Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Jesse Smollett hoax
Speaker 1: has collapsed. He was arrested and arraigned today in court.
Speaker 1: Why did the media get this one so wrong? And
Speaker 1: what does it tell us about hate crimes that there
Speaker 1: are now those who are saying Smollett might just get
Speaker 1: off with probation at thatt Amore Coming up on the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission where mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America. You're a great
Speaker 1: American again. The buck Sexton Show begins, analysts, he's a
Speaker 1: great guy. Now they are looking for two suspect who
Speaker 1: are apparently wearing make America Great Again hats. We don't
Speaker 1: know what happened to Jesse, but what we do know
Speaker 1: is that racism is alive and well in this country.
Speaker 1: There is real evidence of people who have done these
Speaker 1: crimes who cite that the President has inspired. Then Senator
Speaker 1: Corey Booker said, the vicious attack when actor Jesse was
Speaker 1: an attempt at modern day lynching a Hollywood star who's
Speaker 1: black and gay and now the victim of a heinish crime,
Speaker 1: not of that attack at a star of a TV show, Empire.
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett from the hit show Empire was attacked and
Speaker 1: beaten early this morning in Chicago, and police say it
Speaker 1: could be a hate crime. I'm so shaken by the story.
Speaker 1: I know he walked himself to the hospital. Do we
Speaker 1: know how he is now? Connect the dots. This is
Speaker 1: what happens if you are in a position of power
Speaker 1: and you hate people, and this is America. In twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: he opened up about what he's learned and the bigger
Speaker 1: message he wants the world to hear. How can you
Speaker 1: doubt that? How do you not believe that it's the truth.
Speaker 1: And then it became a thing of like, oh, it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily that you don't believe that this is the truth.
Speaker 1: You don't even want to see the truth. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Sorry, we had to start out
Speaker 1: there with just lies and falsehoods and more lies and more,
Speaker 1: all of it false, all of that stuff that we
Speaker 1: were being told there by the media, some of the
Speaker 1: biggest platforms in the country, some of the most self
Speaker 1: loving journals around, big big fans of spreading this hoax
Speaker 1: around there. That's what they did. Man, it is interesting
Speaker 1: to be right here, I am. Let's just do a
Speaker 1: quick count of where we are team versus where the
Speaker 1: mainstream media is Cavanaugh, Covington, Smallett. Can they point to
Speaker 1: any conservative hoaxes in the last year. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to where's the big conservative hoax? Or we were on
Speaker 1: this show. I was like, well this happened, and no,
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. My bad ah was never never brought up.
Speaker 1: Didn't happen? Did it? Yet? Here we are, there's so
Speaker 1: much going on here. Oh, we're gonna have some fun
Speaker 1: on this story. So smallt was. Smallett was arrested taking
Speaker 1: down a court Today, he's out on a hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars bail. And you had a member of the Chicago PD,
Speaker 1: I believe it was Police chief came Eddie Johnson came
Speaker 1: out today and he lets Smollett have it play eleven
Speaker 1: attempted to gain attention by sending a false letter that
Speaker 1: relied on racial, homophobic, and political language. When that didn't work,
Speaker 1: it's let pay thirty five hundred dollars to stage this
Speaker 1: attack and drag Chicago's reputation through the mud in the process.
Speaker 1: And why this stunt was orchestrated by Smolette because he
Speaker 1: was dissatisfied with his salary, so he concocted a story
Speaker 1: about being attacked to put the national spotlight on Chicago
Speaker 1: for something that is both egregious and untrue. Is simply shameful.
Speaker 1: I'm also concerned about what this means moving forward to
Speaker 1: hate crimes. Of my concern is that hate crimes will
Speaker 1: now publicly be met with a level of skepticism that
Speaker 1: previously didn't happen. Now, let's just look at some of
Speaker 1: the details before we go too far to the analysis here.
Speaker 1: Let's do some of the details. Smolett. I guess that
Speaker 1: is how we say his name, I've been Smolett Smolet.
Speaker 1: Perhaps if we wouldn't get kind of a French vibe
Speaker 1: there messieurs Smolet. But no, it's it's Smolette. He has
Speaker 1: engaged in, according to police, now two to hate crime hoaxes.
Speaker 1: One was sending a letter to himself with threatening, threatening
Speaker 1: stuff and racial slurs, and then this even bigger hoax
Speaker 1: involving a three thousand dollars plus payment to two brothers
Speaker 1: who were helping him to stage in attack. Some details
Speaker 1: that I think you should know about, though. One is
Speaker 1: that Smolette paid the brothers with a check. That's right,
Speaker 1: the thirty five hundred dollars was paid via check. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not some arch criminal, Okay, I'm not somebody that
Speaker 1: you know. I don't even like getting a speeding ticket.
Speaker 1: I stay inside the law. But I'm telling you this much.
Speaker 1: If I were trying to engage in some illegal activity
Speaker 1: of this kind to stage some kind of an elaborate hoax,
Speaker 1: I think I'd pay cash. I just think that's a
Speaker 1: better move than to leave an obvious financial she'll trail
Speaker 1: to your co conspirators. I'm just putting that out there.
Speaker 1: Probably a good move. Also, since since we're gonna break down,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, this is the dumbest hate crime hoax that
Speaker 1: I that I've heard of or seen in years. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's some very dumb ones out there, but this one is. Wow.
Speaker 1: Smolette is not exactly an evil genius. So he paid
Speaker 1: these kys via check. I wonder how he's gonna explain
Speaker 1: that one to the cops I saw today, As lawyers say,
Speaker 1: he's looking forward to clearing his name. Yeah, how are
Speaker 1: you gonna do that? Exactly? But the two guys that
Speaker 1: he the two brothers that he paid to help him
Speaker 1: in this attack, which is also I would note, an enormous,
Speaker 1: an enormous mistake. The osund Row brothers, Olah and Abel,
Speaker 1: they went into a hardware store and bought masks, red hats,
Speaker 1: and rope for the quote noose and they did this
Speaker 1: on video. I've also heard that they had the magazines
Speaker 1: that they used to cut the letters out of to
Speaker 1: create there. But I'm sure there's DNA in it, by
Speaker 1: the way, I mean, if they're showing up on video
Speaker 1: buying this stuff, they probably paid with credit card too.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just these guys. This is the most bumbling,
Speaker 1: buffoonish hoax hate crime imaginable. And yet look how long
Speaker 1: it took for the media to finally turn this around.
Speaker 1: Look how long before they were willing to say, you
Speaker 1: know what, maybe we made some kind of a mistake here,
Speaker 1: maybe there's maybe there's an issue. And now they're saying,
Speaker 1: well that the Democrats who were initially jumping in are saying, ah,
Speaker 1: we might have made we might have made a little
Speaker 1: mistake here. We might have Kamala Harris Kirston Jilla Brand,
Speaker 1: who I really enjoyed Tucker's monologue last not on his show,
Speaker 1: on Kirston Jill brand Worth going back and seeing if
Speaker 1: you haven't worre Mache's just a nasty phony, just an
Speaker 1: out and out phony. But Democrats don't mind that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. But Jilla brand and Harris and Booker, they've
Speaker 1: all come out and sure enough after saying that this
Speaker 1: was terrible and oh it's Trump's fault and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: now I'm like, yeah, you know, maybe you know, maybe
Speaker 1: we should have waited a little bit, Maybe we should
Speaker 1: wait for the facts. Now, Oh, wait for the facts now. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: that's interesting. Let's give you some more facts. Since they
Speaker 1: want to wait for facts, here's the police chief, Eddie Johnson,
Speaker 1: talking about more of the stuff that they have. Play eleven. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Play ten. This case, in particular involved hours
Speaker 1: of video evidence, which, when combined with old fashioned police work,
Speaker 1: uncovered the truth. These detectives deserve all the credit in
Speaker 1: the world for carefully analyzing the leads and the evidence
Speaker 1: for weeks before coming to their conclusion. I'd also like
Speaker 1: to thank the FBI for their helping this investigation. I
Speaker 1: only hope that the truth about what happened receives the
Speaker 1: same amount of attention that the Hopes did. I'll continue
Speaker 1: to pray for its troubled young man who resorted to
Speaker 1: both drastic and illegal tactics to gain attention. We know
Speaker 1: that it won't receive the same amount of attention though.
Speaker 1: We know that the multi billion dollars news media apparatus
Speaker 1: in this country is going to find a way to quickly,
Speaker 1: as quickly as possible, move right past this story because
Speaker 1: their audience doesn't want to hear about this. Their audience
Speaker 1: want to be told, hey, crimes are rising, Hey crimes
Speaker 1: are rising, And I say, wow, where on what time frame?
Speaker 1: What kind of crimes attributable to whom? When you actually
Speaker 1: look at the numbers, what you find out, by the way,
Speaker 1: is that the single single group that suffers religious group
Speaker 1: that suffers the greatest amount of hate crimes, for example,
Speaker 1: is anti submiticate crimes. But the left is not that
Speaker 1: they don't turn those into national news stories. Generally, this
Speaker 1: is a national news story, a black gay actor attacked
Speaker 1: by Trump's supporters. It couldn't have been more perfect. It's
Speaker 1: it's like this was concocted, this whole story by a
Speaker 1: couple of you know, undergrad film majors covered with hashtag
Speaker 1: resistance tattoos in some you know coffee shop in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: I mean, this should not have ever even nobody should
Speaker 1: have ever thought that this was a good plan and
Speaker 1: this made any sense, and that Jesse Smollett, who or
Speaker 1: Smolette who is an actor, couldn't have come up with
Speaker 1: a more convincing story. I don't know, I haven't seen
Speaker 1: him in the show Empire, but you can't be a
Speaker 1: very good actor. I'm just guessing the cops thought that
Speaker 1: this might have been a hoax from the beginning. They
Speaker 1: tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. Play
Speaker 1: thirteen here, John Well, to be perfectly honest, from the
Speaker 1: very beginning, we had some questions about it, but as
Speaker 1: I said, we gave mister Smolett the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt all the way up until that forty seventh hour
Speaker 1: of the forty eight hours, we could hold those two
Speaker 1: individuals because we just didn't have the total package to
Speaker 1: support that it was a hoax. So when you heard
Speaker 1: me coming out saying we are treating him like a victim,
Speaker 1: that was the truth, because at that time that's what
Speaker 1: he was speaking of. Victims. You know who Smilette victimized here,
Speaker 1: not just the millions of Trump supporters across the country
Speaker 1: who knew that their reputations collectively were being tarnished. You
Speaker 1: know that this was always meant to be a judgment
Speaker 1: on all of us, those who vote for Trump, who
Speaker 1: support Trump, who believe in his promise to make America
Speaker 1: great again. We were the bad guys. That's what was
Speaker 1: at the heart of this. But the people that really
Speaker 1: suffered are the people of Chicago, with the over a
Speaker 1: dozen law enforcement officers who were assigned to this. When
Speaker 1: you have a city that has a terrible violence problem
Speaker 1: and a very high unsolved murder rate to bring those
Speaker 1: kinds of police resources, I've seen estimates that this might
Speaker 1: have even cost in terms of police man hours, hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent
Speaker 1: so that this clown Smolette could turn himself into some
Speaker 1: kind of cause celeb turn himself into not just a celebrity,
Speaker 1: but that rarefied and oh so desirable on the left,
Speaker 1: victimized celebrity, special category, social justice approved celebrity. Oh what
Speaker 1: could be more wonderful than that? But he was upset.
Speaker 1: He was upset with his salary on the show and
Speaker 1: thought if he got more attention, he would make more money.
Speaker 1: So Smolette is a narcissist, an idiot, and a bratt
Speaker 1: Think of how many people rushed to his aid to
Speaker 1: believe him, to run interference for him. Think of how
Speaker 1: this became a national news story. None of the kids
Speaker 1: who have been shot in chicag I go in the
Speaker 1: last thirty or sixty days, none of them have turned
Speaker 1: into national news stories. Lives lost, family shattered. That that
Speaker 1: doesn't get the media's attention. This a guy who I
Speaker 1: also read today, created his own wound. I mean that
Speaker 1: little scratch on his face. If two guys poured bleach
Speaker 1: on you and put a noose around your neck and
Speaker 1: manage to do that, and we're trying to hurt you,
Speaker 1: I think you'd have more than a tiny little scratch
Speaker 1: on your cheek. I mean it looked like he cut
Speaker 1: himself shaving. Whose terrible attack. You know it was all
Speaker 1: a lie. It was all a lie. And I know
Speaker 1: that there are other things in the country we should
Speaker 1: focus on, and we will shortly, But today is when
Speaker 1: the whole thing finally came crashing down. So you'll have
Speaker 1: to excuse me if I have a moment here to
Speaker 1: just say, isn't it good to be right? Team? You
Speaker 1: listen to this show. I don't have a I don't
Speaker 1: have a hundred reporters. I don't have some huge newsroom
Speaker 1: at my beck and call and everything else. I just
Speaker 1: read and think and analyze and bring all of the
Speaker 1: knowledge and all the assistance that I can from all
Speaker 1: of you who listen into that process. And somehow we know.
Speaker 1: We knew this was garbage. That's why we kept doing
Speaker 1: the Jessie Small and updates as we went along. Year up,
Speaker 1: it looks pretty bad. So we were right and they
Speaker 1: were wrong. The fake news can't figure it out, but
Speaker 1: we can. We should do a little victory dance, and
Speaker 1: you know what today is victory dance Day. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Can we be honest? But to certain groups
Speaker 1: of people, even if they were skeptical there, like they said,
Speaker 1: I hope this is not true. Black folks, gay folks,
Speaker 1: people are like, oh my god, I hope you know why.
Speaker 1: And you know why black folks, gay folks say that
Speaker 1: because they are real victims of well, because there are
Speaker 1: real victims of homophobia and of racism, but also because
Speaker 1: unfortunately we tend to all be painted with the same
Speaker 1: brush when one person and does wrong. And that's why
Speaker 1: we always say that when something goes wrong, is we
Speaker 1: hope the person is not black, We hope the person
Speaker 1: is not gay. Yeah, I don't agree with a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are out there saying that this, this
Speaker 1: hurts the victims of real hate crimes, because real hate
Speaker 1: crimes are crimes, right, great, No one, no one hears
Speaker 1: a story about you know, some some bad person somewhere
Speaker 1: who are you know, No one hears a story about
Speaker 1: some bad person who attacks you know, a woman because
Speaker 1: she's you know, wearing a her job or because you know,
Speaker 1: and says, well, that can't be true. And if it
Speaker 1: is true, everyone wants the person punished. But those are
Speaker 1: those are real. And look, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: hoaxes out there too that involve things like that. But
Speaker 1: you know, though those are real things. I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't agree with this, This completely implausible story that Jesse Smollett,
Speaker 1: you know, fool the media into into believing somehow now
Speaker 1: undermines everybody. No, you know, if someone says something terrible
Speaker 1: and racist and punches somebody in the face outside of
Speaker 1: a restaurant somewhere. My first reaction is I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's terrible. You know, I wonder did the police get them?
Speaker 1: What happened? When someone says that, you know they had
Speaker 1: two Maga hot wearing noose carrying you know, this is
Speaker 1: Maga Country yelling guys in Chicago at two o'clock in
Speaker 1: the morning. You know, No, it just wasn't incredible. It
Speaker 1: was incredible. Don Lemons also he said that he's been texting,
Speaker 1: you know, he's over at CNN. I used to dude,
Speaker 1: Don show a fair amountain then I wised up. It's
Speaker 1: texting frequently with Smolette. Doesn't that impact the coverage? I
Speaker 1: mean I always say if someone's a friend, not because
Speaker 1: I'm like the person's my friend, but because I want
Speaker 1: you to know that if there's someone I have to
Speaker 1: talk about here on the show that I have any
Speaker 1: kind of personal relationship with, I think you should at
Speaker 1: least know that. And as you know, I also don't
Speaker 1: trash my friends. I have a rule. I don't trash
Speaker 1: friends on air, but or even particularly harshly criticize them.
Speaker 1: That said, why is it okay for Don Lemon to
Speaker 1: have a personal relationship with this guy and do stories
Speaker 1: on him night after night on the show. I'm just wondering, well,
Speaker 1: where are the journal is John? Is Don Lemon a journalist?
Speaker 1: Is any mean Don Lemon? Is he a journalist? Does
Speaker 1: CNN have a Can they give us an official ruling
Speaker 1: on that? I mean, he's obviously not, but I just
Speaker 1: want to know if CNN is delusional enough to think
Speaker 1: that he is. Eight four four nine hundred two eight
Speaker 1: two five. Let's open up those lines, team, tell much
Speaker 1: to think about this small Lett situation. Eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred two eight two five eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred buck light him up. I know, Jesse, I love him.
Speaker 1: We have to understand this is happening for a reason.
Speaker 1: Why all of a sudden do we have people unable
Speaker 1: to study well, black, unable to mo alan while black,
Speaker 1: unable to have a picnic while black, and being attacked.
Speaker 1: It's coming from the President of the United States, Dog Whistlin.
Speaker 1: Every day he's separating and dividing, and he is basically
Speaker 1: embolding those folks. This is the problem with the approach
Speaker 1: that the Democrat politicians and the media take to these
Speaker 1: situations where they just say, well, we're gonna go all
Speaker 1: in on what we want it to be, what we
Speaker 1: want to be true, and then if we're proven to
Speaker 1: be completely and utterly wrong, which they have been, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe we'll walk it back a little bit, or we'll
Speaker 1: just move on to something else. And the media will say, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe we got that wrong, but you know, no big deal.
Speaker 1: The problem is that there is lasting damage that is
Speaker 1: created from the propagation of the lie. There you had
Speaker 1: Maxiine Waters, very well known member of Congress. I believe
Speaker 1: she's on the now. She might be running the finance
Speaker 1: I ever forget, not not the oversight Committe, it's some
Speaker 1: kind of financial committee. I forget what a producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: we let me know what it is. She's a She's
Speaker 1: on a pretty important committee in Congress now because the
Speaker 1: Democrats obviously control the House. But she just went through
Speaker 1: this whole thing of essentially telling any any person listening,
Speaker 1: and I think it would resonate, particularly with Black Americans,
Speaker 1: that you know, you can't quote study while black, have
Speaker 1: a picnic while black. All these she says all these things,
Speaker 1: and it's reckless for her to say these things because
Speaker 1: it's just not true. What she's saying is not true,
Speaker 1: and Jessie the the lie that he told. Even if
Speaker 1: it were true, it wouldn't prove all these things that
Speaker 1: she says. But people will hear Maxi and Waters using
Speaker 1: this incident in order to create this this storyline about
Speaker 1: how America is still so racist. I mean, the left
Speaker 1: is so invested in making Americans believe but we are
Speaker 1: a uniquely and deeply and irredeemably racist country that there's
Speaker 1: a desperation to find racism all the time. I would
Speaker 1: just note that if we were so racist, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be so hard to find real instances of national news
Speaker 1: level racism. They would not have to make it up.
Speaker 1: And that's why I read do You Last No? Earlier
Speaker 1: this week that string. She's the House Financial Services She's
Speaker 1: the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Maxie Waters, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was the one. So I read you that string
Speaker 1: of hoaxes because I don't want any of you to think,
Speaker 1: because you'll hear it in the media. Oh hey, crimes
Speaker 1: are on the rise and hoaxes are rare. M Actually
Speaker 1: not true. Why would there ever be a hoax of
Speaker 1: this kind? It's so strange, how many hoax burglaries. Do
Speaker 1: you know of how many hoax you know? Go down
Speaker 1: the list where where do the hoaxes occur? Usually where
Speaker 1: there's some political incentive, which then to among the dumbest
Speaker 1: questions of all that will be asked now and you
Speaker 1: will see people asking this question. I guarantee it. Why
Speaker 1: would he do this? Why would JUSSI do this? He
Speaker 1: has he has nothing to gain. Where have you heard
Speaker 1: this before? By the way, he has nothing. Oh, just
Speaker 1: like how Christine blasi Ford, another fabricator, had nothing to gain. Hm,
Speaker 1: she had lots to gain. Actually, as we know, Smollett
Speaker 1: clearly thought he had a lot to gain from this,
Speaker 1: and for the first few weeks he did national news
Speaker 1: story sympathetic anchors, He sat down with Robin Roberts at ABC,
Speaker 1: and you know became he became a trending topic on
Speaker 1: social media. Everybody was you know, he had he had
Speaker 1: future president or current presidential candidates jumping forward to come
Speaker 1: to Jesse's defense. Everybody knows that this can also result
Speaker 1: not just in the elevation of your profile, but the
Speaker 1: acceleration of your career and the enrichment of your bank accounts.
Speaker 1: Look at Colin Kaepernick. Colin Kaepernick was past his prime
Speaker 1: NFL quarterback. The people that I know who know football,
Speaker 1: that I trust, I've talked about this many times before,
Speaker 1: and they're like, the guy, he just wasn't that good.
Speaker 1: And he was doing something with his taking of the
Speaker 1: knee and his pig socks for cops. He was doing
Speaker 1: stuff that alienated the audience. And guess what, No one
Speaker 1: has a civil right to be a professional football player.
Speaker 1: No one has a guarantee that they get to be
Speaker 1: a multi millionaire athlete. It is entertainment. If your movies stink,
Speaker 1: you don't get to be in more movies. At least
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be If people don't want to watch you
Speaker 1: on a football field, doesn't matter how good you are,
Speaker 1: you're a liability. And Kaepernick wasn't that good. Pebel didn't
Speaker 1: want him. Oh but then he turned into a social
Speaker 1: justice hero and now he's a major Nike figure and
Speaker 1: there's all these campaigns out there for millions and millions
Speaker 1: more dollars because of essentially his agitation. No policy has
Speaker 1: changed because of Kaepernick. Then nothing, There's been no benefit
Speaker 1: of what Kaepernick has done. Oh, he started a conversation
Speaker 1: on race we have conversations on race all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was one of the one of the
Speaker 1: most insane things of many things that Attorney General Eric
Speaker 1: Holder back in the Obama day said was, you know,
Speaker 1: we're cowards when it comes to race. We don't have
Speaker 1: talks about race. The left wants to talk about race
Speaker 1: pretty much all day, all the time. If you turn
Speaker 1: on MSNBC or CNN. Other than the Russia collusion delusion,
Speaker 1: their favorite thing to talk about is race number one.
Speaker 1: And I was a contributor at CNN. I knows I
Speaker 1: come to you, I come to you with with with
Speaker 1: stories of abuse and gas lighting and all kinds of
Speaker 1: stuff from being over there. But I remember when the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter movement based on Mike Brown and all
Speaker 1: that that was really a that was the biggest news
Speaker 1: story in the country. They were running stories on it
Speaker 1: all the time, and they couldn't get enough of it
Speaker 1: because they thought their audience couldn't get enough of it. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the fact that Mike Brown attacked a cop and got
Speaker 1: shot after he you know, robbed a store a few
Speaker 1: minutes before. I mean, the guy, the guys who the
Speaker 1: guy is a thug is apparently know how to say that.
Speaker 1: That's not they don't like even though thugs come from
Speaker 1: the Thugy cult in India, occult based on strangulation that
Speaker 1: some estimates go as high as killed in the high
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of people. It was a religious cult.
Speaker 1: It's actually the Thugy cult in India is the loosely
Speaker 1: the basis for the evil cult in Indiana Jones and
Speaker 1: the Temple of Doom Boom, Did your mind just explode?
Speaker 1: But the Thugie cult was nineteenth century and the British
Speaker 1: authorities were the ones who rooted it out. But that's
Speaker 1: where the term thug comes from. And we're not supposed
Speaker 1: to say thug though, So you could say Mike Brown
Speaker 1: was a hooligan? Is that better a ruffian? You know,
Speaker 1: a vandal? You know, I don't know. You have to
Speaker 1: sort of pick your your term. That won't all of
Speaker 1: a sudden be oh, you can't use that term. He
Speaker 1: was treated like a martyr of some kind of movement
Speaker 1: and CNN would run these stories night after night after night.
Speaker 1: It was it was they were complicit in racial Mike
Speaker 1: producer Mike comes up with a good word for him,
Speaker 1: Well done, Mike, a criminal Mike Brown a criminal who
Speaker 1: got shot. Thank you, Mike, well played any time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So they they held this up as oh, you know, this,
Speaker 1: this movement and it's going to change police relations. This
Speaker 1: was when you had the first black president in office,
Speaker 1: and yet still we're told, so the country is so racist,
Speaker 1: it's so terrible. And I would just say, as I
Speaker 1: point to these hoaxes, if the country's so racist, why
Speaker 1: must they elevate a hoax in this way? Why must
Speaker 1: the left do this? If the country were so racist
Speaker 1: and police were so racist in particular, why is the
Speaker 1: center of the biggest political movement about police violence an
Speaker 1: individual who was lawfully shot by an officer defending himself.
Speaker 1: That that's that's the that's the person you're going to
Speaker 1: build a movement around. And again, the agitation here is
Speaker 1: clear that the purposes of this is not to create
Speaker 1: some kind of harmony. It's to keep people divided. It's
Speaker 1: to keep people angry with each other, and it's to
Speaker 1: feed them these narratives of victimology and suffering and hatred
Speaker 1: that are very appealing to people. Why is Jose Smallett
Speaker 1: as a victim appealing well, because then then he gets
Speaker 1: to get all the sympathy from the media, and he
Speaker 1: gets to tell his story. And you know, why would
Speaker 1: he lie because it benefits him to lie. Why do
Speaker 1: people like to hear these stories of victimhood because they
Speaker 1: will translate it into their own perceived victimhood. Oh, this
Speaker 1: has been unfair to me, that has been unfairming. Here's
Speaker 1: the truth is. Life is not fair, never has been,
Speaker 1: never will be. Everybody, at different times and in different ways,
Speaker 1: has been on the wrong side of an unjust situation.
Speaker 1: But we also, all of us, myself included, make bad choices,
Speaker 1: sometimes get a little lazy, don't do the right thing,
Speaker 1: don't do what we know we should do. Sometimes you
Speaker 1: do enough of that and your life trajectory starts to change.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you you start to see, yeah, we all make mistakes, right,
Speaker 1: but you make enough mistakes and you've got more of
Speaker 1: a of a macro level problem on your hands. Right.
Speaker 1: You know this is this is It's like the difference
Speaker 1: between binging on you know, a dozen donuts and eating
Speaker 1: a dozen donuts every night before you go to sleep
Speaker 1: for about six months. The latter is going to actually
Speaker 1: have an impact in your life. It's not going to
Speaker 1: be very healthy for you, right, you make bad decisions.
Speaker 1: Don't donuts? Sounds so good? Right now, I'm really hungry.
Speaker 1: You make bad decisions and you have to deal with
Speaker 1: those decisions. But what if, what if I could tell
Speaker 1: you that there's a story, a story that I could
Speaker 1: promote to all of you listening that would make you
Speaker 1: think that, No, it's not that you've made any bad decisions,
Speaker 1: or that you would have made better decisions. It's not
Speaker 1: your own lack of discipline, or or or just bad
Speaker 1: luck or any of these. No, no no, it's none of that.
Speaker 1: There are bad people out there, Trump supporters. There are
Speaker 1: bad people out there who are the cause of the
Speaker 1: disappointments in your life. There are bad people out there,
Speaker 1: the other here, the patriarchy, white male Christians, Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: MAGA hat wearers, and they are the reason for your
Speaker 1: disappointments in life. It's not in your hands, it is
Speaker 1: it is those other people that are unfortunately individuals like
Speaker 1: to hear this. It frees them from the uncomfortable every
Speaker 1: and I mean this for whoever you are. It's always better.
Speaker 1: You know, whether it's you think you're being victimized by
Speaker 1: you know, your boss at the office, or you know
Speaker 1: your your your social life is not what you think
Speaker 1: it should be because of it's it's just like envy, right.
Speaker 1: The politics of envy are so powerful because we all
Speaker 1: see people that are spending more money on a yacht
Speaker 1: than we'll make in a lifetime and say, is that
Speaker 1: guy really so much smarter than me? Well, when you
Speaker 1: look at identity politics, and you add into those identity
Speaker 1: politics the victimology narrative, and you look at and this
Speaker 1: is at the heart of intersectionality. All these different groups
Speaker 1: are pressing each other. It's not that any group should
Speaker 1: sit down and think to itself. First of all, do
Speaker 1: we want to even be judged as a group? Aren't
Speaker 1: we just individuals? Aren't we all just human beings with goals, aspirations, hopes, loves, desires.
Speaker 1: Do we have to be always thought of as in
Speaker 1: this group? But even if you're going to think about
Speaker 1: it as a group, isn't it more comforting? Isn't it
Speaker 1: easier to be told that whatever's going wrong and wrong
Speaker 1: in your life, it's because you're part of this group,
Speaker 1: and it's because there are other people that are holding
Speaker 1: you down. It's a seductive narrative and it's at the
Speaker 1: heart of the current obsession with victimhood in this country,
Speaker 1: and also understand this victimhood is a means of not
Speaker 1: just achieving for oneself a kind of immunity and an excuse,
Speaker 1: but also claiming victim's status is a way of seizing
Speaker 1: power from those that you think should not have it,
Speaker 1: especially people who seek to be ethical in their doings.
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to be victimizing somebody else. Guilt is a
Speaker 1: very powerful tool in our politics as well. All of
Speaker 1: this factors in to this mess that is the Rushi,
Speaker 1: the Jussie Smollett hoax. All right, team, we've got a
Speaker 1: lot more so. There's an IRS analyst that was the
Speaker 1: latest deep state clown on the scene. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: what he did. I've got some mccave thoughts for you.
Speaker 1: He's a bad guy. Knows rise there and and so
Speaker 1: so much more. Show. Oh, and I hate crime against
Speaker 1: a conservative that you'll hear about here. In fact, we'll
Speaker 1: bring you up to speed with the latest on it
Speaker 1: that you probably won't hear anywhere else. Happened in UC Berkeley.
Speaker 1: Somebody got really badly beat up because he's a conservative.
Speaker 1: Have you seen that on CNN tonight? I don't think so,
Speaker 1: but don't be watching CNN. We'll be right back Kenny
Speaker 1: and Boston, my brother from Boston. What's up, Kenny, Hey
Speaker 1: Buck A long time no talk. It's great. You make
Speaker 1: up a good point here with the him being stupid,
Speaker 1: but I'm kind of really this is really bothering me
Speaker 1: because I can't think he could be that stupid. Now,
Speaker 1: he wanted to be on camera, You wanted this thing
Speaker 1: to be on camera, but he chose two black dudes
Speaker 1: and he calls them white dudes and report wouldn't that
Speaker 1: have been seen on the camera? Why is he It's
Speaker 1: almost like he wanted to be caught where he's deliberately
Speaker 1: being sloppy and um because even now he's still denying
Speaker 1: and vowing to fight these charges and exonerate his name.
Speaker 1: And then also what about that manager or agent that
Speaker 1: he was on the phone with. I don't hear anything
Speaker 1: good good point about the manager or agent. Was he
Speaker 1: in on it or was it just he got pulled
Speaker 1: into the hoax? Unknowingly right, he might have gotten a
Speaker 1: call from him where he did through this whole thing,
Speaker 1: but you know who really knows. But I would say
Speaker 1: this to you, Kenny, to your theory, which which I
Speaker 1: think is is well thought out. What if, though, what
Speaker 1: if Jesse's Smallett is just really, really dumb? Just just
Speaker 1: leave leave that open as a possibility, leave that opener.
Speaker 1: What if he is in fact? Because you're right, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's so stupid that it's hard to believe he could
Speaker 1: be that stupid. But what if he is, It's possible.
Speaker 1: And as to the pronunciation of his name, we always
Speaker 1: talk about the pronunciation of the last me, but what
Speaker 1: about the first name. It's spelled with the You shouldn't
Speaker 1: he be called juicy? You know, I was always thinking,
Speaker 1: you know not. I'll see it's a juicy right anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know that joke. That joke kills on the
Speaker 1: South Side. Thanks for calling, Kenny, could to talk to you, man? Uh,
Speaker 1: could talk to you? Oh man, it's already next hour time.
Speaker 1: So the deep State, it's a thing. What have they
Speaker 1: been up too lately? Well, we have somebody who gotten
Speaker 1: quite a bit of trouble or could be in quite
Speaker 1: a bit of trouble based on his desire to take
Speaker 1: down Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, with confidential government information leaked
Speaker 1: to the press. What does this tell us about things
Speaker 1: and also what's the latest on the Mullaprobe team. Strap
Speaker 1: in an hour two is gonna rock it. He has
Speaker 1: to make a decision. Is he going to be the
Speaker 1: people's lawyer or is he going to be the president's lawyer. Clearly,
Speaker 1: this president regards the attorney general as one of his minions.
Speaker 1: He has no respect for the rule of law, in fact,
Speaker 1: utter contempt for judges and the judicial process. And he
Speaker 1: has denounced relentlessly and unstintingly the FBI and other law
Speaker 1: enforcement absolutely unpressman it shattering all the norms. William Barr
Speaker 1: is a professional, at least he should be, and he's
Speaker 1: going to have to stand up and speak out for
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the rule of law, and
Speaker 1: that will make his ride a pretty wild one. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sure denang Dick is really gonna sway Bar one
Speaker 1: way or the other with his usual slimy antics there
Speaker 1: the people. Will he be the people's lawyer or one
Speaker 1: of Trump's minions. Look, Barr is a guy who has
Speaker 1: done this before. Okay, he's been to this rodeo before.
Speaker 1: He was well respected then, he is well respected now.
Speaker 1: He obviously can do the job. And that's why even
Speaker 1: the lunatics in the Senate on the Democrat side could
Speaker 1: not come up with a real rationale to try and
Speaker 1: stop him. So he's now the Attorney General, and thankfully,
Speaker 1: it looks like we are heading into the end of
Speaker 1: the Muller nightmare. Although it's, as I've said, not going
Speaker 1: to result in an end to investigations of Trump. It's
Speaker 1: not like they're going to just say, Okay, you know, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna move on to other stuff now. Nope, They're
Speaker 1: gonna keep drilling down and drilling down because when they
Speaker 1: can't win the argument, they figure they can win just
Speaker 1: through harassment, which is the point here, just through harassment.
Speaker 1: So we'll see if the Special Council ends next week.
Speaker 1: I've been telling you that for a while. It looks
Speaker 1: likely a lot of people have reported on it, and
Speaker 1: it would make sense. But in the meantime, got some
Speaker 1: other updates for you. Roger Stone. I have to tell you,
Speaker 1: I kind of like Roger, you know, every time I've
Speaker 1: talked to him, interviewed him. I like Roger. I like
Speaker 1: Carter Page too. Carter Page are really really nice, friendly,
Speaker 1: unpretentious dude, and Roger Stone look He's a character for sure,
Speaker 1: and I bet if you get on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of him, he's not very pleasant. But I kind of
Speaker 1: like Roger Stone. Oh I'm a pundit. I'm allowed to
Speaker 1: like and dislike people. I don't have to pretend to
Speaker 1: be neutral. And it's pretty amazing the career that he
Speaker 1: has had in politics, stretching back for many, many decades. Well, anyway,
Speaker 1: Roger is whereas a political operative. At least Roger is
Speaker 1: not able to speak publicly anymore about his case that
Speaker 1: just came out today. Federal Judge Amy Berman restricted Stone's
Speaker 1: ability to speak publicly about his case because she says
Speaker 1: Stone posted and then removed a photo of the judge
Speaker 1: on Instagram that had crosshairs. Now, Stone said it was
Speaker 1: a Celtic cross but had crosshairs behind her head. So
Speaker 1: he gave a formal apology, or rather, his lawyers wrote
Speaker 1: up a formal apology for him, and I guess we're
Speaker 1: moving past the matter now. But Stone is no longer
Speaker 1: so I'm glad we got an interview with him when
Speaker 1: we could over at Rising. I should have had him
Speaker 1: on radio. I didn't even think about that. But Stone
Speaker 1: is no longer going to be able to tell the
Speaker 1: public what he thinks about the trial he faces. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you this, and I spoke to a Democrat
Speaker 1: lawyer recently off the record about the like he thinks
Speaker 1: that Stone. He agrees with me because I said, I've
Speaker 1: read the stuff. I think if Stone fights this, he
Speaker 1: won't beat all the charges, but he will beat some
Speaker 1: of them. The witness tampering charge is bull. It's a
Speaker 1: bull charge. He can beat that. But the ways, the
Speaker 1: way the federal prosecution works is if even if he
Speaker 1: beats that charge, but he goes to trial and other
Speaker 1: charges and they get I mean, he's going to prison
Speaker 1: for years in years, So is he really going to
Speaker 1: see Is he going to see this all the way through?
Speaker 1: Is he willing to see this all the way through? Well,
Speaker 1: we'll have to see. But I do think he'll beat you,
Speaker 1: mark my words, if this goes, If this goes all
Speaker 1: the way, I think he'll win on the witness tampering charges,
Speaker 1: which will just show you, even though it means that
Speaker 1: Roger will probably go to prison on the lying under
Speaker 1: oath part of this, it'll show you that the Special
Speaker 1: Castle was looking to just crush anybody around Trump and
Speaker 1: that even when they had other charges that they could
Speaker 1: have made, that they were trying to do the count
Speaker 1: of endless counts. They were trying to stack the deck
Speaker 1: against him. Then one other thing, that's that's in the
Speaker 1: Muller deep state anti Trump investigation world. That it's a
Speaker 1: little bit of a rough transition there, but hey, you
Speaker 1: know it's live radio. So federal prosecutors have charged an
Speaker 1: analyst with the Internal Revenue Service for illegue disclosing confidential
Speaker 1: reports about Michael Cohen's bank records. This was to show
Speaker 1: that Cohen was trying to profit from his access to
Speaker 1: the Trump White House. Now you might say, buck, who
Speaker 1: really cares about this guy John Fridy, IRS analyst, Which
Speaker 1: you know, Hey, I'm in Delaware as an IRS analyst.
Speaker 1: Why are we talking about this guy? Well, because yet
Speaker 1: again we have a federal bureaucrat, another one of these
Speaker 1: government employees who was willing, was willing to throw his
Speaker 1: career and perhaps his freedom away just to get a
Speaker 1: little pad on the head from some journos at the
Speaker 1: Washington Post and the New Yorker. And assuming this is true, again,
Speaker 1: assuming that this is true, you know, that's that's what
Speaker 1: I think we all need to keep in mind here.
Speaker 1: It's possible that's not true, but it's probably true. Why
Speaker 1: is it that you didn't have this? I speak to
Speaker 1: you often about the mentality in the federal government that
Speaker 1: is statist in its inclinations and therefore favors Democrats and
Speaker 1: favors the system in general. So with all of that,
Speaker 1: why is it that we expect that there'll be these
Speaker 1: kinds of leaks against Trump? More deep staters that are
Speaker 1: deciding to take a an opportunity to just put something
Speaker 1: out there in the news to take down Trump. Look
Speaker 1: at that that woman who what was gosh, she had
Speaker 1: to vary. Her name was like Victory Champion or something, right,
Speaker 1: what was her name? Reality Winner? I think it was
Speaker 1: is that was that her name? And look, my name
Speaker 1: is Buck Sexton, I know, but Reality Winners quite a name.
Speaker 1: I think she didn't. She get five years in federal
Speaker 1: prison for leaking the classified information because she thought that
Speaker 1: it proved Russia collusion or something. I mean, people are
Speaker 1: hysterical inside the government, and they will abuse. These hysterical
Speaker 1: leftists inside the government will abuse their sensitive and classified
Speaker 1: access illegally as long as it hurts Trump or someone
Speaker 1: around Trump. You just did not have this during the
Speaker 1: Obama years. Nobody was risking their freedom to try to
Speaker 1: damage Obama in the news cycle for a day or two,
Speaker 1: and nobody in the federal government was doing that. They
Speaker 1: just weren't. And of course Obama was horrible on leakers,
Speaker 1: as we know. He was the worst abuser of the
Speaker 1: Espionage Act in in American history and the most aggressive
Speaker 1: president in dealing with the in going after the press
Speaker 1: probably since FDR and Woodrow Wilson, so going on a
Speaker 1: hundred years. But the media, you know, they loved Obama.
Speaker 1: He could do no wrong. So they weren't particularly they
Speaker 1: were they were strongly worded letter that's not very nice Obama,
Speaker 1: but they didn't do anything serious. They were they certainly
Speaker 1: weren't opposing the administration based on that. But this guy
Speaker 1: who is now charged with leaking the tax tax information
Speaker 1: about about Michael Cohen, You're you're going to see more
Speaker 1: of this. You We should all expect, I fully expect
Speaker 1: that someone is going to leak Trump's tax returns at
Speaker 1: some point. It's just that they're waiting to see if
Speaker 1: the process, if now the Democrat Congress can get it.
Speaker 1: But if if they are stymied in this. If they're
Speaker 1: not able to leak Trump's tax returns, two things will happen.
Speaker 1: I think I'm making a prediction. I don't know. Somebody
Speaker 1: will just decide from within the IRS, from within the government,
Speaker 1: to violate their ethical and legal obligation to get Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns out there. And what we will see is
Speaker 1: a total nothing burger. It's gonna make the Mulla Report
Speaker 1: when it comes out look like you know, the Godfather series.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just gonna be so boring. There's nothing
Speaker 1: in Trump's taxes that is worth anyone's time. I assure you.
Speaker 1: I think he doesn't want to give it out to
Speaker 1: the public right now, just because he doesn't want to,
Speaker 1: because they keep telling him he has to, and that's
Speaker 1: his Trump's way. But you're I think somebody is gonna
Speaker 1: leak from within the IRS. Someone's gonna leak Trump's tax returns,
Speaker 1: that's my and the press is gonna say, oh, look
Speaker 1: at this, we just happen to have the tax returns.
Speaker 1: People are willing to risk prison to embarrass this president,
Speaker 1: and think about that, not to expose wrongdoing, to embarrass
Speaker 1: this president or anyone around him. That's how Trump's derangement
Speaker 1: syndrome has infected the federal bureaucracy. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You might be wondering who is getting yelled at in
Speaker 1: this way and where are they're getting yelled at in
Speaker 1: that way? You know what neo Nazi was marching through
Speaker 1: a public square somewhere and people started understanding, Oh, it
Speaker 1: wasn't a neo Nazi. It was a conservative intellectual of
Speaker 1: Indian parentage and an immigrant to this country and a
Speaker 1: Dartmouth alum who was at Dartmouth College. Oh, Dartmouth students,
Speaker 1: it should be a shamby of yourself. I mean, these
Speaker 1: college kids are there's such idiots. You know, the conservatives
Speaker 1: don't do the idiotic stuff. They just don't. And the
Speaker 1: numbers don't support this idea that everybody's liberal when they're
Speaker 1: like twenty every No, it's not true. It's just that
Speaker 1: there is a greater cultural acceptance among leftists to act
Speaker 1: like maniacs because they view the other side as immoral.
Speaker 1: They emotionalize all of these topics. They don't think that
Speaker 1: there is a good faith argument to be had with
Speaker 1: the other side. You know that that's what's going on here.
Speaker 1: That's what's really happening. They just refuse to engage with
Speaker 1: the other side's ideas, and that denish Jasuza is getting
Speaker 1: heckled at his own school. I mean, you know, I can't.
Speaker 1: I can't get into this too much detail. But my
Speaker 1: own college used to like to invite me to speak
Speaker 1: Amherst haven't since I've become a conservative in the public eye.
Speaker 1: Nothing crickets, no interest in having me come to speak.
Speaker 1: I was invited at least three times, maybe four times
Speaker 1: when I was in the CIA, come tell us about
Speaker 1: foreign policy book, and I did. I was happy too,
Speaker 1: at least once or twice. Now though my own school,
Speaker 1: my own alma mater, ashamed of my conservatism, no doubt,
Speaker 1: which is amazing because you think about the campus and
Speaker 1: there must be a healthy percentage of students who, even
Speaker 1: if they won't tell anybody, are conservative. But they don't
Speaker 1: get to hear their views reflected back to them, or
Speaker 1: they don't even and for the liberal students, there's always
Speaker 1: a part of that feels kind of bad. I'm so
Speaker 1: much better at making liberal arguments than liberals are making
Speaker 1: conservative arguments. They don't even know, they're not even exposed
Speaker 1: to it. The one good thing that our team has
Speaker 1: going for us, which is nice, is that we have
Speaker 1: to be able and to be a conservative on a
Speaker 1: campus these days, or to be a conservative in media,
Speaker 1: in academia, in law, in entertainment. You go down the line.
Speaker 1: If you're going to be conservative in any of those areas,
Speaker 1: you better be able to handle yourself and know the
Speaker 1: issues and be able to make the argument, because otherwise
Speaker 1: they're going to chew you up and spit you out.
Speaker 1: Whereas liberals look at AOC, look at Okazy Cortez get
Speaker 1: you get to go through life and ignoramus with everyone
Speaker 1: patting you on the head telling you how smart you
Speaker 1: are when you're an idiot. Well, you don't know anything,
Speaker 1: but everybody around you likes the things that you say
Speaker 1: that you've learned to say, that you parrot from hearing
Speaker 1: other people say, most of whom, also, by the way,
Speaker 1: don't know anything. And it just becomes this big echo
Speaker 1: chamber of Oh, that's great. Whose streets are streets? Let's
Speaker 1: fix climate change? Social justice now, yeah, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: You don't have to even know anything. Oh, it's just
Speaker 1: these things that people say, Oh, you know, the dark
Speaker 1: money in our politics, and what are we gonna do
Speaker 1: about Citizens United. I'm always amazed at how people in
Speaker 1: the media, never mind college kids, they'll bring up Citizens
Speaker 1: United and they don't know anything about it. I'll say
Speaker 1: to them, So you agree with Citizens United, You agree
Speaker 1: with the idea that a book because this is what
Speaker 1: the government's position. This is what the government's position, the
Speaker 1: Obama administration's position was at the time. A book should
Speaker 1: be able to be banned, A book should be able
Speaker 1: to be banned in a sixty or nine any day
Speaker 1: window or whatever it was of an election, that that
Speaker 1: doesn't infringe on the First Amendment. You think that that's
Speaker 1: because that was the that was the government's position on that. No,
Speaker 1: that's not a good idea. Buck, oh okay, but a
Speaker 1: movie should be able to be banned. But buck corporate
Speaker 1: money from overseas, that's all. They don't know what they're
Speaker 1: talking about. They say things about big money in politics
Speaker 1: and say, okay, so yeah, you know, the libertarian Koch
Speaker 1: Brothers give money to conservative causes, and there's a few
Speaker 1: others out there that are very wealthy who support conservatism.
Speaker 1: Why is that so strange? You know, there's sorrows, there's
Speaker 1: Tom Steyer. There's you know, all kinds of billionaires who
Speaker 1: come out and and support left wing causes. So what
Speaker 1: is this idea? The left will say things like we
Speaker 1: need to take money out of politics, and then you'll say, well,
Speaker 1: what about all the money you get from X, Y
Speaker 1: and Z sources? What about the money you get from unions?
Speaker 1: From the union, Uh, that that doesn't count. That's not
Speaker 1: bad money, that's good money. Oh okay, I'm glad we've
Speaker 1: established that. So a really interesting chart. It's actually what
Speaker 1: got me thinking about all this. And it's from some
Speaker 1: kind of a study group I don't know. Unfortunately it's
Speaker 1: cut off here. We've got shared with me today though,
Speaker 1: and it's that forty three percent. Sorry, Voters Study Group
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. I obviously have to give you the source
Speaker 1: otherwise I'm just making up numbers. Voter Study Group twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: And it said that it did a did a big
Speaker 1: poll and says that forty three percent of Democrats versus
Speaker 1: seventy percent of Republicans think that people should be allowed
Speaker 1: to express unpopular opinions in public, you know, like Dnish
Speaker 1: Dasus at a college campus, even those that are deeply offensive.
Speaker 1: A similar proportion of Democrats, by the way, openly support
Speaker 1: speech restrictions, so getting close to half of Democrats or sorry,
Speaker 1: forty percent of Democrats think that there should be speech restrictions,
Speaker 1: and only forty three percent of Democrats think that you
Speaker 1: should be able to express unpopular opinions in public. These
Speaker 1: people are authoritarians. They because they haven't been exposed to
Speaker 1: those who disagree with them, because they just they slam
Speaker 1: on Fox News, they say, the Wall Street journalists, you know, garbage,
Speaker 1: and it's all but the rich plutocrats, and you know,
Speaker 1: every conservative website is just conspiracy theories. Because they create
Speaker 1: this false narrative for themselves. They never have to challenge
Speaker 1: any of their assumptions. They never have to really know anything,
Speaker 1: which I would think would eventually start to feel kind
Speaker 1: of hollow, right, I mean, to just surround yourself with
Speaker 1: people who always agree with you. I mean, I work
Speaker 1: with Libs at the Hill, liberals because they're my colleagues.
Speaker 1: I work with liberals at the Hill. I have my
Speaker 1: whole life lived in the bluest of blue parts of
Speaker 1: the country Massachusetts, New York, Washington, d C. So I've
Speaker 1: had to deal with liberals all along. I know many
Speaker 1: of you have had the same situation. Even if you haven't,
Speaker 1: you had to deal with it through the culture. You've
Speaker 1: had your assumptions challenge, You've seen Christianity being dumped on.
Speaker 1: You've seen Republicans and Trump and being treated terribly people
Speaker 1: that are pro life. The media thinks you're some kind
Speaker 1: of troglodyte. If your pro life, you know you've dealt
Speaker 1: with all of this. Liberals don't have the intellectual resilience
Speaker 1: and honestly, the intellectual dexterity and fortitude to handle the
Speaker 1: ideas of the other side, not the same numbers that
Speaker 1: Republicans do. So we can take some comfort in that.
Speaker 1: I guess that's a good thing, and I do kind
Speaker 1: of wish in a sense that it would change. I
Speaker 1: wish Democrats would just get with the program a little
Speaker 1: bit here, but I Am not going to hold my
Speaker 1: breath on that one. So this video goes viral, the
Speaker 1: mob attacks, and you would expect that the mainstream media
Speaker 1: would be responsible enough to pause, recognize their dealing with
Speaker 1: a student, investigate and make sure that they have the
Speaker 1: facts accurate, that the story that they tell is accurate.
Speaker 1: But they didn't pause when it came to Nicholas because
Speaker 1: they wanted to rush out, and they wanted to jump
Speaker 1: into the mob. Give the mob a megaphone so that
Speaker 1: they could attack this boy because he was white, was Catholic,
Speaker 1: and he was wearing to make America great again. Cap
Speaker 1: think about what this young boy is having to deal
Speaker 1: with at age sixteen, when the entire world saw him
Speaker 1: the way the media portrayed him as literally the face
Speaker 1: of evil. It is inexcusable, reprehensible conduct by the media,
Speaker 1: and Washington Post led the way. Amen. Great stuff from
Speaker 1: the attorney for Nicholas Salman, who is going after the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, and I hope he gets a big judgment
Speaker 1: against them. Few reasons why. First of all, Washington Post
Speaker 1: is a dumpster fire of liberalism. But start we can
Speaker 1: put that aside for the moment. How will this ever
Speaker 1: change unless there's accountability. You know, you'll notice this is
Speaker 1: kind of a recurring theme right now. There must be
Speaker 1: accountability for libs, for social justice warriors, for oh I
Speaker 1: want to be a victim people, and for super aggressive
Speaker 1: left wing maniacs. There must be consequences when they break
Speaker 1: the law, when they slander people, when they destroy people,
Speaker 1: when they create a social media or real life in
Speaker 1: person mob to go after people. We can't let this
Speaker 1: stuff go. There is a an obleegation on us to
Speaker 1: enforce some norms of decency, some norms of honor and
Speaker 1: integrity in our society. And I'm sorry that libs just
Speaker 1: throw all that stuff away and don't really care about it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's whatever gives them the advantage in the moment,
Speaker 1: whatever the political advantage is. But we are not going
Speaker 1: to just sit idly by and allow this stuff to happen.
Speaker 1: All right, We're not going to hand our country over
Speaker 1: to a bunch of left wing activists who think that
Speaker 1: they can destroy high school kids to make some kind
Speaker 1: of political statement. It was disgusting, it was disgraceful, and
Speaker 1: just like what we saw with the Kavanaugh hearing, a
Speaker 1: lot of people who were paying attention to what happened
Speaker 1: with Covington Catholic, a lot of them recognized that the
Speaker 1: left wing mob is not just something that comes after
Speaker 1: people like me or you know, the people at the
Speaker 1: time of the conservative media ecosystem at Fox or you know,
Speaker 1: It's not just people like us. It's anybody. If you
Speaker 1: find yourself in a circumstance where the left can capitalize
Speaker 1: off the destruction, the utter destruction of your reputation, your career,
Speaker 1: your livelihood. They'll go for it. Then the social media mob,
Speaker 1: let's it rip. And a lot of these journalists, what
Speaker 1: you see is that they think that they can just
Speaker 1: sort of do journalists had on, journalists had off. Oh
Speaker 1: I'm publishing in the Washington Post. Oh, I'm just tweeting
Speaker 1: stuff out on Twitter. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Anything
Speaker 1: that you publish under your own name, anything you're right
Speaker 1: under your own name. When you're a public person, a journalist,
Speaker 1: somebody who is in the public eye, you must be
Speaker 1: held responsible for. And the Washington Post was responsible for
Speaker 1: a smear campaign a bunch of against a bunch of
Speaker 1: high school kids. You know, the same media, and you
Speaker 1: know this is just it enrages me. The same media
Speaker 1: that complains about how, oh it's Trump has said, we're
Speaker 1: fake news and Trump is so mean to us, and
Speaker 1: why is Trump lay He's what he's doing is so dangerous.
Speaker 1: That same media apparatus doesn't expect that, or rather isn't
Speaker 1: willing to afford a bunch of high school kids not
Speaker 1: just a benefit of the doubt, but basic journalistic standards indecencies.
Speaker 1: So I hope that Sandman and his attorney, his attorneys
Speaker 1: are able to just flip the Washington Post upside down
Speaker 1: and just empty out their pockets. I really do. I
Speaker 1: really do. Um there's there's more, by the way, because
Speaker 1: I think there's there's more lawsuits according to the Lord,
Speaker 1: that are going to be filed. I even know some
Speaker 1: of the people that are going to get sued, And
Speaker 1: I understand, you know, there there has to be consequences
Speaker 1: to this stuff. You can't just go out there. You know,
Speaker 1: why didn't I jump on that? I saw this story,
Speaker 1: I didn't jump on this bandwagon. Didn't seem right to me.
Speaker 1: Something was up, not all the facts, too obvious that
Speaker 1: the media had constructed this narrative for their own purposes.
Speaker 1: I didn't fall Isn't it interesting? You know, you listen
Speaker 1: to conservative media. If you're listening to this show, you
Speaker 1: listen to a conservative who's got a syndicated radio show
Speaker 1: obviously across the country. But did I get Covington Catholic wrong? No?
Speaker 1: I did not. Did I get Jesse Smollett wrong? No?
Speaker 1: I did not. Did I get the BuzzFeed debacle right
Speaker 1: before Covington Catholic wrong. Mmm, didn't buy that one either.
Speaker 1: Did I get Kavinall wrong? No? And I'm not pretending
Speaker 1: like I'm the only one. A lot of my fellow
Speaker 1: conservatives in the media saw these things for what they
Speaker 1: were as well. Not all of them were as vocal
Speaker 1: as I was. But why do I keep being right?
Speaker 1: And the Washington Post with its you know, hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars of assets, and the New York Times
Speaker 1: was it with its thousand plus writers and editors and
Speaker 1: everything else, and C and N with its you know,
Speaker 1: it's gold plated toilet seats. I mean, you know, why
Speaker 1: can I figure this stuff out? But they can't? Does
Speaker 1: that ever? And when I say I, why is it
Speaker 1: that you can figure this stuff out? Too? And they can't?
Speaker 1: You knew? If you didn't know, you wouldn't be listening
Speaker 1: to the show because what I said about Smaller would
Speaker 1: be so offensive, right, what I was saying about Cavana
Speaker 1: will be oh, you know, no, you know, And that's
Speaker 1: why you listen to me. But isn't it isn't it
Speaker 1: amazing that when you line up these these inre and
Speaker 1: don't even get me started on the Mueller probe and
Speaker 1: lack of collusion. I mean, obviously a lot of US
Speaker 1: conservatives know that that's total bullcrap. But why is it
Speaker 1: that they're allowed to keep being wrong on these issues
Speaker 1: and yet their judgment, in fact, their judgment is supposed
Speaker 1: to exceed mine and yours. They are the smart people
Speaker 1: who know all the things, with all the editors and
Speaker 1: the fancy you know this, that the other thing in
Speaker 1: their offices, but they keep being wrong and they do
Speaker 1: real damage to normal people. There are hundreds of lawsuits
Speaker 1: that are likely be filed Playlip five, certainly hundreds. The
Speaker 1: good news is is that we have two and a
Speaker 1: half years to identify and file lawsuits against the wrongdoers.
Speaker 1: And we got a lot of work to do because
Speaker 1: the social media and mainstream mob of bullies was extremely
Speaker 1: large in number, and they were very vocal, and the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, like the Washington Post gave them a megaphone
Speaker 1: to go out and to shout to the world that
Speaker 1: this young boy had instigated this event which he did not,
Speaker 1: had engaged in behavior swarming around mister Phillips which he
Speaker 1: did not, had blocked mister phillips ability to leave the scene,
Speaker 1: which he did not. He was a child. He was
Speaker 1: he was accosted by adults, accosted by adults, adults who
Speaker 1: I would note were acting horribly. And if you go
Speaker 1: back and you read that media coverage, there was no
Speaker 1: effort to be honest about this. The New York Times
Speaker 1: did a profile of the black Israelites, had referred to
Speaker 1: them as street preachers or something. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: a puff piece on a bunch of adults who say
Speaker 1: the most horrific racist, anti gay, you know, go go
Speaker 1: down the line, anti white. Just these people are. They're scum.
Speaker 1: They're scum people, but the Times wanted to give them
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt. I wish I could just
Speaker 1: go into the newsrooms in these places and sit down
Speaker 1: and be like, who wants to debate this with me?
Speaker 1: Who wants to have this conversation? Oh? You know, we
Speaker 1: just we just do the news and in journals, and
Speaker 1: journalism is rotten in this country. Journalism needs to be
Speaker 1: rooted out and planted a new That's one of the
Speaker 1: lessons of what we saw with Covington. So I'm very
Speaker 1: happy to see that there's going to be some legal
Speaker 1: action here. I don't know if they're going to be successful.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope they will be successful, but we can't.
Speaker 1: This is just like the Jesse smaller thing. You know,
Speaker 1: we are conservatives, we have lives, we are we are good,
Speaker 1: decent people that try to do the ethical thing, that
Speaker 1: like to show mercy and forgiveness, and but we can't
Speaker 1: just get slapped in the face all the time and
Speaker 1: do nothing. We can't allow the system such as it is,
Speaker 1: to always undermine and destroy people like us. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not saying that we have some persecution
Speaker 1: complex and oh we know, woe is us whatever, But
Speaker 1: you see it happening from the media perspective, it's just reality.
Speaker 1: They are trying to destroy their political opponents however they can.
Speaker 1: They're trying to sell a certain kind of narrative to
Speaker 1: their largely delusional audience. Whether it's on Russia collusion, or
Speaker 1: Covington or Kavanaugh or you name it. It's wrong. And
Speaker 1: I hope that there is some justice for Covington and
Speaker 1: in that for all the rest of us as well.
Speaker 1: A bunch of let that's right, just like you're damn
Speaker 1: Donald Truck. Look all these dusty crackers with that racist garbage. One.
Speaker 1: Look at these dirty cracks. Look at these dirty crackers.
Speaker 1: The Black Israelites said to the Cummington High School students,
Speaker 1: dirty crackers. Anybody anybody find that offensive? I wanted to
Speaker 1: play this before we got into the break. I just
Speaker 1: got so caught up in the moment that I skipped
Speaker 1: over the clip dirty crackers. They said, that's remember, the
Speaker 1: Black Israelites are the people along with that guy um
Speaker 1: from forgetting his name now, the Native American activist guy.
Speaker 1: They were the ones and all of you're yelling his
Speaker 1: name because you remember, and I just blanked on it
Speaker 1: for a second, but they were the ones that the
Speaker 1: media was siding with against the kids. You know that
Speaker 1: there really is this this deep seated disdain on the
Speaker 1: left for people that fall into certain categories. If you
Speaker 1: if you are a white kid who goes to a
Speaker 1: Catholic school, which I assume you have to pay, it's
Speaker 1: not a public school. A white kid goes to a
Speaker 1: Catholic school who supports Trump, they think you're the enemy.
Speaker 1: And there's no, Oh, we're gonna give them a little
Speaker 1: bit of leeway because their kids and no, no no, because
Speaker 1: they're just gonna grow up to be big maga supporters
Speaker 1: later on, right, so they they figure might as well
Speaker 1: take care of them right now, might as well decide
Speaker 1: to ruin their lives as as quickly as possible. It's
Speaker 1: it's a troubling circumstance, to be sure, by the way.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to skip over because obviously this is
Speaker 1: a major news story, and in what we have to
Speaker 1: find out more about the facts of the case, such
Speaker 1: as they are. But from what we understand right now,
Speaker 1: there was a plot that was stopped from a white
Speaker 1: nationalist who was trying to just trying to kill a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of people. He was in the I believe
Speaker 1: in the Coast Guard. Right, Yeah, here we go. I'm Drea.
Speaker 1: This is a from the guy I'm dreaming of a
Speaker 1: way to kill almost every last person on earth. According
Speaker 1: to this Coastguard lieutenant and self identified white nationalist, Christopher
Speaker 1: Paul Hassan is his name, he wanted focused violence to
Speaker 1: establish a white homeland and said I'm dreaming of a
Speaker 1: way to kill almost every last person on earth. The
Speaker 1: indictment of him says the defendant intends to murder innocent
Speaker 1: civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country, and
Speaker 1: they're holding him on Roman not letting him out, and
Speaker 1: he also bought a stash of steroids and narcotics, apparently
Speaker 1: to make it easier for him to sustain wounds, probably
Speaker 1: bullet wounds when he went on this spree. There are
Speaker 1: evil people of all kinds of ideologies and backgrounds, that
Speaker 1: much is for sure. This is somebody who, assuming the
Speaker 1: facts that we have here are true and so far
Speaker 1: there's no reason to believe that they're not, should spend
Speaker 1: the rest of his life in prison, no question. I
Speaker 1: think it's it's interesting me also that you know he's
Speaker 1: somebody who he stockpiled all these weapons, that went through
Speaker 1: all these procedures. I'm wondering what the how they got him.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that today. I'm assuming they probably got
Speaker 1: an informant near him, but maybe they had something else
Speaker 1: that tipped them off to it. But now you're going
Speaker 1: to get into this discussion. As always, this is where
Speaker 1: it always goes of. See, the real threat that we
Speaker 1: face is from white nationalist domestic terrorists, not Islamic radicals.
Speaker 1: This is what they always say. And to this I
Speaker 1: have to I have to always take a moment, take
Speaker 1: a beat, and say, okay, let's go, let's go over
Speaker 1: this again. When a white nationalist decides to engage in
Speaker 1: an active mass murder, he, based on the history of
Speaker 1: this and cases in the past, overwhelmingly is acting on
Speaker 1: his own is acting based on a sense of perceived
Speaker 1: you know, heightened grieving, and is sociopathic or psychopathic. And
Speaker 1: it's a terrible event. We should stop them, and if
Speaker 1: we can't stop them, we should lock them up, or
Speaker 1: more than lock them up as soon as we catch them.
Speaker 1: Anybody who does this. But if you're going to compare
Speaker 1: and this, I already saw this happening today. And you know,
Speaker 1: Corey Booker recently said, oh, the real threat in this
Speaker 1: country is from white nationalist terrorism. The moment you dig
Speaker 1: into it and you look at the numbers for the
Speaker 1: last twenty years, it is not even close. How many
Speaker 1: more people have been killed in this country by Islamic
Speaker 1: radical terrorism than any other form. It is not even close.
Speaker 1: How much more in terms of resources and security procedures.
Speaker 1: And you know we have a TSA not because of
Speaker 1: white nationalists. We all know this. We've had to dramatically
Speaker 1: change and have changed US foreign policy, spent trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars overseas trying to root out Islamic radicalism, and when
Speaker 1: an Islamic radical acts in this country, they do so
Speaker 1: with a a belief that is supported by tens of
Speaker 1: millions of people around the world based on the numbers
Speaker 1: based on the Pew polling, and is often supported by
Speaker 1: entire nation states, places where there are millionaires and billionaires.
Speaker 1: That's right, who will send money to these kinds of groups,
Speaker 1: you know. So it's just in terms of scale, sophistication
Speaker 1: and threat, it's not even close. Was this Coastguard lieutenant
Speaker 1: a serious threat, a real problem, and a just terrible
Speaker 1: human being? Yes, all of that is true. Is a
Speaker 1: good work by the FBI to take him down, Absolutely
Speaker 1: fantastic and they should be praised for this. Does this
Speaker 1: mean that the real threat? If you're gonna ask me,
Speaker 1: as a former counter terrorism analyst, somebody actually did that
Speaker 1: for a living. It's the real threat now, white nationalism
Speaker 1: and not Islamic radicalism. No, that is fall The numbers
Speaker 1: do not support it. Nothing on a strategic global level
Speaker 1: supports it. So let's just understand what's real here and
Speaker 1: what's not and keep things in context. Every business in
Speaker 1: every industry needs to be sure that the people that
Speaker 1: they're bringing in are the people they think they are right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why background checks are so important. It's
Speaker 1: also a liability issue. Whoever you bring in there, you've
Speaker 1: got to be able to trust and know that the
Speaker 1: information they provided you is correct. That's why Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network is the best choice for you for background investigations
Speaker 1: and vetting. They are a dual certified, in fact, the
Speaker 1: only dual certified veteran owned and operated background investigation in
Speaker 1: vetting company, and they're headquartered in Chicago with risk mitigation
Speaker 1: experts spread across the country. Call them right now, just
Speaker 1: tell them what your needs are, tell them what your
Speaker 1: business is. They will tailor a plan for background checks
Speaker 1: to your needs. Eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine again eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine. Or if you want to just
Speaker 1: do it online, go to my GVN dot com. That's
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned.
Speaker 1: I know that the media is going to work overtime
Speaker 1: to try and create this image of Bernie Sanders as
Speaker 1: this cuddly guy who's up in Vermont and he just
Speaker 1: wants to give everybody to free stuff. And he wants
Speaker 1: to be friends with everybody. And no one pays for college,
Speaker 1: no one pays for healthcare, no one pays for food.
Speaker 1: I understand that that's where they want to take this.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the overwhelming media effort around this issue,
Speaker 1: around the issue of Sanders candidacy. I'm here to just
Speaker 1: remind everybody that this is a guy who, as an adult.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about going back in time and digging
Speaker 1: up old tweets or you know, talking about herebook photos
Speaker 1: or any anything like that. This is a guy who,
Speaker 1: as an adult and somebody was already in public life,
Speaker 1: decided for the old tweets. I'm in for people that
Speaker 1: were teenagers then, which would not Bernie Sanders would not
Speaker 1: count in that. In that regard, Bernie Sanders is somebody
Speaker 1: who had a very clear sympathy with a system that
Speaker 1: had enslaved hundreds of millions of people around the world
Speaker 1: for decades, and a system that had created that had
Speaker 1: been propping up the Soviet Union and communism a true
Speaker 1: mortal threat to the United States and some of the
Speaker 1: little satellites of that Soviet Communist menace. Bernie Sanders was
Speaker 1: quite fond of them. And we should, we should. You know,
Speaker 1: this is all fair game, folks. He was an adult,
Speaker 1: he spent time there. This is like when what's his
Speaker 1: name of, Deblasio Kasa Virham, Deblasio Warren or sorry, Warren
Speaker 1: Wilhelm build a Blasio, same guy, and when he went
Speaker 1: I think too, I think it was down to Nicaragua
Speaker 1: to hang out with the Sandinistas. I mean, these people
Speaker 1: who do this stuff, think about that. Of all the
Speaker 1: places you go in the world, Bernie Sanders honeymoons in
Speaker 1: the Soviet Unions. That is an utterly bizarre thing to do,
Speaker 1: especially at a time when you remember the culture. I mean, hey,
Speaker 1: I saw Rocky four right, it was very clear who
Speaker 1: was on our team who was on their team. You're
Speaker 1: gonna go over to Sylviet Union to come back to
Speaker 1: the great great transportation and breadlines are wonderful because you're
Speaker 1: in the line and then when you wait for six
Speaker 1: seven hours, the stale bread waiting for you free. This
Speaker 1: is disconcerting because I do think that Bernie is going
Speaker 1: to be, at least for a while, their front runner.
Speaker 1: They may have to switch somebody else out for Bernie
Speaker 1: as Moore comes out about him, and I do think
Speaker 1: people keep saying, well, Trump is I'm sorry, seventy two,
Speaker 1: who is not seventy seven? You know, he's even older.
Speaker 1: He's even more past the red line of being able
Speaker 1: to carry the presidency based on energy and the decision
Speaker 1: making processes that do take it out on people. Play
Speaker 1: clip sixteen here this is burn. I remember, for some
Speaker 1: reason other being very excited when when Fidel Cashtro made
Speaker 1: the revolution in Cuba, and I was a kid, and
Speaker 1: I remember reading that and it was just seemed right
Speaker 1: inappropriate that poor people were rising up against rather ugly
Speaker 1: rich people. And I remember it again very distinctly, a
Speaker 1: very distinct feeling. I was watching the debates, you remember
Speaker 1: the famous Nixon Kennedy debates. That was the first time
Speaker 1: in the presidential candidates actually debated, and I was becoming
Speaker 1: increasingly entrusted in politics. Didn't know much, but was interesting.
Speaker 1: I remember sitting in the student lounge at our dormitory
Speaker 1: watching the debate, and at that time we could talk
Speaker 1: about Cuban. Now, I was very excited and press play
Speaker 1: the Cuban Revolution. We should deal firmly with Fidel Cashtro
Speaker 1: and Nixon was playing the role of hey, you gotta
Speaker 1: be patient. You know, you can't do these things. You
Speaker 1: gotta negotiate. What of course, what he was upset about
Speaker 1: is that secretly they were planning the Bay of Pigs
Speaker 1: invasion right then. So he he was the liberal and
Speaker 1: Kennedy was playing the conservative. And actually you know they're
Speaker 1: When you read novels, people say there's a sick feeling
Speaker 1: in yourself. Usually I'm sufficiently unemotional not to be sick,
Speaker 1: but actually got off in the room and almost left
Speaker 1: the public. You can't criticize Cuba, or Bernie might puke
Speaker 1: on your shoes. That's that's a that's a conversation that
Speaker 1: some of my friends who are Cuban, who are true
Speaker 1: refugees by the way, from Cuba, people who had to flee.
Speaker 1: I know people that their families, lands and property were confiscated,
Speaker 1: that they were under under real threat of torture and
Speaker 1: imprisonment and even execution if they weren't able to get
Speaker 1: out of the country. And I wonder what Bernie would
Speaker 1: say to those people. Well, we have some sense of it.
Speaker 1: In that clip he said, rising up against the ugly
Speaker 1: rich people. Why is it if if we're supposed to
Speaker 1: get Sweden, if the Democrats today, the Occasio Cortez is
Speaker 1: the Elizabeth Warrens. If the left wing socialist Democrats in
Speaker 1: America are promising Denmark for us, why do they still
Speaker 1: have a sweet spot for Cuba? What is it about
Speaker 1: a country that imprisons people for their politics, imprisons and
Speaker 1: persecutes homosexuals, has executed political prisoners by the thousands, stretching
Speaker 1: back into the early days of Chegavara and the revolution
Speaker 1: in Cuba? Right, what is it about Cuba that still
Speaker 1: strikes this chord where there's some degree of fondness in
Speaker 1: the hearts of American democratic socialists. You know, why is
Speaker 1: it that the only people who look at Venezuela and think, WHOA,
Speaker 1: Let's not get too involved there. Let's not even send
Speaker 1: food to starving people. I'm not talking about military force.
Speaker 1: Let's not even send humanitarian aid. We should because that
Speaker 1: will obviously make the regime look bad. If America has
Speaker 1: to feed the people, right, and that's going to help
Speaker 1: push this coup along they call it. I mean, the
Speaker 1: last election was a farce. Maduro cheated. We're supposed to
Speaker 1: believe at institutions, We're supposed to believe that you can't
Speaker 1: cheat and get away with it, at least in this country.
Speaker 1: But in Venezuela they'll say, oh no, that's that's just
Speaker 1: how they were doing things there. Maduro he had to
Speaker 1: play a little dirty, but he's still the president. The
Speaker 1: only people that come to Maduro's aid in this country
Speaker 1: are the leftist socialists. Why you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: worth asking these questions. It's one thing to say I
Speaker 1: love Sweden, I love Denmark. I want America to be
Speaker 1: like those countries. Right If Bernie wants to be the
Speaker 1: mayor of Stockholm and sit in the White House when
Speaker 1: he does it, that's that's one thing. But you'll notice
Speaker 1: that when it comes to Nicaragua, when it comes to
Speaker 1: what's happened in Venezuela and now for decades with Cuba,
Speaker 1: the left in this country has a fondness for those
Speaker 1: for those nations. And I don't mean for the people,
Speaker 1: I mean for the regimes, for the governing systems. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but to be able to go back and to hear
Speaker 1: somebody like Bernie Sanders praising the Soviet Union, openly longing
Speaker 1: for the days of Cuba's revolution against the quote ugly
Speaker 1: rich people. Why why should we think that his mentality
Speaker 1: has really changed that much. Because he's old now and
Speaker 1: a little cookier. It seems a little a little more
Speaker 1: like the like the crazy grandpa that you gotta make
Speaker 1: sure it doesn't wander out into the snow in his underwear.
Speaker 1: I mean, what is it about Bernie Sanders? Now, that's
Speaker 1: so he's talking about free healthcare, he's talking about soaking
Speaker 1: the rich with taxes. What qualifies as rich? By the way,
Speaker 1: that's always a This is like when people say, do
Speaker 1: you believe in climate change? And this is a nonsense
Speaker 1: question because even if I do, what do we do
Speaker 1: about it? And how much climate change? How much climate
Speaker 1: change am I supposed to be worried about? Here? To
Speaker 1: what degree? When you say that you're only going to
Speaker 1: tax the rich, which Occasio Cortez and Warren and name
Speaker 1: a Democrat who's not an establishment kind of Wall Street
Speaker 1: Hollywood friendly. Although Hollywood is actually very behind Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of big money in Hollywood that likes
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, but they all want to tax the rich
Speaker 1: more in order to fund these enormously expensive social programs.
Speaker 1: And so I do think we should ask the question. Okay,
Speaker 1: so given that reality what makes somebody rich? Are we
Speaker 1: really going to walk around and pretend that somebody who
Speaker 1: makes twenty million dollars is the same financial footage as
Speaker 1: somebody who makes two hundred thousand dollars. And how do
Speaker 1: we pay for all these programs that they talk about?
Speaker 1: When if you took every dollar that is made by
Speaker 1: people over ten million a year in this country, you
Speaker 1: just seized all of it, you wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: fund the stuff that these democrats are talking about because
Speaker 1: there aren't that many people who make that much money.
Speaker 1: The money is in the middle class. The money is
Speaker 1: in folks who are just showing up, doing jobs, paying
Speaker 1: their bills, and doing things the right way. And when
Speaker 1: I mean the money from a from a taxation perspective,
Speaker 1: that's where it really really moves the needle. So what
Speaker 1: they'll try to do, what Sanders is going to do
Speaker 1: is one tell us that it's not fair to point
Speaker 1: to Venezuela. It's not fair to point to Cuba and
Speaker 1: say that's socialism for you. This is where socialism leads
Speaker 1: because look at these European countries. And he's going to
Speaker 1: hope that people don't pay attention to one the the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy in those European countries. That would be like trying
Speaker 1: to make socialism work in you know, Rhode Island or Maine.
Speaker 1: All right, it's not making it work in a country
Speaker 1: of three hundred and twenty million people start start with that,
Speaker 1: and we're talking about countries like Denmark and Sweden. These
Speaker 1: are these are the size of a US state, one
Speaker 1: US state, and not even the biggest ones. So he's
Speaker 1: hoping that people don't pay attention to the scope and
Speaker 1: scale of the projects that he's really talking about. And
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to dig into the fondness that the
Speaker 1: left has for all of these socialist regimes, which just
Speaker 1: keeps coming up. Right, they there were New York Times
Speaker 1: articles praising Venezuela in twenty twelve. Maybe they're gonna make
Speaker 1: this whole thing work. And I think that in an
Speaker 1: era when we're told that there's somebody who might be
Speaker 1: doing Russia's interest, right, Trump is he's Putin's puppet, and
Speaker 1: all this stuff is Sanders a communist puppet because he
Speaker 1: used to like communism a lot. Now he says socialism.
Speaker 1: But if you were going to get a communist to
Speaker 1: be the president the United states. Wouldn't he have to
Speaker 1: say that he was a democratic socialist first? I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to ask the question. AARP is a very
Speaker 1: well known organization for seniors, but if you dig a
Speaker 1: little deeper, you find out that aarps pretty left wing.
Speaker 1: They support things like government run healthcare, They are not
Speaker 1: strong on our southern border. They want higher taxes for
Speaker 1: the middle class. You don't want any of that stuff,
Speaker 1: So how about you join an organization for seniors that
Speaker 1: represents your conservative values and gets you a lot of
Speaker 1: great benefits AMAC. Why do I recommend AMAC? Will? AMAC
Speaker 1: will get you the discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants,
Speaker 1: dental plans, even sell service options, lots of things to
Speaker 1: make your life easier and save you money. But also
Speaker 1: AMAC supports conservative policy, fixing social security, protecting our southern border,
Speaker 1: strong military. You need to check out AMAC. Join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. I know that everyone's focused on a
Speaker 1: hoax hate crime today, but turns out there are in
Speaker 1: fact real hate crimes out there, as you no doubt
Speaker 1: already no, but they're not always against individuals who are
Speaker 1: in a protected group. It's not always the intersectional left
Speaker 1: that is somehow being attacked. Sometimes just being a conservative
Speaker 1: can get you punched in the face. We have Benny
Speaker 1: Johnson with us now. Benny is the creative director at
Speaker 1: Turning Point USA, formerly of The Daily Caller, also a
Speaker 1: colleague of mine from the Blaze days. Mister Johnson, great
Speaker 1: to have you on. Hey, thanks, Buck, appreciate it. So
Speaker 1: you have this video you've been sharing of, Well, tell
Speaker 1: us what happened first, then we'll actually play the audio.
Speaker 1: I wish people could see it because it's vicious, But
Speaker 1: tell us what happened. Sure. So Turning Point is a
Speaker 1: young conservative engagement organization, nonprofit. We make sure that conservatives
Speaker 1: across the country and on campuses all over the country
Speaker 1: all have opportunity and access to free market ideas and
Speaker 1: free market content. And so one of our one of
Speaker 1: our students, member of our organization, was on the campus
Speaker 1: of UC Berkeley in California, a particularly liberal campus, and
Speaker 1: was merely tabling. It's something that happens normally on a
Speaker 1: college campus. You share material and ideas. This is just
Speaker 1: a free speech ideas and zone and a angry leftist
Speaker 1: of whom we do not know the identity of just
Speaker 1: yet and cannot confirm if they were an actual student
Speaker 1: at Berkeley. But an angry leftist came up and assaulted,
Speaker 1: committed a violent act against one of our students, punched
Speaker 1: him in the face, cause quite a bit of damage. Um,
Speaker 1: and it's a horrific, horrific violent act. Now, Benny, we're
Speaker 1: gonna play the audio from this play at John Jesus
Speaker 1: Clay what oh so a lot of profanity here, because
Speaker 1: what's happening is you got the Turning Point USA kid,
Speaker 1: and you go to Benny Johnson's Twitter account and you
Speaker 1: can see it. He's he's been sharing it. You got
Speaker 1: a guy from Turning Point. He's just trying to get
Speaker 1: get young conservatives to sign up, and some considerably larger
Speaker 1: dude comes along, clearly and deranged leftist assaults him and
Speaker 1: then land's a really nasty punch right right in the
Speaker 1: kid's face. Benny, how's he doing, by the way, and
Speaker 1: how's he how's the young man who was attacked reacting
Speaker 1: into this? Yeah, it's it's bad. We're keeping his identity,
Speaker 1: is making sure that he is safe right now. But
Speaker 1: I've seen photos of the injury. It's a very very
Speaker 1: bad injury. It was a very very bad punch. And
Speaker 1: this is again on a college campus. And the victim here,
Speaker 1: who's a victim of a politically inspired hate crime. You
Speaker 1: have to call it that. That is exactly what this is.
Speaker 1: He's being targeted for his personal beliefs. This is a
Speaker 1: hate crime. This victim was merely saying that he is
Speaker 1: a conservative and being a mouthpiece for some conservative ideas
Speaker 1: on the campus of Berkeley. That is all of the
Speaker 1: information we know right now. This is not a fight,
Speaker 1: This was on instigation. This was not a violent riot.
Speaker 1: This was just a young conservative saying something conservative on
Speaker 1: a college campus. And what does he get for it?
Speaker 1: Pulled off and punched in the face to the point
Speaker 1: of a horrific personal injury. It's really bad by Berkeley
Speaker 1: right now. Buck is actually asking for any information to
Speaker 1: identify who committed the violent act, they said in a
Speaker 1: statement just released now, but they strongly condemned this. And
Speaker 1: then Berkeley is a campus that believes in commitment in
Speaker 1: freedom of expression, So we afford to working with the
Speaker 1: authorities and bringing justice to this hate crime. For this
Speaker 1: hate crime against political opinion. I remember when the coxin
Speaker 1: on my crew team in college, who was a very
Speaker 1: small guy. Because coxins have to be because of the
Speaker 1: weight in the boat. It's important you get somebody who's
Speaker 1: and oftentimes it's actually have female coxin on an all
Speaker 1: male crew team. But I remember he got he got
Speaker 1: debt by a person he had never talked to and
Speaker 1: had never met at a party on campus. It's a
Speaker 1: good thing I wasn't there. He was a good friend
Speaker 1: of mine and I would have had to take matters
Speaker 1: into my own hands. But he got decked out, broke
Speaker 1: his glasses, gave him a black guy. And it's just
Speaker 1: I bring this up, Benny, because I cannot. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a personal experience. You're now spreading what happened here
Speaker 1: on UC Berkeley. I can't think of an instance where
Speaker 1: a conservative student has walked up to a crazy lib
Speaker 1: on campus, which obviously there are tons of them, and
Speaker 1: punched one of them in the face. I can rattle
Speaker 1: off lots of instances of people who were punched for
Speaker 1: being conservatives. Yes, at turning point, we are actually producing
Speaker 1: right now a long video that shows the instances of violence,
Speaker 1: just the notable instances of violence over the last two
Speaker 1: years from the left there are major instances that made
Speaker 1: national news. For instance, the young Maga hat wearing kid
Speaker 1: who was just a teenager at a water burger had
Speaker 1: his hat taken soda thrown in his face. A pro
Speaker 1: life supporter in Canada had her phone kicked and herself
Speaker 1: like kicked across the face by a pro choice activist.
Speaker 1: And then just dozens and dozens and dozens of Antifa
Speaker 1: incidence of Antifa islands that cause major injury, major damage
Speaker 1: to businesses and to the public sector. And a lot
Speaker 1: of this violence is directed at police, a lot of
Speaker 1: this violence is directed at at the authorities. It's it
Speaker 1: is absolutely impossible to make the case that there is
Speaker 1: that there's an equitable level of violence between the right
Speaker 1: and the left. The left has an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: incidence of violence against innocent people generally hate crimes because
Speaker 1: of political opinion. Benny, Where can people go to see
Speaker 1: the work you're doing a turning point and also to
Speaker 1: follow up on this story. Yeah, so I'm going to
Speaker 1: be I'm going to be on Twitter very active about
Speaker 1: this in the next twenty four hours. Is things develop,
Speaker 1: we are going to be looking into pursuing all actions
Speaker 1: in order to defend our campus representative. And as of
Speaker 1: right now, what we're looking at bucks to bring justice
Speaker 1: and identify who the person was that committed hate crime,
Speaker 1: the committed this act of hate political hate crime, and
Speaker 1: so they can go to Turning Point USA on social media,
Speaker 1: maybe go to Benny Johnson on Twitter. All right, Benny,
Speaker 1: stay on this one man, and thank you so much
Speaker 1: for calling in. Good to talk to you. Thank you. Buck.
Speaker 1: Team will be right back. Such a bunch of snowflakes
Speaker 1: in the mainstream media. I mentioned this yesterday. Sarah is
Speaker 1: Gert somebody whom I know, and in fact, those of
Speaker 1: you who used to watch real News back in the day,
Speaker 1: we'll remember Sarah had shorter hair, perhaps a slightly different
Speaker 1: personal style, but she was a not frequent but she
Speaker 1: had multiple appearances on real News. On the Blaze TV,
Speaker 1: which was the best obviously other than Glenn Show for
Speaker 1: those of you who are glennback fans, was the best
Speaker 1: show ever to be in my opinion, on the Blaze TV,
Speaker 1: which was Real News. That panel turned out to be
Speaker 1: a young conservative all star panel, just not everybody knew
Speaker 1: it at the time. But we've all gone off to
Speaker 1: do bigger things in the media sphere anyway, Sarah Sarah
Speaker 1: Izger is getting all kinds of heat and hate from
Speaker 1: the left because she has worked for Republicans and now
Speaker 1: she's in a position of being an editorial editorial position
Speaker 1: in the CNN newsroom going into twenty twenty, and they
Speaker 1: are freaking out. In fact, the DNC bunch of cry
Speaker 1: babies over there, they're freaking out. Two. The Democratic National
Speaker 1: Committee has sought and received assurances from CNN. This is
Speaker 1: from The Daily Beast today that the network's new politics editor,
Speaker 1: Sarah Izger, will not be involved in the debates that
Speaker 1: the channel hosts and moderates for the Democratic Party. The
Speaker 1: assurances were provided after the Committee express reservations to CNN
Speaker 1: over Iger's history in Republican politics, and after officials at
Speaker 1: the committee raised concerns over her alleged connections to a
Speaker 1: now retracted Fox News story on the debunked Seth Rich
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory. Guys, this is pathetic, But this really shows
Speaker 1: you who the mainstream media is. What a bunch of whiny,
Speaker 1: delusional cry babies they are. Oh, I'm sorry, Candy Crowley
Speaker 1: is a nonpartisan debate moderator. Remember or who did call
Speaker 1: it a terrorist attack during the Romney Obama debate, remember that,
Speaker 1: or mister Robin who did call it a terror You know? Nope, sorry, Candy,
Speaker 1: he did not. Obama did not call it terrorist attack.
Speaker 1: But you know, fake Tapper, what about him? Guy worked
Speaker 1: for a Democrat congressional aspirant and even worse than my view,
Speaker 1: was part of the organization that became the Brady Campaign
Speaker 1: to end gun violence. That's right for an anti group.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, he's so nonpartisan. George Stephanopolis was a Clinton
Speaker 1: White House aide and he's one of the most revered
Speaker 1: anchors in mainstream media. I mean, it's sold. These people
Speaker 1: are full of it. That's why they have to hide
Speaker 1: their little pampered anchors from having to have these discussions
Speaker 1: in places where they can't control how much time, who's there,
Speaker 1: who's showing up when they go to commercial. They'll never
Speaker 1: do it. They will never do it. The mainstream media
Speaker 1: knows that there their days are numbered with at least
Speaker 1: the the patina, the veneer of journalistic integrity that they've
Speaker 1: been clinging to for all these decades. That they know
Speaker 1: that their their time I think is coming to an end.
Speaker 1: And I read this a very interesting producer Mike actually
Speaker 1: flagged it from me, this interview with Barry Diller. Some
Speaker 1: of you might know Barry Diller. He was ahead of
Speaker 1: I forget Paramount Studios, I think or one of the
Speaker 1: big Hollywood studios then was He's He's been head of IAC,
Speaker 1: he was on the board of the Washington Post. He's
Speaker 1: a big mover and shaker in the media world. Help
Speaker 1: found Expedia. I think or was involved early on with Expedia. Anyway,
Speaker 1: he's tender. You know, hey, swipe left, swipe swipe right.
Speaker 1: You can thank Barry Diller. He was just saying how
Speaker 1: it used to be the in this interview that the
Speaker 1: Hollywood studios were the biggest thing, and the network television
Speaker 1: got kind of bought up by the studios. But it
Speaker 1: was all part of this system. Right now, the system
Speaker 1: has changed. Now the big kids on the block are Google, Amazon, Facebook.
Speaker 1: Now Silicon Valley has more control over the content funnels
Speaker 1: than anything than anything else in the whole game. So
Speaker 1: this is all shifting. And that's why I'm trying to
Speaker 1: tell you early on that the Netflix is and the
Speaker 1: Amazons and the you know, these entities are going to
Speaker 1: give the left and even greater leg up than they've
Speaker 1: had in the past, unless we start to hold them
Speaker 1: to account for their biases and also consider, you know,
Speaker 1: alternative means of well, alternative platforms. Quite honestly, you know,
Speaker 1: nobody wants to believe this, but you know, Twitter bands conservatives.
Speaker 1: It does not ban liberals unless they're making death threats,
Speaker 1: and even then it rarely bans them. Nobody believes it,
Speaker 1: but it's true anyway that the DNC is so scared,
Speaker 1: like a bunch of little shivering snowflakes, that they can
Speaker 1: have Sarah Izger go work at CNN. I mean, I
Speaker 1: like Sarah. She's a nice lady. Kind of feel bad
Speaker 1: that she's going to be in the lions Den over
Speaker 1: there because she's gonna find out real soon not a
Speaker 1: good place, not an honest organization. And there's some good
Speaker 1: people there, but a lot of bad people, and the
Speaker 1: bad people are the ones running things. Now. The show
Speaker 1: ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real, It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. That's one of my favorite role call indrows
Speaker 1: of all the ones we do. Quick note for next week.
Speaker 1: Some of you are probably familiar with SEPACK, the Conservative
Speaker 1: Political Action Conference. It happens annually in Washington, d C. Well,
Speaker 1: this will be the first year that I make an
Speaker 1: appearance at Sepack. I will be as of now at
Speaker 1: least debating the issue of Syria withdrawal on the main
Speaker 1: stage at Sepack eight thirty am a week from tomorrow.
Speaker 1: So that is, let me get the calendar out here.
Speaker 1: February twenty no March first, March first. Forget about February
Speaker 1: March first at eight thirty am at Sea Pack. So
Speaker 1: if you're planning on going to Seapack, if you're in
Speaker 1: the DC area, definitely look look out for me on Friday.
Speaker 1: I might pop into support some of my buddies who
Speaker 1: will be giving speeches as well in those days, and
Speaker 1: I think the debate over the Syria situation will be
Speaker 1: very interesting. So if you can show up for that,
Speaker 1: please do and look for me at Sea Pack. I
Speaker 1: want to see some members of the team, especially those
Speaker 1: of you who are Team Buck Campus Squad. All right now,
Speaker 1: with that little bit of necessary self promotion, Joe Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash Buck Sexton. To get in on this,
Speaker 1: Joe writes, you must watch Firebirds Shields High from Oss. Joe, Joe,
Speaker 1: I am not familiar with this fire John do you
Speaker 1: know fire birds. I know not. I know not the Firebirds,
Speaker 1: so i'd have to I don't even I know. It's
Speaker 1: a car that I think used to be kind of
Speaker 1: like a badass American car driving a firebird. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: kind of like a is a Firebird kind of like
Speaker 1: a poor man's Mustang? Or is a Mustang kind of
Speaker 1: like a poor man's Firebird. I don't know. It's one
Speaker 1: or the other. And some of the people that actually
Speaker 1: know cars in this audience are are just yelling at
Speaker 1: the at the radio right now. They are. They should
Speaker 1: be discussed with me that I don't know the difference.
Speaker 1: It's it's a fair point, Jim writes. Role call okay, Jim,
Speaker 1: We'll hear. The continuing hate crime conspiracy continues after the
Speaker 1: indictment of Jussie. He orchestrated the hoax and the regressive media,
Speaker 1: the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party accomplices now take
Speaker 1: offense at being outrage that it affects black at being caught,
Speaker 1: rather being outraged that it affects blacks and gays, never
Speaker 1: mentioning the hate crime of false accusations against white people,
Speaker 1: Trump supporters and and others. The real enemy here are
Speaker 1: the liars in the media, and until we have a
Speaker 1: constitution loving network, we won't make real progress. Fox is
Speaker 1: not the solution with the boys running the show, allowing
Speaker 1: Shep and others to remain. So you're saying that what
Speaker 1: does accomplice not take offense at being caught being outraged?
Speaker 1: Never mentioned the hate crime of false accusations against white people.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, we've been talking about the Smallet hoax
Speaker 1: here all along. It really is a hate crime against
Speaker 1: Trump supporters. The hoax is a hate crime against Trump supporters.
Speaker 1: Brian writes, don't stop your astute analogies because a particular
Speaker 1: dislike a particular listener dislikes them. Brother, your analogies are
Speaker 1: ammo for many of us to win obvious discussions with
Speaker 1: our liberal friends. All right, Brian, I like it. We
Speaker 1: will keep some of the analogies going. I'll just try
Speaker 1: to keep them at a high level. So it's important
Speaker 1: to keep the analogies good, and that much I think
Speaker 1: we can do. Michael writes, the reason we knew it
Speaker 1: was a hoax from the beginning is because we know
Speaker 1: how absurd it sounded, and it sounds over the top absurd. However,
Speaker 1: to the left who think hate crimes are on the rise.
Speaker 1: It was on a par with the fantasy that they
Speaker 1: think is going on in this country. Are the lives
Speaker 1: actually delusional or are they lying about it to gain power? Michael,
Speaker 1: very important question. I would note that the hate crimes
Speaker 1: are on the rise is a talking point that is
Speaker 1: never able to on the rise and on what time frame?
Speaker 1: What kind of hate crimes? What a degree of hate crime?
Speaker 1: Talking about people that say something mean to somebody in
Speaker 1: a protected group. Are we talking about an actual crime?
Speaker 1: This is a talking point kind of like walls don't
Speaker 1: work that the moment you dig into it, you find
Speaker 1: out that's kind of a dumb talking point, isn't It
Speaker 1: doesn't really mean anything. Hate crimes are on the rise
Speaker 1: in the last thirty days, in the last year, sixty years,
Speaker 1: ten years. I've dug into hate crimes as listed by
Speaker 1: the FBI, and first of all, a lot of what
Speaker 1: are considered hate crimes aren't really crimes. A lot of them,
Speaker 1: about twenty or thirty percent, are in the category of
Speaker 1: verbal harassment or some form of vandalism, which is a crime,
Speaker 1: but is not something that usually you know, it's not
Speaker 1: the property damage that people are so upset about. Usually
Speaker 1: it's the message. So this thing you hear from people better, well,
Speaker 1: hate crimes are on the rise. They said that hate
Speaker 1: crimes were on the rise during all of the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: that hate crimes are on the rise. After every major
Speaker 1: Islamic terrorist attack in this country. I keep hearing about
Speaker 1: a hate crimes are on the rise, and then I
Speaker 1: look at the statistics and it doesn't bear it out.
Speaker 1: Hate hoaxes, I would argue, are definitely on the rise.
Speaker 1: So there's that, Lisa buck in the vein of the
Speaker 1: transgenders in sports thing. I still wonder why the feminist
Speaker 1: left is forcing us to choose men over women. Isn't
Speaker 1: that completely counterintuitive to their ideology? Their identity politics will
Speaker 1: end up destroying them from the inside once they actually
Speaker 1: think about what they are pushing. You can't have both
Speaker 1: female empowerment and then let men compete against them. Shields higher, Lisa,
Speaker 1: It's true. I think that the feminist movement in this
Speaker 1: country has gone so far left that it is willing
Speaker 1: to sell out women, which is an amazing state of affairs.
Speaker 1: But that's what's going on here, and what does it
Speaker 1: mean to be a woman if a man can, purely
Speaker 1: based on psychology, claim to be a woman, and everyone,
Speaker 1: under pain of social ostracism and maybe even government sanction,
Speaker 1: everyone is now supposed to say, yes, that's a woman.
Speaker 1: What does that really mean? What does that really tell us?
Speaker 1: The feminist left has no answers to this, They just
Speaker 1: simply don't Steve Rights, Heybuck love the show as usual. Steve,
Speaker 1: the show loves you as usual. Listening to the podcast
Speaker 1: from yesterday, especially on the Navratilova dismissal from the LGBTQ community,
Speaker 1: and just wanted to note that Martine competed versus Renee Richards,
Speaker 1: a transgendered male to female athlete who was allowed by
Speaker 1: the New York Supreme Court to compete in women's tennis
Speaker 1: played from nineteen seventy seven to eighty one with I
Speaker 1: believe no titles and coach navratilover to two Wimberland titles
Speaker 1: after eighty one. So maybe Martinez speaks with some confidence
Speaker 1: on the issue, just saying shields way high. Well, thank you, Steve. Now,
Speaker 1: there are some sports where brute strength and speed and
Speaker 1: physicality are going to be an enormous advantage. Tennis, it's
Speaker 1: an advantage but it's not quite the advantage that it
Speaker 1: would be in say, track and field, boxing, MMA, football.
Speaker 1: You know, you go down the list, basketball even you know,
Speaker 1: there's less physicality in tennis, and so you have to
Speaker 1: be at a certain skill level. You know, you could
Speaker 1: take the strongest man in the world, I mean, actually
Speaker 1: the strongest man in the world, like the guy who
Speaker 1: plays the mountain on Game of Thrones, and put him
Speaker 1: on a tennis court and a decent high school female
Speaker 1: tennis player. I'm sure we'll kick his butt, right because
Speaker 1: but if you put that same guy in an MMA
Speaker 1: ring with any woman in the world, he's going to
Speaker 1: win by a lot and it would be terrible and
Speaker 1: scary and the whole thing would be awful. But that's
Speaker 1: the difference I think that we need to keep in mind.
Speaker 1: Not all sports are the same when it comes to
Speaker 1: the strength and speed advantage. Next, here we have George,
Speaker 1: who writes buck so glad to see your smiling, rational,
Speaker 1: intelligent mug on the news panels Shields High. Well, George,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Man. I'm not even sure what
Speaker 1: panel I was on Reason Oh, that's right, I was
Speaker 1: on Fox on Shannon Bream Show. For those of you
Speaker 1: who like to know these things. Shannon Bream is one
Speaker 1: of the nicest people you'll ever meet. I don't really
Speaker 1: mean that, and I know that she probably is not
Speaker 1: going to hear this show, So this isn't I'm not
Speaker 1: kissing up. I just I like to tell you who's
Speaker 1: nice and who's mean in media, so that when you
Speaker 1: can make these choices, when you're flipping through the channels,
Speaker 1: you're like, not only is a good show, I know
Speaker 1: this is a nice person because Buck would never never
Speaker 1: tell me otherwise or never you know, lead me astray
Speaker 1: on this, Sean, Right, Buck, I love your tangential history,
Speaker 1: deep dives, and movie talk. I believe it to be
Speaker 1: beneficial to any audience that invest time with a talk
Speaker 1: show host to occasionally get a personality perspective outside the
Speaker 1: normal daily grind. Rush does it too, Oss, Thank you, Sean. Well,
Speaker 1: if Rush does it, the Wayne Gretzky of radio, the
Speaker 1: Lebron James of radio, perhaps to be the Zion. What's
Speaker 1: that guy's name he's supposed to be like the best,
Speaker 1: like the new Lebron, the Zion. I can't remember his
Speaker 1: last name, who apparently just hurt his foot, but anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 1: if Rush does it, what's got to be good. So
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you enjoy a little bit of a
Speaker 1: peek behind the personal curtain here. And I really do
Speaker 1: feel a sense of connection to everybody who listens to
Speaker 1: this show, like we know each other. This is why
Speaker 1: I can always tell when people who are familiar with me,
Speaker 1: this doesn't happen like it doesn't happen a lot of
Speaker 1: months of Oh I I walk into the mall and
Speaker 1: everybody says hello. No, it's not that at all. But
Speaker 1: people who sometimes watching a Fox or enough you used
Speaker 1: to watch enough CNN that they know who I am.
Speaker 1: They see me and they're like, oh, you know, there's
Speaker 1: that person I've seen on TV. When I see somebody
Speaker 1: from Team Buck and they see me on the street,
Speaker 1: we got a handshake, high five, or hug. It's one
Speaker 1: of the three. Always, you know, we gotta stop and
Speaker 1: talk and chat because it's it's just a different feeling
Speaker 1: when you really spend time with somebody on radio. I mean,
Speaker 1: radio is a tribe. Everybody who listens to this show is,
Speaker 1: at least for the time they're listening, I mean, they're
Speaker 1: they're part of we are part of a tribe. And
Speaker 1: it's fun when you get to see people who are
Speaker 1: in that you know are in that mix. I can
Speaker 1: always tell. So that's going to be it for today
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hut, my friends, we do have a
Speaker 1: fantastic show plan for you tomorrow. So with that, I
Speaker 1: bid you adieu and I wish you shield tie