Speaker 1: Mr garbusch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you get
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you're
Speaker 1: satisfied with Trump is not. When President of the United
Speaker 1: States take it to a bank together, we will make
Speaker 1: America great again. It's what you've been waiting for all day.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck toll
Speaker 1: free at eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred to eight to five the future
Speaker 1: of talk radio. Buck Sexton terrible. The bombings in Austin
Speaker 1: are terrible. Local, state and federal of working hand in
Speaker 1: hand to get to the bottom of it. This is
Speaker 1: obviously a very very sick individual or maybe individuals. These
Speaker 1: are sick people, and we will get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of it. We will be very strong. We have all
Speaker 1: sorts of federal agencies over there right now. We're searching
Speaker 1: what's going on in Austin, a great place, tremendous place,
Speaker 1: is absolutely disgraceful, So we have a lot of power
Speaker 1: over there. We're looking. It's not easy to find, but
Speaker 1: these are sick people and we have to find them
Speaker 1: as soon as possible. We have to find them really immediately.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sex and show everybody you have.
Speaker 1: A fifth explosion earlier today in Texas. It's believed to
Speaker 1: be linked to the bombings that have already happened in Austin, Texas,
Speaker 1: and we are now in the midst of a man
Speaker 1: hunt for a serial bomber. We do not have much
Speaker 1: in the way of additional information about motive, about any
Speaker 1: description of the suspect, any inclination about who the suspect
Speaker 1: or suspects are. We had the Texas Attorney General Ken
Speaker 1: Paxton speak earlier today. Here's what he had to say
Speaker 1: about it. Obviously, as you know an ongoing investigation, law
Speaker 1: enforcement can't share everything they know, So there are definitely
Speaker 1: things that that law enforcement knows about what's what's going
Speaker 1: on with the proms and potentially who this is that
Speaker 1: they're not gonna be able to share at this time.
Speaker 1: But yes, I do think that this guy, whoever it is,
Speaker 1: is trying to increase fear. Well, he's certainly trying to
Speaker 1: increase fear. The question is for what purpose and who
Speaker 1: is it so we can stop him? Um. I hope
Speaker 1: that law enforcement has a lot more information than is
Speaker 1: out there in the public right now, because otherwise it
Speaker 1: seems to me they have very little to go on
Speaker 1: right now. And if you look at the history of
Speaker 1: mad bombers in the past, a serial bombers people that
Speaker 1: were just trying to uh so chaos and and just
Speaker 1: kill people at random, or kill people for as part
Speaker 1: of some twisted political agenda. Some of these bomber man
Speaker 1: hunts stretch on. We're not just months, not years, but decades.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope that is not the case here. Some
Speaker 1: of you may be familiar with the mad bomber case
Speaker 1: who terrorized New York City back in the fifties, George Mateski.
Speaker 1: I took them quite a long time to finally get Metski.
Speaker 1: He had left bombs in phone booths and bathrooms. He
Speaker 1: left bombs at Grand Central Terminal, Penn Station, the New
Speaker 1: York Public Library. Scotty was leaving bombs place, thirty three bombs,
Speaker 1: six of them, twenty two of them exploded. Uh And
Speaker 1: it took them a long time to track him down.
Speaker 1: The most well known serial bomber of all time, the
Speaker 1: UNI bomber Ted Kazinski. You know that went on for decades.
Speaker 1: There's now a series. I was actually planning on on
Speaker 1: watching it, and there's a series on I believe Netflix
Speaker 1: right now. Manhunt Unibomber. Just about that decades long effort
Speaker 1: by the FBI to track down Kazinski had and it's
Speaker 1: important folks remember what brought him down. He wanted his
Speaker 1: message to be out there. If Kazinski didn't have a
Speaker 1: streak of narcissism and grandiosity, he didn't insist on a
Speaker 1: manifesto being published by the Washington Post etly the New
Speaker 1: York Times, would we ever found him. He was meticulous,
Speaker 1: He planned it out, and he was completely and utterly
Speaker 1: sociopathic when it came to the lives that he ruined
Speaker 1: and lives and he ended um There's also a a
Speaker 1: similar a similar need for a sense of message. If
Speaker 1: you go back into um mates Ki's case, he would
Speaker 1: send letters. He sent letters into the New York Herald
Speaker 1: Tribune like this one on October. Bombs will continue until
Speaker 1: the consolidated Edison Company is brought to justice for their
Speaker 1: dastardly acts against me. I have exhausted all other means.
Speaker 1: I intend with bombs to cause others to cry out
Speaker 1: for justice for me. So these bombers are crazy, but
Speaker 1: not stupid. They are careful with what they do and
Speaker 1: it is very tough to track them down. People have
Speaker 1: been asking, I was over at Fox this morning a
Speaker 1: few times, trying to shed some light on how this
Speaker 1: all works. And we have incredib double forensics right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, the things that can be done today are
Speaker 1: are are amazing. They can find d N A on
Speaker 1: a on a switch. They can find DNA on a
Speaker 1: blasting cap after it's been used, even although oftentimes the
Speaker 1: explosion will burn off any residual DNA. People usually, if
Speaker 1: you watch enough TV and movies you think of fingerprints.
Speaker 1: They're always dusting for fingerprints. Yeah, fingerprints are great if
Speaker 1: you can get them, but if someone wears gloves, guess
Speaker 1: what a hard fingerprints DNA that you leave behind that's
Speaker 1: much harder to eliminate from a device and and can
Speaker 1: be left behind even after an explosion. In fact, one
Speaker 1: of the better known cases of trying to track down
Speaker 1: all of this involved the FBI is a special lab
Speaker 1: that they set up and thousands and thousands of I E.
Speaker 1: D s from a rock and Afghanistan have been sent
Speaker 1: there for analysis, and they track down one of the
Speaker 1: one of the cases of a refugee who turned out
Speaker 1: to be a really bad, really bad choice for this country.
Speaker 1: I believe he was living in Kentucky. He's in a
Speaker 1: rocky refugee. It turned out he was involved in insurgency
Speaker 1: there and was bragging about how he had killed U.
Speaker 1: S soldiers, And they were trying to do a match
Speaker 1: between an I E. D. In the Beiji area of Iraq,
Speaker 1: known best for the oil refinery north of Baghdad, a
Speaker 1: couple of hours drive. I think, um about maybe it's
Speaker 1: about sixty miles well on a rocky roads. But they're
Speaker 1: a will track him down, and in part the effort
Speaker 1: involved looking at exactly that the DNA on I E. D.
Speaker 1: S in Iraq and seeing if you had any connection
Speaker 1: to it. And he ended up getting a forty years
Speaker 1: sentence I believe. So there are ways that they could
Speaker 1: be trying this down. This may be over in a
Speaker 1: day or two. I'm not trying to make this seem
Speaker 1: more dire than it is. I just know the history
Speaker 1: of tracking down serial bombers is one of a lot
Speaker 1: of slow and plotting and difficult detective work usually, and
Speaker 1: this case, so far, we're seeing increased. He Here are
Speaker 1: the things that give me real pause. One is no
Speaker 1: message anywhere that we know of. And maybe what Paxton,
Speaker 1: the a GA Texas said is the case, law enforcement
Speaker 1: might already have a really excellent tip, you know, and great,
Speaker 1: and I hope that's the case. But from what we know,
Speaker 1: and I can only work here on this show, I'm
Speaker 1: not in law enforcement anymore. I'm not intelligence anymore. I
Speaker 1: can just tell you what's out there in the press,
Speaker 1: which is all I would anyway. Right Uh, what we
Speaker 1: know is that the bomber, assuming this is all one
Speaker 1: person or one group, and I do think it's likely
Speaker 1: to be a person. I don't see this being a group.
Speaker 1: I also don't see this being um the I don't
Speaker 1: I don't see being gee hottest terrorism. I don't see
Speaker 1: this being drug cartels, you know. Any It's some the
Speaker 1: things that are put out there as suspect profiles by
Speaker 1: people that are just trying to theorize and then also
Speaker 1: getting a sense of motivations for this. We just don't
Speaker 1: have enough right now. I mean, the profile you can
Speaker 1: expect here would be a single male, probably middle aged,
Speaker 1: with a gripe. If he fits the mad bomber profile. UM,
Speaker 1: it's probably a loner and someone who feels like he
Speaker 1: has been wrong very possibly by the government, although we
Speaker 1: don't know that for sure, and views this as a
Speaker 1: means of retribution, right, and and attention seeking. What's complicating
Speaker 1: situation is that we have not and it's still very early,
Speaker 1: but we have not yet seen any manifested. We haven't
Speaker 1: seen any claims of credit for this that anyone believes
Speaker 1: are credible. We have a case where someone has chosen
Speaker 1: targets that seem random, even from the mind of a
Speaker 1: of a terrorist, right, even for a sick and deluded mind.
Speaker 1: We can't pick up much of a much of a
Speaker 1: pattern based on what we've seen so far. And now
Speaker 1: that you have one bomb that went off at a FedEx,
Speaker 1: you've got another and this is this is still I
Speaker 1: believe developing. They they have a a suspicious package, because
Speaker 1: if they have an intact device, that would be much
Speaker 1: better for all the forensic stuff I was talking about,
Speaker 1: looking at the mechanics of it, what pieces are in,
Speaker 1: what pieces are actually in the explosive device. UM, then
Speaker 1: again look sweeping for fingerprints for DNA, all the things
Speaker 1: that they always do. The standard kit. If you have
Speaker 1: a device that's still together, you're more likely to get
Speaker 1: some answers that if you have a device that's been
Speaker 1: blown to smithery, just shrapnel and residue. But they're saying
Speaker 1: there's also some degree of sophistication here either that that
Speaker 1: runs quite a gamut, right, I mean, are we talking
Speaker 1: about someone who spent a lot of time, maybe in
Speaker 1: some basement somewhere, thinking about how to do this? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: I mean this is this has been thought out. This
Speaker 1: person knows what the plan was here and and is
Speaker 1: executing this bloody mayhem according to what they had been
Speaker 1: plotting out for some time. But beyond that, is this
Speaker 1: somebody with an actual skill set from explosives explosive ordinance disposal?
Speaker 1: Is this? You know? That? To me too early to say,
Speaker 1: But I haven't seen the devices, right, the law enforcement
Speaker 1: maybe keeping this close hold. The fact that they're saying
Speaker 1: greater level of sophistication, to me, it's starting to be
Speaker 1: an indicator. And this is reading between the lines. This
Speaker 1: is not based on This is not what we know.
Speaker 1: This is what we may know based on what we've
Speaker 1: been told old that you could have someone here who
Speaker 1: is beyond reading the Anarchist Cookbook and trial and error
Speaker 1: at home. But as we know, you can get far
Speaker 1: if you're just trying to blow up innocent people. That's
Speaker 1: not a hard thing to do. It's an evil thing
Speaker 1: to do, but it's not a difficult thing to do.
Speaker 1: So this is this is now where we hope that
Speaker 1: law enforcement is gonna I have a a rapid arrest
Speaker 1: and there will be no more of these bombings. But
Speaker 1: using the postal system or using FedEx, you know, using
Speaker 1: any of these parcel or package transfer services adds a
Speaker 1: layer of complication, and it means that they're spreading a
Speaker 1: sense of anxiety and fear throughout that entire system anywhere
Speaker 1: where they can reach. You know, these these bombs could
Speaker 1: theoretically reached so far it's all been in Texas, could
Speaker 1: expand beyond that. We don't know a lot of unknowns.
Speaker 1: But we have a serial bomber on the loose in
Speaker 1: this country. We've got over five hundred law enforcement agents
Speaker 1: that are working in the case full time, just doing
Speaker 1: everything they can to find him, and we will keep
Speaker 1: you updated on it beyond that. Right now, I just
Speaker 1: I hope that this is a story that doesn't last
Speaker 1: beyond the week because they get him and this doesn't
Speaker 1: turn into a Motetski or a Kazinski or any other
Speaker 1: long term serial bomber cases that have been out there.
Speaker 1: If you have any thoughts on this, especially those of
Speaker 1: you out there who are law enforcement or a former
Speaker 1: military e O D. Explosive Ordinance disposal folks, by all means,
Speaker 1: lines are open eight four four n eight to five
Speaker 1: eight four four nine Buck, I'll be back. We we've
Speaker 1: got to We've got a packed show today. I've got
Speaker 1: to talk to you about the updates on Cambridge Analytic
Speaker 1: of that whole thing. It's just people have lost their minds.
Speaker 1: They are crazy on that thing, just the latest overblown conspiracy.
Speaker 1: But we'll we'll pull that apart together. And then also
Speaker 1: a school shooting today and one that you won't hear
Speaker 1: about from the media. I'd say, starting tomorrow, this is
Speaker 1: gonna fall off the rail. Why would a school shooting
Speaker 1: not be talked about for more than one day's news cycle.
Speaker 1: Some of you are probably already saying it aloud. You
Speaker 1: already know why. But we'll talk about it because it's
Speaker 1: important and it should reflect it should be reflected in
Speaker 1: the policies going forward to know that you have Betsy
Speaker 1: Divos with that School Safety Commission. We'll get into all
Speaker 1: this coming up, so stay with me team. Much more
Speaker 1: on the way, Welcome back, folks. Before we get into
Speaker 1: the what really should be a non story about Cambridge
Speaker 1: Cambridge Analytica, UM, I just want to say that there
Speaker 1: are some people who are talking quite a bit about
Speaker 1: the possibility of a government shutdown. We're to get to
Speaker 1: Cambridge Analytica and then the school shooting in just a
Speaker 1: few minutes, but first the government shutdown. Jim Jordan's it's
Speaker 1: raising the alarm over the spending increase that's going to
Speaker 1: be happening here. This is the second largest discretionary spending
Speaker 1: increase in the last decade, second only to the Obama
Speaker 1: stimulus package. I don't think the American people elected Republicans
Speaker 1: in sixteen to preside over a spending increase of this magnitude,
Speaker 1: not to mention some of the things that might go
Speaker 1: in the bill that are still being talked about, namely
Speaker 1: bailouts for insurance companies and and elements like that. So
Speaker 1: this builds a bad piece of legislations. I think you're
Speaker 1: gonna see lots of Conservatives opposed Freedom Caucus will be
Speaker 1: offering a number of amendments to try to change it.
Speaker 1: We'll see how it all plays out in the next
Speaker 1: forty eight hours. How seriously can we really take the
Speaker 1: notion at this point that Republicans are the party of conservatives,
Speaker 1: that conservatives don't want to spend beyond their means, and
Speaker 1: that we're not just oh, we have the checkbook now,
Speaker 1: so let's buy the things that we want as a party.
Speaker 1: What evidence is there that I'm wrong on that one?
Speaker 1: I watched an interview earlier today because, as I say,
Speaker 1: I have the great advantage because you hear me later
Speaker 1: in the day of I've been reading and listening and
Speaker 1: watching and researching all day. I don't have much of
Speaker 1: a life, but it means I got a lot to say.
Speaker 1: On radio, I saw Paul Ryan and he was talking
Speaker 1: about the increase for the military, and it's just so
Speaker 1: interesting me. When does Paul Ryan decide to speak of
Speaker 1: the House. He's really going to go to the mat
Speaker 1: on decreasing spending answers is never gonna happen. And then
Speaker 1: when the Democrats are in charge, Paul Ryan is gonna
Speaker 1: be Mr. Depsit Hawk all over again. Deps it's twenty
Speaker 1: one trillion dollars everybody twenty one trillion with the T
Speaker 1: I know, people say, well, that's money we own ourselves.
Speaker 1: Are we all ourselves? Um? Yeah, good luck with that one.
Speaker 1: When interest rates start to rise, Oh we owe to ourselves.
Speaker 1: People are starting to get a little skittish, a little
Speaker 1: nervous about what this means for the economy. And the
Speaker 1: problem with it is that everyone I know who understands this,
Speaker 1: that really understands it, not just pretends for the purposes
Speaker 1: of being on TV, really understands what the macro economic
Speaker 1: trend is here say that the problem with waiting until
Speaker 1: you know it's a problem is that it is then
Speaker 1: too late. When you wake up and you're like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: the twenty one trillion, what number do you want me
Speaker 1: to stop at? That that level of debt becomes unsustainable
Speaker 1: when everyone understands that it will be too late and
Speaker 1: you will have no one even really knows what the
Speaker 1: full extent the economic consequences will be. But I know
Speaker 1: who's going to benefit from it. China. China is gonna
Speaker 1: benefit from it. Oh there you go, whoa uh, They're
Speaker 1: going to be waiting in the wings to take over
Speaker 1: as the dominant superpower. Right, that's the plan economically, is
Speaker 1: how they think they're going to get there, and much
Speaker 1: rather get there through that means than any other. So
Speaker 1: I just want to know that, you know, Jim Jordan's
Speaker 1: saying we're spending too much money. Everyone says we spend
Speaker 1: too much money. In the Congress, nobody does a darn
Speaker 1: thing about it. And even if there is a government shutdown,
Speaker 1: which I don't think there will be, the government doesn't
Speaker 1: even really shut down. It won't be sort of shut
Speaker 1: down for long, and it won't matter. What will matter
Speaker 1: is that we have spent too much darn money because
Speaker 1: no one wants to be the politician, No one wants
Speaker 1: to be the party of You know, you just can't
Speaker 1: have five scoops of ice cream every day after dinner.
Speaker 1: It's a bad idea. No, no five scoops for everyone.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck sext in his
Speaker 1: back look, did not talk. Shel Sandberg did not talk.
Speaker 1: That's wrong, okay, pretty simple. Where the hell is he?
Speaker 1: I want to compare for a moment to to the
Speaker 1: financial crisis, everybody got called in. He didn't question JP
Speaker 1: even with Lloyd combative JP Morrian with exception you know
Speaker 1: victorim Pantai Okay in city. Look at these names that
Speaker 1: I'm telling you. When I say Jamie, okay, when I
Speaker 1: say Lloyd, when I say Zook, when I say Cheryl,
Speaker 1: that's who you put out. Okay, you don't Mickey Mouse.
Speaker 1: It don't Mickey Mouse. It don't Mickey Mouse, it says
Speaker 1: Kramer about Zuckerberg going m I A on Facebook, the
Speaker 1: CEO of Facebook. Some would say because he well, discussion
Speaker 1: for another day. If you've seen the social network, you
Speaker 1: know what direction I was going in. But yeah, he's
Speaker 1: talking about the financial crisis. I think that's way exaggerated
Speaker 1: as to what we're dealing with here with Facebook. This
Speaker 1: is just, frankly not nearly as big of an issue
Speaker 1: as the media wants to make it into a data
Speaker 1: analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica UH that had some ties to
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign, may have gotten access to information in violation
Speaker 1: of a Facebook policy about uh you know, whether you
Speaker 1: can I think there's an FTC issue here, Federal Trade
Speaker 1: Commission with you have to opt in and you have
Speaker 1: to get people notice if you're gonna use your data
Speaker 1: for something. So here's why this is a just mounting
Speaker 1: out of a molehill, because it's yet another explanation for
Speaker 1: why Hillary lost the election. That's what this is. And
Speaker 1: Facebook the arguably most powerful company in the world right now.
Speaker 1: I mean it's definitely up there. It's definitely like top three,
Speaker 1: maybe top five. Other than the builder Burg's illuminating, and
Speaker 1: you know, Queen of England win't even calls all the shots.
Speaker 1: Folks google it, google it. But other than you know,
Speaker 1: a couple of other companies, Facebook is among the most
Speaker 1: powerful companies in the world. And you have the CEO
Speaker 1: running and hiding right now from this tempest. You know,
Speaker 1: this uh wave of outrage over fifty million people who
Speaker 1: may have had their basic Facebook information, that the basic
Speaker 1: Facebook information shared. You get a kid who's running around
Speaker 1: talking about how this is weaponizing people. You know, he
Speaker 1: was part of the Cammebradge analytical team or something, and
Speaker 1: now he's the whistleblower. He's weaponizing people's fears. I'm like,
Speaker 1: unless you are writing down that you have a fear
Speaker 1: of clowns or arachnids, Facebook does not know your fears.
Speaker 1: And we're not even talking about going through your chat laws.
Speaker 1: The algorithms don't exist to do what some of the
Speaker 1: people in the media reporting on this are calling it
Speaker 1: micro targeting. Oh it's not. It's micro targeting because macro
Speaker 1: targeting has another word. It's called public relations. Were marketing.
Speaker 1: It's tough to make that sound that scary. But in
Speaker 1: this era of Mueller targeting Facebook puppets and Twitter sock
Speaker 1: puppets for our Twitter trolls, for information warfare against the
Speaker 1: United States, anything that you can tie to Trump involving
Speaker 1: the Internet and information, you can make sounds scary and
Speaker 1: people will believe it. This is a non story. This
Speaker 1: is not scary. Not only is it not scary, but
Speaker 1: as I mentioned to you yesterday, the Obama campaign back
Speaker 1: in was bragging about this and Facebook, and you can
Speaker 1: check this is on the record. You look it up,
Speaker 1: you'll see Facebook figured out what the Obama campaign, the
Speaker 1: Obama digital team was up to with this data, and
Speaker 1: they're like, well, you know, we don't really think that
Speaker 1: that's the way we that this should be used under
Speaker 1: our terms of service. Keep in mind, this isn't like
Speaker 1: the Constitution in terms of service for Internet companies. We're
Speaker 1: really discussing here, you know, how the information they're gathering,
Speaker 1: the information they have it, it's just how it's gonna
Speaker 1: be used, and they they already have it. And Facebook
Speaker 1: is already using it. By the way, you gotta remember
Speaker 1: that too. Facebook already has all this and is selling
Speaker 1: it to advertisers. It's just a question of how it's
Speaker 1: package and what protocols are in place. Some of this
Speaker 1: is driven by the FTC. Someone's just Facebook trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, be a company that people want to continue
Speaker 1: to use. But the reason that for those you are listening,
Speaker 1: the reason that you see ads for things you're like, Oh,
Speaker 1: I kind of like that. I think I might have
Speaker 1: to buy those waterproof hiking boots. How did Facebook? No,
Speaker 1: it's not because they have some super secret squirrel algori
Speaker 1: rhythm that understands that you like the color beige and
Speaker 1: you're somebody who grew up in an outdoorsy family and
Speaker 1: didn't know you did a searcher. You know, they know
Speaker 1: where you are. They can do locate you. You did
Speaker 1: a search recently for footwear. It's wintertime, bam hiking boots.
Speaker 1: Look at that. If you're here in New York City, snowshoes.
Speaker 1: Because we're about to get she lacked apparently first day
Speaker 1: of spring. Every Yeah, first day of spring, come out
Speaker 1: to the coast, have a few lefts. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: be funny. We're up to our up to our ears
Speaker 1: in snow tomorrow. But I digress. Maybe I'll be able
Speaker 1: to cross country ski into the radio studio the other
Speaker 1: part of the Cambra generally, I think, I know they
Speaker 1: suspended the CEO, but yeah, that's the people want to know.
Speaker 1: Who are journalists? Are honest? By the way, about Cambra generally,
Speaker 1: nickol are the ones we're saying. They're not even a
Speaker 1: good analytics company. They're not even good at this. Why
Speaker 1: is everyone pretending like they're good? Oh? It brings me
Speaker 1: back to my initial point that it's an excuse for
Speaker 1: Hillary lost. Someone violated Facebook's terms of service with a
Speaker 1: super secret algorithm that was doing micro targeting to exploit
Speaker 1: your fears, and it was information warfare, it was weaponizing
Speaker 1: personal data. These are just all exaggerated words for marketing,
Speaker 1: for social media marketing. That's it. But the reason people
Speaker 1: are pretending to believe it or are willing to believe it,
Speaker 1: because I do think that Trump arrangement syndrome brings otherwise sentient,
Speaker 1: functioning adults into a place of crazy town. The reason
Speaker 1: they will believe it is that it is yet another
Speaker 1: excuse for Hillary loss. I just don't know which is
Speaker 1: the main excuse this week. I'm gonna return to this
Speaker 1: later on the show. I want to know what the
Speaker 1: main reason why Hillary lost is. It's never that she
Speaker 1: was like I hate Peo Paul and I'm entitled and
Speaker 1: grasping and terrible. It's never that. It's never that she's
Speaker 1: the most dishonest, unlikable politician of her generation. It's always
Speaker 1: something else. Now here's my theory on this. I don't
Speaker 1: believe that Democrats think that Hillary is actually a great politician.
Speaker 1: I just think it makes them feel better to believe
Speaker 1: that she was cheated. They they would prefer They don't
Speaker 1: want to deal with the reality of Hillary, even if
Speaker 1: they know that she was a weak candidate, which is
Speaker 1: probably a small subset overall of what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: But it also feeds into how much they hate Trump.
Speaker 1: If Trump is a cheater, he's even worse than they thought.
Speaker 1: And how is that even possible? I don't know, because
Speaker 1: I think he's a you know, Trump is a is
Speaker 1: a racist, misogynist, molester. You know, all these things that
Speaker 1: they say about the President of the United States all
Speaker 1: the time, and they're gonna forget about this, but we're not.
Speaker 1: They have so lower the discourse when it comes to
Speaker 1: the respect shown to a presidency. I can tell you this.
Speaker 1: I've I've been doing media now, gosh going on eight years.
Speaker 1: It never would have occurred to me, and I would
Speaker 1: have been unwilling, if told to, to speak with the
Speaker 1: same level of personal disrespect about Barack Obama. Not that
Speaker 1: I didn't have enormous problems with Obama and thought that
Speaker 1: he was a bad president. I did, but I never
Speaker 1: would have spoken with the same level of just blatant
Speaker 1: personal snide disrespect that I see on CNN and MSNBC
Speaker 1: in other places seven about this president all the time.
Speaker 1: It's normal now, it's normal to call him a criminal,
Speaker 1: a traitor. And and what's amazing to me is that
Speaker 1: the Trump't arrangement syndrome of the media has prevents them
Speaker 1: from understanding what the long term implications of this are.
Speaker 1: We're gonna remember this a right, just like we were
Speaker 1: ber what happened with Hillary's emails, just like we remember
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton lying under oath and being an actual molester,
Speaker 1: assaulter and overall gross detestable person. That's real me. You know,
Speaker 1: I just luck, ladies. I just want to get them
Speaker 1: close and give him hug and kisses and teach them
Speaker 1: all about being president. As much as we look at
Speaker 1: all this now, they don't even understand that we will
Speaker 1: remember and that. But that's why they get so wound
Speaker 1: up about Cambridge Analytica because it fits into their their
Speaker 1: favorite psychological need right now, which is Trump cheated, Trump cheated,
Speaker 1: Trump cheated. They have to repeat this to themselves, the
Speaker 1: idea that the Trump phenomenon is real and based on
Speaker 1: what a majority of the American electorate via the Electoral
Speaker 1: College and the system that we have wanted for this country,
Speaker 1: was in fact that that the majority one. It was
Speaker 1: in fact Trump is um and not another eight years
Speaker 1: of Clintonian garbage of devolution via Clinton. The fact that
Speaker 1: that's the kay they they just won't accept it. They
Speaker 1: won't accept it. That's what the Cambridge Onelytical thing comes
Speaker 1: down to. Nothing's gonna happen here. Oh, people are talking
Speaker 1: about They're going to pay some fine. Cambradge Analytical Bank
Speaker 1: go bankrupt, they say, all forty dollars for a violation
Speaker 1: of under FTC of Privacy regulations. Oh there needs to
Speaker 1: be needs to speak before Congress and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: This just goes to show you how much they have
Speaker 1: created a frenzy around this because remember it was Facebook
Speaker 1: also that was used by the Russians to target Now, right,
Speaker 1: so face, what are the what is the more likely scenario?
Speaker 1: Let let me pose it to you this way. That
Speaker 1: Facebook is just a social media platform and people could
Speaker 1: say and do things, and people will push ideas Paula
Speaker 1: Dicks market products, all that the good, the bad, and
Speaker 1: the ugly that comes along with it. Um Or that
Speaker 1: both Russia and Cambridge Analytica separately did some terrible stuff
Speaker 1: that used Facebook as the centerpiece of an information warfare
Speaker 1: campaign to stop Hillary from being the president. Both of them,
Speaker 1: not just one. Both they both did this. Now it's crazy,
Speaker 1: isn't it? When I say it out loud too, I
Speaker 1: feel like what is going on here? I I long
Speaker 1: for the good old days when we talk about the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act Obamacare and how it's gonna make healthcare
Speaker 1: crappy because of the basic laws of supply and demand
Speaker 1: and economics but oh, we have a moral obligation to
Speaker 1: cover everybody ball, but it's gonna make things worse, and
Speaker 1: you're gonna cover people with less actual healthcare. Forget about cover.
Speaker 1: I missed those debates about those things. Instead, I literally
Speaker 1: have to sit here and refute because it's the dominant
Speaker 1: narrative that's being fed to you all the time, even
Speaker 1: if you don't watch it an MSNBC. It's being fed
Speaker 1: to the teachers and your kids schools. It's being fed
Speaker 1: to the professors at your children's universities. It's being fed
Speaker 1: to the c suite at wherever you work. It's being
Speaker 1: fed to the politicians, especially if you're in a blue
Speaker 1: part of the country. Never mind if you're in a
Speaker 1: purple toss up area there too. It is permeating the
Speaker 1: country around you. Whether you accept any aspect of the
Speaker 1: narrative or not. If you rejected wholesale, like I do,
Speaker 1: you still have to deal with it. So that's why
Speaker 1: I show up here, roll up the sleeves and try
Speaker 1: to just hammer away at this because we can't escape it.
Speaker 1: I wish we could, but we can't. If we allow
Speaker 1: it to go unopposed, then you'll just have Democrats winning
Speaker 1: the mid terms, the Trump administration stime. Trump probably gets impeached.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he gets removed from office, depends
Speaker 1: on what happens in the Senate. That's what happens if
Speaker 1: we don't fight back, as you know, so fighting back means, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we have to play a bit of defense here, sometimes
Speaker 1: ideologically speaking. Eight four four eight to five, eight four
Speaker 1: four nine, buck, Oh gosh, I have much more. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about that shooting, school shooting in Maryland and
Speaker 1: why this is going to be a shooting that you
Speaker 1: hear about for for a maximum twenty four hours and
Speaker 1: that will be it. Now. I understand that we're not
Speaker 1: a lot of fatality. There are differences here. I'm clear
Speaker 1: and honest about that. But do we think that gave
Speaker 1: in all the movement? They just had the big march
Speaker 1: on d C. But hold hold on, we'll get to it.
Speaker 1: We'll get to it. Stay with me. There's an update
Speaker 1: here on a story that you will not hear much
Speaker 1: about from the media. I covered it on the show.
Speaker 1: If I recall early on when I was first on
Speaker 1: the air here on the Box Section show with Premiere
Speaker 1: Networks about a year ago, um, but this is about
Speaker 1: the the terrible situate, a terrible case of Justine Damond
Speaker 1: who was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis. And
Speaker 1: the story was that she had called the police there
Speaker 1: was a concern about a sexual assault in an alleyway
Speaker 1: and she can't walked out of her home and walked
Speaker 1: up to the patrol car. This was on I'm sorry, No,
Speaker 1: this is about yeah, this was July. It wasn't a
Speaker 1: year ago. It was about gosh, I can't keep track
Speaker 1: of the time, this past summer. And she walked up
Speaker 1: to the passenger side of the police car. There are
Speaker 1: two cops in the car and one police and the
Speaker 1: police officer in the passenger side just pulled out his
Speaker 1: gun and shot her. Uh pose, no threat, not not nothing,
Speaker 1: just pulled out his gun and shot her. And people
Speaker 1: were wondering, especially at this time of particular sensitivity to
Speaker 1: any unjustifiable force, unjustified law enforcement lethal force in particular,
Speaker 1: how come this wasn't getting more attention. Oh well, the
Speaker 1: in this case alleged murderer because he has been charged
Speaker 1: with murder by the Districttorney's office. The alleged murder was
Speaker 1: officer Mohammed Nor, who was of Somali dissent and had
Speaker 1: been widely celebrated on the force he was of. It
Speaker 1: was considered a big, a big win to bring on
Speaker 1: Officer Nor from the Somali American population of Minneapolis, which,
Speaker 1: as you know, there's a large Somali diaspora in Minnesota.
Speaker 1: And Officer Nor was someone that they were publicly the
Speaker 1: department saying, see, you know, diversity, and an Officer Nor
Speaker 1: killed this woman at close range for no one. To
Speaker 1: this day, he hasn't spoken publicly about this and he
Speaker 1: will not speak to investigators about it. No one that's
Speaker 1: there really knows. I just on the district attorney and
Speaker 1: making the right move from what I can see here.
Speaker 1: Uh charged charged a second degree Uh? Second agree, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Third agree murder charge for perpetrating an eminently dangerous act
Speaker 1: while showing a depraved mind charting depraved mind murder here, folks.
Speaker 1: Second agree manslaughter that he that's an additional charge that
Speaker 1: he acted with culpable negligence creating an unreasonable risk. And
Speaker 1: I assume they're gonna get him on that one. But
Speaker 1: why even charged depraved mind murder of a police officer
Speaker 1: of a woman who posed no threat, and he saw Australian,
Speaker 1: wonderful young woman. It's terrible for her family. Why the
Speaker 1: d a charge to prave mind murder unless they had
Speaker 1: reason to believe that the guy had to prave mind.
Speaker 1: There's gotta be more here. He's back with you now,
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. When the shooting took place, our school
Speaker 1: resource officer, who was stationed inside the school, was alerted
Speaker 1: to the event and the shots being fired. UH. He
Speaker 1: pursued the shooter and engaged the shooter, during which that
Speaker 1: engagement he fired a round at the shooter. Simultaneously, the
Speaker 1: shooter fired around as well. So in the hours to come,
Speaker 1: in the days to come, through detailed investigation, we will
Speaker 1: be able to determine UM if our school resource officers
Speaker 1: round struck the shooter. UH. The these school resource officer
Speaker 1: is uninjured and was not struck by any firearm projectile.
Speaker 1: Welcome to our two of the Buck Sexton show. UH
Speaker 1: school shooting in Maryland Earlier today, you just heard law enforcement.
Speaker 1: They're giving a rundown as to what what happened. UH.
Speaker 1: You had Austin Wyatt Rollins seventeen the only fatality, he
Speaker 1: was the shooter. So, as these situations go, when you
Speaker 1: only have one fatality, that's the shooter. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: and obviously could have been much much worse. But you
Speaker 1: do have a sixteen year old female student in the
Speaker 1: I see you with life threatening injuries and a fourteen
Speaker 1: year old male student was shot, but he's in stable conditions.
Speaker 1: So two shot and wounded, one in life threatening condition. Um,
Speaker 1: But the shooter is the shooters down, the shooter is dead.
Speaker 1: And this was because and you're all ready for this,
Speaker 1: of a good guy with a gun, Deputy Blaine gas Skill,
Speaker 1: who was the school resource officer also I read happens
Speaker 1: to be a member of a swat team. So for
Speaker 1: those who insist that it's impossible to get people with
Speaker 1: the right training to be able to also be patrolling
Speaker 1: in schools, well, you've got a guy who was squat
Speaker 1: who was a school resource officer. Here. The shooting happened,
Speaker 1: and we don't know the specifics, but given the training
Speaker 1: and background that officer, our deputy gas Skill had, UM,
Speaker 1: I would I would be willing to uh to wager
Speaker 1: that would likely happen is that the shooter drew down
Speaker 1: on him. When confronted Deputy Gaskill, you know, waited and
Speaker 1: then this guy took a shot, meaning the shooter took
Speaker 1: a shot and Gaskell took a shot Gaskell. We don't
Speaker 1: know this yet, but it seems likely to me that
Speaker 1: Gaskell did not miss unless the school shooter took his
Speaker 1: own life. But that doesn't that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: Then you'd only have Gaskell missing once and then maybe
Speaker 1: the shooter taking us off. I doubt that. It seems
Speaker 1: to me it's likely there was an exchange of gun
Speaker 1: fire here. We don't know. We don't know. I'm just
Speaker 1: trying to read beyond the headlines a little bit with that. Um,
Speaker 1: But I I'd be my assumption here, My working assumption
Speaker 1: is that the shooter tried to fire on Gaskell, Gascroll
Speaker 1: returned fire, hit him with one round, killed him. Um.
Speaker 1: And we'll see we get the full read out the
Speaker 1: report on that, I'll know if that analysis is correct
Speaker 1: or not. But you're not gonna hear a lot about
Speaker 1: this shooting for the in the days ahead. This one's
Speaker 1: not and it's looking at two people who were shot.
Speaker 1: Given the amount of attention paid to school safety and
Speaker 1: school shootings, right now, you would think that this would
Speaker 1: be a top of mind story for much of the media.
Speaker 1: I have seen very little of it on See an
Speaker 1: End Tonight, for example. A lot of talk about Trump
Speaker 1: congratulating Putin. We'll get into that later on in the show.
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't think we're gonna skip over that.
Speaker 1: But they're not going to talk much about this because
Speaker 1: a good guy with a with a gun stopped a
Speaker 1: bad guy with a gun, and that's not the storyline
Speaker 1: that the media. That's not the narrative that they want
Speaker 1: to run with. They want guns out of schools and
Speaker 1: out of your hands. They want no guns, they want
Speaker 1: gun bands, they want gun restrictions. That's the purpose of
Speaker 1: this movement that has arisen from the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas
Speaker 1: High School shooting about a month ago in Parkland, Florida.
Speaker 1: It exists for a purpose. The purpose is not just
Speaker 1: generic school safety. It is gun control, and it is
Speaker 1: to change the discussion the culture around guns such that
Speaker 1: abridging the Second Amendment partially and then eventually entirely abrogating it.
Speaker 1: That's what they're trying to do. This is incrementalism under
Speaker 1: the guise of a general security discussion. And because in
Speaker 1: this case, a school resource officer was able to confront, disrupt,
Speaker 1: stop an active shooter situation in the school, that's not
Speaker 1: the storyline that they want. That's not what you're that's
Speaker 1: not what's gonna be on the evening news for the
Speaker 1: next three days. Because we've talked about this. Republicans, you know,
Speaker 1: the n r A, these vilified gun owners across the country,
Speaker 1: anyone who supports the Second Amendment, a lot of them
Speaker 1: have been saying, yeah, if you we want more armed
Speaker 1: or armed officers in school. Most people have had ideas
Speaker 1: about programs specifically for for veterans, those who've got the
Speaker 1: you know, the weapons training and just the desire to
Speaker 1: protect our our kids across the country, and there's all
Speaker 1: these ideas put out there about having more armed personnel
Speaker 1: in schools for exactly this kind of a situation. But
Speaker 1: that's not what they want. That's not what the left
Speaker 1: is going for here. It's not about keeping kids safe.
Speaker 1: It's about taking organs. And that's why officer gas Skill,
Speaker 1: s Rrows, school resource officer and SWAT team member is
Speaker 1: not going to be a name you here that much
Speaker 1: more in the days ahead. UM and I know that
Speaker 1: some people are also choosing not to name the shooter.
Speaker 1: I'll try to leave it out of the rest of
Speaker 1: the discussion. I think that that's a guideline more than
Speaker 1: a rule. It's very hard to talk about what what
Speaker 1: could have been a homicide here certainly was a attempted,
Speaker 1: multiple attempted murder, and not name the person at all involved.
Speaker 1: There's some reporting that this may have been a um,
Speaker 1: a former He might have shot a former girlfriend that
Speaker 1: you know who. We don't really know, well, we don't
Speaker 1: really know. We just know that somebody's inna school trying
Speaker 1: to kill people, and resource officers stopped him. Will this,
Speaker 1: in any way you think, influence the discussion, influence the
Speaker 1: conversation that's going to be happening in the next few
Speaker 1: days about the March four Our Lives as it's being called,
Speaker 1: which is gonna be happening this coming weekend. Um, this
Speaker 1: is the Washington Post reporting on it. Uh, let me
Speaker 1: give you a little bit of what the details are here.
Speaker 1: Federal agents will be on watch, d C police will
Speaker 1: be in full force, and metro trains will run every
Speaker 1: few minutes to accommodate the five hundred thousand people expected
Speaker 1: to descend on downtown Washington, d C. This coming week
Speaker 1: end for the March for Our Lives rally UH. The
Speaker 1: Saturday March is an anti gun violence demonstration led by
Speaker 1: the survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting. It will
Speaker 1: draw thousands of students, many of them under eighteen, so
Speaker 1: officials are saying they're taking extra care to ensure the
Speaker 1: safety of protesters. There's also gonna be a huge march
Speaker 1: here in New York Right right producer Mike. That's the expectation.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be a huge march here in New York City.
Speaker 1: I'll probably other cities across the country too. I even
Speaker 1: heard some people that I somebody asked, uh. Somebody asked
Speaker 1: me a lot, I'm not gonna gain any specific Somebody
Speaker 1: asked me you, oh, hey, are you this is just
Speaker 1: a friend of a friend, alright, a friend of a friend.
Speaker 1: Are you gonna go go to this anti gun violence
Speaker 1: march this weekend? I was like, do you listen to
Speaker 1: my radio? Do you know anything about who who you're
Speaker 1: talking to? You? Do you think I'm gonna go to
Speaker 1: a march that says that if it were really about
Speaker 1: stopping violence? Yeah, of course, we're all in favor of that.
Speaker 1: It's a gun control march, that's what this is. And
Speaker 1: the fact that it's being given this the name and
Speaker 1: the branding or the March for Our Lives, you know
Speaker 1: that you're dealing with progressives in the left behind the
Speaker 1: scenes when you have these slogans, these phrases, the stuff
Speaker 1: that's going to go up on the placards that is
Speaker 1: not only meant to bring people together for the cause,
Speaker 1: but if you're not for it, you're a bad person.
Speaker 1: If somehow you're opposed to this, you're you're not You're
Speaker 1: mean your pro violence or something. Because it's a March
Speaker 1: for our lives? Are you opposed to children's lives? Well, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. Well how can you be opposed to
Speaker 1: the march? Then? Buck? Oh my gosh's amazing what they
Speaker 1: do here kind of reminds me. And this is an aside,
Speaker 1: but I'm a big fan of the show Parks and
Speaker 1: Wreck and people sometimes say that I look like one
Speaker 1: of the guys on there, but I do not look
Speaker 1: like Yeah, John is shaking his head. Yes, that is false.
Speaker 1: First of all, that guy, whatever his name is, he's
Speaker 1: like five three hundred and ten pounds or something. All right,
Speaker 1: so let's just start with that. I'm six ft and
Speaker 1: not add and ten pounds, so let's leave it at that.
Speaker 1: But it's a great show. I would skip the whole
Speaker 1: this first season. This is the advice I always give
Speaker 1: about the show, because one of my ten favorite shows
Speaker 1: of all time. I'd skipped the first season entirely and
Speaker 1: go to the second season. Just start with the sexth season.
Speaker 1: But there's a cult called the Reasonable Lists, and they
Speaker 1: meet every year in the park and they say the
Speaker 1: world's gonna end tomorrow, and of course each year, the
Speaker 1: big the gag is that the world doesn't end. They go, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we misread the the book. We have that like the
Speaker 1: fire breathing alien space monster left for us and all
Speaker 1: this stuff. And each year they do this. But they
Speaker 1: call themselves the Reasonable Lists because if you're opposed to them,
Speaker 1: well clearly you're not reasonable. And it's it's a joke.
Speaker 1: It's a funny show. It's a very light show. But
Speaker 1: this is true, folks. And this goes all the way
Speaker 1: back to Orwell and his essays on the English language
Speaker 1: about political words and the efforts that political movements and
Speaker 1: politicians go through to use terms, to use use phrases
Speaker 1: that obscure what they really want. You know, you sit here,
Speaker 1: you're probably thinking out loud to me right now. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, pro choice, What does that even mean? What
Speaker 1: does it mean to be pro choice? If it's if
Speaker 1: it's fine, if it's a constitutional right. Why don't you
Speaker 1: say pro abortion? Why say pro choice? Oh, it's to
Speaker 1: obscure the actual intent of the movement. And you can
Speaker 1: go down any number of these. And this is also
Speaker 1: why they, you know, talking about undocumented immigrants. By using
Speaker 1: those words, you are conceding that they're just immigrants and
Speaker 1: it's just a question of changing the documents then they'll
Speaker 1: be immigrants. Then it's fine, it's legal, it's good on
Speaker 1: the March for our lives. Very clever marketing, which is
Speaker 1: what this what is what this spoils down, Very clever marketing,
Speaker 1: because if you know, what somebody asks a friend of
Speaker 1: a friend is like, hey, is Buck gonna go march
Speaker 1: this weekend? It's like, no, Buck is not gonna go
Speaker 1: March this weekend because he knows what it's about. But
Speaker 1: two people that have a passing familiarity with what's going
Speaker 1: on in the country, you don't pay that much attention
Speaker 1: to news, don't really care that much. They're just like, well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna marr. I don't want to march here. It's
Speaker 1: a big march for for kids in safety and march
Speaker 1: for our lives. Women's March another great example. Are you
Speaker 1: opposed to women? No, I'm rather fond of women, But
Speaker 1: if you're opposed to the Women's March, then you must
Speaker 1: be you know you're you're anti women, right. This is
Speaker 1: what they do time and time again. Look, it's I'm
Speaker 1: a big believer in the first thing. I'm like liberals,
Speaker 1: I'm actually believe in the First Amendment. But if you
Speaker 1: want to have a big anti gun march, if you
Speaker 1: want to have a big gun confiscation or restriction march,
Speaker 1: just say, you know, a march to end a march
Speaker 1: to end guns, you know, a march against gun in
Speaker 1: American society, a march against the Second Amendment, a march
Speaker 1: to change the constitution. Just say what it is, be
Speaker 1: honest about it. I don't like the dishonesty and it
Speaker 1: undermines any willingness that I really want to that that
Speaker 1: I'm willing to show the other side and discussing the
Speaker 1: issue much further with them, because I know it's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: They're gonna have a bunch of speeches that have been
Speaker 1: handed to or had activists working at least on, a
Speaker 1: bunch of speeches from you know, eighteen year olds, seventeen
Speaker 1: year old, sixteen year olds who were telling us about
Speaker 1: the role of guns in American society, as you know,
Speaker 1: to discuss school violence, which is going down and is
Speaker 1: actually quite rare. There's ale book of schools really haven't
Speaker 1: done it. Yeah, things happen all the time, folks, Lots
Speaker 1: of bad stuff happens all the time. I just found
Speaker 1: I was astonished yesterday forty thousand people died in car
Speaker 1: accents last year. I thought it was more like thirty.
Speaker 1: Very very bad things happen. That's not new, that's not unusual.
Speaker 1: That's not some revelation changing policy because and don't even
Speaker 1: get me started on why we're not talking about the
Speaker 1: violence that happens with students outside of schools. A lot
Speaker 1: of it are on drugs, a lot of the inner city. No, No,
Speaker 1: that that's not the discussion. Let's have a discussion instead
Speaker 1: about well, whatever it is they're gonna be talking about
Speaker 1: these marches, how cowardly politicians won't stand up to the
Speaker 1: n r A. How we're gonna have teenagers in some
Speaker 1: cases who have never voted, and I have no idea
Speaker 1: what they're talking about on any of these political issues,
Speaker 1: yelling at how the n r A owns politicians and
Speaker 1: the n r A is a terrorist organization, and adults
Speaker 1: are going to be standing behind them kind of snickering
Speaker 1: to each other, you know, ha ha. There's nothing. No
Speaker 1: one can say anything about this because these are the victims, right,
Speaker 1: these are this is now. This is now. Victim splaining
Speaker 1: is what is happening. Democrats love to do it. Speaking
Speaker 1: of House of Cards, that show, one of the main
Speaker 1: messages that it sends is that politics is spectacle. After
Speaker 1: spoiler alert, um, after Zoe Barnes is killed, clar sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm a little behind, okay, So that's the most controversial
Speaker 1: thing that's ever So after one of the characters is killed,
Speaker 1: Claire immediately turns to him your and starts putting on
Speaker 1: the makeup. And what that symbolizes is how politics is spectacle.
Speaker 1: That's in real life too. That's uh. David Hogg, who
Speaker 1: is now the the single most well known gun control advocate.
Speaker 1: After the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooting. He was there. He's
Speaker 1: been on all the different TV channels constantly. He's the
Speaker 1: one who accuses, without any pushback from the anchor, here's
Speaker 1: the n r A of being responsible for dead children
Speaker 1: and being a terrorist organization. Says, the n r A
Speaker 1: owns politicians. That's and now he's I'm sure he's gonna
Speaker 1: be giving the among the keynote addresses at one of
Speaker 1: these marchins. I'm not sure which one, but you're hearing
Speaker 1: there talking about you know, Yeah, he's watched House of Cards,
Speaker 1: so he understands politics and stuff. Look, you make yourself
Speaker 1: the center of a national political debate, you don't get
Speaker 1: to fall back on the Oh, no, I've been traumatized,
Speaker 1: so you can't say that what I'm saying is wrong
Speaker 1: or dumb. A lot of what that kid has said
Speaker 1: is wrong and dumb. Just the truth. I don't know
Speaker 1: why it's a problem for us to say it, but
Speaker 1: you know what, Democrats, it's often a problem to say
Speaker 1: the truth. Actually, these days the problem said the truth
Speaker 1: to a lot of people. Dr Rick wants to u
Speaker 1: join in the conversation from Silver Springs moment. Dr Rick,
Speaker 1: do you know where this is? This school pretty close
Speaker 1: to you? I know you're down in Maryland. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I mean what I know is, oh,
Speaker 1: oh at St. Mary's County. At schools not that big.
Speaker 1: I mean, how far away could this be? Probably about
Speaker 1: an hour away? Um, you know. And it's very sad,
Speaker 1: but this is not a mass shooting. And I was
Speaker 1: one another station talking about the mass shootings that occurred.
Speaker 1: These were very sick kids known for a long time.
Speaker 1: But my my, you know, I am just steamed because
Speaker 1: I paid twenty three thousand dollars a year to send
Speaker 1: my child to a Catholic school high school, and they
Speaker 1: were forced, you know, they wouldn't say it forced, but
Speaker 1: everyone left the school on the seventeen minutes to pray
Speaker 1: at the grotto. They tried to say it was only prayerful,
Speaker 1: but it was so political. And I've had ongoing dialogue
Speaker 1: with the president of the school and the principle because
Speaker 1: I am one of several vocal steamed parents about the
Speaker 1: um it's just being ran down the throat. There is
Speaker 1: no balance, there's no diversity of stall on this whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And it is just using them as political pawns and propaganda.
Speaker 1: It's indoctrination and it is despicable. Well, as I've been saying,
Speaker 1: and I would had to Matt Walsh over the Daily
Speaker 1: Wire for putting this idea out there publicly. Students should
Speaker 1: advocate for a walkout for life, meaning a pro life march,
Speaker 1: and see if the teachers unions and all these different
Speaker 1: schools across the country will back it. Excuse student absences,
Speaker 1: pay for people to be doing politics, the the adults
Speaker 1: on you know, on the on the clock. I'm willing
Speaker 1: to bet Dr Rick the answer is a firm no
Speaker 1: on all that. But they should test it. They should
Speaker 1: test the idea of doctor Oric. Thank you for calling
Speaker 1: it from Maryland. Um, we're gonna be talking about immigration
Speaker 1: coming up here in just a few moments. We've got
Speaker 1: more updates on that and my my thesis about the
Speaker 1: opioid epidemic and the cartels by the way, we're putting
Speaker 1: more and more together on that, seeing more research on.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that and also try and congratulated Putin.
Speaker 1: Oh no, that's so terrible, except Obama did exactly the
Speaker 1: same thing after Putin's last election victory. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America, buck Sexton his back. In another case,
Speaker 1: an alleged illegal gang member was arrested by the San
Speaker 1: Francisco Police Department more than ten times between two thousand
Speaker 1: and thirteen and two thousand and seventeen for charges including
Speaker 1: domestic battery, assault, theft, and rape. But San Francisco refused
Speaker 1: to cooperate with ice. You know that very well, don't
Speaker 1: you tell? You have a lot of problems with that,
Speaker 1: And he kept getting released over and over again. He
Speaker 1: was released. Sanctuary cities and states like California put innocent
Speaker 1: Americans at the mercy of hardened criminals, hardened murderers many cases.
Speaker 1: President Trump speaking on the fight over immigration right now,
Speaker 1: over illegal immigration, let's be quite clear on that, and
Speaker 1: all of the criminality and the negative ramifications, and all
Speaker 1: of the pain and suffering an expense that the American
Speaker 1: taxpayer has to go through because of illegal immigration. President
Speaker 1: Trump has had enough. He is giving voice to a
Speaker 1: frustration that has existed in this country for a long time.
Speaker 1: We finally have a commander in chief. We finally have
Speaker 1: a chief executive of the federal government who was saying
Speaker 1: this cannot stand. And it comes at a particularly important
Speaker 1: time here because you have a number of major fights
Speaker 1: over illegal immigration going on right now. For one, remember
Speaker 1: that the mayor who tipped off this was in Oakland.
Speaker 1: I believe the mayor who tipped off legal immigrants to
Speaker 1: array that was coming. And Jeff Sessions, who as you know,
Speaker 1: was on the show last week, the Attorney General, completely
Speaker 1: skewered that decision. I just thought that was, as he said,
Speaker 1: an outrage. And some of them, some of the illegals
Speaker 1: who dodged the law enforcement effort to pick them up
Speaker 1: because of that early warning by that Oakland mayor, according
Speaker 1: to Fox News here, have been picked off for new
Speaker 1: crimes that they have committed. So some of the ones
Speaker 1: that got away thanks to the Oakland mayor did other
Speaker 1: criminal things and so now they have been grab But
Speaker 1: there's another really important fight playing out in California where
Speaker 1: the city of Los Alamitos, a small California city, is
Speaker 1: trying to exempt itself from the state law in California,
Speaker 1: which is effectively lawlessness. He it is a an effort,
Speaker 1: an effort through the legislature, the California state legislature, to
Speaker 1: prevent any worthwhile serious cooperation with immigration authorities. The state
Speaker 1: of California. It's doing everything that it can. Just shy
Speaker 1: of ordering state law enforcement to stand in the doorway
Speaker 1: and not let federal officers go through. That would be
Speaker 1: a very big problem. But they're doing everything up to that. Right.
Speaker 1: We we don't want private citizens to help immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement. We don't want uh, we don't want law
Speaker 1: enforcement to do so except in very narrow and specific circumstances. Uh.
Speaker 1: They are just deciding for the people of California that
Speaker 1: illegal immigration is not illegal. That's what they're doing. There's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with it. Like they should be forced every
Speaker 1: California politician should be forced to answer the question do
Speaker 1: you think there is anything wrong with illegal immigration? Because
Speaker 1: they would say on the record, I don't think they would.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they would say no. They would
Speaker 1: say future illegal immigration maybe is a problem. But illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants in the country. No. They they they pick our produce.
Speaker 1: They you know, they work in our restaurants, they work
Speaker 1: in the service industry. They're the the the lifeblood of
Speaker 1: American entrepreneurship. Now all that stuff. The Democrat Party is
Speaker 1: absolutely decided on this issue right now. This they're becoming
Speaker 1: increasingly a well I'd say a three a three issue party.
Speaker 1: The Democrat Party today is defined by abortion, illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: and redistribution of wealth, class warfare. Those are that's really
Speaker 1: the the the triad of bad that the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is pulling together. Now, those are the issue shoes. You'll
Speaker 1: see them rally around the most, the ones they believe
Speaker 1: in the most. Abortion, illegal immigration, and redistribution of wealth,
Speaker 1: which is just a nice way of saying Marxism. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: or how about we'll do class warfare. There we go,
Speaker 1: class warfare. That one, I think is quite fair. One
Speaker 1: of the things about the immigration issue, as you know,
Speaker 1: I've been doing some deep dive research on my own
Speaker 1: into the cartels and what's going on in Mexico, and
Speaker 1: I've been seeing a trend for a while here. You
Speaker 1: have over sixty thousand dead in the last year for
Speaker 1: which we have complete numbers. I think it was sixty
Speaker 1: thousand dead or sixty three thousand and seen might have been.
Speaker 1: I think it's seen. Anyway, over sixty tho are dying
Speaker 1: a year from the opioid epidemic. You had Trump up
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire, Jeff Sessions. They're pushing all kinds of
Speaker 1: new policies. I'll probably address that in some more detail tomorrow.
Speaker 1: The the opioid crisis and how they're trying to tackle it.
Speaker 1: But as a uh, part of the discussion that I
Speaker 1: think it's left out ties very much into the immigration discussion.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that you have
Speaker 1: over sixty people dying in this country from drug overdoses
Speaker 1: and it's almost entirely the result of unscrupulous doctors. No, no,
Speaker 1: and I know that. You know, if if I pushed
Speaker 1: enough on this issue and people said no, no, of
Speaker 1: course there's I mean, heroin is illegal, right, so anyone
Speaker 1: who's overdosing on heroin. But people say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: people get hooked on the legal opioid and they go
Speaker 1: to heroin because it's more plentiful, it's cheaper. I say,
Speaker 1: wait a second, why is it more plentiful? Why is
Speaker 1: it cheaper? Or because of the cartels, because of the
Speaker 1: Mexican narco traffickers, because of their poppy growing operations in
Speaker 1: Mexico now no longer having to import it from South
Speaker 1: America or even South Asia. No, no, it's right across
Speaker 1: the border now they are growing poppy. They are also
Speaker 1: importing some cases from massive Chinese factories. Thanks for that one, China.
Speaker 1: Another thing China's doing to hurt us. Uh, they're sending
Speaker 1: in fentanyl and the chemical opioids and bringing them in
Speaker 1: in large quantities. I don't have the owners known as this.
Speaker 1: Over at Conservative View or Review, Daniel Horowitz wrote a
Speaker 1: piece Trump is right on drug traffickers. Heroin and fentanyl
Speaker 1: are killing us. Seriously, It's not from prescriptions. Here's what
Speaker 1: he writes the first paragraph. Those who claim to be
Speaker 1: morally outraged by Trump's proposal the death penalty for drug traffickers,
Speaker 1: especially cartel leaders, either have no heart themselves or oblivious
Speaker 1: to the worst drug drug epidemic ever and how it
Speaker 1: came about. And then he goes into some details about
Speaker 1: synthetic opioids and the you know what, I'll let me
Speaker 1: because I have to run in a break here. Um,
Speaker 1: but here's the bottom line quote. The epidemic we are
Speaker 1: facing today is not from prescription opioids, at least not
Speaker 1: more than it has been foreign entire generation. The number
Speaker 1: of prescriptions has already been reduced dramatically, almost the entirety
Speaker 1: of the increased fatalities above the long term existing trajectory.
Speaker 1: We're from illicit drugs and mainly the most dangerous one
Speaker 1: heroin end quote. Folks, the cartels are open border, illegal
Speaker 1: immigration and illegal crossings. They are killing thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of US. It's the Democrats and the people on the
Speaker 1: other side who are fueling this speculation. I can't see
Speaker 1: any conceivable reason why the president would even consider firing
Speaker 1: um Motherer. That would create a real problem on the
Speaker 1: Republican side of the aisle, as well as obviously on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side of the aisle. I don't think he's
Speaker 1: going to fire him. I don't think he should fire him.
Speaker 1: So we have to keep hearing stories though about how
Speaker 1: Trump may fire Mueller, may fire Muller, breaking news. Trump
Speaker 1: may fire Muller, and I could wake up tomorrow and
Speaker 1: we could be on a collision course with an asteroid
Speaker 1: that would destroy the planet. But I don't run that
Speaker 1: as breaking news every day. At some point this turns
Speaker 1: into what is clearly silly. At some point, this is
Speaker 1: just too much. Oh, he's gonna He's gonna fire Muller.
Speaker 1: Now that's said. I really wish we could get on
Speaker 1: message here, because you do have some Republicans it's not
Speaker 1: just Democrats. Occasionally Republicans will come out and say, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's time to fire Muller. Like this, Matt gets
Speaker 1: fellow in Congress. I think that the president firing Mr
Speaker 1: Muller would create a series of conflicts and and other
Speaker 1: downstream effects that would be bad for the country. I
Speaker 1: think this is the job of the Attorney General. Because
Speaker 1: there's been no evidence of collusion produced by the Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: and because there's been a House finding of no conclusion
Speaker 1: in the Intelligence Committee, I think the Attorney General would
Speaker 1: be right to renounce his refusal to re establish command
Speaker 1: of the Department of Justice, and then to give Bob
Speaker 1: Muller a time period to produce the evidence that he
Speaker 1: may or may not have regarding collusion, and if he
Speaker 1: doesn't produce it, let's wrap this up and move on
Speaker 1: to tax cuts and other important things for the country.
Speaker 1: So he's saying, let's let's have Sessions renounce the recusal
Speaker 1: and then come back in and then kind of wind
Speaker 1: this thing down. But he's gotta understand that if that happens,
Speaker 1: they're gonna say that there's pressure from the outside, and
Speaker 1: it's as good as a firing and so we are
Speaker 1: stuck with this thing, folks, And the White House has
Speaker 1: come out and said not thinking about it. I believe
Speaker 1: Seawan Sean Hannity on his show has already said, Look,
Speaker 1: no one's even talking about Mueller getting fired. There's been
Speaker 1: assurances across the board it's not going to happen. And
Speaker 1: I I do think that the fallout from it would
Speaker 1: be would be strong. The fallout from it would cause
Speaker 1: some problems. But I'm just But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, there is a part of me
Speaker 1: that figures they're gonna hate Trump no matter what. Unless
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress really planned on turning on the President
Speaker 1: because he took moves, whether it was a tell Sessions, look,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of ways that could happen, right, Maybe
Speaker 1: Sessions decides he's had enough and he wants to move aside.
Speaker 1: Maybe he tells Sessions on recuse yourself. This is nonsense,
Speaker 1: And I don't know, but but shutting it down in
Speaker 1: some way or creating a definitive endpoint to the Mueller probe.
Speaker 1: I understand why everyone's saying no, no, no, But there's
Speaker 1: a part of me that feels like, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: this is one big, ikey, crusty band aid that you
Speaker 1: just have to just just rip it off. Man. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's gonna it's gonna leave you with quite an alley afterwards.
Speaker 1: But there's a there is a part of that, it
Speaker 1: feels like this is what needs to be done here. Um,
Speaker 1: I understand it's not going to happen, and I'm not
Speaker 1: suggesting that it should happen. I'm just saying I understand
Speaker 1: the impulse. I'm just saying that I've really had enough
Speaker 1: of the Mueller probe. I'm I'm sick of it. I
Speaker 1: think that it is destructive. I think it's hurting the country.
Speaker 1: I think that it's become a clown show. I think
Speaker 1: it's obviously Democrat operatives working against the president, and they are.
Speaker 1: They are a cabal, and I mean, you can't make
Speaker 1: this stuff up, folks. Call me is like the man scorned,
Speaker 1: and Mueller his close buddy is the one who's supposed
Speaker 1: to get vengeance for Comey and Hillary and all the
Speaker 1: rest of them. Understand that that top layer call Mey
Speaker 1: Brannan Brandon was probably gonna be Secretary of State if
Speaker 1: he if Hillary Clinton won, very very possible, right, They
Speaker 1: all feel like Hillary's loss personally affected them in ways
Speaker 1: that they feel like they deserve some some justice for
Speaker 1: they feel like Hillary losing to Trump cost them personally.
Speaker 1: And these are the people that have been unearthed now
Speaker 1: in this investigation, and some of them are directly tied
Speaker 1: to those who are running who are currently running the
Speaker 1: Special Council. It's so many, there are so many conflicts
Speaker 1: of interest her. But notice how the Democrats play the game.
Speaker 1: On our side, we have Attorney General Sessions is trying
Speaker 1: to be honorable, trying to be ethical. He accuses himself.
Speaker 1: Whether you like that decision or not, it's based in
Speaker 1: in an effort at ethical conduct. And did the REDDA
Speaker 1: inch accuse herself and the Hillary email investigation, come on,
Speaker 1: what are you? Are you a toddler? Right, that's what
Speaker 1: they would say. That's a joke. Roland's not gonna recuse herself,
Speaker 1: is gonna be there make sure the Hillary is okay.
Speaker 1: The Democrat Party's fortunes rested on hillary shoulders, as scary
Speaker 1: as that was, and the careers of a lot of
Speaker 1: these people who now we're finding out did in fact
Speaker 1: abuse their power and their authority in order to assist
Speaker 1: the anti Trump effort. A lot of them would have
Speaker 1: advanced their careers even more too. So I I just
Speaker 1: look at this and and uh, I wonder if it's
Speaker 1: if we will let me put it to you this way,
Speaker 1: because I go back and forth, as you can tell,
Speaker 1: usually come into a segment. I'm like, this is the truth,
Speaker 1: this is what's best, this is what should happen with
Speaker 1: the you know, with with fiery Mueller, or with with
Speaker 1: shutting down the Special Council of the Apartment. It's like me,
Speaker 1: you know, at first, like oh no, no, it's crazy,
Speaker 1: we can't do that. That's a part of it goes Hey,
Speaker 1: there are worse things, There are worse things we can
Speaker 1: We can allow this to drag on forever. Ask yourself
Speaker 1: this question. Is there a point at which the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel would have gone on for too long? We would
Speaker 1: have seen too many news stories about it, too many
Speaker 1: you know, seeing and oh my gosh, the Special Counsel
Speaker 1: is going to be interviewing the lunch lady from the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign's headquarters. At what point is it too much?
Speaker 1: At what point have we heard too many preposterous conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories on TV? I can't even keep up with the conspiracies. Now,
Speaker 1: so this week, what is it that's right? This week?
Speaker 1: It's a combination of Russia and Facebook. Don't forget that.
Speaker 1: For a while they put this all on Comey. Comey
Speaker 1: was the guy that calls Hillary the election for a
Speaker 1: good while. They've changed their tune on this. But that's
Speaker 1: a relatively new component of all this, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: or or rather they they've dropped that for now, but
Speaker 1: called me by bringing up the emails. See they stopped
Speaker 1: why they stopped talking about that because now Comy is
Speaker 1: the hero who got the special Counsel started. It's almost
Speaker 1: like Comey wanted to worm his way back into the
Speaker 1: good graces of the elite establishment just in time too,
Speaker 1: I don't know, get him all a million dollar advance
Speaker 1: on his book, right, and to pray at the altar
Speaker 1: of comyn. This is a guy who self regard exceeds well.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people with a lot of self
Speaker 1: regard these days in the media and in government, so
Speaker 1: I can't even really find a benchmark for him. But
Speaker 1: it's crazy how much this guy loves himself. Crazy how
Speaker 1: much Comy is a I saw it written somewhere I
Speaker 1: can't remember where, it was now, but someone described Comy
Speaker 1: as a commy is ist. It's a very accurate description
Speaker 1: of how this individual is approaching so many different pretending
Speaker 1: he's a commy is ist in Patriots clothing, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: he's a he's a commyist. That he's always acting like
Speaker 1: he's the last honest man in in d C. And
Speaker 1: I always knew that there was a problem because he
Speaker 1: went along with that narrative, and the media was pushing
Speaker 1: that narrative long before the email thing, long before a
Speaker 1: lot of or rather when he brought the emails up.
Speaker 1: I'm talking right before the election, not before Hillary's email problem,
Speaker 1: but they were always all, you know, called me the
Speaker 1: last honest man. They're building him up so much during
Speaker 1: the email investigation into Hillary Server, I like, this guy
Speaker 1: is just he's buying his own press. You can't you
Speaker 1: can't trust this guy is someone you can trust. Sure Enough,
Speaker 1: we find out later on that he is a huge
Speaker 1: weirdo with no self awareness. And that's what we're dealing
Speaker 1: with now. So all right, don't fire Muller, but let's
Speaker 1: not rule out entirely forever A minimum will give seen
Speaker 1: and something to freak out about. If we just even
Speaker 1: talk about in the future. So that's where I come
Speaker 1: down on this one. I'm gonna give a little more thoughts,
Speaker 1: see if I can come up with a definitive buck answer.
Speaker 1: We got our three coming up. Stay with him. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now, because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Welcome to our
Speaker 1: three of the bucks X and show everyone, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being here. Uh wow, show is really
Speaker 1: moving along tonight. Um. We have this reality of a
Speaker 1: media that acts like we don't have access to the internet,
Speaker 1: that we can't look up the way things were, that
Speaker 1: whatever they say is going to be accepted as truth,
Speaker 1: and that hypocrisy is not going to be a problem.
Speaker 1: Let let me get into what I mean specifically here.
Speaker 1: All right. You had President Trump speaking today about have
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin won the election, and Trump said the following
Speaker 1: I had a call with President Putin and congratulated him
Speaker 1: on the victory, his electoral victory. The call had to
Speaker 1: do also with the fact that we will uh probably
Speaker 1: get together in the not too distant future. We are
Speaker 1: spending seven billion dollars this year and our military and
Speaker 1: a lot of it is that we are going to
Speaker 1: remain stronger than any other nation in the world by far.
Speaker 1: We will never allow anybody to have anything even close
Speaker 1: to what we had. So Trump was getting a lot
Speaker 1: of heat for calling Vladimir Putin, and people were piling
Speaker 1: on that, Oh my gosh, the Kremlin's puppet. I mean,
Speaker 1: they act like they act like Trump is somehow exposing
Speaker 1: himself more and more with each passing day as how
Speaker 1: pro Russia he is. Meanwhile, Trump is the one who
Speaker 1: has the administration that is slapping even more sanctions on Russia.
Speaker 1: Trump is the one who has given sniper rifles, anti
Speaker 1: tank missiles to the Ukrainian Resistance, or rather Ukrainian National Government,
Speaker 1: fighting against the rebels in eastern Ukraine. Trump is the
Speaker 1: one who is the commander in chief while US forces
Speaker 1: backing up Kords in Syria killed two hundred Russians. We
Speaker 1: don't even know the number is The reports very widely,
Speaker 1: But that's all been Trump. But because of trump arrangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: the media still believes and he somehow a Russian puppet,
Speaker 1: that he secretly goes to bed at night pledging allegiance
Speaker 1: to the Kremlin, and that he mumbles Russian proverbs in
Speaker 1: his sleep. Meanwhile, the rest of us, trying to live
Speaker 1: in reality, see this for what it is, which is
Speaker 1: the president United States making a call to another head
Speaker 1: of state after he has had their version of an election.
Speaker 1: Now people will say to me, and I know, I
Speaker 1: can I can see it coming. They'll say, oh, but
Speaker 1: we will condemn unfair election practices in Iran, and we'll
Speaker 1: condemn it in North Korea, and we'll condemn it. And
Speaker 1: you know, name a dictatorship somewhere or quasi dictatorship. Did that?
Speaker 1: I respond, yeah, Well, every situation when you're talking talking
Speaker 1: about international relations is unique. Notice how the intelligencia, the
Speaker 1: so called smart set, all those very intelligent people and
Speaker 1: foggy bottom walking around, not like all the palises. Excuse me, sir,
Speaker 1: do you realize that we could give him a day
Speaker 1: marsh and if we did marshed him enough, he might
Speaker 1: in fact yield to our palaceated mads. In reality, Russia
Speaker 1: is still a very important country with a very large
Speaker 1: nuclear arsenal. It is much more important for what it
Speaker 1: can do on the bad side of things than what
Speaker 1: it is doing on the good side. But nonetheless, we
Speaker 1: don't have a choice of acting like Russia doesn't exist,
Speaker 1: and we don't have the choice of constantly antagonizing the
Speaker 1: Russian state more than we already are. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: operating in a world where we already have sanctions in place,
Speaker 1: we already have a media that is obsessed with Putin.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he must kind of get a
Speaker 1: giggle out of it sometimes, or giggle, but you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, he must crack something of a smile
Speaker 1: as he is shirtless doing judo wrestling, bears, discovering priceless
Speaker 1: artifacts in the sea, all that stuff that he does
Speaker 1: because of this obsession here and and it even expanded
Speaker 1: two Sarah huckeyby standers getting grilled today on this specifically,
Speaker 1: as the White House believes that the election in Russia
Speaker 1: was free and fair. Look in terms of the election,
Speaker 1: uh there. We're focused on our elections. We don't get
Speaker 1: to dictate how other countries operate. Um what we do
Speaker 1: know is that um Putin has been elected in their country,
Speaker 1: and that's not something that we can dictate to them
Speaker 1: how they operate. We can only focus on the freeness
Speaker 1: and the fairness of our elections, something we fully support
Speaker 1: and something we're going to continue to do everything we
Speaker 1: can to protect to make sure bad actors don't have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to impact them in any way. This has
Speaker 1: really turned into a game for the media. It's it's
Speaker 1: like Putin baiting. You know, they just want there's never
Speaker 1: enough that Trump can do to satisfy their lust for
Speaker 1: humiliating Russia and and speaking down to Russia and speaking
Speaker 1: in bellicast terms about the Russian state. What purpose would
Speaker 1: it serve right now for the United States government to
Speaker 1: officially condemn the election in Russia? What is that going
Speaker 1: to do? And I would also know that do we
Speaker 1: really do we really know the full extent of the irregularities.
Speaker 1: I'm not being a Putent apologist here. I know that
Speaker 1: he cracks down on dissent. I know he plays super dirty.
Speaker 1: I know he's basically a dictator. But he also has
Speaker 1: a lot of popular support in the country. Is it
Speaker 1: seventy per cent or no, But as the votes votality
Speaker 1: was basically you know, it's probably in the high fifties.
Speaker 1: It's a lot more than you get in a usual
Speaker 1: presidential administration. Here. Now that's not to say that there's
Speaker 1: that his situation was better. He's doing a better job.
Speaker 1: It's just to suggest that we don't have the option
Speaker 1: of sitting around and just going la la la, don't
Speaker 1: know Russia, la la, don't want to talk to Russia.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work that way. And we are already taking
Speaker 1: actions that show our displeasure on the diplomatic stage with
Speaker 1: what they're doing. It gets even more tense if we
Speaker 1: start having the White House spokesman or the President himself
Speaker 1: saying that, yeah, your election was a sham. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: whole thing is a joke. How could we expect to
Speaker 1: have any constructive dialogue with the Russian state going forward?
Speaker 1: Keep in mind, these are the same journalists you're look
Speaker 1: up when Obama said that, you know, he would trans
Speaker 1: met to Vladimir. You know, he was just talking about
Speaker 1: just talking about, you know, his favorite i iPod list
Speaker 1: or whatever. You know, he's just listening to tunes. You
Speaker 1: remember that, right, you know, after the election, will have
Speaker 1: more freedom, and mid videv saying it will throns middewsto
Speaker 1: Vladomuir just like that, Actually it will tron smidnewsto Vladomuir.
Speaker 1: And he's like touching his thigh and the whole thing,
Speaker 1: and they're very chummy, very chummy. Obama straight up set
Speaker 1: it on an open mic. Once I've won the election,
Speaker 1: then I can basically do what I wanna do, which
Speaker 1: is give you guys what you want to make you happy,
Speaker 1: because that's how Obama does diplomacy America. You know, we've
Speaker 1: done bad things, were naughty. We need to be punished.
Speaker 1: So whatever Iron wants, we're basically going to give them
Speaker 1: within the context of getting some semblance of a deal. Well,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna make it too painful them because we
Speaker 1: don't want to be meat. And he was planning the
Speaker 1: same things with Usha. I guess I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: not Obama. But then again, I also didn't say that.
Speaker 1: I didn't say that it was a good idea to
Speaker 1: pass along to the Russian the real Russian premier, remember Medvidev.
Speaker 1: At the time, you know, maybe it's kind of Putin's puppet,
Speaker 1: actually Putin's puppet. But now it's this game that journalists play. Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, you haven't condemned Russia enough, you haven't said
Speaker 1: enough nasty things about the Russian state. These are people
Speaker 1: who until now, until Trump was president, I didn't want
Speaker 1: to push back against any dictators. The same journalists, my friends,
Speaker 1: who are lecturing all of us on how Trump is
Speaker 1: just so warm and fuzzy towards Russia and oh he
Speaker 1: won't are the ones that are always coddling Fidel Castro.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who are always making excuses for Maduro.
Speaker 1: By the way, Venezuela launched a cryptocurrency because they're just
Speaker 1: trying to do whatever they can to get around sections
Speaker 1: and prevent the complete collapse of their economy, social justice
Speaker 1: warrior economy. That's what Venezuela has. Remember that, my friends,
Speaker 1: and the administration via executive order, as in a side
Speaker 1: our administration, President Trump slapped down their cryptocurrency, Venezuela's cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: with an executive order that you can't get involved with
Speaker 1: that anyway. I digress. But these journalists can always find
Speaker 1: the good in any regime around the world. You know,
Speaker 1: they can take that. They can take this side of
Speaker 1: whomever sits across the table from any Republican president. And
Speaker 1: yet on Russia we find ourselves with the media that
Speaker 1: will say, well, hold on a second, you're being too
Speaker 1: nice to the other side. Okay, in this case, changes
Speaker 1: changes the tune. What a surprise what a shock. This
Speaker 1: is a mass delusion. I really, I mean this. It's
Speaker 1: a mass psychosis. Trump arrangement syndrome is actually a mental disorder.
Speaker 1: The media suffers from it, and Russia is like the
Speaker 1: main trigger. I'll hit a quick break, will be right back. Yeah.
Speaker 1: When I was eleven years old, life was tough. There's mamma,
Speaker 1: she don't want me no more, and she don't want me.
Speaker 1: You're neither, and I've always loved music. Dad. I can
Speaker 1: do this how you can, And you're gonna blink your
Speaker 1: eyes and you're gonna realize that life has got you
Speaker 1: nowhere because you chased some stupid drink I didn't want.
Speaker 1: My dad was a monster, and I saw God transform him,
Speaker 1: and so I wrote this song from my dad. That
Speaker 1: is from the film I can only imagine out in
Speaker 1: yeters now. It broke in the top three overall the
Speaker 1: box office, even though it's an independent film. Very few
Speaker 1: independent films exceed expectations right away like this one. This
Speaker 1: is doing well beyond what everyone thought, or at least
Speaker 1: what the meaty industry expected. And we actually have John
Speaker 1: Irwin with us right now. John uh and his brother
Speaker 1: Andy are directing team and he is the director of
Speaker 1: this one. John, thanks for joining us. Hey, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. I just can't Uh, we're all in a
Speaker 1: stunned state of shocked. This is such a huge when um,
Speaker 1: you know, uh for this movie and and for Christians
Speaker 1: and people of values in general. Uh. We we just
Speaker 1: shocked the industry. Uh. And you know, I can only
Speaker 1: imagine was was estimated to do between two to four
Speaker 1: million opening weekend, and it did over seventeen and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, landing right behind Tomb Raider and above Wrinkle
Speaker 1: in Time. And it's just uh, it's it's I don't
Speaker 1: have words for of gratitude for everyone that went and
Speaker 1: saw the film. Your voice has been heard. We we
Speaker 1: just shook up an industry over the weekend. And I
Speaker 1: think it just shows, uh, you know how many fans
Speaker 1: of this song there are, and and I'm one of them.
Speaker 1: This song was a beacon of hope to me in
Speaker 1: a tough season in my life and has been to
Speaker 1: millions of other people as well. And I'm just so
Speaker 1: honored now to you know, uh, for it to be
Speaker 1: getting this this type of recognition and and uh and
Speaker 1: it's just a big win for all of us, John,
Speaker 1: for those listening across the country who may not know
Speaker 1: the story of the film. Can you just give us
Speaker 1: a bit of a summary, and then also the song
Speaker 1: and how that ties into it. Yeah, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I can only imagine it's the best selling, most played
Speaker 1: Christian song of all time, crossed over too many pop
Speaker 1: and country charts as well, number one most requested song
Speaker 1: on a lot of top forty stations, and and uh,
Speaker 1: it just it was this anomaly, and uh and come
Speaker 1: to find out, there's this incredible story behind the song.
Speaker 1: And uh and I remember Bart Millard who wrote it,
Speaker 1: whose lead singer of Mercy me Um he hadn't he
Speaker 1: hooked when he said, Uh, I know God is real
Speaker 1: because of the change I saw my dad, He said,
Speaker 1: I watched the monster transform into my best friend and
Speaker 1: the man I wanted to become. And there's just no
Speaker 1: other explanation for it. Then what God did in his life.
Speaker 1: And so that incredible story of reconciliation between a father
Speaker 1: and son and redemption, it's really what we fell in
Speaker 1: love with. And so I can only imagine to a
Speaker 1: song about heaven. We all know that, but we don't
Speaker 1: know is it's a son singing for his father. Because
Speaker 1: their relationship was completely mended and put back together. And
Speaker 1: to see Dennis Quaid portray that transformation and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: uh brokenness and and redemption. Uh. When he signed on
Speaker 1: of the project, he says, I've never played transformation like
Speaker 1: a is before. You know, I've never taken a character
Speaker 1: this full circle and uh, he does such a great
Speaker 1: job in the film. How long ago did you decide
Speaker 1: you wanted to work on this project? This take a
Speaker 1: bit to get it done? Or do you realize right away?
Speaker 1: And were you able to thread the needle of putting
Speaker 1: together a project like this? It's been so successful? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that overall. Um, you know, films
Speaker 1: always take a lot of time, but this one actually
Speaker 1: went faster than anything that we've ever done. We were
Speaker 1: exposed to the project and he was actually at the screening,
Speaker 1: uh of one of our other films, and Bart uh came,
Speaker 1: We've worked we worked the music business for many years
Speaker 1: before we did films, and and they were talking and
Speaker 1: and Bart loved our films, and he said, Uh, is
Speaker 1: there anyways you guys would ever take a look at
Speaker 1: my story because it has been in development in another
Speaker 1: studio and kind of wasn't going anywhere, and uh and
Speaker 1: he said, you know what's interesting if they sent the
Speaker 1: script this morning and uh. So from that and so
Speaker 1: we took a look at it, fell in love with
Speaker 1: the story. From that point on, it was just like this.
Speaker 1: It was there was a fate to the project. There
Speaker 1: was it was almost left. We were all strapped to
Speaker 1: a freight train and uh and the film had a
Speaker 1: will of its own and it was just kind of
Speaker 1: coincidence after coincidence that that's what you want to call them,
Speaker 1: that every step of this project has just been a
Speaker 1: miracle and uh and it happened a lot faster than
Speaker 1: most projects happened. The audience has spoken with more than
Speaker 1: just their their dollars here, which as a filmmaker and
Speaker 1: we're speaking to uh John Irwin, John and Andy Irwin
Speaker 1: or the directing team and production studio behind. I can
Speaker 1: only imagine which is out in theaters now, everyone listening
Speaker 1: across the country. But when you see some of the
Speaker 1: stories that are coming out about this, John, people are
Speaker 1: saying that, uh, that viewers that the audience is staying
Speaker 1: afterwards to pray or to seeing people are going to
Speaker 1: theaters multiple times to see this movie. This is having
Speaker 1: a real impact on people. They're not just saying yeah,
Speaker 1: that was all right. Yeah, Well you know what's what's
Speaker 1: Uh my favorite, um kind of response from the film is, uh,
Speaker 1: there was a first happen in superall South Dakota, and
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, I think people love the film.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's very entertaining, it's very emotional. You'll laugh,
Speaker 1: you will cry, hopefully you'll cheer. But to see some
Speaker 1: of the responses after the film, there's a guy that
Speaker 1: wouldn't leave the theater until he found his dad on Facebook.
Speaker 1: He hadn't seen his dad since he was fourteen years old.
Speaker 1: He was harboring a lot of anger and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: in bitterness, found him on Facebook, met within the next day,
Speaker 1: forgave him, told him he loved him, re established connection
Speaker 1: and and and and God's kind of healing them both,
Speaker 1: you know. And if, boy, if that could happen all
Speaker 1: over America, if relationships could be mended and restored, Um,
Speaker 1: how cool would that be. There's so much in our
Speaker 1: culture that's tearing us apart. To have something that brings
Speaker 1: us back together and and mince what's broken. Uh, that
Speaker 1: could be a cool thing. I think in society in general,
Speaker 1: but certainly for for the family and to see that
Speaker 1: begin to have and all over the country is a
Speaker 1: really cool, uh kind of result of the film. John.
Speaker 1: I know people can go to the Facebook page for
Speaker 1: I can only imagine movie. It's Facebook, dot com slash,
Speaker 1: I can only imagine movie. Um. But if folks want
Speaker 1: to go see it, I know it's it's in theaters.
Speaker 1: But is there is there a digital option or do
Speaker 1: you have to find a theater near you or how
Speaker 1: can folks see it? Yeah, you can see it. It's
Speaker 1: in theaters nationwide. We're actually um, we're actually scaling significantly.
Speaker 1: Will be in over almost twenty three theaters this weekend,
Speaker 1: which is one of the largest um kind of footprints
Speaker 1: ever for a Christian film. And uh, just because of
Speaker 1: the success of last weekend. And so uh check it out,
Speaker 1: get out to a theater, and when you do, you
Speaker 1: create something called fomo. It means the fear of missing out.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the coolest ways that we
Speaker 1: can get the attention of a generation again. And so
Speaker 1: your movie think it is your vote, and so it
Speaker 1: in theaters nationwide. You good. I can only imagine dot com.
Speaker 1: It'll be on DVD and everything after that, but gotiate
Speaker 1: in the theater. The theater, everybody, I can only imagine
Speaker 1: is the movie. John Irwin, producer and director. John, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your time today. Hey, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. All right, team, we are rolling her break
Speaker 1: will be right back. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton his back. You know, some of these ostensibly
Speaker 1: Catholic institutions, some of these universities that are supposed to
Speaker 1: have a Catholic or even just a Christian affiliation, are
Speaker 1: increasingly abandoning whatever vestiges there are of actually being Christian.
Speaker 1: And that ties into a decision at holy Cross, a
Speaker 1: school up in Massachusetts, very good school. A lot of
Speaker 1: my high school classmates. I went to a Jesuit Catholic
Speaker 1: school here in New York City, and a lot of
Speaker 1: the guys from my year and from all the years
Speaker 1: at Regious High School would end up going to holy Cross.
Speaker 1: I think they even had a specific scholarship for a
Speaker 1: Regious student, or we send people there on scholarships. A
Speaker 1: lot I know that, and it's a very good institution.
Speaker 1: And sure enough, political correctness has struck once again. Holy
Speaker 1: Cross has gotten rid of the night mascot, you know,
Speaker 1: a night like the Knights of the Round Table, the
Speaker 1: Knights of King Arthur. Right, they've gotten rid of the
Speaker 1: night mascot because of the association. Does anyone to guess
Speaker 1: before I go there, why would Holy Cross drop a night?
Speaker 1: I mean, a night is not something that's inherently good
Speaker 1: or bad? Right, it's really referring to a a mounted
Speaker 1: cavalryman with plate armor, landed nobility, right, and it depends
Speaker 1: on knights have been around for a long time. The
Speaker 1: whole notion, it actually stretches all the way back to
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire and the cavalry, which was a designation
Speaker 1: that was only it was really based upon socioeconomic status. Yeah,
Speaker 1: equitez romani um. So that's where we we get all
Speaker 1: this terminology like equestrian. But anyway back to nights. Uh.
Speaker 1: You would think that this is a pretty safe mascot
Speaker 1: to have, but you'd be wrong. The College of the
Speaker 1: Holy Cross has announced that it is dropping the night
Speaker 1: mascot because of the crew Sades. Oh that's right, that
Speaker 1: thing that a bunch of Christians just did with no
Speaker 1: provocation and for no reason whatsoever. It just was trying
Speaker 1: to be mean to those peaceful Muslims in the Holy
Speaker 1: Land in the uh twelfth century, eleventh centuries. It was
Speaker 1: That's what it was really all about, just being mean
Speaker 1: those Muslim armies that had just showed up that they
Speaker 1: invited people to join Islam. There was no conquest there.
Speaker 1: It's not like, Oh wait, those of you who listened
Speaker 1: to this show know about the Byzantine Empire, know about
Speaker 1: Eastern Orthodox Christianities history in fighting against the Islamic expansion
Speaker 1: in the Islamic Conquest. You know about the fall of Constantinople,
Speaker 1: but well before that, you also all know about the
Speaker 1: lead up to the First Crusade, in which Muslim armies
Speaker 1: made it not just into the Holy Land to seize Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: but all the way across North Africa up through Spain.
Speaker 1: And we're only turned back by Charles Martel. The But
Speaker 1: I digress. So they're dropping this. And this goes to
Speaker 1: my theory that even mascots that you think right now
Speaker 1: are safe are not. You just have to give it
Speaker 1: some time. Even those mascots that you would assume, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, there's no way they could really be
Speaker 1: offended by this. Oh no, they will find a way
Speaker 1: I've been joking or half joking for a while that
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of time before they decide that
Speaker 1: the Vikings become too politically incorrect and the NFL is
Speaker 1: going to be dealing with all kinds of pushback. They're
Speaker 1: fighting Irish, It's already happened. People have complained about the fighting.
Speaker 1: Irish Vikings were into some pretty intense stuff in their day,
Speaker 1: you know. They their first contact with Christianity involved arriving
Speaker 1: at completely unguarded monasteries in what is today England and
Speaker 1: in Ireland and massacring everybody, so you know, and then
Speaker 1: there was the whole slavery that the Vikings engaged in.
Speaker 1: They would go and pillage, they would rape and pillage
Speaker 1: whole villages, and they would take slaves. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we think of Vikings is kind of a produvader, you know,
Speaker 1: these comical warriors from cartoons with big helmets with and
Speaker 1: then by the way that the helmets with the horns
Speaker 1: that actually comes from the opera, that's not really something
Speaker 1: good has anything can do with the way Vikings would
Speaker 1: actually dress for battle, even though we think of it
Speaker 1: that way, or we are led by pop culture to
Speaker 1: think of it that way. But yeah, they got rid
Speaker 1: of the Crusader, or rather they got rid of I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: the Knights if it were Crusaders, which I will know.
Speaker 1: There are a number of schools that the Crusaders are
Speaker 1: in fact the mascot. I wonder if my own high school.
Speaker 1: At some point the Raiders like Raiders of the Lost Arc.
Speaker 1: Are they going to say that that has some connotation
Speaker 1: with the Raids against you know, I don't even know
Speaker 1: where the Ocean of the Raiders comes from. Um. But oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, the buccaneers people figure out that piracy
Speaker 1: very violent, very very much part of the patriarchy. Piracy.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of women pirates, you know, not a
Speaker 1: lot of women captain ing of the pirate ships. So
Speaker 1: that's gonna that's gonna fall by the wayside. But nothing
Speaker 1: is nothing is safe anymore from the PC mob. When
Speaker 1: you at at the University of the Holy Cross or
Speaker 1: Holy Cross University or whatever, I'm sorry, the college okay, sorry,
Speaker 1: the College of the Holy Cross. You know what, they're
Speaker 1: gonna figure out at some point that the Crusaders, the
Speaker 1: Knights who fought in the Crusades had crosses on their chests,
Speaker 1: red ones against white if they were templars. And guess what,
Speaker 1: some people find the Cross offensive. In fact, a lot
Speaker 1: of people do. They're called democrats. I kid, I kid mostly,
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, the Cross it self could be construed by
Speaker 1: some and will be as a form of aggression. So
Speaker 1: as the whole as the College of the Holy Cross,
Speaker 1: a Christian school going to eventually change its name so
Speaker 1: as not to be offensive, it can't be a Christian
Speaker 1: school anymore, really, if it's going to cease being offensive.
Speaker 1: But that's kind of the plan, isn't it for a
Speaker 1: lot of these places. All Right, we will get into
Speaker 1: a roll call coming up here in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Stay with me, all right, team, coming into our last
Speaker 1: segment of the day, It would give me a case
Speaker 1: of the sad face. But this is if you will
Speaker 1: saving the best for last, this is where we get
Speaker 1: into row call, Team Buck. It's time for roll calls,
Speaker 1: and all right, let's jump right into it. Now. We
Speaker 1: have Thomas who writes, I'm wondering why the media is
Speaker 1: so persistent pushing this story of Donald Trump having an
Speaker 1: affair with Stormy Daniels back in two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: It has no relevance to his presidency. It might have
Speaker 1: had some impact on his campaign when he was running,
Speaker 1: as all dirt does on any candidate they want to destroy,
Speaker 1: but he is president. Now they're wasting their time and
Speaker 1: their ratings that they think this is going anywhere. No
Speaker 1: one cares except the media. I think that that's largely true, Thomas.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody really does care about this whole
Speaker 1: situation that they're reporting on. The media is obsessed with it, though,
Speaker 1: but they're obsessed with anything that they believe is damaging
Speaker 1: to Trump and all. So that reaffirms their belief that
Speaker 1: Trump is basically hitler, which is really the media's general position.
Speaker 1: Trump is basically hitler. As insane as that is so.
Speaker 1: Next up here, uh Sterling, who writes, Buck, I love
Speaker 1: you and your show not in a weird way, so
Speaker 1: neither you are, miss Molly have anything to worry about. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Sterling. I love the podcast because I never
Speaker 1: miss anything, But then sometimes I get behind. Now. I
Speaker 1: think you're typically thorough. Typically throw objectivity is lacking when
Speaker 1: it comes to airlines. Oh for example, airlines adhere to
Speaker 1: a strict schedule, and anyone who deviated from that schedule
Speaker 1: just because would be fired would you experience when you're
Speaker 1: playing Diverted for fuel sounded like a diversion. Diversions are
Speaker 1: most common for weather, but there are other reasons too.
Speaker 1: There's more, but I don't want to annoy you. You
Speaker 1: have some valid points, but I think some are misguided
Speaker 1: from Sterling. Well, Sterling, thank you for liking the show.
Speaker 1: And on airlines, I would note that I am upfront
Speaker 1: about feeling like I have been traumatized in slow motion
Speaker 1: over the years by crappy airline situations, by terribly uncomfortable
Speaker 1: airline seats, by price gouging at the last minute, by
Speaker 1: all sorts of stuff. I mean, if I sat here
Speaker 1: and wrote out all the things that have gone on.
Speaker 1: And while I know that there are business rationales for this,
Speaker 1: I would also note that airlines are heavily regulated, as
Speaker 1: a lot of government intervention in them, and airlines are
Speaker 1: the only area of consumer life that I can think
Speaker 1: of because even cable companies, as I've noted, have gotten better,
Speaker 1: airlines are the only place that feel like they're just inoculated.
Speaker 1: They are invulnerable to customer complaints and outrage. Really, I
Speaker 1: would note that it isn't lost on me that with
Speaker 1: the American people. If you mistreat a human being, there
Speaker 1: will be outrage. If you really severely mistreat and or
Speaker 1: end up taking the life of a small cute dog,
Speaker 1: there will be people out in the streets with pitchforks,
Speaker 1: so to speak. So that's why United is having some
Speaker 1: of the troubles that it is. Um, let's get into
Speaker 1: uh next one. Here we have Corey who writes, so
Speaker 1: school shootings are a quote rare occurrence, not anymore. Buck,
Speaker 1: jump on the van, on the bandwagon. They have figured
Speaker 1: out how to manipulate young and adult minds in the
Speaker 1: pursuit of stripping us of our guns. That's what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do. Look at the direction it's leading us.
Speaker 1: Only one outcome from a continuing of school shootings to
Speaker 1: disarm us. The mental war began a long time ago. Well, Corey,
Speaker 1: as I've noted, school shootings are very, very rare. Overall,
Speaker 1: you have an enormous population of school aged students in
Speaker 1: this country, and we have data on this stretching back
Speaker 1: for decades, and I understand that it pulls out our
Speaker 1: heart strength and school shootings are a psychological trauma, even
Speaker 1: for those who are just reading about it or seeing
Speaker 1: the images on TV, but by the same token, they
Speaker 1: are rare events. And to make policy based on the
Speaker 1: emotions that come after school policy school shootings is just
Speaker 1: a bad idea. And that's what's going on, Susannah. She's
Speaker 1: next up here. Buck. I'm laughing so hard listening to
Speaker 1: Monday's podcast, and you're keeping the trifecta of steak, eggs
Speaker 1: and bacon. Just keep the bacon under a pound. Oh
Speaker 1: my stars, you're the best. I've shared you with several
Speaker 1: friends and family and they appreciate you as well as ever.
Speaker 1: Shields high Well, Susannah, thank you so much for the
Speaker 1: kind note. I really am hoping that I managed to
Speaker 1: start a tray in here. Why why are you going
Speaker 1: to a restaurant? You're going to dinner? They're like, oh yeah, uh,
Speaker 1: steaking eggs is on the menu. Where's my bacon? Home Slice?
Speaker 1: Where's my bacon? Just because I got steaking eggs doesn't
Speaker 1: mean I don't want bacon. If you want to take
Speaker 1: some parsley or something to add a little green so
Speaker 1: that I have a the visuals go with the palette
Speaker 1: or whatever, that's fine. There's no reason to cut bacon
Speaker 1: out of the equation. It's just wrong. It's just wrong,
Speaker 1: and we're addressing it here on the show. Steve up
Speaker 1: next here, he wrote that shepherd's pie made with ground
Speaker 1: moose meat is awesome. Steve, I feel like that's not
Speaker 1: an Irish delicacy, though, because I'm pretty sure they don't
Speaker 1: have moose in Ireland. A island you got mooses, you
Speaker 1: got moose is in Ireland? I don't think so. Steve
Speaker 1: also writes, really, almost everything made with ground moose is great.
Speaker 1: I prefer wild game to antibiotics and growth hormone beef.
Speaker 1: But Alaskan moose are big and a lot of war
Speaker 1: Uh Steve, I'm gonna have to take your word for it,
Speaker 1: my friend, I do not have a lot of experience
Speaker 1: with moose meat. Uh So, thank you, Holly. Next up
Speaker 1: here short note, love the show, but I fear for America. Well, Holly,
Speaker 1: thank you for your fondness of the show. It means
Speaker 1: a lot to me. I put a lot of effort
Speaker 1: into the show. Every single day. I spend my whole
Speaker 1: day thinking about it and go to bed at night
Speaker 1: thinking about what I can do the next day to
Speaker 1: make the show just a little bit better. As for
Speaker 1: fearing for America. Now we confront any fears that we
Speaker 1: have about the future of America. Here we try to
Speaker 1: deal with what's really happening and look at what solutions
Speaker 1: we can all in our own way, and then also
Speaker 1: as an American people in act. So don't don't be
Speaker 1: don't be afraid about America, and please continue your support
Speaker 1: for the show. Brad. Next up here, Buck, I love
Speaker 1: your show. The Shape of Water should be called the
Speaker 1: Shape of East Reality. Brad, thank you again for your
Speaker 1: kind words about the show. And yeah, the Shape of
Speaker 1: Water is about a woman who has sex with her
Speaker 1: aquarium pet. That is a factual, true statement. I think
Speaker 1: it's the aquarium not terrarium, right, because terrariums are for
Speaker 1: like lizards, and he's really more of a fish, although
Speaker 1: he is kind of lizard like. It's tough to tough
Speaker 1: to know. Uh. Corinna reminded me of Hey, there, where's
Speaker 1: the link to the article on the progressive mind. Well,
Speaker 1: it's the host the host um the psychology of progressive
Speaker 1: hostility is the name of the link, and Corinna, you're right,
Speaker 1: I guess we haven't put it up and this just
Speaker 1: happens because I write things down here as I'm on
Speaker 1: air and then I get lost in thought and I
Speaker 1: don't necessarily get it get it going. I'm gonna write
Speaker 1: you directly here Karna with the article link, and I'm
Speaker 1: also going to have our team post it so everyone
Speaker 1: can see it on Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. Uh.
Speaker 1: So there you have it, Aries, Oh, Aries, got quite
Speaker 1: a screed here, Arias. I'm gonna read some of it,
Speaker 1: but I'm not gonna be able to read all of
Speaker 1: it on air. Look, the reason the Left is more
Speaker 1: prone or accepting of cheating and breaking the rules like
Speaker 1: weaponizing the Justice Department, violating the Constitution, and voter fraud
Speaker 1: isn't necessarily because they're generally bad people. It's because they
Speaker 1: see America as the bad guys. It's reflected in their
Speaker 1: expression of popular culture, where the military, police, CIA or
Speaker 1: various other government agents are depicted as bad guys. It
Speaker 1: still make them, makes them traitors and quite possibly crazy,
Speaker 1: but their actions are rational if that's what they believe. Um,
Speaker 1: I think you make a very good point here, Aries.
Speaker 1: I think that's true. I've often said that there are
Speaker 1: those who derive pride from being American in this country,
Speaker 1: and there are those who derive pride from thinking they're
Speaker 1: better than America, and progressives fall into that latter category.
Speaker 1: They think they exist here to make us better than
Speaker 1: the America that they inherited, and they look down upon
Speaker 1: the history of America. And I would note that this
Speaker 1: was a generally speaking, a very accurate description I think
Speaker 1: of sentiment during the Obama administration, not just of the President,
Speaker 1: but of his entire the entire theme surrounding him in
Speaker 1: the White House, his top advisors, the media. Uh. They
Speaker 1: all felt like there was an atonement that was going
Speaker 1: on for all of America as a result of having
Speaker 1: a Democrat president like Obama in office. So there you
Speaker 1: have it. There is that sense, uh, team, we are
Speaker 1: going to have to close up shop here in the Freedom. How,
Speaker 1: thank you as always for joining Until next time, no
Speaker 1: matter what comes your way, remember shields high.