Speaker 1: You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to hold the line.
Speaker 1: I'm Buck Sexton. The crime situation in America continues to deteriorate,
Speaker 1: and it is directly attributable to progressive prosecutors, the BLM movement,
Speaker 1: the Democrats overall move toward being soft on crime to
Speaker 1: effectively decriminalize a whole range of crimes. And we are
Speaker 1: now seeing mounting evidence, as if we didn't have enough already,
Speaker 1: of just how catastrophic this is. Coast to coast and
Speaker 1: all around the country. For one thing, the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty one crime surge and folved a thirty
Speaker 1: percent national increase in homicide. But if you look year
Speaker 1: over year, six months into this point, what you find
Speaker 1: is that we are still not only at record high
Speaker 1: levels of crime nationally. There are a number of cities,
Speaker 1: they're all in the hands of Democrat, they all have
Speaker 1: progressive prosecutors, they are a function of and a province
Speaker 1: of Democrat governance, and thinking they actually have worse crime
Speaker 1: year over year to last year, which was a catastrophically
Speaker 1: bad year for them. Baltimore. This is from Fox News. Baltimore,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Atlanta, and New York City
Speaker 1: are all on pace to break their twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: levels of violent crime halfway through this year. The nation's
Speaker 1: largest city, leading the group Coordiny crime data compiled by
Speaker 1: Fox News, New York City has seen a twenty five
Speaker 1: percent jump in violent crime at this point in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, six months in compared at the same time
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, despite seeing a small decreasing the
Speaker 1: amount of homicides recorded in the city. So violence and
Speaker 1: lawlessness on the rise, and again in cities where democrats
Speaker 1: just a few years ago we're touting their new no
Speaker 1: cash bail policies, their lower prosecution rates and lower incarceration
Speaker 1: rates for criminal offenders. Well, now we see what the
Speaker 1: results of this are, and it's predictable and it's tragic.
Speaker 1: Now there has to be accountability. Here's just to give
Speaker 1: you a sense of some of the increases. Remember these
Speaker 1: are year over year increases from twenty twenty one, which
Speaker 1: is one of the worst years ever for violent crime,
Speaker 1: at least in let's say thirty or forty years in America.
Speaker 1: Atlanta is up five point five percent year over year,
Speaker 1: Baltimore six percent, Philadelphia seven Los Angeles eight percent, Washing
Speaker 1: DC twelve percent, New York City twenty five percent. Now
Speaker 1: this is a particularly big problem. This is particularly a
Speaker 1: big challenge for the city to explain because they have
Speaker 1: a new mayor right here, they are looking at this situation.
Speaker 1: Look at the circumstance where they the people of New
Speaker 1: York elected a former police captain to become the mayor
Speaker 1: of New York City so that he could crack down
Speaker 1: on violent crime. And sure enough, it is actually going
Speaker 1: in the opposite direction. And this is also for Fox News.
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Atlanta have all
Speaker 1: seen homicide numbers outpaced their mark in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: Milwaukee seeing the largest spike of the group, according to
Speaker 1: crime data. So this is now specifically on homicide. You
Speaker 1: have Los Angeles, DC, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Atlanta more murders this year.
Speaker 1: Now I understand you look at this data and you say, well,
Speaker 1: this is just a procious and everybody can understand that.
Speaker 1: Everybody can see what an outrage this is. So how
Speaker 1: do we change it well. One way to change it
Speaker 1: would be to stop instituting maniacally reckless policies at the
Speaker 1: level of city y police department policy, mayoral offices, prosecutors' offices.
Speaker 1: Here's an example. The Chicago Police Department has unveiled a
Speaker 1: new policy prohibiting its officers from chasing people on foot
Speaker 1: simply because they run away or because they have committed
Speaker 1: minor offenses. So now, if a officer in Chicago see someone,
Speaker 1: let's say, steal a purse from somebody or run out
Speaker 1: of a store with a bagfull of stolen goods, it
Speaker 1: is now official policy, as it seems, from the City
Speaker 1: of Chicago, that that officer should not give chase. And
Speaker 1: by the way, even if under the rules and regulations,
Speaker 1: the officer could justify giving chase, would he or she
Speaker 1: want to knowing that that chase could result in a
Speaker 1: physical altercation of some kind, and that if the basis
Speaker 1: for the chase was ruled invalid under departmental regulation, there's
Speaker 1: always the possibility of some kind of discipline being meted
Speaker 1: out really, of course, for political reasons against that officer.
Speaker 1: So what do you have. You have fewer people who
Speaker 1: are carrying a badge and a gun in Chicago. And
Speaker 1: this is true in so many cities who are willing
Speaker 1: to do aggressive, effective policing against the criminal element that
Speaker 1: exists in every society and that unfortunately has been emboldened
Speaker 1: so much in hours. But there are some, I mean,
Speaker 1: here's the Chicago Police superintendent who says that the foot
Speaker 1: pursuit policy makes officers and the community safer. Why And
Speaker 1: I just want to add as an overview for pursuit
Speaker 1: policies have been part of law enforces over a decade now.
Speaker 1: Just because Chicaglo PD is now implementing a permanent when
Speaker 1: the impacts on crime has been studied and we can
Speaker 1: look back at foot pursuit policies, it's made officers safer
Speaker 1: and it's made the community safer in cities that's implementing
Speaker 1: this so for a decade. So the expectation for us is,
Speaker 1: like Bob mentioned, what we're learned and be informed by
Speaker 1: our documentation and review of how to continue to enhance
Speaker 1: officers safety as well as enhanced safety of our residents.
Speaker 1: Fascinating that someone could say that and think that it
Speaker 1: doesn't sound utterly moronic. How does it make the city safer?
Speaker 1: It may reduce officer involved officer involved altercations, of course,
Speaker 1: because they're not enforcing the law. But what does that
Speaker 1: do to the law in the city. What does it
Speaker 1: do to criminality? What happens with those who are now
Speaker 1: emboldened to break the law more than every because they
Speaker 1: know they won't be chased. What we've seen is actually
Speaker 1: these cities deteriorating from a safety perspective. What we've seen
Speaker 1: is a massive increase in lawlessness. He's gonna say there's
Speaker 1: a foot patrol policy that is provably better, just absurd.
Speaker 1: It's just a stupid thing to say, and yet he
Speaker 1: says it and people are going to go along with it.
Speaker 1: You have to wonder, of course, there was a high
Speaker 1: profile chase that did involve two individuals who had guns,
Speaker 1: and there there were shots fired by police in response
Speaker 1: to this huge political uproar of this. That's what the
Speaker 1: foot chase policies all about, and that's why it's becoming
Speaker 1: permanent right now. And then you also have it's not
Speaker 1: just that at the command level of major police departments
Speaker 1: in Democrat cities. You also have the progressive prosecutors like
Speaker 1: George Gascon. As we know chessa Budan in San Francisco
Speaker 1: is out because people got sick of stepping over needles
Speaker 1: with their children in public parks, and their houses being
Speaker 1: broken into constantly, their cars being broken into constantly, the assaults,
Speaker 1: the constant threats. It was enough, right well, Los Angeles
Speaker 1: has many of the same problems, and recently Gascone, the
Speaker 1: DA came under a lot of well deserved heat because
Speaker 1: he led gang member who under law, should have been
Speaker 1: sentenced under a three strikes law let a gang member
Speaker 1: out who then killed two cops. And Gascone, who is
Speaker 1: the worst a disgrace to any prosecutorial outfit anywhere in
Speaker 1: the country, is defending it, saying, yeah, we did the
Speaker 1: right thing with that gang member who then killed two cops.
Speaker 1: Watch this do the outcome in this particular case, given
Speaker 1: what we knew then, no history of violence, very little
Speaker 1: contact with a criminal justice system for nearly ten years
Speaker 1: was appropriate. When people are arrested for serious crimes, we
Speaker 1: work hard to ensure that there are serious consequences, including
Speaker 1: lengthy periods of incarceration, But we have an imperfect system.
Speaker 1: And that's not only hear in Laus everywhere. He's the disgrace.
Speaker 1: He should resign, and the fact that he won't just
Speaker 1: shows what an unethical piece of garbage he is as
Speaker 1: a prosecutor. We'll have more on this with retired FBI
Speaker 1: agent James Gagliano in just a moment. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: protecting your home for a minute. You know that I'm
Speaker 1: skeptical by nature, So when I first heard about home
Speaker 1: tittle theft and the idea that thieves can literally steal
Speaker 1: your home, I was like, really, and some cybercriminal really
Speaker 1: forged my name off the tittle of my home and
Speaker 1: takeover as the new owner. Turns out, yeah, he can.
Speaker 1: It's not as rare as you'd think. According to the FBI,
Speaker 1: this crime is growing faster than credit card fraud, and
Speaker 1: you're not covered by homeowners insurance or comment at any
Speaker 1: theft programs. Home tattle lock earned my trust. Home tittle
Speaker 1: lock puts a virtual barrier around your home's title. The
Speaker 1: instant they detect anyone tampering with their home's title, they
Speaker 1: mobilize to help shut it down. Here's what I urge
Speaker 1: you to do. Number one, go to hometetlelock dot com
Speaker 1: and read the testimonials from FBI agents and government officials
Speaker 1: number two. Register your home address to see if you're
Speaker 1: already a victim and don't even know it. When you
Speaker 1: protect your hometell them buck sex and send you to
Speaker 1: get my listener discount hometutlelock dot com. That's hometutlelock dot com.
Speaker 1: Support from my podcast is brought to you by Manscape,
Speaker 1: the best and men's below the waste grooming. Their products
Speaker 1: are precision engineered tools. Manscape's Performance Package is the ultimate
Speaker 1: men's hygiene bundle. Join over four million men worldwide who
Speaker 1: trusts Manscape with its exclusive offer for you twenty percent
Speaker 1: off and free worldwide shipping with the code buck at
Speaker 1: manscape dot com. The Performance Package four point zero includes
Speaker 1: a ton of men's grooming products like the Lawnmower four
Speaker 1: point zero trimmer, the weed whacker, Erao's hair trimmer, Performance boxer, briefs,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of other great men's hygiene products you
Speaker 1: never knew you needed, plus a travel bag to hold
Speaker 1: at all. The lawnmower trimmer is the best. It's got
Speaker 1: a cutting edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents, and
Speaker 1: it's waterproof so no more messes on the bathroom floor.
Speaker 1: You'll also get the water proof weed Whacker knows an
Speaker 1: ear hair trimmer with proprietary skin safe technology which helps
Speaker 1: reduce nick snags and tugs in all those delicate areas.
Speaker 1: Get twenty percent off and free shipping with the code
Speaker 1: buck at manscape dot com. That's twenty percent off with
Speaker 1: free shipping at manscape dot com and use code buck
Speaker 1: to unlock your confidence and always use the right tools
Speaker 1: with Manscape. Violent crime is a major national news story
Speaker 1: because of exactly the statistics we've been talking to you
Speaker 1: about on this show. Unprecedented increases in shootings, in murders,
Speaker 1: and this is across the country, major cities, and it
Speaker 1: continued beyond the horrific year of a thirty percent nationwide
Speaker 1: increase in twenty twenty to twenty twenty one. What can
Speaker 1: we do to combat the situation, and also want to
Speaker 1: talk about the latest updates from Uvalde. We're joined now
Speaker 1: by James Gagliano. He is a retired FBI agent was
Speaker 1: a member of an FBI hostage rescue team during his
Speaker 1: time serving. James, thanks for being with us. Did join
Speaker 1: you Buck as always, So let's just start with the
Speaker 1: crime data. Looking at the numbers you have even compared
Speaker 1: to last year was a terrible year nationwide, cities, towns, rural.
Speaker 1: There were spikes in crime really all over the country
Speaker 1: starting in twenty twenty and going through twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: But here we are in twenty twenty two in the
Speaker 1: data in Atlanta, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, DC, New York
Speaker 1: all showing year over year increases. So it's not like
Speaker 1: we had a really bad year, We've got it under control.
Speaker 1: It's actually continuing to get worse in these cities. First off,
Speaker 1: is that surprising to you just from a criminal justice
Speaker 1: statistical perspective? And what do you think is pushing these
Speaker 1: numbers even higher than we've seen them. Yeah, it is
Speaker 1: no surprise to me, Buck, absolutely not. There's two things
Speaker 1: that drive this. One is a permissive environment, because criminals, evildoers,
Speaker 1: they take the path of least resistance and they will
Speaker 1: take what you give them. And when you have this
Speaker 1: influx of progressive prosecutors. And we know that in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: chase of Bodin was just recalled. We know that George
Speaker 1: Gascone in Los Angeles is under fire right now for
Speaker 1: the fact that he let out a felon who was
Speaker 1: arrested with a gun and drugs and gave improbation, and
Speaker 1: that felon went on to kill two police officers recently.
Speaker 1: You've got Alvin Bragg in Manhattan. You've got Kim Fox
Speaker 1: in Chicago, You've got Larry Krasner in Philadelphia. These folks,
Speaker 1: we live in a society where our criminal justice system
Speaker 1: is imperfect, but it is the best in the world.
Speaker 1: But it depends buck on an advertarial adversarial system where
Speaker 1: the defense has an opportunity to make their case, but
Speaker 1: the prosecutution represents me and you and the rest of
Speaker 1: the public, and when the prosecution helps makes the defenses case.
Speaker 1: That's why we're seeing all these numbers driven up right now.
Speaker 1: There is no fear right now, there's no repercussions. That's
Speaker 1: why smashing grabs are going on, grand theft auto is up,
Speaker 1: robberies are up. It's because people understand there's a permissive
Speaker 1: environment and they're going to do whatever it takes to
Speaker 1: get away with things because they know there are no consequences.
Speaker 1: But from a criminal justice perspective, how do you assess
Speaker 1: new policies that have been put in place in cities
Speaker 1: like Chicago, where they now have a no foot chase rule,
Speaker 1: and that extent for for police, meaning that if police
Speaker 1: believe that somebody is in the course of committing a
Speaker 1: crime or has committed a crime and runs from them,
Speaker 1: unless they think it's a serious violent felony that has
Speaker 1: occurred or the person poses an immediate threat to the public,
Speaker 1: the cops aren't even supposed to run after individuals. So
Speaker 1: you see this, you say, okay, So, let's say a
Speaker 1: group of organized retail theft and organized retail theft gang
Speaker 1: goes into one of those fancy handback stores and steals
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars of stuff in three or four minutes,
Speaker 1: as they've done in downtown Chicago, for example. Cops arrive
Speaker 1: on the scene, those individuals run with those handbags. The
Speaker 1: cops aren't allowed to chase them. How is there any
Speaker 1: law and order when that's the policy of the city
Speaker 1: of Chicago. Yeah. Again, it speaks to It speaks to
Speaker 1: the fact that the criminal element understands and senses weakness,
Speaker 1: and in this instance, that's what it is. Look Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg in Manhattan, the DA there put out a policy
Speaker 1: memorandum right after he's elected and stated that he was
Speaker 1: not going to be seeking prosecutions for resisting arrest. So
Speaker 1: what does that tell the potential subject, Hey, I've got
Speaker 1: a chance to get away, and if I don't get
Speaker 1: away and I club police officer on the head with
Speaker 1: a cudgel or punch him in the face, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to be prosecuted for it. Same thing in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Cops have a tough job. We all know that you
Speaker 1: and I have discussed this many times before, but now
Speaker 1: they have to make not just the snap judgments that
Speaker 1: come with the information vacuum they're dealing with when they
Speaker 1: respond to a crime in progress, but they've got to
Speaker 1: determine was this an aggravated assault or simple assault. If
Speaker 1: it's an aggregated aggravated assault, then I can take off
Speaker 1: and try to catch this guy. If not, I might
Speaker 1: be subjecting myself to some type of legal ramifications. At
Speaker 1: the end of this, it's not worth it. And when
Speaker 1: you sense that the police departments are having a tough
Speaker 1: time now with recruiting, they're having a tough time with
Speaker 1: retention that people are leaving in droves, and police departments
Speaker 1: are having trouble recruiting young people men and women, to
Speaker 1: come and be part of this. What does that say.
Speaker 1: It means we're in a bad spot right now and
Speaker 1: we've got to change this. But the pendulum always swing
Speaker 1: back and course correct. We're going in a bad direction
Speaker 1: right now, just like we were in the seventies and
Speaker 1: the eighties and then broken windows became a thing. We
Speaker 1: don't need to reinvent the wheel. We need to use
Speaker 1: what worked, things like broken windows policing and I since
Speaker 1: a lot of cities are going to be moving back
Speaker 1: to that line of thought pretty soon, James warned to
Speaker 1: switch to another really important and very difficult topic of
Speaker 1: the latest on the Uval Day School massacre police response.
Speaker 1: There is video now that shows individuals from law enforcement
Speaker 1: essentially in a stacked position in the hallway and he's
Speaker 1: ready to go in. They waited for over an hour.
Speaker 1: Here's the Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McGraw
Speaker 1: saying the suspect could have been stopped within three minute.
Speaker 1: Why there's compelling evidence at the law enforcement response to
Speaker 1: the attack at rob Elementary was an abject failure and
Speaker 1: anathetical to everything we've learned over the last two decades
Speaker 1: since the Call of Mine. Massacre three minutes after the
Speaker 1: subject under the West Building, there a sufficient number of
Speaker 1: armed officers wearing body armor to isolate, distract, and neutralize
Speaker 1: the subject. The only thing stopping the hallway of dedicated
Speaker 1: officers from any room one eleven and one twelve was
Speaker 1: the unseen commander who decided to place the lives of
Speaker 1: officers before the lives of children. I mean, that is
Speaker 1: a stunning indictment to say that he placed the lives
Speaker 1: of officers over the lives of children. Based on the facts, though, James,
Speaker 1: is that just an honest assessment of what happened here?
Speaker 1: Given that there's video, there's no question and the timeline
Speaker 1: is not in dispute either, that you had multiple officers
Speaker 1: in the hallway with long guns and tactical shields and
Speaker 1: bullet resistant kevlar vests on who waited over an hour
Speaker 1: while there were still active shooting going on in that classroom.
Speaker 1: How did this happen? What do you think about this? Police? Well,
Speaker 1: I agree with him right there. It was an abject failure.
Speaker 1: And Buck, I think you know me well enough to
Speaker 1: know now, I'm very careful on waiting to weigh in
Speaker 1: until all the facts are at hand, and I know
Speaker 1: that there is an ongoing investigation. Pieces are leaking out.
Speaker 1: The things that are leaking out are beyond stressing. They
Speaker 1: are it's unconscionable. Now. I think the biggest breakdown in
Speaker 1: the incident command system here was the fact that you
Speaker 1: had a police chief who had a six member police
Speaker 1: department for the school district, and this police chief, Aridondo,
Speaker 1: who was the unseen commander and making the calls throughout.
Speaker 1: Now from the time the shooter entered the school until
Speaker 1: the shooter was neutralized interdicted by a Customs and Border
Speaker 1: Patrol TAC team I believe was the total of seventy
Speaker 1: seven minutes. The fact that post Columbine Post Columbine, which
Speaker 1: happened in April of nineteen ninety nine, we are twenty
Speaker 1: three years past that where we learned ainful lessons when
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers waited in the parking lot for homogeneous
Speaker 1: tactical team to show up and gave the shooters forty
Speaker 1: seven minutes from entry to commit heinous crimes killing people, teachers,
Speaker 1: killing us students. In this instance, I think it was
Speaker 1: a lesson learned for all of us here, but especially
Speaker 1: a painful one in law enforcement. Someone from one of
Speaker 1: the other agencies that respond, whether it was a federal
Speaker 1: agency like Customs and Border Protection or the Department of
Speaker 1: Public Safety for Texas, which is a much larger agency.
Speaker 1: A sergeant or lieutenant there is the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: police chief anywhere else, should have taken charge of the scene.
Speaker 1: And yes, Buck, to your point, they should have gone
Speaker 1: to the sound of the guns when young children who
Speaker 1: are not outfitted in body armor and are covering up
Speaker 1: with notebooks and chiefs of paper are waiting on the
Speaker 1: perfect homogeneous tactical team to make entry. Buck, we're doing
Speaker 1: it wrong. James, appreciate the expertise. Thanks for being with us,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, bubb Coming up, the Senate has
Speaker 1: advanced a bipartisan gun control measure. What will this really do,
Speaker 1: if anything. We'll talk to Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms
Speaker 1: dot Com next. At first, I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: you about protecting your online data. A lot of companies
Speaker 1: promise your privacy is guaranteed, but we know that's not true.
Speaker 1: That's why you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application
Speaker 1: tool called Secure. It's spelled SEK. You are. Secure is
Speaker 1: using proprietary encryption and offering secure instant messaging and email.
Speaker 1: With Secure, all of your communications based on servers and
Speaker 1: data centers hosted in Switzerland without using any of the
Speaker 1: big tech platforms. Privacy is a big issue now. Without
Speaker 1: real security, people can read your emails, your messages, even
Speaker 1: your bank information. Secure will never mind your data, never
Speaker 1: ask for your phone number. You can send emails your doctor, banker, lawyer,
Speaker 1: or anyone else with total confidence you're not being spied on.
Speaker 1: Secure is your solution to stop the constant theft of
Speaker 1: your digital identity. Costs only five dollars to a messenger,
Speaker 1: only ten dollars the messenger and email combination package. Go
Speaker 1: to secure dot com and take back your privacy today.
Speaker 1: That's sekuar dot com and use promo code buck for
Speaker 1: twenty five percent off. We'll be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold a line. So the Senate has voted to advance
Speaker 1: a gun control legislation that is going to do the following.
Speaker 1: Expanded background checks for buyers under twenty one, provides grants
Speaker 1: for states that implement their own red flag laws, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: A lot of things going on here. Fourteen Republicans, mental
Speaker 1: health services, things like that. Fourteen Republicans went along with it.
Speaker 1: Which a lot of people on the writers saying, what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on here? Well, when we have
Speaker 1: a question like that and it has to do with
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment, gotta ask our buddy, dam Edwards, damn,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Hey? Buck? Hey, why are you man? So?
Speaker 1: First off, any surprises on the Republicans who went along
Speaker 1: with this, Yeah, Tidy Young of Indiana was a bit
Speaker 1: of a surprise, although I didn't see a quote from
Speaker 1: him I think on Monday or Tuesday of this week
Speaker 1: that indicated like he was, you know, looking forward to
Speaker 1: seeing what they came up with, So he was a
Speaker 1: bit of a surprise. Murkowski was not as much of
Speaker 1: a surprise to me. And then you know, let's we've
Speaker 1: had ten Republicans who sat all along like as as
Speaker 1: long as the final legislation followed that basic framework that
Speaker 1: they were in support, So I wasn't too surprised. I
Speaker 1: actually predicted before a vote was held yesterday that this
Speaker 1: would get sixty five votes and get in sixty four,
Speaker 1: so I was pretty close. I was one off. So
Speaker 1: now we are at this point where people of course
Speaker 1: have been saying until today, well, you don't even know
Speaker 1: what's in it. Because the text is in public, so
Speaker 1: you're just going on you know, hearsay or whatever. Right,
Speaker 1: this is how the people that want this stuff to
Speaker 1: pass play games in the media. Now they've actually got
Speaker 1: a text, now they've actually voted on it. They dropped it,
Speaker 1: as i'ner stand it last night, eighty pages, so very
Speaker 1: little time even for the Senate staffers, never mind the
Speaker 1: senators themselves to go over this and see what's it
Speaker 1: it based on what we know, Kim, what's in it?
Speaker 1: And even more importantly, how do you see this actually
Speaker 1: being implemented or what happens now if this gets signed,
Speaker 1: which we believe it will by Biden in the law. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the biggest impact that folks are going to
Speaker 1: see right away is going to be the expanded background
Speaker 1: checks for eighteen, nineteen, and twenty year olds. So if
Speaker 1: you're an adult under the age of twenty one and
Speaker 1: you go to buy a firearm, you're going to see
Speaker 1: an immediate impact, right because we're basically talking about a
Speaker 1: three day waiting period, potentially as many as ten business
Speaker 1: days while the FBI goes into your juvenile records to
Speaker 1: see if there was any sort of juvenile crime that
Speaker 1: would make you prohibit or promoning a firearm as far
Speaker 1: as adults go. There's also a change in the definition
Speaker 1: of who is is engaged in the business of selling
Speaker 1: firearms right because once you're engaged in the business, you
Speaker 1: have to be a federal firearms license. And it's still
Speaker 1: not a hardened fast rule, like they didn't say if
Speaker 1: you sell more than fifty guns a year you need
Speaker 1: to get an FL. Basically, the new definition is if
Speaker 1: you are selling guns primarily for profit, then you should
Speaker 1: be getting an FL. So, you know, I could see
Speaker 1: that some gun owners who have quite an extensive collection,
Speaker 1: who may sell a arm from their private collection on
Speaker 1: a semi regular basis, I can see that the ATF
Speaker 1: would now consider them to be a firearms dealer and
Speaker 1: they would need to get an FL. As far as
Speaker 1: the red flag stuff goes, I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: don't know that we're going to see a whole lot
Speaker 1: of changes, because you know, this is left up to
Speaker 1: the states as to whether or not they want to
Speaker 1: implement these red flag laws. States are also eligible now
Speaker 1: for the same pool of grant money for programs that
Speaker 1: don't involve confiscating firearms without due process protection. So things
Speaker 1: like veterans courts, another christ centtervenged programs. If states want
Speaker 1: to adopt those strategies, they're still eligible for that pool
Speaker 1: of federal grant funds. So I don't think we're going
Speaker 1: to see an explosion of red states adopting red flag laws.
Speaker 1: Most of the blue states already have them in place,
Speaker 1: and I think that that's actually well, it's a troubling
Speaker 1: part of the bill. I don't know how much real
Speaker 1: world impact it's going to have, at least right away.
Speaker 1: Dam here's Senator Chuck Schumer. I mean, on this point
Speaker 1: about what it does, the answer is obviously not a
Speaker 1: lot that good. If anything that's good or useful might
Speaker 1: annoy some people or create some hassle's delays for the
Speaker 1: law abiding, it seems very unlikely this is going to
Speaker 1: stop even one shooting. I don't know. I mean, I
Speaker 1: suppose they're always going to operate under the theoretical premise that, well,
Speaker 1: it could create a circumstance, right, we'll see. But also
Speaker 1: this isn't the end of it either. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not like Democrats now are going to surround and say
Speaker 1: we got bipartisan gun reform. We're good now. This is
Speaker 1: just okay, step one in a much longer journey for
Speaker 1: disarming the American people. I mean, here's Chuck Schumer saying,
Speaker 1: this is just the beginning. Folks. Why while it's not
Speaker 1: everything we want, this legislation is urgently needed. I'm pleased
Speaker 1: that for the first time in nearly thirty years, Congress
Speaker 1: is back on the path to take meaningful action to
Speaker 1: address gun violence. What do you think, Yeah, listen, here's
Speaker 1: the thing, and you're right. And this is where we
Speaker 1: get into the politics right as opposed to the policy
Speaker 1: of this legislation, and the politics I think are pretty
Speaker 1: simple for both sides here. Democrats are looking for something
Speaker 1: that they can call a win, that they can present
Speaker 1: to their base and say, look, we're not completely inept.
Speaker 1: Look we can actually get stuff done. Please come out
Speaker 1: and vote for us come November. And this is it. Republicans. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I've had a lot of folks ask me, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: what are Republicans got out of this? I think you
Speaker 1: have to look at the polls that we've seen, particularly
Speaker 1: since Guivaldi, showing that crime and quote gun violence has
Speaker 1: become one of the top concerns of voters. It's not
Speaker 1: as high as inflation. It's not as high as the economy,
Speaker 1: but it is on the mind of voters. And look,
Speaker 1: this is a red wave environment for Republicans. They're looking
Speaker 1: to try to increase their margins, increase their majorities, and
Speaker 1: if they feel like they can win more votes by
Speaker 1: approving this deal than they're going to lose from single
Speaker 1: issue second amendment voters. Listen, you're going to see the
Speaker 1: murder turtle, Mitch McConnell, roll the dice and take that bet.
Speaker 1: I think that is the political calculation for Republicans that
Speaker 1: most single issue two way voters are not going to
Speaker 1: stay at home on election day because their matter Republicans
Speaker 1: for voting for this deal. They still want to vote
Speaker 1: Democrats out. They are tired of five dollars a gallon gas.
Speaker 1: And Frankly, and I hate to say this, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how many single issue voters there are right now
Speaker 1: unless that single is you is the economy or inflation.
Speaker 1: You know that's impacting all of us. And I think
Speaker 1: that it's given Republicans a little bit of wiggle room
Speaker 1: to play for the middle as opposed to try to
Speaker 1: appease the base. Yeah, it seems like I think that's
Speaker 1: various student analysis. Mitch McConnell certainly has no fear about
Speaker 1: what this will do to his reelection prospects. He put
Speaker 1: out a statement, I support the bill texts at Senator
Speaker 1: reported in our colleagues have produced. For years, the far
Speaker 1: left falsely claimed that Congress could only address the terrible
Speaker 1: issue of mass murders by trampling on law abiding americans
Speaker 1: constitutional rights. This bill proves that false. Our colleagues have
Speaker 1: put together a common sense package of popular steps that
Speaker 1: will help make these horrifying incidents less likely while upholding
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. I honestly just
Speaker 1: don't believe they're going to make them less likely. I
Speaker 1: think that's a huge leap. But even apart from that,
Speaker 1: the notion that this in some way will result in
Speaker 1: good faith from the Democrats. Now, okay, Republicans don't just
Speaker 1: want to watch lots of people die in gun violence
Speaker 1: all of the country and do nothing. We're not going
Speaker 1: to use that talking point anymore. No, they're going to
Speaker 1: use that talking point tomorrow. Cam You and I both
Speaker 1: know it absolutely. But now Republicans can say, no, they're wrong. Look,
Speaker 1: we took action right, So no, They're not going to
Speaker 1: convince Democrats, but they may convince independence. Right, they may
Speaker 1: be able to convince folks who were on the fence
Speaker 1: or maybe not even thinking about voting this year. Although
Speaker 1: I don't have any Americans, there are like that out
Speaker 1: there these days. Again, I think this was a sort
Speaker 1: of a political prevent defense move on the part of Republicans, right,
Speaker 1: They're they're they're just trying to appear not crazy or
Speaker 1: at least less crazy than Democrats, and to give that
Speaker 1: that that sort of you know, moderate squishy middle another
Speaker 1: reason to vote for them. And now when Democrats say
Speaker 1: Republicans don't care about your kids, Republicans can say, yeah,
Speaker 1: we do, because look at what we did. We just
Speaker 1: spend seven billion dollars for school safety. We just know,
Speaker 1: prove mental health access for adolescents who are at risk.
Speaker 1: So you know, they checked the box here as far
Speaker 1: as how effective these policies are going to be. Look,
Speaker 1: Expanded background checks for eighteen, nineteen, and twenty year olds
Speaker 1: might pick up some teenagers who were convicted of some
Speaker 1: pretty aineous crimes who you know, are now free and
Speaker 1: cleared to buy a gun as an eighteen year old.
Speaker 1: Maybe that stops somebody. I'd like to think, you know,
Speaker 1: I'd like to think that the additional mental health spending,
Speaker 1: if it doesn't stop a school shooter, maybe it stopped
Speaker 1: somebody from killing themselves. Right, maybe it stops somebody from
Speaker 1: bullying another kid. I don't know. Is that worth seven
Speaker 1: billion dollars? I don't know. You know, again, I would
Speaker 1: have preferred to have seen each and every one of
Speaker 1: these things broken out and voted on on a standalone basis.
Speaker 1: But Democrats every would have gone along with that because
Speaker 1: then their gun control a part of the package would
Speaker 1: have failed. Right, So this is the political calculation that
Speaker 1: was made for Democrats and for Republicans. Am I satisfied
Speaker 1: with the bill? No? Is that unusual for me to
Speaker 1: be dissatisfied with Congress? No? So, you know, unfortunately, I
Speaker 1: think even though you know, Chuck, she was talking about
Speaker 1: how this is like the biggest thing to happen in
Speaker 1: gun control in thirty years, I think this is still
Speaker 1: gonna be status quo for a lot of folks who
Speaker 1: follow politics closely. You know, we're watching watching NDC A
Speaker 1: treat what is I think a very real problem through
Speaker 1: a political lens, and I think that that stopping is
Speaker 1: from actually reaching some of the real solutions that we
Speaker 1: should be looking for. Damn, next time, you have to
Speaker 1: give you the secrets of how to grow a beard
Speaker 1: that long, so I can kind of up my game
Speaker 1: here a little bit. But we appreciate you join Haitians patients.
Speaker 1: That's all it takes. Yeah, thanks Bud, Thank you, my friend.
Speaker 1: All right, coming up, Biden talks about a gas tax
Speaker 1: Is that really going to do anything. We'll discuss that
Speaker 1: with Jeff Dice of the Kneeses Institute. Thick around. You
Speaker 1: were to decide to go for a federal gas tax holiday,
Speaker 1: do you believe Congress would support that? And how would
Speaker 1: you feel about the fact that Bose funds are used
Speaker 1: for something that is a big priority for you to
Speaker 1: pare of roads and infrastructure and all of that. Is
Speaker 1: that word. Look, it will have some impact, but it's
Speaker 1: not going to impact on major road construction in major repairs.
Speaker 1: A decision, Well, let me put this way. I'm in
Speaker 1: the process. I'll have a decision before the week is out.
Speaker 1: President Biden saying we got to have a little gas
Speaker 1: tax holiday because the price of gas is so high
Speaker 1: right now, and the biggest problem for Democrats is that
Speaker 1: they're getting blamed for it because you know, they're in
Speaker 1: power and they've made a whole bunch of bad decisions. Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk about what this would actually mean. Join me
Speaker 1: now as the president of the Mesa's Institute, Jeff Dice. Jeff,
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us. Thank you very much for
Speaker 1: having me, Buck. So let's just start with this, the
Speaker 1: notion of a gas tax holiday. What would this mean?
Speaker 1: How does it strike? Well, I wouldn't mean a lot
Speaker 1: for average people. We're just talking about the federal end
Speaker 1: of things. If you happen to live in California or Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: for example, you're getting charged more than fifty cents per
Speaker 1: gallon at the state level, So this is eighteen point
Speaker 1: four cents. At the federal level, it'd be a couple
Speaker 1: dollars per phillip. Hey, I'll take it. You know, in
Speaker 1: terms of revenue, it's almost meaningless. A few billion dollars
Speaker 1: a month. The federal government sneezes a few billion dollars
Speaker 1: a day. I mean. But what's so interesting about this,
Speaker 1: Buck is Biden doesn't really believe in this. I mean,
Speaker 1: he campaigned on getting rid of fossil fuels. So when
Speaker 1: he talks about this sort of thing, it's just it's
Speaker 1: an obvious political point. I guess we should appreciate that
Speaker 1: he's actually sentient enough at the moment to make a
Speaker 1: political calculation. It shows more spark than he's shown of late.
Speaker 1: And one of the issues that the Democrats have right
Speaker 1: now to tackle. There are a lot of issues, right, Jeff.
Speaker 1: But one thing they gotta make sense of is that
Speaker 1: it was it long ago that Barack Obama himself was
Speaker 1: making the case that a gas tax change of any
Speaker 1: kind really was a gimmick. This was the word that
Speaker 1: he used back in two thousand and eight one. But
Speaker 1: for us to suggest that thirty cents a day for
Speaker 1: three months is real relief, that that's a real energy policy,
Speaker 1: means that we are not tackling the problem that has
Speaker 1: to be tackling. We are offering endemics, offering gimmicks. I
Speaker 1: actually it sounds like Obama was right. Actually that's a gimmick.
Speaker 1: Am I missing something? Yeah, this is gimmicky. It's it's
Speaker 1: not a lot of money. But here's the thing. You
Speaker 1: got to understand that their entire worldview is that this
Speaker 1: is a cost to government. Everything implicitly belongs to the government.
Speaker 1: When they allow you to pay a little less than
Speaker 1: somehow they're giving you something. So that's I think first
Speaker 1: and foremost, and I mean I would hate to see
Speaker 1: Americans go through a really bad summer with exceedingly high
Speaker 1: gas prices and god forbid, let's say, rolling blackouts in
Speaker 1: the electrical grid when the whole country seems so hot
Speaker 1: at you know, maybe this is what it takes. Maybe
Speaker 1: that silver lining would be that we have to expose
Speaker 1: Biden and these people for this absolutely insane idea that
Speaker 1: we're going to stop burning oil and coal and natural
Speaker 1: gas anytime soon and still have you know, reasonably priced
Speaker 1: gasoline at the pump and air conditioning and all the
Speaker 1: things we rely on every day. It's it's just unsustainable.
Speaker 1: Green energy is not going to cut it here, and
Speaker 1: so in that sense, you know, it's gimmicky, but it
Speaker 1: maybe it helps us normal people start to see the light.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be pro energy for God's sake. Well,
Speaker 1: it's also fascinating that you're hearing more openly than ever
Speaker 1: before the Biden administration essentially saying, hey, you know, look,
Speaker 1: your gas price is high, but it's really a lot
Speaker 1: of it Poutin's fault. And so this comes down to
Speaker 1: you want to stop the war in Ukraine and stand
Speaker 1: up for democracy and stand up against Putin or pay
Speaker 1: high gas or you know, or pay low gas prices.
Speaker 1: That's the choice that we have. Here's what Biden said.
Speaker 1: For all those Republicans in Congress criticize me today for
Speaker 1: high gas prices in America. Are you now saying we
Speaker 1: were wrong to support Ukraine? Are you saying we were
Speaker 1: wrong to stand up to Putin? Are you saying that
Speaker 1: we would rather have lower gas prices in America and
Speaker 1: Putin's iron fist in Europe? What do you make of that?
Speaker 1: Putin's iron fist in Europe? Wow, the next hitler, I suppose. Look,
Speaker 1: the gas prices were rising before Putin invaded Ukraine for one.
Speaker 1: The second, an exceedingly small portion of US imported oil
Speaker 1: comes from Russia, so it's not a key player. This
Speaker 1: is a refining issue in the United States. Doesn't matter
Speaker 1: how much oil we drill here or how much we import.
Speaker 1: The bottleneck is refining because we haven't built any refinery
Speaker 1: since the seventies, and the big oil companies won't invest
Speaker 1: in them because it's a big capital investment, takes decades
Speaker 1: to repay, and you know everyone's telling us we're going
Speaker 1: to be electric, so you got to understand they're a
Speaker 1: little reluctant to do so. The idea that this is
Speaker 1: on Putin is just absurd. Now, if you live in
Speaker 1: Germany where they shut down all their nuclear plants and
Speaker 1: they impourt a hell of a lot of oil from
Speaker 1: Russia as a result, I guess you could blame Putin,
Speaker 1: but more likely you should be blaming Angela Merkel. But
Speaker 1: either way, it's just an absurd statement by Biden. And
Speaker 1: then you have the inflation situation, which obviously energy prices
Speaker 1: play into this, and it's all interconnected at some level.
Speaker 1: But you have a situation now of inflation that looks
Speaker 1: like it is not only at a multi decade high,
Speaker 1: but could stay there for quite some time. The FED
Speaker 1: Chairman Jerome Powell was saying that it is demand, not
Speaker 1: money printing, that has pushed us this point. Watch this,
Speaker 1: I just would say, it's clearly both factors are principally
Speaker 1: at work here. You couldn't get this kind of high
Speaker 1: inflation without strong demand, and you certainly couldn't get it
Speaker 1: without the kind of supply issues that we've had, both
Speaker 1: in the labor market reflected in high wages, and then
Speaker 1: in the goods market, reflected in what's happened with durable
Speaker 1: goods and cars in particularly. Look there, there's it's been
Speaker 1: this driven by semiconductor shortage. So nothing nothing about trillions
Speaker 1: of dollars for people to stay at home, Nothing about
Speaker 1: two trillion from Biden for the American rescue plan. Didn't
Speaker 1: rescue the country. That's real dampture. Well, and the Fed
Speaker 1: added over nine trillion in brand new money to the
Speaker 1: balance sheet of commercial banks over this COVID crisis as well,
Speaker 1: So they're basically recapitalizing banks on our backs in terms
Speaker 1: of inflating the dollars. So he you know, most people
Speaker 1: don't view gas and groceries as some kind of luxury item,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot more demand, I mean, demand for
Speaker 1: calories and gasoline is pretty steady. People have to buy
Speaker 1: those things. So I think Powell continues to sound pretty
Speaker 1: out of touch and pretty aloof and maybe worst of all,
Speaker 1: he continues to sound pretty political, like he's carrying water
Speaker 1: for Biden. Yeah, thanks for being well, us appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Buck all right, coming up. An Australian newspaper
Speaker 1: says that not talking to relatives could lower your risk
Speaker 1: of COVID nineteen transmission. You don't say, we'll get into that,
Speaker 1: and quick hit, it's time for some of those important stories.
Speaker 1: We haven't gotten to you yet, and we didn't want
Speaker 1: to let you go to sleep tonight without at least
Speaker 1: knowing what's going on with all of them. So quick hits,
Speaker 1: line them up, knock them down. Here we have it,
Speaker 1: Harold's Son newspaper. They tweeted this out. A study from
Speaker 1: proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Giving your co
Speaker 1: workers and found remembers the silent treatment and texting, not
Speaker 1: talking it would be the key to getting the COVID
Speaker 1: pandemic under control. Speaking just four words an hour increases
Speaker 1: the spread of COVID nineteen ten times more than breathing normally.
Speaker 1: So basically, if we're going to stop COVID, which we
Speaker 1: are never going to do, which is impossible, which is
Speaker 1: what we've seen now for two plus years, going on
Speaker 1: three years, give me a break. There's no stopping COVID,
Speaker 1: just like there's no stopping the common cold. This should
Speaker 1: have been known all along, but they're telling you, well,
Speaker 1: maybe if you just shut up and don't speak peasants,
Speaker 1: we'll have a better chance of slowing down the virus,
Speaker 1: which is absurd and insane, and you think yourself, they
Speaker 1: can't really believe that this is the O. Don't know?
Speaker 1: They do? They do? They think that this is good advice,
Speaker 1: you know, they think that this is necessary for people
Speaker 1: to hear at this point. And then, speaking of the insane,
Speaker 1: the CEO of biser CEO named Albert Bula, he's out
Speaker 1: there telling everybody what I've been saying now for over
Speaker 1: a year is so it's gonna be a new vaccine
Speaker 1: every year. And if you believe that the COVID vaccine
Speaker 1: should be mandatory, it's mandatory shot for everyone, babies to
Speaker 1: old people, everybody in between, every year and if you
Speaker 1: won't get it, you should get fired. That's what the
Speaker 1: Libs believe, which is appalling because they were wrong about
Speaker 1: all this. It doesn't stop the spread. You need three shots,
Speaker 1: and even with the three shots, you can still get sick,
Speaker 1: and you know the whole thing, and even if you
Speaker 1: get the three shots, you can still die. In fact,
Speaker 1: you're less likely too than people who don't get any shots.
Speaker 1: But if you're in the high risk category. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: all know this right, But yet here's the CEO Fiser
Speaker 1: tell on everybody you might have to get shots every year,
Speaker 1: just like we said, do you think we're going to
Speaker 1: get updated mRNA vaccines every season that will be directed
Speaker 1: to each new variation of the Corona virus? And what
Speaker 1: we have to take those shots every year? I'm almost
Speaker 1: certain about it. And I say almost certain because of
Speaker 1: course regulators can the final say in all of that.
Speaker 1: But that's the beauty of mRNA, the beauty of mRNA. Yes,
Speaker 1: you see, it's almost like a massive multi billion dollar
Speaker 1: year annuity for companies like Fiser. Just have a little
Speaker 1: tweaked to the mRNA for the new variant and then
Speaker 1: make everyone get the shot. Does it help them make
Speaker 1: a difference? This is just like the flu shot, folks,
Speaker 1: which kind of works for some people. Sometimes. We didn't
Speaker 1: make everybody get that because we know a lot of
Speaker 1: times doesn't do a damn thing. A lot of people
Speaker 1: don't need it. We already have the template for how
Speaker 1: to go forward as a society. Forget about all this
Speaker 1: not We already know treat the treat COVID like we've
Speaker 1: treated the flu for the last fifty years, last hundred years,
Speaker 1: but instead this is where we are more authoritarian, lunacy,
Speaker 1: more madness from these people. At least we can have
Speaker 1: some amusement by watching the White House continue to just
Speaker 1: descend into the abyss of electoral destruction, which is going
Speaker 1: to be a lot of fun in this mid term.
Speaker 1: The new White House Press relatively new White House Press
Speaker 1: Secretary Karine Jean Pierre, said something, Look, I know it's
Speaker 1: a little verbal slip up, but kind of funny anyway,
Speaker 1: watched about I mean, the President has been very clear
Speaker 1: and making sure that he does everything that he can
Speaker 1: to elevate to alleviate the you know, the pain that
Speaker 1: American families are feeling when it comes to gas prices,