Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Trump fires back at impeachment,
Speaker 1: a nasty fight over a gender transition case for a
Speaker 1: seven year old plus Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wins reelection,
Speaker 1: and more rich people in China than America that are
Speaker 1: more coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American great, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember, no,
Speaker 1: I think they're lousy politicians, but two things they have.
Speaker 1: They're vicious and they stick together. They don't have Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney in their midst. They don't have people like that.
Speaker 1: They stick together. You never see them break off. He
Speaker 1: knew all about the whistle blow. Why didn't he say
Speaker 1: he's a crooked politician? Very bad for our country. This
Speaker 1: whole thing is very bad for our country. In the
Speaker 1: midst of that, I'm trying to get out of wars.
Speaker 1: We may have to get into wars too, Okay, we
Speaker 1: don't have to get into worse. We're better prepared than
Speaker 1: we've ever been. If a RAMDA something, they'll be hit
Speaker 1: like they've never been hit before. I mean, we have
Speaker 1: things that we're looking at it. But can you imagine
Speaker 1: I have to fight off these low lives at the
Speaker 1: same time I'm negotiating these very important things that should
Speaker 1: have been done during Obama and Bush and even before that.
Speaker 1: All Right, So that's where we are right now. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the buck Sexton the show. President Trump in our
Speaker 1: press conference yesterday, that was classic Trump, pulling no punches,
Speaker 1: holding back at all. It sounded a little bit there
Speaker 1: like he went from talking about Romney being a fifth
Speaker 1: column in the Republican Party essentially to knowing about the
Speaker 1: whistle blower. The whistle blower thing was Adam shift, just
Speaker 1: to be clear. So he's saying on the one side
Speaker 1: of it, that was a little bit unclear from the
Speaker 1: way we set up that intro there. But from the
Speaker 1: one side, you have Romney, who's supposed to be on
Speaker 1: Trump's team to do important things for the Republican Party
Speaker 1: and for the United States. That's what you would expect
Speaker 1: from a Republican senator when you have a Republican president.
Speaker 1: And there's no question that many of the things that
Speaker 1: Trump has done are right in line with traditional GOP platform,
Speaker 1: traditional GOP goals, and yet mit Romney spends most of
Speaker 1: his time, it seems, just taking cheap shots at the
Speaker 1: president talking about the president's character. And what's amazing is,
Speaker 1: does Mitt really think that he's the only one that
Speaker 1: knows that President Trump has personal and character laws. I
Speaker 1: always think there's a degree of not just haughtiness, there's
Speaker 1: an arrogance really to some of the never Trump cabal
Speaker 1: in thinking that we don't recognize that people that support
Speaker 1: the president's agenda are not aware that he has had
Speaker 1: a an imperfect past. And then I don't want to
Speaker 1: cast too many aspersions because I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people have imperfect pasts. I mean, we found out that
Speaker 1: Mit Romney thinks that he should run around on Twitter
Speaker 1: as Pierre de Lecto. Oh and don't worry, we will
Speaker 1: get to monsieur Trudeau winning re election to today or
Speaker 1: last night. We'll get to that what a what a
Speaker 1: slap in the face to sanity that was? That's right
Speaker 1: justin Trudeau part dieu. But Trump is tired of having
Speaker 1: to fight battles of Democrats never do on their own side. Yeah,
Speaker 1: sure there are disputes and there's pushback internally, but Democrats
Speaker 1: always keep they always keep their squabbles in the family
Speaker 1: in House. No prominent Democrat ever went against Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: Certainly no Democrats were trying to destroy the Obama presidency.
Speaker 1: That would have been unthinkable. And Trump has to do that.
Speaker 1: And then he also has to do with shifty shift
Speaker 1: and this whole impeachment farce. You know, there's this new
Speaker 1: CNN poll among Republicans, six percent say they support impeaching
Speaker 1: and removing the Republican president also known as never trumpers.
Speaker 1: So almost you know, let's say ninety four percent give
Speaker 1: or take a couple of points of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is like, this is crazy, but there are still there's
Speaker 1: still that contingent. I can guarantee you that if you
Speaker 1: looked back at the Obama administration, there was never a
Speaker 1: point at which five percent of Democrats wanted to remove
Speaker 1: from office. Now, I know the Democrats say, oh, because
Speaker 1: Obama never done anything bad, Really, you need to go
Speaker 1: over all of that. Now, I would say that President
Speaker 1: Obama really did exceed his authority and broke dow Down.
Speaker 1: Separation of power is laid out by the Constitution, but
Speaker 1: that those are political questions my opposition, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: for those of you watching or listening. Your political opposition
Speaker 1: to Obamba was rooted in policy. It was not an
Speaker 1: effort to take this system and contort it and weaponize
Speaker 1: it to get something political that I could not get
Speaker 1: through the electoral process, which is all the Democrats are
Speaker 1: doing here. This is the kitchen sink approach. Let's impeach
Speaker 1: him after the special counsel. The special counsel wasn't enough
Speaker 1: in terms of its findings to impeach him, and now
Speaker 1: we have to deal with this. So I understand the
Speaker 1: president's frustration. I understand why he's looking around saying, you
Speaker 1: have more people in the country right now who are
Speaker 1: employed than at any time I believe in the history
Speaker 1: of this country. Now, Oh yeah, here we go. Can
Speaker 1: we play please clip twenty four. Here's the President saying
Speaker 1: it after American, Hispanic, Asian, American have all set records
Speaker 1: the lowest unemployment in the history of our country, not
Speaker 1: just like for fifty years. We have fifty one years
Speaker 1: for the country, and we're going to end up topping
Speaker 1: that number pretty soon. That'll be historic too, very soon
Speaker 1: if we keep going the way we're doing, I think
Speaker 1: we will because the household income is so incredible. The
Speaker 1: median household income. But if you look African American, Asian American,
Speaker 1: Hispanic American, in the history of our country, they have
Speaker 1: the best unemployment numbers, and they have the best employment numbers.
Speaker 1: Today it was announced that we have the most people
Speaker 1: working in the history of our country, almost one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty million. Bab. How do you beat me in
Speaker 1: a debate on those numbers. The answer is this whole
Speaker 1: impeachment circus. The answer is create a perception among the
Speaker 1: electorate that what's really happening in the country, what the
Speaker 1: government is doing, and just as importantly, in fact, in
Speaker 1: many ways more import what the government is not doing.
Speaker 1: Should not be the discose, should not be the deciding
Speaker 1: factors in voting decisions. It's what the media, the establishment,
Speaker 1: the left wing Democrat progressive apparatus, tells you about this president.
Speaker 1: And no level of exaggeration is too much, No hysterical
Speaker 1: shrieks from Congress, all the way across the newsrooms of
Speaker 1: the major outlets across the country and different cable channels
Speaker 1: in Hollywood, that they can say the craziest stuff imaginable.
Speaker 1: The President's a trader of the presidents and Nazie. The
Speaker 1: president's a white nationalist, all of these things without evidence,
Speaker 1: as I'll like to borrow their phrase, without evidence, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to think that they have better judgment and
Speaker 1: would do a better job running the country. Well, there's
Speaker 1: even some concern among Democrats that's emerging right now that
Speaker 1: they don't have a front runner worthy of the name.
Speaker 1: Who's been saying that all along. Yeah, Joe Biden's not
Speaker 1: inspiring the masses. What a shock. But we'll get into
Speaker 1: the possibility of new entrants, including of course, how wow,
Speaker 1: she's never going away. I keep telling you she's never
Speaker 1: ever going away. She will haunt your dreams, America. She's
Speaker 1: never leaving. But Trump, also, in his fighting back no
Speaker 1: surprise here, has given the Democrats something else to work with.
Speaker 1: So he tweeted today and this has caused a firestorm
Speaker 1: this morning. I mean, Trump tweets can direct an entire
Speaker 1: news cycle. It's pretty astonishing. This is what he wrote.
Speaker 1: So someday, if a Democrat becomes president and the Republicans
Speaker 1: win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can
Speaker 1: impeach the president without due process or fairness or any
Speaker 1: legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing
Speaker 1: here a lynching, but we will win. That was what
Speaker 1: the president tweeted. And of course this is being used
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to say the president is out of touch,
Speaker 1: is a race is terrible because he used the term lynching. Now,
Speaker 1: this is where I say, I know I know enough
Speaker 1: about how this president operates that he's not looking to
Speaker 1: obey the dictates of the left on language. We all
Speaker 1: know that. But I also feel like his point here
Speaker 1: is getting now all chewed up and lost because of
Speaker 1: the choice of this one of this one word, which
Speaker 1: I think he had to know would set people off.
Speaker 1: I also think, however, at least it's it's clear to
Speaker 1: me that the President of the United States uses certain
Speaker 1: words sometimes because he is told not to that he
Speaker 1: enjoys being told sorry, you know you can't do that,
Speaker 1: and then saying, you know what, I'm going to do
Speaker 1: it anyway. I think there's a defiance in him, which
Speaker 1: often is a useful thing for this president because he
Speaker 1: won't obey the conventional wisdom. But sometimes you a situation
Speaker 1: like today where now we're going to have an all
Speaker 1: day long discourse on whether or not the president or
Speaker 1: anyone should be able to use the term lynching and
Speaker 1: in this manner, and now some of you are saying, Buck,
Speaker 1: what about justice? Clarence Thomas referring to a high tech
Speaker 1: lynching during his confirmation battle, another vicious Democrat attempt to
Speaker 1: undermine and eminently decent and qualified human being for the
Speaker 1: post that he had and the responses you know is
Speaker 1: going to be well, Clarence Thomas is black. There are
Speaker 1: many on the left who claimed that Clarence Thomas has
Speaker 1: turned his back on the black community just because he
Speaker 1: is a conservative. That's also part of democrat the democrat
Speaker 1: talking points. But now everyone's going to focus in on
Speaker 1: Trump and the impeachment situation and specifically the usage of
Speaker 1: this word. Lindsay Graham, however, agrees with Trump calling the
Speaker 1: impeachment process of engine. He says, quote, this is a
Speaker 1: lynching in every sense. This is un American. So Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham is backing him up of this. You know, you
Speaker 1: never know what you're gonna get with Lindsay Graham. Sometimes
Speaker 1: he decides to man the bulwork alongside Trump. Sometimes he
Speaker 1: just wants to invade another country. You don't really know
Speaker 1: which Lindsay Graham is going to show up on any
Speaker 1: given day. You know, now, we could have this discussion
Speaker 1: over the fact that lynching, which is primarily affected and
Speaker 1: it was a horrible part of American history, primarily affected
Speaker 1: African Americans in the South. But lynching actually was not
Speaker 1: was not exclusively used as an extra judicial murder tool
Speaker 1: against African Americans in the South. That was also used
Speaker 1: in other cases and other places. But once again, the
Speaker 1: media finds an opportunity to distract or to push the
Speaker 1: conversation away from the core point here, which is that
Speaker 1: the country, by the numbers, is doing incredibly well the
Speaker 1: things that are supposed to matter of the economy. Trump
Speaker 1: has even managed to calm things down at the southern border.
Speaker 1: Despite all of the objections and all the different stuff
Speaker 1: that Democrats have done on the hashtag resistance judiciary, he
Speaker 1: is doing a lot that is of benefit to the
Speaker 1: American people. Household income now adjusted for inflation, I think
Speaker 1: I saw today it's it's fifty seven thousand is now
Speaker 1: what it isn't just for inflation, compared to what it
Speaker 1: was into the Clinton administration when it was in the forties.
Speaker 1: So household income is way up. I mean, there's so
Speaker 1: much to actually celebrate in the Trump presidency. Instead, what
Speaker 1: do we have impeach him, imprison him, investigate him, investigate
Speaker 1: his family members. This is toxic to politics. This is
Speaker 1: toxic to our ability to have discussions as adults across
Speaker 1: the country. And one of the most galling aspects of
Speaker 1: it all is that the very people that are pushing
Speaker 1: this toxicity, the left wing Democrats, claim to be the
Speaker 1: ones defending our sacred institutions. They claim to be the
Speaker 1: ones that care about fairness and decency in political debates.
Speaker 1: They are delusional, my friend. But that is what Trump's
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome does. It would have been great, but the
Speaker 1: Democrats went crazy, even though I would have done it free,
Speaker 1: save the country a lot of money. Then they say, oh,
Speaker 1: but you'll get promotion. Kids. You don't think I get
Speaker 1: enough promotion. I get more promotion than any human being
Speaker 1: that's ever lived. I think I get I think I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have that. I think I can say that fairly safe.
Speaker 1: It's another part of this that you don't hear much about.
Speaker 1: We're always being told that the president is trying to
Speaker 1: enhance his brand and enrich himself. And the president is
Speaker 1: already a billionaire, and the president is already At this point,
Speaker 1: I think you could argue the most famous person on Earth.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe there's some study that shows that it's
Speaker 1: I don't know it's maybe it's Barack Obama. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: Michael Jordan or Lebron James, or some sports superstar I
Speaker 1: don't know, Christiano Ronaldo. For those of you that watch soccer,
Speaker 1: which is probably very few of you, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: there's someone is more recognizable. But I don't think at
Speaker 1: this stage of the game President Trump, what is He's
Speaker 1: seventy two years old, he really is that concerned with
Speaker 1: burnishing the brand even more than he already has. But
Speaker 1: you can't make that argument because I'll just say Trump
Speaker 1: is greedy and he's not as rich as he says
Speaker 1: he is. And to this, I just point out they've
Speaker 1: always been unwilling to look at anything Trump does the
Speaker 1: way a normal person would look at it. This is
Speaker 1: what the emoluments clause argument, which they're bringing up once
Speaker 1: again in the G seven deal. Do we call it deralgate?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's nearly important enough for that. But
Speaker 1: the G seven being hosted next year at Durral everyone's saying, well,
Speaker 1: this is another emoluments clause. This is just shows you
Speaker 1: they go and they go digging in the law books
Speaker 1: for something, or they go digging in the Constitution, whatever
Speaker 1: wherever it is. They go digging into statutes to try
Speaker 1: to find something that they can claim the president is
Speaker 1: doing that is a violation of them. I mean, they'll
Speaker 1: they'll stretch them desperately. Perfect example, this was the Logan
Speaker 1: Act violation that was used at the pretext to throw
Speaker 1: General Flynn in prisident to ruin his career and almost,
Speaker 1: if not successfully or entirely bankrupt him. But you know,
Speaker 1: President Trump doesn't get credit for a lot of the
Speaker 1: things that he does do for a guy who's so
Speaker 1: so concerned with money. For example, I mean, he he
Speaker 1: pointed out and look, I'm not saying this is a
Speaker 1: big thing, it's a game changer. But he does give
Speaker 1: away his entire salary producer Mark, can you just let
Speaker 1: the president have his say on this one? Six? But
Speaker 1: I give away my presidential salary. They say that no
Speaker 1: other president has done it. I'm surprised, to be honest
Speaker 1: with you. They actually say that George Washington may have
Speaker 1: been the only other president into But see whether or
Speaker 1: not Obama gave up his salary. See whether or not
Speaker 1: all of the other of your favorites give up this salary.
Speaker 1: The enters, no, they say it's the only one. They
Speaker 1: think George Washington did, But they say no, So I
Speaker 1: give up a lot of money, four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So for a guy that they say can
Speaker 1: be bought for the price of a diplomat buying a
Speaker 1: cheeseburger a Trump hotel, isn't it Isn't it worth noting?
Speaker 1: Isn't it worth just taking a moment to say that
Speaker 1: he doesn't give away a salary. And he also claimed
Speaker 1: he's going to do the G seven A Darrell And
Speaker 1: there's a part of me that feels like we shouldn't
Speaker 1: even have to talk about this Jarrell nonsense. But it
Speaker 1: just goes to show you that everything that Trump does
Speaker 1: is a problem for these people. And then they blame
Speaker 1: us for not thinking that that must be the case.
Speaker 1: They blame us, and the left will say you must
Speaker 1: be a trump bot, you must be someone who has
Speaker 1: become deluded by your worship of this Trump figure. And
Speaker 1: I sit around just saying no, I'm sorry. I can't
Speaker 1: reach the degree of hysteria. I can't get as upset
Speaker 1: about everything as liberals get about everything that President Trump does,
Speaker 1: every decision he makes, every tweet, they find a way
Speaker 1: anything of any consequence they find a way to make
Speaker 1: into the worst thing ever. Oh and even Trump speaking
Speaker 1: up for Tulse Gabbert was injuring play thirteen other trade
Speaker 1: deals that we've done. We've done South Korea, which is
Speaker 1: a fantastic deal for US, turned out even better than
Speaker 1: we thought. South Korea was a terrible deal. The person
Speaker 1: in charge of that particular deal, Hillary Clinton, if you've
Speaker 1: heard of her, she's the one that's accusing everybody of
Speaker 1: being a Russian agent, anybody that as opposed to her
Speaker 1: as a Russian agent. So that's a scam that was
Speaker 1: pretty much put down. Telsey. I don't know telse, but
Speaker 1: she started a Russian agent. I don't know Jill Stein.
Speaker 1: I know she likes environment. I don't think she likes Russians.
Speaker 1: If she does like him, I know she's not an asset.
Speaker 1: She called her an asset of Russian These people are
Speaker 1: sick because something wrong with that. But I think that
Speaker 1: Tulsea Gabbert probably got helped quite a bit by Asta.
Speaker 1: I think we would help because it shows for two
Speaker 1: and a half years we end up winning. I had
Speaker 1: to go through two and a half years. She would
Speaker 1: have done this earlier, people would have realized what a
Speaker 1: scam it is. Everybody's a Russian or a Russian agent
Speaker 1: or a Russian asset. I see, they've still found ways
Speaker 1: to make use of some of the never trumpers that
Speaker 1: are out there. The Democrats are going to do everything
Speaker 1: they can to create the kind of internal feuding and
Speaker 1: political warfare that we've seen on display with Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and Tulsea Gabbert and some others. You still have these
Speaker 1: never I you know, should we give them any attention
Speaker 1: or not? That's always the question. Is it worth refuting
Speaker 1: their nonsense or is it better if we just accept
Speaker 1: that they are irrelevant, that no one cares, and that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't have to deal with them in any capacity.
Speaker 1: I remember, I remember when Joe Walsh was a guy.
Speaker 1: First of all, he's a radio host, and I remember
Speaker 1: when he was really too right wing for CNN, which
Speaker 1: doesn't say all that much, but also too inflammatory for
Speaker 1: television sometimes in what he would say about Obama. And
Speaker 1: now he is mister ethics and mister Trump is a
Speaker 1: bad guy. Listen to me about it. Here's alleged Republican
Speaker 1: primary opponent for Trump, Joe Wallace, talking about how it's
Speaker 1: not just him. A lot of Republicans hate Trump late
Speaker 1: twenty two. It's really important to note, though, I need
Speaker 1: to say this, Republicans don't like him. Republicans in Congress,
Speaker 1: they don't like him. They don't fear him, they don't
Speaker 1: respect him. They do believe he's incompetent. They do believe
Speaker 1: he's a moron. Everything I say about Trump publicly, the
Speaker 1: vast majority of my colleagues up on Capitol Hill they
Speaker 1: feel the same way about him. Privately. They don't fear Trump,
Speaker 1: but they fear Trump's voters. I was campaigning in Iowa
Speaker 1: all weekend, and even just talking to Republican voters on
Speaker 1: the ground in Iowa, they were even bothered by this
Speaker 1: Drell thing, the g seventh thing. The best that they
Speaker 1: could say was it doesn't look good. So Republicans in
Speaker 1: Congress stay fear Trump's voters, and Trump's voters were bothered
Speaker 1: by what Trump did that will move them. This is
Speaker 1: analysis that no one needs to hear, really, or perhaps
Speaker 1: it's analysis that's so obvious, why is this guy on
Speaker 1: TV or wherever he is saying it? But there are
Speaker 1: some aspects of it that I think are worthy of
Speaker 1: our attention for a moment. For example, Republicans hate Trump,
Speaker 1: he says, well, he means Republican elected officials and Republican
Speaker 1: elected officials, members of Congress and the GOP are afraid
Speaker 1: of Trump's voters. Good they should be responsive to what
Speaker 1: Republican voters want. This should not be about a club
Speaker 1: of guys up on Capitol Hill who get to lord
Speaker 1: over the rest of us, determine what is best for
Speaker 1: the what the real party message should be, what the
Speaker 1: real gaims of the party should be. They're supposed to
Speaker 1: serve the American people who voted for them. We don't
Speaker 1: put them there to be our overlords. We don't put
Speaker 1: them there to give us dictation from up on the mountaintop.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to be watching them enact policy. They are.
Speaker 1: They're the vessels of the aspirations of conservatism and the right.
Speaker 1: They are not the wise elder statesman that we should
Speaker 1: all just sit around and be lectured by all the time. Look,
Speaker 1: a lot of members of Congress are just not very
Speaker 1: smart and not very impressive. That's shore on both sides
Speaker 1: of Republicans and Democrats. The best thing they can do
Speaker 1: is keep their promises to voters, the voters that put
Speaker 1: them there, stay as honest as they can to the
Speaker 1: platforms that got them elected. And as we know, a
Speaker 1: lot of people go to DC and they become swamp creatures.
Speaker 1: I just left DC. I'm still washing some of the
Speaker 1: swamp off me. I was never a lobbyist or anything,
Speaker 1: but you know what I'm saying, It's very easy to
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the power set there.
Speaker 1: It's very easy to want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the club that gets to make decisions and determinations about
Speaker 1: what the future of the country is like and feel
Speaker 1: as though you are separated from a majority, or perhaps
Speaker 1: the entirety, of the voters who gave you that power
Speaker 1: in the first place. So that Republican members of Congress
Speaker 1: don't like Trump is relevant in terms of I don't
Speaker 1: care that they don't like him, but it is relevant
Speaker 1: in so far as it lets us know that they
Speaker 1: care more, many of them, about their feelings about this
Speaker 1: man than what he is doing for the Republican Party
Speaker 1: and therefore for the American people, which brings you back
Speaker 1: to my discussion yesterday. And Trump is clearly aware of this,
Speaker 1: that there are elements within the Republican system, right within
Speaker 1: the Republican machinery, that aren't only up that it's not
Speaker 1: They're allowed to not like anyone's allowed to hold opinion
Speaker 1: they want about anybody. You're allowed to not like Trump.
Speaker 1: That's fine, But if you're going to be a part
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party, you should not be working actively
Speaker 1: behind the scenes to undermine the leader of that party.
Speaker 1: And I do believe there are many Republicans who are
Speaker 1: doing that. I don't know how many, and I don't
Speaker 1: know to what extent, but we're just aware of what
Speaker 1: we say. I mean. Obviously, Mitt Romney is quite open
Speaker 1: about it. There are others too, who have decided that
Speaker 1: they cannot be members of the GOP and good Standing anymore.
Speaker 1: They will not work to assist this president in these
Speaker 1: key endeavors. Right. They'd rather talk about how the president
Speaker 1: tweets mean things and says mean things and isn't nice enough.
Speaker 1: And it's not just the people like Joe Walsh who
Speaker 1: want to discuss that, because really what they're hoping is
Speaker 1: is to create the perception among Republican lawmakers that there's
Speaker 1: enough leeway within the party faith full for some of
Speaker 1: them to maybe go along with impeachment. I don't think
Speaker 1: it'll be successful, but I do believe that is what
Speaker 1: Democrats and their media allies, or is it the media
Speaker 1: and their Democrat allies, whichever way you decide, I do
Speaker 1: think that is what's going on here. Senator Michael Bennett,
Speaker 1: for example, Okay, Michael Bennett, play a clip fifteen. If
Speaker 1: you would, you have a lot of private conversations with
Speaker 1: your Republican colleagues. I know because you work across the
Speaker 1: island the Senate. I'm not going to ask you to
Speaker 1: break any confidence you would have with them, But but
Speaker 1: I'm curious, are you hearing more private expressions of support
Speaker 1: for removing this president then we hear publicly from the
Speaker 1: Republican side. I would not say privately that I'm yet
Speaker 1: hearing private expressions of support, but I am hearing private
Speaker 1: expressions of people saying they're horrified by the president's behavior,
Speaker 1: and they're horrified that he invited Ukraine to interfere in
Speaker 1: our elections. They're horrified that the White House Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff admitted that it was a quid pro quo. You're
Speaker 1: Horror Friday, You're Horror Fridays, this the other guide, this
Speaker 1: the other thing. And Ukraine, I mean, you just said
Speaker 1: you mightn't get the information and the guy who voted
Speaker 1: for this guy. That's a question that I would like answered.
Speaker 1: And noticed the sleight of hand there. He didn't say
Speaker 1: what was said on the phone call, which is the
Speaker 1: President asked Ukraine to be helpful in an ongoing open
Speaker 1: DJ investigation of the twenty sixteen election interference, and also
Speaker 1: to get answers as to whether there's anything relating to
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden and Joe Biden insofar as that investigation is
Speaker 1: duly constituted an ongoing Instead, he says, oh, that they
Speaker 1: invited election interference. You see what you'll eventually hear and
Speaker 1: whatever the Inspector General report, it's really actually the Durham
Speaker 1: report out of Connecticut about the origins of the Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion conspiracy, which is what it was. It
Speaker 1: was a true against the president. When you hear that,
Speaker 1: you'll be told I can almost guarantee you that it
Speaker 1: was entirely That whole investigation is illegitimate and they've already
Speaker 1: laid the groundwork for that now by saying that any
Speaker 1: discussion in the open by the President or others about
Speaker 1: that investigation is election interference. Meanwhile, having a foreigner Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: collect foreign subsources all over the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and run that to our own press and through our
Speaker 1: own intelligence community to Obama administration appointees who use faiza
Speaker 1: warrants against Trump campaign, against a Trump campaign official, that's
Speaker 1: all fine. You're supposed to think that that's not a
Speaker 1: problem at all. These people are are laughable in their
Speaker 1: lack of consistency, but we have to take them very
Speaker 1: seriously in their efforts to destroy and undermine this presidency
Speaker 1: that much they have set their minds to, and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I think they'll be far too They are far too
Speaker 1: dedicated in this process to ever recognize the damage that
Speaker 1: they are doing to the country. Along the way here
Speaker 1: we have Oh I did want to get to this
Speaker 1: as well. You had Beto O'Rourke who did get a
Speaker 1: little bit. There is such a thing as too crazy,
Speaker 1: even for Democrats these days. It's rare, it doesn't happen
Speaker 1: all that often, but it does happen. It's pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: Beto O'Rourke, who has been comparing Trump to Nazi Germany
Speaker 1: and to Gerbel's was asked about this, and here's how
Speaker 1: Boto responded, Play sixteen. Please, is that not going too
Speaker 1: far to make a comparison between the president of the
Speaker 1: United States and the Nazis. Find me a better analogy
Speaker 1: of another leader of a Western democracy describing all people
Speaker 1: of one religion as inherently defective or disqualified or dangerous.
Speaker 1: And that's what the President has done. But you understand
Speaker 1: the criticism when you make any compared to the Holocaust
Speaker 1: and the Nazis, that you know that that is simply
Speaker 1: at least most people say that is unacceptable. It's the
Speaker 1: comparison of last resort. And that's where we are. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean the last resort politically or the last
Speaker 1: resort in terms of defeating the president in November, but
Speaker 1: the last resort for this country that is descending into
Speaker 1: an open racism and intolerance and violence led by the president. Now,
Speaker 1: whether he said, whether it's what he said about Muslims
Speaker 1: or immigrants, or the way he treats women of color
Speaker 1: in this country, or the fact that he described klansmen
Speaker 1: and Neo Nazis as very fine people. He's just a liar,
Speaker 1: he's just making he's just living in some alternate reality.
Speaker 1: The President did not describe the people at the at
Speaker 1: the Neo Nazis and Charleispell was very fine people. I've
Speaker 1: read the transcript dozens of times. He did not do it.
Speaker 1: The immedia keeps saying it because they want to talk
Speaker 1: about a big lie and a repetition of a big lie.
Speaker 1: That is a big lie. The immedia keeps saying something
Speaker 1: that is demonstrably false and untrue, and they know it's untrue,
Speaker 1: but they're so desperate to make this president beyond the
Speaker 1: pale you cannot support him without being a bad person,
Speaker 1: that they'll just lie about stuff. They will just lie.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. What better or work just says
Speaker 1: a lot. I think he knows that, but he doesn't care.
Speaker 1: Also what he says describing people of one religion as
Speaker 1: dangerous or defective? When did the president do that? When
Speaker 1: did you describe people of one religion as dangerous or defective?
Speaker 1: He's never done that. This is always Democrats complain about
Speaker 1: what Trump says, and then they always offer us up
Speaker 1: an interpretation of what Trump says instead of the actual words.
Speaker 1: If what the President says is so bad, why don't
Speaker 1: we just hear about what the president said? Why is
Speaker 1: it always the Democrat? So in other words, remember that
Speaker 1: BBC lady with Jordan Peterson. What chord are they saying?
Speaker 1: In other words, no, how about just what President Trump says.
Speaker 1: There's a desperation growing, a desperation among the Democrats because
Speaker 1: they've got to know that these candidates they have, Oh
Speaker 1: Warren is there? Is there Technocrat. Warren's the one who's
Speaker 1: supposed to lead them to the promised land of a
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election victory over Donald Trump. They won't, they
Speaker 1: won't pull the rug out from more Joe Biden just yet,
Speaker 1: but they're starting to get a little a little nervous
Speaker 1: about it. The more we look into Elizabeth Warren, the
Speaker 1: more clear it is that she is quite radical. She's
Speaker 1: not a centrist Democrat. She's a radical left left of
Speaker 1: Obama even Democrat. That's the that's going to be the
Speaker 1: unifying independent winning Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania winning candidate for
Speaker 1: the Democrats, Elizabeth Warren. The more we find out about
Speaker 1: what she really thinks and believes. Well, a few things
Speaker 1: become clear. One is that she hasn't really even thought
Speaker 1: through the implications of some of the things she said
Speaker 1: she wants to do to transform the country. And people
Speaker 1: also now realize Bernie Sanders just had a heart attack.
Speaker 1: The guys, he's too old for this, his health is
Speaker 1: not in good enough shape for this. So there's a
Speaker 1: quiet transfer I think of aspirations on the left Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren that has been ongoing, and the media has been
Speaker 1: warming up to her a little bit, and we're going
Speaker 1: to forget about the whole on one one twenty fourth Cherokee,
Speaker 1: So that means I'm a Native American. That was a
Speaker 1: thing that she did that no one made her do.
Speaker 1: We're gonna forget about that whole thing. But we can't
Speaker 1: forget about some of the other policies and ideas that
Speaker 1: she puts out there. And I think that that's also
Speaker 1: why you have this panic among Democrats, Well, what if
Speaker 1: none of the twenty candidates we started out with can
Speaker 1: get it done against Trump. I think there are a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats who do not think that they can
Speaker 1: psychologically handle and I don't mean a lot, like just
Speaker 1: a few prominent Democrat politicians, I mean millions of Democrats
Speaker 1: across the country would have some kind of a nerve
Speaker 1: breakdown of Trump won former years in office. I think
Speaker 1: that's the level of hysteria. And it's even someone like
Speaker 1: Beto Rourke talking about the this is the analogy of
Speaker 1: last resort, comparing Trump to a regime that killed millions
Speaker 1: and millions of people, men, women and children, put them
Speaker 1: in gas chambers, executed them. I mean, just the worst things,
Speaker 1: the worst crimes against humanity and history. He's comparing that
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump. He's either a more hon or a psycho.
Speaker 1: I mean, betto Oh my gosh, why do you say
Speaker 1: such mean things? Well, because it's true. It's a bizarre
Speaker 1: thing for someone to say, and someone to then double
Speaker 1: down on afterwards. But that's where Beto is. This is
Speaker 1: still violent portal just last year, no other country. In
Speaker 1: the forty thousand gun debts, he says a very large
Speaker 1: number of those are actually First of all, it's not
Speaker 1: forty thousand. I don't know why he keeps saying a
Speaker 1: number that's not correct. A very large number of those
Speaker 1: are suicides. By the way, this country is still racist
Speaker 1: at its core, Becheo Roark says, and this is a
Speaker 1: guy who was entirely a construct of the media. He
Speaker 1: was supposed to be able to beat Ted Cruz in Texas.
Speaker 1: Remember that more money poured into that guy, Beto O'Rourke's
Speaker 1: effort to unseat Ted Cruise in Texas than any other
Speaker 1: senate race in history. They're just funneling money. This guy,
Speaker 1: he's entirely a construct of the elite echelon of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, and he just says crazy stuff. He just
Speaker 1: says things that are unfair, that are unethical, that aren't
Speaker 1: based in any objective reality. But it's also a really
Speaker 1: it's also really sad. It's sad that there are so
Speaker 1: many people on the left who would rather believe, they
Speaker 1: would rather believe that this country is an example of
Speaker 1: evil racism on the world stage, instead of a country
Speaker 1: where you have tremendous diversity of religion, ethnicity, diversity of
Speaker 1: every kind, and by and large we actually get along
Speaker 1: very well. You start to compare us to other what's
Speaker 1: a country similar to America and its makeup that gets
Speaker 1: along so much better than we do and where there's
Speaker 1: so much less racism. I think that Democrats always take
Speaker 1: a little too much pride in talking down to their
Speaker 1: country and downgrading their country and the way they speak
Speaker 1: about it, instead of understanding that they are so lucky
Speaker 1: to be here. We are all so lucky, we who
Speaker 1: are Americans, to be in this country at this time
Speaker 1: of relative peace and booming prosperity. And Democrats, in their
Speaker 1: just lust for power, will lie about the United States
Speaker 1: of America and come up with some way to make
Speaker 1: it sound like this country is in a state of
Speaker 1: dysfunction and despair. That is just not true, But Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to try to convince everybody that it is
Speaker 1: true for the next twelve months. Why is the left
Speaker 1: trying so hard to eradicate gender? Why is this campaign
Speaker 1: now gaining so much momentum, so much attention, a lot
Speaker 1: of force behind it. Every time now you look at
Speaker 1: a major news website, you open a newspaper, if you
Speaker 1: still read things old school like that, you see more
Speaker 1: and more stories that are advancing this agenda. For example, Always,
Speaker 1: a company that makes female sanitary products, has decided that
Speaker 1: they're going to remove Venus. The symbol for women are
Speaker 1: taken from the god Venus aphrodite. In Greek, Venus in
Speaker 1: ancient Rome. They're going to remove that because they don't
Speaker 1: want it to be feel exclusive or exclusionary of trans individuals.
Speaker 1: So now a company that makes a product explicitly to
Speaker 1: deal with the female reproductive system wants to remove the
Speaker 1: symbol of femaleness from it because of the desire for inclusiveness.
Speaker 1: The NPR of the Weekend shared this, On average, people
Speaker 1: who menstruate spend an estimated one hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars a year just on the sales tax for tampons
Speaker 1: and pads. To this, I responded on Twitter, is the
Speaker 1: word women being canceled because there's a word for people
Speaker 1: who menstruate. It's a very handy, very useful word we've
Speaker 1: used for a long time, and it's quite descriptive, called women.
Speaker 1: But now you will see, and I'm not making this up,
Speaker 1: you will see propaganda online from particularly the left wing
Speaker 1: journo class, where they will be shouting down people saying
Speaker 1: things like men have periods. Two. This has become an
Speaker 1: article of faith on the left. This has become something
Speaker 1: that we will hear about men have periods too. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that is scientifically false, that is inaccurate. Men do not
Speaker 1: get periods, women get periods. In fact, this is one
Speaker 1: of the very basic biological distinctions that exists that separate
Speaker 1: men from women. You've also had this week a transgender
Speaker 1: cyclist named Rachel McKinnon, who is dominating female sprints cycling,
Speaker 1: set a world record thirty seven years old, same age
Speaker 1: as me, set a world record for the thirty five
Speaker 1: thirty nine age category in the two hundred meters sprint
Speaker 1: on a cycling bike. So this is just some This
Speaker 1: is somebody who is biologically male, who is beating. And
Speaker 1: I mean if you look at look at this individual
Speaker 1: is built. Yes, has has died? Oh? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Do I have to Am I going to run a
Speaker 1: foul of the PC police? So I have to say her?
Speaker 1: We have to let people pick their pronouns, now right,
Speaker 1: That's what we're always told. Am I going to get
Speaker 1: in trouble for this? It's a it's a hymn, it's
Speaker 1: a man physically can change the name. Rachel is this
Speaker 1: person's name, no question, You can change your name. Do
Speaker 1: you get to change your pronouns? Though? Because you say so?
Speaker 1: At some point we might be forced to bend the
Speaker 1: knee at some point the corporate world may say, sorry,
Speaker 1: you have to do what is new in the English
Speaker 1: language for the millennia or for the centuries. I should
Speaker 1: say that it has been around in its current form.
Speaker 1: Is it is new to do this, but you better
Speaker 1: do it or else you better comply, or else there
Speaker 1: will be consequences. I don't I don't plan on running
Speaker 1: up the side of the hill and getting you know,
Speaker 1: getting struck down on this one. Someone has to let
Speaker 1: me know what the real what the real rules are.
Speaker 1: But this transgender individual is defeating everybody. And it's no
Speaker 1: surprise because male biology is different than female biology. And
Speaker 1: we can sit around and people can say that's mean,
Speaker 1: or that's insensitive, it's unfeeling. How could you? How could
Speaker 1: you say these things? It's just the truth. But increasingly
Speaker 1: you find that a lot of people do not want
Speaker 1: the truth. A lot of people on the left reject
Speaker 1: the truth. They think the truth is mean, and if
Speaker 1: it's mean, or if it doesn't make them feel good,
Speaker 1: then it should be subverted, it should be contradicted, it
Speaker 1: should be banned, it should be outlawed. Transgender cyclist Rachel
Speaker 1: McKinnon is dominating female sports because transgender individuals, if the
Speaker 1: left gets its way, means the end of mail sports.
Speaker 1: That's quite a plan for female empowerment, isn't it. Women
Speaker 1: can no longer compete just against other women. They will
Speaker 1: have to compete against biological males. Ten years ago, when
Speaker 1: this was raised during the earlier days of the transgender
Speaker 1: activist movement, we would be told that this was fearmongering
Speaker 1: to say this. I remember because I was a part
Speaker 1: of those conversations. I remember debating this issue. Discussing this issue,
Speaker 1: we would say, Oh, but you're going to have ten
Speaker 1: year olds who think that their female start to use
Speaker 1: the women's women's locker room and restrooms at a school.
Speaker 1: Oh no, that won't happen. Oh actually, the Obama administration
Speaker 1: mandated that it would happen in public schools or else
Speaker 1: you would lose federal funding. So that's how quickly that
Speaker 1: turned around. Oh but you would never have someone who's
Speaker 1: a biological male competing and say a contact and really
Speaker 1: dangerous combat sport like mixed martial arts. Oh no, that
Speaker 1: happened too, What a surprise. The logical male who competes
Speaker 1: against women in MMA is not only able to beat them,
Speaker 1: but it's dangerous to those women, It is truly dangerous
Speaker 1: to them to step into the ring with that individual.
Speaker 1: So you have to wonder, well, what's left here? Oh,
Speaker 1: we have reached. We have reached now the latter stage
Speaker 1: of the transgender movements extremism. And we see this playing
Speaker 1: out in the case of a seven year old boy
Speaker 1: in Texas, not in California, not in Massachusetts or New
Speaker 1: York or I'm doing this show right now in Texas,
Speaker 1: in Dallas, no less. Jeffrey Younger is a father in
Speaker 1: Dallas who is trying to stop his former partner, his
Speaker 1: former I believe former wife, although I'm not even sure
Speaker 1: if they were officially married, but to stop his former partner,
Speaker 1: doctor Anne George Alis, from transitioning their seven year old boy, James,
Speaker 1: into a female, and doing so involving chemical castration and
Speaker 1: hormone replacement therapy. This is child abuse. This is wrong.
Speaker 1: It's medically wrong, it's scientifically wrong, it is ethically wrong.
Speaker 1: And yet a jury has decided that doctor George Julius,
Speaker 1: who does any want to guess if she's a far left,
Speaker 1: you know, pro transactivist individual. I think we all know
Speaker 1: the answer to that. Doctor George Alis should be able
Speaker 1: to continue on with this quest to transition a seven
Speaker 1: year old boy. And I'm not just saying transition, as
Speaker 1: in speak to this boy with female pronouns and make
Speaker 1: him wear dresses. And now they want a seven year
Speaker 1: old boy to take hormone replacement therapy, to take puberty blockers, which,
Speaker 1: as I've said to you before, nobody really knows the
Speaker 1: long term effect of this, because there haven't been any
Speaker 1: studies of this, because nobody would have thought twenty years
Speaker 1: ago or ten years ago that the medical world would
Speaker 1: be so radicalized that anyone would even think about doing this.
Speaker 1: But here we are. I want to tell you the
Speaker 1: story of Jeffrey Younger and his battle to save his
Speaker 1: son James from transgender transgender activism at seven years old.
Speaker 1: So here's what we know of this case of Jeffrey Younger,
Speaker 1: the father who is desperately trying through the courts to
Speaker 1: stop the mother of James, the young boy who they
Speaker 1: have joint custody of, to stop doctor Anne Georgilus from
Speaker 1: transitioning him, transitioning young James into Luna. My understanding of
Speaker 1: this case, and I listened to a lengthy interview that
Speaker 1: that was done here of Jeffrey younger, where he explained
Speaker 1: what had happened. Essentially, James the seven year old liked
Speaker 1: the movie Frozen, and doctor George Julius thought that it
Speaker 1: would be a good thing to start affirming James as
Speaker 1: a female. Now there is a very clear, a very
Speaker 1: clear repetition here, a very clear tendency where the only
Speaker 1: people who have kids who are transitioning to female or
Speaker 1: they believe are trans Remember seven years old, I wanted
Speaker 1: to be at Tri Sarah Tops when I was seven.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of things you think when you're
Speaker 1: seven that don't or should not be should not be
Speaker 1: taken seriously by adults. Adults determined that you should go
Speaker 1: to school, what you should eat, when you should go
Speaker 1: to bed. There are reasons for those things. Oh, but
Speaker 1: here because this is really the last This is really
Speaker 1: the last vestige of what had been untouched by transactivism
Speaker 1: up to this point. This is the final frontier. If
Speaker 1: you will, let's are transitioning little kids, make them transgender.
Speaker 1: Let's have affirmation as determined with court mandates behind it.
Speaker 1: Mind you of a seven year old, this is insane,
Speaker 1: This is wrong. Any normal person, absent all the propaganda,
Speaker 1: absent all the CNN tweets about how this is so
Speaker 1: important for you know, for affirming one's identity, and transgenderism
Speaker 1: is a beautiful thing to be celebrated by everybody. And
Speaker 1: if you don't approve of this, or you even let's
Speaker 1: just say this, there's a whole separate conversation to be
Speaker 1: had about whether someone when they're eighteen, if they think
Speaker 1: they're transgender, or if they if they are trans Remember
Speaker 1: it is think. It's not a biological reality. So don't
Speaker 1: ever get it mixed up with intersects. Sometimes I'll try
Speaker 1: to play that game. They'll move it around. Oh but
Speaker 1: what about people that are born with some reproductive organs
Speaker 1: of both, that's intersects. That's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: We're talking about people that have a psychological distinction that
Speaker 1: they think they are born in the wrong body. You know,
Speaker 1: there's also a psychological this or they called gender dysphoria.
Speaker 1: Now it's called gender affirmation. It was called gender dysphoria.
Speaker 1: There's also a psychological disorder where individuals believe fervently to
Speaker 1: the point of demanding surgery, that they should not have
Speaker 1: a certain limb, and they will demand modern medicine, they'll
Speaker 1: demand that doctors will remove. You know, this arm that
Speaker 1: I have, I shouldn't have it. I do not want
Speaker 1: to have this arm. I need this arm to be removed.
Speaker 1: People say, well, that's not a fair comparison. Really is
Speaker 1: destroying all of your body's hormonal balance, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: just putting this out there, they're gonna do this to
Speaker 1: a seven year old. When they do this to a adults,
Speaker 1: there are terrible long term health consequences and the outcomes overall,
Speaker 1: and everyone, oh, no, one ever, you know, I want
Speaker 1: to talk about this. You know, there was one doctor
Speaker 1: at Johns Hopkins University who was head of essentially the
Speaker 1: sex change operation, which they don't call it that anymore,
Speaker 1: it's gender affirmation. He was out of the sex change
Speaker 1: operation part of Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore. And
Speaker 1: he's just been run out of the public square effectively.
Speaker 1: He's not because he did this for twenty years. And
Speaker 1: he'll he would tell people he wrote articles. I've read
Speaker 1: them where he says, look, long term prognosis here for
Speaker 1: people who have this surgeon is not good. Very high
Speaker 1: rates of depression, high rates of suicide, and the basic
Speaker 1: health risks that you take you know, blood clots, and
Speaker 1: you know, just messing with all kinds of internal hormonal
Speaker 1: regulatory systems, and you know weight gain and obesity comes
Speaker 1: with it and all just all kinds of you know,
Speaker 1: I think there's the risks of disease increase in so
Speaker 1: many ways because you're messing with the internal chemistry of
Speaker 1: your body. No one really knows if this is how
Speaker 1: to do this properly, because you're not supposed There is
Speaker 1: no proper way to do this. You're not supposed to
Speaker 1: do this. There's no way to do this in a
Speaker 1: in a sense that doesn't or in a manner that
Speaker 1: does not have dramatically negative and that's for adults. You're
Speaker 1: not going to do this with a seven year old.
Speaker 1: You start giving them puberty blockers. This is disgraceful. But
Speaker 1: this is the problem with what starts and on lefting
Speaker 1: websites and what you see in the media, and you know,
Speaker 1: this show Transparent, and there's all these different efforts out
Speaker 1: there to convince people that not only is transgenderism something
Speaker 1: that should have legal protection, but it must be affirmed
Speaker 1: by everybody else. It's not enough for you to say,
Speaker 1: all right, you do you I'm going to do my
Speaker 1: own thing over here. No, they want they require the
Speaker 1: leftist activists of transgender and require that you abandon your
Speaker 1: religious beliefs, abandon which you think is good for your
Speaker 1: own child in this case, and you have to sing
Speaker 1: along with the chorus claiming that this is a fantastic thing,
Speaker 1: This is a joyous thing. We should all throw a
Speaker 1: party because a seven year old is going to be
Speaker 1: affirmed in his now her they say gender. This is
Speaker 1: not an exaggeration. The court in Dallas, up to this
Speaker 1: point has enjoined this father, Jeffrey Younger, that he is
Speaker 1: not allowed to dress his son in boy's clothing. Not
Speaker 1: allowed contempt of court if he does that. He's not
Speaker 1: allowed to try and convince his son that he is
Speaker 1: in fact a boy and will be a normal boy
Speaker 1: and everything is fine. Not allowed to do that. Not
Speaker 1: allowed to have the son around anybody who also tries so.
Speaker 1: He can't have another friend or family member who says, hey,
Speaker 1: young James, you're seven years old. You know you're a boy.
Speaker 1: Just give it some time and let's talk this through.
Speaker 1: Not allowed to do that. Has to use female pronouns
Speaker 1: or gender neutral pronouns in public. This is by court
Speaker 1: order I was stunned as I was reading through this
Speaker 1: last night, stunted. This is in Dallas, Texas for those
Speaker 1: of you out there, and I get this. I get
Speaker 1: your emails, I get your messages. Who think, oh the
Speaker 1: crazy stuff buck that mostly that's not going to come
Speaker 1: to you know, my town I live. I live in Nebraska,
Speaker 1: I live in Texas. You know I live in in Indiana.
Speaker 1: Things here are a little more sane. Mm. Sorry. That's
Speaker 1: why they always go at this from the media level,
Speaker 1: national level. They want federal judges to enforce this stuff.
Speaker 1: They want this to be top down. You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to have the choice. And so now we have a
Speaker 1: circumstance where this father and I just would I'd be
Speaker 1: so curious to speak to people on this jury and
Speaker 1: just want to know how brainwashed they've been. They've given,
Speaker 1: or I believe they're about to give. Today we'll find
Speaker 1: out full custody to doctor George Julius to make sure
Speaker 1: that young James is transitioned into a female. Oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, by court order, James's father is not allowed
Speaker 1: to call him James has to call him Luna. Not
Speaker 1: allowed that his legal name is James. On his birth
Speaker 1: certificate on any documentation now has to be called Luna
Speaker 1: because because the mom says so, mister Younger had asked
Speaker 1: to be the sole managing conservatorship of not just this boy,
Speaker 1: but also there's a there's a twin as well, and
Speaker 1: the court denied that. And they've also denied James's or
Speaker 1: denied the father's efforts here to stop the puberty blockers
Speaker 1: and craw sex hormones that are going to happen here.
Speaker 1: By the way, accord to the Mayo Clinic, this is
Speaker 1: a helpful list. I was trying to think of this before.
Speaker 1: Possible side effects of feminizing cross sex hormone therapy. This
Speaker 1: is Remember that this is for adults, because who would
Speaker 1: think you'd do this to a kid. Here are the
Speaker 1: side effects for adults. Deep veined blood clot high triglycerides, gallstones,
Speaker 1: weight gain, elevated liver function, decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, infertility,
Speaker 1: high blood pressure, type two diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and excessive
Speaker 1: prolactin in the blood. That's for adults. What do you
Speaker 1: think the endocrine system of a seven year old will
Speaker 1: do in reaction to this? And the court that is
Speaker 1: going along with this should be ashamed. The judge who
Speaker 1: is a left wing female should be ashamed. None of
Speaker 1: them are. In fact, the media will celebrate this. They
Speaker 1: will celebrate destroying this young boy's life. You know why,
Speaker 1: He's just a sacrifice for the cause. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if this ruins his life, if he's miserable, if it
Speaker 1: ruins his health, mental and physical. They have to establish
Speaker 1: that transgenderism is just as natural and just as as
Speaker 1: normal as anything else that a young boy or girl
Speaker 1: could decide to do. That's what this is about. From
Speaker 1: coast to coast to coast, Tonight, Canadians rejected division and negativity.
Speaker 1: You are sending our liberal team back to work, back
Speaker 1: to Ottawa with a clear mandate. We will make life
Speaker 1: more affordable. We will continue to fight climate change, we
Speaker 1: will get guns off our streets, and we will keep
Speaker 1: investing in Canadians. And tonight we chose to move Canada forward. Tonight,
Speaker 1: Canadians have charted a path for the future and I
Speaker 1: know we will walk it together. Monsieur Justin Trudeau, who
Speaker 1: does not sound like this, but we like to pretend
Speaker 1: here on the Bucks Extent show, he probably sounds like
Speaker 1: me when I'm not doing any accent really if we're
Speaker 1: going to be fair, except he says, and it is
Speaker 1: a little more, even more polite than me, which is
Speaker 1: really polite is you're justin Trudeau. He is a the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister off Canada. Once again, there's some there's the
Speaker 1: good news and bad news that comes out of this.
Speaker 1: I want to start with the good news. The good news,
Speaker 1: let's do that. Start with the good news. Is that
Speaker 1: it's gonna be really hard, in my opinion, for Canadians
Speaker 1: to liberal Canadians, you know, smug left wing Canadians to
Speaker 1: look down on us in the United States for having
Speaker 1: a president who's a little out of the mainstream, a
Speaker 1: little a little different, eccentric, egocentric and eccentric, right. I
Speaker 1: think that'll be a tougher cell now for Canada, like, oh,
Speaker 1: we have such stuffisticated politics and Canada, look at our
Speaker 1: Prime minister Trudeau, he's the true statesman. M I don't
Speaker 1: know about that. Do you think that it would have
Speaker 1: been possible for an American Republican probably already know Northam.
Speaker 1: Northam got away with this. I would say that that
Speaker 1: Northam's thing was a lot longer ago. Trudeau's was not
Speaker 1: very long ago, and multiple instances of dressing in blackface.
Speaker 1: One of the one of the frustrations I think a
Speaker 1: lot of us have is we recognize if you were
Speaker 1: an American Republican politician, not only would your career be
Speaker 1: ruined based on the photos that we saw of Trudeau,
Speaker 1: but it would also you'd have to be very concerned
Speaker 1: about whether you were employable at any kind of job
Speaker 1: and keeping with your skill set, you know you would
Speaker 1: be you would be probably relegated to very menial work
Speaker 1: and you might have to change your name. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: the real That would be the reality for an American
Speaker 1: Republican politician. For a Democrat, it would be considered a hit,
Speaker 1: but you know, you probably still keep your job, and
Speaker 1: as long as you apologized and made sure that you
Speaker 1: know you were on the good side of planned parenthood
Speaker 1: and the woke police in Hollywood, you would probably be okay. Right.
Speaker 1: That's so there's there's that component of this that's annoying.
Speaker 1: That's annoying because you know, we would like to either
Speaker 1: have greater forgiveness and less insanely harsh rules about this stuff,
Speaker 1: or everyone or everyone has to live under the same rules.
Speaker 1: But what the left has managed to create is that
Speaker 1: the rules that the left lives under are different the
Speaker 1: rules that the right lives under. And that's the worst scenario.
Speaker 1: That is the worst circumstance, right, Because that that hypocrisy
Speaker 1: then just it just festers within our political discourse. Oh
Speaker 1: so they can get away with stuff. Truneau can be like,
Speaker 1: I am going to take zaguns off the streets and
Speaker 1: I'm going to make sure the climate change is defeated,
Speaker 1: the big, bad, terrible climate change. Maybe we should maybe
Speaker 1: I should be like, let's gonna say Pierre Trudea, but
Speaker 1: I think that was his dad. We'd have to come
Speaker 1: up with, you know, Jean Paul Trudeau. Justin Trudeau's alter ego,
Speaker 1: he's slightly more Canadian French, very tough, very strong, where's
Speaker 1: the lumberjack shirts, cuts down the big trees. But Trudeau
Speaker 1: has managed to win out. Another part of this I
Speaker 1: think is interesting is that he I think, as from
Speaker 1: what I saw last night, at least in the polls,
Speaker 1: he lost the popular vote. He got less votes in
Speaker 1: total than his competitor did. And yet because of the
Speaker 1: way their parliamentary system works, he in fact has cobbled
Speaker 1: together the majority necessary to be the prime minister. Here
Speaker 1: the New York Times called it justin Trudeau's anemic victory,
Speaker 1: that he just eked out a win. Here's some of
Speaker 1: the background on this. Neither the Conservative Party nor the
Speaker 1: New Democratic Party to the Green Party had any lead.
Speaker 1: You in the hopper who seemed to be able to
Speaker 1: compete with Kennedy esque mister Trudeau. Oh that's quite a description.
Speaker 1: Who scored photoshoots in Vogue and his own comic book cover.
Speaker 1: He should have been untouchable for an election or two
Speaker 1: at least, And yet on Monday, mister Trudeau's government was
Speaker 1: reduced to a minority. His party lost the popular vote
Speaker 1: to the Conservatives. Canada's electoral map is now disturbingly divided
Speaker 1: between the liberal dominated east of the country and the
Speaker 1: conservative dominated west. Mister Trudeau will likely to pend on
Speaker 1: the support of other parties to keep his hold in power.
Speaker 1: So there you have it, my friends, This is a close,
Speaker 1: a close one for Trudeau. But it does raise this
Speaker 1: issue of when when do we get to say that
Speaker 1: if they're going to have rules where you get a
Speaker 1: second chance, we have to have rules where you get
Speaker 1: a second chance. If violations of politically correct conduct in
Speaker 1: one's back background, stretching back for years, maybe even decades.
Speaker 1: If that's going to be not a disqualifier for liberals,
Speaker 1: then I think we have to make sure it's not
Speaker 1: a disqualifier for conservatives either, and that means a refusal
Speaker 1: to submit to the dictates of political correctness. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean people, obviously, people when they I always say this,
Speaker 1: you don't apologize because the outrage mob comes from you.
Speaker 1: Apologize if you mess up, if you did something wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, Trudeau clearly messed up. So people should still
Speaker 1: make amends based on their own their own actions and
Speaker 1: the need to have integrity and to be honorable or
Speaker 1: try to restore some honor. But we're never going to
Speaker 1: get to a fair place, a level playing ground in
Speaker 1: politics or in public life if this is able to continue.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know this, no Republican would have been
Speaker 1: able to stay in public life after this photos came
Speaker 1: out of Justin Trudeau. And yet the liberals of Cana
Speaker 1: And I know Canada's different country from America, but come on,
Speaker 1: Canada's like America, Junior. Let's be serious. You know it's
Speaker 1: right there. They speak, They speak American pretty much they're
Speaker 1: right there close by. Are there's some Canadians to listen
Speaker 1: to the show right now. They're furiously they're they're wiping
Speaker 1: the maple syrup off their fingers, putting aside the hockey
Speaker 1: stick and furiously typing at me that how dare how
Speaker 1: dare you? Sir? Eh? Compare Canada to Americans? Say it's America, junior.
Speaker 1: We love Canadians. You guys are like our cousins to
Speaker 1: the north. But Justin Trudeau, man, we knew this was
Speaker 1: gonna have. I told you he's gonna wits. It's not
Speaker 1: even gonna matter that he's that. There's such a fraudulence. Really,
Speaker 1: too much of the lecturing and the social justice posturing.
Speaker 1: Do you think Justin Trudeau, and I know this is
Speaker 1: more just me postulating here, do you think Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: would have been someone who was forgiving and showed grace
Speaker 1: in response to someone else in politics having the fun? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so at all. And I think that
Speaker 1: that's really part of a liberal mind, that they don't
Speaker 1: see their own conduct, even when it violates their own standards,
Speaker 1: is somehow always more justifiable the conduct of the other, though,
Speaker 1: must be destroyed. The conduct of the other must be
Speaker 1: punished to the most severe degree imaginable and possible. I
Speaker 1: was President Trump last night did tweet out, obviously if
Speaker 1: I can find it real quick, he tweeted out a
Speaker 1: congratulations to Justin Trudeau. There was nothing in it that
Speaker 1: was snarky or that looks sarcastic. But I do think
Speaker 1: that Trump particularly enjoyed, especially because the media in this
Speaker 1: country is always saying all these terrible things about him.
Speaker 1: Have they have they changed their minds about Justin Trudeau,
Speaker 1: the man who dressed in blackface so many times. Megan
Speaker 1: Kelly was fired from her job because she said that
Speaker 1: back in the day, some people would like have their
Speaker 1: kids dressing up as a as a character and that
Speaker 1: that wasn't you know there. She tried to just get
Speaker 1: into the nuance of black face as a discussion and
Speaker 1: was fired and the libs were all set up. Yep. Sorry,
Speaker 1: you know, can't have anybody who doesn't understand how serious
Speaker 1: black face is as an offense. Jimmy Kimmel used addressed
Speaker 1: in black faces Karl Malone on his show, and actually
Speaker 1: it was painted his face black, painted his entire body black,
Speaker 1: and no sanctions against him now again. I'm fine with
Speaker 1: people being able to say I'm sorry, you know what
Speaker 1: I did was inappropriate, I've moved on, I've grown, I'm better,
Speaker 1: or whatever, but that has to be open to all
Speaker 1: of us. We cannot. You know, we're gonna need a
Speaker 1: divorce from liberal America soon. If they continue to think
Speaker 1: that they can have one set of rules and we
Speaker 1: will have another. That's gonna be a problem for us.
Speaker 1: It already is a problem, but it's just gonna keep
Speaker 1: getting worse and worse because they over time they embrace,
Speaker 1: they normalize the hypocrisy. That becomes the standard. The standard
Speaker 1: is that they can be hypocritical, and that people that
Speaker 1: agree with us ideologically, you and me, even if you're
Speaker 1: a private citizen, you might have to be sacrificed on
Speaker 1: the funeral pyre of wokeness at some point that may
Speaker 1: happen to you. I'd rather readdress this now and understand
Speaker 1: that people make mistakes, people say stupid things, do stupid things.
Speaker 1: Contrition should be always be weighed in these in these situations,
Speaker 1: and you know, we should all try to be as
Speaker 1: forgiving of each other as we possibly can. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: living a life without consequence, but I mean its being forgiven,
Speaker 1: being forgiving when there's room for forgiveness, instead of this
Speaker 1: situation where Trudeau gets forgiven. Nothing Trump ever does, for example,
Speaker 1: will be forgiven by our media or the Canadian media,
Speaker 1: which is I would note, pretty obsessed with Trump. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I see what's going on in study his Canadian websites.
Speaker 1: You think, like Trump is a bigger deal than anything
Speaker 1: going on in their own country. You know, Trump is
Speaker 1: this larger than life figure next door. So Trudeau wins
Speaker 1: the Prime ministership by a hair, by his perfectly quiff
Speaker 1: error because he's mister liberal, handsome man that will just
Speaker 1: get away with everything going forward. Apparently, my friends, do
Speaker 1: you agree then with Senator mckessie, that would have been
Speaker 1: inappropriate to withhold the military aid and unless this political
Speaker 1: investigation was pursued, George, I'm telling you what I was
Speaker 1: involved with. I'm telling you what I saw transpiring and
Speaker 1: how President Trump was working to make the evaluation about
Speaker 1: whether it was appropriate to provide this assistance. But that's
Speaker 1: what I'm what I'm asking is would it be appropriate
Speaker 1: to condition that, George, I'm not going to get into
Speaker 1: hypotheticals and secondary things based on someone what someone else
Speaker 1: has said, George, you would have never done it when
Speaker 1: you were a spokesman. I'm not going to do it,
Speaker 1: except it's not hypothetical. We saw the chief of staff
Speaker 1: the act. It is George, you just said if George,
Speaker 1: you just said, if this happened, that is by definition hypothetic.
Speaker 1: The chief of staff said it did. The chief of
Speaker 1: staff meaning Mory, you asked me. The chief of staff
Speaker 1: meaning Mulvaney here was trying to say that there was
Speaker 1: a corruption investigation based quid pro quo component of reviewing
Speaker 1: the aid that we give to Ukraine. Now, I know
Speaker 1: that that's a complicated way of describing it, or that
Speaker 1: seems like a lot of words. But what the Democrats
Speaker 1: keep saying is just not true. Their version of what
Speaker 1: transpired in that conversation. They always changed the words around.
Speaker 1: They do what Adam shifted. Let me pretend that I'm
Speaker 1: telling you what was said when I'm really saying something else.
Speaker 1: And what I'm saying are things that are more damaging
Speaker 1: than what the president said. This is the game that
Speaker 1: they play. Now it's a very dangerous one. I would
Speaker 1: note that not only did this come up in the
Speaker 1: context of a Secretary State Pompeo talking to George's Stephanopolis,
Speaker 1: but also Mitt Romney mit taking a moment to back
Speaker 1: away from Pierre de Lecto, friend of Justin Trudau. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe that's who. Maybe my Justin Trudeau is actually Pierre
Speaker 1: de Lecto, internet roll and Canadian man of mystery. Remember
Speaker 1: that was Mitt Romney's alter ego online that we've all
Speaker 1: discovered in the last couple of days. Because when you're
Speaker 1: a sitting United States senator worth hundreds of millions of dollars, yeah,
Speaker 1: you need a sock puppet Twitter account to snark at
Speaker 1: people and to pump up your own reputation online. Just
Speaker 1: seems crazy to me. But secondary State Pompey was talking
Speaker 1: about the possibility of that hypothetical. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is
Speaker 1: trying to be as unhelpful to President Trump as possible
Speaker 1: play clip twenty, going on TV and saying, China, will
Speaker 1: you investigate my political opponent? Is wrong? It's a mistake.
Speaker 1: It was shocking for the in my opinion, for the
Speaker 1: president to do so, and a mistake for him to
Speaker 1: do so. I can't imagine coming to a different point
Speaker 1: of view. We certainly can't have presidents asking foreign countries
Speaker 1: to provide something of political value that is, after all,
Speaker 1: against the law, something of political value against the law. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're back to the pretense that we're gonna make this
Speaker 1: a campaign finance violation there, mid Romney. That's never gonna
Speaker 1: stand up. That's never gonna work. And the request for
Speaker 1: an investigation. I thought Democrats were obsessed with this. I
Speaker 1: thought they loved this idea. Oh yeah, we need to
Speaker 1: investige me to get the facts. You need to find
Speaker 1: out everything that's going on here. A request for an
Speaker 1: investigation is not elicit if there's a basis for the investigation.
Speaker 1: We just went through a special Council on a with
Speaker 1: a faulty basis, and now they're lecturing us about elicited
Speaker 1: investigations for political purposes. Does any serious person really believe
Speaker 1: that the Special Council wasn't a giant gift to the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And then basis for it was was lies, the dossiers, lies,
Speaker 1: the way that they set up Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
Speaker 1: This was all. This is all a scam, a conspiracy
Speaker 1: hunter Biden getting a billion dollars out of China because
Speaker 1: his dad was vice president. I mean, I didn't think
Speaker 1: you're allowed to look at that. I think people would
Speaker 1: ask questions about this. I do not accept a lot
Speaker 1: of Republicans that are out there saying this. I do
Speaker 1: not accept that just because a Biden does it means
Speaker 1: you can't investigate it. And I also don't accept that
Speaker 1: just because you are an investigation that is rooted in
Speaker 1: a reasonable suspicion that would negatively affect Joe Biden, you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to do that. The Obama administration was investigating
Speaker 1: Donald Trump while he was a candidate. There's there's no
Speaker 1: political benefit there, I mean, are you kidding me? By
Speaker 1: the way, speaking of quid pro quos, only have about
Speaker 1: a minute for this one. But um, they had said this, Oh,
Speaker 1: you can't have quid pro quos in foreign policy. I
Speaker 1: pointed this out yesterday. Elizabeth Warren had a quid pro
Speaker 1: quo here that she discussed pushing around the state of Israel.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, please play clip two. Actually about yeah right
Speaker 1: now says that he is going to take Israel in
Speaker 1: a direction of increasing settlements that does not move US
Speaker 1: toward a two states solution. It is the official policy
Speaker 1: of the United States of America to support a two
Speaker 1: states solution. And if Israel is moving in the opposite direction,
Speaker 1: then everything is on the table, and be prepared. Everything
Speaker 1: is on the table. Everything is on the table, including
Speaker 1: cutting off a day Israel. If they don't do what
Speaker 1: we say, we're going to cut off eight that's right,
Speaker 1: not just to the millionaires and the billionaires, We're going
Speaker 1: to cut it off to all of Israel. Okay, that
Speaker 1: sounds like a quid pro quo in foreign policy to me,
Speaker 1: do what we say or else we're gonna take away
Speaker 1: your money. So it does happen all the time. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm glad we can establish that there was a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo. Yeah, happens all the time, and quid pro
Speaker 1: quos have lots of benefits for lots of people. But
Speaker 1: it was fun for Democrats for a week or so
Speaker 1: to act like that was unheard of. Oh, how could
Speaker 1: you try to bully this foreign country into doing your
Speaker 1: bidding with our money? That's why we give them maid.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the movie Joker. Shan't we Joker was
Speaker 1: something that we were told was going to be an
Speaker 1: invitation to violence, that the movie Joker would be something
Speaker 1: that as we going forward look at you know, the
Speaker 1: history of movies out there and how they could inspire violence.
Speaker 1: It would be one of the ones that you'd have
Speaker 1: to think about right away. There was a lot of
Speaker 1: really fevered speculation about how this movie was going to
Speaker 1: lead to terrible stuff. Nothing happened, of course, I saw
Speaker 1: the movie. I just want to share a few thoughts
Speaker 1: on this. I don't do a lot of movie reviews
Speaker 1: on the show. I rarely go to movies. I will
Speaker 1: say this. I went to movie theater and they had
Speaker 1: a signed seats and the seats producer Mark, have you
Speaker 1: have you had this experience? I grew up going to
Speaker 1: movies with my parents all the time in New York,
Speaker 1: and I couldn't see over the person's head in front
Speaker 1: of me. You were packed in there, shoulder to shoulder,
Speaker 1: not enough legro on. The seats were kind of gross,
Speaker 1: smelled like stale popcorn and twizzlers. You know. It just
Speaker 1: wasn't a pleasant experience really, But you had no choice
Speaker 1: if you want to see a movie in the theaters.
Speaker 1: This movie, this chair reclined, It was a signed seating.
Speaker 1: This is very common now. But this is common now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is everywhere. This is my first not as much
Speaker 1: in Manhattan, though a lot of the theaters in Manhattan
Speaker 1: are still those old theaters because they're gonna sell tickets
Speaker 1: no matter what. They're in the middle of the city.
Speaker 1: But there's still all the signed seats. Now. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: was my first ever experience in this new era of
Speaker 1: comfortable seats and big comfortable seats that recline and a
Speaker 1: sign seating too, because one of the things I always
Speaker 1: hated was when you walk in the theater, especially if
Speaker 1: you're there with somebody or with a group of friends
Speaker 1: and you're trying to find a place to sit down
Speaker 1: or you can't find anywhere to sit. That's not an
Speaker 1: issue now. It's like you're at a baseball game. You
Speaker 1: go to your seat, go to you know, M fifteen
Speaker 1: can chaw up on time. You don't have to watch
Speaker 1: all the previews if you don't want to. Yes, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of previews. There are. There's so many previews,
Speaker 1: too many. That was a thing recently where they were
Speaker 1: talking about there there were too many. It was like
Speaker 1: thirty minutes of previous Man, I was sitting there all
Speaker 1: day look in the previews the movies at one o'clock.
Speaker 1: It's really one I can't even remember all all. I
Speaker 1: can remember those that the Star Wars preview looks terrible. Dude,
Speaker 1: looks terrible. I'm not a Star Wars guy. You're not
Speaker 1: a Star Wars guy. I like the originals, but this
Speaker 1: Star Wars just it's just it's just garbage, garbage anyway.
Speaker 1: So so the theater was really nice. I checked that
Speaker 1: part of it that was that was kind of cool,
Speaker 1: although we do need somebody who stands there and doesn't
Speaker 1: allow people to talk because people get all cozy, they
Speaker 1: get in their big comfy chair, they're a signed seat,
Speaker 1: and they think. The worst is that people think that
Speaker 1: when it gets loud, that's when you really want to talk.
Speaker 1: So it's like the soaring music comes in, or there's
Speaker 1: like a really intense scene, you know, like the car
Speaker 1: chase scene, they're like, yeah, so because it's loud in here,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna you can hear them. It's like, shut up,
Speaker 1: I do not want to hear that. You know, when
Speaker 1: they're doing the thing when they're talking and living room
Speaker 1: living room syndrome. Yeah, they think they're in they're living room,
Speaker 1: your living room. Say, that's not really about the Joker movie,
Speaker 1: but I was because i'm somebody who I stopped going
Speaker 1: to movies because I thought it was such a negative.
Speaker 1: It's just a bad user experience. And I love watching
Speaker 1: a flat screen on my big couch. Like my couch
Speaker 1: is basically half my living room. I have a giant cow.
Speaker 1: I'm one of those people's like I want a giant couch.
Speaker 1: I don't want a little fancy couch. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: are we gonna have tea on my fancy couch. No,
Speaker 1: I want a big couch like I live in a
Speaker 1: suburban house, except I live in a shoebox. Big comfy couch,
Speaker 1: big comfy couch. I agree with you, Yeah, exactly, you
Speaker 1: need a big comfy couch. So the theater situation was
Speaker 1: better than thought, and then all the movie Joker itself.
Speaker 1: I grew up liking comics, reading some comics, but definitely
Speaker 1: watching all the different comics shows. I mean, I watched
Speaker 1: the old X Men cartoon that was on on Saturday
Speaker 1: mornings back in the day. I watched the Spider Man cartoons.
Speaker 1: I was. I liked all that Marvel and DC Universe stuff,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure a lot of you do too. So
Speaker 1: for me, the way that they created a backstory for
Speaker 1: a character that has already been a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: content created around was pretty It was pretty impressive. It
Speaker 1: was pretty solid. And to take on a role where
Speaker 1: you're immediately going to be compared to Heath Ledger's Oscar
Speaker 1: winning role was also, I think a pretty bold move.
Speaker 1: But I was Joaquin Phoenix definitely pulled it off. Definitely
Speaker 1: pulled it off. And what you see in the movie,
Speaker 1: and I think that there are real lessons from this.
Speaker 1: I think that this is important people to see. You
Speaker 1: see the creation in a sense of a monster, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, not that any human being can ever fully
Speaker 1: become a monster, but you see, you see the creation
Speaker 1: of a monster through frustration, negative circumstance, in this case,
Speaker 1: a big dose of dangerous mental illness. But but you
Speaker 1: see the way that he he really transitions into somebody
Speaker 1: who is a dangerous, violent maybe. And they do it.
Speaker 1: They do it in such a way that you think
Speaker 1: about it afterwards. You you wonder, you think, well, what
Speaker 1: should the joker, you know, what should this character have
Speaker 1: done in response to the circumstances of having an abuse
Speaker 1: you know, I don't want to give too much away.
Speaker 1: Apparently we maybe read a spoiler recently on the show,
Speaker 1: but it's not really a spoiler. If you see that movie,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter. I think you can see it
Speaker 1: all coming a mile away anyway. But so on the
Speaker 1: production value side of the acting side of it, Joaquin
Speaker 1: Phoenix carries the movie. He's it's just like a character study,
Speaker 1: and he does a phenomenal job. I've thought he was
Speaker 1: excellent ever since he played comedist and gladiator. Why don't
Speaker 1: the people love me? I will give them games. He
Speaker 1: was so good. Now they look Maximus for his mercy.
Speaker 1: I've seen that movie with way too many times. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a great that's a timeless that's a timeless movie.
Speaker 1: That's one of those things that's on if Gladiators on TV,
Speaker 1: on just normal channels, whatever part of the movie, I
Speaker 1: probably will watch it. It's one of those. It's up
Speaker 1: there with Tombstone, Tombstone. It could be the first twenty minutes,
Speaker 1: the last ten minutes, doesn't matter. I'm watching it. I'm
Speaker 1: your huckleberry. It's the best, the best. But back to
Speaker 1: the Joker film, it wasn't really that violent. It was
Speaker 1: way less violent than I was anticipating. And what I
Speaker 1: thought was so interesting. And one of the reasons I
Speaker 1: want to talk about on the on the show was
Speaker 1: the way that it was set up. It was supposed
Speaker 1: to be. We were supposed to believe that this was
Speaker 1: a insell white man rage justifying movie, and it absolutely
Speaker 1: was not that. And there's no reasonable way to go
Speaker 1: from A to B. There there's no reasonable way to
Speaker 1: look at this movie and say to yourself, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what was going on. Yeah it was. It was about justifying,
Speaker 1: you know, either like white nationalism or white supremacy, and
Speaker 1: in cell you know, there's been some of these guys
Speaker 1: who were involuntary celibate. That's what that's what insul means. Essentially,
Speaker 1: their frustration with the opposite sex leads them or that
Speaker 1: that's the spark in their deranged minds for becoming mass shooters.
Speaker 1: There have been a few cases of this, um but
Speaker 1: it's not that either. This is this is a very
Speaker 1: sad and troubling story of somebody who was given a
Speaker 1: bad a bad deck of cards to start with, and
Speaker 1: then plays those hand, plays that hand poorly and makes
Speaker 1: bad makes some bad choices, makes bad decisions. And I
Speaker 1: didn't think the violence was too extreme, but I just
Speaker 1: also thought that the left wing version of this movie
Speaker 1: um shows you that they can find things. They'll they'll
Speaker 1: find narratives where they do not exist. We know that
Speaker 1: from politics, but they'll do it even in in film.
Speaker 1: If anything, the Joker movie was if Joker was a
Speaker 1: p if Joker had politics from this movie, he's a
Speaker 1: he's a Democratic socialist. I mean the Jokers a Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders supporter. He's an Elizabeth Warren supporter. He's not a
Speaker 1: Trump supporter, that's for sure. Trump would be like, this
Speaker 1: guy's a loser. That's what That's what Trump would say
Speaker 1: about him. And he is a loser and then he
Speaker 1: turns into a homicidal one at that. But it was
Speaker 1: it was worthwhile on the way they wove in some
Speaker 1: elements of the existing DC Batman storyline into it. It
Speaker 1: was very good. It was very well done. Have you
Speaker 1: seen it yet, by the way, producer Mark, not yet.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go this weekend. Yeah, you should definitely want
Speaker 1: to hear. Let us know what you think. I think
Speaker 1: you'll I I give it like uh B plus a minus.
Speaker 1: You know, how come you'd go see a Joker movie,
Speaker 1: But god forbid you'd see the Avengers movies. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Avengers movies are trash for people that they're trashed.
Speaker 1: They're not. It's just you're it's just all CGI and
Speaker 1: and really bad jokes. But there was no CGI using
Speaker 1: the Joker movie at all. Very little. I don't know,
Speaker 1: come very little. I haven't seen. You know what there is.
Speaker 1: There's plenty. You know, there's producer marking the Joker movie
Speaker 1: that I appreciate acting. There's acting in the Marvel No,
Speaker 1: there's plenty. Is the problem here is, unfortunately, audience is
Speaker 1: gonna get the producer marked all the because they make
Speaker 1: they make a billion dollars and blah blah whatever. The
Speaker 1: only thing that's worth watching in any of those Avengers
Speaker 1: movies is Robert Downey Jr. I'm just gonna say it,
Speaker 1: Hulk smash. Come on, how many times we got to
Speaker 1: hear that? And there's always like even says Hulk Smash once. No,
Speaker 1: he doesn't say that, I'm saying the other I mean
Speaker 1: the Hulk he says that like few he does. Whatever.
Speaker 1: All right, you've heard producer Mark likes the Avengers movie.
Speaker 1: So you can light us up in the comments and
Speaker 1: let us know if you agree or disagree. I find
Speaker 1: I find them. I'm watching, but and I'm somebody. I
Speaker 1: like the Batman trilogy, although the third one is pre
Speaker 1: browl of Gartham. I mean the third one had there's
Speaker 1: some ridiculous stuff going on there. I like Blade. I
Speaker 1: like UMD. That's a throwback. That's I think that's among
Speaker 1: Wesley Snipes's finest works. Blade. It's good flick back in
Speaker 1: the day. And the original, the original Iron Man is
Speaker 1: very good. All right. I've turned this into a longer
Speaker 1: movie view than I met See The Joker. It's good,
Speaker 1: it's worthwhile. Makes you think about some things, and um,
Speaker 1: it will it will affect you, and and it's and
Speaker 1: it was not. It did not lead to any mass shootings.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. This plan that you're introducing high the wealth
Speaker 1: tax is going to pay for this and other things.
Speaker 1: So how is your medicare for all supposed are going
Speaker 1: to be paid for though without wealth to wealth tax?
Speaker 1: So uh, As I've explained, the wealth tax will pay
Speaker 1: for universal childcare all the way through canceling student loan debt.
Speaker 1: It's about an investment in an entire generation. Over the
Speaker 1: next few weeks, I'll be coming out with a plan
Speaker 1: about the costs of medicare for all and how we
Speaker 1: can pay for My friend PJ O'Rourke works with me.
Speaker 1: He's the editor in chief. I'm I make a writer
Speaker 1: for a project called American Consequences. It's free. You can
Speaker 1: sign up for it, and I hope you do. I
Speaker 1: write for I write a piece a week for them,
Speaker 1: and usually a monthly feature as well. Pj's got a
Speaker 1: great pia on Elizabeth Warren, who are my wealth? Tax
Speaker 1: is just going to take from the rich hed It's
Speaker 1: got to pay for all the childcare across this nation.
Speaker 1: There's some interesting stuff that PJA writes about here on
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren's real plans for you. Here's some of my
Speaker 1: friend pg rourke writes in American Consequences. As scary words go,
Speaker 1: I have a plan for that is right up there
Speaker 1: with hold my beer. Warren thinks we can improve our
Speaker 1: economy by returning personal and corporate income taxes to Clinton
Speaker 1: era levels. Are higher taxes good for the economy. Us
Speaker 1: gdpeeper capita adjusted for inflation forty four thousand, three hundred
Speaker 1: and fourteen dollars in nineteen ninety eight fifty seven thousand,
Speaker 1: So this is gdpeper capita, not household income. That was
Speaker 1: a mistake I made before in the show fifty seven thousand,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and twenty one. Now. Warren also wants to
Speaker 1: impose a wealth tax on the net worth of individuals
Speaker 1: two percent, two percent on net worth above fifty million dollars,
Speaker 1: and three percent on net worth above one billion dollars.
Speaker 1: The current yield on two year Treasury bonds is one
Speaker 1: point five percent. For a conservatively invested billionaire, that means
Speaker 1: a two hundred percent tax on income on top of
Speaker 1: the income tax he or she is already paying in
Speaker 1: anything except politics. We'd call this stealing, but don't try
Speaker 1: to take the money and run. Warren proposes a forty
Speaker 1: percent exit tax on expatriation of wealth exceeding fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: The island that Wall Streets money to will be living
Speaker 1: on won't be Grand Cayman. It will be Riker's Island.
Speaker 1: Warren doesn't seem to like rich people very much, never
Speaker 1: mind that, according to public financial disclosure forms, she and
Speaker 1: her husband have a net worth between four and eleven
Speaker 1: million dollars. End quote PJA taking pg Rourke here my
Speaker 1: friend and college taking Elizabeth Warren two task for this,
Speaker 1: the wealth tax is going to set up all kinds
Speaker 1: of dislocations in the economy and create a new regime
Speaker 1: where the irs is not going to just be looking
Speaker 1: at what you make, will be looking at what you
Speaker 1: have and assessing based on that how much you're going
Speaker 1: to pay. The wealth tax may start at two percent,
Speaker 1: but maybe then it goes up to four percent. Maybe
Speaker 1: then the idea becomes nobody And I've heard people say this.
Speaker 1: You will hear a kage progressive say this out loud.
Speaker 1: Nobody should be worth more than ten million dollars. They'll
Speaker 1: say nobody needs more than ten million dollars. You might say,
Speaker 1: why not one hundred million? Well, because they say so.
Speaker 1: The same mentality that believes that central planning by the
Speaker 1: government will lead to good outcomes thinks that we can
Speaker 1: just pull a number out of the air and that's
Speaker 1: all you need. That's the max net worth that would
Speaker 1: appeal to people. Right, I'm sorry that would be acceptable
Speaker 1: for people that it appeals to them or not. As
Speaker 1: a whole different matter, but Warren is in many ways
Speaker 1: quite radical. PJ goes on to talk about her plans
Speaker 1: for corporations. Quote Warren has proposed that large corporations should
Speaker 1: be required to allow employees to elect forty percent of
Speaker 1: corporate board members. And that's how somebody's brother in law,
Speaker 1: wearing flip flops, cargo shorts and at Patriot's jersey, ends
Speaker 1: up at the board table scratching his stomach and drinking
Speaker 1: a beer. You can't blame the guy from the loading
Speaker 1: dock who nominated him. His wife had been had been
Speaker 1: on him for years to get her brother a job.
Speaker 1: She also proposes limiting the gender pay gap. PJ wrights
Speaker 1: with the Paycheck Fairness Act legislation, and Warren thinks the
Speaker 1: federal minimum wage should be twenty two dollars an hour. Folks,
Speaker 1: this stuff is all really gonna have. That would have
Speaker 1: dramatic effect. Now, I know you say buck, but she'll
Speaker 1: need the legislature to go along with her. And well,
Speaker 1: what we know about Democrats is that sometimes they'll just
Speaker 1: do things by executive fiat. Sometimes there'll be a determination
Speaker 1: made that they can't wait. But if you want to see,
Speaker 1: if you want to read more of Pj's essay, there
Speaker 1: American Consequences dot com. That's that's where you can read it.
Speaker 1: And I write there too, and you can sign up
Speaker 1: for their newsletter. I send a newsletter out every week.
Speaker 1: It's very cool, so you can check it out. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, the concern over Elizabeth Warren, I think
Speaker 1: is what has led in part to the possibility of
Speaker 1: some very late entrances getting into the race. There are
Speaker 1: people now, there are some stories out there now, like
Speaker 1: here's one from the New York Times quote missus Clinton
Speaker 1: and Michael Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent
Speaker 1: weeks that if they could win, if they thought they
Speaker 1: could win, they would consider entering the primary. She has
Speaker 1: not given Do not believe anybody who tells you otherwise.
Speaker 1: Do not you know, don't let the propagandists change your
Speaker 1: mind on this one. She has not decided that she
Speaker 1: needs to accept a future in which she will never
Speaker 1: be president. It's just not there. It has not happened.
Speaker 1: Her belief, very clearly is that she did win the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election, even though she didn't, and she may
Speaker 1: be the only candidate in her mind who can fully
Speaker 1: unite the Democratic Party and defeat Trump. And therefore, in
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's oh my gosh, world, she is the necessary
Speaker 1: candidate for this moment, not just a candidate, the necessary candidate.
Speaker 1: It doesn't require that much thinking like a liberal to
Speaker 1: get us there. This is not a massive departure from
Speaker 1: what Hillary is already saying in public and we're already seeing.
Speaker 1: In fact, The New York Times had a published a
Speaker 1: piece out Hillary about whether she's a master troll, whether
Speaker 1: she is excellent at trolling people? Now master troll question
Speaker 1: mark freed to the constraints of public office. Missus Clinton
Speaker 1: seems to be living her best life. There are still
Speaker 1: Hillary superfans all throughout the media. They haven't given up either.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's like you've heard me. I think
Speaker 1: I've said ten or twenty percent. Chance Hillary andrews the race.
Speaker 1: It's still very much a chance. And when you see
Speaker 1: Joe Biden fading, Bernie Sanders is not healthy enough, nor
Speaker 1: is he compelling enough really as a candidate. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: seems like big, harshly talks like this, and she looks
Speaker 1: like someone you could sit down and have some nice
Speaker 1: camemal tea with. She's radical, and the rest of the
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates aren't getting any traction. So is there a
Speaker 1: future which Hillary Clinton maybe does jump into this thing?
Speaker 1: I can't tell you. I can't tell you it's a no.
Speaker 1: And more importantly, neither were Hillary Clinton. For the first time,
Speaker 1: there are now more rich Chinese than rich Americans. China
Speaker 1: now counts for one hundred million of the richest ten
Speaker 1: percent of people in the world. There are ninety nine
Speaker 1: million Americans in the same category. An interesting statistic here,
Speaker 1: yes from CNN from their business section. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the ten percent of the wealthiest people in
Speaker 1: the world, there are more Chinese who fit into that
Speaker 1: ten percent then there are Americans. And this is the
Speaker 1: first time that that has ever happened. The US still
Speaker 1: has many more millionaires eighteen point six million, or forty
Speaker 1: percent of the world's total versus four point four million
Speaker 1: in China, and it's adding millionaires faster. But and the
Speaker 1: average American is still much richer than their Chinese counterparts.
Speaker 1: US wealth per adult is four hundred and thirty two thousand,
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty five dollars compared with fifty eight thousand,
Speaker 1: five hundred and forty four in China. But China is
Speaker 1: growing rapidly and the Chinese entry into the middle class
Speaker 1: is having major impact on global markets and on geopolitics,
Speaker 1: because now you have hundreds of millions of people in
Speaker 1: China who've been lifted out of poverty and they're going
Speaker 1: to have their own aspirations, goals, and yes, this will
Speaker 1: play out at the nation state level as well for China.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to share with you. I had a
Speaker 1: conversation recently with a friend of mine who is a
Speaker 1: very knowledgeable China expert, speaks fluent Mandarin, and he was
Speaker 1: saying to me that things have changed in China dramatically.
Speaker 1: That it used to be the Chinese attitude, the Chinese
Speaker 1: attitude on the mainland was if you were a visiting
Speaker 1: American and I had heard this before too, they were
Speaker 1: so happy to see you. There was such a sense
Speaker 1: of such a sense of being pleased that there are
Speaker 1: anyone's willing to even visit and go see China and
Speaker 1: experience its culture. And that was true through the nineties
Speaker 1: and the early two thousands. But there's been a change
Speaker 1: now and a lot of Chinese and this is coming
Speaker 1: from there. They have a very lockdown state propaganda media.
Speaker 1: A lot of Chinese are being told that there are
Speaker 1: external forces that are trying to hold them down, that
Speaker 1: America is trying to box them in and prevent them
Speaker 1: from finding from achieving their true destiny, and that the
Speaker 1: Chinese people are on a pathway to become the world
Speaker 1: leaders and everything and everything the wealthiest, dominant military power,
Speaker 1: dominant culture, and America is the one thing that's standing
Speaker 1: in their way, and that has resulted in a change
Speaker 1: in attitudes wides were changing China to particularly in the cities,
Speaker 1: the major cities in China, about Americans, even on an
Speaker 1: individual level, that there is much it's much more likely
Speaker 1: this is again there's a friend of mine who lived
Speaker 1: in China for years saying that it's much more likely
Speaker 1: that you would experience hostility from Chinese nationals now when
Speaker 1: you visit than you would than you would before. That
Speaker 1: there's much less of a sense of wonder and excitement
Speaker 1: about anything American. That our culture is considered more invasive
Speaker 1: now in many ways than something that was admirable and desirable,
Speaker 1: even they have their own way of doing Now. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying this is everybody. We're speaking about a country
Speaker 1: with a billion people, but this is a much more prevalent,
Speaker 1: much more prevalent perception among the Chinese. And I've heard
Speaker 1: this from other people. And I'll tell you, I feel
Speaker 1: like I experienced a little bit of this as well,
Speaker 1: just when I was visiting there for a week. You
Speaker 1: come across eural Chinese visiting Beijing and they see an
Speaker 1: American and they smile. But you deal with Chinese in
Speaker 1: Beijing day to day and they're they're not they're not
Speaker 1: looking to help you out. In fact, in Shanghai, you
Speaker 1: deal with a lot of people who the second they
Speaker 1: see or Westerner, they're just trying to rip you off.
Speaker 1: And that was told me by people running businesses in
Speaker 1: China that there's just a sense of if you rip
Speaker 1: off a Westerner, a foreigner, even if it's an expat
Speaker 1: who's living in Shanghai, that's fine. You're you're just kind
Speaker 1: of evening the playing field a little bit. It's it's
Speaker 1: a it's a much more aggressive, much more nationalistic culture
Speaker 1: you're dealing with in China than you used to have.
Speaker 1: And this is from people I know, and they're saying
Speaker 1: that you'll just look at how they wield Chinese financial
Speaker 1: influence to shut down conversations in the NBA, and look
Speaker 1: at the way that they will harass and suppress academics
Speaker 1: who speak ill of China or who are critical of
Speaker 1: the Chinese approach to anything. My friends, we have been
Speaker 1: asleep at the wheel as a country and seeing what's
Speaker 1: going on here with China and being willing to confront it.
Speaker 1: And I know that President Trump in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: you know, he's a blunt instrument, but with the China situation,
Speaker 1: he was the first one who is really willing to
Speaker 1: say this has got to stop. We have a real problem.
Speaker 1: He has been ringing the alarm bell on China, not
Speaker 1: just as president, but for many many years before it.
Speaker 1: He has been right. This is a country that is
Speaker 1: going to pose very serious, not just economic challenges for us,
Speaker 1: but down the line it's going to be security challenges.
Speaker 1: And I don't just mean stealing an intellectual property. I
Speaker 1: mean we're going to have to be worried about a
Speaker 1: China that is building bases all over the world, that's
Speaker 1: flexing it's muscles all over the world. It wants global dominance,
Speaker 1: and global dominance through a system that is truly authoritarian,
Speaker 1: really totalitarian. Wants to control your thoughts, your speech. The
Speaker 1: social credit system that's in place that tells you whether
Speaker 1: or not you can get good dates online. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have really taken this stuff to a new level,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't look like they're going to collapse or
Speaker 1: have a massive financial reset anytime soon. It's slowed down
Speaker 1: a little bit because the trade war with America. But
Speaker 1: if anything, the trade war that has been ongoing has
Speaker 1: raised awareness to borrow from the left about the real
Speaker 1: challenges that China poses to us, the real challenges that
Speaker 1: we face from China. So when you see these statistics
Speaker 1: about the percentage of the wealthiest ten percent of the
Speaker 1: world that are from China, it is a reminder that
Speaker 1: they are gaining on us and their intentions. This is
Speaker 1: not this is not like the EU being a bigger
Speaker 1: you know, the EU is a bigger economy than the
Speaker 1: United States. That's a lot of countries put together. That
Speaker 1: doesn't keep us up late at night. We don't worry
Speaker 1: about that. You know, no one thinks no one thinks
Speaker 1: that we're going to have to worry about the French
Speaker 1: invading us anytime soon, or the French building a blue
Speaker 1: water navy to rival RS and then kick us out
Speaker 1: of whole areas of the Those are real concerns with China,
Speaker 1: and what is China going to do going forward with
Speaker 1: Taiwan and what is it gonna You know, I think
Speaker 1: the best strategy that we have other than recognition that
Speaker 1: China is a competitor, a true near peer competitor or
Speaker 1: not some country that we just need to be strengthening
Speaker 1: ties with all the time and let do whatever, Let
Speaker 1: them do whatever they want to our economy, to our
Speaker 1: intellectual property. We want the we want to be as
Speaker 1: close as possible. I mean, I think that the US
Speaker 1: focus on closer ties with India should be much much more,
Speaker 1: a much stronger effort, and also the US effort to
Speaker 1: build up the so called literal L I T T
Speaker 1: O R A L. I don't know why I spelled
Speaker 1: that out for you guys all know it, but just
Speaker 1: reminding myself states like the Japanese, the Philippines, or the
Speaker 1: South Korea. You look at all these different Malaysia, Vietnam,
Speaker 1: all countries that we want to be self sufficient, powerful
Speaker 1: and a block on Chinese ambitions because we want balance
Speaker 1: in that region. We do not want one a hedgemon
Speaker 1: that's pushing everybody around and getting its way all the time,
Speaker 1: because if that happens, there's only other there's only one hedgemon.
Speaker 1: That they can look to beyond the near abroad and
Speaker 1: that's going to be us, and we are heading for
Speaker 1: a real We're heading for a showdown with China. It's
Speaker 1: just a question when it happens and how it happens.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's a greater awareness now and
Speaker 1: you've either's been a change in Chinese nationalist mentality that
Speaker 1: even if you're just a tourist showing up there, you
Speaker 1: may be quite aware of it. And I've been speaking
Speaker 1: to people that are telling me that's exactly what's going on. Hey,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll call. Team at iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: dot com. If you want to send us dog, that's
Speaker 1: how we get the role call going here. Let's start
Speaker 1: it off with my man Andrew, who rides Buck. I
Speaker 1: install the Pluto app on my Apple TV exclusively because
Speaker 1: of your presence. I've been og teen Buck before it
Speaker 1: was a thing. As evidence to the screen shot in
Speaker 1: this email, Yes, I enjoy the show as much now
Speaker 1: as I did when you filled in for Glenn on
Speaker 1: July eighteenth, twenty thirteen. And I stand by my original
Speaker 1: claim that you're the legitimate heir to rush Limball Shields
Speaker 1: high from Wo Wo Land Andrew, Well, Andrew Man, thank
Speaker 1: you so much. That is very high praise and it's
Speaker 1: really kind of you and appreciated. And Andrew sent me
Speaker 1: a screenshot from Wow from July of twenty thirteen. I
Speaker 1: can't believe I've been doing this as long as I have,
Speaker 1: He wrote to Glenn, this is when I work for
Speaker 1: Glenn Beck. Glenn, I'm really enjoying Buck Sex. There's a
Speaker 1: fill in host today. His points and analysis are brilliant.
Speaker 1: He reminds me of a young Rush Limball regards Andrew, Andrew,
Speaker 1: thank you so much man. You have certainly been og
Speaker 1: team Buck and we like to say oss for original
Speaker 1: Saturday Squad, but thank you so much for writing in
Speaker 1: and the kind words always are appreciated. Guys, because in
Speaker 1: the media business you get a lot of people telling
Speaker 1: you not good enough, not big enough, not whatever enough.
Speaker 1: And the only thing that really keeps you going a
Speaker 1: lot of days, the only thing gives me going a
Speaker 1: lot of days, all of you who listen to watch
Speaker 1: that's it, and the desire to avoid getting a real job.
Speaker 1: David writes, you do the best, Beto. I've never heard
Speaker 1: anybody else even try to do his accent or his voice,
Speaker 1: probably because they can't even come close to you. Gotta
Speaker 1: work on your Elizabeth Ward a little bit war ex
Speaker 1: goose me, sir, ask producer Mark if you sound a
Speaker 1: little like totally from south Park. I don't know who
Speaker 1: that is. Who's totally from south Park? I don't know
Speaker 1: who that is either. Love your show. I listened to
Speaker 1: a lot of talk radio, and out of all of them,
Speaker 1: you're the closest to Rush with your real world analysis.
Speaker 1: Thanks David, Well, thank you so much, David. That's very
Speaker 1: kind another Rush comparison. You guys do me great honor
Speaker 1: with that, and thank you so much for writing in
Speaker 1: and saying all of the kind things. Chris, we're doing
Speaker 1: emails today because we did Facebook yesterday. If you want
Speaker 1: to send Facebook messages on Facebook dot com, Slashbuck Sexton
Speaker 1: and Team Bucket iHeartMedia dot com for the email address,
Speaker 1: Chris right, Hey Buck. My daughter was invited to a
Speaker 1: three day ACLU camp. Huh. I tried to explain to
Speaker 1: her why it wasn't a great idea. But then when
Speaker 1: I searched the internet, I found that I supported many
Speaker 1: of their positions on free speech. I know the individual
Speaker 1: members are extremely liberal, but they are free speech advocates,
Speaker 1: even for undesirable groups like the KKK, so it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like they play favorites. During the Reagan era, the
Speaker 1: biggest insult in Republican circles was being a hardcaring member
Speaker 1: of the ACLU. So is the ACLU ok Chris is
Speaker 1: a very interesting question. The ACLU is a left wing
Speaker 1: organization with a left wing agenda. Does the ACLU sometimes
Speaker 1: stand on a principle of free speech that is truly
Speaker 1: about free speech and not just about advancing the left
Speaker 1: wing agenda? Yes, indeed, But if you look at, for example,
Speaker 1: when the Aco ac LU will and will not bring
Speaker 1: a case, there's a tendency to go after Christian religious
Speaker 1: organizations on First Amended issues and not, for example, Muslim
Speaker 1: religious organizations on First Amendment issues. Right, there's there's certainly
Speaker 1: cases where the ACLU is showing a left wing bias.
Speaker 1: Do you see that a lot? And then there's another
Speaker 1: part of this is that the a CLU on the
Speaker 1: issue of I think it's I'd have to look at
Speaker 1: their recent positions, but I'm pretty sure on on hate
Speaker 1: speech they're very they take the position they're getting closer
Speaker 1: and closer to speech equals violence, which is the eradication
Speaker 1: of the First Amendment relief if speech equals violence just
Speaker 1: because you don't like certain speech. But I'd have to
Speaker 1: look at some of their more recent decisions. But what
Speaker 1: when they bring cases and when they don't. That alone
Speaker 1: shows you the a CLU is a left wing is
Speaker 1: a left wing group, but even left wing groups can
Speaker 1: do good things. You know, Telsea Gabert hates the president,
Speaker 1: is a progressive, wants medicare for all, and believes in
Speaker 1: climate change. But I've been seeing you're saying, well, at
Speaker 1: least she doesn't want third trimester abortion and doesn't say
Speaker 1: that Trump supporters are all Nazis, so she's you know,
Speaker 1: there's good things, there's bad things. Aclu IS is mostly
Speaker 1: about destroying the SLU really at its cored now, has
Speaker 1: been leveraged by the left to destroy Judeo Christian culture
Speaker 1: and conservatism in America. That that is the ultimate It's
Speaker 1: not protecting freedom, And I could pull some examples of
Speaker 1: why that is, but I'd have to do a little
Speaker 1: bit of a deep dive on it. Brandon Buck, I
Speaker 1: agree with another member of Team Buck Joker was boring
Speaker 1: story and acting were good, but pace is very slow.
Speaker 1: And sorry but there was a spoiler of sorts. Blah blah, Brandon.
Speaker 1: All right, Brandon Brandon, you, sir, are entitled to your opinion.
Speaker 1: I think that I will say this about Joker, since
Speaker 1: we're back on the topic. When I saw that it's
Speaker 1: two hours, this is a big mistake most movies, you
Speaker 1: really want it to be ninety minutes. You want an
Speaker 1: hour and a half, three acts, thirty minutes an act.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's the sweet spot. Now, of course there's
Speaker 1: Brave Heart, which went on for like ten years. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's some movies that are amazing and are very long.
Speaker 1: But usually I think that you could have cut twenty
Speaker 1: minutes out of Joker, for example, and made it a
Speaker 1: better movie. If you cut twenty minutes out, it would
Speaker 1: be a better movie. That's what I think. It was
Speaker 1: too long, so I would agree with that. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: say it's boring, but I do think it was too long.
Speaker 1: Let's see Kathy hey Buck listening to the podcast. Is
Speaker 1: a time in the podcast where Betta was talking about
Speaker 1: the president using Nazi tactics and you start speaking the background.
Speaker 1: I don't think you meant for better to speak over you.
Speaker 1: Just thought i'd mentioned this since this is not the
Speaker 1: first time I've heard this happen. Shields High Kathy from Georgia. Yeah, Kathy,
Speaker 1: thank you. People brought this to my attention last night.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark has a brilliant strategy for me to avoid this,
Speaker 1: called don't talk during clips. Buck. Yeah, that's a great strategy. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I think it's also part of the new studio operations,
Speaker 1: so I won't put all the blame on you. Thank
Speaker 1: you a little bit more than just it's not just
Speaker 1: all about the Bucks are getting a little too excited.
Speaker 1: But yeah, no, we will try to avoid that. Mark
Speaker 1: will wave me off now because I sometimes like to
Speaker 1: talk while these clips are going in the past, but
Speaker 1: we don't really have the set up here for that,
Speaker 1: so we'll try to avoid that for a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of reasons. Oh wow, look at this, Andy writes, Hello, Buck,
Speaker 1: just wanted to say you have a fan base in
Speaker 1: New Zealand that really enjoys your show. All right, we
Speaker 1: got some Kiwi team Buck. A lot of us here
Speaker 1: closely follow American politics and relate to conservative and libertarian ideologies.
Speaker 1: Our country has dramatically changed with the election of a
Speaker 1: far left government and following our recent terror attack, things
Speaker 1: are moving very quickly. Imagine Justin Trudeau but with venom. Anyway,
Speaker 1: your show was always on point, and that Hans Gruber
Speaker 1: voice the other week had me in hysterics. Keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, cheers Andy. Well, Andy, not quite the
Speaker 1: landown under right, that's Australia, but whatever, whatever the cool
Speaker 1: way to say New Zealand the land of of Frodo
Speaker 1: in the Hobbits because that's where they filmed the Lord
Speaker 1: of the Rings trilogy. Sure, yeah, just thank you to
Speaker 1: Kiwi team buck Man down there in New Zealand, and
Speaker 1: thank you for writing in. And I don't know was
Speaker 1: the Hans Booby? Was it that center? Was it the
Speaker 1: British like mister Takagi. I can't remember now, but I'm
Speaker 1: glad you enjoyed it. That's the show. Check it out
Speaker 1: on podcast. Tell people Shields High