Speaker 1: You're listening to the buck Sexton Chow podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart Radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. A twenty year old
Speaker 1: woman was fatally shot in New York City while she
Speaker 1: pushed her infant daughter in a stroller. Its latest shooting
Speaker 1: is again throwing a spotlight on the rise and murders
Speaker 1: in the Big Apple, which many suspect is going to
Speaker 1: experience a summer of increased violence. Who city and state
Speaker 1: leaders are blaming the issue on guns rather than their
Speaker 1: own failure to enforce the laws, and they're undermining of
Speaker 1: the NYPD. Friends, It's time for hold the line. Welcome
Speaker 1: to hold the line on buck Sexton. It happened to
Speaker 1: the neighborhood that I grew up in here in New
Speaker 1: York City, the Upper East Side, a place not generally
Speaker 1: thought of as having much, if any violent crime going on.
Speaker 1: It's one of the safest areas, safest neighborhoods in all
Speaker 1: of New York City, and yet there was an execution
Speaker 1: style killing their last night. A young woman twenty years
Speaker 1: old shot in the back of the head. It is
Speaker 1: believed that her killer was an ex boyfriend. The NYPD
Speaker 1: telling reporters today that he had a history of threats
Speaker 1: and violence against her. She was supposed to meet with
Speaker 1: the father of her child on the street and he
Speaker 1: came up behind her allegedly and killed her on the street.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of crime that gets a lot
Speaker 1: of attention because of the heinousness of it, and it
Speaker 1: also is another fatal shooting on the streets of New
Speaker 1: York at a time when the numbers are far too high.
Speaker 1: Now we have gone through before this situation where there
Speaker 1: was far too much violence in the streets of New York,
Speaker 1: as well as many other cities across the country, Houston, Philadelphia, Atlantis, Chicago,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, they've all seen substantial rises
Speaker 1: and smaller cities like Saint Louis and burming Hammon Little
Speaker 1: Rock rises in violent crime. And the way we deal
Speaker 1: with this successfully is to actually start enforcing the laws
Speaker 1: in a meaningful way against the criminal element, against those
Speaker 1: in our society who are breaking the law. But that's
Speaker 1: not the plan that Democrats want to go with. Instead,
Speaker 1: their focus is on getting rid of and stopping the guns,
Speaker 1: as if there's any real hope, as if there's any
Speaker 1: realistic chance that they're going to pass more laws when
Speaker 1: you already have in place like New York very restrictive
Speaker 1: gun laws, but pass more laws elsewhere that stop people
Speaker 1: who are criminals from breaking those laws to use guns
Speaker 1: illegally in shootings like the tragic one that happened just
Speaker 1: last night in New York. Here is the Mayor of
Speaker 1: New York City, Eric Adams, at the scene of that
Speaker 1: shooting of the twenty year old mother. This entire day,
Speaker 1: we have been addressing the problem of the over proliferation
Speaker 1: of guns on our street, how readily accessible they are,
Speaker 1: and how there is just no fear in using these
Speaker 1: guns on innocent New Yorkers. When a mother's pushing a
Speaker 1: baby carriage down the block, or an individual a woman
Speaker 1: is pushing a baby carriage down the block and his
Speaker 1: shouting point blank range, it shows just how of this
Speaker 1: national problem is impact in families. So he's focused on
Speaker 1: the guns instead of progressive prosecutors who will not bring
Speaker 1: the necessary cases with the severity that is commensurate with
Speaker 1: the offenses, won't do that in New York City, won't
Speaker 1: do that in so many places across the country, and
Speaker 1: instead focuses on guns because this is more politically acceptable
Speaker 1: to him, as if New York, which has what they
Speaker 1: call a river of steel or the steel pipeline that
Speaker 1: comes from a number of other states that have more
Speaker 1: accessible firearms laws. People illegally sell those farms. It's called
Speaker 1: a straw purchase, the violation of federal law. People legally
Speaker 1: sell those guns to individuals and then they take them
Speaker 1: across state lines and they use them in heinous crimes.
Speaker 1: This is something that I had not seen before in
Speaker 1: New York, but it might be something that becomes more
Speaker 1: common in New York City. A gunman on a scooter
Speaker 1: in broad daylight, on a little scooter there, tried a
Speaker 1: drive by scooter shooting, actually tried to commit a murder
Speaker 1: via scooter shooting. You see it here. Nobody was hurt
Speaker 1: in this shooting, fortunately, but this just goes to show
Speaker 1: you this is broad daylight caught on camera. The criminal
Speaker 1: element does not have fear of police action. They think
Speaker 1: they're going to get away with the stuff, and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: in so many cases they a are. And this is
Speaker 1: because Democrat leadership in places like New York lack the
Speaker 1: political will to do what is necessary, which is lock
Speaker 1: up criminals and back the police. We see what the
Speaker 1: numbers tell us. I mean, here's a graph showing murders
Speaker 1: starting in twenty eleven New York City to twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: You see it was at five hundred and fifteen and
Speaker 1: then it dropped way down. It actually got below three hundred.
Speaker 1: And then look at that in twenty twenty the BLM movement.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden that NYPD gets a billion dollar
Speaker 1: budget cut. There are all these changes being made, like
Speaker 1: the playing Closed Police Division, one of the most useful,
Speaker 1: most effective anti crime units of the NYPD, the largest
Speaker 1: police department in America, is taken off the streets, reassigned
Speaker 1: to other units. They effectively disband that unit, and we
Speaker 1: see the predictable results. None of this is surprising, I mean,
Speaker 1: none of this is oh wow, how did we get here?
Speaker 1: When you defund and undermine your cops, and when you
Speaker 1: have progressive lunatics running your prosecutors offices, which New York
Speaker 1: and many other cities in America do, right now, the
Speaker 1: criminals run free, and they prey on people, and they
Speaker 1: hurt people, and they kill people, and the numbers get worse,
Speaker 1: and the cops know this, and they know they don't
Speaker 1: have the political backing. They know that every time the
Speaker 1: mayor's officer in New York puts out some statement, it's
Speaker 1: always about how they have to be ready. The new
Speaker 1: police units are being trained in de escalation, and they're
Speaker 1: going to make sure that they're not even scaring the community.
Speaker 1: Cops are only scary to criminals, to the bad guys
Speaker 1: in New York. All right, we actually like our cops here,
Speaker 1: but the left, the Democrats, especially rich Democrats who live
Speaker 1: in very safe areas, they feel like this won't really
Speaker 1: affect them. They don't care. A lot of cops are leaving.
Speaker 1: The NYPD's had an exodus. Police are on pace to
Speaker 1: quit and retire once again in record numbers. They tried
Speaker 1: a recent recruiting drive and they got they want thousand.
Speaker 1: I think they got about six hundred, so just a
Speaker 1: little over half of the numbers that they wanted. That's
Speaker 1: a substantial shortfall that they're going to have to figure
Speaker 1: out what to do about. And it's not even just
Speaker 1: the NYPD in New York City that has this problem
Speaker 1: of horrible Democrat leadership results in the kinds of challenges
Speaker 1: that we're seeing here in the city. I mean the
Speaker 1: decrease in quality of life, the increase in crime. Governor
Speaker 1: Kathy Hokel, who is among the dumbest people in American
Speaker 1: political life to day, when she was asked because she
Speaker 1: wants to pass these laws now to make it harder
Speaker 1: for people to bring guns into legally on firearms into businesses,
Speaker 1: so the business is going to have to opt into
Speaker 1: allowing you to carry while you're in that business. Just
Speaker 1: makes it more annoying because you know, a criminal who's
Speaker 1: going into rob a liquor store or a bank is
Speaker 1: going to say, whoa hold on a second, this business
Speaker 1: does not allow lawful firearm carry, So I'm not going
Speaker 1: to go in there and rob it. Obviously that's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. So when Cathy Hicks asked if she
Speaker 1: has any data to back up her latest gun restriction ideas,
Speaker 1: here's what she says. Do you have the numbers to
Speaker 1: show that it's the concealed carry permit holders that are
Speaker 1: committing crimes because the lawful gun to owner will say
Speaker 1: that you're attacking the wrong person. It's really people that
Speaker 1: are getting these guns illegally that are causing the violence,
Speaker 1: not the people going and getting the permit legally, and
Speaker 1: that's the basis for the whole Supreme Court argument. Do
Speaker 1: you have the numbers. I don't need to have numbers.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't have to have a data point
Speaker 1: to point two to say that this is going to make.
Speaker 1: All I know is I have a responsibility to the
Speaker 1: people to state to have sensible gun safety laws. I
Speaker 1: don't need the numbers. I'm just gonna do what I want.
Speaker 1: She's a moron, but that's not going to help. All right.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court dealta blow to the Biden administration today
Speaker 1: limiting the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Coming up,
Speaker 1: we'll talk to the founder and executive director of Power
Speaker 1: the Future, Daniel Turner, to explain what the new rules
Speaker 1: mean for American energy production. First time, I'm talking about
Speaker 1: protecting your online data. A lot of companies promise your
Speaker 1: privacy is guaranteed, but that's not true. That's why you
Speaker 1: need a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool called Secure.
Speaker 1: It's spelled SEK. You are. Secure is using proprietary encryption
Speaker 1: and offer a secure instant messenging and email with Secure
Speaker 1: all of your communications based on servers and data centers.
Speaker 1: Hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platform.
Speaker 1: Privacy is a big issue now. Without real security, people
Speaker 1: can read your emails, messages, even your bank information. Secure
Speaker 1: will never mind your data and never ask for your
Speaker 1: phone number. You can send emails to your doctor, banker, lawyer,
Speaker 1: or anyone else with total confidence you're not being spied
Speaker 1: on by your internet provider or big tech. Secure is
Speaker 1: your solution to stop the constant theft of your digital identity.
Speaker 1: It costs only five dollars to the messenger, only ten
Speaker 1: dollars to the messenger and email combination package. Go to
Speaker 1: secure dot com and take back your privacy today. That's
Speaker 1: seku are dot com and use promo code buck for
Speaker 1: twenty five percent off. We'll be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold the line. Another major ruling coming out of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court today in a setback for the Biden administration's
Speaker 1: efforts to combat climate change. They say, Court said in
Speaker 1: a sixty three ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency lacks broad
Speaker 1: authority to shift the nation's energy production away from coal
Speaker 1: burning power plans toward cleaner sources, including solar and wind power.
Speaker 1: Driven now to discuss one of the most important environmental
Speaker 1: environmental decisions in a long time founder and executive director
Speaker 1: of Power the Future, Daniel Turner. Daniel, what's up man?
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, Um Well, going to be with you.
Speaker 1: So just tell us what went down that day with us?
Speaker 1: What was that issue in this particular Supreme Court case
Speaker 1: when it comes to the EPA and its ability to
Speaker 1: make administrative law. Essentially, Yeah, this is ten years in
Speaker 1: the making, right. This really started with the Obama EPA
Speaker 1: legislation like the Clean Air Act and giving it really
Speaker 1: really wide interpretation and administrators determining, well, if the Clean
Speaker 1: Air Act says this, therefore were allowed to regulate whole industries, right,
Speaker 1: And we were shutting down coal plants because it was
Speaker 1: under the Clean Air Act. And finally, the Governor of
Speaker 1: West Virginia and I'm in the great state of West
Speaker 1: Virginia right now doing this, so I'm honored. Finally, the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of West Virginia pushed back and said, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: like you. If Congress wants to change the mandate of
Speaker 1: the Clean Air Act or any legislation, Congress has to
Speaker 1: write legislation on it. Bureaucrats cannot arbitrarily interpret them as
Speaker 1: they want. That has not within their power. That's all
Speaker 1: the courts did today was saying, no, Congress, you need
Speaker 1: to write a law if you want that result. And
Speaker 1: the Democrat members of Congress are apoplectic, calling this, you know,
Speaker 1: irresponsible and radical. They're just saying, Congress, do your job.
Speaker 1: And what kind of costs? I mean, do we have
Speaker 1: any sense as to what this regulation would have meant
Speaker 1: in terms of making energy more expensive, making it harder
Speaker 1: for the power companies, the power producers to do what
Speaker 1: they do for the people that need their product. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a tough one to answer because I look at
Speaker 1: this included in that as well as the human cost.
Speaker 1: Like I said, this is ten years in the making,
Speaker 1: and you have to remember when Obama ran for president,
Speaker 1: he said, I'm not going to make coal illegal. I'm
Speaker 1: just going to say that if you own a coal
Speaker 1: plant when I'm president, you're going to go bankrupt. We
Speaker 1: have shut down since then about two hundred coal plants nationwide.
Speaker 1: Look at the cost of energy right now, right look
Speaker 1: at the looming blackouts that are coming. This is all
Speaker 1: the instability of the electric grid. But look at what
Speaker 1: we've done to coal communities around the country where we've
Speaker 1: taken industries that used to employ thousands of people, tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of people, and we've taken away their job.
Speaker 1: None of these green jobs ever materialized. Right, We've put
Speaker 1: them in underwater mortgages. We've shuttered their schools because there's
Speaker 1: no funding. And now what are old coal communities have?
Speaker 1: They have opioid problems, suicide problems defended, all problem is
Speaker 1: worse in old coal towns. Right. So we've destroyed the
Speaker 1: lives of tens of thousands of Americans in the name
Speaker 1: of climate change, and no one's cried about them. Right.
Speaker 1: Power the future has I have you have? But the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, the Biden administration. Just yesterday, Jena McCarthy, one
Speaker 1: of the climates ares was, was applauding the number of
Speaker 1: fossil fuel unemployment that has happened under her watch. They're
Speaker 1: happy that they're destroying the lives of Americans. So that's
Speaker 1: the biggest hole that it's taken. Chief Justice John Roberts
Speaker 1: was quoted in the majority opinion as saying a writing
Speaker 1: capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force
Speaker 1: a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to
Speaker 1: generate electricity. Maybe a sensible solution to the crisis of
Speaker 1: the day. But it is not plausible that Congress gave
Speaker 1: the EPA the authority to adopt on its own such
Speaker 1: a regulatory scheme. A decision of such magnitude and consequence
Speaker 1: rests with Congress itself or an agency acting pursue into
Speaker 1: a clear delegation from that representative body. I mean, I
Speaker 1: gotta say anything that reigns in the administrative state these
Speaker 1: days I view as a good thing. Daniel. I wanted
Speaker 1: your take on this. I mean, I think what we
Speaker 1: saw during COVID, never mind, when you think about what's
Speaker 1: going on in the energy industry, was that three letter
Speaker 1: Federal agencies that decide that they have a lot of
Speaker 1: power to make law unto themselves, essentially are a huge
Speaker 1: threat to liberty, to commerce, to the everyday lives of
Speaker 1: the American people. You raise a great point because COVID
Speaker 1: is the next step of the climate movement, as they've
Speaker 1: wanted the Biden administration to declare climate change in national emergency.
Speaker 1: And when you declare something in national emergency or a
Speaker 1: health emergency, you can shut down people's churches, right, You
Speaker 1: can force them to close their business, you can force
Speaker 1: people to be locked in their homes all for the
Speaker 1: greater good. And where does their authority come from. It
Speaker 1: comes from this huge bureaucratic, unelected, regulatory state. So you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right. The left loves the bureaucracy and they love
Speaker 1: regulation because it's nebulous, it's vague, it's all encompassing. The
Speaker 1: left does not like the law because the law is specific.
Speaker 1: And if you want to work in the DC swamp
Speaker 1: and you want to advance an agenda, you need thousands
Speaker 1: of regulations. You need a big, nebulous world. And so
Speaker 1: this is a huge wind for victory. It's a win
Speaker 1: for the energy industry, it's a huge win for freedoms
Speaker 1: in America. Quite frankly, that we're taking power back from
Speaker 1: the government also wors if you give us out there.
Speaker 1: Daniel on the state of the Biden administrations and treaties, quests,
Speaker 1: begging whatever you want to call it, to foreign governments
Speaker 1: to produce like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, to produce more oil
Speaker 1: instead of really encouraging it here at home. What's what's
Speaker 1: the latest on that? Yeah, you know, last week, but
Speaker 1: the major oil CEOs were summoned to DC. But President
Speaker 1: Biden was very proud that he refused to meet with them.
Speaker 1: He sent Jennifer Granholm, which is, you know, a know
Speaker 1: nothing staffer really to deal with them. So he's made
Speaker 1: these tremendous outreaches to the Saudis, to Venezuela, to Iran.
Speaker 1: He wants the whole world to produce more oil, but
Speaker 1: he won't make the slightest overture to America because it
Speaker 1: blows up his green agenda. And it just it's just
Speaker 1: fascinates me to see this guy really hat in hand,
Speaker 1: going around the world asking for an increase in oil production,
Speaker 1: knowingly need to produce more oil, but refusing to look
Speaker 1: here domestically. He needs the radical green movement on his
Speaker 1: side and h and he's not going to anger them
Speaker 1: before the midterm. But we're suffering as a result. Are
Speaker 1: we seeing any movement from the Biden administration to get
Speaker 1: some of the regulation out of the way so that
Speaker 1: there can be more exploration and refining and producing of
Speaker 1: gasoline for the consumer market or are they taking even
Speaker 1: basic steps in that direction, or they holding out even
Speaker 1: though the elections looming. No, they're going to hold out
Speaker 1: as long as possible. Like I talk to people in
Speaker 1: this base all the time. An oil driller told me
Speaker 1: just the other day that he's one of these quote
Speaker 1: unquote nine thousand leases we hear about. But he said,
Speaker 1: I can't get my right of way permitting right, the
Speaker 1: permission to actually drill a Well, that's the next step
Speaker 1: after your lease, and it's being held up by the
Speaker 1: Department of Interior. And he said it's been months and
Speaker 1: months that we're just waiting for them to give the
Speaker 1: green lights. So again, this is the power of the
Speaker 1: regulatory state. Where some guy in the Permian basin he
Speaker 1: needs deb Hollands. Okay, right, where are the governors to say, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: We don't need some bureaucrat three thousand miles away in
Speaker 1: DC to tell us that we can develop our land.
Speaker 1: So they're slow walking the entire process. And it's deliberate, right.
Speaker 1: They want this green revolution. They want wind and solar,
Speaker 1: even though they don't work, even though they're expensive, even
Speaker 1: though they're made in Chinese slave camps. They want wind
Speaker 1: and solar. And if the American people have to die
Speaker 1: in the process, that's just the necessary casualty in this
Speaker 1: great transformation. Daniel, appreciate you being with us thank you.
Speaker 1: In response to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats,
Speaker 1: including Joe Biden, are threatening to eliminate the Senate filibuster
Speaker 1: in order to enshrine abortion rights in US federal law.
Speaker 1: We'll have more on that with senior writer at The
Speaker 1: Federalist David Harsani after the break. First's talk about protecting
Speaker 1: your most viable asset, your home. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you saw this, but there's a recent story about an
Speaker 1: Arizona real estate agent that found the home she lived
Speaker 1: and was listed for sale. The problem was she wasn't
Speaker 1: selling her home. He was the victim of home title fraud,
Speaker 1: a devastating crime happening all over the country. According to
Speaker 1: the experts at home title lock, the crime is in
Speaker 1: profitable and hard to detect, and identity thief simply creates
Speaker 1: a fake title transfer for your home and refiles as
Speaker 1: the new owner. Then you can take out loans on
Speaker 1: your home or sell it. Typical identity theft services don't
Speaker 1: cover you, and neither there's homeowner's insurance. Home title lock
Speaker 1: does home tuttle lock would say a barrier around your
Speaker 1: home's title. The instant they detect anyone tampering with your
Speaker 1: home's title, they help shut it down and help get
Speaker 1: your home back in your name. Here's what you should do.
Speaker 1: Go to home tuttlelock dot com and read the testimonials
Speaker 1: from FBI agens and govern officials. Then register address to
Speaker 1: see if you're already a victim and don't even know it.
Speaker 1: When you protect your hometell him buck sends you to
Speaker 1: get thirty free days or protection. Home titlelock dot com.
Speaker 1: That's home titlelock dot com. David HARSTANGI stops by in
Speaker 1: a moment, stay with us. I believe we have to
Speaker 1: hoify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way
Speaker 1: to do that is to make sure the Congress roots
Speaker 1: should do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way,
Speaker 1: it's like voting rights should be. We provide an exception
Speaker 1: for this required exception to the filibuster for this action.
Speaker 1: Only took President Biden about a week to call on
Speaker 1: Congress to cudify the right to an abortion into federal law,
Speaker 1: even if it requires getting rid of the filibuster in
Speaker 1: the Senate. Reuters is now reporting that Biden officials are
Speaker 1: concerned that more radical moves would be politically polarizing ahead
Speaker 1: of November's midterm elections, undermining public trust in institutions like
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. So could we see this end to
Speaker 1: the filibuster a one off end maybe, or the potential
Speaker 1: political consequences too much for Democrats to bear. Joining me
Speaker 1: now to discuss Senior editor at The Federalist David Harsani, David,
Speaker 1: appreciate you being with us. Oh, it is a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So I have to say I wish they
Speaker 1: would stop with the This issue is so important that
Speaker 1: will break the filibuster, because I remember when a year
Speaker 1: ago it was a char one is so important that
Speaker 1: we will have to break the filibus or of course
Speaker 1: they didn't, But I mean, how do we even take
Speaker 1: them seriously on this stuff? After a while, it's like,
Speaker 1: either get rid of the filibuster or don't, but stop
Speaker 1: stop pretending. Well, don't don't get rid of it. Yeah
Speaker 1: I don't like it, but I'm just saying I'm just kidding. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I get, I get yeah, yeah. I mean I don't
Speaker 1: think they're going to do it. I just think this
Speaker 1: is for show. Because a lot of people are mad
Speaker 1: about Rob Wade on the left, so he wants to
Speaker 1: pretend that he's doing something. I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to happen, but I do think it's really destructive, mostly
Speaker 1: because you're normalizing the idea that if you don't get
Speaker 1: what you want, you could just simply, you know, destroy
Speaker 1: it norm or destroy an institution like the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: if you don't like it. I mean, Biden is literally
Speaker 1: in Madrid criticizing and attacking an institution in the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's unprecedented. I'm not one hundred
Speaker 1: percent sure, but it was pretty bad. Also, the funny
Speaker 1: thing about this, maybe not so funny, is that he
Speaker 1: wants to make an exception for the Philip Buster only
Speaker 1: for stuff he wants, so that only Democrats can use
Speaker 1: it for bills they want to pass, but Republicans they
Speaker 1: can't use it. Right, it doesn't work that way. Harry
Speaker 1: Reid tried this with the judicial filibuster and it was destroyed.
Speaker 1: And if Democrats do it now, it will be destroyed
Speaker 1: for legislation and they'll pay a heavy price in the
Speaker 1: long run for it. Plus, it wasn't that long ago
Speaker 1: that Biden himself was saying ending the filibuster was a
Speaker 1: dangerous thing to do. In fact, it was in twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen when he said this, should they ended the legislative filibusters,
Speaker 1: that's what's needed from I think we have to make
Speaker 1: that call on the fire. Ending the filibuster is a
Speaker 1: very dangerous thing to do because it's been used by
Speaker 1: progressives the whole career, our whole time to make sure
Speaker 1: that we did not get rolled over. Yeah, he says
Speaker 1: back in twenty nineteen, there David that ending the filibuster's
Speaker 1: bad idea. I mean, does that even even pay attention
Speaker 1: Like Joe Biden arguing with Joe Biden from five minutes ago,
Speaker 1: five years ago, it just doesn't matter to any of
Speaker 1: the people that are supporting him right to say whatever,
Speaker 1: no principles, just go for it. Yeah, I mean he
Speaker 1: called he called the filibuster a pillar of democracy in
Speaker 1: you know, two thousand and five or whenever it was.
Speaker 1: But this is a man who will drop fifty year old,
Speaker 1: you know positions, you know, because someone on Twitter is
Speaker 1: mocking him like that, like he did with the High Amendment.
Speaker 1: So he has zero principles and he's always been this way.
Speaker 1: He's never at any principles. People confuse his spinelessness and
Speaker 1: in trying to always be loved by the center of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party for a moderate, for moderation, and that's
Speaker 1: not what it is at all. So I don't think
Speaker 1: people care about that. They don't pay attention. Most on
Speaker 1: the left, they just don't care anyway. They have two
Speaker 1: sets of rules we're supposed to play by. Democrats use
Speaker 1: the filibuster on Donald Trump, I think in twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: and twenty twenty, like three hundred and something times, twenty
Speaker 1: eight times. I think, so they're they're incredibly shameless hypocrites
Speaker 1: about this. And I'm I'm a huge fan of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the only things saving federalism
Speaker 1: in any kind of way. If we didn't have it,
Speaker 1: I think it would lead to such a distabled destabilization
Speaker 1: of government. So I'm a big fan of it. And
Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate used to be big fans of
Speaker 1: it as well. Yeah, I mean back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five. Even Chuck Schumer began in two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: you mentioned a year said if Republicans can't get their
Speaker 1: way in the courts, we will not let them change
Speaker 1: the rules. Watch this one. Because they can't get their
Speaker 1: way on every judge to change the rules in midstream,
Speaker 1: to wash away two hundred years of history. They want
Speaker 1: to make this country into a banana republic, where if
Speaker 1: you don't get your way, you change the rules. Are
Speaker 1: we gonna let them? I mean, first of all, Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer's such a shameless, bloviating clown, but you know, been
Speaker 1: the Senate a very long time, gets away with it somehow.
Speaker 1: I just think it's interesting the same people that are
Speaker 1: always telling us about how there's a need to protect
Speaker 1: the institutions of our democracy until all of a sudden
Speaker 1: it's not giving them what they want, and then it's like,
Speaker 1: let's pack the court, let's get rid of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: Anything goes. Literally, the court gave back an issued to
Speaker 1: the voters, and they keeps calling it anti democracy. I've
Speaker 1: not had one of these people explained to me how
Speaker 1: it's anti democracy. I mean, you know, and they say
Speaker 1: the same thing about the you know about the EPA
Speaker 1: decision that came down. You know that that democracies overWe
Speaker 1: because you have to go to voters and Congress to
Speaker 1: ask them to do something. I don't even understand, because really,
Speaker 1: all it means to them, democracy is getting what they want,
Speaker 1: and that's a day that is a bit out of republic,
Speaker 1: you know, if we allow that to happen. Here's AOC,
Speaker 1: by the way, who I actually think because of her
Speaker 1: social media and media presidents and ability to draw the
Speaker 1: conversation in many ways as crazy as it is among
Speaker 1: the more powerful democrats, certainly when it comes to the
Speaker 1: national conversation from the left, here she is straight up saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's let's pack the court, let's end the filibuster, go
Speaker 1: for it. I believe that the president should come out
Speaker 1: in favor, forcefully in favor of expanding the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I believe that the president should forcefully come out in
Speaker 1: favor of abolishing the Senate filibuster. Those two actions dramatically
Speaker 1: increase political pressure and makes it much harder to resist.
Speaker 1: I just I love this. It's like they don't even
Speaker 1: remember you mentioned the Harry Read situation. They don't remember
Speaker 1: what happened with that, changing the rules just because they
Speaker 1: want or two at that one point in time, right,
Speaker 1: they didn't like the long term consequences of that. It's
Speaker 1: like we're reasoning with spoiled children here. They're just like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: just this one time for the thing we really want,
Speaker 1: and of course there's a lot of different things that
Speaker 1: they just really want that one time, as if that's
Speaker 1: not going to come back to bite them. It's kind
Speaker 1: of amazing. Well, well, of course, But you know, I
Speaker 1: think that there's a difference between her and some of
Speaker 1: the other people, and I'm not you know, if I
Speaker 1: take her seriously, you know, which I'm trying to do.
Speaker 1: One is that I think that the Harry Reads of
Speaker 1: the world and the Chuck Shumers of the world know
Speaker 1: better and are just cynical political operators who don't care
Speaker 1: what they destroy to get what they want. I think
Speaker 1: she is a I don't know what's called her, a Marxist, Okay.
Speaker 1: I think she wants to incrementally go towards a centralized
Speaker 1: federal control that overrides the will of states, that essentially
Speaker 1: destroys the United States government in its present form. So
Speaker 1: if I take her seriously, so that's the difference between
Speaker 1: the two, and she is, i think, you're right, a
Speaker 1: much more powerful voice than people give her credit for.
Speaker 1: Because a lot of younger people and people who are
Speaker 1: really plugged in online, etc. I think they are far.
Speaker 1: You know, they listen to her, they listen to her
Speaker 1: normalizing these her insane ideas, and it is also dangerous.
Speaker 1: It's a dangerous that she's treated seriously. Yeah, she's also
Speaker 1: truly weekly and obviously ignorant on so much and in
Speaker 1: so many ways. None of her supporters seem to care.
Speaker 1: You know, you just just blabbers on online and they
Speaker 1: think she's amazing and yes, queen and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: you see, all stunning stuff. Anyway, Well, we're gonna try
Speaker 1: to say the country, David while we can. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being with us, my friend anytime. Thank you. Florida Governor
Speaker 1: Ronda Santist taking another step to protecting parental rights in
Speaker 1: his date by throwing a support behind conservative school board candidates.
Speaker 1: We have more on that with Sarasota County school board
Speaker 1: Member Bridget Ziegler. Stay with us. Each morning, the President
Speaker 1: of the United States receives a highly classified briefing on
Speaker 1: the most important issues facing the country. It's called the
Speaker 1: President's Daily Brief, or PDB. It's delivered by America's spies
Speaker 1: and analysts. Well, now you can hear your very own
Speaker 1: PDB in the form of a podcast hosted by me
Speaker 1: Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer. Each morning
Speaker 1: at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: minutes of the most important issues facing the country, giving
Speaker 1: you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to start
Speaker 1: your morning. Florida Governor Ronda Santists took the next step
Speaker 1: in protecting parents' rights in education across his state by
Speaker 1: jumping into local school board races with crucial endorsements booting
Speaker 1: last week. We need strong local school board members who
Speaker 1: are committed to advancing our agenda to put students first
Speaker 1: and protect parents' rights. I'm proud to endorse ten local
Speaker 1: school board candidates who will set our children up for success.
Speaker 1: Sarasota County school Board Member Bridget Ziegler was one of
Speaker 1: the ten candidates endorsed by Descantists, and she joins me now. Bridget,
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: having me so. The governor launched the Desantists Education Agenda,
Speaker 1: which is a student first, parents centered initiative focused on
Speaker 1: setting Florida's children up for success, ensuring parental rights and education,
Speaker 1: and combating the woke agenda from infiltrating public schools. How
Speaker 1: do the school boards play into this and what are
Speaker 1: you looking to do? Well. First of all, I want
Speaker 1: to thank Governor to Santis. It's remarkable that a governor
Speaker 1: chimed in and local school board races and a lot
Speaker 1: of people talk about how unprecedented is but so many
Speaker 1: things and the leadership that Rona Santis has done is unprecedented,
Speaker 1: and he realizes how important the decisions that are made
Speaker 1: at the local level. I think we all saw that
Speaker 1: during COVID and all the items that you just highlighted
Speaker 1: part of his education agenda. While great being led by
Speaker 1: the governor, and then we have our Republican led state legislature,
Speaker 1: but it comes down to local elected officials at the
Speaker 1: school board level to hold that line, and they do
Speaker 1: play a critical role. I'm proud to be in humble
Speaker 1: to be a part of the ten that he endorsed,
Speaker 1: and proud to say that I am looking forward to
Speaker 1: holding that line as I have since I first got
Speaker 1: on the board. So you're already on the board. What
Speaker 1: are the kind of changes that you're seeking to do?
Speaker 1: I mean, I would assume there are other new school
Speaker 1: board members who are also looking I mean, given the
Speaker 1: incredible focus honestly, at the national level on some of
Speaker 1: the school board meetings in Virginia and obviously other states
Speaker 1: including Florida, parents all of the country really focused in
Speaker 1: on this. So what are some of the things that
Speaker 1: you're trying to accomplish at your Florida school board in
Speaker 1: Sarasota Well, first and foremost, so just to set the stage,
Speaker 1: we have a board of five. While it's nonpartisan, you
Speaker 1: can go based on the policy philosophy, and we have
Speaker 1: a majority liberal board, as you'll find across the country.
Speaker 1: And so first and foremost, it's understanding that as an
Speaker 1: elected official, you work for the people. That is something
Speaker 1: that has been lacking. I think you mentioned it when
Speaker 1: you talk about people coming to school board meetings and
Speaker 1: being frustrated because they've been met with disdain with parents
Speaker 1: whom they serve, being bothered by the concerns that they have.
Speaker 1: So I think it's in critical We have three seats
Speaker 1: up in Sarasota County. We have the opportunity to flip
Speaker 1: the board to a conservative majority that are focused on
Speaker 1: serving the people, for detecting parental rights and ensuring that
Speaker 1: we're having academic focus not political agendas. That is going
Speaker 1: to be a huge focus and a huge opportunity. Now
Speaker 1: there's going to be other boards across the state and
Speaker 1: country where they may not have a majority. But you
Speaker 1: need a strong, vocal, common sense conservative that is there
Speaker 1: to serve the mission of the school district. Understand taxpayers
Speaker 1: pay into this system. Make sure that they understand that
Speaker 1: they are there to serve the people with the focus
Speaker 1: of academic excellence. And so when you look at his agenda,
Speaker 1: when you look at what I hope to see in
Speaker 1: Sarahceta County, a lot of that is going to it's
Speaker 1: the mindset of the board, the public servants, if you will,
Speaker 1: because right now they are not public servants, they're self
Speaker 1: serving themselves. And was there one incident that got you first? Essentially,
Speaker 1: did something happen either with your own children in the
Speaker 1: school system or near where you live that got you
Speaker 1: interested in doing this in the first place? And what
Speaker 1: are the kind of things that you you've heard of?
Speaker 1: I mean, usually people decide they want to join the
Speaker 1: school board because they want to address something you've told
Speaker 1: us some of the things you want to do on
Speaker 1: the positive side, But is there wokeness and CRT and
Speaker 1: Sarah Soda. I feel like people wouldn't think that's happening,
Speaker 1: but there are very red states that have some very
Speaker 1: left wing school board stuff going on. So I got
Speaker 1: on the board early on with an eight month old.
Speaker 1: I was a new mom, and as many people understand,
Speaker 1: as soon as you become a parent, the entire world,
Speaker 1: in the view that you look at the world changes.
Speaker 1: Government takes a long time to work. I dealt with
Speaker 1: a lot of nonprofits and focused on children's issues, but
Speaker 1: there was a vacancy and I ran and I stepped
Speaker 1: off that legend, and I'm glad I did because it
Speaker 1: surprised me and it was a calling through that time.
Speaker 1: I was surprised to see the antics and this is
Speaker 1: back in twenty fourteen, that the behavior of the board
Speaker 1: and that disdain that has been going on. That's not
Speaker 1: a new thing. But to go to current events, over
Speaker 1: some time, there's more of the bureaucrats see in those
Speaker 1: typical challenges that I saw. But over some time in
Speaker 1: the last four to six years, particularly aggressively in the
Speaker 1: last three with the social agendas the CRT broadly termed
Speaker 1: but and also the gender ideology. It was a very
Speaker 1: big concern of mine. I launched a major focus in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen around parental rights, because while it was around
Speaker 1: gender diverse guidelines and it's not anti anything, I'm just
Speaker 1: very focused on parental rights and ensuring parents have a
Speaker 1: voice in a seat at the table. In those provisions,
Speaker 1: it said it's up to a student and a student
Speaker 1: alone to determine which gender and facilities that a student
Speaker 1: would use, and precluded staff from notifying parents, and it's
Speaker 1: said in elementary cases it's a case by case basis.
Speaker 1: And to me, just the emphasis of this is this
Speaker 1: government body indicating they know better than parents, and as
Speaker 1: a parent, that was wrong. And where does that end?
Speaker 1: And we're seeing that I was back in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: so we've just seen it or rode further. I'm so
Speaker 1: grateful that the public has It's unfortunate that it took
Speaker 1: the much, but I'm grateful that people see it and
Speaker 1: we have a moment we need to course correct for
Speaker 1: our children and for their future and for the future
Speaker 1: of this country. And again I go back to Ron
Speaker 1: de sciances or governor. I am so grateful because he's
Speaker 1: been bold. He has highlighted all the issues that so
Speaker 1: many people wouldn't weren't willing to take on and he's
Speaker 1: done it with gusto and fact based and so I
Speaker 1: am privileged in honor to live in Florida and to
Speaker 1: have his endorsement. But I implore anyone who's listening, watching
Speaker 1: to take a role, take an active role in knowing
Speaker 1: when your school board elections are. And Sarah in Florida
Speaker 1: their August twenty third. Most people think elections and they
Speaker 1: think November in the state of Florida. Because partisan August
Speaker 1: twenty third, I can't say it enough to make sure
Speaker 1: that people show up because local government is truly where
Speaker 1: things happen, and education is key when you think about
Speaker 1: the local economy, the future of your community, in the
Speaker 1: future of this country. So I will keep fighting. We
Speaker 1: need strong backbones conservatives that are willing to understand as
Speaker 1: a public servant, you serve the people. And I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to the outcome. I'm obvious twenty three because I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of energy and a lot of
Speaker 1: support and need to change this right the ship if
Speaker 1: you will. I know some other states are looking at
Speaker 1: the very detailed descantis education agenda and implementing parts of it.
Speaker 1: Perhaps they'll take it on wholesale over time. We have
Speaker 1: that education agenda by bullet point, keep schools open and
Speaker 1: reject lockdowns, educate, don't indoctrinate, Ensure parental rights and education,
Speaker 1: and keep woke gender ideology out of schools. Support robust
Speaker 1: civics education, expand workforce development techno education. Reject the use
Speaker 1: of CRT, increased teacher pay, continue support for school security,
Speaker 1: mental health initiatives, Protect the rights of parents, Guarantee the
Speaker 1: right of parents in curriculum transparency. I mean, those all
Speaker 1: seem like really good things to me. Bridget is your
Speaker 1: school board on board? How could you? Again so common sense?
Speaker 1: How could anyone deny these? And again it is he
Speaker 1: Ron de SAMs is a remarkable leader, and that's why
Speaker 1: so many people are flocking to Florida. Again, make so
Speaker 1: much consense. But ironically and surprisingly, we have many school
Speaker 1: board members across the state who are trying to reject it.
Speaker 1: But this is the key part. They're rejecting it because
Speaker 1: it is a from a partisan standpoint, because they perhaps
Speaker 1: the Democrats and liberal Democrats or progressives doesn't line up
Speaker 1: with their agenda. Everything that the governor has listed out
Speaker 1: is focused on academic outcomes for our students to achieve
Speaker 1: and that is the purpose of education. So it is
Speaker 1: again it's a breath of fresh air that he's taking
Speaker 1: this fight all the way down and making everyone aware
Speaker 1: the impact that local school board elections have. His agenda
Speaker 1: is again common sense and resonating with not just Republicans,
Speaker 1: but NPAs and former Democrats. I say that because we're
Speaker 1: seeing numbers of people leave the Democrat Party because of
Speaker 1: their progressive, extreme agenda that does not resonate with the
Speaker 1: real life issues that people are worried about, particularly their
Speaker 1: children as they raise and want them to be productive,
Speaker 1: successful members of society. Bridget, good luck to you in
Speaker 1: this mission. Thank you so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: Good to see him, Thank you so much. Yes, who's
Speaker 1: probably the most excited about the news of President Biden
Speaker 1: doesn't want to count drunk driving as a felony, Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: that story coming up in quick Hits. DHS Secretary may
Speaker 1: work us found the admits that he understands why border
Speaker 1: patrol agent morale is down, and the White House COVID
Speaker 1: response coordinator says that a COVID shot once a year
Speaker 1: is the goal. I've seen that one coming, In fact,
Speaker 1: I think we did. But it's probably gonna be more
Speaker 1: than once. That's gonna be every year. Time for quick hits.
Speaker 1: Let's get to it. One of the most annoying things
Speaker 1: that you'll see about the Democrats and the leftist mentality
Speaker 1: is their usage of children for political messaging that has
Speaker 1: nothing thing to do with kids. Right. They'll put children
Speaker 1: forward about gun control and act like, oh, but it's
Speaker 1: because you know, we're also scared of the gun violence
Speaker 1: that's going to be visited upon small children. I've seen
Speaker 1: kids at protests who are toddlers holding up these signs.
Speaker 1: Why are they making their children do this stuff? Well,
Speaker 1: a young child in Arkansas was, by their parents direction,
Speaker 1: leading a my body, My Choice protest. So they love
Speaker 1: to politicize children. It's also why they like to indoctrinate
Speaker 1: them at the schools as young as they possibly can,
Speaker 1: to brainwash people, to make them believe in a leftist orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, to make them incapable as they grow older,
Speaker 1: of thinking for themselves, of thinking through issues as an
Speaker 1: individual instead of just going along with the herd. President
Speaker 1: Biden said something pretty weird today. He's pandering. It's what
Speaker 1: he's always doing. You know. Biden is now the big
Speaker 1: criminal justice reform. Remember Biden was the guy in the
Speaker 1: nineties just signed the big tough on crime federal bill
Speaker 1: that now he's apologizing for. It's actually a pretty good bill,
Speaker 1: but now he's apologizing for it because you know, social
Speaker 1: justice means that criminal should get away with things. Apparently,
Speaker 1: here's Biden saying he doesn't want to count drunk driving
Speaker 1: as a felony. Watched you only arrest for the purpose
Speaker 1: of dealing with a felony that's committed, and I don't
Speaker 1: count drunk driving as a felony. And that's interesting, is
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. You have to wonder is it that he's
Speaker 1: so old that he isn't really with it sometimes or
Speaker 1: is it more that he's just always been really dumb.
Speaker 1: It's tough to tell. Is it more cognitive impairment from age,
Speaker 1: or Joe Biden is actually just kind of a low
Speaker 1: IQ guy. I'm persuadable either way on this one. So
Speaker 1: today a border patrol, or rather a border ruling came down.
Speaker 1: That means that remain in Mexico is going is ending
Speaker 1: is effectively over which the Bide administration wants to do
Speaker 1: because they want the continued illegal immigration to flood into
Speaker 1: the country. They like this, they don't want it to stop,
Speaker 1: and they're willing to act in bad faith and effectively
Speaker 1: ignore their obligation under federal their border to get there.
Speaker 1: They simply don't care. It's a border that's the worst
Speaker 1: it's ever been from the perspective of lawlessness in law
Speaker 1: and order. And here is may Orchis admitting, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: border patrol morale is down, and he gets why. Watch
Speaker 1: if you could just talk a little about the challenges
Speaker 1: we have, how the department is really going about trying
Speaker 1: to curtail this. What's the most effective efficient way, and
Speaker 1: now what is our path forward? So I will tell
Speaker 1: you the frustration of the individuals, you know, with the
Speaker 1: badges on the ground and the whole striped firearms is earned. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just we need to be very clear about that. In
Speaker 1: our border patrol agents. You know, their morale is down
Speaker 1: and I understand why. Yeah, because you're a tool of
Speaker 1: the left and you won't actually allow for the border
Speaker 1: to be secured and for the laws to be faithfully enforced.
Speaker 1: Pretty straightforward. White House COVID nineteen response corp Intro doctor
Speaker 1: she'sh Ja says, you know, once a year COVID shot.
Speaker 1: That's what we're going for forever. Watch. So is the
Speaker 1: COVID shot going to end up being like the flu
Speaker 1: shot or at some point will we not have to
Speaker 1: get it? Good question. Right now, we do not have
Speaker 1: a vaccine that's going to give you lifelong protection. Our
Speaker 1: vaccines so far have been giving about sort of six
Speaker 1: to twelve months of protection. My hope is as we
Speaker 1: continue to make improvements, that we will get to a
Speaker 1: point where you get to an annual COVID shot. That's
Speaker 1: not quite where we are, but right, but we are
Speaker 1: making progress, and I think that is the goal is
Speaker 1: let's get it to once a year. Americans are used
Speaker 1: to it, most Americans will get it. That'll be a
Speaker 1: great way to manage the virus. Are you gonna be mandatory? Though?
Speaker 1: Notice how they had to admit the shot nowhere near
Speaker 1: as good as they said, not even close. They live view,
Speaker 1: they don't care. That's everything I told. The line The
Speaker 1: no Spinows of Bill O'Reilly is next Field's High. Each morning,
Speaker 1: the President of the United States receives a highly classified
Speaker 1: briefing on the most important issues facing the country. It's
Speaker 1: called the President's Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered by
Speaker 1: America's spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear your
Speaker 1: very own PDB in the form of a podcast hosted
Speaker 1: by me Ryan Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer.
Speaker 1: Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country,
Speaker 1: giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to
Speaker 1: start your morning.