Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Yet another supposed bombshell
Speaker 1: from the New York Times that just hit over the
Speaker 1: weekend that has people asking an insane question, is President
Speaker 1: Trump really a Manchurian candidate for Russia? I can't believe
Speaker 1: we're back here dealing with this delusion, but we are.
Speaker 1: What does it say about where the Muller probe is
Speaker 1: going and what the crazy Democrats led by Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Schumer have up their sleeves next, as well as what's
Speaker 1: coming up on the shutdown? That and more on The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, Remember then, I never
Speaker 1: worked for Russia. And you know that answer better than anybody.
Speaker 1: I never worked for Russia. Not only did I never
Speaker 1: work for Russia. I think it's a disgrace that you
Speaker 1: even asked that question because it's a whole, big fat hoax.
Speaker 1: It's just a hoax. Welcome to the Buck section Show, everybody.
Speaker 1: This is a crazy time in this country. It's in
Speaker 1: a sense, it's it's not new. But here we are
Speaker 1: dealing with the fact that we have libs who are
Speaker 1: so deluded and such a bunch of cry babies about
Speaker 1: what's going on in America that they really think that
Speaker 1: the president of the United States is working on behalf
Speaker 1: of Russia. I can't even conjure up how this, how
Speaker 1: this makes any sense. I know that they always get
Speaker 1: this old man afford and why do people lie in Papadopolis?
Speaker 1: And it's it's like watching the guy from a beautiful mind, right,
Speaker 1: things on the wall, right, remember that with Russell Crowe.
Speaker 1: He's just writing all these things on the wall, and
Speaker 1: he thinks he's some secret agent man and he's got
Speaker 1: these crazy algorithms. Every time I ask a liberal, what
Speaker 1: exactly do you think happened here? What's what's really the
Speaker 1: situation that is at the heart of all of these
Speaker 1: allegations and just this this frenzy that President Trump is
Speaker 1: somehow looking for a foreign power, an agent of a
Speaker 1: foreign power. You know what, what could have pushed people
Speaker 1: to think this? I get some jumbled Oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Papadopolis and Carter Page and the Trump Tower Moscow and
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels' like wait, how did Stormy daniels Er gibberish?
Speaker 1: It's just gibberish. It never adds up to anything. Let's
Speaker 1: let's just start for some some very clear and an
Speaker 1: irrefutable positions on this right. For one, the notion that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump would have in any way gone through an
Speaker 1: intermediary or asked anybody to help him win the election
Speaker 1: against Hillary Clinton, to put himself at that degree of
Speaker 1: risk for such preposterously low gain does not make sense.
Speaker 1: No person would do this. Oh yeah, you're you're going
Speaker 1: to expose yourself to Russian Russian blackmail, to being found
Speaker 1: out by the liberal media that hates you, to possible prosecution,
Speaker 1: imprisonment indefinitely, the destruction of your reputation and character so
Speaker 1: that some of Podesta's emails can get out, so that
Speaker 1: there can be a more effective Russian Facebook ad buying
Speaker 1: campaign spend you know, a few hundred thousand dollars on
Speaker 1: this whole effort, all in all, across the board. That
Speaker 1: just makes no sense. There's no reason. This would be
Speaker 1: like someone saying I think that this guy walked into
Speaker 1: the bank and robbed it, and I say, well, why
Speaker 1: do you think that as well? He's got a dollar
Speaker 1: in his bank account. I think he got it from
Speaker 1: the bank. I said, well, I don't think that robbing
Speaker 1: a bank for a dollar makes sense for anybody. So
Speaker 1: let's just look at motive here. There's no reason for
Speaker 1: President Trump to have, at any stage of this worked
Speaker 1: with colluded with the Russians. It fundamentally makes no sense.
Speaker 1: It's a dumb idea. Now, Okay, they can go beyond that,
Speaker 1: and they can say, oh, but Buck, you don't understand
Speaker 1: Trump is so reckless and he will do anything, and
Speaker 1: they didn't know any better at all this stuff. And
Speaker 1: I say, okay, fine, Now let's assume, just for the
Speaker 1: sake of discussion that that is true. And really we're
Speaker 1: getting back to first principles here in the Russia collusion delusion.
Speaker 1: Let's assume for a moment that that's true, that Trump
Speaker 1: would be willing to engage in this collusion scheme to
Speaker 1: win the election, which is insane, But let's just pretend.
Speaker 1: Then you have to convince me how it is possible
Speaker 1: that with the most intrusive and sophisticated surveillance apparatus on
Speaker 1: the planet, the United States intelligence community and US federal
Speaker 1: law enforcement, with all of its capabilities, which are effectively
Speaker 1: just it's an intelligence it's an intelligence arm of the
Speaker 1: government that has to operate under laws. Although I'll note
Speaker 1: that once the FBI gets into the counter intelligence realm,
Speaker 1: it really does operate a lot like an m I
Speaker 1: five or one of these domestic intelligence agencies that's legal,
Speaker 1: but kind of quasi legal. It starts to operate in
Speaker 1: the gray areas a lot more, which clearly happened here.
Speaker 1: So then you have to give it to me that, oh,
Speaker 1: with all of that surveillance here, we are going on
Speaker 1: two years into this thing, and the worst that they
Speaker 1: can come up with is that Manafort may have given
Speaker 1: some unspecified polling data to a Ukrainian not a Russian
Speaker 1: friend of his when he was running the campaign and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior and Jared Kushner and Manafort met with
Speaker 1: a woman who said she had oppo research on Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton that she wanted to share. Neither of which are
Speaker 1: even vaguely criminal acts, not even a little bit, nothing
Speaker 1: criminal about either one of those things at all, full stop, period.
Speaker 1: That's the most that they can offer up. And I
Speaker 1: would note neither one of which would even raise any
Speaker 1: eyebrows had we not been conditioned by a hysterical left
Speaker 1: wing Democrat media apparatus to act in all things Russia
Speaker 1: require some kind of nuclear ready sponse. I think I
Speaker 1: saw on Twitter today, you know, the Democrats in the
Speaker 1: span of about six years went from haham at Romney,
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union's done, the Cold War is over to
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, you need to invade Moscow tomorrow. These
Speaker 1: people are a joke, but it's unfortunately very unfunny because
Speaker 1: they're having really damage, a really damaging impact, and long
Speaker 1: term ramifications. I think on this country. They are tearing
Speaker 1: apart at some of these institutions that we're supposed to
Speaker 1: be able to believe in, and you have people that
Speaker 1: are getting platforms to say crazy things. Carl Bernstein of
Speaker 1: Woodward and Bernstein fame just goes on CNN to speculate
Speaker 1: wildly about how Trump is essentially a Putin puppet play
Speaker 1: clip four. We don't know the answers, but what we
Speaker 1: do know is that Donald Trump has tried to convince
Speaker 1: us that unless there is some kind of smoking gun,
Speaker 1: were recording of him in the room with Putin saying yes, Vladimer,
Speaker 1: I'll do you bidding. There's been quote no collusion, that's nonsense.
Speaker 1: What this counterintelligence investigation was about unprecedented the FBI. And
Speaker 1: this is not about the deep state. This is about
Speaker 1: the most serious counterintelligence people we have in the US
Speaker 1: government saying, Oh my god. The president's words and actions
Speaker 1: lead us to conclude that somehow he has become a winning,
Speaker 1: unwinning or half winning pawn. Certainly in some regards to
Speaker 1: Vladimer Putin, he is not acted with Russia from the
Speaker 1: United States having a strength advantage with Russia. Rather, he
Speaker 1: has done what appears to be Putin's goals. He has
Speaker 1: helped everything stabilized the UN. I just want to Everything
Speaker 1: that he's saying is laughable, garbage, It's just crap. Notice
Speaker 1: how he switches from there must be collusion too. He's
Speaker 1: doing Putin's bidding. That is a leap that is transforming
Speaker 1: the conversation from being about possible insidious dealings between President
Speaker 1: Trump and the Russians. Two, he's doing stuff that either
Speaker 1: the Democrats don't like or just doing stuff that Russia
Speaker 1: agrees is a good idea. Guess what yet, idiot Democrats.
Speaker 1: Sometimes Russia wants things to be done that are actually good.
Speaker 1: Does that and we agree with him. Does that mean
Speaker 1: we shouldn't do them? For all the people are saying
Speaker 1: we're doing Putin's bidding by leaving Syria, Guess what we
Speaker 1: were doing Putin's bidding by bombing the you know what
Speaker 1: out of the Islamic State. Stop thinking in these stupid
Speaker 1: forced frameworks where everything that Trump dos is Russia. Oh,
Speaker 1: the will have lost it. They have lost it there
Speaker 1: in the midst of a hysteria. New York Times report
Speaker 1: on Friday said that there was an investigation of Trump
Speaker 1: opened right after he fired Komi because there were some
Speaker 1: people in the FBI who thought that he must be
Speaker 1: doing the work of the Russians. Who does that sound
Speaker 1: like you? By the way, I'd be willing to bear
Speaker 1: that Andy McCabe fired for lying, fired for being a
Speaker 1: little partisan hack at the top of the FBI that
Speaker 1: he was pushing this. This is not unprecedented in history
Speaker 1: that we have had an FBI that went rogue and
Speaker 1: that had become a major political player. In fact, if
Speaker 1: you look at most countries around the world, there's always
Speaker 1: a danger of the secret police, which is what our
Speaker 1: FBI really is, becoming too powerful and becoming, in its
Speaker 1: own eyes, a check on the regime. And then eventually,
Speaker 1: and as somebody who used to work at the CIA,
Speaker 1: I know quite a bit about this side of the coin. Eventually,
Speaker 1: those secret police organizations often become the government. They supplant
Speaker 1: the government. But before they do that, they usually think
Speaker 1: of themselves as a necessary check on the executive's prerogatives.
Speaker 1: They think of themselves as guardians of the revolution, or
Speaker 1: guardians of the integrity of the state, or the film
Speaker 1: the blank people's right, the national identity of whatever the
Speaker 1: state may be. And then eventually they think, well, maybe
Speaker 1: we should just run this thing. We do have a
Speaker 1: cabal of deep state operatives in this country. Some of
Speaker 1: them have been rooted out, but I don't think all
Speaker 1: of them have. And what the New York Times broke
Speaker 1: on Friday, leaked to the Times, I would not was really,
Speaker 1: for those of us who are looking at this with
Speaker 1: open eyes, mere confirmation of what we have known for
Speaker 1: a very long time, that there are people in the
Speaker 1: government who decided that Donald Trump's victory in the presidential
Speaker 1: contest of twenty sixteen was unacceptable, untenable, and had to
Speaker 1: in some way, if not be entirely reversed, at least restrained,
Speaker 1: and they used the power of the federal bureaucracy and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the leeway that they have
Speaker 1: to open investigations to do so. No sane person could
Speaker 1: think that the firing of sanctimonious grandstander James Coomey was
Speaker 1: reasoned enough to start an FBI investigation of a sitting
Speaker 1: president of the United States. This is crazy. And then
Speaker 1: that brings me to just another point that I wanted
Speaker 1: to add into it. The collusion fairy tale makes no
Speaker 1: sense that we have no smoking gun evidence of it
Speaker 1: to this day, given what they say about Trump and
Speaker 1: given all the resources against him, means that now this
Speaker 1: is like believing space aliens landed and took over the
Speaker 1: White House. I mean, this is just a fantasy. And
Speaker 1: then there's another level of this. How did the Democrats
Speaker 1: explain all of the lies and malfeasans from senior government
Speaker 1: officials around this issue? You know, I always hear pal
Speaker 1: why did people lie about about their contacts with Russia?
Speaker 1: Why did people lie about what they said to the
Speaker 1: special counsel, you know, Papadopolis and Manafort, And I always
Speaker 1: want to respond, Okay, why did McCabe lie three times?
Speaker 1: About what he was doing in this process. Why did
Speaker 1: Lisa Page have to be exposed for being an anti
Speaker 1: Trump partisan in this way? Why did Peter Struck have
Speaker 1: to be fired? I mean you had Woodward there or Bernstein, sorry,
Speaker 1: the other guy, Bernstein saying the top counterintelligence people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the FBI's best counterintelligence men were on this, and Peter
Speaker 1: Struck is one of them. And if you don't think
Speaker 1: think that that guy has a problem, you're not paying attention.
Speaker 1: Drunk on their own power, because they know the power
Speaker 1: to investigate is the power to destroy, merely by leaking
Speaker 1: word of an investigation or just creating an investigation trail.
Speaker 1: They knew that they were taking a very powerful step
Speaker 1: against administration. We are getting closer to the truth, but
Speaker 1: the left is getting even more desperate. We are now
Speaker 1: in a race against time whereby if they take the
Speaker 1: presidency in twenty twenty, we will never find out what
Speaker 1: really happened here because they're going to delay now in
Speaker 1: the Congress, They're going to delay as much as they can.
Speaker 1: But we're getting close. We're getting closer. I've got much
Speaker 1: more team, stay with me. In the midst of all
Speaker 1: the whining coming from the left, I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: crazy these days. Right, They're chasing people out of restaurants,
Speaker 1: yellow at you in the coffee shop, acting like a
Speaker 1: bunch of maniacs. You have to wonder why in the
Speaker 1: world would anyone act this way. My guess is they're
Speaker 1: just not getting their daily dose and black Rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: I drink Black Rifle every morning. In fact, it's such
Speaker 1: delicious coffee that I'm usually a guy that likes a
Speaker 1: little con lache in my coffee. But guess what, I
Speaker 1: drink it black because it's black Rifle for one. And
Speaker 1: also this is delicious, small batch roast to order coffee.
Speaker 1: All right. I am a sallenge for smooth blund guy,
Speaker 1: but their entire catalog of different beans and blends is amazing.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle is roast to order and is guaranteed fresh
Speaker 1: right to your door. Nothing cures a bad attitude like
Speaker 1: starting your day with the most American coffee ever, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck received
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck for fifteen percent off Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck, I didn't need this fight. This is a
Speaker 1: rough fight with dealing against people who think that if
Speaker 1: they can stop me from building the wall again, we've
Speaker 1: already done a lot of work. But they think that's
Speaker 1: a good thing for twenty twenty because they're not going
Speaker 1: to win. This is the reason why they don't want
Speaker 1: the wall build because they all know it works. They
Speaker 1: all approved it numerous times. I mean, Chuck Schumer had
Speaker 1: his hand up every time this would come up. The
Speaker 1: Senators know this. They're only doing this because of the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election. That's true of what's going on with
Speaker 1: the border. It's also true of the Russia hoax. Let
Speaker 1: me just put out there that this is politics. It
Speaker 1: is all politics, and people who pretend otherwise are being disingenuous.
Speaker 1: This is about Democrats refusing to accept that Hillary loss.
Speaker 1: This is about Democrats refusing to accept that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is president the United States and everything else fits in.
Speaker 1: Then everything else that we're talking about here is really
Speaker 1: just a question of how it plays into that overarching narrative.
Speaker 1: So you have to keep added mind, You have to
Speaker 1: have that in really the forefront of your mind as
Speaker 1: you hear these these allegations. I mean you know. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you've got ABC's Jonathan carl saying the following on the
Speaker 1: George Stephanappolo Lupolis Show on Sunday that the Muller report
Speaker 1: is going to have, guess what, not a whole lot.
Speaker 1: It's essentially going to be when it comes to collusion,
Speaker 1: a nothing burger play too. This is all building up
Speaker 1: to the Muller Report and raising expectations of a bombshell report,
Speaker 1: and they've been expectations that have been building, of course
Speaker 1: for over a year on this. But people who are
Speaker 1: closest to what Muller has been doing of interacted with
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel cautioned me that this report is almost
Speaker 1: certain to be anti climatic. That if you look at
Speaker 1: what the FBI was investigating in that New York Times report,
Speaker 1: look at what they were investigating, Mueller did not go
Speaker 1: anywhere with that investigation. He has been writing his report
Speaker 1: in real time through these indictments, and we have seen
Speaker 1: nothing from Muller on the central question of was there
Speaker 1: any coordination collusion with the Russians in the effort to
Speaker 1: meddle in the elections, or was there even any knowledge
Speaker 1: on the part of the president or anybody in his
Speaker 1: campaign with what the Russians were doing. You see, this
Speaker 1: is what John Carl at ABC is trying to tell
Speaker 1: all the libs, not just in the media, but all
Speaker 1: the libs at home or watching this. Your fantasy is
Speaker 1: not going to This Russia collusion fantasy is not going
Speaker 1: to play out the way you want. Or two guys,
Speaker 1: this is not going to end up with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: on tape talking to Putin about how it's so awesome
Speaker 1: that they hash podest his emails. But you listen to
Speaker 1: a lot of people and they make it sound like
Speaker 1: they think that's actually going to be the way this
Speaker 1: thing plays out. They have completely and utterly lost all
Speaker 1: perspective here, and we need to be prepared for them
Speaker 1: to just get even crazier and uglier as this drags on.
Speaker 1: You now, are have you ever worked for Russia, mister president.
Speaker 1: I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked.
Speaker 1: I think it's the most insulting article I've ever had written.
Speaker 1: And have you read the article. You'd see that they
Speaker 1: found absolutely nothing. But the headline of that article is
Speaker 1: called the failing New York Times. For a reason. They've
Speaker 1: gotten me wrong. For three years. They've actually gotten me
Speaker 1: wrong for many years before that. But you look at
Speaker 1: what's going on. You know, I fired James Coney. I
Speaker 1: call him Lion James Comey because he was a terrible
Speaker 1: liar and he did a terrible job as the FBI director.
Speaker 1: Look at what happened with Hillary Clinton and the emails
Speaker 1: and the Hillary Clinton investigation, one of the biggest screw
Speaker 1: ups that anybody's ever seen as an investigation. And what
Speaker 1: happened after I fired him, Andrew McKay, Peter struck his lover,
Speaker 1: Lisa Page. They did it, and you know they're all gone.
Speaker 1: Most of those people, many many people from the time,
Speaker 1: are you a rush? An agent? President has to answer
Speaker 1: that question? Is this is silly town stuff? I would
Speaker 1: note though, that there are there are a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 1: You have to remember, there are a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: for whom, even though they know intellectually I've spoken about this,
Speaker 1: you won't hear many of them say this. But even
Speaker 1: though they know that this is just this is just insane,
Speaker 1: they justify to themselves because they think that the birth
Speaker 1: certificate controversy with Barack Obama right, the whole birth theory,
Speaker 1: which I was never I was never a subscriber to
Speaker 1: but the the BIRTHERER theory and Trump's role in that
Speaker 1: essentially justifies now any smear against this president, any smear.
Speaker 1: I would note though, that even the birth controversy didn't
Speaker 1: suggest that Barack Obama was a traitor. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it was okay or it was right, but I'm saying
Speaker 1: they really believe that the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: or they're at least saying that the president of the
Speaker 1: United States is guilty of treason. Meanwhile, we just had
Speaker 1: that guy or from maybe se say people he's talked
Speaker 1: to near the Special Council are saying that if you're
Speaker 1: hoping for there to be some big reveal at the
Speaker 1: end of this investigation, you're going to be disappointed. But
Speaker 1: you see, what what I know is that it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what comes out of the Muller probe. If the
Speaker 1: Muller probe does not have the goods that Democrats want,
Speaker 1: then guess what they will just say, Oh, we have
Speaker 1: to we have to continue Mueller's work. You see, he
Speaker 1: was stymied in some way, there was some he wasn't
Speaker 1: given the full resources. It doesn't matter. They'll be an excuse.
Speaker 1: I can't even tell you what the excuses because they'll
Speaker 1: just make it up. It doesn't matter what the excuse is.
Speaker 1: They'll have some explanation about this. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: how we keep we've had. I feel like every month
Speaker 1: for the last year at least, we have to go
Speaker 1: through this cycle where it's, oh, it's some I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do something to end the mull probe. It's Trump gonna
Speaker 1: Eyer Rothenstein. They get all upset about this. You got
Speaker 1: Dick Durbin here talking about the incoming likely Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Bill Barr, and Dick Durbin is expressing his concerns. Play eight.
Speaker 1: I'm worried about it. I mean, clearly he's a good lawyer,
Speaker 1: no question, But when it comes to this delicate political situation,
Speaker 1: the power of the president say whether this investigation is warranted.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr had better give us some ironclad, rock bottom
Speaker 1: assurances in terms of his independence and his willingness to
Speaker 1: step back and let Muller finish his job. Why Bill
Speaker 1: Barr was already the attorney general and no one seemed
Speaker 1: to have any problem with it. Does every person who
Speaker 1: works the Department of Justice have to give a public
Speaker 1: oath of fealty to Robert Muller. Now is that? But
Speaker 1: by the way, with Democrats, the answers, yes, you have
Speaker 1: to swear allegiance to the Almighty Emperor Muller, the great
Speaker 1: lib hope for ending the Trump presidency. You must kneel
Speaker 1: before the Greatness of Muller. It's just these people are
Speaker 1: sick and they really have a problem. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: something just fundamentally wrong with them on this. But I
Speaker 1: suppose they're so very freaked out at the notion of
Speaker 1: Trump winning in twenty twenty. I mean, they just can't
Speaker 1: handle it. You know, Lindsey Graham has already come out
Speaker 1: and said that Bill Barrard is gonna be fine. He's
Speaker 1: not gonna fire anybody played nine. I'm going to ask him,
Speaker 1: do you say any reason to fire mister Muller based
Speaker 1: on what you know now? For cause? Do you trust
Speaker 1: mister Muller to be fair to the president in the country.
Speaker 1: Will you make sure he can finish his job if
Speaker 1: you get the report? Will you be as transparent as possible.
Speaker 1: I've asked him those questions, and I'm very comfortable with
Speaker 1: his answers. I've asked those questions of comfortable with the denser.
Speaker 1: It turns out Barr is actually friends with Muller. So
Speaker 1: this whole idea, this whole theory that there should be
Speaker 1: all this concern and oh my gosh, and what are
Speaker 1: we gonna do? And Muller and bla, it's just it's
Speaker 1: just nonsense. It's but we have to every month we
Speaker 1: have to go through this again. We all have to
Speaker 1: pray before the altar of the Great Muller or else
Speaker 1: we're undermining democracy, undermining this country. I meanwhile, Democrats won't
Speaker 1: spend five billion dollars so that maybe we have some
Speaker 1: hope of having some decent security at our southern border.
Speaker 1: And they're now so dug in on this shutdown that
Speaker 1: everyone thinks that if anyone's gonna cave, it's going to
Speaker 1: be the Republicans. Will we'll see about about that. I
Speaker 1: am going to the border, as you know. I am
Speaker 1: going to the border to see what's happening and to
Speaker 1: talk to frontline border patrol agents. You know. I heard
Speaker 1: today though on Fox that senior Board full officer said
Speaker 1: that to say that it's not a southern rises at
Speaker 1: our border is just disingenuous. And I think it's so
Speaker 1: interesting because this is where you really see the left
Speaker 1: wing propaganda and action. They'll they'll just repeat things that
Speaker 1: that anybody can can see or can tell for themselves
Speaker 1: are false, without even the slightest compunction. They'll they'll just
Speaker 1: say stuff. There you go, Wait a second, there's no
Speaker 1: way that's true. It's not possible that that's the case.
Speaker 1: But they'll just keep saying it. Walls don't work. There's
Speaker 1: an example. Walls don't work. Pretty sure, walls work, pretty sure,
Speaker 1: pretty sure, a little bit, a little bit, pretty sure
Speaker 1: the walls work. But they would prefer to engage in
Speaker 1: this nonsense and to lie and lie and lie because
Speaker 1: it serves their political needs. They don't care about their credibility.
Speaker 1: Whatever credibility they have, they're they're happy to throw it
Speaker 1: on a bonfire as long as it gets them the
Speaker 1: power that they think they need. But I I am
Speaker 1: very much looking forward getting some time, not just obviously
Speaker 1: to see what's going on the border with my own eyes,
Speaker 1: but to talk to border patrol. I'm hoping to get
Speaker 1: into a detention facility and see what the situation is there.
Speaker 1: I'm it's going to cover as much ground as I can.
Speaker 1: I'll be there Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, so I'll be
Speaker 1: out there on the border for three days. We've got
Speaker 1: all kinds of meetings and field field visits set up,
Speaker 1: so I'll come back to you on Friday and I'll
Speaker 1: have a whole lot of information to share with you. Well,
Speaker 1: i'll be back on air before then. I'll certainly be
Speaker 1: on the show on Wednesday, so I don't think that
Speaker 1: i'll and I won't be on Thursday. I will be
Speaker 1: on Wednesday and tomorrow. We're trying to figure it out
Speaker 1: on Friday. So Wednesday and Friday, I'm definitely gonna be
Speaker 1: on air. We'll probably have Raheem in on Thursday, and
Speaker 1: if I I will have a think holl And Hill
Speaker 1: filling in, so we've got If I'm not on air,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have great people on air this week. That
Speaker 1: so be sure that you tune in because we have
Speaker 1: fantastic guest hosts, as you know. But I'm going because
Speaker 1: i want to get you ground truth that I don't
Speaker 1: just want to be some guy who sits in the
Speaker 1: belt inside the beltway here and talks to all my
Speaker 1: little sources and that stuff is useful and that's that's
Speaker 1: obviously good for the political discussions we have. But I'd
Speaker 1: like to go out and see some stuff. I'd like
Speaker 1: to get out there and put eyes on on target,
Speaker 1: so to speak. So that will be very useful. But
Speaker 1: the the the border shutdown situation exactly the kind of
Speaker 1: there's exactly the kind of demagoguery that I had expected
Speaker 1: all along. Here you have Van Jones, of course, blaming
Speaker 1: Trump and everything about Trump for the shutdown over at
Speaker 1: the NAM playclip three. President Trump started twenty nineteen by
Speaker 1: probably dividing the country with more fear mongoring, more falsehoods,
Speaker 1: and now we are in the longest running government shut
Speaker 1: down ever. And you know, the politics are ugly, but
Speaker 1: the human impact is even worse. The tip sheet off
Speaker 1: their website, but they had something up there where they
Speaker 1: were recommending that unpaid service members do stuff like this,
Speaker 1: have garage sale, babysit, walk dogs, house sit, or become
Speaker 1: mystery shoppers during the shutdown. I'm not making this stuff up.
Speaker 1: And as a result of this, everybody, all of us
Speaker 1: are in danger. Now that's not true about us in danger,
Speaker 1: because eighty five percent of the federal government continues to work.
Speaker 1: I would just note that the fifteen percent that's not
Speaker 1: currently doing things or not getting paid, I should say,
Speaker 1: do we really think that every single government employee right
Speaker 1: now that we have on the payroll is entirely necessary
Speaker 1: for our safety in our existence? I also think it's
Speaker 1: it is exposing a mentality here that people who work
Speaker 1: for the federal government have it. Look, nobody should be
Speaker 1: forced to work without pay. That's a specific thing to
Speaker 1: the federal government. But on the other side of it
Speaker 1: is that financial hardship for people who have jobs is
Speaker 1: nothing new in the prime sector. I know plenty of people.
Speaker 1: I know people in media who have driven a cab,
Speaker 1: driven an uber, done whatever they can do when things
Speaker 1: have gotten rough, you know, book advances or poultry websites
Speaker 1: pay crap money. For the most part. It's really hard
Speaker 1: to scratch out a living in my business. I know
Speaker 1: plenty of people that have to do side gigs. I
Speaker 1: under somebody who was tutoring and didn't want to go
Speaker 1: to his real job because he was making more money
Speaker 1: tutoring for grad school students than he was actually at
Speaker 1: his gig. And media, you know, so you know, I
Speaker 1: understand that Van Jones wants to sneer at Trump and
Speaker 1: oh these are the suggestions they're putting up on the website. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: some of them maybe aren't going to help all that much.
Speaker 1: But there's a critical problem here that's killing tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of people, the opioid epidemic that is fuel by
Speaker 1: our lack of security at our southern border. Lives are
Speaker 1: at stake if that means that people have to adapt
Speaker 1: for a few weeks financially. I'm not saying it's fair
Speaker 1: or it's nice, but at some point we have no choice.
Speaker 1: You know, are we going to have a country or not?
Speaker 1: Are we going to have sovereignty and borders or not.
Speaker 1: This is the question that is posed right now, and
Speaker 1: we are going to find an answer one way or
Speaker 1: the other. I think we know we're Democrats down on this.
Speaker 1: I'm just here to say that we don't have to
Speaker 1: accept their nonsense. We don't have to accept their version
Speaker 1: of events here. We can stand and fight and make
Speaker 1: the case. And Trump is doing that and I think
Speaker 1: doing it effectively. Can you promise that the president will
Speaker 1: tell the truth tonight? We tell the truth, yes, Jim,
Speaker 1: And can you promise that you will? Am I allowed
Speaker 1: to mentioned God to you. Now, well, Jim, I know
Speaker 1: that's a cheap make sure that goes viral. This is why,
Speaker 1: by the way, this is why I'm one of the
Speaker 1: only people around here who they even gives you the
Speaker 1: time of day you can hear and let me let
Speaker 1: me just let me get back in your face, because
Speaker 1: you're such a smart asthmas to the time, and I
Speaker 1: know you want this to go viral. I like Kelly
Speaker 1: an Comma thrown down with Jim Accosta CNI, think it's great,
Speaker 1: good for her. I had a chance to go on
Speaker 1: on Fox to discuss this a little bit with Howie Kurtz.
Speaker 1: Very nice when to have me on, and I just
Speaker 1: want to share that this is what I got to
Speaker 1: say on Media Buzz about that exchange with I think
Speaker 1: everyone needs to understand what's really going on at CNN
Speaker 1: Play six. Jim Acosta plays a very important role right
Speaker 1: now in our media discourse, and that is he makes
Speaker 1: it effectively impossible to continue this charade that you have
Speaker 1: certain network, certainly certain newspapers as objective, nonpartisan news sources.
Speaker 1: This is a joke. I mean CNN from an editorial perspective,
Speaker 1: not everybody there. They're a good journalists. They're just like
Speaker 1: everywhere else. But from a broad editorial perspective, CNN exists
Speaker 1: to longer liberalism for its audience. Essentially, the audience thinks
Speaker 1: that they're getting objective news. They want to believe that,
Speaker 1: they think they're just getting the fact. But when you
Speaker 1: see a costive or something like this, not only is
Speaker 1: he not disciplined, he's effectively celebrated by the institution. That
Speaker 1: was just a cheap shot. It was an attack. It
Speaker 1: was meant to undermine a senior ministration official interchange or
Speaker 1: dirty pool indeed, but that is I think the one
Speaker 1: the one good thing, you know, the one takeaway from
Speaker 1: Acostas Shenanigans that I have to say I'm I'm pleased about,
Speaker 1: is that people now have a better understanding of what's
Speaker 1: really going on in the media and what the real,
Speaker 1: the real game is here. They are not They are
Speaker 1: just fundamentally not concerned with objective truthtelling. They are activists,
Speaker 1: they are partisans, and I think the more of the
Speaker 1: American people know that, the better. It's also important that
Speaker 1: we remember that as we enter this phase of just
Speaker 1: all out political trench warfare. I mean, there's there's reporting
Speaker 1: today that Adam Schiff over the Intelligence Committee wants to
Speaker 1: get the translator for trumpet Putin's private meeting to testify
Speaker 1: in front of Congress. I'm sorry, but if there is
Speaker 1: such a thing as executive privilege and executive privacy, you
Speaker 1: would think the president should be able to have a
Speaker 1: discussion with a world leader that is not a matter
Speaker 1: of public record. Does everything that gets said to Trump
Speaker 1: through a translator at any meeting? Does that? Does that
Speaker 1: get to be blasted out to the press? Is every
Speaker 1: is the president not allowed? You know, we've accepted the
Speaker 1: media accepted that diplomacy requires some secrecy or remember this
Speaker 1: from back when they used to like wiki leaks in
Speaker 1: the press, right, But we would say, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: diplomacy requires some degree of if not secrecy, at least
Speaker 1: you know, source protection and confidentiality. Right. You have to
Speaker 1: have some ability to speak in confidence. The President can't
Speaker 1: speak the world leaders in confidence now because Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: is a punk and wants to try to embarrass him
Speaker 1: or whatever. People keep saying, why would Trump not walt
Speaker 1: the conversation with Russia to be out there because he
Speaker 1: knows that whatever he says to Putin, whatever where he
Speaker 1: says to this world leader that he has to talk
Speaker 1: to you, no choice. Really, they're going to find something
Speaker 1: wrong with it. They're gonna blast him. Also, should you
Speaker 1: should be you should remind yourself, I should remind all
Speaker 1: of us. I guess that's what I'm doing now that
Speaker 1: that was an inartful way of saying this. The media
Speaker 1: is going to be a mouthpiece for this leftist deep
Speaker 1: state soft coupe going forward. You know, there's this leak
Speaker 1: of transcripts that CNN was reporting on about the discussion
Speaker 1: within the FBI to start this investigation right after Komi firing.
Speaker 1: Play that clip, John, the transcripts obtained by CNN, Shamo, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, John. So these transcripts really give us a
Speaker 1: window a look inside the process by which the FBI
Speaker 1: underwent the thinking that they certainly had into how to
Speaker 1: go about whether or not they were going to bring
Speaker 1: this investigation open, this investigation into Donald Trump. Now, this
Speaker 1: new information obtained by CNN from transcripts of two FBI
Speaker 1: I officials who testified, two members of Congress who closed
Speaker 1: door interviews, and what it reveals that on one end,
Speaker 1: there was the idea that Trump fired the former FBI
Speaker 1: Director James Comey at the behest of Russia. And then
Speaker 1: on the other was the possibility that Trump was completely
Speaker 1: innocent and was acting within the bounds of his executive authority. Now,
Speaker 1: so why is it that every time, First of all,
Speaker 1: the fact that this is leak just goes to show
Speaker 1: you that, you know, Chiff and these other Democrats are
Speaker 1: going to be leaking like mad going forward. But also
Speaker 1: why is it that we always hear about the investigation
Speaker 1: got started. We don't hear that there are other people
Speaker 1: in the FBI who are like, this is crazy, He's
Speaker 1: totally innocent. Why are we gonna do this? That's right,
Speaker 1: because the deep state partisan hacks got their way because
Speaker 1: they were running things. Comey and McCabe been struck, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure they have some Confederates in there as well,
Speaker 1: some fellow plotters against this president. We are going into
Speaker 1: political warfare. We might as well know who the enemy
Speaker 1: is by now. Team, you've probably heard me talk about
Speaker 1: snippy dot com, which is a new social media site.
Speaker 1: If you've looked at snippy dot com and left, you
Speaker 1: need to look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined
Speaker 1: snippy dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring
Speaker 1: up lively conversations. Snippy's an unbiased social media platform that's
Speaker 1: all about conversation and community. Snippy not only encourages freedom
Speaker 1: of expression, but guarantees its users the ability to discuss
Speaker 1: topics freely without suppression from administrators. Check into nimpy dot
Speaker 1: com for quick update on politics, sports, current events, food, fashion,
Speaker 1: you name it. It is a place where everyone can
Speaker 1: share their thoughts without worrying about left wing bias and
Speaker 1: progressive moderators. Okay, it's totally free to join, totally free
Speaker 1: to post. There's nothing here other than just signing up
Speaker 1: and get involved in the conversation. No shadow banning, no
Speaker 1: suppression of conservative thought ever. Now with an updated user
Speaker 1: interface and cool new features filled in the Apple app
Speaker 1: Store and for Android snippy com, set up your profile
Speaker 1: today and start posting snippy dot com. The left absolutely
Speaker 1: loves identity politics. You know this. They have this whole
Speaker 1: hierarchy of oppression in society they called intersectionality. Who oppresses who?
Speaker 1: Who is the most oppressed? What can we do to
Speaker 1: deal with the oppression between all these different groups? And this,
Speaker 1: in no small measure contributes to a sense of grievance
Speaker 1: mongering that exists on the left. Now. Representative Steve King
Speaker 1: of Iowa has gotten himself into a whole lot of
Speaker 1: trouble once again for saying things that he or tweeting things,
Speaker 1: writing things, saying things all of the above that he
Speaker 1: should not have. I think it's interesting, though, that when
Speaker 1: there is an opportunity for the left to really condemn
Speaker 1: incredibly repeated and vicious anti Semitic bigotry when it comes
Speaker 1: to Louis Farrakhan, they all of us udn't get a
Speaker 1: little bit mealy mouth. It's a little well. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, on the other hand, the Women's March is
Speaker 1: a thing. You've probably seen them. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: used to march around with the pink anatomically correct hats on.
Speaker 1: They claim to represent all women. Meanwhile, if you're part
Speaker 1: of the fifty percent of women or so who are
Speaker 1: pro life, you are not only unrepresented by the Women's March,
Speaker 1: you are not welcome at the Women's March. That's right,
Speaker 1: the choice not to destroy your own offspring in the womb. Somehow,
Speaker 1: According to the progressive left and their intersectional identity politics,
Speaker 1: belief means you're not really a woman, or in some
Speaker 1: way your womanhood is subject to an additional scrutiny, if
Speaker 1: not some degree of skepticism. Well, the Women's March is
Speaker 1: a thing that we should all take a longer look at,
Speaker 1: because there are some people who are associated with it,
Speaker 1: who really enjoy taking photographs with, appearing at public events with,
Speaker 1: and speaking on the same stage as Lewis Farakon, who
Speaker 1: is as clear and obvious and in many ways proud
Speaker 1: of his anti semitism as anyone could possibly be. And
Speaker 1: this guy says things like he's not anti Semite, he's
Speaker 1: anti termite heat. Just when you were coming up with
Speaker 1: textbook anti semitism and bigotry, the stuff that Farakon says
Speaker 1: could go right in there, all right, And I don't
Speaker 1: think that's something that any serious person would would contest. Okay,
Speaker 1: Lewis Farrakon is an anti Semite, if there is such
Speaker 1: a thing as an anti Semite. And Jamika Mallory and
Speaker 1: Bob Bland, who are two of the women who are
Speaker 1: the heads of the so called Women's March, they went
Speaker 1: on The View today where my friend and the former
Speaker 1: former host of the show, Megan McCain, decided to push
Speaker 1: her a bit because there is in the Women's March
Speaker 1: at least some real anti semitism, and it's worth asking
Speaker 1: the question why hasn't this been fully repudiated, Meaning that
Speaker 1: if the association that a conservative could have with any
Speaker 1: other individual who is a white nationalist or a racist
Speaker 1: or a bad person is enough that that person should
Speaker 1: be asked to condemn the association, isn't that true of
Speaker 1: Libs as well? Shouldn't libs have to live by their
Speaker 1: own standards? We know the answer is no, because they
Speaker 1: don't want standards. But you understand what I'm saying, And
Speaker 1: to Megan's great credit to Tamika Mallory's well you can
Speaker 1: hear it for yourself. Here's how the exchange went. Yeah,
Speaker 1: people interject really quickly. I would never be comfortable supporting
Speaker 1: someone who called I'm not anti semite and anti termite.
Speaker 1: It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting
Speaker 1: lesbianism homosexuality. Actually spoke with the journalists from Tablet magazine
Speaker 1: who released an investigation report on your organization, and in
Speaker 1: part they allege that there is a lot of anti
Speaker 1: semitism surrounding this march. Specifically, the report alleged that u
Speaker 1: Tamika and co founder Carmen Perez asserted the quote Jewish
Speaker 1: people had a history of exploiting black people and were
Speaker 1: proven to be leaders of the American slave trade. Now,
Speaker 1: a lot of people who a lot of people include
Speaker 1: me in this, think that you're using your organization as
Speaker 1: anti semitism masked and activism, and that you're using identity
Speaker 1: politics to shield yourself from critiques. You're talking about all
Speaker 1: women being invited to that march on pro life. We
Speaker 1: were not invited. We were not allowed at that march.
Speaker 1: Right there. I'm a conservative woman. I also represent if
Speaker 1: you're talking about women, if you're talking about all women,
Speaker 1: including Jewish women as well, and conservative wisdom women. Now,
Speaker 1: Bob Bland went on to say, Bob Bland is a
Speaker 1: woman who was one of the heads of the Women's March.
Speaker 1: That's not true, and that pro life women are welcome
Speaker 1: in the women's March. And I'm sorry, but that's not true,
Speaker 1: but she said it. Nonetheless, I had the what we
Speaker 1: call it the professional duty to interview miss Bland during
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh hearing, and she came across as somebody who
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be gliber funny. She came across
Speaker 1: it somewhat disturbed. I mean so as though she had
Speaker 1: problems coping with reality. She claimed that Kavanaugh's confirmation would
Speaker 1: result in millions of women dying. That was a quote,
Speaker 1: and I had to sit there and listen to it.
Speaker 1: She also lied very brazenly about a position that Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: She claimed that Kavanaugh held when it was not in
Speaker 1: fact his position. It was the position of somebody who
Speaker 1: was petitioning before the court, and he happened to be
Speaker 1: a judge when that was happening. Nonetheless, not an impressive
Speaker 1: intellectual to say the least. But back to Tamika Mallory here,
Speaker 1: African American female. She's having this exchange with Megan McCain
Speaker 1: about Minister Ferikon and about race and anti Semitism, and
Speaker 1: Megan essentially is saying, look, you're using the fact that
Speaker 1: you are protected class being a female and being a minority.
Speaker 1: It seems to escape accountability for spending time with the
Speaker 1: guy who is clearly a dirtbag. And once again, Megan,
Speaker 1: I give her a high five from afar. I'll send
Speaker 1: her a text later and tell her thank you as well.
Speaker 1: She it just hones in. She's you know, let's just
Speaker 1: make this really easy. You, Bob Bland and Timiker Mallory,
Speaker 1: You to women of the Women's March, representing progressive activism
Speaker 1: at its height, at its pinnacle. You know, that's what
Speaker 1: their brand really is. This is all about being a
Speaker 1: leftist who wants to make the country more accepting of
Speaker 1: one another, they say, But really it's just about pushing
Speaker 1: progressive left wing causes, anti life causes, jamming transgender ideology
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it down everyone's throats. But
Speaker 1: with that, Megan says, Okay, let's make this really simple.
Speaker 1: Just condemn Lewis Farrakhan's words. Here is how that went.
Speaker 1: When Meghan said to Tamika Mallory on the View, just okay,
Speaker 1: we know what Louis Farrakhan has said, we know what
Speaker 1: he stands for. Will you condemn him now play. I
Speaker 1: don't speak for Jewish people, but I think I'm just
Speaker 1: confused these remarks are. I mean, it goes on death
Speaker 1: to Israel over and over again. We did not make
Speaker 1: those You can't, but you're associating with a man who
Speaker 1: does what help look late. What I will say to
Speaker 1: you is that I don't agree with many of Minniester
Speaker 1: Farkon's statements that'simically about Jewish people. As I said, I
Speaker 1: don't agree with many of Minister Farikon's statements. To condemn them,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with these statements. At the end of
Speaker 1: the day, he won't condemn it. No, no, no, all.
Speaker 1: To be very clear, it's not my language. It's not
Speaker 1: the way that I speak, it is not how I organize,
Speaker 1: and I think it is very clear over the twenty
Speaker 1: years of my own well. I would like to tell
Speaker 1: miss Mallory what is very clear is that she who
Speaker 1: condemn the remarks right. She can try to come up
Speaker 1: with as many different constructions of this as she wants,
Speaker 1: but the fact that matters. She's asked a straightforward question,
Speaker 1: will you condemn these remarks? And her response is I
Speaker 1: would not use those words. That's not a condemnation of
Speaker 1: somebody who's calling Jewish people termites. That's not a condemnation
Speaker 1: at all. That's essentially a dodge that is trying to
Speaker 1: avoid the question. And I think that what you see
Speaker 1: here is that once again intersectionality inherently means that these
Speaker 1: different grievance groups, whether they're gender, racial, sexual orientation, nationality,
Speaker 1: or whatever based. But these different grievance groups will inherently
Speaker 1: come to blows and consume one another because there is
Speaker 1: no real standard for who is in a position to
Speaker 1: adjudicate who is the most aggrieved, So who gets away
Speaker 1: with kinds of comments and who doesn't? You know, the
Speaker 1: only thing they can all agree on is that white
Speaker 1: males are bad and need to be put in their place,
Speaker 1: and white male patriarchies destroy, destroying the world, destroying America,
Speaker 1: all of this, but beyond that, they can't figure out
Speaker 1: what the unifying principle is of what they all stand for,
Speaker 1: because what they stand for is being angry at people
Speaker 1: based upon their perceived treatment as a result of gender,
Speaker 1: sexual orientation, skin color, and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: This is where you see that this politics of intersectionality
Speaker 1: of I am first and foremost in society to be
Speaker 1: judged and will judge others based upon my identity group,
Speaker 1: that is toxic. It is toxic, and it leads to
Speaker 1: this kind of incoherence where you have people who are claiming,
Speaker 1: as they did during this interview, to be all about
Speaker 1: healing and coming together and combating bigotry, and they can't
Speaker 1: even combat the bigotry in their own ranks because there
Speaker 1: are special and privileged positions within this hierarchy of identities
Speaker 1: that allow for greater latitude and leeway than any other
Speaker 1: person would have in saying things that are racist, defamatory, ugly,
Speaker 1: anti semitic, whatever the case may be. There is no
Speaker 1: one single standard because all these standards based on intersectional
Speaker 1: belief have to be adjusted and readjusted in the moment,
Speaker 1: really based on the petty, short term needs of the movement.
Speaker 1: So he saw it all breakdown there, and the Women's
Speaker 1: March is obviously full of people who are really delusional.
Speaker 1: But that's perhaps a conversation for another time. Break. Your
Speaker 1: team will be right back. You know what's smart figuring
Speaker 1: out who to hire to take your business to the
Speaker 1: next level in twenty nineteen. You know what else is smart?
Speaker 1: Starting the new year off strong by going to zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck to hire the right people.
Speaker 1: I know I did. I've got some great colleagues because
Speaker 1: of zip recruiter at HILLTV. Unlike other job sites, zipp
Speaker 1: recruiter finds qualified candidates for you. It's powerful matching technology.
Speaker 1: Scans thousands of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education,
Speaker 1: and experience and actively invites them to apply to your jobs.
Speaker 1: You get qualified candidates fast. That's why zippercruiter is rated
Speaker 1: number one by employers in the US and this rating
Speaker 1: comes from hiring sites on trust Pilot with over a
Speaker 1: thousand reviews. Right now, my listeners can try zip recruiter
Speaker 1: totally free at this exclusive web address zipp recruiter dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. If you love this show and you
Speaker 1: love hiring great people, show your support for zipp recruiter.
Speaker 1: Going to zip recruiter dot com slash buck again one
Speaker 1: more time, everybody, totally free zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter the smartest way to hire in room. There
Speaker 1: are only three African Americans in the whole of Senate.
Speaker 1: You're one of them, two or Democrats. So as we
Speaker 1: go forth, it's interesting to note your prominence there as
Speaker 1: a person of color. And then I want to get
Speaker 1: from you which you want the country to hear about
Speaker 1: what Stephen King said. Well, first, let me just congratulate
Speaker 1: and thank my Republican leaders, folks like Kevin McCarthy, Janie Earns,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Jeff Bush, Jason Chaffins, who've all spoken out
Speaker 1: loud and clear and rebuked the comments of Steve King.
Speaker 1: I think the House will handle its business. I have
Speaker 1: confidence that Kevin McCarthy will do the right thing, and
Speaker 1: we'll do it very quickly. So I look forward to
Speaker 1: that outcome. But for me, it's not about the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Steve King's comments are anathetical to what is in fact
Speaker 1: the American dream, and the durability of the American dream
Speaker 1: is the strength of the American spirit. And what he
Speaker 1: did was he struck against the American spirit. So he
Speaker 1: weakened the spirit. And when that happens, our nation is
Speaker 1: less compared petitive globally. I wanted you to hear from
Speaker 1: Senator Scott there about Steve King's remarks. I didn't want
Speaker 1: to just talk to you about what happened on the
Speaker 1: View and Tamika Mallory and which is obviously heightened right
Speaker 1: now because of Steve King and that whole controversy without
Speaker 1: airing out what Steve King said, which was essentially, when
Speaker 1: did white supremacy and white nationalism become a bad thing?
Speaker 1: I forget the exact quote but it was something along
Speaker 1: those lines at actually here, of course, this is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. We are precise, thank you producer Mike.
Speaker 1: The New York Times quoted Steve King asking white nationalist,
Speaker 1: white supremacist Western civilization, how did that language become offensive?
Speaker 1: When someone does something like this. It ticks me off
Speaker 1: on multiple levels when someone says something like this who
Speaker 1: claims to be a Republican or a conservative, because it
Speaker 1: makes the cause and the job of conservatism harder. He
Speaker 1: makes it harder for all of us now, which means
Speaker 1: that I'm obviously going to very vehemently oppose people who
Speaker 1: say things like this, because conservatism is all about an
Speaker 1: ideology of individual responsibility, intrinsic human worth and human dignity,
Speaker 1: and the respect that we all owe to each other
Speaker 1: as God's creatures and as human beings. We are all
Speaker 1: equal in the eyes of God. Without that, you don't
Speaker 1: have conservatism. Without that, you got something else. I don't
Speaker 1: know what it is. And perhaps Steve King just incredibly
Speaker 1: poorly worded something incredibly poorly. I can't apparently word things
Speaker 1: well right now either. He essentially might have just said
Speaker 1: something that sounded terrible that he didn't intend to, but
Speaker 1: it sounded terrible, and so you got to call somebody
Speaker 1: out for that. And I don't think he's walked it
Speaker 1: back at all, but I wanted to note there you
Speaker 1: had GOP senator and he's an African American, of course,
Speaker 1: a Senator Scott, and he's saying that this has no place.
Speaker 1: And he pointed out that a lot of the most
Speaker 1: prominent GEOP folks out there in Congress say this has
Speaker 1: no place, So don't let the media was saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: Republicans never condemn this stuff. Oh no, we condemn it
Speaker 1: all the time. We condemn it. We don't like it,
Speaker 1: and we don't like the lies around situations like this either,
Speaker 1: where we are told, oh, conservatives have no problem with
Speaker 1: this bull crap. Now, with that said, I would like
Speaker 1: to move on for just a couple of moments here
Speaker 1: to the teacher's strike out in LA. As you know,
Speaker 1: I'm heading out to San Diego tonight. I will be
Speaker 1: there and coming to you, assuming I can figure out
Speaker 1: the scheduling of things. I should be coming to you
Speaker 1: from the near the border tomorrow on radio at the
Speaker 1: normal time, So don't worry about that. Although I may
Speaker 1: have to have a pinch hitter if the logistics get
Speaker 1: too complicated, because I'm going to be going all over
Speaker 1: the place at the border and I'm looking forward to
Speaker 1: getting a lot of ground truth as well as spending
Speaker 1: some time in sixty five degree weather instead of twenty
Speaker 1: five degree weather. That sounds particularly nice. But there's a
Speaker 1: teacher's strike that will be happening in Los Angeles, and
Speaker 1: I think that this is a good opportunity to point
Speaker 1: out that, you know, the teachers, so yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: just knee jerk. Oh, you know the teachers. They want
Speaker 1: more money. Is is about no, No, the teachers have
Speaker 1: a pretty good case for getting a pay raise. Not
Speaker 1: an ironclad case, but when you look at where they
Speaker 1: are Visa Vie, where they were fifteen or twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: and the pay increases over time, teachers I think are
Speaker 1: on some reasonable ground, especially in places like West Virginia
Speaker 1: where they were the forty nine out of fifty in
Speaker 1: terms of overall pay. You know, teachers should be, you know,
Speaker 1: well compensated as teachers, right, they should be well compensated
Speaker 1: in the grand scheme of things. We can't pay them
Speaker 1: like investment bankers. Although investment bankers would tell you they
Speaker 1: can't get paid like Silicon Valley barons, but teachers overall
Speaker 1: have a decent point. The problem though in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: is where's all the money going, because there's a lot
Speaker 1: of money and they have, in fact, two billion dollars
Speaker 1: of funds have been set aside that the city of
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, of course, entirely run by Democrats. This is
Speaker 1: an entirely the school district in Los Angeles. It's a
Speaker 1: Democrat owned and operated and run situation. Right. The Democrats
Speaker 1: are completely in charge. I don't think anybody would deny that.
Speaker 1: That's just the truth. The problem though, is that the
Speaker 1: money that they want to use for a teacher raise
Speaker 1: is allocated to retirees from the school system and their benefits.
Speaker 1: You see, one part of the conversation when we we're
Speaker 1: talking about public sector unions that does not get accounted
Speaker 1: for is what are we paying for the previous workforce
Speaker 1: that we had. That's usually where unions get the sweetest
Speaker 1: deals because it's a lot easier to say we're going
Speaker 1: to give people great benefits in thirty years or twenty
Speaker 1: years when they retire, instead of we're going to give
Speaker 1: them a big pay raise today. So they tend to
Speaker 1: have a lot of major back end public sector expenses.
Speaker 1: And the other place where there's a big problem is
Speaker 1: you could give all teachers This is courtesy my friend
Speaker 1: Inez Felter stepmen over at the Federalist. You could give
Speaker 1: all teachers an eleven percent raise if you would just
Speaker 1: indexed the increase in administrate of hiring meaning admin staff,
Speaker 1: to the rest of the school's growth. So if there's
Speaker 1: ten percent more students, you have ten percent more admin staff.
Speaker 1: The truth is that the money in the teachers in
Speaker 1: the teaching systems of these major school districts like Los
Speaker 1: Angeles has gone to support personnel admin staff, a lot
Speaker 1: of whom are unnecessary and are just part of a
Speaker 1: giant Democrat jobs program. So you know, it's more complicated
Speaker 1: than just teachers should get a raised. Should teachers get
Speaker 1: a raised, maybe they should get something of a raise,
Speaker 1: But they've also got to look at how they're going
Speaker 1: to fund their pension, how they're going to fund their
Speaker 1: healthcare benefits, and what about all this admin staff they
Speaker 1: have around. That's the part of this the public won't
Speaker 1: find out about, and that's why this will all just
Speaker 1: have end should be handled with you guessed it more
Speaker 1: raising of taxes, which will cause more middle class flight
Speaker 1: from California. About some municipalities like San Francisco who have
Speaker 1: decided that it's okay for some non citizens to vote
Speaker 1: in local elections, I think there's a difference between municipal
Speaker 1: and state and federal part of municipality. I'm not arguing
Speaker 1: forward or against it, but I will say, having been
Speaker 1: deputy city attorney, there's a very the granularity of what
Speaker 1: cities decide is so specific as to I think allow
Speaker 1: for people to be participants in the process without it
Speaker 1: somehow undermining our larger democratic ethic that says that you
Speaker 1: should be a citizen to be a part of the conversation.
Speaker 1: So in some cases you would be supportive of non citizens,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. I wouldn't oppose it. That's right there. He
Speaker 1: had gubernatorial hopeful for the state of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, Democrat,
Speaker 1: who had Oprah stumping for her, had Will Farrell. I
Speaker 1: think going door to door, knock knock it on folksdoors
Speaker 1: to get them to come out and vote for Stacey Abrams.
Speaker 1: There you ever speaking to Margaret Hoover, I guess on
Speaker 1: is that on a PBS and Margaret asks her about
Speaker 1: whether Stacy Abrams thinks that illegals should be able to
Speaker 1: vote in local elections. Essentially, if you live in the
Speaker 1: city of Atlanta or New York, or Los Angeles, or
Speaker 1: you name it, and you are in illegal, should you
Speaker 1: have a say, as in an official legal say, as
Speaker 1: in being able to cast a ballot for whomever is
Speaker 1: going to run that city and whoever the police commissioner
Speaker 1: is going to be, an etc. Et cetera. You know
Speaker 1: who the district attorney is going to be. You look
Speaker 1: at this and you say to yourself, this should be
Speaker 1: a really easy question. Right, should somebody who is not
Speaker 1: even legally allowed to be in the United States? Should
Speaker 1: that person be given the right to have an official
Speaker 1: legal vote that they can cast in an election on
Speaker 1: US soil. I would think the answer to anybody who
Speaker 1: is a believer in the rule of law and who
Speaker 1: wants to take our law seriously would say, and of
Speaker 1: course not. But you notice, Stacy Abrams here lets you
Speaker 1: in on what the Democrats really think. Stacy Abrams is saying, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: I think it's really complicated, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose it.
Speaker 1: That's Democrats speak for I know that I'll get a
Speaker 1: lot of heat if I tell you what I'm really
Speaker 1: thinking on this one, so I would rather take this
Speaker 1: non committal position of well, I'm just not sure right now,
Speaker 1: but I can kind of see how some people would
Speaker 1: want illegal aliens to be able to vote in elections
Speaker 1: for their local you know, local whatever, governor or not governor,
Speaker 1: mayor city council, all that kind of stuff. This is
Speaker 1: the future, my friends, This is where it's all heading.
Speaker 1: And I'll just say this, does anyone really believe that
Speaker 1: if Democrats start city by city, they already have sanctuary
Speaker 1: city policies. So so we know that, and there are
Speaker 1: whole states now, like California that are effectively sanctuary states.
Speaker 1: We know that they don't really care what the federal
Speaker 1: laws with regard to immigration. They are not on board
Speaker 1: for helping the federal government in any way enforce those
Speaker 1: laws other federal laws. Local government's all about helping, right,
Speaker 1: but immigration, no, they do not, They do not want
Speaker 1: to have any part in that. How long before we
Speaker 1: hear a similar case to be made. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you can make the case that somebody living in a
Speaker 1: city should have a say in how that city is
Speaker 1: run and governed, even if they are not legally, under
Speaker 1: the law of the land, allowed to be in that city.
Speaker 1: Why couldn't you say then about Congress and elected representatives
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill. Why can't you say it about Senate?
Speaker 1: Why can't you say it about the President. I know
Speaker 1: that people would say, oh, buck, but it's local law
Speaker 1: versus federal law. Into that I would say, yeah, but
Speaker 1: they don't like the federal law either, and they don't
Speaker 1: obviously buy into the principle that there's anything inherently wrong
Speaker 1: with being in this country illegally. And this is a
Speaker 1: really important philosophical difference that we need to understand in
Speaker 1: this immigration debate. You see, the way that we've been
Speaker 1: told to approach this because of Democrat and media propaganda
Speaker 1: for a long time, is we all want to fix
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. We all want the laws to be enforced.
Speaker 1: We don't want open borders. It's just a question of
Speaker 1: how we get to better enforcement of immigration law and
Speaker 1: better processes in place for legal emots. That's what we've
Speaker 1: been told. But what's really happened because of all the
Speaker 1: media stories about the dreamer valedictorians and all this stuff
Speaker 1: that they all the essentially pro illegal propaganda that's out there.
Speaker 1: What's happened is that the Democrats have, over time and
Speaker 1: their base and the ideological left has been conditioned to
Speaker 1: think that there's really nothing at all that is wrong
Speaker 1: with illegal immigration, that essentially the only problem that anybody
Speaker 1: could ever have with legal immigration is rooted in some
Speaker 1: kind of racism or nativism, and it's not a bad thing.
Speaker 1: It's just as a thing that has to be managed properly.
Speaker 1: That now, management of a problem is different from enforcement
Speaker 1: to stop a problem. Right, the Democrats have essentially decided
Speaker 1: as a party. And again they won't say this, but
Speaker 1: when you hear people like Stacey Abrams talking about it,
Speaker 1: it's really very clear, I think how they feel about
Speaker 1: this issue. But the Democrats have made a decision that
Speaker 1: there is no longer anything wrong with illegal aliens in
Speaker 1: the country, that there's no problem with it at just
Speaker 1: how do we how do we best manage integrating them
Speaker 1: into society, registering them for votes, making them citizens. You know,
Speaker 1: And they haven't consulted most of the American people on
Speaker 1: this one. They've just decided that this is the right
Speaker 1: thing for them to do. And you'll see it first
Speaker 1: at the local level, and then it will expand and
Speaker 1: eventually there will be pushing for congressional legislation. And think
Speaker 1: about how much more powerful at that point the political
Speaker 1: constituency for this will be. When you have millions and
Speaker 1: millions of about to be legalized, mostly Latino illegal aliens
Speaker 1: in the country. Do you think that a lot of politicians,
Speaker 1: if they think they're going to be the wrong side
Speaker 1: of this, will stand against it. I think the answer
Speaker 1: is most certainly no. I think then the momentum for
Speaker 1: this will be stronger than it's ever been. So this
Speaker 1: is just Stacy Abrams is giving you a glimpse into
Speaker 1: the future in this country when eventually they will be
Speaker 1: openly advocating for illegal aliens to vote, not just in
Speaker 1: local elections, but they will eventually advocate for them to
Speaker 1: have the full rights of citizenship once they are amnestaded.
Speaker 1: I guarantee it. I guarantee it. That's why this promise, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's just amnesty. It won't lead to votes. This is
Speaker 1: a lie. This is a lie, just like so many
Speaker 1: of the lies they told us an immigration for the
Speaker 1: last twenty or so years, thirty or so years, and
Speaker 1: it's just going to get worse. That's why Trump has
Speaker 1: to stand firm now bullying the me too movement against
Speaker 1: Is this the best demand can get it? Is it
Speaker 1: happening Billy as well? Problem we can't hide from harassment
Speaker 1: is taking off. It's been going on far too long.
Speaker 1: We can't last it off. What I actually think she's
Speaker 1: trying to say, making the same old excuses, but something
Speaker 1: finally change allegations regarding sexual assault and sexual harassments once,
Speaker 1: but she says, and there will be no going back,
Speaker 1: because we we believe in the best in men. So
Speaker 1: you might be thinking, what is this weird commercial that
Speaker 1: is running on Buck show? That's actually a public service announcement,
Speaker 1: a public service announcement from Gillette, which I'm sure many
Speaker 1: of you are familiar with. It is a subsidiary of
Speaker 1: Procter and Gamble. They make the razors and the shaving
Speaker 1: cream and all that stuff. And this is a a
Speaker 1: very clearly political stance or a cultural commentary PSA on
Speaker 1: toxic masculinity, which is now a subject that we're all
Speaker 1: supposed to talk about. I have many, many feelings about this,
Speaker 1: and it comes in the aftermath of the American psycho
Speaker 1: psychological association or whatever it's called putting out these guidelines
Speaker 1: for dealing with toxic masculinity. Most of what people talk
Speaker 1: about as toxic masculinity is really just covered by the
Speaker 1: very sage advice. Don't be a huge jerk, don't be
Speaker 1: a bad person, don't abuse people, don't be predatory in
Speaker 1: your interactions with people. Don't use your power to leverage
Speaker 1: yourself onto people physically or otherwise in a way that
Speaker 1: makes them uncomfortable. This is all just stuff that anybody
Speaker 1: with a pretty good sense of ethics and decency doesn't
Speaker 1: have to be told. But you see, just as it
Speaker 1: was only a matter of time before the me too
Speaker 1: movement which is mentioned in this ad, before the me
Speaker 1: too movement was weaponized for explicitly partisan political purposes, which
Speaker 1: is what we saw in the Kavanaugh hearing. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh hearing was the culmination of a lot of
Speaker 1: me too momentum that came from very legitimate cases, very
Speaker 1: very high profile true abusers being exposed. So there were
Speaker 1: good things there. I mean, that's that's to be sure, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, and any movement can be capable
Speaker 1: of some positive things along the way, But that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that all things along the way should be excused,
Speaker 1: should be considered inherently positive because other things have been positive. Right,
Speaker 1: we can look at a whole bunch of different events
Speaker 1: and political movement throughout history and understand this. And with
Speaker 1: this assault on what they call toxic masculinity, what you
Speaker 1: will see is, Okay, sure, I don't want to be
Speaker 1: a bully, a jerk, a sexual harasser, or a sexual assaulter.
Speaker 1: You know, you go through all this stuff, somebody who
Speaker 1: makes comments, you know, hey, tuts to somebody in the
Speaker 1: office and says, you know, make me a sandwich, and
Speaker 1: you know, stuff like that. Right, nobody, nobody wants to
Speaker 1: be those things. And there's very good reasons why we
Speaker 1: shouldn't treat each other that way. But toxic masculinity is
Speaker 1: then a concept that's used for a whole lot more
Speaker 1: things than just bad behavior. Toxic masculinity starts to now
Speaker 1: become a way to describe aggressive male behavior that can
Speaker 1: be very useful, right that you know you want, I mean,
Speaker 1: I would argue to you that you know, it is
Speaker 1: masculinity that inspires a guy who is at a bar
Speaker 1: or at a party to intervene when somebody who is
Speaker 1: weaker than somebody else is being picked on, or to
Speaker 1: intervene when a guy is harassing a woman, maybe grabbing
Speaker 1: at her, groping a woman that you know that the
Speaker 1: guy who's the bystander doesn't even know he intervenes because
Speaker 1: he has a masculine impulse to do so. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it is masculinity that makes a guy who
Speaker 1: is out with a lady feel the need to protect
Speaker 1: her physically and protect her honor and protect her her
Speaker 1: dignity along with his own. We used to call this chivalry,
Speaker 1: but now that that's a that's a term that's feels
Speaker 1: so outdated we can't use it anymore. But also I
Speaker 1: would say, you know, toxic masculinity is now used as
Speaker 1: a term, a very broad term to and they use
Speaker 1: it intentionally in this way to conflate what are very
Speaker 1: political stances with the criticism of toxic masculinity. What I
Speaker 1: mean is you can look at say gender norms, and
Speaker 1: now if you're if you want your child to dress
Speaker 1: as a boy at a young age, if it's a boy,
Speaker 1: instead of saying we're going to have you in gender
Speaker 1: neutral clothing, maybe that is if you're a father, your
Speaker 1: own impulse of toxic masculinity. The left would say, coming
Speaker 1: out right, maybe that desire to institute what you would
Speaker 1: see as traditional gender roles and gender feelings is somehow
Speaker 1: connected to your own toxic masculinity. This is how this
Speaker 1: concept is being bandied about these days. And you know,
Speaker 1: it reminds me also of this piece I read in
Speaker 1: the Washington Post over the weekend that goes through it
Speaker 1: and talks about the new guidelines from the APA when
Speaker 1: it comes to dealing with men and boys, and it
Speaker 1: goes through all of these different, these different statistics about
Speaker 1: about homicide and about suicide, and you know, the truth
Speaker 1: is that a lot of this is biologically driven. And
Speaker 1: they also for people that are so interested in science,
Speaker 1: they don't seem to have much care for looking at
Speaker 1: what does testosterone do versus what does estrogen do in
Speaker 1: the body, what psychological impact does testosterone have? And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that this is determinative, meaning that because you
Speaker 1: have more or less testosterone, you're going to act in
Speaker 1: a certain way, and therefore it will either excuse or
Speaker 1: entirely explain it. But the left is fascinated with gender
Speaker 1: differences until they're not right. They're fascinated with the gender
Speaker 1: spectrum and gender identity, but they have very little interest,
Speaker 1: it seems, in understanding the role that biochemistry plays in
Speaker 1: the way that we approach gender. And the fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that testosterone manifests itself in differences that
Speaker 1: are not only physical. They manifest themselves in differences in
Speaker 1: the psychology of individuals, and men are, because of our biology,
Speaker 1: more prone to be aggressive, more prone to approach situations
Speaker 1: in a certain way. This is just a reality that
Speaker 1: we're all aware of. But you know, the left likes
Speaker 1: to try and force us to unlearn common sense and
Speaker 1: replace it with what is politically fashionable at any point
Speaker 1: in time, and this idea of toxic masculinity as a
Speaker 1: problem that we have to tackle to say, I don't.
Speaker 1: I think the problem we have in this country is
Speaker 1: that we are not rewarding and speaking up enough about
Speaker 1: men who are masculine in all the right ways, and
Speaker 1: that their sense of purpose and achievement and strength and
Speaker 1: dignity against all the odds, and their willingness to go
Speaker 1: and fight for what is good and what is right.
Speaker 1: We want to foster that in society. We do not
Speaker 1: want to create a culture of past men. We do
Speaker 1: not want to create a culture where men think that
Speaker 1: they have to approach their day to day lives the
Speaker 1: way that traditionally or historically women have thought they should
Speaker 1: approach the day to day lives, because men and women
Speaker 1: are different, and that now is increasingly a revolutionary thing
Speaker 1: to say that there's a separation between men and women
Speaker 1: that are biology manifests itself indifferences that are real and observable.
Speaker 1: And yet the science right now, at least from the
Speaker 1: shrink community, is increasingly pointed toward be less masculine, because
Speaker 1: too much masculinity is inherently a bad thing. That's not
Speaker 1: true destructive masculinity, which is separate and apart from anything
Speaker 1: that is necessarily masculine. Just acting poorly, unethically, badly, that's
Speaker 1: a bad thing. But we don't need psychologists to tell
Speaker 1: us that, do we. And we've known what is moral
Speaker 1: and what is right interactions with each other, with women,
Speaker 1: with everybody for a very long time. It's not all
Speaker 1: about this toxic masculinity concept. And be on guard for
Speaker 1: how this is deployed in conversation by the left. Man,
Speaker 1: the left can always find something to whine about. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's wells don't work and Trump is a Russian agent.
Speaker 1: But we know that's not true, right, And we also
Speaker 1: know that maybe if the Left just drank some delicious
Speaker 1: Black Rifle coffee, they would learn to chill just a
Speaker 1: bit and enjoy life and stop complaining. You see, I
Speaker 1: start every day with a delicious cup of Black Rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: It is roacht to order and can be delivered to
Speaker 1: your door, which guarantees you delicious fresh coffee with every order.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle's Coffee Club makes it easy. Just pick your blend,
Speaker 1: the amount you want, and Black Rifle will ship it
Speaker 1: right to your door every month, totally hassle free. All right.
Speaker 1: Nothing cures a bad attitude quite like starting your day
Speaker 1: with the most American coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck
Speaker 1: for fifteen percent off. Again one more time, everybody. Check
Speaker 1: it out Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off. There's a really stunning piece in the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal that I would recommend to all of you.
Speaker 1: When you get a moment. It's a Parkland father's quest
Speaker 1: for accountability, and it tells the story of Andrew Pollock,
Speaker 1: whose daughter Meadow was among those who were viciously murdered
Speaker 1: Seventeen people killed, fourteen students in three adults during the
Speaker 1: eleven minutes of the park Parkland school shooting at Marjorie
Speaker 1: Stoneman Douglas High School. Mister Pollock lost his daughter, and
Speaker 1: he has been aging something of a one man crusade
Speaker 1: for accountability in this whole process. You see, he unlike
Speaker 1: the lionized Parkland students, which by that I mean just
Speaker 1: a handful really three of them, who are very progressive
Speaker 1: and who have been turned into celebrities by the media
Speaker 1: because they're willing to say things like the NRA is
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization. This David hog kid in a couple
Speaker 1: of his confederates. They say really inappropriate and indefensively stupid
Speaker 1: and unfair things. But the NRA is the enemy. Gun
Speaker 1: owners are the bad guys, and the liberal left media
Speaker 1: loves that can't get enough of it. As I have
Speaker 1: said to you, and it's an important point, so I
Speaker 1: repeat it. Much of what is really opposition to guns
Speaker 1: in this country has turned into the left's hatred for
Speaker 1: gun owners. It really is about despising the people who
Speaker 1: own the guns, and it's a cultural marker. If you
Speaker 1: own guns, you're the wrong kind of person. If you
Speaker 1: support the Second Amendment, you're the wrong kind of person.
Speaker 1: And there is a contempt that the left has for
Speaker 1: people who own guns. Now you know David Hogg's name
Speaker 1: and some of the other names probably as well, because
Speaker 1: they were held up as exactly what should be done
Speaker 1: after a school shooting, which is demonize the NRA and
Speaker 1: gun owners and tell people who disagree on policy matters
Speaker 1: that they don't care about dead children and the victim's
Speaker 1: status of those kids, meaning the kids that are speaking
Speaker 1: out publicly about this is used not just as a
Speaker 1: shield against criticism, but it then becomes weaponized. If you
Speaker 1: were to say that David Hogg is a smug punk,
Speaker 1: which he is, then people say, oh my gosh, he
Speaker 1: survived a tragedy. You're terrible, you're horrible person. Meanwhile, he's
Speaker 1: calling for boycotts against people and trying to ruin people's careers.
Speaker 1: Mister Pollock, however, takes a different approach to all of this.
Speaker 1: He really looks at who is responsible here, meaning who
Speaker 1: could have done something differently so that all these lives
Speaker 1: would not have been lost, Who put in place policies
Speaker 1: that were so idiotic and so reckless that the people
Speaker 1: implementing those policies bear some degree of the responsibility for
Speaker 1: the tragedy that happened. He's a father who lost his
Speaker 1: daughter to a murder, a mass murder in her high school,
Speaker 1: and he wants answers, and he gets far less attention
Speaker 1: in the media because the answers he's looking for really matter.
Speaker 1: He's not saying that people who own guns, the sixty
Speaker 1: million gun owners in this country, are the bad guys.
Speaker 1: He's not saying the Second Amendment is terrible and flawed.
Speaker 1: He's saying, hold on a second, what could have been
Speaker 1: done differently so that lives here would have been saved,
Speaker 1: or perhaps no lives would have been lost? And he
Speaker 1: points his finger, of course, at the murderer. He says,
Speaker 1: the murderer, I blame the murder for fifty percent of
Speaker 1: what happened, mister Pollock says in this piece. But then
Speaker 1: he goes on to make a very compelling case that
Speaker 1: it's much more than just the murderer that should be
Speaker 1: held accountable here, not accountable for murder, but held to
Speaker 1: account for their mistakes. Quote. Mister Pollock believes that political
Speaker 1: correctness killed Meadow. A prominent villain in his narrative is
Speaker 1: Robert Runs, who came to Broward from Chicago in twenty eleven.
Speaker 1: As a superintendent of the county's public schools, mister Runs
Speaker 1: introduced a program called Promise, a feel good acronym for
Speaker 1: preventing recidivism through opportunities, mentoring, interventions, support and education, under
Speaker 1: which students who commit crimes in public schools would no
Speaker 1: longer be reported to the police by administrators. Under Promise,
Speaker 1: students would be evaluated and dealt with exclusively within the
Speaker 1: schools associated reform programs. Even felonies as severe as drug dealing,
Speaker 1: sexual assault, and bringing weapons to school could be lawfully
Speaker 1: kept from the police. End quote. This is a policy
Speaker 1: of covering up people who are a danger in the
Speaker 1: school system. This was a few good, political correct lefty
Speaker 1: approach to school discipline, and the result was that people
Speaker 1: who were really a problem, people who were a threat
Speaker 1: to their fellow students, were being given second and third
Speaker 1: and fifteenth and thirtieth chances. Can't tell the cops if
Speaker 1: they bring weapons into school, can't give them a record
Speaker 1: because you see the record they have. Would then fall
Speaker 1: into this idea of the school to prison pipeline. This
Speaker 1: is a social justice warrior phrase that's supposed to mean
Speaker 1: that because schools aren't doing enough in terms of discipline
Speaker 1: and life coaching and whatever, mentoring all these different things,
Speaker 1: that people become violent felons. They become dangerous, and so
Speaker 1: it's society's fault. It's not the felon's fault. Society put
Speaker 1: them in the school to prison pipeline. You see, Well,
Speaker 1: why does this have so much residence with the social
Speaker 1: justice left. Oh, of course there's a racial angle to
Speaker 1: all of this. We are told that when you actually
Speaker 1: have school administrators reporting dangerous violent criminal behavior in schools,
Speaker 1: there's a disproportionate effect on minority students. Therefore the system
Speaker 1: must be racist, so we should just stop reporting these crimes.
Speaker 1: Here's a quote from the Peace Remember this is about
Speaker 1: the administrator for the school district that Parkland was in,
Speaker 1: who came up with these policies. This guy Runsie quote
Speaker 1: saw that minority students were being referred to the police
Speaker 1: at higher rates than whites. Mister Pollock tells it. Rather
Speaker 1: than recognize that misbehavior can be the result of many
Speaker 1: complex problems outside of school or at home, the superintendent
Speaker 1: concluded the disparity was because teachers in schools were racist
Speaker 1: with no reporting, Now there's no crime. The school's data
Speaker 1: looks great. Problem solved, but a much worse problem was created.
Speaker 1: No student has a criminal background as a result. So
Speaker 1: once you graduate from school and want to buy a gun,
Speaker 1: background checks are useless. Oh end quote. Look at the
Speaker 1: complexity here. Liberals like to bleat about background checks. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's going to solve it. If we just have more
Speaker 1: background checks, there won't be any more violence at schools. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: there feel good do goodism policies that put social justice
Speaker 1: ahead of safety in the school and that think that
Speaker 1: there must be something inherently. Look, the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is that there are racial disparities under murder statutes too,
Speaker 1: Meaning there's a racial disparity for people convicted of murder.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that we stop enforcing laws about murder?
Speaker 1: That's just a fact. By the way, people can get
Speaker 1: all uncomfortable and get angry about that, it is a fact.
Speaker 1: So if there is a disparity in school discipline resulting
Speaker 1: in referrals to the police. Do we pretend that those
Speaker 1: infractions that are actually criminal infractions are not happening. The
Speaker 1: answer in this school district in Florida was yes, pretend
Speaker 1: it's not happening. Pretend that there's no threat here. And oh,
Speaker 1: in this case, it means that some sickomaniac white kid.
Speaker 1: Because of this overall policy meant to deal with discriminatory
Speaker 1: racist practices of telling cops about criminal activity in the schools,
Speaker 1: this psychotic white kid killed seventeen people. Mister Pollock quote
Speaker 1: describes the Broward County School District as ground zero for
Speaker 1: a horrible approach to school safety that's spread across America.
Speaker 1: In January twenty fourteen, the Obama administration issued guidelines to
Speaker 1: the nation's school boards directing them to adopt Promise like
Speaker 1: policies or risk a federal investigation and loss of funding.
Speaker 1: The report of the Trump's School Safety Commission, published December eighteenth,
Speaker 1: recommended abolishing such programs. School boards won't be hounded anymore
Speaker 1: to put these policies in place, mister Pollock says, But
Speaker 1: there's nothing to stop a board from choosing to adopt promise,
Speaker 1: and Broward County has not abandoned it. So while, at
Speaker 1: least because the Obama administration was threatening schools to adopt
Speaker 1: these crazy policies that if they decided to deviate from,
Speaker 1: they could lose funding. Obama was basically, through his Department
Speaker 1: of Education, saying, well, you don't want schools to have
Speaker 1: a disparate racial impact in their disciplinary policy. So if
Speaker 1: a kid brings a gun into school, don't tell the cops.
Speaker 1: Put them into a diversionary mentoring program. If a kid
Speaker 1: sexually assaults a fellow student, you know, don't tell the cops.
Speaker 1: Put them into a diversionary mentoring program. And no record,
Speaker 1: by the way, no criminal records. So then when they
Speaker 1: do bad things later on, it's like, oh, where did
Speaker 1: this come from. It's just a way of scheming and
Speaker 1: gaming the stats to make school safety look better than
Speaker 1: it was. And this was top down from the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: And you have to wonder how bad, how bad of
Speaker 1: an apple could get through this process, I mean, how
Speaker 1: rotten a kid because of this policy, because of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration's top down view of school safety, who could
Speaker 1: get through this Well, this is a description of the
Speaker 1: shooter himself Nicholas Cruz quote. In middle school, he was
Speaker 1: required to have a adult supervision at all times. In
Speaker 1: high school, he vandalized a bathroom, causing more than a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars of damage. He racially abused black students and
Speaker 1: had fist fights with them. He carved swastikas on his desk.
Speaker 1: He hurled furniture across classrooms. He threw hard objects at
Speaker 1: other students, sometimes injuring them. He brought dead animals to
Speaker 1: school and often waived them before other students. He threatened
Speaker 1: to kill teachers and other students and shoot up the school.
Speaker 1: He wrote kill in his notebooks and spoke frequently about guns.
Speaker 1: He brought knives to school, and on one occasion, a
Speaker 1: backpack full of bullets. Mister Pollock said after that the
Speaker 1: school banned him from bringing a backpack to school. But
Speaker 1: I ask you, if he's too dangerous to wear a backpack,
Speaker 1: why isn't he too dangerous to be in class with
Speaker 1: kids like my daughter? That is a damn good question,
Speaker 1: isn't it. See this father whose life will never be
Speaker 1: the same, who suffers heartbreak every day of losing his
Speaker 1: beautiful baby girl, His father wants to find out what
Speaker 1: really went wrong here. Whose stupidity allowed Nicholas Cruz to
Speaker 1: go without the punitive justice that should have been visited
Speaker 1: upon him, well before any possibility of a mass shooting.
Speaker 1: What stupid federal level policies prevented the police from being
Speaker 1: more aware of what he was doing in school? And yes,
Speaker 1: the police were called dozens and dozens of times to
Speaker 1: his home and they still couldn't do something. But at
Speaker 1: least there would have been a greater chance, at least
Speaker 1: there would have been some hope if the school expelled him,
Speaker 1: kept him out of the school, that this would not
Speaker 1: have happened. But you see, he's looking for real answers,
Speaker 1: real policy solutions. The left would rather just say the
Speaker 1: NRA is a terrorist organization, That's why this happened, and
Speaker 1: elevate the imbeciles that spread that lie, while fathers like
Speaker 1: mister Pollock have to just suffer and try to find
Speaker 1: answers on their own. We have more coming up. Stay
Speaker 1: with Me Global Verification Network the only dual certified and
Speaker 1: veteran owned background investigation and vetting company out there. They
Speaker 1: are the people you need to go to if you're
Speaker 1: in an HR department if you've got a small business
Speaker 1: or a huge business, have them do your background checks.
Speaker 1: If you already have a company or someone you work
Speaker 1: with who does those background checks, give Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: a call. These guys are the best in the business.
Speaker 1: They are absolutely trustworthy, discreete and efficient. They have headquarters
Speaker 1: in Chicago and office throughout the nation. So whatever your needs,
Speaker 1: they can help you cover them. So for your background
Speaker 1: checks in twenty nineteen, call eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. That's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine. Or go to MYGVN
Speaker 1: dot com again, that's my GVN dot com. Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Leave no stone unturned. You know, sometimes a writer puts
Speaker 1: something out there and I feel like, oh, okay, so
Speaker 1: this is just meant to troll people, and that's one
Speaker 1: way to get attention, and it's going to get a
Speaker 1: certain group of people all fired up, and that can
Speaker 1: be a very effective tactic. I'm not necessarily putting it
Speaker 1: putting it down. It depends on how it's done and
Speaker 1: what the topic is and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: I would just say, though, when people are celebrating their
Speaker 1: kids performances, if you tell them to tone it down
Speaker 1: a little bit. You may you may find yourself getting
Speaker 1: some pretty angry parents at you. But I agree with
Speaker 1: a general principle that has advanced by this one writer
Speaker 1: or national review. Although I can't speak about kids performances
Speaker 1: because I don't have any kids. Sarah shoot, or it
Speaker 1: might be shoot, I don't know, or Scott, could be
Speaker 1: any number of ways to say this name. Please stay seated.
Speaker 1: And she writes that our participation award obsessed culture doesn't
Speaker 1: understand the true meaning of a standing ovation. And she
Speaker 1: goes in to say that at every children's performance in
Speaker 1: the K through twelve range, there's this understanding that at
Speaker 1: the end of whatever it is, everybody has to stand
Speaker 1: up and give a standing ovation. Look, I'm with her,
Speaker 1: and that standing oh, should be something where something's really fantastic.
Speaker 1: And I don't think that we do people favors, even
Speaker 1: high schoolers. Look, little kids, I don't know, but even
Speaker 1: high schoolers, I don't know if we do them favors
Speaker 1: by making them think that everything they do is amazing.
Speaker 1: Applause of course, right support great, well done, standing ovation,
Speaker 1: But I leave this to the parenting experts in our audience,
Speaker 1: which as far as I'm concerned as everybody who has
Speaker 1: a kid, they know more about kids than I do.
Speaker 1: I will say this, though, I have noticed that at
Speaker 1: the theater or at any kind of live performance, there
Speaker 1: is this inclination to go for the standing oh right away.
Speaker 1: And I got problems with this. Okay, we all know
Speaker 1: when something's really worthy of the standing ovation. Standing ovation
Speaker 1: needs to be. This is like mind blowing awesome, and
Speaker 1: I feel the need to get up on my feet
Speaker 1: because of it. Standing ovation is not supposed to be expected,
Speaker 1: you know. But then again, I'm also somebody that has
Speaker 1: a problem with the expectation of a twenty percent tip
Speaker 1: at a restaurant. Twenty percent is supposed to be like
Speaker 1: if the service is really good, if the service is
Speaker 1: just kind of mediocre. I feel like it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be fifteen percent, maybe seventeen percent, But a twenty percent
Speaker 1: tip is supposed to be, you know, hey, great stuff.
Speaker 1: I have given twenty five percent tips before. If somebody
Speaker 1: does me a favor during the meal, it really does
Speaker 1: something fantastic, catches something. Maybe the kitchen didn't like that
Speaker 1: dish has gluten in it, and even though they told
Speaker 1: me that it doesn't, stuff like that, you know, but
Speaker 1: there's an expectation that we're supposed to pretend that things
Speaker 1: are excellent that aren't. Service is excellent that isn't. A
Speaker 1: performance is excellent that isn't. And when you're at a
Speaker 1: performance and there's that whole standing oh moment, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: everyone stands up and does the whole clamping thing. If
Speaker 1: you are like me and you're sitting down, I don't
Speaker 1: want to look at the back of somebody who was
Speaker 1: clapping maniacally because of whatever's going on. I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't want to have to then stand just so I
Speaker 1: can see what's going on on stage. I want to
Speaker 1: see the curtain calls. I want to see. Now, I
Speaker 1: know this is a little bit of a get off
Speaker 1: my lawn segment, but you understand it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: cultural thing that we should all agree upon. The standing
Speaker 1: ovation should be reserved for things that are truly excellent,
Speaker 1: not just for things that are like really really good
Speaker 1: or good enough. And you know, it's like I told
Speaker 1: somebody recently. I can't remember where I saw this on
Speaker 1: the internet, but it was parenting advice from I think
Speaker 1: it was a major league baseball player who said you know,
Speaker 1: gotta get your son to start giving you high fives
Speaker 1: early so he understands how the high five works. Get
Speaker 1: some psyched and enthusiastic about everything. But once you've really
Speaker 1: trained in with that high five, you got to throw
Speaker 1: in a down low too slow because life ain't fair.
Speaker 1: And it's true, you know, I think of the some
Speaker 1: of the things that I've learned about you know, you
Speaker 1: always want to be you always want people to support
Speaker 1: you and to be there for you, because that takes
Speaker 1: into into account, especially for kids, the the whole learning process, right,
Speaker 1: you need people that are going to be telling you
Speaker 1: keep going, keep going, not get discouraged. But I don't
Speaker 1: think it's a good thing to be told you're excellent
Speaker 1: when you're not. You know, I feel like I feel
Speaker 1: like I had a route awakening when I came out
Speaker 1: of college. Like, oh, I went to a good school
Speaker 1: and and you know, I had an ANS average at
Speaker 1: a good schools and I was a college kid or whatever.
Speaker 1: By the way, everybody everybody had like a A minus
Speaker 1: or a B plus everybody the whole school. That's what
Speaker 1: I didn't realize until later on in life. But then
Speaker 1: even when I was waiting and get security clearance. I
Speaker 1: remember applying for all these jobs. It's like, yeah, man,
Speaker 1: there's there's hundreds, if not thousands, of grade schools full
Speaker 1: of kids that got great grades. You're not special. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: good to know IB would have been better than knowing
Speaker 1: that freshman year instead of thinking I could graduate from
Speaker 1: college and just be special because I wasn't had to
Speaker 1: try to make myself special. And that came later on
Speaker 1: in life and still working on that one. Um, we
Speaker 1: have some other making life special thoughts coming up here
Speaker 1: in the in the realm of Keto. Should you eat Keto?
Speaker 1: It's coming up. I am Hans, Am, I am Funds,
Speaker 1: and we just want Yeah. The truth is I could
Speaker 1: use little Hans and fronds in my life these days.
Speaker 1: I got back to the gym yesterday team for the
Speaker 1: first time in I don't even know three or four,
Speaker 1: five or months. Um, I managed to. Uh. I was
Speaker 1: just doing a little bit of closet rearranging and I
Speaker 1: had a one of those things. I said, Oh, I
Speaker 1: forgot about that. That uh that suit that I can
Speaker 1: wear it in the summer. It's not really a winter suit,
Speaker 1: a summer suit. I was like, Oh, let me just
Speaker 1: I hope it's still fits, which whenever you think that
Speaker 1: to yourself usually it's because you know it doesn't fit.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I got into one of those battles. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta get it around the waist, it's gotta get
Speaker 1: around the just gonna get on. He started, and he
Speaker 1: suck in. Then you realize, well, I'm not gonna wear
Speaker 1: it sucking in, so I need to h Anyway, I'm
Speaker 1: getting after it now. I got back into the gym yesterday, squats,
Speaker 1: overhead bench, all all the all the meat, the meat
Speaker 1: and potatoes, basics and men. As I see here today,
Speaker 1: you would you would think that I just did like
Speaker 1: a you know, an iron man, I just did a
Speaker 1: triathlon or something in terms of how my body feels.
Speaker 1: But no, it was like a thirty minute full body
Speaker 1: workout that I think you could probably put a fair
Speaker 1: amount of seventy five year old women through and they'd
Speaker 1: be fine. So yeah, anyway, I'm I'm committed though, I'm
Speaker 1: getting back into it. The one thing I'm thinking about,
Speaker 1: and if Jesse Kelly were here, he would mock me
Speaker 1: relentlessly for this, so we might have to have him
Speaker 1: come on. Just so you can make fun of me,
Speaker 1: is I have reading about intermittent fasting does work. I've
Speaker 1: done that before and it some of you may have
Speaker 1: even noticed. It was a couple of years ago, and
Speaker 1: I just shredded down to probably dropped about twenty pounds
Speaker 1: and was pretty close to what I would say was
Speaker 1: my ideal. Wait, if any of you have the secret
Speaker 1: when it comes to keto and are there enough Keto
Speaker 1: foods to eat that you feel like you're happy? The
Speaker 1: one really sad thing that I had to do this
Speaker 1: weekend was I have quite a chocolate stash that I
Speaker 1: have built up over recent months. I'm like, I just
Speaker 1: just a little, just a little bit, you know, just
Speaker 1: just a little taste, a little taste of the chocolate stash.
Speaker 1: And what I realized was my chocolate stash has turned
Speaker 1: into about three different bags of chocolate truffles, six different
Speaker 1: really high quality chocolate bars. I got some Valerna, I've
Speaker 1: got all this different stuff in there, and I finally
Speaker 1: just sealed it all up in one of those tougherware things.
Speaker 1: I said, until you are back in summer's suit summer
Speaker 1: suit shape, you are you are only chocolate on weekends.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna say I'm not eating any chocolate because
Speaker 1: that would just be a lie. But it would be
Speaker 1: only chocolate on weekends. But I'm sure a lot of
Speaker 1: you have your own New Year's resolutions. Maybe they're about,
Speaker 1: you know, getting into a you know, people say, don't
Speaker 1: say get back into shape. They don't. That's not the positive.
Speaker 1: But I think about it that you're going to just
Speaker 1: build a stronger, healthier you, you know. I like that
Speaker 1: all I'm going to build a stronger, healthier me. So,
Speaker 1: you know, until I've reached the point where this is
Speaker 1: the single biggest radio slash podcast show in the world,
Speaker 1: I don't think I can afford to just like let it,
Speaker 1: let it go, you know, just sit and slap my
Speaker 1: big belly. It's huge bellies full of jelly. I can't
Speaker 1: do that. I can't do that. So yeah, I'll let
Speaker 1: you know how it goes. I'm pretty pretty confident that
Speaker 1: I'll get lean and mean. So if you have any
Speaker 1: Keto thoughts though Facebook dot com, slash buck sex and
Speaker 1: let me know what your thoughts are. I know there're
Speaker 1: at least a few fitness experts in this audience, So
Speaker 1: fitness experts, tell me when you're getting back into it
Speaker 1: when you've been let's say, uh, not really getting after
Speaker 1: for a while. What do you recommend? Let me know
Speaker 1: and we'll be back with roll call in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for roll call. That's right,
Speaker 1: roll call, pure, unadulterated, the real thing, the real deal.
Speaker 1: Getting right to it, Lisa, what's up, Lisa? Lisa rights Buck?
Speaker 1: All the previous votes for Border Security and the Secure
Speaker 1: Offences Act, the twenty five billion dollars Schumer voted for
Speaker 1: last year. Where has all this money gone? Ard one program?
Speaker 1: Either you or sewn? There was funding at one time
Speaker 1: for seven hundred miles of fence wall? Is there that
Speaker 1: much down there? What has been done with all that money?
Speaker 1: I'm not understanding why this is even still necessary at
Speaker 1: this point. And if there isn't that much, it has
Speaker 1: already been approved the past, or why can't he just
Speaker 1: finish what was started but not finished had to be funded, right?
Speaker 1: I just am not understanding. Shields high, Lisa. Well, Lisa,
Speaker 1: you raised some very good points here, and I don't
Speaker 1: know if it was me or Seawan. It was probably
Speaker 1: both of us that talked about what's going on with
Speaker 1: funding for barriers for offense. Isn't it amazing how we
Speaker 1: have been told so many times in recent weeks the
Speaker 1: offense is crazy, barriers are insane. Man Like, why do
Speaker 1: you even want a barrier fence? Man Like, No, it's
Speaker 1: just nuts. And then when you do a little bit
Speaker 1: of research about the border, it turns out that there
Speaker 1: is already a lot of fencing, a couple of hundred
Speaker 1: miles of barriers and fencing already at the border. So
Speaker 1: we got a two thousand mile border, and we got
Speaker 1: a lot of border that needs additional protection. And this
Speaker 1: is what they don't want to do, and that's why
Speaker 1: they're acting like there's no money for this. Of course,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of money for this. Schumer wanted to give
Speaker 1: twenty five billion before. But remember the twenty five billion
Speaker 1: was tied to DACCA, and the whole purpose of DACA
Speaker 1: is to change the game forever such that Republicans will
Speaker 1: be a party that is in continuous opposition, never in power.
Speaker 1: That you'll have America become a one party state. It's
Speaker 1: pretty clear that's what will happen if you have continued
Speaker 1: waves of illegal immigration and also amnesty on top of it.
Speaker 1: People say, oh, why is that? Why do you assume
Speaker 1: that illegal immigrants are going to Democrat. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're going to vote Democrat forever necessarily. But if you
Speaker 1: come to this country and you don't speak English, and
Speaker 1: you don't have skills to compete in the information economy,
Speaker 1: you're going to be working for wages. Real wage growth
Speaker 1: since nineteen fifty I believe has been stagnant, I mean
Speaker 1: real wages, and it's only going to get worse, as
Speaker 1: I've been discussing with you, because of automation and what
Speaker 1: AI is going to do to jobs. And when you
Speaker 1: think about how retail and transportation, you put those two together,
Speaker 1: retail and transportation are a huge percentage of jobs that
Speaker 1: people making less than the household average household income are making,
Speaker 1: and you realize that those are jobs that might get
Speaker 1: automated out very easily, very soon. What do we do
Speaker 1: with all those people. I think ten percent of the
Speaker 1: workforce is in retail, which is pretty remarkable you think
Speaker 1: about it. Karen writes, Hey, Buck, don't pay attention to
Speaker 1: the journos and the clown, Prince and Princess, Chuck and Nancy,
Speaker 1: all us real people want borders and border security. I
Speaker 1: call Chuck and Nancy's office and called for a wall. Here,
Speaker 1: here are the numbers. Give him a call. Well, thank you, Karen.
Speaker 1: Maybe I will give them a call. Give him a
Speaker 1: piece in my mind while I'm at it, Like, Yo,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Chuck and Nancy? Why are you so
Speaker 1: posed to borders? Come on, we all know that borders
Speaker 1: are a good thing. Chuck and Nancy, let me tell you,
Speaker 1: if all of a sudden you thought that you could
Speaker 1: just wander onto Nancy's estate in Marin County, just outside
Speaker 1: of San Francisco, I'm sure all of a sudden she
Speaker 1: would be very interested in fences and borders and boundaries.
Speaker 1: But hypocrisy is a central characteristic and a central theme
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party. So that's what we have to
Speaker 1: deal with. Unfortunately, Kelvin rights Buck get a load of
Speaker 1: the supposed non unified mass media we speak of cramming
Speaker 1: this Russia collusion crap down our throats as if it
Speaker 1: was real or even new. I'm guessing they found out
Speaker 1: how popular wall still is and needed to discredit the
Speaker 1: President talk about beating a dead horse. Shields high. Calvin, Look,
Speaker 1: I agree. I think that this latest story that broke
Speaker 1: has almost nothing new in it. I'm very skeptical of
Speaker 1: this story as something that people should think adds to
Speaker 1: the narrative at all. I mean, really, what you have
Speaker 1: is the FBI trying to excuse FBI prior conduct, and
Speaker 1: it's an organization that is in meshin and scandal. You know,
Speaker 1: I was in the CIA when black sites broke in
Speaker 1: the news. I was in the CIA when waterboarding was
Speaker 1: going on. Let me tell you something. Nobody was walking
Speaker 1: around saying, well, this CIA, so everything they do is
Speaker 1: fine and we don't have to even think about it,
Speaker 1: and they're just perfect. Meanwhile, with the FBI, libs pretend
Speaker 1: like all of these powers they have fish and counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigation authority and all this stuff, All of that is
Speaker 1: just fine and dandy. There's no problem at all. There's
Speaker 1: no real concern that the FBI perhaps needed greater oversight,
Speaker 1: that the FBI may have stepped outside of its balance.
Speaker 1: You know, nobody wants to hear anything about that, do they.
Speaker 1: That's just because libs are full of it. They have
Speaker 1: no actual principles when it comes to law enforcement or intelligence.
Speaker 1: They just want what they want when they want it. Jay, Right,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck. About your celiac issue, I read that distilled liquors,
Speaker 1: even ones derived from a grand containing gluten, are considered
Speaker 1: to be gluten free because the dissillation process supposedly removes
Speaker 1: the gluten proteins, although they still aren't allowed to label
Speaker 1: them as gluten free now. I've also read that a
Speaker 1: small number of gluten sensitive people still react to it nonetheless,
Speaker 1: while most do not, so the jury is out on
Speaker 1: the issue of safe consumption for ciliac stuff. First, my
Speaker 1: question is whether you've ever tried whiskey after your celiac
Speaker 1: diagnosis to know if you personally react to them. It
Speaker 1: was just curious. I'm a Bourbon and Scotch fan have
Speaker 1: been to several distilleries. I'd love to send you some
Speaker 1: recommendations for good whiskey if you could partake in enjoying them.
Speaker 1: Hence the question, have a great day, Shields High Well, Jay,
Speaker 1: the answer to what you've written out here, the answer
Speaker 1: to your question is yes, Yes, there are people that
Speaker 1: think that it is safe to drink grain based alcohol
Speaker 1: even if you have celia. To these and yes there
Speaker 1: are people say that they still react and they still
Speaker 1: are sensitive enough that it's not okay for them. I
Speaker 1: do drink a bit of hard liquor from time to time,
Speaker 1: but just because I don't need to tempt fate, I
Speaker 1: tend to focus on tequila and mescal and only and
Speaker 1: potato based vodkas. I will have a really good scotch
Speaker 1: or really good whiskey, but tequila and mescal are what's
Speaker 1: really in my wheelhouse. I don't mess around too much
Speaker 1: with other alcohol O n wine, and I obviously cannot
Speaker 1: drink beer. As a ciliac sufferer, you absolutely cannot have beer.
Speaker 1: I think I mentioned this, but they believe that celiac
Speaker 1: disease may have been a mutation, a genetic mutation for
Speaker 1: Western Europeans, intended to help them fight certain kinds of
Speaker 1: bacterial infection, and the body just made some mistakes in
Speaker 1: that process. Let me see here aries rights, oh, aries,
Speaker 1: going long here. Buck just want to say, if you
Speaker 1: were write about anything, and seldom your as it concerns music,
Speaker 1: but Aerosmith is the best American rock band in history.
Speaker 1: See aries, And honestly, aren't they all American rock bands?
Speaker 1: They get houses in New York, in LA and made
Speaker 1: most of their money here. That's a that's a fair
Speaker 1: that's a fair point. That's a fair point. Aries they do.
Speaker 1: You know? This is like I always thought it was
Speaker 1: strange that the very lovely and very tall Maria Sharapova
Speaker 1: chose to always play for the Russian Federation in international
Speaker 1: tennis matches, even though she had been living in America
Speaker 1: and trained in America since I think she was five.
Speaker 1: To me, that feels pretty American. But you know, people,
Speaker 1: I guess they choose what they want to choose. Daniel writes,
Speaker 1: you definitely need to step up your music analysis game.
Speaker 1: If you don't know or appreciate Tool, well, Daniel, I
Speaker 1: guess I'm I sound like kind of a tool. Then
Speaker 1: I didn't know this was a band that people really like.
Speaker 1: I don't know everything. I gotta make some I gotta
Speaker 1: make some time for some Tool. I guess I'll figure
Speaker 1: that out. Virginia said, you said you're going to the
Speaker 1: walls on the border next week, why don't you take
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta with you and show him what he's missing
Speaker 1: in his reporting. Well, I would be happy to take
Speaker 1: mister Acosta along, but I don't think that he'd want
Speaker 1: to go for a ride along with me, especially because
Speaker 1: then how could he get away with all the shenanigans.
Speaker 1: Was it Instagram or Twitter or however he's putting that
Speaker 1: stuff out there of the video. Yeah, here I am
Speaker 1: at the wall and things are really quiet here. I
Speaker 1: guess it's not quite the healthscape here of the border
Speaker 1: that the Republicans have been saying. Uh, it's almost like
Speaker 1: this big wall thing kind of works. Oh that guy,
Speaker 1: I swear, Harry. I'm a podcast listener, buck that has
Speaker 1: fallen behind. So you may have already covered this. If
Speaker 1: the USA had national healthcare and govern employees use the
Speaker 1: same program, RBG would have patted on the head and
Speaker 1: been told she's too old for her cancer treatment. Be
Speaker 1: careful what you ask for, Lefty shields high, Harry. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Harry, you know the truth is that these
Speaker 1: healthcare systems in countries like the UK, where people are
Speaker 1: all happy because I think, oh, it's socialist medicine and
Speaker 1: everything will be great. And the UK really is socialist medicine,
Speaker 1: I would know. I mean the UK, you have the
Speaker 1: National Health Service that is truly in control of hospitals,
Speaker 1: truly in control of the delivery system and the employees
Speaker 1: and all aspects of healthcare. And there is something of
Speaker 1: a private market there, but it's it's small, as I
Speaker 1: understand it. People do have some private insurance, and you look,
Speaker 1: you can always find a medical professional that if you're
Speaker 1: willing to if you're willing to write a check, they'll
Speaker 1: treat you. But cancer survival rates in America are better
Speaker 1: than they are in Europe. And I think that is
Speaker 1: because cancer is incredibly expensive to treat most of the time,
Speaker 1: and we don't have a rationing system in this country
Speaker 1: for it the way that they do in places like
Speaker 1: the UK. You know, I can tell you that if
Speaker 1: I had an ear infection, yeah, I'd rather be in
Speaker 1: Sweden or in the UK, and in America these days,
Speaker 1: if I had a life threatening illness, I take America
Speaker 1: every time. Ninety nine times out of one hundred. You
Speaker 1: want to be in the US of A. Let's see,
Speaker 1: we have time for one more, James, right, Buck, Your
Speaker 1: position on littering is exactly on the nose. I was
Speaker 1: out in the neighborhood I live here in Puerto Rico
Speaker 1: and New Year's Eve, and I watched this guy I
Speaker 1: just met open and pack of cigarettes, tear off the
Speaker 1: cellophane and foil and throw it directly on the ground.
Speaker 1: There was a trash barrel literally ten feet away. Shortly
Speaker 1: after that, I watched another person throw an empty beer
Speaker 1: can on the ground. Now, I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: that ruined my night or anything, but it bothered me
Speaker 1: more than I thought it would. The fact that it
Speaker 1: happened in Puerto Rico is not relevant. I'm just rubbing
Speaker 1: it into little since I'm a native New England or
Speaker 1: I know it's cold up there. Anyway, have fun the border,
Speaker 1: be safe, James, James, Littering is very much. I've said
Speaker 1: this before, but littering is very much. Or rather, the
Speaker 1: trash on the streets of a place tells you a
Speaker 1: lot about how wealthy it is, how developed it is
Speaker 1: the state of its civil society. Advanced, wealthy countries do
Speaker 1: not have filthy streets. They do not have the same
Speaker 1: kind of trash on the streets that countries that are
Speaker 1: still either developing or third world I mean third world countries.
Speaker 1: One way you know you're in them is there's trash everywhere.
Speaker 1: There's just trash everywhere you walk around. There's just garbage,
Speaker 1: like people have ripped open their garbage bags and just
Speaker 1: let it all out on the street everywhere. That's how
Speaker 1: you know you're in the third world. All right, team,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be it four today. I'm gonna be out
Speaker 1: at the border tomorrow. We should be good luck and
Speaker 1: safe passage my friends talking to you from San Diego.
Speaker 1: Woo speak to you then, Shields High. You're probably familiar
Speaker 1: with AARP. You are someone you know might already be
Speaker 1: a member. But did you know that the AARP lobbies
Speaker 1: for lots of progressive, left wing causes. You know, they
Speaker 1: stood against tax cuts from middle class Americans and small
Speaker 1: business owners, and they're all about Obamacare. I got an idea.
Speaker 1: How about you get all of the benefits of AARP
Speaker 1: without the progressive politics. I recommend AMAC. If that's what
Speaker 1: you want. Why AMAC, Well, you see, AMAC gets your
Speaker 1: discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants, dental plans, even
Speaker 1: sell service options. So it gets you all the upside
Speaker 1: of AARP. But it also is about conservative ideology and policy.
Speaker 1: Join AMAC. It's the conservative alternative to aa ARP. Stand
Speaker 1: with AMAC as they fight the good fight by becoming
Speaker 1: a member today, the benefits are great. The cause is
Speaker 1: even greater. Tell your family, Tell your friends. Join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better,
Speaker 1: better for you, better for America,