3.20.2025 -- NLS -- Tesla Vandals, Reagan Republicans & "We Listen"

On this episode with Neal and Julie, they tackle a range of political and cultural issues, starting with the strange trend of Tesla vandalism and the mindset behind it. They also discuss Hillary Clinton’s approach to blaming voters and how that messaging may not resonate as intended. Neal and Julie introduce a new segment inspired by a social media trend—"We Listen and We Don’t Judge"—where callers can share their thoughts without immediate criticism. However, they debate how truly judgment-free they can remain, especially when discussing Republican lawmakers who frequently vote with Democrats.

The conversation then shifts to political identity, questioning the legitimacy of self-proclaimed "Reagan Republicans" and whether their policies align with Reagan’s legacy. They also critique judicial overreach and discuss the implications of a recent Idaho legislative bill related to vaccine mandates, weighing both business rights and individual freedoms. Wrapping up, they explore how such legislation could backfire if political power shifts. Tune in for a lively, thought-provoking discussion on NewsTalk 107.9!

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

All right. Good morning. It's 807 on Newstalk 179. Welcome to this Thursday edition. We're having a little blast of snow. Short lived, I believe, only for an hour or two, but the roads might be a little dicey. I'm seeing these snow accumulating outside our studio four window here at Sand Hill. And by the way, if you'd like to reach us via text, the Stones Automotive Group call and text line is (208) 542-1079.

Heavy on the text. Light on the call. Voice calls right now. However, we will open up the phone lines a little bit later. I just don't want anyone to sit on hold. For for a long time. So, it is interesting. We have multiple stuff happening legislatively. The governor has signed a bill that prioritizes the management of and adds work requirements to the Medicaid program.

Hopefully this is going to help curb some of the Medicaid costs. So we'll get that later. There's also a control issue that we need to address now, leftists, people who are no doubt part of the left end of the spectrum that are defiling Teslas simply because they're Teslas and for some reason, in their broken, broken brains, they think that that is going to fix a problem that they see with Elon Musk and Doge.

Like this is the most bizarre disconnect. You know, I, I happen to be a I'm a fairly logical guy. And I strive when we talk, especially about public policy or about decisions that you make in your life. And don't get me wrong, I got my own set of weird and and challenges, but I think there's a very cause and effect relationship between things you do and things that happen after you do them.

It's like a computer program. And if then statement inside computer logic. If you do this, then this will happen. And for some people out there, the logic flows this way. If I smear poop on a Cybertruck, then Elon Musk will stop doing Doge. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen, and Elon Musk has been doing a couple of interviews and he said, these people are they're crazy.

And they are they are guano crazy. And we're watching it. And I guess the foresight of Elon Musk is apparently Teslas are outfitted with all sorts of cameras. So which makes total sense. Cameras are dirt cheap now, you might as well put them on a vehicle to add to its, capability and its value. And and so there's been more than one video from the, the feces smears, of these, of these cars.

And it's just more evidence. I think it actually speaks to a broader issue of how broken the other side is. Now, I'm sure we can find examples of crazy happening, on the on the right, no doubt about it. Did we got a lot of we got a lot of millions of people in America and billions of people around the world.

So you're going to find the crazy where you look at it. But this is the stuff that, excuse the pun, has floated to the top of the news cycle. And we're we're watching this happen. This just makes things worse for the Democrats. I know they're they're reacting from a very impulsive place right now, but they continue to double down on their bad decisions.

And you have Tim Walz, by the way, who is number two? Well, two things simultaneously. He wants to be the president of the United States and is cheering for the demise of an American car company, saying on my phone, I know some of you know this on the iPhone. They've got that little stock app. I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day.

225 and dropping so. I had and if you own one, if you own one, we're not blaming you. You can you can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off, you know, and take out just telling you okay. So here here's Tim Walls. He's not even hiding the fact that he would love to become the president of the United States.

And, you know, if you're a political hack or a leftist comedian or a a CNN moderator, not moderator, but a pundit, you can you can make that joke. You can cheer for the bad things to happen to an American company. I think you'd probably find some of that from Republicans when they decided to go the trans route on with Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney.

So yeah, I'm not saying that, it's never happened on our side, but you cannot be the president of the United States functionally, while cheering for the downfall of and but this is not just him, walls. You go back to the Obama administration. He wanted to put gun manufacturers out of business, that now he may not have said it in such a flip way.

Obama tried to project more serious, more gravitas then, Tim Walls can seem to produce. But nonetheless, this is who they are. And this is what they do. And and it it's quite, quite wild to to watch this. We have Chuck Schumer who's really in damage control mode. He has been doing the media rounds ever since he caved after about four minutes on the CR and said, I'm gonna vote for it.

I hate the bill, but it the alternative is worse, blah, blah, blah, whatever, he said. And so he's been making these rounds in the media because I think he's it's for survival. This is an existential, issue for Chuck Schumer from a political standpoint. And so he's going on all the media outlets that he can. Here's what he said.

You got to do it in a smart way and not let him drive you into a trap and let your anger at him end up hurting you. With all that said, why? Well, here's the Democratic numbers so low. That's a good look at the polling. And what do you say to these younger leaders who say it's time for an okay, look, we've got to bait our bases.

Always been the working people of America. We've never abandoned that. And we did a great job helping them. I mean, in the in the when I was majority leader and under Biden's presidency, we passed more legislation in 2022 than before. That's really helping the working people of America. I don't think that's true at all. Like I he says it, that's certainly not true there.

Although they define help and they define working people maybe differently than you or I or all of history and humanity is a define those words, okay. They they have new definitions that are often often fanned angled. And then you had Hillary Clinton. This is more alarmism, more crazy coming from the left. There's no way to sugarcoat it. There's no way to explain it away.

Autocracy is on the march, and we now have a government in the United States that has thrown in its lot with the autocrats, which has made a choice to support those who wage war, not peace. Okay. Remember, let's go back to my AP literature class. When I read George Orwell 1984 for the first time, I was already fairly political, but that's when I read that book for the first time.

And for me, it was life changing. It. It was paradigm shifting it. It began me on a different trajectory because I understood the import of paying attention to government power, what it means in our lives, and the psychological tools that will be used by those in power to keep those in not not in power suppressed and under their control.

And one of the most important things they will tell you is a blatant falsehood. It right to your face, but with a serious tone. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. And there were multiple examples. It's been a few years since I've read 1984. I could go through them, but you had these examples where Big Brother said these things that were directly contradictory.

While Donald Trump is working very hard to end the war in Ukraine and to stop people that continuously make war historically in the world. Now, he did bomb Yemen the other day not to make war, but to stop the violence, to stop the the ongoing ING threat that the Houthis, face. We're trying to stop Hamas because they are emblematic of ongoing war and hostility.

That's what Donald Trump is about stopping war, not starting it. But yet here's Hillary Clinton in a very Orwellian fashion, just simply telling you, gaslighting you. If we want to invoke that term that the peacemaker is the war maker, which has made a choice to support those who wage war, not peace. Okay, so going back really quickly with what Hillary Clinton said, she blames the American people.

She blames you because you voted for Donald Trump. America has chosen, she said. Now I am only an armchair political consultant. But telling the voters how wrong they are is probably not the golden pathway to becoming relevant again, to legitimately regaining political power, insult the American people and their choices. Know that that probably that's been tested before it's been focus grouped and telling the American people how stupid they are for their choices, or how more immoral they are for how they chose, is probably not going to get you closer.

Hillary, to what you want to see. And by the way, why is she even attracting cameras and microphones anymore? There there isn't a more has been has been than Hillary Clinton, except for maybe Jim Jones in Idaho. Not the not the Kool-Aid Jim Jones, the Idaho AG, Jim Jones. What I don't that's another problem of the left. They continue to elevate the old voices, the irrelevant voices, the voices that really nobody's adhering to anymore.

I had, there's actually, someone I care about a lot, but they are on the other side of the of the island. It had a discussion about if if Trump could run again and how epic a matchup it would be if third presidential terms were allowed and they brought Barack Obama out of retirement and, and, Donald Trump could run for a third term.

What a matchup that would be. And my thought on that is, yeah, I think it would be. That would probably be if if there was any viability or eligibility left for Barack Obama, that would be an interesting race. However, I don't think even Barack Obama holds the the political clout that he used to look at. He tried he tried to help senators and congressmen and the presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, get elected and would do America's just largely moved on.

They want disruption because what we've had is not acceptable. Now, this doesn't mean and Julie and I have been trying to tell you this, we cannot be Trump sycophants. We cannot just take a completely un skeptical eye to what Donald Trump is doing. And I fear that there is an element of that within the Republican Party right now that whatever Trump calls for, asks for, promotes, that they'll blindly go along with it.

I will give him more latitude than I traditionally would, because I'm going to tell you, draining the swamp, the updated language probably, you know, that was very 2016, but it's the same concept. And breaking down the corrupt structures of power is not going to be clean, and it's not going to be without ethical conundrums. Right now, we're watching this showdown between Trump and this federal district judge.

Traditionally, I would tell you, you know what? When and when a judicial branch judge, when when they issue an injunction, the executive branch should adhere to that. But we do live in a time and we can again, thank Barack Obama for this and then continued by Joe Biden. They have corrupted the judicial branch with political hacks that don't care about the law as much as they care about their own political ideology, the law that Donald Trump is using to deport trend arugula.

Mr.. To all the gang thugs, it says right in the law. It is not subject to judicial review, by the way, that's backed up by the Supreme Court, a previous decision. This judge can't do what he's doing and expect it to be effective, which in my mind, that's the basis to tell the judge to take a hike. But people get uneasy about that.

All right. It's 823 on Newstalk 109. We're going to try out a new calling segment today and I hope you'll like it. I'm going to wait to tell you what it is when Julie gets back. We'll, we'll we'll break it to you because I'm curious to see what you think of it. So we'll have that for you probably in the 9:00 hour, because I want you to think about it for a little bit, but we'll come back.

We'll continue after this. On Newstalk 1079.

828 on Newstalk 1079 it's Neil Larsen along with Julie Mason and Julie. I think it was actually in the shower when I had this thought last couple of days. And the bathroom, I don't even know what goes on. I don't know what happens, but like certain parts of my brain open up if I'm showering or using the restroom or you don't have as much clothes on, I feel unencumbered.

Yes. And it opens up your mind. Like your your physical and complements are representative of the ability for your mind to unlock. Yes, maybe you should write your book naked. I well, I'm joining a nudist colony writing club, so we'll see how that works out. Look, I'm drawn the line. We are not recording this show naked, okay? You're absolutely right.

We are not. However, back to back to the idea. Sorry for the detour there, but my thought is we are going to have a segment that coincides with a social media trend right now where Neil and Julie listen, but we don't judge. And so we're going to have a segment where you can call in, we will listen, but we won't judge.

Or you can texting because some people might not want their voice out there. That's fine. That's fine. But it I think the Collins would be a little more fun. They would be more fun. Be brave and call in and, we'll see how long we can last with whatever people say. And we reply with, we listen and we don't judge.

So we'll do that during the 9:00 hour. So think about what you want to call in with that you want to be able to say but not be judged for it. Okay. So if you don't know why this coincides with a social media trend on TikTok, there was a trend that was going on where people would be able to say whatever they would, they felt like they could say, and they would start out with, we listen and we don't judge.

And then they would tell, like maybe a horrible family story or, yeah, cringe moment or, you know, their deepest thought or whatever. So this is from a TikTok trend, but we thought, hey, let's make it live here. Yeah. What if what? And it can be anonymous, but what if we get a call and someone says, I'm a Republican legislator and I vote against medical freedom, then can we say we listen and we don't judge?

Or, like, how? How's that going to work? Sure. I'll say we listen and we don't judge. I'm going to give him kudos for finally being brave enough to come on the show. That's true to that's true. Yeah. Which is really kind of a shame, because this is by far the biggest politically active audience in East Idaho. Yeah, no doubt about it.

If any lawmaker in East Idaho wants to reach as many constituents as possible in one fell swoop, this this radio show is the place to do it. Yes. And don't you think that's why they don't? Well, me, maybe, but I'm just saying, if you really want to reach out to your constituents, you would. I think the difference is, Julie, we're we're going to ask tough questions.

And we have been critical of some votes. I think, I mean, I generally believe in the premise. I don't always agree with the solution others have put forward. But I agree with the premise that if you're going to call yourself a Republican, you need to vote like a Republican, and that doesn't mean it has to be 100% all the time.

You may have a different perspective on an issue or two. Maybe, but when you when we see a consistent voting pattern of Republicans that are siding with the nearly all, if not all Democrats in the legislature on important issues, by the way, then you have to start wondering what is their motive for being a Republican? And and I don't I don't believe their motive is that's where I feel like I fit philosophically.

Their motive is that's where I think I can win my next election. And and that to me is very problematic. I don't think we need tribunals to to sort it out or anything resembling that. But I do think that it needs to be pointed out, and they need to be pressed on these issues as to why this pattern and trend is just a constant feature of their time in the legislature.

Yeah. Okay, so I agree, I don't think the tribunals is the solution. Never did. Yeah. In the times that this was going on I don't think that's the solution. However, I think sunlight is the solution I do to sunlight on on what they've been doing. We have always said go over to the Capitol and prove yourself. And I think what they've done is proven.

Yeah. With several votes that they would prefer to side with the Democrats than they would with the Republicans, even though there's an R behind their name. I want to reference back also to the primary season. And so last May we were able to interview some not all, but some. And they, came on the radio program and professed this love for Ronald Reagan and the big tent.

Yeah. And I, I review our I analyze Reagan statements about the big tent obviously different than they do. We don't match up on what Reagan meant by those those phrases. Right. But what I will say is now that they've gone over and had a chance to prove themselves in a legislative session that is almost complete, and you have been voting with Democrats more often than you've been voting with Republicans.

Your big tent is not Ronald Reagan's big tent. No, that's true. You're right. You're right. You're you're sneaking in right. And and the big tent there's still expectations with the big tent. And I think they don't want to think their expectations with the big tent. If I you know sometimes we armchair quarterback our own interviews. And I look back and I think I wanted to ask that because they invoke Reagan's name.

Like they think that that's just automatic credit with the true libertarians, the people that loved Reagan. And I don't I don't think it should be that way any politician who says I'm a Reagan Republican probably isn't. I've never I love Ron. Look, I chose Ronald Reagan to open the show. I've never felt the need to proactively say I'm a Reagan Republican because I don't think people need convincing.

I think my words, my viewpoints stand for themselves. And I don't need to dovetail with Reagan's legacy to try to convince somebody else. They clearly do. And there's a reason why they're doing it. Do you know what else I've never said? I'm a Trump conservative. I never say race. Yeah, I call myself a conservative. I disagree with some of the things Trump has done.

I clearly agree he was a not just a somewhat better choice, a far and exceeding better choice than what we had running the country. Okay, that doesn't mean I need to define who I am calling myself a Trump conservative, because the term conservative should be able to stand on its own. And if you have to highlight Trump or Reagan behind that, you're probably hiding behind something.

Yeah, I, I think so, I think so, and I think the follow up questions I would have asked these people who are proactively calling themselves Reagan conservatives is so you're in favor then, do you believe in Reagan's very strong and staunch pro-life stance? Do you believe in Reagan's belief that we need to dissolve the Department of Education?

Do you and you get specific on the issues that made Reagan, Reagan, and let's see where they stand on that, because I don't think they actually feel the same way that Ronald Reagan did. They just see they think there's political value in invoking his name. And so they they want to ride along on those coattails. And I don't I don't think honestly, I think it's a terrible approach.

Right. My, the other thing I would ask him about Reagan is, well, did you believe in getting out of the way of government? Because I don't think you do. Yeah, I don't I don't think he I don't think you do. There have been multiple options that were out there this this legislative session that gave more freedom to the individual school choice.

Yeah. Not having to be forced into a vaccine, having having blood available that isn't vaccine tainted. Like I can keep going and going and going and these, these Republicans who call themselves that, but seem to be voting with the Democrats weren't in alignment with more freedom given to the individual with those beliefs, which was the the core of Reagan's reaganism the core of Reagan.

That's what he wanted. Reagan also, he was a cultural conservative. If you had asked Reagan, do you think porn should be available to kids in libraries? There's no way he would have been on board with that. So these people, it's it's a disingenuous invocation of Ronald Reagan's legacy for their own political benefit. And I, I think we just need to point it out.

I think that's our job is to say, look, they're saying they're Reagan Republicans. They're really not. And and it's it's dishonest for them to say, I also want to say this, can I make the room a little awkward here? I think it's any county chairman's job to cultivate candidates that are in the greatest alignment with the platform and run against even incumbents.

Right. And if I might, Colson or whoever I, I would want to cultivate candidates. I'd take a look at the voting record. I'd take a look at the the stuff we're getting out of every single one of these, from Barb Hart to Wendy Harmon to Stephanie Mickelson to Josh Wheeler to whoever, and say, are we getting true Republican representation because it's his job to look out for the Republican brand?

And then say, okay, well I don't think we're getting votes that reflect what the party stands for. I need to go find some candidates that will run and better reflect what what it means to be a Republican. If you're going to use that name behind your I mean, I you know what I would say, Julie, I think the answer to this is not to tell them not to run.

Just don't run as a Republican. I mean, if you come back, you're you're voting with Democrats as often as you are Republicans, many of them, not all. It's a little bit of a mixed bag, but I would say just be true to your values and be honest about who you are, because it it does feel pretty disingenuous for you to put the R behind your name.

You have you have every right to run. You meet all the qualifications to run as a candidate, and I support that right for you to do it. But run genuine to who you are philosophically and you clearly based on your votes, don't seem to be aligning with Republican, values. So run as an independent, maybe run as a Democrat because you're voting with them quite often.

But but don't don't invoke the brand of Republican. So selfishly that you get there. If you can get there, you're now an incumbent. Run and run as an independent. You may have a good shot because people are going to look at it and go, oh, I recognize that name. And I think if you they already recognize the name, the letter behind the name doesn't necessarily mean anything to to the voter.

I think what you're asking for is there is some integrity in that. Labels matter. Yeah. And I don't think that there is an infusion of tech in integrity there. I'm not saying they don't have integrity in their life. Yeah, I'm saying they don't have integrity when assigning a label to their political desires. Yes. In this political decision there's not an alignment.

Yes, yes. Yeah. And so I think you're asking for integrity there. And I think they they have proven that they lack it in that area. I would, I would also say a call out to the voters and, I would ask you to start looking at the productivity of these same people that we're talking about, those who have an R behind their name, but they regularly vote with the Democrats.

Yeah. I would also like you to start examining their productivity. And are we actually sending them over there and getting anything we paid for out of a lawmaker? Yeah, that's a great question because, not all, but some of these from East Idaho who have an R behind their name, but they're actually voting with the Democrats really aren't doing anything either.

No, they're not bringing forth great solutions. Yeah, they're not working as hard as we see some other lawmakers work. And when the bar has been sent by a set by other lawmakers to work as diligently as they do, I have pretty high expectations. Okay. So let me put a okay. Something just occurred to me, Julie, and I think I say this not in the spirit of contradictory contradicting, but just looking at it from a new angle.

I genuinely feel like maybe they're not lazy or not diligent. Maybe they recognize every idea that they want to put forward as a law has no chance of passing. Oh, that's quite possible. Yeah. So it's just they're there to vote against the Republicans being a Republican, voting against the Republicans. So they're sort of in there to stop the ideas they hate, but they know the ideas they'd love to see happen have no future in the Idaho Legislature right now.

Yeah. And maybe their time on those ideas are being spent with Democrats. And the Democrats are bringing those options forward. I don't know, I just know I can't put myself in their minds and determine why there's a lack of productivity, but there is a lack of productivity. Yeah, yeah, there is. That's true. Yeah. What what's been put forward.

All right. 842 Newstalk 1079 quick break. We'll come back if you'd like to reach us. (208) 542-1079. That's the Stones Automotive Group calling text line. And don't forget next our brand new feature here. We want you to call Neil and Julie and tell us whatever he is on your chest. And Julie and I will listen, but we won't judge next hour on Newstalk 1079.

All right. It's 848 on Newstalk 179. All right, Neil, I'm going to throw an interesting fact at you. Are you ready? Why? My eyes are closed and I'm focused. Yes. Go ahead. How what's the percentage of people or Americans I should say. What's the percentage of Americans that don't sleep in their beds like they sleep in a recliner instead?

Any gas? 18%. Oh, you're so close. Am I? You're so close. It's above ten. Oh, wow. Okay. Yep. So above 10% of of Americans sleep in their on their sofa or their recliner. And because of that, Timberline home has brought in a line of recliners called z cleaners, a Z z cleaners, C, z, z recliners, those recliners that, are made to actually be slept in like a, designed to form to your body so that it's a comfortable sleep experience.

They have heat, they have massage, they have reclining options. They have zero gravity for increased circulation of your body. Oh, wow. Doesn't this sound amazing? Okay, I'm very interested because my aging mother, who lives with us, has dementia. She sleeps in a recliner. I may go look at those because that's a I mean, she loves her recliner and it's great, but we may want upgrade to upgrade to that there.

Here's another perk. And another perk the Nano Bionic fabric used for the Z cleaner is infused with minerals to speed up blood flow, and it does it by up to 30%. So just being on that fabric helps your body, the blood in your body flow better, and that is backed by science. Timberline home says it's backed by by science.

So right now at Timberline Home in Idaho Falls, you can save an additional $300 on any Z cleaner, but only for a limited time. So I recommend head on down to Timberline Home Talk to them about these recliners, especially if you're one of those people that get better sleep in a process. Let me do in a traditional that they're located at seven in Idaho Falls.

And I've, I've worked with you've been there. You've actually I mean, I know I may go in, they'll help you. I say customer service. Timberline 851 back after this break and we'll wrap up this hour. Coming. You know. All right. It's 855 on Newstalk. 107I Neil Eisen, Julie Mason and, well, were we going to. We're talking about something.

Julie. I wanted to bring it up with you in the last couple of minutes here. We're talking about the mall closing. Oh, yeah? Yeah, I saw this story that they're taking a wrecking ball to the Pine Ridge Mall. That just makes me sad. Yeah, I bet you're not the only one. I bet you're not the only one. I bet that is some an end to some really good memories for people.

Oh, yeah. Like, my whole. I mean, I didn't live in Pocatello, but I growing up, when we said, let's go to the mall, it was always the Pine Ridge Mall. And it always reminded me the Pine Ridge Mall always reminded me of the Twin Pines Mall in back to the future. Yeah, yeah, I think that was that Twin Pines.

Yeah. Anyway, so, yeah, I have fond memories of that mall. It's kind of sad to see, for whatever reason, and I don't quite understand, all of it, but malls have been struggling like this is not that surprising. And I think malls a bit just been sort of going the way of the newspaper. Yeah. No, it just is something people have moved on from.

Yeah. I actually stopped at the Grand Teton Mall the other day. I needed to get something specific. I was pretty surprised at how full it was. Yeah, yeah, more than I would have expected. You know what? When I do go to the mall, you know what? Business is killing it there. But pretzel maker, I know they always seem to do as a line 7 or 8 people deep.

Every single time I go, isn't that crazy? And I'm telling you, it's because of the smell. It is. They smell so good. Well, any any time you put gluten, butter and salt, it's a winning combination. I also believe this is true about, a, like, sugared almonds. So say you go to a jazz game and they're selling those almonds.

They smell so good. And they just place. Yeah, they just taste. Yeah. They taste okay. Right. They're not, like, amazing tasting, but they're not horrible. But they smell so good. Okay, this might be fighting words. I'm the same way with Cinnabon. Okay. There you go. Like I it smells amazing. And it tastes fine. It's okay. Like it's it's fine.

It's not my grandma's cinnamon rolls, but it's fine. But when you smell it, you're like, oh yeah I completely agree with that. Yeah. And I think Pretzel Maker is the same way. I think they taste good. Yeah. But they're not like, that's the best thing I had all week. Okay. You're not a dip person, but do you do the nacho cheese.

No I get the cinnamon and sugar if I do pretzel maker. Have you ever tried the nacho cheese now. Okay. You need counseling. You knew the answer to that. You know, I set you up for this. I'm like, you've never tried the nacho cheese at Pretzel Maker. I'm the girl who eats her fries without fries, sauce and ketchup.

I. I listen and I don't judge. There we go. All right. To learn I wasn't getting in the in the mode here because we're going to do that this next out. I mean right now I still am really judging. But internally he's judging. I'm trying to, you know, produce the words. I listen and and I don't judge. I was talking to a client yesterday who's suffering the effects of Covid long, long haulers.

Yeah, because she can't taste anything. She stopped dipping. She stopped doing salad dressing. It doesn't matter. She can't taste it. Yeah. That stinks. Yeah. My smell. I've gotten most my taste back. I can't smell anything. We were driving the other day, and my mom was in the car like. Well, there were 3 or 4 people in the car.

Went through a skunk smell. Couldn't smell anything. Yeah. All right. Our two coming up. So, Julie, if there's a long enough pause between, we listen and and we don't judge. Does that mean you're judging? No. You have to say quickly because that means your conviction. You got conviction. We listen and we don't judge. No. Like, what if somebody calls in and they say, I think Tim Walz is a dreamboat.

And I voted for Kamala Harris. I don't know if I can say we listen and we don't judge. I think my response to that is we listen and we don't judge like the gritted teeth and we don't. Yeah, I'll let you do that. If somebody talks about Tim Walz has a dream boat, and then I will find the name of a good therapist and send that number to the person who calls in, okay, gotcha.

Because I don't need it, but they do it. Do they do what if someone calls in and said, last night I smeared feces on a Cybertruck? We say we listen and we don't judge, and then we probably call whatever county they're from and call law enforcement. Yeah. So they can judge. Yes, we listen and we don't judge, but we do call law enforcement.

We do stop vandalism. I think that's and that's updated firmware from we listen and we don't judge. It's we listen and we don't judge. But we do call law enforcement. Yes. All right. (208) 542-1079 let's just go to show. Are we starting this right now? Let's do it. Okay. If you want to call, it can be a confession.

It can be something that you have felt secretive about, ashamed of something you need to get off your chest. And, Julian, I truly will just listen, and we won't judge. There we go. Our follow up questions allowed in. We listen and we don't judge. Or do we just listen and let it be? Maybe what we say is, can we ask a question?

And if they say no, then we respect and don't ask, okay, I gotcha. Okay, let's go to the phones. Caller go ahead. How are you? Hey, Neal. Hi. This is the redneck. Call you for a while. It's been a minute. How are you? Well, I'm doing just fine. Good, good. Other, other. No, no, I think it's fine with Donald Trump.

Us? Just tell that Judge Digger we're the same man. Sure, we listen and we don't judge. That's true. We definitely don't. Well, I don't care if you judge or not. I'm. I'm a little bit, like Trump myself. I mean, yeah. Hey, you know, we have immigration laws, and those laws are supposed to be for. So how come this judge is following?

No. Yeah, yeah. Well, agreed. Well, okay. And not only that, let's judge. Better think about there's a whole bunch of American people that are getting tired. And I have been tired of this stuff that's been going on for way, way too long. You better think about that $36 trillion debt that we're facing. Yeah. You know. Yeah. Oh, no, you're right.

But I think these judges come from a certain ideological position and, that they're not driven by upholding and supporting the law. That's the oath they took. But they're really just they're on false premises. They're there to to promote the the leftist agenda. I think it's clear I actually think that's true of some of our Supreme Court justices to I agree.

Yeah. But anyway, no, I got one last question. Okay. Yeah, yeah. You and Julie, I want you to both answered, you guys believe in global warming? Well, let me let me sort of reverse engineer your question. Do you mean global warming caused by mankind?

Yeah. Yeah, I think the the globe warms, but I don't think it's largely caused by mankind. I think that it is, virtually all due to just the natural fluctuations of the climate, I agree. Yeah. You know, on the other hand, the they're claiming, me as a cattle rancher contributing to global warming. So, yeah, my point is, is, Naomi, really, you've got to keep being heroes.

Okay, well, we'll do our best because I raised beef. You guys got to eat it that way. You're decreasing global warming, right? Yes. I'm definitely doing my fair share.

I'm doing everything we can. Yes. Have a good day. Take care. Thank you. And be safe on these roads. We understand there's a traffic back up on highway 20. Yep. Yeah, around Lorenzo Bridge area, I believe so, yeah. Be careful on southbound or westbound. It's highway 20, so, Okay, let's go to our next caller. Caller? Go ahead.

How are you today? I'm doing fine. I had an idea about this issue with Donald Trump and a district judge in New York. I'm thinking perhaps I should issue a ruling, write it up and send it to both Donald Trump and this judge in New York, in which I authorize President Trump to continue with what he's doing on that, that the flights and things like that.

And I could make it clear just exactly what my authority is for such a ruling that I have the same, precisely the same level of authority as the district judge does, which is absolutely zero, right? Then Donald Trump can choose between which ruling he wants to follow from people who have no authority to issue such rulings. What do you think about that?

I think it's a great thought experiment. You I encourage you to try it. Maybe we could get somebody with even a higher level of authority than me, like, say, the mayor of Rigby, to send a ruling also that that's true, but okay, fine. But not not via car. All right. Let's do 085421079. And, hold on one second here.

All right. Caller go ahead. I have BYU winning. And going to the sweet 16. We listen and we don't judge. I had to preempt Julie there. We listen and we don't just listen it. We don't judge.

You guys are welcome. Thank you.

Oh, I'm holding my tongue. The self-restraint. Yes. All right. It's the. We listen and we don't judge segment. If you want to call in, Julie and I will listen. And we won't judge you. And we will. I will say you can be judgy with your body language, too. And when you clench both fists and you squint your eyes and you cringe, that's what I did.

Okay, I'm going to do better. Restraint. Okay, I here, here. You ready? You ready? Yeah. I hope the best for that caller. I hope his bracket does amazing. Okay, see, I can sense just a little bit of sarcasm there. Just, just a little, little bit. Neil. We listen. Listening. We don't judge. I know that even applies to you.

Okay. Got you. All right, I listen, and I don't judge, I listen, and I don't judge your sarcasm. There we go. All right. (208) 542-1079 Julie and I are listening and not judging. This segment only. Bring it on, you guys. We'll do it. Yeah. Look, the BYU car was great. Anyone, send anything in? Well, I was operating the video recorder.

Hold, please. Okay. I'll wait, wait, I hold on. Somebody fact checked me. They said it was the lone Pine Mall in back to the future, but that was only on one timeline. Yeah, at one point, it was the Twin Pines Mall, but the the time travel changed it. So because the Delorean ran over one of the pine trees.

Yes. Yeah, that's what happened. So it in one part of the movie, it is the Twin Pines Mall. Yeah. I look for the Two Pines Mall. So I love that show. Yeah. 285421078. Okay, Julie, you tell me something that I have to listen to, but not judge you, and I'll. I'll come up with something for you to.

Goodness. Listen. And I don't judge. Yeah. I'm. I going to do something food related? Yeah. That's. Yeah, sure. Okay. Ready? Yeah. Neil and I went and got breakfast this morning. I would have, rather than eaten that fast food breakfast. I would have rather had roasted sweet potatoes for breakfast reheated. I listen and I don't judge.

Okay. There we go. I listen and I'm not even tempted to judge. Oh, good. Yeah, that's that. Julie. When we first started working together, I would put Cheetos on spaghetti for breads. He did. I wish I could go back and see my face the day that you did that. And I would have said, you need to just watch and not judge.

And let's go to the next caller. Welcome to the show caller. How are you? No. Good morning, Neil and Julie. Just one thing of, being judgmental. It seems to be a recurrent theme this morning, and judges, the, No, it's got my point. I was laughing at myself. We listening? We don't. Yeah. We're not judging you for that.

That's fine. Yeah. Anyway. Oh, there we go. I remember, getting old is no fun. Looking at this and watching this, and what's been going on for the last few years, in the threats of hacking the Supreme Court. I think they are testing the waters with these judges to see if they're going to be able to get away with it.

I've been watching politics well, since the Kennedy Nixon debates. And this just reminds me. Of that situation. Yeah. Well, no, thank you for the call. I think that that's a that is a fair point. I think part of the problem to to win the white House and to win Congress, you have to win over the American people.

So to the left, that's hit and miss. But if they can and they're limited by terms to they have to face election every two years or six years with the president, it's four, but they're limited to two terms. So it's like there's limitations on how it's it requires an immense amount of effort to have control of those. But but if you can get a judge in, they may be there for 20 or 30 or more years.

And so your ROI on getting a liberal judge in place is much bigger than just getting a congressman elected to another two year term. I love that you couched it as ROI, because that is truly the biggest return. Yeah, I AOC could go away tomorrow. Schumer could go away tomorrow. Like there. You don't have clear, clear returns or predictable returns with those.

I'm sure they thought they were getting a gold mine with Fetterman. Was that predictable? The way that he would end up? Not at all. But with a judge who can get paid off in some way or has family that they're they're helping out. That's a far more predictable and a long term solution. Yeah. Yeah, it really is. It is.

So I mean, that's why there is massive whenever, effort undertaken to prevent a conservative justice or to promote a liberal judge because it is such a long term thing. Yeah. Let's go to our next caller. Welcome to the Neil Larson Show. Hello. How are you? Doing well. Doing well. What's up? Well, my question is, is where the hell is Pam Bondi?

I doesn't she is the lead attorney general. There's a whole system. Step in and tell these judges to stand down. You're way out of your realm. Well, she's not their boss. I mean, she is the attorney general, but she. She doesn't have the authority to remove a judge or order a judge or issue an edict to a judge.

So I think I and I don't think we want attorney generals to have that power, because sometimes Democrats win, and they could say the same thing to a conservative judge or an originalist judge. So I don't I think we might be venturing down a path that we want her to do something, but I don't know that she has that authority.

Okay, I understand that you may. It's just like if you had Judge Dana walk in here in town, make a ruling. It's like, How can he even make a ruling? It's not in his jurisdiction, you know? Yeah. No, it's a it's a great question. I think that's why Trump is largely he's he's moving forward with these. And that will probably expedite it to the Supreme Court where they're going to be the make the final decision.

So okay. Well I thank you. Thank you for the for the call. I also just want to point out something as a potential answer. I have no idea if it's accurate or not, but as a potential answer to the caller, we may not know what Pam Bondi is doing in the background. You know, there might be some serious work happening here.

I wish if she was, if that is actually happening, I wish it was being more transparent so people would have faith in what she's doing, because she does seem to be the one person that has been put in a cabinet position that most people are disappointed with. Yeah, right now I'm like a it's about time for her to start producing or I'm going to have some real concern.

And you're not the only one in the is not the only one when you think about it. Kash Patel I mean, we have the JFK files now. We have him going pouring over the Epstein files. We have Marco Rubio. That's accomplished a whole bunch in a short amount of time. As secretary of state, you've got, I mean, Tom, homeland.

I mean, I know he's not in a cabinet position, but look at the work that man is doing. Yeah, absolutely. So I think all of them are working at Trump speed. And look, I'm not I'm not Carson. I'm listening. And I'm not judging Pam Bondi here I am watching and thinking, okay, it it's about time for her to start producing what Trump and working at Trump speed.

You cannot work at traditional attorney general speed. You're going to have to work at Trump speed. The expectations are higher now and you've just got to you got to perform. It's like when a new coach comes in with a new game plan, the players have to rise to the level of that new game plan and the expectations of the coach.

You can't go with what was been done before or, you know, some previous standard. So I yeah, I right now I would give Pam Bondi B-minus C-Plus maybe she's passing but she better really step it up and do some extra credit. Yeah. But get on it. Yes. (208) 542-1079 Neil Larson along with Julie Mason on this Thursday morning.

So yeah, be careful on highway 20, particularly over the bridges this morning because we're hearing of accidents and traffic backups. Right. So okay. Following are listen and don't judge somebody's son in. Please do not judge me. But I despise people who ignore instructions that you give for calls and do just the opposite. You listen and we don't judge even when we silently agree.

But we're not judging. No we're not, we're not. I think that's that's great. Someone said Bundy rebuked a judge with a letter yesterday. I Sonic okay, that's not really doing anything. A letter is not, you know, it doesn't have any teeth. And just as I believe that the what the judge did in New York with the the plane loads going to El Salvador doesn't have teeth I want.

Yeah. True action can't. And I don't know how the judiciary works. It's like the rules of backgammon. Nobody really knows what they are, right? Who even plays that game? I don't know, like. No, I don't think anybody actually knows how to play backgammon. I think they just put a bunch of checkers on a board and pile them up on those really long triangles, and they're like, but nobody knows how it works.

And everybody has that case of, of backgammon in their, in their game closet. But it's the one game that never gets pulled out. You know what? I'm going to put it out there. Does anybody actually know how backgammon is played. Because I don't think that person exists. I don't think there are any rules. I think the rule of backgammon is look like you know what you're doing and that's it.

And look, if it was fun, people would talk about it more. How many people talk about Pinnacle and Bridge and yeah, they don't know. They don't reference that they got together with their backgammon club. Yeah. That's that's true. That's there is not defenders of backgammon rule like no, someone said hummus is awesome, especially with grilled chicken to Zeke sauce and spinach.

We listen and we don't judge. Couldn't agree more. Couldn't agree more. No, we don't judge. Okay. Agree to enjoy hummus. Agreeing is a verdict. So we just like to send me a recipe. I would gladly accept it. Okay, let's just go to the phones. Even the outnumbered will listen and not judge. Caller, welcome to the show. Hey, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because what she's doing, you have to have all your all your eyes dotted and all your t's crossed, and everything has to be right in order to go forward and have it stick and go anywhere.

And so gathering the information and all that stuff, I understand it takes time and they can't just peel open files and give it all to the public and there and all this. So I think I understand that I, I wish that there was more action and more stuff coming forward and more things happening. But I get why she isn't having the same headlines that everybody else is having.

Yes, I and I agree with that. Like, I think it may take a little while for the Epstein files to get out because you have to protect the innocent and and their identity. And so I, I'm okay with that. I, I understand that I do think though there may be some proactive steps that she could take like let me put this forward.

And again, this is part of the rules of the judiciary. I may not understand if a judge can overrule a president, a judge can definitely overrule a judge. So can Pam Bondi go to a higher court and say, this judge is out of control, you need to overturn the injunction against Trump and make that argument. I don't know that she's doing that right now.

And I would like a more proactive AG. And I think Matt Gates, had he gotten through and become the AG, would probably see some different things out of the AG's office than we're seeing out of Pam Bondi. Some of it we may not like, but but I think we would see a faster pace. Yeah, some of that stuff I agree with.

Yeah I mean this this jet I like I said the other day, I, I'm all for the oversight that this judges is going above and beyond what his scope is. Yeah. And somebody should have swooped in at squash that right away and said, look, if you want to do this, this is how we do this. Yeah. Yeah, I, I agree.

Yeah, yeah. Anyway, thank you for the call I appreciate it. And again, that's why I'm giving Pam Bondi a B-minus. I'm still giving her a passing grade, but somebody else on the text line agrees that they say, I think Bondi and Patel have a harder battle to produce. They are fighting, a lot of deep state plants that they have to sort through.

That's true. That's true. Right. Yeah. I think we should afford them more. A little more grace. Yeah. All right. Let's go to the next caller. Welcome to the show. Yeah. So more of a question. Don't go to any place, but, So what? So just a normal says that they come to court and they have, it's clear it's frivolous litigation.

So they have the power to just throw throw out that litigation if they determine they have judgment, to make it now. And that's from and yeah, they have to waste time. They can just dismiss a lawsuit. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. That's kind of how I, you know, the or the vibe I'm getting, you know, was a, you know, when you talk about this judge, that's the function of Trump.

So yeah I know it's more complicated at that level. But yeah I'd like to like to see it you know. Yeah. Well quicker. Yeah. No I that's that's a good point. Like he said I don't know that it, it works the same way. Wait a minute. Can I ask a question. Yeah. This is a left field question because the Supreme Court has given Donald Trump immunity whenever he's operating as president.

Does that give him a wider latitude to ignore this judge's injunction? Okay. I, I haven't seen that presented anywhere, but potentially yes, I think that would be a great question to have answered by somebody who understands these these laws. Yeah, yeah. Now, it's funny because you'll hear the left say, well, nobody should be above the law, not even the president of the United States, which I get that this injunction is not law.

That's the law is something that Congress debates and fights over and refines and amends and passes, and then it gets signed by the president. That's what a law is. And that is that's the gold standard of what law is a judge just arbitrarily spitting out a piece of paper and putting his signature on it. We should never treat that with the same level of regard that we treat an actual law that gets passed.

Yeah. So it's actually the opposite of what's happening in this situation, because from minute one, the Trump administration has referenced the law that they were using that made them have the ability to send these, horrible gang members to El Salvador. Yeah. So if you look at it, the presidential, part of this is actually using a law.

Yes. Correct. To make it all happen. The judge isn't using a law. Yes. That's right. Now imagine for a moment and we have to take a break. But you're all going to listen and not judge him while I. And I'm listening and not judging about Neal's cell phone going off right now. Okay, I get a spam call about this time every day.

So thanks for not judging. Spam with air quotes about it. Spam. Okay, imagine if a referee on a basketball court came three three of them. You have three in a row in a basketball game, and one of the referees in the middle of the game said, okay, we know the rule about traveling. You can't take more than two steps, whatever, depending on the league.

And if your name is LeBron, you can take seven. Oh yeah. If you're if you're LeBron you can take seven steps. Yeah the NBA or but the LeBron rule is seven. Yes. Right six. There's a there's a caveat there. But what if a ref came along and said you know what. I'm going to add another requirement to the dribbling rule.

You cannot dribble the ball more than five times at that point. You either have to stop and plant a pivot foot or you have to pass the ball, but you can't dribble more than five times like it's it's an arbitrary rule that's been created out of thin air. That's what judges are doing. Yeah. We're President Trump has every authority under current law to do what he did.

But this judge, this referee came along and said oh no, you need my approval too. And I don't think that's how it works at all. Yeah. And to follow along with your analogy, they're also saying, and we're going to stop the game for the next several months until we get multiple people deciding on whether or not my, my interpretation of, only being allowed to dribble five times is.

Right. So we're going to just stop the game. Yeah. Stop everything. We'll pick this back up after multiple courts decide on it. Yeah, yeah. Interesting. There's always a sports analogy. Always. And a food. Yes. Food analogy. In a sports analogy. Things that make the world go round. Yeah. All right. We'll be right back. 933 Newstalk 10792085421079. That's the Stones Automotive Group.

Listen and don't judge lean today. We'll be right back. We listen and we don't judge. Okay. Two things. I pulled the BYU portion. The video process is happening right now, and then my phone will not take this TV any further than this. I've tried it three times. Oh, for the love of Pete. Let me try it is for the love of Pete.

Does that have its origins in Saint Peter? I don't know who is Pete. I don't know Peter Brady. I'm going to look it up while you're fixing the TV. Here's a story. Here we go. Pork schnapp. Oshkosh. All right. You had to press the back button because it was on something else I put. I promise I pushed everything you did everything,

Yeah, it was like my phone wouldn't register it. I don't know what was going on. And it could be my fault, because maybe I pushed too many buttons and I was going, what? What? What do you want me to do? You push too many buttons, which is how Neil is by Friday. Wait, whose push? Who's pushing the button?

Like I push too many of yours. But I got you. Okay, now, it's not. It's by Thursday. Okay?

For the Love of Pete. Came in 1906. And in the name of Pete, 1942. The intent, in case you didn't already know, is to express exasperation or annoyance. Okay. Thank you. Where did it come from? Okay, we know what it means, but we listen and we don't judge. I do you know what a prompt I wrote? Where does the phrase for the love of Pete come from?

And they didn't answer the question. Okay, here it is further down. The origin of the phrase for the love of Pete can be traced back to the earliest 20th century. It is believed to be a euphemistic substitution for the more blast blasts method. Expression for the love of God. Blasphemous expression. Okay, so you, for the love of God, you can blaspheme an apostle just you can't do God.

Okay? Blasphemy! But would that be how you would say blasphemy, a blasphemy, blasphemy, blasphemous blaspheme? So I have been chatting with one of our lawmakers who will answer questions for me. They took a very, calm approach to what I was asking about the, mandate bill. The vaccine mandate bill? Yeah. That lawmaker believes that, Governor Little will potentially veto it, even though it passed both House and the Senate.

Really? Yeah. Yeah. All right. Julie. What? Go ahead. Okay. Two things. First, the funny one. Are you ready? Yeah. We're going to listen and we don't judge. Are you ready? I'm maybe yeah I'm ready. Somebody sent in Weber State has far superior football and basketball programs than those at Idaho State. You're full of crap. Neil doesn't understand the rules.

Has gone too far.

Okay, I'm not playing this anymore. Okay? There's a one. And done. I'm throwing down my marbles. I'm going home. Unless we have some caveat in the future that you can't bring up Weber State. Okay? That's that's that's too far. Okay. That's too far. All right. Good. Okay. You want the second one? Yeah. What did I just talked about on Facebook Live.

Yeah. So, the beginning of the show, I had well before the, on the 9:00 hour started, I had struck up a conversation with one of our lawmakers that will give me very, like, calm interpretations of what is going on in the Senate and the House. And so I sent this lawmaker a text saying, hey, what do you think about this bill that just passed that a lot of the Republicans from East Idaho voted against for the vaccine mandates.

If you were listening earlier, we were talking about it. The response from this lawmaker was that it it didn't pass overwhelmingly in the Senate, which is where it originated. It didn't pass overwhelmingly in the House. And it is not veto proof because it did not pass overwhelmingly. So I responded with, what do you think, governor? Little will do?

And the response back was probably veto the bill. Okay, I would now my next question is, is I feel like this could be language oriented, that we really need to read the language of this bill. Yeah. And see what the hiccup is. This is the vaccination bill. Yeah. They well, what you need to know, if you look at the original bill versus the final amended bill, the original bill was about the coronavirus vaccine by the end of it, they had crossed out a whole bunch of stuff and replaced all references to coronavirus vaccine with medical intervention.

So when I read that, I, I would have probably voted for the bill, but I feel like there's that's too broad like that. There's lots and lots of situations now where you got to think through, how could this be applied, misapplied unintended consequences and all of that. I think I would have felt better if it was specifically about the coronavirus vaccine.

But yes, but that's not me saying I'm against the bill, but I do think it gives the governor room enough to veto this and say, look, this was just too vague and and we don't know what could happen unintended because of this. Yeah. I have a lot of feelings about this. So first off, I believe in Idaho, this is that 8020 issue that exists across the nation, like die, men in women's sports.

I think that this is a very winning issue in Idaho. Yeah, 80% of Idahoans believe that government should get out of their personal lives. And you shouldn't be required to take a Covid 19 shot in order to keep your job. Yeah, I think that's an 8020 issue here, which for if you just look at the votes that came in, that's why we're critical of the senators and the, representatives that are Republicans that voted against this.

However, you have to be very careful with the wording, and that's the details that you have to look at. And I think both you and I share these concerns that maybe the wording was wrong. So it's actually the drafting and the amendment. Yeah. To the bill that has flaws, not the concept. Correct. The bill. Yes. It has flaws.

Yeah. And like I said, we don't vote for the intention of bills. We vote for bills and what they actually say. So yeah, I, I'm, I mean, I'm not there. I absolutely trust our lawmaker friend when they say they think the governor may veto this one. I think I could see why he would. Yes, I get it.

So and I think I probably would fall in the same category as you because it's an 8020 issue for Idahoans. I would feel like it would be my duty to represent my constituents, and vote for the bill. But I probably, after reading it, I may have brought up some concerns. So we listen to a little bit of audio of Representative Mickelson.

She voted against it, and she her interpretation of the bill and one of these sort of unintended consequence situations would be if you own, say, a movie theater and somebody comes up to buy a ticket and they have the measles, you have to I mean, obviously the measles and it's active that you have to let them in and and be it.

Now, I don't know if that's just her interpretation or if there's actually language in the bill that requires business owners to take people who have contagious active diseases and, and let them in. I kind of feel like that may be a stretch of a scenario to justify her no vote on the bill. But if if that's true, I think you have to look out for the rights of business owners, too.

I mean, you know what? You know what? The rallying cry, it's the modern day version of give, give me liberty or give me death is no shirt, no shoes, no service. Yeah, you know, like the business owners have a right to say no, I don't want you in my store. I don't want you to do that. So have we sort of turn the tables on this issue where it if a business owner says if you're not vaccinated, I don't want you to come in here because, and then coronavirus vaccine shot is different because it doesn't give you immunity.

Right? It's not a vaccine. Right. But if somebody came in with polio or measles or something like that, and it's highlighted cases, I would want that business owner to be able to say, no, you're posing a threat to my other customers. I'm not going to let you in. So I don't know. I maybe maybe it does go too far.

I'm not sure. So the person that I had been texting is listening. So there's some responses coming in. Again, trying to. And I feel like this lawmaker is doing a good job of trying to figure out what both sides were thinking here. One of the things is that this lawmaker is saying that things like Stephanie Mikkelson brought up was actually just an excuse to make sure that it would cover, her desire to vote against it, that, yeah, that this lawmaker feels like potentially that wouldn't actually ever happen.

I don't like these these kind of scenarios just wouldn't come to play. Okay, so someone did text in. Neither government nor private business should be able to mandate that people take a specific brand or type of medicine or medical procedure. The bill does not prohibit them from excluding people who are sick, but they can't mandate what type of medicine someone takes.

That's two sides of the same coin, right? Like they're saying, like if you want to come to a concert at my venue, then you you can't have polio. And the only way to guarantee that is if you're vaccinated against polio, right? I mean, how do you how do you how do you navigate that? I guess that's my quote.

There's there's like this really thin, fine, nuanced place here, but it feels like it's two sides of the same coin. Yeah. You can't make a requirement on somebody. You can't make a requirement on somebody that can't be proven. Like, you can't look at me and say, you can't get on this airplane without a star card and then not allow me to show my star card.

Yeah, right. Right, right. And so, you can't require something of me to enter a concert venue that you can't prove, because just because I don't have the the polio vaccine doesn't mean I have polio. Right? So you can't require something of me that you can't then allow me to prove. Yeah. And with the Covid that with the Covid shot, there was no guarantees.

There's no guarantees in any of it. Yeah. I could have taken the shot. Shown you my my record of taking the shot. That doesn't mean I don't have Covid. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. That's true. Because we know how effective those shots were. And are they what are they optimally boosters now 22. All right. We'll take a break.

We'll be back. Yeah I don't I don't know. This gets into a weird place. Yeah I don't I don't I just don't love any of it. And I, I want to know how dangerous was the wording really. This this is one of those. This is absolutely one of those. We needed to sit through the whole hearing. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. Someone else said this protected health information. You don't have the right to ask. Okay. But but here's the thing. I'm going to play both sides here. All right. So I mean it could be either way I'm going to be totally inconsistent. And I would say, okay, if you don't want to provide me proof that you're healthy, you don't come into my store.

Like I just. There's an illness going around. I want to know you're healthy. One way is to show me that you've been vaccinated a month ago. You don't have to show me. I'm not demanding that you show me your papers. But at the same time, I'm a private business owner. I don't have to let you into my place of business, okay?

As long as I'm not rejecting you based on racial grounds or religious grounds or the protected areas, I'm going to say this is out of safety for the rest of the customers and our employees. Okay. So again, we're just cosplaying lawmakers, right? That's all we're doing is cosplaying. So what if I returned a rebuttal to that? If I rebutted that by saying, okay, then the the actual limitation should be not that the business owner gets to decide, but the government says, well, there's currently an outbreak of the flu.

Everybody shut your doors. That's that is blanket coverage that no private events can be held. Would you ever want that? No, no. But aren't we doing the same thing there? I mean, one has far more government control. Yeah, one has far more government control. But I, I think that the ideal is to put the control back in the person's, the individual person's rights.

So what I would say there is I can go around and go to any store I want and you can say, I can't come in and neither one can be prosecuted. Yeah, okay. So who's who's right is supreme. The business owners right to protect his clientele and his employees or the individuals right to go into any place of business that he or she wants to.

I don't want the individual's right to always supersede here. That seems like the patriotic thing to do, right? Yeah. I don't want someone, with a sexual appendage hanging from their body. Yeah, that they have strapped on. They're walking around my business. Right. So I need to have the ability to throw that person out. Yeah. I also don't want somebody who is if I have an open food market.

Yeah. And someone comes in and they're incredibly filthy and they're touching the food, right. I'm going to ask them to leave. Yeah. So I want the business owner to have rights, but I want the individual to have rights too, which is why I say neither one can prosecute. Yeah. I don't even know if that works. I don't I don't know either because we have to have a mechanism to decide which right is supreme.

Yeah. That's why we have the judiciary. That's why we have judges. That's why we have this because we we have these areas of of rights conflict. And I don't I, you know, I, I understand it I don't know how much this speaks to this actual bill here, but I'm going to look at this and say, excuse me. I don't have the measles, I promise.

But you listen and you don't judge. Yeah. Okay. Let's go back in. We have 3 or 4 minutes here. We don't have any more endorsements, right? No. Okay.

And 950 on Newstalk 179. Julie, we're trying to walk a tightrope here. Because I've always admired, I don't think I. If I owned a shop, I don't think I'd put up a sign that says no shirt, no shoes, no service. Right. But I love the spirit because that's in private business owner. And they can decide who comes and goes and and, you know, we have certain protected classes that I think we all agree on.

You can't say, oh, you're black, you can't come into my shop like, we don't do that right, or you're a woman, you or you're a man and you can't come in to bed, Bath and Beyond because it's just for girls like, you know, we don't do that, However, I, I'm, I'm worried that a bill like this could start to regulate that private individual running a business so they can't make decisions about their clientele.

And I don't, I'm just saying be careful what you ask for here because it may manifest itself in ways you didn't anticipate. Right. I, I feel very caught in the middle on this, which if you listen to the last segment, I said I probably would have voted for the bills just simply because that's what my constituents would want.

And I'm there to represent my constituents. I think there is difficulty here. I think that there I think that we want to be able to assure that businesses have the right to operate the way that they want to reference the cake baker in in Colorado. Okay. I will always defend that cake baker, that he's an artist and he doesn't have to he doesn't have to make something that goes against his creative, conscience.

Yeah, okay. But at the same time, I want the individual to have the right to be able to do and go wherever they want to. So with this, it's not as I, they I don't think I would have ever said this, but it's not as simple as the cake case. This is a lot different. Yeah. I don't think a business should be able to require me to show my health history, okay?

Especially if my health history doesn't affect the type of business that's true. I and I agree with that. At the same time, I, I look at this and I'm thinking, and I'm not I'm not trying to correct your language here, but I think I don't I've never felt like I have a right to go on to this private property, into this grocery store.

I've always viewed that it's private property. They're affording me the privilege because they know there's that high likelihood I'm going to pull out my wallet and buy some of their stuff. I don't view that as part of my fundamental rights. To be able to go onto that property on scrutinized and, whatever, I'm there on their terms. Yeah, well, that's because we're grown ups and we realize that we're not welcome everywhere.

And that's okay. Right? That's what I'm saying. So I, I think it's kind of this, I don't want to say infantile, because we're going to send a lot of people who are in support of this bill. But I, I feel like in, in my I can only speak for myself. I won't characterize because we're listening and not judging today, but I for myself, I don't go into that grocery store and expect that I get to dictate the terms.

It's private property, it's their business. And if they're if they're not, making a judgment of me based on things that are already adjudicated, like race and gender and, and that sort of thing, then I, I would look at it and say, you know, they're probably businesses in Jackson Hole, for instance, that don't want people who aren't vaccinated to come into their store.

And I'm like, okay, I'll go get my cheap crap souvenirs at another store, you know that. And I'm okay with that because I'm a grown up and I can make different choices. That would be my position on this. Yes, I get that. But then you're going to have people who will say back to you, which we've had in text.

And the lawmaker that I'm talking with said exactly the same thing. Does it not feel like, the era where you were asked for your papers before you could enter somewhere? Yeah, it does it, it does. But the government asking for your papers is a very different thing than just a private business owner saying, if you want to come in, you just got to prove that you're you're vaccinated.

Like there is a big difference there. So but I agree with you. I don't want that culture at all. I don't want that culture at all. You know what I really, really would like is grown ups who do at their own sense. Yes. Yeah. All right, well, we'll all break. We'll be back. 955. Excuse me. Okay, so this is an important clarification.

And so I would wonder what if the law had been bitten had been written. Not so much customer, private business or concert venue or whatever and more just significant to employee. Yes, boss. Yes, that would have cleaned it up completely to the point that I would have been. Yeah. I mean, yeah, this issue's clouded because when you're talking customer to business venue, yeah, that's where you want to be able to represent both rights.

When you're talking employee to boss I have never been in favor of a boss being able to tell you what to do with your physical body. Yeah. Agreed. A boss can't make me get a tattoo. A boss can't make me take a shot. A boss can't make me eat certain things. Yeah, yeah. Well and especially when it, it, it has something to do that's permanent about your body.

Like they can make you wear certain clothes. Yes. That's a temporary issue. You know you need to wear a company shirt. I'm in favor of that. Yeah. That's not permanent. But if they said you need to tattoo the company logo on your forehead. No. Yeah. That's not going to work. Yeah I just I feel like this is a this is a bill that if Democrats ever get in charge, it could go badly against us potentially.

Yes. And and so, you know, you have to be careful about it. That's why I, I didn't have a problem with it being about the coronavirus vaccine because that vaccine is not what they say it is or what is implied it is. That's why I wish it was back to the wording again. I think that's the clarification here that we needed to be looking.

Yeah. That's just I just wish we could get some. I don't know. And it was amended to say that. Why wouldn't it pass the other way. Isn't that weird. Yeah I don't know. I don't know with the stronger clarification of it being of that, Covid shot. Okay. Were the. Hold on. Let's. Yeah, yeah. All right. To 958 on Newstalk 179 Neil our along with Julie Mason.

So Julie over Friday and Monday I'll be sort of popping in and out. You'll hear less of me the next couple of days, but, it's all right. Marv is going to join you tomorrow. Yes. So we've got an exciting lineup tomorrow, Marv, from Marvelous Marv, as you all know, that works here at Sand Hill Media has an amazing voice.

He will be joining me for the 8:00 hour. We also will have a flashback Friday on our studio. Four covers Morgan Sellner with his amazing guitar work. Yes. Okay. Will you do me one favor? Yes. Ask Marv about his suspenders I absolutely. Okay. All right. Inquiring minds, abs. Absolutely true. All right. Have a great Thursday. I'll see ya.