Listen Now

PodFest Expo 2020 was an incredibly diverse event. We know there are tons of podcasts out there but it's easy to overlook just how wide a range of topics there really are. In the world of podcasting, there really is something for everybody.  Despite the diversity of the group and the presence of competing and often conflicting ideologies, the overwhelming majority of folks were kind, compassionate and accepting. They didn't back away from the discussion and instead encouraged the conversation to take place, regardless of their personal beliefs. The scores of podcast enthusiasts that comprised this year's conference proved that when you embrace not only diversity of individuals but also diversity of thought, when you accept others' opinions even though they might contradict your own, there is opportunity to come together and find common ground.  I'm so grateful for the organizers of the event, the speakers, the exhibitors and the podcast creators whose commitment to conversation was truly inspiring.

Coronavirus hysteria is sweeping the nation but is all the madness helping or hurting?  We discuss what's real, what's exaggerated and what's nonsense. The Democrat hatred for President Trump is so strong that they will sacrifice public health for the sake of politics. Desperate for ratings, they are fueling hysteria that has Americans panicked over a virus that will likely be less deadly than the annual flu virus.  And where did it come from?  Was it a secret government project, Chinese biological warfare or just a tiny microbe from a bat in a Chinese market?  Listen and decide for yourself.   But before you listen, please go wash your hands. 

Bernie Sanders wasn't supposed to be a problem. After nominating Hillary Clinton as their candidate in 2016, the DNC made serious changes to their process in an effort to appease Sanders and get him to support Clinton in the general election. Believing Hillary would win and that Sanders would be too to old the next time the Democrat presidential field was open again, the DNC happily made the deal.  Then it all fell apart. Trump won and Sanders is back and stronger than ever.  He is leading the pack in the 2020 Democrat primary and looks poised to win the nomination outright or cause a contested convention. As if that wasn't enough, there is new evidence that shows that even the Russians are trying to get Sanders elected. Biden is faltering, Bloomberg stumbled in his first debate and none of the candidates seem likely to defeat an incumbent president who is enjoying a booming economy and his highest approval ratings to date. Whatever your politics, we can all agree, it ain't easy being a Democrat these days. 

We discuss impeachment, the IG report and why there is good news for Trump but serious damage being done to America in the process. 

A continuation of the discussion between me and my favorite Democrat.   We dive into the impending doom of public sector unions and America's entitlement generation.  Is Joe Biden a serious candidate and what the Democrat primary is shaping up to be. Also, what are the Dems hiding when it comes to Ukraine?  Will the issue involving Hunter Biden be an issue for the Democrat party or at least Joe Biden?  Lastly, what happened to nuance?  Are we all just too lazy to understand our own argument?

Everyone's favorite Democrat is back in studio to discuss the progressive takeover of the Democrat party. We talk about the rise of the socialist left and their battle to see who can give away more "free" stuff.  With the dollar amounts of their promises climbing into the stratosphere, how will they pay for all these goodies... or, more importantly, WHO will pay for them in the end? 

Since Truett Cathy founded the iconic chicken company in 1946. Chick-Fil-A has been a family owned restaurant chain with strong Christian roots. But you already knew that.Maybe you’re are frustrated because you can’t get a sandwich on Sundays because they are closed or maybe because you remember when Dan Cathy, son the founder Truett Cathy and who was then President and COO, said in an interview back in 2013 that he believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That one comment seemed to spark a feud between Chick-Fil-A and the gay and lesbian community. Well, it was a one sided feud as I can’t recall any sort of retaliation by Chick-Fil-A. It’s ironic since that was the same view held by candidate Barack Obama in 2008. I guess in 5 years an opinion that would have won you the democrat primary and then a presidential election; somehow mean you were now anti-gay. It’s even more ironic that nobody seemed to mind it when that same president made a deal with Iran, a country that openly sanctions the throwing of gays off of tall buildings to their death. Nah, that’s fine I guess. Just don’t own a restaurant that does not discriminate against sexual orientation with regard to employment or the service of patrons, but whose executives hold personal beliefs contrary to today’s social justice, leftist, activist mob. Since that interview, Chick-Fil-A has been the target of protest after protest, an unrelenting attack by the woke crusaders and social justice morons looking for the latest dragon to slay. 

TRANSCRIPTThe Myth of Robin HoodLeft wing socialists often channel their inner Robin Hood as they demonize the rich and claim to be fighting for equality using their many arrows of self-righteousness.  But are many people so caught up in the promise of utopia they miss the glaring holes in the left’s metaphor?  Comin’ Up.The story of Robin Hood is a timeless classic. Whether you’re partial to the Disney version, the Kevin Costner version of the countless others on stage and screen, the premise is the same. Noble woodsman risks his life to defend those in need from a greedy tyrant.  We are programmed to root for Robin Hood in this story; I mean who roots for the sheriff of Nottingham? Am I right?  That’s because the disparity between good and evil in this story is pretty huge.  Sure, Robin Hood is himself a thief and he does benefit modestly from stealing from the crown.  But his misdeeds are excused because he has a nobler purpose; he shares his stolen bounty with the very poor. In the story, it’s their money, confiscated from these helpless subjects by a mean sheriff at the behest of a greedy prince.  The key element here is that it’s their money – their money – and it was stolen from them.That is the sin that outweighs Robin Hood’s thievery because, after all, there has to be more moral virtue in stealing from another thief than there is from stealing from townspeople and peasants.What Robin Hood does is clearly a lesser evil and, more importantly, while his actions might be technically illegal, that is outweighed by the fact that he is morally superior with his deeds. If you take these points and you connect them together, you get the fundamental argument of folks like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders and the rest of the radical left wing. And like patrons gazing in the theater, their supporters follow this same moral framework and thus believe that the outcome is justified and righteous. They are sadly mistaken and many are naïve pawns in a sinister game where the prize is both wealth and to a much larger extent, power. In the political version of this fairy tale, the greedy prince represents the evil one percent. This dark, ominous cabal of individuals who sit together in dark rooms, fanning themselves with fists full of hundred dollar bills  , sipping aged whiskey while contemplating ways to make the poor even poorer. The sheriff is played by republicans, slaves to this evil one percent and responsible for implementing the evil poverty schemes that these greedy one percenters dream up to fund their appetite for extreme wealth. Robin Hood, well that part is played by folks like AOC, Sanders and even people like Elizabeth Warren and anyone else that claims to be fighting against income inequality.  The rest of you are portrayed by the townspeople, the tired peasants of Sherwood Forrest, struggling to put food on the table, buy the newest iPhone or upgrade to an even bigger flat screen TV. Those are the folks who need a hero, they need a savior, and they need – Robin Hood.  Sure, vigilantism is unethical, but hey, it’s not so bad when the vigilante is on your side. So let’s look at one of the biggest claims these modern day Robin Hoods are making – the Trump tax cuts or the Trump Tax cuts for the wealthy as they like to call them.  The left is especially creative and enjoys making up words when it helps them make their point, accuracy is a distant afterthought.So we’re told that these tax cuts benefit the wealthy elite and in some ways are actually at the expense of the poor.The trump tax cuts are, in essence, analogous to the Sheriff of Nottingham doing door to door, shaking down citizens for their last few nickels. The tax cuts represent the pilfering of the poor and working class for the sole benefit of the rich… that’s their ploy and many of you actually buy it.  I mean, in your defense, it sounds convincing enough. People in the poor and middle class are living beyond their means, they were doing so for many years now and this is certainly not a new trend, but under this president we are told that, if the tax cuts were what he said they were, most of folks from the middle and on down would be a lot better off. After all, isn’t it the government’s job to ensure financial stability for everyone, regardless of their life choices?Okay, well let’s just say for a minute that it is.  How do we accomplish this?  Well, for starters, let’s take a look at the numbers. The Trump tax plan, like its predecessor, has seven brackets.  The brackets vary slightly whether you are comparing total income of an individual or those filing jointly. For the purpose of this explanation, I will use the “married, filing jointly” numbers as they are easier to visualize, in my opinion. The first bracket, bracket number one, is for households earning between zero and $19, 050 dollars.This bracket represents the very poorest Americans.  The previous tax rate on this group was 10% but under the Trump tax plan, their rate has been slashed to… wait, it’s still 10%!  This must be what Bernie and AOC are talking about. The poorest among us didn’t save a penny. That Trump and his Republican cohorts are ruthless, greedy bastards.    Or are they?   What Bernie and AOC don’t tell you is that while the tax rate remained unchanged, the standard deduction for joint filers went from $12,700 to a whopping $24,000. That means that someone earning $19000 a year in 2017, the last year of the previous tax rates, had a standard deduction of $12,700 and thus still owed taxes on the remaining $6 or 7 thousand in income.  If they have a bunch of kids they could likely deduct more (we will get to that in a minute) but most of those folks opted for the standard deduction rather than itemizing.  That means that the very poor still owed a portion of their salary in taxes.  But even though the bracket stayed the same and the 10% tax rate stayed the same, with the new standard deduction of $24,000, these folks can deduct more than their entire salary.  That means they have ZERO, got that, no tax liability in terms of federal income tax. In short, the Trump tax plan actually let the poorest Americans keep not just more of their money, but ALL of their money. But what about the rest of the brackets, most Americans, thankfully, don’t fall into that bottom bracket. So where to the rest stack up. Well, here goes. Bracket number two, households earning between $19050 and $77400, their tax rate went from 15% down to 12%. This is your average middle income to lower middle income family, folks that aren’t destitute but they are living paycheck to paycheck. They had an overall reduction of 3% in addition to the increased standard deduction as well.Bracket number 3, households earning between $77400 and $165000 per year.  This is your middle to upper middle income group.  These folks represent a large chunk of America, they are the conscientious ones, the savers, the financially responsible folks who, by and large, try and make good decisions.  Those at the higher end of the bracket probably live comfortably but this group overall is hardly what you think of when you hear the terms rich or wealthy.  Their rate went from 25% to 22%, a proportional reduction to the previous group of about 3%. Still with me, here is where it gets interesting. Bracket 4, those households earning between $165000 and $315000 saw their tax rate go from 28% down to 24%.  That’s a four percent reduction for those of you that struggle with math and the largest reduction of any bracket. Now, some of you might say, those folks are rich, why do they get the biggest tax break. To explain that, let’s talk about pass through taxation.  This group includes a big chunk of small business owners. The majority of small businesses are organized as LLCs or s-corps.  What that means is that they don’t pay a separate corporate tax; instead the company’s earnings pass through to the owner’s personal income tax returns.Trust me when I tell you that there are a lot of business owners out there who, on paper, land in this bracket but you would never know it to look at them.  They are the folks who occasionally struggle to make payroll, who go without for many years while building their business. So if a husband and wife own a business, pay themselves a modest salary of $50k per year and the business turns a net profit of $100k, all of that lands on their personal returns and this is the bracket they fall into. But unless you believe that every business empties their checking account each December 31st directly into the owner’s purse, the reality is that some of that profit is used to pay the taxes owed and the rest is put back into the business on January 1st. The folks in this group are job creators, they are builders, they are building businesses bigger, stronger and every penny they get back is likely to be poured into the business in order to achieve that goal. That is why this group got a larger tax break, mind you it’s only one percent bigger than the last two brackets so it’s not like they won the lotto here. But if your goal is to create jobs and that was Trump’s stated goal, shaving off an extra percent from this group makes sense.  Bracket 5 is a household income between $315k and $400k.  That’s a lot of money; surely these folks are what most people would call “rich.”  If the Bernie talking points are correct, this group probably got a big reduction.    Nope, they went from 33% down to a whopping 32%.  That’s right; they got a one percent tax cut. Maybe those folks aren’t “one percent” enough to curry favor with Trump and the greedy republicans. Maybe bracket 6, households earning between $400k and $600k, maybe they are the ones Bernie talks about.Nope, not them either, their rate went from between 33% and 35% all the way down to 35%!  Not only did the upper por

The radical left continues it's war on comedy as "cancel culture" emerges as modern day censorship. The same folks who once fought against censorship and in the name of free speech are now finding themselves being "cancelled" by the left.  Edgy comedians are among the most frequent victims in this war for political correctness hits a new level. An old saying has been rewritten to fit the new standard: "sticks and stones may break my bones but the left think words will kill you." In a last ditch effort to salvage his pathetic presidential campaign, Beto O'Rourke goes nuclear and says what many staunch second amendment supporters have always known, leftist progressives want to take away your guns. The democrats who don't agree are furious because it only hurts the moderates of their party. Progressives are furious because Beto was supposed to keep their dream of confiscation a secret.  In an instant, Beto went from progressive icon to the latest marketing tool for the NRA. Democrats want to impeach President Trump... again.  And this time they have found information so damning that it's sure to work.  That is, unless you actually have the facts. It shouldn't come as a surprise that they are making such a fuss, their best hope for beating Trump, former Vice President Joe Biden has some baggage when it comes to the Ukraine. For Democrats, the best way to hide possible corruption is to accuse everyone else of being corrupt. 

John Bolton is out as National Security Advisor and the threat of war seems to have been mitigated by a mustache length. Despite his years of experience and unquestionable patriotism, John Bolton is the quintessential neo-con and an avid war hawk.It’s amazing he lasted as long as he did in a Trump Administration and many folks on both sides of the aisle are breathing a sigh of relief that we managed to avoid more war with Bolton so close to Trump’s ear. There is a lot of fuss over WalMart lately with their decision to stop selling handgun and “assault rifle” ammunition and for their decision to ban open carry in their stores. Despite the liberal fawning over their new ally, I think the decision was based upon economics and risk mitigation rather than an attempt at virtue. The left fell for it though and have praised WalMart extensively despite the fact that WalMart, the world’s largest retailer, is responsible for more job losses, local store closures and low wages than just about anyone else in America. But hey, so long as you pander to the cause of “wokeness,” all is forgiven, apparently. Whoopi Goldberg, an unabashed liberal, reminded us all of the difference between a classical liberal and a radical leftist when she condemned Debra Messing’s call for conservative actors to be added to public lists.  Goldberg’s comments are a reminder that it is possible to have political differences without declaring your opponent to be your enemy. If only the rest of her Hollywood cohorts were capable of such maturity. The Washington Post and ABC release a poll showing the only statistic higher than the emotional outrage over guns is the collective ignorance of Americans on the subject of gun laws. We look at what some of these proposed new laws actually mean and why they are mostly just pandering to the scared and uninformed. The folks over at Reason.com, an outstanding source for rational commentary and balanced news, were kind enough to give us permission to play a recent parody song by Remy.The accompanying video is available in the video library of their website at www.reason.com and it is absolutely fantastic.

The current state of American political discourse has resulted in the conflation of our illegal and legal immigration issues in the minds of many. Yet these two groups have very little in common. To associate the two is to diminish the hard work, obedience and patience of so many who seek to obtain the American dream the right way. We owe a debt of gratitude to our legal immigrants and embracing illegal immigration for political purposes makes a mockery of both their struggle and their value to our great country. Rut Patel, one of those legal immigrants, is a prime example of someone that has endured the challenges of legal immigration and the result is a young entrepreneur, driven to succeed and hoping to improve his life and the country overall. Rut joins us in this two part series to discuss his immigration journey, what it means to him and why the opportunities every American has should never be taken for granted.

America's legal immigrants, shepherds of the American Dream, are often overlooked as we struggle to deal with illegal immigration. We talk with one of those legal immigrants who reminds us why legal immigration is so vital to the success of our country and why illegal immigration is so unfair to all those struggling to do things the right way from the start. The current state of American political discourse has resulted in the conflation of our illegal and legal immigration issues in the minds of many. Yet these two groups have very little in common. To associate the two is to diminish the hard work, obedience and patience of so many who seek to obtain the American dream the right way. We owe a debt of gratitude to our legal immigrants and embracing illegal immigration for political purposes makes a mockery of both their struggle and their value to our great country. Rut Patel, one of those legal immigrants, is a prime example of someone that has endured the challenges of legal immigration and the result is a young entrepreneur, driven to succeed and hoping to improve his life and the country overall. Rut joins us in this two part series to discuss his immigration journey, what it means to him and why the opportunities every American has should never be taken for granted.

Recent mass shootings have reignited the debate over gun control in America. But how many people know what that really means? We explore some common misconceptions surrounding gun laws and how much of the proposed legislation is just a tool of political manipulation and both parties are capitalizing on the division of an ill-informed, scared populous. *** transcript *** Like a nagging case a herpes, the gun control debate is once again at the forefront of American politics. And I’ll tell you why I think both parties want to ensure that nothing ever changes. Comin’ up. Once again, America is gripped by mass shootings. Of course, they are instantly politicized and both sides get fired up, as usual. I’m not going to talk about the shootings themselves. Yes, I am aware there were shooters on both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, I realize that the one on the right got far more attention that the self-proclaimed socialist, that is the norm. The media has an agenda, or at least a narrative, and stories that perpetuate that narrative get the most attention. We all know this, it’s not new. This shouldn’t surprise anyone; it’s been this way for a long time. So rather than pick that scab, which would require discussing the details of these two evil individuals, I’m going to pass. I will explain my thoughts on why this is happening with greater frequency these days in just a moment. But as you will see, part of what I believe is fueling this trend is the notoriety that comes with being behind such a disgusting act of violence. Hence, I don’t want to add to that problem. I won’t mention the shooters’ names, nor will I glorify their actions with any more attention than they have already gotten. We have a problem in this country with giving too much attention to the wrong thing and ignoring what’s right, what’s good and what is inspiring in everyday lives. Suffice to say, there were acts of heroism amid these tragedies. Acts of bravery and self-sacrifice that get far too little attention. The reason for that is simple, it doesn’t sell. But I don’t do this for the money so instead, I’m going to give you some truth. First and foremost, this is not an issue about guns. If you are hung up on guns, gun laws or scary black weapons that you think soldiers carry, you are having the wrong conversation. America has a cultural problem that masquerades as, among other things, a gun problem. Before we get too far into this, let me clear up a few things. The term Assault weapon or Assault rifle is a meaningless term. It refers to an appearance or style of weapon used in armed conflict. But the term doesn’t carry with it any real connection to the functionality or lethality of the weapon overall. For instance, most hunting rifles shoot much larger bullets than that of the average AR15 which shoots one of the smallest projectiles conventionally available to consumers. In fact, hunting large game with this type of rifle is actually illegal in some states because the round is considered inhumane as it doesn’t kill quickly enough and the animal can escape, severely injured, only to die in agony a while later. The AR15 is best suited for killing varmint, squirrels, raccoons, wild hogs or any other smaller game that might be somewhere they shouldn’t be. They also do not have a particularly high rate of fire. Despite what many left-wing talking heads might have told you, the AR15, the weapon of choice of many recent mass shooters, fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger. One, just one, and that’s it. If you want more, you have to keep pulling the trigger. That is the same functionality as nearly all handguns on the market today. If you were to attempt to modify an AR15 to make it fully automatic, the sort of machine gun you see in Rambo movies, not only would you be violating federal laws that have been on the books for nearly a century now, but you would also likely watch the barrel turn red hot, distort and jam. If you think that these guns can shoot more bullets than most others, I encourage you to watch a group of experienced paintball players one day. With practice, good technique and some extra magazines, it’s possible to fire a lot of rounds with most guns, the AR15 is no exception. But just know that if you seek to ban guns that have such capabilities, you must be prepared to take away virtually every gun in circulation with exceptions for breech loading shotguns, bolt action rifles, revolvers and the occasional black powder musket. But if it doesn’t shoot faster than other guns, why is it so lethal. This has much more to do with the bullet than the gun. Although the AR15, which commonly fires a .223 caliber projectile, as I said it’s very small, that projectile has a lot of powder behind it and the result is a tiny bullet that travels really fast. The result is that when it strikes a human target, behind that tiny bullet sits a serious shockwave that rapidly expands the surrounding tissue. In most cases, entry and exit wounds are quite small but the damage done internally is significant. Lacerated internal organs, ruptured vessels, all of these things cause major problems unless first aid is immediate. Even then, there is no guarantee. But then these shootings happen, there is often so much chaos that it isn’t safe for rescue personnel to enter and render aid. Instead, it can be a while before the situation is safe enough to allow medics to enter. And in most cases, all but the most superficially wounded have perished. The reason I say all this is because we routinely hear politicians talk about not taking away hunting rifles and only looking to ban “assault rifles.” But what that means is that our brilliant elected officials want to eliminate the tiniest rifle rounds but leave others, and most are considerably larger and more powerful, on the market? Does that make sense to you? I mean, if they really wanted to solve the problem. No, it doesn’t. But their constituents don’t know the things I just told you, they are scared, ignorant of the subject matter and desperate for something to be done, regardless of how trivial or ineffective it may be. But what about the other things, such as universal background checks or those pesky gun show loopholes? The sort of thing that most liberals deem common sense gun reform. I have to give the left credit, they are brilliant at marketing their lousy, ill-informed ideas. They know how to package things in such a way that defending them looks moronic to the lay person. To oppose common sense gun control is to oppose common sense and is therefore irrational or stupid. Right? The term, gun show loophole suggests a mistake in legislation that is being exploited by many to avoid background checks when purchasing firearms, right? How many of you think that is the case? What could be wrong with universal background checks? What sort of reckless idiot would defend the right of a criminal or someone else who can pass a background check’s right to own a gun? Well, if you focus on the terms, you would scratch your head but if you actually know what they mean, they are anything but common sense. Let’s start with the loophole. Gun dealers are licensed at the federal level, something called an FFL. It’s expensive and difficult to attain and I’ve yet to meet one who thought they could make more money breaking the law than following it. This myth relies on the general public’s ignorance of gun shows. As if they are outlandish events where people fill up bags of guns like kids with candy on Halloween. In reality, the majority of people selling guns at gun shows are dealers who hold FFLs. Therefore, if you buy a gun at a gun show, you will have to pass the same federal background check, are subject to the same waiting period for a handgun and the whole transaction is recorded by the ATF. The federal laws don’t change simply because it’s a weekend and you’re under a tent at the fairgrounds or inside your local civic center. They are exactly the same. So, what is the loophole? Easy, person to person transactions. Private citizens, in most states, can sell a gun to another private citizen without having a Federal license to do so. And if they are not licensed, they aren’t required to perform a background check on the party purchasing the gun. So, if you are planning on doing away with the quote gun show loophole, basically you are saying that you want every transaction to be performed by a licensed dealer, every buyer screened and checked, and every transaction recorded by the federal government. Now, my staunch libertarian friends take umbrage with that last part, and rightfully so, if you consider the striking number of democrat politicians who currently support some form of confiscation. But even if you can get past that part, it doesn’t negate the fact that the only people this will apply to are law abiding citizens. Criminals will simply disregard this law as they aren’t fond of following most other laws either. Can you imagine someone looking to purchase a gun to commit armed robbery or murder throwing their hands up because while they are willing to commit violent crime with a gun, they simply aren’t willing to purchase a gun without a mandatory background check? If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is. The term universal background checks is along those same lines. As if there are ways to acquire firearms from a dealer today without a federal background check. Nope, there aren’t. But once again, if you buy a gun from a private seller, there is no background check. So, as with the gun show loophole, ban person to person gun sales. Law abiding citizens will comply, they always do, they will meet prospective buyers at a gun store and pay the fee to have the licensed dealer record the transaction and perform a background check on the buyer. But you know who won’t do this?

I'm joined once again by my good friend and long-time political sparring partner to discuss the 2020 Democrat Primary candidates. Will Joe Biden stay at the head of the pack or will the most well known moderate Democrat in the 2020 political field succumb to attacks from his leftist progressive counterparts? What influence will newcomer Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Perez have on the primary race? Is the Democrat party really as far left as many think? This and more as we discuss and debate the current political landscape and what to expect in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

Dishing with Democrats. In a follow up to a series of episodes from 2018, I'm joined once again by my good friend and long-time political sparring partner to discuss the outcome of the Mueller investigation. What does it mean for the Trump presidency and the country overall. Dishing with Democrats. In a follow up to a series of episodes from 2018, I'm joined once again by my good friend and long-time political sparring partner to discuss the outcome of the Mueller investigation. What does it mean for the Trump presidency and the country overall. What do Democrats think about the statement from Attorney General Bill Barr? We discuss the reasonable opinions of many Democrats as well as the irrational and often maniacal calls for impeachment.

Transcript Lately, the issue of abortion has caused an endless chorus of debate, virtue signaling and value judgements, but do you wonder why this issue is suddenly so prominent? Comin up! Since the supreme court ruled in roe v wade, the issue of abortion has been an element of politics in one form or another. Conservatives sympathized with the religious right but were powerless to take any legislative action. Liberals pushed back against the notion of legislating morality and basically, the two sides remained in a stalemate for almost forty years. When the affordable care act, aka Obamacare, was enacted, the issue flared up as insurance plans were forced to pay for abortion procedures as well as abortion inducing drugs. This issue was packaged into a pretty little box the left called “women’s health.” And that package was then conveniently turned into a political movement in what was dubbed the “republican war on women.” There were hearings, fundraisers and an endless media blitz… well, that was until Mitt Romney lost his presidential bid and then, like a democrat congressman in the inner city, poof, it disappeared, not to be discussed again until the next election season. But at no time, did the issue itself gain as much momentum as it has recently. It has been confined to the realm of political rhetoric. And once Hobby Lobby, the little sisters of the poor and other religious groups defeated the Obama Administration’s attempt to force them to pay for abortions, it had settled down. But as President Trump saw two of his conservative nominees fill vacant seats on the Supreme Court, it was though the pro-life army had just received a fresh convoy of supplies and ammunition. Or at least, that’s what you are told. I have no doubt that the recent changes to the supreme court do play a role in the renewed push by the pro-life movement. Roe v Wade was decided on the merits of a woman’s right to privacy. But even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the legal validity of legalizing abortion under the umbrella of privacy rights. She viewed abortion rights in a different context, and she was actually scrutinized by pro-abortion groups when she was nominated to the court by president Clinton. So, the idea that a legal challenge to Roe v Wade, in light of the new court composition, might result in a different interpretation is very real. Personally, I’m not sure what the new court will do. I do know that Ginsburg is clinging to life with every fiber in her being so that she can defend the ruling she once criticized. But the court aspect is just one of a few reasons I think abortion is back at the center of the political battleground. One additional reason is the rift between the conventional majority view of abortion and the radical politics that dominate the rhetoric of the day. Bill Clinton once said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. That was, in my opinion, the collective opinion of a majority of Americans. Even those who were morally opposed to it held this view because they also believed the issue was complex and there was a litany of unintended consequences of an all-out ban. But one consequence of the weaponization of “women’s health” aka abortion as a political tool was that, like any political movement, many folks began to celebrate the tenants of their political dogma, including, the practice of abortion. Celebrities began celebrating abortion, as if it was a badge of feminist independence. I don’t care whether you think abortion should be legal or not, can we all agree that celebrating it is just grotesque? Recently Miley Cyrus was pictured with her face above a cake decorated with the words “Abortion is healthcare.” As if having an unborn child forcibly removed from your uterus is analogous to getting a mammogram or cervical cancer screening. I’m sure that a plethora of leftist wackos no doubt finds these opinions empowering and inspired. But I think most people find them repulsive and disturbing. And I think that these attempts to normalize the act of abortion have actually had the opposite effect, actually turning more moderate people into more pro-life activists. If not because they want to defend the lives of the unborn, then because they see a need to push back on those who hold the warped belief that abortion is a noble and virtuous act that a woman should be proud of. Its important to remember that at the time, Roe v Wade was very controversial. And, as such, there was an ample number of legislative attempts to limit its effect. Many were deemed unconstitutional but one in particular, the Hyde Amendment, stood the test of time. Enacted just three years after the decision in Roe, the Hyde Amendment prohibited the use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the if the mother’s life was threatened. And while President Clinton did expand some of the provisions, or at least the definitions back in the mid-1990s, the Hyde amendment stood firm for decades. This was mainly because it was actually a legitimate compromise. It simply prevented tax dollars, much of which would come from pro-life Americans, from being used to pay for something they found so objectionable. That seemed reasonable enough, we give people lots of free stuff, is it too much to ask for folks to pay for their own damn abortions? Apparently, it is. And as the radical left grew in tenacity and as it weaponized the issue of abortion, Hyde became just one of many attempts to limit access to abortion or, as they like to call it, keep women from having control of their own bodies. Because in today’s oversimplified world, not wanting to pay for someone else to kill their unborn child is tantamount to endorsing the practices of the Handmaid’s Tale. If you think that is a ridiculous notion, that’s because it is. But that hasn’t stopped the call for a repeal of the Hyde amendment that has only grown louder in recent years. Every single democrat running for President in 2020 supports the repeal of the Hyde amendment. The only holdout, Joe Biden, a life long moderate, was recently called out by the left for his support, or at least indifference to, the Hyde amendment and within 24 hours, he flips flopped. Never mind the fact that a majority of Americans, regardless of political views, support the idea of preventing the use of federal funds for abortion. Biden, like his counterparts that are even farther left, are still running for the nomination and while the repeal of Hyde might not be mainstream, it certainly paints a picture of just how far left the democrat party has drifted. This is unsettling, to say the least, for many Americans, many of whom still hold the belief that if abortion is to be legal, it should be safe and rare… but certainly not free, paid for with tax dollars. One other example of overreach are changes to late term abortion laws in many states. Creative legislation, some of which allows for third trimester abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened also define “life of the mother threatened” as a scenario where the mother would be seriously depressed and possibly suicidal if she was forced to birth and raise a newborn baby. These laws, which essentially legalize infanticide, are wildly misleading and since the conversation is so prevalent today, it’s impossible to keep them quiet. So, Americans now hear about laws that allow for a fetus, should it manage to survive being ripped from its mother’s womb in the 9th month, to be left to die on an exam table and no life saving medical attention must be provided. There was a time when many of these same people protested China’s ‘one child’ policy and the abundance of female infanticide it caused. Now, they are actually promoting the same basic practice under the umbrella of women’s liberation. Another significant reason for the surge in pro-life sentiment is simple, science. Back in 1973, most men had little experience with the unborn child. Most men received little to no education on reproduction, especially fetal development. Basically, most men really only comprehended a baby at the moment of birth. But that has changed dramatically in the past forty years. Not only do young males receive more education on the gestational process and researchers invented special video cameras to capture the development of an embryo into a fully formed baby inside the womb. Seeing such images puts a face to the discussion. It’s hard to accept the notion that this is just a “cluster of cells” when you have seen video of a similar fetus sucking its own thumb inside the womb. And changes in ultrasound technology have enabled men and women to see their own babies in greater detail. I can still remember when we had a 4-D ultrasound of our second child. It was incredible, it brought the same feeling of the moment of birth but many months in advance. It’s hard to really connect with your growing baby on the weird, whoosh sound from a fetal heart monitor but when you see their face, when you recognize they have your nose or your chin, months before they emerge. And as medical science improves and we see more and more examples of how doctors are able to save the lives of premature babies who grow up to be happy, healthy, normal children, it further solidifies the idea that the alien looking, semi translucent life form floating in a bag of fluid is, in fact, a human life. All of this makes it hard to support the idea that not only should it be legal to end such a life, it makes it virtually impossible to accept the notion that we should celebrate the very practice of abortion. But as the liberal left continues to push the envelope and as Americans are forced to choose a side in the age of binary politics, it seems as though many are finding they have more in common with the pro-life camp, even if they don’t share the same value-based position or moral

The Kangaroos are Racists G’day mate, it seems as though Australia is no longer famous for it’s crocodiles and kangaroos, its now a haven for racists. Why do socialists get so upset when rich people give away tens of millions of dollars to those in need? And new data on American racism in the era of Trump. Comin’ up. A popular theme among the 2020 Democrat candidates is student debt. Whether they pledge to provide free college tuition, forgive student loan debt or simply wave their magic pander stick and lower tuition prices around the country, it seems like every one of them has something to say on this issue. Notice I used the word “say.” That’s because that’s really all they can do, at this point and likely if they actually win the presidency as well. Seeing how Trump is fighting tooth and nail with congress to get a few billion for a border wall, I don’t understand how anyone could actually believe that Elizabeth Warren or anyone else would be able to simply cancel over a Trillion dollars in student loan debt. Bernie Sanders, and others, have cooked up a plan to make college tuition free for all Americans, essentially making college another entitlement program. Socialists like Sanders and AOC tout such programs as evidence of the fairness and wonderment of the socialist utopias they blabber about. But while these lunkheads are babbling about their 7-step plan that will take effect over 10 years, one guy actually did something. Robert Smith, a wealthy tech investor and card-carrying member of the evil, greedy, rich 1%, he announced while giving a commencement speech at Morehouse College that he was going to pay off every student’s loans for the class of 2019. You know, I wonder how many people are kicking themselves for slacking off, figuring it wouldn’t make that much difference if they graduate in the spring of the fall. But back to my point. So while these politicians are making generic promises, here’s a guy who actually put his money where his mouth is and did something. It’s his money, this was something he chose to do, God bless him, that’s the friggin’ American dream. But this act has exposed a serious problem. It reinforced the fundamental truth that the fastest, most effective means of accomplishing anything is through capitalism and personal control of wealth. It also has a lot of people really upset, and here’s why. Some people are upset that they didn’t get any such help, that they were forced to file struggle with their loans and no rich guy bailed them out. And others were ticked off because generosity, just like wealth, when directed by individuals instead of government, is considered unfair and therefore wrong. This is the sort of thing that drives people like Bernie Sanders crazy. He and his intellectually bereft cohorts would rather see everyone get a penny rather than one person get a dollar. But the worst part of this story, at least for me, is that the media insists on reporting Smith’s race. They call Smith the “richest black man in America.” Now, there is nothing wrong with being a proud alum of Morehouse College, a historical black college, and wanting to help your fellow alumni. But when they talk about the “richest BLACK man,” as if there is a need to qualify it on the merits of race. I still maintain that while there are no doubt some horribly racist conservatives, I maintain that the left is overall, more racist but in a seemingly more benign way. When you consistently think a certain race, by virtue of skin color alone, is in need of special dispensations. When you feel the need to say that someone is the richest “black man” in America, as if that is like saying so and so won the gold medal at the “special” Olympics. To me, that is every bit as racist and while it’s not individually as vile as the handful of white supremacists who unabashedly use the N word, I think it actually has a collectively more harmful effect on the black community overall. One article I read talked about how the student loan crisis affects minorities worse than white students. Now, for some people, this feeds in to the general narrative of “woe is the minority.” Those poor black and brown people, they get screwed at every turn while the privileged white kids just get an easier run. That’s the generally idea for those on the liberal left that no only suffer from confirmation bias, they actually allow their skewed paradigm to distort the real causes behind some of these issues. The notion that black students have more student loans than whites having anything to do with race is ridiculous. It’s not as though there is a lower tuition rate for white people than minorities at any college or university in America. I’m pretty sure that would be seriously illegal. But you know what we do have, we have a marvelous system that folks like Thomas Sowell have pointed at for years as a boat anchor around the collective necks of black America. It’s called affirmative action. It’s a marvelous system that might have had a place at one time but remains in effect as a political bargaining chip with no regard for the long-term cost. When you allow minority students to enter a university by lowering the academic requirements, you aren’t doing them any favors. You are simply inviting them to fail and many do. Many more also require 5 and 6 years to complete undergraduate degrees at those same schools resulting in proportionally higher student loan debt. Sure, some of them are able to gain admission and ultimately thrive, but when you factor out the number of students that would have qualified without the special reduction in admission requirements, the number of successful minority students who thrive at universities where they were only granted admission because of their skin color is so trivially small that I would argue it is no different than if such a “chance” had been taken on anyone of any race. I also think that if you allowed white students admission in to a given college by lowering the academic requirements, you would find that many of those students took longer to complete their degrees and accumulated more debt. But you see, when we mask it with race, when we toss out the assumption that black people have more student debt because of systemic racism or some other myth, it diverts attention from the real root cause of the problem. And we should be concerned about the problem, but to the extent that we actually assess it scientifically and not just by pandering and playing political games that use race as a weapon. Calling Robert Smith the “richest black man in America” is so appalling to me. Do me a favor, google richest Asian man in America. You won’t find anyone listed. I understand that race in America has a tricky past and I am not oblivious to the struggles that many people senselessly endured. But there does come a point when you have to ask if your methods, however understandable, are actually helping people ascend the social ladder and realize more of the own potential. That is, unless you actually don’t care about the success of others and instead prefer to repeatedly poke holes in their ships so that the continue to look to you, continue to vote for you, continue to support your activism, because they feel as though they need you to succeed. Nah, that can’t be it. None of this is novel or surprising, the race game is pretty well rooted in American society and American politics. So no one is really surprised when the argument is made that racism played a role in the election of Donald Trump. If only we could be as colorblind as the rest of the more tolerant and progressive world, right. Like Australia, where they were so “woke” they banned guns and any day now their violent crime rate will plummet… it has only been 23 years, I’ve heard it takes a while for the gun free utopia flower to fully blossom. Anyways, circling back from my gun tangent, an interesting thing happened in Australia recently. Much like the US, Australia has two basic flavors of politics although they have more actual political parties. On the right side of the aisle you have the liberal party, the national party, the liberal national party and on the left you have the labor party, the green party, the center party and others. In their recent election, fifty consecutive political polls predicted the labor party would gain control of the Australian government, which is currently controlled by its more conservative political factions. The media was consistent in that prediction as well, although Australia’s largest new organization, owned by Rupert Murdoch, was arguably as slanted toward conservatives as MSNBC, CNN and just about every news paper in the US are slanted toward democrats. Their election was basically a carbon copy of the 2016 election in the US. If there was any real difference, it was that in Australia, virtually all the pundits were unanimous that the labor party candidate was going to win. Although there wasn’t anything close to a majority, there were at least a handful of political pundits in the US who predicted Trump would win, even if nobody took them seriously. But like that Tuesday night in November 2016, Australia just experienced it’s own moment of shock as the election results poured in and the conservative candidate won in a stunning upset. And just like in the US, there were scores of people with their jaws dangling and tears in their eyes, struggling almost as hard to process the totally unexpected loss as they struggle to pull out loose change from the pocket of their skinny jeans. There was crying and anxiety and I’m pretty sure Pfizer, the company that makes Xanax, just saw their stock price jump up quite a bit. But in all seriousness, the similarity to 2016 here in the US is quite striking. But while there hasn’t been any accusation that the winner colluded w

Since the 1960s, there has been a general trend toward passive parenting. The idea that kids free from harsh rules and punishment will grow into more well adjusted adults. Well, the verdict is in and it isn't good. Generations of parenting that revolved around artificially bolstering the self esteem of young people has led to a generation of weak willed youth. Youths who have an inflated sense of entitlement, a staggering sense of self worth and unrealistic expectations of what the world owes them. How did we get here? What does the road ahead look like? We examine the origin of these trends and how they have shaped a generation that foolishly looks to socialism as the key to attaining all the things they feel they deserve.

With twenty or so Democrats battling for the 2020 party nomination, the race to the left is in full effect. But the voters don't seem to be on board as Joe Biden holds a commanding lead, despite his difficulty forming complete sentences. We discuss the obvious disconnect between the average democrat voter and the pack of leftists, pandering for their votes. Despite being a closet capitalist himself, will Bernie Sanders succeed in pushing the US closer to a socialist state? After spending her career getting felons convicted, will Kamala Harris be able convince voters that those same inmates should now have the right to vote? Grab your popcorn, the Democrats' performance of pandering to their party's outspoken leftist minority and their dismissal of the majority of moderate voters is both curious and highly entertaining.

In the age of consumerism, a staggering number of Americans are using credit cards and consumer lending to live beyond their means. For most people, getting out of debt is significantly harder than getting into it. My guest today shares his journey of success, setbacks and his steadfast commitment to breaking the debt chains for himself and his family. Nic, a former deputy sheriff and K9 handler had the career he always wanted but in an instant, an unexpected injury sent his career and his personal life into a tailspin. When faced with the choice between a life of remorse, regret and feeling sorry for himself, Nic chose a different path. Nic shares with us some of the highlights and low lights of his journey of personal and financial discovery. Whether your misfortune is the result of your own poor choices or simply bad luck, you can allow your situation to dictate your outcome or you can confront the opposition head on. It's a simple decision but one that leads to two very different outcomes.