You know, we were just talking about how I am a hardcore law and order. Oh, yeah. So there is, I don't know if you've seen this. Got video here. But there is a sheriff who, he's not making any bones about it. There was a criminal who shot a cop or law enforcement officer in, I think it's going to be Kern County, California. And the local sheriff makes no bones about what happened to the guy who shot this law enforcement officer. Listen to this. Don't shoot at cops. You shoot at cops, we're going to run you over. He got run over. He got what he deserved. Yeah, I like that. He got what he deserved. We intentionally ran him over and, you know, that is making its way around ricocheting around the internet this morning. You know, I think that more Americans, even moderates, are more law and order than the Democrats ever will be. And I love what he had to say. And anytime, and he said, anytime you shoot a cop, we are going to, you know, purposely run you over and you're going to be dead. And that's what you deserve to be. And I appreciate what he had to say because we, again, always seem to hear these stories about bad guys doing bad things and they need to be in jail and they need to be in prison and when they're not. And then all of a sudden, oh, look, you know, a bad guy has done something horrible and he should be in prison. There is a story, Joan, you and I were talking about this. I think it was, was it yesterday where the guy with the hammer. Oh, yes. So President Trump has now posted that video. And basically what happened is this guy, it's a horrifying video. And I would actually encourage you not to seek it out. But it is a horrifying video where a guy has a hammer. He's beating the living crap. I'm not going to show it on, on YouTube, but he's beating the crap out of this car, right? So a woman who works at this liquor store walks out and is, and is telling this guy, who by the way, he's an illegal alien and let loose by the Biden administration, shocking, I know, walks up and, and just beats this woman to death with a hammer. Donald Trump has now posted that video on Truth Social and the video went from, I don't know, a video that people like you and I, Joan, because we live in this world have seen. But now, I mean, it is like everywhere. And the point that Donald Trump is making, and it's a good point, is that this is what happens when you let bad guys into our country and you allow them to stay in our country. So again, it's all about, it's all about the failed policies of Democrats. It's all about the failed policies of the Biden administration. You can talk about the failed policies at the state level as well when it comes to soft on crime policies. But people have been watching this video and a lot of them have been saying, you know, what in the world is going on here? There is another story, by the way. ICE, this is from Fox News. Listen to this. ICE has now arrested over 700,000 illegal aliens and over 2 million more have now bailed America, a courtesy of self-deportation. Now I don't know about you, and I know that there's a lot of people out there that are complaining that Donald Trump isn't doing enough to deal with the deportation of these illegal aliens. But you know what? Even though I would say that 700,000, I've got some audio here, even though 700,000 deportations isn't nearly enough, at least it's something. And when you couple that with the 2 million self-deportations, okay, you know what? Considering all of the pushback that President Trump has gotten in states across the country, like California, like Illinois and some of these other places, he's actually accomplished quite a bit. This is Bill Mlewzian on Fox News. And Brett, ICE director Lyons went on to tell us that ICE has now arrested more than 453,000 criminal aliens. Those are aliens who have been charged with or convicted of a crime since President Trump began his second term in office. We'll send it back to you. I mean, I think that's good. Joan, you happy so far? I think you and I have talked about this. You happy so far with the amount of deportations and the amount of arrests and all that? I'm gonna say I'm not satisfied, but it's not necessarily Donald Trump's fault. Right. So we haven't heard a whole lot about, you know, mass deportations, which is what we needed to... Hey there, I'm Paula Pan. I help people make the smartest money decisions possible. Do not ever worry about your salary. You need enough to make sure that you aren't in a bad financial position. Once you have that, your salary becomes moot. What matters from that point forward, upside gains. Any type of ownership stake or ownership potential, that's the money. Remember, you can afford anything, just not everything. Afford anything. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. Ship our way through the 22 whatever million people that made their way over the border during the Biden administration. We haven't heard a whole lot about it and it feels like it's not happening. But I think part of the reason that we're not hearing about it is because the more the DHS or ICE put out their numbers of people that are being sent back, the more the left just goes crazy and tries to stop them and makes these scenes like we saw, you know, with Renee Goode and Alex Critty. So I think we're not hearing about it as much, but I really, really, really want to believe that it's happening behind the scenes. And I don't know if that's enough, you know. Yeah. Hey, by the way, Joan, real quick, did you hear about the four British hikers that were caught coming across our northern border? The British hikers that have been caught coming across our northern border. Yeah, Joan. Four. Count them. Four British hikers sneaking across our southern border. Joan, ask me that they... My guess is that they weren't ladies. No, no, no. Ask me their names. Damn, what are their names? Ali Mohammed Ali Abdullah is the British hiker number one caught sneaking into America. Number two, Hamid Mohammed Najee. Number three, Ibrahim Ayub Khan. And Mohammed Sultan Saleh. There's like three Mohammed's in there. I have to say, with the last name like Jones, my family is kind of British and Jones doesn't sound like Mohammed or Ibrahim at all. No. No. I'm certainly certain these guys, I don't know, they might be from somewhere in the Middle East. Yeah. I love the media. Can we just add that Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys in the United Kingdom? Oh, yeah, I know. It's been that way for a while, actually, Sam. I think so, hasn't it? I mean, it's been the... I remember talking about this, where Mohammed, it just, you know, it's exploded. I mean, we talked about this yesterday, where you have Germany, you have France, you have some of these other nations in Europe that refuse to help President Trump with the Strait of Hormuz or dealing with Iran. I mean, I would say for maybe a number of different reasons, but one of them certainly is because they've got a lot of Mohammed's in their country and they're afraid of an uprising in their own nations as they have allowed their nations to be overrun with Muslims. Turn on your mic, Sam. Turn on your mic. This 2023 is when it's been on the top of the list. Underneath that are Noah, Oliver, George and Leo. That's for both Wales and the UK. Did they have like percentages as far as how... just how high Mohammed is on the list? The only stat I can find, 5,700 registrations in 2024 alone. Okay, very good. Hey, Sam, by the way, real quick, you're... You're... Can we... we can agree that Sam is hipper than you and I when it comes to social media stuff? As in way, yes. Okay, so... You've yet to open any of my DMs on Instagram. I've been trying to slide in there. Have you? Me or him? Dan, obviously. Yeah, obviously, you and I Instagram on the top. Anyway, have you ever heard of a guy named Peyton Van Est? Nope. This sounds familiar, yeah. Okay. I'm a leftist and I feel like this is just, you know, that... I don't know if it's just like my... what are the algorithms? But all of a sudden, I am getting so many nut jobs on social media and it's showing up in my ex feed. But I want you to listen close because what old Peyton Van Est is doing is a new trend, apparently, or maybe it's an old trend on social media where he is effectively calling for the assassination of Donald Trump. Yeah, listen to this. Somebody should. Somebody should, you know. Somebody should what? I don't know. Neither do you. So when he says somebody should, this is audio only, gentlemen. So when he says somebody should, Joe, you know what he's talking about? Oh, I do. He's talking about assassinating Donald Trump. He can't say the words. Somebody should assassinate Donald Trump. But apparently from what I'm reading online, this is basically a very thinly veiled, hey, somebody needs to take out the president. Right? None of us know anything. We don't know anything. But somebody should, though. If somebody knew what needed to be done, that person should probably just do it and know that we all would love you. We would love you forever. You'd never want for anything again. Ever again. We've got you. We don't just have you. We have you and your family and your family's family. And hopefully you look exactly like me because that's the kind of person that should be thinking about whether or not they should or shouldn't be doing something right now. Just to be... Yeah. So, I mean, clearly, he's playing around because he doesn't want to get a visit from the Secret Service. He clears somebody should, but we don't know what somebody should be doing. You know what I mean? None of us know what anybody should be doing right now. Right? We don't know anything. We don't know anything. Just go and do what you need to do, which you don't even know you should be doing because none of us even really know what we should be doing, right? So that is the kind of games that the Left is playing. That kind of takes it up a notch because what he's doing is offering to pay the person who does such a thing. Yeah. So I think that kind of... That's a ramp-up of... And I think the FBI should be looking at that. Oh, they absolutely should. He needs to get a visit from the Secret Service, from the FBI, whoever. By the way, just since we're going down the road of crazy nut job Democrats, which again... Joan, is there more or are they starting to just ramp stuff up? Like, that's my question. Are they becoming worse or is it just my feed, my algorithm is suddenly for whatever reason picking up more of these crazy people? Well, clearly if you watch them, that... What do they say? That massages your algorithm? Yes. Makes it produce more of those type of videos for you to see. So this is a woman who is running for Congress in the state of Georgia. Listen to this. She wants to punish people... Oh my gosh, this woman. Okay, you've heard this? So she wants to punish people who voted for Donald Trump by kicking them off the Internet, I guess, for a couple of years. When this is all over and Trump is gone and Democrats are back in charge and we're rebuilding everything, the punishment for MAGA for voting Trump three times needs to be... By the way, I voted for Trump six times. I've said three because that's the general election, but when you look at the primaries, it's a total of six. ...that they lose their Internet access for four years. That they cannot post videos or comments on social media for four straight years so that none of us are subjected to their lies and misinformation while we are rebuilding the chaos that they cause the whole world and America gets to be without their BS online for four straight years. Can we all agree to this? No. There you go. That's obviously on TikTok. I mean, this is what the left is doing. Oh, by the way, oh, do I have time to do it here? What's that, Joan? Yeah, you remember I still have the Hunter Biden ridiculousness from yesterday. Oh, you do. I do. I can grab that audio. You want to do a real quick Hunter Biden calling for a cage match? Cage match. Go ahead and you go and play it there. It's video, but Joan can't do video from where she is. So this is audio only, but this is Hunter Biden crawling out of that rock that he lives under. And here's what he has to say. Hunter Biden. Why aren't you there, audio? It's playing on my computer, but it's not playing on... That's okay. You know what? Because we can save it for Chris Hand. I would say that Hunter Biden, we talked about our Woking Dead yesterday. Maybe we can include him in some Woking Dead coming up at 8.35 with Chris. Today, the Orion spacecraft will stop. Do you know real quick, do you know how much George Conway spent? You know George Conway, right? We talked about him yesterday. Do you know that he is despondent because he spent a million dollars? Hi, I'm Joe Salci. I hosted the Stacking Benjamin's podcast. You know what? A lot of us get texts wrong. Filing your taxes is basically data entry. There's been this trend of people going, oh, it's so cool to file my taxes in August. It's so awesome. Don't worry, I have an extension. It'll be fine. I'll like totally do it later. Stop. Do your friggin' taxes now. That was a really good fashion voice. Did you like it? You do that more frequently, please? Yes, every show for now. Stacking Benjamin's. Follow and listen on your favorite platform. On Joe Biden's campaign. And he's still lost. His personal money? I don't exactly know where he got the money or all of that, but he was interviewed and he says I am despondent because basically I spent my child's inheritance on Joe Biden. Now, we'll play the audio here in a little bit, but I'm sitting there thinking, okay, so if you were dumb enough to spend a million dollars on Joe Biden's campaign when you know how bad Joe Biden was as a president and as a babbling adult of a man candidate and you spent a million dollars on that, you deserve to lose your money, you jackhole. You really do. And he's running for Congress. Do you trust a man? George Conway, do you trust a man who spent a million dollars on Joe Biden's clearly failing campaign and memory? There is just no way. So now George Conway is making the news, but not in, I would say, a way that he wants. House Speaker Cameron Sexton, Mr. Speaker, always great to have you on and I wanted to have you on because there number one has been a bit of a kerfuffle between some Republicans, including you in the state legislature, but of more interest to me is this three strikes bill, which this kerfuffle centered on. So I want to talk a little bit about that. Of course, people know three strikes bill in California back in the 90s, very controversial. We have, you have our own version here for the state of Tennessee. And I guess it passed the House and then it died in the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Is that correct? That is correct on four to five votes. And actually, we can, Governor McNally was in there to vote on it and I assume a senator flipped their vote owning in the end, so he wasn't able to vote. OK, so let's talk a little bit about what the three strikes bill would have done. Now, are you the sponsor of the bill? Yes, I believe it's in my name. Yes. So talk a little bit about what it would do. It is, as far as I can tell, vastly different from what California did in the 90s. It is. It's one of the bills that we worked with the White House own and Stephen Miller and the Manhattan Institute and the Americans First Policy Institute and Cicero and a bunch of other groups to come out with a different version. You know, one of the issues that we have is a lot of plea bargaining out there. And so we wanted to have the three strikes to look at if things were being pleaded bargain. Also we wanted to do a three strikes plan that would show the escalation of crime, meaning it usually starts lower and they escalate up to more violent. And so the difference between hours is if you get charged with certain misdemeanors, it counts as a fourth of a strike. If you have a nonviolent felony, it counts as a half a strike. And if it's a violent felony, it counts as a full strike. You also have to have a full strike on your last strike in order to get the three strikes clause for up to life in prison. But the difference is between hours and anyone else in the country is that mechanism, but also it allows for people who want to turn their lives around. And so if someone doesn't have a conviction in three years, then you lose a half a strike. And every three years you go without a conviction, then you lose another half a strike. So it's a way to hold people accountable, but give them an opportunity to change their lives around by reducing strikes if they don't have convictions over a certain period of time, which makes it much different than any other three strike policy in America. Yeah, it's not like we did talk about this earlier, sir. So in California, I remember this because I'm from California, your last strike could have been a relatively speaking small infraction, and you're looking, this is before the reforms, and that meant though that you would have 25 years to life in prison. This is, as you just said, that last strike has to be a violent felony. That's number one. And number two, one of the other big differences is as time goes on, if you're a good citizen, some of these infractions can fall off. I will tell you, sir, that I'm a big fan of this bill, actually. I think that there's a lot of good here because as I said earlier in the radio broadcast, how many times do we see stories, how many times do we hear stories of bad guys who should be in prison, but they're not, and they do horrific things. And so all of this makes sense to me. Is there a specific reason why Todd Gardenhire, and you had some not-so-flattering things to say about the senator yesterday saying that he was soft on crime and so forth? And I understand your frustration because I share it, but was there some specific things that he and other Republicans had an issue with as it related to this bill, and that's why it did not pass the committee? Well, I mean, look, the senator, I mean, we all know down there that he's going to vote against because he's too soft on crime. On three strikes bill, he voted against our bill reform. He voted against the constitutional amendment to allow discretion for judges to deny a bill for violent criminals. He decided to vote against and try to kill that as well as try to kill the truth in sentencing. And so there was no doubt that we knew he was never going to vote for this. And it seemed like to me that he drummed up a cost issue, and the fiscal note did not have a cost for this year or next year. It was an assumption that there may be X number of people you may need to build a new prison at some point in the future, but there was no cost. The interesting thing, and that's why I said I was praying for him yesterday, is he implied that I have the capability of putting money attached to the bill to send it into whatever committee and, you know, only the governor, so I don't know if he was confused, but only the governor has the capability of directing appropriations through the budget process before we get the budget for certain pieces of legislation through a supplemental budget. That usually handles in our finance committees when they work through legislation. But as I said, in this instance, this had no fiscal note for this year or next year. It was an assumption in the future. Help me understand for people that don't understand, what does that mean, the assumption in the future? What does that mean in layman's terms? Well, what they say is, you know, in the future, we may have more criminals who are in jail longer, and so they can't really derive a certain cost, but there is a possibility that we would have more people in prison, which I think we want the more violent criminals in prison. Yeah, I don't see that as a bad thing. And so they're like, at some point, we may have to build a prison and it may cost this. Well, until you get through and until you see the convictions and until you can see if people decide to turn their lives around, it may or may not have an impact. I'm sure it could have a potential impact. But at the end of the day, it's better in my mind is to have things in place to hold criminals accountable to protect the victims. And, you know, unfortunately, Senator Gartenhauer and everything he's opposed to the hours, he never talks about the victims or the neighborhoods or any impact like that. He always wants to talk about this hypothetical cross. He did the same thing on the Bell Constitutional Amendment, where we gave judges the ability to deny a bill. Right now, the judges can only deny a bill for murder. And so he was against allowing them to do it in other crimes. And so, look, it's just a constant theme. When you can't argue on the merits, then you try to argue on the cost. All right. So, Mr. Speaker, this is what Senator Gartenhauer said about you yesterday. Speaker Sexton wants to be tough on crime. It's great. Speaker Sexton should have attached the money to it to send it over here. And we wouldn't be having this discussion, but he didn't. He sent it over to us to take the bullet, which I don't appreciate. He ought to have the guts to do it, but he didn't. I mean, he's kind of, and you just explained the whole thing with the money. And I understand that. What is it that Senator Gartenhauer isn't understanding about the financial process here? I mean, we all know that the Senate Majority Leader is Jack Johnson. I mean, is there some sort of a move that you could get this out of committee? Well, that's a Senate thing. The Senate could go back and reconsider their actions if that's what they choose to. It's up to them. I think if you go back and look at the committee, if it's still on there at the very end of that committee in the Senate, someone asked him with his mic still on about, are we going to reopen? He goes, we're not going to reopen unless I'm not chairman anymore. And so he kind of just took a direct shot at the Lieutenant Governor and leadership in that regard and called a bluff. So who knows? Look, I mean, at the end of the day, he also said. In there, he's not soft on crime. There's nothing saying you're not soft on crime by saying you're not soft on crime. So look, it's a fabrication of what he's trying to do. He's done the same thing on every bill. He wants to agree with the criminal defense attorneys on everything. Whereas in this bill, the DAs, the shares, the police chiefs were all supportive of it. And actually the DAs, from our understanding, was sitting in the committee room willing to testify and he would not call them to come up to counter the criminal defense attorneys and even give them a chance to respond to let them tell how much in support of this and how much this bill was needed. Okay. So I've read a couple of different, several different articles on this now. And some have said that this is, you know, dead in committee, which you just said it is. But is there any other way to bypass the committee? Because I believe that if this got out of committee and got onto a full floor vote in the Senate, that it would more than likely pass. Is there any other way that you can bypass the committee? Well, I mean, look, it's really into the Senate place. So if you have this piece of legislation, you know, they could reconsider their actions if they choose to. That's one item that would go to finance and then we would work out those details, which I don't think there is a note on this based on the note. So there's no money to appropriate. I think it would pass overwhelmingly on the Senate floor in the House for that. I know the House for will pass it. And unless there's another bill out there that allows us to go down that road, you could attach it to something else. It's a little late to see if that's the case. So you know, unless the Senate and I'm not asking them to do anything, it's on what they want to do. I mean, I'm happy to wait till next year. I think it's really important to get it done this year to help the DA's and the sheriff's and send the message to criminals. But it's also a great type of criminal justice reform where you do hold people accountable, but you also give them the option to change their life and not be penalized for life. And hopefully we can get it done. We'll see if the Senate's willing to do that. I mean, we'll see Senate garden hires. I said at the end of that committee called the bluff of the Senate and we'll see what happens. Is there an I don't know the dynamic between all you guys and all you folks, but you know, is there a way to sit down with the senator and say, you know, listen, we got to like negotiate here or there's got to be some way that we can get this passed because to me, this does seem to make, you know, it's very common sense as to what you folks want to do. Is there any any negotiation that could take place here or is he just adamant and based on what you're telling me, he's always knowing this kind of stuff. He's always been known on everything like this. So there's no, there's no chance. And with his comment at the end of the committee, where he said he will not open up unless they put in a new chairman. That's that's directly to the Senate. And so who knows if they will or won't. But there's no need to sit down with him. I mean, he's going to side with the criminals every single time. He's going to want to be soft on crime. And you can't overcome that. This is now the fourth bill that he's done that on or and the other ones have all passed out. But the disappointing part is, is Lieutenant Governor McNally was in that room to vote for and do the search. From stances that happen, he didn't get a chance to. And then you also have the DA's willing to testify for the bill. And they weren't allowed to. And so I think that's a conversation with the Senate, you know, Leader Johnson is a strong victim's right. Senator and supports being tough on crime as well as Senator Harsparger, who is in there and Senator Taylor, who is in there. Senator Don White, who is in there. And so, you know, there's the both. It's an unfortunate conversation with the Senate and in the ball is in their court at this point in time. All right, Cameron Sexton, House Speaker, always appreciate having you on. And I'm going to look forward to following this because it is really interesting. I think what you want, what you want to do is just common sense. Next role with Vernon Davis, the transformative journeys of athletes, artists and entrepreneurs. Ladies and gentlemen, lights out Sean Merriman. I want to be the biggest and the best when I do. And so whatever it takes, I'll get it done in business and everything else. All I do is know how to fight and earn what I want. My man, Malik asks, what actor, comedian, what you want to collaborate with? Me, Jamie Foxley, Kevin Hart in a movie. We said it on Vernon Davis podcast. So we'll circle back. Yeah, you're going to clear next role with Vernon Davis. Follow and listen on your favorite platform.
