The Schilling Show: Jill Simons, Jason Isaac, Phil Kline

0:00Well, thank you, Dr. Turner and welcome friends and fellow citizens of the world to the one and only multi award winning shilling show here on a throwdown Thursday. Phone lines are open for the community town hall with whatever is on your mind right now at 434-977-1070. It is a line open for you. It bears repeating 434-977-1070. Take advantage of the opportunity to reach our vast listening audience. Right now while there is opportunity for you. So take it, grab it. Coming up on today's edition of the Shilling Show, craziness going on in California parental rights being usurped. And there's a law that prohibits teachers and schools from prohibits from telling parents about kids changing genders at school, unreal and unbelievable. American College of Pediatricians will be getting involved in Dr. Joe Simons and attorney

1:03Ed Trent will be joining us on that particular law and the case in court as we speak. Coming up a little bit later on this hour, we're going to revisit the conversation we were supposed to have yesterday, the topic on nuclear energy, America's nuclear future. This time with Jason Isaac from American Energy Institute, he'll be joining us to talk about nuclear energy for America's feature, what are the latest technologies and what are the holdups and holdbacks and what are the regulatory hurdles that we're facing. Coming up in hour number two, we'll be spending the majority of the hour with Phil Klein, former attorney general of Kansas. And he is making rounds and stopping here, but really talking to a bunch of people across Virginia. Talking about the legal case for voting, no, on all three constitutional amendments. I am just astounded and we're going to get into this a little bit in the conversation with Phil Klein and hour number two, but I'm just astounded at the wide open barn door

2:04that the Democrats have. And I guess the Republicans have to carry some blame for this as well because they didn't fix it when they had the opportunity to the language that goes on the ballot is so incredibly deceptive. Now I come from a state where the ballot initiative was not something rare, but something that in many ways became overused, not while I was there, but in the years since. And now it's kind of a joke. So I can see why people are hesitant to enact it. But at the time, there were many good things that happened as a result in California of ballot initiatives. One of them was called Proposition 13. This goes back to the 1970s and I was following even then Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann who were the fathers of the movement to protect people from being taxed out of their homes. Here's what happened in California, the kind of the same thing that's happening here, you had out of control politicians who couldn't control themselves and their spending. The taxes on homes, modest homes were going through the roof to the point where people had to sell their homes because they couldn't pay their taxes.

3:07For example, there were little bedroom communities around Los Angeles called there was one called Lock and Yada Flint Ridge and there were others, but I'll use that as an example because I remember being talked about there were people who had purchased those homes back in the 50s and maybe 50, 60, 70,000 dollars for a pretty nice little house. And by the time the late 70s rolled around and the inflation that happened in housing prices, a housing boom in California during that time, the taxes might have gone up to six or seven thousand dollars a year now. Imagine again, you paid maybe 50,000 for the house 20, 25 years prior. Now the taxes are seven eight thousand dollars a year, maybe that high and these people are now retired. So what do they do? They sell their homes because they can't afford to stay. So Howard Jarvis and Paul Gan got together and said, let's do something about it and they put together proposition 13, which in essence said that the taxes can never go up more than about 2% a year and that the taxes could never be or the taxes will be levied

4:11at about one and a quarter percent. So when you buy the house, that's when the tax rate is set, you buy a house for a hundred thousand dollars, your tax would would be roughly one percent or one thousand dollars a year as long as you own the house. And again, it could go up a little bit each year, but not substantially or significantly. That gave people certainty when they were buying their homes that they were not going to be taxed out. When the home was sold, whatever the prevailing rate was, the new owner got the taxes at that rate of sale, whatever that price was times a little bit over one percent. It was a wonderful thing that helped people to preserve their homes and their home steds, the places that they lived for generational purposes and some instances, but even into their retirements. It was just crazy what was going on. And this was a ballot initiative and my goodness, the politicians hated it. They certainly had the power to do it. And this is the problem that we face, but we have a lot of cowardly people who are in elected office. There are very few brave people who are willing to step out.

5:14So we have cowardly politicians who are protecting themselves and would never put something like this forward. So it had to come from independent people like Jarvis and Gan and then be supported very broadly by the public and a ballot initiative process. They got a certain number of signatures gets it on the ballot and then it just needs to pass with majority one vote, 50% plus one vote, which I think it passed by a more significant margin. But it was put into the constitution, meaning that if they ever tried to overturn it, they would need about a 66% vote to do that. It was brilliant thinking on behalf of Howard Jarvis and Paul Gan who are both long-sense gone, but it was brilliant thinking knowing that these tyrants would come back and try to eviscerate Proposition 13 because they were missing the money. Truth be told, in the years that followed, the tax revenues were higher every year. Maybe not as high as they would have been, but they were continuing to go up, just not

6:15astronomically and not in a way that was completely unfair. When I came to Virginia Proposition 13 was still on my mind, especially when I was looking into running for office and then eventually elected to the Charlottesville City Council. And I was thinking, boy, it would be a wonderful thing in Virginia for us to get Proposition 13 because I could already see, and this was a big issue back in the early arts in like 2002 to 2006, when I was serving in public office, that the taxes were going up, up, up, and you had me, a Republican, the lone Republican, probably the last Republican. And then you had four Democrats who just loved to spend other people's money. They loved the power that it bought them. And I made a big deal about the tax rate, but there was nothing we could do like Proposition 13. I just assumed that all states had a ballot initiative process that was naivete on my part and Virginia doesn't and didn't accept with very few exceptions. So we had to count on the legislators doing the right thing, which of course was a huge

7:19failure and never going to happen. There was a guy I met over the years and some of you who've been listening to this program way, way back in the early years may remember a guy named Al Aitken who used to come on the program. He was also from California and he had an initiative to try to get a Proposition 13 type law passed in Virginia. He was working really, really hard to make it happen. I think he eventually gave up and decided he would have more fun restoring Volkswagen's and building airplanes, which is last time I heard what he was doing. It wasn't that people didn't try. It wasn't that people didn't think it would be a good idea for Virginia to adopt that part of something California did back when California was rational. That's no longer the case and it would never happen in California today. But it did then. It was worthy and it's worthy now in Virginia. If only we had brave legislators who would just come forward and say, this is what needs to be done to protect people. I know there are other states that are looking at it, maybe Florida looking at home

8:22standing and protecting people from paying property taxes on primary residences, but it needs to be broader than that. This is a racket, a scandal, a risky scheme that is put together by politicians to just deprive you of your money and to empower them by buying votes and letting them spend your money on initiatives of their favor. It's a six system. You never really, really own your home because try not paying your taxes and see what happens to it. All right. That's Proposition 13. That's taxation. That's real estate. We've kicked it off here. We'll be getting into ballot initiatives, which is what got me going on this jagged in Howard number two with Phil Klein. So we'll go to the break. We'll come back on the other side. There's a phone line open for you at 977 1070. We'd love to hear your perspective. 434-977-1070. The Schilling Show continues with the Community Town Hall in just a moment. All right. The Schilling Show continues on this throw down. Thursday phone lines are open for the Community Town Hall at 977-1070.

9:27And without further ado, let's say hello to Greg. Hi, Greg. You know, your subject is right after my heart. You know, Rob. No. Rob Palmer houses. I mean, I'd help with some of the various contractors and employees and this and that, and whatever you want to call it. Not in any employees, but I mean, just people helping me build it. Palmer is like Christians, blah, blah, blah. And I built them all for them. I live in one of them. Very modest house now. But in the 90s, I built a beautiful huge house on a big, beautiful piece of land in our mall county. And I built it for a very reasonable price at the time in the 90s. And I had a big family course, you know, with a divorce and all. We had to sell it. But I've looked, I'm not going to go into actual numbers, but I looked up the value of that place about five years ago. Yeah. And if you do the math on the taxes, I don't know what the people, the nice people bought

10:28it, good people. It would take probably three quarters of what I get in so security to pay the taxes on that place, which is completely unaffordable for retiree. That would be just completely not affordable. Now, I don't know if that's the exact math, but it would be huge based on the value I saw. And here's the thing I've done an experiment. And I can't even now, like I'm taking it, I want to buy a piece of land and build a house for under 300,000. I live in a house. Don't get me wrong, everybody, out there in radio land. But I just want to try to do an experiment like I did maybe back in the 80s where I could buy a five or 10 acre piece of land and build a house. You can't do it. And my goal was to do it for 350,000. It's impossible. Yeah. Very sad. And so the bottom line is if I just kept that house and wanted to retire, I wouldn't be able to, based on living on so security, it would be impossible.

11:31And there are people like that in the county in their modest houses that can't stay in their house. And so my message is just, and by the way, it was down the street from a supervisor that has been in power for a long time. And so my message is to support supervisors. This is absolutely horrendous. I think we should eliminate personal prop, I mean, taxes on our homes altogether. And I think that we should find a different resource. And I think we've got to stop doing everything for everybody and charging the homeowner for it. Yeah. I think you're right. It is ridiculous. So we need a whole new model. First of all, like you said, doing everything for everybody. We need to cut the government way back. I remember during the great recession, which was a very hard time for people. But one of the silver linings was the government was necessitated to cut itself back. And then we got to cut it way, way back. And I remember having Bill Bowling, the lieutenant governor on who just let all the air out of the bag.

12:32When I said, hey, finally we got government reduced and he goes, yeah, but we can go back to how it was once things get rolling again. I'm thinking this guy just missing the boat. That was the golden opportunity to reduce government on a permanent level because there was no other choice. And we blew it. Well, I remember that interview with him very, very close. I remember that exact interview. And that's why I say I'm a Republican, but neither side is doing anything to help us. I'm a Republican because they're kind of holding some of their rights down. But nobody's going to balance the budget. Nobody's going to stop spending money. And government, here's, I feel sorry for these homeless people, but that's not the county or the city's responsibility. That's an individual responsibility. I'm sorry. But I mean, the fact that we can't afford to live it. Even in the house I live in now, it's way up there. I mean, I have to, I think with insurance and taxes, it's probably between $700 a month

13:33of living in a house, a minus house. I'm not going to say exactly what I've been, but it's a huge percentage of security. It's just not right. And I think people don't wake up. And I know our super buzz is listening, but I don't think it falls into that fear. I think it does too. And it's highly unfortunate that we have people who are in a position to do something about it, and they don't even mention it. The only time they ever mentioned anything, I remember we have this one song that we play with a Dan Thamakiel. She was being challenged by somebody. I can't remember who it was. And she came out and said, oh, we have to keep taxes low. This was a speech that she made somewhere. The only reason, and she was choking on her words because she didn't believe anything she was saying. But she said it because she was being challenged by somebody to the right who was making an issue out of taxation. So this is what happens when you get a monolithic government. There's nobody challenging. There's no advocate for the taxpayer on the support of supervisors or on the city council. It's been a long time since we had one.

14:35Well, Rob, you and I can sit down there and I guarantee you we could go through each thing they spend money on. Yeah. The first thing I would get through to people is even the words, the, or anything they had to do with it. People think they need to be eliminated. That's low hanging fruit, isn't it? And there's so many things the county does is can they can stop? I do want to school teachers to make decent money, but also want to school to teach history. You know, you got kids who graduated that don't even know when the revolutionary war was. Or who? Or who? Or with, you know, the war who too. They don't know anything. They don't have a balance to check. Well, the other thing is we don't want teachers molesting our kids either. Maybe they need to spend a little more time on the front end and the screening. Well, that's just most of her in the saying on earth and I'm not going to give you my personal opinion on what they should do with people like that. It's going to be trouble. We can imagine. Okay. Greg, thank you very much. Who's on one? We'll see who we got else on the line here.

15:36We got just a couple minutes left before we go into the break. Okay. All right. So there we go. Thank you. You probably told me that already. Here we go. Hello, Lawrence. Rob, this is your buddy. Lawrence went. Ha, ha, ha. Long time no here. How are you doing, Lawrence, when I can't see you haven't kicked the habit yet? Doing all right. I know you're coming up on the bottom of the hour. You remember the Charlotte's will Democrats kicked me out for being crazy. But I just came across something there now starting after six years to complain about a son-piker who said Americans should get a second 911. But with a nuclear weapon, that was back in 2020. And he said, if women in Israel are complaining about being raped or witnessing rape by a bus, they're engaging in rape fantasies. And they not only said nothing about it, they invited them to their presidential convention.

16:37And they, now they're complaining, but they said that I'm too crazy to be part of their party. Well, you were ahead of the curve. You obviously figured it out before everybody else and got the hell out of the cult, the death cult known as the Democrat party today. So Lawrence, I applaud you for your foresight. Have a good, good day. All right. And watch that cough. There he goes into the distance. All right. Everyone, so while somebody turns around and it sounds like Lawrence went, did all right. Let's go to the break here. Coming up on the other side, we'll be talking with Dr. Jill Simons from American College of pediatricians, attorney Ed Trent, they're challenging a California law regarding parental rights in California schools and the unbelievable situation that's going on there right now. A law that was passed prohibiting teachers and administrators and government schools from telling parents about so called gender transitions, unbelievable. All right.

17:38Show back on the other side. Stay with us. Shilling show continues on this throw down Thursday edition of the program. It coming up after the break, Jason Isaac joins us on nuclear energy for America's future and what are the newest technologies? How quickly could they be deployed or might we just write it off and say it's never going to happen right now. Very please welcome to the Shilling show, Dr. Jill Simons executive director, American College of pediatricians and Ed Trent, Amika brief lawyer for the American College of pediatricians in this particular case, defending parental rights in California schools, unbelievable as a former resident of California. I can't imagine what's going on there. Dr. Jill Simons and attorney Ed Trent, welcome to the Shilling show. Thanks for having us. Thank you. Maybe we could give some brief background on the underlying California schools law, which is almost unheard of at least used to be.

18:40So what's going on in California? The basic law that was challenged says that schools who are approached by a child who wants to be known by a different name, use opposite sex pronouns, access, opposite sex restroom and changing facilities are required to keep that information confidential from the parents. Wow. And the teachers are not allowed to share that information unless the child is specific and sent to allow them to do so. All right. Parents and teachers both suit to challenge that law. Well, I'm glad that people have stepped up and that you're stepping into all of this, but it just seems to defy logic. Haven't we operated under the premise that there are parental rights, which are not viable by the schools over all these years? I just don't see how they can step in and pass a law like that and pretend that they could pass muster. Unfortunately, California is not unique in this regard that they have. And they basically said, look, in order to protect the kids, they should be able to be

19:43whoever they want to be at school. And unless they want to tell their parents, it's up to the kid to make that decision. And believe it or not, the regulation supply to a child as young as two years old. Here is the case, Mirabelli versus Bonta. Tell us about the backstory for Mrs. Mirabelli. What happened? Mrs. Mirabelli is a teacher in the school district. She felt that by being told that she would be subject to discipline, had she shared any sort of issues with parents of her students who were struggling with gender identity at school, violated both her religious rights as well as free speech rights. So she was the initial part of the challenge in that regard. And she was joined by other teachers as well as certain families in California. His children were basically transitioned to school behind the parents' backs. So I understand that this is a first amendment issue you mentioned, religious rights and freedom of speech. But what about for the parents who are suing under what premise are they going after

20:47the California schools? Part of their suit is also based on the 14th amendment, right, of preno rights. Part of the substantive due process that courts have established really since the founding. And that's part of what the district court, when they granted an injunction against this provision, is that parents have an absolute right to know what's going on with their kids. Because they need the information in order to make proper medical care and other decisions on behalf of their children to help them grow up. Dr. Jill Simons, tell us a little bit about ACP's and what you do at the American College of Pediatricians. Yes, first I'm grateful for Ed and his colleague that shared that with me who have enabled us to stand up for parents and these vulnerable children in cases like this. And the American College of Pediatricians were approaching our 25th anniversary. We're a medical, professional medical organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals

21:48that care for children. And we stand behind parents' rights to determine what's best for their children. And we advocate for protecting children from conception to natural death. And that life of firm and care extends to the whole gender ideology debate. And we don't think that healthy children's bodies should be subjected to these harmful effects, rejecting interventions, even the social transition interventions. I think I know the answer to the question, but if you would please elaborate a little bit on the general state of children's well-being in America. Because it seems to me that children are under attack. If they don't get them in the womb, they'll get them after they're born, and particularly in this instance and the schools. Is this happening a lot more than most of us know? Yeah, boy, you said it. Children are under attack. And this is why parents are so important. They are the best advocates for their children.

22:51Most parents would die for their children. They want the best for their children. They're there for them, not just a school year or a counseling session. They are there truly looking out for the kids' best interest. They know them better than anyone else in the world. And so that's why the medical college of pediatricians, we just, we stand with these parents. And because they are what's best for their children. Let's talk about the brief that was filed and the specific angle or the reason that you got involved in this. Because I'm sure there are several organizations that are in alignment with you philosophically that are helping out here. So just tell us a little bit about why you got involved now. Yeah, I think the two important reasons we wanted to get involved in filing an amicus brief in this case. One, like I've mentioned, we're going to call it pediatrician stands behind these parents and the important role they play in their children's wellbeing. And then two, as pediatricians, we can exert our medical expertise in this area.

23:55And we know that social, so-called social affirmation is dangerous. It is not harmless. It leads to a pathway that subjects children to harmful chemicals and surgeries. And it's not what these children need. And so as pediatricians who better to speak up for these patients, the virus, these, you know, these children, these vulnerable children. We're glad that you're there. Tell us about the timeline of the case where we're at right now and what we anticipate in the near future. I guess I can give you that information. Right now, the case is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court issued an injunction against the law. Basically, it says you can no longer enforce it. You must allow parents to get information. And you must allow teachers and other school personnel to share information with parents. If the Ninth Circuit depends on what the Ninth Circuit does, whether the case will again go back up to the Supreme Court.

24:58And the reason the Supreme Court was earlier involved is because the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the injunction pending the appeal. And the Ninth Circuit summarily reversed that to know there's certainly harm to the parents as well as, and that the injunction needs to stay in place, basically from a parental rights perspective. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court did not issue a full ruling on this, but rather sent it back down. Is that what happened? It is. It didn't issue a full ruling. It was on their emergency docket. But it was a six three decision that clearly sided with the parents to say, look, there's more than enough here to uphold the injunction that should remain in place pending decision on the merits by the Ninth Circuit. Well, I'm not surprised that there were three, because I probably know who the three are, but it's absolutely frightening to me that we would have three people on the Supreme Court who would support the state taking this right away from the parents. And that's why these cases are so important in having groups like ACP's way

25:59and is a value to the court as well as to the justices once these cases end up reaching the Supreme Court. Dr. Jill Simons, tell us about biologicalintegrity.com, which I believe is your initiative. Yeah, we encourage parents and pediatricians, policymakers, anyone can't blend about children on this issue of transgender ideology. You can go to website. It's a project of the American College of Pediatricians. It's called Biological Integrity.org, all one word. And you can go there and get reliable medical information fact sheets, you know, specifically you can go about the harms of social, so-called social affirmation, but everything and including what children need to really help them with fact's identity distress. Well, we appreciate the efforts of your organization every day, because you're doing hard work and more people need to know about you. Dr. Jill Simons, thank you so much, Attorney Ed Trent. Thank you as well for joining us today on the Shilling Show.

27:02Thanks for having us. Thank you, Rob. Indeed, indeed. And we'll keep following that case and let you know how it turns out. I think I know where it's going to go, but they never should have to be in court in the first place. Just ridiculous. All right, let's go to the break. Coming up on the other side and update on nuclear energy for America's future with Jason Isaac. Stay with the Shilling Show much more ahead. All right, the Shilling Show continues welcoming back to the program. Jason Isaac, the CEO of American Energy Institute. Today's topic is nuclear energy for America's future. Hey, Jason, welcome back to the Shilling Show. Always good to have you with us. It's great to be back on. Thanks for having me. All right, so if you had to categorize it, what's the present state of American nuclear energy? Well, it's been kind of a poultry for a couple of decades, but we are experiencing a renaissance right now. You know, the president Trump came back into office and he set this goal by July 4th to have three small modular reactors reach criticality, which is this important step that the process can repeat itself. It's absolutely necessary.

28:04And that lo and behold, they had four that reached criticality before July 4th, our 250th anniversary this year. I know of another one specifically in Texas that reached criticality on August 4th, and that'll be not producing energy, but medical isotopes, which most people I didn't know until a few years ago that you got medical isotopes that treat cancer. Now, they come from nuclear reactions, and we import them from around the world from places like Saudi Arabia and Russia, and they've got a short lifespan. So it is certainly back on the up, but it's been pretty bad for the past few decades. Tell us about what you mean by criticality and how far is that from operation. Yes, so with criticality, you reach this process where the nuclear reaction can repeat itself, and that is absolutely necessary. That I never thought it would happen. I never thought they would reach criticality, because usually this takes multiple years, and in some cases you had facilities that were built into action within one year.

29:05That's the case of the facility at Lockhart, Texas. I believe O'Cloh owns that facility that will produce those medical isotopes. But now they begin the process of building them out until larger scales, where they can produce electricity. And it's going to be these are small modular reactors, so they're going to start out. You could be five to 50 megawatt type facilities that are being used now, and they've been used for decades to power military vessels to do so safely and efficiently while carrying hundreds of people on ships. Submarines, now we're going to be using them to get power to places that need them, and that's something that we need a lot of. We need a lot of new electric generation that's affordable and reliable, and so that certainly presents an opportunity. So let's talk about supply versus demand. As you reference, the demand is going sky high. What are we going to do in the interim? What's going to be the stop gap? Because obviously these things can't come online overnight, although I'm glad we're planning ahead. Yeah, we really are, and there's several companies that I know of Liberty Energy,

30:06Atlas Energy. These companies are providing that stop gap, and it's fast, quick generation natural gas to meet a existing demand, whether it's for this critical digital infrastructure, whether it's for oil and gas exploration operations, or mining coal, which is increasing in the United States, which is a good thing, because we produce it more responsibly than anywhere else in the planet, and we use pollution control technology. That's why we've become world leaders in clean air over the last five decades. So coal and natural gas will be the stop gap. Hopefully we get more nuclear online even faster, because what we should be doing with our natural gas is exporting it in the form of LNG, which we are doing and setting records every day in the amount that we're doing that, because our friends and allies around the world desperately need natural gas to power their economies. I grew up Jason, somewhat near the Sanofi Power Plants nuclear plants on the Los Angeles coast, and so I'm pretty familiar with how that interacts with the environment and so forth,

31:09but those are pretty old relatively speaking. In fact, I think they might have been decommissioned. So what is the difference between that technology and the new technology for nuclear? Yeah, the new technology is really more focused on small modular reactors, and what I mean by that is you've seen a facility that's probably several acres in and of its size, in and of its size that's producing probably 2,500 megawatts, two and a half gigawatts of electricity. That's providing electricity for 800,000 to a million homes. It is great, base load, electric generation that really keeps our grid powered. You've got to have electricity flowing through our grid at all times, or that when it doesn't, that's when you have blackouts, because you've got to keep this frequency, this charge in the lines, and nuclear is fantastic at doing that. So what small modular reactors are really much smaller footprint. They're basically the size of a shipping container. You can put them on a truck and move them to a facility and provide electricity. Let's talk about used or spent nuclear fuel,

32:11which has been considered a curse, but is there a good side or an upside to that these days? Absolutely, and there was up until the 80s in the very last couple of years, the Carter administration, when they stopped and they made it illegal to recycle spent fuel rods. So you've had states and companies that have been paying in taxpayers, that have been paying millions of dollars to store spent fuel rods for those larger reactors, when there's still a lot of fuel left in them. And so now, in this, something that France and Russia have continued to do, they continue to recycle that and get more energy out of those spent fuel rods. And that's another thing that Oklo is doing in Tennessee. They've announced the deal, multi-billion dollar deal, where they're going to take those spent fuel rods and re-enrich them, get the energy that's left out of them. And so you take something that's now, it's got this life of 100,000 years. It'll take it down to 300 years because you're continuing to get the energy out of, so they're really not spent fuel rods. They're now fuel rods, but they're going to recycle those to get more fuel out of them,

33:16re-enrich that fuel and use it for the small modular reactors. So this is going to be great for ratepayers and taxpayers that have been paying millions of dollars over the last four plus decades to store this stuff. Now, when you get done reusing it or reprocessing it, what is the difference between storage of that material versus the storage of what we're having to contend with today? Yes, so the stories that we're having to contend with today, and just keep in, like, if our entire lives, every single bit of energy that you and I use in a first world environment, we're basically only about a billion people have access to the energy that you and I do on the planet. There's seven billion that would love to take for granted, turning on a light and getting clean, drinking water. But if all of our energy came from nuclear energy, the technology that's available today and has been available for decades, the waste of our entire energy use of our entire life will be the size of a cocan. Wow. So now that is actually going to get smaller by recycling this spent fuel rods.

34:17So it's really hard to comprehend it is. If your entire life, energy, really could be summed up in the size of a cocan, is the waste. Now it's going to get smaller. Let's go to the phones quickly and say hello to David. David, you're on with Jason and I say, go ahead, please. Yes, thanks for the topic today. I'm aware that the majority of the nuclear reactors are fission reactors. Where does it stand with the technology to eventually have fusion reactors? Because I know that's cleaner energy and almost, you know, it's limitless. So I'll hang up and take the answer off the air. Great question. Thank you, David. Go ahead, Jason. Yeah, and I've sat in conferences with several business leaders that are working on this. And it's one of these things that we're still a few years away from, unfortunately. But it's going to continue to be invested in heavily to try to get us to that next technological aspect of fusion. But we're still, we're still several years away from it. So what we do have available today is again, this, this advent of small modular reactors.

35:22And I'm excited to see the investments actually going into something that's proven that works and it's going to multiply. And that's where we're going to be for the next probably several decades. Because it does take years to get this stuff to market to deploy it. The small modular reactors will get more efficient instead of producing five megawatts. They'll produce 500 megawatts. So I think a majority investment is going in the right direction. And it's to what works and can be more efficient. Fantastic news. If you would, please tell us where we can get more information on the work that you do at American Energy Institute. Yep, you'll find us at AmericanEnergyInstitute.com where you can find me on exit, Isaac for Energy. Jason Isaac, thank you for your insights and thanks for joining us again on the Showing Show. Absolutely great to be on. Thanks for having me. All right, let's go to the break news and weather at the top of the hour. We will have more time for community town hall. If you couldn't get in in hour number one, we'd love to hear from you in hour number two. I will remind you of the phone number, but I bet you've heard it enough that you have it memorized. You can say it along with me.

36:22434-977-1070. 434-977-1070. Marshall stands by to take your calls politely and professionally and you can get in line right now. Coming up in hour number two, Phil Klein, Joneses, former Attorney General of Kansas. On legal reasons to vote no on all three of the amendments that will be on the ballot in November. Stay with the Showing Show. That's our number two of a throw down Thursday edition of the Showing Show. Phone lines are open. 434-977-1070 for the community town hall segment of the program where you get to share your points of view with our vast listening audience. So take advantage of the opportunity at 977-1070. You could also send me an email to robesatcevilrightnow.com. Don't forget the Showing Show hotline which is 24-7 Voice Mail Textline to 2-8-2349.

37:25All of the contact information and in addition, a snail mail address for those of you who prefer old-style correspondence is available online at shillingshow.com. At the top of the page you will see a contact button. If you click that it will give you all the things I just described. Even one button email access. You don't even have to remember that. Just click on the word email and you can be in contact with this host. You know, I love hearing from the listening audience. I was thinking back to some years ago because my kids were small. This was a long time ago but it's just emblematic of how I feel about my listening audience. We were out to dinner at the East Garden which I think is still there but it was under different ownership years ago. We used to go quite a lot as a young family back when kids eat free up a phase under a certain age and so that was always an attraction. But we liked eating at East Garden. I remember there was an attorney. I'm not going to say his name but he clearly listened to the show for, I don't know how many years were on at the time, probably less than five years. But he came up at dinner and just introduced himself and said thank you very much and appreciate what you're doing.

38:29And I thought that was so nice. And has never been an issue for me to be approached in public and talked to by somebody who's excited about the show or has comments or questions. It's something that I've loved about it because one of the things about radio, unlike being in politics which is often face to face and retail at the door, the front door of somebody's house or at a public meeting, radio were a little bit separated. We still feel like family because I know you feel like you know me and some of you who call I feel like I know you as well. In others of you, I know we're like minded in many things. But we do operate with a distance between us. So when I get a chance to talk to people in public, it's really a joy for me. So I was thinking of that one little thing that happened so many years ago and how nice it was of that particular attorney to come up and just say hello and thank you. That was a kind thing. So long way of saying I appreciate hearing from you and sometimes people write to me and they disagree or they have something they want to take issue with and that's fine

39:29as well. As we always say, keep a civil tongue in your head and the vast vast vast majority of my conversations over the course of all these years, almost 20 years doing this program, people have been exceedingly nice. Every once in a while, there was a couple of threats along the way had to be reported a lot of enforcement, including one they came out of the group impact that supposedly a some sort of quasi religious group. It's a very strange group of people, but we had a literal physical threat against me from a member of impact years ago, which I described in great detail the next day after it happened and I did have to report it to the police and so that happens occasionally, but not often coming up in this hour of the program in addition to open phones at 977, 710, 70 Phil Klein joins us former attorney general of Kansas. Now you've probably heard a lot of people making case for voting no on one or all of the constitutional amendments, but today we're going to take a look at them. The legal case we're going to step aside from ethics and morality and

40:30religion and so forth and those are all good bases on which to oppose these, but what is the legal case for voting no on all three constitutional amendments? I would imagine that the listening audience would be hard pressed to come up with that, although some of you probably with legal minds know the answers, but we're going to get into that in great depth with Phil Klein coming up, he's here in studio and I'm going to look forward to this conversation right after the first break. There's something that came to pass here that I thought I would send you a warning on because just because you can doesn't mean you should. Virginia issued driver's licenses and IDs are now available in Apple wallet and let me tell you the Apple wallet is very, very convenient. I do use it. I have credit cards in there. It's fun to kind of tap and not worry about it, but as far as putting in things like driver's licenses, passports and all that, what you can now do, I'm very, very hesitant. Starting today, Virginians have the option to add their state-issued driver's

41:32license or ID card to the Apple wallet, marking a significant milestone in the Commonwealth's commitment to innovative secure digital services. I look at the word secure and I think of all the security that we all have been promised by government and private industry and how it's always breached, almost without exception, including and maybe especially in Albumol County most recently where they had to pay for ID for credit protection services for, I don't know how many people took advantage of it because of breaks into their system. It allows individuals to present a digital version of their license or ID using verification, their iPhone or Apple Watch without ever having to hand over their devices. You can use the new feature to present your ID at over 250 transportation security. That's TSA checkpoints and they go on to list the various airports that are local to us. You can also use to select business apps and in-person all Virginia DMV locations,

42:36a pilot in some Virginia ABC stores, so no more physical ID necessary when you're buying alcohol, with the Virginia State Police as well as hundreds of businesses and entertainment venues throughout the Commonwealth. You must continue to carry physical ideas a backup especially when driving, so so much for that. But it is super important to realize that this is not foolproof. It marks a major moment of innovation for the Commonwealth putting Virginians ahead of the curve when it comes to technology and protecting personal information. That's ironic because protecting personal information is nothing that we can do about it except maybe keep our IDs off of the phones. Protecting personal information is the job of the government in this instance, and I don't think your personal information is going to be protected at least for my point of view. I don't trust that they'll be able to protect it or that they'll not be data mining on my phone or using it to track me. I mean you talk about people uncomfortable with flock cameras. This is

43:40almost like putting a flock system on your phone, although they say over and over and over and over and over again and it might be true that they're not tracking you. They're not looking at anything else other than what you authorized them to look at. The possibility remains that a rogue person could be involved on the government side or even an actor or a third party rogue actor could get involved and hack into your phone. Look at your contacts, look at your spending, look at other things, your chats, what you're talking about. Look at your pictures in your camera. Once they're in and if you let them in you have no one to blame but yourself. And again they claim that this is going to be totally secure and nothing to worry about, but we've heard that time and time and time again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We've been fooled a lot more than two times on this. So I would say it's very attractive. It's something that looks like it would be cool to have and it probably is, but please think of the downside. And in today's society

44:44there are a lot of bad actors out there including within government and you would be taking a chance it's probably not worth it. That's certainly something I will not be doing. Just wanted to make you aware. Shilling show back with Phil Klein on the other side, stay with us. All right, the Shilling show continues with a very important subject. You need to be paying careful attention to what's on your ballot. And a lot of people don't, but that's present company excluded. I'm glad that you're tuned in today. And this is something we'll podcast and share out as well. Phil Klein is a former attorney general of Kansas, a former prosecutor and state legislator there and a law professor. Today we're going to make it real simple. The legal case for voting no on all three constitutional amendments. Phil Klein, welcome to the Shilling show and thank you for joining us today. Great to be with you, Rob. You were asked by defending our sons and daughters to see if the reproductive rights amendment is what proponents said it was. And briefly, what did you find out in your legal research? It is not at all. It is far, far more broad. In fact, it makes Virginia Constitution and experiment and how far things can go. And one

45:50of the most abiding concerns that I have regarding the language is it can effectively undermine the Commonwealth's efforts to protect abused children in the abortion context. In other words, it creates a safe haven for those children to be brought for medical care. And Rob, without any type of scrutiny on how they're being abused. And if you think about it, Rob, when you have a child who's 12 years old and becomes pregnant or 11 years old and becomes pregnant, no one calls the police. Who do you think the abuser is? It's someone who has control over that child whether it would be a stepfather and uncle or a sibling even. And when that child is pregnant, that is evidence of the abuse that has to be gotten rid of. So where do they go? Where they go to a one-off abortion clinic? What I mean by that is that the type of relationship within the clinic

46:54between the doctor and the patient is much different than a pediatric clinic. There's not an ongoing relationship. This is a one visit, provide the procedure you're done. And in that environment, most of the time, and this is what I saw on abortion records that I subpoenaed and that we obtained, is that there's never even a question as to who got you pregnant. And if the question is asked, the child is coached to say it was my boyfriend. And under Virginia law, with this amendment, that ends the inquiry. The state cannot get in there and get those records if this amendment passes to be able to identify the child that's being raped and to prosecute the person who's raping her. In any case, Phil, in this instance, where there's an 11 or 12-year-old who is pregnant, a crime has been committed. And you're telling me that the state would be prohibited from pursuing it because of technicalities in this amendment. What's more than technicalities? It is actually very, very significant substantive language. Under Roe v. Wade,

47:59the state interest in not only developing life or perspective life was respected to a certain extent. The state interest in protecting families, the state interest in protecting children, was something that the state can assert in reasonable regulations on access to abortion. Under this constitutional amendment, those state interests are no longer considered. The constitutional amendment itself defines the only state interest that can be considered in abortion regulation. And that state interest is the choice to get in abortion. In other words, the state can only assert that its regulation supports the choice to get in abortion. Moreover, it is constitutionally required under this amendment to protect the doctor's decision whether the abortion is necessary. Just to give you an example of what I call the Texas two step and what they claim it's going to do in the language and what it actually does.

49:03The language says that the state can restrict late term abortion. But only if that restriction protects the doctor's choice in determining the late term abortion is necessary and protecting the woman's choice to get it. So in other words, it is a restriction without application. So it's window dressing in essence. All of it is. There is though very compelling evidence that's that's gone through several court challenges and court cases written by lawyers who support reproductive freedom that would inhibit the state from exercising its obligation to protect children who are sexually abused by obtaining information from those records to prosecute the abusers and protect the children. Here's how it doesn't. It elevates the doctor's judgment to a constitutional standard. Tell us how that plays out practically. Sure. If the doctor says for

50:03example, and this will send shocking to you, but this has been argued in numerous court cases and actually in the investigation that I did as Attorney General. And that is the argument that actually investigating harms the mental health of the child. And therefore the investigation should not take place. And under this amendment, that judgment by the doctor is sufficient to prevent any state action in the abortion setting, including subpoening those records to identify the child. Right now, Virginia requires the doctor to file an abortion report with the state, but it doesn't have identities. So we know children are getting abortions. But the subpoena records, this constitutional amendment says the doctor has to agree that's in the best interest of the child. I will quote plain parenthood's former medical director who said the primary harm caused by adult child sexual interaction is not the sex. It's the immoderate reactions of adults,

51:05whether they be parents or law enforcement. We see this right now, Rob, as it relates to so called gender-affirming care, they believe parental knowledge is harmful to the child. So they secrete the child away from their moral foundation. Well, here you've got an abuser taking a child who might be a parent, might be a stepper to an abortion clinic. And the medical, the abortionist can say, well, if we investigate this further, that can cause mental harm. So no, state stop. All it's about is performing the abortion. That's how that reads. Phil, climb, we got about 30 seconds before we go to the break. This sounds unprecedented. Is there any other area of law where there's this sort of difference given to a medical professional, any other professional to shut down a essence and investigation into a crime? Abortion stands alone in all of this. Roe gave some difference there, but it did it and balanced it against state interest. The difference here is they define the state interest as promoting the

52:07abortion. So an answer to your question, if this passes, no state has done anything like this and nothing like this has occurred within the United States. It's absolutely frightening what we're facing in these of this amendment, particular, the abortion amendment question one, reproductive rights on the Virginia ballot. We're going to be continuing on the other side of news and weather with Phil Klein, who's visiting us today in studio, former Attorney General of Kansas, a former prosecutor in state legislator. Now law professor, we're talking about the legal case we're voting no on all three constitutional amendments. You need to be aware of these things and share them broadly with your neighbors. This will be podcast after the show today and everybody who votes needs to hear this. The shilling show back with Phil Klein after news and weather stay with us. All right, the shilling show continues. Our guest is Phil Klein, former Attorney General of Kansas. We're making the legal case for voting no on all three constitutional amendments. We'll get to the others in a moment, but we're continuing

53:08right now on the reproductive rights so-called amendment. Even the term is deceptive and I would like to spend just a moment on that when they talk about reproductive rights, but they're really talking about something very specific here and that's a very broad term. So how do you make the use of language here and what do you think about it? Well, the language, first of all, the language supporting the amendment is something that many Virginians, what the proponents say it will do is something many Virginians probably would support and their interpretation is, well, this is going to bring back row and limit late term abortions and also have some reasonable parental notification, allowances and things like that and that's not the case at all. This will be the most broad and aggressive language in any constitution in the United States of any state that narrows the state interest to solely protecting the abortion decision.

54:09So, you know, and it expands beyond abortion. It doesn't just include abortion. It includes contraception. It includes prenatal care. It includes a whole host of things that have not been litigated and it is not age specific. So, the state can only challenge what is happening in an abortion clinic relating to children if they're supporting the child's autonomous decision to have an abortion. So, it is any restriction is a restriction without force because it has to be designed to support the abortion decision. And the reason that is, Robin, and I'm sure you've probably heard of it when courts have considered abortion, they've considered it as a right, a constitutional right, previous to the recent Supreme Court decision, a constitutional right of the woman. And any state restriction of that right cannot create what is called an undue burden.

55:13And so, what the courts were doing most recently in the United States is they were balancing the state interest against the burden placed on the woman's right to choose. Well, what this amendment does, unlike any decision by the Supreme Court previously or any court, what this does is, as well, the state can't consider parental rights in determining what restrictions it can't put on abortion. It can't consider family relationships in determining what restrictions to put on abortion. It defines the compelling state interest, the only one that can be considered as protecting the abortion decision and respecting the doctor's decision that it is necessary. It seems a very strange thing that in this country, you couldn't get a child, probably couldn't get them an aspirin in a school or get their ears pierced or a tattoo, and yet you could have the parents completely out of the loop in having an abortion for the child.

56:17It just doesn't seem to make sense at all. And you mentioned this is probably the most extreme, or would be if it's passed, of all. And we seem to have some pretty extreme ones. So, most recently, I believe it was at Massachusetts. Well, they've passed reproductive rights amendments in Washington state in Michigan. New Jersey. New Jersey. There have been court decisions in states that have acknowledged the right to an abortion in Kansas and many other states. But none have the combination that Virginia's has. It also prohibits the state from having any adverse impact on anybody who facilitates and supports abortion. So, for example, when I, as an attorney general, I investigated and prosecuted over a thousand cases of child rape and child molestation in Kansas, some including trafficking and some including where the traffickers were parents.

57:20I mean, and so in doing so, what I often needed was the who paid for the abortion, who paid for the treatment of the 11 year old? Well, under the new amendment that's being proposed, that person who often is the abuser, you know, the child doesn't pay for their own abortion. Now, most often it's the abuser. That person is protected because they're helping facilitate an abortion. So, this amendment protects them from any adverse interest or impact from the state when they're facilitating an abortion. What that likely will do is once again allow abortion clinics who can, who can, in court actually represent the rights of third parties, including their patients. That's been long established. The abortion doctor sued to protect the woman's right. Who can say and argue, wait a minute, this person facilitated the abortion through payments.

58:22So, I'm not going to give you their name. This is really disturbing, Phil Klein, to think about this, because what it leads me to believe is that this would make Virginia the sex-trafficking capital of the country. Why wouldn't you come here if you're protected in these instances and you want to traffic? Well, somebody who is trafficking in a child is treating the child like a commodity. Yes. And when they are pregnant or have an STD, that is a commodity with less value. So, you need to end the pregnancy and or treat the STD. Where do they go? They go to abortion clinics. That is natural. It's occurring across the nation. And when you and you are absolutely right, Rob, when you enshrine in the Constitution arguments that allow abortion clinics to hide the records from an investigation of child trafficking, that's where you're going to go. You're right.

59:26It seems to me that the proponents of this should be called to answer for the many charges that you brought up here, all of these legal points, Phil Klein. Have you heard any of these discuss as a bending debates on the subject that you're aware of because it seems like a huge oversight if we're not having that conversation directly? I've not heard any of that. And quite honestly, I don't even think many of the proponents ever led read the actual language or tried to understand it. I know this, Rob, because of my investigation in Kansas and what I saw and how I had to fight the Kansas Supreme Court for the production of records along these lines. And those records showed as an example, an a period of time of a little over a year, 166 abortions on children, as young as nine when they became pregnant, and only four reports by abortion clinics of child molestation. And in all four instances, those cases were already public. So the abortion clinics knew somebody knew. So there are 162 children in Kansas. The state could not act to

1:00:31protect and the abortion clinics fought years to provide those records. And people might, the people will find the shocking, but think about this for a moment. It's also shocking, I think, to most of us, that school districts believe they can alter the gender of a child without talking to a parent. That's right. And but that has been the long developing standard that is being taught for counseling. That it wouldn't the most important things about counseling is confidentiality that counseling and this type of service, which is considered mental health services is vitally important to children. We don't disagree with that. And and that and breaching that confidentiality or trust, well, and here's where their argument goes very far will chill their interest in getting counseling. That will harm their mental health. Mental health is a part of the analysis of all this. And this proposal puts all of that, the doctor's discretion and

1:01:33determinations, the abortion doctor, who's who's seen that girl one time, you know, this isn't multiple visits. And this is a one time visit. A doctor can say, wait a minute, all this harm's your mental health, we're not going to allow you to take a look at this information. It's shocking, but it's consistent with what we're seeing in the trends in all of these areas across the nation. So it shouldn't shock your listeners too much. We've been debating this not directly, but inferentially for a long time. Phil, we're going to be talking about the other two in the next segment, but just to wrap this up, how should people look at this going forward? What are the really the key points they should be considering in casting their vote? Well, first of all, if the proponents want to restore what it was prior to the dobson case in the role, there's an easy way to do it. They didn't do it. And they need to ask why and they need to question themselves. Why experiment with the Virginia Constitution and add all this additional language?

1:02:36Secondly, they need to know that this endangers the ability of the Commonwealth to protect abused children in the abortion context because it creates a safe haven for information. And you are absolutely right that will attract those who are looking not to be detected in the trafficking of children. Are they willing to vote for that? Are they willing to vote for that possibility that Virginia becomes the destination for traffickers if their product, the children, are pregnant or have an SDD? I believe the answer is clearly no. We have one segment left with Phil Klein from Attorney General of Kansas and we'll be talking about the other two constitutional amendments. Here on the Shilling Show stay with us final segment for today straight ahead. All right, the Shilling Show heading into our final segment. Phil Klein is our guest former Attorney General of Kansas, speaking today on the legal case for voting no on all three constitutional amendments.

1:03:41Next up is the marriage amendment. A give us an overview because we had a marriage amendment on the ballot that puts certain language into the Constitution. Now we're kind of going in the other direction but with a twist. So what are we talking about? Well this what the proponents claim is a response to the previous amendment which is out of line with United States Supreme Court decision. United States Supreme Court has said that marriage between persons of the same sex is constitutionally protected. Virginia voters in 2007 I believe it was Rob passed an amendment that said marriage shall be between a man and a woman. So what the proponents are saying is we're putting this our constitution in line with United States Supreme Court decision and just allowing acknowledgement of same sex marriage but that's not what they're doing. There's an easy way to do that if that were the aim and they go further. I don't know. Do you have access to the

1:04:43Internet right now? I do. Google this or whatever search engine you have. How many genders are there? Okay let's do a quick from Bing here. Okay because I've lost track of the alpha that's soup of genders. Okay you know it's funny that was an auto complete on that question. Okay how many genders are there? All 72 genders list from medicine net and so that's and not that that's 72 genders. That's what they say. So that's the top response by the way. Wow if if you were to acknowledge or want in the Virginia constitution an acknowledgement of same sex marriage which is commonly known as gay marriage. Yeah. You use the term that courts have always used and it is an objective term it's determined by biology courts are designed to apply same sex marriage. Same gender marriage. They don't use that term. They include gender in this constitutional amendment and that is a self defining concept that as of today according to your

1:05:48search has 72 definitions to it. Now we have to understand that marriage and and making marriage a fundamental right doesn't just impact the moment that you stand before whomever and say I do. It impacts child custody. It impacts probate law. It impacts these migrate into other areas when you create what's called a a suspect class. That's a class of persons who history has shown discrimination against and and put that in the constitution. This is a suspect class and you use a term that is self defining. You've opened up the possibilities of persistent litigation and an inability to have a policy that is predictable and that's what they're doing by including gender. So if you if you if you look across what is happening in America you have seen a movement of those

1:06:55who support a respect for same sex relationships and that movement has really gained some some pretty significant support in American culture today and it includes support from non same sex persons. That's not what this is at all. This is now that edge of culture where you see for example students identifying themselves as animals. The furry movement. Right. And schools accommodating that self identification. Well the terms that are used in that debate are terms that the proponents of this amendment want to put in the Virginia Constitution. That again is experimentation. If you want to ensure that same sex the same sex marriage ban is not in the Virginia Constitution you repeal it. That would be pretty straightforward. Take the

1:08:00language out of the constitution. We have a Supreme Court ruling and that's done. That's right. We have one more to go through and just a few minutes left with Phil Klein the former attorney general for Kansas the legal case for voting no on all three constitutional amendments. This is the voting rights amendment and perhaps the one that sounds the most benign but there are some issues that people should consider. What are they? Well first of all you are absolutely right a lot of people want to restore voting rights for fell into a serve their time and that's how this is presented. Well again there's an easier way to do it you do it through statute. If you want to put it in the Constitution that's what you say but it doesn't do that. It goes further than all language language and Supreme Court decisions as well as in the Virginia Constitution and it says that voting itself is a fundamental right that shall not be abridged. Now that sounds good but those protections already exist but when you put it into this context what it does is it gives arguments against

1:09:01any impairment it requires strict scrutiny review of state law which means the state must narrowly forward its compelling interest of voting voter integrity against the fundamental right to vote and what that does is it calls into question reasonable restrictions on absentee ballots for example identification requirements on absentee ballots. Virginia doesn't have it but some states do they require a photo copy of your driver's license for example. Those types of things how long election day is how far an advance is advance voting does it burden the fundamental right if you restrict that to a week rather than 60 days all of that is going to go into litigation with this constitutional amendment and it's the same type of thing it's almost like a Trojan horse but that implies wrongful intent and I I'm not going to say that but what it does do is

1:10:05is it's all an experimentation it's all taking the Virginia Constitution much further than has occurred anywhere else and we should not be experimenting with the Constitution it sounds like a very dangerous thing. Phil Klein thank you so much for joining us today on the Schilling show and presenting the legal case for voting no on all three constitutional amendments we really appreciate it thank you and we will be posting this online right after the show Marshall will be taking care of that and that wraps up today's edition of the Schilling show hey we love to hear from you visit us online at shillingshow.com lots of ways to be in touch with the host just click on the contact button and you can send us an email to Rob S. at seavillrightnow.com love to hear from you coming up on tomorrow's edition of the Schilling show state senator bill Stanley will be joining us with his attorneys cap on our great patriotic sheriff Steve Smith of green county is being attacked by the attorney general because he's been cooperating with ice you know how we feel about Steve Smith and the work he's done over all these years he stands up strong for the

1:11:10Constitution so we're going to get to the defense by attorney bill Stanley that will be on tomorrow's edition of the Schilling show also we're going to step out of the realm of politics tomorrow we've got lots of interesting things to talk about including the conversation with david cahillahan choosing data over physical do you want to have a copy of a movie or do you just want to have a digital file on your computer which could conceivably disappear one day i prefer to have a vhs or a dvd copy the same thing with music but we'll get into all that and people are collecting things and why that's important have a wonderful afternoon we'll be back here tomorrow to do it all over again on the Schilling show thank you for joining us