September 3, 2025 • 25 mins
(Sept 03, 2025)
Trump deployment of military troops to Los Angeles ruled illegal, headed to appeal. Faith in the ‘American Dream’ is fading as economic pessimism grips the nation. $2.4MIL for a Rental: Rich tourists are already booking mega-mansions for the Olympics. Are vanity plates protected as free speech? Supreme Court may decide.
Trump deployment of military troops to Los Angeles ruled illegal, headed to appeal. Faith in the ‘American Dream’ is fading as economic pessimism grips the nation. $2.4MIL for a Rental: Rich tourists are already booking mega-mansions for the Olympics. Are vanity plates protected as free speech? Supreme Court may decide.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listen Saints KPI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
The bill handles show on demand on the iHeartRadio f
Fine AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Bill handle here Huday, Wednesday, September third.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
As I've said many times before, ever since President Trump
became president second term, that he is and is intending
to and has stretched the boundaries of presidential powers. His
position is that presidential powers are virtually unlimited. And with
that in mind, he has deployed military troops and he's
(00:39):
about to do it in Chicago. He said, he has
done it in Los Angeles, and he has done it
in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Now, the issue in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
That's an outlier move because the federal government does have
jurisdiction over Washington, d C, which is both a city
and a protectorate of the the US government. And that's
sort of he does probably have the power. As a matter
of fact, I think he does have the power to
send in federal troops unless sending in troops is in
(01:09):
violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which says specifically, federal
troops the army cannot be used to aid law enforcement
local law enforcement cannot be used in arresting cannot be
used in any.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Part of law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
And what he did to go around that is to
say it's they're not actually enforcing. What they're doing is
providing intelligence guarding federal property, which is probably true now
when it comes to picking up and asking local law
authority and being part of it even when local law authority.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Doesn't want it.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
That is the issue, and the issue is what kind
of power does he have under the Posse Comitatus Act,
which is very specific. With that in mind, the president
has said that once he declares an emergency, he can
send in whatever federal troops to do whatever he wants.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
All he has to do is declare an emergency.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
And that actually does affect the Posse Coomatatis Act. There
have been times when presidents have, for example, declared martial
law and has sent in the army.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Harry Truman did that during.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
A strike during the Korean War with the steel worker,
saying it's a national security issue.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
We need steel to manufacture weapons.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
I don't think anybody argue that it's not a genuine
national security issue. Lincoln did it, and there is an
argument although the president, I don't know if he's actually
thinking this way. The argument is that Lincoln did it,
therefore he should be able to do it by the
way that is, a few experts from the outside looking in,
(02:58):
not with the administration, has said and therein lies the issue.
So yesterday federal judge in San Francisco barred soldiers from
aiding immigration arrests and other law enforcement here in southern California,
warning of a growing national police force with the president
(03:19):
as its chief. Senior District Judge Charles Bryer fifty two
paid decision man ripped into the government why is the
National Guard still around? And he was not happy. What
is the threat today? What was the threat or two
weeks ago that allowed it. I'm trying to see whether
(03:40):
there are any limits, any limits to the use of
a federal force. The President has described a number one
immigration issue as an invasion. Therefore he has not only
the right, but the duty to bring in federal troops.
The President has described protests and the crime rate, particularly Chicago,
(04:04):
as a city out of control, and the national interests
are now being questioned. And Brier is saying, wait a minute,
just because you say it, that means it's true. And
the government said, yeah, yeah, as long as the president
declares it a national issue, he has the right to
(04:26):
do that. Well, and the civil libertarians and a lot
of folks on the other side are saying, hey, hang
on a minute, do you think there is any basis
for rationality? Is there any basis to look at this
to see if it is a national security issue?
Speaker 1 (04:42):
By the way, I don't know who makes that decision.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Certainly the president can declare a national emergency, but the
administration says it's unlimited.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
All he has to do is say it's a national emergency.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
So as the president, he feels he can grab anybody
in the posse, come with tatis.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Oh that's very finny night everybody.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Yeah, hey, everybody, Okay, there you go, and it's it's
a tough one, it really is. Do I think the
president has unbridled authority?
Speaker 1 (05:14):
No?
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Do I think there has to be some rationality to
him describing this as a national emergency. For example, crime
in Chicago, How is that a national emergency? Doesn't have
to deal with the city and the governor, who, by
the way, asked the president to bring in the national guard.
It takes a governor to ask the president, and the
(05:38):
president is saying the administration is saying we're bypassing all
of that because the president has declared it a national emergency.
Now he says crime is out of control in the city.
Maybe does the president have the authority to come in
and override local police and the mayor and local city council.
(05:58):
According to the administration, yeah, he absolutely has that right.
And so far this judge said, uh uh, absolutely not
interesting argument that the administration is making.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
And this the judge question and went huh, and he said, what.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
You're doing is you are complying with the posse Coomatidis law.
You have argued you are complying with the law, and
then at the same time you argue the law is irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
And he said, which one is it?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
And the administration's answer is we're going to appeal your decision.
By the way, experts say the law is unclear, that
it is not that clear because it has not been litigated,
because there have been very few presidents that have tried
to go around the posse Coomatadis law.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
For example, Lincoln.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Was his decision to go around the law a legitimate
national interest?
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
The South declared its own independence and then attacked the
North at Charles Sumpter to begin the Civil War. I
think that's a little bit more of an argument that
that was in the national interests to undo the posecomatatas law,
as opposed to saying Chicago local crime is out of control. Anyway,
(07:22):
we'll see what happens. Of course, the government is going
to appeal it, and we'll see. Right now the court's
particular Supreme Court is leaning towards giving the president a
lot more power than any other court has. Okay, conversation
I have with my daughter regularly, and she complains, I
(07:42):
think totally legitimate, the American dream is gone for her.
She'll probably never be able to afford a house, even
if she makes one hundred thousand dollars a year, one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year here in southern California.
And so I have said, and I've made that statement,
the American dream is gone.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
What does that mean?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Well, whenever I can, I try to back it up
with science, statistics, a poll by legitimate pollsters, and this
came out of a poll Wall Street Journal, North Pole
and reports that we have Americans a record low optimism
about improving living standards. In the US, how many people
(08:24):
express confidence twenty five percent. Nearly seventy percent doubt the
validity of the American dream that you're going to do great,
You're gonna buy a house, You're gonna have a great job. Now,
every generation up to this point has said our kids
are going to do better. Well, our kids are not
(08:44):
going to do better, They're going to do worse. And
if you're a baby boomer like I am, we're at
the top of the heap. And let me tell you,
previous generations are really pissed off at us. We could
afford a house, we had great jobs, our financial situation
was pretty good. And then it went south, and it's
(09:06):
going more.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
And more south. It is souther and southther is that
a verb? By the way? We south? U south?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
We shall south? Do I speak English or what? Here's
the problem with that? Not even the problem, just the
weird part of this. I mean, it's a contradiction in terms.
Seventy percent doubt the validity of the American dream. Economic fragility.
Concerned about prospects in the future, and there's an improvement
(09:36):
of the current economy that usually goes doesn't go hand
in hand. There's a slight improvement, but we're really worried
about inflation and achieving financial goals.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
And one of the problems.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Is that we have had a very low incident of
inflation since Joe Biden took office. Now, the issue is
when President Trump took office and he said the worst
economy in the world in the history of the United
States that I've been handed, he wasn't handed the worst economy.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
He wasn't handed the highest inflation in years. Now.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Prior to that, during Biden, it did go up to
nine percent. So now as the President said, I'm going
to cut that in half, I'm going to cut your.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Food prices in half.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Of course he said that was an exaggeration because it was. Well,
the point is is that the nine percent was already
baked in, and the Democrats did a horrible job of
conveying that message to the American people, and the President
(10:46):
and the Republican Party did a great job in attacking inflation,
even though it was by the time the vote happened,
it was down to a normal slightly strilightly more serious
and normal.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
And so this well, no surprise.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
In this survey, Republicans were less pessimistic than Democrats. Why
Because the party holding the White House either way has
a rosier.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
View of the economy and life in general.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
If you're a Democrat, life is falling apart when a
Republican president is in place.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
If you're a Republican and.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
A Democrat is holding the White House and Congress, in
this case, all of it, then the economy is falling apart.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
It's just that simple.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And discontent in this case goes across demographic lines. Large
majorities women and men held pessimistic view of the future,
younger and older adults, those with and without a college degree,
even the respondence with more than one hundred thousand dollars
a year in household income and those below one hundred
(11:59):
thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Now, unfortunately, it used to men.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Do you remember a time when one hundred thousand dollars
a year was an astronomical.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Salary? Oh my god, you're rich. You are rich.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
You can't ever buy a house with one hundred thousand.
You can't buy a house with two hundred thousand.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
I bought my first house in my twenties, Actually in
my early thirties.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
I was practicing law.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
First four years I was a cocaine addict, spent all
my money on cocaine, as you know, and then I
started practicing, and then I bought my first house almost immediately.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Why I was making a good living as an attorney.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
The down payment was reasonable, the mortgage was reasonable on
the amount of money that I borrowed.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
How about today? How about today?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Look outside our window if you were in the studio,
which you'll never be invited to do, and you look
outside and you see these cracker jack size houses here
in Burbank, two bedroom, one bath, eleven hundred square feet,
a million dollars, two hundred thousand dollars down eight hundred
(13:07):
thousand dollars mortgage at six and a half percent. And
what are you looking at? Well, one hundred thousand dollars
doesn't touch what you can afford, at least here in Burbank.
I mean, the only way if you're making one hundred
thousand dollars is you basically have to move to Arkansas
and Tennessee and you go down a local diner and
you order possum stew. Then you can afford to live there.
(13:31):
Although try make one hundred thousand dollars in Arkansas and Tennessee,
you can live reasonably comfortable there a matter of fact,
one hundred thousand dollars. You can live great here, but
you're living here in southern California. You're pessimistic as hell,
and you should be. And as I talk to my daughter,
(13:52):
she is, and I agree now even to the point
where I'm pessimistic no matter what. As you know, life
to me is falling apart, no matter what. It's always
not only a glass that's half empty, but there's a
big hole at the bottom in the war a water
is pouring out.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
I'm the biggest customers you ever saw.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
But most of the time I don't have a reason
to be that pessimistic. You know, that's just me in
this case, everybody has a reason to be up to pessimistic.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Like I am, all right telling me about money. This
one's just fun.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
This is one that those of us will never be
able to touch. All we can do is look at
it from the outside. And that is people renting for
the twenty twenty eight Olympics, renting a hotel bus or
excuse me, renting a hotel room or an airbnb, which
is going to be really pricey for the Olympics. Well,
(14:52):
there is a strata there is a level of rental
that's kind of fun to look at. Here's one ten bedroom,
twenty bathrooms, movie theater, infinity pool overlooking the city. Yeah,
that's pretty pricey, as you can think. By the way,
that's only three hundred thousand dollars a month and has
(15:13):
been booked from January to August of twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
It's two point four million.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Dollars pre paid, like writing a check for it now.
And so who rents those, Well, royals, oligarchs, usually Russian
uber wealthy families coming to watch the Olympics, and they
want the mega mansions. The founder of the ultra luxury
vacation rental company called lux JB said, we're getting five
(15:43):
to ten inquers per week and frankly, there are only
so many homes of that size in LA now. LUXJB
owns fourteen matches around LA. Three have already been booked,
and not for the last two weeks of July while
the Olympics are going on, but most of the year.
And can you imagine this kind of money. Well, if
(16:06):
you're an Olympic federation from a specific country, it gives
you an idea of what the federation's the kind of
money they have. You're going to be here training athletes,
athletes for the games even begin If you're a major
sports brand, you want to be here in LA before
and after July. And they're going to rent every single
(16:28):
one of them. Wow, pretty impressive. And Stark, the owner
of this company, says this Renolds actually makes sense. For example,
you got a superstar athlete who has an entourage and
wants some privacy. And let me tell you about superstar athletes.
(16:49):
There are soccer players and it's pretty rarefied air. There
are soccer players around the world who make salary over
one hundred million dollars a year, not counting endorsements. Yeah,
they want some privacy, and yes, it's good to be
(17:09):
that way.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
It really is.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
By the way, they don't have to go to school.
Very few of them have PhDs, I might add. So
at this point, LUXJB is currently feeled the interest from
two Olympic committees. They want to hold news conferences, host
media outlets. US companies that want their top brass. When
let's say you have a billion dollar company, or your
(17:33):
company is doing fifty billion, eighty billion dollars a year, well,
what happens with the top brass, the CEO, senior VPS.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Guess what.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And it's common for companies to rent their mansions for
months at a time. This happens during emy season, Grammys, Oscars,
and even next year when the twenty twenty six World
Cup brings only a handful of matches to La, the
(18:06):
homes are already booked. And even if you want to
rent a place, say you want to go to Airbnb
or Verbo, guess what, You're not going to get reservations
this foreign advance hotels only go a year in advance.
(18:26):
Airbnb and Verbo and other companies don't accept bookings more
than two years in advance.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
And we're still looking at two years in advance.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
So I thought i'd share that story with you because
the rest of us think America is going into the toilet.
The entire world is going into the toilet.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Not for these people.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
By the way, Olympic bookings around forty percent higher than usual,
and the numbers are at least forty percent more, and especially.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Among these mega mansions. Sure why not? All right, enough
of that, now, let's talk about what affects us.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
I don't know if you can figure out what vanity
plates say I can't for the life of me, I
can't figure them out because they can say anything. Well,
there's one in Texas from a critic of President Trump
that says jail forty five.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Or there's a college.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Football fan in Michigan that has a vanity plate that
says OSU sucks. Arizona did allow a message Jesus, and
m Vermont blocked j N thirty six reference to Bible
verse John three sixteen. And so state's rules for what
(19:56):
is and isn't allowed on personal plates are all over
the place, state by state, Department of Motor Vehicles from
an apartment and lawyers for the Tennessee woman who had
a vanity license plate says it is free speech, it's
her First Amendment right and the government can't stop it. Well,
(20:20):
she's expressing her views through a vanity plate, not the governments,
is what her lawyers say. Now. In twenty fifteen, the
judges went the other way and upheld restrictions on specialty
license plates which support a cause or organization, and for example,
states can stop specialty plates that have the Confederate flag
(20:43):
on them.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
This was a five to four decision.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Just season Stephen Byer wrote, states have long used license
plates in this country to convey government messages, which, by
the way, is a CROC. States until the Thirteenth Amendment
long used slavery as a governmental policy. There are certain
things that just because the history of being used, For example,
(21:07):
the latest Second Amendment case, because historically people had guns,
therefore we can we uphold the Second Amendment. Now I
agree that you can. There's plenty of argument, but that one.
So what do you do with that? What do the
states do with that? Here's one in Tennessee. It's her case.
(21:33):
Tennessee initially approved her request for her license plate that
read sixty nine PWNDU.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
I understand the sixty nine part. I don't understand the
rest of it. She said.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
The letters reference pwn du.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
That's an online gamer phrase meaning to beat an opponent.
Didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
And the number, she said, reflected a part of her
phone number, and we're not part of a sexual reference.
That's what she initially said. Later she said she's an
astronomy buff and sixty nine refers to the year of
the moon landing. So she had this for eleven years
and someone complained and the state revoked. All right, So
(22:21):
here's the argument. Is that the states don't have the
right to do this, because the states do have a
right to put states' messages the Garden State, the Sunshine State,
that they can do no problem now stopping you from
(22:42):
having a license plate.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
That can read any way you want. It's just a
question of interpretation. This is the DMV.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
This is somebody at the DMV or a group of
people that sit down and go, we don't like this,
depending on political views, depending on.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
How prudish they are.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
The only one I really understood, the one that I
thought was great, and I would love the state to
say no to this. There was a white guy, actually
almost an albino, driving a pure black Porsche. The wheels
were black, the Porsche was black. There was no there
(23:24):
was one part of that car that wasn't black. And
his license plate said OREO. How do you argue with that? Well,
that's racist. Okay, somebody at the DMV didn't like it.
So the Supreme Court is probably going to rule on it.
(23:44):
And which way is it going to go. I think
the Court is going to say if there are multiple
interpretations of what's on a license plate, that has to
be allowed.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
It is a First Amendment issue. That's the way I
think the.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Why don't they just say it's not a right to drive, therefore,
it's not a right to have a driver's license and
express yourself on it.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Well, sometimes you don't have a right to drive if
you've committed some kind of violation.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
But that's what I'm saying. It's not a right to drive.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Therefore, it's like saying I get to take a photograph
with a mask on in my driver license.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Well, I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
For example, her lawyers say that plate's reading I am high,
I'm in love, I'm a brat are allowed?
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Okay? Tennessee says no, just kidding.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
There's one from a Tesla owner that says FK gas.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
And the owner saying no, that tag means fake gas,
but it could be read another way.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
And so I think the court's gonna have no choice
because if they rule the DMV has right, then it's arbitrary.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Then they can say.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Anything they want, all right, KF I am sixty.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Catch My Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listen Saints KPI AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
The bill handles show on demand on the iHeartRadio f
Fine AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Bill handle here Huday, Wednesday, September third.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
As I've said many times before, ever since President Trump
became president second term, that he is and is intending
to and has stretched the boundaries of presidential powers. His
position is that presidential powers are virtually unlimited. And with
that in mind, he has deployed military troops and he's
(00:39):
about to do it in Chicago. He said, he has
done it in Los Angeles, and he has done it
in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Now, the issue in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
That's an outlier move because the federal government does have
jurisdiction over Washington, d C, which is both a city
and a protectorate of the the US government. And that's
sort of he does probably have the power. As a matter
of fact, I think he does have the power to
send in federal troops unless sending in troops is in
(01:09):
violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which says specifically, federal
troops the army cannot be used to aid law enforcement
local law enforcement cannot be used in arresting cannot be
used in any.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Part of law enforcement.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
And what he did to go around that is to
say it's they're not actually enforcing. What they're doing is
providing intelligence guarding federal property, which is probably true now
when it comes to picking up and asking local law
authority and being part of it even when local law authority.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Doesn't want it.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
That is the issue, and the issue is what kind
of power does he have under the Posse Comitatus Act,
which is very specific. With that in mind, the president
has said that once he declares an emergency, he can
send in whatever federal troops to do whatever he wants.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
All he has to do is declare an emergency.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
And that actually does affect the Posse Coomatatis Act. There
have been times when presidents have, for example, declared martial
law and has sent in the army.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Harry Truman did that during.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
A strike during the Korean War with the steel worker,
saying it's a national security issue.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
We need steel to manufacture weapons.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
I don't think anybody argue that it's not a genuine
national security issue. Lincoln did it, and there is an
argument although the president, I don't know if he's actually
thinking this way. The argument is that Lincoln did it,
therefore he should be able to do it by the
way that is, a few experts from the outside looking in,
(02:58):
not with the administration, has said and therein lies the issue.
So yesterday federal judge in San Francisco barred soldiers from
aiding immigration arrests and other law enforcement here in southern California,
warning of a growing national police force with the president
(03:19):
as its chief. Senior District Judge Charles Bryer fifty two
paid decision man ripped into the government why is the
National Guard still around? And he was not happy. What
is the threat today? What was the threat or two
weeks ago that allowed it. I'm trying to see whether
(03:40):
there are any limits, any limits to the use of
a federal force. The President has described a number one
immigration issue as an invasion. Therefore he has not only
the right, but the duty to bring in federal troops.
The President has described protests and the crime rate, particularly Chicago,
(04:04):
as a city out of control, and the national interests
are now being questioned. And Brier is saying, wait a minute,
just because you say it, that means it's true. And
the government said, yeah, yeah, as long as the president
declares it a national issue, he has the right to
(04:26):
do that. Well, and the civil libertarians and a lot
of folks on the other side are saying, hey, hang
on a minute, do you think there is any basis
for rationality? Is there any basis to look at this
to see if it is a national security issue?
Speaker 1 (04:42):
By the way, I don't know who makes that decision.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Certainly the president can declare a national emergency, but the
administration says it's unlimited.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
All he has to do is say it's a national emergency.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
So as the president, he feels he can grab anybody
in the posse, come with tatis.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Oh that's very finny night everybody.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Yeah, hey, everybody, Okay, there you go, and it's it's
a tough one, it really is. Do I think the
president has unbridled authority?
Speaker 1 (05:14):
No?
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Do I think there has to be some rationality to
him describing this as a national emergency. For example, crime
in Chicago, How is that a national emergency? Doesn't have
to deal with the city and the governor, who, by
the way, asked the president to bring in the national guard.
It takes a governor to ask the president, and the
(05:38):
president is saying the administration is saying we're bypassing all
of that because the president has declared it a national emergency.
Now he says crime is out of control in the city.
Maybe does the president have the authority to come in
and override local police and the mayor and local city council.
(05:58):
According to the administration, yeah, he absolutely has that right.
And so far this judge said, uh uh, absolutely not
interesting argument that the administration is making.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
And this the judge question and went huh, and he said, what.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
You're doing is you are complying with the posse Coomatidis law.
You have argued you are complying with the law, and
then at the same time you argue the law is irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
And he said, which one is it?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
And the administration's answer is we're going to appeal your decision.
By the way, experts say the law is unclear, that
it is not that clear because it has not been litigated,
because there have been very few presidents that have tried
to go around the posse Coomatadis law.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
For example, Lincoln.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Was his decision to go around the law a legitimate
national interest?
Speaker 1 (06:59):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
The South declared its own independence and then attacked the
North at Charles Sumpter to begin the Civil War. I
think that's a little bit more of an argument that
that was in the national interests to undo the posecomatatas law,
as opposed to saying Chicago local crime is out of control. Anyway,
(07:22):
we'll see what happens. Of course, the government is going
to appeal it, and we'll see. Right now the court's
particular Supreme Court is leaning towards giving the president a
lot more power than any other court has. Okay, conversation
I have with my daughter regularly, and she complains, I
(07:42):
think totally legitimate, the American dream is gone for her.
She'll probably never be able to afford a house, even
if she makes one hundred thousand dollars a year, one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year here in southern California.
And so I have said, and I've made that statement,
the American dream is gone.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
What does that mean?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Well, whenever I can, I try to back it up
with science, statistics, a poll by legitimate pollsters, and this
came out of a poll Wall Street Journal, North Pole
and reports that we have Americans a record low optimism
about improving living standards. In the US, how many people
(08:24):
express confidence twenty five percent. Nearly seventy percent doubt the
validity of the American dream that you're going to do great,
You're gonna buy a house, You're gonna have a great job. Now,
every generation up to this point has said our kids
are going to do better. Well, our kids are not
(08:44):
going to do better, They're going to do worse. And
if you're a baby boomer like I am, we're at
the top of the heap. And let me tell you,
previous generations are really pissed off at us. We could
afford a house, we had great jobs, our financial situation
was pretty good. And then it went south, and it's
(09:06):
going more.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
And more south. It is souther and southther is that
a verb? By the way? We south? U south?
Speaker 2 (09:13):
We shall south? Do I speak English or what? Here's
the problem with that? Not even the problem, just the
weird part of this. I mean, it's a contradiction in terms.
Seventy percent doubt the validity of the American dream. Economic fragility.
Concerned about prospects in the future, and there's an improvement
(09:36):
of the current economy that usually goes doesn't go hand
in hand. There's a slight improvement, but we're really worried
about inflation and achieving financial goals.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
And one of the problems.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Is that we have had a very low incident of
inflation since Joe Biden took office. Now, the issue is
when President Trump took office and he said the worst
economy in the world in the history of the United
States that I've been handed, he wasn't handed the worst economy.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
He wasn't handed the highest inflation in years. Now.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Prior to that, during Biden, it did go up to
nine percent. So now as the President said, I'm going
to cut that in half, I'm going to cut your.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Food prices in half.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Of course he said that was an exaggeration because it was. Well,
the point is is that the nine percent was already
baked in, and the Democrats did a horrible job of
conveying that message to the American people, and the President
(10:46):
and the Republican Party did a great job in attacking inflation,
even though it was by the time the vote happened,
it was down to a normal slightly strilightly more serious
and normal.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
And so this well, no surprise.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
In this survey, Republicans were less pessimistic than Democrats. Why
Because the party holding the White House either way has
a rosier.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
View of the economy and life in general.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
If you're a Democrat, life is falling apart when a
Republican president is in place.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
If you're a Republican and.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
A Democrat is holding the White House and Congress, in
this case, all of it, then the economy is falling apart.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
It's just that simple.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And discontent in this case goes across demographic lines. Large
majorities women and men held pessimistic view of the future,
younger and older adults, those with and without a college degree,
even the respondence with more than one hundred thousand dollars
a year in household income and those below one hundred
(11:59):
thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Now, unfortunately, it used to men.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Do you remember a time when one hundred thousand dollars
a year was an astronomical.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Salary? Oh my god, you're rich. You are rich.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
You can't ever buy a house with one hundred thousand.
You can't buy a house with two hundred thousand.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
I bought my first house in my twenties, Actually in
my early thirties.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
I was practicing law.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
First four years I was a cocaine addict, spent all
my money on cocaine, as you know, and then I
started practicing, and then I bought my first house almost immediately.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Why I was making a good living as an attorney.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
The down payment was reasonable, the mortgage was reasonable on
the amount of money that I borrowed.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
How about today? How about today?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
Look outside our window if you were in the studio,
which you'll never be invited to do, and you look
outside and you see these cracker jack size houses here
in Burbank, two bedroom, one bath, eleven hundred square feet,
a million dollars, two hundred thousand dollars down eight hundred
(13:07):
thousand dollars mortgage at six and a half percent. And
what are you looking at? Well, one hundred thousand dollars
doesn't touch what you can afford, at least here in Burbank.
I mean, the only way if you're making one hundred
thousand dollars is you basically have to move to Arkansas
and Tennessee and you go down a local diner and
you order possum stew. Then you can afford to live there.
(13:31):
Although try make one hundred thousand dollars in Arkansas and Tennessee,
you can live reasonably comfortable there a matter of fact,
one hundred thousand dollars. You can live great here, but
you're living here in southern California. You're pessimistic as hell,
and you should be. And as I talk to my daughter,
(13:52):
she is, and I agree now even to the point
where I'm pessimistic no matter what. As you know, life
to me is falling apart, no matter what. It's always
not only a glass that's half empty, but there's a
big hole at the bottom in the war a water
is pouring out.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
I'm the biggest customers you ever saw.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
But most of the time I don't have a reason
to be that pessimistic. You know, that's just me in
this case, everybody has a reason to be up to pessimistic.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Like I am, all right telling me about money. This
one's just fun.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
This is one that those of us will never be
able to touch. All we can do is look at
it from the outside. And that is people renting for
the twenty twenty eight Olympics, renting a hotel bus or
excuse me, renting a hotel room or an airbnb, which
is going to be really pricey for the Olympics. Well,
(14:52):
there is a strata there is a level of rental
that's kind of fun to look at. Here's one ten bedroom,
twenty bathrooms, movie theater, infinity pool overlooking the city. Yeah,
that's pretty pricey, as you can think. By the way,
that's only three hundred thousand dollars a month and has
(15:13):
been booked from January to August of twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
It's two point four million.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Dollars pre paid, like writing a check for it now.
And so who rents those, Well, royals, oligarchs, usually Russian
uber wealthy families coming to watch the Olympics, and they
want the mega mansions. The founder of the ultra luxury
vacation rental company called lux JB said, we're getting five
(15:43):
to ten inquers per week and frankly, there are only
so many homes of that size in LA now. LUXJB
owns fourteen matches around LA. Three have already been booked,
and not for the last two weeks of July while
the Olympics are going on, but most of the year.
And can you imagine this kind of money. Well, if
(16:06):
you're an Olympic federation from a specific country, it gives
you an idea of what the federation's the kind of
money they have. You're going to be here training athletes,
athletes for the games even begin If you're a major
sports brand, you want to be here in LA before
and after July. And they're going to rent every single
(16:28):
one of them. Wow, pretty impressive. And Stark, the owner
of this company, says this Renolds actually makes sense. For example,
you got a superstar athlete who has an entourage and
wants some privacy. And let me tell you about superstar athletes.
(16:49):
There are soccer players and it's pretty rarefied air. There
are soccer players around the world who make salary over
one hundred million dollars a year, not counting endorsements. Yeah,
they want some privacy, and yes, it's good to be
(17:09):
that way.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
It really is.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
By the way, they don't have to go to school.
Very few of them have PhDs, I might add. So
at this point, LUXJB is currently feeled the interest from
two Olympic committees. They want to hold news conferences, host
media outlets. US companies that want their top brass. When
let's say you have a billion dollar company, or your
(17:33):
company is doing fifty billion, eighty billion dollars a year, well,
what happens with the top brass, the CEO, senior VPS.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Guess what.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And it's common for companies to rent their mansions for
months at a time. This happens during emy season, Grammys, Oscars,
and even next year when the twenty twenty six World
Cup brings only a handful of matches to La, the
(18:06):
homes are already booked. And even if you want to
rent a place, say you want to go to Airbnb
or Verbo, guess what, You're not going to get reservations
this foreign advance hotels only go a year in advance.
(18:26):
Airbnb and Verbo and other companies don't accept bookings more
than two years in advance.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
And we're still looking at two years in advance.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
So I thought i'd share that story with you because
the rest of us think America is going into the toilet.
The entire world is going into the toilet.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
Not for these people.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
By the way, Olympic bookings around forty percent higher than usual,
and the numbers are at least forty percent more, and especially.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Among these mega mansions. Sure why not? All right, enough
of that, now, let's talk about what affects us.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
I don't know if you can figure out what vanity
plates say I can't for the life of me, I
can't figure them out because they can say anything. Well,
there's one in Texas from a critic of President Trump
that says jail forty five.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Or there's a college.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Football fan in Michigan that has a vanity plate that
says OSU sucks. Arizona did allow a message Jesus, and
m Vermont blocked j N thirty six reference to Bible
verse John three sixteen. And so state's rules for what
(19:56):
is and isn't allowed on personal plates are all over
the place, state by state, Department of Motor Vehicles from
an apartment and lawyers for the Tennessee woman who had
a vanity license plate says it is free speech, it's
her First Amendment right and the government can't stop it. Well,
(20:20):
she's expressing her views through a vanity plate, not the governments,
is what her lawyers say. Now. In twenty fifteen, the
judges went the other way and upheld restrictions on specialty
license plates which support a cause or organization, and for example,
states can stop specialty plates that have the Confederate flag
(20:43):
on them.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
This was a five to four decision.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Just season Stephen Byer wrote, states have long used license
plates in this country to convey government messages, which, by
the way, is a CROC. States until the Thirteenth Amendment
long used slavery as a governmental policy. There are certain
things that just because the history of being used, For example,
(21:07):
the latest Second Amendment case, because historically people had guns,
therefore we can we uphold the Second Amendment. Now I
agree that you can. There's plenty of argument, but that one.
So what do you do with that? What do the
states do with that? Here's one in Tennessee. It's her case.
(21:33):
Tennessee initially approved her request for her license plate that
read sixty nine PWNDU.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
I understand the sixty nine part. I don't understand the
rest of it. She said.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
The letters reference pwn du.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
That's an online gamer phrase meaning to beat an opponent.
Didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
And the number, she said, reflected a part of her
phone number, and we're not part of a sexual reference.
That's what she initially said. Later she said she's an
astronomy buff and sixty nine refers to the year of
the moon landing. So she had this for eleven years
and someone complained and the state revoked. All right, So
(22:21):
here's the argument. Is that the states don't have the
right to do this, because the states do have a
right to put states' messages the Garden State, the Sunshine State,
that they can do no problem now stopping you from
(22:42):
having a license plate.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
That can read any way you want. It's just a
question of interpretation. This is the DMV.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
This is somebody at the DMV or a group of
people that sit down and go, we don't like this,
depending on political views, depending on.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
How prudish they are.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
The only one I really understood, the one that I
thought was great, and I would love the state to
say no to this. There was a white guy, actually
almost an albino, driving a pure black Porsche. The wheels
were black, the Porsche was black. There was no there
(23:24):
was one part of that car that wasn't black. And
his license plate said OREO. How do you argue with that? Well,
that's racist. Okay, somebody at the DMV didn't like it.
So the Supreme Court is probably going to rule on it.
(23:44):
And which way is it going to go. I think
the Court is going to say if there are multiple
interpretations of what's on a license plate, that has to
be allowed.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
It is a First Amendment issue. That's the way I
think the.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Why don't they just say it's not a right to drive, therefore,
it's not a right to have a driver's license and
express yourself on it.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Well, sometimes you don't have a right to drive if
you've committed some kind of violation.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
But that's what I'm saying. It's not a right to drive.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Therefore, it's like saying I get to take a photograph
with a mask on in my driver license.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Well, I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
For example, her lawyers say that plate's reading I am high,
I'm in love, I'm a brat are allowed?
Speaker 1 (24:32):
Okay? Tennessee says no, just kidding.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
There's one from a Tesla owner that says FK gas.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
And the owner saying no, that tag means fake gas,
but it could be read another way.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
And so I think the court's gonna have no choice
because if they rule the DMV has right, then it's arbitrary.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Then they can say.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Anything they want, all right, KF I am sixty.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
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
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.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.