Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. As the country prepares
Speaker 1: for a massive hurricane to make landfall, the media prepares
Speaker 1: a narrative of Trump's responsibility for everything that could possibly
Speaker 1: go wrong as the result of this natural disaster. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about this massive political dishonesty that they are engaged in.
Speaker 1: We'll also look at what's going on with Google, where
Speaker 1: some very senior officers were caught on tape right after
Speaker 1: the election bemoaning the fact that Trump beat Hillary. Does
Speaker 1: this affect the way the algorithms on Google actually deal
Speaker 1: with conservative issues? I certainly think so. That plus the
Speaker 1: latest smear against Judge Kavanaugh courtesy of Senator Feinstein, That
Speaker 1: and more coming up. This is the bus Sex and
Speaker 1: Show or the mission or is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with passionable intelligence or make no mistake American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. Set No.
Speaker 1: I mean, what we're worried about is the wind and
Speaker 1: the water. The wind is hurricane force winds very damaging.
Speaker 1: The water can be deadly. We have the storm surge,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, up to thirteen feet in some areas
Speaker 1: that could come across the land. That you're not going
Speaker 1: to be able to outrun by the way and is
Speaker 1: the number one contributor to fatalities during a hurricane. In addition,
Speaker 1: we have inland flooding here, which means after the storm
Speaker 1: passes across the coastline, we're gonna have flooding for miles inland.
Speaker 1: So if you're in a low lying area, even if
Speaker 1: you're miles from the coast, get out now. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show, folks. It's it's very important that you
Speaker 1: you heed the warning there of of that gentleman about
Speaker 1: what to do when it comes to avoiding this storm. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's very important that you do everything in your power
Speaker 1: to avoid getting caught up in what is going to
Speaker 1: be a nasty want to. I know that there's some
Speaker 1: some reporting out there about how it's gonna be not
Speaker 1: as bad as initially thought, and that you know, there's
Speaker 1: gonna be some some ability I think for folks to
Speaker 1: you know, probably come back to their home sooner. But
Speaker 1: just you've got to just assume the worst for right
Speaker 1: now now. And I know there's a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of news out there on this and every's focused
Speaker 1: on it. You know, I'm not a weather man, and
Speaker 1: I certainly don't play one on radio either. I'm not
Speaker 1: a guy who's here to tell you about the weather, really,
Speaker 1: but I am amazed at how political the weather has
Speaker 1: become in the last forty eight hours or so. I
Speaker 1: do find it somewhat astonishing that here we are in
Speaker 1: a circumstan ants where uh, the Democrats the media are
Speaker 1: pushing this storyline of no matter what Trump does, and
Speaker 1: that's what you need to say, no matter what Trump
Speaker 1: does to help in terms of the federal government response,
Speaker 1: which is not the only response here, Uh, they will
Speaker 1: be you know, it'll be a problem. It'll be they
Speaker 1: didn't do enough. They were you know, it's unacceptable. Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't care enough. That's what they're setting up here, before
Speaker 1: we find out anything about this, before we find out
Speaker 1: what the full damage is. It is impossible, it is
Speaker 1: impossible for them to accept that Trump is doing everything possible.
Speaker 1: And that's why they're going so much into this narrative
Speaker 1: over Puerto Rico. That's why you're also hearing there's such
Speaker 1: a focus now in a storm that happened about a
Speaker 1: year ago. Um, and you know, you have this this
Speaker 1: storyline about three thousand people dying for going. You know, look,
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, it was a terrible thing what happened with
Speaker 1: Hurricane Maria, there's no question about it. But it also
Speaker 1: was a natural disaster. It was not a man made disaster.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of really dishonest reporting going on
Speaker 1: about just what happened and how it happened when it
Speaker 1: comes to the aftermath of of that whole of that
Speaker 1: storm system that came through and just ripped up that island.
Speaker 1: You know, now, what you're hearing is a steady stream
Speaker 1: of people like Jeffrey Tuban over at CNN saying stuff
Speaker 1: like the falling plick clip one. Isn't the story that
Speaker 1: these people who died apparently thousands of them in Puerto
Speaker 1: Rico three thousand, as you point out, they're not white people,
Speaker 1: and they don't count to Donald Trump as much as
Speaker 1: the deaths of white people. I mean, you hate to
Speaker 1: say that about someone, but look at his record. Isn't
Speaker 1: that indicative of who he is and what he stays?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just terrible, folks, The stuff that they're saying.
Speaker 1: It's it's horrible the the stories that they're pushing here
Speaker 1: like this where they're saying that it doesn't. It does.
Speaker 1: He doesn't care about these people in Puerto Rico. No, folks,
Speaker 1: what they're doing is they're they're changing the numbers. They're
Speaker 1: changing the way that we calculate these numbers. They're changing
Speaker 1: the way that that we think of no other And
Speaker 1: I know you're allowed to say this. Washington Post actually
Speaker 1: publish an editorial today. No other natural disaster has had
Speaker 1: these analyzes of the aftermath and consider them deaths from
Speaker 1: the disaster in the way that we've seen from what
Speaker 1: happened in Puerto Rico. Usually a natural disaster, you count
Speaker 1: who was killed by that weather system, not who died
Speaker 1: of a bacterial infection three months later that maybe they
Speaker 1: wouldn't have died from if they had had more immediate
Speaker 1: access to medical care because of the downed electricity and
Speaker 1: the down pounds. But this is what they're doing. This
Speaker 1: is what they are doing. Uh, They're they're making it
Speaker 1: sound like Trump is responsible for the deaths of three
Speaker 1: thousand people. I mean, and they're saying it. They're they're
Speaker 1: straight up going out there and saying that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is complicit in this in some way. They are saying
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is the problem here. And it's just
Speaker 1: crazy what they're doing. It really is. It's just completely unfair.
Speaker 1: It's so disingenuous, it's so dishonest. Here here's Luis Gutierrez,
Speaker 1: for example, slamming the Trump administration on on the preparation
Speaker 1: for a hurricane that everyone's saying, no, they've prepared for
Speaker 1: Goodyeris doesn't care. Play five. You want to know what
Speaker 1: I fear. It's the calamity because of the lack of
Speaker 1: coordination of the government with the National Guard and with
Speaker 1: local government. The lack of responsiveness and preparedness of this government.
Speaker 1: Because the president he wants to find out who is
Speaker 1: the one that wrote that abbit p about the chaos
Speaker 1: in the White House because he wants the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: He is so consumed by the calamity that exists and
Speaker 1: the calth that exists. He's not really prepared and focused
Speaker 1: because he spends every weekend golfing instead of preparing. This
Speaker 1: is what they're gonna say. No matter what this is
Speaker 1: going to be the storyline it does. It simply does
Speaker 1: not matter to them what President Trump does beforehand and
Speaker 1: what he does during this storm. Now you can hear
Speaker 1: from the President on this himself. He's saying, Look, we
Speaker 1: are all on this, we are focused on this, We're
Speaker 1: doing everything that we can. Play fift tremendous people working
Speaker 1: on the hurricane, first responders, law enforcement, and FEMA, and
Speaker 1: they're already and we're getting tremendous accolades from politicians and
Speaker 1: the people. We are ready. But this is going to
Speaker 1: be one of the biggest ones to ever hit our country.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest ones to ever hit our country, folks. Uh,
Speaker 1: that is what the President is saying. And he's he's
Speaker 1: also making it as clear as he possibly can that
Speaker 1: he's doing everything in his power to to mitigate the
Speaker 1: damage from this. But but the Democrats are already running.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're politicizing weather now, folks. They politicize storms
Speaker 1: in a way that is just so dishonest and so
Speaker 1: unfair to this president, so uh so ridiculous when you
Speaker 1: actually look at what's what's possible here and what's happening,
Speaker 1: and and I am, you know, I just find the
Speaker 1: whole thing to be a complete and utter outrage. I
Speaker 1: really do you know, we should have a moment here
Speaker 1: we say, okay, you know what, we're gonna put aside
Speaker 1: the the the toxic politics of the moment. We're we're
Speaker 1: gonna put aside the problems of you know, Russia, collusion,
Speaker 1: all this other stuff. We need to focus on this
Speaker 1: hurricane right now. We need to be united as a
Speaker 1: nation in giving all the support we can to Carolinas. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: they're already running around trying to score cheap political points
Speaker 1: in this. They are already engaged in just this. This
Speaker 1: complete nonsense, this complete nonsense about how Trump isn't doing
Speaker 1: enough and he's a racist, he doesn't care about Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: You see them, they're mixing it all together. This is
Speaker 1: what I mean by narrative creation. Right, Trump is responsible
Speaker 1: for three thousand deaths in Puerto Rico. Trump is a racist.
Speaker 1: That's why he didn't do more in Puerto Rico. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, he's not doing enough in the Carolinas.
Speaker 1: And anyone who dies in the Carolinas or even as
Speaker 1: a result of that storm, just like in Puerto Rico,
Speaker 1: it's Trump's fault. And this is because they're connecting it
Speaker 1: all back. They saw how effective this was with the
Speaker 1: Bush administration. They saw how how much Miley's they were
Speaker 1: able to get out of the notion that you know, uh,
Speaker 1: with the Bush administration getting hammered on Hurricane Katrina, that
Speaker 1: they think they can do that again with Trump now,
Speaker 1: and they just see this as as explicitly political. They
Speaker 1: see this as an opportunity to do Apo and to
Speaker 1: hit him. It's disgusting, It's a disgrace. We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about this, folks, but you know, I also want to
Speaker 1: want to get into what's going on with Google. I
Speaker 1: want to get into what the latest is, uh with
Speaker 1: with um the Kavanaugh hearings. We've got a lot to cover.
Speaker 1: The Google thing, by the way, is incredible. You're definitely
Speaker 1: gonna want to hear that. We have a lot of
Speaker 1: show for you coming up eight to eight to five,
Speaker 1: eight four four buck Um. Also make sure if you've
Speaker 1: got thoughts on any of this, send me your your
Speaker 1: thoughts at facebook dot com slash buck sex in and
Speaker 1: maybe we'll even put you in roll call at the
Speaker 1: end of the show. Team will be right back. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you about red Take because after all of
Speaker 1: this tragedy people in Puerto Rico, and we've now discovered
Speaker 1: only seventy five as of July three, only many five
Speaker 1: of twenty three and forty one requests for emergency funeral
Speaker 1: assistance for Puerto Ricans was approved because of red tape
Speaker 1: because they needed approvals from the state officials when they
Speaker 1: for months and months didn't even have electricity or communications.
Speaker 1: Is there any way to clear up that kind of
Speaker 1: red tape? I'm sorry man. You know, when when it
Speaker 1: came to the amount of food, water, and commodities that
Speaker 1: we put on the island, we put over too many
Speaker 1: two billion dollars worth of commodities uh into Puerto Rico. Um.
Speaker 1: But but here again, UM, when it comes back to
Speaker 1: who actually runs the food chains, it's the it's the
Speaker 1: major grocers, it's there's all kinds of things. And what
Speaker 1: we need to do is make sure, like what we
Speaker 1: did with Hurricane Lane in Hawaii, we're reaching out to
Speaker 1: grocery stores, were reaching out to the major retail providers
Speaker 1: to understand what they have on island versus what we
Speaker 1: need to backfill, because again, this is a partnership. If
Speaker 1: anybody is depending on FEMA to be the sole responder
Speaker 1: and the owner re responder, UH, that's not right and
Speaker 1: that's what we're trying to correct. Uh. And and with
Speaker 1: for Rico, you know, uh, the amount of money and
Speaker 1: the effort that's being put into Puerto Rico, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a wonderful place. And that's you know, and um,
Speaker 1: we're we're absolutely working every day to make Puerto Rico
Speaker 1: resilient and economically viable. You see, it's more complicated, folks
Speaker 1: then just oh, you know, Trump lied, babies died, or
Speaker 1: Trump is hitler or any of that stuff. Disaster relief
Speaker 1: involves a multi multi agency, coordinated effort try and help
Speaker 1: people in incredibly difficult circumstances. And instead of just uh,
Speaker 1: you know, hyper politicizing everything, it would be useful of
Speaker 1: maybe Democrats were using the megaphones they have in the
Speaker 1: media to try to make sure that the word gets
Speaker 1: around about you know, well what can you do? What
Speaker 1: should you do? And you know, if they had any solutions, um,
Speaker 1: then they then I would be willing to hear them out.
Speaker 1: But what they really just have our exaggerated complaints that
Speaker 1: are always about how Trump has somehow failed. It's always
Speaker 1: Trump's fault. He's the bad guy. Um, you know, like
Speaker 1: like there was no bad weather, no nothing, no major
Speaker 1: hurricanes happened in the eight years of Obama's presidency. Now
Speaker 1: nothing bad ever happened that was a natural disaster. You know,
Speaker 1: if there's forest fires in Cali, wildfires in California, it's
Speaker 1: Trump's fault. Right, If if there's a hurricane that hits
Speaker 1: the US, It's Trump's fault. This is stuff that only
Speaker 1: people with a uh, you know, a crazy religious belief
Speaker 1: in place of actual politics and policy when it comes
Speaker 1: to hurricanes and disaster management, only they could think this way. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I'm telling you right now there are probably already editorials. Um,
Speaker 1: there are probably editorials out there that have been written
Speaker 1: in advance about how terror now it's gonna We'll see
Speaker 1: if the storm isn't as bad as anticipated, if there
Speaker 1: are some aspects of it that aren't absolutely terrible or
Speaker 1: the way that we think they may be, you know,
Speaker 1: then then there might be a bit of a hold
Speaker 1: on this from the media. But they are ready to
Speaker 1: go all in with with blaming the presidents of the
Speaker 1: United States on this. And you know, I mean Andrea
Speaker 1: Mitchell in that exchange there with brock Long. I don't
Speaker 1: have this part of the clip, but she went on
Speaker 1: to say, you know, well, look at what happened in Katrina,
Speaker 1: and and look at what happened in Puerto Rico with Maria.
Speaker 1: You know, at the federal government's responsibility to have the
Speaker 1: infrastructure up to date so we can and brock Long's like, no,
Speaker 1: it's not, or at least it's it's certainly not FEMA's responsibility,
Speaker 1: and it's not the federal government's responsibility. A lot of
Speaker 1: what you're talking about with power and in utilities is
Speaker 1: privately owned stuff. So you know that to to turn
Speaker 1: around and act like the federal government can save people
Speaker 1: from all this. But you know, this also plays into
Speaker 1: a liberal mindset in some ways. And the liberal mindset
Speaker 1: is as follows the government, if only it was in
Speaker 1: the hands of democrats who really care about people, If
Speaker 1: only the government was run by the left, who are
Speaker 1: the people that really care, then and only then would
Speaker 1: you be protected from all these bad things. You know,
Speaker 1: then you'd be protected from uh, from storms, from hurricanes,
Speaker 1: from climate change, from big bad, mean capitalists, and and
Speaker 1: from white privilege and all this other stuff. It's dishonest.
Speaker 1: It's dishonorable, a word that we will return to you
Speaker 1: later on in the show. We're gonna talk about honor
Speaker 1: a bit today on the show, um and as well
Speaker 1: as melting snowflakes at Google. That's coming up later too.
Speaker 1: But it has been astonishing to see how much of
Speaker 1: the coverage of this storm is somehow tied to Trump.
Speaker 1: And you know, look Trump, Trump went on on a
Speaker 1: bit of a of a tirade today. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: say he didn't. You know, the President of the United
Speaker 1: States is not happy with being blamed for the the
Speaker 1: three thousand deaths. I mean, if you missed it on
Speaker 1: Twitter or he said the following, three thousand people did
Speaker 1: not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: When I left the island after the storm at a hit,
Speaker 1: they had anywhere from six to eighteen deaths. As time
Speaker 1: went by, it did not go up by much. Then
Speaker 1: a long time later they started to report really large
Speaker 1: numbers like three thousand. This was done by the Democrats
Speaker 1: in order to make me look as bad as possible
Speaker 1: when I was successfully raising billions of dollars to help
Speaker 1: rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason
Speaker 1: like old age, just add them to the list bad politics.
Speaker 1: I love Puerto Rico. There there's some truth to what
Speaker 1: Trump is saying here, folks. And look he's saying it
Speaker 1: in a way that only Trump Kennon would But they are,
Speaker 1: they're they're creating this new narrative of well, if you
Speaker 1: die of you know, if you if you die of
Speaker 1: any preventable disease that we assess maybe could have been
Speaker 1: better treated had you had more immediate access to you know,
Speaker 1: hospital facilities. That's now a death attributed to this storm,
Speaker 1: and therefore a death attributed to Trump. What a leap, right,
Speaker 1: But this is why we don't trust the media. This
Speaker 1: is why there's so much dishonesty in this. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: I've these g W reachs researchers used a computer model
Speaker 1: to come up with this. You know what the range was.
Speaker 1: By the way, I ever keeps saying three thousand, you
Speaker 1: know what that is. That's the middle of the range.
Speaker 1: The real range is something like seven hundred people two
Speaker 1: three thousand people, I'm sorry, or seven thousand people. So
Speaker 1: they went with the thirties undred number and they're saying
Speaker 1: three thousand, but it's just a guess. They don't really know,
Speaker 1: they don't really have the full numbers. And keep in
Speaker 1: mind you're talking about it and I with a few
Speaker 1: million people on it, you know, seven hundred more people
Speaker 1: dying than expected in the same period last year. I mean,
Speaker 1: how statistically significant really is that? Now, look, I'm not
Speaker 1: mitigating in any way the the the reality of the
Speaker 1: devastation the island and the blackouts and the suffering, and
Speaker 1: there was a tremendous amount of misery and suffering. But
Speaker 1: the storyline that Trump, uh, the storyline that Trump is
Speaker 1: the reason three thousand people died is just a smear.
Speaker 1: It's a lie. And that is the story as we
Speaker 1: get ready to see what happens with this hurricane and
Speaker 1: and the Carolinas and and and elsewhere, and look at
Speaker 1: what the after effects of it are. Man, it's the
Speaker 1: the dishonesty from this media. It's hard to overstate, folks,
Speaker 1: really is. While President Trump has been talking up our preparedness,
Speaker 1: his policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change,
Speaker 1: which is often blamed for extreme weather. In fact, on
Speaker 1: the very same day Trump was discussing Florence from the
Speaker 1: Oval Office, his ep A proposed rolling back restrictions on
Speaker 1: emissions of methane, which is twenty five times worse than
Speaker 1: carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change. And that's
Speaker 1: just to the latest environmental party policy targeted by the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. According to July study from the New York Times,
Speaker 1: nearly eighty regulations could be on their way out. It's
Speaker 1: so bad that, according to to Harvard scientists, Trump's environmental
Speaker 1: policies could lead to an inditial eighty thousand unnecessary deaths
Speaker 1: every decade. This is the climate change hysteria. That's uh.
Speaker 1: John Avalon over at CNN, By the way, what does
Speaker 1: he know about science? The answer is nothing. But they
Speaker 1: only do that to conservatives. You see, if you're on
Speaker 1: the left, you can pose as somebody that's knowledgeable about
Speaker 1: climate change or as long as you take the proper view.
Speaker 1: If you're on the right, people say, where's your where's
Speaker 1: your PhD? You know, where do you know about climatology?
Speaker 1: And you know, well, I just some somebody who reads
Speaker 1: and knows that you guys are wrong all the time.
Speaker 1: But apparently that's not enough to have an opinion on it.
Speaker 1: I guess, um, But this is this is just more
Speaker 1: of the same, folks, more of the same on finding
Speaker 1: ways to blame Trump and finding ways to say that.
Speaker 1: You know, I keep saying this and what does that
Speaker 1: even mean? But I really I really mean that whenever
Speaker 1: I say it our defenses against climate we don't have
Speaker 1: defenses against climate change. The things that he's talking about
Speaker 1: are are infinitesimal in terms of changes in the global emissions.
Speaker 1: If it really is a global issue. China is not
Speaker 1: changing anything, India is not changing, and I think all
Speaker 1: the other countries of the world aren't making these changes.
Speaker 1: So what the heck is he talking about our defenses
Speaker 1: against climate change? More extreme weather? That's not even true.
Speaker 1: We don't have more extreme weather than we've ever had. Folks,
Speaker 1: This planets going through ice ages, This planet had the
Speaker 1: extinction of the dinosaurs, and we got hit by a
Speaker 1: you know, a meteor and all this other stuff. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, at what point do we get sick of
Speaker 1: being force fed this line of crap from people who
Speaker 1: don't know anything about science or climate change. They just
Speaker 1: are obsessed with the the cultural trappings of being somebody
Speaker 1: who's worried about climate change. That's what the smart people do,
Speaker 1: right man, tearing down defenses to climate change, which is
Speaker 1: often to blame for extreme weather, that is an idiotic
Speaker 1: statement that is not true, is just not true, and
Speaker 1: then saying that Trump is his policies will lead to
Speaker 1: eighty thousand deaths. This is another lot of very dangerous stuff.
Speaker 1: And you see this in the left. You don't see
Speaker 1: it on the right, which is they they extrapolate out.
Speaker 1: Let's say, let's say that you know you you have
Speaker 1: a policy of um, you know you have a policy
Speaker 1: about workplace safety. And you say, you know what, We're
Speaker 1: not gonna mandate this because we're only about a person
Speaker 1: a year dies from this workplace safety issue that the
Speaker 1: left is so concerned with. Well, they'll say, well, over
Speaker 1: the next thousand years, that means a thousand people will die,
Speaker 1: So you are guilty of killing a thousand people. This
Speaker 1: is the way that they think they do hashtag math
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, here's the UN Climate Change Chief.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not just here in American play thirteen change.
Speaker 1: We're more than just were the future. Now. I know
Speaker 1: it was a little tough to hear that there, and
Speaker 1: we had a problem with the audio for a second.
Speaker 1: But by raising this is the UN Climate Chief saying,
Speaker 1: by raising our ambitions for climate change, they're doing more
Speaker 1: than changing the weather. Folks. They cannot change the weather.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. Do do we care about truth?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm always hearing from the left. They're all
Speaker 1: about hashtag truth. Right, Do they care about truth or not?
Speaker 1: Is this something that matters to them or not? Because
Speaker 1: that's a statement, that's that is indefensible from the perspective
Speaker 1: of what is reality and the world we live in.
Speaker 1: It is simply indefensible. And yet, and yet here we are,
Speaker 1: right here, we are having this discussion. Here, we are
Speaker 1: looking at this issue and being told essentially that they
Speaker 1: can say whatever they want, however they want. But if
Speaker 1: you don't say climate change is real, they're gonna yell
Speaker 1: at you and tell you you're an idiot, you don't
Speaker 1: know anything. And oh, by the way, it's Trump's fault.
Speaker 1: This is how crazy the lips are. They are blaming
Speaker 1: the president for bad weather. You can't make it up, folks.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about Google coming up here in a second,
Speaker 1: and how they are a hotbed of leftist lunacy too.
Speaker 1: You know, let's face that most people here are pretty
Speaker 1: upset and pretty sad for uh because of the election. Ah,
Speaker 1: that was the first moment I really felt like we
Speaker 1: were gonna lose. And it was this massive like kick
Speaker 1: in the gut that we were going to lose and
Speaker 1: it was really painful. It will be very strong and
Speaker 1: local and uh, you know, not just in a a
Speaker 1: press standpoint or a pr stand point. We're actually working
Speaker 1: hard behind the scenes to stand up for what's right.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's worth being very vigilant and thinking
Speaker 1: about all these issues. What can we do to lead
Speaker 1: to maybe a better quality of governance, decision making and
Speaker 1: so forth. Is there anything positive you see from this
Speaker 1: election result? Uh? Boy, that's that's a really tough one.
Speaker 1: Right now. You may be thinking, Buck, what was all that?
Speaker 1: Who are all those people who are like a news
Speaker 1: like so upset because like what am I gonna do?
Speaker 1: Like of the election? And you may be thinking, Buck,
Speaker 1: did you did you sneak a camera into the the
Speaker 1: faculty lounge at at Oberlin College? Is that? Did you
Speaker 1: gather together some audio of the Women's and Gender's Study department,
Speaker 1: the sociology department, the uh philosophy department, probably to any
Speaker 1: of the above at Brown University and want to get
Speaker 1: a sense of what they thought about Trump's election. No,
Speaker 1: my friends, that was a twenty sixteen right after the election,
Speaker 1: all hands meeting at Google. That's right, one of the
Speaker 1: most valuable and most powerful companies on planet Earth. And
Speaker 1: that wasn't just some random Some of those voices were
Speaker 1: very senior people there, including the CEO and co founder.
Speaker 1: They're all gathering together to have a giant company wide
Speaker 1: pity party where they're saying things like they're scared and
Speaker 1: it was a kick in the gut because Trump won
Speaker 1: the election. And it gets even more interesting from the
Speaker 1: perspective of are these companies far left social justice obsessed entities? Yes,
Speaker 1: they are, as I've been telling you. Here's a Google executive, uh,
Speaker 1: responding to an employee talking about, Oh that's right, white
Speaker 1: privileged play ten uh speaking to white men. There's an
Speaker 1: opportunity for you right now to understand your privilege in
Speaker 1: the society. Take the opportunity to go through the bias
Speaker 1: busting training, read about privilege, Read about the real history
Speaker 1: of oppression in our country. And tomorrow night watch Thirteenth
Speaker 1: the movie that is here. If you can't watch it here,
Speaker 1: watch it on Netflix. Discuss the issues you're passionate about
Speaker 1: during Thanksgiving dinner, and don't back down and laugh it
Speaker 1: off when you hear the voice of oppression speak through metaphors,
Speaker 1: and I promised to do this. You need to like
Speaker 1: check your privilege on speak through through bias busting and
Speaker 1: look at privilege and a history of oppression. And when
Speaker 1: you hear the voice of oppression a dinner, good God.
Speaker 1: This is the stuff that passes for wisdom among the
Speaker 1: social justice left. At a company that is full by
Speaker 1: the way of multi multimillionaires, billionaires at the very top,
Speaker 1: we're just here to talk about oppression and like, we're
Speaker 1: so about oppression. Whoa Google co founder Sergei bridd Here's
Speaker 1: what he had to say about By the way, this
Speaker 1: was all courtesy and hat tipped to uh courtesy, I've
Speaker 1: hat tipped to bright bart dot com. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that got this audio from right after Trump's election play
Speaker 1: clip a letton. I know this is probably not the
Speaker 1: most joyous t JF we have had. Um and Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, let's face that most people here are pretty
Speaker 1: upset and pretty sad for uh because of the election.
Speaker 1: As an immigrant and a refugee, UM, I certainly find
Speaker 1: the selection deeply offensive, and I know many of you
Speaker 1: do too, um And and I think that's a very
Speaker 1: stressful time, uh, and it to conflicts with many of
Speaker 1: our values as right, folks, it's it's a deeply stressful time.
Speaker 1: It's offensive. Now you may be saying, Buck, why why
Speaker 1: do we care? Why should we care about what they're
Speaker 1: saying at some internal meeting, Like oh my gosh, like
Speaker 1: when someone just give me a hug because like I
Speaker 1: was drinking my machat and I'm like so upset about
Speaker 1: Trump's like like victory, and I just I want to
Speaker 1: go to one of our nap rooms because we're Google. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know you can. We can sit here and talk
Speaker 1: about the snow flakes and the libs and their preest
Speaker 1: driving ways and I I and I do that because
Speaker 1: it's fun. But there's a much bigger issue here. And
Speaker 1: it goes to one of one of the recurring themes
Speaker 1: that I've brought up to you so many times on
Speaker 1: the show, and those you've been listening to me for
Speaker 1: over year now. I've been saying this all along. I've
Speaker 1: been I've known this because I know people who work
Speaker 1: at these companies. I have some very dear friends actually
Speaker 1: who work in pretty scene not CEO level, but pretty
Speaker 1: senior roles at some internet companies. You'd be like, wow,
Speaker 1: that's one of the that's that's a really big internet company. Yep.
Speaker 1: And some of them are stealth conservatives or at least centrist,
Speaker 1: normal people who don't think that they need to go
Speaker 1: to bias busting seminars about white privilege. And they've been
Speaker 1: telling me all along, and I've been talking about this
Speaker 1: now for for going on a decade, that the Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley is is a it's not just a hot that
Speaker 1: of progressivism. It's progressivism with an even evangelist streak. Right.
Speaker 1: They want to spread their worldview across the country and
Speaker 1: across the world. I mean, they're you know, they're gonna
Speaker 1: probably play ball with China, and when it comes to
Speaker 1: you know, not they don't want to step on China's
Speaker 1: toes because you know, they want to make money too, right.
Speaker 1: So so they're this very interesting hybrid of socially incredibly
Speaker 1: left wing right on social policy, all these come and
Speaker 1: these are all about the thirty seven genders and everything else.
Speaker 1: They're they're absolutely hard left on those issues. When it
Speaker 1: comes to capitalism, though, you know, they like their money.
Speaker 1: They want to have a lot of money. They'll advocate
Speaker 1: for higher taxes for you, but they want to find
Speaker 1: ways to offshore as much as possible to engage in
Speaker 1: as much uh you know, favorable tax treatment as they
Speaker 1: can get in as many ways as they can. You know,
Speaker 1: they're not looking to pay more of their fair share,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna send a lot of donations to folks
Speaker 1: in the political world who are always gonna talk about
Speaker 1: you paying your fair share. I mean, I mean, if
Speaker 1: I you know one thing that really I'll get into
Speaker 1: a tax ran another time, it just gets me so angry.
Speaker 1: It gets me so angry as somebody who has had
Speaker 1: you know, some years where I make you know, more money,
Speaker 1: is this is very uneven business and media and other
Speaker 1: years or make a lot less? Why am I paying?
Speaker 1: You know? The whole that the whole notion of a
Speaker 1: progressive tax code seems to me to be, Well, if
Speaker 1: you're making X amount of dollars, that's what you make. Well,
Speaker 1: what if you make that one year and then the
Speaker 1: next year you're you're down you know, half of that?
Speaker 1: Do they do they give you back the money? At No?
Speaker 1: I mean they really don't. I mean, I know there's
Speaker 1: some balancing out you can do, But anyway, Google is
Speaker 1: a problem for all of us folks, because Google is
Speaker 1: a place that has so much sway over the public conversation,
Speaker 1: and they're not honest about it. You want to talk
Speaker 1: about bias busting, Google needs to do bias busting on
Speaker 1: itself when it comes to how it views uh Conservatism,
Speaker 1: when it comes to how it views traditional Christians, when
Speaker 1: it comes to how it views I guess, white males.
Speaker 1: You know, it's such a lazy the intellectual laziness that
Speaker 1: goes into hating white males by the progressive left, including
Speaker 1: white males on the progressive left of course, right if
Speaker 1: they engage in this too. It's just so stupid. And
Speaker 1: people do this all the time. They're all, there's all this,
Speaker 1: What does it even mean? What does white privilege even mean?
Speaker 1: How can we confront this? How can we handle this issue?
Speaker 1: How do is it something that has to be monetarily
Speaker 1: balanced in some way? Should we have quotas at different companies?
Speaker 1: Do we have to have reparations? What? What does it
Speaker 1: mean to confront white privilege and white male toxic masculinity?
Speaker 1: What does that even mean? How do we do that
Speaker 1: other than talking about it a lot? And at what
Speaker 1: point do people that haven't done anything wrong but just
Speaker 1: exist and we're born a certain way I e. White
Speaker 1: males like me get to say I'm kind of sick
Speaker 1: of all the lectures because I think I'm already there.
Speaker 1: I think I'm sick of the lectures. I think I'm
Speaker 1: sick of sitting around and seeing people who are not
Speaker 1: white males in many cases get elevated professionally because of
Speaker 1: quote diversity, and I sit there and say, yeay, this
Speaker 1: is great. And then, by the way, some of those
Speaker 1: same people turn around and say, you know, white males
Speaker 1: need to do more to check their privilege. Okay, that
Speaker 1: that seems like completely unbreasonable to me. In fact, Google's
Speaker 1: politics are hard left. The people that run that place
Speaker 1: are effectively for open borders when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 1: They have embraced all of this social justice rhetoric. They
Speaker 1: embrace intersectionality, whether they call it that or not, which
Speaker 1: views our society as just a series of interlocking groups
Speaker 1: with varying degrees of oppression by one against another. And
Speaker 1: they hate Trump. They they acted like Trump's election was
Speaker 1: the destruction of America as we know it. And now
Speaker 1: we're told we're told, oh, they're not biased against conservatives,
Speaker 1: though they're not changing the algorithms, they're not doing anything.
Speaker 1: It's folks, Come on. One, we have no transparency, no
Speaker 1: visibility whatsoever into what they're doing and not doing too.
Speaker 1: I don't even think they know how biased they are,
Speaker 1: so there's might be a there might be degree of
Speaker 1: subconscious bias in their anti conservative maneuvering. And three, I mean,
Speaker 1: how stupid do they think we are that they're not
Speaker 1: They have all this power, all this influence. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna use it uh to help them push these ideas.
Speaker 1: They're not going to use this too, you know, help
Speaker 1: them win on the battlefield of ideas. It's it's just unrealistic.
Speaker 1: It just is. The social media giants are engaged in
Speaker 1: a massive weighing, you know, putting their thumb on the
Speaker 1: scale for the left. They're doing it every day. They're
Speaker 1: doing it with our social media platforms. They are uh
Speaker 1: doing it in in ways that are overt and covert, and
Speaker 1: we need to address this. Uh, go to snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: set up an account, you know, go to places where
Speaker 1: they don't uh, they don't play these games. Because this
Speaker 1: isn't gonna stop anytime soon. And this is a big
Speaker 1: ideological debate that we're going to continue to have to
Speaker 1: have here. But Yeah, Google has been exposed for what
Speaker 1: it is, for what I've known it is all along,
Speaker 1: and you know, I think this is gonna start to
Speaker 1: affect the really affect the long term viability of some
Speaker 1: of these companies as the hedge them on, Because if
Speaker 1: half the country can't trust you, half the country does
Speaker 1: have the wherewithal and the resources to, you know, find
Speaker 1: an alternative. You know, what is the fox News of
Speaker 1: search engine is going to be? What is the talk
Speaker 1: radio of social media platforms going to be? I think
Speaker 1: we're gonna find out sooner then later. Do you have
Speaker 1: opinions that you feel like you can express? I think
Speaker 1: we all do. Are you looking for a place to
Speaker 1: stir up some conversations, let your thoughts and your opinions
Speaker 1: be heard. I want to introduce you to an alternative
Speaker 1: social media site, snippy dot com. Snippy is an unbiased
Speaker 1: social media platform. It's all about conversation and community. Snippy
Speaker 1: not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its users
Speaker 1: the ability to discuss topics freely without any suppression from administrators.
Speaker 1: Check in for a quick update about current events, or
Speaker 1: spend hours scrolling through users posts. Write your thoughts and
Speaker 1: strike up conversation. Snippy's founders have intentionally created a forum
Speaker 1: where anyone can feel free to express their thoughts, frustrations, ideas, anything. Really,
Speaker 1: it's a place where discussion is valued, a place where
Speaker 1: your opinion matters, and it's totally free. Go to snippy
Speaker 1: dot com now to express yourself. No shadow banning, no
Speaker 1: character limit, no suppression of conservative thought ever. Check out
Speaker 1: the website at snippy dot com or download the app.
Speaker 1: No censorship, no agenda. Joined snippy dot com. Do you
Speaker 1: get the discussion rolling buck Sexton mission, decoding the news
Speaker 1: and disseminating information, who have actionable intelligence, make no mistakes
Speaker 1: a great American again, this is the buck Sexton Show, analysts,
Speaker 1: No detention of migrant children has I rocketed the highest
Speaker 1: levels ever? That that's the big blaring headline from the
Speaker 1: New York Times today. They want to return to this
Speaker 1: story that they thought it was a very I thought
Speaker 1: it was a political winner for them to talk about
Speaker 1: how heartless Republicans are setting up concentration camps for kids.
Speaker 1: They don't they don't use that term, but a lot
Speaker 1: of people did at the time. If they don't use
Speaker 1: this term now in this piece a concentration cancer kids
Speaker 1: at the border. My former boss, Mike Hayden, my boss
Speaker 1: at the CIA, tweeted out a photo of a concert
Speaker 1: of a Nazi concentration camp and compared that to what
Speaker 1: the UH immigrant children at the border were being subjected to,
Speaker 1: which is just a horrifically irresponsible and stupid thing to do.
Speaker 1: But Mike did it. I still don't know why. But
Speaker 1: even though you had hundreds of children who were separated
Speaker 1: UM from their families, and many of them have been
Speaker 1: reunited under court order, there's a lot more detained immigrants
Speaker 1: children and it's the highest number ever recorded. Now how
Speaker 1: this is being shown as as a crisis, that's they're
Speaker 1: gonna put it at the Trump administration's feet. This is
Speaker 1: Trump's fault somehow. You have hundred children in custody in
Speaker 1: May of twenty seventeen. This month, you have twelve thousand,
Speaker 1: eight hundred children, and they are all these concerns now
Speaker 1: about the federal shelter system. It's near capacity UM and
Speaker 1: they're saying it's because of children not being released to
Speaker 1: live with their family with with with with sponsors, by
Speaker 1: the way, which is not necessarily family. Because of HHS
Speaker 1: and they're blaming all of this on Trump. They're saying
Speaker 1: there's a slowdown, there's essentially a bottleneck now of detained
Speaker 1: children at the border because of the Trump administration and
Speaker 1: because people are scared two illegals, what they're saying, are
Speaker 1: scared to be in contact with federal authorities to pick
Speaker 1: up the children who are at the border. Now, first off, folks,
Speaker 1: this number of children. You have thousands, thousands of children.
Speaker 1: These are unaccompanied miners, which is another way of saying
Speaker 1: that people are sending their kids, like twelve year old
Speaker 1: kids in many cases alone, across what is one of
Speaker 1: the most uh lawless and you know, crime riddled parts
Speaker 1: of the Western hemisphere, which is our southern border. Now,
Speaker 1: I know, people say, oh, buck, there are towns you know,
Speaker 1: on the American side of the border that are safe
Speaker 1: as any of the country you know, I know, But
Speaker 1: we're they're coming through Mexico. They are going through cartel
Speaker 1: controlled territory, lawless parts of the Mexico side of the
Speaker 1: US Mexico border. They're being subjected to sexual assault, they're
Speaker 1: being traffic, they're being used to bring drugs into the country.
Speaker 1: They are enriching the coyotes assuming their families have paid
Speaker 1: the counties to bring them across, which you've got to
Speaker 1: think that's that that's going on in a lot of
Speaker 1: these cases. They're enriching the cartels through human smuggling the
Speaker 1: tune of hundreds hundreds of million of dollars. And Trump
Speaker 1: is the problem. They said, Well, let me just step back,
Speaker 1: step back for a minute on these books, because this
Speaker 1: is what this is what the mainstream media is not
Speaker 1: going to tell you, and and that's why I'm here
Speaker 1: to actually do the research. Folks. There's been a huge
Speaker 1: surge again at the border. Why why are there more
Speaker 1: this month than than months ago? Why is there a
Speaker 1: spike of over a percent now showing up at the
Speaker 1: border unaccompanied miners, parents with miners, Because that's right. They've
Speaker 1: heard that, Hey, the Trump administration had to blink on
Speaker 1: that whole policy of detaining everybody, so now it's probably
Speaker 1: a good time to try to get across the border again.
Speaker 1: They've also heard from those who have crossed in recent
Speaker 1: years the same way, bringing children, using children as essentially
Speaker 1: a tool to wedge themselves into the United States. These adults,
Speaker 1: they've also been told that you get to stay that
Speaker 1: over of the people that have come into the country
Speaker 1: and claimed asylum, in many cases defensive asylum, which means
Speaker 1: that they tried to cross or they crossed into the
Speaker 1: country illegally, and then when they got caught, they said, oh,
Speaker 1: now I want to claim asylum, which is not how
Speaker 1: it's supposed to work. But they know that over nine
Speaker 1: of them don't get sent home. They don't uh, they
Speaker 1: don't get forced to leave the country, no matter how
Speaker 1: they came here, no matter what the merits are of
Speaker 1: their claimed And oh, by the way, now there's a
Speaker 1: big surge again at the border. And you had in
Speaker 1: the first eleven months of the fiscal year eighteen hat
Speaker 1: tip Daniel Horowitz at a Conservative review for this seventy
Speaker 1: seven thousand pounds of drugs. Seventy seven thousand pounds folks
Speaker 1: were seized at the border. In The number seas in
Speaker 1: that same period was eighteen thousand pounds. So here's what
Speaker 1: I want to tell you. If Democrats want to play
Speaker 1: this game of if you don't allow children to endlessly
Speaker 1: stream into this country from from Mexico, from Central America,
Speaker 1: from whatever foreign country they come from before they get
Speaker 1: south of our border, your mean you're heartless, you're separating families.
Speaker 1: If they want to have that discussion, I'm also going
Speaker 1: to insist that we have discussion about how the cartels
Speaker 1: are more powerful than ever. They're richer than ever. Human
Speaker 1: smuggling networks are a huge part of their recent surgeon profits.
Speaker 1: They're also bringing more drugs in the country than ever before,
Speaker 1: and those drugs are killing seventy thousand plus Americans a year.
Speaker 1: Because people keep talking about, yes, originally there was a
Speaker 1: lot of prescription drugs in the streets, and that was
Speaker 1: that was the problem with the opioid epidemic. That's what
Speaker 1: God had started, folks. Now it is illegal fentanel. Now
Speaker 1: it's illegal chemical compounds that are essentially the same as
Speaker 1: are similar to those prescription drugs, but they're being brought
Speaker 1: in by the cartels. They're being brought in after being
Speaker 1: manufactured in vast quantities in Mexico or even in China,
Speaker 1: and then brought to Mexico, then brought in to the
Speaker 1: United States. This is a national security problem. We are
Speaker 1: losing thousands and thousands of people because of our poorest
Speaker 1: border and the surge in migrant children. The border, by
Speaker 1: the way, it takes away from law enforcement's ability to
Speaker 1: focus on stopping those cartels from bringing this poison into
Speaker 1: the country. Our border is a mess, and it's a
Speaker 1: mess because Democrats are utterly feckless when it comes to
Speaker 1: our sovereignty. They don't care about it whatsoever. They just
Speaker 1: want to tell sob stories about how Republicans are mean
Speaker 1: racists who don't want to talk about the kids from
Speaker 1: south the border who all come here and they're all valedictorians.
Speaker 1: Well what about m S thirteen? Oh, how dare you?
Speaker 1: That's not representative? Well they're not all valedictorians either, And
Speaker 1: that's beside the point. Our border is our biggest health,
Speaker 1: public safety, and national security challenge in the country, and
Speaker 1: the fact that unaccompanied children are showing up there in
Speaker 1: greater numbers than they have in months is a very
Speaker 1: bad sign about where this is trending, which is what
Speaker 1: Trump needs to take action. We'll talk more about this
Speaker 1: in a moment, but time for a wall. The wall
Speaker 1: needs to happen now, not in not in two years,
Speaker 1: not in ten years. The wall needs to happen now.
Speaker 1: We'll get into this moor run after the break. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. A brand new poll out today as we
Speaker 1: approach fifty days to the midterm elections to show it
Speaker 1: is now increasingly likely the Democrats will take control of
Speaker 1: the House. Whate are the numbers to back that up?
Speaker 1: This the first time we're using likely voters in our
Speaker 1: CNN polling, A ten point advantage for the Democrats when
Speaker 1: voters are asked which party do you want to run
Speaker 1: the Congress? Which party will you vote for come November
Speaker 1: fifty two to forty two the Democrats with a ten
Speaker 1: point edge among likely voters. Likely voters tend to move
Speaker 1: Republicans way not in this poll, a ten point edge
Speaker 1: for the Democrats. Here. If this is the case on
Speaker 1: election day, the math tells you democrat as will take
Speaker 1: back the House. I know that's what everybody's saying, folks,
Speaker 1: But you know, there are some things that Trump could
Speaker 1: do that would throw quite a wrench into the gears
Speaker 1: of this preemptive Democrat victory party. And I think the
Speaker 1: best one would be shut down the government build that wall.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's let's go to the math, folks. If
Speaker 1: not now, when if it doesn't happen now, it's never happening,
Speaker 1: all right? Where we are at that point where if
Speaker 1: we do not see a willingness to go all in
Speaker 1: on the issue, really the signature issue that made President
Speaker 1: Trump the president of the United States. Then I think
Speaker 1: there's you know, what are we doing? What? What are
Speaker 1: we wasting our time even thinking that we can change
Speaker 1: these issues? Right? The time is now. I know Republicans
Speaker 1: lack courage on this. I know Republicans in the Congress
Speaker 1: want to find somebody else to show the backbone that
Speaker 1: they themselves are lacking. There's there's definitely a a jellyfish
Speaker 1: like consistency to the spinal columns of many, many, many
Speaker 1: members of Congress, including Republicans. But it's got to be now,
Speaker 1: and to think about what that would do. I mean,
Speaker 1: I want to see the Democrats out there trying to
Speaker 1: justify effectively being the open borders party. I want Democrats
Speaker 1: out there saying that they care so much about stopping
Speaker 1: a wall that they will shut down the government. Remember
Speaker 1: Trump was elected elect Elections have consequences, and on this issue,
Speaker 1: and by the way, they can do in such a
Speaker 1: way that hey, you know, okay, well you know you
Speaker 1: are an extension of your doctor protections, or you want
Speaker 1: you know what, We'll give something. But they know the
Speaker 1: wall is permanent, and if the wall starts going up
Speaker 1: and people see what the changes are at the border,
Speaker 1: then we will be in an entirely different world in
Speaker 1: terms of the conversation over immigration. If the wall starts
Speaker 1: to work, then they can't say, oh, well don't work. Well,
Speaker 1: you're idiotic. Come not paying for that stupid wall. But
Speaker 1: all that stuff that all goes away. So they have
Speaker 1: to stop the wall from beginning because the early success
Speaker 1: will lead to the full out, full on construction of
Speaker 1: the wall, and then they won't ever be able to
Speaker 1: get rid of it because people say, why you want
Speaker 1: to get rid of the wall? It makes our border
Speaker 1: more secure. And then the Democrats have to find a
Speaker 1: way to actually convince more Americans to vote for them
Speaker 1: instead of importing people from the developing world, the third
Speaker 1: world to vote for them, which is what's going on.
Speaker 1: And you say, oh, buck, that's not true. Illegals can't vote,
Speaker 1: Well guess what. Illegals tend to come to the country
Speaker 1: with certain cultural expectation, certain cultural approaches, and their children
Speaker 1: are led to believe that the Republicans are the mean,
Speaker 1: nasty party. The children who are born here, so when
Speaker 1: they're able to vote They've had parents their whole lives
Speaker 1: who were saying Republicans are the bad guys because they
Speaker 1: opposed illegals, because they themselves were illegal. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's not hard to figure out how you get to
Speaker 1: the voting patterns that you currently see with illegal immigrant
Speaker 1: tied populations. Right, It's not not hard to figure this out.
Speaker 1: Democrats know this, by the way, if if illegal voted Republican,
Speaker 1: they would have made the wall a hundred feet tall,
Speaker 1: and they would have built it twenty years ago. The
Speaker 1: Democrats would have and oh my gosh, we did a
Speaker 1: wall right away. You know, if we were taking a
Speaker 1: lot of people who were saying, hey, no government assistance, no,
Speaker 1: no socialism for me. I I just want to make
Speaker 1: it on my own. And I believe in limited government
Speaker 1: and constitutionalism. Uh. And I don't think that America owes
Speaker 1: me something because of a history of colonialism or a
Speaker 1: history of uh you know, global white privilege or whatever
Speaker 1: it is. The Democrats would be opposed to this thing entirely.
Speaker 1: So you know, I know the Democrats are already they're
Speaker 1: they're getting a little bit ahead of themselves here. You know,
Speaker 1: they feel like they were denied their great celebration when
Speaker 1: Hillary was supposed to win, and they really want to
Speaker 1: they really want to make it happened this time. I
Speaker 1: just have to say that we have it is still
Speaker 1: possible for Trump to flip the script, and I think
Speaker 1: he should do it because right now, even with even
Speaker 1: with the economy as good, good as it is, folks,
Speaker 1: I think if we go into this midterm kind of
Speaker 1: all right, let's see what happens. Yeah, I think Democrats
Speaker 1: probably do take the House, and that means that the
Speaker 1: Trump agenda is dead in the water until twenty That's
Speaker 1: what happens the ad ject Now, the tweets will still
Speaker 1: be there, There's still be a lot of stuff, but
Speaker 1: the Trump agenda will be on hold. And man, that
Speaker 1: election is going to be bonkers. I want to switch
Speaker 1: gears for just one second here, because we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about the opposition to Kavanaugh in a minute, and how
Speaker 1: insane people are in terms of the ways that they're
Speaker 1: the way that they are opposing Kavanaugh, the way that
Speaker 1: they are trying to stop him. And you know, we've
Speaker 1: got a really dirty trick that just came out today,
Speaker 1: which we'll get to. The Democrats, though in their dealings,
Speaker 1: are dishonorable. The Democrat Party has embraced dishonor, and certainly
Speaker 1: the Democrat aligned media, which is the mainstream media. Majority
Speaker 1: of the media has very little honor as a general rule.
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas, who went through all kinds of nastiness as
Speaker 1: you know in his confirmation here. I mean, they made
Speaker 1: some garbage HBO movie about how Anita Hill was really
Speaker 1: you know, like a women's rights champion or something. It's
Speaker 1: just all the rewriting history that goes on is madness.
Speaker 1: But Clarence Thomas recently spoke about the issue of honor placlibate.
Speaker 1: If we could use the word honorable more often, think
Speaker 1: about the difference it will make, then you'll have a legacy.
Speaker 1: We will have left the country in better shape morally,
Speaker 1: uh structurally than we found. But as long as we're
Speaker 1: looking at our interests or scoring points or looking cute
Speaker 1: or being on TV or the green out of fact
Speaker 1: or what editorials we're getting, especially the legal system, how
Speaker 1: do we mainteen If you can't debate hard issues honestly
Speaker 1: with honor, with integrity, how do we keep a civil society.
Speaker 1: It's such an important point, and the lack of honor
Speaker 1: in our public discourse, it looks Trump Trump is a
Speaker 1: street brawler, folks. But we needed to bring in a
Speaker 1: street a street brawler because really Conservatives and the Republicans,
Speaker 1: at least on the national stage and in terms of
Speaker 1: media coverage, we were like the terrified town with you know,
Speaker 1: cowboys running around stealing all of our staff and you know,
Speaker 1: kidnapping our women and everything else. And you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is like the Trump is the is the gun slinger
Speaker 1: so to speak, that we hired to come in and
Speaker 1: clean up the town. We need honor, though in our society,
Speaker 1: we really do, I mean and and I think the
Speaker 1: first part of it is to call out the dishonorable.
Speaker 1: Call out places like CNN that are are engaged in
Speaker 1: a mass and sustained dishonesty on a daily basis. Call
Speaker 1: out the way Democrats, I mean, the way that they've
Speaker 1: acted on this kabinet hearing. We're gonna get to the
Speaker 1: really the height of their dishonor in just a moment.
Speaker 1: The way they've acted in this kabinet here, though, is
Speaker 1: an utter disgrace. Uh. They should be ashamed. I know
Speaker 1: they're not, because the Democrats are really incapable of shame.
Speaker 1: It's just about power, it's just about achieving power. But
Speaker 1: they should be ashamed of themselves. By the way, Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas uh even at a little moment where he decided
Speaker 1: to talk about our modern spartacus clip seven, Please, how
Speaker 1: many people can you use in leadership positions today? The
Speaker 1: word that I used about red honorable honorable, not the
Speaker 1: honorable honorable. If we could use that word about more
Speaker 1: people who are in public light, people who actually asked
Speaker 1: the questions at confirmation hearings instead of spartacus, we use honorable.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a term that all of us should
Speaker 1: should strive for others to think of when they think
Speaker 1: of us. If there's if there is a a principle
Speaker 1: that I woul always like to be at the center
Speaker 1: of this show and of of my interactions with you
Speaker 1: and all of our all the work, all the thought
Speaker 1: that we put into this this community of people across
Speaker 1: the country. There are hundreds of thousands of you. Um,
Speaker 1: I would like honor to be at the very center
Speaker 1: of it, and I think that it should be the
Speaker 1: center of American public life. Again, we're in a battle
Speaker 1: right now, and you can be honorable in battle, but
Speaker 1: it's it's certainly more challenging, but honor should be at
Speaker 1: the center of our public life, and honor should be
Speaker 1: the center more importantly of what you and I are
Speaker 1: doing every day. And this is a concept that we
Speaker 1: should spend a lot more time. Not we although I
Speaker 1: guess that too, but just as as a society, we
Speaker 1: should return to this and not just be so focused
Speaker 1: on the immediate, on self gratification, on the winning in
Speaker 1: the moment, on owning quote the other side, it will
Speaker 1: be much better to to finish each day with were
Speaker 1: we honorable today and know that that's the single most
Speaker 1: important thing. The Democrats are not, so we will address
Speaker 1: that in just a moment. The most disgusting thing I
Speaker 1: have and there's been a lot of stuff, folks, and
Speaker 1: I had to interview the head of the Women's March
Speaker 1: and she was alone, I mean, but the most disgusting
Speaker 1: thing yet in some ways, is what's happened today, and
Speaker 1: it involves a highly respected senator who is just trying
Speaker 1: to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation. That's coming ups can help
Speaker 1: the day. Don't be them. If you vote for him,
Speaker 1: you are standing that secless, sackless circless woman standing that
Speaker 1: Letting Letting Trump and his appointees steal I'll get from
Speaker 1: millions of Americans, steal the right to choose what women
Speaker 1: do with that body. And you stood by that. Oh
Speaker 1: I didn't know. I'm so not you. Oh there's more, folks,
Speaker 1: but we'll stop there. Those were some of the released
Speaker 1: recorded phone calls that were left for Senator Susan Collins
Speaker 1: of Maine over the Brett Kavanaugh, the looming Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: UH nomination. And you know, the left, they are unable
Speaker 1: to mount a serious, honest opposition to Cavanaugh. But they
Speaker 1: are so frenzied and so desperate in their antique, having
Speaker 1: all hatred, that they're trying everything and anything. I mentioned
Speaker 1: you yesterday. This crowdfunding campaign to raise a million dollars
Speaker 1: and it will go to Susan Collins's opponent, whoever that
Speaker 1: may be in the Senate race in Maine. And Collins
Speaker 1: isn't up right now, but she'll be up in UH.
Speaker 1: That which that's that. That's fine. I mean, if people
Speaker 1: want to throw their money away into that, that's fine.
Speaker 1: As I've said, they can talk to Jeff Bush about
Speaker 1: how money does are just not buy you political victory,
Speaker 1: but they are. They're in this frenzy over the issue.
Speaker 1: And that's how you've also had so much lying, most
Speaker 1: notally from Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton about what Kavanaugh said.
Speaker 1: And that was it was really intentional, folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: the the lies were intentional about about Kavanaugh, the lies
Speaker 1: that they were telling about his uh saying that birth
Speaker 1: control and abortion are are essentially the same. They knew
Speaker 1: they're lying, and it didn't matter them because it was
Speaker 1: they thought damaging to Kavanaugh, and it actually would be
Speaker 1: damaging if it were true, because a majority of Americans
Speaker 1: do not think that contraception as a general issue is
Speaker 1: abortion right. That's that is not actually something that conservatives belief.
Speaker 1: But here we are with abusive phone calls, all these threats,
Speaker 1: and then in a kind of eleventh hour maneuver to
Speaker 1: show us just how desperate all this stuff really is.
Speaker 1: Fine Stein, Senator fine Stein, who when she's not you know,
Speaker 1: rolling around with a Chinese spy in her car for
Speaker 1: twenty years, is a lefty progressive who wants to stay
Speaker 1: in good stead with the Democrat Party and all of
Speaker 1: its progressive foundational important base entities number one of which
Speaker 1: is planned. Planned Paranoid is basically the v all only
Speaker 1: constituency in the Democratic Party that you are never allowed
Speaker 1: to cross. You are never allowed to deviate. You cannot
Speaker 1: be a Democrat and be pro life anymore. Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1: You cannot be People say, oh, to a book, there's
Speaker 1: some pro life Democrats. False. There are Democrats who say
Speaker 1: they are pro life and then they vote and in
Speaker 1: all of their public and political activities, vote with the
Speaker 1: abortion extremists of the modern Democratic Party. The extremists on
Speaker 1: the issue of abortion. They are not moderates, They're not reasonable,
Speaker 1: they are insane, and they're that what they what they're
Speaker 1: willing to defend is straight up barbarism, alright, third term abortion.
Speaker 1: Never mind that abortion is all the taking of life
Speaker 1: and therefore it is killing it as murder. But the
Speaker 1: third term abortion is is absolutely barbarous and is a
Speaker 1: blight on our civilization that this is going on right now.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats they they will defend it. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're going to take the Ney role, a pro
Speaker 1: choice America view, you have to defend that. You know,
Speaker 1: abortion at eight months, no problem, that's what they say.
Speaker 1: But fine, Steint because you remember this, that's what's really
Speaker 1: at stake here, folks. Abortion is really what they're focused on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they talked about the affordable health care and everything else,
Speaker 1: but the one that has them acting like a bunch
Speaker 1: of crazy people is Brover swayed an abortion. And fine
Speaker 1: Stein just today release this statement saying, quote, I have
Speaker 1: received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality,
Speaker 1: declined to come forward or press the matter further, and
Speaker 1: I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the
Speaker 1: matter to federal investigative authorities. Now let me just say this,
Speaker 1: if if in fact, and I would, I would bet
Speaker 1: a large amount of my very me savings on this.
Speaker 1: But if in fact that there there is nothing to this,
Speaker 1: what fine Stein has done here is one of the
Speaker 1: most unethical, disgusting, disgraceful character assassination maneuvers I've ever seen,
Speaker 1: involving a major political figure and a national level issue.
Speaker 1: This is worse. This is worse then when Harry Reid
Speaker 1: on the floor of the Senate, where he couldn't be
Speaker 1: challenged or sued for what he says. Uh said that
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney hasn't paid his taxes in ten years, just
Speaker 1: which was an out and out lie, an out and outlie. Um,
Speaker 1: but and which Harry read a minute later was a
Speaker 1: lie and said, yeah, but did he win? It was?
Speaker 1: It was worth it. Democrats lie big and recklessly and destructively. Okay, Trump, Yeah,
Speaker 1: sometimes he lies about his golf game. We don't care.
Speaker 1: Feinstein here has done worse than what Harry Reid did, though,
Speaker 1: because what she has done allows people to just allows
Speaker 1: their imaginations to run wild. Oh, is this some kind
Speaker 1: of terrible sexual misconduct. That's the first thing I think
Speaker 1: that comes to mind. Um, this I'm seeing already speculation
Speaker 1: that it has to do with some kind of something
Speaker 1: that happened in the eighties. Uh. And I mean unless
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh murdered somebody, which I don't think anybody thinks that
Speaker 1: he did. I can't think of something realistically that would
Speaker 1: involve kavanall in the eighties that you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: is the Statute of Limitations something that you know? I mean, no,
Speaker 1: and that, by the way, it's not. I don't even
Speaker 1: think it's criminal. I think it's just some kind of
Speaker 1: an allegation. I just think that they're just and this
Speaker 1: is what they do. They hide like little cowards. Oh,
Speaker 1: Mike says Mike something. Yeah, it's when he was in
Speaker 1: high school. Folks. Okay, what could he have done in
Speaker 1: high school that somebody would have knowledge of that would
Speaker 1: be so bad that Senator Feinstein has to bring it up.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's impossible, but and you know, then,
Speaker 1: now you get into this, let's say it is an
Speaker 1: allegation of some kind of of some kind of sexual impropriety.
Speaker 1: How is he supposed to defend himself. How is he
Speaker 1: supposed to come forward and say, maybe it's not that
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know, maybe it's that he cheated
Speaker 1: on his biology exam. I have no idea, but that's
Speaker 1: the point. They make it seem so nefarious, and they
Speaker 1: allow all of the what what What fine Stein is
Speaker 1: doing here is throwing a big bucket of gasoline on
Speaker 1: the raging fire of the lunacy of the left when
Speaker 1: it comes to capital and she knows it, folks, and
Speaker 1: she does not care. Here the letter quote took a
Speaker 1: circus us, a circuitus route to find Stein, the top
Speaker 1: ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. In reportably, were portably
Speaker 1: describes an incident that was related to someone affiliated with
Speaker 1: Stanford University who authored the letter and sent it to
Speaker 1: a Democrat who represents the area. Different sources provide different
Speaker 1: accounts of the contents of the letter, but the one
Speaker 1: consistent theme was that it involves an incident with Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: when he was in high school. I mean, what the
Speaker 1: heck is this, folks, So, I mean, that's it is.
Speaker 1: They're they're alleging some kind of deeply nefarious sexual impropriety
Speaker 1: without actually alleging it. If they can do this to Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: they can do this to anybody. This is why, folks,
Speaker 1: I don't really care what Trump tweets, what Trump says.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are soulless and evil when it suits them.
Speaker 1: They do not care who they destroy. They do not
Speaker 1: care what happens to a good man like Kavanaugh. This
Speaker 1: is and this is the elites. This is fine Stein.
Speaker 1: This is somebody who's supposed to be, you know, an
Speaker 1: adult in the room and supposed to know better. Yeah,
Speaker 1: producer Mike is telling me, this is just like it's
Speaker 1: like Clarence Thomas, Clarence Thomas Redux, you know this is,
Speaker 1: but it is it is how they It is how
Speaker 1: they play the game, it's how they do things, and
Speaker 1: we we should not stand for it. We absolutely should
Speaker 1: not allow this to go without, you know, a thorough repudiation.
Speaker 1: It really makes me angry because, you know, fine Stein,
Speaker 1: these people, they they're so smug and they're so condescending
Speaker 1: toward Trump and all of his supporters like you and me,
Speaker 1: and then they do crap like this. I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to sleep at night if I did this to
Speaker 1: somebody with fine Stein and all these people in the
Speaker 1: media running the story have done. You know, if it
Speaker 1: turns out that this is some bomb show, well yeah,
Speaker 1: well then I was wrong and I were tracting. Who
Speaker 1: wants to bet that it's not? Then I hit their oil,
Speaker 1: We're gonna hit their for banks, and so they're really
Speaker 1: going to start to feel it. Their economy is spiraling
Speaker 1: out of control. The Europeans are trying to salvage what
Speaker 1: they can. Nothing is going to fix Iran until Iran
Speaker 1: fixes itself. Every Secretary of state, former secretary of state
Speaker 1: continues to meet with foreign leaders, goes security security conferences,
Speaker 1: goes around the world. We all do that, and we
Speaker 1: have conversations with people about the state of affairs in
Speaker 1: the world in order to understand them. I think everybody
Speaker 1: in the world is sitting around talking about waiting out
Speaker 1: the President Trump. So there he had two different heavy
Speaker 1: hitters and their respective administrations on the issue of Irani
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley, US and bassing that the Nations and former
Speaker 1: Secretary of State and overall blowhard John Kerry. And you know,
Speaker 1: let's start with the Nicki Haley component. That's what's going
Speaker 1: on right now. Nicki Haley is saying, look, we're we're
Speaker 1: punishing the Iranians. The Iranians can make this stop whenever
Speaker 1: they want by stopping the nonsense. The moment that the
Speaker 1: Iranians are all of us, the moment that they're willing
Speaker 1: to stop being such bad actors in the world stage,
Speaker 1: and that they're willing to to play ball and stop
Speaker 1: supporting all these terrorist regimes throughout the Middle East, uh,
Speaker 1: creating instability and countries where we have strategic interests, where
Speaker 1: we have allies threatening to destroy Israel, threatening to you know,
Speaker 1: kick the Israelis into the sea, and and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: turn America into a sea of fire and all this
Speaker 1: other crazy crap. Then we have something to discuss, but
Speaker 1: we're not just going to allow all that to continue
Speaker 1: on and give them access to the international economy, international
Speaker 1: banking just because we're desperate for some kind of foreign
Speaker 1: policy legacy item A k A. What the Obama administration did. Right. So,
Speaker 1: so you're hearing that Nikki Haley, She's like, we are
Speaker 1: turning up the heat on Iran and it's not gonna stop,
Speaker 1: and we have the stronger hand here. Then you hear
Speaker 1: from John Kerry, the former Secretary of State. Now he
Speaker 1: got himself into some trouble because he in classic arrogant,
Speaker 1: self important John Kerry mode, thought that he should go
Speaker 1: and start meeting with not just Iranian's folks. Okay, and
Speaker 1: now he's not shown up at conferences and just giving
Speaker 1: his thoughts on things. Everybody has First Amendment rights. Former
Speaker 1: government officials have just the same First Amendment rights as
Speaker 1: everyone else. But he sits down with the Iranian foreign minister,
Speaker 1: somebody that he was negotiating against, whether he realizes that
Speaker 1: or not, and I don't think he does. I think
Speaker 1: he was negotiating with as in he thought that there
Speaker 1: was you can maybe call it even collusion. He thought
Speaker 1: that the process of trying to get the Iranians to
Speaker 1: come to the table on a deal was working for
Speaker 1: the same general purpose, the same side the Trump administration
Speaker 1: and Nicki Harley and others think that the process of
Speaker 1: bringing her onto the negotiating table is bend them to
Speaker 1: our will because they are out of line. It's a
Speaker 1: very different approach. But John Kerry has been holding these
Speaker 1: meetings with foreign leaders, and when people look at this,
Speaker 1: they they very understandably become quite uncomfortable because John Kerry
Speaker 1: knows a whole lot more than your you know, average
Speaker 1: folks do about this nuclear negotiation process, including the weak
Speaker 1: points from either you know, the perspective of the deal
Speaker 1: or or you know American American political weak points on
Speaker 1: this or where he and what you have is something
Speaker 1: that sounds very close, in my mind, very close to
Speaker 1: a situation where you have the former Secretary of State
Speaker 1: John carry under the Obama administration who sounds like he
Speaker 1: is advising a not just a foreign secretary of state,
Speaker 1: but really a foreign government in how to defeat in
Speaker 1: negotiations the current administration. That's a big problem, folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is now I know he would he of course,
Speaker 1: John Kerry would, he would say that's not true in
Speaker 1: no way. But just for one, the Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: John Kerry, a former Secretary State, of course, pardon me,
Speaker 1: sitting down to say, Hey, all you have to do
Speaker 1: is wait out with the rest of the world, wait
Speaker 1: out the Trump administration, and then you'll get what you want.
Speaker 1: This starts to feel pretty close to giving aid and
Speaker 1: comfort to the enemy. My friends. I mean, it's like
Speaker 1: I'm not in the room and I'm I'm trying to
Speaker 1: analyze based on what he's admitted he as talky Ronnie
Speaker 1: and Foreign Minister. He's admitted that he talks to them
Speaker 1: about the nuclear the nuclear deal. And there's just no
Speaker 1: way that a normal person doesn't see that as undermining
Speaker 1: the Trump White House. There's no way that a normal
Speaker 1: person sees this and doesn't think to himself, for hers off,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, John Kerry, he's running a kind of
Speaker 1: rogue diplomacy where he is really taking the side of
Speaker 1: at least in this dispute. He's taking the side of
Speaker 1: the Iranians over the Trump administration. Now here's the here's
Speaker 1: the way you could really get to the heart of
Speaker 1: this is John Kerry more favorably disposed towards javad zare
Speaker 1: the Iranian for minister or Donald Trump himself. If he
Speaker 1: were to say, you know, if if you were to
Speaker 1: ask John Kerry, who do you think is more trustworthy
Speaker 1: a negotiating partner, the Iranian for Minister or Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: I would be very curious to hear what his answer
Speaker 1: would be. I would be very curious to know how
Speaker 1: John Kerry, uh weighs the quote threat of Trump versus
Speaker 1: the threat of a nuclear Iran. You know that that
Speaker 1: mentality that was expressed by the imbecilic Joe Scarborough article
Speaker 1: earlier in the week in the Washington Post where he
Speaker 1: said that Trump is essentially Trump getting elected is like
Speaker 1: is worse than nine eleven for America. Uh. That sentiment
Speaker 1: is widespread among the elites. And John Kerry is as
Speaker 1: elite as it gets. I mean, he's a guy who
Speaker 1: he married a very wealthy woman. I think he very
Speaker 1: two very wealthy women in a row, but married a
Speaker 1: very wealthy woman. He is quite elite. He is Mr
Speaker 1: Martha's vineyard, Mr. You know, ten million dollar townhouse in
Speaker 1: Boston on Beacon Hill. And I'm telling you that he
Speaker 1: has absolutely internalized a lot of the most hysterical anti
Speaker 1: Trump sentiment. And when that kind of a guy sits
Speaker 1: down across from Iran, which is an enemy state in
Speaker 1: enemy regime, I can't trust that he would not feel
Speaker 1: the need to try to help the Iranians a little
Speaker 1: bit to balance out what he views as a threat
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration. And that's crazy, it's subversive, and
Speaker 1: it's wildly irresponsible. You know, we just had this news
Speaker 1: about Google and how they feel about people who vote
Speaker 1: for Trump, how they feel about Trump himself. He's a disaster,
Speaker 1: he's terrible. They hate him. Do you think that when
Speaker 1: people run a company and they almost uniformly have that
Speaker 1: kind of political bias toward the left doesn't affect the
Speaker 1: actual workings of the company, especially a social media platform
Speaker 1: where you just assume that they don't really care and
Speaker 1: they're just gonna do right by you. But guess what
Speaker 1: what if they're biased against conservatives, folks, snippy dot com
Speaker 1: is the place you should go. Snippy dot com is
Speaker 1: a new social media site where there is no agenda,
Speaker 1: no bias, no conversational health nonsense. It's a place where
Speaker 1: you can share your thoughts and ideas, and where conservatism
Speaker 1: will never be suppressed. I've got a snippy dot com account.
Speaker 1: I'm already active there. Go check it out for yourself.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com totally free to join. You can post
Speaker 1: your thoughts, post video, post photos again snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: or you can download the snippy dot Com app and
Speaker 1: start the conversation. Buck Sextons decoding the news and disseminating
Speaker 1: information with actionable intelligence. Stake American, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts No, well, Obviously,
Speaker 1: today's new text messages would suggest that the media leak
Speaker 1: strategy was exactly what we surmised in the letter that
Speaker 1: we sent to Rod Rosenstein just a couple of days ago,
Speaker 1: I think. But the bigger context of this is that
Speaker 1: this is not the end of it. I can say
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has been working with Jim and
Speaker 1: I to get us additional documents, and I can tell
Speaker 1: you there are dozens of other documents that would support
Speaker 1: the fact that Peter Struck and Lisa Page had ongoing
Speaker 1: relationships with multiple reporters and that they were feeding them information.
Speaker 1: Uh to spind the narrative sinds this President. No, it's
Speaker 1: it's not even it's not legal, it's against protocol. But
Speaker 1: the other thing is is they are denying it and
Speaker 1: we have the proof that would suggest otherwise. Here's what's
Speaker 1: so frustrating about. The dossier was a big lie. So
Speaker 1: what they did is they said, this is a big lie.
Speaker 1: The more people we can get talking about the dossier,
Speaker 1: the more likely it is they'll believe the lie. So
Speaker 1: that's why they had this leak strategy to support a
Speaker 1: document that was the basis for everything. That's the big
Speaker 1: problem here. They took that document, the dossier, untrue document,
Speaker 1: they took it to the Secret Court and didn't tell
Speaker 1: the court important facts to get a warrant. Didn't tell
Speaker 1: him who paid for it, didn't tell him the guy
Speaker 1: who wrote a Christopher Steele, had a extreme bias against
Speaker 1: the president, said he was desperate to stop Trump, and
Speaker 1: didn't tell the court about Oars involvement, both Bruce and
Speaker 1: Nelly Oars involvement in production of the document. This whole
Speaker 1: thing stinks, folks, It just stinks. Okay, we we are
Speaker 1: way past the point of giving any benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt to the d o J and the FBI when
Speaker 1: it comes to anything related to Trump and Russia and collusion,
Speaker 1: all this other stuff. This is just out of control.
Speaker 1: You have new text messages that have been released this
Speaker 1: thanks to Mark Meadows over on the House, But this
Speaker 1: tech tech messages say that people were leaking like mad
Speaker 1: in the lead up to the Trump Russia probe. Before
Speaker 1: I get into the details here, let me give you
Speaker 1: the the overview of what we all know is going
Speaker 1: on here. They were trying to shape the the narrative
Speaker 1: in the media to justify what they had done after
Speaker 1: the fact. I think that's very obvious, Okay. They were
Speaker 1: trying to create the perception the general public that there
Speaker 1: was a need to do this stuff because they knew
Speaker 1: that if and when the truth of the investigation, including
Speaker 1: the Fiser requests against Carter Page and and all the
Speaker 1: other aspects of the Russia collusion hoax, and it is
Speaker 1: a hoax, if that ever came to light, it would
Speaker 1: look terrible. It would be so obviously and blatantly and
Speaker 1: hopelessly politicized that there would be frankly, uh no conceivable
Speaker 1: way for them to defend this in the court of
Speaker 1: public opinion. So they had to both tell stories in
Speaker 1: the press about this to create, if not an alibi
Speaker 1: at least a defense for themselves and to really make
Speaker 1: it clear to the Democrats in Congress and in the media, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know you better, you better join with us here
Speaker 1: on this anti Trump stuff, or else we're all gonna
Speaker 1: be a whole lot of trouble because we were trying
Speaker 1: to help Hillary. You know, take take our side here,
Speaker 1: you know, help out the rest of the of Team Hillary.
Speaker 1: And that's I don't see how you can come away
Speaker 1: with a different conclusion than that. I mean, here's what
Speaker 1: the the the text message it change on December six
Speaker 1: says all right. Quote, oh, this is from page Lisa Page,
Speaker 1: not Carter page Lisa Page to Peter Struck. Oh, remind
Speaker 1: me to tell you tomorrow about the Times doing a
Speaker 1: story about the RNC hacks, she texted Struck. Struck replied,
Speaker 1: and more than they already did. I told you, Quinn
Speaker 1: told me they pulling out all the stops on some story.
Speaker 1: A source told Fox News Quinn could be referring to
Speaker 1: Richard Quinn, who served as the chief of the Media
Speaker 1: Investigative Publicity Section in the Office of Public Affairs. Quinn
Speaker 1: could not be reached for comment. Struck again replied, I
Speaker 1: think our sisters have begun leaking like mad, scorned and
Speaker 1: worried and political, they're kicking into overdrive. In one passage,
Speaker 1: Struck apparently misreads a reference to RNC and then blames
Speaker 1: his old man eyes. And it's unclear whom Struck was
Speaker 1: referring to when he uses the term sisters. Okay, folks,
Speaker 1: let's let's break this down. Sisters is most likely a
Speaker 1: reference to the Intel agencies, which I'm sure they would
Speaker 1: not like to be thought of as the sisters of
Speaker 1: the FBI. But that's a whole other conversation. But probably
Speaker 1: the the Intel agencies and and most more specifically, the
Speaker 1: CIA would be my guests. But I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: not Peter Struck. I've I've never heard let me tell
Speaker 1: you this much, nobody the FBI. Yeah, that's right, Nobody
Speaker 1: the FBI is going to refer to the CIA as
Speaker 1: as it's it's sister agency to anybody who works at
Speaker 1: the CIA. That much, I can tell you. But maybe
Speaker 1: the FBI, that's how they do it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's that's clear to them, that that's the most likely.
Speaker 1: And and that appears in an analysis here on this
Speaker 1: Fox News piece online, and I think that's the most
Speaker 1: likely scenario. But what this makes absolutely clear is that
Speaker 1: the FBI folks involved here were very aware that there
Speaker 1: was a public relations component. He and I would even
Speaker 1: argue to you it starts to get very close to
Speaker 1: being propaganda folks, right. This is the government trying to
Speaker 1: justify the government's actions through confidential stories or rather giving
Speaker 1: you know, sourcing to the media through confidential sources, in
Speaker 1: order to propagate a certain version of events so that
Speaker 1: the public thinks something that the government wants them to think.
Speaker 1: They're really not supposed to do that. That's that's not
Speaker 1: how this is supposed to work. And I think there
Speaker 1: you so you have that component of it, and then
Speaker 1: just that there's so many people who are leaking, who
Speaker 1: are leaking you have really a dual track here. You
Speaker 1: have rogue actors in the FBI and d o J
Speaker 1: who were leaking classified things like the Flynn phone call
Speaker 1: to Ambassador Kisliak. So that's one part of this, and
Speaker 1: then you also have the official I mean it's not
Speaker 1: really a leak, but the the official propaganda strategy you
Speaker 1: could say, from the Office of Public Affairs of the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice that is going to Remember this, folks,
Speaker 1: it's not always about politics. Sometimes it's about bureaucrats. And
Speaker 1: you have people who aren't necessarily all that pro Hillary
Speaker 1: or aren't even that anti Trump, but who work at
Speaker 1: a place like the Department of Justice, and when they
Speaker 1: think that the public might turn on their organization, they
Speaker 1: have absolutely no problem. I can assure you of this.
Speaker 1: They have no problem doing what needs to be done
Speaker 1: to protect their agency. And I think that's probably what
Speaker 1: you saw here, meaning the Office of Public Affairs at
Speaker 1: uh the Department of Justice, or rather in the in
Speaker 1: the FBI. I mean, they probably have, but they there's
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's an O p A in both was
Speaker 1: telling the press certain things to massage the story about
Speaker 1: this Russia collusion madness. And then you also had people
Speaker 1: that we're passing classified information to the media for really
Speaker 1: specific hits, like going after General Flynn. Uh So, But
Speaker 1: what you see is, I mean, this is the weaponization
Speaker 1: of government in a in a political dispute. That's what's happening.
Speaker 1: I mean that is now on the record, clear as day.
Speaker 1: No serious person is going to be able to convince
Speaker 1: me that that's not true, because it is true. I
Speaker 1: want to know when we're gonna find out who was
Speaker 1: doing a lot of that rogue actor classified leaking. I
Speaker 1: would note keep in mind, folks, do you know who
Speaker 1: does the investigating of that? Do you know who is
Speaker 1: charged with finding out who would have leaked classified to
Speaker 1: hurt Trump? That's right, the Department of Justice and the FBI.
Speaker 1: So if in fact, what we're dealing with here, and
Speaker 1: it seems abundantly clear we are is a cabal at
Speaker 1: FBI and d o J at the top level, mind you,
Speaker 1: including people who have been fired like Struck, people who
Speaker 1: have been fired like McKay McCay who's facing criminal charges,
Speaker 1: if they were the ones and some of their close
Speaker 1: colleagues who have stayed behind in those agencies, are the
Speaker 1: ones that are that are tasked with ferreting out leakers
Speaker 1: of classified information. I have a feeling we're not going
Speaker 1: to find too many folks who were doing the anti
Speaker 1: Trump hashtag resistance classified leaks. Who will watch the watchers?
Speaker 1: It's a recurrent question whenever we talk about government, especially
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement, and any time that there's the possibility
Speaker 1: of the surveillance apparatus of the intelligence community being used
Speaker 1: for political purposes, that's what happened here, And I just
Speaker 1: I just have to note that you know, they were
Speaker 1: very good at tracking down leaguers during the Obama years,
Speaker 1: and there were no damaging leaks from inside the Armnament
Speaker 1: about anything Obama did. A lot of people were all, notice,
Speaker 1: you know, you say anything, we're gonna throw you in prison,
Speaker 1: ruin your life. But when it comes to Trump, a
Speaker 1: lot of damaging classified leaks in the press and people
Speaker 1: aren't being No one's been prosecuted for not a single person.
Speaker 1: Well maybe it's because the leakers are the ones doing
Speaker 1: the investigation. How about that? People? We jump very quickly today,
Speaker 1: But I do think that we like to forgive. You
Speaker 1: went on the Howard Stern Show yesterday to apologize and
Speaker 1: you end up making it worse because you said you'd
Speaker 1: have to have down syndrome not to feel sorry for
Speaker 1: the victims. Do you regret this by getting into trouble,
Speaker 1: Norman Dumba, it's always bad when you have to apology
Speaker 1: for apology apology? Do you lose it when you're on Howard?
Speaker 1: Is that what happens to Well, there is a thing
Speaker 1: on on Howard where there's a recklessness in the studio
Speaker 1: and you know there are you used to be a
Speaker 1: word we would all say uh to mean stupid that
Speaker 1: we don't say anymorrow, Right, you know what I'm talking about, Yes,
Speaker 1: and stupidly I was about to say that word, and
Speaker 1: I stopped and said what's the right word to say?
Speaker 1: And then I said, um, I said a different word.
Speaker 1: Did you realize that? Probably realized at that moment that
Speaker 1: I done something unforgivable. Yeah, this is kind of a
Speaker 1: follow up team to yesterday when I talked to you
Speaker 1: about Norm MacDonald, comedian just got a show on Netflix.
Speaker 1: This guy can't get out of his own way. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm obviously somebody who's going to give more than the
Speaker 1: just the benefit of the doubt on you know, saying
Speaker 1: something that the left jumps on, takes out of context
Speaker 1: and all that stuff. Right, I'm the first one to
Speaker 1: say that comedians should be given some latitude to make
Speaker 1: jokes and be funny. But he talked about Roseanne and
Speaker 1: Louis c k and he got in trouble and then
Speaker 1: he was trying ring to apologize for it. And I
Speaker 1: went on the Howard Stern Show, which I would just
Speaker 1: notice probably not the best venue for an apology. On
Speaker 1: this stuff, and then he went on to say you'd
Speaker 1: have to have down syndrome to not understand what he
Speaker 1: was saying. And I didn't know that part of it.
Speaker 1: When I went on the area yesterday talked to you
Speaker 1: about this, I saw that. Afterwards, I just thought to myself,
Speaker 1: what is wrong with Norm McDonald? Now he he obviously
Speaker 1: is not defending that, and he didn't he explained to
Speaker 1: you what what his thought process was. He was going
Speaker 1: to use the R word, which you know I would.
Speaker 1: I would note I try to be fair minded folks
Speaker 1: about all the things that I that I discussed here
Speaker 1: on the show, and I know that for a lot
Speaker 1: of people there's kind of just a constant own the
Speaker 1: Libs always own the Libs fight fight, fight mentality. I
Speaker 1: try to bring some nuance to this too. So while
Speaker 1: I'll tell you that the war on words that the
Speaker 1: left is is waging all the time is very important,
Speaker 1: and that they played dirty, and that they cheat, and
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of stuff we should be aware of their,
Speaker 1: I will say that when I was growing up, I
Speaker 1: remember that people would say I would say the word
Speaker 1: uh retard as though it was completely normal and fine
Speaker 1: to say about anybody that they thought was acting in
Speaker 1: a way that was stupid or anything else. And anyone
Speaker 1: who spent any time around somebody with Down syndrome or
Speaker 1: somebody with learning disabilities understandably just gets very uh angry
Speaker 1: about that. And and and it is wrong and it's
Speaker 1: not something that it's not something that people should say
Speaker 1: and we have but see there's a reason for why
Speaker 1: we shouldn't say it, right, and it's understandable. It's you
Speaker 1: should not use that term for somebody as a term
Speaker 1: of of any kind of disparagement, and shouldn't use that
Speaker 1: term now in general. Uh that all said, I don't
Speaker 1: know how Norm McDonald goes from about to say that too,
Speaker 1: and why not just say jackass? What why I go
Speaker 1: from the R word to saying down syndrome, which is
Speaker 1: even more specific to people with a condition, who are
Speaker 1: you know, are there loved ones, they're family members there
Speaker 1: who have had to you know, overcome uh quite a
Speaker 1: difficult burden. I mean, having Down syndrome obviously makes life
Speaker 1: in many ways more challenging, although people also point out
Speaker 1: that people with Down syndrome generally are very happy and
Speaker 1: very loving and but you know, Norm McDonald man well,
Speaker 1: what is he doing. I mean, he's been in the
Speaker 1: game a long time. He should know better than this.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to sort of do the pylon. You
Speaker 1: could tell he's sit in that view interview. He's not smiling,
Speaker 1: he's not laughing. He he knows that it's kind of
Speaker 1: a a second strike here, and and I guess he'll
Speaker 1: he'll get he'll get a third one on this. And
Speaker 1: he's because the first look, I was defending what he's
Speaker 1: not defending what he said, but defending his right to
Speaker 1: say the original stuff about how look, the me too movement,
Speaker 1: you know, shouldn't get shouldn't become essentially a career death
Speaker 1: sentence for everybody. That's what he was trying to say,
Speaker 1: or trying to get at. I think, um, but you know, man,
Speaker 1: I just felt that I had to follow up after
Speaker 1: yesterday talking about Norm McDonald. And I do find it
Speaker 1: really troubling that comedy is is just under constant assault
Speaker 1: in this country. I mean, I do find it troubling
Speaker 1: that we can't allow comedians the the latitude that I
Speaker 1: really think they should have to do the you know,
Speaker 1: they pushing of boundaries that we would expect from the
Speaker 1: pushing of boundaries that's really necessary for them to be
Speaker 1: effective in what they do. I mean, a comedian that's
Speaker 1: trying to be safe, it's general. Will you have a
Speaker 1: lot of that these days, folks. You know comedian is
Speaker 1: trying to be safe is somebody like Kathy Griffin who
Speaker 1: really now only makes fun of Trump and Republicans and
Speaker 1: you know, people who live in rural America and Christians.
Speaker 1: You know that that those that's what you get with
Speaker 1: comedians who are trying to be safe. They attack the
Speaker 1: targets that politically political political correctness say they can. And
Speaker 1: I just find I find the whole thing very dispiriting
Speaker 1: because I wish we could have comedy back anyway. I
Speaker 1: just had to follow up with the Norm McDonald thing.
Speaker 1: I was really surprised at his ineptitude in handling us
Speaker 1: and dealing with it, and then to to go on
Speaker 1: on the View to discuss it. At least the ladies
Speaker 1: of the View were willing to hear him out. I was.
Speaker 1: I was surprised at that too. They were. They seemed
Speaker 1: willing to to engage him on this stuff. But and
Speaker 1: h man, there are limits, folks to what we can say. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: anybody could have said that, or you know, that's a
Speaker 1: mistake that any of us might have made under the circumstances.
Speaker 1: I don't think if I'm trying to backpedal a little
Speaker 1: bit from a discussion, trying to have a nuanced discussion
Speaker 1: about me too. I don't think all of a sudden
Speaker 1: I make a disparaging remark about people with Down syndrome,
Speaker 1: that that is not something that I could see happening
Speaker 1: to just anybody. So I look, Norm McDonald, maybe he's
Speaker 1: just learned his lesson. I wonder if his show is
Speaker 1: going to be any fun uh funny at all. As
Speaker 1: I've told you, I'm not a Norm McDonald person. I've
Speaker 1: never thought he was funny. I've always thought it was
Speaker 1: very he was trying very hard to be funny. But
Speaker 1: other people I know are devotees of his comedic style.
Speaker 1: And if you ask me these days, you know, buck,
Speaker 1: who do you think is a really funny comedian? There
Speaker 1: are some funny shows out there. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley on HBO is actually it's a Mike Judge show.
Speaker 1: Who's the Office Space creator. He created the movie Office Space.
Speaker 1: I think Silicon Valley would be very high on my list,
Speaker 1: but I I can't tell you right now who I
Speaker 1: can think of that does stand up comedy that is
Speaker 1: truly great. And I think it's because the boundaries for
Speaker 1: stand up comedians have been so set by a politically
Speaker 1: correct agenda that there's really not the room for the
Speaker 1: kind of brilliance that we've seen with other communities. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could never have the and they'll never be in
Speaker 1: a clipment any but you could never have an Eddie
Speaker 1: Murphy in his prime doing what he used to do
Speaker 1: today and saying the kind of things you could even
Speaker 1: have Robin Williams. I've said this to people, you go
Speaker 1: back and look at some of the retrospectives that we're
Speaker 1: done in Robin Williams life after he tragically took his
Speaker 1: own life. People were saying that Robin Williams comedy was
Speaker 1: too offensive. This is just a few years ago, anyway,
Speaker 1: But do watch A Silicon Valley. I think it's very good.
Speaker 1: It's obviously a little irreverent and there's a you know,
Speaker 1: a fair amount of cursing and stuff like that, but
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a good show, folks. I would
Speaker 1: recommend that one to you if you're looking for one
Speaker 1: get silicon value on HBO. We'll be back in just
Speaker 1: a moment. Should schools force kids to face their fears? Well,
Speaker 1: if they have an irrational fear of say, spiders, if
Speaker 1: they're arachnophobes, or if they have a fear of going
Speaker 1: outside agoraphobia, there are some clinical fears that maybe are
Speaker 1: a little too much. I don't think we should take
Speaker 1: somebody who's terrified of snakes and necessarily put them through
Speaker 1: immersion therapy and cover them with snakes, right that that
Speaker 1: would be cruel. But should we make some exceptions for
Speaker 1: people who are afraid of public speaking? This issues actually
Speaker 1: getting a lot of attention right now because of a
Speaker 1: a tweet when viral from a fifteen year old high
Speaker 1: school student who declared, quote, stop forcing students to present
Speaker 1: in front of the class and give them a choice
Speaker 1: not to. This got a hundred and thirty thousand retweets
Speaker 1: and nearly a half a million likes. And this is
Speaker 1: following a similar sentiment in January that also got a
Speaker 1: lot of attention on Twitter. Uh. And then you have
Speaker 1: these this is from the Atlantic, by the way, This
Speaker 1: that that that's who's covering this that teens are protesting
Speaker 1: in class presentations, and you have some teenagers quoted in
Speaker 1: this again. Now we're being told these days that teenagers
Speaker 1: have a lot of wisdom. Quote. Nobody should be forced
Speaker 1: to do something that makes them uncomfortable, says Ula, a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old in eighth grade, who, like all students quoted,
Speaker 1: has to be referred to only by her first name.
Speaker 1: Even though speaking in front of the class is supposed
Speaker 1: to build your confidence and it's part of your school work.
Speaker 1: I think if a student is really unsettled and anxious
Speaker 1: because of it, you should probably make it something less stressful.
Speaker 1: School isn't something a student should fear. Well, they really
Speaker 1: have this backwards. Students shouldn't fear speaking in school. It's
Speaker 1: not that school. That's something that you should not fear. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is not a a sufficient approach to it. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to say, well, I don't like it and
Speaker 1: I'm scared. You shouldn't go through life terrified of speaking
Speaker 1: in front of people. And in fact, the data shows
Speaker 1: that one of the most sought after skills by employers
Speaker 1: is the ability to communicate two people effectively and also
Speaker 1: to communicate to the public effectively. You know, of all
Speaker 1: the classes that I took in high school, I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you one of the best ones. And this
Speaker 1: may be obvious because I now make my living as
Speaker 1: a radio host, but I took a speech class my
Speaker 1: freshman year of high school. And it was something that
Speaker 1: at a lot of people complained about at the time.
Speaker 1: They said, oh, you know, what a waste, and because
Speaker 1: all it was was you had to get up and
Speaker 1: you had to write a speech or you could give
Speaker 1: it extemporaneously. It was usually a set time. It was,
Speaker 1: you know, three minutes or five minutes or whatever it was,
Speaker 1: and you would get up and give a speech in
Speaker 1: front of all of your classmates, and then we would
Speaker 1: talk about effective speaking, uh, you know, effective speaking styles
Speaker 1: and traits and things that you could do up there,
Speaker 1: and you know, what to do with your hands. And
Speaker 1: this was not a waste at all. I think every
Speaker 1: school should absolutely have this as part of the curriculum.
Speaker 1: I think that getting up and speaking is something that
Speaker 1: people should in fact be forced to do, because it
Speaker 1: is not healthy to go through life afraid of communicating.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying if you get up there and give
Speaker 1: a speech on subject matter you don't know anything about
Speaker 1: and you know, obviously there are some limitations on this,
Speaker 1: but in general, we should not be catering to the
Speaker 1: fear of public speaking as well. We shouldn't be catering
Speaker 1: to those who have have a fear of public speaking
Speaker 1: and think that they can get around this problem by
Speaker 1: avoiding the problem. That's not sufficient. And I think that
Speaker 1: everybody should get used to the idea that they're going
Speaker 1: to have to communicate publicly. Now because of social media,
Speaker 1: everyone's communicating with the world all the time. But being
Speaker 1: able to speak effectively is an asset that we should
Speaker 1: be training as many people as possible to have. It's
Speaker 1: so worthwhile. I mean, I've been in so many different
Speaker 1: office environments already in my life, and oftentimes what you
Speaker 1: find about the people that are running things and the
Speaker 1: people that are the most highly regarded is they're not
Speaker 1: necessarily the best decision makers, they don't necessarily have the
Speaker 1: best leadership style. They're the people that communicate most effectively
Speaker 1: with their peers and with those around them. So I
Speaker 1: think it's absolutely essential. I don't like this at all,
Speaker 1: And and this just goes into this pile of oh,
Speaker 1: we need to give kids what they want kids, no better,
Speaker 1: no and a lot of this stuff. They don't. They
Speaker 1: should get up and speak. There should be more of us.
Speaker 1: I should have had much more speech training in college
Speaker 1: in high school than I did. It should have gone
Speaker 1: into college as well. Although I was part of the
Speaker 1: debate team, so I was really a speech super nerd.
Speaker 1: But there you have it. That's my feeling on that.
Speaker 1: To tell all these high school kids are grammar school
Speaker 1: kids who are scared to speak publicly. To get off
Speaker 1: my lawn and start giving a speech team bucket, it's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. All right, my friends, let's get
Speaker 1: to it. Philip writes that Darby was dead on Obama
Speaker 1: definitely whistles his s is. It drives me crazy too,
Speaker 1: She drives me crazy. It's a great song. It's a
Speaker 1: Mike John don't give it's a great song. You guys
Speaker 1: know you love that song like no one is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, that's a great The eighties had some great
Speaker 1: tunes that we don't really ever hear anymore. You know
Speaker 1: that song and the King of Wishful Thinking, and there's
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff that you heard in the background
Speaker 1: on movie soundtracks that. Yeah, you're making fun of your team,
Speaker 1: you're making fun of me right now, just like Mike
Speaker 1: and John are making fun of me. But you know
Speaker 1: what party? He was like, Yeah, that sounds pretty good,
Speaker 1: that sounds pretty pretty catchy. Um, Michael Rights, Hey, I
Speaker 1: remember I just told you to have Bustardi on during
Speaker 1: Harvey last year. I memories not so great anymore, but
Speaker 1: once in a while, something bubbles up from that primordial swamp. Well, Michael,
Speaker 1: as I said, my friend, it's like you read my mind.
Speaker 1: We had but starting on yesterday, I hope you enjoyed
Speaker 1: hearing from him. Really nice guy too. I like Mr
Speaker 1: Bustardi and he always has interesting things to say about climate,
Speaker 1: about storms, about all that stuff. Our brother Darby Rights, Hey, brother,
Speaker 1: I wanted to drop a note about hurricanes and climate change.
Speaker 1: When I was stationed in Charleston. We had to get
Speaker 1: underway for Andrew. The fifty ft waves we face on
Speaker 1: a Knox Class frigate. We're daunting, to say the least.
Speaker 1: I also wanted to mention the most unbelievable self importance
Speaker 1: on the on the left on climate change is breathtaking.
Speaker 1: As I'm sure you know, the planet could shake humanity
Speaker 1: off like a speck of dust. It will be here
Speaker 1: long after we are gone, just as it was here
Speaker 1: long before we arrived. Darby. Absolutely true and as always,
Speaker 1: my brother, good to hear from you. Thank you for
Speaker 1: writing in Shields High, Rob. Right, Norm McDonald does voice
Speaker 1: over for cartoons? Does he lose his job? You know, Rob,
Speaker 1: I don't know what cartoons. I think the answer to
Speaker 1: your question is it depends on who's making the who's
Speaker 1: making the decisions wherever, you know, for the for those
Speaker 1: cartoons and the people in charge at that network, whatever
Speaker 1: it might be. So yeah, there you go. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not up on on the latest Norm McDonald projects.
Speaker 1: Paul writes the following, um, whoa hold on? Buck? Great
Speaker 1: job highlighting the m s MS bias in blaming the
Speaker 1: president for everything. Perhaps it warrants a new audience participation
Speaker 1: segment on your show, mocking the MSM. It could be
Speaker 1: entitled today President Trump is to blame for examples, Today
Speaker 1: President Trump is to blame for a three horned cow
Speaker 1: being born in Brazil, etcetera, etcetera. Ps. You could even
Speaker 1: do two versions of it on Rising. Hey, Crystal, did
Speaker 1: you hear about that three horned cow being born in Brazil? Crystal? What? No? Buck? Yeah,
Speaker 1: they say it's Trump's fault. Crystal. Okay, I don't like
Speaker 1: Trump Buck exactly, Crystal. I feel Trump's policies on the
Speaker 1: environment making responsible for Florence Buck. That's not serious, Crystal, No,
Speaker 1: I am serious. But okay, I think we get the idea.
Speaker 1: Paul shield Side, thank you for writing in on this one,
Speaker 1: my friend. Good to hear from you. Um Mike writes,
Speaker 1: I think you're right about Jack Ryan's girlfriend being European something.
Speaker 1: In episode five, Jack and his girl having dinner out.
Speaker 1: I heard a slight accent in her speech. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: I heard it too, and I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: don't know what it is with we can't get more
Speaker 1: American actors playing Americans, but I find the whole thing
Speaker 1: kind of annoying, to be honest with you. Her name
Speaker 1: is Abby Cornish, which certainly doesn't sound uh particularly um oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: she's Australian. Told you, I know it. I knew it.
Speaker 1: We'll do it live. I knew it. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: she's an Aussie. I can tell folks. They think they're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I can do an American accent. This is how Americans talk. No,
Speaker 1: it's not. That's how somebody's used to have it in
Speaker 1: really well open mouth. That's how they That's how they
Speaker 1: think Americans talk. I can do in American accent. Here
Speaker 1: we go. The name is bad. I'm a fam Minnesota.
Speaker 1: That's what they have a lot of English friends, true,
Speaker 1: and that's always there their version of the American accent.
Speaker 1: And as we all know, a British accent. One day
Speaker 1: we will all agree, America, we will all agree to stop,
Speaker 1: whether subconsciously or not, thinking that a British accent makes
Speaker 1: somebody smarter. We we should come together on this one,
Speaker 1: just like we should. We should make it illegal for
Speaker 1: there to be uh car alarms. We should decide that
Speaker 1: there should be no more extra points added to somebody's
Speaker 1: i Q, theoretically at least because of their British accent.
Speaker 1: It's just crazy. By the way, some of you pointed
Speaker 1: out yesterday that I think I'm mixed up and as
Speaker 1: I was speaking in my head two books that I both,
Speaker 1: both of which I really recommend, both fiction books, Michael
Speaker 1: Crichton's State of Fear and Tom clancy Debt of Honor.
Speaker 1: I think I've either mixed up the books or the authors.
Speaker 1: When I was talking about flying Ant seven into the
Speaker 1: White House. That's that's the end of debt of honor.
Speaker 1: I think I said, state of fear, state of fears
Speaker 1: about climate change. Michael Frighten, who said that in his
Speaker 1: career he wrote about abortion, he wrote about genetic engineering
Speaker 1: and cloning, and I mean some some very hot button
Speaker 1: topic stuff, said that the both the hatred and venom
Speaker 1: that he got from strangers and and the death threats
Speaker 1: for writing about climate change, and the the sort of
Speaker 1: shunning from the elites that he got for writing about
Speaker 1: climate change in a way that it exposed the hysteria
Speaker 1: about it. Uh, it was crazier than anything else he
Speaker 1: ever dealt with in his career. As you can tell,
Speaker 1: I've watched a lot of not only I read almost
Speaker 1: all of Creighton's books, but I've also read a lot
Speaker 1: of his and watched a lot of his speeches. I
Speaker 1: thought he was a very interesting guy. You know. At
Speaker 1: one point he had the number one movie in the country,
Speaker 1: the number one TV show in the country, and the
Speaker 1: number one book in the country. It was Jurassic Park,
Speaker 1: the movie, Jurassic Park the book, and e Er the
Speaker 1: TV show. So the guy's got skills. It's kind of
Speaker 1: an egot before there was an egot. Uh, and well
Speaker 1: it's a simultaneous he got really Oh, if you don't
Speaker 1: know what that is, don't worry about it. Can google it.
Speaker 1: Mike writes, I think you're right about Jack. Oh, yes, sorry,
Speaker 1: I already said that one. Peter writes up State of
Speaker 1: Fear is a great book. It exposes the delusions of
Speaker 1: global warming and climate change, absolutely, Peter. It's It's also
Speaker 1: just a really good read. Uh. Crichton was a master
Speaker 1: of his craft, and I think people should go back
Speaker 1: and check out his book. Uh. Matthew writes, Hi, bak
Speaker 1: love the show Shields High. I have a solution for
Speaker 1: by the way, just as an aside, I love when
Speaker 1: people right me they're like, what is this? She's high
Speaker 1: that everyone yells and they're like new people come into
Speaker 1: the Freedom on They're like, what is this? She's I
Speaker 1: what is that? I'm always I send out usually a
Speaker 1: little note to those folks who explain to the origins
Speaker 1: of this, which it's just just takes us back to
Speaker 1: the earliest days, those special Saturday shows when I was
Speaker 1: beginning all this madness. Anyway at Shields High, as you
Speaker 1: all know, Um, Matthew, rights have a solution for the
Speaker 1: social media bias problem. We know government regulations will never work,
Speaker 1: as the right is never as good at that game,
Speaker 1: but we can bring them down on campaign finance. The
Speaker 1: subversive material support Google, Facebook, and Twitter gave Hillary was
Speaker 1: worth millions of dollars. Was any of that direct campaign
Speaker 1: aid reported as in kind donations? Prosecute them to the
Speaker 1: fullest extent of the law. If they want to be
Speaker 1: an arm of the d n C, then fine, but
Speaker 1: they need to report it and limit it to the
Speaker 1: existing amounts per the law. Don't let them get away
Speaker 1: with this double standard anymore. Thanks Matt in Wisconsin. Matt,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that is gonna work legally speaking,
Speaker 1: but I like, I like where your heads at on
Speaker 1: that one. Uh. At least it's fun to try to
Speaker 1: own the lips with the law when you can. I
Speaker 1: don't know enough about campaign law whether that would be
Speaker 1: I think we have to look at the specifics. Are
Speaker 1: they really making a contribution of some kind. There's obviously
Speaker 1: gonna be a free speech challenged to that. I don't know,
Speaker 1: my friend, but you're thinking outside the box and you're
Speaker 1: obviously a smart guy. So thank you for writing that
Speaker 1: in uh, Mimi writes buck, I live in Castro Valley
Speaker 1: and I know Rudy Peters, the politician who was attacked.
Speaker 1: A couple of important things. First, Peters is running against
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell. Eric is a Pelosi protege. He is frequently
Speaker 1: on TV saying mostly stupid liberal talking points. You have
Speaker 1: pointed out that the guy is an idiot. He needs
Speaker 1: to be defeated. The second point is that Rudy is
Speaker 1: a veteran. He is truly conservative, not a rhino, and
Speaker 1: he won in an open primary. It's very unusual for
Speaker 1: Republican to make it to the runoffs. It's usually two
Speaker 1: Democrats to choose from. Finally, he deserves our support. It
Speaker 1: would be great if you could interview him. Thanks for
Speaker 1: your great shows. You're getting so popular. I can't get
Speaker 1: through on the phone anymore, but that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work. Mimi from California. MEMI, I
Speaker 1: know we we uh, we focus so much on the show.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we're not taking as many calls these days, but
Speaker 1: that's why roll calls so important, and so please do
Speaker 1: continue to send me your messages here on Facebook. UM,
Speaker 1: and thank you for that meet me. Always good to
Speaker 1: to hear from you, Dan, right, Buck, I think it
Speaker 1: was Tom Clancy's book Debt of Honor, where the Japanese
Speaker 1: radical crashed into the Capitol during a joint session of Congress.
Speaker 1: Did Crichton write something similar as well? I'm a podcast
Speaker 1: listener at any rate shields high now, Daniel, I just
Speaker 1: corrected myself. I think I just I jumbled it up
Speaker 1: when I was talking about on the radio. Sometimes that's gonna,
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen. Aries Aries always has strong opinions that much.
Speaker 1: I know. Come on, Cabin Boy and Joe Virs the
Speaker 1: Volcano aren't even memorable. And how's that TV series Battlestar
Speaker 1: Galactica working out for you? It's not bad and sometimes good.
Speaker 1: But whoever told you it was the greatest TV show
Speaker 1: of all time needs to watch more TV arias I
Speaker 1: I haven't really gotten into it yet, so I need to.
Speaker 1: I need to check it out. And uh, I will
Speaker 1: take your advice on Cabin Boy and Jovis the Volcano.
Speaker 1: I don't those have never crossed my radar. It's not
Speaker 1: a good thing. Aaron writes, dear Buck, I just started
Speaker 1: watching Jack Ryan. I decided I'm going to imagine this
Speaker 1: as your backstory and that they cast Krasinski to play
Speaker 1: the younger you. His hair doesn't do yours justice, though,
Speaker 1: Shields High. Let me say Aaron that there are some
Speaker 1: interesting There are some interesting parallels between Buck Sexton and
Speaker 1: Jack Ryan in the Amazon Prime series of Jack Ryan
Speaker 1: and his time at the CIA. Bucks Extent and Jack
Speaker 1: Ryan both lived in Georgetown while they were CIA analysts.
Speaker 1: Bucks Excent and Jack Ryan both rode crew in college,
Speaker 1: and Bucks Excent and Jack Ryan both have quite a
Speaker 1: swoop of hair. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of a lot of similarities, um, but
Speaker 1: there's some. There's some, there's some crossover. I like where
Speaker 1: your heads at. That's gonna be get today, folks excited
Speaker 1: to be with you tomorrow. Please tell people about the show.
Speaker 1: Tell them they can listen to the podcast. They don't
Speaker 1: have to be able to listen on radio. They can
Speaker 1: listen to the podcast any time. And we're getting that
Speaker 1: podcast out hours earlier now than we were before. So
Speaker 1: do check it out. iTunes the best place for it.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show on iTunes. See you Tomorrow, Shields High.
Speaker 1: The FBI calls home title theft one of the fastest
Speaker 1: growing crimes. Brace yourselves because having your credit card stolen
Speaker 1: is nothing compared to the hell you're in for once
Speaker 1: an identity thief takes control of your home's title. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know the toughest store online these days, including your
Speaker 1: homes title and domestic and international cyber thieves are hunting
Speaker 1: American homeowners because they've got a lot of equity in
Speaker 1: their homes and they like to borrow your money using that. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's not a hard process. I've seen how home title
Speaker 1: lock walks through. How the bad guys do this. They
Speaker 1: take you off your home's title, replace you with an alias,
Speaker 1: then borrow every penny against your home's equity. This is
Speaker 1: a nightmare. I mean, imagine getting these bills in the
Speaker 1: mail and that's the first time you're gonna even find
Speaker 1: out this has happened. Identity theft programs do not protect
Speaker 1: you for just pennies a day, though, home title lock
Speaker 1: protects my most viable asset, my family's home. Reddister now
Speaker 1: for a free analysis and discover if you're a home's
Speaker 1: title has been compromised. That's a sixty dollar value. Free
Speaker 1: visit Home Title lock dot com. That's home title, lock
Speaker 1: dot com