Crom Carmichael Compares Mayor John Cooper and Former Governor Don Sundquist on Tax Reform Discussions

Crom Carmichael Compares Mayor John Cooper and Former Governor Don Sundquist on Tax Reform Discussions

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to compare the propaganda of former Governor Don Sundquist to that of Mayor Cooper’s effort to falsely claim disaster if the Nashville tax referendum succeeds.

Leahy: We are joined now as we almost always are, at this time of the program, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday by the original All-Star panelist, Crom Carmichael. Crom, good morning.

Carmichael: Good morning, Michael.

Leahy: Well, just for our listeners and just to remind them of why we call you the original All-Star panelist, you’ve been on the radio here in Nashville since the 1980s.

Carmichael: ’84.

Leahy: 1984, you were part of the original panel on Teddy Bart’s Round Table.

Carmichael: Well, Teddy had a show for years before he formed a panel. So I was one of the originals on his panel once he decided to have it.

Leahy: Obviously the original All-Star panelist. And I never met you until I moved to Nashville in 1991. I didn’t know anything about what was going on politically. And I listened every morning to the Teddy Bart’s Round Table.

And there was one voice of reason and logic in what was largely a bunch of Liberals. I mean, nice people, but Liberals there. And I kept listening. And there was that voice of reason and logic was Crom Carmichael. That’s why you are the original All-Star panelist.

Carmichael: Thank you.

Leahy: And we continue that tradition, by the way, with this program, because just as when I moved here and by the way, I moved from guess where?

Leahy & Carmichael: California.

Leahy: 1991. And just as I moved here and learned about Nashville and Tennessee politics by listening to Teddy Bart’s Round Table with the original All-Star panelist, Crom Carmichael.

Now today we have a wave of California refugees coming to Nashville, and they are learning about Tennessee and Nashville politics by listening to The Tennessee Star Report with the original All-Star panelist.

Carmichael: And hopefully they’re getting some insights that will help them think about Tennessee in Nashville by having a historical perspective on some of the things, which is what I want to get into when you are ready this morning.

Leahy: Well, I am ready after we talk about some fun stuff, some fun stuff Crom. Now I was out last week.

Carmichael: Having a big time.

Leahy: Going down to the beach, enjoying the beach. I love the beach. By the way, I love the waves coming in.

Carmichael: Very good.

Leahy: It comes from growing up in upstate New York, wherein the summer you would go to the lake. We didn’t go to the ocean. Too far away.

Beautiful Lakes, many of them made by glaciers. Very pristine. Not like lakes in Tennessee, which are kind of like damned muddy rivers sometimes. But nonetheless, I’ve always loved the waves, be it of a lake or of a gulf or of an ocean.

So it was a lot of fun. Now Crom, while I was away, and I’m gonna do this myself. Of course, we are big fans of the Glock Store here in Nashville. Lenny Magill, another California refugee, got sick of California who wouldn’t, by the way, moved hid headquarters here to Nashville.

And we were there at the Grand opening. Nashville Glock Store. They have graciously given us a Tennessee Star Glock 17. I think it’s about ready for you to pick it up.

Carmichael: Just about ready.

Leahy: Just about ready.

Leahy: You’re getting one. I’m buying one. And you and I are going to do some training there.

Carmichael: I’ve already started.

Leahy: So you started. We did a little shooting episode. It turned into a contest. You were better than I was.

Carmichael: I didn’t even know it was a contest.

Leahy: It wasn’t until after I discovered how much better you were than me. So that made me competitive to try to get better than you. That’s how it became a contest.

Carmichael: I got it.

Leahy: It didn’t start out that way. But, you know, I’m a little competitive. And it just riles me when somebody’s that much better than me at anything. And there you were better than me as a shooter. So they’ve invited us to come and do some training. So you did some training independent of me.

Carmichael: I’ve had a one-hour session.

Leahy: So you’re even more ahead of me.

Carmichael: With a different trainer. Not Mario. This was John. And John is a former military former police officer. A great guy and really understands firearms. And I learned some additional techniques.

We practiced on the three targets again. That’s what’s really neat about if they do out there, it’s not just a tunnel type of target.

Leahy: You watch all the cop shows and the police procedural shows. And when they go to shoot, it’s a range. It’s a very narrow range. It’s only one target. This is a shoot 270 situation. 270 degrees.

Carmichael: It’s 180. You’re having to move left Center, right, left, center, right or right, he tells you, go right, go left-center. So you got to move quickly.

Leahy: Got to be paying attention. You got to be paying attention.

Carmichael: But you also have to learn how to focus, how to focus and aim quickly.

Leahy: I thought you were quite good when I observed you. Very focused.

Carmichael: Anyway, I had a wonderful time, great instructor, and look forward to additional training sessions.

Leahy: I’m even further behind.

Carmichael: My office, by the way, it’s about a mile down the road, so that makes it very convenient.

Leahy: Well, if you wanted to be, what do they call these run and shoot competitions you could run from your office and then go and shoot.

Carmichael: At my age, I would do a brisk walk.

Leahy: We’ll have to call that a new sport. Brisk walk and shoot. We will expand our competition. It will be Mike and Crom’s brisk walk and shoot.

Carmichael: Let’s talk about what the world is going on and for our friends from out of state. I want to give a little bit of perspective as to why the idea of Mayor Cooper’s gigantic tax increase is such a terrible idea. They don’t need the money. They need discipline.

Leahy: There’s a lot of revenue coming in, but a lot of bad expenses going out.

Carmichael: Let me just give it a real simple example. Let’s say you have a ranch house. The way the tax law works here in Tennessee, and Metro has to adhere to it on property taxes, and you’ve got 150 feet frontage on the street.

Somebody will come along and buy that ranch house if it’s in a nice area and they will now pay seven or $800,000 for the house, and it’ll be a teardown. But that person who is living in that house was probably paying about $4 to 5,000 in taxes.

And then because you can’t, Metro can’t raise taxes on somebody’s house if it’s unimproved. If they improve it, I think if they were to make an addition or something like this, where they have to get a city permit, a building permit to make an addition, then the city can increase the taxes that they charge for the house.

But you get a house and somebody buys it for $800,000. They tear it down, and then they build two houses and they sell those two houses for a million five each. Well, now you have $3 million on which to tax which generates at a one percent rate to keep math pretty simple.

And then Nashville, that is close enough for this discussion. The taxes on that parcel would go from $4,000 which is what it was before the $30,000.

Leahy: That’s a big increase.

Carmichael: It’s a big increase. And we’re seeing that all across the city. So Metro’s tax revenue is increasing dramatically without a tax rate increase. And what you have is a bunch of people who are very irresponsible. And I want to go back to when Governor McWherter was Governor.

Leahy: Ned McWherter. A Democrat and a good old boy from West Tennessee.

Carmichael: And he wanted to raise taxes. And this is when the Democrats were in charge, and he wanted an income tax.

Leahy: This would be in the ’80s.

Carmichael: And he claimed that things were so bad, so bad in Tennessee that if we didn’t raise the income tax, And I think there was irony in this by April first because I remember it was April Fool’s Day.

Leahy: April Fools Day. I remember saying April Fools Day? wouldn’t he pick a different day than that? But he said April first the buses would have to stop. The school buses would have to stop.

And so this reminds me of what Mayor Cooper and his buddies are running these ads claiming about all these terrible things that will have to happen if they don’t get this massive tax increase.

So you had Governor McWherter who then said the school buses will have to stop. And low and behold, the income tax didn’t pass, and the school buses, the school buses did stop. And then a person was run over and killed in a school parking lot.

The next day, the school buses started again, which showed that what McWhorter was saying at the time was just a big, fat lie. Now, Let’s fast forward. Don Sundquist. Don Sundquist was a Republican, and he joined with the Democrats because, at that time, the Democrats still controlled the House and the Senate.

And just like Cooper, Sundquist ran for reelection, saying that an income tax would pass in this date over his dead body. When he came to Teddy Bart show, and I asked him if he was going to accommodate. (Leahy laughs)

And he did exactly what you just did. He laughed out loud. And I said, governor, I’ve supported you twice, and you fooled me. Good for you, good for you. You’re nothing but a dishonest political hack. And I said this two feet away.

Leahy: You said that to the then Governor.

Carmichael: I’d say that to the mayor because Grant Henry read the quote of what Mayor Cooper said when he was running. And by the way, when Cooper was running, he was a Councilman at large, so he had access to the whole budget.

And so when he said, we can live very nicely if we just manage our fiscal affairs, he was right. And now he’s just like Don Sundquist.

Leahy: And we’ll continue this after the rest of the break. But here I do want to give you this quote of what he said when he was at his church. John Cooper said. “You are creating a path for anarchy in Nashville, Tennessee that will not end well, all because there’s this path of a super small weaponized, kind of Trump-oriented divisiveness that enters into Nashville.” That’s what he said.

Carmichael: What a disgusting thing to say when you’re that irresponsible but not surprising. Not surprising.

Leahy: It gets worse. We’ll talk about that when we get back.

Listen to the second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professor of Law Phillip Hamburger Talks Constitutional Covenants and the Administrative Overreach by Unelected Bureaucrats

Professor of Law Phillip Hamburger Talks Constitutional Covenants and the Administrative Overreach by Unelected Bureaucrats

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed Philip Hamburger who is a Professor of Law at Columbia Law School to the newsmakers line to discuss constitutional covenants and abuses of administrative law.

Leahy: We are delighted to welcome on our newsmaker line, one of my intellectual heroes. I’ve never had a chance to interview him. But Professor of law at Columbia Law School, Philip Hamburger. A leading intellectual in America today on issues of the Constitution. Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report Professor Hamburger.

Hamburger: Thank you. It’s a great pleasure to be here. Thank you so much.

Leahy: Well, look, we have talked often on this program about the overreach of the administrative state. And you’ve talked about administrative law. You’ve written about when administrative agencies regulate us, they exercise the legislative power that the Constitution gives to Congress un-elected bureaucrats, thus displace elected representatives.

This has been a dangerous trend. You’ve written about it extensively. Can you briefly describe what kind of difficulties this is cause for our constitutional Republic?

Hamburger: Well, there are so many. I don’t know. We can take the whole program listing the problems. (Chuckles) The real danger is that we are established as a Republic in which we elect our lawmakers.

We govern ourselves. Our laws are binding on us because we consent to them through elections. And we don’t always win the election. We don’t always get our way. But we know we participate in a process in which we get to elect those who make our laws.

And the problem, of course, is that much of the law-making, in fact, I’d say about 90 percent of it these days is not made by legislators who were elected but by unelected bureaucrats. And their tastes and their interests don’t coincide with ours and even if they did, they’re not terribly responsive to our needs. So that’s a disaster.

Leahy: It’s entirely a disaster. Professor Hamburger. Crom Carmichael, our original all-star panelist and another big fan of yours has a question for you.

Carmichael: Professor, the question that I have is this. Suppose an administration came into power and I would assume it would have to be a Republic administration but they haven’t done much better on the subject that you’re addressing. (Hamburger chuckles)

But suppose one did come into power that proclaimed during the inaugural address that under this person’s administration that the practice of administrative law will be believed to be unconstitutional on its face, and that any bureaucrat who presumes that they have the power of the legislature and tries to assert that power shall be terminated. Is that legal?

Hamburger: It certainly is up to the point of termination where there are some complicated questions. But I entirely agree with you. I think this is absolutely on point. You don’t have to wait for the Supreme Court.

A President who understood the problem could, I think, quite wisely, decide simply to instruct all federal officers not to pursue administrative power at all. And by the way, I think the President has a duty to do this.

The President has a duty to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced in the highest law of the Constitution. Although the question I think constitutionally, the President should be able to fire such officers, there would be a legal battle over that.

But the President, I think, could quite easily simply insist that administrative power not be exercised. It’s complicated but possible.

Carmichael: Well, then what I think I’m hearing you say is that the laws protecting government bureaucrats are a powerful law. But if a President did assert in the inaugural address and then a bureaucrat shortly after that, I’m sure somebody would test it.

And if he fired that person, that person would then have to sue to get their job back. And the court would then resolve whether or not a bureaucrat has a power greater than that of Congress.

Hamburger: That’s right. I must say I actually have proposed something like this in the past, and I think ideally it would be done in a proclamation followed up with executive orders.

I think one would have different orders and proclamations for different agencies because in some cases it would be a clearer path than others. But constitutionally, in the end, I think the President certainly has the power to do this. The real question is whether President would have the fortitude and the wisdom to do it.

Leahy: Absolutely. You started in 2017, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and you’re using the courts to stop this administrative overreach by bureaucrats. How is that succeeding? And are you stopping this growing tide of bureaucratic power?

Hamburger: Well, as a friend told me, Rome was not burned in one night. (Leahy laughs)

Leahy: I love that line.

Hamburger: (Chuckles) Yes. I wish I had thought of it. But we are having some remarkable success with such a young organization. The New Civil Liberties Alliance now has about 20 employees who are litigating every day.

I’ll give you just one example of where I think we’re having a real effect on the ground. I just learned that the Security and Exchange Commission has greatly reduced the number of prosecutions it conducts in its own in-house administrative tribunals, these Kangaroo courts that are biased, that don’t give juries.

They now only have 12 of these proceedings. And I think that’s very much in response to our litigation against the Security Exchange Commission. Our goal is to have that effect across the administrative state.

And it’s actually very gratifying that already they’ve been forced to cut back so much at such a leading administrative agency. So I think we are having a very real effect, but we just want to keep on pushing and pushing until we restore constitutional covenants.

Leahy: We have a couple of our friends who are on the board of advisors at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, our good friend, Professor Randy Barnett from Georgetown University and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit is on your advisory board. That’s a great lineup.

Hamburger: And we are honored to have them on board. And we actually also been gratified not only by our success but also the backing we’ve had from intellectual such as these.

Leahy: Is this a 501 (c) (3) and can people donate to it?

Hamburger: That’s right. It’s a 501 (c) (3) and we’ve had a remarkable outpouring of support, some very large donations, but also small donations, but also the people, all walks of life who really get it and who realize there’s a danger. And we have a chance to overcome it.

Leahy: It’s on the web at Nclalegal.org. You can go there and hit the donate button for it. And Professor Hamburger, I want to extend an invitation to you, if you’re interested. Every October for the past five years we’ve been hosting for secondary school students a National Constitution Bee here in Tennessee.

It’s open to any student around the country. Last year Alan Dershowitz addressed the group. The winner of the Bee gets a $10,000. educational scholarship and second and third also. I want to invite you down. Come down and be one of the judges in that event.

Hamburger: I would love to do that. I’ll have to consult my wife because she is the chief administrator of this agency. (Laughter)

Carmichael: She would enjoy coming to Nashville also.

Leahy: Have you been to Nashville?

Hamburger: I have not. I have driven through it but I wasn’t able to stop.

Leahy: We are going to give you a tour of Nashville.

Carmichael: And your wife will love it.

Leahy: By the way, I know you are at Columbia Law School and you are probably paying state and city income tax. (Hamburger chuckles) I don’t know if you know this, but in Tennessee, we have no state income taxes.

Hamburger: I’m jealous. I’m very very jealous. (Laughter)

Leahy: Hey, look, will you come on again? Because as I said, you have been an intellectual hero of mine for many years. I’m just delighted to get to meet you here.

Hamburger: I would love to join you anytime. It would be a pleasure. And thank you so much. The more the word gets out of this stuff, and you guys seem to be doing a great job on that, the more we can actually restore our own self-governance. Thank you very much.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael: Bureaucracy, Banks, and Studen Loans

Crom Carmichael: Bureaucracy, Banks, and Studen Loans

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to suggest changes to the student loan program.

Leahy: Well, Crom, I just have to say what a delightful interview that was with Professor Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School.

Carmichael: I would encourage you to go ahead and invite him to come down in October and see if you can get that on the schedule. I do encourage him to bring his wife and make more than one day of it.

Leahy: And when he retires from Columbia Law School he can move his headquarters down here.

Carmichael: Well, he needs to visit first.

Leahy: But he can do that because no state income taxes. I am the biggest promoter of Tennessee. If there’s somebody who we like, we want them to come to Tennessee.

Carmichael: Yes. That’s right.

Leahy: Why wouldn’t they come to Tennessee?

Carmichael: And he’d be a great intellectual addition.

Leahy: Speaking of additions, there are some efforts out there to change the student loan program, which is an utter disaster.

Carmichael: Who’s trying to change it?

Leahy: The various Democrats.

Carmichael: How are they trying to change it?

Leahy: They want to basically forgive half of the loans to people.

Carmichael: So they want to keep making the loans they just want to be able to forgive them.

Leahy: Exactly.

Carmichael: Let’s go back and look at the history of student loan debt. When Obama became president, the student loan program was run by banks. Banks made the student loans.

And what was funny is that banks made the student loans and banks collected the student loans, and they were backed by the federal government. But the banks are the ones who made them and administered them.

Leahy: Administered them.

Carmichael: And collected.

Leahy: Banks are in that business. That’s what they do.

Carmichael: That’s what they do. There was some Democrat committee that was all upset about student loan programs so they called the CEOs of four or five of the biggest banks in the country, which would have been Citibank, Bank of America, Wells, Chase, and maybe another one.

But at least those four. And they demanded to know why they are turning down student loans (Leahy laughs) and why they won’t make a student loan. And it was a female. It might have been Maxine Waters.

Leahy: It probably was.

Carmichael: It probably was. But it said, Madam Congresswoman, or whatever you call her. We haven’t made a student loan in six years since the Obama administration took over the student loan business. (Leahy chuckles)

And our bank hasn’t. And all four of them said we haven’t made a student loan because we can’t. It’s not allowed. So at any rate, let’s look at what the results are. We’re only talking about now eight or nine years since the federal government took over making student loans.

Leahy: I have a sense of what the results are, but go ahead.

Carmichael: The total outstanding right now is $1.6 trillion. The number of borrowers is 43 million. I don’t know whether or not the borrowers include the parents as well as the students of a single loan. So I don’t know that part. But under Trump, their internal analysis said that half of those student loans would eventually default. About half.

Leahy: Yeah. That’s about right. Because what happens is it’s a bad deal. It’s a great deal for universities, but they teach things like basket weaving and gender studies, and the kids run up $100,000, $200,000 of debt, and they end up the only job they can get is being either a community activist or a cab driver.

Carmichael: Right. So I’m trying to get out here is the Biden administration has now increased the number of losses that it has identified from $15 million to $68 million. So he’s added $53 billion.

Leahy: Billion, with a b.

Carmichael: Now, but as I said, probably half of it’s gone. But here’s what’s interesting, the loans continue to be made. This is how bureaucracy works. This is the key takeaway, especially the bigger the government gets and the bigger the bureaucracy gets.

They don’t care whether or not they are doing is working. They don’t care. They only care about expanding their own bureaucracy. Now, let’s look at what the fall out of that is. And you alluded to it a while ago about what it does to the students who then go to college by getting all this debt money.

They get a lousy education and one that doesn’t help them make money once they get out of college. But more importantly, it turns college administrators into vendors to the government. They see government as their customers.

Leahy: Not the student. And the other part of this Crom, if you would chart the proliferation of student loans with the actual tuition cost of schools, the more loans to higher the cost.

Carmichael: Sure. What’s interesting about this, and let’s go back to our conversation with Professor Hamburger. And that is the next administration could turn the tables on this whole process because the universities and colleges have become woke because the federal government has told them to be woke.

And this was even under Trump. Even though Trump wasn’t the one telling them to be woke, he had a bureaucracy that was out of control and he really wasn’t able to bring it under control.

Leahy: I don’t think he realized how out of control it was, but it was. And it is.

Carmichael: It is and it will continue to be. But the next administration could change the rules and tell colleges unilaterally, I believe that when I say unilaterally, an administration could simply tell colleges and universities you can no longer get student loans unless you meet certain requirements.

And it could completely upend their curriculum and it could force their curriculums to actually teach American history the way that you and I would want it to be taught.

Leahy: You mean honestly. (Chuckles)

Carmichael: And it would re-order the list of professors that they have. You could do that, I believe. And you could also then put colleges, universities on the hook for the income that the graduates make to really force them to be better educators and not just a bunch of bureaucracies running education camps.

Leahy: Or perhaps re-education camps.

Carmichael: One or the other. We’re trying to say the same thing. But what Professor Hamburger said, you and I have talked about that for months.

Leahy: Years.

Carmichael: That’s why I asked him the question, could a president through executive order say that any bureaucrat who does such and such will be fired? And he said, well, that would have a legal problem, but it would still be tested.

Leahy: Basically he said he had put a version of your idea out there before.

Carmichael: He’s already done it.

Leahy: You independently arrived at that thought.

Carmichael: It can also apply to the places that are the beneficiaries of federal money where it’s not even a federal employee. I don’t like to use the word forced because you can’t force them

Leahy: Incentivize.

Carmichael: Incentivize is exactly right, because they can’t get the money unless they adhere to the new rules, and you’d make them adhere to the new rules quickly. That would be the key.

You’d want to up-end it and you’d want to do it quickly. And then you’d have some of your people who are assigned to, say, 50 colleges and university’s a piece and just hammer them to fix the problem.

Leahy: Crom, you are covering a note of optimism here for the future.

Carmichael: Yes, I’m excited about that.

Leahy: I’m excited about it, too, because now there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not an ongoing train. It’s actually a possibility of policies that could be implemented in the next administration that could reverse all of this.

Carmichael: There are two tunnels we’re looking at. One is the train and one is the light.

Leahy: And there’s a fork in the road. And as Yogi Berra once said…

Carmichael: Let’s take it.

Leahy: When you come to a fork on the road, take it. (Laughter) Another lame joke today.

Carmichael: My favorites. Winston Churchill and Yogi Berra. Two of the best.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael Outlines the Many Unthruths That Dr. Ibram X. Kendi Chooses as Truth While Democrats Historically Prove Racist

Crom Carmichael Outlines the Many Unthruths That Dr. Ibram X. Kendi Chooses as Truth While Democrats Historically Prove Racist

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – guest host Christina Botteri welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio who outlined several issues wrong with the 1619 Project and how it was the Democrat Party that has historically always been against minorities.

Botteri: In the studio with me, the original all-star panelist. And we were having an animated discussion over the break about a great many things. But Crom, you wanted to circle back to some of the things that we were talking about in the previous segment with Dr. Ibram Kendi. Tell us about that.

Carmichael: Dr. Kendi is a big supporter of Critical Race Theory and is a big supporter of the 1619 Project. And the 1619 Project essentially posits is that our country started in 1619 when the first Black slaves, and there were between 20 and 40 who arrived in Jamestown and that’s when the country started.

And that all of what happened since then in our country is because of slavery. And that our Declaration of Independence is because of slavery. Our Constitution is because of slavery. Our economic growth is because of slavery and all these different things.

They ascribe all that. But slavery was not unique to this geography. And I say this geography because we weren’t a country until well after that. We had to fight a war of independence to become our own country and to have our own laws, and not live under British laws.

The original slavery in this country was a British institution. It wasn’t a constitutional institution because we didn’t have a Constitution. But what they posit is that all this economic growth and everything wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for slavery, and we wouldn’t have the government institutions.

So they say that all of our government institutions are based on slavery also. Well, there was a lot of slavery in the world for hundreds of years prior to 1619. And if slavery ends up generating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, our form of government, and our robust economy, if it does all those things, then why didn’t it do it in other countries that had even more slavery?

They should even be more robust than ours. But it didn’t happen in the other countries because the 1619 proposition is fundamentally flawed in kind and Kendi promotes that as truth. When somebody gets up and promotes something that is false as truth, we call that person Anthony Fauci. (Botteri laughs)

Botteri: Duh duh duh.

Carmichael: (Chuckles) So Kendi promotes a Critical Race Theory that maintains that there is systemic racism. Now, I will argue that there is institutional racism and there’s always been institutional racism.

And the institutional racism that we’ve had has been something that the Democrat Party has pushed for 200 or 300 years. The Klu Klux Klan was at that time what Antifa is today. It was the militant wing of the Democrat Party, the Klu Klux Klan.

It’s amazing to me that Biden goes to Tulsa and says what he says, not recognizing, I guess he didn’t even know that it was the Klu Klux Klan that did in Tulsa 100 years ago and what happened to the Black business community and the Black people in Tulsa.

It was the Klu Klux Klan. The Klu Klux Klan was formed by the Democrat Party. It was exalted at many Democrat conventions during those years. The Jim Crow laws that Biden says are terrible, those are Democrat institutions.

And so here you have Kendi, who is talking about the history of our country but he completely ignores the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and is the party today that forces Black and Hispanic children to go to terrible schools.

He ignores every bit of that because he has a different agenda. And part of his agenda is to make $25,000. for each one of his speeches. So he’s a very wealthy guy and he’s a very famous guy.

The book I’m reading right now is a book about Muhammad Ali. It’s called The Left Hook That Dazed Ali and Destroyed King’s Dream. Because Ali could have chosen to support Martin Luther King. King’s dream speech was in 1963. That was the year of the dream speech. That was about the same year that Ali became a Muslim.

Botteri: After, by the way, Democrats killed the Civil Rights Act I think that would be for the second time. The Civil Rights Act was brought up by Republicans in 1957 for the first time. It took several iterations before it finally passed.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Ibram X. Kendi” by Montclair Film. CC BY 2.0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Host of ‘No Interruption’ Tomi Lahren Talks Masks, Recalls, and California’s Culture of Homelessness

Host of ‘No Interruption’ Tomi Lahren Talks Masks, Recalls, and California’s Culture of Homelessness

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  guest host Christina Botteri welcomed Fox Nation contributor and host of “No Interruption,” Tomi Lahren to the newsmakers line live from Santa Monica, California to discuss mask freedom, Gavin Newsom recall efforts, and the growing homelessness in the Golden State.

Botteri: And on the line with us right now is the one and only Tomi Lahren. Tomi, thank you so much for joining us this morning. How are you?

Lahren: I’m happy to be here. And I got to tell you guys, I’m not Nashville, Tennessee, this morning. I am in Santa Monica, California – and I got to tell you, I’m really missing some Tennessee.

Botteri: (Laughs) Oh, no! So what you’re saying is you are wearing a mask? (Laughter)

Lahren: I refuse to do that. I don’t know if anybody follows me on Twitter or on Instagram, but I think that they are well aware that I am unmasked and at full capacity at one of those things.

And you know what? I’m actually proud to say that a lot of Californians, even though they don’t officially lift their little mask mandate until June 15, a lot of Californians aren’t playing ball anymore.

So I have to say, maybe a little bit of Tennessee is rubbing off on the Golden State. I love to see it.

Botteri: Oh, that is great news. I’m serious, all jokes aside, that is great news, Tomi. Thank you for sharing that. That kind of makes me glad, because it is a beautiful place, Santa Monica and all of California, for that matter, it really is.

And to just be all hold up. Can we just talk about it for one little second, what a weird sensation it is to wear these dumb masks? Because when you’re at the airport, that’s like a whole other thing.

When you’re on an airplane, but your vision is cut off, your breathing is off. Just everything about it is the worst. I mean, I suppose there are worse things in the world, but not many.

Lahren: (Chuckles) I’ve been calling it a face diaper for about a year-and-a-half-now. But here’s the thing. And this is what I tell people, and I understand it. And this has long been my approach to it.

If a private business or an employer wants to require masks, as we know, I’m all about that. They have the right to do that, and we have the right, not to patronize those establishments. So I fully understand that their right to do it.

But when the government and as we had, as you guys know, in Nashville, when we have the government putting a mask mandate in place, that’s where I draw the line. And I for a long time said this, even when we were in Nashville under that mask mandate and when I would travel outside of the airport, I would say, listen, I’m not going to wear a mask.

If someone wants to approach me and tell me to wear a mask will have a little discussion. But it’s funny when you go unmasked, it’s like people look at you and now they finally feel like they cannot wear a mask because they were just waiting for that one person to be the first one to say, I choose freedom.

And they’ll look at you in relief. And they’ll say, oh, thank goodness. I’m taking my mask off, too. And that’s, my friends, is how we start changing things.

Botteri: I love it, Tomi. You’re totally right.

Carmichael: Tomi, this is Crom. Do you have any thoughts since you’re out there in the middle of California, what’s your sense being on the ground out there, the recall of Gavin Newsom?

Lahren: I have been somebody who’s gone after Gavin Newsom for several years. I used to live here in LA. I lived here for three years, and I became very invested in California politics. And I’ll tell you, the recall is going to happen.

I believe that it will be successful. And Gavin Newsom, for those that aren’t familiar with California and California politics, all the bad policies that have been adopted by the Biden administration, those policies were tested and failed here in California.

And that’s what becoming nationalized, even in Nashville with our Mayor, who I call John ‘Chicken’ Cooper. A lot of the failed policies that he would implement and the taxations that he would use to get out of his own problems.

Those are all ideas that started here. And Californians on the left and the right, because this recall is not just a Republican recall. There are not enough Republicans in California to accomplish what they accomplished with those recall signatures.

These are Californians standing up and saying, you know what? We’re tired of the tyranny, we’re tired of the infringements, you shut us down needlessly. Other states stayed open. Tennessee being one of them, that kind of was able to stay somewhat open.

Florida, obviously my home state of South Dakota. So Californians are looking at their leaders, saying, no more, buddy. And I believe it’s going to be successful. They will get rid of Gavin Newsom.

Carmichael: If they get rid of Gavin Newsom, that’ll be an earthquake in the political world. And I hope you’re right for the sake of Californians. I was looking at an article for the amount of shoplifting in California since California changed the law that you have to shoplift $950 or more each time in order for it to be a felony.

The businesses like Walgreens are shutting locations left and right because their store shells are just being destroyed by vagrants. And actually, now organized crime that goes in and you’ll have a flash mob, and they’ll each steal $500, $800 bucks apiece and walk out.

Lahren: Oh, that’s 100 percent true. And for those in Tennessee that are listening, I know that this seems like a California problem. But be warned, when you start having what they call realignment laws and reclassification where they take what used to be felonies, and they re-classify them as misdemeanors.

This is exactly what happens. And I’ll tell you, this. I’m staying in Santa Monica. And we’re going out to Venice later. I was in Venice yesterday. It’s absolute filth. It’s tents lining the streets, and these people here have become so emboldened that they believe they can do whatever it is that they want.

And it’s those felon-friendly laws that give them that courage to be able to do that. That is happening in California. It’s been happening in California for years. And you’ve already got police department’s here that have been defunded.

And now they’re struggling to refund because they realize what a bad idea it was. But it all comes from those policies. And Tennessee beware because a lot of Californians are fleeing to Tennessee, but they’re bringing their voting records and their voting tendencies with them.

So we got to keep our ears perked up and pay attention to those things as they come in because we do not want to California our Tennessee.

Carmichael: Tomi, what we’ll have to do here in Tennessee is set up re-education camps. (Laughter) Now I have a question for you because you’re on the ground out there and you’ve lived there for three years.

Why do the people of Venice, for example, because I’ve seen the videos and it is absolutely just the only word I can think of that even comes close to it is just absolutely just disgusting. What has gone on there?

Why do the local people vote, the mayor and the city council back into office? Why do they do that?

Lahren: You know, it’s a culture in Venice when they look at homelessness. But just being out there and we’re going to go out there later today and talk about it and talk to some individuals. But people are upset with it.

They don’t like it. I’m looking at these businesses that are finally being able to reopen in Venice and these restaurants. And I was saying yesterday, I can’t imagine going to eat at one of those restaurants because there’s homeless everywhere.

I’m not kidding you. When you step out of the car in Santa Monica or Venice, the smell of pee is so overwhelming that it’s disgusting. I couldn’t even eat outside. And walking outside, it’s disgusting. And it’s a culture that they’ve fostered here.

But not only that, it’s gotten so bad and the lawlessness has gotten so bad that they are homeless people who are actually dealing drugs out of their tents and lighting other homeless people’s tents on fire because they’re having turf wars within their encampments on the boardwalk.

And that’s what average, everyday law-abiding California they’re supposed to walk and run through? I’m telling you, it’s like a third-world country here.

Botteri: I’ve been there and it was there many, many years ago now and walked the boardwalk that you alluded to. And for everybody who’s not been there, you basically have the street and then a row of beach houses and other types of residences and businesses and stuff.

So buildings, basically. And then a broad sidewalk. A big cement sort of sidewalk path that follows the beach line. And then on the other side is the sand. You’ll some workout areas and other sorts of pop-up types of vendors and stuff.

And then you get to the beach proper and then the ocean. And that’s kind of how it goes. And so this is a relatively small area when I was there, Tomi and this was, like 20 something years ago. This was a long time ago because I’m an old lady. (Chuckles)

There were all kinds of panhandling, all kinds of vendors. And they were all mixed up together. And it was back then just kind of an aggressive and very obviously a cultural choice of that area to allow this to tolerate this behavior.

And so I can only imagine what you’re describing now and what these tents are they like on the other side. Basically, you’ve got the buildings and then the sidewalk, and then they’re on the other side of the sidewalk. So people are kind of pinned in into this gore point?

Lahren: Oh no,  they line everything. They’re in the middle of the beach. They are next to the sidewalk there next to all different sidewalks. They are next to the boardwalk there on the boardwalk, there is no area where you will not find tents and trash, and makeshift living areas.

I was walking through there yesterday, and I tell you, I was walking through at 8:30 in the morning. Had it been later in the evening, there’s no way I would have gone down there. But looking in these tents there are people in there.

And, of course, they’re passed out. But the number of things that they have accumulated in these tents, these are tent cities. And for people to understand this is not just Venice. This is not just Santa Monica. This is California!

This is everywhere here. It’s in San Diego. It’s for sure. In San Francisco, it is everywhere in this state. It is a culture of homelessness. And I know that other states have dealt with this as well. I know in Austin, Texas, they shot down people’s ability to really reside in their tents like it was a dwelling.

And they did the same thing in Colorado, in Denver. But if that ever comes to Tennessee, I’m telling you, we’ve got a homeless population that’s certainly growing. And it’s not a culture we want to foster.

Of course, we want to make sure that these people are taking care of. But I’ll tell you this that people don’t understand going back to your point on crime, I’ve done a lot of research on this.

A lot of these individuals that are here at homeless, of course, some are down on their luck. Some have mental illness addiction and some are veterans. And of course, we put those people in a different classification.

There’s also a lot of individuals that come to California from other states because they’re either just transients, vagrants or they are sex offenders and felons from other states that come to California because they do not have to re-register sex offenders here, and they want to live their life on beachfront property in the lawlessness.

Botteri: Wow.

Lahren: That has Californians terrified.

Botteri: It’s a terrible situation, and it’s got to be better. There is a great commentary at The Tennessee Star. It’s a deep dive into the homelessness industrial complex. I highly recommend that you read that. It’s fascinating.

Tomi Lahren, thank you so much for joining us. I hope you come back soon. Stay safe; stay well, there, while you’re in California. We’ll talk to you again soon.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Tomi Lahren” by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.