October 9, 2025 • 44 mins
On this week’s episode of ‘The Kylee Cast,’ Federalist Managing Editor Kylee Griswold and Staff Writer Brianna Lyman break down Virginia Democrat attorney general candidate Jay Jones’ murderous fantasies. Plus, a Biden-appointed judge gives a slap on the wrist to the would-be Supreme Court assassin — all because he suddenly decided he was trans. And Kylee gives her hot takes on Taylor Swift’s new album.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Hi everybody, and welcome to the Kylie Cast. I'm Kylie Griswold,
Managing editor at The Federalist. Please like and subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts, and if you're just listening to
the show, be sure to check out the full video
version on my personal YouTube channel or the Federalists channel
on Rumble, and then of course like and subscribe there too.
If you'd like to email the show, you can do
(00:34):
so at radio Atthfederalist dot com. I would love to
hear from you. Well, another week has passed, but the
Democrat violence news cycle continues a pace because week after week,
Democrats just keep giving us more examples of violence, terrorism,
and then this week murderous fantasies. It feels like much
longer because we've been through so much in the past month.
(00:55):
But it's only been a little over a month since
a transgender identifying gunman attacked a Catholic school full of children,
killing two kids and injuring thirty other people, just a
tragic and targeted act of violence. Then just two weeks
after that, a radical leftist assassinated Christian conservative influencer Charlie
Kirk in front of a campus full of students and
(01:16):
the rest of the watching world, which then kicked off
weeks worth of many so called normy Democrats celebrating Charlie's death,
desecrating monuments in his memory, and then members of the
media and of Congress trying to justify that assassination. Then
just two weeks after that, another gunman opened fire on
(01:37):
an ICE facility, killing two detainees and injuring another. And
even though Democrats pretended, hmmm, we can't discern a motive here,
the shooter's bullets were inscribed with anti ICE messages and
that was the natural and dare I say intended result
of the non stop rhetoric from Democrats and the media.
But I repeat myself, demonizing Ice with extreme labels like Gestapo,
(02:01):
which is of course the Nazi secret police. And remember
that as all of this is happening, left wing think
tanks are turning out a bogus study after bogus study
showing that no, actually, it's Republicans causing more political violence,
even as they leave out some of the worst Democrat
attacks and then classify random acts of clearly non political
(02:22):
violence as right wing, completely dishonest. Well, then on Friday,
a little over two weeks after the Ice shooting, we
learned about the murderous fantasies of Jay Jones, the Democrat
candidate running for Attorney General of Virginia. And these texts
are truly something to behold, especially for the guy running
(02:44):
to be the chief law enforcer, the top cop of
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Here to discuss this crazy story
with me is my colleague Brianna Lyman, a staff writer
at The Federalist.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
It's so great to see you. Thanks so much for
joining today. I think before we start, we should set
this stage a little bit for people who maybe haven't
seen the texts. They were reported by National Review on Friday.
These texts happened. They were sent in twenty twenty two,
right after a long time moderate Democrat politician in Virginia,
(03:18):
Joe Johnson, had died. He died at age ninety, and
then in response to his death, you had some Republicans,
including Todd Gilbert, who was at the time the House
Speaker in Virginia. They started saying some nice things, both
publicly and privately, about the deceased Joe Johnson, and so
enter Jay Jones, who had formerly served in the House,
(03:40):
but at this point he was he had resigned, and
he starts firing off some texts revealing his thoughts on
the republicans kind response to Johnson's death. He apparently realizes
that he sent these texts to Republican lawmaker Carrie Coinner
instead of who he actually meant to send them to.
But then instead of shutting the conversation down, he doubles down.
(04:02):
And here is how those texts went. He starts, if
those guys die before me, I will go to their
funerals to piss on their grapes, send them out a
wash in something, and Carry Corner, goes Jay Jones. J
Jones says, three people, two bullets, Gilbert Hitler and Paul
(04:22):
pop Gilbert gets two bullets to the head. So, in
other words, he's saying, if you had two bullets in
the gun, and you had two dictators and this Republican,
I would put both of the bullets in. The Republican
he says, he receives both bullets every time, and Carry
Coyner pleads with him, Jay, please stop. He goes, Lol, okay,
So then he doubles down even more. Carry Coyner says,
(04:45):
you weren't simply asking questions and you know it, He says,
I genuinely was. I wasn't attacking you. I was trying
to understand your logic. She says, you weren't trying to understand.
You were talking about hoping Jennifer Gilbert's children would die.
This is Todd Gilbert's wife and his children. And he says, yes,
I've told you this before. Only when people feel pain
personally do they move on policy. But he's still not done.
(05:10):
He says, I mean, do I think Todd and Jennifer
are evil and that they are breeding little fascists?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Absolutely insane things from Jay Jones here. So these texts
come out. Of course, Republicans are calling for him to
drop out of the race, and the firestorm starts, and
so Jay Jones issues some statements. Here is his first statement.
I've sent text messages that I regret, like all people,
(05:39):
he says, and I believe that violent rhetoric has no
place in our politics. But then he goes, let's be
clear about what is happening in the AG race right now.
Jason miars his opponent is dropping smears through Trump controlled
media organizations to assault my character YadA, YadA, YadA. On
he goes and he talks about how Jason Mires will
continue to be accountable to Donald Trump, not the people
of Virginia. This race is about whether Trump can control
(06:00):
Virginia or Virginians control Virginia. Not exactly an apologetic statement.
He pushes the blame and basically calls it oppo research
against him, but also doesn't deny the texts. And then
this was his ultimate statement that he issued. He says,
I take full responsibility for my actions, and I want
to issue my deepest apology to Speaker Gilbert and his family.
(06:21):
He says he's so embarrassed and ashamed and sick to
his stomach, YadA, YadA, YadA, all the performative things. And
then he says, Virginians deserve honest leaders who admit when
they are wrong and own up to their mistakes. Brianna,
I'm pretty sure Virginians don't deserve honest leaders who own
up when they're wrong. I'm pretty sure they deserve leaders
who don't wish that half of the voters were dead.
(06:44):
Your thoughts on this whole saga and specifically the statements
as well.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, Kinie, there's so much I want to start back
with the text messages you showed now, one message he
said to Carrie Coiner, like, yes, I've told you this before.
Now new reports have come out. What he was referring
to when he says people only change when they feel
pain is he allegedly, in a separate conversation said that
if we kill more police officers, they won't shoot as
(07:08):
many people as if police officers are indiscriminately shooting against people.
So this is a man who not only has these
fantasies about murdering Republicans, he also views law enforcement as
just this murderous, you know, entire group. As for his apologies,
it is egregious that he says, like all people, I
am a Republican, I'm a conservative. I should rephrase that,
(07:28):
I have never once considered or even fantasized or thought
about anyone on the political spectrum being murdered, because it's abhorrent.
So no, not like all people, because all people don't
actually do that. Only psychopaths do that. So you could
have like all psychopaths, I do that. And then I
think what's most concerning is that it's not just him
who's staying in the race, but it's his party that
is allowing him to stay in this race. If you
(07:50):
go back to twenty nineteen, when Governor Ralph Northam, you know,
he had that decades old yearbook photo surface of him
in a bad Halloween costume, blackface, he was called to
step down by Demo. They were tripping over themselves, demanding
he was unfit to serve. Meanwhile, one of their own
is actually fantasizing about murdering Republicans and their children and
calling them fascists. And they're either completely stilent or they're like, yeah,
(08:12):
who among us hasn't called for Republicans murdered? That speaks
volumes about where the party is at, and I think
it does lead credence to the claims from conservatives who say,
how should we share a country and unify with a
country that, behind closed doors wants to murder us?
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Yes, that's exactly right, and you brought it up. So
let's keep going on the train of Jay Jones's other
disqualifying behavior.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
So you mentioned the police officer.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Thing, the other conversation that he had with Kerry Coiner,
which is as appalling as his text about Todd Gilbert.
To be honest with you, he's basically saying the same
things about police officers that he was saying about Republicans,
which is just that well, if more of them just
need to die and then we will get the policies
that we prefer as Democrats. Just a crazy, crazy, psychotic
(08:59):
way to think. And yet, like you said, something that
most people don't do, this is not actually normal. The
who among us phraseology is disgusting and a little concerning
that they actually think people feel this way. But those
are not the only examples. You also have his reckless driving.
I would love to hear your explanation of that, and
his calling for a police lieutenant to be fired. Brianna,
(09:22):
can you explain some of these other disqualifying behaviors from
J Jones?
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Yeah, So for J Jones, a police officer who donated
to Kyle Brittenhous this legal fund, I believe it was
a twenty five dollars donation, that was enough for J.
Jones five years ago now to say that he should
be removed from his position as a police officer because
that was disqualifying. So again, donating to the legal defense
of someone who acted in self defense was disqualifying. Calling
(09:47):
to murder Republicans is actually not disqualifying because we all
think about it, right, Apparently to Jay Jones. As for
his reckless driving, I believe he was going like forty
miles over the speed limit. And what's more ridiculous is
that not only was he going completely over the speed limit, which,
as someone who's supposed to kind of be the standard
that everyone else should follow, not a good standard to set.
He was supposed to do special community service, he did
(10:08):
it for his own pack, according to Restoration News, which
is not allowed, so he didn't even complete the time served.
Then Liz MacDonald from Fox Business, she reported that he
has never actually tried a case. So here we have
a candidate who has never tried a case, fantasizes about
murder Republicans, does not know how to follow the law,
doesn't just speed, he speeds to speeds that could kill
(10:30):
someone on the spot. He thought that someone should be
fired for donating to the legal fund for Kyle Brittenhouse,
but that he shouldn't sit down for calling for people
to be murdered. And last, but not least, this is
a man who was being bolstered by the Democratic Party
and is now trying to make this a Donald Trump
is picking on me story. That's where the Democratic Party is.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Right, right, So the Donald Trump is picking on me story.
That is how the media are covering it. And so
what we've seen is either media making it a story,
worry about Republicans pounce, which Brianna, is something that you
specifically wrote about. I want to hear about your story
on that, and or they're just doing a complete blackout.
They're pretending that it didn't happen, or referring to the
(11:12):
text just by quoting Jones instead of actually like, for instance,
Political ran a piece and they called the text abhorrent,
the abhorrent texts in the headline, but they put abhorrent
in quotes because in his apology j Jones referred to
the text as abhorrent. But it's like the texts are
objectively abhorrent, Like you don't need to quote j Jones
to say this that the way that they are phrasing
(11:33):
things and what they're choosing to cover and not cover
is just exactly what we would expect from the media.
But the ap story, Brianna, can you tell us about
what you wrote about that?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Yeah, so they associated press I'm reading it here. Steve
Peoples and Olivia Diaz. They want people to know that
the real story isn't that J Jones is calling from
Republicans to be murdered, It's that Republicans notice the story.
So they write, Republicans are seizing on recent unearthed violent
rhetoric from J Jones to tarnish the Democratic Party nationally
(12:05):
less than a month before election day. So you see there,
their primary concern is how is this egregious story going
to impact election day?
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Because the Associated Press are just propagandists for the Democratic Party,
they know that this could actually impact Democrats' chances at Virginia,
which as of last week were pretty damn good. But
any sane voter who hears these text messages, I think
will have a hard time not only voting for J Jones,
but for voting for Abigail Spanberger, who was defending and
standing by J Jones. So what the Associated Press wants
(12:35):
you to know is that it's pretty bad that Donald
Trump is escalating his campaign to cast his political opponents
as violent extremists. You see, Donald Trump is casting them
as violent extremists, as if J Jones himself did not
make himself a violent extremist. So the narrative that the
media constantly takes in these scenarios is deflect, blame it
on Trump, and that is why they have to be
(12:57):
referred to as the propaganda press.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Right, and the AP was not the only one. Let's
see here, Well, two days ago I looked.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
On the New York Times.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
I forgot to check this morning, but as of two
days ago, if you search for Jay Jones on the
New York Times, there were zero search results from the
past month. This is a story that broke on Friday.
They had Friday and all weekend and Monday to cover
this story, and there was nothing from the New York Times.
From the Washington Posts, they referred in their headline to
(13:28):
this giant scandal as quote twenty twenty two texts depicting
political violence, Brianna. Something depicting political violence could literally be anything.
We are talking about a candidate running for public office
who is publicly fantasizing about murdering his opponents, But the
Washington Post refers to it as just depicting political violence.
(13:48):
This is so classic. To make it the least salacious,
least clickable headline, give you the least amount of information
they could possibly give so you have to click in
to find out what happened, and or not even find
out what happened, like if you're The New York Times
and not even covering it. And I think another thing
that's really important to remember here is this would be
disqualifying for any lawmaker, Like this would be disqualifying if
(14:10):
Jay Jones were once again running just to be another
member of the Virginia House of Delegate Delegates.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
That's now what happened. What's happening here.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
He is running to be the top law enforcer of
a state. This is a guy, like you said, who
is driving reckless speeds, could have killed people, who's fantasizing
about killing people, and who's all manner of other things
that could be disqualifying, like wishing death on police officers
so he can get his policy views enacted, and he is.
He's running to be the top cop.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Of a state.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
It just it makes this story so much worse. And
it's something that's being lost in the sauce of the
media blackout and the media of the skating that's happening,
like like the AP did.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah, And you can only determine or assume that the
reason the media is either having a blackout or misrepresenting
this is because they implicitly endorse violence against Republicans, because
this is part of the assassination prep campaign that Democrats
have launched against Republicans for years now, and the left
wing media has tried to tell us for the past
month that it's actually not really a left wing problem,
it's a right wing problem. I know you alluded to
(15:11):
that introduction. And so what the media is doing right
now is they're trying to one shape that narrative off
of their party, the preferred party, which is the Democrats.
But two, they're also setting the signal that it's not
so bad if you fantasize about killing Republicans. When you
do that, you implicitly send the signal that any other
talk like that is actually okay, it's not that bad.
(15:32):
And if talk like that is okay, eventually actions like
that become okay. That is called assassination premp. You are
justifying actions through language, and the media is complicit in this.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Yes, absolutely, And it's not just the media, it is
the entire Democrat party. Brianna, you wrote a bit about
the response from Democrats from Spamberger, from other Virginia groups,
can you give us just a sense of what has
the response from Democrats been to this abject scandal.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah, a group of Virginia commit Democratic committees basically said,
you know, let he who has not sendcast the first
stone and trying to insinuate, as Jones did in his
own statement, who hasn't fantasized about murdering their political opponents?
Which is actually extremely telling because they think that the
average person does fantasize about murdering their political opponents, when
(16:18):
the reality is most people don't because we are not
a country that's run by lawlessness. For a country of
law and order. If you don't like someone, you vote
them out, you don't shoot them or murder them like
Jay Jones apparently wants to do. But the fact that
Democrats think that that's normal shows that they think it's
normal and acceptable to fantasize about that and to believe
those things.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yes, Abigail Spanberger I think issued a statement or commented
on the record to someone that she had talked to
j Jones in private, I think, and basically told him like,
we will not tolerate this type of behavior.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Whatever.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Well, unless you're calling for him to drop out of
the race, you are implicitly tolerating that behavior. In fact,
you're endorsing that behavior. But I think crats have boxed
themselves into a bit of a corner here, and you,
as a one of our elections correspondence from this past election,
can speak to this the danger of election day turning
into election season, because one thing that we're seeing here
(17:12):
is Virginia voters. Early voting in Virginia started on September nineteenth,
I believe, and so Virginia voters have been voting for
weeks at this point. Many people have cast their ballot
before this scandal even came to light. I was looking
this week, and it looks like when the texts were reported,
about three hundred thousand Virginians had already cast their ballot,
(17:36):
And so I think it's safe to assume that north
of one hundred thousand of them would be Democrats, and
probably many more than that, because I mean, if tradition holds,
more Democrats will vote ahead of time than Republicans. Who knows,
but that's a pretty safe assumption. And then that's not
even counting to people who voted by mail, whose ballots
came in after the third or whatever day. This story broke,
and so you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people
(17:59):
who voted without being informed about J. Jones's murderous fantasy texts.
I mean, this is a huge deal, and Democrats have
totally boxed himself into a corner because this is election season.
I mean, this is what happens. And so now, how
can Abigail Spanberger call on J Jones to drop out?
Because then what happens All of those people who voted
(18:21):
for him are disenfranchised? Like what do you make of
all this?
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, that's an excellent point because that is something that
we see these past few election cycles with early voting.
I do think that the benefit of this story coming
out now is even though there may be a few
hundred thousand people that cast to vote for J. Jones
and maybe they would not have casts, Republicans are very
difficult to turn out and off your election cycles. They
are low propensity voters. I think this story is big
(18:45):
enough and damaging enough to get Republicans who may have
been considering sitting this election out to turn out, and
now they have about a month to do so with
this knowledge. So on the one hand, this will actually
encourage voters to make sure that they don't elect someone
who wants them dead. But to your point, look, I
think this is one of the reasons why early voting,
if we're going to have it at all, it needs
to be maybe three or four days before an election.
(19:07):
That's a small enough window. I still don't think so.
I still think election should be held on one day
it's election day, and on election week or a month
or year. I think these voters may learn a very
valuable lesson if they voted for Jay Jones and are
now appalled, and that is try to make plans to
get to the polls on election day because you never
know what horrible news will come out about the candidate
you're supporting.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Right right, and you actually, as a voter, it's beneficial
for you to kind of hold onto your leverage that
you have over candidates before election day. You shouldn't vote early,
because then what incentive do they have to appeal to
you as a voter, or to do the right thing
or to you know, it's like you are showing your hands,
You're giving the game away before you're making them less
accountable to you by voting early. And so, yeah, it's
(19:49):
really interesting. I do not expect any Democrats to call
on him to drop out. But it will be wild
if the top cop in Virginia turns out to be
a murder fantasizing man who went, as you know, forty
six miles per hour over the speed limit and is
just by all accounts, a complete lawless psycho. We'll see
(20:11):
if the story changes the tide or not. Brionn Alignment,
staff writer at The Federalist, thank you so much for
joining me today. It was great to see you.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Okay, so the j.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Jones story is wild, but that is not even the
only story of Democrat associated violence that we got this week.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Should property taxes just come to an end?
Speaker 5 (20:48):
The Watchdown on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4 (20:56):
Truly, owning your own home shouldn't be a piggybank for
government to revenue. Property taxes will forever make you not
an owner, just nothing more than a serf on the
lord's manner. Whether it's happening in DC or down on
Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Be informed.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
On Friday, we also learned of the sentencing decision for
Nicholas Rosky, the now twenty nine year old who attempted
to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh back in twenty
twenty two. And I'll refresh your memory here's what happened
in that case. So, Nicholas Roski was mad about the
(21:44):
leaked Dobbs draft, which, if you'll recall, in twenty twenty two,
that was the year that the Supreme Court came out with.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
The Dobbs vy.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Jackson Women's Health decision. That decision is the one that
essentially overturned Roe v.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Wade.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
But before the actual decision came down, there was a
leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision, and of
course Democrats were I write about it, while Republicans where
I rate about the leak, but Democrats where I rate
about the decision itself, because they learned that the made
up right to abortion so called that was enshrined in
(22:18):
the Constitution via Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned.
And so Nicholas Roski was one of those people who
was mad about the impending Dobbs decision.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
And so what does Roski do.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
He makes a plan to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh,
but not only Kavanaugh.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
He wrote in discord.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
I could at least there is a quote, I could
at least get one which would change the votes for
decades to come. And I am shooting for three end quote. So,
in other words, Rosky had stated intent to kill that one,
but three conservative Supreme Court justices in order to change
the vote for decades to come. So, in other words,
(22:59):
this is explicit political terrorism. This is an effort to
not only stoke fear, but to get an ideological and
politically motivated result by carrying out violent crimes against your
political opponents. So Rosky researches, He researches mass shootings, he
researches the addresses of Supreme Court justices, he plans, he
(23:19):
buys weapons on nine different occasions, and then ultimately buys
a plane ticket and flies from California, where he lives,
all the way across the entire country to Virginia and
takes a taxi to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house
with the intent of killing him. Rosky only stops his
plan after he arrives at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house.
(23:42):
There are US Marshalls stationed outside, so Roski's plan is thwarted,
and instead he takes off again and eventually calls nine
one one turns himself in, so Roski gets arrested. He
originally pleads not guilty, but then after he can't reach
a plea agreement, he eventually pleads guilty and the government
asks for thirty years in prison for Rosky. Now, the
(24:05):
maximum sentence for this would be life in prison, but
the government asks for thirty years, the defense asks for
eight years, and Federal District Judge Deborah Boardman, who oversaw
this case, agreed with the defense and with Rosky and
gave Roski only eight years eight years for planning and
(24:25):
then traveling to go assassinate not just one, but potentially
up to three Supreme Court justices, only eight years in prison.
It is mind boggling how you can go from a
maximum sentence of potentially life in prison and instead be
sentenced to only eight years in prison. So how did
this happen? While first Judge Boardman gutted the terrorism enhancement,
(24:48):
not because Boardman disagreed that this was terrorism, she agreed
that it was domestic terrorism, but because she didn't see
a reason to believe that Rosky would recidivate based on
the opinion of experts.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Oh okay, but that's not.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
The only reason that Boardman gave Rosky a light sentence.
The other one that played a major factor was Roski's
sudden transgender identity. So when Roski traveled from California to
Virginia to commit this crime, he was Nicholas Roski born
a male, He was a male. His chromosome said he's
a male. He gets arrested, and then somewhere along the
(25:23):
way he decides that actually, my name is Sophie. And
so the Biden appointed federal district judge factors in the transidentity.
She admits it into her sentencing because she's concerned about
Trump's executive order that requires male prisoners to be housed
with male prisoners and female prisoners to be housed with
(25:45):
female prisoners. These are this is actually a very important thing.
It's really important that female prisoners are not housed with
male prisoners and vice versa. Terrible things can happen there.
But Judge Boardman is concerned that a male prisoner is
going to be how with other male prisoners, and so
therefore she gives this attempted plotted terrorist eight years instead
(26:07):
of thirty or life in prison. Absolutely insane. But of
course the media, ever the duti full foot soldiers, parrot
the trans propaganda, and honestly, reading all of the corporate
media coverage, you would not even know that Roski is
a man. CNN, AP, New York Times. They all refer
(26:28):
to Rosky as she, and many of them even omit
the fact that the original name is Nicholas Roski. They
all just refer to Sophie Rosky, who previously had a
male name, but she was sentenced to eight years in prison.
MSNBC did not even bother with the euphemism of trans woman.
(26:49):
They literally in their headline just said woman, as if
this is just an indisputable fact that Sophie Rosky is
indeed a woman, as much a woman as I am
or anyone else who has XX chromosomes. This whole case
communicates two very dangerous things, the first of which is
that identifying as transgender will get you off the hook
(27:12):
in legal matters, just like identity politics have contributed to
some sort of trans contagion in this country, because in
the Marxist framework, where you view everything as oppressed or oppressors,
identifying as trans or identifying as some other rainbow identity
gets you more victim points than just being a person
with heterosexuality who is sis i e. You are a
(27:36):
man who says you are a man, or you are
a woman who says you are a woman, that you
agree with your literal biological sex. Doing that doesn't get
you any victim points. But now we're also seeing that
not only can you get cultural brownie points by claiming
a trans or just LGBT broadly identity, but you can
actually count on getting a lighter sentence if you have
(28:00):
a rainbow identity. This just incentivizes more transmania, more biological
and reality denial, and frankly, more mental illness. But the
second thing that this case communicates is that if you
are a radical leftist with a conservative target, Democrats will
cover for you. This is nothing short of assassination prep.
(28:24):
You know, we saw the same thing with Jimmy Kimmel
and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere when they blamed Trump
supporters for Charlie Kirk's assassination. The message is clear. If
you kill conservatives, Democrat captured institutions will completely cover for you,
from Democrat politicians to the media, and in this case,
even to judges. They might pay lip service, they might
(28:47):
have to give you a sentence of some sort a
slap on the wrist. But at the end of the day,
you can count on the media to obfuscate, and you
can count on judges to give you light sentences, and
you can count on Democrats to cover for you, and
to use rhetoric that lets you off the hook time
after time after time. This is assassination prep is extremely dangerous,
and it sends the message that political violence will be
(29:10):
tolerated and winked at. Michael Fragoso has a really great
piece at The Federalist this week on the Roski case,
and he writes, quote, Rosky's sentence isn't just about Roski.
Among other things, criminal sentences serve both to deter future
criminals and to communicate society's values. We heard this regularly
from the judges in the District of Columbia as they
(29:33):
threw the book at January six rioters. For example, Judge
Royce Lambert justified his actions while sentencing a man to
a prison term, just shy of Roski's for using a
megaphone to urge others into the capital quote. This cannot
become normal. We as a society, as a community, and
as a country, cannot normalize the events of January sixth
end quote. It seems, though, that we can normalize the
(29:55):
events outside Kavanaugh's house. Roski's sentence doesn't deter and and
it communicates that what matters isn't political terrorism but the
transgender journey of self discovery. It's hard to explain just
how corrosive this is to our body. Politic democrats today
like to throw around the term fascism to describe conservatives
and Donald Trump in particular, but judges doling out soft
(30:19):
justice to terrorists they agree with is far closer to
what led to fascism's rise in Germany than anything Trump
is doing. Fragoso is absolutely right here, and here's the
real kicker. US Attorney General Pam Bondi has appealed this
decision rightfully, So now it goes to the Fourth Circuit.
But the Fourth Circuit is a left wing court, and
(30:42):
if it does not reverse judge Boardman's decision, which who knows,
but it may not. The next step would be appealing
to the Supreme Court, which is so crazy because the
Supreme Court was the target of the attack. Our three
conservative justices supposed to recuse because the defendant in the
case wanted to assassinate them. Are they supposed to determine
(31:03):
the punishment for the man, yes, man, who attempted to
carry out an assassination plot against them. This, of course
creates all sorts of problems, and so Fragoso goes on
to make the case that Congress needs to impeach Boardman
for essentially condoning terrorism. But this especially is important as
it comes to the Supreme Court, he writes, quote, the
(31:26):
House will spare the Court from having to essentially sit
in judgment of its own case. If it moves to
impeach Boardman, it will send a message to other judges
that political violence is not to be excused. Indeed, this
should be a bipartisan message, because reasonable Democrats shouldn't want
Trump judges excusing, say, proud boys, anymore than we want
Biden judges excusing trans identifying terrorists. Impeachment proceedings would helpfully
(31:51):
put democrats to that question. Even if impeachment or removal
doesn't succeed, it probably wouldn't. It would set a good
precedent that judges to excuse political violence have to answer
for it to the people's representatives. And this part is key.
Judge Boardman may not be interested in deterring the next Roski,
but the House has the power to deter the next
(32:13):
Boardman end quote, and it absolutely should. If Congress is
looking for ways to deter left wing political violence, and
especially after the past few weeks, it should be, then
impeaching Boardman is a great place to start. All right,
(32:34):
it's time for a little Kylie's culture cut because A
it's been a hot minute, and B I actually have
been listening to and watching and reading some things lately,
so I'm here to tell you all about what's good,
what's bad, and what's ugly. Let's start with the most wholesome,
which is the fact that I finished for the first
time reading Mere Christianity by C. S.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
Lewis.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
I don't know why it took me so long to
read this book. Reading it on audiobook was fantastic because
it's only about a six hour listen. I listened to
it on a little bit faster speed, and so I
got done with it fairly quickly. It was a great
alternative to listening to podcasts or music when I've been driving,
and it gave me so much to chew on. Truly
an excellent book. I would recommend it to so many people.
(33:16):
Whether you are not a believer or are Christian curious
but not actually a Christian, you should definitely read it.
It tackled many of the objections to Christianity that I've
heard over the years, and it tackled them in such
a logical and reasonable way that I think is very
persuasive and also just really good brain food. So I
would recommend it. If you're not even a Christian, you
should read Mere Christianity. If you are a Christian and
(33:38):
you've never read it, you should definitely read it because
there's lots of good stuff in there, and it helps
give you language and verbiage to refer to basic Christian concepts,
but just new ways to think about them and new
ways to explain them. So i'd recommend it if you've
never read it, and I would also recommend it if
you've read it before. Definitely something that I will listen
to again and again and or next time. I may
(33:59):
just read it in a hard copy, because I think,
you know, you pick up different things whether you're listening
to something or reading it, and so I would recommend
it to truly anyone excellent.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
Book, as C. S. Lewis is.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
I have a C. S. Lewis book on my shelf
right behind me. He's fantastic author, and everyone should read C. S. Lewis,
of course.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
So that's what I've been reading. What have I been watching?
Speaker 1 (34:19):
I mentioned this last week, but I'll expound upon it
a bit. I finished watching The Paper, which is the
Office spin off show. It is on Peacock. You can
watch it there. The lead actor is from Harry Potter,
but in the show he plays a very different role.
I had exceptionally low expectations for The Paper. I thought
that it would try so hard to write the cotails
(34:41):
of the Office and that it would just be super woke.
I just had that sense, and that it would just
completely flop. That it would maybe have a couple of
funny moments. But the trailer didn't look that funny. The
previews I saw didn't look that funny, and I just
I did not think it would be good, but I
was pleasantly surprised. There was an episode that was a
little bit slow. There were a couple of hints at
(35:03):
things that were a little bit woke, such as an
all gender restroom, you know, all gender things like that,
but none of that was dwelled on, and it was
It was just fun. It made me laugh out loud
many times. There were a few office references because spoiler
(35:24):
Oscar is in the paper, and so especially through Oscar,
they make references to the office, and some of those
felt shoe horden, shoehorned, and they felt a little clunky,
a little bit forced, but they were few and far between,
and they were a little bit endearing, and I just
thoroughly enjoyed the show. I am really excited for the
next season to come out. Typically, you know, first seasons
(35:46):
of shows are a little rough anyway, as they try
to establish the characters and get their feet under them,
and so my expectations are actually kind of high for
season two. Really really enjoyed it, So if you haven't
watched the Paper yet, it's definitely something worth watching, even.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
If you don't end up enjoying it as much as
I did.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
I think it's ten episodes long and they're all a
half hour a piece, So go watch the paper. But
what I really must talk about today is what I
have been listening to, and that is the new Taylor
Swift album.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
And I have thoughts.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
If you've listened to my podcast before or read any
of my writing from years ago, you may or may
not know that I am on the record as being
a swiftye. I have loved Taylor Swift since my days
of adolescence. I had her CDs. I had the karaoke
version of her CDs so that I could put just
the backtracks in my karaoke machine and then I could
(36:39):
be the vocals. I truly loved Taylor Swift. My first
dance at my wedding was to a Taylor Swift song.
You can ask Molly Hemingway because she roasted me a
lot for it. We played a lot of Taylor Swift
at our wedding. I truly enjoyed early, earlier eras of
Taylor Swift, and many of Taylor Swift's albums felt like
they hit at the right point in my life where
(37:00):
what I was going through or the things I was
thinking about or dreaming about were similar to the things
that Taylor Swift was singing about. But this has all
started to decline an album or two ago, and with
this most recent album, I must say my feelings on
Taylor Swift have officially crashed and burned. I don't know
if Taylor Swift will be able to win me back,
and I'm just generally pretty salty about the album. I
(37:21):
kind of hate it. I have been listening to it
for the past couple of days to try to see
if my opinion changes, and there are some songs on
it that I find catchy, but the second I tune
into the lyrics, she loses me again because the lyrics
are so bad now they should go without saying, because
I have long been a swiftye but I am not
one of those boomerie cantankeris gen xers who lives to
(37:42):
hate Taylor Swift and who thinks that music peaked in
the eighties and that it can never recover, and that
you know, the best artists are all in the past
and they can never be rivaled because their coming of
age was the only good music that has ever existed.
Of course, I don't believe that. I think because everyone
when they come of age. There's music that is popular
(38:03):
or that is good when they are in their adolescence,
and that becomes defining music for them, and they think
it's better than the music from when the next generation
comes of age.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
That's just how it goes.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
But I just can't get behind this Tailor Swift album
for a number of reasons. The first one is its
lyrical trendiness. Just listening to the lyrics, it feels very trendy,
like a flash in the pan, like most of the
lyrics are just they have no shelf life. They are
not timeless at all. Let me just give you a
few examples that stood out to me. She says, we
(38:36):
looked fire. This isn't savage pledge allegiance to your vibes.
Glad he ghosted me spring Break that was effing lit.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
You get the idea.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
Very trendy, very ephemeral. Here's a stands up from her
new song, Eldest Daughter. Everybody's so punk on the Internet.
Everyone's unbothered till they're not. Every joke's just trolling in memes,
sad as it seems, apathy is hot. Everybody's cutthroat in
the comments. Every single hot take is cold as ice.
(39:11):
This is just it's really sad. It feels like her
songwriting is Benjamin Buttoning, like she used to be better
at writing music before, and that was paired with the
fact that she was a precocious teen, so even her
like elementary lyricism made sense because she was elementary. Well, now, Taylor,
you're thirty five. It's not cute to write like a
(39:31):
teenager anymore. So you have this elementary lyricism paired on
the opposite end of the spectrum with this hyper sexualization.
And that's another vibe that you get from her album.
It starts with her very sexualized album cover. Shoot, I'm
sure you've seen the pictures and or the music videos,
(39:52):
but this sexualization just weaves throughout the entire album. Taylor's
been trending a bit this way for a little while,
which in some ways makes sense because she's actually an
adult now, but it felt really forced. Back in twenty seventeen,
she wrote the song dress and the point of the dress,
the whole point of the song was that she'd only
bought this dress so you could take it off, and
it felt kind of out of place, like she was
(40:12):
trying to sexualize herself. But it just kind of it
was a little bit jarring, and now you get that
same feeling, except it is through the entire new album.
I'm not going to read many of these lines. You
can go find them for yourself. But one of her
song titles is literally would I'll let you fill in
the blank with that. She writes in another song quote
(40:34):
his love was the key that opened my thighs you.
And then in her song Father Figure, which had the
potential to be an interesting song, she includes the lyric
quote I can make deals with the devil because my
bigger I'm sorry what it's like. She's trying to be clever,
but it's just coming off as really forced and really icky.
(40:57):
I think maybe one of the reasons I'm really cranky
about Father Figure is the fact that, as I have
said on a previous podcast, John Bellion, who is one
of my favorite singer songwriter's producers, came out with an
album called Father Figure earlier this year, and not only
unlike Taylor Swift, not only did he not rip off
the George Michael song, but that song and that album
(41:17):
are all about maturity and responsibility and faith and fatherhood.
And you fill in the blank with all of these
wonderful adult pursuits. And then you have Taylor Swift over here,
who's merging this weird gen Z trendiness with a forced
feeling hyper sexuality together in one album, and it just
(41:38):
comes off as so icky and force And it's especially
odd because you have Taylor Swift in the middle, who
has all of these millennial fans. Taylor Swift is a millennial,
and you've had all of these people who were following
her at the same age as Taylor Swift. Well, then
she gets to be thirty five, a lot of the
millennials have jumped ship because again, her lyricism has sort
(41:59):
of Benjamin Button, and some of her albums recently have
been a little bit lackluster, and so she's trying desperately
to appeal to gen Z, or so it seems with
the lyrics that I read before. But at the same time,
she is so hyper sexualized that it's just this weird
marriage of vibes that do not work together anyway. You're
(42:19):
free to disagree. Everybody has a different opinion on Taylor,
but this is mine, and I just have to say,
as a former Taylor Swift fan, as a former Swift, ye,
could we please just get some quality over quantity. There's
a reason why most artists do not release six albums
in six years. So, speaking for burned out Taylor Swift
(42:39):
fans who are just sick of the instant gratification, Taylor,
just give us quality, not quantity. People get so excited
when they hear that there's a new Tailor Swift album
coming out. And I've gotten to the point where I
just kind of grown because I don't want a quick
new Taylor Swift album every year. I want a lull
because I think in this case, absence would make the
(43:00):
heart grow fonder. I want to lull where Taylor can
really work on new themes and new lyrics and new
rhyme schemes and key signatures and all of the rest,
and come to us with something that is totally fresh,
that is totally new, and that has a long shelf
life and isn't this weird marriage of gen z slang
(43:22):
and hyper sexualization. Go back to the drawing board, come
up with something that is good and lasting and better
and original, and get back to us in another five
or so years.
Speaker 3 (43:32):
Okay, that would be my ideal.
Speaker 1 (43:34):
All right, I'm sounding more and more like a curmudgeon
gen Xer by the minute. So that's going to do
it for me today. Thank you all so much for
tuning into this week's episode of the Kylie Cast. Remember
to like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and
I will be right back here next week with more.
Until then, I just remember through thirds, but all fail
you
Hi everybody, and welcome to the Kylie Cast. I'm Kylie Griswold,
Managing editor at The Federalist. Please like and subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts, and if you're just listening to
the show, be sure to check out the full video
version on my personal YouTube channel or the Federalists channel
on Rumble, and then of course like and subscribe there too.
If you'd like to email the show, you can do
(00:34):
so at radio Atthfederalist dot com. I would love to
hear from you. Well, another week has passed, but the
Democrat violence news cycle continues a pace because week after week,
Democrats just keep giving us more examples of violence, terrorism,
and then this week murderous fantasies. It feels like much
longer because we've been through so much in the past month.
(00:55):
But it's only been a little over a month since
a transgender identifying gunman attacked a Catholic school full of children,
killing two kids and injuring thirty other people, just a
tragic and targeted act of violence. Then just two weeks
after that, a radical leftist assassinated Christian conservative influencer Charlie
Kirk in front of a campus full of students and
(01:16):
the rest of the watching world, which then kicked off
weeks worth of many so called normy Democrats celebrating Charlie's death,
desecrating monuments in his memory, and then members of the
media and of Congress trying to justify that assassination. Then
just two weeks after that, another gunman opened fire on
(01:37):
an ICE facility, killing two detainees and injuring another. And
even though Democrats pretended, hmmm, we can't discern a motive here,
the shooter's bullets were inscribed with anti ICE messages and
that was the natural and dare I say intended result
of the non stop rhetoric from Democrats and the media.
But I repeat myself, demonizing Ice with extreme labels like Gestapo,
(02:01):
which is of course the Nazi secret police. And remember
that as all of this is happening, left wing think
tanks are turning out a bogus study after bogus study
showing that no, actually, it's Republicans causing more political violence,
even as they leave out some of the worst Democrat
attacks and then classify random acts of clearly non political
(02:22):
violence as right wing, completely dishonest. Well, then on Friday,
a little over two weeks after the Ice shooting, we
learned about the murderous fantasies of Jay Jones, the Democrat
candidate running for Attorney General of Virginia. And these texts
are truly something to behold, especially for the guy running
(02:44):
to be the chief law enforcer, the top cop of
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Here to discuss this crazy story
with me is my colleague Brianna Lyman, a staff writer
at The Federalist.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
It's so great to see you. Thanks so much for
joining today. I think before we start, we should set
this stage a little bit for people who maybe haven't
seen the texts. They were reported by National Review on Friday.
These texts happened. They were sent in twenty twenty two,
right after a long time moderate Democrat politician in Virginia,
(03:18):
Joe Johnson, had died. He died at age ninety, and
then in response to his death, you had some Republicans,
including Todd Gilbert, who was at the time the House
Speaker in Virginia. They started saying some nice things, both
publicly and privately, about the deceased Joe Johnson, and so
enter Jay Jones, who had formerly served in the House,
(03:40):
but at this point he was he had resigned, and
he starts firing off some texts revealing his thoughts on
the republicans kind response to Johnson's death. He apparently realizes
that he sent these texts to Republican lawmaker Carrie Coinner
instead of who he actually meant to send them to.
But then instead of shutting the conversation down, he doubles down.
(04:02):
And here is how those texts went. He starts, if
those guys die before me, I will go to their
funerals to piss on their grapes, send them out a
wash in something, and Carry Corner, goes Jay Jones. J
Jones says, three people, two bullets, Gilbert Hitler and Paul
(04:22):
pop Gilbert gets two bullets to the head. So, in
other words, he's saying, if you had two bullets in
the gun, and you had two dictators and this Republican,
I would put both of the bullets in. The Republican
he says, he receives both bullets every time, and Carry
Coyner pleads with him, Jay, please stop. He goes, Lol, okay,
So then he doubles down even more. Carry Coyner says,
(04:45):
you weren't simply asking questions and you know it, He says,
I genuinely was. I wasn't attacking you. I was trying
to understand your logic. She says, you weren't trying to understand.
You were talking about hoping Jennifer Gilbert's children would die.
This is Todd Gilbert's wife and his children. And he says, yes,
I've told you this before. Only when people feel pain
personally do they move on policy. But he's still not done.
(05:10):
He says, I mean, do I think Todd and Jennifer
are evil and that they are breeding little fascists?
Speaker 3 (05:16):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Absolutely insane things from Jay Jones here. So these texts
come out. Of course, Republicans are calling for him to
drop out of the race, and the firestorm starts, and
so Jay Jones issues some statements. Here is his first statement.
I've sent text messages that I regret, like all people,
(05:39):
he says, and I believe that violent rhetoric has no
place in our politics. But then he goes, let's be
clear about what is happening in the AG race right now.
Jason miars his opponent is dropping smears through Trump controlled
media organizations to assault my character YadA, YadA, YadA. On
he goes and he talks about how Jason Mires will
continue to be accountable to Donald Trump, not the people
of Virginia. This race is about whether Trump can control
(06:00):
Virginia or Virginians control Virginia. Not exactly an apologetic statement.
He pushes the blame and basically calls it oppo research
against him, but also doesn't deny the texts. And then
this was his ultimate statement that he issued. He says,
I take full responsibility for my actions, and I want
to issue my deepest apology to Speaker Gilbert and his family.
(06:21):
He says he's so embarrassed and ashamed and sick to
his stomach, YadA, YadA, YadA, all the performative things. And
then he says, Virginians deserve honest leaders who admit when
they are wrong and own up to their mistakes. Brianna,
I'm pretty sure Virginians don't deserve honest leaders who own
up when they're wrong. I'm pretty sure they deserve leaders
who don't wish that half of the voters were dead.
(06:44):
Your thoughts on this whole saga and specifically the statements
as well.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, Kinie, there's so much I want to start back
with the text messages you showed now, one message he
said to Carrie Coiner, like, yes, I've told you this before.
Now new reports have come out. What he was referring
to when he says people only change when they feel
pain is he allegedly, in a separate conversation said that
if we kill more police officers, they won't shoot as
(07:08):
many people as if police officers are indiscriminately shooting against people.
So this is a man who not only has these
fantasies about murdering Republicans, he also views law enforcement as
just this murderous, you know, entire group. As for his apologies,
it is egregious that he says, like all people, I
am a Republican, I'm a conservative. I should rephrase that,
(07:28):
I have never once considered or even fantasized or thought
about anyone on the political spectrum being murdered, because it's abhorrent.
So no, not like all people, because all people don't
actually do that. Only psychopaths do that. So you could
have like all psychopaths, I do that. And then I
think what's most concerning is that it's not just him
who's staying in the race, but it's his party that
is allowing him to stay in this race. If you
(07:50):
go back to twenty nineteen, when Governor Ralph Northam, you know,
he had that decades old yearbook photo surface of him
in a bad Halloween costume, blackface, he was called to
step down by Demo. They were tripping over themselves, demanding
he was unfit to serve. Meanwhile, one of their own
is actually fantasizing about murdering Republicans and their children and
calling them fascists. And they're either completely stilent or they're like, yeah,
(08:12):
who among us hasn't called for Republicans murdered? That speaks
volumes about where the party is at, and I think
it does lead credence to the claims from conservatives who say,
how should we share a country and unify with a
country that, behind closed doors wants to murder us?
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Yes, that's exactly right, and you brought it up. So
let's keep going on the train of Jay Jones's other
disqualifying behavior.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
So you mentioned the police officer.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Thing, the other conversation that he had with Kerry Coiner,
which is as appalling as his text about Todd Gilbert.
To be honest with you, he's basically saying the same
things about police officers that he was saying about Republicans,
which is just that well, if more of them just
need to die and then we will get the policies
that we prefer as Democrats. Just a crazy, crazy, psychotic
(08:59):
way to think. And yet, like you said, something that
most people don't do, this is not actually normal. The
who among us phraseology is disgusting and a little concerning
that they actually think people feel this way. But those
are not the only examples. You also have his reckless driving.
I would love to hear your explanation of that, and
his calling for a police lieutenant to be fired. Brianna,
(09:22):
can you explain some of these other disqualifying behaviors from
J Jones?
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Yeah, So for J Jones, a police officer who donated
to Kyle Brittenhous this legal fund, I believe it was
a twenty five dollars donation, that was enough for J.
Jones five years ago now to say that he should
be removed from his position as a police officer because
that was disqualifying. So again, donating to the legal defense
of someone who acted in self defense was disqualifying. Calling
(09:47):
to murder Republicans is actually not disqualifying because we all
think about it, right, Apparently to Jay Jones. As for
his reckless driving, I believe he was going like forty
miles over the speed limit. And what's more ridiculous is
that not only was he going completely over the speed limit, which,
as someone who's supposed to kind of be the standard
that everyone else should follow, not a good standard to set.
He was supposed to do special community service, he did
(10:08):
it for his own pack, according to Restoration News, which
is not allowed, so he didn't even complete the time served.
Then Liz MacDonald from Fox Business, she reported that he
has never actually tried a case. So here we have
a candidate who has never tried a case, fantasizes about
murder Republicans, does not know how to follow the law,
doesn't just speed, he speeds to speeds that could kill
(10:30):
someone on the spot. He thought that someone should be
fired for donating to the legal fund for Kyle Brittenhouse,
but that he shouldn't sit down for calling for people
to be murdered. And last, but not least, this is
a man who was being bolstered by the Democratic Party
and is now trying to make this a Donald Trump
is picking on me story. That's where the Democratic Party is.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Right, right, So the Donald Trump is picking on me story.
That is how the media are covering it. And so
what we've seen is either media making it a story,
worry about Republicans pounce, which Brianna, is something that you
specifically wrote about. I want to hear about your story
on that, and or they're just doing a complete blackout.
They're pretending that it didn't happen, or referring to the
(11:12):
text just by quoting Jones instead of actually like, for instance,
Political ran a piece and they called the text abhorrent,
the abhorrent texts in the headline, but they put abhorrent
in quotes because in his apology j Jones referred to
the text as abhorrent. But it's like the texts are
objectively abhorrent, Like you don't need to quote j Jones
to say this that the way that they are phrasing
(11:33):
things and what they're choosing to cover and not cover
is just exactly what we would expect from the media.
But the ap story, Brianna, can you tell us about
what you wrote about that?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Yeah, so they associated press I'm reading it here. Steve
Peoples and Olivia Diaz. They want people to know that
the real story isn't that J Jones is calling from
Republicans to be murdered, It's that Republicans notice the story.
So they write, Republicans are seizing on recent unearthed violent
rhetoric from J Jones to tarnish the Democratic Party nationally
(12:05):
less than a month before election day. So you see there,
their primary concern is how is this egregious story going
to impact election day?
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Now?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Because the Associated Press are just propagandists for the Democratic Party,
they know that this could actually impact Democrats' chances at Virginia,
which as of last week were pretty damn good. But
any sane voter who hears these text messages, I think
will have a hard time not only voting for J Jones,
but for voting for Abigail Spanberger, who was defending and
standing by J Jones. So what the Associated Press wants
(12:35):
you to know is that it's pretty bad that Donald
Trump is escalating his campaign to cast his political opponents
as violent extremists. You see, Donald Trump is casting them
as violent extremists, as if J Jones himself did not
make himself a violent extremist. So the narrative that the
media constantly takes in these scenarios is deflect, blame it
on Trump, and that is why they have to be
(12:57):
referred to as the propaganda press.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Right, and the AP was not the only one. Let's
see here, Well, two days ago I looked.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
On the New York Times.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
I forgot to check this morning, but as of two
days ago, if you search for Jay Jones on the
New York Times, there were zero search results from the
past month. This is a story that broke on Friday.
They had Friday and all weekend and Monday to cover
this story, and there was nothing from the New York Times.
From the Washington Posts, they referred in their headline to
(13:28):
this giant scandal as quote twenty twenty two texts depicting
political violence, Brianna. Something depicting political violence could literally be anything.
We are talking about a candidate running for public office
who is publicly fantasizing about murdering his opponents, But the
Washington Post refers to it as just depicting political violence.
(13:48):
This is so classic. To make it the least salacious,
least clickable headline, give you the least amount of information
they could possibly give so you have to click in
to find out what happened, and or not even find
out what happened, like if you're The New York Times
and not even covering it. And I think another thing
that's really important to remember here is this would be
disqualifying for any lawmaker, Like this would be disqualifying if
(14:10):
Jay Jones were once again running just to be another
member of the Virginia House of Delegate Delegates.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
That's now what happened. What's happening here.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
He is running to be the top law enforcer of
a state. This is a guy, like you said, who
is driving reckless speeds, could have killed people, who's fantasizing
about killing people, and who's all manner of other things
that could be disqualifying, like wishing death on police officers
so he can get his policy views enacted, and he is.
He's running to be the top cop.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Of a state.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
It just it makes this story so much worse. And
it's something that's being lost in the sauce of the
media blackout and the media of the skating that's happening,
like like the AP did.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah, And you can only determine or assume that the
reason the media is either having a blackout or misrepresenting
this is because they implicitly endorse violence against Republicans, because
this is part of the assassination prep campaign that Democrats
have launched against Republicans for years now, and the left
wing media has tried to tell us for the past
month that it's actually not really a left wing problem,
it's a right wing problem. I know you alluded to
(15:11):
that introduction. And so what the media is doing right
now is they're trying to one shape that narrative off
of their party, the preferred party, which is the Democrats.
But two, they're also setting the signal that it's not
so bad if you fantasize about killing Republicans. When you
do that, you implicitly send the signal that any other
talk like that is actually okay, it's not that bad.
(15:32):
And if talk like that is okay, eventually actions like
that become okay. That is called assassination premp. You are
justifying actions through language, and the media is complicit in this.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Yes, absolutely, And it's not just the media, it is
the entire Democrat party. Brianna, you wrote a bit about
the response from Democrats from Spamberger, from other Virginia groups,
can you give us just a sense of what has
the response from Democrats been to this abject scandal.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah, a group of Virginia commit Democratic committees basically said,
you know, let he who has not sendcast the first
stone and trying to insinuate, as Jones did in his
own statement, who hasn't fantasized about murdering their political opponents?
Which is actually extremely telling because they think that the
average person does fantasize about murdering their political opponents, when
(16:18):
the reality is most people don't because we are not
a country that's run by lawlessness. For a country of
law and order. If you don't like someone, you vote
them out, you don't shoot them or murder them like
Jay Jones apparently wants to do. But the fact that
Democrats think that that's normal shows that they think it's
normal and acceptable to fantasize about that and to believe
those things.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yes, Abigail Spanberger I think issued a statement or commented
on the record to someone that she had talked to
j Jones in private, I think, and basically told him like,
we will not tolerate this type of behavior.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Whatever.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Well, unless you're calling for him to drop out of
the race, you are implicitly tolerating that behavior. In fact,
you're endorsing that behavior. But I think crats have boxed
themselves into a bit of a corner here, and you,
as a one of our elections correspondence from this past election,
can speak to this the danger of election day turning
into election season, because one thing that we're seeing here
(17:12):
is Virginia voters. Early voting in Virginia started on September nineteenth,
I believe, and so Virginia voters have been voting for
weeks at this point. Many people have cast their ballot
before this scandal even came to light. I was looking
this week, and it looks like when the texts were reported,
about three hundred thousand Virginians had already cast their ballot,
(17:36):
And so I think it's safe to assume that north
of one hundred thousand of them would be Democrats, and
probably many more than that, because I mean, if tradition holds,
more Democrats will vote ahead of time than Republicans. Who knows,
but that's a pretty safe assumption. And then that's not
even counting to people who voted by mail, whose ballots
came in after the third or whatever day. This story broke,
and so you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people
(17:59):
who voted without being informed about J. Jones's murderous fantasy texts.
I mean, this is a huge deal, and Democrats have
totally boxed himself into a corner because this is election season.
I mean, this is what happens. And so now, how
can Abigail Spanberger call on J Jones to drop out?
Because then what happens All of those people who voted
(18:21):
for him are disenfranchised? Like what do you make of
all this?
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, that's an excellent point because that is something that
we see these past few election cycles with early voting.
I do think that the benefit of this story coming
out now is even though there may be a few
hundred thousand people that cast to vote for J. Jones
and maybe they would not have casts, Republicans are very
difficult to turn out and off your election cycles. They
are low propensity voters. I think this story is big
(18:45):
enough and damaging enough to get Republicans who may have
been considering sitting this election out to turn out, and
now they have about a month to do so with
this knowledge. So on the one hand, this will actually
encourage voters to make sure that they don't elect someone
who wants them dead. But to your point, look, I
think this is one of the reasons why early voting,
if we're going to have it at all, it needs
to be maybe three or four days before an election.
(19:07):
That's a small enough window. I still don't think so.
I still think election should be held on one day
it's election day, and on election week or a month
or year. I think these voters may learn a very
valuable lesson if they voted for Jay Jones and are
now appalled, and that is try to make plans to
get to the polls on election day because you never
know what horrible news will come out about the candidate
you're supporting.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
Right right, and you actually, as a voter, it's beneficial
for you to kind of hold onto your leverage that
you have over candidates before election day. You shouldn't vote early,
because then what incentive do they have to appeal to
you as a voter, or to do the right thing
or to you know, it's like you are showing your hands,
You're giving the game away before you're making them less
accountable to you by voting early. And so, yeah, it's
(19:49):
really interesting. I do not expect any Democrats to call
on him to drop out. But it will be wild
if the top cop in Virginia turns out to be
a murder fantasizing man who went, as you know, forty
six miles per hour over the speed limit and is
just by all accounts, a complete lawless psycho. We'll see
(20:11):
if the story changes the tide or not. Brionn Alignment,
staff writer at The Federalist, thank you so much for
joining me today. It was great to see you.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Okay, so the j.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Jones story is wild, but that is not even the
only story of Democrat associated violence that we got this week.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Should property taxes just come to an end?
Speaker 5 (20:48):
The Watchdown on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet.
Speaker 4 (20:56):
Truly, owning your own home shouldn't be a piggybank for
government to revenue. Property taxes will forever make you not
an owner, just nothing more than a serf on the
lord's manner. Whether it's happening in DC or down on
Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Be informed.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
On Friday, we also learned of the sentencing decision for
Nicholas Rosky, the now twenty nine year old who attempted
to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh back in twenty
twenty two. And I'll refresh your memory here's what happened
in that case. So, Nicholas Roski was mad about the
(21:44):
leaked Dobbs draft, which, if you'll recall, in twenty twenty two,
that was the year that the Supreme Court came out with.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
The Dobbs vy.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Jackson Women's Health decision. That decision is the one that
essentially overturned Roe v.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Wade.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
But before the actual decision came down, there was a
leak of the draft of the Dobbs decision, and of
course Democrats were I write about it, while Republicans where
I rate about the leak, but Democrats where I rate
about the decision itself, because they learned that the made
up right to abortion so called that was enshrined in
(22:18):
the Constitution via Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned.
And so Nicholas Roski was one of those people who
was mad about the impending Dobbs decision.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
And so what does Roski do.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
He makes a plan to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh,
but not only Kavanaugh.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
He wrote in discord.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
I could at least there is a quote, I could
at least get one which would change the votes for
decades to come. And I am shooting for three end quote. So,
in other words, Rosky had stated intent to kill that one,
but three conservative Supreme Court justices in order to change
the vote for decades to come. So, in other words,
(22:59):
this is explicit political terrorism. This is an effort to
not only stoke fear, but to get an ideological and
politically motivated result by carrying out violent crimes against your
political opponents. So Rosky researches, He researches mass shootings, he
researches the addresses of Supreme Court justices, he plans, he
(23:19):
buys weapons on nine different occasions, and then ultimately buys
a plane ticket and flies from California, where he lives,
all the way across the entire country to Virginia and
takes a taxi to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house
with the intent of killing him. Rosky only stops his
plan after he arrives at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house.
(23:42):
There are US Marshalls stationed outside, so Roski's plan is thwarted,
and instead he takes off again and eventually calls nine
one one turns himself in, so Roski gets arrested. He
originally pleads not guilty, but then after he can't reach
a plea agreement, he eventually pleads guilty and the government
asks for thirty years in prison for Rosky. Now, the
(24:05):
maximum sentence for this would be life in prison, but
the government asks for thirty years, the defense asks for
eight years, and Federal District Judge Deborah Boardman, who oversaw
this case, agreed with the defense and with Rosky and
gave Roski only eight years eight years for planning and
(24:25):
then traveling to go assassinate not just one, but potentially
up to three Supreme Court justices, only eight years in prison.
It is mind boggling how you can go from a
maximum sentence of potentially life in prison and instead be
sentenced to only eight years in prison. So how did
this happen? While first Judge Boardman gutted the terrorism enhancement,
(24:48):
not because Boardman disagreed that this was terrorism, she agreed
that it was domestic terrorism, but because she didn't see
a reason to believe that Rosky would recidivate based on
the opinion of experts.
Speaker 3 (24:59):
Oh okay, but that's not.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
The only reason that Boardman gave Rosky a light sentence.
The other one that played a major factor was Roski's
sudden transgender identity. So when Roski traveled from California to
Virginia to commit this crime, he was Nicholas Roski born
a male, He was a male. His chromosome said he's
a male. He gets arrested, and then somewhere along the
(25:23):
way he decides that actually, my name is Sophie. And
so the Biden appointed federal district judge factors in the transidentity.
She admits it into her sentencing because she's concerned about
Trump's executive order that requires male prisoners to be housed
with male prisoners and female prisoners to be housed with
(25:45):
female prisoners. These are this is actually a very important thing.
It's really important that female prisoners are not housed with
male prisoners and vice versa. Terrible things can happen there.
But Judge Boardman is concerned that a male prisoner is
going to be how with other male prisoners, and so
therefore she gives this attempted plotted terrorist eight years instead
(26:07):
of thirty or life in prison. Absolutely insane. But of
course the media, ever the duti full foot soldiers, parrot
the trans propaganda, and honestly, reading all of the corporate
media coverage, you would not even know that Roski is
a man. CNN, AP, New York Times. They all refer
(26:28):
to Rosky as she, and many of them even omit
the fact that the original name is Nicholas Roski. They
all just refer to Sophie Rosky, who previously had a
male name, but she was sentenced to eight years in prison.
MSNBC did not even bother with the euphemism of trans woman.
(26:49):
They literally in their headline just said woman, as if
this is just an indisputable fact that Sophie Rosky is
indeed a woman, as much a woman as I am
or anyone else who has XX chromosomes. This whole case
communicates two very dangerous things, the first of which is
that identifying as transgender will get you off the hook
(27:12):
in legal matters, just like identity politics have contributed to
some sort of trans contagion in this country, because in
the Marxist framework, where you view everything as oppressed or oppressors,
identifying as trans or identifying as some other rainbow identity
gets you more victim points than just being a person
with heterosexuality who is sis i e. You are a
(27:36):
man who says you are a man, or you are
a woman who says you are a woman, that you
agree with your literal biological sex. Doing that doesn't get
you any victim points. But now we're also seeing that
not only can you get cultural brownie points by claiming
a trans or just LGBT broadly identity, but you can
actually count on getting a lighter sentence if you have
(28:00):
a rainbow identity. This just incentivizes more transmania, more biological
and reality denial, and frankly, more mental illness. But the
second thing that this case communicates is that if you
are a radical leftist with a conservative target, Democrats will
cover for you. This is nothing short of assassination prep.
(28:24):
You know, we saw the same thing with Jimmy Kimmel
and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere when they blamed Trump
supporters for Charlie Kirk's assassination. The message is clear. If
you kill conservatives, Democrat captured institutions will completely cover for you,
from Democrat politicians to the media, and in this case,
even to judges. They might pay lip service, they might
(28:47):
have to give you a sentence of some sort a
slap on the wrist. But at the end of the day,
you can count on the media to obfuscate, and you
can count on judges to give you light sentences, and
you can count on Democrats to cover for you, and
to use rhetoric that lets you off the hook time
after time after time. This is assassination prep is extremely dangerous,
and it sends the message that political violence will be
(29:10):
tolerated and winked at. Michael Fragoso has a really great
piece at The Federalist this week on the Roski case,
and he writes, quote, Rosky's sentence isn't just about Roski.
Among other things, criminal sentences serve both to deter future
criminals and to communicate society's values. We heard this regularly
from the judges in the District of Columbia as they
(29:33):
threw the book at January six rioters. For example, Judge
Royce Lambert justified his actions while sentencing a man to
a prison term, just shy of Roski's for using a
megaphone to urge others into the capital quote. This cannot
become normal. We as a society, as a community, and
as a country, cannot normalize the events of January sixth
end quote. It seems, though, that we can normalize the
(29:55):
events outside Kavanaugh's house. Roski's sentence doesn't deter and and
it communicates that what matters isn't political terrorism but the
transgender journey of self discovery. It's hard to explain just
how corrosive this is to our body. Politic democrats today
like to throw around the term fascism to describe conservatives
and Donald Trump in particular, but judges doling out soft
(30:19):
justice to terrorists they agree with is far closer to
what led to fascism's rise in Germany than anything Trump
is doing. Fragoso is absolutely right here, and here's the
real kicker. US Attorney General Pam Bondi has appealed this
decision rightfully, So now it goes to the Fourth Circuit.
But the Fourth Circuit is a left wing court, and
(30:42):
if it does not reverse judge Boardman's decision, which who knows,
but it may not. The next step would be appealing
to the Supreme Court, which is so crazy because the
Supreme Court was the target of the attack. Our three
conservative justices supposed to recuse because the defendant in the
case wanted to assassinate them. Are they supposed to determine
(31:03):
the punishment for the man, yes, man, who attempted to
carry out an assassination plot against them. This, of course
creates all sorts of problems, and so Fragoso goes on
to make the case that Congress needs to impeach Boardman
for essentially condoning terrorism. But this especially is important as
it comes to the Supreme Court, he writes, quote, the
(31:26):
House will spare the Court from having to essentially sit
in judgment of its own case. If it moves to
impeach Boardman, it will send a message to other judges
that political violence is not to be excused. Indeed, this
should be a bipartisan message, because reasonable Democrats shouldn't want
Trump judges excusing, say, proud boys, anymore than we want
Biden judges excusing trans identifying terrorists. Impeachment proceedings would helpfully
(31:51):
put democrats to that question. Even if impeachment or removal
doesn't succeed, it probably wouldn't. It would set a good
precedent that judges to excuse political violence have to answer
for it to the people's representatives. And this part is key.
Judge Boardman may not be interested in deterring the next Roski,
but the House has the power to deter the next
(32:13):
Boardman end quote, and it absolutely should. If Congress is
looking for ways to deter left wing political violence, and
especially after the past few weeks, it should be, then
impeaching Boardman is a great place to start. All right,
(32:34):
it's time for a little Kylie's culture cut because A
it's been a hot minute, and B I actually have
been listening to and watching and reading some things lately,
so I'm here to tell you all about what's good,
what's bad, and what's ugly. Let's start with the most wholesome,
which is the fact that I finished for the first
time reading Mere Christianity by C. S.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
Lewis.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
I don't know why it took me so long to
read this book. Reading it on audiobook was fantastic because
it's only about a six hour listen. I listened to
it on a little bit faster speed, and so I
got done with it fairly quickly. It was a great
alternative to listening to podcasts or music when I've been driving,
and it gave me so much to chew on. Truly
an excellent book. I would recommend it to so many people.
(33:16):
Whether you are not a believer or are Christian curious
but not actually a Christian, you should definitely read it.
It tackled many of the objections to Christianity that I've
heard over the years, and it tackled them in such
a logical and reasonable way that I think is very
persuasive and also just really good brain food. So I
would recommend it. If you're not even a Christian, you
should read Mere Christianity. If you are a Christian and
(33:38):
you've never read it, you should definitely read it because
there's lots of good stuff in there, and it helps
give you language and verbiage to refer to basic Christian concepts,
but just new ways to think about them and new
ways to explain them. So i'd recommend it if you've
never read it, and I would also recommend it if
you've read it before. Definitely something that I will listen
to again and again and or next time. I may
(33:59):
just read it in a hard copy, because I think,
you know, you pick up different things whether you're listening
to something or reading it, and so I would recommend
it to truly anyone excellent.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
Book, as C. S. Lewis is.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
I have a C. S. Lewis book on my shelf
right behind me. He's fantastic author, and everyone should read C. S. Lewis,
of course.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
So that's what I've been reading. What have I been watching?
Speaker 1 (34:19):
I mentioned this last week, but I'll expound upon it
a bit. I finished watching The Paper, which is the
Office spin off show. It is on Peacock. You can
watch it there. The lead actor is from Harry Potter,
but in the show he plays a very different role.
I had exceptionally low expectations for The Paper. I thought
that it would try so hard to write the cotails
(34:41):
of the Office and that it would just be super woke.
I just had that sense, and that it would just
completely flop. That it would maybe have a couple of
funny moments. But the trailer didn't look that funny. The
previews I saw didn't look that funny, and I just
I did not think it would be good, but I
was pleasantly surprised. There was an episode that was a
little bit slow. There were a couple of hints at
(35:03):
things that were a little bit woke, such as an
all gender restroom, you know, all gender things like that,
but none of that was dwelled on, and it was
It was just fun. It made me laugh out loud
many times. There were a few office references because spoiler
(35:24):
Oscar is in the paper, and so especially through Oscar,
they make references to the office, and some of those
felt shoe horden, shoehorned, and they felt a little clunky,
a little bit forced, but they were few and far between,
and they were a little bit endearing, and I just
thoroughly enjoyed the show. I am really excited for the
next season to come out. Typically, you know, first seasons
(35:46):
of shows are a little rough anyway, as they try
to establish the characters and get their feet under them,
and so my expectations are actually kind of high for
season two. Really really enjoyed it, So if you haven't
watched the Paper yet, it's definitely something worth watching, even.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
If you don't end up enjoying it as much as
I did.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
I think it's ten episodes long and they're all a
half hour a piece, So go watch the paper. But
what I really must talk about today is what I
have been listening to, and that is the new Taylor
Swift album.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
And I have thoughts.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
If you've listened to my podcast before or read any
of my writing from years ago, you may or may
not know that I am on the record as being
a swiftye. I have loved Taylor Swift since my days
of adolescence. I had her CDs. I had the karaoke
version of her CDs so that I could put just
the backtracks in my karaoke machine and then I could
(36:39):
be the vocals. I truly loved Taylor Swift. My first
dance at my wedding was to a Taylor Swift song.
You can ask Molly Hemingway because she roasted me a
lot for it. We played a lot of Taylor Swift
at our wedding. I truly enjoyed early, earlier eras of
Taylor Swift, and many of Taylor Swift's albums felt like
they hit at the right point in my life where
(37:00):
what I was going through or the things I was
thinking about or dreaming about were similar to the things
that Taylor Swift was singing about. But this has all
started to decline an album or two ago, and with
this most recent album, I must say my feelings on
Taylor Swift have officially crashed and burned. I don't know
if Taylor Swift will be able to win me back,
and I'm just generally pretty salty about the album. I
(37:21):
kind of hate it. I have been listening to it
for the past couple of days to try to see
if my opinion changes, and there are some songs on
it that I find catchy, but the second I tune
into the lyrics, she loses me again because the lyrics
are so bad now they should go without saying, because
I have long been a swiftye but I am not
one of those boomerie cantankeris gen xers who lives to
(37:42):
hate Taylor Swift and who thinks that music peaked in
the eighties and that it can never recover, and that
you know, the best artists are all in the past
and they can never be rivaled because their coming of
age was the only good music that has ever existed.
Of course, I don't believe that. I think because everyone
when they come of age. There's music that is popular
(38:03):
or that is good when they are in their adolescence,
and that becomes defining music for them, and they think
it's better than the music from when the next generation
comes of age.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
That's just how it goes.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
But I just can't get behind this Tailor Swift album
for a number of reasons. The first one is its
lyrical trendiness. Just listening to the lyrics, it feels very trendy,
like a flash in the pan, like most of the
lyrics are just they have no shelf life. They are
not timeless at all. Let me just give you a
few examples that stood out to me. She says, we
(38:36):
looked fire. This isn't savage pledge allegiance to your vibes.
Glad he ghosted me spring Break that was effing lit.
Speaker 3 (38:48):
You get the idea.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
Very trendy, very ephemeral. Here's a stands up from her
new song, Eldest Daughter. Everybody's so punk on the Internet.
Everyone's unbothered till they're not. Every joke's just trolling in memes,
sad as it seems, apathy is hot. Everybody's cutthroat in
the comments. Every single hot take is cold as ice.
(39:11):
This is just it's really sad. It feels like her
songwriting is Benjamin Buttoning, like she used to be better
at writing music before, and that was paired with the
fact that she was a precocious teen, so even her
like elementary lyricism made sense because she was elementary. Well, now, Taylor,
you're thirty five. It's not cute to write like a
(39:31):
teenager anymore. So you have this elementary lyricism paired on
the opposite end of the spectrum with this hyper sexualization.
And that's another vibe that you get from her album.
It starts with her very sexualized album cover. Shoot, I'm
sure you've seen the pictures and or the music videos,
(39:52):
but this sexualization just weaves throughout the entire album. Taylor's
been trending a bit this way for a little while,
which in some ways makes sense because she's actually an
adult now, but it felt really forced. Back in twenty seventeen,
she wrote the song dress and the point of the dress,
the whole point of the song was that she'd only
bought this dress so you could take it off, and
it felt kind of out of place, like she was
(40:12):
trying to sexualize herself. But it just kind of it
was a little bit jarring, and now you get that
same feeling, except it is through the entire new album.
I'm not going to read many of these lines. You
can go find them for yourself. But one of her
song titles is literally would I'll let you fill in
the blank with that. She writes in another song quote
(40:34):
his love was the key that opened my thighs you.
And then in her song Father Figure, which had the
potential to be an interesting song, she includes the lyric
quote I can make deals with the devil because my
bigger I'm sorry what it's like. She's trying to be clever,
but it's just coming off as really forced and really icky.
(40:57):
I think maybe one of the reasons I'm really cranky
about Father Figure is the fact that, as I have
said on a previous podcast, John Bellion, who is one
of my favorite singer songwriter's producers, came out with an
album called Father Figure earlier this year, and not only
unlike Taylor Swift, not only did he not rip off
the George Michael song, but that song and that album
(41:17):
are all about maturity and responsibility and faith and fatherhood.
And you fill in the blank with all of these
wonderful adult pursuits. And then you have Taylor Swift over here,
who's merging this weird gen Z trendiness with a forced
feeling hyper sexuality together in one album, and it just
(41:38):
comes off as so icky and force And it's especially
odd because you have Taylor Swift in the middle, who
has all of these millennial fans. Taylor Swift is a millennial,
and you've had all of these people who were following
her at the same age as Taylor Swift. Well, then
she gets to be thirty five, a lot of the
millennials have jumped ship because again, her lyricism has sort
(41:59):
of Benjamin Button, and some of her albums recently have
been a little bit lackluster, and so she's trying desperately
to appeal to gen Z, or so it seems with
the lyrics that I read before. But at the same time,
she is so hyper sexualized that it's just this weird
marriage of vibes that do not work together anyway. You're
(42:19):
free to disagree. Everybody has a different opinion on Taylor,
but this is mine, and I just have to say,
as a former Taylor Swift fan, as a former Swift, ye,
could we please just get some quality over quantity. There's
a reason why most artists do not release six albums
in six years. So, speaking for burned out Taylor Swift
(42:39):
fans who are just sick of the instant gratification, Taylor,
just give us quality, not quantity. People get so excited
when they hear that there's a new Tailor Swift album
coming out. And I've gotten to the point where I
just kind of grown because I don't want a quick
new Taylor Swift album every year. I want a lull
because I think in this case, absence would make the
(43:00):
heart grow fonder. I want to lull where Taylor can
really work on new themes and new lyrics and new
rhyme schemes and key signatures and all of the rest,
and come to us with something that is totally fresh,
that is totally new, and that has a long shelf
life and isn't this weird marriage of gen z slang
(43:22):
and hyper sexualization. Go back to the drawing board, come
up with something that is good and lasting and better
and original, and get back to us in another five
or so years.
Speaker 3 (43:32):
Okay, that would be my ideal.
Speaker 1 (43:34):
All right, I'm sounding more and more like a curmudgeon
gen Xer by the minute. So that's going to do
it for me today. Thank you all so much for
tuning into this week's episode of the Kylie Cast. Remember
to like and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, and
I will be right back here next week with more.
Until then, I just remember through thirds, but all fail
you
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.