Speaker 1: Design of underground facilities like NORAD or the ICBM missile
Speaker 1: silo you can tour down in Tucson. I would be
Speaker 1: surprised if the surface bombs, even though they penetrated pretty deep,
Speaker 1: did any damage whatsoever to the nuclear facilities. If that
Speaker 1: stuff is designed on spring suspension and separated from the rock,
Speaker 1: it would feel to jiggle like an earthquake, but it
Speaker 1: would keep on a running.
Speaker 2: The only caveat I would put to that is the GBUS,
Speaker 2: the thirty thousand bomb, the bunkerbuster bombs. They're GPS guided,
Speaker 2: so they're very precise. They go down ventilation systems, so
Speaker 2: they're already penetrating deeper than they can as if they
Speaker 2: further than they can if they had just hit the surface.
Speaker 2: Because once you hit the surface, then their limited capacity,
Speaker 2: although it's huge, that limited capacity to penetrate would start
Speaker 2: at the moment of impact on the surface. But if
Speaker 2: your moment of impact is somewhere down inside the ventilation system,
Speaker 2: then the extent of the penetration continues, and so the
Speaker 2: MOP continues on down to where it can't go any further,
Speaker 2: gets even closer to the underground bunker, so to speak.
Speaker 2: Then the second and the third and the fourth build
Speaker 2: upon that further expansion of the penetration so that they
Speaker 2: might ultimately get down to that facility. And whether it
Speaker 2: was on springs or not, if one of them gets
Speaker 2: down that deep, then probably it would even destroy it
Speaker 2: or cause enough. It's like the buildings in uh San
Speaker 2: Francisco or Los Angeles. They're built on springs, but you
Speaker 2: get a large enough, long enough earthquake, it is still
Speaker 2: going to cause damage. And I think the same would
Speaker 2: be true of those bombs. Also, you know that the
Speaker 2: thing I just said, you know the theme. You know
Speaker 2: the thing, Joe Biden, you know the thing.
Speaker 3: Just realize I said that, you know the thing? Yeah,
Speaker 3: that thing.
Speaker 2: The point of the entire segment is we don't really know,
Speaker 2: And as General Kine said, until we get the battle
Speaker 2: damage assesstement assessment, the BDA and bureaucratic language, we're not
Speaker 2: going to really know. And how are we going to
Speaker 2: obtain the BDA? No, I don't really know until we
Speaker 2: have regime change. In so far as regime change is concerned,
Speaker 2: I think we are so reflexively and that phrases abhorrent
Speaker 2: to us because we've seen what our country has done
Speaker 2: in terms of trying to effectuate regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria,
Speaker 2: other places around the world, and we're not very good
Speaker 2: at it. And we're not very good at it because
Speaker 2: we think that who I forget who it was, But
Speaker 2: somebody said that the Iraqis will welcome us with open.
Speaker 3: Arms, you know, when we come into Iraq.
Speaker 2: Man not so much anymore than I think we would,
Speaker 2: although we may, we may reach a point. I think
Speaker 2: right now in Colorado, I would if we got invaded
Speaker 2: by a bunch of conservatives, I think I would welcome
Speaker 2: them with open arms.
Speaker 3: But that's an entirely different scenario.
Speaker 2: Just don't be reflexively when you hear the word regime change,
Speaker 2: because it doesn't mean that we're putting boots on the ground.
Speaker 3: It means that maybe, you.
Speaker 2: Know, Massade or perhaps even secretly covertly, even our Cia
Speaker 2: and I don't know, I five might be doing something
Speaker 2: there could be to get the diaspora together, to get
Speaker 2: someone to start as a leader. Just need somebody, You
Speaker 2: just need somebody to go out there and be a
Speaker 2: charismatic leader to get the population. Because I, in as
Speaker 2: much as I despise the Molas and the Ayatola, and
Speaker 2: as much as I despise what they're doing to their population,
Speaker 2: I would like to see regime change, primarily because I'd
Speaker 2: like to see a stable Middle East. When you think
Speaker 2: about what Trump's done in the first term and what
Speaker 2: he's doing in the second terms, in terms of all
Speaker 2: the other Muslim nations and the Abraham Accords, we really
Speaker 2: do have a We're on the precipice of completely changing
Speaker 2: and calming down that entire region of the world, which
Speaker 2: it affects the rest of the world.
Speaker 3: So if there is some.
Speaker 2: Way to effect regime change without us doing it the
Speaker 2: kind of the bull in the China closet way that
Speaker 2: we tend to do it in the past, then I'm
Speaker 2: all for it. And I hope somebody, the Israelis, the
Speaker 2: Saudi's Kataris, whoever's doing it, is somehow working on it.
Speaker 2: I just like for the Persian people to have someone
Speaker 2: of the normal life again.
Speaker 3: In shocking News the Washington.
Speaker 2: Post, I'm amazed by this. They've pulled the plug on
Speaker 2: their police shooting database. It was called fatal force. Now,
Speaker 2: don't expect a nepoll, don't expect a reckoning, don't even
Speaker 2: expect an explanation because to acknowledge the full impact of
Speaker 2: fatal force would be to admit this that for nearly
Speaker 2: probably a decade now, one of the premier legacy newsrooms
Speaker 2: of the cabal helped manufacture and perpetuate a toxic narrative.
Speaker 2: You want to Fatal Force database is of the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: It is a compilation of selectively collected facts and statistics
Speaker 2: to show that cops are hunting down and killing black
Speaker 2: men in the streets, that cops kill black men more
Speaker 2: than anybody else. Now, I want to be clear, fatal
Speaker 2: force that database didn't just compile data.
Speaker 3: It was a storyline.
Speaker 2: It was an ongoing storyline because it presented fatal police
Speaker 2: shootings in isolation. It stripped every shooting of all the context,
Speaker 2: devoid of any nuance, no breakdown of the circumstances, no
Speaker 2: mention of the weapons used, no differentiation, say, between justified
Speaker 2: use of force and actual misconduct, just names, faces, and
Speaker 2: the underlying implication that at the root cause was always racism.
Speaker 2: We know that when we do taxpayer relief shots that
Speaker 2: oftentimes we have cops killing other people. When you think
Speaker 2: back on those taxpayer relief shots, it's not that often
Speaker 2: that the local news station mentions the race of anybody
Speaker 2: just that you know, cop pay shot, you know, goober b,
Speaker 2: that they were chasing some felon or something, or some
Speaker 2: domestic disturbance that they had gone to, and always concludes with,
Speaker 2: you know, the cops have been put on an administrative leave
Speaker 2: pending the investigation by you know, the AG's office or
Speaker 2: some other independent police department that would come in and look.
Speaker 3: At the shooting.
Speaker 2: We know that cops shoot people, but the driving force
Speaker 2: behind fatal force this Washington database was to convince black
Speaker 2: people and to convince guilty white liberals that cops were
Speaker 2: always out there focused on trying to always targeting black men.
Speaker 3: So what passed for journalism and the.
Speaker 2: Journalism schools, as personified by the Washington Post database fatal
Speaker 2: force would be insinuation over evidence and narrative over nuance.
Speaker 3: I was shocked by this development.
Speaker 2: So we now have a decade of racial paranoia, collapsing
Speaker 2: trust and law enforcement, and we have this political culture
Speaker 2: where slogan's like defund the cops, defund the police. That's
Speaker 2: how it flourishes because that kind of narrative has to
Speaker 2: be fed. A narrative needs sustenance. Nutrition and in this case,
Speaker 2: the sustenance and the nutrition was the database that selectively,
Speaker 2: without any nuance, any description of circumstances or anything else, said, oh, look,
Speaker 2: a cop, regardless of the cops race, shot a black
Speaker 2: man and that's all they ever do. There's a human
Speaker 2: cost to that kind of narrative. I don't think you
Speaker 2: can overstate it. If you're a cop, you, whether consciously
Speaker 2: or subconsciously, if you are faced with a situation where
Speaker 2: you have to make a decision to shoot or not shoot,
Speaker 2: you will, for even a nanosecond, think about the race
Speaker 2: of the person you're about to shoot, and that endangers cops.
Speaker 2: I know cops will say, I don't do that. I'm
Speaker 2: focused solely on taking care of myself, defending myself, and
Speaker 2: I believe that I'm saying subconsciously that goes through your
Speaker 2: mind and that nanosecond could cost you your life. The
Speaker 2: point being, I think the Washington Post and fatal force
Speaker 2: has led to some of that kind of thinking. It's
Speaker 2: also led to this cops pull back from proactive enforcement
Speaker 2: and high crime neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Look at Denver.
Speaker 2: In Denver alone, the Denver Police Department, you got a
Speaker 2: stolen vehicle, I know where it is, Well, we don't care.
Speaker 2: Your insurance is going to take care of it anyway.
Speaker 2: Or can I get assigned to Denver International Airport because
Speaker 2: I don't want to work downtown Denver. I don't want
Speaker 2: to work Low Dough, Rhino, Low High. I don't want
Speaker 2: to work those neighborhoods. I don't want to work five points.
Speaker 2: So when you have the ability to have proactive law
Speaker 2: enforcement and high crime neighborhood, cops are reluctant to take
Speaker 2: those assignments. And of course we know that cops have
Speaker 2: left the profession in droves, and so the very communities
Speaker 2: that activists claim to defend are now left to face
Speaker 2: soaring crime and chaos. Do you ever think in the cabal,
Speaker 2: and in particular the Washington Post and anybody in the
Speaker 2: newsroom ever stop and say what happens when a false
Speaker 2: narrative becomes a national policy. Which is why it's so
Speaker 2: important to see Donald Trump supporting law enforcement. It's also
Speaker 2: why despite this narrative, this false narrative that's perpetuated by
Speaker 2: the Washington Post, you will always see politicians talking about
Speaker 2: how much they support local law enforcement. Yet what will
Speaker 2: they do the same thing like Mike Johnston does in
Speaker 2: Denver when it comes to budget cuts, well let's cut
Speaker 2: the police force first. Or like the stupid nominee for
Speaker 2: the Democrat Party in the mayoral race in New York City, Mandamie,
Speaker 2: He literally wants to take cops off the streets and
Speaker 2: replace them with social workers. Imagine that. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: the kind of bull wrap that these Marxists advocate. Can
Speaker 2: you imagine you're involved in a domestic dispute and a
Speaker 2: social worker shows up as opposed to a guy with
Speaker 2: a gun or a woman with a gun. Good grief.
Speaker 2: But here's the truth that really makes it pass the
Speaker 2: cabal's gatekeepers. The modern police department is in America city,
Speaker 2: particularly our major cities like you know New York, Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: and Chicago. Those are among the most highly trained and
Speaker 2: professional cops in the world. And that's not propaganda, that's
Speaker 2: the reality. During Katrina, when the New Orleans police Department
Speaker 2: completely disintegrated, I went to Bob Moller, Yeah that Bob Moller,
Speaker 2: then the director of the FBI, and I said, I
Speaker 2: need cops in New Orleans, but I don't want them
Speaker 2: from with all due respect, and I mean this sincerity
Speaker 2: with all due respect to your local cop in small
Speaker 2: town wherever. That's not who I wanted. I wanted the
Speaker 2: cops from major cities. I wanted cops from LA from
Speaker 2: New York, from Chicago. That's where I wanted the cops
Speaker 2: to come from. And when Muller looked at me and
Speaker 2: said why, I said, because I want the most highly
Speaker 2: trained that have been engaged in essentially urban warfare at times.
Speaker 2: Those are the kind of cops I need here, because
Speaker 2: that's what's going on down there in New Orleans right
Speaker 2: now is basically urban warfare. And so I don't need
Speaker 2: a cop who is, you know, And I'm just saying
Speaker 2: this jokingly. I don't need the Barney Fif's.
Speaker 4: Of the world.
Speaker 2: I need the highly trained cops. And that's what I got. Now,
Speaker 2: there's room for reform racial profiling. I don't deny that
Speaker 2: it exists, but racial profiling that leads nowhere, no guns,
Speaker 2: no drugs, no probable cause, that always undermines the public trust.
Speaker 2: When you have a high profile incident of excessive force,
Speaker 2: it absolutely does deserve scrutiny and it requires accountability. But
Speaker 2: guess what those events are the exception, They're not the rule,
Speaker 2: And those events, those anomalies should not define the profession
Speaker 2: anymore than a corrupt politician should define an entire government.
Speaker 2: Or the lawyer yesterday that we played the sound bite
Speaker 2: of that called an appellate judge Honey should define all lawyers.
Speaker 2: Or the plumber that comes to your house and overcharges
Speaker 2: you for something shouldn't define all plumbers. That's what the
Speaker 2: Washington Post was trying to do acap all tops are bad.
Speaker 2: There was a fatal flaw in the Fatal Force project,
Speaker 2: the Washington Post project, and in the broader progressive framing
Speaker 2: of policing is the refusal to confront a correlation between
Speaker 2: crime and the presence of cops. The really hard truth
Speaker 2: is that urban communities do tend to have higher rates
Speaker 2: of violent crime.
Speaker 3: That is a fact.
Speaker 2: That's not racist, that's not bigoted, that's just a statistical,
Speaker 2: provable fact. And it's not because of their skin color.
Speaker 2: It's because of systemic issues that the left does not
Speaker 2: want to address, and when we mention them, it's, oh,
Speaker 2: you're a bunch of religious fanatics, broken families, failing schools,
Speaker 2: economic neglect, and all of which, in my opinion, is
Speaker 2: the legacy of progressing Marxist policies, then what happens. So
Speaker 2: if these neighborhoods end up with higher crime, that a
Speaker 2: police presence is going to fall. If you have politicians,
Speaker 2: if you have a city council that's willing to address
Speaker 2: the criminal issue, you're going to increase the police presence.
Speaker 2: Is it has to if you want to reduce the crime.
Speaker 2: And then when the police presence is high, so too,
Speaker 2: is what the probability that you're going to have interaction
Speaker 2: between those cops and the criminal element that has come
Speaker 2: to infest that neighborhood. That interaction ends up with arrests,
Speaker 2: and yes, sometimes conflict and sometimes that ends up in
Speaker 2: a shooting. And that is not racism. That is math,
Speaker 2: that is logic, that is reason, and that is exactly
Speaker 2: what happens.
Speaker 3: Somehow.
Speaker 2: The idea that this basic dynamic is nothing more than
Speaker 2: a morality play black victim versus white oppressor is wrong
Speaker 2: and it is dangerous because it cultivates fear, it discourages
Speaker 2: cooperation with law enforcement, and it teaches young black men
Speaker 2: that any contact with a cop is a threat to
Speaker 2: their life instead of an opportunity for protection, resolution or correction,
Speaker 2: or maybe saving their life. The young black man saving
Speaker 2: their life from a life of crime, and it's happening
Speaker 2: in cities all across the country. What are some of
Speaker 2: the steps pay Tuch. Let's go talk to Josh from
Speaker 2: the Retirement Planning So of the Rockies. Josh, how are
Speaker 2: you today?
Speaker 4: Doing great? Michael? I could use a little more sun,
Speaker 4: but I'm doing real well.
Speaker 3: It'll get hot in a couple of days. Just hang around.
Speaker 3: It's Colorado, right, Listen.
Speaker 2: With all this uncertainty going around in the world, how
Speaker 2: can you tell your clients that they can be confident
Speaker 2: they're going to be okay in retirement.
Speaker 4: That's such a great question, Michael, and honestly, it's one
Speaker 4: we hear quite often. There's really no shortage of uncertainty
Speaker 4: in the world. As you very well know. You market shift, economies,
Speaker 4: wobble headlines can be really overwhelming. But here at Retirement
Speaker 4: Planning Center the Rockies, what we're really known for is
Speaker 4: helping our clients sleep well at night. And what that
Speaker 4: means is even in times like this or times of chaos,
Speaker 4: they know that they're going to be okay. And that
Speaker 4: confidence really stems from what we walk all clients through,
Speaker 4: and that's our proprietary Summit Retirement Guide, and that Summit
Speaker 4: Retirement Guide addresses five key peaks of retirement, which are income, investments, taxes, healthcare,
Speaker 4: and legacy. And we help the folks that we work
Speaker 4: with build a comprehensive plan that's not just reactive, but proactive,
Speaker 4: which really helps create an additional peace of mind, so
Speaker 4: they know exactly where their income's going to come from,
Speaker 4: they know that they're not over exposed to risk, and
Speaker 4: they have someone who their corner who's walking with them
Speaker 4: every step of the way. But the bottom line, Michael,
Speaker 4: is at the end of the day, confidence doesn't just
Speaker 4: come from guesswork. It comes from a clearly defined.
Speaker 2: Plan so that you know exactly what your plan is
Speaker 2: designed to do, and you can actually watch your plan
Speaker 2: do what it's designed to do.
Speaker 4: Absolutely And I'll even add this, Michael, our clients know
Speaker 4: that they're not going it alone. I think sometimes that's
Speaker 4: really what folks want to know, is they have a
Speaker 4: partner in all of this. You know, we're we here
Speaker 4: Retirement Planning Center. We're a generational family business. We've been here,
Speaker 4: we've done that, we're staying here, and we plan for
Speaker 4: longevity just like the folks that we work with do
Speaker 4: and that's why we say it's our goal to help
Speaker 4: you live a life without limit's not just financially, but
Speaker 4: emotionally and spiritually as well. That's your desire and that.
Speaker 2: May be a good point though we tend to gloss
Speaker 2: over is so I recommend people you know, call and
Speaker 2: make the initial phone call kind of gets know each other.
Speaker 2: But if they do become your client, it's just not
Speaker 2: a one off. They as long as they want to,
Speaker 2: they can be your client for life.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, and we say that all the time. Our goal
Speaker 4: is to be the last advisor that you ever have.
Speaker 4: We want to be that final advisor, so to speak,
Speaker 4: and be generational with your family even that's what we are,
Speaker 4: that's what we hope to be in your lives. And
Speaker 4: you know, I'll tell you too, Michael. One more thing,
Speaker 4: not to drag this on by any means, but really
Speaker 4: sets us apart here at Retirement Planning Center is our
Speaker 4: commitment to making the complex simple. I think a lot
Speaker 4: of times when we see crazy times and uncertainty, we
Speaker 4: tend to really complicate things, but really it can be
Speaker 4: super super simple, and that's why you need a guide
Speaker 4: like us here at Retirement Planning Center of the Rockies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it always takes that third party, someone separate
Speaker 2: from you, to say, wait a minute, look, you're making
Speaker 2: it way too complex. Let's just knock it down to
Speaker 2: the very simple, you know, tears or factors or whatever
Speaker 2: it might be.
Speaker 3: And it opens people's eyes. And I think that's what
Speaker 3: you guys do all the time.
Speaker 2: And to your point, you know, if you guys make
Speaker 2: this phone call to the Retirement Planning send the Rockies
Speaker 2: like I recommend, and you choose to go with them,
Speaker 2: after you've talked to them and gotten to know them,
Speaker 2: they will be there forever with you because they are generational.
Speaker 3: And I know that for knowing these guys.
Speaker 2: So I encourage you, whether you have a plan or
Speaker 2: you don't have a plan, to pick up the phone
Speaker 2: call the Retirement Planning send the Rockies. You tell them
Speaker 2: I sent you, and get it on with them because
Speaker 2: they'll do you a fantastic job. Nine seven zero six
Speaker 2: six three thirty two eleven. Nine seven zero six six
Speaker 2: three thirty two eleven. Or go check out Josh in
Speaker 2: the entire website, go online to rpcenter dot com, back
Speaker 2: to the Washington Post and fatal force. I said, you know,
Speaker 2: think about the statistics, and I'm going to get into
Speaker 2: some of the stuff John Lots written in just a minute.
Speaker 2: But when you look at this, the stats that the
Speaker 2: media and in particular the Washington Post ignore, in recent
Speaker 2: spikes and homicide, carjacks, carjackings, armed robbery have hit minority
Speaker 2: communities the hardest. We hear the stories out of Chicago
Speaker 2: or Denver for that matter, where you know, kids are
Speaker 2: gunning down on their front porches. Elderly women get assaulted
Speaker 2: in broad daylight. Somebody's just trying to get to the
Speaker 2: you know, from the garage to their office, and they
Speaker 2: get they get mug somewhere in downtown Denver. Well, where
Speaker 2: are the think pieces about that? And where's the Washington
Speaker 2: Post database for the victims of post police America? If
Speaker 2: we really do go through and defund the cops, if
Speaker 2: we do start kicking cops out of minority neighborhoods because
Speaker 2: that's where the crime is, and we don't we don't
Speaker 2: want anything about that because that's all racist. Has anybody
Speaker 2: ever analyzed what that looks like? And then you know
Speaker 2: how much I love historical perspective, Well, fatal force provides
Speaker 2: no historical perspective. We we are generations from an era
Speaker 2: of mafia cops on payrolls or precincts that are flooded
Speaker 2: with dirty money, and officers turning a blind eyed organized crime.
Speaker 2: Those days are gone, but we ought to be grateful
Speaker 2: for that. Ninety nine point nine percent of cops today
Speaker 2: are professionals, and likewise, they have lives, their husbands, their mothers,
Speaker 2: their military veterans. They are public servants trying to do
Speaker 2: an impossible job under horrible circumstances, shrinking resources and increased scrutiny.
Speaker 2: And yes, I believe that cops should be held to
Speaker 2: a higher standard because they have the ability unfortunately, but
Speaker 2: we want this the ability to take your life lawfully,
Speaker 2: to stop their commission of a crime, or when they're
Speaker 2: trying to kill some you know, the the criminal is
Speaker 2: trying to kill a victim somewhere, So they actually deserve
Speaker 2: our respect and not constant suspicion. Reform if you think,
Speaker 2: and there's always room for reform, and there's always room
Speaker 2: for improvement, Well that needs to be based on facts,
Speaker 2: not on feelings. Real accountability is built on the foundation
Speaker 2: of data and not what the Washington Post has been
Speaker 2: trying to feed everybody, which is a bunch of storytelling.
Speaker 2: Real accountability is built on data, not a narrative, And
Speaker 2: what the Washington Post has done for decades now has
Speaker 2: offered half truths that they go repackaged as some sort
Speaker 2: of moral clarity. But a half truth is still a lie,
Speaker 2: and the half truth pushed by the Washington Post has
Speaker 2: done real damage. If the Post wants to shut down
Speaker 2: as database, that's fine with me. But the story doesn't
Speaker 2: end there because they have shaped a narrative that's still
Speaker 2: notates our culture. Look what it Look what it did
Speaker 2: in George Floyd that still to this day dominates our culture.
Speaker 2: It lives on in the schools, in our politics, in
Speaker 2: popular media. The cabal perpetuates it. So while I celebrate
Speaker 2: the demise of fatal force, I'm not so naive as
Speaker 2: to say that's going to fix everything. Until we start
Speaker 2: telling the whole truth about policing, about what crime is
Speaker 2: really occurring, about our communities, and what our communities are
Speaker 2: made of, and how they how they thrive and don't thrive,
Speaker 2: and we actually do the hard work of building public trust,
Speaker 2: we're going to stay trapped in the cycle of mistrust
Speaker 2: and misunderstanding that the fatal force database has helped perpetuate.
Speaker 2: You want you want better policing, start with better reporting.
Speaker 3: Firearms.
Speaker 2: I've collected one let's see one.
Speaker 3: Two, three, four, five.
Speaker 2: Or six stories here from John Lott, one of the
Speaker 2: along with Dave Coppell here at the Independence Institute, the
Speaker 2: top Second Amendment experts and for that matter, crime experts
Speaker 2: in the country. Back on June thirteenth, firearms researcher John
Speaker 2: Lot reminds us too that rifles per se like the
Speaker 2: AR fifteen, are involved in only a fraction of incidents.
Speaker 2: His analysis of such shooting incidents took place between nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety eight and twenty twenty four finds that in only
Speaker 2: seventeen point three percent did the perpetrator use only a rifle.
Speaker 3: Of any type.
Speaker 2: More than half fifty one point nine percent use solely handguns. Now,
Speaker 2: if that research is any guide at all all these
Speaker 2: yahoos that keep trying to ban like we're trying to
Speaker 2: do in Colorado banning the AR fifteen, that's misplaced. That
Speaker 2: is a commonly used firearm, which, according to the Federalist papers,
Speaker 2: the founding fathers the writing of the Second Amendment those
Speaker 2: commonly placed firearms are something that the people have a
Speaker 2: right to keep in bear. He writes. Any type of
Speaker 2: rifle accounts for less than three percent of murders in
Speaker 2: the United States, and that share fell as ownership of
Speaker 2: AR fifteen's and AK forty sevens has increased between nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety four and two thousand and four, when the so
Speaker 2: called assault weapons ban was in effect via federal law. Quote,
Speaker 2: the percentage of mass shootings involving assault weapons actually rose,
Speaker 2: then declined after the ban expired, so that undermines the
Speaker 2: rationale for banning guns. But no one's going to make
Speaker 2: that argument. Why did violent crime continue to rise? He
Speaker 2: says Two main reasons stand out. Arrest and conviction rates dropped,
Speaker 2: and the US experienced a massive influx of illegal aliens
Speaker 2: during that time. That trend may now be reversing, and
Speaker 2: he went on to note that total violent crime is
Speaker 2: falling because of tougher enforcement by many local governments. I
Speaker 2: also suspect that criminal illegal aliens are more cautious than
Speaker 2: before they know that getting arrested is much more likely
Speaker 2: to result in deportation. Unlike during the Biden administration, when
Speaker 2: enforcement was far leaker weaker, and of course he also
Speaker 2: cites the problem of progressive district attorneys nationwide. That's all
Speaker 2: from an article about Oh, it's the editorial in American Rifle.
Speaker 2: Let's see the America's violent crime rate is dropping. Here's
Speaker 2: what's behind the change. This is from this spring in
Speaker 2: the New York Sun, and that's the The DEI push
Speaker 2: also hit home for safety of Americans in their own cities.
Speaker 2: Police and fire departments were forced to hire sub par
Speaker 2: candidates with slashed pay, which created a whole mess of issues.
Speaker 2: John Lotte says one of the biggest problems was doing
Speaker 2: away with intelligence tests. Side note, you ever started a
Speaker 2: conversation with someone and just realize all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: there's just no there there, that they are truly an airhead,
Speaker 2: that there's nothing upstairs. Well, imagine a cop when you
Speaker 2: start lowering the standards because of DEI push and you
Speaker 2: completely eliminate intelligence tests. He writes, the types of people
Speaker 2: you have are not able to even fill out police reports.
Speaker 2: That in turns creates problems for prosecution. A lot of
Speaker 2: these policies were already kind of locked in. It's difficult
Speaker 2: to undo what has already been done. Amen but you
Speaker 2: at least have to start somewhere.
Speaker 5: Morning face, Morning ding dong. I'm suffering out here in
Speaker 5: Portland and decided to jump on the free to Me
Speaker 5: iHeartRadio app and listen to the so called talent and
Speaker 5: see what's going on in my neck of the woods.
Speaker 5: So far, same old, same old, have a good one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're in Portland and we're not. But we're
Speaker 2: in Denver and you're not. So I think it's an
Speaker 2: equal trade off. So Portland, Denver, Denver, Portland Tomato Tomato.
Speaker 2: So in a uh, John Lott says, quote, in non
Speaker 2: gun free zones where civilians are legally able to carry guns,
Speaker 2: concealed carry permit holders stopped fifty one and a half
Speaker 2: percent of active shootings compared to forty four point six
Speaker 2: percent stopped by the cops. Lot says, not only do
Speaker 2: permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate,
Speaker 2: but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening.
Speaker 2: Our research found police were nearly six times more likely
Speaker 2: to be killed and seventeen percent more likely to be
Speaker 2: wounded wounded than armed civilians, and he says that those
Speaker 2: numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI's crime stats
Speaker 2: because they failed to include many of the defensive gun
Speaker 2: uses that.
Speaker 3: He categoroged that he catalogs.
Speaker 2: So the problem with the FBI's crime stats, it's not
Speaker 2: just the errors in the reported data, it's also that
Speaker 2: they failed to address some useful questions like how can
Speaker 2: the field handgun permit holders compared to law enforcement. So
Speaker 2: one of the things that Cash Pattel, the FBI Director,
Speaker 2: and Dan Bongino, the deputy director, one of the challenges
Speaker 2: they're going to face is reforming how the data is
Speaker 2: collected and reported at the FBI. And when I read that,
Speaker 2: and that came from it came from the Crime Prevention
Speaker 2: Research Center of the Lots of organization, a survey most
Speaker 2: Americans misled on illegal immigrant crime rates despite mounting evidence
Speaker 2: that's out of that's printed an ammiland from Juna this year.
Speaker 2: Think about the job that Patel and Bongino face, and
Speaker 2: then do you think we can draw any sort of
Speaker 2: correlation between them reforming the FBI database and getting it
Speaker 2: accurate and cleaned up, and recognizing that not all of
Speaker 2: these police departments are reporting. One are just deliberately not reporting,
Speaker 2: some are just through malfeasance not reporting either way, it's
Speaker 2: an incomplete report. Do you wonder that perhaps, just maybe
Speaker 2: with the change in administrations and now having someone like
Speaker 2: Petell and Bongino the head of the FBI, that that
Speaker 2: might be just one simple reason why all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: the Washington Post decides, Oh, you know this database that
Speaker 2: we've been using to create this narrative about how cops
Speaker 2: are always killing black people, maybe you ought to drop it.
Speaker 3: There had to.
Speaker 2: Been some conversation occurs somewhere inside either the c suite
Speaker 2: or the editorial board of the Washington Post to make
Speaker 2: the decision that they were going to end their toxic
Speaker 2: narrative that cops are hunting down black men, that they
Speaker 2: were going to clean it up. And then somebody said, no,
Speaker 2: we all just eliminate it altogether. So like that, bamouse,
Speaker 2: it's gone. The changes that are occurring in our society
Speaker 2: simply because of something happened back on November five continues
Speaker 2: to reverberate throughout all aspects of our country.