Tim Wildmon: Welcome back, everybody. Is the radio on? Can you hear me in the back? Hello, let me test this thing. Can you hear me in the back?

Tim Wildmon: All right, Tim, Ed, and now Steve Jordahl, Georgia. Good morning, Steve.

Steve Jordahl: Hey, everybody.

Tim Wildmon: So you went down to Pensacola, Florida, for a beach trip. How did that go, Steve?

Steve Jordahl: Well, let's say our umbrella got a better workout than our beach towels did.

Tim Wildmon: When that happens, your only upside is, "All right, we're going to another restaurant."

Steve Jordahl: Well, we did have some good food, and we stayed at a really nice Airbnb. It was a really pretty place.

Tim Wildmon: That'd be rain and rain and rain and rain, and sometimes rain hard.

Steve Jordahl: But here's the thing. It was on and off, and there was about an hour or so every day, or at least twice over the weekend, that we were able to get down to the beach and get a little bit of sun and a little bit of beach time. That's what she wanted. She just wanted to be somewhere where she could look at the beach, relax, and get away. It's cathartic for her.

Tim Wildmon: Yeah, and I love the beach. I love it too.

Steve Jordahl: One of the times we got rained on and just drenched because we didn't quite get off the beach in time. But it was a good trip nonetheless.

Tim Wildmon: That's one of those things. When you schedule your beach trip, you're rolling the dice on the weather, right? There's nothing you can do. You have to make a plan.

Steve Jordahl: In the summertime, if you go to the Gulf Coast, you're going to get your afternoon showers, but they're generally not going to stay around. They'll be gone in an hour or two. But in the fall, I don't know. You can get some kind of strange weather pattern.

Tim Wildmon: People are strange or not?

Steve Jordahl: If you look at the radar, you can see the storms lining up, just a line of them.

Tim Wildmon: I was sorry for you. I knew you said you were going down there, and you all were excited about going.

Steve Jordahl: I was hoping, but I just saw wave after wave after wave of it.

Tim Wildmon: That's what it was. Not waves, but waves of thunderstorms hitting the Gulf Coast.

Tim Wildmon: You're listening to Today's Issues. Tim and Steve are here, and Jordan will join us. What's your first story, Steve?

Steve Jordahl: One of the things that young people like to do sometimes is get online and have conversations with people. This is kind of the Charlie Kirk online thing. Here's a Jewish young woman who got into an online conversation with a Palestinian. This is the best Free Palestine video I have ever heard, and I'd like to play it for you. Let's just listen.

Jewish woman: Are you Jewish?

Palestinian man: Yes, I am Jewish.

Jewish woman: I am from Palestine.

Palestinian man: Palestine. Free Palestine.

Jewish woman: But why do you say "Free Palestine" and "Jewish"? You don't want me to say "Free Palestine"?

Palestinian man: No, no.

Jewish woman: I'm just curious.

Palestinian man: Because I support a free Palestine. I think Palestine needs to be free.

Jewish woman: Thank you. I appreciate it. I just think that it needs to be free from Palestinians. That's what I think.

Palestinian man: I don't think it's just Hamas.

Jewish woman: No, I know you mean Hamas.

Palestinian man: Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, the Muqawama, all of that needs to go. Basically, all of the Palestinians support the Muqawama. We all support the resistance.

Jewish woman: All of you support the resistance, right?

Palestinian man: Of course.

Jewish woman: It's for the liberation, right?

Palestinian man: Yeah. Kill them all.

Jewish woman: Kill them all? So all of you need to go to Jordan, and then Palestine will be free.

Palestinian man: Hamdulillah.

Jewish woman: I've now enjoyed them. No good.

Palestinian man: Habib, Jordan is Palestine.

Jewish woman: Why do you need two Palestines? Don't be greedy.

Palestinian man: You mean you want the Jews to take the Palestinian land?

Jewish woman: If you ask me what I want, Jordan should be Palestine, and the West Bank should be Israel because that's Jewish land.

Palestinian man: How did that become Jewish land?

Jewish woman: It's already Jewish land. It was called Judea and Samaria.

Palestinian man: No, no, no, no, sweetie.

Jewish woman: The names of your cities are Hebrew from our Torah. Even Gaza is from the Bible. It's called Azza. You literally took Jewish cities, changed their names to Arabic, and ran with it. This is Jewish land. You are guests, and now you attack us. We don't want you as guests anymore, so you can go.

Tim Wildmon: That was awesome.

Steve Jordahl: That's what I thought too. At first, I thought that she was being woke or something, saying "Free Palestine." I was thinking, "Oh, come on, the self-loathing Jew in Israel." That is one of the greatest things I've ever heard. Good for that lady. What a bold young lady.

Tim Wildmon: She's a young college student. I have no idea how old she is.

Steve Jordahl: That's great. She was exactly right about the biblical names, taking them, changing the names, and running with it. Free Palestine, baby. Free of Palestinians.

Tim Wildmon: That was wonderful. You know what? That has changed my whole perspective on the day.

Steve Jordahl: There you go.

Tim Wildmon: That was so exciting. Mondays can get a little heavy around here, and rainy days also bring you down. But that made my day, Steve.

Steve Jordahl: That's what I'm here for.

Tim Wildmon: All right. Next story.

Steve Jordahl: A federal judge says we've gotten one of the first rulings on the Flock camera issue. A federal judge in Oklahoma has ruled that law enforcement gathering data from Flock cameras is unconstitutional. According to this judge, it is a lower court ruling, so it has a ways to go before it is definitive. It does not create a binding precedent, but it is one of the first times a federal judge has ruled that Flock searches are unconstitutional.

Steve Jordahl: Flock cameras are cameras that are always recording. Flock is a company, and people, including law enforcement, can put these cameras around. They are always looking, and with artificial intelligence, they can analyze thousands and thousands of license plates and images all at once.

Tim Wildmon: The question is whether you need a warrant if you are going to investigate a certain license plate. A license plate is attached to a person, and what this judge said in the case is that the deputy should have obtained a warrant before searching the Flock database for the woman's license plate. He had no apparent reason for the search other than the fact that the woman's vehicle had a California license plate.

Steve Jordahl: This is the particular case. If I remember correctly, maybe I am conflating two different cases, but it seemed like the police officer was concerned because of the California license plate. He looked at the Flock cameras, figured out the pattern of where she was going, and then, because of that, felt that she was involved with drug trafficking. He used that as a reason to search her car, and he found meth.

Tim Wildmon: Ninety-one pounds of it. Ninety-one pounds is a lot.

Steve Jordahl: I'm just going to tell you, I'm not sure how to feel about Flock cameras.

Tim Wildmon: Again, tell the listeners who do not know exactly what Flock cameras are.

Steve Jordahl: Flock is the company that makes surveillance cameras. A lot of cities and law enforcement agencies across the country are putting these up everywhere so they can catch license plates. Maybe they find out that a license plate is on a stolen car, and because there are so many Flock cameras, they can track where that car went. Then they can go and arrest the person.

Steve Jordahl: This is why I'm not sure how I feel about it. I read last week, or maybe the week before, about a case where there was a Flock camera up and nobody knew who put it up. Even law enforcement did not know. So I'm between two minds on this. This is just my opinion. I don't like being in a surveillance state. I'm just going to say that up front.

Steve Jordahl: On the other hand, these surveillance cameras, like Flock cameras, Ring cameras, and cameras at intersections, are helping law enforcement catch criminals. That becomes something valuable. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I kind of lean toward, when you're in public, just understand that you're on camera somewhere. I'm not against them. I'm in favor of them.

Steve Jordahl: I understand people's worries about their privacy, but when you go out in public, you are in public, and you should assume that you are being watched by video and by cameras because they help police. There are a lot of good reasons to support them.

Tim Wildmon: You submit to the surveillance state?

Steve Jordahl: Most Americans have a visceral reaction to the idea of a surveillance state. Nobody wants to be part of the government Big Brother watching you everywhere you go and everything you do. That's certainly true. But we are talking about cameras on the side of the road, cameras at traffic lights, and cameras that are just everywhere.

Tim Wildmon: They are just on the side of the road.

Steve Jordahl: They are side-of-the-road cameras, and I don't have a problem with it because you're out in public, and it helps law enforcement. That's my feeling on it.

Tim Wildmon: My question is this. In China, they can find anyone among their billions of citizens in three seconds because of all the cameras and surveillance they have. Is Flock just a difference in degree? In other words, are they using it for more nefarious purposes, or is it constitutional?

Steve Jordahl: You have constitutional protections in America that protect you from a police state, which is different from a surveillance state. I know exactly what you're talking about. An abuse of surveillance could certainly happen, and it has happened. I've read stories about police officers using police cameras, Flock cameras, or data banks to track where their ex-girlfriends were going.

Tim Wildmon: Right, exactly.

Steve Jordahl: You hear about those kinds of stories, and if officers are doing that, they should be fired. But you don't want to set national policy based on an instance like that.

Tim Wildmon: No, I don't want to take that too far. The government can track us just with our phones. I went to an app when I was in Boston because I wanted to see how many steps I was walking every day. It was like 12,000 steps one day, which is not much for some people, but the phone knew how many steps I had taken, at least when I had the phone on me. All this data is being collected.

Tim Wildmon: I don't think anybody is thrilled with it, but at the same time, with crime increasing and in an age of terrorism, I am with you. I kind of think this is a good thing. I lean toward it as long as we have some constitutional protections for when you can use that data.

Steve Jordahl: You can't use it any way you want. I don't think you should be able to.

Tim Wildmon: What is interesting about this case is that the officer was going to the camera, so to speak, and using the surveillance data to figure out whether he thought the woman was committing a crime. He did not know.

Steve Jordahl: That's where I think he got things wrong. If he knew, if he had evidence that she was committing a crime, and he used it to follow her and track her, that would be different. We do need some protections, but by and large, I think this will suppress criminal activity and lead to bad guys getting caught.

Tim Wildmon: Some of our listeners probably disagree. We probably have listeners all over the place on this. You're listening to Today's Issues. That's the name of this show on the American Family Radio Network. Tim and Steve are here. Steve, next story.

Steve Jordahl: You may have heard in the news about a case going on at Cornell University in New York. Basically, this is what happened. A young woman was invited to a fraternity party where some very sinful things happened.

Tim Wildmon: When was this?

Steve Jordahl: This was two years ago, and she was 20 at the time. She participated willingly, according to her first testimony, and all of this happened. Then she felt ashamed. Two years later, they are going after some of the guys in the fraternity. She is still unnamed, and they cannot face her. This is another Duke lacrosse situation.

Steve Jordahl: The reason I bring it up is because what we have now is mob justice running the courts. Ben Shapiro talked a little bit about this, but let me set this up. She went to the party and did some immoral, sinful things. She agreed that they were all consensual. Then, two years later, she changed her story, and now the school is going after these guys.

Tim Wildmon: Why is the school going after the guys?

Steve Jordahl: Because they are guys on the campus, and because of the mob.

Tim Wildmon: You mean just because she accused them of something?

Steve Jordahl: Exactly. This is the mob, even though she denied that it happened two years ago.

Tim Wildmon: That's correct.

Steve Jordahl: Because we believe all women. Remember?

Steve Jordahl: Let me play Ben for you, and then we can figure this out.

Ben Shapiro: The narrative has now outpaced the facts. What's worse, we're seeing mob justice enforced by the legal authorities at this point. This is insane. Kathy Hochul, who is the governor of New York, has decided to step into this case based on public pressure. The governor of New York is stepping into a dead criminal case based on nothing except public pressure. Literally no new information that is crucial has emerged. None. All that happened is that the woman in question filed a civil lawsuit in which she totally flipped her story. Now we're supposed to believe that the cops are responsible for all of the problems here. The university should have done something based on a complete lack of evidence. But there's something going on here that, on a systemic level, is even more dangerous than immoral personal behavior. That is a law enforcement system that decides to go back after and destroy people based on a mob outside the doors shouting and screaming. That is a violation of basic equal standards of justice under law, and we should all be troubled by that as American citizens.

Steve Jordahl: Very good points by Ben Shapiro. As always, he is very well spoken, a voice of reason.

Tim Wildmon: We remember what happened with the Duke lacrosse men's team. They were accused of the same thing, right?

Steve Jordahl: Similar things, yes, except there was a racial element there. A Black young lady accused the white lacrosse players. Later, she recanted and said she had made the whole thing up.

Tim Wildmon: It ruined those kids' reputations and lives. They later won a civil lawsuit, but everybody was pouncing on them.

Steve Jordahl: Yes, and it is the same type of situation here at Cornell University, except maybe there is not a racial element to it.

Tim Wildmon: What goes on at these fraternity parties, and you use the words sinful and immoral, absolutely. If this young lady engaged in consensual activities, that is immoral, but it is not necessarily illegal.

Steve Jordahl: That's one of Ben Shapiro's points.

Tim Wildmon: Obviously, rape would be illegal. We have a way to criticize immoral behavior because we have morality as a standard. The left does not, so if they want to make a deal out of this, they have to classify something that is not rape as rape so they can defend this woman.

Steve Jordahl: We're seeing the same kind of mob mentality getting involved here. This is a cold case, so to speak, from two years ago, and she changes her story. I don't know how that story ever became public in the first place.

Tim Wildmon: I think she was harshly criticized on social media. Is that right?

Steve Jordahl: She had the party, and then she was fine with it. Then she had the walk of shame and felt ashamed of what she did, which should tell you something. Her friends convinced her to complain about it. In the original complaint a few years ago, she said it was wrong, but she also said, "Everything we did was consensual. They didn't drug me. They didn't do this." She said she had made that whole thing up.

Tim Wildmon: And they did.

Steve Jordahl: The reason the governor is getting involved is because of the public outcry.

Tim Wildmon: That's really your point in bringing this up.

Steve Jordahl: That's my point in bringing it up. I think it's just kind of gross.

Tim Wildmon: You've gotten the state's attorney general involved too.

Steve Jordahl: Yes, it's public.

Tim Wildmon: I understand what you're saying. Next story.

Steve Jordahl: We are hearing from the hero pilot of the Dubai plane. He did an interview with Benjamin Netanyahu. He is from India. Let's listen to what he has to say, and then we'll talk about the case.

Tim Wildmon: You remember the co-pilot, whose name was Hamam al-Hamami, stabbed the pilot. If the pilot had not opened the door and called for help, it seems like the co-pilot would have crashed the plane in a 9/11-style terror attack. The UAE has officially called it a terror attack, and the co-pilot is in the hands of the UAE. Whether that is good or bad, who knows how hard they will be on him, but that's where that stands.

Tim Wildmon: Our ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, says that an investigation is coming.

Mike Huckabee: There's going to be a very intense investigation into whether he was acting for an entity or whether he acted on his own. The thing is, he acted. It was a terrorist act. He tried to kill everybody on that plane. He would have died too, but he didn't care.

Tim Wildmon: One of the questions we had when the story first broke was how the rescuers got into the cockpit. Since 9/11, these cockpit doors have been reinforced, and they are very difficult to get through. But as the story unfolded, the pilot was able, even while fighting the attacker and being stabbed, to get to the door and open it with what he thought was his dying breath so the rescuers could come in and subdue the attacker.

Steve Jordahl: A guy who had trained online and seen things online was able to level the plane. Then we had a flight crew from a different airplane that came in, assumed control, and landed the plane. Those factors, or that series of events, that took place to prevent this plane from being run into the ground in the Saudi Arabian desert, or into a building in Tel Aviv, were almost miraculous.

Tim Wildmon: Think about it. You have this pilot, and the door is secured to the cockpit. There are two pilots in there, and one of them attacks the other with a knife. The fact that the person being attacked had enough strength to fight the attacker off and open the door while the airplane was in a nosedive of 10,000 or 20,000 feet is unbelievable.

Steve Jordahl: The plane descended 16,000 feet in 90 seconds. That's like a rock dropping through the sky. Then you have a guy who is able to go in and pull the plane out of the dive. You have two people on the ground who are pilots themselves and are able to take over the plane and land it.

Tim Wildmon: It was a miracle that they weren't all killed. We are out of time. We thank you for yours.

Steve Jordahl: I appreciate it.

Tim Wildmon: My pleasure. Thanks to Ed, Fred, Brent, and Cole. We will see you tomorrow. Share-a-thon is tomorrow, so please pray for our Share-a-thon. We'll be back tomorrow with Today's Issues.