Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. No, hey, everybody, welcome to the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. Coming to you from Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Got a busy show today, folks. The Hunt for a
Speaker 1: non September, which is what I'm calling that editorial writer,
Speaker 1: the anonymous editorial writer in the White House, the deep
Speaker 1: State Manifesto, another thing that I've come up with for it.
Speaker 1: Trump is expected to declassify some reporting on that, declassifying
Speaker 1: the FISA memo that was used, well, the FISA memos
Speaker 1: in general that we're used for surveillance of Carter Page. Also,
Speaker 1: Joseph miff sued the professor that Papadompolis interactively. He may
Speaker 1: be dead. Obama is back. Jim Carrey says, we have
Speaker 1: to say yes to socialism, and Serena Williams freaks out,
Speaker 1: and then the social justice left comes to her aid,
Speaker 1: let's get right to it with the the latest on
Speaker 1: the the Hunt for Anonymous September, the Hunt for a
Speaker 1: non September. I have to say I was originally of
Speaker 1: the mindset that they would find out who this was
Speaker 1: it was. It was originally in my thought process I
Speaker 1: figured that this was a situation where they would definitely
Speaker 1: out the person and just a question of when. Now
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, actually, maybe not, because the power of this
Speaker 1: editorialist comes from the anonymity in a sense, right, the
Speaker 1: media likes this because it creates this gray area, this
Speaker 1: gray space for all of the anti Trumper's out there
Speaker 1: to come up with a different reason for Hey, you
Speaker 1: know what, maybe this is John Kelly. Hey, maybe it's
Speaker 1: some other really important person in the White House. If
Speaker 1: we were to find out that this wasn't a particularly
Speaker 1: important person, then we would all be in a position
Speaker 1: where we've got to take a long, hard look at
Speaker 1: the editorial guidelines of the New York Times, which is
Speaker 1: just a resistance rag. I mean, I don't think we
Speaker 1: really have to be all that cautious about saying that
Speaker 1: right in the New York Times is very honestly place
Speaker 1: that is opposed to the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: um And then honestly, from my perspective, right, they're not
Speaker 1: honest about it. That's the problem. On the problem is
Speaker 1: they still lie, but you know, you had over the
Speaker 1: weekend Kelly and Conway and others going on the Sunday shows,
Speaker 1: and they were taking the perspective on this, you know,
Speaker 1: the various administration surrogates taking the perspective, well, of course
Speaker 1: the person is cowardly and that this is so terrible
Speaker 1: and the media shouldn't be focused on this at all.
Speaker 1: What I would add to all of this is that
Speaker 1: it doesn't It doesn't change anything. The only thing you
Speaker 1: have here is somebody running around the White House who
Speaker 1: has delusions of grandeur. It doesn't change the perceptions from
Speaker 1: the Trump side or the anti Trump side of what's
Speaker 1: really going on in the White House. Doesn't tell us
Speaker 1: anything particularly new. What it does do is open up
Speaker 1: endless rounds of speculation from the media about just exactly
Speaker 1: what has happened here, and uh, you know, how powerful
Speaker 1: this person, maybe how close his or her relationship with Trump?
Speaker 1: Maybe so. I but I think that the media doesn't
Speaker 1: really want to find out. And that's the big shift
Speaker 1: in my thinking on this. That's why I'm saying it's
Speaker 1: the hunt for a non September I don't think that
Speaker 1: they really are going to it's gonna scratch it this
Speaker 1: at all. I think they're just gonna let it be.
Speaker 1: We know that the New York Times obviously knows a
Speaker 1: number of people there no now they would say they
Speaker 1: would protect this person interestingly enough as a source, I guess,
Speaker 1: but they're not really. It's not really a source. It's
Speaker 1: an editorial writer. It's a little different. It feels a
Speaker 1: little different at least. And remember, all of these rules, folks,
Speaker 1: are guidelines. They are not hard and fast truths. So
Speaker 1: you have you have that happening right now. I don't
Speaker 1: think that they're going to find the person, and I
Speaker 1: think the media is complicit and continuing to to hide
Speaker 1: the football on that one. And then you have another
Speaker 1: series of stories that all tying together all around the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion fantasy you have. For one, Trump is expected soon,
Speaker 1: according to Axios here and other places, Trump may declassify.
Speaker 1: Trump may decide to declassify the entirety of the Russia
Speaker 1: probe FISA documents. Now, we've seen some of the FISA
Speaker 1: documents with extensive redactions. What we've seen so far proves that, yes,
Speaker 1: the dossier was, in fact a very important part of
Speaker 1: all this, and that the members of the Congress and
Speaker 1: the media who were claiming that the dossier was essentially
Speaker 1: just thrown in there. I was like, you know, why
Speaker 1: not that they're lying that that was not true? Now
Speaker 1: they're only saving groce. Up to this point. The only
Speaker 1: thing that prevents it from being completely irrefutable that the
Speaker 1: document was a opposition hit piece essentially being passed around
Speaker 1: the FBI is that they must have additional sourcing, real good,
Speaker 1: deep level sourcing on this one. And I just don't
Speaker 1: see that being possible, or I shouldn't say possible, and
Speaker 1: I see that being very unlikely. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: going to be the case at all. And they are
Speaker 1: gonna try and do everything in their power to hide
Speaker 1: this under national under the guise of national security, They're
Speaker 1: gonna say, well, we can't for national security reasons, we
Speaker 1: cannot allow this information to get out there. Meanwhile, what
Speaker 1: about the balancing of the presidency with the national security
Speaker 1: concerns here? What about the fact that in this instance,
Speaker 1: you're talking about a FISER request that has been used
Speaker 1: as the basis for an investigation essentially, or FISER not
Speaker 1: just requests, but fights a program finds a surveillance jim
Speaker 1: box in a presidential administration really to try and continue
Speaker 1: a silent coup, which is what I think we should
Speaker 1: all recognize. This whole ridiculous collusion investigation is turned into
Speaker 1: an effort at a silent coup. That that's what they
Speaker 1: see is that's why the people who have been pushing
Speaker 1: it all along. You'll notice that they get frustrated that
Speaker 1: it's not more successful, but they're not worried even if
Speaker 1: they find out at the end of the day, at
Speaker 1: the end of the investigation, that everything they've been saying
Speaker 1: is wrong. It served much of the original purpose would
Speaker 1: was to hurt Trump. That's why they were doing this,
Speaker 1: That's why they pushed so hard for it in the
Speaker 1: early days. If you really look at the whole Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation, you see that it was completely unnecessary. Based
Speaker 1: on d J guidelines, the Department of Justice could have
Speaker 1: done all the Russia interference aspects of the investigation. The
Speaker 1: only way you had a conflict of interest that necessitated
Speaker 1: some kind of special counsel. Uh situation comes specifically from
Speaker 1: the notion that the Trump administration was a part of
Speaker 1: the problem, or that the Trump campaign was a part
Speaker 1: of the problem. That's the only reason you have a
Speaker 1: special counsel. And then when you add into it the uh,
Speaker 1: the Komby firing, which she realize is that this has
Speaker 1: just been all a manufactured narrative from the left from
Speaker 1: the very beginning. That's what's that's what's been going on here,
Speaker 1: and and that's in the at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: that's what we're gonna see happened. That's why I agree
Speaker 1: with many other voices out there right now who are saying,
Speaker 1: you got to release all the information, just declassify it.
Speaker 1: Enough is enough, and that way we can finally make
Speaker 1: then we can finally come to the conclusions about what
Speaker 1: really happened here. I would just note that one of
Speaker 1: the problems that you're gonna come up with is that
Speaker 1: even if as crazy as this sounds, even if they
Speaker 1: declassify more of this and you're able to see it,
Speaker 1: even if Trump releases those fines the docs, they're gonna say, oh, well, okay,
Speaker 1: the dossier might maybe was a bigger part of this
Speaker 1: process than we initially thought. But the dossier I still
Speaker 1: could be true. We're all we're gonna be swept up
Speaker 1: in a could be, would be, could be true situation
Speaker 1: very quickly we're gonna move away from the realm of
Speaker 1: facts and logic and reason and into the depths of
Speaker 1: Trump's arrangement syndrome. That's what's going to happen here. Uh,
Speaker 1: speaking of Trump's arrangement syndrome, you know, you think that
Speaker 1: in an era when what they call uh slut shaming,
Speaker 1: for example, which is a term used by feminists on
Speaker 1: the left to talk about any time a woman is
Speaker 1: being demeaned for being too overt in her sexuality or
Speaker 1: for her sex life, you think that federal prosecutors would
Speaker 1: be a little bit more circumspect about such things, right,
Speaker 1: given the possible public outcry. But Maria Boutina, who is
Speaker 1: being held without bail, I would like to know. So
Speaker 1: she's being held as though she were a Yes, I
Speaker 1: know it's because she's a flight risk, but they're they're
Speaker 1: holding or because they say that you know, she could
Speaker 1: leave the country. Meanwhile, usually when you can't have bailiffs
Speaker 1: because you either violated the terms of your bail or
Speaker 1: your a risk to the public or a really serious
Speaker 1: flight risk for a really serious crime. In this case,
Speaker 1: her crimes are not registering as a foreign agent. Not
Speaker 1: particularly serious stuff. Folks, generally you pay a fine for
Speaker 1: that one. It's already been handed off. So it's not
Speaker 1: the Mueller probe that's handling Maria Boutina. But prosecutors, you
Speaker 1: may recall, put out the story. They put out the
Speaker 1: story that Russian national Maria Boutina was exchanging sex, or
Speaker 1: at least offered to exchange sex for access as part
Speaker 1: of her political machinations. Right as part of her Russian
Speaker 1: agent operations. She was a honeypot. Essentially, she she was
Speaker 1: offering up sex to people who she thought could get
Speaker 1: her access to important Republican American decision makers. And you'd
Speaker 1: think that they would only go out with that kind
Speaker 1: of character destroying information if it really really true. Turns out,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors, now, folks, I'm not making this up. Terms
Speaker 1: of the prosecutors have said, whoop see, looks like we
Speaker 1: were wrong about that one. We misinterpreted a text message
Speaker 1: chain and she really wasn't offering up sex to anybody.
Speaker 1: She she really wasn't doing that. Oh okay, well, I'm
Speaker 1: i gotta say so, so we've established that. Now, Uh,
Speaker 1: that's not a little whoopsie. You'd think that this is
Speaker 1: something prosecutors will be a little little slower in the
Speaker 1: Russia judgment about at least to publicize it. It's one
Speaker 1: thing to have it and hold it and release it
Speaker 1: during trial. They made that part of the storyline when
Speaker 1: she got arrested, and I think it's really interesting that
Speaker 1: there's no outcry from the left about this at all,
Speaker 1: that attacking this woman. Look, it's one thing to say
Speaker 1: that she was doing Russian agent of influence operations in
Speaker 1: the US. That's bad and we don't want that, although
Speaker 1: how bad really depends on what she was doing. But
Speaker 1: it's an entirely another thing. It's a very different kind
Speaker 1: of crime to say that she was sleeping with people
Speaker 1: as part of that process, and at prosecutors essentially slandered
Speaker 1: her in this way and have admitted it. Just goes
Speaker 1: to show you that there are no rules, folks, And
Speaker 1: this is important for you to recognize. There are no
Speaker 1: rules when it comes to dealing with anybody associated with
Speaker 1: Trump or Russia collusion with Trump. As long as you
Speaker 1: are hitting them and hitting them hard, as long as
Speaker 1: you're hurting them with whatever you do, then it's all fine.
Speaker 1: There will be no apology, I think, and the media
Speaker 1: will not focus on this they will not turn Maria
Speaker 1: Boutin into some kind of heroine. Um, but we should
Speaker 1: at least take a moment to see the prosecutors are
Speaker 1: over zealous and they are unfair when it comes to
Speaker 1: prosecuting people around Trump that have anything to do with Russia.
Speaker 1: Joseph Myth Sued, the professor who is tied to George
Speaker 1: Papadopoulos is feared dead. Uh, this is this is bizarre, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean this comes out here, this is from Fox News.
Speaker 1: Joseph Mifsued, the mysterious Maltese professor believed to have played
Speaker 1: a key role in igniting the Russia probe, vanished from
Speaker 1: public eye after his name began surfacing in news stories. Now,
Speaker 1: lawyers the Democratic National Committee say it is possible mif
Speaker 1: Sued is dead. In filing the Southern District of New York,
Speaker 1: the d n C said mith Sued is missing and
Speaker 1: maybe deceased. The lawyers said that they will monitor new
Speaker 1: sources for any indications of mess suits whereabouts and will
Speaker 1: attempt service on myth suit if and when he has
Speaker 1: found alive. Filing came as the DNC is suing Myth
Speaker 1: Sued and others as part of its lawsuit accusing Trump
Speaker 1: of conspiring with Russia in the election. I mean, what
Speaker 1: you want to talk about a frivolous lawsuit? This is
Speaker 1: this lawsuit is garbage, absolute garbage. Um. But now as
Speaker 1: we as we look at this and try to get
Speaker 1: a sense of what exactly the law, what exactly comes
Speaker 1: into play here other than the fact of the d
Speaker 1: n C is being litigious. You know, I am, I am.
Speaker 1: I supposed to think that it's totally normal that this
Speaker 1: guy who is at the very center of all this.
Speaker 1: Remember if suit is the one who talked to Papadopolis
Speaker 1: in London. He's the one who, uh it is believed
Speaker 1: was perhaps run by a US either law enforcement or
Speaker 1: intelligence service to get information from Papadopoulos. If he just
Speaker 1: turns up randomly dead or rather in this case, just disappears,
Speaker 1: are we supposed to think that that's entirely coincidence. We're
Speaker 1: supposed to believe that this is just a thing that happened,
Speaker 1: and that there's nothing that we need to see, there's
Speaker 1: nothing that we should be concerned about. You know, it's
Speaker 1: a coincidence. It's one giant, incredible coincidence. I have to say,
Speaker 1: I find that very hard to believe. I find it
Speaker 1: very hard to believe that this just happened, and there's
Speaker 1: and and there's there's no reason to think of anything else,
Speaker 1: just like I found it difficult to believe that the
Speaker 1: op ed that came out, the anonymous op ed and
Speaker 1: it's timing with the Bob Woodword book, was not the
Speaker 1: result of what's obviously media collusion, and the media is
Speaker 1: colluding together against Trump. I don't think there's really any
Speaker 1: serious debate about that. I think that that's been on
Speaker 1: display for a long time. But but the timing of
Speaker 1: these things happens, and we're supposed to believe, Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's not a big deal. You know, this this
Speaker 1: stuff just sort of happens. We need to just deal
Speaker 1: with the reality of unforeseen events that that that occur
Speaker 1: at these incredibly inopportune times for Trump. But if you
Speaker 1: if you despise Trump, all of a sudden, the timing
Speaker 1: is amazing and you seem quite it seems quite lucky.
Speaker 1: You know, Woodword is out there saying that people better
Speaker 1: wake up to what's going on. I've got to say,
Speaker 1: I I don't know what Woodward thinks is really all
Speaker 1: that different in his book. We we've read so much
Speaker 1: of this already. We we've heard this, we've seen this,
Speaker 1: we are very much aware. Uh. And yet Woodward is
Speaker 1: holding himself up yet again as the hero in this
Speaker 1: narrative and literally his narrative of course, right or by
Speaker 1: constructing this narrative of telling us that Trump is incredibly
Speaker 1: um incompetent. And you know, we we've heard all this
Speaker 1: before though there's nothing really all that new in this information.
Speaker 1: I asked Alma Rosa last week. She said Trump is crazy.
Speaker 1: I said, tell me, how, tell me why? She Well,
Speaker 1: I can't give you any specifics on anything. I can't
Speaker 1: actually bring you up to speed on why Trump is
Speaker 1: crazy other than to make the allegation the accusation. I'm
Speaker 1: starting to feel like, folks, if a crazy president can
Speaker 1: be this successful, maybe we need a crazy president. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe we're in a different kind of world than we
Speaker 1: think we were, where not everyone has to pretend to
Speaker 1: be a character in the West Wing with pithy comebacks
Speaker 1: and always talking about you know, freedom and democracy and
Speaker 1: and and America and values and all that stuff. I mean,
Speaker 1: you want somebody who believes in that, but you want
Speaker 1: them to protect those things to propagate those things. You
Speaker 1: don't want them to just sit around and make a
Speaker 1: show of it. That's why I just don't think the
Speaker 1: Woodword Book has the punch that he obviously wants it to.
Speaker 1: When you look at it more closely, it's now keep
Speaker 1: in mind, I've only seen excerpts of it. I know
Speaker 1: he like, what do even when you look at it,
Speaker 1: I have not. I have not been damed. So important
Speaker 1: and uh and so fantastic has to be given a
Speaker 1: copy of the Woodward Book up front. But I have
Speaker 1: to say, when you look at this thing, you find
Speaker 1: that or the whole narrative around it too. It's clear
Speaker 1: to me that this is just a repetition of what's
Speaker 1: already been out there, consolidated under one by line Woodward
Speaker 1: and right after the hunt for a non September had
Speaker 1: to start. These things all coincide, folks, They all come together.
Speaker 1: And when you add into that miff suit is now
Speaker 1: dropping off the radar, perhaps forever. Right when this probe
Speaker 1: should end, I've got questions, big ones. Let's turn to
Speaker 1: the world of sports for a minute. Chilley, social justice
Speaker 1: once again the order of the day. Apparently we'll get
Speaker 1: into that. Here's how it all started. This is Serena
Speaker 1: Williams right after losing in the US Open Women's tennis final.
Speaker 1: We can never really go back to Serena, but if
Speaker 1: you could change one complin about what occurred, what would
Speaker 1: that be? Um, I don't know. I don't You definitely
Speaker 1: can't go back in time. But I can't sit here
Speaker 1: and say I wouldn't say he's a thief because he
Speaker 1: I thought he took a game from me. But I've
Speaker 1: seen other men call other umpires several things. And I'm
Speaker 1: here fighting for women's rights and for women's equality and
Speaker 1: for all kinds of stuff. And for me to say
Speaker 1: thief and for him to take a game, it made
Speaker 1: me feel like it was a sexist remark. I mean,
Speaker 1: like how he's never took a game from a man
Speaker 1: because they said fief. For me, it blows my mind.
Speaker 1: But I'm going to continue to to fight for women
Speaker 1: and to fight for us to have equal like coordination,
Speaker 1: should be able to take our shirt off without getting
Speaker 1: a fine Like this is outrageous, you know, And I
Speaker 1: just feel like the fact that I have to go
Speaker 1: through this is just an example for the next person
Speaker 1: that has emotions and that want to express themselves and
Speaker 1: they want to be a strong woman, and they're gonna
Speaker 1: be allowed to do that because of today. Maybe it
Speaker 1: didn't work out for me, but it's gonna work out
Speaker 1: for the next person. Everyone. Wow, Serena Williams, women's rights hero. Apparently,
Speaker 1: let me just take a step back for a woman, folks,
Speaker 1: and we can describe exactly what happened here, and then
Speaker 1: you can come to your own conclusions about whether or
Speaker 1: not you think this was, as advertised, a case of
Speaker 1: standing up for women's rights and and paving the pathway
Speaker 1: for the next young woman who comes along so that
Speaker 1: she doesn't have to deal with this degree of of sexism. Uh.
Speaker 1: Serena Wims in the US Open final against a woman
Speaker 1: by the last name of Osaka. I'm actually blanking temporarily
Speaker 1: on her first name. I'm looking it up right this second.
Speaker 1: Pardon me, that happened sometimes when you're on air, Um, Naiomi,
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, Natalie Naomi Osaka. So look, I
Speaker 1: like tennis a lot. For those of you who don't
Speaker 1: know that, I'm some some lot of a tennis fan. Um,
Speaker 1: but I don't like that all sports now have been
Speaker 1: polluted by social justice. It's not just the NFL, and
Speaker 1: I would note by the way that this past weekend
Speaker 1: with the NFL kneeling that occurred, it's essentially no longer
Speaker 1: a problem, folks. I think you had two out of
Speaker 1: almost a thousand players take a knee of to Miami
Speaker 1: Dolphins players, So this is now irrelevant. This is not
Speaker 1: a big problem in the NFL. People are not doing it,
Speaker 1: and I don't even think the President should focus on
Speaker 1: it anymore because he's giving too much attention to one
Speaker 1: or two guys. Nobody really cares about what they're doing.
Speaker 1: But social justice ideology has penetrated far beyond any one
Speaker 1: particular sport, and in this case in tennis, you have
Speaker 1: Serena Williams, who is obviously African American female, who is
Speaker 1: in terms of wins and just in terms of raw ability,
Speaker 1: the greatest female tennis player of all time. Some people
Speaker 1: would put one or two other names in there. She's
Speaker 1: certainly in the top three of all time, if not
Speaker 1: number one, far and away. So she's had a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of success. She's worth probably well north of a
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars. I don't know what her net worth Is,
Speaker 1: but she's she's fabulously wealthy, she has a clothing line,
Speaker 1: she's an international superstar. But she also has had a
Speaker 1: few instances in the past where she has lost her cool.
Speaker 1: She's lost her temper very obviously and markedly in the past.
Speaker 1: And this instance here, this time, we're talking about the
Speaker 1: Over the weekend the u S Open, she decided that well,
Speaker 1: she was getting coached, which is a violation. Her coach
Speaker 1: gave some hand signals, and I would note that while
Speaker 1: Serena said, oh I wasn't getting coached, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: whether she saw him or not. The coach was trying
Speaker 1: to give her coaching signals with his hands. Whether you
Speaker 1: should be allowed to do that or not is another discussion,
Speaker 1: but you're not allowed to do it. In tennis, she
Speaker 1: got a warning for that. She then after losing a point,
Speaker 1: and she was already losing to Naomi Osaka pretty badly.
Speaker 1: And it's not reported enough that Osaka already beat her
Speaker 1: earlier this year. So it's not like Osaka can't go
Speaker 1: pound for pound, you know, stroke for stroke against william
Speaker 1: She she has and she has won in the past,
Speaker 1: but Williams just took her racket and annihilated it. I
Speaker 1: mean just shattered it on on the court, which people
Speaker 1: will say, one, it is poor sportsmanship, but also that
Speaker 1: little plastic can fly up and and actually, you know,
Speaker 1: strike somebody in the front row. I mean, you really
Speaker 1: don't want to set a precedent where you can just
Speaker 1: start breaking things on the court. So she got a
Speaker 1: point penalty, but Serena didn't stop there. Then she decided
Speaker 1: that she was going to make this an issue of
Speaker 1: of her honor, and she started arguing vociferously with the
Speaker 1: chair umpire of this match. Understand why you may have
Speaker 1: thought out that was coaching, and I'm telling you it's not.
Speaker 1: I don't cheat to win a brother, Lucas. I'm just
Speaker 1: letting you know he's a coaching violation, and I guess
Speaker 1: he's a thumbs up in Serena setting you straight that
Speaker 1: that is not coaching. I don't cheat, Salna. I'd rather lose,
Speaker 1: she says. Now, I think it's funny that that announcer
Speaker 1: says sets sets the umpire straight. She was wrong. The
Speaker 1: coach later admitted that he was coaching, which is again
Speaker 1: not a huge deal. It happens coaches get a little
Speaker 1: animated there in the stands, and they really want their
Speaker 1: player to win. But she was wrong. He was trying
Speaker 1: to coach her and she acted like he wasn't and
Speaker 1: that she didn't or maybe was only slightly able to
Speaker 1: see what he was doing, does not change the violation.
Speaker 1: This is straightforward stuff, folks. She broke the rules. She
Speaker 1: broke the rules, and then she couldn't accept that she
Speaker 1: broke the rules, and then she got really nasty with
Speaker 1: the umpire. Yeah, that's the morning. I didn't get coaching.
Speaker 1: I didn't get coaching. I didn't get coaching. You need
Speaker 1: to take you need to make an announcement that I
Speaker 1: didn't get coaching. I don't cheat, I didn't get coaching.
Speaker 1: I didn't say that. No need you need. You don't
Speaker 1: get a policy. You owe me a politic. I haven't
Speaker 1: averaging it in my life. I have a daughter, and
Speaker 1: I stand. Was my hard i've ever seen. He was up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Serena was watching her coach give her handsome. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you caught that part at the very end,
Speaker 1: but she called the umpire a thief, which, as you
Speaker 1: can imagine, the umpire did not particularly like. That annoyed
Speaker 1: the umpire and so the umpire because it's a third
Speaker 1: and there was sort of a back and forth. You
Speaker 1: can't really hear the umpire uh speaking there, but she
Speaker 1: wouldn't stop, and she's really being belligerent with the chair
Speaker 1: umpire not allowed to do this. Tennis, like golf, is
Speaker 1: a game that still takes its decorum pretty seriously. So
Speaker 1: she got a game penalty and then later she lost,
Speaker 1: and the whole thing is just so. And by the way, folks,
Speaker 1: I know, if you don't care about tennis, this isn't
Speaker 1: about tennis, okay, it's about the narrative around it, which
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get to in just a second, but you
Speaker 1: need to know the full facts. Then Osaka goes up
Speaker 1: on stage and she just should be the greatest moment
Speaker 1: of her career. She's one of her three million dollars. Okay,
Speaker 1: so look, it is a good day no matter what.
Speaker 1: But she one of her three million dollars. She beat
Speaker 1: her idol, Serena Williams. She even said that on the
Speaker 1: number one stage really for at least American players in
Speaker 1: the world. For a lot of people say it's number
Speaker 1: one of the Wimbledon's up there too, And it was
Speaker 1: a disgusting scene. A lot of people were booing. Now
Speaker 1: I know they're booing the U. S t A. Or
Speaker 1: they're booing the officials, really, but to Osaka, she's up
Speaker 1: there and she's hearing booing from the crowd. It was
Speaker 1: just horrible. But what was amazing, folks, was how quickly
Speaker 1: all of these different sports announcers and the United States
Speaker 1: Tennis Association rallied around Serena all of a sudden, Serena
Speaker 1: is a women's rights hero. How is she women's rights hero?
Speaker 1: I'm seeing people sharing stuff from thirty years ago, John
Speaker 1: McEnroe acting like an idiot, which he used to do,
Speaker 1: and he used to get penalized too for that. By
Speaker 1: the way, perhaps not enough. You should have been ejected
Speaker 1: from games. But she broke the rules, and yet here
Speaker 1: we are watching as she breaks the rules and then
Speaker 1: is applauded for being some kind of hero for women's
Speaker 1: rights and equality. I mean the stuff that she was
Speaker 1: saying in there, that it was a sexist remark, she
Speaker 1: called the umpire a thief. She's being disrespectful. You're not
Speaker 1: allowed to do that. Now, why do you have otherwise
Speaker 1: savvy's sports watchers and announcers and commentators at least savvy
Speaker 1: about their sport. Why do they all rush to Serena side? Well, folks,
Speaker 1: for a long time, there has been this narrative that
Speaker 1: because Serena is black, there are double standards that are
Speaker 1: applied to her, as well as the fact that she
Speaker 1: is a female, which is the case here. For a
Speaker 1: long time, though, there have been people that talked about
Speaker 1: racism and the inherent racism of either a you know,
Speaker 1: a bad refing situation, or just how tennis was an
Speaker 1: elitist sport, although you know, tennis now is a truly
Speaker 1: global sport. But you can just see that all these
Speaker 1: people see Serena Williams and they see her situation, they
Speaker 1: think to themselves, female black sports icon, not what really
Speaker 1: happened here? And what's the circumstance, because there's not There's
Speaker 1: not two ways about this. But to announcers, they want
Speaker 1: to be politically correct, they want to be on the
Speaker 1: right side of this, and the social justice left they
Speaker 1: see this as an opportunity, as a as a kind
Speaker 1: of Kaepernick like moment, a rallying cry for women's equality.
Speaker 1: I I don't know, it's such a stretch, it's really laughable.
Speaker 1: Her thing about women are a woman who took off
Speaker 1: her shirt. By the way, yes, there's a different set
Speaker 1: of rules for women than men. Women also have boobs
Speaker 1: and men don't. And I know that we're supposed to
Speaker 1: move past gender roles entirely in society, but we still
Speaker 1: think of boobs as things that and maybe we shouldn't, folks,
Speaker 1: maybe we should get past it. You know, I'm fine
Speaker 1: with boobs, but we think of them as something that
Speaker 1: you shouldn't see in the open. Although New York you
Speaker 1: can actually walk around topless. It's the law. You can
Speaker 1: walk around ooplace in downtown Manhattan. You won't get arrested,
Speaker 1: but it is the rule. And it's because you think
Speaker 1: of men and women differently because they are different. So
Speaker 1: a woman taking off her shirt, if she has a
Speaker 1: sports brawl underneath, I'm fine with it. But the rules
Speaker 1: aren't there to penalize women Unkindly. It's just because women
Speaker 1: have you know, what are considered sex organs up top
Speaker 1: and men don't. Uh, And maybe maybe society is wrong
Speaker 1: with that, but it's not like Tennis is some terrible
Speaker 1: anti women, misogynist organization that's trying to penalize ladies for
Speaker 1: for having boobs um and then just her whole thing
Speaker 1: about how she would you know, it's about her daughter
Speaker 1: and she would never cheat. Let me tell you some
Speaker 1: about Serena Williams in two thousand and nine against another
Speaker 1: player called Kim Clyst named Clim Cloisters. I believe Belgian
Speaker 1: um she or was it Kim Cloisters, Yes, it was
Speaker 1: it was Kim Clysters. Uh. She didn't like a foot
Speaker 1: fall call that she got, and she walked over and
Speaker 1: this was on camera and everybody heard and saw this,
Speaker 1: and she threatened a small, uh female Asian American line judge.
Speaker 1: She said she would take an effing ball and slam
Speaker 1: it down her effing throat. And now this is the
Speaker 1: the most iconic female tennis player in the world threatening
Speaker 1: a line judge because she didn't like a call. All right,
Speaker 1: I can't tell you any other prominent female tennis player,
Speaker 1: or honestly, any other prominent prominent female athlete who has
Speaker 1: done something quite as aggressive and egregious as that. But
Speaker 1: Serena has a victim complex, folks. She thinks of herself
Speaker 1: even though she's a just like Kaepernick, even though she's
Speaker 1: a globally recognizable brand, and even though she's worth millions,
Speaker 1: she's a lot more famous, a lot more successful as
Speaker 1: an athlete than Kaepernick ever was. But she's worth millions
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars. She thinks that she's treated unfairly
Speaker 1: and that her race and her gender hold her back,
Speaker 1: and therefore justifies, you know, she says there's a different standard,
Speaker 1: and therefore wants there to be a different standard under
Speaker 1: which we would judge her in actions and situations like this.
Speaker 1: That's what you see really happening, and and the political
Speaker 1: correctness around it all is why you had all these
Speaker 1: announcers acting like idiots and coming to the defense of
Speaker 1: an athlete who's who is a bully. Sometimes she's a bully.
Speaker 1: That's what happens. And she ruined Naomi Osaka's big moment
Speaker 1: because she's not a big enough person to see pass that.
Speaker 1: She was already getting her butt kicked in the game
Speaker 1: by the way she was. She was losing the match,
Speaker 1: no question about it. But now she wanted an asterisk
Speaker 1: next to it. She wanted there to be uh, you know, well,
Speaker 1: maybe I didn't really lose and show she threw a tantrum,
Speaker 1: and that's what it was. A tantrum. I don't care
Speaker 1: what gender you are. I don't care what color you are.
Speaker 1: When you throw a tantrum in a situation like that
Speaker 1: and you break the rules, you should be held accountable
Speaker 1: because you see, I respect men and women equally, and
Speaker 1: I respect all races equally. So therefore I apply the
Speaker 1: same logic and standards and code of conduct to every buddy.
Speaker 1: I don't change it based upon the allegations that in
Speaker 1: other situations it has been changed against that person. That's
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna try to rebalance the past based upon
Speaker 1: somebody's claims. So anyway, that's what I just social justice
Speaker 1: now affects everything, and it affects even the way we
Speaker 1: talk about a tennis incident like this. Speaking of social justice,
Speaker 1: Jim Carrey is out there talking about how he wants socialism,
Speaker 1: but not when it comes to his money. I'm sure
Speaker 1: when it comes to yours, we'll get there. Stay with me, boys,
Speaker 1: I've always said that the United States has been a
Speaker 1: quasi socialist government for a hundred years. For crying out loud,
Speaker 1: it's not. I'm plenty of subsidies for oil company, also
Speaker 1: medicare and socialticularity, and yes, of course, there's nothing more
Speaker 1: socialistic than some of the Pentagon programs that are just
Speaker 1: jobs programs. The Pentagon says we don't want these tanks,
Speaker 1: and they've build them. Anyway. If that's not socialism, I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is. But but that word, the
Speaker 1: Democrats seem to get a plan to fight this, this
Speaker 1: slander of socialism. You're gonna be living in Venezuela. I
Speaker 1: don't we have to say socialism to the word and everything.
Speaker 1: We have to stop a pot I am, that's right.
Speaker 1: We have to say yes to socialism. Say if the
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar man, Jim Carey, we have to say
Speaker 1: yes to the massive redistribution of wealth. But I don't
Speaker 1: know if that means that Jim Carey has to give
Speaker 1: up his Malibu mansion. You know, you have to wonder, folks.
Speaker 1: They're now saying this is the bill Marline. Oh well,
Speaker 1: we're basically already a socialist country. Okay, Well, in that case,
Speaker 1: what are these major changes that they say need to
Speaker 1: happen under this banner of socialism that's being trotted out
Speaker 1: by prominent Democrats on a regular basis. When they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we don't we're not gonna end up like Venezuela, or
Speaker 1: it's not fair to say we'll end up like Venezuela. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: for us to end up like Sweden, which is the
Speaker 1: other thing that they talk about, we are going to
Speaker 1: have to have tax rates in the area of say
Speaker 1: fifty for the middle class, for you, for me, for
Speaker 1: people listening to this right now, you're gonna be given
Speaker 1: fifty percent of your income to the federal government. That
Speaker 1: that sounds like a lot to me. That sounds like
Speaker 1: more than the Democrats would be able to convince folks
Speaker 1: if they had to tell them what the numbers actually were.
Speaker 1: But I think we're all just getting sick of being
Speaker 1: lectured by incredibly wealthy people about how we all need
Speaker 1: to give more of our money away. You know, if
Speaker 1: Jim Carey wants to give me a check for ten
Speaker 1: million dollars, then maybe I'll want to hear more about
Speaker 1: socialism from him. You know, if I get to sit
Speaker 1: in a position where I am economically immune from the
Speaker 1: bad decision making of those who are pushing socialism, if
Speaker 1: I get to make that decision, that's that's you know,
Speaker 1: it's fine as long as I could live in my
Speaker 1: Malibu mansion. But I don't have a Malibum mansion. I
Speaker 1: gotta live in the real world. And Jim Carey and
Speaker 1: Bill More and the rest of them, they should have
Speaker 1: to live in the real world too. And that means
Speaker 1: if you want to say yes to socialism, it means
Speaker 1: saying yes to massively higher taxes and horrifically slow, if
Speaker 1: not negative, economic growth and all kinds of bad stuff.
Speaker 1: So you know, you should at least be honest about
Speaker 1: what you want. Folks. If they want socialism, well then
Speaker 1: they should get it long and hard. That's my that's
Speaker 1: my opinion on the matter. At least when you're here,
Speaker 1: how great the economy is doing right now. Let's just
Speaker 1: remember when this recovery started. Suddenly Republicans are saying it's America.
Speaker 1: I had to kind of remind them, actually, those job
Speaker 1: numbers are the same as they were in two thousand
Speaker 1: in two thousand six, and anyway, this is the best
Speaker 1: they can manage, folks. Democrats Obama coming out there and saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: the economy is great right now, but it's because of Obama.
Speaker 1: This is tough to take seriously. I don't take it seriously,
Speaker 1: especially because just do this thought experiment. Imagine for a
Speaker 1: moment that unemployment was six seven eight percent. Imagine for
Speaker 1: a moment that the stock market had tanked over the
Speaker 1: last at some point of the last year, Imagine that
Speaker 1: hiring had slowed dramatically. Would anybody say that Obama's massive
Speaker 1: sea of q E and quantitative easing and and the
Speaker 1: stimulus boone doggle and all the other stuff that was
Speaker 1: done was responsible. No, of course not. They would all
Speaker 1: say that Trump is a buffoon, He's an imbecile, and
Speaker 1: that's why the economy is bad. So by that standard
Speaker 1: that we all know is there, the economy is incredible.
Speaker 1: The economy is doing so very well, and not just
Speaker 1: on a general basis, but as compared to what we
Speaker 1: were told would happen if in fact Trump were president. Right,
Speaker 1: it's good no matter who you are, But compared to
Speaker 1: the catastrophe they said would happened. Uh, it's it's amazing.
Speaker 1: I mean, the economy is it's almost hard to believe
Speaker 1: how good it is. And I just noticed that this
Speaker 1: is where that this is where the media unfortunately still
Speaker 1: gets to play such a prominent role. How many stories
Speaker 1: are there on how powerful Uh, the tax cuts have
Speaker 1: been for the economy. How many stories are there on
Speaker 1: even honestly, in the short term more impactful, which is
Speaker 1: a word I know people don't like when you use
Speaker 1: that way, but I use it that way sometimes because
Speaker 1: everybody does. How much more profoundly important the anti regulatory moves,
Speaker 1: the cutbacks and regulations have been for businesses in this country. Um,
Speaker 1: you won't hear those stories because the media doesn't want
Speaker 1: to tell you those stories. And as I've been saying,
Speaker 1: what we don't have nearly enough of a folk this
Speaker 1: on healthcare or focus on what the Democrats really want
Speaker 1: what it comes to immigration. We're letting the Democrats control
Speaker 1: far too much of this narrative going into the midterms.
Speaker 1: That needs to stop. And that's why they've They've brought
Speaker 1: Obama out because they think that he's the most powerful
Speaker 1: messenger that they have. Now. I would love it if
Speaker 1: President Trump would continue what he's doing, which is call
Speaker 1: out Obama. I mean, his line about Obama putting him
Speaker 1: to sleep with the speech is one of the best
Speaker 1: political lines I've heard in a long time because it's
Speaker 1: so true, because it's the reality of Obama speeches. We're
Speaker 1: all told they were so great, and nobody was allowed
Speaker 1: to criticize, nobody was allowed to say anything about him
Speaker 1: because that would have been mean, you would have even
Speaker 1: been racist. Whatever. But Obama gives really boring speeches. In fact,
Speaker 1: I mean the first two minutes because he's look, the
Speaker 1: guy sounds good, he's you know, uh got a got
Speaker 1: a certain charisma, and I get all that. But his
Speaker 1: speeches go on and on and and his his baseline
Speaker 1: for talking to the American people is really pretty close
Speaker 1: to a kind of condescension. It's always, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm amazing, let me solve all your problems. And and
Speaker 1: the amount of uh straw man burning he does on
Speaker 1: the other side is is pretty astonishing, right, It's always
Speaker 1: the other side doesn't want babies to have food and
Speaker 1: old people to have healthcare. The other side, that's not
Speaker 1: that's not what the other side wants. Who who told
Speaker 1: you that, Obama? Whereas what the other side they don't
Speaker 1: believe in food, they don't believe in medicine, they don't
Speaker 1: believe in shelter. I'm here to tell you, if you
Speaker 1: do what I want, you're gonna have all those things
Speaker 1: and more. It's gonna be great. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think that Obama was as especially when you get him
Speaker 1: off the cuff, when you get him off of a script.
Speaker 1: It was never that impressive. And I think that I
Speaker 1: think that Trump could be his kryptonite the way that
Speaker 1: he was Hilary's as well. I think that Trump maybe
Speaker 1: able to destroy the aura of invincibility political invincibility around
Speaker 1: around Barack Obama. But but on the economy, folks, the
Speaker 1: fact that they're trying to say that it's the Obama
Speaker 1: economy just goes to show you they have no answers.
Speaker 1: They have nothing that they can say that makes it
Speaker 1: the economy not good. Uh. So that's why we we
Speaker 1: might be able to defy recent political history here going
Speaker 1: into the interms. I'm concerned about it. I think you
Speaker 1: should be concerned about it too. But it is certainly possible.
Speaker 1: It is certainly possible for that for the first time
Speaker 1: in a long time, you will see in the first
Speaker 1: two years after a new president a well, not a
Speaker 1: massive wave. I think that's certainly true. Um, economic confidence
Speaker 1: is really high, by the way, that's the uh, that's
Speaker 1: the headline on the Wall Street Journal today. Economic economic
Speaker 1: confidence is really really high. Well, it's there, there's there's
Speaker 1: truth to that of friends. Uh, it is, and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of hiring, and there's and and now you're
Speaker 1: actually given this place of is it possible that this
Speaker 1: will keep going? Is it possible this will continue? There's
Speaker 1: almost a sense of foreboding. I think that Trump's economic
Speaker 1: success thus far it's impossible for it to continue. That
Speaker 1: there will be a natural corrective, and that corrective will
Speaker 1: open up the doorway for the Democrats to come rushing
Speaker 1: in and say, ce Ce, we told you, we told you,
Speaker 1: even though that wouldn't if it were a short term thing,
Speaker 1: if it were just as I said, a correction and
Speaker 1: not a crash or or a depression, that would I'm
Speaker 1: prove that what Trump had done was not as beneficial
Speaker 1: as what we've been saying all along. But remember Democrats
Speaker 1: have capitalized there. The biggest moments in Democrat political history
Speaker 1: in the twenty century and the twenty one century UH,
Speaker 1: several of them have revolved around an economic cry cyst
Speaker 1: that Democrats leverage to push status and UH and socialist
Speaker 1: policies to enlarge, to dramatically enlarge the government at the
Speaker 1: expense of individual rights and private property and the free market,
Speaker 1: and they've done it because when people are scared, they
Speaker 1: want someone to help them. They want someone to tell
Speaker 1: them it's all gonna be okay. When you're retirement savings
Speaker 1: or your pension looks like it's going up and smoke
Speaker 1: and you might lose your house. Anyone who says we're
Speaker 1: gonna make it all okay, you'll listen to truth. There's
Speaker 1: the Democrats don't make it all okay. They just spend
Speaker 1: a lot more of your money, kick the can down
Speaker 1: the road, make it a problem for future generations. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, they do all these other bad things
Speaker 1: to keep you in the meantime feeling like things are
Speaker 1: improving when a reality, they're just writing checks that right,
Speaker 1: and checks their bodies can't cash. I guess that kind
Speaker 1: of makes sense. I'm not even gonna say that was
Speaker 1: a movie quote because you already know that. Please also
Speaker 1: welcome up to the stage the students from Parkland High School.
Speaker 1: David Hogg. I have a question for you, guys, who's
Speaker 1: ready to save America? So here we got David Hogg
Speaker 1: and Michael Moore too, favorite pundits of the the far left,
Speaker 1: the progressive left in this country. Uh notice, You know,
Speaker 1: Hogg now has become a at least an MSNBC circles
Speaker 1: a household name, and and he just the grandiose rhetoric
Speaker 1: flows from this kid, who's ready to save America. But
Speaker 1: but he goes on, who's ready to make America the
Speaker 1: country that we say is on paper and make it
Speaker 1: the actual country that it wants to be. You know this,
Speaker 1: this goes over really well with the progressive left. You
Speaker 1: know that that that America needs to be ate a
Speaker 1: lot better, that it's not the place that we say
Speaker 1: it is, that there's a there's a fraudulence at the
Speaker 1: heart of this thing we call America. Meanwhile, by any
Speaker 1: objective measure, any normal person would say, wow, America. Heck yeah,
Speaker 1: this place is amazing, and it is amazing and in
Speaker 1: fact a lot of ways right now, folks, it's better
Speaker 1: than it's ever been. It's certainly wealthier than it's ever been,
Speaker 1: it's safer than it's ever been. I know it's hard
Speaker 1: to believe, but it's true. It's true. People say, oh, book,
Speaker 1: what about back in the good old days of You
Speaker 1: tell me when the good old days were, folks, And
Speaker 1: I'll say, you mean when there were like Nazi submarines
Speaker 1: off the coast of Long Island, or when the Japanese
Speaker 1: were bombing Pearl Harbor, or you know what, when when
Speaker 1: we were concerned about foreign countries invading us and they
Speaker 1: could actually beat us. What what were the good old
Speaker 1: days when things were so much better here? I would
Speaker 1: just wonder when that was. I know that it's usually
Speaker 1: not a crowd pleaser to say things are awesome. People
Speaker 1: generally want to hear about catastrophe. But America is pretty
Speaker 1: awesome unless you're on the progressive left. But how and
Speaker 1: Michael Moore continue, I think it's the most important thing
Speaker 1: to realize. However, it's the problems that we face as
Speaker 1: a country, whether it be water in Flint, Michigan, or
Speaker 1: the amount of mass incarceration of people in color of
Speaker 1: color that can't vote in Florida. The amount of eligible
Speaker 1: African Americans that would otherwise be eligible to vote that
Speaker 1: can't because of a previous conviction is in Kentucky, it's
Speaker 1: in Mississippi and Alabama it's fifteen to six. These are
Speaker 1: people of color that have been historically discriminated against and
Speaker 1: still are to this day, and how their voting rights
Speaker 1: taken away it's exactly turn that shame into your vote
Speaker 1: if you're not Canadian. I can't help but notice that
Speaker 1: Mr Hogg, who is taking a year off before college
Speaker 1: to become an advocate for left wing causes. So now
Speaker 1: he's officially appundit, folks. He's no longer a high school
Speaker 1: student that we can discussed or debate. He's a public person.
Speaker 1: He's inserted himself into the public debate over policy. We
Speaker 1: are allowed to say that he is often ignorant of
Speaker 1: the subject matter he discusses, and quite honestly doesn't have
Speaker 1: a particularly sophisticated view of a lot of things. And
Speaker 1: I'm being pretty kind. I know some of my conservative
Speaker 1: brethren and uh sisters, what's the female of Brethren cestran,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I gotta think about what that is.
Speaker 1: But they're much harder on him than that I have been,
Speaker 1: although I'm sure that will change over time. Because I've
Speaker 1: a feeling Hog who used to be used as a
Speaker 1: weapon to try to get people deep platformed and fired,
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that he will in fact be
Speaker 1: somebody who is a weapon for the left. You know,
Speaker 1: I had just a brief aside here I had on
Speaker 1: my show gosh. Today on Rising we had the Media
Speaker 1: Matters Chairman David Brock. I just have a really tough
Speaker 1: time with these people who and but you might want
Speaker 1: to watch the interview because I think I pretty in
Speaker 1: in completely um respectful as to impolite a fashion, because
Speaker 1: I'm not respectful toward him. I don't respect what he does,
Speaker 1: but I'm polite because I'm in a place of business
Speaker 1: and I'm doing my job. But in polite fashion, I
Speaker 1: think I dismantled his foolish argument about Kavanaugh. I don't
Speaker 1: like these people to try to get people fired. I
Speaker 1: don't like this new trend among the uh the the
Speaker 1: left wing to do everything in their power to try
Speaker 1: and get people to be, you know, kicked off of
Speaker 1: whatever their platform is, to make sure that they can't
Speaker 1: make a living, which which I think is really what
Speaker 1: it's all about for them. I think Hog fits into
Speaker 1: that category. I think he's one of these people that
Speaker 1: is also trying to find ways to eliminate people from
Speaker 1: the conversation, from the public conversation. But a We'll have
Speaker 1: more time for Hog later. Notice, how tho his focus
Speaker 1: of why America is not as great as it should be,
Speaker 1: or is not what it purports to be. He doesn't
Speaker 1: mention at all, for example, opioids, and I just find
Speaker 1: this really nowhere. He goes right to mass incarceration. And
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying that there there isn't some over criminalization,
Speaker 1: but over criminalization in the criminal justice system and mass
Speaker 1: incarceration are not the same thing. Mass incarceration just means
Speaker 1: we have a lot of people in prison. Well, what
Speaker 1: I want to know is did they do bad things?
Speaker 1: And are they serving a sentence commensurate with the gravity
Speaker 1: of their crime. If the answer to those two things
Speaker 1: are both yes, I don't have a problem with it.
Speaker 1: What conservatives don't like is over criminalization. It's, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you destroyed documents in a civil uh and a civil
Speaker 1: probe for you know, business that has a civil liability.
Speaker 1: But now you're gonna fall under a DoD Frank guideline.
Speaker 1: You could face up to twenty years in federal prison.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I don't like when you wrap
Speaker 1: lobster that you catch off the coast of Honduras in
Speaker 1: plastic instead of paper, and therefore you face a year
Speaker 1: in federal prison. When we criminalize things that should not
Speaker 1: be criminal, that's a big problem for me. And when
Speaker 1: we send people to prison for far too long, that's
Speaker 1: a problem for me. And I think some of that
Speaker 1: happens with drugs. But over criminalization is just something that
Speaker 1: the left talks about as a means of pandering to
Speaker 1: this social justice left that believes that the reason people
Speaker 1: are in prison is generally racism and structural racism. Well,
Speaker 1: I just want to know if somebody committed a crime,
Speaker 1: then they should be in prison. So we're talking about
Speaker 1: all these people being innocent or what does over rather,
Speaker 1: what does mass incarceration really means? We know what over
Speaker 1: criminalization means. But he skips right over opioids. If you're
Speaker 1: gonna have a rally and talk about the most urgent
Speaker 1: problem facing this country, and you don't jump to the
Speaker 1: fact that seventy thousand people a year and this is
Speaker 1: bipartisan problems, seventy thousand people last year, I think with
Speaker 1: seventy three thousand total might might have been upper down.
Speaker 1: A thousand died of drug overdoses from opioids. If you
Speaker 1: are not going to focus on that right away, I
Speaker 1: want to know why. I want to know why. Voting rights. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because the midterms coming up. Why are voting
Speaker 1: rights for felons a more important issue? If you're gonna
Speaker 1: try to do great things and and make America this
Speaker 1: awesome place that you say it's not already, why aren't
Speaker 1: you going to deal with the fact that seventy thousand
Speaker 1: plus people died of opioid overdoses last year? Where does
Speaker 1: that factor into all of this? And and of course
Speaker 1: with hog you have gun control as a constant. And
Speaker 1: I had to deal with a Lissa Maltto recently say
Speaker 1: to me that it's as easy to get a cappuccino
Speaker 1: as it is to get an a R fifteen, which
Speaker 1: which is just wrong. But she said it, and I
Speaker 1: was taken aback because it seems like such a foolish,
Speaker 1: such a stupid thing to say. But now, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you've seen this, folks, that the new initiative
Speaker 1: out there to try and find a way to uh
Speaker 1: cut down on gun violence is California is thinking about
Speaker 1: putting a huge price on bullets. That's right. They want
Speaker 1: to make bullets more expensive. They think that that's gonna
Speaker 1: be a a an effective uh you know, an effective
Speaker 1: way and oh, by the way, and limit ammunition. So
Speaker 1: they're gonna make it harder because you know, if you
Speaker 1: can only get a hundred rounds of ammunition, uh, then
Speaker 1: you're not going to be able to kill what ten people?
Speaker 1: I mean, how many mass shootings do they really think
Speaker 1: are going to be stopped because of this? And given
Speaker 1: how much ammunition is already in circulation, how much stockpiling
Speaker 1: of it has already occurred, this is an idiotic idea.
Speaker 1: I would note that the the only time that they
Speaker 1: say this is useful is that in some states ammunition
Speaker 1: purchases are not regulated as tightly as firearms purchases, and
Speaker 1: so prohibited possessors are able to get ammunition. Then they
Speaker 1: go over the list they end up arresting them. But
Speaker 1: what I note is that, well, the only reason that
Speaker 1: they're able to make those arrests is that they're effectively
Speaker 1: doing a sting operation. And it would be like if
Speaker 1: they were selling guns to people and and seeing who
Speaker 1: buys one, and it's selling guns to people without doing
Speaker 1: any background check, and then see who buys a gun
Speaker 1: without a background check that shouldn't have one. Well, in
Speaker 1: that process, you're also putting a lot of guns out
Speaker 1: on the streets. So it's it seems somewhat counterintuitive to
Speaker 1: you as well. We're gonna sell ammunition to everybody, but
Speaker 1: then if a prohibited possessor comes up on our list, uh,
Speaker 1: we're able to arrest them. So maybe this is a
Speaker 1: good law enforcement tactic or a good gun control tactic.
Speaker 1: To that, I say, you know how easy it is
Speaker 1: for somebody to transfer their ammunition to somebody else. I mean, no, nobody,
Speaker 1: nobody's gonna know the difference with that. So anybody who
Speaker 1: understands what the rules are, we'll just get around them
Speaker 1: by making sure somebody who's not a prohibited possessor, meaning
Speaker 1: a felon or somebody somebody who's been convicted of domestic
Speaker 1: violence gets their hands on this stuff. So I just
Speaker 1: think the notion that you're gonna limit bullets or make
Speaker 1: them really really expensive, I think actually Patrick moynihan, Senator
Speaker 1: from uh New Jersey, a long time ago, wanted to
Speaker 1: wanted to make a hollow point ten dollars or something something.
Speaker 1: Really moynihan had some things he was smart on this,
Speaker 1: this was not one of them. But I would note
Speaker 1: that with guns in general, you have a lot of
Speaker 1: people that say very very stupid things. People that are
Speaker 1: otherwise quite intelligent. Are are really buffoonish on the issue
Speaker 1: of gun control, and it's because for them, it's as
Speaker 1: I've told you, it's a cultural signifier. It's much more
Speaker 1: about that than it is about actually preventing violence or
Speaker 1: stopping violence from occurring using firearms. Alright, team, I hope
Speaker 1: you enjoyed the new format of the podcast out early.
Speaker 1: Please do subscribe on iTunes, share it around and let
Speaker 1: me know what you think of the new format on
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton remember shields High