Nick Reed 09.11.26 - 9/11 and Darin Chappell

0:00Today, of course, every time of year, every year, I should say, some more than others taking time to really reflect and remember 9-11. A lot of Americans weren't alive or were, but too young to remember it, or even if they remember it, didn't really have the same emotional impact as people that are adults at the time, or were adults at the time. 25 years, you know, you sometimes hit these benchmarks 10, 25, 50, and there's a bit more focus. And of course, this conflict going on with the mayor of New York and his associates and what I believe he's wanting to send a signal to the victims and not an appropriate one. And I've talked about this, I think yesterday or the day before, and I will just briefly mention it again, but there's a really, well, there's two separate pieces out right now. What I'm going to read to you because it's a real

1:04interesting, almost side note to the way that so many people or a component of 9-11 people remember, and it's the visuals you'll see, oftentimes people posting of those who jumped from the World Trade Center towers. And there was one of the medical examiners that was in charge of identifying bodies on post 9-11 who has written a piece pushing back against that narrative for very, very interesting reason. I thought I would read it to you because it's just an aspect of the whole 9-11 that I had never thought of before. Some information I didn't know. And I just thought it was kind of an interesting thing. And then there's a piece, I'm not going to read it to you, but it's in the Federalist regarding the religious war component to this and how we just continue to refuse to recognize the motivation behind those who carried out the attacks. And terrorist attacks after 9-11,

2:07though they may not have had the impact in terms of scope, we have certainly seen them whether they were here in the United States or in other areas, particularly Europe. And this for reasons, oftentimes, of political correctness, desire to willfully ignore the enemy's motivation. And it becomes very, very difficult to win a war if you don't recognize the motivation of the enemy, whether that is deliberate or not. And it's arguably one of the reasons why this enemy has not been completely killed off and arguably continues to grow, or at least their goals of having a spread footprint of Islamic rule in the West is something that they certainly made headway in the last 25 years. And I think we kind of failed to recognize that and the connection to all this. So

3:07we'll talk a little bit about that. It is a burlis and breakfast Noah is here just get you in the loops, pretty easy concept, but if you haven't participated or benefited yet, here's what you got to do. All right. So as Nick mentioned, we are at Scrambo's at Repelk Road in National. If you come in this morning and you have a burlis and bumper sticker, or if you don't and you want one, you will put one on for you for your charge. And that will entitle you to one free burlis and breakfast. Just let your server know ahead of time or find me. I'll be wearing a burlis and air burlis and for Congress. Great t-shirt. Usually I'm on the left hand side when you walk in. Find me. We'll get you one of those tickets and I'll get you one of our complimentary breakfast specials. But you know, Nick, as you mentioned, it's nine 11. Usually I try to say something funny, but you know, and today's not that day. Find it not an appropriate day to do that. 25 years in one day ago, I enlisted in United States Army the day before September 11th and to know that you're kidding. No, no, I was in high school and I just got back to school and that happened, but you know, that generationally

4:12changed, you know, the folks from from my age. But I just want to say on behalf of myself and Eric Burleson, thank you to all of our veterans, to all of the folks that are serving, our first responders, their families. Thank you for everything you guys do and God bless you in the United States. If you don't mind me asking, how old were you? Yeah, I was 17 so I was a junior in high school. And I'm going to ask a question that I mean, of course you can give whatever answer you want. I'm thinking of potentially a tough honest answer, but you're 17. You enrolled the day, the next day that happens. I can only imagine the range of possibilities in terms of reaction, emotion from, man, this is what I sign up for to holy crap. This is not what I signed up for. You know what I mean? Or just conversion, not knowing how to feel about it because particularly number one, you're young. And at that period of time as a person, we're not in the context or concept of war

5:19as a country. And so, damn, what a, I just can't imagine that. What were your thoughts? Yeah, so my group of buddies of mine, we enlisted together. Now it's just pre-9-11. So we can have that context of hey, this is about to happen. And we had grown up with watching Sansi Iwo Jima and you know, that's what you were all nerds. Absolutely. But that patriarchy used something always called my grandfather had served in World War II as a Marine in the Second Marine Division and fought from Guadalcanal, Polu, he's an Okinawa. And he had literally that weekend told me about his service and I was so excited to be able to serve my country. And when that happened, there was no trepidation. It was, it was immediate service. I actually left school my, my high school football coach, sorry, coach, Hirsch, I'm gonna call you out here. He did stop me and he said, hey, where are you going? And I said, hey, you know, I just enlisted in the Army. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I'm gonna go to my unit, which is based in Springfield. And you know, I sat

6:19up there with about 200 other guys of various Marines, Army, Navy personnel. They were ready to go. There was no hesitation. You know, we knew that that's where we were gonna be. Because it is understandable for some who would have enlisted, depending on motivation, because you enlisted for different reasons than a lot of people. And some of that's just the, you know, the military encouraging our government, encouraging people for new recruitment about, hey, pay for college or hey, it could be great for a career. But not the context so much and somebody's in a young mind of in case we have to go to war. So you could imagine how that could really catch someone off guard who just enlisted. You know, my grandpa had told me that when he went to the Marine Corps, he'd went to boot camp with a mix of pre-perl harbor and post-perl harbor folks. And so when I went to boot camp, I had pre-9-11 and post-9-11. So you had the run of the mill people that, hey, they're down in the lock or they just were like me. We wanted to be paid

7:20trotting. But you had other folks that 9-11 spurred them into that moment. And I remember my drill sergeant telling us, look to your left, look to your right. Some of you are not gonna be here from now. And he was killed in Afghanistan three years after after making that statement. So you know, it was an absolute pleasure to serve my country and I'm glad for everybody that did and that we could get revenge for what happened on the mill. There was a, of course, countless World War II documents that are out there. I want to say it was after, there was a release years ago of World War II documentaries and they had taken footage and upscaled it to be high definition. And I think Rob Lowe actually narrated me here on the history channel or something. And they were talking to one veteran who he was in the military before Pearl Harbor. And he, I just remember, because I thought this was such a brilliantly and

8:22kind of in retrospect, funny, but honest answer. And he goes, you know, you always just hear about how, after Pearl Harbor, you had American boys that were lying about their age to go and they were all gun-ho and no fear. And he goes, man, he goes, oh, I know, I did not want to go. And I was scared out of my mind. I was not one of those guys. And which is normal and it's totally natural to feel that way. But I don't know. I always remember the interview with that guy. And wow, what a, see, I dated a girl once who moved to New York on September 10th, 2001 for a job. And I always thought that was crazy timing. But I don't know that I've ever talked to someone who enlisted in the military. And September 10th, 2001. So yeah, it was great timing. But again, I wouldn't change that for the world. And you know, and everybody I knew that they're enlistment during that time frame. It was the cream of the crop. I mean, you have the best of our country rising together

9:24to fight injustice all at one time. And so it was a pleasure to do that. All right. Well, thanks for the additional little 9-11 info there. Appreciate it. Absolutely. And of course. And then, you know, here's breakfast, sorry, here's breakfast. The Burleson breakfast, just fine, not known you get here. If you got a Burleson sticker on your car, free breakfast from the Burleson folks. And if you don't have one to get you on, thank you. Sir, appreciate as always. Thank you, Nick. 25 years. Of course, September 11th, there's going to be a great deal of notation on this from a more, I don't know, colorful angle there could potentially be conflict at the reading of the names, the annual at ground zero memorial as well over 100,000. I call them victims. They're individuals whose families died on September 11th. And we obviously recognize those who were killed as victims. But and even I find myself saying

10:28family members of victims, well, they were victims too. And if you lost a husband, a wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, a child, whatever, somebody that was a meaningful part of your life on September 11th, you two were victims. So there's over 100,000 9-11 victims that ask Mamdani not to arrive. And that is because of what they have fully recognized collectively, an individual that is an apologist for terrorism. And has, his behavior suggests to me, he's giving a subtle middle finger to America and to the victims of 9-11 with the associations that he has involved in the recognition of 9-11. And this is primarily the person that he chose to be his top advisor in his administration and it's a former al-Qaeda attorney.

11:29I mean, you know, this is a guy who is directly, he chose as his career path to focus on defending members of al-Qaeda, including people who have actually carried out terrorist attacks. Not only that, but Mamdani last week at a signing ceremony that was supposed to be recognizing victims of 9-11 had that guy up on stage with him. And then as he saw, you know, you, this is something that's very common for governors or high-profile elected officials that sign declarations or new laws, proclamations, they will give the pin that historic representation to somebody that they feel is very meaningful to them, particularly in the context of whatever the signing is. So, you know, you've got, say, for example, Trump signs some law protecting, well, okay, protecting girls in sports is something that he did.

12:30And of course, he gives pins to young girls who are impacted directly by this. This is something that is a representation. Mamdani hands the pin to the police commissioner to then hand to the al-Qaeda attorney in full public display for the family members, for the victims to see. That's not an accident. That is almost reclaiming the purpose of recognizing 9-11 from the victims and instead recognizing it, perhaps subtly, in a wink wink nudge nudge, as a great moment of celebration. There's no other reason to deliberately have at that event an attorney for al-Qaeda that you would then hand a pin to. That is deliberate. That is a message. That is a signal. That 9-11

13:36is quote, our event to just from a much different perspective clearly. It's going to be interesting to see when he arrives with the reaction is going to be. You know, the families have a couple or again, the victims keep correcting myself on that. You know, have a couple of different approaches. One, they can decide it's just ignore him. He's not worth it or they could express their grand displeasure. And I would also argue despite the fact that it'll Kathy Hokel, the governor of New York, has criticized the victims of 9-11 for not wanting Mamdani to be there. You don't have over 100,000 victims collectively and organically. Take that sort of position

14:39unless there's something really there. They're not all crazy. They're not all paranoid. They're not all overly sensitive. And while many people argue accurately, I think, you know, that, well, he is mayor. He has the right to be there. There is something called human decency. And if you are the mayor of a city and there is an event and the whole purpose is to be recognizing the victims on that solemn day and the victims don't want you there and you decide to go anyhow, then you don't really see it as about them. You see it as about you. It's like if somebody's having a wedding or any sort of event and they don't want you there and you decide, nope, I'm going to go anyway. What sort of person does that? I don't care if you are mayor. The whole point is to reflect on and to honor to focus on the victims. Well, if the victims

15:45are saying don't be here, the ones that are still alive, then you shouldn't go. That's human decency. We're going to take a break and I do want to just note one other component to this and it's trying to think of the best way to describe this. We look at 9-11, we separate that out, we compartmentalize it. Well, some of you may not, but it just culturally, this is the conventional wisdom is we separate 9-11 from away from the current grouping of Islamists in Europe and the United States that are acquiring power that are creating footprints that are getting people into office that are openly saying, yeah, Sharia law is going to be the law of this land and they're

16:49all part of the same movement, which means that the goal of the hijackers on 9-11 is getting closer than further away and in many ways, I mean, can you imagine those hijackers have been told there will be a sympathizer, a member of this religion who is a sympathizer of terrorism that will be elected mayor of this city, that they would in their minds believe that meant that the country had completely collapsed and the Islamic radicals had completely taken over the country, because who could imagine any other way that would play out? Darren Chappell with us? How do you do? Hey, I'm doing well. I'm really glad you're here. I kept trying to back and forth as, oh, with the redistricting map, the court said this and then 20 seconds later, well, this one said this and then you're in contempt. No, you're not. And I'm, I can't keep up. And then I realized Darren Chappell is going to be here on Friday, so I'll just stop trying to keep up and let him explain

17:54it all. Sure. And so there was that redrawn map for the congressional districts. And that was used in the primary. And I'm kind of trying to set this up. You correct me. If the premise, or the foundation is incorrect here, you had a group of people that submitted signatures saying, no, we want to go back to the old one. And it was determined that the petition process does not apply, believe the Secretary of State made that determination that doesn't apply to redistricting. And at some point, I think it's Missouri State Supreme Court said, yes, it does. Unfortunately, we'd already used that map in the primary, but they're like, too bad. Use the old one anyway. And then it's just gone back and forth from there. That pretty well sums it up. Okay, been a bit of a tea or toddler week, you know, and now to you, well, let's start with this. Do you find it to be a valid perspective that the petition process is not applicable to redistricting?

19:01Or is that sometimes it's an open question, sometimes it really is indefinitive. So the Missouri State Constitution says that all laws are subject to referendum. And I don't think anybody ever thought that that was going to be applied to a redistricting map, but it has been. It's hard to argue that redistricting is not included in the premise of all. So the question is brought. And so it has to be decided. This Supreme Court of Missouri said, yes, it is included. However, when you're talking about congressional maps, you're not talking only about state functions, but the state functioning on the national level. And so federal law applies as well. And that's part of what this other lawsuit that is still ongoing is questioning.

20:02Because although the Missouri State Supreme Court said we don't care that you had a primary under the 25 map, we want the general to go under the 22 map, but that's not permitted in federal law. Yeah, no, that really makes sense. It would be maybe, well, let's put it this way. It's probably arguably the same reason that we can't by initiative petition put term limits on federal offices, right? Because yeah, because and they've tried in other states. And the Supreme Court has made decisions regarding the term limit issue, noting that individual states can't do that. By any process, Florida state law requires that every vote be counted in a disputed election. But the Supreme Court ruled that once they got to a certain number, President Bush won an algorithm lost. And okay, when you're dealing with a national election, the state laws are

21:07subservient to the national government laws. So arguably, potentially you could have a scenario where okay, you can reject lines drawn by initiative petition, but only for state offices, not for federal. Yeah, potentially. Depending on the Constitution, the state constitution, I guess, and the interpretation. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to this. The one thing that I think has been overlooked by most people that I think is extraordinarily clear is that the Supreme Court is 110% wrong when they say that the 25 maps have never been the law. That's just clearly false. It passed by a majority vote in both chambers of the General Assembly and it was signed by the governor. That is a law. Now, they can say we're going to put it up for referendum. And so it ought not be enforced until that

22:07referendum is is determined. They can say that, I disagree, but they can say that. But when I saw the Supreme Court say it has never been law, well, that's just not true. What was their context of that? No, there was no legal reasoning provided. It was a declaration by Fiat of, it's essentially judicial veto. And that's not how it works. Part of the problem is that in our government and in people who follow government, they have forgotten what co-equal means as it relates to the three branches. And the General Assembly is a co-equal branch to the judiciary and the executive. And, you know, every now and then, I guess we need to remind people who they're dealing with. But I mean, at this situation, the Supreme Court has taken upon for

23:08itself powers that they do not have. For example, we have the ballot initiatives. And then the Supreme Court comes along and says, well, you can't, that's not proper wording. Do it again. Yeah, it's still not right. Do it again. And eventually, they then say, well, we're going to write it. They don't have any granted authority under the law or the Constitution of the State of Missouri to write the ballot language themselves because they don't like the way it was done before. Now, they've taken that power on for themselves. And that's just the way it is. But we need to correct that. Yeah. Well, and I don't know that this scenario is currently in play. Since it's not because I haven't heard it pointed out, but the nightmare that can occur in allowing for a process that can have a map that is voted on, if you will, or that's utilized for a vote in a primary, but then it

24:12changes for the general is, what if you have a candidate in, you know, the fourth, and then there's a candidate in the fifth, and they both run in their primaries, and they both get the nominations. And then you have a conflict like this arise, and they're like, oh, you have to go to the previous map. And then the previous map suddenly puts both of those winners in the same congressional district. Well, then who get what happens then? Well, and I don't think that hasn't, that's not an assertive scenario right now is it? It's not, but it wouldn't matter if it were the US Constitution only requires that an individual running for Congress live within the state. There's no requirement that you live in the district that you're running to represent. Really? Yep. I could run for Congress in St. Louis if I wanted to. I don't know that I knew that, or if I did, I forgot it long ago. Well, when you think about it, when it was established in 1789,

25:16trying to find enough people, willing and capable of running, I mean, they didn't put as many. Well, and it probably wasn't as relevant then either. Now, in this day and age, it would be easier for someone to do that, but back then, yeah, yeah. I mean, you look at it now and already people in northern Missouri, most of them don't know who the southeast Missouri member of Congress is, but back then when there was no internet, no TV, no, it just wouldn't even be done. I imagine anyhow. Yeah. So that's interesting. We should try that sometime. So that's not a requirement. And for Congress. Well, I guess that answers that question. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Yeah. So the Rick Breton, who's a sitting Missouri State Senator, but is running for Congress against Emmanuel Cleaver and Bob Onder, current Congressman, whose district is being impacted depending on which map it is, have both sued the Secretary of

26:22the State in federal court suggesting, hey, they're trying to use a different map for the general than they did for the primary. And that hearing is going to be the, they have to submit their evidences, their arguments on Tuesday, the 15th. And Thursday, the 17th, there will be oral arguments made before the court of the Eastern District in Missouri, the federal court. Those, those have been expedited because the ballots for military have to go out on the 18th. All right. So a week away. So we are looking at the next seven days, nothing may change. And everything may change. And because it's being done, because the decision will come down on the 17th,

27:23I don't know that the Supreme Court will have the time, or even the inclination, frankly, to take up any challenge should it not go the way of people not politicians. And they keep touting these 300,000 signatures. Okay. Fair enough. What about the, what about the millions of votes that the General Assembly got? What about that? 300,000 people are going to throw out an entire map that was legally, constitutionally done. Now, their reaction to it, the court's reaction to it, since I can't control that. But I know for a fact, those maps, that map was passed legally and constitutional. And so to suggest that 300,000 people who don't like the fact that the Republican Party may gain an extra seat out of six million, and you're going to throw that number around,

28:31there are larger numbers to consider here. I believe that if it is determined ultimately in its current form that initiative petition can dictate congressional draw lines maps, then that needs to be changed. Because I just, I mean, it definitely does. And we try, you know what, we tried to change it because we've been hearing about IP reform and I know, I know, I know, you know, 15 years. And so we tried to change it. It was not the form that I would have hoped for. It's not the form I argued for. But it failed by 85% roughly. And, you know, elections have consequences. And I'm afraid that Missouri is fixing to see some of those consequences. I know. Well, part of it, and I don't think people recognize that this could bite them in the backside because if you are, let's say, the motivating force behind challenging or wanting to

29:33challenge by initiative petition, the current congressional map or people on the left. Well, if then people on the right really wanted to coordinate with lawmakers, they write up a brand new map that leaves zero Democrat districts. And then all right, initiative petition will put that to a vote because there are more Republican voters than Democrat voters. And you could arguably, if you got the forces out there, say, all right, you guys wanted to play this game. And because ultimately what you could argue then is whatever party has the most voters get to decide how the maps are drawn up. Well, that's how it is. Yeah. That's how it is. And every time I see the word gerrymandering, you know, the meme from Princess Bride, you keep using that word. Yes, yeah, I do not think it means what you think it means. That's what comes to my mind because if the definition of gerrymandering is that party in control gets to draw the maps the way that benefits that party, well, then there's never been a map that hasn't been gerrymandering. But that's

30:37not the definition of gerrymandering and it's ridiculous. But the simple fact of the matter is, this runaway initiative petition, I mean, if a MIMIT 6 passes and it may very well, which is the MIMIT 6 is the one that requires an 80% vote in both chambers of the General Assembly to put back on the ballot a question that the voters have enshrined in the Constitution. It's absolutely ridiculous. If that happens, we're done. But people don't understand. They think it's only about abortion. Yeah. What about the percentages of taxation on gambling or on marijuana? Or what about the minimum wage that gel stuck in the Constitution? I mean, we can't touch any of that. And the idea, well, you're you're overturning the will of the people. So Nick, you and I go to dinner one night, and the waiter comes up and asks me, would you like lima beans with your meal? No, I hate lima beans,

31:42absolutely not. And then he comes back a minute later, so how about carrots? And I say, hey, did you not hear me the first time? I said no. I would be irrational in that set of circumstances. So a MIMIT 3, two years ago, we had largely pro-life laws with no abortion. And then the option was you can have abortion any time you want. And people voted for option B. I don't think they fully understood in all cases, but they did. All right, fine. So now we're bringing back another option. Right. That is somewhere in the middle ground. And people are acting like we're disrespecting the will of people. Are you kidding me? We're bringing you another option for you to decide. Yeah, the will of the people. Abs, it's almost like that's how that works. Yeah, I know. It's similar often times to, well, I find people who throw out the will of the people card generally just mean there is an attempt

32:44to change something that they don't want to change. Exactly. And the will of the people always cracks me up because when President Obama was elected, people on our side were throwing a fit and couldn't believe the country was so dumb. And then when President Trump was elected the first time and the second people on the other side were throwing a fit and couldn't believe the country was so dumb. So we can just all agree that given the right set of circumstances, the will of the people is wrong. Yeah, I mean, it just is. Yeah. And that's why we're not a democracy. Yes. You can't. It's because it becomes mob rule. Yeah, and it's you're swayed by the passions of the moment. I mean, wanted to talk about 9-11 this. Perfect. We were. Perfect segue. Then on 9-12, yeah, we would have anybody anywhere. And there was nobody doubted it. Nobody was saying, well, no, wait a second. We need to have restraint. No, if we had had them all on tape and we

33:49knew who it was and where they were, they would have been obliterated in a nanosecond. But then, you know, as the days and weeks and months passed, then the divisions showed up again. And then we started in the, well, yeah, but you didn't got to watch that collateral damage. Let me tell you, collateral damage and warfare would not have been considered at all on 9-12. I was born in 1966. Fun fact. 25 years after Pearl Harbor. And, you know, my grandparents, obviously, my grandfather and my mother's side, he actually served in Pearl Harbor in the Army Air Corps. This was after the attack, but immediately after. And my other grandfather was not medically clear to serve. And so he was in civilian work, in factories for production of arms and such. And so for them, not for them, Pearl Harbor was,

34:54you know, the formative event of their lives. Here we are 25 years later, when I was born and everybody knew about Pearl Harbor. I was taught about Pearl Harbor. And because of my interest, I studied and I knew more and more about it. And I understand the facts. But the immediate visceral reaction was absent to me. Here we are 25 years after 9-11. Most of the people who are graduating college this year were not born yet. People who are 35 years old and younger, they may have a memory of it, but it did not affect them, impact them the way that it is. And I just mentioned 9-12. And here's the other thing that I know about 9-12. I remember how we all came together. And how we put aside our differences and we recognize we've got a tragedy, we've got a problem, and it needs to be addressed. And nobody was pointing

35:56fingers at party politics. None of that was going on on 9-12. Why do we have to suffer the worst before we can be at our best? Yesterday was the anniversary of Charlie Kirk's assassination. And we had clowns all over the place wishing people happy Kirk aversary and and and gloating. Rechidness at every turn. Why do we have to suffer that? Well, and what sad is I honestly believe that in the current culture, if 9-11 were to happen today, I don't think it would bring everyone together. I think you would have you would have a significant segment of the population treating it like they treated Charlie Kirk's assassination. We deserved it. We're imperialists. We're colonizers. We had it coming. And so I don't think that coming together would happen today. Well, I hope we don't ever find out, frankly. But there was a line in a movie that had nothing to do with 9-11. But it was about a volcano that

36:56erupts in downtown Los Angeles at the LeBrea tire pits. Tommy Lee Jones is in it. I don't remember the name of the movie. It may be volcano for a line-up. But anyway, at the end of the movie, everybody's covered in sweat and the little kids had looked. We all looked the same. It's amazing. You get past it. Yeah. Well, don't let it happen. Aaron Chappell, thank you sir. Appreciate you. Time this morning news in 60 seconds. I'm Nick Reed.