It's later with Mo Kelly kfi Em six forty. We're live everywhere on the
iHeartRadio app. It was a beautiful day and absolutely gorgeous day. The traffic
was horrible, but the day itself was gorgeous, and as I was driving
in, I could tell the world was testing me. People were cutting me
off left and right. I did not let my inner mark runner come out.
I refuse to give into the dark side of the force, meaning you
didn't give anybody the finger. I did not give anyone the finger. I
did not give anyone the side eye. I did hit my horn once or
twice, but it was a very polite. It wasn't one of those It
was one of those horn horns that you know is trying to instigate and escalate
the situation. Did anyone deserve the finger? Oh no, they deserved it.
I chose not to do it. I was a person who maintained control
emotionally at all times. I was very zen about it, and I had
an epiphany in that moment. It's like, look, I'm actually growing up.
I'm becoming more mature. I am actually keeping myself completely under control,
because you know, years ago we've had this conversation, I might have had
a very very different response. I don't want to be Mark Ronner at this
age in life. No, No, you've heard the old adage spare the
rod and spoil the child. Well, you spare the fingers. You're you're
neglecting your civic duty on the road. I don't think that's how that Bible
verse works now. I don't think so. I might have to consult with
somebody. I like consulting with experts. I don't want to make it up
as I go. And speaking of that, next second, we're going to
talk about the Huntington Beach voter ID measure. How that is being debated.
Huntington Beach Pass, a law which was voted on by Huntington Beach residents for
in favor of voter IDEA state of California is suing in regard to that.
I have some thoughts on that, and I consulted some constitutional law experts plural
on that. No, I'll give you my thoughts filtered through their expertise,
so it's not just going to be me just winging it and making it up.
I actually consulted some constitutional law experts on it, and the biggest story
of the day, which needs to be talked about even more. We're going
to wade into the waters of what's going on over at USC. The university
has banned or prevented the pro Palestinian valedictorian from speaking at their mad commencement.
USC has cited quote unquote safety concerns. I'm going to dig into that issue
and see where we can find if there's one side or the other which is
right on that issue. That's going to be an issue which is going to
be often talked about in US. There are going to be a lot of
emotions around it, but we're going to try to keep the emotion out of
it and just look at the facts of the matter. But we'll get into
all of that and so much more. It's Later with mo Kelly when we
come back. We'll get into that Huntington Beach voter id debate and what's the
truth of it, what's the legality of it, what the future of it
might be. That's next you're listening to Later with mo Kelly on demand from
KFI AM six forty. Some big news in southern California. The state of
California is presently suing the city of Huntington Beach over its recently passed voter ID
measure. This is going to be complicated. I'm going to try to make
it as simple as possible. As far as what this story is about Huntington
Beach. Its measure was an update to the city's charter and it was watty
and was written saying the city may implement voter ID, but city leaders have
said it is their intention to do so in twenty twenty six. That's the
earliest the measure would allow implementation. So the first point, and it's an
important one, this would have nothing to do with the twenty twenty four election.
But then I started thinking about whether this would be illegal on its face.
As they say, Prima Fassia and all of you constitutional scholars out there,
you should already know this, because you know you say you love the
Constitution, you already know this. But Article one, Section four, Clause
one of the Constitution says, the times, places and manner of holding elections
for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.
But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations,
except as to the places of choosing senators in other words federal representatives, those
election details, manner and times places in holding that is up to the state
to the side, not local municipalities. That was my interpretation of it as
a non constitutional scholar. So I reached out to a couple of constitutional scholars
legit ones, and they told me that as long as the voter ID measure
is only for municipal elections, not state not federal, then it would be
okay. Seemingly okay, But then I asked the question, Well, if
you deny someone at the door for not having voter ID, and the ballot
also contains state and federal offices, not just mayor for example, or dogcatcher
or comptroller, you know, local municipal positions. If it has state and
federal, isn't that then in contradiction with what the Constitution says and also the
state purview. That's where it gets real complied. And if you're wondering where
I come out on voter ID, personally, I don't have a problem with
it, as long as you just don't mix in something else with it,
don't try to pass it in accordance with something else. If you do a
straight voter ID measure, I'm not against that at all, But this seems
like it would be implemented for the purpose of not just municipal elections, but
also state and federal That's where I think it may get into some real problems
because the laws, going back to the Constitution, the times, places and
manner of holding elections for senators representatives shall be described, shall be prescribed in
each state by the legislature thereof. In other words, the state Secretary of
State and ours is Shirley Weber, who oversees elections across California. She said
that the voter ID requirement would disenfranchise voters and called it a solution in search
of a problem that for me is neither here nor there. I'm just talking
about the legality or illegality, whether it's constitutional or unconstitutional. She went on
to say, this voter ID measure conflicts with state law. That from my
interpretation and my discussion with other constitutional scholars, and I'm having ongoing conversations with
them, that is where this lawsuit by the State of California against Huntington Beach
probably has the best footing, if only because unless the City of Huntington Beach
can demonstrate or prove that this is only for municipal elections and will not conflict
with the administration of state and federal elections, then it's probably a non issue.
But if they can't but demonstrate that, then it would be a problem
in a constitutional sense. And let me put it in another way. For
example, see this to us logical conclusion. You can't have Newport Beach saying,
for example, sorry to pick on you, Newport Beach, well,
we don't want to have absentee ballots, and then the city of San Jose
saying, well, we want absentee ballots, and then Laguna will come in
and say, well, we don't want absentee ballance, and then it goes
back and forth, and then you have all of these different administration of elections
as it relates to state and federal representatives as opposed to what is prescribed in
the constitution where the state decides the Secretary of State or the state legislature.
However it's drawn up. And let's be clear. I know a lot of
people would like to believe that we have this issue with illegal voting and voter
fraud and election fraud, but the actual evidence of that is nonexistent. I
can show you what has been on file at the Heritage Foundation. I can
show you the exhaustive summaries and investigations. There is voter fraud, which is
done by an individual is so called election fraud, which has done mass wholesale,
which is done for the purposes of swinging elections. There is ample evidence
of individual voter fraud. You can google that and find the names and the
associated parties involved. But in terms of election fraud, no, there is
it. And that's a distinction with a difference. If you were worried about
someone voting twice, or if you're worried about quote unquote illegal immigrants voting,
which has always been weird to me, you need to at least check the
facts of how that doesn't happen and how virtually impossible it is. And if
you're worried about absent te balance, I'm just talking about facts, not your
feelings, not your emotions, not in my emotions. With absentee ballots,
I vote absentee. For example, what I had to do to register to
vote, I had to give my California driver's license, my California driver license
number, obviously my signature, and then when I vote, my signature is
compared against that that's what we have generally here in California. If you believe,
for whatever reasons, that thousands of people are circumventing that process to swing
elections in Huntington Beach, I would love to see the evidence of that,
and then we can have an informed conversation about what is happening, not what
you say is happening. But back to the issue of voter id I am
not against that in and of itself, but I'm inclined to believe it's more.
It's more at the climate. It's a response to the climate, not
the actual issue. And whether it is a problem with voter fraud. If
you believe that the person who became mayor in Huntington Beach because of voter fraud,
send all the evidence you have to me. And here's something else when
we talk about voter fraud, and this is what I really find strange.
The idea that the presidential election wasn't legitimate, but every other election on that
ballot was legitimate is impossible to reconcile because when you vote for congress person,
you vote for governor, and you vote for president, it's all the same
ballot. Well, what about Smartmatic, Well, Smartmatic was only in La
County, not around the country. If I had more time, I get
into the wholeam settlement with Smartmatic today. But I don't have time. But
I would love someone to explain to me the conspiracy theory of how only one
office was quote unquote illegitimate but everything else was legitimate on the very same ballot.
You can hit me up, you can find my information. I'm not
going to give it out to you. You just have to hit me up
with Kelly six Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app. And this next story is
going to be huge in the life of Southern California. It's going to be
an ongoing story, and it's going to play out in a number of different
ways on a number of different campuses between now and graduation. This particular version
or aspect of the story is only taking place at USC, but these conversations,
discussions, and decisions are going to be made on campuses all around the
country and definitely here in Southern California. By now, you've probably at least
heard the headline that USC, the University of Southern California, has banned That's
how the headline reads, banned pro Palestine and valedictorian from speaking at the May
commencement, citing safety concerns. First, I don't even like that title.
But I'm not gonna nitpick. I'm gonna get into the issue itself. Usc
citing safety concerns, announced yesterday that who is described as a pro Palestinian undergraduate
student who was rightfully selected as valedictorian, will not be allowed to give a
speech in May at commencement. This is the first time the university has precluded
the valedictorian from speaking. ABC seven dot Com has used the word banned.
I would say precluded, prevented. I don't think ban is the correct word.
The provost, Andrew Guzman, had this to say, quote, While
this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety. This decision is not
only necessary to maintain the safety of our campus and our students, but it's
consistent with the fundamental legal obligation, including the expectations of federal regulators, that
universities act to protect students and keep our campus community safe. Close quote the
student and let me apologize in advance because I'm not sure of the pronunciation of
her name, but I believe it's Osna Tavasam a major in biomedical engineering and
a minor in quote unquote resistance to genocide. That's how it reads. She
had already been announced as valedictorian, it was fair to assume that she would
be giving her address as valedictorian from the class for the class. But because
of public remarks as she's made about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East,
there are some groups on campus which have accused her of being quote unquote an
a Semitic. I haven't seen the remarks, all the remarks, and I
can't even speak to that. I'm just giving you the foundation for the discussion.
But this is what she had to say quote. This campaign to prevent
me from addressing my peers at commencement has evidently accomplished its goal. Today,
USC administrators informed me that the university will no longer allow me to speak at
commencement due to supposed security concerns. I am both shocked by this decision and
profoundly disappointed that the university is succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence
my voice. I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred.
I am surprised that my own university, my home for four years, has
abandoned me. Close quote. This is where I come into the conversation.
Both sides can be right and both sides can be wrong, and I hate
both siderism. But this is one of those times where it's not all of
this, it's not all of that. It's some of this and some of
that. Here's what I mean. I can go back to when we were
broadcasting live at USC for the California senatorial debate. I know first hand on
USC's campus what these protests look like. I think there were maybe one hundred
or so people at that point. I know how concerned the university was that
night. I know how concerned law enforcement was that night. I know this
firsthand. It was something which could have gotten out of hand relatively easily and
quickly. So the idea of safety is not coming out of nowhere. There
is a reference point of legitimate concern for the safety and welfare for individuals who
may be attending graduation commencement, having nothing to do with the issue that was
months ago. If we look at the time since then, the rhetoric has
been the emotions surrounding it have been escalated. We just had an attempted attack
on Israel Byron this past weekend. Everything has escalated. So through the eyes
of the university, security and safety is absolutely a legitimate concern and absolutely a
legitimate reason to give. Now, is there also a concern about backlash?
Of course, Okay, I'm not going to let one legitimate excuse cover up
something that is also legitimate. I know that this student doesn't have a constitutional
right to speak at her own graduation commencement. I know that, but it's
fair to highlight this is the only time that it hasn't happened, and it's
fair to highlight how it is seemingly after events unrelated to her, that this
decision is made. That's what I mean. It's not all this, it's
not all that, But the ultimate responsibility rests with the university if something were
to go wrong. That is I think the biggest variable in this equation.
It's fine to say let her speak, she has a right to speak,
She's earned that. I hear all that, and actually I agree with all
that, But I also understand if something were to go wrong, all of
those people will immediately disappear. All those people will immediately have nothing to say.
All of those same people say, let her speak, let her speak,
we don't care about this. They will be nowhere to found and they
will have no type of culpability responsibility from that point forward. You know,
the only issue I have with the stance on safety concerns is that they think
they be in usc is wanting us to think that by disallowing this young lady
from speaking, that that will alleviate safety concerns without also taking into consideration how
that could actually the removal of her speaking and the press is getting not from
KFI, the press that it is getting, could that's an escalation escalation from
the other side. Where is that this equation? You're you're right, You're
right. You can't you can't say that one is going to eliminate the possibility
of a conflagration, if you will. How that may ever play out,
And it's not all this, it's not all that. Now it may be
from the university standpoint that this is the path of least resistance. This is
the decision that the university makes, where hey, given what we do know,
not what might happen, but what we do know, this is a
discretion as the better part of valor. This is something that at least that
which we can control. It may not be popular, but there's another aspect
to this, because let's be honest, she probably will get up there and
say some unpopular and uncomfortable things in that moment, which and as a university,
they also have to consider their endowment, their donors. I'm not saying
it's right. I'm saying it's real. And those are things which are also
in this discussion. Regardless of whether you agree with what this student might say
or disagree, these are all of the things that are being considered by the
university. It's it's fine for the student in her eyes probably and I don't
know, maybe reach out to her her eyes to go up there. And
I have this joke I want to make this. We have guests who may
come in the studio and I say, oh my gosh, they're gonna come
down and just burn down the studio because they know they can come in and
say whatever they want and leave. And I deal with the response MO,
you had on this guest x y z mo, why didn't didn't you she
that you got. I've had a number of guests who come on, burn
down the studio and then leave, and there there's no type of consequences for
anything they said, I have to deal with all the consequences. I see
that as the same type of thing with USC where a student and she's probably
she's basically calling her shot. I should be allowed to speak, and I
got some stuff to say, and you already know where I stand, and
it's going to be it's going to be more than just that speech in which
everyone is going to have to deal with it. There's the idea of actual
protests, and there's the idea of what she says and the news coverage and
how the larger community is going to respond to it, both the Islamic Muslim
Arab community and the Jewish community, and then the fallout for the university.
And that's assuming nothing bad happens on campus during the commencement. It's not all
of this, it's not all of that. There is a nuanced discussion to
happen. And let me just say this, for as arrogant as a lot
of people who want to call me, I don't assume I know everything.
I think I'm smart enough to understand that there's not an answer for everything.
There's not necessarily a right answer which is going to make all this right there's
not one answer which is going to make the student body happy. In totality,
there's not one answer which is going to make the university and faculty happy
and satisfy. And there's not going to be one which makes the university feel
that their interests, which are inclusive of the students, had been met and
protected, because ultimately this students graduating university still has to deal with the days,
months and years afterward. That's what I think is not being discussed in
this And this is just the second week in April. We don't know what
this is going to look like. Rhetorically, we don't know what it's going
to look like. Politically, we don't know what it's going to look like
in a protest sense. Between now and the first week in May. What
is going to happen in the Middle East which is going to change the trajectory
of this conversation. What happens if if Iran launches another attack, What happens
if Israel, as his thought is going to be, it's going to have
some response to this. Let's not forget Iran is responding to the attack by
Israel on the Iranian embassy, and it's going to go back and forth.
There's more than which is going to happen between now and commencement that USC is
saying, we know this more than we have to deal with. And what
we're not just talking about right now, we're not talking about an isolated incident,
and we're not talking about a static situation. And USC is saying we're
going to err on the side of caution and we would rather take the negative
press from not allowing this person to speak then deal with the consequences of what
may be coming. Just tomorrow. You're listening to Later with Moe Kelly on
demand from KFI AM six boarding. I had a few more thoughts on the
situation at USC where they are preventing a pro Palestinian Valktorian from speaking at the
May commencement citing safety concerns, and let me just very quickly recap. I
don't think it's all of this. I don't think it's all of that.
I see both sides of this, and I hate both sides or rism,
but there's no clear cut solution to this. I thought the university was right
to be concerned about security because I saw it firsthand being on campus for a
Senate debate, having nothing to do with the issue. I saw how that
could have gotten out of control very quickly in nature. I saw how concerned
police were trying to protect people, dignitaries politics in that moment, and every
graduation has dignitaries, politicians, civic leaders, all of that. I understand
the university's concerns, and I also understand the idea that you're singling out this
person in this moment when there might be there's something distasteful about singling her out
for what she might say or for what might happen having nothing to do with
her. In other words, you're gonna have protests there no matter what,
whether she speaks or not. And to Twala's point, you might have inspired
now new protests. That is my biggest fear, because what does this say
to the community surrounding USC. What does this say to the student, to
the faculty, what does this say to your Muslim students and your Jewish students?
Has USC unwittingly put themselves in a position for a major intrusive protest from
the opposition to this stands on the day of commencement because now they've they've made
their bid, they put it in walking back, you can't walk it back.
So now they could have inadvertently sparked exactly that which they are afraid of.
This is what I would say. Now, if you don't have the
valedictorian speak, there maybe some other student speaker. There's nothing preventing that student
speaker taking a paragraph or something else, changing their remarks that day because they
are in solidarity. He or g is in solidarity with this valedictorian. Because
students they do stick together. You have friends, they have boyfriends and girlfriends.
You know, they take everything very very seriously and personally. So my
suggestion would have been, we just don't have any speakers period. We just
hand out these diplomas and keep it moving. Now is that Is that disappointing?
Absolutely, because you want to have the full commencement experience. But if
you're only going to take one student off the dais and I assume the valedictorian
is still going to be up there on the platform with all the people,
and she'll be recognized as a valedictorian, you know, Magna cum lattie,
what have you. But you've just opened yourself up for other things to happen.
Actually, you've almost encouraged other things to happen, and I would think
that it would be easier to say, Okay, no speakers, We're not
going to even touch this. We're not going to single anyone else out,
anyone out at all to not be able to speak on this day, and
then we'll just limit it to the diplomats to heading out to diplomas. That
would be to go with USC's position of safety. If you are actually concerned
about safety, you must be concerned about the safety for all. And if
you're concerned about the safety for all, the best way, best practice would
be to have zero speeches whatsoever. That is the only way I if I
have a student graduating that I would feel safe knowing, you know what,
they're not going to have any speeches. My Sun or Dodge is going to
walk up on stage get their diploma. They're going to throw their caps and
we are out. That's the easiest way to do it. But they're choosing
at this moment not to do it now. It will be interesting to see
what the response is going to be in the coming days, in the coming
weeks. Like I also said, there are things which may happen having nothing
to do with the campus of USC. We could be things happening in the
Middle East, which may change the tenor and trajectory of this conversation. If
there is a response from Israel that could change what we're talking about in a
week. It may be a point, it may be something where you know,
none And when I started this conversation, I was saying, Hey,
this is what's happening on USC's campus, but every school in California is going
to have to look at what they're planning, what they're willing to accept,
what they're willing to have As far as part of discussion that day. Don't
think this is just about USC, because every campus is going to have a
commencement, and you can bet your ass somebody's going to say something about this,
because that's what commencement speeches are for. As they're sending these young people
out into the world. They talk about contemporary issues and how people sitting in
that audience who are getting their diplomas, they're moving their tassels from one side
or the mortarboard to the other. How they are the future. You know,
they're the leaders of the future, and all that. I only have
one and a half degrees. Mark has eight degrees. You know, he's
probably been more graduations. You can have one of mine. I'm not using
it all right, thank you, but this is going to be huge in
coming days, weeks, and months leading up to commencements all over southern California.
I can't speak about outside of California, but southern California because what what's
happening at USC everybody's watching. It's later with Mo Kelly can'f I am six
forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app, perfect for achy, indecisive minds.
Canfi is cooling info. Jel quickly relieves ignorance and leaves a fifty fresh scent.
K S I'm the Kost HD two Los Angeles, Orange County bl everywhere
on the Eggart radio app