Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Impeachment fever hits the
Speaker 1: swamp perhaps a bit earlier than anticipated. The deep State
Speaker 1: and its media allies are gathering on the political battlefield
Speaker 1: against Trump. They hope to slow down and perhaps even
Speaker 1: stop his administration with these preposterous allegations from within the
Speaker 1: deep state anti Trumper ranks. We'll talk about that. Plus
Speaker 1: South Africa is targeting white farmers and following up on
Speaker 1: the case of Molly Timbots and how the left is
Speaker 1: approaching illegal aliens. That are more coming up on the
Speaker 1: Box Sexton Show. 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 America, You're a great
Speaker 1: American again The Buck Sexton Show. Games of former CIA analysts,
Speaker 1: Remember the Sexton No, the President of the United States
Speaker 1: of America, Donald J. Trump is named a co conspirator
Speaker 1: of a federal crime. Is that ground for impeachment? Do
Speaker 1: you think impeachment is more likely at this point? Impeachment? Teachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
Speaker 1: Does they move the needle at all or confidence to
Speaker 1: move forward on impeachment? The president facing impeachment, impeachment will
Speaker 1: be on the Democrats agenda. The I word impeachment, the
Speaker 1: eye word impeachment, the eye word impeachment, the eye word,
Speaker 1: the eye word, and impeachment. Let's take a look at
Speaker 1: the process of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, to
Speaker 1: impeach or impeachment, impeachment, he would have been impeached, all
Speaker 1: of it. Bringing impeachment back to the forefront. Talking about impeachment,
Speaker 1: impeachment talk impeachment is and we're viable auction. Do you
Speaker 1: think it would be appropriate to immediately begin impeachment proceedings impeachment, impeach, frompeachment, impeachment,
Speaker 1: and teachment each meant eachment, engeachment, impeach, mint, impeach, each impeachment.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done
Speaker 1: a great job. I'll tell you what if I ever
Speaker 1: got in peach, I think the market would crash. I
Speaker 1: think everybody would be very poor because without this thinking,
Speaker 1: you would see you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe.
Speaker 1: In reverse, if Hillary Clinton got elected instead of four
Speaker 1: point one up and each point is three and a
Speaker 1: half trillion dollars and ten million jobs. When I took
Speaker 1: it over, it was at one and it was gonna
Speaker 1: be down. It was going down. I freed up. I
Speaker 1: got rid of regulations. The tax cut was a tremendous thing.
Speaker 1: But even before the tax cut, right from first day,
Speaker 1: I got rid of regulation. I approved the pipelines forty
Speaker 1: eight thousand jobs. But I did a lot of things.
Speaker 1: Had Hillary and the Democrats gotten in, had she been president,
Speaker 1: you would have had negative growth. Welcome to the Buck
Speaker 1: Section show. Everybody very very different views there of of impeachment.
Speaker 1: Of course that the media and we really we ran
Speaker 1: through that. I think producer Mike pulled us together. It
Speaker 1: was a hundred and something mentions of impeachment on cable
Speaker 1: news in a twenty four hour period. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: just they're all over One thing that I have to say,
Speaker 1: I find very amusing. Is this this narrative now that
Speaker 1: they don't want it to be too blatant. Two I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: thank you, Mike. Two hundred and twenty two mentions of impeachment.
Speaker 1: They don't want it to be too blatant. That they
Speaker 1: are all along playing this political game, right, So what
Speaker 1: they do is they say, oh, no, we are waiting
Speaker 1: until the facts come out. We're waiting until the Mula report,
Speaker 1: We're waiting until we see what Cohen has and all that.
Speaker 1: They're not waiting for anything. They're not sure if they
Speaker 1: want to be up front with anyone outside of their
Speaker 1: outside of their hardcore left wing base about the fact
Speaker 1: that they're only their only way of of dealing with
Speaker 1: Trump is to try to get rid of Trump. They
Speaker 1: can't beat him, so they're trying to take him off
Speaker 1: the playing field, right that they can't match him. They
Speaker 1: don't have anybody who can go toe to toe with him,
Speaker 1: and so the response that that you get from him
Speaker 1: is just trying to take him out of the game, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is it's appalling, folks, but this is
Speaker 1: who they are. This is how the left operates now, um,
Speaker 1: and we will continue to just sit here and here
Speaker 1: and hear them pretend that they haven't already made up
Speaker 1: their minds on impeachment. Does anyone really take that seriously?
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, come on, this is like when
Speaker 1: you you have these uh I think is at least
Speaker 1: four different senators now who have come out to say, oh,
Speaker 1: we won't meet with we won't meet with Kavanaugh because
Speaker 1: Trump is an unindicted co conspirator, which is just a
Speaker 1: really a kind of legal ease way of slandering somebody
Speaker 1: unindicted co conspiracy. What does that mean? It doesn't really
Speaker 1: mean anything. It just means that somebody thinks you did
Speaker 1: something bad, but they don't have the goods on you
Speaker 1: or the willingness to actually charge you with it, which
Speaker 1: means you have no ability to defend yourself, and it
Speaker 1: means it will not be adjudicated, won't go before a judge.
Speaker 1: So it's just like a thing that somebody says, Man,
Speaker 1: it's not nearly as damn as they pretend. But you
Speaker 1: have these four senators who say we will not meet
Speaker 1: with Kavanaugh, and it's funny because they've all already i think,
Speaker 1: got on the record as not being willing to meet
Speaker 1: with Kavanaugh. I mean to see the posturing from Democrats
Speaker 1: about how this guy, this Yale law school educated super
Speaker 1: legal mind is is a problem for them. It's just pathetic.
Speaker 1: They know they have to do it, but we all
Speaker 1: know that there's no there's no real basis for it
Speaker 1: other than pandering to their base, right, trying to trying
Speaker 1: to put on a show for the MSNBC watchers out there.
Speaker 1: It's not based in any principles, not seen any real
Speaker 1: Jurkor's prudential concerns. But the left is never really about that,
Speaker 1: as you know, about power, about seizing power, about attaining power,
Speaker 1: utilizing it. That is the prime motivator. That is number
Speaker 1: That is number one. But this notion of impeachment, I
Speaker 1: just have to say, it's uh, it's something that we
Speaker 1: all know is there, and the media is now very
Speaker 1: much talking about it, and we can expect that if
Speaker 1: the Democrats take the House, that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: And oh, then we can hear that we can deal
Speaker 1: with all the unifying and healing effects of a drawn out,
Speaker 1: let's say, eighteen month long impeachment process of President Trump. Boyd,
Speaker 1: we're gonna hear so much more about Russia collusion and
Speaker 1: all this other, all these other fantasies that these leftists have.
Speaker 1: That if nothing else, folks, we've got to get Republican
Speaker 1: turn out up high from the mid term so we
Speaker 1: don't have to go through that, just the endless hearings
Speaker 1: wherease people make fools of themselves. You know, well, I
Speaker 1: think Paupadupple, this was some kind of international Superspy and
Speaker 1: Carter Page that were totally justified. And the fires are
Speaker 1: warrant on him. These are things that only idiots or
Speaker 1: liars could say. At this point, it's just not serious.
Speaker 1: But then they get plenty of Democrats who are who
Speaker 1: are un serious people, but they say that they're waiting
Speaker 1: to impeach him. They're not going to wait. It's just
Speaker 1: a function of trying to play little cat and mouse
Speaker 1: with the public here and not make it too obvious
Speaker 1: that is what they want to do. There's a little
Speaker 1: bit of breaking news late in the data I wanted
Speaker 1: to get to with you though. That ties into all
Speaker 1: this David Pecker and people are already having a lot
Speaker 1: of fun with his name and the headlines and everything else.
Speaker 1: I will not do that here on the show because
Speaker 1: my name is Buck and I did not like it.
Speaker 1: When I was a kid and people who played the
Speaker 1: name game, you know, Buck Buck, bull Buck Fanana Fanna.
Speaker 1: They used to say, we all know how that would
Speaker 1: rhyme and that would go and it was very sad.
Speaker 1: But people are playing games with David Pecker with his
Speaker 1: name and and uh, he's the CEO of the National Enquirer,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure, I mean, of all the guys in
Speaker 1: media who's who probably got some wild stories, this guy
Speaker 1: is pretty high on the list, right. And if you
Speaker 1: could sit down with somebody and have a long chat
Speaker 1: about the stuff that they've been privy to and just
Speaker 1: everything else, I mean, yeah, obviously the National Choir publishes
Speaker 1: you know, the baby with the Horns of a Devil,
Speaker 1: will you know, born in the Arizona Desert or something, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, they do all kinds of really weird they
Speaker 1: they are. They are a purveyor of fake news. Although
Speaker 1: they are the ones who broke the John Edwards story,
Speaker 1: which I always have to remind people that the the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, with all their resources, with all their investigative journalists,
Speaker 1: they didn't break the John Edwards story. John Edwards with
Speaker 1: his love with his love child and his mistress and
Speaker 1: everything else. That was actually a National Enquirer reporter who
Speaker 1: broke that. Uh. And and they got a lot of
Speaker 1: heat for I think they actually ended up getting what
Speaker 1: you get, a bullets or something for it that I
Speaker 1: think they did actually get an award for it, or
Speaker 1: if they didn't, they should have. But they published a
Speaker 1: lot of direct a lot of nonsense too, And remember Edwards,
Speaker 1: that whole story. This is kind of interesting how it
Speaker 1: comes full circle. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards
Speaker 1: love love child mistress story and the National enquire and
Speaker 1: and that story rather is the closest approximation of what
Speaker 1: people are saying Trump did, unproven, unfounded, Trump did to
Speaker 1: pay off these two women. And so it all kind
Speaker 1: of ties in together, right, The John Edwards story of
Speaker 1: paying off the women was broken by the National Enquirer
Speaker 1: and now the National Inquirer CEO. And this is the
Speaker 1: break news from today. Granted immunity in the Michael Cohen case.
Speaker 1: Now this could get lost in a lot of the
Speaker 1: other headlines. A lot so much other stuff going on,
Speaker 1: and Mana Ford and Trump sat down with Ainslei air
Speaker 1: Heart today, Who's just fantastic. I'm an Ainslei Airheart fan.
Speaker 1: But you know, Trump sat down and had this long
Speaker 1: interview today. There's a lot of stuff to get to.
Speaker 1: We've got more on Molly Tibbits. I'm gonna talk to
Speaker 1: you about what's going on with white farmers in South Africa.
Speaker 1: A lot of a lot of ground to cover, with
Speaker 1: you today, as we always do. Here's what this story
Speaker 1: really shows you, though, I mean that there's the basics
Speaker 1: of it, or that Mr Pecker um not to be
Speaker 1: confused with Walter Peck, the EPA chief who is the
Speaker 1: protagonist in the movie Ghostbusters. Mr Pecker, who's the CEO
Speaker 1: of American Media, has shared details with prosecutors about payments
Speaker 1: Mr Cohen arranged in effort of silence the two women
Speaker 1: who have led sexual encounters with Mr Trump, including Mr
Speaker 1: Trump's knowledge of the deals. According to the Wall Street Journal. Here,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna get more information about all this, but
Speaker 1: let me just go to go to this point, folks.
Speaker 1: They are walking around, meaning the Fed federal prosecutors are
Speaker 1: going around, and they're handing out immunity deals like candy
Speaker 1: uh and, and they are also flipping people by pushing.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're using every weapon in their prosecutors arsenal
Speaker 1: here against anybody in Trump's orbit to just get damaging
Speaker 1: stuff on Trump. What we have seen is the Mueller
Speaker 1: probe turn into an OPO research arm with the authority
Speaker 1: to ruin people's lives and basically send them to prison
Speaker 1: for the dancy for Hillary Clinton's now much scorned losing
Speaker 1: political campaign. They cannot do this without us looking at
Speaker 1: how they treated Hillary Clinton the email probe. Did they
Speaker 1: flip anybody against Hillary Clinton? Did they put anybody in
Speaker 1: an adversarial prosecution prosecutorial environment? Did they give did they
Speaker 1: gave out unbelievable immunity to people there to protect them
Speaker 1: as they were trying to find a way to justify
Speaker 1: what Hillary Clinton did with your emails? The ass of course, yes,
Speaker 1: this is not what about is um? If you are
Speaker 1: unwilling to see this, you are blinded bipartisan ideology, You're
Speaker 1: you're being again un serious because this was not long ago.
Speaker 1: This involves two political candidates, it's all tied in together,
Speaker 1: and some of the same people that were involved in
Speaker 1: that process are involved in this process now. That's certainly
Speaker 1: the same Department of Justice. They're trying to flip everybody
Speaker 1: against Trump. They're trying to turn everyone around him in
Speaker 1: his inner circle against rum. I have to say, I
Speaker 1: think it's just a matter of time before they go
Speaker 1: after legally go after a member of Trump's family. And
Speaker 1: I think that is a a red line that up
Speaker 1: to this point they have not crossed. But I'm starting
Speaker 1: to think that they're gonna they're gonna do it. They're
Speaker 1: going to really try to put Donald Trump Junior or
Speaker 1: some other member of the Trump family or you know,
Speaker 1: the inner circle in some form of legal je real
Speaker 1: legal jeopardy. That's how dirty and underhanded this anti Trump
Speaker 1: team is willing to play. This whole thing is a farce,
Speaker 1: my friends. We can't lose sight of that. When Trump
Speaker 1: says no collusion in all caps, as he did today,
Speaker 1: he's just stating a fact there was no collusion. This
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. UM. I had the opportunity to speak to
Speaker 1: the former CIA and n s A director Mike Hayden.
Speaker 1: You can actually watch the the interview tomorrow and Hill
Speaker 1: un Hill dot TV. I asked him a question. I said, So, Mike,
Speaker 1: I worked for the c I A. You know, we
Speaker 1: had we had to around a nice exchange before and
Speaker 1: after the the interview because we worked together on some
Speaker 1: very important stuff. We were on the same team. It
Speaker 1: was us against you know, I was obviously an underling,
Speaker 1: but you know, vaguely I think remembers me. But we're
Speaker 1: in the same team against the terrorists. It was America
Speaker 1: versus the terrorists. It was a good time, and I
Speaker 1: looked at Mike and I said, you know, Mike, you've
Speaker 1: been very outspoken. You're Mike Hayden, former ci A, former
Speaker 1: NSA director. You've been very outspoken about Trump and all
Speaker 1: of this, and you know this is uncharted territory and
Speaker 1: this is unprecedented for former spot chiefs. And yeah, he agrees,
Speaker 1: it's unprecedented. Okay, fine, I said, how is it that
Speaker 1: we are supposed to believe that with the massive intelligence
Speaker 1: apparatus that that the U. S. Government has at its disposal,
Speaker 1: which was turned against Trump in the campaign, how is
Speaker 1: it that we're supposed to believe that this group of
Speaker 1: what the media will tell us, bumbling fools who can't
Speaker 1: figure out anything, you know, can't work their way out
Speaker 1: of a paper bag, that they have been able to
Speaker 1: hide this Russian collusion from us at this point. And
Speaker 1: Mike knows that I you know, Mike and I both
Speaker 1: know that we have some sense of the capabilities and
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here. Write him more him more
Speaker 1: so than me, at a higher level. But I'm I'm
Speaker 1: I was reading a lot of the same memos and
Speaker 1: I'm sitting there and he says, well, no, Buck, we
Speaker 1: already have all we really need. Oh, I see now
Speaker 1: that we won't find it, We're to say that the
Speaker 1: we're gonna find a way of describing the Trump Tower meeting.
Speaker 1: We're gonna find a way of reforming the narrative such
Speaker 1: that the information that has come short will now be
Speaker 1: enough for impeachment. Now that collusion has failed as a
Speaker 1: concept to prove, they're going to say that the collusion
Speaker 1: was already proved in the course of that failure of evidence.
Speaker 1: We just don't know it yet. Folks. This is crazy,
Speaker 1: but this is where they're going. Eight four eight to five,
Speaker 1: eight four four nine buck lines open. I'm out tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Michael Polkas informed you, So if you want to chat
Speaker 1: with me, today is the day and we will be
Speaker 1: right back. I don't know what's going on. I mean,
Speaker 1: Hawaii has had a had a tough era, a place
Speaker 1: that I always think of as as the closest thing
Speaker 1: I've probably ever been to to Paradise, and they had
Speaker 1: those lava flows with the the volcano. It's just crazy
Speaker 1: when you see that stuff, and really destructive. And now
Speaker 1: they're in the in the path of this hurricane Lane,
Speaker 1: which is supposed to I'm reading. It's gonna have thirty
Speaker 1: in of rain, thoughts and prayers everybody out there. Two
Speaker 1: weeks of food they want everyone to have on hand too.
Speaker 1: I mean that the Hawaiian Islands rarely get hit with hurricanes.
Speaker 1: It's about to get absolutely walloped based on what we're
Speaker 1: seeing here. So let's just hope that everything is uh
Speaker 1: ever and out there is all right, you know, keep
Speaker 1: your head down, stay safe, don't take any risks. Um
Speaker 1: We have Sandra in Boston the line. Hey Sandra, hi,
Speaker 1: umu can you hear me? Okay, yeah, everybody can. What's
Speaker 1: going on? Well, I I'm pretty disturbed by this whole business.
Speaker 1: And I just feel that, you know, sure, Michael Cohen
Speaker 1: is a fixer, he's no nice guy, but what Robert
Speaker 1: Muller is doing seems to be fixing on the government level.
Speaker 1: And you know, he was the director of the FBI
Speaker 1: when Hillary Clinton was there and we had ben Ghazi.
Speaker 1: Was FBI going in three weeks after the the event
Speaker 1: we had. I simply don't believe that he didn't know
Speaker 1: she had a private server. I'm sure he knew, And
Speaker 1: it seems to me he's covering up a lot of
Speaker 1: things and didn't he have some involvement in uh interviewing
Speaker 1: the people from Libya as the State Department people like
Speaker 1: what Gregory Hicks, I think his name was State Polly
Speaker 1: graphed him and demoded them and did all kinds of
Speaker 1: things to keep them silent. Um you Brennan. Now, wouldn't
Speaker 1: the FBI have been involved too? Yes? Yeah, absolutely, I'm not.
Speaker 1: But I'm not sure if it was, if it was Comy,
Speaker 1: or if it was Muller or you know, I'd have
Speaker 1: to go back and check. I mean, look, I think
Speaker 1: Mueller is um. Muller is a guy who is an institutionalist.
Speaker 1: I mean he falls in that category of people that
Speaker 1: I think he thinks he's doing the right thing by
Speaker 1: protecting the FBI and the d o J. And the
Speaker 1: best way to protect them is to go after their
Speaker 1: primary antagonist right now, which is Trump. You know, I
Speaker 1: do think that he's he's lost objectivity here and that's
Speaker 1: why he's going and they're just they're handing it out
Speaker 1: to the Southern District. I mean, this whole thing, this,
Speaker 1: this this investigation spiraled completely out of control. Sendra thank
Speaker 1: you for calling in appreciated team. We've got more coming up,
Speaker 1: including I just want to take a moment to what
Speaker 1: would happen if they did impeach the president, and let's
Speaker 1: say they managed to either force him to step down
Speaker 1: or remove him from office. Do the Libs really think
Speaker 1: that we all just go on and happy and say, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: voist a a president Biden or even a President Hillary
Speaker 1: on us. We'll get to that coming up. He's holding
Speaker 1: the line for America buck sex in his back. But peachment,
Speaker 1: don't put all these allegations to the appropriate authority. I
Speaker 1: think a peachman would be totally horrible. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no reason he didn't colude with the Russians, he didn't
Speaker 1: obstruct justice. Everything Cohen says has been disproved. You only
Speaker 1: impeach him for political reasons, and the American people would
Speaker 1: revolt against that. The American people would revolt against it.
Speaker 1: That's something to keep in mind here, is that there's
Speaker 1: no way that you could view any action by the
Speaker 1: left to remove this president based on the information we have,
Speaker 1: as anything other than essentially a political declaration of war.
Speaker 1: I mean, it would it would really tear at this
Speaker 1: country because there's just no they're there. I mean, I
Speaker 1: was telling you before we had a former US spy chief.
Speaker 1: I always think it's interesting people don't like to use
Speaker 1: that term spy, Like we don't have spy agencies yet,
Speaker 1: yeah we do. We like to call them intelligence. Age
Speaker 1: sees they spy, they are engaged in spying. We should
Speaker 1: we should not. Every other country when they think of
Speaker 1: our CIA, they think of spying. They don't think of oh,
Speaker 1: look intelligence in order to inform the policy community. No,
Speaker 1: no spies, that's what they think of. Uh. But anyway,
Speaker 1: we had our former spy chief, and I said, I
Speaker 1: spoke to them today and trying to change the definition
Speaker 1: of what would constitute enough of a of an of
Speaker 1: an egregious act by the president to that way to
Speaker 1: the stuff we already know. And I can't help but think, Okay,
Speaker 1: if if we're being told now that the Trump Tower
Speaker 1: meeting is the cause of impeachment efforts or impeachment discussion, now,
Speaker 1: why weren't they Why wasn't it then that the move
Speaker 1: was underway. It's it's political. We see this, it's obvious.
Speaker 1: Can't we all just speak to each other like adults
Speaker 1: and be honest about that? But no, they would like
Speaker 1: to continue to to play all kinds of games. But
Speaker 1: I love Trump's about. You know, you can't impeach somebody
Speaker 1: doing such a good, good job. There's something to that, folks,
Speaker 1: there is something to the realities of what would happen
Speaker 1: in this country if they were to push for impeachment
Speaker 1: against the president who has beaten them at their own
Speaker 1: game so many times already, and done so in ways
Speaker 1: that have really benefited America. And the country is doing
Speaker 1: very well right now, and they and the Left can't
Speaker 1: change that. They can't come up with some way to
Speaker 1: alter that reality that they've tried to beat us on
Speaker 1: the you know, to to to define success in all
Speaker 1: these different ways, so that the president is no longer successful.
Speaker 1: But that's just that's a fool's errand and we all
Speaker 1: know this. So they're they're going with the main plan here,
Speaker 1: which is to try to use lawyers and bureaucrats to
Speaker 1: stop Trump. And I find that very troubling, by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, the whole notion of this as an he's
Speaker 1: an unindicted co conspirace committed some cry him, you know,
Speaker 1: the dirsh who got a little terse with me earlier
Speaker 1: in the week when I asked him about I asked
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz on my other show Hill dot TV Slash Rising.
Speaker 1: I asked the dirsh about whether you know he spoke
Speaker 1: the president, and he started telling me, well, he's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: you know, just every just everyone's very clear. Dersh is
Speaker 1: a Democrat, which we all knew. But he's also a
Speaker 1: guy who still believes in the law, still believes that
Speaker 1: there is law and that it matters. And here's what
Speaker 1: he says about the payouts. That everyone they're already acting
Speaker 1: like this is a really big deal and it's criminal.
Speaker 1: Here's what he says. Play clip for Candidate Trump could
Speaker 1: have announced I'm funding my own campaign. I'm putting a
Speaker 1: billion of my dollars into the campaign, and I'm paying
Speaker 1: a hundred million of them to women who have accused
Speaker 1: me falsely, et cetera. That would not be a violation
Speaker 1: of any campaign law as long as he reported it.
Speaker 1: If he if it was, if the campaign failed to
Speaker 1: report it, it would be on the campaign, not on
Speaker 1: the candidate himself. If he had written a letter to
Speaker 1: these two women saying you're gonna help, you're gonna hurt
Speaker 1: me in my campaign, I'm gonna pay you a hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to help me get elected president, and you
Speaker 1: have to keep it quiet. It's hush money, no crime.
Speaker 1: I challenge any of those who were saying it's a
Speaker 1: crime to find me anything in the criminal law that
Speaker 1: would make it a crime for a president personally or
Speaker 1: candidate personally to pay in order to save his own election.
Speaker 1: So what are we really talking about here, folks? What's
Speaker 1: all this impeachment talking based on what? What have they got?
Speaker 1: You know? And you know Trump spoke about this himself
Speaker 1: that I played the three later on. I knew later
Speaker 1: on did they come out of the campaign? They didn't
Speaker 1: come out of the campaign. They came from me, and
Speaker 1: I tweeted about it. In fact, my first question when
Speaker 1: I heard about it was did they come out of
Speaker 1: the campaign? Because that could be a little dicey, And
Speaker 1: they didn't come out of the campaign, and that's big. So,
Speaker 1: you know, we're having all these discussions, all this talk
Speaker 1: about about the issue, and and it really could be
Speaker 1: a whole lot of nothing. Uh. The they have the
Speaker 1: press completely beside themselves with with outrage over this, but
Speaker 1: but they're there are no limits to their outrage. I
Speaker 1: would have thought at some point they would get tired.
Speaker 1: You know, I would have thought at some point they'd
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, we we no longer can can
Speaker 1: play this game of being upset about everything all the time.
Speaker 1: But no, no, no, no, they they do. They think
Speaker 1: that there's always more, always more room to be self
Speaker 1: indulgent about their their emotional outbursts about all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And like, but I can tell Trump is also losing
Speaker 1: patience with this. He feels like, you know, enough is enough,
Speaker 1: and he's gone through this process long enough. It's that's
Speaker 1: why he got a little he got a little saucy
Speaker 1: with my man Jeff Today Producer Mike, you know, we
Speaker 1: have a soft spot for Jeff, right, I mean, Jeff,
Speaker 1: Jeff just like comes and hangs out on our show.
Speaker 1: Sometimes he's like one of the He's like one of
Speaker 1: the guys, you know. He's like he's like Buck at
Speaker 1: his what a cold? You know. I'm like, hey, here
Speaker 1: he is this my man, the Attorney General hanging out
Speaker 1: on the Buck Sex the show. I was like, it
Speaker 1: gave me my first first great interview at at Hill
Speaker 1: dot TV. And you know, so so I like Jeff,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I can't hide that from you, see.
Speaker 1: I tell you these things, folks, I don't pretend that
Speaker 1: I'm oh, I'm totally objective observer that said it was
Speaker 1: a terrible idea for him to reach. It's a terrible
Speaker 1: idea for him to recuse himself. And he's left Trump
Speaker 1: high and dry on this one. And as much as
Speaker 1: I like Jeff, I'm like Jeff making me upset here
Speaker 1: a little bit a little bit, and and Trump obviously
Speaker 1: it gets a little nor with them too, because the
Speaker 1: problem is, folks, Sessions is great on immigration on the border.
Speaker 1: You know, he really understands the problem, and he's and
Speaker 1: he's a very ethical and loyal guy. But I think
Speaker 1: he's also a little bit of as I've said before,
Speaker 1: he's a boy scout in the street in a street fight.
Speaker 1: And Trump is out there metaphorically speaking in the street
Speaker 1: surrounded by a bunch of deep state dams who have
Speaker 1: you know, got got baseball bats that are coming after
Speaker 1: him and Sessions. It's like, I don't believe in valiance,
Speaker 1: and it's like, no get in their Sessions. You gotta
Speaker 1: back him up, you know, you gotta help him out.
Speaker 1: So Trump is a little upset about this. When played twelve,
Speaker 1: the Dems are very strong in the Justice Department. I
Speaker 1: put an attorney general that never took control of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. Jeff Sessions never took control of the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: And uh, it's a sort of an incredible thing. Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions recused himself, which he shouldn't have done, or he
Speaker 1: should have told me. Even my enemies say that Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions should have told you that he was going to
Speaker 1: recuse himself, and then you wouldn't have put him in.
Speaker 1: He took the job and then he said, I'm going
Speaker 1: to recuse myself. I said, what kind of a man
Speaker 1: is this? So so he's it's rough. It's rough, Jeff.
Speaker 1: Jeff's getting the right stuff. And you know, and I
Speaker 1: do think in this case it is it is somewhat.
Speaker 1: It is somewhat deserved because it was a big mistake.
Speaker 1: I know why Jeff did. He did it for the
Speaker 1: right reasons. He did because he thought it was the
Speaker 1: right thing to do and he thought it was ethical.
Speaker 1: But he's left our president in the very and a
Speaker 1: very tough spot here. Uh. And it's one where I
Speaker 1: think Trump is increasingly gonna just have to say, you
Speaker 1: know what, enough is enough? And there are two ways
Speaker 1: that Trump can up end the Democrats efforts here. The
Speaker 1: first one is and I cannot get an answer to
Speaker 1: this question. Really I want Trump to declassify the rest
Speaker 1: of the FISER word. I don't believe it would put
Speaker 1: any lives in danger. I don't believe that. I don't
Speaker 1: believe it would expose sources and methods. I don't believe it.
Speaker 1: I just don't believe it. And I'm somebody who has
Speaker 1: seen a lot of top secret, very sensitive information in
Speaker 1: my life, and I'm I'm just not I think that
Speaker 1: they are are redacting stuff that, first of all, we
Speaker 1: probably would already know a lot of it if it
Speaker 1: wasn't redacted in those FISER requests, because because I think
Speaker 1: what we'd see is that one the dossier was the
Speaker 1: basis for the FISA warrant. You know, it was it
Speaker 1: was it was like se it in terms of substance,
Speaker 1: maybe not in terms of lines of written text, but
Speaker 1: it was the it was the main uh it was
Speaker 1: the critical that the sene qua non you like that, producer,
Speaker 1: Mike Fancy, thank you. I do what I can of
Speaker 1: of the entire without which what in Latin. Uh So,
Speaker 1: I think that that's that would come out of it
Speaker 1: um and that's why they but Trump won't do it. Trump,
Speaker 1: but I also think that if he were to declassify,
Speaker 1: that we would find out that there were before it
Speaker 1: was even really a full fledged counterintelligence investigation, there were
Speaker 1: people at the top levels of the community. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it would be you know, I don't know
Speaker 1: if this is a Brennan c I A thing or
Speaker 1: if it's an FBI uh comey thing, but you know,
Speaker 1: somebody was was putting putting a source near the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: essentially doing doing a honey pot operation. And we've already
Speaker 1: Papadopolis and the professor, and we've seen some of this
Speaker 1: stuff already, we've seen it. But I think we'd have
Speaker 1: them dead to rights on this that they were essentially
Speaker 1: trying to honey trap the Trump campaign with you know,
Speaker 1: some kind of a Russia story or you know, whatever
Speaker 1: it was that they were trying to essentially in trapped them.
Speaker 1: So I want Trump to declassify, and I don't know
Speaker 1: why he won't do it or hasn't done it yet.
Speaker 1: I don't know why because it's certainly in his authority.
Speaker 1: I asked a top national security lawyer yesterday, really one
Speaker 1: of the best guys in the business on national security law,
Speaker 1: and he said, the president absolutely has the authority to
Speaker 1: do it. By the way, he also has the authority
Speaker 1: to pull people's clearances, which were the left salt, No,
Speaker 1: you can't. Actually he just did and he can. Uh,
Speaker 1: so the president has that has that authority. The president
Speaker 1: could declassify. I would love to see him. I would
Speaker 1: love to see him do that. And then the other
Speaker 1: one is pardons pardon power. Um, that's he was asked
Speaker 1: about pardoning man of fort. You know what, let me
Speaker 1: let me I want to hold off on that before
Speaker 1: we get into the pardon issue. Uh, let's let's take
Speaker 1: a quick beat here eight four eight four buck. We
Speaker 1: will talk about some possibly imminent pardons coming up here. Also,
Speaker 1: take any of your calls if you want to, if
Speaker 1: I can remember to in the next before we coming
Speaker 1: to the second hour. And by the way, we have
Speaker 1: and Coulter joining us an hour or two. I've known
Speaker 1: Ann for many years now. She's great. We're I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: we always have a really fun conversation. It's got a
Speaker 1: new book out. We're going to chat about that, and uh,
Speaker 1: it's just gonna be a great show, folks, because that's
Speaker 1: how we do it here in the Freedom. Oh and
Speaker 1: don't forget if you are on Twitter and you are
Speaker 1: somebody who likes to tweet, follow me at buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Are you considering partnering Paul Manaport?
Speaker 1: I have great respect for what he's done in terms
Speaker 1: of what he's gone through. You know, he worked for
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan for years. He worked for Bob Dole, he
Speaker 1: worked I guess his firm, work for McCain. He worked
Speaker 1: for many many people, many many years. And I would
Speaker 1: say what he did some of the charges they threw
Speaker 1: against him, every consultant, every lobbyist in Washington probably does. Uh.
Speaker 1: If you look at Hillary Clinton's person, you take a
Speaker 1: look at the people that worked for Hillary Clinton. I'm
Speaker 1: looking at the crimes that Clinton did with the emails
Speaker 1: and she deletes thirty three thousand emails after she gets
Speaker 1: a subpoena from Congress, and this Justice Department does nothing
Speaker 1: about it, and all of the other crimes that they've done,
Speaker 1: and they do. Look at Podesta. Podesta was supposed to
Speaker 1: be Manafort born steroids. They made him close up his firm.
Speaker 1: He was going to be indicted the next day we
Speaker 1: heard it never happened. Instead, they would go after manifoort
Speaker 1: sounds to me like, uh, I might be getting a pardon.
Speaker 1: Sounds to me like Manafort is in a line. I
Speaker 1: do not think Cohen will be getting one. I think
Speaker 1: that much is clear. But Manafort could. Now you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know how this would work, and I need
Speaker 1: to ask a pardon expert about this. But I, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, Manafort should have to pay all the financial restitution.
Speaker 1: I mean, he shouldn't be pardoned in the sense that
Speaker 1: you know he he suffers no consequences for this. I mean,
Speaker 1: he is a tax cheat. I think that's been proven.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of is he being unfairly treated
Speaker 1: compared to other tax cheats. Um, So we'll see. Dave
Speaker 1: in Arizona, welcome sir. What a great show. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Listen to you. Can you hear me? Okay? Alright? Great?
Speaker 1: I just be able to tell you every time I
Speaker 1: listen to you, I'm always you make me think very deeply,
Speaker 1: and that's why I enjoy your show so much. And
Speaker 1: somebody was saying, you know that if if if Trump
Speaker 1: gets impeached, it's gonna be a revolution. The Trump was
Speaker 1: our revolution. This is a counter revolution by the ruling elites,
Speaker 1: the media elites, the political elites, and the mob against Trump.
Speaker 1: He is politically incorrect. We were sick of political correctness,
Speaker 1: we were sick of one party system in essence run
Speaker 1: by political elites. And he was sick of open borders.
Speaker 1: He's against that, and I think he was our revolution.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be interesting to see what happens when the
Speaker 1: counter revolution tries to bring him down. Well, that's exactly.
Speaker 1: I think that's a very apt description what we're seeing now.
Speaker 1: It is a it is a counter revolution of sorts
Speaker 1: um and I think that that's that's why once you
Speaker 1: once you understand that level of of fervor from the opposition,
Speaker 1: then I think we can have a much or understanding
Speaker 1: of what to expect from them. Uh. They are anti
Speaker 1: Trump zealots. They view this as a calling my friend David,
Speaker 1: as much as they do any kind of just you know,
Speaker 1: political payback. They think that there's there's a righteousness in
Speaker 1: their actions. So we should look, We're going to continue
Speaker 1: fighting and watching this closely. And thank you sir for
Speaker 1: your comwords about the show. It's an honor to have
Speaker 1: you as part of Team Buck. Julie in Tennessee. Hey Julie, Hey,
Speaker 1: how are you doing? Buck? Sh'll tie, She'll ty. What's
Speaker 1: going on? Julie? Well, you know, I've been trying to
Speaker 1: get the news out of out South Africa for months actually, uh,
Speaker 1: probably longer than that. I have a friend in in
Speaker 1: South Africa. She lives in Pretoria, and um, this has
Speaker 1: been like a nightmare for her and her family. And
Speaker 1: it's not just the white farmers, and it's not just
Speaker 1: the whites in South Africa. It's also the black uh
Speaker 1: community who helps the white farmers and those in the
Speaker 1: white community. They're all being targeted. Yeah, that's have you
Speaker 1: seen Have you seen Mugabe and the White Africa? I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: Mugabey in the White African No, I have not. I
Speaker 1: would if you get a chance on Netflix or if
Speaker 1: you can on iTunes or on demand, I would watch
Speaker 1: that movie because that's exactly what it shows, is that
Speaker 1: it's much more complicated than just these rich white you know,
Speaker 1: landowners and then you know poor people that need land.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are who are Black Africans, who live who work
Speaker 1: and live on these farms too. And by the way,
Speaker 1: when the farm gets redistributed overwhelmingly there, you know the
Speaker 1: farm is poorly operated and there's no produce from it
Speaker 1: after a while. So that's what ends up happening. Well, yes,
Speaker 1: and I have been getting messages through Facebook from my
Speaker 1: friend Rena, and I have been passing this through face
Speaker 1: to messenger, through Facebook, to Twitter, through social media as
Speaker 1: much as I can. And you know, we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about it. I mean, I'm gonna cut you off, Julie,
Speaker 1: but we've we've we're gonna be coming to our next
Speaker 1: hour here, but we are going to talk about it
Speaker 1: later on in the show. I'll go into some detail
Speaker 1: about why is South Africa taking property from people because
Speaker 1: of their skin color, because they're white. We'll get into
Speaker 1: that team. Do yourself a favor right now. If you're
Speaker 1: a coffee drinker, if you're like me and you need
Speaker 1: a cup of coffee to get going with your day,
Speaker 1: go to Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck Okay.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee is a company founded by true patriot.
Speaker 1: These are veterans, many cases veterans of special operations who
Speaker 1: want to bring their love of freedom, their incredible sense
Speaker 1: of patriotism, and their sense of humor to also making
Speaker 1: sure that you are drinking the most delicious coffee you
Speaker 1: could find anywhere. I bring Black Rifle into my office
Speaker 1: now for my colleagues, and let me tell you, I'm
Speaker 1: making converts every day, and some of them are libs,
Speaker 1: but they love the coffee because it's that delicious. You
Speaker 1: can go to Black Coffee dot com, slash buck and
Speaker 1: you will be able to get fifteen percent off Freedom
Speaker 1: Blend Coffee rounds, the Black Rifle Coffee, classic logo T shirt,
Speaker 1: Freedom Blend Coffee in a bag. It's amazing. Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com, slash buck. This should be the coffee
Speaker 1: of everybody in the freedom hunt. Buck Sextons decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts, No,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody. This hour,
Speaker 1: we got and Coulter joining and be a lot of
Speaker 1: fun to have that conversation about her new book, Resistance
Speaker 1: Is Futile, Because indeed, the resistance is futile. I think
Speaker 1: everybody needs to understand that. Everybody should know that quite
Speaker 1: a bit. But I'm a little troubled right now, my friends,
Speaker 1: because I I worry that because things are going well,
Speaker 1: we are starting to lose sight of longer term problems,
Speaker 1: longer term trends that are going to become an issue
Speaker 1: for us. Because remember, it is when the downturn happens.
Speaker 1: It's when the economy goes bad, when things go south,
Speaker 1: when you're home all of a sudden is underwater in
Speaker 1: terms of the where the mortgages, and when your four
Speaker 1: oh one k has gotten hit really badly, or your
Speaker 1: company has to restructure your your pension because you know
Speaker 1: there's investments have gone south and all that stuff. Right,
Speaker 1: Unemployment goes up. It's when things go bad that people
Speaker 1: start to get desperate, that people worry and they will
Speaker 1: fall in line with bad ideas. Remember the President Obama
Speaker 1: came into office and one of the most telling things
Speaker 1: said by any of his chief lieutenants, any of the
Speaker 1: people are round him, was actually Rama Manuel with you know,
Speaker 1: a crisis is, you know, a terrible thing to waste. Essentially,
Speaker 1: a crisis is an opportunity. Now that's one of the
Speaker 1: oldest things. And I think that goes back to Sun Sue.
Speaker 1: I know, a crisis and opportunity has been around forever. Um.
Speaker 1: Maybe some students said, I don't know. Somebody said it
Speaker 1: a long time ago. It's been around for a long time.
Speaker 1: It's obvious everybody knows this, right, because when things are
Speaker 1: in tremendous flux, that's when you can usually create the
Speaker 1: most change because you have the least amount of structural
Speaker 1: impediment to you wanting to reform things, shift things, revolutionize
Speaker 1: things even And that's why I see this. It's easy
Speaker 1: to ignore this, and this is a poll. It's not
Speaker 1: being ignored. It's on Drudge Report and it's get a
Speaker 1: lot of clicks, but I mean ignore the underlying politics
Speaker 1: of It's on the Hill dot com, where I where
Speaker 1: I work, and it says seventy percent of Americans seventy
Speaker 1: p support Medicare for all in a new poll. Now
Speaker 1: let's let's just assume for a second the methodology here
Speaker 1: of the polis is sound, and I think it is.
Speaker 1: It's a Reuters IPSOS poll. Eighty five percent of Democrats
Speaker 1: say they support the policy. That is not surprising, friends,
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party has turned into the Democrats Socialist Party.
Speaker 1: It's really just now the European Socialist Party in America.
Speaker 1: That's what they are, that's what they believe in, that's
Speaker 1: who they've become. They are a party that has embraced
Speaker 1: statis um atheism, redistribution of wealth, uh, go down the line,
Speaker 1: and identity politics on top of that, which I will
Speaker 1: note is not really as much of an issue in
Speaker 1: Europe as it is here, meaning that you don't have
Speaker 1: in each country. And people are gonna say, oh buck,
Speaker 1: what about Basque separatists and you know, I know that
Speaker 1: there are, and then of course the Muslim immigration, Muslim
Speaker 1: immigrants in Europe and how that affects things. But you know,
Speaker 1: we have in America much obviously a much larger country
Speaker 1: than any single country in Europe, and also are um
Speaker 1: diversity means that identity politics plays a much larger rule
Speaker 1: in our thinking. Anyway. Se Americans say medicare for all
Speaker 1: of something they want. Single payer is another name for it, uh,
Speaker 1: And those are very already politicized ways of saying government
Speaker 1: paying for your health care. It means government healthcare. That's
Speaker 1: what it is, folks. You know, And when you started
Speaker 1: thinking in those terms. You do you like government cheese?
Speaker 1: Probably not. You probably won't like government healthcare either. What product,
Speaker 1: which is what medicine ultimately is, right, it is a service,
Speaker 1: It is a product. What product does the government give
Speaker 1: you that you like? Well? Money, sure, money comes from
Speaker 1: somebody else, and we're spending too much of it as
Speaker 1: it is. Uh single payer. You would think you would
Speaker 1: think it could be good because oh, it'll be like medicare,
Speaker 1: where that's the government's reimbursing doctors. But there is not
Speaker 1: enough supply for us to have medicare for all. There's
Speaker 1: not enough room in the current medical system for that
Speaker 1: to be the standard. You will have doctors that will say,
Speaker 1: I'm just not going to take it. This is it
Speaker 1: simply will not work. You're gonna do a lot more doctors.
Speaker 1: And that's when regulation comes in, when government mandates come in,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden they'll say, well, this
Speaker 1: isn't working. You know what, we should just have the
Speaker 1: government and control of this, the government and control of
Speaker 1: the hospitals, the government and what the National Health Service
Speaker 1: in in the U k. Is. This is troubling. This
Speaker 1: is not new. I know we've talked about this Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders pushes all the time Medicare for all. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be great. They're gonna pay for everything you need. No hip,
Speaker 1: somebody else pays for it. Uncle Sam gives you a
Speaker 1: new hip. H But the other side of this that
Speaker 1: I find troubling is that this poll says that fifty
Speaker 1: two of Republicans, fifty two percent of Republicans are in
Speaker 1: fact going to be or in favor of Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: Who are these Republicans? And what the heck are they thinking?
Speaker 1: These must be Jeff Flake Republicans. And I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know who these people are. Do they not
Speaker 1: know that trillions and trillions of dollars would have to
Speaker 1: be spent on this? Do they not know that the government,
Speaker 1: whenever it gets involved in the production of a good
Speaker 1: or service, does a terrible job as compared to the
Speaker 1: private sector. Why would they think this is okay? But
Speaker 1: here's why I start off by saying, I think that
Speaker 1: because things are going so well in the country right now,
Speaker 1: because Trump is actually in charge and the economy is
Speaker 1: booming now, it's easy for those of us to understand
Speaker 1: why that's happening. To ignore this rise in socialist sentiment,
Speaker 1: which is what's really going on, and it's easy for
Speaker 1: us to forget that the other side is just waiting
Speaker 1: for the opportune moment to strike. Maybe in some cases
Speaker 1: literally doesn't go on strike, but in this instance, they're
Speaker 1: looking for a that that moment of downturn. They're looking
Speaker 1: for that crisis to exploit and say now is the time.
Speaker 1: And they are growing support for this UH in in
Speaker 1: ways that we should all be troubled by. More numbers
Speaker 1: here to give some context and clarity to this. According
Speaker 1: to CNS News, fifty of kids right now are getting
Speaker 1: are in households that are getting UH some form of
Speaker 1: means tested welfare, means tested government assistance. Half of kids
Speaker 1: are in homes that are getting benefits from a means
Speaker 1: tested government program, which means either supplemental nutritional assistance, medicaid,
Speaker 1: public housing, supplemental Security Income UH, temporary assistance for needy families,
Speaker 1: and the National School Lunch Program. Half, folks, I mean
Speaker 1: that we have a we have an expansive welfare state already,
Speaker 1: and we have this idea that the govern we should
Speaker 1: pay for everyone's healthcare, which is catching on and right
Speaker 1: now because the economy is booming. It because we have
Speaker 1: a capitalist in the White House who is unabashedly probe,
Speaker 1: probe business, pro individual ingenuity and growth. It feels like
Speaker 1: we don't need to worry about these cookie socialists all
Speaker 1: that much right now. Even the Bernie Sanders wing the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, the Occasio Cortez is yeah, like, I just
Speaker 1: like schism because it's like all the stuff gets paid
Speaker 1: for for free. Like all those people, I think right now,
Speaker 1: we we pushed them aside and think, well, they they're not.
Speaker 1: They are un serious as people, and their ideas are unserious.
Speaker 1: But remember that the uh, the ground can shift very
Speaker 1: quickly under our feet with these issues, and it would
Speaker 1: not be difficult to foresee a future where if there
Speaker 1: were a major market downturn, uh, if all of a
Speaker 1: sudden people felt the sting of this spending that has
Speaker 1: been going on at the government level for decades now.
Speaker 1: Remember we're over twenty trillion dollars in debt. Nobody even
Speaker 1: knows what that's gonna how we're gonna get out of this?
Speaker 1: Is what we're gonna do with this? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is this is a disaster. It's just a slowly unfolding disaster.
Speaker 1: And if if just by sheer, you know, bad luck
Speaker 1: Trump has to deal with the major recession. You're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot of people because they're gonna see
Speaker 1: their savings decline, They're going to see their loss of
Speaker 1: jobs and everything. That's when I think the left all
Speaker 1: of a sudden starts marching in the streets and taking
Speaker 1: all that anger at Trump and putting it behind a
Speaker 1: straight up socialist candidate under the Democratic Party, I mean,
Speaker 1: a a Bernie Sanders plus, if you will, somebody that's
Speaker 1: even more adamantly in favor of soaking the rich, redistribution
Speaker 1: of wealth, massive government regulation, massive government mandated redistribution of wealth. Remember,
Speaker 1: it was only because of Obama that we were we
Speaker 1: have Trump. Trump was a in many ways, a corrective
Speaker 1: to the excesses of Obama's ideology of Obamaism. But Trump
Speaker 1: is pulling pretty far in the other direction, which is great,
Speaker 1: great for the economy, and I'm obviously a big fan
Speaker 1: of it. But the left is already at a level
Speaker 1: of shrill outrage that's hard to fathom and understand. If
Speaker 1: they actually get an opening politically to inflict their ideas
Speaker 1: on the rest of us, they will take it and
Speaker 1: It's very troubling that seventy of people right now, according
Speaker 1: to this Hill dot com poll, believe in Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: They obviously don't realize what it would cost in every sense,
Speaker 1: cost in terms of the expenses, but also the cost
Speaker 1: to their care, meaning how much crappier their their care
Speaker 1: would get. That and is right now, and that Republicans
Speaker 1: are on board for this, I mean, are we Are
Speaker 1: we all just kind of you know, sitting around proverbially
Speaker 1: fat and happy and not really paying attention. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's going on here, folks on the right? You know what?
Speaker 1: What is the mindset that we would see this massive
Speaker 1: expansion of the continued expansion of the welfare state, continued
Speaker 1: expansion of our debt, and on top of that, now
Speaker 1: this idea, I mean, by the way, Medicare for all
Speaker 1: is that's the camel's nose in the tent to democratic
Speaker 1: socialism across the board, which is just a nice way
Speaker 1: of saying socialism light European style socialism. This should be
Speaker 1: troubling to us, and and it's something that the the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, I believe, needs to put a greater focus
Speaker 1: on combating. I want to talk about the Molly Tippot's
Speaker 1: case coming up here in a moment. I've got some
Speaker 1: updates and some thoughts on immigration and where the Democrats
Speaker 1: are on this, and and then we will have the
Speaker 1: the irreplaceable, the irrefutable and could well. I guess some
Speaker 1: people refute her, but she'll be joining us here in
Speaker 1: just a few minutes. It'll be a great conversation. Be
Speaker 1: sure to stay with us for that, and you can
Speaker 1: also send me your thoughts at facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. We'll be right back. The FBI says that
Speaker 1: home title theft is one of the fastest growing crimes.
Speaker 1: Brace yourselves, because having your credit card stolen is nothing
Speaker 1: compared to the hell you're in for once an identity
Speaker 1: thief takes control of your homes title. Folks, you might
Speaker 1: be thinking, how could they get to my title? Guess
Speaker 1: what your home's title is stored online? The information that
Speaker 1: the bad guys need to get about you so that
Speaker 1: they can create a fake version of your title and
Speaker 1: then take out loans against that title, basically stealing a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of money and leaving you with the payments.
Speaker 1: It's all online. It's not hard for them to get
Speaker 1: I have seen Home Title Luck. Walk me through exactly
Speaker 1: what will be needed for the bad guys to do this,
Speaker 1: and let me tell you it's far too easy for them.
Speaker 1: And you've got to make sure you know that identity
Speaker 1: theft programs don't protect you. But for just pennies a day,
Speaker 1: Home Title Luck protects my most viable asset, my family's home.
Speaker 1: Registered now for a free analysis and discover if your
Speaker 1: homes title has been compromised. That's a sixty dollar value
Speaker 1: free visit home title lock dot com. That's home title
Speaker 1: lock dot com. Molly is this beautiful young girl. She
Speaker 1: was killed by a horrible person that came in from
Speaker 1: Mexico illegally here. I just think it's so sad. We're
Speaker 1: building the wall, it's already started. We're doing a record
Speaker 1: breaking job, but we have bad laws. You know, when
Speaker 1: you have bad laws, you can do good, but you
Speaker 1: can do a lot better if you had good laws.
Speaker 1: So they'll all get changed, but we have to elect
Speaker 1: more Republicans. Every sheriff in America is a border sheriff,
Speaker 1: and they will tell you that. And when criminal aliens
Speaker 1: brought here by cartels, remember you don't cross the border
Speaker 1: without the cartels allowing you to cross come to the
Speaker 1: heartland of America and grab this poor girl and take
Speaker 1: the life out of her. The town of people America
Speaker 1: better wake up. So I'm gonna need someone to explain
Speaker 1: into me how this isn't a situation in which there
Speaker 1: is there's obvious hypocrisy. Right when there is a shooting,
Speaker 1: the mainstream media and the left in general that the
Speaker 1: political left in this country will immediately and you don't
Speaker 1: have to take my word for it, Google's you'll see it.
Speaker 1: They will immediately try to blame not just guns, but
Speaker 1: in fact the n r A. They will do this
Speaker 1: even though every time they have done it that I'm
Speaker 1: aware of, which is likely the case that I'm correct,
Speaker 1: every time that I'm aware of it has never actually
Speaker 1: been an n r A member involved in a mass shooting.
Speaker 1: I am not aware of that ever having happened. And
Speaker 1: yet when there's a mass shooting, people will immediately say
Speaker 1: the n r A is a terroris organization. It is
Speaker 1: then and then here's the real kicker, here's the real
Speaker 1: uh emotional psychological blackmail they try. They say, if it
Speaker 1: will save just one life, if it will save just
Speaker 1: one life, then the n r A should be in
Speaker 1: favor of abolishing h you know, handguns, so then the
Speaker 1: n RA should be in favor of a massive gun
Speaker 1: buy back program. Then the n ER, you know, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be. They can just fill in the blank
Speaker 1: with their desired policy, right the grab bag of whatever
Speaker 1: policies that they want. But if if it can save
Speaker 1: just one life, they say, we must do it, or
Speaker 1: else you are complicit or else to borrow from David Hogg,
Speaker 1: who we can't I can't decide if if he is
Speaker 1: a victim that no one is allowed to criticize, or
Speaker 1: if he is if if he's like the future of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. I mean he's he said some stuff,
Speaker 1: by the way, that is astonishing. Earlier this week in
Speaker 1: an interview, Um, I've got a I've got to see this.
Speaker 1: David Hogg said in an interview that he wants an
Speaker 1: age limit uh age limit for politicians. Quote older Democrats
Speaker 1: won't just move the move the f off the plate. Um,
Speaker 1: I want to be part of the change in Congress,
Speaker 1: he said. And what he goes on to say things
Speaker 1: that there's one crazy quote I'm trying to find here.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of crazy quotes. Anyway, that
Speaker 1: guy hug what would would run around saying that the
Speaker 1: n A has blood on its hands. That's what he
Speaker 1: would say. Uh, he is, by the way, he's going
Speaker 1: to be an activist. You're gonna see him very, very
Speaker 1: involved next year. He's taking a year but in between
Speaker 1: going to high school and college, and the Left treats
Speaker 1: him like he's a combination of of celebrity and policy deity.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's crazy. But this storyline that we keep
Speaker 1: hearing is, or rather this this construct that we keep
Speaker 1: coming up against, if they can save just one life,
Speaker 1: and on immigration, it's very clear that it would be
Speaker 1: if we could save a lot of lives. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are killed by illegal, illegal
Speaker 1: aliens in this country year in and year out, whether
Speaker 1: in car accidents, in violent acts by gangs like MS thirteen,
Speaker 1: or in random, random acts of violence by illegal aliens
Speaker 1: like this, Uh, this suspect out in in Iowa that
Speaker 1: killed Molly Molly Tibbots. There are lives at stake, and
Speaker 1: that the state has laws on the books that if
Speaker 1: it enforced, those lives would not be lost. So I
Speaker 1: do need somebody to try and explain to me how
Speaker 1: it's how it's unfair to apply the same logic that
Speaker 1: the Democrats do when it comes to guns, with far
Speaker 1: less of a justification and connection between these issues. Why
Speaker 1: can't we apply that logic to immigration and illegal aliens?
Speaker 1: I saw today a something tweeted out from Simone Sanders,
Speaker 1: whom I'm familiar with from her work on Seeing Then
Speaker 1: on Jake Tapper Show in particular, where she is treated
Speaker 1: as as a revered and astute political analyst. Of course,
Speaker 1: because Tapper only has the most serious people on his show. Um,
Speaker 1: he takes himself very seriously. Simone Sanders, though, tweeted this
Speaker 1: out about this. She's a Democrat obviously, Um, she sits
Speaker 1: on Jake Tapper's panels, So what else do you have
Speaker 1: to know? She wrote? Molly Tibbitts was murdered because she
Speaker 1: told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging.
Speaker 1: Her murderer happens to be undocumented. This isn't about border security.
Speaker 1: This is about toxic masculinity. Molly Tibbitts lost her life
Speaker 1: because a man couldn't take her saying no, full stop, no,
Speaker 1: it is not full stop, Simone Sanders. That is not accurate.
Speaker 1: That is not true. That is not what happened here
Speaker 1: in terms of the overall policy takeaway. All right, First
Speaker 1: of all, someone Sanders doesn't even know what happened here.
Speaker 1: She doesn't she's describing the incident. It's not even known
Speaker 1: what really went on. And the fact that she used
Speaker 1: the term undocumented, that is such a That is such
Speaker 1: a tell, folks. Anyone who uses this term undocumented is
Speaker 1: immediately letting you, letting everybody know right away that they
Speaker 1: are opposed to rule of law. They're opposed to enforce
Speaker 1: the immigration law. They view their primary mission when it
Speaker 1: comes to immigration as promoting amnesty and promoting as much
Speaker 1: as much as is possible getting as many people from
Speaker 1: the Third World into America as they can because they
Speaker 1: will vote Democrat. All you have to do is say
Speaker 1: on document, it's like talking about climate change. Undocumented for
Speaker 1: immigration is not like climate change when talking about the environment.
Speaker 1: It's a single word or phrase that symbolizes an entire,
Speaker 1: entire ideological framework that comes with it. And it's also
Speaker 1: a form of signaling to you know, to your side,
Speaker 1: to your base in this case that to the left,
Speaker 1: that you're on the team. He's back with you now.
Speaker 1: Because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. What great do you give yourself so far?
Speaker 1: So I give myself an A plus. I don't think
Speaker 1: any president has ever done what I've done in the
Speaker 1: short we haven't even been two years. The biggest tax
Speaker 1: cuts in history, soon to be two unbelievable Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that Justice Cavanaugh will be approved. Justice Corset
Speaker 1: has been a star. Um. You look at all of
Speaker 1: the things we've done with regulations. The economy is the
Speaker 1: best it's ever been in history. The only thing I'm
Speaker 1: I'm doing, Batlan is the press doesn't cover me fair.
Speaker 1: I thought after I won, you know, they killed me
Speaker 1: during the campaign, just killed me. I said, well, one
Speaker 1: good thing about winning, I've showed them. So now I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get fair pressed. Guess what it got worse? It's
Speaker 1: worse the President United States. They're folks. Giving himself an
Speaker 1: A plus so far, perhaps no surprises, but also saying
Speaker 1: the press is unfair. We have a particular expert in
Speaker 1: both of these matters, joining us now and all things
Speaker 1: Trump and media and Coulter, the one and only she
Speaker 1: is with us her book which is just out this week,
Speaker 1: resistance is futile, how the Trump hating left loss it's
Speaker 1: collected mind. I have my copy on the nightstand here,
Speaker 1: And thank you so much for calling in absolutely and
Speaker 1: thank you for playing that clear poo. You know, I um,
Speaker 1: whenever I think about the absence of a Wall, I
Speaker 1: want to strangle him. I hear an interview like that,
Speaker 1: and I remember why I love him again. There, So
Speaker 1: there is so much about him. Yeah, there's so much
Speaker 1: about the Minute that is fair to Let's let's start
Speaker 1: with their resistance and and then and then I'm still
Speaker 1: we'll kind of go in reverse order here from what
Speaker 1: Trump said. Because your book is about how the left
Speaker 1: is crazy, I go on air. I've actually had a
Speaker 1: psychiatrists who are listener to the show call in, and
Speaker 1: they like the way I described this as as a
Speaker 1: mass delusion, that the press actually is having some kind
Speaker 1: of collective psychotic episode. You clearly agree, tell us why. Yes,
Speaker 1: You'll get a lot of detail on that in in
Speaker 1: my book, because I mean, with with us psychotic or
Speaker 1: a mass delusion. Now, sometimes even you know you need
Speaker 1: medicine to overcome it, but you always feel like, well,
Speaker 1: all you have to do is point out um, you know, no,
Speaker 1: there is no spaceship there, or how about we go
Speaker 1: look at the spaceship. They don't allow the people um
Speaker 1: to come on their air to say here, you can
Speaker 1: cut me. I blied, I'm not an alien. So so
Speaker 1: it just gets crazier and crazier. I mean some of
Speaker 1: I'm some liberal journalists who are my friends, UM, not
Speaker 1: a lot, but I see even them on the likes
Speaker 1: of MSNBC and CNN, and you know, I want to
Speaker 1: talk to them afterwards and say yes, but you're you're
Speaker 1: missing you know X y Z. But they don't want
Speaker 1: to hear it. The networks don't want to hear it.
Speaker 1: There will be no same people on the networks because
Speaker 1: it's a buzz kill for the viewers. And you know,
Speaker 1: it goes even beyond the press. I mean when you
Speaker 1: talk about the resistance and how you focus on on
Speaker 1: the media in the books, as well as other things,
Speaker 1: the Hillary narrative around Russia collusion, how all that gets started.
Speaker 1: But from within the deep state side of things. I
Speaker 1: keep telling people who will listen to me, because I've
Speaker 1: spoken to Clapper and Hayden and and I worked for
Speaker 1: some of these guys. The intelligence community I think what
Speaker 1: gets lost here is that the kind of elite ruling
Speaker 1: class from within the upper echelons of government, not even
Speaker 1: necessarily elected government, just government in general. They see Trump
Speaker 1: and the people around him, as you've put it as
Speaker 1: as ikey, but all so was interlopers, like they're just
Speaker 1: not supposed to be there. Oh yes, I think there
Speaker 1: was one guy ex guy from the CIA, may have
Speaker 1: been Malcolm Nance, maybe somebody else, just you know, like
Speaker 1: matter of factly saying, oh no, the deep state this,
Speaker 1: they will not stand for this. They'll take this guy out.
Speaker 1: And as for the ones you mentioned, UM, James Clapper,
Speaker 1: who who Burson himself lied under oath, as he later admitted,
Speaker 1: UM and saying that that the government doesn't collect massive
Speaker 1: information on millions of Americans. Um. He later called that
Speaker 1: the least erroneous answer he could give. UM. Brennan of
Speaker 1: course lied about the most the most celebrated military operation
Speaker 1: world history, the capture of Osama bin Lawd. And he
Speaker 1: just went out on TV and started talking about how,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, Sama was shooting back, and he used his
Speaker 1: wife the human shield, and then you know, poor Jay
Speaker 1: Carney has to go and correct the record. The next
Speaker 1: day but most famously when he was head when when
Speaker 1: Brennan was head of the CIA, he spied on the
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats. No less um. Diane Feinstein's UH committee was
Speaker 1: was investigating corruption at the CIA, accused the CIA of
Speaker 1: of hacking into their computers the Senate, the computers being
Speaker 1: used by the Senate investigators. Clapper absolutely denied it up
Speaker 1: and down, just said, oh, it's just beyond the bounds
Speaker 1: of reason. Um, we'll see, we'll see, the truth will
Speaker 1: come out. No, no, this isn't going And then the
Speaker 1: IG report comes out and yes, they were hacking into
Speaker 1: the Senate computers. So and then of course Comy came
Speaker 1: out with his second statement on on Hillary's behavior. These
Speaker 1: all three of these men, who are the men behind
Speaker 1: the seventeen intelligence agencies saying that um um Russia hacked
Speaker 1: at the n C and vidit He sum, these three
Speaker 1: men the left wanted to boil in oil and feed
Speaker 1: to the dogs. So how did they become become honorable? Again,
Speaker 1: there's a very clear path to honor in America, UH,
Speaker 1: and that is start accusing the president of being a
Speaker 1: lunatic guilty of treason, who kills kittens and nails them
Speaker 1: to church doors. And suddenly, and I have the quotes
Speaker 1: along with the networks where they were called these things.
Speaker 1: Suddenly they're they're they're honorable, um, well respected. No one
Speaker 1: can contest anything. This person says, Wow, that's not when
Speaker 1: you guys were saying a year ago. Yeah, literally worse
Speaker 1: than Hitler, as you say in the book. That's that's
Speaker 1: all you have to do is say Trump is literally
Speaker 1: worse than Hitler. And and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you're speaking. Fees go up your your book, Your book
Speaker 1: advance would go up, even for books that I think
Speaker 1: some of these guys are gonna write or have written
Speaker 1: for them, that no one's going to read. So that
Speaker 1: there's obviously a path by way. We're speaking to a cult.
Speaker 1: Their author of resistance is few toilets out. Now I haven't,
Speaker 1: I'm reading it. You all should too, you know, And
Speaker 1: I think that there's there we need to come up
Speaker 1: with a cool and you're the perfect person for this,
Speaker 1: a cool description of the mathematical equation that that we
Speaker 1: could describe that with greater success on the economy, and
Speaker 1: by the way, a whole bunch of other issues, including
Speaker 1: foreign policy, which they pretend isn't happening. But it is.
Speaker 1: But with greater economic success in the Trump presidency, they
Speaker 1: actually get angrier at him. Right, It's it's it's the
Speaker 1: inverse of what you would expect. Well, it's the inverse
Speaker 1: of what you'd expect on a lot of things. Other
Speaker 1: things I loved about the miracle Trump campaign was he
Speaker 1: wasn't a lifelong or or or rather a down the
Speaker 1: line Republican. I think he was a lifelong Republican in fact,
Speaker 1: but he wasn't just your standard cookie cutter Republican. As
Speaker 1: as the never Trumper is never tired of reminding us, um,
Speaker 1: he's not a real Republican. And you know, people like
Speaker 1: me said, great, fantastic, thanks for reminding me another reason
Speaker 1: to vote for him. There are a lot of the
Speaker 1: things he was saying and pushing are things that Democrats
Speaker 1: used to used to believe in. How about helping the
Speaker 1: working class, how about helping the middle class, But no,
Speaker 1: they don't care. Then I think we could get they
Speaker 1: could fly smultaneously be saying, um, I'm literally shaking because
Speaker 1: he's literally Hitler. We could get the left to endorse
Speaker 1: Hitler just by telling them Trump is against Hitler. I
Speaker 1: think I think their their opposition to all things Trump
Speaker 1: does extend to a place where you know, now I'm
Speaker 1: being told even when he does good, when he when
Speaker 1: something good happens in his administration in and this is
Speaker 1: where the foreign policy part comes in, it's in spite
Speaker 1: of him, But anything bad that happens is because of him.
Speaker 1: I keep pouring out to my friends. Do you guys
Speaker 1: realize how self justifying that is for your insane Trump patriots.
Speaker 1: I had the former, I had the former, a guy
Speaker 1: all my I got my show. He said I was.
Speaker 1: He said he was the n SC director or something
Speaker 1: for Russia or for for Ukraine. And I said, so,
Speaker 1: so we're selling these missiles and stuff to the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: to beat up the Russians. Now Obama wouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: And he goes, yeah, but that's happening in spite of Trump.
Speaker 1: And I said, Trump is the commander in chief. What
Speaker 1: is happening in spite of Trump? Yes? No, that is
Speaker 1: a beautiful description, though you are going to disagree with
Speaker 1: my penal submit chapter. UM. I really liked the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and I would like to get along with Russia. Um.
Speaker 1: And and unfortunately these Republicans, I mean they are giving
Speaker 1: in not only the ones who are who are completely
Speaker 1: I've gone hog wild attacking Trump to get their air time, um,
Speaker 1: but they're giving into this idea that Trump pastors just
Speaker 1: redoubled his his attacks on Russia, um, which I don't
Speaker 1: disagree with Albama's approach to to Russia. And I think
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans didn't, um among the problems, and
Speaker 1: I mean I think that three the three pillars of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign were um, um, you know crap. Immigration
Speaker 1: policy should be to benefit the people who already live here.
Speaker 1: Trade policy should bring back manufacturings and and job killing
Speaker 1: trade deals that helps Wall Street a lot, but really
Speaker 1: doesn't help our own manufacturing base. And there are definitely
Speaker 1: no more pointless wars and maybe pulled back from all
Speaker 1: of are you know, policeman over the world stuff? And
Speaker 1: he really hasn't done any of those things. What what
Speaker 1: keeps the base loving him, including including me, is our
Speaker 1: response to the ridiculous, outrageous, hypocritical, lying attacks of the resistance.
Speaker 1: So really the resistance ought to read my book and
Speaker 1: learn how to do it right there you go, and
Speaker 1: does not give him an a plus, folks, But he
Speaker 1: does take the resistance to task. Check it out. Resistance
Speaker 1: is futile. How the trump hating or other, how the
Speaker 1: trump hating left lost its collective mind, the one only
Speaker 1: and culture. And thank you so much, good luck on
Speaker 1: the tour. Thank you. Let's talk again after you've read it.
Speaker 1: I think that'll be fun. Absolutely love to have you back.
Speaker 1: I am going to read it. I'll talk to you soon, tee,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. It really is a moral issue.
Speaker 1: If you believe this, I do that this is God's creation.
Speaker 1: We have to be good stewards of it. So in
Speaker 1: any case, this was a big thing for us, and
Speaker 1: we had to fight some Democrats. Senator Bird had a
Speaker 1: cold powered plant of fueling the capital. That's that was now, speaker,
Speaker 1: that's gonna go. You know, without respect to West Virginia.
Speaker 1: You know we're not gonna have a cold powered plant.
Speaker 1: This thing about coal, by the way, has really turned
Speaker 1: into a it's it's obviously been influenced by virtue signaling
Speaker 1: for quite a while, but they've managed to turn coal
Speaker 1: and West Virginia coll and all this into some kind
Speaker 1: of a proxy for other things. Now, you know the
Speaker 1: truth is that we are moving away. We are decarbonizing
Speaker 1: with our energy sources naturally because of greater efficiency, and
Speaker 1: it's happening as as a function of the market and
Speaker 1: as a function of science and technology. You know. I
Speaker 1: was watching, uh, the show Silicon Valley, which I think
Speaker 1: it's one of the best. If you haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: I really really do recommend it. I think it's one
Speaker 1: of the best original comedies out there right now. It's
Speaker 1: a little you know, it's a little raunchy, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's an HBO, so there's some it's not for kids,
Speaker 1: but it's a it's a really good show. And there's
Speaker 1: they have one of these guys who's a kind of nerdy,
Speaker 1: uh nerdy, Well they're all nerdy tech guys, but he's
Speaker 1: a particularly socially awkward guy, and he tells a story
Speaker 1: about how in London in the eighteen I think it's like,
Speaker 1: I guess it's the eighteen nineties. I think he says
Speaker 1: they were worried because of all the manure, and the
Speaker 1: manure was was just becoming a big problem because you
Speaker 1: had all these horse drawn carts in the city and
Speaker 1: given the population density and the increasing population density they were,
Speaker 1: it was overwhelming. The city's ability to to take the
Speaker 1: manure out of the city. Right. So literally they're worried
Speaker 1: about drowning in in well, not literally, but they were concerned.
Speaker 1: People overuse that literally thing so much. And I happens
Speaker 1: to me too, because you hear people doing it and
Speaker 1: then it finds its way into your speech. People were
Speaker 1: worried about too more, too much horsepoop. Uh, And they
Speaker 1: estimated and he tells this whole story, and they estimated
Speaker 1: that you know, within thirty years there would be you know,
Speaker 1: nine ft of horsepoop at any given time piled up
Speaker 1: on the streets of London. Right, this is a classic
Speaker 1: Malthusian fallacy, really, right Malthus Thomas Malthus was this political
Speaker 1: theorist and economist who believe that we were going to
Speaker 1: run out of food, right because population growth is happening
Speaker 1: at X rate and we produce food at Y rate.
Speaker 1: And didn't never think, well, hold on a second, what
Speaker 1: what what if we get way way better at Why
Speaker 1: what if we can make food a lot faster, better, cheaper,
Speaker 1: more efficiently, and uh, in a way that is much
Speaker 1: more reliable. Right, if we change our ability to make food,
Speaker 1: doesn't that change our ability to feed people such that
Speaker 1: we don't have to be so very very concerned about Yeah,
Speaker 1: people starving to death because of overpopulation, that was a
Speaker 1: big thing. But the mouth using time bomb thesis is wrong,
Speaker 1: and the horsepoop or horse maneure thesis of London at
Speaker 1: the time. And now by the way, he could be
Speaker 1: making this up in terms of that story, but it
Speaker 1: it it's it's a version of other stories you could
Speaker 1: you could hear um or that we've seen in the history,
Speaker 1: which is that science moves in such a way that
Speaker 1: the predictions of today are often wrong, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to oh, we're going to run out of oil. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to run out of food. Oh we're going
Speaker 1: to overheat because of global warming. Right, they keep they're
Speaker 1: they're wrong on these things. But with Pelosi and the
Speaker 1: others on Cohl in particular, now people who don't know
Speaker 1: anything about Cole just know that they should be opposed
Speaker 1: to it. That that's what you see, that's the transition,
Speaker 1: that's the change point here is that if you want
Speaker 1: to be considered smart and and trendy and cool, you
Speaker 1: have to be somebody who is very opposed to coal. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and also this is this is an issue that
Speaker 1: is getting much more attention because it's part of the
Speaker 1: Obama legacy. And that's what really upsets the left right
Speaker 1: because they they they thought Obama was this great president
Speaker 1: and he know these amazing things. But now what they're
Speaker 1: seeing is no, he just he just did things that
Speaker 1: didn't require leadership. They just required a decision from him.
Speaker 1: It was on Obama's whim right to to push for
Speaker 1: environmental policies only as a function of the executive branch
Speaker 1: is shortsighted. And people said that at the time, they said,
Speaker 1: you know, just wait and and you know what it
Speaker 1: really is. It's a reminder to the left. It's a
Speaker 1: reminder that Obama's approach was the result of being unable
Speaker 1: to uh work in any in any really bipartisan fashion,
Speaker 1: and a reminder that Hillary Clinton is not the president
Speaker 1: they were much more comfortable with, especially in Obama a
Speaker 1: second term. They were much more comfortable i think, with
Speaker 1: some of these Obama era decisions on the environment or others,
Speaker 1: because the assumption that baked in assumption was well, we've
Speaker 1: got Hillary waiting in the wings. You have to remember everyone,
Speaker 1: everyone in the left, the Democrats, they assumed that Hillary
Speaker 1: was just going to take over for Obama. She was
Speaker 1: gonna be a continuation of the Obama era policies. So
Speaker 1: by by changing these coal regulations, because again, how much
Speaker 1: is this really going to affect? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's about carbon dioxide, which is crazy. It's not a pollutant,
Speaker 1: and they um uh you know, they they shouldn't be
Speaker 1: penalized on the way they were by the Obama era. Um.
Speaker 1: And it's about carbon dioxide limits, which means that coal
Speaker 1: power plants will become more it will become uh more
Speaker 1: cost effective now and it will allow upgrades to older
Speaker 1: power plants without triggering this new requirement to install these
Speaker 1: crazy controls. Right, So this is it's just gonna mean uh,
Speaker 1: it's just gonna be better. Um. You know, it means
Speaker 1: that they're able to produce energy electricity at a at
Speaker 1: a rate that it makes them competitive. So you know,
Speaker 1: this is this is what I what you're seeing here
Speaker 1: is just it's a lot of politics wrapped into this issue.
Speaker 1: When you start to dig into the issue, um, you
Speaker 1: see that this is much you do about nothing from
Speaker 1: the left except that this touches on some very sensitive
Speaker 1: areas for them, I mean the most notable one is
Speaker 1: that this is Obama legacy stuff and oh, if Hillary
Speaker 1: were president, this wouldn't be happening, and that really really
Speaker 1: upsets them. Got a big Our three coming up and
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about South Africa, what's going on there.
Speaker 1: So stay with the buck Sexton mission to coding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake
Speaker 1: a great American Again, this is the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Activity Tom the CIA analysts. Not enough focus has been
Speaker 1: put on China, and that's been for a long time,
Speaker 1: and we want to have big focus is on Russia.
Speaker 1: Not enough focuses on China. The tax on that now
Speaker 1: coming in and I think that economically also helps us.
Speaker 1: This is very different, but it also helps us. And
Speaker 1: people are saying that's already having a big effect, and
Speaker 1: it is already recollecting that money. It's a lot of money.
Speaker 1: Much of it is being collected. Some of it starts
Speaker 1: in a week, but it's a tremendous amount of money
Speaker 1: coming into the coffers of the United States, which nobody
Speaker 1: has ever seen that before. Who does he sound like
Speaker 1: they're folks. Not enough focus on China, too much focus
Speaker 1: on Russia. I mean, I can neither confirm nor to
Speaker 1: not as the President ever listened to the show. The
Speaker 1: truth is, I have no idea. You're a smart guy. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, but you know it's it's just I'm just
Speaker 1: just saying a little bit ahead of this one. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure that you were hearing that weeks weeks ago
Speaker 1: on the Buck Sexton Show that the focus on on
Speaker 1: Russia over China had just become had become crazy, The
Speaker 1: focus on Russia over China had gone to the point
Speaker 1: where it was it would be uh bizarre, I think
Speaker 1: to continue on as is without some some serious, some
Speaker 1: serious pushback. Um, but you know, I want to tackle
Speaker 1: this issue of of meddling if I can in the
Speaker 1: in the election, because here here's what I see going on. Actually,
Speaker 1: well let's hear what Ambassador Bolton spoke about this today
Speaker 1: at play clip nine. Please. We weren't able to reach
Speaker 1: agreement on that, so we decided to go ahead. We'll
Speaker 1: each speak individually, which is what I'm doing now. But
Speaker 1: on the whole, I would say we made considerable progress.
Speaker 1: I made it clear that we wouldn't tolerate meddling in uh,
Speaker 1: and we were prepared to take necessary steps to prevent
Speaker 1: it from happening. So we're gonna stop people from meddling,
Speaker 1: that's what That's what the you know, the National Security
Speaker 1: Advisor saying, UM, I don't know how we can. I
Speaker 1: don't know how we can. Uh. And I think that
Speaker 1: you're seeing this little game of of kind of foot
Speaker 1: see with the media where they talk about the meddling,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to talk about it too much,
Speaker 1: which given how how absolutely petrified they have been about
Speaker 1: the prospect of meddling in our sacred elections once again,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, good heavens, don't you think that they
Speaker 1: would be raising the alarms much more now? In fact,
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor uh John Bolton said recently that it
Speaker 1: was actually last week. I think that Russia is only
Speaker 1: one of four countries that he is concerned about meddling
Speaker 1: in our election, China, North Korea, and Iran. Um. They're
Speaker 1: taking apps against those four countries at least could be meddling.
Speaker 1: You see what's happened here, folks, is that not only
Speaker 1: have the Democrats hyper ventilated about election meddling for very
Speaker 1: explicit political purposes, right because Hillary Hello lost the election.
Speaker 1: What happened. And now they've been saying this for a
Speaker 1: while because it's to their political benefit. But it also
Speaker 1: means that other countries are paying attention and saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you mean, if we just create some Facebook accounts and
Speaker 1: and do a little bit of very basic, you know,
Speaker 1: political research on on American you know, debates right now
Speaker 1: in the election sphere, we could mess them up and
Speaker 1: get them all to turn on each other and get
Speaker 1: their entire media apparatus to go insane. Well, that seems
Speaker 1: easy enough. I mean North Korea. North Korea is a
Speaker 1: very advanced cyber threat, and and that's important to remember
Speaker 1: that also does not care if it gets caught. It
Speaker 1: doesn't care what they don't are, what they do. You know,
Speaker 1: this was true back in the day also of of
Speaker 1: the KGB. It's it's an interesting reality of status intelligence
Speaker 1: services and espionage and the way the security apparatus works
Speaker 1: in places like the former Soviet Union. Yes, they were effective,
Speaker 1: but they were effective because they had no constraints and
Speaker 1: they didn't have to worry about getting caught. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a very different thing. You know, here's the the
Speaker 1: the American version of of you know, uh surveillance, right
Speaker 1: if the FBI is doing surveillance on somebody eight, they
Speaker 1: want to stay low profile. They don't want to they
Speaker 1: don't want to get made. They don't want them to
Speaker 1: figure out what's going on. And if they do that,
Speaker 1: they'll they'll drop the tail. You know, if you watch movies,
Speaker 1: you pick up all this stuff. The KGB version of
Speaker 1: surveillance is like you know, in the past, not always,
Speaker 1: but often would be you know, a couple of guys
Speaker 1: in a car dragging behind the target. Any the target
Speaker 1: lost them, they'd go find him at his house and
Speaker 1: beat the crap out of him. Don't don't let us
Speaker 1: lose you again, kind a thing. I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: very different approach. And with North Korea on hacking, they
Speaker 1: don't care what we say, so we catch them, we
Speaker 1: don't catch them. It doesn't really matter them. But these
Speaker 1: countries are all possible meddlers in our in our election process.
Speaker 1: But as I've been telling you all along, the chances
Speaker 1: of that being effective or are almost non existent. Unless
Speaker 1: they can actually hack into the systems and change votes.
Speaker 1: Everything else is really noise. Right. We can't stop countries
Speaker 1: from putting propaganda on the Internet. We can't stop countries
Speaker 1: from setting up fake Facebook accounts and and doing fake news.
Speaker 1: That's insane. I mean, think about what that would require.
Speaker 1: But this is again the whole problem has been magnified
Speaker 1: by the media and now they've created this monster. This
Speaker 1: this this perception of oh my gosh, there's gonna be meddling,
Speaker 1: and the meddling is going to be this really big
Speaker 1: deal and it's gonna mess up our election. But the
Speaker 1: truth is, my friends, uh that they don't know how
Speaker 1: much to make of it right now, because what if
Speaker 1: the Democrats win the House back in the mid terms.
Speaker 1: I want to make a prediction right now, if the
Speaker 1: Democrats win the mid terms in the House. I don't
Speaker 1: think they're gonna win the setup, but if they win
Speaker 1: the mid terms in the House, uh you yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be it's gonna move to impeachment. And that's
Speaker 1: an obvious prediction. And we all know that. But you
Speaker 1: who are very little about election meddling, and you know
Speaker 1: that this is this is a similar game that the
Speaker 1: media has played with the problem of homelessness. Right, homelessness
Speaker 1: has existing in the country, will probably for as long
Speaker 1: as there's been a country. But you know, in the
Speaker 1: depending on the administration, whether it was a Republican and
Speaker 1: there have been studies that have shown this, right, you know,
Speaker 1: there when Bush is in office, there are these stories
Speaker 1: about national level homelessness and now it's on the rise,
Speaker 1: and when there's a Democrat in office, the homelessness problem
Speaker 1: goes away. I think actually Bernie Goldberg in his book Bias,
Speaker 1: I believe, or maybe they had Culture Book, but I
Speaker 1: think it was Bernie Goldberg and Bias talks abou at
Speaker 1: this that all of a sudden, new new Republican administration,
Speaker 1: stories about homelessness, stories about the poor and how no
Speaker 1: one's helping them. Democrat administration, all the homelessness problem just
Speaker 1: kind of fades away. I think you're gonna see election
Speaker 1: meddling in kind of a similar way that now that
Speaker 1: they've created this concept, there's this narrative that a bunch
Speaker 1: of you know, highly skilled uh you know, Russian hackers
Speaker 1: or even hackers from other countries can and the better,
Speaker 1: they don't even have to be hackers, they just have
Speaker 1: to be you know, cyber influencers really, but but that
Speaker 1: they can affect our elections in this negative way. When
Speaker 1: the Democrats lose an election this will be a story.
Speaker 1: They won't say that the election, you know, they won't
Speaker 1: say outright that the election was a fraud, although I
Speaker 1: think they will say that if Trump wins reelection. I
Speaker 1: think they're gearing up for if if Trump wins in
Speaker 1: twenty which I think he is, they are going to reject.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a Democrat movement to reject the
Speaker 1: result as to suggest that it is it is not
Speaker 1: just that Trump is illegitimate because of stuff in the past,
Speaker 1: but that the election itself is a legitimate. I think
Speaker 1: they're willing to go to that extent because they hate
Speaker 1: Trump so much and they're so crazy when it comes
Speaker 1: to all issues related to Trump. But just just pay
Speaker 1: attention to this in the mid terms. Now you'll see
Speaker 1: stories about election meddling, but not that they're gonna They're
Speaker 1: gonna make it so that they can say they covered it,
Speaker 1: and they have the option, depending on what happens on
Speaker 1: election day, of either saying, oh my gosh, look at
Speaker 1: this stuff we've discovered. Right after if they lose, election
Speaker 1: meddling will be a big story, a big problem after
Speaker 1: the I'm telling you, they're shameless. If they win the House,
Speaker 1: that election medling will be you know, America stopped at
Speaker 1: this time around. Maybe they won't win. Trump's up for
Speaker 1: re election, but this time around it was Okay, that's
Speaker 1: what I mean by these people have no principles. You
Speaker 1: can you can take each issue and look at it
Speaker 1: and understand where their hypocrisy comes into play and where
Speaker 1: their lack of scruples is glaring and uh and obvious.
Speaker 1: Strike Force Energy, veteran owned American, made one of the
Speaker 1: hottest new energy products on the market. Look. Strike Force
Speaker 1: was developed by a Navy seal who wanted to make
Speaker 1: sure that he had a product on the market that
Speaker 1: was all the best stuff in the most straightforward easy
Speaker 1: packaging possible. Okay, what you do with strike Force is
Speaker 1: you add the liquid to some water, tea, lemonade, you
Speaker 1: can put it in a beer, whatever you want, and
Speaker 1: it gives you that little extra boost to get your
Speaker 1: day started, push you through the afternoon, get your workout
Speaker 1: fired up and ready to go, or just make sure
Speaker 1: you got the energy to take care of business whatever
Speaker 1: that may be. All right, you need to check out
Speaker 1: strike Force for yourself. Go to strike Force Energy, dot com,
Speaker 1: energ discount code buck team. Make sure they know you
Speaker 1: heard about them here on this show, because every time
Speaker 1: you type in discount code buck everything you buy, they
Speaker 1: will match it and send it to troops overseas. Strike
Speaker 1: Force Energy dot Com discount code b U c K
Speaker 1: at checkout that strike Force Energy dot Com discount code buck.
Speaker 1: Try it, you'll love it well. The first thing that
Speaker 1: needs to be made clear to is to denounce the policy.
Speaker 1: The administration needs to make it very clear that it
Speaker 1: is both immoral because it targets a specific group of
Speaker 1: people and I thought we were beyond that, and secondly
Speaker 1: that it would be economically destructive, so we need to
Speaker 1: make it very clear where we stand. Secondly, South African
Speaker 1: government needs to be aware that the law, the African
Speaker 1: Growth and Opportunity Act, under which South Africa trades with
Speaker 1: the United States, requires the President of the United States
Speaker 1: to expel countries from a GOA that do not respect
Speaker 1: property rights and due process. So South Africa needs to
Speaker 1: be aware that if it changes the constitution and legal
Speaker 1: isays what is essentially theft of private property, it will
Speaker 1: be kicked out of a GOA and further negative economic
Speaker 1: consequences will ensue. South Africa is in the news, folks,
Speaker 1: because of a policy that is both wrong and stupid.
Speaker 1: I think we're self defeating maybe a better way of
Speaker 1: saying it or both. Now, let's let's just first get
Speaker 1: to it. Why why is this getting attention? Well, well,
Speaker 1: because there's been a change in South African policy. They've
Speaker 1: done something they haven't done before, which I will get to.
Speaker 1: But really it's because President Trump tweeted out the following
Speaker 1: I have asked Secretary of State Pompeo to closely study
Speaker 1: the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and
Speaker 1: the large scale killing of farmers. The South South African
Speaker 1: government quote is now seasing land from white farmers at
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson on on Trump's Twitter account. Um, now here's
Speaker 1: what Here's what's happened, Um, South Africa. As you know,
Speaker 1: history of apartheid, Um that that ended Mandela African National Congress.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm skipping through a lot of history there,
Speaker 1: but you know there was a racial, a racist policy
Speaker 1: of apartheid, and then it ended through the efforts of
Speaker 1: Mandela and the ANC. And now they have had a
Speaker 1: policy in place for a while of willing buyer willing
Speaker 1: seller with a government uh tries to find. You know,
Speaker 1: the government will try to buy land from the the
Speaker 1: willing seller, willing buyer they call it yeah where they
Speaker 1: try to buy white owned land and give it to
Speaker 1: the disenfranchised black population. Since apartheid ended in four and
Speaker 1: what happened recently, the the big change in this is
Speaker 1: that you have had the first large piece of land
Speaker 1: for which the government said this is the price, and
Speaker 1: this is what you're taking, and here's the date, and
Speaker 1: you have to leave. And this is a white farmer
Speaker 1: and it's a game preserve actually, and they want to
Speaker 1: redistribute this land to black African So this is an
Speaker 1: explicitly racial policy, right. This is based on the skin
Speaker 1: color of the owner and based on the skin color
Speaker 1: of those who would be receiving the land. The government
Speaker 1: is making decisions. The big difference here, what really set
Speaker 1: off alarms for people is that the owner of this
Speaker 1: land is claiming that the land ceased is worth about
Speaker 1: ten times as much as what the government paid for it.
Speaker 1: So once the government is forced first of all forcing
Speaker 1: a sale and then on top of it dramatically under
Speaker 1: paying for those assets, it feels a lot more like
Speaker 1: mafia activity than what a democracy, what an elected and
Speaker 1: representative government would do. And this is also where people
Speaker 1: will point to what's happened in neighboring Zimbabwe right formerly
Speaker 1: the colony known as Rhodesia, and in Zimbabwe they had
Speaker 1: a similar situation, but in the nineteen eighties they started
Speaker 1: to redistribute the land from the wealthier white landowners to
Speaker 1: uh what we're supposed to be black farmers, but really
Speaker 1: it turned into a spoils system for people with connections
Speaker 1: to the the party that was in power um SO
Speaker 1: that was and people that were connected to Mugabe. And
Speaker 1: there were some terrible violence and terrible things that happened
Speaker 1: in uh in Zim well leading up to Zimbabwe would
Speaker 1: previously had been Southern Rhodesia. So there was a lot
Speaker 1: of bad blood already in the country between the different
Speaker 1: racial and ethnic groups. But Zimbabwe's land reform led, including
Speaker 1: its terrible government in Mugabe was a was a thug
Speaker 1: and addict cater a very bad guy, led to the
Speaker 1: country going from being the bread basket of Southern Africa,
Speaker 1: really the the in many ways the richest arable land
Speaker 1: in Southern Africa, to being unable to feed itself and
Speaker 1: being a horrifically uh impoverished country when it should have
Speaker 1: been actually a reasonably well off country for what it was.
Speaker 1: Um so. And there's a movie that I think I've
Speaker 1: recommended before, in the show Mugabe and the White African
Speaker 1: um that I would highly highly recommend you. It's a
Speaker 1: documentary where these documentary filmmakers stay on They stay with
Speaker 1: a white family in Zimbabwe, one of the sort of
Speaker 1: last at least in the area. And I don't know
Speaker 1: how many you know, are left in the country, but
Speaker 1: it's in the dwindling minority of white landowners and and
Speaker 1: the intimidation they go through, and you know, you see
Speaker 1: the full scale and scope of the story. You have
Speaker 1: all these farm workers, these black fami emili's who live
Speaker 1: with this white family, and they are very much in
Speaker 1: favor of this white family keeping the land because they
Speaker 1: work the land and they live there and they're happy
Speaker 1: and they're fed and they get paid and they're taken
Speaker 1: care of, and you know, they're all working together. But
Speaker 1: this this politically connected thug shows up and he's truly
Speaker 1: a thug, and he keeps saying, you know, this land
Speaker 1: is now ours, you better leave, and and it turns
Speaker 1: to violence and they start beating people in front of
Speaker 1: their family members and and terrifying them and they finally
Speaker 1: have to leave. And the government is complicit in all this.
Speaker 1: So imagine that, right, it's not even like this is
Speaker 1: happening and you report it. If you report it, they're saying, well, sorry,
Speaker 1: you know, this is what happens because you're not welcome here.
Speaker 1: So there is you know, what we would call reverse
Speaker 1: racism going on, but in fact it's actually just racism
Speaker 1: in the case of Zimbabwe, where the minority is in
Speaker 1: fact white people, and in South Africa now there's been
Speaker 1: a more radical turn and there have been white farm
Speaker 1: owners who have been killed. Although it's in the dozens. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not a it's not a large number. I mean, Trump,
Speaker 1: I think said large number of the tweet. I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm trying to stay with as always trying to stay
Speaker 1: with all the facts. Forty seven farmers killed. Well, no,
Speaker 1: that's always fifty people folks killed twenty eighteen. Now that
Speaker 1: said South Africa actually has a violent crime problem. Um,
Speaker 1: but there are forty seven farmers who were killed. So
Speaker 1: people look at this and I think that they first
Speaker 1: of all understand if this were happening to anyone who
Speaker 1: was not white European, of white European ancestry, they would
Speaker 1: be utterly horrified, and CNN and the BBC would be
Speaker 1: all over it, and this would be a major, major
Speaker 1: news story. But there is a sense, a sort of
Speaker 1: continuing sense that white people everywhere and anywhere are part
Speaker 1: of this leftist concept of white supremacy and that they
Speaker 1: are the they are ultimately the problem, even when other
Speaker 1: people are the ones attacking them. The left really does
Speaker 1: kind to believe that. And then there's also some Marxist
Speaker 1: threads running through this. I mean, you have the African
Speaker 1: National Congress chairman making a statement last week you shouldn't
Speaker 1: own more than twenty five tho acres of land, therefore,
Speaker 1: if you own more, should be taken without compensation. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're talking about seizing property now, folks. And that just
Speaker 1: doesn't have an effect for those who own the property.
Speaker 1: It has an effect for the whole country. Because do
Speaker 1: you think a lot of foreign investors want to get
Speaker 1: involved in a country where on racial on, under racial guidelines,
Speaker 1: they're going to seize property. Now, you don't want to
Speaker 1: be an investor there, You don't want your capital there,
Speaker 1: you don't believe in rule of law there, and the
Speaker 1: country deteriorates very, very quickly. Always remember this, what really
Speaker 1: separates us from much of the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: most of the rest of the world, is that we
Speaker 1: have a rule of law that is understood widely and
Speaker 1: based in individual rights. And it's really the asis of
Speaker 1: our entire civil society has the Constitution, which is in
Speaker 1: general the concept of rule of law. They're losing that
Speaker 1: right now in South Africa, and people are worried about
Speaker 1: the economic and even possible uh consequences of violence that
Speaker 1: could follow. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody roll Paul. I am going to out
Speaker 1: tomorrow by me or get into the little call just
Speaker 1: let you know. I'll be out in Los Angeles, a
Speaker 1: city that I have tremendous fondness for. Even though I
Speaker 1: talk a little New York City New York City style
Speaker 1: smack about the West Coast, sometimes I do. I do
Speaker 1: love l A. And if you happen to see me
Speaker 1: walking around West Hollywood or Santa Monica and you're part
Speaker 1: of Team Buck, by all means say hello. Those are
Speaker 1: really the only places I spend any time in l A.
Speaker 1: I probably should get out to some other parts of
Speaker 1: l A. That's I don't go to Beverly Hills, I
Speaker 1: don't go downtown. I pretty much stay on the West Side,
Speaker 1: and I'd like to spend a little more time down
Speaker 1: in Marina del Ray. Actually here, it's very nice. Alright,
Speaker 1: roll call, it's the Godfather, the doctor. He's not a doctor.
Speaker 1: I like calling him a doctor, Michael Pelka. He is
Speaker 1: in for me tomorrow's you will have a great time. Uh, Brian,
Speaker 1: first up here, rights hey buck. In full disclosure, I
Speaker 1: am a twenty nine year old black man incrstrated in
Speaker 1: a New York prison once. I was a criminal justice
Speaker 1: major and aspiring law enforcement officer. Obviously got lost along
Speaker 1: the way. But I'm a conservative who convinced his leftist
Speaker 1: wife to vote for Trump, and I have informed her
Speaker 1: of the right way. If you've ever been in Utica,
Speaker 1: New York, doubt you ever will be. Check out the
Speaker 1: tattoo shop that she Run's okay, cool, it's the greatest
Speaker 1: tattoo parlor ever and it's secure thanks to simply Safe.
Speaker 1: All right, Brian, that's awesome, Thank you. I love getting
Speaker 1: little sponsor shout out here hopefully used promo code. Buck. Um,
Speaker 1: I listened to you each night, Buck and your caw debating,
Speaker 1: entertaining and knowledgeable as well as funny, more so than
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, Bill Cunningham or the others. You got it
Speaker 1: hands down, my man. One day I'll listen to your podcast.
Speaker 1: Until then, I'll continue my mission and duty of converting
Speaker 1: the other fifty four thousand liberal progressive socialist inmates, one
Speaker 1: convict at a time. It's an uphill battle, Uh though,
Speaker 1: my friend, I support law enforcement. Oh yeah, uh, I
Speaker 1: get you some, get you some, and I support what
Speaker 1: you're doing. Um, before I forget shields high baby, well Brian,
Speaker 1: hey man, shields, how do you? Uh? And thank you
Speaker 1: so much for the very kind note. And you know, honestly,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's inspiring to hear one somebody who's trying
Speaker 1: to just convert people to the righteousness of conservative thinking.
Speaker 1: But also, man, I really appreciate your attitude. I mean,
Speaker 1: clearly you're writing to me from being incarcerated, but you're
Speaker 1: you understand that everyone has no matter where they are,
Speaker 1: what they're doing, they can contribute, they can be positive,
Speaker 1: they can uh continue to inspire people around them. They
Speaker 1: can build their relationship with their loved ones and and
Speaker 1: with God. They can be they can be forces for
Speaker 1: positivity and good wherever they are. And clearly, Brian, you've
Speaker 1: made that choice from where you are while incarcerated. And look,
Speaker 1: my friend, please keep it up, Please keep listening. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's an honor to have you as part of Team Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've got big plans for when you get out,
Speaker 1: to make the most of all of that time you
Speaker 1: have left and everything that you can do. So God
Speaker 1: bless my friend, and uh, take advantage of every moment
Speaker 1: inside and and outside when and I'm sure you're gonna
Speaker 1: be outside soon. Just keep praying, keep taking care of
Speaker 1: those around you, and you'll be You'll be good. And
Speaker 1: please keep listening to the show. Monica, Hey Buck, please
Speaker 1: tell me the scooters story was a comedy skit. Lie
Speaker 1: to me if you have to, She'll tie from Team Buck. Okinawa, Monica,
Speaker 1: I cannot tell a lie, at least not to Team Buck.
Speaker 1: I like those electric scooters. I know it's so hipster
Speaker 1: Left Coast Elite is green energy nonsense, but they're so
Speaker 1: I mean, it's fun. You get on there bo and
Speaker 1: that's by the way. That's exactly the noise you know,
Speaker 1: if you're on a motorcycle makes a real noise. If
Speaker 1: you're on al those little scooters, it's like you're on
Speaker 1: a little b by bubble b to what bubble b
Speaker 1: bubbo be? So yeah, it's fun though, it's I'm telling
Speaker 1: you it's fun. You know, you don't knock until you
Speaker 1: try it. I was knocking and I was like, who
Speaker 1: are these dorks riding around the electric scooters? Uh? And
Speaker 1: sure enough I'm one of those dorks now, so I
Speaker 1: cannot lie to you. Monica, all right, now, it's Leanna.
Speaker 1: Who is up? Hey? Buck listening to Tuesday's podcast, you
Speaker 1: were talking about Hillary running again. My thought from the
Speaker 1: day after Trump was elected is that if Michelle Obama
Speaker 1: will come out a year before the next presidential action
Speaker 1: like her husband did and run for president, just think
Speaker 1: the first black woman president with the Obama name would
Speaker 1: probably get the nomination. What do you think, Uh? I
Speaker 1: think that Michelle Obama, if she chose to run, would
Speaker 1: be a formidable candidate. I'd been completely honest with you.
Speaker 1: I think that I think the Obama name carries a
Speaker 1: lot more weight, a lot more weight in Democrats. Circles
Speaker 1: now than the Clinton name does. And it's just a
Speaker 1: question of would Michelle Obama I want to do that? Um,
Speaker 1: and the answers. I have no idea. There you have it,
Speaker 1: Daniel writes, great show tonight, Buck, Maybe you can work
Speaker 1: in cuomo phobia sometime. Well, Daniel, I think I just did.
Speaker 1: I think I just worked it in work it So
Speaker 1: I just did. Um. Robert writes, love the show. Just
Speaker 1: heard you talking about the list of things to do
Speaker 1: in New York City. What are they? I'm too slow
Speaker 1: and miss them. Do you have them posted somewhere? Well, Robert,
Speaker 1: my first advice for people in in New York City is, uh,
Speaker 1: avoid a few things here in my in my opinion,
Speaker 1: avoid Times Square because it's not New York. It's specifically
Speaker 1: designed for people who are coming to New York and
Speaker 1: therefore really has very little connection to the rest of
Speaker 1: the city. I know there are some inexpensive hotels there,
Speaker 1: so if you choose to stay in that area, I
Speaker 1: totally understand. My recommendation, though, would be to stay elsewhere
Speaker 1: in in Manhattan when you're visiting the city. I would
Speaker 1: say even stay in the financial district, which isn't thought
Speaker 1: of as a place where people visit a lot, but
Speaker 1: there's beautiful stuff down there. It's the Battery Park is gorgeous,
Speaker 1: especially if it's a nice time of year. The streets
Speaker 1: that part of New York City are just fun to
Speaker 1: walk around. You go see the Stock Exchange, go see
Speaker 1: Trinity Church. There's a lot of history in that southern
Speaker 1: part of Manhattan. And I think that because it's a
Speaker 1: lot of business hotels, you can actually get some pretty
Speaker 1: good deals down there, uh and and get some pretty
Speaker 1: you know, get get some good bang for your buck,
Speaker 1: so to speak. And then in terms of stuff to see,
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of Central Park. But start at
Speaker 1: the southern end and walk up north. And I generally
Speaker 1: say walk up north and then head east. When you
Speaker 1: hit the Metropolitan Museum of Art, go to the Metropolitan
Speaker 1: Museum of Art as well. Certainly worth it. If you're
Speaker 1: into modern art, go to Moment. I am not into
Speaker 1: modern art. I cannot lie, so I'm not a moment person.
Speaker 1: The place I always recommend for burgers is J. G.
Speaker 1: Mellon's on the Upper east Side. It's quite an experience.
Speaker 1: Nothing fancy, all cash, but delicious, delicious burgers. And then
Speaker 1: I would also say you could go to the high Line,
Speaker 1: which is an elevated park which connects to Chelsea Market.
Speaker 1: This is in the Chelsea neighborhood, which is also just
Speaker 1: fun to walk around and get a sense of New
Speaker 1: York City. There's a lot of art galleries and Chelsea
Speaker 1: a lot of really good little restaurants and great coffee,
Speaker 1: great bars, so I used to. I've lived in Chelsea
Speaker 1: in a couple of places, so I would highly I
Speaker 1: would highly recommend else and Greenwich Village, probably my favorite
Speaker 1: part of all of New York City, connects to Washington
Speaker 1: Square Park. Go to Washington Square Park, walk around that area,
Speaker 1: go south of it, just just walk the streets. I mean,
Speaker 1: the thing about New York is that the neighborhoods are
Speaker 1: so different, there's so much going on that to really
Speaker 1: get a sense and really get a sense of it,
Speaker 1: you want to you want to walk around and and
Speaker 1: experience the city on foot as much as possible. So
Speaker 1: I don't recommend taking one of those busses and seeing
Speaker 1: stuff from the bus. I think you really want to
Speaker 1: walk the streets a bit. And then there's the other
Speaker 1: the the big stuff. Uh that ye, everybody should go
Speaker 1: check out at some point, you know, the Statue of Liberty.
Speaker 1: I've never been to the Statue of Liberty. I know,
Speaker 1: I'm embarrassed. Rucier Mike is shaking his head in shame
Speaker 1: right now. I love America and freedom. I've never been
Speaker 1: a statue of Liberty, but I will. I will fix
Speaker 1: that at some point. And then also go to the
Speaker 1: top of the Empire State Building, go to the top
Speaker 1: of Rockefeller Center. Actually as well, if you want views,
Speaker 1: go to the nine eleven Memorial and Museum. It's incredible.
Speaker 1: And that's actually that whole area has and revitalize in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: So that's my Oh, and pick a show you're in
Speaker 1: New York, go to you know, there's nowhere else like
Speaker 1: it for Broadway shows. I'm not a Broadway show guy,
Speaker 1: but if you're a visitor, certainly worth it. That's my
Speaker 1: And then in terms of restaurants, just just do your
Speaker 1: Internet research, folks, because the best food in the world.
Speaker 1: That's the best food in the world. I feel like
Speaker 1: I'm getting little nostalgic for New York City now. I'm
Speaker 1: just that's my visitor's guide for you as a born
Speaker 1: and raised New York native. Uh, those are the things
Speaker 1: that I would do. And if, obviously your baseball person,
Speaker 1: you go to a Yankees game, I would not go
Speaker 1: to a Mets game. Just putting that out there. My
Speaker 1: my my preference. Uh. And Madison Square Garden has fun
Speaker 1: stuff going on too, but it's really for me. It's
Speaker 1: about the neighborhoods and walking those neighborhoods. All right, I've
Speaker 1: gotten so diverted. I'm gonna come back. We're gonna finish
Speaker 1: out roll Call because I will not be with you
Speaker 1: tomorrow to do the roll call, so we'll come back
Speaker 1: to some more on the flip side. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call, all right, second part of
Speaker 1: roll Call because again I'm gonna be gone for the weekend,
Speaker 1: which means I will miss you all very much. But
Speaker 1: the Godfather, Michael Pelk is in tomorrow, so you are
Speaker 1: in good hands, my friends. Uh, let's get right to
Speaker 1: it though, to the roll call. I get to hear
Speaker 1: from all of you, especially because I feel like the
Speaker 1: podcast fam of Team Buck. You know, you guys generally
Speaker 1: don't get to call in on air, so that's why
Speaker 1: I love doing Roll Call. So your voice, your thoughts,
Speaker 1: your comments get heard by everybody. Uh, Jeffrey writes, I'll
Speaker 1: be impressed if you stay on this show over a
Speaker 1: long time, because Crystal is really exhausting in her points
Speaker 1: of you sometimes. Well, Jeffrey, I appreciate your appreciation for
Speaker 1: my my patients. UM, but I am very fond of
Speaker 1: my co host and I think we are we are
Speaker 1: doing a very good job of towing a difficult line,
Speaker 1: which is to have a She is a a a
Speaker 1: a very progressive person political activists and strategists, and I
Speaker 1: am obviously very conservative. The fact that we are as
Speaker 1: civil to each other as we are, I think is
Speaker 1: is something of a testament to the show. But I
Speaker 1: thanks for thinking of being looking out for me and uh,
Speaker 1: I hope that it goes for a long time. Um.
Speaker 1: Next up here we have hold on a second Willie
Speaker 1: who all right, somebody gave Cohen bad advice. Lannie Davis
Speaker 1: is a Clinton nut. Well, Willie, I I gotta tell you, UM,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean it's these lawyers A lot
Speaker 1: of them are really acting much more like pr strategists
Speaker 1: than lawyers. That they don't seem to have all that
Speaker 1: much interest in, um, in the legal aspect of things
Speaker 1: as much as they are trying to try the case
Speaker 1: in the in the public mind or the public eye.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I don't know. And Lanny Davis here, he's
Speaker 1: a charming fellow, but yeah, he's a He's a Clinton
Speaker 1: easta no or clintonisto, no question about it. And I
Speaker 1: think that. But let's be honest here for a second, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're always honest. But you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think that Cohen is going to get a
Speaker 1: really a really good lawyer. I mean, do you think
Speaker 1: that you know his his uh, his judgment appears to
Speaker 1: be lacking from what I can tell. Richard Richard is
Speaker 1: next up here. He writes, I'm on an elliptical at
Speaker 1: my gym in Upper Montgomery County, and I see on
Speaker 1: the two screens to my left and to my right
Speaker 1: MSNBC and CNN, with Fox on my screen in the middle.
Speaker 1: Just could not let that stand. I finished my workout
Speaker 1: and proceeded to change the other four screens to Fox.
Speaker 1: One problem. To do that, I have to get on
Speaker 1: each machine and start peddling to start the program. Yep,
Speaker 1: I got on each one, moving down the line to
Speaker 1: changing the channels to the right station and putting on
Speaker 1: close capturing hashtag new rules, hashtag dancing. Uh. This one
Speaker 1: I think from our friend Dr Rick, dr Rick, my friend,
Speaker 1: you you get on that elliptical for freedom, my man,
Speaker 1: you you do it, get out there, you change those
Speaker 1: channels around. I can tell you that. Uh. In my
Speaker 1: old gym in New York. UM, I had belonged to
Speaker 1: a few gyms. I I don't think I ever saw
Speaker 1: Fox News on. It was always CNN, MSNBC, ESPN. That
Speaker 1: was the lineup that you had. And sometimes E you know,
Speaker 1: because people need to know O MG, like what is
Speaker 1: CARDI b saying about that thing? That's why A A
Speaker 1: s um. Yeah, I never saw Fox in the gym.
Speaker 1: I think people, I honestly, I think people would complain. Uh.
Speaker 1: William writes, uh Alm. A second, I was at the
Speaker 1: Virginia Hospital there four branding the dead of my wife.
Speaker 1: She loves red vines the post at Twizzlers. You can
Speaker 1: hardly find red vines anywhere, so we bought them. I
Speaker 1: bought a gatorade. I beat the ends off one of
Speaker 1: the red vines and direct my gatorade through my red
Speaker 1: vine straw. This is quite a story, William. Red vines
Speaker 1: are made in California. I'm a true capitalist. Red vines
Speaker 1: could be called the new straw. All the old veterans
Speaker 1: were laughing at me, and my wife said, you're crazy.
Speaker 1: But she always calls me crazy and a dirty old man.
Speaker 1: But I'm only forty five. I love making folks laugh,
Speaker 1: especially old veterans. Well, me too, William. Replace plastic straws
Speaker 1: with red vines, delicious and environmentally friendly. Well you mean
Speaker 1: maybe onto something, my man. You know, it's very functional,
Speaker 1: It's a kind of hip. William also writes you Dan Bongino,
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro and of course Joe Rogan. I don't watch
Speaker 1: much TV, mostly listened to you for Jokers at night.
Speaker 1: Best podcasts out there. Well, William, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I really do appreciate that. And and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we are hoping to even expand a podcast audience more
Speaker 1: than than we have thus far. So please do spread
Speaker 1: the word. Tell all your friends, veteran friends, everybody, please
Speaker 1: do tell them. Um. Next we have Daniel, who writes
Speaker 1: the payments were not the illegality. It was not filling
Speaker 1: the proper declaring expenditure paperwork shields high. Uh well, yeah, Daniel,
Speaker 1: I mean the payments that were or not. First of all,
Speaker 1: I don't think that they were illegal under any circumstances,
Speaker 1: because I think that it stretches the definition of a
Speaker 1: campaign expenditure to the breaking point. But beyond that, it's
Speaker 1: because they did not file those campaign expenses. So yes,
Speaker 1: I I think, look, well we'll get Obviously we're gonna
Speaker 1: continue to cover this, and uh, you know, I appreciate
Speaker 1: you weighing in. Um. Next up here we have Sharon
Speaker 1: who writes, my faith in law enforcement in general has
Speaker 1: been severely diminished, not only because of the FBI people
Speaker 1: in the upper echelon, but also after the Parkland shooting.
Speaker 1: How over does the threat have to be before they
Speaker 1: take action? And now with that, with what this brend
Speaker 1: And guy is saying, I'm just disgusted with a whole
Speaker 1: lot of them. You know, Sharon, I do think that
Speaker 1: this is one of the big unfortunate realities of all
Speaker 1: the stuff that we've seen with this deep state action
Speaker 1: against against Trump, is that folks like you and me
Speaker 1: don't feel the same way about senior law enforcement officials.
Speaker 1: Once you start to lose faith in d J, what,
Speaker 1: what do you know? After that, all we got left
Speaker 1: to have faith in is our military, and as great
Speaker 1: as our military is, they're not in charge of us,
Speaker 1: you know, in the States day to day, right, So, Uh,
Speaker 1: they got a function to protect us from enemies. They're
Speaker 1: not policing our lives. So you know that's that's troubling,
Speaker 1: and I agree with you that it's troubling. Alan writes
Speaker 1: Buck time for all the intelligence officials passed and present
Speaker 1: that signed a letter supporting Brennan to have their clearances revokes.
Speaker 1: Get with the program or get out of the way.
Speaker 1: Allan's not messing around here. Uh. Nick writes thoughts on
Speaker 1: the accuracy of the Looming Looming Tower on Hulu. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Nick, I haven't seen it. I've read the
Speaker 1: book by Lawrence right, I have not seen the movie.
Speaker 1: So I would just say I can't give you an
Speaker 1: answer right now, but I will check it out, I think.
Speaker 1: And that's gonna be it for today, folks. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: talk to you on Monday, obviously here in the Hut,
Speaker 1: the god other Michael Pelka will be in for me tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Please do call him, make him feel welcome and at home.
Speaker 1: He he loves all of you, because you know he's oss.
Speaker 1: He was with me in the earliest days of the
Speaker 1: show as one of my earliest guests regular guests, so
Speaker 1: there's a synchronicity there um and we always appreciate having
Speaker 1: Michael Pelka step in. I'll be out in l A
Speaker 1: this weekend. If you see me in on the West Side,
Speaker 1: say hi. And until next time, Shields High.