Speaker 1: Mr garbutschaf teared down this wall. Either you're 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 Trump is not president of the United States, take
Speaker 1: it to a bank. Together. We will make America great again.
Speaker 1: You'll never sharender. It's what you've been waiting for all day.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck Toll
Speaker 1: Free at eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred to eight to five the future
Speaker 1: of talk radio buck Sexton. The Trump administration has been
Speaker 1: accused I heard over the weekend of being vindictive and
Speaker 1: mean spirited, and that seems horribly unfair. I think it
Speaker 1: was horrible day for democracy. This attack on McCabe really
Speaker 1: reminds me of something from a movie. It seems sort
Speaker 1: of tragic and unfair on the surface. So it does
Speaker 1: look vindictive. Should we not take it that way? It
Speaker 1: feels vindictive just because it was the timing of it
Speaker 1: which leads one to believe that this is authoritarian behavior
Speaker 1: or the making of one. Welcome to the Buck section Show. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Oh Man media was in a meltdown over the weekend
Speaker 1: about that, weren't they? They're just also upset about McCabe
Speaker 1: getting fired. There's so much to say here, folks. We're
Speaker 1: gonna have some fun with this one. We're gonna really
Speaker 1: air this one out, you know, so you can take
Speaker 1: a moment, take a deep breath, stretch out, because we're
Speaker 1: gonna lean into this. Oh my, here, let's let's start
Speaker 1: with this. Trump didn't fire McCabe. Does that seem to
Speaker 1: matter to anybody here? Did do any of these folks
Speaker 1: who were saying that, you know, oh my gosh, our
Speaker 1: institutions are all gonna just collapse? The President United States
Speaker 1: did not fire McCabe. In fact, President United States had
Speaker 1: no direct involvement whatsoever in the firing of McCabe. McCabe
Speaker 1: got fired because of an inspector General report from within
Speaker 1: the FBID. Now that's very significant, folks, That really matters,
Speaker 1: because I can tell you this, a federal bureaucracy is
Speaker 1: going to protect its own until it can't, you know,
Speaker 1: until they decide you have to be voted off the island.
Speaker 1: They're usually gonna treat you like one of their own,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna protect you at the senior levels Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong. Let's not get this twisted. If
Speaker 1: you're some average Joe Schmoe one of these places, they
Speaker 1: may they may decide to feed your career into the
Speaker 1: wood chipper, so to speak. They may decide that you're
Speaker 1: you're done because it will send a message to the rest.
Speaker 1: But at the McCabe level, been there for decades, close
Speaker 1: with everybody, close with Comey. This was Comey's deputy, this
Speaker 1: was Comey's right hand man, Mr. Six ft nine, sanctimony himself,
Speaker 1: James Comey. He of tweeting out Placid Lake scenes while
Speaker 1: writing anti Trump screeds fame. Uh, this is what we
Speaker 1: see here that the Inspector General was the one that
Speaker 1: decided that McCabe has be fired. Now, I don't want
Speaker 1: to go too far down the road of what McCabe
Speaker 1: did was so terrible. He leaked this inform, He leaked
Speaker 1: information and lined about it. That's all we know right now.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking that if we were to see, if we
Speaker 1: were to see what was contained in the report in total,
Speaker 1: we would we would then understand how does the FBI
Speaker 1: would get rid of one of its own in this way?
Speaker 1: But oh my gosh, the media were in a tizzy
Speaker 1: over the weekend based on this. He got fired late
Speaker 1: Friday night. You'll you'll call I told you here on
Speaker 1: the show. I thought he was gonna fire. We were
Speaker 1: on firing Watch. I even said on Outnumbered on Friday,
Speaker 1: I thought he was gonna get fired, and he did. So,
Speaker 1: you know, always bet on Buck. That's what I like
Speaker 1: to say, Always bet on Buck. But you know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really change all that much here until we get
Speaker 1: more information, you know, And do I think that this
Speaker 1: was the right thing. Sure, it makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, one more thing before we bust out the
Speaker 1: world's smallest violin for Andy McCabe. Here, let's understand a
Speaker 1: few things. He's somebody who no doubt jammed up, which
Speaker 1: is the law enforcement term of art for blanking somebody
Speaker 1: over jammed up. Uh, tons of people, for lying to
Speaker 1: probably him as an FBI agent in his day, as
Speaker 1: well as lots of other FBI folks, and for just that.
Speaker 1: That's really one of the one of the favorite charges
Speaker 1: of the federal government is lying to the federal government.
Speaker 1: They love to get you on that one. I'm not
Speaker 1: even saying lying under oath in a court proceeding. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, lying to a federal agent. Love that one,
Speaker 1: and it's actually something I think should be revisited in
Speaker 1: the context of if you didn't actually do anything wrong
Speaker 1: but lied about something unimportant, should you really should you
Speaker 1: get the Flynn treatment? Oh yeah, that's right. Flynn had
Speaker 1: to sell his house to pay his legal bills. General Flynn,
Speaker 1: he served decades in the military. Does anyone anyone crying
Speaker 1: for him in the media. No, all, they think that's
Speaker 1: totally fair. They are exposing themselves. We are seeing how
Speaker 1: deep the deep state really goes. I would note that
Speaker 1: some polls came out of the weekend. I think actually
Speaker 1: CNN might even published one of them about how most
Speaker 1: people believe there is a deep state. So so we
Speaker 1: can have academics, right, Snyde pieces about how the deep
Speaker 1: state in Turkey is a very specific Yet we got
Speaker 1: an American deep state here, folks, And we already know
Speaker 1: who some of the compos of this crime family are. Camy, Brannon. Ah,
Speaker 1: we'll get to Brandon in a second. Don't think he's
Speaker 1: gonna escape this one. McCabe call me Brennan McCabe, Sally Yates,
Speaker 1: we're just getting started. There's a whole squad of folks
Speaker 1: that are click clapper, Oh gosh, be here all day.
Speaker 1: You know, struck you can get some of the lower
Speaker 1: level ones to bruce or there was a clear anti
Speaker 1: Trump effort at the top level of d J. It's
Speaker 1: being more exposed with all these revelations. But I just
Speaker 1: on the plane the smallest violent for McCabe ever. Understand,
Speaker 1: he's sent people to prison. We're lying him many times.
Speaker 1: He's not getting sent to prison. Other people lie and
Speaker 1: lose their freedom. He's just getting his pension delayed, which
Speaker 1: brings me to the oh, pull over the we ambulance
Speaker 1: retiring at fifty full bench and benefits. That's a good deal.
Speaker 1: That is a good deal. He's not losing his entire
Speaker 1: pension everyone. That's not true. He might have to wait now,
Speaker 1: he might not qualify under the current civil service rules
Speaker 1: until he's I don't know, uh, sixty two or sixty
Speaker 1: you know, like normal person retirement age. He might have
Speaker 1: to do that. Oh no, but you're already seeing a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats come out and say that they are
Speaker 1: willing to hire him. That's how clearly political this is.
Speaker 1: Right from the beginning. That's how obvious it is that
Speaker 1: this is just my team, their team. McCabe is anti Trump.
Speaker 1: Therefore he is embraced by the left. So the Democrats,
Speaker 1: what do I tell you? Time and again here on
Speaker 1: the show. The left takes care of its own. The
Speaker 1: Democrats make sure that anyone who does bad deeds for
Speaker 1: them has good things come with it. That sends a
Speaker 1: very important message, right you, some of you are a
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones fans. I'm sure you know. Lanisters always
Speaker 1: pay their debts. The left always takes care of its own.
Speaker 1: You get book deals, you get media contracts, You get
Speaker 1: you know, chancellorships at universities, board seats on companies. James Comey,
Speaker 1: who is going to write the most sanctimonious giant pile
Speaker 1: of Tyrannosaurus Pooh? I think imaginable is now the number
Speaker 1: one selling author on Amazon in pre sales. Why because
Speaker 1: everyone assumes that he's gonna, you know, slam Trump. There's
Speaker 1: gonna be more of what we already know. But getting
Speaker 1: getting really excited for you know, the the early comy
Speaker 1: years reas a hall monitors like do you have a
Speaker 1: pass attention for you? Sanctimonious people don't change. They if
Speaker 1: they're if they're that annoying, now, trust me, they're annoying
Speaker 1: in high school too. And I think Comy is he?
Speaker 1: Is he a New Yorker? I forget is he? I
Speaker 1: forget where he's Far's in New York or Philly? I
Speaker 1: don't know. Yeah, yeah, I'm gonna I'm putting him on
Speaker 1: your doorstep. Quinn, he's a Philly producer. Mike is looking
Speaker 1: at me all a k A. Quinn. He's a Philly
Speaker 1: guy if I ever saw one. I'm thinking there's some
Speaker 1: filling with Comy. And I'm just trying to make him
Speaker 1: not a New York ais. I'm gonna feel bad about
Speaker 1: it anyway. So you get this, You get this, uh
Speaker 1: sense that something terrible has happened because McCay has been fired.
Speaker 1: Big deal. He's gonna get speaking, big deal, gonna get
Speaker 1: a big book deal. And what oh he's call me.
Speaker 1: He's a Catholic school boy from New York like me.
Speaker 1: I thought, so, oh, dude, some of the worst, some
Speaker 1: of the best, but some of the worst are from
Speaker 1: my same my same general you know, pumpkin Patch, so
Speaker 1: to speak. Right, we're the same me and Comey and
Speaker 1: uh you know, you know who else Fitzgerald, the special
Speaker 1: prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case. Whatever, he not only
Speaker 1: went to my high school, went to my college. I
Speaker 1: think he's he's also he's also a New York Catholic schoolboy,
Speaker 1: and he's a super hall monitor and a and a
Speaker 1: head hunter at the d o J. Who else falls
Speaker 1: in that, But we got some of the best to
Speaker 1: Scalia actually went to my rival high school here in
Speaker 1: New York City, Xavier. We all like to say he
Speaker 1: didn't get into regions, but then people blew us, so
Speaker 1: we try not to say that too much publicly. Um,
Speaker 1: but may he rest in peace. One of the great minds,
Speaker 1: one of the great legal minds of of all time.
Speaker 1: Uh So, comey McCabe. We've seen so much of it exposed,
Speaker 1: but it gets worse, it gets worse. It's not just
Speaker 1: at the d o J, in the FBI, where they
Speaker 1: were clear senior officials appointees of the Obama administration, no
Speaker 1: less President Obama in some cases very close to these
Speaker 1: individuals who are obviously anti Trump and took actions against
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. There's some other folks too who have
Speaker 1: exposed themselves on social media recently. We will get in
Speaker 1: to that, including a former director of my own agency.
Speaker 1: I'm throwing my my own, my pedigree, so to speak,
Speaker 1: getting thrown to the bus. We got Catholic school guys
Speaker 1: from New York City like comey being sanctimonious. Then we
Speaker 1: got Brennan, former CIA director, who went on a do
Speaker 1: we say tirade or tirade? Do we go both? People?
Speaker 1: I feel like people go both the tirade? Right, I
Speaker 1: say tirade, Some people say tarade, I think, or maybe
Speaker 1: it's a sharade. I don't know, sharade, sharade, tomato tomato.
Speaker 1: What did Brennan say? And what does it tell us
Speaker 1: about this whole Russia collusion fiasco? And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: Vladimir Puttin on one reelection, we got that, We got
Speaker 1: a lot more. We're gonna talk about China's theft of
Speaker 1: intellectual property from the US. Here's what he's there. You go,
Speaker 1: thank you perfectly. Time dropped. We got China talking about that.
Speaker 1: We're also gonna get into some discussion of trade and
Speaker 1: how all this trade war tours or you know, speaking
Speaker 1: on home monitors some of my conservative buddies on this
Speaker 1: or throwing a fit. Uh, it doesn't add up, folks,
Speaker 1: you look at the numbers, it's not that big a deal,
Speaker 1: no matter how you slice it. It's literally not that
Speaker 1: big a deal aluminum steel. I'll give you the details
Speaker 1: in the numbers. When somebody says it's just gonna start
Speaker 1: a trade war and be like, yeah, this is a
Speaker 1: tempest in a teapot, not what people are pretending it is.
Speaker 1: We will also talk a bit about this Cambridge Analytica situation. Um,
Speaker 1: I can't give you too much of a preview next
Speaker 1: running the next break, but just all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: now Facebook and Data are coming under all this scrutiny
Speaker 1: when well, let's just say that this is this is
Speaker 1: very very much a partisan narrative that is emerging about
Speaker 1: all this. Keep in mind that it wasn't long ago
Speaker 1: that the Obama administration was all about minding everything they
Speaker 1: could online. Obama's digital team was the best in the business.
Speaker 1: They're so amazing, the the digital whiz kids that he's
Speaker 1: got and all that stuff. Now it's like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: they're looking at social media profile and information and making
Speaker 1: political determinations about it. Good heavens, yeah, of course they are.
Speaker 1: This is this is a surprise there should be a
Speaker 1: surprise to no one. But because Trump did it, you
Speaker 1: know it must be bad. That's the idea. Because Trump's
Speaker 1: team did it, Now it's evil. Now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the incredible surveillance machine that is the Internet is scary.
Speaker 1: Wasn't scary for eight years of Obama, who, by the way,
Speaker 1: I actually did spy on journalists and do all kinds
Speaker 1: of super shady bad stuff. But you know, it wasn't
Speaker 1: a problem that now it's a problem. It's almost like
Speaker 1: journalists were all at sleepaway camp for eight years and
Speaker 1: now they've now they've come back and they actually want
Speaker 1: to do their jobs. In fact, that's exactly what it's like. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, we're gonna head a quick break eight four
Speaker 1: eight to five eight four f buck, we have much
Speaker 1: more show. Stay with You don't get to decide when
Speaker 1: to tell the truth and when not to. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: withhold judgment until Horowitz's report comes out because I don't
Speaker 1: say what he found, just say, Harowitz is the inspector general.
Speaker 1: Let's wait and see what he found. Let's wait and
Speaker 1: see what that lack of candor was, and then we
Speaker 1: could judge the fact pattern and the proportionality of the
Speaker 1: penalty of his losing his pension. We can judge all
Speaker 1: that once we understand exactly what he's alleged to a
Speaker 1: vain but but make no mistake, the FBI is who
Speaker 1: recommended that he be fired. It wasn't crazy House Republicans,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't a Trump administration. It was his own
Speaker 1: fellow bureau agents. The facts with regard to McCabe are
Speaker 1: very important. They basically have said that McCabe leaked classified documents.
Speaker 1: That's illegal, but then he also lied about leaking classified documents,
Speaker 1: and so you know the fbire sticklers on this, and
Speaker 1: they don't tolerate lying from their agents. And so if
Speaker 1: all that's true, I see no way that he could
Speaker 1: continue in his office, and that punishment is appropriate. Does
Speaker 1: anyone have an argument against what was said there by
Speaker 1: Trey Gaudy and then Rand Paul. You know, I think
Speaker 1: those are two of them, two of the Republicans that
Speaker 1: you can count on to to call bs when they
Speaker 1: see it either way. You know, I think that Rampaul
Speaker 1: is an honest and ethical guy. I don't think he's
Speaker 1: always right, but I think he's honest and ethical. I
Speaker 1: don't think that he is too clouded with partisanship to
Speaker 1: see things for what they are. Um and I feel
Speaker 1: the same way about Very Gaudy, although I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think because Gouty's not run anymore, I start to
Speaker 1: feel like he's he's lost his edge, or maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just seeing it more. It seems to me like he's
Speaker 1: a little too like, well, you know, i'd like the
Speaker 1: New York Times right, nice things about me. Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: very dangerous for Republicans. They write nice things about you
Speaker 1: for a day and then they trash you, and your
Speaker 1: own people think you're a sellout. You don't want to
Speaker 1: go down that path. But I mentioned before we went
Speaker 1: into the break that it's not just d Oh, It's
Speaker 1: not just McCabe and Comy and all these other senior
Speaker 1: FBI folks who are a problem. There's a lot more
Speaker 1: when you look at this, including John Brennan, close confidante
Speaker 1: of President Obama's and the former director of the Central
Speaker 1: Intelligence Agents. And keep in mind, folks, that being the
Speaker 1: director of the CIA, it's not like rising to be
Speaker 1: the CEO of a company where like the best person
Speaker 1: gets the job or somebody with a proven track record.
Speaker 1: A lot of the time. These jobs, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it, go to somebody who the president likes and wants.
Speaker 1: That person in the role was Leon Panetta, some intel genius.
Speaker 1: No Obama liked him. He had some background. They put
Speaker 1: him in these places, right, I mean any number And
Speaker 1: there have been some really Panetta was actually okay as
Speaker 1: directors go. I'm from what I'm told from people who
Speaker 1: were there, and no, uh, there have been some really crap,
Speaker 1: lousy CIA directors over the years. But Brennan was o
Speaker 1: Amas Aids the director, and he was known to be
Speaker 1: very chummy with the press and reputed to want to
Speaker 1: get certain narratives out there into the media. And he
Speaker 1: tweeted out in response to the McCabe firing the following.
Speaker 1: This is a quote from the former CI director of
Speaker 1: the obaministration. By the way, the same CI director who
Speaker 1: was very much pushing the Russia collusion narrative with the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign in full swing during the election. You know,
Speaker 1: Brennan was one who was waiving the flags and screaming about,
Speaker 1: oh look at all the Russia. You know, he was
Speaker 1: the one, right, or one of a few. Now we
Speaker 1: find out what he thinks of Trump and oh gosh,
Speaker 1: you're not going to be surprised by this at all,
Speaker 1: are you? Folks? Quote when the full this is in
Speaker 1: response to President Trump directly on Twitter, this is blue
Speaker 1: check warfare, blue check to blue check. When the full
Speaker 1: extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
Speaker 1: no own, you will take your rightful place as a
Speaker 1: disgrace demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat
Speaker 1: Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America. America will
Speaker 1: triumph over you. I ask you, my friends, at all honesty.
Speaker 1: Does that not seem like a slightly unhinged thing for
Speaker 1: a former CI director to write about the current commander
Speaker 1: in chief? You will not destroy America. America will triumph
Speaker 1: over you. So we only have a few options here.
Speaker 1: Are the former CI director in Obama's buddy is losing
Speaker 1: it or he thinks that Trump is a clear in
Speaker 1: present danger of the United States. And if that were
Speaker 1: the case, what would the former CI director have been
Speaker 1: willing to do against Trump? While still director? He's holding
Speaker 1: the line for America. Buck Sexton is tex laugh. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I mean, at this point, it does feel
Speaker 1: as if you know it's one you talked to one
Speaker 1: set of people and they think the wheels are coming
Speaker 1: off this administration, and you talked to another set and
Speaker 1: it's exactly the presidency that they wanted. So but the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is, I don't know if our
Speaker 1: institutions can handle what Trump is doing. We can't seem
Speaker 1: to see if our institutions are going to survive the
Speaker 1: emotional spasms of Twitter. The great line, what does that
Speaker 1: say about our institutions? By the way, if if Trump's
Speaker 1: Twitter account can bring them tumbling down, they're not very durable,
Speaker 1: are they. Now that's also crazy because Trump's Twitter is
Speaker 1: not going to bring anything telling down, which is when
Speaker 1: when you look at what's being said some of the
Speaker 1: narratives that have gained traction on the left, you know
Speaker 1: that these anti Trump stories, they're almost like bedtime stories
Speaker 1: now the Democrats tell each other so they can sleep
Speaker 1: at night. They're just nonsensical. They don't add up their
Speaker 1: self contradictory. Did you get Chuck Todd there saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I just don't know if our institutions can just I
Speaker 1: don't know if they can survive. Well, if an institution
Speaker 1: like the FBI is going to survive the Inspector General
Speaker 1: has to be able to look for misconduct and when
Speaker 1: it finds it has to be able to punish it. Right,
Speaker 1: So this is this is not the least bit surprising
Speaker 1: from that respect. So I just look at this and
Speaker 1: I say to myself, what are they even talking about
Speaker 1: with this? It was an institution operating exactly as it
Speaker 1: should that fired Andrew McCabe from his job at the FBI.
Speaker 1: I would notice that what rand Paul said. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if that has been verified or not yet. I
Speaker 1: think that he was my impression from what I've read,
Speaker 1: and I'm admitting that I haven't read the IG report.
Speaker 1: Nobody is talking about this has read the IG report yet. Um,
Speaker 1: but we don't know if it was classified information or not.
Speaker 1: That he it was classified information, then he has to
Speaker 1: be fired. And also then there's the issue of why
Speaker 1: why doesn't he have criminal charges? But if we're just
Speaker 1: talking about even uh internal information given to the press
Speaker 1: that he then lied about that, why would he not
Speaker 1: get fired for that? It just doesn't it again, it
Speaker 1: doesn't add up, but it does not make sense. But
Speaker 1: they are completely as you know, in the tank and
Speaker 1: devoted to doing everything they can to make the president
Speaker 1: look bad, up to including embarrassing themselves. They will be embarrassed.
Speaker 1: They will be embarrassed if and when we ever find
Speaker 1: out exactly what the allegations were in that Inspector General report.
Speaker 1: That much I can tell you because they just see,
Speaker 1: Oh someone was fired who was working against Trump. It
Speaker 1: must be Trump's fault. That's not true. That's not the
Speaker 1: way that this works. Are We got a bunch of calls,
Speaker 1: so let's take some of them before we move on.
Speaker 1: I want to get into some calls before we switch topics.
Speaker 1: We'll start with Dean in Boston. What's up, Dean doing good?
Speaker 1: Track by Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, So I'll be quick.
Speaker 1: So this is funny. I'm listening to our own Seth
Speaker 1: Moulton from Massachusetts who says that he would hire this
Speaker 1: guy for three days so he can reach his pension.
Speaker 1: And I stiled, thinking, who retires att with a full pension?
Speaker 1: And why would someone who has that higher level job
Speaker 1: decide all of a sudden, you know what I need
Speaker 1: to put in from my retirement, and I need to
Speaker 1: get out, and this is the earliest date that I
Speaker 1: can get out. I don't know what the did he
Speaker 1: just put that in and said I gotta get out
Speaker 1: of gain. Well, it might have been his planning all along,
Speaker 1: because let me think about if you can get your
Speaker 1: full retirement at fifty, right, wuldn't you do? What did
Speaker 1: you take it? I don't know if this was the
Speaker 1: plan all along. He obviously went early because he was
Speaker 1: gonna run out, you know, he was trying to run
Speaker 1: out the clock and and had come under a lot
Speaker 1: of scrutiny. The thing is, people ask me like, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: do you know what I mean? I was in the
Speaker 1: c I A. I obviously wasn't a career officer who
Speaker 1: spent twenty years there because then I would have had
Speaker 1: to start when I was like five. So I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know how the vesting process works and all that.
Speaker 1: What I can tell you, uh, is that one it
Speaker 1: is very hard to get fired from these places. You
Speaker 1: have to do something usually illegal. That's what I always
Speaker 1: tell everybody. If you show up on time, if you
Speaker 1: are where you are supposed to be for your job
Speaker 1: in the federal government, when you're supposed to be there,
Speaker 1: and you don't actively break the law, it's still and
Speaker 1: but you refuse to do any work of any kind.
Speaker 1: It still takes a long time to fire you. So
Speaker 1: that's the way the civil service procedures work. And I
Speaker 1: know that for some of these gigs. Look, some people
Speaker 1: have great deals. I could sit here and talk to
Speaker 1: you about, like UH fireman's pensions in UH California, for example,
Speaker 1: and some of the major cities California. They are lucrative.
Speaker 1: They ever, that's the deal, that's what they saw it
Speaker 1: up for. But they've got great deals. The FBI think
Speaker 1: has a pretty good deal. I would note that I've
Speaker 1: read this today and we haven't checked on this, so
Speaker 1: Mike got a fact check me on this one, Producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: if I'm if I'm off. I read today that Anthony Weener,
Speaker 1: who is currently serving I believe a federal prison sentence.
Speaker 1: He's in prison now right. Anthony Weiner, who is a
Speaker 1: convicted sex offender, will get a million what is the
Speaker 1: equivalent of a million dollars worth of benefits for his
Speaker 1: pension as a former member of Congress, despite being a
Speaker 1: convicted felon sex offender. So there are some places where
Speaker 1: you get great It's a great gig, Dean, if you
Speaker 1: can get it in terms of the pension. Yeah, worth
Speaker 1: one point two millions, worth one point to million. Do
Speaker 1: we lose Dean or it is Dean just in awe
Speaker 1: of all the knowledge bombs, I'm dropping you there, Oh,
Speaker 1: there you go. Sorry, now I've done it. What do
Speaker 1: I say to the American public that a House of
Speaker 1: Representatives member who were thinking math has kind of hidden
Speaker 1: agenda to try and get his name out for the
Speaker 1: presidency sometime in the near future. But what does it
Speaker 1: say that they step up after the Federal Bureau of
Speaker 1: Investigation kind of internal affairs department and an inspector general,
Speaker 1: a completely separate agency, decide that this person should be terminated,
Speaker 1: and he then steps up and says, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'll hire him from three days so he can get
Speaker 1: his pension, right exactly? What what are we supposed to
Speaker 1: think of our trusted institutions then? And this is this
Speaker 1: is like the equivalent of saying, well, the FBI's processes
Speaker 1: don't matter anymore. What matters is getting Trump and what
Speaker 1: manages supporting people who tried to get Trump. That's what
Speaker 1: they're saying. Yeah, yeah, alright, Dean shields him and thank
Speaker 1: you very much for the call. Dean isn't a stute fellow.
Speaker 1: Charlie in Ocean City, Maryland. Hey, Charlie, Hey Buck, I'm
Speaker 1: glad you call and shields high brother. How do you sir? Hey?
Speaker 1: I was just listening earlier to day on some talk
Speaker 1: shows and they pointed out there's a report out that
Speaker 1: McCabe is actually net worst about eleven mill And I'm
Speaker 1: trying to think I was just a simple bricklayer. If
Speaker 1: he made a hundred thousand a year in twenty years,
Speaker 1: that's only two mills. How do you get eleven? Well,
Speaker 1: his wife is a doctor, right, uh huh, So, I
Speaker 1: mean she might be making I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what. I don't know what doctors in Virginia. She
Speaker 1: was a primary care physician. I believe she could probably
Speaker 1: make a half million dollars a year. Yeah, So I
Speaker 1: mean the man, okay, his pench is what fifty six
Speaker 1: thousand a year. If you're asking me, how are they
Speaker 1: gonna have a networthy of eleven million, Charlie, the answer is,
Speaker 1: I I don't know, um, but it's worth looking into.
Speaker 1: But you know, they could have family, you know, she
Speaker 1: could have family money. There's a lot of ways that
Speaker 1: people can have money that don't necessarily you know. I
Speaker 1: but I see this with who is the guy um
Speaker 1: senator from Arizona who was the majority Harry Reid. How
Speaker 1: is it that Harry Reid was what could afford living
Speaker 1: in an in an apartment in the Ritz Carlton, which
Speaker 1: is like the most expensive place in all of d C.
Speaker 1: That was where he lived when he was in d C.
Speaker 1: Where in Harry Reagan that kind of cash? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Look at their friend Nancy, I mean she well she
Speaker 1: married a rich guy. Yeah, that's the old fashioned way
Speaker 1: marry somebody a lot of money. That's a good way
Speaker 1: to do it. Charlie Shields simment, thank you for calling in.
Speaker 1: I'll look a little more into whether or not McCabe.
Speaker 1: You know, but that's there's always the option of your
Speaker 1: family money. Uh maybe maybe Dr McCabe writes novels under
Speaker 1: a pen name and it's done very well. You know.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of ways that people make money you
Speaker 1: woun't know about, but it's it's worth looking, worth looking
Speaker 1: to do. I would say this, I'm guessing FBI has
Speaker 1: financial disclosures and so they probably know a whole lot
Speaker 1: about how McCabe did or did not make money. Um,
Speaker 1: so I'm not seeing that is a big issue, but
Speaker 1: I'll keep an eye on it. I'll make that promise
Speaker 1: to you. I want to switch gears because Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 1: is getting a lot of attention. Facebook lost billions of
Speaker 1: dollars in value today. It was down about five scent
Speaker 1: something like that. In trading. I don't pay that close
Speaker 1: attention to the markets, but Facebook had a very bad day.
Speaker 1: Everyone's freaking out about this thing, and to me, well
Speaker 1: a few things. One is that they're freaking out because
Speaker 1: it involves Trump, so that always automatically, when Trump's arrangement
Speaker 1: syndrome kicks in, everything is oh my gosh. Uh. But
Speaker 1: they're acting like it's a huge surprise that people will
Speaker 1: use the data they can glean from social media and
Speaker 1: uh use that for the purposes of constructing political messaging
Speaker 1: and memes and campaigns and everything else. Social media makes.
Speaker 1: The reason these places are are so lucrative, and the
Speaker 1: reason they offer you a service for free is to
Speaker 1: aggregate your data to then capitalize off of that data.
Speaker 1: That that is what social media does. That is how
Speaker 1: Facebook is essentially a giant printing press. Of money, They
Speaker 1: take the information about you, they take your activities, and
Speaker 1: then they tailor advertising to you. And Facebook, by the way,
Speaker 1: has clamped down hard on just you know, the way
Speaker 1: that they are doing things these days. And it's their
Speaker 1: way or the highway. As I've been saying for a
Speaker 1: long time, we are in these progressive left wing mega
Speaker 1: platforms and there's been no choice for a lot of folks.
Speaker 1: You know. People now are well, I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go in a whole rand here about something else. Cambridge
Speaker 1: Analytica involved at the Trump campaign. People are freaking out why.
Speaker 1: I'll answer the question after the break. Cambridge Analytic UH
Speaker 1: was birthed out of a company called scl Group, which
Speaker 1: is a military contractor based in London. It UH this
Speaker 1: this data was used to create profiling algorithms that would
Speaker 1: allow us to explore mental vulnerabilities of people UM and
Speaker 1: then map out wigs to UH inject information into different
Speaker 1: different streams or channels of content online so that people
Speaker 1: started to see things all over the place that that
Speaker 1: may or may not have been true. This is a
Speaker 1: company that that really took fake news to to the
Speaker 1: next level by powering it with algorithms So that's Christopher Wiley,
Speaker 1: who helped found the data firm Cambridge Analytica. It's getting
Speaker 1: so much news media attention right now and people are
Speaker 1: talking about how it has well. He said that it
Speaker 1: has an arsenal of weapons in a culture war as
Speaker 1: I understand it. Here's what's happened. You have different companies
Speaker 1: that are always trying to find ways to aggregate the
Speaker 1: stuff that we're all doing online all the times. These
Speaker 1: social media platforms, my friends, are like intel collectors on you.
Speaker 1: Every click, every look, every like, all the stuff we're
Speaker 1: doing all the time. We just think it goes into
Speaker 1: some you know, vast cloud and who cares? And sure
Speaker 1: that's somewhat true. Although I've been saying for a while,
Speaker 1: just wait until one of these social media companies decides
Speaker 1: to release the you know, private chat that some guy
Speaker 1: had on Facebook with his mistress twenty years ago when
Speaker 1: he's running for president, Because that's gonna happen. Guaranteed that's
Speaker 1: gonna happen, just a question of when. And people say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, they're private company, they can do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: What are you gonna do? They violated their terms of
Speaker 1: service and they can say they changed their terms of
Speaker 1: service the private company. Unless Congress passes laws to protect
Speaker 1: people from the exploitation of their private information on these
Speaker 1: social on these third party platforms, then that's the way.
Speaker 1: That's the way it's gonna be. But so, here's what
Speaker 1: happened with Camera gen Analytical. They are a group that's
Speaker 1: looking at all this different social media data and they're
Speaker 1: trying to find ways to create the most well to
Speaker 1: understand the psyche of the masses really and then they
Speaker 1: exploit that information. They exploit exploit that information advantage for
Speaker 1: the purposes of politics. In this case, it seems that
Speaker 1: they may have hired a company Cambridge Analytica, and their
Speaker 1: ties to the Mercers and Benning and this is all,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, you know there you mind, you know,
Speaker 1: the the Obama team back in twelve and uh two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight, they were doing stuff that people thought,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, you know, they're look at how great
Speaker 1: their digital team is looking at all this Facebook information
Speaker 1: and data, and everyone's crunching all these numbers all the time.
Speaker 1: The problem that, well, there's a few things going on
Speaker 1: here with the Camera Generalytic. One of them is they
Speaker 1: may have hired another company to be kind of a
Speaker 1: front that would have you take a personality quiz and
Speaker 1: then you answer all these questions about yourself. And I
Speaker 1: think it might have also given you might have also
Speaker 1: given that app uh access to your data, your friend lists,
Speaker 1: your likes, all that stuff. And this is standard. A
Speaker 1: lot of these apps say you know, can I have
Speaker 1: access to? And it lists all the different things. This
Speaker 1: is the brave new world we live in now. And
Speaker 1: if you say yes, then guess what that means that
Speaker 1: that service has access to sure enough all that stuff,
Speaker 1: which is why a lot of these things that we
Speaker 1: think are free are free for us. But they do
Speaker 1: come at a cost. And the cost is your information
Speaker 1: and your privacy. And that information is now out there.
Speaker 1: And if you think it's protected, just start reading about
Speaker 1: some of the major cyber breaches that have happened, and
Speaker 1: including places like the government and and others that their
Speaker 1: whole reason for existing is to prevent cyber breaches. Right there.
Speaker 1: They're doing a lot of work, a lot of effort
Speaker 1: to try and make sure that does not happen, and
Speaker 1: they get breached. So don't think that all Facebook has
Speaker 1: it. It It must be safe. But they you heard that
Speaker 1: guy wildy when we started the segment here saying that
Speaker 1: they're like weaponizing people's ideas, exploding psychological vulnerabilities. Another way
Speaker 1: of saying it is, yeah, they're figuring out what's on
Speaker 1: people's minds, what's popular, and then they're constructing narratives and stories,
Speaker 1: and maybe that includes fake news, maybe it doesn't. Probably
Speaker 1: does that will get the most clicks and shares and
Speaker 1: everything else. By the way, every media entity I know
Speaker 1: is doing this in one way or another. This is
Speaker 1: the game now, folks. This is what is going on.
Speaker 1: It's only being treated as so nefarious now because it
Speaker 1: involves Trump and some of the Trump or Trump's associates,
Speaker 1: people like Bannon and Mercer, who is bankrolling Trump. She's
Speaker 1: the daughter of the billionaire Robert Mercer. And this is
Speaker 1: going on in all kinds of ways. I have seen
Speaker 1: this coming for a while. I've been trying to sound
Speaker 1: the alarm as much as possible that the Internet in
Speaker 1: particularly with the advent of the social media platforms and
Speaker 1: their dominance in our discourse. I mean, I know people
Speaker 1: now who are like, well, you know, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: build my business. I'm just gonna sell directly over Facebook
Speaker 1: and I'm like, Okay, you can do that for a while.
Speaker 1: But guess what happens when Facebook realizes that your company
Speaker 1: is deriving a vast majority of its revenue from them?
Speaker 1: Do you do you think that they can know that
Speaker 1: and then decide that they're gonna use the leverage they
Speaker 1: have over you to demand even higher rates and more.
Speaker 1: You know, we're giving so much power to these things.
Speaker 1: Facebook is the biggest example, but you know, Twitter, um, Instagram, Snapchat,
Speaker 1: which I've always thought was kind of garbage, um, but
Speaker 1: these are collecting information on millions and millions of people
Speaker 1: and they're using that. Make no mistake about it. They
Speaker 1: are using the information they get from your day to
Speaker 1: day activities, every like, every click, every digital thought that
Speaker 1: you leave online, and that may not be used against
Speaker 1: you personally, but it will be used by these companies
Speaker 1: to get an information advantage. And in the massive digital
Speaker 1: propaganda wars that are going on right now, social media
Speaker 1: platforms are the front line. Um more on camera. Ge
Speaker 1: Atletic a for you tomorrow, promise he's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck sex in his back. This neighborhood is
Speaker 1: still being locked down right now for safety. Again, we're
Speaker 1: doing this in over abundance of caution so that we
Speaker 1: can keep this neighborhood safe. What we process the scene.
Speaker 1: What I can tell you is based on the preliminary
Speaker 1: review we have done at this time. We have seen
Speaker 1: similarities in the device that exploded here last night and
Speaker 1: the other three devices that have exploded in Austin starting
Speaker 1: on March two. Again, this is preliminary information, but we
Speaker 1: have seen similarities. The big difference in this device again
Speaker 1: is we believe that a trip wire was used in
Speaker 1: this device. Welcome to our to of the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: Tough News out of Austin, Texas, where you have a
Speaker 1: fourth a fourth bomb exploding this time, as you heard
Speaker 1: from the Austin Police Chief, there as a result of
Speaker 1: a trip wire, so a more sophisticated device. And now
Speaker 1: the narrative from law enforcement down in Austin when we're
Speaker 1: hearing it has shifted away from what was initially it
Speaker 1: seemed like some perhaps even hate crime based attacks. So
Speaker 1: now they just have a madman, a serial bomber on
Speaker 1: the loose, and they have very little to work with.
Speaker 1: From what we've been told so far, you've got four bombings.
Speaker 1: There have been fatalities, there have also been some people
Speaker 1: wounded as a result of it, and they're looking for
Speaker 1: help right now down in Austin. They're looking for someone
Speaker 1: to come forward from the public, because the analysis of
Speaker 1: an actual bomb after it's gone off is a painstaking process.
Speaker 1: It's not something that happens very quickly. You need to
Speaker 1: find the pieces of it, that shrapnel has to be analyzed.
Speaker 1: You're looking for any signature that you can find on
Speaker 1: any of this, looking for d n A, looking for
Speaker 1: the components. Using devices, can you reverse engineer the device
Speaker 1: in such a way it might give you clues about
Speaker 1: how someone put it together and where they got that information.
Speaker 1: Maybe if you might get lucky and have some unique
Speaker 1: component to it that is traceable, right, that's um, that
Speaker 1: is what I believe. That's actually how the Oklahoma City
Speaker 1: bombing of the of the Federal building there by Timothy McVeigh.
Speaker 1: I think they found a VIN number among the UH
Speaker 1: in the debris and that was the big break in
Speaker 1: that case. You see, sometimes when you're looking for a bomber,
Speaker 1: they make it much easier. I remember during the Fisal
Speaker 1: Shazad case in two ten, the would be Times Square bomber.
Speaker 1: He left the car that he tried to blow up,
Speaker 1: make into a vehicle board and provides explosive device. He
Speaker 1: left the car in times square, so you trace the
Speaker 1: car and then you're able to trace the able to
Speaker 1: find a whole bunch of information on they're able to
Speaker 1: trace the phone that he had used. He had a
Speaker 1: I believe he had a burner phone. He had a
Speaker 1: pay as he goes cell phone. Um. And then he
Speaker 1: got to the airport and almost got back to Pakistan.
Speaker 1: They had to catch him on the plane at the airport.
Speaker 1: He almost got out of the country, but he did
Speaker 1: leave clues. He left information that law enforcem could work with,
Speaker 1: including me. I remember being called in that weekend after
Speaker 1: the bomb almost went off. Um, he did not. He
Speaker 1: was not a skilled bomb maker. Otherwise you would have
Speaker 1: had a high casualty count that day. But this time
Speaker 1: around with Austin, it doesn't look like police have have
Speaker 1: much to go on so far. UM. Here's the Austin
Speaker 1: Police Chief on on where the investigation stands. There has
Speaker 1: already been a significant presence from our federal partners since
Speaker 1: these events began, and as we reported yesterday, we have
Speaker 1: over five hundred agents and their teams working on Austin
Speaker 1: cases alone, and we have additional resources being brought in
Speaker 1: again by both of those agencies, And as has already
Speaker 1: been broadcast, there is a hundred thousand dollar reward out
Speaker 1: there for someone who can give us a tip leading
Speaker 1: to the identification of the suspect or suspects in this incident.
Speaker 1: So they're looking to law enforcems looking to get lucky.
Speaker 1: Here someone will come forward and say, you know what
Speaker 1: I've I've got something for you. Or maybe it's someone
Speaker 1: who just wants the hundred k who was trying to
Speaker 1: keep silent before mind their own business, so to speak,
Speaker 1: and now they're gonna step forward, and who knows, we'll
Speaker 1: have to see. You have five agents working on this case.
Speaker 1: In the Austin area. Four bombings as I As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: and the addition of a trigger device to this one
Speaker 1: means that this is now something that could have I
Speaker 1: could have gone off and killed anyone, children, anybody. I mean,
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem like it is. Target of the first
Speaker 1: three bombings were package bombs that were opened by individuals.
Speaker 1: They were left on there I believe, left on their porches,
Speaker 1: and they were left in what was a predominantly minority
Speaker 1: area of Austin. So there was also initially put out
Speaker 1: there by I don't know if it was the media
Speaker 1: or and law enforcement or just the media, but the
Speaker 1: notion this might have been a hate crime. Now it's
Speaker 1: looking like there's a greater randomness to all of this.
Speaker 1: The most recent bombing, I believe two people injured, neither
Speaker 1: of them killed. But the most recent bombing was a
Speaker 1: uh more well off part of the city and was
Speaker 1: triggered by a trip wire. So that's just anybody in
Speaker 1: the area. People are asking the question about is this
Speaker 1: terrorism or not. That's a discussion that I've gotten involved
Speaker 1: in at the national media level and a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of cases in the past. There's just not enough to
Speaker 1: go on right now. We just don't know um and
Speaker 1: anything put out there right now about motive feels like speculation.
Speaker 1: You know, this, this could be uh this could be
Speaker 1: domestic terrorism. Absolutely. It also just could be a completely
Speaker 1: sick and deranged individual who wants to send bombs or
Speaker 1: or plant bombs and kill people just because you know,
Speaker 1: we we don't know. So I don't have much on
Speaker 1: the analytics side to give you on why I think
Speaker 1: this person maybe this person is doing this. As to
Speaker 1: how they find him, this is where you hope that
Speaker 1: all these different ages. You've got a t F down there, FBI,
Speaker 1: Austin City Police, I'm sure you get state police. I'm
Speaker 1: sure Texas Marshals are all the men. Everyone's FBI. Ever,
Speaker 1: everyone's in on this one as they should be, um
Speaker 1: because this is now a city under siege in a sense.
Speaker 1: You've got people that are concerned about and and rightfully
Speaker 1: so concerned about just walking around the streets. Right these
Speaker 1: are essentially I e. D. S going off in Austin,
Speaker 1: and they have no real leads that we know of,
Speaker 1: and there's no sense that they're gonna be able to
Speaker 1: catch this person anytime imminently unless they get some sort
Speaker 1: of a break. Now we're hoping that maybe, uh, they'll
Speaker 1: be able to reverse kind of the surveillance footage from
Speaker 1: different cameras, maybe street cameras or um in different buildings nearby.
Speaker 1: You know, this is where they try to piece together
Speaker 1: whatever they can to just get that one break in
Speaker 1: the case, because right now it is bleak. It's terrible.
Speaker 1: I've read the stories of a young man who was killed,
Speaker 1: you know, opening this. He's with his mother, and mother
Speaker 1: was severely injured. They brought this package into their into
Speaker 1: their kitchen, and just this is it's so the whole
Speaker 1: thing is so evil and so senseless. So I really
Speaker 1: hope that they managed to track down whoever is responsible
Speaker 1: and hold them to account and prosecute them the fullest
Speaker 1: extent of the law. I'm assuming this was to me
Speaker 1: on right on his face, this is a death penalty case. Um,
Speaker 1: just based on what's going on already, and we'll have
Speaker 1: to see if there's some kind of a manifesto, possible
Speaker 1: political motivation behind this, you know, war against the government.
Speaker 1: I mentioned Timothy with baby before. Someone who's you know,
Speaker 1: who knows, could be any idea, you know, could be
Speaker 1: any terrorist or extremist ideology. We just don't know right now.
Speaker 1: We don't have much to go on. So if we
Speaker 1: have anything that breaks during the show, I will bring
Speaker 1: it to you. We're watching the case very close, Lee,
Speaker 1: and our thoughts and prayers are with those in the
Speaker 1: city of Austin tonight. We're we're thinking about you also, um,
Speaker 1: you know, stay safe down there, and let's let law
Speaker 1: enforce and do their work and hope they come up
Speaker 1: with some solutions. Quickly, we'll hit a quick break. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Trump and trade and of course China, China.
Speaker 1: Trump talking about what he is going to do with tariffs.
Speaker 1: But I've been trying to look at this from as
Speaker 1: many perspectives as we possibly can here in the Freedom Hup.
Speaker 1: We have somebody who is an actual expert on trade
Speaker 1: will join us now here were the peace it's up
Speaker 1: on the hill. How much does trade impact Americans? Not
Speaker 1: all that much. We have Derek Scissors on the line.
Speaker 1: He is an international coonymous at the American Enterprise Institute. Derek,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I'm glad to be here. So
Speaker 1: I really like your piece because you're saying, look, the
Speaker 1: people that are saying that this is a huge deal,
Speaker 1: and if Trump does this thing he says you're gonna do,
Speaker 1: the economy is gonna come tumbling down. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit of chicken little going on. Yeah, It's the basic
Speaker 1: story here on trade is if you have very strong,
Speaker 1: paid trade policies for a long period of time, that
Speaker 1: can matter even to a really big country like the
Speaker 1: United States. But our economy, if you use gross domestic products,
Speaker 1: is eighteen trillion dollars. Every steal on aluminum product. We
Speaker 1: import everyone, no exceptions, all countries billion um. You do
Speaker 1: the math. It's just not a big deal. It's hard
Speaker 1: for trade to matter to the U. S can have
Speaker 1: to matter the US over time. Sure can really big
Speaker 1: sanctions against China matter. Sure the steel tariffs are not
Speaker 1: gonna matter. What do you say to people who say, oh,
Speaker 1: but Derek, if maybe it's only about fifty billions at
Speaker 1: forty eight billions for stealing aluminium, but there will be
Speaker 1: all of these reprisals and retaliation. Well, I mean the
Speaker 1: rest of the world's We have the biggest coconomy in
Speaker 1: the world, but the rest of the world's economy is
Speaker 1: bigger than ours. If we're importing forty eight billion dollars
Speaker 1: from everybody and everybody's economy put together as bigger than ours,
Speaker 1: why do they care so much about the forty eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars? There could be retaliation. I agree that the
Speaker 1: retaliation will probably be worth about forty billion dollars um.
Speaker 1: So this is not I think the way to attack
Speaker 1: the stealing aluminum terraces. What are we trying to accomplish?
Speaker 1: And and that's where I would push the President of
Speaker 1: the administration, like what are we trying to accomplish here?
Speaker 1: Tell me exactly where you're going with this. But the
Speaker 1: idea that what we did is really going to hurt
Speaker 1: us or them or both of us, and then they're
Speaker 1: gonna do this, They're gonna have this huge retaliation. Why
Speaker 1: would they have huge retaliation against what really is a
Speaker 1: small trade step by the United States. They're gonna talk
Speaker 1: a lot about it because they want to look like
Speaker 1: they're they're being tough for their own people, just like
Speaker 1: President Trump does. But again, their retaliation is going to
Speaker 1: be small, just like our and was small. And in
Speaker 1: terms of what China is doing, that is uh that
Speaker 1: that would go in the category of unfair. Just for
Speaker 1: everybody listening, Well, what does China do from a trade
Speaker 1: perspective that gives them an advantage over rivals? That would
Speaker 1: rufflesome feathers in the Trans Pacific partnership side of the aisle? Right,
Speaker 1: the people that believe that if we all just got
Speaker 1: together and did more trading, everything would be great, Well,
Speaker 1: we do two things, one of which the administration is
Speaker 1: looking into and we may hear what they're gonna do
Speaker 1: about it as soon as this week, and the other one,
Speaker 1: which I'll talk about a second, but the first one
Speaker 1: that the aministrat is looking into is they they steal
Speaker 1: or or try to push companies into transferring technology or
Speaker 1: intellectual property. And basically the problem there is American firms
Speaker 1: are the most innovative in the world. Not in every field,
Speaker 1: but overall, we have the most innovative companies, We have
Speaker 1: the most innovative workers, we have the most innovative people. Well,
Speaker 1: if we innovate on the Chinese say hey, thanks for
Speaker 1: the innovation, we're just gonna steal it, or we're gonna
Speaker 1: push your companies saying you can't do any business in
Speaker 1: China unless turn over this technology. Um. They we don't
Speaker 1: get the benefits from that that we should are are
Speaker 1: Our companies can't sell as many goods because the Chinese
Speaker 1: are competing with them, which means fewer jobs for American workers.
Speaker 1: So that's what the administration is looking at right now.
Speaker 1: It's it's China taking the thing that we do best
Speaker 1: and trying to steal the advantages of it. Um. The
Speaker 1: other thing that they do is they heavily subsidize their
Speaker 1: their Some of their firms stayed on enterprises in China
Speaker 1: and those firms don't export because even heavily subsidized, they're
Speaker 1: not competitive. But it basically means that Chinese market is
Speaker 1: closed to a lot of American goods because Chinese standard
Speaker 1: enterprises never lose. You can't outcompete them, you can't drive
Speaker 1: them into bankruptcy because you have better products, you're a
Speaker 1: better company, you're better workers, doesn't matter. They don't lose.
Speaker 1: So that's the block on the Chinese market that they
Speaker 1: don't let their stated on enterprises lose, and then if
Speaker 1: that weren't enough, they go out and they take American
Speaker 1: and other countries innovation. Now, the issue of technology is
Speaker 1: actually something I'm going to address later from a national
Speaker 1: security perspective. But when the president and everyone we're speaking
Speaker 1: to Derek Scissors from the American Enterprise Institute, he's an
Speaker 1: international economist. When the President says that we're getting killed
Speaker 1: on trade, China is doing all this bad stuff on trade. Uh,
Speaker 1: he's speaking in very general terms. But what is he
Speaker 1: really trying to get at? Yeah, I mean that's that's
Speaker 1: a good question. During the campaign and and sometimes as
Speaker 1: president of President President Trump has really emphasized cutting into
Speaker 1: the bilateral trade deficit. So if you can if you
Speaker 1: include goods and services. The US has about a three
Speaker 1: billion dollar bilateral trade deficit with China last year, and
Speaker 1: President Trump just you know, that really bothers him, and
Speaker 1: he'd like that to come down to, you know, a
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars. He knows he's not going to go away,
Speaker 1: but he wants an improvement. He wants it to stop
Speaker 1: rising and start dropping. But does he have a point?
Speaker 1: Is that a problem because people tell us it's not
Speaker 1: a problem. I don't think that's the problem. This is
Speaker 1: the way I would put in. The US and China
Speaker 1: have really big economies. You know, you put them together
Speaker 1: in terms of gross domestic products GDP, it's thirty trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: If the Chinese were good trade partners. If you had
Speaker 1: asked me a question, you said, you know, what do
Speaker 1: the Chinese do that that upsets people who you know,
Speaker 1: have a very positive view of the world, um like
Speaker 1: our tv P partners. And I said, I I don't know,
Speaker 1: and none of my friends know. And we've been working
Speaker 1: at this for years and they're great trade partners. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't care about the trade deficits. What bothers me is
Speaker 1: what they do the trade deficit is an outcome. So
Speaker 1: you know, three forty million do sounds like a lot
Speaker 1: of money. But if China was a great trade partner
Speaker 1: that was open to American products, that didn't steal American technology,
Speaker 1: I would say, I know that that's just the way
Speaker 1: it is. The story I think the President is getting
Speaker 1: at is they have that trade surplus because they're not
Speaker 1: good trade partners, um and and you know what I
Speaker 1: want is to change their practices. I think the President
Speaker 1: would just be happy if the trade deficit fell for
Speaker 1: you know, for whatever reason, the Chinese just buy a
Speaker 1: bunch of US soybeans, um. So there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a split there. I don't think the trade deficit
Speaker 1: is a problem. I think what China does is the problem.
Speaker 1: I think the President really just wants the trade deficit
Speaker 1: to shrink. And on the issue of UH steel specifically,
Speaker 1: are we going to be able to see some improvement
Speaker 1: in you know, US industry and steel output. But I
Speaker 1: would assume then if it's only fifty billion dollars or importing,
Speaker 1: there are limitations on how much of an impact this
Speaker 1: will have in the economy apart from the national security
Speaker 1: aspect of it. Right, and so yeah, I mean, if
Speaker 1: if you apply tear after everyone, you didn't grant any exceptions,
Speaker 1: you and you've got all steel allans, the limited paris
Speaker 1: only ten percent. You're not gonna stop importing forty eight
Speaker 1: billion dollars, which is the total last year. It's gonna drop.
Speaker 1: It's gonna drop to like thirty five billion because those
Speaker 1: products got more expensive. So we're talking about thirteen billion
Speaker 1: dollars more production in the United States. That's not nothing.
Speaker 1: But for people who are familiar with this industry, even
Speaker 1: steel is heavily automated. It's a lot of capital spending
Speaker 1: to set up a steel mill. They're not as many
Speaker 1: workers as there used to be. Would it create some jobs? Yeah?
Speaker 1: How many jobs will it create? I'm afraid not very many.
Speaker 1: It's also not going to cause the cost of your
Speaker 1: car or your plane fly to your house to go
Speaker 1: staring through the roof. That's my point about. You know,
Speaker 1: both sides are exaggerating how important this is. But cutting
Speaker 1: steel imports by ten fifteen billion dollars, it's it's just
Speaker 1: not going to create very many jobs. Let me ask
Speaker 1: you what we got you on the phone here. One
Speaker 1: more about about NAFTA, You've said before that you've had
Speaker 1: it on my show that NAFTA it is time for
Speaker 1: it to be renegotiated. So people that kind of roll
Speaker 1: their eyes look skyward and all that when Trump says
Speaker 1: we got to renegotiate NAFTA, it does need some some updating.
Speaker 1: What would be the best way for Trump to go
Speaker 1: about that? Right, So, it absolutely needs some updating. It's
Speaker 1: a twenty three year old agreement. It was path breaking
Speaker 1: at the time. You know, whether you think it's terrible
Speaker 1: or great, people tend to agree that it was path breaking. Um,
Speaker 1: it does need some updating. The world has changed a
Speaker 1: lot since then. You know, we didn't have digital trade then,
Speaker 1: we didn't have trade through the internet. We didn't have
Speaker 1: people buying things online and anything like the quantities that
Speaker 1: we have now. So, I mean there's another situation where
Speaker 1: I think the President is right that it needs updated.
Speaker 1: I think what the administration is negotiating with to try
Speaker 1: to modernize the agreement and to say to Mexican Canada, look,
Speaker 1: the US is very good at services. You need to
Speaker 1: allow us to be able to sell our stuff digitally
Speaker 1: and not have taxes or restrictions or planning games. So
Speaker 1: that those are good things to try to do. The
Speaker 1: President also really wants our bilateral trade deficit with Mexico
Speaker 1: to fall, and that's going to be really hard because
Speaker 1: the Mexican economy is basically not growing. So if you're
Speaker 1: just trying to upgrade and improve nafter, you can do it.
Speaker 1: And if you in the Mexicans and the Canadians don't
Speaker 1: go along, it's their fault. But if you're trying to
Speaker 1: get the trade deficit the fall, that's gonna be a
Speaker 1: tough sell. Because we're growing faster than Mexico. It's gonna
Speaker 1: be really hard for them to buy more products from
Speaker 1: the United States when they're not buying more of their
Speaker 1: own products. Derek Scissors of AI. Everybody go to a
Speaker 1: EI dot org to read their latest research. Derek, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining. Thanks to your peace. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it. Say we're gonna roll into a quick break,
Speaker 1: will be back in just a few minutes. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have Jesse Kelly joining later this hour. Talk about raising
Speaker 1: young men because he's got a couple of young men
Speaker 1: that he's raising kids. I don't, so he's an expert
Speaker 1: on that. I'm not. You'll be joining. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. He's back with you now, because when
Speaker 1: it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: As a millennial, I've heard a lot of the stories
Speaker 1: out there from those of you who are boomers gen xers.
Speaker 1: Is Jen why a thing too about how you know, well,
Speaker 1: when I was going to college, I I was a
Speaker 1: bar back and I you know, worked as a golf
Speaker 1: golf caddy over the summer, and you know, you have
Speaker 1: you have all these stories about how you're saving money
Speaker 1: for college or or raising money for your college tuition
Speaker 1: when you're in it, and they make great stories to
Speaker 1: tell your kids. And one of the get off my
Speaker 1: lawn things you often hear from the boomer generation is,
Speaker 1: you know, kids these days, they're just they expect someone
Speaker 1: else to pay for it, or it's all it's all
Speaker 1: taking out debt, and then they're hoping the debt will
Speaker 1: just be wiped away. I would note that that is
Speaker 1: a major major platform for the sander Nista left wing
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party going forward. You got a trillion
Speaker 1: dollar student loan bubble out there, people are just gonna
Speaker 1: say that, yeah, just we should just have debt forgiveness
Speaker 1: of it, just forgive the debt. What do they think
Speaker 1: about what that would mean? No, they don't. But it's
Speaker 1: gonna get bigger because there's no way people are gonna
Speaker 1: be able to pay off a lot of those loans um.
Speaker 1: But there's a great piece in the New York Time,
Speaker 1: you know, in the Wall Street Journal at the New
Speaker 1: York Times, you can't work your way through college anymore,
Speaker 1: and it just talks about how different the situation is
Speaker 1: now when you're talking about a particularly a four year
Speaker 1: private college, but even a lot of these states schools.
Speaker 1: The difference between what it used to be to go
Speaker 1: to a place like Yale, for example, very fancy, very
Speaker 1: elite school, versus what it would be to go to
Speaker 1: Yale today. And this is then filters down all the
Speaker 1: way across the spectrum. So the notion that you could
Speaker 1: wait tables, you know, you could have some job as
Speaker 1: a lifeguard at the beach, save money and pay off
Speaker 1: a semester at college that's gone, you would have to
Speaker 1: be making well. He gives you this, gives you the
Speaker 1: numbers here, and I'll walk you through someone numbers. Here's
Speaker 1: what he writes. This is by Richard West the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal. That's right for all you get off my
Speaker 1: law types. You guys, when it when it came to
Speaker 1: college tuition, I'm gonna say it, you had it easy.
Speaker 1: You had it easy compared to what's going on today.
Speaker 1: It is out of control now. And I would also
Speaker 1: know that you're supposed to get an advanced degree now,
Speaker 1: just to have one, even if you don't use it.
Speaker 1: And I know so many people that have j d s.
Speaker 1: You know, went to law school, and it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: what do you do? I work in marketing? What do
Speaker 1: you Why do you have a j d? Heh? You know?
Speaker 1: Is you know? I gotta gotta be competitive three years
Speaker 1: of law school anyway. Here's what Richard West writes in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty six as a freshman at year Yil. Here's
Speaker 1: a Yale man, he's a yearly. I waited tables in
Speaker 1: a student dorm for about one dollar an hour, ten
Speaker 1: hours a week. I received a full scholarship. But even
Speaker 1: if it had ended, I recall that Yale's all in
Speaker 1: price is amazing. Yale is all in price, including tuition,
Speaker 1: room and board, was eighteen hundred dollars a year. And
Speaker 1: my work while in school during the term ten hours
Speaker 1: a week would have covered a sixth of that, So
Speaker 1: you would while you're in school. This is not even
Speaker 1: paying it off after you get out of school. While
Speaker 1: you were in school in six you could pay off
Speaker 1: a chunk of your Yale tuition, and then when you
Speaker 1: graduate you have even lesson. As everyone knows, you've gotta
Speaker 1: pay interest on the debt and everything else on the loan.
Speaker 1: He goes on. Today, tuition room and board of Yale
Speaker 1: run sixty six thousand, nine hundred dollars. Now for a
Speaker 1: lot of people, I know they're gonna say a book
Speaker 1: eighteen hundred dollars and nineteen fifty six was a lot
Speaker 1: more than than it is today. Uh, it wasn't sixty
Speaker 1: six thousand dollars. Might have been I don't know. We
Speaker 1: could actually look at what the uh what the inflation
Speaker 1: calculator would say for it. I don't know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: five ten x, you know, maybe something like that. It was.
Speaker 1: It wasn't almost seventy grand now eighteen hundred bucks and
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty six wasn't seventy thousand dollars? Okay, so that
Speaker 1: much I know, no false, And we're not talking about
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty six. This is nineteen fifty six. So he
Speaker 1: goes into some of the number crunching here. This is
Speaker 1: just before we all, you know, hear all the stories.
Speaker 1: You know, order order trojure my university classes and four
Speaker 1: fut or snow. And I was carrying on my back
Speaker 1: the lumber for my job as a campus lumberjack. You know,
Speaker 1: I was carrying around paying her off the hard waree
Speaker 1: splinters in my hands when I was doing multi variable calculus.
Speaker 1: You know, we hear all these stories. You know, people,
Speaker 1: you know, are you finished with the sawmill at nine am?
Speaker 1: And I was on campus at ten am paying it off.
Speaker 1: Now that's all great, but it doesn't really work that
Speaker 1: way anymore. Here's what he writes. Quote today, tuition, room
Speaker 1: and board at Yale run sixty six dollars working the
Speaker 1: same amount as I did even at twelve dollars an hour.
Speaker 1: An increase of roughly one third after inflation, produces income
Speaker 1: of thirty six dollars, or slightly more than five of
Speaker 1: the total to earn enough to pay for one sixth
Speaker 1: of a Yale education, which require an hourly wage of
Speaker 1: more than thirty seven dollars. Yeah, not a lot of
Speaker 1: college kids are getting thirty seven dollars an hour for
Speaker 1: their job unless they're an s A T hooter maybe um.
Speaker 1: And I don't know what that markets like these days either,
Speaker 1: but this is where we start to look at how
Speaker 1: higher education is just completely out of control in terms
Speaker 1: of costs right now. I also think the quality has
Speaker 1: gone down dramatically. You look at what was required curriculum
Speaker 1: and a lot of these schools back in the fifties
Speaker 1: and sixty So for the get off my law types
Speaker 1: out there, you've got some you've got some stuff, you've
Speaker 1: got some likes to stand on. Uh. But now you know,
Speaker 1: you get everyone coming out of school with women in
Speaker 1: gender studies degree thirty forty fifty, sometimes a hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars in debt, and this has become the norm. This
Speaker 1: is now the expectation for a lot of well, this
Speaker 1: is the expectation, and society is is pushing people into this.
Speaker 1: It's just assumed that you shouldn't do trade school. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just and I want to say, assumed a lot
Speaker 1: of you are like Buck, I went to trade school.
Speaker 1: I didn't assume that. I'm talking about, you know, the
Speaker 1: the general cultural thrust right, the uh, the media, the
Speaker 1: institutions around us. How do here's a good example, how
Speaker 1: do high schools generally measure the success of their graduates?
Speaker 1: What percentage go to college? It's not what percentage get
Speaker 1: a good paying job right away and start saving for
Speaker 1: a down payment on a house and creating skills and
Speaker 1: financial security for themselves. That's not how they measure success.
Speaker 1: And maybe they should change that a little bit. You know,
Speaker 1: they should probably have a what yeah, okay, what level
Speaker 1: of people are uh coming out here? What percentage of
Speaker 1: people are coming out and going to college? But it
Speaker 1: would also be worthwhile to have what percentage of students
Speaker 1: leave this high school and have gainful employment within the first,
Speaker 1: you know, twelve months of graduating. If that's what they
Speaker 1: choose to do, we really need to change this. If
Speaker 1: if I knew now, or if I knew them what
Speaker 1: I know now about what it would mean to go
Speaker 1: away for four years and be told to just study
Speaker 1: and better myself and read. Oh my gosh. And I
Speaker 1: think even spending a year to working or serving your
Speaker 1: country the military is an obvious choice, but there are
Speaker 1: other capacities in which I think service would even be
Speaker 1: very illuminate eating. This needs to be a much bigger
Speaker 1: national conversation along with school choice. Uh. There are so
Speaker 1: many places here where conservatives are actually on you know,
Speaker 1: the conservatives are on the side of innovation and improvement.
Speaker 1: It is the liberals who are part of these sclerotic,
Speaker 1: stubborn bureaucracy that refuses to change, that excuses failure, in fact,
Speaker 1: always finds a way to transfer the responsibility to failure
Speaker 1: onto someone else's shoulders. And it's just unwilling to look
Speaker 1: at what's really happening in education in this country despite
Speaker 1: all the spending. You know, they're so quick to make
Speaker 1: fun of Betsy Devas, who's at least trying to do
Speaker 1: something to help kids in particularly inner city schools, in
Speaker 1: in minority uh minority areas with low average incomes. You know,
Speaker 1: she's trying to help those students, and people want to
Speaker 1: mock her. I know she's mocked on SNL over the weekend.
Speaker 1: When I look at this now and I see top
Speaker 1: to bottom education has become too expensive. It is not better.
Speaker 1: It is focusing on less applicable skills, and it's inexcusable
Speaker 1: because technology and the availability of information has never been
Speaker 1: better than it is right now. So we've just got
Speaker 1: to catch up with some of the ideas and policies
Speaker 1: and use the technologies we have so that everybody's finding
Speaker 1: their best path, whatever that may be. I gotta roll,
Speaker 1: no break team, I'll be back. Welcome back everyone. We
Speaker 1: are gonna switch gears here for a moment and uh
Speaker 1: get into some some man time. We've got Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: with us. He is a former Marine. He is also
Speaker 1: former Congressional Kennedy. He writes, he does TV appearances. He's
Speaker 1: all around pundit and uh opinionated fellow. He's got a
Speaker 1: great piece up on the federal list. Why a good
Speaker 1: father prepares his sons for war, and we have Jesse
Speaker 1: now to tell us why that is. Jesse, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining Good talk to Are you down
Speaker 1: in Texas? Where are you right now? Coming to us Fry,
Speaker 1: I'm down in Texas. I'm down in Houston. So I
Speaker 1: hope you Northeast people are freezing at tests up there
Speaker 1: because it's eighty degrees down here and follow me. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, I am refusing to believe that we are
Speaker 1: about to get hit. Almost I think to the day
Speaker 1: the first day of spring with the North easter. That
Speaker 1: just seems like it's too cruel. But enjoy, enjoy your
Speaker 1: your warmth down in Texas while we freeze up here.
Speaker 1: So Jesse, tell me about why good good son prepared, sorry,
Speaker 1: a good father prepares his son for war, because that's
Speaker 1: why that's part of the reason why men were created
Speaker 1: on the men are the protectors of society, not of
Speaker 1: just this society, of any society, and power never disappears,
Speaker 1: it just changed his hands. So if we don't have
Speaker 1: strong men, then you get bullies and jerks who pick
Speaker 1: on the week. And that's why you're seeing a lot
Speaker 1: more of that in this society today because we're rating
Speaker 1: and raising a connald generation of boys, and we've told
Speaker 1: them they need to be sensitive and all these other
Speaker 1: things instead of telling them you need to be a man,
Speaker 1: you need to protect those weaker than you. And Jesse,
Speaker 1: you mentioned in your piece a journalist by the name
Speaker 1: of will likech I believe, who wrote about his experience
Speaker 1: shooting a twenty gauge, not even a twelve gauge, a
Speaker 1: twenty gage shotgun. Can you just give us a little
Speaker 1: bit of the backstory there, because this is quite this
Speaker 1: is quite a tale. Somebody sent me the tale. Apparently
Speaker 1: this Will has a series. I mean, he has an
Speaker 1: actual series about raising boys. He's got a couple of songs,
Speaker 1: and he tells the story about how horrible guns are
Speaker 1: and how scared he was. I guess when he was
Speaker 1: a boy, just a young boy. His dad just hand
Speaker 1: him at twenty gauge with no instructions, no help, no
Speaker 1: safety classes. The kid holds it up, a from his body,
Speaker 1: shoots off around into a field. The gun goes flying,
Speaker 1: the kids scared to death. That's good. It was the
Speaker 1: most embarrassing thing I have ever read in my life.
Speaker 1: As far as a fatherhood thing. That's not Will's problem.
Speaker 1: That's Will's father's problem. Every man should teach his son
Speaker 1: how to handle a weapon comfortably. You don't have to
Speaker 1: raise the Navy seal. Teach your son how to handle
Speaker 1: himself with a weapon, hand with safely, make sure he
Speaker 1: respects it, make sure he knows how deadly it is,
Speaker 1: and that teach him to be fast and deadly with it,
Speaker 1: because he may have to do one that. I also
Speaker 1: had to note that in in this piece. And by
Speaker 1: the way, so Jesse, you now realize that it is
Speaker 1: incumbent upon you to write how to How to Raise
Speaker 1: a Son properly series, right, because we've got the progressive
Speaker 1: left wing version from this fellow Mr Leitch, but now
Speaker 1: we need the Jesse Kelly version in in total, I can't.
Speaker 1: I mean, this piece is a great start, So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'm just gonna put some more work on your plate, Jesse,
Speaker 1: along with the podcast, and we're gonna keep hearing the
Speaker 1: freedom of demanding you launch in the next six months.
Speaker 1: But tell me, tell me more about will Light and
Speaker 1: this notion that he's upset that his children are sick
Speaker 1: or that his his boy specifically because they're white males,
Speaker 1: are succeeding, and how that's not good. He gets a
Speaker 1: call into his teacher, to his son's teacher. Uh, and
Speaker 1: his wife's go in and sit down in front of
Speaker 1: his son's teacher and finds out that his kid is
Speaker 1: doing great in school, that his kid is brilliant and
Speaker 1: personable and his grades are great, and the teacher specifically
Speaker 1: said his son was a golden child, and was Will happy. Yes,
Speaker 1: But also, and he writes us down in the piece,
Speaker 1: a part of him was really concerned, does his son
Speaker 1: only have that success at the expense of the others.
Speaker 1: Haven't and I quote this, haven't white men already succeeded enough?
Speaker 1: I mean, I cannot imagine how twisted up and tormented
Speaker 1: you have to be as a father to get a
Speaker 1: glowing report about your son and be uneasy about it.
Speaker 1: That is a mixed up person in science, and he's
Speaker 1: gonna mixed up as boys if you pass down to
Speaker 1: we're speaking of Jesse Kelly's former marine and uh you
Speaker 1: can follow him on Twitter at Jesse Kelly d C Jesse. I.
Speaker 1: I really liked the part of your article in The
Speaker 1: Federalist here where you went into it's not just about
Speaker 1: don't allow yourself to be bullied. It's also teaching your
Speaker 1: kids don't allow anyone to bully somebody else. That that bullying.
Speaker 1: You know, there's all these national anti bullying campaigns, and
Speaker 1: that's all fine and good. I think sometimes totally they're
Speaker 1: a little off as to how to prevent bullying. But
Speaker 1: bullying is very bad. But the real way to get
Speaker 1: it to stop is one, as you said, as a father,
Speaker 1: tell your kids, I better never hear about you bullying
Speaker 1: somebody else who's weaker than you, because I will ring
Speaker 1: down the fury. Uh and too if you see, if
Speaker 1: you see anyone else who is being bullied you, as
Speaker 1: an honorable young man, it is incumbent upon you to
Speaker 1: step in and stop that bullying. It is everything that
Speaker 1: the people praying on the week are the worst people
Speaker 1: in the world, and part of every man's duty is
Speaker 1: to stop that, put a stop to that. And you're right.
Speaker 1: My sons have been told several times you will never
Speaker 1: bully somebody, or you will not enjoy it, but you
Speaker 1: will stop a bully. And if you get in trouble
Speaker 1: in school or you get sent home, you get suspended
Speaker 1: for a couple of days. Guess what that's gonna be
Speaker 1: an enjoy a couple of enjoyable couple of days for you,
Speaker 1: because you're gonna be in no trouble in my household.
Speaker 1: A few months ago, my nine year old stop the
Speaker 1: bully in school was taken on another small kid. As
Speaker 1: you can imagine, I'm huge and my son is huge,
Speaker 1: and he put a stop to it. I've never been
Speaker 1: so proud of my dad on life, and that extends
Speaker 1: into adulthood too. That's not just the schoolyard camp campaign.
Speaker 1: The reason you see so much of this disgusting harassment
Speaker 1: in Hollywood is because there were Matt No meds to
Speaker 1: stand there, no man to step in and tell Harvey
Speaker 1: Weinstein to sit down or he's gonna get touched in
Speaker 1: his face. Because all the anti bullying programs in the
Speaker 1: world are fine, that's good, but there is still no
Speaker 1: substitute for balling up your fists and smashing it into
Speaker 1: somebody's nose. Jesse, what are the two or three most
Speaker 1: important things that you think that right now, every uh
Speaker 1: young man in America should hear from either father, older brother, guardian,
Speaker 1: whoever it is that is the the the prominent male
Speaker 1: figure in his life. What what are the two or
Speaker 1: three things you think everyone should be told now, given
Speaker 1: the direction of the culture, which is obviously not really
Speaker 1: handling this the way that it should. No whining life
Speaker 1: is unfair, and it is your duty to protect those
Speaker 1: who are weaker than you. All right, I like it.
Speaker 1: We can put that on a we just put that
Speaker 1: on a T shirt. Actually, Jesse Kelly was I'm with it,
Speaker 1: my friend, Jesse. Your piece and the Federalist is great.
Speaker 1: Everybody should check it out. It is all about how
Speaker 1: to raise a son who is quote prepared for war,
Speaker 1: not just in the military sense, but in the being
Speaker 1: a good person who defends other sense. Jesse, anywhere you
Speaker 1: want to direct the folks listening to find your stuff
Speaker 1: for more what you're up to. Come find everything I
Speaker 1: do on Twitter at Jesse Kelly d C. Every article
Speaker 1: I do, everything I talk about everybody'll hit. Everything I
Speaker 1: do is all on there at Jesse Kelly DC. And
Speaker 1: I also have a Facebook page Jesse Kelly. If you
Speaker 1: start it should pop right up. All right. Fantastic, Jesse.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, sir for your service, for your time,
Speaker 1: and for the drinks you're gonna buy me the next
Speaker 1: time you're New York City. I appreciate it. I got
Speaker 1: your brother. I'll be there all right, talk to you
Speaker 1: to Jesse. Thanks man. Alright, team, we are going to
Speaker 1: roll into a break here for the third hour of
Speaker 1: the Box Sexton Show, which is going to talk a
Speaker 1: bit about China and how they're stealing our technology. You
Speaker 1: want to hear it. He's back with you now because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. You are now entering the Tle Operations Center.
Speaker 1: A programs must be kept strictly need to know Team
Speaker 1: Bucket is cleared and ready for the buck Brief. How
Speaker 1: China pushes the limits on military technology transfer is the
Speaker 1: title of the article in the Wall Street Journal. It
Speaker 1: should be how China is stealing us blind when it
Speaker 1: comes to our most critical national security technology are most
Speaker 1: critical commercial proprietary technology, and how this is not only
Speaker 1: being done on a scale that would infuriate most Americans
Speaker 1: if they actually knew what the heck was going on,
Speaker 1: but it's largely being done out in the open. Let
Speaker 1: me explain. This was a piece by a memory of
Speaker 1: Congress Bob Pittinger where he's talking about some of these
Speaker 1: joint projects that are out there. I mentioned this to
Speaker 1: you last week, how uh broad Colm was not allowed
Speaker 1: to take over quaal Calm. These are very high tech
Speaker 1: chip manufacturers and telecommunication companies because President Trump was just like, Nope,
Speaker 1: not gonna happen. There are important national security implications for
Speaker 1: this technology. We can't let China be in control of
Speaker 1: one of our most important, one of our most important
Speaker 1: companies in that area. Technically, the company would have been
Speaker 1: owned in Singapore, would have been acquired by a Singapore
Speaker 1: based company, but Singapore has deep ties to China. The
Speaker 1: Chinese have a lot of influence to bring to bear
Speaker 1: in Singapore, and if they had slowed things down or
Speaker 1: Garne in another direction, that Chinese could indirectly get a
Speaker 1: major advantage in the race for five G telecommunication technology.
Speaker 1: This is important stuff, folks, and we think about it
Speaker 1: in the data day as well. This would mean you
Speaker 1: could download an entire high definition movie in a second
Speaker 1: instead of twenty minutes on your WiFi. Think about what
Speaker 1: that also means though, for the transfer of military technology
Speaker 1: and for just communication across the board. This is critical stuff,
Speaker 1: and yet this somehow he's into major story. We also
Speaker 1: don't hear much about what the Chinese are really up
Speaker 1: to in the open. Recently, we've gotten a better sense
Speaker 1: of what they're hacking. UH efforts have led to. We're
Speaker 1: getting we're starting to learn more from our own government
Speaker 1: about just how intrusive Chinese hacking efforts have been into
Speaker 1: our systems. But what about the things that are happening
Speaker 1: out in the open. This is from this Wall Street
Speaker 1: journal piece. I wanted to share some of it with
Speaker 1: you and then tell you that it's even worse than
Speaker 1: Congressman Pittinger is saying here. But here's how he starts
Speaker 1: the piece. Quote, for years, the Chinese government has evaded
Speaker 1: America's technology transfer safeguards and been allowed to vacuum up
Speaker 1: military applicable technologies from US companies. The Chinese have perfected
Speaker 1: the weaponization of investment as a legal means to achieve
Speaker 1: this massive transfer of dual use technology, bolstering China's military modernization.
Speaker 1: If the US loses its military technology advantage over China
Speaker 1: and other adversaries, it will one day cost American lives.
Speaker 1: And he cites specifically the effort by Broadcom, Singapore based
Speaker 1: company to take over Qualcom, which Trump shot down. But
Speaker 1: when you look at what has already happened, what is
Speaker 1: already going on here, you see that there are US
Speaker 1: companies that are lobbying against any restrictions on their very
Speaker 1: cozy relationships with Chinese based companies because they want access
Speaker 1: to the markets. This is about the bottom line for
Speaker 1: those companies. But in order to get access to the markets,
Speaker 1: guess what, the Chinese Communist Party, which runs the economy
Speaker 1: as well as the government, will insist on US companies
Speaker 1: sharing some very sensitive dual use technology. This has happened
Speaker 1: in many cases as cited in this piece in the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal. Here are just a few of them.
Speaker 1: Quote in general, Electric formed a joint venture with Aviation
Speaker 1: Industry Corporation of China, one of China's premier state owned
Speaker 1: enterprises and the primary supplier of aircraft for China's military.
Speaker 1: Sharing cutting edge avionics technology, a v i C now
Speaker 1: has an enhanced capability to produce high performance aircraft cockpit
Speaker 1: controls and displays, as well as communications and navigation systems
Speaker 1: which it can adapt for Chinese warplanes. So thanks to
Speaker 1: JEEZ venture in China, Chinese war fighters, specifically in this case,
Speaker 1: aviators might have an advantage in the future. This is
Speaker 1: very serious stuff, and I think part of the problem
Speaker 1: here is that the left and academia in this country
Speaker 1: do not want us to know. They do not want
Speaker 1: you to be familiar with the full extent of the
Speaker 1: Soviet penetration of sensitive US government agencies. They're basically was
Speaker 1: a Soviet agent in every single major US government agency
Speaker 1: at the start of the Cold War and all the
Speaker 1: way up to those with direct access to the President.
Speaker 1: The Soviet theft of nuclear technology because of the Rosenbergs
Speaker 1: is somewhat well known, but how many Americans know that
Speaker 1: the penetrations of US avionics technology, for example, led to
Speaker 1: us to miscalculate what kind of advantage we would have
Speaker 1: in the air. During the Korean War. We figured that
Speaker 1: our first generation of jets, never mind even on some
Speaker 1: of our propeller planes, would dominate the skies in our
Speaker 1: fight with North Korea. But guess what. The MiG fighters
Speaker 1: they came up against were flying circles around the stuff
Speaker 1: we put up in the air. Because the Soviets had
Speaker 1: stolen our best stuff and used it for their own purposes,
Speaker 1: they actually had an advantage. And therefore Soviet planes that
Speaker 1: we went up against in the Korean War had an advantage.
Speaker 1: This is how the great game of nation states and
Speaker 1: civilizations has played out for millennia, and we in this country,
Speaker 1: I think, are blithely unbothered by what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Let's time for all of us to wake up on
Speaker 1: this one. This is where the important I've got more
Speaker 1: for you from this Wall Street Journal piece quote in
Speaker 1: ten Ge formed a joint venture with another Chinese company
Speaker 1: handing over advanced battery technology that could have battlefield applications
Speaker 1: such as powering heavy ground vehicles. The same year, General
Speaker 1: Electric formed a partnership with Chinese government affiliated Huawei to
Speaker 1: develop cloud based industrial applications for the Internet of Things.
Speaker 1: This arrangement could result in long term cyber vulnerabilities for
Speaker 1: the US, in part because, like so many so called
Speaker 1: private companies in China, Huawei is beholden to the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party and is functionally an arm of the Chinese government.
Speaker 1: Just like I said. Likewise, IBM has systematically transferred high
Speaker 1: and computing technology to China. By according to a working
Speaker 1: group of experts in the National Security Agency and Energy Department,
Speaker 1: China had attained a near peer status with the US
Speaker 1: in high performance computing. Without a doubt, IBMS technology transfers
Speaker 1: have contributed to China's enhanced high performance computing capabilities. This
Speaker 1: will lead to a severe compromise of our national security
Speaker 1: as we have a loss of leadership and high performance
Speaker 1: computing end quote I mean, and there's even more in
Speaker 1: IBM formed a joint venture with a Chinese company in spur,
Speaker 1: handing over the capability to manufacture its own computer servers.
Speaker 1: That same year, IBM established a partnership with the state
Speaker 1: owned China Telecom, agreeing to hand over cloud computing technology. Folks,
Speaker 1: We have US based companies that are handing over the
Speaker 1: keys to the store, and yeah, they're doing it because
Speaker 1: they want access to the Chinese markets. They're just looking
Speaker 1: at their bottom line. But there are clear dual use
Speaker 1: applications here, and this is the kind of technology that
Speaker 1: if we actually go to war with China in the future,
Speaker 1: could be a major problem for us. Think about a
Speaker 1: world in which China actually has the technological advantage over
Speaker 1: us militarily. What if they have the best, the fastest,
Speaker 1: the smartest in planes, submarines, technology of all kinds that's
Speaker 1: applicable in the battlefield. That's what we are heading toward
Speaker 1: right now. If we don't get a handle on this,
Speaker 1: there's only so much our R and D can do
Speaker 1: to keep us ahead of China if China can keep
Speaker 1: stealing our research and development. And yet everyone's kind of
Speaker 1: asleep on this one for the most part. We all
Speaker 1: just want cheap flat screen televisions and all kinds of
Speaker 1: junks sent over in huge quantities for us to purchase
Speaker 1: at the cheapest possible price, and companies like General Electric
Speaker 1: and IBM are just happy to pad their bottom line.
Speaker 1: They don't see or don't care to see the national
Speaker 1: secure the implications of this. But when we faced off
Speaker 1: against our most recent near peer global competitor, the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: it was our technological advantage that was among the most
Speaker 1: important things We had to keep them in check. Eventually,
Speaker 1: our economy ran them into the ground, but they were
Speaker 1: much closer to us militarily than they should have been
Speaker 1: at numerous points in the Cold War. Because of all
Speaker 1: this stuff. The Soviets stole Chinese how the second biggest
Speaker 1: economy in the world, and it's growing very rapidly. They
Speaker 1: have embraced a market mentality for the purposes of wealth
Speaker 1: creation and production. It's just state controlled, but their economy
Speaker 1: is not going to creater and collapse into nothing. They
Speaker 1: are looking to supplant us as the most powerful nation
Speaker 1: on earth, and they're stealing some of our most valuable
Speaker 1: intellectual property in that pursuit. And not only that, we
Speaker 1: have US companies that are handing it over to them.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration needs to take action here. I'll follow
Speaker 1: up more on there's a bill making its way through
Speaker 1: Congress that will discuss In fact, I'll try to see
Speaker 1: if you get one of the co authors, maybe even
Speaker 1: the author of this piece in the Wall Street Journalill
Speaker 1: come on and talk. I've got more team, stay with me.
Speaker 1: It was only a matter of time before it was
Speaker 1: gonna happen, and now it has. The first person on
Speaker 1: record has been killed by a self driving or autonomous vehicle.
Speaker 1: This happened in Arizona, and it is the first time.
Speaker 1: It will not be the last time. But it does
Speaker 1: have some implications I think for where all this is heading,
Speaker 1: where all this self driving phenomenon is gonna go. Uh.
Speaker 1: And first of all, it's just it's tragic, you imagine.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was somebody behind the wheel of this
Speaker 1: uber self driving car in Arizona, but they put it
Speaker 1: on autopilot essentially, and it struck a woman in a crosswalk.
Speaker 1: Now here's what I've known all along about this. People
Speaker 1: say that there are roughly what, gosh, I don't even know,
Speaker 1: thirty thousand. I think auto fatality is a year something
Speaker 1: like that, something in that neighborhood. Maybe it's less now
Speaker 1: I think that might have been the all time high. Um.
Speaker 1: But the thing about those fatalities is that they are
Speaker 1: spread out among Oh wow, forty forty thousand people died
Speaker 1: in motorbile vehicle accidents. I thought it was thirty thousands.
Speaker 1: It's even more than I thought. But a vast majority
Speaker 1: people don't often talk about this vast majority of vehicular
Speaker 1: fatalities involve driver error, which is not surprising. Um In
Speaker 1: in many cases I should actually check and see what
Speaker 1: the stats are. I think it's just people that make
Speaker 1: a mistake, much more so than it is people who
Speaker 1: are impaired or who are doing anything illegal necessarily during
Speaker 1: you know, people forget to look one way and you
Speaker 1: know they go through the light or things like that
Speaker 1: are are obviously a large portion I don't know what
Speaker 1: the what the percentages are, but a large portion of
Speaker 1: auti fatalities. But anytime a person dies in a car crash.
Speaker 1: And it's one thing that here in New York City
Speaker 1: growing up was was different than it was in other
Speaker 1: places around the country. I remember when I got to college,
Speaker 1: I noticed how friends of mine, all of my friends,
Speaker 1: pretty much to a person, had at least one of
Speaker 1: their friends died in a car accident in high school.
Speaker 1: I mean a high school aged person that they knew
Speaker 1: had died in a car accident. At worst. Because I'm
Speaker 1: from New York City, none of us even were driving.
Speaker 1: Really maybe some of us. I drove senior year of
Speaker 1: high school, but that just wasn't a problem for for
Speaker 1: us to be worried about. We had we had other
Speaker 1: things to worry about. But anyway, the overwhelming number of
Speaker 1: cases of a driver of fatalities a driver air but
Speaker 1: in all those forty thousand or so deaths, the liability
Speaker 1: for it is spread around to the individuals involved in
Speaker 1: the crash, not the car company. Al Right, So if
Speaker 1: you're in a a Ford Fiesta and you crash into
Speaker 1: somebody who's in a Prius and there's a fatality in
Speaker 1: that other car, that's something that you and your insurance
Speaker 1: companies are dealing with, but it's not something that falls
Speaker 1: squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturer. I don't know
Speaker 1: how they're going to handle this from an insurance standpoint.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there probably are ways, which is why they're
Speaker 1: pursuing this. But if any time there's a autonomous vehicular
Speaker 1: accident that ends in a fatality, it ends up being
Speaker 1: the company's fault, the company can be sued. I don't
Speaker 1: see how you have a situation that doesn't essentially turn
Speaker 1: into the equivalent of one long running class action lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Uber or against whichever company wins this race for
Speaker 1: autonomous driving dominance. And I also know that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people that are gonna that are gonna
Speaker 1: push back against having all of the different vehicles out
Speaker 1: there that are machine driven, that are run by algorithms,
Speaker 1: that are run by artificial intelligence. People like to drive.
Speaker 1: Everyone in my family, all the males in my family,
Speaker 1: I should say, really like driving a lot. I do not.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with it, but I don't enjoy it. Like
Speaker 1: whenever someone says, hey, I'll drive you, I'm always like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds good, go ahead. You know. I'm not somebody
Speaker 1: who fights for the steering row. I just don't really care.
Speaker 1: I'm also someone who now has avoided I haven't rented
Speaker 1: a car in in years because I would just prefer
Speaker 1: to Uber wherever I am, I have no entry. I've
Speaker 1: had some of the most negative consumer experiences of my
Speaker 1: life have involved car companies. I hate the whole thing.
Speaker 1: I hate the hard sell for the bogus additional insurance,
Speaker 1: all the little extras they try to throw on. You know,
Speaker 1: here's your little garment GPS, and if you lose it,
Speaker 1: it's like a thousand dollars or some I mean the
Speaker 1: whole thing, right, I hate all that stuff. So I'm
Speaker 1: a big Uber proponent. I just don't know how Google Uber.
Speaker 1: This is a massive technology race that's going on right now.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they deal with the issue of
Speaker 1: the liability of if you are relying on computers to
Speaker 1: do this, you know, if you're relying on computers to
Speaker 1: be driving vehicles, unless you can dramatically drop down the number,
Speaker 1: which is part of the argument. I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of interesting philosophical components here, but unless you dramatically
Speaker 1: drive down the number of overall fatalities, it seems to
Speaker 1: me that you have a big problem of how do
Speaker 1: we pay for all of the liability that we have
Speaker 1: as a result of this? You know, computers are gonna fail,
Speaker 1: and then there's just another And this is not a
Speaker 1: technology based argument, um, And we're gonna be switching here
Speaker 1: into a discussion of a movie that I saw over
Speaker 1: the weekend in a few minutes, The Shape of Water.
Speaker 1: It was terrible, but I'll give you more than that.
Speaker 1: But uh, I get a little nervous even with things
Speaker 1: like elevators. Having been stuck in my fair share of elevators,
Speaker 1: and I just hate that sense of loss of control.
Speaker 1: Even if someone shows me the statistics about driving a
Speaker 1: car or someone else driving me in a car, that
Speaker 1: it's much less safe than what the autonomous vehicles will
Speaker 1: be able to to accomplish in in a few short years.
Speaker 1: I think there's a part of all of us, that
Speaker 1: there's a part of us as human beings that just
Speaker 1: want to be able to have some say, some control
Speaker 1: over are well, whether we live or die in this case.
Speaker 1: And even if the technology is better, it's gonna take
Speaker 1: a while for us to switch about anyways. Autonomous vehicle
Speaker 1: as a subject. We'll get into more going forward, but
Speaker 1: first fatality and uh, it's gonna slow this whole process
Speaker 1: down a bit, and very sad. We're gonna run to
Speaker 1: a quick break team. We'll be right back. He's back
Speaker 1: with you now, because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the fuck never stops. This may very well
Speaker 1: be the most sensitive asset ever to be housed in
Speaker 1: this facility. You may think that thing looks human, stands
Speaker 1: on two legs, right, but we're created in the Lord.
Speaker 1: J You don't think that's what the Lord looks like.
Speaker 1: This creature is intelligent, capable of language, of understanding emotions.
Speaker 1: When he looks at me, he doesn't know how I
Speaker 1: am incomplete he sees me. I. That was from the
Speaker 1: trailer for the Shape of Water, which won the Oscar
Speaker 1: for Best Picture. I felt like I was obligated on
Speaker 1: Friday to watch this movie. Plus MS Molly wanted to
Speaker 1: check it out, and I said, okay, fine, And I
Speaker 1: remember thinking to myself, how bad could it really be?
Speaker 1: It won the best Picture for the entire year. Oh boy,
Speaker 1: I was wrong. It was even worse than I expected.
Speaker 1: The Shape of Water is about a woman who has
Speaker 1: a sexual relationship with an aquarium pet. I'm not even
Speaker 1: going to get too far into a criticism of the
Speaker 1: movie being kind of slow, the dialogue being lackluster, and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it, the whole thing being trite.
Speaker 1: I'm actually more annoyed about the messaging in this film
Speaker 1: and also the completely predictable lens that it looks at
Speaker 1: this situation that has created this this fantasy. But on
Speaker 1: the the biggest charge what I just said that this
Speaker 1: is about a woman who has a romantic relationship, has
Speaker 1: a love affair with an aquarium pet. For those who
Speaker 1: would say, oh, Buck, that's not fair. I say, at
Speaker 1: what point does it become clear? In this movie, which
Speaker 1: is about essentially the creature from the Blue Lagoon or whatever,
Speaker 1: or the Deep Lagoon, whatever, that monster creature is gets
Speaker 1: captured by some government scientists and then the experiment on it.
Speaker 1: And this woman is cleaning up the room where they
Speaker 1: keep the monster, not exactly the tightest secure early in
Speaker 1: the world, and then she decides that she really likes
Speaker 1: the sea monster, and they start getting kind of playful.
Speaker 1: Then she brings it home, plops it in her bathtub,
Speaker 1: and proceeds to get amorous. I will say, and by
Speaker 1: the way, you see a good bit of that in
Speaker 1: this movie that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Now,
Speaker 1: I've seen a couple of different methods of trying to
Speaker 1: explain this away. I think it is bizarro on many levels,
Speaker 1: and and I think it is quite weird. Um, I'm
Speaker 1: not okay with the whole thing. But people say, Buck,
Speaker 1: look at other fairy tales, even the great fairy tales
Speaker 1: we were told as children, right, the princess who kisses
Speaker 1: the frog. Yeah, but the frog turns into a human being.
Speaker 1: That's the whole point. It's actually supposed to be a human.
Speaker 1: People say, oh buck, what about Beauty and the beast.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like she's with some kind of a
Speaker 1: large wolf like creature. It's actually human who has a
Speaker 1: spell on him. All right, that's different. This sea monster
Speaker 1: that the woman in the shape the shape of water
Speaker 1: falls in love with, at no point becomes a human being,
Speaker 1: is actually a human being, is even partially a human being.
Speaker 1: It's a fish from what we can tell. And then
Speaker 1: I know the response would be well backed. But it
Speaker 1: does sign language and it understands her, the protagonist, so well.
Speaker 1: And to that, I would say, chimpanzees can do sign language,
Speaker 1: in fact, can do it quite well. And yes, dogs
Speaker 1: can understand emotion quite well. And while you know, I'm
Speaker 1: quite fond of dogs, they are not human beings. And
Speaker 1: I think that the messaging in this movie is lame
Speaker 1: as well as a bit creepy. Never mind the fact
Speaker 1: that who who's the bad guy? Oh, of course a
Speaker 1: they might as well have had him. He's this white,
Speaker 1: square jawed government guy. He might as well have had
Speaker 1: a big maga hat on. For the entirety of the movie,
Speaker 1: even though it takes place, I guess in the late fifties.
Speaker 1: But he's all about you know, the government and God
Speaker 1: and America at and he's the worst. He is an unfeeling, sadistic,
Speaker 1: terrible piece of trash. And everyone else in the movie
Speaker 1: that you might identify as being somewhat of a liberal,
Speaker 1: even the communist traitor, the guy who's a double agent
Speaker 1: for the Soviets, right, he betrays his American colleagues. He's
Speaker 1: pretending to be someone he's not. Even he has some
Speaker 1: salvation the movie because well, I don't want to give
Speaker 1: it all away in case you want to watch it,
Speaker 1: but every one has redeeming characteristics and qualities except for
Speaker 1: the white male Christian government you know FBI guy. Basically,
Speaker 1: this is what I always have to laugh about. The
Speaker 1: media hates white males and the FBI by and large,
Speaker 1: you know, they really are against them for a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of reasons, except for any white males of the
Speaker 1: FBI that are useful in bashing Trump or or who
Speaker 1: are trying to take the Trump presidency down. But but
Speaker 1: the Shape of Water is just it was a really
Speaker 1: bad movie. I mean, they should rename it the Shape
Speaker 1: of Goose Turd, because that's what it was that at one.
Speaker 1: Best picture is just more evidence of what I've been
Speaker 1: saying for some time, which is that the movie industry
Speaker 1: is in a really weak spot these days. TV is
Speaker 1: doing well overall, and I think it's going to continue
Speaker 1: on this path. But the Shape of Water, it's just hollow.
Speaker 1: The whole thing. It is unredeeming in in every way. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I just couldn't believe it that that this is
Speaker 1: what This is not just a movie that I'm trashing, folks.
Speaker 1: This is supposed to be the collective wisdom of Hollywood
Speaker 1: is what is the best movie of Like I said,
Speaker 1: Big Goose, Turt, We'll be right back. I like to
Speaker 1: think of myself as an innovator. Team there are times
Speaker 1: when I have to stop and give myself a little
Speaker 1: bit of credit for being a trendsetter or perhaps a
Speaker 1: pioneer of style, at least when it comes to food
Speaker 1: and eating of meat. So I realized this because I
Speaker 1: made a ribby for Ms. Molly and I on Friday,
Speaker 1: and I will tell you that it was seared perfectly
Speaker 1: and it was amazing. The dollar cast iron pan that
Speaker 1: I got myself was one of the better investments I
Speaker 1: can remember making in recent years. But the next day,
Speaker 1: I thought to myself, you know, what is one to
Speaker 1: do with leftover ribby? Oh, that's right, I'm going to
Speaker 1: make steak and eggs. That was also amazing, by the way,
Speaker 1: But then I thought to myself, what am I going
Speaker 1: to do with some of that delicious thick cut bacon
Speaker 1: that I have in my fridge that I specifically got
Speaker 1: so that I could cook it to absolute perfection on
Speaker 1: Saturday and have a hashtag Buck brunch. Why is it
Speaker 1: just steaking eggs, my friends, when it could be steak
Speaker 1: and eggs and bacon. Ah. Indeed, so I went with
Speaker 1: all three the trifecta steak, eggs, and bacon for brunch
Speaker 1: on Saturday. And this is what everyone should do going forward.
Speaker 1: There's no need to cut out the bacon just because
Speaker 1: you're having the steak. Maybe just limit yourself to a
Speaker 1: pounder sew. And with that, I would like to get
Speaker 1: into some roll call. Team Buck. It's time for roll call,
Speaker 1: and remember, if you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: roll call, you can send us a message on Facebook
Speaker 1: at facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton or official Team
Speaker 1: Buck at gmail dot com. If you'd like to send
Speaker 1: an email We are also thinking about setting up a
Speaker 1: special voicemail that we would be able to have recording
Speaker 1: when we're not on air, and then those of you
Speaker 1: who have a voice message you'd like to leave so
Speaker 1: that the rest of the team can hear it, we
Speaker 1: could do that. So if you couldn't listen live, for example,
Speaker 1: if you happen to be one of our wonderful podcast listeners,
Speaker 1: well then we very much could put your audio on
Speaker 1: air when we do our next live show. First up
Speaker 1: on roll Call is Roger. He writes, Buck just heard
Speaker 1: the podcast uh from the Friday show about Bob Dylan
Speaker 1: and gurgling with Gergen. It made me laugh out loud.
Speaker 1: No easy task, shields Hie. Thank you very much. Roger
Speaker 1: with Gergan and Bob Dylan also make me laugh. Monica
Speaker 1: next up here, she writes, Uh, this is the husband
Speaker 1: of Monica and I ate these in Belfast. You asked
Speaker 1: was their Irish ethnic food? Here it is Shepherd's pie. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's I'll take it. Not exactly something that's gonna get
Speaker 1: me too excited in the world of culinary excellence, but
Speaker 1: Shepherd's pie is indeed. Is it Irish thrower? Is it English? Oh?
Speaker 1: I don't want to get the middle of that one.
Speaker 1: Let's get to Erica, and she writes, I really listened
Speaker 1: to Thursday's program to get the name of the Progressive
Speaker 1: Hostility study. Since none of my Google searches found it,
Speaker 1: I tried again to conduct the exact title and nothing.
Speaker 1: Tried Duck duck go, and voila, there was the study. Well, Erica,
Speaker 1: I don't know about this duck duck go, but maybe
Speaker 1: it's better for some thing than Google. I'll have to
Speaker 1: check it out. But the piece that I mentioned was
Speaker 1: on quillette dot com and it was or I went
Speaker 1: into some depth about it and just mentioned it, and
Speaker 1: it was the Psychology of Progressive Hostility. Next up here,
Speaker 1: Joey Annette, wow Buck, you're right, Sessions did fire me, Cabe.
Speaker 1: Jeff is a little late to the party, but he
Speaker 1: finally showed up with a haymaker. Now he'll just un
Speaker 1: recuse himself and fire Muller and stop this stupid waste
Speaker 1: of taxpayer money masquerading as an investigation. Shields high and
Speaker 1: keep up the good work. Well, Joey in Annette, I
Speaker 1: will say that I not only called the firing on radio,
Speaker 1: I also went out there on Outnumbered on Fox News
Speaker 1: on Friday and said, Hey, guess what, there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a firing of McCabe And uh, I was correct, So
Speaker 1: thank you for noting that I was in fact correct.
Speaker 1: Next up here, hold on one second, is Philip, and
Speaker 1: he writes, Hey, man, I'm sure you've probably been told already,
Speaker 1: but producer Mike was incorrect about the population of Russia. Yes, Philip, Uh,
Speaker 1: I was in fact basically correct. I said a hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty million. The population of Russia's actually a hundred
Speaker 1: and forty million. Producer Mike on Friday told me it
Speaker 1: was seventy million based on a quick Google search. Do
Speaker 1: not worry. We will shortly assign him a code read Dick.
Speaker 1: Once again, this goes to my theory that even when
Speaker 1: I think I might be wrong, I'm usually right. Uh
Speaker 1: let's see, Dale, He writes, really enjoyed your sidebar the
Speaker 1: other evening about missed a game series near and dear
Speaker 1: to my heart, So Buck, which brother did you pick
Speaker 1: at the end of the original game, Dale, I cannot
Speaker 1: tell a lie. I didn't get that far and missed
Speaker 1: because I was really young when I was playing it,
Speaker 1: and some of those puzzles may have stumped me, but
Speaker 1: miss was. I remember going into computer stores in the
Speaker 1: early days of home PCs, or it is of PCs
Speaker 1: home PC would be repetitive, and there were missed. There
Speaker 1: were copies of missed everywhere. I also remember really not
Speaker 1: liking Mac computer uters for a while because all of
Speaker 1: the video games were for PC windows, and if you
Speaker 1: wanted good games, Mac was not the choice for you.
Speaker 1: And then later on people pretty much stopped using their
Speaker 1: computers for games. I feel like, in general at all
Speaker 1: went to PlayStations and these other consoles with the big
Speaker 1: flat screen TVs. But I did not get very far
Speaker 1: in missed. I must be honest with you. Now, we've
Speaker 1: got Pablo who writes listening to your show recently, and
Speaker 1: you were talking about visiting Vietnam. We're heading there a
Speaker 1: week from Monday and are super pumped. We're doing Hannoy
Speaker 1: for a few days in a Cinnamon Cathedral UH hotel
Speaker 1: and then onto how Long Bay for a few nights.
Speaker 1: We're disappointed to miss h some of the stuff, but
Speaker 1: pumping nonetheless. A Pablo, I think you're gonna have a
Speaker 1: great time. I love the food. I think it's I
Speaker 1: just think it's a really interesting place and very very
Speaker 1: different from other cultures and other countries around the world.
Speaker 1: But have a great time and let us know what
Speaker 1: you think. And for those of you who asked what
Speaker 1: cuisine I'd recommend to start with, I mentioned Foe, which
Speaker 1: is the most famous, which you usually spelled p h o,
Speaker 1: which is sliced beef in a kind of soup slash
Speaker 1: noodle stew. But the other thing that I really love
Speaker 1: is a rice pancake called a band saw, So if
Speaker 1: you can get that, I would say that's a very
Speaker 1: good place to start. And Boon Cha, which is a
Speaker 1: noodle dish, is also really excellent. By the way, one
Speaker 1: of the reasons I like this food so much, Vietnamese
Speaker 1: food is that it doesn't use that much soy sauce,
Speaker 1: so as a ciliac, I can eat most things on
Speaker 1: the menu. It uses mostly rice instead of flower noodles,
Speaker 1: so that's just for full disclosure. It's one of the
Speaker 1: only cuisines that is a an ethnic cuisine that is
Speaker 1: really easy for people who are gluten intolerant to enjoy.
Speaker 1: William is up next to here, He writes, quit crying
Speaker 1: about being old. I started Tae Kwondo at forty four,
Speaker 1: after twenty years of army service and over a thousand
Speaker 1: days in Iraq, and five kids. The five kids are
Speaker 1: much more challenging than convoy security. William, You're right, man,
Speaker 1: I uh, I shouldn't be given any I shouldn't be
Speaker 1: complained at all. I don't know how all you folks
Speaker 1: out there who are parents, I don't know how you
Speaker 1: do it. Uh. Kimberly is next up here, she writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: I love your show, O S S Team Buck, North Carolina. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, Kimberly, I appreciate it. Next one
Speaker 1: here in roll Call is Christie. She writes, I think
Speaker 1: there's at least one movie in which Colin Farrell does
Speaker 1: not suck. He plays a hit man alongside a fellow
Speaker 1: brilliant actor in uh In in Bruges. Interesting film and
Speaker 1: beautiful scenery. I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
Speaker 1: Happy St. Patrick's Day, and yeah us you're allowed to say,
Speaker 1: y'all we don't mind, Christie, O S S. Member, Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Christie. Hope y'all have a great
Speaker 1: Saint Patrick's two down in Uh? Where were you? OSS member?
Speaker 1: From where? I'm not clear she was from the South,
Speaker 1: between which we know Christie. I haven't seen in Bruges,
Speaker 1: but I have heard good things, so maybe I'll add
Speaker 1: that to my now very rapidly expanding list of shows
Speaker 1: that I must check out. So um, with that team,
Speaker 1: I am going to close up shop here in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt for the day. Thank you always for being
Speaker 1: with me. Please uh spread the word about what we
Speaker 1: do here and see you tomorrow shield Hie