Speaker 1: Mr garbutschof teared down this wall. Either were with us
Speaker 1: or you were with the terrorists. If you got healthcare already,
Speaker 1: then you can keep your plan. If you are satisfied
Speaker 1: with is not. When President of the United States take
Speaker 1: it to a bank. Together, we will make America great again.
Speaker 1: Never shar It's what you've been waiting for all day.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show. Join the conversation called Buck Toll
Speaker 1: Free at eight four four nine hundred Buck that's eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred to eight to five the Future
Speaker 1: of talk radio, Buck Sexton. The Democrats have really let
Speaker 1: them down. They've really let them down. They had this
Speaker 1: great opportunity and the Democrats have really let them out.
Speaker 1: It's a shame. And now people that take an advantage
Speaker 1: of data and that's a sid met has got to
Speaker 1: help us. Reporter and a lot of people are coming
Speaker 1: in because they won't take advantage of Dota. And we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to really see he had a great chance
Speaker 1: to demigrats toward had a great, great chin. But you'll
Speaker 1: have to take a look of Mexico has got a
Speaker 1: helpless at the border. They flow right through Mexico. They
Speaker 1: send him into the United States. Can't hop it that
Speaker 1: way anymore. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show everyone, great
Speaker 1: to have you here, and honor and a privilege as
Speaker 1: always President. They're making quite clear well a few points
Speaker 1: on immigration. Most importantly, immigration fight is not over. The
Speaker 1: President is not throwing in the towel. He's saying he
Speaker 1: is not done with this one. In fact, he is
Speaker 1: going back to his earlier negotiations with the Democrats over DACA,
Speaker 1: the Deferred Action for Child who Arrivals program, and he's saying,
Speaker 1: look that Democrats weren't even willing to negotiate over it.
Speaker 1: You see that they just want amnesty. They're just the
Speaker 1: party of illegal aliens. Now they are pro illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: They don't think there should be any concession. They're not
Speaker 1: willing to have a talk about what comes next and
Speaker 1: what needs to be done. They don't want more border security,
Speaker 1: they don't want more interior enforcement. And this is a
Speaker 1: radical shift even for the Democrat Party. It's occurring about
Speaker 1: the last twenty years or so. It is quite different
Speaker 1: than their stated positions in the past. The editorial boards
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, the New York Times are now closer
Speaker 1: to open borders than they ever were, and there's greater
Speaker 1: uniformity and unanimity among their editorialists on the issue of
Speaker 1: being pro illegal immigration than at any time previously. Trump
Speaker 1: is saying there's not gonna be a dock and deal.
Speaker 1: He had tweeted out over the weekend the following border
Speaker 1: A border patrol old agents are not allowed to properly
Speaker 1: do their job at the border because of ridiculous liberal
Speaker 1: Democrat laws like catch and release. Getting more dangerous caravans coming.
Speaker 1: Republicans must go to the nuclear option to pass tough laws. Now,
Speaker 1: no more DOCCA deal all in caps WI we get
Speaker 1: into what this refutation of any possible DOCTA deal would be.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the caravan. What is he talking about,
Speaker 1: because folks, this is going to get very interesting. You
Speaker 1: have approximately twere people who have gathered together um who
Speaker 1: say that they are fleeing their countries because of fleeing
Speaker 1: Central American countries because of the violence and persecution that
Speaker 1: they face in their countries. Now they are in Wahaka, Mexico, actually,
Speaker 1: one of the few places in Mexico where I have been.
Speaker 1: I will tell you tequila is delicious. The sun shines brightly.
Speaker 1: That is an aside they're in Wahaca, Mexico or Mexico
Speaker 1: if you will, and there are four hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: miles for our show from their starting point. They want
Speaker 1: to get to the US border, turn themselves in and
Speaker 1: claim asylum. You see, because of the current immigration laws,
Speaker 1: they will abuse this loophole and they will show up
Speaker 1: and say, oh see, we had to flee our country
Speaker 1: of origin. This case, almost all I believe Honduras, some
Speaker 1: might be from El Salvador, and they're going to get
Speaker 1: to stay in the country, Folks. They're not gonna get
Speaker 1: turned away at the border. They're not going to try
Speaker 1: and sneak into the country. They're going to literally find
Speaker 1: and flag down the first border patrol agent they can
Speaker 1: and say I'm claiming asylum. Now you might say, well,
Speaker 1: do they all will they all receive asylum? Are they
Speaker 1: all going to qualify for asylum? And to that I
Speaker 1: would respond, what do you think is gonna happen? And
Speaker 1: most of the sanctuary jurisdictions where they will end up,
Speaker 1: you think some judge is gonna say no, you don't
Speaker 1: get asylum from Honduras, which as one of the highest
Speaker 1: homicide rates per capita of any country. In the world
Speaker 1: which has been overrun by m S thir team. No,
Speaker 1: they're going to say, well, you're we're a nation of immigrants,
Speaker 1: including a nation of illegal immigrants. Now you get to stay,
Speaker 1: you get to remain here. But this is exactly the
Speaker 1: kind of optics that we need to focus on. What
Speaker 1: we're talking about immigration and where the Democrats stand on
Speaker 1: all of this. You've got a thousand people making their
Speaker 1: way of twelve so making their way to the US border,
Speaker 1: who are just going to be able to stay in
Speaker 1: the country because of our current immigration laws. We have
Speaker 1: to change these laws. We also have to put more
Speaker 1: pressure on Mexico. They're not legal in Mexico either, folks.
Speaker 1: You know, Mexico used to be very strict about people
Speaker 1: from Central America coming into coming into its borders. Never
Speaker 1: talked about that all that much, do they. Yeah, Mexico
Speaker 1: enforces its borders to the south. They absolutely try to
Speaker 1: prevent people from coming in. But when they think, when
Speaker 1: when they know and the plan is that they're going
Speaker 1: to continue on through Mexico and make their way into
Speaker 1: the United States, they let it go. They let it happen.
Speaker 1: How can we consider the Mexican government to be good
Speaker 1: partners in border security if they are going to allow
Speaker 1: a caravan of people on foot travel hundreds and hundreds
Speaker 1: of miles in a huge mass across Mexican territory in
Speaker 1: order to make their way into our country. No, they're
Speaker 1: they're actually the Mexican government is complicit in illegal ngration.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's likely to only get worse. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's an election coming up in Mexico and you have
Speaker 1: a a leftist who is gaining ground there. You're gonna
Speaker 1: have a government in Mexico coming up here pretty soon
Speaker 1: that is much more ideologically aligned with say the far
Speaker 1: left Central American states that have been disastrous in recent years.
Speaker 1: A the Central and South American states have been disastrous
Speaker 1: than even what we've got right now with Peanya yeto.
Speaker 1: You know, the Mexican Revolutionary Party, the pr I is corrupt,
Speaker 1: but not straight up Marxists. You know that they're there's
Speaker 1: there's stuff to the left of them, and we may
Speaker 1: have a worse situation going on with Mexico. By the way,
Speaker 1: it's also why we need a wall, because we can't
Speaker 1: be reliant on our Mexican counterparts in the government to
Speaker 1: prevent immigration into our country, and we shouldn't rely on that,
Speaker 1: and that's not sound policy, it's not smart for us
Speaker 1: to do that. But I'm I am encouraged. You know.
Speaker 1: I was a little discouraged last week, as many of
Speaker 1: you know, and as you noted in your emails and
Speaker 1: messages to me. I was discouraged that President Trump had
Speaker 1: signed that omnibus bill, and that he recognized right away
Speaker 1: that that was a mistake, that we should have fought
Speaker 1: more on this, that there should have been more at
Speaker 1: least made of what was going on here, That we
Speaker 1: did not get real substantial funding for the wall, that
Speaker 1: we did not get any changes immigration law. And now
Speaker 1: we have to assume that unless the Republicans changed the
Speaker 1: rules in the Senate, get rid of the filibuster and
Speaker 1: clear a pathway for dare I say, ramming through the
Speaker 1: Trump agenda, which is what what they need to do
Speaker 1: now in advance the midterms, we could be in for
Speaker 1: some tough times, my friends. The time is now. We
Speaker 1: do not have time to waste. We do not have
Speaker 1: time on our side. If we allow the narrative going
Speaker 1: into the midterms to be the Democrats get away with
Speaker 1: being completely intransigent on the issue of immigration, they get
Speaker 1: away with being absolutists on amnesty for legal aliens. How
Speaker 1: can how can the Republicans really expect us to show
Speaker 1: up in numbers and preserve majorities in the House and
Speaker 1: the Senate. How could they really realistically think that would happen.
Speaker 1: The time for action on this is now. I also
Speaker 1: like the Trump is using our leverage economically to try
Speaker 1: and get something going here. NATA has to be renegotiated
Speaker 1: and have to existed really before the Internet. Right, very
Speaker 1: different world we're dealing with now, and so using NAPHA,
Speaker 1: using that trade deal as leverage with the Mexican government
Speaker 1: makes a whole lot of sense to me. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: we tie these things together. Why wouldn't we use our
Speaker 1: economic ties to get what really amounts to national security
Speaker 1: concessions from what's supposed to be an allied government, an
Speaker 1: allied state. So I'm I'm encouraged to see the President's
Speaker 1: tweets um much more positively disposed now towards the possibility
Speaker 1: of real action immigration. I'm not saying it's definitely happening,
Speaker 1: saying the fight's not yet lost, it's not over yet.
Speaker 1: I think Trump may have needed a little bit of
Speaker 1: a refresher, a little bit of a reminder from his
Speaker 1: base and from those who pushed to get him here.
Speaker 1: But I think I think the message has gotten through.
Speaker 1: So now we can we have to see if the
Speaker 1: Republican Congress will go along by the law. We we
Speaker 1: have the White House sending us one of their top spokespersons,
Speaker 1: a deputy White House Press Secretary, Hogan Gidley. He'll be
Speaker 1: with us in just a few minutes talk about exactly this.
Speaker 1: He's gonna tell us where the administration stands on the
Speaker 1: DOCCA fight. Remember, DOCCA is a large scale amnesty program.
Speaker 1: It's me millions of people. That wasn't even an for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. So what does that tell you about where
Speaker 1: they're planning to go if they ever make it into
Speaker 1: the majority again, never mind, if there are the majority
Speaker 1: in all three well, in the House, the Senate, and
Speaker 1: the White House, you will have a massive amnesty for
Speaker 1: countless millions of the legal aliens of the country, and
Speaker 1: you can kiss the Republican Party goodbye, and even the
Speaker 1: fight for limited government, to fight for conservatism in this
Speaker 1: country will become a quaint vestige of past political battle.
Speaker 1: It's not even really going to be meaningful anymore. That's
Speaker 1: what's at stake, that's what's really happening. So you gotta
Speaker 1: see if Trump will fight. I say, we fight. I
Speaker 1: think Trump's willing to do it too, So I have
Speaker 1: some hope here. So we'll have the White House joining
Speaker 1: us a little bit talk about it. Will also discuss
Speaker 1: the UH, the latest on Syria that'll be coming up
Speaker 1: in the second hour. We'll talk about the the media
Speaker 1: using David Hogg as a weapon against their ideological opponents.
Speaker 1: It's getting worse and worse. It's really getting out of control.
Speaker 1: Maybe some talk on the trade fight back and forth
Speaker 1: with China, although I think we've we've plowed that field
Speaker 1: pretty well at this point, and no pun intended, right
Speaker 1: because they I think they're getting some putting some tariffs
Speaker 1: on what almonds and some other food stuff. US agricultural
Speaker 1: sector is gonna take a little bit of a hit
Speaker 1: for the exports we have to China. So we'll hit
Speaker 1: that and basically a whole bunch of the whole bunch
Speaker 1: of other things. McKinley is now considered racist, by the way,
Speaker 1: I'll explain that one to you. That's gonna I'm leave
Speaker 1: ever on a cliffhanger, thou who even knows h McKinley
Speaker 1: is in this country? Not that many folks, I mean
Speaker 1: everyone who listens to this show, but most of America's
Speaker 1: like McKinley. Didn't he play for the Yankees, but former
Speaker 1: president whose time in office was ended by an assassin
Speaker 1: this bullet. McKinley is now a controversial topic, believe it
Speaker 1: or not. Much to my much more data goes into
Speaker 1: my theory here about how they're gonna make every everybody
Speaker 1: in history controversial that they don't like. That's what's gonna
Speaker 1: end up happening. All right, So we've got down a
Speaker 1: lot more eight four four to eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four buck team, we have so much show way, And
Speaker 1: if you'd like otherwise, sit back, relaxed, chill, and let
Speaker 1: the analysis roll on by stay with me. I've seen
Speaker 1: this pattern many times. All presidents go through it. In
Speaker 1: the first year for presidency, presidents really do rely much
Speaker 1: more on their staff and on outsiders, on foreign leaders
Speaker 1: task what do you think what's going on? And as
Speaker 1: they settle into the job, they increasingly become more confident
Speaker 1: and they start to make their own calls and often
Speaker 1: disregard what the staff says. This is not your Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: They all do it. I think Donald Trump's got a
Speaker 1: superb team around him. Now. Donald Trump is the president,
Speaker 1: regardless of who the staff is and whether people like
Speaker 1: or don't like Donald Trump. He got elected and he's
Speaker 1: entitled to have his policies the way he wants them.
Speaker 1: But after all, it's up to him. That's Ari Fleischer.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think, what am I wrong? You
Speaker 1: look at me like I had the wrong names. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's all. I don't have no worry. You're way back.
Speaker 1: I never met him, but I know who he is, well,
Speaker 1: way back to what I was in college, and he
Speaker 1: was the press secretary right now. But he's right, and
Speaker 1: he's saying what I've been saying, so obviously he's right.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean. You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: He's telling everybody that you know, there's other shake up
Speaker 1: in the White House. You'll notice that everything's fine. It's fine. Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: so that Dow had a bad day to day. A
Speaker 1: lot of some swings in the doal. You know, they
Speaker 1: gotta they gotta get rid of some of the you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's buying hold investors in buying fold investors, you know,
Speaker 1: and so you're you're knocking off some of the weak
Speaker 1: stuff right now from various stocks, you know, people that
Speaker 1: are just in it for the quick, that have holding
Speaker 1: on for the long. But it's all gonna be all right.
Speaker 1: Stuff about China, a little bit of disruption here and there,
Speaker 1: but it's not the end of the world, like I've
Speaker 1: been saying. Okay, so they're gonna hit back at some
Speaker 1: of our agricultural products. Now, alright, China, you want to
Speaker 1: play this game, We might decide a little more too.
Speaker 1: We're in a much stronger position than they are. I
Speaker 1: don't know why it became a consensus opinion among the
Speaker 1: US foreign policy elites that other countries get to dictate
Speaker 1: the terms of deals and and action to us, that
Speaker 1: that they get to seize the initiative on things like trade,
Speaker 1: and we have to just deal with whatever we are
Speaker 1: we're given. I don't think that's necessarily way to go,
Speaker 1: especially with China. Somehow, China putting tariffs in place has
Speaker 1: allowed it to become the second biggest economy in the
Speaker 1: world and had explosive growth for decades. So all the
Speaker 1: stuff about how tariffs lead to trade wars, They're gonna
Speaker 1: impoverish you. Seems a little overblown, doesn't it until now
Speaker 1: hasn't led to a trade war from China, or it's
Speaker 1: been a one way trade war and we've been losing
Speaker 1: it because we're not fighting it. It's just been theft,
Speaker 1: the theft of wealth, of intellectual property that's gone on.
Speaker 1: As you know. I keep hitting because I think it's
Speaker 1: very important. But despite all this, the president cornered Rasmussen
Speaker 1: today is that fifty approval presidential approval and now that disapprove.
Speaker 1: That's right. We call those people vegans just kidding, no,
Speaker 1: but don't approve of the president and present is a
Speaker 1: great number. It's better than what where Obama was at
Speaker 1: this point in time. Now. I would like to tell
Speaker 1: you it's because of MAGA, because he's making American great again.
Speaker 1: That's a part of it. To be sure, first year
Speaker 1: is very successful. Things went well, and I know there's
Speaker 1: tough battles ahead. I was just talking to immigration before.
Speaker 1: But you know what I think is pushing the surge
Speaker 1: right now in presidential approval. If the Democrats could just
Speaker 1: just be normal, you know, just be normal for like
Speaker 1: a week or two. They'd be in a great spot.
Speaker 1: But they can't do it, can't do it. All they
Speaker 1: have to do is not be crazy, and I'm not
Speaker 1: really capable of it. I mean, for for a day
Speaker 1: or two here or there, but eventually it comes out
Speaker 1: that they're the party. I mean eventually, I mean it's
Speaker 1: just a matter of days. They're the party of near
Speaker 1: open borders. They're the party of amnesty. They're the party
Speaker 1: of sanctuary cities. They're the party of lawlessness, of more taxation,
Speaker 1: of more ineffective government. I saw people run around today saying,
Speaker 1: you know, why don't we all teachers need to have
Speaker 1: a starting salary of a hundred thousand because of this
Speaker 1: teacher protests somewhere starting salary of a hundred thousand. Really,
Speaker 1: I was brought into the most elite part of the
Speaker 1: intelligence community right out of college, and my salary was
Speaker 1: way less than a hundred thousand. Everybody, it's just like
Speaker 1: slightly better than minimum wage, I think. I mean, my gosh,
Speaker 1: but Democrats can't be normal. Look at what they've done
Speaker 1: on guns. Any honest observer of what has happened just
Speaker 1: on the gun control debate alone, we're gonna revisit the
Speaker 1: issue of h David Hogg running around and yelling at
Speaker 1: everybody in the second hour today. But all Democrats have
Speaker 1: to do is not be crazy. And on gun control alone,
Speaker 1: we see they're crazy and they're dishonest. So I think
Speaker 1: that's helping Trump out a lot, I really do. I
Speaker 1: think it's that they just can't manage to be normal. Um,
Speaker 1: we've got the White House joining us in a few
Speaker 1: minutes to talk about the DOCCA policy fight, and then
Speaker 1: later on we'll discuss the media's freak out about a
Speaker 1: possible conservative competitor. Oh no, that and more coming up.
Speaker 1: If he wanted to see something get done, and Democrats
Speaker 1: refused to actually put something on the table or work
Speaker 1: with the President to get anything done. They wanted to
Speaker 1: use doctor recipients as political ponds. Uh. I think what's
Speaker 1: happened here is incredibly sad. The President wanted to make
Speaker 1: a deal. He made two incredibly generous offers that went
Speaker 1: far and above even with the previous administrations had done
Speaker 1: on DACA, and Democrats still refused to make a deal.
Speaker 1: And I think it's because we're getting close to an election. Well,
Speaker 1: there you have Sarah Huckaby Sanders talking about DACA for
Speaker 1: an Action for Childhood Arrivals program. President Trump has said
Speaker 1: there's not going to be a deal. He wrote it
Speaker 1: in Twitter. Well what does this all mean? Where does
Speaker 1: it stand? We are actually joined by someone from the
Speaker 1: White House right now. We have Hogan Gidley with US online.
Speaker 1: He is the Deputy White House Press Secretary. Hogan, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining Hey, Buck, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for the time. So, uh, DOCCA deal right now not
Speaker 1: going anywhere? Is this just the President calling out Democrats
Speaker 1: for being unwilling to even attempt to meet him halfway
Speaker 1: on this? What's the status? Absolutely, they just refused to
Speaker 1: come to the table whatsoever. You'll remember the Shimmer shutdown
Speaker 1: weeks ago, months ago, I guess now, where Democrats basically said, listen,
Speaker 1: we're gonna stand up for hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 1: who are here illegally and unlawfully as opposed to protecting
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of American citizens. That was exposed. Sarah
Speaker 1: made the right call just now where they're playing politics
Speaker 1: with people's lives, and Democrats decided that they just were
Speaker 1: not going to do anything to secure our borders. They
Speaker 1: were not going to have a conversation about a delon DOCA,
Speaker 1: even though it was three times that of the previous
Speaker 1: administration's offer for pathway to citizenship. And you'll remember to buck,
Speaker 1: the right wasn't too happy with the president's plans. I
Speaker 1: wasn't too happy with it, be honest with you. I
Speaker 1: thought it was a very generous offer to the left
Speaker 1: to start out with. They won't even talk to him though, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And that's what was so interesting is they were upset
Speaker 1: then people on the left or upset because they didn't
Speaker 1: like the the the enforcement pieces, where we got rid
Speaker 1: of chain migration, we ended the visa lottery program, all
Speaker 1: dangerous programs for this country, and then we built a wall.
Speaker 1: They didn't like that part. So you can't define down
Speaker 1: the middle better than a plan that gave Democrats more
Speaker 1: than they wanted on DOCCA and gave Republicans what they
Speaker 1: wanted on border security, protecting our our our southern border.
Speaker 1: And for whatever reason, Democrats not only do they not
Speaker 1: want it, they wouldn't even come to the table to
Speaker 1: have the discussion. It's it's just it's it's quite frankly disgusting.
Speaker 1: Now we have the midterms, they're gonna be here before
Speaker 1: we know it, Hogan. But in the meantime, people like me.
Speaker 1: When I say people, I really mean buck. But but
Speaker 1: we would like to know what is the White House
Speaker 1: and GOP majority's plan to get some things done on immigration.
Speaker 1: Are they just going to sit back and allow the
Speaker 1: Democrats to obstruct everything? Are they going to go with
Speaker 1: the nuclear options? They can push through some legislation because
Speaker 1: it's not just a wall. There's also e Verify that
Speaker 1: needs a look, Legal immigration needs changes, h one, b
Speaker 1: Visa's interior enforcement. As you know, we could go all
Speaker 1: day on this. Can we expect some action in the
Speaker 1: next six months or so on it? Or is it's
Speaker 1: just gonna get put by the wayside because the mid terms? Well,
Speaker 1: I sure hope. So you know, the president has been
Speaker 1: all about action since he got into office. I mean
Speaker 1: record setting accomplishments and record setting time. You saw the
Speaker 1: Heritage report, the city had already accomplished sixtent of what
Speaker 1: he wanted. That was before funding the military and before
Speaker 1: building the wall. So I imagine it's even higher now.
Speaker 1: But you know the other question, obviously, this is a
Speaker 1: congress This requires a congressional fix. Uh, you know, Barack
Speaker 1: Obama unlawfully and illegally UH created doc out of whole cloth.
Speaker 1: Many people say it's unconstitutional. We believe that it is
Speaker 1: as well, and Congress is required to fix the situation.
Speaker 1: So hopefully they can come to the table and get
Speaker 1: something done. But there is no doubt that we do
Speaker 1: not want to be in the same position five years
Speaker 1: down the road, ten years down the road. And that's
Speaker 1: why the President wanted and still wants a long lasting
Speaker 1: solution to not just DACA, but as you mentioned, all
Speaker 1: the other parts as well. We started with the four
Speaker 1: the four pillars, as you'll remember, the wall, all ending
Speaker 1: j migration, in the visa lottery, and in fixing DOCCA,
Speaker 1: and then we would worry about the second parts, the
Speaker 1: H one B S as you mentioned, and the other
Speaker 1: ones UH in future legislation. But leading up to now,
Speaker 1: this doesn't stop for this president. He doesn't just throw
Speaker 1: up his hands and say, well, I guess we're done.
Speaker 1: He wants the nuclear option. He tweeted about it this weekend.
Speaker 1: It remains to be seeing whether Republicans will do it.
Speaker 1: But in the upcoming budget proposals, this president is going
Speaker 1: to put forth full funding for the things he wants
Speaker 1: in the wall and also revisit these uh crucial enforcement
Speaker 1: mechanisms that loopholes that have been exploited for far too
Speaker 1: long by dangerous gang members like MS thirteen and you know, Buck,
Speaker 1: this immigration system has been broken basically since Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: about forty years ago. And Reagan put forward an amnesty
Speaker 1: and didn't get the enforcement he was promised. He even
Speaker 1: want on record to say that he thought that was
Speaker 1: quite a mistake. We got Hogan Gidley with us on
Speaker 1: the line, folks, he's a deputy White House Press secretary.
Speaker 1: All Right, Hogan, I've got to ask you about the wall. Yes,
Speaker 1: there was a little over billion dollars in funding for
Speaker 1: wall upgrades and a little bit of new wall in
Speaker 1: the last omnibus budget but or the last omnibus package.
Speaker 1: But that's just one step in what's going to be
Speaker 1: a very very long process. Can you just try to
Speaker 1: walk us through, assuming you have a Republican majority of
Speaker 1: the Congress that will play ball with the president and
Speaker 1: will push forward the agenda of getting a wall built,
Speaker 1: how is this supposed to work? So? I think a
Speaker 1: lot of folks, myself included, look at this and say,
Speaker 1: if they weren't willing to fight for a wall in
Speaker 1: this last omnibus. Why should we think they'll fight for
Speaker 1: in the next one. Well, remember we we put forth
Speaker 1: a package, our first budget that never got a vote.
Speaker 1: The President put forth a budget that fully funded the wall,
Speaker 1: had these mechanisms for enforcement and safety for the customers,
Speaker 1: border control in our in our package, never got to vote. Instead,
Speaker 1: they went for multiple continuing resolutions. It was just excruciating.
Speaker 1: No one could get that funding stream down in in
Speaker 1: a two year budget deal with caps, which is what
Speaker 1: the President asked for. It didn't happen. So remember, all
Speaker 1: we really have left is the six months. So what
Speaker 1: the President did was said, let's fully fund my wall
Speaker 1: for the six months, and then we'll put the more
Speaker 1: money in for the next budget that comes out. Because
Speaker 1: right now, they dithered around for so long it took
Speaker 1: them forever to actually get to a vote. When they
Speaker 1: finally did, there were only really six months left remaining
Speaker 1: in the budgets. So the President demanded, look, we didn't
Speaker 1: have to give up the The Democrats don't want to
Speaker 1: build one inch of this wall. They don't want to
Speaker 1: pour one cube of concrete for this wall. We didn't
Speaker 1: give up anything to get it. Remember Doc again, exposing
Speaker 1: the Democrats sybocricy. Here Doc is not even in the
Speaker 1: omnibus bill, but our wall is. And as we move forward,
Speaker 1: the President is gonna push harder and and remind the
Speaker 1: American people what's at stake here. Walls work, whether it's
Speaker 1: in San Diego where they've seen a drop in illegal crossings,
Speaker 1: or the one around Jerusalem where they've seen drop in
Speaker 1: illegal crossings, they know it works. Democrats are afraid of
Speaker 1: it because, as you know, they want open borders and
Speaker 1: they don't want any enforcement, which is a complete one
Speaker 1: eighty from where they used to be. You remember, Democrats
Speaker 1: used to be for a wall. They used to be
Speaker 1: for protecting the Secure Fence Act. I remember it, Bipartisan
Speaker 1: went through right protecting the American worker. They went, they
Speaker 1: railed about that from the House and the Senate floors.
Speaker 1: And here we are now and they've changed done a
Speaker 1: one eighty on it. The only two things have changed.
Speaker 1: Only two things have changed since that original Secure Fences Act.
Speaker 1: One is the problem has gotten demonstrably worse, and two
Speaker 1: is Donald Trump's in the White House. That's really it.
Speaker 1: So it's obvious that they're playing politics here and it's
Speaker 1: a shame for the American people first, and it's a
Speaker 1: shame for DOCTA recipient second, Holgan. Before I let you go,
Speaker 1: one more for you, And that's just for over a
Speaker 1: year now, I've been trying to inform the audience as
Speaker 1: much as I can about the the opioid epidemic and
Speaker 1: trying to dig into it. We've had world class medical
Speaker 1: experts on the show. I've had journalists who covered the
Speaker 1: cartels in Mexico on the show and this has been
Speaker 1: an area of extreme interest for me and it's just
Speaker 1: need to come out, it seems to me. And we
Speaker 1: had the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions on a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago, and I asked him that I asked him
Speaker 1: about this. It's just being to come out that in fact,
Speaker 1: illegal immigration the opioid epidemic aren't just tied together there
Speaker 1: inextricably linked. Now, the President, more than anyone else, has
Speaker 1: done a good job of exposing how MS thirteen is
Speaker 1: terrorizing communities across the country that's certainly tied the illegal
Speaker 1: immigration issue. Are you the Deputy White House Press Secretary?
Speaker 1: Are are you folks gonna be working more to tell
Speaker 1: the American people that the sixty thou plus deaths that
Speaker 1: we had in the country last year from overdoses of
Speaker 1: opioids are overwhelmingly tied to cartel activity, illegal immigration, and
Speaker 1: a poorout border. Absolutely, and listen, we call it the
Speaker 1: crisis next door for a reason. It's no longer a
Speaker 1: friend of a friend of a friend who heard someone
Speaker 1: who may have had an opioid death in the family.
Speaker 1: This is people we know, people we love in our communities.
Speaker 1: They're getting these drugs a lot of times from people
Speaker 1: who pour across the border. And remember, and they come across,
Speaker 1: it's not like they walk across and then get arrested immediately.
Speaker 1: They can bring and ship over with them, carry over
Speaker 1: with them opioids, and they can dump those pills with
Speaker 1: someone else who's working with them on this side of
Speaker 1: the border. They can stash them away under a rock,
Speaker 1: under you know, in someone's garden, for heaven's sakes, and
Speaker 1: they can go back and get them or tell friends
Speaker 1: where to get them. So just because you're arresting the
Speaker 1: individual who comes over who may be a smuggler or
Speaker 1: a drug dealer, doesn't mean you actually get the product.
Speaker 1: The product is already out in this country. It's killing
Speaker 1: the American people, and it's time that they understand what's
Speaker 1: at stake in this immigration battle. And we will be
Speaker 1: doing everything in our power. The President will be using
Speaker 1: the bully pulpit of the White House to express the
Speaker 1: level of danger that exists out there, and not just
Speaker 1: human trafficking, which is bad enough, but bringing over drugs
Speaker 1: that come into our country and destroy our communities. Hogan Gidley,
Speaker 1: Deputy White House Press Secretary. Everybody, Hogan, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining. Come back soon, Thanks so much. Buck.
Speaker 1: Anytime we're gonna roll into a quick break, we will
Speaker 1: be right back with much more. Stay with me. At
Speaker 1: least I want to put up the markets here. Um,
Speaker 1: this was one of the coastal elites missed. The Roseanne
Speaker 1: reboot may not be as popular with critics in Ellen
Speaker 1: New York, but boy, look at the middle of the country. Um,
Speaker 1: and how well these are the best markets that Roseanne rated. Um.
Speaker 1: Total audience may be bigger than the Oscar Well, you
Speaker 1: could say that the era of Obama culture is over.
Speaker 1: You know, we've gone from girls on HBO to Roseanne,
Speaker 1: you know, bursting out of the scenes. The most watch
Speaker 1: network sitcom in the last four years. So are we
Speaker 1: going to start to see more coverage reflecting the Trump era.
Speaker 1: I think that this is perhaps an indication and also
Speaker 1: a really successful revival to people like Roseanne in the nineties.
Speaker 1: They like it now to I have to disagree that
Speaker 1: was the least Jordan over on MSNBC. The era of
Speaker 1: Obama culture is over. Obama is going to be a
Speaker 1: force at Netflix. Susan Rice is now on the board
Speaker 1: of Netflix and one show. I mean this is kind
Speaker 1: of a version of the discussion or the argument you
Speaker 1: hear from the left. They'll say, oh, they are of
Speaker 1: media dominance. You know, you have Fox News, right, that's
Speaker 1: one channel, it's the most successful channel, But that's only
Speaker 1: one channel. There are so many channels where you can
Speaker 1: get the usual leftist clap trap, the leftist malarkey, propaganda
Speaker 1: from the Democrat Party courtesy of the d n C.
Speaker 1: You get that on on most of the channels, most
Speaker 1: of the shows. I just think it's got a funny
Speaker 1: you know, for people who you know on the left,
Speaker 1: they're always talking about what's what's representative and diversity, and
Speaker 1: you look at the diversity of shows and it is
Speaker 1: quite lacking. It is rather obvious that there is a
Speaker 1: dearth of worthwhile conservative, not even conservative, just not leftist
Speaker 1: propaganda shows on TV. It's very obvious. Right, So you
Speaker 1: get one show and he was like, oh, yeah, the
Speaker 1: Air of Obama. No it's not this is just one show.
Speaker 1: And as I've noted, it's not even conservative. I saw
Speaker 1: the first two episodes. You know, yeah, there's a representation
Speaker 1: of a conservative, but it's not like this is a
Speaker 1: First of all, it's not a conservative family. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people want to emulate. It's not like
Speaker 1: this would be. We were not particularly excited about the
Speaker 1: circumstances of this particular family. They're having a they're having
Speaker 1: a tough go I understand, but this isn't like, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: look at the Conservatives doing great. It's only Rosanne who's
Speaker 1: maybe I guess the husband is too. I think people
Speaker 1: are are overstating the impact, is I in the culture? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a curiosity you gotta isn't What's really amazing is
Speaker 1: you've only got one show on TV that's getting all
Speaker 1: this attention right now that even has a Trump supporter
Speaker 1: on it. Where's the Trump supporter on Modern Family? I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess you could say it O'Neil is, but they
Speaker 1: never make it explicit. I never see them talking about it.
Speaker 1: Where's that? Where are the Trump supporters on the rest
Speaker 1: of the shows, and who aren't treated like out of
Speaker 1: touch buffoons? Yeah, I just don't think it's some people think.
Speaker 1: By the way, we're gonna talk about the widespread media
Speaker 1: freak out about Sinclair, which is a broadcaster. This got
Speaker 1: so much attention for the weekend. We're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: that coming up. Also, a little more on David Hogg
Speaker 1: the latest. There some good news from that fight that
Speaker 1: I wanted to share with you, So we've got that.
Speaker 1: And then i'll tell you about McKinley in the third
Speaker 1: hour and how he is now. Akinley is too hot
Speaker 1: for statues, you know, it's too too much of a
Speaker 1: contentious issue. Um. And maybe I'll tell you that there's
Speaker 1: new research that shows that chocolate is good for you.
Speaker 1: By the way, another thing, last week they said coffee
Speaker 1: cures cancer and I was like, nonsense, excuse me, garbage
Speaker 1: crap uh and coffee he's in fact delicious and is
Speaker 1: in reasonable quantities good for you. Chocolate, same thing, anti
Speaker 1: oxidants Yo, they're like so good for you. Why I
Speaker 1: don't know. No one knows why people talk about any occident.
Speaker 1: I don't know why they're good for you. I just
Speaker 1: know they're supposed to be good for you. Chocolate is
Speaker 1: delicious brand in New Mexico. What's up, my friend about Fields? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's too bad about Netflix. Mant with Susanne Rice in
Speaker 1: Obama and all that. I love Netflix. Yeah, I still
Speaker 1: watch it. But you notice that they gave that guy
Speaker 1: Bill Nay a show. I think that may be the
Speaker 1: worst television show I've ever seen. I mean, of all time.
Speaker 1: I think it's up there. Yeah, I won't let my
Speaker 1: kids watch it, but it Isn't Susan Rice worth like
Speaker 1: millions and millions and millions of dollars now? Susan Rice,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm assuming she's probably pretty wealthy, although I don't.
Speaker 1: I actually don't know what her net wealth is. Very
Speaker 1: these folks get put up when you get put on
Speaker 1: the board of a company. It's like the sweetest gig
Speaker 1: imaginement For those who aren't up up to speed on this,
Speaker 1: if you could put on the board of a company,
Speaker 1: you basically have to call into four meetings a year
Speaker 1: and You get hundreds of thousands of dollars for that,
Speaker 1: and that's your Those are all your responsibilities. You call
Speaker 1: in once a quarter to a meeting and you make
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's a pretty great gig.
Speaker 1: I would take it. I'm pretty sure you would do. Brent, absolutely,
Speaker 1: sign me up. Yeah. But the reason I called was
Speaker 1: I was listening to your interview and this guy was
Speaker 1: talking about how, yeah, we got to do this now,
Speaker 1: not five ten years down the road, and I got
Speaker 1: to thinking about that, and that's that's true. Man. I
Speaker 1: know we don't want to compromise on that side, but
Speaker 1: for every day we don't get a deal done, there's
Speaker 1: a new data kid, you know what I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a new one born, and it's like the casino. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're down a eight hundred thousands, you better cash
Speaker 1: out your chips now before it's you know, a couple
Speaker 1: of millions. You know what I'm saying. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: think that the I don't think the time is on
Speaker 1: our side here. I agree. I mean, you've got this
Speaker 1: caravan coming. I'm sure it's not it's not the last,
Speaker 1: by the way, and it might get a lot bigger
Speaker 1: by the time it gets close to the border. If
Speaker 1: I were somebody was trying to come into the country illegally,
Speaker 1: what better way than to see a caravan of Central
Speaker 1: American So the media is already saying you're gonna claim asylum,
Speaker 1: and you say, oh, you know, I'm a smuggler or
Speaker 1: I'm MS thirteen or whatever. I'm gonna just turn myself
Speaker 1: in with this caravan to get into the country legally,
Speaker 1: and and and let the courts work it out. Right.
Speaker 1: It's great, you're ready in the pipeline for asylum. So
Speaker 1: I'm sure this thousand person caravan is gonna get a
Speaker 1: lot bigger. And I'm with you, Brent. I mean, they
Speaker 1: need to They need to figure this out sooner than
Speaker 1: later because Democrats feel like the constituency in waiting that
Speaker 1: they have of assumed to be amnestied's just getting bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger. Shield High Brand, Thank you for the call.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about Sinclair coming up. Also, some abusive
Speaker 1: laws we're seeing to seize guns from people. It's not
Speaker 1: a surprise, it's something we have to address. Got that
Speaker 1: and much more coming up. Stay with me, team, He's
Speaker 1: back with you now because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops the sharing of
Speaker 1: biased and on the social media first. Unfortunately. All right,
Speaker 1: so that made the rounds are the weak and stuff?
Speaker 1: I made the rounds over the weekend. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Everyone. That was a montage. We need
Speaker 1: a montage. Uh, Are they gonna make Team America episode
Speaker 1: or part two? Yet? We need Team Team America to
Speaker 1: Maga Nation or something. Would be amazing, right, Team America
Speaker 1: two Maga Squad would be the greatest movie of all time.
Speaker 1: I'm just putting that out there, Oscar. I mean, it
Speaker 1: would be it would be maga. It would be maga
Speaker 1: alicious that much, I can tell you it would be amazing.
Speaker 1: I watched Team America many times back in the day.
Speaker 1: Some parts of it, I'm not gonna lie, a little
Speaker 1: little risque, but nonetheless, very very good movie. And we
Speaker 1: need we need a Team America for the Trump era. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: that was a montage of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is
Speaker 1: being turned into a a boogeyman by the left. They
Speaker 1: control all these channels. What are we gonna do? They
Speaker 1: control these local news channels and there and there's skill conservative.
Speaker 1: Does that sound so scary. He sounds great to me,
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm sitting here cheering them on, clapping
Speaker 1: for him, high five of them. Great. You mean you
Speaker 1: mean that there there might be enough, There might be
Speaker 1: another layer in the world of TV news that is
Speaker 1: right of center in any capacity. To me, that sounds
Speaker 1: great to me. That sounds like something we definitely need
Speaker 1: in this country. Well, let's do some quick math, folks,
Speaker 1: or just a quick rundown. What does the left have
Speaker 1: spewing their talking points and their version of the news
Speaker 1: member news as a narrative. People who say otherwise don't
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about, or they're lying to you.
Speaker 1: It's a narrative. It's a construct. People look at what's
Speaker 1: happening in the world, or they decide what they think
Speaker 1: is happening in the world, and they write it down
Speaker 1: and then they put it on TV. That's it. A
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that happens in port never makes it
Speaker 1: on the news. Fact, I think a lot of nights
Speaker 1: right now, he's turn on CNN and it's the I
Speaker 1: Hate Trump Channel. As I say, we got my man
Speaker 1: gurgling with Gurgan up there, or Trump Watergate. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be absolutely impreachment, Watergate, niction for Reagan, impeach water groot.
Speaker 1: That's what's gonna happen over there. It's just the I
Speaker 1: Hate Trump channel. That's all they do. Gets boring after
Speaker 1: a while, don't you think. But Sinclair controls a fair
Speaker 1: amount of stations local news stations across the country, including,
Speaker 1: by the way, a channel I believe here in New
Speaker 1: York called w p i X that I used to
Speaker 1: watch growing up because they had all of the like
Speaker 1: second tier action movies practically running on a loop. Man,
Speaker 1: I saw so many Van dam Chuck Norris and Stallone
Speaker 1: movies playing during the eight pm hour on w p
Speaker 1: i X. I loved it, dude, it was amazing. So
Speaker 1: I have a debt of gratitude to Saint Claire for
Speaker 1: providing me with countless hours as a youth of action
Speaker 1: movies without me having to go to the video store,
Speaker 1: which is kind of a quaint little a quaint little
Speaker 1: vestige of history now right, it doesn't really doesn't really exist.
Speaker 1: I mean there are some here and there, But Sinclair
Speaker 1: gave me, gave me lots of Chuck Norris and Van
Speaker 1: Damn time in my youth. For that, I'm thankful, but
Speaker 1: they're all angry about this. You know, John Oliver, John Oliver,
Speaker 1: who's going to show where he cares. She's lot really loudly,
Speaker 1: and he lectures Americans on politics and he kind of
Speaker 1: looks and sounds funny and stupid. People think he's smart
Speaker 1: because he's British. He did this whole thing on Sinclair.
Speaker 1: I think it was last summer where he was saying,
Speaker 1: how you know it's it's a threat to our democracy
Speaker 1: and that became the big the big line this weekend,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel tweeted out that Sinclair's a threat to our democracy.
Speaker 1: So more speech is a threat to democracy now, or
Speaker 1: speech that they don't like is a threat to democracy.
Speaker 1: This is I think a continuation of Trump's arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: That montage I played you was of a really a
Speaker 1: public service announcement that they ran on Sinclair channels. They're like, look,
Speaker 1: there's you know, we strive to provide you with the
Speaker 1: best information. You know, there is fake news out there,
Speaker 1: there are people that say things that aren't true, and
Speaker 1: if we ever do that, you know, let us know.
Speaker 1: That's what actually the full statement was all about. And yeah,
Speaker 1: they ran in all the different channels as a public
Speaker 1: service announcement. But on any given night, I can turn,
Speaker 1: I can flip between how ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN,
Speaker 1: MSNBC all cover the latest you know story in the
Speaker 1: Mueller probe. And maybe there't use exactly the same words,
Speaker 1: but they might as well because it's the same darn
Speaker 1: thing on any given night. Right, So there's notion that
Speaker 1: the media doesn't already speak with one voice overwhelmingly on
Speaker 1: the left is a joke. But the notion that there
Speaker 1: may be competition in the cable additional competition in the
Speaker 1: TV news space. I think Sinclair has UH coverage in
Speaker 1: seventy five percent of US homes just goes to show
Speaker 1: you that the left, when it comes to speech in general,
Speaker 1: but particularly television news, is anti competitive. It is to
Speaker 1: their great regret that they can't stamp Fox News out
Speaker 1: from the get go, because they've done that to other channels.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, my friends, there have been other channels that
Speaker 1: would be conservative news networks that have been prevented from
Speaker 1: getting full cable distribution for reasons of politics, because who
Speaker 1: owns these cable distributors? Oh that's right, Comcast, Time, Warner,
Speaker 1: do you think that do you think that those are
Speaker 1: conservatives the executives that run those I'm gonna give you
Speaker 1: a hint. The answers, No, so Sinclair is according to
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel. According to John Oliver, oh look, I'm so
Speaker 1: funny and they can just let me curse and talk
Speaker 1: about American politics. Yeah, that shows they're just all They're
Speaker 1: just all repeats of each other. It's just it's the same,
Speaker 1: same thing, the same it's the the audience. They're like
Speaker 1: hamsters hitting the pedal. Ha ha. Republicans are racist, ha ha.
Speaker 1: Trump is an idiot, ha ha. He's destroying the country.
Speaker 1: They're all doing the same thing. I actually had the
Speaker 1: experience speaking of like a a singular a singular voice
Speaker 1: in the media. I flipped between the gym. This is
Speaker 1: over the weekend. I was in a hotel because I
Speaker 1: was out in in Indiana Fort Wayne, great place. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you more about my trip out there later. And
Speaker 1: I yeah, I rarely well why sometimes I like to
Speaker 1: flip on local TV actually when I'm in another part
Speaker 1: of the country, just to kind of get a sense
Speaker 1: of like how do they roll here with that? You know,
Speaker 1: what are they putting on the air kind of what
Speaker 1: kind of ads they run and what's I like to
Speaker 1: check out the vibe of the local news broadcast or
Speaker 1: see what they're you know, we'll see what they're into. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, you get up to like bang or main.
Speaker 1: They're like a rogue moose on the loose. It's like
Speaker 1: the most exciting thing you'll see. And everyone was like,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, look at that moose. Go he's gone wrong. Um,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I like to check out the local news
Speaker 1: in different places. And I was watching, I was flipping
Speaker 1: through some of the channels, and I happened to stamp
Speaker 1: stumble upon the broadcast networks right, speaking of domination of
Speaker 1: the cable spectrum. So I turned. I go from in
Speaker 1: one series of about two minutes, Max, I go from
Speaker 1: the Jimmy Kimmel Show. I don't even know. I never
Speaker 1: watched these guys. I don't even know what Jimmy Kimmel
Speaker 1: on one of the networks, to Stephen Colbert on one
Speaker 1: of the networks, to even Jimmy Fallon on one of
Speaker 1: the networks. She tends to be, I think, less political
Speaker 1: than the others. And they're all doing a variation of
Speaker 1: the same Trump joke basic. You know, it's like they're
Speaker 1: all just in the midst of a you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is a weirdo destroying the country joke. And I'm just
Speaker 1: thinking to myself, not only has the left now destroyed
Speaker 1: comedy and they're no longer funny, but they're not even
Speaker 1: original anymore. They don't even have new interest doing content
Speaker 1: to offer about how much they hate Conservatives and believe
Speaker 1: in Christians in America and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: They don't even come up with interesting ways of saying it.
Speaker 1: It's just all repetitive now, it's all echo chamber effect.
Speaker 1: And they have no excuse because you see, on the right,
Speaker 1: you could even make the case that sometimes the repetition
Speaker 1: of messaging is necessary because we are pushing back against
Speaker 1: much larger and more numerous megaphones. On the left, they
Speaker 1: just do it because it's easy and because of cowardice,
Speaker 1: because it go with the flow of the mob mentality.
Speaker 1: But here, I mean, it's late at nine, I'm in
Speaker 1: a hotel. You know, there's you know, there's that like
Speaker 1: there's that like, oh, I'm in a hotel in a
Speaker 1: in a new city field when you're like the first
Speaker 1: night you're there, and you know, it'd be nice to
Speaker 1: flip something on. It'd be nice to turn on the
Speaker 1: TV and I don't know, check in with like maybe
Speaker 1: maybe they're running big trouble a little China, and I
Speaker 1: can see my buddy Jack Burton's doing Jack Burton me,
Speaker 1: you know, something like that. But instead I see these
Speaker 1: different comedians who aren't even funny, and they immediately not
Speaker 1: insult me, but just annoy me with their crappy Trump jokes,
Speaker 1: one after another, rapid succession. And so that's the media
Speaker 1: environment that we're currently in. And that's the media environment
Speaker 1: where we have members of the media complaining that Sinclair
Speaker 1: might have a merger with Tribune, which you mean that
Speaker 1: there's another possible big time player in the conservative space,
Speaker 1: which to me just sounds fantastic. You know, whatever happened
Speaker 1: to free market folks, whatever happened, And may the best man,
Speaker 1: the best company win. Well, pup up up whenever comes.
Speaker 1: There's too much and you competitive, you're gonna be kidding me.
Speaker 1: They have ABC in their pockets, CBS in their pocket,
Speaker 1: NBC in their pocket, CNN, and I mean, you go
Speaker 1: down the list, and we can't we can't have one
Speaker 1: one more channel. That's I don't even know what it
Speaker 1: would be because it hasn't even formed yet, but they
Speaker 1: are so set against this and trying to drum up
Speaker 1: all this opposition by hyperventilating over and just nonsense. That's
Speaker 1: what they're doing. It really is. It's nice. I gotta say.
Speaker 1: It was nice to be in a city where I
Speaker 1: could walk around and just have the feeling this was
Speaker 1: in Fort Wayne, Indiana, have the feeling of just being like, hey,
Speaker 1: what's up. You vote for Trump? And there was a
Speaker 1: pretty good chance to be like, yeah, let's make America
Speaker 1: great again. And I could be like thanks, random stranger
Speaker 1: on the street, high five. We probably would get along
Speaker 1: really well and agree on most things. Instead of New
Speaker 1: York and people like what do you do? And I'm like,
Speaker 1: I work working in the media. You know, work for
Speaker 1: a meat media company. You know it is. I do
Speaker 1: some stuff. Well, what do you do for that? You know?
Speaker 1: Is right? And do some maybe do a little radio
Speaker 1: if I want to sound cool. Though, it's like podcasting
Speaker 1: because the left podcasting is cool. Radio is owned by
Speaker 1: the right, so they don't like that anymore. You know,
Speaker 1: on the talk space, you gotta podcast do some stuff.
Speaker 1: Here and there. Anyway, I mentioned something to do about
Speaker 1: um a couple of things. We've got some updates on
Speaker 1: the Hog v. Ingram case, which I'll bring to you.
Speaker 1: And then also guns. They're using laws to seize guns
Speaker 1: from people that should not have their guns seas. This
Speaker 1: is not surprising to any of you, I'm sure, but
Speaker 1: it is still absolutely worth our time to discuss. So
Speaker 1: we will get into that and much more right after
Speaker 1: this break. Very interesting news over the weekend. I mentioned
Speaker 1: the issue of firearm confiscations. Don't worry, I'll get to that.
Speaker 1: I don't like to put a teaser out there. And then, oh,
Speaker 1: let's just switch topics because Buck has a brain that
Speaker 1: goes in too many directions at once. Sorry, there's other
Speaker 1: things though. London, for the first time in recorded history
Speaker 1: more murders than New York City. Yeah at now that's
Speaker 1: only up to this point in this year, but more
Speaker 1: people have been killed in London than in New York.
Speaker 1: By the way, how are people being killed in London?
Speaker 1: We get lectures a lot about gun control and gun violence.
Speaker 1: Guess what they're being killed with knives and a lot
Speaker 1: of it in home invasions. So you have the largest
Speaker 1: city in the United Kingdom and the largest city in
Speaker 1: the United States, both around eight million ish residents. And
Speaker 1: you are safer in New York City where you can
Speaker 1: own a gun. I mean you can do it. I
Speaker 1: know people who who do just very It's a little annoying.
Speaker 1: It's difficult, but it's not impossible versus the UK, where
Speaker 1: it's basically impossible to get a handgun in London, basically impossible.
Speaker 1: Um and yet people who are bad fine ways to
Speaker 1: do bad things. Nonetheless, they kill people with knives and
Speaker 1: invade their homes while they're in them, knowing that they're
Speaker 1: not they're very unlikely to come up against lethal resistance,
Speaker 1: lethal self defense. So and I'm sure in a lot
Speaker 1: of cases they've already cased the establishment or case the residents. No,
Speaker 1: it's probably an older person or you know. So that's
Speaker 1: that's going on lone. And so next time they all
Speaker 1: start lecturing us about oh it all the violence and everything,
Speaker 1: well it's not it's not as easy. It's not as
Speaker 1: straightforward a thing as they think. By by the way,
Speaker 1: it's also a note also a a point to make
Speaker 1: here that New York City, I know a lot of
Speaker 1: you probably are like a buck. I don't like New York.
Speaker 1: That's fine where I'm doing the show from right now,
Speaker 1: though it's it's a different place than almost twenty years ago.
Speaker 1: It's so much safer than it feels like a different city.
Speaker 1: It's pretty astonishing. But that's a story for another time.
Speaker 1: Are the guns thou police legally season guns under red
Speaker 1: flag laws? This was a big story up on Fox
Speaker 1: News today. Let me give you some of the details here.
Speaker 1: Alexander Mackenzie, thirty one year old Army veteran who was
Speaker 1: being treated for PTSD and his gun confiscated by the
Speaker 1: Seattle Police Department even though he had committed no crime.
Speaker 1: It's one of twenty seven guns seized legally by the
Speaker 1: Seattle Police Department from sixteen individuals under Washington's new Extreme
Speaker 1: Risk Protection Order law. Um, so you have people who
Speaker 1: are having their guns taken from them under these red
Speaker 1: flag laws thirty states. According to the the Brady Campaign,
Speaker 1: which was I forget what the original name of the
Speaker 1: Brady Campaign wants, but it's basically the the campaign to
Speaker 1: band handguns. Right now people have referred to as the
Speaker 1: Brady Campaign. It used to be the Campaign to band handguns.
Speaker 1: Pretty much what was it called, Mike, I can't hear you.
Speaker 1: We's in just the Brady Bill. No, originally before was
Speaker 1: the Brady Bill, it was the the organization was called
Speaker 1: something else. You'll find out. You'll be like, wow, Buck,
Speaker 1: your wisdom extend ends beyond my wildest dreams. How did
Speaker 1: you know such things? And I'll have to say, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: because all I do is read all day. I have
Speaker 1: no social life, maybe even have no life, but I
Speaker 1: do read a lot. There's something you'll see. There's a
Speaker 1: name there. It was called something else before it was
Speaker 1: the Brady Campaign. Um, there was another name for it.
Speaker 1: We'll figure out what it is. I'm seeing the Brady
Speaker 1: Handgun Violence Prevention Act, thinking, no, no, no, no, I'll
Speaker 1: find it. I'll find that. I'll tell everybody. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna pretend that I'm still right, even though it sounds
Speaker 1: like maybe I'm off the I'm off the off the
Speaker 1: field on this one. But anyway, we're coming back to
Speaker 1: this so that they're getting rid of people's guns. Now.
Speaker 1: In this one case, the guy actually PTSD said he
Speaker 1: didn't really mind because he was having a really tough time. Alright, Fine,
Speaker 1: here's what ends up. Happening that, folks. I just want
Speaker 1: to prepare you for where this goes. They started to
Speaker 1: use these red flag laws against people with PTSD, they
Speaker 1: start to use it against people that have any form
Speaker 1: of mental illness. What they do is, even in cases
Speaker 1: where they overstepped, they're gonna say, well, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're just trying to keep people safe and we're trying
Speaker 1: to prevent guns from being the hands of the mentally ill.
Speaker 1: And it becomes a talking point for them. This is
Speaker 1: how the propaganda gets made. This is the machinery of
Speaker 1: the talking points and the propaganda the Democrats will put
Speaker 1: out there to get national level gun control legislation when
Speaker 1: they have a Democrat majority, etcetera, etcetera. This is how
Speaker 1: they do it. They create a situation where you're gonna
Speaker 1: have conservatives people like me who are saying, well, hold
Speaker 1: a whole lot of second, you can't be taking guns
Speaker 1: away from veterans who have PTSD or no threat to
Speaker 1: others or themselves and have done anything anything illegal, have
Speaker 1: nothing wrong. And then when I get on record saying
Speaker 1: stuff like that, then the way the left respondses, oh see,
Speaker 1: the right won't even won't even agree that we should
Speaker 1: take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Speaker 1: They won't get into the specifics that we're talking about
Speaker 1: veterans of PTSD and other people who have you know, uh,
Speaker 1: mental health issues but are not mentally ill in in
Speaker 1: any broad sense of the term. And that's the way
Speaker 1: that this is meant. So this is just the beginning.
Speaker 1: It's incrementalism. You'll see more of this with some of
Speaker 1: these red flag laws in states that are considering passing them.
Speaker 1: They're going to start taking guns away from people, and
Speaker 1: then they'll be a really high level, high profile case
Speaker 1: that will come up, I guarantee it. And once that
Speaker 1: high profile case comes up, what you won't hear, Oh
Speaker 1: they're taking guns away from a veteran because of PTSD.
Speaker 1: You'll just hear, oh, see the n r A wants
Speaker 1: guns in the hands of them mentally ill. Yes, the
Speaker 1: gun grabbers are willing to slander veterans and to do
Speaker 1: so in a way that they won't even be honest
Speaker 1: about what they're doing in order to try to get
Speaker 1: more confiscations going. Um, all right, we'll be back in
Speaker 1: just a minute. Team, stay with me. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America. Buck Sex, it is back gus they're
Speaker 1: disgusting individuals like a critical and disgusting that she doesn't
Speaker 1: care about them. She doesn't care about police because she
Speaker 1: doesn't care about these children's lives, because our parents don't
Speaker 1: know how to use democracy, So we have tars are
Speaker 1: out there that want to continue to somewhere guns, murder
Speaker 1: more children and honestly just get reelected. Let's see more
Speaker 1: money than children's lives, you kill. So that was just
Speaker 1: a smattering of what David Hogg goes out in public
Speaker 1: and says, and we can find even worse stuff. Claims
Speaker 1: people don't care about dead children, claims that the n
Speaker 1: r RAY is a terrorist organization, or that it could
Speaker 1: have the blood of children on their faces and they
Speaker 1: wouldn't stop what they're doing. The implication, of course, of
Speaker 1: the n RAY is responsible for the horrific shooting in Parkland,
Speaker 1: and this has gotten a lot of attention because we
Speaker 1: saw something very important and very noteworthy. I guess that's
Speaker 1: just another way of saying important, so we can scratch
Speaker 1: one of those from the record, But nonetheless, we saw
Speaker 1: something very important happen with how this played out with
Speaker 1: Laura Ingram, and that is you can't apologize to those
Speaker 1: who weaponize debates on the left and who turned this
Speaker 1: into a function of ruining lives, ruining livelihoods, ruining careers
Speaker 1: and reputations. You can't apologize to them because they're not
Speaker 1: operating in a good faith. Laura Ingram apologized, Hogg said,
Speaker 1: he openly said he did not accept This is a
Speaker 1: seventeen year old kid. Did not accept her apology. Oh
Speaker 1: and then you had all these sponsors pull out, sponsors
Speaker 1: that were showing, under the circumstances, a complete lack of
Speaker 1: any respect for the difficulty of doing a political show
Speaker 1: like this, a show like Laura Ingrams where you're gonna
Speaker 1: take positions. Now, look, do I think that Laura should
Speaker 1: have gotten into this kid getting rejected from school. No,
Speaker 1: And everyone on the right that I respect has already
Speaker 1: said that she made a mistake. I mean, it wasn't
Speaker 1: a smart thing to do, wasn't the right thing to do,
Speaker 1: But it wasn't a terrible thing to do either. Wasn't
Speaker 1: a big deal. But the left is using hog as
Speaker 1: both sword and shield, and there's a huge double standard
Speaker 1: that's at work as well. The double standard is that
Speaker 1: when you have someone like Joan Walsh who's over at CNN,
Speaker 1: who has said nasty things about about Kyle Cashev, for example,
Speaker 1: there's no outcry for her to be taken off the air.
Speaker 1: No one suggests, oh my gosh, you know she she
Speaker 1: can't be a punted anymore. Well, I mean, some people
Speaker 1: have pointed it out now because the double standard is
Speaker 1: so disconcerting. It it's just so outrageous. But more to
Speaker 1: the point, we just all need to be very clear.
Speaker 1: We need to be very clear about the fact that
Speaker 1: you can't apologize. You have to you have to stand
Speaker 1: your ground own even when you're a little bit wrong.
Speaker 1: And I know that seems that seems like, come on, buck,
Speaker 1: it's not how we do things. But when you're dealing
Speaker 1: with these character assassins on the left, when you were
Speaker 1: dealing with a concerted effort to take someone down, to
Speaker 1: ruin their reputation, to drive away sponsors, to to really
Speaker 1: engage in a form of surgical strike economic warfare, which
Speaker 1: is what this is. And and by the way, it's
Speaker 1: not even that surgical. You know, if they pulled lower
Speaker 1: Ingram off the air, there are people that work on
Speaker 1: that show who might lose their jobs. I know what
Speaker 1: this is like, I have friends who are producers at
Speaker 1: these networks. I know what it's like for these hosts.
Speaker 1: And I've also been in newsrooms when people have gotten
Speaker 1: fired for no wrong doing of their own. Just because
Speaker 1: someone a host has gotten let go, oftentimes they'll can everybody.
Speaker 1: So is that really fair under the circumstances? No, of
Speaker 1: course not. Is that called for given the host being
Speaker 1: let go and possibly other people losing their jobs as
Speaker 1: well because Ingram made a joe about or not even
Speaker 1: really a joke just to comment and ill advised comment
Speaker 1: about Hogs college acceptances. While we're talking about this, I
Speaker 1: just want to know is the standard on the left
Speaker 1: now that we have uh we we have to expect
Speaker 1: that anyone who is a spokesperson for the March for
Speaker 1: Our Lives gets into any college they want. Is anything
Speaker 1: short of that unacceptable? I just would like to know
Speaker 1: what the what the standard is. Does Kyle Cashev, when
Speaker 1: the time comes for him to apply to college get
Speaker 1: to assume that he can get into any college and
Speaker 1: if not, there's a political conspiracy against him, because that's
Speaker 1: what was raised before. There's something uh, very instructive about
Speaker 1: this whole situation with Ingram and Hog and it's a
Speaker 1: reminder for all of us. By the way, Fox News,
Speaker 1: to its credit, has released a statement today from the
Speaker 1: co presidents saying that you know, Laura's coming back and
Speaker 1: it's and that's it and good for them. You know,
Speaker 1: if we're at the point where Fox News is subject
Speaker 1: to the pressure campaigns of these activists claiming to be
Speaker 1: all about the public good but really just pushing their
Speaker 1: own very very narrow agendas. But if we get to
Speaker 1: that point, my friends, where are we going to have
Speaker 1: a voice that's safe. It's just a matter of time
Speaker 1: before they take off people who are on radio, who
Speaker 1: are hosts that they don't like, they'll start taking to
Speaker 1: They'll they'll pick us off from the top down, one
Speaker 1: by one until they have information dominance in the media space,
Speaker 1: true information dominance. I mean, there won't be any voices
Speaker 1: that will really be able to call them out and
Speaker 1: affect the national conversation. This is critical and it's also
Speaker 1: reminder of why when I say things to you like
Speaker 1: please support this show, please support our sponsors. You all
Speaker 1: have an active role. People asked this. I was asked
Speaker 1: this this weekend actually in at WHOA Whoa. When I
Speaker 1: was in Fort Wayne and we did a live event
Speaker 1: for our listeners there. You know, what what can the
Speaker 1: average folks do here? And that's a question that you
Speaker 1: get a lot, and that's the one that is essential.
Speaker 1: I understand why people ask it. One of the things
Speaker 1: you can do is support the side that reflects your
Speaker 1: values and beliefs in the so called information war that's
Speaker 1: going on right now. It means listen, it means spread
Speaker 1: the word. It means support the sponsors. You know. That's
Speaker 1: why when I say to you, yeah, please check out
Speaker 1: sponsors on this show. You see how important all this is.
Speaker 1: Because the sponsors pull out of a show, for example,
Speaker 1: And my sponsors are all phenomenal patriots, and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not worried about anything like that because they're all
Speaker 1: understand what we do here and we have a great relationship,
Speaker 1: right But by you supporting them, the sponsors want to
Speaker 1: stay around for economic reasons, which is very important to
Speaker 1: the show. With Lora Ingram, the sponsors leave, the pressure
Speaker 1: gets turned up all of a sudden too push her aside.
Speaker 1: You know, it becomes a financial decision. And as I said,
Speaker 1: Fox has already said that's not gonna happen. But this
Speaker 1: is what we are up against, and they will do
Speaker 1: everything in their our two and then they don't care.
Speaker 1: They don't care what lives they're destroying the process, you know,
Speaker 1: they don't care who they harm and what it means
Speaker 1: for people. There's no there's no uh exceptions for good
Speaker 1: faith debate on the left. No, they view this as
Speaker 1: just open partisan warfare, and boycotts are among their favored tactics.
Speaker 1: All right. Boycotts are top of the list. Also running
Speaker 1: with even the merest allegation of impropriety against a conservative personality,
Speaker 1: as though it has proven and as though there is
Speaker 1: no other version of events right away. That's another thing
Speaker 1: that they they like to do. But you know, Hag
Speaker 1: actually wrote, where's Laura Ingram's this is on Twitter? Where's
Speaker 1: Laura Ingram's UH apology to Lebron James? Oh so, so,
Speaker 1: now not only does he not accept an apology publicly
Speaker 1: for him, but he also was demanding apology for I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is demand ending that someone bend the
Speaker 1: knee and then saying you want to have them metaphorically
Speaker 1: executed anyway, but then saying that you want them to
Speaker 1: bend the knee again just cuts. It's abuse and this
Speaker 1: is the kind of stuff that you would expect from
Speaker 1: Jeoffrey being barathy in in in Game of Thrones, you know, Jeoffrey,
Speaker 1: Jeoffrey says, if you that's I'm a big spoiler here.
Speaker 1: He says, if you admits your sins and beg forgiveness,
Speaker 1: or in this case, if you admit your trees in
Speaker 1: and beg forgiveness, you can live. That's what he says
Speaker 1: to at Ards stark Um played by Sean Bean very
Speaker 1: well in that first season. And yeah, I know, big
Speaker 1: spoiler here, but guess what after he admits his treason,
Speaker 1: Little little King Jeoffrey hasn't beheaded anyway. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: if we're now in a culture where in media land,
Speaker 1: somebody can say you have to apologize, you do apologize,
Speaker 1: and they say not good enough. You still should lose
Speaker 1: all your sponsors, you still should lose your job. Oh,
Speaker 1: and you should be forced to appolize to other people.
Speaker 1: That means that this is no holds bar And that's
Speaker 1: where we are. And you want to know what you
Speaker 1: can do. You stand by the people, and I don't
Speaker 1: just this isn't just self serving for me, although hopefully
Speaker 1: you feel this way about me and this show. But
Speaker 1: you stand by people that are speaking the truth, that
Speaker 1: are bringing you good information, and that do their jobs
Speaker 1: with ethics, with integrity, and that, by the way, do
Speaker 1: this despite the fact that it would be so much
Speaker 1: easier to go on the other side. Um, I've I've
Speaker 1: talked to all my friends about this here in New York.
Speaker 1: It'd be so much easier if I were liberal, and
Speaker 1: it it's so straightforward to I know all their arguments,
Speaker 1: I know them backwards and forwards. I could make them.
Speaker 1: I could be a sellout. I could be there. Oh
Speaker 1: I used to be a conservant. Run to the other side.
Speaker 1: I just couldn't live with myself though. I couldn't look
Speaker 1: at myself in the mirror. But you all have a voice,
Speaker 1: and you all have a vote in how this goes.
Speaker 1: Whether it's by continue you know, tweeting out and sending
Speaker 1: emails about how you stand with Laura, or by listening
Speaker 1: to this show, checking out our SPA websites, buying some
Speaker 1: of the some of their products and offerings. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's how you show your support. That's how you
Speaker 1: get into this fight too. So I'm happy for lord
Speaker 1: Ingland that she's coming back, and I'm also happy that
Speaker 1: we've all realized what's really going on here with this
Speaker 1: Parkland student movement that's being abused by adults for political purposes.
Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna hit a quick break. Your team
Speaker 1: will be right back. Stay with me. You are now
Speaker 1: entering the Freedom Technical Operations Center. All sensitive programs must
Speaker 1: be kept strictly. Need to know Team Buck is cleared
Speaker 1: and ready for the Buck Brief. We're knocking the hell
Speaker 1: out of Isis will be coming out of serial like
Speaker 1: very soon. Let the other people take care of it now,
Speaker 1: very soon, very soon, we're coming out. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: ad of the Caliphate as they call it sometimes refer
Speaker 1: to his land and taking it all back quickly, quickly.
Speaker 1: But we're going to be coming out of their real suit,
Speaker 1: going to get back to our country where we belong,
Speaker 1: where we want to be. There's three thousand or soul
Speaker 1: fighters still left between a Rock and Syria. We've got
Speaker 1: to clean that up. We have to help the region
Speaker 1: in Syria there, the Eastern region, stabilize itself and recover.
Speaker 1: If we don't, I guarantee you guarantee that Isis will
Speaker 1: re emerge, and it will be another jolt in the
Speaker 1: arm and their barbarism will start all over again. The
Speaker 1: second thing that will happen is we will be turning
Speaker 1: Syria over to the Russians, to the Iranians and Hezbollah,
Speaker 1: and they will encroach on Israel and as a potential
Speaker 1: war on the horizon between Israel and Hezba. President Trump
Speaker 1: renewed the relationship between the United States on the Sunni Arabs.
Speaker 1: If he pulls out of Syria, he's doing the very
Speaker 1: same things that Obamas did. Letting our Sunni Arab allies
Speaker 1: down makes no sense to me. There you had the
Speaker 1: current commander in chief, President Trump saying that we are
Speaker 1: getting out of Syria soon, and a former four star general,
Speaker 1: Fox News analyst Jack Keane saying, look, we leave Syria entirely,
Speaker 1: isis is going to re emerge. And I'm here to
Speaker 1: tell you they're both right. I'm here to tell you
Speaker 1: that Trump needs to get our troops out of Syria.
Speaker 1: We can't have another situation like we do in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: We can't be there trying to build a better country
Speaker 1: for people who won't do it for themselves or who
Speaker 1: are unable to do it for themselves. The world is
Speaker 1: a cruel and unfair place. U S soldiers do not
Speaker 1: join in order to create countries for other people. Aren't
Speaker 1: Americans who do not want to do the work of
Speaker 1: creating their own polity that is worth fighting for? That
Speaker 1: is that not the purpose of our military and we've
Speaker 1: done enough of it recently. Um And I think that
Speaker 1: Trump has the right instincts with this. Okay, finish the
Speaker 1: job against ISIS, but you gotta go do I think
Speaker 1: General Keene is wrong that ISIS will re emerge in
Speaker 1: some capacity. No, but we already have a near permanent
Speaker 1: in a sense. I mean, it depends on how you
Speaker 1: want to gauge it. But US military presence in Iraqs
Speaker 1: not going anywhere anytime soon. That's right next door. We
Speaker 1: can't be everywhere. We can't be the world's insert counterinsurgency force.
Speaker 1: We can't be suppressing every jettest movement around the globe.
Speaker 1: Even if we were, let me say this, even if
Speaker 1: we stayed in our current force posture in Syria right now,
Speaker 1: there would be another one of the Isis, the Islamic States,
Speaker 1: satellite entities, all these ISIS affiliates around the world that
Speaker 1: would eventually get enough of a lee eat against that
Speaker 1: national army in whatever country we're talking about, whether it's
Speaker 1: Nigeria or Libya or the Philippines, that there would be
Speaker 1: another so called caliphate in existence. That this is a
Speaker 1: whack a mole problem. We're going to be dealing with
Speaker 1: this for my entire lifetime most likely, and perhaps well
Speaker 1: beyond that. So we need to pick our battles and
Speaker 1: not over extend ourselves. The reason this was in the
Speaker 1: headlines I should notice because we lost a soldier. I've
Speaker 1: been saying for a while, isis Syria. All this matters.
Speaker 1: We have people in harm's way, and that means that
Speaker 1: we are going to lose some of our best and
Speaker 1: we have we certainly have in large numbers in Iraq
Speaker 1: and in Afghanistan, but we've also now taken losses in Syria.
Speaker 1: This Curtis. This is from CNN. A US and a
Speaker 1: British soldier were killed in an improvised explosive device blast
Speaker 1: in man Bidge, Syria, and this was last week. There
Speaker 1: were reportedly on a classified mission to kill or capture
Speaker 1: a known ISIS umber. According to a Pentagon spokesman in
Speaker 1: the U s military, is we're losing. Releasing few details
Speaker 1: about the mission that killed Master Sergeant Jonathan Dunbar and
Speaker 1: UK Soldier Sergeant Matt Tonrow, it certainly looks like a
Speaker 1: Tier one elite military h VT High Value target mission
Speaker 1: going after one of the baddest of the bad and
Speaker 1: we lost two of our best to an I E. D. Now,
Speaker 1: this is going to happen, folks. It's tragic, it's terrible.
Speaker 1: We mourn their loss and we comfort and support their
Speaker 1: families in every way that we can as a people.
Speaker 1: But if we're gonna be going after these savages who
Speaker 1: run the Islamic State and other jihaddest groups, we are
Speaker 1: going to take losses in casualties. Now, the current force
Speaker 1: posture in Syria is pretty lean and mean. We do
Speaker 1: not have that much, at least not that much that
Speaker 1: we are allowed to know about in Syria. And so
Speaker 1: to me, it's not in it's not urgent that we
Speaker 1: pull out all the soldiers who are currently there, but
Speaker 1: we need to not get sucked in deeper and deeper.
Speaker 1: And yes, it is it is true that Russia is
Speaker 1: more entrenched in Syria than we are, and that's going
Speaker 1: to continue to be the case. It is true that
Speaker 1: Iran is more entrenched in Syria than we are. That
Speaker 1: is going to continue to be the case. We can
Speaker 1: support good guys on the ground in Syria, we can
Speaker 1: support the Kurds. So we have largely I think UH
Speaker 1: ignominiously abandoned in recent months, or not necessarily abandoned, but
Speaker 1: certainly haven't stood up for enough. But we we can't
Speaker 1: have this be yet another nation building project, and we
Speaker 1: don't even know what the next phase is supposed to be.
Speaker 1: Against the Assad regime, We're just trying to keep it
Speaker 1: from being a launch pad for international jihad. And this
Speaker 1: is where you start to get into the very unsavory
Speaker 1: discussion about well can we leave behind a weekend? Enough
Speaker 1: isis that Assad and Syria? You know we'll keep them
Speaker 1: in check. And if we keep US special forces and
Speaker 1: UH operators, including special forces next door in Iraq, perhaps
Speaker 1: we can keep this from spiling out of control. Again.
Speaker 1: There are no easy answers, there are no perfect answers.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm telling you Trump is right and General
Speaker 1: Keen is right. All right, we gotta hit our three.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in just a few stay would he's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back, another
Speaker 1: presidential statue bites the dust. Welcome to our three of
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show team. I've been telling you for
Speaker 1: a while, and you've been seeing it yourselves, and you've
Speaker 1: been telling me because you know it's true that there
Speaker 1: are now no outer limits to the why washing of
Speaker 1: history that's going on with the pull down of various statues,
Speaker 1: everything from Robert E. Lee to now Christopher Columbus, the
Speaker 1: fight over mascots, all kinds of accusations, of microaggressions. All
Speaker 1: of that is happening and continues to get more and
Speaker 1: more absurd. At first it was all about Confederate monuments
Speaker 1: and some professional sports teams and college sports teams mascots,
Speaker 1: but now it's just going after historical figures. Now it
Speaker 1: is a political movement underway where progressives are leaning on
Speaker 1: marginalized groups to be the vanguard of an effort to
Speaker 1: pull down statues they don't like. And wherever you are
Speaker 1: across the country, this is probably coming soon to a
Speaker 1: town near you, if it hasn't already hit your town.
Speaker 1: So the latest is McKinley. I know some of you
Speaker 1: are probably thinking, Buck, what's the big problem with McKinley.
Speaker 1: This is not someone who owned slaves, not someone who
Speaker 1: was part of the wrong side or the of the
Speaker 1: Civil War or was. You know that there's nothing about
Speaker 1: him at first glance that would make you think that
Speaker 1: McKinley statues have to come down. But sure enough, that
Speaker 1: is in fact what's happening. There's this little town I've
Speaker 1: never heard of before called I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: Arcada or Arcata. I'm gonna assume it's Arcada because I
Speaker 1: like saying that one more. But it's right on the
Speaker 1: coast of California. Small town of you know, in the
Speaker 1: thousands of people. But they have an eight and a
Speaker 1: half foot bronze statue of William McKinley. Now, for those
Speaker 1: who don't know, McKinley was president until he wasn't in
Speaker 1: nineteen o one when he was assassinated did by an anarchist.
Speaker 1: This was on September six one. He was the president
Speaker 1: of the United States and he was on the grounds
Speaker 1: of the Pan American Exposition at the Temple of Music
Speaker 1: in Buffalo, New York. He was murdered assassinated by a
Speaker 1: fanatical anarchist named leon Chial Goosh. Now I won't get
Speaker 1: into too much of the Yeah, you know, Chila Goosh
Speaker 1: and Gutcho, who killed President Garfield, are really the the
Speaker 1: lesser known of the four presidential assassins. Everyone knows John
Speaker 1: Wilkes Booth, and everyone knows Lee Harvey Oswald, but Gucho
Speaker 1: and Chill Gosh are kind of lost to history. But
Speaker 1: you think that McKinley might get a little bit of
Speaker 1: I don't know, a tie goes to the Runner philosophy
Speaker 1: because you've got a guy here who was assassinated while
Speaker 1: US president. He doesn't have that much that's named after
Speaker 1: from only president to come from the great state of Ohio.
Speaker 1: And just recently, under the Obama administration, officially lost the
Speaker 1: designation of the tallest mountain in in in Alaska. So
Speaker 1: Mount McKinley is now Denali. But he's even gonna lose
Speaker 1: his or has lost his statue in this little very
Speaker 1: liberally heem he's he's Califonia, even he's lebu sing Califunia,
Speaker 1: this little liberal place named Marcada. They're getting rid of McKinley.
Speaker 1: And now you're probably thinking, Buck, why what grave sin
Speaker 1: has McKinley been guilty of in the past? That they
Speaker 1: have to pull down his statue. Right McKinley, as I said,
Speaker 1: not even alive during the Civil War, never owned slaves.
Speaker 1: Wasn't some segregationist. Oh, it's about his treatment, or rather
Speaker 1: his policies in dealing with Native American people's. Native American
Speaker 1: groups are the ones who want McKinley's statue on for
Speaker 1: quote settler colonialism that savaged, raped and killed. So it's
Speaker 1: just a a very generic general opposition to McKinley for
Speaker 1: being a president at a time when bad things were
Speaker 1: done to Native Americans. Let me just say that if
Speaker 1: this is now the standard, and I suppose it increasingly
Speaker 1: is becoming the standard, we can't have statues of anyone
Speaker 1: who was involved in the founding of this country. We
Speaker 1: can't have statues of anyone on either side of the
Speaker 1: Civil War. We really can have statues of anyone until
Speaker 1: about twenty or thirty years ago. No scratch that. I
Speaker 1: don't think we could have statues of any president except
Speaker 1: for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama would be the only
Speaker 1: one who, while in office, wouldn't have been in opposition
Speaker 1: to same sex marriage. Oh but wait a second, Barack
Speaker 1: Obama opposed same sex marriage when he is trying to
Speaker 1: become president, so he also is a human rights criminal
Speaker 1: by contemporary standards. So who can we have statues of
Speaker 1: I guess just Native American peoples who are oppressed. You know,
Speaker 1: you start to take this to its its own logical ends,
Speaker 1: and you see that there is no end, There is
Speaker 1: no stoppage, there is no outer boundary for this. It's
Speaker 1: just a question of power. It is a question of
Speaker 1: using the victimology of the left for rewriting our history
Speaker 1: and trying to dictate our present. I just wonder if
Speaker 1: it would be considered acceptable at this point for progressives,
Speaker 1: or or if it is necessary for progressives that we
Speaker 1: rename any states from which we have derived that that
Speaker 1: come from uh, British or Dutch place names. So we
Speaker 1: have to get rid of New York, for example, we'd
Speaker 1: have to get rid of Virginia. We would have to
Speaker 1: you just go down the line. We couldn't call it Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Or Washington State because he owned slaves. Are
Speaker 1: we supposed to rename everything now? Are we supposed to
Speaker 1: only have statues that are what heroes of the twentieth
Speaker 1: century civil rights movement? And then homages to the oppressed
Speaker 1: and victimized Native American peoples of this country. Is that
Speaker 1: really the only part of our history that we are
Speaker 1: allowed to celebrate or even memorialize in any meaningful way?
Speaker 1: This is crazy. But you see this on Columbus Day. Now,
Speaker 1: you see this with various presidents. You see this with
Speaker 1: the founding fathers. Just wait, give it time. They'll go
Speaker 1: after Lincoln too, the man who presided over the eradication
Speaker 1: of slavery. I also just can't help but notice that
Speaker 1: the double standard here, the hypocrisy is stifling. How is
Speaker 1: it that McKinley is a subject for leftist ire right now? Which,
Speaker 1: by the way, how many Americans even know anything about McKinley.
Speaker 1: Some may know that he was assassinated and that there
Speaker 1: was a big mountain named after him, But after that,
Speaker 1: I'd be willing to bet that most folks would kind
Speaker 1: of scratch their heads. And if they even knew that
Speaker 1: the guy was president, you'd have to assume, all right,
Speaker 1: you know, not a bad showing based on what the
Speaker 1: general crowd knows. But why is it that I don't
Speaker 1: see any movements in California or New York in the
Speaker 1: bluest of the blue states to take down, eliminate, remove
Speaker 1: all statues that have anything to do with Franklin Dental
Speaker 1: Delano Roosevelt f d R. F DR sent Japanese Americans
Speaker 1: into internment camps, not in the nineteenth century, not in
Speaker 1: the eighteenth century, but in the within living memory for well, uh,
Speaker 1: some Americans at this point, it was not that long ago.
Speaker 1: I often have to use a roadway here in New
Speaker 1: York City called f d R Drive. There's the f
Speaker 1: DR Rose FDR Memorial on the title basin. In Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. There's the Roosevelt Room of the White House
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. Which I believe is for f
Speaker 1: d R and not for Teddy Roosevelt. There are lots
Speaker 1: of schools and bridges and streets all named for f DR.
Speaker 1: He engaged in what is obviously racial profiling, racial discrimination,
Speaker 1: and just outright racism in the context of the day
Speaker 1: and in the context of today. So why is there
Speaker 1: no outrage? Wire is there no outcry? Oh? That's right
Speaker 1: because leftists and cultural mark exists in this country have
Speaker 1: elevated FDR, have rewritten the history to suggest that FDRs
Speaker 1: programs of massive government and of the redistribution of wealth
Speaker 1: and the creation of these enormous bureaucracies that all of
Speaker 1: that saved the country was economically successful and put us
Speaker 1: on a path towards the progressivism of today. So they're
Speaker 1: willing to overlook FDR's misdeeds. But now they're going after McKinley.
Speaker 1: And I think this is this much is obvious, right.
Speaker 1: If they can go after McKinley, they can go after
Speaker 1: any historical figure they do not like. In time, they'll
Speaker 1: decide that because Ronald Reagan was for traditional marriage, he
Speaker 1: was a human rights violator and should be stripped from
Speaker 1: all public monuments and memorials. And I'm not saying they'll
Speaker 1: always get their way with this, but they will try.
Speaker 1: They'll pushing and pushing, and over time they hope to
Speaker 1: change the culture and change the conversation enough that they
Speaker 1: can get their way. But if McKinley and his rather
Speaker 1: tragic administration, one of the four U S presidents to
Speaker 1: have been assassinated, if even his legacy is going to
Speaker 1: get caught up in the culture wars of today, nothing
Speaker 1: is safe, nothing is free from it. You can't assume
Speaker 1: that there is any historical figure until at least the
Speaker 1: last few decades maybe even the last few years. Who
Speaker 1: won't be a subject of controversy for leftist activists in
Speaker 1: the future. They put a rope around McKinley the statue
Speaker 1: and they tore it down. They'll do it to more places.
Speaker 1: Unless we push back rolling into quick Break, team will
Speaker 1: be right back. Ye forgot climate change. Genetics is the
Speaker 1: most contentious field of science right now, bar none. I
Speaker 1: had a lovely Sunday. I went to Easter service with
Speaker 1: my little sister. We're in different parts of city, so
Speaker 1: the sextons went to different churches, but I went with
Speaker 1: my sister and then we had a nice family dinner
Speaker 1: for Easter. And one of my brother said that he
Speaker 1: was taking one of those tests where you spit into
Speaker 1: a tube and you send it in and you get
Speaker 1: your ancestry readout. It's genetic testing. Now, that just sounds
Speaker 1: like some fun, and we're curious to see what the
Speaker 1: breakdown is. We were all taking some educated guesses last night.
Speaker 1: But there are much more powerful and contentious tests that
Speaker 1: are gonna start aren't coming to an Internet service near you,
Speaker 1: that don't just measure your ancestry, but are starting to
Speaker 1: measure intelligence. This via i Q and if you've read
Speaker 1: anything about the science of i Q, it is overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: time and again proven that i Q is largely inherited,
Speaker 1: and that i Q, which they sometimes referred to as
Speaker 1: G just the letter G as the variable for it
Speaker 1: as a means of trying to measure i Q. That
Speaker 1: i Q correlates with all kinds of life decisions and
Speaker 1: life achievement now correlates does not mean cause you could
Speaker 1: have a very high i Q and lead a miserable
Speaker 1: and unsuccessful life. You could have a low i Q
Speaker 1: and have an incredibly successful and happy life. But there
Speaker 1: is something there, and it is based on the science,
Speaker 1: much more likely to be a function of your genetics,
Speaker 1: as much as a lot of people don't want to
Speaker 1: hear that, than it is your environment. The nature nurture
Speaker 1: conversation is one in which one side presents analysis of
Speaker 1: numbers and scientific findings and controlled experiments again and again
Speaker 1: and again, and the other side just says that's wrong.
Speaker 1: And the moment they start looking at aggregate i Q
Speaker 1: data among populations, sure enough they will say that's racist.
Speaker 1: And you get into some very sensitive territory here where
Speaker 1: no one really wants to be treated like some kind
Speaker 1: of bigot or eugenicist. By making the case that i
Speaker 1: Q is largely inherited, it is genetic, and that in
Speaker 1: the aggregate, as explained in Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve,
Speaker 1: there are mean meaning average, not true in every case
Speaker 1: by any means, mean differences between various races when it
Speaker 1: comes to y Q. Just to state, by the way,
Speaker 1: what the Bell Curve is about is to come under suspicion. Now,
Speaker 1: just to tell you that I have read the Bell
Speaker 1: Curve is in progressive and I mean progressive intellectual circles,
Speaker 1: almost like saying, you know, I keep a copy of
Speaker 1: mind comp somewhere just in case, put aside for a
Speaker 1: moment that you actually should read mind Comps. You have
Speaker 1: an understanding of the evil of Hitler and his ideology. Right,
Speaker 1: the same reason I would read mind comp is that
Speaker 1: why I read isis and a sort of jihadest groups propaganda.
Speaker 1: But one side of this debate on i Q isn't
Speaker 1: interested in greater information and scientific discovery. They view this
Speaker 1: as an issue of politics and righteousness. And that's why
Speaker 1: once some of these tests become available for consumer use,
Speaker 1: inexpensive and you can get a sense of your i Q. Oh,
Speaker 1: and by the way, also your genetic predispositions to a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of things, different diseases like arthritis and diabetes
Speaker 1: and heart disease. Oh, that's right. Weight. Now, I'm veering
Speaker 1: away from the science for a second, but I will
Speaker 1: tell you this because I read obsessively on some issues,
Speaker 1: and particularly some areas of health. Weight is one of
Speaker 1: the most oversimplified issues by many in the well not
Speaker 1: necessarily scientific community, but that people who think they are educated,
Speaker 1: when in reality, everybody metabolizes differently, has different levels of sensitivity,
Speaker 1: different levels of insulin resistance. This notion that you or
Speaker 1: I are as likely to gain weight or drop weight
Speaker 1: from a certain caloric intake in certain foods as the
Speaker 1: person next to us is about as scientific as saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm going to be as tall or when
Speaker 1: I was when I was a baby, I was going
Speaker 1: to be as tall as every other baby in the nursery.
Speaker 1: Calories in, calories out matters, But how your body processes
Speaker 1: it is different for every human being, Just like how
Speaker 1: no matter how much I tried, I was never going
Speaker 1: to be an NBA level basketball player. I wasn't going
Speaker 1: to be tall enough. I wasn't going to be able
Speaker 1: to jump high enough. It was a function of my
Speaker 1: personal genetics. But we live in a society that almost
Speaker 1: fetishizes the notion of we all are exactly in every
Speaker 1: way equal. Not equal in the eyes of God and
Speaker 1: equal in the eyes of the law. Those are two
Speaker 1: things that we are, or at least should be with
Speaker 1: the law, but equal in terms of our gifts and abilities.
Speaker 1: It's just not true, and it's not helpful for everyone
Speaker 1: to go through life believing the they only worked a
Speaker 1: little harder, they could also be a genius mathematician. If
Speaker 1: they only spend a little more time in the gym,
Speaker 1: they could also reach, you know, Olympic levels as a sprinter.
Speaker 1: The science on all of this is already clear and
Speaker 1: only going to get clearer. Genetics really do matter when
Speaker 1: it comes to ability, and that includes intelligence. It doesn't
Speaker 1: mean they determine it, and it doesn't mean that someone
Speaker 1: is any more or less worthy as a person. But
Speaker 1: we need to stop shouting down scientific discovery in this
Speaker 1: area because it makes us somewhat uncomfortable and opens up
Speaker 1: a lot of difficult areas of discussion for public policy
Speaker 1: analysis and society as a whole. If we just treat
Speaker 1: each other as individuals with our own individual gifts skills,
Speaker 1: and treat each other as the sum of our actions
Speaker 1: and not our ancestry, will all be fine. But we
Speaker 1: shouldn't pretend that the science is not clear on this,
Speaker 1: because it is genetics matter, especially for intelligence. He's back
Speaker 1: with you now because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the fuck never stops. You know, it's a
Speaker 1: little late in the show, team, but I think it's
Speaker 1: time for a buck slap. That was like you never
Speaker 1: is even catch actually very simple. Wow, that is quite
Speaker 1: a That is a series of slaps. That's like the
Speaker 1: thousand hands slap. You cannot defeat my woo shoe style. Alright,
Speaker 1: So Acosta, you all know Acosta. He is among the
Speaker 1: most grandstanding of grand standards at CNN. He is the
Speaker 1: one who complains when CNN doesn't get question Gingie, you
Speaker 1: have to pull over the we ambulance for Acosta sometimes
Speaker 1: because he's used to the Obama administration where CNN was
Speaker 1: a favored not necessarily favorite, but certainly a favored media outlet.
Speaker 1: And now sometimes you know, they gotta stand in line
Speaker 1: with the rest of the hard working Journalists of America,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't like he doesn't like that very much.
Speaker 1: But this past weekend, on Easter Sunday, no less, Jim
Speaker 1: Acosta decided that it was time to to press the
Speaker 1: president for answers. While the President, the First Lady, and
Speaker 1: some children were out on the White House lawn painting
Speaker 1: Easter eggs. I mean, this is the kind of presidential
Speaker 1: pageantry that you know, take it or leave it. But
Speaker 1: everyone kind of understands what this is. Right with some
Speaker 1: kids painting some Easter eggs, but not a costa man.
Speaker 1: He wants answers just the president. What about the doctor kids?
Speaker 1: Should they worry about what's going to happen to the serve?
Speaker 1: Didn't you kill DACA? Sir? Didn't you kill data? That's
Speaker 1: the time it to get a get a sound bite
Speaker 1: going when he's painting the Easter eggs with little kids.
Speaker 1: Now I understand they'll say, oh, it's their right, it's
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. They're trying to just speak to the
Speaker 1: power and everything else. Let me just say that I
Speaker 1: remember what it was like during the Obama administration and
Speaker 1: if a member of the press pushed too hard, you remember,
Speaker 1: I think it was that guy from the Daily Caller,
Speaker 1: actually who when Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden,
Speaker 1: he just at the end tried to get in a
Speaker 1: question when Obama didn't want to take questions, and oh,
Speaker 1: there are such an outrage. How dare you, sir? How
Speaker 1: dare you ask questions of the great Barack Obama. It's
Speaker 1: terrible you would do such a thing, how uncouth, how barbarous.
Speaker 1: But now that it's the Trump administration, all the old
Speaker 1: rules no longer apply. The hypocrisy from the media is endless.
Speaker 1: But you have at least one person who's not letting
Speaker 1: it well. I'm obviously not letting it slide because the
Speaker 1: costa guess the buck slap. But we have one person
Speaker 1: out there who has also decided to call out Acosta
Speaker 1: on Twitter. Uh, Brad Parscal, who is Trump's campaign manager
Speaker 1: and kind of looks like a guy who might be
Speaker 1: from the show Sons of Anarchy. I'm just saying it's
Speaker 1: not who you would expect to be the campaign manager.
Speaker 1: Like if Parscal wasn't wearing a suit and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden threw on a cut off, you know, a
Speaker 1: sleeveless leather jacket and had a big gang emblem on
Speaker 1: the back. You'd be like, he's part of the you
Speaker 1: know something something writers. I don't know any cool any
Speaker 1: cool names from the Sons of Anarchy. I only saw
Speaker 1: a couple of episodes. I should go back and watch more.
Speaker 1: I know, guys, my list at this point. You'll notice
Speaker 1: I don't ask for any more show recommendations because our
Speaker 1: list is long at this at this juncture. But Parscal
Speaker 1: tweeted out, maybe it is time for a Costa to
Speaker 1: get a suspension for breaking protocol. And then Parsqual uh
Speaker 1: well pars out with that, and then a Costa came
Speaker 1: back and responded, um that he was just doing just
Speaker 1: doing my job, he writes, which is protected by the
Speaker 1: First Amendment of the Constitution. You might want to give
Speaker 1: it a read. Yeah, that's right over over at CNN.
Speaker 1: The rules are constantly changing, and they have decided sure
Speaker 1: enough that whatever they have to do to get in
Speaker 1: a sound bite that shows their opposition to Trump, they
Speaker 1: are absolutely willing to do. So. You know, I was
Speaker 1: just telling some folks over the weekend when I was
Speaker 1: in Indiana, we had some Q and A at this
Speaker 1: talk tank session with with WHOA WHOA station out there
Speaker 1: are are fantas pastic affiliate in Fort Wayne. And you know,
Speaker 1: I was sitting around and talking to some of the folks,
Speaker 1: and I was trying to explain how I think Twitter,
Speaker 1: for all of its shortcomings, because it is an echo
Speaker 1: chamber of stupidity, a lot of the time, has been fantastic.
Speaker 1: It allows the president to go right around the media
Speaker 1: and go right to the people with whatever he feels
Speaker 1: like saying, doesn't have to call press conference, doesn't have
Speaker 1: to and it just gets out there into the public
Speaker 1: domain right away, which is great. I'll talk more about
Speaker 1: Twitter come up in the next segment. But also it
Speaker 1: is the thing that has finally shattered the falsehood that
Speaker 1: the media has been running with for so long that
Speaker 1: their journalists are in fact unbiased, that they just do,
Speaker 1: you know, down the middle based on the facts, just
Speaker 1: the facts and all the rest of it. Because when
Speaker 1: you got a guy like a Costa who makes it
Speaker 1: very clear from his Twitter account how opposed to the
Speaker 1: administration he is, he can't do that at nine am
Speaker 1: and then at six pm up here on the news.
Speaker 1: Oh I'm just a news anchor, I'm just here. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what happened today, and I'm about as unbiased
Speaker 1: as a weather man. Well I would not. I think
Speaker 1: even weather men, because of climate change, in many cases,
Speaker 1: are politicized. And I'm not particularly happier right now because
Speaker 1: weather men gave me bad news for today. I'll get
Speaker 1: to that later as well. Um, But nonetheless, things are
Speaker 1: moving along with Acosta and all the rest. They can't
Speaker 1: hide anymore. We get to see an online, real time
Speaker 1: record of their thoughts. We get to know where their
Speaker 1: biases really are, and as much as they can try
Speaker 1: to hide them, now they're out there for all of us.
Speaker 1: They're really a matter of public record. And so I
Speaker 1: think that's fantastic for this business. And it's really why
Speaker 1: CNN is in these paroxysms. The dope word, isn't it paroxysms?
Speaker 1: Come on, John, you can give a little nod of that. Well,
Speaker 1: that's pretty good. Pull that out of nowhere. It's not
Speaker 1: like I got a list here paroxysms of age. It's
Speaker 1: because they are no longer able to pose as what
Speaker 1: they had in the past, which is the down the
Speaker 1: line journalist, the gold standard of journalism, all the rest
Speaker 1: of that. So, yeah, Acosta receives our buck slap of
Speaker 1: the day. There'll be more this week, don't worry. And John,
Speaker 1: can we do someone. I really like that particularly um
Speaker 1: exciting buck slaps. We need to get some more of
Speaker 1: those going here. That one gets me fired up. I
Speaker 1: really love it makes me feel like I want to
Speaker 1: put on my ke and go to the dojo and
Speaker 1: study with the Shadoshi. Quick break, we'll be right back
Speaker 1: with roll call. I almost couldn't believe it. Well, woke
Speaker 1: up this morning in New York City and there was
Speaker 1: more snow coming down. Oh gosh, you know, it just
Speaker 1: seems unfair Forran say. Thanks to everyone out in Fort Wayne,
Speaker 1: Indiana who hung out over the weekend, I was able
Speaker 1: to meet some of the wo WOA family out there,
Speaker 1: and thanks to the whole team at wo wo Radio
Speaker 1: in Fort Wayne, we had a really fun talk tanks.
Speaker 1: I got to meet some fantastic Hoosiers not Indiana and
Speaker 1: Inns which I had to figure that one out. And
Speaker 1: it was a great weekend though eight no less than
Speaker 1: two rebis. I wanted to get the full scope of
Speaker 1: Indiana Ribby steak, so Friday I had just a classic
Speaker 1: Ribby and then Saturday I had a tomahawk, which I'm
Speaker 1: sure is a microaggression or bone in Rebby. So two
Speaker 1: Rebby's and forty eight hours means Indiana, you get a
Speaker 1: big high five, and I hope I get a chance
Speaker 1: to come out and hang out again soon. It reminds
Speaker 1: me I think next on the list is going to
Speaker 1: be Austin, Texas to go see the folks at k
Speaker 1: lb J. But Buck Takes America will continue, piece by piece,
Speaker 1: and with that, you know what time it is, It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. Yeah, groove of tunes. I love
Speaker 1: that style of music. I think it's big band, although
Speaker 1: I might be getting that one wrong. But one day
Speaker 1: I'll throw a big party and we'll have a live
Speaker 1: band and they'll play tunes like that, and you know what,
Speaker 1: maybe it'll be a Team Bucapalooza events somewhere. I've got
Speaker 1: all kinds of fun ideas, So stay tuned for that.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's get into it if you want. Let's
Speaker 1: get into it out in a while. Of a sudden,
Speaker 1: I sound like a foreigner, but uh, if you want
Speaker 1: to send me your thoughts Facebook dot com, slash buck
Speaker 1: Sexton and please team, I would encourage you, especially in
Speaker 1: this day when you have the President of the United
Speaker 1: States putting out policy pronouncements via tweet. Sign up for
Speaker 1: a Twitter account. It's free. We can talk more about
Speaker 1: it on our Facebook page, so you get a sense
Speaker 1: of who to follow and how to use it. But
Speaker 1: it's a great way to get caught up quickly with
Speaker 1: the news and also to communicate with fellow members of
Speaker 1: the team, especially for the younger members of Team Buck.
Speaker 1: Sign up for Twitter. Follow Buck Sexton, follow who I follow,
Speaker 1: and start start getting into the tweets. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: it's really worthwhile, all right. First up here, we've got Kevin,
Speaker 1: he writes book. I follow about a half dozen podcasts,
Speaker 1: from political commentary to old time radio shows, and there's
Speaker 1: just one I never miss, the Buck Sexton show, just
Speaker 1: saying keep up the good work, well, Kevin. That is
Speaker 1: really kind and I greatly appreciate that. So please do
Speaker 1: uh please do continue to listen and spread the word
Speaker 1: and and it means a lot. Let me tell you,
Speaker 1: I've got some projects that you'll be hearing about coming
Speaker 1: up in the next few weeks, certainly the next couple
Speaker 1: of months. And it keeps me going late into the night,
Speaker 1: and it keeps me able to, uh, you know, keep
Speaker 1: miss Molly on my side even though I she she
Speaker 1: goes to bed, and I'm usually up working for another
Speaker 1: two or three hours every night. That's how we at
Speaker 1: that's done. So thank you for your kind words. Uh
Speaker 1: Chris writes, I'm a longtime listener and I was listening
Speaker 1: to your Thursday podcast where you talking. You're talking about
Speaker 1: how you wish there was a sitcom with an all
Speaker 1: American family. My wife and I feel the same way,
Speaker 1: and we have recently acquired the complete series of Home Improvement.
Speaker 1: It is older, but a great show to watch without
Speaker 1: having politics shoved down your throat. It is Tim Allen
Speaker 1: playing another great American family man. Love your show and
Speaker 1: shields high well, Chris, I will check it out. So
Speaker 1: thank you very much for the for the kind note,
Speaker 1: and please keep listening. David. Next up here, he says, Buck,
Speaker 1: please think about making oss shirts with a military World
Speaker 1: War two theme to them. Uh, David, that sounds great.
Speaker 1: We are revamping our gear, we are revamping our website,
Speaker 1: so we're working on all of the above. Thank you
Speaker 1: for the suggestion. Um. Next up here we have uh Michael,
Speaker 1: who writes, by the way, you were way off base
Speaker 1: with your discussion of Spanish Harlem. It's not a new phenomenon. Uh.
Speaker 1: The song Benny King released Spanish Harlem in nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: mostly Puerto Ricans and some Dominicans, and Michael is correct.
Speaker 1: I so I stand corrected on this one. It is
Speaker 1: in fact the case that while Compton, which is a
Speaker 1: well known predominantly African American neighborhood in Los Angeles, has recently,
Speaker 1: in the last fifteen twenty years or so, become almost
Speaker 1: entirely Latin American, uh, Spanish Harlem has been Spanish Harlem
Speaker 1: for quite a long time. There have been some other
Speaker 1: demographic changes in New York that are more recent. A
Speaker 1: part of northern Manhattan, for example, has become much more
Speaker 1: heavily Dominican, and there has been a lot of demographic
Speaker 1: inflow from Latin America. Uh. But Spanish Harlem stretches back
Speaker 1: much further than the recent decades where you've seen demo
Speaker 1: graphic change a lot of these cities. And there you
Speaker 1: have it. See if I get it wrong, I'll let
Speaker 1: you know and we correct it. But savor the flavor, Michael,
Speaker 1: because it's not gonna happen again. By the way, just
Speaker 1: a little bit of trivia. Before it was Spanish Harlem,
Speaker 1: it was actually largely Italian immigrants in that part of
Speaker 1: what is now Harlem Northern Manhattan. Now I want to
Speaker 1: switch gears and get into some of the emails we get.
Speaker 1: Remember official team Buck at gmail dot com. That's official
Speaker 1: Team Buck at gmail dot com. If you want to
Speaker 1: send us your thoughts the email in set of Facebook,
Speaker 1: and we are still working on setting up a voicemail
Speaker 1: inbox where any of you who have thoughts, if you
Speaker 1: have an action movie quote for me, for example, or
Speaker 1: anything else, we can leave that voicemail open so those
Speaker 1: of you who don't get to listen live can always
Speaker 1: join in on the fun when you can. This email
Speaker 1: comes courtesy of Larry here right Steer Buck love your
Speaker 1: show and the Shields High Stories. I've only been listening
Speaker 1: to your podcast for about two months, but I knew
Speaker 1: who you were from your guest toasting for Glen, Shawn
Speaker 1: and Rush. I just didn't know you had your own
Speaker 1: show until I found your Shields High Posts. I've collected
Speaker 1: laundry list of items I wanted to mention. Some maybe
Speaker 1: a little stale, but I don't write often to radio shows.
Speaker 1: Um Nancy Pelosi's whining about bonuses into permanent wage hikes
Speaker 1: is a bad idea. The Dems could just undo tax
Speaker 1: reform and tax your new wage increases. It should stay
Speaker 1: as bonuses, so when the tax cut ends, so does
Speaker 1: the bonus. That would make a clear linkage to demn
Speaker 1: policy and your salary. Twice recently, use the word archaic
Speaker 1: when you when the context of your usage would have
Speaker 1: implied arcane was the word you meant. Not a big deal.
Speaker 1: You generally have excellent use of language. I'm sure you're correct.
Speaker 1: Well I shouldn't say I'm sure you're correct, but that
Speaker 1: sounds like something I might have done. Those words are
Speaker 1: pretty close. Archaic means essentially old fashioned. Arcane means kind
Speaker 1: of obscure and not understood by very many anyway. Larry
Speaker 1: closes it up with keep up the good fight, Larry
Speaker 1: you Oha. Thank you so much, Larry for the kind email.
Speaker 1: And always always let me know if you think I
Speaker 1: missed one, even if it's just a word. Gotta keep
Speaker 1: it here in the Freedom Hunt. Uh Cathy, who is
Speaker 1: original Saturday Squad O s s down in Georgia. She writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I just listen to your podcast from Thursday and your
Speaker 1: review of the TV show Roseanne. Well, I don't care
Speaker 1: for the show myself. I heard your description and what
Speaker 1: you believe would make a great sitcom for conservatives. I
Speaker 1: just wanted to let you know that the show you
Speaker 1: described is called Last Man Standing with Tim Allen. We
Speaker 1: got another vote for Last Man Standing here. The show
Speaker 1: was funny and witty and I still watched the reruns today.
Speaker 1: If you have not watched it, I should. I suggest
Speaker 1: you do, as it will prove to you a good
Speaker 1: conservative sitcom can be made. There are rumors all over
Speaker 1: the web the powers that be are thinking about bringing
Speaker 1: the show back. I hope they do. Cathy Oss down
Speaker 1: in Georgia, Kathey, I'm gonna check it out for sure.
Speaker 1: I've got some time coming up on the road where
Speaker 1: I'll be solo traveling, and that would be a great
Speaker 1: time for me, assuming this is on Netflix or Hulu,
Speaker 1: to catch up a bit with the show. And now
Speaker 1: we've got an email in from Chuck, who writes first
Speaker 1: great show. See Chuck as a wise man. He knows
Speaker 1: you know. You gotta butter up the host a little bit,
Speaker 1: and then I'll read you guys correcting my grammar and
Speaker 1: my usage of vocabulary. But first you gotta, you know,
Speaker 1: a great show, or you've just got to say something funny,
Speaker 1: all right, he writes. I agree, we must be careful
Speaker 1: how we treat Russia right now. They are not the
Speaker 1: bold Russia surrounded by a safety blanket of buffer states
Speaker 1: of the nineteen sixties Cold War. This is a vulnerable,
Speaker 1: threatened country who surprisingly feels bullied. I feel there are
Speaker 1: two incidents in Russian history that should not be ignored.
Speaker 1: These incidents are the Mongol domination, invasion from the east
Speaker 1: and the Western invasion of the Swedish russ Both these
Speaker 1: events left the Russians feeling vulnerable and fearful. In short analysis,
Speaker 1: I think these events leave the Russians feeling insecure when
Speaker 1: they are not surrounded by a buffer of people who
Speaker 1: will suffer before them. I have witnessed this in dealing
Speaker 1: with Russians. I know any suggestion of Russia as less
Speaker 1: than anywhere else brings a very chilly result. The same
Speaker 1: statement to say a Brazilian will get a huge laughing agreement.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we're a wonderful mess. Yeah they are freaking
Speaker 1: and I can tell you everyday Russians do freaking out.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you everyday Russians do not understand
Speaker 1: why their public enemy number one world wide, worldwide, all
Speaker 1: that paranoia and a huge arsenal of nuke weapons. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is from Chuck in Grand Rapids. Chuck, great email,
Speaker 1: and you're correct about the Russian sense of territorial insecurity.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's an issue that will return to and maybe
Speaker 1: John Halford mckinder can provide some of that analysis for us.
Speaker 1: What's that all about? Are we gonna get all geopolitical
Speaker 1: here in the Hut? You know the answers, Yes, but
Speaker 1: not today until next time. Shields high