September 23, 2025 • 50 mins
President Trump puts the ball in Democrats' court as he and House Republicans try to avoid a looming government shutdown.
Guests:
Eric Eggers | Vice President, Government Accountability Institute
Rep. Bob Onder (R) | U.S. Representative, Missouri's 3rd Congressional District
Chloe Cole | Detrasitioned Public Speaker & Activist
Hunter S. Gaylor | CEO, MarketBridge Advisors & Board Member, New Journey PAC
Guests:
Eric Eggers | Vice President, Government Accountability Institute
Rep. Bob Onder (R) | U.S. Representative, Missouri's 3rd Congressional District
Chloe Cole | Detrasitioned Public Speaker & Activist
Hunter S. Gaylor | CEO, MarketBridge Advisors & Board Member, New Journey PAC
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Welcome to the Real Story. I'm your host, Riley Lewis.
Thank you for joining us. Today's top story is all
about dysfunction in Washington. It's about what happens when people
in government forget how to properly govern, A cautionary tale
as all as time itself of what goes wrong when
(00:33):
leaders make poor decisions over and over and over again
without any real regard for the consequences of those decisions,
only to try to fix the problems they've created with
the exact same mindset that led to those problems being created.
And most importantly, it's about what happens when people in
(00:53):
power just aren't held accountable for their actions. Accountability is
the ultimate antidote to dysfunction, and the dysfunction in Washington
today can and should be attributed largely to a lack
of real accountability. That's the crux of every issue in
our federal government today, and it brings us to our
(01:15):
first story of the show, the looming government shutdown. With
eight days to go until the current fiscal year ends,
that being on Tuesday of next week, September thirtieth, Washington
d C is staring down the barrel of another potential
government shutdown what would be the fifteenth partial one since
(01:36):
nineteen eighty one, and the Trump administration is curiously tight
lipped on its contingency plans. While previous administrations in years
past have posted detailed shutdown blueprints on the Office of
Management and Budget's website, that website currently sits empty, with
no concrete updates having been posted yet. It's very interesting
(02:00):
and leaves one wondering could this be a deliberate strategy
to keep people guessing amid President Trump's ongoing push to
downsize the federal workforce. That much is really just unclear. However,
what is abundantly clear in this moment is that House
(02:20):
Republicans are trying to advance a plan. In fact, the
Republican led House has already passed a stopgap spending bill
to extend operations through November twenty first, but it stalled
in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority of
just fifty three seats. That's also where Democrats have made
(02:41):
certain demands about what must be included in a spending
bill moving forward, demands that President Trump blasted on social
media earlier today. In a statement on truth social he
wrote this in part After reviewing the details of the
unseious and ridiculous demands being made by the minn already
radical left Democrats in return for their votes to keep
(03:03):
our thriving country open, I have decided that no meeting
with their congressional leaders could possibly be productive. They are
threatening to shut down the government of the United States
unless they can have over one trillion dollars in new
spending to continue free health care for illegal aliens a
(03:24):
monumental cost, force taxpayers to fund transgender surgery for miners,
have dead people on the Medicaid roles, allow illegal alien
criminals to steal billions of dollars in American taxpayer benefits,
try to force our country to again open our borders
to criminals into the world, allow men to play in
(03:44):
women's sports, and essentially create transgender operations for everybody. That's
really interesting, and it signifies just what's at stake with
this spending bill. But then on that note, he continued,
writing this, we must keep the government open and legislate
like true patriots, rather than hold American citizens hostage. Knowing
(04:09):
that they want our now thriving country closed. I'll be
happy to meet with them if they agree to the
principles in this letter. They must do their job, otherwise
it will just be another long and brutal slog through
their radicalized Quicksand to the leaders of the Democrat Party,
the ball is in your court. I look forward to
(04:31):
meeting with you when you become realistic about the things
that our country stands for. Do the right thing. Interesting now,
only time will tell what really happens here. But that
post comes after reports surfaced that President Trump was set
to meet with Chuck Schumer and Hakim Jeffreys this week
to discuss a game plan, a meeting which has obviously
(04:54):
been canceled. But here's the bottom line in this equation,
one or two meeting with radical lawmakers won't be enough
to fix the federal government. Even Elon Musk, the best
executor in modern American history, if not all of US history,
was unable to fix these problems. During his stint in Washington,
(05:16):
back when he was spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency
or DOGE. He spent weeks and weeks months even trying
to pick up the pieces of a broken system and
put them back together again. Alongside some of the best
and brightest and most hardworking people in all of America,
(05:36):
and of course with the support of President Trump, but
it still wasn't enough. What does that say? It says
that the corruption in DC is widespread, the dysfunction is deep,
and while House Republicans and the Trump team are trying
to write the ship, they're facing a monumental task and
(05:57):
a whole lot of fierce resistance at every step of
the way. So what is the solution to this problem?
With the national debts surre passing thirty seven trillion dollars
and the clock to pass a new funding bill actively ticking,
one thing is clear here. It's time for change. The
time for talking it's over. The time for negotiating in
(06:20):
the back and forth, that's over too. And the real
key to saving this great country and getting it back
on the right track is sweeping change. Change in the
way that we govern, change in the way that we
think about resource allocation, and change to the reckless spending
habits that have put America deeply in debt. Change is
(06:42):
the answer, and without it, the road ahead will be
a very very difficult one to navigate. So here with
his thoughts and insights and reaction, is Eric Eggers, Vice
President of the Government Accountability Institute and co host of
the Drill Down podcast with Peter Schweitzer. Eric, thank you
for joining me.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Sir, Hey Riley, great to see you as always.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
So I have a lot of questions for you. Let's
just start with your current assessment of where we are
and what really needs to be done here too get
this country back on the right track.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, I think this situation with the pending, potentially looming
government shutdown is a perfect example of just the divide
in Washington, DC. You know, I'm old enough to remember
when during Barack Obama's time, they had a phrase, never
let a crisis go to waste, and that's exactly what
you see the Democrats trying to do right now. They're
attempting to leverage this crisis of a government shutdown into
(07:39):
getting Republicans. They're essentially backtrack on all their hard fought
gains in terms of the spending cuts during the Big
Beautiful Bill. I mean, that was not that long ago
that was passed, And the Democrats are like, we didn't
really mean it, did you, because we are happy we
can just put all that stuff back in, and the
Republicans like, hey, I'm so sorry. I thought elections had
consequent because that's what we want at the ballot box,
(08:03):
and that's what we fought for. We did pass spending cuts,
and the Republicans in the House, Mike Johnson has said, listen,
we will continue to fund this thing for another few months,
just status quo. They both agree that they need to
see increased security measures in the wake of the Charlie
Kirk assassination, but otherwise, we're just going to keep it
where it is. And that's not good enough for the Democrats.
That's why Donald Trump thinks that they are un serious.
(08:24):
That's why he's refusing to meet with Hockeying, Jefferies and
Chuck Schumer because they're attempting to leverage the government shutdown
to essentially get Republicans to go against everything they just
fought for in the big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
And it's the wrong.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Time to bring a bad deal to Donald Trump. He
just got China to sell TikTok. Do you think he's
going to bend the need to jakeem Jeffries, I don't
think so.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Well.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
And to his point, Eric, he is completely right. These
people are unserious and I just want to know why.
I mean, our country is approaching thirty eight trillion dollars
in debt. Nobody, very few people seem to have any
interest in really, you know, away that problem in a
meaningful way. Obviously, we need radical action, and we've tried
to bring people like Elon Musk into the fold to
(09:07):
help us with that, and he just seems disheartened at
this point. So I know this calls for some speculation,
But what do you think is really the crux of
the problem. Is it just corruption, ineptitude a combination of both.
What's going on here?
Speaker 3 (09:22):
You know, Riley, one of my favorite phrases is never
confused in competence for conspiracy. But unfortunately, in this case,
I think we probably have a really awkward and poisonous
mix of both, because I do think that we do
have some conspiracy. The reality is status quo is really
profitable for these entrenched business interests. You and I have
(09:43):
spoken before about how wealthy Washington you see has become
because of the lobbyists and all the contractors. But you
also have people who are not overly focused on doing
what's in their best interest for the country. They're in
doing the things that are in the best interest for themselves.
So I think, unfortunately it is a mix of corruption.
You got members of Congress doing inside trading all the time.
(10:03):
You've got, you know, the revolving door of staff members
going and getting contracts or getting jobs with the people
that get the contracts they pass out. So the fact
that they're trying to undo all the wins that Republicans
just put in for the big beautiful bill in terms
of the spending cuts. You mentioned Elon Musk, and we
can all understand why he's so kind of downspirited, but
(10:23):
the reality is like they fought hard for what little
they were able to preserve from his work, and the
Democrats are now even trying to go back and undo that.
It is unfortunate, but it is the mentality and the
expectation of the people in washingtond c. And they're about
to find out that that's not how business is going
to be done anymore. You know, I'm no it professional,
(10:44):
but sometimes when something's not working, the best thing you
can do is shut it off for a brief amount
of time and then turn it back on. And we
may see them do that with the federal government.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
That's interesting, you know, to your points, such a good one,
just really profound, Eric, So thank you for this truly
so much. President Trump is a disruptor. You said it
best here. The status quo is failing the American people.
It's just not working, and it's failing everybody. Democrats, Republicans,
independence doesn't matter, old people, young people, tall people, short people.
(11:15):
It's failing everybody. It's a toxic system that needs to
be changed. So we voted for President Trump to disrupt
that system and bring us back to equilibrium. But we
can't put all of this onto the shoulders of just
one individual in Washington and only give them four years
to fix the machine. So what do you do realistically
when you have House Republicans trying to move the needle
(11:36):
forward and then they're being undermined by House Democrats Senate Democrats.
It's a really ruthless cycle, and I'm just wondering, how
do we break out of that?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Eric Well, I think you break out of it by
doing exactly what the Republicans are doing, and you just
position the debate as exactly they have. I think it's
genius Donald Trump's post about listen, the Democrats are willing
to fight for this if they don't get transgender surgery,
if they don't get open borders, if they don't get
(12:05):
health care for legal immigrants, then they're going to shut
the government down.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
And the reality is that's correct.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
You know, it has the accidental benefit of being true, Riley,
because the Republicans are saying, look, we will keep the
government open all the legislation that we pass legally in
both chambers and then the President signed it. That's what
we want to keep going. And that's not good enough
for the Democrats. And so Donald Trump is saying, lookten,
you will own this shutdown. And so it's you know,
(12:32):
it's a year before the midterm elections, and I think
it's it's quite smart.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
And how you make it.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Change is you don't pretend that the other side is serious.
You don't pretend that they're legitimate and you're not. You know,
the left loves to deplatform people that they disagree with.
We've seen it when they took Donald Trump off of Twitter. Unfortunately,
you've seen it with the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk.
What the Republicans are doing is say, listen, we're not
going to censor you, but we are going to not
take you seriously because your position and don't deserve it understood.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I completely agree with you on that point as well.
Let's talk about then what happens. I mean, there's still
time on the clock, a deal could be made. Well,
let's talk about what you think could be best case
scenario here for House Republicans. How much headway could we
make give them the leverage that we do have right now.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, it's a great question, and it's gonna be tough,
right because you will need eventually, you got to get
sixty votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. And
so you know, you've got some Republican holdouts, says well,
guys like Rand Paul. They're not a huge fans of
some of the status quot provisions. So you know, Donald
Trump always seems to have a way of getting enough
votes and he's able to call in the right favors.
(13:40):
He does seem to be operating from a relative position
of strength at this moment.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
He has proven to be the ultimate deal maker.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
And it doesn't matter if he's negotiating on tariffs with Europe,
or on Nvidia chips or with TikTok with China. He
seems to have a way of, you know, using these
pressure points to get deals done. All always the thread
of calling in opponents to primary people that don't want
to go along with where they are, so you know,
we'll see. But I think Donald Trump has proven to
be able to be the ultimate deal maker thus far,
(14:09):
and I don't see any reason to believe why this
won't be another example.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Okay, I do agree with that. I mean, he's got
the track record to support it. So I have full
faith in this white Housing this administration. But I also
want to think bigger than that, and just longer term
than that. Let's talk twenty years out from now, fifty
years out from now. We have some really reckless and
toxic behavior in Washington, DC, and I don't really know
what incentivizes it, but especially with this reckless spending, we
(14:34):
have to get this under control. And I want us
to think longer term to twenty twenty eight, twenty thirty two.
What would you like to see us do differently in
terms of maybe de incentivizing that, or just putting some
safeguards into place to make sure that we really trim
down on this step, change our ways, and stop setting
future generations up for failure.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
So one thing that I don't believe will happen riley
thing that I think we could learn a lot of
right if we are a constitutional republic, and you know,
we can learn lessons from the best practices of each
state that are these laboratories of democracy.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I live in the state of.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
Florida, and we have a requirement in our constitution and
we have to have a balanced budget every year, and
so I think, you know, on a high level thing,
the only reason why we're even in this position is
because we the way we fund the government is also
unserious and not the way you would operate any kind
of legitimate business or really your household or anything else.
(15:33):
So I would say, like, no, that's the thing you
could fight for. Now you will have to claw, scratch
and fight tooth and nail, because if you have a
balanced budget, that means a lot of people that currently
make money off of the thirty eight trillion dollars worth
of debt don't continue to make that money.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
So they're not going to be huge fans of that idea.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
But I do think that's a fundamental thing that we
could require states do it, So there's no reason the
federal government couldn't also if they chose to have just
the conviction of their principle.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
And I think if you.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Did that, I think that would actually be that's a
common sense thing, because everyone in their home life knows, hey, listen, like,
you can't just keep racking up dead on the credit card,
of course, doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Why would we not want to operate a government that way?
Speaker 3 (16:14):
And it would force real conversations about you know, we've
seen what happens when you hold up the reckless spending
examples under the light of public scrutiny. You know, it's
an eighty twenty issue in favor of common sense, and
I think you could have a common sense conversation about
what it looks like to be fiscally responsible in a
way that everyone can relate to. That would be a
long term solution to a problem that we continue to
(16:35):
find ourselves in.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Completely agree with you, Eric, Thank you for that, and
what a fantastic point to end on, truly, So just
thank you for that again, and thank you for your
time today.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Well, I just want to be clear.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
You know, I feel attacked and you talk about it
not being safe for short people. It says five to
ten on my driver's license, Riley, Okay, so let's just
keep it there, all right.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
I apologize for that truly, but thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
My pleasure. Thanks Riley.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Coming up next, Missouri Congressman Bob Ander will join us
to discuss his new legislation which aims to prohibit sex
change surgeries for miners, and the young girl that the
bill is named after will join us too. Stay tuned
for more details after the break. Welcome back to the
(17:29):
real story. So, just last week, Missouri Congressman Bob Ander,
a doctor, parent, and a fierce defender of children, dropped
the Chloe Cole Act, a bombshell bill to slam the
brakes on chemical castrations and surgical mutilations of miners, all
happening under the guise of what many people in the
(17:50):
legacy media call gender affirming care. This is an abstract either.
Just the age of thirteen years old, te Cole was
funneled into puberty blockers testosterone shots in a double mistectomy
by the age of fifteen, only to d transition at sixteen,
(18:10):
scarred for life and now suing the people who profited
off of her pain and confusion. And her heartbreaking case
is just one of hundreds, if not thousands. In fact,
reports show over four thousand US minors endured these irreversible
horrors from the years twenty sixteen to twenty twenty alone,
(18:33):
with regret rates being unknown, while some claim it is
somewhere between one and eighty percent, although frankly it could
be even higher, as experts warn that's just the tip
of the iceberg, as they see people who detransition like
Chloe emerge almost every single day. The legislation is now
(18:53):
picking up steam in Washington, with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn
supporting it in the Senate, defining sex as biology not fantasy,
while also empowering victims to sue and extending statutes for
justice because the principal do no harm in medicine shouldn't
(19:13):
be optional and we firmly believe that to be true
as well. Now, only time will tell if this bill
ultimately passes. However, two very special guests at the center
of this ongoing effort are here to discuss it. So
here with us now is the man himself, Missouri Representative
Bob Ander, who represents the state's third congressional district, and
(19:37):
Chloe Cole, a de transition to public speaker and activist.
Thank you both for being here today. I sincerely appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (19:46):
Thank you for having me, so thank you for having
me again.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Absolutely, Chloe, it's great to see you, and just thank
you for all the work that you're doing in this country.
We'll talk about that in just a moment, but I
want to start with you, Representative. So I see this
bill as just a good faith effort to bring back sanity,
to bring back reason to this country, and to restore
medical ethics in America. But I want to ask you
(20:10):
what specifically inspired you to propose this legislation.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
Well, yeah, I think what really inspired me is, as
you mentioned, I am a physician, and this has got
to be one of the most, if not the most
egregious examples of medical malpractice in US history. And I
would further add it is an example of incredible exploitation
(20:37):
of vulnerable children. You know, many children who identify as
a different gender, a different sex, have are suffering from
just sometimes just the turbulence of adolescents in puberty, but
other times depression or anxiety or autism disorder are victims
(20:59):
of it. And yet what I call the gender industrial
complex exploit these children and tell them all their problems
will be better if they only transition to the opposite sex,
and I think that's it's malpractice, it's exploitation, it's profit
over the good of patients, and as a physician, as
(21:20):
a father, I just could not take it anymore. So
we need to we need to pass the Chloe Collact.
And I'm really honored that Chloe is going to work
with us on this, lend her name to this effort
to once and for all end the exploitation and malpractice
on vulnerable children.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
So let's talk about the medical establishment just for a
moment that you're alluding to us. A lot of people
out there are wondering, how could medical doctors be going
along with this when it seems to really just defy
common sense. So what do you make of the root
cause here of the problem? Is it ideology? Is it politics?
Or is it maybe the money behind this industry?
Speaker 4 (22:02):
Well, I think it's all three of those. I think
gender ideology has been around for a long time, and
there's political benefit because the LGBT movement is politically powerful.
But I think this is very different than those who
(22:23):
identify as same sex attracted, gay, or lesbian, because this
really involves preying on young children who are suffering from
many times difficulties with their mental health difficulties adjusting to
puberty or adolescence, and so unfortunately, Chloe's story is not rare.
(22:47):
In just the four years ending in twenty twenty three,
fourteen thousand children in the United States have undergone puberty
blockers or cross sex hormones, and fifty seven hundred children
have undergone some sort of surgical procedure. This is just
medical malpractice on an enormous scale. And that was twenty
(23:08):
twenty three. It's probably a lot higher numbers now. So
what the Chloe Collact would do is to ban these
horrible procedures and then allow the victims, both of the
children and their families to recover damages for the harm
that was done to them.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Wow, that's really powerful. I so appreciate that very much.
And the thing that really sticks out to me is
in some cases there's damage that's been done that seems
to be irreversible. I'm glad we get a step toward justice,
but I really want people to just let that sink
in for a moment. Sometimes the life altering damage that
has done that you just can't undo. It's just it's heartbreaking.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Congressman, Well, and one lie that gets told by the
gender industry to these children and their parents is that
pew peop blockers are just a pause to allow you know,
the the child and their family to you know, work
things out and and think through what their gender really is.
(24:08):
But in reality, in one hundred percent of cases, the
plan is to then transition from puberty blockers to wrong
sex hormones, which unfortunately can render the patient permanently infertile,
as well as a lot of other complications osteoporosis, bone pains,
(24:29):
certain even certain brain tumors. So this is just medical
experimentation on our children on an enormous scale. And England
as well as a Sweden, Norway, Finland have all reconsidered
and essentially banned this these practices. It's time for the
(24:50):
United States to get with the program and do the
same thing.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Completely agreed. It is barbaric and just so corrupt in
my mind, sir. Then pivoting to you, Chloe, as someone
who's been a victim of this system, how important is
it for you to see this this kind of a
bill be proposed and what are you hoping to see
come from it?
Speaker 5 (25:12):
I think that this bill is one of the most
important actions going forward in the fight against this radical ideology.
I've had the pleasure of being able to use my
experience and the testimony that of what my mom and
dad and I went through in many states across the
(25:32):
country and even abroad to stop this permanently. But unfortunately,
there are many more states that are going that are
moving forward in the opposite direction, doubling down on the
abuse that is happening in our institutions and in our governments.
And I think that it's going to take federal action
attacking the gender ideology movement on every single front to
(25:55):
take it down. And it's been it's such an honor
that I have that this bill has been named after me,
and it gives it really honors the experience that I've
been through and that thousands of other children have been through,
and to have that recognition means everything to me.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Really, I completely believe that. Thank you, by the way
for even joining us today to discuss this. But as
far as federal action goes, what do you think it's
really going to take to combat this, as you put it, ideology.
Speaker 5 (26:29):
I think it's going to take every single federal organization
that can get involved getting involved, and there's even organizations
getting involved that like I could never have even dreamed of,
like the like the the FTC investigating the abuses of
the of these practices in these hospitals. And it's going
(26:52):
to take not just investigations, but legislation that will not
only ban these treatments across the board for children, but
also address what happens afterward for these children, for these
young people who have been harmed. This bill is going
to allow for patients who have already been harmed to
(27:13):
seek the treatment that they need, as well as seek
the legal justice that they need, because in a lot
of states, the statute of limitations is just so short.
I'm a lucky case in that I followed my lawsuit
basically as soon as I turned eighteen. But many of
my friends have had their cases dropped. And I mean
I even had had a friend named named Leila who
(27:36):
had a much more horrific experience than Ida. They started
experimenting on her medically when she was twelve, They gave
they removed her breasts at thirteen.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (27:45):
And even though what happened to her was so obviously
disgusting and cool, her case was dropped. She would have
been expected to sue at fifteen years old. But this
bill allows for those of us would and harm very
young to have more time not only to process this,
but also to get the justice something we need in
(28:06):
the legal system.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
I'm really glad that we're just circling this theme of justice,
because that's what it's about. I mean, the lies, the abuse,
and then to just leave people hanging in the dust
like that, having permanently changed their entire lives, just flipping
everything upside down without any care for the long term
consequences or ramifications. It is absolutely completely cool.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
And this I'm just so grateful for this bill because
I mean the thousands of children, the thousands of young
men and women out there who have been through what
I have. Even even if we defrenish in even if
we accept our God given solves as the men and
(28:49):
women were made to be, there is no reversing the
scars and the damages happened to our bodies. But this
gives us hope going forward, and it will protect a
whole generation of children and the generations to come from
the damage that we've been through.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Just thank you again for even sharing your insight into
this issue, and Congressman for your part. Thank you for
proposing this. I wish you godspeed and all the best
with getting this signed into law and moving it forward.
And thank you both for your time today very.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Much, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Coming up next, we'll take things in a slightly different
direction to a controversial new law in California that was
recently passed by Governor Gavin Newsom. More details about what
it means after the break. Welcome back to the real story.
(29:52):
Are you tired of living in a safe area where
crime is low and trust is high? Are you tired
of having a sense of financial security in your life?
Are you ready to pay five dollars or more for
just one single gallon of gas? Then come to California,
where rising crime, sprawling homelessness, and skyrocketing costs are all
(30:16):
just a part of the fund. And it's all things
to the leadership of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a man
who appears to spend most of his time stonewalling the
Trump administration instead of fixing his own states issues. That's
real leadership, right wrong, But in any case, it brings
us to our next story. So Governor Newsom recently signed
(30:40):
a brand new law that bans a federal ice agents
from wearing masks while operating in the state, and it
comes amidst the Trump administration's intensified deportation efforts all over
southern California. At a recent signing ceremony, Newsom even described
these efforts as being terrifying, claiming that people are quote
(31:02):
literally disappearing. Now, that's not what's really happening here, and
the real story is much different, But that's also a
different conversation. In the meantime, though, this new law is
set to take effect in January, and it also extends
to local law enforcement, marking what could be the first
such restriction in the whole country. But that's where the
(31:25):
real story gets even more intriguing. Can a state really
dictate how federal officers conduct their official duties? And if so,
then what specifically allows them to do that? And if not,
will the Trump administration challenge this new law. Legal experts
are already anticipating some major court battles ahead given the
(31:49):
very murky waters of state authority over federal agents, and
this whole puzzle really leaves one wondering what is this
move actually designed to do? Here? To help us answer
those questions, is Davis Hunt's a veteran in military defense
attorney with Hut's Law. Davis, thank you for being.
Speaker 6 (32:08):
Here, sir Riley. It's always an honor to join you.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
So let's just start here. What do you think is
really behind this new law from Governor Newsom?
Speaker 7 (32:18):
Listen?
Speaker 6 (32:19):
I think this is just absolute political pandering to radical
extremists in California and to those that would want to
see ICE agents and their families harmed. I mean, there's
no good explanation for this other than he knows this
is not going to stand up to court scrutiny. He
knows this isn't going to stand and that the administration
(32:41):
is going to challenge it. So it just feels like
a very very poorly veiled effort at political posturing.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
And do you think it really just speaks to his
broader ambitions about wanting to be president one day, knowing
that the only way to climb the ranks of the
Democrat Party is to basically stonewall President Trump.
Speaker 6 (32:59):
Oh, I think so. I think he is absolutely pandering
to his base. The problem is when you say things
like what are these agents afraid of? What are they
afraid of? You are creating risk and you are creating
danger for these agents who have been attacked. Listen, attacks
on ICE agents are up one thousand percent in the
Trump administration than what they were previously. So you know,
(33:20):
we can excuse and just sort of laugh as American people. Oh,
this is Gavin Newsom being Gavin Newsom, this is him
doing his political posturing and pandering to his radical base.
But the reality is what he is doing here, and
even the rhetoric is using, is creating danger for these agents.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Well we saw that earlier this year in Los Angeles,
right earlier this summer, when people were physically attacking agents
all over the city for just trying to do their jobs. Look,
maybe you don't like what's going on. Maybe you do,
but these are federal employees doing what they've been instructed
to do and attacking them is just completely ridiculous. So
doing this little stunt here is just it's it's adding
(33:58):
fuel to the fire and it's really disgusting to see that.
But it brings us then to the legal the legal
question here, Davis walk us through what the law says
about anyone at the state level trying to dictate how
someone at the federal level does their job.
Speaker 6 (34:13):
Well, first of all, when we talk about immigration, federal
law is very clear. The courts have been very clear
this is a federal supremacy issue, and so when we're
dealing with immigration and immigration enforcement states, there's not a
lot of states can do with regard to the discretion
the federal government has. But even more than that, we
are talking essentially about things that are being done by
(34:36):
ICE to protect their agents, to protect the safety of
their families. So this is, you know, this is kind
of like a state saying, well, we're not going to
allow federal agents to wear bulletproof vests in California. I mean,
this is that's not an extreme thing to say that,
that's the kind of thing they're doing. So I don't
think this is going to stand up to any kind
of legal scrutiny. And just practically speaking, the Trump administration
(34:57):
is not going to put these agents and their families
at risk by telling them not to wear masks to
protect themselves from these radical extremists. So it's going to
have to be a scenario where Governor Newsom would order
some sort of California law enforcement to arrest or charge
ICE agents for wearing a mask, and then you're looking
at a court battle there. So I think the Trump
administration will likely challenge this in court before it even
(35:20):
gets in place. But then I think you'll also see
you just the practical question of how would he even
enforce this? Is he really going to try and charge
federal agents for protecting their identity? I don't see that happening.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Completely, and that would just bog down the legal system.
Everything would grind to a halt. It would be a
fantastic waste of time. So just to really be clear here, Davis,
what you're saying is that when push comes to shove,
Newsome and his cronies and Sacramento have no recourse whatsoever
to even try to enforce a law like this.
Speaker 6 (35:51):
I don't see them being successful at all. Again, this
is going into not only issues with federal supremacy when
it comes to immigration enforcement, but also so tactical questions
of officer safety. And there's absolutely no president precedent for
any state dictating to federal law enforcement. You can't wear
a bulletproof vest, you can't protect your the identity of
(36:12):
your agents, you can't protect their families by protecting their identity.
There's just absolutely no precedent for that, and I think
this this fails miserably.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
Okay, now let's pivot for a moment just to ice
raids themselves, deportation efforts broadly. Does the federal government basically
have broad strokes control over how raids are conducted and
how immigration enforcement is handled state by state all across
the country.
Speaker 6 (36:36):
That they do, And you know, we have seen this.
You know, some states pushed back against the authority of
the federal government during the Biden administration, for example, and
so we've seen this cut both ways. But ultimately courts
are very consistent. Immigration is a question of federal law
of national policy, and so states are limited in what
they can do. And there really isn't a good basis
(36:57):
for any of these sanctuary cities or otherwise, and that
really is the problem here. But again, you're looking at
a state that is creating a self fulfilled prophecy when
it comes to violence and doing this. And just so
we're clear on this, we are talking about individuals who
have broken the law and disrespected the borders and sovereignty
(37:17):
of the United States to come into this country. So
we are not talking about other processes or processes that
would be there for a citizen. We're talking about something
else entirely, and all of these individuals that are afraid
of these deportations are more than welcome to and our
government has gracioually made, graciously made processes available for them
to self deport and get in line to legally come
(37:39):
into the United States.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
I've never heard of any other country on the planet
ever being so gracious with people who've come into this
country illegally.
Speaker 7 (37:47):
Davis, have you no, And again, it just speaks to
the kind of people that are involved in this and
the kind of people that you have, like Christinome leading
this effort.
Speaker 6 (37:58):
You know, they're as lily people who are trying to
do the right thing. They're trying to protect the American people,
and it's not about racism or hatred or anything else.
It's about enforcing the law and protecting the sovereignty the
United States for all Americans. And we can't do that
unless we have borders, unless we have respect for our loss.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Completely understood. Thank you, by the way for coming on
and just clarifying what's going on. It's a very obvious
pr stunt coming from a very corrupt individual who obviously
just wants to be the president of this country. I
don't think Newsom has any principles. I think he just
wants to win personally. I could be wrong, but that's
really what I see as someone who just wants more power.
But in the meantime, Davis, just thank you for stopping
(38:38):
by and really elucidating this issue for us today.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (38:42):
God bless you, and God bless the ICE agents that
are out there doing this job for our nation.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Hey man, coming up next? To save TikTok or not
to save TikTok? That is the question as the Trump
administration looks to make a brand new deal to save
the controversial social media app from being banned from operating
right here in America. More details about it after the break.
(39:19):
Welcome back to the real story. You know, there's an
old saying out there about losing the battle to win
the war, and while the fight for ownership over TikTok
there is certainly no war, it does seem that the
US might be about to win this battle. After many
little battles spanning over five years and across three different administrations,
(39:41):
it seems that TikTok's parent company, byte Edance, may finally
make a deal with the US government regarding ownership of
the wildly popular application. President Trump is expected by many
to sign a deal that would give American investors most
of the control over the app, allowing the American company
that ultimately buys it to safeguard user data, an issue
(40:05):
that lies at the center of TikTok's use in America today.
Oracle co founder Larry Ellison is slated to serve as
the app's security provider once the deal is signed, and Oracle,
as well as the private equity firm Silver Leak, will
reportedly own about eighty percent of the company, leaving less
(40:26):
than twenty percent of the company to Byte Dance, its
current parent owner. And with this deal in the works,
the new board will be getting a copy of the
app's algorithm, which one White House official said would be
retrained on US data and then continuously monitored for safety
by Oracle. And here's the real kicker, China will not
(40:48):
be able to access any data of American users under
this new agreement. So here with Moore is Hunter Gaylor,
CEO of Marketbridge Advisors and board member of the new
Journey Pack. Hunter, thank you for being here.
Speaker 8 (41:04):
Always a pleasure to join you.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
So the critical issue just at the center of this
whole story is protecting the data of American users. Would
you be confident with this new deal as it stands
now that we could effectively protect that user data?
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Well?
Speaker 8 (41:21):
Look, I mean control of user data is very important
in any organization and any country for that matter. So
do I feel optimistic that you know, under this White
House leadership, that this transaction goes through, that it's in
you know, the hands of you know, a US tech
giant versus a Chinese tech tech giant.
Speaker 6 (41:39):
Yes?
Speaker 8 (41:40):
Do I feel that with you know, people like Larry
Ellison an oracle, you know running the board, is that
going to be good? Yes? My only my only concern
is if you're looking at it from a data perspective. Yes,
this is a good move, right, because you don't want
your your enemies essentially to have you know, foreign ownership
and use it for spying purposes. But I want to
(42:00):
be very careful here because there's a very fine line.
This is when government owns or controls the means of speech, right,
freedom becomes contingent. Okay, And so you know, I think
it's a very very clear thing that I want your
audience to understand is what you said is the government
not being directly involved in the company.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
Do you think this really is appropriately walking that fine line,
or do you think that we're maybe getting a little
too close, dangerously close to government controlling privately owned apps
and therefore having power they shouldn't have.
Speaker 8 (42:34):
Yeah, it's it's a very far it's a very very
fine line, because you know, the core premise of free
markets is that companies own what they legitimately create. So
when you force a sale or a government control of
a company or parts of it, it undermines property rights
and it sets a very dangerous precedent. And that's what
we have to be careful of. Now, if you want
to go and you talk about this slippery slope towards
(42:56):
you know, state capitalism, then that's that's a whole nother
you know. So that's a whole nother slippy slope. Because
the government starts forcing its ownership deals for quote national
security or quote influence, it gradually becomes a state capitalism.
And that's where political power intervenes heavily in private enterprises.
And I think this undermines competitiveness. However, that being said,
(43:17):
that's my caveat. That being said, do I think it's
better in the hands of the US than in China. Absolutely,
it'd be no different than saying I'd rather have stuff
made in America than made in China.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
About whether or not TikTok is really worth saving and
speaking to the social impact of it and just social
media broadly, Clearly, there are many people who spend hours
and hours all day long on TikTok and that doesn't
seem to be healthy or good for society just broadly.
So I want to ask you, just in your own
personal opinion here, do you think TikTok itself as a
(43:49):
platform is really worth saving so to speak, or keeping around?
Speaker 8 (43:55):
I think you could answer in two different ways. If
you ask the shareholders, they're valuing the company a three
hundred and thirty billion dollars is what bittedance was, So
one could argue, yes, from a monetary perspective, we want
to save it because it's just business right. They don't
look at it anything else black and white. It's just
a business decision, right versus you know, my personal take
on TikTok. I mean, I scroll on it. I'm not
(44:17):
a religious TikTok user. I'm on Instagram and x and
things like that, but I mainly use it for news.
So I mean, I'm probably not the best person ask,
but I do know that people make a lot of
money on the platform. And you know, in this in
this uh what i'll call content driven era or content
driven century. You know, it's content's king and and that's
(44:40):
you know, it's a very famous saying. And so I
think really comes down to the individual, right where do
you want to spend most of your time in TikTok
or do you want to you know, actually try you
know the real world.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
That's really interesting just out of curiosity. Then do you
happen to have any more concrete data about how much
money people can make on this platform and how big
the sort of let's say economic ecosphere is surrounding the application.
Speaker 8 (45:04):
Well, you know, to speak in direct terms, if you
look at any of the major influencers out there that
have businesses or brands, I mean they're selling a lot.
Shopify numbers are up because of you know, how they're
doing the shopping. Now you have apps like whatnot and
the rest of these like you know, auction things, so
they're really starting. You know, the video platforms for short
for short form videos for saling is going through and
(45:25):
you're seeing by the way major companies start adjusting to this.
Amazon's doing it with live shopping now and you're seeing
that on where they're streaming their shopping channels for various stores.
So you know, in terms of you know, how much
of money I make on TikTok, I don't make any
money on TikTok?
Speaker 4 (45:40):
Right?
Speaker 2 (45:40):
Do we use it?
Speaker 8 (45:41):
And does it occasionally get us a client here there
with some ads see occasionally? What I wouldn't say it's
bringing in millions, but there's definitely a lot of users.
And I don't think the market or the owners of
ByteDance valuation when you start pushing valuations like three hundred
and thirty billion dollars. By the way, that's an article
according to Ruter's that was August twenty eighth of this year, wow,
(46:01):
as their revenue surpasses Meta. So you know, just just
that alone, right, has you know some pondering that needs
to be done. I'd like to see the actual details
once the transaction is complete, what it actually looks like,
who's actually in charge, and then we can start doing
a deeper conversation on what the ramifications are.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
I want to bring you back on the show, so
we can take a deep dive into it and you
can tell us whether or not you think it's really
a good deal or not for the American people.
Speaker 8 (46:28):
Absolutely would love to.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Okay. Then, in the meantime, thank you for being here
and thank you for your insight in your analysis, and
we look forward to having you back on the show soon. Hunter.
Speaker 8 (46:36):
Always a pleasure. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
Coming up next, today's edition of Really Good News goes
out to a man whose music has changed the world
one song at a time. More details after the break.
(47:09):
Welcome back to the Real Story. On today's edition of
Real Good News, we have a special birthday wish to
share with Bruce Springsteen, who was born on this day
in nineteen forty nine. Bruce Springsteen, singer, songwriter, performer, and guitarist,
is originally from Long Branch, New Jersey and grew up Catholic,
(47:31):
and when he was only fifteen years old, he saw
the Beatles play on the Ed Sullivan Show and was
inspired to buy his first ever guitar. He then played
at local venues in his own hometown, eventually working his
way up to playing in his very first band, Steele Mill,
and then he continued to shape America music as his
following grew bigger and bigger. In nineteen seventy two, he
(47:55):
was then signed to Columbia Records, the same exact label
that Famous signed Bob Dylan, and this led him to
experience some comparison to the historic and poetic folk artist,
but he eventually broke free and made a name for
himself all on his own. Then, over time, he became
a nationwide sensation and a household name all over the
(48:19):
country as people from every part of this land bought
his records and attended his extremely energetic concerts and performances. Ultimately,
he became one of the most influential and recognizable musicians
of his generation, producing giant radio anthems like Dancing in
the Dark, Glory Days, Born in the USA, and Born
(48:44):
to Run. He's also sold over one hundred and forty
million records worldwide throughout his career, with seventy one million
coming from just here in the US, and with twenty
Grammy Awards under his belt, along with two Golden Globes,
a Tony and an Academy Award, It's no wonder. He
(49:04):
was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in twenty
sixteen by former President Barack Obama and being widely viewed
as really one of the most prolific singer songwriters in
all of American history. We want to wish him a
very happy birthday. So from everybody here at the Real Story,
Happy birthday, Boss. And that concludes today's broadcast. We truly
(49:28):
hope you enjoyed it, and remember we always want to
hear from you, so please email your feedback and any
news stories you'd like us to cover to the Real
Story at oann dot com and to follow us on
social media at the Real Story An. So until we
meet again, God bless you, God bless our troops, and
(49:51):
God bless America.
Welcome to the Real Story. I'm your host, Riley Lewis.
Thank you for joining us. Today's top story is all
about dysfunction in Washington. It's about what happens when people
in government forget how to properly govern, A cautionary tale
as all as time itself of what goes wrong when
(00:33):
leaders make poor decisions over and over and over again
without any real regard for the consequences of those decisions,
only to try to fix the problems they've created with
the exact same mindset that led to those problems being created.
And most importantly, it's about what happens when people in
(00:53):
power just aren't held accountable for their actions. Accountability is
the ultimate antidote to dysfunction, and the dysfunction in Washington
today can and should be attributed largely to a lack
of real accountability. That's the crux of every issue in
our federal government today, and it brings us to our
(01:15):
first story of the show, the looming government shutdown. With
eight days to go until the current fiscal year ends,
that being on Tuesday of next week, September thirtieth, Washington
d C is staring down the barrel of another potential
government shutdown what would be the fifteenth partial one since
(01:36):
nineteen eighty one, and the Trump administration is curiously tight
lipped on its contingency plans. While previous administrations in years
past have posted detailed shutdown blueprints on the Office of
Management and Budget's website, that website currently sits empty, with
no concrete updates having been posted yet. It's very interesting
(02:00):
and leaves one wondering could this be a deliberate strategy
to keep people guessing amid President Trump's ongoing push to
downsize the federal workforce. That much is really just unclear. However,
what is abundantly clear in this moment is that House
(02:20):
Republicans are trying to advance a plan. In fact, the
Republican led House has already passed a stopgap spending bill
to extend operations through November twenty first, but it stalled
in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority of
just fifty three seats. That's also where Democrats have made
(02:41):
certain demands about what must be included in a spending
bill moving forward, demands that President Trump blasted on social
media earlier today. In a statement on truth social he
wrote this in part After reviewing the details of the
unseious and ridiculous demands being made by the minn already
radical left Democrats in return for their votes to keep
(03:03):
our thriving country open, I have decided that no meeting
with their congressional leaders could possibly be productive. They are
threatening to shut down the government of the United States
unless they can have over one trillion dollars in new
spending to continue free health care for illegal aliens a
(03:24):
monumental cost, force taxpayers to fund transgender surgery for miners,
have dead people on the Medicaid roles, allow illegal alien
criminals to steal billions of dollars in American taxpayer benefits,
try to force our country to again open our borders
to criminals into the world, allow men to play in
(03:44):
women's sports, and essentially create transgender operations for everybody. That's
really interesting, and it signifies just what's at stake with
this spending bill. But then on that note, he continued,
writing this, we must keep the government open and legislate
like true patriots, rather than hold American citizens hostage. Knowing
(04:09):
that they want our now thriving country closed. I'll be
happy to meet with them if they agree to the
principles in this letter. They must do their job, otherwise
it will just be another long and brutal slog through
their radicalized Quicksand to the leaders of the Democrat Party,
the ball is in your court. I look forward to
(04:31):
meeting with you when you become realistic about the things
that our country stands for. Do the right thing. Interesting now,
only time will tell what really happens here. But that
post comes after reports surfaced that President Trump was set
to meet with Chuck Schumer and Hakim Jeffreys this week
to discuss a game plan, a meeting which has obviously
(04:54):
been canceled. But here's the bottom line in this equation,
one or two meeting with radical lawmakers won't be enough
to fix the federal government. Even Elon Musk, the best
executor in modern American history, if not all of US history,
was unable to fix these problems. During his stint in Washington,
(05:16):
back when he was spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency
or DOGE. He spent weeks and weeks months even trying
to pick up the pieces of a broken system and
put them back together again. Alongside some of the best
and brightest and most hardworking people in all of America,
(05:36):
and of course with the support of President Trump, but
it still wasn't enough. What does that say? It says
that the corruption in DC is widespread, the dysfunction is deep,
and while House Republicans and the Trump team are trying
to write the ship, they're facing a monumental task and
(05:57):
a whole lot of fierce resistance at every step of
the way. So what is the solution to this problem?
With the national debts surre passing thirty seven trillion dollars
and the clock to pass a new funding bill actively ticking,
one thing is clear here. It's time for change. The
time for talking it's over. The time for negotiating in
(06:20):
the back and forth, that's over too. And the real
key to saving this great country and getting it back
on the right track is sweeping change. Change in the
way that we govern, change in the way that we
think about resource allocation, and change to the reckless spending
habits that have put America deeply in debt. Change is
(06:42):
the answer, and without it, the road ahead will be
a very very difficult one to navigate. So here with
his thoughts and insights and reaction, is Eric Eggers, Vice
President of the Government Accountability Institute and co host of
the Drill Down podcast with Peter Schweitzer. Eric, thank you
for joining me.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
Sir, Hey Riley, great to see you as always.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
So I have a lot of questions for you. Let's
just start with your current assessment of where we are
and what really needs to be done here too get
this country back on the right track.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Well, I think this situation with the pending, potentially looming
government shutdown is a perfect example of just the divide
in Washington, DC. You know, I'm old enough to remember
when during Barack Obama's time, they had a phrase, never
let a crisis go to waste, and that's exactly what
you see the Democrats trying to do right now. They're
attempting to leverage this crisis of a government shutdown into
(07:39):
getting Republicans. They're essentially backtrack on all their hard fought
gains in terms of the spending cuts during the Big
Beautiful Bill. I mean, that was not that long ago
that was passed, And the Democrats are like, we didn't
really mean it, did you, because we are happy we
can just put all that stuff back in, and the
Republicans like, hey, I'm so sorry. I thought elections had
consequent because that's what we want at the ballot box,
(08:03):
and that's what we fought for. We did pass spending cuts,
and the Republicans in the House, Mike Johnson has said, listen,
we will continue to fund this thing for another few months,
just status quo. They both agree that they need to
see increased security measures in the wake of the Charlie
Kirk assassination, but otherwise, we're just going to keep it
where it is. And that's not good enough for the Democrats.
That's why Donald Trump thinks that they are un serious.
(08:24):
That's why he's refusing to meet with Hockeying, Jefferies and
Chuck Schumer because they're attempting to leverage the government shutdown
to essentially get Republicans to go against everything they just
fought for in the big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
And it's the wrong.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Time to bring a bad deal to Donald Trump. He
just got China to sell TikTok. Do you think he's
going to bend the need to jakeem Jeffries, I don't
think so.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Well.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
And to his point, Eric, he is completely right. These
people are unserious and I just want to know why.
I mean, our country is approaching thirty eight trillion dollars
in debt. Nobody, very few people seem to have any
interest in really, you know, away that problem in a
meaningful way. Obviously, we need radical action, and we've tried
to bring people like Elon Musk into the fold to
(09:07):
help us with that, and he just seems disheartened at
this point. So I know this calls for some speculation,
But what do you think is really the crux of
the problem. Is it just corruption, ineptitude a combination of both.
What's going on here?
Speaker 3 (09:22):
You know, Riley, one of my favorite phrases is never
confused in competence for conspiracy. But unfortunately, in this case,
I think we probably have a really awkward and poisonous
mix of both, because I do think that we do
have some conspiracy. The reality is status quo is really
profitable for these entrenched business interests. You and I have
(09:43):
spoken before about how wealthy Washington you see has become
because of the lobbyists and all the contractors. But you
also have people who are not overly focused on doing
what's in their best interest for the country. They're in
doing the things that are in the best interest for themselves.
So I think, unfortunately it is a mix of corruption.
You got members of Congress doing inside trading all the time.
(10:03):
You've got, you know, the revolving door of staff members
going and getting contracts or getting jobs with the people
that get the contracts they pass out. So the fact
that they're trying to undo all the wins that Republicans
just put in for the big beautiful bill in terms
of the spending cuts. You mentioned Elon Musk, and we
can all understand why he's so kind of downspirited, but
(10:23):
the reality is like they fought hard for what little
they were able to preserve from his work, and the
Democrats are now even trying to go back and undo that.
It is unfortunate, but it is the mentality and the
expectation of the people in washingtond c. And they're about
to find out that that's not how business is going
to be done anymore. You know, I'm no it professional,
(10:44):
but sometimes when something's not working, the best thing you
can do is shut it off for a brief amount
of time and then turn it back on. And we
may see them do that with the federal government.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
That's interesting, you know, to your points, such a good one,
just really profound, Eric, So thank you for this truly
so much. President Trump is a disruptor. You said it
best here. The status quo is failing the American people.
It's just not working, and it's failing everybody. Democrats, Republicans,
independence doesn't matter, old people, young people, tall people, short people.
(11:15):
It's failing everybody. It's a toxic system that needs to
be changed. So we voted for President Trump to disrupt
that system and bring us back to equilibrium. But we
can't put all of this onto the shoulders of just
one individual in Washington and only give them four years
to fix the machine. So what do you do realistically
when you have House Republicans trying to move the needle
(11:36):
forward and then they're being undermined by House Democrats Senate Democrats.
It's a really ruthless cycle, and I'm just wondering, how
do we break out of that?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Eric Well, I think you break out of it by
doing exactly what the Republicans are doing, and you just
position the debate as exactly they have. I think it's
genius Donald Trump's post about listen, the Democrats are willing
to fight for this if they don't get transgender surgery,
if they don't get open borders, if they don't get
(12:05):
health care for legal immigrants, then they're going to shut
the government down.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
And the reality is that's correct.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
You know, it has the accidental benefit of being true, Riley,
because the Republicans are saying, look, we will keep the
government open all the legislation that we pass legally in
both chambers and then the President signed it. That's what
we want to keep going. And that's not good enough
for the Democrats. And so Donald Trump is saying, lookten,
you will own this shutdown. And so it's you know,
(12:32):
it's a year before the midterm elections, and I think
it's it's quite smart.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
And how you make it.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Change is you don't pretend that the other side is serious.
You don't pretend that they're legitimate and you're not. You know,
the left loves to deplatform people that they disagree with.
We've seen it when they took Donald Trump off of Twitter. Unfortunately,
you've seen it with the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk.
What the Republicans are doing is say, listen, we're not
going to censor you, but we are going to not
take you seriously because your position and don't deserve it understood.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I completely agree with you on that point as well.
Let's talk about then what happens. I mean, there's still
time on the clock, a deal could be made. Well,
let's talk about what you think could be best case
scenario here for House Republicans. How much headway could we
make give them the leverage that we do have right now.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Yeah, it's a great question, and it's gonna be tough,
right because you will need eventually, you got to get
sixty votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. And
so you know, you've got some Republican holdouts, says well,
guys like Rand Paul. They're not a huge fans of
some of the status quot provisions. So you know, Donald
Trump always seems to have a way of getting enough
votes and he's able to call in the right favors.
(13:40):
He does seem to be operating from a relative position
of strength at this moment.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
He has proven to be the ultimate deal maker.
Speaker 3 (13:47):
And it doesn't matter if he's negotiating on tariffs with Europe,
or on Nvidia chips or with TikTok with China. He
seems to have a way of, you know, using these
pressure points to get deals done. All always the thread
of calling in opponents to primary people that don't want
to go along with where they are, so you know,
we'll see. But I think Donald Trump has proven to
be able to be the ultimate deal maker thus far,
(14:09):
and I don't see any reason to believe why this
won't be another example.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
Okay, I do agree with that. I mean, he's got
the track record to support it. So I have full
faith in this white Housing this administration. But I also
want to think bigger than that, and just longer term
than that. Let's talk twenty years out from now, fifty
years out from now. We have some really reckless and
toxic behavior in Washington, DC, and I don't really know
what incentivizes it, but especially with this reckless spending, we
(14:34):
have to get this under control. And I want us
to think longer term to twenty twenty eight, twenty thirty two.
What would you like to see us do differently in
terms of maybe de incentivizing that, or just putting some
safeguards into place to make sure that we really trim
down on this step, change our ways, and stop setting
future generations up for failure.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
So one thing that I don't believe will happen riley
thing that I think we could learn a lot of
right if we are a constitutional republic, and you know,
we can learn lessons from the best practices of each
state that are these laboratories of democracy.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I live in the state of.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
Florida, and we have a requirement in our constitution and
we have to have a balanced budget every year, and
so I think, you know, on a high level thing,
the only reason why we're even in this position is
because we the way we fund the government is also
unserious and not the way you would operate any kind
of legitimate business or really your household or anything else.
(15:33):
So I would say, like, no, that's the thing you
could fight for. Now you will have to claw, scratch
and fight tooth and nail, because if you have a
balanced budget, that means a lot of people that currently
make money off of the thirty eight trillion dollars worth
of debt don't continue to make that money.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
So they're not going to be huge fans of that idea.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
But I do think that's a fundamental thing that we
could require states do it, So there's no reason the
federal government couldn't also if they chose to have just
the conviction of their principle.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
And I think if you.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Did that, I think that would actually be that's a
common sense thing, because everyone in their home life knows, hey, listen, like,
you can't just keep racking up dead on the credit card,
of course, doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
Why would we not want to operate a government that way?
Speaker 3 (16:14):
And it would force real conversations about you know, we've
seen what happens when you hold up the reckless spending
examples under the light of public scrutiny. You know, it's
an eighty twenty issue in favor of common sense, and
I think you could have a common sense conversation about
what it looks like to be fiscally responsible in a
way that everyone can relate to. That would be a
long term solution to a problem that we continue to
(16:35):
find ourselves in.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Completely agree with you, Eric, Thank you for that, and
what a fantastic point to end on, truly, So just
thank you for that again, and thank you for your
time today.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Well, I just want to be clear.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
You know, I feel attacked and you talk about it
not being safe for short people. It says five to
ten on my driver's license, Riley, Okay, so let's just
keep it there, all right.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
I apologize for that truly, but thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
My pleasure. Thanks Riley.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Coming up next, Missouri Congressman Bob Ander will join us
to discuss his new legislation which aims to prohibit sex
change surgeries for miners, and the young girl that the
bill is named after will join us too. Stay tuned
for more details after the break. Welcome back to the
(17:29):
real story. So, just last week, Missouri Congressman Bob Ander,
a doctor, parent, and a fierce defender of children, dropped
the Chloe Cole Act, a bombshell bill to slam the
brakes on chemical castrations and surgical mutilations of miners, all
happening under the guise of what many people in the
(17:50):
legacy media call gender affirming care. This is an abstract either.
Just the age of thirteen years old, te Cole was
funneled into puberty blockers testosterone shots in a double mistectomy
by the age of fifteen, only to d transition at sixteen,
(18:10):
scarred for life and now suing the people who profited
off of her pain and confusion. And her heartbreaking case
is just one of hundreds, if not thousands. In fact,
reports show over four thousand US minors endured these irreversible
horrors from the years twenty sixteen to twenty twenty alone,
(18:33):
with regret rates being unknown, while some claim it is
somewhere between one and eighty percent, although frankly it could
be even higher, as experts warn that's just the tip
of the iceberg, as they see people who detransition like
Chloe emerge almost every single day. The legislation is now
(18:53):
picking up steam in Washington, with Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn
supporting it in the Senate, defining sex as biology not fantasy,
while also empowering victims to sue and extending statutes for
justice because the principal do no harm in medicine shouldn't
(19:13):
be optional and we firmly believe that to be true
as well. Now, only time will tell if this bill
ultimately passes. However, two very special guests at the center
of this ongoing effort are here to discuss it. So
here with us now is the man himself, Missouri Representative
Bob Ander, who represents the state's third congressional district, and
(19:37):
Chloe Cole, a de transition to public speaker and activist.
Thank you both for being here today. I sincerely appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (19:46):
Thank you for having me, so thank you for having
me again.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Absolutely, Chloe, it's great to see you, and just thank
you for all the work that you're doing in this country.
We'll talk about that in just a moment, but I
want to start with you, Representative. So I see this
bill as just a good faith effort to bring back sanity,
to bring back reason to this country, and to restore
medical ethics in America. But I want to ask you
(20:10):
what specifically inspired you to propose this legislation.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
Well, yeah, I think what really inspired me is, as
you mentioned, I am a physician, and this has got
to be one of the most, if not the most
egregious examples of medical malpractice in US history. And I
would further add it is an example of incredible exploitation
(20:37):
of vulnerable children. You know, many children who identify as
a different gender, a different sex, have are suffering from
just sometimes just the turbulence of adolescents in puberty, but
other times depression or anxiety or autism disorder are victims
(20:59):
of it. And yet what I call the gender industrial
complex exploit these children and tell them all their problems
will be better if they only transition to the opposite sex,
and I think that's it's malpractice, it's exploitation, it's profit
over the good of patients, and as a physician, as
(21:20):
a father, I just could not take it anymore. So
we need to we need to pass the Chloe Collact.
And I'm really honored that Chloe is going to work
with us on this, lend her name to this effort
to once and for all end the exploitation and malpractice
on vulnerable children.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
So let's talk about the medical establishment just for a
moment that you're alluding to us. A lot of people
out there are wondering, how could medical doctors be going
along with this when it seems to really just defy
common sense. So what do you make of the root
cause here of the problem? Is it ideology? Is it politics?
Or is it maybe the money behind this industry?
Speaker 4 (22:02):
Well, I think it's all three of those. I think
gender ideology has been around for a long time, and
there's political benefit because the LGBT movement is politically powerful.
But I think this is very different than those who
(22:23):
identify as same sex attracted, gay, or lesbian, because this
really involves preying on young children who are suffering from
many times difficulties with their mental health difficulties adjusting to
puberty or adolescence, and so unfortunately, Chloe's story is not rare.
(22:47):
In just the four years ending in twenty twenty three,
fourteen thousand children in the United States have undergone puberty
blockers or cross sex hormones, and fifty seven hundred children
have undergone some sort of surgical procedure. This is just
medical malpractice on an enormous scale. And that was twenty
(23:08):
twenty three. It's probably a lot higher numbers now. So
what the Chloe Collact would do is to ban these
horrible procedures and then allow the victims, both of the
children and their families to recover damages for the harm
that was done to them.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Wow, that's really powerful. I so appreciate that very much.
And the thing that really sticks out to me is
in some cases there's damage that's been done that seems
to be irreversible. I'm glad we get a step toward justice,
but I really want people to just let that sink
in for a moment. Sometimes the life altering damage that
has done that you just can't undo. It's just it's heartbreaking.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Congressman, Well, and one lie that gets told by the
gender industry to these children and their parents is that
pew peop blockers are just a pause to allow you know,
the the child and their family to you know, work
things out and and think through what their gender really is.
(24:08):
But in reality, in one hundred percent of cases, the
plan is to then transition from puberty blockers to wrong
sex hormones, which unfortunately can render the patient permanently infertile,
as well as a lot of other complications osteoporosis, bone pains,
(24:29):
certain even certain brain tumors. So this is just medical
experimentation on our children on an enormous scale. And England
as well as a Sweden, Norway, Finland have all reconsidered
and essentially banned this these practices. It's time for the
(24:50):
United States to get with the program and do the
same thing.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Completely agreed. It is barbaric and just so corrupt in
my mind, sir. Then pivoting to you, Chloe, as someone
who's been a victim of this system, how important is
it for you to see this this kind of a
bill be proposed and what are you hoping to see
come from it?
Speaker 5 (25:12):
I think that this bill is one of the most
important actions going forward in the fight against this radical ideology.
I've had the pleasure of being able to use my
experience and the testimony that of what my mom and
dad and I went through in many states across the
(25:32):
country and even abroad to stop this permanently. But unfortunately,
there are many more states that are going that are
moving forward in the opposite direction, doubling down on the
abuse that is happening in our institutions and in our governments.
And I think that it's going to take federal action
attacking the gender ideology movement on every single front to
(25:55):
take it down. And it's been it's such an honor
that I have that this bill has been named after me,
and it gives it really honors the experience that I've
been through and that thousands of other children have been through,
and to have that recognition means everything to me.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Really, I completely believe that. Thank you, by the way
for even joining us today to discuss this. But as
far as federal action goes, what do you think it's
really going to take to combat this, as you put it, ideology.
Speaker 5 (26:29):
I think it's going to take every single federal organization
that can get involved getting involved, and there's even organizations
getting involved that like I could never have even dreamed of,
like the like the the FTC investigating the abuses of
the of these practices in these hospitals. And it's going
(26:52):
to take not just investigations, but legislation that will not
only ban these treatments across the board for children, but
also address what happens afterward for these children, for these
young people who have been harmed. This bill is going
to allow for patients who have already been harmed to
(27:13):
seek the treatment that they need, as well as seek
the legal justice that they need, because in a lot
of states, the statute of limitations is just so short.
I'm a lucky case in that I followed my lawsuit
basically as soon as I turned eighteen. But many of
my friends have had their cases dropped. And I mean
I even had had a friend named named Leila who
(27:36):
had a much more horrific experience than Ida. They started
experimenting on her medically when she was twelve, They gave
they removed her breasts at thirteen.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (27:45):
And even though what happened to her was so obviously
disgusting and cool, her case was dropped. She would have
been expected to sue at fifteen years old. But this
bill allows for those of us would and harm very
young to have more time not only to process this,
but also to get the justice something we need in
(28:06):
the legal system.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
I'm really glad that we're just circling this theme of justice,
because that's what it's about. I mean, the lies, the abuse,
and then to just leave people hanging in the dust
like that, having permanently changed their entire lives, just flipping
everything upside down without any care for the long term
consequences or ramifications. It is absolutely completely cool.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
And this I'm just so grateful for this bill because
I mean the thousands of children, the thousands of young
men and women out there who have been through what
I have. Even even if we defrenish in even if
we accept our God given solves as the men and
(28:49):
women were made to be, there is no reversing the
scars and the damages happened to our bodies. But this
gives us hope going forward, and it will protect a
whole generation of children and the generations to come from
the damage that we've been through.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
Just thank you again for even sharing your insight into
this issue, and Congressman for your part. Thank you for
proposing this. I wish you godspeed and all the best
with getting this signed into law and moving it forward.
And thank you both for your time today very.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Much, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Coming up next, we'll take things in a slightly different
direction to a controversial new law in California that was
recently passed by Governor Gavin Newsom. More details about what
it means after the break. Welcome back to the real story.
(29:52):
Are you tired of living in a safe area where
crime is low and trust is high? Are you tired
of having a sense of financial security in your life?
Are you ready to pay five dollars or more for
just one single gallon of gas? Then come to California,
where rising crime, sprawling homelessness, and skyrocketing costs are all
(30:16):
just a part of the fund. And it's all things
to the leadership of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a man
who appears to spend most of his time stonewalling the
Trump administration instead of fixing his own states issues. That's
real leadership, right wrong, But in any case, it brings
us to our next story. So Governor Newsom recently signed
(30:40):
a brand new law that bans a federal ice agents
from wearing masks while operating in the state, and it
comes amidst the Trump administration's intensified deportation efforts all over
southern California. At a recent signing ceremony, Newsom even described
these efforts as being terrifying, claiming that people are quote
(31:02):
literally disappearing. Now, that's not what's really happening here, and
the real story is much different, But that's also a
different conversation. In the meantime, though, this new law is
set to take effect in January, and it also extends
to local law enforcement, marking what could be the first
such restriction in the whole country. But that's where the
(31:25):
real story gets even more intriguing. Can a state really
dictate how federal officers conduct their official duties? And if so,
then what specifically allows them to do that? And if not,
will the Trump administration challenge this new law. Legal experts
are already anticipating some major court battles ahead given the
(31:49):
very murky waters of state authority over federal agents, and
this whole puzzle really leaves one wondering what is this
move actually designed to do? Here? To help us answer
those questions, is Davis Hunt's a veteran in military defense
attorney with Hut's Law. Davis, thank you for being.
Speaker 6 (32:08):
Here, sir Riley. It's always an honor to join you.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
So let's just start here. What do you think is
really behind this new law from Governor Newsom?
Speaker 7 (32:18):
Listen?
Speaker 6 (32:19):
I think this is just absolute political pandering to radical
extremists in California and to those that would want to
see ICE agents and their families harmed. I mean, there's
no good explanation for this other than he knows this
is not going to stand up to court scrutiny. He
knows this isn't going to stand and that the administration
(32:41):
is going to challenge it. So it just feels like
a very very poorly veiled effort at political posturing.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
And do you think it really just speaks to his
broader ambitions about wanting to be president one day, knowing
that the only way to climb the ranks of the
Democrat Party is to basically stonewall President Trump.
Speaker 6 (32:59):
Oh, I think so. I think he is absolutely pandering
to his base. The problem is when you say things
like what are these agents afraid of? What are they
afraid of? You are creating risk and you are creating
danger for these agents who have been attacked. Listen, attacks
on ICE agents are up one thousand percent in the
Trump administration than what they were previously. So you know,
(33:20):
we can excuse and just sort of laugh as American people. Oh,
this is Gavin Newsom being Gavin Newsom, this is him
doing his political posturing and pandering to his radical base.
But the reality is what he is doing here, and
even the rhetoric is using, is creating danger for these agents.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Well we saw that earlier this year in Los Angeles,
right earlier this summer, when people were physically attacking agents
all over the city for just trying to do their jobs. Look,
maybe you don't like what's going on. Maybe you do,
but these are federal employees doing what they've been instructed
to do and attacking them is just completely ridiculous. So
doing this little stunt here is just it's it's adding
(33:58):
fuel to the fire and it's really disgusting to see that.
But it brings us then to the legal the legal
question here, Davis walk us through what the law says
about anyone at the state level trying to dictate how
someone at the federal level does their job.
Speaker 6 (34:13):
Well, first of all, when we talk about immigration, federal
law is very clear. The courts have been very clear
this is a federal supremacy issue, and so when we're
dealing with immigration and immigration enforcement states, there's not a
lot of states can do with regard to the discretion
the federal government has. But even more than that, we
are talking essentially about things that are being done by
(34:36):
ICE to protect their agents, to protect the safety of
their families. So this is, you know, this is kind
of like a state saying, well, we're not going to
allow federal agents to wear bulletproof vests in California. I mean,
this is that's not an extreme thing to say that,
that's the kind of thing they're doing. So I don't
think this is going to stand up to any kind
of legal scrutiny. And just practically speaking, the Trump administration
(34:57):
is not going to put these agents and their families
at risk by telling them not to wear masks to
protect themselves from these radical extremists. So it's going to
have to be a scenario where Governor Newsom would order
some sort of California law enforcement to arrest or charge
ICE agents for wearing a mask, and then you're looking
at a court battle there. So I think the Trump
administration will likely challenge this in court before it even
(35:20):
gets in place. But then I think you'll also see
you just the practical question of how would he even
enforce this? Is he really going to try and charge
federal agents for protecting their identity? I don't see that happening.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Completely, and that would just bog down the legal system.
Everything would grind to a halt. It would be a
fantastic waste of time. So just to really be clear here, Davis,
what you're saying is that when push comes to shove,
Newsome and his cronies and Sacramento have no recourse whatsoever
to even try to enforce a law like this.
Speaker 6 (35:51):
I don't see them being successful at all. Again, this
is going into not only issues with federal supremacy when
it comes to immigration enforcement, but also so tactical questions
of officer safety. And there's absolutely no president precedent for
any state dictating to federal law enforcement. You can't wear
a bulletproof vest, you can't protect your the identity of
(36:12):
your agents, you can't protect their families by protecting their identity.
There's just absolutely no precedent for that, and I think
this this fails miserably.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
Okay, now let's pivot for a moment just to ice
raids themselves, deportation efforts broadly. Does the federal government basically
have broad strokes control over how raids are conducted and
how immigration enforcement is handled state by state all across
the country.
Speaker 6 (36:36):
That they do, And you know, we have seen this.
You know, some states pushed back against the authority of
the federal government during the Biden administration, for example, and
so we've seen this cut both ways. But ultimately courts
are very consistent. Immigration is a question of federal law
of national policy, and so states are limited in what
they can do. And there really isn't a good basis
(36:57):
for any of these sanctuary cities or otherwise, and that
really is the problem here. But again, you're looking at
a state that is creating a self fulfilled prophecy when
it comes to violence and doing this. And just so
we're clear on this, we are talking about individuals who
have broken the law and disrespected the borders and sovereignty
(37:17):
of the United States to come into this country. So
we are not talking about other processes or processes that
would be there for a citizen. We're talking about something
else entirely, and all of these individuals that are afraid
of these deportations are more than welcome to and our
government has gracioually made, graciously made processes available for them
to self deport and get in line to legally come
(37:39):
into the United States.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
I've never heard of any other country on the planet
ever being so gracious with people who've come into this
country illegally.
Speaker 7 (37:47):
Davis, have you no, And again, it just speaks to
the kind of people that are involved in this and
the kind of people that you have, like Christinome leading
this effort.
Speaker 6 (37:58):
You know, they're as lily people who are trying to
do the right thing. They're trying to protect the American people,
and it's not about racism or hatred or anything else.
It's about enforcing the law and protecting the sovereignty the
United States for all Americans. And we can't do that
unless we have borders, unless we have respect for our loss.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Completely understood. Thank you, by the way for coming on
and just clarifying what's going on. It's a very obvious
pr stunt coming from a very corrupt individual who obviously
just wants to be the president of this country. I
don't think Newsom has any principles. I think he just
wants to win personally. I could be wrong, but that's
really what I see as someone who just wants more power.
But in the meantime, Davis, just thank you for stopping
(38:38):
by and really elucidating this issue for us today.
Speaker 2 (38:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (38:42):
God bless you, and God bless the ICE agents that
are out there doing this job for our nation.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Hey man, coming up next? To save TikTok or not
to save TikTok? That is the question as the Trump
administration looks to make a brand new deal to save
the controversial social media app from being banned from operating
right here in America. More details about it after the break.
(39:19):
Welcome back to the real story. You know, there's an
old saying out there about losing the battle to win
the war, and while the fight for ownership over TikTok
there is certainly no war, it does seem that the
US might be about to win this battle. After many
little battles spanning over five years and across three different administrations,
(39:41):
it seems that TikTok's parent company, byte Edance, may finally
make a deal with the US government regarding ownership of
the wildly popular application. President Trump is expected by many
to sign a deal that would give American investors most
of the control over the app, allowing the American company
that ultimately buys it to safeguard user data, an issue
(40:05):
that lies at the center of TikTok's use in America today.
Oracle co founder Larry Ellison is slated to serve as
the app's security provider once the deal is signed, and Oracle,
as well as the private equity firm Silver Leak, will
reportedly own about eighty percent of the company, leaving less
(40:26):
than twenty percent of the company to Byte Dance, its
current parent owner. And with this deal in the works,
the new board will be getting a copy of the
app's algorithm, which one White House official said would be
retrained on US data and then continuously monitored for safety
by Oracle. And here's the real kicker, China will not
(40:48):
be able to access any data of American users under
this new agreement. So here with Moore is Hunter Gaylor,
CEO of Marketbridge Advisors and board member of the new
Journey Pack. Hunter, thank you for being here.
Speaker 8 (41:04):
Always a pleasure to join you.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
So the critical issue just at the center of this
whole story is protecting the data of American users. Would
you be confident with this new deal as it stands
now that we could effectively protect that user data?
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Well?
Speaker 8 (41:21):
Look, I mean control of user data is very important
in any organization and any country for that matter. So
do I feel optimistic that you know, under this White
House leadership, that this transaction goes through, that it's in
you know, the hands of you know, a US tech
giant versus a Chinese tech tech giant.
Speaker 6 (41:39):
Yes?
Speaker 8 (41:40):
Do I feel that with you know, people like Larry
Ellison an oracle, you know running the board, is that
going to be good? Yes? My only my only concern
is if you're looking at it from a data perspective. Yes,
this is a good move, right, because you don't want
your your enemies essentially to have you know, foreign ownership
and use it for spying purposes. But I want to
(42:00):
be very careful here because there's a very fine line.
This is when government owns or controls the means of speech, right,
freedom becomes contingent. Okay, And so you know, I think
it's a very very clear thing that I want your
audience to understand is what you said is the government
not being directly involved in the company.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
Do you think this really is appropriately walking that fine line,
or do you think that we're maybe getting a little
too close, dangerously close to government controlling privately owned apps
and therefore having power they shouldn't have.
Speaker 8 (42:34):
Yeah, it's it's a very far it's a very very
fine line, because you know, the core premise of free
markets is that companies own what they legitimately create. So
when you force a sale or a government control of
a company or parts of it, it undermines property rights
and it sets a very dangerous precedent. And that's what
we have to be careful of. Now, if you want
to go and you talk about this slippery slope towards
(42:56):
you know, state capitalism, then that's that's a whole nother
you know. So that's a whole nother slippy slope. Because
the government starts forcing its ownership deals for quote national
security or quote influence, it gradually becomes a state capitalism.
And that's where political power intervenes heavily in private enterprises.
And I think this undermines competitiveness. However, that being said,
(43:17):
that's my caveat. That being said, do I think it's
better in the hands of the US than in China. Absolutely,
it'd be no different than saying I'd rather have stuff
made in America than made in China.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
About whether or not TikTok is really worth saving and
speaking to the social impact of it and just social
media broadly, Clearly, there are many people who spend hours
and hours all day long on TikTok and that doesn't
seem to be healthy or good for society just broadly.
So I want to ask you, just in your own
personal opinion here, do you think TikTok itself as a
(43:49):
platform is really worth saving so to speak, or keeping around?
Speaker 8 (43:55):
I think you could answer in two different ways. If
you ask the shareholders, they're valuing the company a three
hundred and thirty billion dollars is what bittedance was, So
one could argue, yes, from a monetary perspective, we want
to save it because it's just business right. They don't
look at it anything else black and white. It's just
a business decision, right versus you know, my personal take
on TikTok. I mean, I scroll on it. I'm not
(44:17):
a religious TikTok user. I'm on Instagram and x and
things like that, but I mainly use it for news.
So I mean, I'm probably not the best person ask,
but I do know that people make a lot of
money on the platform. And you know, in this in
this uh what i'll call content driven era or content
driven century. You know, it's content's king and and that's
(44:40):
you know, it's a very famous saying. And so I
think really comes down to the individual, right where do
you want to spend most of your time in TikTok
or do you want to you know, actually try you
know the real world.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
That's really interesting just out of curiosity. Then do you
happen to have any more concrete data about how much
money people can make on this platform and how big
the sort of let's say economic ecosphere is surrounding the application.
Speaker 8 (45:04):
Well, you know, to speak in direct terms, if you
look at any of the major influencers out there that
have businesses or brands, I mean they're selling a lot.
Shopify numbers are up because of you know, how they're
doing the shopping. Now you have apps like whatnot and
the rest of these like you know, auction things, so
they're really starting. You know, the video platforms for short
for short form videos for saling is going through and
(45:25):
you're seeing by the way major companies start adjusting to this.
Amazon's doing it with live shopping now and you're seeing
that on where they're streaming their shopping channels for various stores.
So you know, in terms of you know, how much
of money I make on TikTok, I don't make any
money on TikTok?
Speaker 4 (45:40):
Right?
Speaker 2 (45:40):
Do we use it?
Speaker 8 (45:41):
And does it occasionally get us a client here there
with some ads see occasionally? What I wouldn't say it's
bringing in millions, but there's definitely a lot of users.
And I don't think the market or the owners of
ByteDance valuation when you start pushing valuations like three hundred
and thirty billion dollars. By the way, that's an article
according to Ruter's that was August twenty eighth of this year, wow,
(46:01):
as their revenue surpasses Meta. So you know, just just
that alone, right, has you know some pondering that needs
to be done. I'd like to see the actual details
once the transaction is complete, what it actually looks like,
who's actually in charge, and then we can start doing
a deeper conversation on what the ramifications are.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
I want to bring you back on the show, so
we can take a deep dive into it and you
can tell us whether or not you think it's really
a good deal or not for the American people.
Speaker 8 (46:28):
Absolutely would love to.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Okay. Then, in the meantime, thank you for being here
and thank you for your insight in your analysis, and
we look forward to having you back on the show soon. Hunter.
Speaker 8 (46:36):
Always a pleasure. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (46:40):
Coming up next, today's edition of Really Good News goes
out to a man whose music has changed the world
one song at a time. More details after the break.
(47:09):
Welcome back to the Real Story. On today's edition of
Real Good News, we have a special birthday wish to
share with Bruce Springsteen, who was born on this day
in nineteen forty nine. Bruce Springsteen, singer, songwriter, performer, and guitarist,
is originally from Long Branch, New Jersey and grew up Catholic,
(47:31):
and when he was only fifteen years old, he saw
the Beatles play on the Ed Sullivan Show and was
inspired to buy his first ever guitar. He then played
at local venues in his own hometown, eventually working his
way up to playing in his very first band, Steele Mill,
and then he continued to shape America music as his
following grew bigger and bigger. In nineteen seventy two, he
(47:55):
was then signed to Columbia Records, the same exact label
that Famous signed Bob Dylan, and this led him to
experience some comparison to the historic and poetic folk artist,
but he eventually broke free and made a name for
himself all on his own. Then, over time, he became
a nationwide sensation and a household name all over the
(48:19):
country as people from every part of this land bought
his records and attended his extremely energetic concerts and performances. Ultimately,
he became one of the most influential and recognizable musicians
of his generation, producing giant radio anthems like Dancing in
the Dark, Glory Days, Born in the USA, and Born
(48:44):
to Run. He's also sold over one hundred and forty
million records worldwide throughout his career, with seventy one million
coming from just here in the US, and with twenty
Grammy Awards under his belt, along with two Golden Globes,
a Tony and an Academy Award, It's no wonder. He
(49:04):
was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in twenty
sixteen by former President Barack Obama and being widely viewed
as really one of the most prolific singer songwriters in
all of American history. We want to wish him a
very happy birthday. So from everybody here at the Real Story,
Happy birthday, Boss. And that concludes today's broadcast. We truly
(49:28):
hope you enjoyed it, and remember we always want to
hear from you, so please email your feedback and any
news stories you'd like us to cover to the Real
Story at oann dot com and to follow us on
social media at the Real Story An. So until we
meet again, God bless you, God bless our troops, and
(49:51):
God bless America.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.