Latest / The Mark Belling Podcast / Mark Belling Podcast #147: A new study confirms—--school choice kids do way better than those in public schools. Yet Hong and the Democrats want to kill it proving they don't want to educate, they want to indoctrinate. Online sports betting in Wisconsin may be delayed by a new lawsuit, and the US can't keep hitting Iran because we're running out of missiles

Transcript

Mark Belling Podcast #147: A new study confirms—--school choice kids do way better than those in public schools. Yet Hong and the Democrats want to kill it proving they don't want to educate, they want to indoctrinate. Online sports betting in Wisconsin may be delayed by a new lawsuit, and the US can't keep hitting Iran because we're running out of missiles · The Mark Belling Podcast

0:06
Speaker 1: The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
0:10
Speaker 1: quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
0:14
Speaker 1: Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
0:18
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
0:27
Speaker 2: This is a pretty big statement, but I have the
0:32
Speaker 2: one issue that, more than all the other issues out there,
0:39
Speaker 2: proves the total phoniness of leftists, and in this instance,
0:46
Speaker 2: the farther left, the more phony the issue. There's a
0:53
Speaker 2: developing component to the story, which is why I'm going
0:56
Speaker 2: to bring it up today. But I'm going to tell
1:00
Speaker 2: you what that issue is. And as I say, not
1:03
Speaker 2: necessarily their wrongness on an issue or how wigged out
1:07
Speaker 2: they are on something, because that's a zillion in this
1:09
Speaker 2: instance phoniness where they're just frauds and they prove it. First.
1:22
Speaker 2: Have you ever been offered an add on option for
1:24
Speaker 2: premium or white gloves service? You Line provides only one
1:28
Speaker 2: type of service, and that's the best from knowledgeable customer
1:31
Speaker 2: service available twenty four seven three sixty five to keeping
1:35
Speaker 2: every product in stock ready to ship the same day.
1:38
Speaker 2: When your business needs quality shipping supplies, reliable warehouse equipment
1:43
Speaker 2: or office furniture fast, contact you Line and get the
1:46
Speaker 2: best service, because you line believes service is essential, not
1:52
Speaker 2: an option. The left forever and more so now than ever,
2:04
Speaker 2: know that they've radicalized themselves with socialist slash Marxist. They
2:10
Speaker 2: claim that they care about people, and when you hear
2:14
Speaker 2: them talk about what they're gonna do with all the
2:16
Speaker 2: taxes that they're going to raise, it's always education, in healthcare,
2:20
Speaker 2: education in healthcare. Now we're going to set healthcare aside
2:23
Speaker 2: for a moment, because that's another issue on which they
2:26
Speaker 2: are phony. The education one, though, is the biggest we
2:34
Speaker 2: now know conclusively, the biggest single thing that we can
2:41
Speaker 2: do to improve and I'll limit education here to K
2:47
Speaker 2: through twelve, in other words, kindergarten through graduating high school.
2:51
Speaker 2: The biggest single thing we can do to improve educational quality, specially,
3:00
Speaker 2: but not limited to, especially to flow income children is
3:08
Speaker 2: to get them out of public schools and expand school
3:13
Speaker 2: choice as much as you can. We know this, yet
3:20
Speaker 2: almost not all, almost every major leftist is an adamant
3:24
Speaker 2: opponent of school choice. And in fact, if you kind
3:27
Speaker 2: of track it on a bar graph of the Democrats
3:34
Speaker 2: moderate to liberal ones, I guess on the right of
3:37
Speaker 2: that graph and say Marxist like hang on the far left,
3:42
Speaker 2: you'll find more support for school choice on the right
3:45
Speaker 2: end of that bar graph, and it becomes the adant
3:49
Speaker 2: screaming opposition when you're on the extreme left. So the
3:52
Speaker 2: more lefty you are, the more phony you are on
3:54
Speaker 2: this Long for example, has said she intends to end
4:00
Speaker 2: the Wisconsin school choice program. She said, well, I'm gonna
4:04
Speaker 2: phase it out. She used to say she wanted to
4:09
Speaker 2: end it immediately, but obviously she's got this problem with
4:12
Speaker 2: tens of thousands of parents sending their kids right there,
4:15
Speaker 2: right now, and they don't want to. You know, you
4:17
Speaker 2: see how people react when their kids have to change schools.
4:19
Speaker 2: Imagine when you have to change schools from a thriving
4:22
Speaker 2: school to a dump run by MPs, overseen, unified, or
4:27
Speaker 2: so on. Anyway, there is a new report out from
4:32
Speaker 2: the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty. This is a
4:39
Speaker 2: major and I'm quoting from their release peer reviewed. That's important.
4:44
Speaker 2: Lots of people do study papers and just publish them.
4:47
Speaker 2: Peer reviewed means other people in the field have reviewed
4:51
Speaker 2: the research to make sure that it's valid before you
4:55
Speaker 2: go ahead and publish it. They tracked one hundred thousand
5:04
Speaker 2: low and middle income students in Wisconsin. Now, because this
5:08
Speaker 2: was a massive study, it took several years to go
5:11
Speaker 2: through all of the data. So the time period they
5:13
Speaker 2: selected was between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty three. In
5:17
Speaker 2: other words, the school year that started in I was
5:19
Speaker 2: gonna say September, but school starts in August, though, does
5:22
Speaker 2: it you're a parent? How can you parents put up
5:25
Speaker 2: with this? Or maybe you like it because you want
5:26
Speaker 2: to get the kids back. Oh you missed them. I mean,
5:33
Speaker 2: I mean when I was a kid, it was September
5:35
Speaker 2: through May and we had the same number of school
5:38
Speaker 2: I mean, I know why it's so long. They got
5:40
Speaker 2: all these days off, there's so many vacations, there's all
5:42
Speaker 2: these in service days. The exact opposite, by the way,
5:45
Speaker 2: is college. College is such a scarf. College is getting
5:48
Speaker 2: more contracted than ever. Just talking to a kid who's
5:52
Speaker 2: going to college, I think going to Well Claire. I
5:54
Speaker 2: think like they were done like on Mother's Day and
5:59
Speaker 2: they go back like at the end of January. So
6:02
Speaker 2: I mean the colleges anyway, I clearly am digressing. So
6:06
Speaker 2: the school year that began in September or August to
6:10
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen and then ended in nineteen, and they tracked
6:13
Speaker 2: it through five years, which would be the school year
6:17
Speaker 2: that ended twenty two and twenty three. So you have
6:20
Speaker 2: the school years that end in nineteen, twenty twenty one,
6:23
Speaker 2: twenty two and twenty three, and they tracked over five
6:27
Speaker 2: years the progress of one hundred thousand kids, some of
6:32
Speaker 2: whom were in school choice schools during that five years
6:38
Speaker 2: and others of whom who obviously were not. The study
6:43
Speaker 2: was limited to low and middle income students, and that's
6:46
Speaker 2: because primarily that's all that are eligible for school choice.
6:55
Speaker 2: So you have a multi year side by side. Now,
6:58
Speaker 2: before I get into the result, the lefties always like
7:03
Speaker 2: to talk about they're for the science, They're for the science.
7:05
Speaker 2: There for the science. They're for the science. And this
7:07
Speaker 2: the science is in. The research is clear, and that
7:21
Speaker 2: research clearly showed that there is significant improvement in academic
7:28
Speaker 2: scores based on all the criteria measurement greater among the
7:35
Speaker 2: kids that were in the school choice schools than the
7:39
Speaker 2: other population. I'm going to quote from the release and
7:46
Speaker 2: will the study is the first comprehensive student level analysis
7:50
Speaker 2: of the state wide wise Concept parental Choice program and
7:54
Speaker 2: Racine parental choice program, as well as the first student
7:57
Speaker 2: level analysis in the Mawkey parental choice program in fifteen years.
8:01
Speaker 2: It is stronger than other research in recent years that
8:03
Speaker 2: relied on school level analysis. Now let me interject. What
8:07
Speaker 2: are they saying here. School level analysis is taking the
8:11
Speaker 2: entire population from a school and comparing it to another school.
8:15
Speaker 2: Student level is to track each individual student to add
8:19
Speaker 2: up all of their numbers. In other words, much more
8:26
Speaker 2: detail in this study, much more comprehensive. The Wisconsin and
8:32
Speaker 2: Racine results have been peer reviewed and published in the
8:35
Speaker 2: journal in the Journal of School Choice. The Milwaukee analysis
8:39
Speaker 2: use similar methods, is currently under review at an academic journal.
8:47
Speaker 2: Quoting the report, what we found across Wisconsin's three major
8:52
Speaker 2: private school choice programs, and by the way, there are three.
8:55
Speaker 2: There's Milwaukee, Racine, and then the third one is called Wisconsin.
8:59
Speaker 2: Wis is everybody else? School choice exists statewide, but it
9:04
Speaker 2: is far more limited than the Milwaukee program and the
9:08
Speaker 2: Racine program. The Milwaukee program and the Racine program huge
9:11
Speaker 2: numbers of kids are eligible and participate statewide, far more limited.
9:16
Speaker 2: So those are the three programs, Milwaukee school Choice for
9:19
Speaker 2: Seene school Choice, and then Wisconsin school Choice. Students who
9:25
Speaker 2: remained and rolled longer, consistently experienced stronger academic growth in
9:31
Speaker 2: reading than similar students who stayed in public schools. Key here,
9:39
Speaker 2: So you'd take a group of kids in a public
9:40
Speaker 2: schools and a group of kids in school choice. The
9:42
Speaker 2: ones that did the best would be the kids that
9:45
Speaker 2: started in school choice and stayed in it. They did
9:49
Speaker 2: better than those who started in school choice and then
9:51
Speaker 2: went back to the public school, and all of them
9:54
Speaker 2: did better than the group that was in public school
9:56
Speaker 2: all along. In Milwaukee, significant gains appeared after two years
10:04
Speaker 2: in the state wide Wisconsin parental choice program. Gains became
10:08
Speaker 2: significant after three years. Again Wisconsin program. That's everything that's
10:14
Speaker 2: not Milwaukee un received. In Milwaukee, unreceived the first two
10:18
Speaker 2: years kind of flatline. There wasn't a difference. By the
10:23
Speaker 2: third year, however, the significant difference showed up. In Milwaukee,
10:26
Speaker 2: the significant difference showed up in two years. So let's
10:30
Speaker 2: analyze that. So school choice is not you know, there
10:35
Speaker 2: are some pills you take and you feel better in
10:37
Speaker 2: five minutes. You take a kid that's been stuck in
10:41
Speaker 2: public schools and stuck in an urban environment where education
10:43
Speaker 2: is challenged and all of that stuff, and you pop
10:46
Speaker 2: them into a good private school. It's not going to
10:48
Speaker 2: be an instantaneous thing. You're not going to take a
10:50
Speaker 2: really challenge student and turn them into an Einstein instantaneously.
10:56
Speaker 2: But it's going to happen faster where the gap is greater.
10:59
Speaker 2: And I think given the fact that MPs is terrible,
11:04
Speaker 2: the improvement can happen within two years at MPs statewide. Clearly,
11:10
Speaker 2: I think the majority of the private schools are better
11:12
Speaker 2: than the public schools, but there isn't as big a gap,
11:16
Speaker 2: so therefore it takes three years to see a real differentiation. Nonetheless,
11:20
Speaker 2: in both cases, that differentiation occurred, and the kids that
11:24
Speaker 2: stayed in the private schools that were part of school
11:27
Speaker 2: choice did better. Students enrolled for four years or more
11:35
Speaker 2: experienced reading growth equivalent to more than a full additional
11:39
Speaker 2: year of learning compared to comparable public schools sint them. So,
11:44
Speaker 2: now if you go four years, the kids that were
11:49
Speaker 2: in a school choice school after four years read a
11:54
Speaker 2: full grade level higher. So in other words, let's just
11:58
Speaker 2: say that, but we'll just grab grades third through six
12:02
Speaker 2: that would be four years. Third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade,
12:04
Speaker 2: sixth grade had four years. The kid that stayed in
12:07
Speaker 2: suddenly in school choice in the third grade. By the
12:09
Speaker 2: time that they were at the sixth grade, they were
12:11
Speaker 2: reading at the seventh grade level. In other words, they
12:14
Speaker 2: advanced an entire grade level in comparison to where their
12:17
Speaker 2: peers were that were in public schools. Now they cherry
12:22
Speaker 2: pick out reading, and again it's not surprising to me
12:27
Speaker 2: that the biggest, one of the biggest areas of improvement
12:29
Speaker 2: would be in reading. There are still public schools, even
12:34
Speaker 2: though even DPI has abandoned it. They have now totally
12:38
Speaker 2: gutted the notion of creative reading creative spelling. There's a
12:42
Speaker 2: tremendous move back to phonics. For decades we embraced getting
12:48
Speaker 2: rid of phonics, and while not all private schools use phonics,
12:52
Speaker 2: far more of them did almost all homeschool parents. Do
12:55
Speaker 2: we know? I mean, the science is in that phonics
12:58
Speaker 2: is way better than memorization. So my guess is that,
13:02
Speaker 2: in addition to all of the other reasons that the
13:04
Speaker 2: private schools are better, better discipline, and so on, more
13:09
Speaker 2: focused on academics than the crap that you go through
13:11
Speaker 2: in the public schools, the manner of teaching reading is
13:15
Speaker 2: probably better across the board. In the private schools and
13:17
Speaker 2: the public schools, of course, with exception. Back to the report,
13:21
Speaker 2: the Racine parental choice program also produced strong positive results,
13:26
Speaker 2: with participating students again demonstrating greater academic growth. The numbers.
13:31
Speaker 2: Students who remained in the Milwaukee and statewide school choice
13:34
Speaker 2: programs for four years or more experience reading gains equivalent
13:38
Speaker 2: to more than one additional year of education compared to
13:41
Speaker 2: similar public school students. Significant academic gains emerged after two
13:45
Speaker 2: years in the Milwaukee parental choice program and three years
13:47
Speaker 2: in the Wisconsin for rental choice program. Students participating in
13:51
Speaker 2: the Rasine parental choice program experience reading growth nearly equivalent
13:55
Speaker 2: to two additional years of learning compared to similar public
14:00
Speaker 2: school students. Let me interject, so I mentioned that one
14:04
Speaker 2: year of gain for the statewide program that's outside of Milwaukee,
14:08
Speaker 2: Racene and Milwaukee, but in Racine, in just four years
14:13
Speaker 2: of attendance in the private schools and their school choice,
14:17
Speaker 2: the kids in those schools did two years better in
14:21
Speaker 2: terms of reading achievement than in the public schools. Now,
14:29
Speaker 2: again a guess. This is a guest. This is me
14:32
Speaker 2: theorizing without having deeply read the data. My guess is that,
14:37
Speaker 2: in particular and Racine, the gap between the private schools
14:40
Speaker 2: that are part of school choice and the quality within
14:44
Speaker 2: the Racine public schools is particularly strong. Again, I'm theorizing
14:51
Speaker 2: here in Milwaukee, we have a variety in terms of
14:55
Speaker 2: the level of quality of the private schools. Some are great,
14:59
Speaker 2: and I'll be I'll be honest with you, some aren't.
15:04
Speaker 2: And the critics of school choice point out that some
15:06
Speaker 2: of these private schools aren't that good, and I grant
15:08
Speaker 2: you some of them aren't, so they screw up the average. Kay.
15:15
Speaker 2: For example, one of the great private schools Saint Marcus Lutheran,
15:20
Speaker 2: and I'm not going to specifically name a school because
15:22
Speaker 2: I couldn't back it up off the top of my head.
15:24
Speaker 2: One of those it isn't that great. They're thrown into
15:26
Speaker 2: the same efforts. So the level of great improvement that
15:28
Speaker 2: you say a Saint Marcus is watered down by some
15:32
Speaker 2: of the poorest schools in a more contracted program like Racine.
15:36
Speaker 2: My guess is that the overwhelming majority of the private
15:38
Speaker 2: schools that are part of school choice, because they don't
15:40
Speaker 2: have a lot of these mom and pops that just
15:42
Speaker 2: kind of pop up and float away, that almost all
15:46
Speaker 2: the schools in private choice, Private school Choice and Racine
15:49
Speaker 2: are really really good. So therefore the improvement over the
15:52
Speaker 2: Racine unified district two years better after just four years
15:57
Speaker 2: of participation, and across all three programs, a consistent pattern
16:03
Speaker 2: showed students who remained in school choice longer experience greater
16:07
Speaker 2: academic growth than comparable students who stayed in public schools.
16:10
Speaker 2: All right, that's the study. Now, the statement that I
16:15
Speaker 2: made this issue more than any other issue demonstrates the
16:25
Speaker 2: phoniness of leftists. They claim that they care about kids,
16:33
Speaker 2: and they keep saying that they want to spend more
16:35
Speaker 2: on education. But the reality is is that we now
16:40
Speaker 2: have proof of the best way to improve education for kids,
16:46
Speaker 2: particularly low and middle income kids, and it's to embrace
16:51
Speaker 2: school choice. Yet they're against that. This proves they don't
17:00
Speaker 2: actually care about kids. No, this is where some people,
17:05
Speaker 2: particularly moderates, who haven't figured out the scam with regard
17:10
Speaker 2: to leftists, they'll question me on this. They'll say, well,
17:16
Speaker 2: we know these lefties. Why they all they talk about
17:18
Speaker 2: is education? All they talk about his kids? Why wouldn't
17:21
Speaker 2: they And here's the answer, there's something more important to them.
17:28
Speaker 2: On the education issue than teaching kids. I know that
17:34
Speaker 2: that sounds impossible, because what is education other than teaching kids? Ah.
17:41
Speaker 2: The reason leftists oppose and are threatened by school choice
17:47
Speaker 2: is because leftists believe that schools are there for indoctrination,
17:52
Speaker 2: not education. Mark that down and quote me right line.
18:01
Speaker 2: What they love about school About public schools is the
18:05
Speaker 2: overwhelming majority of public school teachers and administrators and school
18:09
Speaker 2: boards are very leftist, and they put in place these
18:13
Speaker 2: curriculums and school policies everything from the girls in the boys'
18:19
Speaker 2: bathrooms to teaching a warped view of history, to ideologizing
18:25
Speaker 2: and spending hours of the day going on about LGBTQ
18:29
Speaker 2: plus and cranking out Take a look, for example, of
18:35
Speaker 2: the Millennials, the first generation that came out of the
18:38
Speaker 2: far more liberalized public schools, and it worked. The gen
18:43
Speaker 2: zs are split. Some are going one way and some
18:45
Speaker 2: are going the other. These private schools are almost all
18:53
Speaker 2: independent of one another. Some of them are Catholic and
18:57
Speaker 2: are part of a system, but the vast majority of
18:59
Speaker 2: the school are run by the board of directors of
19:03
Speaker 2: that school and the administrator and so on of the schools.
19:06
Speaker 2: It's impossible for the leftists to have any control of them,
19:14
Speaker 2: The indoctrination of these kids cranking out closed minded Marxist
19:21
Speaker 2: is more important than smart kids. These results could show
19:29
Speaker 2: four years of improvement in four years of reading, and
19:32
Speaker 2: it would not move them. Francesca Han does not want
19:38
Speaker 2: kids to be smarter. She wants to kill a program
19:44
Speaker 2: that has turned around the lives and the potential future
19:48
Speaker 2: lives of thousands and thousands of kids. To me, the
19:53
Speaker 2: ultimate study is going to be the one that you
19:55
Speaker 2: do thirty five years from now, some of those school
19:59
Speaker 2: choice kids will be fifty five and sixty. Take one
20:03
Speaker 2: hundred thousand of them and see how much better their
20:05
Speaker 2: lives turned out then the equivalent group of people that
20:08
Speaker 2: went to the public schools in say Milwaukee, and received
20:11
Speaker 2: You know, it's going to be dramatic, because if you
20:13
Speaker 2: have a great education and you're grounded in a school
20:16
Speaker 2: with discipline, you're going to be far likely are to
20:19
Speaker 2: have a productive life. Then, if you don't know a
20:22
Speaker 2: damn thing other than the leftist rat that's been jammed
20:29
Speaker 2: into your skulls, they don't care about education, they care
20:36
Speaker 2: about indoctrination. Secondly, the second big thing for them with
20:40
Speaker 2: education is they see it as a great source of
20:44
Speaker 2: money and power. Almost everybody that gets hired in the
20:49
Speaker 2: public schools is a leftist, and the public schools pay very,
20:54
Speaker 2: very well. And the public school of your system is
20:57
Speaker 2: set up in which there's a man assive top heaviness
21:03
Speaker 2: to it. What do I mean by top heaviness. An
21:12
Speaker 2: incredible ratio of an extraordinarily high number of supervisors and
21:17
Speaker 2: managers to actual employees, the number of curriculum directors, principles,
21:28
Speaker 2: assistant principles assist in superintendent's directors of this, coordinators of that.
21:38
Speaker 2: They're layered with it. And again this is a great
21:40
Speaker 2: thing for leftists because as you move up, that becomes
21:43
Speaker 2: higher pay. So what I'd like to focus on teacher
21:47
Speaker 2: pay and ignore the fact that they have lavish benefits.
21:52
Speaker 2: They never want to focus on the fact that a
21:53
Speaker 2: huge number of these people aren't any more teachers. They're
21:56
Speaker 2: administrators who all make a fortune and it's all their
22:04
Speaker 2: people funneled into this. Now, clearly many of the teachers
22:07
Speaker 2: who teach at private schools are liberal too, But I
22:10
Speaker 2: would say, as a group, if you just take, for example,
22:14
Speaker 2: let's take the city of Milwaukee, all the private schools
22:16
Speaker 2: in Milwaukee are the public schools in Milwaukee. Let's go
22:18
Speaker 2: to the last election twenty four, Trump versus Kamala. My
22:24
Speaker 2: guess is that the number of public school teachers who
22:26
Speaker 2: voted for Kamala is greater than the number of private
22:30
Speaker 2: school teachers that voted for Kamala. I'm guessing she won
22:32
Speaker 2: both groups. But I mean the public school teacher what
22:36
Speaker 2: it's probably ninety two percent, private school mass sixty five.
22:40
Speaker 2: That's just a guess. I don't know. So this is
22:45
Speaker 2: why they opposed school choice many many years ago. When
22:52
Speaker 2: I would bring up that, I mean, I can go
22:54
Speaker 2: all the way back to Clinton's elections, and Clinton, of
22:57
Speaker 2: course didn't run as a liberal. But I would have
22:59
Speaker 2: to servatives say, you know, we should wish that they
23:02
Speaker 2: do win because it won't work, and then we'll be
23:04
Speaker 2: able to say I told you so, or let them
23:06
Speaker 2: try doing this when it doesn't work, you'll win the argument.
23:09
Speaker 2: You know, I heard that about the trolley. Let them
23:12
Speaker 2: build a trolley that will put an end to all
23:14
Speaker 2: of their mass trans and something. Is it going to
23:15
Speaker 2: be such a disaster. Except the problem is when their
23:19
Speaker 2: side has been disproven, it doesn't change them. They don't
23:24
Speaker 2: care if their ideas work. There's a picture of Mundanni.
23:28
Speaker 2: I'm my monitor up there. Do you think they care
23:33
Speaker 2: if Mamdannie's grocery stores fail? It won't move them at all.
23:38
Speaker 2: It will move the non ideological people, some of these
23:41
Speaker 2: people in the middle who can't figure out what they think.
23:44
Speaker 2: But the harden leftists, they don't care if none of
23:46
Speaker 2: their self works. Look at our education is slid for
23:51
Speaker 2: the last seventy five years. In their ants as, we've
23:54
Speaker 2: jacked up funding more than any other governmental program that
23:57
Speaker 2: we have. And what's their answer them even more money.
24:02
Speaker 2: They don't care that it doesn't work. Their priority is
24:05
Speaker 2: instead that the money is all going to them. It's
24:08
Speaker 2: a source of their power, and most importantly, it's a
24:11
Speaker 2: source of their indoctrination. The marketplace of ideas they hate.
24:22
Speaker 2: They've hated Fox News ever since it came on because
24:27
Speaker 2: it was the one major news outlet that wasn't a
24:31
Speaker 2: voice of the left. There are now a few others,
24:35
Speaker 2: and thanks to the Internet, talk radio and a bunch
24:39
Speaker 2: of other outlets, there are more conservative voices than there
24:42
Speaker 2: ever were before. Another thing that they've hated, look at
24:46
Speaker 2: the social media platforms. There isn't a single one of
24:51
Speaker 2: the major ones that's right. X formerly Twitter owned by Musk,
24:56
Speaker 2: is neutral. He pretty much lets anybody say what they
24:59
Speaker 2: want on their to get knocked off and centered censored.
25:03
Speaker 2: On X, it's got to be a pretty extreme thing.
25:07
Speaker 2: All of the other platforms have an extreme leftist bias.
25:15
Speaker 2: That's the thing that leftists are most concerned about. They
25:18
Speaker 2: don't want to have a platform for conservative ideas, and
25:21
Speaker 2: therefore public education. Get all the kids in the public
25:24
Speaker 2: schools and they're all going to hear leftism. This is
25:27
Speaker 2: their perfection. They're terrified of a competing idea because they
25:32
Speaker 2: can't win in an argument of ideas. If a conservative
25:37
Speaker 2: argument can be amplified as much, if there was total
25:39
Speaker 2: access in the mass media and education and all the
25:42
Speaker 2: other forms of communication to conservative messages, our side would
25:45
Speaker 2: never lose. We're swimming, I'll hill all the time. I'm
25:52
Speaker 2: going to move to another issue. I've been on this
25:56
Speaker 2: for several weeks and I'm going to bring it up again.
26:00
Speaker 2: We have another move toward. Maybe they're gonna end the
26:03
Speaker 2: war with a RT. The United States cannot continue this
26:16
Speaker 2: mass missile bombing of Iran. We are running out of missiles.
26:24
Speaker 2: This story when I mentioned it first a few weeks ago,
26:26
Speaker 2: when I went through some of the numbers, I hadn't
26:29
Speaker 2: seen it much of anywhere, you know, seeing more and
26:31
Speaker 2: more people refer to it, and I think it's one
26:33
Speaker 2: of the reasons that you get these stop and starts
26:35
Speaker 2: with Trump. Trump wants to end this with a clear,
26:39
Speaker 2: undeniable victory, in part because Trump likes to be able
26:42
Speaker 2: to claim it's a total victory, and he wants I
26:51
Speaker 2: ran to genuflect and say uncle. They're not going to
26:54
Speaker 2: genuflect and say uncle. What we have, obviously is we
27:01
Speaker 2: still have many more missiles, and we can still do
27:03
Speaker 2: great damage, but we can't blow through all of them.
27:11
Speaker 2: I've been arguing this for several weeks. I think a
27:13
Speaker 2: proper exit strategy is to get the straight reopened and
27:20
Speaker 2: that's enough. We have done massive damage to them, We've
27:24
Speaker 2: done massive damage to the military, We've done massive damage
27:27
Speaker 2: to the nuclear program. Is it permanently ended? I don't
27:29
Speaker 2: know how you could ever permanently end it in the
27:32
Speaker 2: same way that you couldn't stop a country that is
27:34
Speaker 2: nowhere on nuclear weapons right now, like say Norway, from
27:36
Speaker 2: deciding that we're going to get into it, but we've
27:40
Speaker 2: done them incredible damage. I go back to the Vietnam War,
27:56
Speaker 2: there was a line that was used. In fact, it
27:58
Speaker 2: started as a joke. It was probably somebody like George Carlin,
28:01
Speaker 2: who was big back in that era, and it turned
28:05
Speaker 2: out to be what the policy actually was in the
28:09
Speaker 2: middle of this quagmire and Vietnam started briefly under Kennedy.
28:13
Speaker 2: The first soldiers went in there, and then Johnson escalated.
28:17
Speaker 2: Nixon kept it going for four years, gradually pulling troops out,
28:22
Speaker 2: but with the fighting continuing, and in fact he expanded
28:25
Speaker 2: the war outside the boundaries of Vietnam. I was in Cambodia.
28:32
Speaker 2: But in the middle of all of this, when we
28:35
Speaker 2: bombed the hell out of the North and a good
28:37
Speaker 2: chunk of the South, somebody said we ought to just
28:40
Speaker 2: declare victory and come home and everybody that was funny.
28:46
Speaker 2: Well that's what Nixon kind of did. Nixon ended the
28:50
Speaker 2: war in early seventy three on the same terms that
28:56
Speaker 2: he could have ended it when he was sworn in
28:58
Speaker 2: in nineteen sixty nine. We brought everybody home. Oh, we
29:02
Speaker 2: did enough damage. As it turns out, the total thing
29:05
Speaker 2: was for not South Vietnam fell in two years. What
29:10
Speaker 2: we need to do is the clear victory and I
29:13
Speaker 2: think come home. However, we do have to have in place,
29:19
Speaker 2: I think a permanent military presence and an acceptance that
29:22
Speaker 2: Iran can't close off the strait. None of this other
29:26
Speaker 2: bombing with regard to the nuclear weapons program and so forth.
29:33
Speaker 2: The strait has to be open. I think Iran benefits
29:39
Speaker 2: from an open straight so does everybody else. Now again,
29:43
Speaker 2: I understand the need to keep pounding and punishing them
29:47
Speaker 2: to get them to this point, but an endgame of
29:51
Speaker 2: an all out war for the purposes of attaining victory
29:54
Speaker 2: is probably impossible. As I've argued from the beginning on this,
29:57
Speaker 2: and I support the Trump action. I think that we
30:00
Speaker 2: needed to damage their military, we needed to stop their
30:03
Speaker 2: ability to bankroll Hamas and Hesbela, and we needed to
30:06
Speaker 2: set back their nuclear program, all of which we've done.
30:09
Speaker 2: But to win the war means you have to have
30:11
Speaker 2: a ground invasion. In the history of wars, I can't
30:14
Speaker 2: think of many that were won by bombing. In order
30:18
Speaker 2: to win, you have to get into the ground, have
30:20
Speaker 2: a ground war, march all the way to the capital,
30:22
Speaker 2: overtake the government house, the other people and either run
30:26
Speaker 2: the country as a proxy for a couple of years,
30:28
Speaker 2: or do what we did in Iraq and help install
30:30
Speaker 2: the government set up elections. Otherwise you don't win. Germany
30:40
Speaker 2: didn't surrender until we got to Berlin and killed Hitler.
30:45
Speaker 2: We had to march all across Europe for that. All right,
30:48
Speaker 2: let me move on to another story. I saw this
30:51
Speaker 2: headline before I saw a name. Longtime radio Milwaukee, long
30:58
Speaker 2: time Milwaukee radio figure charged. It's the sexual assault of
31:01
Speaker 2: a child. No, I see this thing, and the first
31:06
Speaker 2: guy I'm thinking of is me, And I know, damn well,
31:08
Speaker 2: I've been charged with it. Okay. Then I start wondering,
31:11
Speaker 2: long time. Do you know how many long time people
31:14
Speaker 2: there are on radio that are still here? Now I'm
31:17
Speaker 2: wondering if maybe they meant long time but no longer,
31:19
Speaker 2: but are now retired. There's a zillion of us who
31:21
Speaker 2: retired or fired and went off away and so on. Well,
31:25
Speaker 2: then I read the story. One of the stories in
31:28
Speaker 2: Fox six doesn't even use the guy's air name, which
31:31
Speaker 2: is very, very weird to me. There are fewer people
31:34
Speaker 2: in radio that use air names now that in the past.
31:36
Speaker 2: When I started in radio station, I was At, we
31:39
Speaker 2: had to take an air name. I had an air
31:40
Speaker 2: name for one year, Mark Belson. I didn't want to
31:44
Speaker 2: have an air name, so I took the closest thing
31:45
Speaker 2: to my actual name. Then I got out of the
31:47
Speaker 2: air and I didn't have to have an air name anymore.
31:49
Speaker 2: You ever have an aer name or not? No, John
31:53
Speaker 2: Why had an old traffic guy. He not only had
31:55
Speaker 2: an air name, he had it. It was still the
31:57
Speaker 2: strangest thing to be John, of course, says everybody newed
32:00
Speaker 2: traffic on a number of different stations in iHeart, including
32:05
Speaker 2: on my show. He had a different name on every
32:07
Speaker 2: one of the stations that he was on. Well, I
32:09
Speaker 2: mean we now have it's now common to listen their
32:12
Speaker 2: numerous people. How many stations is Dave Michael's on. I
32:16
Speaker 2: think he's on more of our iHeart stations than they're
32:18
Speaker 2: actually our stations. I mean he's like on some side
32:21
Speaker 2: band or some he uses his regular name on all
32:24
Speaker 2: of those things. Nobody thinks that that's odd or unusual anymore. Anyway,
32:28
Speaker 2: John Whyat would have like a different People would be asked,
32:29
Speaker 2: why is John Why I would have a different name.
32:31
Speaker 2: So I actually started asking him that on the air
32:35
Speaker 2: and of course he's Hammin and Hawan because it was
32:37
Speaker 2: a corporate policy and so on. Anyway, the story in
32:40
Speaker 2: Fox six doesn't use the guy's ear name, which nobody
32:43
Speaker 2: knows his regular name other than he's also a manager.
32:46
Speaker 2: He works at eighty eight nine, which is people confuse
32:49
Speaker 2: this and say it's public radio. It's not public radio.
32:52
Speaker 2: It's non commercial radio. It's run by a nonprofit. They
32:57
Speaker 2: play decent enough music, but they're not constrained by the
33:03
Speaker 2: normal problems that commercial radio have in that there is
33:06
Speaker 2: a nonprofit that subsidizes the operation of the company, and
33:10
Speaker 2: they don't run traditional commercials, but they have sponsorships the
33:13
Speaker 2: way public radio and TV does eighty eight nine. What's
33:19
Speaker 2: remarkable about this story The guy's real name is Jordan Lee.
33:26
Speaker 2: His ear name is DJ mad Hatter. I don't listen
33:30
Speaker 2: to that station much every I've got this issue on
33:33
Speaker 2: my car. I mean I usually have it on. My
33:38
Speaker 2: car does not have AM radio. By the way, to
33:40
Speaker 2: listen to AM radio, I have to use a Apple
33:42
Speaker 2: car Play. I don't make that the default on my things.
33:45
Speaker 2: So it's normally either on satellite radio or FM radio.
33:48
Speaker 2: If I want to hear something on AM I switch
33:49
Speaker 2: over and listen to AM via Apple Airplay on my phone. Anyway,
33:57
Speaker 2: sometimes if I have it on the satellite radio, it
34:00
Speaker 2: defaults and goes over to FM even though I didn't
34:02
Speaker 2: switch it when I restart the car. It's not a
34:04
Speaker 2: big enough problem to take it into the dealer to
34:06
Speaker 2: do anything about, because it's one button and it's over
34:08
Speaker 2: at the other thing that it's said. But anyway, the
34:10
Speaker 2: default station that it goes to is eighty eight nine,
34:12
Speaker 2: and I think that that's probably because that's the one
34:14
Speaker 2: farthest at the end of the day. I don't know.
34:16
Speaker 2: We also it would be, but so and if they're
34:18
Speaker 2: planning a good enough song, then I'll keep listening to
34:20
Speaker 2: it for a while and so on. So I've heard
34:22
Speaker 2: I think I've heard this guy, but I can say
34:24
Speaker 2: that if I've met him, I just don't remember it.
34:29
Speaker 2: It's bad stuff. He's accused of first degree sexual assault
34:34
Speaker 2: of a child under the age of twelve. What's remarkable
34:37
Speaker 2: what this story is how they caught him. In fact,
34:42
Speaker 2: it's a fascinating story. He outed himself. He told his therapist.
34:52
Speaker 2: I don't know if this is the case in every state.
34:54
Speaker 2: I just don't But I know in most states, including Wisconsin,
35:00
Speaker 2: that there are must report laws with regard to child abuse.
35:05
Speaker 2: Mandatory reporters. That's the term that's used. For example, a
35:08
Speaker 2: school teach is a mandatory reporter. If a school teacher
35:10
Speaker 2: sees a child come in, say, let's imagine physical abuse,
35:15
Speaker 2: bruised up, and so on, they are required to report
35:18
Speaker 2: this to law enforcement. School nurses the same thing, and
35:23
Speaker 2: if they see indications that the child has been sexually abused,
35:27
Speaker 2: they're mandatory require to report. So are therapists. There's generally
35:34
Speaker 2: speaking a confidentiality doctor patient That a prize to almost
35:41
Speaker 2: all types of healthcare. There's a confidentiality in place if
35:45
Speaker 2: I talk to my doctor, if I talk to, say,
35:47
Speaker 2: a chiropractor, certainly if you talk to a psychiatrist, and
35:50
Speaker 2: so on. The one caveat is the abuse of children.
35:57
Speaker 2: I don't believe that there's any kind of mandatory reporting
35:59
Speaker 2: with regard to If there is, I'm not sure, say
36:03
Speaker 2: abusing an adult, but given the fact that children are
36:07
Speaker 2: not in a position to defend themselves, there's mandatory reporting.
36:09
Speaker 2: So that the therapist reported this. The guy told his
36:15
Speaker 2: therapist what he was doing. This again, according to the
36:19
Speaker 2: criminal complaint, the reporter was. When I say therapist, it
36:30
Speaker 2: was actually a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist, of course, is a
36:32
Speaker 2: medical doctor, an MD. So my guess is he didn't
36:40
Speaker 2: know that if you admit to molesting a child to
36:45
Speaker 2: a psychiatrist, that they are required to report it and
36:50
Speaker 2: again in his case if he's guilty, And they built
36:56
Speaker 2: a case that started with this reporting that went on
36:59
Speaker 2: according to the criminal one has reported in the media.
37:02
Speaker 2: My sources heerro JS online, Fox six and WISN dot
37:07
Speaker 2: com and WISN dot COM's the TV station, not the
37:09
Speaker 2: radio station, and all of them they go to the
37:12
Speaker 2: criminal complaint it said, you know, the therapist contacted the police,
37:17
Speaker 2: who contacted the mother of the child, and then the
37:19
Speaker 2: investigation began and they were able to get this guy,
37:21
Speaker 2: Jordan Lee dj maad hatter and he's now facing very
37:25
Speaker 2: serious child molestation charges. As I say, if he hadn't
37:29
Speaker 2: fessed up to the therapist, no one may have known
37:34
Speaker 2: ever unless the child would have at some point come forward.
37:43
Speaker 2: Now a very different type sexual assault case. This one's
37:49
Speaker 2: reported in the Walkershop Freeman, a guy who owns a
37:54
Speaker 2: bar and restaurant is facing criminal charges for grabbing up
38:01
Speaker 2: one of his waitresses all night, almost NonStop. No, I
38:06
Speaker 2: want to dive into this because I think this is
38:07
Speaker 2: in an teresting story when you think of either sexual harassment,
38:12
Speaker 2: which usually is not physical contact, twalking, aggressive saying, you know,
38:18
Speaker 2: firing if you don't go and do something, and then
38:21
Speaker 2: the other one, sexual assault, which is anything from unwanted
38:28
Speaker 2: touching all the way up to rape. The bar and
38:32
Speaker 2: restaurant world has always been kind of in a category
38:34
Speaker 2: of itself. It's one of the few walks of life
38:38
Speaker 2: in which the employees are often drinking. In some states,
38:45
Speaker 2: employees of bars and restaurants can't drink. I'm pretty sure
38:49
Speaker 2: Nevada is still that. Did you know that? No? Did
38:54
Speaker 2: you know your kid that they can't in Nevada? And
38:58
Speaker 2: I still remember when I found out back in the nineties,
39:01
Speaker 2: I knew a woman some of you know who I'm
39:03
Speaker 2: talking about here. I knew somebody who was from Milwaukee
39:08
Speaker 2: and long later moved to Las Vegas and I was
39:11
Speaker 2: out there and she and I went out and we
39:13
Speaker 2: went to a bar, and there's somebody else that we
39:14
Speaker 2: both knew formerly from Milwaukee as a bartender. So we
39:18
Speaker 2: went to the bar in the casino that she worked at,
39:20
Speaker 2: and you know, to see her and she was servegus
39:24
Speaker 2: and you know, I did what you do in situations
39:28
Speaker 2: like that. I offered to buy the bartender drink and
39:30
Speaker 2: she say, we can't do that. This is again, this
39:34
Speaker 2: is pushing thirty years ago. I know that now. I
39:36
Speaker 2: didn't know that then. But obviously it's very corporate there
39:39
Speaker 2: and these casinos the last thing they want is any
39:42
Speaker 2: of their employees drunk well on duty. Whereas here in Wisconsin,
39:45
Speaker 2: I mean, you go into bars sometimes the people behind
39:47
Speaker 2: the bar are more drunk than the employees, and it's
39:50
Speaker 2: always been a different kind of thing, you know what
39:51
Speaker 2: bars and restaurant bars in particular, flirtation goes on and
39:55
Speaker 2: so on. In this instance, however, the allegation is against
40:01
Speaker 2: the owner. His name is Lazarre Conda. The name of
40:07
Speaker 2: the place is Belfrey Kitchen. He apparently owned several other
40:10
Speaker 2: places out in Lake Country. This particular restaurant was in Delafield.
40:18
Speaker 2: He lives in Milwaukee. The criminal complaint against him said
40:21
Speaker 2: the woman in her early twenties, reported to Delafield police
40:24
Speaker 2: on June fifteenth. The incident, which occurred on June twelfth,
40:27
Speaker 2: at a grand opening event at Belfrey Kitchen, which Conda
40:31
Speaker 2: had purchased the previous month, on a date which also
40:34
Speaker 2: happened to be his birthday. The woman reported she'd always
40:37
Speaker 2: felt a little uncomfortable around Conda based on his behavior,
40:41
Speaker 2: the complaint said. She said people considered him a loving
40:45
Speaker 2: and touching person, and it was not uncommon for him
40:48
Speaker 2: to give prolonged hugs to staff, and he would continue
40:53
Speaker 2: holding staff member's hands after the hug ended, and would
40:57
Speaker 2: often touch the backs or waste of staff when he
41:00
Speaker 2: talked to them, The complaint said, Now again in the
41:03
Speaker 2: bar and restaurant business, I can see this in almost
41:07
Speaker 2: any other walk of life, your boss doesn't touch you.
41:12
Speaker 2: I mean every year we have to do like nineteen
41:15
Speaker 2: different types of corporate training here at I heard, and
41:17
Speaker 2: I can't even imagine, you know. Then they do these
41:19
Speaker 2: little quizzes in which you have to be a real
41:21
Speaker 2: dope not to get the answer correctly. One of them
41:23
Speaker 2: is is it okay for your boss to hug you
41:25
Speaker 2: for six minutes and then keep holding your hand.
41:27
Speaker 1: No.
41:29
Speaker 2: But again, this is the bar and restaurant thing, and
41:31
Speaker 2: this is again the background of the reputation that the
41:33
Speaker 2: guy had that he's all touchy feely. The woman reported
41:37
Speaker 2: she was working at the June twelfth event at at
41:40
Speaker 2: which Conda was consuming alcohol, and while there she got
41:45
Speaker 2: uncomfortable feelings from Conda by the way that he was
41:49
Speaker 2: looking at her, The complaint said. She said Conda told
41:52
Speaker 2: her how beautiful she looked that night three times, asked
41:56
Speaker 2: her to go out for drinks with him the next night,
41:59
Speaker 2: and asked for her number, which she refused to give.
42:02
Speaker 2: The complaint said, Now again, in regular old corporate America
42:07
Speaker 2: and bars are always this gray area, a boss can't
42:11
Speaker 2: ask out an employee. The only major employer I'm aware
42:15
Speaker 2: of where this is allowed is the Tony Ibs administration,
42:18
Speaker 2: where the chief of staff and the press secretary. The
42:20
Speaker 2: press secretary works with the chief of staff lived with
42:22
Speaker 2: one another, evers has allowed that. But by and large,
42:26
Speaker 2: you not only can't get to that point, you can't
42:28
Speaker 2: even make an approach. But again, bars and restaurants have
42:31
Speaker 2: always just been different, And there's zillions of bar managers
42:35
Speaker 2: and bar owners that have asked out waiters and service
42:38
Speaker 2: people and bar tendred people. In her and so on,
42:40
Speaker 2: continued at one point at a table of guests, Conda
42:44
Speaker 2: wrapped an arm around the woman and said to the guest,
42:48
Speaker 2: isn't she cute? The complaint said. The woman said she
42:51
Speaker 2: tried avoiding Conda, but he stopped her as she went
42:55
Speaker 2: around into the kitchen and put his arm around her.
42:58
Speaker 2: According to the complaint, he touched her on the waist,
43:02
Speaker 2: pulled her closer to him, and he appeared to be
43:04
Speaker 2: moving in to kiss her, but she pulled away. Let
43:06
Speaker 2: me interject, now, what doesn't appear to have happened here
43:10
Speaker 2: based on this description, is she didn't tell him cut
43:13
Speaker 2: it out. Now she's working for him, probably initially she's
43:21
Speaker 2: not sure how far it's gonna go. She figures he's
43:24
Speaker 2: a little looped up, but she doesn't tell him cut
43:30
Speaker 2: it out. In my experience, from the beginning of when
43:37
Speaker 2: I was an adult to now, certainly it was far
43:44
Speaker 2: more common for this kind of hitting on to go
43:46
Speaker 2: on in a bar scene or a bar environment that
43:50
Speaker 2: it was now. But it's going on for that entire
43:54
Speaker 2: period of time. But the one thing that hasn't changed
43:56
Speaker 2: is again, I'll go back to when I was nineteen
43:59
Speaker 2: twenty years old it in bars, and again I was
44:01
Speaker 2: eighteen was the drinking age when I was a kid.
44:04
Speaker 2: If an employee, If an employer is doing this to
44:06
Speaker 2: one of his female employees, my experience, most of those
44:11
Speaker 2: female employees, if they don't want it, I got to
44:13
Speaker 2: tell him to stop in no uncertain terms, and if
44:17
Speaker 2: they're fired, they're fired. In part, that line of work
44:20
Speaker 2: is one in which there's always been an availability of
44:22
Speaker 2: jobs that most women, if they don't want you to
44:25
Speaker 2: be doing it, they'll start with, you know, moving their
44:29
Speaker 2: arm away and that kind of thing, and eventually, as
44:32
Speaker 2: you keep doing tell them to stop. Now she doesn't
44:34
Speaker 2: appear to do that, continued, The woman reported the conduct
44:38
Speaker 2: of some of her co workers, one of whom watched
44:40
Speaker 2: his conduct approach the woman in a group of servers,
44:43
Speaker 2: putting his arm around her waist, began rubbing her back,
44:46
Speaker 2: and then put his hand on hers inside her back
44:49
Speaker 2: pocket and rubbed her butt for about ten seconds. The
44:52
Speaker 2: complaint said, again, if this is true, whether the guy's
44:56
Speaker 2: a pervert or not, he's clearly an idiot. To not
44:59
Speaker 2: know that you can't do this here in twenty twenty
45:02
Speaker 2: six would mean that you're either as dumb as a
45:05
Speaker 2: box of rocks, you're drunk out of your mind, or
45:09
Speaker 2: you simply have no impulse control. Continuing. Later, as the
45:13
Speaker 2: woman went behind the restaurant to speak on the phone
45:15
Speaker 2: with her boyfriend about the events, Conda came out of
45:18
Speaker 2: the restaurant with another worker, saying he cannot drive, he's drunk.
45:23
Speaker 2: The complaint said. When a coworker tried to summon the
45:25
Speaker 2: woman inside the restaurant, Conda said she did not need
45:28
Speaker 2: to help them, but the co worker summoned another who
45:31
Speaker 2: then came out and told the woman to get inside
45:34
Speaker 2: as she needed to be helping now, a ploy designed
45:38
Speaker 2: to separate the woman from Conda, The complaint said, So
45:42
Speaker 2: the coworkers know what's going on, and they're trying to
45:43
Speaker 2: get this younger woman away from condom. I saying, come
45:46
Speaker 2: out and help us, because we're gonna be around. He
45:48
Speaker 2: won't try anything with us there. So my guess is
45:50
Speaker 2: that these might have been older women when I say older,
45:53
Speaker 2: just not in their early twenties as this one was,
45:56
Speaker 2: that are trying to give her some level of protection
45:57
Speaker 2: because they see that the guy is drunk and all
46:00
Speaker 2: letching up and acting inappropriately. Continuing, another employee also reported
46:04
Speaker 2: the Conda had touched her indecently on the butt that night.
46:07
Speaker 2: The incidents were reported to the restaurant general manager. Again,
46:10
Speaker 2: he's the owner, so there's a GM under him. But
46:13
Speaker 2: the GM obviously would report to Kanda. Reported to the
46:15
Speaker 2: restaurant general manager. We said this kind of stuff has
46:19
Speaker 2: happened before, and she would talk to Conda the next
46:22
Speaker 2: day given his level of intoxication. So the GM, oh,
46:25
Speaker 2: this is what he's doing now he's drunk. I'll talk
46:27
Speaker 2: to him the next day. Hey, you can't do this.
46:32
Speaker 2: As the woman was counting her tips later, Conda approached
46:35
Speaker 2: her again, this guy doesn't quit. I mean you could
46:37
Speaker 2: see he's on a mission, forty nine years old. She's
46:40
Speaker 2: in her early twenties her shoulder and grabbed the strap
46:44
Speaker 2: of her bra, lifting it off of his body and
46:46
Speaker 2: lifting it off of her body and said, what's going
46:49
Speaker 2: on here? The complaint said. The woman reported she quit
46:52
Speaker 2: her job that night and would not return to work
46:55
Speaker 2: for Conda. It added, so she quit so she didn't
46:58
Speaker 2: want to be part of it. The reporting to the
47:00
Speaker 2: police occurred again. This was the evening of the twelfth,
47:03
Speaker 2: and she reported on the fifteenth. The manager told police.
47:06
Speaker 2: So the police investigated this. They talked to the G
47:09
Speaker 2: I'm the person who works for Conda told police she
47:12
Speaker 2: believed the reports of the woman one hundred percent because
47:15
Speaker 2: she had seen the defendant be touchy feely with other girls,
47:18
Speaker 2: so the manager saying, I believe this woman. The manager
47:22
Speaker 2: added Conda was heavily under the influence that night. She
47:25
Speaker 2: claimed that Conda told her or was under the influence,
47:27
Speaker 2: that I'd all remember, the complaint said, because the Conda's
47:30
Speaker 2: behavior in lack of taking responsibility for it, The manager
47:32
Speaker 2: also resigned, The complaint said, so he lost his manager too,
47:36
Speaker 2: because he was acting like such a cretin his slug. Allegedly,
47:40
Speaker 2: the other employee who reported being touched indecently said she
47:44
Speaker 2: felt conda squeezing of her butt was very deliberate, even
47:47
Speaker 2: if he did appear to be intoxicated. The complaint said.
47:51
Speaker 2: The employee who summoned the first woman in from the
47:53
Speaker 2: encounter outside the restaurant also quit her job after witnessing
47:57
Speaker 2: Conda's behavior. He's clearing out his whole stay half here,
48:00
Speaker 2: which again I imagine most women, and again I will
48:05
Speaker 2: tell you there's always openings out there for people in
48:10
Speaker 2: the bar and restaurant business who are any good at
48:11
Speaker 2: their jobs. So most of these people don't need this
48:14
Speaker 2: one for any particular job where you're working for a
48:17
Speaker 2: creep to get by, which is in this instance a
48:21
Speaker 2: good thing. Conda also owns Cabos and Oconomowalk and Latavola
48:27
Speaker 2: Beach House Bistro in Pewaukee. In addition, he's in the
48:31
Speaker 2: process of opening a grocery store Greets European Market, expected
48:35
Speaker 2: to open in Pewaukee in September. He's now facing fourth
48:41
Speaker 2: the Great Sexual Assault. That's the lowest level of sexual
48:46
Speaker 2: assault that there is, because it was inappropriate touching and
48:50
Speaker 2: grabbing that area, which of course is a crime. This
48:52
Speaker 2: whole area of behavior in bars, as I say, it's
48:56
Speaker 2: been a different it's almost different from society. I think,
49:05
Speaker 2: never mind this guy. Most, not all, but most men
49:12
Speaker 2: have learned that what you might have been able to
49:16
Speaker 2: get away with in the early eighties or nineties, you
49:18
Speaker 2: can't do anymore. I don't think most men who approach
49:22
Speaker 2: a woman in a bar start by feeling her up
49:25
Speaker 2: before they even talk, or putting their arms around them.
49:29
Speaker 2: I will tell you that back in my more active
49:33
Speaker 2: barging years here in Milwaukee, which goes back several years,
49:39
Speaker 2: there are occasions in which someone who is a listener
49:42
Speaker 2: or may have vaguely known me when will walk up
49:44
Speaker 2: and they put their arm around me, and in each
49:47
Speaker 2: instance I told him get that off. And then the
49:49
Speaker 2: other guys look at her. What do you care? I mean, Okay,
49:52
Speaker 2: she's kind of good looking. Well, I'm guessing that most
49:55
Speaker 2: of those guys would be desperately happy for any woman
49:58
Speaker 2: to grab them up. I don't like it, and I've
50:01
Speaker 2: always understood women who don't like it. I don't know,
50:05
Speaker 2: you get your damn hands off of me. And there's
50:08
Speaker 2: some cases in which women that I didn't know, but
50:10
Speaker 2: they're looped up. You know, they're overly touchy and feely.
50:13
Speaker 2: And I'm not going to name any names. Some people
50:15
Speaker 2: that I would have known, say from a context of business,
50:20
Speaker 2: I can't imagine most guys doing that. Again, I'm not
50:25
Speaker 2: talking about Okay, this is somebody you know. You sort
50:27
Speaker 2: of give them those little hugs and so on, which
50:30
Speaker 2: is almost always a mutual thing. In this instance, you
50:37
Speaker 2: don't have any of that at play of women who
50:39
Speaker 2: don't think that rules apply to them. The guy owns
50:42
Speaker 2: the place, he owns a business, he owns multiple businesses.
50:44
Speaker 2: He can't do this kind of thing, and if he
50:46
Speaker 2: does take convictions on these charges, I don't think any
50:51
Speaker 2: of the communities in which he has liquor licenses should
50:53
Speaker 2: allow him to continue to operate. It's not a difficult concept.
50:58
Speaker 2: If you're running a bar, you're running a restaurant, and
50:59
Speaker 2: you of younger women working for them, or for them,
51:01
Speaker 2: you could be same sex, it could be anything. It
51:08
Speaker 2: better be mutual, or you keep your damn hands to yourself.
51:14
Speaker 2: We have another story here for you, by total coincidence.
51:19
Speaker 2: The second story of the segment, the deals with the
51:23
Speaker 2: Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty. The Wisconsin Institute of
51:26
Speaker 2: Law and Liberty today I'm doing this podcast on Wednesday,
51:29
Speaker 2: has filed a lawsuit to block the online sports gambling
51:33
Speaker 2: build in Wisconsin. You may recall that earlier this year,
51:36
Speaker 2: the legislature passed and the governor signed legislation giving the
51:39
Speaker 2: Wisconsin tribes the ability to offer unleveted sports betting via
51:44
Speaker 2: phone or tablet. In other words, you don't have to
51:46
Speaker 2: be on the casino. None of them have yet started
51:49
Speaker 2: to offer them because they have to reach now contract agreements.
51:52
Speaker 2: They're called compacts with the state in which you come
51:55
Speaker 2: up with here's what the rules are, here's the month
51:57
Speaker 2: you kick into the state, and so on. Those deals
51:59
Speaker 2: haven't been cut. When they are cut, you will be
52:04
Speaker 2: able to legally. You can currently do it in Wisconsin illegally.
52:07
Speaker 2: You also have the very gray area of the so
52:10
Speaker 2: called prediction markets Polymarc at Kelshy and others that are
52:14
Speaker 2: operating in Wisconsin. Some believe they're illegal and they are
52:17
Speaker 2: sports betting. In any event, this pertains to the deal
52:22
Speaker 2: that says the tribes in Wisconsin that offers sports betting
52:25
Speaker 2: can now offer it online anywhere in Wisconsin. The legislation
52:28
Speaker 2: restricts any other company from coming in to offer them.
52:32
Speaker 2: You may recall that I was an adamant opponent of
52:34
Speaker 2: this bill. I'm not against online sports betting. It's going
52:38
Speaker 2: on everywhere. It's part of society. I am against another
52:41
Speaker 2: monopoly giveaway to these tribes. They're raping us as it is.
52:47
Speaker 2: If you want to expand the gambling that we have
52:50
Speaker 2: in this state to include online sports betting, the tribes
52:53
Speaker 2: should be able to offer it, but we should offer
52:55
Speaker 2: to all of the other companies that are out there,
52:57
Speaker 2: and there's a zillion of them. Draft Kings is a
53:01
Speaker 2: million of them. Fan duel and let them come in
53:05
Speaker 2: and compete. But I didn't get my way. The bill passed. However,
53:09
Speaker 2: it's now being challenged in court. Wisconsin Institute of Law
53:12
Speaker 2: and Liberty says it is a violation of the state
53:14
Speaker 2: constitution to allow sports gambling, that the voters in nineteen
53:18
Speaker 2: ninety three rejected a constitutional amendment that would expand gambling
53:23
Speaker 2: in the state of Wisconsin. I don't know how this
53:28
Speaker 2: case is going to go. It's filed in Waukeshaw County,
53:30
Speaker 2: but that just means the first judge that hears it
53:33
Speaker 2: is a Waukeshaw County judge. There's a very good chance
53:36
Speaker 2: this will go to the state Supreme Court. We do
53:41
Speaker 2: here have federal court rulings that indicated the reason Indians
53:45
Speaker 2: have casinos in Wisconsin. Native Americans have casinos in Wisconsin
53:49
Speaker 2: is a federal judge ruled that when Wisconsin created a lottery,
53:53
Speaker 2: the Indians can then offer casinos. Because the tribes, of course,
53:57
Speaker 2: are sovereign nations, the tribes can't do something that nobody
54:01
Speaker 2: else can do. If something is illegal, for example, murder,
54:04
Speaker 2: the tribes can't say you can legally do murder. I
54:06
Speaker 2: pick an extreme example, but drunk driving or any of
54:09
Speaker 2: those other things. However, once the state allows inactivity and
54:13
Speaker 2: the lottery was deemed to be gambling, you can't stop
54:17
Speaker 2: the tribes from doing, and they don't. They can put
54:19
Speaker 2: in whatever limits that they want. And when that was passed,
54:24
Speaker 2: the tribes expanded from bingo to casino gambling and so on.
54:31
Speaker 2: So it may well be that a federal court would
54:33
Speaker 2: rule that Wisconsin can't stop the tribes from offering this. However,
54:36
Speaker 2: they have not offered sports betting until this bill passed
54:39
Speaker 2: the legislature. I'm actually surprised that the tribes didn't simply
54:44
Speaker 2: start it up on their own without regard to what
54:46
Speaker 2: the state did. That's what they did when they transitioned
54:49
Speaker 2: over casinos. You remember the infamous night in which Potawatamy
54:53
Speaker 2: just brought slot machines into the Bengo Hall and said
54:56
Speaker 2: we're open them and we're operating them. They pulled it
54:59
Speaker 2: often at work. When Milwaukee approved Pottawa, I mean it
55:03
Speaker 2: was a Potawata became in and said we're going to
55:04
Speaker 2: be a bingo hall. John Orkis was the mayor. Then
55:07
Speaker 2: he fell for it. Several aldermen I believe strongly were bribed.
55:12
Speaker 2: They knew that once they got the Bingo hal it,
55:14
Speaker 2: eventually they'd beat Well what there is now in any event,
55:16
Speaker 2: the sports betting expansion. He's being challenged in court. This
55:20
Speaker 2: may put a hold. I know that there's been hopes
55:23
Speaker 2: by the part by the tribes to get the online
55:25
Speaker 2: betting started within the next three weeks by football season,
55:28
Speaker 2: and they were close to deals with the state. But
55:31
Speaker 2: the fact that the lawsuit is now in place may
55:33
Speaker 2: mean that there's an injunction that will stop this until
55:36
Speaker 2: there's a resolution to the issue. You're listening to the
55:39
Speaker 2: Mark Belling podcast. This is the Mark Belling podcast you
55:46
Speaker 2: have right now in Wisconsin. Well, technically already happened this week,
55:52
Speaker 2: one of them is ongoing. Nonetheless, the two leading Democratic
55:57
Speaker 2: candidates for governor, we're both making appearances with higher profile Democrats.
56:09
Speaker 2: Tony Evers was campaigning with David Crowley and ilan Omar
56:14
Speaker 2: was campaigning with Francesca Han. I think this juxtaposition tells
56:23
Speaker 2: you exactly where the Wisconsin Democratic Party is. You might
56:28
Speaker 2: have thought that Tony Evers was more influential in Wisconsin
56:33
Speaker 2: among Democrats than ilan Omar, but the reality is the
56:38
Speaker 2: candidate that Omar is endorsing, is I think, almost certain
56:42
Speaker 2: to win, and the candidate that Crowley isn't whether the
56:46
Speaker 2: Evers is endorsing, Crowley is almost certain to lose. Now.
56:51
Speaker 2: In his statements, Evers, while traveling with Crowley, made it
56:55
Speaker 2: rather clear that they're trying to stop Hang. And the
56:58
Speaker 2: reason that Tony Evers is going all in on this
57:00
Speaker 2: is Tony Ebs and his wing of the party are
57:03
Speaker 2: very threatened by the Marxist taking over the Wisconsin Democratic Party.
57:15
Speaker 2: We've been reporting on the fact that Hang is trying
57:17
Speaker 2: to pivot away from the ninety seven trillion radical things
57:22
Speaker 2: that she stated in the past and has said she
57:24
Speaker 2: believes in. But I'm not really sure that she's doing
57:29
Speaker 2: it that well. For one thing, if she's trying to
57:32
Speaker 2: appear non radical, what's she doing bringing in elan Omar.
57:37
Speaker 2: I mean, this is the queen of the Somalia fraud.
57:41
Speaker 2: I don't know that there are many Democrats in America
57:44
Speaker 2: right now that have a worse reputation than her. In
57:47
Speaker 2: addition to all of her extreme behavior in the past,
57:54
Speaker 2: we know that she's met at the center of empowering
57:57
Speaker 2: all of these Somalian social service agents cease to go
58:00
Speaker 2: and get contracts from the state of Minnesota. There's national
58:05
Speaker 2: investigations going on, primarily from the Trump administration into social
58:09
Speaker 2: service frauds, much of its surrounding some alions elon Omart's position,
58:13
Speaker 2: and all of this is shut up and any and
58:15
Speaker 2: asking any of these questions as racist. And even though
58:18
Speaker 2: these are all my pals that are doing it, don't
58:20
Speaker 2: look at me yet. This is who hang brought in.
58:24
Speaker 2: There's any she you know, I'm sure she will bring
58:26
Speaker 2: in Bernie Sanders, but she chose to bring this isn't
58:30
Speaker 2: even aoc that she's bringing in who she has in
58:32
Speaker 2: the passing she did say she brought in Omar. That's
58:38
Speaker 2: not exactly a pivoting away from radicalism. Secondly, I posted
58:46
Speaker 2: this on my uh posted on on x dot com
58:51
Speaker 2: under my thing mark elling Show. It's a video of
58:57
Speaker 2: Hong's appearance on CNN. No, it's been widely reported and
59:04
Speaker 2: many of you know about the fact that she went
59:05
Speaker 2: on the Dana Perino Show on Fox earlier in the week.
59:09
Speaker 2: Dana Perino isn't the hardest hitting interview, but she's clearly
59:11
Speaker 2: a conservative. So she rolled over to CNN and you,
59:16
Speaker 2: I mean, the Queen of lefties in the American media
59:18
Speaker 2: right now is Caitlyn Collins of CNN. She just, I mean,
59:24
Speaker 2: her body language and everything, she just exceudes leftist superiority.
59:33
Speaker 2: She does, however, make at least attempts to make it
59:36
Speaker 2: look like she'll ask the occasional tough question. She words
59:40
Speaker 2: it wisiley, but some of them won't even do that. Anyway,
59:43
Speaker 2: Hank goes on Caitlyn Collins on CNN, and of course
59:47
Speaker 2: we have all of these deleted tweets from Hoong that
59:50
Speaker 2: she only recently deleted, and now we went back to.
59:53
Speaker 2: One of them is that we need to ban Thanksgiving
59:57
Speaker 2: in America because of course it's racist. Stand it's the
1:00:01
Speaker 2: celebration of colonialism and so on. Banned Thanksgiving. Now what
1:00:07
Speaker 2: Halling's been doing with a lot of these sweets in
1:00:08
Speaker 2: the past. For example, one of her tweets is abolish
1:00:10
Speaker 2: the Senate. That was in twenty twenty one. She's no
1:00:12
Speaker 2: saying she doesn't support evolving in abolishing the Senate anymore.
1:00:15
Speaker 2: She keeps saying, I've evolved, I've evolved. See what evolved
1:00:19
Speaker 2: from a Marxist not to what this is now? What
1:00:22
Speaker 2: would that be now? Anyway? She didn't disavow this. She
1:00:27
Speaker 2: did say, well, I did prepare a Thanksgiving dinner, but
1:00:31
Speaker 2: she also said lots of people suffer because of Thanksgiving. Now,
1:00:36
Speaker 2: who who is miserable and suffering on Thanksgiving? Maybe people
1:00:42
Speaker 2: who work in a restaurant that are open on Thanksgiving,
1:00:45
Speaker 2: those places that have the all you can eat buffets
1:00:47
Speaker 2: that you crank out on things that perhaps they're suffering,
1:00:52
Speaker 2: But she didn't disassociate and distance herself from it. And
1:00:57
Speaker 2: even there's even a story on js online that Haun
1:00:59
Speaker 2: appears to be open to still supporting banning Thanksgiving. So
1:01:05
Speaker 2: is she really doing all of this turning away from
1:01:07
Speaker 2: her radicalism or are they telling her to turn away
1:01:12
Speaker 2: from he radicalism but she's so stupid that she can't
1:01:14
Speaker 2: do it, or and I think this is it. She
1:01:18
Speaker 2: knows enough she needs to turn away from radicalism, but
1:01:20
Speaker 2: she's so radical she just can't help it. So you
1:01:22
Speaker 2: throw the Thanksgiving thing out there, and she knows she's his. Oh,
1:01:25
Speaker 2: Thanksgiving's a wonderful day. I was younger, you know, I
1:01:28
Speaker 2: have a barcander, and okay, I got into the spirit
1:01:31
Speaker 2: of the butt. For heaven's sakes, I know Thanksgiving. She
1:01:33
Speaker 2: can't bring herself to say that I've made this point
1:01:42
Speaker 2: several times, so only take fifteen seconds to make it. Now,
1:01:45
Speaker 2: here's the problem with the mainstream Democrats attempts to stop
1:01:48
Speaker 2: Hoong and I'll refer here specifically to Crowley at Evers.
1:01:53
Speaker 2: All of these tweets are now unearthed. It's Hong being
1:01:57
Speaker 2: ripped on, any of them by Democrats. Why doesn't Evers
1:02:00
Speaker 2: get up there and rip on her for the Thanksgiving thing?
1:02:03
Speaker 2: Why doesn't Evers get up there and rip on her
1:02:05
Speaker 2: for abolish the Senate? Why doesn't Evers get up there
1:02:08
Speaker 2: and rip on her for calling the police murder in
1:02:11
Speaker 2: Madison still being investigated in execution. Why doesn't Crowley do it?
1:02:16
Speaker 2: I'm telling you this would get Crowley for the first
1:02:19
Speaker 2: time on page one, and it would allow Evers perhaps
1:02:24
Speaker 2: to break through. The people are just ignoring him right now,
1:02:28
Speaker 2: get attention by going out there and going after hung
1:02:31
Speaker 2: on this stuff. The fact that they won't just is
1:02:34
Speaker 2: the reason why I'm just convinced she's going to win.
1:02:42
Speaker 2: Every two years, the following topic comes up on my program.
1:02:47
Speaker 2: Now it's a podcast, it was a radio show forever,
1:02:50
Speaker 2: and that's because every two years we have partisan elections
1:02:53
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin. The positions that are elected by political party
1:02:56
Speaker 2: are the fall elections. Our spring elections are nonpartisan. You
1:03:00
Speaker 2: run for mayor, you don't run as a Democratic Republican,
1:03:02
Speaker 2: and there's no party in the ballot. The positions that
1:03:04
Speaker 2: are on the ballot in the fall are the executive
1:03:09
Speaker 2: physicians of the state of Wisconsin, the state legislature, and
1:03:11
Speaker 2: of course nationally the Congress set at an House, and
1:03:14
Speaker 2: some years the presidency. This comes up every time, and
1:03:20
Speaker 2: there are just certain things that some people know and
1:03:23
Speaker 2: then other people don't know. And the ones that don't know,
1:03:25
Speaker 2: it does not matter how many times you tell them,
1:03:28
Speaker 2: it doesn't stick. It slips out of their brains every
1:03:31
Speaker 2: two years. And apparently this is coming up again this year.
1:03:36
Speaker 2: You can't vote in both primaries. I know how many
1:03:42
Speaker 2: times this has been a topic, because I started doing
1:03:44
Speaker 2: my show in nineteen eighty nine, and it's been every
1:03:46
Speaker 2: two years since, and probably about seven times during each
1:03:49
Speaker 2: of those intervening two years. Now this is coming up
1:03:53
Speaker 2: in particular in Waukeshaw County. Waukershaw County is electing a
1:03:57
Speaker 2: sheriff in the current election. Early voting against Friday election
1:04:02
Speaker 2: day is next Tuesday. The sheriff is a Republican primary.
1:04:10
Speaker 2: The candidates for sheriff are trying to tell voters not
1:04:14
Speaker 2: to vote in the Democratic primary for governor because if
1:04:17
Speaker 2: they do, they can't participate in the election of the
1:04:19
Speaker 2: sheriff in Waukeshaw County. Because Waukeshaw County is predominantly Republican,
1:04:23
Speaker 2: there's no Democrat running. The same thing happened two years
1:04:26
Speaker 2: ago the District attorney position. Waukeshaw County elected a new
1:04:35
Speaker 2: district attorney. Two years ago, there was an extremely hotly
1:04:42
Speaker 2: contested race, much more so than the sheriff election is now.
1:04:50
Speaker 2: If you live in Waukeshaw County and you want to
1:04:52
Speaker 2: have a voice in choosing your sheriff, you can't vote
1:04:54
Speaker 2: the Democratic primary. Likewise, if you want to vote in
1:04:59
Speaker 2: the Democratic primary because you want to vote in the
1:05:01
Speaker 2: governor's election, you can't vote for sheriff and Waukee Shore County,
1:05:05
Speaker 2: and for that matter, any other race. There are Democrat
1:05:08
Speaker 2: primaries and Republican primaries and a number of other offices
1:05:11
Speaker 2: out the other. Republicans have a primary for Lieutenant governor
1:05:13
Speaker 2: for Secretary of State. You can't vote in both primaries.
1:05:17
Speaker 2: Now here's what I'm unclear of, because there's still different
1:05:21
Speaker 2: methods of voting. Different types of balloting systems are used
1:05:24
Speaker 2: depending on where you live in the state. I, of
1:05:27
Speaker 2: course live in the city of Milwaukee. I don't believe
1:05:30
Speaker 2: the machine will accept my ballot if I vote in
1:05:32
Speaker 2: both primaries. In other words, if I vote for candidates
1:05:35
Speaker 2: on both sides, a Democrat and a Republican, I think
1:05:38
Speaker 2: the machine spits it out. I admit I don't know
1:05:40
Speaker 2: that for sure. What I do know is that the
1:05:43
Speaker 2: ballot isn't counted. It's an invalid ballot. Now, I think
1:05:46
Speaker 2: in Milwaukee the machine rejects it. However, if you're voting
1:05:50
Speaker 2: mail in, there's nothing to reject. Your vote simply isn't
1:05:55
Speaker 2: going to be counted. And there may be some areas
1:06:00
Speaker 2: in which the automated system that they use doesn't automatically
1:06:05
Speaker 2: reject the ballot in any event. By the way, all
1:06:09
Speaker 2: the other parties that are on that the qualify for
1:06:11
Speaker 2: the ballot elicted of having primaries, but I don't believe
1:06:13
Speaker 2: any of them have actual candidates running, like the Greens
1:06:15
Speaker 2: around there and this set and the other thing. But
1:06:18
Speaker 2: you can't vote for both for Republicans and for Democrats.
1:06:21
Speaker 2: You've got to decide, and then we will say, but
1:06:23
Speaker 2: I want to again. Every two years this comes up,
1:06:27
Speaker 2: and I mean, I tell you there are people that
1:06:28
Speaker 2: I tell you know you can vote, and what you know,
1:06:31
Speaker 2: I've told you this every two years since I've known you.
1:06:34
Speaker 2: For some reason, it's just one of those things with
1:06:37
Speaker 2: the people who don't know them. It doesn't stick once
1:06:39
Speaker 2: you've told them. There are things like that that you
1:06:44
Speaker 2: know that I have. My most famous one is which
1:06:47
Speaker 2: Tilly is which? Jennifer and meg Tilly. I mix them
1:06:52
Speaker 2: up their entire lives, and every time I figure out
1:06:55
Speaker 2: which one is which. By the way, I think I
1:06:57
Speaker 2: know which one is which. Now they've both done a
1:06:59
Speaker 2: variety of things, and I think I have them kneeled
1:07:01
Speaker 2: down like one was in this and the other one
1:07:03
Speaker 2: was in that, and one of them plays poker and
1:07:05
Speaker 2: the other doesn't. One's boobs are way bigger than the others,
1:07:07
Speaker 2: and so on. But I have the most difficult time
1:07:10
Speaker 2: keeping them straight or anyone others like that. Sometimes sometimes
1:07:16
Speaker 2: like there's twins, like but that twins is a separate
1:07:19
Speaker 2: thing that should be doing. Although the Bush sisters are
1:07:21
Speaker 2: pretty easy. One of them went on the Today Show
1:07:23
Speaker 2: and the other one disappeared from the face of the earth. Right,
1:07:25
Speaker 2: what about those ouls and twins? Can you keep track
1:07:29
Speaker 2: which one of them is which? See you can't. Well
1:07:33
Speaker 2: that's how this thing with not knowing that you can't
1:07:35
Speaker 2: vote in both primaries. As for that Waukashaw County Sheriff phrase,
1:07:40
Speaker 2: this is a big deal. Wakashaw County sheriffs serve forever
1:07:48
Speaker 2: you get in there, you're in there until you don't
1:07:51
Speaker 2: run again. Sometimes somebody runs again some and that's happened
1:07:55
Speaker 2: in the case of Eric Severs and the current sheriff.
1:07:57
Speaker 2: He's not running for reelection. He did have some challenges
1:07:59
Speaker 2: a couple of times, and he just destroyed the opponent
1:08:02
Speaker 2: running against it. I mean, maybe a Wakashaw County sheriff
1:08:06
Speaker 2: could be involved in scandal or something and they could
1:08:08
Speaker 2: be thrown out of the future, but in terms of
1:08:10
Speaker 2: historical it hasn't happened. There are two candidates running, of course,
1:08:16
Speaker 2: they're both running in the Republican primary. One is currently
1:08:19
Speaker 2: in the department. The other has extensive law enforcement background
1:08:24
Speaker 2: and he's outside the department. In terms of my knowledge
1:08:30
Speaker 2: based on the both of them. I do not feel
1:08:33
Speaker 2: comfortable telling you that I prefer one over the other.
1:08:39
Speaker 2: I can kill you though. In terms of the endorsements
1:08:42
Speaker 2: that the challenger, the outside candidate, whose name I believe
1:08:47
Speaker 2: is pronounced Goschmeider. That's the closest I can come to
1:08:51
Speaker 2: pronouncing it correctly. I've heard it every way in the book,
1:08:54
Speaker 2: and when I first discussed this, I pronounced the Geschmeider.
1:08:57
Speaker 2: But I've been told by most people totally said that
1:08:59
Speaker 2: it's Goshchmeider is running against Nickologer, who's a captain within
1:09:05
Speaker 2: the Department. A lot of powerful people in the Republican
1:09:11
Speaker 2: area in Waukeshaw County are endorsing Geschmeider, and a number
1:09:15
Speaker 2: of those, particularly inside the Department and others involved in
1:09:18
Speaker 2: law enforcement, are endorsing Ollinger. As I have said, the
1:09:22
Speaker 2: biggest issue I have in this election is the absolute
1:09:26
Speaker 2: disgrace that Waukershaw County does not yet a body cameras.
1:09:29
Speaker 2: I question both candidates on this. Both say they adamantly
1:09:32
Speaker 2: support them. However, neither committed to doing it. If the
1:09:35
Speaker 2: county board doesn't give them a specific allegation. I believe
1:09:39
Speaker 2: they should find the funds to do so, either via
1:09:42
Speaker 2: grant or making changes within their internal budgets or even
1:09:47
Speaker 2: going out and soliciting fundraising to get it done, and
1:09:51
Speaker 2: to just say it will be done. Not having these
1:09:54
Speaker 2: would be the same as saying, well, we're not going
1:09:55
Speaker 2: to do DNA testing if we discover blood here. But
1:09:59
Speaker 2: both have said adamantly that they supported and will hit
1:10:02
Speaker 2: the ground running and are aggressively pursuing funding from the
1:10:04
Speaker 2: county board. The late county executive Paul Ferroll and the
1:10:08
Speaker 2: current county board have simply never allocated it, but the
1:10:11
Speaker 2: overwhelming majority of police agencies that have them that was
1:10:15
Speaker 2: not allocated either. The simply the head of the law
1:10:17
Speaker 2: enforcement department has discretion over the funding of their budget,
1:10:20
Speaker 2: and they found the funds within their itself. Again, the
1:10:26
Speaker 2: last day that you can vote prior to the election
1:10:28
Speaker 2: is Friday. I'm doing this podcast at a Wednesday. Then
1:10:30
Speaker 2: election d is Tuesday. So if you're somebody lives in
1:10:35
Speaker 2: Walker Show County you care who your sheriff is, there's
1:10:38
Speaker 2: that On the podcast we do tomorrow, We're going to
1:10:41
Speaker 2: talk about a couple of these other primary elections that
1:10:44
Speaker 2: are on the ballot. This is The Mark Billing Podcast.
1:10:50
Speaker 2: All right, that's it for today's program. Monday, Wednesday, and
1:10:52
Speaker 2: Thursday as our schedule. Talk to you soon.
1:10:56
Speaker 1: The Mark Billing Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
1:11:00
Speaker 1: Production and engineering by Jason Gotch. The Mark Beelling Podcast
1:11:04
Speaker 1: is presented by you Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies.
1:11:07
Speaker 1: You Line has everything in stock. Visit you line dot com.
1:11:12
Speaker 1: Listen to all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the
1:11:15
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
1:11:19
Speaker 1: favorite podcasts.