July 10, 2025 • 28 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine and Karol discuss the ongoing violence against ICE agents, public sentiment on immigration, California's handling of transgender athletes in sports, recent Supreme Court rulings, and changes in TSA policies. They explore the implications of these topics on society and politics, emphasizing the need for a more rational approach to security and immigration. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey, it's weird back on normally the show with normalist
takes or when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I am Mary Yasin.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Him, and I am Carol Marco. It's back with a
slightly raspy voice today. But I like to say it
sounds like I only smoke a few cigarettes to day
instead of a few packs.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
It's good. I think it's like it's Kathleen Turner esque exactly.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
That's what we're going here.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
I like it. Oh.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I did want to tell at the beginning of the
show that I did see Robert ro'keane in Colorado last night,
who was a Kerrville, Texas.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
That's his hometown. He sent his kids when they were
children to Camp Mystic.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
So it was a heavier concert than Kelly and I
had anticipated, but in the style of what you might
expect of a cowboy poet. He was very stoic and
the event raised money for folks in Texas.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
He did the job well.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Was a beautiful concert, beautiful music, and I sort of
admired the stoicism of it.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
You could tell he was he had shades on the
whole time.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
I think he's had. It's a tough time for everybody
and for people who are even closer to it. Just
unimaginable stuff. So I appreciated his hard work.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
I have to note I loved your episode with Kelly.
I really enjoyed it. You know, my little dirty secret
is I don't I don't really listen to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, welcome to ours.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
So the fact that I really liked it made me think, like, wow,
should I be listening to more podcasting?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
I also downloaded some Robert Earl Keane music. Excellent. I
really didn't know it before I started with The Road
Goes On Forever and got into a bunch of other stuff.
It was great.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
That's a good choice to start with.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
So we'll kick off with what I think is one
of the most undernoticed, underreported stories in the country, and
that is that people are trying to kill ICE agents.
ICE facility in Texas was targeted by an Antifa group.
They were there to kill allegedly ICE agents Andy No reports.
(02:07):
These are the ten alleged members of a North Texas
Antifa terror cell accused of carrying out the attempted murder
of federal officers at a shooting terrorist attack on an
ICE facility on the fourth of July and Alvarado, Texas.
One local police officer was shot in the neck and survived.
The group was armed with multiple rifles, pistols, body armor,
(02:30):
escape vehicles, radios, and other devices, indicating a planned conspiracy.
These people have been charged federally with attempted murder, and
they also faced local charges in Johnston County, Texas Johnston County.
A few days later, a different police officer was shot
in McCallan, Texas by an active shooter attempting to ambush
(02:52):
Border Patrol agents. Also been vandalism aimed at ICE agents.
Four people were arrested in Los angele Lists using homemade
nail devices to damage a Border Patrol vehicle. It's really bad. Meanwhile,
Araldo Rivera and others are tweeting cops don't need to
(03:12):
wear masks. They deal with the most dangerous elements of society.
Why do ICE agents wear masks? What are they hiding?
They're hiding from crazy people, is what they're hiding.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Well, and it's always everyone else.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
The mask discourse is always so frustrating because you know,
I was alive in twenty twenty, so that part just
blows my mind. But also, just like every Columbia student
who wants to throw something at a cop is welcome
to wear thirteen masks on their face and never tell
us who they are. I get people's concerns, but I
(03:49):
do not think these people are sincere.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
They change their.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Minds based on who has a mask on at any
given moment for whatever reason exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
And I think that the idea for them is that
they want to make TSA agents afraid. They want them
to not want to take the job, and they want
it to be harder for these people to do their jobs.
Senator Alex Padilla has introduced a bill to ban ICE
agents from wearing masks, So yeah, well yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Can I also note that Axios reported that a bunch
of Democrats are hearing messages from their constituents that are
just like upping the antient over and over and over again,
to the point of telling Democrats that they need to
elected officials need to go to ICE facilities and endure
(04:42):
being shot in order to overcome the fascism. They want blood,
and if it's going to be Democrats blood, that's also
fine with them, because that's what is necessary to fight
this great evil.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I mean, I want to really is not putting words
in their mouths is our own base is telling us
that what we're doing is not good enough, that there
needs to be blood to grab the attention of the
press and the public. A Democratic lawmaker told Axios.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yeah, and this is the same thing as always, Carol,
which is, since the beginning of the Trump era, the
rationale for the left has been it doesn't matter if
we violate all the norms, because we are living in
extraordinary times and we are fighting a force that is
violating all the norms.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Right, So that's.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
The justification for anything. You can justify anything to yourself
at that point. And to have your constituents telling you
that blood needs to be spilled while these actual active
shootings are going on just seems like things are getting
off the rails here, guys.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yeah. Another quote from the Axiole story, a Fourth House
Democrat said, constituents have told them quote civility isn't working
end quote, and to prepare for quote violence, to fight
to protect our democracy end quote. It's scary. It's scary
that this is so out in the open. I just
I imagine the outrage if it were the right saying
(06:19):
we need blood. We need blood in order to be pushed.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I want to screenshot that Brian Stelter tweet where he's like,
it's only coming.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
From one side.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Oh yeah, just put it all over every single one
of these stories. Right, But this is what the media does,
and it really is. It's just misinformation and disinformation. Is
they sort of alchemize lefty violence into righty violence, or
they ignore it entirely. And if you ignore it entirely,
it's easy to look around and go like, oh, I
(06:51):
guess only the right does this. No, that's because you
disappeared all the other ones.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Right, You can't. You don't have a full data set, guys.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Exactly. Meanwhile, is this issue popular with voters from the
Democratic side or from the Republican side? Let's find out
from you know, not a right wing source. Let's go
to CNN and see what they're saying over there.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
All immigrants who are here illegally fifty five percent of
New York Times Marquette sixty four percent, CBS News fifty
per ABC News with a slightly different question fifty six percent.
So what you're seeing essentially here is very clear indication
that a majority of Americans in fact, when they're asked
us one question, which I believe gets that the underlying
feelings do in fact want to port all immigrants who
(07:41):
are here illegally. There's no arguing with these different numbers
because they're all essentially the same across four different posters.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
I love these segments, by the way, and I just
have to say.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
It against accents where perfect where Harry.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Enton's up there again just telling CNN and stuff it
doesn't want to hear, and poor Kate has to stand
by the board and go, hum, interesting, you're telling me
that all of my suppositions are incorrect. This is uncomfortable
for everyone every time.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
So good, but it really goes to show that they
are missing what the majority of the country wants. These
are crazy numbers. I have to say that I wouldn't
have guessed the numbers are these this high.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Because that's a deport all illegal immigrants number, that is
not a criminal immigrants number. All.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
I would say just a few years ago, they I mean,
these numbers would have been half maybe, and even now
it's surprising. In the sixties, over sixty percent of Americans
and some polls want to deport all illegal immigrants. That's startling,
and it really goes to show how bad things got
in the Biden administration, and I just think they're on
(08:51):
the wrong side of this.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Yeah, just a what a what a giant miscalculation by
the Biden administration that you know, uncon trolled four years
of millions of people coming across the borders. How to
make everybody feel like this is awesome? Nope, opposite direction.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Yep. Meanwhile, Alligator Alcatraz has opened in my beloved Florida.
It is just a place to hold people who are
being deported. And there's a story in the Miami Herald
that attempts to make this place sound horrific. Toilets that
didn't flush, temperatures that went from freezing to sweltering. Now
(09:31):
it's July and Florida, I'll buy sweltering.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Freezing freezing, can you get Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Are we talking an air conditioner blowing on somebody? Like
what what are you saying? A hospitalization that turned out
not to be true. And you know, it's again crazy
that the media and the Democrats have decided that their
key constituency that they are going to spend the most
(09:57):
amount of time catering to our people who are in
the country illegally, especially with the poll numbers that we
just read. It makes no sense.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
It makes no sense.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I want to quote sunny Right at Sunny Right, one
of my favorite follows who says, who sniffs out the
game here? No, you can't send them home, their homes
are too risky. No, you can't deport them to a
third party country they have no connections there. No, you
can't keep them detained here. That's like Auschwitz. The game
being played is that nothing short of amnesty is acceptable, exactly.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
And the thing is that they won't say so, or
some of them will. Chuck Schumer actually a few years
ago literally admitted he wanted to just legalize everybody that
was in the country. But the fact is, if Democrats
really said what they wanted, they would not get elected
in many many places. Maybe Chuck Schumer would continue to
win in New York, but in most states it would
(10:47):
be a death sentence for their party. And that Americans
can't hear what they support, but also that they won't
listen to what Americans want them to do.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
It's really unfair to the extent that they're struggling, and
they are struggling quite a lot right now. It's because
Commo is a perfect example. Americans read all over them
what they actually wanted to do. But they just play
this game, and no one's buying the game anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Right, There's also the question of if you came into
the country illegally, what are you entitled to? And Emma
Joe Morris, who are another follow that I like a lot.
She pointed out that when they were staying at various
hotels across New York City, there were always these protests
every time the city would try to move them because
the accommodations weren't going to be as nice. And she
(11:38):
said that she spoke to some of the people when
she was reporting on this for bright Bart at the time,
and she writes, there's this bizarre sense which would maybe
curb the illegal immigration problem in a somewhat significant way
if it stopped that if someone merely enters America, they're
entitled to a measure of luxury. No, you're not, You're
just not. So here we are and I don't know.
(12:01):
I again think the Democrats are making a big error here.
I hope Republicans can capitalize on it. It hasn't been
a strength of the Republican Party other than Donald Trump
to point to stuff like this and get on the
right side, the popular side of what Americans believe. I
hope Republicans run on this issue in the midterms. You know,
(12:24):
I really think this is a unifying thing that people want.
They want security for the country.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Yep, it's not that complicated.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
It really really isn't. All Right, we're going to take
a short break and we're going to be right back
with her Meat suing California and an eight to one
Scotis decision.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Alrighty our girl Harmeat. Dylan over at DOJ is conducting
the fo part of the equation for California. California has
been openly flout the rules that transgender athletes boys should
not be competing in women's sports. You'll remember Carol that
(13:08):
in his Moderate Sane person tour that Gavin Newsom tried
to do on his podcast, he said it was deeply
unfair for boys to be competing with girls, and everybody
knew that, but nonetheless, in California's Big Track championships, they
had Aby Hernandez, a boy, winning three of the categories,
and they did all this like changing the categories to
(13:28):
try to try to allow the same number of girls
to win anyway, and had him sharing the podium with girls.
It's also ridiculous, and they have just said, no, we're
not going to follow your laws, and so harmite. Dylan
is like, okay. She sent a letter to California public
school districts and their state you know, board of whatever
(13:50):
their athletics is. She called it unconstitutional to allow transgender
athletes to compete. She alleged that knowingly depriving female students
of athletic opportunities and benefit on the basis of their
sex would constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dylan ordered the CIF which
is that organization, to inform the Justice Department by jun
(14:12):
night that it will no longer implement its bylaws on this.
Linda McMahon also said in a July seventh post on
ex that California had rejected the Trump administration demand. They've
been trying to negotiate this and California's just like, nah,
So now we're going to court, so there will be
a civil lawsuit. Newsom this is he's so slimy.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Carroll's in South Carolina at the right.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
I know he's campaigning in South Carolina and on this subject,
which he's conceded it is unfair, but he's not going
to use any of his power as governor to fix
this issue or comply with the law. Newsom noted in
a statement that he is not named in the lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
And the California Department of Education and.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
The CIF which is their athletic organization, are both independent
from his administration. What a slick hairsp blinding coward like, really,
he continued that both are quote, following existing state law.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Shut up and do the right thing.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
Absolutely, And you know, there's also this whole thing that
the left just had these protests No King's Day, but which,
by the way, I tried to like joke with real
people in real life on July fourth and say like,
happy real No King Day. What I was talking about.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
This is, by the way, one of the things about
the pace of a Trump administration is that something like
no King's Day will seem like a really big story
for about thirteen hours, and then by the time you
get to real No King's Day, everybody's forgotten that it
ever happened.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Yeah, well, I mean I would just say that the
people I spoke to didn't even know that the protests
were called no King day. So that didn't go out great.
But no, you have where states are saying we're not
going to follow the law, and that's somehow not monarchy.
That's not a you know, anti democracy, but Trump Trump
is king.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Yeah, I love this idea too, where the blue cities
are like, oh, how dare he come in here and
enforce the law in LA? He should partner with us.
But what they're also announcing all the time, as loudly
and as hostily as possible is you, we would never
partner with you.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
You're disgusting.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
We are absolutely not a partner in enforcing any of this,
and in fact, we would like you to know how
little we're going to be enforcing all the time.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
It's like, yeah, no, you're not a partner, you've told us. Yeah,
bet you're not.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yeah. And it's funny how they suddenly want, you know, rights,
states to have rights when there's a Republican president. It's
always amazing how that works.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Well, I mean, look, my new converts to federalism. I
welcome you to read up on it.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
To maintain that enthusiasm. A Democrat every wins.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Again, yes, exactly. In another blow to the to the
whole King narrative. It turns out that the executive branch
can in fact instruct agencies within the government to form
a plan to reduce the number of people who work
for them. That's that's the crazy thing that Trump was
(17:15):
accused of doing, and the public employee unions took him
to court over it. The district court said, yeah, y'all
have to stop. You can't do a reduction in force.
That's crazy town. And the President was like, I'm pretty
I really feel like I can. So it went to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court eight to one,
(17:35):
with only Katanji Brown Jackson dissenting eight to one, said
get rid of the injunctions and the restraining orders. They
can continue to work on this because this is in
fact the job of the government, and it seems like
it's unlikely to be unconstitutional, right, I mean.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
If the president can people, what can you do? What
else is there?
Speaker 1 (17:59):
No, it's it's wild. And then the idea that so
my or even Kagan will sometimes be, you know, with
the writer leaning judges, sodomy Or rarely is, but you're
right in her writing, h sodomy Or calls her out
(18:19):
a little bit, says I agree with Justice Jackson that
the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent
with congressional man mandates. Here, however, the relevant executive order
directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force quote consistent.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
With applicable law.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
She then notes to Katanji Brown Jackson a real basic
of how courts work, which is the plans themselves are
not before this court at this stage, and we thus
have no occasion to consider whether they can and will
be carried out consistent with the constraints of law, basically saying, ma'am,
you're addressing a question that is not before the court, right,
(18:58):
that's it.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Yeah, it's very like my cousin Vinnie being told how
the process works exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Oh my gosh, I love that.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
No, this is the second Justice who, in writing has
taken aim at Katanji Brown Jackson in a I would say,
like more harsh than you're used to seeing, or more
specific than you're used to seeing. Way where it was
the was the first one, and al so to my
r agreeing with her but saying like, hey, we're not
deciding that. I don't know what you thought we were
(19:34):
arguing about, and then I saw some quotes from Katanji
Brown Jackson talking about how she writes her opinions and saying,
you know, it's just my chance to express my feelings
on matters.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And I'm like, do you misunderstand.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
The word opinion in a jurisprudence situation because it ain't
just like your opinion.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Yeah, it really is a little worrisome that she seems
underqualified for this role. And I think a lot of
people were pointing this out even before she was picked.
But it's not right that, you know, we're having this
conversation at all, that that perhaps a Supreme Court justice
(20:18):
who was there did not really qualify to be there.
And it's unfortunate that Sony Soda Mayor is left to
give a mini SmackDown on the record.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Well, and I would say, look, there can sometimes be
great courage and standing up by yourself against the whole,
you know, on principle. However, if you find yourself on
the other side of eight to one pretty frequently at
the Supreme Court, it's not like a resistance win, Like,
in all likelihood you got it wrong, that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
But everybody's like.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Cheering for her, like, oh, my gosh, she is just
killing it with these.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Sense yourmone here, she.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Is killing it with these descents. Now, I think, just quickly,
just a little Scotus game theory, which is that, so
if you have three liberal leaning justices and then you
have the six Roberts, you could get to join the Libs, right,
so I could choose four and maybe in some you
could peel off a Kavanaugh or a Barrett or one
(21:25):
of the others occasionally, but that would require like staying
sane among the three liberals so that you could bring
people over to that wing for occasional decisions.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
And it's not like that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Happen at all, But it does seem to me that
KBJ is not exactly strategic with the way she's approaching this,
and she a'm winning any of those swing votes.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
That's right, that's a really good point. I don't know
that there's going to be a movement of which she's
the head of that.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, like Kagan could be the head of that. But
if you're partnered with Katanji Brown Jackson really hard to
bring people over exactly. We're going to take a break
on normally, but we will be right.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Back with good news. From the TSA, Welcome.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Back to normally. This for our last segment is actually
my favorite story right now. I had a real big
problem with the TSA. I think that, you know, a
lot of the security theater that we do is really pointless.
I've written about it a number of times over the years.
And this new move that is the TSA is no
(22:37):
longer going to force us to take off our shoes
is so welcome. And I say that, Hello Lujah, who
has paid the money to have TSA pre check And
I don't take off my shoes anymore, But I don't
think you need to be paying one hundred dollars a
year in order to have that privilege. And I'm really
glad that they're bringing back a little slice of sanity
(22:59):
into our airport.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
So this has been what twenty three years We've been
doing this because Richard Reid tried to bomb something with
a with a shoe bomb.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
As with many parts of security theater, it's not really
helping anyone, and it's making a bunch of people inconvenienced.
I saw a funny tweet where someone said congratulations to
the guy who is probably on aggregate annoyed and inconvenienced
more people than any man in history.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Richard Reid.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
He actually he actually ended up succeeding and terrorizing us
for twenty three years by having to take our shoes off.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
The lesson from this is that there are so many
things the government could just stop doing right right. They
just did it on like a random day. They said
we're not doing that anymore. And by the way, I
was flying on that day and I got scolded by
a TSA agents and told to put my shoes back on.
I do not pay for pre because I was stubbornly like,
(23:54):
I don't need to pay extra money to be treated
like a human being, which is dumb because it wastesle
of my time.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
And you know, I take my shoes off.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
But I took my shoes off, and she's like, you
put shoes back on, And I was like, I thought
I was just getting regular TSA gas lit. But it
turns out nope, the policy had changed. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
I thought she was messing with me.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
And then later that day I saw the announcement, so
that was exciting. I also would like to note that
this is how the White House tweeted about it. Put
your dogs away, Trump and men ended the TSA shoes
off policy, feet covered, air quality restored, and I said,
(24:40):
I said, Carol, you know in two thousand and two,
if someone had told me that they would that the
US government and an official capacity would announce the recision
of this policy or the rescinding of this policy with
basically your feet stank, I would have been like, highly skeptical,
but thankful that we had come to this place.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yeah, you know it. It really drives me crazy because
I don't like things that make no sense, and this
has just never made sense to me. And I hope
they follow this up with more TSA sanity. I've written
about it again, Like I said, TSA many times. In
twenty nineteen, I pointed out that, for example, the shoe bomb,
(25:25):
the attempted shoebomber Richard Reid, he tried to use matches
to set his shoe on fire. Matches are allowed on planes,
lighters are not, which makes of course no sense. And
then of course when you're carrying liquids, they're very worried
that the liquids might be a bomb. So they take
those liquids and they toss it into a garbage.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Right right next to everybody, right next to.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Where everybody is walking in and if that exploded, it
would do just as much damage as I would on
an airplane. None of it makes sense. It is insane
that we keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
You know.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
One of the things that the reason that nine to
eleven was successful was the element of surprise. If we
could stay on guard despite dropping these you know, shoe
restrictions and other restrictions, that would be the ideal that
we shouldn't live in a nine to eleven world forever,
but we also shouldn't forget that we should stay alert,
(26:22):
and that's really the main thing.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
Well, and like Israel's good at doing this obviously because
they are under frequent threat, but they do things that
are sort of like actually studied and effective, as opposed
to whenever they study TSA methods they come up with like,
oh yeah, they let all of our test subjects through, right,
So it's not whatever they're doing is not working for
staying alert.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
The new one that I.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Hate is the one where they take the picture of
you and you don't have to do that.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
No, no, here's I know.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
But here's what's so insane about it, Yeah, is that
they're taking a picture of you and then they're saying
they're going to dispose of that picture, right, and then
they look at the picture of you, and they look
at your license, and I'm just like, you know, what
could accomplish this? Looking at me? I'm right here, I'm standing,
i am standing two feet from you.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
Just take my license, look at me, hand the license back.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
Nate. Nate Bragatzi had this line where, you know, he
always liked that they included the picture on the license. Yes,
for reasons such as this, Yes.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
The convenient for you. Yeah, anyway, maybe we'll get rid
of that one at some point too. But some giant
you know, Donor probably has a contract that allows them
to do the cameras at the airport, so we can't get.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Rid of Sure that's the case. Actually, yeah, yeah, back
to sanity. That's really what we're looking for at a
show called normally Indeed, and thanks for joining us on
Normally Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you could subscribe
anywhere you get your podcasts. Get in touch with us
at normallythepot at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening, and
(28:01):
when things get weird, act Normally
Hey, it's weird back on normally the show with normalist
takes or when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I am Mary Yasin.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Him, and I am Carol Marco. It's back with a
slightly raspy voice today. But I like to say it
sounds like I only smoke a few cigarettes to day
instead of a few packs.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
It's good. I think it's like it's Kathleen Turner esque exactly.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
That's what we're going here.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
I like it. Oh.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I did want to tell at the beginning of the
show that I did see Robert ro'keane in Colorado last night,
who was a Kerrville, Texas.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
That's his hometown. He sent his kids when they were
children to Camp Mystic.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
So it was a heavier concert than Kelly and I
had anticipated, but in the style of what you might
expect of a cowboy poet. He was very stoic and
the event raised money for folks in Texas.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
He did the job well.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Was a beautiful concert, beautiful music, and I sort of
admired the stoicism of it.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
You could tell he was he had shades on the
whole time.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
I think he's had. It's a tough time for everybody
and for people who are even closer to it. Just
unimaginable stuff. So I appreciated his hard work.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
I have to note I loved your episode with Kelly.
I really enjoyed it. You know, my little dirty secret
is I don't I don't really listen to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, welcome to ours.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
So the fact that I really liked it made me think, like, wow,
should I be listening to more podcasting?
Speaker 2 (01:28):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
I also downloaded some Robert Earl Keane music. Excellent. I
really didn't know it before I started with The Road
Goes On Forever and got into a bunch of other stuff.
It was great.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
That's a good choice to start with.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
So we'll kick off with what I think is one
of the most undernoticed, underreported stories in the country, and
that is that people are trying to kill ICE agents.
ICE facility in Texas was targeted by an Antifa group.
They were there to kill allegedly ICE agents Andy No reports.
(02:07):
These are the ten alleged members of a North Texas
Antifa terror cell accused of carrying out the attempted murder
of federal officers at a shooting terrorist attack on an
ICE facility on the fourth of July and Alvarado, Texas.
One local police officer was shot in the neck and survived.
The group was armed with multiple rifles, pistols, body armor,
(02:30):
escape vehicles, radios, and other devices, indicating a planned conspiracy.
These people have been charged federally with attempted murder, and
they also faced local charges in Johnston County, Texas Johnston County.
A few days later, a different police officer was shot
in McCallan, Texas by an active shooter attempting to ambush
(02:52):
Border Patrol agents. Also been vandalism aimed at ICE agents.
Four people were arrested in Los angele Lists using homemade
nail devices to damage a Border Patrol vehicle. It's really bad. Meanwhile,
Araldo Rivera and others are tweeting cops don't need to
(03:12):
wear masks. They deal with the most dangerous elements of society.
Why do ICE agents wear masks? What are they hiding?
They're hiding from crazy people, is what they're hiding.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Well, and it's always everyone else.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
The mask discourse is always so frustrating because you know,
I was alive in twenty twenty, so that part just
blows my mind. But also, just like every Columbia student
who wants to throw something at a cop is welcome
to wear thirteen masks on their face and never tell
us who they are. I get people's concerns, but I
(03:49):
do not think these people are sincere.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
They change their.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Minds based on who has a mask on at any
given moment for whatever reason exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
And I think that the idea for them is that
they want to make TSA agents afraid. They want them
to not want to take the job, and they want
it to be harder for these people to do their jobs.
Senator Alex Padilla has introduced a bill to ban ICE
agents from wearing masks, So yeah, well yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Can I also note that Axios reported that a bunch
of Democrats are hearing messages from their constituents that are
just like upping the antient over and over and over again,
to the point of telling Democrats that they need to
elected officials need to go to ICE facilities and endure
(04:42):
being shot in order to overcome the fascism. They want blood,
and if it's going to be Democrats blood, that's also
fine with them, because that's what is necessary to fight
this great evil.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
I mean, I want to really is not putting words
in their mouths is our own base is telling us
that what we're doing is not good enough, that there
needs to be blood to grab the attention of the
press and the public. A Democratic lawmaker told Axios.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yeah, and this is the same thing as always, Carol,
which is, since the beginning of the Trump era, the
rationale for the left has been it doesn't matter if
we violate all the norms, because we are living in
extraordinary times and we are fighting a force that is
violating all the norms.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Right, So that's.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
The justification for anything. You can justify anything to yourself
at that point. And to have your constituents telling you
that blood needs to be spilled while these actual active
shootings are going on just seems like things are getting
off the rails here, guys.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
Yeah. Another quote from the Axiole story, a Fourth House
Democrat said, constituents have told them quote civility isn't working
end quote, and to prepare for quote violence, to fight
to protect our democracy end quote. It's scary. It's scary
that this is so out in the open. I just
I imagine the outrage if it were the right saying
(06:19):
we need blood. We need blood in order to be pushed.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I want to screenshot that Brian Stelter tweet where he's like,
it's only coming.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
From one side.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Oh yeah, just put it all over every single one
of these stories. Right, But this is what the media does,
and it really is. It's just misinformation and disinformation. Is
they sort of alchemize lefty violence into righty violence, or
they ignore it entirely. And if you ignore it entirely,
it's easy to look around and go like, oh, I
(06:51):
guess only the right does this. No, that's because you
disappeared all the other ones.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Right, You can't. You don't have a full data set, guys.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Exactly. Meanwhile, is this issue popular with voters from the
Democratic side or from the Republican side? Let's find out
from you know, not a right wing source. Let's go
to CNN and see what they're saying over there.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
All immigrants who are here illegally fifty five percent of
New York Times Marquette sixty four percent, CBS News fifty
per ABC News with a slightly different question fifty six percent.
So what you're seeing essentially here is very clear indication
that a majority of Americans in fact, when they're asked
us one question, which I believe gets that the underlying
feelings do in fact want to port all immigrants who
(07:41):
are here illegally. There's no arguing with these different numbers
because they're all essentially the same across four different posters.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
I love these segments, by the way, and I just
have to say.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
It against accents where perfect where Harry.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Enton's up there again just telling CNN and stuff it
doesn't want to hear, and poor Kate has to stand
by the board and go, hum, interesting, you're telling me
that all of my suppositions are incorrect. This is uncomfortable
for everyone every time.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
So good, but it really goes to show that they
are missing what the majority of the country wants. These
are crazy numbers. I have to say that I wouldn't
have guessed the numbers are these this high.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Because that's a deport all illegal immigrants number, that is
not a criminal immigrants number. All.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
I would say just a few years ago, they I mean,
these numbers would have been half maybe, and even now
it's surprising. In the sixties, over sixty percent of Americans
and some polls want to deport all illegal immigrants. That's startling,
and it really goes to show how bad things got
in the Biden administration, and I just think they're on
(08:51):
the wrong side of this.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Yeah, just a what a what a giant miscalculation by
the Biden administration that you know, uncon trolled four years
of millions of people coming across the borders. How to
make everybody feel like this is awesome? Nope, opposite direction.
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Yep. Meanwhile, Alligator Alcatraz has opened in my beloved Florida.
It is just a place to hold people who are
being deported. And there's a story in the Miami Herald
that attempts to make this place sound horrific. Toilets that
didn't flush, temperatures that went from freezing to sweltering. Now
(09:31):
it's July and Florida, I'll buy sweltering.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Freezing freezing, can you get Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Are we talking an air conditioner blowing on somebody? Like
what what are you saying? A hospitalization that turned out
not to be true. And you know, it's again crazy
that the media and the Democrats have decided that their
key constituency that they are going to spend the most
(09:57):
amount of time catering to our people who are in
the country illegally, especially with the poll numbers that we
just read. It makes no sense.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
It makes no sense.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I want to quote sunny Right at Sunny Right, one
of my favorite follows who says, who sniffs out the
game here? No, you can't send them home, their homes
are too risky. No, you can't deport them to a
third party country they have no connections there. No, you
can't keep them detained here. That's like Auschwitz. The game
being played is that nothing short of amnesty is acceptable, exactly.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
And the thing is that they won't say so, or
some of them will. Chuck Schumer actually a few years
ago literally admitted he wanted to just legalize everybody that
was in the country. But the fact is, if Democrats
really said what they wanted, they would not get elected
in many many places. Maybe Chuck Schumer would continue to
win in New York, but in most states it would
(10:47):
be a death sentence for their party. And that Americans
can't hear what they support, but also that they won't
listen to what Americans want them to do.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
It's really unfair to the extent that they're struggling, and
they are struggling quite a lot right now. It's because
Commo is a perfect example. Americans read all over them
what they actually wanted to do. But they just play
this game, and no one's buying the game anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Right, There's also the question of if you came into
the country illegally, what are you entitled to? And Emma
Joe Morris, who are another follow that I like a lot.
She pointed out that when they were staying at various
hotels across New York City, there were always these protests
every time the city would try to move them because
the accommodations weren't going to be as nice. And she
(11:38):
said that she spoke to some of the people when
she was reporting on this for bright Bart at the time,
and she writes, there's this bizarre sense which would maybe
curb the illegal immigration problem in a somewhat significant way
if it stopped that if someone merely enters America, they're
entitled to a measure of luxury. No, you're not, You're
just not. So here we are and I don't know.
(12:01):
I again think the Democrats are making a big error here.
I hope Republicans can capitalize on it. It hasn't been
a strength of the Republican Party other than Donald Trump
to point to stuff like this and get on the
right side, the popular side of what Americans believe. I
hope Republicans run on this issue in the midterms. You know,
(12:24):
I really think this is a unifying thing that people want.
They want security for the country.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Yep, it's not that complicated.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
It really really isn't. All Right, we're going to take
a short break and we're going to be right back
with her Meat suing California and an eight to one
Scotis decision.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Alrighty our girl Harmeat. Dylan over at DOJ is conducting
the fo part of the equation for California. California has
been openly flout the rules that transgender athletes boys should
not be competing in women's sports. You'll remember Carol that
(13:08):
in his Moderate Sane person tour that Gavin Newsom tried
to do on his podcast, he said it was deeply
unfair for boys to be competing with girls, and everybody
knew that, but nonetheless, in California's Big Track championships, they
had Aby Hernandez, a boy, winning three of the categories,
and they did all this like changing the categories to
(13:28):
try to try to allow the same number of girls
to win anyway, and had him sharing the podium with girls.
It's also ridiculous, and they have just said, no, we're
not going to follow your laws, and so harmite. Dylan
is like, okay. She sent a letter to California public
school districts and their state you know, board of whatever
(13:50):
their athletics is. She called it unconstitutional to allow transgender
athletes to compete. She alleged that knowingly depriving female students
of athletic opportunities and benefit on the basis of their
sex would constitute unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Equal Protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dylan ordered the CIF which
is that organization, to inform the Justice Department by jun
(14:12):
night that it will no longer implement its bylaws on this.
Linda McMahon also said in a July seventh post on
ex that California had rejected the Trump administration demand. They've
been trying to negotiate this and California's just like, nah,
So now we're going to court, so there will be
a civil lawsuit. Newsom this is he's so slimy.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
Carroll's in South Carolina at the right.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
I know he's campaigning in South Carolina and on this subject,
which he's conceded it is unfair, but he's not going
to use any of his power as governor to fix
this issue or comply with the law. Newsom noted in
a statement that he is not named in the lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
And the California Department of Education and.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
The CIF which is their athletic organization, are both independent
from his administration. What a slick hairsp blinding coward like, really,
he continued that both are quote, following existing state law.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Shut up and do the right thing.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
Absolutely, And you know, there's also this whole thing that
the left just had these protests No King's Day, but which,
by the way, I tried to like joke with real
people in real life on July fourth and say like,
happy real No King Day. What I was talking about.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
This is, by the way, one of the things about
the pace of a Trump administration is that something like
no King's Day will seem like a really big story
for about thirteen hours, and then by the time you
get to real No King's Day, everybody's forgotten that it
ever happened.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Yeah, well, I mean I would just say that the
people I spoke to didn't even know that the protests
were called no King day. So that didn't go out great.
But no, you have where states are saying we're not
going to follow the law, and that's somehow not monarchy.
That's not a you know, anti democracy, but Trump Trump
is king.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Yeah, I love this idea too, where the blue cities
are like, oh, how dare he come in here and
enforce the law in LA? He should partner with us.
But what they're also announcing all the time, as loudly
and as hostily as possible is you, we would never
partner with you.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
You're disgusting.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
We are absolutely not a partner in enforcing any of this,
and in fact, we would like you to know how
little we're going to be enforcing all the time.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
It's like, yeah, no, you're not a partner, you've told us. Yeah,
bet you're not.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yeah. And it's funny how they suddenly want, you know, rights,
states to have rights when there's a Republican president. It's
always amazing how that works.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Well, I mean, look, my new converts to federalism. I
welcome you to read up on it.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
To maintain that enthusiasm. A Democrat every wins.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Again, yes, exactly. In another blow to the to the
whole King narrative. It turns out that the executive branch
can in fact instruct agencies within the government to form
a plan to reduce the number of people who work
for them. That's that's the crazy thing that Trump was
(17:15):
accused of doing, and the public employee unions took him
to court over it. The district court said, yeah, y'all
have to stop. You can't do a reduction in force.
That's crazy town. And the President was like, I'm pretty
I really feel like I can. So it went to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court eight to one,
(17:35):
with only Katanji Brown Jackson dissenting eight to one, said
get rid of the injunctions and the restraining orders. They
can continue to work on this because this is in
fact the job of the government, and it seems like
it's unlikely to be unconstitutional, right, I mean.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
If the president can people, what can you do? What
else is there?
Speaker 1 (17:59):
No, it's it's wild. And then the idea that so
my or even Kagan will sometimes be, you know, with
the writer leaning judges, sodomy Or rarely is, but you're
right in her writing, h sodomy Or calls her out
(18:19):
a little bit, says I agree with Justice Jackson that
the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent
with congressional man mandates. Here, however, the relevant executive order
directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force quote consistent.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
With applicable law.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
She then notes to Katanji Brown Jackson a real basic
of how courts work, which is the plans themselves are
not before this court at this stage, and we thus
have no occasion to consider whether they can and will
be carried out consistent with the constraints of law, basically saying, ma'am,
you're addressing a question that is not before the court, right,
(18:58):
that's it.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Yeah, it's very like my cousin Vinnie being told how
the process works exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Oh my gosh, I love that.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
No, this is the second Justice who, in writing has
taken aim at Katanji Brown Jackson in a I would say,
like more harsh than you're used to seeing, or more
specific than you're used to seeing. Way where it was
the was the first one, and al so to my
r agreeing with her but saying like, hey, we're not
deciding that. I don't know what you thought we were
(19:34):
arguing about, and then I saw some quotes from Katanji
Brown Jackson talking about how she writes her opinions and saying,
you know, it's just my chance to express my feelings
on matters.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And I'm like, do you misunderstand.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
The word opinion in a jurisprudence situation because it ain't
just like your opinion.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Yeah, it really is a little worrisome that she seems
underqualified for this role. And I think a lot of
people were pointing this out even before she was picked.
But it's not right that, you know, we're having this
conversation at all, that that perhaps a Supreme Court justice
(20:18):
who was there did not really qualify to be there.
And it's unfortunate that Sony Soda Mayor is left to
give a mini SmackDown on the record.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Well, and I would say, look, there can sometimes be
great courage and standing up by yourself against the whole,
you know, on principle. However, if you find yourself on
the other side of eight to one pretty frequently at
the Supreme Court, it's not like a resistance win, Like,
in all likelihood you got it wrong, that's what happened.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
But everybody's like.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Cheering for her, like, oh, my gosh, she is just
killing it with these.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Sense yourmone here, she.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Is killing it with these descents. Now, I think, just quickly,
just a little Scotus game theory, which is that, so
if you have three liberal leaning justices and then you
have the six Roberts, you could get to join the Libs, right,
so I could choose four and maybe in some you
could peel off a Kavanaugh or a Barrett or one
(21:25):
of the others occasionally, but that would require like staying
sane among the three liberals so that you could bring
people over to that wing for occasional decisions.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
And it's not like that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Happen at all, But it does seem to me that
KBJ is not exactly strategic with the way she's approaching this,
and she a'm winning any of those swing votes.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
That's right, that's a really good point. I don't know
that there's going to be a movement of which she's
the head of that.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, like Kagan could be the head of that. But
if you're partnered with Katanji Brown Jackson really hard to
bring people over exactly. We're going to take a break
on normally, but we will be right.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Back with good news. From the TSA, Welcome.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Back to normally. This for our last segment is actually
my favorite story right now. I had a real big
problem with the TSA. I think that, you know, a
lot of the security theater that we do is really pointless.
I've written about it a number of times over the years.
And this new move that is the TSA is no
(22:37):
longer going to force us to take off our shoes
is so welcome. And I say that, Hello Lujah, who
has paid the money to have TSA pre check And
I don't take off my shoes anymore, But I don't
think you need to be paying one hundred dollars a
year in order to have that privilege. And I'm really
glad that they're bringing back a little slice of sanity
(22:59):
into our airport.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
So this has been what twenty three years We've been
doing this because Richard Reid tried to bomb something with
a with a shoe bomb.
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
As with many parts of security theater, it's not really
helping anyone, and it's making a bunch of people inconvenienced.
I saw a funny tweet where someone said congratulations to
the guy who is probably on aggregate annoyed and inconvenienced
more people than any man in history.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Richard Reid.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
He actually he actually ended up succeeding and terrorizing us
for twenty three years by having to take our shoes off.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
The lesson from this is that there are so many
things the government could just stop doing right right. They
just did it on like a random day. They said
we're not doing that anymore. And by the way, I
was flying on that day and I got scolded by
a TSA agents and told to put my shoes back on.
I do not pay for pre because I was stubbornly like,
(23:54):
I don't need to pay extra money to be treated
like a human being, which is dumb because it wastesle
of my time.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
And you know, I take my shoes off.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
But I took my shoes off, and she's like, you
put shoes back on, And I was like, I thought
I was just getting regular TSA gas lit. But it
turns out nope, the policy had changed. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
I thought she was messing with me.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
And then later that day I saw the announcement, so
that was exciting. I also would like to note that
this is how the White House tweeted about it. Put
your dogs away, Trump and men ended the TSA shoes
off policy, feet covered, air quality restored, and I said,
(24:40):
I said, Carol, you know in two thousand and two,
if someone had told me that they would that the
US government and an official capacity would announce the recision
of this policy or the rescinding of this policy with
basically your feet stank, I would have been like, highly skeptical,
but thankful that we had come to this place.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
Yeah, you know it. It really drives me crazy because
I don't like things that make no sense, and this
has just never made sense to me. And I hope
they follow this up with more TSA sanity. I've written
about it again, Like I said, TSA many times. In
twenty nineteen, I pointed out that, for example, the shoe bomb,
(25:25):
the attempted shoebomber Richard Reid, he tried to use matches
to set his shoe on fire. Matches are allowed on planes,
lighters are not, which makes of course no sense. And
then of course when you're carrying liquids, they're very worried
that the liquids might be a bomb. So they take
those liquids and they toss it into a garbage.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Right right next to everybody, right next to.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Where everybody is walking in and if that exploded, it
would do just as much damage as I would on
an airplane. None of it makes sense. It is insane
that we keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
You know.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
One of the things that the reason that nine to
eleven was successful was the element of surprise. If we
could stay on guard despite dropping these you know, shoe
restrictions and other restrictions, that would be the ideal that
we shouldn't live in a nine to eleven world forever,
but we also shouldn't forget that we should stay alert,
(26:22):
and that's really the main thing.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
Well, and like Israel's good at doing this obviously because
they are under frequent threat, but they do things that
are sort of like actually studied and effective, as opposed
to whenever they study TSA methods they come up with like,
oh yeah, they let all of our test subjects through, right,
So it's not whatever they're doing is not working for
staying alert.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
The new one that I.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
Hate is the one where they take the picture of
you and you don't have to do that.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
No, no, here's I know.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
But here's what's so insane about it, Yeah, is that
they're taking a picture of you and then they're saying
they're going to dispose of that picture, right, and then
they look at the picture of you, and they look
at your license, and I'm just like, you know, what
could accomplish this? Looking at me? I'm right here, I'm standing,
i am standing two feet from you.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
Just take my license, look at me, hand the license back.
Speaker 3 (27:18):
Nate. Nate Bragatzi had this line where, you know, he
always liked that they included the picture on the license. Yes,
for reasons such as this, Yes.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
The convenient for you. Yeah, anyway, maybe we'll get rid
of that one at some point too. But some giant
you know, Donor probably has a contract that allows them
to do the cameras at the airport, so we can't get.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Rid of Sure that's the case. Actually, yeah, yeah, back
to sanity. That's really what we're looking for at a
show called normally Indeed, and thanks for joining us on
Normally Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you could subscribe
anywhere you get your podcasts. Get in touch with us
at normallythepot at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening, and
(28:01):
when things get weird, act Normally
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.