Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Lebron James takes a
Speaker 1: knee against the freedom of expression, the First Amendments. We'll
Speaker 1: get into that, plus the leaky impeachment inquiry. ABC News
Speaker 1: airs fake war footage, and Attorney General Barr Religious Freedom Warrior.
Speaker 1: We have that and more coming up on The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Mag No mistake American. Ready, you're a great
Speaker 1: American Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. Everybody. Great to have you here
Speaker 1: with me. Thank you so much for joining today. Oh my,
Speaker 1: we have a lot going on. The Democrat debate is tonight,
Speaker 1: so that's exciting for some people. I don't even know
Speaker 1: if it's exciting for the Democrats, but I'll be watching.
Speaker 1: I'll be live tweeting a combination of insight and snark.
Speaker 1: So there's that to look forward to. We have a
Speaker 1: couple of big news stories breaking today. We have I
Speaker 1: left this out of our little open there, but we
Speaker 1: found Hunter Biden, or rather one of the broadcast networks.
Speaker 1: I think it's ABC found Yeah, found Hunter Biden, and
Speaker 1: he's not doing himself any favors. We'll discuss that. We'll
Speaker 1: hear a bit from Hunter himself. Oh the most the
Speaker 1: most wayward of Biden's that would seem Hunter Biden. But
Speaker 1: the one thing that's gotten everybody really fired up today
Speaker 1: is this Lebron James situation. Now, I'm sure all of
Speaker 1: you know without me telling you, but just to put
Speaker 1: it in the proper context, Lebron James is arguably the
Speaker 1: best basketball player who has ever lived. Some of the
Speaker 1: Michael Jordan fans out there are booing right now, but
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. Lebron James a big deal.
Speaker 1: The guy is certainly worth hundreds of millions of dollars,
Speaker 1: probably already close to, if not surpassing, a billion dollars.
Speaker 1: He is a global sports icon, and he was really
Speaker 1: anointed as one of the biggest athletes, most important athletes
Speaker 1: in the world back when he was in high school.
Speaker 1: And he lived up to those expectations, which usually doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be the case. So Labron James is somebody
Speaker 1: who has a tremendous audience, a huge platform, is wealthy
Speaker 1: beyond any normal person's wildest imagination. He's also someone who
Speaker 1: is woke. He's an individual who, depending on the day,
Speaker 1: will share his thoughts on politics, particularly issues that deal
Speaker 1: would say, police violence and other assorted and sundry things
Speaker 1: out there that he will have to continue to look at.
Speaker 1: I'm sure now that people are going to be focusing
Speaker 1: even more on the issues of the day that he tackles.
Speaker 1: But Lebron James a guy who talks about things in
Speaker 1: the political realm, and I had mentioned on this show
Speaker 1: a week ago. I had mentioned that it would be
Speaker 1: great if Lebron James would come forward and say something
Speaker 1: in support of the supporters of the protesters in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: It would be great if Lebron James stepped forward and
Speaker 1: decided to speak in favor of freedom right. So he's
Speaker 1: spoken about Black Lives Matter, he's spoken about police violence,
Speaker 1: He's spoken about different issues here. So this is an
Speaker 1: opportunity given what happened, as we know, you had the
Speaker 1: general manager of the Houston Rockets who criticized gently really
Speaker 1: or didn't even criticize the Chinese. He just spoke in
Speaker 1: support of the Hong Kong protesters. And what did Lebron
Speaker 1: James decide to do. I asked last week, I said,
Speaker 1: where's Lebron, Where's the King? Where's the man himself perhaps
Speaker 1: the single most famous, most powerful figure in professional sports today.
Speaker 1: You could certainly make that argument. The NBA's all about
Speaker 1: weighing in on politics, telling us how woke they are.
Speaker 1: We know that they will they will protest, They'll support
Speaker 1: people protesting the national anthem, you know, support taking a
Speaker 1: need during our national anthem. They'll wear hoodies and solidarity
Speaker 1: with Trayvon Martin, all these different very political acts, and
Speaker 1: Lebron himself had even at one point, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find this tweet, Lebron had shown everybody just actually how
Speaker 1: truly woke he is. Here here you go. This is
Speaker 1: from I think about a yeah, from earlier this year,
Speaker 1: Lebron James injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Speaker 1: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent
Speaker 1: about things that matter. Wow, bold talk, strong words from
Speaker 1: King James, as he is widely known. But then he
Speaker 1: decided to speak on the China issue, and my, oh my,
Speaker 1: it was a disaster hit it. We all talked about
Speaker 1: this freedom of speech. Yes, we all do have freedom
Speaker 1: of speech, but at times there are ramifications for the
Speaker 1: negative that can happen when you're not thinking about others
Speaker 1: and you only think about yourself. So I don't believe.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into a word word or
Speaker 1: sentenced feud with Darylum with Daryl More, but I believe
Speaker 1: he wasn't educated on the situation at hand, and he spoken,
Speaker 1: and so many people could have been harmed, not only
Speaker 1: financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually. So just be careful what
Speaker 1: we tweet and we say and what we do, even
Speaker 1: though yes, we do have freed them a lot of negative. Wow,
Speaker 1: Lebron James a man who will never have to worry
Speaker 1: about putting food on the table, not just for himself,
Speaker 1: for his family, but his family's family's family's family, based
Speaker 1: on the amount of money he has amassed, a global
Speaker 1: icon who's in no danger of losing his job or anything.
Speaker 1: He could have just not said anything about this, I
Speaker 1: asked last week. I said, Lebron is woke, he is
Speaker 1: social justice aware. Now is the opportunity for him to
Speaker 1: take a stand for people who could really use it.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the Chinese market is huge for
Speaker 1: the NBA, but Chinese support Hong Konger's support for NBA
Speaker 1: players like Lebron is also very very strong. It would
Speaker 1: have meant a lot, just some words of solidarity. But
Speaker 1: instead of that, what did we get Lebron James saying
Speaker 1: that Moray, the general manager of the Houston Rockets, was
Speaker 1: not educated on the issue when he said that he
Speaker 1: was in support of freedom for the people of Hong Kong. Oh, No,
Speaker 1: quite the contrary. I think. I think the Houston Rockets
Speaker 1: GM was right on the money, and I think that
Speaker 1: people understand that, and Daryl Moray did exactly the right
Speaker 1: thing from a moral ethical perspective, you can stay from
Speaker 1: a business perspective, that wasn't a good idea. But Lebron
Speaker 1: James comes forward to show us that all that social
Speaker 1: justice stuff, you know, it's easy to take a knee
Speaker 1: in the United States, It's it's easy to And don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on Colin Kaepernick. That guy's a
Speaker 1: backup quarterback. He's at a point in his career where
Speaker 1: his value as a professional player is just not what
Speaker 1: it once was, and all of a sudden, he takes
Speaker 1: a knee and now he's like a Nike superstar. He's
Speaker 1: a sports icon. Forget about the fact that he wore
Speaker 1: the socks with pig police officers on them, and we're
Speaker 1: just supposed to skip past that. Oh, he's a sports icon,
Speaker 1: all right. Lebron James, best basketball player in the world
Speaker 1: right now, criticizes the guy who's speaking out in favor
Speaker 1: of freedom in Hong Kong and claims that he is
Speaker 1: not I believe Maury has a we're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: being educated on the issue. Not that this means he
Speaker 1: necessarily knows all that much about what's going on in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong, but I think it's a good good shot.
Speaker 1: First of all, he was right with his tweet, and
Speaker 1: More I think went to M I T. So I'm
Speaker 1: a pretty good I'm gonna guess that he has a
Speaker 1: good sense of what's going on. I think he has
Speaker 1: an advanced degree from M I T. I think More
Speaker 1: has a good sense of what's going on in Hong
Speaker 1: Kong's situation. A lot of people are very disappointed in
Speaker 1: Lebron James right now. I would say, let's be serious
Speaker 1: about this, folks. Is it really a surprise? Is it
Speaker 1: really a surprise that professional athletes who have the option.
Speaker 1: As far as I'm concerned to avoid politics and just
Speaker 1: be professionals in what they do and share their opinions privately,
Speaker 1: but to use their public platform for political issues that
Speaker 1: opens them up. That means now that anybody's allowed to
Speaker 1: have an opinion, anyone's allowed to decide that they will
Speaker 1: criticize what these players have to say. So Lebron James,
Speaker 1: Lebron James shows us whether he's really brave or not,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately came up quite short. And it also makes
Speaker 1: a lot of people question, what about all these athletes
Speaker 1: who are talking about justice and the need for the
Speaker 1: need for fighting for what's right. And well, that's all
Speaker 1: good when fighting for justice means you sell even more sneakers,
Speaker 1: you sell even more jerseys and tickets. But what about
Speaker 1: the consequences, the economic consequences of fighting for justice when
Speaker 1: it's when it's hard. Oh, I see, you know the
Speaker 1: NBA has been telling players not to not to speak
Speaker 1: on this issue. Lebron James speaks out on this issue
Speaker 1: and says exactly the wrong thing. He had a week
Speaker 1: to figure out what the response was going to be,
Speaker 1: and this is what he comes up with. There's a
Speaker 1: bigger issue here. It's not just about Lebron James and
Speaker 1: the NBA, although should we really have expected more? I
Speaker 1: leave that to you. China, which is a situation that
Speaker 1: President Trump has been tackling from the beginning of his presidency.
Speaker 1: We have a different feeling about how to deal with
Speaker 1: China now going forward than we did in the past
Speaker 1: because of Trump. China has tremendous influence over decisions that
Speaker 1: my friends are affecting you and me right now. China
Speaker 1: has control over parts of the media and the media
Speaker 1: narrative here in America. And really there can be no
Speaker 1: better example of just how culturally and economically influential China
Speaker 1: is than to have a globally famous NBA superstar bend
Speaker 1: the knee to Beijing's Communist Party for fear of losing
Speaker 1: out on the almighty dollar. That sends a very strong message,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. And it sends a message I think also
Speaker 1: about what our future is going to be unless we
Speaker 1: wake up and accept that this is not going to
Speaker 1: be easy, just like the trade fight that Trump has
Speaker 1: started as not easy. The fight for the truth about China,
Speaker 1: what's going on inside of China, what that country is
Speaker 1: doing around the world, that's going to become increasingly complicated.
Speaker 1: Journalists like to talk about how brave they are. Celebrities
Speaker 1: always think that they're brave when they take political stance,
Speaker 1: but most of them are just idiots. But journalists think
Speaker 1: that they're brave until all of a sudden ownership has
Speaker 1: a different feeling about things. Then it changes rather rapidly,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. How does China influence us? How far does
Speaker 1: that influence go? Oh, we'll get to that. So how
Speaker 1: powerful and influential is communist China when it comes to
Speaker 1: pop culture? We've seen that they can influence the NBA.
Speaker 1: We've seen that they can tell people what they can
Speaker 1: and cannot say in this country, even when they're incredibly
Speaker 1: wealthy and incredibly influential. Where else does this extend well,
Speaker 1: Some people picked up on a very big change recently
Speaker 1: in the new Top Gun movie. For example, in that
Speaker 1: Top Gun movie, you will recall well, in the original
Speaker 1: Top Gun movie, Tom Cruise has a bomber jacket on
Speaker 1: and on the back of that bomber jacket is a
Speaker 1: flag that is the flag of I want people, and
Speaker 1: that all of a sudden in the new version was
Speaker 1: changed to a different flag, and a lot of people
Speaker 1: notice this now why would that happen Because the biggest,
Speaker 1: really the biggest movie market by at least by ticket
Speaker 1: sales in the world is a Chinese market. It's also why, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we have all these horrifically bad superhero movies. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say it, bad superhero movies that are made all
Speaker 1: the time. That's right, Mark, you know, I'm right. Don't
Speaker 1: don't give me that. This isn't like an old man thing.
Speaker 1: This is a truth. You are very very incorrect. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they make them this way because they can dub. They
Speaker 1: can dub Thor and the Hulk and a Hulk smash
Speaker 1: and the same thing in every movie, and people in
Speaker 1: foreign countries will watch it doesn't correct. Yeah, well, who
Speaker 1: you're gonna believe anyway? They change things because the Chinese
Speaker 1: government censors will block movies. Most recent example of this,
Speaker 1: I mentioned Top Gun. So that's that's a US movie.
Speaker 1: But there's a movie that's a joint animated project of DreamWorks,
Speaker 1: the famous you know animated and I forget what they
Speaker 1: even call. You know, the digital essentially makes the digital
Speaker 1: cartoons that people know and love. It's done very very well.
Speaker 1: As a company. DreamWorks made this movie called Abominable, which
Speaker 1: I've been thinking for a while, when is someone gonna
Speaker 1: make a movie. But I was thinking a horror movie
Speaker 1: as you as you know, I like bigfoot movies. We've
Speaker 1: talked about that on the show before. I think there
Speaker 1: should be more of them, and they should be better
Speaker 1: and not Harry and the Hendersons. I don't want a big, happy,
Speaker 1: cuddly Bigfoot. But the movie Abominable is about a cute,
Speaker 1: cuddly cartoon, Yetti, which some of you think of I
Speaker 1: think as a cooler company, right, don't they make the
Speaker 1: coolers the little where you put the beer and the things?
Speaker 1: Am I? Yeah, I know America. But also this movie
Speaker 1: is about traversing across China and this young girl is
Speaker 1: with the big Foot, has to take him, has to
Speaker 1: take them back to I guess to Mount Everest. I
Speaker 1: think it is. And sure enough Vietnam is very upset
Speaker 1: because guess what dream Works did in this movie in
Speaker 1: order to make sure that as a joint venture with
Speaker 1: the Chinese, it would get approved by the censors. Oh,
Speaker 1: they showed the South China Sea, the you know the
Speaker 1: seven dash line, the South China Sea. They showed that
Speaker 1: as Chinese territory, and the only reason that they would
Speaker 1: do this, the only reason that this would this would
Speaker 1: happen is because they want to make sure they can
Speaker 1: get around the sensors. I'm sorry. The nine da I said,
Speaker 1: the seven dash line, nine dash line, pardon me, is
Speaker 1: that they want to get around the upset of the
Speaker 1: Chinese government. This is happening now. All the time, there
Speaker 1: was a a DJ, I believe recently, a famous DJ,
Speaker 1: which is still an amazing thing to me that that
Speaker 1: even exists. I feel like I could be a famous DJ.
Speaker 1: I'll make a playlist, I will put it up on
Speaker 1: Spotify or iTunes, and I will hit play and I
Speaker 1: will then be a famous day. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know how. I don't know how it works. I
Speaker 1: guess you gotta mix the beats and to all that stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm hip, I know, I know what the kids do.
Speaker 1: So I got to mix all the beats with all
Speaker 1: the flavor. But this guy's a famous DJ. He tweeted
Speaker 1: something about China, and now the Chinese government has banned
Speaker 1: him for life as a result of this. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to see if I can remember who exactly, who exactly
Speaker 1: it was. Some of you might know dj Z band
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, and he was banned for liking a South
Speaker 1: Park tweet on Twitter. South Park's one of the few
Speaker 1: comedic you know, comedic enterprises that will still make fun
Speaker 1: of things you're not supposed to make fun of, which
Speaker 1: is wonderful. It's very important part of society these days.
Speaker 1: There have to be people willing to make the jokes
Speaker 1: that you're not supposed to make or else why are
Speaker 1: we making jokes at all? But djz liked liked a
Speaker 1: tweet from South Park about the making fun of China,
Speaker 1: and now he's banned Forever. You're going to see more
Speaker 1: of this. People who speak out against China's policy in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong who are famous are going to get banned.
Speaker 1: In fact, even people who aren't very famous might get banned.
Speaker 1: It just won't be a news story. It took me
Speaker 1: months to get a visa to be able to go
Speaker 1: to China. You know, the whole XCIA current news media
Speaker 1: person thing didn't really sit that well with the Communist Party.
Speaker 1: Apparently this is a big fight, my friends, This is
Speaker 1: going to continue. This shows you what kind of influence
Speaker 1: China has. We're not worried about invasion, We're worried about
Speaker 1: bending the knee culturally and Econ'm back Team Buck. I
Speaker 1: wanted to bring in an additional voice here on Lebron James, China,
Speaker 1: the NBA, Hong Kong, all the stuff that we've been
Speaker 1: talking about today so far on the show. We have
Speaker 1: Clay Travis with us now. He is a nationally syndicated
Speaker 1: radio host and author of the book Republicans Buy Sneakers two,
Speaker 1: which is definitely true. I'm a Republican, I buy sneakers. Clay,
Speaker 1: Thanks for coming on. Appreciate you having me. All right,
Speaker 1: so let's start with this. You you wrote a piece
Speaker 1: for OutKick the Coverage where you lay out that I mean,
Speaker 1: I was saying this at the start. I don't follow
Speaker 1: if you follow sports very closely and sports in the
Speaker 1: intersection of politics. I do politics and occasionally when sports
Speaker 1: happens to cross over into my world. But you take
Speaker 1: the position in your piece that Lebron James has been
Speaker 1: heralded as someone akin to the greatness of Muhammad Ali,
Speaker 1: not just as a sports figure, but as a political figure,
Speaker 1: and you think that's unwarranted. Tell us why, Well, because
Speaker 1: he's never really taken a stand on it anything that matters.
Speaker 1: And by what I mean there, when you look at
Speaker 1: Muhammad Ali's history, the man faced imprisonment, he stood up
Speaker 1: to the idea of a draft, he stood up to
Speaker 1: the idea of a war, and as a result he
Speaker 1: suffered severe consequences. But he took a stand on an
Speaker 1: issue that was dividing the country in a major way.
Speaker 1: Lebron has never taken a stand in any way, and
Speaker 1: that's why I wrote last week that this China situation
Speaker 1: offered an opportunity for Lebron James. You know this because
Speaker 1: you hear it all the time. There's much talk about
Speaker 1: being on the right side of history. And for anybody
Speaker 1: I'm a history major, I'm a long time history buff.
Speaker 1: Anybody who's spend any time studying history knows that very
Speaker 1: often the idea that there's a right and wrong side
Speaker 1: of history that is going to be determined during your
Speaker 1: life is often incorrect. Sometimes it takes hundreds of years
Speaker 1: to figure out exactly who was on the right and
Speaker 1: wrong side of history, and byographies will consistently debate that
Speaker 1: for many different issues. But we know that the right
Speaker 1: side of history beens in the direction of democracy, ringom
Speaker 1: of speech, human rights, basic individual freedoms are without a doubt,
Speaker 1: on the right side of history. So Lebron James had
Speaker 1: an opportunity here to stand up to China and say,
Speaker 1: I believe that the one point four billion people who
Speaker 1: live in China are entitled and should have the same
Speaker 1: exact rights that I do in America today. I believe
Speaker 1: in democracy. I believe in capitalism. I believe in something
Speaker 1: as important as that. And if he had done so,
Speaker 1: that could be a crucible moment down the line for
Speaker 1: his legacy. But in the meantime, you know that in
Speaker 1: the long range he's going to be I believe, on
Speaker 1: the right side of history because the winds of societal
Speaker 1: change been towards the directions of capitalistic democracies. Instead, he
Speaker 1: chose to shut up in durable and take communist dictator money.
Speaker 1: And if he had, we've been a capital If that's
Speaker 1: all he cared about, or all the NBA it's cared about,
Speaker 1: I don't think this hypocrisy would be striking so many
Speaker 1: as being so rank, so glaring, so difficult to stomach.
Speaker 1: Now do you think that that Lebron James. I mean,
Speaker 1: look personally, it feels like a financial pressure from China
Speaker 1: on him personally is that would be tough. Any financial
Speaker 1: pressure on him is going to be a tough thing,
Speaker 1: or you could at least argue would be a difficult
Speaker 1: thing to pull off. How much pressure can the Chinese
Speaker 1: put on the NBA? I mean for someone like me,
Speaker 1: I I like basketball, I like the NBA. I haven't
Speaker 1: watched a game probably in five years. So tell me
Speaker 1: how big a deal is it for China to start
Speaker 1: to slap down and either particular NBA players or just
Speaker 1: NBA access into the Chinese market. Well, I think it's
Speaker 1: a fascinating question, and one answer I would imagine that
Speaker 1: China can sort of hint that is, we don't have
Speaker 1: to pay you for the rights to your games. We
Speaker 1: can do what we've done with the out of Western products,
Speaker 1: which is allow rampant piracy to occur in this country
Speaker 1: such that we don't have to pay you anything substantial
Speaker 1: for your rights, and the people who are NBA fans
Speaker 1: in China, we can make it available to them without
Speaker 1: going after the pirates and everything else associated with that.
Speaker 1: But I think what you're hitting at is the key
Speaker 1: is all of China's power in this scenario is derived
Speaker 1: from financial related issues, and so the biggest the biggest
Speaker 1: thing that is disappointing to me I think about Lebron
Speaker 1: in general, is I don't know what your dollar figure is,
Speaker 1: but I've pretty much reached it. Where if you told
Speaker 1: me I could make twenty percent more, but I had
Speaker 1: to say things that I disagreed with in order to
Speaker 1: make that twenty percent more, I wouldn't do it, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, my intellectual honesty is worth a lot more
Speaker 1: to me than twenty percent more. Now, I worked as
Speaker 1: a lawyer, so if you told me, hey, I'll pay
Speaker 1: you a hundred times as much, I might be willing
Speaker 1: to argue for anybody. Right. I've defended murders, I've defended
Speaker 1: rapist you know. I look, that's part of the job, right,
Speaker 1: But for what we do, to be in the marketplace
Speaker 1: of ideas and be selling something I didn't believe in,
Speaker 1: it's really disappointing to think that to sellout dollar figure
Speaker 1: would only be about twenty percent more for somebody like Lebron,
Speaker 1: especially if you've already made hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: And by the way, especially if you've made those hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars at the fount of democratic capitalism.
Speaker 1: To turn your back on that in exchange for platitudes
Speaker 1: from your communist dictator leaders is to be really disappointing
Speaker 1: and essentially blows up Lebron James's argument that he's more
Speaker 1: than an athlete, or that he refuses to shut up
Speaker 1: and dribble. Why did he go after Maury specifically? That
Speaker 1: seems not only was Lebron wrong on this, he seemed
Speaker 1: to really be doing the bidding of the Chinese if
Speaker 1: the Chinese government had written his talking points. And I
Speaker 1: think Shi Jinping said, you know, anyone who stands there
Speaker 1: away in Hong Kong, we will annihilate them and grind
Speaker 1: their bones to dust. So okay, so she goes a
Speaker 1: little more to the mat on this stuff than than
Speaker 1: even anybody in the NBA would fine, But if they
Speaker 1: were trying to write plausible talking points for somebody in
Speaker 1: the NBA, I think it would include Morey doesn't understand
Speaker 1: the situation. I think that's one of the ways to
Speaker 1: undermine the tweet that got this whole situation. It got
Speaker 1: this whole ruckus started. So why do you think Lebron
Speaker 1: went after More? Is there any personal beef there I mean,
Speaker 1: these are things that I wouldn't know that you would know. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think you're right in claiming that
Speaker 1: this is a complicated issue. He followed up on what
Speaker 1: Steve Kerr said last week, which was, Oh, it's almost
Speaker 1: impossible to come up with an opinion on a situation
Speaker 1: like this when the reality's pretty straightforward. You know, they're
Speaker 1: either in favor of democratic protesters in Hong Kong, or
Speaker 1: you're opposed to them and you believe in autocratic Chinese
Speaker 1: rule of an authoritarian nature, or you don't. This is not,
Speaker 1: you know, like so many issues that we confront on
Speaker 1: a daily basis in American life, where okay, let's figure
Speaker 1: out how the Second Amendment is going to apply in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. Okay, I can see how that could be complicated,
Speaker 1: and there could be a variety of different issues. To me,
Speaker 1: what Darryl Moray said in terms of endorsing democracy is
Speaker 1: the equivalent of saying cancer is bad. Right. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's some one or two people out there
Speaker 1: who are like, you know, cancer is underrated in my opinions,
Speaker 1: but in general, this is like I'm in favor of
Speaker 1: clean drinking water, I'm in favor of kids having an
Speaker 1: opportunity to go to school and get an education for free.
Speaker 1: These are not controversial ideas in general, So I think
Speaker 1: you're right. I think that Lebron has used Darryl Moray
Speaker 1: as a target because one, it was his tweet that
Speaker 1: set off this firestorm in China, but also because I
Speaker 1: believe Lebron is trying to make this issue seem more
Speaker 1: complicated than it is and also make more a seem
Speaker 1: less understanding of this situation. And by the way, really
Speaker 1: what Lebron is doing, in addition to echoing communist talking points,
Speaker 1: is he's echoing one of the NBA owners who is
Speaker 1: Joseph's eye ob belously, he's how you pronounce his name.
Speaker 1: But the Ali Baba guy who now owns the NETS,
Speaker 1: it sounds like he's set down with Lebron and tried
Speaker 1: to brainwash him. And he's the guy who wrote that
Speaker 1: Facebook post right about China's China's history and the territorial
Speaker 1: integrity and how sensitive it is, and it was some
Speaker 1: real whiny nonsense. Yeah, and it also essentially told Americans
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't be concerned with democracy around the world.
Speaker 1: And that's the big issue here, I think buck right
Speaker 1: when you really break it down, is China has moved
Speaker 1: from a country that was, hey, you want to show
Speaker 1: you the new Avengers movie, well, we need you to
Speaker 1: cut these two minutes out in order to play in China,
Speaker 1: and Disney and all the big companies acquiesced to those
Speaker 1: demands to get into the Chinese market. What they have
Speaker 1: now started to do, and I think this is an
Speaker 1: interesting pivot point for China is they are arguing, now,
Speaker 1: American company, we don't care that your citizens have the
Speaker 1: right under American law to have First Amendment freedoms and
Speaker 1: say what they have said, if you want to do
Speaker 1: business with us, you need to police your employees outside
Speaker 1: of the bounds of our country with what they are
Speaker 1: saying and doing. And that to me is a big
Speaker 1: step by China outside of their terry. Now, that is
Speaker 1: a really important point. By the way, this isn't if
Speaker 1: you're going to come into our house, it's our rules.
Speaker 1: It's you better do things in your house that we
Speaker 1: want you to or else you'll never be welcome at
Speaker 1: our house. Yeah. This is a big difference, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's the difference between let's I mean and again I
Speaker 1: don't know that a lot of people have noticed this,
Speaker 1: but that's why I think this is such a larger
Speaker 1: battle on the grand scale, and why Lagron's decision here
Speaker 1: is so disappointing. If you believe as I do, that
Speaker 1: much of the twenty first century is likely to be
Speaker 1: maybe a new Cold War, however you want to define it,
Speaker 1: between America and China, the question is, do you believe
Speaker 1: in a communist, authoritarian governments of vision for the twenty
Speaker 1: first century as it expands beyond its territorial borders and
Speaker 1: begins to try to influence the world, or do you
Speaker 1: believe in the vision of a capitalistic democracy like the
Speaker 1: United States and many of our allies. And Lebron James
Speaker 1: has effectively said, I believe in the communist dictatorship vision.
Speaker 1: And that is why this is so disappointing, because I
Speaker 1: think we're starting to see the early shots being fired
Speaker 1: in a global war of ideas, and Lebron has come
Speaker 1: down on the side of the Chinese. Clay Travis, everybody
Speaker 1: the book is Republicans, buy Sneakers too. I actually have
Speaker 1: a copy. Highly recommend you all go out and get one.
Speaker 1: He's also a nationally syndicated radio host. You can check
Speaker 1: out his podcast. Clay, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us that we appreciate it. Appreciate it, my man. You
Speaker 1: got a great show. I hear great things about it.
Speaker 1: Look forward to seeing the politicon here in a few weeks.
Speaker 1: I'm glad we managed to cover the Lebron James China
Speaker 1: Hong Kong controversy today because I think that it really
Speaker 1: is and I agree with what our guests there Clay
Speaker 1: Travis said, I think this is just going to continue
Speaker 1: to get worse. I don't think that there's going to
Speaker 1: be any reprieve here, and the Chinese, their leverage is
Speaker 1: only going to become more potent as time goes on
Speaker 1: unless we start to see this for what it is
Speaker 1: and push back. And the Chinese have been playing a
Speaker 1: long game here. They have these Confucious centers that they
Speaker 1: fond all across America. These Confucius centers create this perception
Speaker 1: of a China that many people argue is just not
Speaker 1: and the way that China approaches the rest of the
Speaker 1: world that's meant to lull us into a sense that
Speaker 1: the Chinese have no ambitions beyond their own territory and
Speaker 1: just want to be good trading partners, and they want
Speaker 1: prosperity for their people and peace around the world. A
Speaker 1: lot of very powerful propaganda. In fact, I believe that
Speaker 1: the China People's Daily, which is a or the China Daily,
Speaker 1: which is a publication approved by the People's Republic of China,
Speaker 1: was for a time being added to The Washington Post
Speaker 1: when it was delivered to people's home some years ago
Speaker 1: as a special advertising bulletin kind of its propaganda. The
Speaker 1: Washington Post was like, yeah, well, we'll take Chinese money
Speaker 1: and distribute propaganda all over the world. So has been
Speaker 1: going on. And then with Lebron James, yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: surprised really, And the more I think about it, the
Speaker 1: more sense it makes that this is This is a
Speaker 1: tough issue for the NBA in that there will be consequences.
Speaker 1: It's not tough to know which side to be on,
Speaker 1: but it's tough as in, you could actually have some
Speaker 1: bad things happen if you speak out against the Chinese.
Speaker 1: Nothing bad is going to happen to anybody the NBA
Speaker 1: for wearing a hoodie and solidarity with Trey von or
Speaker 1: tweeting out about social justice or saying that you know,
Speaker 1: Colin Kaepernick should be supported in his self indulgent protest movement,
Speaker 1: all that stuff, all of it, right, that's that's easy.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's brand enhancing. And you've seen that now
Speaker 1: some of the more social justice aware things that were
Speaker 1: in all things that Nike has done, like putting Kaepernick
Speaker 1: on I forget we're starting a campaign with them, I
Speaker 1: forget what it's called. It's like the equivalent of putting
Speaker 1: him on a Wheaty's box. He's now a big sports
Speaker 1: hero for Nike. That has resulted in an increase in sales,
Speaker 1: So there is really a financial upside. Not only does
Speaker 1: it not hurt them to take these stands in the NBA,
Speaker 1: there's a financial upside to it. Certainly a huge upside
Speaker 1: for Colin Kaepernick. But you don't want to listen to
Speaker 1: celebrities in general on these issues because I mean, you
Speaker 1: should just listen to people who are knowledgeable and intelligent.
Speaker 1: So if a celebrity happens to be knowledgeable and intelligent
Speaker 1: on an issue, of course, but being a celebrity does
Speaker 1: not mean as all. If you know, it means you
Speaker 1: are neither knowledgeable nor intelligent. On its face, you could be,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't mean you are. And another example is
Speaker 1: I mean Jane Fonda still out there, you know, hannoy,
Speaker 1: Jane still doing her thing. People listen, media gives her airtime.
Speaker 1: Here she is. Just in case you haven't heard enough
Speaker 1: scaremongering on climate change, let's hear from non scient taste.
Speaker 1: I would argue non book reader Chain Fonda about climate change.
Speaker 1: Play clip seven. Please. The Inner Governmental Panel on Climate
Speaker 1: Crisis told us last year that we only have well,
Speaker 1: last year they said twelve years. Now it's eleven years.
Speaker 1: We have eleven years left to try to turn this
Speaker 1: fossil fuel disaster around so that we don't completely pass
Speaker 1: the tipping point and it becomes untenable, untenable to govern,
Speaker 1: untenable to have a stable economy or any kind of
Speaker 1: human rights or anything. It's there's just going to be
Speaker 1: one disaster on top of the other. But we do
Speaker 1: have time. We have time, and it's going to require
Speaker 1: that people in every country all around the world organize
Speaker 1: and mobilize and if necessary, bring government to a halt.
Speaker 1: If we can't make them do the right thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't have to be this radical and fundamental. If
Speaker 1: the fossil fuel industry hadn't lied to us for thirty years.
Speaker 1: Fossil fuel disaster. That's interesting because what she refers to
Speaker 1: as a disaster, you could also look at as an
Speaker 1: objective observer and historian and see that fossil fuels have directly,
Speaker 1: not just coincided with, but created the economic conditions for
Speaker 1: more prosperity, longer lifespan, easier lives, better lives around the
Speaker 1: world than any other series of scientific advances in human history.
Speaker 1: You do not have modern capitalism without fossil fuels. You
Speaker 1: don't have. It doesn't exist. You do not have this
Speaker 1: modern world of technological wonders that we all live in.
Speaker 1: But now the left in this country and much of
Speaker 1: it around the world, has embraced this hatred of fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: They're the enemy. They're gonna kill us all they say. Oh,
Speaker 1: and also the claim that we should bring governments to
Speaker 1: a halt. There are a few people as clownish and
Speaker 1: stupid as the protesters against climate the protesters who are
Speaker 1: climate change activists against fossil fuels. In recent weeks, you've
Speaker 1: seen things. They've spray painted buildings red. They do all
Speaker 1: this crazy idiocy. I almost don't want to ever call
Speaker 1: them protesters. People in Hong Kong taking truncheons to the face,
Speaker 1: getting sprayed and hit with rubber bullets and tear gas
Speaker 1: and standing up for basic human rights. Those are protesters.
Speaker 1: These climate change activists, they're really just engaged in a
Speaker 1: kind of self indulgent virtue signaling. Theater Jane Fond is
Speaker 1: a part of it. Well, they found Hunter Biden everybody
Speaker 1: where Hunter. Remember Where's Waldo? That book when you were
Speaker 1: a kid, you try to find Waldo with all the
Speaker 1: people around him. Well, we're playing where it's Hunter. Turns
Speaker 1: out they were able to get him. You have the
Speaker 1: Democrat debate happening tonight, and it seemed that the Biden
Speaker 1: handlers and assorted media strategists and all the other folks
Speaker 1: who were involved in trying to prop up the Biden
Speaker 1: situation here and make it look like it's not as
Speaker 1: bad as we all know it is. They figured, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's let's get ahead of this thing, because Biden's gonna
Speaker 1: have to get even then, the pro Biden journos know
Speaker 1: that he's gonna have to get some kind of question
Speaker 1: about this tonight, so better to get ahead of it
Speaker 1: and to have Hunter Biden establish that, you know, there
Speaker 1: was nothing going on here, nothing wrong here. Everything is
Speaker 1: just fine. At least that's supposed to be the storyline.
Speaker 1: That's what we're supposed to take. And I want to
Speaker 1: play this for you because there are problems even with
Speaker 1: Hunters very favorable, helpful to him interview right, the way
Speaker 1: they ask him the most basic questions. He knows they're
Speaker 1: not going to come at him with anything, particularly though
Speaker 1: the last questions like do you think it was a
Speaker 1: good idea? They won't say. How can you tell us
Speaker 1: that it wasn't corruption? I mean, you know, it's all
Speaker 1: about how they framed the questions and posed the questions.
Speaker 1: But here is Hunter Biden when asked on I think
Speaker 1: it's ABC, right, ABC, CBS, NBC. It's all it's all
Speaker 1: the same thing. I mean, they think it's not, but
Speaker 1: I think it is. Here's what Hunter Biden says when
Speaker 1: asked about whether he talked to his dad about the stuff.
Speaker 1: Oh please, let's let's know this. Let let's find out
Speaker 1: what he said. Play five. I'm sorry, Play sixteen. I
Speaker 1: want to get to the heart of it. Did you
Speaker 1: and your father ever discuss you free as I said.
Speaker 1: The only time was after a news account, and it
Speaker 1: wasn't a discussion in anyway. There's no butt to this. No,
Speaker 1: we never did. Your dad said I hope you know
Speaker 1: what you're doing. Hope you know what you're doing. I do,
Speaker 1: And I said I do. And that was literally the
Speaker 1: end of our discussion. Why because my dad was vice
Speaker 1: president of the United States. There's literally nothing as a
Speaker 1: young man or as a full grown adult that my
Speaker 1: father in some way hasn't had influence over as it
Speaker 1: does not serve either one of us. When he said
Speaker 1: I hope you know what you're doing, what did he
Speaker 1: think you were doing? Well? He wrote? The press reports
Speaker 1: that I joined the board of Barisma, which was a
Speaker 1: Ukrainian natural gas company, and there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: misinformation about me, not about my dad. Nobody buys that,
Speaker 1: but it buys this idea that I was unqualified to
Speaker 1: be on the board. What were your qualifications to be
Speaker 1: on the board of Barisma? Well, I was vice chairman
Speaker 1: of the board of Amtrak for five years. I was
Speaker 1: the chairman of the board of the UN World Food Program.
Speaker 1: I was a lawyer for A boy Schiller Flexner, one
Speaker 1: of the most prestigious law firms in the world. You
Speaker 1: didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine
Speaker 1: itself though, No, But I think that I had as
Speaker 1: much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board,
Speaker 1: if not more. In the list you gave me of
Speaker 1: the reasons why you're on that board, you did not
Speaker 1: list the fact that you were the son of the
Speaker 1: of course. Yeah, what role do you think that lay?
Speaker 1: I think that it is impossible for me to be
Speaker 1: on any of the boards that I just mentioned without
Speaker 1: saying that on the sun of the Vice President of
Speaker 1: the United States you were paid fifty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: month for your position. Look, I'm a privacy citizen. One
Speaker 1: thing that I don't have to do is sit here
Speaker 1: and open my kimono as it relates to how much
Speaker 1: money I make or make or deer didn't. But it's
Speaker 1: all been reported. I gotta tell you, this was great, fantastic.
Speaker 1: After all of the whining from libs about Trump and
Speaker 1: the emoluments clause, we have been led to believe through
Speaker 1: story after story in The Washington Post, the New York Times,
Speaker 1: I nobody even knew what the heck the emoluments clause
Speaker 1: was until they thought maybe they could get Trump on it.
Speaker 1: Right that if if, forarders are buying cheeseburgers and beer
Speaker 1: at Trump Hotel in Dcy, that's constitutionally prohibited because they're
Speaker 1: basically buying off the President United States. And I would
Speaker 1: just say to all the Washington Post journos who were
Speaker 1: running with this absurd theory, Oh, it's constitutionally not allowed
Speaker 1: to get payments for foreign government. Yeah, they're allowed to
Speaker 1: give you a big bag of money. They're allowed to
Speaker 1: be customers at a business that has expenses and payroll
Speaker 1: and that has countless other customers too. What leverage could
Speaker 1: you possibly have there? Walk into the White House sometime,
Speaker 1: try this one and say I have no foreign policy experience,
Speaker 1: but I did buy a cheeseburger a Trump Hotel last night,
Speaker 1: and so I would like you to end this trade
Speaker 1: war with China. See how that goes with you, See
Speaker 1: how that does. But this is what they were saying.
Speaker 1: I'm not making it up. This is what they were
Speaker 1: telling people. It's absurd, it's ridiculous. And yet now when
Speaker 1: you have Hunter Biden doing this interview, this is just
Speaker 1: picture They'll left always talks about privilege. There is no
Speaker 1: privilege like Brady politician child privilege, and this is bipartisan.
Speaker 1: It's true on all sides and both sides. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Braddy Politician. Child is a level of privilege. You get
Speaker 1: to go to any college you want, if you're young
Speaker 1: enough for that. You know, you get to be famous
Speaker 1: and people will pay you to speak. Why why would
Speaker 1: anyone pay Chelsea Clinton to speak anywhere? Who cares? What
Speaker 1: soon to be a congressional candidate. I can assure you,
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton, and then after that senator and then after
Speaker 1: that presidential Kenny, They're going to revive the whole Clinton
Speaker 1: dynasty around her. Who cares what she has to say
Speaker 1: about anything? How has she proven that her thoughts are worthwhile?
Speaker 1: Who cares what any politicians children have to say about anything? Well,
Speaker 1: if they're particularly compelling, if they're legitimately interesting, good on
Speaker 1: their feet, good on certain topics. I'm persuaded. But that's
Speaker 1: a case by case basis. Hunter Biden, however, is sitting
Speaker 1: there and he's basically looking the American people the eye,
Speaker 1: and he's like, yeah, you know, I mean like I was,
Speaker 1: I was just qualified as anybody else to be on
Speaker 1: the board of that company. Yeah, totally. Asking if he's qualified,
Speaker 1: he said he was on the board of Amtrack. Oh
Speaker 1: you mean Amtrack, the company that Joe Biden is linked
Speaker 1: to as a politician as part of his brand, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden takes the amtrack from Delaware to DC. You know,
Speaker 1: Bupadah's blue collar Joe. That's the whole story. Oh oh,
Speaker 1: you mean that Amtrack thought it might be a good idea.
Speaker 1: I mean a company that is dependent upon the federal
Speaker 1: government for its large s. Yeah, they're gonna put the
Speaker 1: single US senator who probably rides that more than anyone else,
Speaker 1: rides that train more than nails, put his son on
Speaker 1: the board because because Hunter Biden so smart, I come on, man,
Speaker 1: and his qualifications for this clearly nepotistic post. Are the
Speaker 1: other posts of nepotism granted to him because of who
Speaker 1: his dad is. This is what he's telling in the interview.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, un Food Program. He's on the board
Speaker 1: of the un Food Program. I'm sure that was really
Speaker 1: strenuous work. And he was hired by a big DC
Speaker 1: law firm. Well that had nothing to do with his
Speaker 1: last name. My friends, this is the this is the
Speaker 1: embarrassment that the Democrats can They can pretend like it's
Speaker 1: not embarrassing, but when you look at the complaints, I mean,
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy is what's just so difficult to stomach here.
Speaker 1: You look at the way that they have talked about
Speaker 1: wind about all things related to Trump, everything that Trump
Speaker 1: and his family have ever done in office out of office.
Speaker 1: You know, they believe that the trademarks that his children
Speaker 1: are getting approved around the world, that's elicit, that's wrong.
Speaker 1: You know, the emoluments calls, Trump hotels, the businesses. They're
Speaker 1: always worried about whether somebody in the United States government
Speaker 1: is paying to stay in a Trump hotel. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just they're completely fixated on this stuff. Never come
Speaker 1: up with anything but oh, under the Obama administration, the
Speaker 1: vice president's son was getting paid off by a foreign government,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to believe that that didn't at least
Speaker 1: create the appearance you could say, well, there was never
Speaker 1: a there was never an explicit agreement between Biden and
Speaker 1: between hundred Biden and his dad that you know, borismo
Speaker 1: wouldn't get investigated or yeah, okay, but that's not that's
Speaker 1: not how bribes necessarily work either, Folks. If a police
Speaker 1: officer is, you know, pulls me over and I don't
Speaker 1: know why he's pulled me over an hour to just
Speaker 1: say well hello, officer, and I slid a crisp. I
Speaker 1: was gonna say twenty, but then I'd really be in trouble,
Speaker 1: you know, a crisp one hundred dollar bill across the
Speaker 1: top of the door as I have, you know, put
Speaker 1: the window down. The officer's not going to say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's cool. We didn't agree that. I'm just gonna let
Speaker 1: you off because you're giving me money. So I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna take the money and then make my determination. But
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with you giving me money. That's
Speaker 1: that's what's that's not going to happen. Paying off the
Speaker 1: vice president's son isn't about an explicit agreement. It's about
Speaker 1: the vice president's son is getting a lot of money.
Speaker 1: Does does that mean that maybe you're less likely to
Speaker 1: be okay? As Joe Biden point man on Ukraine policy,
Speaker 1: with an investigation of that company that results in people
Speaker 1: going to prison or bad things happening? Are there concerns
Speaker 1: then about dirtying things up, muddying up the waters such
Speaker 1: that the Obama administration and anybody who worked for it,
Speaker 1: Any any diplomat, any any politician who was involved in
Speaker 1: Obama's foreign policy. To making that administration's decision making in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: they would have to know the Vice president's son is
Speaker 1: on the board of that company. There's no way they
Speaker 1: didn't know that, and this would have been talked about
Speaker 1: in those circles working on Ukraine policy. That doesn't affect
Speaker 1: decision making, That doesn't matter to what they're trying to
Speaker 1: accomplish here. I've got to tell you, it seems to
Speaker 1: me that it would matter a whole heck them a lot,
Speaker 1: depending on the circumstances, even absent an explicit agreement that
Speaker 1: there would do. And I think about how stupid that
Speaker 1: would be, would do We really have to pretend that
Speaker 1: anyone thinks Hunter Biden might have sent an email to
Speaker 1: his dad like, hey, I know that you know, I
Speaker 1: know that we shouldn't be talking about this, but you
Speaker 1: got a big check or I got a big check
Speaker 1: rather from his company, so you know, let's like back
Speaker 1: off them. Of course, not even Hunter Biden is that reckless,
Speaker 1: So you're never going to find that. But what we
Speaker 1: have here is the admission that this was gross and
Speaker 1: that's why you know he stepped down from the board.
Speaker 1: It's a five year term. Wow, what a gig. By
Speaker 1: the way, can somebody put me on the board of
Speaker 1: a Ukrainian natural gas company at fifty k a month?
Speaker 1: Sign me up ethics or no ethics man. Fifty k
Speaker 1: a month for five years. That's really to do nothing,
Speaker 1: to be on the board, to be a figurehead. This
Speaker 1: is the best no show job I've ever heard of,
Speaker 1: well one of them, and now he's stepping down for
Speaker 1: But he didn't do anything wrong, you see, it's just
Speaker 1: the it's created. It's good. I love this, he said.
Speaker 1: This is the interview too. It has created a distraction. Oh,
Speaker 1: a distract. That's a very nice way of saying. It's
Speaker 1: created a massive cluster of a problem for Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: for his dad, and so they know he's got to
Speaker 1: back away from this. The gravy train has come to
Speaker 1: a stop, Hunter Biden. But you just you gotta love
Speaker 1: the hootspa here, the willingness to look people in the
Speaker 1: eye and say, yeah, I was qualified for that board.
Speaker 1: I don't know anything about Ukraine or natural gas, but
Speaker 1: put me on the board of that company. Why should
Speaker 1: I be on the board of that company because you
Speaker 1: get on my dad's this famous politician. I'm on the
Speaker 1: board of a lot of companies because of who my
Speaker 1: dad is. So, you know, we just wanted to we
Speaker 1: wanted to add this one into the mix. HM strikes
Speaker 1: me as a very shaky justification that much is for sure.
Speaker 1: Will this change anything going into the debates? It no,
Speaker 1: of course not. You know that they're going to pretend
Speaker 1: that Biden has answered all these questions and oh wait no,
Speaker 1: but he was asked specific We got one more here,
Speaker 1: he was asked about his relationship with his dad. And
Speaker 1: here's also this Hunter Biden interview moment play fourteen. So
Speaker 1: you think it's perfectly fine. And the Trump children have
Speaker 1: been criticized for doing similar sorts of that's that's I
Speaker 1: don't look unlike them. I don't spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time thinking about them. I really don't. It's all noise,
Speaker 1: and what they do is they create just an enormous
Speaker 1: to them, not a noise. I have to then answer
Speaker 1: questions about accusations made by probably the most unethical group
Speaker 1: of people that we've ever seen in this republic. You said,
Speaker 1: no one votes or will vote for or against my
Speaker 1: dad because of me, and my dad knows that. Do
Speaker 1: you still believe that they know who my dad is?
Speaker 1: My dad doesn't have to defend me. My dad only
Speaker 1: has to love me, and my dad loves me n equivalent. Look,
Speaker 1: I know that after being able to get up after
Speaker 1: bow died, say whatever the hell they want to say
Speaker 1: about me. I mean, who cares. Look, I'm like, I really,
Speaker 1: like I've said, I've been through some stuff in my life.
Speaker 1: I've been through some real, real stuff. This isn't real stuff.
Speaker 1: It isn't it truly? Isn't that part of it? That
Speaker 1: Burnam and Billy Um, you know, say anything, do anything
Speaker 1: you want, you know. I mean, like, you know, Donald
Speaker 1: Prince Humperdink Trump Junior is not somebody that I really
Speaker 1: care about. I don't even know what that last thing
Speaker 1: was whatever, But he's clearly trying to tell everybody how
Speaker 1: this doesn't matter. He's doing a national TV interview on
Speaker 1: the subject the Night of the Democrat Debates because it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter, right, because it doesn't matter at all. I
Speaker 1: would just have I would just have. You also keep
Speaker 1: in mind here that while he can invoke the ad,
Speaker 1: the Biden family has had tragedies many family have had tragedies, however,
Speaker 1: so I don't think that that's a shield for elicits
Speaker 1: or unethical behavior. It wouldn't be for other it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be for other people. But keep in mind when he's
Speaker 1: saying that, oh, you know, this doesn't really matter and
Speaker 1: this is all all the nothing burger, which I agree
Speaker 1: with those who say that a nothing burger as a
Speaker 1: phrase is something we should probably phase out of the
Speaker 1: English language. Who came up with this? What is it?
Speaker 1: There's no such thing as a nothing burger. But remember
Speaker 1: that his dad's administra, well, his dad as vice president
Speaker 1: of administration, oversaw the spying on American citizens, right that
Speaker 1: was on on Obama and the vice president's watch spying
Speaker 1: on American citizens using FIS, People like Carter Page, people
Speaker 1: like George Papadopoulos. What did they do to deserve all that?
Speaker 1: What did General Flynn do to deserve to have his
Speaker 1: career destroyed, ruined, threatened with being sent to prison, threatened
Speaker 1: with bankruptcy? Did he deserve that this all? Oh, we're
Speaker 1: above this, this is nothing really because the vice president
Speaker 1: was part of the Donald Trump is a trader. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump colluded with the Russians, lying chorus for a long time.
Speaker 1: The Vice president, his dad fights very dirty. When he
Speaker 1: thinks it's in his interests, we'll really do harm to
Speaker 1: people in their reputations the moment that he thinks it
Speaker 1: is the way that he needs to go. And so
Speaker 1: now we're going to pretend we're above that, Hunter Biden, don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. We're going to pretend that the
Speaker 1: effort to run a Ukraine Gate version of Russia Gate
Speaker 1: as a soft coup attempt against this president. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: It's just unacceptable and they're not above it. They're not
Speaker 1: above any of us. We won't tell everybody that. Today
Speaker 1: is our first day of the first new channel on
Speaker 1: Pluto TV. You can download the Pluto TV app if
Speaker 1: you want to see what's going on here in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. You want to see producer Mark making funny
Speaker 1: faces at me, all kinds of good stuff going on
Speaker 1: here in NYC as we do the show for you.
Speaker 1: Just download the Pluto TV app on channel two forty eight.
Speaker 1: The first It's all about free speech. It's all about
Speaker 1: sharing ideas without fear of corporate censorship. Right, the Chinese
Speaker 1: aren't telling me what to say. Nobody's telling me what
Speaker 1: to say. Check out the first channel two forty eight
Speaker 1: on Pluto TV. The Pluto TV app is totally free
Speaker 1: download on your smartphone. There's no subscription nothing, so please
Speaker 1: just great content. My friend Jesse Kelly is in the lineup.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be adding more people as we go forward.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have fantastic people all day long on the
Speaker 1: Pluto TV app channel two forty eight. The channel is
Speaker 1: the first, and if you're looking for great conservative commentary,
Speaker 1: this is the spot to do it. Also, by the way,
Speaker 1: the podcast The Buck Saxon shows up every day at
Speaker 1: three eastern, so if you want the audio, you know
Speaker 1: where to get it wherever you get podcasts, iTunes, i
Speaker 1: heeart app every day three eastern. You are now entering
Speaker 1: the Freedom on Operation Center. All sensitive programs Musky Caps
Speaker 1: strictly need to know. Team Buck is cleared and ready
Speaker 1: for the Buck Brief. This video right here appearing to
Speaker 1: show Turkey's military bombing kurd civilians in a Syrian border town.
Speaker 1: The Kurds, who fought alongside the US against isis now
Speaker 1: horrific reports of atrocities committed by Turkish fact fighters on
Speaker 1: those very allies turns out that ABC News, which is
Speaker 1: one of the biggest news operations in the country, aired
Speaker 1: footage of what they claimed was a frontline battle explosion
Speaker 1: between Syrian Kurds and the invading Turkish military. Unfortunately, it
Speaker 1: was really from a nighttime machine gun demonstration at the
Speaker 1: Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: we all make geographic errors, but as those of you're
Speaker 1: listening to this show no doubt are already aware, Knob
Speaker 1: Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky is quite a
Speaker 1: ways away from the front lines of the Turkish Syrian
Speaker 1: fighting in Northern Syria or Kurdish fighting in Northern Syria.
Speaker 1: That's that's an issue, that's a problem. How could this happen?
Speaker 1: You would say, well, there there of course that as
Speaker 1: there's no dispute that this was a mess up. But
Speaker 1: then the issue becomes how could they make such a
Speaker 1: bizarre mistake? And this is going to tie in a
Speaker 1: second to the way the media is covering everything going
Speaker 1: on in Syriah right now. It's because anything that looks
Speaker 1: like it's mayhem and disaster and terrible right now is
Speaker 1: going to be put on the air, is going to
Speaker 1: be shared with the American public because it is viewed
Speaker 1: at as damaging for Trump. Any bodies, any any mayhem,
Speaker 1: anything bad that is happening in Syria right now. The
Speaker 1: media has set this up so that is Trump has
Speaker 1: greenlit the invasion of Syria by the Turkish forces, and
Speaker 1: it's a desa everyone knows is a disaster, also terrible.
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you it's it's not the disaster
Speaker 1: they're saying it is. And I think in the end
Speaker 1: we'll see that Trump was right in terms of strategy.
Speaker 1: And I know that there's a very few conservatives even
Speaker 1: agree with me on this. I think Trump is right,
Speaker 1: and I will tell you why. But but first I
Speaker 1: would just note that here we have a circumstance where
Speaker 1: you have fake news effectively happening. Now they'll say it's
Speaker 1: an accident, fine, but once again, it's a major error
Speaker 1: of fact that happens to occur in a way that
Speaker 1: if it were true, it would have been useful for
Speaker 1: the Trump is terrible rat that the media's obsessed with
Speaker 1: right here, A huge explosion and all this terrible stuff
Speaker 1: happening on the in the Kurdish Turkish fighting in northern
Speaker 1: Syria right now, it turns out it didn't really happen.
Speaker 1: I would just note the following for you that the
Speaker 1: Syrian Civil War, which is what is still going on here.
Speaker 1: This is a civil war in a country with multiple
Speaker 1: factions inside the country, really dozens of factions inside the
Speaker 1: country vying for power and control. It is a place
Speaker 1: that involves foreign foreign governments taking sides and what then
Speaker 1: has become a proxy battle on Syrian soil. The Turks,
Speaker 1: the Russians, the Iranians. Then you can't even name all
Speaker 1: the different foreign actors that are the Israelis occasionally show
Speaker 1: up and blow something up. I mean, a lot of
Speaker 1: people are very involved in what is going on here.
Speaker 1: And you also have a Sunni Shia schism that is
Speaker 1: the backdrop of this. Remember the all white minority in
Speaker 1: Syria that the Assad regime is a part of is Shia.
Speaker 1: The majority of the anti Assad fighters are Sunni Arab
Speaker 1: and including many Sunni Arab jihadists and groups that are
Speaker 1: either directly or or indirectly affiliated with the Islamic State
Speaker 1: in al Qaida. So that's what's that's what's happening in
Speaker 1: this country. The Obama administration was leading on the Syria
Speaker 1: question for the international community. Over the course of I
Speaker 1: think it was let's say seven years, six or six
Speaker 1: or seven years, depending on how you calculated. But for
Speaker 1: almost the entirety of Obama's president. He's certainly all of
Speaker 1: the second his second term, Syria has been a disaster.
Speaker 1: You had half a million people and it's just an
Speaker 1: estimate killed in the Syrian Civil War. And you have
Speaker 1: seen more outrage and dismay from the American journo establishment
Speaker 1: in the last seventy two hours then you saw in
Speaker 1: the seven years before it, where Obama was the guy
Speaker 1: calling the shots in Syria. Notice how little coverage you saw,
Speaker 1: I would note of the fall of Rocca, the destruction
Speaker 1: of the Islamic state, things that happened while Trump was
Speaker 1: in office, the eradication of ISIS or the near eradication
Speaker 1: of ISIS. That yeah, there were news reports on it,
Speaker 1: but it was never You never had anyone from the
Speaker 1: national security establishment going on TV and saying, see, Trump
Speaker 1: does know something about this. Trump did have some idea
Speaker 1: of how to make this all stop. But now that
Speaker 1: there's a problem, now that there's an issue, everyone is
Speaker 1: viewing this as clear evidence that the president has no idea,
Speaker 1: what's going on? He's reckless destroying everything, and that's also
Speaker 1: just not true. The Vice President spoke out on this
Speaker 1: in a number of fronts. Vice President Pence, and for example,
Speaker 1: here's what he had to say about the US position visa.
Speaker 1: As I've been telling you, the Turks are the ones
Speaker 1: causing the problem here with our Kurdish allies. The Turks
Speaker 1: the ones you were saying we're going after them, and
Speaker 1: they don't have to do that. They could not do that.
Speaker 1: So why our administration, Why the Trump administration is being
Speaker 1: blamed for this is a question that I don't see
Speaker 1: nearly enough people attempting to answer. But here's what he
Speaker 1: Here's what the Vice President says about the conversation with Turkey.
Speaker 1: Play eleven please. President Erdwan reached out and requested the call,
Speaker 1: and President Trump communicated to him very clearly that the
Speaker 1: United States of America wants Turkey to stop the invasion,
Speaker 1: to implement an immediate cease fire, and to begin to
Speaker 1: negotiate with Kurdish forces Syria to bring an end to
Speaker 1: the violence. They're saying, cut it out, saying that what
Speaker 1: the Turks are doing is opposed by this White House
Speaker 1: opposed by the Trump administration, and Turkey is showing us
Speaker 1: as I have been saying, they're not really an ally.
Speaker 1: They certainly shouldn't be a NATO, but they're not really
Speaker 1: an ally. The Turks do not do what is helpful
Speaker 1: to our interests in cases where yes, they have their
Speaker 1: own interests. I understand that, but they don't need to
Speaker 1: be going after the Kurds like this right now. They
Speaker 1: don't have to be doing it. There's not some imminent
Speaker 1: danger to Turkey from the Kurds, but they are highly
Speaker 1: sensitive to this issue, and you know, this gets back
Speaker 1: into decades and decades of fighting, and so they don't
Speaker 1: want to listen to us. There are sanctions now against Turkey,
Speaker 1: so we are taking economic action, economic action against the
Speaker 1: Turks against what is at least still officially a NATO ally.
Speaker 1: Here's what the Vice President said play twelfth. Please, the
Speaker 1: sanctions that we're announced today will continue and will worsen
Speaker 1: unless and until Turkey embraces an immediate cease fire, stops
Speaker 1: the violence and agrees to negotiate a long term settlement
Speaker 1: of the issues along the border between Turkey and Syria,
Speaker 1: saying you better negotiate its use fire also is going
Speaker 1: to be economic pain for the Turks. So good. This
Speaker 1: is the right move for the administration, and this is
Speaker 1: something that everybody needs to understand is being handled in
Speaker 1: a way that I think he's responsible for this White
Speaker 1: House right now, given the realities in the ground. But
Speaker 1: I want to step back just from the because the
Speaker 1: storyline is that we told that we basically told the
Speaker 1: Turks to invade. That's not true. We didn't tell the
Speaker 1: Turks to invade. We knew the Turks were planning. I'm
Speaker 1: probably doing this. We've been asking them not to. But
Speaker 1: Trump wanted to move US troops out of the way
Speaker 1: because he doesn't want to get in. He doesn't want
Speaker 1: them to at some point they'd be in the middle
Speaker 1: of this. People think that fifty US soldiers we already
Speaker 1: had the Turks fire, they say, accidentally in the vicinity
Speaker 1: of our soldiers. At some point, US troops are not
Speaker 1: enough to deter these factions from going after each other.
Speaker 1: And then and then we start getting involved, we start
Speaker 1: getting deeper than The national security establishment in this country
Speaker 1: does not want to learn the lesson of the last
Speaker 1: twenty years, which is that we do not want to
Speaker 1: be in Muslim majority countries in the Middle East or
Speaker 1: South Asia, that do not want a US military presence there,
Speaker 1: that are in the midst of fighting, that have major
Speaker 1: problems with terrorism. We don't want to be in charge
Speaker 1: of rebuilding their societies. We don't want to be in
Speaker 1: charge of placating their various factions within the population. We're done.
Speaker 1: We don't want to do it anymore. And that's why
Speaker 1: I just note with some with some agitation there's this,
Speaker 1: the way they're reporting on this is to just all
Speaker 1: make it about how much these other factions are gaining
Speaker 1: and how much of a win it is for them.
Speaker 1: Here's the New York Times front page today, Russian troops
Speaker 1: move in as US troops exit Syrian region. The Russian
Speaker 1: Defense Ministry said that its military police were patrolling territory
Speaker 1: between Turkish and Syrian forces, and then right below that,
Speaker 1: Russia savers US missteps in Syria and sees his opportunity
Speaker 1: if we're gonna talk abou Russia savoring missteps in Syria.
Speaker 1: Russia completely outplayed the Obama administration on this issue and
Speaker 1: managed to save the There was a time when Assad
Speaker 1: really looked like he was going to be He was
Speaker 1: gonna be done. He was gonna get Arab springed, if
Speaker 1: you will. It was very a very close fought thing
Speaker 1: for a while, but then the Russians came in, the
Speaker 1: Iranians came in, and they propped him up. They backed
Speaker 1: him up when it was absolutely critical for the Assad
Speaker 1: regime to stay in power. But now we're being told, oh,
Speaker 1: look at all this, all this bounty that has been
Speaker 1: left for the Russians because the Trump administration has moved
Speaker 1: some US troops from this border region. Okay, well, now
Speaker 1: the Russians are going to be dealing with this. This
Speaker 1: is not some area of great strategic interest to the
Speaker 1: United States. This is not Oh no, they've seized these
Speaker 1: oil fields that will be funding their government forever, and
Speaker 1: what will we do. We'd rather have these other, these
Speaker 1: other players in charge of this territory. We don't want
Speaker 1: to be the ones that are policing this. We don't
Speaker 1: don't want to be the ones that are keeping these
Speaker 1: combatants from each other's necks. The Syrian government has moved
Speaker 1: into some of these areas, and I've been saying, nobody
Speaker 1: wants to say this, nobody wants to admit this out loud.
Speaker 1: Assad has won the Syrian Civil War, his regime endured,
Speaker 1: he stayed. That was the plan all along. There is
Speaker 1: no plan, realistic plan for him to be gone. There's
Speaker 1: no international pressure to speak of that's has a prayer
Speaker 1: of having a Sad stepped down or anything else. No,
Speaker 1: so the Assad regime is staying. So given that they're staying,
Speaker 1: would we rather have Assad trying to prevent the resurgence
Speaker 1: of Ices which is anti Assad? Is you know, the
Speaker 1: enemy of my enemy, my friends, you gotta remember it.
Speaker 1: So now we got the Russians, we got the Syrians
Speaker 1: of the Assad regime rather and the Turks all staring
Speaker 1: at each other across the battlefield, and we don't have
Speaker 1: US troops that are right in the middle of this,
Speaker 1: and we're being told that this is a huge loss.
Speaker 1: Now what we want is these other players to take
Speaker 1: control of this area. Let the Russians try to figure
Speaker 1: out how to keep the Turks from fighting with the
Speaker 1: Kurds from fighting with the Syrian national government. Is it
Speaker 1: going to be something that works out well for no,
Speaker 1: of course not. I mean, the Russians are brutal and
Speaker 1: they've been bombing. They bombed civilians indiscriminately in the Aleppo campaign,
Speaker 1: and they've done all kinds of things in Syria that
Speaker 1: are horrific, but it's not our fight ultimately. And people say, oh,
Speaker 1: but there's gonna be a resurgence of ISIS. Yeah, maybe,
Speaker 1: if there's a resurgence of ISIS, we'll have to deal
Speaker 1: with it. But there's never going to be some certification.
Speaker 1: There's no international bodies, there's no group that comes together
Speaker 1: says ah ISIS is finally gone. ISIS is the jehottest
Speaker 1: ideology in a region that has been riddled with extremism
Speaker 1: for as long as anybody can remember. You can argue
Speaker 1: stretching back for centuries, really over a millennium. If we're
Speaker 1: really going to talk about it, there's going to be
Speaker 1: extremism there in some form for the foreseeable. There's still
Speaker 1: Alkaidi to the Arabian Peninsula operating in Yemen. There's still
Speaker 1: Boko Haram in Nigeria. There's still name your you know,
Speaker 1: the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abu Sayf and the Philippines.
Speaker 1: If you have these terrorist groups all over the world,
Speaker 1: do we all say, oh, no, but we need to
Speaker 1: be there because no, I mean, we maybe help the
Speaker 1: host government try to deal with it a little bit.
Speaker 1: But we're not leaving a thousand troops everywhere where there
Speaker 1: happens to be the possibility of or an ongoing jihadest threat.
Speaker 1: We'd rather work through allies, partners, or even enemy states
Speaker 1: that just happened to share our interest in suppressing that
Speaker 1: terrorist entity. We should be honest about this stuff. What
Speaker 1: is the I keep saying, what is the alternative? All
Speaker 1: these people are talking, We're gonna leave. We're gonna leave
Speaker 1: US troops in this part of Syria for the next
Speaker 1: decade to what end. There's not going to be a
Speaker 1: political settlement. There's no there's no negotiating with the Assad
Speaker 1: regime over this. This isn't critical territory for them. It's
Speaker 1: not like they can't function, their government can't function. We're
Speaker 1: going to operate an independent Kurdish Statelet what right right
Speaker 1: on Turkey's border in Syria? We're going to be in
Speaker 1: charge of that. What was the what was the game
Speaker 1: plan here? Oh, negotiate some kind of a political settlement.
Speaker 1: This is what people say when they have nothing else
Speaker 1: to say. There wasn't gonna be any political settlement. So look,
Speaker 1: I know I've got a somewhat alternative or contrarian point
Speaker 1: of view on this, but also spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time in a rock, a lot of time in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: thinking about this, working on the stuff for the CIA.
Speaker 1: I know these arguments. I've seen what happens. No one
Speaker 1: saying that that Trump is the most eloquent in making
Speaker 1: the case, but he understands get out, the mission is done.
Speaker 1: That's the lesson that we should have learned in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and did not, and I'm hoping we've learned it now.
Speaker 1: For Syria. We are in the fight of our lives.
Speaker 1: Everything is on the table in twenty twenty. They think
Speaker 1: so too, because they think if they lose in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty that they're gonna have to the rules are gonna
Speaker 1: be fair, and they're never gonna win again. And they're right.
Speaker 1: If we win in twenty twenty, they're done forever. But
Speaker 1: it's scary for us too because if they win, literally
Speaker 1: it could be the end of the world. Literally, it
Speaker 1: could be the end of the world. That there probably
Speaker 1: could win. That's that's really all I have to tell
Speaker 1: you about the Democrat debate tonight. That's Tom Steyer. The
Speaker 1: fact that that guy made a billion dollars is stunning.
Speaker 1: Just goes to show you. You give me a total
Speaker 1: political nincome, poop and make a billion dollars. So there's that.
Speaker 1: There's plenty of those running around. Uh yeah, the world
Speaker 1: might literally end? How how is it possible? I can't
Speaker 1: exaggerate how much the Libs and the left exaggerate in
Speaker 1: these political discussions because they're saying things that, well, how
Speaker 1: do you go beyond the world will end? If your
Speaker 1: political party wins, the world will end? Is there anything
Speaker 1: more terrifying than that? Or is there a level? You know,
Speaker 1: can you take the dial to eleven? Is there is
Speaker 1: there anything that's that's bigger than the world will end?
Speaker 1: Of course not. This is why they when I say
Speaker 1: these people are shrill hysterics, I mean it. And that's
Speaker 1: really the that's the Democrats slogan for the night's debate,
Speaker 1: vote Republican and the world will end and you hate
Speaker 1: everything and you're terrible. Well gee, that's really that's really
Speaker 1: helpful conversation, isn't it. Lives among the militant secularists are
Speaker 1: many so called progressives. But where is the progress? We
Speaker 1: are told we are living in a post Christian era.
Speaker 1: But what has replaced the Judeo Christian moral system? What
Speaker 1: is it that can fill the spiritual void in the
Speaker 1: hearts of the individual person, and what is the system
Speaker 1: of values that can sustain human social life. The fact
Speaker 1: is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing
Speaker 1: the role of religion. This is not decay, this is
Speaker 1: organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the
Speaker 1: forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and
Speaker 1: academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional that
Speaker 1: he is, Bill Barr, the Attorney General, is an excellent lawyer,
Speaker 1: but he's also as we just heard, and I would
Speaker 1: really recommend that you go if you have the chance,
Speaker 1: and watch or listen to that entire speech that he
Speaker 1: gave earlier in the week. He's also somebody who really
Speaker 1: understands the spiritual crisis of our current moment. You have
Speaker 1: a left wing in this country that as I know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of Democrats who they think of
Speaker 1: themselves as very religious and very spiritual. But the leadership
Speaker 1: of the progressive left, as he says, what progress have
Speaker 1: they made in spiritual areas other than the concerted effort
Speaker 1: to destroy religion. The leadership of the left is atheist,
Speaker 1: at least in their policies, in their vision of the
Speaker 1: role of government in people's lives, and the leadership of
Speaker 1: the progressive left also views Judeo Christian values as not
Speaker 1: just in anachronism, but a threat, and threats must be
Speaker 1: dealt with, Threats must be destroyed. You can't allow that
Speaker 1: to continue on. You can't have an ongoing in the
Speaker 1: background possibility of a resurgence, let's say, in American culture
Speaker 1: of Judeo Christian values. I say, I've always been and
Speaker 1: I'm honest with you about who I think is impressive
Speaker 1: and who is not in this administration, and who I
Speaker 1: believe has competence, and who is a buffoon, because unfortunately
Speaker 1: there have been a lot of those in the Trump
Speaker 1: White House. Bill Barr is a very smart guy, and
Speaker 1: he understands what's really going on here and the point
Speaker 1: about pop culture being marshaled in a way that the
Speaker 1: forces of the left in pop culture are specifically actively
Speaker 1: working toward the destruction of what had been the moral
Speaker 1: fabric of this nation. You see it happening all the
Speaker 1: time all around you. Left never takes a position that
Speaker 1: at least not not in recent memory, that Christian beliefs,
Speaker 1: Christian values, Judeo Christian beliefs and values should be supported,
Speaker 1: should be treated with any not just not deference, any respect.
Speaker 1: And the moment that I think really will stick out
Speaker 1: in a lot of people's minds was when Beto O'Rourke,
Speaker 1: who is clearly a man who is trying to punch
Speaker 1: way above his weight in any presidential contest. He's just
Speaker 1: not like that, like smart, really, but he's just like
Speaker 1: really into himself and was like born to do this,
Speaker 1: and so he thinks he should be president. But when
Speaker 1: Beto said that churches that advocate for, say, traditional marriage,
Speaker 1: should lose their tax exempt status, he was giving voice
Speaker 1: to what the progressive left believes in this country just
Speaker 1: has not been willing. They have not been willing to
Speaker 1: openly take that position because they don't want to suffer
Speaker 1: the political consequences. But that's not the same thing as
Speaker 1: rejecting this. That's not the same thing as saying that
Speaker 1: it should never happen. They're waiting for the moment in
Speaker 1: time when they can do it without fear of reprisal.
Speaker 1: And Betto really just gave away the game a bit
Speaker 1: early on all of this. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: now when we have these these conversations about is what's
Speaker 1: the difference in the left and the right. The American
Speaker 1: left wants to put the government in place of God.
Speaker 1: You can still have your private God or gods, you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: whatever that may be, or you can still worship Mother
Speaker 1: Earth in private. Well that when they actually want as
Speaker 1: a function of public policy, because climate change activism is
Speaker 1: the religion. Why why is climate change activism catching on
Speaker 1: so much? Why do so many people react as though
Speaker 1: they've been personally affronted, They have been as human beings,
Speaker 1: they have been undermined, they've been assaulted by the questioning
Speaker 1: of what is inherently a scientific debate. Why do they
Speaker 1: get so mad, call you a deny her even sometimes
Speaker 1: publicly say that you should be banned from raising doubts
Speaker 1: about climate change. This is all straight out of a
Speaker 1: true believer of a religion, and a religion that has
Speaker 1: not matured to a level where it has its own
Speaker 1: sense of purpose and it's it's sense of its destiny
Speaker 1: such that it doesn't feel the need to be constantly
Speaker 1: forcing people to go along with what it says or else.
Speaker 1: But climate change has been catching on so much because
Speaker 1: there is a spiritual crisis in the country. Why do
Speaker 1: people why should we What do we exist for? Oh? Sure,
Speaker 1: we exist because we want to be woke, We want justice,
Speaker 1: social justice. Of course, we will not rest until transgender
Speaker 1: athletes can compete against women in every sport, at every level,
Speaker 1: all the way down to grade school. These are all
Speaker 1: political purposes, but that doesn't really give people enough meaning.
Speaker 1: No one person is necessary for any of that. We
Speaker 1: can exist because we're part of some great collective, which
Speaker 1: the left certainly believes, and that collective action is a
Speaker 1: motivating force in our day to day lives, and that
Speaker 1: we should just take satisfaction and pride in being a
Speaker 1: part of the great mass that is leveraged by the
Speaker 1: apparatus of the political left in this country to achieve
Speaker 1: certain ends. Yea, you know, part of that, part of
Speaker 1: that entity, however you want to describe it. That's not enough. Ah,
Speaker 1: So you need something that is truly existential, a fight
Speaker 1: between good and evil, you know, between heaven and hell,
Speaker 1: between God and the devil. But you can't actually use
Speaker 1: any of those things because that's religion. So where do
Speaker 1: you come up with now, Oh, well, humanity will go
Speaker 1: extinct unless we harness the collective that I was speaking
Speaker 1: about before and understand that that that our purpose as
Speaker 1: human beings now, according to the climate change activists, is
Speaker 1: not a relationship with God. It's not achieving our spiritual
Speaker 1: destiny of trying to become good people that are worthwhile
Speaker 1: and that do God's will here on earth, and none
Speaker 1: of that stuff. That's all like Old Testament, New Testament,
Speaker 1: you know, you know whatever, it's ah, we exist for
Speaker 1: the purposes of saving the future generations of this planet
Speaker 1: by empowering a super government to change every aspect of
Speaker 1: our life, to stop putting CO two, which is less
Speaker 1: than one percent of the APT sphere in the air.
Speaker 1: That's why we exist. That's shallow stuff. It's also not true,
Speaker 1: but we'll put aside the scientific, the scientific gaping holes
Speaker 1: on all that theory. This is why it's catching on
Speaker 1: so much now. It is a religious belief for people
Speaker 1: who think they're too smart for religion. I think I
Speaker 1: said that recently on Fox and all media matters, and
Speaker 1: all these groups got all upset because it's true. If
Speaker 1: it were silly, if the people that we're so into
Speaker 1: climate change. Weren't offended by the truth of the statement.
Speaker 1: They would ignore it because of who would care? But
Speaker 1: what I say is true, and what the Attorney general
Speaker 1: here says about the forces the militant secularists of the left,
Speaker 1: they view this as the ultimate spiritual battle of our
Speaker 1: age is to eradicate spirituality. The ultimate moral quest for
Speaker 1: the progressive left today is to troy the moral teachings
Speaker 1: that have been the bulwark of much of human civilization
Speaker 1: for millennia. Now destroy all that kick at the load
Speaker 1: bearing walls of Judeo Christian Judeo Christian ideology, morality, ethics,
Speaker 1: kick at the load load bearing walls of Western civilization,
Speaker 1: and see what happens. This is what the progressive left
Speaker 1: is doing in this country, or this is how they're fighting,
Speaker 1: this is what they're striving for all the time. We
Speaker 1: can sit back and allow it to happen and wonder
Speaker 1: why there'll be not just lost generations, but perhaps lost centuries,
Speaker 1: perhaps a new dark ages of militant secularism descending upon
Speaker 1: this country and many others with it. Or we can say,
Speaker 1: perhaps there is wisdom, there's wisdom in Judeo Christian teaching
Speaker 1: worth fighting for as a matter of public policy, not
Speaker 1: just as personal spiritual belief. I think the Attorney General
Speaker 1: is really onto something. I think he knows exactly what
Speaker 1: he's talking about here. I wish he would run for something.
Speaker 1: You know, what I'm concerned about is an impeachment inquiry
Speaker 1: that's moving forward, that's denying the president and his administration
Speaker 1: due process. If we want to exercise oversight, which is
Speaker 1: our responsibility in Congress, you don't have to label it
Speaker 1: an impeachment inquiry. If you do, I certainly hope that
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer will put a vote on
Speaker 1: the floor of the House and just like the three
Speaker 1: other impeachments in our nation's history, to ensure that the
Speaker 1: American people know where each and every member of Congress
Speaker 1: stands in moving this inquiry forward. Otherwise we're just having
Speaker 1: committee hearings and people coming in and directing our own oversight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're manipulating this whole process in ways that couldn't be
Speaker 1: any more obvious. They're weaponizing this whole impeachment inquiry mess
Speaker 1: against the President of the United States in ways that
Speaker 1: are dishonor us, that are unfair. No transparency, all this
Speaker 1: secret stuff going on, and but you know, think about
Speaker 1: what the real play is here, Adam Schiff and his
Speaker 1: shifty Democrat colleagues. I should be more clever than that,
Speaker 1: but it was close enough. They tell us that they
Speaker 1: have to have secrecy, they have to protect these witnesses. Oh,
Speaker 1: we could never find out who the whistleblower is. Oh good,
Speaker 1: heavens not until they sign their six figure book deal
Speaker 1: and get on the speaking circuit. That then we can
Speaker 1: know who the whistleblower is. Oh maybe, and perhaps after
Speaker 1: the next election then you'll definitely, I think, find out
Speaker 1: who they know who the whistleblower is. This person's not
Speaker 1: going to stay secret forever, and by their own choice,
Speaker 1: I would say that they want secrecy until they don't.
Speaker 1: They want the protections of They want the protections of
Speaker 1: the process, but not the protections for others in the
Speaker 1: process that come from transparency and accountability. So what we
Speaker 1: have here, my friends, is the Democrats showing us who
Speaker 1: they really are on this process and what they're really
Speaker 1: planning to do. They don't want people to know what's
Speaker 1: going on behind closed doors, but then they'll have a
Speaker 1: very clear series of leaks. Most recently leaks involving the
Speaker 1: testimony of the former US ambassador to Ukraine, a series
Speaker 1: of leaks, So information can certainly get out from behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, but we can't have open access to any
Speaker 1: of it, so we can't really know what we said.
Speaker 1: We can't know who was asking what and what the
Speaker 1: games are the Democrats are playing here, which is why
Speaker 1: I have to say a representative Matt Gates, when he
Speaker 1: calls this a clown show, is most certainly onto something.
Speaker 1: Play clip nine, please, So this morning we see further
Speaker 1: evidence that Adam Shift's clown show of an impeachment proceeding continues.
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff lied when he said that he and his
Speaker 1: team and not had contact with the whistleblower. He lied
Speaker 1: when he read a false transcript into the record as
Speaker 1: Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Indeed, and doesn't get
Speaker 1: much better after that, impeaching the president for this Ukraine
Speaker 1: Ukraine phone call. Some people have started to catch onto
Speaker 1: this because I know that you know you deal with
Speaker 1: this initial as a conservative, as somebody on the right,
Speaker 1: you try to assess things as they are, not as
Speaker 1: you wish that they would be. That's the emotionalism of
Speaker 1: the left. But when something like this comes up, you say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on, maybe you know did Trump? Did Trump really
Speaker 1: make a mistake here? Did you do something bad? A
Speaker 1: lot of people on the right that I know, I
Speaker 1: think fell victim too. Well, if so many people are
Speaker 1: so outrage about this, there must be something wrong. More
Speaker 1: are starting to come around to my opinion, which is
Speaker 1: people do things for a personal benefit in politics all
Speaker 1: the time, and that's why we have to have very
Speaker 1: clear lines separating out what is corrupt from what it's
Speaker 1: just politics, because otherwise things can get very messy very quickly.
Speaker 1: You know, you can accept a million dollars in cash
Speaker 1: for signing a bill, but there are a lot of
Speaker 1: ways if people can funnel cash to you for doing
Speaker 1: what you want or what they want you to do
Speaker 1: as a politician, that are totally illegal. And so just
Speaker 1: because the president would benefit politically if there was an
Speaker 1: investigation of Joe Biden and his son going on in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: it does not mean that that is illicit or illegal. Sorry,
Speaker 1: there's a there's a legitimate basis and this is why
Speaker 1: all along haven't I haven't moved from this position. There's
Speaker 1: a legitimate basis for inquiry into the dealings that the
Speaker 1: Biden's had in Ukraine or the Obama administration, and if
Speaker 1: that happens to upset Democrats, that's just too bad. We
Speaker 1: see how, we see how the Democrats are investigating everybody
Speaker 1: and anybody whenever they want and not apologizing at all.
Speaker 1: So get ready tonight for I think I think a
Speaker 1: lot of I think a lot of Democrats actually are
Speaker 1: going to be on the same sheet of music here
Speaker 1: in this debate. They're going to say, and some of
Speaker 1: you will be watching the debate probably as I'm as
Speaker 1: you're hearing this, but they're gonna defend Joe Biden on
Speaker 1: the Ukraine thing because that's that's a liability for the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. That's a bigger thing. Corruption isn't just about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Corruption is about the Democratic Party and the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, which is still held up as without scandal.
Speaker 1: Forget about Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS
Speaker 1: targeting remember the Remember when the IRS was targeting the
Speaker 1: opponents of Barack Obama's administration. The thing that completely happened
Speaker 1: on the record, we know it, Andy, I'm going to
Speaker 1: prison for that. Anything really bad happened to anybody as
Speaker 1: a result of that. Nah in election year, by the way,
Speaker 1: in an election year, you have the irs going after
Speaker 1: Obama's political opponents. This is just this is what happened.
Speaker 1: But we're supposed to be outraged. We're supposed to be outrage.
Speaker 1: Oh and they said it was it was just decisions
Speaker 1: made at the field level. You know, its decisions made
Speaker 1: by the field offices. It wasn't anything from up top. Sure,
Speaker 1: but Joe Biden asking for some kind of investigation of
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Donald Trump asked him some kind of investigation
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden. That's considered to be the
Speaker 1: worst thing that anybody's a worse than water gate, which
Speaker 1: is a phrase that is so abused. It really now
Speaker 1: that has no meeting. It would have to quickly be
Speaker 1: worse than worse than Watergate or else nobody will pay
Speaker 1: any attention to it. Here's a Senator Amy Klobischer, by
Speaker 1: the way, she's gonna If you're looking for somebody's gonna
Speaker 1: break out tonight, I think it might be her. Actually,
Speaker 1: media is trying to set her up for a big
Speaker 1: run here, and she's definitely in contention for a vice
Speaker 1: presidential running slot. I think in this they need to
Speaker 1: appeal to Midwest the crazy libs on the coasts. Here's
Speaker 1: a klobaschart talking about why impeachment exists. Play six. We
Speaker 1: literally have a president who is using immigrants as political pawns,
Speaker 1: belittling people who don't agree with him, destroying our democracy
Speaker 1: with dark money and voter suppression, and allowing a foreign
Speaker 1: country to make mincemeat of our democracy. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if you want to know why we have impeachment provisions
Speaker 1: in the Constitution, look back at what James Madison said
Speaker 1: at the Constitutional Convention. He said that he feared that
Speaker 1: a president would betray the trust of Americans for a
Speaker 1: foreign power. That was the reason he gave, and that
Speaker 1: is why those proceedings have begun in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: Destroying our democracy with dark money. She says, how like,
Speaker 1: what all these charges, all these these phrases that are
Speaker 1: trotted out, They're sounds so profound. It's just all sound
Speaker 1: and fury signifying nothing, my friends, But you already knew that,
Speaker 1: which is what the Democrat debates tonight will be. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump in twenty sixteen said he was going to make
Speaker 1: America great again. And what was Hillary Clinton's response? America
Speaker 1: is already great. Remember that, and that did not work.
Speaker 1: That was not the right answer. We have to acknowledge
Speaker 1: the depth and the severity of the problems that are
Speaker 1: racking our communities. But then we need real solutions that
Speaker 1: will actually improve our own lives. Donald Trump got some
Speaker 1: of the problems right, but his solutions were the opposite
Speaker 1: of what we need. I'd still tell you I think
Speaker 1: Yang and I know he probably hated what he just said.
Speaker 1: That's fine, because I think the President has shown us
Speaker 1: that he does understand some of the solutions, because look
Speaker 1: what's been going on in the country, Look what's been
Speaker 1: going on with the economy. But Yang and Tulsi Gabbard
Speaker 1: are people who the Democrats that they cannot accept them.
Speaker 1: You know why, because there are reminders that you don't
Speaker 1: have to be a sanctimonious, shrill, pandering lunatic to be
Speaker 1: a Democrat, or maybe that you shouldn't have to be
Speaker 1: those things to be a democrat. And the reason that
Speaker 1: Tulsi and Yang are so upsetting to the democratic establishment
Speaker 1: is that they're a reminder of what could be. Tulsie
Speaker 1: and Yang are both individuals that I disagree with on
Speaker 1: a whole range of issues, but they seem like decent
Speaker 1: people who are trying their best and who are willing
Speaker 1: to listen to the other side, which separates them from
Speaker 1: the rest of the Democrat crew. Tom's I cannot believe
Speaker 1: Tom Styer is going to be on that stage. Just
Speaker 1: a climate change radical, that's what he is. I mean,
Speaker 1: he is to climate change what you know what al
Speaker 1: Qaeda is to jehotism. I mean he is a client.
Speaker 1: He is a hardcore believer, and yet he's gonna be
Speaker 1: I think guy's worth a billion dollars. I don't even
Speaker 1: want to say. You know, he's got plenty of money
Speaker 1: to buy books and actually read them, but he'd rather
Speaker 1: just talk about how we're going to save the world
Speaker 1: from CO two. Do you have a Corey Booker who
Speaker 1: is at this point, I think he's really playing for
Speaker 1: a VP slot. The media loves him, there's all this
Speaker 1: there's always this very fawning support from the media about
Speaker 1: about him, but it just never really translates. Uh. Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris totally underperforming in this election cycle. Yang is Beetiger
Speaker 1: in California, her home state. Bernie just had a heart attack, folks,
Speaker 1: so well, you know he's not up for this. He's
Speaker 1: too old, he's not up for this. I'm sorry. I know,
Speaker 1: we're you know, we're supposed to think Bernie's this cuddly
Speaker 1: fellow and it's all gonna be fine, and he's a
Speaker 1: cuddly comi and it's gonna think the money from the
Speaker 1: rich people, because it's the pool people. And when the
Speaker 1: rich people have enough money, the pool people could know
Speaker 1: that they can enough money to who and nine tax
Speaker 1: worth that's not that high the billionaires. You know, the
Speaker 1: whole thing, right, we know, his whole his whole stick,
Speaker 1: the whole spiel. It's just it's not gonna work. And
Speaker 1: then you have Biden, Biden running around trying to convince
Speaker 1: people that he's not part of really a world class
Speaker 1: grifters scheme with his son. Not quite at Clintonian levels,
Speaker 1: but it's still it's still certainly high. And you know
Speaker 1: the problem with Biden is people ask the question why,
Speaker 1: and there's never a good answer why Joe Biden, because
Speaker 1: he's not Donald Trump. That's not enough, not even for
Speaker 1: crazy Democrats, really, well for some of them, but not
Speaker 1: all of them. Elizabeth Warren, Wow, you know she was
Speaker 1: a she was a school teacher in the Midwest, and
Speaker 1: then she became a professor of law Harvard University. And
Speaker 1: you know what needs to happen in this country. We
Speaker 1: need we need the big money and politics to just
Speaker 1: go away. You think there's al this is. It's like
Speaker 1: America is being hectored and lectured by a really annoying
Speaker 1: kindergarten teacher all the time or a librarian who's just
Speaker 1: no talking in the library and makes it a really
Speaker 1: bad environment for studying. That we got Yang, who Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't make fun of Yanks. Yang's cool. I think
Speaker 1: Yang's all right. I don't I don't really have and
Speaker 1: I don't like his ideas on policy for the most part,
Speaker 1: I think that the universal basic income is a terrible
Speaker 1: idea that would just be uh. It would just result
Speaker 1: in fifty one percent of the country voting themselves more
Speaker 1: universal basic income all the time, which is not going
Speaker 1: to be good, not gonna be good for anybody. Then
Speaker 1: you know what to think about Beato. Who is the worst?
Speaker 1: The worst of all of the counternates right now is
Speaker 1: Patu Rourke. And then you had Kloba Shar. I have
Speaker 1: to work on my Klobishar. She kind of sounds like
Speaker 1: this she's from a Midwest state and the Democrats need
Speaker 1: her support. And then you ohen Castro is still in
Speaker 1: the mix. I didn't realize that. Castro perhaps most famous
Speaker 1: for his suggestion that taxpayers fund the transgender Sir, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: fund the abortions of transgender illegal aliens. Thank you for
Speaker 1: that contribution to public discourse, Julian Castro. Thank you. That's
Speaker 1: your Democrat field tonight, folks. So as you are listening
Speaker 1: to this, you may be a bit ahead of the debater.
Speaker 1: It might be a bit after definitely worth watching the
Speaker 1: buckster do his tweet thang during the during the debates.
Speaker 1: That'll be fun, for sure, if you can check that out.
Speaker 1: And I think that if you're asking, if I'm asking for,
Speaker 1: it's fun to throw predictions out there because if I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: we'll just forget about it. But if I'm right, I'll
Speaker 1: play it back for you in the air. I think
Speaker 1: you're gonna see Klobascher have a good night. And no
Speaker 1: matter what happens, the media is gonna say this standout
Speaker 1: is Lushapith Warren. Oh gosh, am I really gonna be
Speaker 1: the next president of the United States? Yeah? Maybe, folks,
Speaker 1: Maybe Hey, Team buck it's time for roll call maxbook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck sections that will pick off the
Speaker 1: work call tonight. We also have Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot
Speaker 1: com if you want our email address. That is how
Speaker 1: we roll John kicking it off tonight, Hey Buck, got
Speaker 1: a story, might want to look into reporting on fake news.
Speaker 1: It should be breaking everywhe it's barely getting any traction
Speaker 1: with the mainstream media. I'm not surprised. Over the weekend,
Speaker 1: ABC got caught red handed when they claimed they mistakenly
Speaker 1: aired a video at a machine gun range in Kentucky,
Speaker 1: saying it was from the Turkish offensive in Syria. They
Speaker 1: even called it slaughter in Syria. The clip aired multiple
Speaker 1: on multiple ABC shows before ABC pulled the video. The
Speaker 1: machine gun range is called Knob Creek. If you have
Speaker 1: any questions, please let me know. Keep up the good work.
Speaker 1: Shields high, John, Well, John, thank you, my man. As
Speaker 1: you probably know at this point, we did talk about
Speaker 1: that on the show, and I even told you why.
Speaker 1: I think, Yeah, it was a mistake. They didn't mean
Speaker 1: for it to happen, But the climate for such an
Speaker 1: egregious error to happen is enabled by the desire to
Speaker 1: run with any story that is damaging to Trump as
Speaker 1: quickly as possible. No need for fact checking, no need
Speaker 1: for diving into it beyond that. Michael, hold on, let's
Speaker 1: go here, Tim, Tim, Sorry, Michael's didn't come up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Here, Buck, Your Warren is getting pretty good,
Speaker 1: but you need to add the annoying wavering that she
Speaker 1: has in her voice. For Trudeau, just take your current Warren,
Speaker 1: drop it an octave and throw in some Canadian pronunciations.
Speaker 1: Do Trudeau by doing Warren but lower octave and Canadian pronunciations.
Speaker 1: That might be that might be closer than what we
Speaker 1: do right now for Trudeau, which is a fake accent
Speaker 1: for him because he does not sound as cool at all.
Speaker 1: But I like it. Nonetheless, maybe we should say that
Speaker 1: I am justin Trudeau, was brother Jean Pierre Trudeau, the
Speaker 1: true power behind the cicerone in Kinada. Yeah, we have
Speaker 1: to create just a random character. It's like to keep
Speaker 1: doing a stupid French accent. That might be kind of fun.
Speaker 1: Monsieur Trudeau, he's time for you to go. You should
Speaker 1: not be the Prime minister off kinda da because singing
Speaker 1: in an accent. Really, I mean, we could probably do
Speaker 1: like a whole holiday special. It's like you're taking everything
Speaker 1: people complain about and you're putting it into one jingle bells.
Speaker 1: Trudeau smells, Oh, we do this all day. That's what
Speaker 1: we'll be doing holidays when we take off a special.
Speaker 1: Buck sings to holiday hits. Calnder via a Leisha Birthward
Speaker 1: have a holly jolly Chrishmash. I could do it, we could.
Speaker 1: We could make the Bernie. Oh we got Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: sleigh bells ringing in the You know Bernie Sanders would
Speaker 1: sing dradeal dradeal dradel produce Sir Mark, well he would.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, I forgot huge fair point. All right, Kristen
Speaker 1: is next here. Um, I heard you say today that
Speaker 1: the day for Pluto, but you didn't give the name
Speaker 1: of the channel. Two forty eight is the channel. Two
Speaker 1: forty eight is a channel on Pluto TV. Um, there
Speaker 1: we go. Please do check it out, folks. It's fun,
Speaker 1: by the way, it's not you know, you should watch
Speaker 1: the first, First, and foremost, which is our new channel
Speaker 1: on Pluto. But you know there's there's like lots of
Speaker 1: stuff on Pluto as so it's a great app to
Speaker 1: have and your number one destination on the Pluto TV
Speaker 1: app should be the first me my Man, Jesse Kelly.
Speaker 1: Other fantastic people are soon going to join the First
Speaker 1: Revolution on on Pluto TV, but we cannot name them
Speaker 1: quite yet, but they will be fantastic. We have we
Speaker 1: have all the we're getting. We are actually bring out
Speaker 1: all the best people, all the best people. Don't worry
Speaker 1: about what Trump says about the best people. We're bringing
Speaker 1: on the best people. Mark Right's bark. Happy Columbus Day.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, there's a push to be rid of Columbus.
Speaker 1: Be careful what one wishes for. Does that mean no
Speaker 1: more Columbus Day parades or Columbus Day sales? Can't really
Speaker 1: change another name because without Columbus it would just be
Speaker 1: another day. Yeah. Well, they're trying to say that it
Speaker 1: should be Indigenous People's Days. So I don't think that's
Speaker 1: going to catch on because it's the day that right,
Speaker 1: it's that it was picked for Columbus. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that no one anyone's gonna be on board really
Speaker 1: for switching that over, or at least not necessarily. And
Speaker 1: there were people that were throwing paint red paint on
Speaker 1: Columbus statutes, so forget where that happened. It's so stupid.
Speaker 1: You know, we should all just understand that every single culture,
Speaker 1: and every religious group and every ethnicity, judged by the
Speaker 1: standards of today, in the fifteenth century, would have been xenophobic, racist, bigoted,
Speaker 1: and evil, okay everybody everywhere. There was no like tolerant
Speaker 1: by the standards of today. There was no tolerant culture.
Speaker 1: There was no you know, multiculturalism and diversity, these things.
Speaker 1: You had absolutist tribalism, religious wars. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: what was going on. So why are we just gonna
Speaker 1: be This is why I brought up what was going
Speaker 1: on in the New World before it became the New World.
Speaker 1: You had Native American tribes warring against each other, taking
Speaker 1: over other tribes, enslaving other tribes, murdering each other. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is human history folks everywhere. So why do we
Speaker 1: pretend that, you know, oh, we can't celebrate this culture
Speaker 1: or this individual because bad things happened. You know, look
Speaker 1: look at this stuff, and Muhammad was a war lord.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that Islam is now completely you know,
Speaker 1: beyond the paliph us to talk about I'm just I'm asking,
Speaker 1: I mean, why is why is that? Okay, Mohammed was
Speaker 1: uh you know, had there were captives of the of
Speaker 1: the earliest Islamic tribe, the Islamic faith who were murdered.
Speaker 1: I mean all kinds. Anyway, you know, we can talk
Speaker 1: about this stuff all day. But I'm warden Roll called
Speaker 1: I'm getting fired up late in the show, Wayne Buck,
Speaker 1: thank you for your incisive analysis of politics. I need
Speaker 1: to ask you, have you heard Dana Lash is Elizabeth Warren?
Speaker 1: It's really it's the best. I mean, I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to hear it because i don't know if it's better
Speaker 1: than mine. I'm just gonna you know, and I love
Speaker 1: I love Dana Lash, But is ear Elizabeth Warren better
Speaker 1: than mine? That is a question for the ages we
Speaker 1: will have to see. Have you heard her? Elizabeth? Ward?
Speaker 1: You look at you're moving over here to tell me
Speaker 1: you have no just doing work. Oh, you're just working
Speaker 1: keeping the show in the air, doing that thing I do.
Speaker 1: Please keep doing that. It's helpful when we have a
Speaker 1: show that is still in the air. But yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe Dana and I can have a Warren off. Wow, Dana,
Speaker 1: I would like to challenge shoot, who a Warren versus Warren.
Speaker 1: I'll have to invite her on the show just for that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we might, we might might have a conversation in Warren
Speaker 1: warren Ese. Warren is, Um, we could do that. Let's see,
Speaker 1: we've Douglas writing, Buck, why isn't the renaming of Columbus
Speaker 1: Day to Indigenous People's Day a prime example of cultural appropriation? Douglas,
Speaker 1: the answer to your question is that it is impossible,
Speaker 1: according to the social justice Left, for Western for people
Speaker 1: to appropriate Western European culture. Appropriation is only one way
Speaker 1: thing that can only happen when people who are in
Speaker 1: a position of power over another people take their stuff.
Speaker 1: That's what they would say. The same way that there
Speaker 1: are many people on the left who now argue that
Speaker 1: race is m is only possible when a group that
Speaker 1: generally or systematically dominates another group engages in negative behaviors
Speaker 1: toward that group. But a group that is, in terms
Speaker 1: of intersectional dynamics, the the oppressed cannot be the oppressor,
Speaker 1: which is also, by the way, nonsense. But nonetheless, this
Speaker 1: is what people say. I'm just telling you what they say,
Speaker 1: just telling you what's going on. Hey, Buck, Tom pe here,
Speaker 1: love your post and your broadcast appearances. Keep up the
Speaker 1: good work. Well, Tom Pete, thank you so much, my man.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, you have the family my warm regards,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate the kind thoughts about what we're doing
Speaker 1: here in the show. Irene, very good assessments of Biden
Speaker 1: and Biden Junior. It drives me crazy that the dim
Speaker 1: Democrats cannot see the hypocrisy. All right, I am with
Speaker 1: you on that one Foe show, Alan, hey Buck. Why
Speaker 1: aren't the famous people who were on the board of
Speaker 1: directors of tharn Nos being talked about since they were
Speaker 1: not qualified to understand what Tharonos was doing. They were
Speaker 1: just as guilty as Biden son of not having the qualifications.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing there are a lot of people on Tharnos
Speaker 1: board that have no qualifications outside their contacts. Well, Alan,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think you can make the argument that
Speaker 1: a secretary of state gives our former secretary of state
Speaker 1: gives a certain degree of gravitas and also useful business
Speaker 1: connections and perhaps even strategic insight. You could argue those things,
Speaker 1: but that's different. That's a different situation than what Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden would be, which is just a guy who's related
Speaker 1: to a guy who who's all those you could arguers
Speaker 1: are all those things, but yeah, company boards. Look, there
Speaker 1: are ways that people pay people off without doing the
Speaker 1: bag of cash under the table and board seats is
Speaker 1: very good way to do it. By the way, there's
Speaker 1: a sketchy Ukrainian company out there that's looking for somebody
Speaker 1: to sit on the board for a fifty k a month,
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. This fantastic option. Fantastic option for the board seat.
Speaker 1: Talk to you tomorrow's team, Shields high