KSCO Live Show: 831-479-1080 KSCO Office: 831-475-1080

Important! For Dead Doctors Don't Lie Use: 888-379-2552

Kay's Commentary


Kay's Commentary Podcasts on Demand

Miss Kay's Commentary on the air? We've uploaded them all here in our podcast library.

All podcasts are designed to play from our website with no software required.
For more advanced options,
open our feed in iTunes or subscribe to our Podcast Feed.


Download File

The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:

          This is called “How much time is left?”  I originally read this last year on August 9.  I believe it is even more timely now. 

          About the time our original 13 States adopted their new Constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier:   

A democracy is always temporary in nature.   It simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate who promises the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.   The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years, and during those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence: 
From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependance, and  
From dependance back into bondage.

          Our democracy is now over 234 years old.   The political decisions made in the near future will determine which journey our beloved Country will take. 

          Hopefully our present situation of dependancy and bondage will rapidly change back to spiritual faith and great courage – if we remain a democracy much longer. 

          The unthinkable alternative could be a dictatorship. 

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010


Print Email


Download File

The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:

          The following is an encore commentary from 4-15-2006, and it is in my forthcoming book.  

Weighing in on the present immigration mess – first close the borders, ignore the marchers who wish to undermine our laws, those here illegally must obey the laws, must learn English, apply for citizenship, and wait the same amount of time as those who come in legally. 

No drivers’ licenses, no voting rights until they become legal citizens. 

That is what I think.  No more amnesty.  Furthermore, no more voting ballots in any language other than English, because that is idiotic.  No more pandering to foreign newcomers. 

All of these related troubles stem from self-serving leaders in both political parties whose main concern is, and has always been, re-election and vying for newcomers’ votes.  Those leaders left the borders open on purpose.   Both political parties for over two decades are responsible for the 11 million illegals here.  

Thank you President Ford, thank you George Herbert Walker Bush, thank you President Clinton, and George W. Bush, for your deliberate failures.

Since the word felon has been used so loosely, and then crossed out, I submit it is our delinquent leadership, the Presidents and Congress, who by their inaction in upholding the laws of our land, are the real felons.    

There is only one special political leader like a voice in the wilderness who stands out, who for years pleaded with the legislature to protect our borders from illegals, criminals, and terrorists, and to him, we must say “Kudos to you Tom Tancredo” because you cared and you tried. 

So, what is different in four years?   There are probably 30 million illegals here now, and they are becoming bold and they march for their rights, like they demand Social Security, and our liberal leaders want to find a way to give it to them at the expense of We the People.   We are truly losing our Country. 

I am haunted by the passing words of my Cabrillo professor in 1967 who predicted that before long the United States would become a third world country.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Print Email


Download File

The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:
        The following encore commentary about the Fairness Doctrine is in my new book about to be published shortly.   It was broadcast on 7-27-2007, very timely then, and still timely, because the Obama administration will try to repeat it if the new Congress remains Democratic.  Here it is.  It is called:  Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything but Fair.

        Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate an FCC Policy known outright as the “Fairness Doctrine”.   It is being sponsored in both the Senate and the House by the Democrats who are determined to resurrect this foolish and unfair law.  

         It would codify a 1949 FCC regulation that once required broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.  
        The Fairness Doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987.   The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues.  

        The American Left is totally comfortable with the current unbalanced liberal media, that is, the print media and much of the radio and TV media excepting for Fox news.  Newspapers, magazines, and TV like ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN deal primarily with concerns and opinions of the Democrats and omit opinions and issues of concern to the Republicans.  

        The Democrats are uncomfortable with successful radio news talk programs, like Rush Limbaugh’s, and those of numerous other conservative radio talk hosts, and radio is primarily the one media outlet which the conservatives have.  The liberals failed in radio because they whined and complained about everything, and never presented solutions.  Their conversation was toxic.  

        The only way the Fairness Doctrine could be fair would be if the conservatives would also be given the right to respond in print to newspaper stories, and give radio and TV responses to liberal news interpretations.   But that will never happen.  

        Clearly, the Democrats want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine so that they can control any opposition from the conservatives, by receiving equal time on all conservative programs.
        One wonders why the liberals are always threatened by different points of view.  Can it be that their opinions are often impractical, illogical, or unable to withstand scrutiny?   

        It is rightfully argued that the Fairness Doctrine can interfere with the First Amendment.  And, my hope is that despite the Democrat’s desire to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, this one-sided politically conceived law will be voted down because it is unfair.  

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010


Print Email


Download File


The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:

This little gem was sent to me by a friend.  It is called California vs. Arizona. 

Now about California-  

The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a natural trail.   A coyote jumps out, bites the Governor, and attacks his dog and kills it. 

The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie Bambi, and then realizes he should stop.  The coyote is only doing what is natural. 

The Governor calls Animal Control.   Animal Control captures coyote and bills the State $200 for testing it for diseases, and $500 for relocating it.  

He calls a veterinarian.  The vet collects the dead dog, and bills the State $200 for testing it for diseases. 

The Governor goes to the hospital and spends $3500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged.

The running trail gets shut down for six months while Fish & Game conduct a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is free of dangerous animals.

And, meanwhile, the Governor spends $50,000 in State funds implementing a “Coyote awareness” program for residents of the area. 

The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies, and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world. 

The Governor’s security agent is fired for not stopping the attack somehow and for letting the Governor attempt to intervene. 

Additional cost to State of California:   $75,000 to hire and train a new security agent with additional special training re the nature of coyotes.   

And finally, PETA protests the coyotes relocation and files suit against the State.  

Total expenses to California:   $2,225,900. 

So much for the stupidity of politically-correct California.  So long as it is the peoples’ money, there is no limit to the foolish spending.

Now, about Arizona –

The Governor of Arizona is jogging with her dog along a nature trail.  A coyote jumps out and attacks her dog. 

The Governor shoots the coyote with her State issued pistol, and keeps jogging. 

The Governor has spent 50¢ on a 45 ACT hollow point cartridge.

The buzzards eat the dead coyote. 

And, that is why California is always broke.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Print Email


Download File

The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:
Dear Listeners,
         I remain occupied with the issue of illegals and amnesty because I believe that Obama may boldly bypass Congress and give amnesty to 30 million illegals – and get away with it – and remain in power, and we will lose our beloved Country as we know it. 
        Listen to this hypothetical conversation between Jim the American, and Juan the Mexican, and kudos to Gene Sanden for sharing it. 
Jim:  Juan, I see that you and thousands of other protestors are marching in the streets to demonstrate your cause.  What is it, and why the protest?
Juan:   We want our rights.  We’ll show you how powerful we are. 
Jim:  What rights? 
Juan:  Our right to live here legally.  Our right to get all the benefits you get.  
Jim:  When did you come to the U.S.? 
Juan:  Six years ago, I crossed over the border at night with seven other friends.
Jim:  Why did you come?
Juan:   For work.  I can earn as much in one month here as I could in a year in Mexico.  Besides, I get free healthcare, our Mexican children can go to school free, if I lose my job I get Welfare, and someday I will have the Social Security.   Nothing like that in Mexico.
Jim:   Hmm.  Did you feel badly about breaking our immigration laws when you came, Juan?
Juan:  No.  Why should I feel bad?  I have a right to be here.  I have a right to amnesty.  I pay lots of money for my Social Security and green card.
Jim:   How did you acquire those documents?
Juan:   From a guy in Dallas.  He charged me a lot of money, too. 
Jim:   Did you know those documents were forged, Juan? 
Juan:   No.  Doesn’t matter.   I have a right to be here and work.
Jim:    What’s the right you speak of, Juan?
Juan:   The right of all aliens.  It’s found in your Constitution.  Read it.
Jim:   I have read it, but I don’t remember it saying anything about rights for aliens.
Juan:   It’s in that part it says that all men have alien rights like the right to pursue happiness.   I wasn’t happy in Mexico, so I came here. 
Jim:   I think you’re referring to the Declaration of Independence, and that document speaks to unalienable rights, not alienable rights. 
Juan:   Whatever.  
Jim:   Since you’re demanding to become an American citizen, why are you carrying a Mexican flag? 
Juan:   Because I’m Mexican. 
Jim:   But, you said you want to be given amnesty to become a U.S. citizen.
Juan:   No, that’s not what we want.   This is our country, it’s a part of Mexico, that you gringos stole from us.  We want it returned to the rightful owner.
Jim:   So you really don’t want to become an American citizen then.
Juan:   I just want my rights.  Everyone has a right to live, work, and speak their native language wherever and whenever they please. 
Jim:   Juan, if I crossed over the border into Mexico without proper documentation, what rights would I have there?   
Juan:  You would probably go to jail, but that’s different. 
Jim:  How’s it different?  You said everyone has a right to live wherever they please.
Juan:   Now you want Mexico, too?  Mexico has its right.  You gringos have no rights in Mexico.  Why do you want to go there anyway?   Stay in your own Country.   The Country of your birth.
Jim:    I see there’s no way we can agree on this issue.  Thanks for your comments, Juan.  
Juan:   Viva Mexico.   

Listeners, please wake up.  We are about to lose our Country unless we vigorously say No to amnesty, and close the borders.
       Thomas Jefferson said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” 

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Print Email


Download File

The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:

This is called:   Why Missouri has no illegal immigrates.  

          Kudos to Rae Williams for sharing this information. 

          If every State followed Missouri, illegal immigration would no longer be a U.S. problem.

          Missouri’s approach to illegal immigration appears to be more advanced, sophisticated, strict, and effective than anything to date in Arizona. 

          When is Obama going to take action to require Missouri to start accepting illegal immigrants once again?   Never. 

          Because there are no Mexican illegals in Missouri to demonstrate.  

          In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed Constitutional Amendment designating English as the Official Language of Missouri.  In November 2008, nearly 90% voted it in favor.  Thus, English became the Official Language for all governmental activities in Missouri. 

          Also, in 2008, a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally. 

          And again, in Missouri, illegal immigrants do not have access to taxpayers’ benefits such as food stamps and healthcare through Missouri Health Net.  

          In 2009, a measure was passed that insures Missouri’s public institutions of higher education to not award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the U.S.  

          So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem.   Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are not welcome in the State and they will certainly not receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers. 

          So, what happily happens?  Illegals do not go to Missouri.

          It appears that Obama picks and chooses which State to sue, so why wasn’t there a stink about this official English-only law for Missouri?

          Kudos to the Show Me State for now showing us this bit of human wisdom (condoning or forgiving bad behavior with bleeding heart assistance of illegality does not produce good citizenship or gratitude – rather it creates contempt and false justification).  Amnesty is destructive.  Will we ever learn? 

          Obama – are you listening?  We know you just want their votes.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Print Email


Download File


The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:

          This is called “Can I see your ticket please?”  It was written by a Mexican who is now a naturalized U.S. citizen, and I think it is a great analogy to the current illegal immigration issue.

          Here is the deal: 

          If you had tickets to a sports event, concert, Disneyland, or for an airline flight, and when you got to your assigned seat you found someone else was in that seat, what would you do? 

          You would call for a person in charge of ticket checking and have the person in your seat removed.   You would properly be asked to show your ticket, and you would gladly and proudly do so, for you have bought and paid for that seat.  

          The person in your seat would also be asked for a ticket, which they would not be able to produce.  They would be called gate-crashers, and they would properly be removed.

          Now, in this huge stadium called the USA, we have had tens of millions of gate-crashers.  We have been asking Security to check for tickets and remove the gate-crashers.   We have been asking Security to have better control in checking at the door.   We have asked Security to lock the back doors.

          Security has failed us.   They are still looking the other way. They are afraid to ask to see the tickets.  Many people say there is unlimited seating, and whether there is or not, no one should be allowed in for free while the rest of us pay full price. 

          In Section AZ of Stadium USA, we have had enough of the failures of Security.  We have decided to do our own ticket checking, and properly remove those who do not have tickets. 

          Now, it seems very strange to me that so many people in the other 49 Sections, and even many in our own Section, do not want tickets checked, or even to be asked to show their ticket. 

          Even the head of Security is chastising us while not doing his own job, which he has sworn to do. 

          My own ticket has been bought and paid for, so I am proudly going to show it when asked to do so.  I have a right to my seat, and I want the gate-crashers to be asked to show their tickets, too.

          The only reason that I can imagine anyone objecting to being asked for their ticket is that they are in favor of gate-crashing, and all of the illegal activities that go with it, such as drug smuggling, gang wars, murder, human smuggling for profit, and many more illegal and inhumane acts that we are trying to prevent with our new legislation.

          If you are not in favor of showing tickets (that is, proof of citizenship, passport, green card, or other legal documents) when asked, as I would do proudly, then you must be condoning those illegal activities.   

          Since Obama has never shown his ticket, perhaps he feels obligated to not ask others to show theirs.   I would call this situation destructive political correctness.   Shame on those who promote this blatant dishonesty.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Print Email


Download File

The following is a KSCO commentary.  Here is Kay Zwerling:

Because the legislation of medical marijuana is currently in the news, here are my thoughts on the subject recorded a number of years ago.

As a pedestrian observer of the human condition, and of the attitudes of society toward the two most widely used recreational substances, alcohol and marijuana, otherwise known as pot, one wonders why alcohol is universally accepted, condoned, and promoted, while marijuana or pot is maligned and in some places forbidden.  The U.S. Government has declared pot to be illegal, so, many caught with its possession or use are fined, stigmatized, languishing in prison, and otherwise made miserable.  There is documented medical proof that pot can relieve the pain of terminally-ill patients and afford their last days a measure of mellow peace.   Despite this positive use of the substance, the Federal Government continues to declare it illegal even though some states do allow its use for medical purposes.  Alcohol, on the other hand, gets a free ride, despite the fact that its legal use has caused and continues to cause enormous human misery with the breakup of families, neglect of children, loss of jobs, accidents and killings by drunken drivers, and the overall drain on society.  One could argue that while both substances are considered bad, alcohol causes more grief in the world than pot does.  

During a trip to Jamaica many years ago, our tour guide pointed out the abundant marijuana bushes grown wild alongside the roads, and he attributed the longevity and good health of most Jamaicans to their daily drinking of a tea made from the marijuana leaves.  So, one could wonder, if alcohol with nothing good to justify its use is federally legal, shouldn’t pot with some significant proven use, likewise be legal?  Or, put another way, if pot is illegal, surely shouldn’t alcohol also be illegal?  Hmmmmm.

For KSCO, this is Kay Zwerling.

© copyright 2010

Print Email

KSCO Newsletter

Your Email:

We do not share your email with third parties.