00:00:00
Speaker 1: Broadcasting from the Civic Cipher Studios. Welcome to the QR Code, where we share perspective, seek understanding, and shape outcomes. The man you are about to hear from is the Q and the QR Cody goes by the name of q War.
00:00:11
Speaker 2: The man that you just heard from is the R and QR Cody goes by the name Ramses John.
00:00:15
Speaker 1: Indeed, that's me. Stay tuned later on in the show.
00:00:17
Speaker 3: For Q's Corner.
00:00:18
Speaker 1: This week, Q takes a look at a case of a Rastafarian man whose dreadlocks were cut off against his will in prison. He wanted to sue the prison because he felt his religious freedom was violated, but the Supreme Court has said no to his lawsuit. Prior to that, we're going to have a conversation about the Supreme Court wrapping its caseload for the summer with rulings on several important cases. We're also going to talk about the Buffalo's Bills wanting no connection to former Bills player OJ Simpson at their new stadium. We're going to talk about Stephen A. Smith having feelings about how two former presidents accumulated so much wealth. I don't know what he said about the current president. But we're going to talk about that, and we're going to start off the show talking about Americans saying that they are proud of our country but equally scared of the direction it's heading in. Today, we are joined by BI in News anchors Esther Dillard and Doug Davis to discuss this week's major stories. All right, Doug and Esther, Welcome to the show. Esther, tell me something good. What's the latest? What's the greatest?
00:01:15
Speaker 4: Oh, the latest is that it's hot around the country and I'm staying inside as much as I possibly can with the small air conditioner rolling in my ear in my office.
00:01:25
Speaker 1: Well, don't tell the people in France about that. Doug Davis, tell me something good, man, oh Man, back from vacation. Wish I was still on the cruise. Shit, man, Yeah, I was so great, man.
00:01:35
Speaker 5: I hadn't been on a trip like that in quite some time, and it was just so relaxing. But happy to be back, happy to have my job and happy to serve the BI in audience.
00:01:45
Speaker 3: Man, so happy to be here.
00:01:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, indeed. Okay, Well, let's get to it. First. Up, the US Supreme Court wrapped up its summer case Slow this week and rendered several key decisions on birthright citizenship, ballot casting laws, and protection for asylum seekers attempting to enter the country. Esther, let's get things started with you today by focusing on the three cases mentioned. Give our listeners a quick summary of the court's rulings in each case, and then dug and Q. We'll get your thoughts next well.
00:02:10
Speaker 3: The U.
00:02:10
Speaker 4: S Supreme Court on June thirtieth, twenty twenty six, struck down President Trump's executive order that attempted to limit birthright citizenship, reaffirming that the Constitution's fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship for anybody born in the un anybody born on US soil. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mississippi may also count mail in ballots received up to five days after election day, and that rejects President Trump's effort to limit mail voting. The decision hole upholds the state law shared by many states, and comes as male voting remains common despite the President's claims of fraud and The US Supreme Court also ruled six y three that the federal government may turn back asylum seekers at the Mexico border without prompt assessing their claims. Reviving the metering practice that the Biden administration had ended. The decision follows challenging is by asylum seekers and has prompted the Trump administration to call the policy a critical tool for managing border surges.
00:03:16
Speaker 5: Doug Davis, Oh, I'm going to take a stab at the birthright citizenship primarily in this conversation. You know, there's a lot of weight going on right now, particularly with this one, because you know, there's a growing number of Black Americans. I'm going to call them foundational Black Americans. How about that? Or the Senate in South American freedmen or enslaved Africans. But you know, quite frankly disappointed in the Supreme Court decision. Why because they feel immigrants, migrants benefit more off of federal resources than they do. You know why, because these programs, you know, are pretty much baked to you know, the system. And you know this is what black conservative groups like Chicago Flips Red they continue to, you know, to speak about. You know, the issue came front and center when the group went in on Mayor Brandon Johnson, if you can recall last year over his immigration spending and using city resources towards migrant and immigrant Services, saying that that money should have been focused more on Chicago residents, particularly black residents, who are you know, struggling just to get ahead, you know, to make ends meet. They believe, you know, much like President Trump, that birth white citizenship was meant for the formerly enslaved at a finding point in our history, particularly in relation to the dread Scott decision, which was then backed up by the Thirteenth Amendment. So yeah, I mean, you know, you know, we are a nation of immigrants, you know, but again, what was birth white citizenship at that time designed? We're just foundational Black American and uh, you know, that's that's obviously still a question right now. Overall on the recent other Supreme Court rulings, I kind of feel that the Supreme Court is trying to balance the scales a little bit, right, They're trying to you know, like, you know, black Americans we lost with the Louisiana versus Calae decision, right, and now we kind of won, you know with uh, with this uh, with this ballot decision, you know what I'm saying. So I just feel like there's a lot of teetering going just a lot of tip for tat going on, right now with the Supreme Court, and I think they're choosing their decisions wisely from a conservative majority standpoint.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: Sure, sure, you.
00:05:42
Speaker 2: You know the worst thing about this timeline is that this is supposed to now feel like a win, and quite frankly, I don't.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: I don't think it is right.
00:05:52
Speaker 2: It's it's more like judicial sleight of hand on birthright. The Constitution held. But you have to remember the same court killed nationwide injunctions earlier this term in Trump versus Casa, which is why a New Hampshire federal court had to certify a class action on July ten just to block the executive order everywhere it needed blocking. So this is not it doesn't feel like judicial protection working the way that it should.
00:06:19
Speaker 3: This is like the plane of.
00:06:21
Speaker 2: Rebuilding the plane after the court already took the wings off of it on mail in ballots. That's a real win, but it's more quiet than it should be, because again there's something being argued at the Supreme Court that should never even reach that high.
00:06:37
Speaker 3: It should never even get there.
00:06:38
Speaker 2: So now fourteen states plus DC have grace periods, Native voters on reservations, rural voters, deploy military, working class shift workers.
00:06:48
Speaker 3: These are all the people.
00:06:49
Speaker 2: Who used those windows who need those grace periods. The RNC was not asking for a technical fix. They're asking to disenfranchise the people whose ballots take the longest time to arrive. Intentionally on asylum. The court just told a person standing at a US portaventry that they are not actually at a US portaventry until they cross the line the government is I legally allowed to block. So this is a Caafka sentence all things considered, the American promise of protections for the persecute, it just got rewritten as like a scheduling issue. We're arguing about things that should have long been decided. That the fourteenth members is eighteen hundreds ramses. Yeah, so people who are opposed to it are arguing, what, like, what did you do to earn your citizenship that I didn't or that my kids didn't. All you did was be born here, same with your parents, same with me, same with everybody who's a citizen here. So that some people have a greater right to the idea of birthright citizenship and others don't should be laughable, But here we are.
00:08:00
Speaker 1: You know what that made me think of Q? I can't recall the specifics of it, but I know that there was some sort of clause or law or doctrine or something that suggested that you were considered either black or a slave, one of the two.
00:08:20
Speaker 4: But the.
00:08:22
Speaker 1: Mechanism, the legal apparatus was, you know, if you're I think it was like your grant. If your mother was a slave, then your a slave, or if your grand grandfather was a slave, then your a slave, something like that, and so it like created this system of perpetual It was like a perpetual classification for people, and it was based in a time period that we consider widely in this country a racist time period. It was a divisive time period, is a time period where all men indeed were not regarded as cool. And so to see this Supreme Court use a similar mechanism to try to enact whatever it is that they're trying to enact, is it's crazy that those connections aren't being made. You know, there's not a whole lot for me to say that hasn't been said on a prior episode, or that you know, you three brilliant individuals haven't discussed today. Indeed, I would like to get a conversation with a legal scholar at some point in the future just to kind of get into the nuance here. But what I will say, the thing that stood out to me most and covering all of these cases this week was Clarence Thomas in particular, because I don't it's like, I get how a person could be that far gone, but at the same time it's still like troubles me. Right, You'll recall this when we went to the National Museum of African American History and Culture in DC. Walking through the museum, we saw all of these great prominent black leaders, We heard from these black voices, we saw these writings, we saw the chains everything. It's a museum of black history, and you know, right wrong or indifferent, that museum sought to capture and curate the sum total of the black experience, and Clarence Thomas was a part of that. And while you could walk into an exhibit with Emmett Till's coffin, or you could see, you know, the airplane hanging in the atrium, you know, one of the Red Tails airplanes, and you could see, you know, the Black National anthem etched into a huge wall. When it came time to see Clarence Thomas's contribution to the rich national tapestry that is African American history. It was simply a photograph and a little marker. And I think that he continues to justify that that position in that museum. From where I sit now, I know that conservatives might argue with that. Certainly white conservatives would argue with that. But in terms of black people, Clarence Thomas continues to prove how far gone he is, and it is deep. It's so it's like the I don't watch scary movies, but i've I'm familiar with the movie get Out, and it's like that. It's almost like he's a scary movie character and like a real life Uncle Ruckus or something. He's crazy. So yeah, if we have more, it'll come from a legal scholar. But you know, we've already had billion people break this down, so let's move on, all right, Next up? Does he really feel this way or is Stephen A. Smith just looking to go viral. On a recent episode of his new podcast, Straight Shooter, sports commentator Stephen A. Smith shared an unusual opinion about the wealth obtained by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama since leaving office. Doug, this time, let's start with you give our audience some details on this story along with your thoughts and steven A's comments of course, and then esther and okay at your thoughts next.
00:12:18
Speaker 3: Great.
00:12:19
Speaker 5: So Smith is arguing that politicians should only benefit financially if regular Americans are doing well. He pointed to Clinton's post presidency finances and said he does not understand how the Clinton or how Bill Clinton, a former lawyer who grew up poor in Arkansas, and the Clinton Foundation ended up you know, linking to or you know, being linked to hundreds of millions of dollars.
00:12:45
Speaker 3: You know.
00:12:47
Speaker 5: Public reporting has long put Bill and Hillary Clinton's combined post White House earnings at about two hundred and forty million dollars, with much of that tie to book deals and paid speeches. Smith also raised the case of President or former President Obama, saying the former president's government salary was nowhere near the level of wealth he has reportedly built in his leading office. One sided estimate has Obama's net worth out around seventy million dollars. That was in I think twenty four or twenty twenty four, and that was after about twenty million dollars in income over his years as a senator. And president, of course, you know from his book sales too, So that's what Stephen A. Smith is barking about. I didn't hear him say anything about President Trump, but you know that's another that's another topic.
00:13:38
Speaker 3: Per Se sponds Hester.
00:13:43
Speaker 4: Well, the wealth of Clinton and Obama is not mysterious. It's documented, just as Doug said, books, speaking, fees, netflix, deals, all this closed, all legal, all available in public filings. So when Stephen A. Smith says how the hell did Obama end up with worth over two hundred million, that number is kind of inflated and the actual path is fully explained in his public record. The outrage is to me, manufactured around a question that's already that already has an answer. He is questioning the post presidency earning of private citizens men who no longer hold power, while extending considerably more grace I think to a sitting president building wealth in real time while still controlling policy, contracts and foreign relationships. So that's not a principal standard to me, it's a political one. Q.
00:14:43
Speaker 3: Stephen A. Smith, Like what happened to Stephen a? So this is the thing.
00:14:58
Speaker 2: I wish he was less intelligent so that I could like provide some cover or some grace for him, and not quote unquote tear this black man down, as we've been accused of doing every time someone black it's anti black and we call it out.
00:15:19
Speaker 3: But he's not.
00:15:21
Speaker 2: Stephen A is not only one of the most successful people in the history of his industry, but he's one of the most disciplined viral engines that I've ever seen. This is why Ramses knows who Stephen A. Smith is, because when it comes to this, he's kind of surgical at it. He knows exactly what to say, he knows exactly what he's doing. The question of how politicians accumulate wealth is a question worth asking. I'd even say it's a bipartisan question. Is a question that runs through every branch and both parties simultaneously. The problem here is very transparently the framing and who gets named and who does not. You have a sitting president running a mean coin, selling sneakers, bibles, blatant corruption.
00:16:26
Speaker 3: In office in broad.
00:16:29
Speaker 2: Daylight, and the two names on the straight shooter Mike are Clinton and Obama. You guys have to excuse me as I try to be calm and not angry. Esther and Doug already said it right. Obama's post presidency income is on record. Same with the Clintons, books, speeches, television, network deal production companies. It's not mystery money. It's plain to see publishing.
00:17:07
Speaker 3: IP.
00:17:09
Speaker 2: So if we're having a wealth in politics conversation, then let's have it, stephen A. Let's have that conversation. But let's have it fully, comprehensively, robustly. Otherwise it sounds like your just work shopping right wing talking points with good lighting. And as I say, somebody who wants Stephen A to be at his sharpest because he is sharp and he's figured out a way, be it negatively or positively, to move the culture. I wish he used his platform for better purposes.
00:17:55
Speaker 1: Masterfully said, you all have to know that to follow these brilliant minds is you guys don't make it easy. I don't know why Chris puts me at the end of all these, but I'll do my best. Okay, So stephen A. Smith, from what I read, he was suggesting that, you know, hey, it's fine if you do better or if you put some money in your pocket. As long as Americans are doing better, it's capitalism. I think that's more or less what he said. That's almost a direct quote. And you know, as you mentioned, he pointed out Bill Clinton, and he pointed out Barack Obama, and he didn't point out Donald Trump. I happen to know that the Clinton years were among the most prosperous years for this country in recent history. Some people attribute that to Bill Clinton's leadership and democratic leadership. People on the right will attribute that to the dot com boom of the late nineties. I suspect it might be a combination more to do with democratic leadership, because I've seen that trend in multiple administrations, including Obama's administration. Americans did better during that administration as well. So what is Stephen A. Smith talking about? Americans were doing great during the Clinton years and the Obama years, So what is there to see here? The other thing is that Obama's net worth of I think it was like one hundred million, and the Clinton's networth was like two hundred million something like that. That wasn't earned while they were sitting in the White House. That was earned after they left. I think it's already been stated that they wrote books, they spoke, you know, speaking engagements around the world, all these sorts of things, and Stephen A. Smith has to know how money works. You know, once you have purchased all of the things that you need to purchase, and you can do that, you know, before your fortieth fiftieth birthday. Everything else you purchase is investments, you know, that sort of thing. And you know when you make money on that level, when you're making millions of dollars a year, that money makes money. That's just how it works. So it's easy for wealth to balloon into greater wealth, especially when you're looking back ten years, you know, twenty years in the past, when you last left, when you last held power in the case of the Clintons and the Obamas. So I wonder if he has reconciled the fact that Americans right now are not doing better. Stephen A. Smith might be blinded by the fact that he is a wealthy man, and wealthy people are doing great. If you look at the S and P. Five hundred, if you look at you know, Wall Street, if you look at people who are able to take advantage of investments in you know, emerging technologies and whatnot, sure their.
00:21:34
Speaker 3: Wealth is growing.
00:21:36
Speaker 1: Americans that he's trying to lump into this conversation are absolutely not. Once you adjust for even the top one percent, America is doing awful much less the top point one percent. That's the class in which Stephen A. Smith fits. So all of this he would have to honestly reconcile with himself before he even got to the point where Donald Trump is made over two billion dollars sitting as a president right now in the White House off of the backs of the American people, prioritizing himself and his friends. So once I hear him talk about that, then we'll have more to say. Let's move it on all right. Up next, we head to the world of sports, where the Buffalo Bills have announced an interesting decision regarding their new stadium and one of their former Hall of Fame players, Esther. You covered the Buffalo news market for many years before joining the network, so let's hear more about this story from you. First, give us the background details on the new Buffalo Bills stadium and OJ Simpson and Doug and Q. We'll get your thoughts next.
00:22:42
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, the Buffalo Bills have decided to exclude OJ Simpson's name from their family Circle and Legend section at the new Heimark Stadium. Bill's President of Business Operations, Pete Gwelli, said simply that Simpson is not a good fit for the New State family circle. Simpson passed away in twenty twenty four. He had over nine seasons with the Bills, and he rushed more than ten thousand yards, earned five first team All Pro selections, and became the first NFL running back to surpass two thousand rushing yards in a single season. He is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is also a convicted armed robber. He is convicted of kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon, served nine years in prison, and a civil court found him liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown, Simpson and Ron Goldman. Now here's my take.
00:23:36
Speaker 3: The Bills have.
00:23:37
Speaker 4: Made their decision. O. J. Simpson will not be included in the legend section. And I understand the hesitation, but I thought I got this one wrong. Nobody is saying put up a shrine, nobody's saying celebrate the man. But you can't tell the honest story of that franchise and leave one of the most statistically dominant running backs ever wore the uniform out of the mix. And the answer should not be erasure, but context. I think that they should acknowledge what he did on the field, acknowledged the full weight of what it followed the civil judgment that the facts speak. Trust your fans to be adult. That's not honoring OJ Simpson, that's honoring the truth. Now I'm going to add this because I did work in the market for about ten years and a lot of people are split on whether OJ Simpson was guilty of the murder of Ron Goldman and his ex wife. Because I interviewed the medical professional who performed the autopsy on Ron Goldman, and he is the person that examined the photographs of OJ taken after his arrest. He told me twice and told a photographer that was taking the taping the interview at the time again a third time without hesitation, that based on his forensic examination, OJ Simpson did not physically commit that murder. Ron Goldman fought for his life, he said valiantly. His body showed it. There were bruises everywhere on his body, he said, O. J. Simpson barely had a scratch. He said. OJ was a gifted athlete, but he was not superman. He was not superhuman. If he had done what he was accused of doing his body would just hold a different story. He said, OJ may have been involved, but the act itself, he did not believe OJ was the one who did it. That was his scientific conclusion. And I'm going to leave it right there.
00:25:24
Speaker 5: Wow, Doug, Yeah, I agree with Esther's stance. I think it's a bad move, you know, you know, it's a step back man, to not honor O. J. Simpson. You know, in this new stadium is a Travis Y. I just don't think it's a good look. Unfortunately, you know, we live in a very highly political society, you know, right now. And although I do agree that OJ, you know, he's he's got to pass, you know, but he was a beast on the field. I mean, you know, it's like it's not like the naming the stadium after you know, oh Jay, you know, and he deserves to be on that wall. You can't erase history, you know, his legacy. It is what it is on and off the field. But in my opinion, again the best running back ever in NFL history. Man, you can't take that away from him. You can't take that away from Buffalo. People may not, like let's say Bill Cosby or R Kelly, you know, for their personal failures, but you can't take away their genius. So be truthful like April's. Like Esther said, keep it one hundred. You know, we still honor our forefathers, the framers who founded this country. They owned enslaved Africans, they own people like pets, like animals. But yet their faces are still on our dollar bills. They're still a herald and they're still on Mount Rushmore, still being honored during this, you know, America's two fiftieth anniversary.
00:26:53
Speaker 3: You know.
00:26:54
Speaker 5: Oh, but it's okay, right for them, you know, but they were still great people. They owned us, they raped our women, they beat our men, they have used our children, and we still see the effects of what they did today. But hey, you know, my bad. It's okay. You know, they did some good, so you know, they still get to be, you know, put on pedestals. So yeah, I'm just not buying it, man, you know, put oj on that wall.
00:27:22
Speaker 3: Stop being a hypocrite, all right, ce.
00:27:27
Speaker 2: I do not envy us having to work in the wake of Doug and Esther not just saying what needs to be said, but articulating it masterfully. And Esther eve been giving us more information than I think either of us knew regarding that case.
00:27:42
Speaker 3: But Dave Chappelle once echoed.
00:27:43
Speaker 2: The sentiments that Doug just expressed this morality thing that we do here, As he said, while our currency has the faces of slave owners on it, it's quite ironic. And in this case, we're dressing up branding decision as a moral one because the Bills can't write OJ out of history. They can't he's in Canton, that case has already been settled. His record on the field is his record on the field. What they are protecting is their family facing space in a new building where they want season ticket holders to bring their kids and not have to have challenging conversations if you will. And I can say that I understand that, but I also know that we have to be honest about it because every sports league, every franchise, in every Hall of fame, is full of men who we cannot fully morally defend. So the decision to draw the line at OJ specifically now tells you more about how the Bills view their fans and their sponsors than how they feel about morals and accountability in general. Like ray lewis one of the best ever has a statue. Google him and type in legal case. Kobe Bryant has a statue revered and remember it fondly now, but google him and legal case and read it. Tyreek Hill is still on billboards all over the country. Again, Google is free. So this line tends to move depending on the market and depending on the moment. If Buffalo wants to make a values statement, then make it, say his name, say why, and hold the line. But they don't want to do that because they know they will move that line for who they want and who they don't want to. If you want to make a marketing decision, then say that what they cannot do is have it both ways.
00:29:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, my only thing here. If I'm honest, as long as there's no statue, I'm good with it. That would be what I would do if I was the desire. So we'll leave it right there. Stick around. We'll be back more after this
Speaker 1: Broadcasting from the Civic Cipher Studios. Welcome to the QR Code, where we share perspective, seek understanding, and shape outcomes. The man you are about to hear from is the Q and the QR Cody goes by the name of q War.
00:00:11
Speaker 2: The man that you just heard from is the R and QR Cody goes by the name Ramses John.
00:00:15
Speaker 1: Indeed, that's me. Stay tuned later on in the show.
00:00:17
Speaker 3: For Q's Corner.
00:00:18
Speaker 1: This week, Q takes a look at a case of a Rastafarian man whose dreadlocks were cut off against his will in prison. He wanted to sue the prison because he felt his religious freedom was violated, but the Supreme Court has said no to his lawsuit. Prior to that, we're going to have a conversation about the Supreme Court wrapping its caseload for the summer with rulings on several important cases. We're also going to talk about the Buffalo's Bills wanting no connection to former Bills player OJ Simpson at their new stadium. We're going to talk about Stephen A. Smith having feelings about how two former presidents accumulated so much wealth. I don't know what he said about the current president. But we're going to talk about that, and we're going to start off the show talking about Americans saying that they are proud of our country but equally scared of the direction it's heading in. Today, we are joined by BI in News anchors Esther Dillard and Doug Davis to discuss this week's major stories. All right, Doug and Esther, Welcome to the show. Esther, tell me something good. What's the latest? What's the greatest?
00:01:15
Speaker 4: Oh, the latest is that it's hot around the country and I'm staying inside as much as I possibly can with the small air conditioner rolling in my ear in my office.
00:01:25
Speaker 1: Well, don't tell the people in France about that. Doug Davis, tell me something good, man, oh Man, back from vacation. Wish I was still on the cruise. Shit, man, Yeah, I was so great, man.
00:01:35
Speaker 5: I hadn't been on a trip like that in quite some time, and it was just so relaxing. But happy to be back, happy to have my job and happy to serve the BI in audience.
00:01:45
Speaker 3: Man, so happy to be here.
00:01:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, indeed. Okay, Well, let's get to it. First. Up, the US Supreme Court wrapped up its summer case Slow this week and rendered several key decisions on birthright citizenship, ballot casting laws, and protection for asylum seekers attempting to enter the country. Esther, let's get things started with you today by focusing on the three cases mentioned. Give our listeners a quick summary of the court's rulings in each case, and then dug and Q. We'll get your thoughts next well.
00:02:10
Speaker 3: The U.
00:02:10
Speaker 4: S Supreme Court on June thirtieth, twenty twenty six, struck down President Trump's executive order that attempted to limit birthright citizenship, reaffirming that the Constitution's fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship for anybody born in the un anybody born on US soil. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mississippi may also count mail in ballots received up to five days after election day, and that rejects President Trump's effort to limit mail voting. The decision hole upholds the state law shared by many states, and comes as male voting remains common despite the President's claims of fraud and The US Supreme Court also ruled six y three that the federal government may turn back asylum seekers at the Mexico border without prompt assessing their claims. Reviving the metering practice that the Biden administration had ended. The decision follows challenging is by asylum seekers and has prompted the Trump administration to call the policy a critical tool for managing border surges.
00:03:16
Speaker 5: Doug Davis, Oh, I'm going to take a stab at the birthright citizenship primarily in this conversation. You know, there's a lot of weight going on right now, particularly with this one, because you know, there's a growing number of Black Americans. I'm going to call them foundational Black Americans. How about that? Or the Senate in South American freedmen or enslaved Africans. But you know, quite frankly disappointed in the Supreme Court decision. Why because they feel immigrants, migrants benefit more off of federal resources than they do. You know why, because these programs, you know, are pretty much baked to you know, the system. And you know this is what black conservative groups like Chicago Flips Red they continue to, you know, to speak about. You know, the issue came front and center when the group went in on Mayor Brandon Johnson, if you can recall last year over his immigration spending and using city resources towards migrant and immigrant Services, saying that that money should have been focused more on Chicago residents, particularly black residents, who are you know, struggling just to get ahead, you know, to make ends meet. They believe, you know, much like President Trump, that birth white citizenship was meant for the formerly enslaved at a finding point in our history, particularly in relation to the dread Scott decision, which was then backed up by the Thirteenth Amendment. So yeah, I mean, you know, you know, we are a nation of immigrants, you know, but again, what was birth white citizenship at that time designed? We're just foundational Black American and uh, you know, that's that's obviously still a question right now. Overall on the recent other Supreme Court rulings, I kind of feel that the Supreme Court is trying to balance the scales a little bit, right, They're trying to you know, like, you know, black Americans we lost with the Louisiana versus Calae decision, right, and now we kind of won, you know with uh, with this uh, with this ballot decision, you know what I'm saying. So I just feel like there's a lot of teetering going just a lot of tip for tat going on, right now with the Supreme Court, and I think they're choosing their decisions wisely from a conservative majority standpoint.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: Sure, sure, you.
00:05:42
Speaker 2: You know the worst thing about this timeline is that this is supposed to now feel like a win, and quite frankly, I don't.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: I don't think it is right.
00:05:52
Speaker 2: It's it's more like judicial sleight of hand on birthright. The Constitution held. But you have to remember the same court killed nationwide injunctions earlier this term in Trump versus Casa, which is why a New Hampshire federal court had to certify a class action on July ten just to block the executive order everywhere it needed blocking. So this is not it doesn't feel like judicial protection working the way that it should.
00:06:19
Speaker 3: This is like the plane of.
00:06:21
Speaker 2: Rebuilding the plane after the court already took the wings off of it on mail in ballots. That's a real win, but it's more quiet than it should be, because again there's something being argued at the Supreme Court that should never even reach that high.
00:06:37
Speaker 3: It should never even get there.
00:06:38
Speaker 2: So now fourteen states plus DC have grace periods, Native voters on reservations, rural voters, deploy military, working class shift workers.
00:06:48
Speaker 3: These are all the people.
00:06:49
Speaker 2: Who used those windows who need those grace periods. The RNC was not asking for a technical fix. They're asking to disenfranchise the people whose ballots take the longest time to arrive. Intentionally on asylum. The court just told a person standing at a US portaventry that they are not actually at a US portaventry until they cross the line the government is I legally allowed to block. So this is a Caafka sentence all things considered, the American promise of protections for the persecute, it just got rewritten as like a scheduling issue. We're arguing about things that should have long been decided. That the fourteenth members is eighteen hundreds ramses. Yeah, so people who are opposed to it are arguing, what, like, what did you do to earn your citizenship that I didn't or that my kids didn't. All you did was be born here, same with your parents, same with me, same with everybody who's a citizen here. So that some people have a greater right to the idea of birthright citizenship and others don't should be laughable, But here we are.
00:08:00
Speaker 1: You know what that made me think of Q? I can't recall the specifics of it, but I know that there was some sort of clause or law or doctrine or something that suggested that you were considered either black or a slave, one of the two.
00:08:20
Speaker 4: But the.
00:08:22
Speaker 1: Mechanism, the legal apparatus was, you know, if you're I think it was like your grant. If your mother was a slave, then your a slave, or if your grand grandfather was a slave, then your a slave, something like that, and so it like created this system of perpetual It was like a perpetual classification for people, and it was based in a time period that we consider widely in this country a racist time period. It was a divisive time period, is a time period where all men indeed were not regarded as cool. And so to see this Supreme Court use a similar mechanism to try to enact whatever it is that they're trying to enact, is it's crazy that those connections aren't being made. You know, there's not a whole lot for me to say that hasn't been said on a prior episode, or that you know, you three brilliant individuals haven't discussed today. Indeed, I would like to get a conversation with a legal scholar at some point in the future just to kind of get into the nuance here. But what I will say, the thing that stood out to me most and covering all of these cases this week was Clarence Thomas in particular, because I don't it's like, I get how a person could be that far gone, but at the same time it's still like troubles me. Right, You'll recall this when we went to the National Museum of African American History and Culture in DC. Walking through the museum, we saw all of these great prominent black leaders, We heard from these black voices, we saw these writings, we saw the chains everything. It's a museum of black history, and you know, right wrong or indifferent, that museum sought to capture and curate the sum total of the black experience, and Clarence Thomas was a part of that. And while you could walk into an exhibit with Emmett Till's coffin, or you could see, you know, the airplane hanging in the atrium, you know, one of the Red Tails airplanes, and you could see, you know, the Black National anthem etched into a huge wall. When it came time to see Clarence Thomas's contribution to the rich national tapestry that is African American history. It was simply a photograph and a little marker. And I think that he continues to justify that that position in that museum. From where I sit now, I know that conservatives might argue with that. Certainly white conservatives would argue with that. But in terms of black people, Clarence Thomas continues to prove how far gone he is, and it is deep. It's so it's like the I don't watch scary movies, but i've I'm familiar with the movie get Out, and it's like that. It's almost like he's a scary movie character and like a real life Uncle Ruckus or something. He's crazy. So yeah, if we have more, it'll come from a legal scholar. But you know, we've already had billion people break this down, so let's move on, all right, Next up? Does he really feel this way or is Stephen A. Smith just looking to go viral. On a recent episode of his new podcast, Straight Shooter, sports commentator Stephen A. Smith shared an unusual opinion about the wealth obtained by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama since leaving office. Doug, this time, let's start with you give our audience some details on this story along with your thoughts and steven A's comments of course, and then esther and okay at your thoughts next.
00:12:18
Speaker 3: Great.
00:12:19
Speaker 5: So Smith is arguing that politicians should only benefit financially if regular Americans are doing well. He pointed to Clinton's post presidency finances and said he does not understand how the Clinton or how Bill Clinton, a former lawyer who grew up poor in Arkansas, and the Clinton Foundation ended up you know, linking to or you know, being linked to hundreds of millions of dollars.
00:12:45
Speaker 3: You know.
00:12:47
Speaker 5: Public reporting has long put Bill and Hillary Clinton's combined post White House earnings at about two hundred and forty million dollars, with much of that tie to book deals and paid speeches. Smith also raised the case of President or former President Obama, saying the former president's government salary was nowhere near the level of wealth he has reportedly built in his leading office. One sided estimate has Obama's net worth out around seventy million dollars. That was in I think twenty four or twenty twenty four, and that was after about twenty million dollars in income over his years as a senator. And president, of course, you know from his book sales too, So that's what Stephen A. Smith is barking about. I didn't hear him say anything about President Trump, but you know that's another that's another topic.
00:13:38
Speaker 3: Per Se sponds Hester.
00:13:43
Speaker 4: Well, the wealth of Clinton and Obama is not mysterious. It's documented, just as Doug said, books, speaking, fees, netflix, deals, all this closed, all legal, all available in public filings. So when Stephen A. Smith says how the hell did Obama end up with worth over two hundred million, that number is kind of inflated and the actual path is fully explained in his public record. The outrage is to me, manufactured around a question that's already that already has an answer. He is questioning the post presidency earning of private citizens men who no longer hold power, while extending considerably more grace I think to a sitting president building wealth in real time while still controlling policy, contracts and foreign relationships. So that's not a principal standard to me, it's a political one. Q.
00:14:43
Speaker 3: Stephen A. Smith, Like what happened to Stephen a? So this is the thing.
00:14:58
Speaker 2: I wish he was less intelligent so that I could like provide some cover or some grace for him, and not quote unquote tear this black man down, as we've been accused of doing every time someone black it's anti black and we call it out.
00:15:19
Speaker 3: But he's not.
00:15:21
Speaker 2: Stephen A is not only one of the most successful people in the history of his industry, but he's one of the most disciplined viral engines that I've ever seen. This is why Ramses knows who Stephen A. Smith is, because when it comes to this, he's kind of surgical at it. He knows exactly what to say, he knows exactly what he's doing. The question of how politicians accumulate wealth is a question worth asking. I'd even say it's a bipartisan question. Is a question that runs through every branch and both parties simultaneously. The problem here is very transparently the framing and who gets named and who does not. You have a sitting president running a mean coin, selling sneakers, bibles, blatant corruption.
00:16:26
Speaker 3: In office in broad.
00:16:29
Speaker 2: Daylight, and the two names on the straight shooter Mike are Clinton and Obama. You guys have to excuse me as I try to be calm and not angry. Esther and Doug already said it right. Obama's post presidency income is on record. Same with the Clintons, books, speeches, television, network deal production companies. It's not mystery money. It's plain to see publishing.
00:17:07
Speaker 3: IP.
00:17:09
Speaker 2: So if we're having a wealth in politics conversation, then let's have it, stephen A. Let's have that conversation. But let's have it fully, comprehensively, robustly. Otherwise it sounds like your just work shopping right wing talking points with good lighting. And as I say, somebody who wants Stephen A to be at his sharpest because he is sharp and he's figured out a way, be it negatively or positively, to move the culture. I wish he used his platform for better purposes.
00:17:55
Speaker 1: Masterfully said, you all have to know that to follow these brilliant minds is you guys don't make it easy. I don't know why Chris puts me at the end of all these, but I'll do my best. Okay, So stephen A. Smith, from what I read, he was suggesting that, you know, hey, it's fine if you do better or if you put some money in your pocket. As long as Americans are doing better, it's capitalism. I think that's more or less what he said. That's almost a direct quote. And you know, as you mentioned, he pointed out Bill Clinton, and he pointed out Barack Obama, and he didn't point out Donald Trump. I happen to know that the Clinton years were among the most prosperous years for this country in recent history. Some people attribute that to Bill Clinton's leadership and democratic leadership. People on the right will attribute that to the dot com boom of the late nineties. I suspect it might be a combination more to do with democratic leadership, because I've seen that trend in multiple administrations, including Obama's administration. Americans did better during that administration as well. So what is Stephen A. Smith talking about? Americans were doing great during the Clinton years and the Obama years, So what is there to see here? The other thing is that Obama's net worth of I think it was like one hundred million, and the Clinton's networth was like two hundred million something like that. That wasn't earned while they were sitting in the White House. That was earned after they left. I think it's already been stated that they wrote books, they spoke, you know, speaking engagements around the world, all these sorts of things, and Stephen A. Smith has to know how money works. You know, once you have purchased all of the things that you need to purchase, and you can do that, you know, before your fortieth fiftieth birthday. Everything else you purchase is investments, you know, that sort of thing. And you know when you make money on that level, when you're making millions of dollars a year, that money makes money. That's just how it works. So it's easy for wealth to balloon into greater wealth, especially when you're looking back ten years, you know, twenty years in the past, when you last left, when you last held power in the case of the Clintons and the Obamas. So I wonder if he has reconciled the fact that Americans right now are not doing better. Stephen A. Smith might be blinded by the fact that he is a wealthy man, and wealthy people are doing great. If you look at the S and P. Five hundred, if you look at you know, Wall Street, if you look at people who are able to take advantage of investments in you know, emerging technologies and whatnot, sure their.
00:21:34
Speaker 3: Wealth is growing.
00:21:36
Speaker 1: Americans that he's trying to lump into this conversation are absolutely not. Once you adjust for even the top one percent, America is doing awful much less the top point one percent. That's the class in which Stephen A. Smith fits. So all of this he would have to honestly reconcile with himself before he even got to the point where Donald Trump is made over two billion dollars sitting as a president right now in the White House off of the backs of the American people, prioritizing himself and his friends. So once I hear him talk about that, then we'll have more to say. Let's move it on all right. Up next, we head to the world of sports, where the Buffalo Bills have announced an interesting decision regarding their new stadium and one of their former Hall of Fame players, Esther. You covered the Buffalo news market for many years before joining the network, so let's hear more about this story from you. First, give us the background details on the new Buffalo Bills stadium and OJ Simpson and Doug and Q. We'll get your thoughts next.
00:22:42
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, the Buffalo Bills have decided to exclude OJ Simpson's name from their family Circle and Legend section at the new Heimark Stadium. Bill's President of Business Operations, Pete Gwelli, said simply that Simpson is not a good fit for the New State family circle. Simpson passed away in twenty twenty four. He had over nine seasons with the Bills, and he rushed more than ten thousand yards, earned five first team All Pro selections, and became the first NFL running back to surpass two thousand rushing yards in a single season. He is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is also a convicted armed robber. He is convicted of kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon, served nine years in prison, and a civil court found him liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown, Simpson and Ron Goldman. Now here's my take.
00:23:36
Speaker 3: The Bills have.
00:23:37
Speaker 4: Made their decision. O. J. Simpson will not be included in the legend section. And I understand the hesitation, but I thought I got this one wrong. Nobody is saying put up a shrine, nobody's saying celebrate the man. But you can't tell the honest story of that franchise and leave one of the most statistically dominant running backs ever wore the uniform out of the mix. And the answer should not be erasure, but context. I think that they should acknowledge what he did on the field, acknowledged the full weight of what it followed the civil judgment that the facts speak. Trust your fans to be adult. That's not honoring OJ Simpson, that's honoring the truth. Now I'm going to add this because I did work in the market for about ten years and a lot of people are split on whether OJ Simpson was guilty of the murder of Ron Goldman and his ex wife. Because I interviewed the medical professional who performed the autopsy on Ron Goldman, and he is the person that examined the photographs of OJ taken after his arrest. He told me twice and told a photographer that was taking the taping the interview at the time again a third time without hesitation, that based on his forensic examination, OJ Simpson did not physically commit that murder. Ron Goldman fought for his life, he said valiantly. His body showed it. There were bruises everywhere on his body, he said, O. J. Simpson barely had a scratch. He said. OJ was a gifted athlete, but he was not superman. He was not superhuman. If he had done what he was accused of doing his body would just hold a different story. He said, OJ may have been involved, but the act itself, he did not believe OJ was the one who did it. That was his scientific conclusion. And I'm going to leave it right there.
00:25:24
Speaker 5: Wow, Doug, Yeah, I agree with Esther's stance. I think it's a bad move, you know, you know, it's a step back man, to not honor O. J. Simpson. You know, in this new stadium is a Travis Y. I just don't think it's a good look. Unfortunately, you know, we live in a very highly political society, you know, right now. And although I do agree that OJ, you know, he's he's got to pass, you know, but he was a beast on the field. I mean, you know, it's like it's not like the naming the stadium after you know, oh Jay, you know, and he deserves to be on that wall. You can't erase history, you know, his legacy. It is what it is on and off the field. But in my opinion, again the best running back ever in NFL history. Man, you can't take that away from him. You can't take that away from Buffalo. People may not, like let's say Bill Cosby or R Kelly, you know, for their personal failures, but you can't take away their genius. So be truthful like April's. Like Esther said, keep it one hundred. You know, we still honor our forefathers, the framers who founded this country. They owned enslaved Africans, they own people like pets, like animals. But yet their faces are still on our dollar bills. They're still a herald and they're still on Mount Rushmore, still being honored during this, you know, America's two fiftieth anniversary.
00:26:53
Speaker 3: You know.
00:26:54
Speaker 5: Oh, but it's okay, right for them, you know, but they were still great people. They owned us, they raped our women, they beat our men, they have used our children, and we still see the effects of what they did today. But hey, you know, my bad. It's okay. You know, they did some good, so you know, they still get to be, you know, put on pedestals. So yeah, I'm just not buying it, man, you know, put oj on that wall.
00:27:22
Speaker 3: Stop being a hypocrite, all right, ce.
00:27:27
Speaker 2: I do not envy us having to work in the wake of Doug and Esther not just saying what needs to be said, but articulating it masterfully. And Esther eve been giving us more information than I think either of us knew regarding that case.
00:27:42
Speaker 3: But Dave Chappelle once echoed.
00:27:43
Speaker 2: The sentiments that Doug just expressed this morality thing that we do here, As he said, while our currency has the faces of slave owners on it, it's quite ironic. And in this case, we're dressing up branding decision as a moral one because the Bills can't write OJ out of history. They can't he's in Canton, that case has already been settled. His record on the field is his record on the field. What they are protecting is their family facing space in a new building where they want season ticket holders to bring their kids and not have to have challenging conversations if you will. And I can say that I understand that, but I also know that we have to be honest about it because every sports league, every franchise, in every Hall of fame, is full of men who we cannot fully morally defend. So the decision to draw the line at OJ specifically now tells you more about how the Bills view their fans and their sponsors than how they feel about morals and accountability in general. Like ray lewis one of the best ever has a statue. Google him and type in legal case. Kobe Bryant has a statue revered and remember it fondly now, but google him and legal case and read it. Tyreek Hill is still on billboards all over the country. Again, Google is free. So this line tends to move depending on the market and depending on the moment. If Buffalo wants to make a values statement, then make it, say his name, say why, and hold the line. But they don't want to do that because they know they will move that line for who they want and who they don't want to. If you want to make a marketing decision, then say that what they cannot do is have it both ways.
00:29:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, my only thing here. If I'm honest, as long as there's no statue, I'm good with it. That would be what I would do if I was the desire. So we'll leave it right there. Stick around. We'll be back more after this
