3.13.2025 – NLS – Neal & Julie Debate the Convention of States

 On this episode with Neal and Julie, they dive into the heated debate over an Article V Convention of States. They break down the arguments for and against the idea, discussing whether it could be a path to restoring constitutional principles or a dangerous gamble that could lead to unintended consequences. They examine the motivations behind those pushing for a convention—ranging from a deep love of the Constitution to a desire to overhaul it entirely. Neal and Julie also take listener calls, weighing in on concerns about power struggles, political motivations, and the unpredictable nature of such a convention. Is this the reset button America needs, or is it a recipe for chaos? Tune in for a fast-moving discussion filled with insight, humor, and a little friendly sparring. 

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.

Sandhill Media Group
The Sandhill Media Group LLC consists of 7 radio stations in East Idaho

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

And we're back at zero seven on Newstalk 1079. Welcome to the Neil Larson Show. And without delay, we're going to bring us Senator Jim Rush on to the program. Senator, joining us from the Capitol this morning. I trust things are well, how are you? I know things aren't well. I am good. Oh, man. You know what? We had a great run there for a few weeks.

The middle of a budget fight. Things are not well. Now. We're back to the Democrats being scoundrels. So, Yeah, let's start with the CR, Senator. Chuck Schumer on the floor, basically saying they are not going to negotiate a deal with Republicans on this. Well, then they're shutting down the government. There's nothing we can do about it.

I mean, they they, have the ability to do that because it takes 60 votes to do anything. And, if they won't negotiate, if they won't, if they won't vote for anything, it's the Schumer shutdown. Yeah. Now, I question for you because there there are certain things that can pass in the Senate with a simple majority vote and some things cannot.

So maybe explain very quickly to our audience what's the difference and why doesn't the CR fall into the simple majority category? It isn't simple. It's complicated. But, I'll try to give you, rule of thumb. A rule of thumb is that, if any confirmations passed by simple majority, not by the, 60% or every other bill, passes with the, 60%, with the exception that once a year you can do a bill that reconciles the budget to it to theoretically, bring the budget into balance.

You're not supposed to be able to do policy things with that, but that's where it get dicey. And that's the definition of what's policy. So, the fact of the matter is, a regular bill like this funding the government takes a 60, 60 vote margin. It's that simple. Okay, so the House passes the CR. Mike Johnson got it done on that side.

Have they left town then? Are they are they gone? So I mean, are amendments even possible at this point? They have not only left town, a lot of them have left the countries. And the bills went out. They're scattered to the winds. So no, there is nothing that the if they don't take the bill that the House sent over.

She's a good bill. Then the government is going to shut down. But also keep in mind, this isn't your grandpa's shutdown. The shutdown is only about 15% of the government mail going to get delivered. The Social Security checks are coming. The, FAA stays up the, keeping the airplanes up in the air. The inspections take place.

So the question is, is it a, forgot the word they use, critical duty or not in that that. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's down to it's down to not much, really, that the military stays in place. All those things, stay in place. So it's about 15% that, that shuts down. It's not much.

Okay. So Senator Schumer is posturing, saying there's no way that the, the 7 or 8 votes that are needed by Democrats will be provided in your crystal ball. Do you think it's just posturing and that you're actually going to get some votes, or are we really headed to a shutdown? No, I think we're heading to the shutdown. And I'll tell you why.

These people are in absolute total disarray. They after the shellacking that they took last fall, they have not come back. You know, you got to go through the stages of grief. Some of them are still at the denial stage. Some of them are at the acceptance stage. But that's the small minority. The vast, vast majority are at the anger stage and they can't get off of it.

And, and they hate Donald Trump and they hate us Republicans so bad that their judgment is crowded and, it affects everything they do. And their their base tells them, don't do anything. Stop them. Shut down the government. Don't let anybody do anything. So, the bad news for them is, is that you are. Musk will continue his, march through Georgia.

Has he has, like General Sherman, with without a government. All right, Senator ish, let's shift to, a foreign Affairs issue. I'd love your take on this. It appears that we have at least partially a tentative peace agreement. Ukraine has signed on to this. We've got to get Vladimir Putin, on onto this as well.

What can you tell us? And what are your observations about this Ukraine, Russia, peace deal in the works? Well, look, the the one side of it is done, or partially done anyway. Substantially done. And that is the Ukraine side of it. Like they've been fighting for three years. Valiant fight. They've lost, hundreds of thousands of people.

They're, they're fighting like we did in 1776 to maintain their, their country. And, having said that, they can't defeat Russia in all likelihood. And, so that means that the war goes on and it's two countries that are that are used to fighting wars. I mean, you know, Russia, 500 year wars. It doesn't bother them.

I mean, they, they, they're, they're they they just pain very easily. Ukrainians are also tough. They're, they're willing to fight, but this just can't go on because the Ukrainians don't have the money. And, obviously the U.S isn't going to continue to fund it. We've been funding it for three years. We want to help the Ukrainians.

We really do. But it's time that the fighting stopped and, everybody get back to normal for as much as possible. Do so. There are talks that are supposed to be happening between Putin and maybe some envoys, potentially President Trump. Do you have any knowledge of those talks? And if they have already spoken? Yeah, I do, and I can't really talk about that right now.

I, I think I can say that I, I think I know I can say this there have been there have been conversations. There is a delegation that's on the way. I think some of them are already on the ground there. Steve, like cough has been the guy, on the Russian side that has talked directly to Putin, but this is going to take a conversation between Trump and Putin before it's over.

And the initial wave will not be between, Trump and Putin, but, they're they're exploring what's possible and what isn't possible at this point. All right. Last 90s here, Senator, I'd I'd love for you to weigh in on the tariff situation with Canada, which seems to be a fluctuating, dynamic situation. And and, I guess give us your best minute here on that.

Yeah. The fluctuating, dynamic situation is the kind of thing I've heard said about that. That's not a description most people use. Look, Trump uses, tariffs, for the purpose of changing behavior. And, when that happens, it gets a little bit tumultuous and that's what's going on here. But look, he used them in the first four years, people get upset about them and sometimes rightfully so.

But, look, he we got through this before. We'll get through this again. Canada's, friend, the partner, our biggest trading partner. And, we'll we'll get through this. So, you know, they're they're they've already been there's been lots of discussions going on back and forth. And and the same is true for Mexico.

And as far as, him getting complaints from those countries for what he wants, he's already, extricated a considerable amount out of both of those countries, by using the tariffs. But they've been, like you say, they've been on again, off again, which is, not helpful to, businesses on either side of the border.

So it's important that, that they get put in place whatever is going to be put in place. And we get to some permanency and we will. All right. We'll leave it at that. Senator Jim Risch joining us from the Capitol this morning. Senator, thank you so much. Good to talk to you, as always. Thanks. Bye. All right.

It's 815 on Newstalk 179. Quick break. We'll be back.

And Schumer is a Palestinian as far as I'm concerned. He used to be Jewish. He's not Jewish anymore. He's a Palestinian. So we just learned that consumer prices in February increased by 2.8% year over year, point 2% month over month. As a Republican strategist, you wouldn't have advised him to go in front of the white House and drive a Tesla.

Wait, why went? Because, of course I would have. All right. Welcome back. It's, 819 on Newstalk 179. So I'm with Scott Jennings. Why? Why would a Republican strategist strategist not tell him to do that? Why go ahead and drive a Tesla in front of the white House when you are Trump deranged? Everything Trump does makes you mad.

Like so that they're they're just like, of course him. Everything. Yeah. Yeah. You know what? These people are so disconnected and out of touch. And I go back to what Senator Risch said. They are in the anger stage and they can't get out of it. Yeah, they're just stuck in this grief. Every little thing triggers them.

So yeah, there should have been zero reason for anyone in the media to be upset that Donald Trump had a Tesla at the white House. There is no logical reason to be upset about that. You are. Yeah. They had a meltdown for about I mean here's the good thing the meltdown only lasted for about eight hours. Speaking of grief, I have a session with a counselor this afternoon.

Over Rosie O'Donnell's departure from the United States. I was worried about you. I'm so glad you're being proactive and doing that. I can't tell you, I. I took a double dose of Ambien and melatonin last night and only got good today, though. I'm glad you're recovering. I only got seven minutes of sleep, so I. I'm here this morning powering through as we deal with a post.

Rosie. America I don't know how we're all going to go on I don't either. I hope you me you know what? I just want to generically ask our audience and they can answer via text if they would like, and we may share some of them. How are you? Our dear listeners, coping with Rosie O'Donnell not being in the United States anymore?

Did you go to a safe place? Did you hug a teddy bear all night? Yeah. Did you play, reruns of Don lemon on loop? Well, that that did you did you drink your, problems away? Did you go gambling? Did you what? What are you doing? Deals. Choosing much healthier options. Oh, no, I you know, you're drinking people to death.

They're like, this grief justifies about any bad behavior. So I'm just saying it. How are you eating 14 bags of Doritos? Speaking of Doritos, I didn't send you the clip, but did you see Kamala at some forum that she was at Big blue screen behind her? I'm not sure what she was doing. And again, she looked inebriated, talking about how she needs three bags of Doritos Nacho Cheese Doritos to make it through a day or something like that.

Eat. Really? Yeah. Like her. Like she. Okay. I think she thought it was going to be funny. Nobody was taking it as funny. She looks rough in the video. Yeah. Is she putting on weight? I didn't, I guess I didn't. I only watched it once and I didn't watch the complete video because, I'll be honest, I'm done with her.

If I never watch another video of Kamala Harris again, life will be okay. You sent me a text, Julie, about Michelle Obama's new podcast that she has launched with her brother. Yes, it's now a little over 20,000 views. I checked this morning. Did you the first episode of YouTube, but you sent me a text last night, and when you sent that, it had only got like 8000 views that is nothing.

Nothing for a national figure. Oh, nothing. This is an abysmal disaster for them. Oh, I patted myself on the back because mine does so much better than that. Right? So not even just a little bit better. Tons better than that. And I'm a little girl from Idaho. Well, yes, the former first lady I do not, like. Okay.

You know, sometimes Julie, we when it's campaign season and a candidate goes to maybe a high school and there's like 37 people there, I have to temper my my temptation to ridicule and think something went wrong. Like something went wrong with the marketing. Somebody changed the schedule. Something happened. Miscommunication. Yeah. They can't possibly be that unpopular. So I'm reserving some of that for.

Why? Oh, Michelle Obama's podcast rollout did so abysmal. I mean, horrible, like, maybe they'll continue it. I don't know, we'll see. But at the same time, here is my thought, and I've had this thought since the get go, I, I don't I don't I don't care for Michelle Obama. Okay. That's that's not a surprise. Everyone pretends like she's the most likable and admired person in America.

I don't think she actually is. She doesn't like this country. She's she's got a very negative persona to her. She's just sour. And I, I feel like whatever visible admiration there is for her is fake. They're admiring her because they think everybody else is admiring her, but nobody actually really admire her. And and I'm sure some people do.

I'm sure there are some true, genuine, authentic admirers of Michelle Obama, but I think the vast majority of it is let's just all get together and pretend we like it. I, I there may have been some sort of mishap. I would say, you know, just from a marketing standpoint, the biggest mishap is you dropped an episode without ever like previewing anything.

Yeah. We heard about this podcast about 4 or 5 days ago, and the episode came out. Yeah. So there wasn't a lot of pre hype to the podcast. So that might have been their biggest mistake. Yeah I didn't listen to it and I will not be listening to it. I'm not going to give a download to that person.

Yeah. However some of the reviews on X highlighted that it was just kind of whiny. Yeah. So it was unenjoyable to listen to, a brother and a sister just kind of whining about everything. Yeah, and that's not that fun. I know that people engage in the view with the whining and everything. I at least they do some fun cooking segments and other stuff in between all of their whining.

I this is just two people sitting down and chatting for under an hour, and if all they do is whine, you don't want to be a part of that. Yeah, yeah, that's it's true. I saw a little bit of it. I was one of those few thousand views on YouTube. I just I watched it for maybe a minute this morning and she's sitting there, it looks like a kitchen table with her brother.

And they're just talking back and forth, and there's nothing terribly compelling or or thought provoking that I saw in the one minute I watch. Maybe it got better, I don't know, but I wasn't going to sit and listen to it for an hour, to, to find out if if she's continuing just to be the Michelle Obama that we came to know from oh 8 to 16, I'm not interested.

And I just don't know that America is either. I think this is, I mean, sad for her. I'm sorry your podcast bombed at the same time. I have so much hope in America, and I, I actually think though her podcast bombs 8500 views, whatever. And then there's this wave of stories that her podcast bombed. She gets more views.

I think a lot of those views are there because why is it so bad? Yeah, not because I want to see the train wreck. The motivation was not, oh, it's Michelle Obama. I want to listen to her podcast, I can't wait. It's why was this so terrible? So even the higher number still abysmal is probably inflated because people want to see the train wreck, not because people want to see the podcast.

Yeah, I would completely agree with that. And in the long run, from again, from a marketing standpoint, downloads or downloads, you know, it views her views. That's what they would tell her to soften the blow. But the reality is, is as she continues to put out episodes, those won't hit those kind of numbers because you you only watch the train wreck once.

That's right. Exactly. Those are not going to be repeat loyal, loyal viewers. This sort of reminds me, was it CNN plus? Yeah. They lost 28 days. This digital channel. Nobody wanted it. Yeah. Lasted 28 days. It was that paid additional subscription to CNN. And they'd they got I don't know how many subscriber like 6000 people or something. Which is not nearly enough to justify putting that.

And they had to cancel it within just a few weeks of launching it. Someone should have also told her you're a little late to the podcast game and everybody has a podcast now, everyone. And it is very very, very difficult to build an audience. It is a slow go. It is a lot of a lot of work.

I don't believe she's going to put in that work first off and second off. She should have launched this four years ago. You you she left the white House in 2016. Yeah. What have you been doing for eight years? That is that is a great point. That's that's a great point. It is something she should have launched a long time ago.

My guess is that the what do they, they call it IMO. Yeah. In my opinion, I, I'm guessing that IMO is not going to be around in six months. Probably not. Maybe not even six weeks. Yeah. And America's better for it. I didn't even know she had a brother. I didn't either. Like that was new to me.

Like, you know, she had a he looks like her, but yeah, I, I, yeah. I was it should I say what I'm going to say? I don't know what. I fear that this will sound very offensive to people. You know what? I I'm not going to say. Okay.

Let's take our news break, okay? And we'll tell you. And then you will decide if I can tell. I will have a comment as well. So we'll run it by each other. Maybe maybe we'll we'll share it when we get back. It's 830 on Newstalk 107 eight. It's 836 on Newstalk 179. Julie and I are opting not to share what our observations were prior to this commercial break.

I just think they'll be taken wrong. So I don't want to, you know, say it, but. Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's all right. I think most people know where I'm headed. Yeah. And you were headed the basically the same place. Just a little bit different. Yeah, just. Just a little bit. So. All right, if you'd like to join us.

(208) 542-1079 Julie, article five Convention of States. Okay. Can I dive into this for sure? I'll. I won't glaze over. I promise I will promise I well, okay okay. So the legislature passed two bills. One was should we do it and the other one or. No they failed. Failed. But they were floating a couple of measures for an article five convention of states.

Both of them failed pretty badly. And it was should we do it? And what's who should we send if we do do it? Okay, so I went to ChatGPT because I, I've had my concern about this whole thing, and I just said, who would be in charge of an article five convention of states? Valid question. Right? Yes. Probably the most important, one of the most important questions.

Here's what ChatGPT said. And article five convention of States would be convened under article five of the US Constitution. Do you know in the War of 1812, what's the number for 911? It allows for amendments to be proposed either by Congress or by a convention of states. If two thirds apply for a convention on the same topic, Congress must call the convention.

However, the Constitution does not specify exactly how such a convention would operate, leaving some key questions open to debate. Who would be in charge? Number one, Congress's role. Congress is responsible for calling the convention once 34 states submit applications, Congress might try to set the rules or procedures, but states could push back against congressional overreach. There's the rub.

You're going to have this conflict. Congress is going to want to retain the authority they believe they have. The states are going to say, no. Scoot over Congress. We're in charge now. So you're going to have that conflict. And I don't know how you before we even get going, it might that might be a Supreme Court. Yeah. Issue.

You know. So it would. And then it is says the number two point is state delegations, each participating state would send delegates, sometimes called commissioners, to the convention. The state legislatures would decide how their delegates are selected and what their authority would be. Each state likely gets one vote, regardless of the number of delegates it sends. So that would bode well for conservatives, because there are far more red states than there are blue states.

The convention itself would set its own rules, much like the original constitutional convention of 1787. It could determine voting procedures, leadership structure, and limits on discussion topics. Some believe states would control the process. Others argue Congress could try to impose limits, and then for the ratification process, any proposed amendments would require ratification by 38 states. So you only need three four, excuse me, two thirds to have the convention, but anything they produce would actually have to be ratified by three fourths of the states, to become part of the Constitution.

This could happen either through state legislatures or state ratifying conventions as determined by Congress. So the potential issues that you're going to come up with is the scope of the convention. Could it be limited to specific topics, or could it become a runaway convention that proposes broader changes? I remember Julie, a couple of years ago, we had Rick Santorum in studio with us, and we talked about this, and he's an advocate for having one of these conventions.

And he said, oh, no, we you could limit it so that it doesn't do that. And I'm, I was I like Rick Santorum, but I'm like, are you sure you could? Because if the convention itself sets the rules and we don't know who's in charge, how do we know? They couldn't just say, we're actually going to open it up to other stuff.

And and it could it could get out of control really quick. The second point, congressional control. How much authority would Congress have in regulating the convention? Nobody knows. And then the state versus federal power, would states fully control the process or would federal authorities try to influence it? And since an article five convention has never been held held, much of this remains theoretical and subject to legal and political disputes.

Okay, so there's a whole lot there. Yeah, many, many, many, many layers. Yeah. I'm going to reference the one layer that you talked about where we don't really know if if this went to the place and they're writing the new rules. Are they going to scrap the whole thing and start over. Are they going to tweak just a handful or somewhere in between.

And where does that land. And it made me think about you're in the middle of writing a novel. Your second. Yeah. And when you go to the editing phase because you complete the novel and then you go to the editing phase, you don't scrap the whole book and start over. Right? You take the book, you read it, you make a few changes.

Maybe there was something that was statistically not correct or, you know, you're doing some editing to it was a dangling modifier on page 87. And then you bring it forward. There's no guarantee that that's the way the editing is going to occur. Yeah. So if they decide to put a blowtorch to what we currently have. Wow, what a mess.

Yeah, yeah, there's a throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes. Element to this too. And if there's no guarantee of how that I'm going to call it an editing process, how that editing process is going to exist. You're sure you're sure investing a lot without an idea of what's going to happen? Yeah. Yeah. Well, one of the one of the I mean, there are so many unknowns, the people who are the most vocal advocates of it don't think they're unknowns.

They think they can control everything. And I'm here to tell them, no, you can't. Congress will assert itself. The federal government will assert itself. And then I don't know if you're going to have a constitutional crisis on your hands, but you're definitely gonna have a mess that may that's. Yeah, it's going to divide the country, whatever. If there even is an outcome, I mean, it it might, you know, it's going to be herding cats.

It's it's going to be crazy. So you have that problem, but they act like this is the only way we can improve our republic. This is the only tool that exists in the toolbox. And I'm thinking, no, you can still amend your constitution. If we got really serious about it, the states could pass constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.

Congress would hate it, but. But they could pass it. They have to do it. Yes. Without the grave risk of what we're talking about today. Yeah. You could elect better people. That's the easiest one. Yes. One we fell at on a regular basis but the easiest one have the opportunity every 2 or 6 years to put good people in place.

Sometimes we don't but the opportunity is there. So you, you have that and look, look at what Trump's doing with Doge. That's because the American people spoke. I believe elections are our most potent tool to change government for the for the better. There's always an effort to try and find a shortcut. And sometimes the left loves to go to the judiciary for their shortcut.

And I feel like I don't, I don't know if this is even a right left issue. If you look at the votes now maybe they would have a different explanation. But both been firm and and Josh Wheeler wanted to have a an article five convention. That's not them. It used to be that the people who talked about article five conventions were homeschoolers that hoarded gold and were Ryan Braun, Paul followers churning their own butter.

Yeah, they had pioneer dresses on and like that. To me that used to be. So when you have people like Ben Firman and Josh Wheeler voting to have an article five convention, I'm confused. Like my brain is scrambled. Who are these people? And you can't. Yeah, sometimes, Julie, most situations you can go in and silently consult the crowd who's in favor of this and who's in favor of that?

And you can get a pretty good idea. This is one it's divided for different ways. And and you I don't I don't know what the ideological roots are and the philosophical roots are. That is driving people to want an article five convention. Yeah. Let me explain how you and I do this process. A bill will come forward.

Let's say it's on the House floor. Bill will come forward on the House floor, and a vote happens, and we'll look at the vote and we'll look at the lawmakers who voted for it. Every once in a while, we look at and go, Why did that representative vote with those super moderate. Yeah, lawmakers. And frequently we'll shoot off a text and say, hey, we saw the vote on House bill, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, saw that you voted against it.

Can you give us an idea of why we're trying to figure out, you know, the the meat and potatoes of this bill? And then the lawmaker will answer back. And that explains the the maybe unusual vote that happened on the bill. We're looking at this vote. We can't even come up with an explanation of how these people chose.

It's a hodgepodge, mix of people. Doesn't quite make sense. I think for me, that explains the complexity of this. And the constant edge of the convention of states. It is so complex. And people, individual people are getting hung up on these different parts. That means you're never going to come to a consensus. You know, you're not. Can I can I brainstorm for a minute?

Yeah, let's do it. I don't know if this is the answer, but maybe you imagine two camps don't think left and right, but think strange bedfellows for a moment. You have one camp that loves the Constitution so deeply they want to restore it with an article five convention. Because we've departed from the Constitution. Absolutely. You have another group that hates the Constitution.

They want to replace it. They think there's racist language in it. They may not like the Second Amendment. They may not. And if there's a chance there could be a quote unquote runaway convention, that would be their opportunity to tweak the things they don't like about our Constitution. That's a strange bedfellow situation where they're like, oh, yeah, we want to dive into that and change some things, whereas people are voting the same way, would say, I love the Constitution, and Congress has gotten so far away from it.

We need to bring them back in line. So now we're back to what I presented at the beginning about the editing of the book. Yeah, you're going to have a group of people there, and some of them want to blowtorch what we currently have. And some of them want to gold standard what used to be. Yes. Those two people don't hang out together.

No. They're you know they do not. They may have voted the same way on this issue. But they're coming to the table with very, very different motivations. So those of you churning butter and hoarding gold and homeschooling your kids, you need to ask yourself, why did Ben Furman and Josh Wheeler vote for this thing, too? Yeah. And others just take a look at who voted for it.

You'll be shocked. Yeah. Who's in the affirmative and who's in the. No, I don't want it. Yes. I feel like I need to not apologize, but just know my characterization is playful. Okay. Yeah. You're you're just explaining the difference between the two camps. Yeah, yeah. All right. Have you ever churned butter? I haven't, there's a lot of people doing it now though.

I know you can. Yeah I have once. It was okay. It's very bland. Also like the idea of having a cube measured out for me for all of my baking. So there's that is super nice too. I'll be right back.

Okay. It's 850 to on Newstalk 1079. So our our text line, Julie, can we, visit a couple things? Yeah. Let's talk because I think that this is what the can you open when you start talking about convention of states? Okay. Someone sent, sent this text. You're not being realistic, Neil. There's no way that this electorate we have in the nation will elect better representatives.

And the states can't just pass amendments. That's what this whole debate is over. Who brings up the amendment? If the states want to pass an amendment, Congress has to first present the amendment. That's the only other option. That's why people are trying to take this out of Congress's hands and put it in the state's hands. Okay. So I want to I understand the point, but I want to ask a follow up.

If this nation can't elect good representatives who are, well, the representatives we have are not following the Constitution. The Constitution is fine. The people swearing to uphold it are not. Your problem is the people you're swearing to uphold or that are swearing to uphold it. It's not the constitutions that that that is the problem. You think for a minute that they won't ignore whatever new thing they put in, right?

Whatever amendment amendments they get in won't also be ignored. The way our current Constitution is, you're not identifying the problem. You're you're, your fuel pump is out and you're changing the alternator. Okay? You're you're not addressing the real issue, which this text identifies. We don't have good representatives. We have people who are grifters. They're we keep putting people in who are our arb.

Not all of them, but a lot of them are just slime bags that are self-serving. They're getting rich. They're they love the power. They love all of that. That is your problem. It is not the Constitution. That's your break point is, is the representatives that we send. They're not the cons and the bureaucracy, by the way, that just camps out there.

And you walked through exactly how the process will work, which means there's potential that the Constitution that you just said is a near-perfect document could be a nuclear bomb, could happen to that constitution. Yeah. So you want to start over from ground zero? That's just my question. And and if you think no, that that won't happen, that we will keep the Constitution intact with very few tweaks.

Give me give me absolutes. Tell me that that 100% will not happen and show me how it 100% will not happen because you can't walk into it and say, well, we have intentions that it won't happen. Yeah, because then there's no guarantee. Yeah, there is no guarantee. There isn't. And I it's been a couple of years. I, I should go back and find that audio.

When we had Santorum in studio with us, I'd like to listen to that interview again. Where is your you explain to me your rock solid, full on, 100% guarantee that this will not turn into a runaway convention and that the Congress will not be in charge of it. Right. I guarantee that to me, and I'll be listening. But yeah, I haven't heard the compelling argument yet.

In fact, I do remember I don't remember the specifics, but I remember, we got done with the interview with, with Rick Santorum. We went out to the front lobby, took a picture with him, and he and I had this conversation. He's like, you're still not convinced, are you? And I'm like. And I'm really not like, I really appreciate you.

I loved when you ran for president. You know, I wasn't starstruck. We get we talked to people all the time. It was kind of cool to have him in studio, but I just said, yeah, I'm not. I'm not really on board yet with it because I don't have that that level of assurance that I would need that it won't turn into a runaway convention.

Yes. And it was even though that was the conversation you were having, it was enjoyable. And he wasn't frustrated with you and you weren't frustrated with him, which I can totally appreciate. Yeah, but I do believe Rick Santorum's attitude about that reflects people who are interested in the convention of states, which is, well, if I just lay out these four points, everyone will be convinced.

Yeah. And instead of having a conversation going, is there a better way? Is this the right solution? Is this they come to the table with this is 100% the only way that we're going to fix this country. And I'm going to talk until you are convinced that that's how it's going to be. Yeah. Now I say all of that going, we really don't have a fix for this country right now.

We really don't know. We don't. So I'm not offering up something different. And that might feel not genuine to the person who is all in on the convention of states. But you don't pick a solution just because there's not a solution that's the best. Yeah, yeah. You just keep digging and trying to find and figuring it out. Yes.

Okay. Julie, I, have just convinced myself, we are going to do a flagpole in the next segment, first segment of the 9:00 hour. And it's going to be very simple. Article five convention, yes or no. I want to see where our audience is on this, because I we could be the only ones that don't want it.

We might be, we might be. And, I'll go eat lunch by myself today, if that's the case. But but no, I'll, I know I don't. I'm fine if we're the only ones. We're not. Though. We've had several people who have texted in, sharing our cynicism that this would actually fix the problem that it promises to fix.

All right, that's our one. We'll come back in just a few minutes after the news, and we will immediately start that flash poll. So you think about it, you sit and think about what you want to say. Article five Convention of States, yes or no. We'll do it just ahead. Okay. We're back. It's a convention of Neil and Julie for an hour of compelling, stimulating talk radio.

And we all love you. Let's all gather around. You know what you have the convention of States. This radio show is a convention of listeners every day, right? Every day we're coming together to the table. Yeah, that's that's true. So, we've had mostly we've had a handful of early voters, but the votes came in. It was certified mail.

And we have validated their signatures, and the votes are legitimate. Right. That's what that's what's happening. And, it wasn't ballot harvesting from some ballot box anyway. So, overwhelmingly, no, but we have had a couple of people who have said, well, Mark Levin is for it. Great. Yeah, it's called America. We can all have different opinions on things.

So yeah. And I respect Mark Levin. But I don't know that I agree with everything that Mark Levin has to say. Well I also don't have to be in lockstep. Right. I don't have to just because Mark Levin says that I don't have to think for myself. Yeah. And we've asked all of our listeners a give a topic Covid 19, a ranked choice voting.

We begged you to listen to what we said. Then go do your own research. Yeah. And then arrive at your own conclusion. Yeah. I mean, some of you might think masks work, and that's okay. That's all right. Put on three masks. I'm sorry for your lungs, but go right ahead. Yeah. There you go. Okay, so back to the convention of states here.

You kind of understand this, this issue we explained at last hour quite well. We won't go through all of it again, but because the voting was so kind of wonky. It failed on both measures addressing this issue. The delegates and just yes or no on doing it. We want to know where you stand on it.

Are you in favor of a convention of states. Here's the number. It's the stones automotive group. Collin. Text line (208) 542-1079. You can call or you can text. And, I will tell you so far the nos in the text have been overwhelming. Now, if you are a yes, if you're a yes, then you can, feel free to call in and you'll have 10 or 15 seconds to make your case.

You can tell us why you think we're wrong. Yeah. That's okay. All right, let's go to the phones. Caller, what say you about an article five convention? I think it would be very damaging. This says that we need to improve our constitution, but there's nothing wrong with our Constitution. We're not following it. So we have a new constitution.

Why would we follow that? Yeah. Nothing wrong with on we have that it wouldn't be limited to just the amendments or proposing it could take off and yeah, totally overturn it. And they say, well, but it has to be ratified by the states. Yeah. Well the income tax, amendment was ratified by the states. Okay. Thank you for the call.

(208) 542-1079 caller what say you? Convention of states, yes or no? I say yes. You say yes. All right. Any I just give us a few seconds. Why? You, think it's a good idea? Because something bad is going to happen to our country anyway, so why not get the ball rolling? Oh, that's an interesting take. Bring the destruction on.

Let's just start the apocalypse early. Gotcha. All right. Thank you for the call. 208I. I didn't really expect that. That's not where I thought it was going either, but there you go. Yeah. All right. 285421079. If you'd like to join us. We got a no. I voted against it many times. No convention of states. We need to start arresting those who violate the Constitution.

We have, the jails would be full. A hell no. We got a hell no. We got a couple of hell no. People are too crooked. No, no, not no, but hell no. Clean up our reps. Oh, no, Julie, there is not an appetite for this. No, I in fact, we have the caller and then the person who really was following me, Mark Levin said, so that's what I'm counting as.

Two yeses. Okay. All right. Yeah. All noes. Except for those two. Let's go to the next caller. Yes or no? Caller. Is that me? Yes. Okay. I think we are. It might seem a little insulting to you, ignorant of the Constitution as it stand. To add on to it, I think we need to be educated how the founders were before we go meddling with what they built.

Okay, so maybe at some point, but not right now. Yeah, not right now. Okay. All right. Thank you for the call. 208542127 it measured opinion there. Yes, a little nuance I like it, I like it too. All right. (208) 542-1079 this person said no on the article five convention. I mistrust the outcome. Yeah, yeah, I do too. Let's go to our next caller.

What do you have to say? I have to say I am for for the only reason, being able to impose term limits on the federal government. Like, that's the only way we're going to be able to get to the federal government. So I was for it. Okay. All right. Thank you for the call. 28542127I get that I could also starve myself for the next month to just lose 5 pounds, but would that be good for me?

No. So there's lots of ways to get to an end of something you want that are loaded with harm. This is a fast moving flagpole, or else if it weren't, I would have said, let's talk for a minute, because how are you going to guarantee that's the only thing that will take up? Yes. And that you'd get what you want.

Let's go to the next caller. Yes or no? On an article five convention of states? Currently, no, because we're doing the job we need to with the system in place. But, you know, three years ago I would have said yes. Okay, dude, what was going on? Okay. But you've you've seen enough progress, I'm assuming with the Trump election that you're like, we are moving in the right direction.

Yeah. And we'll bring in the rest of the country with us. We had four years of pure disaster. That would have been a great time for a convention. Am, but I think enough for the country is in the like to have 89% of, you know, the counties move to the right. Gotcha. All right. Well, thank you for the call.

208542 117 the texts are pouring in. Julie, this is an interesting take. This person is saying yes on the Constitution of States or, excuse me, convention of states. It was put in the Constitution by the founders, and we all feel they drafted the best form of federal government ever created. Why do we shrink away from the provision that was written, especially now, specifically into the Constitution by the founders from the start?

Yeah. Okay. Isn't that really the heart of the best argument against it? Is that we already have a great constitution. Yeah. I mean if it's in there I think that's the intent is that you're going to blow up this document and start from the very beginning. Yeah. I'm not comfortable with that. Yeah. All right. Well a lot of them would say we're not actually going to get rid of our current constitution.

They just want to amend it that it's a it's a sort of a fast track to amending the Constitution so you can copy and paste what you have, and then you can make some tweaks, but there's no guarantee that's how they'll do it. Yeah, I exactly, exactly. Okay. (208) 542-1079 someone else texted in. Yep. It's the only way to get term limits passed.

No. On the con con, we do not have dynamic statesmen like George Washington anymore. No. It's a be careful what you wish for scenario. The first thing out of the box would be an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment, clearing the path to descend into dictatorship that the left so dearly wants. Okay, so, see, that's a perfect example to the person who wants term limits.

You might get your term limits. You might get that written in there. But every gun might be taken away. Yeah, you could have extra stuff. Done. So 205421079 if you'd like to be a part of our flagpole today. Our impromptu flagpole. Really? We're asking you, how you feel about an article five convention of states?

I would say Julie has been overwhelming enough that there's, a consensus here. There's a few people who want it, but overwhelmingly, they're they're saying, no, I have a vote of 31 to 6, which is, that's a little more heavy than what our state, lawmakers voted for. It's a little more heavy, no, than what our state lawmakers voted for.

I am curious, I'd love to hear the explanation for those who are moderate center lefties wanting the convention of States. What what what are you hoping to gain with it? Wouldn't that be an interesting comment? I think that would be an interesting conversation because and it would one that would it would be one that would have to take hours because just like the person who said, well, I want term limits.

Yeah, okay. That's awesome. But what happens if this goes away and this goes away and this goes away and this goes away? That's why the conversation would be so deep, right? Yeah. You're risking some some things. No. In the convention, we can't trust who Idaho would send to the convention. Little bedke. No. Yeah. That's true. Who are you going to send?

Yeah. Somebody actually somebody sent that, that same exact kind of conversation earlier that they were choosing one of our, our four, federal, you know, senators, I'm not going to say which 1 or 2 senators and our two Congress, men. And they listed one of them and they said, we don't even get that right. Who would we be sending to the convention?

Yeah, that's a really good point. Really good point. I would say no, you don't know what else they would try to destroy in our Constitution just for a few small wins. Someone said, hell yes. Const, CEOs is part of the Constitution and doesn't change it. It's only a convention to propose amendments. It's not a constitutional convention.

Yeah. I mean, you'd still have to have them ratified by the by the states, so. But there's still too many unknowns to know how that that would work. Yeah. No one's saying that that nuclear bomb to the Constitution would happen. Yeah. The first meeting. Right. But this is the. Oh, here, let's open the door. We don't know what's going to happen.

Yeah, yeah. What do you have to give to get it? Great. Great question here. They said no. If Canada is the 51st state, which that's funny. Aren't the convention issues agreed upon beforehand? Well, they might be, but that may not stop them from changing the rules mid process. And if I'm understanding what you read about Congress still having a portion of control, the rules can be changed partway through.

Yes. Yeah. Exactly. That's that's the problem. Someone likened it to the prop one argument. They'll say all the nice things they think it would do, but not offer proof. So the people for it are saying we're all for it because we think it'll do this, but there's no guarantee. Let's go to the next call. How are you, Carla?

Go ahead. I say yes, yes, yes, this is this is so frustrating that that everybody has all this fear. Oh, we don't know what it's going to do. We do know what it's going to do. There's been conventions before. There's not a constitutional convention is mentioned to propose amendments, and the rules are all set out. And the the subject matter is set out beforehand.

And and there's the delegates can be called back. They could even be imprisoned if the states decide to do that, if they don't do what the state sent them to do, there's a faceless delegate. Okay, so I'll ask you the question I asked ChatGPT and I'm not just looking for an answer, I'm looking for proof. If this gets through, who's in charge of the, the Convention of States?

They've already run dry runs. And if if the delegates pick, pick the leaders. Wait, who's done the dry runs? It's been done a couple of times. Was done in Texas last last year. Okay. And it was done. And it was done in South Carolina. Well, that's it for the convention. How how can you guarantee Congress will not assert itself and say this provision, article five is giving Congress the authority to oversee this.

If Congress doesn't have the authority, its Congress only picks a time and place. Well, you're right, but you're well, you're you're saying the states can do all of this stuff, even though it's not given them the authority to do all of these different things either. Like it's it's not spelled out. States. Have the states had the ultimate authority, States created Congress.

And this is the states taking their power back from Congress. It's just it's just proposed amendments just so it takes three force, so it takes 13 states to say, no, we're not going to do away with our guns if everybody's so scared of you. Think you think we couldn't get 13 states did not ratify. You do in a way the Second Amendment.

No, I'm not so worried about that, but I don't I could be a runaway convention. That's even Barbie Hart was so misguided in her floor speech that she was saying a few years later. Let me ask you a question really quick here. What is inadequate about our Constitution? We have right now? It's totally adequate. This is part of the Constitution.

There's only there's two ways to propose amendment. Why do we need what okay. Because because Congress is not proposed amendment to to curtail their own power like term limits and balanced budget. The states have to do it good. Okay. So, you you said that Texas did this. That's only one state. No, it was just it was in Texas.

But but all the all the states. Senator delegates. Okay. So now I want to say George Soros under everybody's noses, but systematically went through multiple states and made sure he put in place with all of his money certain days to get an outcome that we are filling the pains from still today. What makes you think that that power is not available for for somebody with a lot of money to go state to state to state and figure out via money, because we know money talks who will be sent to the convention of states.

Well, well, that's being done in sort of a way with the the John Birch Society has got all this fear going and everybody and they're, they're the ones pushing this, that it's going to be a Hong Kong. Excuse me. You didn't answer my question. You didn't answer my question. Do you have an assurance that somebody with a lot of money wouldn't have that kind of control?

No, that's that's what's happening now. The people's money is influencing the Congress and what they want. And they could also do it to this process. Well, anything's possible, but what? So I guess I got to ask, what do we do? Nothing. We just keep letting it go to hell. No, you're you're acting like this is our only tool.

And it's not. It really is. It's our fire alarm. And it's not like we break laughing. We have about 90% of people opposed to this right now. It's not an actual. It's papers. It says that this was put in there because they thought they knew. Well, they they knew at some point Congress would be wroth. And okay. But if you can't even get it past your own state legislature, it's not a viable solution.

Well, that's because the John Birch Society and others common cause of have come in and and they flooded the phone lines and okay, that's that's going to be a runaway. Okay. But you're okay. Look, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If you can't get it passed, you can't get it passed. You can blame John Birch all day and blame common cause all day.

But if you can't get it passed, you can't get it passed. Well, 19 states have already signed on and there's more coming. So okay, Idaho, I just want Idaho to get with the program. All right. Well, thank you for the call I appreciate it. I he's so certain he knows exactly how this is going to go down I don't yeah.

When he talked about these states have done the dry run I'm not sure what he's saying there because I could get a few guys together at the city park with a football. And we did a dry run and we beat the Patriots. Yeah. Yes, I there's just I feel like he is that person that we we talked about from the very beginning when we started talking about this clear back in the 7:00 hour, which is they're so dug in on the position that they refuse to look at the potentials for a downside.

And I feel like I, at least in my opinion, and I think you're doing the same thing that I'm coming to the table going, hey, guess what? I don't have a sure solution. I do know we're trying to dig out of a hole right now, and for the last 52 days since Trump became president, I feel like we've done a pretty good job.

So I feel like we're trying to dig ourselves out of the hole. But you've decided this is the only way to dig out of the hole. And there's a lot of there's a lot of flaws in your potential solution. Can I can I also add there's an inconsistency here. You know what else is in the Constitution? He thinks this is it's in the Constitution.

So therefore it's got to work. Okay. Well, Reelecting representatives every two years is in the Constitution. Reelecting senators every six is in the Constitution. Like there are a lot of things in the Constitution to help avert the mess that we have. But he thinks that's the one that's going to work. Yeah, yeah, I we still got issues. I mean, he's arguing against himself in a way.

All right. Let's go to the A. We ran through the music. Can you believe that? Let's go to the phones. Caller. Go ahead. Oh hi. Caller go ahead. You're on. So I want to give kind of a little bit of perspective for the purpose of the convention. And that's when the will of the people is not being heard.

So I would say that I'm in favor of a convention, but only after the people are actually engaged in the process. And that's not happening with your local precincts. So if you want to fix it, the answer is in actually engaging and being a part of the process with your local precinct. That being said, a convention won't work because the states have no power that was given away with the 16th and 17th amendment power of the person, the power of the states actual stake in dealing with splitting senators in right.

And it won't work for the same reason that these other supposed solutions won't work like that. So that's a really good point that we have surrendered too much of our power. And that's that's part of the problem. All right. Let's go. Back to the phones. Caller. Go ahead. Hi. Good morning, Neil and Julie. Hi. I didn't know if this is your little 10 or 15 second, but I just wanted to say that, to me, this is like the doge thing in Idaho.

Like, who's choosing? We, that the one gentleman referenced, what we called a mock convention, and we did send moderate, I think I know who we sent a few years ago, but. And they were very moderate, and I wouldn't trust them. Yeah. To, make choices for us. So, that's that's kind of where I am on it.

And as far as term limits, we the people are supposed to term limits. Our representatives, our senators, governors, whoever, when they aren't doing what they should be doing. And so that's the term limit thing right there. We keep looking at other people or other elected officials and other states and think, well, how can they send Nancy Pelosi and etc., etc..

Well, who do we have? I mean, a lot of us are so disappointed in Simpson. And look at some of the people in our state, House. Yeah, that we have. And it's like, everybody looks well, not everybody. Some people look at other people and, and officials and say, why can't they get rid of them? But we do a lot of that to ourselves, just especially in East Idaho.

We've got so many moderates in the legislature, and we have a very conservative of areas. So it kind of doesn't make sense. No. Thank you. Carrie, always good to hear from you. Let's go to our next caller. Good morning. Good morning, Neil and Julie. Hi. Would like to, throw out just one thing on this.

If we have secure elections with voter I.D., confirmation of citizenship, we don't need a convention of states. Period. Our votes at that point begin to count again. Yeah, we had at that point, we would have term limits. Hey, this guy has been in there too long. Let's get rid of him or gal. So, yeah, just my thoughts.

All right. Thanks. Thank you. 285421278. That's a great point. All right, turn. Next caller. Go ahead. Good morning Neil. Good morning Julie. Sorry I'm breaking the one call weak rule here. So I'll make it very quick here. I citizens voted for term limits in the state of Idaho, one of the most conservative states in the nation.

And what about legislature? Do not. We don't like that. We're not going to do it. The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten. It needs to be read and followed. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Good point. Okay, I, I want to like, have everyone, you know, practice a meditation thing here and bring their, their emotions back into check.

You can have a conversation about this and feel differently. And it's okay to to look at the way that we're doing things and, and and review the processes and realize, oh, this isn't the only option to fix the problems that we currently have. So let's lay all of the options on the table, and let's look at the ones that cause the least amount of reverberation and have the highest upside for success.

Yeah, I think that that's where you and I are. If we look at all of the options that are available, this is one of the options. But there's a lot of potential downside. And I'm saying that without emotion I'm looking at at the various things. There's a lot of potential downside. And I don't think we've completely exhausted the other options yet.

So why should we choose the nuclear option if you haven't tried the other things. Yeah. Well yeah. No you're right, I and you're going to jump into this same problem with an article five convention that we have with every other way of trying to make our republic better, which is we've got some corrupt people who've who've grabbed on to power.

And, as Kerry just called. Yeah, we sent moderates like it during our dry run. Like there was a super convention. Yeah. Conservative state. Right. Exactly. You can't you can't dictator control who's who ends up being a delegate. So you may not get the outcome that you want. You might not. All right. 932 on Newstalk 107, I was trying to find some, Kenny G.

But I did some calling music instantly. Available. All right, we'll be back. (208) 542-1079 stones out of group calling text line. We'll be back.

And the the white background didn't work. So if you want to go back to the slide show, you can. Oh. So still blurry. Yeah. So to explain what we did, if you see the B shoot a full new TV behind Neil, we put that up. We love it. We've got some big plans for it. But as we, opened the studio today and checked it and put things into motion and everything with that big, beautiful TV behind Neil, his camera keeps trying to decide if it should focus on the TV, or if it should focus on Neil, which is why he's going in and out of focus and why I'm staying clear.

And because there's nothing behind me. So today, this is what it is. We change the camera angles a little bit. We're trying to figure out the lighting. We're going to have to do something to keep Neil in focus with that TV behind him. So we'll keep troubleshooting and figure it out. Yeah yeah yeah. The the camera, it's a 4K webcam.

Which when it's in focus it's great. But like I'm very clear, you cannot turn off the autofocus. There's not a way to do that. So that's a problem. Yeah. So we're kind of we're kind of stuck right now. We'll we'll keep troubleshooting it and figuring it out. And we lost all of our TVs. You had him up and going earlier this morning.

Oh three. What. Not sure what happened there okay I'll get one okay I've got three going so I'll do two. It's interesting how frustrated people who want the article five convention get when they encounter people who don't. Well, we had the guy the the phone call. I believe it's the guy who called in. He said he'll he's switching stations.

He'll never listen over this, over this. So I think that that actually reveals far more about him what it does about the conversation. Because why are people so passionate about it. I don't know how you think that we're at the point that it's time to push the big red button. I would agree. Have you, have you just given up on America?

I, I, I don't know, I don't think we're at the point where we push the big red button yet, and, and so that that would be my answer, my question, my big, big question. It's been just over 50 days. He has surrounded himself with a great cabinet. Give him some time to reset America. Yeah. And they're uncovering the corruption.

They're downsizing the federal government. They're removing barriers to our freedom there. I mean, I feel like it is working. It's just not always working on the timetable. We want it. I'd love to have it faster, too, I really would, yeah, I that would be great. And wouldn't it be awesome for America? I, I'd also love to build my retirement portfolio faster.

Wouldn't that be awesome. Wouldn't that be great? It's not happening faster. Despite me wishing and wishing and wishing nonstop for it too. And yeah, I'm running around with my hair on fire because my retirement portfolio isn't as big as I want it to be. Yeah, doesn't solve the problem. No. Okay. We're. We didn't do Grand Peaks yesterday, did we?

Now we did. We did. Okay. Yep. We did. I mean, I totally remember doing Grand Peak.

Oh, Robert, was that you that called in? I know you're so passionate about, so I'm sorry if I miss identified you, guy. Whoever was texting in is making near the same argument that you are. So I thought it was the same person. I'm glad you're still here, Robert. I'm. We can have a really vibrant conversation if you.

937 on Newstalk 1079 Julie we have lost a listener over this issue. Someone said, I'm never listening to this station ever again. Yeah. And because we disagreed. Oh, that's just it. And should I make my retirement portfolio? Sure. Analogy that I gave to Facebook Live, which is I would love for things to happen faster and for those who want to, you know, push the nuclear button and do this reset with the convention of states.

I know it's because you feel like things aren't happening fast enough, but I'm recognizing that Trump has only been in just over 50 days. I'm seeing really great movement to change how America is running. I want to trust that process a little bit, but I also get the anxiousness of the people who want it to happen faster.

And what I said to Facebook Live is, I would love to have my retirement portfolio grow faster. I'm working very hard on it. I would love for it to grow faster, but losing my cool and running around with my hair on fire because I can't get it immediately isn't actually solving the problem we have to systematically go through.

I can invest a little bit differently. I can save in this part of my life and invest more. It does take time to repair the problems that we're in. And I would say, just take a big, deep breath and breathe a little bit. We might come to a place where we need to activate the convention of states. I'm not sure were there.

No, I'm not convinced that we're there either. I yeah, I feel like it's morning in America too. Like not mou anything that was that was Joe Biden's presidency. I feel like it's more annoying. Hey, there's a bright future. There is. I mean, we are. Have you ever. And I would ask in your entire life, I can't think of a time prior to maybe 50 or a sense 50 or 60 years ago that were downsizing the federal government in a way that we haven't seen before.

The bloated, bloated, that's just the word for it size of federal government. Now, there's more problems to fix. You know, the grift is still there. We're still going to have corruption and sadly, political power attracts the worst people. But but we're moving in the right direction. And I think that actually lessens the appetite for things like an article five convention.

And I think there's times to enact. Yeah, the red button. I think we do that in our personal lives sometimes, and it creates very uncomfortable situations, but it needs to happen. What I'm saying is I don't I don't feel like America is there. Yeah. You're talking about people going through the big D and they don't mean Dallas.

Yeah. Right. Yes. Sometimes we have to do that. All right. Let's go to the phones. Caller. Welcome. How are you? Hey. Good morning. Morning. I think it's interesting to read on how California was talked into supporting a convention of states. They told them that we need to abolish the Electoral College and that the Second Amendment shouldn't apply in this age and generation.

So in Idaho, they know we're kind of suckers for the we ought to have a balanced budget or balanced budget and possibly term limits. But like I say, California was sold on it. I said abolish the Electoral College. Who do you think is going to have more power at a convention of states California or Idaho? Thank you. Thank you for the call.

Now, according to ChatGPT, each state would have only one vote. Yes, but that I don't know if that's guaranteed. I don't know, I I'm not sure that that's guaranteed in the country. Yeah. And somebody gave us a, you know, a chastening because we use ChatGPT to try to figure out the, the fine details of this. I, we've both said ChatGPT is not always right.

However, it wasn't like ChatGPT provided us with something and we found just one thing that we were worried about. Yeah, there were multiple things along the way that we were worried about, and so unless ChatGPT got it 100% wrong, I think it's a fair starting point to have the conversation. Yeah. I mean, see what it produces, but no where it's coming from.

Yes and yes. At least ChatGPT will put links to its sources to some. Yes. All right. 942 on Newstalk 1079 it's Neil Larson along with Julie Mason. Let's break. We're a little bit behind the curve here, but we'll take a break and, be back. More of your calls when we come back on Newstalk 179.

Okay. Apparently a congressman started screaming over Doge, and I captured it. Should we listen? Go. The stock, getting red in the face over the department. This was the scene during a house with. If he's so great, if these plans and all the fraud and abuse that he found. All right, so I'm at it. Why isn't he here explaining yet?

You know why? Because he's out to privatize Social Security. He's been on television the last couple of days talking exactly about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and what he intends to do privatize it. Look, I want to be delicate, about how we talk about what he look like. I mean, that just doesn't even look healthy. So I don't know what was going on there, but he's.

Okay. So that was Representative John Larson, also known as Representative John.

Ian Irwin. Oh, an I'm doing quick search on X. Yeah, he came in okay. And is coming unhinged. Okay. So it happened yesterday. Well he's 76. He might want to bring it down a little bit. That was wild. Yeah. He might need to be a little more careful with his health okay. We're going to we're going to stage a joke here.

So when I come back in I'm going to say Representative John Hume. And you're like, who do you represent? John Hume. Okay, okay. And then I'll reluctantly give out the name. Okay. And we'll make it seem really, really authentic. He's proud of this. He put it up on his feet. So Representative Larson thinks he did a great job here.

He put it up on his feet. And this is what he said. Elon Musk called so Social Security a Ponzi scheme and Donald Trump called it a scam. Make no mistake, they want to slash and privatize Americans benefits. My resolution compels them to provide answers, but Republicans are trying to stop it from even coming to a vote in the House.

I'm just going to say it is a Ponzi scheme. It is a Ponzi scheme. Why do you think Elon Musk was lying? It's it absolutely is an institutionalized Ponzi scheme. I remember one time I interviewed Senator Crapo and I the question I asked him is, how is this not a Ponzi scheme? And he laughed a little nervously, because there really wasn't a good answer.

How do you say it's not a Ponzi scheme? Yeah.

Goodness. If he's so great, if these plans and all the fraud and abuse that he found are so limited, why isn't he here explaining it? You know why? You know, here's the thing. Let's don't pay attention to the words or even his tone. Just pay attention to the overall context. These Democrats are absolutely in the anger stage of their grief.

Yes, yes, they have lost so much. I, I really appreciate that. That's the way Senator Risch framed it today. It's perfect. It is? Yep, I would agree. All right. We have one minute remaining before we go back. Just checking on headlines, locally to see if there's anything new. I don't see anything. Did you see that? We're getting a Cafe Soopers.

I did see that store. Have you eaten a Soopers before? I have not, it's very Panera Bread. I like it better than Panera Bread. Like soups and sandwiches. It's good. Good. Let's try it. Okay. Here we go. Okay.

I all right. We're back 948 on Newstalk 107I Neil Larson along with Julie Mason. So, Julie have a soundclip from a member of Congress, Congressman John Hoeven, who, had an outburst Congressman who, Congressman John. Okay. Who's the congressman? John Larson. Okay. Oh. John Larson. Yeah. No relation that I know of. It's even an so-and like, yeah, mine is.

But you got to do an Ancestry.com check on this last hour, we interviewed Senator Risch, and he stated it perfectly that Democrats right now are in the anger stage of grief. Exhibit A, hold on. Here we go. If he's so great, if these plans and all the fraud and abuse that he found are so eminent, why isn't he here explaining it?

You know, why. Because he's out to privatize Social Security. He's been on television the last couple of days talking exactly about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and what he intends to do privatize it. Okay. Relax a little there, John. Yeah. So they did a quick little search. This this gentleman, this congressman is 76 years old watching the video.

I know the listeners can't see that he is very red in the face. Oh yeah. This is pushing his you know, I think some people can yell like that. Like basketball coaches get really good at this and it's it's not really raising their blood pressure. Yeah. This guy is over at the top right now. Physically. Yeah. He he really is.

But you know, you look at it they've been feeding at this trough for a long time. They're used to it uninterrupted unimpeded. And here's Musk snooping around in their in their, records and finding where the waste, fraud and abuse are. And this is clearly not sitting well with him. So he has to make up lies like he wants to.

Private, you know, what can I can we pause for just a moment now I would never say this if I were running for office, which is why I'll never run for office. Would privatizing security be that Social Security be that big a deal if if they could guarantee we will do as well as Social Security has been in terms of preparing you for something in your retirement years, I don't know if I have an answer to that, and I would have to deeply look into what option they were giving.

But I will say this. Yeah, privatizing Social Security takes away their chance to operate what is a legalized Ponzi scheme? That is exactly it. The problem is, is not that the private sector couldn't do it better. They absolutely could do it better. If you put, I don't know, fidelity Investments or, you know, some mega retirement, company or firm in charge of Social Security, they could easily exceed the performance of the Social Security Administration, and provide a much better return for the American people.

Now, I'm not arguing for that because it's not politically feasible and and whatnot, but they could. The problem is they would no longer have that pile of money that they could just take out of the till and put an IOU in. Yep. That's why they want it there is because they use that pile of money for their own little pet projects that help them, get reelected.

And that is the last thing that they could they could stand. Yes. That's it. To explain that to people, the long term effect here is they're asking every single working person 24 year olds, 29 year olds, 32 year olds to put money into this or into this government program, Social Security. And we have plenty of data to show it won't be in existence for these people when they get to Social Security.

Yeah. Age, when they're able to access those funds. That's a Ponzi scheme. You're promising that it will be there. Invest, invest. We're going to take your money out of your paycheck when you're 29. You'll be there when you get to be. What is the age now? 67. Is it 60? I don't I don't I don't know the I, I mean, I'm operating on the concept that I'm 52 and it's not going to be there for me.

So there we go. But in my example, you're 29 and you're expected to pay and pay and pay with a guarantee of a return. There's not going to be a return for you. You know what would be a great accomplishment for Donald Trump if he changed Social Security. So and lockbox it so basically those funds go into an account.

They accrue value and Congress doesn't get to touch it. They don't get to borrow from it. They don't get to use that money for anything. It would just be there and grow. And that would be amazing. The donor's name was on those dollars that that's what should happen. But, you know, Republicans nor Democrats are ever going to go for that.

No, no. And you're right. It is a Ponzi scheme. Functionally, how is it not a Ponzi scheme? Can someone tell me that you may love social I you know, Social Security's great. It's it's an institution in America. We're not going to get rid of it. It may not be viable, but we're not going to proactively get rid of it.

By the way, Trump has no desire to. No, he doesn't. That's not that's not part of his agenda. Yes. And he'll do bold things that seem crazy, but that's not even part of it. Now, he doesn't want to touch it. But I want someone to tell me, when you look at the flow of dollars and you put Social Security side by side with a Ponzi scheme, how are they different.

Yeah. I, I can answer that question. You're not forced to participate in a Ponzi scheme. Yeah. Right. I can be jailed for not participating in this Ponzi scheme. That's true, that's true. There is a difference. You're right. I just answered my own question. We'll take a break. We'll wrap it up on the other side. On this Thursday on Newstalk 170.

Okay. Yeah. It's a mandatory participation Ponzi scheme. So it was President Johnson who moved it into the general fund. I didn't know that it was, I don't know. Yeah, well enough. I just know it's in the general fund. Yeah. Okay. Someone's saying it's never been put in the general fund. Okay. Lyndon Johnson was the first president to borrow from the Social Security trust fund.

That's probably what we're talking about there. See if you can borrow from it. Isn't it part of the general fund? Isn't that part of the general fund? If if there's fungibility there, then it might as well be part of the general fund. Yeah. Weird. This is the second time this person. Sorry. We're going to do a little, cleaning up here.

This is the second time that this person has asked this question, saying that Representative Reynolds interview is gone. Now. Did you know David moved hosting. The files are still being transferred. So it it will be restored at some point. Okay. I'm going to let them know. Yeah. We moved from GoDaddy over to Bluehost I believe so yeah. Oh headline Disney scales back premiere of the Snow White remake.

Yeah, because it's going to flop. I don't know how it's going to do anything but flop. Okay, speaking of this, I got an email from ABC news yesterday with a link to a survey and it said, tell us how we can do better. Is is all of Disney going through a culture change right now where they're saying, what are we doing wrong that's creating problems for ourselves?

I think the bottom line, well, they laid off a whole bunch of people. So there, their profit loss sheets can't look good. Yeah.

All right. To 957 on Newstalk 179, someone asked us, Julie, when was Social Security moved from the trust fund to the general budget? It's never been. However, President Lyndon Johnson started borrowing from the trust fund, which I'm like, if they decided to make that money fungible. And wouldn't they, what's the functional difference there? Putting then then putting it into the trust fund.

It sounds the same to me. Yeah, it seems the same. And they they take from it all of the time. Yeah. We had a listener send in and say they took a whole bunch from it to get the affordable Care Act up and going. I mean, so they they rob Peter. Yeah, all the time. Oh, yeah. To pay for what Paul wants.

Yeah. All right. Well that's going to do it for the show today. Don't forget tomorrow studio for covers. We have Lane Boeing doing some Foo Fighters. That'll be fun. It's going to be great. Yeah. And do we have an A legislative interview? We do. Representative Redman is joining us at 730. Jordan Redman. Have a great Thursday. Mark Lee Van and Robbins up next.