Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats seem to
Speaker 1: think the only way they can win is if they
Speaker 1: change the rules. A preview of what they're doing for
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election already plus is a universal basic
Speaker 1: income a good idea or a path to socialism? And
Speaker 1: also the Trump administration gets a victory on immigration, but
Speaker 1: the crisis at the border worsens that. In more coming
Speaker 1: up on the Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Mag Noo, mistake American? Great,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again? The Buck Sexton Show begins,
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. Now getting the electoral college? Is
Speaker 1: that anund works for you? Hogever? I think there's there's
Speaker 1: a lot to that. Because you had an election in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen where the loser got three million more votes
Speaker 1: than the victor. It puts some states out of play altogether.
Speaker 1: They don't feel like their votes really count. So if
Speaker 1: we really want every person to vote and give them
Speaker 1: every reason to vote, we got to make sure their
Speaker 1: votes count and go to the candidate of their choosing.
Speaker 1: So I think there's a lot of wisdom in that,
Speaker 1: and that's something we talked about on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: We need to make sure that every vote counts, and
Speaker 1: I want to I want to push that right here
Speaker 1: in Mississippi because I think this is an important point.
Speaker 1: You know, come a general election, presidential candidas still come
Speaker 1: to places like Mississippi. Yeah, they all shall come to
Speaker 1: places like California and Massachusetts, right because we're not the
Speaker 1: battle ground states. My view is that every vote matters,
Speaker 1: and the way we can make that happen is that
Speaker 1: we can have national voting and that means get rid
Speaker 1: of the electoral college. And that means get rid of
Speaker 1: the electoral college. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody. Wow,
Speaker 1: I know I put you through your paces there for
Speaker 1: a moment. Berto, on the one hand, I totally wants
Speaker 1: to get rid of the electoral college. And then Warren,
Speaker 1: who kind of is like Hillary but a little more
Speaker 1: twangy sounding, get rid of the electoral college. Oh wow,
Speaker 1: where did this come from? All that's right? When the
Speaker 1: left loses, what do they do when they lose a contest?
Speaker 1: Do they think about why they lost? Why do that
Speaker 1: when you could just change the rules to suit your side?
Speaker 1: That's the plan. And it just goes to show you
Speaker 1: how much nonsense and bull it was when the left
Speaker 1: was saying for the last two years that the Trump
Speaker 1: administrations undermining institutions. They will, they will go scorched earth
Speaker 1: on institutions. They will undermine any electoral process we have.
Speaker 1: They'll undermine any agency, any institution, any aspect of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: the plane meaning of law, the plane understanding of amendments,
Speaker 1: the Constitution. There's nothing they won't undermine. They don't respect
Speaker 1: any of these things. They respect power, and they're not
Speaker 1: even clever about it. Sometimes. Elizabeth Warren's thing there people
Speaker 1: and Mississippi would funt, no, that's not true. If it
Speaker 1: were all just about popular votes, Guess what, Mississippi has
Speaker 1: almost three million people. That's not going to get a
Speaker 1: lot of attention. Sorry, so I got a lot of
Speaker 1: attention in presidential election three three million people. It's been
Speaker 1: a lot more time in states with tens of millions
Speaker 1: of residents trying to squeeze out every vote. So she
Speaker 1: doesn't even know what she's talking about. It it's just
Speaker 1: not true. But they need to come up with some patina,
Speaker 1: some veneer of a justification for why. One of the
Speaker 1: yes institutions set up by the founders and part of
Speaker 1: the genius of the American Founding is this system of
Speaker 1: federalism and states and members of Congress. The Congress is
Speaker 1: the house representatives, is the House for the people. The
Speaker 1: senators are representatives of the states. That there's a reason
Speaker 1: for all of this. And I don't know which would
Speaker 1: be more disconcerting that they don't that the Democrats don't
Speaker 1: know the reasons for the system that we have, or
Speaker 1: that they just know and don't care, depending on which
Speaker 1: one we're talking about. It could be either or could
Speaker 1: be you know, it could be it could be that
Speaker 1: they know and don't care. It could be they don't know.
Speaker 1: But one thing that is for sure is that they
Speaker 1: are also playing into the notion that Hillary really won.
Speaker 1: And that is you know, I'm not gonna say it's
Speaker 1: a dog whistle, but this is this is a subliminal
Speaker 1: message that they put out all the time. That's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons they like to talk about the electoral college,
Speaker 1: just every chance they get to bring up that the
Speaker 1: popular vote went the way the Democrat. And it's true,
Speaker 1: the popular vote went the way the Democrat in two
Speaker 1: thousand as well. That's not the election process that we have.
Speaker 1: You know, you could also say that there are so
Speaker 1: many aspects of the election process that's arbitrary. Why is
Speaker 1: it one day now you've said it's expanding, We're expanding
Speaker 1: out voting in different states. Okay, Well, why couldn't we
Speaker 1: vote over the course of a year, you know, really
Speaker 1: get a sense. Why not let people vote and then
Speaker 1: in three months let them vote again. If they want
Speaker 1: to change their vote, you know, we'll just we'll give
Speaker 1: people the right to retractive vote. I mean, you could
Speaker 1: do this all day. We have a system. The system
Speaker 1: has worked pretty well for a long time, and the
Speaker 1: only time Democrats have a problem with the system is
Speaker 1: when they don't win. When they win, the system is great,
Speaker 1: and if you question any aspect of it, you are
Speaker 1: undermining our sacred institutions. As I've always said, one of
Speaker 1: the reasons the Democrats have so much latitude, they have
Speaker 1: so much room for maneuver, is that they lack fixed principles.
Speaker 1: Their principles. Their principles are situational. They have situational ethics.
Speaker 1: I like the electoral college when it means that I
Speaker 1: get to have my people be the president. I don't
Speaker 1: like the electoral college when it's not. It's a fair
Speaker 1: system when it works for me, it's an unfair system
Speaker 1: when it doesn't. You know, you'll notice with conservatives will
Speaker 1: say on many issues and many times, and even some
Speaker 1: of the republic Consenators that voted against Trump on the border,
Speaker 1: I think they're wrong, as I've said, but I do
Speaker 1: believe that some of them did it out of what
Speaker 1: they thought was principle, and that was them saying, at
Speaker 1: least those that you would say have voted voted on
Speaker 1: a principal basis against this. That was their version of saying, Look,
Speaker 1: even though I like that the president would do this,
Speaker 1: or I approve of the action, I don't approve of
Speaker 1: the mechanism for accomplishing it. That's respect for the system.
Speaker 1: That's believing that there's something more important than an immediate
Speaker 1: political win and getting your way on some issue right away.
Speaker 1: But the Democrat Party is going so far left, they're
Speaker 1: they're going to topple over soon. They're not going to
Speaker 1: have any room. You hear what's being talked about, openly
Speaker 1: abolish the electoral college, allow sixteen year olds to vote. Oh.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren opening herself up to a whole lot of
Speaker 1: jokes that I won't make here on this show. But
Speaker 1: you know, she's somebody who engaged in racial fraud. Now
Speaker 1: she wants to talk about reparations for a history of
Speaker 1: racial discrimination. I'm sure a lot of people would have
Speaker 1: a lot to say about Elizabeth Warren being a person
Speaker 1: promoting this, but yeah, she's four reparations, Blake clip mine.
Speaker 1: America was founded on principles of liberty and freedom and
Speaker 1: on the backs of slave labor. This is a stain
Speaker 1: on America. It's time to start the national full blown
Speaker 1: conversation about reparations. Start a conversation, as Democrats speak for.
Speaker 1: I'm going to lecture a lot of people and fire
Speaker 1: up my base, but I don't really have any outcome
Speaker 1: in mind here. I don't have any particular solutions that
Speaker 1: I'm going to propose or policy action that I think
Speaker 1: should take. I just want credit for being It's essentially
Speaker 1: an excuse to virtue signal. I just want to I
Speaker 1: want an excuse to be a virtue signaler on this issue.
Speaker 1: But you you tell me any matter of national concern
Speaker 1: right now, and when you look at where the conversation
Speaker 1: is happening among the Democrats. When you look at what
Speaker 1: they're saying, these people that want to be the next
Speaker 1: leader of the free world, the next commander in chief
Speaker 1: of the most fearsome and powerful miry and the planet.
Speaker 1: This is a This is just like a clown car
Speaker 1: full of and not just because of the number. I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's a clown car because it's a lot
Speaker 1: of people and their clowns. These Democrats are not serious individuals,
Speaker 1: Their ideas are not serious. What they're proposing for the
Speaker 1: country is disastrous. And Kirsten Gillibrand, who just it's such
Speaker 1: a flip flopping, raudulent mediocrity. And how any how any
Speaker 1: human being who's paying attention couldn't see that is beyond me.
Speaker 1: But listened to the way she speaks about immigration, play
Speaker 1: clip ay, that should not be under ICE, It should
Speaker 1: not be under homeland security. Immigration is not a security issue.
Speaker 1: It is an economic and a humanitarian and a family issue.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing as an illegal human. Immigration
Speaker 1: is not a security issue. How how could anyone in
Speaker 1: the press hear that and not hammer her for saying
Speaker 1: something that is so stupid, so dumb. Of course, immigrant
Speaker 1: immigration is a is a primary security issue in this country,
Speaker 1: the infiltration of drugs, the possible infiltration of terrorists. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is no person who is thoughtful on the on
Speaker 1: the issue of immigration does not consider to be a
Speaker 1: secure issue. No person but Jilla brand is just Look,
Speaker 1: she's just looking for claps from you know, the move
Speaker 1: on dot org crowd. I mean, she's just looking for
Speaker 1: people to praise her for bravery when all she's doing
Speaker 1: is pandering to ignor Ramis's who need to be in
Speaker 1: an echo chamber around her. That's all she's doing, just
Speaker 1: pandering that. The utter vacuity of this I mean is
Speaker 1: people have just nothing to offer. Look if you had
Speaker 1: Democrats coming forward that we're talking about ways to increase
Speaker 1: competition among different healthcare providers, and ways to bring down
Speaker 1: prescription drug prices and securing the border and streamline the
Speaker 1: immigration system. So and I'm not saying these are all
Speaker 1: things that I would like. I'm just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: these are things that they could I mean all actually
Speaker 1: most of that is stuff that I would like. But
Speaker 1: you know, if they wanted to increase increase the speed
Speaker 1: with which we could get guest workers into the country,
Speaker 1: if they wanted to talk more about. You know, there
Speaker 1: are serious things if they want to discuss our income
Speaker 1: tax system and how it really does affect earners instead
Speaker 1: of the wealthy. You know, there should be a wealth
Speaker 1: tax instead of an income tax. I mean, there are
Speaker 1: at least real areas of conversation. We'll get into one
Speaker 1: of them, the universal basic income idea later on this hour,
Speaker 1: where I think Democrats could make a lot of headway,
Speaker 1: and a couple of them are dabbling in real discussions.
Speaker 1: But most of what you're seeing from Democrats right now
Speaker 1: is a disquieting idiocy on display, a real sense that
Speaker 1: these people will say anything for a round of applause
Speaker 1: from a far left that no longer really has any
Speaker 1: governor for just how extreme in terms of policy they're
Speaker 1: willing to go. You know, we now are having open
Speaker 1: discussions about socialism in America. We now have Marxists running
Speaker 1: for office in this country, the country that spent a
Speaker 1: good half of the twentieth century trying to prevent Marxism
Speaker 1: from prevailing, and in doing so saved billions of people
Speaker 1: from destitution, slavery, and misery. Thank you, America. Now Marxism
Speaker 1: is in our own midst. I know, that we mock
Speaker 1: some of these stupid ideas and we disassemble them as
Speaker 1: we must. But we also have to understand that for
Speaker 1: the hard left in this country, they think this is
Speaker 1: their moment, a swing back from Trump, further left than
Speaker 1: this country has ever gone. You can see the narrative
Speaker 1: taking shape right now. Socialism is being mainstreamed. Massive redistribution
Speaker 1: of wealth is now talked about as though it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be a bad thing. In fact, it would be a
Speaker 1: great thing. It would increase prosperity here. We would do
Speaker 1: it better than in other countries. You see. That's a
Speaker 1: big step, one that I don't think many of us
Speaker 1: would have expected to occur this quickly and this soon.
Speaker 1: But make no mistake about it, the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: is a choice between capitalism and socialism, between liberty and stadism.
Speaker 1: And Democrats understand the stakes and aren't back in a
Speaker 1: way from some of the most extreme ideas that they
Speaker 1: think will be necessary to take us through that whole transition.
Speaker 1: We'll get into more of that, and then immigration and
Speaker 1: owe so much more coming up occuring. Will we be
Speaker 1: having this conversation with Hillary Clinton we're president, you know,
Speaker 1: I think we've been that conversation has been around for
Speaker 1: since two thousand and I think, yes, you're right, Craig.
Speaker 1: I think after twenty sixteen there was a big, a
Speaker 1: much bigger push for it. So, yeah, you know, Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: her loss winning three three million more votes for the
Speaker 1: popular vote clearly and losing the electoral college absolutely put
Speaker 1: this put this issue in the kind of in the forefront. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Democrat just coming out and saying it there. Well,
Speaker 1: they would we be talking about the electoral college of
Speaker 1: Hillarade one. Nope, we would not. You know that they
Speaker 1: they You give them enough chances and they'll tell you.
Speaker 1: I mean they they want to change the voting system
Speaker 1: because Hillary Law. That's all they need, Hillary Laws, Let's
Speaker 1: change the voting system. They know this isn't gonna happen,
Speaker 1: by the way, It's just it's just catnip for the
Speaker 1: base man. They just love. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: is is catnip. It's like a thing. It's like a treat, right,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what catnip really is. I just
Speaker 1: I just heard that phrase. I just realized, is it
Speaker 1: really it gets them a little high. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit of like a psychedelic. It's fun. It's yeah, it's harmless.
Speaker 1: Story Kuala's when they eat eucalyptus. Actually, I believe get
Speaker 1: a little bit of a high from it. True story. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so Kuala's get a little stoned. Who knew. But they
Speaker 1: want to change the votes. They want to change the
Speaker 1: votes by changing the voting system. And guess what they
Speaker 1: also want to change the voters Play clip twelve. The
Speaker 1: focus needs to be on bringing more people to vote,
Speaker 1: not driving them away, not throwing them off the voter rolls.
Speaker 1: We want them when they come here to be fully
Speaker 1: part of our system, and that means not suppressing the
Speaker 1: vote of our newcomers to America. Young people should also
Speaker 1: have a say and who represents them for your consideration,
Speaker 1: Amendment Number one to seven, which would lower the minimum
Speaker 1: voting age in federal elections from eighteen to sixteen years
Speaker 1: of age, restore voting rights to fellon who pay their
Speaker 1: debt to society, help more Americans to participate in their democracy.
Speaker 1: We need to work to remove barriers to voting. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what we expect, right. They just want to
Speaker 1: make sure that everybody can vote. Sixteen year olds can
Speaker 1: vote felons can vote, so change the voting system and
Speaker 1: change the voters. These are the people that you know.
Speaker 1: This is the Democratic Party that pretends they have a
Speaker 1: superior argument. By the way, I had to check this. No,
Speaker 1: Koalas apparently don't get high. They do eat eucalyptus leaves,
Speaker 1: but and they sleep a lot. But that's mostly because
Speaker 1: eucalyptus has some toxins in it, and it's it's hard
Speaker 1: for them to digest, and they're very low in nutrition.
Speaker 1: And I'm just gonna say this, one of the first
Speaker 1: I don't I'm I'm just telling you, don't. Don't shoot
Speaker 1: the messenger here. One of the first things that pops
Speaker 1: up when you ask about a koala bear on Google
Speaker 1: is can you get an STD from a Koala? No,
Speaker 1: I just want to point out that what they're it
Speaker 1: turns out. It turns out that the reason the reason
Speaker 1: they said that, it's because you can get you can
Speaker 1: get a form of chlamydia from kowala urine. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: from the urine, but I couldn't believe that. That was
Speaker 1: one of the first things that people also ask, According
Speaker 1: to Google, can you get an STD from a Kuala
Speaker 1: from koala pepe from the urine. Yes, in fact, you
Speaker 1: can get it. You can get chlamydia, Brandon. That's something
Speaker 1: new we just learned, isn't it. I wish I had
Speaker 1: the more you know soundclip, Reddy. Knowing is half the battle. Wow,
Speaker 1: we just went on a kouala right here on the show.
Speaker 1: That's why I always got to tune into the freedom Hut, folks.
Speaker 1: You never know what's gonna happen. We got more. We
Speaker 1: got some big immigration stuff coming up. It's gonna be exciting.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. He's holding the line for America back.
Speaker 1: First they steal a Supreme Court seat, then they turn
Speaker 1: around and change the rules on felobuster on a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court seat, And so when it swings back around to us,
Speaker 1: what are we going to do? And my answer on
Speaker 1: that is all the options are on the table. One
Speaker 1: idea that I think is interesting is, Yeah, fifteen members,
Speaker 1: but only ten of them are appointed in the political fashion.
Speaker 1: Five of them can only be seated by a unanimous
Speaker 1: agreement of the other ten. But the bottom line is
Speaker 1: we've got to make some kind of structural form to
Speaker 1: deep politicize the Supreme Court. I think I would like
Speaker 1: to sort of exploring a lot of options that we
Speaker 1: should have a national conversation. Term limits for Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justices might be one thing to give every president to
Speaker 1: the ability to choose three. We have people holding onto
Speaker 1: those seats and ways that I don't think it's necessarily healthy,
Speaker 1: So I want to face the limit. Look, I think
Speaker 1: term limits might be a better way of saying. It's
Speaker 1: also transparent, isn't it. It's pathetic in its obviousness, but
Speaker 1: it's also troubling in its unwillingness to be honest. From
Speaker 1: all these different Democrats there you had Elizabeth Warren, Budhachig
Speaker 1: I think I'm saying his name right, and Corey Booker
Speaker 1: all doing variations on how we know it's time to
Speaker 1: change the Supreme Court? Why do you think it's time
Speaker 1: to change the Supreme Court? Change the number of people
Speaker 1: in the core, change the change how long they serve
Speaker 1: in the court. Why? Why is that gaining traction among
Speaker 1: Democrats because they've thought long and hard about what would
Speaker 1: be a better judicial institution for us to have. You know,
Speaker 1: has this been has this been decades in the making? No?
Speaker 1: I seem to recall that for my entire adult life,
Speaker 1: Liberals were pretty much fine with the Supreme Court as
Speaker 1: it was. So what's different now, Oh, well, let's take
Speaker 1: what Elizabeth Warren said there. First of all, that a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court seat was stolen. That's a lie. That's this
Speaker 1: is not an opinion. That's a lie. It's not stolen.
Speaker 1: Stolen It stolen implies taking something that you do not
Speaker 1: have a right to. What Mitch McConnell did, and he
Speaker 1: should get credit for it, was used completely legitimately, legally
Speaker 1: within the rules of the Senate. The Senate rules. Do
Speaker 1: not have a vote on Merrick Garland. That's all I did.
Speaker 1: Democrats do not have The Democrats in the Senate do
Speaker 1: not have a clear right. It is not their property.
Speaker 1: A Supreme Court seat does not belong to them. There
Speaker 1: is a process for that, and it was not stolen
Speaker 1: from them. Stolen imply some violation of rules. Right, a
Speaker 1: theft breaks rules, breaks rules about property, breaks rules about ownership.
Speaker 1: That's just a lie. She's just a liar, but a
Speaker 1: liar about a lot of things. So I suppose that's
Speaker 1: not really surprising. Oh, in changing the filibuster, she blames
Speaker 1: Republicans for that. That's cute, because who age the filibuster
Speaker 1: rule first, when they wanted to just pack the courts
Speaker 1: with left wing Obamaites who would do everything in their
Speaker 1: power to undermine constitutional protections for things like the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. I mean, one part of the Obama
Speaker 1: administration that does not get nearly enough attention, and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of them, is is the just brazen assault
Speaker 1: on religious belief and really on, let's be honest, on
Speaker 1: Christian religious belief from the Obama administration, whether it was
Speaker 1: suing the Little Sisters of the Poor or you name it,
Speaker 1: any opportunity of the the Obama administration got to just humiliate, prosecute,
Speaker 1: harass people of Christian faith who are traditional Christians, right,
Speaker 1: not not the sort of like social justice left wing
Speaker 1: Christians that are all open borders and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot of that going on, folks.
Speaker 1: I guess that's a conversation for a different show. But
Speaker 1: the change of the filibus so was started by Democrats.
Speaker 1: So either Elizabeth Warren is just ignorant of history or
Speaker 1: a liar, or you know, I guess you could say
Speaker 1: she's probably both, but they wanted that right now, you
Speaker 1: have the biggest names in Democrat politics in the earliest
Speaker 1: stages of an election, saying we need to change the
Speaker 1: voting system to fit their needs, to fit the democrats needs.
Speaker 1: We need to change the voters to fit the democrats needs.
Speaker 1: We need to change the Supreme Court to fit the
Speaker 1: democrats needs. You see, this is why they this is
Speaker 1: why they hate the Constitution. And that's not an overstatement.
Speaker 1: I mean progressives are inherently intension with and I would
Speaker 1: argue generally despise the Constitution because it is an anchoring
Speaker 1: document that holds them back from just going all out,
Speaker 1: all in on these different matters of state control and
Speaker 1: expansion of the state's reach. Right, the Constitution is this bulwark,
Speaker 1: which that word has kind of ruined for me now
Speaker 1: because of a new crappy website, But it is this
Speaker 1: rock in the shoe of progressive Democrats. They just they
Speaker 1: can't entirely look and they've truncated in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways of Constitution. They've obviously ignored it, they've made it
Speaker 1: up as they've gone along, but it's still there and
Speaker 1: they still have to get around it in some way,
Speaker 1: and that bothers them, right, they would rather I think
Speaker 1: if you had and this is why you've had I mean,
Speaker 1: even people like Ezra Kleine have said things. Who's a
Speaker 1: left wing you know, a left wing pseudo intellectual. You
Speaker 1: know that the constitution's really all? Do we really need
Speaker 1: the Constitution the way it is? It's so vague, It
Speaker 1: was written by racist white men, and you know they did.
Speaker 1: There's all this different stuff that the left says about
Speaker 1: the Constitution that they don't They don't like it. They'll
Speaker 1: use it when it suits their purposes, but they don't
Speaker 1: have any real affinity for the structure and the and
Speaker 1: forget about even just the structure of our government. Why
Speaker 1: is it the way that it is? What is the
Speaker 1: balance of power really about? It comes from an understanding
Speaker 1: of human nature? Right, This is also conservatisms. We are
Speaker 1: rooted in this understanding in this history. The left just
Speaker 1: they either ignore this or they don't understand it. They
Speaker 1: don't do the reading. A lot of them don't do
Speaker 1: the reading. We have an understanding of human nature because
Speaker 1: we also believe in natural law and the divine relationship
Speaker 1: between man and God, and that our rights come from God.
Speaker 1: But we know how people are and in our government,
Speaker 1: the reason we have this separation of powers is that
Speaker 1: power tends to want to consolidate and expand. So the
Speaker 1: system that we have is meant to frustrate power. It
Speaker 1: is meant to prevent the accumulation of too much authority
Speaker 1: in the hands of any one group, individual, or entity.
Speaker 1: That's the purpose for it. And what you see with
Speaker 1: Democrats is they chase at that because the mindset of
Speaker 1: the central planner is, if only I had the power,
Speaker 1: I would make a utopia. If only I were in
Speaker 1: a position of absolute authority, I would make all the
Speaker 1: problems go away. Who does that sound like Republicans or Democrats?
Speaker 1: You know? It sounds like democrats. That is central to
Speaker 1: their ideology and their belief system that if only they
Speaker 1: had more authority, more power, these things that you and
Speaker 1: I see here talking about grappling with all these different issues,
Speaker 1: they would go away. But we'd also have to give
Speaker 1: away our say in this process, and our rights and
Speaker 1: our individual not collective, our individual liberties, those liberties that
Speaker 1: aren't the states to take away in the first place,
Speaker 1: unless you're a status and then you think that all
Speaker 1: rights come from the state, not from God, not from
Speaker 1: the natural order of morality. They reject these breaks, these
Speaker 1: checks on the system when they don't suit them, because
Speaker 1: central to their belief is the right to centrally plan
Speaker 1: to make decisions for you, for an Elizabeth Warren or
Speaker 1: Abeto O'Rourke or name your Democrat. Right now, they view
Speaker 1: all of the checks on the authority they would have
Speaker 1: as president, and all of the stumbling blocks along the
Speaker 1: way that are put in place in the system, things
Speaker 1: like our federalist system, like the electoral college. They view
Speaker 1: all of that as nothing but noise and distraction from
Speaker 1: the goal of central planning, deciding your life for you,
Speaker 1: making these determinations for you. It is their ultimate goal.
Speaker 1: Now I was speaking about how far left things have gotten.
Speaker 1: We need to talk a bit more about where Beto
Speaker 1: falls on this left wing spectrum and also how the
Speaker 1: media is discussing him, because I'm I'm coming around to
Speaker 1: this thought, and I will say my good friend Rahim
Speaker 1: Kassam was one of the first ones. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: somebody who likes to admit when my mind has changed,
Speaker 1: because there's a dynamism, there's there's a psychological aha that
Speaker 1: you can get from. Wow. You know, I used to
Speaker 1: think this, but now I've been persuaded by a sound argument,
Speaker 1: and now I will support a different point of view
Speaker 1: on this, so that that keeps the mind fresh. That
Speaker 1: is why I like learning new stuff. I like hearing
Speaker 1: from different people, and like hearing from all of you.
Speaker 1: But my good friend Rahim Kassam, who's you know, a
Speaker 1: fantastic guy and a great mind. You know, he said
Speaker 1: the other day to me, you've you can't think of
Speaker 1: Beto on paraphrasing here, but you know, you can't think
Speaker 1: of Beto as a as a policy checklist. You'd think
Speaker 1: of him as a as a character, you know, you
Speaker 1: have to think of him as somebody who's as I've said,
Speaker 1: he's an Aaron Sorkin character or mixed with a yoga instructor.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's essentially what Rays was getting out, which
Speaker 1: is that the persona of Beto is what everyone loves.
Speaker 1: They don't care what he really believes, because the belief
Speaker 1: system follows. As in, if you get Beto in power,
Speaker 1: the institutional left with all the you know, with the
Speaker 1: planned parenthood on the open borders and the Marxism and
Speaker 1: the you know, the hyperregulation and all of that comes
Speaker 1: with him, no matter what, they know that what they
Speaker 1: really need is an actor, an actor who's talented enough
Speaker 1: to fool fifty one percent or so of the American
Speaker 1: people into believing that he's the guy or she's the gal,
Speaker 1: and they may have that with Beto. We'll have more
Speaker 1: on that. And then also, I know I've told you immigration,
Speaker 1: some big news on immigration today, and I'm going down
Speaker 1: to El Paso in a couple of weeks. I'll have
Speaker 1: some field reports for you. That's all coming up. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. So we know. The media loves Betto. I
Speaker 1: mean they live Betto, which is like great because I
Speaker 1: love them too, because there's so much love to go
Speaker 1: around and if we just unite in that love, they'll
Speaker 1: be loved everywhere because not only does love win, but
Speaker 1: love is all you need. And I love you like
Speaker 1: a love song baby play clip five. Extremely authentake. He's
Speaker 1: just an extraordinary guy. He has a vibrancy, a youthfulness
Speaker 1: to him. He has a message which is largely cheerful.
Speaker 1: He had a way of speaking inspirationally but also really
Speaker 1: seriously laying out the stakes. What he has to start
Speaker 1: with as a charisma that you just can't manufacture. The
Speaker 1: Kennedy wins has got the sun in his face, who
Speaker 1: looks like Sonny optimistic, not the indoor bureaucrat sitting at
Speaker 1: some dusk somewhere seeing him, it's like it's like a
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ superstar. Seeing this guy in front of people.
Speaker 1: He's got that celebrity or about him, and in that moment,
Speaker 1: he was owning that celebrity superstar, Jesus Christ superstar. All
Speaker 1: this stuff. Man, Man, they can't find enough. They can't
Speaker 1: find enough things to say it about Beto, they can't
Speaker 1: find enough ways to But now keep in mind, you know,
Speaker 1: even even even mister Batto needs to keep the media
Speaker 1: on his side, do everything that they can. Now, he
Speaker 1: needs to do everything that he can to make sure that,
Speaker 1: you know, he plays within these rules that they've set
Speaker 1: up for himself. So he's already doing some apologizing because
Speaker 1: you know, on the left now, apologizing is a kind
Speaker 1: of public penance. You know you're not really going to
Speaker 1: get in trouble for it. You know that you're not
Speaker 1: going to be held to any real account or standard.
Speaker 1: But because you're apologizing with the safety of no consequences,
Speaker 1: there's no reason not to. Right. So Banto is out
Speaker 1: there doing a little mini apology to our play for
Speaker 1: there was a report that came out today that share
Speaker 1: things I had written as a teenager. Really hateful, really
Speaker 1: that stuff. I'm mortified to read it now, incredibly embarrassed.
Speaker 1: But I have to take ownership of my words and
Speaker 1: understand the way that they make people feel when they
Speaker 1: read them. Now I have to look long and hard
Speaker 1: at my actions, at the language that I have used.
Speaker 1: That will be much more thoughtful going forward, in a
Speaker 1: way that I talk about our marriage, and also the
Speaker 1: way in which I acknowledge the truth of the criticism
Speaker 1: that I have enjoyed. And white privileged, absolutely undeniable. He's
Speaker 1: apology jizing for what he wrote as a teenager. He's
Speaker 1: apologizing for his white privilege. He's apologizing for saying his
Speaker 1: wife mostly raises the kids. Man, why, why do you know,
Speaker 1: when do we realize as a society that this this
Speaker 1: kind of pseudo apology mania that we have where you know,
Speaker 1: he's not really sorry for any of that stuff, or
Speaker 1: at least I don't think he is. It's just so tiresome.
Speaker 1: It's also worthless. It's just it's just a waste of
Speaker 1: everyone's time. But it's a power thing on the left right.
Speaker 1: They want you to apologize because it's you bend the knee,
Speaker 1: you know, you kiss the ring, and on these issues,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, the feminist left getting upset because
Speaker 1: Peto said that heaven forbid, his wife mostly raises the kids,
Speaker 1: or on on just apologizing for his white privilege itself.
Speaker 1: This is what he needs to do to build up
Speaker 1: his account, his credits, so to speak, in the social
Speaker 1: justice bank, all those different identity po tics groups, all
Speaker 1: those intersectional loons out there, they want Betto to make
Speaker 1: these apologies, so he will do it. But while there's
Speaker 1: so much of a fixation right now on these different
Speaker 1: media narratives around this guy, and and by the way,
Speaker 1: I also, no one should apologize what they wrote as
Speaker 1: a teenager when they're in their fifties or forties or
Speaker 1: whatever he is. I think he's fifty. Is he fifty?
Speaker 1: I don't know how old he look. He looks pretty
Speaker 1: good for fifty. See now it's happening to me, Buck,
Speaker 1: It's okay. Come over to the dark side, book, come over,
Speaker 1: walk away from the light, join Beto mania. But on
Speaker 1: a much more serious note, on a very different note,
Speaker 1: Betto is asked about another issue that, lets you know,
Speaker 1: just where just how far left he really is. He's
Speaker 1: asked about in Fantaside, specifically Play six. Are you more
Speaker 1: third trimester of orphans? Are you going to protect the
Speaker 1: lives of third trimester babies? Because you know, there's really
Speaker 1: not a medical necessity for abortion. It's not a medical
Speaker 1: emergency procedure because typically third tromestor abortions take up to
Speaker 1: three days to have, so you would in that sense,
Speaker 1: if there was an an emergency, the doctors would just
Speaker 1: do a C section and you don't have to kill
Speaker 1: the baby in that essence. So are you for or
Speaker 1: against third trimester abortions? So the question is about abortion
Speaker 1: and reproductive rights, and my answer to you is that
Speaker 1: that should be a decision that the woman makes third
Speaker 1: trimester abortion. Media heartthrob Betto Rourke says, it's a decision
Speaker 1: that the woman should make. Nope, there should not be
Speaker 1: third trimester abortion of the American people agree on that,
Speaker 1: by the way, But Betto has to agree with the
Speaker 1: far left. He needs that money from Planned Paranute, He needs,
Speaker 1: you know, nay roll Pro Choice America to support him,
Speaker 1: so he has to be an abortion extremist. Do not
Speaker 1: forget that for all the smiles and the happy talk
Speaker 1: from betto he's going to run as a leftist and
Speaker 1: he's going to govern as a far leftist. Let's talk immigration.
Speaker 1: Coming up with this old college admission scandal, you've seen it.
Speaker 1: People will go to extreme lengths to falsify their records,
Speaker 1: and never mind just getting into college. They'll do it
Speaker 1: for a job too. People will lie about their backgrounds.
Speaker 1: That could be a problem for you in terms of liability.
Speaker 1: It could be a problem in terms of getting the
Speaker 1: employee you think you're getting. That's why you need to
Speaker 1: call my friends at Global Verification Network. They are the
Speaker 1: only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company,
Speaker 1: and these guys are on it. Call them whatever science
Speaker 1: company that you either run or own or work for.
Speaker 1: If you're in the HR department, you want to give
Speaker 1: a call to Global Verification Network and talk to them
Speaker 1: about how they can set up a program or you.
Speaker 1: They never offshore any data or client information, which separates
Speaker 1: them from most of the competitors in this space. Give
Speaker 1: them a ring. Eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine. That's Global Verification Network at eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine tell them
Speaker 1: Buck Sex incentive with actionable intelligence, magnormal stake, American ring,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: Aboon buck Sexton. No, there is no manufactured crisis at
Speaker 1: our southern border. Last month, we apprehended more than seventy
Speaker 1: five thousand, the highest in over a decade. And today
Speaker 1: I can tell you that we are on track to
Speaker 1: interdict nearly one hundred thousand migrants this month alone. The
Speaker 1: border crisis could not be more real. Media has lied
Speaker 1: so shamelessly about it is a disgrace, but I know
Speaker 1: it's not. It's not surprising. So it's something that I
Speaker 1: you know, I have a hard time saying we should
Speaker 1: expect it because that almost makes it sound like it's
Speaker 1: not as big a deal as it is. But they've
Speaker 1: lied about how the caravan's never going to get to
Speaker 1: the border. They've lied about how walls don't work, they've
Speaker 1: lied about how now it's sound kind of like Trump
Speaker 1: and then we're gonna go to the ninth circuit. I mean,
Speaker 1: we'll get a bad decision, then we'll go to the
Speaker 1: other circuit. But it's true. I mean, the media has
Speaker 1: just been absolutely full of it. On the border for
Speaker 1: a long time now. But the Trump administration got a
Speaker 1: victory today. In fact, the first decision of this new
Speaker 1: court that came down and a five four ruling along Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: what they call ideological lines. They're going to be very
Speaker 1: open about that now that you have a five four
Speaker 1: mostly conservative majority of though it's not always true. John
Speaker 1: robert saved Obamacare twice, folks, Twice John Roberts decided that
Speaker 1: what was a flatly unconstitutional law would be held constitutional
Speaker 1: through legal acrobatics. But let me just tell you what
Speaker 1: happened today. So the Supreme Court has ruled on the
Speaker 1: federal government's ability to detain immigrants awaiting deportation at any time.
Speaker 1: This could be days after, it could be years after
Speaker 1: they are released for serving another criminal sentence. So here's
Speaker 1: what the Ninth Circuit was involved in this, by the way,
Speaker 1: But here here's what liberals and the ACLU and the
Speaker 1: stealth open borders left thinks. The law should be that
Speaker 1: if you are serving a criminal sentence and you're an
Speaker 1: immigrant in this country, and you may be because you know,
Speaker 1: you can lose your you can lose your legal status
Speaker 1: right if you're if you're somebody who's in the country league,
Speaker 1: but you commit a crime, you can get deported. So
Speaker 1: what liberals said was, well, if you, let's say, are
Speaker 1: convicted for uh, you know, a drug crime, the federal
Speaker 1: government can only after you've serve your sentence, they have
Speaker 1: twenty four hours to detain you pending the deportation, the
Speaker 1: deportation proceeding, or the legal proceeding that could lead a deportation.
Speaker 1: So essentially, if they don't get you in the first
Speaker 1: twenty four hours, they can't get you. That's what the
Speaker 1: liberals were saying. That was what the left was upholding
Speaker 1: in this case, according to Reuters here quote, Alito wrote
Speaker 1: that it is not the court's job to impose a
Speaker 1: time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving
Speaker 1: a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court has previously
Speaker 1: said that an official's crucial duties are better carried out
Speaker 1: late than never, and he said the challengers assertion that
Speaker 1: immigrants had to be detained within twenty four hour hours
Speaker 1: of ending a prison sentence is especially hard to swallow.
Speaker 1: So a victory for the federal government and in this case,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, and this is just going to show
Speaker 1: you once again the left is against enforcement of immigration
Speaker 1: laws because right now, under federal law, under immigration law,
Speaker 1: if you're convicted of certain kinds of offenses, you are
Speaker 1: supposed to be held into tention during the deportation process.
Speaker 1: And liberals just basically said, well, we don't like that,
Speaker 1: and some judges came along and said, we don't like that,
Speaker 1: so we're not going to do that anymore. Well, that's
Speaker 1: the law. So then they said, okay, well what we're
Speaker 1: gonna do is say that fine, you can. You can
Speaker 1: hold somebody, but you have to get them the first
Speaker 1: twenty four hours. This is really an extension of the
Speaker 1: sanctuary city mentality. What's what's really at heart at the
Speaker 1: center of the sanctuary city debate. It's that local law enforcement,
Speaker 1: under orders from member. Local law enforcement works for the
Speaker 1: mayor or works for the town council or the city
Speaker 1: council or whatever, they are not allowed to hold people
Speaker 1: at the request of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement because they
Speaker 1: have a detainer request, in which means they want to
Speaker 1: hold them for possible deportation proceedings. So, you know, you
Speaker 1: get arrested for being a drug dealer in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: and ICE wants to take custody of you to deport you.
Speaker 1: LAPD says no, sorry, you know, we're just letting him out.
Speaker 1: We're not going to hold him until the Feds get
Speaker 1: here to pick him up. Well, that's meant to frustrate
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement. That's all that is. That is local
Speaker 1: law enforcement for political reasons. And it's and I'm not
Speaker 1: blaming the LAPD or law enforcement. They are acting on
Speaker 1: orders from their civilian bosses in a sense, right, the
Speaker 1: elected officials that make these policies. But that's local law
Speaker 1: enforcement were at cross purposes with federal law enforcement, and
Speaker 1: it's intentional. What's even worse is that there are some
Speaker 1: sanctuary jurisdictions that will not even notify Immigrations and Customs
Speaker 1: Enforcement that they have somebody in their custody who is
Speaker 1: in illegal to give ICE the option just because they
Speaker 1: don't always say we're going to support this person, ICE
Speaker 1: will make a determination. But to give ICE the ability
Speaker 1: to make a determination, they won't even tell them. So
Speaker 1: they won't tell ICE. In many cases, they won't hold
Speaker 1: the person so ICE can get them. And all that
Speaker 1: is is using the resource shortages of the federal government
Speaker 1: because they can't have ICE officers ever at all times
Speaker 1: against them for the purposes of frustrating federal immigration law.
Speaker 1: That's it. Libs are always on the side of don't
Speaker 1: enforce immigration laws. That's that's where they stand. Whenever there's
Speaker 1: an issue of enforcement, you can count on the left
Speaker 1: wing Democratic Party to side with, no, you can't do that,
Speaker 1: we can enforce that. That's not valid. And these courts
Speaker 1: that have been just filled with Obama appointees. Now fortunately,
Speaker 1: and Mitch McConnell does not get enough credit for this,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of conservative judges now thanks
Speaker 1: to Trump. Got to give the Trumps to a high
Speaker 1: five on this one, folks. A lot of conservative judges
Speaker 1: are now being put in the federal judiciary. But if
Speaker 1: you look at what Obama managed over the course of
Speaker 1: his eight years, I think before Trump came into office,
Speaker 1: I think about twenty five to thirty percent of federal
Speaker 1: judges across the board were Obama appointees. So you have
Speaker 1: not just sanctuary jurisdictions, but also sanctuary judges in a
Speaker 1: sense doing everything in their power to make sure it's
Speaker 1: effectively impossible to enforce immigration law. You know, if Democrats
Speaker 1: were at least open about how they don't believe in
Speaker 1: immigration law. I have an easier time with what they do,
Speaker 1: but they just lie about it. They say that they
Speaker 1: want to help enforce immigration law. They say they approve
Speaker 1: of open borders and that they want but when push
Speaker 1: comes to shove, they're always opposed to the enforcement of
Speaker 1: these laws. They're always opposed to helping and assisting law
Speaker 1: enforcement to get these jobs done. You know, their actions
Speaker 1: speak much louder than their words, and all of this
Speaker 1: I mentioned. I just got the final approval in place
Speaker 1: today to go down to El Paso. I'm I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to it because I want to bring you that
Speaker 1: ground truth and I want to tell you what's going on.
Speaker 1: But I also feel like it's going to be it's
Speaker 1: going to be very frustrating to see how overwhelmed the
Speaker 1: system is down there, and how little interest most of
Speaker 1: the media has in bringing ground truth the American people. Look,
Speaker 1: there's nothing that says that we can't be an open
Speaker 1: borders country. But if that's what the Democrats want, we
Speaker 1: should have that debate as a country, and they should
Speaker 1: pass legislation and just say anyone who wants to come
Speaker 1: can come. Let's have that debate. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that would be the end of America. But at least
Speaker 1: it would be on the up and up, at least
Speaker 1: we be. Instead, they pretend that's not what they want,
Speaker 1: and they do everything they can to make sure that's
Speaker 1: what's happening. You know, you know, they pretend that they
Speaker 1: don't want their friend to drive home drunk. They say, oh,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't want that, and they keep giving them another shot,
Speaker 1: another shot, Hey, take another shot, you'll be fine. Oh no,
Speaker 1: but I don't want him driving home drunk. Here's another shot.
Speaker 1: That's how Democrats are on immigration, on illegal immigration specifically,
Speaker 1: it is a national emergency. They've been lying about it
Speaker 1: this month. You're gonna see it's over. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand. I mean, that's why I'm going
Speaker 1: down there so I can see exactly what's happening and
Speaker 1: also be able to speak with some firsthand expertise on
Speaker 1: what's going on in the system. So I'm looking forward
Speaker 1: to being able to tell you about all that. But
Speaker 1: you know it's gonna have to wait a couple of weeks. Team,
Speaker 1: We have oh so much more in store for you.
Speaker 1: The show is just getting going. We will hit a
Speaker 1: quick moment of catching our breath. Take a breath, Bust
Speaker 1: out your acoustic guitar because Beto is going to be
Speaker 1: with you. Stay with me. When do you want to
Speaker 1: spot that burglar when he's casing your home or after
Speaker 1: he's in? Ask John who's Blink camera alerted him to
Speaker 1: burglars trying to break in while he and his family
Speaker 1: were home, Or Shannon, who's Blink camera caught a thief
Speaker 1: stealing packages. Both times Blink video clips were sent to
Speaker 1: police to help convict the crooks. Blink motion activated indoor
Speaker 1: and outdoor cameras are wire free, set up in minutes,
Speaker 1: and run on two lithium batteries that last up to
Speaker 1: two years. And when you're away, Blinks Live feed options
Speaker 1: lets you monitor your home and checking on kids and
Speaker 1: pets from anywhere using your Blink smartphone app. No contracts,
Speaker 1: no subscriptions, totally affordable. In fact, Blink systems start at
Speaker 1: just seven ninety nine seventy nine ninety nine. Thanks to
Speaker 1: Blink Home security just got easier. Visit blink protect dot
Speaker 1: com slash sale blink protect dot Com slash sale again
Speaker 1: just seventy nine ninety nine to get a system started
Speaker 1: up blink protect dot Com slash sale Blink is an
Speaker 1: Amazon company and it works with Alexa uge Oh Why
Speaker 1: corporates You Lively lovely a You Loveling, he Flean water Novelan.
Speaker 1: Air pollution is everywhere. Take into the streets, take into
Speaker 1: the ball, norb nor get your heart the soil, nor
Speaker 1: no more oil, Get your carpet and the soil. Those
Speaker 1: were kids who had blown off school in order to
Speaker 1: protest climate change at the International Students Climate Change Rally,
Speaker 1: which is apparently a real, a real thing. Um, I
Speaker 1: just sit here and I think their chants are so stupid.
Speaker 1: It's hard to believe. Their chants are so baseless that
Speaker 1: I wonder how long they can continue with this before
Speaker 1: they're going to have to just admit that this is
Speaker 1: that there's some other issue right that, you know, How
Speaker 1: long can they say fossil fuels have got to go.
Speaker 1: We are nowhere near getting rid of fossil fuels. We
Speaker 1: are nowhere near being in a position to stop using,
Speaker 1: and in fact, we would starve and our economy would
Speaker 1: come to a halt. So what what is it that
Speaker 1: they think that they're really doing here? There? Yeah, there
Speaker 1: are companies that work on renewable that work on solar.
Speaker 1: I mean there are private sector and uh you know,
Speaker 1: public sector entities that are researching this stuff. It's all happening.
Speaker 1: Do they really think it's going to happen faster if
Speaker 1: they go out there and bank literally bang on some
Speaker 1: drums and make some noise about this. I'm also just
Speaker 1: so uncomfortable with those were kids. These are high school kids,
Speaker 1: you know. I will say I was never once when
Speaker 1: I was in high school forced by any teacher to
Speaker 1: take any position or and certainly to go march in
Speaker 1: support of something political. And it was I remember when
Speaker 1: I was at the I was in New York City
Speaker 1: for what was a gun you know, it is one
Speaker 1: of these anti gun marches that they've been doing. You know,
Speaker 1: they have the march. It was the March for Life.
Speaker 1: Oh no, not the part of me at the March
Speaker 1: for life, March for our lives. Sorry. The March for
Speaker 1: Life is a great thing. It's a pro life movement
Speaker 1: here in DC, and I'm very supportive of it. It's
Speaker 1: the March for our lives. That's that's what they are.
Speaker 1: That's what it was. And they had all of these
Speaker 1: kids who were being paraded around quite quite truly paraded around,
Speaker 1: you know, in the middle of the street and marching
Speaker 1: with signs that say, you know, you know, if you
Speaker 1: want to save my life, band guns, you know, if
Speaker 1: you want to protect kids, band guns. I think that
Speaker 1: that's abusive. I think it's wrong to push kids to
Speaker 1: take political positions that they have. No serious person can
Speaker 1: believe that a ten year old understands national gun policy.
Speaker 1: It's just not just it's not the case. And I
Speaker 1: think that it's wrong to take people and to force
Speaker 1: them into these political positions like this because you think
Speaker 1: that that's making some kind of an argument. When I
Speaker 1: see an adult who's marching around with their and they
Speaker 1: had little kids too, I mean there were toddlers. I
Speaker 1: even saw one kid who was on somebody's shoulders and
Speaker 1: you know, it was holding up a sign. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have little kids that are being marched around in
Speaker 1: order to make these arguments on guns, on climate change.
Speaker 1: And I find this to be a really troubling trend.
Speaker 1: I think this is new. I don't remember seeing this
Speaker 1: at least happening in quite the same way before. This
Speaker 1: is now the progressive left mobilizing the youth in a
Speaker 1: way that we should all be concerned about. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just not normal, and I don't think it's
Speaker 1: defensible either. And I have a lot of questions about
Speaker 1: the judgment and the wisdom of individuals that would put
Speaker 1: their kids in these positions where they think that the
Speaker 1: kids should be lecturing adults on very, very complicated issues.
Speaker 1: But you know, then again that brings me to this
Speaker 1: is not really about issues in many ways. Right for
Speaker 1: the left, they have an agenda that is issue driven,
Speaker 1: but the political mobilization is emotion based. What gets people
Speaker 1: fired up, what gets them angry at the other side,
Speaker 1: and that is an area where unfortunately they excel. That
Speaker 1: is an area where the left does very very well.
Speaker 1: I thought this was really interesting. Somebody actually stood up
Speaker 1: and asked Betto, I just want to take questions because
Speaker 1: I like the questioning process of the inquiry from you.
Speaker 1: It's like your spirit becomes a part of my spirit
Speaker 1: and we are one with the questioning. Play a teen
Speaker 1: here this is when somebody said, do you actually have
Speaker 1: any real policy ideas? Play a teen? What are we
Speaker 1: going to get an actual policy from you? Instead of
Speaker 1: dislike platitudes and nice stories. Our criminal justice system I've
Speaker 1: called for the end of the prohibition on marijuana and
Speaker 1: the expungement of the arrest records of everyone who's been
Speaker 1: arrested for marijuana. I've been doing that for a long time.
Speaker 1: On the question of healthcare, a proposal called Medicare for
Speaker 1: America that ensures that if you have employer based insurance
Speaker 1: and you like it, you keep it, your doctors, your network,
Speaker 1: what works for you right now. If you don't have insurance,
Speaker 1: or you don't like the insurance you already have, hum
Speaker 1: enroll in Medicare. I'm trying to describe not just the
Speaker 1: goal in the aspiration, but the path that we will
Speaker 1: take to get there. Okay, so other people have noticed
Speaker 1: too that Betto gets all this, all this media love,
Speaker 1: all this Oh, he's so amazing, he's so wonderful without
Speaker 1: actually really knowing what he's talking about or having to
Speaker 1: say at least what he wants on the issues. We'll
Speaker 1: have to put him through his paces a bit more
Speaker 1: and see if there's any real substance there, if there's
Speaker 1: anything beyond just the optics, which is a polite way
Speaker 1: of saying the superficialities that the media has become obsessed with.
Speaker 1: In the case of Beto O'Rourke. You know, when are
Speaker 1: we going to get an actual policy from betto That
Speaker 1: is a very very good question. He does want. I
Speaker 1: can tell you Medicare for More, which is just a
Speaker 1: waypoint to get closer to Medicare for all, which is
Speaker 1: ruinously expensive and would bankrupt the country effectively. It just
Speaker 1: would be a slow motion bankruptcy. But we could. We
Speaker 1: can't do it. This magic savings situation that they talk about,
Speaker 1: where if the government is in control of more, even
Speaker 1: more healthcare, then it will cost less to give us healthcare.
Speaker 1: I've heard people try to make this case, make this argument.
Speaker 1: It's just nonsense. It does not add up at all.
Speaker 1: The numbers simply don't add up. But you know Beto
Speaker 1: right now, he's something of a cipher in the political scene.
Speaker 1: He's whatever you want him to be, especially if you're
Speaker 1: a female Democrat or a an urban i'm sorry, a suburban,
Speaker 1: college educated you know, white male, you know from the
Speaker 1: from the gen X era. You think that Beto has
Speaker 1: something special, has some X factor, and that's what they're
Speaker 1: banking on here. I think that Trump would handily beat Biden.
Speaker 1: I would assume he'd beat better too, But you know,
Speaker 1: you just don't know. It's a crazy world we live
Speaker 1: in these days, and the media is still, despite all
Speaker 1: their dishonesty, very powerful and propping up these candidates. So
Speaker 1: it's not just some of the transcribed interviews that you're
Speaker 1: talking about, but it is additional information that is coming
Speaker 1: out that will show not only was there no collusion,
Speaker 1: but there was a coordinated effort to take this president down.
Speaker 1: We talk about the deep state. There are players now,
Speaker 1: even ambassadors that are sitting ambassadors, that were involved in
Speaker 1: part of this with the FBI and DOJ. And so
Speaker 1: as we look at this, it's time that we show
Speaker 1: the American people what's out there. Declassify some of those documents.
Speaker 1: I think when the American people see what I've seen,
Speaker 1: they will judge for themselves and know that this has
Speaker 1: all been a hoax. And I said he's not worth it,
Speaker 1: it got your attention. I've been saying this for two years,
Speaker 1: said he shouldn't be impeached, But when I said he's
Speaker 1: not worth it, then it got they And what's not
Speaker 1: worth is the financial stability of America's working families, and
Speaker 1: that's what we're trying to correct. And when the time
Speaker 1: comes Ah. So now we see how the shift is
Speaker 1: going to happen, and now we see what the game is.
Speaker 1: It's been happening for a while, it's been building for
Speaker 1: quite a bit, but it could not be any more
Speaker 1: obvious at this point. As the walls are finally crumbling
Speaker 1: around the Russia collusion hoaxters, you know what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do, act like they never really cared about this,
Speaker 1: and you know what, Trump's not worth it. They're not
Speaker 1: going to admit. They're not going to admit that they
Speaker 1: are not able to prove Russia collusion because maybe it
Speaker 1: didn't happen. They're they're never going to admit that. They
Speaker 1: will they will leave this as a smear, as an
Speaker 1: intentional reputational stain on President Trump's legacy for all time,
Speaker 1: because this is who the Democrats are, This is who
Speaker 1: the Left is. They are dishonorable people. They don't care
Speaker 1: that they've put Trump and people, through people around him,
Speaker 1: through a lot of real discomfort and pain and loss,
Speaker 1: financial loss, loss of freedom, loss of you know, of
Speaker 1: peace of mind. You know, they've really the left has
Speaker 1: used this Russia collusion hoax to be psychological terrorists against
Speaker 1: Trump and his inner circle for two years and now that,
Speaker 1: as Mark Meadows points out, not only is collusion not
Speaker 1: what happened, the real collusion was among the DNC, Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier. You know, people at the FBI all
Speaker 1: trying to bring down Trump as a candidate and then
Speaker 1: justify that effort after the fact when Hillary won, I mean, whoops,
Speaker 1: when Hillary lost. Pardon me, that's right. I won. No,
Speaker 1: she did not win. That is false. And that's also
Speaker 1: why you see all this conversation about the electoral college
Speaker 1: and how it's so unfair and it's so mean and
Speaker 1: it's so wrong. And you know, she won the popular vote.
Speaker 1: The popular vote is not what determines the president. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many times do you have to
Speaker 1: go through this. Democrats are like a bunch of little babies.
Speaker 1: Your popular vote. Any when your popular no one cares.
Speaker 1: That's like saying, if you were running a marathon and
Speaker 1: somebody ran the fastest for the first hundred meters, will
Speaker 1: I won? I won one hundred meter dash. You're not
Speaker 1: running one hundred meter dash. You're running a marathon. You're
Speaker 1: not running a popular vote contest. That would change the
Speaker 1: nature of campaigning. It would change the nature of the
Speaker 1: ad bys, It would change the nature of the messaging.
Speaker 1: You're running a campaign to win the electoral college, so
Speaker 1: Democrats can wide about this all day long and talk about, oh,
Speaker 1: the sanctity of our democracy. Meanwhile, you know, they talk
Speaker 1: about the need to protect institutions by kicking at the
Speaker 1: load bearing walls of those institutions just to see what happens.
Speaker 1: But I gotta tell you, on this Russia collusion hoax,
Speaker 1: they are we are going to have to be the
Speaker 1: ones that hold into account because they're never going to
Speaker 1: admit that this whole thing has just been in an
Speaker 1: absolute debacle from top to bottom that they have so greatly,
Speaker 1: in my estimation, undermined, speaking about undermining, undermining the faith
Speaker 1: that we all need to have in the FBI and
Speaker 1: the DOJ and these different true institutions of government that
Speaker 1: have a lot of power. They they just don't care.
Speaker 1: They view this as a threat to their power. By
Speaker 1: the way, we have a little audio here from Devin
Speaker 1: Nunez on his Twitter speaking of institutions on his whole
Speaker 1: suit against Twitter, and there's some stuff in there that
Speaker 1: Devin unas is obviously going to get heat for. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's some embarrassing Twitter stuff, but everybody's got it. Everyone
Speaker 1: who's in public life has stuff on Twitter that's said
Speaker 1: about them that's embarrassing and mean. But I think that
Speaker 1: he's onto something here by pushing this lawsuit Play clip two.
Speaker 1: How is it that every day there's conservatives that are
Speaker 1: being banned? So you know, look, they don't want to
Speaker 1: call it shadow banning. That's fine. They can call it
Speaker 1: whatever they want to call it. But the fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is people could not see my tweets. Okay,
Speaker 1: so now, but if you move forward, if you get
Speaker 1: emails from Twitter, it's constantly left wing stuff, It's constantly
Speaker 1: fake new stuff. How is it possible that I can
Speaker 1: be attacked relentlessly hundreds of times a day by fake
Speaker 1: accounts that they claim in their terms of service should
Speaker 1: not be there. Every Americans should care about this if
Speaker 1: they care about the First Amendment, because the press is
Speaker 1: definitely changed. The press is dead. And that's why if
Speaker 1: we don't go and clean this up. This is part
Speaker 1: of the continuing Russia investigation. We're not going to just
Speaker 1: let all these fake news stories that we're written about
Speaker 1: this investigation, about this hoax that were lies. We're going
Speaker 1: to challenge every single one of them in court. We're
Speaker 1: just starting with Twitter. I like it. Fight back, man.
Speaker 1: We've been through so much, we the American people who
Speaker 1: aren't on board for the weaponization of the DOJ and
Speaker 1: the investigative processes of the Special Council for petty political ends.
Speaker 1: We've been through a lot. I say it's time to
Speaker 1: fight back a bit. I like Devin Nunis's spirit here
Speaker 1: with this, and I do think we should look into
Speaker 1: whether Twitter unduly influenced the election. I mean, if Twitter
Speaker 1: is operating as a publisher and favoring Democrats, that has
Speaker 1: so much more influence over the election than some Russian
Speaker 1: body accounts. It's not even close. And you could say
Speaker 1: buckets a private company. But to that I would say, well,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of media disclosure requirements out there
Speaker 1: for other companies. You know, member, you have to put
Speaker 1: things like you know this ad was paid for by
Speaker 1: this there's Democrats are always oh, get money out of politics.
Speaker 1: They want transparency. They say they want to know where
Speaker 1: the money's coming from, who's doing what for whom, and
Speaker 1: if social media platforms are acting as arms of the
Speaker 1: DNC and doing so in stealth, guess what, that's a problem.
Speaker 1: That's an FEC problem, and that could be a d
Speaker 1: o J problem as in looking at how we regulate
Speaker 1: these things, whether they should be broken up, and what
Speaker 1: the truth is behind the scenes about how they're moving
Speaker 1: the conversation left in this country all the time. So
Speaker 1: we will continue to watch this one team, some very
Speaker 1: very important threads, very important elements all coming together in
Speaker 1: this newness lawsuit. I'm hoping to interview him soon, so
Speaker 1: stay tuned for that. What do you make of the
Speaker 1: direction the Democratic Party's going in as a whole? Right now?
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people running. Some are qualified, some
Speaker 1: are completely inexperienced by the way, which I find shocking
Speaker 1: that they would consider themselves qualified. And I'm not going
Speaker 1: to give their names, but let it, let it sort out.
Speaker 1: So that's Jamie Diamond. He's the CEO of JP Morgan.
Speaker 1: And where is it Morgan Stanley? It's just JP Morgan.
Speaker 1: I always get them confused. He's a bank He's a
Speaker 1: banker guy, all right. He's a very very wealthy, very influential,
Speaker 1: very powerful. And you may say, well, buck, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't really care. I don't really care what this
Speaker 1: guy has said about anything, except for the fact that
Speaker 1: he is part of that class of elites that have
Speaker 1: much more influence at the top levels of government and
Speaker 1: you know, much more um ability to move the political
Speaker 1: conversation than than you would have you know, that than
Speaker 1: any one individual you would think usually could, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's a lot that Jamie Diamond can do behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. I'm sure he probably you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know if he talks to Trump or not, but he's
Speaker 1: the kind of guy who could get on the phone
Speaker 1: with the White House. I think it's so interesting that
Speaker 1: he's being asked about qualified candidates because it is obvious
Speaker 1: to anyone who's being serious that the Democrats are putting
Speaker 1: forward people right now who in the qualification Veto O'Rourke,
Speaker 1: Pete Boutachigum. I can't even name all the all these
Speaker 1: candidates that are out there. I mean, some of them
Speaker 1: are early, uh, you know, individuals of minimal and we
Speaker 1: mentioned Andrew Young before. He's got some interesting ideas. But
Speaker 1: you know, we're talking about people of minimal achievement professionally,
Speaker 1: and they're being put forward, and it's it's worth noting
Speaker 1: from from my perspective, at least that the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: that for the last three years, because it goes back
Speaker 1: into the election cycle as well. I's been telling us
Speaker 1: that Trump wasn't Trump, wasn't smart enough, wasn't he wasn't
Speaker 1: good enough, he wasn't smart enough at gosh darted no.
Speaker 1: But really they were saying that he wasn't a wasn't
Speaker 1: a candidate that we should take seriously, even though he
Speaker 1: ended up witting because he doesn't have the intellect and
Speaker 1: the background and the political experience. And now here we are,
Speaker 1: after a few years of Trump doing a pretty good
Speaker 1: job as president, and they're putting forward people that no
Speaker 1: serious person thinks, no serious person thinks are serious candidates
Speaker 1: or rather should be treated seriously. But we are kind
Speaker 1: of in a in an era of political post seriousness now.
Speaker 1: And that Jamie Diamond, who's a guy who's liberal, but
Speaker 1: he understands how business works, he understands how he and
Speaker 1: he was vilified during the whole Occupy Wall Street era.
Speaker 1: He's someone who has to live in the real world
Speaker 1: and he, I think is watching what's happening right now
Speaker 1: in this election cycle with the Democrats side so far
Speaker 1: and he's got to be thinking to himself, these guys
Speaker 1: are whacked out. These guys really haven't have an issue
Speaker 1: here because and I have heard, and this takes me
Speaker 1: to the the Howard Schultz town hall that Fox News
Speaker 1: is gonna be hosting soon. I've heard, and I think
Speaker 1: he may have even said this publicly now that if
Speaker 1: one of the socialist candidates turns out to be the
Speaker 1: Democrat nominee, Bernie Sanders plans on I'm sorry, Howard Schultz,
Speaker 1: rather not Howard Schultz plans on running a third party candidate,
Speaker 1: or running as a third party candidate, Howard Schultz is
Speaker 1: going to get in the get in the mix. Now,
Speaker 1: you gotta think to yourself, that's a pretty powerful incentive
Speaker 1: for the Democrats to stay with a more centrist candidate.
Speaker 1: But I do think that there's at some level a
Speaker 1: revelation among the Remember the Democrats, plenty of Democrat billionaires.
Speaker 1: You know, there's the ones, you know, because they're so
Speaker 1: politically active, right, There's there's Soros obviously, and there's Tom Steyer,
Speaker 1: and there's Oprah, and there's you know, all these Democrats,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg billionaire Democrats that are running around super rich and
Speaker 1: I think that the wealthy, the very wealthy Democrats are
Speaker 1: seeing a little bit of this eat the rich mentality
Speaker 1: that's coming out of this coming out of this primary
Speaker 1: and thinking, or you know, this early stage of the
Speaker 1: Democratic race for the nomination, they're thinking themselves, maybe this
Speaker 1: is for real. Maybe they really do want a major
Speaker 1: wealth tax, and they want to take you know, now,
Speaker 1: then you'll get an The people that will really be
Speaker 1: upset by very very high taxes on earnings aren't billionaires,
Speaker 1: because billionaires doesn't matter, they never have to earn any
Speaker 1: money ever again. But people that are millionaires, when you
Speaker 1: start saying you're going to tax their earnings at seventy
Speaker 1: percent or eighty percent, they don't like that because that
Speaker 1: money to them makes a difference. They think that's a problem.
Speaker 1: And I think Democrats are realizing that the inmates might
Speaker 1: be running the asylum here pretty soon unless they get
Speaker 1: a handle on things. Jamie Diamond certainly recognizes it. He says,
Speaker 1: some of these guys are completely inexperience. It's absolutely true.
Speaker 1: And not only the completely inexperienced, their ideas and their
Speaker 1: policies are nuts, I mean, just off the wall. So
Speaker 1: you've got people with. I mean, this is the Occasio
Speaker 1: Cortez effect. You have people that have a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of influence in sway and don't really know, you know,
Speaker 1: don't really know how the world functions in any meaningful sense,
Speaker 1: and they're the ones that are determining the direction of
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party right now. One other quick note here
Speaker 1: I thought was interesting from Diamond. You hear from so
Speaker 1: many people that Trump was crazy with these China tariffs
Speaker 1: and how could he be so insane and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff. Play fifteen here. So we heard last week
Speaker 1: from former White House Economic advisor Gary Cohne who said,
Speaker 1: pretty bluntly, tariffs quote don't work, and he pointed to
Speaker 1: the numbers we saw that. It stunned me. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got an eight hundred ninety one billion dollars trade deficit,
Speaker 1: four hundred and nineteen billion dollars defsit in goods, both records.
Speaker 1: After the President said, you know, I can solve this
Speaker 1: is Gary Cohne, right, they don't work. I would I like, Garry,
Speaker 1: let me say I agree with them. They don't work
Speaker 1: technically because they cause all these various things. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: the president we're here, say they worked. I got them
Speaker 1: to the table and no one else did. So it
Speaker 1: was a president right, So it was a Stratton negotiating strategy.
Speaker 1: It might have worked. Yes, Oh wait, you mean somebody
Speaker 1: who knows a lot about business and making money thinks
Speaker 1: that President Trump was right and all of these naysayers
Speaker 1: you said tariffs were crazy, and I look a lot
Speaker 1: of concern revatives were also. A teriffist attacks, a teriffist attacks. Right,
Speaker 1: So we are being taxed by China, but we do
Speaker 1: not tax in response to get them to stop taxing us.
Speaker 1: It took Trump to come along and say, I don't
Speaker 1: care what the conventional wisdom is on this. I want
Speaker 1: to be in a position where we can sit down
Speaker 1: and actually try to make some progress on this issue.
Speaker 1: You know, it took somebody with Trump's mindset, Trump's ability
Speaker 1: to just tune out all the noise from the consensus intelligentsia.
Speaker 1: You know, I always say to people, don't don't seek
Speaker 1: security in the false or don't don't seek false security
Speaker 1: in consensus. It's not just because other people. Look, I'm
Speaker 1: the one who' running around saying that there shouldn't be
Speaker 1: athletic recruiting that destroys or eliminates academic standards in colleges
Speaker 1: just period. As a rule, they shouldn't do that anymore.
Speaker 1: I don't care that everyone thinks I'm wrong on that,
Speaker 1: although not everyone does. I think my argument is sound
Speaker 1: and I think that I'm right, So I'm not This
Speaker 1: show is not about trying to find the concessus, my friends,
Speaker 1: not in any sense. And on tariffs, I listened you
Speaker 1: know this. I listened to what Trump had to say
Speaker 1: and I worked it through with you. On this show.
Speaker 1: We had Derek Scissors and a really excellent guy on
Speaker 1: trade over AI. Come on, he's like, no, Trump's right,
Speaker 1: some of the stuff needs to be renegotiated. Oh but
Speaker 1: wait a second, isn't this another way of saying that Trump,
Speaker 1: it turns out, with his business experience, did know some things,
Speaker 1: did have some good ideas, not just ideas, but ideas
Speaker 1: that he was willing to put forward where he was
Speaker 1: right and the consensus was wrong. You think you're going
Speaker 1: to get that from Pete Boichik or Betel y'all? Like
Speaker 1: I just I just want everyone to agree on everything
Speaker 1: about like how much we all want to agree because
Speaker 1: if we take our energy and we just like morph
Speaker 1: it all together, Like we take our internal ch and
Speaker 1: we collaborate and we build a better future with it.
Speaker 1: And that's what the Democrats offer folks, platitudes and nonsense.
Speaker 1: When it comes to buying wine, most people's selections have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with taste. Instead, they base their decisions
Speaker 1: on which bottle looks the best or what's on sale. Well, thankfully,
Speaker 1: now there's first Leaf, the wine club that makes it
Speaker 1: easy to discover new wines that you'll love. First Leaf
Speaker 1: has created a club experience customized to you by rating
Speaker 1: the wines you receive, First Leaf determines your likes and dislikes,
Speaker 1: and using a custom algorithm and professionally trained wine concierge's team,
Speaker 1: they only send you wines you love. You know, I
Speaker 1: just started this myself. I answered three quick questions about
Speaker 1: my wind ring preferences, and then first Leave created an
Speaker 1: introductory six pack of wine for me, all for just
Speaker 1: twenty nine ninety nine. It's amazing. You've got to try
Speaker 1: this for yourself. Sign up with my link and you'll
Speaker 1: get an exclusive intro offer six bottles of wine for
Speaker 1: twenty nine ninety five plus shipping. Just go to try
Speaker 1: first leaf dot com slash buck. That's try first leaf
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck six bottles of wine for only
Speaker 1: twenty nine five plus shipping. Try first leaf dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. It never ceases to amaze me how completely
Speaker 1: unself aware and what a bunch of self loving bozos
Speaker 1: the mainstream media they the upper ranks, particularly of the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, are comprised of, and how much they love
Speaker 1: themselves and think they're so great and they're so brave
Speaker 1: and they're so strong. I mean, let me tell you
Speaker 1: this right now. Overwhelmingly mainstream news, mainstream media TV anchors
Speaker 1: are overpaid, under read, and not very nice. Not all
Speaker 1: of them. Some of them are great, some of them
Speaker 1: are lovely people, and some of them I'm sure are
Speaker 1: good people. But overwhelmingly there it's a profession that draws
Speaker 1: a kind of narcissistic personality that has also had to
Speaker 1: fight for a job that a thousand other people could do. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's just a little background for you. CNN has gotten
Speaker 1: an award. In fact, Jake Tapper over at CNN has
Speaker 1: gotten an award. This is from his official count. Congrats
Speaker 1: to Jake Tapper and everyone at CNN who helped put
Speaker 1: together the Parkland Town hall from the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas
Speaker 1: Students Families in community. Today they have been honored. Jake
Speaker 1: Tapper and CNN have been honored with the Walter Cronkite
Speaker 1: Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism. That's right, baby,
Speaker 1: the Cronkite Award for the gun town hall that was
Speaker 1: among the most unbelievably shameful discussing TV news things I
Speaker 1: have ever I have ever seen. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: here here a little trip down memory lane. They're they're
Speaker 1: getting a Cronkite Award for a town hall where they
Speaker 1: invited Dana lash my old colleague and friend from The Blaze.
Speaker 1: We used to work together at The Blaze for years.
Speaker 1: They invited Dana lash On as NRA spokesperson, and this
Speaker 1: is what it sounded and we could have played. There's
Speaker 1: so much of this audio, and some of it's really
Speaker 1: profane and horrible, but this is what the audio sounded like,
Speaker 1: as Dana, this is the forum that CNN set up
Speaker 1: to have a real discussion about gun violence, played twenty
Speaker 1: You know, I have so many thoughts on this. You know,
Speaker 1: I've always liked and along with Dana, and I know
Speaker 1: Dana's husband. I know that she's a great and proud
Speaker 1: mom of some wonderful kids, and she's walking out there
Speaker 1: to talk about and she really did engage and talk
Speaker 1: about gun pola, gun laws, gun policy, what could be done.
Speaker 1: And people are yelling at her as though she is
Speaker 1: personally responsible and these are CNN watchers, obviously CNN loots,
Speaker 1: which is what their audience is comprised of, as though
Speaker 1: she is personally responsible for the deaths of all of
Speaker 1: those young people at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's idiocy for anyone to think that, But it's also
Speaker 1: dangerous idiocy because if one really believes, as apparently that
Speaker 1: CNN audience of fools and clowns, if one really believes
Speaker 1: that Dana is responsible for she is personally responsible for
Speaker 1: the death of all those young people, then what is
Speaker 1: acceptable retaliation against her. I'll let you think about that
Speaker 1: for a moment. This woman, who has had an incredible
Speaker 1: rise in her career I have a lot of respect
Speaker 1: for and has always been nothing but a courteous and
Speaker 1: friendly professional to me, what do these people think should
Speaker 1: happen to Dana? I mean, and I asked that an
Speaker 1: open ended fashion. But they're screaming, shame on you. She
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with this shooting. But CNN for
Speaker 1: setting up this, you know, this forum for abuse, which
Speaker 1: is what it was, is getting a Cronkite award, folks.
Speaker 1: Dana responded to this today, curious, where is my share
Speaker 1: of the award? You needed a villain to abuse and
Speaker 1: I was the only one on the stage relating the
Speaker 1: facts later cited as the exact reasons why the sheriff
Speaker 1: you exalted was removed from his job. Let me know
Speaker 1: when I can expect an on air invite for acknowledgement. Yep, yep.
Speaker 1: I mean this is an absolute, absolute joke of an award.
Speaker 1: I mean, I cannot believe they did this. Dana went
Speaker 1: on a tear on Twitter on this one. Some interesting notes,
Speaker 1: CNN proud of this Walter Cronkite Award winning town hall.
Speaker 1: Here's some video of it. Some interesting notes. CNN set
Speaker 1: this up like a WWE event purposefully. They allowed Scott
Speaker 1: Israel to take the stage before the cameras turned on
Speaker 1: an electioneer. He took that time about twenty minutes to
Speaker 1: start blaming law abiding gun owners. When the producers cued
Speaker 1: me to walk into the arena. It was to the
Speaker 1: Black Eyed Peas song Let's Get It Started. I am
Speaker 1: completely serious. I was shocked and confused. While I knew
Speaker 1: I was taking questions. We were only told that day
Speaker 1: that I would actually be on stage. After the broadcast ended,
Speaker 1: one of my one of my security detail, had to
Speaker 1: stop a woman who rushed the stage to tackle me
Speaker 1: from behind. That is when Tapper asked me if I
Speaker 1: had an escort out. I am positive that CNN's cameras
Speaker 1: still operational, observed this and would like for them to
Speaker 1: release the footage. I showed up in good faith for
Speaker 1: genuine conversation, knowing that at best it would be a
Speaker 1: tough event. The lengths CNNPR went to inflame emotions and
Speaker 1: exploit pain to put on a show is inexcusable, shameful,
Speaker 1: and its grotesque that they're celebrating getting an award for
Speaker 1: their conduct. Amen, Dana Absolutely. She also writes those with
Speaker 1: integrity would reject this absolute sham of an award, but
Speaker 1: narratives and ratings. Congrats on the show, CNN. Applause, applause,
Speaker 1: God bless you, Dana absolutely. And then and in case
Speaker 1: this wasn't enough, thanks, She writes Jake Tapper for unfollowing
Speaker 1: me after I criticize the award your company won. I'm
Speaker 1: not sorry that I was more prepared than you and
Speaker 1: your network to call out the failures of Scott Israel
Speaker 1: while CNN celebrated his failures that led to this awfulness.
Speaker 1: Even afterwards, I was cordial and kind to Jake. I
Speaker 1: appreciated the situation he was put in. But if he
Speaker 1: can't handle my legitimate criticism and deserve criticism of his
Speaker 1: network's behavior, well then go be a company man. That's
Speaker 1: a real shame. Yeah, that's right. The most psychotically thin
Speaker 1: skinned person in media, Jake Tapper. Dana now knows this too.
Speaker 1: You criticize him in any way, even in the slightest way,
Speaker 1: at your peril, As many many conservatives that I know
Speaker 1: have found out, to their shock and amusement, it would
Speaker 1: be fun one day. One day, one day, Jake and
Speaker 1: I are going to have a serious disagreement. There's another
Speaker 1: movie quote for you. Uh, Dana is spot on here.
Speaker 1: CNN is a joke. Should be embarrassed by this. Of
Speaker 1: course they're not embarrassed by this at all, But CNN
Speaker 1: is a is a joke, and the fact that they
Speaker 1: give out things like a Cronkite award. I can assure
Speaker 1: you I will never get an award for journalism. Do
Speaker 1: you know what my award is for this show that
Speaker 1: you listen to it that it matters because you choose
Speaker 1: to be a part of this. I want an award.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get a little trophy. I want a trophy
Speaker 1: put up my mental of the fireplace. I'd even have
Speaker 1: a fireplace to put it, the mantel on to put
Speaker 1: the trophy on. Anyway, God bless Dana lash for standing
Speaker 1: strong on this one. Well, right back, isn't it a
Speaker 1: great feeling when you get one hundred dollar bill that
Speaker 1: you just happen to find because it's inside if a
Speaker 1: jacket that you haven't used for ages, maybe it's in
Speaker 1: an old wallet. It's a great feeling, right Well, imagine
Speaker 1: finding hundreds of dollars in the papers they're just sitting around.
Speaker 1: You're filing cabin or up in the attic, but you
Speaker 1: know it's from that old four oh one k paperwork
Speaker 1: from the job you had before last one you probably
Speaker 1: don't think about anymore. Well, while that money's just sitting
Speaker 1: there gathering financial dust, guess what it could be working
Speaker 1: much harder in a precious metals IRA. My friends at
Speaker 1: Noble Gold can see if you qualify, and they'll do
Speaker 1: all the heavy lifting for you. This could make you
Speaker 1: a whole bunch and cost you a nothing. Give Noble
Speaker 1: Goold to call at eight seven seven six four six
Speaker 1: five three four seven or text my name Buck to
Speaker 1: five eleven, five eleven and receive their free Investors Guide.
Speaker 1: Plus for all qualified iras above twenty thousand dollars, they'll
Speaker 1: include a complimentary rare graded Morgan silver dollar valued at
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars. Text Buck to five eleven,
Speaker 1: five eleven Noble Gold Investments. Individual results may vary invest wisely.
Speaker 1: Standard text rates may apply. Speaking of admissions and all
Speaker 1: of the different concerns over admissions, and what does it
Speaker 1: mean for the meritocracy, and what does it mean for
Speaker 1: our society, you know, because here's the here's the promise
Speaker 1: that we have. Here's what we are told that selective schools,
Speaker 1: these selective institutions, they will um first and foremost prioritize
Speaker 1: academics over everything else. That's and we know that's not
Speaker 1: really true at the college and university level. There are
Speaker 1: a whole lot of different ways that you can get in,
Speaker 1: whether it's sports, or legacy or minority status, all kinds
Speaker 1: of things that factor in. But there are some other
Speaker 1: unique admission situations that confound the social justice left because
Speaker 1: they don't really have a ready argument for it. They
Speaker 1: don't know what to say unless they're going to claim
Speaker 1: that there's that math is somehow a function of bias,
Speaker 1: which I think there are someone the left too will
Speaker 1: claim that, I don't know how they make an argument here.
Speaker 1: But this is where this is where the social justice
Speaker 1: left gets all tied up into knots. It's a store
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. I've mentioned this school before.
Speaker 1: It's about Stuyvesant High School in New York City. Now
Speaker 1: a little moment here where I get to say I
Speaker 1: got into Stuyvesant High School. For those who I took
Speaker 1: the test with thousands and thousands of other students and
Speaker 1: sure enough I passed. Yay me. But I ended up
Speaker 1: going to a Catholic scholarship school instead. That's right. I
Speaker 1: went to school on a four year academic scholarship, about
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars scholarship. So there was that I know,
Speaker 1: a little pad on the back for buck. I know
Speaker 1: it's been a rough week or so, I need a
Speaker 1: little pad on the back for myself. I hope you
Speaker 1: don't mind, team, but I know the Sty situation. They
Speaker 1: call it Sty Stuyvesant High School situation pretty well because
Speaker 1: it is a school where you take a test and
Speaker 1: your school determines whether you get in. Well, here's the
Speaker 1: problem for the social justice left. It doesn't work out
Speaker 1: the way they would want it to. Based on the
Speaker 1: numbers out of eight hundred and ninety five spots for
Speaker 1: this is considered by many the most selective, elite public
Speaker 1: high school in the country. In all of America, this
Speaker 1: is considered number one out of eight hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: five spots. It's purely based on a test. No legacy,
Speaker 1: no sports, no nothing else. You show up, you take
Speaker 1: that test. Your score is whether you get in or not.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred ninety five spots. Seven black students got in.
Speaker 1: So out of eight hundred ninety five spots you had
Speaker 1: seven black students, ten were admitted. Last year. There's a
Speaker 1: secondary as a secondary school as well, called the Bronx
Speaker 1: High School of Science, made twelve offers to black students
Speaker 1: this year. Now, when I say offers, this is all
Speaker 1: based on a test. This is just the numbers. This
Speaker 1: is who gets what? Right now, what do you think
Speaker 1: the left does when they see this? What is their response? Oh,
Speaker 1: they want to change this. This is unacceptable. This is
Speaker 1: a an entirely this is a pure merit based admission
Speaker 1: system in New York City, very visible, very famous public school.
Speaker 1: Guess what we mentioned the show Hackers. You know where
Speaker 1: the students and hackers go to school, folks from that
Speaker 1: movie Boom Stuyvesant. That's right, in the movie Hackers, they
Speaker 1: are attending. We're bringing this whole thing full circle this hour.
Speaker 1: They are students at Stuyvesant High School. Although they're like
Speaker 1: thirty year old actors playing high school kids. But that's
Speaker 1: something else. This is what the New York Times rights here.
Speaker 1: These numbers come despite Mayor to Build a Blasio's vow
Speaker 1: to diversify these specialized high schools, which have long been
Speaker 1: seen as a ticket for low income and immigrants students
Speaker 1: to enter the nation's best colleges and embark on successful careers.
Speaker 1: But mister Deblasio's proposal to scrap the entrance exam for
Speaker 1: the schools and overhaul the admissions process has proved so
Speaker 1: divisive that the state's most prominent politicians, from Governor Andrew
Speaker 1: Cuomo to Representative Alexandri Occazio Cortez, have mostly avoided taking
Speaker 1: a definite, definitive position, even as black and Hispanic students
Speaker 1: are grappling with increased, increasingly steep odds of admission into
Speaker 1: the most selective public schools. You know why, you know
Speaker 1: this is the reason they are flummoxed by this. The
Speaker 1: reason that they aren't already saying, well, let's just create
Speaker 1: new rules that will change who gets in and who
Speaker 1: does in. And the reason is because the school and
Speaker 1: brother there's a whole bunch of these schools, Bronx High
Speaker 1: School of Science, Brooklyn Tech, Brooklyn Latin. These are all elite,
Speaker 1: test based public schools. At Stivison, seven out of eight
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety five students are black. At Bronx High
Speaker 1: School of Science, twelve out of eight hundred three students
Speaker 1: are black. At Brooklyn Technical, ninety five out of one
Speaker 1: thou eight hundred and twenty five students are black. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're in single digits out of hundreds and hundreds and
Speaker 1: hundreds of students at all these schools and it's all
Speaker 1: about one exam. Do you know why they can't figure
Speaker 1: out what to do about this? Who do you think
Speaker 1: is getting into these schools that are disproportionate rate? Is
Speaker 1: it rich white kids with all their white privilege and
Speaker 1: they're just drowning and all the white privilege they have,
Speaker 1: it's just so easy because they're white. Oh no, that's
Speaker 1: not the case at all. Stives in high school is
Speaker 1: seventy four percent Asian American. Three out of four students
Speaker 1: at SKY are Asian American. So do they have Asian
Speaker 1: American privilege? Does someone want to try to explain this
Speaker 1: to me? Well, how does the left grapple with this? Well,
Speaker 1: what do they want to say? Where's they're so reliant
Speaker 1: on this idiocy of white privilege, white privilege all the time.
Speaker 1: That's what they're always saying, right, attacking people for their
Speaker 1: white privilege. You got to admit your white privilege. Seventy
Speaker 1: four percent of them are Asian americ Asian Americans. A
Speaker 1: lot of them are first generation immigrants. By the way,
Speaker 1: many of them have students. Many of the students have
Speaker 1: parents who don't speak English. As a first language or
Speaker 1: barely speak English at all, and they're acing an exam,
Speaker 1: a highly competitive exam. I mean, the Stuyvesant is like
Speaker 1: it was, like my high school's the equivalent of one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars scholarship, maybe more. It's probably one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty thousand dollars. Now, that's that's about what a
Speaker 1: private high school in New York City is going to
Speaker 1: cost you over four years. So what's the answer here?
Speaker 1: Are they going to just start telling these Asian students
Speaker 1: who have no advantage? And oh and before we hear
Speaker 1: about how it's all poverty base. In fact, in the
Speaker 1: New York City area, Asians have the greatest rates of
Speaker 1: poverty in the city. As a percentage of their of
Speaker 1: the overall population, Asian American students would drop by half
Speaker 1: under Mari de Blasia's new plan. That's right, that's the
Speaker 1: plan here, just cut out. They have a view, the
Speaker 1: central planners of the social justice movement have a view
Speaker 1: of how many people from how many backgrounds should be
Speaker 1: in these schools. This is quotas, my friends, this is
Speaker 1: very damaging. They won't call it that. That's what it is.
Speaker 1: They want to tell a bunch of very deserving, very
Speaker 1: hard working Asian American kids, because that's who this is
Speaker 1: going to affect. Sorry, you don't get to come here.
Speaker 1: We need more black and Latino students because we say so.
Speaker 1: But where is the Asian American advantage in the system?
Speaker 1: Why are they able to do so well and get
Speaker 1: into schools at these rates? Does the left even ask
Speaker 1: these questions? I think the answers. No, they don't ask
Speaker 1: these questions because they don't want to have to even
Speaker 1: try to come up with answers. This is where you
Speaker 1: expose the fraudulence, the intellectual fraudulence of intersectionality and the
Speaker 1: social justice movement. They don't want to ask tough questions.
Speaker 1: They just want to propagandize. Although I do, Yeah, here
Speaker 1: we go. It just just some of you probably figure
Speaker 1: that I made that up about Asian Americans. It's true
Speaker 1: about This is from the Huffington Post, a left wing site.
Speaker 1: Asian Americans have the highest poverty rate in NYC, but
Speaker 1: stereotypes make the issue invisible. Asian Americans do have They're
Speaker 1: more Asian Americans living in poverty New York City than
Speaker 1: any other minority group, and yet three out of four
Speaker 1: of the top spots in the most elite public schools
Speaker 1: in the largest city in the United States are held
Speaker 1: by Asian Americans. Why is that they have no white privilege,
Speaker 1: they have no financial advantage. Oh you mean because there
Speaker 1: are things like family structure and a culture of work
Speaker 1: and studiousness that I don't know, we you know what,
Speaker 1: we can't Let's not talk about that. Let's just put
Speaker 1: let's just put quotas in place, folks, because that's really
Speaker 1: gonna that's really fair. This is the left answer because
Speaker 1: they have no answers. It's ridiculous. Now I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: say I'm a trend setter, but I'm not gonna say
Speaker 1: I'm not, or perhaps a better way of putting it
Speaker 1: is maybe I'm I'm ahead of the curve a little
Speaker 1: bit on this one. I wrote last week about how
Speaker 1: college admissions should not be bent, should not be distorted
Speaker 1: for recruiting athletes to university campuses. College campuses, that this,
Speaker 1: this is, this has gotten completely out of control. A
Speaker 1: lot of colleges and universities have turned into sports franchises
Speaker 1: with classrooms attached to them. It's just it's just nuts.
Speaker 1: And this is something that culturally we really. I know
Speaker 1: it's a huge thing, but culturally we really need to
Speaker 1: rethink where this is in our society. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: no sports. I'm not even saying no super competitive sports
Speaker 1: at colleges. I'm just saying we need to stop with
Speaker 1: any of the lies here. You know, we should not
Speaker 1: have people who can barely read graduating from UNC Chapel
Speaker 1: Hill or from University of Michigan because they run really
Speaker 1: fast or they jump really high, or they're really strong
Speaker 1: or whatever. That should not be happening, and it does happen.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget when they did an expose of this
Speaker 1: a few years ago and a guy who was alignman
Speaker 1: on a football team was he had taken I think
Speaker 1: four years of Swahili. I think it was four years.
Speaker 1: It might have only been one year, but I think
Speaker 1: he took four years of Swahili. And they asked him
Speaker 1: in the interview. This was on Real Sports, I believe,
Speaker 1: with Bryant Gumble. They asked him, can you say you
Speaker 1: took Swahili language as a full credit course? Here? Can
Speaker 1: you say one word in Swahili? Who wants to? How
Speaker 1: many words he could say in Swahili? This Chapel hill
Speaker 1: football play zero. Wow, that wasn't been quite a course
Speaker 1: load he was taking. Well, some other people are starting
Speaker 1: to think a little bit more about this too. New
Speaker 1: York Times admission scandals stokes hard questions on recruited athletes
Speaker 1: happy learned how to put quote. Some students were accepted
Speaker 1: as recruited athletes even though they did not play the
Speaker 1: sports described in their applications. They gained an advantage through
Speaker 1: the widespread practice of allocating a certain number of admission
Speaker 1: spots to athletes who might not get in otherwise. This
Speaker 1: process has been followed for decades in the pursuit of
Speaker 1: competitive teams, which burnish a university's a university's reputation, inspire
Speaker 1: alumni loyalty, and often help with fundraising. Now the fraud
Speaker 1: case has sent a thunderbolt through the higher education community.
Speaker 1: Quote every college president in America called this athletic director
Speaker 1: of the morning after that admissions fraud story broken, asked
Speaker 1: how do we make sure this doesn't happen in our school?
Speaker 1: A broad overhaul of athletic admission systems individual one the
Speaker 1: highest level of NCWA competition and the level of the
Speaker 1: colleges and the scheme competing has been overdue. According to
Speaker 1: several athletic administrators reviewed interviewed in recent days, battles over
Speaker 1: blue chip recruits in football and basketball already tend to
Speaker 1: be heavily scrutinized. In those upper echelon sports that there's
Speaker 1: money changing hands, it is from coaches to recruits, not
Speaker 1: the other way around. But in lower profile sports like crew, volleyball, tennis,
Speaker 1: and soccer often called the Olympic sports, there's been more
Speaker 1: room for bribes and exploitation. Yep, folks, this whole thing.
Speaker 1: There's this Scams with college athletics recruiting are everywhere, and
Speaker 1: they undermine these institutions and it's just not worth it.
Speaker 1: The top tier of schools for the biggest sports should
Speaker 1: have special programs in place for athletes scholars, not scholar
Speaker 1: athletes who get paid a salary, who get a share
Speaker 1: of the revenue from the NCAA that they're making and
Speaker 1: the school's making. And yes, they take classes and they
Speaker 1: get an education, but there's no more of this pretense that, oh,
Speaker 1: they got in only partially because of sports, but they're
Speaker 1: also really great students. Bull crap. We all know it's
Speaker 1: a lie. It is. Stop with that nonsense. If it
Speaker 1: wasn't a lie, they wouldn't need to do the special recruiting. Man.
Speaker 1: So look at this. The world is coming around to
Speaker 1: Buck's point of view on this one. A little bit
Speaker 1: a week ago, I was crazy. Now when it comes
Speaker 1: to college athletics recruiting, I'm only a little bit crazy. Hey,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll calls. Oh it is
Speaker 1: that little dub stuff going one gets us, gets everybody
Speaker 1: in the mood. Dubstuff gets everybody in the mood for
Speaker 1: roll call. John is our first stup. Remember Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash Buck Sexton. John is first into the mix.
Speaker 1: Right's hackers reference reminds me of the time I called
Speaker 1: you and quoted Hackers and you nailed it. The quote
Speaker 1: was it's in that place I put that thing that time.
Speaker 1: You need to bring back the movie game and I
Speaker 1: miss commy bear, John, I don't. I felt like people
Speaker 1: weren't as into action movie quote Friday after the first
Speaker 1: year of the show. But I'm willing to bring it back.
Speaker 1: But it's really just a function of do the folks
Speaker 1: you know I listened to the team. Does the team
Speaker 1: call in when we do action movie quote Friday? Do
Speaker 1: they want it or do they think that it's you know,
Speaker 1: it was a nice way that we all got to
Speaker 1: know each other. I don't know if people are, but
Speaker 1: it's a good Friday thing. Let me think about it
Speaker 1: in Commy Bear. Indeed, the problem with Commy Bear is
Speaker 1: that you can't make any jokes these days about getting
Speaker 1: in trouble. And I wonder if even doing a little
Speaker 1: Soviet Bear and I'd probably get in trouble. You know,
Speaker 1: is he allowed to say that he likes that he
Speaker 1: likes t swift? I don't know. Maybe maybe the Feminazis
Speaker 1: will come after me. Adam rights the movie was hackers.
Speaker 1: Do I get an honorary black belt? Adam? You do
Speaker 1: get an honorary imaginary black belt. I just sent it
Speaker 1: to you through the brain waves. I hope you wear
Speaker 1: it with pride shields high, Adam, come out to the coast,
Speaker 1: have a few laughs. You can't sneak die hard by
Speaker 1: that easily, Adam, well played, sir. You also get an
Speaker 1: imaginary Maybe we'll send you a red belt. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you're quite black belt with that one. That's
Speaker 1: a little easy. Red belt is what was the highest
Speaker 1: karate belt? I feel like they were remember when all
Speaker 1: the different belts at all the colors, do you know
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about? Purple? Yeah, that was like green
Speaker 1: and yellow and brown and brown I think usually came
Speaker 1: before black. But then there was red, and it's like, well,
Speaker 1: red looks cooler than even the black belt. So I
Speaker 1: don't know, I'm just I'm just saying. And then there's
Speaker 1: like a sash with different gold stripes on it and stuff.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of a lot of belts. As
Speaker 1: Bruce Lee said, belts are important for holding up your pants. Keith,
Speaker 1: I was listening to your podcast and did, in fact
Speaker 1: catch the reference to a great movie called Hackers Hack
Speaker 1: the Planet was part of the message to Hint where
Speaker 1: the floppy disc was hidden at the train station. A
Speaker 1: very young Angelina Jolie played Kate. Indeed, Keith, that is true.
Speaker 1: I saw that movie Hackers many many times. Matthew Lillard,
Speaker 1: who would go on to star in Summer Catch, which
Speaker 1: also had starring in it the Jessica Biel in her
Speaker 1: absolute movie Prime. That has nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to say that Summer Catch is my
Speaker 1: favorite Jessica bill movie, her thing, and it is absolutely atrocious.
Speaker 1: But she's still amazing as an actress. I respect her
Speaker 1: skills and her craft. That's right, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Gotta be careful what the feminazis running around. Matthew love
Speaker 1: your show. Was very happy to meet you last year
Speaker 1: at Talk Tank in Fort Wayne. Once again. I bought
Speaker 1: a VIP ticket this year a super VIP see you
Speaker 1: on April thirteenth, Sir Shields High, Matthew, thank you so much, man.
Speaker 1: I mean, I really appreciate the support. Having people who
Speaker 1: are part of the team to show up and hang
Speaker 1: out at Talk Tank is gonna make a big difference
Speaker 1: as to how much fun I think I will have
Speaker 1: and everybody will have. Who's there it is if you're
Speaker 1: listening to this on whoa wo or if you're anywhere
Speaker 1: near the Fort Wayne, Indiana area, it's gonna be Todd Starns,
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, Tommy larn All in Fort Wayne for Talk
Speaker 1: Tank and it's gonna be awesome April thirteenth. April thirteenth,
Speaker 1: So get excited about it. It's gonna be amazing. Looking
Speaker 1: forward to it. Talk to you then, and if you
Speaker 1: just type in wo wo wowo and talk Tank, you'll
Speaker 1: be able to see it. Please please do come out.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a lot of fun. Tommy and I are.
Speaker 1: We're gonna do an event, but then we're all just
Speaker 1: gonna hang out afterwards and you know, talk to people,
Speaker 1: and it'll be good things, good things. William. I believe
Speaker 1: all conservatives should from now on only for to Robert
Speaker 1: Francis by his hacker name, Psychedelic Warlord. That is all
Speaker 1: shields high. Well, ave, you got a good point, man,
Speaker 1: Psychedelic war Lord. That's that's a that's an amazing Yeah.
Speaker 1: My name, my hacker name was Psychedelic Warlord because it's
Speaker 1: like I could just get into your head and spread
Speaker 1: all the positive vibes even if you didn't want me to.
Speaker 1: But like Patou knows, what's up with the Psychedelic Warlord. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: we're gonna. I'm glad that we've already got a Beto
Speaker 1: character going. We're gonna make good use of it because
Speaker 1: I don't think he's got to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going anywhere, folks. I don't think
Speaker 1: he's going anywhere. Let's see Michael hey Buck. So the
Speaker 1: media says over and over that Trump is a white supremacist,
Speaker 1: then they act surprised when actual white supremacists believe them.
Speaker 1: My point is that New Zealander shooter doesn't think Trump
Speaker 1: is a racist because Trump is actually a racist. He
Speaker 1: believes it because the media told him to believe it.
Speaker 1: Shields High Michael, Michael, you know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: that guy really thought. I mean, I read his whole manifesto,
Speaker 1: which people always say that. Now there's this trend of
Speaker 1: don't name the shooter, don't read his manifesto, don't watch
Speaker 1: anything he did. Well, but what about people like me
Speaker 1: that make a living analyzing and understanding and presenting the news,
Speaker 1: like I have an obligation to dig deep into what's
Speaker 1: really going on here. I mean, I don't pretend to
Speaker 1: be a psychiatrist or anything, but I do think that
Speaker 1: I need to have access to the information. I know
Speaker 1: what the heck is going on. So there is that
Speaker 1: in New Zealand. I think they've made it illegal to
Speaker 1: share the video of the massacre itself on social media.
Speaker 1: I disagree with that. I do not think you can
Speaker 1: criminalize newsworthy information and the distribution of newsworthy information just
Speaker 1: because you are trying to dampen the knowledge of the event.
Speaker 1: I think that that's wide open for abuse. I really
Speaker 1: do you know, think about the libs in this country
Speaker 1: who want to shut down different discussions and don't want to,
Speaker 1: you know, have certain topics explored. They may say, well,
Speaker 1: we can't have a real We can't have this person
Speaker 1: who's discussing their transition to being transgender and then wanted
Speaker 1: to come back. You know that that could be dangerous
Speaker 1: for people. They can't, so we need to suppress that.
Speaker 1: We need to suppress it. That's what liberals do. Have
Speaker 1: to remember this. So I disagree with decisions that are
Speaker 1: intended to shut down the spread of information and knowledge
Speaker 1: about news events because it will be abused and someone
Speaker 1: like me has to be able to see what's really
Speaker 1: going on in order to have a full understanding of
Speaker 1: the facts. You know, it's gonna sound like I'm lazy
Speaker 1: on the couch all day, but you can say I
Speaker 1: sit around all day reading, but I spend my entire
Speaker 1: day effectively researching and preparing for this show. And those
Speaker 1: of you who listen to the show do me the
Speaker 1: great honor of giving me your time and interacting with
Speaker 1: me online with calls, with emails, so that we have
Speaker 1: an ongoing conversation about all these things, about what matters,
Speaker 1: about what's happening. But in that preparation process, I need
Speaker 1: access to as much information as possible, not just on line,
Speaker 1: but my sources and everything else, my old Dusty books.
Speaker 1: We haven't had an old Dusty Books session with Buck
Speaker 1: in a while. You know, I've got an idea that
Speaker 1: I'm going to present to you, and some of you
Speaker 1: will weigh in on this one on Facebook. I've got
Speaker 1: this cool idea. So I know a fair amount of
Speaker 1: former Spec Ops veterans, right, I've got a number of friends,
Speaker 1: former Seals, former Army Rangers, former marine So I think
Speaker 1: that a really cool idea, and maybe somebody's already doing this,
Speaker 1: but I should talk to my friends over at SOFTAREP
Speaker 1: and The Blaze and Black Rifle, because I mean, somebody
Speaker 1: should be doing this. Which is kind of a mystery
Speaker 1: science theater, but watching movies that are not silly action
Speaker 1: movies like Commando and things like that, but watching movies
Speaker 1: like Triple Frontier, which I think I mentioned to you
Speaker 1: I saw on Netflix was pretty good, and talk about
Speaker 1: the tactics and what's realistic and what's not and what
Speaker 1: was well done. I just think that will be a
Speaker 1: really cool concept. You get two or three it or
Speaker 1: three is the I think the optimum number maybe four,
Speaker 1: three or four spec ops vets who watch a movie,
Speaker 1: you know, who watch a movie like Zero, Dark thirty
Speaker 1: or Triple Frontier or Black Hawk Down and just talk
Speaker 1: about kind of a beat, you know, behind the scenes
Speaker 1: reality of what looks right and what doesn't. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I think that'd be a cool idea for a show.
Speaker 1: So maybe I'll if you guys like that idea, let
Speaker 1: me know. Maybe I'll reach out and see if I
Speaker 1: could arrange that. At some point. We gotta get everyone
Speaker 1: in one place, though, And I don't know if we
Speaker 1: could actually watch the movie in real time like Mystery
Speaker 1: Science Theater. Maybe we just discuss a movie and we
Speaker 1: play some clips from it. But see, I got all
Speaker 1: the all the creative juices are flowing. Eric writes Buck
Speaker 1: love the show. The March fourteenth movie quote is Archimedes
Speaker 1: the owl from Sword on the Stone. Damn Eric, good
Speaker 1: call and good memory. Look at you man, not missing
Speaker 1: a beat, Not missing a beat. Paul Rights love your
Speaker 1: radio show, especially in person nations. Keep up the gray
Speaker 1: work and God bless you from a retired military vet.
Speaker 1: Listen to you on WBV and w R and oh what, Paul,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I really do appreciate that. Thank
Speaker 1: you for your service to this country and it is
Speaker 1: an honor to have you a part of Team Buck,
Speaker 1: my friend. Please keep listening, and please tell your friends.
Speaker 1: You know they might not have heard of the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show or The Freedom Hut or anything else. And
Speaker 1: the best way that this show grows is by people
Speaker 1: like you who are already in the community of conservative
Speaker 1: patriots out there telling your fellow conservative patriots. So please
Speaker 1: do pass it along. Steven writes, I absolutely, one wholeheartedly
Speaker 1: agree to the core of my soul. College sports recruitment
Speaker 1: is ridiculousness. Oh Stephen, I'm so glad people think that
Speaker 1: I'm crazy, and then when I talk them through what
Speaker 1: happens and what's going on, they all kind of end
Speaker 1: up saying, yeah, I guess you're right, and yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: this college recruiting thing is ridiculous. College is about education.
Speaker 1: It's not about your win loss record for the hockey team.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it does not matter. And bending academic or
Speaker 1: breaking academic standards in order to bring people into certain
Speaker 1: institutions pretend that they can do the work just so
Speaker 1: you might get an extra w It sets a terrible precedent,
Speaker 1: it really does. It sets a bad example for the
Speaker 1: rest of the academic community. Colleges are not minor league
Speaker 1: sports teams. And I know we're going to March Madness.
Speaker 1: Are already in March Madness. It's like, I'm barely American.
Speaker 1: I don't even know this, Brandon, and we in March Madness.
Speaker 1: It's about this start more American. Okay, yeahs though you're
Speaker 1: a real American unlike me some commie from Manhattan. Um. Anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know that this is it's not a popular point
Speaker 1: of view, but I'm right. So I prefer to be
Speaker 1: right then to be popular on issues. So there you
Speaker 1: have it, at least on some issues. Hey, it's Wayne
Speaker 1: in Upstate New York Shield's High. How about we pronounce
Speaker 1: it they toe. I don't understand what you're talking about, Wayne,
Speaker 1: but I appreciate the note. My man, thanks for listening
Speaker 1: up an Upstate New York Shields High. All right, team,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be it for today's show. It has been fantastic,
Speaker 1: It has been joyous that has been wonderful only because
Speaker 1: of your presence. Though. I will talk to you all tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time, same place, Shields High. Look, you've probably heard
Speaker 1: of the AAARP. I just drove by their headquarters here
Speaker 1: in DC either day. You know, it's really well known.
Speaker 1: But what's not nearly as well known is that the
Speaker 1: AAARP is pretty progressive. They really wanted Obamacare to get past,
Speaker 1: and they support all kinds of Democrat left wing agenda
Speaker 1: items behind closed doors. That's why I want to get
Speaker 1: you all the benefits, all the good stuff that you
Speaker 1: get from an organization like that, but conservative policies. That's
Speaker 1: why I recommend AMAC. AMAC is the conservative alternative to AARP.
Speaker 1: It allows you to know that you're going to get
Speaker 1: all the best discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistant
Speaker 1: dental plans, and sell service options while also pushing for
Speaker 1: conservative solutions for this country's future. Stand with AMAC as
Speaker 1: they fight the good fight. Become a member today, Join
Speaker 1: right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's am
Speaker 1: AC dot us slash buck. AMACK is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: Better for America.