Speaker 1: Look, hiring is tough, right, It's very competitive right now.
Speaker 1: You've got to move fast. You want to get to
Speaker 1: the best people and you don't want to waste a
Speaker 1: lot of time. But a place where growing businesses can
Speaker 1: go to connect with the most qualified candidates is zip recruiter.
Speaker 1: Go to zip recruiter dot com, slash sexton and you'll
Speaker 1: see for yourself. You can use a free trial there.
Speaker 1: It'll connect you to over a hundred of the web's
Speaker 1: leading job boards. They have a powerful matching technology that
Speaker 1: will make sure that the thousands of resumes that you
Speaker 1: get access to will be scanned through so you'll get
Speaker 1: exactly the right people with the right experience for your
Speaker 1: job search. Folks, we used zip recruiter here to hire
Speaker 1: people for The Hill dot com and we've gotten great hires.
Speaker 1: These are now my colleagues and friends, and they came
Speaker 1: courtesy of zip Recruiter. It's no wonder that zip recruiter
Speaker 1: is the highest rated hiring site in America. Try for yourself.
Speaker 1: My listeners can try zip recruiter for free. That's right,
Speaker 1: totally free. Go to zip recruiter dot com, slash sexton.
Speaker 1: That's zip recruiter dot com. Slash Sexton for this exclusive
Speaker 1: offer zip recruiter dot com slash Sexton the Smartest way
Speaker 1: to hire You are entering the freedom hunt. The left
Speaker 1: is doubling down on false accusations of racism because these
Speaker 1: smear tactics are the only way they think they can
Speaker 1: beat strong conservatives going into the mid terms. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that and also the normalization effect of the media
Speaker 1: on socialism and how this plays into a grand plan
Speaker 1: to exploit the next major crisis in this country to
Speaker 1: push us deeper and deeper into the left wing abyss.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that and much more coming up today
Speaker 1: on The Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show where the mission or mission is to decode what
Speaker 1: really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American. Again The Buck Sexton Show begins if
Speaker 1: you do it in constant dollars, So there's no monkeying
Speaker 1: around with numbers here. Nobody here of any party has
Speaker 1: until two thousand eleven monkeyed around with that proposition at
Speaker 1: risk associated with monkeying around with the dead limit, this formula.
Speaker 1: You know, we've monkeyed around with us for so long,
Speaker 1: all along the health and Human Services Department has been
Speaker 1: monkeying around with the website that they would draw the
Speaker 1: line in Kosovo before he left and told Mr velascovit
Speaker 1: to no uncertain terms, don't monkey around with this one.
Speaker 1: And our Republican colleagues, even in their tax bill, cause
Speaker 1: premiums to go up by monkeying around with healthcare. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the bucks, exetit show everybody. I am sorry too
Speaker 1: to have to play that audio for you. Where where?
Speaker 1: Clearly you have so many Democrats who, based on our
Speaker 1: new rules as of yesterday, are engaging in such foul speech.
Speaker 1: I mean, the racism is overwhelming from Oh wait, you
Speaker 1: mean they were just using a phrase in common usage. Oh,
Speaker 1: they've all said monkey around because of the phrase in
Speaker 1: common usage has nothing to do with with racism. So
Speaker 1: what is the problem with somebody else using that phrase?
Speaker 1: Are we really going to pretend now that it's not
Speaker 1: a phrase in common usage just so we can slam
Speaker 1: a Republican? Oh the answers, Yes, what a shock for nobody. Uh,
Speaker 1: that is what they are doing. Plenty of people say this,
Speaker 1: it is a phrase, It was in no way intended
Speaker 1: to be any kind of a racial slide or even
Speaker 1: insinuation of one. And yet the media is running with
Speaker 1: this and and actually, to santiss opponent, UH is capitalizing
Speaker 1: on this. I saw a poll that I saying he's
Speaker 1: I had five points, and they're trying to create distance
Speaker 1: between these two gubernatorial candidates for Florida as quickly as
Speaker 1: they can and trying to capitalize. Like I said, Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, well even President Obama used the term
Speaker 1: UH play play fourteen. Well I'll tell you what it
Speaker 1: helps in Ohio that we got Democrats in charge of
Speaker 1: the machines. UM. But but look, I come from Chicago,
Speaker 1: so so I want to be honest. It's not as
Speaker 1: if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections
Speaker 1: in the past. Sometimes Democrats have to phrase in common
Speaker 1: usage like limo a phrase in common usage. We'll see
Speaker 1: who catches that quote. But you know, this is uh.
Speaker 1: This is one of these times when you just see
Speaker 1: that the fake news in action. Any honest journey List
Speaker 1: should have said, all right, everyone, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: We heard what the Santists said. We we see in
Speaker 1: the context he was just using a phrase other people
Speaker 1: just like what I said yesterday and now today, you know,
Speaker 1: after they've trashed as Santists as much as possible. It's
Speaker 1: coming out that you've got lots of Democrats that say
Speaker 1: this all the time, and they're the ones who are
Speaker 1: creating this narrative that the Santists was actually trying to
Speaker 1: a dog whistle by using this phrase. It's just it's
Speaker 1: just wrong, man. I mean, there are a few things
Speaker 1: that that are as underhanded in politics as pretending that
Speaker 1: there is racism where there is none. It's so damaging
Speaker 1: to somebody's character. It's it's deeply wrong. As I've said
Speaker 1: to you before on this show, I mean, to be
Speaker 1: really a racist in our society is to be put
Speaker 1: on roughly the same well maybe a moral plane or
Speaker 1: two below the hatred, uh, that is that is reserved
Speaker 1: for people that hurt children. And but I mean, you're right,
Speaker 1: you're right up there. You know, probably somebody that that
Speaker 1: assaults children is the worst of the worst. And then
Speaker 1: right below that you got racist. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: people despise real racists as they should. We also despise
Speaker 1: anti Semites. We despise other people for hate, for hateful beliefs,
Speaker 1: or rather we despise the hateful beliefs. Uh. And you know,
Speaker 1: but then people point out, why is like Louis Farricond,
Speaker 1: for example, able to say the things that he said
Speaker 1: and not be chased in the public square by the media.
Speaker 1: That's a maybe a conversation for another time, but but
Speaker 1: monkey around. I I had to deal with this today.
Speaker 1: Even on my show on Rising, I had people coming.
Speaker 1: I had a conservative who came on, a nice guy
Speaker 1: with a conservative daily caller who's like, I cannot defend
Speaker 1: these comments. What do you mean you can't defend these comments.
Speaker 1: There's nothing to defend. It's fine. He didn't say anything.
Speaker 1: He didn't mean to say anything bad. He didn't do
Speaker 1: anything bad. Folks. This is why you are my sanity.
Speaker 1: This show my ability to come here and talk to
Speaker 1: all of you every day. I couldn't live in d
Speaker 1: C without you, guys. I really mean this. I couldn't
Speaker 1: do what I'm doing and engage progressives. I sat down,
Speaker 1: we played the interview day with Elissa Lissa Milano. I
Speaker 1: was so gentlemanly in this interview, and some of you,
Speaker 1: when you see it, you're gonna be mad at me
Speaker 1: because you're like Buck, you should have just, you know,
Speaker 1: torn her ignorance on guns to shreds. And but you know,
Speaker 1: I asked, I let her, I let her speak for herself.
Speaker 1: I asked her the questions, and you got to hear
Speaker 1: from her. You know, yeah, I just like live in California.
Speaker 1: Like the main reason is because we have such strict
Speaker 1: gun control laws. But but you you say you own
Speaker 1: guns in your home. Why do you hate someone like
Speaker 1: it's just but yeah, that's why she lives in a
Speaker 1: mansion in a canyon right outside of l A because
Speaker 1: of the strict gun control laws. Sure, good talk, oh man,
Speaker 1: But you guys are my sanity, You really are. You're
Speaker 1: the thing that that allows me to feel like I'm
Speaker 1: not alone in this crazy bizarro political kaleidoscope that is Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. And the swamp. And it's on days like
Speaker 1: today when even some conservatives are running for cover on
Speaker 1: this one's like, no, this is what has changed, folks,
Speaker 1: this is what's different now about the Trump era. We
Speaker 1: don't all have to run for cover. We finally have
Speaker 1: somebody who's got our back. You know. It's it's like
Speaker 1: we're we're in a political street fight, and Trump is
Speaker 1: the six ft a pounds all muscle guy walking around
Speaker 1: with a two buy four, who's like, who wants a piece? Like,
Speaker 1: we've got somebody on our side who can fight the
Speaker 1: fight for us. You know, we have somebody who's taken
Speaker 1: it to the media. I mean he was drop kicking.
Speaker 1: I mean old school like Randy Savage, super fly Jimmy
Speaker 1: snooka flying off the buckle drop kick against the media today.
Speaker 1: I mean just taking him to ask and he should
Speaker 1: because they have no shame. They should be embarrassed. CNN
Speaker 1: won't walk back this ridiculous story they have about Colin
Speaker 1: Lanny Davis. Cohen is clearly uh not gonna say what
Speaker 1: they said. He said that Trump knew about the Trump
Speaker 1: Tower meeting in advance, Lanny Davis was their source. CNN
Speaker 1: lied about Lanny Davis not being the source. They won't
Speaker 1: back down now because they know they've gotten too many
Speaker 1: black eyes already on anti Trump reporting. They've had to
Speaker 1: fire people already for anti Trump reporting. This is this
Speaker 1: is what's happening, folks. This we we see it all
Speaker 1: around us right now. And you know, I just get
Speaker 1: I get so frustrated when I have conservatives they're saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know it was okay, yeah, should he have been
Speaker 1: should just Santas have been a little bit more careful. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, I mean, you know, he shouldn't have put
Speaker 1: himself in a position. He should know better, in a
Speaker 1: sense than to allow the than to say anything that
Speaker 1: the left can even miss counts true as racist, right,
Speaker 1: that that they can even you know, give them anything
Speaker 1: to work with on this. He's got to be more
Speaker 1: disciplined than that. And when he said but he didn't
Speaker 1: say anything wrong. It wasn't actually offensive or racist or
Speaker 1: anything else. And I'm just not gonna budge on this.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna budge on it. I know you're not either.
Speaker 1: That's some conservatives to him, Man, it was, you know,
Speaker 1: And then what ends up happening is they do this
Speaker 1: whole thing about well, I mean, maybe it's not racist,
Speaker 1: but in the era of Trump, there's so much racism
Speaker 1: that what's not racist becomes racist. No, that's not that's
Speaker 1: not that's not how words work, that's not how this happens.
Speaker 1: Andrew Guillim, the very progressive governor, I'm sorry, mayor, not
Speaker 1: governor whoa bucks settled down mayor of Tallahassee, Florida. He
Speaker 1: spoke on this issue today. And you know this is
Speaker 1: this is classic politicians stuff where he's gonna say uh
Speaker 1: that you know he doesn't really want to say that. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll let him, I'll let I'll let Mr Gillim speak
Speaker 1: for himself play seventeen. I I don't want to jump
Speaker 1: to name calling at this stage of the race, and
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that they will try to avoid it as well. UM.
Speaker 1: I don't, however, believe um that the congressman uh was
Speaker 1: in any way uh frankly trying to to to back
Speaker 1: away from what he was suggesting that he was doing,
Speaker 1: which was, in my opinion, UM, playing a little bit
Speaker 1: of of of a race card there. I wish you wouldn't, however,
Speaker 1: because I think he can be better than that. I
Speaker 1: think the President has been a horrible example when it
Speaker 1: comes to these kinds of issues. That is a lie,
Speaker 1: that is a low blow. It is completely ungallant, ungentlemanly
Speaker 1: and and dishonorable for Gillum. But he's a progressive, so
Speaker 1: you know that they don't are things like honor to
Speaker 1: progressive is that that's a that's a part of the
Speaker 1: patriarchy or whatever that they don't they don't believe in
Speaker 1: that stuff. They believe in power and victory and the
Speaker 1: power of the state which they must harness, they must
Speaker 1: have in order to make a a utopian society. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's so, that's what they think the stakes are. They
Speaker 1: think the stakes are either we're all gonna die because
Speaker 1: of Trump and Nazism and climate change, and also, oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, if they're in charge, we're gonna all
Speaker 1: be living in some amazing combination of Williamsburg, Brooklyn and Stockholm, Sweden,
Speaker 1: and everything is gonna be just just fine and dandy.
Speaker 1: Do we have a what do we have another Gillham clip?
Speaker 1: Don't we? John? What was the other thing that he said?
Speaker 1: Whatever was? Can we play it? Do we have it? Hand? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we have it. We have a It's clip number one.
Speaker 1: It's kill him speaking in his own words, what he
Speaker 1: really believes in. Oh, yes, this is what I wanted
Speaker 1: to get to forget. If we want to replace there
Speaker 1: you go. You know, I'll go ahead and play it.
Speaker 1: We want to replace ICE with the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: the entity that has not been tarnished in the same
Speaker 1: way as as ICE has. So so again he said,
Speaker 1: that's he says, you want to abolish Ice. Pause that John,
Speaker 1: that is delusional. The the Department of Justice hasn't been
Speaker 1: tarnished the way that ICE has. The Department of Justice
Speaker 1: is having a fire people for being zealots who tried
Speaker 1: to throw a presidential election. Hasn't been tarnished. Where do
Speaker 1: they find this? I mean, this is abolish ice. ICE
Speaker 1: is about about I believe thirty of Immigrations and Customs enforcement.
Speaker 1: That number maybe a little high, so we should check out.
Speaker 1: I think it's about thirty or former veterans. So you
Speaker 1: have an agent, a federal law enforcement agency full of
Speaker 1: military veterans that the Democrats are just spitting on left
Speaker 1: and right in favor of the legal aliens. Folks. That's
Speaker 1: really what this all comes down to. Look at what
Speaker 1: they're real priorities are. Look at what gets democrats energized
Speaker 1: and excited. It's not a great economy. It's not you know,
Speaker 1: the American worker feeling like he's got a shot or
Speaker 1: she's got a shot. It's legal aliens a k A.
Speaker 1: To the left, undocumented, which no, no, no, not playing
Speaker 1: that game. Illegal aliens until it has changed in federal law.
Speaker 1: It is a legal alien, that is it. But you
Speaker 1: know he's saying there, he puts I'm sorry, continue because
Speaker 1: there's there's more after ice go ahead data FORIDA also
Speaker 1: believe in. Do you think the president should be impeached?
Speaker 1: I absolutely do. I think he's he's already incriminated himself
Speaker 1: by interfering with the Department of Justice, firing Jim call
Speaker 1: Me of whom I'm no fan of, but basically obstructing justice.
Speaker 1: Two very interesting things said there. Let's start with the
Speaker 1: second one. First, of course, he's gonna say he wants impeachment.
Speaker 1: That's this is an impeachment election. That's what's on the ballot.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, people are gonna vote for their representative
Speaker 1: or you know that. There's the local and state issues matter,
Speaker 1: But at a national level, the conversation is really going
Speaker 1: to hinge around, uh, the president and possible prosecution of
Speaker 1: the president. I should say, possible impeachment of the president.
Speaker 1: Pardon me, um. That's what this is all about. And
Speaker 1: it's funny that Democrats have to play. They want to
Speaker 1: tell their base that, but they don't want to tell moderates.
Speaker 1: They don't want to tell centrists. Uh. They don't want
Speaker 1: to be too honest about their real intentions, which is
Speaker 1: true about Democrats all the time for Democrats to win,
Speaker 1: they have to hide who they are, who they really
Speaker 1: are at their core. This is a this is a
Speaker 1: constant theme with the left. So I'm not surprised that
Speaker 1: it will play out here with the whole impeachment looming
Speaker 1: impeachment fiasco, because that's gonna there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 1: of national healing then, folks, Yeah, that's gonna be great.
Speaker 1: All these people that are lecture goes about discourse, and
Speaker 1: and political discourse is being coursened. And what about our
Speaker 1: institutions of government. Let's see how all that's going. When
Speaker 1: you have the entire media and the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: the majority Democrats, trying to take down this president and
Speaker 1: essentially nullify the election of let let's see how healed
Speaker 1: we are as a nation. Then that will be interesting.
Speaker 1: Eight four four two five eight four Buck. We have
Speaker 1: oh so much more to discuss. I want to follow
Speaker 1: up on the Bruce or situation, what's going on the
Speaker 1: d O J. I haven't spent much time on that.
Speaker 1: And then also the possibility of Hillary's emails being hacked
Speaker 1: and sent in real time to China. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is from the Daily Caller News Foundation. If this is true.
Speaker 1: I mean, what kind of world are we living in?
Speaker 1: How could the media not have figured this out before? Anyway,
Speaker 1: my my conservative brothers and sisters, the Daily Color, Daily
Speaker 1: Color are on it. So we'll get into that in war.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. It has zero to do with ray Sean.
Speaker 1: Has everything to do with whether we want Florida to
Speaker 1: continue to go in a good direction building off the
Speaker 1: success or do we want to turn to left wing
Speaker 1: socialist policies which will absolutely devastate our state. And here's
Speaker 1: the thing. I believe people should be judged based on
Speaker 1: their ability and character, regardless of race. But it's because
Speaker 1: of that that I know that socialism won't work in Florida.
Speaker 1: It's not good for any race, color, or creed. So
Speaker 1: this is not about race. This is about ideas and principles.
Speaker 1: And I'm not gonna let the Democrats and Andrew Gillham
Speaker 1: try to obscure a debate about whether his tax increases,
Speaker 1: his single payer health care plan, his desire to abolish ice,
Speaker 1: whether that is something that's acceptable for Florida. I don't
Speaker 1: think it is. But I don't care what color you are.
Speaker 1: I'm glad de Santis is is you know standing up
Speaker 1: for himself, standing his ground on this issue. Um and
Speaker 1: and you know, it's good that people are out there fighting,
Speaker 1: you know, speaking of fighting. Trump on Twitter today was
Speaker 1: just on fire. It is amazing with this president is
Speaker 1: able to do with his Twitter account. And let me
Speaker 1: just give you some of the best while they're all
Speaker 1: trying to run around with these stories of oh, it's trying.
Speaker 1: You always just santas a racist. Well that's that's not true,
Speaker 1: and we all we've talked about that. But then you've
Speaker 1: got this. Trump tweeted out today that the hatred and
Speaker 1: extreme bias of me by CNN has clouded their thinking
Speaker 1: and made them unable to function. But actually, as I
Speaker 1: have always said, this has been going on for a
Speaker 1: long time. Little Jeff Z has done a terrible job.
Speaker 1: His ratings suck and a T and T should fire
Speaker 1: him to save credibility. Then he has another tweet. What's
Speaker 1: going on at CNN is happening to different degrees at
Speaker 1: other networks, with NBC News being the worst. The good
Speaker 1: news is that Andy lack E is about to be
Speaker 1: fired question Mark for incompetence and much more. When Lesser
Speaker 1: Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia. They were
Speaker 1: hurt badly. Then finally, I just cannot state strongly enough
Speaker 1: how totally dishonest much of the media is. Truth doesn't
Speaker 1: matter to them. They only have their hatred and agenda.
Speaker 1: This includes fake books which come out about me all
Speaker 1: the time. Add that to fake news folks always anonymous
Speaker 1: sources and are pure fiction. Enemy of the people. Trump
Speaker 1: is amazing. Oh he's amazing, is guy. Ah, it's just
Speaker 1: after after eight years of you know, hard left Obama
Speaker 1: is m and all the lectures from Obama constantly, and
Speaker 1: everyone's like, oh, he's so amazing. I just have Trump
Speaker 1: call out the media like this, I swear you know
Speaker 1: Trump's Twitter account. Man, it's like slipping into a warm bath.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day. It's just still relaxing
Speaker 1: and great, he's back with you now. Because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the fund never stops.
Speaker 1: Everybody's checking everybody else under the kind of Madisonian system
Speaker 1: of checks and balances that have served us so well.
Speaker 1: The courts is striking down executive orders, sometimes upholding them.
Speaker 1: The president's checking Congress. Congress, particularly if the Democrats get control,
Speaker 1: will check the presidency. But who's guarding the guardians who
Speaker 1: is overseeing the Special Counsel or other over zealous prosecutors.
Speaker 1: The courts aren't doing it. Um the there's no there's
Speaker 1: no process that today exists. And I suggested the appointment
Speaker 1: of a permanent group to oversee prosecutorial overreaching and they
Speaker 1: would have the opportunity to at least final reports about
Speaker 1: prosecutorial overreach. Because today the Special Counsel is the only
Speaker 1: institution of government outside of our system of checks and balances.
Speaker 1: Why did Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele before we before
Speaker 1: we get to I know, we had another different plan there,
Speaker 1: but this, this is just too important that the dirsh
Speaker 1: is hitting on something very central here, folks, something that
Speaker 1: you should have in your in your mental arsenal whenever
Speaker 1: you come up against somebody who's saying things like Trump
Speaker 1: is destroying our norms of government, He's destroying our institutions,
Speaker 1: all that stuff that you hear. How he's such a
Speaker 1: you know, yes, he's norm busting in many ways. That's
Speaker 1: good disruptive, right, Disruption in the private sector is a
Speaker 1: good thing. Why isn't disruption when it comes to a
Speaker 1: government's sclerotic way of doing business? Why isn't that also
Speaker 1: a good thing? Okay, So, um, what you need to remember,
Speaker 1: and I say it to you also as a reminder
Speaker 1: to myself, is that the system is in fact working
Speaker 1: as designed. The system worked in that Trump was able
Speaker 1: to despite all the media machinations against him and all
Speaker 1: of the hurdles that were in his way from the establishment,
Speaker 1: Trump was able to break through. So we can still
Speaker 1: have real Uh, you know, political political change can occur
Speaker 1: in this country. We can be surprised. It doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be the way it's always been. But then more so,
Speaker 1: when he's been in office, there have been lots of
Speaker 1: ways in which different agenda items and and different points
Speaker 1: of policy have either balanced out or stayed stayed in
Speaker 1: a kind of neutral space because of checks and balances.
Speaker 1: You have the Trump administry. They talk about Trump as
Speaker 1: though he's some kind of an autocrat or a fascist,
Speaker 1: a Mussolini like figure, or maybe Hitler, depends on how
Speaker 1: angry they are that day. I'm pretty sure Mussolini wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been like, Okay, well, there are hundreds of federal judges,
Speaker 1: but one of them doesn't like me, So I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna not do the thing that I've said I'm going
Speaker 1: to do as the head of this government because of
Speaker 1: that one judge. That's now, that's not how Trump has
Speaker 1: done it. He said, Okay, you know, we'll take this
Speaker 1: to court. We'll go to court over this issue. In fact,
Speaker 1: many of Trump's critics are willing to throw out what
Speaker 1: our constitutional norms, are willing to abandon the system of
Speaker 1: government that they pretend to like whenever it comes to
Speaker 1: an area that Trump is acting within those boundaries, and
Speaker 1: they just don't like the decisions that he makes. This
Speaker 1: brings me back to my mind. We should have actually
Speaker 1: put some audio, Mike from the list of Milano interview.
Speaker 1: I didn't think about that till now. But it's pretty funny.
Speaker 1: You know, she liked this. She liked the swoop until
Speaker 1: things got a little you know, things got a little
Speaker 1: spicy with the political discussion, and then she had to uh,
Speaker 1: she got a little sassy with me. But I think
Speaker 1: overall she liked the swoop and we we had a
Speaker 1: nice scot a nice conversation. I'll tell you the true story. Actually, Mike,
Speaker 1: you ready for this. So we're about to start the interview,
Speaker 1: and we were all set up in in her home
Speaker 1: in uh, you know her lab. I mean it's a mansion.
Speaker 1: It's a straight up mansion. And you know California outside
Speaker 1: of l A And and there's all these other mansions.
Speaker 1: When you're driving to the mansion, I'm like, this more
Speaker 1: to be nice. It's just like mentioned Ville. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean Mick mansion's. I mean like Jeeves the butler
Speaker 1: is waiting for you with the door kind of mansion. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and this this, it was pretty cute. I will admit.
Speaker 1: This chihuahua, she told me. I think he was sixteen
Speaker 1: years old, which I didn't even know chihuahuas could get
Speaker 1: that old. This little ancient chihuahua walks over kind of
Speaker 1: like the docks, and that was dragging. It's it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's fifth leg. When I when I tried to pick
Speaker 1: him up, and then he tried to bite my face off.
Speaker 1: But her little ancient chihuahua came over and like walked
Speaker 1: over and I was gonna reach down and try to
Speaker 1: pet him, and he just like whizzed on the rug
Speaker 1: right next to me, and you know what, like and
Speaker 1: we had cameras the whole day. I'm like, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a sign I think this interview is gonna
Speaker 1: go off the rails. When the chihuahua basically peas on
Speaker 1: your foot before the interview, things are gonna go south
Speaker 1: on you. Things are gonna go So I got a
Speaker 1: little ching there. But anyway, so by back to the
Speaker 1: policy part of this discussion. Forget about ancient chihuahua. Is
Speaker 1: we weing? Uh? The the Supreme Court situation with Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: She said at one point she goes, he should Trump
Speaker 1: shouldn't be able to appoint Supreme Court justice And I said,
Speaker 1: I said, well, what what do you mean he shouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to? He's the president. The president has the
Speaker 1: right to appoint. I mean, these are this is a
Speaker 1: constitutionally granted power. When you say he shouldn't be able to,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? And what it really comes back
Speaker 1: to is they don't they don't accept that he's the president.
Speaker 1: They're in this weird state of denial. But who's really
Speaker 1: doing the undermining of government? Then, when you're the one
Speaker 1: saying the president is not the president, who's the one
Speaker 1: that's undermining institutions? When you're the one that's saying, as
Speaker 1: a leftist that when the president exercises his authority to
Speaker 1: either appointed Supreme Court justice or fire James Kobe as
Speaker 1: the FBI director, for example. Who's undermining on norms of government?
Speaker 1: You know, Dersha, it's his point. And this is I
Speaker 1: think really profound, is that Trump has stayed well within
Speaker 1: the bounds of government, that our government is functioning just
Speaker 1: five and actually, and the only part of our government
Speaker 1: that is a rogue elephant that's out of control, that
Speaker 1: is unaccountable, is, in fact, the Special Counsel that the
Speaker 1: leftists are cheering on against the president, that the deep
Speaker 1: state mob is crying out, uh two, you know, give
Speaker 1: them their dream, which is that Trump will no longer
Speaker 1: be the president. So that's why I think the calls
Speaker 1: for some review of prosty. There really is no mechanism
Speaker 1: in place to deal with the Special Counsel, because, of course,
Speaker 1: if they if they shut it down, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: you know, that's terrible, it's an impeachable offense. So who
Speaker 1: is the Special Council accountable to if he can't be
Speaker 1: fired because they've already decided it's political to fire him
Speaker 1: under any circumstance. There's no circumstance under which they would
Speaker 1: agree he should be fired. Is there any accountability for Muller? No,
Speaker 1: now there is not. So who's really running a rogue
Speaker 1: operation that is outside the structure of government that we're
Speaker 1: supposed to have. Oh, that's right, it's the anti Trump Democrats.
Speaker 1: What a surprise, um, And you know the there was
Speaker 1: a we don't have the audio. I know, Mike, but
Speaker 1: I saw this is one of these panelists. Tapper puts
Speaker 1: him on his very serious news show a lot because
Speaker 1: some of the dumbest panelists on television going on Tapper
Speaker 1: Show in a regular basis. But anyway, Uh, A woman
Speaker 1: went on I forget her name to say that it's
Speaker 1: a hostile takeover of the judiciary that Trump has engaged in. No,
Speaker 1: he's just the president and he's appointing federal judges and McGann,
Speaker 1: who everyone I know is all in some panic about.
Speaker 1: Oh m again, he spoke to special counsel for thirty hours.
Speaker 1: He's leaving. Yeah, folks, he spoke the special counsel for
Speaker 1: thirty hours and they still got nothing. What does that
Speaker 1: tell you? Uh? You know what, what's the real takeaway there? So?
Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's very important to keep
Speaker 1: in mind. And now I want to because so that's
Speaker 1: the the notion of federal prosecutors running them off doing
Speaker 1: whatever they want, in this case, with the Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: the effectively the unlimited resources of the federal government at
Speaker 1: their disposal and a mandate to take down Trump, which
Speaker 1: is what this is. It's all it's a myth that
Speaker 1: this is about Russian interference. We already know about the
Speaker 1: Russian interference. And guess what, there'll be no consequences really
Speaker 1: to Russia. I know we're gonna sanction some people over
Speaker 1: the place. Let me no real consequences of Russia. And
Speaker 1: we couldn't even stop this again if we wanted to,
Speaker 1: we might be a little more on guard against it.
Speaker 1: But it was nothing. It was a nothing burger that
Speaker 1: they made into a something burger. Um. So that that's
Speaker 1: let's just put that. Put that now in the on
Speaker 1: the list of things we needna keep in mind that
Speaker 1: the the undermining of our government is actually coming from
Speaker 1: the left. Trump has stayed well within the bounds set
Speaker 1: by the founders, and in fact it is the Democrats
Speaker 1: who are suggesting that Obama's decision making cannot be undone
Speaker 1: by Trump when it comes to say DOCCA, when it
Speaker 1: comes to different issues of executive discretion. All right, now, John,
Speaker 1: please do play a man Jim Jordan's shirtless or rather
Speaker 1: blaze a less not not shirtless Jim, God, that's a
Speaker 1: that's a different show. Jacketless Jim. There we go, jacketless
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan's Uh. He had this to say about Bruce
Speaker 1: Or play. Why did Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele picked
Speaker 1: Bruce Or in the first place? Why they select his
Speaker 1: wife to come work refusion? They had a direct access
Speaker 1: Chris Steele had direct access to the FBI. He was
Speaker 1: handing them parts of the dossier. Why did they also
Speaker 1: want to run it through Bruce Or at the Justice
Speaker 1: Department and to me to create weight incredibility behind the
Speaker 1: document that was completely false. If you can now go
Speaker 1: tell the press and tell other people, Oh, a senior
Speaker 1: Department of Justice official is also talking about the dossier
Speaker 1: and also passing it onto the FBI. It gives it
Speaker 1: weight when in fact it was completely an incredible, unverified
Speaker 1: document and a bunch of garbage. Jim Jordan's totally right, folks.
Speaker 1: What the heck was Bruce Or thinking in this whole process?
Speaker 1: And why would a why would someone at his level
Speaker 1: be so involved in this. I've told you this all along,
Speaker 1: and I don't like to bring people, you know, family
Speaker 1: into things and let but his wife is directly involved.
Speaker 1: She's directly implicated here. Nellie Or worked at Fusion GPS.
Speaker 1: She saw it, was all all involved in this dossier.
Speaker 1: She's also I believe a Russian linguist and a russianist
Speaker 1: or a Sovietologist herself. But you know, Nellie Or was
Speaker 1: was working on this project for Fusion GPS. Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: brings back the information and her husband is the guy
Speaker 1: running around like uh javert looking for Valjean that just
Speaker 1: got very French, like a lame is reference out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: but but just completely set on this notion of the
Speaker 1: dossier as credible and as a necessary thing to be
Speaker 1: investigated and even to get you know, is a warrant
Speaker 1: based off of it. I'll tell you this if I
Speaker 1: get the opportunity, and maybe I will at some point soon.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I will, but maybe I will if
Speaker 1: I get the opportunity to speak to the president about this.
Speaker 1: The one question I've got to put to him, I
Speaker 1: think he'll just say that they would claim he's interfering
Speaker 1: with the investigation. And even if it did prove that
Speaker 1: the dossier was the primary basis for the investigation. The
Speaker 1: one thing that I would want to ask the President
Speaker 1: right off the battist, why not just declassify it? Man,
Speaker 1: Just do it, Just do it. Let's see what was
Speaker 1: in that PIES application, because I think that would make
Speaker 1: for any reasonable person, it would make the whole thing crumble.
Speaker 1: But I think Trump's point would say, he'd say, look,
Speaker 1: we already know that it's the dossier, and if I
Speaker 1: declassify the rest of it, the national security deep state
Speaker 1: apparatus is going to completely freak out at me. And
Speaker 1: and the Democrats are still gonna say I should be impeached.
Speaker 1: Are still gonna say, you know, you can't undo the
Speaker 1: brainwashing that the Democrats have engaged in against Trump. You
Speaker 1: can't undo it. So even presenting them with irrefutable its
Speaker 1: feels like a fool's Errand I think that's what Trump
Speaker 1: would probably say, in a much trumpier way than that,
Speaker 1: But that's that would be his his approach, because I
Speaker 1: I just I want this whole thing to stop. We
Speaker 1: have more important issues to focus on than this fantasy
Speaker 1: of Russia. Collusion with Trump, and and I would like
Speaker 1: to also see some accountability. I know Trump has called
Speaker 1: for Bruce Or to be fired. We'll see. I have
Speaker 1: a suspicion that Or was more careful, more cautious than
Speaker 1: some of the others involved in this, and that his
Speaker 1: bad behavior, while politicized, wouldn't necessarily cross the red lines
Speaker 1: into anything that would be criminal. So I don't think
Speaker 1: that you can. That's just my guess, you know. I
Speaker 1: know it probably is. It would sound more interesting on
Speaker 1: radio and it's like Bruce Or is going to prison,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that's the case. There's also this
Speaker 1: issue of Hillary's the possible hack of Hillary server with
Speaker 1: real time well that the China Chinese Link company did this,
Speaker 1: and we're just finding out about this now. If this
Speaker 1: is true, and I'm not yet confident that it is,
Speaker 1: although there is there is reporting on it and they're
Speaker 1: standing behind the Daily car. If this is true, uh,
Speaker 1: we are at we are at def Con one in
Speaker 1: terms of politicization for the Department of Justice and the FBI.
Speaker 1: I mean that then then it's not just we need
Speaker 1: to get rid of the bad apples. We need like
Speaker 1: a full scale house cleaning and maybe we maybe that's
Speaker 1: where it needs to go, folks, maybe it does. Eight
Speaker 1: four to five, we got much more. Stay with me,
Speaker 1: YEA got some lines. Let let's talk to our buddy
Speaker 1: Brian from up in Massachusetts, the state I remember finally
Speaker 1: from my college years. Hey Brian, Hey Buck, you know,
Speaker 1: I think the main reason Trump doesn't be classified toppy
Speaker 1: the document is because of set a precedent and the
Speaker 1: left would be able to use any kind of reculation
Speaker 1: against Trump, uh that that involves a classified document, saying, look,
Speaker 1: if he's innocent, why doesn't he just declassic document like
Speaker 1: he did with a visa and they would just use
Speaker 1: the game suspicion against him, you know, and they use
Speaker 1: it against him in the future. So when I'm a
Speaker 1: little confused, you're saying, why shouldn't he declassify it if
Speaker 1: he were to be classified document, if there were if
Speaker 1: there were any kind of speculation on a different issue
Speaker 1: that involved a classified document in the future, all the
Speaker 1: news organizations left when media would say, well, if he
Speaker 1: was innocent, he would declassify the document. Ah, you're saying,
Speaker 1: I see, I see. You're saying it sets a precedent
Speaker 1: so that you know, if he declassifies that, they could say, well,
Speaker 1: why won't he de classify this other thing? He must
Speaker 1: be hiding that, right, So anything in the Mueller probe
Speaker 1: then becomes an issue that they could use as essentially
Speaker 1: use use against the president and suggest that he should
Speaker 1: declassify anything that they tell him to. Is that Is
Speaker 1: that a fair read back of what you're saying, not
Speaker 1: just the Mueller investigation, but any any kind of speculation
Speaker 1: in the future, anything that comes up in the future.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't be classified, eventually there will be something
Speaker 1: that involves Dorces methods that he can't be classify, and
Speaker 1: they're going to use that to his disadvantage. I think
Speaker 1: that's true. Look, I think that's a complete mab ran.
Speaker 1: I think it's a completely valid point um. And and
Speaker 1: maybe that would also be what the president's response would
Speaker 1: because he I think he said before that you know
Speaker 1: he's thinking about it. What the president says that a
Speaker 1: lot of things, So I don't I don't know if
Speaker 1: that means that he's really seriously considering it, but it
Speaker 1: is a it's a it's the nuclear option. There's no
Speaker 1: question to to declassify the entirety of a FIES application.
Speaker 1: Would and now when I see the entirety, maybe they
Speaker 1: could black out and you know, some names that but
Speaker 1: but you know, once you get into that process, now
Speaker 1: it's like, well, who's gonna be doing the blacking out
Speaker 1: of names? And all of a sudden you're where we
Speaker 1: are right now, right, So it's either it might have
Speaker 1: to be uh, you know, the whole thing, you know,
Speaker 1: a whole hog or nothing. Um, but I think you
Speaker 1: raised a very good point. Anything else you got on
Speaker 1: your mind, Brian, that's all all right, man, Thank you, excellent,
Speaker 1: excellent call. Appreciate you give me a ring shield ti Um, Mike,
Speaker 1: do we have that sort of cryptic prediction from uh
Speaker 1: oh we were about to interesting Chuck Todd. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a part of me that looks at somebody like
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd and thinks, you know, I I respect you,
Speaker 1: got it. I respect that he's gotten Oh oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: that was John telling me something else. I respect that
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd, who's to meet the press host, has gotten
Speaker 1: very far on what I can what I would consider
Speaker 1: to be not so much. So there's a part of
Speaker 1: me that looks at Chuck Todd the way that when
Speaker 1: you see a guy walking down the street. Who, um,
Speaker 1: let's just say, is not exactly an Adonis and he's
Speaker 1: walking with a beautiful woman. You could think to yourself,
Speaker 1: you know, that's so unfair, or you can think, ah,
Speaker 1: there's hope for me too. Uh. And with Chuck Todd
Speaker 1: with his media career, that's kind of how I think
Speaker 1: of him. I'm like, I guess there's hope for all
Speaker 1: of us if Chuck Todd give me the host to
Speaker 1: meet the press. So let's let's we'll come back to that.
Speaker 1: My god, we got that, we got a cryptic prediction
Speaker 1: about a possible Mueller bombshell going into the well going
Speaker 1: to the liber Day weekend. But we will get into
Speaker 1: that and much more in the second hour. Quomo throwing
Speaker 1: down with Cynthia Nixon we'll discuss and Broke Cuomo makes
Speaker 1: an appearance later in the show too. Every higher that
Speaker 1: you make is precious, right, it's somebody that's going to
Speaker 1: be contributing to your business, you hope day one, and
Speaker 1: especially if you're a small business owner, you know that
Speaker 1: the people you have around you are everything right. If
Speaker 1: you're a huge company, you know that you need to
Speaker 1: make sure you process the best people possible as quickly
Speaker 1: as possible when you bring them in. That's why, whether
Speaker 1: you're big or small as a business, you need Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Global Verification is the only dual certified, veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and vetting company. They're headquartered in Chicago.
Speaker 1: I know the CEO personally. He really cares about what
Speaker 1: he does and make sure that his people, his investigators,
Speaker 1: his vetting folks, are the best in the business. They're
Speaker 1: incredibly discreet, they are trustworthy, and they are a veteran
Speaker 1: owned and operated company. Call to check them out. Eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five nine. That's eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five nine. Are going to my g d
Speaker 1: N dot com. That's my g VN dot com. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton mission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag Noor mistake American. Ready, you're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. Tum C I a
Speaker 1: analysts Sexton. No, that's trap Juliani is trying to set.
Speaker 1: I think pr wise, which is you're taking forever. Wait,
Speaker 1: why are you taking during the election? Think exactly. That's
Speaker 1: why I feel like maybe in January is going to
Speaker 1: be the time when Mueller an announ started thing because
Speaker 1: you enough time before election, but you wait until after
Speaker 1: this election saying I'll be out here. I'm not missing
Speaker 1: work tomorrow. I would miss work. Tomorrow's a day of
Speaker 1: the pre labor day to election day window sale. Is
Speaker 1: Chucky Todd correct there is? Is there going to be
Speaker 1: some kind of a bombshell tomorrow from the Mueller probe?
Speaker 1: I tend to think not, you know what, what Mueller
Speaker 1: has done in the past, what the deep staters have
Speaker 1: gone with as their strategy leading up to this point
Speaker 1: has always been much more dumping news that is unfavorable
Speaker 1: to them late late in a on a Friday or
Speaker 1: even over a weekend, and timing other things for for
Speaker 1: maximum impact against the administration. I think if you were
Speaker 1: to look at a timeline of some of the biggest
Speaker 1: announcements so far in this whole probe, you would sure
Speaker 1: enough find that you'd have to believe in some pretty
Speaker 1: big coincidences for this too, you know, not be in
Speaker 1: any way politicized in terms of the announcements and when
Speaker 1: they've when they've come out, when they're going together. So
Speaker 1: we'll see if if Chuck Todd is correct, but they're
Speaker 1: clearly hoping. I think that there will be something that
Speaker 1: will get the resistance even more fired up going into
Speaker 1: the mid terms. There is always the possibility of backlash.
Speaker 1: There is that chance out there that by pushing so
Speaker 1: hard for impeachment and by making the mid term elections
Speaker 1: about removing this president from power in some I mean,
Speaker 1: they're never really going to get them in the Senate.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's I do believe that's a straight
Speaker 1: up fantasy for the last there's no way that there.
Speaker 1: But I think they believe that they can effectively hobble
Speaker 1: this president's agenda um by making sure that we just
Speaker 1: spend the next two years talking about impeachment and then
Speaker 1: they'll have somebody else who will be running against an
Speaker 1: impeached president for for his reelection. So that that's their
Speaker 1: game plan. I think that much is is pretty clear.
Speaker 1: And another part of it is the the lawfare that
Speaker 1: you can expect they will wage against Trump. I mean
Speaker 1: they will, and I have to agree with some of
Speaker 1: the Washington Post reporting on this, they will just find
Speaker 1: so many ways to come after this administration abusing, abusing,
Speaker 1: uh the law that it'll it'll make our head spin
Speaker 1: if they if they take the House. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is from the Washington Post today. Winter is coming, alliesphere.
Speaker 1: Trump isn't prepared for the gathering legal storm. And this
Speaker 1: is advisors worry that President Trump has neither the staff
Speaker 1: nor the strategy to protect himself if Democrats take over
Speaker 1: the House, which would empower them to shower the administration
Speaker 1: with subpoenas or even pursue impeachment charges. I think they
Speaker 1: will pursue impeachment charges. But just remember, folks, and and
Speaker 1: do all those subpoenas. But remember, you know, with all
Speaker 1: the stuff that happened in the Obama administration, there were
Speaker 1: lots of hearings, lots of stuff that went on, and
Speaker 1: there was no accountability for them. It's really gonna come
Speaker 1: down to just Trump's base stand behind him. These are
Speaker 1: political questions the Democrats are trying to settle through the
Speaker 1: weaponization of the law for political purposes. But these are
Speaker 1: political questions that and these are political issues that have
Speaker 1: them that have the left so upset. They're pretending that
Speaker 1: it's all about the rule of law and Trump is
Speaker 1: is destroying all these norms and is broken I mean,
Speaker 1: they think he's broken so many laws. I mean At
Speaker 1: this point, you gotta think, well, either Trump is a
Speaker 1: is a is a genius evading the accountability, the legal
Speaker 1: accountability that should come along with all these violations, or
Speaker 1: they're just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Speaker 1: They're just trying to find whatever means, whatever mechanism they
Speaker 1: can to create a narrative of of Trump doing illegal stuff. Um.
Speaker 1: And and speaking of accountability and the lack thereof, you
Speaker 1: had the the FBI today responding to President Trump's tweet.
Speaker 1: Now here here's the backstory. Okay, so the Daily Caller
Speaker 1: News Foundation has this story that a Chinese company was
Speaker 1: getting real time updates about Hillary Clinton's emails. Uh, and
Speaker 1: that it looked That's the Daily Caller story. As far
Speaker 1: as I understand, they have not backed down off of
Speaker 1: They have not backed down from it at all. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that they have had any amendments or
Speaker 1: anything else to the story. And so they're saying, look
Speaker 1: that Hillary wasn't just it wasn't just that there was
Speaker 1: a hack, It was that the Chinese government may have
Speaker 1: had access to her emails. Including that would mean, because
Speaker 1: of Hillary's reckless email practices, classified information that was transmitting
Speaker 1: her server. And always remember this, folks, because they tried
Speaker 1: leave this out. The only reason she had a private
Speaker 1: server for this business was to evade fo your requests.
Speaker 1: The only reason she did this was because she wanted
Speaker 1: control over her record of emails so that they couldn't
Speaker 1: nail her. I'm sure for Clinton Foundation malfeasance, she was
Speaker 1: still involved with the Clinton Foundation when when she was
Speaker 1: Secretary of State. I mean it was a massive slush fund,
Speaker 1: a global slush fund. Billions of dollars gone to the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation, and she was still involved while she was
Speaker 1: the head of US foreign policy. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: insane what she was able to get away with. It
Speaker 1: really is. But the FBI has responded to this Daily
Speaker 1: Caller report saying that they have not found quote any
Speaker 1: evidence that the Clinton servers were were compromised. I have
Speaker 1: a few thoughts on this. First of all, I'm not
Speaker 1: entirely confident, and I don't know. I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to suggest that I'm saying not confident when I
Speaker 1: mean I know one way or the other. But I
Speaker 1: I couldn't tell you definitively if the FBI would even
Speaker 1: be able to tell if there was an intrusion. I mean,
Speaker 1: especially if the Chinese government was involved. The Chinese were
Speaker 1: very sophisticated cyber actors, folks. You know, look at the
Speaker 1: level of sophistication that we have seen on display from
Speaker 1: our do o J and our FBI. They're basically like,
Speaker 1: this guy did a report from some Russian sources. You's
Speaker 1: got a Dacier and Dacier. You know, it's like scary,
Speaker 1: and you know this guy Trump is bad because of
Speaker 1: the Dacier. That's not encouraging when you think about some
Speaker 1: of the some of the enemies that they're up against,
Speaker 1: and especially when you're talking about a sophisticated state actor
Speaker 1: like the Chinese government. I don't know how how well
Speaker 1: are you know, FBI digital forensics measure up against the
Speaker 1: Chinese government's ability to get in and out of that
Speaker 1: server without And I really don't know, but I would
Speaker 1: say that it's at least worth thinking about. Is at
Speaker 1: least we're thinking about. But then you also have the
Speaker 1: other layer here, which is, well, how much do we
Speaker 1: even trust that the FBI really gave its all to
Speaker 1: this effort. You know, there's another report out an investigation
Speaker 1: I think it was published in real clear investigations that
Speaker 1: was saying that they didn't, that there's no way that
Speaker 1: they went through all the emails on Wiener's laptop in
Speaker 1: advance of the election, That there's just no way they
Speaker 1: could have done that in time. I also think that
Speaker 1: based on everything we've seen from the Hillary investigation and
Speaker 1: the clear lack of desire for any kind of a
Speaker 1: conviction of Hillary or any of the people around her,
Speaker 1: they really weren't trying to get a conviction. They're really
Speaker 1: trying to make the whole thing go away. It's hard
Speaker 1: to look at any of the other aspects of the
Speaker 1: investigation to Hillary's email server and not feel like, well,
Speaker 1: the fix was always in, So why should we believe
Speaker 1: them on this issue? You want to talk about undermining institutions,
Speaker 1: and this is, I know, to recurring theme I'm hitting
Speaker 1: a lot today on the show, but this is one
Speaker 1: of the primary criticism year from the left about Trump.
Speaker 1: Look At how much the dj is undermined itself. Look
Speaker 1: at our completely rational skepticism that we must apply to
Speaker 1: any pronouncement from the FBI right now involving these matters,
Speaker 1: not involving like random drug dealers and everything else. But uh,
Speaker 1: you can't help but feel like you've got a greater
Speaker 1: degree of skepticism now than before, and you should have
Speaker 1: a greater degree of skepticism than you did before. So
Speaker 1: did the did the Chinese hack Hillary's emails and get
Speaker 1: into them and see classified stuff because of Hillary's recklessness?
Speaker 1: We don't know, but I'm not sure we're ever going
Speaker 1: to be able to know because there are too many
Speaker 1: interested parties who I think we're willing to lie about it.
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta tell you guys something funny today.
Speaker 1: You know, I've got this this crew I work with
Speaker 1: on the hill, and these guys who run the studio
Speaker 1: and the cameras, and they're awesome, right and and they're
Speaker 1: so funny because they, like me, are up very early
Speaker 1: in the morning. They love coffee. But you know what
Speaker 1: the only coffee is they want to drink now, Black
Speaker 1: rifle coffee. I've got my black rifle cake cups on
Speaker 1: my desk at the office because first thing I do
Speaker 1: every every single day as I go into the office
Speaker 1: and I throw a black rifle cake up into our machine.
Speaker 1: I'm making myself a delicious hot cup of freedom. And
Speaker 1: I'm telling you everybody in my office now is trying
Speaker 1: to sneak my Black Rifles when I'm not looking. I've
Speaker 1: told them, go ahead, guys, get it for yourself, take
Speaker 1: whatever you can. But also, why don't you subscribe like
Speaker 1: I do? And now I'm getting lots of converts to
Speaker 1: Black Rifle because they don't want to drink that commie swill.
Speaker 1: They want the good stuff. Go to Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck use the coupon code buck fifteen
Speaker 1: that I'll get you fifteen percent off. That's Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com slash Buck coupon code buck fifteen for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off your whole order. Jeff is in Evansville,
Speaker 1: ahead of the big of that Jo Sandra, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you the President. You know, you may argue with some
Speaker 1: of his tweets, but he's right about this. Like a
Speaker 1: look at the crowd already gathering outside the Ford Center
Speaker 1: here in Evansville. At of my enthusiasm for the president,
Speaker 1: I agree with a lot that he is doing, even
Speaker 1: though some of his methods may not be as traditional.
Speaker 1: And he's the first president we've had lately. It isn't
Speaker 1: kissing everybody's round. If it's a choice between lacking him
Speaker 1: on his comments and his his demeanor or his policies.
Speaker 1: I like the policy, so I can live with the demeanor.
Speaker 1: But these folks say to a person that actually things
Speaker 1: are much better for them. So do you think it'll
Speaker 1: be a big enthusiastic crowd here? You know, that was
Speaker 1: a bunch of folks and uh, that was Curtis. That
Speaker 1: was from Fox News. But they're out in Evansville, Indiana,
Speaker 1: where is doing his rally tonight. And and you know this,
Speaker 1: this is one of these areas that the mainstream media
Speaker 1: still refuses to understand. I think it's not that they
Speaker 1: aren't capable of understanding, they just choose not to understand.
Speaker 1: And you know this is this is where you start
Speaker 1: to look at um how it's It's always framed as
Speaker 1: though Trump voters are they're making excuses for how he
Speaker 1: acts as a person. You know, Trump voters are are
Speaker 1: ignorant of the Stormy Daniels thing or something. They say
Speaker 1: all this stuff, But no, that's not what's going on.
Speaker 1: We just refuse to allow the media to make us
Speaker 1: care and to make us wallow in whatever Trump's personal idiosyncrasies.
Speaker 1: Maybe because he is getting done as the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: He's doing a good job as president. I do not care.
Speaker 1: I do not need a moral example from the president.
Speaker 1: Quite honestly, I don't think we've had a moral example
Speaker 1: in the oval office in a long time. It certainly
Speaker 1: wasn't Clinton. I think George Bush was a good man.
Speaker 1: I think that he made some terrible mistakes as president.
Speaker 1: Uh and and a lot of people paid with their lives. Okay,
Speaker 1: So I think George Bush had some big mistakes. And
Speaker 1: you know, Obama he wasn't. Uh. He didn't have personal scandals,
Speaker 1: but certainly at a policy level, and some of the
Speaker 1: things that he pushed, and I think some of his
Speaker 1: I think some of his ideology is really dangerous to
Speaker 1: the country. But I guess for some people, you know,
Speaker 1: he had a nice family life and everything else. So
Speaker 1: I give credit where it's due, But I don't need
Speaker 1: a moral, a moratal exemplar in office. I need somebody who, yes,
Speaker 1: obeys the laws. But Trump he is obeying the laws.
Speaker 1: All this stuff about how he's he should be impeached
Speaker 1: because he did this or that, it's just all noise.
Speaker 1: They they really think that they're they're gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: bring him down by citing some some pretty vague interpretation
Speaker 1: of statute when it comes to campaign finance law. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the this is the political equivalent of a
Speaker 1: speeding ticket, and they want the presidency to end because
Speaker 1: of it. It's just nuts. And I'm just so happy that,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm so happy that people who supported Trump
Speaker 1: are are still willing to look at this despite all that,
Speaker 1: because there's so much pressure from the culture broadly speaking
Speaker 1: to to just say, you know what, yeah, I can't
Speaker 1: support Trump anymore. He wasn't nice enough about John McCain
Speaker 1: towards the end, or or he wasn't you know, he
Speaker 1: was mean to a gold Star family, or you know,
Speaker 1: there's all these so much pressure, and we look at
Speaker 1: this and say, you know what, I want a president
Speaker 1: who's doing things that make the lot, that make my
Speaker 1: life easier and better, and that is doing that for
Speaker 1: the American people overall. Notice how I won't use the
Speaker 1: term written large, the very d C thing I'm always
Speaker 1: says written large around here, But you know Trump, all
Speaker 1: Trump and and his voters, there's this connection the reason
Speaker 1: that his his numbers don't go down, which freaks out.
Speaker 1: I mean, it actually freaks out some of the left
Speaker 1: on TV, and it's because we understand why we're supporting
Speaker 1: him and what we want from him. And you know,
Speaker 1: here here you at MSNBC, you have Ali Velshi and
Speaker 1: Stephanie Ruela who are trying to make heads or tails
Speaker 1: this whole thing. Here's what they say, Place sixteen, so
Speaker 1: well we could find or do find the president's constant
Speaker 1: lying or lawlessness or reprehensible behavior morally unacceptable. A lot
Speaker 1: of people vote pretty selfishly, and they say, what's going
Speaker 1: to give me more money in my post, or what's
Speaker 1: gonna keep what's gonna make abortion illegal? Or what's gonna
Speaker 1: make sure that my Second Amendment rights stay the same.
Speaker 1: And clearly that adds up to enough people that the
Speaker 1: president still has something akin tot of the electorate in polls.
Speaker 1: It's kind of fascinating to us, as I'm sure it
Speaker 1: is to you. But how do we talk about that?
Speaker 1: How how about not calling it selfish? How about calling
Speaker 1: it voting based on the policies that they want their
Speaker 1: elected representatives to pursue an office selfish? Why is that,
Speaker 1: of course making abortion illegal? That's not selfish. That's the
Speaker 1: most selfless thing that any any administration or president could
Speaker 1: ever do. Uh. And it's something that I really do
Speaker 1: hope that Trump, who has been good on the on
Speaker 1: on pro life issues thus far, and the the remaking
Speaker 1: of the judiciary that has occurred under this president. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, and especially after Kavanaugh gets through folks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's an argument made that Trump's the most pro life president,
Speaker 1: will have been the most pro life president in his actions.
Speaker 1: I know, something to say, oh, Poky slept with a
Speaker 1: porn star in his actions that affect the entire nation
Speaker 1: of million people a little bit, the most pro life
Speaker 1: president in my lifetime, or maybe well I don't really
Speaker 1: remember Reagan, but he even mind Reagan did. People are
Speaker 1: gonna yell me for saying this. Reagan did actually sign
Speaker 1: a law, sign an abortion law when he was governor California,
Speaker 1: which he repudiated later. But you know, that is a
Speaker 1: that is a fact. Um. You know. I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting though that it's to see these people that in
Speaker 1: the media taking this position of wait, what what do
Speaker 1: you mean hold on a secure that that they like
Speaker 1: that the president is doing what he said he would do,
Speaker 1: which is good for them. And so even though we
Speaker 1: say that he's basically Hitler. They still support him. This
Speaker 1: just doesn't make any sense. I mean, they seem to
Speaker 1: have a real, a real hard time computing this. But
Speaker 1: it should not be, in fact, that complicated for them.
Speaker 1: It should not be something that brings uh so much
Speaker 1: consternation to the forefront, because, you know what, what could
Speaker 1: be more straight forward than a president doing what he
Speaker 1: says he's gonna do and people voting for him because
Speaker 1: of that. You know what could be more straightforward than
Speaker 1: the country is doing well. I remember I, you know,
Speaker 1: I was out there trying to make a career switch.
Speaker 1: That's right. I was looking to make a career switch
Speaker 1: when we are still dealing with, you know, the financial crisis,
Speaker 1: and you know, I was thinking of going to grad
Speaker 1: school and I didn't go. Why didn't I go to
Speaker 1: grad school? Because I don't want to take out the
Speaker 1: debt because I don't know if I'd be able to
Speaker 1: pay it off. And I wasn't gonna sign anything that
Speaker 1: I wasn't darn sure i'd be able to pay back, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's but but I remember it was, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, the economy, it may never really rebound, it
Speaker 1: may never really come back. And now everyone's like the
Speaker 1: stock markets at all time high's. People think it's going higher.
Speaker 1: And people that I know who were really smart on
Speaker 1: the issue and there, and they don't even like Trump
Speaker 1: necessarily and they're saying, oh, no, Trump has really has
Speaker 1: really done some great things here. So you know, this
Speaker 1: is just it's such a divide right now, folks. The
Speaker 1: media is but we said he was hitler and he's
Speaker 1: terrible and he's a fascist, and um, norm all Americans
Speaker 1: who have not had their brains polluted or who have
Speaker 1: not been brainwashed by the meeting to thinking that Trump
Speaker 1: is is some kind of a crypto neo Nazi what whatever,
Speaker 1: you know, Russian agent are looking at things and saying, now,
Speaker 1: this is good. We're gonna stay with this. This is
Speaker 1: better than what we had with Obama on the things
Speaker 1: that matter. Why wouldn't you support that? That's the question
Speaker 1: I have. And that's a question that I have for
Speaker 1: some of my my colleagues and the concern and conservative
Speaker 1: media they still call themselves conservatives, who are even going
Speaker 1: so far as to say they want to vote for
Speaker 1: Democrats in this mid term. I you know it, it
Speaker 1: bums me out. I can't say that I can't say
Speaker 1: I'm okay with it. It's not my call. Obviously, people
Speaker 1: can do whatever they want, vote for whoever they want.
Speaker 1: But it bumps me out to see some some some
Speaker 1: very smart conservatives actually, just who are so never Trump
Speaker 1: that they think that helping the other team, that fighting
Speaker 1: for the other side of the battlefield is the way
Speaker 1: to go. That makes no to me. But that rallied
Speaker 1: on Indiana. It's going to be it's going to be lit.
Speaker 1: Trump is gonna be in fuego and we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America, Buck Sexton his back.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party of Humphrey or Jfkre even Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: no longer exists. It's a pyramid with a few grandees
Speaker 1: on top that have enough money that they can be
Speaker 1: immune from the consequences of their own ideology, and then
Speaker 1: a group on the bottom who depend on subsidies and
Speaker 1: they've alienated the middle class. A lot of this passion
Speaker 1: comes from misreading the two elections of Barack Obama. They
Speaker 1: felt that that was a trajectory that was going to
Speaker 1: be permanent and create a progressive future, and really it
Speaker 1: was unique to Obama and Hill. Clinton inherited all the
Speaker 1: downsides of losing the middle class under Obama, who after all,
Speaker 1: lost the House and the Senate in a thousand local races,
Speaker 1: but she got none of the upsides, that is record
Speaker 1: minority turnout and block voting. I think it's very astute
Speaker 1: from Victor Davis Hansen. And you all know I'm I'm
Speaker 1: a in general an admirer of v. D h is work,
Speaker 1: But his point about the Democratic Party, I think we're
Speaker 1: just seeing this play out in real time. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Dems are are a party that it's it's so
Speaker 1: hard to really gauge where they think the outer limits
Speaker 1: of their leftism lies. At this point, they've got candidates
Speaker 1: out there on the national stage. Now they're not running
Speaker 1: in you know, national elections, not running for president because
Speaker 1: we don't have one of those going on just yet,
Speaker 1: but who are pushing some really out their ideas. And
Speaker 1: they wonder why when people ask about this, and and
Speaker 1: you know, they run the polls, you know Democrats can't
Speaker 1: make a dent in Trump's support. Well, it's because look
Speaker 1: at what they're offering. You know, if somebody wasn't enamored
Speaker 1: with Trump's rhetoric, if somebody feels like you know what,
Speaker 1: Trump takes it too far sometimes I don't like his approach.
Speaker 1: I disagree with this or that. If that was in
Speaker 1: fact their feeling and the Democrats were a party that
Speaker 1: was all about greater efficiency with the healthcare uh that
Speaker 1: we have right now, and and you know, trying to
Speaker 1: do more to promote jobs for the working class and
Speaker 1: do more to you know, the blue collar, the blue
Speaker 1: collar predominantly white voters that Trump won, many of whom
Speaker 1: voted for Obama. If Democrats actually pitched to that group, uh.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I believe that a lot of
Speaker 1: that pitch would resonate with non white voters as well.
Speaker 1: Who are people trying to work and get ahead in life,
Speaker 1: then they'd be a really they'd be so much more
Speaker 1: serious as opposition and as contenders. But in head, they
Speaker 1: just had this wild eyed anti Trump fury that they
Speaker 1: offer up and it just does not make any sense.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, he Vitor Davis Hansen mentioned, uh,
Speaker 1: the grandees as he called it, you know, and that's
Speaker 1: so true. You know, Democrats are always posing is so
Speaker 1: concerned about the poor and minorities and lgbt Q. You know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats poses as that as the defenders of the downtrodden.
Speaker 1: That's one of their favorite moral positions or positioning of
Speaker 1: themselves in moral terms. But when you when you look
Speaker 1: at some of the people that are the ones pushing
Speaker 1: that narrative, these are people that have no idea what
Speaker 1: it's like to be poor in America. These are people
Speaker 1: who don't live in predominantly immigrant uh and illegal immigrant neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: who don't interact with illegals, who don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about their kids in public school, who, as he said
Speaker 1: at are are immune from the silliness of their policy positions.
Speaker 1: But they've achieved through the very capital assistant that they
Speaker 1: scorn so much wealth that they're able to infect the
Speaker 1: rest of society to some degree with their bad ideas. Uh.
Speaker 1: He spoke about styre and sorrows, for example, and how
Speaker 1: there's this push now for pretty much open And if
Speaker 1: you don't know stire is Tom Styer. He's environmentalist. We'll
Speaker 1: get to him in a second. He's out there. And
Speaker 1: then there sus whose nms like this. If you think
Speaker 1: I am making it up, listen to a saus into
Speaker 1: a view and he sees how he talks about international
Speaker 1: financing Anyway, here's the dah said about that play a levet. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean Styre got his wealth in part through investing
Speaker 1: in coal plants abroad. And George Sorols was indicted and
Speaker 1: convicted in France and he was responsible for a crisis
Speaker 1: in the Bank of England. So they don't have sterling
Speaker 1: ethnical records. They've so de legitimized Trump, or at least
Speaker 1: attempted to and demonized him. That socialism is sort of
Speaker 1: is portrayed as a legitimate opposition to an abnormal situation.
Speaker 1: So we usually in America don't like socialists, but if
Speaker 1: we create enough chaos analogies to the two thousand and
Speaker 1: eight election or the Watergate, then socialism looks sober in
Speaker 1: judicious as a foiler. This is so important because historically
Speaker 1: Victor Davis Hansen is right on the money. The reality
Speaker 1: of socialism in America is actually much more complicated, and
Speaker 1: the Communist Party USA was much more prominent than a
Speaker 1: lot of people realize. And the reason for that was
Speaker 1: that after the First World War and the Great Depression,
Speaker 1: there was a widespread sense among the intellectual class in
Speaker 1: this country as well as in Europe, that capitalism had
Speaker 1: failed and that capitalism was in fact a a a
Speaker 1: system that would always result in collapse and misery. And
Speaker 1: so there was this push because of the Great Depression,
Speaker 1: there was this uh, the the intellectuals were able to
Speaker 1: get much more traction and I'm talking about in America,
Speaker 1: in England, certainly in France and obviously Germany. Uh, much
Speaker 1: more traction for these these Marxist notions of class struggle
Speaker 1: and class warfare than they would have in good times.
Speaker 1: And that's why, you know, the Democrats really did overestimate
Speaker 1: the the left word trajectory of America because their assumption
Speaker 1: was that the political reality they were dealing with with
Speaker 1: a particularly charismatic candidate in Barack Obama and a crisis,
Speaker 1: which is what the two thousand and eight financial meltdown
Speaker 1: was a crisis um that they could then use and
Speaker 1: Rob Emanuel said, is they could then use to push
Speaker 1: policies they never would have been able to get otherwise.
Speaker 1: You know, it is not an accident, folks, that we
Speaker 1: had a financial we had a financial crisis. And what
Speaker 1: do they do? They went for healthcare? Why would they
Speaker 1: do it? Then? The hundred year dream of the Democrats?
Speaker 1: Why then? Oh, because there was an opening because people
Speaker 1: were scared, and the Democrats were able to steamroll the
Speaker 1: opposition and and the pendulum swung so far toward the
Speaker 1: left that they were able to do this and put
Speaker 1: through this terrible, this terrible bill. So you know, that's
Speaker 1: I think an important part of this, of this whole discussion,
Speaker 1: or the terrible law by the way it was signed
Speaker 1: into law. But the Democrats are struggling right now to
Speaker 1: find a national message that's not essentially yeah, we should
Speaker 1: go for democratic socialism. And you know, I have this thought,
Speaker 1: maybe we don't let them get away with calling it
Speaker 1: democratic socialism, because I think they should just have to
Speaker 1: own it, right if they want socialism in America, that
Speaker 1: they can't tell me that Sweden is socialist and then
Speaker 1: tell me that they don't want Swedish policies, or rather
Speaker 1: they don't want socialism in America, because they do. They
Speaker 1: point to Sweden, they say socialism is not bad. Look
Speaker 1: at Sweden. And then I will say to them, Okay,
Speaker 1: so you want everyone to pay about six of their
Speaker 1: income in federal taxes. Everybody you make thirty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year, you pay six you make you know, two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars a year, you pay sixty percent all
Speaker 1: the way up to probably eighty or nine. Right, but
Speaker 1: whatever it is, you're gonna be paying incredibly high taxes
Speaker 1: and have a massive government apparatus to administer this superstate
Speaker 1: that that they want. You know that this is what
Speaker 1: this is what they are pushing for the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: They talk about how Trump has been normalized. They like
Speaker 1: this word normalized. What I think is so interesting is
Speaker 1: that in their hatred of Trump, they have moved to
Speaker 1: normal using socialism in a way that you know, it's
Speaker 1: if you don't look at it over the whole span
Speaker 1: of of the conversation as it's evolved, let's say, over
Speaker 1: the last really the last ten years, but particularly last
Speaker 1: two or three years in the era of Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: and his rise. The normalizing of socialism is very real
Speaker 1: in American political discourse right now. And you have lefties
Speaker 1: were running around, We're basically like, yeah, single payer, that's
Speaker 1: now because a single payer, free college, folks. You know,
Speaker 1: if they get single payer, if they get free college,
Speaker 1: if they get really high corporate and individual income tax
Speaker 1: to pay for some of these things, you know, you
Speaker 1: start looking at well, what's left, and then it would
Speaker 1: just be government regulation of private industry, so government regulation
Speaker 1: the means of production, and then you're pretty close to
Speaker 1: a full on, you know, full on socialism. You know,
Speaker 1: a single payer is a huge step towards socialism. If
Speaker 1: you then have free school and single payer um and
Speaker 1: then on top of that you have a federal bureaucracy
Speaker 1: that just grows and grows and grows all the time.
Speaker 1: You know, you start looking down the looking down the road,
Speaker 1: and you realize that it's not that far off. We
Speaker 1: are one bad financial downturn in the Trump era. And
Speaker 1: I hate to say this away from the Democrats fooling
Speaker 1: just enough Americans into thinking socialism is a good idea
Speaker 1: that they might be able to get through some very
Speaker 1: big uh moves in that direction, moves towards socialism. And
Speaker 1: they know it. And that's why, you know, when you
Speaker 1: get Tom Steyer and these others out there. Oh Styre,
Speaker 1: by the way, of course, he wants to impeach Trump.
Speaker 1: He was one of the ones that Victor Davis Hansen
Speaker 1: mentioned play clip ten. How much more does Congress need
Speaker 1: to see? Donald Trump has now been implicated in two
Speaker 1: felony crimes, and he's all but confessed to them on
Speaker 1: Fox News. No one is above the law, so we
Speaker 1: have to make sure this president doesn't use pardon to
Speaker 1: cover up crimes. If you agree that the president should
Speaker 1: not be allowed to pardoner himself or his associates, join
Speaker 1: us at need to impeach dot Com. But the Washington
Speaker 1: establishment doesn't have the courage to act, but the American
Speaker 1: people can. This guy is a loon. I mean, the
Speaker 1: fact that he's a billionaire does actually give me some
Speaker 1: encouragement because I think, well, if this guy could become
Speaker 1: a billionaire, I guess anybody can. But it's a constitutional
Speaker 1: power to be able to pardon whoever the president wants
Speaker 1: when it comes to federal law. So this notion of you,
Speaker 1: you don't think the president should be able to do that, No,
Speaker 1: he can. He's allowed to do that. And yes, Styre
Speaker 1: can say that he wants the president to be impeached,
Speaker 1: but keep in mind that this is not a sty
Speaker 1: or somebody who is going to be living in the
Speaker 1: castle on the mountaintop while all the plebs, that's you
Speaker 1: and me, deal with the terrible economic outcomes that he
Speaker 1: would inflict upon the country. In favor of the poor,
Speaker 1: when in reality the poor would actually be the worst
Speaker 1: hit by it over time. That's what always happens with socialism.
Speaker 1: Look around the world, folks, that's that is the way
Speaker 1: that it goes. And people who keep pointing to Sweden
Speaker 1: and Denmark, those countries are moving away from socialism. Those
Speaker 1: countries have a lot of free market and free enterprise
Speaker 1: laws on the books. They just have high taxes and
Speaker 1: guess what, folks, they're also not exactly economic powerhouses. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't want to be Sweden. That's part
Speaker 1: of the that's part of the issue here. That's what
Speaker 1: democrats seem to forget. I don't want to be a
Speaker 1: country of ten or you know, fifteen million people. That's
Speaker 1: kind of you know, just getting by. You know, do
Speaker 1: you know a lot of Swedes who are lighting the
Speaker 1: world on fire with the amazing stuff they're doing these days?
Speaker 1: I don't, all right, it's a it's a lot of
Speaker 1: very different expectations for you know, the pursuit of happiness
Speaker 1: in those countries than what you have here. And I
Speaker 1: think that's important to remember as well. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you more though about we're gonna continue to
Speaker 1: talk about this issue, of course, because this is socialism
Speaker 1: and its normalization on the left, especially going to the
Speaker 1: mid terms. This is going to continue, It's going to
Speaker 1: become more pronounced, and we're gonna follow it here in
Speaker 1: the Hut team. So we'll be right back planned to
Speaker 1: get single payer of paths, it needs to be pulled
Speaker 1: into the governor's office, executive needs to lead it. Obamacare
Speaker 1: would not have happened. It was just EXCLUSI to be
Speaker 1: a legislative fiat. That said, Nancy Pelosi did a magical
Speaker 1: job of organizing it, but it required the concerted contributions
Speaker 1: in the president nited states, I'm not naive about it.
Speaker 1: I did universal South Carolina's mayor fully implemented regardless of
Speaker 1: pre existing condition, billy pay, and regardless your immigration status.
Speaker 1: Sam's because the only universal health care plan for all
Speaker 1: undocumented residents in America. Very proud of that. That's Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1: It's talking about the way that the left is normalizing
Speaker 1: some of these far out their ideas. Let me ask
Speaker 1: you this, do you think Newsom or any of his
Speaker 1: rich buddies in San Francisco do you think that they
Speaker 1: go to uh, you know, a public e er and
Speaker 1: wait in line for their if if they had a
Speaker 1: real problem. No, they pay a lot of money to
Speaker 1: go to a private healthcare provider. So as much as
Speaker 1: he's gonna sit there and talk about how he wants
Speaker 1: free healthcare, how they push free healthcare in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: By the way, San Francisco is a very poorly run city.
Speaker 1: As you know. They literally have a poop patrol that's
Speaker 1: going around trying to deal with all the human feces
Speaker 1: on the streets because of their policies towards vagrancy. And
Speaker 1: and Newsom that wants to extend this to the entire
Speaker 1: state of California. We're gonna talk about Cuomo, the governor
Speaker 1: of New York and how he uh and and Cynthia
Speaker 1: Niction are battling it out and she wants the same
Speaker 1: thing in New York, folks. I mean, you have now
Speaker 1: at the state level conversations going on where they want
Speaker 1: to do state mandates on on healthcare. So you know
Speaker 1: that they tried Obamacare, they try to do that the
Speaker 1: federal level and one size fits all for everybody, and
Speaker 1: now the big push is to get this at the
Speaker 1: at the state level. And some of the biggest in
Speaker 1: terms of you know, their economies in popular sations with
Speaker 1: the biggest states in the country. I mean the notion
Speaker 1: that California would be able to shoulder the burden of
Speaker 1: paying for everybody's health care, including all legals. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you this, do you think that might be a
Speaker 1: bit of a magnet for illegals in California more so
Speaker 1: than what they already have? Show up, we will pay
Speaker 1: for your health care full stop. How how are they
Speaker 1: going to do that? I don't just mean economically, I
Speaker 1: mean how do they think they're gonna they're gonna provide
Speaker 1: the actual services that everyone Well, of course, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have lines, you're gonna have waiting, You're gonna have shortages.
Speaker 1: That's you have rationing, government mandated shortages. That's what's gonna happen,
Speaker 1: or rather, government mandated uh lines and queues in response
Speaker 1: to shortages. And he's not even the craziest out there
Speaker 1: right now on the left. That so he's one governor.
Speaker 1: You've got David Garcia Arizona nominee for governor who basically
Speaker 1: just wants no border. Play three. I want to just
Speaker 1: take a second and imagine, let's just imagine just imagine
Speaker 1: no wall, no wall in southern Arizona. And as Attorney General,
Speaker 1: I will continue to speak out against ICE. I will
Speaker 1: prosecute ICE for their criminal acts. I mean, that was
Speaker 1: Zephyr teach out, the New York Attorney general candidate saying
Speaker 1: she wants to prosecute Ice. How's that gonna go by? There?
Speaker 1: You're gonna have local lawenforce and start arresting federal federal
Speaker 1: agents for doing their jobs under federal law. That's not
Speaker 1: gonna work out well. But you know, no border between
Speaker 1: Arizona and Mexico. Imagine, Yeah, I wouldn't that wouldn't that
Speaker 1: just be so great? You know? At some point, are
Speaker 1: we allowed to say I don't want to live in
Speaker 1: some country that doesn't that that doesn't actually think of
Speaker 1: itself as America anymore. That's just open to everyone and
Speaker 1: any anyone who shows up. At some point, sovereignty does matter.
Speaker 1: We're not allowed to say that at all, I guess.
Speaker 1: I mean the lift is really lost in folks. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind, they are taking positions now openly, and
Speaker 1: where I've played some of them for years. You can
Speaker 1: hear them. They're taking positions that a year ago they
Speaker 1: would have been a little more uh you know, shy
Speaker 1: about and ten years ago, no way they would have done. Okay,
Speaker 1: So there this is. This is moving moving to the
Speaker 1: left hard and fast right now. And I hope that
Speaker 1: enough enough Republicans understand this and show up and turn
Speaker 1: out in the mid terms, because if if we turn
Speaker 1: power over to to them, even just in the House,
Speaker 1: it is gonna grind the rest of government to a halt.
Speaker 1: In terms of the Trump agenda, it's gonna be a disaster,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna run a far a far left loon
Speaker 1: against Trump. In if we have a big economic downturn,
Speaker 1: they might be able to get that person in office,
Speaker 1: which would be devastating to this country. Home security is critical.
Speaker 1: You know this because you don't want to be worried
Speaker 1: when you're away from the home, and you certainly don't
Speaker 1: want to want to be worried when you're at home
Speaker 1: about the possibility of a breaking a home invasion. You
Speaker 1: want to know that you're covered. Simply say has got
Speaker 1: you covered? These guys obsess about the details, Okay. They
Speaker 1: are all about making sure that whatever problems you may have,
Speaker 1: whatever can come up when it comes to home security,
Speaker 1: whether it's a possible break in, uh, fire, water damage,
Speaker 1: you name it. They have your back, all right. You
Speaker 1: want to go check them out for yourself and see
Speaker 1: protect your home today. Visit simply Safe dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's simply safe dot com slash buck. I have the
Speaker 1: system at home. It takes just minutes to set up.
Speaker 1: It works off your WiFi. It's so intuitive. You'll be
Speaker 1: totally covered and you can download an app to your
Speaker 1: smartphone and then monitor the whole system wherever you are.
Speaker 1: Simply safe dot Com slash buck. Again, simply safe dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to protect your home around the clock.
Speaker 1: Buck sext Mission decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American? Again?
Speaker 1: Is the Buck Sexton Show? Analysts, No, I think it's
Speaker 1: killing sports because all the athletes are one thousand percent
Speaker 1: addicted to social media. The entire national anthem controversy is
Speaker 1: being driven by social media. These guys are addicted to retweets, likes,
Speaker 1: and mentions and followers, and so again, there's no real
Speaker 1: substance to what they're doing other than trying to build
Speaker 1: their social media brands. It sounds great when they get old.
Speaker 1: We're trying to raise awareness about police brutality. They're trying
Speaker 1: to wear these awareness about their social media brands. That's
Speaker 1: what they're really doing. Take a Lebron James. He's got
Speaker 1: forty million Twitter followers, he's worth more than a half
Speaker 1: billion dollars, but he's addicted to social media. That this
Speaker 1: is you know, all of these young people and look
Speaker 1: a lot of us in the media that aren't even
Speaker 1: that young are completely addicted to social media approval. Our
Speaker 1: brains have been hacked. I completely agree with Jason Whitlock
Speaker 1: there that was That was him on on Fox Sports
Speaker 1: on on this issue, and he's She's stroll across the
Speaker 1: boarder and this, folks, this has profound implications in in society,
Speaker 1: and this is stuff that we this is so new
Speaker 1: now we've come to accept it and and think of
Speaker 1: it as just the way things are now. I didn't
Speaker 1: even I remember when I left the c i A.
Speaker 1: I had a very basic Facebook account. I did not
Speaker 1: have a Twitter account. I knew nothing about Twitter, and
Speaker 1: this is twenty ten and I had, you know, basically
Speaker 1: wasn't posting anything on Facebook. I was not involved in
Speaker 1: social media. You know, over the course of less than
Speaker 1: a decade, now every buddy social media obsessed all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a constant thing. And the implications
Speaker 1: for sports, I think are very obvious, where now you
Speaker 1: have all these athletes, you know, let me let me
Speaker 1: step it, let me step this back for a moment.
Speaker 1: The reason that the neutral mainstream media can't play the oh,
Speaker 1: we're just objective journals game anymore. I mean, the reason
Speaker 1: that that's really falling apart is because of social media,
Speaker 1: not just the sharing of articles among people. You know,
Speaker 1: we do our own curation now, right, if you listen
Speaker 1: to this show, if you make certain choices in your
Speaker 1: in your media consumption, you know, you can also interact
Speaker 1: with other people and you're part of this information ecosystem,
Speaker 1: right of sharing and liking and sending and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff. And and that means that the media doesn't
Speaker 1: have quite the same although the social media platforms are
Speaker 1: are skewing this, but the media companies, the content companies,
Speaker 1: don't have quite the same ability to curate that narrative
Speaker 1: for you based on whatever they want. And there there's
Speaker 1: a little more of a give and take with the
Speaker 1: public now, which I think is in general very good thing.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, what you have now are journalists who
Speaker 1: all day long are sharing the snarky, ist, most woke,
Speaker 1: you know, politically correct sentiments on any number of issues.
Speaker 1: And then they expect the public to read their you know,
Speaker 1: their latest piece in the New York Times, or they
Speaker 1: expect that when they go on TV at at CNN
Speaker 1: or ABC or wherever, that we think that they're completely neutral,
Speaker 1: fair minded and just want to get to the facts.
Speaker 1: And it just, you know, it doesn't work anymore. And
Speaker 1: they haven't figured out what to do about this because
Speaker 1: they can't disengage from social media, but they also can't
Speaker 1: control it enough that people like you and me who
Speaker 1: are attention uh aren't going to figure out or haven't
Speaker 1: figured out already who is a partisan who is an activist,
Speaker 1: And they can no longer hide behind this facade, right
Speaker 1: this uh, this falsehood of being objective, neutral journals. But
Speaker 1: in the sports world, you know this, this is now
Speaker 1: becoming a big issue. And look, I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: spends a ton of time focused on professional sports. I
Speaker 1: do like professional football. I watch I'm watching the US
Speaker 1: Open this week on tennis. I mean, I like sports.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong. I mean I am a red
Speaker 1: blooded American, but there are people with way, way, way
Speaker 1: more expertise on professional sports than me. And I don't
Speaker 1: just mean those who do it for a living. I
Speaker 1: just mean a lot of you listening to this, for example,
Speaker 1: you're gonna just know a lot more than me. I
Speaker 1: know nothing about baseball, and my favorite baseball player to
Speaker 1: this day is probably Don Mattingly, just because he's the
Speaker 1: only one who I can name off the top of
Speaker 1: my head. But I know somebody like, what, that's a
Speaker 1: weird Hey he had a great mustache. A great mustache. Uh.
Speaker 1: The truth, there is no that you got these play is.
Speaker 1: And it's not just Kaepernick, and they get Lebron and
Speaker 1: others who are trying to weigh in on the national
Speaker 1: political conversation too. And this is going to create some tensions, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're gonna be ramifications to this, because, for one,
Speaker 1: you now have the public aware of who these players
Speaker 1: are in a way that's not through that filter, not
Speaker 1: through that prism of you know, a gifted athlete working
Speaker 1: with the team overcoming you know the opposition, and and
Speaker 1: you know their opponents and all this stuff. Now it's well,
Speaker 1: what do they think about gun control, what do they
Speaker 1: think about police brutality, what do they think about Trump?
Speaker 1: And there's no barrier, there's no coach or PR team
Speaker 1: or anything between their particularly Twitter is the main one, uh,
Speaker 1: but between Twitter and the rest of the country. And
Speaker 1: the problem is that, you know, with some of these players,
Speaker 1: when they say things like they think Trump is a racist,
Speaker 1: well the same way that, uh, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: want to see a Tim Robbins movie, particularly because I
Speaker 1: find him to be an odious person who makes discourse
Speaker 1: less intelligent and more aggressive and and stupid about any
Speaker 1: political matter. I mean, you know, I don't want to
Speaker 1: go to a Michael Moore movie because I don't want
Speaker 1: to support who he is or what he stands for.
Speaker 1: But I also and and sometimes I mean I have
Speaker 1: to be really turned off, really annoyed. But there are
Speaker 1: some actors w don't want to go see. With the
Speaker 1: NFL and this whole kneeling controversy, you know, they get.
Speaker 1: It's clear there are some players who feel like they
Speaker 1: get all this support from you know, within left wing circles,
Speaker 1: from within the black community. At least a large percentage
Speaker 1: of the Black community that they interact with on Twitter
Speaker 1: is very supportive of this and the kneeling. What what
Speaker 1: they don't understand, or maybe they don't care or they
Speaker 1: can't foresee, is that this is going to affect the
Speaker 1: way people feel about the sports. Sports are for us
Speaker 1: and Eski eight and now with with movies at least
Speaker 1: unless there's a lot of political messaging, which there are
Speaker 1: a lot of movies. But you know, with movies, you
Speaker 1: cannot like the actor, but you're not rooting for the
Speaker 1: actor in the movie. You're rooting for the character. It's
Speaker 1: different in sports. You're actually rooting for the person. You
Speaker 1: are rooting for the people on the field or you know,
Speaker 1: on the ice or whatever, and their personal story and
Speaker 1: your investment in them and that team affects how much
Speaker 1: you care. Well, you know, do do you want to
Speaker 1: spend your time and money to go and watch a
Speaker 1: bunch of people play football, for example? If you have
Speaker 1: become aware of their disdain for not just their disdain
Speaker 1: for for Trump, but their thoughts about police, and their
Speaker 1: thoughts about you know, the the national anthem, kneeling and
Speaker 1: all this other stuff, you know that I think some
Speaker 1: of these athletes have honestly overestimated because they get so
Speaker 1: much positive feedback from woke social media circles. I think
Speaker 1: they've overestimated what they can what they can do without
Speaker 1: consequence here meaning I think that they're used to everyone
Speaker 1: telling them how, you know, how gifted and amazing. They're
Speaker 1: so highly paid and you know, there are a few
Speaker 1: things in life from a purely material perspective, materialistic perspective,
Speaker 1: I mean, to be a gifted professional athlete, and don't
Speaker 1: even get me started. There's a whole conversation here about
Speaker 1: how at that level. Yes, there's a lot of hard
Speaker 1: work that goes into it, but they're gifted, meaning that
Speaker 1: this is a god given gift that a lot of
Speaker 1: these athletes have. You know, Buck, no matter how much
Speaker 1: I worked out in the gym, was never gonna be
Speaker 1: taller than six feet and was never going to be
Speaker 1: able to jump or you know, run beyond a certain
Speaker 1: hider speed. And that was just my reality. You know,
Speaker 1: these athletes are gifted and and there's a sense of
Speaker 1: and for some of us, at least with the social
Speaker 1: media stuff ingratitude that a lot of them have for
Speaker 1: their positions in society. And then there's also you know
Speaker 1: some of these athletes, they're gonna get ahead of their skis.
Speaker 1: They're they're not that well read, they're not particularly deep
Speaker 1: on the issues, and they're gonna make fools of themselves.
Speaker 1: And this is going to create some problems for the teams.
Speaker 1: Also gonna create some uncomfortable public exchanges, I think so.
Speaker 1: I agree with Jason Whitlock on this one. They're addicted
Speaker 1: to social media. They're gonna be consequences. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: The FBI calls home title theft one of the fastest
Speaker 1: growing crimes. Brace yourselves, because having your credit card stolen
Speaker 1: is nothing compared to the hell you're in for once
Speaker 1: an identity thief takes control of your home's title. Identity
Speaker 1: theft programs, my friends, and insurance policies they don't protect you.
Speaker 1: And once you see how easy it is for the
Speaker 1: bad guys, for cyber thieves to use your home's equity
Speaker 1: and to steal it by replacing your home's title with
Speaker 1: an alias, you'll realize you need something to protect you
Speaker 1: from this. Right Only home title locks safeguards your home's
Speaker 1: title from cyber thieves and hackers. It forms a virtual
Speaker 1: perimeter around your home's title the instant, someone Tampa is
Speaker 1: with it, They're on it, and they help shut it down.
Speaker 1: For just pennies a day. Home title Lock protects my
Speaker 1: most valuable asset, my family's home. Registered now for a
Speaker 1: free analysis and discover if your home's title has been compromised.
Speaker 1: That's a sixty dollar value. Free visit home title lock
Speaker 1: dot com again, that's home title lock dot com name.
Speaker 1: He has the M T A like an A T
Speaker 1: M and we see the result. He has had seven
Speaker 1: and a half years to avoid this very avoidable crisis
Speaker 1: in our New York City subway and he has done
Speaker 1: next to nothing over Why would the next four years
Speaker 1: be any different? Governor, my opponent lives in the world
Speaker 1: of fiction. I live in the world of fact. Let's
Speaker 1: do Let's use a few facts. Okay, the subway system
Speaker 1: is owned by New York City. Can you stop interrupting?
Speaker 1: Can you stop stop lying? As soon as you do
Speaker 1: some of you may be saying something. You may be
Speaker 1: saying fun. Why are you playing? What is that? Well?
Speaker 1: That was That was the gubernatorial debate for the state
Speaker 1: of New York, my home state, last night with uh
Speaker 1: quote Governor Cuomo, who likes two men explained two women
Speaker 1: that they don't know the facts because he is missed
Speaker 1: the fact. Mr f A something after that, t M
Speaker 1: the fact Cuomo and he does not like when a
Speaker 1: person who is a lady is telling him to stop
Speaker 1: being so terrible at his job, because he thinks his
Speaker 1: job is to be terrible. Cynthia Nixon was the one
Speaker 1: going out for him there. You may know her, some
Speaker 1: of you, and I know some of the guys are
Speaker 1: gonna say a book. I never yet, Right, sex in
Speaker 1: the City, you've seen an episode, producer, Mike, come on,
Speaker 1: come on, come on, Mike, don't lie to me. We
Speaker 1: we we've seen some sex in the City, right, guys.
Speaker 1: It was a cultural phenomenon in the nineties, although it
Speaker 1: actually I think tells women to pursue a lifestyle that
Speaker 1: will make them, in the long run miserable. And I
Speaker 1: think you see a lot of that in the show.
Speaker 1: I find Sex in the City actually quite depressing. Wait
Speaker 1: if you and now I'm admitting that I've seen a
Speaker 1: fair amount of it. Okay, fine, I'm admitting yeah, fine,
Speaker 1: I know. Take away my man card, just take it away, awesome.
Speaker 1: Might as well tell you that I like riding around
Speaker 1: in my electric scooter. I don't care what anybody says.
Speaker 1: But Cynthia Nixon, it's so she's now an active issue.
Speaker 1: Was an actress. She made a lot of money doing
Speaker 1: sex in the city. I gotta tell you, though, she
Speaker 1: was really going after Cuomo. I mean, he was getting
Speaker 1: ticked off. You know. He's like, why must you be
Speaker 1: so mean to my face? Usually people just prefer that
Speaker 1: I not say anything to them, so they leave me alone. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, Cuomo is supposed to be a very you know,
Speaker 1: a guy who's who's quite quite dirty when it comes
Speaker 1: to politics in a lot of ways. You know, he
Speaker 1: had the Moreland Commission, which was to look at corruption
Speaker 1: set up, and he did shut it down, and he
Speaker 1: had a senior aide. And this came up in the
Speaker 1: in the discussion is most trusted advisor is going to prison?
Speaker 1: Apparently New York politics is at the state levels a
Speaker 1: lot of dirty pool, a lot of dirty stuff going on.
Speaker 1: But the most interesting for me, the most interesting component
Speaker 1: of this, other than just I love watching democrats fight.
Speaker 1: It was great. She's like, why don't you stop lying?
Speaker 1: He's like, what do you mean, lie? Lie spelled l?
Speaker 1: Why I don't to stand uh, you know, there was
Speaker 1: a lot of back and forth with them, but on
Speaker 1: the issue of but on the subway, not that any
Speaker 1: you really care about this, but it is for the
Speaker 1: subway in New York is a disaster. It is a disaster.
Speaker 1: You'll wait, you can wait there in the middle of
Speaker 1: the day, sometimes for thirty or forty minutes. You'll get
Speaker 1: stuck in between stations. People have lost job interviews, people
Speaker 1: have lost working hours. I mean, it's really bad. But
Speaker 1: the issue that comes up, and this is what you're
Speaker 1: seeing between the Democrats and the Republicans much more broadly
Speaker 1: across the country is on single pair on on what
Speaker 1: they're now. They're really going with this Medicare for all issue.
Speaker 1: And I'm telling you this is this is really the
Speaker 1: tipping point for the country when it comes to our
Speaker 1: budgets and finances and well the debt and the economic
Speaker 1: future of this nation. We we simply will destroy all
Speaker 1: the momentum, all the progress that we've had under Trump
Speaker 1: with pulling back regulation and and us uh you know,
Speaker 1: less onerous taxation. I still think we're tax way too much,
Speaker 1: by the way, but we will lose all of that
Speaker 1: progress if we start switching to a state by state
Speaker 1: Medicare for All plans, because I can tell you what
Speaker 1: will happen is it will be very popular in those states,
Speaker 1: and the states will have these massive budgetary shortfalls, and
Speaker 1: then they'll try to turn to the federal government for
Speaker 1: money to shore them up and or maybe even bail
Speaker 1: out their systems, because once you give people something, once
Speaker 1: you create an entitlement, it is very, very hard to
Speaker 1: take it away. The budget for New York State would
Speaker 1: double double if you created Medicare for all. This is
Speaker 1: true and pretty much any state, uh not necessarily it
Speaker 1: would double, and the numbers were change a little bit,
Speaker 1: but it would be a massive expenditure. And does anybody
Speaker 1: really think I mean, I can tell you this, folks.
Speaker 1: I've been to a doctor's office when I had pretty
Speaker 1: crappy insurance, and I've been a doctor's offices when I
Speaker 1: had actually really good insurance, like when I worked for
Speaker 1: the federal government. And you're gonna everyone's gonna be in
Speaker 1: the giant waiting room full of people and their appointment
Speaker 1: is not being respected, and they've waited a couple of
Speaker 1: months to see a doctor. If it's especially if it's
Speaker 1: a specialist, that's gonna be our our shared reality. And
Speaker 1: you know that if they get Medicare for all, then
Speaker 1: the next step will be, well, we should also have
Speaker 1: Medicare for all for illegals. They will be covered under
Speaker 1: this too. So now you all people who are not
Speaker 1: even legally entitled to be in the country getting And
Speaker 1: at that point you start to say, well, then can
Speaker 1: people just show up here and get free medical care?
Speaker 1: Can somebody take a flight to New York and say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I want a heart transplant, Now make it happen. You know,
Speaker 1: they're they're just trying to defy the basic laws of
Speaker 1: economics here and and they will fail. But it's popular.
Speaker 1: You see, people cheer for this stuff. They think, they
Speaker 1: really believe that somehow it would be a good idea,
Speaker 1: that it would be in the interests of this country
Speaker 1: to have the government completely in control of of healthcare,
Speaker 1: at least on a state by state level. Now part
Speaker 1: of me wants them to do this, though, because I
Speaker 1: think that catastrophic budgetary collapse would happen relatively quickly. The
Speaker 1: only part of me that really gets worried about this
Speaker 1: comes from the realization that democrats don't learn from their mistakes.
Speaker 1: They just blame somebody else. They'll find some other way
Speaker 1: of explaining, well, why do we have this massive shortfall
Speaker 1: in the budget. Why isn't this medicare for all proposal
Speaker 1: working as we thought? Well, well, clearly the rich aren't
Speaker 1: paying enough in their taxes. Clearly the corporate tax rate
Speaker 1: should be even higher than it is than it has
Speaker 1: been raised to under their proposal. And that's what I
Speaker 1: think your expectation should be. H That's why federalism for
Speaker 1: me gets a little scary, because yes, states should be laboratories,
Speaker 1: but that's assuming the people that are watching the experiment
Speaker 1: play out are going to be honest about what's happened.
Speaker 1: And just as we see with socialism and Marxism and communism,
Speaker 1: how it's implemented correctly. And that's why it's had massive failures.
Speaker 1: With single payer healthcare, even if it's done in a
Speaker 1: state by state model, the left will find a way
Speaker 1: to justify it because they really, ultimately this is philosophical,
Speaker 1: my friends. For the left, single payers not so much
Speaker 1: about getting health care for everybody, because that's a part
Speaker 1: of it. I'm not saying it's not a part of it,
Speaker 1: but that's not that's not the entirety of their Why
Speaker 1: there's this real impulse that they have toward it, it
Speaker 1: is because ultimately they believe that the state should provide
Speaker 1: this for people, and that we have a an obligation
Speaker 1: to have the state take from some of us to
Speaker 1: give to others to provide for healthcare. Uh. That's and
Speaker 1: they want to fundamentally transform the relationship that we have
Speaker 1: in this country between a citizen and state. That's why
Speaker 1: single payer for them becomes so important. That's why they
Speaker 1: believe so strongly in it, because it would have a
Speaker 1: lot of there are a lot of ramifications, a lot
Speaker 1: out of consequences of this that don't even have to
Speaker 1: do with healthcare. But anyway, that debate was fun. Why
Speaker 1: are you being so mean and calling me a liar
Speaker 1: when you, Cynthia Nixon, are clearly the one who is
Speaker 1: telling the untruthful things that some people define specifically as
Speaker 1: a lie. The spelling of which is a word that
Speaker 1: is complicated because there are multiple spellings, and also multiple
Speaker 1: is a big word, which I used Governor Cuomo out
Speaker 1: he's holding the line for America buck sex in his
Speaker 1: back that you're right, different words for effect to enhance
Speaker 1: the bigoted agenda and now you're gonna sell it, and
Speaker 1: it's a mistake. On this show, I said very clearly,
Speaker 1: and people can check my words. You break the law,
Speaker 1: you're a criminal and a thug. I said, don't create
Speaker 1: an immoral equation between those who preach hate and those
Speaker 1: who fight it, because not all punches. And I stand by,
Speaker 1: but I never endorsed. I hate cell bs to my face,
Speaker 1: to it, behind my back when you're better at it, No, Chris,
Speaker 1: I'll do it to your face. Antifa, by the way,
Speaker 1: hates a whole lot. If you watch the Antifa, not
Speaker 1: pro Antifa, I don't even know who makes up the organization.
Speaker 1: And if they break the law, their criminals. And this
Speaker 1: is what I'm talking this is what I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: their anti hate, your way of camp. Listen, this is
Speaker 1: my point. Steve. You know if you looked at the words,
Speaker 1: which unfortunately we both know you didn't. You read your
Speaker 1: little buddies at bright Bart and a little niche places
Speaker 1: that you say need to have more time on Google,
Speaker 1: and you came up with Cuomo didn't beat down Antifa not.
Speaker 1: You know, that's as a show on CNN, folks, that's
Speaker 1: in prime time. It's pro Cuomo, and you know, he
Speaker 1: was somebody that they would have said until about five
Speaker 1: minutes ago, maybe they still do, is a nonpartisan journalist.
Speaker 1: And there he is just just with all his snide,
Speaker 1: nasty little swipes at conservative media, his nasty little thing.
Speaker 1: He's supposed to be a news anchor, and he is
Speaker 1: everybody as as opinionated in partisan as anyone on TV.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why CNN is a joke. That's why
Speaker 1: I love Trump's tweet about them, because he's telling the truth.
Speaker 1: It's it is the truth. CNN has become a parody
Speaker 1: of a journalistic enterprise. It's preposterous. You know. The guy
Speaker 1: he's arguing with there, Steve Cortez. I used to do
Speaker 1: some hits with Steve over at Fox. I don't know Steve,
Speaker 1: I've worked with him. He seems like a good guy.
Speaker 1: He's uh, you know, he's he's good at good at
Speaker 1: doing TV. I want to be like Steve. Don't don't
Speaker 1: do it, man, Leave CNN. It's just not worth it there.
Speaker 1: They don't respect you. They're not trying to have you
Speaker 1: on to hear your point of view. They're having you
Speaker 1: on the way they used to have me on during
Speaker 1: the Trump era, not really before that, but in the
Speaker 1: era of Trump. They would have me on so they
Speaker 1: could throw food at me in a cage like a
Speaker 1: zoo animal. That's why I would go on CNN. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't get to talk, they would cut me off, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't put me in a position where I could actually
Speaker 1: make any points. The anchor would jump all over you.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I didn't even play this. At
Speaker 1: the end of that clip, Bro Cuomo is like, hey,
Speaker 1: do you even lift? Bro hands the segment over to
Speaker 1: Angela Rye, who's a a left wing Democrat pundit, so
Speaker 1: that she can kind of button it all up and
Speaker 1: get the last word in and slap Steve down again
Speaker 1: on the way out the door. It's just it's just nonsense, right.
Speaker 1: But you'll notice here that that Cuomo is indicative of
Speaker 1: this this mindset over there at CNN that we won't
Speaker 1: remember what they do and how they act. They can
Speaker 1: just they can keep this facade going, they can keep
Speaker 1: playing this game of being objective journalists even when we
Speaker 1: see clips like this. You know, little fans at brank
Speaker 1: Bart that you want more time with, then google that
Speaker 1: whole thing. First of all, Pomo is making an ass
Speaker 1: of himself because the social media platforms have admitted at
Speaker 1: this point that they have they have been discriminating and
Speaker 1: viewpoint against conservatives. They have admitted this. They've said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're left wing of Twitter has admitted it. Facebook has
Speaker 1: admitted it. I mean, they come up with justifications and
Speaker 1: rationalizations for why it's happened, but it's definitely happened. You know,
Speaker 1: some of you asked me yesterday, you reached out to
Speaker 1: me and said, why, Buck, you can find glue guns
Speaker 1: on Google? You know, why didn't you do a certain No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's under shopping specifically, if you go under Google shopping
Speaker 1: and things that have gun in the title have been
Speaker 1: at different times completely pulled out of the shopping uh
Speaker 1: component of Google. So yeah, you can still find that,
Speaker 1: you can do internet searches on these things, but that's
Speaker 1: different than being able to go into the shopping section
Speaker 1: and buy whatever you want via Google, which you'll say, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's so dumb. Why would Google even do that? Exactly,
Speaker 1: it's done because of politics. It's done for political reasons.
Speaker 1: So I think that that's. Yeah. Look, we keep hammering
Speaker 1: hammering these points because it's important that we get to
Speaker 1: live in reality. You know, if CNN wants to live
Speaker 1: in some kind of a dream world, if CNN wants
Speaker 1: to pretend that bro Cuomo and company are not members
Speaker 1: of their hashtag resistance, they're not never Trump uh posers
Speaker 1: who say their journalists when they're really activists, that's on them.
Speaker 1: But we don't have to play along. We don't have
Speaker 1: to play their game anymore. It's one of the greatest
Speaker 1: things about the Trump era is that now that this
Speaker 1: this passes into a new phase where we can have
Speaker 1: an honest conversation about this. But you know, the whole
Speaker 1: debate was about uh with that segment, I know, I
Speaker 1: got a little loss. I just played it because he
Speaker 1: just it was really just Cuomo. This guy's you know,
Speaker 1: it's now some overpaid baby over at CNN saying that, well,
Speaker 1: there's no moral equivalence between antifa and actual fascists or
Speaker 1: you know, whatever he calls it. What what he doesn't
Speaker 1: understand is that anti FU considers people that are mainstream
Speaker 1: conservative thinkers fascists. So when you start saying that there's
Speaker 1: no moral equivalence, meaning that you know, Antifa punching people
Speaker 1: even if it's illegal, is not as bad as actual
Speaker 1: fascist punching people. You know, you're you're you're playing fast
Speaker 1: and loose with the definitions of who's a fascist and
Speaker 1: who's not in this whole discussion, because there's basically no
Speaker 1: real Nazis. This is what you know. There's there's a
Speaker 1: handful of them, and the media acts like it's some
Speaker 1: big movement and they are reviled. They're a joke, they're disgusting,
Speaker 1: and everyone hates them. But but it's like David Duke,
Speaker 1: David Duke, have you heard about him since the election? Folks,
Speaker 1: have you heard about No, of course not. You only
Speaker 1: hear about David Duke as though he matters to anyone
Speaker 1: when it comes national election time and they want to
Speaker 1: ask a Republican candidate a hundred times, do you denounced
Speaker 1: David Duke? Do you announced David Duke? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is this is why they're dishonest jerks. David Duke is
Speaker 1: not important. David Duke is, uh, you know, is somebody
Speaker 1: that the media only trots out when it benefits them
Speaker 1: to smear conservatives. That's what they do. Uh, you know
Speaker 1: with Cuomo here, I just it all comes across, folks.
Speaker 1: You know who these people are now they can't really
Speaker 1: hide anymore, and that's why they're so upset, because we
Speaker 1: know the truth about them and they should just own
Speaker 1: up to it and then we can have a real discussion.
Speaker 1: But I can't have discussions with people like bro Cuomo.
Speaker 1: We're gonna say, oh yeah, man, I'm just a big
Speaker 1: j journalist, you know, just the facts, straight down the middle,
Speaker 1: balder dashing Buck. It's time for roll call. All right, everybody,
Speaker 1: Roll call Facebook dot com, slot Buck Sexton. If you
Speaker 1: want to get in on this role call action and
Speaker 1: let's get to it. With that in mind, we have
Speaker 1: Mark up first. O MG, I just heard the most
Speaker 1: racist band ever. Hey hey, we're the Monkeys by the Monkeys,
Speaker 1: and look they even spelled it wrong to make it
Speaker 1: so racist. Thank you to the left for pointing this
Speaker 1: out to the world. You need to burn every trace
Speaker 1: of this hateful group. And song Buck, you're the best
Speaker 1: shields high Yeah, guys, I I don't know. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: shocked at some of the people that are saying that. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, even if it wasn't racist in intent, if
Speaker 1: it has a racist connotation that one can infer, then no, no, no, no, No,
Speaker 1: that that's not how this works. Okay, that's not how
Speaker 1: any of this works. You cannot be guilty of racism
Speaker 1: if there was nothing racial about what you said or
Speaker 1: what you were thinking when you said it. I think
Speaker 1: it's really dishonest. It's honestly just despicable for people to
Speaker 1: pile onto the santists with this stuff when it's it's
Speaker 1: just so clear to me that they're they're exploiting this
Speaker 1: and uh, that's that's what's going on here, alright, Aries
Speaker 1: rights buck. People who think America is the most evil
Speaker 1: and racist country on earth are nothing more than domestic
Speaker 1: enemies and should have the gumption to just denounce their
Speaker 1: citizenship and leave. Their propaganda has real consequences and can
Speaker 1: be proven, as we see in every cop and Caucasian
Speaker 1: uh that is murdered by thugs and every race riot
Speaker 1: I can remember. Yeah, I wish people didn't think aries
Speaker 1: that the country was evil because they're wrong. But that
Speaker 1: is a pretty widespread belief among many on the left
Speaker 1: that there's deep problems, and um, yeah, I wish it
Speaker 1: wasn't the case. Nathan writes, I watched your interview with
Speaker 1: Alyssa Milano on Rising I completely disagree their politics, but
Speaker 1: we'll give her major props for sitting down with you. Well, Nathan,
Speaker 1: you are a generous fellow. I will tell you that, uh,
Speaker 1: she didn't realize who she was sitting down with. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean that as in like she didn't know
Speaker 1: who she was sitting down with. I mean she literally
Speaker 1: had She had no idea who I was. And that's
Speaker 1: why she got a little throne when I asked her
Speaker 1: questions that weren't so why are you so amazing? So
Speaker 1: why have you done so much for women? So why
Speaker 1: are you saving lives with your gun control positions? I
Speaker 1: was very polite. Look, I'm in if someone's home, all right,
Speaker 1: and I think she doesn't know much. But she's you know,
Speaker 1: she's a mom and a wife, and I'm in her home,
Speaker 1: and she gave me her time, and I was asking
Speaker 1: her questions. So there is a basic decorum and gentlemanliness
Speaker 1: that I must bring to the situation that all said.
Speaker 1: You know it. She was prickly when I started to
Speaker 1: uh ask her real questions. And it's because I think
Speaker 1: she thought the Hill dot Com is journalists political journalists
Speaker 1: of political journalists are left wing and so she just
Speaker 1: assumed that I must fit into that category. She did
Speaker 1: not realize that she was getting a real deal conservative
Speaker 1: who was polite. But Nathan, I'm glad you watched an
Speaker 1: interview of any folks missed that. We posted some of
Speaker 1: it on Facebook. You can also go to Hill dot
Speaker 1: tv slash Rising and watch the full interview. We're gonna
Speaker 1: post more of it next week. We got she spent
Speaker 1: twenty five minutes with me, Uh, straight through, so I
Speaker 1: must not have hated it that much. When the buck's
Speaker 1: got some skills, she respects the swoop, whether she'll say
Speaker 1: so or not, and writes hi buk. I listened to
Speaker 1: the last night's show in the morning hours. As always,
Speaker 1: it rocked two points one red Meat report. I've lost
Speaker 1: seventy pounds over the last two years by eating a
Speaker 1: higher fat, low carb diet. Eating quality fats gives you energy,
Speaker 1: keeps you full, and remove cravings for carbs. Why is
Speaker 1: it the left of the only ones that hear conservative
Speaker 1: dog whistles? I knew what the santis meant, and I
Speaker 1: don't believe for a second that he was making a
Speaker 1: racist comment. Don Lemon can take a seat, uh and look,
Speaker 1: I obviously agree with you on the de Santist comment.
Speaker 1: I think it's really really gross, really disingenuous for people
Speaker 1: to try and make this case about how he's you
Speaker 1: know how, I just it's not there, folks, It's just
Speaker 1: not there. And and they take the sentence and they
Speaker 1: they separate it out the one where he said monkey
Speaker 1: it up, and they separate it out from what he
Speaker 1: said right before it, because in context, it's abundantly clear
Speaker 1: that he was not saying anything about his opponent or
Speaker 1: anything that was racist at all. And as to fat
Speaker 1: and eating fat and it being better for you, I look,
Speaker 1: I'm a believer in this too. If I weren't working
Speaker 1: so much these days, i'd be leaning. Mean, my diets
Speaker 1: actually pretty clean, although I do eat a little too
Speaker 1: much chocolate. I just don't have time to work out
Speaker 1: and happen in months. So I'm I'm putting on a
Speaker 1: little bit of dad bought action here. But I know
Speaker 1: that when I've got the time and the energy to
Speaker 1: take it off. UH good fats, good proteins, and uh
Speaker 1: fruits and veggies, honestly, mostly veggies. That's really the that's
Speaker 1: really the secret. Sauce. Just eat meat, eat protein, eat
Speaker 1: green vegetables and if you build your diet around that
Speaker 1: and eggs. I believe in eggs very much. And if
Speaker 1: you build you're died around that, I think you're in
Speaker 1: good shape. Uh, I really do. I'm glad you've had
Speaker 1: some success with it too. And Greg writes Buck, while
Speaker 1: your stance on the Second Amendment is pretty clear, I
Speaker 1: haven't heard you comment on matters related to your sponsors
Speaker 1: and their stances. Well, Greg, let me just jump in
Speaker 1: here and tell you I don't. I I don't discuss
Speaker 1: the particular politics of any sponsor that we have or anither. Uh,
Speaker 1: just unless I have something that really bothers me or
Speaker 1: is deeply problematic. Um. But I only work with sponsors
Speaker 1: on this show, I turned business down here. UM. I
Speaker 1: only work with sponsors who have companies that are do
Speaker 1: in a great product and and are people that I trust.
Speaker 1: And generally the companies are run by people that I know. Uh,
Speaker 1: I have a have a personal relationship. It's not always true,
Speaker 1: but it is generally true. I usually know the CEO,
Speaker 1: and if there's ever an issue or anything, I can
Speaker 1: get them on the phone and and say, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: can we address this one way or the other. But
Speaker 1: I am very the same way that I will. You'll
Speaker 1: never hear me trash a friend in media, even when
Speaker 1: I think a friend may be wrong. I will not
Speaker 1: criticize sponsors because they are partners of mine and we're
Speaker 1: working together for a purpose. So just I'll leave I'll
Speaker 1: leave it with that, my friend. I'm honest about it.
Speaker 1: I tell you I do not criticize sponsors on the show.
Speaker 1: I never will and I never would. But it's a
Speaker 1: fair question for you to ask. Now you know my policy.
Speaker 1: Uh In writes thoughts on a Good American It's a
Speaker 1: Netflix doc on a special access program, thin Thread. It's
Speaker 1: damning of Hayden, but so sensational. I'm skeptical in I
Speaker 1: have never heard of this. Can neither confirm nor deny it. No,
Speaker 1: but really, I've never I've never heard of this. I
Speaker 1: don't know anything about it, so I can't really tell
Speaker 1: you what I think about it. I'll have to look
Speaker 1: up a little more on it. Uh Janelle write saying,
Speaker 1: how about rabid for really bad Iran deal? Well, Janelle,
Speaker 1: you are a clever lady, and thank you for sending
Speaker 1: that in. Chris writes buck, I'm a veteran though I
Speaker 1: didn't serve in combat. I respect McCain's military service, but
Speaker 1: don't you people as part of some identity group. I
Speaker 1: judge them by their actions at the current time. McCain
Speaker 1: was a very vindictive, petty, self consumed person. All you
Speaker 1: need to know is that he didn't give up his
Speaker 1: seat after it was clear he couldn't perform his duties.
Speaker 1: He put me in a terrible position of having to
Speaker 1: wait for him to pass, and I resent him for that.
Speaker 1: The sad truth is that a combatant who spent significent
Speaker 1: time as a pow under savage condition sans uh should
Speaker 1: not hold higher office, except under extreme circumstances, such as
Speaker 1: the aftermath of a total war like World War Two,
Speaker 1: where many leaders had to serve in war and there
Speaker 1: was no other bench to pull from. The trauma is
Speaker 1: just too great and the damage lasts a lifetime. That's
Speaker 1: not fair. But then life is like that, Chris, I
Speaker 1: I gotta disagree with you on this idea that you
Speaker 1: you wouldn't want somebody who had served and had been
Speaker 1: through that to be a leader. In fact, I think
Speaker 1: that it could be h incredibly not just the bravery
Speaker 1: that's displayed in the and the strength of character, but
Speaker 1: but also I think it could be instructive about one's
Speaker 1: views on a whole host of issues. Interestingly enough, McCain,
Speaker 1: despite what he suffered as a pow, was very aggressive
Speaker 1: as a politician when it came to US military action
Speaker 1: and US foreign policy. Among the most aggressive, McCain and
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham were the biggest advocates for hard power in
Speaker 1: the Senate, certainly in my lifetime that I'm that I'm
Speaker 1: aware of, so that that doesn't necessarily go in the
Speaker 1: direction you would think. But thank you for writing in
Speaker 1: and appreciate your service. Sir Monica writes, Hey, Buck, heard
Speaker 1: you talk about scooters and ear tattoos today. Makes me
Speaker 1: ponder when you're getting a tattoo of you riding a
Speaker 1: scooter behind your ear? She'll tie, Well, Monica, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's gonna happen, and I think you're gonna have
Speaker 1: to wait a long time on that one. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's gonna happen anytime soon, but we will see.
Speaker 1: I'll let you know. I can tell you this for
Speaker 1: the team. I do not have any tattoos. I am
Speaker 1: uninked as of now, and as I've always just never
Speaker 1: gone to tattoo. All right, That's it for me, folks.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow is gonna be our last show before the Labor
Speaker 1: Day weekend extravaganza that I'm sure we all have planned.
Speaker 1: Uh so please do download the show, tell a friend
Speaker 1: about it whenever you get a chance this coming weekend.
Speaker 1: I'll be with you tomorrow, alive in the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: from the swamp in d C. As always, She'll tie.
Speaker 1: Hiring is a challenge, my friends. But there's one place
Speaker 1: you can go where hiring is simple, fast and smart,
Speaker 1: a place where growing businesses connect to qualified candidates. That
Speaker 1: place is zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. Zip recruiter
Speaker 1: sends your job to over one hundred of the webs
Speaker 1: leading job boards, but they don't stop there. With their
Speaker 1: powerful matching technology, zip Recruiter scans thousands of resumes to
Speaker 1: find people with the right experience and invite them to
Speaker 1: apply to your job. I had to hire for my
Speaker 1: team at hill dot tv, and we use zip recruiter
Speaker 1: with great success. I set up an account couldn't have
Speaker 1: been more straightforward. Set up all the different parameters keyword
Speaker 1: search made sure that as the applications came in, I
Speaker 1: could sort easily through them. I got great matches, and
Speaker 1: now I've got great colleagues thanks to zip Recruiter. With
Speaker 1: results like that, it's no wonder. Zip Recruiter is the
Speaker 1: highest rated hiring site in America. Right now. You can
Speaker 1: try it for free by going to zip recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck again, zip recruit utter dot com, slash buck