Speaker 1: Here's a nine for twenty one to four K seat
Speaker 1: advisor tonight at eight probably longer air quality alert till tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Midnight today hot ninety six with the high with isolated
Speaker 1: evening storms seventy one overnight with muggy conditions ninety six
Speaker 1: with late afternoon storms tomorrow, a possibility anyway overnight down
Speaker 1: to seventy three and a chance of storms after two
Speaker 1: pm on Friday, and a high of ninety eight. It
Speaker 1: is seventy six right now. Ty for traffic from the
Speaker 1: ucut Tramphic Center.
Speaker 2: At the UC Gardner Neuroscience Institute, you can access the
Speaker 2: leading brain, spine and nerve experts right here in Cincinnati.
Speaker 2: Westbound two seventy five continues to run just over an
Speaker 2: extra hour between Milford and Montgomery thanks to several accidents earlier.
Speaker 2: South Bend seventy five break lights continue out of Sharonville
Speaker 2: through Lachland. There's a wreck in Bend seventy four that
Speaker 2: hands the North Bend seventy five rand blocked off. That's
Speaker 2: banking traffic to the North Bend. Coming up next, Special guests,
Speaker 2: who is ready to celebrate National Red Wine Day. As
Speaker 2: a matter of fact, he happens to be a wine expert,
Speaker 2: so he's thinking about starting a new podcast for his
Speaker 2: recommendations for a good merlot on Labor Day weekend. He
Speaker 2: just can't figure out what to call it. Should it
Speaker 2: be called Read between the Wines? Or poor decision? To
Speaker 2: judge us? Next Chuck Ingram on fifty five krs the
Speaker 2: talk station. I think he worked on that one.
Speaker 3: Oh god, he apparently did. It was actually hilarious at
Speaker 3: the very end. I didn't know where he was going.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Brian, Judge you judge editor Poulatada, who does
Speaker 1: to a podcast. You can find him online Judging Freedom.
Speaker 1: And of course we always end our segment with the
Speaker 1: judge every Wednesday with who he's going to be talking to.
Speaker 1: We will do the same today. I am doing well,
Speaker 1: your honor, with the exception of things out of my control.
Speaker 1: Of course, the world seems to be falling apart regardless
Speaker 1: of where you look. But in my personal space everything
Speaker 1: is in order, and I appreciate your asking. I hope
Speaker 1: you can say the same, my friend. Yes, yes, you
Speaker 1: look a little distressed there at the outset of our feed.
Speaker 1: There we're having we're experiencing some technical difficulties throughout the
Speaker 1: week with the zoom conferencing, so.
Speaker 3: Yes, I could tell I was a lot of hoops
Speaker 3: through which.
Speaker 1: To jump and apologies, and Joe Strecker is as frustrated
Speaker 1: as I am because it's been shutting down and popping
Speaker 1: back up. So we'll overcome those challenges. You'll remain audio capable,
Speaker 1: regardless of whether I can see your face, which is
Speaker 1: always a pleasure seeing. So searching for monsters, you know,
Speaker 1: I responded to your column which comes out tonight midnight.
Speaker 1: I'm fortunate enough to get an advanced copy with sort
Speaker 1: of the old turnabouts fair play. You know, do unto
Speaker 1: others as they would do unto you. And I posed
Speaker 1: the question out loud earlier in anticipation of this conversation
Speaker 1: with you. You know, what if the Iranians decided somebody here
Speaker 1: in the United States was an enemy, an evil person.
Speaker 1: I know they put a hit list out for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: among others, and they came into our country, kidnapped them,
Speaker 1: and took them back to Iran, would that be okay?
Speaker 1: I think we would be outraged collectively, and yet it's
Speaker 1: okay for us to do it.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, we are according to Joe Biden, and
Speaker 3: according to the Republicans, the indispensable nation, and we can
Speaker 3: do things that nobody else can do. We can conduct coups,
Speaker 3: we can start illegal wars, and we can kidnap people.
Speaker 3: The President of the United States can even kill people
Speaker 3: in foreign countries, like Donald Trump with General Solomony, or
Speaker 3: even worse, Barack Obama with Onwar Alackei and his son,
Speaker 3: both of whom were Americans, and neither of them had
Speaker 3: been charged with any crime whatsoever. General Solomony hadn't been
Speaker 3: charged with a crime either. This all began when the
Speaker 3: Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI kidnapped a Mexican doctor
Speaker 3: from his office in Mexico, alleging that he was using
Speaker 3: false inscriptions to overprescribed fentanyl to Mexican patients. So we're
Speaker 3: then taking the fentanyl and doing whatever they do with
Speaker 3: it and selling it in the United States. He was
Speaker 3: violently kidnapped and brought to Texas for trial. He challenged
Speaker 3: the kidnapping. The case went all the way to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court before he was tried, and the Supreme Court said,
Speaker 3: we don't care how he got here.
Speaker 2: Now that.
Speaker 3: Was permitted because there was at least a nexus between
Speaker 3: what the government said he did falsifying prescriptions and Americans
Speaker 3: being harmed. Since then, under Joe Biden's the reason for
Speaker 3: my column, yeah, has changed the law to remove the
Speaker 3: American harm nexus. So now federal courts can hear cases
Speaker 3: of anybody kidnapped anywhere for any reason, as long as
Speaker 3: they're physically present in the courtroom, whether they have violated
Speaker 3: an American statute or not, whether they have harmed an
Speaker 3: American person or American property or not. There's no longer
Speaker 3: the nexus of American harm required. That's what has me
Speaker 3: so aggravated. How does the government decide who the monsters
Speaker 3: are that it wants to kidnap and bring to the
Speaker 3: United States for political reasons? What other basis would there be?
Speaker 3: Is that what the constitution authorizes? Of course not?
Speaker 1: Well, is it possible? I mean, my legal brain is
Speaker 1: trying to process the absurdity of what you just explained
Speaker 1: very clearly and succinctly, a sort of a reverse standing
Speaker 1: argument that a defendant could make. You know, there is
Speaker 1: no harm. There is no statue you can point to
Speaker 1: that I've violated. I did not harm a single American.
Speaker 1: You don't have standing to even bring me in the court. Moreover,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be able to kidnap me anyway. But that's
Speaker 1: almost like it seems like a parenthetical since the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruled that it didn't matter how the guy got there.
Speaker 3: You know, Supreme Court's attitude about this is one of
Speaker 3: two ways. Either they really don't care what the executive
Speaker 3: branch does prior to the introduction of the person into
Speaker 3: the courtroom, or or I'll give them credit. They were
Speaker 3: counting on that American nexus requirement. Okay, you were in Mexico,
Speaker 3: you violated, You committed an act which if done in
Speaker 3: the United States would have been a serious crime. But
Speaker 3: you did harm Americans. I can understand that. But by
Speaker 3: Congress removing the nexus connection, the connection between what the
Speaker 3: defendant did and a harm to an American person or
Speaker 3: American property, and telling the federal courts they must hear
Speaker 3: these cases, Congress has permitted the President of the United
Speaker 3: States to dispatch a private army to kidnap whoever he wants,
Speaker 3: for whatever reason he wants, concoct the case against him
Speaker 3: he's never been to the United States of America and
Speaker 3: bring him to the United States. Could a future president
Speaker 3: kidnap Benjamin Netanyahu and claim that he committed to genocide,
Speaker 3: which is against American law, even though he had nothing. Well,
Speaker 3: the United States paid for it. Maybe it's not a
Speaker 3: good example, but theoretically, under this, under this statute, and
Speaker 3: under the Supreme Court's prior ruling, the answer is yes, wow,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 1: And I also think to extradition treaties, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: an incentive for us to engage in diplomacy and enjoy
Speaker 1: reciprocal extradition if you know what.
Speaker 3: We have an extradition treaty with Mexico.
Speaker 1: I thought so.
Speaker 3: And this is where the Supreme Court's logic was really
Speaker 3: off base, because the extradition treaty does not prohibit kidnapping,
Speaker 3: therefore it condones it. I mean, that is absurd. That
Speaker 3: would flunk a first year law school test.
Speaker 1: And we're our law enforcement folks. My understanding of course,
Speaker 1: because of your column and it's well written, and I'm
Speaker 1: courage my listeners to get a copy of it. Searching
Speaker 1: for monsters were we invited into their country because this
Speaker 1: is this would be like you know of a police
Speaker 1: force from say, I don't know, Nebraska coming into Cincinnati
Speaker 1: and grabbing someone and taking them, even though if they
Speaker 1: went through proper channels, they could get that person delivered
Speaker 1: to Nebraska for an outstanding warrant. We would cooperate were
Speaker 1: we there by invitation.
Speaker 3: Not invited into their country. But guess how we got
Speaker 3: in there by bribing the local police chief with your
Speaker 3: tax dollars and mine and the tax dollars of everybody
Speaker 3: listening to us. Now, what happens when the government breaks
Speaker 3: its own laws. It kidnaps and bribes the very crimes
Speaker 3: for which it investigates and prosecutes people.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny because there are laws on the books.
Speaker 1: You're honor and I know you know this, but are
Speaker 1: just saying it out aloud. To draw the contrast. It's
Speaker 1: like if government does it, it's okay, but you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to do it. If you're a company doing business
Speaker 1: in a foreign country that is a corrupt country, say
Speaker 1: Mexico to a certain degree, and locals there are prohibiting
Speaker 1: you from doing business unless you pay them a bribe.
Speaker 1: If you pay them a bribe, you could be prosecuted
Speaker 1: in the United States for engaging in acts of bribery.
Speaker 3: Correct. But if you are the federal government and you
Speaker 3: bribe them, no harm, no foul, The courts couldn't care less.
Speaker 1: Wow. And again I read.
Speaker 3: My first book is called This Is Twenty years Ago
Speaker 3: Constitutional Chaos. What happens when the government breaks its own laws?
Speaker 3: And the book is filled with these examples. And my
Speaker 3: favorite is a federal district court judge who was set
Speaker 3: up by the Feds and prosecuted for bribery, and at
Speaker 3: his they bribed a witness to testify against him. He
Speaker 3: was convicted, and the Tenth Circuit throughout the conviction and
Speaker 3: large measure because of that. That is the most extreme
Speaker 3: example I've ever heard of the Feds bribing a witness
Speaker 3: to testify against a judge and a bribery case.
Speaker 1: Wow. I brought up in an illustration. Earlier, someone brought
Speaker 1: up Kamala Harris's a brilliant, economically miserable, stupid idea of
Speaker 1: price fixing. You know, you're being gouged, and we're going
Speaker 1: to set a price, some maximum price it can be charged.
Speaker 1: You know, if private businesses went behind the doors of
Speaker 1: a closed room and sat down together and collectively agreed
Speaker 1: that they would not charge less than X dollars amount
Speaker 1: per pound of bee or chicken, or whatever. They'd be
Speaker 1: prosecuted for violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act. But
Speaker 1: if our lords and masters in Washington decide what the
Speaker 1: price of chicken is going to be, it's okay for
Speaker 1: them to do it.
Speaker 3: You know. I'm giving a talk at the run Pall
Speaker 3: Institute along with my friend and colleague, Professor John Meerscheimer
Speaker 3: of the University Chicago this weekend, and my talk is
Speaker 3: on taking rights seriously. And in that talk, I'm going
Speaker 3: to compare natural law based on morality the same for
Speaker 3: everybody and positivism. The law is whatever the lawgiver says
Speaker 3: it is, so we can allow ourselves to do whatever
Speaker 3: we want. You could count on one hand the members
Speaker 3: of Congress, Thomas Massey of course, among them, who believe
Speaker 3: that morality restrains the government. Everybody else Republicans, Democrats, liberals,
Speaker 3: conservatives believe the government can do whatever the hell it wants.
Speaker 1: As greatly illustrated and brilliantly illustrated by your column again
Speaker 1: Searching for Monsters, available tonight at midnight. Judging Freedom is
Speaker 1: a judge of Paultona's podcast and conversations with some wonderful guests,
Speaker 1: Your honor, who is on the plate today.
Speaker 3: Oh, I have my heaviest hitters on today because I
Speaker 3: need to be with the run prol group on Friday.
Speaker 3: Colonel Douglas McGregor at eleven o'clock Eastern and Scott Ritter
Speaker 3: at four o'clock Eastern. These are my biggest draws and
Speaker 3: they are close friends of mine and am looking forward
Speaker 3: to the conversations McGregor about the coming war in the
Speaker 3: Middle East and Ridder about the coming war with Russia.
Speaker 3: Does anybody know how close we are to war? Well?
Speaker 1: As you know, I always like to say I like
Speaker 1: to end on a positive note with you, in a
Speaker 1: comical note, but we're not going to be able to
Speaker 1: do that today because yes, I am painfully aware of
Speaker 1: how close we are. It scares the hell out of me.
Speaker 1: Judge Outnapaula Towna. God bless you, sir. They'll be looking
Speaker 1: for your podcast Judging Freedom. I'm looking forward to next Wednesday. Already,
Speaker 1: have a great day and a great week, sir.
Speaker 3: Right back at you, Brian, all the best.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much. Hey, forty one, come out of an
Speaker 1: eight forty two fifty five care see the talk station
Speaker 1: and it's time to get to mention covers since he
Speaker 1: and I talked to John Rowman every Sunday on the
Speaker 1: Morning Show. It's not the Morning Show on Sunday, it's
Speaker 1: we call it Rethink Healthcare Together. Just brilliant John Roman
Speaker 1: and his team at Cover. Since you know every single
Speaker 1: thing there is possible to know about medical insurance, including
Speaker 1: for my friends that are getting up in years getting
Speaker 1: ready to get on medicare some real big red flags.
Speaker 1: It's important for you to talk with one of the
Speaker 1: team that covers SINCEY. Have them look at your current insurance.
Speaker 1: It doesn't take very long. They'll evaluate what you've got
Speaker 1: and tell you what you can do which will be better.
Speaker 1: They work with hundreds of insurance companies thousands of medical plans,
Speaker 1: which allows them to customize medical insurance for your specific
Speaker 1: set of circumstances. Point in life where you are, maybe
Speaker 1: you've got a family with small kids, maybe you're getting
Speaker 1: ready to retire. There's a bunch of different areas in
Speaker 1: any point in life. It's worth calling cover SINCEY because
Speaker 1: you're probably paying too much, and you're paying too much
Speaker 1: out of pocket, so premium and then out of pocket responsibility.
Speaker 1: How about dollar one coverage? There are so many ways
Speaker 1: to make medical insurance far more flexible and more convenient,
Speaker 1: like not having a network that's really small. That means
Speaker 1: when you travel, you're not gonna be able to get
Speaker 1: medical care without you know, paying massive sums out of pocket.
Speaker 1: It doesn't take much but a phone call or a
Speaker 1: form to fill out online, and you will be amazed
Speaker 1: what they do every single day. They're saving, say couples
Speaker 1: under sixty five, five hundred to one thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: month with better coverage. Yep, time is all. It takes
Speaker 1: in a very little amount. Five one three eight hundred
Speaker 1: two two five five, no obligation, just let them look
Speaker 1: under the hood of what you got. Five one three
Speaker 1: eight hundred. Call online. That's where the form can be
Speaker 1: filled out and you can learn more about the team
Speaker 1: coversincy dot com fifty five KRC the talk station a
Speaker 1: U line they know