslave people of
darker skin than be careful because someonewill come along with lighter skin than you.
So it's it's right, and it'sa logical argument. It's not important
argument. Right. It has nothingto do with the fundamental nature of all
men are created equals. Right.So I guess in that he's trying to

(01:21:28):
appeal to people for whom the fundamentalargument doesn't work. Yes, but I
think you and I would both saythat his argument is right, but it's
not the important one. Yeah.He What he was doing is he's spoking
holes, Yeah, in arguments thathad become popular among those who are trying
to defend slavery. Yeah, andand he's deflating those arguments. Say,
look, every one of these argumentsleads to a really bad place. The

(01:21:48):
alternative is abandon those arguments and standon the principles of the American founding.
And this is a big theme inmy substack article. There is a contradiction
in the United States between the principlesof the Declaration of Independence and the existence
of slavery. And I say thankGod for that contradiction, because that contradiction

(01:22:14):
caused a necessary conflict over slavery.Necessarily, growing numbers of Americans said,
realize this is wrong, this practiceis in direct conflict with their own founding
principles. Contrasts that with most regimesthroughout history, they weren't based on universal
human equality, and therefore most peoplenever viewed slavery as a problem. They

(01:22:38):
didn't see it as a wrong thatneeded to be righted. They just saw
it as something traditional. And thisis the peculiar thing about our political world,
our culture today. We have millionsof Americans who think the United States
is the worst in terms of racismand slavery and bigotry and white supremacy and

(01:23:00):
all the injustices connected with it.When we were the first to declare our
independence on the true principles of justiceand then take decisive actions within two generations
at unbelievable costs, costs that youand I and your listeners today really cannot
imagine the death and the destruction ofthe American Civil War, and we got

(01:23:27):
rid of that. When other regimeslet slavery exist not merely for generations,
but centuries and in some cases formillennia, and it never dawned on them.
This is a terrible problem, andwe got to get rid of it.
We got rid of it in well, to use Lincoln's dating at Gettysburg
four score seven years basically. Okay, So then to come back where we
started this, So a listener says, okay, you were talking about slavery,

(01:23:51):
and we agree slavery is bad,and we're glad that it's gone.
But help this listener. And maybeit's the same as that listener. I'm
not sure I understand why this isan important holiday today. Well, what
it represents, I mean, it'sso. In my substract piece, I

(01:24:13):
make an argument that's very unpopular inthe academic world. Very few historians,
probably no historians would agree with me. I argue that the American founding stretches
from seventeen seventy six, that's theyear of the Declaration of Independence, all
the way to eighteen sixty five.That it's not this short little period you
know, around the Declaration of theConstitution. That the real founding of America

(01:24:35):
required bringing the Constitution and the lawsof the United States in line with the
Declaration of Independence, and that didn'thappen until eighteen sixty five. In eighteen
sixty five, you know, it'sa fascinating period in American history. But
there are three events that really standout. One is Lee surrendering to Ulysseses

(01:24:59):
Grant that he effectively stops the fightingof the war. And then that's April
April of eighteen sixty five. Okay, June is June teenth. And what's
important about June teenth is remember thisis before the age of telephones and cell
phones and internet rate. News travelsslowly, communication travels slowly. All the

(01:25:19):
way out there, Texas was thewesternmost part of the Confederacy, and Galveston's
way way way down south. Imean, it is almost like this,
it's almost like a foreign land.It's so far away. It took the
Union Army marching all the way outthere to announce to those people you're not
only are you free, you've beenfree for two and a half years.

(01:25:43):
The President of the United States announcedthat you were free two and a half
years ago through Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. That is a joyous, incredible I
mean it's also tragic, right,these people have been living in as slaves
when legally they had been freed bythis and they didn't know about it.
No one of course told them,all right, there are slave masters and

(01:26:04):
drivers. Weren't going to tell themabout it. That is this incredible moment
of human drama that we Americans shouldbe celebrating. That's the second event.
So you have April, you haveJune in eighteen sixty five, and finally
in December, Americans ratify the thirteenthAmendment to the Constitution, formally legally constitutionally

(01:26:24):
abolishing slavery everywhere in the United States. So I'm gonna just myself here tackle
one listener question because this came upa lot when Congress was ratifying this holiday.
And this listener says, no one'sarguing to keep slavery. It's the
holiday, another unnecessary reason for federalemployees to not work. And I will
say, you know, this doesn'thave anything to do with the principles around

(01:26:45):
getting rid of slavery. This didcome up as an issue when Congress was
debating, and I so, firstI will say, I think this holiday
is important enough that it overcomes thatargument. But I also think it's a
legitimate argument. Right, many Americanswork, not all, but government gets

(01:27:05):
another day off, another paid holidayfor government workers, and all we tax
payers have to pay their salaries.And this is why Senator Ron Johnson of
Wisconsin, at the time that Congresswas debating whether to make this national holiday,
said yes, let's do this,this is a worthy holiday, but
let's eliminate another one, and hewanted to eliminate Columbus Day. I would

(01:27:27):
eliminate Columbus Day in a heartbeat.I'm not one of these people who thinks
like Columbus is the worst person whoever lived. I just don't think we
need a Columbus Day holiday. Also, Columbus Day is a holiday where typically
businesses are open and the government's closed. Sometimes banks are closed too. I
would add that it's also not auniquely American holiday, right right, Yeah,
So look, I think your argumentthat you know, it's annoying to

(01:27:50):
add a holiday where many of uswork and government workers get another paid day
off. It's a legit argument,but it's it's also kind of a petty
argument compared to the importance of remindingpeople what Juneteenth means about the United States
side. Do you want to addto that? Yeah, I do,
and I'll add this. I'm gonnacome out from exactly the opposite angle.
Okay, if federal holidays mean governmentbureaucrats are not working, then I'm in

(01:28:15):
favor of adding two or three hundredfederal holidays because more days they're not working
are more days they're not harassing.That's a great that's a great one,
even if we're still paying. Nowyou understand why Tom crant Oitter is so
awesome. But okay, so Tomcrano Witter's substack T cran a Witner.
That's two ends and two ts sot k r A n n A w

(01:28:41):
I T t e r T Cranowittererdot substack dot com. But your your
the name of your substack is ridiculouslynerdy. It is the nerdiest thing I
have ever seen. And this iscoming from a nerd in my life.
So what is the title of yoursubstance? And why liberty lyceum. That's

(01:29:01):
not that's not real difficult. WhatI'm about liberty and the Lyceum. I
chose because that's both Aristotle school hefounded in ancient Greece. He called it
the Lyceum, and it was therewas a venue in the early United States
where young people could practice speaking.It was called the young Men's Lyceum and
Abraham Lincoln. That's where Lincoln practicedhis public speaking skills, was at the

(01:29:25):
young Men's Lyceum. Now the subtitleis a little interesting. It is the
tetic questions for the Zeitgeistgeist is thespirit of our age. It's the culture
we live in today. It's it'sthe movers and shakers, the people who
are shaping America today, the mostinfluential people. The tetic questions means questioning
those in power, questioning those whoare authoritative. It's a synonym for Socratic

(01:29:49):
questions, right, not just askingrandom arbitrary questions, but asking questions of
those who claim to know the most, putting people, putting people like I
don't know Anthony Faucci on the hotseat, right, and pressing him direct
questions, did you fund the gainof function research? All of that kind

(01:30:10):
of stuff. Those are zetetic questions, and the Zeitgeist means those who are
most shaping our culture, the mostimportant influential people today and folks. If
you just type in Crana Witner's lastname Crana Witner, with two ns and
two teas and substack into the Googlemachine, Tom's subseycle come up as the

(01:30:30):
first thing, and I encourage youto subscribe to it. You are welcome
to subscribe for free. You arealso welcome on a voluntary basis to become
a paid subscriber and support Tom's importantwork. Any you want to add to
that. That sounds great. Okay, so I want to switch gears with
you here. We are about fiveminutes left. Okay, what do you

(01:30:56):
think, as a scholar of theAmerican founding of today's situation in American politics
where we are twenty weeks away froman election between I'm putting aside the third
party candidates, between the two majorparty candidates who both suck so bad.
They both don't care about the Constitution, they both don't care about federal spending.

(01:31:20):
Some are you know, Trump's probablyyou know, in the aggregate,
better on issues than than Biden is, and a little bit closer to the
Constitution than Biden is. But whenTrump is almost by accident, almost by
accident, because he's a populist andhe's not thinking about the Constitution. So
how how should we think about thismoment for those of us who love the

(01:31:42):
American founding and the Constitution. Man'that's a tough question. Ross. I'll
tell you what concerns me the mostwhen I look at the United States today
as a student of history, themoment in time that it reminds me the
most of that that's most comparable todayare the late eighteen fifties, and the

(01:32:05):
late eighteen fifties are a terrifying momentin American history because the volume keeps getting
ratcheted up and up between the peoplewho abhor slavery, and when I bring
it to an end, instantly thepeople who are defending it and justifying it
on with all kinds of ridiculous arguments, the kind of arguments Lincoln was responding
to. And they wouldn't listen toeach other, and both sides were convinced

(01:32:30):
that if only they shouted louder,that they could persuade the other, change
the other, And of course weknow that it didn't happen. That very
much reminds me of the United Statestoday. And we have these sort of
demagogic actors characters out there in ourleading presidential candidates. They really are cults

(01:32:51):
of personality more than anything, andit's the exact dangerous situation the Founders warned
us against. One of the mainarguments in the Federals papers for adopting the
Constitution. And remember the authors ofthe Federals, primarily Alexander Hamilton and James
Madison, neither of them were thoroughlysatisfied with the Constitution. The Constitution was,

(01:33:14):
you know, it had to getthrough a convention, right and had
it needed other people to agree,So it wasn't their ideal constitution, but
it was pretty good. And oneof the main arguments for adopting the Constitution
is that they wanted to institutionalize politicalpower in these constitutional institutions like a Congress
and a Supreme Court and a presidency, rather than individual leaders, you know,

(01:33:43):
visionary seers is the way that Madisonput it and warned us against.
And our politics has become almost entirelyunmored, detached from the Constitution. There
are no discussions anymore of whether somethingis constitutional or not constant. I mean,
a few nerdy types like you werementioning Ron Johnson. He might care

(01:34:06):
about whether a bill is constitutional ornot, but not most members of Congress,
not most modern presidents of the UnitedStates. The Constitution only comes up
when it's a convenient political weapon,when they can use it to bash the
other side somehow. And so I'mdeeply worried. I'm deeply concerned about the
future of our country. Mandy Connawalked in. You you walked in as

(01:34:28):
if you like I wanted to dosomething on your mind. I wanted to
hear the rest of the interview.I was listening in my card. I
didn't want to be late for myshow and it's not playing in the hallways,
or I don't come in and bustit. Well, as long as
you've got kran a winder here,do you have a question? Maybe?
Are you? You know? Ithink that the sort of disagreement that this
should be a holiday is a solidone in the sense that you just made

(01:34:49):
like do we need another federal holidaywhen everyone's at work except the government.
But that being said, I lovethe spirit of the holiday, because if
we are going to recognize the sinsof our age, then we should recognize
the progress that comes along with it. And nothing says progress more than celebrating
the absolute, finite end of slaveryin the United States of America. And

(01:35:12):
that's what this holiday is. Andput those two things together. What makes
the United States unique and of allthe regimes before the American founding is first
we recognized our sins. We said, yeah, this is wrong, this
practice is wrong. And then wetook great strides and made great efforts and
risks, sacrificed much, and wegot rid of it. What a glorious

(01:35:32):
thing we should be celebrating. Instead, we have prize winning national organizations like
the sixteen nineteen Projects and others right, making a bunch of money and gaining
influence by slandering the United States,by shaming you, by saying shame,
shame on you Americans. I.If you compare the United States to the

(01:35:55):
standard of perfection, then yes wefall short. If you compare the United
States to every other nation of peoplein all of history, we're at the
top. Show me any group ofpeople who did more, who acted more
decisively, who sacrificed more. Showme an example where more people fought and
died to liberate others, not toliberate themselves, but to liberate others than

(01:36:17):
the Americans did. It is thisamazing story. Americans should talk more about
it. We shouldn't be ashamed ofit. We shouldn't be embarrassed of it.
We should be quite proud. Weshould wear a shining light, a
beacon to the rest of the world. Tom Cranowitter's newest piece on his substack
is entitled Juneteenth, a uniquely Americanholiday. Indeed it is. If you

(01:36:38):
just go to the Google machine andtype in Kranawitner with two n's and two
t's and then substack, you willfind this. Always great to have you
in studio, Tom, Thanks andjoy resting your holiday, Manny, it's
good to see you. We're bothworking today. Yeah and yeah, you
want to give us a few secondson what you got coming up. I
got Gabe Evans coming in obviously inthe cdaight primary. You need to vote
for him. We're also going totalk about things that you should know before

(01:37:00):
you come to Colorado, because there'san article today in the Denver Gazette and
they left off a whole bunch ofstuff. So we're going to make a
bigger list. And of course we'regiving a ray rolling Stones tickets again.
Awesome. Everybody stick around for thefabulous Mandy Connell Show. I'll talk with
you tomorrow.

The Ross Kaminsky Show News

Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC
Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK? For 60 years, we are still asking that question. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination, legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner teams up with award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien to tell the history of America’s greatest murder mystery. They interview CIA officials, medical experts, Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, eyewitnesses and a former Secret Service agent who, in 2023, came forward with groundbreaking new evidence. They dig deep into the layers of the 60-year-old question ‘Who Killed JFK?’, how that question has shaped America, and why it matters that we’re still asking it today.

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.

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

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.