Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. CNN holds a town
Speaker 1: hall where the left wing tells us what they really
Speaker 1: want for this country. Also updates on the whistleblower, turns
Speaker 1: out some connections to Democrat politicians, including one who is
Speaker 1: running the Turkish incursion into Syria and also the NBA's
Speaker 1: dishonorable China tobacco. We got that and more coming up
Speaker 1: on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake American, bring You're
Speaker 1: a great American again? The buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst,
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. Now, Welcome to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Everybody back here in the Freedom huod in NYC from
Speaker 1: my trip in Vegas. Big thanks to Stansborough Research. Great
Speaker 1: week out there, lots of phenomenal guests. Dennis Miller, Tommy Lara,
Speaker 1: Nick Irving, the Reaper, Noril Rubimi from NYU Doctor Doom.
Speaker 1: We had a really, really fun time out there. But
Speaker 1: let's get to business, folks, I have missed you. Two
Speaker 1: days away from the show feels like far too long.
Speaker 1: And by the way, we are going to be bring
Speaker 1: you a live show here from New York City on Monday,
Speaker 1: even though it is do we call it? Do we
Speaker 1: have to officially call it Indigenous People's Day yet? Or
Speaker 1: is it? Can we still say Columbus Day? Is that
Speaker 1: a microaggression? Maybe it's a macroaggression. But my, oh my,
Speaker 1: we have so much to get you today. I don't
Speaker 1: even know if we will fit it in. I haven't
Speaker 1: said that in a while because I've been drilling down
Speaker 1: deep into certain topics, and but today there's just so
Speaker 1: many different things. I didn't even mention at the top
Speaker 1: of the show we have Chelsea Clinton possibly running for Congress.
Speaker 1: Up we do that was coming telling men to lean out.
Speaker 1: This is the new radical left feminism on display in
Speaker 1: a New York Times editorial, and just one of the
Speaker 1: most incredible moments yet with the Messieur Justin Trudeau, who
Speaker 1: he's trying to be still so woke and so left wing,
Speaker 1: but he's very hard because of the horrific debuckles of
Speaker 1: the last couple of weeks. Anyway, but let's let's get
Speaker 1: into the important stuff here for a moment. The President,
Speaker 1: so I just gave you a little sense of what's
Speaker 1: coming up later on there President Trump is under siege
Speaker 1: and has been for the entirety of his presidency. There
Speaker 1: was never a honeymoon period. There was not a moment
Speaker 1: of introspection from the institutional left, the political establishment, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. They all right away decided that this was
Speaker 1: not just an aberrant moment, that this was an outlier,
Speaker 1: a black swan situation, that President Trump had been able
Speaker 1: to defeat Hillary Clinton with all of the backing that
Speaker 1: she had from the media, the establishment, all those forces
Speaker 1: I just brought up, including some never Trump Republicans and
Speaker 1: former Republicans now who make me question whether they ever
Speaker 1: really believed any of the things that they had espoused
Speaker 1: over the course of their adult lives. But there was
Speaker 1: not a moment of let's see how the president does
Speaker 1: and judge him based on that. It has been from
Speaker 1: the start. Trump is illegitimate. The left will not accept him.
Speaker 1: They will not move past this. They have dug in.
Speaker 1: They are the resistance, as they call themselves, and that
Speaker 1: means that the president has his handsful. Not only is
Speaker 1: he trying to govern, not only is he trying to
Speaker 1: be the commander in chief of United States Armed Forces
Speaker 1: and the single most powerful figure in the executive branch
Speaker 1: of our already far too large and far too expensive
Speaker 1: federal government. He has to deal with forces arrayed against him.
Speaker 1: That simply put previous presidents who where Democrats, don't have
Speaker 1: to deal with at all, and even who are Republicans,
Speaker 1: haven't seen in such a ferocious way. This is enough.
Speaker 1: This is a whole other level, folks. I mean, people
Speaker 1: are willing to violate their oaths of office, willing to
Speaker 1: break the law, criminal leaks, commit felonies, whatever they have
Speaker 1: to do to try and stop Trump. And you think
Speaker 1: that in that environment, it's going to be very hard
Speaker 1: for the president to make his case for reelection. Right there,
Speaker 1: they're doing everything they can so that he won't be
Speaker 1: judged based on what he has done as president. The
Speaker 1: plan that the left has with Pelosi leading this impeachment inquiry,
Speaker 1: not not even a true impeachment process yet, just kind
Speaker 1: of sticking their foot in the pool with that will
Speaker 1: being willing to jump in all the way. But as
Speaker 1: that marches along, you might think, hold on a moment,
Speaker 1: this is going to spell trouble for a president Trump.
Speaker 1: How could he possibly overcome this? You have the weaponization
Speaker 1: of the bureaucracy against him, Have the entirety of the
Speaker 1: establishment media trying to destroy him, actively working toward the
Speaker 1: destruction of his presidency. Ah, what comes into play all
Speaker 1: of a sudden? What is the X factor here that
Speaker 1: the left does not think about? Or rather the left
Speaker 1: can't really take into account because I suppose there's not
Speaker 1: much that they'll be able to do about it. How
Speaker 1: is it that I'm so confident on the president Trump
Speaker 1: is likely to win? Oh? That's right. The left is crazy,
Speaker 1: absolutely bonkers. They believe things that no sane person could believe.
Speaker 1: They say things that no rational person could say, and
Speaker 1: this has now become orthodoxy on the left. If you
Speaker 1: deviate from this, even as a Democrat, you do so
Speaker 1: at your peril. So, just when it feels like with
Speaker 1: all this Ukraine gait and impeachment inquiry and subpoenaing Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns, all these things that are right against the president,
Speaker 1: how could he overcome? Is even Trump is not invincible? Right? Ah?
Speaker 1: Like the cavalry coming over the hill, the left wing
Speaker 1: democrats show up and, courtesy of a platform given to
Speaker 1: them on CNN, show everybody just how absolutely nuts the
Speaker 1: left has gone on issues of religious freedom, on issues
Speaker 1: of rule of law, on transgender rights as they call it.
Speaker 1: There's just so much here that any normal person would
Speaker 1: listen to and say, hold on a minute, what has
Speaker 1: what has gone wrong? How could this be one of
Speaker 1: the two major political parties in the most powerful, wealthy
Speaker 1: country in the history of the planet. There were some
Speaker 1: real moments last night at this CNN the CNN town Hall.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of dishonesty, a lot of disingenuousness.
Speaker 1: Will work through some of the parts of this, but
Speaker 1: I would tell you that Beto O'Rourke has become the
Speaker 1: Democrat candidate who says what the left believes deep down
Speaker 1: but is unwilling to say aloud. And increasingly I think
Speaker 1: that even though it won't mean that, buttu becomes a
Speaker 1: viable presidential candidate in order to not get left out
Speaker 1: of the wokeness. More candidates on the left are now
Speaker 1: saying the things that many of us on the right
Speaker 1: believe that they want to do, but they're unwilling to
Speaker 1: say it because it would frighten most Americans, it would
Speaker 1: shock a lot of people. The single most troubling moment
Speaker 1: last night, well, actually, I'm not even sure we could
Speaker 1: pick just one necessarily there there were so many, but
Speaker 1: there were nine presidential candidates there. Do you think religious
Speaker 1: institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax
Speaker 1: exempt status if they oppose same sex marriage. Yes. Betto
Speaker 1: doesn't believe in the First Amendment at all, doesn't believe
Speaker 1: in freedom of expression, doesn't believe in Sorry, I'm a
Speaker 1: little raspi after Vegas folks, doesn't believe in freedom of religion.
Speaker 1: And many of us were saying this right after the
Speaker 1: Obergfell decision the Supreme Court that just wait the left
Speaker 1: that they don't just want marriage equality, They're going to
Speaker 1: want people to in the religious establishment across the board.
Speaker 1: They're gonna want them to bend. They what will be
Speaker 1: fascinating and it would be a fascinating Now, even if
Speaker 1: we had a real media that asked questions, not acted
Speaker 1: as propagandist for the left, would Bettos say that about
Speaker 1: a mosque? Really, Betto's to tell mosques across the country
Speaker 1: that they cannot oppose rather that they do not have
Speaker 1: the right to support traditional marriage and oppose same sex marriage.
Speaker 1: Oh no, only Christian churches. I think Betto willing to
Speaker 1: say that to. Why is that? Why does Petto? Why
Speaker 1: would he be allowed to get away with the bigotry
Speaker 1: of different expectations there? Oh, we all know why. That
Speaker 1: is because they view this as political warfare, and they
Speaker 1: view churches that still support traditional marriage as a major
Speaker 1: bulwark against the left's full on authoritarian stadism. Whether you
Speaker 1: support same sex marriage or not is irrelevant to the
Speaker 1: fact that Betto O'Rourke in this case is saying churches
Speaker 1: are going to do what the state tells them to do.
Speaker 1: They're going to support what the state tells them to support. This.
Speaker 1: Even a few years ago, people like me were saying
Speaker 1: would happen, and the left claimed that that was fearmongering.
Speaker 1: Now you have a presidential candidate for the Demo, aocratic party,
Speaker 1: in front of the whole country, who's saying exactly what
Speaker 1: we were saying. What we were saying, what happened during
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. It was just a matter of time.
Speaker 1: And that's really what was on display last night at
Speaker 1: the CNN town hall. That's what's on display has been
Speaker 1: on display for the entirety of this Democrat primary. Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has lost its mind. Things that are common sense,
Speaker 1: things that we all understand to be true, They all
Speaker 1: of a sudden reject They have different priorities, they have
Speaker 1: a different lens through which they see all these things.
Speaker 1: And then there's also just their inability at CNN to
Speaker 1: we even understand what the new rules are. Because the
Speaker 1: rules are changing so quickly, they try to be woke,
Speaker 1: but sometimes they end up just looking clownish. How are
Speaker 1: you and my pronouns? Are she? Her and hers? Mine too?
Speaker 1: All right? Hey, bro Cuomo wanted to make a joke.
Speaker 1: Dare you hear it? Hey? Bro Cuomo's on a national platform.
Speaker 1: You know he just finished taking some creety. He's working out,
Speaker 1: you know, he's looking good. He's like, hey, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make a pronoun joke. Who bro Cuomo? Your brother? The
Speaker 1: government New York could come in and just tell you
Speaker 1: nobody makes pronoun jokes in America today. If you make
Speaker 1: a joke about a pronoun, they will destroy you, far
Speaker 1: you from your job, tar and feather you, and then
Speaker 1: put more feathers on top of the tar in case
Speaker 1: there were insufficient feathers. Bro Cuomo had to apologize as
Speaker 1: a result, maybe we should start calling him Fredo, But
Speaker 1: he had to apologize after that, because you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to make any jokes about any of this. That was,
Speaker 1: in fact the third rail that Dave Chappelle was willing
Speaker 1: to touch in his most recent and quite spectacular comedy special.
Speaker 1: He just talked about and didn't do it in a
Speaker 1: degrading or a nasty way. He made some jokes dealing
Speaker 1: with the LGBTQ community. There are no jokes if you're
Speaker 1: outside the community that the left will allow you to make.
Speaker 1: They think that they can shut down any discussion, any
Speaker 1: commentary that isn't full of reverence and the desire to
Speaker 1: obey whatever the dictates of leftist orthodox he may be.
Speaker 1: There were things that were said last night at CNN
Speaker 1: that were hard to believe. There were moments like when
Speaker 1: a biological male took the microphone from a biological female.
Speaker 1: Actually know, we can just say male and female, and
Speaker 1: I guess we'll say trans female to signify when someone
Speaker 1: is at biological male who now whole has the identity
Speaker 1: of a trans woman. But a trans woman took the
Speaker 1: microphone away and said the following without I would not
Speaker 1: without any challenge from CNN anchors is multi millionaire glorified
Speaker 1: actors on CNN their actors without acting talent. Really, this
Speaker 1: is what that went like, Play twenty nine. Next to
Speaker 1: the Secretary Castro, I want to bring in Shade Diamond,
Speaker 1: a singer songwriter from Los Angeles. She currently supports Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete bog Shaye. What's your question, Um, it's she a diamond, Diamond,
Speaker 1: put that on record, Okay, thank you, Yes, honey. It's
Speaker 1: violence to miss gender or to alter a name of
Speaker 1: a trans person, So let's always get that right first.
Speaker 1: It is violence. That was what we said that it
Speaker 1: is violence to use the wrong name for a transgender person. No,
Speaker 1: violence is violence. Right. You can say you don't like
Speaker 1: it if someone calls you the wrong name. You can't
Speaker 1: say it's the same as punching you. You can't say
Speaker 1: it's the same as physically harming you. Violence is violence.
Speaker 1: And if we allow leftist ideology to corrupt these very
Speaker 1: basic concepts, then they can say anything is anything. Then
Speaker 1: they've completely perverted logic, facts, reason, and the exchange of ideas.
Speaker 1: But no one challenges it is violence. But words equals
Speaker 1: violence is one of the favorite tactics of the authoritarian left,
Speaker 1: because if words equals violence, two things happen. One, they
Speaker 1: can regulate whatever words they want, however they want. And two,
Speaker 1: if in fact they choose to use violence in response
Speaker 1: to words, they're just defending themselves. They're just responding in kind.
Speaker 1: So this is a deeply dishonest trick, but one that
Speaker 1: the left polls on a regular basis and embraces. It's
Speaker 1: true on college campuses across the country. Speech equals violence
Speaker 1: is one of the great one of the fundamental fallacies
Speaker 1: of the American left today. Now I switched up by
Speaker 1: clips for a second here. I mentioned the grabbing of
Speaker 1: the microphone, that that was the speech egles violence. That
Speaker 1: was one thing, and then you add something that was
Speaker 1: much more, much more physically aggressive than just saying that
Speaker 1: speech speech equals violence. That's that's concerning enough. But a
Speaker 1: a then a black trans a black trans woman exploded
Speaker 1: at this event with with anger and indignation that CNN
Speaker 1: had put on here, and there was this moment was
Speaker 1: it was it was wow, it just just play play
Speaker 1: clip thirty. But let me tell you something. Black trans
Speaker 1: women are being killed in this country, and CNN, you
Speaker 1: ever raised black trans women for the last time. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you something, black trans women. I died our
Speaker 1: lives matter. I'm a extraordinary black trans woman, and I
Speaker 1: deserved to keep here my black tress. Look at her hair.
Speaker 1: I am tired. I am full tired. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: that's my black trans woman. My black tress. Brothers too.
Speaker 1: Say what I'm gonna say. I don't know. No, I
Speaker 1: let you come here. No, No, I just want to
Speaker 1: ask you something. Come here, tell me, come here. I
Speaker 1: want you to talk. What's your name? I'm Blossom, see
Speaker 1: Brian Blossom. Let me ask Blossom, Blossom, thank you. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you something. Let me let me. No, don't
Speaker 1: come on the stage. Don't come in and say so ken.
Speaker 1: May I have the mic? Man, I have the mic, Blossom,
Speaker 1: let me tell you something. The reason that we're here
Speaker 1: is to validate people like you. Ah, yes, you see.
Speaker 1: CNN wants to be very clear, the whole purpose of
Speaker 1: this is to tell people who are on you would think,
Speaker 1: the extreme left of the ideological spectrum, whether it's on
Speaker 1: transgender issues or on religious freedom or transgender children, which
Speaker 1: also came up last night. There were two at least
Speaker 1: east transgender kids who were there. I think one of
Speaker 1: them was nine years old. Always left wing parents, by
Speaker 1: the way for the transgender kids. Isn't that a coincidence?
Speaker 1: You never have two parents who are you know, conservative
Speaker 1: churchgoing Republicans who have a transgender kid. So it's always
Speaker 1: people who are you know, anti fur activists who don't
Speaker 1: want their children being misgendered. I guess we're just supposed
Speaker 1: to think that's a coincidence. But there was so much,
Speaker 1: so much that we need to go through here, so
Speaker 1: much that requires discussion. I mean, CNN is an embarrassment
Speaker 1: start with that. So CNN is accused at its own
Speaker 1: town hall of being a of erasing I believe black
Speaker 1: trans women was the quote, and nullifying them. They're they're
Speaker 1: holding a nationally televised special specifically for the LGBTQ community
Speaker 1: and are and people in the audience, or at least
Speaker 1: one person in the audience is very upset at what
Speaker 1: CNN is doing because they're not giving enough attention to
Speaker 1: the black transgender woman cause. And I would just say,
Speaker 1: I've heard this before, I've seen stories. You know, this
Speaker 1: is all part of the the patting them patting, the mentality,
Speaker 1: you know, adding to the mentality of victimology that the
Speaker 1: Left is so dependent on. So what they do is
Speaker 1: they say that black trans women are are being killed
Speaker 1: and that this is a You are led to believe
Speaker 1: that this is an epidemic, that this is happening at
Speaker 1: rates that are are shocking to the conscience. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is and no one's paying attention to the the murder
Speaker 1: of um of not just by the way, not just
Speaker 1: like anyone who is transgender, not of any of any ethnicity. Well,
Speaker 1: if you look at the numbers, you have roughly fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand or so homicides in America every year. So about
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand people are killed in this country every year.
Speaker 1: And of that fifteen thousand you had about to give
Speaker 1: or to I mean, depending on the year, twenty or so.
Speaker 1: Last few years, transgender people have been killed in this country.
Speaker 1: So there are three hundred and twenty million people in America,
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand of them are killed in any given year.
Speaker 1: Of that fifteen thousand, about twenty are transgender. And it
Speaker 1: has somehow become a national media narrative that transgender individuals
Speaker 1: are being murdered and being targeted for being transgender. Now,
Speaker 1: if you also add into the circumstances that we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, how many of the transgender individuals were employed
Speaker 1: in or engaged in very high risk professional transactions at
Speaker 1: the time of their of their death. You would see
Speaker 1: that there is no statistical significance through this claim whatsoever
Speaker 1: that transgender individuals are being targeted. But if you say that,
Speaker 1: that's an offense against wokeness, because the narrative is that
Speaker 1: transgender individuals are being targeted and murdered. Now, no individual
Speaker 1: should be targeted and murdered in this country. Murder is
Speaker 1: the most heinous of crimes. And every transgender person in
Speaker 1: this country, regardless of of anything, deserves all the legal
Speaker 1: protections of their personhood, of their physical safety that anyone
Speaker 1: else does. And anyone who harms anybody who is transgender
Speaker 1: should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,
Speaker 1: and that will include hate crime statutes. That all said,
Speaker 1: can we just operate in the in the realm of facts.
Speaker 1: We can we have discussions about what's what's really happening.
Speaker 1: Where's the CNN opioids town hall. I'm just I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: not that you can't have or shouldn't have an LGBTQ
Speaker 1: town hall, but we've had LGBTQ, we've had climate change.
Speaker 1: You get if we're going to talk about body count,
Speaker 1: seventy thousand people a year are dying from what is
Speaker 1: a true epidemic? And yet why is it just not
Speaker 1: an issue that gets the same kind of attention from
Speaker 1: Democrats The most urgent public health crisis in the country
Speaker 1: after probably obesity, But people are dying by the thousands.
Speaker 1: You don't hear much about it. Do you surely don't
Speaker 1: have a town hall on fixing it? Conservatives? The right
Speaker 1: Republicans find the opioid crisis to be of much higher,
Speaker 1: much higher urgency. All right, but back to this town,
Speaker 1: because it was there were just some wow moments here.
Speaker 1: I mentioned before the transgender the young transgender kids who
Speaker 1: were there. And here's Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren who
Speaker 1: is talking about tax dollars going to prison inmates for
Speaker 1: transgender surgery. Play twenty six in the twenty twelve campaign
Speaker 1: for Senate, you criticize the judge's ruling that granted transition
Speaker 1: related surgery to a transgender inmate. You said, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars. Right, Do
Speaker 1: you regret that? Ye? No, it's a bad answer, And
Speaker 1: I think it was a bad answer. And I believe
Speaker 1: that everyone is entitled to medical care and medical care
Speaker 1: that they need, and that includes people who are transgender
Speaker 1: who it is the time for them to have gender
Speaker 1: affirming surgery. I just think that's important and the appropriate
Speaker 1: medical care. Look at all the changes that are made
Speaker 1: to the left. It happened so fast that it's hard
Speaker 1: to even keep up with it. Elizarth warreds Now, it's
Speaker 1: a bad answer. Did she learn something new or what happened?
Speaker 1: Oh no, the left just changed, became more extreme. The
Speaker 1: demands of wokeness grew. That's all that happened. The progressive
Speaker 1: orthodoxy has shifted into a realm where if you question
Speaker 1: anything about transgender surgery, if you point out, for example,
Speaker 1: that transgender surgeries are they involved the mutilation of healthy tissue,
Speaker 1: and there is no such thing as a transgender surgery
Speaker 1: that results in an actual switch of gender when someone
Speaker 1: does not have the biological parts of another gender. Now,
Speaker 1: for people who are going to bring up intersects, which
Speaker 1: is also formally called to be when someone is a hermaphrodite,
Speaker 1: that's not what transgenderism is, folks. That's not what they're
Speaker 1: talking about. They're talking about these specifically emotional and psychological
Speaker 1: need for a switch of gender that is physiologically impossible
Speaker 1: and not physiologically based and involved surgery that has tremendous complications,
Speaker 1: long term challenges that come with it, and the long
Speaker 1: term happiness rates after these surgeries, not just of the
Speaker 1: individuals in terms of their general life satisfaction, but transgender
Speaker 1: individuals who feel that they should never had had the
Speaker 1: surgery is very high. If you bring this up, you're
Speaker 1: a bad person. If you look at the facts, You're
Speaker 1: not somebody that's allowed to have an opinion, go along
Speaker 1: with this or else you're either part of the wokeness
Speaker 1: leftist revolution or you are to be destroyed, pushed aside, ruined.
Speaker 1: That's it. Those are the new rules we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: It's not just Trump who deals with us, it's all
Speaker 1: of us. Now, I mentioned the transgender children issue. Here
Speaker 1: we have where was this? We had a transgender nine
Speaker 1: year old I believe at the event. Play a play
Speaker 1: clip twenty twenty four and let's bring in Jacob Lama.
Speaker 1: He's here with his sister Ella and Lucia and his
Speaker 1: mom Mimmi, who is an advocate for transgender youth and
Speaker 1: active with the Human Rights Campaign. Jacob is an elementary
Speaker 1: school student from Massachusetts likes to play hockey. Jacob all right,
Speaker 1: Jacob all right. Um, my name is Jacob and I
Speaker 1: am a nine year old transgender American. My question is,
Speaker 1: all right, hold on, what were you doing your first
Speaker 1: week as president to make sure that kids like me
Speaker 1: feel safer in schools? And what do you think schools
Speaker 1: need to do better to make sure that I don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about anything but my homework. Oh, I
Speaker 1: like that question, Jacob. We're gonna do this, So let
Speaker 1: me start by saying I want to have a Secretary
Speaker 1: of Education who both believes in public education and believes
Speaker 1: in the value of every one of our kids, and
Speaker 1: is willing to enforce our civil rights laws. Now, there's
Speaker 1: nothing in that answer that's worth hearing from Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: And this is where you always have to be careful,
Speaker 1: because criticizing kids is wrong. I don't criticize kids. I
Speaker 1: criticize adults who are exploiting children. I criticize the left
Speaker 1: desire to put children forward as advocates, as actives for
Speaker 1: a cause. And then when people disagree with the message
Speaker 1: or say I'm not going to go along with this.
Speaker 1: I do not take orders politically or otherwise from children.
Speaker 1: Then they start saying, you're a child passer? How dare you?
Speaker 1: How dare you? The adults who do this are morons
Speaker 1: and they should be ashamed of themselves. But in this
Speaker 1: specifics here, in the specifics of this case of the
Speaker 1: this nine year old who says that he or she
Speaker 1: I actually I'm being serious, I don't know what the
Speaker 1: chosen pronoun was in the situation this nine year old
Speaker 1: says claims to be they claim to be a Transamerican. There,
Speaker 1: that's now the safe way of saying it. And I
Speaker 1: wonder how long before I have to say that, And
Speaker 1: then if I don't say these things, I'll get in trouble.
Speaker 1: At what point is this required the same way that
Speaker 1: I can't yell curses over the radio without endangering my
Speaker 1: job and perhaps being suffering economic consequences being boycott. Do
Speaker 1: I have to use that the chosen words of the
Speaker 1: transgender or the chosen pronouns, et cetera the transgender community,
Speaker 1: or face professional sanction. I think the answer is we're
Speaker 1: pretty much right on the edge. I'm not quite sure,
Speaker 1: and I don't plan to charge the machine gun nest alone,
Speaker 1: so to speak on this one. Friends, So we'll have
Speaker 1: to see. But I would want to know this. This
Speaker 1: is a parent transgender individual who is nine years old.
Speaker 1: And when I was nine, the most and I mean this,
Speaker 1: the most exciting thing that I can remember was I
Speaker 1: think that I got to wear a dinosaur costume that
Speaker 1: year for Halloween. Children or children, it's a wonderful time.
Speaker 1: It's great. They're growing, they're learning. They should be taken
Speaker 1: care of, and they should not be subject to adults
Speaker 1: using the most political pawns and perhaps even worse in
Speaker 1: this case. What I would want to know is the
Speaker 1: parents of this child are transactivists involved in the human
Speaker 1: rights campaign? Were they transactivists before their nine year old
Speaker 1: decided that a transgender life was what he or she
Speaker 1: again chosen pronoun? I don't know, want it. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: and if so, are we to believe that that's a coincidence,
Speaker 1: because here's what I'm willing to bet. I'm willing to
Speaker 1: bet that the parents here were far left wing activists,
Speaker 1: transgender activists, probably before they even have this nine year old.
Speaker 1: And then that raises the question of is it a
Speaker 1: form of child abuse to inflict the ideology of the
Speaker 1: left on a kid such that that nine year old
Speaker 1: now will perhaps want to take hormones and go through
Speaker 1: you know, at a prepubescent stage. That's what's happening on
Speaker 1: the left is advocating for this stuff. And this is
Speaker 1: where they'll say, oh, but the science or the scientists,
Speaker 1: any doctor and doctors now are all afraid. They're all
Speaker 1: running scared on this. They don't know what to do.
Speaker 1: The doctors who actually know anything about transgender surgery, they
Speaker 1: run and hide now. And so you have these activist
Speaker 1: doctors who come forward we were saying, oh, well, of course,
Speaker 1: because they want to look like heroes and they want
Speaker 1: their practices to flourish. The ones who are basing this
Speaker 1: in medicine and medical outcomes, they just don't want to
Speaker 1: deal with the politics anymore. But any doctor who comes
Speaker 1: forward and tells you that they know what the long
Speaker 1: term consequences of ender, any gender reassignment activity, including just
Speaker 1: hormonal therapy for a young child, would be is lying.
Speaker 1: They don't know. You know how I know they don't
Speaker 1: know because it's never been done before. We are an
Speaker 1: uncharted territory now, and people like me, who are saying five, six,
Speaker 1: seven years ago, this is where it's going. This is
Speaker 1: where it's going. Transgender kids. We were told that was fearmongering.
Speaker 1: What was fearmongering according to the left about the left
Speaker 1: during the Obama administration is now mainstream policy in the Democrats.
Speaker 1: And it just happened in the blink of an eye,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to forget that. We all saw this coming. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mock Beto O'Rourke, but the truth is Betto O'Rourke
Speaker 1: has made a very clear decision that he because he
Speaker 1: has there's no reason to vote for the sky. There's
Speaker 1: nothing compelling about him. His position is just to be
Speaker 1: the distilled it the true psychological core of the democratic left,
Speaker 1: of the socialist left in America. That's what he's doing.
Speaker 1: That's where he's going. And you're seeing this now, and
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren and all these other candidates, Oh, they're saying
Speaker 1: whatever they have to say in order to stay on
Speaker 1: the correct, on the acceptable side of wokeness. And not
Speaker 1: even the Democrat media knows necessarily how to play this
Speaker 1: out of me. You know, pro Cuomo made a fool
Speaker 1: of himself. But my friends, this is this is heading
Speaker 1: straight into madness, and there will be real consequences. People
Speaker 1: will suffer as a result of these decisions. Children will suffer.
Speaker 1: Transgender nine year old I don't even remember having a
Speaker 1: defined sexuality or gender or thoughts about gender identity at
Speaker 1: age eight age nine. This could only come from parents.
Speaker 1: Parents who are so ideologically driven that they would inflict
Speaker 1: their own self satisfied virtue signaling political beliefs on little kids,
Speaker 1: their own kids, troublesome stuff. I attended an all girls
Speaker 1: Catholic high school in Bergen County, New Jersey, where during
Speaker 1: my years there proposals for an LGBTQ plus club or
Speaker 1: gay straight alliance routinely rejected, despite the school's messaging of
Speaker 1: acceptance and love. A few towns away, at another Catholic
Speaker 1: high school, a female teacher was fired for being married
Speaker 1: to a woman. How about you address the at times
Speaker 1: juxtaposing issues of religious freedom and LGBTQ rights. It's a
Speaker 1: great question, and thank you very much. Look, this is
Speaker 1: something that I've been dealing with all my life as
Speaker 1: a Christian. People who want to use religion as a
Speaker 1: justification for discination and often are creating environments are so
Speaker 1: contrary to my religious beliefs. As it said in Michael,
Speaker 1: what do you want from your Lord? What does what
Speaker 1: you want from your people? Which is to do justice,
Speaker 1: love kindness, and walk humbly, walk humbly. And so for me,
Speaker 1: I cannot allow as a leader that people are going
Speaker 1: to use a religion as a justification for discrimination. I
Speaker 1: could respect your religious freedoms but also protect people from discrimination.
Speaker 1: And as I said in an earlier answer, I grew
Speaker 1: up in a household where my parents talk to me
Speaker 1: about how people used to use religion to justify the
Speaker 1: discrimination against African Americans. Is he what he's telling you there?
Speaker 1: That's Corey Booker, very mainstream Democrat presidential candidate. If you
Speaker 1: are a traditional Christian who believes that marriage is between
Speaker 1: a man and a woman, not only do you just
Speaker 1: accept now that you live in a country where, because
Speaker 1: of a Supreme Court fiat it was this was not legislated,
Speaker 1: this was not passed by Congress. Because of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Just you now have what is called marriage equality, what
Speaker 1: was formerly called gay marriage across the country as the
Speaker 1: as the law of the land. But if in your
Speaker 1: own institution, Catholic school, Christian, Christian Church, if you have
Speaker 1: any problem, or if you have any policy that conflicts
Speaker 1: with marriage equality, you're a bigot. That's what the Democrats
Speaker 1: really think. And you know this is the overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of Democrats. If you ask them, they will tell you
Speaker 1: that a church, any Christian church, only Christian churches, though
Speaker 1: they won't they won't say that about any other religion.
Speaker 1: If you don't support same sex every either, same sex
Speaker 1: ideology across the board, you're a bigot. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the buck sex and show, everybody. So President Trump had
Speaker 1: a rally last night. You had you had CNN do
Speaker 1: it's town hall style show with nine Democrat candidates. They're
Speaker 1: all Los Angeles, and we talked quite a bit about that.
Speaker 1: But then you also have the Trump rally last night,
Speaker 1: which was a nice reprieve I think for those of
Speaker 1: us who support the president from what we've been forced
Speaker 1: to endure in the news cycle of the last week
Speaker 1: or so, which is all this hysterical, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the Republic is at stake stuff about Trump and Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We will speak more about that. But Trump was doing
Speaker 1: his thing last night. He decided that he wasn't going
Speaker 1: to hold back at all. Play clip twenty two. He
Speaker 1: was only a good vice president because he understood how
Speaker 1: to kiss Barack Obama's ass. This is what the Democrat nominee,
Speaker 1: whoever he or she may be, is in for a
Speaker 1: president who is not going to hold back, who is
Speaker 1: going to fight fire with fire and then some and
Speaker 1: the media can wave a finger and say, how dare you?
Speaker 1: As much as they want, he's not going to stop.
Speaker 1: I think that the president, how could he not have
Speaker 1: taken all of the stuff that has gone on here
Speaker 1: very personally. Remember, the Democrats aren't just going after this
Speaker 1: president politically, they're going after him personally. They want to
Speaker 1: humiliate him. They want to imprison him if they can.
Speaker 1: They want to incarcerate his family members, his advisors, prison,
Speaker 1: everyone has to go to prison. That's what they want.
Speaker 1: Anything short of an official repudiation of the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump, at least threatened with the possibility of
Speaker 1: incarceration and some of his senior advisors and family members
Speaker 1: going along with him is flatly unacceptable to the Democrat left.
Speaker 1: They just won't. They will not go along with it.
Speaker 1: They'll say that it's an insufficient situation. And so that's
Speaker 1: why that's why. I think we need to understand what's
Speaker 1: really going on here with the Ukraine scandal. Oh, the
Speaker 1: Ukraine scandal. I keep seeing people who are they're falling
Speaker 1: for it all over again. I don't care that it
Speaker 1: looks rough. I don't care that it's it feels a
Speaker 1: little bit politically dirty for the President to bring up
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's name in a conversation with a foreign head
Speaker 1: of state. There is a predicate, there is a basis,
Speaker 1: a legitimate suspicion, and basis for investigation. We know that
Speaker 1: because there already was some investigation going on. The President
Speaker 1: raised concerns. There has not been the establishment, despite what
Speaker 1: you're reading the media, of any quid pro quo. And
Speaker 1: Joe Biden does not have immunity, nor does his son
Speaker 1: have immunity, because they happen to be the best hope
Speaker 1: right now of Democrats defeating Trump. Sorry, I know that
Speaker 1: it bothers people. I know that they'd like to believe that. Oh,
Speaker 1: you b but our president. You know, the founding fathers,
Speaker 1: the founding fathers, I mean Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton.
Speaker 1: We were really going to talk about this, and this
Speaker 1: is politics is an ugly messy business people act like
Speaker 1: in the earliest days, the rumors that different politicians at
Speaker 1: the time of the American founding were spreading about each other,
Speaker 1: rumors that are being spread about Thomas Jefferson, rumors that
Speaker 1: are being spread about John Adams. You go through this,
Speaker 1: it was Noah holds barred man. I mean, the Democrats
Speaker 1: love to do this to us, though, because Republicans, or
Speaker 1: at least the right, is highly imperfect. Trump is highly imperfect.
Speaker 1: But there's at least some belief that there are rules,
Speaker 1: that reality exists, and reality doesn't conform to whatever you say.
Speaker 1: It is that the law is the law. You can't
Speaker 1: just pretend to law is something else because you wish
Speaker 1: it to be so. And while we may fall short
Speaker 1: of our ethical goals, at least we have ethnical goals.
Speaker 1: The left is like, whatever works power, go for it,
Speaker 1: do it, get it. Stunning to see this continue to
Speaker 1: play out. Everyone says, oh, look at what Trump has
Speaker 1: done here, Look at how how horrible it is that
Speaker 1: he has gone gone after Biden in this way. Here
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is saying that there are are violations of
Speaker 1: his oath of office. Of course, he is twenty one
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation,
Speaker 1: and committed impeachable acts. To preserve our constitution, our democracy,
Speaker 1: our basic integrity, he should be impeached to preserve our democracy.
Speaker 1: I mean they use these words, they trot out these slogans,
Speaker 1: and that they can keep a straight face. I just
Speaker 1: find remarkable. Ah. Yes, to defend our democracy, we must
Speaker 1: impeach this president. Yeah, that's right. To defend the democracy,
Speaker 1: you have to pretend that this guy never won the
Speaker 1: election the last time around and isn't about to win
Speaker 1: this election this time around unless the Democrats played dirty tricks.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you that you know that I'm
Speaker 1: a I've been reading up and doing some research on
Speaker 1: I was gonna say I'm a fan of but that's
Speaker 1: not really the right right way to say it. I've
Speaker 1: I've been deep diving into the Committee of Public Safety
Speaker 1: of the French Revolution. Now this all makes sense in
Speaker 1: a second, but the Committee of Public Safety became a
Speaker 1: committee of dictatorship, send people off to the guillotine execution
Speaker 1: for any number of real or imagined crimes, overwhelmingly imagined crimes,
Speaker 1: and it was always justified though along the way by
Speaker 1: some of the most intelligent, erudite statesman you'd find anywhere
Speaker 1: in France in the seventeen nineties. Right, That's that's the truth,
Speaker 1: is that these were people that were supposed to be
Speaker 1: the best and the brightest, as we see time and again.
Speaker 1: But one of the working theories, especially when the Committee
Speaker 1: of Public Safety turned against the National Assembly and there
Speaker 1: were there were there was infighting, political infighting, was the
Speaker 1: rejection of the charges. When somebody would say, I am
Speaker 1: not guilty of treason, how dare you? That rejection was
Speaker 1: taken by the real center of power, which was this
Speaker 1: dictatorial committee that could have anyone executed. As see, he
Speaker 1: doesn't even respect the will of the people as evidence
Speaker 1: through these charges, and therefore the verdict must come swiftly.
Speaker 1: In essence your rejection of the accusation, it is proof
Speaker 1: that the allegation must be true. So this is not
Speaker 1: a new phenomenon. It's exactly what they did to Brett Kavanaugh, right,
Speaker 1: remember that whole he got mad. Yeah, when the crazy
Speaker 1: ladies were lying about him being a rapist, he got mad.
Speaker 1: That's that's a normal thing for any guy to do.
Speaker 1: People were pretending like it wasn't do you see how
Speaker 1: angry he was, Yeah, of course he was. They say
Speaker 1: this about Trump when he's the obstruction counts and the
Speaker 1: Malla report. It's all, oh, how how could Trump have said, Oh,
Speaker 1: shut this down, fire this person. This is crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because he was innocent, because it was a witch hunt,
Speaker 1: because it was all a lie. Ah. But his rejection
Speaker 1: of their effort to destroy him was further evidence that
Speaker 1: he should be destroyed. That's that's the position that they
Speaker 1: were taking. And now we have the exact same circumstance
Speaker 1: with Ukraine. Right now, it's the president wants to look
Speaker 1: into the effort to take him down, has the dj
Speaker 1: already and Durham, the US attorney for Connecticut, and Bill
Speaker 1: Barr has them looking into this situation and the fact
Speaker 1: that he wants to know the facts of how they
Speaker 1: tried to destroy his presidency and the last off coup effort,
Speaker 1: how it failed, but how it even got started. That
Speaker 1: is being taken as evidence that he's corrupt and he's
Speaker 1: guilty all along at any effort to push back against this,
Speaker 1: this soft coup, this conspiracy to destroy a president and
Speaker 1: undo the results of the twenty sixteen election, any effort
Speaker 1: that you'll see, they try to an Elynsky style frees it,
Speaker 1: isolate it, destroy it. They try to make it seem
Speaker 1: like that alone is evidence that Trump is guilty and
Speaker 1: has been guilty all along. This is kafka esque. But
Speaker 1: when you deal with a totalitarian mentality, when you're subjected
Speaker 1: to people who are so ideologically driven that nothing else
Speaker 1: matters except them getting their way. Because they're so marinated
Speaker 1: in their own self righteousness all the time that they
Speaker 1: have no sense of anything else, anything beyond their own
Speaker 1: desires or the desire of the collective that they represent,
Speaker 1: some small piece of well, then you have people who
Speaker 1: will do exactly what we're seeing here, which is abandoned
Speaker 1: forget about abandoning objectivity, abandoned rationality. Oh, the president is
Speaker 1: not allowed to look into why they try to destroy
Speaker 1: his presidency. He's not because he's not really the president.
Speaker 1: You see, there's always a justification, there's always another layer,
Speaker 1: and all the president can't ask for further information. Remember,
Speaker 1: it could have been Zelenski, the Presidy of Ukraine, could
Speaker 1: have come back and said, yeah, well well we'll take
Speaker 1: a look, I'll talk to my guys come back to
Speaker 1: the day say sorry, there's nothing there. Man. We really
Speaker 1: did do the Biden investigation and I've got nothing for you. Okay.
Speaker 1: You know, for Trump to have they're acting And if
Speaker 1: for Trump have really been corrupt, it would have had
Speaker 1: to be a different situation. They're acting like he called
Speaker 1: and said, I'm running against this guy. You know what
Speaker 1: I need you to do? Arrest him and fabricate some charges.
Speaker 1: I then, would I defend the president doing that? No,
Speaker 1: I would not. Will I defend the president saying there's
Speaker 1: real reason I believe? Of course, this reason. I believe
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's making millions of dollars from you created gas
Speaker 1: company that's desperate to avoid the ire of corruption prosecutors
Speaker 1: in the United States government. Oh, there's plenty of reason.
Speaker 1: There is more. There's more of a basis for continued
Speaker 1: investigation of Barisma and Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's involvement
Speaker 1: here than there is Donald Trump Russia collusion. But look
Speaker 1: what Congress was doing all summer, bringing more witnesses, just
Speaker 1: keep the whole charade going. It's a circus. It's ridiculous. Ah,
Speaker 1: but the whistleblower, let's spend some time now on the
Speaker 1: specifics of the whistleblower. I don't want to have spies
Speaker 1: in the White House. I want to be free to
Speaker 1: make calls. I don't think it's fair that somebody interprets
Speaker 1: a call. He didn't interpret it wrong. I don't mind
Speaker 1: a misinterpretation. This was a fraud because that call was perfect,
Speaker 1: and if you read the whistle blower's report, that was no,
Speaker 1: it bore no resemblance to what the call was. The
Speaker 1: whistle blower. It turns out, Oh, I shouldn't even say
Speaker 1: it turns out we kind of knew this all along,
Speaker 1: didn't we. There's really it's really no surprise here when
Speaker 1: we find out that the whistle blower reportedly worked at
Speaker 1: the White House under the Obama aministration and would have
Speaker 1: worked closely with Vice President Biden. Does anybody think that
Speaker 1: the whistleblower is not a Democrat partisan? Oh oh, but
Speaker 1: there's a there's a second whistleblower, they tell us. Now,
Speaker 1: so that's supposed to be that's supposed to make us
Speaker 1: think that there's a real, a real legitimacy here, because
Speaker 1: there's yet another person who has come forward and said,
Speaker 1: look at what is look at what is going on
Speaker 1: with this Trump phone call. It means nothing. We already
Speaker 1: have the transcript, We already know what was said, So
Speaker 1: what how is the person even a whistle blow? By
Speaker 1: the way, the whistleblower report had falsehoods in it, which
Speaker 1: tends to happen when you're going on hearsay when you
Speaker 1: don't know what was said. You're just hearing from other
Speaker 1: people what was said. Right. So we look now at this,
Speaker 1: at this whistleblower situation with more facts, and the more
Speaker 1: we learn about it, the more clear it is that
Speaker 1: this is someone who has a political acts to grind
Speaker 1: against the president's reelection, does not believe the president of
Speaker 1: the United States should have ever won. And there are
Speaker 1: now other people that are coming forward to speak to
Speaker 1: the press and say that they were really bothered by
Speaker 1: the phone call that Trump had with Zelenski as well
Speaker 1: in the intelligence community. I'm here to tell you that
Speaker 1: most of the senior bureaucrats of the intelligence community have
Speaker 1: the same basic worldview and political beliefs as a gender
Speaker 1: studies professor at a small liberal arts college somewhere who
Speaker 1: self identifies as a socialist. Government is full of people
Speaker 1: like that at the top levels and I know because
Speaker 1: I was there. I was in the CIA. I remember
Speaker 1: what some of the top people in that organization were like.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying all, but a lot of them. Especially
Speaker 1: if you're a careerist, if your career state department, for example,
Speaker 1: the chances of you being a lib are upwards of
Speaker 1: eighty or ninety percent. It's like the media. Yeah, not
Speaker 1: all of the media, obviously I work in media. Not
Speaker 1: all of the media's left wing, socialist insanity. But if
Speaker 1: you are somebody who has chosen to work in journalism,
Speaker 1: chances are about eighty ninety percent you're a lib. Same
Speaker 1: thing in the state department. So that there are more
Speaker 1: people that are coming forward now to say, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: so angry, I'm so concerned what the president did. Well,
Speaker 1: this is their moment to pile on to try to
Speaker 1: give greater legitimacy to what is in inherently weak story
Speaker 1: week allegation, which is that the president what did he do?
Speaker 1: There isn't a quid pro quo. They can keep pretending
Speaker 1: it was implicit or implied, But guess what you could
Speaker 1: do that with any conversation between a leader and someone else,
Speaker 1: and between world leaders on any number of issues. Oh well,
Speaker 1: you know he didn't. He didn't say, do this and
Speaker 1: then do this other cool thing for me to help
Speaker 1: my reelection. But it was implied. Implied is not a
Speaker 1: fancy word for these are the words that I wish
Speaker 1: that person had said. So I'm going to pretend that
Speaker 1: they said it. You have the ex Ambassador Yavanovich who
Speaker 1: has been called today in Capital all behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: Of course, we're gonna get leaks as soon as as
Speaker 1: soon as people can print them. They're going to be
Speaker 1: leaks from this testimony behind closed doors on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: You know you didn't hear about last week a diplomat
Speaker 1: because immedia wanted to suppress this. What are they put forward?
Speaker 1: What are they suppressed? Senior diplomat last week was saying
Speaker 1: that there was no quid pro quo when the President
Speaker 1: made it very explicit, there was no quid pro quo.
Speaker 1: And when the President of Ukraine, Zelenski, had the phone
Speaker 1: call with Trump, they didn't the creating government didn't even
Speaker 1: know that there would be any delay in aid. By
Speaker 1: the way aid that was given to them, the military
Speaker 1: aid did go through, and there wasn't some special investigation
Speaker 1: of Biden that we you know, that was launched as
Speaker 1: a result of the Trump phone call. So there's no quid,
Speaker 1: there's no quo. What are we even talking about? This
Speaker 1: is insanity, it really is. It's it's bizarre. But you're
Speaker 1: gonna have ambassad you have an Ovi who I'm sure
Speaker 1: is a big lib big Democrat. It's gonna say, oh yes.
Speaker 1: And it was really troubling. We were also troubled by this.
Speaker 1: You know, these the same people who tell you that
Speaker 1: everything Trump does is unprecedented, everything Trump does is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: That you know, the Russians handed Trump the election, even
Speaker 1: though not a single vote was changed. They say crazy
Speaker 1: stuff about everything. But now we're supposed to believe them,
Speaker 1: you know, on these issues, we're supposed to think that
Speaker 1: they aren't partisans. I'm just it's just absurd. The whole
Speaker 1: thing is absurd. Now, I did see that there's some
Speaker 1: issue with some Giuliani associates, Rudy Giuliani's associates who have
Speaker 1: been arrested. Play that audio, my friend, I don't know
Speaker 1: those gentlemen. Now it's possible I have a picture with them,
Speaker 1: because I have a picture with everybody. I have a
Speaker 1: picture with everybody here. But somebody said there may be
Speaker 1: a picture or something where at a fundraiser or somewhere. So,
Speaker 1: but I have pictures with everybody. I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's anybody, I don't have pictures. I don't know them.
Speaker 1: I don't know about them. I don't know what they do,
Speaker 1: but I don't know. Maybe they were clients of Rudy.
Speaker 1: You'd have to ask Rudy. I just don't know. Watch
Speaker 1: how much the media invests and digs in on finding
Speaker 1: about the ruddy Rudy Leani's associates here, the stories they
Speaker 1: run versus the complete lack of interest in Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: activities in Ukraine, the lack of interest in Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: any in any context, and the way that Biden has
Speaker 1: has gotten away with verbally slapping around reporters who even
Speaker 1: even raised this issue, like, oh, it's ridiculous that you
Speaker 1: would ask a question about how when I was Vice
Speaker 1: president and running foreign policy for the US government in
Speaker 1: a country my son was getting paid by a gas
Speaker 1: company fifty thousand dollars a month and my son is
Speaker 1: an imbecile who doesn't know anything about gas or Ukraine?
Speaker 1: How dare you ask that question? The media goes, oh,
Speaker 1: we're you know, We're sorry. We shouldn't we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: asked that question. I guess I don't want to follow
Speaker 1: up on that, because you know, the truth is most
Speaker 1: journalists are cowards. Welcome back the Buck Sexton Show. The
Speaker 1: NBA is putting on a clinic for how not to
Speaker 1: handle hey, a pr disaster, for how not to stand
Speaker 1: up for core values and to show the world the
Speaker 1: process that all of you, all of the corporate grand
Speaker 1: standing from the NBA about freedom of freedom of this
Speaker 1: or freedom of that, whatever it may be, or are
Speaker 1: about different political causes, or it doesn't really matter. It's
Speaker 1: not serious, or at least it's only serious when there's
Speaker 1: no consequence there are. They only mean it if there's
Speaker 1: no downside. So the virtue signaling stuff. The NBA loves
Speaker 1: things that look woke and left wing and progressive and cool.
Speaker 1: They're all about that. But protesters in Hong Kong. NBA
Speaker 1: has a very different view on this. I gotta say
Speaker 1: the President, I think is totally right here to just
Speaker 1: Trump smash all the nonsense that's being put out by
Speaker 1: people from the NBA. Instead of hulk smash. We could
Speaker 1: we could start to think Trump Smash kind of like
Speaker 1: that Trump Smash play twenty. I watch this guy, Steve Kerr,
Speaker 1: and he was like a little boy. He was so
Speaker 1: scared to be even answering the question. He couldn't answer
Speaker 1: the question. He was shaking, Oh, I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't know. He didn't know how to answer the question.
Speaker 1: And he'll talk about the United States very badly. I
Speaker 1: watched Popovich sort of the same thing, but he didn't
Speaker 1: look quite as scared. Actually, but they talk badly about
Speaker 1: the United States, but when it talks about China, they
Speaker 1: don't want to say anything bad. I thought it was
Speaker 1: pretty sad. Actually, it'll be it'll be very it'll be
Speaker 1: very interesting. Excuse me, are you okay? Then with the
Speaker 1: Chinese government pressuring the NBA over Hong Kong, they have
Speaker 1: to work out their own situation. The NBA is they
Speaker 1: know what they're doing. But I watched the way that
Speaker 1: like Kerr and Popovich and some of the others were
Speaker 1: pandering to China and yet to our own country they don't.
Speaker 1: It's like they don't respect it. It's like they don't
Speaker 1: respect it. I said, what a difference, Isn't it sad?
Speaker 1: It's very sad to me. It's very said. Trump is
Speaker 1: absolutely correct. They do like to trash America. They're very
Speaker 1: quick to criticize this country. And in fact, I think
Speaker 1: I've seen that the was the Portland Trailblazers. An NBA
Speaker 1: team has just joined a a BDS boycott, divest, sanctions
Speaker 1: campaign issue against Israel. So they won't do business anymore
Speaker 1: with a company that does business with the IDF, the
Speaker 1: Israeli Defense Forces in Zrael. So NBA teams they'll take
Speaker 1: political stance. They'll just take left wing ones, and they'll
Speaker 1: take ones that undermine America, that talk about what a bad, racist,
Speaker 1: oppressive country America is. But China, whoa, I mean, China,
Speaker 1: come out. China's a big market. They can't they can't
Speaker 1: say that it's going to upset China. I want to
Speaker 1: do that when there's money at stake for the NBA.
Speaker 1: Because remember, conservatives, the right, we don't we don't pressure
Speaker 1: people the way that the left does. We don't do
Speaker 1: these campaign of do as we say or else we
Speaker 1: will bring your business to its knees. That's really a
Speaker 1: left wing thing. And so they can do this with impunity.
Speaker 1: Usually they can trash the right. They can trash traditional
Speaker 1: American values and American freedoms without it being a problem
Speaker 1: for them and feel really brave in the process. But
Speaker 1: China actually is gonna clap back, so to speak. China
Speaker 1: is gonna punch back and say, oh, okay, you you
Speaker 1: say something about us we don't like. Guess what now,
Speaker 1: Now you don't have access to our markets. Now your
Speaker 1: dollar signs are in trouble. And that's why the NBA,
Speaker 1: for example, has canceled media availability for the rest of
Speaker 1: a China trip. ESPN just reporting on that today of
Speaker 1: a trip to China, and you're just not seeing anyone
Speaker 1: in the NBA willing to say, willing to I don't know,
Speaker 1: how about where something in solidarity with the protesters in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong on the court and take a fine for that,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe maybe even do something, take some social
Speaker 1: media active protest or just any anything in solidarity with
Speaker 1: the people of Hong Kong who just want basic freedom,
Speaker 1: rights and dignity and are standing up against and increasingly
Speaker 1: tyrannical and violent Chinese authoritarian police force in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: Where's the where's the love, where's the support, where's the help?
Speaker 1: These NBA guys. But they're all they're all multi millionaires.
Speaker 1: It's so rich they can they can be locked through
Speaker 1: the Chinese market forever and still never have to think
Speaker 1: about money the rest of their lives, to be super
Speaker 1: successful and globally famous. And so what what are they really?
Speaker 1: What are the real risks they're taking? That's what this
Speaker 1: Isn't some small business that's going to fold at the
Speaker 1: Chinese say so. But they like to make a lot
Speaker 1: of money. They don't want to make just a lot,
Speaker 1: They want to make a lot a lot. Huh. It's
Speaker 1: almost like greed over rides or I should say capitalism,
Speaker 1: but the desire for accumulation of wealth overrides wokeness. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's the first time we've seen that on
Speaker 1: the left. But the best example of how not to
Speaker 1: speak about this issue and to show what a silly,
Speaker 1: ignorant hypocrite one can be when while the NBA's dealing
Speaker 1: with this debacle, which it is, the NBA should never
Speaker 1: have backed down, should never have placated the Chinese they
Speaker 1: did right off the bat. Here is former was he
Speaker 1: a three point shooter for the Bulls back in the day.
Speaker 1: Isn't that what is this guy's the worst? Here's the
Speaker 1: coach of I think it's the Golden State words. I
Speaker 1: don't really watch. Thank you producer Marks here to make
Speaker 1: sure I know sports stuff. Here's what he had to
Speaker 1: say about the China situation. Basically, Yeah, America's really bad
Speaker 1: too play it. It has not come up in terms
Speaker 1: of people asking me about it, people discussing it. No,
Speaker 1: Nor has our record of human rights abuses come up either.
Speaker 1: You know, things that our country needs to look at
Speaker 1: and resolve that hasn't come up either. So none of
Speaker 1: us are perfect, and we all have different issues that
Speaker 1: we have to get to and saying that is my
Speaker 1: right as an American doesn't mean that I hate my
Speaker 1: country and means I want to address things right. But
Speaker 1: people in China didn't ask me about you know, people
Speaker 1: owning a or fifteens and mowing each other down in
Speaker 1: a ma all. I wasn't asked that question. So we
Speaker 1: can play this game all we want and go all
Speaker 1: over the map, and you know, there's this issue and
Speaker 1: that issue, and the world is a complex place and
Speaker 1: there's more gray than black and white. Oh wow, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Steve Kerr for the most intellectually flimsy,
Speaker 1: cowardly moral relativism that anybody he could ever conjure up
Speaker 1: on the spot. That was amazing, wasn't it. Here's the
Speaker 1: guy he could say. Look, by the way, if somebody
Speaker 1: ever wants to take the position, guys, I'm here to
Speaker 1: play basketball to entertain people. I you know, I don't
Speaker 1: have a I don't have a comment to make on politics.
Speaker 1: If if that's someone's position, I can always respect that.
Speaker 1: You know, we don't have to make everybody a player
Speaker 1: in the political realm. You don't have to do that.
Speaker 1: The problem I have is that NBA players and the
Speaker 1: NBA's as as an organization overall, are very politically active,
Speaker 1: have all kinds of thoughts and ideas on politics that
Speaker 1: they must share with us all the time, right whether
Speaker 1: it's you know, wearing the hoodies for Trayvon Martin or
Speaker 1: you know, all any number of things. You know, Lebron
Speaker 1: James really likes to have his say about politics. Among
Speaker 1: others who are you know, also superstars and worth unimaginable
Speaker 1: amounts of money, But but do complain about America a
Speaker 1: lot for people that are living in the free u's
Speaker 1: best most prosperous country in the history of the world.
Speaker 1: Like someone like Steve Kerr, for example, guys, a millionaire
Speaker 1: famous played in the NBA before. Now he's a player
Speaker 1: and he's trashing America. But but the moral relatives relativism
Speaker 1: here is what's really so it's just so just enraging. Really,
Speaker 1: if you wanted to say, guys, I don't know much
Speaker 1: about China, I leave that to other people, and I
Speaker 1: just want my players to, you know, focus on what
Speaker 1: they do and I want us to be the greatest
Speaker 1: league in the world. And fine, but don't don't say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't have anything to say about China, you know whatever,
Speaker 1: because like everyone does bad stuff, man, Like you know,
Speaker 1: people are just like no one's perfect. Man, really, Oh
Speaker 1: that's I mean, Steve Kerr is apparently a moron. That's
Speaker 1: your gonna louse. We're not perfect either. We're not talking
Speaker 1: about perfect their, dude. We're talking about a country that
Speaker 1: has violated its covenant with its own people and is
Speaker 1: now ending out thugs, sometimes in uniform, sometimes not to beat,
Speaker 1: bludgeon and shoot them because they don't want the eradication
Speaker 1: of individual rights and democracy in a place that has
Speaker 1: had at least a taste of those freedoms in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: I mean, you either believe that human beings should have
Speaker 1: some sense of some ability to have autonomy and self
Speaker 1: determination or not. But don't do this. Oh well we're
Speaker 1: not perfect either. And the pivot, by the way to
Speaker 1: a R fifteens, what does that have to do with anything,
Speaker 1: you Steve Kerry, You unbelievable idiot. And this is a
Speaker 1: guy who's got a lot of ideas. He'll talk about
Speaker 1: politics obviously switches so so he wants to, you know,
Speaker 1: weigh in on a R fifteen owners. But he doesn't
Speaker 1: have anything bad, doesn't have anything bad to say about China. No, no,
Speaker 1: of course not, of course not. There's a tough situation
Speaker 1: and we'll try to figure that out. But this is
Speaker 1: like the leftist that I know who when they talk
Speaker 1: they'll talk about women's rights in this country, and then
Speaker 1: you bring up, say the horrific oppression of women, particularly
Speaker 1: in the Muslim world and especially in places like say Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: They say, well, you know, yeah, but the burka is
Speaker 1: a cultural thing, and yeah, you know, the abusive women
Speaker 1: is a high level, but they have a different culture.
Speaker 1: You know, all this kind of wishywashy mealy mouthed on
Speaker 1: the one hand, on the other cowardice cowardice. And I
Speaker 1: can't tell Steve Kerr if I had to find it
Speaker 1: come up with the formula. I don't know how much
Speaker 1: of what he said is just stupidity versus just being
Speaker 1: a whimp. But the pivot to air fifteens is just perfect,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Oh? Yes, Let's compare the violence against citizens
Speaker 1: and oppression of people in Hong Kong as a top
Speaker 1: down policy of the largest country in the world with
Speaker 1: the second biggest economy in the world. Let's compare that
Speaker 1: to the random criminal acts of some individuals in this
Speaker 1: country who have gone on mass shooting spreeze. Hong Kong
Speaker 1: is operating concentration camps. Hong Kong is imprisoning Wagers, an
Speaker 1: ethnic minority who are Muslims in the west of the
Speaker 1: country and putting them in re education camps, torturing them,
Speaker 1: doing all kinds of terrible stuff. And Steve Kerr is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: but America is not so great either. This is the
Speaker 1: idiocy of the left. I mean, this is and it's
Speaker 1: a it's a common refraineal here. Well, sure, they're doing
Speaker 1: terrible things in this or that country. You know, they're
Speaker 1: they're mutilating people for minor offenses against the Quran in
Speaker 1: this country. But you know America has its demons in
Speaker 1: its past. Two Huh, what does that have to do
Speaker 1: with anything? But the left embraces more relativism all the time.
Speaker 1: They don't understand that there are universal truths that human
Speaker 1: dignity and human rights. They talk about human rights, but
Speaker 1: then they don't really think that all humans should have them.
Speaker 1: They just use that as a tool as a cudgel
Speaker 1: to bash people or regimes that they don't like, and
Speaker 1: to make excuses for regimes that they do. Steve Kerr,
Speaker 1: that's right. We can't criticize we're in the NBA, for example,
Speaker 1: shouldn't criticize China because you know, we have people who
Speaker 1: own AAR fifteens. One of the dumbest things I've I've
Speaker 1: heard of public figure say at a long time. And
Speaker 1: that's that's impressive because in a moment we're going to
Speaker 1: hear from Missieur Justin Trudeau. It looks like Missieur Justin Trudeau,
Speaker 1: who's very woke, very left wing, very liberal. He is
Speaker 1: a male feminist. He is the anti chauvinist. He does
Speaker 1: not like mankind the only legs humankind. He does not
Speaker 1: really sound like this, But now we've created a fake
Speaker 1: version of Trudeau for only this show. Trudeau is everything
Speaker 1: that people on the right like me, have been saying
Speaker 1: about him for a very long time. But now we
Speaker 1: just add into that that he didn't he didn't dress
Speaker 1: in black face, period. He had a dressing in black
Speaker 1: face problem, like this is something that he thought was
Speaker 1: clearly thought was really funny or clever or he was
Speaker 1: all He did his numerous times. He did it so
Speaker 1: many times, my friends. And this is on the record.
Speaker 1: He did it so many times that he doesn't even
Speaker 1: remember how many times he did it. That tells you
Speaker 1: a lot. Well. He looks to be I think he's
Speaker 1: still leading in the post. I think he's gonna win
Speaker 1: again in Canada, which is stunning Canada. What are you
Speaker 1: doing up there, my friends? What is going on? But
Speaker 1: Trudeau is the problem is that people know this thing
Speaker 1: now and they can ask him as the questions. So
Speaker 1: they asked him about Oh, I'm sorry, A young person
Speaker 1: asked him about this situation. And here's how Trudeau tried
Speaker 1: to explain to a child in a classroom his black
Speaker 1: face his black face incidents plural. And so, Lara, do
Speaker 1: you want to stand up and ask a question? Why
Speaker 1: did you pick your face? Far? Oh? It was something
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have done because it hurt people. It's not
Speaker 1: something that you you should do. And that is something
Speaker 1: that I learned. I didn't know it back then, but
Speaker 1: I know it now and I'm sorry I hurt people.
Speaker 1: But did you pick your note in your hands? Fan?
Speaker 1: H Yeah, and it was the wrong thing to do.
Speaker 1: I mean the kid, the kid. I know that I've
Speaker 1: been saying kids shouldn't be involved in politics. Maybe this
Speaker 1: is he's at a classroom, the kids are asking questions.
Speaker 1: The kid there does raise a very very interesting point there,
Speaker 1: which is it wasn't just black face. The guy painted
Speaker 1: painted like his whole body a body part. It's just
Speaker 1: this he didn't know was a problem. Justin Trudeau, the
Speaker 1: guys this much of an idiot. He didn't know it was.
Speaker 1: This is the answer he gives this kid. I feel
Speaker 1: like the kids probably his head thinking who is this?
Speaker 1: Who is this imbecile? So anyway, I'm you know Trudeau, Yes,
Speaker 1: I did not know it then, but I'm sorry or sorry,
Speaker 1: trying to say the way the Canadians. He's sorry, He's
Speaker 1: not that sorry. He's gonna step down. He still thinks
Speaker 1: he should be the leader of a major Western country,
Speaker 1: and Liberals are still going to vote for him. If
Speaker 1: he were a conservative, he would never be allowed to
Speaker 1: show his face in public again without being yelled at.
Speaker 1: But this is why just the hypocrisy thing keeps coming up.
Speaker 1: Liberals don't really believe in the things they say. They believe,
Speaker 1: and they believe it in so far as it makes
Speaker 1: them feel good and it's politically advantageous. But the belief
Speaker 1: can always be put aside. The belief is always secondary
Speaker 1: to the need for power and the acquisition of political
Speaker 1: and cultural authority that can be wielded against other people.
Speaker 1: There is a petty authoritarianism at the heart of every
Speaker 1: left winger. Never forget that Trudeau is one of them.
Speaker 1: There are many many others. But I just thought that
Speaker 1: that the kid asking that question was just was quite
Speaker 1: a moment. Apparently Canada's Prime minister once again. Folks. I
Speaker 1: don't know what I gotta do to get my Canadian
Speaker 1: brothers and sisters to wake up here you are now
Speaker 1: entering the Freedom Hot Titical Operation Center, all sensitive programs
Speaker 1: musty keeps strictly need to know Team Buck is cleared
Speaker 1: and ready for the Buck Brief. President Trump's recent announcement
Speaker 1: that he will abandon the Kurds at the Syria Turkey
Speaker 1: border is another example of how President Trump's reckless foreign
Speaker 1: policy mirrors his reckless domestic policy. He even deserts his friends,
Speaker 1: both at home and abroad. Let me be clear, I
Speaker 1: believe we can't stay in the Middle East indefinitely, but
Speaker 1: abandoning the Kurds, especially so precipitously, who have fought shoulder
Speaker 1: to shoulder with our troops against ISIS, is morally wrong
Speaker 1: and could put American lives in danger. Abandoning the Kurds
Speaker 1: is the wrong thing, the wrong thing to do. It
Speaker 1: should not have come to this, But Republicans in Congress,
Speaker 1: by repeatedly demonstrating that they're unwilling to hold President Trump
Speaker 1: accountable when he does something wrong, have established a permission
Speaker 1: structure for President Trump's reckless actions in Syria. Republicans in
Speaker 1: Congress need to put their country over Trump. The president
Speaker 1: likes to say he puts America first. In this case,
Speaker 1: President Trump has put putin and Urduwan first, and America
Speaker 1: and its security interests second. Turkey knows where I stand.
Speaker 1: And the last thing, okay, very simple. We had a
Speaker 1: big victory. We left the area. I don't think the
Speaker 1: American people want to see us go back in with
Speaker 1: our military go back into that area again. We won,
Speaker 1: we left the area. I don't think we want to
Speaker 1: go back in. Let's see what happens. We are going
Speaker 1: to possibly do something very very tough with respect to
Speaker 1: sanctions and other financial things. The situation in northern Syria
Speaker 1: right now is a mess. Okay, let's just let's establish
Speaker 1: right now there are no easy answers. This is complicated,
Speaker 1: and anyone who tells you that they know exactly what
Speaker 1: should be done here doesn't know what they're talking about
Speaker 1: because there are too many different variables, too many pitfalls,
Speaker 1: too many things that could go wrong, and right now
Speaker 1: it's just turned into yet another moment to bash Trump.
Speaker 1: For most people rights, that's what most of the commentary,
Speaker 1: the analysis you hear on the issue of the Kurds
Speaker 1: in Syria is really all about. Let's let's step back
Speaker 1: and look at a few core things. First of all,
Speaker 1: you have the possibility of what would be an ISIS
Speaker 1: jailbreak in northern Syria if the eleven thousand or so
Speaker 1: ISIS fighters currently being held by YPG, Kurdish militia and
Speaker 1: Syrian Defense forces. Really so the Syrian Defense Forces are
Speaker 1: about half Kurdish, half Arab, but the Kurdish fighters are
Speaker 1: really the backbone of it, especially in these northern areas
Speaker 1: of Syria, and they have in their custody eleven thousand
Speaker 1: ISIS fighters. The Turks have already launched an incursion into
Speaker 1: northern Syria and are clearing out some areas, and now
Speaker 1: the belief is that they're just going to create They're
Speaker 1: going to carve out a Turkish protectorate in northern Syria
Speaker 1: and push out the Kurds from that area to give
Speaker 1: them a buffer zone, effectively, so that they don't have
Speaker 1: what they believe to be and what is technically listed
Speaker 1: as a terrorist group, the PKK on their border, a
Speaker 1: separatist Marxist guerrilla group that's been around for decades. So
Speaker 1: that's what the Turks are doing now. The Turks are
Speaker 1: being unhelpful in this regard, but the Turks also just
Speaker 1: like the Russians in Ukraine, The advantage that they have
Speaker 1: over us in Ukraine is that they care a lot more,
Speaker 1: and they're right there. The advantage the Turks have in
Speaker 1: the situation over us is they care a whole lot
Speaker 1: more and this is on their doorsteps. So we can
Speaker 1: try to back them off, and the President was talking
Speaker 1: about that there. We can push them with economic sanctions perhaps,
Speaker 1: but are Touan from what I saw reported today, is
Speaker 1: threatening to say, you know what, if you guys try
Speaker 1: anything with us, We're just going to open the floodgates
Speaker 1: of refugees from the Syrian Civil War into Europe. How
Speaker 1: about that? So er Towan is also willing to play rough,
Speaker 1: make things, make things tougher on us. It's a very
Speaker 1: complicated situation. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for
Speaker 1: and feel very badly about what's going on for Kurdish
Speaker 1: fighters in northern Syria right now. I believe they've been
Speaker 1: eleven or twelve casualties from the Turkish incursion so far
Speaker 1: as the numbers are very low, but that could escalate rapidly.
Speaker 1: But the truth is the Kurds fought beside our soldiers
Speaker 1: in Iraq bravely. Kurds have fought beside our soldiers in
Speaker 1: Syria bravely. All the troops that I know, and I
Speaker 1: know many of them who have worked alongside Kurds, say
Speaker 1: that they are honorable, they are good fighters, and they
Speaker 1: don't have these these same penetration problems where you have
Speaker 1: some radical will. This has happened many times with Sunni
Speaker 1: Arabs in Iraq with different different groups, usually Pashtuns in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: who will infiltrate the armed forces that we're trying to train,
Speaker 1: and then we'll turn on our trainers, so called green
Speaker 1: on green on blue incidents. We don't. We haven't had
Speaker 1: that with the Kurds, and they they prevented likely hundreds,
Speaker 1: if not perhaps even thousands of casualties. Probably would have
Speaker 1: been hundreds, but hundreds of casualties if the US had
Speaker 1: to do the house to house fighting and clearing of Rocca. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: so I understand these different namics, but let's also remember
Speaker 1: that the Kurds needed to defeat ISIS too. ISIS would
Speaker 1: come in after the Curds, so we help them defend
Speaker 1: themselves and their territory. So they weren't just some proxy
Speaker 1: force for US that had no skin in the game.
Speaker 1: They had all their skin in the game, so to speak.
Speaker 1: They were all trying to fight against the Islamic State,
Speaker 1: and usial forces in the United States Air Force gave
Speaker 1: them critical advantages in the battlefield that kept their casualties
Speaker 1: from me much higher than they would have otherwise been.
Speaker 1: But now we look at okay, fine, what are we
Speaker 1: really Trump has said that fifty soldiers or so will
Speaker 1: be US soldiers really moved out of these areas, which
Speaker 1: means that the trip wire for Turkish forces isn't in
Speaker 1: place the way that it was. We still have about
Speaker 1: a thousand troops down from I think about two thousand
Speaker 1: in Syria. And I've been I've been advocating for we've
Speaker 1: got to get them out. What is the let's go
Speaker 1: through the alternative, because I keep seeing this said and
Speaker 1: written that the endless war trope is unfair and not true.
Speaker 1: And you know, you can't just say, oh well, if
Speaker 1: you don't, if you don't want our troops to come out,
Speaker 1: then you're in an advocate for endless war. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: what is the alternative? Remember, it's not the same thing,
Speaker 1: and this is very important, It's not the same thing
Speaker 1: to leave troops behind in a country at peace, who
Speaker 1: are the guests of that nation? Okay? Then it is
Speaker 1: to leave troops in a war, in an active war
Speaker 1: zone with multiple parties vying for territory, vying for power,
Speaker 1: and support of different factions on the ground, and they're
Speaker 1: still blood being shed. This is just a fancy way
Speaker 1: of saying We're a long way, not a fancy way
Speaker 1: of saying that. Syria, South Korea, it's not Japan, it's
Speaker 1: not Germany. We're not at the end of some massive
Speaker 1: war where now we have established a regime and there's
Speaker 1: the establishment of a regime in place that wants US
Speaker 1: troops there or that has allowed a US base to
Speaker 1: be there. We are in a war zone in Syria, Okay,
Speaker 1: We're in the middle of an active war. And what
Speaker 1: are we supposed to do it? How long are we
Speaker 1: supposed to stay there? Where people keep saying that precipitous withdrawal. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: is there such a thing as is there any future
Speaker 1: in which if we remove all one thousand troops from
Speaker 1: Syria it does not seem like a participious withdrawal. Well,
Speaker 1: the only way that could happen is if Syria is
Speaker 1: at peace and the factions that are there are no
Speaker 1: longer fun. Does anyone think that's going to happen anytime soon?
Speaker 1: The civil war in Lebanon raged on for about fifteen years.
Speaker 1: Syria has been going on for about five You have
Speaker 1: the Russians there, the Turks are involved, the Iranians are involved,
Speaker 1: all these different regional players, and we think we should
Speaker 1: just leave a thousand troops there because what, what do
Speaker 1: we even want the future of Syria to look like?
Speaker 1: Why haven't we heard about that? But we want there
Speaker 1: to be elections. If Syria is no longer really a country,
Speaker 1: as I keep saying, there is still a Syrian national government,
Speaker 1: it happens to be the Assad regime, and they maintain
Speaker 1: control over most of the major population centers. But so
Speaker 1: are we committed to stay in because we helped the
Speaker 1: courage to feed iis? Are we committed to stay forever? Okay,
Speaker 1: We're committed to stay based on conditions on the ground,
Speaker 1: because that's what we committed to an Afghanistan. We've been
Speaker 1: there for almost twenty years. It's always ground based conditions, folks.
Speaker 1: The national security establishment seems to never want us to
Speaker 1: stop having troops in any place. I think it's so
Speaker 1: rich too that Chuck Schumer. They're saying, oh, we're pulling
Speaker 1: out our troops, We're bannoning at Kurdish illas. What was
Speaker 1: it when Obama pulled out troops, didn't want a status
Speaker 1: of forces agreement, didn't want to have troops behind in Iraq,
Speaker 1: and did a victory lap for pulling troops out. What
Speaker 1: was that? Was that? Abandoning the Iraqi military, the Iraqi
Speaker 1: troops that we were training and police and what was
Speaker 1: that exactly? Oh, and then the rise of ISIS. By
Speaker 1: the way, ISIS is not going anywhere really, it's an ideology.
Speaker 1: So there will continue to be ISIS in surgeon elements
Speaker 1: operating in Syria for the foreseeable and across the region.
Speaker 1: But now if Turkey's involvement in the area means that
Speaker 1: the Turks are going to take control or take some
Speaker 1: responsibility for some area of Syria, we don't want it
Speaker 1: to be our responsibility. And that's what I think people
Speaker 1: keep forgetting here. We just don't want ISIS to be there.
Speaker 1: You know, look at Afghanistan, we didn't want al Qaeda
Speaker 1: and the Taliban to be there, and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden that turned into well, now let's rebuild this country
Speaker 1: and make it a functional place where there's democracy and
Speaker 1: human rights and sovereignty and territorial integrity and can defend
Speaker 1: itself against outside invaders. All of a sudden, we're rebuilding Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: We've been rebuilding it for twenty years almost. We don't
Speaker 1: want to be rebuilding Syria. Enough is enough. We never
Speaker 1: I just see this player. We'd never learned a lesson.
Speaker 1: And of course it's going to be hard. Of course,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a challenge. You're gonna have to
Speaker 1: make trade offs. They're going to be losses. Bad things
Speaker 1: happen at the end of wars. That's just that's true.
Speaker 1: You know. We we like to think of World War
Speaker 1: Two is the kind of victory that we want to have.
Speaker 1: Right in many ways, absolutely the case defeated Nazi Germany,
Speaker 1: defeated imperial Japan. We also carved up the world then
Speaker 1: condemned about half of the world to communist slavery and totalitarianism. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what happened after the Second World War, you know
Speaker 1: we Yeah, it was a big victory for us, and
Speaker 1: it led to American prosperity. On these great things had
Speaker 1: also almost led to a nuclear war that would have
Speaker 1: destroyed the world because we didn't say afterwards, a whole
Speaker 1: on a second Eastern Europe. We're not you know we
Speaker 1: we East of Europe needs to have elections, Soviets you
Speaker 1: need to back off. Come on, No, we said, all right, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you take your half, We'll take our half.
Speaker 1: See you later. Was the Korean War a huge a
Speaker 1: huge success. Well, we save South Korea from being a
Speaker 1: part of North Korea. But we also eventually said, okay, well,
Speaker 1: I guess North Korea is staying. Find me a war
Speaker 1: and I'll find you difficult choices that had to be
Speaker 1: made at the end of it. This stuff is never easy.
Speaker 1: It's never straightforward. Do I think that it stinks that
Speaker 1: we are leaving Kurdish allies in the battlefield in a
Speaker 1: position where they have to fend for themselves. Absolutely, But
Speaker 1: do I understand why the president is just heat? They
Speaker 1: never tell them that the troops can come home, folks.
Speaker 1: Can they come up from Afghanistan? Oh no, you can't
Speaker 1: do that. Can they come up from a rock? Oh no,
Speaker 1: that's a terrible idea, because they come home from Syria. No,
Speaker 1: when I say come home, I don't I don't mean
Speaker 1: they have to go actually home. I just bean not
Speaker 1: deployed in a forward country in a war zone. Do
Speaker 1: we ever get to scale down? Do we have to
Speaker 1: continue the spread of our military commitments all over the
Speaker 1: globe and make them permanent? I mean, I remember this
Speaker 1: was what John McCain was saying, Yeah, fifty years in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Whatever we have to do. No, no, we don't want
Speaker 1: to do that. That was a bad idea. And I
Speaker 1: think that in no small part there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people who don't want there to be a change
Speaker 1: here because then they might have to do a little
Speaker 1: bit of self reflection. What half the neo cons what
Speaker 1: half the half the interventionists, the military interventionists wrought in
Speaker 1: the Middle East and around the world. And the last
Speaker 1: twenty years some of you are saying about the last
Speaker 1: you know, seventy years, But let's say the last twenty years.
Speaker 1: Has it been a history of successes? Is this something
Speaker 1: you want to continue to do? And I always think
Speaker 1: about it this way. I mean, I joined up with
Speaker 1: the CIA after nine eleven because I wanted to help
Speaker 1: my country. I wanted to fight al Qaeda and the terrorists.
Speaker 1: But would I go to northern Syria. Would I go
Speaker 1: to northern Syria and try to get involved in this
Speaker 1: is the civil war? I mean, as much as I
Speaker 1: like the Kurds, I think the answer is no, because
Speaker 1: I don't think we have a core national security interest
Speaker 1: still at stake in Syria. Has the United States broken
Speaker 1: its commitment to the Syrians as a result of political
Speaker 1: and battlefield realities? Now, yeah, I think that's true. And
Speaker 1: is that fair? No, it is not. But this is
Speaker 1: a nasty and messy business. And until somebody comes up
Speaker 1: with an answer that doesn't involve all troops stay forever.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I think the President has the right instinct here,
Speaker 1: which is we've got to stop doing this. The alternative
Speaker 1: to not stopping is to keep going, And to keep
Speaker 1: going means the continuation of US military commitments far in
Speaker 1: excess of what is wise. And I think what is
Speaker 1: really possible for us to continue. The Clinton dynasty is
Speaker 1: not over, my friends, This is true on a couple
Speaker 1: of levels. First off, I don't think that Harry has
Speaker 1: completely abandoned all hope of running in twenty twenty. And
Speaker 1: I know I'm not the only one who says it,
Speaker 1: but I used to ask a few people that would
Speaker 1: come on the Hill TV show in DC when I
Speaker 1: was the host there, I used to ask Hillary are
Speaker 1: going to run? And they would look at me like, oh,
Speaker 1: such a ridiculous question. Of course Hillary is not going
Speaker 1: to run. Well, now she's talking about how she could
Speaker 1: beat Trump again, and she's out there in public and
Speaker 1: she's part of the hashtag resistance. And I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody who understands who Hillary Clinton really is deep inside
Speaker 1: knows that she's holding out that there's a some chance.
Speaker 1: I've just been saying ten percent. I think that's about right.
Speaker 1: There's about ten percent shot she gets back into it.
Speaker 1: Anne has the backing of establishment Democrats and it's not
Speaker 1: a total farce. But speaking of total farces, now in Westchester,
Speaker 1: the powers that be in the Democratic Party are pitching
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton. That's right. Now, we have to have Chelsea
Speaker 1: Clinton going to enter politics. I knew this would happen.
Speaker 1: I've been predicting it all along, and I do just
Speaker 1: think this is gross. Now, gross doesn't mean she can't
Speaker 1: do that or it's legal. I'm not saying that, of
Speaker 1: course she can run, right. Nepotism in politics in general
Speaker 1: is gross. It's not good when it's Chelsea Clinton. It's
Speaker 1: not good when it's a Bush. It's not good anywhere
Speaker 1: across the board. We do not have feudal lords in
Speaker 1: this country. We are we're not in a monarchy. We
Speaker 1: shouldn't think that people should get our vote based upon
Speaker 1: their last name being the same as somebody else who
Speaker 1: once got our votes. It's true for Clinton's, It's going
Speaker 1: to be true for Trump's too, my friends. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not a dynasty person. I think it's just wrong.
Speaker 1: It shows you that celebrity and influence and power matter
Speaker 1: much more in our politics than ability, merit, hard work.
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton has never had a real job in her life.
Speaker 1: All the jobs she had she got she's at Clinton All,
Speaker 1: Waltson this place, Waltson in that place. Never lasted anywhere
Speaker 1: for more than a couple of years. You know, she
Speaker 1: got paid to ba I think she got paid seven
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars to be a special correspondent at NBC News.
Speaker 1: The worst on air performance I've ever seen on national
Speaker 1: TV from a paid correspondent was Chelsea Clinton seven hundred
Speaker 1: grand folks, as if she needed the money just to
Speaker 1: pay off to the Clinton Dynasty courtesy of NBC. Oh,
Speaker 1: but she's gonna run because her whole life, people have
Speaker 1: been telling her how special she is, even though she's
Speaker 1: never done anything really special and her parents are really corrupt.
Speaker 1: We just completed a negotiation with China. We're doing very well.
Speaker 1: We're having another one tomorrow. I'm meeting with the Vice
Speaker 1: Premiere over at the White House, and I think it's
Speaker 1: going really well. I will say, I think it's going
Speaker 1: really well. So we had a very very good negotiation
Speaker 1: with China. They'll be speaking a little bit later, but
Speaker 1: they're basically wrapping it up and we're going to see
Speaker 1: them tomorrow right here, and it's going very well. Trump
Speaker 1: administration hoping to get sub kind of deal with China.
Speaker 1: The markets surging today, people are saying because of optimism
Speaker 1: on the possibility of a trade deal. Chinese Vice Premier
Speaker 1: Lie Hey will be in Washington. Is in Washington today,
Speaker 1: the first time they've been high level trade talks with
Speaker 1: American officials in months. And there's a new set of
Speaker 1: tariffs for on all Chinese exports the US. They're they're
Speaker 1: gonna hit in the middle of December. So this is
Speaker 1: perhaps a last moment in time where you might get
Speaker 1: some kind of deal, and if you don't, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have tariffs that hit both sides and could have some
Speaker 1: really nasty effects on both economies. Although it has so
Speaker 1: far hurt China's economy more than it has hurt ours,
Speaker 1: I think that's that's very very much the case. It's
Speaker 1: true the not necessarily conventional, but the smart wisdom. I'd
Speaker 1: say the people that pay attention that I think know
Speaker 1: what they're talking about, have been anticipating the possibility of
Speaker 1: a Chinese a piecemeal deal or the start of a
Speaker 1: piecemeal deal with China on trade to stall the next
Speaker 1: round of tariffs from coming in and also to give
Speaker 1: a little bit more political breathing room for the president.
Speaker 1: I have to say, I think that there will not
Speaker 1: be a deal. I don't even think there'll be a
Speaker 1: deal of any kind. There might be a stall of
Speaker 1: the tariffs, but that's not really a deal. That's just
Speaker 1: kicking the can down the road. I don't see anything substantive,
Speaker 1: substantive either of those ways. I like to say it, well,
Speaker 1: we'll take it either way, buck. I don't see either
Speaker 1: one of those things happening at this juncture, at this time,
Speaker 1: so we'll see if I'm right. I tend to be right.
Speaker 1: You know that speaking of China, one thing I did
Speaker 1: not get you before I meant to get to were
Speaker 1: these uh, was what happened when you had a journalists
Speaker 1: asking James Harden Russell Westbrook about the China situation. Here's
Speaker 1: how those two NBA superstars reacted Play three Hi Christina
Speaker 1: mcfallin CNN. The NBA has always been a league that
Speaker 1: prides itself on its player and its coaches being able
Speaker 1: to speak out openly about political and societal affairs. I
Speaker 1: just wonder, after the events of this week and the
Speaker 1: fallout we've seen, whether you would both feel differently about
Speaker 1: speaking out in that way in future questions. It's a
Speaker 1: legitimate question. This is an event that's happened this week
Speaker 1: during during the NBA and the answer this particular question
Speaker 1: has not been answered. Yep, NBA trying to shut it
Speaker 1: down basketball questions only basketball questions only. Have you ever
Speaker 1: heard that, by the way, have you ever heard that before?
Speaker 1: When when a journalist has asked NBA players, would completely
Speaker 1: I agree with to see ann reporter there, It's a
Speaker 1: completely legitimate question. You ever heard that about presidential election,
Speaker 1: about Black Lives Matter, about you know, police brutality, you know,
Speaker 1: name an issue that has come up in politics that
Speaker 1: where there has been a really widespread and clear voice
Speaker 1: from the from people within the NBA ranks speaking out,
Speaker 1: and I've never seen that before. All basketball questions, Aliva,
Speaker 1: that PR person was, oh my gosh, she's obviously a
Speaker 1: little bit freaked out the prospect of Russell Westbrook and
Speaker 1: James Harden answering questions about the NBA. I've just I've
Speaker 1: just got to tell you, it's it's a shame. It's
Speaker 1: a shame that this is the way it is. Um.
Speaker 1: I would really like to see you know, you know who,
Speaker 1: you know who really could do it. I just just
Speaker 1: have Lebron James come out and say that we believe
Speaker 1: that all people deserve freedom and we stand with the
Speaker 1: desires of the people of Hong Kong. Such an easy
Speaker 1: thing from to do. Think about what that would mean,
Speaker 1: because you know, these plays NBA players, we always they're
Speaker 1: superstars in this country, sure, but in China because you know,
Speaker 1: these American athletes, especially in the NBA, they're like gods.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're just they're so revered because they're
Speaker 1: the best in the world right and they have a
Speaker 1: lot of cultural residence over there. I mean, if I'm
Speaker 1: Lebron James and I'm already worth for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if he's worth a billion
Speaker 1: dollars yet, but he's pretty much worth a billion dollars
Speaker 1: if he is, and he will be thanks to compound
Speaker 1: interest in continuing endorsements. You know, you're already basically a billionaire.
Speaker 1: You never have to work another day in your life.
Speaker 1: You're gonna want to. You're the best basketball player in
Speaker 1: the world. Someboud say the best basketball player ever. You
Speaker 1: have a huge platform, and you could really inject hope
Speaker 1: into the hearts of the people of Hong Kong who
Speaker 1: are fighting for not remember it's not just their freedom.
Speaker 1: This has implications for Taiwan, has implications for China internally,
Speaker 1: has implicated. I mean, people are gonna watch what happens
Speaker 1: here and it will matter to future generations. What's the
Speaker 1: worst they canna happen is if Lebron James says that,
Speaker 1: what are they what are they gonna do? They they
Speaker 1: are fire Lebron James. I don't think so. People aren't
Speaker 1: gonna watch him play basketball. People aren't going to support
Speaker 1: of course not. You know, there's a greater burden on
Speaker 1: the truly powerful and the truly wealthy and influential to
Speaker 1: show I mean, I think there should be a greater
Speaker 1: burden from to show courage because if they don't. You know,
Speaker 1: it's one thing to say I don't want to get
Speaker 1: involved in politics because I don't want them to shut
Speaker 1: down my bakery, and then I you know, I can't
Speaker 1: pay my bills and feed my family. I get that
Speaker 1: not everybody should have to be in politics, but if
Speaker 1: you are a public figure, and now I sound a
Speaker 1: little bit like Spider Man, with great power comes great responsibility.
Speaker 1: Previously Mark knew it was going there. But it's true.
Speaker 1: Lebron James has has tremendous power. I don't just mean
Speaker 1: to pick on him, I'm just but any number of
Speaker 1: these players, now, I'm sure they'd say, oh, but back
Speaker 1: there are other players who would suffer the cut out
Speaker 1: of the Chinese market. I know that there's but these
Speaker 1: these things either matter or they don't. Because it didn't,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter to you know, the Portland Trailblazers that
Speaker 1: Israel is being treated like a pariah state. You know,
Speaker 1: they're they're fine with that. So it's not like they
Speaker 1: won't do politics. They just won't do these politics. They
Speaker 1: won't do the let's help the protesters in Hong Kong politics.
Speaker 1: And I think that we're forced to ask the question why,
Speaker 1: and I think we have a whole bunch of very
Speaker 1: clear but troubling and disappointing answers. That's what we'll see this.
Speaker 1: This would be the opportunity Alitics is one major player
Speaker 1: to stand up, and I think it would really mean
Speaker 1: a lot, not just to our perceptions of the NBA,
Speaker 1: I think we mean a lot to the protesters themselves
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong. I think it would I mean, look,
Speaker 1: this all started with one tweet from somebody I'd never
Speaker 1: heard of before. It was a Houston Rockets generalman, right thing.
Speaker 1: I've never even heard of the guy before, and that's
Speaker 1: how this whole thing got going. Imagine what a true
Speaker 1: superstar could do if he's willing to stand up and
Speaker 1: support them. But so, I don't think there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a trade deal with China anytime soon. And I also
Speaker 1: think that you're not going to have anyone from within
Speaker 1: the NBA stand up and really show some courage. But man,
Speaker 1: it would be it would be quite a moment. It
Speaker 1: would be one for the history books. I'm hoping they
Speaker 1: proved me wrong on some of these things. I like
Speaker 1: to be proven wrong. I would I would be celebrating
Speaker 1: a prediction that I finally was on the wrong side of.
Speaker 1: But I think you're likely to see the situation with
Speaker 1: the NBA just continue as is where now they're just
Speaker 1: on lockdown and hoping that they can make this whole
Speaker 1: thing pass. Except for Steve Kerr. Maybe he'll say something
Speaker 1: stupid tomorrow. It's time for roll call. Oh, team, I
Speaker 1: missed you, so I don't like being away for a
Speaker 1: couple of days. Vegas, Baby Vegas. I was there. It
Speaker 1: was fun. I came, I saw I conquered the buffet table.
Speaker 1: I'm not a gambler, so I can't pretend that I
Speaker 1: don't gamble. And it's not for I don't have a
Speaker 1: moral more. What's the word a rejection of it or
Speaker 1: in a objection objection? Thank you? Look at you coming
Speaker 1: up with the words for the radio host on the spot, Well, don't, sir,
Speaker 1: I don't have a moral objection to it. I just
Speaker 1: I don't understand. I don't well, I don't understand it is,
Speaker 1: and I don't know the rules really, and also I
Speaker 1: don't see how it's fun. But I don't you know,
Speaker 1: if people like it, they like it. Although the slot
Speaker 1: machine thing, I just don't get that at all. You're
Speaker 1: just giving somebody your money to stare at a screen.
Speaker 1: That's not that exciting. I'd rather play a video I'd
Speaker 1: rather play video games for money, no question. And I
Speaker 1: totally understand. I mean, I I got way too good
Speaker 1: at FIFA on PlayStation for a while for my own good.
Speaker 1: I was spending my life talking trash to you know,
Speaker 1: kids in Germany and Japan and wherever, you know, playing
Speaker 1: them online. And FIFA the soccer soccer video game, I
Speaker 1: got quite good. I had skills ski lllz because that's
Speaker 1: how the cool kids spell it, all right. So I
Speaker 1: was in Vegas. There was a lot of fun, had
Speaker 1: a great time. Glad to be back though, and we've
Speaker 1: got exciting things going forward to talk to you about
Speaker 1: here on the show, Like, for example, we are going
Speaker 1: to be launching the stream of the show on Pluto
Speaker 1: on Pluto TV starting Tuesday, Folks, download the Pluto TV
Speaker 1: app and you can watch the show will be a
Speaker 1: video of everything you're hearing here. Also, the podcast numbers
Speaker 1: are going up, but I need them to go up
Speaker 1: even more, even faster, even higher. Please please tell friends
Speaker 1: about the show, send it to some of the most
Speaker 1: helpful thing you can do is when I share the
Speaker 1: link on social media. If you copy and paste it
Speaker 1: in a X message, an email or in your own
Speaker 1: social media accounts, share it with somebody and just let
Speaker 1: everyone know. The show's gone up. Every day now at
Speaker 1: three Eastern you can listen and drive time. You can
Speaker 1: listen right after work. Some of you it's lunchtime on
Speaker 1: the West Coast, so you've got a whole half day
Speaker 1: to get the show them whenever you want so do
Speaker 1: please And for those of you who are used to
Speaker 1: listening to it in the morning the day after, what
Speaker 1: do you have? Mark you got? Do you tell me something?
Speaker 1: You look at you? What something to say? No? No,
Speaker 1: I had some work to do over the other part
Speaker 1: of the s All right, he's work, he's working working hard.
Speaker 1: Over here's a hard working man. I thought he's about
Speaker 1: to fact check me. Uh, here we go. Let's get
Speaker 1: back into it. Kristen remember team buck at iHeartMedia dot
Speaker 1: com anyway, Hey Buck, Christen, here Oss and gen x Mom.
Speaker 1: This one got me to write finally must been in
Speaker 1: my vote. I love your bad singing, Yes you do,
Speaker 1: especially when it makes you laugh. It always makes me laugh,
Speaker 1: and these often contentious times a laugh is needed. Thanks
Speaker 1: for continue to bring us the best research, news and
Speaker 1: information with supreme intellect and fun impressions, bad singing, unintentional rhyming, accents,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Love it all. Oh yes, and bring back
Speaker 1: commy bear, God bless you. She'll tie Christ and well
Speaker 1: Christ and thank you so much. Take my breath. Though
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I know, I was about to
Speaker 1: go there. I was about to go there, but I decided.
Speaker 1: I think she said she enjoys laughing at you. Yeah, yeah, fine,
Speaker 1: she's probably wouldn't take that as a compliment. Probably correct. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But but if I sing enough, the singing will get better.
Speaker 1: I try that in the shower, just not in front
Speaker 1: of a microphone, please. Alright, alright, somebody wrote something in
Speaker 1: here about Oh here we go, tim right. Chadwick Moore
Speaker 1: was an excellent choice as guest host. His humor, sarcasm,
Speaker 1: and insights regarding political power as a driving force behind
Speaker 1: lgbt Q activism our confirmation of what I have observed
Speaker 1: having my two children in major university campus environ. I
Speaker 1: particularly enjoyed his conversation with Rick Grinnell, who seems to
Speaker 1: be an outstanding representative for US values overseas. The initiative
Speaker 1: to promote human rights for homosexuals globally, specifically among you
Speaker 1: on members states with questionable human rights records is somehow
Speaker 1: revolved by the Libs, which seems grossly antithetical to the
Speaker 1: hard left virtue signaling and goes largely unreported in the
Speaker 1: fever to disrespect anyone who breaks with intersectional political orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having Moore and Grinnell in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: These two guys are thought provoking, brave conservative, and seemed
Speaker 1: like they'd be cool to chat with over a whisky
Speaker 1: or two shields high. Tim oh Man, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm glad that you uh, I'm glad that you
Speaker 1: enjoyed the guest hosting, so thank you. Good to go.
Speaker 1: Let's here, I've got I've got to switch to so
Speaker 1: we get the unread filter. So otherwise I'm going through
Speaker 1: things we've already done here on the show. Albert rides
Speaker 1: buck love the show. Been trying to get my right
Speaker 1: wing best friend to listen to you, but he's a jackass. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'd tune in on a regular basis. Let's talk about forgiveness.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the other day about the forgiveness of the
Speaker 1: brother the victim the woman cop who she shot in
Speaker 1: his own home when she entered the wrong apartment. Although
Speaker 1: this person gave her the forgiveness she maybe or maybe
Speaker 1: not have deserved. My point is, when it comes to forgiveness,
Speaker 1: we all need to look at Reginald Denny. There was
Speaker 1: no greater forgiveness than his. I really think we should
Speaker 1: honor him as a great human being. You have a
Speaker 1: good audience, but I fear your listeners don't know the
Speaker 1: story of Reginald Denny. Please gave them the story. His
Speaker 1: is truly of forgiveness. Albert In Austin, Albert. If memory serves,
Speaker 1: Reginald Denny was a truck driver who during the LA
Speaker 1: riots after the Rodney King verdict, was pulled out of
Speaker 1: his vehicle and viciously assaulted. I think he had brain
Speaker 1: damage from it. And he came out and he later
Speaker 1: said Mark was he can't didn't he say, can't we
Speaker 1: all get along? I believe Oh yeah, Mark. Sorry, Mark
Speaker 1: is legitimately too young to remember that. But yeah, Reginald
Speaker 1: Denny did forgive his attackers, and I'll have to look
Speaker 1: more into that story. I don't know more about more
Speaker 1: about that one, Benjamin Buck. Sorry, I'm a little late
Speaker 1: on this one, but I want to weigh in the
Speaker 1: question of whether to take callers on your show. I
Speaker 1: have loved your show since the early Saturdays. I download
Speaker 1: your podcast every day because, like you, hear inside an analysis.
Speaker 1: I also appreciate the quality of your informed and intelligent guests. However,
Speaker 1: I do not want to listen to people mumble nonsense
Speaker 1: about how the income tax is unconstitutional or how you
Speaker 1: may or may not remember me but I met you
Speaker 1: that one time on the street outside of a restaurant somewhere. Buck.
Speaker 1: Please do not take callers on your show. Sincerely, longtime listener,
Speaker 1: first time caller Ben See Mark. I always say this.
Speaker 1: The non caller crowd is very they're very vocal about this.
Speaker 1: They do not The anti callers are like, don't you
Speaker 1: dare take callers on the show. I agree with him, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I like the role call. Everyone likes the role call.
Speaker 1: We get to it. Man, your voice will be heard
Speaker 1: here on the show. Unless you're crazy, then we just
Speaker 1: won't read it. Yeah, that's true. Then sometimes you do
Speaker 1: have to skip. We do get the crazy people are always.
Speaker 1: It's amazing to me how some folks are just so nuts,
Speaker 1: Tim Buck, I'm curious, how is that guy who has
Speaker 1: now signed on the Green New Deal crowd, or rather,
Speaker 1: how is it that a guy who has signed on
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal crowd? How can you have a
Speaker 1: sum with a fifty thousand dollars per month no show
Speaker 1: job as the director of a fossil fuel natural gas company.
Speaker 1: I'm shocked that a fellow Democrats haven't gone after Joe
Speaker 1: over this hypocrisy. Yeah right, Maybe they think Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: who doesn't speak Ukrainian and has no background of the
Speaker 1: natural gas energy industries, in fact a genius who figured
Speaker 1: out how to profitably reclaim cow farts for electric generation. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: forget the appearance of corruption, how can he be possibly
Speaker 1: be a highly compsiated director market segment? That is, father
Speaker 1: vows to shut down Shield's Hi, Tim, well, Tim, you
Speaker 1: said up my man? All right, everybody. So we are
Speaker 1: on the air on Monday, so get excited about that.
Speaker 1: We are on the air Monday, and we will be
Speaker 1: on Pluto TV Tuesday. Do we know the channel yet
Speaker 1: Its channel two hundred something on Pluto TV. I'll find out.
Speaker 1: And we also are hoping to see a big spike
Speaker 1: in downloads of the Buck Sex and Show over this
Speaker 1: weekend because I know those of you listening, especially those
Speaker 1: of you who are original Squad have been with me
Speaker 1: for a little while now you know how important it
Speaker 1: is that this new initiative with the earlier podcast time,
Speaker 1: that it works. So tell everybody my Birthday and Christmas
Speaker 1: president from Team Buck this year, get one person you
Speaker 1: know to download the Buck Sexton Show and if you
Speaker 1: can't have him, do it this weekend. Talk to you
Speaker 1: all Monday, Team Columbus Day Shield's Hi.