You're listening to the Buck Sexton Joe podcast, make sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. A mass shooting in a wealthy suburb of Chicago left seven n and at least thirty injured on Monday. According to police, twenty one year old suspect Robert Cremo allegedly opened fire on the Highland Park Fourth of July parade, airing off seventy rounds from an a R fifteen rifle while disguised as a woman.
Will have the latest on the shooting and the reaction on Tonight's All the Line Welcome Hold the one. I'm Buck Sexton. Another weekend of horrific violence across the country, many shooting incidents in major cities, but notably this mass shooting event that occurred just about twenty miles north of the city of Chicago. It was targeting. An individual targeted a Fourth of July parade, shooting everybody in sight, the
elderly children. An act of horrific mass murder that just seems incomprehensible to anyone who is not a completed utter psychopath, as this individual clearly is and now we know more details about this. Lake County Police spokesman Chris Pavelli today address this and said that the shooter, Robert Crimo, planned the shooting in advance. We do believe Cremo pre planned this attack for several weeks. He brought a high powered
rifle to this parade. He accessed the roof of a business via a fire escape ladder and began opening fire on the innocent Independence Day celebration goers. It's a horrific event. There is the shoot who everyone who sees his photos, which are now all over the internet along with his videos. He had some kind of a rap channel that he set up on YouTube that was taken down. There's a lot of this guy's content online. I mean he looks
crazy too most both. I mean, he looks like somebody who is deranged, exceeding in his eyes, the face and neck tattoos. It looks like somebody who if a red flag law won't stop him, who will? Which Illinois has red flag law in place? By the way, who does a red flag law stop? You start to wonder about this, If it won't stop an individual like this, and so then is it the takeaway that a red flag law wouldn't even be or isn't even effective, despite all the
conversation recently about them. This is an instance of mental health breakdown for this individual. Obviously he's crazy, and it's also a case where someone is evil. But immediately anytime there's a shooting like this, there is an effort to politicize it and make it all about gun control. Here is the mayor of Highland Park, Illinois doing just that. My recollection of him was as a sweet little boy. You know, I'm sorry that we're glorifying what he put
on social media. I don't want to encourage other people to think that this is a way to lead into this kind of violence. We need to have a very real national conversation about why we're okay with allowing weapons of war on our streets and why we're okay with weekly having mass shootings. Okay, what is that conversation supposed to be? We hear about this all the time. What is the conversation? There are tens of millions of a R fifteen style rifles already in circulations, tens of millions
in this country right now. There are literally millions of people who own them and who never break anymore, and pose no threat to anyone except perhaps a tyrannical government or a home invasion criminal. So what is the national conversation supposed to be exactly? They never say, this is just about poking and prodding their political opponents and using this moment of tragedy and emotional upheaval to achieve that.
And then that brings me to the Governor of Illinois, JB. Pritzker, who honestly strikes me as a total imbecile on the issue of guns, and perhaps far more than just that. I don't care that he's very wealthy. I don't care that he's the governor of Illinois. He's a jackass. And here he is saying that. I mean, this is of all the arguments you hear around the Second Amendment and guns and gun violence, the it only protects muskets is
probably for the dumbest people. I mean, that's the one, you know, that's the one where you say, this argument is so obviously absurd and stupid, so intellectually subpar. How could anyone make it with a straight face. Well, here's the governor of Illinois saying, the founders thought, you know,
you wouldn't have had an assault weapon. Maybe it. Watch, our founders carried muskets, not assault weapons, and I don't think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine. Supreme Court's already dealt with this. I mean, this has already been addressed by the highest court in the land. And it does make you sit here and say to yourself, what are the British Red coats?
We just had Independence Day weekend. What are the British Red Coats carry? Oh? Yeah, muskets. So they were carrying the same thing that the colonists were able to carry, so that they can actually meet them on a battlefield and be a weapon against tyranny. Oh right, so weapons in common usage. Supreme courts already looked at this. If anyone who needs a little more assistance on the constitutional interpretation side of it. Yeah, they didn't know that assault
rifles would exist in seventeen seventy six. They also didn't know the Internet would exist. So does free speech not include the internet? You utter moron, Governor Pritzker. But it Yeah,
it's hard to believe he's actually that dumb. It feels like maybe he's just playing some kind of a political game here and playing to his bass because when he definitely doesn't want is for people to look at the primary the largest city in his state, Chicago, while there was this horrific seven fatality mass murder of the weekend from this clearly deranged little psychopath who's now in custody and facing charges. Put him in prison the rest of
his life. I mean, if you believe in the death penalty, he should definitely get the death penalty. And yet in Chicago there were seventy one other shootings over the weekend. Seventy one people's shot, eight were killed. Now this is almost all handgun violence, by the way, this is all with handguns. So all the talk about asault rifles would
do nothing to stop this. And this is just what is now considered somehow the new horrific normal in a city like Chicago, that over a holiday weekend in the summer, you're going to have not even just a few dozen, seventy one people shot, eight people killed in one weekend in one city. It's a lot of shootings, it's a lot of people getting bullets put in them by criminals, a lot of murderers running around in the city of Chicago, what is the governor doing, what's the mayor Laurie Liffeld doing?
Obviously nothing, complaining about white supremacy, talking about the insurrection something like that, you know, not actually handling the outrageous surge of criminality that continues to rip through Chicago in a number of other cities. But Chicago is really in for a large city, in a class by itself, and the violence that occurs there is occurring in what is effectively the most restrictive gun law city in the country,
in Chicago, DC, maybe New York. So what exactly are they achieving by lecturing us on a national conversation about firearms that focuses on assault rifles and says we can only have muskets when there are gangbangers killing dozens and dozens of people every weekend with handguns in their main city run entirely by Democrats. They have no answer. They just want to talk more about the insurrect Love more
on this with retired FBI from James Gagliano in a moment. First, I want to talk to you about protecting your online data. A lot of companies promise your privacy is guaranteed, but that's just not true. That's why you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool called Secure. It's spelled sek.
You are. Secure is using proprietary encryption and offering secure instant messaging and email with secure all of your communications based on servers and data centers hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms. Privacy is a big issue now. Without real security, people can read your emails, messages, even your bank information. Secure will never mind your data
and never ask your phone number. You can send emails your doctor, banker, lawyer, or anyone else with total confidence you're not being spot on by your internet provider or big peck. Secure is your solution to stop the constant theft of your digital identity. Costs only five dollars to the messenger, only ten dollars to the messenger and email combination package. Go to secure dot com and take back your obviously today that's seku are dot com and use
promo code buck for twenty five percent off. We'll be right back with more. Hold the line. There was no signs of trouble. I saw no signs of trouble, and if I had to sease signs, I would say something. But there's no signs of trouble. That was Paul Krimo, the uncle of the alleged Highland Park gunman, telling local media that he saw no warning signs from his nephew, the alleged mass murderer from the fourth of July Parade
shooting over the weekend. Police alleged that his nephew, Robert Kremo, as we said, had been planning the shooting for weeks in advance that left seven dead. They have yet to uncover or discuss a motive. Publicly joining me now to give his insights into yesterday shooting, retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent James Deagliano. James, thanks for being one of us.
It would it be with you, bub So that's tough. Right, We sit here again another discussion about a vicious mass murder, shooting of innocent people, and there's a lot of we'll take a step away from the part is in finger pointing, it happens right away. The mental health side of this, I think that's one place where both sides can agree. There's clearly a problem right that these individuals. I mean, this guy's a psychopath. You don't have to have a
degree in psychiatry to know that. How do you catch this stuff? James? I mean, I'm seeing some of your former colleagues and the FBI who are profilers going on TV to talk about it. Is that something that might be applicable, useful in advance of these incidents? How does that all work? I mean, buckets we talked in in the wake of a number of mass shootings like this, and it's a complex issue. As you know, there exists no panacea. I mean, there's no profiler in the world
that's going to get these things right every time. And I think you alluded to it at the top. Evil exists. You want to tie it into mental health, of course, you want to tie it into a proliferation of weapons, okay, but there's not one set thing that we could do to stop this. Now. This guy fit the profile right disaffected or disenfranchised. And I'm not a psychologist or a sociologist either, but I think we can make that leap to say that this was a disenfranchised young man between
the ages of eighteen and twenty five. And to your point, they come in all shapes and sizes and colors, and they hewed to different ideological ends of the spectrum. So there's not a one size fits all here. But it was a legally obtained weapon, and you had somebody that did clearly have and again I'm not trying to diagnose it on your show, but clearly had some type of mental issues. And I've been describing this all day as
these people are grievance collectors. Something happened, something triggered it, whether they were an in cell, or whether they felt like they were marginalized, or whether or not they got online in their parents' basement and were radicalized, or heard some sirens call, some clarion call to go do something. Now we know of none of those things right now that exist because police have not released any of it. But if this goes to form, that's what we're gonna find.
Somebody on the periphery, somebody marginalized, somebody that had been collecting grievances and decided to take it out yesterday in Highland Park, Illinois and kill. We just now know that there are now seven people dead and buck over two dozen wounded. James the state of Illinois, I understand it does have red flag laws, right, so this falls under the okay we keep hearing, if only we had the following.
The state of Illinois has red flag laws. Illinois has a number of measures in place to prevent people from getting firearms, certainly illegally. I believe they have an assault rifle band, but I might need to check on that one in the state. I think it's it's difficult generally. I'm sorry they don't have a sault rifle band. But
this would have fallen. This would fall under a case where the individual was even with the elevated age that people have talked about recently and the most recent legislation, he was twenty two, so he wouldn't have been covered in that restriction. So what are we supposed to think would have been What is the measure other than this guy's crazy lock him up indefinitely that law enforcement could
take in advance of him actually engaging in this heinous plot. Sure, and we live in a free and open society and we don't want to live under martial law. And in order for us to live in a free and open society and cherish our civil liberties, these things are going to happen, and people are gonna push back and say, well, you've got to stop it. Well, every time somebody says
something hateful and bigoted, you can't lock them up for it. Yes, we know the difference between fomenting and inciting riots or hate speech designed to get people hurt. We understand those differences. But the bottom line is the First Amendment doesn't protect the right to free speech that you and I like, Buck, It protects free speech that we abhore. Now you mentioned Chicago.
This is a city much like the city of New York, which is sixty miles south from where I live, and I spent twenty five years there as an FBI agent, some of the most draconian laws related to weapons. Right now, this past fourth or July weekend that just concluded, I want to give you some staggering statistics about the city of Chicago, which is only twenty miles away from Highland Park, seventy one people shot this weekend Buck. Eight were killed.
Last year over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago one hundred plus shot, nineteen killed twenty twenty, the height of the pandemic. Buck in Chicago over Fourth of July weekend, seventy nine shot and fifteen killed. So look, that's not a red herring. I'm not trying to you know, point people in another direction. But it's important we understand when we talk about mass shootings, which are generally described as
three or more people wounded or killed. These go on in perpetuity and in big cities, in large cities, they happen multiple times every weekend. That's where we have a proliferation of illegal weapons. Now, I wish I could have and I know you would have done the same thing, stopped this depraved miscreant, this Cretan who perpetrated this awful, awful, heinous crime. But if you're gonna live in a city or in a date, we're in a country that doesn't
hue to martial law. Buck evil exists. We do the best we can to get out in front of it and prevent it. But it's not a perfect, full safe system. Anything that you see here, James, that you think so far, I know, we're still getting a lot of details. But law enforcements miss the red miss the red flag, miss the indicators here, or is this just too hard to
catch in advance based on the info we have so far. Yeah, we're always going to get that where people are gonna are understandably gonna push back and go how come you didn't know this, or how come you didn't stop this? Or if this person was quote unquote on your radar, how come you didn't take them off the street. Well, we can't arrest people just because we think they might do something. There has to be two parts of a crime, right.
It has to be the actual act the actors rays, and then it has to be the men's ray the thought process to do it. A lot of times you can't hit these things off in a buck. I think one thing that strikes me is police are still referring to this person as a person of interest. Now, person of interest is not somebody charged with a crime. This individual, to my knowledge now it could have happened and they just haven't announced it yet, has not been charged with
a crime. So he's considered to be a person of interest who was possibly involved in a crime. So it's going to be interesting to see as the police are
gathering information. They're certainly scrubbing the internet where where this individual was involved in tons of disturbing imagery and postings, and they're obviously going to be doing good old fashioned detective work talking to people and finding out who this person came in contact with, did anyone inspire him or direct him to do this hateful act, and if so, was there some type of conspiracy and roll those people up as well. We'll know more than the next few days.
Buck James. Always appreciate the expertise in the perspective. Thanks for joining us, Thanks for having me. With calls for a stricter gun control likely to increase in the coming weeks. The state of New York has passed a new measure that essentially nullifies the Supreme Court's recent ruling on concealed Harry permit. We'll have more on that with senior legal correspondent at the Federalist Margot Cleveland. Coming up first, let's talk about pro checking your most viable asset, your home.
I don't know if you saw this, but there was a recent story about an Arizona real estate agent that found the home she lived and was listed for sale. The problem was he wasn't selling her home. She was the victim of home title fraud, a devastating crime happening all over the country. According to the experts at home title lock, the crime is incredibly profitable and hard to detect. An identity thief simply creates a fake title transfer for
your home and refiles as the new owner. Then he can take out loans on your home or sell it. Typical identity theft services don't cover you, and neither does homeowners insurance. Home title lock does. Home title Lock puts a barrier around your home's title the instant they detect anyone tamper with their home's title, They help shut it down and help get your home back in your name. Here's what you should do. Go to home title loock dot com and read the testimony from FBI agents and
government officials. Then register address to see if you're already a victim and don't even know it. And when you protect your home, tell them Buck sent you to get thirty free days of protection. Home titlelock dot com. That's home titlelock dot com will be right back with more. Hold the line. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court made it clear that the Constitution guarantees law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, both
in their homes and in public. But on Friday, New York Governor Kathy Hukill signed into law a new gun control legislation that effectively nullifies the High courts pro Second Amendment decision the Supreme Court's decisions were certainly setbacks, but we view them as only temporary setbacks because I refuse, as I've said from day one, I refuse to surrender my right as governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. We're not going backwards.
They may think they can change our lives with the stroke of a pen, but we have pens too. I would say that Governor Hokel is rejecting federalism, but she's a moron and doesn't know what federalism is. So there's that. Jolie Outh reaction. Senior legal correspondent at The Federalist, Margot Cleveland. Margot, thanks for being with us, Thanks for having me. Okay, so first just tell us. I mean, you wrote an in depth piece about New York's decision to tighten already
very strict and unconstitutional in fact gun laws. So what have they done? This hasn't gotten a lot of media play, yet what have they done in response? So, Buck, they passed a law that actually did two very problematic things. First, they put in very specific provisions for someone to apply and obtain a concealed carey permit, and among other things, that required very extensive training as well as background checks and things along those lines, which is not the problem.
The problem is that it also requires the individuals to turn over the names of any social media accounts they've used in the last three years. And the problem there is are they going to be looking at what an individual's speech is to deny them the permit. Now, obviously, when you have people on social media saying I'm going to kill someone, things along those lines, completely legitimate issues.
But not if they're all of a sudden looking at things such as we're going to fight back, we're not going to election fraud happen, is that going to be a basis to exclude it. So that's one part of the opinion that's problematic. It sounds like they are going to be looking at an individual's speech, and we're not talking about violent speech threats, but just speech in general. But the bigger problem is what the statute did. It went through a through sub I think t sort of
places that it defined as sensitive places. I can I Actually we have the Governor of Margo saying those sensitive places I want to have your react to it. Go ahead, shots ring out, flags come down, and nothing ever changes except here in New York. In New York, we are taking bold, strong action. We're tightening the red flag laws to keep guns away from dangerous people, and we're raising the age of semi automatic weapons so no eighteen year old can walk in on their birthday and walk out
with an AAR fifteenth. Those days are over. Sorry, she actually was going to list the places. That was a different clip. So tell us about the places. Sure, So the places are so broad it would have been easier to say where you could carry a weapon, which it sounds like is from your house walking down the street to your car, because it excludes any places where the public well come together. Could be in a protest, it could be at Times Square, it could be at a
gathering to listen to, a music festival, a museum. It goes through and details all of these places as sensitive places. And the reason this is key is the Supreme Court made clear the right to keep in bear arms is bearing arms outside the home for self defense. And the exception in the opinion spoke of sensitive places such as polling places, the legislature, and schools. It didn't expand it
beyond that. And in fact, the Court said you can't just say, someplace being populous is enough to make it a sensitive place. So what New York did, and they don't look like they're embarrassed by, they're actually proud, is that they said, yeah, that's what the court said. But work going to define sensitive places so broadly that the right to bear arms in self defense is virtually a nullity, yea, Margot.
So how does this work in terms of possible legal challenges, because it seems like what New York State's responses to a constitutional ruling here is we're just going to find a way through bureaucratic shenanigans essentially to achieve the same result, which is to prevent people from legally being able. I mean, that's clearly what they're trying to do, right. This isn't stopping criminals who are buying guns out of the back of cars illegally, because they're buying them illegally, So it
doesn't make any difference to those people. So for those like me who are residents of New York. By the way, so this is particularly interesting given that I think I'm about to be applying for a concealed carry permit at one point, is it no longer in keeping with the law here and keeping with the response of this sort of the decision of the Supreme Court, I mean, can they say, yeah, sure, you have a right to conceal car it's just going to cost you a ten thousand
dollar feet and you got away five years. I mean, at some point, is it just obvious that they're refusing to actually obey the constitution. So that point's already here, and I would expect either this week or next week, you're going to have what's called a facial challenge to the law. And a facial challenge is where someone sues and says, just the way it's written it is unconstitutional. And I think you're going to see two arguments there.
You're going to see the argument that requiring me to turn over my speech my social media, especially if if someone doing it anonymously, violates my First Amendment rights, and you can't force me to give up those rights to exercise my Second Amendment rights right. And I think that you're also going to have a facial challenge saying, on
its face, these sensitive places are not sensitive places. We need the Core to declare that because otherwise I could be subject to a felony, which is what the Court septs. But you're also going to have as applied challenges. That would be when someone like you goes in and applies and you're waiting, and you're waiting and they say, oh, no, we need ten thousand dollars and where we looked at what you said online, we don't think you get it
because you said maybe something that seemed right wing. Then you can sue and say they denied it based on my speech, not based on my moral character, but based on my viewpoint speech, or because it took so long and it costs so much money, to other things that the Supreme Court talked about in the opinion. They said, it's fine to have these permitting schemes. What is not fine, though, is if they have rules that are so stringent that it prevents an ordinary American from exercise their right to
bear arms. And it's is it possible, Margot? It seems like the game that some of these Democrat governors in place like New York will play now is all right. They'll just keep on coming up with new unconstitutional restrictions and force it through force the challenge. Force the challenge, I mean, can a governor be held in content by a federal Court, like, I just wonder, is there any is there any mechanism here to protect people from just the continued bad faith violation of state law or a
federal law rather by a state governor. Not really that's an answer. There isn't. And in fact, you make a great point is what's going to happen is it's going to start with litigation and it will go up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the Supreme Court. If the Second Circuit okays it, Supreme Court might decide, you know what, we're not going to talk about this for a while. It was almost twenty years or maybe a little over twenty years since they
took their last Second Amendment case. The good thing, at least with the latest ruling by the Supreme Court was it gave a lot of guidance. And that's why when I did my analysis, I could say, hey, this is what the Supreme Court said, and this is definitely crossing the line when you define sensitive places that broadly. But the short answers know that the state legislative branches and the governors they can pretty much just thumb their nose at the law and the consequence is just going to
be mortal litigation. Amazing, Margot, great work on this, Thanks for being with us, Thanks so much. Fame. Psychologist Jordan Peterson is refusing to back down after being suspended from Twitter for mis gendering transactor Elliott Page. Author and commist David Marcus joins us to give his take on the controversy. When we come back, Twitter is dropping the censorship hammer
once again. Latest victim is psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was recently suspended from the platform for tweeting remember when pride was a sin and Ellen Page just had her breast removed by a criminal physician. Question Mark now struck in
a battle with Twitter over his suspended account. The only way he's allowed back on the platform is to acknowledge what he tweeted was against the Twitter guidelines, and he says, no bleeping way, no bloody way, as Jordan Peterson would say, Jodian I to discuss authored columns David Marcus, David, what's up man doing? Well? Buck? I like when he like car says a little bit too. Yeah, you know, I know that Canadians say bloody, but apparently Jordan Peterson says
it all the time about Canada. Ay this is from your piece in the Daily Wire. There are many myself included, who have sprung themselves from Twitter jail by just deleting the tweets. So the logic here, being a Twitter is so clearly engross the acting and bad faith, choosing only one side to punish. So yeah, I mean, this is what they do, right, bend the knee or you're off. Yeah, And I mean, I'm sure you're a surprised buck to know that I've been suspended from Twitter for maybe intemperate
tweets once or twice. Yeah, that's my approach. My attitude is I'll delete the tweet, I'll spend my time in Twitter jail like it's good fellas, and jump back on the platform because these people clearly aren't acting in good faith.
So when I saw the video of Peterson saying he would rather die than do that, I was interested, and I thought about it, and I realized it makes perfect sense because this guy's whole philosophy that has really helped millions of people around the world is rooted in the concept of radical truth, that what you say has to be honest, not just for the benefit of the person that you're talking to. Although that too, but for your
own benefit, right. This is why he won't use people's pronouns, and this is why he will never delete that tweet. And although I don't share his philosophical perspective, I have a hell of a lot of respect for it. By the way, you mentioned this, he's drawing quite a line in the sand on this one. This is doctor Jordan Peterson telling everybody over his dead body that tweet gets eleted. Watch.
I've essentially been banned from Twitter as a consequence. I say banned, although technically I have been suspended, but the suspension will not be lifted unless I delete the hateful tweet in question, and I would rather die than do that, and hopefully it will not come to that, although who the hell knows. In these increasingly strange days, indeed, who the hell knows, it feels like it does keep getting crazier.
I think there was a little bit of a moment here where Elon must it seemed, put a little bit of fear into the Twitter Rottie. But they are back at their old games, it seems, I mean, there is Elon I'm still hoping buys Twitter and manages to turn it into a platform for the free exchange of ideas. But one thing I found fascinating about the Jordan Peterson situation here is it's not even clear to me what, like was this a dead naming issue? Like well, like
even in the crazy rules that Twitter uses. I was sitting to say, wait, why was he suspended for this one? Like I've said worse stuff than that on Twitter? I think No, I mean, I have no idea. One of my Twitter suspensions was it was right after Trump took out Suleimani and there was all this talk about, oh no, the Iranians are going to attack New York and I tweeted something to the effect of if they touched New
York will turn it into a parking lot. And I was suspended, I guess for insulting the nation of Iran. I don't know, Buck. These aren't rules, right, there's no rules. There's just angry twenty somethings with colorful hair and pronouns in their bios who want to control your life. I mean, that's all there is. That's the that's the entire moderation process. That's why Donald Trump can't have a Twitter account, and the eyetola can. I mean, you try to figure it
out because I can. You know, Jordan Peterson put out a statement on the suspension as well. He said, there are This is about the rules issue. There are no rules on Twitter except don't do what we don't like. Today they are always applied post hoc by algorithms and
idiots bent on maintaining their woke superiority. I just think it is worth everyone noting because so much of now our communication, but really also national perception, at least in the news world and news cycles, is driven by these social media platforms that they did used to claim for years that there was no ideological bias. It was just algorithms, man, It's just the machine that you can't even see with
all the fancy numbers that that we're doing this. And it wasn't like they were going after conservatives and we were crazy for saying they were targeting us. I remember this twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen. If you said it, oh you're conspiracy, there's now they just straight up tell you, yeah, that's right, Ben the Nee or else peasant, No, I think that's right. And a big problem with this larger
than just the Peterson situation or the trans issue. I mean, you go back to COVID, and you look at everything that was censored and deleted and and taken offline, not just by social media, but by our news media. We unfortunately, at this point, have a historical record of the period of twenty twenty and twenty twenty one that is utterly biased, utterly incomplete, often completely inaccurate. And twenty years from now, when students and historians go back to study this period,
the most consequential thing you have is the contemporaneous accounts. Right, They're going to be going to the New York Times, They're going to be going to the Washington Post and Twitter and Facebook, and they're going to be seeing wise And I don't know what we do about it. I don't know. I really like this this fellow. I've had him on my shows a few times. Zubie I'm sure you're familiar with Zubie Um he put out does does great work. I mean, I'm like, legitimately a fan of
a out of the stuff that he puts out. He wrote that a society that punishes people who tell the truth and rewards those who lie is not sustainable in the long term. I think that's where we are now as a culture. I think the people are punished for telling the truth and rewarded for telling lies. And that is not a bug, it is a feature. This is almost a desired a desired status by those who are in positions of power to direct the conversation. Yeah, and
it's and it's why I'm sympathetic to Peterson's position. And you know, a friend of mine who's who I worked with, the Federalist who's still there, John Davidson, is also banned from Twitter right now. He does, honestly some of the best reporting from the border. He knows it, you know, he lives there, and he's in the same boat. He won't delete it. I respect the choice. I think it's
a hard choice. But yeah, as to Zoobie's point, there's something to be said for I'm not I'm not gonna lie, and if that means I can't tweet, I can't tweet, you know. And I've been talking about this. You remember the I think it was was in Souls and Eatson's addressed to Harvard University where he said live not by lies,
and that was really the theme of the speech. And what we see increasingly is now we are a society where wokeness and Therefore the Democrat id the the center of the Democrat Party these days demand that you live by lies. Actually, you know, men or women, women or men up as down, down as up. I mean, this is where we are actually as a society. Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly right. And I think everyone does
have to draw their lines. I think, you know, in the piece I mentioned, there's polling that shows that Americans are actually moving away from the idea that men can become women. There's there's been this shift in the direction of biological sex as determining gender. But that same poll shows that that Americans really want to be nice to people, right,
They want to be kind, They don't want to be jerkes. Um, I don't know, man, we might be getting to the point where we have to risk being a jerk every once in a while just to tell the truth. I think that is where we are, by the way, and I do believe that the left actually exploits the innate kindness and decency of the American people on a regular basis to get through the agenda. Essentially, go along with this, just be polite to people, We'll just be polite to people.
Very quickly turns into celebrate drag Queen Story Hour with you know, five year olds having grown men dancing in their faces, you know, provocatively, like this is what ends up happening with. Just be polite to people, so I think people have had enough or else you're a bigot. Yeah, or else you're a bigot, exactly, David always incifu, Matt, thanks for being with us. Comedian Samantha b used a recent monologue to incite pro abortion activists to harass Supreme
Court justices. We'll have the video for you in tonight's Wickets Stay with Us. Samantha b incites the mob against conservative Supreme Court justices, and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of the Squad got an unpleasant reception at a recent concert in her home state. We have those stories and more in
quick Hits. Let's dive into it. Look, the lives are not handling the restoration of the Supreme Court to a deliberative body based upon constitutionalism instead of what they had had, which is a left wing super legislature that just decides what is best for people and then puts it from drops it from on high like some eat it from the heavens, or some people would suggests from another place given some of the outcomes. So that's what's going on here,
and they're very upset. They're irrational, Their arguments don't hold up, their arguments don't actually make much sense. Here is Samantha Bee, though, trying to use the comedy platform. She's a comedian, aha comedy platform. She has to call for the harassment of Justice Alito for example. Why I can't describe how painful it is to be here now in a place where the Supreme Court has the power to erase fifty years of constitutional law. Make no mistake, this is not where
it ends. Conservatives will not rest until they have come for all of our rights. Everything we have fought for could be lost unless we take it back. It's not just about voting in November. It's about doing everything in our power to protect and help vulnerable people access abortion across state lines. And we have to raise hell in our cities. In Washington, in every restaurant, Justice Alito eats
at for the rest of his life. Because if Republicans have made our lives hell, it's time to return the favor harass Supreme Court justices. This is what she's saying. And I know if she's called out on that. She's they're always just kidding. Did she seem like she was kidding there and seeing she was getting it all to me? But she's classless and unfunny and dumb on top of it all, doesn't really know what the hell she's talking about.
But that's pretty standard these days, where the talking heads, the celebrities and various entertainers and influencers who are weighing in on constitutional law. Do you think any of them have even read the Alito decision that overturned Row. Do you think a single one of them even read the first page? Now, of course not. They just have emotions and feelings, shouting, yelling things, That's what they have. And then there are other lives out there who are concerned
about American flags apparently, and how they can trigger people. Watch. On July fourth, me and my family were celebrating and shooting all fireworks and a jeep was coming down the streets, so we had to get out of the street. And as the jeep went by, it had two American flags flying high, and in the South that typically means trumplicants and supporters and all that wonderful. But I looked at my neighbor, and I asked her if she got a knot in her stomach when she saw the flag now,
and she said, yes, she did. And I just attribute that to the insurrection. I attribute that to all the proud boy and white supremacist waving the flag high and just the Trump cards' Oh you just see her, You're like, she's just such a miserable cat lady. It's so obvious, you know, just so empty inside. I feel badly for her, while it is also amusing see somebody who is scared of the American flag in lotto more far left wing
number of Congress, of the so called squad. As well, she didn't get the reception she was expecting at a concert in Minnesota over the weekend. Watch this one evening. Okay, I don't even know why they are buoying her, but somebody whose political positions deserve getting booed, so I guess it's something love about doing. Do we even know why were they booing her? Guys, I don't even know what was that was that all about? Just oh, because she's
just awful? Oh okay, well, you know, in that case, looks like Minnesota's waking up because she is awful, there you go. Oh good job Minnesota. Maybe stop electing so many Democrats that ruin everything for everybody. Just an idea that's ever Tonight told the line the no Spinoos with Bill O'Reilly is next. She'll tie