Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Joe podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart Radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. I would be assassin
Speaker 1: was apprehended outside the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh last night. Police say Nicholas Roski, who was
Speaker 1: armed with a gun and more by the way, was
Speaker 1: taken into custody just one block from the Kavanaugh family's house,
Speaker 1: was apparently upset at the High Court's draft decision, which
Speaker 1: would overturn Roe v. Wade. The futal attack comes after
Speaker 1: a month of heated rhetoric by Democrats who have encouraged
Speaker 1: demonstrators who protest outside the homes of pro life justices.
Speaker 1: I'll take a look at the growing threat of left
Speaker 1: wing violence and the Democrats that are fueling it into
Speaker 1: Night's welcome to hold the line. I'm Buck Sexton. We
Speaker 1: were warning about this as soon as the leak of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court draft opinion happened. It was meant to
Speaker 1: create an environment of tremendous pressure and environment really of
Speaker 1: fear for the conservative justices on the Court. The idea
Speaker 1: being that there would be so much fury and rage
Speaker 1: out there that none of the justices who were going
Speaker 1: to overturn Roe v. Wade would feel like they're personal
Speaker 1: and their family's safety was guaranteed anymore. So this is
Speaker 1: something that we were concerned about on the right from
Speaker 1: the very beginning, and sure enough those concerns have proven
Speaker 1: to be all too real. Washington Post put out a
Speaker 1: story on the would be Kavanaugh assassin that had some details.
Speaker 1: A California man carrying at least one weapon. By the way,
Speaker 1: it was a pistol, It was also a knife. It
Speaker 1: was also a crowbar ziptized near Brett Kavanaughs Maryland home,
Speaker 1: has been taken into custody by police after telling officers
Speaker 1: he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice. The man,
Speaker 1: described as being in his mid twenties, was found to
Speaker 1: be carrying a weapon, burglary tools, and people speaking on
Speaker 1: the condition of anonymity, etc. Okay, so they found a
Speaker 1: guy near Kavanaugh's home who says he wanted to kill
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh because of Rov Wade, obviously, who had burglary tools,
Speaker 1: who had zip ties perhaps to take hostages of Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: family members, who had a pistol on him, and who
Speaker 1: was wearing a tactical vest So this is a terrifying
Speaker 1: lunatic Obviously, this is somebody who has to be taken
Speaker 1: seriously and has been taken into custody and is being
Speaker 1: charged with attempted attempted murder. So this though, doesn't just
Speaker 1: come out of nowhere, It comes in specific response to
Speaker 1: left wing attempts to undermine the safety of conservative not
Speaker 1: all judges, just conservative justices on the Supreme Court. And
Speaker 1: people are furious about this because there have been protests that,
Speaker 1: in violation of clear federal statute, have been allowed to
Speaker 1: happen at the homes of judges like Kavanaugh. This is
Speaker 1: a violation of federal law. People should be absolutely furious
Speaker 1: that this has been allowed to happen. And DOJ's Merrick Arland,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, responded today, and this is what he
Speaker 1: had to say. This kind of behavior is obviously the
Speaker 1: behavior that we will not tolerate. Threats of violence and
Speaker 1: actual violence against the justices, of course, strike at the
Speaker 1: heart of our democracy, and we will do everything we
Speaker 1: can to prevent them and to hold people who do
Speaker 1: them accountable. For that reason, last month, I accelerated the
Speaker 1: protection of all the justices residences twenty four seven. Also
Speaker 1: last month, I met with the Marshal of the Court.
Speaker 1: I convened a meeting with her as well as with
Speaker 1: the Deputy Director of the FBI, with the Director of
Speaker 1: the Marshal Service, and with our own law enforce our
Speaker 1: own prosecutors to ensure every degree of protection available as possible. Okay,
Speaker 1: about the protests at the homes of judges and violation
Speaker 1: of federal law meant to intimidate members of the judiciary,
Speaker 1: that you protest at somebody's private home to frighten them
Speaker 1: and their wives or their husbands and their children. That's
Speaker 1: why these left wing activists are doing it. By the way,
Speaker 1: the group Ruth sent Us has already put out a
Speaker 1: tweet saying that they will tonight after and attempted, or
Speaker 1: rather a would be assassin of Justice Kavanaugh was taken
Speaker 1: into custody. The group left wing radical pro abortion lunatics
Speaker 1: Ruth sent Us says that they're going to be back
Speaker 1: at Kavanaugh's house protesting because the law apparently doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: The laws not an impediment to Democrats, insane left wing
Speaker 1: pro abortion activism, and this entire environment, by the way
Speaker 1: of justice, is under threat. It comes from the left.
Speaker 1: It comes from Democrats, and the Democrats at the top,
Speaker 1: who could have from the very beginning, who could have
Speaker 1: said things to calm everybody down, to respect our system,
Speaker 1: to make sure that this kind of mentality of intimidation,
Speaker 1: never mind what we saw here, which was a would
Speaker 1: be assassin and an attempt at violence against a judge.
Speaker 1: The Democrats could have gone in that direction of calming
Speaker 1: everybody down, of respecting our institutions, of saying this is
Speaker 1: but no, actually, here's what they were saying after the
Speaker 1: draft was league watch. War has been declared on the
Speaker 1: American woman. How dare they tell a woman what he
Speaker 1: can do and cannot do with her own body. We
Speaker 1: are not going back now. They're trying to criminalize our bodies. Yes,
Speaker 1: they're trying to move towards Stace rights, and we all
Speaker 1: know what stace rights means. The Founding Fathers didn't recognize
Speaker 1: abortion as a fundamental right because the Founding Fathers were racist,
Speaker 1: misogynist jerk faces who didn't believe that women had any
Speaker 1: rights at all. Fifty years of rights, the decades of
Speaker 1: president that has just been spit on and thrown away
Speaker 1: in this draft. Opinions no one is safe. This overturning
Speaker 1: Row will be a mass criminalization event. And honestly, at
Speaker 1: this point, I think we're all right. So the question
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the court read like an anti abortion
Speaker 1: activist wrote it, not a Supreme Court justice. I mean,
Speaker 1: these people are are deranged. I mean the ones that
Speaker 1: are appearing on TV talking about this stuff. Look, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: for all their talk about the safe for institutions and
Speaker 1: the threats agains are democracy, they're reckless when it comes
Speaker 1: to the tone that they use, specifically around Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decisions that don't go their way. Because the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is effectively, if you're trying to trying to bring it
Speaker 1: down to its essence, they approach everything with the mind
Speaker 1: of a spoiled child, or perhaps a spoiled teenager. My
Speaker 1: way or I scream and kick and shout until I
Speaker 1: get my way. There's nothing more than the needs of
Speaker 1: the collective Democrat Party at any point in time, our
Speaker 1: way or the highway our way, or we'd burn it
Speaker 1: all down. Flashback here to twenty twenty. Just want to
Speaker 1: remind everybody the kind of stuff now. Chuck Schumer did
Speaker 1: afterwards apologize for this because this was way over the line.
Speaker 1: But here's what the Remember this Chuck Schumer, he is
Speaker 1: the Senate majority leader and was at the time, and
Speaker 1: here he is saying in twenty twenty, yeah, Kavanaugh, get
Speaker 1: ready for it. Watch. I want to tell you, Gore
Speaker 1: Zuch I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released
Speaker 1: the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't
Speaker 1: know what hit you if you go forward with these
Speaker 1: awful decisions. Streme Court justices have lifetime tenure, So what
Speaker 1: the hell is that supposed to mean? You won't know
Speaker 1: what hit you? Well, what's he gonna do? Write I'm
Speaker 1: a strongly worded letter. He can't fire him, can't do
Speaker 1: anything about it, is Well, what's he gonna do? Oh yeah?
Speaker 1: And if you're saying, well, that was twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: Schumer apologized, Okay, Well, after the League of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court draft just a couple of months ago, the White
Speaker 1: House Press Secretary Jensaki had an opportunity to say, hey,
Speaker 1: don't protest outside of judges Holmes. It's gross and it's
Speaker 1: also an assault owner system and it's illegal. This is
Speaker 1: what the then White House Press secretary actually said. So
Speaker 1: I know that there's an outrage right now. I guess
Speaker 1: about protests that have been peaceful to date, and we
Speaker 1: certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges homes, and
Speaker 1: that's the President's position. But the silence is pretty deafening
Speaker 1: about all of the other intimidation that we've seen to
Speaker 1: a number of people. Oh the other intimidation, what is
Speaker 1: she talking about talking about judges. We're protected under federal
Speaker 1: law from intimidation. And the White House officially saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: those protests are fine, No, they're not, they're illegal. Actually,
Speaker 1: we can't read the statute. By the way, speaking of illegal,
Speaker 1: where's the violence, where's the rage coming from? Right now?
Speaker 1: It's not the people who may get their way and
Speaker 1: justice would actually prevail and babies would be living that
Speaker 1: otherwise would not. It's not the pro life side of
Speaker 1: this is the threat right now, despite what the Biden
Speaker 1: government may say. Might wanted to take a look at this,
Speaker 1: a map showing five attacks on pro life pregnancy centers
Speaker 1: just in recent weeks. Offices in Madison, Wisconsin, and Buffalo,
Speaker 1: New York have been fire bombed. Reportedly, offices in Nashville,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Washington, DC, and Hollywood Florida were vandalized, spray painted,
Speaker 1: windows smashed. Because the left is the mob, the rage
Speaker 1: mob of the sanctimonious morons. That is what the left
Speaker 1: in America is. The base of the Democrat Party has
Speaker 1: turned into all right, voters in San Francisco sent their
Speaker 1: far left district attorney, chess At Boudin packing in a
Speaker 1: landslide recall vote yesterday. We'll have more on that with
Speaker 1: conservative commentator for NYPD Officer John Cardillo. Look, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw this, but there was a recent
Speaker 1: story about an Arizona real estate agent who found the
Speaker 1: home she lived and was listed for sale. Not a
Speaker 1: big deal, right, But wait, hold on, she wasn't actually
Speaker 1: selling her home. Who 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 incredibly
Speaker 1: profitable and hard to protect. An identity feet simply creates
Speaker 1: a fake title transfer for your home and refiles as
Speaker 1: the new owner. Then he can take out loans on
Speaker 1: your home or sell it. Typical identity ff services don't
Speaker 1: cover you, and neither just homeowners insurance. Home title lock
Speaker 1: does home title lock puts a barrier around your home's title.
Speaker 1: The instant they detect anyone tampering with your home title,
Speaker 1: they help shut it down and help get your home
Speaker 1: back in your name. Here's what you should do. Go
Speaker 1: to hometuitlelock dot com and read the testimonials from FBI,
Speaker 1: aiden's and government officials. Then register your address to see
Speaker 1: you're already a victim and don't even know it. When
Speaker 1: you protect your home, tell him Buck Sex and sent
Speaker 1: you for thirty three days of protection hometeleck dot com.
Speaker 1: That's home taitlelock dot com. John John Cardillo with us
Speaker 1: when we come back. Support from my podcast is brought
Speaker 1: to you by Manscape the Best and Men's Below the
Speaker 1: way Screaming. Their products are precision engineered tools. Manscapes Performance
Speaker 1: Package is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle. Join over four
Speaker 1: million men worldwide who trusts Man's Gape with its exclusive
Speaker 1: offer for you twenty percent off and free worldwide shipping
Speaker 1: with the code Buck at manscape dot com. The Performance
Speaker 1: Package four point zero includes a ton of men's grooming
Speaker 1: products like the Lawnmower four point zero trimmer, the weed
Speaker 1: Whacker Era, a nose hair trimmer. Performance boxer briefs and
Speaker 1: a bunch of other great men's hygiene products you never
Speaker 1: knew you needed, plus a travel bag to hold it all.
Speaker 1: The lawnmower trimmer is the best. It's got a cutting
Speaker 1: edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents, and it's waterproof
Speaker 1: so no more messes on the bathroom floor. You'll also
Speaker 1: get the waterproof weed Whacker, nose and ear hair trimmer
Speaker 1: with proprietary skin Safe technology which helps reduce nick snags
Speaker 1: and tugs in all those delicate areas. Get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off and free shipping with the code buck at manscape
Speaker 1: dot com. That's twenty percent off with free shipping at
Speaker 1: manscape dot com and use code buck to unlock your
Speaker 1: confidence and always use the right tools with Manscape. One
Speaker 1: of the most liberal cities in America is putting its
Speaker 1: progressive prosecutor on notice. Finally, the first time ever, San
Speaker 1: Francisco has recalled its district attorney, Chessi Budan, as voters
Speaker 1: hold him responsible for a surge in murders, violent crime,
Speaker 1: and shameless shoplifting. So will this recall send a message
Speaker 1: to soft owned crime prosecutors across the country. Let's ask
Speaker 1: former NYPD coppend conservative commentator John Cardillo, John, good to
Speaker 1: see him. Hey, Baco is good to be again. So
Speaker 1: this is a good thing. It's not a seismic shift, right.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're going to replace when the mayor London
Speaker 1: Breed puts forward his replacement and they have elections, they're
Speaker 1: going to replace him with a Democrat to San Francisco.
Speaker 1: But at least it's moving in the right direction here.
Speaker 1: What do you think? Yeah, I mean, look one thing
Speaker 1: about chest Look get into this guy, ratible as they come, right,
Speaker 1: Aaron's for whether underground members, convicted killers, contemporaries of such
Speaker 1: illustrious luminaries as Bill Ayres and Assata Shakur, who the
Speaker 1: Joanne Chesimard right a bit on these, I mean, just radical,
Speaker 1: radical terrorists. But here's the thing. Jesse Bodin did not
Speaker 1: do one thing that he did not tell people he
Speaker 1: was going to do any campaigned. Nothing was a surprise
Speaker 1: with this guy. He laid out the blueprint during his
Speaker 1: campaign then executed it to the letter. San Franciscans is
Speaker 1: radical leftist. Fuck. Maybe they don't really like the real
Speaker 1: life version of these utopian which are really dystopian policies
Speaker 1: they promote because he didn't do anything. He didn't say
Speaker 1: he was going to do. Here he is last night,
Speaker 1: by the way, in his concession speech, here's Jesse Budan,
Speaker 1: soon to be the former District Attorney of San Francisco. Watch.
Speaker 1: People are angry, they're frustrating, and I want to be
Speaker 1: very clear about what happened tonight. The right wing billionaires
Speaker 1: outspent us three to one. They exploited an environment in
Speaker 1: which people are appropriately upset, and they created an electoral
Speaker 1: dynamic where we were literally shadow boxing. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is amazing. We just try to take this is amazing.
Speaker 1: The right wing billionaires are sixty percent of San Franciscans
Speaker 1: voted to kick this clown out of office because they're
Speaker 1: sick of the home invasions, the assaults on the street,
Speaker 1: the theft, the armed robber, you name it. And why
Speaker 1: does he think they're all so upset? It's this guy
Speaker 1: is like a lunatic. Oh, I mean, but didn't you
Speaker 1: see the adm and cameras that that hidden footage of
Speaker 1: Hilarry Ellison and Elon must upping raw sewage and herowin
Speaker 1: needles on the streets of San Francisco. I'm the guys
Speaker 1: out of his mind. Look, he was letting bad guys
Speaker 1: go free. He wasn't prosecuting worse bad guys. And he
Speaker 1: and so many other Democrats have abandoned quality of life crimes.
Speaker 1: They won't even touch him. Which we know. You and
Speaker 1: I know this, right, we both in some fashion with
Speaker 1: the NYPD. You were over there on the intel side,
Speaker 1: I was there on the law enforcement side. We know
Speaker 1: that when you addressed with Rudy Giuliani, get addressing quality
Speaker 1: of life primes typically leads to a reduction in the
Speaker 1: bigger crimes. This had nothing to do with anyone or
Speaker 1: anything other than you're so polite in the way you
Speaker 1: say his name as well. Chessebo'dan's refusal to be a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: He wanted to be a far less activist, not the
Speaker 1: chief law enforcement officer, the chief prosecutorial officer of the
Speaker 1: city of San Francisco. It's amazing, John, because as we
Speaker 1: all know, there was a thirty percent increase in homicides
Speaker 1: in nationwide in twenty twenty to twenty twenty one. George
Speaker 1: Floyd Movement and BLM and all this played into this,
Speaker 1: of course, But the progressive prosecutors. They had already been
Speaker 1: seeded into all these different city bureaucracies in the years
Speaker 1: leading up to this, in part because I think of
Speaker 1: the media stoking a racial panic over the election of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Right, So twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, you start
Speaker 1: seeing the Chessa bou Dan and you know, the Kim
Speaker 1: Fox and these other Larry Krass, you know, these progressive
Speaker 1: prosecutors taking office. And it wasn't just that they had
Speaker 1: one year. The next year, twenty twenty two to twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, was also terrible in these cities, So we
Speaker 1: knew it wasn't just a pandemic blip or whatever crap
Speaker 1: they were saying at the time, the lies they were telling.
Speaker 1: In San Francisco, for example, twenty twenty two versus twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, larceny so far this year up twenty percent,
Speaker 1: assaults up eleven percent, homicides up eleven percent, rape up
Speaker 1: nine percent. So they had a terrible year of crime
Speaker 1: rise across the country, but in San Francisco, San Francisco specifically,
Speaker 1: and keeps going. John, I think that was what people disabled.
Speaker 1: Enough is enough, Yeah, I mean it goes back to
Speaker 1: addressing those quality of life crimes, right, the broken windows
Speaker 1: pleasing strategies. You know, you and I talk about this
Speaker 1: a lot, and so sometimes I don't delve into it
Speaker 1: when we're on air. But it's important to understand that
Speaker 1: maybe you have new viewers, which I'm sure you do
Speaker 1: with your audience grows who or maybe younger, they don't
Speaker 1: understand what we're talking about. And simply put, what Rue
Speaker 1: Giuliani his police commissioners understood in New York City in
Speaker 1: the nineties when they manage a crime reduction, crime felt
Speaker 1: off a cliff in New York is if you go
Speaker 1: after the little things, the big things follow. Very simply put,
Speaker 1: if you arrest the guy or a shoplifting or jumping
Speaker 1: the turnstile in a subway not paying the fair oftentimes
Speaker 1: when you run their information after the arrest, you find
Speaker 1: they had warrants for delany robbery, delany burglary, felony. Has
Speaker 1: solved some of these bigger crimes. And by getting those
Speaker 1: people off the street, returning them on those warrants to
Speaker 1: a judge, you were you sing crime across the board again,
Speaker 1: these progressive das. I'm so glad you brought up. Larry
Speaker 1: Krasner in Philadelphia. He was really George Soros' first experiment
Speaker 1: with funding far left district attorneys to affect social change
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction. And look where Philadelphia is today.
Speaker 1: It's a mess. I have phillipops reach out to me
Speaker 1: on Twitter on Facebook all the time telling me how
Speaker 1: bad it is. But it's very simple. If you address
Speaker 1: the quality of life crimes, if you actually enforce the
Speaker 1: law as crazy as it sounds, buck crime drops, and
Speaker 1: when you do the opposite, prime rises. The big city
Speaker 1: crime spike isn't just San Francisco as I know it
Speaker 1: a moment ago, John, and again in its second year
Speaker 1: of rise right twenty twenty, twenty twenty one was the
Speaker 1: worst year pretty much ever for a one year crime
Speaker 1: spike nationwide twenty twenty one verse twenty twenty two, though
Speaker 1: San Francisco's up seven point eight percent. In New York
Speaker 1: City though with a new mayor, up thirty eight percent,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles eleven percent, Chicago thirty five percent, Philadelphia of
Speaker 1: twenty two percent. Philadelphia last year had its all time
Speaker 1: murder record, and it's just running slightly below that pace
Speaker 1: six months into twenty twenty two, John, I I just
Speaker 1: want to know what your take is on I've got
Speaker 1: a theory that in some of these cities they're realizing
Speaker 1: that the progressive prosecutors, I mean, that's just essentially suicidal
Speaker 1: for the city. But bringing in a kind of mainstream
Speaker 1: democrat who's still a little, you know, wishywashi, that's not
Speaker 1: going to turn the momentum around. They're gonna need a
Speaker 1: Giuliani like figure to come in and say there's a
Speaker 1: new sheriff in town. I mean, New York City is
Speaker 1: the proof of that, right, Eric, Eric Adams. I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy who was in New York City police officer,
Speaker 1: retired as a New York City Police captain, and crime
Speaker 1: is rising in New York City. Why because instead of
Speaker 1: being a leader, instead of saying I had twenty three
Speaker 1: years in the New York City Police Department, I made
Speaker 1: it d behind my name. But I know what works
Speaker 1: and I know what doesn't to reduce crime. What's he doing.
Speaker 1: He's deferring to guys like Alvin Bragg, the bar left
Speaker 1: Manhattan distric attorney that won't process get anyone for anything.
Speaker 1: He's down beholding the radicals in the New York City Council,
Speaker 1: and crime is rising. Also important to notice city like Portland,
Speaker 1: Ted Wheeler, one of the furthest left mayors in the
Speaker 1: United States. There was a period in those years you
Speaker 1: mentioned Buck twenty one, twenty two, twenty to twenty one
Speaker 1: when Portland saw an eight hundred percent increase in murders.
Speaker 1: This is unheard of. We haven't seen these numbers since
Speaker 1: the seventies. Crazy, but we'll see if people are waking up,
Speaker 1: even Democrats they got to wake up too, because they've
Speaker 1: managed to take over and now destroy their own cities. John,
Speaker 1: my friend, always words of wisdom. Good to see it,
Speaker 1: great to see about thanks. With numerous videos of kids
Speaker 1: at drag show circulating online, a Texas lawmaker is now
Speaker 1: planning to introduce legislation to prevent kids from attending these events.
Speaker 1: We'll have more on that with podcast hosts and First
Speaker 1: TV contributor Rob Smith coming up. First, I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about protecting your online data. A lot
Speaker 1: of companies promise your privacy is guaranteed. We know that's
Speaker 1: not true. That's why you need a new privacy and
Speaker 1: cybersecurity application tool called secure It spelled SEK. You are.
Speaker 1: Security is using proprietary encryption and offering secure instant messaging
Speaker 1: and email with Secure all of your communications based on
Speaker 1: servers and data centers hosted in Switzerland without using any
Speaker 1: of the big tech platforms. Privacy is a big issue now.
Speaker 1: Without real security, people can read your messages, your emails,
Speaker 1: even your bank information. Secure will never mind your data
Speaker 1: and never ask your phone number. This is what you
Speaker 1: need to secure yourself online. Secure is your solution to
Speaker 1: stop the constant theft of your digital identity. Costs only
Speaker 1: five dollars from the messenger only ten dollars from the
Speaker 1: messenger and email combination package. Go to secure dot com
Speaker 1: and take back your privacy today. That's Sekuar dot com.
Speaker 1: Use promo code buck for twenty five percent off. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back with more. Hold the line. Outrage and
Speaker 1: Texas over a video going viral. Take a look. Drag
Speaker 1: show in Dallas invited children to walk the runway during
Speaker 1: an event called Drag Your Kids to Pride, which is
Speaker 1: drawing attention of Texas lawmakers, with one representative planning to
Speaker 1: introduce legislation which will ban children from being allowed to
Speaker 1: attend drag shows. Watch. It's sad that we're at this point,
Speaker 1: you know, we look we have a lot of laws
Speaker 1: to protect kids in Texas. We don't want them get tattoos,
Speaker 1: they can't go in sexual, sexually oriented businesses, they can't
Speaker 1: go in liquor stores. And then, of course children need
Speaker 1: to just grow up and be children. They don't need
Speaker 1: to be sexualized. They don't need to be presented with
Speaker 1: this where they're putting money into men's underwear. It's just
Speaker 1: not appropriate for children at all. So, Rob, what was
Speaker 1: your first reaction to just seeing these videos that have
Speaker 1: been shared widely all around the internet in recent days
Speaker 1: of the drag your kids to Pride event. Well, the
Speaker 1: thing about it is is that this has been going
Speaker 1: on actually for the past couple of years. I mean
Speaker 1: I sounded the alarm about this in my first book,
Speaker 1: Always a Soldier, there was a young drag kid named
Speaker 1: Desmond is Amazing who was around nine to ten years
Speaker 1: old at the time that was dancing for tips in
Speaker 1: a Brooklyn gay bar at three am. So I'm really
Speaker 1: glad that the rest of the conservative movement is sort
Speaker 1: of catching up to the far left LGBTQ stuff that
Speaker 1: has been going on over the past couple of years.
Speaker 1: So when I saw this, I was shocked, but not surprised.
Speaker 1: I think it's morally repugnant. I think it's silly and stupid.
Speaker 1: And it's not that the parents here. It's not so
Speaker 1: much that the parents are terrible parents and they really
Speaker 1: shouldn't be allowing their kids to do all of this
Speaker 1: stuff as well, But it's also the business owners that
Speaker 1: are at play here. So these are I don't know
Speaker 1: if they're local gay bars or if they're just regular spaces, etc.
Speaker 1: But I think that the answer really is to go
Speaker 1: after these gay bars and go after these places of
Speaker 1: business that are allowing the stuff to happen. You have,
Speaker 1: you know, kids sashing up and down in establishment that
Speaker 1: sells liquor around a bunch of adults. That's not okay.
Speaker 1: I'm not entirely sure that introducing legislation to sort of
Speaker 1: banned this these sorts of events legally is the best
Speaker 1: thing to do, because I think as a gay man,
Speaker 1: I remember when it was illegal for gays and lesbians
Speaker 1: to sort of congregating public. Of course, this is not
Speaker 1: the same thing in any capacity, But I don't think
Speaker 1: that going after banning it with legislation is the right move.
Speaker 1: But I think that you should attack these places, in
Speaker 1: these spaces that are allowing this to happen legally, who
Speaker 1: owns these spaces? What are the liquor license laws? What
Speaker 1: are the laws that say whether or not kids can
Speaker 1: be around during adult entertainment? Because what drag shows are
Speaker 1: and what drag is is adult entertainment. This was never
Speaker 1: intended for children. And the only reason that we're seeing
Speaker 1: this stuff over the past couple of years is because
Speaker 1: the far left LGBTQ has gone so insane what they're
Speaker 1: indotrination that they want to push this stuff on little
Speaker 1: kids and it is just not okay. Yeah, why do
Speaker 1: you even to that point, Rob, Because I've spoken to
Speaker 1: numerous friends from within the gay community who are outraged
Speaker 1: at the sexualization of children or putting this kind of
Speaker 1: sexuality in front of children, and again resent the notion
Speaker 1: that the gay community is supposed to just go along
Speaker 1: with what the transactivists in the LGBTQ plus community are
Speaker 1: demanding when it comes to kids. Yes, Well, the thing
Speaker 1: about this is is that, like I said, this isn't
Speaker 1: generally coming from gays and lesbians. This is coming from
Speaker 1: the t Q plus fringe. And I have a lot
Speaker 1: of game lesbian liberals that follow me as well. And
Speaker 1: the thing about it is is that they're fed up
Speaker 1: with all of this stuff as well. They think that
Speaker 1: not only is a making a mockery out of whatever
Speaker 1: the LGBT community was, but it's also setting us back
Speaker 1: decades and decades and decades, and we fought for and
Speaker 1: secured the rights that we have to just want to
Speaker 1: be free like most other Americans. The freedom to get married,
Speaker 1: the freedom to serve in the military, the freedom to
Speaker 1: work and be prosperous in a capitalist society without the
Speaker 1: sort of threat of being fired for who we are.
Speaker 1: This sort of drag queen story, our sexual sexualization of children,
Speaker 1: all of this other stuff is so far removed from
Speaker 1: any of that stuff. And these game lets being liberals
Speaker 1: are so afraid of the mob that exists online. They're
Speaker 1: so afraid of the t fringe that has overtaken the
Speaker 1: entire movement that they are afraid to stand up and
Speaker 1: speak out against something that they know is morally wrong
Speaker 1: and they know is setting their movement back decades. Here's
Speaker 1: one of the attendees who clash with protesters that they drag.
Speaker 1: The Kids Are Pride event today in Dallas. Young people
Speaker 1: are the symptom of a dying society, and you know
Speaker 1: it an shut the shut up. You shame on you,
Speaker 1: shame on you, shame on you. Shame on you. Shame
Speaker 1: on you, shame on you. You sh Now, just to
Speaker 1: be clear, that was actually a few days ago. That
Speaker 1: was when the event happened. That video was from a
Speaker 1: few days ago. But um, rob one thing that I
Speaker 1: think was was really jarring for a lot of folks.
Speaker 1: If I saw a bunch of of parents with children,
Speaker 1: you know, eight year olds, seven year olds, that's what
Speaker 1: it looked to be about the age of the children
Speaker 1: there at a at a strip club with women who
Speaker 1: were doing the same moves, adult actual females doing that
Speaker 1: same stuff. I'd say, this is wildly inappropriate. And I
Speaker 1: don't think there are any parents who would say that
Speaker 1: wasn't that that's in you know, that's appropriate. But there
Speaker 1: were parents with the kids. I mean, clearly you see
Speaker 1: someone there. You know they're not Trump voters, but like,
Speaker 1: what is that? Well, the thing about it is is
Speaker 1: that the sort of far left fringe is indoctrinating their
Speaker 1: kids and all of this stuff, and they think that
Speaker 1: it's cute, They think that it's fun. Did you see
Speaker 1: the woman that was screaming. I mean, she's got all
Speaker 1: of the signs of being an absolute lepist. You know,
Speaker 1: she's got the green hair, she's got the love is
Speaker 1: Love t shirt as she screams expletives as somebody that
Speaker 1: does not agree with what she's doing. And so it's
Speaker 1: not so much that these drag events are happening, because
Speaker 1: that is going on as well, but it's also the
Speaker 1: moral failing of the parents of these children, because the
Speaker 1: parents are so far left and the parents are just
Speaker 1: being led by this sort of far left gender COLTQ
Speaker 1: ideology and they think that this is what's being what
Speaker 1: being accepting, and what being inclusive and all of this
Speaker 1: stuff is all about. It's repugnant and it's actually scary
Speaker 1: that these people are out here raising kids and thinking
Speaker 1: that this is an appropriate setting for their seven eight
Speaker 1: nineteen year old kids to be and by the way,
Speaker 1: not only taking the kids to drag events like this.
Speaker 1: There's a new show called Generation Drag on Discovery Plus
Speaker 1: about literally seven, eight, nine, ten eleven year old drag queens,
Speaker 1: So kids that are that age that are actually drag
Speaker 1: performers dressing up in women's clothing and doing exaggerated sexual
Speaker 1: moves and doing all of these things that drag performers do.
Speaker 1: I'm not inherently against drag. I think, like I said,
Speaker 1: it's a very popular art form that is for adults.
Speaker 1: What I'm against is bringing children into these spaces and
Speaker 1: telling children that it is okay for them to participate
Speaker 1: in this. It is deeply, deeply morally wrong. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: about It's about the kids here. It's about the children.
Speaker 1: So that's the big difference. I know you know this,
Speaker 1: and I think people are really wondering what the heck
Speaker 1: is going on here. Rob. Appreciate you being with us,
Speaker 1: all right, Thanks Budd. Twitter has officially caved to Elon
Speaker 1: Nut's demand for unprecedented access to social media platforms internal data,
Speaker 1: just days after the billionaire threatened to walk away from
Speaker 1: a deal to purchase the company if it didn't comply.
Speaker 1: We'll have more on that with former Facebook employee and
Speaker 1: director of the Tech Policy Center at the Heritage Foundation,
Speaker 1: Parah Frederick when we come back. 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. Billionaire Elon Musk seems to have won at
Speaker 1: least one battle against Twitter. Earlier this week, Must threaten
Speaker 1: to walk away from a deal to buy the social
Speaker 1: media company if it didn't allow him and his legal
Speaker 1: team full access to its internal data to address concerns
Speaker 1: about the number of spambots on the platform. In a
Speaker 1: letter to Twitter, must attorney wrote Twitter's latest offer to
Speaker 1: simply provide additional details regarding the company's own testing methodologies,
Speaker 1: whether through written materials or verbal explanations, is tantamount to
Speaker 1: refusing mister musk data requests. Twitter's effort to characterize it
Speaker 1: otherwise is merely an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the issue.
Speaker 1: Mister Musk has made it clear he does not believe
Speaker 1: that the companies lacks testing methodologies are adequate, so he
Speaker 1: must conduct his own analysis the data he has requested
Speaker 1: as necessary to do so. After Twitter had about forty
Speaker 1: eight hours of deliberation, it appears Musk will receive the
Speaker 1: information he asked for. Let me now to discuss Former
Speaker 1: Facebook intelligence analyst and director of Heritage's Heritage Foundation's Tech
Speaker 1: Policy Center Para Frederick Carrett, thanks for being with us, orts,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. So let's start with what is
Speaker 1: it forever and at home? You know, people work in
Speaker 1: this stuff and the media care a lot more about
Speaker 1: the Twitter situation, I think than everyday folks. But so
Speaker 1: explain to us what the issue was here. There are
Speaker 1: too many bots on Basically, Elon, as the purchaser of Twitter,
Speaker 1: wants to know how many fake accounts there are? Is
Speaker 1: that what this is exactly? And the lawyers, the letters
Speaker 1: that are flying between the lawyers, Elon's lawyers at least,
Speaker 1: are saying that this is a clear material breach of
Speaker 1: the takeover agreement because Twitter has said we're not going
Speaker 1: to let you look under the hood in this way.
Speaker 1: We're not going to reveal proprietary information. They're calling it
Speaker 1: private information that they don't want to reveal to the
Speaker 1: public about their bot counting and their spam methodologies. So
Speaker 1: Twitter has itself publicly said that we the platform has
Speaker 1: compized of only five percent bots, but Elon said, nah,
Speaker 1: I've done a little digging with my own people, and
Speaker 1: we're thinking it could be upwards of twenty percent bots
Speaker 1: of composed of you know, what the platform is, or
Speaker 1: the automated accounts that are on the platforms vice the
Speaker 1: real legitimate, authentic users. So that's what this is about,
Speaker 1: because if Twitter is comprised of twenty percent bots, then
Speaker 1: Elon's not getting his money's worth out of this platform.
Speaker 1: It doesn't Hey, it's not real political discourse that's going on.
Speaker 1: It's not real authentic users that are engaging with each other.
Speaker 1: It's you know, those automated accounts that push various you
Speaker 1: can push propaganda, you can push advertising, you can push
Speaker 1: all sorts of crazy things, you know, strings and puppeteers
Speaker 1: from statelingdactors like the CCP can run rampant on these
Speaker 1: platforms too. So Elon wants to know what he's paying for,
Speaker 1: and Twitter has thus far said, We're not going to
Speaker 1: let you in on that, because all of that is
Speaker 1: proprietary to us our private platform. In an article on
Speaker 1: the Verge, they wrote that Twitter will give Elon Musk
Speaker 1: fire hose data access to settle bot complaints, and Twitters
Speaker 1: preparing to grant Elon Musk unprecedented access to platform data
Speaker 1: in an effort to address his concerns about automated accounts.
Speaker 1: So this firehose of data they're talking about, how could
Speaker 1: they assume that? I mean, if someone's going to buy
Speaker 1: your company, don't they and you have an agreement with
Speaker 1: them that they're looking at they're doing their due diligence.
Speaker 1: How could they hide this? I mean that's it just
Speaker 1: seems like this is so basic. Yeah, no kidding, And
Speaker 1: that's why I think what's going through Elon's head as well.
Speaker 1: He wants to make sure that he's what he was
Speaker 1: promised is what he's actually getting. So if that firehose
Speaker 1: of data comes at him, you know, Elon knows a
Speaker 1: lot of smart people in the industry. I hope he
Speaker 1: has an army of data scientists, of programmers, of people
Speaker 1: who can actually comb through this data and make sense
Speaker 1: of it. That would be great and look and basically
Speaker 1: double check the methodologies for counting and all of these
Speaker 1: spam accounts, So that would be fantastic. But you're right,
Speaker 1: it's the most basic thing. And what I think this
Speaker 1: actually does end up highlighting buck is the fact that
Speaker 1: these tech companies they do not operate with transparency as
Speaker 1: one of their major goals or one of their major
Speaker 1: values of whatsoever. If Elon Musk, the richest man in
Speaker 1: the world, has to beg and beg and beg to
Speaker 1: get access to a platform that he should ultimately end
Speaker 1: up owning, then this is a problem. Think of what
Speaker 1: the average American user gets when they sign up for
Speaker 1: these tech companies. It ain't transparency. Well, what do you
Speaker 1: what do you think he may find here? Because there's
Speaker 1: clearly some sensitivity on the part of the current and
Speaker 1: hopefully soon to be former Twitter leadership about their data,
Speaker 1: their practices. Do you have some sense of what Elon
Speaker 1: could be looking at beyond just bots? You know, Twitter's
Speaker 1: had a long heads up right now, so they've had
Speaker 1: time to or try to clean up their act. There
Speaker 1: were reports initially when the deal first emerged in the
Speaker 1: public eye that they were sort of mining their p's
Speaker 1: and q's, that they were halting all a product, tinkering
Speaker 1: and any sort of different sort of evolutions of their
Speaker 1: product from being shipped so that remember, everyone was experienced
Speaker 1: on the conservative side at least that those uptick in
Speaker 1: user counts and whatnot. So I think they've had a
Speaker 1: while to try to clean up their act and get
Speaker 1: those content moderation processes. If they don't want Elon to
Speaker 1: investigate and look at what they're doing that's obviously been
Speaker 1: very biased, they're probably cleaning that up right now. They've
Speaker 1: probably had a lot of time to clean it up,
Speaker 1: as you know, we in the intelligence community to burn
Speaker 1: all the documents and whatnot would have done before we're
Speaker 1: getting out of embassies overseas. So I think it's I
Speaker 1: think they've been given a lot of lead time to
Speaker 1: clean up their act. But you know, Elon's good and
Speaker 1: again he has really powerful friends who are good at
Speaker 1: this stuff too, So we'll see. I think they'll be
Speaker 1: able to ferret something out for the American people to
Speaker 1: look at. Do you think this transaction, the purchase of Twitter,
Speaker 1: which could have enormous implications for our information ecosystem on
Speaker 1: the new side, just free speech implications in general, Do
Speaker 1: you think Elan's gonna actually end up the owner of Twitter.
Speaker 1: Based on what you're seeing, you know, book, I think
Speaker 1: it's fifty fifty. And just in terms of what Elon's
Speaker 1: thinking himself, he could be walking away or he could
Speaker 1: again be setting himself up for those more advantageous terms
Speaker 1: and actually trying to get this platform added discounts. So
Speaker 1: at this point, you know, I was a little skeptical
Speaker 1: in the beginning. Then my hope really really spiked. But
Speaker 1: look at what they're throwing at him. Remember when the
Speaker 1: board took those poison pills. Look at the Joint SEC
Speaker 1: and DOJ investigations by the Biden administration reportedly into his
Speaker 1: other business dealings. Look at the sexual misconduct allegations. I mean,
Speaker 1: these people are throwing every thing they can at Elon.
Speaker 1: And if he ends up actually confirming that the bobs
Speaker 1: are only at five percent or in an area that
Speaker 1: Twitter sets they are, I really really hope he does,
Speaker 1: and I really hope he takes over breaks the ideological
Speaker 1: monopoly that these big tech companies have over Americans and
Speaker 1: uses it as a force for free speech in the world,
Speaker 1: as he says, So I hope it goes through. Right now,
Speaker 1: I think it's fifty fifty to be completely honest, do
Speaker 1: any of these free speech devoted platforms that have been
Speaker 1: popping up in the last couple of years. I mean,
Speaker 1: you were at Facebook, which is kind of the granddaddy
Speaker 1: of all this, if you will, right, I mean, the
Speaker 1: biggest one and the one that really got the whole
Speaker 1: social media revolution started. So do you think that whether
Speaker 1: it's Getter or truth Social or any of them, could
Speaker 1: they maybe brett Parlor, could they maybe break out? You know,
Speaker 1: I think it really depends on their underlying technologies. So
Speaker 1: there's a company called Rumble that you're familiar with, the
Speaker 1: YouTube competitive petitor, and there they have their own cloud
Speaker 1: hosting services. There's other even specifically designed cloud hosting services
Speaker 1: that are for free speech, like righte Forge. So you know,
Speaker 1: it depends on if they make themselves themselves invulnerable to
Speaker 1: something like Amazon Web Services yanking a Parlor off of
Speaker 1: their cloud hosting services. So conservatives, if they build with
Speaker 1: that full digital stack in mind and have an acknowledgement
Speaker 1: that the infrastructure actually matters, not just the platforms sitting
Speaker 1: on top of those cloud hosting services and those servers,
Speaker 1: then I think they have a chance at survival. But
Speaker 1: if they just ride on top of what these big
Speaker 1: tech platforms have already built. Then you know there's always
Speaker 1: the chance that you're going to get snuffed out or
Speaker 1: you have to be beholden to the ideology of these
Speaker 1: companies and what they're pushing. There are always appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us, Thanks Bud. As the American
Speaker 1: economy continues to suffer, the White House apparently thinks things
Speaker 1: are great. We'll have that video for you with quick kids,
Speaker 1: stay with us. The Biden White House continues to live
Speaker 1: in fantasyland when it comes to the US economy, and
Speaker 1: CNN says both sides are a threat to Supreme Court justices. Really,
Speaker 1: we have those stories and quickets, let's get right to it. Look,
Speaker 1: the Biden regime is just barely holding on. It feels
Speaker 1: like in any given day there poll numbers are terrible,
Speaker 1: the economy is not good. People are upset. It wasn't
Speaker 1: what was promised. They seem really incompetent. Everything the Afghan
Speaker 1: withdrawal debacle, the giant war that's broken out in Europe,
Speaker 1: the price of gas inflation, the wide open border crime
Speaker 1: rise in major cities all across America. It's been a disaster, disaster,
Speaker 1: The economy, though, is where it really stings for the
Speaker 1: Biden team because people vote based on that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, the economy is stupid, right. We all remember
Speaker 1: that Brejean Pierre is the White House Press Secretary, and
Speaker 1: she tried to explain to everybody yesterday that the economy
Speaker 1: is actually, you know, better than it has been historically. Watch.
Speaker 1: We understand that people are feeling feeling this. They're feeling
Speaker 1: the increase of prices, which with food in particular right
Speaker 1: now and gas. That is something that we understand. What
Speaker 1: we're trying to say, what I'm trying to say to
Speaker 1: you is that the economy is in a better place
Speaker 1: than it has been historically. And so we feel here
Speaker 1: at this administration and other experts as well, is that
Speaker 1: we feel that we are in a good position to
Speaker 1: take on inflation. We are in a good position to
Speaker 1: really start really working on lowing prices, a good position
Speaker 1: to do those things. They've been in charge for eighteen months. Now,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, they're in the position to make
Speaker 1: the economy good. What's been going on for the last
Speaker 1: eighteen months, folks, there's wondering, Yeah, after taking only handful
Speaker 1: of questions At Tuesday's news briefing, White House Press Secretary
Speaker 1: Karine Jean Pierre left the briefing room. One reporter says, um,
Speaker 1: watch this one. Can you take some of the economy
Speaker 1: we need? That wasn't by the way, that you could
Speaker 1: hear a little bit of a doocey from Fox News there,
Speaker 1: But that wasn't him. It was some other reporter who said,
Speaker 1: we need a longer briefing, as in, like, you gotta
Speaker 1: tell us something here. Okay, there's a White House Press
Speaker 1: brief you yet have stuff to say. It's a big government,
Speaker 1: a lot of things going on right just want to
Speaker 1: get out of there as soon as they can. And
Speaker 1: then there's this look that the Libs are desperate right
Speaker 1: now because they know that their side, the pro abortion,
Speaker 1: pro killing of babies, and you know, pro destroy the
Speaker 1: integrity of the Supreme Court if they don't get their
Speaker 1: wayside um looks pretty awful right now anybody who's paying
Speaker 1: attention to what's happening. So they're gonna do this whole
Speaker 1: Oh but the threat against the Supreme Court justices, you
Speaker 1: know it comes from both sides politically, No, it doesn't,
Speaker 1: but CNN's trying that. Watch This certainly contributes to this
Speaker 1: overall threatned landscape. We've been talking a lot about the
Speaker 1: major concern here with this abortion ruling from federal officials,
Speaker 1: and they've been sounding the alarm on this for about
Speaker 1: a month, is that Supreme Court justices will certainly be
Speaker 1: potentially targeted by violent extremists who are angered over this
Speaker 1: pending ruling that is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 1: This is an extremely passionate issue. There are emotions on
Speaker 1: both sides. Federal officials have made clear over and over
Speaker 1: they believe the risk truly comes from both sides of
Speaker 1: this abortion debate. It does not actually come from both
Speaker 1: sides of the abortion debate. We all know what's going on.
Speaker 1: We all know that the lunatic Biden voters who think
Speaker 1: that murdering babies is a constitutional right, they're the ones
Speaker 1: that Supreme Court justices unfortunately, have to be concerned about
Speaker 1: now when it comes to safety. They're all bidenote truth.
Speaker 1: That's ever. Tonight's hold the Line The No Spin News
Speaker 1: with Bill O'Reilly is next. Shields High. Each morning, the
Speaker 1: President of the United States receives a highly classified briefing
Speaker 1: on the most important issues facing the country. It's called
Speaker 1: the President's Daily Brief, or PDB. It's delivered by America's
Speaker 1: spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear your very
Speaker 1: own PDB in the form of a podcast hosted by
Speaker 1: me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer. Each
Speaker 1: morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen to
Speaker 1: 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.