Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Reports are coming in
Speaker 1: that the Special Council is wrapping up as soon as
Speaker 1: next week, as was expected. Here on the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about what that means for the Democrats. How
Speaker 1: are they going to spend their time now that that
Speaker 1: fantasy collapses around them? And also, speaking of fantasies, the
Speaker 1: jus small at Hoax is crumbling around him. He is
Speaker 1: now officially a suspect. We've got updates on that and
Speaker 1: much more coming up. Buck Sexton Remission, decoding the news
Speaker 1: and disseminating information with actionable intelligence, No mistake, American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American. Again, This is the bucks Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: At Puma CIA analysts, I can speak to three hours
Speaker 1: without a phone call. Try doing that sometimes. No, Andrew
Speaker 1: McCabe is not a psychiatrist. He's not an internal physician.
Speaker 1: Either is Rod Rosenstein. They knew the constitution constitutional limits
Speaker 1: of the twenty fifth Amendment. It's an incapacitated president, Michae
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson maybe the last week of FDR. It's not
Speaker 1: a president you're having to disagree with. So what they're
Speaker 1: basically discussing is how to overthrow or aboard a presidency
Speaker 1: that was duly elected. Well, I think Andrew Bickabe has
Speaker 1: made a fool out of himself over the last couple
Speaker 1: of days. And he really looks to me like sort
Speaker 1: of a poor man's j Edgar Hoover's a. I think
Speaker 1: he's a disaster. And what he was trying to do
Speaker 1: was terrible and he was caught. Anybody reading the IG
Speaker 1: report would say, how could a man like this be
Speaker 1: involved with the FBI. Welcome to the Buck Saxon Show.
Speaker 1: Everybody Big news today. The Muller pro according to CNN,
Speaker 1: is supposed to end sometime next week or the report,
Speaker 1: I should say that is the conclusion of the probe.
Speaker 1: That signals the conclusion. We'll be handed into the newly
Speaker 1: installed Attorney General next week bar the a G. And
Speaker 1: so this aligns with what I've been telling you here
Speaker 1: for a while. I told you that I had heard
Speaker 1: that the probe was going to end within a matter
Speaker 1: of a few weeks, and now here we are. So
Speaker 1: I do believe this report, even though it comes from
Speaker 1: fake news CNN, that this is going to be wrapping up.
Speaker 1: It also comes at a time when we have more
Speaker 1: certainty than ever before we should have more certainty than
Speaker 1: ever before that the actions taken at the top of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the FBI by pro Hillary
Speaker 1: anti Trump partisans were appalling, absolutely appalling, that disgrace the
Speaker 1: offices of the men and women who who held them,
Speaker 1: that undermine the very institutions that they at least have
Speaker 1: told us they sought to protect. There can be no
Speaker 1: justification for the behavior that we already know about, and
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you that there's a lot we
Speaker 1: still don't know and need to know about just what
Speaker 1: happened here. You have people who have come forward to
Speaker 1: offer freely that they were considering what was effectively a
Speaker 1: coup against the president of the United States based on
Speaker 1: what what was the thing that the president did that
Speaker 1: was so terrible that McCabe and some of the others,
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein offering to wear a wire? What was a
Speaker 1: thing that was done that was so terrible that a
Speaker 1: reasonable person, a government employee in good faith would have
Speaker 1: even considered this is There isn't one. They have got
Speaker 1: nothing firing James Comy. That is how self aware. I mean,
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy is like Skynet. Now they're willing to
Speaker 1: provoke a nuclear war because they think they're more important
Speaker 1: than we are. That's how self important they are. They
Speaker 1: want a coup to happen because their dear leader at
Speaker 1: the Bureau got fired. My friends, we are going to
Speaker 1: enter a very frustrating period here. Soon it will be validation.
Speaker 1: To be sure, you and I will be able to
Speaker 1: go about our day very soon knowing that even with
Speaker 1: the bare knuckle tactics of the Muller Probe full of
Speaker 1: pro Hillary partisans looking to settle scores people who are
Speaker 1: obviously anti Trump in every way, they weren't able to
Speaker 1: make the case against Trump. There was no collusion. You've
Speaker 1: known it all along. I've known it all along, and
Speaker 1: now there will at least be further validation of that
Speaker 1: that an oppositional force, with almost unlimited resources and whatever
Speaker 1: reach within the law it decides to have the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel was unable to do it. And you are going
Speaker 1: to see as soon as this is announced, and it
Speaker 1: should be next week, you will see the most dishonest
Speaker 1: intellectual gymnastics, the most brazen garbage pedaled on TV you've
Speaker 1: ever seen in your whole life. It's going to be
Speaker 1: a dumpster fire. Of lies and misdirection and nothing to
Speaker 1: see here. Let's just move on, folks. They're not even
Speaker 1: going to pause and say, you know, maybe the endless
Speaker 1: loop of stories about Russia collusion and all the fake
Speaker 1: news stories we ran that we had to then retract
Speaker 1: or correct, and maybe we've just been part of a
Speaker 1: of a hysteria of creating a mass delusion that has
Speaker 1: been really damaging to the functions of government. Maybe we've
Speaker 1: been wrong all this time. The Mueller Special Counsel, which
Speaker 1: you know people celebrities, media figures on the left, and
Speaker 1: the so called objective journalists, they've been acting like Muller
Speaker 1: was some kind of saint who was going to deliver
Speaker 1: this country from the pits of hell that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: had brought us to. They're not going to change any
Speaker 1: of that opinion. Even when Mueller says, yeah, it turns
Speaker 1: out there was no collusion, turns out that didn't happen.
Speaker 1: We can't prove it. There's nothing there. Collusion from the
Speaker 1: beginning was a silly idea that was cooked up by
Speaker 1: a bunch of hysterical pro Hillary anti Trump partisans. There
Speaker 1: was never a there there, and we are going to
Speaker 1: get in my opinion. We haven't seen the report yet. Yes,
Speaker 1: there's a there is a possibility of that eleventh hour
Speaker 1: bombshell or something. I don't know, but I kind of know.
Speaker 1: Once this report is given the Attorney General, and whether
Speaker 1: he makes it public or not, there's no way if
Speaker 1: they had something on the president, they'd be able to
Speaker 1: keep that quiet. So we're gonna know, and even when
Speaker 1: it's out there, there will not be any adjustment whatsoever
Speaker 1: in the hysterics, in the nonsense from CNN and MSNBC,
Speaker 1: the Washington Post in New York Times. They still are
Speaker 1: going to claim that what's needed is further investigation of
Speaker 1: the president. That all we've really found out is how
Speaker 1: how much more investigating there has to be, because these
Speaker 1: people are willing to pollute the law down to its
Speaker 1: very core. As long as they can weaponize the law
Speaker 1: enforcement bureaucracy and the congressional oversight processes against this president.
Speaker 1: That's the plan. You're going to see an immediate switch,
Speaker 1: as though nothing has happened, as though there's no necessary
Speaker 1: evaluation that should take place of how crazy this whole
Speaker 1: stupid Trump Russia collusion narrative has been all along, and
Speaker 1: what a disgrace. The journalists that have been pushing it
Speaker 1: have been They're not going to stop and think about
Speaker 1: any of that. They're immediately going to transition into, well,
Speaker 1: what does the southern District of New York have on him?
Speaker 1: What can we get on his tax returns, What can
Speaker 1: we do to investigate his children? Maybe some of his
Speaker 1: kids drank underage in high school or college or you know,
Speaker 1: that's where this is going to go. These people have
Speaker 1: no shame, They have no principles, they have no ethics.
Speaker 1: They are pushing a narrative that goes to the very
Speaker 1: core not just of what they believe about this country,
Speaker 1: that there is an elite, that there is an establishment,
Speaker 1: that the Democrat Left is the only legitimate power structure
Speaker 1: that exists here, but that also goes to the core
Speaker 1: of what they the peddlers of this false anti Trump narrative,
Speaker 1: believe about themselves, which is that they have to have
Speaker 1: been right all along. They must be right all along.
Speaker 1: Even if they can't prove there was any Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: they know it's there. Why because they believe it. Because ultimately,
Speaker 1: Russia collusion for the hysterical left has turned into a
Speaker 1: replacement religious belief they will never abandon it. So even
Speaker 1: though the Special Counsel is going to be ending soon,
Speaker 1: my friends, unfortunately, the Democrats hysteria is just going to
Speaker 1: find other outlets now and will continue. We got just
Speaker 1: small at updates. We've got a lot on the Democrat
Speaker 1: candidates that are out there. Now, we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about Bernie Sanders so much show coming up. Team stay
Speaker 1: with me. The collections are down to about thirty percent
Speaker 1: of the target. That is about a two point three
Speaker 1: billion dollar drop in revenues. Two point three billion dollars.
Speaker 1: As a drop at this point in revenues is as
Speaker 1: serious as a heart attack. Assault encourages high income New
Speaker 1: Yorkers to move to other states. And what you have
Speaker 1: to remember is even if a small number of high
Speaker 1: income taxpayers leave, it has a dramatic effect on this
Speaker 1: tax space. Tax the rich, Tax the rich, tax the rich.
Speaker 1: We did now, God forbid the rich leave. Nobody on
Speaker 1: the stands like Governor Cuomo that if you tax and
Speaker 1: tax and tax the rich, and tax and tax some more,
Speaker 1: eventually they get tired of paying the taxes and the
Speaker 1: tax You get the idea, Oh what a shock, New
Speaker 1: York Higher taxes. People want to leave, people who can leave,
Speaker 1: people who it is easy for them to leave. The
Speaker 1: wealthy are particularly mobile, especially when it comes to establishing
Speaker 1: state residents in one place or another. The wealthy are
Speaker 1: the ones that are going to be the first to leave.
Speaker 1: By the way, the French dealt with this recently when
Speaker 1: they instituted a specific millionaires tax, But they haven't learned
Speaker 1: their lesson really either. They had millionaires in France who
Speaker 1: are leaving and going to other countries in the EU. Well,
Speaker 1: there you go, trying to find other places, trying to
Speaker 1: find tax havens. Taxation is unfortunately the primary, the primary
Speaker 1: effort of the Democrats going into twenty twenty, you're going
Speaker 1: to hear a lot about this. Yeah, they're going to
Speaker 1: address these different things up with oh, it's about climate change,
Speaker 1: or it's about healthcare, or but really behind all of this,
Speaker 1: there is going to be increases in taxation. The state
Speaker 1: wants more of your stuff, whether at the federal level
Speaker 1: or at the state level. If the Democrats are in charge,
Speaker 1: that's what's going to happen, and they don't learn the
Speaker 1: lessons of history. I still see people going on TV
Speaker 1: who are saying, well, under the Eisenhower administration, the tax
Speaker 1: rate was ninety percent. They keep saying this, and the
Speaker 1: truth is that there was nobody in the Eisenhower administration
Speaker 1: that was paying ninety percent income taxes or during the
Speaker 1: administration not anymore. But there's nobody in that era that
Speaker 1: they can point to whoever even had to pay that rate.
Speaker 1: And with the lowering of rates thanks to Reagan, you
Speaker 1: had an explosion in growth in the economy and a
Speaker 1: booming stock market, and all of a sudden things had
Speaker 1: been for many, many years before that. But not only
Speaker 1: the Democrats not students of history. Many of them are
Speaker 1: in fact rewriters of history. They go back and they
Speaker 1: change things around because at some point they've had too
Speaker 1: many failures with their plans for governance for this to
Speaker 1: seem like an accident. At some point it starts to
Speaker 1: feel like maybe they're doing this on purpose, maybe to
Speaker 1: borrow from Obama. Here, it's not about what's best for
Speaker 1: the economy. It's about what's fair in the eyes of
Speaker 1: people that are obsessed with fairness. I saw a very
Speaker 1: interesting gropic today that I'd never seen before making the
Speaker 1: rounds on social media, and it was a social justice
Speaker 1: approach to the difference between equality and equity, and it
Speaker 1: was three people. I've never seen this before, this cartoon.
Speaker 1: Three people that were looking at look like a baseball game,
Speaker 1: and they're all of different heights. And equality, they say,
Speaker 1: is the people of different heights looking at the game.
Speaker 1: Some of them can see it, some of them can't.
Speaker 1: Equity is putting people on different sized platforms so they
Speaker 1: can all see the game. And what I think is
Speaker 1: so interesting about this is that that it really shows
Speaker 1: you what the democrat position is here, which is that
Speaker 1: individuals should not be held responsible for their own decisions.
Speaker 1: Individuals should not be rewarded or punished by the market
Speaker 1: or by the state based upon what they choose to do.
Speaker 1: We should seek for a society where everybody is the same,
Speaker 1: not that we are treated the same way by the law,
Speaker 1: not that we have the same rights, where we are
Speaker 1: the same This is not just a fool's errand it
Speaker 1: is dangerous. There will always be inequality in every society.
Speaker 1: There will always be people that make better decisions than others,
Speaker 1: that are luckier than others, don't. Our luck is a
Speaker 1: huge component of economic success. We have a lot of
Speaker 1: trust fund brats running around this country. Don't think I'm
Speaker 1: not aware of it. Some of them are rather powerful.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of that going on. It's not fair,
Speaker 1: but it's never going to be fair. And the purpose
Speaker 1: of the state should not be the purpose of our
Speaker 1: government should not be trying to create a utopia here
Speaker 1: on earth. It should be what is the best form
Speaker 1: of governance based on the realities of human beings that
Speaker 1: we have seen play out again and again throughout history.
Speaker 1: How do we work within the constraints of people are imperfect,
Speaker 1: people are self interested? What do we do with that?
Speaker 1: How do we motivate people to do good things and
Speaker 1: the best things that they can do on an individual
Speaker 1: basis and not just try to create this I mean again,
Speaker 1: is this radical equity you could call it? Where everyone
Speaker 1: is the same? You're you're gonna see more of this,
Speaker 1: I think emerging. Because the economy doing as well as
Speaker 1: as it has been under Trump and the country doing
Speaker 1: as well as it has. The only place for the
Speaker 1: Democrats to go is we will give you more stuff
Speaker 1: if you let us take more stuff from other people.
Speaker 1: That's going to be a primary message. It's going to
Speaker 1: be very very important for Bernie Sanders, for Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: for a booker for Warren go down the line. It's
Speaker 1: also why Schultz talking about possibly running as a third
Speaker 1: party candidate was so horrifically offensive to the Democrat establishment,
Speaker 1: because he can't be out there saying you can't just
Speaker 1: give free stuff to everybody. You can't just tax people
Speaker 1: into oblivion and think that that's not going to have
Speaker 1: negative consequences in many cases for the very people that
Speaker 1: you think you're trying to help. There's some stories pop
Speaker 1: it up now about again based going back to New York.
Speaker 1: New York has problems. Yes, we know, Governor Cuomo, there
Speaker 1: are fast food workers now that New York City has
Speaker 1: a fifteen dollar minimum wage for fast food work workers,
Speaker 1: they're fast food workers that also want protections from what
Speaker 1: they say are unfair firings. Well, let me just point
Speaker 1: out that the desire to fire fast food workers when
Speaker 1: they are all costing fifteen dollars an hour is elevated
Speaker 1: from what it would have been before because now they
Speaker 1: are more expensive employees, and more expensive employees who don't
Speaker 1: perform to the expectations of the employer. You're even more
Speaker 1: incentivized to get rid of them or to cut back
Speaker 1: on their hour. So now they're looking to the state
Speaker 1: to intrude into the market and say that unless there's
Speaker 1: a and they're saying unless there's a good reason, it's
Speaker 1: going to be unless there's there's not going to be
Speaker 1: any reason that's acceptable short of like committing a felony
Speaker 1: on the job. They're going to try to make it
Speaker 1: so you can't fire fast food. Mark it really hard
Speaker 1: and cumbersome and arduous to fire somebody in the fast
Speaker 1: food industry because they're concerned now that they are going
Speaker 1: to be layoffs, so they set the minimum wage at
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars, and then they want to combat the layoffs
Speaker 1: with government policy. They don't understand. This is a balloon.
Speaker 1: You can keep squeezing it, but the air goes somewhere.
Speaker 1: All Right, we have a whole lot. I gotta update
Speaker 1: you on the the Jussi Smallette situation. It's getting worse
Speaker 1: for Jesse. As we here in the Freedom Hunt knew
Speaker 1: that it would. This guy, this guy is in trouble.
Speaker 1: But the situation for Smallette is getting worse. And we
Speaker 1: will also get into the latest on the craziness, the
Speaker 1: absolute craziness coming from from Democrats these days on TV
Speaker 1: about all about all things Trump. They've really just they
Speaker 1: have jumped the shark several times over. We have that
Speaker 1: and much more coming up. I don't know what he
Speaker 1: was thinking. I don't know if he has a mental
Speaker 1: problem or whatever. But it's not looking good for him,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. And and and it's it was.
Speaker 1: It took place in Chicago, dirty below and crime stops
Speaker 1: in his thirty below? Okay, and why would some Republicans
Speaker 1: that are Maga fans be watching Empire? He owes everybody
Speaker 1: an apology, He owes the black community apology, heals the
Speaker 1: gay community apology, because because it looks like he's lying.
Speaker 1: I mean, and you know, when it first happened, I
Speaker 1: was like, Yo, we need to go get these dudes man,
Speaker 1: you know, because it's like you put a news over
Speaker 1: your net. Because nowadays, with all this racial sensitivity, it's
Speaker 1: like it's it's too sensitive. And so we reacted and
Speaker 1: we were ready to, you know, fight for this guy.
Speaker 1: And then his story started looking a little shady, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, they started looking a little shady.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I think that the guy's career is done.
Speaker 1: I think so. I think so. That was a comedian
Speaker 1: who was asked about this, and I think gave some
Speaker 1: pretty godfree Comedian Godfrey talking about the Smallett situation. Do
Speaker 1: we say smaller or Smolette. I'm not sure which it is.
Speaker 1: I've never heard the name Jessie before either. Not that
Speaker 1: I'm going to make fun of names or point out
Speaker 1: the peculiarity of names because Glasshouse and all that, But
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett is now officially, I can tell you a suspect.
Speaker 1: Chicago Police spokesman Anthony gugliel Me said that the Empire
Speaker 1: actor Jesse Smollett is officially a suspect and a criminal
Speaker 1: investigation for filing a false report, which is a class
Speaker 1: for felony. He is in a world to hurt my
Speaker 1: friends because, trust me, given all the sensitivity and all
Speaker 1: of the national attention on this story, it's fair to
Speaker 1: say that Chicago police would not take this step unless
Speaker 1: they were darn sure that they had something on this guy.
Speaker 1: And I mean, look, it's not like this is a
Speaker 1: hard thing to figure out either, right, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is not a difficult It's not like we have to
Speaker 1: sit here and think for a long time. To come
Speaker 1: up with what probably went down here. I think we
Speaker 1: already know. I think that what we have been told
Speaker 1: largely is what has happened here, which is that this
Speaker 1: guy most likely hired these two individuals and engaged in
Speaker 1: this engaged in this hoax, another race hoax, racial incident, hoax,
Speaker 1: of hate crime, fakery. It's very disturbing, and I do
Speaker 1: think you should be charged. I'm seeing some people in
Speaker 1: conservative land say, well, I feel bad for him and
Speaker 1: maybe his mental health issues. Let me share a different
Speaker 1: perspective here by John Cass, a Chicago Tribune reporter, and
Speaker 1: I would note that local Chicago media has done this
Speaker 1: one right. They have covered this case. They have shown that,
Speaker 1: you know, local media because I think they realize they
Speaker 1: can't compete with feeding the audience the narrative whatever they
Speaker 1: want to hear. You know, they're never going to be
Speaker 1: able to do that the same way that the national
Speaker 1: outlets do. So. Better to be accurate, right, Better to
Speaker 1: be telling the people in your community what's true and
Speaker 1: what facts you can present them. But John Cass writes
Speaker 1: the following the Chicago Tribune quote, something important has been
Speaker 1: lost in the embarrassing saga of Jesse Smollett, the tuna
Speaker 1: fish sandwich loving actor and anti Trump activist, and those
Speaker 1: muscular Nigerian brothers. And I suppose it's easy to lose
Speaker 1: what's important with all the panic and intersectional hatred and
Speaker 1: liberal identity politics gone bad in this Smallet story, what's
Speaker 1: been lost is this. I'm told that two dozen detectives
Speaker 1: were assigned to the Smallet case. Can Chicago afford that
Speaker 1: with all the unsolved murders and shootings in this town? No,
Speaker 1: there were some eighteen people killed in Chicago after Smolette
Speaker 1: began telling his story in late January, that story in
Speaker 1: which he cast himself as the hero about having to
Speaker 1: fight off pro Trump racists. Now it turns out that
Speaker 1: the pro Trump racist who he says put a noose
Speaker 1: around his neck may actually be his friends, two muscular
Speaker 1: Nigerian brothers who may or may not have been paid
Speaker 1: in this deal. Either way, his story is he fought
Speaker 1: them off even though he had a cell phone in
Speaker 1: one hand and a tuna sandwich in the other. Small
Speaker 1: It must be a certified badass because his sandwich survived,
Speaker 1: But two dozen detectives assigned to check out his story
Speaker 1: that he was a victim of a politically inspired pro
Speaker 1: Trump hate crime, a story unraveling by the second. Even
Speaker 1: in Chicago, a city known for its unending violence and
Speaker 1: political corruption, assigning two dozen detectives seems a bit overdone.
Speaker 1: But Chicago has an abysmal homicide clearance rate of about
Speaker 1: seventeen percent. Chicago's detective ranks have been decimated by atrician
Speaker 1: and shortsighted management. There aren't enough detectives. Even so, two
Speaker 1: dozen detectives for Smallet just doesn't seem right. Make no mistake.
Speaker 1: He's not blaming the detectives here or the Chicago Police Department.
Speaker 1: They work for a politician. His name is Ram Emmanuel.
Speaker 1: When Smallett told his amazing story about being a black
Speaker 1: guy attacked by racist Trump supporters and one of the
Speaker 1: coldest knights of the year, the media was all over.
Speaker 1: The national politicians were Oliver John John Cass here and
Speaker 1: end quote there. John Cass of the Chicago Tribune is
Speaker 1: making a critical, critical point, and that is that this
Speaker 1: this case got more attention because of the politics involved,
Speaker 1: because of the nonsense narrative about horrific Trump supporters and
Speaker 1: they're evil hate crimes that are such a scourge and
Speaker 1: such a national panic, and all the all the triggered
Speaker 1: libs are all worried about this all the time. More
Speaker 1: police resources were devoted to this obvious hoax of a story,
Speaker 1: then to actual murders, actual murders, including the murder recently
Speaker 1: of a one year old boy who was shot in
Speaker 1: the head. One year old boy a street gang was
Speaker 1: trying to shoot his mother and they shot the one
Speaker 1: year old boy. His name was Dejeon Irving. There weren't
Speaker 1: two dozen detectives a shine assigned to a Dejeun Irving's case.
Speaker 1: And we want to tell me why this guy small
Speaker 1: at should be given a pass here, Why we shouldn't
Speaker 1: pay attention to the resources, to the wasted effort in
Speaker 1: time when there are real problems. I mean, Chicago has
Speaker 1: a gun violence epidemic. And now we find out that
Speaker 1: Smallett is a suspect in this. If they can prove this,
Speaker 1: and I believe they will be able to, they should
Speaker 1: punish him to the fullest extent of the law. My
Speaker 1: expectation here I don't know yet. My expectation is that
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett is going to have to take a plea
Speaker 1: bargain because otherwise he could face some pretty serious prison time.
Speaker 1: I also think that he should spend some time in prison.
Speaker 1: I'd have to look at what the statutory guidelines are.
Speaker 1: But I don't think this should be a slap on
Speaker 1: the resk situation. I don't think that this should be
Speaker 1: treated like this is okay. Someone tell me how George
Speaker 1: Papadopolis deserves to go to prison for two weeks and
Speaker 1: this guy's Smallett for for what, by the way, lying
Speaker 1: about nothing, a non lie about a non crime. Jesse
Speaker 1: Smollett should not go to prison for this. All the resources,
Speaker 1: all the time wasted, the cost of the taxpayers, and
Speaker 1: the disrespect shown to the families of dead children in
Speaker 1: Chicago who couldn't expect the same resources devoted to their
Speaker 1: children's cases because the Democrat politicians who control Chicago didn't
Speaker 1: see those murders as important as this small a hoax.
Speaker 1: That's what's really happening here. There's got to be a
Speaker 1: case here, There ought to be a case here. We
Speaker 1: live in a time where what is it a competition?
Speaker 1: See how quickly you can destroy someone and how quickly
Speaker 1: you can destroy someone with a falsehood. I mean this
Speaker 1: is unbelievable. This rush to judgment, this rush to condemnation
Speaker 1: these boys, and that will be tagging these boys forever,
Speaker 1: no matter what happens in this lawsuit. Shameful. That tells
Speaker 1: you something about where the country is and where a
Speaker 1: lot of the media is. He's not only the apologies
Speaker 1: to do it. Given the state of the social media
Speaker 1: and given what we have seen, something has to be done.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's what citizens, non lawyers like
Speaker 1: myself say. You cannot just have this system where you
Speaker 1: rush to judgment, destroy somebody and then pick up the
Speaker 1: pieces later. It's a big lesson civics and withholding judgment
Speaker 1: and the burden to proof, remember the whole business with Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Can we see where the proof is before we make
Speaker 1: a judgment. Covington Catholic is suing coving Catholic student rather
Speaker 1: Nick Sandman, not the school, is suing the Washington Post
Speaker 1: for two hundred and fifty million dollars, which, interestingly enough,
Speaker 1: is what Jeff Bezos paid for the Washington Post same amount.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's an accident, in folks, that's what
Speaker 1: Bezos paid to buy the Post in twenty thirteen. This
Speaker 1: lawsuit from Covington. Catholic is seeking fifty million dollars in
Speaker 1: compensation for the alleged damage done, and it wants an
Speaker 1: additional two hundred million dollars impunitive damages in order to
Speaker 1: punish the company for what it did. And you have,
Speaker 1: of course, the spokespeople for Washington posting they're gonna fight this,
Speaker 1: YadA YadA, the rest of it. Let me say this,
Speaker 1: I think I think that the Covington folks here have
Speaker 1: a case. I spoke to Professor Dershowitz today about this,
Speaker 1: and he said, look, you know, these are not there's
Speaker 1: a different standard. These are not public figures. These are
Speaker 1: private citizens. And they didn't ask for this, they didn't
Speaker 1: want this, and there must be some standard. There must
Speaker 1: be some required due diligence for media organizations before they
Speaker 1: can destroy someone's life. I'm sorry, I think that there
Speaker 1: has to be a line drawn here if you are
Speaker 1: not a public figure, if you are somebody that is
Speaker 1: a private citizen who is drawn into something like this. Yes,
Speaker 1: of course the media can write about it, but they
Speaker 1: have to do so with some sense of a possible liability.
Speaker 1: Otherwise they're in a position where they can be utterly reckless,
Speaker 1: do exactly what they did to these Cummington kids, drive
Speaker 1: all kinds of clicks and just later on say they're
Speaker 1: going to apologize. See, this is a big disconnect for
Speaker 1: the media in this country. The mainstream likes to get
Speaker 1: things wrong, but get things wrong that are always feeding
Speaker 1: their base what they want, you know whatever, whether it's
Speaker 1: on the j Smollett case or any of these stories
Speaker 1: they like to tell their readership or to show their viewers. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: the narrative that we give you all the time. Here's
Speaker 1: more of that. Here's more racism in America, Here's more
Speaker 1: white male patriarchy at work. Here's more Donald Trump as
Speaker 1: a trade or whatever it may be. And then they
Speaker 1: think that they should get a pat on the back
Speaker 1: and thank you so much when they have to correct
Speaker 1: they're insanely false story. This is why they are fake news.
Speaker 1: They don't seem to either recognize or accept that by
Speaker 1: getting stories like this so incredibly wrong over and over again,
Speaker 1: people are going to not trust them. You know this,
Speaker 1: this is not if you would up. I was about
Speaker 1: to do an analogy. Now I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go no analogy here, you understand what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: In any other profession, if you kept getting the if
Speaker 1: you kept getting it wrong and then correcting yourself, you
Speaker 1: would suffer consequences. Journalists seem to think that on big
Speaker 1: stories that they get wrong, there's no problem. And this
Speaker 1: is you know, enough, enough is enough. We need to
Speaker 1: hold them accountable for what's going on here. Speaking of
Speaker 1: holding journalists accountable, some of you know that I have
Speaker 1: in the past talked about a certain CNN analyst, Oh,
Speaker 1: I know the whole crew over there at CNN, Gravid Gurgond.
Speaker 1: Gurg He's or he's been in politics for three hundred years.
Speaker 1: And he goes on shooting in and kind of just
Speaker 1: gurgling with Gurgon, kind of mutters things Niiction, Reagan, Ford administration,
Speaker 1: Shirish vanch and Ford and when Nixon Chino, And it's
Speaker 1: always the same from this guy. It's just like our
Speaker 1: when I was just back from cheventy five and then
Speaker 1: eighty four and in White House and Nixon and decision
Speaker 1: making and you're like, Okay, what does that have to
Speaker 1: do with anything, Gergan and why are you gurgling? Um.
Speaker 1: He also decided to go following in Jake Tapper's footsteps.
Speaker 1: Who Jake Tapper made a a very thinly veiled gay
Speaker 1: joke about anti gay remark about um roger Stone that
Speaker 1: maybe he would like prison he he he because there
Speaker 1: have been rumors about roger Stone and his sexuality that
Speaker 1: I've been out there in the media for a long time. Uh.
Speaker 1: You have have David Gergen, the senior statesman of many
Speaker 1: a CNN political panel, who thought that he would just
Speaker 1: just throw this little comment in the mix play fourteen.
Speaker 1: Rogerstown must also worry that if he goes there, he said,
Speaker 1: you know he's seen something of a dandy. Well, he'd
Speaker 1: be physically safe, I will he will be subject to rape.
Speaker 1: I mean there must be a lot of things that
Speaker 1: are going through his mind. Oh my god, what you
Speaker 1: were if I gotten myself into? What the heck does
Speaker 1: that mean? He's something of a dandy and must be
Speaker 1: worried if he's going to be raped? What is g
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the guy who CNN turns to
Speaker 1: for we have a national security crisis. We need somebody
Speaker 1: to really just just speak to the nation from his
Speaker 1: gravy toss, just go deep into that gravy toss. Well,
Speaker 1: gurgling gurgen urge World's gurge deep. The whales were very
Speaker 1: Remember when our yet and talked to Ted Kennedy about
Speaker 1: the wild You know, he says, what this guy comes
Speaker 1: up with, this is who the rest of America if
Speaker 1: we're if we're gonna treat the ann like a real
Speaker 1: journalistic enterprise, we're gonna act like this guy has something
Speaker 1: to offer that we should listen to. I canna tell you,
Speaker 1: you know, I increasingly now I judge people who watch
Speaker 1: CNN not for comedic effect. I got questions. I got
Speaker 1: questions like, what do you think is going on here?
Speaker 1: I thought it was so interesting as an aside, that
Speaker 1: one of the Obama Obama bros from the Obama White House,
Speaker 1: I forget his name's he's one of the ones that
Speaker 1: does one of the he does a podcast that a
Speaker 1: lot of lefties listened to. He went on some some
Speaker 1: tirade on Twitter today about how Sarah Flores or Sarah
Speaker 1: Iszger rather who is um an acquaintance of mine, is
Speaker 1: gonna be run. She was working at the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: and before that she was a guest of mine on
Speaker 1: Real News many times. She's worked with Jeff Sessions, she's
Speaker 1: a conservative, she worked with Ted Cruz. I believe as well,
Speaker 1: she's going to be involved in campaign coverage for CNN
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. And you had this guy, Tommy Vtur that's
Speaker 1: his name, who's one of the pod save bros. You
Speaker 1: had him rip rip some tweet out there where he says,
Speaker 1: you know, CNN's credibility is at stake here, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: It's all upset about it. I'm like, is he an idiot?
Speaker 1: Does he really think that CNN is a nonpartisan enterprise?
Speaker 1: Does does anybody really believe that anymore? I have to
Speaker 1: ask this, who holds onto this? That's paying attention. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a fair question, one that doesn't have any
Speaker 1: any particularly inspiring answers. That's for sure. You know CNN
Speaker 1: is a dumpster fire of partisan hackery. But yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: let's pretend like it's something else. You may be familiar
Speaker 1: with AARP, you or someone you know could already be
Speaker 1: a member, But did you know that the AARP is
Speaker 1: a left wing organization when it comes to politics. They
Speaker 1: stood against tax cuts for middle class Americans and small
Speaker 1: business owners recently. That's why I recommend Amak AMAC is
Speaker 1: all about sharing your values and getting value for its members.
Speaker 1: So yes, you get the discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistants, dental plans, even sell phone service options. But
Speaker 1: also AMAC tries to push for policy at the national
Speaker 1: level that you agree with, like a secure boarder, fixing
Speaker 1: social security, economic sanity, and are spending all that You
Speaker 1: need to check out AMAC for yourself. Stand with AMAC
Speaker 1: as they fight the good fight by becoming a member today.
Speaker 1: The benefits are great, but the cause is even greater.
Speaker 1: Tell your family and tell your friends. Join right now
Speaker 1: at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMACK is better, better for you, better for America. Look,
Speaker 1: I've had my own runnings with Andy McCabe, and this
Speaker 1: is part of the problem. That Andy McCabe FBI was
Speaker 1: protect James Comy FBI at all costs. They didn't wear
Speaker 1: blinders the way justice is supposed to be done. They
Speaker 1: were blindly loyal to Jim Comey under coomy, I was
Speaker 1: invited to participate to lead a FBI counter terrorism communications
Speaker 1: training session. When Comey got fired, I said some mildly
Speaker 1: critical things about Comey and Andie McCabe. I was literally
Speaker 1: in an FBI car on my way to the event.
Speaker 1: McCabe told the car to drop me off because I
Speaker 1: criticized Comy mildly. He was so defensive about James Comy
Speaker 1: he actually canceled the training portion of a counter terrorism event,
Speaker 1: told the car let him out. That's Andy McCabe for you.
Speaker 1: And this is a whole reflection of the top leadership
Speaker 1: of the FBI. Protect James Comey at all costs. That's
Speaker 1: the problem with blind loyalty. It's all coming out now.
Speaker 1: That little vignette that Ari Fleischer shared of Andy McCabe,
Speaker 1: that's a rise any of you. Did it surprise you
Speaker 1: that McCabe would act in such a disrespectful and just
Speaker 1: really childish fashion in order to show his just undying
Speaker 1: loyalty to Komey, who is a lanky clown show Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean Komi is a jerk, a jerk who put
Speaker 1: himself in the center of incredibly politically sensitive situations and
Speaker 1: did so knowingly and willfully and somehow always came out
Speaker 1: on the Democrat side of things, all right. Hillary was
Speaker 1: the candidate of the establishment and the institutions of the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: all right, Hillary was the status quo for people who
Speaker 1: think that they're really important in the government, and in
Speaker 1: the government that's there forever not the elected government. So
Speaker 1: they went with her their previous partisan affiliations. People say, oh,
Speaker 1: Republicans like Muller and Republican like Homey, that's nothing. Republicans
Speaker 1: hate Trump as much as any leftists. In many cases,
Speaker 1: the never Trump Republicans hate Trump like nobody else. And
Speaker 1: that's what you had with McCabe. But never Trump Republican.
Speaker 1: But you have these stories that are starting to come
Speaker 1: out now, and we're really seeing that these individuals who
Speaker 1: held incredibly powerful roles in the government were whacko. They're
Speaker 1: not reasonable, they're not rational when it comes to Trump,
Speaker 1: the limits of their power, the importance of their role
Speaker 1: in the government. They were drunk with power. They were maniacs. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean that McCabe's story that should should send a
Speaker 1: chill down your spine. My friends. This is a guy
Speaker 1: who is determining who the FBI, the eye of soroon
Speaker 1: of the federal government, would turn on at any given time.
Speaker 1: And you think that you think that the first time
Speaker 1: that his own personal anim came to bear was over
Speaker 1: James Comey, No way. This guy has been playing the
Speaker 1: partisan actor. He's been doing people dirty, as we say
Speaker 1: in the law enforcement business for a long time. I
Speaker 1: assure you of it. I assure you of it. And
Speaker 1: you have this also national security lawyer. I forget what
Speaker 1: her role was. I think she might have been at
Speaker 1: the NSC or the one of these, one of these
Speaker 1: national security outfits, Samantha Vinograd from CNN. She goes on TV.
Speaker 1: You know, McCabe is obviously a whack as obviously a
Speaker 1: whack of do Vinograd CNN loves. CNN has gotten all
Speaker 1: these just these Hillary prototypes, these Hillary bots to go
Speaker 1: on TV. You know these people and I don't mean
Speaker 1: because they're women. I mean, and you know, it's the
Speaker 1: guy the one of looks like Pajama Boy from the FBI,
Speaker 1: who was Comey's he was basically Comey's coffee boy. You know,
Speaker 1: he's on at CNN all the time now. And Vinograd,
Speaker 1: I don't really know her, but I've seen her pop
Speaker 1: up a few times. The Asha Rangappa, who makes a
Speaker 1: fool of herself publicly all that says idiotic things and
Speaker 1: c A end just collapsed for she teaches at Yale.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything teaches on counter terrorism or something there.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's all it's all nonsense. These people don't
Speaker 1: actually have any real knowledge. And you know, there's knowledge
Speaker 1: and there's judgment too, right, judgment is part of the
Speaker 1: application of knowledge. You can know some stuff but always
Speaker 1: make poor decisions and not be very useful as a teacher,
Speaker 1: not be very useful as a as an analyst. But
Speaker 1: here's CNN's Sam Vinograd again on this. These people are nuts,
Speaker 1: They're wackos. Play seven. Is that investigation still ongoing? The
Speaker 1: CAPE has said that the president's moves to undercut Rush
Speaker 1: related investigations, to believe Ladimir Putin over his intelligence community
Speaker 1: to make personnel decisions based upon Russia related matters all
Speaker 1: led to this investigation. Mkate would have laid that out
Speaker 1: before the Gang of Eight, But just in the past
Speaker 1: few days, the counterintelligence red flags are flying a lot
Speaker 1: higher than they did, arguably when this investigation was first launched.
Speaker 1: So it is entirely possible, Kate that the Gang of
Speaker 1: Eight has been briefed on an ongoing investigation because that
Speaker 1: hasn't concluded, and that other members of the US government
Speaker 1: were briefed before, like the director of the CIA, Mike Pompey,
Speaker 1: who's now Secretary of State, and that this on investigation
Speaker 1: is continuing, and there is still a chance that Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin is controlling the White House. Still a chance this
Speaker 1: woman's on TV held up as an expert. Still a
Speaker 1: chance that Vladimir Putin is controlling the White House. I mean,
Speaker 1: is she a moron? I don't mean, I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be mean. I actually is she just really not bright?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's still a chance that she's a space
Speaker 1: alien and we just haven't run the DNA testing to
Speaker 1: know that she's made to look and sound and talk
Speaker 1: rugye human, but she's really a space alien. There's a chance.
Speaker 1: Can you prove it? I can't prove it. This is
Speaker 1: how silly these people have become. This is how ridiculous
Speaker 1: they are. And it's not just the people that are
Speaker 1: the analysts that are going on trying to magnify what
Speaker 1: the praetorian anti trumpsters we're doing and saying it's in
Speaker 1: their own words, Andy McCabe, I mean, the investigation by
Speaker 1: the Muller team is going to end next week. I've
Speaker 1: been telling you now for the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: it's about to end because I have good sources here
Speaker 1: in DC, and I knew that this was where this
Speaker 1: was heading. Those of you listen to the show know this.
Speaker 1: So McCabe was asked if he thinks Trump is a
Speaker 1: Russian asset. And now understand, an asset is somebody who
Speaker 1: is wittingly or unwittingly in the control of a foreign power.
Speaker 1: So the only way that Trump could be an asset
Speaker 1: of the Russian government is if the Russians were straight
Speaker 1: up saying, hey, this is Vlad Putin do this thing
Speaker 1: because I said so and he does it. Or if
Speaker 1: the Russians had put a senior person close to Trump
Speaker 1: or in Trump's orbit, who would give Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: their orders and Trump would you know, essentially a false
Speaker 1: flag situation, that would be an unwitting asset. Anyone who
Speaker 1: believes either one of those things about this president is
Speaker 1: an idiot, is an idiot, you know who believes it,
Speaker 1: or at least wants to keep open the door to it.
Speaker 1: And I'm not gonna say no A d one A don't.
Speaker 1: I might and I might not. You know, this is
Speaker 1: where Andy McCabe is on this stuff. This is what
Speaker 1: he said when asked about this play clip for do
Speaker 1: you still believe the president could be a Russian asset?
Speaker 1: I think it's possible. I think that's why we started
Speaker 1: our investigation, and I'm really anxious to see where Director
Speaker 1: Muller concludes that it's possible. Huh No, it's not, you jerk.
Speaker 1: What a horrible thing to say. By the way, what
Speaker 1: a horrifically nasty, undermining, untrue smear. Make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: This is the former acting director of the Federal Bureau
Speaker 1: of Investigation smearing the president with the insinuation that he
Speaker 1: is a traitor, a traitor to the United States. This president,
Speaker 1: the president who loves America and is pro America and
Speaker 1: says America first, and all he wants to do is
Speaker 1: create prosperity and implement policies that will benefit all Americans,
Speaker 1: even the Americans too stupid to know that the things
Speaker 1: that he's trying to do are good for them and
Speaker 1: are the right thing. That president is a traitor, maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean this would be like this is like,
Speaker 1: you know, a journalist writing the story about somebody that
Speaker 1: is so and so a pedophile question Mark well, I
Speaker 1: put a question mark there, so I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: saying this guy's a pedophile. I'm just saying maybe he's
Speaker 1: a pedophile because there's a question mark. Disgusting, unethical, immoral.
Speaker 1: These people should be shamed out of the public out
Speaker 1: of the public square. These people should be treated with
Speaker 1: the ignominious disdain that they deserve. Instead, the media wants
Speaker 1: to lionize them. The media wants to treat them like
Speaker 1: they are truth tellers. No, they're nuts. Normal people could
Speaker 1: not believe the things that McCabe and Vinagrad and Rangapa
Speaker 1: and these others at CNN and elsewhere that they think
Speaker 1: and go on TV and say. Normal people could not
Speaker 1: believe this. Only people who are dishonest or stupid. I
Speaker 1: don't have a third explanation. And I just want us
Speaker 1: all to remember this. When the mullarport drops and there
Speaker 1: is no collusion, and they all, all these people that
Speaker 1: wanted to be in the public the public eye, that
Speaker 1: want the attention on CNN, that want to do all this,
Speaker 1: they're going to scurry out of the light like cockroaches
Speaker 1: fleeing your flashlight in the basement. I don't know collusion.
Speaker 1: I know there's no collusion, and then they'll come right
Speaker 1: back out. Then then the roaches will gather again, want
Speaker 1: to be right on it, you know, right in the
Speaker 1: spotlight on CNN. Then they'll want to gather again when
Speaker 1: it's time to talk about the Southern District of New
Speaker 1: York or the time some other investment Trump's tax returns.
Speaker 1: You know, we're supposed to believe them on that. I'd
Speaker 1: ask you this, why would these same media organizations and
Speaker 1: the same media analysts who were too dumb to figure
Speaker 1: out that Jesse Smollett was a hoax? Why do we
Speaker 1: think that they're better and more trustworthy and more unbiased
Speaker 1: on the issue of Russia collusion. Does anyone want to
Speaker 1: take a shot at that one, a much more complicated,
Speaker 1: a much higher stake story. The answers, we shouldn't trust
Speaker 1: them on any of that. The answer is the media
Speaker 1: is never going to be the same, and that's a
Speaker 1: good thing. You know. It's in politics and every campaign
Speaker 1: I've been onced of going back to nineteen eighty two,
Speaker 1: you're told that their opponent at X did why did
Speaker 1: zey and he's a terrible guy, did drugs, he's a criminal,
Speaker 1: And you have to vet this stuff because hardly ever
Speaker 1: is it true. But people make things up about people
Speaker 1: in politics. You would think the FBI would be immune
Speaker 1: from that. At the top level. I think the FBI
Speaker 1: bought in on every worst scenario, worst case argument about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and they believe it the way a partisan
Speaker 1: believes and not the way a neutral fact finding a
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers shouldn't believe it. So I think they
Speaker 1: were driven by animus and it shows up in their
Speaker 1: in their tweets, I mean, in their emails that were
Speaker 1: now disclosed. It shows up in their approach. For Andy
Speaker 1: McCabe to this day to say that he can't rule
Speaker 1: out that the president of the United States is a
Speaker 1: Russian asset, doesn't that tell you a lot about Andy
Speaker 1: McCabe's bad judgment. Ari Fleicher is absolutely correct, and he's
Speaker 1: really selling me more on the in my whole x
Speaker 1: y axes of stupid versus dishonest. I think that increasingly
Speaker 1: some of these senior government figures, and the reason they're
Speaker 1: so nasty about this and they've dug in so deep,
Speaker 1: the reason McCabe and combing others, is they're actually not
Speaker 1: that smart. They did get fooled by some of this,
Speaker 1: some of it was driven by animus and just their
Speaker 1: disdain for the president, but also they were fooled. I
Speaker 1: think I do think that in the early stages they
Speaker 1: believe that they were uncovering some international conspiracy between Trump
Speaker 1: and the Russians to essentially run this Manchurian candidate all
Speaker 1: the way up into the White House on behalf of
Speaker 1: the Kremlin. I think that some of them kind of
Speaker 1: believe that, as insane as that is, which really just
Speaker 1: goes to they're not that smart. They're not that smart,
Speaker 1: I will tell you in a lot of these government agencies,
Speaker 1: of the cream does not rise to the top. Some
Speaker 1: of the worst people in them, In fact, the most sociopathic,
Speaker 1: the nastiest bureaucratic, infighters, the ones who just play the
Speaker 1: internal politics the best and will throw their colleagues under
Speaker 1: the bus and will take credit that others are due,
Speaker 1: and all those are the people that often elevate themselves
Speaker 1: within a bureaucracy because excellence in a bureaucracy, I can
Speaker 1: tell you from having worked with the CIA, excellence is questionable.
Speaker 1: Excellence is suspect. You don't want to go beyond what
Speaker 1: is expected of you in any role, because you're making
Speaker 1: the other people who just want to show up and
Speaker 1: do the minimum look bad. They don't like excellence. So
Speaker 1: the kind of people in that environment that rise are
Speaker 1: people like Andy McCabe, and they are very bitter the
Speaker 1: moment that they're confronted with this reality, the moment that
Speaker 1: they're funded with the prospect that much of what they
Speaker 1: believed about themselves they may be frauds. In a way.
Speaker 1: They're not the guardians of the Republic that they pretend
Speaker 1: to be. They're just somebody shown up doing a job,
Speaker 1: and some of them don't do it nearly as ethically
Speaker 1: as they should. McCabe, for example, has fallen back on this,
Speaker 1: has fallen back on this storyline that the reason that
Speaker 1: there are inconsistencies, which is another way another way of
Speaker 1: saying someone's lying between his version of events and Coomey's
Speaker 1: version of events, is because you know, they were just
Speaker 1: really stressed out playclip three. These comments about the twenty
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment and about wearing a wire have been a
Speaker 1: little bit distracting, but nevertheless, we were all operating under
Speaker 1: incredible stress. You know, you have to remember, Savannah, this
Speaker 1: came at an incredibly stressful time to be fair, it
Speaker 1: was an unbelievably stressful time. I can't even describe for
Speaker 1: you how many things must have been coursing through the
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General's mind at that point. It is understandable
Speaker 1: he was an under an enormous amount of stress at
Speaker 1: the time. The point is the stress and the complexity
Speaker 1: of the issues that we were discussing at the time.
Speaker 1: I can't describe to you accurately enough the pressure and
Speaker 1: the chaos. So you can see that in those conditions,
Speaker 1: those incredibly stressful times, it was incredibly turbulent, incredibly stressful,
Speaker 1: and it was clear to me that that stress was
Speaker 1: impacting the Deputy Attorney General. Incredibly stressful, so much stress.
Speaker 1: Oh my, how could we handle? This? Guy's the head
Speaker 1: of the FBI. When Coley gets fired, this is this
Speaker 1: is the best that he can do. I mean, he
Speaker 1: has the ability to ruin lives based on his discretion,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to believe that he can't tell the truth,
Speaker 1: or rather, in addition to that, we're supposed to believe
Speaker 1: that he got a little too worked up because the stress,
Speaker 1: so he thought about a coup against the president of
Speaker 1: the United States. Does he think that we're all imbeciles,
Speaker 1: or is he just a phony, a fraud and a loon.
Speaker 1: Stupid question. That is a stupid question, because I think
Speaker 1: it's both. This is who we're supposed to believe, This
Speaker 1: is who we're supposed to think is just fine, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to think we should have trusted all this time.
Speaker 1: Look at the people that have left and are going
Speaker 1: out there making this case against Trump. Do you ever
Speaker 1: respect for any of them? Coomy, McCabe, Struck, Brannan Clapper.
Speaker 1: Have any of them acquitted themselves as men of honor
Speaker 1: as as people of integrity? Do any of them look
Speaker 1: like they were non partisan actors in their jobs, that
Speaker 1: they were just about the mission first and about serving
Speaker 1: the president, whoever the president may be. They have not
Speaker 1: only disgraced themselves. I think they have done tremendous damage.
Speaker 1: Came Brandon Clapper, mcabe, the whole squad. They've done tremendous
Speaker 1: damage to the institutions that they once led. Now future
Speaker 1: presidents would be foolish not to consider the political affiliation
Speaker 1: of the people that are the senior most advisors and
Speaker 1: decision makers from these agencies. They'd be foolish not to
Speaker 1: think about that, especially if they're a conservative, they're a
Speaker 1: Republican because they know that the deep Staters are of
Speaker 1: the state, and that means they're going to be Democrat leaning,
Speaker 1: if not Democrat activists, if not hardcore lefties. This is
Speaker 1: very troubling for the future of how these organizations will
Speaker 1: interact with White Houses, and and I think that we
Speaker 1: should do it. We should really have a full accounting
Speaker 1: of this, and I'm hoping that there will be justice,
Speaker 1: but I'm not going to hold my breath. Abandoning the
Speaker 1: high speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions
Speaker 1: and billions of dollars with nothing but broken promises, partially
Speaker 1: fulfilled commitments, and lawsuits to show for it. With all
Speaker 1: due respect, I have no interest in sending back three
Speaker 1: and a half billion dollars of federal funding that was
Speaker 1: allocated to this project to President Donald Trump. So the
Speaker 1: high speed rail dream in California is being abandoned. It's
Speaker 1: being abandoned because, as we mentioned earlier, I think this week,
Speaker 1: it is wildly over budget, it has dramatically underperformed, and
Speaker 1: it has run into all of the problems that you
Speaker 1: and I are quite aware come up when you're leading
Speaker 1: things like this to the government that in our current
Speaker 1: climate of environmentalist groups and activists and all kinds of
Speaker 1: regulation and just the Democrat Party running California as a
Speaker 1: subsidiary of the DNC. I mean, the Democrats own California.
Speaker 1: It's a one party state that when they're in charge
Speaker 1: of something like this, even something that they are really
Speaker 1: passionate about, they do a bad job. They can't get
Speaker 1: it done, they can't make the numbers work. And I
Speaker 1: know for a lot of you're like, well, Buck, although
Speaker 1: we have a very very robust audience out in California,
Speaker 1: what's up, Callie, Thank you for listening to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. But this is I think for anybody who's
Speaker 1: being honest, this has to be an indicator of what
Speaker 1: our expectations should be when the government takes on massive
Speaker 1: projects that would be much better handled by the private
Speaker 1: sector or the market as free as we can make it. Right,
Speaker 1: the same people that will look at you now and
Speaker 1: say that we have a situation of healthcare that needs
Speaker 1: to be addressed by the government don't seem to understand.
Speaker 1: Don't seem to understand that the government more involved in
Speaker 1: healthcare is going to make it more expensive and more
Speaker 1: inefficient because the incentive structure, and this really goes also
Speaker 1: to the heart of the problem we have with the
Speaker 1: rise of socialism in this country. The incentive structure is
Speaker 1: just wrong. Government does not have the same interest in
Speaker 1: creating a high speed rail as people that can do
Speaker 1: this and that will try to make a profit for themselves.
Speaker 1: Often I'm not saying they have no incentive, right, the
Speaker 1: government's incentive is to do what it says it's going
Speaker 1: to do, or else payers get annoyed, and maybe some
Speaker 1: people get voted out. But it's a very inexact, a
Speaker 1: very murky accountability situation. Whereas if you're the investor, if
Speaker 1: you're the one putting money in the line, you want
Speaker 1: to get this rail system built, you want to make
Speaker 1: sure that it functions properly. You know, obviously you have
Speaker 1: a more acute sense of what your incentives are, and
Speaker 1: that really matters. But California doesn't want to learn its
Speaker 1: lesson here. The rest of the country doesn't want to
Speaker 1: learn its lesson. They still like this myth that the
Speaker 1: government is effective and efficient and will do things better.
Speaker 1: I mean, the big lie about our healthcare system right
Speaker 1: now is that if we only gave more control to
Speaker 1: the government, we would get better healthcare and it would
Speaker 1: be a more efficient system, and that even though people
Speaker 1: would have to pay a lot more in taxes. That's
Speaker 1: middle class folks. If you're listening to this and you
Speaker 1: make fortied one hundred twenty thousand dollars a year or
Speaker 1: thirty five to one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 1: you're gonna pay a lot more in taxes with the
Speaker 1: Medicare for All program. Just wait. But they'd say, oh no,
Speaker 1: it'll be more effective, it'll be better. You'll save more
Speaker 1: on your healthcare costs than you'll pay out in taxes.
Speaker 1: Don't believe them. They're wrong. But unfortunately they also never
Speaker 1: ever learn their lesson Bernie Sanders, speaking of socialism and
Speaker 1: government projects, Bernie Sanders, who run those so cuddly. He
Speaker 1: just wants to go around and give everybody free stuff,
Speaker 1: free school, free college, free healthcare. It's gonna be amazing.
Speaker 1: He's so in New York and yet he's so Vermont
Speaker 1: at the same time. It's very interesting. But Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: you may recall, because now we're being told, ooh, he's
Speaker 1: a democratic socialist. He's not one of the scary socialists
Speaker 1: that puts too much control in government hands. He went
Speaker 1: to the Soviet Union in nineteen eighty eight. Not Russia, folks,
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. He made a trip there and came
Speaker 1: back to the US effusive with his praise of the
Speaker 1: Soviet system. We're just talking about trains in California and
Speaker 1: the costs of the high speed train, and it's been
Speaker 1: totally abandoned there. Guess what someone like Bernie Sanders is
Speaker 1: going to tell you, Oh, if only the government was
Speaker 1: running transportation, the government was running that transportation. For only
Speaker 1: the government was running transportation like they do in the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union, things would be much better. This is a flashback.
Speaker 1: This is the burn back in nineteen eighty eight when
Speaker 1: he returned state side talking about Soviet transportation play twenty one.
Speaker 1: People here also were extremely impressed by their public transportation system.
Speaker 1: The stations themselves were absolutely beautiful, including many works of art, chandeliers,
Speaker 1: the beautiful. It was a very very effective system. Also,
Speaker 1: I was impressed by the youth programs that they have
Speaker 1: their palaces of culture for the young people, a whole
Speaker 1: variety of young of programs for young people and cultural
Speaker 1: programs which go fob yond what we knew in this country.
Speaker 1: We went to a theater in Yaroslavl which was absolutely beautiful,
Speaker 1: had three separate stages where cultural programs are put on
Speaker 1: by professional actors and actresses, including a puppeteer area and
Speaker 1: the court. The highest price of the ticket that you
Speaker 1: can get was the equivalent of a dollar fifty. Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders there, folks in the late eighties, almost at the
Speaker 1: fall of the Wall, talking about how great the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union's transportation system is and cultural programs. It's effectively a
Speaker 1: Soviet propagandist here in the United States. That's what he was,
Speaker 1: That's what he's doing. So you can tell me that
Speaker 1: Bernie's philosophy has changed a lot and he's learned a
Speaker 1: lot since then. That was a long time ago. But
Speaker 1: how how many of you who were contemporaries of Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders thought the Soviet Union was praiseworthy in so many
Speaker 1: ways and had great stuff that we should learn from.
Speaker 1: I'm going to guess the answer is zero. I remember,
Speaker 1: during my time in the Middle East, on a couple
Speaker 1: of occasions, riding around in some Iraqi vehicles that were fraught.
Speaker 1: They were essentially old Soviet vehicles that because you know,
Speaker 1: the Soviets had sold them to Iraq. And I mean
Speaker 1: these things they looked like a bumper car from the eighties,
Speaker 1: but they were meant for a military transport, and they
Speaker 1: went about as fast and worked about as well as
Speaker 1: as a bumper car would have. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: just a complete joke what these things were like. And
Speaker 1: the moment you start talking about consumer consumer products and
Speaker 1: vehicles and all of this, and you're gonna tell me
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union had it better. I just at what
Speaker 1: point is this not stupidity but malice. I leave that
Speaker 1: to you. And if that's not enough, Bernie Sanders, because
Speaker 1: he's so into the extreme equality of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: which as we know, was actually deeply unequal. If you're
Speaker 1: a member of the Communist Party, you had access to
Speaker 1: different food, different healthcare, better housing, better everything than the
Speaker 1: rest of the population that was enslaved in misery. But
Speaker 1: Bernie around that same at that same speech that he
Speaker 1: gave there when he came back from missing Soviet Union
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty eight, he went so far as to
Speaker 1: straight up praise I'm not making this up you'll hear
Speaker 1: him praise breadlines. You know, breadlines are very very equal,
Speaker 1: very egalitarian play twenty two. You know, it's funny sometimes
Speaker 1: American journalists talk about how bad a country is because
Speaker 1: people are lining up for food. That's a good thing.
Speaker 1: In other countries, people don't line up for food. The
Speaker 1: rich gets a food and the poor staff to death.
Speaker 1: Now that's obviously, in the context of America and the West,
Speaker 1: a lie. In fact, if you're going to talk about starvation,
Speaker 1: you should probably talk about the mass famine in the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union in the twentieth century, which was a feature,
Speaker 1: not a bug, of Soviet policy, starving people in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: starving the Coulocks, who are this independent farmer class. The
Speaker 1: liquidation of the Coulocks done partly through starvation and partly
Speaker 1: through the accesses of the secret police. I wonder if
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders even knows that history, which is not contested,
Speaker 1: This is not an opinion, this is all fact. I
Speaker 1: wonder if he knows if you're gonna talk about starvation
Speaker 1: in the twentieth century, you would have to look to China,
Speaker 1: to the Soviet Union, to communist states. He thinks that
Speaker 1: breadlines are this was Bernie Sanders himself saying it, I
Speaker 1: don't care. This was a long time ago. Anybody over
Speaker 1: the age of twelve should know that bread lines are
Speaker 1: a disaster, are the result of economic disaster and deprivation.
Speaker 1: He thought that breadlines were something to be proud of.
Speaker 1: Breadlines were a good thing. Now. I understand that the
Speaker 1: argument is going to be that Bernie Sanders has learned
Speaker 1: a lot since then. But has he? Do we really
Speaker 1: think that Sanders and Occasio Cortes and others reject the
Speaker 1: root fallacies of collectivism and socialism as shown in the
Speaker 1: Soviet model, or do they just think that they'll do
Speaker 1: it better. The same ideas are good from the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: but we'll do a better version of that stuff here,
Speaker 1: that redistribution here, that collectivism here. Ocazio Cortes made an
Speaker 1: absolute imbecile of herself yesterday when she was applauding, cheering
Speaker 1: for the fact that they scared Amazon out of New
Speaker 1: York City. Five thousand jobs gone, All kinds of investment
Speaker 1: and productivity and commerce that would have gone on in
Speaker 1: the Long Island City area of Queens gone. She thinks
Speaker 1: this is to be praise. She thinks this is a
Speaker 1: cause for celebration. Why oh, because of fairness and stuff?
Speaker 1: What because corporations and exploitation and we don't want that
Speaker 1: here in our city. That strikes me as again wildly ignorant,
Speaker 1: but so ignorant and so stupid that I give her
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt and think that there must
Speaker 1: be a healthy dose of malice in her analysis. I
Speaker 1: hope that some of the socialists that we see right
Speaker 1: now on the scene in America don't really believe some
Speaker 1: of what they say and are merely speaking to the
Speaker 1: left as demagogues. Right, the working definition we can always
Speaker 1: use of debt of demagoguery or of demagogues. I think
Speaker 1: this is from Mankin is somebody who says things he
Speaker 1: knows to be untrue to a room full of people
Speaker 1: who he knows to be idiots. I hope the left
Speaker 1: is doing that on socialism. I'm not sure that they are.
Speaker 1: I think that there are true believers in their ranks now,
Speaker 1: and we have some of them on record, like Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: the most prominent of them, on record saying that breadlines
Speaker 1: show a more equal society than what we have in
Speaker 1: the West. That's trumbling. It's not something we can ignore.
Speaker 1: It's not something that we should sweep under the rug,
Speaker 1: and we'll continue to follow this here on the show.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. When I hear the name Tulsi Gabbard,
Speaker 1: I think of Assad apologist. I think of someone who
Speaker 1: comes back to United States and is spouting propaganda from Syria.
Speaker 1: You have said that the Syrian president Assad is not
Speaker 1: the enemy of the United States, yet he's used chemical
Speaker 1: weapons against his own people three hundred times. That was
Speaker 1: a red line with President Obama. That is not our enemy.
Speaker 1: Thirteen million Syrians have been displaced. So when you say
Speaker 1: regime change is hurtful for the country, but gassing children
Speaker 1: isn't more hurtful, It's hard for me to understand where
Speaker 1: you come from a humanitarian standpoint. If you were to
Speaker 1: become president, or you're putting words in my mouth that
Speaker 1: I've never said. You did not say that Syrian president
Speaker 1: Asad is not the enemy of the United States. Say
Speaker 1: it now. Clarify the issue here is how can we
Speaker 1: help alleviate the suffering of people just really one moment,
Speaker 1: is he an enemy of the United States. The enemy
Speaker 1: of the United States is someone who threatens our safety
Speaker 1: and our security. There is no disputing the fact that
Speaker 1: Basha al Asad and Syria is a brutal dictator. Very
Speaker 1: interesting here, that was Megan McCain and Tulsi Gabbert, and
Speaker 1: I am sometimes accused of being too favorable to Tulsi
Speaker 1: for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, and
Speaker 1: I say these are false reasons. Similar to why Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 1: my friend who we should probably have on the show
Speaker 1: producer Mike, to talk about this one. Jesse Kelly is
Speaker 1: unusually open minded to a Kamela Harris presidency, not because
Speaker 1: of her politics. He just likes He just likes Kamela.
Speaker 1: And people have said this about me with Tulsi. I've
Speaker 1: been getting a little heat over at the hillover on
Speaker 1: this one, and I reject that notion. I think she's
Speaker 1: correct here. I think that Tulsi Gabbert, as much as
Speaker 1: she's a left winger, and I'm sure we disagree on
Speaker 1: basically everything, her breaking from the orthodoxy on the Assad
Speaker 1: regime from the left and from the right is kind
Speaker 1: of refreshing. Yeah, it is Assad terrible. Absolutely, Assad is terrible.
Speaker 1: Is Assad an enemy of the United States? Well that
Speaker 1: that is a question that we have to ask with
Speaker 1: a clarification, and I think her clarification is a necessary one.
Speaker 1: An enemy to me is somebody that is a threat
Speaker 1: to us. Is China an enemy of the United States,
Speaker 1: certainly over the long term, is the greatest threat we face.
Speaker 1: But what we say is China our enemy? We would
Speaker 1: say that the Islamic State is our enemy. We would
Speaker 1: say that the Taliban is our enemy, although keep in
Speaker 1: mind we are negotiating with them, We are sitting down
Speaker 1: from them and across from them and trying to get
Speaker 1: a deal. Is Vladimir Putin our enemy or is he
Speaker 1: an opposing, opposing figure on the world stage. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not as simple as just declaring people to be
Speaker 1: enemies that we are not at war with, that we
Speaker 1: are not in a conflict with, and that you know,
Speaker 1: we probably have to work with on certain issues. So
Speaker 1: I think that it's overly simplistic. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: that some of you're probably gonna disagree with me, but
Speaker 1: the fact of the matter is that the Assad regime
Speaker 1: is what we are going to allow to stay in
Speaker 1: place as the ruler or as the ruling body of Syria.
Speaker 1: There is no future that we can think of or
Speaker 1: that we are pushing for in which there is no
Speaker 1: Assad regime in Syria, because what's going to take its place?
Speaker 1: And so if we sit down across from Assad and
Speaker 1: try to work out some kind of an agreement, are
Speaker 1: we then complicit in the horrific civil war that's happened there.
Speaker 1: You know, these are complicated questions, and I think that
Speaker 1: you know the exchange there where you had you had
Speaker 1: essentially a redo of the Mika Braginsky trying to nail
Speaker 1: down Tulsa Gabbert on whether Assad is an enemy. Tulsi
Speaker 1: Gabbard met with the opposition in Syria, met with the
Speaker 1: Assad regime, and she said she was there with Dennis Kucinich,
Speaker 1: and she is now in all kinds of trouble. On
Speaker 1: the left, they're calling an Assad apologist. I've never heard
Speaker 1: her apologize for Assad. That's a different thing. You know,
Speaker 1: the left and the right in some areas have a
Speaker 1: little bit of cross over here with we don't want
Speaker 1: any more regime change wars. We don't need any more
Speaker 1: of this going in and trying to, you know, change
Speaker 1: this country or that country and putting US troops in
Speaker 1: harm's way, sending arm men and women over there, to
Speaker 1: die to make their country, meaning the foreigners country better.
Speaker 1: It's not something we want to do anymore. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: time to break with some of this foreign policy echo
Speaker 1: chamber on Syria and elsewhere. Look, this is important stuff.
Speaker 1: When do you want to spot that burglar when he's
Speaker 1: casing your home or after he's already gotten in. Well
Speaker 1: you could 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, whose 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 double A batteries that last up
Speaker 1: to two years. And if you're traveling, Blink's live feed
Speaker 1: option lets you monitor your home and check in on
Speaker 1: pets from anywhere using the Blink smartphone app. No contracts,
Speaker 1: no subscriptions, totally affordable, and Blink works with Alexa. Blink
Speaker 1: camerass him to make great gifts, and they're a brilliant
Speaker 1: way to monitor your package deliveries. Visit blink protect dot com.
Speaker 1: Slash buck, Blink, protect dot Com, slash buck again, Blink,
Speaker 1: protect dot Com. Slash buck Blink is an Amazon company.
Speaker 1: Protect those packages, protect your home, check it out. Socialism
Speaker 1: is not about justice, it's not about equality, it's not
Speaker 1: about lifting up the poor. Socialism is about one thing only,
Speaker 1: power for the ruling class. The ruling class. You wouldn't
Speaker 1: have thought, maybe a few years ago, that a Republican
Speaker 1: president and in fact much of the Republican intelligentsia, or
Speaker 1: at least the Trump supporting intelligentsia, would call out the
Speaker 1: ruling class, and that a guy who is a billionaire
Speaker 1: and obviously was born essentially one hundred millionaire would have
Speaker 1: a voice that would resonate with people on this issue
Speaker 1: might come as a surprise, but when you dig into
Speaker 1: it more, it actually makes perfect sense. There very much
Speaker 1: is a ruling class in this country, one that in
Speaker 1: the era of Trump, just because of the ability to
Speaker 1: get past political correctness, to get past all of this
Speaker 1: forced respect for certain institutions, Journalism among journalism very high
Speaker 1: on the list, perhaps top of the list, and we're
Speaker 1: able to really evaluate who these people are that think
Speaker 1: that they should be in charge in charge of media newsrooms,
Speaker 1: the arts, the federal bureaucracy, the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA,
Speaker 1: the universities. You go down the line and you say,
Speaker 1: why do we have to revere these people? Should we
Speaker 1: revere these people? The answer is we shouldn't, and we don't,
Speaker 1: or we shouldn't have to, we don't have to. And
Speaker 1: that's relatively new. And I do think that there's a
Speaker 1: whole democratization of information component of this, essentially because we
Speaker 1: see these people acting like idiots on social media, because
Speaker 1: I can point to tweets from John Brennan, who was
Speaker 1: the CIA director, that showed that he's an imbecile without
Speaker 1: any judgment, without any credibility, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: issues of politics that deal with the Trump administration. I
Speaker 1: don't have to be told whether or not this is
Speaker 1: a guy that I should listen to a trust. I
Speaker 1: can see for myself that he's not somebody I should trust.
Speaker 1: He's a clown. And Victor Davis Hanson, who's one of
Speaker 1: my favorite, one of my favorite current living American columnists.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's definitely at the very top of the list.
Speaker 1: He's top ten for sure, maybe even top five. Victor
Speaker 1: Davis Hansen is spot on with what we've seen, not
Speaker 1: just because of Trump's willingness to take it to the
Speaker 1: ruling class in this country, but more specifically, what we've
Speaker 1: seen from the ruling class in the government, the fourth
Speaker 1: branch of government, that is the bureaucracy. And I think
Speaker 1: that it's never it's never going to be the same,
Speaker 1: which is a good thing. The truth has come out
Speaker 1: in ways now that are unavoidable, and it's caused a panic,
Speaker 1: a panic that has manifested itself in all these different
Speaker 1: people Struck and MacCabe and Coomy and you know, all
Speaker 1: the rest of them who hide behind this shield of oh,
Speaker 1: you're disrespecting our institutions, and no, we're questioning our institutions.
Speaker 1: And when we question some of these institutions, we find
Speaker 1: ourselves getting answers that are not reassuring, that do not
Speaker 1: make us feel better about the situation. And that just
Speaker 1: means that we should dig more, that we should ask
Speaker 1: more questions. And also I think do quite a bit
Speaker 1: of as a nation reevaluating the value of some of
Speaker 1: these institutions and how they are constructed and who's in
Speaker 1: charge and what they're doing. Here. Here's VDH the man
Speaker 1: himself on this issue. Play nine. What really gets us
Speaker 1: upset us being the American people. We have these sanctimonious
Speaker 1: boy scout, self righteous James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comby,
Speaker 1: Peter Struck, Andrew McCabe, and they feel that somehow they've
Speaker 1: got a rationale or prerogative to be divinities, and they
Speaker 1: can tell people when a president should go and when
Speaker 1: he should come, and what a court needs to know
Speaker 1: what he doesn't, when they can lead confidential information, when
Speaker 1: they can two hundred and forty five times under oath
Speaker 1: a house intelligence to me, they don't know, and we
Speaker 1: can't do that us the people. But they've created a
Speaker 1: hierarchy or some type of cadre in Washington. They're like
Speaker 1: a praetorian guard where they're not subject to the limitations
Speaker 1: that we all enjoy as institutional limitations on what you
Speaker 1: can do. He's absolutely right. You have seen with Clapper, Brannan, Comey, Struck, McCabe,
Speaker 1: Sally Yates, this whole crew at the very top of
Speaker 1: the government hierarchy. And keep in mind, not only do
Speaker 1: they have a lot of government power and the power
Speaker 1: to ruin people, the power to play in politics in
Speaker 1: a way that they're not supposed to, but is incredibly
Speaker 1: effective if they're willing to. They also will all take
Speaker 1: jobs in the private sector at their leisure, where they
Speaker 1: will make millions of dollars most likely. So they are
Speaker 1: elites in every sense, but they pose as protectors of
Speaker 1: the people. They pose as individuals who care not for themselves,
Speaker 1: but care only about you and me. And what we
Speaker 1: have seen from this praetorian class is that they're liars,
Speaker 1: that they're self interested, that they're self motivated, and we
Speaker 1: would be foolish to ignore this. It's all so important
Speaker 1: to note that they are living under a different set
Speaker 1: of rules in their own minds, and this is problematic
Speaker 1: for a whole bunch of reasons. One of them is
Speaker 1: that if they can get away with things that you
Speaker 1: and I can't, how will we ever be able to
Speaker 1: reform the institutions of our government that go after citizens
Speaker 1: if the people that are making those decisions don't have
Speaker 1: to live by those laws themselves. Remember, one of my
Speaker 1: favorite maxims here on the show is that a true
Speaker 1: tyranny is not the equal application of draconian laws. It
Speaker 1: is the capricious application of laws based on political connections
Speaker 1: and favor and the whims of the mob or the
Speaker 1: whims of the powerful. It is that McCabe can lie
Speaker 1: under oath and somehow not face criminal charges. But George
Speaker 1: Papadopolis can lie about a non crime to the Special Council,
Speaker 1: and he faced his prison time. That General Flynn could
Speaker 1: lie or perhaps misremember a conversation that he had with
Speaker 1: that was relayed to FBI agents, and then faced the
Speaker 1: ruination of his career, the destruction of his reputation, a
Speaker 1: reputation that involved thirty years of service in the military.
Speaker 1: So when people say, well, McCabe should get the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt, I say, hold on a second. I'm
Speaker 1: somebody that's all for the benefit of the doubt when warranted.
Speaker 1: But I need someone to tell me why Andy McCabe,
Speaker 1: fired from the FBI for being a liar, should be
Speaker 1: given that benefit because of his service in the government,
Speaker 1: especially given all the other stuff we've learned about him
Speaker 1: recently that he thought that a coup against the president
Speaker 1: against President Trump was an acceptable idea. But then why
Speaker 1: didn't General Flynn get that benefit after his thirty some
Speaker 1: odd years of government service. I want someone to answer
Speaker 1: that question for me. So the elites right now are
Speaker 1: unsettled and they're not used to that. They don't like
Speaker 1: the truth coming out, and they're trying to prevent it.
Speaker 1: And it is incumbent upon all of us to continue
Speaker 1: to just look at what is reality here, what's really happening,
Speaker 1: and who these people are. Should they be in charge,
Speaker 1: do they deserve to be in charge? Do we trust them?
Speaker 1: Should they have this power? We should keep asking those questions.
Speaker 1: Here's a story that you would think would get a
Speaker 1: lot of media attention, but sure enough, there is something
Speaker 1: of a muted reaction to it. President Trump, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has decided that they will launch a campaign, a
Speaker 1: global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality. Now, at
Speaker 1: first glance, this should be one of those rare moments
Speaker 1: in contemporary American politics where all sides and both sides
Speaker 1: are cheering, you know, yelling huzzah, saying this is fantastic.
Speaker 1: This is as straightforward a campaign of goodness and decency
Speaker 1: as that he could find anywhere. You put aside for
Speaker 1: a moment any feelings you may have about same sex
Speaker 1: or gay marriage, and just understand, this is about decriminalizing homosexuality.
Speaker 1: So this is you know, countries that exist that are
Speaker 1: out there where you can still be punished, even executed
Speaker 1: for homosexual acts. That's barbaric and that's wrong. And the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is trying to lead the way on this,
Speaker 1: and in the campaign is supposed to be led by
Speaker 1: the US Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grinnell. I know Richard
Speaker 1: a bit from from working with him at Fox. And
Speaker 1: they're they're kicking this event off, or rather kicking off
Speaker 1: this campaign in Berlin. And you would think that perhaps
Speaker 1: the LGBT community would rally behind the Trump administration on this.
Speaker 1: What could be more obviously on the side of the
Speaker 1: LGBT community than a global campaign to end the criminalization
Speaker 1: of homosexuality. Now, did you even hear about this in
Speaker 1: the press? Would I would first put that out there.
Speaker 1: Have you seen, given the media's interests usually in any
Speaker 1: LGBT stories, have you seen this covered? Have you seen
Speaker 1: it heard it talked about? I'm guessing a large percentage
Speaker 1: of you, even though you who spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time reading the newspaper or online watching the news, haven't
Speaker 1: seen or heard anything about this. And it's because one,
Speaker 1: as we know, the press is desire to harm Trump
Speaker 1: or to under mind or even downplay any of his
Speaker 1: successes outweighs their desire to let the Trump administration or
Speaker 1: support the Trump administration do good things that people will
Speaker 1: know about. Right So, for most of the media, Trump
Speaker 1: and the administration's efforts to decriminalize homosexuality and countries around
Speaker 1: the world, which should have a tremendous effect of liberty
Speaker 1: and personal freedom on LGBT communities around the world, that
Speaker 1: desire is less important to the press than to make
Speaker 1: sure that people don't realize that Trump is, in many
Speaker 1: ways the most LGBT friendly president of all time. In fact,
Speaker 1: Trump is the only president in history who stood on
Speaker 1: stage during his campaign held up a gay Pride flag
Speaker 1: and ran as somebody who was openly in favor of
Speaker 1: same sex marriage. You know, he was fine with gay marriage.
Speaker 1: In favor of gay marriage. Obama was not for everybody
Speaker 1: who likes to say, we'll look at with the Obama aministration.
Speaker 1: Obama was pro traditional marriage largely I think as a
Speaker 1: as a political ploy to get black churches to support him,
Speaker 1: especially black churches in the South, to support him in
Speaker 1: his bid for the presidency, and then once he had
Speaker 1: secured enough support from for his second term, he was
Speaker 1: willing to say, Okay, well now we'll move on this.
Speaker 1: But back to this campaign. Not only is the press
Speaker 1: a little muted in its enthusiasm about this, which I
Speaker 1: don't think is surprising to anybody, there's also an effort
Speaker 1: from the left, in fact, an effort from within the
Speaker 1: LGBT community to say that we should that this should
Speaker 1: not be celebrated as at all. This is a piece
Speaker 1: inout dot com, which is say focused publication from what
Speaker 1: I understand, and out dot com has this piece up.
Speaker 1: Trump's plan to decriminalize homosexuality is an old racist tactic.
Speaker 1: Let me just read that headline to you again. This
Speaker 1: is in a left wing gay online publication and the
Speaker 1: title is Trump's plan to decriminalize homosexuality is an old
Speaker 1: racist tactic. Wow, let's unpack this for a moment, shall we.
Speaker 1: The left, which views itself as on the vanguard always
Speaker 1: of LGBT and gay rights and transgender rights and all
Speaker 1: these different communities and subcommunities within the movement, they all
Speaker 1: of a sudden have a problem with the President trying
Speaker 1: to do something that any sane, reasonable person would say
Speaker 1: is good for the LGBT community. And here's why what
Speaker 1: are the most anti gay portions of the globe. Where
Speaker 1: is homosexuality illegal? Well, it's in Africa, the Middle East,
Speaker 1: and the Caribbean. Okay that if you're looking for areas
Speaker 1: of the globe where you're going to have a particular
Speaker 1: focus on this, that's where you're going to find yourself.
Speaker 1: That's where the issue is going to be. So now
Speaker 1: you have Africa, the Caribbean, and the Middle East, which
Speaker 1: are areas that are predominantly, not entirely, but predominantly non white,
Speaker 1: are going to come under scrutiny here as part of
Speaker 1: this campaign. And what you're going to see on the
Speaker 1: left is also an aversion to this because the Muslim world,
Speaker 1: which is predominantly non white, not entirely, but predominantly non white,
Speaker 1: the Muslim world is the most anti gay portion of
Speaker 1: the world. Okay, there's more antique, and Iran specifically is
Speaker 1: a viciously anti gay country. The Iranian government's policies towards
Speaker 1: homosexuals is that they can put them to death. So
Speaker 1: this is where the left starts to run into the
Speaker 1: usual incoherence. They're pro LGBT rights as long as it
Speaker 1: allows them to bash Christian conservatives in America they are
Speaker 1: then they're all about it, and they want to talk
Speaker 1: about transgender rights and transgenderism all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: But the moment that you look at what's going on
Speaker 1: with the LGBT community and the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: all these other left wing constructs come into play, like colonialism, racism,
Speaker 1: anti anti Islam or Islamophobia, all of that is more
Speaker 1: important to the left than basic human rights and basic
Speaker 1: decency toward the gay community. And I just think that
Speaker 1: this should get a whole lot more attention because what
Speaker 1: you're seeing here is that the left does view all
Speaker 1: of its issues as part of this hierarchy. There are
Speaker 1: no fundamental principles. Because if if treating people from the
Speaker 1: gay community, from the LGBT community as as human beings
Speaker 1: with basic decency is not more important to the left
Speaker 1: than trying to protect the sensibilities of the Muslim world,
Speaker 1: the Middle East, the Caribbean portions of the globe that
Speaker 1: are majority non white, then what are their fundamental principles?
Speaker 1: You know, what do they really espouse If you're not
Speaker 1: able to join hands with this president on a movement
Speaker 1: to push for the removal of laws that stigmatize and
Speaker 1: even murder gay people around the world because there are regressive,
Speaker 1: backwards countries. I mean, let's just start to say, what's
Speaker 1: who are they going on here? I'm sorry, sorry, that
Speaker 1: Islam is, as was said by Sam Harris, correctly, the
Speaker 1: mother load of bad ideas from a liberals perspective on
Speaker 1: a global scale. But it is, unfortunately a fact. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that all Muslims feel that way. Obviously, it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that, you know, everybody from within the Islamic
Speaker 1: faith is guilty of believing these things or but if
Speaker 1: you're looking for one faith tradition that is particularly regressive
Speaker 1: when it comes to the LGBT community, among other things,
Speaker 1: it's Islam. So the Middle East is going to be
Speaker 1: a problem if you're trying to get rid of laws
Speaker 1: that criminalize homosexuality. This is just a fact. Also, portions
Speaker 1: of Africa are going to be a problem. You know,
Speaker 1: there are some parts of the world where there are
Speaker 1: cultures that are more regressive and backwards than what we
Speaker 1: have here in the West or in a lot of
Speaker 1: other places around the world, not just the West. This
Speaker 1: is a fact. This is objective truth. So the left
Speaker 1: can you know, cry and wail and criticize as much
Speaker 1: as they want, what the Trump administration is doing is
Speaker 1: a good thing. It is a kind thing, And if
Speaker 1: they were being principled on the left, they would understand
Speaker 1: that Trump pushing for the decriminalization globally of homosexuality is
Speaker 1: only a good thing for the LGBT community and there
Speaker 1: should not be any excuses made to undermine this movement. Team.
Speaker 1: I know we're talking a moment ago about Trump's campaign
Speaker 1: to decriminalize homosexuality around the world and to encourage countries
Speaker 1: to have LGBT protections as a matter of law, and
Speaker 1: certainly to end discriminatory and vicious practices against the LGBT community.
Speaker 1: But transgenderism, the T in LGBT transgenderism is still very
Speaker 1: much at the forefront, at the vanguard of left wing activism.
Speaker 1: And I would just share with you, you know, I
Speaker 1: had a an exchange today publicly that I'm I just
Speaker 1: wanted to share because it was one of these moments
Speaker 1: where I was at at kind of cross purposes. I
Speaker 1: have never heard of India More before, but India More
Speaker 1: is a a transgender actor um and and has you know,
Speaker 1: a pretty substantial online following, and India More tweeted out, So,
Speaker 1: Indian Moore was born a man and has become a
Speaker 1: now under transgender logic, has become a woman. And uh
Speaker 1: and and he tweeted out or she tweeted, well, it's
Speaker 1: a he. But you know, I'm trying to be I'm
Speaker 1: trying to be considerate, right, But the Indian more is
Speaker 1: a man, that's an Indian war is a man. We
Speaker 1: can go back and forth on this as much as
Speaker 1: the Left wants to, but you know, objective reality is
Speaker 1: just that. But I also want to be polite to somebody.
Speaker 1: And if somebody really wants a pronoun to be a
Speaker 1: certain way, do I bend out of deference and politeness.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the knocks on me in this business, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: is that I am actually too polite, probably which I'm
Speaker 1: getting less polite as I get older, because some people
Speaker 1: need to tune up publicly sometimes. But anyway, back to
Speaker 1: India More. This individual tweeted out, if this is a quote,
Speaker 1: if a woman has a penis, her penis is a
Speaker 1: biological female penis. And I just have to note that
Speaker 1: this is the definition of false. This is as false
Speaker 1: as false gets right. Female anatomy is female anatomy. Male
Speaker 1: anatomy is male anatomy. There is no such thing as
Speaker 1: one of them becoming the other. But what I see
Speaker 1: here is a race of falsehood and the demand that
Speaker 1: we all embrace falsehood as well. Now, I responded to this,
Speaker 1: I have questions, and then miss Moore or mister Moore,
Speaker 1: whichever one we're going to, I would also know that
Speaker 1: I could get banned from Twitter for misgendering and misgendering
Speaker 1: some people want to be some people in the Western world,
Speaker 1: I think in Canada now and among other places, they
Speaker 1: want it to be a crime. So now they want
Speaker 1: to bring the force of law to make me lie
Speaker 1: about somebody else in order to protect their feelings. That's
Speaker 1: where we have headed as a society. But India, Moore
Speaker 1: responded to me, if you have questions, essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm happy to answer them. And here's the thing. I
Speaker 1: don't have questions. A woman cannot have a a penis
Speaker 1: and a man cannot have a woman's anatomy. I don't
Speaker 1: have questions. I have questions about why we're supposed to
Speaker 1: pretend that we don't know we know. That's my question.
Speaker 1: That's really where the discussion is I refuse to embrace
Speaker 1: the unreality of the transgender movement. And I mean, just
Speaker 1: to give you an idea of where this is going now,
Speaker 1: you had an LGBT organization announced that it was severing ties.
Speaker 1: This was just yesterday with Martina Navratolova because she made
Speaker 1: comments about transgender athletes. This group, athlete Ally, which is
Speaker 1: a nonprofit to quote end rampant homophobia and transphobia in
Speaker 1: sport and to activate the athletic community to exercise their
Speaker 1: leadership to champion LGBTQ equality, said that they're no longer
Speaker 1: working with Martina Navratlova, who's one of the most famous
Speaker 1: same sex athletes of all time. Right, you know, same
Speaker 1: sex you know, gay athletes of all time, the same
Speaker 1: sex attractive, is what I meant to say. She she's
Speaker 1: now kicked off the island, so to speak. She is
Speaker 1: now no longer welcome in the group, no longer welcome
Speaker 1: is part of the team here because she said that
Speaker 1: it is cheating to allow transgender women to compete in
Speaker 1: women's sporting events because of their physical advantages. She wrote, quote,
Speaker 1: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if
Speaker 1: required by whatever sporting organization. Is concerned win everything in
Speaker 1: sight and perhaps earn a small fortune and then reverse
Speaker 1: his oh, she said, his decision and go back to
Speaker 1: making babies if he so desires. It's insane and it's cheating.
Speaker 1: I would not be happy to compete against her. It
Speaker 1: would not be fair. Mount n Avutoloova said, it's a
Speaker 1: world champion tennis player and she's gay, and she's not
Speaker 1: allowed to say this, folks. She's speaking the truth, all right.
Speaker 1: Biology is real and biology wins on this one. Biology
Speaker 1: is fact. If I had been competing against women in college,
Speaker 1: I would have been a three sport All American. That's
Speaker 1: just a fact. And I was barely able to be
Speaker 1: on the crew team. So this is ridiculous, all right, ridiculous.
Speaker 1: I will not I will not be a part of this,
Speaker 1: of this movement to embrace falsehood. You know, I want
Speaker 1: to be polite to people. I want to be decent.
Speaker 1: I want to treat people with respect always, right, it
Speaker 1: is an obligation on all of us. But I'm also
Speaker 1: not going to be forced to lie. And that's where
Speaker 1: we are heading with this transgender movement. Not even a
Speaker 1: choice anymore. We're going to be forced to lie and
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to make some very tough choices going forward.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: it is a snowy roll call today, DC gets a
Speaker 1: light dusting of powder and thinks that some kind of
Speaker 1: snow apocalypse has descended on it. You think that our
Speaker 1: nation's capital would be a little more able to handle
Speaker 1: some inclement weather. But if you thought that, you would
Speaker 1: be wrong. Unfortunately, DC is very much in the midst
Speaker 1: of the usual oh my gosh, a half inch of
Speaker 1: snow panic. But I'm here, safe and warm in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut, where love of freedom keeps us safe and warm.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton if you want your
Speaker 1: thoughts to be included in lar roll call, so by
Speaker 1: all means let me know what you think by going
Speaker 1: to roll call, and also by letting me load the
Speaker 1: Facebook page that I do live on air here and
Speaker 1: it always takes a second. Sorry technology, Sean rights, Hello Buck,
Speaker 1: we should just start calling the fake news narrators and
Speaker 1: not journalists. Journalists report facts while narrators tell stories, shieldsaye fan,
Speaker 1: since the real news days Well, Sean, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being old school squad good to have you
Speaker 1: in the mix here, and thank you so much for
Speaker 1: writing to me. I appreciate it, my friend, and yes,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. The journalists need to do more
Speaker 1: in the fact side of things and less in the
Speaker 1: opinionating while pretending to give facts. Adam writes, in relation
Speaker 1: to you switching eye dominance, mister Cage has the perfect
Speaker 1: solution for you in the movie Firebirds Shields High Well, Adam,
Speaker 1: I don't. I have not seen Firebirds, so I will
Speaker 1: have to take your word for it. Lucinda, Oh, loosen
Speaker 1: to back in action here. Ha, I've seen killer clowns
Speaker 1: from outer space. I definitely would not compare it to
Speaker 1: the Witch. However, because I watch killer clowns, I thoroughly
Speaker 1: check any toilet I use for aliens. Shields high Well,
Speaker 1: lucin to that sounds truly horrifying, and I'm not going
Speaker 1: to had killer clowns from outer space into my viewing Q.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I will tell you that The Witch. I
Speaker 1: shouldn't have watched it. You know, Miss Molly was making
Speaker 1: fun of me a little bit. I shouldn't have watched
Speaker 1: it because it really kind of freaked me out, and
Speaker 1: you know, I maybe even had some nightmares about it.
Speaker 1: It's really creepy. I think it's the creepiest movie I've seen,
Speaker 1: probably since The Exorcist, which I saw for the first
Speaker 1: time maybe fifteen years ago. Rachel, right Shield tay Buck.
Speaker 1: My husband is the main breadwinner, giving me the privilege
Speaker 1: to stay at home with our kids and raising them
Speaker 1: the right way according to the Bible. Your excellent, thoughtful
Speaker 1: analysis helps keep me saying during my day with the
Speaker 1: little ones. So thank you. But I wouldn't have heard
Speaker 1: about you if my husband Jesse hadn't told me about you.
Speaker 1: And it's his birthday tomorrow, he will listen to your
Speaker 1: show via podcast or I was wondering if you could
Speaker 1: give him a birthday shout out. Thanks again for all
Speaker 1: the hard work you do have a fantastic show every time,
Speaker 1: Rachel from Callie Well, Rachel, of course, first of all,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for listening, and a big birthday
Speaker 1: shout out to our main man, Jesse, who is obviously
Speaker 1: an original Squad aficionado, for spreading the news of the show,
Speaker 1: telling people starts spreading the news. Thank you Jesse for
Speaker 1: doing that and really really appreciate it, my man. Happy
Speaker 1: birthday to you and yours and your absolutely beautiful family,
Speaker 1: which I can see here in Rachel's profile photo. John writes,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to bother you, Buck. I Heart Radio doesn't
Speaker 1: have the February nineteenth show on your listing. Ah, John,
Speaker 1: very frustrating, man. We will look into this. I'm very
Speaker 1: that trusts me and annoys me more than anybody when
Speaker 1: I put all the work in to do this show,
Speaker 1: to try to make the best show I can and
Speaker 1: we don't have it up. So we will look into
Speaker 1: that one right away. Ethan, Right, don't listen to Robert Buck.
Speaker 1: The analogy's rock keep bringing well. Ethan. Thanks man, I'm
Speaker 1: glad to hear that at least some folks like the analogies,
Speaker 1: and maybe we'll get a happy medium where I'll only
Speaker 1: use them when they're really, really good and really really necessary.
Speaker 1: You know, That's one thing about taking feedback from my
Speaker 1: respected and beloved audience is sometimes people disagree very strongly
Speaker 1: on what they like and don't like in the show.
Speaker 1: One example of that is the History Show. Not the
Speaker 1: history shows, but history segments within the show. I would
Speaker 1: get three or four people writing in at a time
Speaker 1: saying I love that segment you did on just that
Speaker 1: that history deep dive. That was maybe a couple of
Speaker 1: segments fifteen or twenty minutes or so, and I would
Speaker 1: have somebody who's like, don't ever do that again. I
Speaker 1: come to you for daily news. I come to you
Speaker 1: for analysis of politics and what's going on in the world,
Speaker 1: not for what happened in the world a thousand years ago.
Speaker 1: So it's tough, you know, you got to try to
Speaker 1: gauge what the best usage of the time that we
Speaker 1: have together is. Because I take it very seriously. I
Speaker 1: do feel a very important obligation to make the best
Speaker 1: use of every moment that you give me. But thank
Speaker 1: you for your feedback. My friend Aaron, right, it's I'm
Speaker 1: a little behind on your podcast. It's okay, Aaron. We
Speaker 1: could still be friends. But if you are enjoying punk,
Speaker 1: you should check out The Bastard Sons. They are a
Speaker 1: contemporary Southern punk band. My favorite song is Never Say Die. Also,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if you can get into these classics,
Speaker 1: but bands like Dead Kennedy's Minority Threat, Bad Religion, Dead Milkman,
Speaker 1: Operation Ivy, Bouncing Souls, and No FX Whoa. It's a lot, Aaron.
Speaker 1: Also some pretty good bands with female vocalists, Tsunami Bomb
Speaker 1: and Tilt. I could go on and on. You'll definitely
Speaker 1: be opposed to a lot of the political lyrics of
Speaker 1: these bands, but you should still check them out. Aaron,
Speaker 1: you are obviously an audio file. You're somebody that really
Speaker 1: likes listening to tunes, and I would just say, in
Speaker 1: terms of the politics of bands, I think everybody should
Speaker 1: take the perspective that you can appreciate the artists without
Speaker 1: agreeing with the artist. If you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: you know you can you can feel Okay, here's a
Speaker 1: perfect example for me for let me just put this
Speaker 1: one out there. I think that Rage Against the Machine,
Speaker 1: for my money, is for workout purposes in the gym,
Speaker 1: probably the greatest band of all time for working out,
Speaker 1: not for listening to and just hanging out with obviously,
Speaker 1: but I think that Rage Against the Machine has probably
Speaker 1: the best catalog for workout purposes of anybody out there. Now.
Speaker 1: People can disagree with me vehemently, that's fine. Obviously. Rage
Speaker 1: Against the Machine also has the politics of Ocasio Cortez
Speaker 1: mixed with Maduro and Karl Marx and Bernie Sanders all
Speaker 1: at once, right, I mean, Rage Against the machines. Politics
Speaker 1: are silly, but I don't care about their politics because
Speaker 1: I listen for the music. So when you can find
Speaker 1: an artist who also shares your beliefs, great, Yeah. I
Speaker 1: think that's that gives them a leg up. But I
Speaker 1: do think it's okay to separate out the music from
Speaker 1: the person's political beliefs singing it. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think I would have seen eye to eye with Jimmy
Speaker 1: Hendricks and all matters of politics, although we probably would
Speaker 1: have agreed on more stuff than some folks would realize.
Speaker 1: That's and I have no idea what Jimmy hendris because
Speaker 1: politics were that said, I mean, Jimmy is Jimmy, and
Speaker 1: you gotta love the music. Nolan writes Buck, we no
Speaker 1: longer need to point to Venezuela to communicate the harm
Speaker 1: that socialism can cause. Amazon scrapping New York and the
Speaker 1: economic cost of that decision provides a snapshot of where
Speaker 1: these want to be communists will take the entire country.
Speaker 1: We need to highlight that and other homegrown socialist disasters
Speaker 1: that do real, not theoretical damage to real Americans. Well, Nolan,
Speaker 1: I hope you appreciate that I try to do that
Speaker 1: On this show, I talk to you about Venezuela, but
Speaker 1: I also talked to you about Amazon, and I try
Speaker 1: to discuss the parts of the Venezuelan disaster that are
Speaker 1: applicable to what's going on here at home. It's not
Speaker 1: enough to just say that Venezuela's socialist. It's why has
Speaker 1: Venezuela's socialist experiment imploded? And what are the fair points
Speaker 1: of comparison between Venezuela and the US and the American
Speaker 1: left and Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders. It's not just
Speaker 1: about the talking points. Obviously. The huge advantage that I
Speaker 1: have here with you on this platform is I can
Speaker 1: spend real time on things that really matter. I don't
Speaker 1: have to constantly just flip through really quickly with a
Speaker 1: three or four minute conversation that's meant to just be
Speaker 1: good TV and then run through the next topic. We
Speaker 1: can really dig deep, and I think that's why people
Speaker 1: keep coming back here. Now. Well, gosh, going on six
Speaker 1: seventy seven years on the air on this show, So
Speaker 1: Man time does fly? Joe Rights, Buck Shields. I you
Speaker 1: often ask if liberals, democrats are morons or liars. The answer,
Speaker 1: of course is usually they are both. Whether it's the
Speaker 1: absurd lie of Jesse Smont or the bald faced lies
Speaker 1: of Andrew McCabe. The outlandishness of the lie displays their
Speaker 1: stupidity and the lie their moral vacuity. Well, Joe, nobody
Speaker 1: could ever say that you're minstin words. You obviously have
Speaker 1: no trouble owning the libs as they say, Kayla, Right,
Speaker 1: Ben Weingarten, Raheem and Michael Pelka are my favorite filling
Speaker 1: host great job shields high. Well, Kayla, you have fantastic taste.
Speaker 1: Those are all very very strong hosts in their own right,
Speaker 1: and they will all be repeat hosts here on the show,
Speaker 1: and they're going to continue to join us. So I'm
Speaker 1: so glad that you like it when they're in for me,
Speaker 1: you know, I really do want it to be the
Speaker 1: case that any day that I have to be away
Speaker 1: from this microphone, which is almost always for some other
Speaker 1: business reason. Occasionally it's for vacation, although I don't take
Speaker 1: very much vacation. Any day I'm gone, I want you
Speaker 1: to know that when you tune in, you're gonna get
Speaker 1: a great show. I don't want people who think, oh,
Speaker 1: Bucks not there. I'm not going to listen today because
Speaker 1: you're gonna get a different version of the kind of
Speaker 1: topics that we talk about here, the sort of show
Speaker 1: we do here, obviously with a different host. So I
Speaker 1: want the best host possible. As I've said, I know
Speaker 1: a lot of other radio hosts like to put in
Speaker 1: the B team or the C team so that people
Speaker 1: miss them when they're gone. That's kind of an old
Speaker 1: radio radio joke, radio trope. I want the best host
Speaker 1: we can get, so that's always my plan. And Akayla,
Speaker 1: in the meantime, thank you so much for writing in
Speaker 1: team that's gonna be it for this show. I will
Speaker 1: talk to you all tomorrow, same time, same place. Shield's
Speaker 1: Eye Global Verification Network the only dual certify veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company out there. Now, I understand
Speaker 1: you got to get this work done when you're hiring
Speaker 1: for your company, no matter what size you're company, no
Speaker 1: matter what industry you're in, you gotta run background checks
Speaker 1: on your employees. But a lot of people that run
Speaker 1: those background checks for you, guess what, They send that
Speaker 1: client information overseas, so you don't really know who's doing it,
Speaker 1: where that stuff is going. You can get rid of
Speaker 1: all that, all that fuss with Global Verification Network all right.
Speaker 1: Their risk mitigation experts handle everything here state side there,
Speaker 1: based in the US, and their servers are here in
Speaker 1: the US. And this is a veteran owned and operated company.
Speaker 1: So check it out for yourself. Call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine again eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine, or go
Speaker 1: to MYGVN dot com Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned,