July 9, 2025 • 25 mins
(July 08, 2025)
City of Los Angeles on pace for the lowest homicide total in nearly 60 years. The City and County of Los Angeles seek to join lawsuit to stop immigration raids. Epstein Files: Annoyance at Bondi’s handling of case grows inside and outside the White House. RFK Jr’s battle against food dyes hits a roadblock… M&M’s.
City of Los Angeles on pace for the lowest homicide total in nearly 60 years. The City and County of Los Angeles seek to join lawsuit to stop immigration raids. Epstein Files: Annoyance at Bondi’s handling of case grows inside and outside the White House. RFK Jr’s battle against food dyes hits a roadblock… M&M’s.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Speaker the KFI handle here on a Wednesday day, Wednesday
Hot Wednesday, July ninth.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Here's a stat that's kind of fun.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
It's actually a great stat and that's homicides across LA
fell by more than twenty percent in the first half
of the year, and that's leaving the city on pace
to end the year with the lowest total of homicides
in nearly sixty years.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
That's pretty impressive.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Homicides overall in LA dropped to one sixteen through June
twenty eighth, compared to one hundred and fifty two in
the same period last year. And I don't get overly
excited about homicides in the city of LA because the
majority are gang on gang on gang. You know, gang
bangers killing each other, and so you know, they can
kill each other there all they want.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Just leave me alone. I'm fine with that.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Now, when there is a home invasion, when someone is
killed at random.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
That gets a little scary.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So we're going down and not just us, not just LA.
The national trend is doing exactly the same thing. Crime
is homicide rates are falling Baltimore, Detroit, other major cities
similar declines, and experts say that we are in the
midst of the sharpest decline in history.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
And why is that.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
What's the reason, Well, there are a lot of reasons.
They can't really point to a single factor. There are
a few things going on that the experts are looking at,
and some of them are counterintuitive. Some of them make
all the sense in the world. Some of them are
(01:58):
statistically insignificant or significant. Some of them are rational when
you describe them, some not. I mean literally all over
the place. So cities in unincorporated areas patrolled by La
County Sheriff's Department that's not the city of La because
it has its own police force. Of course, also recorded
(02:18):
fewer killings. I mean, the killings are going south quickly.
And these numbers, they paint a very different story, a
very different picture than the dystopian image of the city
offered by President Trump and senior US officials.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
They're saying that.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The murder rate in the cities, the crime rate is
out of control, that the migrants are overrunning the city,
and law and order is disappearing, and we have to
deploy military troops. It's certainly different views. Now researchers what
(03:02):
they have done and said, wait a minute, don't read
too much into this year to year crime rate. Now
we're in a different subject. That is, what are the
real reasons? Well, a lot of complicated in intertwined ways, stress,
political divisiveness, the economic downturns, and twenty twenty. So how
(03:22):
does that translate into lower killings. One theory is that
violence dips during economic boom times, which we're in the
middle of. And well, that study has gained traction because
high homicide counts of the early nineteen nineties coincided with
a recession. But there's a similar downturn in the mid
(03:43):
two thousand, which economy was great, So that one is.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
A little bit tough.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Conservatives point to mass tough on crime strategies.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Another reason may be what Mayor Giuliani did, What Rudy
Giuliani did when he was mayor. And now this was
before the worm that was an rfk's brain migrated to
Giuliani's brain and he actually knew what the hell he
was doing and what his philosophy was is, if you
attack crime at the very lowest level, vandalism, tagging really
(04:22):
low level crime breaking of windows, then the crime rate drops.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Grab at It's very, very source. It worked.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Giuliani turned New York around, and then of course he
drank the kool aid. So there are all kinds of
reasons for at least murders dropping. Now we know that
cars being stolen are on the uptick. I think a
lot of it has to do with the fact that
cars are so hideously expensive, and we know that catalytic
(04:53):
converters because of the price of platinum is through the roof.
That we know has gone up, but the violent crimes
have gone down.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
The LAPD is shrinking. Overall.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Some police critics continue to argue for let's take money
out of the policing this multi billion dollar police budget.
Look at the LA City's police budget. It's insane. But
then again, we have almost ten thousand cops on the
street and I don't know how many civilians, and all
of the equipment and for example, air support, that entire
(05:30):
fleet of helicopters, none of which comes cheap. And what
the police critics are saying, let's take the money that
we're spending on the police and move it over to
social programs, pull people out of poverty. And provide them
with stable income and housing. Yeah, so how much money
(05:52):
do you think that'll cost? Is policing? Does it work?
Of course works statistics. Statistics also show the more cops
on the street you have, crime rate goes down.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
It's not that complicated. That's logical.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
But the other thing is the United States has more
people incarcerated than any country in the world, not only
in terms of numbers, but also in terms of per capita.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
We just like throwing people in prison.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Industrialized nations across Europe, for example, don't have any of
this problem.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
They don't have.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Many homicides either, because you can't have guns, and with
no guns, then you have very few gun homicides.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I love the philosophy of guns. Don't kill people. People
kill people. It's very hard to kill someone with a
gun if you don't have a gun.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Does that make sense.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
No, because you can still kill people without a.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Gun with a knife.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I know, you can take a knife and go and
take out thirty people because you're able to throw a
knife through thirty people.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
I get that.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Yeah, or drive over them in a car.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I understand that, but you have to have cars.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Now Here we go in terms of Neil and I
have had this argument for years and years, and I've
always enjoyed it because not only is it a fun
argument that we've had, because we've both been on either
side of the argument.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
But Neil is wrong.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
As the former gun owner.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Yes we could.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
I wish we could do a Genie nod of the
head and make all guns go away. I have zero
I know.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
I know you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I know. I mean, there's a reality here more guns
than people. And you know, after the Rodney King riots,
I got a gun. I went out and purchased a gun,
and as you know, Neil, and then I went to
the right, I went to the range and was practicing
with a gun, and unfortunately, couple things happened. Number one,
they frightened me. Number Two, every time I shot, I
had an uncontrolled direction. So that had all kinds of
(08:07):
psychological issues with that. And then well I can go
into that between me and my shrink on that one.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
All right.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
There's a lawsuit that's out there and it's kind of interesting,
and it's between of course, the City of La the
County of La against the Trump administration. Actually it's a
lawsuit filed by ACLU in which the city and county
are joining as plaintiffs, and what the governments did various
(08:35):
governments is filed the motion in federal court to intervene
with this American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit on behalf of
immigrant rights groups.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
And here's what the lawsuit says.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
That the entire region we're talking southern California, which is
the poster child of what's going on with the immigration issue,
is under siege by federal agents. And of course, the
federal government says that it's the immigrants that are causing
the siege. That the United States and specifically Los Angeles,
southern California is under siege by them.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
So who is sieging who? That's what this lawsuit is about.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
And so the lawsuit says the region is under siege
by federal agent and aims to stop federal agencies from
this ongoing pattern and practice of flouting the Constitution and
federal law during the raids. They're arguing that the raids
in and of themselves are unconstitutional. I think that may
(09:37):
be a stretch, and I'll tell you why. The city
attorney says these unconstitutional rounds up and raids cannot be
allowed to continue. They cannot become the new normal, and
asking the court that you got to stop it, at
least preliminarily, you have to give an injunction before the
merits are heard. Now, this all happens as the Trump
(09:59):
administer The crackdown in southern California is entering its second month.
Between June sixth June twenty two, agents arrested sixteen hundred
immigrants for deportation, and the attorney John Schwab, representing La
Another City, says, day in and day out, there's no
telling who these federal agents will target or when they'll strike,
(10:21):
since they refuse to coordinate with local authorities. Now that
gets interesting because that's another part of the lawsuit. And
the argument here is the government is saying that the
local authorities are in violation of the law because they
are not helping federal officials effectuate federal law. And you
(10:43):
have the local people saying, we don't have to we
can't stop you, but we don't have to cooperate. It
used to be when someone came out of prison, or
even came out of jail LA County jail, you know, ice,
used to be calledmatically we have someone here, we're releasing him.
Don't know if he's legal or illegal. You figure it out.
(11:05):
Here's when he's leaving, this time, this place.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Boy, those days have gone.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
So the argument that's being made is these deportations the
aim is to instill maximum fear in communities, wreak havoc
on the economy of one of the most diverse and
vibrant areas in the country.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
The argument is, you are hurting our.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Economy by picking up illegal migrants in a way you're doing,
and therefore that's unconstitutional. I don't get that. How do
you argue that if you go out and raid people
under the law. You may disagree with it, but it's
federal law. And who determines whether there's a siege or not,
(11:52):
and the Feds have to come out and how far
ice goes.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
It's the executive branch.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
The executive branch has the right, and you'll see the
court Supreme Court say, we may disagree with that, but
it is a choice of the executive branch, except when, sorry,
when that decision is so arbitrary, so capricious, that it
(12:17):
makes no sense. For example, let's say a demonstration where
twenty five people show up and they're behind a barricade,
and the government says that is an invasion, that is
a rebellion against the government of the United States. For
national security purposes, we have to pick up every one
of those people, put them into tention, and we're not
(12:39):
going to give them the right of habeas corpus, because
we're allowed to.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Do that under the law.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
When you have national emergencies and exigen circumstances, they are
the courts would say, come on, really, but again, it
is the government's choice and if there is any I
guess reasonable decision or reason for doing this, and by
the way, reasonable goes a long long way.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
That's the problem. The courts stay away.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
From decisions made by various agencies of the US government.
The courts say, it is not our job to establish policy.
It is only our job to establish whether what you're
doing is constitutional or not. And this is where the
Trump administration is saying, we believe it. Here is the evidence,
(13:31):
and we're going for it. So we'll see what happens
with the lawsuit. Now, so far, the court Supreme Court
has allowed Trump, the Trump administration lots of leeway in
determining how far they go and the power of the presidency.
Now we're only talking about temporarily f the underlying issues
(13:54):
that it's going to go before the court across the
board not there yet, the court is hearing it. The
court will determine how far the Trump administration is going
to go. And we've never seen this, We've never seen
an administration push the envelope as to executive power in
the history of this country. Well, that's not true. Actually,
(14:16):
Abraham Lincoln is the winner on that one. When he
removes habeas corpus for four years. He threw people in
prison for four years and never brought him in front
of a judge. Try doing that. Can't imagine anybody. Can
you imagine the government doing that today? Picking someone us,
tossing them in a detention center and na, we're not
(14:39):
gonna let you even go in front of a judge.
And they were only released when the Civil War was over.
And that's Abraham Lincoln. Now the ongoing case of the
Epstein files and Pam Bondy at one point and not
too long ago, said I have a list on my
desk of people that are in the deep state implication
(15:04):
that were involved in Epstein, were involved with Epstein because
there's conspiracy theories he died in federal prison hanging himself.
So all of a sudden, of course, the conspiracy theory
start was he murdered, I was a government involved in
his death. And you couple that with the Epstein files.
Who was involved with teenage girls and sex that were
(15:28):
part of the Epstein world, and there's a lot of
big names.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
So it turns out there are no big names. Turns
out that there is no file.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
And the MAGA supporters, right, the Trump supporters are swirling
around this and really angry at Bondi in the federal government, saying,
you know what, there is a file, and the DOJ
just came out and said there is no file.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It doesn't exist. Now, all of a sudden, the deep
state is hiding it.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
But the problem is the deep state hiding it is
the Trump administration, and the MAGA folks are not happy
about it. That's what This is a lot of fun. Oh,
I love this one. This reminds me of Joseph McCarthy.
I have a list, blank piece of paper, by the way,
of names of communists in the State Department. The paper
(16:17):
was blank, and what he did based on just the
fear bondering. Now, in the case of Pam Bondy doing this,
was this fear mongering.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
I don't know. I think it just they just blew it.
That's all. The list doesn't exist. And my fun one.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Okay, at a press conference, Caroline Levitt, who is the
White House Press secretary, she defended Bondi because the President
was asked during a cabinet meeting that the press attended
all about this, and he was not happy. He goes,
Jeffrey Epstein, what are you talking about? Why would we
talk about Epstein? We've got a lot of other problems, Okay,
(17:00):
a lot of deflection, which is what presidents do.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Press secretary even better, so she says, and I'm going
to quote President Trump is proud of Attorney General Bondi's
efforts to execute his Make America Safe Again agenda to
restore the integrity of the Department of Justice and to
bring justice to victims of crime. And the continued fixation
(17:26):
on sowing division in the President's cabinet is baseless and
unfounded in reality. Does anybody have any idea what that means?
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I don't either.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
When in doubt, when there is a question that is pertinent,
like hey, she came up with this list that doesn't exist.
You want to explain it. The president is here to
enforce America, to protect the constitution of the United States.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
I mean, come on, I mean.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
We know people die in federal prison. I remember IRV
Rubin who was the Jewish Defense League.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
IRV.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Rubin was he was, actually he was I'm not gonna
say a friend of mine. There's a great story there,
but it's someone I knew. He was arrested and involved
in placing a bomb in a congress person's office. Elebanese
who happened to be a Lebanese descent, and he was
put in federal prison, and he was awaiting trial, and
(18:31):
he was down in Coronado Terminal Island Prison and his
cell was on the third floor of you know those
prison buildings, and he took a swan dive right off
the third floor. And you don't do well with that,
you know, when you hit the concrete after going you know,
hitting it after you know, from thirty five or forty feet.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
Conspiracy theory started immediately, I mean immediately.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
That's what happens. Here's the bottom line. Here's what the
DJ said. One he killed himself, all right, let's put
that one to bed.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Two there is no file. It doesn't exist. And number three,
if there was a file, which.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Doesn't exist, investigators couldn't release the information anyway under federal
law protecting the privacy of victims and people not.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Charged with crimes.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Oooh, does that mean you're not releasing names that you
say don't exist? Hmm, all right, there is I won't
say a fight, but there is an interesting argument going
on between RF Kay Junior and the food companies related
(19:50):
to artificial dies. Neil and I have talked about this
three months after he declared war.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
That is Robert Kennedy on the food dies.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
He said he's received security quote cooperation of some of
the makers of America's most colorful products. And this is
not yet law. They have These products, for the most part,
have not been banned. There have been some, but this
is cooperation because it's going in that direction. Jello snacks,
(20:21):
kool Aid beverages, lucky charms. I don't know if you've
ever seen lucky charms, great colors and lucky charms. And
now I don't know if you've ever eaten gray lucky charms.
Because they removed all the color, it's not quite as appetizing.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
They're bland, fully delicious.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
They're sort of a neutral gray, and the box also
has no colors on it. Now you have most of
the companies have in fact caved or they have agreed
that they're going to remove artificial dyes and they're going
to put in natural dies. Some of the candy companies
(21:04):
are saying, uh, not going to do that. For example,
Eminem's company makes Eminems saying not a chance, because Eminem's
we need.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
That color, we need those.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
The issue really is removing these artificial dyes, petroleum based eyes.
The argument among those who are in favor of dies,
the candy companies say, we're not going to get the
color the same way. We're not going to get the
same looking product. Neil, how close can you get and
how much is the color hit when you go to
(21:39):
natural dyes, and which products are in fact affected the most.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
The two that are pushing back. Candy is going to
be number one candy. It uses more artificial colors than
anybody else. So if you look at products across the
board food wise, almost twenty percent of food out there
is artificial dyes. So it's pretty large. It's not huge,
but it's pretty large. And the vast majority of those
(22:07):
are going to fall into the candy category. The two
big holdouts right now are fruit loops and M and M's.
And if you remember, I think it was back in
the seventies where Eminem's pulled red. You couldn't get red
anymore in there for a while. One of the colors
was pulled and was not used. I think it was
red in M and MS. In this particular case, you've
(22:28):
got two things. One, the natural coloring is hard to
find and in the quantities that it would take to
get the richness may not even be possible. In two,
it can be up to five times more expensive to
use those so called natural dyes, and so they're saying
the product's going to go up. And quite honestly, people
(22:52):
like bright, vivid candy. So both I think Eminems and
Skittles remove the titanium oxide that's what makes white. It's
similar to what you use for like, you know, zinc
oxide that goes on your face when you're trying to
you know, the sun from burning you. So these things
(23:17):
were taken out, but the color is what they're pushing
back on because they feel that people want vibrant, bright colors,
especially children when it comes.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Can you get great colors with.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Natural dyes or is there a discernible difference, a big difference.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
I'd say there's a discernible difference on certain colors, and
there's some colors that are very difficult to get vibrant naturally.
But things like Craft, you know, was at the forefront
of this before they were even asked, and their macaroni
and cheese was the first to drop artificial dyes. And
(23:58):
I didn't notice at all.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Yeah, because they also have a white cheddar.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Well, no, I'm tom that there's no color at all,
So yeah, I can see that happened. Hey, here's a
factoid regarding colors that you may not know. During the Renaissance,
the medieval period, when you see these great pieces of
art by these masters, you know, hiring one of these
(24:24):
masters to create a masterpiece, the biggest expense was the colors.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Was the ink.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
Yeah, that was that was the biggest expense, far more
than the artist.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yeah, and a lot of them have you know, they
have trouble with them fading because of reds and things
like that, evening tattoos. There are certain colors that fade
or that the body absorbs, like red more than others.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Just green. Remember green eminem's you couldn't get them.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Well, I don't know if it was green. I think
it was red.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
No, I think think it was green because if I remember,
green m and ms were determined to be an aphrodaisiac
or or something crazy.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
You couldn't maintain an erection or anything unless you have them.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
I think your dates told you they didn't exist anymore.
Women were like, no, they don't have green ones anymore.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
Huh, but that's good. That's good.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Could have been yellow, but I think it was red.
I think red eyed number forty or whatever was a
big deal in the seventies.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
All right, this is KFI AM sixty. You've been listening
to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Speaker the KFI handle here on a Wednesday day, Wednesday
Hot Wednesday, July ninth.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Here's a stat that's kind of fun.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
It's actually a great stat and that's homicides across LA
fell by more than twenty percent in the first half
of the year, and that's leaving the city on pace
to end the year with the lowest total of homicides
in nearly sixty years.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
That's pretty impressive.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Homicides overall in LA dropped to one sixteen through June
twenty eighth, compared to one hundred and fifty two in
the same period last year. And I don't get overly
excited about homicides in the city of LA because the
majority are gang on gang on gang. You know, gang
bangers killing each other, and so you know, they can
kill each other there all they want.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Just leave me alone. I'm fine with that.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Now, when there is a home invasion, when someone is
killed at random.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
That gets a little scary.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
So we're going down and not just us, not just LA.
The national trend is doing exactly the same thing. Crime
is homicide rates are falling Baltimore, Detroit, other major cities
similar declines, and experts say that we are in the
midst of the sharpest decline in history.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
And why is that.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
What's the reason, Well, there are a lot of reasons.
They can't really point to a single factor. There are
a few things going on that the experts are looking at,
and some of them are counterintuitive. Some of them make
all the sense in the world. Some of them are
(01:58):
statistically insignificant or significant. Some of them are rational when
you describe them, some not. I mean literally all over
the place. So cities in unincorporated areas patrolled by La
County Sheriff's Department that's not the city of La because
it has its own police force. Of course, also recorded
(02:18):
fewer killings. I mean, the killings are going south quickly.
And these numbers, they paint a very different story, a
very different picture than the dystopian image of the city
offered by President Trump and senior US officials.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
They're saying that.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
The murder rate in the cities, the crime rate is
out of control, that the migrants are overrunning the city,
and law and order is disappearing, and we have to
deploy military troops. It's certainly different views. Now researchers what
(03:02):
they have done and said, wait a minute, don't read
too much into this year to year crime rate. Now
we're in a different subject. That is, what are the
real reasons? Well, a lot of complicated in intertwined ways, stress,
political divisiveness, the economic downturns, and twenty twenty. So how
(03:22):
does that translate into lower killings. One theory is that
violence dips during economic boom times, which we're in the
middle of. And well, that study has gained traction because
high homicide counts of the early nineteen nineties coincided with
a recession. But there's a similar downturn in the mid
(03:43):
two thousand, which economy was great, So that one is.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
A little bit tough.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Conservatives point to mass tough on crime strategies.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Another reason may be what Mayor Giuliani did, What Rudy
Giuliani did when he was mayor. And now this was
before the worm that was an rfk's brain migrated to
Giuliani's brain and he actually knew what the hell he
was doing and what his philosophy was is, if you
attack crime at the very lowest level, vandalism, tagging really
(04:22):
low level crime breaking of windows, then the crime rate drops.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
Grab at It's very, very source. It worked.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Giuliani turned New York around, and then of course he
drank the kool aid. So there are all kinds of
reasons for at least murders dropping. Now we know that
cars being stolen are on the uptick. I think a
lot of it has to do with the fact that
cars are so hideously expensive, and we know that catalytic
(04:53):
converters because of the price of platinum is through the roof.
That we know has gone up, but the violent crimes
have gone down.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
The LAPD is shrinking. Overall.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Some police critics continue to argue for let's take money
out of the policing this multi billion dollar police budget.
Look at the LA City's police budget. It's insane. But
then again, we have almost ten thousand cops on the
street and I don't know how many civilians, and all
of the equipment and for example, air support, that entire
(05:30):
fleet of helicopters, none of which comes cheap. And what
the police critics are saying, let's take the money that
we're spending on the police and move it over to
social programs, pull people out of poverty. And provide them
with stable income and housing. Yeah, so how much money
(05:52):
do you think that'll cost? Is policing? Does it work?
Of course works statistics. Statistics also show the more cops
on the street you have, crime rate goes down.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
It's not that complicated. That's logical.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
But the other thing is the United States has more
people incarcerated than any country in the world, not only
in terms of numbers, but also in terms of per capita.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
We just like throwing people in prison.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Industrialized nations across Europe, for example, don't have any of
this problem.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
They don't have.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Many homicides either, because you can't have guns, and with
no guns, then you have very few gun homicides.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I love the philosophy of guns. Don't kill people. People
kill people. It's very hard to kill someone with a
gun if you don't have a gun.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Does that make sense.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
No, because you can still kill people without a.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Gun with a knife.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I know, you can take a knife and go and
take out thirty people because you're able to throw a
knife through thirty people.
Speaker 3 (07:11):
I get that.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Yeah, or drive over them in a car.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
I understand that, but you have to have cars.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Now Here we go in terms of Neil and I
have had this argument for years and years, and I've
always enjoyed it because not only is it a fun
argument that we've had, because we've both been on either
side of the argument.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
But Neil is wrong.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
As the former gun owner.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
Yes we could.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
I wish we could do a Genie nod of the
head and make all guns go away. I have zero
I know.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
I know you can't do that.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
I know. I mean, there's a reality here more guns
than people. And you know, after the Rodney King riots,
I got a gun. I went out and purchased a gun,
and as you know, Neil, and then I went to
the right, I went to the range and was practicing
with a gun, and unfortunately, couple things happened. Number one,
they frightened me. Number Two, every time I shot, I
had an uncontrolled direction. So that had all kinds of
(08:07):
psychological issues with that. And then well I can go
into that between me and my shrink on that one.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
All right.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
There's a lawsuit that's out there and it's kind of interesting,
and it's between of course, the City of La the
County of La against the Trump administration. Actually it's a
lawsuit filed by ACLU in which the city and county
are joining as plaintiffs, and what the governments did various
(08:35):
governments is filed the motion in federal court to intervene
with this American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit on behalf of
immigrant rights groups.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
And here's what the lawsuit says.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
That the entire region we're talking southern California, which is
the poster child of what's going on with the immigration issue,
is under siege by federal agents. And of course, the
federal government says that it's the immigrants that are causing
the siege. That the United States and specifically Los Angeles,
southern California is under siege by them.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
So who is sieging who? That's what this lawsuit is about.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
And so the lawsuit says the region is under siege
by federal agent and aims to stop federal agencies from
this ongoing pattern and practice of flouting the Constitution and
federal law during the raids. They're arguing that the raids
in and of themselves are unconstitutional. I think that may
(09:37):
be a stretch, and I'll tell you why. The city
attorney says these unconstitutional rounds up and raids cannot be
allowed to continue. They cannot become the new normal, and
asking the court that you got to stop it, at
least preliminarily, you have to give an injunction before the
merits are heard. Now, this all happens as the Trump
(09:59):
administer The crackdown in southern California is entering its second month.
Between June sixth June twenty two, agents arrested sixteen hundred
immigrants for deportation, and the attorney John Schwab, representing La
Another City, says, day in and day out, there's no
telling who these federal agents will target or when they'll strike,
(10:21):
since they refuse to coordinate with local authorities. Now that
gets interesting because that's another part of the lawsuit. And
the argument here is the government is saying that the
local authorities are in violation of the law because they
are not helping federal officials effectuate federal law. And you
(10:43):
have the local people saying, we don't have to we
can't stop you, but we don't have to cooperate. It
used to be when someone came out of prison, or
even came out of jail LA County jail, you know, ice,
used to be calledmatically we have someone here, we're releasing him.
Don't know if he's legal or illegal. You figure it out.
(11:05):
Here's when he's leaving, this time, this place.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Boy, those days have gone.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
So the argument that's being made is these deportations the
aim is to instill maximum fear in communities, wreak havoc
on the economy of one of the most diverse and
vibrant areas in the country.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
The argument is, you are hurting our.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Economy by picking up illegal migrants in a way you're doing,
and therefore that's unconstitutional. I don't get that. How do
you argue that if you go out and raid people
under the law. You may disagree with it, but it's
federal law. And who determines whether there's a siege or not,
(11:52):
and the Feds have to come out and how far
ice goes.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
It's the executive branch.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
The executive branch has the right, and you'll see the
court Supreme Court say, we may disagree with that, but
it is a choice of the executive branch, except when, sorry,
when that decision is so arbitrary, so capricious, that it
(12:17):
makes no sense. For example, let's say a demonstration where
twenty five people show up and they're behind a barricade,
and the government says that is an invasion, that is
a rebellion against the government of the United States. For
national security purposes, we have to pick up every one
of those people, put them into tention, and we're not
(12:39):
going to give them the right of habeas corpus, because
we're allowed to.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Do that under the law.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
When you have national emergencies and exigen circumstances, they are
the courts would say, come on, really, but again, it
is the government's choice and if there is any I
guess reasonable decision or reason for doing this, and by
the way, reasonable goes a long long way.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
That's the problem. The courts stay away.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
From decisions made by various agencies of the US government.
The courts say, it is not our job to establish policy.
It is only our job to establish whether what you're
doing is constitutional or not. And this is where the
Trump administration is saying, we believe it. Here is the evidence,
(13:31):
and we're going for it. So we'll see what happens
with the lawsuit. Now, so far, the court Supreme Court
has allowed Trump, the Trump administration lots of leeway in
determining how far they go and the power of the presidency.
Now we're only talking about temporarily f the underlying issues
(13:54):
that it's going to go before the court across the
board not there yet, the court is hearing it. The
court will determine how far the Trump administration is going
to go. And we've never seen this, We've never seen
an administration push the envelope as to executive power in
the history of this country. Well, that's not true. Actually,
(14:16):
Abraham Lincoln is the winner on that one. When he
removes habeas corpus for four years. He threw people in
prison for four years and never brought him in front
of a judge. Try doing that. Can't imagine anybody. Can
you imagine the government doing that today? Picking someone us,
tossing them in a detention center and na, we're not
(14:39):
gonna let you even go in front of a judge.
And they were only released when the Civil War was over.
And that's Abraham Lincoln. Now the ongoing case of the
Epstein files and Pam Bondy at one point and not
too long ago, said I have a list on my
desk of people that are in the deep state implication
(15:04):
that were involved in Epstein, were involved with Epstein because
there's conspiracy theories he died in federal prison hanging himself.
So all of a sudden, of course, the conspiracy theory
start was he murdered, I was a government involved in
his death. And you couple that with the Epstein files.
Who was involved with teenage girls and sex that were
(15:28):
part of the Epstein world, and there's a lot of
big names.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
So it turns out there are no big names. Turns
out that there is no file.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
And the MAGA supporters, right, the Trump supporters are swirling
around this and really angry at Bondi in the federal government, saying,
you know what, there is a file, and the DOJ
just came out and said there is no file.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It doesn't exist. Now, all of a sudden, the deep
state is hiding it.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
But the problem is the deep state hiding it is
the Trump administration, and the MAGA folks are not happy
about it. That's what This is a lot of fun. Oh,
I love this one. This reminds me of Joseph McCarthy.
I have a list, blank piece of paper, by the way,
of names of communists in the State Department. The paper
(16:17):
was blank, and what he did based on just the
fear bondering. Now, in the case of Pam Bondy doing this,
was this fear mongering.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
I don't know. I think it just they just blew it.
That's all. The list doesn't exist. And my fun one.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
Okay, at a press conference, Caroline Levitt, who is the
White House Press secretary, she defended Bondi because the President
was asked during a cabinet meeting that the press attended
all about this, and he was not happy. He goes,
Jeffrey Epstein, what are you talking about? Why would we
talk about Epstein? We've got a lot of other problems, Okay,
(17:00):
a lot of deflection, which is what presidents do.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Press secretary even better, so she says, and I'm going
to quote President Trump is proud of Attorney General Bondi's
efforts to execute his Make America Safe Again agenda to
restore the integrity of the Department of Justice and to
bring justice to victims of crime. And the continued fixation
(17:26):
on sowing division in the President's cabinet is baseless and
unfounded in reality. Does anybody have any idea what that means?
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I don't either.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
When in doubt, when there is a question that is pertinent,
like hey, she came up with this list that doesn't exist.
You want to explain it. The president is here to
enforce America, to protect the constitution of the United States.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
I mean, come on, I mean.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
We know people die in federal prison. I remember IRV
Rubin who was the Jewish Defense League.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
IRV.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Rubin was he was, actually he was I'm not gonna
say a friend of mine. There's a great story there,
but it's someone I knew. He was arrested and involved
in placing a bomb in a congress person's office. Elebanese
who happened to be a Lebanese descent, and he was
put in federal prison, and he was awaiting trial, and
(18:31):
he was down in Coronado Terminal Island Prison and his
cell was on the third floor of you know those
prison buildings, and he took a swan dive right off
the third floor. And you don't do well with that,
you know, when you hit the concrete after going you know,
hitting it after you know, from thirty five or forty feet.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
Conspiracy theory started immediately, I mean immediately.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
That's what happens. Here's the bottom line. Here's what the
DJ said. One he killed himself, all right, let's put
that one to bed.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Two there is no file. It doesn't exist. And number three,
if there was a file, which.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Doesn't exist, investigators couldn't release the information anyway under federal
law protecting the privacy of victims and people not.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Charged with crimes.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Oooh, does that mean you're not releasing names that you
say don't exist? Hmm, all right, there is I won't
say a fight, but there is an interesting argument going
on between RF Kay Junior and the food companies related
(19:50):
to artificial dies. Neil and I have talked about this
three months after he declared war.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
That is Robert Kennedy on the food dies.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
He said he's received security quote cooperation of some of
the makers of America's most colorful products. And this is
not yet law. They have These products, for the most part,
have not been banned. There have been some, but this
is cooperation because it's going in that direction. Jello snacks,
(20:21):
kool Aid beverages, lucky charms. I don't know if you've
ever seen lucky charms, great colors and lucky charms. And
now I don't know if you've ever eaten gray lucky charms.
Because they removed all the color, it's not quite as appetizing.
Speaker 1 (20:38):
They're bland, fully delicious.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
They're sort of a neutral gray, and the box also
has no colors on it. Now you have most of
the companies have in fact caved or they have agreed
that they're going to remove artificial dyes and they're going
to put in natural dies. Some of the candy companies
(21:04):
are saying, uh, not going to do that. For example,
Eminem's company makes Eminems saying not a chance, because Eminem's
we need.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
That color, we need those.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
The issue really is removing these artificial dyes, petroleum based eyes.
The argument among those who are in favor of dies,
the candy companies say, we're not going to get the
color the same way. We're not going to get the
same looking product. Neil, how close can you get and
how much is the color hit when you go to
(21:39):
natural dyes, and which products are in fact affected the most.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
The two that are pushing back. Candy is going to
be number one candy. It uses more artificial colors than
anybody else. So if you look at products across the
board food wise, almost twenty percent of food out there
is artificial dyes. So it's pretty large. It's not huge,
but it's pretty large. And the vast majority of those
(22:07):
are going to fall into the candy category. The two
big holdouts right now are fruit loops and M and M's.
And if you remember, I think it was back in
the seventies where Eminem's pulled red. You couldn't get red
anymore in there for a while. One of the colors
was pulled and was not used. I think it was
red in M and MS. In this particular case, you've
(22:28):
got two things. One, the natural coloring is hard to
find and in the quantities that it would take to
get the richness may not even be possible. In two,
it can be up to five times more expensive to
use those so called natural dyes, and so they're saying
the product's going to go up. And quite honestly, people
(22:52):
like bright, vivid candy. So both I think Eminems and
Skittles remove the titanium oxide that's what makes white. It's
similar to what you use for like, you know, zinc
oxide that goes on your face when you're trying to
you know, the sun from burning you. So these things
(23:17):
were taken out, but the color is what they're pushing
back on because they feel that people want vibrant, bright colors,
especially children when it comes.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Can you get great colors with.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Natural dyes or is there a discernible difference, a big difference.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
I'd say there's a discernible difference on certain colors, and
there's some colors that are very difficult to get vibrant naturally.
But things like Craft, you know, was at the forefront
of this before they were even asked, and their macaroni
and cheese was the first to drop artificial dyes. And
(23:58):
I didn't notice at all.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Yeah, because they also have a white cheddar.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Well, no, I'm tom that there's no color at all,
So yeah, I can see that happened. Hey, here's a
factoid regarding colors that you may not know. During the Renaissance,
the medieval period, when you see these great pieces of
art by these masters, you know, hiring one of these
(24:24):
masters to create a masterpiece, the biggest expense was the colors.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Was the ink.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
Yeah, that was that was the biggest expense, far more
than the artist.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yeah, and a lot of them have you know, they
have trouble with them fading because of reds and things
like that, evening tattoos. There are certain colors that fade
or that the body absorbs, like red more than others.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
Just green. Remember green eminem's you couldn't get them.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Well, I don't know if it was green. I think
it was red.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
No, I think think it was green because if I remember,
green m and ms were determined to be an aphrodaisiac
or or something crazy.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
You couldn't maintain an erection or anything unless you have them.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
I think your dates told you they didn't exist anymore.
Women were like, no, they don't have green ones anymore.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
Huh, but that's good. That's good.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Could have been yellow, but I think it was red.
I think red eyed number forty or whatever was a
big deal in the seventies.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
All right, this is KFI AM sixty. You've been listening
to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.