Speaker 1: This is Dan Kaplis, and welcome to today's online podcast
Speaker 1: edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
Speaker 1: give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
Speaker 1: and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
Speaker 1: single day on your favorite podcast platform. True Americans across
Speaker 1: party lines, we don't sacrifice the lives of our children
Speaker 1: to political ideology. That is the American way. The problem
Speaker 1: is the left is acting in a fundamentally Unamerican way.
Speaker 1: They are each and every day knowingly, deliberately, unnecessarily risking
Speaker 1: the lives of our children in schools is a sacrifice
Speaker 1: to their leftist ideology. And we at the latest example yesterday, right,
Speaker 1: the leftist adamantly apposed to good guys and girls with
Speaker 1: guns in schools. They would much rather have the students
Speaker 1: just sit there, absolutely at the mercy of the bad
Speaker 1: guys with guns when they come to kill them all.
Speaker 1: That's just the way it is. That's the reality of
Speaker 1: the left. We see it over and over again. Now
Speaker 1: we get today's installment right where we learned that this
Speaker 1: cowardly murderer in Georgia had been on the radar. He
Speaker 1: had made it clear he had an active interest in
Speaker 1: school shootings. But he was left in the mainstream population.
Speaker 1: And you would be I know, the words overused. You
Speaker 1: would be stunned to know how many Colorado school districts
Speaker 1: have that as their policy, even after I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about a suspicion. You know, dude, there's something wrong over there.
Speaker 1: First of all, you got to follow up on that.
Speaker 1: But even after they have determined gone through the process
Speaker 1: and determined a student to be a danger to the
Speaker 1: other students, So many Colorado school districts, as a matter
Speaker 1: of policy, leave them there, leave the student who has
Speaker 1: been determined to be dangerous to the others in the
Speaker 1: school out of this bizarre, crazy, suicidal commitment to far
Speaker 1: left ideology. Oh, it would be inequitable to take that
Speaker 1: to be dangerous student of school because he deserves an
Speaker 1: education too. I mean, that's how far gone they are.
Speaker 1: But more importantly, it's how little they care about your child.
Speaker 1: And this comes back to what and I won't call
Speaker 1: it Democrat because a ninety nine point nine percent of
Speaker 1: all of my extended family members outside of Colorado or Democrats,
Speaker 1: probably one hundred percent. And they're the best, care most caring,
Speaker 1: patriotic people. You ever meet. But here's the point. You
Speaker 1: know that the left right, now, that the left that
Speaker 1: controls the Democratic Party, literally it just doesn't care about
Speaker 1: human life. It doesn't have the same value because this
Speaker 1: and you're probably thinking, no, it's impossible, but that's because
Speaker 1: you were raised. You were raised in a traditional American way,
Speaker 1: where the idea is that each and every one of
Speaker 1: us have this fundamental human worth and value and dignity.
Speaker 1: That is a traditional American view. It's certainly at the
Speaker 1: core of Christianity and some other religions. But you got
Speaker 1: to understand the people who control the Democratic Party. Now,
Speaker 1: these are secular far leftists who do not have that
Speaker 1: view of humans. They don't have that view of human life.
Speaker 1: They don't believe in the inherent value and dignity of
Speaker 1: each human life. They believe in the collective. So they
Speaker 1: are absolutely fine there is a very acceptable casualty rate
Speaker 1: as long as they're not the casualty, very acceptable casualty
Speaker 1: rate of innocent lives lost as long as it advances
Speaker 1: the leftist agenda. So that's the fundamental disconnect. That's the
Speaker 1: big choice in this election. Now, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of other choices to be made in this election. But
Speaker 1: that's the biggest because it permeates so many different policy issues. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're on the left right now, and you just
Speaker 1: you don't see individual human lives as having intrinsic importance value. Worse,
Speaker 1: you know, they're not a gift from God, etc. If
Speaker 1: you just view okay, that's just another life form. Well,
Speaker 1: and of course you know, of course you don't mind
Speaker 1: opening border and leaving it wide open because you don't
Speaker 1: care at all about the carnage. You don't care at
Speaker 1: all if you have this secular leftist view about all
Speaker 1: these young girls being raped on the way up to
Speaker 1: the southern border as they try to come into the
Speaker 1: United States, or their moms or their dads being killed
Speaker 1: on the way up. If you have a secular leftist view,
Speaker 1: you just don't care about that. It's an acceptable casualty
Speaker 1: rate to get a big influx of Democratic votes and
Speaker 1: get a permanent majority. And you sure as heck don't
Speaker 1: care about apartment complexes being taken over by Venezuelan gangs
Speaker 1: and aurora, or all the carnage on our roadways where
Speaker 1: each and each and every week we have people whose
Speaker 1: lives are shattered forever, their kids lose their mom or
Speaker 1: their dad, the husband, their wife because of someone who
Speaker 1: shouldn't have been in the country, who then kills somebody
Speaker 1: on the roadway. You don't care about any of this
Speaker 1: carnage if you're a secular leftist, because you don't have
Speaker 1: the same view of the value of human life. And
Speaker 1: so I know we're all talking about life in terms
Speaker 1: of the abortion issue because it's the most graphic right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the left is just it's killing six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand girls a year, a year, and it's it. They
Speaker 1: don't care about those human lives lost because again, it
Speaker 1: fuels their political machine, which brings us to a text
Speaker 1: and thank you, Texter. I appreciate this, and I appreciate
Speaker 1: the chance to talk about it again. Texter says Dan.
Speaker 1: People don't care about accents. I want to know how
Speaker 1: you square your affection for Donald J. Trump with his
Speaker 1: flip flopping on abortion. You may have addressed it and
Speaker 1: I missed it. I did address it, but I want
Speaker 1: to address it again in many, many times because I
Speaker 1: think it's absolutely critical for pro lifers like myself to
Speaker 1: fully appreciate that this is the easiest decision any of
Speaker 1: us will ever have to make if if your vote
Speaker 1: is motivated by saving innocent lives as mine is. At
Speaker 1: that point, it could be and easier choice. You've got
Speaker 1: literally the candidate of death. You've got Kamala Harris, who
Speaker 1: could not be more dedicated to devoted to maximizing and
Speaker 1: advancing the number of abortions, the availability of a legal
Speaker 1: right to slaughter that child up to the instant the
Speaker 1: child is delivered from the birth canal. So you compare that,
Speaker 1: You compare that. That's where Kamala Harris is. That's where
Speaker 1: Jared Polis is, That's where John Hickenlooper is. That's where
Speaker 1: they all are, and all of them want to take
Speaker 1: this issue away from you. They want to take it
Speaker 1: away from the voter in the states, all of them.
Speaker 1: All of them want Rollbeck in the constitution. You compare
Speaker 1: that to Donald Trump, who wants to leave the issue
Speaker 1: to the voters and give the voters a chance to
Speaker 1: protect these babies through the democratic process. That's the easiest
Speaker 1: choice you're ever going to have. And that's without even
Speaker 1: getting into other ways other policy issues that Trump is
Speaker 1: infinitely better on. So this is an easy choice. Do
Speaker 1: I wish Donald Trump was my late mom? Yeah, I do.
Speaker 1: I wish he had the same pro life used as
Speaker 1: my late mom, who I consider to be a founder
Speaker 1: of the pro life movement, But he isn't. And I think,
Speaker 1: as I said before in sixteen, my bet then and
Speaker 1: my bet now is that Donald Trump is at heart
Speaker 1: his personal views. I've always believed he's pro choice, but
Speaker 1: I don't care about any of that. As long as
Speaker 1: he's acting pro life, I don't care if his pro
Speaker 1: life actions are motivated by political expedients. I don't care
Speaker 1: about that. All I care about is saving babies, and
Speaker 1: so as long as he's doing the things necessary to
Speaker 1: save babies, I'm voting for. So do I like it
Speaker 1: when he comes out and talks about using this preposterous, bizarre,
Speaker 1: dishonest language of the left reproductive freedom. No, I don't
Speaker 1: like that. And I don't like when he opposes Florida's law,
Speaker 1: which he's I mean, he's going to vote against this
Speaker 1: insane law allowing abortion up till birth. But I don't
Speaker 1: like when he opposed the six weeks et cetera. But
Speaker 1: you know what, in the end, it still remains the
Speaker 1: easiest choice ever. And the other thing i'd respectfully suggest
Speaker 1: to pro lifers who are understandably disturbed by some of
Speaker 1: the things Trump has said on life lately. Is if
Speaker 1: you do not vote for Trump, and this isn't met
Speaker 1: as some kind of threat, obviously right, It couldn't be,
Speaker 1: and it wouldn't be. That's not who I am, and
Speaker 1: I'd have no ability to threaten you, and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to. I'm just pointing out a truth, and let
Speaker 1: me apply it to myself, not you. It'll sound better
Speaker 1: that way. If I don't vote for Donald Trump, if
Speaker 1: I Daniel J. Kaplis, who hasn't been called that since
Speaker 1: my mom was a live If I don't vote for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, I am complicit in the evil that will
Speaker 1: result from a Harris administration. Is that simple? Because I
Speaker 1: had a chance to do my little part to stop
Speaker 1: it and I didn't, So thank you, Texter? Eight fi
Speaker 1: five where's your five? Eight two five five the number
Speaker 1: when we come back. What do you make of Putin
Speaker 1: coming out today? Starting with the point Putin is Satan, right,
Speaker 1: he's evil incarnate on the face of the earth. What
Speaker 1: do you make of Putin coming out and saying he
Speaker 1: wants Kamala Harris to be president? You're on the Dan
Speaker 1: Kapla Show.
Speaker 2: And now back to the Dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 3: Demilitarizing are our schools and taking police officers out of schools?
Speaker 1: Got to tell you, and I don't mean to be critical,
Speaker 1: right because it's easy from the comfort of a radio
Speaker 1: studio to judge a political campaign the right in the
Speaker 1: throes of everything. But I'm sorry, this is not rocket science.
Speaker 1: You know. The Trump campaigns starting last night and today
Speaker 1: should have been hammering that sound. Kamala Harris wants school
Speaker 1: resource officers out. If it hadn't been for that resource
Speaker 1: officer in Georgia, many more would have been killed. She
Speaker 1: should have been hammered on that today. It is one
Speaker 1: thousand percent legitimate. It is a fundamental difference between the
Speaker 1: two of them. Eight five to five for zero five
Speaker 1: A two five to five the number. Glad you are here.
Speaker 1: Cannot wait for the event next Tuesday night. I can't
Speaker 1: call it a debate because ABC is going to protect
Speaker 1: her to the hill. But Ryan, before we get in
Speaker 1: other stuff, did you see the Harris campaign saying today that,
Speaker 1: oh no, these debate rules are not settled, because ABC
Speaker 1: has assured the Harris campaign they may change the rules
Speaker 1: in the middle.
Speaker 2: Of the debate.
Speaker 4: Do you think they're just trying to save face the
Speaker 4: Harris campaign with that because they got totally stood.
Speaker 1: Up at the prom there? Maybe? But I think the
Speaker 1: other very real possibility is ABC listen. ABC is part
Speaker 1: of the Harris campaign, right, I mean, that's not rhetorical.
Speaker 1: We all know as a practical matter that's true. So
Speaker 1: we know that they go in, as we've been talking
Speaker 1: about for a while, they go in absolutely determined and
Speaker 1: certain to protect her from herself and from Trump and
Speaker 1: from tough questions. So how are they going to do that? Well,
Speaker 1: obviously they will ask her tough questions, which will be
Speaker 1: meaningless because they won't pursue her for the answer. They'll
Speaker 1: get away. They'll let her get away with a non answer,
Speaker 1: So the original question doesn't matter. It's the follow up
Speaker 1: and they're not going to pin her down. So that's
Speaker 1: the biggest way they're going to protect her. Now, other
Speaker 1: ways they're going to protect her, right, I think we
Speaker 1: can fully expect that if it turns into the situation
Speaker 1: that she's terrified of, where Trump is chirping at her
Speaker 1: while his mic is off and it's throwing her off
Speaker 1: because obviously I'm sure she has certain skills, but she
Speaker 1: doesn't have the think on your feet skills. That's clear, right,
Speaker 1: I mean to do one, not even a real interview
Speaker 1: six weeks after you're installed. She just doesn't have those skills.
Speaker 1: So I think she's terrified of Trump chirping at her
Speaker 1: while his MIC's off, and it throws her off, and
Speaker 1: the audience doesn't know what's throwing her off. That's what
Speaker 1: Biden claimed as his excuse for his real bad performance.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't be at all surprised if that happens.
Speaker 1: And I don't necessarily mean that Trump doing it tactically,
Speaker 1: but just the normal flow of events. She's going to
Speaker 1: be standing there, lying through her teeth. Right, Trump is
Speaker 1: only human, so he's behind his podium and she's saying
Speaker 1: things about him and otherwise that aren't true. And it's
Speaker 1: human nature to want to say something. So if that happens,
Speaker 1: Trump talking while his mic is off, I'll bet you.
Speaker 1: I'll bet your steak right now. Oh that ABC either
Speaker 1: turns his mic on changing the rules or calls him
Speaker 1: out on it, more likely that they say, we just
Speaker 1: want our viewers to know that, you know, mister Trump
Speaker 1: was talking while Kamala Harris was speaking, and they'll do
Speaker 1: something like that.
Speaker 2: I think that would be fine and whatever.
Speaker 4: I don't think that viewers and voters would respond that negatively.
Speaker 4: If Kamal was standing there clearly lying about Donald Trump
Speaker 4: like suckers and losers, let's just go with that one.
Speaker 4: If he pipes them and goes, no, that's false. You know,
Speaker 4: I don't see that as a negative for Trump in
Speaker 4: that instance. If he got personal, if he started bullying,
Speaker 4: that's a different matter altogether. But what I'm interested to Dan,
Speaker 4: I've heard of repeated occasions now Donald Trump basically lavish praise.
Speaker 2: He goes I used to call him fake Tapa, but
Speaker 2: he was good. Jake Tapper, he did a good job.
Speaker 2: Dana Bash did a good job.
Speaker 1: For one reason, they wanted Biden o. That's why they
Speaker 1: let Trump add Well.
Speaker 4: That's beside the point that I'm making right now, which
Speaker 4: is that I don't know if there's any motivation for
Speaker 4: the moderators to be viewed fairly by Trump, if they
Speaker 4: would like that, if Ja Kapper or Dana Bash enjoy
Speaker 4: that Trump is saying nice things about them right now.
Speaker 4: But Lindsay Davis is a mark. She is a lost
Speaker 4: cause she's going to be in the tank for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4: I am interested to see how David Muhr performs in this.
Speaker 4: He tends to take his professionalism very seriously, I would say,
Speaker 4: and I believe that he'll do a comparable job to
Speaker 4: Dana Bash and to Jake Tapper in this upcoming debate.
Speaker 2: I have some hope for that. At least.
Speaker 1: I completely disagree. And here's why ABC. First of all,
Speaker 1: ABC is owned by Disney, right to start with, Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: very very close to one of the very top people
Speaker 1: in the company.
Speaker 2: And that's the Lindsay Davis connection.
Speaker 1: Even forget all that for a second. Forget all that
Speaker 1: for a second. The leftist media right that world, that world.
Speaker 1: What Mirror and Lindsay know is that if they are
Speaker 1: perceived as having failed to stop Trump, they are dead
Speaker 1: in their profession. They would they will be persona grata.
Speaker 1: They can walk into a party, people will walk to
Speaker 1: the other side of the room. The only reason the
Speaker 1: media didn't go after Tapper and Bash is they wanted
Speaker 1: Biden out. They wanted Biden out, and Tapper and Bash
Speaker 1: help get them out. I mean, look at what happened
Speaker 1: with Bash. Right when Harris, then, what a coincidence, decides
Speaker 1: to sit down with Bash for that sponge bath as
Speaker 1: someone called it. You know, Bash at that point clearly
Speaker 1: just just forfeited her journalistic credibility by running complete cover
Speaker 1: for Harris that they even buried half the interview they
Speaker 1: only aired sixteen minutes. So that's what's going to be
Speaker 1: on the line for these two so called moderators, and
Speaker 1: they have one mission going into that, right, because they're
Speaker 1: motivated by self interest. That's your point, right, Ryan, They're
Speaker 1: motivated by self interest, and their survival in that profession
Speaker 1: depends upon the profession viewing them as helping Harris defeat Trump.
Speaker 4: So what you're saying is that it's okay that Bash
Speaker 4: and Tapper were to be fair because there was a
Speaker 4: greater mission at hand at that moment to get rid
Speaker 4: of Biden.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Do you think it was a coincidence? I know you don't,
Speaker 1: But anybody think it was a coincidence that the second
Speaker 1: that debate ended, every single one of those lefty networks,
Speaker 1: every single person talking was saying the same thing. My
Speaker 1: phone's blowing up with people saying Biden's done that this
Speaker 1: was all anticipated. Now, hey, if he had a good night,
Speaker 1: they would have taken a different line. But Tepper and
Speaker 1: Bash were letting Trump have it, Biden letting Biden me
Speaker 1: Ko so they could get him out of the race.
Speaker 1: And then Harris, you can see now that she is
Speaker 1: certain to be their kendidate. There's no way to dispose
Speaker 1: of her now. So now she'll be protected with everything.
Speaker 1: Walls I'm not so sure about, because they could get
Speaker 1: rid of Walls, and they know if they lose Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: they lose, and so I think there's still a real
Speaker 1: possibility they dump Walls and bring in Shapiro.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to go on the less bad scale here,
Speaker 4: but if we compare David muirr okay, I have a
Speaker 4: little bit, tiny bit of respect for him to Kristen
Speaker 4: Welker NBC, who Trump praised in the last series of
Speaker 4: debates in twenty twenty that she did a good job.
Speaker 4: Nora O'Donnell for CBS. Of those three, is David near
Speaker 4: the least bad?
Speaker 1: We'll find out, right, because listen, that's one of the
Speaker 1: beautiful things about life is there are these surprises. Because
Speaker 1: every now and then, somebody who you would not expected
Speaker 1: from decides they're going to be about something bigger than themselves.
Speaker 1: They're going to be about honor, they're going to be
Speaker 1: about truth, they're going to be about principle. I'm not
Speaker 1: expecting that from your but we may get surprised. Now
Speaker 1: on the other side of the spectrum, you look at
Speaker 1: Chris Wallace, who really did such a grave disservice to America, Yes,
Speaker 1: and humiliated himself in the profession when he actively protected
Speaker 1: Biden in that debate that he did and shut down
Speaker 1: he shut down this very legitimate line of questioning from Trump. Yeah. So, Ryan,
Speaker 1: I hope you're right, because if it was an honest, fair,
Speaker 1: level playing field on Tuesday night, the race is certainly
Speaker 1: over in Trump's favor, but it's not going to be
Speaker 1: that so only to Quebec. Among other things, we'll talk
Speaker 1: about how Trump can still win. Andy Cam, you're on
Speaker 1: the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 3: Registered voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania believe that they
Speaker 3: would be financially better off if Trump wins.
Speaker 1: How do you explain that. I'm going to be.
Speaker 5: Careful because we're talking about vot registered voters. We're talking
Speaker 5: about a candidate now obviously the former president who's now
Speaker 5: a candidate. I got to be mindful of the Hatch
Speaker 5: Act and so can't speak to that specific.
Speaker 1: It just goes out like that. Right, we'll get to
Speaker 1: the separate issue of what do you do when, as
Speaker 1: I've been saying for a long time, this nation truly
Speaker 1: does not have a functioning president. But we'll get back
Speaker 1: to that merrily. Llery Slate kind enough to join us
Speaker 1: from Alliance Defending Freedom and we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: a very important lawsuit out of jeffco. But let me
Speaker 1: say first that Alliance Defending Freedom is one of the
Speaker 1: most important forces for good in America. And please do
Speaker 1: take a second check out their website. Decide if you
Speaker 1: want to send them five bucks or if you're a gazillionaire,
Speaker 1: five million, Because if you care about your religious freedom,
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, et cetera, you want to talk about
Speaker 1: hard work in the trenches to preserve that and a
Speaker 1: lot of ws. If you care about winning, they win
Speaker 1: so much they get tired of winning. Mallory, welcome to
Speaker 1: the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you for that lovely introduction. Dan I'm so
Speaker 3: glad to be with you today.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. And do you get tired of winning?
Speaker 3: You know, we honestly just want to approach every single
Speaker 3: case with excellence and we really allow God to speak
Speaker 3: for us.
Speaker 1: No, well said, and so I'll brag for them. They win, right,
Speaker 1: And when it's your freedom of speech, your religious liberty
Speaker 1: on the line, you need to win. They win. Now,
Speaker 1: let's get to this Colorado case. Denver Post headline Colorado
Speaker 1: parents sue for right to choose same sex rooms for
Speaker 1: kids on school trips. Is that a fair headline?
Speaker 3: Well, this case really is about parental rights at its base,
Speaker 3: most simple level. It's about the right of parents to
Speaker 3: make decisions regarding their children, and unfortunately Jessco is currently
Speaker 3: usurfing that right.
Speaker 1: And Melie please tell people in a little more detail
Speaker 1: what happened here and why Alliance Defending Freedom is lending
Speaker 1: its considerable firepower to this case. The importance of the
Speaker 1: issue at state.
Speaker 3: This has a really critical issue. We were first contacted
Speaker 3: by a local Jessco family, Joe and Serena Wales, over
Speaker 3: a year ago, and they had a really serious situation happened.
Speaker 3: Their fifth grade daughter went on the Jessco Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: Philadelphia trip, which is kind of a rite of pals
Speaker 3: for a lot of kids, you know, to go to DC.
Speaker 3: And they were told that she would be rooming with
Speaker 3: three other girls in hotel rooms with two girls in
Speaker 3: each bed. And they get to the trip and their
Speaker 3: daughter is in the room on the first night and
Speaker 3: finds out that the child she is supposed to sleep
Speaker 3: in a bed with is actually a male who identifies
Speaker 3: as a girl.
Speaker 1: And the school knowingly put her in that position.
Speaker 3: Well, the school's explicit policy is to room all children,
Speaker 3: regardless of age, by gender identity rather than by sex.
Speaker 1: How is that not criminal? And I understand you're not
Speaker 1: pursuing a criminal case, you're not a DA, But how
Speaker 1: is that not criminal child abuse?
Speaker 3: It's certainly a violation of constitutional rights of the First Amendment,
Speaker 3: the fourteenth Amendment. And that's really what our clients are
Speaker 3: fighting right now, because we realize this is not just
Speaker 3: a one off accident situation. This is their explicit policy.
Speaker 3: And we wrote a couple of letters to them earlier
Speaker 3: this year and asked, can you work with us, can
Speaker 3: you find an accommodation for parents who are uncomfortable with
Speaker 3: their children staying in a room or a bed with
Speaker 3: a child of the opposite sex, and can you give
Speaker 3: information to the parents about this policy? And Jessico said
Speaker 3: no on both accounts and really left us with no
Speaker 3: option but to file this lawsuit.
Speaker 1: See and Mellory slate with us from Alliance Defending Freedom.
Speaker 1: I love the way you guys approached it. You weren't
Speaker 1: trying to play gotcha and just go file a lawsuit
Speaker 1: and everything else. You gave them a chance to fix
Speaker 1: it and they wouldn't. So where does it go from
Speaker 1: here in the court system? What do you think the
Speaker 1: process timing will be?
Speaker 3: So we just filed this week and so Jessco has
Speaker 3: been notified and now has twenty one days where they
Speaker 3: can either respond to our complaint or they can file
Speaker 3: emotion and will really go from there. But the key
Speaker 3: for us is parents need to know about these policies.
Speaker 3: They need to know that the school district right now
Speaker 3: is going to put every child that goes on a
Speaker 3: just COO trip in rooms based on gender identity and
Speaker 3: not based on sex. And that's explicitly important for outdoor lab,
Speaker 3: which is a really big program there in Jessco where
Speaker 3: all sixth graders as part of the actual curriculum, go
Speaker 3: up into the mountains with no communication with parents and
Speaker 3: are roomed in cabins. But the problem is they're roomed
Speaker 3: not just by gender identity for the other sixth grade students,
Speaker 3: but also for the high school dollars.
Speaker 1: No, oh, my lord, seriously, and I know it's I
Speaker 1: want to get a da on and find out why
Speaker 1: this isn't criminal, why there aren't criminal charges here. Listen,
Speaker 1: I don't know enough about criminal law. I can't sit
Speaker 1: here and say that they're violating some criminal law. But
Speaker 1: I want somebody who knows to tell me, because it
Speaker 1: seems like it should be. It seems like the law
Speaker 1: should prevent this. And I understand constitutionally it does, and
Speaker 1: you're going to stand up and vindicate those rights. But
Speaker 1: at any age high school seniors, but an eleven year
Speaker 1: old daughter in this case, right, yes?
Speaker 3: Or are the whales there? It was their eleven year
Speaker 3: old daughter, and then the Rollers, Brett and Suzanne Roller,
Speaker 3: it was their eleven year old son who went to
Speaker 3: outdoor lab and had an eighteen year old female counselor
Speaker 3: who identified as non binary put in his cabin who
Speaker 3: was not only you know, sleeping right next to him,
Speaker 3: but was told to supervise his showers. And the boys
Speaker 3: were so uncomfortable with this that they all got to
Speaker 3: together and decided to refuse to shower together even though
Speaker 3: they're als in the woods, because they're so uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: I'd love them.
Speaker 3: It's understandable.
Speaker 1: It's just one of the worst things I've ever heard here.
Speaker 1: So I'm so glad you guys are in the case
Speaker 1: because listen, I mean, everybody knows. For those who aren't
Speaker 1: into this whole legal world stuff, Alliance Defending Freedom, they're
Speaker 1: the big leagues. They are as good as it gets.
Speaker 1: So the fact you guys are on this case, that's
Speaker 1: going to say something powerful to everybody involved. Final question,
Speaker 1: Mellory slate, which is to be wasting this money as
Speaker 1: Jeff Coiz that should be spent on students, To be
Speaker 1: wasting this money on attorney's fees and costs to try
Speaker 1: to defend the indefensible. What do you think the chances
Speaker 1: are they just come to their senses and change the
Speaker 1: policy before they pour all this money into a losing costs.
Speaker 3: You know, that's what we would really love. We want
Speaker 3: to work with school districts to protect all children. Our goal.
Speaker 3: We want to protect all children, and I would hope
Speaker 3: that Jeff Coo would want to do that as well.
Speaker 3: And we're simply asking for some type of accommodation or
Speaker 3: an opt out or an opt into this policy where
Speaker 3: all students can be protected and feel comfortable on all
Speaker 3: school trips. So I really hope that that jesfco will
Speaker 3: reconsider and be willing to work with parents in its district.
Speaker 1: Now I've got thirty seconds for this question. You don't
Speaker 1: have to answer unless you want to. But because it's
Speaker 1: personal about you, I know that all these Alliance Defending
Speaker 1: Freedom lawyers are superstars who could be out making megabucks
Speaker 1: at any of the big national powerhouse firms. So why
Speaker 1: did you choose to work for Alliance Defending Freedom instead?
Speaker 3: You know, that's a great question, And truly my dream
Speaker 3: was always to work at Alliance Defending Freedom because it's
Speaker 3: an organization that I watched for years before I worked
Speaker 3: here and saw that they would always take the high road.
Speaker 3: They would do it the right way, they would do
Speaker 3: things with integrity and honor, and would be kind to
Speaker 3: everybody through the process, but would do it with excellence,
Speaker 3: and to me, the Constitution has been under a pat
Speaker 3: for many years now, and we are slowly seeing our
Speaker 3: rights shipping away by various various different governments and bureaucrats
Speaker 3: throughout our country. And we have to stand up, and
Speaker 3: we have to stand up together, and you know, at
Speaker 3: ADF we do it in a way that is hopefully
Speaker 3: honoring to God and honoring to our communities. And so
Speaker 3: I wanted to be a part of that, and I've
Speaker 3: been really blessed to get to work at ADF, and
Speaker 3: it's truly an organization that I cherish, regardless of whether
Speaker 3: I work here.
Speaker 1: Or not doing the work of angels. Thank you, Melori Slate,
Speaker 1: and good luck with the case.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having us on our pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and again for those who happen to work
Speaker 1: in a different industry, within the legal industry, as you
Speaker 1: probably know, you have these big powerhouse law firms that
Speaker 1: world's called big Law, and they pay unimaginable amounts of
Speaker 1: money to kids just coming right out of law school.
Speaker 1: But only the very best in terms of grades and
Speaker 1: everything else can get hired at those big firms. And
Speaker 1: these lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom, you know, these are
Speaker 1: the lawyers who could get hired at those mega firms,
Speaker 1: at those mega salaries, but they decide to go out
Speaker 1: and fight the good fight instead. I think that's that's
Speaker 1: just the best of at least our little profession. Eight
Speaker 1: five zero five eight two five five the number when
Speaker 1: we come back, very very interesting, encouraging news for President
Speaker 1: Trump and by extension America, you're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 2: And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Interrupted a money making endeavored money?
Speaker 2: Are you placing bets on the air?
Speaker 6: Down?
Speaker 1: Are? I never tell people what I bet on for
Speaker 1: this reason? Okay, And I'm listening at five bucks here
Speaker 1: and they're okay, it's just it's kind of fun. But
Speaker 1: the reason I don't tell people is I have a
Speaker 1: shockingly good track record.
Speaker 4: Well, you don't have to tell us which way you bet.
Speaker 4: You can just say, hey, I'm betting on the Packers
Speaker 4: Eagles game tomorrow night.
Speaker 1: Well, and I'm not encouraging gambling, by the way, but
Speaker 1: since it is legal in Coloradon, I would find it
Speaker 1: very surprising if somebody who liked to spend a dollar
Speaker 1: every now and then on a game wasn't on this
Speaker 1: game tonight, This this Kansas City Baltimore game, because to me,
Speaker 1: it's there are no sure things there, but it's a
Speaker 1: it's a yeah. I'm just not going there because I'm
Speaker 1: a sensitive guy and I would literally lose sleep if
Speaker 1: I thought somebody he lost money because they followed my
Speaker 1: lead and fire in sports, But I would lose sleep.
Speaker 1: So I'm not going to go there.
Speaker 4: I think Lamar Jackson's going to surprise you tonight, Dan.
Speaker 1: That would not surprise me. That would not surprise It
Speaker 1: would surprise me if Lamar Jackson was not victorious tonight. Okay,
Speaker 1: And I like Kansas City a lot.
Speaker 2: Oh, I thought you were going the other way on this,
Speaker 2: all right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But anyway, here a couple of things. I want
Speaker 1: to get you some good news here, as we love
Speaker 1: to do every day. But this guy, Nate Silver, You're
Speaker 1: probably familiar with him if you listen to a show
Speaker 1: like this. He comes from the left. He found it
Speaker 1: five thirty eight, sold it for a bunch of money
Speaker 1: to ABC. But he still has his own, you know,
Speaker 1: political consulting, polling, type of political analysis agency. So he
Speaker 1: does this highly watched and highly regarded daily rating in
Speaker 1: the presidential race, and a couple of weeks ago he
Speaker 1: had Harris up almost sixty forty right when she was
Speaker 1: on that sugar high. And then as of today his
Speaker 1: odds and we're not talking about poll results, we're talking
Speaker 1: about him giving you the percentage chance of victory based
Speaker 1: on a combination of polling data and other factors that
Speaker 1: he analyzes. But as of today it's almost flipped completely.
Speaker 1: He is Trump at fifty eight point two percent chance
Speaker 1: of victory and Harris at forty one point six. So
Speaker 1: that's significant and encouraging. I would though, caution people, listen.
Speaker 1: The guy's a businessman, right and he's a media figure.
Speaker 1: And you can be certain of one thing that those
Speaker 1: numbers are soon going to start to move in Harris's favor,
Speaker 1: probably after the debate, because she'll look better and expected,
Speaker 1: she'll sound better than expected. ABC will protect her. She's
Speaker 1: already been essentially declared the winner. You can bet those
Speaker 1: headlines have been written, and then his numbers will start
Speaker 1: to move in her favor. But wanted to let you
Speaker 1: know what his numbers at today. But then Ryan, he
Speaker 1: had this interesting observation. He said, he is and I
Speaker 1: don't have time to get in all the details, but
Speaker 1: he is ripping every day now on Harris's team, and
Speaker 1: one of his tweets was, Harris should do more interviews.
Speaker 1: But her campaign is being run by people with PTSD
Speaker 1: over Biden's inability to speak extemporaneously. No, no, it's being
Speaker 1: run by people who know she does not have the
Speaker 1: ability to do that. We the good but anyway, I
Speaker 1: want to let people know that good news. Say what
Speaker 1: do you make of this Putin saying he prefers Harris.
Speaker 6: It was it used to be Joe Biden, but now
Speaker 6: he is not participating in the election campaign, and he
Speaker 6: recommended to all his allies to support miss Harris. So
Speaker 6: that is what we are going to do. So it
Speaker 6: was well he said that we should. That is why
Speaker 6: we should also do that. Well, she'll laugh, she's laughing.
Speaker 6: She'll love is so fascinating. It means that everything is good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, listen, Putin is Satan. He is the devil on earth.
Speaker 1: He's evil incarnate. So I don't put any stock in
Speaker 1: anything he says about anything. This we know though. Of course,
Speaker 1: if if someone is evil and they're a dictator like Putin,
Speaker 1: they want Kamala Harris because they will feast on her
Speaker 1: evil in the world right now. You know Ji Kim
Speaker 1: jong un, either Tolas, et cetera. It's like a pack
Speaker 1: of wolves surrounding a newborn puppy. You know they're salivating
Speaker 1: at the thought of Harris. And the proof is simple.
Speaker 1: When Trump was president, Putin did not go into Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Under Obama took Crimea, and under Biden, he's trying to
Speaker 1: take the whole thing. I mean, it could not be
Speaker 1: more obvious. I want to get to this great question
Speaker 1: raised by a Texter Patty Dan. I understand your position
Speaker 1: on Trump and his abortion views. I don't get how
Speaker 1: you didn't feel the same way about Joe o'deans run
Speaker 1: for Senate. I don't have time to go into it
Speaker 1: fully here, but here's the point, the key distinction. And
Speaker 1: I talked at length about why, as a dedicated pro lifer,
Speaker 1: I am fully behind Trump despite concerns about some recent statements,
Speaker 1: and why if you're voting to save innocent lives, this
Speaker 1: is a no brainer and easy pick Trump over Harris.
Speaker 1: But here's the point with oday Oday, just like Kamala,
Speaker 1: Harris wanted to take abortion policy away from the people.
Speaker 1: He wanted rowe codified Trump wants the people to be
Speaker 1: able to decide that policy critical difference. Ryan, thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Kelly join us tomorrow