Breaking Battlegrounds

Welcome to this week’s episode of Breaking Battlegrounds! In this episode, we have an incredible lineup of guests and captivating discussions. First up, Anna Giaritelli, a Homeland Security Reporter for the Washington Examiner, dives into pressing topics like illegal immigration, the southern border, 'special interest aliens,' and the recent 'Day of Terror' announced by Hamas leaders. Jon Riches, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, provides insights into the growing concerns of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) on Arizona State University's campus and the actions being taken to address it. Lastly, we welcome the Honorable Don Tapia, former United States Ambassador to Jamaica, who shares his valuable insights into the role of an ambassador, the appointment process, and the modern challenges of managing the Israel/Hamas conflict. Be sure to stay tuned for Kiley's Corner, where Kiley explores intriguing global topics, including the remarkable story of the world's largest pumpkin, affectionately named 'Michael Jordan.' Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds - ABOUT OUR GUESTS Friend of the show, Anna Giaritelli, is a Homeland Security Reporter for the Washington Examiner focused on immigration, and border issues. Anna has traveled to the border on more than 40 occasions since 2018 and has covered human smuggling, the evolution of the war on drugs, domestic terrorism, and migration trends. She is currently based in Austin, Texas. Follow Anna on X: @Anna_Giaritelli. - Jon Riches is the Vice President for Litigation for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and General Counsel for the Institute. He litigates in federal and state trial and appellate courts in the areas of economic liberty, regulatory reform, free speech, taxpayer protections, public labor issues, government transparency, and school choice, among others. Jon has developed and authored several pieces of legislation, including the landmark Right to Earn a Living Act, which provides some of the greatest protections in the country to job-seekers and entrepreneurs facing arbitrary licensing regulations. He also developed legislation eliminating deference to administrative agencies in Arizona—a first-of-its-kind regulatory reform that can serve as a model for the rest of the country. His work at the Institute has been covered by national media, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CBS This Morning, Bloomberg News, and Politico. Jon is also a member of the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project: State and Local Working Group. Prior to joining the Goldwater Institute, Jon served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps. While on active duty, Jon represented hundreds of clients, litigated dozens of court-martial cases, and advised commanders on a vast array of legal issues. He previously clerked for Sen. Jon Kyl on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, worked for the Rules Committee in the Arizona State Senate, and clerked in the Office of Counsel to the President at the White House. Jon received his B.A. from Boston College, where he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his J.D. from the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law. Jon served as a presidentially appointed Panel Member on the Federal Service Impasses Panel. He is an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve and an Adjunct Professor at Arizona State University School of Law. Jon is a native of Phoenix. - Honorable Donald Ray Tapia, a prominent businessman, committed civic leader and compassionate philanthropist, was the Chairman and CEO of Essco Group Management the largest Hispanic owned business in Arizona for more than three decades before retiring in 2010 to devote his time to philanthropy. Essco Group Management provided front line management and back room production for twelve electrical wholesale branches located in Arizona and Southern California. Mr. Tapia’s philanthropic efforts have included serving on the Board of Directors of the Sun Angel Foundation & Endowment at Arizona State University, as Chairman of Board & Trustee at Saint Leo University in Florida, and as Member of the President’s Circle at Xavier College in Phoenix, Arizona. He has served on the Boards of social service organizations such as the Boys & Girls Club of Metropolitan Phoenix, Teen LifeLine Phoenix, Advisory Council of the Arizona Animal Welfare League and Advisory board for Foundation for Blind Children in Phoenix Arizona. Mr. Tapia is a veteran, having served in the U.S. Air Force, Honorably Discharged (1955-1959). Mr. Tapia’s excellent management and entrepreneurial skills, demonstrated commitment to a culture of success and wide-ranging leadership in business, community and education make him well-qualified to serve as Ambassador to Jamaica. Additional enterprises Mr. Tapia has engaged in; include CEO, Sonapar USA, Chandler, Arizona (2008-2010) as well as employment with Cal Neva Corp., Los Angeles, California (1973-1977) and International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., Chicago, Illinois (1967-1973). He also worked as an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Mr. Tapia earned a B.A. and M.B.A. from Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, which also awarded him an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters. - TRANSCRIPTION Chuck Warren: Welcome to another show of Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren, and with my co-host, Kiley Kipper. Sam is out ill today. We're first going to start with Anna Giaritelli. She's a homeland security reporter for the Washington Examiner. She's been on the show before. She has a very specific knowledge. She's been to the border more than 40 times since 2018. And she's also covered human smuggling and the evolution of the war on drugs, domestic terrorism and migration trends. And she is based in Texas. Anna, welcome back to the show. Anna Giaritelli: Thanks for having me. Chuck Warren: So we have a day of rage, apparently. Hamas has declared it. Tell us a little bit about it. And what does the United States government doing to prepare to keep our citizens safe here and abroad? Anna Giaritelli: Yeah. So yesterday the former leader of Hamas came out and said that, you know, people who sympathize with Hamas around the Muslim world and outside that that that just that region should take part and come out in public and protest and engage in a day of jihad and rage. And so the Israeli government put out notices yesterday saying, you know, people should take cover, should remain vigilant, should be, you know, braced for the worst. And so the United States has also followed suit. Typically, something happening in one region of the country wouldn't affect us. But the Department of Homeland Security said it's been in touch with for different faith leaders, 65,000 people in faith organizations, making sure that synagogues in particular, even mosques, are going to be safe today. I know here in Austin, Texas, police are are have been called in in full gear. So they're ready for anything they have to deal with. New York City, LAPD, Miami police, they're all being called in today to report to duty just to to make sure that their presence is there in case something does happen in any of these cities. Chuck Warren: Anna, have you talked to any Jewish folks or synagogues or educators at Jewish schools about today? Have you had a chance to talk to any of them and how they're feeling? Anna Giaritelli: You know, I haven't, but the secretary of Homeland Security had his spokesperson was saying on this white House call last night that he's been in contact with a number of different groups, and really, one of their top three priorities right now is being in constant contact with these faith based organizations. So it's not like these groups are on their own. You know, if you're a synagogue, you're on your own hope for the best. The federal government has billions of dollars in grants so that these facilities can what we say is hardened security. So make sure you have more security presence as well as police. Make sure you have private security, just especially at this point in time. So I think the department really is rolling out a lot. We've seen this for several years now, where DHS has even yesterday said that faith based organizations are considered critical infrastructure here. So that gives even more ability for the federal government to really surge resources and even push funding to to these entities. Chuck Warren: Well, and that's fascinating. And the Biden administration is to be applauded for that. There's not much I would applaud them for, especially regarding immigration and so forth. But I applaud them for doing that because they are a critical infrastructure. Explain to our audience what a gateway is and how this relates to what is going on at the border. And because of the gotaways, how this may pose a threat to some of these faith based communities and to our our larger cities. Anna Giaritelli: Yeah. So at the southern border you've got A 2000 mile border. Some with fence, some without. What we've seen over the past two and a half years is a real. It went up in March 2021 when Biden first took office and hasn't declined. Normally we would see 30 to 50,000 people cross the border in a month and get arrested. What we've seen. In each of the months since Biden took office is anywhere between 150,000 and 300,000 people in a month, which is just, you know, we can't detain people through court proceedings. There's things that bar families from being held more than 20 days. So it's the perfect storm of this mass releases. Chuck Warren: And let me and let me ask you this. How big is Austin, for example? Anna Giaritelli: Austin, I believe, is 1.1 million. Chuck Warren: So over a course of a week, we get a new Austin. Over a course of 4 or 5 months, we get a new Austin in the United States. Anna Giaritelli: We do. And that's and that's who's crossing, right? That doesn't mean they're getting released since since Biden took office, the best estimates we have are more than 2 million people have been released into the United States. And so we've seen the number one spot that people are going is New York City, based on where people tell Border Patrol agents and Ice, you know, when they're getting released, hey, I'm going to go to my sister who lives in Queens, and then let the immigration officials do is place them in removal proceedings. So, hey, you need to go to court and see if we're going to remove you down the road. And we're the closest court to Queens is the New York immigration court. So we'll put you in that system. And so based on all the court data, we're seeing that more people are being placed in the New York court system than any other in the country. Chuck Warren: And is the Biden administration and Congress providing more resources so you can have more judges so they can do quicker rulings on these and not have these lengthy time periods. So they bring it back in. Anna Giaritelli: You know, each administration the last few years has added judges. I mean, we only have under 700 nationwide and we have more than 2 million cases pending. So the thought is that even if you hired enough judges, you can't. You can't go through the backlog fast enough. You really need to do something up front. That that causes fewer people to either come through or you're immediately dealing with cases now so that more aren't being added to the system. But but this is something we've seen under President Obama, President Trump, and now President Biden each administration is guilty of. Well, not guilty of. But they have hired more judges. But but they're guilty of that number of the backlog just keeps going up. Chuck Warren: Well, I'm sure the judges also work banker hours. I mean, it'd be interesting if you say working quadruple the amount of judges we have. We're going 24 over seven. Anna Giaritelli: Yeah. And, you know, back to what you said about the Gotaways. Gotaways are people who, thanks to great technology and agents who are in the field, border patrol agents, you know what they'll happen. What will happen is downtown, in populated areas, at the border, you have a group of, say, 400 people come across at once. And that pulls all the agents in the nearby vicinity over here to take everybody into custody, to pat people down, make sure no one's carrying something they shouldn't be, and then to organize people by by country and by families here, adult men here, single women here, and then bussed them to the appropriate facilities where they'll be processed. That means that other areas of the border, maybe ten, 20 miles away, you've just pulled the agents that were there from their spots. And so what the cartels will do is run drugs across. They'll run the meth across. They'll run different stuff across the border because no one's there. And they'll also run the criminals. So say someone who's been deported previously knows they shouldn't be reentering the country, or someone who maybe is on the terror watch list, or someone who is a kind of a worldwide known criminal. So we can't look at databases for each country and see crimes, but they're well known, or they're a gang affiliation. They don't want to get caught like all the families coming across. So you'll see them on camera or agents will see them. But but they're too busy to make an apprehension. So it's like, okay, there's a group of 20 bodies we see in this infrared camera, and they're walking in and we have no one to get them. So, you know, add 20 to the list. And at this point we're over 1.6 million people. Who are we dubbed Gotaways. We've seen enter illegally. And then they got away. And that doesn't include the number who have entered illegally, not been observed and also got away. Chuck Warren: How big? You know, look, this is purely a guesstimate on your part. So I'm not asking you to go to Vegas to put a wager on it. But okay. So we have the ones they've seen the gotaways right. And they've done an estimate on it. And let's say they're off ten, 15% one way or another, minus or more. How many do you think have come into the country that they never observed? Anna Giaritelli: You know, I could not put a guess on that. So all sorts of numbers out there. Chuck Warren: So give me the give me the. You've heard a bunch of numbers. You talked to a lot of people. Homeland security border. What's the low number and what's the high number you heard. And then Kiley and I will make some really gut wrenching comment here on it. But what is the lowest number? What's the highest number? Anna Giaritelli: You know, I really just don't I focus on the numbers. We know for sure just because as a reporter, I want to make sure I'm putting out the most factual information. Kiley Kipper: Do We, Sorry. Do we know how much, how many miles? There aren't cameras that we so that we aren't seeing them. Do we know how many miles there are that aren't being monitored, or are they like drones that are going back and forth? Anna Giaritelli: You know, that's a good question. It's a it's a mixture of both drones have in the last few years, become a real big part of how Border Patrol is monitoring the border. The latest numbers we have are that the Mexican cartels actually have 17 drones for every one drone that the US has. So they're using that to surveil ports of entry. They're using that to see where agents are on the border. And oh, there's no one here, you know, run something across. And they're also some of them are capable of carrying, you know, just a couple pounds of something. So obviously you carry it. So you would carry a pound of marijuana over the border in a drone that's not worth a lot of money. But if you can carry, you know, fentanyl a pound or two, like that's, that's going to be worth a lot more money. So drones are really a way that cartels are surveilling US federal law enforcement and, and making moves here and there. And they're also you can't shoot it down with a gun half the time. You can't even hear them or see them at night. And so there's also no prosecutions. I think one has been prosecuted, one incident in the last five years, because you don't know where where it's going to or from. Chuck Warren: I. It's just. It's just not getting. It's just. I don't even know what to say. It's just not getting better here. We're coming up to a minute left here and we to our next segment. We're going to talk to you. But one thing I want to talk to you about, how was the dysfunction of the Republican Congress right now affecting things like homeland security and border, if it is or if it isn't at all? We know you have to have operational government to get resources, so we want to do that. One other quick question before we go to a break, because of the legalization of marijuana in the United States, has that decreased the amount coming across the border? Anna Giaritelli: Yeah, we do believe that. We used to see a couple million pounds coming across the border in a within a couple of years, easily over a million in a year of just marijuana. And that number has diminished significantly. And so overall, you would say Border Patrol is seizing far, far less drugs than it used to. But really, if you see a pound of fentanyl one year and then you seize £1,000 of the next year, but you're used to seizing £1 million of marijuana, you know, it's hard to sort of quantify. So we really try to look at it as a drug by drug. Right. But you're right. Marijuana is available here. So so yeah, it's still coming over, but it's not as profitable. Chuck Warren: We make our own. We don't need to import that. This is Chuck Warner breaking battlegrounds with Anna Giaritelli. She is a homeland security reporter for the Washington Examiner. You can find her on X, which is formerly Twitter at Anda. Underscore gear brightly. This is breaking battlegrounds. We'll be right back. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place, and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor you need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock. Making dream homes come true. Chuck Warren: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren of Kiley  Kipper. Today we have with us a friend of the show, Anna Giaritelli, Homeland Security reporter for the Washington Examiner, really asked you to follow her work. She does fantastic work telling us what's going on in our border, homeland security. And you'll be more knowledgeable for following her, folks. First of all, want to make sure and give a plug to our sponsor. If you're looking to increase your savings and your return, I suggest you go talk to Y refy. You can call them at 888 Y refy 24. That's 888Y Refy 24. You can go there. There's no fees for your investments, and you can get a 10.25% fixed rate of return while also helping college students with their college loans. So take a look and call Y refi and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. All right, Anna, so let's talk about something people don't talk about. Canada has a big border up north. And I, you know, assumption is the mother of all screw ups. But I would assume that people are starting to go into Canada and crossing through our border there. Is that true or am I just making something up? Anna Giaritelli: No, you're right on there. We see about 1% of the number of southern border crossings on the northern border. So it sounds like it's nothing really, but 1% of 2 million in a year. We do see a good amount of people who are coming across typically in Vermont, Maine and upstate New York areas. And we also see a lot of smuggling going from the United States into Canada. Those are typically things guns, the firearms, sometimes cigarettes, those sorts of things. And those are those are the old school bootleggers from 100 and so years ago who whose families are still involved and moving stuff. Um, but yeah, we do see immigrants coming across typically from Europe, sometimes Mexico and Central America. People will fly into Canada and then try to come down. But it is certainly there's no border wall across the 4000 mile northern border. It's double the length of the southern border. So yeah, it's very wide open. But again, we still have Border Patrol up there monitoring things. And and these are typically senior agents. They've they've paid their time on the southern border. Right. And now they're up north. Chuck Warren: Yeah I mean, you know, this is your nice retirement, your gold watch opportunity to serve at the end. And now you've got this going here. Do they have like coyotes up on the Canadian border like we do in the southern border? I mean, how are they getting across? I mean, there's obviously has to be operations that help them do this. Anna Giaritelli: There are. Yes. And some of the groups that smuggle stuff north are also working with people who are coming south. Some of those more irish-italian, sort of old school mafia groups are helping people. We do still have some coyotes, but but typically what we see are. People from Eastern Europe who have flown into Canada because they didn't need a visa. And then that's that's how they're coming down. And this winter, we saw a number of deaths of people who were trying to cross the border at night and, you know, freezing conditions and got lost. And, you know, those are really the really tragic things. But but, you know, people are going to there's a coast, there's the northern and southern borders and um, even Florida, Florida has seen extraordinary amount of people taking boats from Cuba and Haiti trying to reach the Florida Keys and get on land or trying to reach. We've even had West Palm Beach boats landing not far from Trump's home at Mar a Lago. Chuck Warren: Maybe they were just. Maybe they were just real estate appraisers. We don't know this, but maybe so. Yeah. Let me let me ask you this question. So since the start of the fiscal year 2023, which is October. October through August, the Border Patrol caught 151 people who were processed and determined to be on the FBI's terror watch list. That's who they caught. Is this something people should be concerned about, or is this just the imagination of conservative media that these are bad people. Anna Giaritelli: You know? And you explained it perfectly because these are people on the watch list. That doesn't mean that they are actual terrorists. I mean, they. Chuck Warren: Have a cousin or something, right? Or a friend or. Exactly. Yeah, but but but but they've got but there's a link. There's a handshake in there somewhere. Anna Giaritelli: Yes, exactly. It's not like you get on the list for no reason. Um, you know what we believe a lot of it to be is people, Colombian nationals who were affiliated with FARC. So during the the fight in Colombia a number of years ago, people who were involved in that are still sort of flagged in the system. But inevitably in the last ten days, we've seen people from 28 special interest countries. So that includes Egypt, Iran, uh, the whole of the Middle East, the Eastern Europe, Indonesia, certain countries, Uzbekistan, uh, apprehended at the border, which is not a normal but, you know, to see so many just just with what's happened in Israel and Palestine has given Republicans a lot of a lot of concern with, you know, we we know who we're encountering and we can screen them through the databases, but who we who gets away and hasn't been screened, we don't know. Chuck Warren: And so well in 20. So in 21 we had 15 people. Right. So there's hundred and 51 now. So and before. Anna Giaritelli: That it was like three. Yeah. Chuck Warren: So the number. So the number is increasing. Let's just say they're not all bad people. I mean I know Kiley, but I'm still a good guy. So we have that situation. But if you have 151 people versus 15 and 21 three before that, 1 or 2 probably we don't want to have over for dinner. Is that fair to say? Maybe just based on numbers? Kiley Kipper: And Tom cotton, I think you reported on it. And he said it took 19 terrorists to commit nine eleven. Right. So we have potentially, you know, so. Chuck Warren: So, Anna, look, you've been you've done this for a while. We got about three minutes left in this segment. What needs to be done in your expert opinion. And you are an expert. But your reporter I just want an objective. And you can say Republicans stink at this, I don't care. What do they need to do to get this border situation under control? Anna Giaritelli: You know, I think one of the interesting points is that under Obama, when he imposed the DACA program, Republicans said you overstepped your executive authority and you shouldn't have done that. Right. And so now what we're seeing with the Biden administration is they're using that to Republicans disadvantage. They're saying, well, the border, yeah, stuff is happening, but we can't do anything because we don't have the authority. It's only Congress that can do something. And so they're using Republicans argument against them as a means to do nothing. So, you know, in a way it's like you respect that, but it's nothing's happening. And it's we're heading into almost the fourth year now of the border. Just I mean, I would say remain unchecked. They've tried so many different programs that haven't worked. I don't think you necessarily need to return to Trump era policies to bring things down, but as long as people are seeing family members and friends, you know, hey, call, call them back home and say, I got released and I'm in New York now. What the Biden administration says, they can say the border is closed, but you have 2 million people who have been released and called home and said, yeah, you should come. Yeah, yeah. And so there's that stuff happening. Um, you know, whatever policy doesn't matter. You can have a policy, but are you going to enforce it. Chuck Warren: Yeah. I mean, yeah, it's like a lot of parents, we threaten our kids, but at the end of the day, if we don't have the punishment aligned to it, they're going to just keep ignoring us. So it's it's hard to watch. And we appreciate you coming on the show. You've been fantastic as usual. Could you tell our audience a little bit where they can catch you at and follow your work? Anna Giaritelli: Yeah. On X if you search Anna underscore Giaritelli just look up. Gia. If you also want to go to Elon Musk's page and search his followers, I, I don't know why, but Elon Musk follows my work. Chuck Warren: That's amazing because you give good numbers and we hope you have a great weekend. Thank you for joining us on Breaking Battlegrounds. We'll talk to you soon. Thank you. This is Breaking Battlegrounds, folks. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host with my co-host Kylie Kipper. Sam is out with the sniffles today. Kiley we feel bad for Sam, don't we? Kiley Kipper: We do. All right. Chuck Warren: Well, we're here with a friend of the show, John Riches. John is the vice president for litigation for the Goldwater Institute. And he litigates on federal and state trial and appellate courts in the areas of economic liberty, regulatory reform, free speech, all those things. Good conservatives, libertarians care about things that the left says they used to care about, but they apparently don't care much anymore. He has a Boston Law School grad. He previously worked for John Kyl and he is a commander at the Navy Reserve. Thank you for your service, John. John Riches: Yeah, Thanks for having me on, Chuck. Chuck Warren: All right. So let's talk about DEI It's been an interesting conversation here on the show when the whole Barrett mess happened, and we had a professor on who didn't work at Barrett, but he was defending him because he just likes to talk all the time. And he said, oh, they don't require die. And what you found, what Goldwater found is that they were making was it staff or just professors take a loyalty oath. John Riches: So that was new job applicants. And then we started to learn that they are requiring. Chuck Warren: And how long ago was that for the did they implement this policy for new job applicants? John Riches: It seems like a couple years back. Okay. What we found is that they'd post like a new job application and there'd be your traditional things, your resume cover letter, but then they would require and tell us in two pages or less your professional accomplishments wherein you advanced dei measures. Et cetera. Et cetera. Chuck Warren: Really? John Riches: And we found that they did that in like, more than 80% of all new job postings. Chuck Warren: So, you know, conservatives like to yell and scream about Michael Crow. I think he's been a decent university professor in some ways. Is this something he would be unaware of because it's a department mandate that just happened? John Riches: Yeah, it's entirely possible. And to ASU's credit, and maybe to Michael Crow's credit, once we pointed it out and presented the evidence and provided the report, they stopped doing it. Kiley Kipper: What was Crow's response when you brought it to him? Well, we. John Riches: Didn't have a specific one from Crow, but when we brought it to the university and published the report, the university stopped doing it. And that's and. Chuck Warren: That's a decision probably he was well aware of at the time. And so when they when you brought this up with them about these loyalty oaths, what was their first reaction to you? Like, no, this doesn't happen. I mean. John Riches: There was a denial at first. Chuck Warren: So they lied. John Riches: There was a denial at first from the school and from professors and others like, you know, this isn't happening. This isn't happening. Chuck Warren: So John's talking legally, saying there's a denial. We're going to tell you on the radio show, folks, they lied because they knew they were doing it. Okay. So Johns saying denial hashtag Chuck lied. Okay. How long did it take to get the information from them that this was actually happening? And did you have to follow, you know, take the bat to this issue and say, you know, we're suing or what happened? John Riches: So we requested the information through public records requests, talking with new hires, things like that. You know, put put the report together in a few months. And once we published it, they were pretty quick to act to their credit. And they eliminated it. But that got us thinking, you know, is this happening in other areas? Does this go beyond the loyalty oath? And so a few months after that, we had a couple professors reach out to us and say, hey, we saw what you did with the Dei loyalty oath. Do you know that ASU is requiring all faculty and staff to take a mandatory training that covers all these Dei initiatives? Not only that, after you complete the training, the university gives you a quote unquote test where they supply the right answers. So it'll say something like, you know, you refer to a student and it's not the student's preferred pronoun. What do you do? A apologize B whatever. And the university then supplies the right answer. And if you get it wrong, then you're reported to your dean. So when we heard about that, we go, well, that seems like a compelled speech problem. So we requested more information about that. Chuck Warren: How long was DEI training? They had to take this mandatory training. John Riches: Unfortunately, I sat through it once we got the public records. Well, I should because you're. Chuck Warren: Because you're an associate professor at the law school. That's right. So you you had to participate in it? John Riches: Well, I, I never actually, I think I got an email once or twice, but I didn't quite pay attention to those ones. But once we realized that it was happening, I requested the records to get to. Chuck Warren: So how long did it take? John Riches: It was several hours. Chuck Warren: Just mind numbing word salad, progressive DEI. Don't offend anybody. Woke crap. John Riches: Kendrick. Zebra. You know, intersectionality. You know, the. Chuck Warren: Fraud, the fraudster they're promoting the fraudster. The guy who's basically bilked millions of dollars. John Riches: I think he had his own little video segment in the training. Chuck Warren: What a grift. John Riches: Yeah, yeah, truly. You know, things like white supremacy is built into the foundational documents of our country, you know, that sort of stuff. And it just went went on and on. Chuck Warren: It's just unbelievable what happened if you didn't take it? John Riches: Well, we don't know for sure. We asked about that. We asked the university about that, and they said no one's been disciplined for failing to take it yet, or at least they didn't have records of anybody being disciplined for failing. Kiley Kipper: Can you fail this said test? So if I fail it, I am just not a professor or. John Riches: Well, I mean, that was the problem. They said if you failed it, they would report you. They would report the professor to the dean. But then we asked, has anybody been disciplined, reported, and they said, we don't have any records of that. Chuck Warren: This is Breaking Battl Grounds today with John Riches. He is the vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Litigation. He's general counsel for the institute. And this is Breaking Battlegrounds. You can find us at Breaking Battlegrounds .vote. We'll be right back with John to talk more about DEI and the craziness at the university, not the University of Arizona. Arizona State, we want to talk about University of Arizona as well. Breaking Battle Grounds. We'll be right back. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place, and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor you need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock. Making dream homes come true. Chuck Warren: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren. My co-host Kiley Kipper, also known for Kiley's Corner, which will be on later today on the podcast with John Riches, vice president of litigation for the Goldwater Institute. John, let's go talk further about the DEI situation at Arizona State. First of all, is University of Arizona, Northern Arizona. Are they also having these same type of issues? John Riches: We think we've gone to their website and requested some records, and it looks like they're doing these sorts of trainings as well. We sent a letter to Arbor where we asked them to audit all the universities across the state, because it appears that this is a broader problem than just ASU. Chuck Warren: How much money is ASU dedicated to DEI officers? Do you know that's. John Riches: A good question I don't. Chuck Warren: That'd be interesting for us to find out. Kiley, I think our audience would like to know. All right. So let's talk about the Board of Regents and die Staffing. Did the Board of Regents, were they aware of this? Did they? What did they do on it? John Riches: I don't know, we sent them a letter just last month. So this is interesting. The Arizona legislature last session passed a statute that prohibits DEI esque trainings for state employees and prohibits the spending of taxpayer dollars to provide these trainings. And there's, you know, very quaint concepts like, you know, no race is inherently superior to another. People aren't inherently racist based on their race. You can't discriminate based on someone's race. All of these things were in the statute. Chuck Warren: All common sense things. Most people would find common sense if we just went door to door. John Riches: Exactly. Common sense, moral things. Right. And it said, you know, no state agency, including the universities, can require their employees to take training that advances things contrary to the, you know, to these common sense items, and you can't spend taxpayer money on it. So when we got the records on this training for faculty and staff, it was pretty clear that that training violated violated the statute. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. So that's what we sent the letter to Eburon. And we said, look, here's the training. We pulled out specific segments of the training and said, you know, you're in violation of state law. What you should do now is stop mandating the training and stop spending taxpayer dollars to provide it. Chuck Warren: You have much money, just even the mandatory training cost, what they spend on that. John Riches: It had to have been a lot. I mean, it was a it was a very comprehensive training with videos with, you know, people throughout the country because. Chuck Warren: These people sure have no problem increasing tuition every year. John Riches: Yeah, yeah. That's true. Chuck Warren: Let's talk about the Cronkite's journalism school at ASU. It's a mandatory class there. Is it not or was. John Riches: That's right. Yeah. So what we found they're requiring this loyalty oath for new hires. They're requiring the training for existing faculty. And then we're wondering, is it going into the student body? And it turns out that the Cronkite School has a required Dei course for every single journalism student at the school. So we requested those records. We asked for the syllabus. At first they didn't want to give us copies of it, but eventually they did. Chuck Warren: What was what was on what was on the syllabus? John Riches: You know, a lot of the same sort of Dei dogma stuff that you see, you know, throughout, throughout these sort of courses, a lot of the intersectionality stuff and that sort of thing. Chuck Warren: We wonder why Kiley, our press is slanted. Kiley Kipper: I don't wonder anymore. It all makes sense, and I don't think ASU is coming up with these ideas themselves. Chuck Warren: So it'd be interesting to see surveying the students when they start the Cronkite School of Journalism if they think it's needed, and after four years, if they think it's needed. John Riches: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I mean, think about how little time you have to actually do the few mandatory courses that are required that are required. And this is this is the thing that the school is focusing on, you know, and that limited chunk of time. Chuck Warren: Do you is this happening in our public schools on the high school level? Is it happening on the junior college level? John Riches: I'm not sure about junior college, but K-12 for sure. I mean, this has been a debate for for a couple of years now where, you know, K-12 are clearly introducing di CRT concepts into the classroom. They deny doing it. Then you come up with real clear evidence that they have. So yeah, this this goes obviously broader than higher. Ed. Chuck Warren: John, explain to our audience why this fight is necessary. We all you know, we want we really do want a colorblind society, right? I mean, I think that's all we want. You know, that may be a goal. You know, sort of like the more perfect union. You know, we can get a little bit better each time each generation. Our kids will be better, hopefully. But why is this important for us? Just to put our thumb on it and say this, this nonsense has to stop. Why is it important for our country, for the state of Arizona? John Riches: It's contrary to the founding ideals of the country, right? If you take a concept like equity, what does that mean? It's the opposite of equality of opportunity. It's they're trying to get equality of outcome, which of course, you can't do. And that's essentially a Marxist theory. But, you know, our country is predicated on the belief that all people are created equal and everybody should have an equal opportunity. Not that some people are given special privileges, not that some people should be discriminated against based on race. You know, the content of our character is determined by our choices and our actions, not by immutable characteristics. Chuck Warren: Kiley, do you feel like folks in their 20s and early 30s believe in that concept at all? Kiley Kipper: Yes. Yeah, yeah yeah I was. Chuck Warren: I mean, you have some friends who are Democrat liberal, I imagine. I mean, you've not cut him off, I'm sure. Kiley Kipper: No, no absolutely not. Chuck Warren: No, no, I have recommended it. But anyway, continue. What do you find their beliefs are on this, this type of thing. Kiley Kipper: I find that my friends who. They think Republicans are racist. Yeah, like, but when I was in high school, in college, I was really not political. And none of my friends were like, we did not discuss this and how I got in because. Chuck Warren: Because you're a normal human beings. Kiley Kipper: Yeah. And we just and we all. That's why we became best friends. And then obviously 2020 when the whole Trump everything, that's when it all started coming out. And I'm like, you have known me for this long, and have you ever. Chuck Warren: Seen me say racist thing in the world? Kiley Kipper: Exactly. And so I'm like, you guys need to look, reflect back and like, look at this and really look at the people. They really their character. Chuck Warren: They really don't look at the content of the character. No. It's been it's been very odd to see John as a Goldwater and you do litigation there. Okay. You've been doing this how long now? Goldwater? Ten years. How have things changed with the left and governments are trying to do ten years ago versus now? What is it? Have you seen a change? Has it gotten worse? What's what's going on. John Riches: Sure. So we got to decide, of course, what cases we're going to take. Are we going to do an economic freedom case? Are we going to do a free speech case? Are we going to do a regulatory case? And for the first five years, six, six, maybe even seven years, I was there. Things that everybody basically agreed on. Free speech is a good thing. People shouldn't be discriminated against based on their race. Chuck Warren: It was it was a liberal ideology in the 70s and 80s. Right. And Republicans are always trying to suppress it. John Riches: Supposedly it's essentially a liberal notion. Right, right, right. But these things that everybody that we thought everybody agreed on, you know, it appears they don't. And now things like free speech, you know, equality of opportunity are controversial concepts. And that's been that's been something of a surprise. Chuck Warren: Have you noticed attorneys you work with who are on the left or, you know, have they changed on this. Do they feel things are going too far? In one extreme, I think they're. John Riches: Saying, I think there's a divide in the, you know, on the left between classical liberals and this. Chuck Warren: Israel massacre. What's happening? It's been interesting to watch. And I know this isn't your forte, but we talk about this a lot on the show. I've noticed a lot of liberal journalists, traditional liberals, I'll call them. They're appalled. Like, I can't believe how much anti-Semitism is on the left. It's like, well, you never talk to anybody because it's been there forever, right? Right. I mean, talk about people with their heads in the cloud. Do you find that type of eye opening moment has come to some of these folks on the attorneys on the left you've known and you respect, just like, oh my gosh, what is going on here? Yeah. John Riches: And I've had I've had conversations with some that say, hey, look, I mean, I've been so disenchanted with what's happening with the progressives and this, this, you know, this animosity towards free speech that it's made me want to leave, for example, the Democratic Party. But I feel like it's necessary for me to stick around so that there's an adult in the room and so that there's a sane voice. But I think they're that voice is becoming quieter and the progressives are becoming louder. Chuck Warren: Yeah. I don't know where they go. I know we've had that on the right. We have our Never-trumpers or Trump. Of course, our side, in all their self-righteousness, stomp their feet, held their breath and just felt like, I'm just going to leave and take my ball and go home. And it's been an absolute catastrophe that they've done that because there's not this intellectual rigor of debate in the party right now. What else is Goldwater working on right now that you feel our audience should know about? John Riches: All kinds of things? You know, we do a whole lot of things where we try and protect taxpayers against subsidies. We got a case going up to the Arizona Supreme Court next month on an issue where City of Scottsdale is subsidizing one of its favorite parties. We're always working on people's right to earn a living, right? So everybody has an inherent right to work in the job of their choice, free from government interference. Courts have sort of relegated that right to second class status. So we're frequently in courts arguing. Chuck Warren: Talk a little bit about that, about the hairdressers and so forth. Occupational licensing talk a little bit what Goldwater has helped do versus your Michelle Ugenti sponsored the bill. Governor Ducey signed it. You folks are intellectual power behind that to a degree. Explain what difference that made for people. Sure. John Riches: Yeah. So you think about this about 50 years ago, only 5% of jobs required an occupational license, a government permission slip to work in the job. And it would be like lawyers, doctors, things you'd think about today. Depending on the state, it's about 25% to a third of all jobs require an occupational license. And some of the stuff is bizarre. Chuck Warren: Is that because of certain people in their industries have gotten together, created a cabal, and said, you need to be licensed? Precisely. John Riches: It's rent seeking. You know, it's rent seeking. It's a lot easier to go to the government and ask them to prevent competition than it is to actually compete and beat your competitor. Chuck Warren: I don't think people realize that's where a lot of it comes from, right? I saw it a lot. My dad owned a dental lab, and they're always trying to get people to have to be licensed to do it. Right now it's medical, I get it. It's a little bit different than nails or hair or, you know, things of that nature, but it does seem like it comes from people who've done well and have time to devote to let's create a trade organization. And then our next step is let's get these suckers. All licensed here. John Riches: 100%. Yeah. You'll like this story. In Florida, they decided to license florists. So if you wanted to sell flowers, you had to take a test. And then the second part of the test is you had to make a floral display and show it to a panel of licensed florists, and only if they deemed it sufficiently beautiful could you have the privilege of selling flowers in the great state of Florida. Chuck Warren: How long ago was that? John Riches: They still have the licensing requirements. Kiley Kipper: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Chuck Warren: Is Goldwater do anything in Florida to knock down that nonsense? It is the free state of Florida, so I've been told. John Riches: So there was a case. In fairness, there was a case I think brought it a few years back that that attempted to challenge it. And I think they had some some victory in there. But the the licensing regime is still in place. Chuck Warren: Well, that sounds like something DeSantis probably should. Sounds like something he'll do if he gets excited about it. Yeah. You had a question. You know, I was just. Kiley Kipper: I was just thinking about why licenses are necessary in the first place. Because if I'm going to like my hairdresser and she doesn't have a license, but she cuts my hair, well, then I'm going to keep going to her. If she doesn't cut it, well, then. Chuck Warren: You go elsewhere. Kiley Kipper: You go elsewhere. Chuck Warren: Yeah. I mean, I get it for like, doctors I get for attorneys for medical. Kiley Kipper: Stuff and nails. I do because. Chuck Warren: They're basic things now. So I'm sure now for medical boards you have to pass some other sort of DEI training, as well as actual medical things that make people get better. Right? Yeah. John Riches: They're building all that stuff into a lot of licensing requirements. Chuck Warren: So we got we got a couple of minutes there left. How do people stop this? What do they need to do to prevent this die, this progressive organ control your thought patrol progress first. John Riches: Notice it. I mean, people got to got to understand this is happening, you know, throughout government, throughout universities, throughout K-12. So, you know, figure out what's going on in your school district, figure out what's going on in your state universities, identify the problem first, and then, you know, be willing to stand up. And sometimes that takes takes courage. You know, people don't want to get quote unquote canceled. But, you know, if there's a professor that's like, hey, this training's going on, I shouldn't have to do it. I shouldn't have to take this test where they're telling me what the right answer is. You know, it requires people willing to say, this is wrong and we shouldn't be doing this. Chuck Warren: So it's a really good point. I think people I think it's a problem is it takes people like you because most people don't have the time to spend on these issues. I mean, they've got a, you know, a lot of people working two jobs now trying to get extra income. They got their kids, they got soccer practice, all the things you do except during the day. You get to be sort of this watchman at the tower doing this. One final thing. You recently had a new baby. Yep. And you had a son before. What? How has fatherhood made you a better attorney? John Riches: Oh, that's a that's a really interesting question. I guess maybe fatherhood at bottom makes you more empathetic. And I think a lot of attorneys lack in empathy, you know, of course, for opposing counsel, but maybe even sometimes for your own clients. And I think, you know, there's nothing like having responsibility over a human life, developing a person's character. And, and, you know, being able to achieve those really important things that make you more empathetic and focus on the things that truly matter in life. Chuck Warren: 15 20s left. What's the hardest part about being a father for you? John Riches: Making sure they're protected while also giving them the freedom to grow? Chuck Warren: That's hard. You can scrape your knee. I just don't want you to break the leg. Got one of the two, right? That's right folks, this is thank you, John Richards, for joining us from Goldwater Institute. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at Breaking Battlegrounds. Vote. Pay attention for our podcast. Coming up, we're interviewing former Jamaican ambassador Don Tapia. This is breaking battlegrounds. Have a fantastic weekend. Share the podcast. We love you guys. Take care. Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Chuck Warren: Welcome back to Breaking Bad Grounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren with Kiley Kipper. Sam is out with the sniffles today. We are honored for this portion of the show to have my friend and community leader, ambassador Don Tapia. He's former ambassador of Jamaica, and he's been a community leader and led a business here in Arizona for many years. He's also served on various charitable boards and whatever you think in Arizona, that's happened in the last 30 years, 40 years John's been doing it. Don's been doing it. Sorry, John. Don's been doing. Kiley Kipper: Just moved from John to Don. Chuck Warren: Yeah. Ambassador Tapia, welcome to the show. Well, thank you very much for inviting me. Well, we're so glad to have you on. So what was the process like becoming an ambassador? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, the first thing is, is you've got to be nominated, of course, by the president of the United States. And whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, it's great an honor to have the president nominate you. And then after the nomination, the process is you've got to go through the confirmation. And that's a confirmation of the US Senate. And you have to go and visit Washington, and you must make your rounds to the senators and so forth to let them ask you questions and so forth. And one of the things that always set me back is that what they call a motor, a motor, a motor board, and what that is, is that you go before the the opposition, which would be the Democrats, since I was a Republican, to go before this board and they take you down the road, believe me, they take you down the road with questions and so forth. And I always remember one I sat across from Menendez's attorney, know his office, and he said, I've been a liberal Democrat all my life, and I'm going to die a liberal Democrat. And of course, there's five other people in the room. And so you sit there and you listen to the questions and so forth. So when it came around to my time to respond, I said, well, I'm a Republican, but if in fact, I'm confirmed as a US ambassador, I will represent you as a liberal Democrat because I represent the American people. On which side of the aisle you're on, it makes no difference. And after the after we got through with that as we were walking out, he says, that's the best answer anybody has ever given me in 20 years that I've been on the murder board. Chuck Warren: Oh that's amazing. How many senators did you have to visit with? Ambassador Don Tapia: I visited with probably about 15 to 20, basically the foreign minister, the Foreign Relations Committee, and that was. Chuck Warren: Over a couple of days. Ambassador Don Tapia: They had oh, no, that's over. You got to go with their schedule. So that could be over a couple of weeks that it could take place. Chuck Warren: Once you got the phone call until you were confirmed. How long did that process take? Ambassador Don Tapia: Just about 11 months. Chuck Warren: It's a long process. Ambassador Don Tapia: It's a long, long process, yes. Kiley Kipper: So is what is that seat open? And then the president nominates someone. Or does every time a new president come in, a new nomination happens. You got to keep. Ambassador Don Tapia: In mind that it was some trying times back there. So Trump being the president and you coming in normally you would be you would be confirmed through, you know through a a committee. And then it goes to the floor and the floor then would actually call you up and it'd be unanimous. But because of the situation in Washington at the time, they were taking individuals. So we had to wait and wait and wait until he got called up. And out of all of them by acclamation, there was only two ambassador nominees that went before the full the full Senate, and that was myself and the one out of Georgia. There was only two of us that was that actually had to go through the complete roll call vote. Chuck Warren: Really? Ambassador Don Tapia: Yes. We thought that was pretty good. I came across out of all of the 100 senators, I got 68, I think it was 68 US senators across the aisle, which meant that I had Democrats and Republicans across the aisle. You're a. Chuck Warren: Bipartisan choice. Ambassador Don Tapia: I'm not real sure about that because you know it. But it was by eye that year was the highest that anybody ever received. Going through confirmation to the Foreign Relations Committee. Chuck Warren: We're with  the honorable Don Tapia. He's a former ambassador to Jamaica during the Trump administration. What being an ambassador, what did you think it was about going in and when you left, how had your opinion changed on the role? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, going into it, the first thing you got to look at is what is an ambassador? You know, what does the duties of an ambassador? And I always relate it to being the CEO of a large company. And that's basically what you are. You're the ambassador. You're the what they call the commander, the chairman of the board. When you go there, you have an embassy. And I had just under 500 people at the embassy that reported to me in different agencies. I had 18 law enforcement associate companies, or you might say, units that reported to me across the board from the CIA, down to the FBI, down to, you know, the. Dea and so forth. So you go all of those people were reporting to you to tell you what's taking place in the not only in Jamaica, but in the world. Chuck Warren: As an ambassador. Let's say today is supposedly the day of rage. Hamas has asked people to go out, express their rage. What would you be doing right now as an ambassador in Jamaica with such a warning throughout the world today? What would you be doing? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, let's take a step back and talk about Martin Luther King Day. You know, when we had the we had the Black Lives Matter that was going on and throughout the Caribbean and throughout the world, right at the embassy, of course, you have you have people showing up, you know, to demonstrate. And one of the things that I did is you have your detail. You're always around with your detail, your security detail. One of the things that I did that surprised everybody in Jamaica, and in fact, even the Caribbean, got a lot of a lot of press on. It is the fact is that I went out into the Black Lives Matter demonstration. And when I walked out there, they were all aghast at the US ambassador, who would actually walk out of the embassy and walk into a demonstration, right to meet with the people. Chuck Warren: Yeah, it would be. They wouldn't. They don't see that. No. Ambassador Don Tapia: And I'm not real sure of the way that with the organization that's out there now demonstrating that you would want to be in that, in that group of people. You know, it's it's a different type of you're talking about terrorists versus a demonstration. Correct. So that's one of the things that you're seeing here in, in the US that when you look at the demonstrations taking place in New York and in Los Angeles and so forth, Hezbollah, and you're seeing things that that truly we never have seen on our on the US soil, where you see terrorists. Actually, I shouldn't say they're all terrorists, but yet the the matter that they're, that they're demonstrating against or for is terrorism. It has been terrorism. So that's one of the things that you look at. And you're going to ask me about, about what my thoughts are about what's taking place in. Yeah. Chuck Warren: Yeah. What would you do as ambassador to prepare your staff today and obviously protect them and so forth on this type of day? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, they tell you to, to stay in place, which means when they say that, it says stay where you are, don't go out in the streets, don't get involved, stay where you are. And that's what you basically train. And we actually have things within the embassy that you train. All the people that went something like that happens to stay in place. So if they start storming the embassy like they did I did a few years back, that's different. You have there's no way that you can control that. There's no way that you you have your of course you have your military there, that that guards the gate and so forth, but there's not enough of them that could take that could stop a major demonstration coming over the wall of an embassy in Jamaica. Chuck Warren: How many people worked at the embassy? I mean, you told us you had this big crew, about 500 people. How many people were career people that worked at the embassy had been there for a decade plus. Ambassador Don Tapia: There's no such thing as a decade plus. Plus in an embassy. You're all your all your organizations that are that are assigned to the embassy is a three year, basically a three year run. You have your career, people that come in and they they're there for three years. The worst part about that is that that on their second year, they have to bid out to their next job. Chuck Warren: Oh, okay. Ambassador Don Tapia: They actually have to bid out. So you have them for one year when they knowing that that that they're leaving within a within that year period of time to go to their next assignment. So that's one of the things I hold the career people or the people in the State Department that are in the US embassies because they're traveling around the world. If you really want to, if you really want to see the world, join the Foreign Service, because that's where you will see the see the around the world. And if you have children, they'll get an education around, you know, different countries around the world and so forth. Kiley Kipper: So did did you find that people would join to see the world? So they would say, I'm going to go work at this embassy for three years, and then I know that I can be assigned to another one. Is that kind of their goal or. Ambassador Don Tapia: I don't think that that's anybody's goal to know that, you know, it sounds you're going to keep switching. It sounds, you know, romantically, you know. Chuck Warren: It sounds like the Navy recruitment. Right. Kiley Kipper: So they would prefer just to stay in like, well, there's an assignment. Ambassador Don Tapia: Or I think that they would like to stay longer. But you've got you got a three year because keep in mind, in two years you're only there two years and you're bidding, you're bidding out for your for the next three years or next four years. So and you're still maintaining your position there and in the embassy. Chuck Warren: What do you feel the difference is between ambassadors like you who are appointed men and women of great integrity, background substance versus these great career Foreign service folks who are appointed? What do you feel the difference is? Is it that folks like you, who have been appointed and not been part of the Foreign Service, just comes with fresh eyes? Is that helpful as an ambassador, to come in with fresh eyes and say, we can do this better? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, let's take a look at a career, a career ambassador. In an appointed or a political ambassador. A career ambassador, of course, is is a employee of the State Department. Keep that in mind. So for them to get things done, they have to actually more like tag based constantly with the with the State Department to do anything if they want to. If I wanted to talk to if they wanted to talk to, let's say, the DEA director, they actually would have to go back to the State Department to have somebody within the State Department make the appointment, tell them what they want to discuss with and who they wanted to talk with. Well, as a as a political appointment, you're you're appointed by the president of the United States and you're representing him directly. So therefore, you pick up the phone and I've talked to the vice president, I've talked to the secretary of defense and so forth, where you pick up the phone and you just call the secretary, or you have your secretary set up an appointment and you and you can get more things done as a political appointment than you can as a career. Chuck Warren: That makes sense in your weekly schedule is ambassador, how much time were you actually at the residence versus being out and about in the country? Ambassador Don Tapia: I started at 730 in the morning, got home normally about 4 to 6:00 in the evening. Chuck Warren: And so you're out every day? Ambassador Don Tapia: Yes, yes. Chuck Warren: What is something about Jamaica that the American public doesn't know about it? Besides, it's a great place to go for a vacation. What? Tell us about the people. And I'm sure you fell in love with these people. You feel like it's probably a second home now. Tell us a little bit about that. Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, Jamaica, there's a couple of things. There's the security thing that that you've got to look at. One of the things is Jamaica is sits in a location, of course, in the Caribbean, as we know, just south of, just south of Cuba. There's only two ways into the Gulf of Mexico. And that's one of the things that a lot of American people don't realize, that you either go north to come into the Gulf of Mexico, and that takes you that takes you by the D.R. and into by Cuba, into the Gulf of Mexico. If you're coming out of the Panama Canal, which most of the big ships are coming out of the Panama Canal going into going into the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans to drop you to drop the goods off that they've picked up in Europe is the fact is that you're going by Venezuela, you're going by Colombia into the Gulf, into the Gulf of Mexico. So what we have seen in one of the things that you've got to look at is the CCP, which is the communist, the Chinese Communist Party, which becomes a factor around the world. And that's one of the greatest threats that we have. It's not Russia is a threat, of course, it's they bring Russian. But we found out that Russia in the Ukraine did not did not have the where to to really fight a world war. Chuck Warren: Right. Ambassador Don Tapia: That's some of the things that you look at as an ambassador, because you were involved looking at what's taking place around the world. These are some of the things that that I think the American people in the Caribbean is seek the Caribbean actually is our first line of defense. When you look at it, the first line of defense. And during the Cold War, we put a lot of money and a lot of effort into the Caribbean. Once the Cold War was over, after after Reagan, we more like took him, took advantage of them. We we didn't pay attention to them. We paid more attention to to Europe, in South Africa and so forth than we did to our own home base. You might say to the beaches that that really protect us in the long run. Chuck Warren: What should we do? What should be the policy going forward in the Caribbean from the United States government? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, I think there's a certain areas that that need to be that need to be beefed up. You know, whenever you get down to El Salvador, down in that area and so forth, that the people that are coming from El Salvador, El Salvador, what you found out that just crossed over the border just about two weeks ago ago, about 50,000 Venezuelans that are coming into the US. So when you turn around and you start taking a look at who is coming across our border today, it's very scary because there's busloads of Chinese. How did the Chinese get to get to Mexico? Chuck Warren: Yeah, they didn't walk. They didn't. Ambassador Don Tapia: Walk. So you so when you start taking a look at the people that are crossing the border, we have no way to vent those people. No way to vent. Thousands of people crossing the border on foot. So we have a we have a major security line. And I always say that a country is not a country without a border. We are not a country today. We have no border to the south. Chuck Warren: No, we do not. We do not what right now, there's a there's a number of countries that do not have a United States ambassador for various reasons. And I'll get into all those. But what does it mean when a country does not have a United States ambassador in it? Who's running the the. Ambassador Don Tapia: Charge d'affaires is he's the second. Normally when the ambassador there you have what they call a DCM, which is actually the deputy commander, your deputy chief of staff is what they call him. Once that once the ambassador leaves, his title changes to charge d'affaires, which means that he is in charge. Charge of thee takes the place of the ambassador. He didn't have all the authority that the ambassador would have, but he has the authority to run the embassy and to take care of the day to day business. Chuck Warren: But to the president of a country or so forth. It's not the same as having the actual ambassador there. They know there's somebody, they know there's a manager at the place, at the business. They know there's somebody there, maybe an assistant manager. But the person who really can give yes or no is not there. And that and that has to play some role. Ambassador Don Tapia: That's exactly right. Is that without the ambassador, the ambassador in many countries, believe it or not, the ambassador has the same voice as the prime minister or the president of that company, that country. Because the fact is, he is the representative, the direct representative of the United States. So his words and what he says is taken very seriously. In a lot of times you can get yourself in trouble. So you've got to watch. You've got to watch what you're saying, too. Chuck Warren: How many how many countries had ambassadors in Jamaica when you were there? Ambassador Don Tapia: You know, that's a good question. I'm not sure, but we I know that I could be out probably 17, 17 or 18. Chuck Warren: Did you did you become close to to any particular ambassador from another country? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, the Chinese ambassador kept trying. The Chinese ambassador kept trying to meet me. And of course, my my detail. Your detail comes up and whispers in your ear as you see that the the Chinese ambassador would like to to meet with you and shake your hand. And I my comment was, I don't believe that I need to shake his hand, you know so so. But the differ the different embassies had would have certain kind of affairs and so forth that you were invited to. And a lot of times you sent your deputy instead of instead of you. Chuck Warren: Interesting, interesting. Well, ambassador, we sure appreciate you coming on the show today. You've been fantastic. Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, thank you very much. I wonder how I looked before. Chuck Warren: You look fantastic, and I appreciate your service. Would you do it again if they called you tomorrow? Would you do it again? Ambassador Don Tapia: You know, that's a that's a question that I get asked a lot. And it'd have to be depending on the, on the country and so forth in which you're going to. The reason at my age is I had a choice of a couple of countries, but I went to pick when they gave me Jamaica, I thought, you know, at my age I'm not that far away from the US. If something happened, I could be flown back to the US. So you take a look at things. I always, I always like to say that I'd like to be the ambassador to to Iceland, but that's. But that is covered by a different. There's three countries that are in there Iceland, Newfoundland. And I forget what the other. It's either Finland or one of them that actually has the responsibility. Oh, Norway. Norway actually has the responsibility for for those three areas. Chuck Warren: Oh, fascinating. Well, ambassador Don Tapia, thank you so much for coming on our show today. Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, thank you for the invite. And I'm. Chuck Warren: Anytime. Ambassador Don Tapia: We're happy to come back and give you you know, I had I get a lot of calls from still from around the world of people that I know, ambassadors and so forth. And we talk about the systems, the things that are taking place. And like in Israel, we it's been a lot of chatter on that one, I bet. Chuck Warren: What are they saying about it? Ambassador Don Tapia: Well. That you've had so many, you know, upstarts with Jamaica in the in the I'm sorry, the Israel and the Palestinians, you know, you've got to come to some some conclusion and let it and run its course. That's a heck of a thing to say, because that means that there's going to be a lot of a lot of deaths and so forth, a lot of innocent life, a lot of innocent life, a lot of innocent people that are going to that's going to suffer. But at the same time, are we going to continue? Are you going to let Israel and the Palestinians fight this battle every 10 or 15 years and so forth? This one seems, from what I from what I've been reading and what I've been told by some people that are actually in Israel, that this has been planned out for for quite a long time. Chuck Warren: Sounds like a year or two where I've been reading this morning. It's been coming out. It's you know, it is. We have the Wall Street Journal reporter on last week who covers Eastern Europe. So he's been covering the Ukraine war. And we asked the question, how does this come to a resolution? And his comment was someone has to win. That's and I feel sadly you brought up. I appreciate you bringing up the stark reality and not talking a word salad here. Somebody has to win for this to sort of end. And I was sort of stunned. He took it was, you know, a very unreported like statement. But he's been there for 12 years, speaks Russian and just says someone has to win. You know, you could do a peace agreement, but it's basically a recess. They'll be back at it in a year or two again. And that's what we're seeing in the Middle East and our prayers are there. Sadly, a lot of innocent people are going to lose their lives on this. Ambassador Don Tapia: That's a very dangerous spot in the world, because if that place explodes, keep in mind you've got Egypt, you've got Iran, you've got Syria, you've got Jordan. Well, you're talking now. You're talking about not just one country that can that the explosion can take place. And if it does World War, World War two will look like it. It was a training. Chuck Warren: Well, we can pray for some wiser heads prevail. And everything right now is what we definitely need in the world. Ambassador Don Tapia: All right, I know our prayers. I'll tell you. You have to pray. Pray for the people that are suffering, the people that are going to suffer, you know, and and of course, our people, that we have to pray for them and hope that we can work our way through this. But we haven't been able to. So I somebody would call me a hawk because the fact is, I say, let's get let's get the job done one way or the other. Like you say, somebody has to win, right? Let's get this. Let's find out who's going to win and move on from there. We haven't done that. It's over the last 50 years. We have not done it since the young Kippur War. Chuck Warren: Exactly. Well, ambassador, thank you for joining us today. Ambassador Don Tapia: Well, thank you for the invite. Chuck Warren: This is Breaking Battlegrounds. We'll be right back. Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a Your name web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Chuck Warren: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck. Weren't my co-host, Kiley Kipper today. Kiley. Thanks. You've done fantastic today. Kiley Kipper: It's very exciting to be here. Chuck Warren: Very, very exciting here. Kiley Kipper: The big. Chuck Warren: Roll. Kiley and I before the show were harmonizing, trying to figure out a closing song. We'll get with you on that in a couple of weeks as we practice a little bit more. So Kiley  what do we have on Kiley's corner today? Kiley Kipper: Well, I felt since today's Friday the 13th a little spooky season. October I wanted to talk about the world's largest pumpkin. Okay, so Travis Gienger, he has been growing enormous pumpkins for 30 years now. It's one of his hobbies. He grew one so large that this year it was the it weighed as much as a small car. Chuck Warren: Really? Kiley Kipper: Yes. But in his previous year. So in 2020, he grew a pumpkin named Tiger King, which weighed £2,350. Last year, Maverick, his pumpkin was £2,560. Still hasn't did not beat any world records, however. This year it was the 50th annual World Championship pumpkin Weigh-off and he has been growing Michael Jordan for six months now, and he is the world's largest pumpkin, officially weighing £2,749. And he transported this. He drove 35 hours to this competition with this pumpkin in the back of his truck. Chuck Warren: How how did he grow them so big? I mean, what's different from, say, you and I go in our backyard and grow pumpkin? What does he do that gets them so big? Is there a certain a certain seed he's using? What does he do? Kiley Kipper: You know he does not tell his secrets. However, he did say this pumpkin. He sat out there and he watered him every 30 minutes. I'm not really sure what his day job is. However, he sat out there. Well, he's probably even watered him. Chuck Warren: Does he look older? Is he retired? Maybe. Kiley Kipper: No, he's not retired every 30 minutes. Chuck Warren: Huh? Kiley Kipper: Yeah, every 30 minutes. He was watering because he really wanted Michael Jordan to beat it this year. Chuck Warren: So what we're seeing is he's the poster child for the termination of remote work and get back in the office. Is that what we're telling us? Kiley Kipper: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Chuck Warren: Every time they said he says I'm on a conference call or something. We know he's out watering his pumpkin. Kiley Kipper: He's on mute, but he says that he names all of his pumpkins fantastic. But he names all of his pumpkins off of what's happening in this year. So this year it's 2023, so named after Michael Jordan. But you know Tiger King in 2020 and so so be it. That's how he names him. Chuck Warren: Well Kiley I think this was a needed ending today to our show where there's a lot of chaos going on in the world. Folks, this is breaking bad grounds. We hope you have a great weekend. You can of course find us on Breaking Battlegrounds dot vote. We also ask you to go to anywhere you get your podcasts, or listen to one of our 12 stations that has our radio show on every week. We hope you have a great weekend! Stay safe! - Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to Breaking Battlegrounds Radio! In this week's episode, we dive deep into a range of thought-provoking topics with our fantastic lineup of guests. First up, we have Thomas Grove, a renowned WSJ reporter, who provides valuable insights into the latest developments in Russia and Ukraine. Then, our friend of the show, Dan McLaughlin, also known as the 'Baseball Crank' on Twitter, joins us for an engaging conversation. Dan shares his thoughts on how to refocus the media's attention on critical issues beyond Trump, including discussions on polling trends for both Trump and Biden, the upcoming presidential election next year, and his insights into the Speaker's race. And, of course, we can't forget Kiley Kipper in Kiley's Corner! Tune in to hear Kiley's unique take on various subjects this week, including the mysterious world of Tupac, the Citizen app, and the enchanting puffin season in Iceland. Join Kiley as she unravels the story and discusses its implications, all from her corner of the studio. - Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds - ABOUT OUR GUESTS Thomas Grove covers the confrontation between Russia and the West for The Wall Street Journal. He is based in Warsaw. Before that Thomas covered Russia for more than a decade and he has traveled to Ukraine regularly since Russia's invasion. He writes on Russia's military, the arms trade and the Russian defense sector as well as great power competition.He started his career in Istanbul with Reuters writing about the economy and the rise of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP. Thomas has since reported from across Central Asia, the Caucasus region and the Middle East. - Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute. He was formerly an attorney practicing securities and commercial litigation in New York City, a contributing editor of RedState, columnist at the Federalist and the New Ledger, a baseball blogger at BaseballCrank.com, BostonSportsGuy.com, the Providence Journal Online, and a contributor to the Command Post. His writings on politics, baseball, and law have appeared in numerous other newspapers, magazines, websites, and legal journals. - Transcription Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. As always, fantastic guests up for you today, folks. We're going to lead things off with Thomas Grove of The Wall Street Journal. He's been covering in depth the confrontation between Russia and the West. And obviously he is based in Warsaw, previously covered Russia for more than a decade. He's traveled to Ukraine regularly since Russia's invasion, writes on Russia's military, the arms trade and Russian defense sector, as well as great power competition. Thomas, thank you for joining us. Welcome to the program. Thomas Grove: Great. Thank you so much for having me. Chuck Warren: Thomas How did you get started in this business? It seems like you've done great reporting, starting with Reuters and now you've just planted your flag out there in Eastern Europe. Was this a career path you wanted or you just sort of fell into it by doing various stories? Thomas Grove: That's a really good question. I studied Russian in college, and I was just fascinated by kind of what was the kind of referred to more frequently at the time as the kind of the post-Soviet space. So all of Central Asia, the caucuses, Russia itself, you know, it was all just wild and fascinating. And I couldn't get enough of it coming out of college. So I basically after that just basically washed up, started with Reuters, and things just kind of took on a life of their own, really. So spent spending ten years in Russia, you know, we left just right before the war, just a few months before, luckily. And I went to I was going to Israel just to kind of start something completely new, turn a new page. And that lasted about 4 or 5 months. And before I knew it, I was back in Ukraine again. I'd covered the 2014 war and and now it was kind of I really didn't expect. However, when I went back in 2022 that I'd be seeing the biggest land invasion in Europe since the Second World War. It was obviously a surprise. At least it was for me. You've been so much for others. Chuck Warren: You've been to Ukraine a lot in person. Do you feel sort of like you're reliving a World War One video from junior high? I mean, is it you know, here's one thing you see on our side. You see these you don't get to see many photos, but you see some about the trenches and the the bloodshed. And then you see Ukraine where it doesn't look like anything's going on. And there are some on the conservative side who say, see, this isn't a big deal. Tell us a little about what you see on the ground when you go. Thomas Grove: Well, I mean, that's a really that's a great question. I think probably the best way of explaining it is is explaining the journey. You know, you have to take to get there. You know, there's no airports in Ukraine. So anybody who who makes that trip, they come from most of the time from Poland. You know, we're just based to and you cross the border and you're in western Ukraine and everything feels, you know, you're in Lviv and things are bustling. You know, stores are open. It's a, you know, a beautiful city full of, you know, 17th, 18th, 19th century buildings. You know, it's it's gorgeous. And you think, well, you know, it is hard to reconcile that with what, you know, lays ahead. And obviously, you know, the closer you get east, closer you the further you get south, you know, it becomes that that reality becomes a lot more dramatic and the scenes are a lot more dire as well. And, you know, it doesn't take long, you know, until. You are in Bermuda and you see things that you simply can't imagine happening in the in Europe in the 21 century. Chuck Warren: That would that would seem to me to be a very interesting article for you to work on, because I think there is this this disconnection here with the American public. Sam Stone: There's definitely not much understanding of what the real conditions. Chuck Warren: And so and I think it's part of the problem with the funding, to be honest with you. I think if more Americans knew what was really going on in the Eastern and south and there was more pictures because we live in a very social media picture, visual society, I think there'd be some difference there because what you see, especially on conservative media, because, you know, Sam and I always have this conversation with people, look, both, you know, Korean Ukraine has corruption and Russia is bad. They're not mutually exclusive. You know, you just can't let a country do this to another country. And people say that and they sort of, you know, nod their shoulders and say, yeah, you're right, you know, But I think that type of thing would happen. So let me talk about something's happened this week, which has been quite amazing, actually. And you wrote about it on October 4th. Russia Withdraws Black Sea fleet vessels from Crimea base after Ukrainian attacks. And my understanding is in your articles is because Ukraine can't use the drones or the missiles from France or England or even the United States to attack outside of certain areas, and especially in the sea Black Sea, that the Ukrainians have created their own missiles. And, you know, tell us about that. Thomas Grove: Well, I mean, what we're seeing is kind of the culmination of a few things here. And, you know, on one hand, you know, we have to think about the fact that in the first weeks of the war, much of the Ukrainian navy was was destroyed. And so, you know, it didn't have the kind of it was certainly not on an equal footing with Russia beforehand in the Black Sea. I mean, the Black Sea fleet. If we could just take a moment to talk about what this is. I mean, this is kind of a jewel in the crown of Russian naval power. You know, it's kind of it is what it is. It is the the Russian empire's power projection, the most important power projection it probably had in kind of the latter part of the Russian empire. So it's in the Russian narrative and the Russian myth. It's an incredibly important fleet. Um, you know, started under Catherine the Great, you know, if you can imagine kind of what that means for people. And so it's only been, you know, vessels have only been withdrawn from Sevastopol three times as far as we know, you know, um, since, since they started to base there and twice during the two World wars, one in the First World War, just after the First World War and the other one right in 1942. Thomas Grove: So you have this incredibly important symbolically and just in terms of capabilities as well, naval power that's there in the Black Sea, which Russia's, you know, has been very proud of. And then you have, you know, the Ukrainian navy, which, you know, they mentioned before, was was kind of wiped out. And so what the Ukrainians have done is they've just been improvising, basically, you know, and I think they kind of did this very early on that was kind of, you know, one of their first impetuses was to to really try to to improvise. They didn't have the the defense industry that that Russia had. So they had to basically kind of try to make things that that would work on the fly. Right. And so what we've seen is these Neptune what are anti-ship missiles but have you know and was used effectively against the Moskva you know Russia's flagship last year, we've seen them start launching their own kind of naval drones, these kind of unmanned surface drones. And so, you know, they have some capabilities of their own. But, you know, two of those, you know, they've added what the British and the French have given them. Thomas Grove: You know, the the storm shadow missiles. And so I think it was a very potent kind of mixture that sorry here, the terrain behind me apologize for that. But yeah, so you had a very potent mixture of of of of weapons that Ukraine was using against Russia in the Black Sea. And so, you know, it made the officers on the ground feel unsafe because they flattened and flattened it. But they, you know, sent, I think, two rockets right through it, the Black Sea fleet headquarters. And then you saw an attack on a submarine and a landing vessel not too long ago as well. And so I think it was it was really a calculation made by the Russians that this is just it's not worth it right now. They weren't really the Russian ships weren't able to affect the grain corridors along the sea as much as they hoped they would. Be able to. And apart from that, I think they realized that if they were to just withdraw a little bit further east, it really wouldn't hurt their capabilities in terms of doing what they were doing before in terms of sending missiles into Ukrainian cities. It doesn't really make a lot of difference. Sam Stone: Their weapons have the range from those ships, regardless of if you move them a little bit. Chuck Warren: With Thomas Grove. Exactly. Thomas Grove, Wall Street Journal reporter. He's based out of Warsaw, Poland. We're going to call him the Indiana Jones of The Wall Street Journal because he seems to be going all the hot zones here in Eastern Europe. Let me ask you a question. In your article that we talked about, about Russia withdrawing from the Black Sea. They moved their ships to, you know, a new port in the Black Sea. And you made a comment that I thought was really interesting. You wrote, While the move may represent only a temporary measure to safeguard against further Ukrainian strikes, the logistical headache of relocating some of Russia's heaviest ships underscores the threat of Ukraine's strike capabilities. Why is that such a logistical headache? And I ask this because I think most people are like, I get on a boat, I turn the key, I leave the dock. Why? Why is this why is this such a logistical headache? Sam Stone: People do not realize. Chuck Warren: Oh, no. So, you know, it's like you always hear the old saying. It's like turning the Titanic. Why is it so hard? Why is it such a logistical headache to move them, though? Thomas Grove: Because I think basically you're talking about several kind of docking issues and you're talking kind of diverting the fuel and the supplies that you would need for for these crews to stay on ship or stay stay on board and maintain the ships. You know, we're talking you know, you're rerouting trains, you know, and you're trying to figure out exactly when that happens, where they come from, where those supplies come from. And, you know, this this is all and as we've seen, logistics has been has been a sore spot for the Russians. Sam Stone: Yeah, there's a there's the very famous military quote, and I don't know who came up with it but but said that bad generals talk tactics, good generals talk strategy and great generals talk logistics. As we're we're coming to the end, We have about a minute and a half left in this segment. We're going to be coming back with more from Thomas Grove, The Wall Street Journal, covering this. One thing I want to get into. Thomas When we come back, is, is there or do you see a solution to this that isn't a negotiated solution that costs Ukraine some territory they had before this invasion? And the reason I ask that and I apologize for kind of springing a lengthy question on you as we come to the end of this segment. But the reason I ask that is, is you just look at the demographics and, you know, there are as many military age males in Russia as there is, you know, total population in Ukraine. That's a really big mismatch long term in a war of attrition. How does Ukraine account for that? Thomas Grove: Well, I mean, I think if you were to talk to the Ukrainians, I mean, they would say that it's about defending your homeland and, you know, basically trying to fight off somebody who is trying to take your, you know, your very house from you, so to speak. So, I mean, I think there's no shortage of guts, as we've seen on the Ukrainian side. But I mean, I think, you know, we do have to acknowledge and I think I think the Ukrainians have acknowledged in conversations with Western officials that it is absolutely necessary to kind of maintain the flow of weapons if they're going to continue fighting. Otherwise, it really does become just just very difficult for the Ukrainians. Sam Stone: There's there's no way for Ukraine to supply its own armament needs in this war. We're going to be coming back with more in just a moment. Breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a second. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True. Sam Stone: All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone continuing on the line with us in just a minute, Thomas Grove of The Wall Street Journal. But folks, you've been hearing me talk about Y refy for a while now? A lot of people are talking about this investment. So I'm going to just quickly review the basics with you. First off, it's true, you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's not correlated to the stock market. You can turn your income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There are absolutely no fees. There is no attack on your principal. If you ever need your money back and you'll get your monthly statement each month, No surprises if you're not sure. If you trust this economy, this secure collateralized portfolio may be a good option for you. Check them out. Invest Y refy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or give them a call at 888 y refy 24  tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Thomas Continuing on, I hit you with a big long question. At the end of that, here's 30s. Yes. Chuck Warren: Solve the war for us. Sam Stone: Go ahead. Right. But just continuing on in terms of, you know, without Western support, as you as you alluded to at the end in terms of military support, supplies, civilian and military, there's really no way for Ukraine to stay in this war. They definitely have, as you you mentioned, a significant will to war, which is obviously a big deal when you're being invaded. You have much higher will to war. That historically has been a big decider in these type of contests. But Russia is still a behemoth with manufacturing, with a huge population base and a manufacturing base that far exceeds anything Ukraine has. So continuing on with that, how does Ukraine get out of this eventually? Thomas Grove: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah, it's a really important question. And I think one that, you know, everybody is probably thinking about right now. I mean, you have I mean, Russia's economy has basically switched to a war footing. And so, you know, you you had you had factories in Russia that were, um, you know, producing, say, a hundred train wagon cars a year and maybe two tanks. And now they're producing no wagon cars and nothing but tanks. So obviously, you know, there's a there's a great industrial capacity here. You know, all of Russia, just like much of the Soviet Union, had a kind of dual use capacity. Everything was there was a civilian capacity to most factories and there was a military capacity. And so you could kind of you could switch back and forth between them. Russia's obviously gone all in with the with the military capacity at this moment. So obviously that leads has left a lot of people wondering about what we do going forward. And so I think, you know, one of the things that's been talked about is a negotiated end to the fighting. And I think whenever we look at that, you know, on both sides, both sides see that as nothing but a pause in fighting. I mean, it's I think it's ultimately unacceptable for the Ukrainians to have Russians on their territory. And I think it will always be unacceptable for Putin and for Russia to have anything less than all of Ukraine. You know, unfortunately, I think a negotiated settlement will help stop things, maybe ease the burden for some time, unfortunately. I mean, I think I think unfortunately for Ukraine, I think a cease in fighting would probably favor Russia more, but it would just buy time for the next round of fighting, which, you know, could turn out very different differently from what we're seeing, you know, last year and this year. Chuck Warren: What a wonderful way to live, really in my eyes. Let's talk briefly here. You wrote about really interesting piece. I mean, you wrote about this in your article that Russia is constrained in the Black Sea due to the decision by Turkey last year to implement an international treaty that bans warring states from bringing additional warships through the Turkish straits, which is a strategic checkpoint, which means Russia can't bring ships that are based in the Pacific or elsewhere in. Right. And exactly. It's always amazing how Turkey pops up in all these conversations now, isn't it? Thomas Grove: Isn't it? Chuck Warren: I mean, it is. It's fascinating. It's fascinating. Sam Stone: They have always been really good at using their geographic centrality to European and Asian conflict Chuck Warren: Everything you read about Middle East, the Ukraine war. Turkey is in there somewhere, right? Sam Stone: That's their location. Their literally central. Yeah. Chuck Warren: So. Yeah, exactly. So how has this hindered Russia? Thomas Grove: Well, I mean, so basically what you have to do, I mean, because because Ukraine has been so focused on the Black Sea fleet, I mean, obviously there's a lot of ships that are being that have been damaged right now. Well, you only have so many shops that can repair those various ships that have been hit, you know, And so if you're if you're backed up, if you're if you're if you're backed up, you know, you are it's like, you know, it's like playing a hockey game and you have three, three players out, right? So it's like, you know, quite honestly, if you can't bring more people in, more, more guy. Let me think back to the to the war. If you can't bring more ships in, you know, you're stuck with this huge disadvantage. I mean, you know, Russia has the ships that it needs to continue bombing Ukraine. I mean, let's not forget that. But in terms of what could do operationally in the Black Sea, it's been greatly hindered. And I think part of that speaks to why Russia has been not as effective as it would would like to have been in terms of stopping Ukrainian grain shipments, exports out of out of out of Ukraine and through the Black Sea. Sam Stone: Thomas This is a little bit of a tangent, but our navies around the world, looking at what's happened to Russia with this asymmetrical warfare and the the hits they've taken on so many of their warships from these drones and that sort of thing, are they looking at this and starting to reconsider how they're going to defend their own ships at sea? Thomas Grove: That's a fantastic question. I mean, I think I mean, I think the use of drones here has kind of revolutionized the way we think about a lot of things. And I think, you know, obviously, this isn't the only theater in which we've seen kind of naval drones pop up, but they've they've been pretty effective. And so I think people do have to account for that down the line. I have to admit, I'm an expert in naval power, but I would have to imagine that this is this is something that people who are much more intelligent than I am are thinking about a lot. Chuck Warren: So Russia pulled out of this grain treaty we had so we can ship Ukrainian grain throughout the world and alleviate poverty and food inflation and so forth. So my understanding from reading and I wish everybody here could just have a map of the Black Sea in front of them, which we're doing this on video. So basically the grain export now is they take they hug the coast of Ukraine, right? And then they go past Bulgaria and Romania, which are members of NATO. So Russia can't really do anything, right? Thomas Grove: Exactly. I mean, Russia has played it has played it a little bit dangerous and they've gone very close. Right. I mean, we have seen strikes on Ukrainian grain terminals that literally are miles away from Romanian territory, for example, right on the Danube River. So, I mean, they're they're not they've made some pretty risky moves. But so far we've seen, you know, whether or not it's because of NATO or whether it's, you know, for other reasons there. Yeah, we've seen them. We've seen them back up, but the ships have hugged the coast and that's exactly what they have to do. Sam Stone: Yeah. We have just about a minute left here. Thomas. How do people follow you and your work? Obviously, folks, you should be subscribing to the Wall Street Journal if you're not already. I think that's one of a handful of papers that if you want to be informed, you need to have in your inbox. But Thomas, how can folks follow your work specifically? Thomas Grove: I mean, you know, we still use is it Twitter that X. Sam Stone: I started calling it Twix. Thomas Grove: Twix. I think that looks pretty well. I'm You drove. Chuck Warren: TG Grove. Perfect. Perfect. Thanks. Thomas. Thanks a million. And stay safe out there. And we hope you'll join us again in the near future. Sam Stone: Yeah. Chuck, we're going to be coming back here in just a moment, folks. We're going to have a friend of the program, Dan McLaughlin. He is the baseball crank at baseball crank coming. Chuck Warren: On and National Review, the primary job, baseball, just a hobby. National Review. Sam Stone: Let's talk about the important stuff here, Chuck. We're going to have this guy on and. Chuck Warren: Thomas Grove is fantastic. Oh, he was phenomenal. We got to have him back on. And literally, people really should look at the Black Sea map today. You'll understand a lot more of what he's talking about in Turkey. We got to we got to get flake on. We got to get Ambassador Flake on talking about. Sam Stone: Turkey in just a moment. All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Moran and Sam Stone. Thank you to Thomas Grove of The Wall Street Journal. Fantastic information about Ukraine there. And up next, friend of the program. And it's the right time to have this gentleman on. Dan McLaughlin, senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at the National Review Institute. He's also on Twitter as at baseball crank, which gives you an idea of the most important topic we're going to discuss today. Chuck and Dan, who's winning this next round of playoff series and who's your World Series pick?  Dan McLaughlin: I mean, you know, I think this is one of those years when your presumption has to be that the favorites are going to win, that we're going to end up with the the Braves and of all teams, the Orioles. You know, certainly you can't count out, you know, the real veteran teams like the Dodgers and the Astros, but the Dodgers in particular are just awfully banged up. Sam Stone: The Dodgers pitching is a is a nightmare right now. Like they have nobody.  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah, No, they're they're a mess. They're a mess. Um, and you know, I mean, you just you don't want to get into October having felt like you've already burned most of the gas in your tank. Sam Stone: I see. Chuck I'm actually calling it for the Orioles. I think that's just the team that's just scrappy, fiery, tough right now. Chuck Warren: I wouldn't be surprised. I think it's going to be the Braves or Phillies that win it all. All right. So let's talk a little politics here. So last night and this morning, if you turn on any of the cable news or broadcast news, it's all about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. But, you know, we have Iranian spies infiltrating the White House. We got bond yields soaring, China's economic downturn. We've got Ukraine. People can't buy a home. It's 8% mortgage Now. I'm guessing by the end of the year it could be nine. But we just keep talking. Trump How do we get the press serious about serious things?  Dan McLaughlin: Um, you know, I think that I think as long as Trump is there, they're not going to be and they're going to be caught by surprise by a bunch of things. I mean, the polling the polling at this point is just comical if you look at the general election matchups. Right? Because on the one hand, you look at like, you know, you look at these polls that are like, oh, you know, Trump versus Biden on the economy. It's like Trump plus 30, right? Trump versus Biden on national security, like Trump plus 25. What's the bottom line of this poll? Biden's ahead of Trump by two, you know, or you get on the other side, you get like voters, you get you know, you get an electorate where they're like. So 67% say that Trump should be in jail. So what if we ask these people who should win? Oh, it's like, you know, Biden 46, Trump 46. Right. So literally, people are just they're looking at the economy and everything that this White House is doing. They're looking at Joe Biden and saying anybody but him. And then they look over at Donald Trump and all the drama and just everything with Trump and they're like just anybody but him. And then you ask them to choose between the two and they're like, Oh, man. Chuck Warren: I literally saw this morning before we started the show a poll that was done of new registered voters the last six months in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada. And they have their Trump's winning by five with these new people who moved into the state and registered to vote. So Trump's winning by five in Georgia. He's losing by five of these people. And Arizona, he's basically even with them in Nevada. But what was interesting, the next question was, do you support a Republican majority or Democrat majority in Congress? It was like literally 15 to 20 point Republican majority in each of those three states. So people really. Sam Stone: Are Trump is an enormous drag and people. Chuck Warren: Really are making a decision. I think I mean, I think you're going to see so many split tickets this time unless something dramatically changes. I don't think we've seen it before. And it's going to make every political scientist lose his mind.  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. And I mean, it is entirely possible that that if it's Trump, Biden, you're going to get more money and energy than usual behind third party tickets. I mean, you could easily have three of those tickets, right? Because you got Cornel West, you got RFK Jr, you got the No Labels people who are talking about maybe running Larry Hogan or Joe Manchin. And, you know, it could end up looking like, uh, I mean, you know, I remember the what was it, the Texas governor's race, I think, in 2006 when Rick Perry was running for re-election. They had a four way race. They had Kinky Friedman in there. It was like this wild thing. But, you know, of course, our history with four way presidential races is not good, right? So those have typically ended in chaos or worse. Sam Stone: Yeah. I mean, one one thing, Chuck, is we're heading into this and everyone's pointing at RFK. He seems to be pulling more from Republicans and libertarian leaning folks than he does from Democrats. Chuck Warren: It seems like it. Sam Stone: Is that. Is that.  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. I mean his, his his he he really has succeeded in alienating, I think the Democratic base. Chuck Warren: 100%. Sam Stone: Well, and unless you tow the line 100%, you're going to alienate the Democrat base. I mean, Kirsten Sinema has voted literally like twice in her life outside of outside of the Democrat majority, and they ready to burn her at the stake for it. Folks, we're going to be coming back with more in just a moment from Dan McLaughlin, senior writer at National Review and National Review Institute. He's a fellow there, formerly an attorney practicing securities and commercial litigation in New York, a contributing editor at RedState, columnist at The Federalist and the new New Ledger. I can't speak today. And a baseball blogger at baseball Frankcom That's what we're saying is the important stuff and breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back with more in just a moment. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream Homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Bad with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Folks, I can't say enough about investing with Y refi. This is a fantastic opportunity. You need to just go and check it out for yourself. Go to their website, invest Y Refy.com. That's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or give them a ring at 888. Y Refi 24. Learn how you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's not correlated to the stock market, where you'll know what each monthly statement is going to look like, but no surprises. Again, that's invest refi.com or give them a call at 888 refi 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Chuck Warren: Dan, you recently came out with an article in the National Review entitled What's a Ban? What's Not a Ban? Talking about what progressives call everything a ban. Now, could you give us a little overview about it? And what, for example, on books, what do they consider a ban? And we'll go from there?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. I mean, one of the leading sources on book banning and there's all this alarm. Oh, book banning. There's all this book banning going on is a group called Pen America, which has at times in the past been a more reliable kind of just pro-free speech group. But they've clearly taken a very partisan tack on this one. And their definition of a book ban extends all the way to anything that is age restricted for very young children. That book has been banned even if they have a book that was already age restricted. And they say, well, you slightly changed what grade it was, you know, it was appropriate for. That's considered a ban, which is ridiculous, particularly when you consider that, you know, I mean, you've got a lot of the books that there are controversies about, you know, sexually explicit books or books that, you know, are otherwise just you would think that everyone acknowledges that these are books that are inappropriate for very young children, you know, and yet somehow this is getting turned into a ban. And my point is that that's, you know, this extremely vague and broad definition of ban not only misleads the reader of these reports when they give statistics, it's also inconsistent with how, you know, left wingers look at what is and isn't a ban in other contexts. Sam Stone: Dan They also want to pretend, I think I think I have two points here, but they also want to pretend that these books are the equivalent of, say, The Catcher in the Rye. But I've been actually getting a bunch of them because this is relevant to a lot of the campaigns here. Reading through them myself, these are not exactly profound literature for the most part that they're talking about. And quite frankly, I can't read any of them on the air here with you. I mean, right now with our adult audience, the Federal Communications Commission would throw this program off the air if I read these things. How has this discussion gotten so out of hand, that saying that that type of book can only be read by a ninth grader and up becomes a ban?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah, No, it's ridiculous. And it's yeah, I remember Ron DeSantis did a press conference on this where he was reading out some of the books that were in, you know, lower grade children's libraries. And literally all the TV stations were like, whoa, we got to cut out from this because we can't have him say this stuff on the air. Um, it's it's nuts, but it's, you know, part of it is I think that simply the hunger for partisan point scoring, but part of it is also that there is kind of a, you know, an ideological faction that genuinely wants to indoctrinate kids in a certain sexual ideology. And so, you know, they really, really don't like it when these books get taken out of circulation because they want to push this on kids. Chuck Warren: Which is just weird, right? I mean, let's just call it for what it is. That's weird. The sexualization they're trying to do with kids. Sam Stone: Sexualization of other people's children. Chuck Warren: Yeah, it's. Sam Stone: Really, really odd.  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. No, it is weird and creepy, and we shouldn't be afraid to call it weird and creepy. Chuck Warren: You know what we should do? Dan, we need to fly you out here to Arizona. Then the three of us on a show will start reading. We'll pick 50 of their top books that are banned and start reading, and we'll have an FCC former employee in here and some of the producers of the local TV stations and tell us what we could put on air and what we couldn't. That would be a real interesting show. That actually would be fun. Just tell us, would this pass could you put this on the 6:00 news?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. You know, do it, do it live. So the cops come up and raid you in the middle of it. Chuck Warren: I think we're going to look at doing that. We may get you out here to do that. That'd be fun for us. All right. So Hillary Clinton being the menace. She is came out and said there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the Trump cult members. Your thoughts?  Dan McLaughlin: You know, look, I give Donald Trump credit for the one thing that he has genuinely done for the the quality of American politics was to finally put the Clintons out of business. So it is good it is a good thing that she's just giving these interviews instead of, you know, having being speaking from the Oval Office or anything. She's weird and creepy in her own way, in a sort of more menacing way. But it's also she's bitter, you know, She's just bitter. And look, you know, are there people who are Trump supporters who are, you know, absolutely could use to be to be unplugged a little bit from how they follow? Trump? Absolutely. But, you know, when you start talking about it in phrases like, oh, you know, we need formal deprogramming of these people, and you've been in the government for years, that's that takes on a much more menacing cast. Chuck Warren: Oh, very much so. Very, very much so. All right. Let's talk about Biden did a 180 on the border wall and it's been fascinating to listen and watch the various Democrats try to explain this. And first of all, what do you think would have happened if Trump said, I am waiving 26 laws to build the wall just unilaterally? What would been the press reaction?  Dan McLaughlin: Oh, yeah, no, there would have been all sorts of stuff about tyranny. And there was I mean, at the time when Trump was trying to do various things to get, you know, a modest, fairly modest amount of the wall built. And Biden is is also building only a fairly small section of wall here. Let's not. Right. Let's not kid ourselves. It's not he's he's just doing what he thinks is the bare minimum. Chuck Warren: But even but even 100 yards is a wall. I mean, it doesn't matter. I mean, he's doing everything he's complaining about all the time.  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if your position is well, you know, there are better ways to cover the border than a wall, and then you rethink that. Well, okay, that's a bit of a change of position. But people reassess the situation. But when you're like, oh, you know, the wall is like a violation of the poem on the Statue of Liberty. And this is like, you know, fascist, fascist knight falling over the country and everything. Maybe, maybe that's a little bit of a problem when you go turn around and have to do it yourself. Chuck Warren: Well, Dan McLaughlin, he's with The National Review. Dan, Speaker's race, what's going to happen? I mean, this has been sort of a complete cluster in a very untactful way of saying it. But what happens with the speaker's race?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah, I can think of a number of ways to describe what's going on, none of which one could say on air. I mean, now. Well, of course Trump had to had to wander his way into that first. He was of course, he was taking in the accolades of a few people who were like, Why don't we draft Trump for speaker? And then he threw his support behind Jim Jordan, who I think is not really well suited to the job and probably not a guy who's going to get the support of the caucus. I mean, we're in a weird position, right? Because if you held a vote just among the caucus, you'd get 210 votes for McCarthy because that's what you just got and eight votes against him. And so it's this it's this weird math where, you know, you can't get anybody elected unless you've got everybody on board. You know, I think Steve Scalise is the most naturally unifying figure there. Obviously, there are some concerns about his health. He's being treated for cancer. But, you know, he seems to feel that he's up to doing this. And, you know, but but now they're going to they're going to have a TV debate, which is just ridiculous. So this is just no way to you know, it's no way to run a circus. Chuck Warren: Well, I mean, how this never was going to end. Well, former Speaker McCarthy, I mean, when you go on, say, one person who has a bugaboo on his tail about it, it's never going to end well. Right?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. I mean, the problem from the start was, I mean, first of all, they have such a small majority that they need to get everybody to agree, which gives an enormous amount of power and leverage to anybody who wants to be disagreeable. And then one of the conditions he agreed to as a condition of being elected speaker was that anybody could bring a vote to the floor at any time to unelect him. And that just that just gave everybody a veto over him, and particularly the people most likely to use it. Sam Stone: You know, and I agree with everything, Chuck, you're getting at there. My one point with this is that the major condition McCarthy agreed to was doing the spending bills individually and in order. And then his leadership, they did not move those forward in a timely fashion. Chuck Warren: And he quickly blamed them for it, by the way. Sam Stone: Yeah, but but at the end of the day, we didn't hear anything about it. So if that's a failure of communication on McCarthy and the leadership's part, okay, but they need to rectify that. I mean, at some point the getting back to regular order was a very legitimate thing for that caucus to demand, and it would be hugely beneficial if they do. What kind of commitment are you going to get from the next speaker to follow through with that? I guess that that would be my question. Is it going to get better or is this just a totally pointless fight?  Dan McLaughlin: Well, and the problem is, you know, I think McCarthy was making progress in that direction. I don't think he was meeting all of his deadlines. But, you know, again, you can't meet all your deadlines without the cooperation of a whole lot of people, some of whom threw sand in the gears because they wanted to stop this. I mean, you know, I think it's kind of telling that Chip Roy voted to keep McCarthy because Roy was really among the people who were holdouts in January. He was sort of the leader of the people who were very serious about imposing particular process. Right. Sam Stone: Gosar and Schweikert here in Arizona, same story. Chuck Warren: Yeah.  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. And Roy has been kind of vocal about, you know, obviously he has some things he thought McCarthy should be doing that he wasn't. But, you know, the fact that he voted to keep him suggests that that, you know, he thought that they could still make some progress on the budget. Chuck Warren: Presidential race. So Trump has this huge double digit lead. Okay. Who do you see possibly being the two other candidates right now that could have the possibility of something happens of becoming the nominee that that names, not Trump?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah, I mean, I think it seems now pretty clear that I mean, Ron DeSantis is obviously still in the number two slot he has held by any realistic measurement, the number two slot all along. Obviously, there's always the question of whether people are going to drop out if they, you know, somebody like DeSantis decides that he doesn't have the, you know, as many resources as he expected. But but, you know, he's got a lot of money. And I think right now, the person who has edged out everybody else for the number three slot is Nikki Haley. You know, I think she has really used the debates and used her focus on New Hampshire to effectively push Mike Pence, Tim Scott and Chris Christie off to the side. And they're the only other people running who are actually running to win in any sense. I mean, you know, Vivek Ramaswami is really there to to help Trump, to try to improve his brand, to maybe get in a spot in a Trump administration if he's not running to win. Chuck Warren: Right. Right. Sam Stone: With Haley in particular. And I think this truck is Chuck and Dan has plagued DeSantis also. We have just about two minutes before we come to the end of the program here. But has she done enough or have any of these people done enough to actually outline a positive future vision for America? It seems like it's kind of like set talking, stayed talking points and attacks on Trump and not much of a where's the Reagan, where's the hopeful positive future?  Dan McLaughlin: Yeah. And I mean, granted, you know, Reagan Reagan established himself as a tough guy before he got around to reminding people that he was also, you know, a genial and optimistic character. I mean, one of the things DeSantis certainly has done and I think that he can do more effectively than Haley, is to just say, you know what, I'm going to govern the way I've governed in Florida. Look at my record, which is sometimes a good predictor, right? I mean, George W Bush, for example, on domestic policy, his agenda in Washington was pretty much exactly what he did in Texas. But I think, you know, I'm not I don't think that DeSantis or Haley has really been ambitious enough in really laying out a full view of what their presidential agenda would be. But frankly, I think, you know, I think the voters I think the voters are at the point where they deserve to have a smaller debate stage where they. Can push the major candidates on that and they deserve to hear from Trump. Sam Stone: Yeah, I thought it made a lot of sense for Trump to skip the first debate, but I was bitterly disappointed in him skipping. Chuck Warren: He's not he's not joining he's not joining any of these debates ever. Dan, thanks a million for joining us again. Dan McLaughlin, senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute. You can visit him on Twitter at baseball crank and follow his writings. He does great stuff and really suggests you take a look at the piece on book banning and just the word banning being used by progressives and conservatives and so forth. Yeah, and. Sam Stone: Make sure you stay tuned, folks. We have a podcast segment coming up, if you like our podcast, if you like our show, make sure you're downloading that podcast. It's available wherever podcasts are available. You can also find us at Breaking Battlegrounds. Vote and stay tuned because we've got Kiley's corner coming up. The irrepressible Kiley Kipper, she found good news. Kiley Kipper: I did. I did. Chuck Warren: Dan, thanks a million. Have a great weekend. Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Sam Stone: All right. Welcome to the podcast segment of Breaking Battlegrounds. We're going to lead off with Kiley's Corner here in just a moment. And then, Chuck, I want to get to something that's happening here in Arizona. You sent me the article. I'd actually already read it this morning. Arizonans are soon going to be drinking their own pee. Chuck Warren: Yep, that's true. Yeah. Kiley, pick up your newspaper and read it every morning. You'll learn things. Kiley Kipper: This was not part of Kiley's corner. Chuck Warren: No, drinking your urine is not part of Kiley's corner. Kiley Kipper: But continue. Okay. Well, the first story I want to start with is I was in Seattle this weekend, and last week I had downloaded an app called the Citizens App, which I've had like a couple of years before, but I don't think it was like as developed as this is now. But you can pretty much see like all the crime that's going on around you and all the registered sex offenders and everything like that. So naturally, first of. Chuck Warren: All, why did you download it? Kiley Kipper: Because someone was telling me how you could see the the sex offenders that are around you because my mom just got a notice in the mail that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood. So I wanted in Arizona or Washington in Arizona. So I wanted to see if there was any that lived in my neighborhood. So was there. Yeah, there's one there's one from a crime in 1990. Um, so I, you know, got to keep my head on a swivel. So naturally, I open it up. Sam Stone: You know what? Look, honestly, if you committed a crime in 1990 and you've done nothing since, you're. Chuck Warren: Probably okay. Kiley Kipper: Well, that's a sexual crime. I don't know about the other crimes. Chuck Warren: That's true. That's true. Right. Don't generalize. All right. Go ahead Kiley. Kiley Kipper:  And it was on children, which. Sam Stone: Yeah, okay. Not. Kiley Kipper: No, but good. Sam Stone: I'm all for just castration, and then we can solve this problem. Kiley Kipper: Yeah. So I open up my app when I'm in Seattle, and I just want to read what was all within less than a mile from me that was occurring. Chuck Warren: And this was at a hotel, right? Yes. Kiley Kipper: So I was at a coffee shop technically, but it was like right downtown. Chuck Warren: But downtown Seattle. Yeah. Okay. Kiley Kipper: Right next to the baseball and football stadium. It says Person fighting security guard at Central Library Report of woman wielding a knife. Body found report of a man armed with a knife steals items from a shop and shoplifting suspect threatened to kill employees at the drugstore. Chuck Warren: You feel like the body found would get a little more detail? Kiley Kipper: Yeah. No, it just says police are responding to a report of a body found. Sam Stone: You know what, though? That's so in the age of fentanyl. Oh, yeah. The police reporting and responding to bodies found. I can tell you from talking to my cop friends here in Phoenix, it's every day. Chuck Warren: It's just a body from a drug or from a drug overdose. Sam Stone: Yeah, there's a body every day somewhere. Basically. Chuck Warren: You have to put that screenshot on. Kiley Kipper: Yeah, I will. But I just thought that was I was just I mean. Sam Stone: One of the things so, so one of the things I actually, I was reading another piece about Seattle and they were talking about the significant rise in ODS and they're going to start having like everybody in the city, they want to start carrying Narcan basically, right? Kiley Kipper: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sam Stone: And here's the thing. This did not this was not the case five years ago. These new drugs are totally different and they're trying to use these death tolls, whether it's here in Arizona for the heat issues, whether it's in Seattle. They're trying to get in any little litany of liberal policies out of this. But at the end of the day, I got to tell you, Chuck, I have a lot less sympathy for this issue than I used to in that there's resources, there's help available, there's ways to get off the street and get. I don't want it. No, they're not. They're choosing this lifestyle and this lifestyle ends in death because. Chuck Warren: And they don't want to change because they don't want to know. I mean, I mean, you know, some that is going to sound harsh to the audience, but there are people who literally just say, I don't want to. Sam Stone: All the time. Chuck Warren: Yeah. And and what do you do to force somebody saying, but we don't want you to die. Right. Right. We like you around. Sam Stone: Well, this is where and so interestingly for all the bagging on Trump, one of the things I appreciated when he was president was a lot of his policies actually worked. They were kind of common sense. A lot of them work. If you go and look at his current platform, one of his things on on this drug addiction is, look, we need ways to put people in treatment against their will. That is common sense. The left will lose their mind over the idea they have when we put it in Kari Lake's platform here, they have another. But at the end of the day, that's the only solution here to this problem other than just letting them die. Chuck Warren: Yeah, correct. Kiley Kipper: But a great lead way is we were asking about the sex offender that's in my neighborhood is the it was a child crime. So if you guys follow us on Facebook and Instagram or Twitter, you should if you don't. But I posted a poll this week because. Chuck Warren: I then I talked one morning. We want to see if people supported capital punishment for kidnapping a child that they don't know. It's not even a relative. Kiley Kipper: But I said so the question was, do you think kidnapping, abuse, touching a child in any inappropriate way? And I posted this on social media, Twitter. I got. 89% say, yes, they support the death penalty. 5.6 say no and 4.9 said undecided. And then on Facebook, 97% said yes and 3% said no. And as I was reading, because for the no, there was an option to say why. And on Twitter I got no depends or like I didn't get great explanations. But on Facebook they still lean in like no, he should suffer an entire life sentence. Why take him out of his misery or yes, life without parole? Most people, you know, stuff like that. Why are we taking him out of his misery? Make him stay there. So those were the knows where Twitter was. I had some people try to explain it to me. I said, okay, explain it. They want it. But I thought those numbers were. Chuck Warren: How many people replied to the poll? Kiley Kipper: A total of 490 between Facebook and Twitter. Chuck Warren: It's funny about explaining things on Twitter. I got Sam involved in a little discussion this week because, as you know, my big thing right now is this national debt. I think everything that is that is the hub. Everything else is spoke to the wheel, right? Sam Stone: Like, for instance, we were talking about Ukraine in the first segment with Thomas Grove and continuing to fund their operations. Right. Right. That's tied up in our debt discussion right now. That's tied up. If we did not have the national debt crisis, we have funding, Ukraine would be a nothingburger. Chuck Warren: So so Sam and I sometimes I respond to people and I especially do they have a Ukraine flag on it. Now, folks know I'm a conservative who does not think Russia should be in Ukraine. So I'm not going to back away from this belief. But we talk I put a comment on somebody saying we need to focus on the debt. Right. The national debt. And so this person goes and starts. He says we need to raise taxes on the rich and raise taxes, period, primarily on the rich, but we want to raise taxes. Sam Stone: He was very specific on the rich. He did not want middle classes because we. Chuck Warren: So then so I asked the follow up question, what would you cut? And they were they were just so minor and so dumb that immediately understood as all these people who I engaged with don't understand the crisis at all. Right. So, of course, Sam jumped on Shea, jumped on the guy. Sam Stone: So he ran into a more intellectual set of Republicans than he was planning. Chuck Warren: But my favorite thing of it was he was going to cut defense as he has a Ukrainian flag and his profile. And does he not understand where that money's coming from? Kiley Kipper: Wanted to cut it in half. Chuck Warren: So it's like these. Kiley Kipper: More than half. Yeah. Chuck Warren: It's like. So I like to ask these questions to see where people are and the lack of knowledge on the most basic fundamental issues facing our country is horrifying. Sam Stone: Oh, it's amazing to you know, he actually brought up something new or that I haven't seen in a while, which was Right. We need to get rid of sugar subsidies. Well, there's no such thing. We have price supports. Right. So so we set minimum prices and then we tax sugar coming into the US. Chuck Warren: And the sugar subsidies are a big deal for liberals because it goes to climate change, right? So what they want to do is get rid of the sugar down in Florida. So when you talk to the people opposed to sugar harvesting down in Florida, where do we get sugar? We'll go from Mexico. Well, don't they have the same problems? Well, yeah, but it's a Mexico. They literally don't care. Sam Stone: No, this is this is a trope. And then he pointed out oil, which, by the way, folks, oil is not subsidized by the federal government. No. Chuck Warren: He just wasn't bright. Sam Stone:  No. You know, but but this is a bigger point when it comes to oil, like liberals all the time use. Oh, there's $30 Billion in oil subsidies. You know what subsidies they're pointing to? They're pointing to the same business tax deduction as everybody else. So, like, if I spend $1 million in improving my business and buying equipment, it's a write off. What's a write off for the oil company, too? But there's no difference. But somehow they think this is like handing away the cookie jar and then they think they can tax the rich. The taxing the rich is literally a swimming pool and they're demanding an ocean. Chuck Warren: Yeah, 100%. Kiley Kipper: Yeah. He was a no on my poll as well, he commented. He doesn't follow us, but he's sure. Chuck Warren: We've engaged him. He's a follower. I hope he's downloaded. Yeah. Sam Stone: He's got us listed somewhere. Kiley Kipper: He does. Okay. But I want to talk about this Tupac stuff. Okay. Arrest because he's been. Chuck Warren: Dead since the 90s, correct? Kiley Kipper: 1996, Maybe I yeah, maybe I was two years old, so I never like super got into the Tupac like conspiracies, which surprises me. Oh, no, I was. Sam Stone: I was. I was exactly. Chuck Warren: That. It is a true it's a conspiracy like Elvis being alive and living in Mexico. Kiley Kipper: Yeah, it is. Yes. Yes. But they made an arrest last Friday. And as they described it in a long awaited breakthrough in one of the hip hop's most enduring mysteries. So they arrest Keef D and he was a gang leader, but they don't believe he was the actual one that made the shot. Oh, they describe him as he was the ringleader. So he ordered the shot and provided the gun. Chuck Warren: He did the planning. Kiley Kipper: Yes. Which. So I'm going to go back to the long awaited arrest breakthrough in 1998. So a year later, two years later, he doesn't interview, telling a cable channel that he was in the front seat driving the car and he slid the gun into the back seat, of which that's where the shots were fired that killed Tupac. So he didn't Tupac didn't die immediately. He died a week later in the hospital. But. Then he goes on and he releases a memoir a couple of years ago, 2019, a tell all memoir, where he, again admits to these interviews, says he was the one that provided the gun. It was a drive by shooting and basically talks about what happens. So if he hadn't made so he's been talking about it publicly for a while now. So to me, I'm like, where is this mystery up? Because the dude's been talking about it. Sam Stone: But investigators apparently were sitting on it, right? Like letting him incriminate himself further. Kiley Kipper: Yes. So they basically said Davis's own public comments revived the investigation and he and it proved that it was premeditated. So that's what they were trying to prove. That was premeditated, that it was planned. Yeah, because prior to Tupac being shot, he had beat up Davis's nephew. Chuck Warren: But he was shot in a car right. Sam Stone:  No, he was leaving a casino. So he was. Kiley Kipper: Shot in a carjacking? Chuck Warren: No, no. He was shot in a. Sam Stone: Car outside the vehicle when he was shot? No, he was in it. No, no, no. I remember that from the time the photos and all that kind of thing. He was outside. Kiley Kipper: So how everyone's describing it right now, he was shot in a car. Is he was in a black BMW being driven by his record producer. And he was also hit with one of the shots but didn't die. And now he's serving 50 years in jail. This is all gang, by the way, like two gangs, Right? Sam Stone: Right, right. This is a Bloods and Crips rivalry that goes back. Kiley Kipper: So then they say that the white Cadillac, which had four people in it, Davis being the driver or at least described as in the front seat, he and the two people in the back seat shot Tupac in a BMW, a black BMW. That's all I keep finding. So but he's claiming now that he made a deal with La PD that he could make these comments publicly, which is why he's been so public about it and that they couldn't incriminate him because they wanted more information on it. Chuck Warren: I think there was a movie on it this past year. Kiley Kipper: It was 2019. Sam Stone: It was, yeah, a major motion picture. Kiley Kipper: Oh, yeah, yeah. Chuck Warren: No, I mean, it wasn't even an independent. Sam Stone: Documentary type thing. Like. Chuck Warren: Like real actors, you know? Yeah. Sorry for all you struggling actors out there, but people who make a living acting. But yeah. Sam Stone: So that's really it's kind of one of the really interesting thing, not about the origins of rap, which were not really truly gangster. Yeah. But in the 90s there was this breed of actual gangster under Suge Knight and all those folks that really invaded the industry. And that's where this all came with. Kiley Kipper: Because as I'm reading this, they all have the nicknames, the rap names that I, I've never even heard of them before. But when you. Chuck Warren: Get your rap name. Kiley Kipper: K Swizzle. Chuck Warren: Put up on, let's put up on our social media. The survey Is Tupac still alive? And if so, where is he living? All right, all right, all right. Kiley Kipper: So maybe so. Okay, I guess. You saying you remember that he was walking out and it was outside and then now all these reports of them saying he was in a car? Chuck Warren: I've always I've always heard I've always read and heard he was in a car. I mean, I wasn't there. So I don't know. Sam Stone: He was he was going into his car. So the car was pulled out. They watched him walk out and and shot. Kiley Kipper: Him because this was right after he had just beat. Chuck Warren: Up working. He had Sam assignment for next week for you to find the actual documentation. Was he walking in or out of a car? Was he shot in a car? Was driving? Because I think everybody who somewhat knows about this believes he was shot in a car drive by a show. So I'll find out. Sam Stone: But one of the interesting things so I didn't know that he hung on for a week because they announced if I remember, they announced at that time that he had died on the scene. Now, that might have been to protect him, right. Thinking that, you know, a follow up hit would come through so he. Kiley Kipper: Could get away and go live in. Sam Stone: So he could get away and go live in Antigua. Chuck Warren: Yeah, exactly. So. Sam Stone: And drop 75 new albums. Yeah. Chuck Warren: This is fantastic. I want to talk to you about this one last subject. So you probably get it too. I'm pretty stringent when people try to follow me on Twitter. Like you get a lot of these bots. So for example, if you have below 50 followers, I just I block you. I don't want you on. I don't care if you're on my side or not, but I had this person try to jump on Mary DeMaria. She had 2700 following 44 followers. So I go and quickly look at who they are. And I don't mind Democrats. I just don't want insane people. Her first post that I pull up anthropological literature frequently refers to third gender Native Americans. Sam Stone: But blocked. Chuck Warren: Marianne's blocked. Right. I'm just done with her. Really. But that brings me to a case here. The Free Press had a little snippet here that Larry Sanger, the creator of Wikipedia, went on Unheard podcast to slam the website he made. Sanger talked about how Wikipedia had been taken over by a small group of ideological aligned editors who assert their worldview over each entry. Quote, Eastern medicine is basically called quackery in dismissive, quite judgmental language and so forth is done, apparently without any compunctions at all. Then when it comes to Christianity, the viewpoint on Christianity given is the liberal one that would be found in mainline denominations and liberal Catholicism as opposed to the actual by Bible believing fundamentalism. And he goes on and on on. He's right. So, you know, we've talked about Sam's heard me. There's three pillars conservatives have just blown it on public schools, which you can easily take over by winning school boards. That's a that's a two for 2 to 3 cycle. Sam Stone: Thing that and governors. Chuck Warren: Right. But but. Sam Stone: But. Chuck Warren: But still but still school board school boards are a big deal. I mean, especially like state like Arizona and so forth. You should have the school boards, Right. Sam Stone: The one difference, though, is the governor can affect the schools of education in the university. Very true. Chuck Warren: Very true. So that brings me up. The second one is universities. We have just simply what you have is a lot of conservative donors, small business guys who love it. For example, ASU has got a lot of people who went there who have made money there, moderate to conservative. And I've seen it because I give a lot of money. I sit on these committees and they just go and they give money and say, Well, I'm gonna put my secretary on there or something. And they're not representing their values and donors have got to get more, you know, that would be a harder change. But you can start dictating what your money is doing. Well, liberal donors do. Sam Stone: Right? They are very, very specific. Chuck Warren: No, they go through it. They make it their own. And the third one is the third one is journalism. So, you know, they've gone and have a whole industry of putting these young progressives on papers. And what has to happen is conservatives need to do this. But it's not it's not that they just go to like The Daily Caller, National Review. They have to go work at The Arizona Republic, the Provo Daily Herald, The Colorado Springs Gazette, because that's where your news comes from a lot of times and people don't get that. And then the fourth thing is this social media online trolling thing like I'm ever going to accept. I mean, once you start telling me anthropological literature talks about, you know, the. Have a third gender. You're smoking crack. Yeah. Sam Stone: Yeah. No, you are in the service. Chuck Warren: Can really get involved. I mean, I think you can make the quickest change in public schools. And more than people realize. Sam's right about the universities, but the school boards do a lot. Sam Stone: Yeah, school boards do the two things. I mean, look, school boards can do a lot, but you're you're drinking from a poisoned well on two fronts because the teachers are getting from the various education schools are being trained for to be highly liberal. But also the textbooks. Yeah, that's a big textbooks are a big problem. There's basically only three textbook companies that provide the textbooks, and the left made a concerted effort to take them over for their ideology. They've been they've. Chuck Warren: Been smart about it. They've been smart about it. Kiley Kipper: I have one more story. Chuck Warren: Oh, okay. Kiley Kipper: A feel good story. So I can end on a happy note. Chuck Warren: Going to end on a happy note here. Kiley Kipper: Who knew? After listening to last week's episode in the week before, I was like, Man, I'm a Debbie Downer sometimes. So my feel good story. After reading this story, I was like, okay, now I have a new item on my bucket list, so I thought I'd share it with you guys. It's um, so every August and September it's called Puffling season in Iceland. Puffling season Puffling. Yeah, Puffin. So if you don't know. Heard of this? If you don't know what a puffin is, it kind of looks like a penguin. Okay? But basically they hatch on top of a hill and how they get how they live their life is once they hatch, they go into the out to sea and then they live there for like 2 to 3 years. And then they come back and they then they're safe for babies. Sam Stone: Because they're flightless. Kiley Kipper: But because they're flightless. Yes. Yeah. But because the lights in Iceland started confusing them because they would find the ocean by the moonlight. But all the lights from the city are confusing to them. So they'll fly into the city on accident instead of flying out to sea. So they have puffling control patrol where they run around like little families run around. And when you're on puffling patrol, you run around in any puffling you find you take them to a vet to make sure that they can survive before you just throw them off a cliff. But then you take them to the top of a cliff and you throw them off the cliff and then they fly into the sea and you basically save their life. Chuck Warren: Why aren't we doing this? Kiley Kipper: I know. Chuck Warren: I mean, Kiley and I want a baby elephant. Are we going to get a puffling now, too? Kiley Kipper: Yeah. Sam Stone: I saw I saw a network piece on this that was so fantastic. So they're interviewing and it's like it's almost all women that are rounding up the pufflings and tossing them. Chuck Warren: Then count me in there. Sam Stone: And so, yeah, so here's the great part, though. They interview some guy who does it, you know, they see him doing it and they're like, Hey, you're one of the few guys. And he was like, I'm single. Why do you think I'm here? Kiley Kipper: But it's so important. The guy. Chuck Warren: That takes a dog to the park, it's so. Kiley Kipper: Important because they only mate with one puffin the entire their entire life. They're monogamous and they only lay one egg a year. So, like, if they die or if they don't make it out to sea and come back, then they are they could go in danger. Sam Stone: A huge percentage get eaten out at sea anyway. I mean, really. Chuck Warren: Find some clips on that on YouTube and let's post on our social media so we know a puffin is. Kiley Kipper: Yeah they're so cute. Westman Islands is the the most populated one so that's I think where I have to go. Chuck Warren: Who is, who is the natural critter critter that tries to harm them and eat them. Sam Stone: Everything. Kiley Kipper: Probably like meat. Yeah. Anything out in the water. Chuck Warren: That's a tough they're. Kiley Kipper: Not great at. Sam Stone: Raptors, you know what I mean? Chuck Warren: Like that's a tough lie. Kiley Kipper: They're like basically penguins, so they're not great at flying. Like they got a short, but like, you can just throw them like a football. Chuck Warren: They said, Are they as cute as penguins? Kiley Kipper: Oh, yeah. They're might they might be cuter. They have like these big old colorful beaks. Chuck Warren: Why aren't we talking about puffins more? Kiley Kipper: I know what's. Chuck Warren: Going on here. Well, this is a wonderful Kiley Kipper Kiley's corner today to end it on. I appreciate it. Kiley Kipper: You have a big smile on your face. Well, I do now. Chuck Warren: I know there's a puffling out there. Anyway, folks, thank you. We hope you'll go and share the podcast with your friends and family and co-workers. Our episode today is fantastic, especially if you want to learn about Ukraine. I thought the information there was fantastic. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can also find us at breaking battlegrounds dot vote or wherever you get your podcasts. Have a great week. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to this week's episode of Breaking Battlegrounds! First on the show is Congressman Alex Mooney, Representative from West Virginia's 2nd Congressional District. He'll be diving into pressing topics such as federal spending, the looming specter of a government shutdown, and the pivotal Senate race in West Virginia. Stay tuned as we unravel why this race carries not just statewide significance but also national importance. In our second segment, we welcome back friend of the show, Alexander Raikin. With a focus on medical ethics and a keen eye for statistics, Alexander delves into his latest research, featured in the National Review, titled 'The End of Medicine: How death care replaced health care.' He exposes the proliferation of euthanasia within healthcare facilities in Australia and Canada with reports of silencing whistleblowers, inappropriate discussions about sedating a patient into euthanasia, and the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) to vulnerable populations, including the homeless and children, particularly Indigenous children. Our final guest of the show is Ken LaCorte where he joins to discuss Lachlan Murdoch, soon to be the new chairman of Fox News. Stay tuned for Kiley’s Corner, where Kiley Kipper serves up the week's most intriguing stories. In this episode, Kiley delves into the recent controversy surrounding Dave Portnoy, the President of Barstool Sports, who exposed a Washington Post food critic's eyebrow-raising practices. Uncovering the critic's efforts to engage sponsors by making claims of misogyny and racism, Kiley discusses the implications for journalistic integrity and ethics. She also dives into the gripping Karen Read murder case, where Read faces charges of murdering her Boston police officer boyfriend, all while asserting her innocence amidst allegations of framing. - ABOUT OUR GUESTS Congressman Alex X. Mooney and his wife, Dr. Grace Mooney, live in Charles Town in Jefferson County with their three children. The son of a Cuban refugee and Vietnam veteran, Alex grew up with a deep sense of appreciation for the American ideals of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Alex’s mother, Lala (Suarez) Mooney, was born and raised in Fidel Castro’s Cuba, where she was thrown into jail for seven weeks for opposing Castro’s communist regime. When she was 20, Lala escaped Cuba and fled to America to restart her life. Alex’s father, Vincent, was sent to Vietnam when Lala was expecting their first child. He served as an Engineering Captain and was awarded the Bronze Star. Listening to his parents’ inspiring stories, Alex knew from a young age that he wanted to spend his life fighting for the American ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers. Alex played football and rugby at Dartmouth College, where he graduated in 1993 with a major in Philosophy. Alex was first elected to Congress in 2014 and re-elected in 2016 and 2018. He is a principled conservative fighting for lower taxes and less government regulations on businesses to create more jobs in America. Alex believes in the American values of hard work, faith, and freedom that have made our country great. With a proven record of fighting for conservative values, Alex is working to defend traditional values, protect the Second Amendment and promote respect for all human life. Congressman Mooney serves on the House Financial Services Committee which oversees some of the most important economic issues facing West Virginia, such as our banking, insurance, housing and investment policies. - Alexander Raikin is a freelance journalist and a writer interested in medical ethics and bad statistics. His writings have been published in City Journal and The New Atlantis. Alexander is also a research fellow with Do No Harm. He can be found on Twitter at @AlexanderRaikin  - Ken LaCorte is Host of Elephants In Rooms and Former Fox News behind-the-scenes. He writes on Substack about censorship, media manipulation, and honest insight for people curious about how the world works. - TRANSCRIPTION Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. As always, we have a couple of great interviews lined up for you today. We are leading off the program with Congressman Alex Mooney of West Virginia's second Congressional District. Congressman Mooney and his wife, Dr. Grace Mooney, live in Charles Town in Jefferson County with their three children. He is the son of a Cuban refugee and a Vietnam veteran and grew up with a deep sense of appreciation for American ideals of individual freedom and personal responsibility. And right now, Chuck, he is getting out on the campaign trail, looking at the Senate seat in West Virginia and taking on Joe Manchin. Chuck Warren: It's unbelievable. Congressman, thank you for joining us on the show. Ken Lacourt: Hey, man, great to be with you guys. Chuck Warren: So you're running for us Senate. You've been out on the campaign trail. What are what are voters most interested in versus what the media wants us to think they're interested in? Ken Lacourt: Well, the voters are most interested in keeping their freedoms, not being controlled by their government, being censored or frankly, being even jailed by their government just for being patriotic Americans. That's what I'm hearing. And they want people who do what they say they would do. My good friend, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, who, by the way, has endorsed me for my Senate race, he wrote a whole book. It just said, Do what you say you would do. Said you would do just the whole book. Just do it. And people get really upset because they elect oftentimes conservatives and conservatives don't don't follow through. Repeal Obamacare, for example, cut taxes and rein in this two tier system of justice that we're seeing these days. So that's what I'm hearing. They want a fighter and that's what I'm going to give them. Sam Stone: Congressman, I love that you made that point because one of the things I've been saying for a while now is Democrats run center and then govern left, Republicans run right and have not made not fulfilled those commitments. A lot of them have moved to govern center. And I think that's created a lot of the distrust and division within the party right now. Is that specific dynamic? Ken Lacourt: Yeah, I mean, it's a willingness to fight. It has created that. There are some Republicans you just give up. They get down there. The Democrats fight real hard. I mean, the Senate will filibuster and shut down government, then try to blame Republicans for what the Democrats are doing. And it is a fight. I mean, we have to go on shows like this and other shows and explain to the American people the truth. They're not. The American people will get it, but they have to be told the truth. And frankly, too much of the mainstream media that report on this stuff obsessively do not report the actual facts of what's happening. They're almost like mouthpieces for the far left. And so you've got to you got to work a little extra hard for us conservatives to tell our constituents what's actually happening. So it's a it's a worthy fight. As you mentioned, my mother fled a communist country. And those countries, they declare people guilty until proven innocent. And the government censors what can be said. And we're fighting for that here. And you mentioned, you know, I'm running for Joe Manchin seat. Senator Joe Manchin voted to impeach Donald Trump twice, throw him out of office for nothing for a phone call to the Ukraine to make sure our money is being spent correctly. So, frankly, he's part of the problem. Chuck Warren: With Congressman Alex Mooney. He is serving West Virginia's second District. For those of you in West Virginia, you can catch him on the station, 1170 a m in Wheeling, West Virginia. Congressman, so as you've gone around, you've done these meetings and we want to go here to the possible shutdown in a minute. But as you go around and you meet with donors in West Virginia versus town halls in West Virginia, is there any difference of what the priorities are, what they supposedly think of the donor class in West Virginia versus your small business, your people going to town halls? Is there any difference? They both see the same problems. Ken Lacourt: Oh, honestly, I'm hearing the same problems now. Most of the donors I'm talking to are conservatives. They wouldn't be donating to me to begin with. Right. And when I when I tour businesses, a lot of the businesses are related to oil and gas. Coal here and small business people are the backbone of our economy and they're struggling under the weight of high taxation lawsuits. And frankly, the most harmful is just these regulations, these well, well written in the cleverly written, I should say, regulations that just make it hard to make money and the wokeness into the banking system where they want to bank gun stores or coal companies. I mean, the left is really obsessed with pushing these things. And I don't think a lot of Republicans understand that, that we really have to fight back. They're not going to go away easy. Chuck Warren: No, they're not. And yeah, as a matter of fact, the you're on the financial committee. What they're doing on the banking system is just it's like a dictator. It's unbelievable what they're doing to the financial institutions of this country. Ken Lacourt: Yeah. I mean, they shouldn't even have a right to ask. They're just asking how much of your money goes to green new energy? How much of your money goes to coal? Do you bank guns? And it's freaking everybody out. Like, why are they even asking the question? There is no government mandate as to how much money private investors can give the energy sector for coal, oil and gas. There's no there's no requirement that they only invest a certain amount or have to give to green energy. That's not a mandate that they're trying to push it and they're abusing their powers. President Biden tried to tried to forgive everybody's entire college loan debt in the whole country, trillion dollars. Sam Stone: Well, in the downtown. Ken Lacourt: You can do whatever he wants. Sam Stone: The downstream of that is d. Banking of unfavored individuals, businesses and institutions. Ken Lacourt: Exactly. You know, you know, these policies have the opposite effect. They actually make it harder for someone who needs a loan for a home or a small business to get one because the regulations take away the money. Chuck Warren: Congressman Mooney, we're looking at a possible government shutdown. Would you first explain before we get into the weeds on what's going on in DC? I understand Speaker McCarthy has sent everybody home for the weekend to take a deep breath and they told to be on alert, to be called back. And I want to talk about that. But what I want to ask is if the government shuts down, what does this mean for the taxpayers of West Virginia? The small business owner, for the taxpayers of this country? Is America falling apart? Then? Do dogs and cats start raining or is it just overblown by the press? Ken Lacourt: Well, first and foremost, most of the money coming out of DC is mandatory. So programs, Social Security that is not affected by a government shutdown, that's an automatic program. The checks go out every month. So any scare tactics you might hear about people not getting their Social Security benefits is just not true. Social Security checks go out and Medicare and Medicaid are still programs that continue to exist because they're they're not something we vote on in the regular budgets. Then I mean, the way it's supposed to, the way we do it is we would fund one agency at a time. Don't mix them all together. Do you deal with one topic at a time? Single subject is a way to say it, and most of the funding is frankly the military to fund our troops, their pays and their activities. That's the big one. That's the one we're working on this week and we've not gotten it through yet. I did vote for that one, of course, and we're just a couple of votes away from passing that. But that's the biggest one. That's most of the spending. Then it goes to transportation and health care. And at some point you'll get to, like the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, which frankly, if that shut down, it wouldn't be the worst thing. Sam Stone: I one of the things that I think the media, certainly The New York Times, Washington Post style media would like to forget is that a lot of the speaker's battle, the leadership battle, centered on return to regular order and handling these bills individually rather than as omnibus or continuing resolutions. And even the Democrats at that time were saying, well, that sounds like a good idea. Why? Why are we so behind, it seems, in this process? Ken Lacourt: Gosh, I mean, there's no excuse for it. We've had eight months to pass these bills. We have a very slim majority. There's 222 Republicans. So if five Republicans don't want to vote for the bill, you have a problem. And those could be people who have certain specific concerns or cuts. Too much doesn't cut enough. We have a very slim majority. We've known that all along. We saw the speaker's battle. It took a really long time to put Kevin McCarthy in there as speaker. And I think that sort of showed our Republican majority are slim Republican majority, how we could get things done, how we need to actually just have a conservative product is what it is. If it's a good conservative product, I think it would pass. And we only 1 or 2 votes short at this point for passing it. So I guess we could have stayed. I would I would have been for staying in continuing to vote if we work it out. But we have this deadline and we've had eight months to get there. We've known it's there. I've seen this over and over again. This is my ninth year in Congress. And this is this happens like every year. You wait till the last second. And it's a bad tendency. We need to get back to what you just said, regular order. We're supposed to have this all done by June and over to the Senate and you negotiate it. I'll tell you, the Senate is Democrat and the things that we want to do in our bills like ban transgender surgeries in the military, ban taxpayer funding of abortion, the things that we want to do. The Senate doesn't want to do that. So there's going to be some differences there. Sam Stone: Yeah, there's a reality that Republicans need to win these seats to have our way. Otherwise, you are in a position, you're required to compromise and come up with something that everyone can agree on. Ken Lacourt: Right? Right. But what I've seen is if you go to this continuing resolution idea where you just you put all the money in there and you try to add a couple a couple of things. I think one of the proposals said border security. I'm all for border security, but that doesn't stop the wokeness in the banks. It doesn't stop the transgender surgeries. It doesn't stop the war on coal and the war on oil and gas in my state. So we really just do it all. We should do it. All of it. At least pass it in the House, see what the Senate will do. I mean, the Senate, these things require 60 votes in the Senate because either party can filibuster, can can require a cloture motion and require a filibuster. So you have the Senate. It has to be more bipartisan. And that's tough. That's really tough for the Senate. I mean, it's tough on us for us. And we have a majority here. We don't have the filibuster. We can just pass it with a majority vote. They require a supermajority of 60 votes. So it actually is you know, what normally happens, sadly, is 10 or 12 Republicans vote with all the Democrats for a more liberal product for more spending. But then we should still go that go to conference committee. They need to teach us in fifth grade. Then you go to conference committee and you reconcile the differences there. And yeah, there's some give and take, but it's all too all too often we just give up on the whole thing. We pass what's called this continuing resolution so there's no checks and balances on the money. The two tiered justice system continues. No border. I mean, we just give up. Basically, we're giving up. And that really upsets the voters. That's your first question. Yeah. The voters want to see us actually do something. Chuck Warren: We're with Congressman Mooney from West Virginia. Congressman, we got a couple of minutes left here to our next segment. And when you come back on that next segment, we want to talk about your mother's story about Fidel Castro, Cuba, and how she was thrown in prison. I think voters would like to hear that and how it affects you. You played football and rugby at Dartmouth College. Which would you prefer and which do you still watch? Ken Lacourt: Rugby? I prefer rugby. Do you really was my dream sport. I did, yeah. Well you know in football is offensive line so most I'm just blocking people right when I switched to rugby you get to run the ball. Everybody, all 15 players get to run the ball. You're like a running back, which I always wanted to be a running back and they wouldn't let me do it. And on the football team. And then when you're not running the ball, guess what? You're tackling the guy running the ball. So you're like a middle linebacker at that point. I mean, that's a dream, your middle line. And those are the two positions I always wanted to play Big guys, probably true of most football players. You want to be a quarterback running back at least to wide receiver, right? Chuck Warren: Right. Ken Lacourt: It's every every lineman's dream. Chuck Warren: Yeah. What was your what was your nickname? What was your nickname on the rugby team? Did you have a nickname? Well. Ken Lacourt: Well, what did they call me? They only played football my freshman year. They called me Mooney in the bank instead of money in the bank? Mooney In the bank. It was nice. It was complimentary. Oh, God. They called me Moondog. All sorts of things. Chuck Warren: On the football. That's great. Ken Lacourt: On the rugby team, we at Dartmouth College had a very active rugby team and we were we were we often were Ivy League champions. We were ten. And over my senior year, I mean, we took it we took it real seriously up at Dartmouth. Chuck Warren: All right. Sam Stone: Love it. Congressman, We're going to be coming back with more in just a moment with Congressman Alex Mooney of West Virginia. Folks, stay tuned. We've got a great second guest coming up today. Alexander Rankin talking about Canada's medical euthanasia program. Stay tuned. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making dream Homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. We're going to be continuing on with Congressman Alex Mooney of West Virginia's second Congressional District here in just a moment. But folks, how are you feeling about your portfolio right now? Stock market's been going up and down with Joe Biden's economy. You just cannot trust it if you are looking for a fantastic opportunity to earn a great return on your money. A fixed rate of return up to 10.25%, you need to call our friends at refy and talk to them about the fantastic opportunities they offer. Go to invest. Y refy.com that's invest the letter. Why then refy.com or give them a call at 888 yrefy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Chuck Warren: So, Congressman, you have a you know, all families have stories, have narratives. Your mother is a Lala. Is that how you pronounce it? Lala, Lala, Lala. Yeah. She was born and raised in Fidel's Castro, Cuba, and she was thrown in jail for seven weeks for opposing Castro's communist regime. What was she doing? Her opposition. How did she get thrown in jail? How has this influenced your view of those seeking asylum, say, for those from Venezuela right now? And how has it affected your view of national security? Ken Lacourt: Yeah. Yeah. So she actually wrote a book about it a couple of years ago. Oh, wow. "My story". Yeah. Lala Money. You can look it up. And the first chapter of that book talks about how when the Bay of Pigs invasion was coming up, the chance to free Cuba from the communist regime and it failed because John F Kennedy canceled the air support anyway, that was coming up. So the communists started putting in jail. Everybody they suspected, right? No. No rights, no hearing, no trial, no chance to defend yourself. You just went to jail if you were even suspected of not being a communist supporter who might sympathize with the freedom from communism and not side with Castro. So they put her her siblings, her, her father all in jail. It was seven weeks long. Unfortunately, the Bay of Pigs invasion didn't did fail. And so, of course, they let people out. And, you know, they wanted to frankly, they let people leave for a period of time. So fortunately, my mother and her brothers and sisters, she's one of 14 children. So her brothers and sisters and parents all got to leave. And then, of course, everybody kept leaving. So then they lock you in. That's the way communists are. They lock you in. People want to come to our country in communist countries, they won't let you leave. You know, it's the opposite issue. But she came here legally because she was a political political refugee. Ken Lacourt: So she came here legally. And the immigrants that come here. The rule of law is important. They come here because of the rule of law, because the Constitution applies to everybody the same, regardless of when you came, what race you are, anything. It's the rule of law. And my mother is a big believer in that. She's a big believer in political participation. She's 82 years old, lives near near me here, a couple of miles away in Charlestown, West Virginia. Very blessed to have her here. She loves the political process. She would never run, but she's she did raise us to believe in participating in elections because she saw what's happened. She saw firsthand what happens when the bad guys take over. They lock you down, man. These Covid lockdowns that were going on, waiving our rights, emergency powers being abused, you know, people being forced to vaccinate or wear masks. Man, that is that is totalitarianism. That's the type of stuff we do not believe in and cannot get to that point. So that's who raised me. My father passed away many years ago. He did fight in Vietnam. He was an army captain behind the advance of Vietnam, the advance of the communism in Vietnam. And he was proud of doing that. But now I feel that the good Lord has called me to fight within this country, those same types of policies, frankly. Chuck Warren: Well, that's that's a fantastic story. And I'm sure you're proud of your mother and your your kids are as well. Sam Stone: And we're going to actually get the link to that book and put it up on our Twitter and our social media. So people want to check that out. They they can get Lola Mooney's book. Chuck Warren: So, Congressman Mooney, thinking about your mother's story, if I'm a cynic, which I sometimes in and I'm on a comedian show, I would say your mother would be in prison and would put her hands on Joe Biden's face and say, Joey, let me tell you how bad communism is. I mean, that's the way Joe Biden would tell if it happened to his family. Right, Right, right. Tell us tell us about the impeachment inquiry. What should people know about it? Yeah. Ken Lacourt: I was livid when when Adam Schiff had his secret little star chamber down there and was deposing witnesses in secret without Trump or his attorneys able to even be present, selectively leaking information. I was so upset, I said, this is what the communists do. This is actually what they do. So you may recall I helped lead a group of about 60 congressmen who went into the skiff at one point. We just walked in there, even though they told us we weren't allowed in and we occupied it for the entire day. That got so much media. See, that's the type of fighting back I'm talking about. That's why I'm running for the US Senate because I am a fighter and I think West Virginia is deserve a conservative US senator. I'm the only one running and I'm a fighter. And I walked in there. We shut that thing down. We got so much attention. I did. I did media for basically the next day to explain why it was so important we had to go in there even though they told us not to, and it got so much attention. Then they moved the impeachment trial to the for the whole country to see and the full Judiciary Committee and the country turned against it because it was so unfair. But we had a fight. We had a fight. We couldn't just sit there and let them keep abusing their powers. And that's the way I was raised. I was raised to fight because if we don't fight those little battles, it gets worse and worse. Frankly, you're seeing it now because the Democrats want to shut down the government and blame Republicans and create a two tier system of justice right here under our nose. Chuck Warren: Yes, they do. Sam Stone: Yeah. How much has your mother talked at all about seeing any parallels in what Democrats are trying to do here now versus what she experienced when Fidel came to power? Ken Lacourt: Absolutely. Yeah. The parallels are everywhere. And it's not just that. I mean, that's the two tier system of justice, but even things like we're a family of faith. Faith is very important to us, our religion. We believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in the Bible and for people of faith, even that even that's in jeopardy. Now, if you don't want to I don't know you don't want to participate in a transgender surgery. The Democrats want to get you fired. People, you know, you don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. They want to shut down your business. Yeah. So. Sam Stone: Congressman, I look at like what's going on in some of these other countries, too, like Canada, New Zealand and some of these others that have gone further. And, you know, I was just reading a piece and we're going to be talking about it a little bit with our next guest. But but Canada actually went in and just government took over a Catholic hospital because it was Catholic and they didn't want to allow that. I mean, that we're not that far from that here, are we? Ken Lacourt: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, one of one of the scarier things that happened two years ago when the Democrats had total control, they actually removed the historical religious freedom protections that were in all the spending bills used to be any money given to a hospital. It was a standard language that you're sincerely held. Religious beliefs can never be violated. That was just a standard actually passed in 1990s. Bill Clinton signed it. Chuck Schumer supported it. They started taking those out. They literally were subjugating faith to government, which had never been done in this country before. We always had said, your faith comes first. And they want to they want to subjugate that. It is scary. And that's what they'll do if we give them total control. And that's why the House of Representatives that's now Republican. That's why I'm running for the Senate. We're one seat away from taking the US Senate over, you know, getting those like Joe Manchin didn't vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett. But he did vote to confirm. Jackson Brown, the most radical one we've ever put on there. So it does matter who we put on these courts, and that's the job of the US Senate. And I'm the only you know, I'll vote for conservatives, not liberals. Sam Stone: We need more conservative fighters. Congressman, thank you so much. We really appreciate your service. We've got just about one minute left here. How do folks get behind you and support you and your campaign and stay on top of the work you're doing? Ken Lacourt: So thanks. My is Mooney, my last name M-o-o-n-e-y Mooney for F or WV, West Virginia Mooney forwv.com. And we run a grassroots campaign. Please sign up there. We'll door knock phone bank, get some yard signs out, have some rallies, Please sign up Mooney for WV. You can donate through there as well. And we appreciate whatever help you can give us. We are going to take this message right to the voters. Sam Stone: And folks, if you're out there thinking, hey, that's not my state, maybe you're in California where we're on the air, maybe you're in one of the other markets where we're on the air and you're not going to have a Republican opportunity to put a Republican in the Senate. You can phone bank for these guys. You can contribute as a volunteer for these folks like Alex Mooney, who are going to be our conservative fighters. Congressman Mooney, thank you so much for joining us today. We look forward to having you back again in the future. All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren and Sam Stone. Coming up next, friend of the program, Alexander Raikin coming back on. He is a freelance writer interested in medical ethics and bad statistics. And unfortunately, Chuck, medical ethics are in decline and bad statistics are increasing like crazy. And he's joining us today to discuss his continued research into assisted suicide with his newest piece in the National Review, The End of Medicine How Death Care Replaced Health Care. Alex, I would say I love having you on this program to talk about this stuff because you were like the only one doing this. I wish we didn't have to have you on this program to talk about it because it wasn't happening. But it is some of the stuff you reported. I was hot under the collar yesterday, so he called me. Chuck Warren: I was in a meeting and he was off the hook. Sam Stone: I mean, let's just start with the fact that someone in Canada can call a suicide hotline. Alex They can call a suicide hotline and be offered assisted suicide instead of help. How is that even? Alex Raikin: It is much more. It is much more frugal. Chuck Warren: Yes, it is. Yeah, it is. Alex Raikin: It's really hard to believe just how quickly all of this has escalated. I mean, we're talking about a practice that was illegal in 2015. And now again, the people who are most impacted by this are not physicians. They're not the hospitals. So imagine if you are a physician in Canada right now and you see what your colleagues are doing right, or you're working in a hospital where you know that euthanasia is being provided to people who otherwise would get better if they actually had proper health care. Right. But the people who are most impacted by this are exactly what you say, Right? There are people with disabilities, people with serious illnesses who are trying to get medical care and they're being denied. Right. Long wait times in Canada have continued to get worse at the same time as you have this massive normalization of death care. Sam Stone: Yeah. Astoundingly, I mean, you you documented the first case of physicians in Canada, and apparently this has happened previously in the Netherlands as well, talking very flippantly about sedating a patient in order to prevent the patient from resisting. This made assisted suicide program. Chuck Warren: Can you imagine someone saying no in a let's use me too, as an example. Someone saying no, say, well, I'm just going to sedate you. It's not what you really want. I mean, that may be a crude analogy, but is that far off from what they're doing? Alex Raikin: It's it's crude, but it is exactly what they're doing. Right. And this is a conversation. So this is a conversation that's recorded where physicians are openly discussing what to do if a patient is and here's a quote, is a patient who has lost capacity with a waiver in place and is now delirious, shouting, pulling their arm away as one tries to insert the IV to provide made. So the waiver for final consent is this completely cryptic agreement, right? It's unsigned agreement with only one of the two made physicians. That's how they describe themselves, made providers or made assessors. It's an unwritten agreement. There doesn't need to be any witnesses. Family does not need to be informed. And yet, as soon as they enter into this cryptic agreement, Right, a physician can sedate you essentially to make sure that you're not shouting, pulling your arm away. It is absolutely absurd. And yet these physicians are openly discussing this and laughing about it. Chuck Warren: Well, how many people maybe you know this fact, If not, maybe you can find out. Be good for an article. How many people think about suicide? Get to the point where they do the preparations, but don't go through with it. I'm sure it's not one. I'm sure it's not 5%. I'm sure it's double digits. What? What do you think that percentage is? Alex Raikin: Right. So this is the part where it gets interesting. A lot of these statistics are. Intentionally made secret. So we know from the beginning that when euthanasia was first legalized in Canada, there was a physician in Toronto who claimed that only 10% of made requests went through. And obviously there were media articles about this, like what a travesty it is. Right now, only 4% of cases are actually rejected based on capacity or based on the illness. And the majority of those cases are because the patient is only suffering from a psychiatric illness, which will be a qualifying condition this march. So in six months. So we don't really know what the true number of people who would otherwise still be alive. Right. All that we know is that there is a few percentage of cases that are, you know, where people do change their minds. Right. But we're literally living in a time. So if you look at Quebec as the only province that publishes this data and they show that 50% of the time between requesting made and dying for made in Quebec in 2021, 50% of cases was in under ten days. I don't know any other medical service where goodness get that done so quickly. Sam Stone: Oh, okay, folks, we're going to be coming back with more from Alexander Raikin here in just a moment. If you haven't, you need to check out his piece on National Review. We have that up on our social media feeds for breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back with more in just a moment. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren. Folks, you probably heard me talking about why wi fi for a while now, they've been getting a ton of phone calls and I thank you for supporting an investment that actually helps people. First off, let me give you some some facts about this. It's true. You can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market of the Fed. You can turn your income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There are absolutely no fees and there's never any attack on your principal. If you need your money back, you'll get your monthly statement each month with zero surprises. If you're not sure if you trust this economy, this secure collateralized portfolio may be a good option for you. So go to invest Refy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or give them a call at 888. Y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Chuck Warren: Before we go back to a new question, I just looked it up. The University of Washington did a study with teenagers from 2019 through 21, and they found in their studies that there were 38%. Who were suicidal. Who had planned suicide. Went through the steps but did not attempt it. Sam Stone: Well, in a lot more we know from all the literature. Chuck Warren: But can you but can you imagine if they're doing it saying, no, no, no, Look, you made you sign something. You made a commitment. We're going to. Sam Stone: Yeah, we're going to sedate you. We're going to sedate you. Chuck Warren: I mean, that's what they're doing. You have 38% and then you have the, you know. Sam Stone: A lot of suicide attempts are cries for help. Right? Chuck Warren: Right. But there's just incredible. That's what they're doing. So let me ask you a question. Since Canada is quickly becoming one of the biggest serial killers in the world and that's what they are. Let's not pretend otherwise. And Australia seems to be joining in on the fun. They are defunding and threatening hospitals who will not go with this madness, aren't they? Alex Raikin: Yeah. And so the first victims were those who were public hospitals. So secular hospitals, they overwhelmingly were the first to cave in. There are still some holdouts. So the largest mental health hospital in Canada, they still do not allow euthanasia on site, but that might change in six months. They haven't issued any statements. There were secular palliative care clinics in Quebec that refused to sign on. So the government essentially passed legislation forcing them to before they were just threatening to cut their funding. But now they just force them through legislation. So the remaining targets are Catholic hospitals or other faith based institutions that are trying to say, no, we will not be part of this madness. The Guardian. Also just recently, I just looked earlier today, The Guardian has issued essentially a hotline where you can report cases of physicians turning you away from euthanasia. Chuck Warren: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. Sam Stone: It's hard for me to understand this. I mean, I think coming from any kind of moral perspective, but but reading and this is where maybe maybe you have some insight into these people, Alex, and why they're why they're doing this. Because as I as I read through your piece and looked at the quotes and then clicked on some of the links and watched some of the videos, the absolute callousness for human life displayed by these supposed doctors, I think was the most shocking thing. As you're watching that, you know, they really sort of revel in what they're doing. And my question is, why? Why why would anyone be so eager to kill other human beings? Alex Raikin: That actually reminds me. I interviewed a forensic psychiatrist. She told me that in her work she has dealt with the most vile people in our society. She has dealt with mobsters. She has dealt with child abusers, serial killers. And yet she told me that the people who who she is most afraid of are none of them. It's instead physicians who provide assisted suicide in the hundreds and thousands, by the way, in the Netherlands. Chuck Warren: Oh, my gosh. Alex Raikin: These people legitimately believe that what they're doing is medically therapeutic. They legitimately believe that some people's lives are not worth living and they want to be the people to get them to the other side. That's why Stephanie Green, for instance, who's the head of the Canadian Association of Made Assessors and Providers, she delivered babies before and then she decided to have a career change and she decided to perform at least 3 or 400 made made deaths. And she still calls them the exact same thing. She also calls them deliveries. Chuck Warren: Oh, she's an evil mindset. Sam Stone: I mean, I don't see many of these people being religious, so what the heck do they think they're delivering them to? I mean, you can almost say, like, if you don't believe in heaven, then where's the where's the good outcome from this? Chuck Warren: It's just a burden on society. That's the only way I can view them viewing it. Is that right, Alexander? Alex Raikin: They have almost this quasi religious worldview where so I have this document from 2018, so it's of Camps annual conference. So again, the Canadian Association of Maid Assessors and Providers and they openly discuss and they describe Maid as sacred. That's the word that they use. So it's almost as if they do have this alternative religious out view and it's not that they're against religion. They're only against religion. If you take thou shalt not kill seriously. Otherwise, though, they'll gladly sign you on. Chuck Warren: I think that's I think that's called a cult. It sounds like it's cultish behavior. Sam Stone: It's a death. Chuck Warren: Cult we are with  Alexander Raikin, we're talking about Canada's medical assistance and dying or made law. Alexander One thing that has alarmed me as I've read your your work on this is physicians who are basically voicing opposition to this, voicing concern they're being threatened with their medical licenses. Can you talk a little bit about that? Alex Raikin: Yeah, I mean, it's quite explicit. If you so many provinces and in many countries. So this is also happening in Australia. This is happening in New Zealand. This has already happened in Netherlands and Belgium. And of course, as with everything else on this file, Canada is going at the forefront. If you do not provide a referral for medical assistance in dying, right, Even if it's in cases where you think that the patient can't qualify, it's not legal for them to qualify. The patient doesn't have the capacity to consent. The patient doesn't have an illness that is serious enough. Many different medical colleges have instituted effective referral requirements. If you do not refer the patient, you are at risk of losing your medical license. If you're outspoken about this, you are getting threatened by a college. One of the cases that I had was of a geriatrician in Quebec who spoke to a parliamentary committee. So remember, freedom of speech. You're literally testifying to parliament, right? The the site where defamation laws do not even apply because it's considered to be a breach of of free speech laws. Right. He testified to a parliamentary committee saying that Canada was not ready to allow made for cases of dementia. What happened was that his colleague from his hospital, he claims, filed a complaint with the medical college. And even though it should have been dismissed outright because they do not have jurisdiction over parliament and who gets to testify to a parliamentary committee, he instead was threatened with this massive investigation and it took him hiring a lawyer and going through this multi-month ordeal for him to actually to clear his name. And all of the time he knew what was the reason. It was because he testified to parliament. He claimed and he claimed what he saw. Right. Which is that the the current law is not working and it shouldn't be expanded. So, yes, these physicians are being threatened with their livelihoods. Chuck Warren: I. What they're doing sounds a lot like what Iceland did with Down's syndrome Baby Sam. You know, if you're identified as your pregnancy is possible Down syndrome, you know, I mean, magazines like CBS News has talked about how Down's syndrome in Iceland is almost disappeared. Well, it's disappeared because you're killing them. It's eugenics. There's nothing here. What Alexander has been reporting that does make believe that they would have no problem. Say, look, you're homeless. You know, you're you're you're a burden on society. You have autism. You're a burden on society if you're broke, you know, so you know, you're a burden on society. One of the things. Sam Stone: He reports and this really blew my mind is that they are advocating expanding made to indigenous people because of poverty that they've already qualified. As I understand it, Alex, based on your reporting, they've already qualified people for this based on credit card debt. And then then this line just threw me for a loop. And to Indigenous children since they are quote, are considered wise because they are closest to the ancestors. What the. Chuck Warren: Well, that's the cultish behavior. Alexander What does that mean? What is the indigenous tribe saying about this? Are they getting upset about it? Alex Raikin: That's a good question. It's a random delegate to camps conference in 2018. Right. Just two years after legalization. And they're already discussing plans on how to expand it to children and especially to indigenous children. I mean. Chuck Warren: Where are the progressive groups? Where are the progressive groups on this? Alex Raikin: Well, that's a very good question. Disability groups are an uproar. The Indigenous Disability Alliance, they're an uproar. Chuck Warren: But that doesn't get reported and it doesn't get reported, right? Yeah. Sam Stone: I mean, it's it doesn't get reported. Alex Raikin: It doesn't get reported. Sam Stone: It's crazy. You know, if you run an oil pipeline through a a native reservation or tribal area and you pay them a bundle of money to do it with really no effect on anybody. The liberal groups will be out in the tens of thousands marching and screaming and leaving a giant mess behind. And here they're. They're silent. They're gone. This, this, this just none of this makes any sense to me at all. Have you. Have you, Alex, have you tried? Like, how do you even comprehend the mindset of the people that are pushing this? Because I just. I still struggle with that. I think you can tell by my questions this is so foreign to to any kind of morality that I've ever experienced or thought of or expected in any Western democracy. Alex Raikin: Right. It's I'll be honest, I struggle with the exact same thing. There was a bioethicist or excuse me, a clinical ethicist, right. So he actually deals with patients in hospitals. He's the one who helps hospitals decide when they need to ration ventilators. Right? So he has a real job with real impacts. He wrote an article in a Canadian newspaper recently trying to claiming that Catholic hospitals should be forced to provide made on site. And he's also the same individual who wrote who wrote an entire article justifying infanticide. And the reason that he used is because you can abort as many children as you want. Some children are going to be born and some children are going to be disabled during childbirth. That is his worldview. And that's why you need to legalize infanticide. Chuck Warren: Oh, my gosh. Alexander, we have we have a minute left here with you. First, I'm going to give you an assignment. I'd like you to come back on next week and explain to people what the government shutdown, if we have one in D.C., really means. You're a numbers guy. What does it really mean to the average taxpayer? Can you do that for me? Yeah, we'll do. Okay, Perfect. Second, first time we had you on, I was quite adamant and said that this is evil. You took the proper course, and we're not as quite dogmatic as I was about it and being a good journalist. Since our first conversation now. And you've written more. You've investigated more. You've interviewed more. Would you view this? What they're doing is simply just evil, demonic. Alex Raikin: Yeah. I mean, at this point it is evil. I do not understand how they are not even pretending to abide by the legislation and the fact that they are openly lying. This is an organization and these are physicians who testified to parliament saying that this is the first time that the first time they've ever heard that euthanasia was being granted to patients because of poverty was in 2020 or 2021, because that's what the that's when the media started reporting about it. That's what they claimed. Yet in reality, they were already discussing it in 2018. It took them two years to figure it out. Chuck Warren: Yeah. Alex Raikin: And then they just lied. Chuck Warren: So, Alexander, tell our folks where they can find you and they can find your most recent article. We'll also post it on our social media, folks. Go ahead, Alexander. Alex Raikin: Yes. Feel free to follow me on X. I'm Alexander Raikin. Raiken is Raikin. You can find my work on National Review or the New Atlantis. Chuck Warren: Alexander, thanks a million. Stay tuned for bonus podcast section Kiley's Corner. We're going to talk about Fox News changeup, other fun things. Alexandra, thanks. A million, folks. Have a great weekend. Bye now. Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Sam Stone: Welcome to the podcast segment of Breaking battlegrounds. Folks, stay tuned because we're going to have Kiley's Corner coming up, everyone's favorite segment where we alternately make fun of Kiley and she tells us all sorts of fun stuff. But right now, we have Ken Lacourt, our media expert and friend of the program, returning to talk about the big news at Fox, which, Chuck, it may be an earthquake in the conservative media world happened yesterday and it doesn't seem like a whole lot of people know it. Chuck Warren: Talk about it, Ken. Tell us what you know. Ken Lacourt: Well, on one hand, it's really not a radical change. I mean, Lachlan Lachlan is now the the chairman of News Corp, the overall overall entity which runs Fox, Fox News, and I think executive chairman of of Fox News. He was CEO before, but his dad. Ken Lacourt: Was always somebody, you know, for the last several years Lachlan had been in that seat, but his dad was probably driving or at least certainly around for most of those decisions. So they've done a they've done a gradual move of power over the past handful of years to get Lachlan running it. So and he's a mixed bag. On one hand, he's very good, if you like, the Fox News Channel because unlike his siblings, he doesn't hate the Fox News Channel. Chuck Warren: You know. Ken Lacourt: I mean, you know, James, James was is a is a very James's brother is a very shrewd, aggressively business guy. Lefty always talked about trying to make it more responsible, which you know what that means. It means make it look as much like MSNBC as you can without losing our audience. And the sister was the sister was was out in out in left field as well. The trickiest part right now is, is I don't think the external kind of challenges that Fox has and they've got a few they've they've got another big Smartmatic lawsuit which might cost them another half a billion. They've got some other lawsuits by some pension funds, which I think are nonsense, political driven, driven things. I think I think Lachlan's biggest problem is that that he came out of such a privileged position. And I say that not not not as an insult. I mean, I mean, Lachlan has been groomed for this most of his life. He's worked in various News Corp entities around the world. He's had dinner with US senators and governors on a routine basis. He's he's shadowed his father for for much of his life. He's been well trained for it. Ken Lacourt: But there's a serious question is, does he have the grit and does he have the drive that his dad had? I mean, his dad was very much like a shark. I mean, he just wanted to keep eating and growing. And even when he was worth $5 billion and had a a media conglomerate that was X size, he always wanted it to be double sized. Lachlan Not so sure. Lachlan You know, look, he's, he's tan. He's got the tribal tattoos on his arm. He's got a gorgeous ex-model wife. He lives in a $30 million house down in Australia. He bought when he bought his LA mansion. It was the it was the most expensive house in Los Angeles ever sold, $150 million. 11 bedrooms, one of those. So and from from what I hear in the past year or so, he's hard to reach. He's he doesn't have his fingers on the pulse of it. He's still down in Australia. He's so on one hand, all decisions need to go through him and they haven't given the current CEO like Roger Ailes type powers. On the other hand, he's just not as invested in it. And that's a recipe for problems. Sam Stone: Yeah, One of the things that I've noticed Chuck and Ken over the years is there's a huge difference with these giant companies that have been created by a singular founder or personality driving that company. And I think the best example is is Apple with Steve Jobs, which was an innovation machine. And then after Steve Jobs death, it's it's a moneymaking machine, but it's not an innovation machine in the same way. Chuck Warren: Well, for example, they had Mr. Cook, who was the CEO or chairman or whatever he is, of Apple. They had him on CBS Sunday Morning show, which I like because they do pretty good interviews. His big thing was the innovation is that they've done a bunch of solar power to replace the usage of iPhones. I mean, that was his big innovation. Right? Right. And that's not innovation. I mean, that's nice. I'm not discouraging it, but that's not innovation. So, Ken, so what do you see him doing long term with Fox News? Ken Lacourt: I think, well, long term, their biggest issue isn't. The issues that I talked about long term is the fact that cable news viewers are dying. And for every 80 year old cable news subscriber who died, there's not a 25 year old jumping into that pipeline. Our kids aren't going to write checks out to Comcast to to maybe for Internet service, but not for this whole kind of of, oh, you know, I'm waiting for the 6:00 news or Hannity's coming on at eight and I'm going to sit in front of this this screen and wait till they start it for me and then roll commercials into the middle of it. So the biggest long term challenge for all of the cable systems is at some point in the next decade or so, that model will become unsustainable, that they are paying huge amounts of money. They are earning still just gobs and gobs of money. I mean, Fox News Nets probably about a billion and a half a year. That's net, which is just mind boggling. But when that starts to change, that will change. And they will they will contract in power. And the ones that have put smart bets out in the digital world and expanded their their audience there, which Fox hasn't done a good job of, they'll be the future. So that's the long term challenge. The middle term again, the big challenge for them is that Lachlan is still hanging out at yacht races and and is ostensibly in charge that that the CEO, Suzanne Scott isn't doesn't have the ability to make bold decisions even if she was even if she was inclined to making the right ones and that it kind of meanders along as I think we've seen it happen as basically as it's happened since since Roger Ailes left. And it's still got an almost an almost monopoly situation in the sense that what else are you going to watch? You're not going to say, I'm done with Fox. I'm going to go watch CNN. Maybe you go to Newsmax. But Newsmax is still just it's just. Chuck Warren: Yeah, no. Ken Lacourt: It's a small audience because they're very, very conservative. And but it's the Junior League. It's like watching high school TV. Chuck Warren: Exactly. I mean, I know everything about the person. When they tell me watch Newsmax like the same person who still wears a mask in public. I know everything I need to know about both people. One last question here. We're going to let you go. So there seems to be a trend upon the corporate media that we need to we need to save democracy. That's what a lot of these reporters seem to think, You know, and it doesn't seem. Sam Stone: Like they have much idea of what democracy. Chuck Warren: Is. And so, therefore, one of their rules that seems to be is you can't criticize Biden. And I'll give you an example. NBC       's Ben Collins was concurring with Guardian columnist Margaret Sullivan this week. Quote, With democracy on the ballot, the mainstream press must change its ways, arguing both sides reporting misinforms the public. Since it's not two parties, but democracy versus something maybe illegal. Do you see this being a trend, this election, that they're just simply saying it's our way or the highway? Or is this just am I just picking 1 or 2 people and being unfair? Ken Lacourt: No, no. I mean, if anything, it's the continuation of a trend that has started ten years ago and probably peaked or at least hit full throated ridiculousness with Trump. And there it was open. It's like he's Trump, Hitler, we're all going to die. And therefore we have to put our values of being an American over our journalistic values. And so and the largest problem with the press is that they're still pretending to be referees when they have long thrown away their referee notions and they put players jerseys on. Right. And and it's like, that's my look. I don't I'm not bothered at all by the Huffington Post being The Huffington Post or at this point, even MSNBC being MSNBC. We all know what that is. The larger problem that I think that we face as a democracy and we face as news consumers is that so many people still think when they're reading The New York Times or the LA Times or watching CNN, that they're getting a relatively unbiased point of view. And they're not. They're getting hard core, hard core narrative that's that's specifically excluding conservative thought on things and pretending it doesn't exist and that that tweaks out the whole system when people are lying like that and they have so many news consumers still believing them, it's getting less every year, but it's still exists. Sam Stone: Even, you know, the conservative icing out conservative thought is one thing. But I've actually been going back and forth with a guy that, you know, has followed me and interacted with me on Twitter for many years as more of a centrist Republican. And we're talking about something here where the mayor of Phoenix is the co-chair of the C40 cities. She's a signatory to all their programs, which include, you know, no cars, you know, getting rid of cars and meat and all this other stuff. And I mean, she's co-chair, she's signatory. I've told this guy, you know, this is what she she stands for. She's done this. And he literally said, no, I can't find it on our local. Npr, our local affiliates, our local paper. I don't believe you. Yeah, that's a hard thing to get around. Ken Lacourt: Yeah, And I've got some very good friends who in most lives are smart people, but they just, you know, they grew up not being lied to by the groups that are now and I'll call it a lie, because when you misrepresent something enough and you do it intentionally and you keep certain things away from people and you blow up certain certain aspects, that's a misleading that's close enough to a lie. And your friend, like some of mine, just doesn't realize that that again, they they change their somewhat biased referee clothes for players. And he just hasn't figured that out yet and hopefully he will. Sam Stone: Yeah that's that's going to be a long road. And it's one of the key battles for Republicans going forward over the next few years. Ken Lacourt, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate having you on the program again and looking forward to having you back very soon. Terrific. Chuck Warren: My pleasure. Thanks, buddy. Have a great weekend. Ken Lacourt: All right. Take care, guys. Chuck Warren: Kiley's corner folks. She has a stack of paper. She is fired up today and she is ready to air her gripes. Sam Stone: She's got like, war and peace in her hand right here. Chuck, she's made more notes than I do in in a year. Chuck Warren: Kiley I think a couple of years you'll have a book, just Kylie's Gripes, a book with which every podcast episode with your gripes. Kiley Kipper: I know I couldn't even narrow it down this week. There was I have a whole notes page of just links like I have a murder section. I got a, you know, my opening statements missing Jets, Pornhubs doing crazy stuff. But we're not talking about any of that. All right, let's go. Sam Stone: Can I tell you how much I love the meme about it was a bad week for expensive jets. Kiley Kipper: The the 911 call from the guy that ejected, he's like, I don't know where it's at, but. Chuck Warren: Did they find it? Kiley Kipper: No. No. Chuck Warren: What the hell? All right. Well, that sums up America again for the week. Or just crying out loud. Skip that. It doesn't sum up America. It sums up the world. Yes. I mean, folks who think we're cluster just go outside of the United States. The cluster grows significantly. Kylie, go ahead. What do we got? Kiley Kipper: Okay, So my first topic short, we have to acknowledge it because it's Dave Portnoy and Barstool and it's just like such a great story. Chuck Warren: He always needs to be acknowledged. Kiley Kipper: Yeah, yeah. So this week in New York, Saturday. So tomorrow I guess people are listening to it today. So he is hosting a pizza fest where he has over 35 pizza parlors all joining together. There's music, all of this stuff, party, whatever. In the past, he's like, it raises money. He's raised $50 Million for Small Businesses to Stay Open. Sam Stone: Dave Portnoy leading it. You know, none of those 35 are bad pizza. Kiley Kipper: Exactly. Yeah, you can trust him with the pizza. So he gets wind of a sponsor, forwarded him an email from a Washington Post reporter. Basically, she's saying, I'm going to write an article about this pizza fest, but she didn't really state it in that way. She started saying that he was misogynistic and racist. Do you want to defend your sponsorship? So I actually have a clip because Dave calls her out, so calls her and is like, this is Dave Portnoy. Why are you emailing my sponsors? You're calling me misogynistic. He's and he pronounces it wrong, but ignore that part in racist and whatever. So he's he's calling her out and she's trying to deny it. But Jeremy has the clip, so I want you to hear this. Washington Post Reporter: Not. I haven't said anything like that. Dave Portnoy: Well, I can. I can read if you want. If you want, I can read what you actually sent. I have it. Washington Post Reporter: Yeah. Yeah. Because I sent a bunch of notes, so I want to make sure I know which one. Dave Portnoy: Okay. We are planning to write about the festival and how and how some of the sponsors and participants have drawn criticism by seemingly to associate themselves with Dave Portnoy, who has a history of Misogynic comments and other problematic behavior. I want to make sure that Blank had a chance to respond to this, since the company is the most prominent in their partners of his festival. Washington Post Reporter: Oh, that's the one I sent. It was definitely the most pointed of them because I really did want them to respond and I was hoping to get something from them. Dave Portnoy: Do you think that's fair? Like, I totally disagree with the assertions of what you said, that misogynic and all that stuff. So like it kind of backs people into a corner. So I'm happy to go over anything. I mean, you have that is pretty pointed. You said you didn't do it then. I have the exact evidence of you doing it, so. Washington Post Reporter: I didn't say I didn't do that. I said I did. That was the one that was the most well. Dave Portnoy: Know before I before I provided proof. You said you didn't really remember doing that. And then I read it to you and you're like, Oh, yeah, I did at that one time. So you did do it. Kiley Kipper: So this call goes on for 12 minutes. It's on his it's on his Twitter. I'll reshare it on breaking battlegrounds, Twitter, so you guys can read it or listen to it. But it. Sam Stone: Goes on. It's a fantastic call. I've listened to the whole thing and it's it's worth your time, folks. Kiley Kipper: She goes on and says, Unfortunately, this is I have it in quotes. Unfortunately, this is standard journalistic practice. And he responds and goes, Unfortunately, yes, it is. So her background is she's a Washington Post food critic. Chuck Warren: Oh, my God. Kiley Kipper: She's starting out these emails to these sponsors saying he's misogynistic, racist. Do you want to defend yourself? Basically trying to get them to pull out of the pizza fest. Chuck Warren: But she's a food critic. She's supposed to be doing reviews of restaurants and food and dishes and things of that nature. Instead, she's taken The Washington Post, woke Culture and applying it to these 30 plus pizzerias. Yep. Yep. So what's been the public reaction to her lie since she since she clearly lied? I mean, this is awfully we'll just call it. She's a horrible human being. What does people's reaction been to her? Kiley Kipper: Well, I'm assuming well, everyone's on Dave's side. They're all attacking. I'm assuming she's getting lots of messages because she has gone private on social media. Chuck Warren: She should be fired. Yeah, 100% be fired. Once the press starts doing this a couple of times, this crap will stop. Yeah. Yeah. It's not it's not part of her mandate. It's not part of her lane. She should be doing food. And then she's just making. I mean, if she wants to go do that, she should go work for some pod, you know, some something. Some do her own podcast or work with National Enquirer or something just make unfounded. Sam Stone: Well, I mean, look, I think Dave Portnoy is handling this exactly the right way. He's fighting back, using his platform, calling her out by name with the recording, just saying this is garbage. And people can judge that for themselves and they see it's garbage. That's how we stop this. You're right, Chuck. You just got to smack them. Chuck Warren: Let's make sure we put that and boost that on our social media. Sam Stone: Yeah, All right. I mean, congratulations, Dave. You. You're playing this perfectly, man. Don't give up. Don't stop. Chuck Warren: Kiley has more. Kiley Kipper: I have so much more. Not just kidding. All right. So I wanted to bring this case up now because the the it's a murder case and the trial is going to be in March, I believe it was. And so I want to discuss it now because it's there's a woman named Karen Reed, and she's being accused of killing her boyfriend, who is a Boston police officer. So she's charged with the killing of him. Right. She's saying she's being framed by Boston police. Two sides of the story here. Okay. So this is these are the facts. That night, her and her boyfriend, uh, John O'Keefe, they go out to the bars having a good time. There's video footage of them, like from the bars. They're hugging, kissing, totally normal, whatever. They then leave to go to another Boston police officer's house where she says now, this is based on what she told the officer who came in the morning. I dropped him off. My stomach was hurting, so I went home. So I just dropped him off the party and I'm going home. So then in the morning at 5 a.m., this is where the timeline all starts. She starts calling her friends, saying, John never came home last night. Where is he? Blah, blah, blah. Um, so then one of the friends goes to her house and she describes her as hysterically crying and is saying, What if I hit him? Is he dead? It's snowing out. Where is he? Blah, blah, blah. So then her that friend and another friend go back to the house where he had dropped him off and they found him in the snow, dead. So to her and another friend, start giving him CPR. Call the police, obviously. Where had. Chuck Warren: He been shot or. Kiley Kipper: Something? No, he just looked like. So according to her, the defense, he it looks like he got beat up. Okay. The prosecutors are saying he got hit by a car. So when the when the investigator showed up that day, she was supposedly hysterical, yelling, could I have hit him? Did I kill him? Did I hit him with my car last night? Blah, blah, blah, blah. She has a broken tail light, to which her father said was in the morning when she was, which there was no report on either. Friend has said anything, but the dad said that she, when she was backing out of the driveway, hit John's car because she was frantically leaving. And that's where the tail light broke, which. Sam Stone: Is actually plausible, which. Kiley Kipper: Could. Sam Stone: Yeah, I mean, sure. Kiley Kipper: So she's so this is like what we know now. She's she was out on bail, but there's like a whole group of people that think she's that this is she is being framed like there's a website. They've raised almost $200,000 for her for legal fees and she's done all of these interviews. So like this is where I kind of believe her because if you're going to, like, premeditate to kill your boyfriend or husband or whatever it is like you're going to, I don't believe you'd be yelling. Like, did I hit him or was this me? Or maybe you do. But but she's doing a bunch of interviews now, too. Chuck Warren: I agree. But the problem with this and I agree, you know, just all. Kiley Kipper: Play it off. Yeah. I mean. Chuck Warren: But I agree. The problem is you can't view it that way because unlike a physician in Canada who does euthanasia, we don't have those minds. Right. So I don't you know, I don't know what psychosis is if someone like this. But right now, that does not sound like enough evidence to me to to indict someone. Kiley Kipper: Well, she was indicted. Sam Stone: I feel like you do need more. And actually, the fact that they indicted her on what appears to be flimsy evidence to me is actually the best argument for her case. Chuck Warren: Exactly right. Sam Stone: Exactly that. You know, look. Chuck Warren: But she's always tagged with it innocent. She's always tagged now. Oh, there's well, there's the neighbor that killed 56. Kiley Kipper: Pieces of evidence that the defense is not able to look at. So the prosecutors haven't allowed them to look at it, which they've said, oh, we found the tail light in the like part of her tail light in the snow near John. But they haven't been able to see the tail light test. The tail light to make sure it's her tail light or anything like this. So everyone's saying because it was at a Boston police officer's house with another Boston police officer and this woman, that they think that when she was saying, oh, my gosh, could I have hit him with my car, that they then took that story, ran with it, And it's all like a whole framing. Chuck Warren: I'm thinking some police officers of another police officer or police officer's wife. Kiley Kipper: Well, and there's you know, people being interviewed is like highly possible. Chuck Warren: This is this is where I'm going with today on on Chuck's Conspiracy Corner. This is where I'm going. Sam Stone: I know a lot of police officers. Most of them are excellent people in a few of them are dogs. Kiley Kipper: I'll share this on our social media, too. But there's a photo of people outside the courthouse in free Karen shirts. Like they are going all out for her. Chuck Warren: Wait, wait. Her name's Karen. All right. Next story for you. Wrap up. No, no, no, no. Kiley Kipper: I just narrowed it down to two today. Chuck Warren: All right, well, that you'll keep us up to date on Karen. Oh, absolutely. All Karen's are just this. Kiley Kipper: Karen. Karen Reed. Just one. Karen. Sam Stone: Well, just. Just. Just Karen. The accused killer? Chuck Warren: Yeah. Kiley Kipper: The accused. Chuck Warren: Murderer. Folks, thank you for joining this week. We hope you enjoyed it. Please pay particular attention to what's happening in Canada and Australia. Make no mistake about it, I believe there's ten states in our country that allow it. It's 11 now, 11 that allow it. Folks, this is just not a whole we need to go down. It's bad. It is evil. If you don't think it's evil, you probably shouldn't listen to the show. This is Chuck Warren. You can follow us on all podcasts and also follow us on breaking battlegrounds. Upvote or wherever you find your social media. Have a great weekend. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

John Pudner, President of Take Back Our Republic Action, discusses the GOP's future and topics like campaign contribution and faith-based voters. Dawn Hawkins, CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, highlights big tech's role in sexual exploitation. They have initiated lawsuits against big tech to bring about necessary changes.

In this week's episode of we kick off with a dynamic duo. Join us as we sit down with Kimberley Strassel from The Wall Street Journal and Ross Douthat from The New York Times. Together, they'll provide unique insights into the ever-evolving landscape of media, as well as, share their perspectives on the Republican Party, Joe Biden and more. Later in the show, Chuck and Sam take the microphone to delve into some pressing current news, including VP Kamala Harris, Larry Sinclair’s appearance on Tucker Carlson and New York’s migrant “crisis.” In a brand-new segment, we introduce "Kiley's Corner," hosted by the irrepressible Kiley Kipper. Kiley delves into current news stories, offering her unique perspective on the headlines. This week, she takes a deep dive into the Ruby Franke case, a shocking incident involving a Utah mother and YouTuber from "8 Passengers." Join Kiley as she unravels the story and discusses its implications, all from her corner of the studio. - Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds - Kimberley Strassel is a member of the editorial board for The Wall Street Journal. She writes editorials, as well as the weekly Potomac Watch political column, from her base in Alaska. Ms. Strassel joined Dow Jones & Co. in 1994, working in the news department of The Wall Street Journal Europe in Brussels, and then in London. She moved to New York in 1999 and soon thereafter joined the Journal's editorial page, working as a features editor, and then as an editorial writer. She assumed her current position in 2005. Ms. Strassel, a 2014 Bradley Prize recipient, is a regular contributor to Sunday political shows, including CBS's "Face the Nation," Fox News Sunday, and NBC's "Meet the Press." She is the author of "The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech," which chronicles recent attacks on conservative nonprofits, businesses and donors. An Oregon native, Ms. Strassel earned a bachelor's degree in Public Policy and International Affairs from Princeton University. She lives in Alaska with her three children. - Ross Douthat joined The New York Times as an Opinion columnist in April 2009. His column appears every Tuesday and Sunday. He is also a host on the weekly Opinion podcast “Matter of Opinion.” Previously, he was a senior editor at The Atlantic and a blogger on its website. He is the author of “The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery,” which was published in October 2021. His other books include "To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism,” published in 2018; “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics” (2012); “Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class” (2005); “The Decadent Society” (2020); and, with Reihan Salam, “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream” (2008). He is the film critic for National Review. He lives with his wife and four children in New Haven, Conn. - Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren. First up today, folks, we have to apologize a little bit. We had two longer interviews that were supposed to frame this show with Ross Douthat. Douthat of The New York Times. I'm so bad at last names, folks. My apologies there. And Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal. Chuck interviewed both of them last night at an event here in Arizona was fantastic. We were going to open and close the interview with that. We had a technical difficulty in the last half of each interview basically got wiped out by the electronic gods. Chuck. And so we're kind of scrambling a little bit. We pasted the two of them together. You're going to hear them in this segment. And then we're going to continue on with just Chuck and I talking about some of the issues of the day and some about this. Chuck Warren: Yeah, the event last night was Center for American Institutions of ASU. And the the whole the whole point was to have them in a forum. And they're about the responsibilities of the media and the age of polarization. The one thing Ross said that was really interesting to me is it conservatives really want to go and change the media. They need to start getting some conservative foundations that start financing journalism, that start buying some papers and making them nonprofits. Sam Stone: This is what you and I have talked about forever. Chuck Warren: And he was very specific about it last night, saying you've got to be serious about it. And you and I talked about this, about the Koch brothers, how much difference they would have made if they had gone by 5 or 6 major daily newspapers. And so he brought that up. I was it was I was like listening to you and I talk. I found that very interesting. And then Kimberly was wonderful. She started as a reporter in Europe for The Wall Street Journal, now the editorial page. So folks, you'll find this interesting. We're going to get them both on here within the next month to talk more about it. And we hope you'll enjoy this clip. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds Today, this segment we are honored to have with us Kimberly Strassel. She is a columnist and editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal. You can also catch her on her podcast with Potomac. Potomac. Potomac. I can't pronounce Potomac. Watch. Kimberly Strassel: Watch Potomac Watch. Chuck Warren: And she has written a new book called The Biden Malaise. Kimberly Strassel: Well, it's so great to be here. Thanks for having me. Yeah. Chuck Warren: So is Joe. Chuck Warren: Biden worse than Jimmy Carter? About the same? Kimberly Strassel: No, I think he's worse. And here's why. And because I think the comparison is utterly unfair to Jimmy Carter. And that's why I ended up writing the book. Right. That's fantastic. Chuck Warren: And. Kimberly Strassel: Timely. Yes. And that's that is exactly why I did it, because, you know, we had all these comparisons the minute inflation popped up, the minute we had the horrible Afghanistan withdrawal, the minute that we had an energy problem. But the difference is Jimmy Carter, he was he was not a great president, but he inherited a lot of his problems. Right? Yes. We were already in the 70s in the middle of the great inflation, OPEC, all that OPEC oil shocks, you know, Cold War turmoil. Et cetera. Joe Biden created all of his problems. And that's a really important for spite, for spite or just because he lacked the backbone to push back against progressives in his party. Chuck Warren: The ActBlue segment of his party. That's right. That's really what it is. Kimberly Strassel: You know, And if you and that's the other thing. If you go and look at Jimmy Carter, he was an unpopular fellow, in part because he pushed back on parts of his party and didn't always do what they wanted him to do. Chuck Warren: I also think Jimmy Carter was just a better person. Oh, without a doubt. I mean, I'm stunned with the past or the press has tried. I mean, so tonight I was watching NBC Nightly News and we were talking earlier about the number one story in NBC Nightly News was the migrant problem in New York. And, you know, a lot of people in the Republican governors did it. Abbott as an example. It was a stunt, right? And now it's put a focus on it where Mayor Adams is saying, where's the federal government, which Texas and Arizona have been saying forever? Yeah, sure. Right, right, right, right. But I noticed tonight the third or fourth story was about Hunter Biden and Biden's connection, finally. So finally, they're starting to do it. I'm interested when it becomes number one. But the fact that it was in the segment number 3 or 4, the first third, I found that interesting, which you would not would have had a month ago. Kimberly Strassel: No. And I think the only reason they're doing it, though, I mean, let's not give anyone too much credit. They're doing it because when you have a US federal prosecutor, special counsel, as it is now, David Weiss saying that he has an intention to file indictment prior to the end of September. That's kind of news. And so we're going to see. But that's a really good point. I mean, Jimmy Carter, again, a lot of faults, but could you imagine him? And I mean, this is not a man who would engage in graft. He was deeply religious. He had great respect for the office of the presidency. Correct. It just there's no comparison with Joe Biden. Chuck Warren: No, none whatsoever. So what are the three takeaways for our audience who we're recommending they get the book? Yes. What are the three takeaways? And let me let me start first this. What surprised you when writing the book? Kimberly Strassel: Well, just how bad Biden is. Worse. Worse than you thought. Yeah. No, just you know, again, because people on the surface make these comparisons, you know, it's like, oh, my God, the worst president since Jimmy Carter. And I always say, like, that's not fair. Jimmy Carter Because you you realize when you go through the stories of what happened to Carter and what happened to Biden, the many and deliberate efforts that were taken to end us up in the situation that we are now. I mean, let's just be really clear. We shouldn't have any inflation at the moment. No, it's entirely the purpose, both of the fault of both the extraordinary overspending, but also the pressure the Biden administration and progressives in Congress put on Jerome Powell to keep interest rates low for too long. And, you know, we wouldn't be dealing with rising gas prices right now. I mean, look what just happened this week. Chuck Warren: 3 million acres wasn't a 40 million acres. So they out of a federal lease is gone. Kimberly Strassel: And by the way, can I just point out that a number of those millions of acres are on something called the National Petroleum Reserve, which when Alaska, they were setting up all these different areas, it was a specific agreement and deal that was made is that the federal government would lock up some of this in national parks, but this would be remained to do drilling on. And they're reneging on that. They're reneging on the leases that were duly issued at the very moment that OPEC is squeezing our necks. So, you know, by the way, Jimmy Carter would have killed to have had a domestic energy industry. Oh, 100%. He didn't have it, but he did good work. He started to deregulate the natural gas industry. He did everything he could to support oil and coal. You know, he really wanted us to be independent. And Joe Biden just wants other people to drill oil and send it here. Chuck Warren: Welcome to breaking battlegrounds. Today, we are honored to have with us New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Douthat. Douthat. Ross Douthat: It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks so much for having me. Chuck Warren: So did you get in today. Ross Douthat: Just two hours ago? Oh, my gosh. Take off tomorrow and I take off tomorrow. Yes, we have I have four kids at home and one of them is starting middle school and one of them is starting pre-K. So I can't be gone too long. I can't take any camping trips into the desert or anything like that. It seems like the right weather for it, but maybe next time. Chuck Warren: That's fantastic. So you've been in New York Times columnist for four years now. Ross Douthat: No, for I've been in New York Times columnist since, amazingly, 2009. So I started in Barack Obama's. Oh, my goodness. Very first year. Yes. Chuck Warren: So how do you how do you get along with your colleagues? I know there's a lot of independent thinkers there. Probably many of them sort of lean left to a degree. Ross Douthat: I think that's fair. That's probably fair to say. Yes. Chuck Warren: How has that been for you intellectually and as a work environment? And how have they accepted you? Ross Douthat: I mean, I think the you know, the work environment has always been good. I mean, I was you know, I was a conservative when I was hired. I don't think there's sort of any secret that I'm there to sort of represent views that are not shared by all of the New York Times readership, to put it mildly. Right. Our audience tends to be more more liberal leaning. But I think there's a lot of support for that work institutionally in the paper. You know, I think that the challenge is like everything in American politics, everything has become more challenging over the last 5 or 10 years than it was when I started. You know, in hindsight, the Obama Romney race in 2010, 2012. Right. Was a relatively low key presidential election. Very much so. Well, it didn't I mean, it didn't necessarily feel that way at the time, but compared to the Trump era. Right. And so everything has been sort of higher stakes in the last in the last 6 or 7 years. And obviously Covid wokeness, everything else has, you know, it's sort of made the job of writing for an audience that disagrees with you, somewhat challenging in new ways. But at the same time, I consider myself very lucky because we live in a very polarized media environment where it's not just that most readers are reading people they agree with. Most writers are sort of writing almost exclusively for people who agree with them. And, you know, at least in theory, the point of arguing in public is to convince at least some people, correct, push them a little bit in your direction. And I'm not sure whether I succeed at that or not, but just getting the opportunity to try on a consistent basis is, you know, it's a it's a dream job with with all of the challenges that dream jobs entail. Chuck Warren: I do know with my college educated Republican friends that your articles probably get forwarded the most. Ross Douthat: That's good to hear. Chuck Warren: That's good. They enjoy your writing. It doesn't mean they always agree, but they enjoy your writings. It brings me a point. So Mike Pence gave a speech today about conservatism. Yes. What are your thoughts on that? Is he talking about an era that's gone or is an era that needs a new champion? Ross Douthat: I think he's mostly talking about an era that's gone. I think that, you know, there's always continuity as well as change in American politics. And there are ways in which, you know, you can go back to the Reagan era and see some surprising. Commonalities with the Trump era. Donald Trump, for instance, was not the first Republican president to use tariffs and fight trade wars and these kinds of things. Right. He was not the first Republican president to try and get America out of foreign wars. So there is there is more continuity sometimes than you would think. But the broad vision that Pence stands for, I really think belongs to an era when Republicans and conservatives were just fundamentally a lot more optimistic about the condition of the country. There was a moment at the first Republican debate that where Vivek Ramos sorry. Vivek Ramaswamy was talking about sort of depression and malaise and mental illness in America. And Pence broke in and said, no, no, there's you know, the only thing wrong with America is that we need leaders who are worthy of our country. Right? And this is a sort of long running, sort of old school conservative view that the country is in great shape. The problem is just liberals in Washington, D.C. And I think Trump's election was itself a sign that Republicans didn't really believe that anymore, that they were willing to, you know, elect someone who who would sort of, you know, break things, for want of a better term, because because the country was going in such, from their perspective, a dire direction. And I think that's still where Republican voters are now. The you know, I don't think it's clear where the party goes from here, but I think the sort of the the basic optimism that the country is all right and just the leadership needs to change that Pence embodies. That's not where I think most Republican voters are anymore. They think things are more dire than that. Chuck Warren: Generally, we're not happy warriors anymore. Ross Douthat: No. And I mean, we're just warriors. Chuck Warren: We're not. Ross Douthat: Yeah, exactly. The mentality is, you know, there's a battle for the future of the country and we need to win it. But it's not, you know, it's a tough battle and things are not necessarily going our way. I think that that's the sense Republicans have. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. This is Sam Stone with your host, Chuck Warren and Kylie Kipper. Thank you to Chuck and Kip for the fantastic interviews that are leading and finishing this program today. But in the meantime, folks, how is your portfolio doing? How's your. How's your finances doing? If you have not gone to check out our friends at Invest Yrefy.com, you really need to do that. You can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right. 10.25 fixed. You can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle if you need your money back at any time. It's a fantastic opportunity. We've talked about it quite a bit. It's time for you to go there and take a look. Invest. y Refy.com or give them a call at 888 yrefy24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Chuck Warren: Well, first of all, we have a clip I want to talk about. There's been some conservative media has gone hypersonic that Kamala Harris says she's ready to take over the presidency. Jeremy, go ahead and play this clip, please. unknown: Question about the president's age often go hand in hand with questions about how he would step into the role if necessary. Do you feel prepared for that possibility and serving as vice president prepared you for for that job? Kamala Harris: Yes. unknown: And how would you describe that, that process? Kamala Harris: Well, first of all, let's. I'm answering your hypothetical, but Joe Biden's going to be fine. So that is not going to come to fruition. But let us also understand that every vice president, every vice president understands that when they take the oath, that they must be very clear about the responsibility they may have to take over the job of being president. I am no different. Chuck Warren: Sam. Sam Stone: Well, first off, she had to say that. Well, first of all. Chuck Warren: She had to say it. And no vice president would not say it, Of course. I don't want this job. Are you kidding me? I mean, this is dear conservative listeners. Sam and I are conservative. We have been in the trenches. We have skin in this movement. You cannot cry wolf about everything for a statement that, frankly, I don't know what she could say differently than what she said If she's vice president of the United States. And we seem to go on to keep we have a conservative journalistic sphere. That wants clickbait, for example. So Tucker Carlson interviewed this guy this week, Larry Sinclair, that had smoked crack and had sex with Obama. Right. Sam Stone: Allegedly. Who says he did? Allegedly. Chuck Warren: Right. Allegedly. Sam Stone: So part of the backstory about this, by the way, and I'm not sure why Tucker had this guy on, he is a a known fraudster. I mean, you know, he's got a long. Chuck Warren: Rap sheet, a long rap sheet. He's been he served jail. He filed an affidavit 20 years ago saying he couldn't stand trial because he was terminally ill. He's still alive. Right? Right. Colorado records him having 13 aliases. He has failed polygraphs over this claim. Tucker did about matter of fact, Barstool sports founder Dave Portnoy said. Sam Stone: I'm a huge fan of said. Chuck Warren: I met Larry Sinclair when I was doing my Tucker thing a couple of weeks ago. I would trust Anna Delvey before I trusted anything, Larry Sinclair said top to bottom may be the least trustworthy human I ever laid my eyes on. So my point is, here's the thing. Sam Stone: Dave Portnoy has a very good b you know what detector? Yes, he does. He really does. He does. Chuck Warren: He does. Very much so. Very much so and so, folks. We have a responsibility, what you share on social media, what we give clicks to a vice president of United States that neither Sam and I in a million years would vote for. I think she is not the brightest bulb in town. I think she's ill prepared for the job. I think she does not represent any views whatsoever I represent or want in my country to have. Sam Stone: And you can make that judgment. The majority of the country agrees with you. Chuck Warren: She's the lowest. She has lower approvals than Biden and Biden's are horrible. Yeah, but when you're asked a question by a foreign correspondent where she did this interview at about are you ready to of course she's supposed to say it the rural news would be if she said, oh my God, no, I don't want this. Right. That's the news. That would be the news. Sam Stone: Right? Then the question is, when is your resignation coming, Madam Vice President? Exactly. And you know, look, at the end of the day, too, and not that, you know, dear God, I would be terrified for this country with Kamala Harris as our 100%, 100%. But on a foreign international stage, if you're if you're the vice president and you don't say that you have just weakened and made this country more vulnerable, if you don't come out and just say, yes, of course I'm prepared. Chuck Warren: So what we're doing on the right is we're be clowning ourselves. We have to start being more serious about what we put out there in the social media sphere, what we think is actually worthwhile. Larry Sinclair is not worthwhile. Even if it's true, Obama is not current occupant of the Oval Office. It would happen 30 years ago. I don't care. Sam Stone: Well, and let me expand on that, Chuck. I do not care at all about a politician's sex life. No, it does not make any difference or interest to me whatsoever. Chuck Warren: No, not me. Once over. So, folks, let's start being a little more serious about what we look at. Jeremy's gonna play another clip here from Mayor Adams. Folks, as you know, before we play it, Governor Abbott, Governor DeSantis bussed migrants to New York City and other areas. Sam Stone: Governor Ducey, Let's give him some credit to do. He got in on the act. Yep. Chuck Warren: And all the press said this was a stunt and folks, it was a stunt. But the stunt purpose was knowing the hypocrisy of these mayors, of these sanctuary cities, the ones that go and claimed all of these border state governors are racists. And so they said, fine, you're a sanctuary city. You have promised these social services, therefore you take care of the problem. So what they did is they shipped them to New York City, a city where Mayor Adams says was a sanctuary city. Jeremy, go ahead and play this clip. Mayor Adams: I'll support. And let me tell you something, New York is never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an end to. I don't see an end to this. I don't see an end to this this issue will destroy New York City. Destroy New York City. We're getting 10,000 migrants a month. One time we were just in Venezuela. Now we're getting Ecuador. Now we're getting Russian speaking coming through Mexico. Now we're getting Western Africa. Now we're getting people from all over the globe have made their minds up that they're going to come through the southern part of the border and come into New York City. And everyone is saying it's New York City's problem. Every community in this city is going to be impacted. We got a $12 billion deficit that we're going to have to cut. Every service in this city is going to be impacted, all of us. And so I say to you as I turn it over to you, this is some of the most educated, some of the most knowledgeable, probably more of my commissioners and deputy commissioners and chiefs live in this community. So as you ask me a question about migrants, tell me what role you played, how many of you organized to stop what they're doing to us? How many of you were part of the movement to say, we're seeing what this mayor is trying to do and they're destroying New York City? It's going to come to your neighborhoods. All of us are going to be impacted by this. I said it last year when we had 15,000. And I'm telling you now, with 110,000 the city we knew. Sam Stone: So obviously, we're going to break right now. We're going to be coming back with more in just a moment here. But, you know, look, 10,000 people, he's complaining about 10,000 people. 10,000 people is a slow day on the border. Biden's been president for two and a half years. So you're talking about something like eight, nine, almost 900 days he's been. An office. So now let's multiply that 10,000 by all those days. And now ask yourself how people are dealing with the rest of them and the rest of this country. Chuck Warren: Exactly. This is breaking battlegrounds. We'll be right back to talk more about Mayor Adams, New York and Biden's lousy border crisis. Sam Stone: All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds, folks. Check out our friends and invest. Why refy.com. You can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right, 10.25% fixed. This operates a lot like a CD, folks. So if you need your principal back at any time, 100%, you can get it. This is a secure collateralized portfolio with an extremely high rate of return. And by doing well for yourself, you're actually doing good. Helping college students get their lives back on track by refinancing their their private student loans. This is a fantastic opportunity. Check it out. Invest. y Refy.com or give them a call at 888 yrefy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Chuck Warren: Sam, you. You've worked a lot on the border crisis here in Arizona. You've done a lot of policy. You've done a lot of research. Talk more about it. So Mayor Adams is complaining now. Now, part of the problem for Mayor Adams is being a sanctuary city. They have promised so many social services. My understanding what's interesting about this is last night NBC Nightly News led with this story. It was the first day of school and 20,000 new migrants were going to school. And they were explaining this, the cost of this. But again, this would not have happened without Ducey, DeSantis and leadership on this by Abbott. This never would be a front page story. And now it is. Sam Stone: It is. And that was the intent all along. It was the right move. Look, the first major race I worked on was a congressional race in southern Arizona on the border. So we had about 140 miles of the border in that congressional district. We went down there. We met with the farmers and ranchers. I'll never forget the story I got from one of them who he was getting older. His kids had moved out of the house, gone off to college. So it was just him and his wife there. And his house had been broken into 16 times that year. 16 times. Now, what he had actually done was go ahead and put out food and drinks and all this stuff, put refrigerators so they wouldn't break in. Chuck Warren: So go take some water, take some food and get on your way. Sam Stone: And so then they did stop actually breaking in. Right. But but that's the impact on one person. You're talking about an issue where we have millions of these folks coming here. And what Adams has done and what New York and some of these other cities are doing by by treating them the way, quite frankly, they treat the black population, which is we're going to keep you in a very minimal living. Right. And not expect you to actually do any work or any sort of thing like that. They are exacerbating the costs of this dramatically. They're increasing the number of dependent type people who are coming here for this. You know, look, this is there are so many elements of this. Nobody comes across the border without the permission of the cartels. So these people are all being trafficked in one sense or another. They've either paid directly or now they're here as indentured servants or sex trafficked. This is a problem that thank God for those governors who stood up and did this. It might have been grandstanding. The news might have might have thrown a little hissy over it at the time. But you know what? Chuck Warren: It worked. They were throwing a hissy as of six weeks ago. Right. I mean, I will say this. God bless Mayor Adams for Elise being blunt about it, not caring. He offends the administration and saying this is a problem. It's a problem in Chicago now they're complaining about it. Sam Stone: As long as the problem was in Phoenix and Dallas and in places like. Chuck Warren: Tucson, who cares? Who cares? Sam Stone: Yeah, but now that it's affecting these big national Democrats in the coastal cities where there's real Democrat media there that has to now be forced to cover this story. The the the sense of indignation coming from the left that this is a story now is just entertaining as hell. Chuck Warren: Well, I think one thing to for our listeners to understand, this is not going to slow down. The world is in chaos. So there's not it's not folks it's not like ten years ago, 20 years ago, where they came from, Central America, Mexico. These are folks coming from Russia, Ukraine. They're coming from the Middle East. They're coming from Africa. They're coming from Cuba, They're coming from Venezuela. This is not slowing down. So you got to get a border policy that actually works done. Sam Stone: What was the Pew study a couple of years ago that said something like 60% of the world's population would move to America if they. Chuck Warren: Could, and I would, too. I mean, that's why that's why you always see these moronic progressives saying what a horrible country. Hey, jackass, over 5 billion people in the world would come to America if just given the chance right now, right this very minute. You want to. Sam Stone: You want to talk about housing crisis. I mean, gosh. So that's the other thing. So the lowest estimate out there is that there are two plus million people who have come here illegally or claimed asylum status under the Biden administration. I think it's quite a bit more than probably double. It's probably more than double. It's probably double. But let's say it's 2 million. We have not built 2 million new housing units in the last two and a half years. We probably not built 200,000 new. Housing unit. Chuck Warren: We're behind several years of housing just to. Sam Stone: Catch up behind by more than a decade. So, I mean, so and you look at the issues with schools, you're complaining about Democrats always complaining about school funding. Well, you're bringing kids here who require a vastly higher rate of spending to to get them caught up. You are stressing every level of your social service system. You have a lot of kids who are coming here who are kids in our definition because they're 13, 14, 15, but they're not in Mexico. Right. Absolutely. And so then we're taking them in under a system, folks. We're going to go to the next interview here. Chuck, I didn't even catch which order we're doing them in, do we? Chuck Warren: Kimberley Strassel was the first one. Ross from The New York Times will be the next. Sam Stone: Is the next one, folks. Stay tuned for that and then stay tuned for the podcast segment afterwards. We're coming back with. Chuck Warren: A new segment. Sam Stone: All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds, the scramble show where we are making up for our electronic foibles. Chuck Warren: We had one more. We would have a scramble. Sam Stone: Well, look, we're Gen-Xers. We do not we should not be expected to be good with technology. I'm just saying, like all the younger generations have an advantage on this front that we are not allowed to have. Exactly. Because we grew up with. Did did you have a computer growing up? Chuck Warren: No, no, I started college with a typewriter. So I and I remember and I remember my friend Darren Richards, who was the top public defender for Clark County, Nevada. Folks, if you don't know Las Vegas, I remember when the computer came out, he goes, This is a fad. This will never last. Sam Stone: So I can I can actually top you on that one, Chuck. My father wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal. At that time. Chuck Warren: They said it was a fad. Sam Stone: Yeah. That this was never going to this is never going to work in business. Chuck Warren: It won't stick. He won't. Sam Stone: Stick. His two most famous articles are the two he was most wrong on. He said the computers would not make it. And then number two, he said Amazon was a fad. Chuck Warren: Well, you can't be a bold prognosticator unless you're willing to make bold. Sam Stone: He was right about many, many things in his life. Not those. Chuck Warren: Not those. Well, it's like my friend who was invited to invest in the first KFC, and he said, no one's ever going to buy chicken going through a fast food. And then his second opportunity was to invite in the storage units. You know, he goes, Oh, yeah, no one's going to take their stuff out of a garage and put it in a storage unit. So those are his two things that he's failed on. Anyway, we. Sam Stone: Anyway, we have as as always, the irrepressible Kiley Kipper is in studio with us here and we were planning in going forward, it's going to be a new feature on the podcast segment, a new feature program with Kiley's Corner. This is a conspiracy theory based. Kiley Kipper: Not necessarily conspiracy theory, but more. I wanted to for those that have been around for a while listening to us, it used to be the sunshine moment, but you know, the world's not always sunshine and I like to talk about other topics. So sometimes Kiley. Chuck Warren: Has gone down the hole of gloom and doom. Sam Stone: Kiley is. Kiley is the captain of sunshine and murder. Kiley Kipper: Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So this one's not actually a murder case that I'm talking about today. This is a case up in Utah where this this mother was just arrested, I think it was this week or maybe last week. Ruby, Frank, Frankie, there's been pronounced twice, but she's a Utah mom who is a big YouTuber, so she has 2 million followers on YouTube. Sam Stone: Oh, I saw. Kiley Kipper: Something about this. Yeah, they're called eight passengers because there's eight of them. Six kids. And she she was basically known for her tough love and putting this in air quotes of why people would watch her. So she was recently just arrested for child abuse. So what had happened was her kid escaped from a window and ran to a neighbor's house and said, I need food, I need water. He was duct taped on his wrist and his arms and had I listened to the 911 call from the guy that whose house he ran up to and he just broke, he was breaking down. Crying was like, this kid's been tied up like there's lacerations on his arms from ropes. Oh, my God. And so I had never even heard of this woman before. Sam Stone: I do. How many followers did she have on YouTube? 2 million. Kiley Kipper: 2 million? Yeah. So 2 million people are watching her parenting advice. Sam Stone: You make really good money when you have that kind of followers. Like that's a that's a significant Well. Kiley Kipper: They would do meet and greets so people were posting photos of like them actually going to like meet the family which was weird in my mind. Chuck Warren: Wow. Very weird. Kiley Kipper: Yeah. Which I'm not. I don't have kids, so there was no need for me to watch a mommy blogger. But 2 million people apparently did think that. So I went back and I watched some of the videos and there were over time, you could see it get worse. So in the beginning, it was just like, I'm a strict parent, no sleepovers, which is I get in this day and age like very normal. Right? Sam Stone: I you know, there's a line I think it's a little bit like what was the the the justice who said I you know, I can't tell you what pornography is. I know it when I see it. Right. It's the same kind of thing. It's really a judgmental line. Yeah. But in this day and age, it's hard to criticize someone for being a strict parent. Chuck Warren: Yes. Yes. Kiley Kipper: So, Chuck, Chuck's looking at me because I just switched to my next note page, but where I saw it, we. Sam Stone: Have audio issues on this page. Kiley Kipper: No, no, no. This is all good. So where I saw it going south was when she started using food as her main, like, I guess, punishment. So in many times. Chuck Warren: It was a carrot and stick situation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Kiley Kipper: So many times she would say food is a privilege, so you have to earn it. So there would be many like mornings where she'd say her kid would be like, Mom, I'm really hungry. And she's taping all of this and putting it on YouTube for years now. And she's like, Did you do the dishes? She's like, Yeah. Did you do the laundry? Yeah. Her kids six, by the way, in this video, she's like, Yeah, I did. She's like, Did you clean the toilets? She's like, Yes. She goes, Did you mow the lawn yet? And she goes, No, mom, I'm really hungry. And she was like, Well, you can't eat until you mow the lawn. Get out there. Chuck Warren: Didn't her audience. Excuse me? Didn't her audience feel like they were enabling her? Kiley Kipper: Yeah. I mean, so some people there was like a very people would report her videos. Neighbors have have said that they've called the cops on this family and they've just they've done nothing, which I don't I think. So They recently joined when I say recently, like five years ago, the oldest daughter, she's 20 now, so she's out of the house. She's going to college. She said that they joined this group called Connections, which is a mental health podcast. It's spelled with an X, and the woman, the host of that was also arrested, Jodie, because the kid when he escaped was in Jodi's house. So not actually the family's house. So it's a little confusing, huh? Um, so this woman has been arrested, too, because it was occurring in her house as well. But the 20 year old daughter, who's now in college said that when they joined Connections, they started getting she didn't use this word, but I'm going to say cult like they were. It was a really strict following. That's when she separated from her family. So the oldest 20, who probably endured some of this abuse when she was younger, but. Chuck Warren: Not not to the level probably. Sam Stone: Sounds like it was escalating. Yeah. Kiley Kipper: So she said since this in 2018 when they joined, it's gotten really bad. The dad used to be a professor at BYU. He's kind of like he's not arrested. He's supposedly they were separated for the past year, so I don't know if maybe that's when it got really bad was this past year. But basically this case is open. One of the daughters was talking about how they have limits of how much food they can eat. So Fridays and Mondays is 1900 calories. Tuesdays and Thursdays is 1700 calories. Sam Stone: That's not enough for a kid. Kiley Kipper: And then Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday, it's 1500 calories. Sam Stone: Oh, no, that's no. Chuck Warren: I mean, not enough. Sam Stone: At all. No, that's that's not enough. Chuck Warren: Well, I will tell you, Utah will pounce on this. She will be serving jail, if not prison time on this. And good. Sam Stone: Yeah. And good. Chuck Warren: And she should. They will. Kiley Kipper: But so Alex Murdaugh did the same thing. They have all these calls and then like the calls in jail are still like, you can request them and hear them. So supposedly one of the calls I say supposedly I listened to it. So one of the calls, unless it wasn't Jodi's voice, she was talking to her husband or the who she's been separated with for a while now about there was apparently a flood in their house and they were discussing the. So while she's in jail, they were discussing renovations of the flood that was that happened in their house over like anything else that's more important in their life, which apparently not the kids. Sam Stone: Wow. Chuck Warren: The world is really screwed up. Yes, very. And I do feel like this woman. I don't think that's going to be something abnormal. I think as people try to find purpose to a confusing, chaotic world, I think we're going to hear more stories like this over and over and over because people are trying to find meaning. They're trying to find purpose or trying to find structure because it's not out there. Sam Stone: Well, I think all of that. But I think then it goes to a different and dangerous level with social media because one driver behind behind these social media accounts is you have to keep building. I mean, who's who's watching? Chuck Warren: Who are the 2 million? I'd love to know the demographics of the 2 million people watching this woman. I mean, me too. I mean, what makes that worth your time? Sam Stone: Well, I mean, look, in a certain sense, I think you can see it because for parents, the advice they're getting from the official sources appears to have failed in so many ways. Chuck Warren: It happens all the time, too, right? I mean, it's unique. I mean, that's the hard part. We are in the country that want to protect parental rights. Right. And there is a danger on overboarding that so much. But, you know, so they're always going to take, I think, the parents side on a lot of things, unless you have some real, real proof or evidence. Sam Stone: Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. And look, one of the things when you're dealing with whatever your state calls Child protective services, one of the things you realize is the situations they routinely see are so beyond the the understanding of the average human being, even far beyond what. Kylie, you're describing in this. I mean, because from working at the city of Phoenix, I know I've seen some of the police reports that are attached to these things. You're talking about, you know, kids this is sick, folks. But kids being kept in cages is not as uncommon as we'd all like to believe. Kids being starved. Yeah. For for really unfathomable reasons is not uncommon. Chuck Warren: And the problem is it gets passed down from generation. Yes. Generation to generation, which creates a whole culture of psychopaths. Sam Stone: It's it is consistent. I mean, you really do see the generational trauma, the effects of it, and a lot of stuff right now tied to the generational poverty that we've created with government programs, which becomes so hopeless that it increases the frequency of those traumas because people are lashing out and even at their own families for things that are affecting their lives. Chuck Warren: Well, and the three of us in this room, we hit the lucky sperm club by being born into the families. Kiley Kipper: I was going to say. Sam Stone: This is Chuck's second statement of the day that I'm not sure won't get bleeped on Christian radio here. But but it's. Chuck Warren: True. It is true. We, the three of us in the room. And, you know, when I was growing up there until ten years ago, I thought my upbringing was somewhat average American upbringing. I grew up in a middle class home. My parents worked hard, did dinner. You know, there was no abuse. There was nothing like that. They were supportive and, you know, prepare you for the future. The older I get what I was, what was available to me is rare. Yeah. And you wonder why we have problems in this country and throughout the world. It's not it's not unique to America. This happens everywhere. It's one. Sam Stone: Of the reasons I was disappointed that friend of the show, Larry Elder, was not allowed to go on, you know, to to participate in the debate, to talk. Chuck Warren: About that, to. Sam Stone: Talk about that issue specifically. Chuck Warren: One other item, Kylie from Kiley's Corner. Before we move on to the next subject, what's going on in Idaho? Is he going to get off? Speaker10: What's going on in Idaho? Kiley Kipper: You know, if he does, I think there'll be a lot of people that riot. However, if he. Sam Stone: Does, he's probably got a slam bang. Speaker10: Lawsuit. Yeah. Kiley Kipper: Yeah. So he waived his right to a speedy trial. So we will not see this in court for a long time. They say it could be years, years, years, years. During that hearing, though, Kaylee, one of the victims her. One of her family members. They don't show it because they don't show. The audience in the courtroom wrote wore a pro-death penalty shirt to kind of taunt Brian. Kiley Kipper: Um. Kiley Kipper: And they also he was so cameras will be allowed in the courtroom. However, I don't think that I think the judge ruled that they they won't report on the case. So there will be cameras. I'm assuming, you know, at the end of it there will be a documentary and whatnot. However, there won't be live reporting. And one one this one's funny. One of Brian's arguments against it was they kept focusing on his crotch. So supposedly I. I haven't seen any of those photos, but the judge agreed. Kiley Kipper: That. Kiley Kipper: Something fishy was going on. Sam Stone: Oh, okay. Chuck Warren: All right. So let's let's Sam, let's talk about Salman Rushdie. As you know, a fanatical jihadist attacked him on the stage, stabbed him. He lost an eye. Right. Do you have to So I guess you only need one. According to the Biden administration, you only need one eye. Sam Stone: Now, this is amazing. So Barry Weiss, Free Press reporting today, Salman Rushdie's attacker. I'm just going to read this, folks. Salman Rushdie's attacker getting treated with kid gloves. Sure. A crazy jihadi ran on stage and stabbed Salman Rushdie, who lost an eye. But have you considered that the Biden administration really wants to make a deal with Iran? And so maybe Rushdie is being a little dramatic. Did he really need both eyes? This is a real quote from Jason Schmidt, the district attorney overseeing the case, arguing that some of the prosecution depends on Biden's Iran agenda. Quote, the US attorney's office. I know they are engaged in their own investigation and potential prosecution, and they've been looking at this as well. I do think it does have political considerations and recognizing, for instance, that the Biden government is trying to negotiate with Iran now to bring them back into a nuclear treaty. I understand that there's a lot of considerations here that, you know, that are way outside my pay grade. Chuck Warren: I'm telling you, this administration, what they decide, needs to receive the punishment of the law and what needs to be handled with kid gloves is a decision they make every day now. Sam Stone: Well, let's add the fact that this nuclear treaty is literally just a way to hand Iran a nuclear bomb 100%. I mean, nothing more. It's handing them money and a bomb. And that's what you're saying, that Salman Rushdie's attacker should be let off, should be should be allowed to skate on. Chuck Warren: It's just not a justice system I want in my country. Sam Stone: It's not a justice system. Chuck Warren: No, it's not at all. Folks, thank you for spending time with us this weekend. And this is breaking battlegrounds. You can see this clip and more at breaking battlegrounds. Dot vote or pick us up wherever you listen to podcasts and in addition to all our other markets. So check out our website again, Breaking battlegrounds dot vote on behalf of Sam and I and Kiley's Corner. Have a great weekend. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds, the podcast that fearlessly tackles the most divisive issues gripping our nation today. In this riveting episode, we are thrilled to host two guests whose expertise and perspectives promise to ignite thoughtful discussions. Congressman Andy Harris joins us first, shedding light on critical matters such as legal immigration and the urgent need for enforcing our border laws. He also delves into the world of IRS whistleblowers and Secretary Mayorkas, providing keen insights into these complex topics. With a unique background as a medical practitioner in Congress during the COVID pandemic, Congressman Harris discusses the federal government’s handling of COVID. Later, the show takes an intense turn as Professor Brooks Simpson engages in a fiery debate with Sam Stone and Michelle Ugenti-Rita, exploring the state of Free Speech at Arizona State and Barrett College. Get ready for a gripping episode filled with candid conversations that will challenge your perspectives and broaden your understanding. Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds The son of immigrants who fled communist Eastern Europe immediately after World War II, Dr. Andy Harris was as a physician at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a medical officer in the Naval Reserve, and a state senator before coming to Congress. Born in Brooklyn in 1957, he studied medicine at Hopkins, where he continued to practice as an anesthesiologist for nearly three decades. Andy specialized in obstetric anesthesiology.  In 1988, Andy answered a recruitment call to fill a critical need for anesthesiologists in the Naval Reserve during the Reagan administration. He went on to establish and command The Johns Hopkins Medical Naval Reserve Unit.  In 1990, his unit was called up to active duty in order to assist with Operation Desert Shield (and later Operation Desert Storm) at Bethesda Naval Hospital.  Harris attained the rank of Commander (O-5) before leaving the Reserves after seventeen years. Unhappy with the status quo in Annapolis, Andy decided to take on the establishment and run for the Maryland State Senate in 1998, where he served for 12 years.  Maryland’s First Congressional District first elected Andy to serve in the House of Representatives in 2010. He is the is the current Chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies subcommittee on Appropriations. He also serves on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee as well as the Homeland Security subcommittee on Appropriations.  Andy was married to his late wife, Cookie, for over 33 years, and he is the proud father of five children, stepfather of one, and grandfather to ten.  Andy lives with his wife, Nicole, and their dog in Dorchester County.  In his free time, he enjoys spending time on the Chesapeake Bay with his family and repairing old cars with his sons. - Brooks D. Simpson is an ASU Foundation Professor of History at Arizona State University, where he is a member of the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts faculty. A member of the honors faculty at Barrett, The Honors College, during the spring 2017 semester he served as associate dean (interim) at Barrett's Downtown campus. As a historian of the United States, Professor Simpson studies American political and military history as well as the American presidency, specializing in the era of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Note: Brooks Simpson speaks on his own behalf, not as a representative of ASU. His opinions are his own. - Transcription Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. We're going to be jumping right into it with our first guest today. We're very pleased to have on the line Congressman Andy Harris of the first Congressional District of Maryland. Congressman Harris was a physician at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, medical officer in the Naval Reserve and a state senator before coming to Congress. Congressman, welcome to the program. Chuck Warren: It's good to be with you, Congressman. This is Chuck. I want to start with two questions. The first one is a little more practical. You're the only Republican member of the Maryland delegation. Is that correct? That's right. That's right. Yeah. Andy Harris: Hopefully we'll get another one. But I'm the only one now. Chuck Warren: Do they treat you this? The other members of the delegation treat you like a misfit toy or are they good working with you? Andy Harris: It depends on the issue. You tell me what the issue is. I'll tell you how I get treated. Chuck Warren: Well, how about this? Regarding constituent issues in Maryland, do they work pretty well with you? Andy Harris: Absolutely. No question. The senators work with me. Obviously, if we have a constituent who contacts my office from another representative's office. Yeah, they work. They work with me on that. Again, look, on some issues, on a lot of issues, we're going to disagree. But on the issues that are important to our constituents and where we have commonality, we agree. Sam Stone: Congressman, I'm glad we touched on constituent services because I think that's something that doesn't get talked about enough. How important is that to just doing your job the right way and how much can that separate, frankly, a good Congress member from a great one? Andy Harris: I think it's very important now, honestly, to be honest with you, it shouldn't be that important because the federal government should work without the intervention of representatives. But the problem is, is that it frequently needs it. Right now. For instance, passports are months and months behind. And if somebody has a trip coming up, you know, we have to we have to advocate on their behalf with the Department of State. It shouldn't be that way. I mean, you pay a fee to process a passport. It should be processed in a timely fashion. Sam Stone: Chuck and I have a good friend who is in green card limbo right now. And, you know, I mean, it's a constant problem. And you're right, they shouldn't need intervention by someone like yourself. Chuck Warren: With Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland. Congressman, so both your parents fled communist Eastern Europe to come to the United States. I find that background fascinating because I think it gives you a unique perspective on the immigration crisis our country faces now. How has that that giving you an outlook on immigration and what do you feel needs to be done? Andy Harris: Sure. No, My parents came from my mother's ethnic Ukrainian. It was, you know, fled Poland That was part of Poland, part of the Ukraine she was born in at the time. But it was again, the communists took it over after World War II. My father fled Hungary when the communists took it over. They, you know, met at a displacement camp in Austria, and they waited literally years for the legal pathway to come to the United States. They came they found the American dream for them and, you know, raised four boys here, all all successful, the absolute American dream. But they waited years in line to come in legally. And this is a great country. You know, we accept, you know, a million immigrants every year legally. And that's what immigrants should expect. They should expect to respect our process. And, you know, a lot of them don't. I mean, some do like my parents did. So we're a country of immigrants. I get it. But, you know, you can't start out your trip to this country, a country of law and order, by breaking the law. It's just not right. It should never we should never allow it. Chuck Warren: What are some things we can do to stop this crisis? You know, for example, we had a guest on the show months ago. Talk about that. If you don't come through a port of entry and there's 327 in the country, you're immediately denied asylum. Sam Stone: Former US attorney out of Yuma, right. Chuck Warren: I mean, is that the type of type of legislation we need to start getting this under control? Andy Harris: Honestly, we don't even need legislation. The laws are on the books. We need an administration that will enforce the laws on the books. The last administration did. This administration doesn't. And what we've seen is roughly a tripling of the number of illegal immigrants coming in under this administration. We have plenty of laws. We don't need laws. You know, the Democrats want to pass laws because they want to legalize everybody who came in illegally. They want to legalize people and make citizens out of people who came in illegally. Again, we just need to enforce our current laws. And it's a shame. It's a real shame that we don't enforce our borders. Sam Stone: Congressman, we recently had some hearings with Secretary Mayorkas on this issue. And one of the things I find so disconcerting with this administration is their officials will sit up there and flatly not merely deny the truth, but present a picture that is directly opposite. Of the reality. And I think a lot of folks in Arizona, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, California know the reality is not the picture he painted. Andy Harris: That's absolutely right. And you know, about a few months ago when there was that crisis in Del Rio where you had, you know, 10,000 people flooded and, you know, one of one of the one of the broadcast outlets, you know, had had a helicopter taking pictures of it. Americans realize there is actually chaos at the border. You know, I blame the media. The media should be you know, it's American media. It should be protective of our laws in this country. And it should actually expose the administration when they are not enforcing the laws of this country. Instead, you know, most of the media is absolutely complicit. Sam Stone: You know, one thing that came out in the media this week, Chuck, and Congressman Harris, that I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw it and the way they presented it, the media was talking this week about the Border Patrol keeping crossers in cages in this heat. They their entire talk was it's the Border Patrol that did that. Compare that to Trump when he was. Chuck Warren: Trump, it was the Trump administration that did it. Yeah. Yeah, it's incredible. Congressman, you mentioned that we just need to enforce the laws on the book. Let's do a tutorial for our audience here because I don't think a lot of people, as we've talked to people, they really don't realize what's on the book. It's sort of like these gun laws. We have lots of gun laws on the book. There always seem to be ignored. And then a mass shooter who wasn't convicted of committing crimes with them, you know, bypassed them. So talk about what laws we have on the book with immigration that you feel we need to enforce. Andy Harris: Well, one of the one of the first ones is, is that if you're if you're applying for asylum, you need to be detained until your asylum hearing. It's pretty simple. I mean, that's that's the law. The law is you're supposed to be detained. Now, when you when you allow, you know, hundreds of thousands, millions of people to cross the border, you don't have adequate detention facilities. The answer is don't allow any more people to cross the border instead of allow them across the border and then just release them into the interior of the country with perhaps the promise that they will one day show up for their asylum here and hearing years into the future, because literally we have a backlog of a couple of million cases. That's not the way it should be done. You know, you could interpret you could easily interpret the law to say you can't cross into the into the United States unless we have a detention facility that has a bed for you. And if we don't and that you get a prompt asylum hearing, we don't have enough detention facilities, we don't have enough judges. So we have a years long backlog with people being admitted into the interior with literally just the promise that, yeah, I'll show up, I'll show up for my asylum hearing. And of course the statistics are the vast, vast majority never show up. And of the ones that do show up, the vast majority are in fact denied asylum. Chuck Warren: Let's talk about a minute here about the IRS whistleblowers. What have you found interesting about the IRS whistleblowers that came out this past week? Andy Harris: Well, I think, you know, the 50,000 foot picture is it's amazing because when the whistleblowers, you know, two years ago, the Democrats loved whistleblowers. They respected it. Oh, my gosh, you can't say anything bad about a whistleblower because they were whistleblowers who were blowing the whistle on the Trump administration. Now you've got whistleblowers who I think any objective person would say, yeah, these are legitimate whistleblowers. They are, you know, some of the informants, legitimate informants, and yet they're supposed to be distrusted. Now, this is the hypocrisy of that is just is particularly stunning. I don't I think the average American has come to come to understand that there are two systems of justice, you know, one for Hunter Biden and one for everybody else in the country. You know, the judge the judge's decision yesterday to deny the plea bargain shows just how true that is. That here's a here's here's a man accused on a gun charge where if, according to the plea bargain, if he keeps his nose clean for a couple of years, doesn't even get doesn't even get a felony conviction on a gun charge on his record, that's pretty amazing. That's all I can say. And people and people that really bothers Americans. Americans, above all, would like to believe that there is a that, you know, Lady Justice wears a blindfold. But it's pretty clear that peeking out from under that blindfold for some people, especially if your last name is Biden. Sam Stone: Congressman, I agree 100% with everything you just said, the except that the American people really understand and know this. One of the things I keep having conversations with Republicans about is that when you're talking to your Democrat and independent neighbors who aren't watching Fox News and things to the right of Fox News, there has been no coverage of any of this. No, I mean, no coverage of the whistleblowers, no coverage of Hunter Biden, no coverage of the border hearings. There's no coverage anymore of anything that is detrimental to the left point of view. Andy Harris: Well, you know, but that's only the last in a long string of of incidents that tell the same story. So I think most people. And you'd ask most people that. Yeah. You know, if you went and protested at a school board. Yeah. The FBI actually began to open files, domestic terrorism files on you. I think people just understand that if you are part of the administration or agree with the administration, there's one way you're treated. If you disagree, there's another way. And the Hunter Biden incident is just the latest in a string. Sam Stone: How much should Republicans be really featuring this in all the campaigns coast to coast coming up for for next year? Because quite frankly, when you look at all of this, the level of corruption and incompetence, I can't point to a single area right now where the Biden administration is succeeding in their policy. Andy Harris: Look, I agree. I mean, you know, the biggest laugh is they somehow claim Biden is working out great. Well, I don't know. I go to the grocery store and I don't think it's working out so great. I go I go to the gas station. I don't think it's working out so great. So, I mean, I'm not sure I understand, you know, where they see that coming from. Chuck Warren: Well, there was a I saw a news clip today from a liberal economist who said that the reason people are not impressed with the economy is that real wages went up for manufacturing and middle class workers during Trump administration. They're not doing that now. And so it's not affecting the people that they think it affects. And so then what they do is they take their paycheck, they go to the grocery store, they pay more for gas or pay more for groceries or pay more for utilities. Everything's gone up five, ten, 15, 20%. Andy Harris: That's right. So so to compare the Trump administration and the Trump administration, wages went up faster than prices because inflation was low and wages grew in the Biden administration. Wages are going up way slower than inflation. So in fact, your paycheck doesn't go as far and everybody knows it. I mean, again, you know, you can talk all you want, but people, they take their paychecks and they go out and they try to you know, they try to buy things that they fully understand that this economy is very, very different from the one before Joe Biden took office. Sam Stone: Yeah, enormously different. We have just about 30s before we go to break here, we're going to be coming back with more from Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland's first Congressional district here in just a moment. Folks, if you want to keep in touch with him, you can follow him on Twitter at Rep. Andy Harris, MD. That's at Rep, Andy Harris, MD. And definitely make sure you check him out. He's doing fantastic work there. Congressman, When we come back, we're going to be talking more on spending and the economy. Also, folks, stay tuned. Breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. We're continuing on with Congressman Andy Harris here in just a moment. But folks, we were talking about the economy. And if you're concerned about the economy and about your portfolio, you need to check out our friends at invest y refy.com that's invest the letter y, then refy.com they have an opportunity for you to earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right. 10.25% fixed. Phenomenal opportunity not tied to the stock market. The Biden economy goes down, the Biden economy goes down. You continue to earn 10.25%. Check them out. Again, that's invest y refy.com or give them a call at 888 Y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Chuck Warren: Worth Congressman Andy Harris. Congressman, I want to take a step away from what we've been talking about for a moment. You are a doctor. You work from Johns Hopkins during Covid. Did your colleagues from both sides of the aisle come and talk to you about your opinion on it? Andy Harris: Well, I will tell you that certainly from my side of the aisle, they did. You know, my opinion was that we didn't take the right course of action during Covid. So a lot of the members on the other side of the aisle didn't come talk to me about it. But it became pretty clear early on that this, first of all, that this was this was a function of the Chinese. There's no question about it. It came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It's amazing that there's still not there's near-total universal acceptance of that now by the federal government, but it's not universally accepted yet. And that's dangerous because we need to know how dangerous China is and how they lied to us during the at the beginning of this pandemic. Sam Stone: Congressman, you're a doctor. So one of the things that I've been dismayed about since the you know, since Covid is that our public health response was awful. I mean, it was just awful. But there doesn't seem to be any real effort to go back and look and say, hey, we need to redo our plans and reconsider how we're going to approach these things, how we interact with the public, all of that sort of stuff. I mean, they basically got everything wrong, but but aren't appearing to admit it or prepare to next time, hopefully, you know, long, long time from now. But whenever that may be to do better, Is there is there effort underway in Congress or in the federal government to really look at how we can do things differently than we did this last time? Andy Harris: There certainly should be, and we're certainly trying to steer it that way. You know, the Republican majority in the House. But I'll tell you, they're still denial among the federal agencies. They deny that they did anything wrong. And look, they didn't get everything wrong. Honestly, if you were a high risk patient, you were a senior, you had multiple, you know, co-morbidities. We call them, you know, you were you were sick person. The vaccines were that was probably a good idea because the vaccines didn't prevent the disease. They did decrease the severity. But very early on, we knew that there were two categories of people, high risk and low risk. And if you were in low risk, there really was no need for the vaccine. And yet the government continued to push them. That was probably when that occurred that the government didn't give you a choice because, look, if you want if you're low risk and you want to take the vaccine, God bless you, your choice. When the government stopped giving you a choice, that's when I knew this government was out of control on this. And they were not following the science. They were just they were just going to deny that they had gotten something wrong. And in medicine, that's very dangerous. You know, if you realize you've made the wrong diagnosis, make the right one and begin the treatment on the right one, you don't just continue down the path saying, well, I'm really not going to admit that I made the wrong diagnosis because that doesn't end well for the patients. Chuck Warren: Well, it's I I'm going back. It's amazing to me that members on both sides of the aisle, especially Democrats, didn't come to you. So there's you know, there's there's 19 members, 19 members of the Senate in the House who are doctors. There's 15in the House. Which of those ten are Republican and the Senate? All of them are GOP. I just find it appalling that they're not willing to talk to a colleague and say, you know, hey, Congressman Harris, what do you think about this based on your background? I just that's just so strange. Andy Harris: Well, again, you know, they made everything partisan. You know, you know, if you agreed with President Trump on anything, you were wrong. It didn't make a difference whether you're a physician or not. You were wrong. That's not that's just not the way it should be. And literally to a person, I mean, I knew all the physicians, all of them who are Republicans, literally every single one of them knew that we were heading in the wrong direction. And yet the what the problem was, what there were only a couple of doctors that were appearing every day. You know, their names were Berks and Fauci. Right. And Dr. Fauci clearly had a conflict of interest here because he held responsibility for the Wuhan Institute of Virology doing some of that gain of function research. And I think, again, there is this and it may come to light, you know. In the future that there was a kind of a collaboration with the NIH and people with the NIH, with this with this denial that this was this this came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, partly because they were funding them. They didn't want to again, they didn't want to admit they made a mistake. You make a mistake. Just admit it. People in the end are much more forgiving if you just admit it rather than double down on on the on the misleading, the misleading evidence. And that's what they were doing. Chuck Warren: And people would have understood that. I mean, that's the thing. They all knew. This was knew people were caught off guard. They knew that. I mean, it's just so simple to say, okay, look, this is what we've learned. We need to change course. Andy Harris: Absolutely. Again, the conflict of interest here was that obviously the NIH and the National Institute that Dr. Fauci headed, you know, funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And again, you know, again, you know, at some point and part of it is that Dr. Fauci was a little naive. And a lot of scientists are naive believe that, well, you know, we can trust the Chinese scientists. Well, no, you can't. Because, you know, if you to succeed as a Chinese scientist, you have to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party and you have to do what you're told. That's not science. Science is when you follow the scientific truth, not do what you're told. And again, I think it's just being naive about the ways of the world and communism. Again, with my parents having come from communist countries, I fully understood what was going on here. The communists were lying about it. And again, there are people who refuse to believe that somehow a scientist would lie. No, that's not the way it works in communist countries. Sam Stone: Yeah, One of the things so we just touched on China, and that's kind of been one of our running themes on this show. We are in a period of contest between great nations, and it doesn't seem like we fully comprehend that that is the case here in the United States. Andy Harris: I agree with you. And the evidence of it is if you go into one of the large container ports in the country, you see ships loaded with 1000 containers from China. We are we are literally funding our enemy. When we purchase things from China, we are funding our enemy. And this is just a bad it's just a bad choice. I don't know how we end it. I think President Trump, through some of his tariff and trade policies, was getting in the right direction with it. And then, of course, the Biden administration just whistling past the graveyard. Sam Stone: Yeah, absolutely. We have just about a minute and a half before we go to break, Congressman, anything coming up on the docket that you think people should be keeping an eye on? Andy Harris: Well, the most important thing is the is the appropriations, the spending struggle that's going on in Washington right now. Again, many people in Washington, honestly, on both sides of the aisle, are just addicted to a deficit spending. But when we're running deficits over $1 trillion a year, I think the average person understands, you know, they take out a home mortgage, they take out a car loan. The proviso is you're actually going to pay it back. There are people in Washington who believe that somehow you can borrow trillions of dollars without ever having a plan to pay it back. That doesn't work. It doesn't work. That doesn't end well. Chuck Warren: It's never worked. Andy Harris: Nope, it never will and never will for mathematical reasons. Chuck Warren: Never will. Yeah. Math. Math is a real stinker, I have found out. Andy Harris: It's like science. It's a real. Chuck Warren: Stinker. You know. Sam Stone: Those absolutes. Democrats just don't want the binary answers to anything. No, they don't. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today. Folks, we want to thank Congressman Andy Harris for taking his time this morning. We're really pleased to have him on the program. You can follow him at Rep. Andy Harris, MD, on Twitter and breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back with more in just a moment. We have a we have a hot couple of segments coming up for you. Stay tuned. All right. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host. I'm Sam Stone. Chuck Warren actually stepping out of studio because in a certain way, this next couple of segments are a continuation of some segments we did a few weeks ago. So we have Michelle Ugenti-rita back in studio here in Chuck's place. Thank you again, Michelle, and in studio with us today. And thank you for joining us. Professor Brooks Simpson, ASU Foundation Professor of history at Arizona State University, member of the College of Integrated Sciences, Sciences and Art Faculty, a member of the Honors Faculty at Barrett the Honors College during Spring 2017 semester. He serves as associate dean at Barrett's downtown campus. So, Professor, thank you so much for joining us. Professor Brooks Simpson: I'm really glad to be here, Sam. And right now I have to give the disclaimer that I am speaking for myself and not as a representative of Arizona State. Sam Stone: Absolutely. And folks, that's an important distinction. If he were if we wanted to get him in here speaking from Arizona State, we'd have to go through them. And that's a that's a complicated process. So we appreciate your willingness to step out here and speak on it. When we were talking last time, Michelle, we were talking about an incident surrounding the Barrett College, an event Health, Wealth and Happiness event featuring some conservative speakers that brought some controversy to ASU. And there's since been a rather great deal of fallout. After we did that segment, Professor Simpson said on our Twitter, Hey, you guys are wrong, said we got it wrong. So we're having him in here today and we thank him for the courage to come in here, because not everyone is willing to do that and tell us how and why we were wrong. And we want to get into that. More in just a minute. But first, start out, Professor, with a little bit about you and your background. How how did you get into teaching in the first place? Professor Brooks Simpson: Um, I enjoyed history as a historian. I've written some books and done some other things as that goes, my concentration is in American history, especially the presidency, military history, political history, civil war and reconstruction. Pretty traditional stuff. Sam Stone: So is there a book I saw you've written a couple of them. Is there one of them that you're like, Hey, this is my best piece of work. Professor Brooks Simpson: The one for which I'm most known is the first of a two volume biography of Ulysses S Grant called Ulysses S Grant Triumph over Adversity, 1822 to 1865. Sam Stone: And I I'll admit I haven't read that yet, but I am actually going to order it because I'm a huge US Grant fan. I think he's one of the more underreported figures from the Civil War and the post-war period, quite frankly. But okay, so you grew up where did you grow up? Professor Brooks Simpson: Long Island, New York. I am unlike you, a born and bred Yankees fan and also a New York Islanders fan. But we can still talk. Sam Stone: All right, folks. Now, I'm not sure about that. We may need to throw him out of the studio before we continue any further. Yankees fans are not allowed in here, so. Okay. So you started out in New York, Long Island. Where did you go to school? Professor Brooks Simpson: Undergraduate University of Virginia Graduate School. University of Wisconsin. Worked at the University of Tennessee, then at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Came out here in 1990. Sam Stone: Okay, so 1990 pretty much makes you a native Arizonan at this point. Professor Brooks Simpson: It sure looks that way. Sam Stone: 70%. Did you know, Michelle? 70% of our state was born elsewhere? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: No, I was born here. Really? So I guess I'm. Yeah, You're not the norm. You're them. But I'm not the norm in a lot of different ways. But yeah, I'm one of them. Sam Stone: I didn't realize until the other day it was that high. I think that's a pretty extraordinary number. It's one of those things I laughed at. I think in campaigns, when you see someone come out, I'm a native Arizonan and my opponent only moved here, it's like, well, most of the voters just moved here too. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So yeah, well, we're kind of a melting pot within a melting pot. Arizona. Sam Stone: Yeah, Very, very true. We've got just about two minutes before we get a break. We're going to get into the specific story, why we have Professor Simpson in the studio. Touch on that a little bit more. But before we go, we'll just kind of lay out the basics of it. Michelle, do you want to kind of just lay out the basic what happened? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, there was a an event hosted by an organization, organization associated with the Barrett College. They were bringing in. Sam Stone: Guests to Lewis Center. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Lewis Center, Correct. They were bringing in guest speakers. This event was being advertised to anyone who wanted to attend, but primarily geared for the the students of the college. And there was subsequently a letter signed by the faculty of that college. Sam Stone: A majority, but not all of the faculty. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Correct? Correct. A majority, but definitely not all that outlining their frustration and. And opposition to hosting a open event with speakers that they. Sam Stone: Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Rich dad, poor dad. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Robert Kiyosaki right that they and they labeled these individuals purveyors of hate and they outlined in the letter why they disagreed with the choice of the college to promote such an event for students to attend. Sam Stone: And then subsequently there were some blowback and repercussions with an Atkinson who helped organize that event, being let go from her position and then also the director of the Gammage Center being let go from their position as well. So we're going to get into now all of the fallout from that. Our take, Professor Simpson's take when breaking battlegrounds comes back in just a moment. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone. In studio with me today, my co-host, Michelle Ugenti-rita, for the second half of the program, and Professor Brooks Simpson of the ASU of ASU folks. But before we get into our next segment, I got to tell you a little bit more about our friends from Refy. They are doing a fantastic job creating a tremendous investment opportunity with an up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. That's right, 10.25% fixed rate of return. And by investing with by refy, you help them. You help them refinance distressed student loans, getting students who have fallen behind on their private student loan payments back on track, getting their lives back in order. And you make money doesn't get any better than that. Check them out. Invest. Why refy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or give them a call at 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Okay. Continuing on now with Professor Simpson, Michelle Ugenti-Rita in studio. So we've laid out on the program what we have been told happened or what we believe happened. Tell us why we were wrong. Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, you're not wrong so much as it's incomplete. And that's what I said, that I think Ms.. Atkinson's account is incomplete. And some of the statements made since then. Sam Stone: What are what are some of the things that are incomplete? Professor Brooks Simpson: Okay. First of all, there was a history of friction between the Lewis Center and Barrett from its inception that this is not something that. Sam Stone: What's the what was the basis of that friction? Professor Brooks Simpson: There were administrative issues and there was a perception among the faculty of donor overreach on the part of. Mr. Lewis. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: May I ask, But what does that have to do with the faculty's position on the health, wealth and happiness event that they sponsored? Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, I think that what happened is when when Miss Atkinson went ahead and had this much more public program, so this was not student programming anymore, but a public presentation. A majority of the Barrett faculty said, we don't like this program, not not because of its subject matter. And I think that's been misunderstood, but because they didn't like Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk in particular, and they expressed their opposition to having Barrett associated with those two speakers names in what was originally a private petition to the dean. So this was not originally supposed to be for public release. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But who who who cares why? Why should we care about what the faculty think about these individuals and their ability to express themselves to students who want to attend an event? Professor Brooks Simpson: Matters who you are, whether you want to care or not. But the fact is that they were expressing their opinion about these speakers and about being associated with those speakers. They wanted, in fact, just to be disassociated from the Lewis Center. They had no problem with the programming, so to speak. They had a problem with the speakers. And so that is the. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Programming, the speakers, because in their letter, which, you know, they they talk about how the event runs contrary to the core values of the community. And then they call the speakers purveyors of hate. They say that this platform legitimizes the speakers, legitimizes their anti-intellectual and anti-democratic views. I mean, I think that's more than just expressing a dislike or displeasure for the speakers, but really trying to, in my opinion, um, well. And squash the event. Sam Stone: And I want to add a second part to that question is why should any professor or a group of professors be out front saying, we don't want students to have a choice to go listen to someone who has very different views, even views they may find hateful. I mean, this is this is the difference between the definition of free speech that has traditionally been in this society, which says the answer to speech you don't like is more speech. But, Sam. Professor Brooks Simpson: They didn't say that the event shouldn't be held. They just wanted to have Barrett disassociate. Sam Stone: Well, they want the university to not be involved with the event. Professor Brooks Simpson: No, no. They just wanted Barrett not to be involved with the event. They understood that the event was going to take place, and they were. They observed in that petition, not crossing that line that they said, we're not opposed to the event being held. We're opposed to being associated with it. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: What is the distinction there? I mean, the kind of one of the same not being associated with it. I mean, my question is, it is why even opine? This is not a mandatory event. It's it can be attended by everyone and anyone. Why? Sam Stone: And this is not the other part to this professor, is that this is not an isolated incident. This is a they are now becoming a chain of these type of incidents, not only across the country, but even right here at ASU with people who objected. A bunch of professors really pulled the exact same thing in regards to an event with Don Critchlow's I forget the name of the center, but Don Critchlow's Center, where they were bringing in Jason Chaffetz and Andy Biggs to speak. I mean, you're talking about a former congressman and a sitting congressman, and they said we can't hear them. And they gave the same reasoning, the same, oh, this is hate, This is this, this is that. And how is this not just them being too weak to to listen to and then stand up to opinions they don't like? Professor Brooks Simpson: I wouldn't frame it that way. They didn't say that they were going to stand up to opinions they didn't like. Sam Stone: And again, no, they they they didn't stand up to opinions. They didn't like. They went back door and said, hey, we're not going to listen to it. We're not going to we're not going to propose an alternate event with different speakers. What they did is say, we want to make it difficult for them to speak. Professor Brooks Simpson: That's your reading of their petition? That is not my reading of their petition. And this goes back to, I think, what you said. What's the difference? There's a difference between saying, I don't want to be associated with that and saying, I don't think this event should take place on campus. If they said, I don't think this event should take place on campus and we are protesting this event and we think these speakers should be disinvited and the event canceled, then that's a much more serious issue of faculty. Sam Stone: Well, I mean, I feel like they sort of learned their lesson the first time because Crow stepped in to defend Critchlow's program and allow it to continue when they did try to cancel that one entirely. Right. So to me, this is they're just finding whatever line they can defend, the farthest line out there they can to suppress speech. Professor Brooks Simpson: But was it the Barrett faculty who did with the center of the study? Sam Stone: There were a bunch of names that were adjoined. I mean, I wasn't 100% the same group, but a bunch of the same people, same professors were part of the objection to. Professor Brooks Simpson: Both, but it wasn't identified as a barrack or they may have been acting. Sam Stone: It was it was a professor group. Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, but there are different professors, right? Sam Stone: This in this case, though, it was just a broad group of professors that were objecting. Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's a different thing. I know Don Critchlow very well, a former colleague of mine. That's a different issue than what we're talking about in terms of what happened with Barrett in this February 8th presentation. So there I think the Barrett faculty said we don't want to be associated with this, but you can have the event. Now, you some people may not see a distinction there, others do. It's what happened after that that became even more interesting. Talk about students being intimidated, which if. True would be quite serious. Sam Stone: Well, I mean, there's a lot about this that, quite frankly, I depending on exactly what happened, I find kind of offensive. I mean, ASU released a statement. There were flyers for this event put up around campus. Asu, released a statement, said if anyone removed flyers, it was not at the direction of ASU or Barrett leadership. But we also have evidence from who was taking those down that it was campus campus employees who went around and took down all that those advertising materials. Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's what I think this investigation is going to try to determine what really did happen there, because we have differing accounts of what's going on from from differing sides. And there are people watching this who are not in either camp who are saying, boy, there's a lot of confusion here about what did happen. And and this did not turn out well, in part because people didn't explore alternatives post event. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, what is the confusion? I mean, I read this letter, which is off the chart. I mean, the the kind of pompousness this letter. Sam Stone: Read a few of the passages because I think this is relevant. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Um, our collective efforts to promote Barrett as a home of inclusive excellence demands that we distance ourselves from the hate that these provocateurs hope to to legitimize by attacking or attaching themselves to the Barrett name. Um, yeah. Sam Stone: I mean, this is the thing. Here's here's the thing. I don't, I don't see it as all that different to, say, the Barrett name versus the ASU name, right? I mean, at the end of the day, what you're trying to do is say, hey, these people should not be speaking to our students because they're hateful according to these individuals. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Right. So what do you say to that? Professor Brooks Simpson: I say that is not what the petition letter says. And we'll go back to that again and again. So we're going to disagree on that. I don't see them as wanting to stop the event because they understood that would have violated free speech protections. I do say, yeah, they wanted to disassociate themselves from Lewis. And and frankly, you know, one of the questions should be why would Lewis want to stay with Barrett after this? You could set up a center for free speech or for career development. I mean, this was not supposed to be a free speech center. This was a personal development center set up the Lewis Center outside of Barrett. No one seems to have explored that. Well, why should they? You could still because. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You have a handful of professors who have their. Sam Stone: I mean, to me, that that seems like a cop out because at the end of the day, what would these professors not be objecting to? The exact same let's say the exact same curriculum was put on by a different center will create. It's the t.W. Lewis Standalone Center. Professor Brooks Simpson: Part of free speech. Sam is the ability to object, the ability. Sam Stone: The ability to. Professor Brooks Simpson: Object and and and I'm not, you know, going to vouch for the wording used in this petition. That's that's why I don't sign petitions, because I don't want someone else pretending to speak to me for me. All right. I watched the event on tape. It seemed to me to be, except for a few comments about the controversy. A pretty straightforward event. Sam Stone: Yeah, I mean, that's part of it, too, that this was not a political event in the way these speakers normally focus on their things. So they were adjusting their message. But it's like, okay, if you if we've said something you don't like, then that forbids you from coming on and talking about anything else either. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: To me, this is the this is the faculty thinking that they're smarter than everyone else and this is them disguising their prejudices and their biases under the guise of intellectualism. And that's what this this that's what this letter says, that they're smarter. The people who have opposing views are dumb and they shouldn't be exposed to these people that they've labeled as provocateurs and hatemongers. And and that is concerning. That's actually very concerning in our democratic United States of America. Sam Stone: I would say that I would I would be more apt, professor, to agree with your take on this if we didn't have things like students who had come forward to say that in their you know, as soon as this controversy broke, they went to a class and the professors in that class spent 30 minutes dedicated to talking about the potential dangers associated with the event and how the T.W. Lewis Center has given in to its donors philosophy by hosting a dangerous speech, which have been debunked through speakers who have propagated hate towards various minority communities and who undermine getting an education in the first place. I'm sorry, isn't the point of getting an education to be exposed to ideas that aren't yours? Professor Brooks Simpson: Absolutely. Okay. So let's let's address two things here. First of all, the faculty member who was supposed to have done that has actually issued a denial that that account is accurate. So that's going to be part of an investigation. What went on in that classroom? We're talking now about a single faculty member, not all of the signers of the document, 39in all acting like this in class. And I think you're right about how do people talk about each other. So I do know that one of the professors who is supportive of Ms.. Atkinson has gone ahead and declared that anyone who disagrees with him is showing contempt for God. Now, I find that a chilling of a piece of speech myself, that my my faith is being questioned by someone who disagrees with me. Okay. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I think you you digress. I think we need to go back to this. Sam Stone: We've got just one minute before we we come to the end of our on air program, folks. Be sure to tune in. Professor, do you have a few more minutes? Sure. Fantastic. We're going to continue on in our podcast segment because I think this is a really important discussion. We want to we want to really dig into this some more folks. Make sure you stay tuned for that podcast segment. You can also get all of our past podcasts at Breaking battlegrounds dot Vote. Check us out there, follow us on social media, substack, Spotify, all the good places to find your podcasts. Breaking battlegrounds is there. And again, you're not going to want to miss the rest of this show, so be sure you're subscribed and you get our you get our podcast in your email box. You don't have to do anything else. Breaking battlegrounds back on air next week. Advertisement: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Sam Stone: All right, Welcome to the podcast. Only segment of breaking battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone, in studio with me today. The lovely Michelle Ugenti-Rita is taking Chuck's place so we can continue on with the conversation. Michelle and I started on the air a few weeks ago and in studio a man who and I always appreciate this, quite frankly, who dared to challenge us because that, you know, there's lots of people who will tell you to. And thank goodness. Jeremy And we're in the podcast segment, I can say it. They'll just tell you to go f**k off when you're online, right? It's, you know, some poop emoji. Poop emoji. Finger emoji. But you didn't do that. I appreciated the discussion and I appreciate having you in here. Professor Brooke Simpson of the of ASU. We really enjoy the chance to talk about this. When we were before we went to break, we were talking about there was one professor who reported, according to their student, and they've denied this. The professor has denied this, spent a bunch of time in class really kind of dissuading students from attending this event and kind of trying to make sure that they were lined up against it. And unfortunately, I mean, we do have two other students who said more or less the same thing about other classes. So that that one I was referring to was a professor. Dr. Miller. I have one student who was I have no idea what CWHAL101 is. Some human events class by a professor Sores got the same thing and then a second student who said the same thing about the Dr. Miller's statement. So I don't think I mean, obviously you said ASU is looking into this. They're investigating what happened in these classes, but it doesn't seem like it was just that one incident. I mean, this was a really concerted effort by the 37 signees to to try to to, if if nothing else, disrupt this event. Professor Brooks Simpson: I haven't seen evidence of that. I've seen one professor, Dr. Miller, discussed extensively in two of those three accounts. Professor Suarez seems to have been a between class discussion from which the student assumed other things were going on in the class. That doesn't always happen. Students walk out and they ask you other things and you give your opinion. They know what your opinion, and that doesn't mean what's going on in the classroom is an ideological rant. I mean, to characterize this faculty as some sort of radical Marxist group and Marxist has been. I mean, no one of those faculty are more like Groucho Marx in terms of their live and let live attitude towards this than they are towards Karl Marx. And you see, this is where, you know, I I'm saying that sometimes faculty behave ways that outrage people. And I would argue that if you don't want to be ticked off, don't go on a college campus because there'll be something that will tick you off. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But but, but but let me just ask because do you think the letter signed February 1st by by faculty was designed to disrupt the event? No. No. What did what was it. Professor Brooks Simpson: Designed to do? I think it was designed to start to move the Lewis Center outside of Barrett and said we cannot have this kind of programming. The Lewis Center programming beforehand was so internal that it didn't get this kind of public scrutiny. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But. But who are the professors to be the arbiter of what's right and what's wrong and what's hate and what's not and what people can listen to and what they can't listen to and what's described as anti-democratic or anti-intellectual? Who are why are they the ones that get to be the judge of that? Professor Brooks Simpson: I wouldn't frame it that way. First of all, they are expressing their dissent and dissatisfaction and criticism of the speakers. All right. And and not the topic as far as what goes on afterwards after they had spoken. It's really up to the Barrett leadership, the deans, to deal with this. The faculty had their say. They organized their counter workshops or whatever you want to call them. And in a sense that is an exercise of free speech, just as the three professors, including Don Critchlow, who wrote in response to this, they were exercising their free speech. I didn't like that they characterized this petition as trying to shut down the event altogether because the Barret faculty was actually very careful to say, no, the event could go on. We don't want to be associated with it anymore. Sam Stone: Well, but so I think they're very smart and toeing a line they knew if they crossed would would make it more difficult for them. So I get that. But at the same time, there is an underlying issue with this that we're seeing at universities across the country, which is an intolerance of speech. Deemed anathema to the left. And we've seen this at with speaker after speaker after speaker and for professors. What makes this different to me when they're when those things are led by students, I think you kind of just got to shrug and roll your eyes and say, we need to do a better job of trying to get through to these students. But when it's led by professors, the the fundamental issue behind all of this is that we've reached a place where what is it? I think 90% of positions at ASU require a diversity statement in your in your application. Professor Brooks Simpson: Now, I'm unaware of that. Okay. And I know that that that accusation has been made. And I do know that in Barrett there is a request for a statement that's been produced. So, you know, they didn't have Dei statements when I came in in 1990. Sam Stone: So and that's my point is like, why why all of a sudden do we need to do to universities and a subset of professors. It's not all but a subset of professors that those universities feel the need to limit the speech that they don't like or that they deem hateful rather than contend against that speech. Because to me, what they're demonstrating to the students is not a commitment to academic excellence and intellectual pursuit. What they are demonstrating to the students is intellectual cowardice. Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand that. And and that's a good broader conversation now for multiple years. And I you know, I think I informed you folks that I served as the chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. So academic freedom is important to me and freedom of speech is important to me. And I understand the desire of the contest of ideas in the public square so I can understand the concern and the need for discussion of whether such statements, statements are the kind of thing we want to have in the environment. We have that it's hard. It is up to President Crowe and others to justify a commitment to the University of Chicago statement and these hiring requirements. Okay. But that's that gets outside of what we're talking about, a very specific event and a very specific response. And I understand that you're saying is this the tip of an iceberg? Sam Stone: Well, I think that is the basic problem that underlies what happened with this health, wealth and happiness event. The basic problem is that we are we are we are accepting now more and more of professors who are. And it's anti free speech. Professor Brooks Simpson: I don't know who the we are. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, I'll. We'll do these. I mean, they put their name on it. We'll just talk with these professors. I mean, they're right here. We'll just start with this list. And since it's local and ASU, I mean, I think we're over complicating this. This was an event with national speakers designed to communicate, you know, certain points of view to college kids and others who are invited. And the professors took it upon themselves. Not all of them, but the majority of them in the college took it upon themselves to label this a hate event and with with the expressed motivation to disrupt it. What other motivation would there be other than to stop it and squash it? Professor Brooks Simpson: I again, that's. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Something that you kind of see in China and other third world countries. Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's where this argument begins to. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: When you don't like something, you squash it. When you don't like the point of view expressed by someone else. Instead of having an intellectual conversation and trying to persuade someone with your argument, you label them and then you try to stop it. Professor Brooks Simpson: I think, you know, you make a point about labeling. And so what I've heard this faculty, again, labeled as Marxists, they've come under attack. They were put on a professor watch list. Okay. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And then that person who did that and that person who did that can come in here and you can talk to them. I'm just talking about this letter. I didn't put anybody on. Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But that's why you opined. I mean, you went on Twitter and you opined and we're giving you a platform. Professor Brooks Simpson: That's right. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And so defend it. Professor Brooks Simpson: My comment on Twitter was that the story that you were getting from Ms.. Atkinson was incomplete. So let's understand what I did say and what I haven't said. Now, you've characterized labeling as counter intellectual, and I agree with you, but that's also what the people who've criticized the actions of the. Well, two. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Rights don't make you know, two wrongs don't make a right. Professor Brooks Simpson: And that's and that's why this is a larger discussion about how we're going to conduct a free speech environment. The real difficulty with free speech is that you have to defend the free speech of people who you disagree with. Yeah, I. Sam Stone: Mean, famously, the ACLU defended the Klu Klux Klan. Right now, I'm Jewish. I'm certainly not jumping out front to defend the KKK, but that was the right thing to do because it guarantees my ability to say pretty much anything I want to say. And that runs. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Contrary to what what. Sam Stone: What is happening. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Here. So I think we all agree and that's not what happened here. To your point, it's to me the greatest expression of free speech is tolerance. It's tolerance of other speech that you may not like. Sam Stone: Or to to go attend this event, then hold your own event and counter it if that's what you feel you need to do. Professor Brooks Simpson: Which is what they did outside. Prior to the. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Event, they sent a private letter outlining why the college should disassociate themselves from the event. They took a, I guess, a vote of no confidence in the leadership of T.W. Lewis Center. You know, they didn't want this event to go on. And they highlighted in their letter why and they outlined why these speakers. Professor Brooks Simpson: We will continue to disagree on the issue of them not wanting to. Sam Stone: But but, but, but but with all of this. So we can disagree on that one point. But other than that, I mean, you did say on Twitter we were hilariously wrong that Ann Atkinson was hilariously wrong. So other than that one point of disagreement, which is between whether they're saying it shouldn't be part of Barrett versus it's the broader issue, which I would call quibbling. But. But you say it's significant. Okay. Professor Brooks Simpson: Because the the Barrett faculty isn't speaking for all. Sam Stone: But then where were we hilariously wrong? Professor Brooks Simpson: Ann, for example, has portrayed this as a very harmonious relationship that all of a sudden was disrupted and it was harmonious with the previous dean, Marc Jacobs. People I've talked to suggest that that was not the case, that Jacobs did not look very carefully at the donor agreement. And Lewis is very good. Mr. Lewis is very good at structuring donor agreements very carefully so that he continues to have influence. There are reports that, in fact, an was not the choice of Barrett to head Lewis, but rather was Mr. Lewis's choice forced upon them with the suggestion that perhaps if Mr. Lewis did not get his way, he might pull his. Sam Stone: Okay, okay. But we we don't have any. Professor Brooks Simpson: I'm just saying there's a longer institutional. Sam Stone: Well, that may be, but none of that's qualifies as being hilariously wrong. I mean, what what was hilariously wrong? Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, got your attention if I said, Oh, yeah. Sam Stone: Absolutely it did. But I mean, this is where this is. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Where are you intimately involved in the contracts or are you part of. Professor Brooks Simpson: No, no, that's that's your watch this. I watch this as an outsider. I okay. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So you don't have any direct. Professor Brooks Simpson: Information? No, no. And that's why I think I as part of the investigation, I'd like to see these contracts. I'd like to see the agreements. What harassment? The harassment of the Barrett faculty and the. But. So wait, wait. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So you're just repeating hearsay? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Because you don't have an eye. Professor Brooks Simpson: I'm repeating a lot of this is hearsay at this point. Those student reports were redacted and reformed by the person who gave them that. That's hearsay. So it's okay. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Well, I'm glad you just admit that you're repeating hearsay. Sam Stone: That's fine. Well, that's actually witness testimony versus hearsay, which is third party second hand. Professor Brooks Simpson: And so but until I see the original document. With names redacted to protect the students. I'm going to go. What? I'm not quite sure what's going, but. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: What is that I still don't get? That's that's a separate issue with the students. Said we have the professors signatures on a letter where they outline why they think that this event should be labeled, you know, or should be stopped, frankly. And I think you're right. They did it in a way where they just kind of. Sam Stone: They knew where the line was from the previous event, from when they got when they got pushed back from Michael Crow. And that brings up a different point, which we haven't touched on, which is that crow is always a day late and a dollar short coming to these things. It's always down the road. And his response is. Is never up front to to stand behind these type of events and say, no, before this gains any traction, before it gets the point that people start getting fired. I'm going to stand on the front line and say, say we do have a commitment to the Chicago Chicago University free speech commitment. It seems always late. And this is the for a lot of conservatives, this is a fundamental issue right now with universities that they will put out these these broad statements that they're committed to free speech. But when the rubber meets the road, it's the they they do not stand behind it. Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand that that that's how this has been portrayed in various venues, etcetera. And the reporting on how was the. Sam Stone: Portrayal different than the reality? I mean, isn't that the reality? Professor Brooks Simpson: The reality is the event came off. It was successful. You've already heard this? Yeah. Sam Stone: No, the event the event did happen. Okay. Professor Brooks Simpson: And so actually what then interests me is post event, what actions were taken by various actors and what happened. Mr. Lewis pulls his donation as is every right to do that means Ann Atkinson no longer as a funded position because that's a soft money position. She contends that she has donors ASU contests that. Sam Stone: Well, but she wasn't given any time to do it. I mean, I've tried to raise money before. You can't raise $1 million in a day. Professor Brooks Simpson: I know, but I understand that. I'm saying let's have that investigation take place. We know that the Barrett faculty were targeted by both Charlie's Professor Watchlist and by Dennis Prager calling for their firing. And since then. So if you're going to fire somebody for their freedom of expression, then you violated free speech. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But that was just his opinion on a radio show and that was after the fact. Sam Stone: Well, also also, though, no. Professor Brooks Simpson: Actually, that is not after the fact. He made his first protest on February 3rd on his podcast After after. Sam Stone: But it was after the letter came out. That's what. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I'm saying. Sam Stone: And I'm saying where this was already under attack and he's responding. Now. Professor Brooks Simpson: You have a state senator who headed that hearing committee who also called for the firing of faculty. So. If you fire faculty and the expressions, if you fire faculty for their expressions of opinion. Then you're violating free. No, no, no. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That's the action I'm asking. So what? Someone said that. Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, then so what? So that's all it happened with the Barrett faculty. They made a request to the event. Went on? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: No, they. What they did was try to disrupt the event, and what they did was try to walk. No, no, I'm just reading the language they call these individuals. And I want to get your opinion. White nationalist provocateurs. Do you agree with that? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I and referencing Charlie Kirk. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And Dennis Prager. Do you agree that these two are white nationalist provocateurs as outlined in the letter signed by the majority of faculty at the Barret at the Barret College? Professor Brooks Simpson: For what I've listened to about Charlie and Dennis, they often say things about American history, which I would take issue with. Okay. Okay. Would I have used that language? No. All right. But again, part of free speech is fighting for people who may use language of which you do not approve. And so as much as you want to focus on that petition, the petition triggered so many other things that I think do address and raise concerns about how we're going to govern free speech on campus in the future. What are going to be the parameters ET? Sam Stone: I guess that concerns me because I'm an absolutist on free speech and I don't think it should be governed. Professor Brooks Simpson: And I knew it. I knew it. I'd say governance. You'd go, Hmm. And I got that. And that's why. On the other hand, Crowe has endorsed this Center for American Institutions. That's why there are people who are supporting this. The criticism of the Barrett faculty, who, you know, are themselves, in a way, shining examples of free speech because they're there. And I've never heard, you know, another job I've had is run the university's promotion and tenure committees for the last level of review before it goes to the provost and the president's office. No one ever talked about anyone's political views. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But but see, there's we're kind of blurring a couple of lines because. Sam Stone: You don't have to talk about their political views when you weed them out with. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: The diversity. Professor Brooks Simpson: I know because some people who have been involved in this, their their files went forward. And all I'll say is I've never heard a discussion about political views at that level at all or saw it discussed in the files. Uh, so we can continue to talk about the narrow issue of the petition. And you and I will go around and circle. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But it's not, it's not, it's not narrow. I mean, it's really the crux of the issue, which is you have a letter signed by the majority of faculty attacking the individuals, not attacking or talking about or offering a different opinion about what was presented at the event, but attacking the individuals personally, labeling them just trying to discredit them and stifle speech and trying to be disruptors and trying to stop these individuals from expressing themselves. Sam Stone: Only thing, Michelle, that I agreed with that they said at all, and it wasn't really part of the letter, but but part of the discussion at that time was I'm not sure what some of these folks have to do with health, wealth and happiness. Now, I would disagree. Knowing more about them in their backgrounds, that would be a reasonable point to contest. Right? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Right. What's the nexus between the speaker and the event. Sam Stone: And the event? But when these attacks, Michelle, is exactly right. When you start out with saying that the reason this shouldn't be that this should be disassociated, that this should be cut out of of our circle, is because these people are X, Y and Z. And frankly, those those contentions are not provable unless you come from a very specific mindset. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: And they and they and they list things that have nothing to do with the event and have everything to do with, I mean, other incidents, other situations and quotes that happened know, in the past. So. Professor Brooks Simpson: Then you can test it by saying the Barrett faculty have incorrect understanding of the speakers of what they said, which which has been said that, you know, media matters is not exactly the most unbiased source if we're going for information. But and I think and I think that was a really good point that I think you have to listen to the people. I mean, because. Sam Stone: The media matters, media folks who we've kind of back up on this media matters. A lot of this started the letter was prompted by information sent out by Media Matters, which is a far left wing organization designed to promote and help elect Democrats, essentially is why it was founded to create a narrative to help elect more Democrats. So fine, but a lot a lot of their contentions are pulled so far out of context as to be absolutely ridiculous. But again, they weren't contesting why they're there or the ideas they're contesting these people as individuals and saying they hold views we don't like, therefore we don't want to have any association with them or allow any association with them. Isn't that exactly the opposite of the way we should be treating academia? Professor Brooks Simpson: We agreed all the way to the last sentence. So we we have a common narrative here at this point, which, given how this discussion has been going on in the broader sense, is is an achievement. Sam Stone: Well, no. And that's why we appreciate you being here. Professor Brooks Simpson: And so. I think that the way to push back against the petition is also to exercise free speech, which is what those three professors did. Okay. This was not a I hate, you know, not because there were issues of publicity. A lot of issues, a big place. Lots of things are going on we have no idea about. I would not have known about this except, frankly, for for Critchlow, because I've known Don. I helped bring him to ASU. So, you know, if you're going to talk about me, that's a little different than Marxist radical. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I feel like we need to answer questions, though, here. Professor Brooks Simpson: But. Professor Brooks Simpson: But I've answered the questions that I can answer. You keep on asking me to defend a document that I did not author and to decide where the charge is made. Well said document are true. Sam Stone: So okay. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You went on Twitter and claimed that there were falsehoods being made and there was a lack of understanding and parts of the story was not discussed. Professor Brooks Simpson: And yeah. Professor Brooks Simpson: I think, for example, the harassment, rather serious harassment of the Barrett faculty and calls for their termination, that also brings in the issues of free speech. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Like how? Professor Brooks Simpson: If you speak up, you get fired. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That's just what one person said. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Why can't they say that? No, no, no. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You keep talking about if that's acted upon. Professor Brooks Simpson: It's not one person. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: So what's someone say? Wait a minute. Professor Brooks Simpson: Excuse me. Well, when a state senator says it at a hearing, I pay attention. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Really? Professor Brooks Simpson: Don't you pay attention to what? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: As a state. As a former state senator. Sam Stone: I was about to say, as a former state senator, there's no way you pay attention every time one of your colleagues opens their mouth and. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Says and demands someone be fired. Professor Brooks Simpson: Okay, Well, then if you. Professor Brooks Simpson: Want to say that Anthony Kern is just talking out of his hat, that's fine. That's fine. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: But the point but the point is, why can't he why can't anyone why can't these individuals attend an event and talk about health, wellness and happiness without the faculty trying to interfere with the event and try to stop it? Professor Brooks Simpson: We're going to continue to go around Michelle time and again. And I'm saying the faculty said you can have your event, but we don't want to be touched by this anymore. We don't want to be associated by this anymore. We do not want to have Barrett the Honors College presents, Charlie Kirk and Dennis Prager. That was the crux of their complaint. So so. Professor Brooks Simpson: And. Sam Stone: I do look, I don't want to go back around in circles. We've been on this long enough. I do feel like that is a bit of a cop out. I mean, I feel like what they did was a very fine line that they knew where the line was. And they they tried to walk that line. But the fundamental issue for me is that there is this underlying attitude that has pervaded a large portion of faculty at universities, which is anti free speech and which quite frankly is very totalitarian in their instincts and how to prevent that speech. Professor Brooks Simpson: Okay, then we can either from this event say, okay, let's step back for a moment. People on both sides and people in the middle and say, okay, how do we want to do this in the future? Okay, we could stop this now. And the conversation going on now I don't think is productive for anybody because there is a lot of labeling, There is a lot of name calling. It's on both sides. We could say it's faculty behaving badly. But I mean, this is not just one side. There's there's a larger controversy going on. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I do. I don't really I. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Don't see that. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I'm sorry. Sam Stone: I make a distinction. I make a distinction like Michelle does, I think because one is a group of faculty at that institution and the mission of the institution should be the open pursuit of knowledge. Right? I mean, basically, the fundamental mission of every university should be the open pursuit of knowledge. So they have they should have a commitment to that. Do I expect radio listeners to always have that exact same level? No, No. And so when you're saying people are calling them, you know, who listen to Charlie on the radio and he said something and then people are sending emails or calling, I don't hold I'm not going to hold them to the same standard I do. A professor that professor is in some sense on the public payroll, and they're there to enhance the overall mission of the university. And when we're failing from that, that is a very different thing than some state senator or some radio listener calling in and saying saying something on the same level. Even when they're saying the same thing, the role makes it different. Professor Brooks Simpson: I understand what you're saying. And look, I just wrote a piece for the conversation which was non argumentative, didn't give a point of view at all, just a descriptive issue about the Tuberville holds. And I've already gotten hate mail and I'm going, Where is this from? So hate mail is part of this They. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Hate What is. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That? What is the. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: Point? Professor Brooks Simpson: The point is we all get that. Didn't ask for my job. That didn't ask that that I be fired, that didn't threaten my family, that didn't threaten to have CPS come into my household part of. And, you know, when you're threatened to be fired. No, you're not fired yet. But your state employees and now you've got a state senator calling for you to be terminated. Yeah, we might want to take a step back. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: I think we're just. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: We're putting blame somewhere else. I mean, the real focus is that the professors intervened and tried to stop an event. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: You continue to say, because. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That's the point. And you keep ignoring it and you want to opine on Twitter. But then when we invite you here, you you can't seem to defend the position. That's what I'd love defend why the professor should be allowed to interfere with an event sponsored by a college to bring guest speakers. Professor Brooks Simpson: No, I said that the the story was incomplete. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: That is the that's the story. Professor Brooks Simpson: Well, you and I then disagree. So. So you know Michelle to have I. Make a better conversation. We probably You've said your piece on this. I've said my piece on this. There really are other things we we might want to explore that I think are more fruitful and frankly, more pertinent because. Sam Stone: I think I think there are a lot of broader issues attached to this. I mean, that I think fundamentally, when you're talking about people on the right related to this, what we're looking at is this being a symptom of a much larger disease, right? And so the symptom itself is bad, but the disease is the concern. The symptom goes away if you address the disease. And I think there is not much evidence at this point that universities, including ASU, are taking that disease seriously enough. And that we can get into all of that. And I think it would be a great piece for another podcast, another program, because we're deep into this one. And I want to thank Brooke Simpson, professor at ASU, for coming on with us, challenging us here a little bit. Michelle, again, always lovely to have wonderful in studio folks. Be sure if you are not subscribed, that's the easiest thing in the world. Literally click one button and we will come to your email box every single week when breaking battlegrounds comes out. Thank you so much for tuning in. We appreciate you. We're back on the air again next week. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of Breaking Battlegrounds, we are honored to welcome a lineup of exceptional guests, each bringing their unique perspectives on pressing issues that matter most to our nation. Our first guest needs no introduction, as he is a dear friend of the show and a prominent figure in the political landscape. Matt Lewis, the acclaimed columnist at The Daily Beast and the author of "Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots)," graces our platform once again. Today, Matt joins us to share insights from his newly-released book, "Filthy Rich Politicians: The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals, and Ruling-Class Elites Cashing in on America." Next on our show is Congressman James Moylan, representing Guam. As Guam Liberation Day approaches on July 21, Congressman Moylan joins us to shed light on this historic event and its profound significance to the people of Guam. We explore the remarkable journey of resilience and freedom, honoring the spirit of those who have shaped Guam's vibrant history. Our final guest, California State Senator Shannon Grove, enters the conversation with an urgent and compelling topic. She discusses her crucial bill that aims to designate human trafficking as a serious and violent felony. Despite the importance of this legislation, California democrats voted it down. Tune in to learn more about this critical issue and the efforts to combat human trafficking in the Golden State. Subscribe now and stay informed on the latest developments, only on Breaking Battlegrounds! - Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds Called a “first-rate talent” in The Washington Post and “super-smart” by John Heilemann, Matt K. Lewis is a center-right critic of American politics and pop culture. As a journalist, Lewis has earned a reputation as an “independently minded” (Columbia Journalism Review) and “intellectually honest” commentator (Ben Adler, Newsweek). He is a senior columnist for The Daily Beast, and his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, GQ, The Washington Post, The Week, Roll Call, Politico, The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. He previously served as senior contributor for The Daily Caller, and before that, as a columnist for AOL’s Politics Daily. Lewis dissects the day’s issues in conversation with other thinkers, authors, and newsmakers on his podcast Matt Lewis and the News, and co-hosts The DMZ Show with liberal pundit Bill Scher. He has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, PBS NewsHour, ABC’s “Nightline,” HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and CBS News’ “Face The Nation,” and has contributed to radio outlets including NPR and the BBC. Kirsten Powers described Lewis’s 2016 book, Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Went From the Party of Reagan to the Party of Trump, as “a lively and fascinating read for any person confounded by the state of today’s Republican Party.” In 2011, Lewis released The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Palin in Her Own Words, an edited compilation of the Alaska governor’s much-discussed public utterances. - Congressman James Moylan proudly serves as Guam’s congressional delegate to the 118th United States Congress.  As the first Republican to win the seat on Guam in nearly 30 years, Moylan's victory was historic. He is a strong and trustworthy leader who’s focused on issues that affect Guamanians most.  Moylan believes island residents have a right to know what’s happening in their governing offices. Therefore, he has created an open door policy allowing constituents to have their concerns addressed.  Moylan’s history of service includes his time as a senator in the 35th and 36th Guam Legislature, a Veteran of the United States army and a parole officer at the Department of Corrections.  Additionally, Moylan has more than two decades of experience working in the private sector, including healthcare, financial services, and insurance. In his current position, Moylan serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee.  Both Committees address issues that are vital to Guam. Additionally, Moylan is a native of Guam and is from the village of Tumon. He graduated from John F Kennedy High School and continued to the University of Guam where he obtained a  bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice.  Most of all, Moylan is a proud father to Abby and Krissy Moylan. - Senator Shannon Grove was born and raised in Kern County. After graduating from high school, Senator Grove served in the United States Army. While stationed in Frankfurt, Germany she witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Following her service to our nation, she established a staffing company with her sister-in-law called Continental Labor and Staffing Resources. Senator Grove currently serves as the CEO. Prior to her election to the State Senate, Senator Grove was the first woman veteran elected to the California Legislature as she served the 34th Assembly District from 2010 to 2016. Senator Grove was elected to represent the 16th Senate District in November 2018, which includes portions of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernardino counties. In January 2019, she was elected Leader of the Senate Republican Caucus where she served in that capacity for two years. As the Republican Leader-Emeritus, Grove remains a committed representative working with legislators to advance policies that benefit the constituents, businesses, and communities within Senate District 16. Senator Grove is an advocate for small business, school choice, the developmentally disabled, farmers, and families. She currently lives in Kern County with her husband, Rick. They are the proud parents of five children and eight grandchildren. Transcription: Sam Stone: Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren on the line with us right now. Fantastic new book out came out on the 18th. Matt Lewis. He is a friend of the program, columnist for The Daily Beast, author of Too Dumb to Fail How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections. Yeah, we are not too dumb to fail. That's been proven many, many times. And today he's joining us to discuss his new book, Filthy Rich Politicians The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America. Matt, thank you for joining us and welcome to the show. Matt Lewis: Well, thanks for having me back. Chuck Warren: So what gave you the idea to write a book about this issue about filthy rich politicians? Matt Lewis: Well, to be honest, it was because I'm a capitalist. And I was I was actually approached by a book agent, believe it or not, who had this idea to rank the 100 richest politicians in America. Chuck Warren: Interesting. Matt Lewis: That was the original idea of the book. It was 100 chapters. Each chapter was just going to be on. Wow. The 100 richest politicians in just how they made their money. And that's how it started. And it evolved, I think, into a much deeper, more important topic, which includes, you know, the original idea, but but goes so much deeper into like, what it all means. And so it was one of those just the stars aligned and I think we ended up writing a great book. Sam Stone: We got the book a few days ago. I've gone through most of it, I admit, to skimming a few portions. Who is the richest politician in America? Matt Lewis: The richest politician in America is JB Pritzker, who's the governor of Illinois. He is an heir to the Hyatt fortune. There are 11 billionaires in his family and interestingly, when he was running for governor in Illinois, there were three billionaires running for the seat last year in 2022. Sam Stone: Well, amazing. You know what I love about Pritzker? I don't know if you've ever read the book Super Mob, but that family got its start with mob financing. Matt Lewis: Well, you know, it's like the Kennedys, you know, I mean, you go back far enough. Chuck Warren: I think we just call those hard money loans today. Matt Lewis: But in in Congress, it would be Rick Scott. Most people and by the way, it's impossible to know the actual net wealth of most politicians because the range have ways of hiding it. And it's reported in broad ranges. But it used to be Darrell Issa. Right now we believe it is Rick Scott, senator from Florida, who's the richest in Congress. Chuck Warren: Well, so why should this matter to the average voter? I mean, so, for example, you know, as a 2020, I believe about half the members of Congress had a median net worth of $1 million. Okay. And there's almost 22 million people in the United States that have that net worth now. Now, most of that's probably in their home, right. Something they've lived in 20, 30 years. And a couple other things. Sam Stone: I mean, half of California has, but it's. Chuck Warren: Still a lot of money. I mean, you know, a population of 350 million, 21, 21, 22 million people are worth $1 million. And, you know, and that seems like a lot of money. But we also realize that's a lot. And it's not in a lot of ways, right? I mean, you can't retire on that per se and just live on it. But why is this important for Americans and why should they demand some reforms on this? Matt Lewis: Well, so the book is about two things. It's about how the rich get elected and how the elected get rich. And I think both things are important. So right now, the average member of Congress is about 12 times richer than the median American household. And so I think you know, look, I don't begrudge rich people from, you know, for running for office. And in fact, there's some ways that I even admire that. But I do think it's it seems likely to me that when and by the way, I should say that this this phenomenon where the average member of Congress is 12 times richer than the rest of us is kind of new. It's been going on for about three decades now. The gap has dramatically widened. And it just stands to reason, to me that when our elected officials are that much richer than the rest of us, there would be some sort of a disconnect or just a worldview difference in terms of connecting with working class Americans. But that doesn't bother me near as much as the second half of the story, which is the fact that once people get elected, they tend to get richer. And I think that is much more corrosive and damaging than just having rich politicians. Chuck Warren: Well, it's true, though. If you have a certain amount of wealth, you have different concerns than somebody who's making 15, $20 an hour. I mean, that's fair, right? And so how can you really relate if you're all full of people who are highly successful financially? Matt Lewis: Totally. I mean, you know, because of, you know, I'm from a very kind of middle class, working class background. My dad was a prison guard in Hagerstown, Maryland, for 30 years. And that's kind of how I grew up. And I live in West Virginia. I went to a little a little college in West Virginia, but I've been blessed to get to, you know, also know some, you know, folks in journalism who come from maybe more privileged backgrounds than me. And there are some of the nicest, kindest, best people. But I'm telling you, they see they see the world differently than I do. And who could blame them? I mean, they've come from wealth, right? They grew up. And I just think we're all formed by our experience. And and it's impossible not to be at some level. Chuck Warren: Absolutely. We're with Matt Lewis. He is a columnist for The Daily Beast. He has come out with a new book that was released this Tuesday. You can get it at at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble wherever you find your books. Filthy rich politicians, the Swamp Creatures, latte liberals and ruling class elites cashed in on America came out this Tuesday, July 18th. All right. So I want to ask a couple of questions, because your book covers many topics, but who are some of the politicians that we have that are married into money or inherited great wealth? Matt Lewis: So you're the first person to ask me this question. I have a whole chapter or a whole section on this. So thank you. Because this is so I ranked well Business Insider ranked the they have a ranking of the 100 richest politicians in America. And so when the appendix of my book I took the richest 25 and then I personally did kind of a deep dive into them how they made their money. And of the richest 25 members of Congress, more than half, 13 of them made their money through inheritance or marriage the. Sam Stone: Really old fashioned way. Matt Lewis: Yes. And I'll give you a few examples. Richard Blumenthal, his father in law, and by the way, it's usually fathers in law for what that's worth. Interesting. Chuck Warren: Interesting. Matt Lewis: Yeah. Richard Blumenthal's father in law is Peter Malkin, who basically owned the Empire State Building. In fact, he was involved in a in a fight with Donald Trump at some point over control of that. Sam Stone: There was a long time when he was the developer in New York, the real estate guy. Yeah. Matt Lewis: Indeed. There's a Texas congressman named Michael McCaul. His father in law runs Clear Channel Communications. Chuck Warren: Oh, wow. Matt Lewis: Rokana, who's a congressman out of California who's starting to really make a name for himself. His father in law owns a trans max or started trans max and also runs Mara Holdings. Wow. And Mitch McConnell, a lot of people were like, how did Mitch McConnell all of a sudden get all this money? And there are like conspiracy theories about. Chuck Warren: That cocaine. Matt Lewis: Mitch And and and by the way, who knows, right? I mean, maybe there's some secret, But but basically what happened is that, you know, Mitch McConnell is married to Elaine Chao and her mom. When her mom died, you know, she inherited a ton of money. And how much how. Chuck Warren: Much she did inherit, how much did she inherit? Matt Lewis: Oh, we're talking you definitely were talking tens of millions of dollars. Yeah. I mean, he became incredibly wealthy overnight and it looks super suspicious, but it's a matter of public record directly correlates to when her you know, it's money from her her father but but she inherited it when when the mother died. Sam Stone: Andy Biggs is a $10 Billion publisher clearinghouse sweepstakes win is starting to look more and more legitimate. Chuck Warren: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. You know. Matt Lewis: You know, what's you know, what's interesting is, is Kevin McCarthy, the current speaker of the House, won the lottery. Chuck Warren: Oh, really? I thought he did the sandwich shops. Did he really? Matt Lewis: Well, what happened is when he was very young, he won $5,000 in the lottery and he used that money to buy like a deli. And that is what led him to Congress. So. Chuck Warren: Oh, that's fascinating. Yeah, but see, that's that's a little more of a that's more of an all-American story. I got $5,000. Sam Stone: Yeah, that's a great story. Yeah. Chuck Warren: Yeah, it is a great story. It's sort of like, um. Oh, what's it what's that movie? Will Ferrell, where he gets sent to prison for insider trading and he's talking to us. He's talking to his father in law and said, I started this business all of myself with this computer and a $9 million loan from my father. And, you know, there's a lot of people like that. Um, so next to insider trading and I want to get into that probably the next segment. How do certain members benefit their family members, either via their connections or congressional campaigns? That happens a lot more than people think. And it always seems like a surprise to people that some kids on the payroll and we've got two minutes here, but can you give a couple of examples how that's happening? Matt Lewis: Totally. I'll give you it's a by the way, it's a bipartisan book. Um, both pretty much everyone's equally guilty of this. And so we'll start with Ilhan Omar, you know, a member of the squad on the left. She has directed millions of dollars, millions of campaign dollars to her husband's consulting firm. Likewise, Bernie Sanders, who, by the way, he became a millionaire from a book deal, but his wife, Jane, he has paid a lot of money to her over the years, including hiring her to be his media ad buyer when she had zero experience doing that. So she's basically getting a cut or a percentage of the money his campaign spends buying TV advertisements. Chuck Warren: Does she do that during the presidential, too? Matt Lewis: That is a good question. I think most of this happened in the his congressional races, like in Vermont senatorial races. But, you know, we're talking about a lot of money. And this one. Sam Stone: There's a lot of money when there's no risk, because he was never in doubt for any of those re-elections. Right. I mean, that's really kind of a. Matt Lewis: And Bernie. Bernie didn't just pay Jane. I mean, he paid her like her children, too. Which brings me to Ron Paul, a Republican who has employed six. In 2012, when he was running for president, he employed six family members, but he was a piker. He paid them a grand total of $300,000. So, you know. Chuck Warren: That's that's that's literally not surprising, though, right? Sam Stone: That that's chintzy, cheap. He's hosing his family. Chuck Warren: Do you think that do you think Congress should crack down on this and just not allow you in campaigns to hire family members? Sam Stone: We got 30s. We're going to. Okay. Going to head to break here in just a moment. Chuck Warren: We're with Matt Lewis. He is the author of a great new book came out this week, Filthy Rich Politicians The Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America. You can find this at Amazon, Barnes and Noble. Wherever you get your book, go buy it. This is a very important. We're going to come back and talk to Matt a little bit about what reforms he thinks need to be done so we can clean this up. This is Chuck and Sam breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at breaking battlegrounds vote. We'll be right back. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making dream Homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warrem. I'm Sam Stone. We're continuing on here in just a moment with Matt Lewis, columnist of The Daily Beast, author of Too Dumb to Fail, and his newest book, Filthy Rich Politicians. We're talking about that one today. But folks, if you're looking to get filthy rich, maybe you should give our call. Our friends at Invest Y refy a call, go to their website, invest y refy.com that's invest the letter Y, then refy.com and learn how you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return on your money. That's right. 10.25% Phenomenal rate of return not correlated to the stock market. The stock market goes up. The stock market goes down, your investment continues, racking up the great interest and great returns for you. So give them give our friends there a call. You can do that at 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you Matt. Chuck Warren: All right. So, so much to cover in your book, but tell us what are reforms of your king for the day? And they said, Matt, you make these changes and we start building a little trust back up in Congress again. What would you do? Matt Lewis: Okay. So the first couple we've talked about, I would the most important is to ban individual stock trading for members of Congress and their family. That is by far the most important thing we can do, because. Chuck Warren: Certainly I want to make one appearance. Matt Lewis: Of insider. Chuck Warren: Trading. Right. I don't want to hurt you, but you made a good point. I listened to on a fellow podcast, which you made this point. It's not even so much about them increasing their wealth. Sometimes it's that they prevent the loss of wealth. So let's use, for example, Senator Barr in North Carolina as an example, if you can share that with our audience. Matt Lewis: Yeah, this is really corrosive. So Senator Senator Richard Burr, he just retired, but he was chairman of the Intel Committee. So like in that capacity, you know, he had access to all sorts of of kind of classified briefings, classified information. And you might remember back in early 2020, like before most Americans realized how damaging Covid 19 was going to be like in terms of shutting down businesses and the economy. Um, Richard Burr dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in things like Wyndham Hotels, the kinds of things that would be damaged in a global pandemic shutdown. But making matters even worse. Then he picks up the phone and calls his brother in law and within one minute of hanging up with Richard Burr, his brother in law calls his broker and dumps his stock. And so that is the thing. It's it's not just that politicians are able to make money by virtue of what certainly looks like insider trading, but it's it avoids the downfall. And certainly during times of change and crisis, that's when they can really use information to dump stock and avoid like a major catastrophic loss. Sam Stone: Well, and that has the the so as someone who does trade stock issues, the other side of that is if you dump at the start of something like that on an industry like hotels, like airlines, all of that, you're going to get that going two ways. You're going to avoid the loss and then you're going to be able to buy back in at a low point and you're going to know when that low point is hit. Matt Lewis: Absolutely. And and again, think of it. I mean, the average American at this point doesn't know how bad Covid 19 is going to be. We're being told it'll disappear. It'll be, you know, like a miracle. It'll disappear or, you know, two weeks to slow the spread or whatever. Sam Stone: This is when you had De Blasio telling folks, go out in the streets and celebrate the Chinese New Year. Right. I mean, it's literally coinciding with that moment. Matt Lewis: And so that's a classic example, right? Our politicians are telling the public, don't worry, everything's fine. And yet what are they doing? What are they doing with their money? And so I think that is super corrosive. And that's by far, I would say, the most important reform in the book. Chuck Warren: Let me ask you this. I'm a follow up two questions real quick. How many members have siblings or family members that are in the brokerage business or selling and trading stocks? Do you know that you were you able to find that out? Matt Lewis: I it's in the book. I don't recall offhand. Okay. I do know it is in the book. And I will I will say this. I mean, in 20 so in 2012, up until 2012, it wasn't even illegal to engage in insider trading in Congress. It's only been the last decade when that was illegal. Now the problem is policing. And I can tell you that the law it's called the Stock Act that made it illegal has has done very little to alleviate. The problem. Chuck Warren: There's always a loophole, right? There's always some loophole they'll find. All right, what else would you do? What else would you reform? Matt Lewis: Well, we've talked about family. I would I would ban the practice of hiring family for campaigns or official congressional offices. If you want to volunteer on a campaign, by all means. I just. We just wouldn't pay you. I would have a ten year moratorium on lobbying so that after serving in Congress, you can't go out and just start lobbying your former colleagues immediately. You would have a ten year basically ban on that. Some people like Ted Cruz and AOC want a lifetime ban. I don't even know if that would be constitutional right now. It's, I think, two years in the Senate, one year in the House. But like you said, Chuck, I mean, there are ways around it. There's this thing called the Daschle loophole where politicians immediately start lobbying. They just don't register as lobbyists. Chuck Warren: They're consultants. They're consultants. Matt Lewis: Yes. They're yeah, exactly. Chuck Warren: You know, and you know what? You see this a lot, too. I mean, take Congress out of the equation. You see this a lot in legislatures. Legislatures. You know, you see people who couldn't rub two nickels together for their elected to the legislature, which doesn't take as much money. And now they're lobbying and making six high, six digits a year. Sam Stone: Watch every governor's staff, if they've just won their second term, they get into year five. Right. And that whole staff disappears into the lobbying land and they're all rich by year eight. Chuck Warren: Is that something that you think we should push also on the state level? And hopefully, you know, I find out a lot of times if states start pushing something, various states, then it goes to the national level is that's something that people should be pushing their state legislatures to pass? Matt Lewis: I would say definitely I would I would strongly encourage that. And, you know, sometimes states can be the laboratories of democracy. And if these reforms can begin there, that would be very healthy. Chuck Warren: What else? Okay. Lobbying, banning stock, hiring kids and family on campaigns. Those are three great things. What else could be done? Matt Lewis: One of them this is one that is not sexy, but it's book deals, believe it or not. You know, Bernie Sanders, who's a socialist, was asked, how did you become a millionaire? And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close to the real quote. He said, I wrote a best selling book. If you write a best selling book, you could be a millionaire, too. But but the book deals are really I mean, people are using their their perch, their position to become millionaires. But the worst part of it is the bulk orders, right? So you write a book, but instead of real people buying the book, it's like the National Republican Senatorial Committee buys like 50,000 copies of it. And some of that money very well could trickle back into your pocket. Well, for example. Chuck Warren: For example, Bernie Sanders, I just looked it up, made $170,000 in book royalties in 2022, which almost matches his $174,000 congressional salary. Matt Lewis: There you go. There you go. And I don't think you wrote a book in 2022. No, he's still making royalties. Sam Stone: Well, and you know, the quality of most of these books, you know, they're ghost written or co-written, and most of them are just garbage. And you see these huge payouts, you know, it's not for their incredible insight in that in that no tome. Matt Lewis: Totally. Yeah. These are not this is not Hemingway you know. Chuck Warren: Well with Matt Lewis good friend of the show, daily columnist at The Daily Beast. He has come out with a new book. You can buy It now, Filthy Rich Politicians, the Swamp Creatures, Latte, Liberals and Ruling Class Elites. When we come back, we're going to talk about the latte liberals and what Matt dug in about that. I'm going to. Sam Stone: Bring up Joe Biden also. You can do. Chuck Warren: That as well. That's right. This is breaking battlegrounds. Find us are breaking battlegrounds vote. We'll be right back. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone, continuing on right now with Matt Lewis, friend of the program, columnist for The Daily Beast and author of the new book Filthy Rich Politicians, Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America, available right now at Amazon or your favorite bookseller? Matt As I read it, I did get to the section on the Bidens. And two things I think stand out is, one, they're cashing in less than most of of a lot of these other political families are. But two quite frankly, Matt, the stupidity of their schemes with Hunter Biden and all this stuff when there are so many ways that they could I don't want to say legitimately, but at least entirely legally make huge amounts of money. Did nobody in that family take notes from the Clinton Global Initiative? Matt Lewis: Well, I think if you've seen the pictures of Hunter Biden recently, you know that at least some members of his family are not operating based on reason and logic. Um, Joe Biden kind of has, it seems like I mean, who knows? I mean, I don't know if he's, quote, the big guy who's getting a cut from the Burisma money or whatever, from Hunter. But Joe, according to his actual, you know, disclosure reports, really wasn't all that wealthy compared to most of these politicians until he left the vice presidency. And then he had about three years where he really cashed in. He made about $15 million off of, you know, the usual boring stuff, speeches, book deals, being a adjunct professor, that kind of thing. But the one thing that is clear is that Biden has a long history of his family cashing in on on his name. And it's not just Hunter, it's James and Frank, I think it is, who've been doing this. And, you know, I found that way back in 1988, the first time Biden ran for president. He raised about $11 million. There's a lot of money. In 1988, he raised $11 million, and 20% of that money went to the Biden family or companies that employed the Biden family. So this thing of him spreading the money around to his family has been going on for 25 or 30, I guess 35 years something. Chuck Warren: Yeah. So in 1988, if you go and say, what's the dollar value, then that's worth about 5.1 million today. Yeah, I mean, it's real money. Sam, what are your what's your family doing for you? Sam Stone: I I've got to run for something more significant than city council is what you're saying. Chuck Yeah. Chuck Warren: Matt Let me ask you a question and Sam Biden Biden stuff, but I want to ask you a question. I, I heard you on an interview and I thought this was really interesting. And folks, Matt has just a wonderful wife. And the thing I love about Erin is she is so dang blunt. And you were talking to her about maybe on a walk running for Congress. Would you tell I want to understand really how hard this is to do, first of all, and why there is a certain wealth factor involved with it. I don't think they quite understand. You know, I have a congressional candidate friend who's running right now. He's put 300 grand on his race and just he just said it doesn't seem like it's enough. And that's what I have. That's what it is. Right. Would you explain your conversation and why this is so hard and why we are getting a certain amount of people in office? Matt Lewis: Totally. And this was eye opening for me as someone who's been, you know, in politics for decades, even for me, I had to kind of grapple with this realization. So but so my wife, as you know, Chuck, my wife is a Republican political fundraiser. And while I was writing this book, you know, we went out for a walk and we were talking and I was you know, I live in West Virginia and my congressman is running for Senate against Joe Manchin. And so we were walking. I said, you know, if things were a little different, maybe I someday I could run for Congress. And she's like, oh, you don't have enough money. And I said like, well, what are you talking about? Like, number one, I've been in you know, I know a lot of people. I've been in journalism for a couple of decades and I've got a good network and I'm like, number two, I'm married to a professional Republican fundraiser. Surely I could run for Congress in West Virginia. And she was like, Well, let me put it to you this way. If I didn't know you and you approached me and you wanted to hire me, I would say, come back to me. When you've either donated $300,000 or raise $300,000 from your personal Christmas card list, and then and only then would I introduce you to political action committees and high dollar donors. And that's when it hit me that even I who wrote on the Straight Talk Express with John McCain could not win a congressional seat in West Virginia because I'm not rich enough. Chuck Warren: Well, you need better friends. Yeah. Sam Stone: Yeah. Chuck and I are not going to be able to help you that much there. Matt Lewis, we want to thank you again for joining us. We have just about 30s before we end the segment here, we really appreciate having you on. How do folks stay in touch with all of your work? Matt Lewis: Oh, awesome. Well, first, get filthy rich politicians. Follow me on Twitter at Matt K Lewis and check me out at The Daily Beast. Sam Stone: Perfect. Thank you so much. Once again, Matt, we always love having you on the program. Looking forward to the next round breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment. Advertisement: At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True. Sam Stone: Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone in studio with me today. Kiley Kipper dragged reluctantly onto the mic once again back. Kiley Kipper: By popular demand. I'm just. Sam Stone: Kidding. People love you, Kiley. They are always happy to talk to you. And you know what else makes people happy? Earning a really high rate of return on their investments. That makes almost everybody I know happy. And folks, if you haven't checked out our friends at Invest Refy.com, you need to do that right now. Go to invest the letter Y then refy.com you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. The market goes up, the market goes down, your rate of return stays the same. It is a tremendous opportunity and we highly encourage you to check it out. So again, go on their website, invest y refy.com or give them a call at 888 y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Now, our next segment up, we have a returning guest, someone we really enjoyed having on the program last time, Congressman James Moylan of Guam. And we have something actually this is coming out on Saturday, the 22nd. We record on the 21st. And folks, the 21st is a very special day. July 21st is a special day in Guam. Congressman, tell us what's going on. Congressman James Moylan: Sure. I'll be happy to. Hi there, Sam. And hi, Kiley. And we as we greet folks from Guam, we say half a day. So half a day to you both. Sam Stone: And half a day to you as well, sir. Congressman James Moylan: Thank you. So we I was just on the floor today and gave a five minute speech for Congressional Record announcing the celebration of Guam's 79th Liberation Day 79 years ago. Guam was liberated and from during World War two. We also had a ceremony at the war. Let me see. World War II Memorial on July. July 13th here, where we had a wreath laying presentation on the monument at the War Memorial with Guam on it. This is a tradition that has been long ongoing for for quite some time. And we've joined in with our Guam Society of America, the oldest tomorrow group in the nation. We have so many different tomorrow groups throughout the nation, but this is the first and the oldest. We also had other members of Congress that were present. We had the undersecretary of the United States Air Force, Christine Christine Jones, and we also had the commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Eric Smith, also do a presentation. So what's really happening is to remember this day for celebration. 79 years ago, on July 21st, 19, 1944, Guam, after two years of occupation by the Japanese Imperial Army military, the United States service members landed on our south west part of Guam, to liberate over 20,000 tomorrows and Americans from the occupation of Guam. Congressman James Moylan: The actual the war in World War II were not. Many people know that Guam was actually occupied by the Japanese soldiers, and that day came as an invasion on December 8th of 1941. This is a special day for Guam because we were celebrating the feast of Santa Maria Kamalen, and that's Guam's patron saint. And after people were coming out of church, the sounds of bombs were just dropping and planes flying overhead. And and it drowned out what was a peaceful neighborhood and a great celebration of of of our services there. And that's what started the occupation on Guam. So we're very thankful 79 years later for the liberation Day of Guam, when the Marines came on back on July 21st, 1944. So that's our celebration. And we we're very patriotic and we're we're rededicating ourselves to chorus. And Guam is even even just as important then as it is even more so now with the Indopacom situation and the Communist Chinese party threat for national security and our sister nations out there who are supporting us as well, with the U.S taking the. Sam Stone: Lead that has I mean, that is something that I think is so almost incomprehensible, Congressman, to any American right to you're stepping out of out of a services or a celebration in your country is being bombed around you. And there have to be people there who who lived through that experience, who still have that direct memory. Yes. And that has. Congressman James Moylan: In fact. Sam Stone: Never leave you. Congressman James Moylan: Right. And many of war survivors still tell the stories. And we did have a war survivor here for a celebration here in Washington, DC at the Pacific Memorial. So but my mother was also one. So my mother had told me this story and she was 12 years old at the time. She was coming out of the cathedral with her grandfather. And she she explained the story in this way, that as they were exiting and they see the Japanese zeros flying over and the bombs were coming on down and she's yelling at her grandfather, too, Grandpa, we got to go. We got to go. Let's run, run, run. As an older man, he said, No, just leave me here. And she started she had to pull him so they can run, run for protection and run and hide and get back home to their family. So them with my mother's explanation. And and by the way, my father was in Pearl Harbor at the time of the bombing in Pearl Harbor, too. So every everybody's generations and generations, families have been affected. And the war stories continue to the brutality that was taken against forced labor, forced marches, beheadings, stabbings, grenades and and caves where where locals were were killed and massacred. And it was it was tremendous loss of innocent lives. But that's why we celebrate the. With the Liberation Day coming out, with the Marines, coming out back with US soldiers, with the United States Navy there to re reclaim Guam and give us our freedom back. Congressman James Moylan: And my mother was part of that as well. There was what they called the Bennington Force march, where the Japanese troops used the local residents as a shield, As the Americans were coming onto the shore and coming inland, the Japanese were marching that direction, but using the local folks as a barrier. But of course, you know, the US is not going to kill innocent citizens. And my mom would explain to me as she's climbing up the hills in Menningen when they see the star on on the army, I believe it was an army tank or an army jeep. Then the soldiers would call them over and tell them to keep quiet, keep quiet, just come this way, come this way. And they felt so, so relieved to see the US, see Americans, see the military there. And it was a joyful celebration. And that's why this this has continued in celebrating and remembering in memory of this throughout the nation. We have Guam societies that we have calendars of events for just about every state where there's Guam residents. And they establish their organization and they celebrate to to remember those that have died, that have sacrificed. And if there are survivors to celebrate their lives as well for what we consider the greatest generation. Sam Stone: Congressman, one of the things I think people know from, you know, books and movies like Unbroken a little bit, some of the experience that, for instance, American POWs went through. But I don't think they know enough about what the people of the occupied islands of the Pacific, including Guam, went through. You were just, you know, referencing some of it right there. But that occupation was just absolutely brutal in every regard and with with really little consideration for the humanity of the people of Guam or any of the other islands of the Pacific. Congressman James Moylan: Very true. And and not all were able to talk about it some more. Chose to to forget my my mother's father was imprisoned in Japanese in Japan as well. And then when he came back to the to Guam after the war was over, he died shortly thereafter just from lack of lack of nutrition. So it was very it was it was brutal. And and the rules of war and Geneva Convention, there was there's nothing like that. The forced labor that was placed upon the people, the beheading of of local folks and the fights that went on and and what they had to endure. And you had to bow also to the imperial Japanese Army. And if you didn't, you're whipped and beaten. It was it was a sad day for those almost two and a half years of occupation. And that's why when the Americans came back, it was a great celebration. And since that time, of course, we've grown and we had we're considered per capita, the highest enlistment in the nation, where people joining the military, because of our commitment and the happiness and the joy that the United States came back to claim that U.S territory, which was the U.S territory at the time. Sam Stone: So there are few, few populations on the planet that love America and the ideals of America like the people of Guam. Congressman James Moylan: Yes. And I'm happy to represent as the delegate here. And there's a couple of committees that we were able to get ourselves on. And one is the House Armed Services Committee, which I play a great role in the readiness and also the personnel part. And I focus on on Guam and the Northern Marianas and and the Indopacom region. So we've had also we're able to have within the first quarter, a congressional delegation come through Guam. Second quarter, we just had another one, the House committee, House Armed Services Committee, to include the chairman and several other members of the House to come on up over an experience of what Guam is and what the role was and what it is now for the Indopacom region to defend against communist Chinese threat. And then we're going to have another one through the Natural Resources Committee, Department of Interior Affairs, which I'm a part of also, and the subcommittee specifically regarding our nation's Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands as well. All these nations joining in so we can protect freedom and democracy. Right. And we are against the Communist Chinese party. So I'm very fortunate to represent Guam in these two committees that have a great impact in the Indopacom region. And we're I believe the United States will be here for a long, long time to ensure that the Chinese threat is is deterred by our show of strength with all our other countries that are involved with our democracy. Sam Stone: And people folks out there may not realize that as a territory. Guam, obviously, we're talking to their congressman member right now. Congressman, you don't have a vote on the House floor, but you do have a vote on committee. And I think most people don't recognize that what happens on the House floor is often kind of a dog and pony show, that the actual sausage gets made in those committees that dictates what's actually going to be voted on and how those bills, you know, interact with with the intent of the authors. Congressman James Moylan: Exactly. And we just were discussing the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which is the one of the biggest budget for the defense of the nation, and so much billions of dollars going into the Indo-Pacific region. Our influence there, we were able to double what we received last last fiscal year for for the island defense. So that's a great influence there. So in committee, yes, we do this and pardon me. Sam Stone: Sorry, we had a little technical glitch right there. Apologize for that. Let's just keep going here. I want to switch up topics just a little bit. We have only two minutes left. Are there any traditional celebrations, the traditional foods like here, obviously July 4th, Independence Day, it's hot dogs, hamburgers, fireworks. Are there celebratory traditions around Guam's Independence Day, their liberation day? Congressman James Moylan: Yes. Unfortunately, this year we didn't have it because we were hit with Super Typhoon Marwar. So we're still recovering from that. However, we'll we get back to our traditions. We usually have a parade with all the branches of the military, all our department agencies and a lot of villages are also represented with floats. It's it's it's a beautiful parade that goes down what's known as Marine Corps Drive. That's our main road on Guam. In addition, people overnight on the sides of the roads and they picnic because it's right next to the beach and they barbecue. We love our fiesta. We call it Fiesta food. We have what's called red rice barbecue chicken, barbecue ribs. And our marinade is delicious. We have a sauce called Vinodhini, which is our hot sauce. And we have something special called Chicken Kelaguen that everybody loves. So. Sam Stone: Congressman, I think we I think we need to check the weather and make some plans for next year to come. There. Congressman James Moylan: There you go. You're more than welcome and you're invited. Please come on down. It's going to be the 80th. And that's where you should have your show coming out of. That'd be great. Sam Stone: I think that sounds like an absolutely fantastic plan. Congressman James Moylan of Guam, thank you so much for joining us once again. We really appreciate having you on the program, folks. Stay tuned for our podcast only segment. You're not going to want to miss this one. Breaking battlegrounds. Back in just a moment. Speaker1: The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Sam Stone: Welcome to the podcast. Only segment of breaking battlegrounds. In studio with me today the irrepressible haven't broken that out in a while the irrepressible Kiley Kipper. She remains irrepressible folks. She is our producer. She does a fantastic job. We've got Jeremy in the booth, as always, doing a beautiful job on all our audio and on the line. Now, I saw this come out a little while ago and it kind of blew me away. We have Senator Shannon Grove from California's 12th Senate District. Senator Grove has served in the US Army and had the amazing. It had to be amazing. Senator, the experience in Frankfurt, Germany, of watching the fall of the Berlin Wall. She's an advocate for small business school choice, the developmentally disabled farmers and families, and we're having her on today to discuss her proposed amendment to Assembly Bill 2167. Senator, thank you so much for joining us today. We really appreciate having you on the program. Tell us what this amendment was. First, I think this is news that was so much going on in the country, escaped a lot of people, but it really blew me away when I heard about your bill. I'm shocked California didn't have something like this already on the books and then shocked and disheartened at the Democrats response to it. Senator Shannon Grove: No. Senator Shannon Grove: And I appreciate you guys covering this subject matter. I really do. And thank you for having me on. Sb 14 was a simple solution that would just allow us individuals who sell children for sex, sex trafficking, minor children, 0 to 17in age group. It would make it a serious felony in the state of California right now, there's two subsections that deal with this subject matter. And selling a child for sex does not automatically make it a serious felony unless there's coercion, torture, violence, you know, all these different things that go along with it, then it can be considered serious. But I want the actual act of selling the child to be a serious felony. Sam Stone: And it shocks I mean, honestly, it we're sitting here in Arizona, obviously, we've had Republican leadership for a long time. So it's a very different environment. Obviously, every state is different. But this should be a no brainer, right? I mean, so much of the problem and we've dealt with the issue of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking here quite a bit. Obviously, with the border. Arizona is also another hub of that activity, just like California is, unfortunately. But a lot of times it's very difficult to prove those if you can prove any element of it at all. It's really difficult to prove those other elements. This has got to be just hamstringing prosecutors, this current law. Senator Shannon Grove: It really is hamstringing prosecutors. And that's why we work together with our district attorneys, including all the statewide district attorneys, with the exception of 3 or 4. But specifically Nancy O'Malley, the former district attorney of Alameda County, who established the heat unit, the human trafficking exploitation unit. And what happened is, is that that was the first unit set up like that in the nation that was victim centered. She's prosecuted over 850 cases of human trafficking. And one of the big issues that she has is that you can't convict these individuals because this particular bill, SB 14, the language is not on the books. When we first introduced the language, we wanted to make sure everybody was encompassed, that everybody in sex trafficking, labor trafficking were all included. But to get it out of the Senate, we had to narrow it to minors only. So we moved the football a little bit. We got a unanimous vote in the Senate. 40 senators in the state of California, all 40 voted I no abstentions and no no's. Fast forward to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, where the bill dies. Sam Stone: Oh. Sam Stone: I it stuns me. What was to hear that? I mean, it's sort of it's just gross. I mean, quite frankly, it's just gross. They clearly killed it when they they figured it wouldn't draw much attention by killing it in committee. But, my goodness, how how did what did they what did they say? How did these Democrats look at themselves in the mirror? Kiley Kipper: That's what I want to know, is what is their response when you're trying to have these conversations with the people that you work with? Senator Shannon Grove: So, yeah, no. So I did I was, you know, they requested me leadership, requested me to meet with the chair of the committee after it was killed and he wanted me to take an amendment. So let me explain the bill just a little bit more so people get a full grasp of it. If you sex trafficking a minor child in the state of California and you get caught and you get prosecuted, you get sentenced to either four, 8 or 12 years, let's just take the maximum 12 years with California's criminal justice reform laws. You go to school, you go to classes, you're a good behavior in prison. You can get out in less than four years. So let's just take that scenario, which happens quite often. You get out in four years and then you go back to sex trafficking a minor. That's when my bill kicks in and creates a strike offense that when you get busted on your second offense for selling a child for sex, then you have to serve your full 12 years and you have a strike against you, which could, if you continue your bad behavior, you could end up with life in prison. The chair wants me to take an amendment to allow the second offense of sex trafficking, not the first one. When you get convicted, you go to prison. You get out in four years, but then you get out again and you sex trafficker minor do or do another bad felony, something that's listed as a serious or violent felony. He wants me to take an amendment to allow the perpetrator to plea bargain down. I said no. So that's why the bill died. Sam Stone: That that is that is Kiley. That is stunning to me. Kiley Kipper: Just sitting here shaking our heads. Sam Stone: Yeah, My mouth is my mouth is on the bottom of this table right now because can you even. Senator Shannon Grove: Believe we're having this conversation? Sam Stone: No, no, no. Senator, we're talking to Senator Shannon Grove of California's 12th Senate District. She proposed this bill that would have made it a serious and violent felony to traffic minor children for the purposes of sex. That's a really narrow thing. I mean, trafficking any person should be a serious and violent felony. I like your original intent, but I understand cutting it back. You have to make a deal. I cannot comprehend the inhumanity that it takes to not move this out of committee. Senator Shannon Grove: Well, I think it just, you know, with the the media engaging the way they did and Californians raising up their voices and, you know, with the the the exposure that the bill got from dying caused the Public Safety Committee to reverse their decision, you know, 24 hours later. So it still is moving through the building. They are still pushing for amendments. You know, the public safety chair voted for the bill. We got it out of public safety. And now he's on, you know, TV. Every time he turns around going the bill is still flawed. I have to fix this bill. There's nothing wrong with my bill. It says that if you it just simply says you can't. It's a serious felony to to sex traffickers sell a child for sex. It's just ridiculous that you wouldn't be able to get this passed with flying colors. And what's interesting is, is that, like I said, every senator voted for it, including Scott Wiener out of San Francisco, The San Francisco Chronicle, and I'm talking about San Francisco, not normal California, but San Francisco. The San Francisco Chronicle even did an article, you know, against the chair's arguments like like you mean sex trafficking. The minor isn't enough like that. They have to brutalize them. You know, there's a whole list of things that they have to do in order to make it a strike or a default to life in prison. But I mean, branding them with a branding iron instead of tattooing all these different things in the details that will allow you to make it a fallback for the strike able offense. I just want to make it a strike able offense for sex trafficking. A minor like you shouldn't need all these other things. I think sex trafficking, a minor like my witness said it and it's kind of gross, but you have to get this vision in your head. Grown men all over a ten year old child, that in itself should be a serious felony. Sam Stone: Okay. I'm glad to be here. We are, folks, we are recording this just before lunchtime and I started the intermittent fasting thing. And I'm right now really glad that I don't start eating anything till noon because I think I would have thrown up right there. I mean, that's just. Senator Shannon Grove: This is disgusting. It's the hardest bill I've ever. I met parents that whose daughter was trafficked. And I said, How did you find out? You know, you know, tell me your story. She got a text message, a video. She clicked on the video and it was five guys gang raping her daughter. I met a and it's it's disproportionately does affect black women and people of color. If you look at Figueroa Street, the National Coalition of Human Trafficking down there says that 70% of the women that are in their shelters are are black or brown. And then also 55% of them on the streets are black or brown. So for them to say that this disproportionately affects black people, I agree with them in that portion only. They are concerned about the black people that could possibly go to prison for perpetrating these crimes against black women. And I to me, I don't care what color your skin is, I, I don't care what I was in the military. Everybody's green, but I don't care what color your skin is. If you're sex trafficking minors, I do want you to go to prison for a long time. Yeah. Sam Stone: I mean, this this hesitation on their part, it's protecting the evil people and not protecting the innocent ones. And who gives a darn about skin color? That just makes no sense at all. Senator Shannon Grove: But when they can't make an argument on the substance, they always throw in race. And they always do that. They always throw in race. And then you've got these people out there doing the q-anon thing. If they can't make an argument on the substance, they try to distract from the substance. And I keep saying the bill is very simple. If you sex trafficking a minor 0 to 17, you should go to prison. Sam Stone: Well, and part of the backstory behind some of their opposition, I imagine, is what they've been trying to do to essentially legalize or decriminalize however you want to put it, prostitution. But they present it as as a choice for the people that are engaging in that activity. This is not a choice. I mean, this is not somebody. Yeah. Who's who's making a decision about their own life. This is somebody who's being abused in the worst way possible. Senator Shannon Grove: You're exactly right. But when you get into the details, I guess you'd say the the the serious felony doesn't kick in when you traffic a minor because, you know, you just you have to imagine somebody's going, come on, you know, like a family member or do this for dad, do this for mom. You know, whatever a neighbor come on, just do this one time. Well, they're not they're not beating her into submission. They're not. So it doesn't count, right? It just doesn't count. So there are there are it is very, very hard to prosecute a serious felony in the state of California for this because the girls are scared. They're young. They they they're afraid to turn someone in. And so basically, they have to have all these additional things that happen once you sex traffic the minor. And that's why I was trying to make it simple that that selling the child or sex trafficking the child should be enough alone by itself as a serious felony. Sam Stone: I, I. Sam Stone: Would agree, Kylie, in part because when you talk to experts about this, about sex trafficking, particularly a minor, children, you know, even regardless of the physical abuse, what they're using is mental abuse and mental torture to to keep these these young people in a position where they can continue to be exploited. They're tearing their mind apart. Yeah. Kiley Kipper: And it'll never be recovered. Obviously, their life will never be the same. Senator Shannon Grove: I mean, Kiley, you're absolutely right when you think about it. You know, even my survivors that have gone on to have families and you know that I have Odessa Perkins, if you haven't watched her testimony, she really nailed them with her responses. But she was she was trafficked as a minor and went through the anger stage, the criminal stage, the whole bit where she was, you know, didn't function right in society because of the trauma in her. And then you become a survivor versus a victim. Right. And now she's an interventionist. She's a speaker and author. She has a nonprofit where she rescues at risk kids and deters at risk kids and rescues people out of human trafficking. So there is a is a road to recovery. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't deal with this trauma that affected her as a child all of her life, every single day. And the same with Jenna McKay, who does the Jenna McKay Foundation. And you know what's interesting about these two individuals, Odessa is a black a black woman trafficked as a child in a in a poor socioeconomic disadvantaged neighborhood. But Jenna McKay came from a Christian home, no divorce, got a full ride scholarship to Vanguard University and was lured out of that by someone who said they loved her. She fell in love. She thought she they'd been dating for a few months. He asked her to go to Vegas, knock on the door. When they get to Vegas, they exchanged money and men came in and raped her. Kiley Kipper: Wow. Senator Shannon Grove: So there's different stories in this human trafficking realm. Sam Stone: And it takes an enormous amount of courage to be able to come out and tell those stories. But it takes as much courage in the moment to be able to go and tell that story to police. And it just sounds like this, you know, anything you do that adds barriers, that makes it more difficult for them to have the the the resolution in part, I guess, of having their assailant be actually placed in bars and behind bars and face real penalties. That has to be part of the healing process for a lot of them. Right. Is is seeing justice actually happen. And this is this this hesitation by some California Democrats is really denying that. Senator Shannon Grove: It really is. And that's a perfect way to explain it, too. So we're trying to remove barriers. There's barriers now to testimony which you just said. So this bill would remove barriers. It just the act of selling the child for sex would be a serious felony. So there wouldn't be any barriers where you have to meet a certain level or did they beat you? Did they sodomise you? Did they I mean, all these crazy things, right? So just the act. So we're trying to remove the barriers for these these kids to testify. So that's a very good way to put it. Thank you for phrasing it that way. Sam Stone: Fantastic. Senator, anything else that we should be focusing, you know, people should be paying attention to around this upcoming hearings or anything like that. And then secondly, how can they support you in the work you're doing? Because I got to say, especially in California, you're you're swimming upstream in a big way. But they need more voices like yours who provide some balance. Senator Shannon Grove: I appreciate that. So the bill did get out of public safety. It quieted the media down a little bit. So now everybody's off on their what they call summer break. We come back on August 14th and the bill will go before the Appropriations Committee in order to get through one more committee, the opposition, the Democrats that killed the bill originally in public safety and then re voted for the bill two days later or a day and a half later. They are still saying that I they are going to fix this bill and they're going to make me take amendments. There is nothing to fix in this bill, so please stay engaged in the process. You can follow me at Shannon Grove, CA on Instagram, Shannon Grove, CA on Twitter, Shannon Grove, CA on Facebook, or Senator Shannon Grove on Facebook. But and we'll post the, you know, the day that the hearing is going to take place. We'll keep everybody updated on social media. So please stay engaged and to pray for this process because it really is just just a mess the way that the California state legislature operates. And then also, you know, participate in the hearing process. They still allow call ins. You can call in, you can write in, you can you can just participate to support the bill. So thank you, folks. Sam Stone: We have a lot of listeners out there right now who are listening to this who are in California. Make your voice heard. You know, make stand up, exercise your right as a citizen. I think that's incredibly important in this case. They need to hear from voices outside the political process and where people really stand, because I don't see. Senator, thank you so much for joining us. Senator Shannon Grove. I don't see anything at all that needs to be amended in this bill. This needs to pass. Senator Shannon Grove: I agree. Thank you so much for taking the time to interview me and get the message out there. I really appreciate it. Sam Stone: All right. Fantastic. Folks, remember to tune in every week to Breaking Battlegrounds. We're on all your favorite Salem network stations. And you can also download us wherever you find your podcasts, Substack, Spotify. Apple Podcasts. I think we still even post to YouTube, although I've never I've never actually been on our YouTube site. Kiley To find out what's up. It's up. Okay, folks, make sure you're tuning in. That's how we keep the lights on here in this studio. That's how we pay the bills and that's how we continue to bring you stories about what's going on around the country that maybe aren't getting enough coverage like this one. Again, thank you to all of our guests today and particular thanks to our final guest, Senator Shannon Grove of California. It is, as always, been an enlightening and and not always easy journey here with breaking battlegrounds today. But we appreciate you sticking with us. See you next week. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

Join us this week as we delve into the heart of Iran's turmoil with esteemed guest Elliott Abrams, former foreign policy advisor to Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Gain exclusive insights and expert analysis on the current state of affairs in Iran, exploring the underlying factors, potential ramifications, and possible solutions. Don't miss this captivating episode as we unravel the complexities of one of the world's most critical geopolitical hotspots. We're also joined by Andrew Hale, the Jay Van Andel Senior Trade Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, who brings his extensive experience in international trade and defense intelligence. Together, we examine the alarming issue of China defaulting on $850 billion of debt, shedding light on the potential global consequences and exploring the economic and geopolitical landscape. Don't miss this captivating episode as we unravel the complexities of Iran's chaos and China's financial challenges. _ Elliott Abrams is senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, DC. He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor in the administration of President George W. Bush, where he supervised U.S. policy in the Middle East for the White House, and as Special Representative for Iran and Venezuela in the administration of Donald Trump.Abrams was educated at Harvard College, the London School of Economics, and Harvard Law School. After serving on the staffs of Senators Henry M. Jackson and Daniel P. Moynihan, he was an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and received the secretary of state's Distinguished Service Award from Secretary George P. Shultz. In 2012, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy gave him its Scholar-Statesman Award.Abrams was president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, from 1996 until joining the White House staff. He was a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 1999 to 2001 and chairman of the commission in the latter year, and served a second term as a member of the Commission in 2012-2014. From 2009 to 2016, Abrams was a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which directs the activities of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. He is a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, and teaches U.S. foreign policy at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.Abrams joined the Bush administration in June 2001 as special assistant to the president and senior director of the National Security Council for democracy, human rights, and international organizations. From December 2002 to February 2005, he served as special assistant to the president and senior director of the National Security Council for Near East and North African affairs. He served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy from February 2005 to January 2009, and in that capacity supervised both the Near East and North African affairs and the democracy, human rights, and international organizations directorates of the National Security Council.Abrams rejoined the State Department in January 2019 as Special Representative for Venezuela, and in August 2020 took on the additional position of Special Representative for Iran. He left the Department in January 2021.Abrams is the author of five books: Undue Process, Security and Sacrifice, Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and most recently Realism and Democracy: American Foreign Policy After the Arab Spring. He is the editor of three more, Close Calls: Intervention, Terrorism, Missile Defense and "Just War" Today; Honor Among Nations: Intangible Interests and Foreign Policy; and The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Andrew is the Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy in Heritage’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Andrew Hale is currently the Jay Van Andel Senior Trade Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. A dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom, he has previously worked for the UK Department for International Trade, in Defense Intelligence, and for Parliament. In the U.S. he has worked for the State Department and for a Member of Congress. _ Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds - Transcription Chuck Warren: [00:00:27] Welcome to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren, my co-host today, Michelle Ugenti-rita. Hello, Michelle. Hello. We are so fortunate today to have with us Elliott Abrams. He is a man who's been responsible for a lot of the peace and prosperity in our world for the past several decades. Couple decades. He served as deputy assistant to president and National deputy National Security Advisor to the administration of George W Bush, where he supervised US policy in the Middle East for the White House and a Special Representative for Iran and Venezuela in the administration of Donald Trump. He is also a senior fellow for the Middle Eastern Studies for the Council of Foreign Relations. Mr. Abrams, thank you for joining us today. Elliott Abrams: [00:01:09] Sure. Very glad to do it. Chuck Warren: [00:01:10] All right. So let's talk about Iran. Iran sees some tankers, sees a tanker last week. They seem to be causing chaos all the time, sort of unabated. Tell us what our listeners what we need to know about Iran and what do we need to do? Elliott Abrams: [00:01:25] Well, the first thing is just what you said. That is they're causing chaos. They're causing chaos in the whole region. They're basically an enemy to everybody there Yemen, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan. I mean, they're supporting terrorist groups all over the Middle East and they're targeting Americans and they've been targeting Americans since 1979, since the revolution there. And they've been killing Americans for decades. And frankly, we're letting them get away with it. They've been killing Americans. We're not killing Iranians. You know, we just sort of issue strong protests when these things happen. And the lesson that teaches them is, okay, we can get away with it. So at this point, they're really a dangerous country for all of our friends in the region. And, you know, the they continue to use the same to slogans, Death to America, Death to Israel that they've been using since 1979. So what do we do about it? Well, one thing we shouldn't do, maybe we should start with this. We should not get back into the nuclear deal that President Obama negotiated. It was a bad deal the day he did it. Elliott Abrams: [00:02:47] And it's a worse deal now because there were a lot of provisions of it that were going to disappear over time. And they're disappearing because the years have gone by. That was a 2015 deal and it's slowly disappearing. Another thing, here's the thing we should do. If you look at the amount of oil they were exporting, mostly to China. During the Trump years, it was much, much less. Then they're exporting now again, they're getting away with it. In the Trump administration, we made it clear to everybody involved in oil that is, you know, the ship owners, the ship captains, the crews, the insurers, you name it, we're going to go after you. They obviously don't believe that anymore. And the amount of oil that's going from Iran to China is way up and the amount of money they get is way up. They're practically broke at the end of the Trump administration and they've got tens of billions of dollars now. So we need to those sanctions are all on the books. We need to enforce them if we're going to have any impact. Chuck Warren: [00:03:58] We don't seem to enforce anything domestically. Gun laws don't seem to get enforced. Every time you hear about a mass shooting, there's some gun law. They. You know, they broke previously and it's not enforced. We just had on before you, Andrew Hale, or after he discussed the $850 Billion in Debt. China has the United States that they're defaulting on. We're not holding them accountable. Why don't we hold these folks to accountable to laws that are in the books? Elliott Abrams: [00:04:26] Well, I agree with you. And I think in the case of Iran, you know, we can do it. We showed that we can do it by the time Trump left office, their whole national reserves that they could access were down to $4 billion. You know, there are there are a lot of individuals in this country now who've got more money than that, but they're building it up again because we're not enforcing it. Why don't we do it? I think this administration, Biden administration came, came, you know, these are all Obama people. And they came in with the idea that Iran deal called the JCPoA in 2015. It was great. It was perfect. It was wonderful. We just have to restore it. And so, you know, they don't want to make trouble. They don't want to make the Iranians angry by enforcing the sanctions that are on the books, partly because they think, well, you know, we're going to get back in this deal and the sanctions will go away. So why bother enforcing them? Well, we're two and a half years into the Biden administration. There is no thank God, there is no deal with Iran. We should be enforcing those sanctions. Chuck Warren: [00:05:36] If you were to sit down and let's say you're say you're in Iowa and you're sitting down in New Hampshire, you're running for president, you're sitting in the living rooms of people. The question it would seem to me that would be asked is why is Iran so hell bent on causing so much chaos and continually attacking Americans? I mean, it's been for decades. I mean, what is the motivation to do? Continue to do this instead of saying, let's just be normal, let our people have a decent life, we'll have our rules. But, you know, we don't need to be causing chaos. All the time. The ultimate disruptors of the Middle East. Elliott Abrams: [00:06:10] They are they are. Well, you know, it's it's actually a very good question. I think the answer is, first of all, it's not a democracy. You know, it's a theocracy. It's ruled by the ayatollahs. So no one cares what Iranians think. You know, they're not voting for these policies. They didn't vote for this government. So we can't blame the Iranian people. We got to blame the ayatollahs who run the country. And, you know, it's completely ideological for them. First of all, you know, there are Shiites and they believe that the fact that most of the Arab countries and most of the Muslim countries in the world are Sunnis is is evil and they want more power for their brand of Islam. The other thing is they want to be the most powerful country in the Middle East. They are the most powerful country in the Gulf. They have a much larger, more capable military than than the other countries. So what stops them from really dominating the whole region? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:07:12] You made a bold statement. You said Iran is killing Americans and we're letting them get away with it. Yeah, I mean, that's frightening. Why are we letting them get away with it? What's the political motivation to continue to allow Americans get slaughtered like we have over the last several decades? Elliott Abrams: [00:07:29] You know, it's amazing. You know, you just said it. And when you say it, I think most Americans would hear that and say, this can't be right. Right. But it is right. I mean, look, look at the Iraq Iran, look at the Iraq war. I mean. They were feeding all of those terrorists in Iraq. The Pentagon will tell you that Iran killed something north of 600 Americans and wounded and crippled thousands of Americans. But go back further. The Marine barracks in Beirut. Who did that? Iran and Hezbollah did that. Hundreds of Marines dead and we never really respond. And we have what's known as escalation dominance. That is, people say, well, you know, if we strike back and then they'll escalate and then we're in a real war. No, we're not. It's a third rate power. It's a country of 70 million people. They're not insane. They do these things because they think rightly so far they can get away with them. And if they didn't think that, they'd stop and by the way, you know, they kill more Americans than they kill Israelis. And why is that? They attack more Americans. Elliott Abrams: [00:08:43] Why? Because they know the Israelis will hit them. They know every time they hit, they'll get hit back. And we need to establish the same kind of deterrence with Iran or this is going to keep on happening. Another example, hostages. We've got hostages in Iran now. President Trump got several of them out. This was Under Secretary of State Pompeo for nothing. That is, we didn't, you know, pay a ransom to get them out. We negotiated. We pressured and got them out. This administration is negotiating as it should, to get the hostages out, but it looks as if the deal is they're going to be willing to pay something like 7 or $10 billion. So the Iranians learn from that. But this is a good business, right? You take American hostages, you make a lot of money. We're we're letting them get away with it. And I think every president says, well, not right now. You know, I don't want to take this on right now or it's going to get too complicated. But this has been going on since 1979. Chuck Warren: [00:09:45] They sound like coyotes at the border here. Elliott Abrams: [00:09:48] Well, they're you know, look, they're not crazy. They look at this the way any criminal gang would look at it. What can I get away with? What's too dangerous for me? What's the likely punishment? How likely is it that I get caught and punished? And they make their calculation. And unfortunately, we've taught the lesson over the years. They're you know, you're probably going to get away with it. Chuck Warren: [00:10:09] Every teenager has weighed that decision with their parents on something, Right? Right. We all have kids here. They've all weighed that decision. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:10:15] All the time. Chuck Warren: [00:10:16] I think a perfect example of this is when Trump ordered the assassination of I think it was General Soleimani back three years ago. You know, New York Times, oh, my gosh, World War three has started, you know, and they they toss some missiles at some of our bases. But you haven't heard anything since. And. No, you know, look, you just sometimes got to you know, I remember years ago, Lee Atwater told me the way you handle a bully is you punch the bully. If you don't, they'll keep doing it. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:10:44] You have to stick up to them. Elliott Abrams: [00:10:45] That is, you know, it's right. I remember under Jimmy Carter, Secretary of State Vance resigned in protest after he tried to free the hostages in Desert One. And somebody made the comment that Vance was a guy who obviously had never been in a schoolyard and didn't know how you behave with bullies. And I think I really do think that's exactly right, that they respect power. What was their real response to our assassination of Soleimani? Nothing. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:11:20] Exactly. Nothing. Chuck Warren: [00:11:21] Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing at all. It's just it's crazy that we're still talking about Iran since 1979 and hostages. Yeah. I mean, it's absolutely boggles the mind that we're still at that point, we have less less than a minute here for this segment here. When we come back, I definitely want to talk about the Cuban spy base that we're putting down there. China. Yeah. And I want to talk a little bit about the Monroe Doctrine. Do we need to really re-up that in our hemisphere now? I feel like that's something we need to do. We've neglected it quite a bit. Just briefly in 30s, what are 2 or 3 things you would do if you had control of US policy towards Iran? Elliott Abrams: [00:12:01] First of all, I'd tell them that Obama's nuclear deal is dead and we're not going back to it. Secondly, I tell them that every time, every time they try to kill an American, whether they succeed or not. Oh, sometimes they miss. They only wound someone. They're going to get hit, not their proxies in Syria or Iraq. They are going to get hit. They'd stop very fast. Chuck Warren: [00:12:23] With Elliott Abrams. He is the senior fellow of Middle Eastern studies at the Council of Foreign Relations. He also served as deputy assistant to the president and deputy national Security advisor to the administration of President George W Bush, and also served as special Envoy to Iran and Venezuela for Donald Trump. Mr. Abrams, where can people find you and your writings? Elliott Abrams: [00:12:45] The Council on Foreign Relations website cfr.org, just, you know, on the search search for my name. And there's a list there of everything I've done. Chuck Warren: [00:12:57] Recently, bok tastic with Elliott Abrams. We'll be right back. Unknown/advertisement: [00:13:17] At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms. Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making Dream homes Come True. Chuck Warren: [00:13:50] Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren, and my co-host today is Michelle Ugenti-rita. Thank you, Michelle. I'm so glad you're here. We are so lucky to have with us today Elliott Abrams. He is a man who has been involved in international politics for three decades plus. Mr. Abrams, thanks again for joining the show. Elliott Abrams: [00:14:07] Glad to do. Chuck Warren: [00:14:08] It. All right. So you recently wrote a piece on the Chinese spy base in Cuba. I mean, boy, history seems to repeat itself a lot. It wasn't China, it was Russia. But it just seems it gone over and over and over. What do we need to do? And why should the United States, which Michelle and I both believe in this policy, we need to start focusing more on our hemisphere, right? South and Central America. I mean, everybody talks about a border crisis. Well, you can lessen the border crisis if you have thriving economies in Central and South America. I mean, there's lots of ways to this. But talk about how dangerous this is. What should the United States do? Elliott Abrams: [00:14:43] Well, first, it is dangerous. And we face something a little bit like this under President Reagan and I served in the Reagan administration, we had some of this in Central America. We had, for example, the communist guerrillas take over in Nicaragua, and they were on the verge of taking over in El Salvador. And then there was Grenada. Remember that? And Reagan invaded. What he did was he said, look, we've got to do something about these economies. We had a thing called the Caribbean Basin Initiative to help improve their economies, try to get more factories open there, give them some access to the US for things like garments. Much better to have them made there than in China or, you know, Vietnam or someplace. And it worked. And I do think that the we need something like that and the Biden administration does not, it seems to me, have really have a policy. And so everybody comes up to the border and the border has for many, many years been essentially open. I mean, not formally, but, you know, realistically, you you go on a cross. Now, the Chinese are making inroads all over Latin America, spending a lot of money and getting people in debt, which is their specialty. You know, we'll build that bridge, we'll build that road, we'll build that airport, and then you're in debt to them. And many of these countries can't pay. So then the Chinese have real leverage over them. That's happening all over, particularly South America. Now, in Cuba, you know, the Russians really don't have the money they had once upon a time. Elliott Abrams: [00:16:23] So the Chinese are offering them money and in exchange, they want the kind of spy base the Russians had. It's at a place called Lourdes the Soviets had. And, of course, you know, 90 miles from Florida, I'm watching Florida, CentCom headquarters in Florida, Southcom headquarters in Florida. You know, one could go on Air Force bases in Florida. So it's very useful to them. But one thing I think we've got to do, you mentioned the Monroe Doctrine is to make it clear that people are not going to be able to get weaponry that can reach the United States. We actually had this happen in the Trump administration. We had some intelligence that Iran was going to send missiles to Venezuela that could reach the United States. And we made it clear to them, we sent messages to all the right channels, including military Intel. No. That's not acceptable. We will interdict those ships. And if we can't interdict them for some reason or you fly this stuff in, we'll take them out in Venezuela. That's not going to be permitted. And they stopped. They never did it again. A real, you know, a real assertion of American willingness. And nobody will take us on because we're stronger. I think we've got to keep that clear for Cuba, for Venezuela, for all of Latin America, that we are not going to permit it to be a base for attacks on the United States or for threats against the United States. Chuck Warren: [00:18:01] Well, I'm going to take a little different question here than what we've been talking about. You have worked for Reagan, the Bushes and Trump. Tell us something that people don't know about each president you work for. The press would never cover, but something that you found that was a certain quality about their leadership that our audience would like to understand. Elliott Abrams: [00:18:22] Oh, boy. I'll say one thing about Ronald Reagan. I think people know it, but in private, he was about the most charming man on the face of the earth. And he had a million stories. Many of them from his days in Hollywood. But he was just, you know, indomitable, I guess, is the word I'd use. You know, people would line up to try to get to spend a minute with him. There are some bosses, you know, who people you know, you go in there. No, you go in. Not with Ronald Reagan. People were just you know, when you had a minute with him, it was delightful. I would say something about George W Bush that I think people don't remember. Think about 9/11. It happened. And he thought most Americans thought our intelligence community thought maybe this is only the start. Maybe there's more coming. And the whole country turned to the president for our leadership. And you may remember his speech at the National Cathedral to be working for him in those days was to realize this is a man who is carrying the country on his shoulders, not only carrying just us in the staff. Big deal about that, but the whole government and carrying the country. Of course, he couldn't have done it without his very deep religious faith, which he had and has. But I remember those days thinking, what is the strength of this man? He knows if he flinches, if he wobbles, if he shows that he's uncertain, he's depressed, the whole country is going to feel that way in a day or two. And he never did. He never flinched. I think those were in a in a way his his most his greatest days because he carried all of us in that in that terrible period in the fall of 2001. Chuck Warren: [00:20:22] And Trump. Elliott Abrams: [00:20:23] I didn't get to spend as much time with Trump for for George W Bush. And I worked in the White House. You know, he was right there for state sorry for Trump. I was at the State Department and handling Venezuela and Iran and didn't get to to spend as much time. Chuck Warren: [00:20:42] Well, let me let me ask you this question about Trump, which I think we have this we have this segment of the Republican Party. I am not one. We have two minutes left here, by the way, on this segment. He's not as isolationist as some of his ardent supporters are. I mean, you gave me an example of Iran. An isolationist is not going to go knock out an Iranian general. What do people misunderstand about his foreign policy? Elliott Abrams: [00:21:05] Well, I think you've said it. I'll give you another example of Venezuela. I mean, okay, so they have a dictator and it's a horrible, horrible situation and people are fighting back democratically. Who cares, Right? What's our business? That was not the Trump view. We actually spent an enormous amount of time and diplomatic effort supporting the opposition in Venezuela. He was not at all an isolationist. He you might call him a sort of realpolitik guy. That is, he wanted to weigh costs and benefits very, very carefully. He didn't want to throw good money after bad. He didn't want to invest in a losing situation. That's very different from saying, I don't care and I'm not interested. That was not the Trump administration view. And you remember, what did he say about NATO? He didn't say I'm leaving NATO. He said, pay up. Right. He said, let's make this work. So I think I think the isolationist idea is that's not a description of Donald Trump. Chuck Warren: [00:22:08] Yeah, he definitely wanted them to pay their 2%. And I'm telling. Elliott Abrams: [00:22:13] You. Right. And he made a lot of progress, by the way. Chuck Warren: [00:22:14] Absolutely. Elliott Abrams: [00:22:15] More progress than any president had made before. Chuck Warren: [00:22:18] And he would definitely and he would definitely demand that they put their fair share into Ukraine now, which they're not doing. They're all lip service right now. Let's use Canada as an example where Michelle and I with Elliot Abrams. This is breaking battlegrounds vote. We're going to come back with Elliot for one more segment and we're going to talk about something interesting, why the US should promote democracy and human rights for the United States. And Michelle will take the lead on that with our guests. And we'll be right back. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm Chuck Warren, my co-host today, Michelle Ugenti-rita. We have with us Elliott Abrams, a man who's worked for three presidents. And he has a lot of knowledge. I hope you will listen and share this on our podcast or go to breaking battlegrounds vote. Michelle, go ahead and let's talk about democracy. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:23:05] Democracy. Well, something that we obviously care very much about here in the United States of America. But what is our role and what should be our role when it comes to promoting, protecting, spearheading growing democracy in other parts of the world? You would think this wouldn't be such a divided debate, but it is. You have a lot of people that say it's not our business, just concentrate on our home turf and territory. And then you've got the other side that says, look, we have a responsibility to to frankly, humanity and the entire world to make sure that representative government, democracy is promoted so that everyone can have the chance at prosperity. Because I think we could all agree when people do, that lessens the kind of violence that we see and plight that people are in. And but, but, but where? What's our role and what should that be, if anything? Elliott Abrams: [00:24:01] I think first, we're always balancing various interests, right? A government is not an NGO. We have commercial interests, financial interests, national security interests, as well as the desire to see other countries be democratic. So we're always balancing them. It's false that sometimes people say, well, you can't make that the center of your foreign policy. It never is. It's one of the things in our foreign policy. But, you know, if you look around the world, democracies don't go to war with each other. Democracies don't fight each other. A world that's more democratic is going to be a more peaceful world and it's going to be better for us because those are natural allies of ours. You see it in the Pacific, the countries that are afraid of and opposing China, like South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, obviously you see it in Europe and the NATO countries. So it is in our interest. And if you look at at the say, the refugee flows, you know, you see all the Venezuelans coming to the United States. That's because they have a vicious dictatorship that is destroying the has destroyed their economy and eliminated democracy in that country. Elliott Abrams: [00:25:20] So people flee. 7 million of them have have fled Venezuela. That wouldn't happen if they had a decent democratic government. So we have a we have a direct interest here in having more and better allies and in our own region having a more stable Central America, Caribbean area, Latin America more generally, I think would be like if we had if we didn't have Canada. And instead we had, you know, choose your country. But we had a country like Venezuela on our northern border with a 3000 mile border. So it is in our interest to do this. It is not in our interest to make it the only thing we care about. We have you know, we. President Reagan always used to say trust but verify. He did negotiate with the Russians, with the Soviet Union. Soviet Union. Nobody's saying we shouldn't talk to them. Nobody's saying we should forget about national security. But one of the elements of our national security, I would argue, is the expansion of the number of countries that are democratic countries and naturally look to the United States as a friend and ally. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:26:35] What do you do with the. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:26:36] Countries that push back on wanting to support and and become a democratic country? What do you do with them? Elliott Abrams: [00:26:44] You know, in most cases, maybe even say all cases. You know, it's it's the corrupt leadership. It's not the people. You look at Iran, I mean, which is an enemy. It's not the Iranian people. You know, they never they never chose this death to America hostility. Same thing with Russia. I think if Putin fell, you might well see a less aggressive Russia. It's in Putin's interest to invade all these, you know, Georgia and Ukraine and all. So I think what we need to do in those cases is give at least moral support and maybe some material support. You know, for example, broadcasting, we did that throughout the Cold War. Radio Free Europe, Voice of America. That's critically important. It's not going to cause a war. It's not all that expensive, but it's a way of getting our message out to the people of those countries. They want to hear that message. They didn't choose those governments. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:27:40] Now, and they need to know that they have someone in their corner rooting for them. And I can imagine that those in power are going to absolutely balk and push back on, you know, having a system that would probably take them out. Elliott Abrams: [00:27:54] They do. And, you know, for broadcasting, for example, they tried jamming in the Cold War days, the Reagan days, you know, we used to ship in fax machines. Sounds like the Middle Ages now, but that was an advanced technology back then. Nowadays, obviously, it's Internet and what we should be doing and are doing, for example, trying to help Iranians and Russians get their news on the Internet because they're sure not going to get it from the regimes that just don't get it from TikTok. Chuck Warren: [00:28:22] Yeah, knowledge is power. Elliott Abrams, thank you so much for visiting with us today. I hope you'll come on again soon. You've been fantastic and we appreciate appreciate your honesty and your experience. Elliott Abrams: [00:28:32] It's been my. Chuck Warren: [00:28:33] Pleasure. Thank you. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at breaking battlegrounds. Vote and we'll be right back. Unknown/advertisement: [00:28:44] At Overstock. We know home is a pretty important place and that's why we believe everyone deserves a home that makes them happy. Whether you're furnishing a new house or apartment or simply looking to update and refresh a few rooms, Overstock has every day free shipping and amazing deals on the beautiful, high quality furniture and decor. You need to transform any home into the home of your dreams. Overstock Making dream Homes Come True. Chuck Warren: [00:29:16] Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds on our segment. Now we have Andrew Hale. He is the senior policy analyst and trade policy and Heritage's Thomas Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Just a lot of speak out there, but it is he's an economist and he talks about trade policy. And today we're talking about China defaulting on their US debt. First, folks, are you concerned about your economic future? May I recommend that you go and invest in y refy y refi can guarantee an up to a 10.25% return and helping college students on their overdue college loans. So just log in to invest y refy.com. That's right. Invest in y. Refy.com or call 888Y refy - 24. Tell him Chuck and Sam sent you. If you're interested in having a continual source of income as you retire. Andrew, welcome to the show. Andrew Hale: [00:30:16] Yes, hello. Thank you so much for having me. Chuck Warren: [00:30:18] So first question, you have worked in the US State Department and for a member of Congress, which one did you enjoy the most and what were your big takeaways from working for both entities? Andrew Hale: [00:30:31] Well, when I was the State Department, I was in a bureaucratic office, so I was dealing with a lot of paperwork and sitting behind a desk and computer monitor quite a lot. And it was not very forward facing, but that was just my particular job. So was not a reflection on the institution with regards to Congress. It was very, very active. I was working for a very dynamic member of Congress who is quite unique. He was a Holocaust survivor and he was the chairman of the international the Foreign Affairs Committee. So I have to say that my takeaway was I learned a great deal. And the congressman also encouraged his staff to take a lot of responsibility. So I have to say that I prefer the role in Congress. Chuck Warren: [00:31:10] That's fantastic. All right. So you wrote this fascinating article. That's why we reached out to you. And it was in the Hill and it's called China is in Default on $1 trillion in debt to the US bondholders. Will the US force repayment? You know, we pay approximately $850 billion a year in interest on our national debt. We actually spend more on interest on our national debt than we do programs for children in this country now, which is just insane. But China's defaulting on their debt to the United States. What does this mean for the United States and what should they do about it? Andrew Hale: [00:31:44] Well, that's a very important question. I'm very glad you asked that, because you see, China's in selective default because you see they've actually paid British bondholders because you see this this is debt that goes back to the debt of the imperial government of the Chinese emperor, who then, of course, abdicated in 1911. And then after they had the Republic of China up until 1949. And then, of course, the People's Republic of China won the Civil War and they defaulted on the debt that was taken out by those two previous administrations. And they have real stuff that they still benefit from roads, bridges, railway, etcetera. And they're the only country I can think of that gets away with violating international finance law, domestic U.S law and international law concerning successor government doctrine. And so but for whatever, I think largely because the United States does so much business with China, often we look the other way with regards to this and other matters. Well. Chuck Warren: [00:32:41] Let me and let me stop you right there, Andrew. So, for example, and you can explain a little bit briefly to our folks. China loans a lot of money to third world countries. If those third world countries do not pay them back, what does China do? Andrew Hale: [00:32:55] China holds them over a gun barrel. I mean, they basically they they they get them indebted and then they require property, deepwater, ports. They take stuff from them. They basically in some cases, if you look at the Solomon Islands, they're effectively taking their sovereignty. So and they're doing that right here in our hemisphere in and they're doing that in South America, the Caribbean and Central America by getting these countries heavily in debt and building ports. And I think it's time to chat a little bit more. Ronald Reagan in the Grenada invasion or JFK with regards to the Cuban Missile crisis and not let them interfere in our sphere of influence. Chuck Warren: [00:33:30] So so China once was defaulting on sovereign debt to the United Kingdom. What did Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher do then in regards to the negotiations in Hong Kong and the debt? Andrew Hale: [00:33:43] Yes. So for example, Margaret Thatcher, during the negotiations to return Hong Kong, Mrs. Thatcher was reluctant to give Hong Kong back and the Chinese responded that we could they could just turn off the water and Britain could would be very difficult for the United Kingdom to defend Hong Kong if China just wanted to take it, given they were halfway around the world. So but she still drove a very hard bargain and said that the People's Republic of China must honor the defaulted sovereign debt held by British citizens in order for China to have access to UK capital markets. And so faced with that stark choice, the PRC agreed. But the US has never given China that stark choice. Chuck Warren: [00:34:20] So should we do that? Andrew Hale: [00:34:22] Yes, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other relevant government departments in Washington need to ensure that the PRC cannot issue new sovereign debt in the United States until such time that they have made at least some satisfactory settlement on their defaulted sovereign debt owed to American bondholders. Chuck Warren: [00:34:39] How much are we talking about? I mean, it's close to a trillion, but how much of that is interest and who's this affecting? So I think what happens and we talk about national debt a lot on our show, but I think what's happening is it's monopoly money, right? It's like you and I, Andrew, we get together and we just play Monopoly for four hours because the game never seems to end. And. You know, this money seems fake. So. So tell me who you know. Who is China affecting by not paying back these debts? Andrew Hale: [00:35:08] Well, for example, I wouldn't quite agree with you that it's Monopoly money because these bonds were gold denominated bonds. Well, no, but what. Chuck Warren: [00:35:14] I'm saying is people people view these big numbers as monopoly numbers. I agree with you. It's real money. But people hear these numbers and their eyes sort of gloss over like, oh, my gosh, are you kidding me? What does that even mean? Andrew Hale: [00:35:24] Well, exactly. So the United States pays interest on over 850 billion in debt held by the People's Republic of China. And but like we've said that the PRC has defaulted on American bondholders. Now, that debt that they owe American bondholders is, in today's terms, worth over a trillion. So quite literally, the president could order the treasury secretary to purchase these effectively for pennies on the dollar and put them on the Treasury books and use them for future negotiations with the People's Republic of China. Or they could also use them to pay off the 850 billion debt held by the people of the Republic of China. Chuck Warren: [00:36:03] Is there momentum in Congress for taking a tougher line on China paying back their debt? Because certainly China holds people accountable when they loan them money, as we discussed earlier. What is there is there bipartisan appetite to have this confrontation? Andrew Hale: [00:36:21] Well, there actually has been for decades a number of resolutions that have come through both houses of Congress. Democrat and Republican senators and congressmen have supported resolutions in decades past. But they when they would go up to the White House, you know, the attitude was business is good. We don't want to upset the apple cart. We don't want to upset Wall Street or the major companies and people invested in China. So we're going to just ignore that. We are now at a different place. We're in a new Cold War with China. And now there's even more support in both houses of Congress. And I think there'll be pressure on the current administration and any future administration to address this matter. Chuck Warren: [00:36:57] What if China continues to fail to meet these obligations and what type of legislation that we could pass that pressures them to do it? And what would be the result of that legislation that you feel that would sort of force China to pay their bills? Andrew Hale: [00:37:14] Well, one one thing you could do, I mentioned a few things already, but one thing you could do as a first course of action is the three primary credit rating agencies need to incorporate this defaulted sovereign debt into their sovereign debt credit ratings. So I'm referring, of course, to S&P, Moody's and Fitch, as the SEC could then compel they could actually compel the credit rating agencies if required by Congress. If Congress passed legislation, the SEC could compel the credit rating agencies to do this. And in my opinion, it's absurd and it's unfair that the People's Republic of China has an A credit rating when they are in selective default. And what that would do, they certainly wouldn't be issuing more of their own debt if their credit rating took a plunge. Chuck Warren: [00:37:55] All right. Now you handle trade for Heritage Foundation. Okay. Let me I saw an article this week and actually it was on Axios is where I read it. And it was sort of funny, the spin. So Mexico now has supplanted China as the United States top trading partner. So they do 69 billion. China does 47 billion. How much? That's how much they grew. Okay. Do you view that as a good thing or a bad thing? Andrew Hale: [00:38:18] I think that we need to do I think it's a bad thing. I think we need to do more friend shoring and near-shoring. And as I've said before on this call, I think we need to address the Monroe Doctrine. Why are we allowing China to effectively hoover up, you know, economic and even diplomatic and even security power in this hemisphere, North and South America. So I think we need to address this as a matter of urgency. It's one thing to look at them to Hoover up Africa or Oceana, Oceana or Asia, but to have them actually right here in our backyard, I personally find that very, very threatening. I think it's a huge security breach that we've allowed it to go this far. And I think that the current administration needs to take this much more seriously. Chuck Warren: [00:38:59] I agree with you. I have discussed this for years with friends and policy folks that I feel the United States has simply performed malpractice by not focusing more on Central and South America, that this is our backyard. And so for our folks who because civics is horrible in high school now, explain to them what the Monroe Doctrine was and why we should reengage the Monroe Doctrine as a national security policy. Andrew Hale: [00:39:28] Under President Monroe. What happened was, is that they told the European powers, which had colonies here, that they couldn't acquire anymore, that that was enough, and that this was America's sphere of influence. And so at the time, of course, you know, they were looking, of course, at, you know, the United Kingdom and Canada was the British Dominion and, you know, British British interests. And then, of course, there were Caribbean islands and all sorts of, you know, various colonies in South America as well. And so they said, no more, you can't. Acquire any more and we will intervene if you do try. It was giving notice to other countries not to interfere any further in this hemisphere. And we're not invoking that anymore. We're just letting China walk in. If you look at, for example, Barbados, one small island, by getting that country so heavily in debt in these belt and road projects, building stadiums and all sorts of infrastructure that they can never, ever pay off adequately. So, again, it's compromising those countries security. And of course, if they're starting to build deepwater ports here and they can start actually docking naval ships here, this is a serious threat and we need to start taking it very seriously. Chuck Warren: [00:40:36] What do you think? I mean, part of what Heritage does is they are a great resource for policy, especially for folks on the right of center. What do you think we can do to start getting Congress and as a result, constituents more educated? Why this is important for us to do as a policy matter and for national security? Andrew Hale: [00:40:56] Well, I think, for example, a lot of members of Congress are addressing this matter. It is very topical. There's bipartisan interest. I will say this, though. I think there's also a lot of people who do a lot of saber rattling and they speak the the the good talk on this issue. But I think also at the end of the day, you know, look, where some congressmen and senators are having their coffers lined by, you know, you have to look at where the money is going. And I think one of the reasons why there's been two reasons why we haven't addressed this historically, There was a naive belief that China would embrace them with trade and business. And then they'll obviously develop democracy and human rights and Western norms. And that has never happened. And that was naive, wishful thinking. But then, of course, there's simply the cynicism and and the fact that a lot of people are getting rich and they don't want to upset the apple cart. And I could think of a lot of people I could name, which I won't, who basically have had very pro-China policies or don't want to address the very serious issues of the human rights, the Uyghur slave labor in the textile industry or any of that, because they're heavily invested there, companies and individuals heavily exposed to China. Chuck Warren: [00:42:03] We have two minutes left. What are things that you think presidential candidates on the Republican side should be talking about regarding trade? Donald Trump seemed to sort of take us back to the tariff isolationist structure. I don't know where you are on that, but if you were king of the day for US trade policy, what are 2 or 3 things that you think we should implement or double down on? Andrew Hale: [00:42:28] I take the view that I come from a free trade background. Having said that, there is a sort of almost religious belief in free, universal free trade amongst some people, which I think needs to be checked. And I think President Trump checked that. I do not and I no longer believe in free trade with foreign adversaries. And of course, the top of that list would be China. I don't believe if you look at the list of foreign adversaries, that's U.S law. We're talking about China, Belarus, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea. Et cetera. You're looking at countries like that. We should not have free trade with China. Chuck Warren: [00:43:08] That's all I want to I'm going to have to cut you off this segment. I want folks to know where they can follow your work with Andrew Hale of the Heritage Foundation. He is a policy analyst for trade policy. Andrew, where can they follow you? Andrew Hale: [00:43:21] Yes, Drew Hale, DC on Twitter. Chuck Warren: [00:43:25] Folks, go there he is. Excellent. Andrew, we hope you'll come back and visit us again. You've been fantastic today. Loved your article, folks, go visit the Hill. You can just Google it. And Andrew, thanks for visiting us. And he discusses China defaulting on $1 trillion to US bondholders. What will the US do? So Andrew, thanks for visiting us today. Andrew Hale: [00:43:44] Thank you so much. Look forward to coming back. Chuck Warren: [00:43:45] Appreciate it. Thank you. This is breaking battlegrounds dot vote. Stay tuned for our podcast portion with Michelle and I talking about some issues that are affecting America today. Have a good weekend. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:43:59] The 2022 political field was intense, so don't get left behind in 2024. If you're running for political office, the first thing on your to do list needs to be securing your name on the web with a your name Web domain from GoDaddy.com. Get yours now. Chuck Warren: [00:44:21] Welcome back to the podcast. Only portion of breaking battlegrounds with my humble self, Chuck Warren and Michelle Ugenti-rita in the studio with us today. Kylie's going to give us a little update here on some true crime saga, especially the missing boy in Houston with some updates and a correction. Kiley Kipper: [00:44:39] Yeah, I made a mistake last week, but, you know, I'm not afraid to correct. Yeah, obviously, you. Chuck Warren: [00:44:45] Obviously don't work for The Washington Post, but continue. Kiley Kipper: [00:44:47] Yeah. So last week I had said that it was from the state of Texas that if you have a child that's missing for three years or more, then you get a payout. That was incorrect. What it was was he had a brother that had passed away about a year or two prior to him, in quotes going missing, and his life insurance was left to Rudy. This is the Rudy Farias case. I just jumped right into it, jumped right in. We talked about it last. Chuck Warren: [00:45:15] Week down in Houston. Kiley Kipper: [00:45:16] Yes. So the life insurance was going to Rudy. But in the case that Rudy was missing, or if he passed away, then that money after three years would then go to his mom. So now that's a speculation of why she did it. Yes. Last week we had left off with Rudy and his mom were again, in quotes on the run. They are now separated. No one's arrested. The mother is not being charged with anything. Rudy is with some other family members his mom is with. It looks like friends, family. Chuck Warren: [00:45:48] We talked about this. And Michelle, you've worked on this. I think what it is, is the consent law in Texas is probably 16 or younger since she was 17. I think that's why there's been no. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:45:57] Charges. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:45:58] Consent for. Kiley Kipper: [00:46:00] So a little update or a little like. Chuck Warren: [00:46:02] A relationship with an adult. Kiley Kipper: [00:46:04] Oh, so he went so Rudy went missing. Okay. I'm saying in quotes eight years ago because but really, they found that he was just his mom was holding him captive in the home and making him perform inappropriate actions with her and acting like the father of the home. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:46:20] Oh, wow. Kiley Kipper: [00:46:20] So, yes, so a little like disturbing. But he was saying he had a form. So he did an interview with Fox this week and he had said that he feels like he had a form of Stockholm syndrome. Yes. And that, like, he wasn't physically, like chained down and being held captive there. But she was very manipulative and saying, if you leave the house, the cops will arrest you and stuff like that. So just putting that in his mind that he couldn't do anything but be hers. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:46:43] And the Stockholm Syndrome means to that you are sympathetic with your you become sympathetic. You start to feel bad for them and you don't want. Kiley Kipper: [00:46:50] Yes. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:46:50] So his hurt. Kiley Kipper: [00:46:51] And his dad had committed suicide and then lost a brother in a motorcycle accident. So it was just them two. She reported him missing. And so but the mom's response to his interview was he's being rehearsed. And his lawyer even says or her lawyer said that that sounds very rehearsed and not like him and that she doesn't believe that like he's she's saying is he now he's 25 now. He went missing at 17. Yeah. And again, I say missing and. Chuck Warren: [00:47:17] She sounds so incredibly manipulative. Yeah. Kiley Kipper: [00:47:20] But Go-fund me has since banned her because she's created so many GoFundMe armies under different names and everything. So she's since been banned from that. Chuck Warren: [00:47:27] And she is a character. Kiley Kipper: [00:47:29] Yeah, but I think GoFundMe is going to make her pay back the money that she may have taken from that. Chuck Warren: [00:47:33] If they can get it. Kiley Kipper: [00:47:34] If they can. Chuck Warren: [00:47:34] Yeah, they can. That money is not coming back. I mean, she doesn't she doesn't sound honest or sound mind enough to say I want to pay back and make up. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:47:42] But how is there. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:47:42] Not a law that has been broken here? Chuck Warren: [00:47:45] Well, I'm just saying, if he's saying he has he's a consenting individual based on the consent laws of a state. Right. I mean, what is the consent law? Can you an adult here in Arizona, what is the consent law? I think that's something you've worked on with marriage. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:47:56] Well, I did. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:47:57] But that was that was marriage. Chuck Warren: [00:47:58] And what was the what was the age limit? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:48:01] It was 16. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:48:01] You could get married? No. And in fact, you could even get married younger with your parents. Chuck Warren: [00:48:05] That's my point. They may have a consent law because he's 17. He's of old enough. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:48:09] Right. But you'd have to get married. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:48:11] I don't think they got married. Did he marry his mom? Chuck Warren: [00:48:14] We're just trying to figure out why she's not arrested. And the only thing I can. Yeah, the only thing. The only thing. The only thing I can come up with is there's a consent law. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:48:19] Well, there's like, Romeo and Juliet laws where if there's a three year differential, it's considered okay. But I think this all changes with the fact that it's his mother. Chuck Warren: [00:48:29] Yeah, well, let's let's go to another depressing topic here. So wonderful. So monthly payments on a $400,000 home in the United States now is nearly $1,000 more expensive than they were two years ago. Michelle, you're a recent home buyer. And we you and I talked about this last week. Now, Americans to feel financially secure, feel they need to make $233,000 a year. What? What has to happen? I don't know what needs to happen here because no one's going to there's not a lot of people are going to make $230,000 a year. Right. I mean, it's just for lots of reasons. Right. But this is a problem for people. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:12] I think there's a couple of things. One, costs really have gone up. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:15] I mean, for example, you know, you're a. Chuck Warren: [00:49:17] Cook, you grocery shop. How much do you have? You noticed it visibly when you go to the cash register it. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:24] I throw up a little bit in my mouth when I go to the cash register because it's it's it's so expensive. But you know what? Eating out is even more expensive. So then you just you go ahead and you go ahead and do it. But triple, triple the amount. I mean, you spend 100 bucks in the grocery store and you're walking out with like one bag. Yeah, it's I'll. Kiley Kipper: [00:49:43] Walk in just for breakfast stuff. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:45] I just have one bag of wine that I walk out with. I can't. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:48] I can't. Wow. This is. Chuck Warren: [00:49:50] That's a reusable bag. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:51] Though, right? Right. Exactly. It's gotten a lot of use, But but there's also. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:49:56] The entitlement component. So I think prices have gone up. But I think people's expectation for what they should have and what they want, I mean, when they're sitting there on on social media, it looks like everybody is on a yacht these days. And I don't think that that perception is is reality. And so, I mean, because you're asking, why do people think they need $250,000? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:50:17] 233 Yeah. Chuck Warren: [00:50:18] No. Yeah. But the things like the mortgages, that's a real thing. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:50:22] That's real. I mean. Chuck Warren: [00:50:23] When you go from 2 to 3% plus mortgage rates to 7% plus, I mean, that's real money. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:50:29] Paper was, I mean, it was free, you know, not too long ago. So essentially with interest rates being so low, I mean, now and there doesn't seem like there's going to be any relief in sight. It's the interest rates are incredibly high. I don't know that they have reached pinnacle height. I mean, I think in the you would know in the 80s in the 70s, what were they like in the 80s? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:50:51] Okay. Well, the interest rates were 13%. Chuck Warren: [00:50:52] Okay. Yeah, I remember my parents, they were double digits. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:50:55] Right. Chuck Warren: [00:50:55] I remember my parents bought a home and it was 13% interest rate. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:50:58] Yeah. Chuck Warren: [00:51:00] I mean, that's just. I mean, can you imagine? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:51:02] No, I'm like. Chuck Warren: [00:51:02] I mean, it just makes you boggle your mind. You're never paying off that home because everything's going to interest towards it. Michelle, what's going on in Arizona that people should be paying attention to? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:51:14] Well, if you listen to the news media, you would think that we are all living in a volcano and we're about to die of heat stroke. It is hot here right now in Arizona. But I think that's just a liberal agenda pushing climate change. But anyway, outside of that, I think you've got the sessions still going, which is unusual here. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:51:33] Don't end anymore. Now you know. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:51:35] What? It's just like the song that never ends. It goes on and on, my friend. Some people that feels like session typically it's it would have concluded they want to keep it open Chuck because we have a Democrat governor and that's something that Arizona typically doesn't have. And so they are keeping the legislative session open to hopefully provide some kind of check on her authority. Runaway executive orders, that kind of thing. I don't know how well that strategy is working, but that's kind of where we're at. Kiley Kipper: [00:52:09] How many bills has Katie Hobbs signed into law this year? Well, how. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:52:12] Many? It's really the yeah, I mean, I want to know. Kiley Kipper: [00:52:15] How many she signed, how she signed any. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:52:17] She has signed. Yes, she has. And but she she does hold the record now for most vetoed bills. I don't know why we're surprised. I served with Katie Hobbs. I mean, she's very liberal. She's very extreme. I mean, she's certainly living up to the reputation, people who know her as a liberal. She's doing I mean, she's she's exercising. And those philosophies as governor really tells you elections matter. And, you know. Chuck Warren: [00:52:47] They really do. I mean, you're just seeing the result of it. She's no surprise what she's doing. That's what I'm. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:52:52] Saying. I mean, it's not a surprise. It's disappointing. It's unfortunate. It's it's going to make Arizona have to climb out of a bigger hole. But we can do it. But she really is it's not a surprise that she is governing so liberally. Chuck Warren: [00:53:10] Last final comment. So Kamala Harris is always worthy of entertaining us for the week. This week, she and her word salad. She described I as. I. I mean, she just a fancy thing. The thing that's hard about her for me is she's the I czar, and I don't think she knows what it is. Do you? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:53:31] What is her approval rating? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:53:32] It's like the lowest of any vice president. Chuck Warren: [00:53:34] And so we had Chris Wilson on last week and he's a national pollster. And we just asked if she brings any benefit to Biden. And I want to know what the White House thinks she brings. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:53:43] I completely. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:53:44] Agree. Other than she's like a ball and chain. She's an anchor, too. Chuck Warren: [00:53:48] Yeah. I mean, and it's just, you know, and we're going to play play here. Play here as we sign off just this mish mash that a compilation of all her various fun word clouds that she has. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:54:01] She rivals. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:54:02] Biden. Chuck Warren: [00:54:03] No, I mean, it's not. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:54:04] Even faux pas. But I think. Chuck Warren: [00:54:05] With Biden, he gets the benefit of the doubt from some people that, look, I know he was once really, really smart. He's old, right? We give our elders a little more flexibility, but people are hurt with her, just like really I mean, I just don't know what she brings to the table for them. No. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:54:21] I agree. And I think that's why you don't see her very much. I don't really. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:54:26] See them pushing. Chuck Warren: [00:54:27] So let me ask you this. You've served for 12 years in the legislature here. And you obviously, I mean, it's real. There is real sexism in the world. And I think there's real sexism towards female elected officials and candidates. It's real. It's even if people don't want to admit it. But do you think the criticisms of her are based on sexism or she just doesn't meet the standard of what we want for a vice president? Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:54:52] No, I mean, the criticisms on her are based on her actions. Right. And the way that she communicates, the way that she talks about issues. And if you don't believe it, you know, I think what you were going to do is show the compilation. I mean, it's right there. She she doesn't look like she has a grasp of the issues or that she can articulate a platform in any level of death depth. Excuse me. And that's why people think that, you know, she's. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:55:25] A bit of a clown. Chuck Warren: [00:55:26] I just don't think it's a sexist issue. I think she just doesn't meet what people expect from their vice president. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:55:31] No, no, I completely. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:55:34] Agree. Chuck Warren: [00:55:35] Well, Michelle, thanks for joining us this week. Michelle Ugenti- Rita: [00:55:36] This was a. Chuck Warren: [00:55:37] Blast. Fantastic. Kiley, thank you for the update, of course, and for the sincere correction, which you would not find. What I'm here for. The Washington Post. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at breaking battlegrounds, dot vote, sign up, listen to our podcast, share it with your friends. We're going to leave with this compilation of Kamala Harris. Enjoy it and share. Have a great weekend and week, folks. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by friend of the show, Chris Wilson. Later in the program, Maya MacGuineas of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calls in to talk about Bidenomics and our growing national debt. - Prior to starting WPA Intelligence in 2004, Chris Wilson was Global Director of Research for Weber Shandwick International, the world’s largest public relations firm at the time.In 2021 Chris was named Pollster of the Year by the American Association of Political Consultants for his work directing survey research and predictive analytics on the Glenn Youngkin for Governor of Virginia campaign. In 2019 he was named Technology Leader of the year by Campaigns & Elections magazine.In 2016, as the Director of Research, Analytics and Digital Strategy for the Cruz for President campaign, Chris is credited for playing a key role in Cruz’s triumph in Iowa and helping the Texas Senator finish with the most delegates earned by a 2nd place finisher since Ronald Reagan in 1976. Wilson and WPAi work with organizations like the Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Family Research Council, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee providing data and polling.WPAi’s data management platform, Bonfire, has become the dominant desktop as a service tool for conservative candidates and organizations from US Senate down to school board. Bonfire has leveled the playing field with the progressive left when it comes to the important use of predictive analytics by those on the right.Perhaps most importantly, for six consecutive cycles, WPAi clients have outperformed the partisan average win ratio in both their primary and general election contests by double digits.An Oklahoma native, Chris is a graduate of University of Oklahoma and remains an avid Sooner fan. In the rare instances that Chris isn’t working, he enjoys watching OU and Cornell College, where his son Denver is the starting quarterback, football, spending time with his five children, reading, and racking up impressive amounts of frequent flyer miles.Chris is a regular political analyst on Fox News. - Maya MacGuineas is the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Her areas of expertise include budget, tax, and economic policy. As a leading budget expert and a political independent, she has worked closely with members of both parties and serves as a trusted resource on Capitol Hill. MacGuineas testifies regularly before Congress and has published broadly, including regularly in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Financial Times, The Atlantic, and numerous other outlets. She also appears regularly as a commentator on television.MacGuineas oversees a number of the Committee’s projects including the grassroots coalition Fix the Debt; the Committee’s Fiscal Institute; and FixUS, a project seeking to better understand the root causes of our nation’s growing divisions and deteriorating political system, and to work with others to bring attention to these issues and the need to fix them. Her most recent area of focus is on the future of the economy, technology, and capitalism.Previously, MacGuineas worked at the Brookings Institution and on Wall Street, and in the spring of 2009 she did a stint on The Washington Post editorial board, covering economic and fiscal policy. MacGuineas serves on a number of boards and is a native Washingtonian. - Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds - Transcription Sam Stone: [00:00:11] Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Our first guest up today, Chris Wilson, founder and CEO of WPA Intelligence. Prior to starting WPA in 2004, Chris was global director of research for Weber Shandwick International, the world's largest public relations firm. At the time, in 2021, he was named Pollster of the Year by the American Association of Political Consultants for his work directing, survey, research and predictive analysis. Analytics. Can't speak this morning on the Glenn Youngkin for Governor of Virginia campaign. In 2019, he was named Technology Leader of the Year by campaigns and elections. Awfully impressive resume. Chris, thank you again for joining us and welcome back to the program. Chris Wilson: [00:00:55] Well, thanks. I made it all up and sent it to you. You know, that's actually real. So wannabes out there, that's okay. That's okay. It's 2023. You can do whatever you want. Now, this is radio. Sam Stone: [00:01:01] We're good with fluff. So. Chris Wilson: [00:01:03] Exactly. Before we get to before we get talking some politics, tell us a little bit. Your son's playing at University of Oklahoma and playing quarterback, right? Well, no, they actually moved him to tight end. So really appreciate you asking. Yeah, I actually played quarterback his whole life. I was recruited out of high school to a small college in Iowa as a quarterback, but decided he wanted to come home. And it was a long story, actually. I ran into former Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops at a fundraiser for Kevin Stitt, who's a client of mine, the governor of Oklahoma. And they got to talking. And one thing led to another. You know, Stoops is a walk on wide receiver. Stoops, the son, is a walk on wide receiver at Oklahoma. And he was they were talking about that. And so. Denver yeah, he moved back and and walked on in the in the spring and you got to play about probably two thirds of the snaps in the spring game and we'll see. I have high hopes for him. The kid works his tail off and he's really a proud dad. Sam Stone: [00:01:56] Quarterback move into any kind of receiver position You just up your chance to get drafted by Bill Belichick. That's right. That's all there is to it. Chris Wilson: [00:02:02] That's right yeah that's Yeah. Six three about £210 tight end. You can get out there and rumble a little bit. Yeah. There you go. Um. Chuck Warren: [00:02:10] What a wonderful experience. I know you're a big University of Oklahoma fan, so that's probably extra pleasure for you seeing your boy out there. Chris Wilson: [00:02:16] Yeah, it's. Yeah, it's very cool. I'm pretty excited. Chuck Warren: [00:02:18] That's very cool. Chris Wilson: [00:02:19] And, you know, they'll be out playing at BYU this year. Chuck Warren: [00:02:20] That's right. We're going to see you out there for dinner. Looking forward to it. You'll you'll enjoy the Provo experience. All right. We're going to play a clip real quick. We'll click here real quick here. We'll click on Kamala Harris's word salad yesterday about culture. Jeremy, go ahead. Kamala Harris: [00:02:33] Well, I think culture is it is a reflection of our moment and our time. Right. And and and present culture is the way we express how we're feeling about the moment. And and we should always find times to express how we feel about the moment. That is a reflection of joy because, you know, it comes in the morning. We have we have to find ways to also express the way we feel about the moment in terms of just having language and a connection to how people are experiencing life. And I think about it in that way, too. Chuck Warren: [00:03:14] So Kamala reminds me a lot of your either Sam in elementary school asked to give a book report in front of the class, and we had not read the book. I mean, that's basically what she talks like, right? It's just many words as possible. So my question for you is, and you've done so much polling for so many years, does the vice presidency even matter anymore in regarding how we view the presidency? I mean, because who no one takes her serious. I mean, polling shows that. Sam Stone: [00:03:41] Kamala Harris brought to you by White Claw. Yeah, yeah. Chris Wilson: [00:03:44] Yeah. It's a word salad against word. Salad is a bad name. And she doesn't she clearly has no idea what she's talking about. And anytime she starts ripping on time or moments, you know, it's going to get good fast. Right. And it's also it's it's cringe worthy in the sense that even if you disagree with her and are are sort of watching sitting back going, okay this is now people are going to realize who she is. You're also thinking how embarrassing for the United States of America that this woman is in the second highest office. I guess it's arguable, but one of the highest offices in the land. And she can't deliver a simple sentence without a without embarrassing herself. And then the in the morning and then she does that cackle thing. It's really embarrassing and it's embarrassing for the administration. And somebody's got to just cut her off. They need to travel around like one of those big hooks that they used to have on game shows back in the 50s and 60s and just kind of pull her off stage before she goes so far that the dollar starts losing value. Chuck Warren: [00:04:47] But so my question. Yeah, I mean, so does she prove that who we So you're working for the superPAC for Ron DeSantis, correct? I am. That's correct. So you've you've I'm sure this is not the primary object of your research, but I'm sure you've thought about who's the best fix for him. Right. Do you think unless you get a real popular governor in a battleground state who actually has a. Political organization. Do they really matter at all? Chris Wilson: [00:05:14] Well, you kind of you kind of answered the question with your preamble to the question is, yes, it can matter a lot. Did it matter for Joe Biden? No, because it was an affirmative action pick, sort of like his Supreme Court pick was. He made it very clear that he was looking for an African-American woman and he just wanted somebody to fill that role. And so does it matter? Let's go back a step, though, is remember, whenever Joe Biden was rolling very damaged into South Carolina and he got the endorsement of a very important member of Congress by committing to that member of Congress that he would appoint a black woman as BP and or as to the Supreme Court. And things turned around for him there, because that vote constituency matters in the Democratic primary in South Carolina. So he went from someone who was in danger, grave danger of coming in distant in the primaries, as he had in Iowa and New Hampshire, to moving back into the frontrunner status. So it mattered to him in the primary. And did it matter in the general for him? No, it didn't. But I think you could argue that you can look at past picks that did have a strong impact. And I think about Lloyd Bentsen, even though he lost, but for Michael Dukakis had a big impact for him in 88, probably made a pretty significant difference. I think Al Gore had a big impact for Bill Clinton. He was able to deliver Tennessee. It's the last time, you know, Tennessee went for a Democrat. Sam Stone: [00:06:43] And and there are certainly been picks that that had impact. Kamala, though, Chris, I have to ask, I mean, I don't remember her being this incoherent previously. And it's not age like Joe Biden. So what the heck is going on? Or did we all just miss it? And she actually was this this absolutely this big a mess? Chris Wilson: [00:07:07] Well, I don't think many people paid attention to her as a senator from California or an attorney general from California. And the good thing about being a prosecutor is you're one. You don't really do much prosecuting in those roles. You have people who do it for you to your lines are pretty scripted before you walk out there. And when she's on script, she's not bad. I mean, she can deliver a good speech, but it's just whenever she starts riffing and I think she's developed a little bit too much confidence in her ability to do so. And so that's how you end up with this sort of common the sort of ongoing, embarrassing moments that you saw. I think it was yesterday when she gave the cringe speech. Sam Stone: [00:07:41] How does someone not pull her aside on her staff and be like, this is terrible, you need to fix this? Chris Wilson: [00:07:48] Well, have you read much about the situation with their staff? I mean, every time they do a camera angle, they all are just sitting there staring at you want to blink if they need help. And it's I feel like there is there's probably not anyone who can deal with her in that way. That's on her staff. She just seems to be one of those horrible bosses that just runs through people on an ongoing basis. And it's a it's an unfortunate story. And, you know, it's I often joke around that being a Democrat press secretary has got to be the easiest job on the planet. And this is certainly a representation of that because you think through what if we had if you were working for someone like that, Chuck, and you're doing political campaigns on a major level, or if I was today, there's no way you could survive that kind of situation. So you have one misstep word or, you know, you think back to whenever. Whenever Dan Quayle put an extra two E on potato because that was on the card in front of him. And it was a story that went on for weeks, if not months. And she's able to just roll right through this stuff as if it's we're being unfair or overly critical by by analyzing the fact that she can't put together a simple sentence about what culture is or what time is or what moments are. Chuck Warren: [00:08:58] All right. Let's go. Let's talk. Let's talk presidency. What issues do you feel are the winning issues for whoever the Republican candidate will be to defeat Joe Biden? Chris Wilson: [00:09:12] I think that starts and almost ends with the economy. You've got to understand that, that Americans are hurting. The price of everything has gone up substantially under Joe Biden, that the price is almost cost prohibitive for people to be able to commute to work on an ongoing basis. And that's by design, frankly, by the Biden administration. And so those are the those are the contrasts that have to be drawn and that and they're important. It's really just the overall significance, the overall ability of America to continue to succeed is is incumbent is dependent on that. And so I'd say that's number one. And if you were to go to a second point, I think there is a little bit of building, not a little bit, but there's a lot of rebuilding America's stature in the world after the withdrawal in Afghanistan, the way China has acted toward us, the way that Russia has acted toward us, there is just a complete dismissal of the United States as a foreign power at this point. I think that's an that is an important aspect, someone who can reclaim that. And I think there is another important aspect is just the overall important issue is the ability of parents to raise their own children. It is a a stunning development the way that Democrats have tried to get between parents and their kids. And I'll tell you, it's one of the reasons why you mentioned at the beginning that I worked for Glenn Youngkin. It's one of the reasons why Glenn Youngkin beat Terry McAuliffe, because Terry McAuliffe said made the famous gaffe that he didn't want parents telling teachers what they should teach their kids. Chris Wilson: [00:10:53] And moms and dads in Virginia rose up and said, no, I disagree with that. And I really think that and to be clear, I'm on the super PAC side of the partisan super PAC side. So let me compliment the campaign. They put out a video yesterday for moms for DeSantis, which Casey DeSantis talked about the role that Governor DeSantis has played in the state of Florida of protecting the rights of parents to raise their kids in the way they want to and to stop any woke teachers or woke systems from being able to intervene in the right of a parent to make decisions for their children or their children's education, their children's, the way their children are raised, whether or not their children are able to go and mutilate themselves with a doctor or have themselves mutilated by a doctor. It's just the overall the decisions that or the process that's going on right now. Those of us who have kids have kids. And, you know, I have five that the attempt of the left to get between a parent and their children and inject themselves into everything from the education to the raising to even the mutilation of that child is stunning to me that they believe that that is okay. And so I think that is also going to become it's a major issue that's going to come to light, particularly if Governor DeSantis is the nominee because of what he's been able to do to protect the parents rights in Florida. And I think that is could be the difference between a Republican winning and a losing right again, like we did in 2000. Chuck Warren: [00:12:28] Great. Well, we're going to take a quick break. We're with Chris Wilson. You can find him on Twitter at Wilson, WPA. You can also find him on Instagram at Wilson, WPA. Follow Chris. He has great insights. You'll stay up to date on what's going on on country. This is Chuck Warren Sam Stone at breaking battlegrounds, vote. We'll be right back. Sam Stone: [00:13:05] Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Folks, it's been another crazy week on the stock market. And if you need a opportunity to make a very high fixed rate of return, if you're looking for a fantastic return, that's not coupled to the stock market where you'll know what each monthly statement will look like with no surprises. You need to check out our friends at invest y Refy.com invest y refy is connecting student loan borrowers to to investors and they are just doing great for people on both sides. It's a fantastic opportunity. We highly encourage you to check it out. Go to their website at invest y refy.com or give them a call at 88yrefy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. All right. Continuing on with Chris Wilson of WPA Intelligence. Chris, you are working in the primaries right now. One of the things I think there's obviously a lot of noise with Trump and DeSantis and some of the other candidates out there. But in terms of the issues, what issues should Republican voters be focusing on or Republican candidates be focusing on first to win the primary, but second, and more importantly, set themselves up to win the general election? Chris Wilson: [00:14:19] You know, I think from an issue standpoint, kind of what we covered in the last segment is, is what matters. I mean, all of those issues matter for Republican primary voters to the economy, parents right to raise their own children, a strong education, things like that. But I'll tell you what, if I were advising candidates directly, and particularly if I was advising this kind of gets into you move down from the presidential campaign because I still work with and WPA intelligence, we work with dozens, sometimes even hundreds of candidates around the country. And one of the things I can tell you I hear from them to a person is a concern about who is at the top of the ticket in 2024. And I'll tell you, this is not to nerd out too much on you guys, but there have been a lot of academic research that's been done about the impact that Donald Trump has had since he emerged on the political scene on elections and everything. Be careful what you wish for. Impact of President Trump endorsed in the midterms by Ballard and others, Comparing the impact of Joe Biden on popular attitudes to the parties. By Jacobson. 22 elections by also by Jacobson. But the most recent one, which is really interesting one by experimental evidence on public perceptions of Trump endorsements by Barron, McLaughlin and others all quantify the impact that Trump has had going back to 2018 on close elections. And the reason why this matters is if Democrats take a majority in the Senate, they're going to stack the Supreme Court. They're going to get rid of the filibuster. They're going to make D.C. and Puerto Rico states these aren't these aren't like pie in the sky speculations. These are things they say they want to do, they would do today if it wasn't. Sam Stone: [00:16:00] They've been very clear they want to do everything you just said. Chris Wilson: [00:16:04] So the study I just mentioned by Barron McLaughlin and Bloom on experimental evidence on public perception of Trump endorsements is that when Trump gets involved in a race, it actually costs that candidate seven points. It goes a high from nine to a low of five in a competitive general election. So I want you to think back to last cycle. You know, obviously in Utah, Mike Lee got into a close race. He was able to pull it out at the end, but there were some close races we didn't pull out in Arizona and Georgia and Pennsylvania. We almost I mean, think about how far behind Governor DeWine, JD Vance ran in Ohio. All of those are states are races where Trump had an impact. And so you can quantify that number at 79%. So we as Republicans, I think, should really care about what happens if we have somebody at the top of the ticket that takes 7 to 9 points off of every single candidate who's running in a competitive race. That's a and you can real quickly run down the numbers and think about how many House and Senate seats we would ultimately lose. Sam Stone: [00:17:03] Yeah, I mean, that's a bloodbath that that you're describing. And one of the things, Chris, that I don't think I haven't really seen polling that quantifies this more so just dealing with anecdotal evidence from independent voters or soft voters, whatever you want to call them, they are completely hardened against Trump, rightly or wrongly. And this is one of the things I tell a lot of Trump supporters. Chris Wilson: [00:17:29] And moving more against him, by the way. Sam Stone: [00:17:31] Yeah. And moving more against him. Chris Wilson: [00:17:32] Surveys, they continue to move more against him. Yes. Sam Stone: [00:17:35] And so I mean, for him to if he's going to be at the top of the ticket, he and his team have to address that. There's no evidence they're doing so. I mean, they're doubling and tripling down on all the things that are driving that cohort away. Chris Wilson: [00:17:48] No, I agree. And it's it is a real problem because there is nothing that's been done since 2020 to change the face of the election. If you believe that that weird things went on in Georgia and Arizona last time or there's there's nothing that's being done by their campaign to guard against that. And I'll tell you, there are weird things that happen in elections, no question about it. We had as many people, as many lawyers in Virginia at the Youngkin headquarters as we did staffers, because we wanted to guard against that. And that's how you have to do it in any close election. It's that has been the case since I've been involved in politics, which is over 20 years. And so you've got to guard against that. You've got to understand the rules and play against it. You know, I grew up playing basketball and I was there when the three point line came out. My coach hated the three point line. I said, Well, we still have to use it. Well, the same thing is true with with with ballot harvesting. I may hate that as a rule, but I can't leave that to the Democrats to do all by themselves. And so we will compete at that level and we have to be able to compete at that level. And I think that's the challenges that exist is if Donald Trump is the nominee, Republicans lose in 24 and they probably are 24 and they probably lose the House and the Senate by by historical numbers. And it puts us in a situation where America in 2025 and 26 is a very different place than we live in today. I don't mean to end on a down down note, but since you asked, I think that is the most important thing that every voter should take into account when they cast their ballot for in any primary in 2024. Sam Stone: [00:19:10] And Chuck, if the things that Chris just said listed at the start of this segment come true, in other words, Court-packing, Puerto Rico, DC. There's no recovery for Republicans. Chuck Warren: [00:19:21] No, that's right. No, no, there is not. Chris, what is something we've talked about these main issues, the economy. You know, we have we now have out today that they did a poll of 2500 US adults and they said they need to earn $233,000 a year to feel financially secure. Then you have America's role in the world. And I think one big thing about that's always been is our role as the preeminent power have made us feel safe. But I also think Americans like being number one. I mean, just look at Olympic sports, right? When we win. Right. And then we have the parents, you know, being able to, you know, decide what their children do. What are other issues with your crystal ball and research that you think lawmakers need to start paying more attention to? That can be that could really turn quickly against conservatives. Chris Wilson: [00:20:12] Well, another one that I think is has really come to the top is, is the wokeness of corporations. And I think the the the sort of forcing their values on Americans. And we've seen a lot of backfire on that. We've certainly seen a backfire with target Bud Light and it's even Ben and Jerry's over the weekend where they said you know every every company built on a tribe should give that land back. Everyone should give it a try. And then it turns out their their corporate headquarters on the tribe, they've lost $2.5 billion in corporate value since that happened. So because from people from people selling the stock and and the collapse of the company. So I think those are other aspects of it that where you look at someone who has been willing to take on woke the woke corporate left and stand up to them and take away things like tax incentives they asked for, which really I would argue that tax incentives are a conservative way of approaching work on corporations from a from a local government standpoint. And so I think those are aspects that matter, too. And it's an important thing for us to be paying attention to. Chuck Warren: [00:21:18] Well, Chris, we sure appreciate you joining us today and wish you the best of luck this cycle. We hope to have you on again before the Christmas season. Folks, please follow Chris Wilson at Wilson WP at Twitter, same thing on Instagram. Wilson. Wp There you can learn you can follow University of Oklahoma football quite well and you can also you can also you can also stay in touch with the research that's going on in our country. Chris, we sure appreciate your time and we hope you have a fantastic weekend, my friend. Chris Wilson: [00:21:46] Thank you. Good to talk to you. Chuck Warren: [00:21:47] Thanks. Bye bye. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can follow us at breaking battlegrounds. Vote and listen to us anywhere you get your podcasts. We'll be right back. Sam Stone: [00:22:05] Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone, continuing on with our fantastic guests for today, we have Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Boy, is that something we have needed for a long time. She is an expert in budget, tax and economic policy and has worked closely with members of both parties and serves as a trusted source on Capitol Hill. Maya, thank you and for joining us and welcome to the program. Maya MacGuineas: [00:22:32] Yeah, happy to join. Chuck Warren: [00:22:34] So both the left and right seem to be like Keystone cops on the national debt and budget deficit. They both think this is the one way or highway and that's the only way that works. So let's take, for example, let's start first with the belief that you can just tax your way out of this by taxing everybody who has money in the country. Is that possible? Maya MacGuineas: [00:22:51] There's not a chance. This is a problem that, quite frankly, you're going to have to put everything on the table in order to get where we need to fiscally. But the notion that you can just do this by raising revenues and you'll hear people who make that case saying, listen, what are the lowest tax countries in the world? We can certainly have higher taxes. True. We can have higher taxes. True. We're going to have to have higher taxes. But absolutely not the case that you can fix this problem entirely. On the revenue side of the budget, the biggest growth in our budget imbalances comes from growing health care costs, growing retirement costs, most of those fueled by the aging of the population and growing interest costs. Because we've borrowed so much interest payments on the debt are the fastest growing part of the budget. So no matter how much you bring your revenues up, the fact that spending is still going to be going, growing faster than your economy means it won't be able to keep pace. And you're going to have to bring some of those spending levels back under control. Chuck Warren: [00:23:50] All right. So now let's go to the argument the right likes to make. We can just cut all these programs and we can do this all in budget. Everything, balance it in ten years. Is that reality? Yeah. Maya MacGuineas: [00:24:01] That also not true and not even close. One of the things during the debt ceiling fight that I was really worried about was that people who thought you could do this on the spending side and wanted to be aggressive and are fiscally focused, which I am, and I share those beliefs. But I was worried they would overshoot and that they would say we have to balance the in ten years and do so by spending cuts. We're not going to be able to come anywhere close to balancing the budget in ten years. To do so would take saving about $16 trillion over that ten year period. The last time we saved $16 trillion was easily never, not not even close. Right. So this is not even in the realm of the possible. Now, a fiscal metric that I think is aggressive but doable would be what if we just stabilized our debt so that it's not growing faster? That doesn't grow up to above where it is right now, which is almost 100% of GDP, just doing that over ten years so that we keep it at the same level of debt to GDP that would require $8 trillion in savings. That is an aggressive amount. It is doable, but it is not doable. On just the spending cuts side of the budget. There's no way that no matter how much you pull back these programs, no realistic way that you could cut spending enough to save $8 trillion. The trajectory we're mythbusting here, which is good because everybody's out there making promises we don't make. Chuck Warren: [00:25:27] I mean, I'm convinced, you know, with our show, we have people I mean, we're conservative, but I don't think people understand math anymore. That's my concern. I mean, this is this is yellow pad, pencil in hand, math. And no one wants to seem to admit it. And we all created this problem. So we're all going to have to work together to get out of the problem. Maya MacGuineas: [00:25:48] Boy, do I agree with that one. And let me talk about that fuzzy math, because basically what you have on both sides of the aisle now is kind of made up fairy tale economics. So on the Republican side, you'll hear time and time again we're going to cut taxes. It's going to generate so much growth, it's going to pay for itself. Just nowhere close to reality. If you cut taxes, it is going to help grow the economy and it will do so so that it generates about $0.20 for every dollar you spend on tax cuts. So you still have to offset the bulk of those tax cuts by cutting spending or raising other taxes. And then on the left, you hear things like this policy is so important, we shouldn't have to pay for it, just not true. Like if something's important, the whole point of budgeting is you should pay for it. And if it's not important, you shouldn't do it. But the other thing that we've been hearing is people for the past year are saying, don't worry, we can just print more money. That is so fundamentally wrong. And we've seen that it's wrong because we've just had a huge bout and are still in the midst of of high inflation kicked off because we we put too much money in the economy. Borrowing for Covid was the right thing to do. But the last bill that we did put way too much money in the economy and created this inflationary problem that has only gotten worse with with additional factors exacerbating it. So there's a lot of made up economics out there. There's a lot of made up mathematics. This basically comes down to the basic issue of budgets and trade offs. We shouldn't be borrowing as much money as we are, and I can talk about that more. Sam Stone: [00:27:17] Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Maya, we're going to come back with more from Maya macGuineas here in just a minute, folks. Continuing on. She is the president of the Bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. And frankly, Maya, we really appreciate having you on this program. We love having these kind of honest discussions that I don't think are out there enough. And we're going to be continuing on with that. More in just a moment. Welcome back to Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Sam Stone and Chuck Warren. Folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility? What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market or portfolio? Well, you know what each monthly statement would look like, but no surprises. You can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle. If you need your money back at any time, your interest is compounded daily, you're paid monthly and there are no fees. The secure collateralized portfolio that delivers a high fixed interest rate and by investing, you can do well for yourself by doing good for others. So check out our friends at Invest by Refy.com. That's invest the letter Y, then refy.com or give them a call at 88 y refy 24 and see how you can earn up to a 10.25% fixed rate of return. Chuck Warren: [00:28:50] Maya So I think one thing that gets lost when we talk budgets and deficits and debt is it becomes sort of an Excel spreadsheet. It's numbers and I think the numbers seem like monopoly numbers to a lot of people, right? So, for example, we want to talk here about, look, we need to have entitlement reform. There's no if butts ands it's, you know, two thirds of our budget Congress doesn't even control. It's just mandatory. And Sam and myself and you, we have loved ones who need Social Security. They're in it or they're expecting it real soon. Right. But I think one thing that doesn't get talked about enough is I'm a father. You have children based on Wikipedia. And Wikipedia never lies. Yeah. How does this when you look at these things, does that concern you for their future? What you have so much debt where you're paying interest more, you're paying spending more than money in the federal budget on interest debts than you are things that matter that it will create inflation, higher interest rates. Does this concern you as a mother? Maya MacGuineas: [00:29:48] Yeah. I mean, it's right. It's both systemic and personal, this issue. And so first, you know, we are actually spending this year more on interest payments to finance the debt of the fast pass than the entire federal budget spends on programs for children. That's how backwards this is. But absolutely, I mean, there are many reasons that I worry about the effects of the national debt. They're economic. They're leaving us vulnerable for future emergencies, their foreign policy and national security, where we're increasingly vulnerable and dependent on other countries. But one of the bottom line issues here is we are spending a lot of money because we want to we like those things and we are refusing to pay for it because none of us like paying taxes. And so the other option is we are then saying we will borrow this money and we will push those bills onto the future, onto our kids. And I will say, my kids refuse to listen to my deficit speeches at the dinner table. So shame on them for not caring. But no, but it is. And it's hard to get younger people to care about it because they think, as we all did when we were in our teens and 20s you're like, the world is great. Everything's going to be fine. I don't need to worry about future. But the truth and it's discouraging truth right now is we are leaving a country and frankly, a world that is much riskier, much more difficult to navigate, much more filled with potential risk to the next generation than we've ever seen before. And this goes well beyond the debt. It goes to national security, to the effects of technology, to all sorts of things that they need a strong budget to be able to respond to. And instead, we are giving them tens of trillions of dollars in debt that they owe just because we were unwilling to pay for these things ourselves, even though we are the beneficiaries of them. Sam Stone: [00:31:32] Yeah, one of the things that I find interesting, Maya, is that the the media and academia or whatever has sold kids on the idea that we are facing an existential crisis, potentially the death of the planet within 20 years from environmental issues. That's not particularly realistic. But we are facing a financial cliff that would affect them far, far more than anything the environment ever will in their lifetimes coming up very soon. Maya MacGuineas: [00:31:59] Well, I think it's interesting. I actually think the environment and the fiscal challenges have something in common, which is there's no immediate moment where it turns into the problem if you default. That happened on a certain day. If there's a government shutdown, that happens on a certain day. But when it comes to these issues, they slowly compound if we don't do anything about them. But there's no one moment where you say we can't return. And so you have members of Congress constantly saying we can punt this off until another day. But there should be no disagreement on the severity of having the amount of debt we have. We're not only are we spending more on interest than we are kids today, five years from now, we'll be spending more on interest payments than we are on national defense. This is an increasingly risky world. And so I don't know how you get kids to take this issue on and make it their own. Again, I think there's this eternal optimism that comes with youth. That means people can't believe it's really that big a problem. And numbers like trillion are so hard to follow. It's very difficult to personalize this. And lastly, the solutions, they're not fun. Here's the truth. We have to raise taxes, cut spending, fix our entitlement programs. Nobody thinks that's going to be fun, but you have to do that for the sustainability of our economic health. And so it's hard to get people to rally and march in the streets calling for fiscal reforms. But really, it's one of the most important things that we could do that also affects all the other issues that people do worry about. Sam Stone: [00:33:22] My I don't know if you saw the piece that was in the Hill on the fourth by Andrew Hale said China is in default on $1 trillion in debt to US bondholders. Will the US force repayment? This is debt that was created by the previous government prior to the Maoist takeover. But in international norms that doesn't erase the debt. China is the only country on earth not paying that. He actually suggested. Simply, we essentially nationalize that debt and wipe it off our books, take, you know, balance it against $1 trillion in in our treasuries that China holds, which would free up $95 Billion a month in interest payments. Is something like that practical or possible? And how much would that trillion dollars actually make a difference to our overall financial situation? Maya MacGuineas: [00:34:10] Yeah, I saw that. Maya MacGuineas: [00:34:11] Piece and I did think that was interesting. And I definitely think that a lot of this is interconnected with the tensions that we have with China and the fact that we are dependent on them, that they own almost $1 trillion of our treasuries. But I don't think unilaterally sort of nationalizing that debt or declaring that we're not going to repay what we owe China would be good because markets are beyond just the bilateral agreements. If we were to do that with China, there would be growing concerns through other countries, and I think that would hasten the effort that there already is to move away from the dollar as a reserve currency. And that is something that benefits us tremendously. So I think it's actually very important that the US not make changes that risk its status right now, something that we benefit from of being the safe haven and the reserve currency. I think what we really have to focus on is balancing our own books, spending only as much as we're willing to pay in taxes, borrowing only when there's economic emergencies and a real reason to do so. And we can't find any shortcuts around those those hard truths. Chuck Warren: [00:35:12] So let's talk entitlements for a minute, a little more detail on it. So like we said, there are people who are on Social Security now. We'll just use Social Security example, but there's Medicare, too, and you've got people who are close to retirement age. What do you think is the type of retirement reform we really should be talking about without affecting those who really count on this right now for day to day living? Maya MacGuineas: [00:35:33] Yeah, and I think that's the right question because I think we need to fix these programs in a way that strengthens and preserves them for the people who most need them, but understands that both of them are headed towards insolvency. Social Security and just over a decade, if we do nothing, there will be across the board 23% benefit cuts. And yet you have politicians of all stripes making promises not to touch Social Security or Medicare. Medicare also will have across the board 10% provider cuts if we don't make changes. So these folks are promising you not to touch your entitlements, are promising you that you will have provider and benefit cuts that will affect everybody. Instead, what we should be doing is. This isn't thought out. Policy solutions and Social Security. This is about 4 or 5 options. You can raise payroll taxes or the payroll tax cap. You can raise the retirement age, which makes sense because we're living longer. And you could start it now, but have it kick in very, very gradually over time for people under 55, 50, whatever. You can slow the growth of benefits. And I would do that on the high end, not across the board. And you can fix the way we calculate inflation, which overstates it right now. There are a lot of fixes we could put in for Social Security, but the longer we wait and we've already waited too long, the more difficult they will be. Sam Stone: [00:36:44] Maya. Maya MacGuineas: [00:36:45] Oh. Sam Stone: [00:36:46] I'm sorry. You talked about slowing benefits on the high end of the scale. This is something that's come up a lot on both sides is means testing for Social Security. I've fought this battle with Republicans for years and just said, look, we're just going to have to do this. This is going to come. There's one objection coming from the right. There's another from the left. It's from the left, though I don't understand their objection because it seems like that falls in line with everything else that they talk about. Chuck Warren: [00:37:13] Make the rich pay their fair share. Sam Stone: [00:37:14] Tax the rich. Why do we need to be, from their perspective, giving wealthy people this benefit rather than means testing it and directing it at the people that need it? Maya MacGuineas: [00:37:25] It's just a great question because it's honestly a policy I have never understood. If you support progressive policies on the tax side, you should also support progressive policies on the spending side. And right now we have actually very we have regressive Social Security benefits where the well-off, their benefits are more reflecting that they paid in more in taxes. And so the concern is, oh, if you if you reduce the benefits for rich people in Social Security, there won't be a strong constituency of support. They won't fight to save Social Security. That's just not true. The biggest growth we've seen in government benefits in past years have been like an Eitc and Medicaid programs that were directed towards the poor. So there are support. There is support for smart programs that help people who need them the most. And when I go out and I talk to people in town halls, they always say means test my benefit. If I don't need it, no problem. I just want it there if I do. So when I hear Democrats saying you can't touch benefits for rich people or having someone like Bernie Sanders actually suggesting increasing benefits for everybody, including rich people, it means it's more money getting spent on those who don't need it and less money for things that you might really worry about, like education, investment in children or at risk youth, things like that. So I think it's an internally very inconsistent argument. And I think means testing is one of the areas that makes the most sense given the situation we're in with Social Security and Medicare. Chuck Warren: [00:38:48] Well, I think I think the left's argument on this is based upon union loyalties, because they get good pensions and they don't want to see it cut for their members. But that's that's a red meat conversation for another day. All right. So let's talk about this. What do you think? I think it's really important that the US stay the economic superpower in the world. We have certain benefits that most countries do not have, nor will they ever have. My question for you is, what do you think we need to do realistically to make sure we keep and maintain that position for the next couple of decades? Maya MacGuineas: [00:39:18] I think there's a few things. One, we need to start paying for all the policies that we do instead of borrowing to we need to switch our budget priorities. Right now, about 85% of our budget is consumption. 15% is investment. We need to turn that on its head. We need to be making investments in human capital, basic R&D. We just put a lot of money into infrastructure. So I think that that should be fine for a while and we need to reduce overall spending so that more of that money can be in the private sector and making private sector investments. And finally, we need to switch our spending priorities, which are all focused on the old into investments in the next generation, because just the same reason it's damaging to borrowed so much and pushed that into the future and to kids not failing to invest in them, but giving very comfortable benefits to my father who doesn't necessarily need them. Those priorities do not keep us strong as an economic superpower. We also want to deregulate and a lot of ways and smart trade policy, all of those things which are going to recognize the importance of our being an economic superpower in this highly integrated global economy. Sam Stone: [00:40:22] You know, one of the discussions, Maya, that never comes up that I mean, and this may be a little bit outside your specific area of expertise is the cost of government programs has gone up dramatically, far more than the delivery of services from those programs. You're seeing a huge bureaucratic bloat. And it would seem at some point like one part or the other needs to start getting serious about leaning down government to actually deliver the dollars where they're intended to go. Maya MacGuineas: [00:40:51] 100%. 100%. If you talk to anybody in agencies right now, they are feeling the bloat. There's been so much money that has been a big run up in funding agencies in the past years, that there are situations where people are traveling because they don't know what to do with their budgets. There are people who are absolutely underworked and it's well known and that undermines the morale in place. So, listen, I don't want to take away from the main point, which is we have to fix our entitlement programs. We're not going to be able to do this without revenues. But there are savings to be had throughout the government, in the Defense Department, in the health care industries, in every one of our programs that's out there and in the government bureaucracy itself. And this should be something in order to help regain trust in government that we are able to really go through with a fine tooth comb and revamp a lot of these programs, free them of some of the bureaucratic constraints so that people can have more trust that if they are paying tax dollars, that those tax dollars are going to be used. Sam Stone: [00:41:48] Well, yeah, absolutely. I think all of that is critical. Maya macGuineas, thank you so much for joining us today. We really, really appreciate having you on the program. Folks, You can follow her on Twitter at Maya macGuineas, Mac McGinnis at Budget Hawks at Fix USA. Org and Crfb. Org. Maya, again, thank you so much for joining us on the program. We love having you on and look forward to having you on again in the near future. Maya MacGuineas: [00:42:17] Great. Nice to talk with you. Chuck Warren: [00:42:18] Thank you. This is breaking battlegrounds. Join us next for our podcast segment. We'll be honored to have Kylie Kipper straight from Houston talking crime and baseball. We're very excited about this. Sam Stone: [00:42:29] It's been a long time since we had Kylie. Chuck Warren: [00:42:31] She's got she's got a doozy. So folks, follow us at Breaking Battlegrounds Vote, share the podcast, and we'll talk to you here briefly on the podcast episode by. Sam Stone: [00:42:51] Welcome to the podcast, only segment of breaking battlegrounds. Up next, it's been a long time. It's been a very long time since we had a kyli true crime update. Kylie Kipper, our producer, hates being on the microphone today. She's been forced to be better at it. You know, you're great at it. Kylie Kipper: [00:43:10] That's the I'm getting more comfortable. I meant. Sam Stone: [00:43:12] Okay. Chuck Warren: [00:43:12] Two years will do that to you. Two years will do that to you. Sam Stone: [00:43:14] It's been a while, huh? So. Chuck Warren: [00:43:16] Kylie, you're actually in a state where there's been sort of this mystery. This young man was missing seven years ago, and then he showed up. And, you know, look, Americans love a kid being recovered. Story. All people do. If you don't, you don't have a heart. Right? Sam Stone: [00:43:29] So this is a strange one, though. Chuck Warren: [00:43:30] Chuck, So we're all excited about it then. Come to find out there's a little bit more to the story, which sadly seems to be a lot to these stories now. There always seems to be a little bit more to the story, right? So you've done some digging on it. Tell us about it. What's what's the true story here? Kylie Kipper: [00:43:44] Yeah, So there's a few pieces of this investigation which it's still ongoing. They have another press conference tonight, but they had one yesterday which has caused a lot of feathers to be ruffled. So Rudy Farias was 17 years old when his mom reported him missing after he took the dogs for a walk. It turns out that he had just run away and his mom had told him that police are looking for him and we'll put him in jail if he does not come home. So at that time, he went home two days later, but his mom never reported him of coming home. She just kept the investigation saying he's still missing. So he was discovered this week unconscious outside of a church in Houston where the police, when they reported to it to the scene, had just ended up calling his mom, saying, we found your son. And she was like, oh, this is amazing. She posted photos. I'm putting in air quotes of him in the hospital, which people, family members, his aunts, cousins have come out to say that those photos were taken in 2012. And they're not recent photos in which he did not, after being discovered at this church, did not go to the hospital to get any of the help that he may have needed. Um, the yesterday and the investigation. Police chief had said that they had many run ins with their family and that the entire time his mom would just say he is still missing if they would ask who he is in the house, because at this point he's gotten older, she would say, this is my nephew and give him a fake name. Sam Stone: [00:45:17] So So he was around. They they like set him up with a fake ID or something and were telling people he wasn't him. Kylie Kipper: [00:45:25] Yeah. Yeah. Um, and so the weird part about it is, is when they did the investigation with him and his mom, Rudy obviously would not speak about any wrongdoing of his mom the past eight years. So he would just say, you know, yeah, I was living at home. She just wanted me to keep it private. X, Y, z, until he got separated from his mom, which then he was doing an interview with a detective and this community activist named Quanell X. So this is where it gets like, all kind of. Different sides of the story. So the police chief in the interview yesterday said Rudy did not report any sexual assault charges by his. Or sexual assault wrongdoing by his mom. However, this Cornell gentleman who came out and was speaking and seemed very passionate about it was crying in the interviews. He was in the interview with the detective, and he clearly stated many times of sexual encounters with his mom that ultimately led him to run away after eight years, which is how he ended up at the church. So he had stolen his mom's car to get away from his mom. And some of these can be a bit disturbing, but you know, many things. So a little backtrack, a little history about his parents is his dad was also a part of the Houston Police Department until he committed suicide in around 2011, I believe, after they were investigating him for being corrupt. So people think that that has something to do with why the police chief is saying that there was that Rudy did not report any of this. However, Quanell has come out and done a bunch of interviews on Newsnation and Fox and is just saying he's reported that his mom would make him play daddy and would sleep naked in bed together. Chuck Warren: [00:47:19] And oh my gosh. Kylie Kipper: [00:47:21] Can use that kind of imagination, which ultimately would lead him to try to escape his mom again. After eight years. He would take she would take Rudy to work and make her or make him do her job. Sam Stone: [00:47:35] Um, she what was her job, do we know? Kylie Kipper: [00:47:38] It just seemed like some, like, low level. Chuck Warren: [00:47:41] Clerical type job. Kylie Kipper: [00:47:42] Yeah. Um. Sam Stone: [00:47:44] Was there any, like, financial incentive? I mean, was she, like, raising money for the search for him or something? What's the. Kylie Kipper: [00:47:50] Yes, she did have, um, a fundraiser online, which her goal was 75,000. I have not been able to find if she actually raised that money. But something else that came up was in Texas. If you have a child that goes missing after three years, you get a basically like a life insurance payout. So that's another thing that their goodness to see if she got that money. Um, but an ex-husband came out and said this is a little background about his mom now is an ex-husband came out and said that she was a bigamist. And what I could find is in 1997, she married some she married a guy. Then again in 1998, she married another guy in that same year. She wanted a annulment on the basis that she was already married to the previous guy, which neither of these is the police detective. In 2007. She then marries the detective for the Houston Police Department. And then in 1999 to 2010, there's another marriage that's been found and then a fourth marriage from 2009 to 2012 that has also been found. Chuck Warren: [00:48:56] Boy, some kid sure draw the short end of the stick who they get stuck with, parents and folks for you if you don't know, bigamy is when the crime of marrying someone while you're still married to someone else. In case you don't know that term, I hope it doesn't come up a lot in your conversations at home, but nonetheless, that's what it means. So what do you think happens now? What are the police saying? Or I guess we'll know more tonight, right? I mean, that's really the key. Kylie Kipper: [00:49:16] So everyone so after this investigation between his mom and his and Rudy, the detective that sat there with Quanell X, this community activist, left the room and Quanell, said, I'm going to do interviews on this. Is there anything you don't want me to say? And he said, No, you can say whatever you want. The detective then went into the next room and arrested or put handcuffs, not arrested, put handcuffs on the mom, which indicated that Quanell says this detective thought his mom had committed a crime. However, at the end of the day, they ended up just walking both of them out and they left together. So now no one is 100% positive where Rudy or his mom are located today. Chuck Warren: [00:49:54] Well, how old was he when he disappeared? Kylie Kipper: [00:49:56] He was 17 and. Chuck Warren: [00:49:58] He's been missing. They may say he was of sound mind to be in a relationship. I bet. I bet that's part of it. So we're going to have you talking about this again next week. You'll keep us up to date when you're back in the studio now, folks, so you don't understand. Kylie is in Houston today, not because she loves the summer weather of Houston, but nobody. Sam Stone: [00:50:16] Nobody loves the summer weather or the smell of Houston in the. Chuck Warren: [00:50:19] Summer. Her fiance, Isaiah Campbell, who's been playing Double A for the Seattle Mariners affiliate in Little Rock, was called up to the big league club, the Mariners, yesterday. And Kylie hopped on a plane and flew out there. And Kylie, just what was that experience like? What were your feelings? I mean, it's you know, look, a lot of people don't get to do this. So how was it for you? Kylie Kipper: [00:50:41] I mean, sometimes still to this moment, it doesn't feel real. Um, I think I did an interview yesterday with an MLB TV reporter, and it was very hard to articulate how I was feeling. And, you know, just like the emotions that go into it because he has just had this dream For him since he was little. And it's finally coming true. He is. Yesterday he was not in the game yet, so we're still waiting for his. Actual official debut. But he is on the roster and we're hoping it's. Tonight or tomorrow. Chuck Warren: [00:51:10] Well, folks, as you know, Sam and I adore Kylie and the great work she does on the show and Jamie. And so I was last night watching two teams. I could care less about the Astros and Mariners waiting for her to pitch. And apparently Isaiah's good teammate was the starter last night and decided like, let me pitch like a Cy Young Award winner this year. It's what he did. So Isaiah did not get in the game. So this weekend, if he can pull up the Mariners and Houston Astros and look for Isaiah Campbell to come in late innings to help the team out. Kylie Kipper: [00:51:39] Yeah. Sam Stone: [00:51:40] Can we just get Kylie to post a clip of his appearance so I don't have to watch a mariners Astros game? Chuck Warren: [00:51:45] Chuck Yeah, no, I agree. I agree. So before you get Kylie off and end the podcast, we just want to give a congratulations. And since Kylie is engaged, she'll appreciate this. Jimmy, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter today are celebrating their 77th anniversary. Now, folks, let me let me talk about this for a minute here. The US census says 6% of married couples in the United States make the 50th wedding anniversary, one tenth of a percent make their seventh of those 75 years or more. They don't even keep the statistic. So that's that's how rare that is. And Sam makes a good point. You know, it's the longevity. The lifespan of. Sam Stone: [00:52:23] A man is like 79. Chuck Warren: [00:52:24] Years. There's a lot to this, but there's a lot of people who just don't want to be together 77 years. So there's something to this, right? Sam Stone: [00:52:30] It's an amazing it's an amazing thing. And congratulations to both of them, without a doubt. And it speaks to great character on both. Chuck Warren: [00:52:37] It really does. It really does. And it speaks to a great partnership. Yeah. So happy anniversary to the Carters. Kylie, We're very excited for you and we're excited for his first pitch to Major League Baseball this weekend. And so we'll keep in touch with you on that, folks. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can follow us on breaking battlegrounds vote. Besides the radio stations we're on, you can also catch us on podcasts wherever you listen to a podcast, please share. Please rate. Thanks a million. We'll be back next week. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by friend of the show, Martin Di Caro of the Washington Times and host of the History as It Happens podcast. Later in the, Utah’s Congressman Blake Moore calls in to talk about his work on the House Ways and Means Committee. - Martin Di Caro brings 25 years of broadcast journalism experience to the Washington Times. He has won numerous prestigious awards throughout his career in major media markets across the country. Before coming to the Times, Martin was a news anchor at Bloomberg Radio’s Washington bureau. From 2012 to 2017, he covered transportation at NPR member station WAMU 88.5 in Washington, where his work on the yearslong Metrorail crisis earned Martin his second Edward R. Murrow award, which included hosting the radio station’s first podcast, Metropocalypse. Martin worked as a reporter for AP Radio in New York and Washington for eight years starting in 2008. He lives in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of D.C. and his interests include reading history and following his beloved New York Jets. He can be reached at mdicaro@washingtontimes.com. - A native of Ogden, Blake Moore is a proactive problem solver committed to representing each and every constituent of Utah’s First District. He is dedicated to reflecting Utah’s values in Congress and finding solutions to the challenges facing the district and the state. Advocating for inclusive, pro-growth, and aspirational principles, Blake is amplifying Northern Utah’s voice on a national level to ensure Utahns receive the service and representation they deserve. Blake currently serves as the first-ever Utah Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, where he sits on the Healthcare, Social Security, and Work and Welfare subcommittees. He also serves on the House Budget Committee to push for policies to reverse our national debt crisis and advocate for Utah’s defense community. Blake continues to represent Hill Air Force Base as co-chair of the Armed Forces and Depot caucuses. Before being elected to Congress, Blake worked for small businesses and in the foreign service, experiences that now guide his work on domestic and foreign policy. As a Principal at Cicero Group, Blake worked primarily in the social impact, marketing research, and strategy practice areas leading projects and serving clients throughout Utah and the nation. He has expertise in education, financial services, public policy, healthcare, transportation, supply chain, and waste industries, and this work informs his customer service and problem solver approach in Washington, D.C., as he identifies ways to help the federal government better work for Northern Utah. His passion for helping organizations manage the change process drives his ambition to overcome partisan gridlock, improve federal agencies, and smartly streamline the nation’s bureaucracy. Previously, Blake worked abroad in business development in the healthcare and financial services industries, which led him to understand the challenges that small businesses grapple with daily. Blake was also honored to serve in the Foreign Service for the U.S. Department of State, where he gained first-hand knowledge of America’s international threats. This experience taught him to take seriously the United States’ diplomatic apparatus, the readiness of the Armed Forces, and the nation’s commitment to strengthening partnerships and alliances across the globe. Blake joined Congress in 2021 and served on the Armed Services, Natural Resources, and Budget committees during his first term. On these committees, he advocated for Hill Air Force Base and Utah’s defense community, promoted domestic energy production, worked on addressing our debt and deficit crises, among several other efforts. Congressman Moore convened a Debt and Deficit Task Force in Ogden to create a framework of solutions with local leaders for how the federal government can grow the economy, save and strengthen vital programs, focus America’s spending, and fix Congress’s budgeting process. For these efforts, he was named a 2022 Fiscal Hero by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He also successfully pushed for provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act packages for FY22 and FY23 that support Hill Air Force Base’s modernization efforts, Sentinel program, housing availability, and more. Blake was the most successful freshman Republican member in terms of legislation passed, with four bills signed into law by President Biden and several more passed through committee. His bills that became law are the Saline Lake Ecosystems in the Great Basin States Program Act, the Better Cybercrime Metrics Act, the National Medal of Honor Act, the Modernizing Access to our Public Land Act, and provisions in the Afghanistan Accountability Act. Blake is an active and valued team player within the House Republican Conference, chosen to serve as an Assistant Whip on the Republican Whip Team, the House Armed Services Committee conferee on the China legislation conference committee, and co-chair of the bipartisan Depot, Air Force, and Future caucuses.  Blake obtained a Master’s in Public Policy and Administration from Northwestern University. He graduated from the University of Utah after serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Seoul, South Korea, and signing a scholarship to play as the quarterback at Utah State University. In high school, he was awarded the Wendy’s National High School Heisman, an award honoring one male and one female senior for excellence in athletics, academics, and citizenship. He remembers fondly a conversation with a Heisman trustee after the ceremony. The trustee mentioned that it was Blake’s Eagle Scout and other service projects that set him apart. Blake recalls thinking at that moment, “I’m not special; that’s just the way kids are raised in Northern Utah!” Blake is married to Jane Boyer, his amazing, humorous, and very candid wife, who encourages him to take risks and pursue big things. Blake and Jane have four awesome and active boys who keep them on their toes- Max, George, Winston, and Franklin. Even with a congressional term under his belt, Blake’s most prized title is “Little League Coach.” - Connect with us: www.breakingbattlegrounds.vote Twitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_Battle Facebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegrounds Instagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegrounds LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds - Transcription Sam Stone: [00:00:10] Welcome to another episode of Breaking Battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. First up today, we're very excited to have returning guests, Martin Di Caro. Martin is a broadcast journalist for The Washington Times and host of The History As It Happens podcast, which I know Chuck is a huge fan of. I've tuned into a number of times, highly recommend that folks and Chuck take it away. Chuck Warren: [00:00:32] So folks, we'll post this on our social media. Martin had a great episode this past Thursday called Our Radical Declaration, talking about the Declaration of Independence since July 4th is here coming up. And Martin, thanks for visiting us today. Martin Di Caro: [00:00:49] Chuck and Sam, I'm delighted to be here. Happy Independence Day in advance. Chuck Warren: [00:00:54] Thank you very much. Are you as well? So the podcast is history as it happens. And Martin, I want to I want to start off with this question. So we all have origin stories. We were talking before the show, Apple, they did a garage. I mean, it seems like all tech companies start in a garage for some reason, but nonetheless, it's a garage, right? But these origin stories define who we are. Right? And I was thinking the other day on a flight where I hit four cities in five days and the Delta flight attendant came up and hand me a thank you letter for flying three. 3 million miles, Right. Like, I don't know what they expect me to do with the letter, but nonetheless, it was nice of her. And and I thought about all the times I have taken red eyes home to go see kids games, be there for events. And I asked my kids, what do they remember? And they said, I just remember you sacrifice for the family. So that's an origin story for our family, right? What is the origin story for our country, specifically July 4th? And does that origin story still stand? Martin Di Caro: [00:01:55] I would say yes. We're still living in the political world of the founders. Lots of changes. Of course, lots of stuff has happened, had a civil war and what is often called our second founding with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. And of course, World War Two made the United States a global power right. Uncontested global power in the Cold War victory in late 1980s. But to get back to your question, yes, our origins are still very important. They're still contested. But, you know, we're a nation built upon ideas, and ideas are never static. They're dynamic. And, you know, what does it mean to be an American? That question was trenchant in the late 18th century, and we're still contesting it today. And that's kind of the nature of democracy, right? It's permanent origin. It's permanent argument. Just look at the Supreme Court decisions that have come down the past week. Right. They deal with fundamental rights, sometimes competing rights. You know, as David M Kennedy, a great historian has said, who gets a seat at the table of the great American barbecue. So our origins, you know, in retrospect, were rather puny when you think about what the revolutionaries accomplished, right? But that egalitarian rhetoric, those egalitarian ideals are still very much with us. We're still contesting them. Our history is a history of political conflict. Sam Stone: [00:03:20] Martin I actually don't like the idea of a second founding as much as realistically after the Civil War was the I don't want to say culmination because we've seen with these Supreme Court cases even this week the continuation. But that was really the first major step in fulfilling all the promises that the founders laid out. And part of the genius to me of of both the declaration and the Constitution is that they understood that they were imperfect and that they would not achieve right away all the ideals they laid down on paper, but they left a path for us to do it. Martin Di Caro: [00:03:56] Absolutely. And I like how you linked both the Declaration and the Constitution together. Obviously, the Constitution created our government or our second government because the Articles of Confederation didn't work out. But that was very Lincolnian of you. I mean, he saw both of them as being connected. Yeah, I mean the revolution. And I'm going to I'm going to cite Gordon Wood's work here, by the way, in my first podcast of this three part series I'm doing, my guests were Sean Wilentz and Jim Oakes. They are fantastic. I hope everyone takes a listen to that. But I'll cite Gordon Wood here. He says the revolution did more than legally create the United States. It transformed our society. The changes were radical and they were extensive, he says. You know, instead of focusing on what the revolution did not accomplish, to your point about it being incomplete, we should focus instead on why these ideas were so powerful and continue to animate our politics to this day. Our revolution eliminated monarchy. It created a large republic. It reconstituted again, citing Gordon Wood. What Americans meant by public or state power brought an entirely new kind of politics and a new kind of democratic. Office holder onto the world stage. And I do think the revolutionaries of the late 18th century knew that they were you know, I don't want to say that they knew they would be talking for the ages, you know, for all time. But they got the sense that they were on history's stage as well. I mean, it was a revolution. It did reorder society. Chuck Warren: [00:05:26] Wherewith Martin Di Caro. He is a broadcast journalist for The Washington Times and host a great podcast history As it happens. If you want to be smart, listen to that podcast. Let me ask you this question. I think there's one thing people don't understand about the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence, and hopefully you can talk a little bit about it. A third of the country supported it. A third probably was ambivalent. And the other third was, you know, the British fanboys. Right. I mean, is that fair to say? Martin Di Caro: [00:05:53] Yeah, that's what John Adams said. You know, it's hard to say exactly what public opinion was at any given time. You know, there was no polling. Of course, even polls today aren't altogether accurate. But yeah, that's roughly how how historians see it. You know, you had that middle ground of people who were indifferent. I mean, revolutions and wars are scary things. And we know that ordinary people get swept up in are damaged by, you know, the the vicissitudes of war. How do you like that word? Love it more so than you know, others. So, yeah, you did have people who were ardent revolutionaries who wanted to break with Great Britain. He had other revolutionaries who were more moderate, looking to reconcile even well into 1776. And then, of course, you did have loyalists, but, you know, loyalist the number of loyalists and their strength was always overestimated by I mean, that was one of the problems of the way parliament and the king handled all this. They thought that Loyalism was was stronger than it actually, it was. It was actually. And as the war goes on, it becomes weaker and weaker. Sam Stone: [00:06:56] Well, and when you talk about that ambivalence, one of the things if I if you go back and think about it was a historical in many ways, but the movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson one of the one of the depictions that I did like in that was that they showed the war happening in people's front yards. Right. Which was the truth, right? I mean, this was not being fought in some remote battlefield that nobody had any connection to. This was this was a civil war, a revolution fought in people's backyards and people's front yards. And so you can understand the ambivalence of a lot of folks who didn't want to see that for any number of reasons, merely the protection of their family. Martin Di Caro: [00:07:36] Yeah, Revolutionary War was in many ways a civil war. Loyalists had their lost their property. They were outcasts from society for a while after the war ended. And we can celebrate the revolution because it turned out the way, you know, we think it should have turned out. But at the time, of course, there was no unity about any of this. Right? Right. We tend to look back at the revolution as a source of, well, something that all of us can celebrate. But don't use the word unity. As I mentioned at the top of the show, we're still contesting its meaning. We're still arguing over the meaning of freedom and civil liberties and rights. I mean, that's something that comes up in this series. I'm doing Jack Rakove, another great historian, will be my guest in part two of this series. He talks about, you know, the revolutionaries who were gathered at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. They were not concerned with, you know, what we now consider to be statements of individual equality. You know, their purpose and this makes sense, of course, was, you know, in the in the maelstrom of a war, to declare that the colonists as a people had the same rights to self-government as other nations. But, of course, they use universal language. I mean, Jefferson wrote it a certain way for certain reasons, and that language became aspirational for anybody. I mean, even during the war enslaved black people, they start to cite the Declaration of Independence. These ideas about egalitarianism are percolating at a level audible to normal people, and they're citing the declaration to sue for freedom. And they're collaborating with whites to end slavery in the northern colonies than the northern states, which as we know does happen mostly in a gradual sense. But there was an anti-slavery aspect to the revolution. Chuck Warren: [00:09:22] Well, didn't Martin Luther King call the Declaration of Independence a promissory note? He did at. Martin Di Caro: [00:09:27] The March on Washington. 60th anniversary of that is coming up this year. Elizabeth Cady Stanton at Seneca Falls in 1858. She cites the the Declaration of Independence in her Declaration of Sentiments. And that, of course, is part of political struggle. It takes another 70 years for women to get the right to vote in the federal constitution and amendment, of course, even. Ho Chi Minh, a communist. He cited the Declaration of Independence verbatim in 1945 when he tried to announce Vietnamese independence after World War Two. Sam Stone: [00:10:00] You know what I always found interesting about the founding and the writing of the declaration, the Constitution, This was not the first time that any of. These ideas had been put on paper, but it was the first time they were brought together as the foundation of a new government. In other words, these ideas had been percolating. Chuck Warren: [00:10:16] It wasn't a talk, the talk. It was a walk. The walk. Sam Stone: [00:10:18] Right? Yeah. Which made it very different. Martin Di Caro: [00:10:22] And they had no way of knowing it would even succeed. I mean, as a matter of fact, the Revolutionary War did not go well, right? For a lot of reasons. I mean, they barely could keep an army in the field. I mean, this frustrated George Washington to no end. The state governments didn't want to pay, you know, their fair share to keep an army supplied. And it was very difficult to raise taxes at all under the Articles of Confederation to pay for things. Inflation was rampant. As I mentioned, war is miserable. And there was also a smallpox outbreak. Yeah. Chuck Warren: [00:10:55] So. Martin, that is a great point here. I think people seem to forget that America has always been somewhat messy because we're allowed to speak our mind, right? And and with a minute 30 here for our next segment, what have you, as you've studied and interviewed all these great historians, what do you view as the top three or 2 or 3 qualities that American president has to have unite people to for a common good, A common cause? Martin Di Caro: [00:11:21] You said an American president? Yeah. Oh, I think vision is important. I think it's important to invoke our origins to. But not an idealized kind of silly or patriotic way. But, you know, I think also for any president, right. Any politician to understand the importance of politics, I think a lot of people today kind of throw their hands up in the air. Yes. And I noticed this a lot on the especially among younger people on the left. Politics is slow and ineffective. And, you know, our all that egalitarian rhetoric was a lie when they said it back in the 18th century. I do not agree with that position. So, you know, you get this pessimistic, despondent type of attitude when, you know, our history is a history of political conflict. It's about, you know, stating a vision. I think any successful politician can state a vision, but also be good at the politics. Sam Stone: [00:12:14] Fantastic. Martin We're going to be coming back, folks, with more in just a moment from Martin DeCaro of The Washington Times and host of History As It Happens podcast. Be sure you're tuning in and downloading. Go to breaking battlegrounds vote. You can get the links to all of our Substack, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, all the good stuff there. Make sure you're signing up to get our latest episodes right in your email box. We really appreciate it. And hang on because we have more with Martin Di Caro coming right up. Sam Stone: [00:00:05] Welcome back to Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. On the line with us is Martin Di Caro, broadcast journalist for The Washington Times and host of History As It Happens podcast. But folks, are you concerned with stock market volatility? If you're not, you should be. Market's been going up and down like a rocket. Any returns you're getting out there, it's very hard to count on them. That's why we at Breaking Battlegrounds have endorsed investing with Y Refy. If you invest with Y Refy, you can earn up to a 10.25% rate of return. That's a fixed rate of return at 10.25%. It's the best deal out there right now. Log on to invest Y Refy.com that's invest the letter y, then Refy.com or call them at 888. Y refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. You won't regret it. Chuck We're continuing on right now with Martin Di Caro. Fantastic conversation so far as we're heading into the July 4th super long weekend. This time. Chuck Warren: [00:01:05] Martin Talk to our audience a little bit, expand further on our last question about how political conflict works in America. And it's sometimes it's just a messy pot of stew. Yeah. Marti Di Caro: [00:01:16] Yeah. No one's going to hire me to be a political consultant, by the way. But I mean, being good at politics is hard. I mean, there's not just one actor either. So you have a, you know, a brilliant political manipulator like Lyndon Johnson. But, you know, he wasn't the only actor in all of that as well. He needed help from other people. But I guess my point is, you know, I'm more interested in I've been doing these shows now about the American Revolution and just trying to understand why things happen the way they did, rather than saying, Oh, I wish this had happened sooner than it actually did. You know, why did it take 20 years to finally get rid of the slave trade through federal legislation in 1807 1808, following the compromise that was made at the Constitutional Convention? Why did it take Abraham Lincoln all of 18 months? As if 18 months is a really long amount of time to do a full emancipation proclamation out of after the start of the Civil War. You know, why did it take 70 years after Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the Seneca Falls meetings in 1858? 70 years to finally get, you know, women's suffrage? Well, instead of saying, you know, complaining that things didn't happen on the schedule, we think it should have, we need to think more historically and really understand why things happen the way they did. How is an American Revolution even possible to begin with? Why were people ready to hear those egalitarian words and act on them when they did? I think we get a better understanding of our origins when we do that. Sam Stone: [00:02:41] Because in many ways, Martin, a lot of those ideas were not to the benefit of the the most powerful people who had guided our society and every other society prior to the implementation of these ideals, right? I mean, they they benefited from the system that was previously in place. Marti Di Caro: [00:02:59] Absolutely. I mean, you can make the point about Thomas Jefferson himself, right? He penned the document with some help from Adams and Franklin and others. He was a lifelong slaveholder and he certainly did not want to see slavery. Well, you know, Jefferson's views on slavery do change over time. Early in his career, he took some aggressive moves to try to end slavery. But later on, he didn't, partly because it was an unpopular thing to do in Virginia, which was a very large, you know, slave holding colony, then slaveholding state. But certainly, yeah, you know, this is a very corrosive idea, egalitarianism. It challenges the status quo. Other people are free to interpret those words any way they want in a democratic society and say, you know what, I want a seat at the table as well. So, yeah, you're right. Chuck Warren: [00:03:48] Of the 56 delegates at the Second Continental Congress, we call them our founding fathers, who was one besides the obvious? Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, who's who's somebody that stands out that people don't pay enough attention to. Marti Di Caro: [00:04:00] I think somebody like John Dickinson, who was a patriot and a revolutionary, but he was rather moderate. I think it's interesting to look at the way and I can recommend a book about this. Please do. Please do. Yeah. Well, and I think this book is still in print. I was able to find a copy of it. Wouldn't that be great if I recommend a book that no one can actually find? Chuck Warren: [00:04:18] Yeah. Yeah. Marti Di Caro: [00:04:19] The Beginnings of National Politics by Jack Rakove. I use this book to frame our conversation in part two of my series. Dickinson was very, very interesting as to why he was trying to still reconcile with the Crown. You know, people like James Otis, George Mason, they articulated many of these ideas and ideals, but we don't often think of them. They don't come to mind right away. We rather think of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, George Washington. Chuck Warren: [00:04:47] Will Gallup this week released a poll and the headline Extreme Pride Americans remains Near Record Low, which was funny about it, is 67% of Americans are extremely or very proud of the United States. That's a pretty high number. Right. And then which. Sam Stone: [00:05:03] Throws a lot of the modern. Chuck Warren: [00:05:04] Narrative. Yeah. Yeah. It did. Another 22% of us adults are moderately proud. I mean, so basically you're over you're close mid 80s on this. Right. But why do you think to our audience, why do you think we should be proud to be Americans? Marti Di Caro: [00:05:18] Well, you know, I'm also not happy with a lot of things these days. And, you know, I guess depending on your politics, maybe the Supreme Court has you pulling your hair out. Maybe you think, hey, this is how our founders intended it to be. Right? Right. You know, your question again, why, why or why should people be proud of their country? I think because, you know, we have a premise for a politics, a progressive politics, if you want to use that word, to make positive change. Now, maybe some people aren't happy with that use of my choice of words there. So guess what? I guess what I'm trying. Sam Stone: [00:05:52] I'm all for stealing progressive back. Marti Di Caro: [00:05:55] You know, if people are going to sneer at our country, right. And our founding and these ideals and the egalitarian, egalitarian rhetoric and say, well, it was a lie then and we've never been able to fulfill it as if anyone actually argues it was a reflection of reality in the late 18th century. Right. Well, if they're going to sneer at that, as James Oakes said on my show, then what's their premise for change? What are you going to base your politics on? Right. I think I like our system, right. I like the idea of fundamental human equality as the guiding principle for our nation. Sam Stone: [00:06:30] I think that's a great point, because with all the tear the system down rhetoric you hear today in the news and on social media, the one thing that's missing is what? What follows? What are what are you trying to replace these current systems with other than some vague notion of. Chuck Warren: [00:06:49] Yo have a my way or the highway mentality is what you. Marti Di Caro: [00:06:51] Have. That's people who give up on politics. Then, you know, abolish the Senate, abolish the Supreme Court. I mean, that's not serious stuff. Chuck Warren: [00:06:58] But, you know, but in fairness to you, you're also a patient man. I mean, for example, you're a Jets fan, right? So this is taught you this is taught you amazing patience over the years, right? Marti Di Caro: [00:07:08] Yes. And I will never give up on them because I know the moment I finally, you know, throw in the towel, they'll win. Chuck Warren: [00:07:14] I remember I remember for the Giants became this this great power years when I grew up in the Northern California, the old next door neighbor who loved the giants said, look, I've just learned to say there's always next year, you know? And I think that's for the Jets fans, too. You know? Sam Stone: [00:07:28] You know what? You know what I want for the Jets season? I want a great like six games from Aaron Rodgers, who goes down with a tragic injury. And we see we see we see Zach Wilson come back with the all time great comeback. Yeah, great comeback. Rebirth of his career. Marti Di Caro: [00:07:45] Well, you know, everyone needs a soap opera. Some people watch real soap operas. I watch the Jets. Sam Stone: [00:07:51] Well, I get I get The New York Post in my news every morning, and they're panic over. That would be. Chuck Warren: [00:07:56] Fantastic. It'd be amazing. Marti Di Caro: [00:07:58] Great sports section in that paper. Chuck Warren: [00:08:01] Martin. Martin, what else with our limited time here, what else do you think people should pay more attention to regarding the July 4th? We have one minute. Marti Di Caro: [00:08:10] You know what? Go and read the Declaration of Independence. Everyone can cite those, you know, 55 most famous words. Read the grievances, especially the final grievance. You know, we didn't get to this, but that's okay. This whole idea of a slavery revolution, that's a nonsensical idea that's been put out there by the 1619 project. Yeah. Read those grievances and then go and understand, you know, what was the purpose behind them? Why was Jefferson and his compatriots, why did they, you know, go after King George the third the way they did after, you know, going after parliament through most of. Sam Stone: [00:08:42] The the antidote to ahistorical nonsense is actual history. Thank you so much, Martin De Caro, broadcast journalist for Washington Times and History as It Happens podcast. We love having you on the program and look forward to having you again, folks. Breaking battlegrounds. Back with more in just a moment. Chuck Warren: [00:00:09] Welcome to Breaking Battlegrounds. I'm your host, Chuck Warren, with my co-host, Sam Stone. Today, we are lucky to have with us on these two segments, Congressman Blake Moore. Congressman Moore represents Utah's first Congressional District. He is also the first ever Republican from Utah who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which discusses issues we talk about all the time. Sam, health care, Social Security work and welfare subcommittees. Sam Stone: [00:00:32] Pretty much all the most important stuff in the country goes through ways and means. Chuck Warren: [00:00:35] Exactly. He is married to Jane Boyer, who the former Jane Boyer. And she is a very candid wife. And so we want to know how she's candid with you, Blake. And he's also the father of four active boys and he's also a little league coach. How are you as a Little League coach, Congressman? Congressman Moore: [00:00:54] You know, I've had a ref pull me aside the other day. He said, wait, you're the congressman, aren't you? And I go, Oh, boy. And he said, he goes, You were on our case today, but I like it. I'd vote for you because you're fiery. I like that you got passion. So I figured it could very well work in the opposite for me as well, too. So I do have to be careful. Chuck Warren: [00:01:18] So what are the what are the age range for your boys? Congressman Moore: [00:01:21] Ten, seven, seven and about 18 months. Chuck Warren: [00:01:24] So which one do you coach, the ten year old or seven year old? Congressman Moore: [00:01:26] Mostly to this point. The ten year old. The seven year old started playing a lot of sports kind of right when I was first running for office. And that was that was tough. So I did a lot with the seven year old. And now I'm picking it back up now that I'm, you know, in my second term, a little bit of a groove scheduling wise that I can, you know, try to try to get engaged a little bit more. So mostly. Mostly, yes. Football, basketball and baseball. You get me outside those three sports, I don't know what I'm doing. Chuck Warren: [00:01:53] Or does your wife feel outnumbered in the house or everybody knows who's really in charge there? Congressman Moore: [00:01:58] They know who's in charge. But she. I actually wanted the girl more. Uh, ironically enough, I think if we were to have had a girl, it would have been she. She would have definitely said that was the best thing. But I still am the one that wants the daughter wants the wedding one day to give away the all that stuff. A little bit of a traditionalist there. So I do feel like we never got that girl, but we definitely don't need five boys. So the risk of going for any more is going to be way, way out. Chuck Warren: [00:02:30] You're not you're not taking that to Vegas. Um, so how do you handle the travel with four young boys and take it? Your family lives in the district in Utah. How do you handle your travel back and forth? Congressman Moore: [00:02:40] Fortunately, I'm about 15 minutes from the airport, and we have direct flights from Salt Lake. So that is a uniquely special thing we can have direct to DC. So that cuts down. I have colleagues from North Dakota, Iowa, some places in Texas, they're an hour, hour and a half away from an airport. Then they're taking a layover. It can always be worse for you. And so my mindset is, one, it could always be worse. I have it pretty, pretty good. Um, think of what some of our military folks go through and the time they spend away from their family and, and, you know, the duty and honor that they do in their life and their service is more honorable, I think, than than what we do in Congress. But it is a fight in Congress. And and it is it is a sacred position. So, um, other folks have always sacrificed more. I think that's how I look at it. My wife deals with it. She she said to me when I first ran, Now listen, if you win, which I don't think you will, you when you win, you can't give me a hard time or make any of those snide comments you do. When we budget together, you can't be passive aggressive about babysitting costs. You just have to you just have to take it and you have to deal with it and not give me a hard time. And you let me own that. Sam Stone: [00:03:53] And Congressman, we could feel bad for you. But we've had the member from Guam on this show and there's nobody who's got a travel schedule as rough as that Poor guy. Congressman Moore: [00:04:02] Exactly. Chuck Warren: [00:04:03] Um, quickly here, tell us a little bit about your work with small business. Is there any bills you're sponsoring on it? Congressman Moore: [00:04:09] So in 2017, Republicans, you know, went at it alone. They used the budget reconciliation process, which allows you to pass a bill without, you know, by bypassing the filibuster when you have the White House, House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats both do this often. Sometimes that leads to big legislation that you wouldn't otherwise do or be able to do given the filibuster. But, um. They they they did the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. And in that tax cut, Jobs Act was a lot of things. And it is our job now and we're in a different political environment. So we're not going to be able to do that same thing over again and re-up everything that's in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act because it's not a political reality. Right. The things that expired, the Democrats aren't going to go on board with. But there are issues. There are there are provisions inside that bill that we have to be able to look back and say, what has worked, what has driven growth, and the Small Business Growth Act that we put together that was passed out of the committee just a few weeks ago, something we're really excited about. And basically it doubles your ability to take itemized deductions on capital improvements, farm equipment, office equipment and just things that you're investing in your own business. A major piece of manufacturing. If you can write all. Chuck Warren: [00:05:25] These all these things, that creates productivity and jobs, correct? Exactly. We're going to take a quick break here with Congressman Blake Moore. Utah's first Congressional District. He sits on the House Ways and Means Committee. This is breaking battlegrounds. You can find us at breaking battlegrounds. Vote. We'll be right back. Sam Stone: [00:00:11] Welcome back to. Sam Stone: [00:00:12] Breaking battlegrounds with your host, Chuck Warren. I'm Sam Stone. Continuing on the line with us, Congressman Blake Moore from Utah's first Congressional District here in just a moment. But folks, are you struggling with stock market volatility right now, especially with Joe Biden in office? What if you could invest in a portfolio with a high fixed rate of return that's not correlated to the stock market? A portfolio where you know what each monthly statement will look like with no surprises, you can turn your monthly income on or off, compound it, whatever you choose. There's no loss of principle. If you need your money back at any time, your interest is compounded daily, you're paid monthly. There are no fees. And this is a secure collateralized portfolio that delivers a fixed rate of return up to 10.25%, up to 10.25%. It's the best deal out there in investing right now. Check out our friends at Invest Y Refy.com That's invest the letter Y. The letter Y, then Refy.com or give them a call at 888 Y Refy 24 and tell them Chuck and Sam sent you. Okay, Chuck Continuing on with Congressman Moore. Congressman, are you familiar with the proposal that I believe it's Congressman Schweikert here from Arizona has put up to increase the minimum before businesses have to file a 1099 for contract employees and the like from I believe it's currently $600 or 800 up to 5000. Talking to a lot of small business owners, that's the kind of simple thing that would make their lives massively easier. Is that something that that you're looking to support and that others should be talking about more? Because I heard a little about it and then it seems to have disappeared. Congressman Moore: [00:01:47] It's absolutely yeah, I know about it. We passed it in the the economic package a few weeks ago. This is the this is an opportunity to that the chairman, Chairman Smith wanted us to go out into, you know, regular America, not just inside the Beltway and do some and do some public hearings. And this is one of the things that rang true and kind of highlighted to us. Well, we need to really be focused on this. This is like listening to, you know, everyday Americans running their businesses. This is what we learn from them. And we're like this. This was set years and years ago. And if you would have just adjust for inflation, it would go up. That's how you get with the regulatory body. It becomes archaic and you don't create opportunities to be dynamic within the system. So it's a no brainer in my opinion. It's an overly burdensome. And I think the best example is the Chairman Smith, who still runs a small family farm. If someone comes and bails hay for him, like every like high school senior that comes and bails hay for, you know, ten bucks an hour, they end up having to do a full 1099. That is not the intent. So up the threshold, still holding people accountable. This isn't where the all the tax evaders are doing a bunch of high school seniors. This is not where it is. And babysitters like. Sam Stone: [00:02:58] No smarter. Congressman Moore: [00:02:59] Than our economy. Sam Stone: [00:03:00] The tax evaders tend to be in much higher tax brackets than people who are filing a few thousand dollars in a 1099. Exactly right. One of the things that I think has been a good focus within this Congress and this touches on it, but is and it seems like we could at least find some more room with Democrats to agree on. This is going through some of these archaic rules and saying, hey, does this really still work or does it need to be adjusted or does it need to be replaced or gotten rid of it? Deregulating in a way that doesn't reduce oversight is very possible, isn't it? Congressman Moore: [00:03:35] Yeah, it's very possible. And we need to be adults back in Washington and find those simplistic things we can address on in the Ways and Means Committee. Right now, trade is largely bipartisan and we actually have really good collaborative work together. We do on that. Taxation has become so toxic that I feel that I fear people aren't looking at the big picture. And and if you take an individual piece, I think you got a lot of agreement, but it's how you move it forward. And that's the thing I don't think Americans necessarily understand well enough is, yeah, we agree on a lot of things, but then how you move the package forward, do you tie it to something else that's less popular and try to get more support? That's where we've got to get to more single issue voting that would make everything run more smoothly back there. Chuck Warren: [00:04:24] Well, that's absolutely right. We've often wondered and we talked to various members and they all say, yes, you're correct, Why don't you push more single issue? So, for example, here's one we had a former attorney here who worked on the border and she suggesting, for example, an immigration bill that says unless you come through a port of entry and there's about 327 of them, some of them in the United States, unless you come through a port of entry, you're immediately denied asylum. You need to come through the front door. Right? Right. There needs to be a process that seems like a pretty easy bill. If somebody just submitted that issue alone, one pager, it gets through. Sam Stone: [00:04:57] From an Arizona perspective. It separates the wolves from the sheep. Right. Because the wolves will keep going through. Chuck Warren: [00:05:02] So why don't so so, Congressman, more why don't they do that more? Congressman Moore: [00:05:08] I, i, i. It would make so many things better in our legislative experience. Um. I. Immigration particularly has become a wedge issue. I don't know how else to put it. For 40 years, we've had people that want to to build the right type of policy. You either have to do one of two things on immigration and I'll be brief. You either have to do what we're talking about, make it very simplistic, and tie it together or make it more comprehensive. And and I think people want to get like halfway comprehensive, like I'm supportive of of truly looking at DACA and a visa system that makes sense and is streamlined and gets more workers here. I want more workers here. My district desperately needs more good workforce here, and that can come from a more streamlined immigration. But if we do all if we do that before we tighten up the border process, then the cartels will just be the cartels will be empowered. So you have to build a more comprehensive approach. I do like what Maria Salazar is doing in that comprehensive piece. I just don't think we're we're not ready for it right now because as Republicans, we want to make sure that you see the first part done, and that is the good policy remain in Mexico policy and tighten up the border security. And then we'll get plenty of people on board for for for streamlining it. But it's it's a conundrum and it's a wedge issue. And that's that's and we're not living up to what the Americans need. Every single person back in Washington isn't isn't living up to what they need. Chuck Warren: [00:06:37] So, Congressman Moore, let's talk about a simpler issue. And I say that sarcastically. You're on the House Ways and Means Committee. What do we do about Social Security? I mean, it's a ticking time bomb. People are not being honest about the reform. I have not heard any Republican to say, yeah, we're going to cut benefits now. We've made promise to some people currently retired and those close to retirement that need to be upheld. But what do we need to do for a workforce in their 20s and 30s who are going to have 80 plus year, you know, longevity? What do we do? Congressman Moore: [00:07:06] We took the best first step, last, last session of Congress. The 117th passed the secure 2.0 bill. Secure 2.0 will allow for younger workers to have an extra five or so years saving for retirement. If you are paying down your student loan, say you've graduated from grad school, you're 25 years old and you start paying down your student loan, you you oftentimes have to choose between paying down your student loan or contributing to your 401. K. Your company can. Now, if you are if you're paying your student loan down and a big, big win in Scotus today about the student loan repayment, we can get into that but the company can now contribute on your behalf even if you're not putting in your own match. So we're going to start having people save for retirement much earlier. Um, and that that will. Sam Stone: [00:07:53] That's a great step, Congressman. And thank you. I mean, it's the. Congressman Moore: [00:07:57] Right it's the right step. It had over 400 votes in Congress in the House to pass. Very bipartisan. It's productive. We we have to create other incentives that you do probably have to means test Social Security going forward. We got people getting it that really have that don't really they don't really need it. And they could actually probably delay if they were to be willing to take it in case they lived longer just to offset that risk. So there's all sorts of productive ways we can be doing this without just saying we need to tax more because we have a worker to retirement work ratio issue and we've known it's been coming. I will say this retroactively, if we would have done what President Bush had tried to push, tried to do, we would have been putting money instead of just into a, you know, a government low yield bond like the trust fund. We would have been putting money into mutual funds. And and Dems Democrats will always say, oh, you're privatizing it. You just want to help your Wall Street buddies. That's fundamentally false. And they know it and it's dishonest. If we would have done that, we would have been able to grow the amount of money that we have to contribute to that. Over the last 20 years, would anybody not choose to put money into an S&P 520 years ago? Absolutely not. It was closing at 900 and today it's closing at 4000. Stock markets go up into the right generally over time. They always have. If we don't if we're not willing to trust that, then we're not going to be able to to to to do that. So there's all sorts of things out there that could be doing and we're stuck in stagnation. And if we don't do something in the next ten years to truly address this issue, then, you know, we are we are literally dooming people to having far fewer, you know, 75% of the benefit automatically kicks in. So we're doing them regardless. Sam Stone: [00:09:41] It's a it's a really dishonest talking point, Chuck, to say that the market is somehow robbing people because over any 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 year period, the market may go up or down. But over any ten year period in US history, over 20 years, 50 years, it always goes up. Well, it's even more. Congressman Moore: [00:09:58] Look at all these Ivy League schools with their endowments, right? They're out there. They're out there engaging in growth opportunities, in market opportunities. And and I don't hear any Democrats complaining about all these Ivy leagues that are that are, you know, using their endowments to to cover their expenses. And they're doing a they're doing a fabulous job. And they're also very profitable. And we could be doing that more with with the government. I think Senator Cassidy, I believe, has got some really good proposals that that way it's tougher now because we just don't the trust fund is in such a dire it's in a more dire situation than it was back in the early 2000 when when President George W Bush wanted to push this more. It's just disingenuous. Sam Stone: [00:10:39] And I'm really glad, Congressman, that you brought up means testing, because I've heard too many politicians be afraid of that. But I've never talked to anyone who was rich who cared. No, you know, I mean, honestly, if you're rich, the amount you're going to get from Social Security is so minimal that it takes an actual Scrooge to care about whether they're going to get that money at that point, that that's just the way it is. Congressman Moore: [00:11:02] And what wealthy people want to see is good money going after good. If they're good, money is going after complete government waste. And right now we have just too much government spending and people are like, well, geez, I would love to be contributing to paying down our debt. If I knew that it was going to actually make a difference. But if it's not making a difference, then they shouldn't. So so I kind of see it both ways. But you're right, you've been saying and I think you can offset the risk by saying, I don't need to engage in this for, you know, if I live past I'm 80 or, you know, at 78, I will defer that to that point. There's no real serious conversations going on. It's more so just a little bit of of the latter. And, you know, Republicans had a chance to do it in 2017 and they they deferred and they President Trump wanted to wait till he was in his second term. And it's so ironic right now. I'm a guy that can call it both ways to see President Trump criticize House Republicans, trying to say we're out there trying to get rid of Social Security. That is also disingenuous and it's all political and it's just kind of lobbying for older people's votes. And that's that's not what that's not being an adult back there as not good. Sam Stone: [00:12:08] Governance, that's. Chuck Warren: [00:12:09] For sure. Governance at all. We have two minutes left here. So we're coming up on the July 4th weekend. Tell our audience what this holiday means to you. And specifically, what is your hope and vision for America ten, 20 years down the road? Congressman Moore: [00:12:24] Oh, thank you. I love that question. I really appreciate you focusing on that. You know, it's not just a talking point or a feel good statement, but but God, country and family, they really do mean a lot. And they should be. What everybody what we root ourselves in for this holiday is is family. For me, I've always been able to find time to boat, to golf, to to to something outdoors. We're not great campers. We got young kids still. But like in Utah, like this holiday matters. And there's always time to to find opportunities to to be with family. And I love it. And Utah is a unique place because you have the 4th of July and then you have the 24th of July. And that's our sort of a holiday when the Pioneers came into to Utah. So we call it Pioneer Day. And so there's a lot of fireworks, a lot of God country and family in this place. And my my honest vision for America is to recognize that we have some we have policy differences. Um, but if we let those policy differences divide us continually and if we if that moves into constant personality and division, then China wins, Russia wins, our adversaries win. And we don't have the strength that we have and what we've led the world on over the over the last century. And my vision is to to be firm on where I'm at policy, defend it, try to persuade, and then look for opportunities to to unite our nation more so than than I feel like we are right now. Chuck Warren: [00:14:04] Congressman, we have 15 seconds with you. Where can people follow you on social media? Congressman Moore: [00:14:09] Electmoore.com Is my website or just go to rep Blakemore There's uh, I can't remember. So there's campaign and there's but rep Blakemore on all my socials. Uh, and we would love, would love to follow. Chuck Warren: [00:14:24] Congressman Moore, Utah's first Congressional District. Thanks for joining us. Have a great 4th of July. This is breaking battlegrounds. We'll be back after this break. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe