Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt pandemonium. On day one
Speaker 1: of Brett Kavanaugh's Scotus hearings, we'll talk about what happened
Speaker 1: today on Capitol Hill with the Senate confirmation battle heating up,
Speaker 1: and also are all jobs worthy of dignating respect? The
Speaker 1: answer is yes. We got quite a reminder of this
Speaker 1: over the weekend. I'll break that down a much more
Speaker 1: coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, break You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again. The Buck Sexton Show begins, set no Welcome
Speaker 1: everyone to this confirmation hearing on a nomination of Mr
Speaker 1: Chairman Brett Kavanaugh, Mr Chairman, to serve as Associate Justice.
Speaker 1: Mr Chairman, I'd like to be recognized for a question
Speaker 1: before we proceed. I've been through nine Supreme Court hearings,
Speaker 1: Mr Chairman, I have the opportunity to respond to my
Speaker 1: colleague from Texas because he is directly challenged, you're out
Speaker 1: of order. Well, I was just going to say some
Speaker 1: things that portion of today's hearing with his testimony tomorrow morning,
Speaker 1: Mr Chairman, when will we review Senator Blumenthal's motion to
Speaker 1: a journ, motion to adjourn. Mr Chairman, I think we're
Speaker 1: entitled to a vote on it, Mr Chairman, If I
Speaker 1: might add an additional point, and Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman,
Speaker 1: or I agree with my colleague Senator Harris, Mr Chairman,
Speaker 1: law class and documents that we haven't everyone else. Mr Chairman,
Speaker 1: If I may go on to what I believe was
Speaker 1: a personal I'd like to have you give Senator Feinstein
Speaker 1: the courtesy of listening to her oldening statement or read
Speaker 1: or analyze you're you're out of order. I'll proceed. We
Speaker 1: cannot possibly move forward. Mr Chamber extend the very warm
Speaker 1: Well there are two daughters. Well, I was just going
Speaker 1: to say some things. Pandemonium down on Capitol Hill today, folks,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. That was just a
Speaker 1: just a taste of what went on there. So that
Speaker 1: was from the Senate side. Now you had a bunch
Speaker 1: of senators acting like a bunch of cry babies. They're
Speaker 1: they're pulling all these procedural and they're not even really
Speaker 1: this is the equivalent, folks. It's not parliamentary procedure that
Speaker 1: they're relying on here. It's not oh, emotion to to
Speaker 1: do this and and it's actually gonna happen. This is
Speaker 1: the equivalent of we we can't do this because I
Speaker 1: need a potty break. I need a potty break. We
Speaker 1: can't confirm him. Well, that's not a thing. That's not
Speaker 1: a rule. There's no potty break exception to the constitution.
Speaker 1: What what do you mean you you don't have time
Speaker 1: to review that. You've had eight weeks or have you
Speaker 1: all kinds of documents? These are the documents that have
Speaker 1: been produced. That's it, that's what you got, deal with it.
Speaker 1: We wait, we need more time. Let me guess by
Speaker 1: November seven, then they might be able to make a determination.
Speaker 1: This whole thing was ridiculous today, but it was tough
Speaker 1: to tell who was more more ridiculous that the senators
Speaker 1: or the the insane I mean insane left wing protesters. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, Corey Corey Booker. For example, on the Senate side,
Speaker 1: he kept saying that he wouldn't hire an intern if
Speaker 1: he only saw of his resume. This was a line
Speaker 1: he repeated ad nauseum. You know, I wouldn't hire somebody
Speaker 1: if only the resume. And I just want to note
Speaker 1: for the senator that if you're intern applicant submitted a
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand page resume, you would call the Capitol
Speaker 1: police on him. Okay, you wouldn't say where's pages. It's
Speaker 1: the dumbest analogy I've ever heard in my life. This
Speaker 1: guy keeps just digging into it. It's it's just it's
Speaker 1: poss z are absolutely positively bizarre. But you know, it
Speaker 1: was never about the documents, folks. It was never anything
Speaker 1: that they There was never any principle involved here um
Speaker 1: and the left was just nuts today the left was
Speaker 1: completely losing it. Let's see we've got here. Play to
Speaker 1: me a favor, play fifteen and then fourteen Wat's Rachel an,
Speaker 1: I love Sandy, Sandy t I read half poe as
Speaker 1: is a guy. Oh well, she convinced me, like whatever
Speaker 1: that screeching. There's an attack on women's rights and an
Speaker 1: attack on democracy. Shut this hearing down. This hearing is
Speaker 1: an attack on women's rights and an attack on democracy.
Speaker 1: Shut this hearing down. Now, shut down hearing down, Shut
Speaker 1: this hearing down. This is an attack on women's rights
Speaker 1: and democracy. How is it? How is the hearing an
Speaker 1: attack on Think about this? What if the hearing? What
Speaker 1: if they decided, you know, not not to vote for Kapital.
Speaker 1: How is the hearing itself? I mean, these people are imbeciles,
Speaker 1: absolute imbeciles. And you know, at the rate they were
Speaker 1: being tossed out of that room, I wonder if MSNBC's
Speaker 1: ratings are gonna go down tonight because they've got some
Speaker 1: people that might have to get out of jail. You know,
Speaker 1: this is this is a bunch of louns and folks.
Speaker 1: I can't help but notice this didn't happen during the
Speaker 1: Hagan or so do my oar hearings. You didn't have
Speaker 1: people like, you know, my name's my name's Bob, and
Speaker 1: uh I'm you know, uh work at own an autobought
Speaker 1: a shop downtown and and I'm married and have three children.
Speaker 1: And I'm just here to stream and yell in the
Speaker 1: back of the room because I I hate the liberals, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you don't get people on the
Speaker 1: right doing this. We don't do this. Our people, our
Speaker 1: side just does not do this. I don't know what
Speaker 1: else to say. You know, uh we we we don't.
Speaker 1: We don't show up at these hearings and act like maniacs.
Speaker 1: We we don't have a guy named named Bill in
Speaker 1: accounting from you know, Massachusetts, who's uh, you know, traditional
Speaker 1: Republican who shows up and he's like, well, I really
Speaker 1: disapprove of so do my oar and okagan, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to interrupt the hearing. Now, you know, we don't
Speaker 1: have that. We don't do that. I'm a constitutional conservative
Speaker 1: and I also believe in the Second Amendment. And now
Speaker 1: I'll let me yelling scream this is a thing that
Speaker 1: the progressive left does and we're not supposed to remark
Speaker 1: on this right like they We knew they were gonna
Speaker 1: be lunatics at the hearing. Linda's are sore was there,
Speaker 1: you know, has to get has to get her, you know,
Speaker 1: two minutes of TV time or whatever. We knew that
Speaker 1: they would do it, and it was a a circus.
Speaker 1: And you also had this notion that they should just
Speaker 1: so you have the crazy hecklers trying to shut it down,
Speaker 1: and you even had senators basically trying to shut it down. Bloomenthal,
Speaker 1: who is just so gross. Bloomenthal was was trying to
Speaker 1: just say that the hearing shouldn't even happen. Play ten
Speaker 1: and you're rightly, press chairman, if if we cannot be recognized.
Speaker 1: I moved to a journe the American People. Chairman. I
Speaker 1: moved to a journ directly from Judge seven all, Mr Chairman,
Speaker 1: I moved to a journ and Mr Chairman, we have
Speaker 1: been denied. We have been denied real access to the documents.
Speaker 1: We need to advise German regular orders, which turns this
Speaker 1: hearing into a charade and a mockery of our norms.
Speaker 1: Mr Chairman, I therefore moved to her during this hearing. Okay,
Speaker 1: these people are crazy. These people are nuts. You know.
Speaker 1: They're all all a bunch of Hillary all a bunch
Speaker 1: of Hillary voters back there, folks, just remember that, you know,
Speaker 1: I know that. It's look, on the one hand, it's
Speaker 1: just amusing that this is uh that these are They're
Speaker 1: all Democrats back there, They're all leftists that are screaming. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just just yelling and oh yeah, she's convinced me whatever.
Speaker 1: She's shrieking back there, and now I must think she's right.
Speaker 1: I want to remind all of us of this, and
Speaker 1: I want to take the time to speak to you
Speaker 1: about it, because one of the pitches that you hear
Speaker 1: from Democrats is, you know, we need more responsible adult
Speaker 1: leadership in uh you know back back in the White
Speaker 1: House that we need serious politicians not like Trump to
Speaker 1: be in charge. And then you see this, Not only
Speaker 1: do you have the Democrats base showing us who they are,
Speaker 1: which is a bunch of lunatics, a bunch of maniacs
Speaker 1: who have no respect, no decorum, no public decency whatsoever,
Speaker 1: and just thinking and are just mad with baby ish rage.
Speaker 1: And then you get the Democrats who are just making
Speaker 1: fools of themselves. If they want to oppose Kavanaugh because
Speaker 1: he's not going to be some leftist who gives them
Speaker 1: whatever they want, fine, you know, if that's the approach
Speaker 1: that they want to take, if if they are really
Speaker 1: gonna uh make this completely and overtly political, all right,
Speaker 1: you know that's that's at least an argument. But to
Speaker 1: say that they don't have the documents and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff is just bunk. And by the way, before
Speaker 1: you before some of you may be thinking, buck, it's
Speaker 1: not fair to to blame the Democrats for the protesters.
Speaker 1: They didn't most of the Democrats senators there, they didn't
Speaker 1: shut them down, they weren't rebuking them. Here's, uh, what
Speaker 1: what Elizabeth Warren said, play sixteen. All these protesters out
Speaker 1: here today, I'm glad you're here. They're exercising the Now.
Speaker 1: To be fair, I would I would assume that in
Speaker 1: that case she's talking about some protesters probably who are
Speaker 1: outside of the actual gallery Harry is happening. But she
Speaker 1: likes the protesters. Well, what are they doing exactly? What
Speaker 1: do they think they're accomplishing other than just harassing people
Speaker 1: walking in and out of the building. The whole notion
Speaker 1: of protests and folks the protest movements of the sixties
Speaker 1: and getting a massive of people together on the streets
Speaker 1: and causing a spectacle, which is what what a protest is.
Speaker 1: It is meant to be seen by people. This is
Speaker 1: really an outmoded thing that um now, when you look
Speaker 1: at it, it doesn't take into account that you don't
Speaker 1: have to do this. There's so many ways to organize
Speaker 1: and get your message out without shrieking and yelling at say,
Speaker 1: but there's a protest culture on the left. They like
Speaker 1: to do this. This goes to a Lynsky. Lynsky said,
Speaker 1: for for the purposes of of left wing organizing an
Speaker 1: active activism, you know, you want your activities to be
Speaker 1: fun and people like they like to do this on
Speaker 1: the left, they like to protest. That makes them feel
Speaker 1: relevant and powerful and virtuous and good and you know
Speaker 1: all that stuff. That's why they sit out there and
Speaker 1: say these things. That's why, uh, they would waste everyone's
Speaker 1: time by by shrieking at this hearing. Um. It is
Speaker 1: only the left though, that you see this stuff. It
Speaker 1: is only a leftist tendency. Um. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: tough to tell who was worse. You know, on the
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you had all of these uh
Speaker 1: senators who were just acting like complete clowns, I mean
Speaker 1: really really low grade stuff from them, and I don't
Speaker 1: expect much from Democrats senators. And then on the on
Speaker 1: the other hand, you have these these crazy left wing
Speaker 1: activist protester types who just have no respect whatsoever for anything.
Speaker 1: And we're just on day one, folks. This is just
Speaker 1: the beginning of this. It's only it's only gonna get worse.
Speaker 1: It's only gonna get worse. Um. Well, we will continue
Speaker 1: to watch it. I mean, at the end of this,
Speaker 1: I gotta say, I think capital gets through, which is
Speaker 1: a huge win for Trump in the administration and a
Speaker 1: great thing for I don't want to say concerned them
Speaker 1: just for constitutional jurisprudence. This whole, this whole idea of
Speaker 1: a of a court that's divided four four and one
Speaker 1: with a swing vote, this is a farce. I don't
Speaker 1: want judges that are on one one ideological side or
Speaker 1: the other. I want judges who look at the law
Speaker 1: and interpret the law. That's what I want. I don't
Speaker 1: want judges who come up with their own policy preferences
Speaker 1: and replace the law with that Democrats do. This is
Speaker 1: this is eight. We're seeing a major difference here in
Speaker 1: philosophy about what the Supreme Court should really be all about.
Speaker 1: Um And I just think that that you know that,
Speaker 1: this is this is worth every everybody remembering. You know.
Speaker 1: The other thing, Well, let let me get more into
Speaker 1: what you can expect from the Democrats of the next
Speaker 1: few days. Eight four five buck uh, we have much
Speaker 1: more coming. Will be right back. The whole argument is,
Speaker 1: you can be a conservative Republican president, but you gotta
Speaker 1: nominate a liberal to be fair to the country. That's absurd.
Speaker 1: What do you think Ruth Vader Ginsburgh came from. She's
Speaker 1: a general council with a c L. You wonderful person Clinton.
Speaker 1: It didn't bother anybody for Clinton to nominate Briar while
Speaker 1: he was under investigation. Who actually did it? This is
Speaker 1: shaping up to be the hypocrisy hearing to do in
Speaker 1: the Senate. Know that actually came up as well when
Speaker 1: I had when I interviewed UH actor and activist Elissa Milano,
Speaker 1: as she said, well, you know, Trump's uninvestigation. He shouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to UH, he shouldn't be able to appoint anyone.
Speaker 1: I said, well, Clinton was under investigation, so how could
Speaker 1: you know? Unprecedented? We'll talk more about unprecedented later. This
Speaker 1: concept of Trump is doing something that no one's ever
Speaker 1: done except for the last president before him, and probably
Speaker 1: the one before that. But you know, the the the
Speaker 1: arguments being made by Senate Democrats here are not arguments
Speaker 1: made really in good faith. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: that's very important for us all to to keep in
Speaker 1: mind as we go through this. The arguments that the
Speaker 1: Democrats are making are the democrats in the Senate are
Speaker 1: are not things that we should be forced to take seriously.
Speaker 1: You know, for one thing, there'll be a lot of
Speaker 1: there's no political litmus test for the Supreme Court nominees.
Speaker 1: You'll you'll hear that a lot, but then they'll ask
Speaker 1: a bunch of political litmus test questions. It's very tiresome,
Speaker 1: but it is a constant in these hearings, and it's
Speaker 1: a constant that is reliant on a faulty sensibility or
Speaker 1: fault the idea of what the Democrats, or rather what
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is supposed to do and how it
Speaker 1: really functions as a coequal branch of government. Um. But
Speaker 1: I mean, it was, it was, it was a bad day.
Speaker 1: I think for the Democrats there. They're going after the Scott.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you more about Kavana on a moment,
Speaker 1: and then we'll get into Woowards book and socialism and
Speaker 1: healthcare in this country. I got, I got a lot
Speaker 1: for you and the rest of the show. And we're
Speaker 1: not just talking. I know a lot of people are
Speaker 1: gonna just beat the whole hearings thing into the ground
Speaker 1: here to talk about it all day, all night, and
Speaker 1: it's it's really not worth that much of our time.
Speaker 1: But I mean, as my friend Kim Strassol wrote today,
Speaker 1: Senate Dems in the Kavanaugh hearing, all we're asking is
Speaker 1: for Republicans to throw over all president and procedure so
Speaker 1: we can pretend we didn't lose an election. That's right,
Speaker 1: That's what this is really about. Democrats are throwing a
Speaker 1: tantrum because elections have consequences, and they don't like this
Speaker 1: particular consequence one bit. It is going to boost conservative
Speaker 1: support for this president, especially going into the mid terms.
Speaker 1: It's going to unify the party. It also will help
Speaker 1: those of us who you know, don't don't see eye
Speaker 1: to eye with Trump and all of his stylistic and
Speaker 1: personal matters. But signed on for the agenda, signed on
Speaker 1: for for what he could produce, what he could do,
Speaker 1: what he could accomplish. This is big once you get
Speaker 1: from but gorcia as the snark has been from the
Speaker 1: never trumpers too. But Gorcich and but Kavanaugh get rid
Speaker 1: of the butts. It's a lot, uh that that is
Speaker 1: a multi generational win for conservatives and conservative and for constitutionalism.
Speaker 1: So we will have Trump to thank for that, assuming
Speaker 1: this doesn't go off the ray. Else. I do have
Speaker 1: my worries. I do have my worries that uh Flake
Speaker 1: might defect. I think he will. I think Flake might
Speaker 1: be the be a no vote on Kavanaugh and then
Speaker 1: all you need is one other weak, quizzling Republican one
Speaker 1: other one too, and then you've got a real problem
Speaker 1: on your hands. So I'm not treating this as as
Speaker 1: mission accomplished already. I'm I'm holding out on that until
Speaker 1: we get we get quite a bit more. But I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk to you more about Kavanaugh because you know,
Speaker 1: the efforts to discredit him and the efforts to um
Speaker 1: go after him have been really disgraceful. Uh. And this
Speaker 1: is a guy who he's he's as good as it
Speaker 1: gets as a as a jurist, his resume, his background,
Speaker 1: his temperament, everything. So let's let's look at the positive side,
Speaker 1: or the real side, I should say, of what's going
Speaker 1: on here with Kavanaugh and who we're seeing on display
Speaker 1: here and what a great Supreme Court now Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justice he would be. Over the past eight weeks, I've
Speaker 1: witnessed firsthand the Senate's deep appreciation for the vital role
Speaker 1: of the American judiciary. I have at with sixty Senators,
Speaker 1: including almost every member of this committee. Those meetings are
Speaker 1: sometimes referred to as courtesy calls, but that term understates
Speaker 1: how substantive and personal our discussions have been. I have
Speaker 1: greatly enjoyed all sixty meetings. In listening to all of you,
Speaker 1: I have learned more about our country and the people
Speaker 1: you represent. Every Senator is devoted to public service in
Speaker 1: the public good, and I thank all the senators for
Speaker 1: their time and their thoughts. Guy sounds worse than Hitler
Speaker 1: to me, folks. I mean, oh man, it's it's amazing
Speaker 1: to watch these Democrats just make make complete fools of
Speaker 1: themselves on this. It really is. Um. They they are
Speaker 1: so utterly shameless. Um, They're they're complete, They're they're just
Speaker 1: it's all kabuki theater. It's all meant to appeal to
Speaker 1: the base. I mean, they have different, uh, different emails
Speaker 1: going out from fundraising committees and and you know, packs
Speaker 1: and things, and senators are already on the while the
Speaker 1: hearing is going on. Senators are already on the record
Speaker 1: saying that they won't vote for Kavanaugh. But they're acting like, well,
Speaker 1: I won't vote for him now because now you said
Speaker 1: you wouldn't vote for him a month ago, But now
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe that you care. Now we're I mean,
Speaker 1: this thing about the documents is just completely completely insane. Um.
Speaker 1: And uh yet yet here we are, folks, here we are.
Speaker 1: You have uh so, just just to dig into the
Speaker 1: document component of this for a minute. You have four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand pages that have been given. It's five times
Speaker 1: as much as we're ever handed over for any other
Speaker 1: any previous Supreme Court nominee. Four hundred thousand pages. Some
Speaker 1: pay ages that have to do with Kavanaugh's time in
Speaker 1: the White House have he was deputy counsel and then
Speaker 1: also uh he was um secretary. I forget what the
Speaker 1: specific terminologies for the job. I'm blanking on it right now,
Speaker 1: but you know he was there, and and there's some
Speaker 1: executive privilege that applies to some of the documents, so
Speaker 1: he they're not his to give. But they still act
Speaker 1: like they still act like this is something well or
Speaker 1: relligant plot. If you want to hear uh, if you
Speaker 1: want to hear from Senator Leahy, for example, um, you
Speaker 1: know here here's what he said. Play thirteen. We've received
Speaker 1: used a half a chairman grasses partial records request, meaning
Speaker 1: we're moving forward even though we've received a fraction of
Speaker 1: the records. Even Republicans claim they needed to bet your
Speaker 1: nomination just a few weeks ago, and then we received
Speaker 1: additional for two thousand pages form the record a few
Speaker 1: hours ago. The notion that anyone here has properly reviewed
Speaker 1: them or even seeing them at all, is laughable. It's laughable.
Speaker 1: It doesn't pass the giggle test. And any claim this
Speaker 1: has been a thorough transparent processes downright or William, This
Speaker 1: is the most incomplete, most partisans at least transparent vetting
Speaker 1: for any Supreme Court nominee I've ever seen. Today. The
Speaker 1: Senate is not simply phoning in our vetting obligation. Quit
Speaker 1: discarding you. It's not only shameful, it's a shape. Thanks
Speaker 1: centaer lady. That's really that's really whatever that was, that's
Speaker 1: really helpful. Uh. You know they really they make jackasses
Speaker 1: themselves today. They did they they I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear anymore from liberals about how, you know, uh, institutions
Speaker 1: are being undermined because liberals made the Senate look like
Speaker 1: an absolute clown show today. Liberals made the Senate look
Speaker 1: ridiculous and there their arguments are nonsensical, they are completely
Speaker 1: self refuting. I mean, you you give them five minutes
Speaker 1: to talk in a one minute uh one minute, there's
Speaker 1: the problem is that, you know, he's not gonna support
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade or something. And then the next minute
Speaker 1: it's the documentar view. In the next minute it's well, well,
Speaker 1: you know, which is it? I mean, and are we
Speaker 1: really supposed to believe it's all these things or is
Speaker 1: it just they're having a tantrum? And that that's what
Speaker 1: today was. Today it was a tantrum. It was a
Speaker 1: bad look, a bad look for the Senate um and
Speaker 1: oh one of these you know, Bluementhal said something about
Speaker 1: how no one can select a judge in his own case.
Speaker 1: And that's what the president is doing here, selecting, potentially
Speaker 1: doing here selecting a judge in the Supreme Court. Bluementhal.
Speaker 1: Who it's just he's so, what's that phone where we
Speaker 1: use here on the show? Only aginists, Bluementhal, So only Aginius. Uh.
Speaker 1: He's established a standard, I don't want to be very
Speaker 1: clear about this. He's established a standard where no president
Speaker 1: could ever pick any Supreme Court justice because of the
Speaker 1: theoretical premise that the president may at a future time
Speaker 1: be in legal jeopardy that goes up to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Bluementhal's objection if if, for example, there was already a
Speaker 1: case making its way up to the Supreme Court. Might
Speaker 1: might have some limited merit, but but at least it
Speaker 1: would it wouldn't be it wouldn't be the rantings of
Speaker 1: a crazy person. I mean, this is just bizarro. This
Speaker 1: is not This is not something that anybody could look
Speaker 1: at and really get into an the analysis of, because ultimately,
Speaker 1: this is just shameful. And the Democrats conduct conduct today
Speaker 1: has been absolutely shameful. There is no excuse for it.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what you think about Trump. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is about a highly qualified nominee for a co equal
Speaker 1: branch of of government and Democrats. Democrats, that was kind
Speaker 1: of footing Democrats. They're acting like a bunch of screaming
Speaker 1: Brady children, they really are, and they did not comport
Speaker 1: themselves well today at all. But maybe this is a
Speaker 1: good thing. I think it's a good thing for everybody
Speaker 1: to have it be remembered that this is, this is
Speaker 1: what we were up against. That's why we started the
Speaker 1: show with just what a what a complete lib con
Speaker 1: one freak out this was. And and it also just
Speaker 1: goes to show you one Supreme court, one Supreme Court
Speaker 1: pick should not matter so much. It matters so much
Speaker 1: to the left because they have gone to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: They have used Supreme Court as their own little super
Speaker 1: legislature to give them some of their some of their
Speaker 1: biggest victories, especially in the culture War. But let's be honest.
Speaker 1: I mean this is for for decades now. I can
Speaker 1: give you, uh, case after case where on a very
Speaker 1: contentious issue, the Democrats got what they wanted via the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. The only really central and contentious Supreme Court
Speaker 1: case that really went against the went against the left
Speaker 1: in recent memory is d C v. Heller. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court stretched itself into a pretzel to save Obamacare. Not once,
Speaker 1: but twice Supreme Court decided that that that game marriage
Speaker 1: was the law of the land. The Supreme Court, you know,
Speaker 1: just just obviously abortion which is which is bad law.
Speaker 1: Even if you think, even if you think a woman
Speaker 1: should have the right to choose an abortion, let's not
Speaker 1: just say right to choose, right to choose an abortion.
Speaker 1: It's not the right to choose what paper towel, what
Speaker 1: paper towel to buy. It's not the right to choose
Speaker 1: what her major in college. Is the right to choose
Speaker 1: an abortion? Uh? And in fact, protect as a constitutional
Speaker 1: right access to an abortion, and a taxpayer should pay
Speaker 1: for abortions, and uh, you know this, this is it's
Speaker 1: not just that somebody has the right to choose. What
Speaker 1: what the left is really enshrined now is the right
Speaker 1: to an abortion right, meaning that the right to if
Speaker 1: you choose this, uh, it is it is given to
Speaker 1: you via in many cases taxpayer, taxpayer funded procedures. And
Speaker 1: people say, oh, buck, let's not that's a lie, folks. Uh,
Speaker 1: funds are fungible. Okay, when when you give hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions dollars a planned parenthood, you're given hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: dollars to an abortion provider. As it is not this
Speaker 1: is not that hard, it's not that complicated. That's all
Speaker 1: figly if it's a lie. Um, But you know, they
Speaker 1: are so worried that they might lose these things. And
Speaker 1: the worst thing that can happen from the left perspective
Speaker 1: on Roe v. Wade is and I don't even think
Speaker 1: this is gonna happen, which would be a show, aim
Speaker 1: because I would love to see. I mean, it should
Speaker 1: happen ethically for the soul of the United States. Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade should be overturned. Um. And you know it is
Speaker 1: the it is the greatest moral stain on this country
Speaker 1: since slavery, no question, no question. Um, But it would
Speaker 1: probably just revert back. I mean, it would just revert
Speaker 1: back to the states. Uh, and then you would still
Speaker 1: have abortion legal in a number of states, which would
Speaker 1: be unfortunate, but that's the way it would go. So
Speaker 1: it's not even like this would be outlawed everywhere. There's
Speaker 1: not gonna be a federal law. Well that's actually interesting.
Speaker 1: Maybe at some point there would try to they would
Speaker 1: try to. Well that would really could you imagine the
Speaker 1: fight over federal law outlaw abortion. But see the we're
Speaker 1: having a real discussion about this here. The Democrats they
Speaker 1: just want to They just want to start a food
Speaker 1: fight and make a lot of noise and try to
Speaker 1: raise money and use this just to just exploit this
Speaker 1: issue in whatever way they can and in as many
Speaker 1: ways as they can. And that's really the way that
Speaker 1: they approach this. Uh, this whole hearing situation. I do
Speaker 1: are talking about Woodward's book. Um, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: scuttle butt around this coming up. There's even audio. It's
Speaker 1: not not that exciting, but we got a little bit
Speaker 1: of it for you of the President talking to the
Speaker 1: wood Word about the book, this Bob Woodword of uh
Speaker 1: Watergate fame, and I haven't. I'm trying to get him booked. Look,
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna, you know Woodward as a media darling, and
Speaker 1: everybody's gonna, you know, want this guy on their shows everything.
Speaker 1: We're trying to get him booked for both Rising and
Speaker 1: for radio. And I want to get an early copy
Speaker 1: of his book, which I have not been able to
Speaker 1: do quite yet. But there's some stuff in there that
Speaker 1: I just I just have a really hard time believing.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying nobody said it. I'm just I'm saying
Speaker 1: I don't think that it's true. But we'll talk about
Speaker 1: some of those exclusive allegations in just a moment. I
Speaker 1: have an office. You have the office number. I have
Speaker 1: an office that's directly into my office. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you what matters. The on him is
Speaker 1: the best that's been in many, many decades. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna get a lot better. And the country is doing
Speaker 1: very well. That's what's important. Yes, sir, I thought of
Speaker 1: doing a good job kind of say, let's uh not
Speaker 1: talk about this because the book is done you need
Speaker 1: to know I made maximum effort. All Right, it's too bad.
Speaker 1: I'm just hearing about it. And I heard I did
Speaker 1: hear from Lindsey, but I'm just hearing about it. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a very inaccurate book. And that's too bad.
Speaker 1: But I don't blame you entirely, Okay, Well, accurate is
Speaker 1: that nobody's ever done a better job than I'm doing
Speaker 1: as president. That I can tell you. So that's and
Speaker 1: that's the way a lot of people feel that know
Speaker 1: what's going on, and you'll see that over the years,
Speaker 1: but a lot of people feel that Bob so oh man,
Speaker 1: this president is a fighter. You gotta like it. You know,
Speaker 1: there areas he's not. You're not taking any guff from anybody.
Speaker 1: He's got Bob Woodwork, who's among the probably ten most
Speaker 1: revered big j journalists, you know, big time journalists in
Speaker 1: in the media, the political media industrial complex. You know,
Speaker 1: they they love Bob because look, he he helped bring
Speaker 1: down Nixon, which is the all time greatest thing that
Speaker 1: the media thinks it's ever accomplished. I mean, the the
Speaker 1: destruction of the Nixon administration um was something that the
Speaker 1: that journalists that's that's the high water mark. That is
Speaker 1: what they yearned for, and Woodward was a part of that.
Speaker 1: So he's he has almost like a godlike status among
Speaker 1: a lot of DC journalists. I mean, they just think
Speaker 1: of him as as uh, the cats, the cats me out?
Speaker 1: Does they even say that anymore? The cats pajamas? Brandon?
Speaker 1: What is that all? What's the cats? The bee's knees? Not?
Speaker 1: Come on, we're not in grade school. It's crazy talk, Brandon.
Speaker 1: You know the anyway, the Woodword book. But thank you
Speaker 1: for having that in Brandon. Uh, well, the Woodward Book.
Speaker 1: Well it's not out yet. I'm able to read it.
Speaker 1: But here's some of the stuff that that we're being told,
Speaker 1: isn't it. You know. Let me just say before I
Speaker 1: get this, I don't think it's gonna change anyone's mind
Speaker 1: about anything. I don't think anyone's gonna read this Woodward
Speaker 1: book and be like, oh wow, you know this is
Speaker 1: I really don't like Trump anymore. It's really bad. I
Speaker 1: gotta it's not gonna happen. It's it's just it's just
Speaker 1: not gonna happen. I don't think it changed the thing.
Speaker 1: But here's how it goes, all right, he's in the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Quote John Dowd was convinced that President Trump
Speaker 1: would commit perjury if he talked to Special counsel Robert Mueller.
Speaker 1: So on January, the president's then personal attorney staged a
Speaker 1: practice session to try to make his point. In the
Speaker 1: White House residents, Dowd pepper Trump with questions about the
Speaker 1: Russia investigation, provoking stumbles, contradictions, and lies, until the President
Speaker 1: eventually lost his cool. This thing is that goddamn hoax.
Speaker 1: Trump erupted at the start of a thirty minute rant
Speaker 1: that finished with him saying, I don't really want to testify.
Speaker 1: The dramatic and previously untold scene is recounted in Fear,
Speaker 1: a forthcoming book by Bob Wilbert that paints a harrying
Speaker 1: portrait of the Trump presidency based on in depth interviews. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Woodward depicts Trump's anger and paranoia about the
Speaker 1: Russia inquiry is unrelenting and at times paralyzing the West
Speaker 1: Wing for entire days, and quote, folks, but that's that's
Speaker 1: not that strange. Why shouldn't the president, you know, let's
Speaker 1: let's just take a step back. Why shouldn't the president
Speaker 1: be furious about the Russia collusion hoax. If I were him,
Speaker 1: I'd be furious. The whole thing is a joke. The
Speaker 1: whole thing is preposterous. It never should have happened, It
Speaker 1: never should have been allowed to occur the way that
Speaker 1: it has. Do we do we really have to pretend otherwise?
Speaker 1: Is it really our obligation to act like this this
Speaker 1: uh that that the president shouldn't be upset when he's
Speaker 1: clearly being ambushed by a pro Hillary media complex that's
Speaker 1: worked with some elements from within a cabal from the
Speaker 1: upper reaches of the dj and the FBI to take
Speaker 1: down a president. I'd be I'd be ticked off, my friends,
Speaker 1: I really would. So I don't think that's really I
Speaker 1: don't think that's where that's strange. There. There's some other
Speaker 1: stuff though, where it gets it gets a little more
Speaker 1: Harry Here's Woodward quote describes an administrative coup, data and
Speaker 1: a nervous breakdown of the executive branch, with senior aids
Speaker 1: conspiring to pluck official papers from the president's desk so
Speaker 1: he couldn't see or sign them. Again and again. Woodward
Speaker 1: recounts at length how Trump's national security team was shaken
Speaker 1: by his lack of curiosity and knowledge about world affairs,
Speaker 1: and his contempt for mainstream perspectives of military and intelligence leaders.
Speaker 1: At a national security meeting on January nineteenth, Trump Trump
Speaker 1: disregarded the significance of the massive US military presence of
Speaker 1: the Korean Peninsula, including a special intelligence operation that allows
Speaker 1: the United States to detect a North Korean missile launched
Speaker 1: in seven seconds versus fifteen minutes from Alaska. According to Woodward,
Speaker 1: Trump questioned why government was spending resources in the region
Speaker 1: at all. We're doing this in order to prevent World
Speaker 1: War three. Defense Secretary Jim Maddis told him, you know
Speaker 1: there there's look, there's some stuff in here that's that's
Speaker 1: a little uh, you know, a little gives you a
Speaker 1: moment of like, Okay, well is that true? That's that's
Speaker 1: not great. Uh. Chief of Staff John Kelly freaking lost
Speaker 1: his temper. According to this in one small meeting, Kelly
Speaker 1: stead of Trump. He's an idiot. It's pointless to try
Speaker 1: to convince him of anything. He's gone off. The rails
Speaker 1: were in crazy town. I don't even know why any
Speaker 1: of us are here. This is the worst job I've
Speaker 1: ever had. I just don't believe that. Kelly said that.
Speaker 1: I don't believe it. Kelly's already denied it. So I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that Woodward is fabricating sources. But I am
Speaker 1: saying that maybe some of his sources were fabricating their
Speaker 1: accounts and their and the events. But I gotta read
Speaker 1: the book, and I will, and let's talk about socialism
Speaker 1: coming up. I talked about Simply Safe Home Security a
Speaker 1: lot on the show. It's because it's a great sist him.
Speaker 1: It's a system that I have here in my home.
Speaker 1: It's fantastic protection, very easy to use. And I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, simply Safe is clearly incredible what it does,
Speaker 1: because it's now valued at a billion dollars as a business.
Speaker 1: You know, the founders started the company because he wanted
Speaker 1: to help his friends who are burglarized. And now simply
Speaker 1: Safe doesn't just protect his friend, it protects over two
Speaker 1: million people. Simply Sife gives you comprehensive protection for your home,
Speaker 1: round the clock, professional monitoring and police dispatch. You get
Speaker 1: protection against intruders, fires, leaks, and burst pipes. It keeps
Speaker 1: working during power outages, down WiFi, even if a burglar
Speaker 1: smashes your key pad. It's so easy to use. I
Speaker 1: installed it myself here at home. You'll see for yourself.
Speaker 1: Try it out. Order You're simply safe system. Now my
Speaker 1: listeners get free shipping and free returns. Visit simply safe
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. That's simply safe dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: To protect your home with simply Safe Today Again simply
Speaker 1: Safe dot com slash buck. We're to fight dignitat work.
Speaker 1: It's about time to start talking to each other like
Speaker 1: we're civilized perspect that's blue collar Joe on what's at
Speaker 1: stake in the mid terms, he said everything, we're to
Speaker 1: fight for the soul of America. I think it's a
Speaker 1: bit of overstatement, but if we're gonna really take it there, Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: let's let's look at what is at stake in these
Speaker 1: mid terms, my friends. Uh, let's let's talk a bit
Speaker 1: about what we're dealing with here. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: you have a rallying around, for example, Ocasio Cortez, an
Speaker 1: open socialist who is willing to use the power of
Speaker 1: the state to take away your property, is willing to
Speaker 1: use the power of the state to determine much more
Speaker 1: about your life and to condemn a lot of people
Speaker 1: to if not misery, then a state enforced me the awcrity.
Speaker 1: They get all excited about her. So this is one.
Speaker 1: This is what she said about rallying kids. These are
Speaker 1: young kids understand to fight Trump, play for kind of
Speaker 1: dr for the whole kid. And I am the Congress.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be on the Democratic nominee her congress out here.
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna go to say she's gonna be fighting trauma. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's crazy. Want I don't want to. She's she's propagandizing folks.
Speaker 1: She's propagandized into a bunch Okay, we can cut it, uh,
Speaker 1: propagandia into a bunch of small children about how she
Speaker 1: needs their help to fight Trump. Well, I don't think
Speaker 1: they can vote because they're about ten. But you will
Speaker 1: note that the Democrats are increased really open about how
Speaker 1: they would like if if they could, Uh, they would
Speaker 1: like to have a voting age of I think sixteen.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing sometimes in these days, you know, they want
Speaker 1: to get the younger and less the more voters with
Speaker 1: limited life experience and knowledge of how the world works,
Speaker 1: the better for Democrats. That is true. I mean, I'll
Speaker 1: give them credit for at least understanding who their bases,
Speaker 1: which is generally the the low information voter um. And
Speaker 1: and then you have so you have Okaza Cortet we're
Speaker 1: talking about what's at stake in the midterms. Then you've
Speaker 1: got Andrew Gillim down in Florida. What I saw today
Speaker 1: in a poll is up I think three points on
Speaker 1: on his opponents. So the Santis and Andrew Gillim was
Speaker 1: pushing a little bit because he's somebody who talks about,
Speaker 1: as does Okazi Cortez, about single pair or there. They
Speaker 1: call it Medicare for all, usually because that sounds good.
Speaker 1: That's kind of the poll tested version of it. But
Speaker 1: here's what happens when you ask Andrew Gillham the would
Speaker 1: the mayor of Tallahassee would be governor of Florida if
Speaker 1: he has his way. Here's what happens when you ask
Speaker 1: about how he going to pay for his thirty three
Speaker 1: trillion dollar healthcare plan plate Medicare for All. That plan
Speaker 1: would cost the government thirty three trillion with the t
Speaker 1: dollars over the next decade, which obviously would require a
Speaker 1: significant a tax increase. Are you ready to tell the
Speaker 1: people of Florida that they need to pay a lot
Speaker 1: more in taxes to fund your healthcare plan. Well, let
Speaker 1: me first say there was also a report data that
Speaker 1: showed that should we move to cover more people through
Speaker 1: a Medicare for all system, we could actually save the
Speaker 1: system trillions over an extended period of time. That you
Speaker 1: need to raise taxes? Fair? So what I what I
Speaker 1: would say is, first of all, and I want to
Speaker 1: be clear about this, the state of Florida could not
Speaker 1: take this road by itself. Taxes would have to be raised.
Speaker 1: Is that is that fair? Do you agree with that? I?
Speaker 1: I don't buy that. And how do you find that
Speaker 1: kind of money for the government without raising taxes? So,
Speaker 1: first I'd say one, Florida could not do it by itself.
Speaker 1: But secondly, we have the opportunity to expand medicaid for
Speaker 1: over seven hundred thousand of the most medically needy people
Speaker 1: here in the state of Florida. My governor and legislature
Speaker 1: refused to do that. Do you know it costs us
Speaker 1: about six billion dollars in money that should have come
Speaker 1: from the federal government to the State of Florida that
Speaker 1: we never received. I remember growing up as a kid
Speaker 1: having to wait for the mobile dental clinic to come
Speaker 1: through the neighborhood in order to have my teeth clean.
Speaker 1: I know the biggest concerned experiences as a government official.
Speaker 1: You have to make it work, and you have to
Speaker 1: make the numbers work. And so I still don't understand
Speaker 1: how you would do it without raising taxes. So the
Speaker 1: first step we would take is expand medicaid and pulled
Speaker 1: down about six billion dollars a year from the federal
Speaker 1: government on the Santis and Donald Trump have worked. Let me,
Speaker 1: let me just get it. You're less affordable, will you?
Speaker 1: Will you say that you will not support raising taxes?
Speaker 1: Is to make your healthcare plan work, we will increase taxes. Well,
Speaker 1: what took you so long to get there, my friend?
Speaker 1: I know that was kind of a brutal clip. Was
Speaker 1: really long, folks, Right, So hey, look, Dana Bash asking
Speaker 1: a real question, but it's not even really a question.
Speaker 1: Of course, he has to raise taxes. He has to
Speaker 1: raise taxes like you've never seen to even think about
Speaker 1: doing this. By the way, the whole thing about how
Speaker 1: Florida camp, you know that's not true. Californias think about
Speaker 1: doing this. New York is thinking about doing this. At
Speaker 1: least they say they are. They can't make the math work.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is where this is where Democrats
Speaker 1: have a have a huge problem. They they talk about
Speaker 1: single pair. Well, the way Medicare for all is a misnomer.
Speaker 1: The Bernie Sanders Plan, which is generally used as the
Speaker 1: template for what the left in this country wants, isn't
Speaker 1: Medicare for all Because they say that they want to
Speaker 1: get rid of copays deductibles. Medicare has those. And by
Speaker 1: the way, there are limits on Medicare as well, meaning
Speaker 1: you know, not everything is covered by medic care just
Speaker 1: because you are over sixty five. That's why people have, uh,
Speaker 1: supplemental insurance that they buy, but they also have co pays,
Speaker 1: and there's you know, there there are contributions that are
Speaker 1: made by people who are covered by Medicare. So so
Speaker 1: it's just not true to say that what they want
Speaker 1: is Medicare for all. They want something that's even more expensive.
Speaker 1: The men they want medicare on steroids, they want even
Speaker 1: more money. Uh And and by the way, that also
Speaker 1: doesn't take into account if you do have a true
Speaker 1: single payer system, states and localities spend a lot of
Speaker 1: money on on healthcare that would all come out of
Speaker 1: that would all come come out as well, it would
Speaker 1: just be the federal government, and that you would have
Speaker 1: savings from this. I mean, that's just laughable. You're you're
Speaker 1: gonna save, You're gonna cover, You're gonna Uncle Sam writing
Speaker 1: checks for everybody's health care, and you're gonna save the
Speaker 1: taxpayer money. I mean, he can't he can't be serious, right,
Speaker 1: This is ridiculous. By the way, even if we even
Speaker 1: if we take at face value that there would be
Speaker 1: some administrative or bureaucratic savings because of the centralization of healthcare,
Speaker 1: which is exactly what we're talking about here, centralized in
Speaker 1: the state's hands. Don't forget it. Even if that's all
Speaker 1: true and that's what ends up happening, there is no
Speaker 1: way that there would not be a massive and I
Speaker 1: mean massive shortage in healthcare that would result from this.
Speaker 1: You know, there just was an article of the week
Speaker 1: that came out about how long you wait in Sweden
Speaker 1: for for cancer treatment, for example, and and how long
Speaker 1: you'll wait to see a specialist. And there are people
Speaker 1: who have waited, you know, a year for surgery. Now,
Speaker 1: the way that they gauge these things, for example, with
Speaker 1: with cancer treatment is they'll they'll do it by by
Speaker 1: the outcome of the treatment. But I'm assuming that if
Speaker 1: you have cancer, depending on the kind of cancer it is,
Speaker 1: and you have to wait a year, that's a pretty
Speaker 1: anxiety filled even if you can afford to wait, meaning
Speaker 1: that the cancer is not so said that you're gonna die. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's that's putting a lot on people. If you had
Speaker 1: any type of cancer, let me ask you would would
Speaker 1: you would you feel comfortable awaiting a year to have
Speaker 1: it or waiting even three or six months to have
Speaker 1: it addressed. Huh? You mean that there is a pain
Speaker 1: that people have to suffer through in the waiting process
Speaker 1: as well. Well. Isn't that something that you don't often
Speaker 1: hear about. I mean, there is rationing in the Swedish
Speaker 1: health care system. And oh, by the way, in many
Speaker 1: of these European systems that the progressive left points to
Speaker 1: is the model for what we should have in ours.
Speaker 1: People like Gillham, there is there's increasingly people turning to
Speaker 1: private insurance. In Canada, a lot of people buy private
Speaker 1: insurance in addition with the state gives them because they
Speaker 1: want better health care, because their health care sucks. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way. The point about raising taxes, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to raise taxes on and this is
Speaker 1: where the Bernie Sanders math that doesn't add up. You're
Speaker 1: talking about an expenditure for medicare for all of a
Speaker 1: little over three trillion dollars a year. Keep in mind
Speaker 1: that right now, the the all federal spending right now,
Speaker 1: all of it military, Medicare, and Medicaid, everything, right, all
Speaker 1: the government agencies, all the king's horses and all the
Speaker 1: king's men, comes in around three point eight three point
Speaker 1: nine trillion. So you're gonna add three trillion onto that
Speaker 1: of government spending. And you think that that's not going
Speaker 1: to crowd out the crowd out some of the private economy,
Speaker 1: that's not going to create massive market distortions and and
Speaker 1: and enormous shortages in the healthcare market. I mean that
Speaker 1: that is just folks, it's just delusional. They are being delusional.
Speaker 1: It's un serious. But gill him is, he's doing well
Speaker 1: because people want to believe in Santa Claus. They want
Speaker 1: to believe in free stuff. They want to think there's
Speaker 1: a free lunch, and they've been told now increasingly that
Speaker 1: health care is a right. And if you have a
Speaker 1: right to something, well, then clearly the government has an
Speaker 1: obligation to provide that for you. You you have an
Speaker 1: inalienable right to healthcare, they are telling folks now, and
Speaker 1: it's it's it's not true, but nonetheless that's what they
Speaker 1: have convinced people on. Um and yeah, that's that's where
Speaker 1: this is all heading. It's troubling, I know, but the
Speaker 1: the socialist impulse in this country is getting u not
Speaker 1: just louder, it's getting more and more in the in
Speaker 1: the open, and and people are embracing it. Single payer
Speaker 1: is popular a lot of folks now. Um And and
Speaker 1: you know, I've said it before. The fact that the
Speaker 1: average American household right now, I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: big issue for the mid term. So it's the fact
Speaker 1: that the average American household is paying a lot more
Speaker 1: for much worse healthcare under Obamacare, and that Republicans are
Speaker 1: not pounding that from a messaging standpoint every day. Is
Speaker 1: it's it's just malpractice. It is it is abominable politics
Speaker 1: from the Republicans. I mean, they should be talking about
Speaker 1: how what's really happened is that all Obamacare did was
Speaker 1: within those pools of people that fall into Obamacare exchanges
Speaker 1: is that it takes money. It takes money from the
Speaker 1: relatively young and healthy and gives it to the sick.
Speaker 1: And there's a shifting that means that if you're young
Speaker 1: and healthy, uh, you're paying more and your care is crappier,
Speaker 1: you have incredibly restricted doctor and hospital networks. Uh. And
Speaker 1: really what you're doing is subsidizing other sick people in
Speaker 1: the Obamacare market. That's what you were doing. Why And
Speaker 1: this is what people who are making forty dollars a year. Folks.
Speaker 1: If you make uh, forty seven or forty eight, I
Speaker 1: think you don't qualify for any Obamacare subsidy at all.
Speaker 1: So let's say you're making fifty grand. Let's say fifty grand.
Speaker 1: Forget four to ge. You're making fifty grand trying to
Speaker 1: raise a family a two. You know, you're a husband
Speaker 1: or a wife wherever there earner is, and you're being
Speaker 1: told that your healthcare is now probably about fifty more
Speaker 1: expensive on a premium basis, and it's about fift crappier.
Speaker 1: And this is for millions of people. This is our
Speaker 1: future if the Democrats are in charge of our healthcare.
Speaker 1: May make no mistake about it. This is what is
Speaker 1: waiting down the line for us. And I just wish
Speaker 1: that Republicans could get their act together and uh and
Speaker 1: make make the case. I just wish there was a
Speaker 1: more of a sense of urgency. You know, all the
Speaker 1: Trump stuff sucks the oxygen out of the room. I
Speaker 1: don't mean that Trump himself. I mean that all the
Speaker 1: stuff around him, the oh my gosh, the Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: all this stuff. There's such a focus on that, and
Speaker 1: I'm I'm worried about Republicans in this midterm election. I'm
Speaker 1: worried that you know, we're we're gonna have a very
Speaker 1: unhappy November seven, and things are only gonna go downhill
Speaker 1: from there, my friends, Impeachment is gonna happen if they
Speaker 1: take the House. It's an honor privilege to bring you
Speaker 1: my thoughts on things that matter to us as Americans
Speaker 1: every day. Well, you know, your opinion team matters too.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm excited to tell you about a new
Speaker 1: social media site, snippy dot com. If you're frustrated with
Speaker 1: the discourse on your social media pages and looking for
Speaker 1: an alternative take on conventional conversation, Snippy is it. Its
Speaker 1: founders have created a forum where people can feel free
Speaker 1: to express their thoughts, frustrations, ideas, anything really. On snippy
Speaker 1: dot com, you can write about what's on your mind,
Speaker 1: upload photos, and strike up a conversation about anything. You
Speaker 1: can search the site by a topic category, see what's trending,
Speaker 1: check out the news feed and follow your favorite writers.
Speaker 1: Most importantly, you can enjoy freedom of expression without suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. This is a place where discussion is value,
Speaker 1: to place where your opinion matters. Snippy dot com is
Speaker 1: free to join and open to all, So why not
Speaker 1: jump in and let your opinions be heard, no censorship,
Speaker 1: no agenda ever. Check out snippy dot com today or
Speaker 1: download the app again. Snippy dot com. It's interesting to
Speaker 1: see you panopally of civil rights leaders. Of course, right
Speaker 1: there at the church, we see reverend now we see
Speaker 1: the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.
Speaker 1: But it was so close to Aretha Franklin and is
Speaker 1: part of that legacy. Bill Clinton of course there and
Speaker 1: he's going to give one of the eulogies. And also
Speaker 1: the Reverend Farakon, a very controversial leader from the Nation
Speaker 1: of uh of Islam, who is also there, So it's
Speaker 1: an inclusive group. An inclusive group, she says, after after mentioning, uh,
Speaker 1: Louis Farakon by name an inclusive group controversial, she says,
Speaker 1: why do why do we let the media get away
Speaker 1: with saying far a coon he's controversial when he is
Speaker 1: a vile anti semit And you know, I don't I
Speaker 1: don't like to call people racist or anti Semitic or
Speaker 1: any of that unless it is he is will beyond
Speaker 1: the any kind of a question mark, right fair con
Speaker 1: is is is a is a true anti Semite. And
Speaker 1: yet it's interesting that the Democrats there's still you know
Speaker 1: that they used to genuflect to him a little bit. Uh,
Speaker 1: and and they still have to kiss the ring when
Speaker 1: it comes to Al Sharpton. If you're gonna be a
Speaker 1: Democrat nominee for president, you know you gotta have Sharpton
Speaker 1: in your corner. And Sharpton was also there. And who's
Speaker 1: another complete and utter fraud. You know, this is a
Speaker 1: guy who you know, you go back and you learn
Speaker 1: about the Tijuana Brawley case. If you haven't ever read
Speaker 1: about it or aren't familiar with it, I think it's
Speaker 1: it's well worth the time. To go back and revisit
Speaker 1: a man committed suicide because of the patently false allegations
Speaker 1: made by Tijuana Brawley that were broadcast and and supported
Speaker 1: all over the place by Al Sharpton, who was just
Speaker 1: exploiting it for his own his own purposes. And you
Speaker 1: know he's still treat he Look, he's got his own
Speaker 1: show on MSNBC. And then you've got Farikon, who's there
Speaker 1: who you know you still have And by the way, folks,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not gonna let this go. The media
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna talk later about Chuck Todd was written
Speaker 1: in editorial about how they're being mean to the media.
Speaker 1: You know that that Uh, it's just it's amazing. We'll we'll, we'll,
Speaker 1: we'll dive into that a little bit, but that you
Speaker 1: had a member of the press willing to suppress a
Speaker 1: photo of Obama warmly embracing Sharpton, he was sorry, warmly
Speaker 1: embracing Farikon when he was running for president. That a
Speaker 1: reporter wouldn't want to run with that story because he
Speaker 1: or I guess it was a photographer for a news outlet, Uh,
Speaker 1: didn't want it to be a problem for Obama. That
Speaker 1: just tells. It tells you so much, doesn't it. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the way they play the game. This is
Speaker 1: the way the other side, uh does things. And with
Speaker 1: with farikn you know, it's so interesting. You don't have
Speaker 1: in every presidential cycle, every news network saying about to
Speaker 1: each Democrat nominee, do you support Louis Farrakhan's rhetoric? What
Speaker 1: do you think of this thing that farikon said? They
Speaker 1: do that though? Two Republicans who do who have never
Speaker 1: met or appeared with or talked to David Duke, but
Speaker 1: he'll be asked, you know, do do you? And this
Speaker 1: is not new with Trump, with the Trump era, by
Speaker 1: the way, They've been doing this for for decades now. Dude,
Speaker 1: do you support David Duke? You know what about David Duke?
Speaker 1: David Duke is endorsed you. They'll make Republicans answer that charge.
Speaker 1: Why don't they? Why isn't every single Democrat who runs
Speaker 1: for runs for the presidency asked repeatedly on every major
Speaker 1: news network, what do you think about Louis Farrakhan? Do
Speaker 1: you support this terrible anti semitic statement? He said? Do
Speaker 1: you support that one? Oh, they won't do that. Huh, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's such a shock. But they want to tell us
Speaker 1: are objective folks. They want to tell us that they
Speaker 1: they have no bias, they have no motivation of them
Speaker 1: just just getting to the just getting to the truth.
Speaker 1: What a pilo, what a piling nonsense, you know. And
Speaker 1: you another another funeral where there was you know, yet
Speaker 1: to a very high profile funerals McCain and Ferra count
Speaker 1: I mean, pardon me, McCain and Aretha Franklin. And the
Speaker 1: opportunities were taken by both on on on both those
Speaker 1: occasions to attack Trump. I mean, there really is this
Speaker 1: this anti Trump obsession. Can't there just be things that
Speaker 1: don't involve Trump? You know? Can't we have public gatherings
Speaker 1: to celebrate high profile individuals where where it doesn't turn
Speaker 1: into a Trump bash session. Wouldn't wouldn't that be nice?
Speaker 1: I guess I'm asking for I'm asking for too much.
Speaker 1: Maybe I don't know. It's crazy world we live in.
Speaker 1: I suppose what qualifies as un precedented in the era
Speaker 1: of Trump. You'll often hear this from people who are
Speaker 1: incredibly critical of the president. They will say that what
Speaker 1: he has done is unprecedented in the history of this country,
Speaker 1: or they'll they'll suggest that, for example, the president saying
Speaker 1: anything about his Department of Justice or the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: that that that there is no analogous situation in modern
Speaker 1: American history, and that this is just well beyond the pale. Well,
Speaker 1: the problem with unprecedented is that once you said it,
Speaker 1: you've made a statement, which is that this has not happened,
Speaker 1: something similar, has not happened before, there is no precedent
Speaker 1: for this, and then when you find out there is
Speaker 1: a precedent, you tend to get upset. For example, today
Speaker 1: on Rising my show TV show in the Morning, we
Speaker 1: had on David from who's an erudite fellow and he
Speaker 1: is a never never well I'm sorry action to be fair,
Speaker 1: he doesn't call himself a never Trumper, but he's he's
Speaker 1: one of these people who says he's conservative but deeply,
Speaker 1: deeply critical of the President of the United States, thinks
Speaker 1: that he is a threat to the country and is terrible.
Speaker 1: And he started talking about the the outrage of President
Speaker 1: Trump speaking about the workings of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: and then compared it. So this is the content of
Speaker 1: the conversation. He's talking about that, and then he compares
Speaker 1: it to Obama and he says, look at it, look
Speaker 1: at Obama. He even made such a small error about this,
Speaker 1: and everybody freaked out because Obama was so great. And
Speaker 1: then I had a little response for him, please play it.
Speaker 1: Being on Twitter, it would be the biggest scandal in
Speaker 1: the history of the American government. I mean, just to
Speaker 1: put it in contrast, um, there was a sexual harassment
Speaker 1: case in the Navy. President Obama at a press conference
Speaker 1: said in the most general terms that he thought sexual
Speaker 1: abuse should not be tolerated and that for those people
Speaker 1: who do it there should be consequences. Didn't comment on
Speaker 1: the individuals. That statement set off a firestorm and President Trump, sorry,
Speaker 1: President Obama was rebuked by the judge in the case
Speaker 1: for saying in general term sexual assault should not be
Speaker 1: tolerated during the period before the guilty man they were
Speaker 1: convicted were sentenced. For the President of the United States
Speaker 1: to say on his official statement that he wants the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice not to prosecute people who are in
Speaker 1: his party, that's amazing that Obama said there was nothing
Speaker 1: to the email investigation that Hillary Clinton was under for
Speaker 1: violating classified protocols, which I had a t S clearance
Speaker 1: I can tell you anybody else would have gone to prison.
Speaker 1: What's that got to do with anything? Well, that was
Speaker 1: a precedent set by a previous president United States speaking
Speaker 1: about an ongoing he said, there was nothing to Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's emails that was an open federal investigation. You're telling
Speaker 1: me that what Trump, what Trump is saying, or what
Speaker 1: he said about his attorney general. I mean you were
Speaker 1: just talking about is not calling for Okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: can we just notice the response, folks, this is like
Speaker 1: the senior editor of The Atlantic. Notice the response, what's
Speaker 1: that got to do with anything? Are? Are you? Are
Speaker 1: you serious? You are? He he just outlined for you.
Speaker 1: You know, when Obama was president, he said something about
Speaker 1: how sexual assault was bad, but because there was a
Speaker 1: d J investigation open at the time, he was hammered.
Speaker 1: First of all, Obama was never hammered in the press
Speaker 1: for anything, but you know they were. He was caught
Speaker 1: Holy hell for that. This is a complete Canaris, complete bs.
Speaker 1: You gotta be kidding me. What And then when I
Speaker 1: said him, okay, how about this case where the Democrats
Speaker 1: presidential nominee is under a completely legitimate and nobody can
Speaker 1: say otherwise federal criminal investigation, and the president of the
Speaker 1: United States at the time, Obama, who's the head of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, whose Attorney General Lauretta Lynch is
Speaker 1: absolutely a warrior for the social justice cause and has
Speaker 1: Obama's back, and before her, Eric Holder was Obama's wingman
Speaker 1: by his own statement, by his own admission, And and
Speaker 1: Obama says, there's nothing to the email investigation, which if
Speaker 1: you want to talk about meddling or obstructing whatever, why
Speaker 1: is that ever the conversation that's the standard of the
Speaker 1: previous president. And and this guy from is saying, oh, Trump,
Speaker 1: it's unprecedented from the standing of the d J. And
Speaker 1: I say, well, it's actually not. And notice his response,
Speaker 1: what does that have to do with anything? I mean,
Speaker 1: you're come on, David is a he's he's a smart guy.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you got you got caught up. It's a
Speaker 1: weak argument. So what does that have to do? What
Speaker 1: do you do? Doesn't have to do that it could.
Speaker 1: It's clear as day Obama was publicly trying to steer
Speaker 1: the course of a federal criminal investigation of the Democratic
Speaker 1: nominee for president. And now I'm supposed to sit here
Speaker 1: and be lectured about how well, Obama would never do
Speaker 1: such a thing. He got in trouble when there was
Speaker 1: even an opposition to sexual harassment statement that he made. Folks,
Speaker 1: Let's see, this is what I mean. Then the never
Speaker 1: Trumper's it's it's a it's a disorder. It has turned
Speaker 1: into a way of being. It's like I'm challenging their
Speaker 1: religion when I and I didn't do it in an
Speaker 1: aggressive way. I just want to know, you know why
Speaker 1: he suggestion and I played the audience for you so
Speaker 1: you could hear was Obama was so unwilling to interfere
Speaker 1: in the d o J and was held to such
Speaker 1: a higher standard when it came to the d o
Speaker 1: J that even in this this situation that I'll be honestly,
Speaker 1: I have no recollection of. But David Frump seems to
Speaker 1: recall it that, you know that he was taken to
Speaker 1: task for that, and I'm like, that's not it. That's
Speaker 1: not the Obama standard. The Obama standard was if I
Speaker 1: had a son, he'd look like Trey you know, he
Speaker 1: would have looked like Trey Von. That was an open
Speaker 1: criminal case, folks, that they thought about going federal on
Speaker 1: by the way, for civil rights violation. Oh yes, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, never mind, the Cambridge police acted stupidly. That
Speaker 1: wasn't a major issue in terms of the criminal justice system,
Speaker 1: but certainly was not not helpful to what could have
Speaker 1: been a civil suit. To be sure, I think it
Speaker 1: actually did. I'm not sure if produce and like let
Speaker 1: me know if the professor Gates at Harvard actually sued
Speaker 1: those cops, I can't remember. But but a huge instincts
Speaker 1: of interference in d o J from the President United States,
Speaker 1: you know, in the own in his own justice departments,
Speaker 1: thinking there's nothing to the Hillary. How can the President
Speaker 1: United States, who's the top of the d o J
Speaker 1: chain of command, say there's nothing to this investigation and
Speaker 1: not expect that to affect the investigation. Folks, explain, riddle
Speaker 1: me that, what are you talking about? This is what?
Speaker 1: This is what? This is why even the smart never Trumpers,
Speaker 1: you know, the ones who are who are educated and
Speaker 1: and and you know, eloquent, and this is this is
Speaker 1: a religious belief for them. Now the evil of Trump
Speaker 1: is um has gone way beyond just an argument about
Speaker 1: the man who is the President United States right now,
Speaker 1: it's it's entered into some other territory in their mind.
Speaker 1: Can you have played that exchange. I was so taken
Speaker 1: aback today by the fact that he was taken aback.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've never thought about this. You're trying to
Speaker 1: tell us that it was it was a standard sent
Speaker 1: by Obama that you would never speak out about anything
Speaker 1: going on with the d o J when in the
Speaker 1: single most consequential d o J action for the future
Speaker 1: of American politics in Obama flatly and openly intervened. But
Speaker 1: oh no, it's it's unprecedented that it's unprecedented the abuse
Speaker 1: of that word unless that word actually has come to
Speaker 1: mean something that Trump has done that nobody else has
Speaker 1: done except for some people before him who I like.
Speaker 1: So it's okay, then then unprecedented has no meaning anymore. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, they should be much more careful before throwing
Speaker 1: that around. But this is the problem with hyperbole and
Speaker 1: hysteria in anti Tree. Yeah, Mike says there was no
Speaker 1: Gates lawsuit, so there wasn't that that didn't happen, It
Speaker 1: just was It was obviously a concern at the time.
Speaker 1: Just a fact check on that one. Um, But yeah,
Speaker 1: I that was that was quite the exchange. We we
Speaker 1: had a much more interesting talk I would note on
Speaker 1: on immigration, where David from has some very interesting thoughts.
Speaker 1: He actually wrote a piece in The Atlantic on immigration
Speaker 1: while ago, so from his he's a smart guy. I'm
Speaker 1: not putting him or his work down, or I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be dismissive. I just thought though, that here's
Speaker 1: somebody who I actually will read and will spend some
Speaker 1: time on his work occasionally. Uh And And I was
Speaker 1: shocked that he was shocked, but I shouldn't be because
Speaker 1: this is what never trumps mum does to people. It
Speaker 1: takes them out of the realm of objectivity. But on immigration,
Speaker 1: he's very good and I don't have that SoundBite for you,
Speaker 1: but he did um. And actually the most interesting conversation
Speaker 1: was the one I had with him after the show,
Speaker 1: when he was walking off set. I said, you know,
Speaker 1: I need somebody to explain to me why it is
Speaker 1: where I go wrong here. If immigration, including illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: is only a net positive for the country, if there is,
Speaker 1: as Democrats hold no downside to it, which that is
Speaker 1: their posit. They will not admit to any downside. Think
Speaker 1: about it, well, what's the downside? Better for the economy?
Speaker 1: There commit less crimes than us they're they're basically better
Speaker 1: than us. That's what Democrat tell people. If that is
Speaker 1: the case, we are crazy for not bringing in ten
Speaker 1: million immigrants a year, which if we open the flood,
Speaker 1: and we clearly could do so, why not do that?
Speaker 1: And said, oh, oh, buck, that's okay. And then I'd say, fine,
Speaker 1: you know what about two million? We take in a million,
Speaker 1: let's double it out. That seems like a lot, a
Speaker 1: lot of awesomeness, a lot of wealth, a lot of prosperity.
Speaker 1: Where where are we going wrong here, folks? Right? Oh,
Speaker 1: oh no, there are tradeoffs. There are parts of the
Speaker 1: whole assimilation process that require there to be a balance
Speaker 1: in the numbers. You cannot you can overwhelm our ability
Speaker 1: to assimilate people if you do it with too many
Speaker 1: people too quickly. Or this is the reality of our
Speaker 1: immigration system. But democrats and he he conceded that point.
Speaker 1: He said, you're right that Democrats are dishonest about how
Speaker 1: they discussed immigration, and they pretend that there's no downside,
Speaker 1: and if that were true, they should be open. They
Speaker 1: should be advocating for open effect, the open borders. Eight
Speaker 1: four or four nine. I just gave the wrong number.
Speaker 1: That was an old number. I think that was Glendex number. Buck,
Speaker 1: you want to chat, I'll be back with you in
Speaker 1: just a moment. Team stay with me. He respected the
Speaker 1: dignity inherent in every life, a dignity that does not
Speaker 1: stop at borders and cannot be erased by dictators. Perhaps
Speaker 1: above all, John detested the abuse of power. Could not
Speaker 1: abide biggots and swaggering despots. So much of our politics,
Speaker 1: our public life, our public discourse can seem small and
Speaker 1: mean and petty, trafficking and bombast and insult and phony
Speaker 1: controversies and manufactured outrage. It's a politics that pretends to
Speaker 1: be brave and tough, but in fact does born of fear.
Speaker 1: John called on us to be bigger than that. He
Speaker 1: called on us to be better than that. So there
Speaker 1: were plenty of things in the McCain funeral of the week,
Speaker 1: and plenty of moments where I think a lot of
Speaker 1: folks said, okay, so this is going this is an
Speaker 1: explicitly uh political situation. Now, I mean that there was
Speaker 1: a decision that was was made to to politicize at
Speaker 1: least some aspects of a man's funeral, which he is
Speaker 1: well within his rights to do. It was planned that
Speaker 1: way by McCain. From what I'm from what I'm told
Speaker 1: um and here is I mean the the previous, the
Speaker 1: previous occupant of this time slot, and and and a
Speaker 1: friend Megan McCain. Here here's what she had to say.
Speaker 1: Play clip one. The America John McCain is generous and
Speaker 1: welcoming and bold. She is resourceful and confident, the secure,
Speaker 1: she meets her responsibilities. She's quietly because she is strong.
Speaker 1: America does not both because she has no need to
Speaker 1: the America of John McCain has no need to be
Speaker 1: made great again because America was always great. Now I
Speaker 1: I I feel like we're we're putting a difficult position,
Speaker 1: your folks, because there's a tremendous amount of media coverage
Speaker 1: of this event over the weekend, and there are explicitly
Speaker 1: political and partisan arguments being made at a funeral, and
Speaker 1: it feels like a an extension of the Democrat creed
Speaker 1: of the victim, the victim slash attack paradigm, where they
Speaker 1: will put somebody forward, somebody who has suffered a lot,
Speaker 1: in this case the funeral, but in other cases, you
Speaker 1: know they'll they'll use the nine eleven widows for political purposes,
Speaker 1: and they'll put forward the Parkland kids and if you
Speaker 1: oppose them on a policy level, you're heartless and your meat.
Speaker 1: And I it makes me very uncomfortable. I do not
Speaker 1: think it's it's a good place for us to go in.
Speaker 1: The expectation is that there will be no not This
Speaker 1: wasn't the private affair, folks. This was a media event.
Speaker 1: There was a tremendous amount of coverage this over the weekend,
Speaker 1: when political arguments are going to be made and nationally televised,
Speaker 1: and it's being done with the idea that anybody who
Speaker 1: well and this is much more so a commentary on
Speaker 1: the way that the media was portraying this and the
Speaker 1: way that the coverage was really clearly using this as
Speaker 1: a as a club against Trump. But I don't like
Speaker 1: it when political arguments are being made and anyone who
Speaker 1: responds is going to be attacked for some other reason.
Speaker 1: In this case, you're being uh, you know, you're being
Speaker 1: unfeeling and unkind toward the family that is suffering this,
Speaker 1: you know, suffering through this grievous loss, or you know
Speaker 1: that this is a funeral. How dare you question anything
Speaker 1: that was said? Well, there were things said about the
Speaker 1: current commander in chief that affect the rest of the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're there, or I should say there were
Speaker 1: things said that were clearly attacks on him, and look,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't it would not be my choice, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't my choice. So, um, you know, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: be respectful of the circumstances in the situation while also
Speaker 1: not being being bullied into bending the knee on a
Speaker 1: political issue. Right, there's one. It's one thing to be
Speaker 1: respectful in the show proper decorum. It's a funeral, it's
Speaker 1: a manage served his country. But it's another thing to
Speaker 1: sit here and say, well, you know, I can't disagree
Speaker 1: with anything said there because John McCain and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of that going on. It's, uh, it's a bit.
Speaker 1: It's a bit underhanded, folks, with some of the some
Speaker 1: of the way that the media was using McCain's funeral
Speaker 1: to attack the president. And in case it wasn't explicit enough,
Speaker 1: we got Steve Schmidt over as NBC. Yeah, I know
Speaker 1: Steve Schmidt. He's like a really good political analyst who's
Speaker 1: just you know, he's gotta say things on TV. Steve
Speaker 1: Schmidt play three the heroism, kindness, love, decency, all of
Speaker 1: it are necessary, uh, in a in a country like
Speaker 1: ours for it to succeed. And all of those virtues
Speaker 1: are in regression and are under attack in this moment
Speaker 1: in time. And so what we saw today from two
Speaker 1: former presidents, a Republican and a Democrat who were fierce
Speaker 1: rivals of each other, was a rebuke to this vile
Speaker 1: and low moment in the history of this country. And
Speaker 1: make no mistake about it, um, the rebukes were intentional,
Speaker 1: they were purposeful, and they were designed by John McCain himself.
Speaker 1: So yeah, one of one of McCain's closest advisors, at
Speaker 1: least the one who ran his presidential campaign two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, saying that this was intentional, this was this
Speaker 1: was the political weaponization of a funeral. Folks. Uh. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that that's inherently wrong. I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: it makes me uncomfortable. At we are now at a
Speaker 1: place where to attack Trump. There will be people will
Speaker 1: engage in um in political attacks with the invulnerability of
Speaker 1: how dare you question me I'm grieving or how dare
Speaker 1: you question me this is a this is at a
Speaker 1: funeral or this is you. This is not the way,
Speaker 1: that's not how you make political arguments. And this notion
Speaker 1: of of the restoration of decency. A lot of these
Speaker 1: reporters were saying terrible things about John McCain in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight. A lot of these reporters are talking
Speaker 1: how great John McCain is. Now we're okay with reporters
Speaker 1: saying that Sarah Palin didn't actually have her child with
Speaker 1: down so there was actually her daughters and it was
Speaker 1: all a big you know, bringing bringing her downstair during
Speaker 1: her down syndrome child into the political fray. They were
Speaker 1: okay with that, folks, But those same reporters are now
Speaker 1: the one is gonna lecture us on decency and decorum
Speaker 1: at a funeral. I don't think so. Hiring can be tough, folks,
Speaker 1: There's no question about it. And you need to get
Speaker 1: the best people the fastest you can, and you need
Speaker 1: to get them through your whole process. Zip recruiter is
Speaker 1: your answer. Okay, go to zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: You can create an employer account now for free, totally
Speaker 1: free again. Zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Why should
Speaker 1: you do this? Well, First of all I did it
Speaker 1: to bring in colleagues that work with me now every day.
Speaker 1: We had tremendous success hiring for very specific positions for
Speaker 1: a company where we could have had any number of
Speaker 1: different ways to go in terms of how we bring
Speaker 1: in an applicants and we use zip Recruiter. We had
Speaker 1: so much ease when it came to sifting through the
Speaker 1: applications that came in. There's a smart matching technology that
Speaker 1: zip recruiter uses so that it really brings you the
Speaker 1: best applicants. It does it so quickly, so easily. Again,
Speaker 1: try it for free if you're an employer. Set up
Speaker 1: your account totally free zip recruiter dot com, sla buck.
Speaker 1: That's zip recruiter dot com slash buck. One of the
Speaker 1: most important life lessons that any of us can have,
Speaker 1: especially early in life, and so it's important for children
Speaker 1: and pass on for those of you with kids to
Speaker 1: future generations is the honor and dignity of work and
Speaker 1: also the need to show respect to those who are
Speaker 1: doing honest work. So let me take you to what
Speaker 1: happened over this Labor Day weekend. Interesting that had occurred
Speaker 1: on on Labor Day, of all holidays, Jeffrey Owens. He
Speaker 1: was an actor on The Cosby Show, a show that
Speaker 1: I tell you I've not really ever seen much of,
Speaker 1: but it is, of course one of the most famous
Speaker 1: TV sitcoms of all time. And Jeffrey Owens, so he
Speaker 1: he was on this phenomenon TV show, The Cosby Show,
Speaker 1: and that was decades ago. Well. The Daily Mail, a
Speaker 1: British tabloid publication, found him bagging groceries, working as as
Speaker 1: a clerk or whatever the specific position is called at
Speaker 1: Trader Joe's, which is a grocery chain I've shopped in many, many,
Speaker 1: many times myself. It's a it's a good place you
Speaker 1: get some really high quality stuff and and at a
Speaker 1: fair price. And this was considered and it was I
Speaker 1: would agree with it. It It was job shaming. Also the
Speaker 1: photo they picked of him, it was he was at
Speaker 1: work doing his job and someone just took his photo
Speaker 1: and it all, it all felt very unseemly and sure enough,
Speaker 1: because this is America. And not only do we love uh,
Speaker 1: we we love an underdog. We also love a comeback story.
Speaker 1: H Jeffrey went from being shamed in a major news
Speaker 1: publication to getting a sit down interview on a good
Speaker 1: Morning America in front of millions of people, to talk
Speaker 1: about his ordeal. Here's here's some of that. And I
Speaker 1: also want, I do want to say this. You know
Speaker 1: that this business of my being this cosby guy who
Speaker 1: got shamed for working at Trader Joe's, that's going to pass,
Speaker 1: you know what, that that's going to you know, in
Speaker 1: some measure of time, that's going to pass away. But
Speaker 1: I hope it doesn't pass. Is this idea that people
Speaker 1: are now thinking, this rethinking about what it means to work,
Speaker 1: you know, the the honor of the working person and
Speaker 1: the dignity of work. And I hope that this period
Speaker 1: that we're now where we have a heightened sensitivity about
Speaker 1: that and a reevaluation of what it means to work,
Speaker 1: and that a reevaluation of the idea that some jobs
Speaker 1: are better than others, because that's actually not true. There
Speaker 1: is no job that's better than another job. It might
Speaker 1: pay better, it might have better benefits, it might look
Speaker 1: better on a resume and on paper, but actually it's
Speaker 1: not better. Every job is worthwhile and and valuable. And
Speaker 1: if if we have a you know, a kind of
Speaker 1: a rethinking about that because of what's happened to me. Um,
Speaker 1: that would be great, but no one should feel sorry
Speaker 1: for me, either from a positive or negative perspective. I've
Speaker 1: had a great life. I've had a great career and um,
Speaker 1: I've I've had a career that most actors would really,
Speaker 1: you know, would die for. I really agree with his message.
Speaker 1: I think he gets it. And it's just so nice
Speaker 1: to see it's look, it's dare I say it, it's
Speaker 1: it's heartwarming when you see a guy who, by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not like he was found and I
Speaker 1: think this is important. This isn't a isn't a down
Speaker 1: on your luck story, and that they didn't find him, uh,
Speaker 1: sleeping in a cardboard box with you know, a bottle
Speaker 1: of of empty bourbon on his chest and you know,
Speaker 1: kind of muttering to himself over a subway. Great somewhere
Speaker 1: it found him doing a job. He's making money. You know.
Speaker 1: I've actually spent a lot of time in Trader Joe's
Speaker 1: because I've I used to live right next to when
Speaker 1: I used to shop a one frequently, and I can
Speaker 1: tell you the staff there is full of people that
Speaker 1: have a great attitude. They seem like there, they like
Speaker 1: that they like what they're doing in that they're a
Speaker 1: part of a good organization that treats its employees well,
Speaker 1: and there's a positive vibe in the place. And you know,
Speaker 1: for a lot of folks, ice shop a Trader Joe's.
Speaker 1: I had very little money. I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: was so happy to have access to good food that
Speaker 1: I could afford courtesy and Trader Joe's. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's providing a public it's it's providing a marketplace that
Speaker 1: the public wants. And I just think it's important for
Speaker 1: all of us to to remember that his line about
Speaker 1: how you know, any job it's an honest job. Right,
Speaker 1: We're not talking about people who are selling heroin on
Speaker 1: the street corner. But you know, any any honest, legal
Speaker 1: job is deserving of respect. You know. It's it's something
Speaker 1: that we should all agree to encourage and all think
Speaker 1: that that. You know, anyone who shows up and does
Speaker 1: something that they have agreed to and have taken on
Speaker 1: that responsibility to be paid, you know, they're being a
Speaker 1: productive member of society. And this should be this really
Speaker 1: should be a moment when everybody spends a little more
Speaker 1: time just reflecting on that. And I think you know.
Speaker 1: I remember when I was a I just got out
Speaker 1: of college. I might have told this story on the
Speaker 1: air before, and I had so many friends who were
Speaker 1: running off to do The big thing was to do
Speaker 1: investment banking from my class, or to do management consulting.
Speaker 1: That's what everybody was angling for. And if you got
Speaker 1: an investment banking job, everybody was so jealous. Meanwhile, everybody
Speaker 1: pretty much for my class, except for one or two
Speaker 1: people that went into investment banking, they all they all
Speaker 1: bailed out with it a few years. I thought it
Speaker 1: was miserable. It wasn't worth the money, and they hated it.
Speaker 1: But I remember I came out of school and I
Speaker 1: was trying to get into the CIA. That was my
Speaker 1: first It was the first job I applied for, and
Speaker 1: it was a job I really really wanted, but I
Speaker 1: hadn't gotten it yet, and I was waiting waiting to
Speaker 1: hear back, waiting to hear back, and out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: I got this. I got this opportunity. I was going
Speaker 1: to be an intern at the Council on Form Relations,
Speaker 1: which they even they have people in graduate school that
Speaker 1: interned there, so I was actually on the younger end
Speaker 1: for the interns. And then I was offered a coaching
Speaker 1: job at my at my old high school for the
Speaker 1: JV soccer team, and I immediately thought, well, that sounds
Speaker 1: really cool. I had played soccer for four years in
Speaker 1: high school. I had been co captain of the soccer
Speaker 1: team my senior year, and we were actually pretty good. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I just thought this would be kind of fun.
Speaker 1: And I remember I went out to a very well
Speaker 1: known watering hall of New York City with all my
Speaker 1: fellow twenty two year olds or twenty three year olds
Speaker 1: at the time. You know, we all just started our jobs.
Speaker 1: This is right after graduation. I'm back in New York City.
Speaker 1: And I told some of them that I was going
Speaker 1: to be a a j V soccer coach at my
Speaker 1: high school. I don't never forget that that. A few
Speaker 1: of them laughed and they mocked the idea and I
Speaker 1: and I wasn't not going to take it. I wasn't
Speaker 1: gonna get peer pressured into backing out or something. But
Speaker 1: I was really taken aback by that because I had
Speaker 1: always really admired and respected my my coaches and my
Speaker 1: teachers in high school. And of course the people who
Speaker 1: are laughing, they they were people who went into high,
Speaker 1: high paid jobs right out of school, and only a
Speaker 1: couple of them lasted. But they clearly thought that this
Speaker 1: was that this job that I was taking on much
Speaker 1: by the way, I think, I think they were gonna
Speaker 1: pay me a few hundred dollars a week for it.
Speaker 1: I mean it was the money was was, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty pretty nominal. But they thought that this was their
Speaker 1: little why would you go get this fancy degrease you
Speaker 1: could be a JV soccer coach. I mean they were
Speaker 1: really having it, you know, having a go at me
Speaker 1: of this. And I will say, you know, and to
Speaker 1: to both of my parents credit when I mentioned to
Speaker 1: them maybe the next day, you know, wow, I really
Speaker 1: got a hard time from some of my old classmates
Speaker 1: about how I was taking this JV soccer coach job
Speaker 1: and you know, and and going back to my high
Speaker 1: school for for for a semester at least. My parents
Speaker 1: both said, you don't listen to them, that's ridiculous. You
Speaker 1: could have a really profound impact on some great, you know,
Speaker 1: young men and have a great time doing it, and
Speaker 1: you really I really bonded with my soccer coach in
Speaker 1: high school. I thought he was an awesome guy. And
Speaker 1: I still remember very fondly this day, and I remember
Speaker 1: those I remember those games and and playing on that team.
Speaker 1: You know, it's one it's one of my fonder memories
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, quite honestly. And my parents
Speaker 1: were said, you you do that job, you'd be proud
Speaker 1: to do that job, and you don't let anybody, anybody
Speaker 1: say anything about it. And they were right. Man, I
Speaker 1: had so much fun. Yeah, I was making three dollars
Speaker 1: a week, but you know what, I didn't need that
Speaker 1: much money. I mean, you know, it was it was.
Speaker 1: It wasn't about the money, and it wasn't about being
Speaker 1: some big shot. It was about coaching and and being
Speaker 1: around the kids. And they were some of the ore
Speaker 1: fifteen or sixteen. I was twenty two. We were actually
Speaker 1: not that far apart in age. That was pretty funny, dynamic,
Speaker 1: but it was one of the most fun things I've
Speaker 1: ever done. Man. It is so important to understand that
Speaker 1: everyone who's showing up and doing a job, and especially
Speaker 1: people who do their job with um, with a a
Speaker 1: real pride. And you know what I'm talking about. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are there are people who whether they're a server
Speaker 1: in a restaurant, or they work as a as a
Speaker 1: handyman or a doorman in a building somewhere, or they're
Speaker 1: they're a janitor, or you know, whatever may be. But
Speaker 1: you know, these these non glamorous jobs, there are people
Speaker 1: who do them with an eye too, being the best
Speaker 1: outed they can be and being as positive as they
Speaker 1: can to all those around them while they're doing it.
Speaker 1: And those people are gems, and they they make our
Speaker 1: days better. Not only do they provide a service, but
Speaker 1: they provide a reminder to all of us that you know,
Speaker 1: honest work is is dignified, is honorable. And I think
Speaker 1: that this was, you know, a rare moment in the
Speaker 1: news cycle when finally we could all focus on something
Speaker 1: that's just just worth spending a little bit of time
Speaker 1: thinking about. And that's this. So, you know, Jeffrey Owens,
Speaker 1: I got to thank them for that, and uh, finally
Speaker 1: the media found something worthwhile to talk about for a moment.
Speaker 1: Look at that, I guess it is possible. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Hiring can be tough, folks, There's no question
Speaker 1: about it. And you need to get the best people
Speaker 1: the fastest you can, and you need to get them
Speaker 1: through your whole process. Zip recruiter is your answer. Okay,
Speaker 1: go to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. You can
Speaker 1: create an employer account now for free, totally free again
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. Why should you do this? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, I did it to bring in colleagues
Speaker 1: that work with me now every day. We had tremendous
Speaker 1: success hiring for very specific positions for a company where
Speaker 1: we could have had any number of different ways to
Speaker 1: go in terms of how we bring in an applicants,
Speaker 1: and we use zip recruiter, we had so much ease
Speaker 1: when it came to sifting through the applications that came in.
Speaker 1: There's a smart matching technology that zip recruiter uses so
Speaker 1: that it really brings you the best applicants. It does
Speaker 1: it so quickly, so easily. Again, try it for free
Speaker 1: if you're an employer, set up your account totally free,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. Perhaps it's no accident that some of the
Speaker 1: cameras can sound like incoming machine gun fire. But for
Speaker 1: as much as the digital photography era has changed photography,
Speaker 1: you can still count on hearing the rapid fire shutters
Speaker 1: a machine gun fire. As much as I shan't hear
Speaker 1: and talk to you about the machine gun of the
Speaker 1: cameras on there, I was one hand tied behind my
Speaker 1: back repelling out of the black Hawk. Bin Laden didn't
Speaker 1: know what hit him. That's right, Man of action. Bride
Speaker 1: Williams thinks that if you if you hear, if you
Speaker 1: hear some cameras clacking clack, clack clack, it's like machine
Speaker 1: gun fire. He's he's the same one who well, what
Speaker 1: was that bizarre producer Mike, what was the Leonard Cohen
Speaker 1: quote that he said when they fired the missiles at
Speaker 1: Syria was like the beauty of the missiles fired from
Speaker 1: these guns or something. He had some weird thing that
Speaker 1: he said, He's watching the missiles get fired, he quoted
Speaker 1: Leonard coh And some of you remember what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: But but it's all it's looked. The press thinks of
Speaker 1: themselves as tremend this lee brave. There's no no question
Speaker 1: about that. They think of themselves as people who stand
Speaker 1: for what's right and have deep principles that they will
Speaker 1: they won't back down, back down from and and it's
Speaker 1: really all a myth and one of the one of
Speaker 1: the most self aggrandizing, self pitying, self righteous things I've
Speaker 1: read in quite some time, which is saying a lot.
Speaker 1: Was a recent Chuck Todd peace in the Atlantic where
Speaker 1: he says it's time for the press to stop complaining
Speaker 1: start fighting back, and it's all about how Fox News
Speaker 1: and Roger Ailes and conservative media have demonized the press.
Speaker 1: I mean, somebody needs to pull over the we ambulance
Speaker 1: for Chuck Todd here. This is pathetic stuff. And what's
Speaker 1: amazing is how little sense of self awareness he displays.
Speaker 1: The article of me. There's Look, it's all the stuff
Speaker 1: you would expect folks, right, you know, Oh, it's it's
Speaker 1: all their their press and undermining us in democracy, and
Speaker 1: it's all just garbage. We we don't need, we don't
Speaker 1: need all these days, well, the hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 1: news I'm I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons.
Speaker 1: That was That was a Leonard Cohen line by Brian Williams.
Speaker 1: I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons. Uh, Brian
Speaker 1: Williams was guided by them when he was actually the
Speaker 1: first man on the beach at Normandy. Did you know
Speaker 1: that Brian Williams. He's awesome, so you know, but you're
Speaker 1: looking at this piece, this Chuck Todd piece, and he
Speaker 1: goes into how terrible Fox News is. But but there's
Speaker 1: so much in here that's that's laughable. He makes his
Speaker 1: case even worse. He writes, quote, I fully acknowledge reporters
Speaker 1: bring their own biases to their work. The questions they
Speaker 1: ask and the stories they pursue are shaped by things
Speaker 1: as simple as geography. I grew up in Miami. I
Speaker 1: followed Cuban politics more closely than many other Americans did.
Speaker 1: As a result, when I covered the White House, I
Speaker 1: was more likely than my colleagues to ask questions about Cuba.
Speaker 1: A New York based reporter may approach reporting on guns
Speaker 1: or evangelical Christianity different than a reporter in Pensacola, Florida.
Speaker 1: End quote what an idiot. Yeah, it's geographical issues that
Speaker 1: are why reporters are biased, U nincompoop. No, it's because
Speaker 1: plus of you are all a bunch of libs, a
Speaker 1: bunch of whiny, self righteous, echo chamber obsessed libs. And
Speaker 1: you know what would really really started to bother me
Speaker 1: in this piece as well, is that you get you
Speaker 1: get Chuck Todd, who goes after, he goes after Hannity,
Speaker 1: he goes after Laura Ingraham, he goes after um Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: among others, says that they've made themselves rich by scaring
Speaker 1: old white people into into watching them. And I would
Speaker 1: just note that, for first of all, you can only
Speaker 1: do that, You're only allowed to do that now with
Speaker 1: old white people, old than the other people. Oh, you're
Speaker 1: you're you're pandering to fill in the blank, old people
Speaker 1: from that ethnic group, and you would be screamed at
Speaker 1: as a as a racist. And how could you And
Speaker 1: even though I mean, I I just read a piece
Speaker 1: in in vox dot com what was it this past
Speaker 1: weekend about the the essentially celebrating the quote browning of America,
Speaker 1: which Vox the Beta mails overt Vox think is tremendous progress. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't. I don't have a view. And
Speaker 1: whether it's a good or a bad thing. I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting that Vox clearly does right that Vox clearly
Speaker 1: is is incourage wants that to be wants demographic change.
Speaker 1: Oh I'd like someone to explain to me why they
Speaker 1: take that position. I just want great Americans. I just
Speaker 1: want people that want to live in this country, want
Speaker 1: freedom and free markets and the Constitution, and buy into
Speaker 1: this place. I don't care what color they are vox though,
Speaker 1: Fox though, clearly cares about the color, which is interesting,
Speaker 1: isn't it anyway? But but Chuck Todd, I mean, he's
Speaker 1: delusional here with this, and and he's he's saying that
Speaker 1: they're pandering, and and he also is is essentially insinuating
Speaker 1: that you know, they've made He says they've made themselves
Speaker 1: rich by being dishonest in this way. And I just know,
Speaker 1: you know, Chuck Todd, he's lucky that he's not a
Speaker 1: you know, a third tier reporter for the Pensacola Star
Speaker 1: Tribune or whatever the heck. I have no idea what
Speaker 1: the Pencacle newspaper is called. But you know, he's lucky
Speaker 1: that he's not that guy, because he really could be.
Speaker 1: Because there's nothing special about Chuck Todd. He's terrible and
Speaker 1: meet the press. He's not particularly charismatic. Yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be mean, but you know, he's not about
Speaker 1: to being a Ralph Lauren catalog anytime soon, not that
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not either, not that any of us.
Speaker 1: That's a but for some people. And you look at
Speaker 1: the guy on ABC News, Okay, yeah, that guy's basically
Speaker 1: like a male supermodel who happens to read a teleprompter,
Speaker 1: right whatever? Is a someone? What's that guy's name? You
Speaker 1: know what I mean? The handsome guy? You know what
Speaker 1: I mean? What's that guy's name? Yeah? You know what
Speaker 1: I don't Yeah, I don't remember his nabe that you know?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? Handsome guy, handsome guy on
Speaker 1: ABC News tonight, just like I'm here and I'm just
Speaker 1: so handsome. Is that that David Muir? Yes, yes, David
Speaker 1: with the normally large cranium. Yeah, he's got a huge head, dude.
Speaker 1: Anybody who's really got game has a giant head. Though,
Speaker 1: as I've put it out many times, I mean my
Speaker 1: head is ginormous anyway. So, but Chuck Todd runs on
Speaker 1: about how they're they're pandering, they're the bad guys. Uh,
Speaker 1: they are doing all this bad stuff in media, and
Speaker 1: then he can't even admit that the media thinks the
Speaker 1: same way. Why is that, folks, it's because of their
Speaker 1: intolerance for other ideas. It's not because that's what the
Speaker 1: market will allow it's because they are a bunch of
Speaker 1: little cry babies who will get their colleagues who won't
Speaker 1: hire anyone who's a conservative, and we'll get their colleagues
Speaker 1: fired if they find out their conservative. That's what this
Speaker 1: really is. The media is run like in like an
Speaker 1: old school country club that just makes sure they keep
Speaker 1: their kind of people around. Isn't that isn't that interesting
Speaker 1: and ironic? Anyway, the Chuck Todd piece, don't read it.
Speaker 1: It's a waste your time. It's Trump is being so
Speaker 1: mean to us good He's not. Chuck Todd is not
Speaker 1: a neutral broadcaster. That's a lie. Neither's Jake Tapper, neither's
Speaker 1: Andon Cooper. Let's stop with the nonsense and let's get real.
Speaker 1: Speaking of media cowardice, this is like a recurring segment
Speaker 1: on the show. Now, some of you may have picked
Speaker 1: up that over the weekend. The New Yorker has followed
Speaker 1: on the footsteps of The Atlantic for going on the
Speaker 1: wall of shame for ideas that are just too hot
Speaker 1: to handle. Folks. Oh no, can't can't listen to what
Speaker 1: that person has to say, can't hear them out on
Speaker 1: an issue that that's too dangerous? Dangerous for our democracy.
Speaker 1: They say the New Yorker was actually having and Ideas
Speaker 1: Festival whatever. They really call it their annual New Yorker Festival.
Speaker 1: It's where they bring together all these ideas and different
Speaker 1: you know, thought leaders and all this other. A lot
Speaker 1: of it's a self self congratulatory bs, I'll be honest
Speaker 1: with you. But they had invited Steve Bannon. Now Steve Bannon,
Speaker 1: uh is that Steve Bannon is is somebody you all
Speaker 1: know you don't even explain to Steve Bennon is right.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's an advisor. But just so we put
Speaker 1: this in the proper context, he's an advisor to the
Speaker 1: president United States as of a year ago, was important
Speaker 1: in his presidential run. And you know, he's a guy
Speaker 1: who's got some very instring ideas. I I actually really
Speaker 1: want to interview Steve Bennets. Let me let me go
Speaker 1: on the record and say that right now, I would
Speaker 1: like I would like to interview Bennett. I've never met
Speaker 1: him or talked to him, which is very strange given
Speaker 1: the business that I'm in, and it just hasn't happened.
Speaker 1: I don't know, um, somehow there are other other people,
Speaker 1: you know, Denish and Coulter, and you know, all the
Speaker 1: Fox News folks work crossing paths on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: I never have crossed paths with Bannon in any way.
Speaker 1: I've never sounded a panel with them. Never anyway, I
Speaker 1: never interviewed him. But they invited Bannon and then they
Speaker 1: disinvited Bannon. And you know, this is just this is
Speaker 1: such cowardice from these publications. But it just goes to
Speaker 1: show you that, you know, I think they realize, folks,
Speaker 1: I think they know that this is cowardly. I think
Speaker 1: they know that they should be realistically, that they should
Speaker 1: be embarrassed by this. But they also know that their
Speaker 1: readership in a magazine like The New Yorker, which people
Speaker 1: only subscribe to so they can say that they subscribe
Speaker 1: to the New Yorkers to their friends so that they
Speaker 1: think they sound smart. Right, the New Yorkers, the magazine
Speaker 1: that people who want other people to think that they
Speaker 1: sound smart subscribe to. H They don't want to lose
Speaker 1: their their base, their subscribers. They I think I almost
Speaker 1: want to cut them some slack because this is a
Speaker 1: business decision for them, because they're a A true liberal
Speaker 1: today is an absolute snowflake. Can't separate out their political
Speaker 1: beliefs from anything in life can handle being. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna subject me to uncomfortable thoughts. That's so man
Speaker 1: can't handle any of that. Is completely incapable of listening
Speaker 1: to the other side, in fact, thinks that the other
Speaker 1: side even getting a chance to make their case is
Speaker 1: a problem. This is where you get the whole deep
Speaker 1: platforming movement, and you see this on college campuses. You
Speaker 1: see this with the whole speech equals violence paradigm that
Speaker 1: the left pushes right. Speech equals violence. That's what they
Speaker 1: will say. And you said, well, if speech he was violence,
Speaker 1: then can you respond to speech you don't like with
Speaker 1: violence because you've already made that cross over. Oh yes, yes, indeed, um,
Speaker 1: that is that is in fact what they're saying in
Speaker 1: many cases. Certainly you see that with Anti five and
Speaker 1: with others. But this needs to be named and shamed.
Speaker 1: Folks that a that a cultural edifice like the New
Speaker 1: Yorker such as it is. I mean, I know, I
Speaker 1: don't read I've read some artist. I've read certainly plenty
Speaker 1: of New Yorker pieces in my life, but I'm not
Speaker 1: somebody that rushes out to read The New Yorker. I
Speaker 1: I tend to think of it as the the thing
Speaker 1: that you pick up for a moment when you're waiting
Speaker 1: in an old school doctors or dentist's office before you
Speaker 1: go in. Uh, some of your like Buck, I actually
Speaker 1: pick up Field and stream, Well, you go to a
Speaker 1: better dentist than I do. But this, this is just
Speaker 1: the way that they are now. This is the expectation.
Speaker 1: I suppose that if people get if people get upset
Speaker 1: on the left about somebody getting to speak, then the
Speaker 1: answer has to be, don't allow them to speak. The
Speaker 1: answer has to be, uh, they will withdraw any effort
Speaker 1: to engage, and it is just it is embarrassing. But
Speaker 1: I think increasingly that there if they feel forced into this,
Speaker 1: because the left has got a lot of very very
Speaker 1: delicate flowers, you know, people that really can't handle. They've
Speaker 1: over they've internalized the era of Trump, isn't they've over
Speaker 1: emotionalized it. And no, they're just like, I can't handle
Speaker 1: all the mean thoughts and Steve Bannon too scary, too
Speaker 1: scary for The New Yorker and the celebrities that piled on,
Speaker 1: how could you have been and come and speak? By
Speaker 1: the way. If I'm banning, you gotta love this. It's
Speaker 1: a great press for him. Rock and roll fellow patriots,
Speaker 1: we made ours go up to eleven. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. Indeed, it is is roll call time, my
Speaker 1: favorite time at least when it comes to this show.
Speaker 1: Let's get to it. We have first, Mark Anthony, not
Speaker 1: to be confused with the pop singer. He writes, Hey
Speaker 1: buck my Connecticut Senator Blumenthal protested at the hearing because
Speaker 1: of documents not released. Two questions. Has he actually read
Speaker 1: all available Kavanaugh has so far? Had the other docks
Speaker 1: been releases? Is here going to read all of them
Speaker 1: as well? Shield time? Mark Anthony? No, Mark, It's ridiculous, man,
Speaker 1: And I know you know this, which is why you're
Speaker 1: asking the question. It is completely and utterly ridiculous. Four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand pages, Folks, if you try to stack four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand pages in your living room floor, it would
Speaker 1: probably hit the ceiling, probably go above the ceiling. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just insane. They want to They're gonna review those
Speaker 1: documents looking for what, By the way, do they think
Speaker 1: that Kavanaugh wrote somewhere I'm a secret crypto Nazi? I mean, well,
Speaker 1: what do they really think they're gonna find. They haven't
Speaker 1: gone through the four hundred thousand that they've been given,
Speaker 1: they're never going to go through it. And now they're
Speaker 1: pretending that, oh, there's another hundred thousand that they can
Speaker 1: see that they really need. It's just it's pathetic. These
Speaker 1: people are un serious. They are serious, But Mark, I
Speaker 1: think you I think you know that one. Uh, Lorenzo,
Speaker 1: or rather Thomas, pardon me, Lorenzo, I gotta skip that one,
Speaker 1: right buck? How do you how valid do you think
Speaker 1: these congressional hearings are when members of the hearing panel
Speaker 1: blatantly lie to the federal judge they're questioning. I've been
Speaker 1: listening to these opening statements by by members, and no
Speaker 1: less than four Democrats have stated that Judge Kavanaugh is
Speaker 1: unacceptable because he represents the president who's under investigation for
Speaker 1: crimes he committed. They never elaborate on what those crimes are,
Speaker 1: because there are none. This hearing is a waste of
Speaker 1: time since the Democrat members on the panel have already
Speaker 1: decided to vote against Judge Kavanaugh. This is just another
Speaker 1: media show, a waste of taxparemoney. Thomas indeed indeed that
Speaker 1: is all quite true. Now, let me also add to
Speaker 1: it and say that this notion that because there's allegations
Speaker 1: against the president, he can't be the president is just garbage, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, where do where does that stop and start?
Speaker 1: If one person makes an allegation against the president United
Speaker 1: States that he lose all of his powers, does he
Speaker 1: have to step down? They keep saying that on the record,
Speaker 1: on the record. I mean, they're playing all these playing
Speaker 1: all these disingenuous games, like with the Michael Cohen uh
Speaker 1: the election campaign finance issue that's come up. They say
Speaker 1: that this has They say that this has turned into
Speaker 1: something that's on the record now, but it hasn't been adjudicated.
Speaker 1: It doesn't it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have any
Speaker 1: meaning really other than just being an allegation. But they
Speaker 1: act like, oh well, now it's it's signed, sealed, and delivered.
Speaker 1: Because Michael Cohen says so, Michael Colan is a proven liar,
Speaker 1: so there's no reason to take his word for anything,
Speaker 1: then the word of a liar. Hannah writes a few
Speaker 1: things about the Kavanaugh hearing's book. If they didn't know
Speaker 1: about the documents until last night, how did Bluementhal, get
Speaker 1: those boasters so fast? Why do the protests seem so
Speaker 1: timed out? Schumer? That's all have a nice even great
Speaker 1: shows always. Freedom Hunt is Mjam Hannah Hannah's the Freedom
Speaker 1: Huts Jam. You know what I mean? Uh? Yeah, they
Speaker 1: hearing that. I was bonkers Ville, man, it really was.
Speaker 1: It was just crazy. I don't know what it's gonna
Speaker 1: take for the left to do a little bit of
Speaker 1: housekeeping and get their loony's a bit more in line.
Speaker 1: But it was way way out there today, I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you. Um. Next up here we get Paul rights
Speaker 1: Buck loyal podcast listener here just finished listening to Two
Speaker 1: Door Kickers and a Desk Ninja. Hilarious as expected, but
Speaker 1: all three of you missed the boat on sports versus games.
Speaker 1: There are only three real sports bullfighting, auto racing, and
Speaker 1: mountain climbing. All three involved the real possibility of death.
Speaker 1: Everything else is a game. Shields high, Paul, Paul, uh
Speaker 1: ca't say I've ever heard that definition of a of
Speaker 1: a sport before. So interesting. I'm not sure. I don't
Speaker 1: think I can agree with you, but I like your
Speaker 1: outside the box thinking and thank you for listening to
Speaker 1: three Door Kickers in a Desk Ninja, or rather to know,
Speaker 1: I'm not a doorkicker two door kickers in a desk Ninja.
Speaker 1: I'm the desk Ninja. I hope you enjoyed that. That's
Speaker 1: our Freedom Hut podcast. It's in the buck Sexton Show feed, folks.
Speaker 1: I have kind of a fun announcement to make for
Speaker 1: all of you. Starting next week, we are going to
Speaker 1: do a little experiment with something for those of you
Speaker 1: who are in the podcast specific world. We are going
Speaker 1: to release The buck Sexton Show as a podcast earlier
Speaker 1: on in the day, meaning that I'm going to get
Speaker 1: to a mic before lunchtime and drop an hour of
Speaker 1: content as the buck Sexton Show podcast, and then later
Speaker 1: on in the day. That's right, three hours a radio baby.
Speaker 1: So that's gonna be a way to make sure that
Speaker 1: I can get ahead of some of the things in
Speaker 1: the news cycle. It'll be shure to remember it'll probably
Speaker 1: be about an hour, so it won't be the full
Speaker 1: three hours of this until later, but we're gonna do it.
Speaker 1: We're gonna start dropping the buck Sexton Show podcast probably
Speaker 1: around eleven am Eastern, and so because I'm already drilling
Speaker 1: into all the news in the morning to do my
Speaker 1: morning TV show. The idea is I go do TV.
Speaker 1: I then bang out an hour of podcast content for
Speaker 1: all of you, diving into the news cycle the day,
Speaker 1: getting into you know, what's going on. So this way,
Speaker 1: also those of you are driving home, you know, if
Speaker 1: you if you're gonna be a little home before this
Speaker 1: show say airs on your market, in your market, you'll
Speaker 1: be able to to you know, to look, it's the
Speaker 1: three hour radio show stays the same, folks. I don't
Speaker 1: that that doesn't that doesn't change at all. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying we're gonna be doing an earlier podcast in the
Speaker 1: day that will be a breakdown and news of the
Speaker 1: day will run through it. That way, and those you
Speaker 1: are podcast listeners, uh you can you can hear from me,
Speaker 1: because right now the way it goes is by the
Speaker 1: time that the show is over, the first time you've
Speaker 1: heard from me those of your podcast listeners is nine
Speaker 1: Eastern maybe uh sometimes later than that. So this way
Speaker 1: we get it up early and then later on you
Speaker 1: can listen to the full show if you want. Um.
Speaker 1: But the podcast in the morning is gonna be a
Speaker 1: little more of a free form rundown on all the
Speaker 1: day's events. So it'll just give it an easier way.
Speaker 1: This way, I'm coming out the news cycle from all sides.
Speaker 1: The three hour show we're doing here is a deep
Speaker 1: dive wrap up all things from the day. The one
Speaker 1: hour show early in the morning is gonna be more
Speaker 1: breaking news headlines what I'm seeing, what's coming out there, uh,
Speaker 1: slightly different vibe. But those of you who are also
Speaker 1: radio listeners, I would encourage you to set up either
Speaker 1: on iTunes or stitcher dot com. It's totally free, and
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Buck Sexton Show, because that way you'll
Speaker 1: be able to get these early podcasts. We'll also put
Speaker 1: we have other things in the feed to the Shields
Speaker 1: High podcasts and other things as well. Um. So then
Speaker 1: you have Martin, who writes where on your Facebook page
Speaker 1: do you find the link to email team Buck for
Speaker 1: roll Call? Martin? You found it because you did it.
Speaker 1: You have written us via roll call. You are now
Speaker 1: all on roll call, Martin. But you perhaps want to
Speaker 1: give us something a little bit more substantive than where
Speaker 1: do I find roll Call? Because you find yourself now
Speaker 1: in the midst of it, my friend, please do right
Speaker 1: back again. We'll get you back on the air, Shields High,
Speaker 1: and good to talk to you, Cat, writes buck Love.
Speaker 1: The show is always Last night, while watching Dr Phil
Speaker 1: with my husband, a guest on the show was referred
Speaker 1: to as a misogynist. I never heard this term and
Speaker 1: asked my husband what it meant. He correctly explained to me,
Speaker 1: but asked me to Google it to fact check him.
Speaker 1: I simply entered misogynists in the search bar and hit enter.
Speaker 1: There at the very top of the page before the
Speaker 1: actual definition was a large picture of Trump. So in
Speaker 1: Google claims to show no political bias, I think they
Speaker 1: have to question it. Shields High, Kathy, Yeah, Kathy, I
Speaker 1: mean there's there's the media. H I've been saying it
Speaker 1: for a long time. Folks, the the Silicon Valley far
Speaker 1: left evangelists, they really do believe in progressive ideology, and
Speaker 1: they're trying to advance it and use their massive platforms
Speaker 1: and incredibly deep pocket pockets to do so. Alan Buck,
Speaker 1: what are the odds that's destruct go fund me is
Speaker 1: just a front for paying him off to keep things
Speaker 1: quiet about some other things, or maybe a less nefarious
Speaker 1: way for liberals to reward him for services rendered. Well,
Speaker 1: I want I think that's kind of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: I think that the struck uh these struck go fund
Speaker 1: me account is essentially a uh hashtag resistant slush fund
Speaker 1: that they've set up for him, and it sends a
Speaker 1: very clear message to anyone else that if you stand
Speaker 1: with the resistance, there will be money for you, There
Speaker 1: will be fame for you. They will take care of you.
Speaker 1: If you decide to uh stand with Trump, they will
Speaker 1: do everything in their power to annihilate you. They will
Speaker 1: do everything they can to destroy your life. Philip writes
Speaker 1: good Limo quote Buck, black Hawk Down, Correct, Philip, it
Speaker 1: is indeed from black Hawk Down, Adam. I know it
Speaker 1: was gonna get in trouble for this one. Buck. I
Speaker 1: was stunned that you didn't like Boondocks Saints. I think
Speaker 1: it would be right up your eighties action Alley. But
Speaker 1: alas as an animal lover, the cats scene likely did
Speaker 1: you in Shields High, Yeah, I didn't like I didn't
Speaker 1: like the cats scene, and uh, I just you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's a little dated, folks. There's some movies.
Speaker 1: There are some movies that I can tell you. I
Speaker 1: I checked them out, and I know now that mostly
Speaker 1: I like them for reasons of nostalgia, you know that
Speaker 1: that the main thing about them that that gets me.
Speaker 1: You know, Like I like the movie Young Guns, probably
Speaker 1: with Emilio Estevez and Charlie Sheen more than I should
Speaker 1: because I watched it with my brother so many times
Speaker 1: growing up. It's not a great movie, it's not a
Speaker 1: very good western, but it's entertaining for what it is. Um,
Speaker 1: there are some movies that fall in that category for me.
Speaker 1: I feel like for a lot of folks, Boondock Saints
Speaker 1: is probably in that realm where it's really more the
Speaker 1: memory of watching it when they saw it and everything else.
Speaker 1: Because I'm like, if you go back, it's pretty you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of silly. There's a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff in it that's kind of silly and
Speaker 1: and doesn't really hold together all that much for me. Um.
Speaker 1: And like I said, if you compare it to a
Speaker 1: a straight up action movie of of today, like even
Speaker 1: john Wick, where there's a lot of shooting. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying john Wick is not realistic, but it's stylistic. Uh,
Speaker 1: that which which I can handle, right, I can suspend
Speaker 1: disbelief for a reason. Um. By the way, I'm seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of you are asking me about the Jack
Speaker 1: Ryan series on Amazon. Um, I've I've read. I read
Speaker 1: a view of it that said that it's like an
Speaker 1: homage to toxic masculinity, American patriotism, and uh like white
Speaker 1: man entitlement. Sounds amazing. Sign me up. I'm gonna watch
Speaker 1: it asap and give you all my review of it.
Speaker 1: So that's that's all coming. I promise that's gonna be
Speaker 1: it for today here in the Hut. Team excited to
Speaker 1: be with you every day for the rest of the week.
Speaker 1: Please do, if you haven't already, subscribe to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show podcast on iTunes. I'll see you tomorrow team,
Speaker 1: as always, Fields High folks, do you ever find yourself
Speaker 1: wincing at the weak sauce taste of some of those
Speaker 1: left leaning corporate brand comic coffees? You know? I bet
Speaker 1: you wish that they spend less time on meaningless bias
Speaker 1: training and their bathroom access policy, and more time making
Speaker 1: some delicious coffee and spreading freedom and loving America. Drink
Speaker 1: Black Rifle coffee. It's my coffee, a choice. I drink
Speaker 1: it every day. I keep a box of cake cups
Speaker 1: all my desk at work and one here at home
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hut. And it's absolutely delicious. I've converted
Speaker 1: so many of my colleagues to it. They drink it.
Speaker 1: They've become subscribers now as well. You should do the same.
Speaker 1: Go to Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck. You
Speaker 1: receive fifteen percent off. It's a nice little discount, fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck for fifteen percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. They've also got some gear up on
Speaker 1: the site. Check it out, try it for yourself, different blends,
Speaker 1: delicious coffee. Support Patriots, support veterans. Drink Black Rifle Coffee.