Welcome back! After our brief break, we’re diving right back into thought-provoking topics and practical life takeaways — always with our signature approach: conversational, critical, and rooted in common sense. Here's a look at what stood out this week.

On This Day in History: Lessons from Lewis & Clark

Did you know that on September 23, 1806, the Lewis & Clark expedition returned to St. Louis? Their harrowing journey, guided in no small part by Sacagawea’s ingenuity and a miraculous family reunion, remains a lesson in perseverance and the hidden power of coincidence (00:16). If you’re looking to be inspired, check out Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose — and keep an eye out for the upcoming TV series!

Takeaway: Seemingly small connections and acts of resourcefulness can change the course of history — and our own journeys.

The Power (And Peril) of Speech: Freedom or Treason?

A big question this week: At what point does the freedom to criticize become dangerous? We explored how America’s openness to dissent can be both its strength and, as some fear, its Achilles' heel (12:05). From debates over the limits of free speech in the White House press room to university campuses, we considered how essential protected dissent is to democracy—but also the risks of undermining our own foundations.

Takeaway: Free speech is vital, but it requires balance, vigilance, and, above all, a commitment to respectful discourse—even when we disagree.

Foreign Policy & National Security: Strength or Bravado?

We took a close look at why some world leaders, past and present, choose bold—sometimes controversial—language and strategies (06:27). From the U.S.–Saudi oil partnership of 1933 (04:37) to Trump’s “annihilate” rhetoric at the UN, we considered: Is it bluster, or is there a method to the madness? And what’s the cost when actions don’t match words—or when policy lags behind public concerns, like with high diesel prices and energy independence?

Takeaway: In today’s world, words and actions matter. National security (and our pocketbooks) depend on steady, strategic leadership—not just headlines.

Harper CPA Plus on website

Democracy, Ideals, and Reality: Can Perfection Be Legislated?

Reflecting on philosophical and spiritual lessons, we asked: Can government force us to be “good”? Or is striving for virtue ultimately a personal journey (27:05)? The conversation touched on current political divides, youth idealism, and how lasting change must come from within.

Takeaway: Genuine change starts at home and in our communities. Perfection is elusive, but honest effort toward it benefits us all.

Heroes & Zeros of the Week

• Hero: Gavin Newsom (“If Kamala runs, he won’t!”) — for making political chess a bit more interesting (55:22).
• Zero: Politicians late to the data center debate. As the practical consequences hit local communities, the lesson is clear: Proactive, community-minded planning beats reactive policy every time (56:49).

Thanks for tuning in! For resources mentioned and to catch every thoughtful debate, visit us at commonsenseohioshow.com—and don’t forget to share the podcast with friends who value informed, commonsense discussion.

Until next week — keep looking forward, the common sense way!

Recorded at the 511 Studios, in the Brewery District in downtown Columbus, OH.

[email protected]

Stephen Palmer is the Managing Partner for the law firm, Palmer Legal Defense. He has specialized almost exclusively in criminal defense for over 26 years. Steve is also a partner in Criminal Defense Consultants, a firm focused wholly on helping criminal defense attorneys design winning strategies for their clients.

Norm Murdock is an automobile racing driver and owner of a high-performance and restoration car parts company. He earned undergraduate degrees in literature and journalism and graduated with a Juris Doctor from the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 1985. He worked in the IT industry for two years before launching a career in government relations in Columbus, Ohio. Norm has assisted clients in the Transportation, Education, Healthcare, and Public Infrastructure sectors.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

Copyright 2026 Common Sense Ohio

I know you need it. I do too. Your weekly dose of common sense

back after a couple-week hiatus. Yours truly in a jury trial.

We have real jobs. Um, Norm out racing the world, taking on

the all-comers. It is September 23rd, 2026. This

day in history, Norm, Lewis and Clark returned. Oh, wow.

Um, there's 2 interesting things that happened in history. Lewis and Clark returned from their

expedition out to the Pacific Northwest. Um, which was kind of

a miracle. A miracle, right? Cross the Mississippi, go, uh, they returned to

St. Louis. A lot of unfriendly situations. I mean,

yeah, I mean, really. And anybody, there's a great book by, I think, Stephen Ambrose

called Undaunted Courage. I read that long ago, but well worth

a read. Now turned into a TV series. Oh, is it really? Yeah. Gonna come

out. I didn't know that. Yeah. I didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, look,

even more relevant then. See, I'm relevant. I don't even know that I'm relevant. Hey,

you are. But they traveled up the Missouri River in 6

canoes and 2 longboats, wintered in the Dakotas. I mean, what's a little

mild winter up in the Dakotas? Before crossing into Montana where

they first saw the Rocky Mountains on the other side of the Continental Divide. They

were met by Sacagawea's tribe, the Shoshone Indians,

who sold them horses for the journey down through the Bitterfoot Mountains

after passing through the dangerous rapids of the Clearwater and snake rivers across in

canoes, they reached the calm of the Columbia River, which led them to the sea.

So, I mean, the most amazing thing you just

glanced off there, but if, if you read Ambrose's book

and dig into Sacagawea, that whole thing is a

flipping miracle. Yeah. So, so I, I don't know if you can, if you

know this, but, and I just found out, you know, recently

Sacagawea was married off or captured or

something to a completely different tribe than this

Shoshone. When Lewis and

Clark— I mean, her— so here she is, she's pregnant or,

or just had a baby, and she's on this expedition. She's a young girl.

It's completely bizarre that they would even have her along. It

doesn't make any sense, right? It makes no sense, but they have her along. And

the key moment is she is long separated

from her relatives in the Shoshone tribe. Like, we're talking

several states away. Like, she's, she's from like

Minnesota area. Yeah, and probably what, like in teens? Yes.

I mean, imagine the age of these people and compare them to what our, our

youth are doing. But she's like thousands of miles, or

at least hundreds of miles away from her, her

relatives. And Lewis and Clark meet these Shoshones.

They're, they're, they're starving, their horses are done, they

need supplies. And these Shoshones are viewing them as

aliens that probably need to get killed. Yeah. Like, like, you know,

no, we're not buddies with you. She waddles up and goes, oh,

my long-lost brother or cousin or whatever it is. She

recognizes her old family They recognize her.

They have this big love-in, uh, you know, embrace.

And, and, and then she starts negotiating and, and

relieves all of the tension. They get, they get the ponies, they get

the food, they get more guides in. She ends up

staying with them, I think, and not proceeding on with the

rest of the expedition. And it, it's just,

it's one of those like one in a million

kind of encounter. Yeah, it shouldn't have happened. It's like

by God's will only, you know. Like Jefferson would have

sent Lewis and Clark off and we would have never heard from them again. Yeah,

scalped and dead somewhere in the Rockies, right? Yeah, just— Or just dead, frozen

dead in the Dakota tundra. Yeah, and then what? No

Louisiana Purchase, or I don't know. Like, I don't know what would have happened

out of that. Really incredible. It's, it's unbelievable. Really incredible. And

I, I— So she deserves that dollar. She does. She does, right? And

for those who haven't read the, the Wilderness Tales, Alan Eckert's book, it talks about

young Lewis and Clark, I think, a little bit in some of those books. Oh,

cool. Uh, really interesting stuff. The other thing that happened, which is historically significant

on this day, on September 23rd, 19— let's get a year for Lewis and

Clark, by the way. Uh, that was— I don't think we ever said the year.

1806. Yeah, a little later than I thought it was. And they actually were

penetrating into like Spanish territory. Like

they were going into another country's— Invading.

Yeah. So in 1933, a party of American geologists lands

where? At the Persian Gulf port of Jubail in Saudi

Arabia and begins its journey into the desert where we eventually

stake our claim. Standard Oil stakes its claim and The rest, as

we say, is history. Yeah. Aramco and all that came

out of all that. Partnership between Abdelaziz's government and Standard Oil

became known as the Arabian American Oil Company, Aramco.

Texaco soon joined the partnership. Why not? About a decade later.

And eventually we have the war in

Iran. Kind of what Trump is doing in Venezuela.

Like, real. Yeah. And what Trump said is like, we found it there anyway, not

you guys. Yeah. I don't know if that's how it was either way,

but yeah. Yeah, right. We'll help you exploit it. Yeah.

And you'll get to share in the benefits. But, you know, obviously,

you know, US companies need some sort of security that you're not

going to nationalize all this oil infrastructure and steal

it from us. Right. You know, so

interesting stuff. Well, Steve,

I mean, this is— let's be more philosophical today rather than

news-oriented. So I love that

there's this big controversy that Trump used the word

annihilate at the UN, right? So, so

he presents this either this or

that kind of vision of the future for

Iran. Okay. On one hand, you know, we can annihilate you

guys. On the other hand, you can change your ways.

and decide to join the rest of the

non-terrorist countries of the world.

And you can metamorphose

into, you know, this huge— I mean, the people in

Iran are brilliant. They're brilliant engineers. They've always— the

Persians have always been the vanguard of

human knowledge. I mean, when Europeans were crawling around in

caves, Persia, you know, was leading in

astronomy and mathematics and chemistry. I mean, really,

I didn't know that. Yeah, I mean, it was like ancient Alexandria in

Egypt at the time, you know, the Library in Alexandria,

you know. And in, in Europe, Britons and Frenchies were, you know,

they were in loincloths throwing spears. I mean, really,

the Near East, the, the, the, the the old,

centuries-old Middle East was a bastion

of human advancement. And Trump is saying, you guys could do that again.

You could be one of the world's great countries. And he used the

word annihilate. And I, you know, I'm thinking back to Winston

Churchill where, you know, he's nose to nose with Hitler,

right? And he says, you know, we're gonna fight you on the beaches, we're gonna

fight you in the air, we're gonna fight you on land, we're gonna fight you

at sea. we're never going to give up. We're never, you know, like, to the

last British person, we're going to

fight you, you know, with every breath. And, and

I, I guess what I don't understand is a country that

sanctioned this horrible attack on October the

7th, where they, they throw babies in ovens and they do all this

horrible stuff and, and, and blow up the Marine

barracks and, and kill several hundred Marines in

Lebanon, and, and all the other roadside IEDs,

which, you know, our Marine friends know very well all

about that, including here in Columbus. Mhm. Like,

why aren't the Iranian mullahs viewed as

like Hitlers? And why aren't we— why, why do words like

annihilate, which we can use in regards to a

Hitler or a Tojo, Why is that

so outrageous to say?

I know it's bravado, but so what? Well, look, some of it's

Trumpian bravado. Some of it's like, look, we're going to annihilate you, or you could

be our friends. I don't care either way. And he probably doesn't. He probably does.

But it's like he does. But what he's trying to say is,

look, we don't want to fight you anymore, but we will. But why

politically is there such a backlash? You know,

there's this movement that has been instilled in

our country going way back.

And we've taught our country to hate itself. We've taught our country to

sympathize with its enemies. And you hear the El-Sayed saying, well, hurt people

do hurt things. It doesn't justify anything that happened on October 7th or

whatever that was. Yeah. It doesn't justify any of it. And people are saying,

Whatever it is, people are now sympathizing somehow with the

terrorists who want us to die. Yeah. We deserved

it. Because we deserved it. And some of it has to do

with, well, it's because we're beholden to the Israelis only.

And I argue with people all the time. It's like, look, 2 things can be

true here. We have a common enemy. We have a common

enemy. One of them says, we want you guys to die. Right.

We want to take you off the face of the planet, instill Sharia law, and

be done with you, and be done with the West forever. You know, join Allah

or die. Right. And the other has its own problems. Yes, its

own evils. Like Zelensky in Ukraine. He's not a perfect

ally. Correct. He banned opposition parties and stuff like

that. So he's not perfect. So both things can be true. Yes,

both things can be true. And we have to, you know, the world's not this

perfect place, and we don't get to come hide in our country anymore. We don't,

but we've opened up the borders to this. I've always wondered about this. I'd be

curious, and this is philosophical, right? It's

not— Right. But I've always wondered at what point, you know, Marx said,

I probably said this here before, Marx said, a capitalistic society contains

the seeds of its own destruction. And what he was trying to say

is, well, eventually the working class is gonna rise up and

overturn the capitalists. Well, that never happened. But to some extent, he's true.

It's true because we have the, and it's not just capitalism, it's our brand of

it. It's our brand of freedom contains the seeds of its own destruction because we

let let opposition in to

speak against us. Yes. And we let people come in

and disseminate, uh, a message.

Yeah. To our youth. We're a free speech society. Yeah. And we've let that in.

So we've taught our youth that America is bad. Right. And you see it on

YouTube. I see these people interviewed on YouTube. Like, our standard of living right now

is better than it's ever been in the entire world history. No question. And

these people who hate our country are doing so on their

$1,500 iPhones and with

unlimited data. Using data centers. Right,

using data, right. And you can make an argument that maybe

we have too many data centers, I don't know, but you can't,

you know, so, but somehow that message has come true. So we have let that

in. So the seeds of our destruction is that we let other people

outwardly speak against our government. We consider that sacred. Right. Right? You

have the right to do that. Absolutely. And we'll defend it. So, but when does

it cross the line and become treason? When is it treason to say we want

to take down the American government and fundamentally change it forever? I don't know

the answer to that. It's a philosophical question. And you can't say, but you can't

even bring that up now without being called xenophobic or

whatever, you're racist, whatever. But back to your question, like, why is it bad?

Because we've let into our ideology the

notion that we deserve it. Yeah, well, I'll never forget, you know,

there's been a lot of outrageous things said at the UN, and

I'll never forget, you know, I was in college, I think,

when this happened. I don't— Steve, you might have been a gleam in your father's

eye, I, I don't know, uh, or, or a little

crumb cruncher at the time, but, um, we—

there, there's an age difference. But I remember when Yasser Arafat,

who is head of the PLO, addressed the UN and he was wearing

pistols. He was at the microphone with

holsters that had pistols in them, right? And

he's— obviously at the time they were

hijacking aircraft. They were, they were, they were— the

PLO was hijacking aircraft and flying them

to Cuba where somehow Castro would welcome them.

And it was part of this whole communist— socialist, well, we're going to

liberate Palestine somehow by hijacking

airplanes. Yeah. And of course, they blew up some, they killed some of

the passengers. You know, they, they, the Germans took

one to Uganda in support of the Palestinians. It's so

bizarre. All of this crazy stuff, very violent. And we

let those people speak at the UN. But Trump uses the word

annihilate And it's the end of the world somehow. But it's interesting

though. I mean, I listen to Victor Davis Hanson a lot and some other,

some other thinkers. Well, he's brilliant. I think are uncontaminated by this stuff.

Yeah. And, you know, he's a little bit more

optimistic about this. He's saying, look, there's a, there's a pushback that's

underpinning all that's sort of gurgling up

in Europe. You're starting to see a pushback on open

immigration. Yeah. In Germany. In Germany, for sure. For sure. You just start to get

to the point where when is enough enough? Yeah. And,

you know, we're— look, if you outwardly say to a country like

the United States of America that has done nothing but offer you

a peaceful hand— That's right. I mean, even through all the craziness, there's been

wars, I get it. But eventually we're going to just

annihilate you. We can say we're going to annihilate you or come join us either

way. Yeah. Part of what Carter did when he had the

when he had the peace agreement between the

PLO and Israel,

well, it was Egypt and Israel at Camp David.

But part of that was we even funded

humanitarian funding for the PLO. Just what you

said. We reached out and said, okay, you

hijacked our airplanes, you've killed people, you've bombed, you know,

the Marines, you've done all this horrible stuff, and yet

we still want to have peace so badly

that we're reaching across the divide to at least feed or

provide medicine for your people. Yeah, because that's what our country's always done.

It's always done. That's right. And, and we do that in Burma.

We do that with a lot of countries that hate us. Yeah. And now

And now the easy trope is, well, it's the Jews, right? So you guys are

just hijacked by the Jews. By the Jews, right. And you don't know any better.

Yeah. And to that I say, well, look,

we still have this common enemy, so let's at least deal with that. Right. And

I guess they would say in response, well, the only reason you're enemies to them

is because of the Jews. And I would say to that, well, look,

maybe, but they're saying they want us dead. And

they— in our way of government, our tolerant

government, our tolerant freedoms, uh, they don't

want that. You have to, you have to see it there. They want their own

theocracy instilled worldwide. That's, that's their, that's

their mantra. When we had that author in here, Mr. Patankin.

Yeah. Uh, and we had him in here and, um, and, and

we discussed his book. There was a very sympathetic

American Jew who has a lot of friends that

are Palestinians, obviously a lot of friends that are

Israelis. Mm-hmm. And he wrote a straight down the middle

kind of snapshot of what life was like

in the Gaza Strip after those, the atrocities.

And it's pretty clear to me

that if I'm a Palestinian leader, Why would I

antagonize intentionally and, and, and commit

atrocities or sanction them or even celebrate them if I had

no planning in it whatsoever? Why would I

celebrate something like that, uh, against Benjamin

Netanyahu, whom, whom I have a lot of disagreements with?

Sure. I, I don't think Netanyahu's a great guy, but, but

why would you take on the Israeli army and

obviously trigger that response where he just decimates

the Gaza Strip in response to that attack. You know

what's going to happen, so you must not care about your own people. Well, they

don't, because— or who knows? I can't say what they care about or they don't

care about, but what you're saying is they had to have known. They had to

have known what the reaction was. So is it just that they're so naive that

they think that they can beat us in a conventional war? No. I don't know,

but I think they think they can beat us long-term in an intellectual war.

Yeah. And they're winning on some front. Maybe. You're, you're right.

Americans do get tired. We do get, we do get worn out. And

Patton ran into that after World War II where he's like, you know, the Russians—

Right now's the time, guys. You know, and, and then in America, we, hey,

we're done. And then 20 years later, Khrushchev is saying he's going to bury us,

right? So, right. Yeah. And then Korea. They, they tried

very hard to bury us. Yeah. So, you know, I, I don't know.

Uh, one of the things, Steve, that the 9/11 Commission said that just

always comes back to me is

that we knew that radical

Islam from various countries— but basically it's those in

favor of this caliphate that would take over the world.

So you're talking about ISIS, you're talking about

Osama bin Laden. The radical fraction. The radical factions of it. Factions,

whether they're Shia or not, either one,

that they were at war with us. They tried

to bring down the World Trade Center

under Bill Clinton and failed. And they

succeeded later on with airplanes. And it's, it's like

9/11 Commission said, they were at war with us.

We were too naive or we were

too complacent to realize that we should have been at war with them.

Yeah. I mean, you know, it's like when somebody is attacking you

and you go, you know, it's kind of like the bully. So you played football

and there's a guy in the locker room that thinks he's all that. And

either the other guys put him in his place and say, hey, you're just another

member of this team, right? You're not running this show. We don't care if you're

the 350-pound, you know, offensive lineman.

You're not going to throw your weight around in this locker room. That's right. We'll

pile on. We'll kick your ass. You can't talk to this guy like, like the

way you're talking because you're going to ruin the team spirit. And,

and, you know, Either we understand that we are

at war and that we're being bullied and that we're in

jeopardy, or it's irresponsible.

It's suicidal. Well, and, but—

Not to recognize it. But it's a little more, it's grayer than that, right? Because

even back then, I think there was this notion that somehow from the far left

at the time, it was somehow we deserved it. We're not, but

now there's a whole generation of people that think that. They actually now think that.

It's become more mainstream. Yeah. And it's actually those people are getting

elected to run our government. It's a scary thought. Yeah.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I think we talked about this on the show

last, last show. So they're going to try the

mastermind of 9/11, right? He's going to be

tried in a US military court. I think in Gitmo is where they

have the trial, because if they bring him to the

United States, all sorts of civil rights will attach. So

they're going to try him in a military tribunal, but this military

judge has just thrown out all of his confession.

This is 20— so I think they're going to try him. They're, they're

projecting the trial start in 2028, which will be

27 years after. Isn't that crazy,

dude? It's crazy. And it's— we're, we're giving

him They're saying, well, his confession was

compelled by waterboarding, so that's out.

And he's getting all the benefits of this—

Of a Western civilization notion of justice.

And he would kill us tomorrow. They would kill— this,

folks, is what makes our country better than all the others, because

we will do that for people. I teed this up for a defense attorney. Come

on, man. But, well, look, I mean it. This is— I know you mean it,

and it is true. It is true. I agree with you. That the people that

want to kill us, we will give them quarter and the same rights and protect—

maybe not identical, but we didn't have to do that. No.

You know, we could have captured this guy and just killed him. And just called

it a war. Yeah, that's right. And justified it 100 ways from Sunday,

whatever the saying is. Look, he's running. Boom. Right, look, done. But we

don't, and we've done some bad stuff, just like everybody's done some bad stuff. But

by and large, in the main, we don't treat even our enemies that

way, even though they would treat us that way. Yeah. There was a

Nuremberg trial. Yep. Adolf Eichmann was tried in

Israel, and he was provided with defense counsel, and they

had a trial. And it might've been a little bit of a kangaroo. The outcome

may have been predetermined. Who knows? Yeah, but the evidence was pretty strong.

It was important for us to at least make it, at least

go through the motions. I'm trying to think the right way. At

least offer some semblance of due process. Well, some guys

did not get hung. Some guys did not. Albert Speer. And the

other side, had they have won, it would've just been an execution squad without any

due process. Yeah, right. But for us, it's important, right? Absolutely.

And on posts, on pikes in the public street. And I mean, Albert

Speer was later released. I mean, he was the

minister of armaments, Hitler's architect. Architect. And he

used all kinds of slave labor in those rocket tunnels. You

know, prisoners of war and ethnic

slaves died by the tens of thousands building

V-2s and V-1s in caves. Yep. They worked until

they dropped. And you're like, okay, you'd let him out?

You know, and then he wrote books and kind of became a celebrity.

I mean, it's— yeah, it's Wernher von Braun. Yeah. I mean,

the guy who ran NASA was the guy who invented the

V-2, for God's sake. Yeah. And there's a lot that we get— there's a lot

of historical criticism on that. Like, yeah, you guys are all

Nazis, are bad, except for the rocket scientists. We'll bring you— you guys can become

citizens. Right. And Walt Disney even like, uh, papered

over von Braun. I mean, you know, there were specials on how

wonderful the American space program— and it was wonderful, but

yeah, some unsavory people were involved for sure. Yeah. Now

look, we don't— we're— maybe it's this: those who would—

it's, it's usually the youth, right? But that's what scares me, that it's not just

the youth anymore. Maybe the youth are getting older and they still believe it. Yeah.

Is that they want to operate on this, on this idea

of what they think the world should be instead of what it is. Right. They're

very idealistic. No question.

And maybe my religion and my faith

informs this, but I sort of start with the notion that, look,

perfection here is unattainable on this earth, on this earth with

humans. It's unattainable. And if you don't believe me because of my faith, then

look at it from a non-Christian standpoint. Like, who's been perfect

here, folks? Like, what— like, you think that you're going to be able to usher

in perfection, right, after all these thousands of years? That you

can do it, right? Um, if only, if only you had the power to do

it, right? And the youth tend to think that, well, we deserve it. We're not

perfect. We should be this, we should be that, we should be that. But it

always leads to inconsistencies. It always, right? So at some point—

You're so right. There's no bottom to it. The rabbis

that were against Jesus,

what that particular— The Pharisees. The Pharisees, they thought they'd trap

him by saying, well, you know, look at this contradiction

where, you know, you're in the real world with Caesar. And

Jesus said, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Yeah, so here you go. Give it

to Caesar. Yeah, you know. Whose face is on their coin? Even Jesus, the Son

of God, recognized that we live in a, in a, in an

imperfect world. And, and there's this reality that

there are dictatorships or that there is a power struggle

that is, you know, of this earth, but

that your idealism, your spirit, your

personal behavior, it can be above and

outside that. It has to be. I had a buddy Very

close friend of mine was sending me, and we don't agree politically. Yeah.

Contrary to what he thinks though, we probably agree more than he thinks. But some

of these people that were sort of these traditional Democrats are

now starting to wake up a little bit. They sure are. Yeah. But sent me

this Facebook post and one of his, and it was about the El-Sayed election

in Michigan and that primary, something about that. And he sent me this

Facebook post where somebody had made some comment

about the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount or

whatever it was, Christ preaching. And he goes, look, all

these people on the right, they should read the Bible that they preach, whatever it

is. And he couldn't have been— they couldn't have been more wrong. It's

not that— see, but it's not that Christ was saying governments should

force us to act this way. Exactly. It has to come from here.

And it's still impossible, right? You're right. And but we strive for that

perfection so eventually we can be at the kingdom of God. You know, it's like,

yes, it's like we strive to that. We strive for perfection, but it's still

unattainable in this world. And he was pointing out that. Yeah, right. He was

pointing that stuff out. And here these people take that Bible verse and sort of

try to spin it and say, right, therefore give us the power of the government

to make it so nobody hates gay people. So nobody hates—

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than

for a rich man to get into That's right. God's kingdom. And so they

take that and warp it into, oh, so let's strip

all the rich people of everything they own, and then that way they can get

into heaven. Yeah. No, that's not what Jesus meant. That's not what he meant at

all. Right. That's not what he meant at all. He didn't mean compel other

people. He didn't mean strip them of what they

own. And that's your sacrifice, right?

That's not your personal sacrifice. It's not. It's never theirs, right? It's never theirs.

They're not giving their money up. No, no, no. Bernie has several mansions. He's,

he's a multi-millionaire. All you got to do is write your own book. You'll get,

you get rich too. Well, uh, we should

talk a little bit about $7 diesel. This is another thing

that, that gets in my craw. So the same

party that wants $10 a gallon gasoline, that

banned coal, that killed the XL Pipeline,

that wants to force us into EVs, that

banned nukes and has nanny

thermostats in our homes, that's the party

that's complaining about high diesel prices? I mean, gimme a break.

Well, it's anything, any port. And look, the reason that the Iranians

are doing this stuff is because they know the midterms are coming up.

And this is a huge hotbed topic. Look, I mean, it's bad. Well,

Republicans are turning on Trump. Yes, it's bad. No question. It's bad. It is

bad. I mean, I don't like paying $7 diesel and I just had to

buy a bunch for my, for my Bobcat. Yeah. So it's, yeah,

it's a lot of money. Now I make a value judgment

and I go, well, the other side really doesn't want to help me with high

diesel. And this is a temporary thing until we

solve the Strait of Hormuz. Then maybe we should probably— I'd be

curious. Let's chop this up a little bit. Yeah. So under Biden, we had higher

fuel prices Not because a war in Iran,

right? But because— A policy. Because of policy that he implemented

here that had no determinate end. No. So, you know,

more regulation on the oil producers, more regulation on the refineries, more relation—

more regulation on exploration, more regu— shut down the pipeline. So,

right, whatever it is, like, so that's going to drive prices up, right?

And, and force people to do what They wanted us to— the

dreamers want, want everybody, oh, get on a COTA bus. Get on a bus,

right? Live, live, live in the urban areas. Yeah. Move back from the rural

areas. Yeah. You know, into the central city, live in a

rabbit warren, you know, that's, you know, 29 stories. We can

control your power, we control your water, we control utilities, and we control everything. And

we'll give you a little bike lane. Yeah. You can, on a winter day, you

can bicycle down to the courthouse, Steve, and get Completely soaked.

Now, that said, well, I've said it here

100 times,

the bigger concern for me has always been, we,

meaning we can't let the lunatics take over. Now, people say, well,

Trump's a lunatic, but I would say worse, worse are the

El-Saids, the AOCs, that faction. The midterms

are more important Then that could have— Iran could have waited, I

think. Yeah. Um, but there are some strategic mistakes that

I think Trump has made, no question. And he seems not to care, or at

least he says he doesn't care. And I— and what he's doing with Canada right

now in this trade war, it's like, look, yeah, the timing of a lot of—

why are we monkeying with that right now? Look, drink your Molsons or whatever, who

cares? You know, it's like, it just seems so foolish right now.

And I understand there might be a reason behind it that makes some sense, Right,

on a particular— in a, in, in this little pigeonhole.

But we're— we have a bigger picture here. And, you know, now Trump's fighting a

faction within his own party. He's fighting the other party, fighting everything. So the

House— I don't know if you, um, you know, I know you're busy. You gotta,

you know, you, you have all these cases. I have the

luxury of, you know, I, I'm a

little less structured, I guess, in my schedule. So One of the things I

noticed, I think it was last week, over the top of Mike Johnson,

Speaker of the House, the House with Republican votes,

uh, passed a war powers resolution against Trump that's

now in the Senate, which basically is going to try to tie his

hands with Iran. Yeah. And, and, and, and the Republicans control

the House only, you know, a little bit, but they do control it, and

yet that passed. And maybe that's a good thing to

preserve maybe a few seats in the midterms. I don't know.

Well, I think a lot of it was that because you do have a lot

of people screaming on the Republican side, screaming bloody murder

about what they view as, oh, this endless war,

which frankly started February

28th of this year. It's not endless.

It's not endless, but it was not Look, we've criticized here. This should have been

prosecuted. This should have been executed. Yeah, prosecuted, done. No

question about it. You have a plan, get it done. And we've said that a

million times. Yep. Just, and a lot of the generals, I'm

thinking of Jack Keane, who's been all over several networks, and

he's the chairman of the Institute of War,

studies war, games war. He was,

I think, one of the Joint Chiefs at one time. And he's, he's been saying

this since the war started. Get her done.

Get her done. Get it done. And he wasn't saying it from a

political point of view. He was saying it more from a tactical,

strategic point of view that just why

wouldn't you take out every single rocket

facility in the Strait of Hormuz? Why wait? What—

why did we lift up off the throttle? and give them

45 days to get the Chinese and Russians in to help

them rebuild their drone program. And, and, you know, it's

like what Johnson did in Vietnam when he had the Christmas

truce with North Vietnam. They used that time

to rebuild their SAMs. Yeah. And then, and then what did we

get out of that? A bunch of B-52 guys got killed, you know,

when we resumed the bombing. It is. Well, look, it's always the same inaction.

Always results in just that. Inaction is an action. Yeah, it always results in,

in, in a delay of the outcome, right? So maybe

that's it. And if you're delaying the out— what is the outcome we want? Let's

go get it and be done. I am tired of Trump saying that there

are reasonable Iranians that want to end this and they're

begging for us to, to have a, a treaty. It's like, dude,

who are they specifically? Yeah. Like, I don't know who he's talking

about. Like, at this point, I don't believe him anymore. Yeah, I don't believe him.

Well, look, or maybe he— maybe it may be true that

he knows of some Iranians that are saying that, but they don't have any control

and it's not happening. So look. Yeah, right. They don't have the

agency to do what they're saying. Oh, we really want this. Time

to end it one way or another. It is time. Look, take your— if you're

going to take the loss, take it and get out. If you're going to take

the win, get it and get out either way. So I got to ask you,

Steve, how you feel. Again, now this is another Trump thing I never

would have done right before the midterm, even though I think he

has a First Amendment case that he is allowed. Yeah, I hate it. This— I

already know where you're going and I hate it. You know where I'm going. This

ban on CNN, MSNBC, and Politico. Just giving

fodder to— look, I don't agree with it. I do not agree with it. For

all that we've already talked about this, right? We let the other side in to

criticize us. because that's what we do. And does— I think, can Trump do

it legally? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure the Supreme Court—

Probably. You and I don't have a White House pass. Yeah. So,

so, so is every citizen of the United States— we're all

guaranteed the right of free speech. Yeah. We're not guaranteed the right to a White

House pass. Right. But can he? So this is— here's what's

interesting. If you take your first year constitutional law, or maybe your

second year if you took it in second year in law school, There is something

called time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, meaning

the White House can keep you out. Look, Common Sense Ohio, look, I get it.

We have worldwide dissemination, and everybody would

love us to have a pulpit at the White House. What are they thinking? They

should be letting us in. But they're not gonna let us in. Does that violate

our right of free speech? No. But if, however,

the White House lets other people that are different than us in,

but not us. If the, if the, if the government starts to

implement time, place, and manner restrictions in such a way that it

discriminates against a viewpoint, particularly either directly

or even indirectly, uh, that becomes a First Amendment problem. And that's why I think

Trump is going to have some problems with this ultimately. Well, the— there was a

court that forced him to allow Jim Acosta back in the White House.

And Jim Acosta, boy, he loves himself. In term number 1, remember that? Yeah, yeah.

He But, but what I love about this, what I love about this is

the hypocrisy that our—

like, I understand the hypocrisy, but the, of course, the,

the mainstream media won't acknowledge it. When Trump was president

during his first term, all sorts of platforms and news

organizations banned him. He was banned from Twitter,

YouTube, Facebook, he was absolutely banned.

But it's fundamentally different unless the government is putting its thumb on that scale. Yeah.

So I do not— But for them to waive the free speech,

they banned him. Yeah, but they can, so— Yeah, no, I get that. But then

they're not really advocates for free speech. No.

That's what that tells me. Well, maybe, so— They're advocates for their free

speech. Well, sure, but they— But not yours. But they have every right to say,

we're not gonna publish anything Trump says. They have every right to do that. Yeah,

we were shadow banned, but that's not the government doing it. As soon as the

government, whether it's Trump or whether it's Biden, putting their finger on that scale,

that's different. I don't ever

really like correcting, but you will remember that Biden

sent the FBI. Well, that's what I said. So we were

shadow banned by the government. By the government, right. Yes, we were. You're

correct. As soon as the government puts its thumb on that scale one way or

another, whether it was Biden, and Trump tried to do it the other way, whether

it's Biden or Trump, I go ballistic about it. Okay. But if it's just Zuckerberg

saying, Norm, I don't like you, I'm not going to publish you, right, it's a

different story. But if the FBI, which they did, visited

Zuckerberg— Incentivizes him to do it. And what

was that, the protective language Biden threatened to—

Pull off, what's the statute section, whatever, the one that gives them

immunity from people posting publicly on their forum, right? So I get it.

That I have a problem with. But that's not the same as,

say, CNN— I'm tracking you. If CNN says,

we're not going to publish anything Trump says,

that is different than Trump saying, we're not going to let CNN in the White

House, but we're going to let Fox News and others in. Right. I think Trump's

got his— it's a bridge too far again for Trump. He doesn't need

this fight. He doesn't need it now. I will say,

that in response to their complaints, Trump's

spokespeople put out a list of

all the tropes, all of the hoaxes

that these 3 organizations put before the American

people as a rational basis for

saying why you're treating them differently in time, manner.

Time, place, and manner, right. Yeah. But that's not a— you're using some constitutional—

we should probably talk about this. There's different ways that we review restrictions on

things like free speech. Yeah. If it's viewpoint discrimination, if it

actually is something that is by intent discriminating against a

viewpoint, it gets the strictest of scrutiny. Well, what if the Ku Klux Klan

wants a White House pass and you say, well, no, you can't

have one because we disagree with your viewpoints?

In theory, if it's a valid time, place, and manner restriction, it can't

restrict based on viewpoint. But look, I'm using

this only analogously. Okay. I don't think it's going to get actually evaluated that way

because it's too diverse. I mean, there's too many people that need in.

So the restrictions are probably going to be something like, it's got to be

an organization that has X amount of followers or

influence. It's got to be an organization that's main— there's going to have to be

some definition. Otherwise, they couldn't validly restrict us. So the First Amendment

protects big media, not small media? No, it

has to, but that has to be a rational, that has to be some sort

of rational thing. But if they say, we're not gonna let CNN in because they

like Democrats and not Republicans, I think that's gonna be a bigger problem.

So like the White House press pool, from what I understand,

just lost their minds when Trump took over. And I

think, who's the lady who just left, uh, Levitt? Yeah, she would

let in people from conservative media like

Breitbart, right? And they would take a seat next to ABC

News, and the ABC News guy gets moved down one seat, right?

And she's like, well, they're a media outlet, so are you. Yep, we

don't care that they're smaller than you. You know what it is? I, I don't

know the rules for this. I don't, I don't know what it takes to get

in as a media outlet in the White House and how that's been implemented. implemented

over the years. But I will say this, my

lawyerly instinct tells me that if you are

excluding people who have historically been permitted there,

so ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN— There's some inertia.

Yes. And you're doing it because you don't like their viewpoint, that's going

to be a problem. And that DC circuit is extremely liberal.

But I think the— I mean, he's going to lose it. He's going to lose

it in DC. I think he loses it in the Supreme Yeah, probably. I, I

don't think— I, I— and now here, he'll side with them. I don't know

the, the standards to let people into the White House press room because I think,

I think the White House could validly say nobody. Yeah, they could.

Um, there wasn't even a White House, right, when the, when the First

Amendment was promulgated. They could validly say nobody, but there was no

one. Once they're letting people in, yeah. to exclude people that

disagree with you, just sort of— Even

though that has historically been— I might be wrong. I

mean, do you think Andrew Jackson put up with

like— No, I don't. But I don't think Abraham Lincoln certainly

didn't. He actually, he actually told the

US Postal System that they couldn't distribute certain

newspapers that, that were anti- And I think

in today's day and age, that would be struck down. Yeah. I think

it would be. It probably would. So I don't know the answer to this, Norm,

but I think it's— Woodrow Wilson. Another one. It's going to be— I think it'll

be evaluated as sort of a time, place, and manner restriction. Okay.

Meaning you can do it. So they can't let everybody into the White House

Press Forum because there's not enough room. It's not practical. It's not practical. Right. So

if you're going to eliminate people, it cannot be

based on viewpoint alone. I'm gonna guess it'll be something like that. Okay. And

they'll figure a cute way to say, well, you gotta let 'em.

It's sort of like this. I watched a video recently on YouTube

and it was a guy that was demonstrating

against abortions and he had signs. He had made

his foam board signs. Okay. And he was

standing on a public government or a state-run university.

And the university officials come up and said, look, we can't let you. You have

to leave. He's like, well, why? I'm on public— well, because your

signs, sir, have sharp corners and they're made of foam

board, and we have this rule that you can't have sharp corners. And I

suppose that the rule is based on some sort of riot that happened sometime

and those sharp corners cut people. It was probably something like that. Right, right. And

he looks over and he goes, yeah, but what about those guys over there, those

Jehovah's They've got the same signs, but you're not telling them to leave. They're like,

well, we're here to talk to you. So look, it's probably a valid time, place,

and manner restriction to say they can restrict how your signs,

uh, the shape of your signs for some reason. But as soon as you

start implementing that only against the speech you don't like, okay, now

it's an invalid time, place, and manner restriction. Okay. And now it's content-based and it

gets strict scrutiny. Okay. So it— I mean, I guess it's going to come out

something Yeah, he's not banning all the left-leaning

big media. Like, he didn't ban NBC, ABC,

CBS, and he banned these more radical— And

maybe, maybe that's a valid one. Maybe he can say, look, it's subversive to the

government that I want to run, and maybe he gets away with it. Of all

their full-of-shit stories. And maybe that's enough. I don't know. I'll be very curious to

see how it shakes out. Well, great, great First Amendment. We should get Rob Mueser

or somebody. We should talk about it. Okay. Greenland a little bit.

This is another one where we all

thought this was an

overreach by Trump. He would say, well,

we could just take Greenland. I could just send

one of our fleets and the Marines could hit the shore and we could—

what, something like 1% of the landmass of Greenland is

occupied. There's nobody in the other 99%.

And Trump actually said some pretty brash things about this

way back earlier this year. Mm-hmm. It turns out that this

document, this treaty that they just signed with Denmark and

Greenland says, even if Greenland

achieves independence, the people of Greenland, as well as,

you know, do I need to make a land statement here? the

occupiers from Denmark, that

Denmark and Greenland both agree that this is in perpetuity,

that this treaty is forevermore, that the United States has

basing rights. And also we have the right in

concert with Denmark to eject and

to prevent any adversary from—

overflights, from using bases, from establishing

facilities so that a Panama Canal situation won't happen

where, okay, the Americans have bases here, but China runs all

the ports. So that's not going to happen. We—

this is a pretty tight treaty and we're not paying a dime for it.

Well, I think I heard this and I just— This is a huge success. It's

a huge success, but I think it's even deeper than that, no pun intended. Because

doesn't Greenland sit on one of the biggest rare earth mineral

deposits in the world? Absolutely. Like,

again, Venezuela will help exploit your natural resources.

Right. So, so it's a win-win. Giving us control over that. Right, right. And I

think that's really what the fight was. Well, or

maybe equally. Well, like, the US doesn't have a

lot of icebreakers, uh, you know, like We're having

trouble actually patrolling, uh, the Arctic Circle.

Yeah. You know, and Russia has— still has their sub

fleet with nukes. China is more active up there.

And I think that there is a huge national security—

I mean, if you want to reach the United States quickly, you wouldn't fire

a missile from, say, Beijing all the way, like,

across the equator. you know, or whatever, you know,

what, what do you call that, longitudinally? Yeah. Or laterally?

You would, you would do it longitudinally, you would do it over the— Yeah, you'd

go over the top. Over the top. It's a shorter path. Yeah. So look, I

mean, it has, it has a lot of values, but that— I heard the rare

earth stuff, I'm like, all right, well, that now I understand. There's a, there's a

sly sort of hidden motive there that, that makes sense, right? We should have

control over that. Well, the Prime Minister of Denmark did acknowledge

that about the natural resources, uh, and said that that would

be, um— I mean, she—

it sounded like she was giving Trump's speech actually yesterday. Mm-hmm.

She, she agreed with everything that Trump has said in his speeches. And,

and, and she went on to say the United States

historically has been the vanguard and the, and the

has been this— has been the guardian of

freedom around the world, and we are

fully on board. We're full partners with the United States. It was—

yeah, it was— Look, if there's any doubt about it, just unders— just look at

the fact that they still exist and we didn't take it. Yeah, right. Because we

could have anytime we wanted to. We could have. And I, again,

you know, it's that bravado stuff that really. So you got Kaitlan

Collins and Jake, uh, Tapper, and you've got all these

crazies— Joe, Morning Joe coffee guy— you got

all these crazy people that said it was the end of the

world and it was the end of comity between nations and

that Trump just violated all these norms of international

whatever, and they're completely silent today. He's

negotiating like a bombastic New York real estate agent.

Yes. The real estate developer. Yes, he is. Like, I want, I want to, I

want it for $1. But at the end of the day, he's not Genghis Khan.

He's not doing any of this stuff. He throws it out so

extreme because then when he dials back his position, he gets what he wants. That's

right. At least I think that's his— I think, no, I think, I think that's

his— well, we've seen him for 6 years. This is what he does. That's what

he does. That's what he was trying to tell Iran at the UN speech. Right.

Well, I'll annihilate you. Or look at this little— We can

all be happy. We can all be— you can build beautiful stuff. And the problem,

back to Iran, the problem with it is they

don't— we're not— it's Plato,

Gorgias, or whatever it is. There's no

mutual agreement on terms with people like Iran because they're

ideologically fundamentally different than us. They don't

care about their own people. they don't care. They don't care about life the way

we do. It's different. It's different. And, uh, I, I think that's, that's his fundamental

mistake. Whereas like Xi, who's visiting the United States this week,

clearly he does care about his Chinese people. I mean, there's no

question. Now, he just fired a bunch of his military people. Or at least

he cares about wealth and success, which maybe is

good enough. Yes, you're wrong. Of course

they, they do forced organ transplants. Right, right, right. No, no, I, I,

I didn't mean that he's— No, but like, he's not what they don't want to

die. Yeah, like, just like the old Soviet Union guys

weren't great, but mutual assured destruction

with thermonuclear weapons, they took note of that.

Yeah, they didn't like that either. No, they didn't like that either. But Iran will

die. Yeah. And because they're going to see Allah or whatever it is, they have

a different— If the leadership there doesn't care about their people. They don't care about

that, right? At least that seems that way. I got to ask you about this

Clancy defense attorney who wants this judge.

So this, this lady, that there was a mistrial. I, I

assume that they're either going to work out an agreement or they're going to retry

this lady, either manslaughter or

murder 2 or some other, or maybe they'll stick with murder

1, but, but whatever. We'll find out. But in the meantime, the

defense attorney who's got this nickname, the Shooter,

you know, whatever. He did a great job. Yeah. Well,

he wants the judge to closely question

this holdout juror, um, about like

why. And to me, Steve, isn't that

antithetical to our jury system? There is, yes. So

Look, there is a rule. Now, I don't know what it is in

Massachusetts, but there's a rule in common law called the Aliunda Rule.

A-L-I-U-N-D-A. Aliunda Rule.

And it basically says this: you can't— and if you're going to try to

challenge or impeach a jury's verdict, it has to come from the outside,

not within. In other words, you can't just start digging around on what the jury's

doing and impeach a jury's verdict. based on interviewing the jurors. There has

to be something outside. I've oversimplified it, but that's the general rule, and that's what

this lawyer is asking to do. Um, so look, I've had cases where I've gone

and talked to jurors about stuff. Yeah. Um, and, uh, it's

never really— it doesn't ever really pan out. Um, and I just

looked at the news. He's like, he wants an investigation into the lone

holdout juror who voted in the convictor. He's doing his

job, right? He's being a lawyer. He's being a defense lawyer. Our job is to

go out and fight the fight, you know? Yeah. He's doing his job. He's advancing

his position. He's taught— like, he's making legal arguments. He's pushing the bounds of

the law so the law can— there's this give and take. The judge needs to

do his job and tell him no. The judge will have to do is just

say no, and it'll go up to the court of appeals and they'll fight it

that way. My prediction on this case, it resolves somehow,

some way. It should not. But Steve, who would want to serve on a

jury then if you thought somehow you could be civilly

or criminally liable? Right, this is why the Aliunde Rule is in place. Let me

look it up. I mean, who the hell— you know, I've been on juries and

I'm thinking, what, am I going to get in trouble? Because, you know,

jury nullification, even though jur— even though lawyers

may not like that, prosecutors and, and defense attorneys,

depending on which way it goes, may not like that, but it's a thing

that a jury can do. I mean, they can, they can do it. So look,

the, the Aliunde Rule— A-L-I-U-N-D-E, I was correct Correct. Or maybe

I said A, um, is a legal principle in evident— in

evidence law stating that a jury's verdict cannot be challenged or impeached by the

testimony of a juror unless there is first credible evidence from an independent

external source. It's derived from the Latin word meaning, uh,

from the Latin word aliunda, meaning from another place or from elsewhere.

Ensures that a disgruntled juror's word alone is not enough

to overturn a trial outcome. Now, if there's payola, If the

mafia comes in, it would be from the outside. That's different. Yeah, it's a different

thing. That's a different— that's a different thing. So that's why you can't do it.

And, uh, in Ohio, there's an evidence rule under 606. I

mean, this is why he's sort of barking up the wrong tree on this one.

I think so. But he's making a point. He's doing it for other reasons. He's

pushing the bounds of the law in Massachusetts, I'm sure. And I think ultimately the

case will resolve. Some— I've heard some people speculate that he's

doing this in order to sort of

plow the field for the next 12 jurors that get selected.

That's right. So he's like, hey, hey, you better, you better

listen to what my case is and pay attention,

and because there might be a little pain if you decide

against my client. Yeah, which is the day— which is why the law doesn't tolerate

this, and it won't. And but it's good legal strategy. Look,

he's— the guy was a very effective court courtroom advocate. Uh, he did a very

nice job defending her. They said his closing statement wasn't good. I

didn't see it. Did a much better job, but that's at the end. Yeah,

I don't know, the jury might have already— who knows. But well, look, it was

effective whatever he did because it was 11 to 1 for acquittal. That's true.

So, right, that's where we are. He's just mad the one guy held out. Wanna

do some good and bad? Yes, sir. Um, so, um,

My hero, this is going to

sound cockeyed, but it's Gavin Newsom because

he told Jake Tapper while they were fly

fishing the most incredible thing, that if

Kamala Harris runs for president, he will not

run. I saw that. And I'm like, thank God.

Okay. If that's true. You're gonna take, you're gonna take yourself

off the chessboard so that this daffy

cackling—

I mean, that is gorgeous. Please let Kamala run against

Marco Rubio or J.D. Vance. That would be beautiful. Yeah,

they'll decimate her. That guy will say whatever he needs to say, whatever he thinks

that the media wants to hear at the time. That's what he's gonna say. My

zero, I would— okay, I was gonna go with Mom Donny, but we own

this. about this thing. So the head

of Iran is in town, is in New York. He doesn't want to arrest him,

but he wants to arrest Netanyahu. But I think the bigger

zero, and it pains me to say this because I kind of like

Vivek Ramaswamy policy-wise,

but he has come to the—

he's come to the Norm Murdoch set of policies on data centers.

like 5 months too late. He's behind in the polls.

And even though Amy Acton is

totally ineffective, I mean, she— but she is benefiting

from this red part of

Ohio that's at war with data centers. And I tried—

I've been saying this for months, that there are lovely

suburban and rural wives out there

and homeowners, some husbands, but mainly

women that would otherwise vote Republican because

they believe, you know, down the line on abortion, gun

rights, all kinds of Republican positions. But you're

building a goddamn data center in the middle of

their little town and it's going to make noise. It's

bringing in traffic. Mm-hmm. It's, you know, They don't see people from

Ohio going out there doing the construction. They see Texas

license plates and they're just having a meltdown. And

Vivek finally comes out last week

with a set of— he's basically said everything I've been saying all along.

Don't build the damn things next to homes. Number one,

make them completely energy separate from the rest of them.

Yeah, off the grid or supply their own, right? Okay, no noise.

Build them out in the diaspora somewhere, right? So

it doesn't become then we're against all data centers. But now

that's what it's become. Now it's— there's petitions. The

other side. And they're gonna bring it up again. It failed to be on the

ballot, but it's gonna come back. with this petition that's an

outright ban on data centers. And that's a mistake.

It's all about zoning. It's all about local people

either failing to have the tools or being unwilling to

take on these developers. They're either

intimidated or they're bought off. You know, something is

seriously wrong. It just stinks of RINOism. Yes,

it just does somehow, somewhere. You're too late. Maybe

he may win the governorship, but dude. Well, can you imagine Amy

Acton in charge? I mean, come on. Anyway,

well, look, my good and bad. The bad I was going to talk— I— maybe

it's not as bad as I thought now that we're talking about it, but I

do not like the Trump White House banning, banning press folks

who have been there historically. I don't like it because it reeks of content-based— What's

a tactical mistake? Call it a tactical mistake, but constitutionally it

reeks of content-based government discrimination on

speech. I don't like it. On the face of it, I have to agree with

you. I can't see it. However, as we

discussed— However it unfolds, we'll see. Maybe he can do it, maybe he can't. I

just think it's, like you said, at minimum, a tactical blunder. Am I

good? You know that historically

some teams are just so good

Like the Cleveland Browns. Oh, forgot. Who pulled it off

against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with 2 minutes left. They

foiled the last-minute attempt by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to go down

and win the game only because there was a storm

delay that sort of stalled the Tampa Bay dress. So Tampa

had to come out cold and win. But anyway, hats off to you, Cleveland Browns.

And Baker, I mean, he had an awful game. I mean, he just— That's right.

So anyway, Cleveland Browns, we know you're great. You just haven't shown it

to us yet. So what's their record, 1-1? Yeah, they're 1-1.

Okay. So that's about as good as they're gonna be all season. That's as good

as— 500 would be about as good as they're gonna be all season. That's the

same record as the Buckeyes? All right, so no, Buckeyes are 2-1. Are

they? What? Are they? Did they win a second one? Yeah, they won their

opener, then they lost to Texas and they won against Clemson. Who was the opener

again? Ball State, I think. Okay, so they played the Littlest Sisters of the

Poor. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They should have beat Texas. And then they played the

Goodwill Team the, the, the third week. Yeah, yeah. So anyway, all

right, well, that's your news coming at you right from the middle. commonsenseohioshow.com

if you want to look us up. Brought to you by HarperPlus.