12.4.2024 -- NLS -- Parental Rights vs. Child Welfare: The Supreme Court Showdown

On this episode with Neal and Julie, the conversation delves into a pivotal Supreme Court case concerning transgender care for minors, sparking a broader discussion on parental rights versus the rights of children. They examine the complexities of defining constitutional protections for minors, questioning the implications of allowing or restricting such medical interventions. Drawing parallels to other debates, including past cases about religious medical exemptions, Neal and Julie explore the consistency of arguments surrounding parental authority and child welfare.

Additionally, the episode touches on political dynamics, from Hunter Biden’s legal troubles to speculation about the future of figures like Ron DeSantis and Matt Gaetz. The duo also discusses broader societal issues, such as government aid programs and their potential long-term cultural impact. Through thoughtful and, at times, provocative dialogue, Neal and Julie tackle pressing topics with their signature blend of analysis and debate.

Let’s talk advertising. When you want to advertise on the radio, you call the station, right? But what about Facebook, Instagram, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, and other streaming platforms?

You could try clicking around, reading books, or taking online courses to figure it out—or you can let us handle it. At Sandhill Media Group, we’re your local experts in both radio and digital marketing.

Visit SandhillMediaGroup.com today.

Transcript

And good morning. It is 807 on Newstalk 10791 to welcome you to Wednesday, middle of the week and a big Supreme Court case coming up today over sex reassignment care. And those who are arguing for it believe that it is okay that a two year old, a toddler, if a little boy thinks that he's a girl, that a doctor should be able to lop him off.

And for just to be, blunt here, now, I will say that there are certain times when you have a realization that your political opposition is not in a rational state, and when your political opposition is not in a rational state, you don't win arguing rationality, you don't win with logic, you don't win, you win with. And I don't mean this in any violent context, but you win politically with blunt force.

You just win at the ballot box. You win on the state level, you win passing legislation, you win fighting it in the court battles. You win. Simply win. You win because every one should have that innate sense that that is absolutely wrong. There is no way you maybe there are little indications when they're young that they may have a complicated set of gender ideas of gender or sexuality or whatever that may be.

I I'm skeptical of it. But even if you could argue that a two year old maybe having gender confusion to make the leap from that to it's okay to, remove their their anatomy and engage in gender reassignment care at that age, I don't care is the wrong word. These are surgeries. Sex reassignment is the wrong word.

Notice. You know, Rush Limbaugh used to teach a principle that that words mean things. And it's very important lesson. We can't always live it. Absolutely. One example would be when we say vaccine, get the Covid vaccine. It wasn't a vaccine. It was a it's a therapeutic vaccine, neutralizes a virus because it it triggers your body into, opposing that virus.

Well, that's not quite what happens with these mRNA vaccines. So, we often would get correct corrected when we use the word vaccine, but it is the word that is so predominant. It makes the conversation completely cumbersome to have, to use other words. Now, when you look at this particular case, when we're talking about surgeries to remove or add tissue that simply looks like certain body parts, it doesn't mean that it's those body parts.

You can you can make it look like something, but you don't get the thing unless you have the DNA stitching those organs together and you don't have the DNA. That's sort of the core of the argument here, I would hope. I would assume that this particular Supreme Court is going to say there is a fundamental violation of human rights if we allow two year olds to undergo transgender surgeries.

Although I can hear it right now because we went through this dynamic during the porn in libraries situation and other political fights where they're like, it's not happening, and they argue passionately that you have to let this thing not happening happen. In other words, you can't ban porn in libraries even though it's not happening. You have to allow it to happen even though it's not happening.

Like they argue against themselves here. And so when I talk about two year olds getting, surgery, whatever word you want to put to that because you're not actually changing their gender, you're changing their anatomy. So you might call it organ subtraction surgery. You if in we in one direction anyway, whatever word you want to put on this, the other side would say it's not happening.

Okay, well, if it's not happening, then there's no problem banning it. Well, no, you can't ban it, but it's not happening. I know, but you can't ban it. Is is what they would say. So you have that, Pete Hegseth, the pick for, Department of Defense, defense secretary, cabinet level pick, high level might be in jeopardy already.

The narrative is beginning to shift, and Donald Trump may be eyeing Ron DeSantis in Florida to be the defense secretary. Now, if you're Trump, you know, I don't know how I feel. I have mixed feelings about this because do I think there are others who could serve just as well or better than Pete Hegseth? Yeah, I do, I don't think Pete Hegseth is nece.

I think he'd be fine. I think he'd be great. I think he's, you know, beloved and well-liked. But I think that the the scrutiny is becoming a spectacle and the spectacle is becoming a distraction. And we sort of saw this with Matt Gates and Trump was like, look, this is starting to be too distracting here. And I need an attorney general.

Sorry, Matt. We're going with Pam. Pam Bondi, we might be seeing a similar shift here from Pete Hegseth to Ron DeSantis. And I'll tell you why I what why the feelings are mixed here. I hate losing and I, I hate caving to the media that gets so strident, so unfair. And look, I don't know that these problems that they say Pete Hegseth has the drinking, the womanizing, they may be real problems.

Now, this is the I like Trump speed, but it has a flip side. The speed at which Trump operates can sometimes end up with improper vetting. And you might remember the Matt Gates story where he went from, all right, I'll be on a plane flight with Matt Gates, and by the end of it, he was like, you're going to be my attorney general.

And that ended up he's not going to be the attorney general. So I think there's a vetting, what's the word here? Maybe a vetting issue, but I think the upside is better than the downside. And I think you might go through a lot of people, but you get a lot done, too. And so I think that might be a function of this.

And, look, Pam Bondi, she's going to sail through, I think people don't necessarily like her because she's conservative. Nobody's going to question her capability and her skill and her qualifications to serve. Same thing with Ron DeSantis. He's got everything now. He doesn't have he does have a military background. He did serve for a number of years in the military, but he went on to the private sector a lot of times you hire a defense secretary who, has has spent nearly their entire adult lives in the military.

I don't think you have to that. I think you can find good people with the executor of skills to be a defense secretary that aren't, you know, generals or whatever. So, we'll wait and see. I do tire of the distraction and the the. I don't really dig in so deep. I just want a good government. I want a good cabinet, I want good people.

And I think if he shifts to Ron DeSantis, it'll be fine. However, there's a cost there. Ron DeSantis, I'm going to say this. I think he is the best governor in the United States of America. There, I said it. I, I think Governor Abbott of Texas is great. And a close second, if not equal. But I think in my mind, if I had to choose one best governor in the United States of America, it would be Ron DeSantis in Florida.

And this creates some risk for his presidential ambitions down the road. And I don't know if if I want, if I look at the future value of Ron DeSantis in 2028 or even 2032, I'm like, I don't maybe you just want to stay the course, but we'll see. Ron DeSantis gets in and I'll tell you what, what could very well happen, and this might be kind of crazy, is that Matt Gates could, take a shot at Florida governor again, I don't know if that's what will happen, but you can't help but think the musical chairs thing, is is very possible, in, in that scenario.

So, we have that also the Hunter Biden pardon dumpster fire continues to rage. This has gone on quite a while. And I know, because in this day and age, three days in the news cycle is quite a while. But the the left I look, I enjoy it. I, I hate to say it, I know I don't enjoy the pardon.

I think it's an abuse of power. I think it's a betrayal. I think it's a backstab and it's a broken promise. At the same time, the, the, the harm that it has inflicted on the Democrat Party, an already bruised and battered Democrat party is delicious. Like it it's it's something to to behold. And, you have Jon Stewart.

You got to hear this. This is a great a great clip from Jon Stewart. And talking about this can judge without shame, hypocrisy or nuance. Breaking news. President Biden has issued a pardon for his son, Hunter Biden. Mother.

We were so okay. He was saying we were so close. But you know what? Go get fine. It's good. It's right, it's it's right. You know, 82 year old man doesn't want to spend the rest of his life visiting his son in prison. Robert gets here. Time, time. I'm sure the pardon is a narrowly written, precisely drawn farewell note of compassion for a loved one.

The pardoned, sweeping covering offenses that Hunter Biden, quote, has committed, or may have committed or taken part in over the past 11 years.

You you should see his facial expression.

11 years is a very specific.

And not rounded amount of time. So, Hunter, I'll give you a pardon. Well, a few years, five years, ten years. It needs to be 11.

And if you would be so kind, make sure this upcoming New Year's Eve is also covered.

Don't get crazy. I didn't know pardons could come to crimes. You may have committed crimes. I'm surprised Biden didn't include the phrase on Earth one or any of the Earths in the multiverse. Okay, so that that Stewart's take and at least he's being honest and genuine about the issue. And I think Jon Stewart, even though I can cite you example after example of Jamie Raskin, Jen Psaki, a whole bunch of other Democrats that have lined up behind Biden and supported in and you know, there they are, the, pardon apologetics.

You have to admire people who are willing to be honest. And Jon Stewart's one of those guys. Bill is one of those guys. And, they're I'm glad they're around. I don't think there's enough of them to keep the entire party honest. But it's fascinating. And here's this clip. I want to play it, and then we'll take a break.

But I have a question for you, because I. I think it's important, I believe two other Biden family members, definitely and knowingly committed crimes in addition to Hunter Biden. You have Jim Biden and Joe Biden. Okay. I have a question. Comber why are you saying this right now while Joe Biden still has the pardon power? ZIP it.

Don't give any indication that you want to investigate or pursue or prosecute other Biden's because you're increasing the likelihood that you won't be able to, because Joe's going to pardon them to have a little patience, hold off until January 21st and then get after it. It's just weird to me. Why would you go on national TV and say, well, Hunter, he's now pardoned, but we think there are other Bidens that committed crimes.

Can you encourage Joe to issue more pardons any any more clear? I just I have to question the the wisdom in going on national TV and saying that, I mean, you're, you're you're telegraphing what's coming and there's still plenty of time to, issue a pardon. 822 Newstalk 179 we're going to break can be back after this. Neal Larson, Julie Mason 827.

And the fall River propane call and text line is (208) 542-1079. It's cold out. It was 17 degrees when we walked back here to the studio. Initially this morning it was at 6:00 17. I think that's what it was. Wow. You know, I was had we had some, Christmas music playing the other night, and this has a tie in, baby, it's cold outside.

Was playing, and, you okay over there? What it is you you've you've gotten, like, the last two days. You just start a story, had some Christmas music playing, and then we just pause. I know. Well, okay, I'm formulating here, all right? I just don't don't, you know. Wait. Takes a minute, baby. It's cold outside, baby. It's cold outside.

And they thought we don't have, for whatever reason, snowflakes freaking out over Christmas carols this year. And it's kind of nice. It is nice. I got to say, the, the virtue signalers completely upset over baby. It's cold outside, are feeling timid, and that's a good place for them to be. Yeah, they can stay there, keep them in, hibernation.

Maybe they're in depression. Whatever it is over the November election, they can't muster up the energy. Yeah, to be upset about baby, it's cold out. That's true. Yeah, that we've broken them. Right. Donald Trump's election has. Yeah. Left them with an empty gas tank. They're busy not having sex with anyone and getting their bowl. Yeah. Or shaving it or shaving it off.

Getting that blue tattoo so they know each other. I bet you some of them died their hair purple right before they shaved it off, because that makes you do both steps. That kind of makes sense that they make. So yeah. Yeah. Anyway, see, there was a story there. There was a story. Yeah. All right. (208) 542-1079. If you'd like to be on the program this morning.

Okay. Julie. What?

This Supreme Court story. Oh, wait. We got to talk about this. The CEO of United Health Care shot and killed this morning in New York City. Killers on the loose. NYPD has already come out and said it was a targeted hit. I did a quick search before Neal's monologue. This man makes 10 million a year getting this position.

It's a high level position. Yeah. What do you do? I don't know, is it? I wonder if the cops know it so quickly that this was targeted. You want to know what my hunch is? A disgruntled employee got fired or something? Disciplined. Disgruntled? Because, that's the only in my mind. That's the scenario that they would know instantly.

Like, this guy got fired yesterday. Intel employee tracks. Because whomever shot him knew where he was going to be. Yeah, he he was outside of a hotel about to go into meetings that were occurring in the hotel. So was like he was at his house. He wasn't at, you know, his office building. He was somewhere for work. Yeah.

So unless the person followed him. Yeah, they might have just known he was going to show up in front of that hotel for work. Yeah. That's true. Anyway, sad for his family. And I'm sure the company is reeling today too. So, Okay. The Supreme Court case, Julie. Okay, it's. The Supreme Court is weighing, it's this case comes out of Tennessee, but there's like, 26 states that have banned transgender surgeries on minors.

And, I think the the leftist crowd is probably not going to be happy with the ruling. I my hunch is they're going to say, yeah, you can't. These bans can be upheld. Yes. I Matt Walsh was on this morning. He's actually there today. Yeah. He's holding a rally out front. If you remember, he was the one who kind of exposed that was at Vanderbilt.

Was that the hospital in Tennessee? I think Sam was doing transgender surgeries, but denying it and saying they were. And he exposed that that was a couple of years ago that are Johns Hopkins, I don't know, maybe I don't remember which hospital, but Matt Walsh was the lead out on that expose. A where caught them lying and and proved that they were doing transgender surgery.

So that was kind of the the beginning of all of this and, and getting, state legislators to propose these laws and like you said, more than two dozen states have it now. Yeah. He said, via morning wire this morning that, the frustration he has and why he thinks this is going to fail is that they're arguing for the constitutional right of the doctor.

They're arguing for the constitutional right of the caregiver, which in most cases is going to be the parent. Yeah, that somehow their rights are more important than the rights of the child and that we should mutilate the child because the parent wants to or the doctor wants to. Yeah. So nobody's looking out. Yeah. Who's advocating for the child?

Okay. Can I can I throw in a little cognitive dissonance here because I want to press our audience on this. I'd love to hear what they have to say about this. Do you remember the the fight that we had over. It was a it was a medical care for kids issue in Idaho a few years back, where you had parents that refused to get their kids medical care, thinking, if I pray hard enough, their appendicitis will go away.

And I was actually surprised at the number of conservatives, largely, and even people in our audience that thought that was okay, that you could deny a kid a needed medical procedure, because that is parental rights. And if they want to try and heal the kid through prayer or priesthood blessings, even when medical care lifesaving medical care is available, that was okay.

Even if it meant the kid ended up dying, that that's how it sacrosanct parental rights are. Okay, I'm going to ask our audience, those of you, and there is a word for I can't remember what it was, but do you still hold to that in this case? Do you still believe that parental rights are so sacrosanct that if they want to take their two year old to a, surgeon and have the genitals removed because that two year old boy plays with dollies and wants to have ribbons in his hair, is that okay?

I, I just want to see what level of consistency there is among the people who are willing to let a kid die of starvation or an appendicitis because of parental rights. Do you hold that consistent through this issue as well? Yeah. That's the first time you've posed that question to me when we were talking about this before you started your monologue, I said, my issue is that the rights of the child are being superseded for something that's not emergent.

Yeah. If this was emergency care, yeah. We could have a conversation that is not emergency care to lop off the genitals of a child. Yeah. Or to give them hormone blockers. Yeah. And so that's the line for me. It's interesting to pose the question the way you just did, because I will always advocate for the child. So if the child has appendicitis I'm going to always advocate for the child.

Yeah. But that's interesting that you said a portion of the audience felt strongly that the parent always has the right. Yes. But in appendicitis there's emergency care there. Yes. That's right in if you choose not to give your child vaccines, that's not emergency care. Yeah. And I believe the parent has the right there where the for me were the, the parental rights terminate.

Yeah. And it becomes important that something happen above and beyond what the parents desire is when it's emergency care. Yes. And so the way that I would go through this is actually very similar to your argument. Every human being has some basic rights, regardless of parental attitudes. You can't kill a kid and say, it's my parental right.

You just murdered Rory. And Chad tried to. Well, they did, and what happened? And they were held to account as they should. So we actually unless unless you have somebody out there willing to argue otherwise and you might have some really whacked out libertarians out there that think that's okay. But for the most part, nearly everyone says, no, you can't kill a child in the name of parental rights unless it's before they're born.

But that's a separate issue. Then you you create you create the reality that parental rights are not absolute. So then you have to that begs other questions of what falls in that area outside the scope of parental rights. I believe that we absolutely need to protect the physical integrity of every child. And so that's the way I would probably answer the consistency issue about parental rights is that you're not protecting the physical integrity of a child by allowing them to have their genitals removed at a young age, when they're a minor, you're also clearly not protecting their physical integrity.

If you don't get them emergency help, if it's an appendicitis or whatever. And so, I again, I, I do think that there is, as you say, emergent care if a kid has an appendicitis. I don't if I were voting, if I were in the legislature and I were voting, I would say, you cannot allow that child to die.

And if that means the state coming, taking that child and getting the surgery that they need, and it has to be clear, it can't be. Well, they look a little peaked today. So we're going to take your child from you. It has to be imminent. And and, within hours or short number of days or that child dies that the state can do this.

It's very extreme. But but I do believe that every child deserves the protection of our Constitution and their right to life. Yes. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the difficulty here for a legislator is defining those boundaries, because if you if you cross over, like you said, if you cross over that a child has a right to to basic physical care him.

If every child has that right, which I believe they do. Now you've crossed over to how do we create the boundaries to protect that right. For that child? Yeah. That's where the difficulty enters in. Yeah, yeah. What are those. Fundamental. And I I'm not interested in limiting parental rights. I'm interested in protecting fundamental rights of the child.

Wasn't it nice when we didn't have to worry about people wanting to mutilate children, that that's the logical solution. But we have to create boundaries. What common sense kept us from ever going there. Yeah, yeah. So you sent me a clip, Julie. And this is an attorney by the name of Chase Strangio. And Chase Strangio is a woman, but she's a woman who identifies as a man, also an attorney who is arguing before the Supreme Court today.

Listen, the case comes at a time. Jake Tapper 26 states have passed laws restricting healthcare treatment for transgender youth. According to a CNN analysis of data from the nonprofit think tank Movement Advancement Project. So how do you plan to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could have wide ranging implications beyond the state of Tennessee?

Well, thank you for having me, Jake. And obviously, this is a critical inflection point for transgender people across the country. We're coming off of an election season where transgender people played an outsized role in people's consciousness in terms of the way in which we were situated as as a threat to others. And when we look at the map of states that ban this type of evidence based healthcare, we went from zero states that had these bans into 2020 to now more than more than half the country.

So before the court tomorrow that the question is really a simple one. As I see it, it's really this is a law that bans medical treatment only when it is prescribed, inconsistent with an individual's sex. Our argument is that that treats people differently because of their sex, and therefore the court has to treat it like all other forms of sex discrimination.

And that's why it's unconstitutional. So attorneys representing the state of Tennessee told the U.S. Supreme Court, quote, if the government's theory holds, men who identify as women could claim constitutionally based access to women's bathrooms, women's locker rooms and women's sports, accepting that theory would perversely erode women's rights and jeopardize landmark statutes protecting women's equal access to schools.

Winners, podiums and beyond. What's your response to that? Well, I obviously disagree with that premise that that that allowing transgender women into women's sports or women's bathroom is a is a threat to women. But it is also not the question before the court in this case. And in fact, it is a totally independent question about whether a law that bans medical care for transgender adolescents discriminates against people based on sex, versus the separate cases that preceded any of these, health care bans will continue to be litigated in the courts, regardless of the outcome here.

So that clearly is conflating a bunch of different questions. The question before the court, tomorrow is about whether banning medical care, overriding the consent of parents, that the recommendations of doctors is a violation of equal protection. What? Okay. Okay. So this man that's actually a woman, because if you're listening, you're like, no, that was a woman's voice.

That's exactly right. It is a woman's voice. But he looks like a man in the video. A very feminine man, but he looks like a man in the video. Yeah. Rachel. Yeah. So let's join your thoughts. But that's the reverse, right? That's true. He dismisses the question asked by Jake Tapper and says, you're conflating a bunch of issues.

Well, those issues matter because now if we don't address those issues, you're saying the the transgenders, right, will always be more important? Well, always supersede everyone else's rights if you refuse to look at the the question that Jake Tapper asked, that's your response? Well, it's conflating the issue. That's not what's in front of the court. No, that's what's important here.

Yeah. Because you as as taking something such a drastic step like that, you are you are over stepping the boundaries that should be placed on individuals. Well in these issues, in many cases, it's a zero sum game in that if you allow, for instance, in athletics, you allow a man to play against women, which we just saw with Brooke Fleming.

We saw it with Leah Thomas a few years ago. You are depriving a woman from being able to win a title or a medal or stand on the tallest podium, whatever the case may be. So they're not being conflated. These are actually conflicts in rights that are happening. And that's what the Supreme Court has to decide. So basically what they're deciding is they're determining who's constitutional rights have the most value here.

Yeah, that's really what it's boiling down to. Which is unfortunate because we're doing it so that we can mutilate children. Yeah. You're you're stirring this whole pot so that you can mutilate children. Yeah, yeah. And I'm I'm hoping sanity prevails. All right. It's 844 Newstalk 1079. Quick break. Time for the news. There at 850 on Newstalk 179, it's Nielson, Julie Mason and you (208) 542-1079 that's the fall River propane call and text line.

Julie, we've got, a lot of interesting texts coming in. Oh. Go ahead, I don't know. Okay. I didn't know which one you were going to, so someone said, pro abortionists would take issue with this area. Parental rights, especially those who believe in abortion up to the time of and even after birth. With those individuals, there can simply be no reasoning on the subject.

And the line in the Declaration of Independence about throwing off such government takes effect. Those who have the ability to protect the weak must do it. Period. Children and the unborn clearly fall under the category of the weak, and those unable to defend themselves. Therefore, their rights will always need to be defended before the rights of the parents or any other person.

I, I believe 100% in what this person is writing. I think the child always deserves to have an advocate of some sort, and that starts in the womb for me. So that doesn't change at all. For me, it's it's interesting that the argument that people will be putting forward with this court cases, these children need it. We need to protect them.

They're having mental issues. We don't want them to commit suicide. Like there's a lot of that brought up, even though there's data that just proves that. But they don't care about the child when the child's in the womb. Yeah, but all of a sudden when the child comes out, it becomes ultra important for you to mutilate them. Yeah.

And put it under the banner of protecting the child. Yes. Yeah. That's true. There's a lot of a lot of hypocrisy. There. So. Okay, let's break, and, watching the clock here, but we'll come back. Someone asked if we've had a follow up to the lights that somebody saw at 830 last night. No, their their file is too big.

They're having trouble getting it to us, so. But we do want to see it. And I also want to know if anybody else some weird lights today. Yeah. Could it have been Starlink going over. There's been a lot of a lot of people. If it's in a line, it's probably Starlink. Yeah. Okay. We'll be back after this. On Newstalk 179.

They're right. 857 on Newstalk 179, Neal Larson and Julie Mason on this Wednesday morning. And can I just say, Julie, would it be a good idea? Do you think this would be a good Christmas gift? A big box filled with delicious steak and ribs and roasts and hot like crock pot sous vide meals for Christmas? Like, is that a good idea?

Were. I think that's an awesome idea. Yeah. Every every reason that I don't have to go to the grocery store is a good idea. Yes. Well that's true. Yeah. Give it up for somebody. Load up their freezer so that they can enjoy their warm, cozy inside of their house on in January and February. Your your favorite children will love it.

Your parents would love it. You're pain in the rear end. Children won't love it. Your favorite radio co-hosts would love it.

Yeah. No, but if you go to Grand Peaks Primates, it's GX primates.com. You can see all of their packages and specials and just pick what, what fits. If it's a gift, find out what they like and get that for me. There you go. Super easy to. They're very friendly. GG primates.com is a super friendly website so yeah, don't hesitate.

Go on there if you don't see something that you specifically looking for it, give them a call because they're very nice on the phone. Yes they are. All right. So Julie quick follow up on the lights. We're pretty sure it was Starlink. Someone said that Starlink went over about 830 last night, and, I'm a little surprised people still think they're seeing UFOs with this, because never has an unidentified flying object been more identified than Starlink.

Yeah, Starlink is very identifiable. It is a row of lights. They're not evenly spaced, so there's going to be a break in there and then tighter a few lights and then another break. So if you see that it's probably Starlink. All right. That's our one hour or two coming up at 859. Yeah. All right 907 Newstalk 179. Welcome back.

It's our two. (208) 542-1079 alien mystery solved. Pretty sure it was Starlink. So although isn't that weird? Like, we have this exciting thing called Starlink that Elon Musk has and we're like, yeah, that was Starlink. We're bored by it because it's not an alien invasion. Yeah, I don't know why is that? Not just everything that we are now? We don't even get excited about Christmas anymore.

I know it it because I think it's social media's fault. And our level of stimulation, like our thermostat is set so high that nothing really, peaks it anymore. I blame the fact that I can order anything online and have it show up at my house, usually within just a couple of days. Yeah. So nothing. There's nothing to buy that I haven't been able to get any other time of the year.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. We it's funny how quickly we acclimate to things. Yeah. Like, you know that I look at our, like our streaming numbers. They are through the roof. Yeah. We're bigger than MSNBC, but everything's bigger than MSNBC. But that's not much of a claim to fame anymore. That's true, that's that's true. That's not that big a deal.

However, I'll reach a threshold, and I am excited for about five minutes. And then if I don't reach that threshold the next day or the next week, whatever, I'm like, oh, so disappointing. Yeah. When the numbers are still very, very robust. But okay. Welcome back. We're kind of watching this crazy New York situation. The CEO of United Health Care was shot in, he was walking toward the New York Hilton Hotel.

He was in Manhattan. Gunmen opened fire and shot him right there. That's just wild. Yeah. So he's in Manhattan. It's not his home area. He's from Minnesota. So he's visiting Manhattan because there are business meetings that he was supposed to be attending at this hotel. Which makes you think somebody knew his schedule in order for this to happen.

And, sources are confirming all over the place. This was not a random act of violence. So he was targeted, obviously tracked there and then shot and killed. Shot in the chest and the leg. Okay. They did try to rush him to a hospital, but he died almost immediately when he got there, like it was an okay. All right.

We also have another story. There's a decent sized crowd outside the Supreme Court this morning, and it looks like a beautiful day in D.C.. By the way, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments out of Tennessee defending their law that bans gender mutilation, genital mutilation on UN kids. Some people call it gender. What do they call reaffirming care?

Yeah, gender reassignment or gender reaffirming. And, and so I, I'm, I don't know, you never want to predict how the Supreme Court's going to rule. No. And we won't know today. Yeah. It's going to be June. Yes. It's going to be a long time. They're just holding arguments today on it. Yeah. So we we have that. We also have the ongoing dumpster fire, of the Hunter Biden.

Pardon. Have you enjoyed watching this dumpster fire? That's been great. I've been roasting marshmallows on this, but the thing that I enjoy the most about it is the fact that Democrats I mean, I had a full on conversation with the Democrat about three weeks before the election that told me if Trump wins the Supreme Court will destroy our country because it's too conservative.

And they just take this, this moral superiority all the time, and they have to forfeit that now. Yeah. With with this, I pardon of, of Hunter Biden. You've got to just give that up because first off the pardon is too wide sweeping you didn't actually pardon him for the specific crime that he has been, found guilty of.

Yeah. And so you got to let that go. I and you'll see them try to cover by just talking about that. Well, this was an overreach by the government, and they shouldn't have done it. No no no no no. The pardon spanned 11 years and covered all of his crimes with Ukraine. That you say didn't happen but really did happen.

Yeah. So they've got to just forfeit it. They just look like they have egg all over their face as they try to cover. Now for it. Meanwhile, the old codger flew off to Africa, gave a speech and said, I'm going to give you $1 billion in foreign aid. Here's part of that. No, that's the right thing for the wealthiest nation in the world to do.

And today I'm announcing over $1 billion in New Year mandatory support for Africans displaced from homes by historic droughts and food insecurity. We know African leaders and citizens are seeking more than just aid. You seek investment. So the United States is expanding our relationship all across Africa from assistance to aid, investment to trade, moving from patriots to partners to help bridge the infrastructure gap.

I was told, by the way, when I got elected, I could never get an infrastructure bill passed, but it I would add it up. Yeah, yeah. Know if get off my lawn grenade to load. Okay. Can can will mom let cynical Neal come out and play for a minute? You can have the whole hour. You got 45 minutes left.

Take the okay hour. Is anybody else wondering what deal Joe has cut with the Africans so that his family is going to get a piece of that pie? It's a very first thing I thought. I know the Ukraine spigot is about to be turned off. Let's turn on an African spigot. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Say okay. Well like this is about to run dry.

So what board is Hunter going to sit on in Africa. Hunter is 54 I know he didn't pay his rent in LA okay wait a minute. Hold on I got to ask you a gross question. Did he really create artwork with his own feces? That's, the man who is putting that out there and said that artwork was offered to him.

Is the land owner or the the property owner? Yeah. Where he did not pay his rent. I look, he's gross. All you gotta do is look at a little bit of what's on the laptop, and it's disgusting. The man is. Oh, yeah, gross. Parmesan cheese off the floor. I mean, come on, you're disgusting. I forgot about that. Yeah.

You're disgusting. The thing that bothered me the most about the property. Yeah. In California, he has Secret Service protection. He wasn't paying his rent. The property owner started to cause a problem. Secret service changed the locks to protect Hunter Biden. The property owner didn't even have control of the property anymore. Really? Really okayed that. And I'm sure they can justify it.

I'm sure it's justifiable, but under what they what they say they do to protect somebody, I'm sure it's justifiable that it's wrong. Does it matter that it's justifiable? It's wrong. That's crazy. Hey, you're paying rent, bill. No. How far behind? 300,000? Yep. First of all, the rent is too damn high. But that's Venice Beach. That's true. Okay, I got you.

I understand, I get it. Yeah. But wow. And who would want artwork that you need a hazmat suit to handle? Does the smell stay with it? Is it, like, you know, those scratch and sniff stickers that we had when we were kids?

Should we take a break? I think I'm going to take a break. I think I just threw up a little. Yeah. All right. It is 916 on Newstalk 1079285421079. If you'd like to join us. All right. Making dad jokes about Hunter Biden's artwork is hey, yeah. Couldn't quite even say it on Facebook life. But I can tell Julie.

Oh, heavens. Yeah. Okay, you know what? Court case? I do not have a good feeling. About what? Danielle Penney in New York. They're going to find him guilty. That's terrible. It's terrible. Yeah, that is terrible. Also, I just want to reiterate what I said yesterday about Hunter Biden. Can we all please act? Stop acting like he's a teenager that's lost his way.

Yeah, it's we're way overdue. We're way overdue on that. And the media has got to stop. Yeah. He's 54. Yeah I know, I know I agree I agree. Big question Covid accountability coming I hope so I mean I sent you that report which was lengthy and hard to dive through. Yeah. But it's not looking good for them. No we don't do a very good job of holding people to accountability though.

Is their defense going to be. Well, I was operating in the capacity of my job. The best interest of America? Yes, probably. And even though I got some things wrong or everything wrong, well, everything. But I'm. Someone sent a picture. A picture of their Starlink. Have you ever seen it? I have never seen it. I've seen it once.

I it's pretty cool. I'm not a out in the dark girl, though. I need to think about my life. I know I don't, I don't I don't like to go shopping in the dark. Yeah. Hey, it doesn't mean I never go out in the dark, but it's just not my thing. Yeah, someone said Julie crossed the line. The scratch and sniff stickers.

Are they really mad? No, no, no, I'm sure they're teasing. Oh, yeah.

Oh, I've had the kind of schedule that I haven't made dinner the last two nights, and I don't know if I'm going to be able to make dinner tonight. What do you eat? Chicken strips. Okay. Air fried? No. From the deli. Oh, gotcha. Okay. That works. I oh, this is a week. Yeah, for both of us.

Yeah. Really is. Here we go. All the.

All right. It's 921 on new stock. 1079208542127I we're gonna jump right to the phones. Caller good morning. How are you today? I'm doing well. How are you guys doing. Yeah, we're hanging in there. What's on your mind? I have two points I just want to bring to your attention and that I haven't heard discussed. And, one thing is, you know, they talk about 100 Biden being clean for five and a half years, and if he's clean and the cocaine in their white House belongs to him, he's not clean.

And the second thing I want to bring to your attention is if, wouldn't surprise you, but if Joe Biden really, once was, give me something, he will pardon himself because, that would eliminate everything that would be against him. Yeah. So. And he would probably do it for 25 years, not 11 going anyway. Yeah, yeah.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Yeah. Well, thank you, for that, I appreciate it. I know there's kind of a constitutional question about whether or not a a president can pardon himself. And, I mean, I can argue it either way. There's clearly a conflict of interest. But at the same time, he's the only one that has that power in the country, too.

So why should he? Any one of us is entitled to a presidential pardon or could have that that blessing. I don't need the blessing. You don't either. But you know what I'm saying? Like that they could trump up some charges on us. Yeah. It's true. So I, I don't know how you, would would, would handle that, but I can see him trying.

Yeah. I, I keep thinking it's going to be over now. Like he got what he wanted and the Democrats tank can't take any more hits. They can't take any more punches, so they're not going to push. They're not going to push Joe to do anything else. Yeah. And then I look at myself and I go, how how long do you have to be abused before you realize they'll do whatever they want to do?

Yeah. Stop thinking it's over. There could be another thing around the corner. Yeah, yeah. No, that's that's absolutely true. So, Julie, during the monologue, I played this. This is James Comer. He was on Fox, I believe two other Biden family members definitely and knowingly committed crimes in addition to Hunter Biden. You have Jim Biden and Joe Biden, Joe Biden obstructed, mine.

Chairman Jordan's investigation. Okay, so whatever my thought was and and I'm going to be honest with you, Comber gets on my nerves a little. Why would he ever say this? Well, while Joe Biden still has the pen that can sign a pardon? Yeah, just zip it. James. You don't need to go on and encourage this man to do more things.

Don't up the temperature on this because Joe Biden still has that power to issue his brother a pardon. Yes, maybe himself, I don't know, but certainly his brother. And he's clearly willing to issue pardons for family. So why would you signal at all that you believe that Joe Biden's brother committed a crime? Even if it's true, now is a really stupid time to put that out there.

Well, we kind of touched on this earlier in the day that these people become so camera hungry and power hungry and want to be in front of everybody that they don't think before they do things. Yeah, I, I have thought that about senators over the last couple of weeks as Trump has made his picks for his cabinet. And of course, these senators are going to be asked about maybe some questionable, choices.

I don't think they're questionable, but maybe, you know, the mainstream media is believing that some of these these picks are questionable. Just say no comment. Walk away. Yeah. Why do you even have to say anything? Lindsey Graham got himself in hot water yesterday because he he. I can't even remember how he worded it, but said something about, there's concerning matters that we need to look into or something like that.

Shush it. Lindsey Graham. Yeah. Just don't talk. Yeah. Just because they stick a camera and a microphone in front of you doesn't mean you have to say anything, right? Be a little more discerning about what you, reveal. All right, let's go back to the phones. Hey, caller, you're on the program. Hi. I think there might be a method to the madness on, James Comber.

It's listening to Fox this morning, and they stated that once a person has been given immunity, the, that they're still they basically lose their Fifth Amendment, right? Yeah. They can be subpoenaed, and they can also have to declare information, under that without the fear of being prosecuted. So they may bring these people in anyway.

Yeah. Under that guys, just to get the information and all that, you know, the dirt out in the open, that's a you know what? That is an interesting take. And I, I, I'm not convinced that's what's at play, but it might be I think that it is a possibility that if you put the pressure on Biden, he pardons his brother, and then you can subpoena his brother.

He cannot claim a Fifth Amendment privilege in that, in that instance. So, yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. I'm hoping, you know, that maybe they can get into their, bank accounts, because I'm betting a lot of the Ukraine money is being siphoned off to the side and some other things, because I heard your guy call on yesterday talking, you know, how they come with on bended knee.

And so, yeah, if that's the case, how come when Zelensky's wife comes to the United States are hitting Rodeo Drive and all these rich places to him to buy things, and so, maybe there's a method to their madness, but. Yeah. Yeah. No. We'll see. Great point. Great call. Appreciate it. (208) 542-1079. So I can understand his point that maybe James Comer is trying to bait him in to pardoning him.

So then we can find out more information. That's possible. Somebody else texted in and said more political gain for the Republicans. If more Biden family members are pardoned. That that's an option too. Like, I don't think you're going to get near as much political gain as you got with the Hunter. Be the hunter. Pardon? Because you had so many Democrats and Joe Biden himself, claiming it would never happen.

You they haven't really asked him a lot about his brother. Yeah. And I would say that I get that like, this is absolutely been a boon to Trump and the Democrats, but I feel like it's a temporary windfall. But you fractured something permanently when you when you use the system like this, especially with house sweeps, this this pardon last year, if they had just pardoned him for his gun charges and tonight, like if it had been very identifiable, I don't think we would have talked about it at all.

Yeah. Yeah, I don't either. I, I would agree with that. All right. Let's go to the next, Carl, welcome to the show caller. How are you? Good. How are you guys this morning? They were doing all right. So, yeah, you guys sure make me think a lot while I'm out here listening. The first thing is, number one, all of them are going to catch our media, even if they have to decide the simplest answers, I don't recall.

Yeah. So that's I mean, that's irrelevant. To your point on the child mutilation, and I know I, as a conservative, feel that was a very good point. Well, I appreciate that mental track meet that you just made me run through because it is it's true. We have we want Paris to have the rights, but at the same time, I think the child is far more important their physical well-being than the parents, desire.

And that may even bleed over into that spiritual realm. And maybe that's why the spiritual, stipulations, lessons in the law. You know, if it's a if it's a religious thing and you want to stay there, then and that's okay. Yeah. I'm running that marathon. And then I got I but I was, I was bothered about something you said earlier and I wanted to present it to you and have you explain it to me a little better.

So, we got talking about you were talking about the money that was going to the people from the flood, or the hurricane. Yeah. And why can't our our Congress pull their heads out and get that taken care of? And it it just it made me think, as a conservative, why are any of my dollars that I donate voluntarily to the government taken out of my pocket and given to whomever they want to give it to?

We've we've had this argument for years as conservatives, fiscal conservatives. I would much rather donate all of my income to my church and let my church be the helper. Yeah, versus having a man with a gun take my money and give it to somebody that I don't think. Yeah, there's better ways that it could be, distributed. And when you said that you were both, both you and Julie agreed that, hey, maybe our Congress should do that.

And and I think back, I think that first came into play during some, droughts in Texas or something of that nature when our Congress first stepped in and said, no, we we need to be able to support the the suffering farmers. And they started taking money out of one man's pocket and putting it into another's. And so I just need a clarification.

I, I too am very conservative. I am very fiscally conservative. And so that principle has bothered me for, some time since you said it. And and I would like to have your. I'm just going to hang up and listen to your explanation. You and Julie can explain that through for me. Okay. Go ahead. Julie. Oh, well, I mean, here's the deal.

Is that that we could compare the writing of these boundaries, just like we were talking about the transgender issue. If I believe that children have the right to be protected, then I have to write boundaries, right? We don't want CPS going in there and taking kids for no apparent reason, but we do want CPS to go and get kids who are in abusive situations.

Yeah, man, is that a gray area? Yeah, right. And do we want do I feel comfortable having my tax dollars go to help people? Absolutely. Do I love the boundaries that they've created on this? With the $750? Heck no. Yeah. Especially when they robbed FEMA to pay the, illegal immigrant Paul. Yeah. And and that happened. They testified to it.

So the money that I felt comfortable that my government had set aside to aid people in natural disaster was actually taken by the government and put somewhere else. Yeah, because they call that a natural disaster that they created themselves. So this is just so sticky. I don't have an answer. Yeah. Because when it comes to writing those boundaries, when it comes to defining that, we have a bunch of wicked politicians who get opinions and that, yeah, I would agree.

With with that. And I don't know how instructive this is going to be, but I when you look at the food stamp program, did you know that that I believe it's still the case. That program is actually in the, the ag realm. And it is because there's a lot of food consumption. Obviously they're food stamps, and that is a subsidy to farmers.

When you have when you have food stamps. Also. Yeah. Anyway, my point here is we have a lot of grumbling about food stamps, and I, I too think it needs massive reform. And is it constitutional? Probably not. Probably not. I I'm I'm going to be honest with you. It's probably not. We should find more charitable, true charity, not confiscating one person's money and giving it to another.

That's not charity. We were told that that was charity. In the Medicaid expansion argument, we're told that it's charity in the in the food stamp discussion. It's not charity and nothing is coerced in charity. So we should find charitable ways to to feed the hungry. But because we haven't, we don't have as robust a charitable way to feed the hungry because the federal government has stepped in and said, get out of the way, we're going to feed the hungry.

They also take a piece of the pie. So if you if, if, if the charity for the hungry is a complete pie. Yes. And I as an individual give that my portion, my pie to a charitable. I just go and help somebody. Yeah, it's still a complete pie. Yes. When the government gives the pie with my money, they take my tax money, they make a pie, and then they give it to somebody.

Yeah, they take a portion of it back for themselves. Yeah. Because they have to pay for the regulations and they have to pay for the department that runs it. And they have them. It's never a true charitable. It's never a true charitable gift anyways. But it's not a complete gift either. Yeah. Yes. And that's true. And what happens is you end up, with a program where you're not actually feeding the hungry, you're feeding kids wearing Tommy Hilfiger pants.

I know that's not a thing anymore. What's the new one? What can I say? I well, let's just pick a trendy store. Store. Okay. Expensive jeans from Nordstrom saying Nordstrom. Okay. Kids wearing expensive clothing from North Nordstrom. Jeans jumping out of their Escalade and running over to a table in the city park so they can eat. That's what the taxes are going for.

And everybody would look at that and go, that's ridiculous. That should not happen. But that's what the federal government ends up doing. That's how their programs end up becoming so ineffective. Right. So yes, however, the and this is the point that is taking me a long time to get to at least you do have hungry and less fortunate people that are helped by it.

So if we look at all of the problems in the federal government, food stamps are a very low priority for me because there is there is a measurable benefit. There. Okay. Kids are eating because of it. So that's like I care about kids. Yeah, there are better ways to do it. But it it there is some benefit from it.

So this last caller when he talks about aid to farmers, I look at it and I think, okay, why are we giving to farmers if we're giving aid to farmers as a national security purpose to stabilize our food supply? That's a legitimate use if you're doing it. Because some food industry lobbyist visited 25 key senators on Capitol Hill and gave them a campaign donation, and it artificially props up a certain industry, not constitutional.

And I wouldn't be for that. So you kind of have to parse out what kind of aid is going to which farmers, and does the entire nation benefit in some way because of the aid to these specific farmers. And I think that, for me, would be my measuring stick on the legitimacy of sending aid to to farmers and, and I don't, again, it's expanded so far beyond that that, that that's not even part of the discussion anymore.

But if I'm going to take a moment and go, what would be my guiding principle here in giving aid to a group of people that everybody loves and is favorable, what what would be the legitimate constitutional reason why we would do it? National security would be one and maybe, possibly for the overall economic benefit of the country, possibly, possibly eaten.

But here we are. It's it's the creation of these boundaries are very difficult. Yeah. Because you can justify just about anything. And that's what they do and that's why they take so much money. Yeah, I'm sure there's somebody who can justify that money that went after Africa. Yeah I'm sure they've been on the morning programs this morning saying, oh, this is a great thing that Biden has done, blah, blah, blah.

When we're all sitting here going, that's money that should have gone to rebuild these townships in North Carolina. Yeah. Yes. Or even if you wanted to, a small business loan so they could, rebuild their lives or something. Right. When, when I can I go back to the farming thing for one moment. Here. I think if you're a farmer and you're listening to Neal and Julie talk today, your perspective might be, well, yes, I'm going to take the aid from the federal government because they throw so much at me in regulation.

They make it hard for me to farm. This last year we had our own bureaucrats trying to shut off our pumps so we couldn't even irrigate. That's what the government does to me. So if I can take, an economic benefit from the government to stay alive, I'm going to I totally get that. But I would say if if we just got back to basics, let farmers farm, let markets wax and wane, and let's stop trying to keep everything artificially stable.

Unless there is a national security reason not to. Right, right. Man, this could go so far because I bet there's people listening right now staying in the farming realm. I bet there's people listening right now that are like, well, they're forcing a national security risk. Look at all the the like the chicken lots that have burned and the yeah, they're forcing a problem so that they can get a benefit out of it.

Yes. Yeah I agree I agree with you. Probably the bottom line maybe this is the answer to the caller. Yeah. We don't have very many honest people left. That's a sad answer. But it might be the answer. All right. 940 we'll be back after this. All right.

I'm out of gas. Facebook. Oh, wow. Yeah, well, somebody texted in and said price gouging. Close to home. I purchased tickets to the BSU game this weekend for $62 a seat. BSU canceled that purchase of the tickets, claiming there was a mix up, and they refunded the money to me in full, then said, hey, there's some seats available, but they are 120 seat.

What? They put the BSW in BSU?

I believe you were correct. About the, the, the the farming industry. What am I, the ag industry. Running the especially the money that goes to schools for food. Yeah. Yeah. That they're the ones that babysit that. Yeah. Because remember I told you I had a long conversation in Costco with the woman who runs run a, the school lunch program.

It's the school lunch program. Yeah. And she had to go out to meetings for that. And she was like, we were so, so, like, overwhelmed. There were all these lobbyists going for things. School lunch was just an afterthought. It because of the situation we're in. Yeah. But that's where it's that's the group that takes care of it. Who monitors it.

Interesting. Okay. So let's walk through this okay. If they could cut IRS jobs by half would you be comfortable just solving this whole problem. And every kid who goes to public school gets free breakfast and free lunch. No. In fact I would oppose that idea. Okay. And do you know why? No I don't. I think this is a worthwhile conversation because there's a lot of people who would say yes to that.

Well, that might benefit my pocketbook. I don't want to. I don't want to condition children thinking the government is who feeds you. That's not that's the last thing I want to do. Yeah. So I don't even care about the dollars and cents of that. I care about the message that we, that we're ingraining into kids, we're indoctrinating into kids, which I mean that that kind of came up, where it's one of the few things that Wendy Harman and I probably were on opposite sides of that they were looking at giving kids a little debit card.

Debit card? Yeah. And I'm like, no, don't do that. That, that trains them and gets gets a concept in their mind that pulls them further away from being self-sufficient and it makes them more dependent. And it might solve some convenience and logistical problems. But you're you're kind of harming those kids by by doing that. Yeah. So I yeah.

How about you? No, I don't think it solves the problem. I'm just telling you, I know a lot of mothers who would so be on board for that. Let let the school. Yeah. Now I have some just own personal reasons why I wouldn't want it. I wouldn't want to teach my kids that as one thing.

My kids, I would have felt like it was a waste of money. Yeah. My kids first of all, my girls never eat breakfast. They don't like breakfast. Yeah. So that would have been a waste of money. The government would have set aside money for these two children who don't eat breakfast. And there's going to be a whole bunch of kids who fall in that category.

Then secondly, I packed school lunch for my kids for a couple of reasons. It's a little bit healthier. I knew what they were eating and they didn't always like the school lunch. Yeah. So now we're, we're doubling up. We're doing it for breakfast. Lunch half the time. Yeah. I feel like it's a lot of waste. Yeah.

How much was school lunch when you were in school. Oh back then. Jeez, I don't know. I think my mom used to send me $5. Yeah, and that got me a punch card, maybe $0.50 a lunch with ten lunches on it or something like that. Like I, I don't know if there even any records left, but for some reason I remember lunch being like $0.65 or something she used to send me.

And then they would in exchange, I would give the check to the school and the school would give me a, card. And then we would, I would take it to the lunch. How did we not lose those? You know, I don't know. Good question though.

946 On Newstalk 179, Neal Larson, Julie Mason and you, if you'd like to join us. (208)542-1079. Julie and I were just trying to remember how much school lunch cost when we were when we were kids. And for some reason, in grade school, my mom sent me with a check already filled out for lunch. I, I think lunch was like $0.65.

Would you were elementary age. Yeah. In elementary school and might maybe closer to a buck in in high high school. Yeah. But I don't I don't really remember like I just remember going here's my check. And then I got tickets every day. So was Aberdeen a closed campus or an open campus? Could you leave for lunch? Yeah, you could leave.

Okay. Yeah, yeah, I left every day for. There are a lot of days I didn't eat. I shouldn't say every day. There are a lot of days I didn't eat at the school. Yeah, yeah. Anyway, Julie asked a great question, though. Go ahead. Okay, so I'm asking this question. Just posing it for you guys to think much like your thought experiment before.

Yeah, let's say dodged comes in. Can I pause you? Yeah, yeah. The cops are talking about that murder. Let's. Should we listen in for just a moment? All right. Hold on. Are Thompson, a 50 year old male on the sidewalk in front of the Hilton with gunshot wounds to his back and leg. Mr. Thompson was removed by EMS to Roosevelt Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 7:12 a.m..

Mr. Thompson is the CEO of United Health Care and resides in Minnesota. Detectives from Nightwatch, Midtown North Detective Squad and Manhattan South Homicide responded to the scene and began their investigation. What we know is that the shooter arrived at the location on foot about five minutes prior to the victim's arrival. He stands alongside the building line as numerous other people and pedestrians passing by.

From video we see at 6:44 a.m., the victim is walking alone towards the Hilton at the exiting his hotel across the street. We believe the victim was headed to the Hilton Hotel to attend the UnitedHealth Group Investors Conference that was scheduled to start at 8 a.m.. The shooter appears to be a light skinned male. He's wearing a light brown wool cream colored jacket, a black face mask, black and white sneakers, and a very distinctive gray backpack.

The shooter steps onto the sidewalk from behind the car. He ignores numerous other pedestrians, approaches the victim from behind and shoots him in the back, while the shooter then walks toward the victim and continues to shoot. It appears that the gun malfunctions as he clears the jam and begins to fire again. The shooter then flees on foot northbound into an alleyway between 54th Street and 55th Street.

Once at West 55th Street, the shooter continues to walk westbound on Avenue de Americas, where he gets onto an electric city bike and rides northbound on the Avenue America's towards Central Park, where at 6:48 a.m., we have the shooter riding this bike into Central Park at sent the drive at the scene, we recover three live nine millimeter rounds and three discharged nine millimeter shell casings.

The motive for this murder currently is unknown, but based on the evidence we have so far, it does appear that the victim was specifically targeted. But at this point, we do not know why. This does not appear to be a random act of violence. We are seeking information from the public to help identify the shooter that the commission has said.

We have offered a reward of up to $10,000. For information. You're urged to contact Crime Stoppers at one 805 seven seven Tips. All information will be kept anonymous. Thank you very much. Wow. Okay. So right you can't do an e-bike without a credit card. Now I'm sure you can use, a visa. Yeah. Or whatever that not linked to anything.

So maybe that's what he did, but he had to have had something to get that e-bike. Yeah, yeah. Wow. So. Well, yeah. Well, it's interesting though. I wonder what evidence they have that it was. It was targeted even though they don't know anything about the guy at this point, I don't know. Did he yell something when he when it happened?

Or maybe I wonder which when you start thinking about it, I mean, my theory is out the door. He's not a disgruntled employee. He does look young, though, right? Was he? Don't those clothes look young? Kind of. Yeah. It looks like he's got a hoodie and a backpack. Hoodie and a backpack. White sneakers? Yeah, it's a very young looking outfit.

Well. All right, well, that's a story. Obviously, a lot of people are going to be paying attention to. Back to your question. Okay. So the question that I was posing to Neal in the break was just a thought experiment, because I know women who have who have posed this and wish that this would happen. So let's say dosh comes in and revamps the IRS and we get rid of half of those employees.

That's going to free up money. Yeah. Hey what if we just transferred some of that money to the school lunch program. And we just got rid of all of the red tape. And every child who attends public school gets free breakfast and free lunch at school. And this also helps with the no. You know, having no hungry children, especially under 12.

Like that thing. Yeah. So I asked you, would you be in favor of that? And you gave me a definitive heck no, no. And I'm not so much concerned about. I don't want my tax dollars going to that. For me, it's you are conditioning kids to get used to being fed by their government. And that that is the direction we do not want to go.

That that would be a massively big step with, you know, the dividends for the left coming in a in a generation of people going, I, I'm dependent on the government and I want them to feed me and I expect them to feed me. And it would just become part of more of a collectivist society. So I'd worry more about the impact on our kids and on the culture than I would the actual, you know, money expenditure.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think the program would be wasteful. So I've got an issue with that. I'm tired of government waste, so I wouldn't want to do that. Yeah. I would say though, and I say this with kindness, but all of the bleeding hearts that were in favor of Medicaid expansion, they're absolutely going to be in favor of something like that.

That's that's the their solution. That's their fix. Yes. That they, they think exists. No, no doubt about it. All right. It's 953. We'll have time for one call when we return after this on Newstalk 179. I think we'll have time. Okay. We're going to have four minutes. Yes, we will come back with about a minute. Let me.

I'm going to screen this call really quick. Okay? Okay, Jim, we'll have about one minute. Somebody texted and they should transfer the IRS agents to work on the border or help with the immigration. There's already been talk of this. This has been something that was floated amongst DOJ's and and everything. Because those IRS agents are actually trained to carry a gun.

It's crazy. But they are. Yeah. And so you you wouldn't here's the good part of this. You wouldn't be paying, severance pay. Yeah. Instead you develop a program that says will transfer you to this. You can train in to the to Border Patrol, and you can have that job if you want. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Yeah.

Other jobs go away. Yeah, I and I'm saying I, I'm telling you, I've kind of had some heartburn about this, about the amount of people who will be out of work if those does everything they want to do. Yeah. And I've had to I've had to put the emotion aside and go, guess what. This is reality. It happens.

Technology makes jobs go away. Like when a regular company, a privately owned company, realizes they can slim down a department and and move this into this and, and, you know, consolidate and still make as much money jobs go away. But. Well, they do. And also let's look at it from an economic perspective. And I think people might have pushback on this because it feels wrong.

But let's say you have a federal employee who's 45 years old. They've got 20 years left to work, but their job isn't really that needed. Let's say they make 100 grand a year. Who knows? So you're talking about 20 years, 100 grand a year now they'll get raises and stuff. But let's just say $2 million. What if you just gave him an annual salary to walk away and just said your job is being eliminated?

If you don't sue, you're not going to win anyway. But if you don't sue will give you a nice severance so you can live for a while while you're trying to find other work. Yeah. You're spending a hundred grand on that employee that you're not getting any work for. But that's going to be a far better expenditure than paying them for the next 20 years for a job that isn't necessary.

Yeah. And the severance pays that will be provided. If they like, let's say they do get rid of the department of Education or cut it by two thirds. Yeah. The severance pay that will be provided to these people. You I'm just going to say in reality, you almost have to do it. Yeah, you have to do it.

You run into legal issues if you don't. Yes. And so. Well, you run into political issues if you don't. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. That's what I mean. It doesn't matter if you're required. Yeah. You just need to. Yeah. Right. So I, I, I've really been thinking through Dodge and I wanted to wait to see what they do till we dive into this.

But I kind of also want to prep people to not get their panties in a bundle over it. There's gonna have to be severance pay for these people. Yeah, yeah. Which, you know what? I'll take it. I mean, it gets us out of the. Yeah. Gets us out of the timeshare. Yeah, we. The severance pay is good. Dang presentation we had to sit through.

Yeah, right. Right. So. All right, hold it. All right. And, we're back. Jim, you've got about a minute. Go ahead. What's on your mind today? Hi. A lot of people here that CEOs of insurance companies make $10 million and they get, outraged, thinking that. Well, no wonder we pay so much for our health insurance. Actually, we did the math for the revenue that UnitedHealth made in 2023.

If he works for free and you just spread the 10 million around to all the subscribers, they get a 27 cent per year reduction in premiums. Wow. The health insurance industry only makes 2.3% profit on average per year across the industry as a whole. It's because the health care is so expensive. Their expenses are so expensive, the premiums are so high.

Okay, so they operate on pretty slim margins that they actually do. Yeah. Okay. Good point. Well thank you. Thank you for letting us know. All right. 958 Newstalk 1079 and, Julie, I think that's going to do it for the, show today. Senator Risch, tomorrow we will be having him at 805. Okay. And, we'll ask him about all the coming changes in Washington.

The majority, the new president, the new sheriff in town. And, just ahead, Mark Lee, VanCamp and Robbins will see all of you tomorrow.