Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump calls her
Speaker 1: polka haunts, and now she is fighting back. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: of Massachusetts took a DNA tests. I have the stunning
Speaker 1: results for you. Coming up. Also the disappearance and now
Speaker 1: believed murder of jamal Ka Shogi. We have updates on
Speaker 1: that for you. Looks like the Saudis are responsible, but
Speaker 1: which Saudis? That a more coming up on the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins to cover Polka. Who was
Speaker 1: think of it? Think of it? She of the great
Speaker 1: tribal heritage. What tribe is it? Let me think about
Speaker 1: that one. Meantime, she's based her life on being a minority.
Speaker 1: Polka hates. They always want me to apologize for saying it,
Speaker 1: and I hereby, Oh no, I want to apologize. I'll
Speaker 1: use tonight polka hotes. I apologize to you. I apologize
Speaker 1: to you, I apologize to the to the fake polka
Speaker 1: hates I wanted about. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show everybody.
Speaker 1: Great to have you here with me in their freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: What a day, I thought, no question, we would spend
Speaker 1: our time here talking a bit about, oh, the economy, healthcare.
Speaker 1: You know, there's actually some very important fights happening right
Speaker 1: now in the run up to the mid terms, over
Speaker 1: pre existing conditions and over you know, who has a
Speaker 1: better health care plan for the future. The kinds of
Speaker 1: normal political discussions that one would expect in a healthy
Speaker 1: republic of responsible citizens. But no, instead, we had quite
Speaker 1: a surprise today. Uh, quite a curry. I guess we
Speaker 1: would have to call this Elizabeth Warren's October surprise. The
Speaker 1: problem is it's kind of a an own goal, or
Speaker 1: it's really a surprise to her how it all shook out.
Speaker 1: She has, as you know, for a long time claim
Speaker 1: this is the senator from Massachusetts, thought of as one
Speaker 1: of the most likely contenders for the presidency from the
Speaker 1: Democrats side. She has been for a long time claiming
Speaker 1: or she was for a long time claiming Native American ancestry,
Speaker 1: and President Trump had pointed as as many others had
Speaker 1: as well pointed to since said, well that doesn't really
Speaker 1: seem to be accurate. That seems that there might be
Speaker 1: some problems here with the notion of Elizabeth Warren as
Speaker 1: Native American, because no tribe affiliation is known for her.
Speaker 1: And that is a thing, right, Native American tribes have
Speaker 1: tribal affiliations. It's taken quite seriously. And there are, yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, federal government benefits that go to people of
Speaker 1: Native American and real Native American ancestry. But more to
Speaker 1: the point, in the academy colleges and universities, if your
Speaker 1: Native American people are like, oh, yeah, that's right, that
Speaker 1: we we really need you for our diversity purposes, and
Speaker 1: they're not that many Native Americans, and so it's a
Speaker 1: big leg up in both the admissions and hiring process
Speaker 1: at universities. Right you all, you all know this. They're
Speaker 1: all on the same board of the same page. We're
Speaker 1: all on board on the same page about that. So
Speaker 1: Trump had been saying for a while that if she
Speaker 1: was in fact going to continue to claim this, he
Speaker 1: would give her and this has been misreported and so
Speaker 1: many different sources misreported the media. He would give her
Speaker 1: a million dollars to a charity of her choice if
Speaker 1: she was able to show during the presidential debates, if
Speaker 1: she were the Democrat candidate. All this is being left out,
Speaker 1: by the way, by the media that's for feverishly and
Speaker 1: fervently trying to cover for Elizabeth Warren. Some reason. Today,
Speaker 1: words are coming up. It could be one word or
Speaker 1: the other. I'm not sure which I'm gonna go with.
Speaker 1: That keeps happening me today. But she released the information
Speaker 1: from her her test today, right, she has decided to
Speaker 1: let the world know that her long scrutinized and many
Speaker 1: would say debunked Native American heritage is now back in
Speaker 1: the headlines because the analysis reported on by the ball
Speaker 1: Stone Globe, where the quote vast majority of Warren's family
Speaker 1: tree as European. It says that she has a Native
Speaker 1: American ancestry quote in the range of six to ten generation,
Speaker 1: six to ten generations ago. So this is a really
Speaker 1: a non scientific background and heritage analysis of Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: But six to ten generations ago, that would mean she is,
Speaker 1: get ready for it, between one sixty four and one
Speaker 1: one thousand and twenty four Native American, and the Boston
Speaker 1: Globe initially did the math wrong on that one. So
Speaker 1: I'm I'm here to to to fact check the Boston
Speaker 1: globes math, among among many other things we have to
Speaker 1: look at here. And this was this was a truly
Speaker 1: jaw dropping moment today, This this whole phenomenon, because this
Speaker 1: was not some analysis that was released against Elizabeth Warren's will.
Speaker 1: This wasn't some surprised that a a competing campaign or
Speaker 1: somebody else, uh, decided to drop and make it difficult
Speaker 1: for her to get elected. To the contrary, Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: took the position that this would bolster her claim. I
Speaker 1: don't know which is worse here, uh, that Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is so delusional she thinks that this proves her case,
Speaker 1: or so tone deaf as as to think that this
Speaker 1: will stop continued mockery of her for racial fraud. I
Speaker 1: mean the hill where I work in response to this,
Speaker 1: wrote that Elizabeth Warren DNA tests shows quote strong evidence
Speaker 1: of Native American ancestor. But the real headline here, if
Speaker 1: I may, if I maybe so well, is that there
Speaker 1: is strong evidence that she may have had a Native
Speaker 1: American ancestor a couple of hundred years ago, and since
Speaker 1: then it has been one long, on on uninterrupted line
Speaker 1: of white people. In fact, if you look at the
Speaker 1: percentage that Elizabeth Warren is likely Native American. Compared to
Speaker 1: the general white American population, she is less than average
Speaker 1: in her connection to the Native American population. Meaning you
Speaker 1: and me listening to this, if you happen to be
Speaker 1: white and an American and a lotty you or not.
Speaker 1: But if you haven't white an American, it is likely
Speaker 1: you are more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. And yet
Speaker 1: here we are, here we are She she must have
Speaker 1: thought that this was going to give her some degree
Speaker 1: of credibility. I don't know what she's thinking. I mean,
Speaker 1: ten generations ago. There's no realistically, there's no way to
Speaker 1: know if even the ten generations ago, if this is accurate.
Speaker 1: And then when you when you look at the Boston
Speaker 1: Globe analysis and you start to read some of this,
Speaker 1: you realize that this is all it's all kind of
Speaker 1: hazy and nonsense. Anyway. Quote this is from the Boston
Speaker 1: Globe piece. The analysis of Warren's DNA done by Carlos Boustamante,
Speaker 1: who is a professor at Stanford UH really heat tracks
Speaker 1: DNA analysis via population migration. He quote concluded that the
Speaker 1: vast majority of Warren's ancestry is European, but the results
Speaker 1: strongest support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor
Speaker 1: uh six to ten generations ago. Uh this, folks, if
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren. What this tells any normal rational person is
Speaker 1: that if Elizabeth Warren is in fact able to call
Speaker 1: herself Native American, literally, any white person it in the
Speaker 1: country could credibly claim to be Native American for professional purposes,
Speaker 1: for the purposes of advancing oneself. And therefore it would
Speaker 1: no longer even matter if you called yourself Native American.
Speaker 1: It would no longer make any difference if you considered
Speaker 1: yourself to be Native, because everybody's everybody, We're all Native
Speaker 1: American by this standard. This is completely nuts. This is
Speaker 1: completely nuts. And the fact that Trump was able to
Speaker 1: get so in her head by calling her Pocahontas, as
Speaker 1: we know he does time and time again, the fact
Speaker 1: that Trump has managed to force this incredible unforced error
Speaker 1: on on her part is just astonishing. It really is.
Speaker 1: This is somebody that is getting in the top four
Speaker 1: or five of early support from the Democrats for running
Speaker 1: for president, and most of the pole is that I've seen,
Speaker 1: In fact, it's big CNN pull out where I think
Speaker 1: she came in fourth, third or fourth place. Um, and
Speaker 1: when you look at this analysis, when you look at
Speaker 1: what's going on here, uh eight ease. Amazing to me
Speaker 1: that that anybody could read this. And this is what's
Speaker 1: so crazy, folks. People in the media took this as
Speaker 1: evidence that she was right. I mean, she's she's like
Speaker 1: one one thousand Native American maybe, and it's not even
Speaker 1: really Native American. It's based on population migration from south
Speaker 1: of the border into the United States. So she doesn't
Speaker 1: even it's not even clear that that this one or
Speaker 1: one sixty four or whatever it is is truly from
Speaker 1: a Native American tribe. And yet people in the media
Speaker 1: were saying, so she proved it. Trump is wrong. Trump
Speaker 1: needs to pay up. Now what what are they desperate?
Speaker 1: I think there's a little panic right now on the
Speaker 1: left because they realize, oh my gosh, Elizabeth Warren has
Speaker 1: completely clowned herself here, I mean, just made a complete
Speaker 1: mess of things. And so there the media has to
Speaker 1: go even further and they have to somehow pretend like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, she proved things. That's crazy. She didn't prove anything,
Speaker 1: and everyone knows it. But well, what else are they
Speaker 1: gonna do? I mean, this is Uh, this is telling
Speaker 1: us that that that pigs are flying, folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is complete detachment from reality by the libs. It
Speaker 1: is bonkers. And on this notion even that that she
Speaker 1: has any Native American ancestry. Let me just give you
Speaker 1: this is from this post. Uh. This this analysis in
Speaker 1: the Boston Globe quote. Detecting DNA for Native Americans is
Speaker 1: particularly tricky because there is an absence of Native American
Speaker 1: DNA available for comparison. This is in part because Native
Speaker 1: American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in
Speaker 1: genetic databases to make up for the dearth of Native
Speaker 1: American DNA. Boost demonte the guy doing this analysis use
Speaker 1: samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for
Speaker 1: Native American. That's because scientists believe that the group's Americans
Speaker 1: are fred to as Native Americans came to this land
Speaker 1: via the Bearing Straight about twelve thousand years ago and
Speaker 1: settled them what's now America, but also margareted further south.
Speaker 1: His report explained the use of reference populations genetic material
Speaker 1: has been sequenced for was designed for maximal accuracy. Uh So, folks,
Speaker 1: he's using South American DNA on this theory that, oh, well,
Speaker 1: because they all crossed the bearing straight. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is crazy, this is crazy. He's not even using Native
Speaker 1: American DNA to look for DNA that crosses over with
Speaker 1: with Elizabeth Warren's background. Now I know there there's more here,
Speaker 1: there's more here that there's more in the in the
Speaker 1: wy it it matters. And you're hearing all these pathetic
Speaker 1: justifications about Elizabeth Warren's backer. I'm like, oh, well, you
Speaker 1: know she didn't use this to advance herself. Bull honey,
Speaker 1: Come on, that's sitting bull. That's what you could call that.
Speaker 1: That's bull blank. When she proclaims that she's of Indian
Speaker 1: heritage because her mother said she has high cheek boats,
Speaker 1: that's her only evidence that her mother said she had
Speaker 1: high cheek book. We will take that little kid and say,
Speaker 1: but we have to do it gently because when the
Speaker 1: meat too, generations have to be very gentle. Big thing
Speaker 1: that you're gonna keep hearing about this Elizabeth Warren debacle,
Speaker 1: and so I just want to I want to disabuse
Speaker 1: any lives of thinking that they can continue to get
Speaker 1: away with this using this as as a means of
Speaker 1: trying to you know, excuse this whole situation. Now there's
Speaker 1: there there are two lines on this. One was, oh,
Speaker 1: she proved him wrong, which is insane, Right, she proved
Speaker 1: Trump wrong. No, no serious, thoughtful person can hold that
Speaker 1: position that that's just not that's just not reality. And
Speaker 1: anybody who's saying otherwise is fooling is absolutely fooling themselves
Speaker 1: and and and intentionally. So I wouldn't note, um so
Speaker 1: that that that's part one. But now they've moved to, oh, well,
Speaker 1: she'd never this wasn't a big deal. She didn't really
Speaker 1: use this in her career. Oh, I'm sorry, Hold on
Speaker 1: a second. This is courtesy of my friend Benny Johnson,
Speaker 1: who did a great rundown here. Benny Johnson over at
Speaker 1: uh the Daily Caller. He has quote every time this
Speaker 1: is on his Twitter account, every time Elizabeth Warren has
Speaker 1: lied about our Native American heritage. One Elizabeth Warren self
Speaker 1: identified as a Native American in the Association of American
Speaker 1: Law Schools Directory of Law Professors in every edition printed
Speaker 1: between two After becoming a professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvan Warren demanded the university changed her faculty listed ethnicity
Speaker 1: from white to Native American. Three. Warren was identified by
Speaker 1: Harvard Law as a quote woman of color. Harvard promoted
Speaker 1: Warren's higher as expanding their campus diversity by hiring a
Speaker 1: woman with quote minority background onto their faculty. Four. Warren
Speaker 1: claimed that her mother and father had to Elope due
Speaker 1: to her mom's obvious Indian heritage and the white bigotry
Speaker 1: of her father's family. Five. Warren submitted multiple recipes It's
Speaker 1: amazing multiple recipes for the Indian cookbook Pow Wow Chow,
Speaker 1: and signed her name Elizabeth Warren. Cherokee. That's right, folks,
Speaker 1: The next would be president of the United States of
Speaker 1: Democrats submitted recipes to Pow Wow Chow and claimed to
Speaker 1: be a Cherokee. Oh my gosh. Six. Warren used offensive,
Speaker 1: rachially charged language to defend her claims of Native American heritage,
Speaker 1: declaring that her family had quote high cheekbones like quote
Speaker 1: all the Indians do. Seven. Warren has now claimed that
Speaker 1: she may have one on one thousand and twenty four
Speaker 1: Indian DNA. This is equally problematic since DNA science proves
Speaker 1: the average white American has point one point point one
Speaker 1: eight percent Indian DNA, far more than Warren's Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: and then I'll skip one here, We're gonna nine warrant
Speaker 1: DNA did not report, did not measure actual Native American DNA,
Speaker 1: and ten. It is very difficult to argue that Warran
Speaker 1: did not commit racial fraud. That is, that was all
Speaker 1: courtesy of Bennie Johnson. But my favorite is the powowch
Speaker 1: power out chow oh man. And I see from my
Speaker 1: friend David French over National Review that she, from what
Speaker 1: we apparently from from what I see here from David,
Speaker 1: she plagiarized that recipe from a French chef. So that's right, folks,
Speaker 1: white as white can be. Elizabeth Warren pretended to be
Speaker 1: Native American to submit a recipe to a Native American
Speaker 1: cookbook as a Cherokee, and she stole that recipe from
Speaker 1: a French chef. Oh my gosh. You can't make this
Speaker 1: stuff up, You really can't. It's just it's hard to
Speaker 1: hard to come up with a way that this whole
Speaker 1: story can get crazier, it really is. It's hard to
Speaker 1: come up with a way that this could be even
Speaker 1: even more absurd and more bizarre. But sure enough, the libs,
Speaker 1: if they can find a way, they will if there's
Speaker 1: anything that they can point to here that will distract
Speaker 1: or you know, she says six to ten generations ago,
Speaker 1: she has a Native American ancestor. She doubled down on this.
Speaker 1: I mean she thinks this is vindication. I know you
Speaker 1: can say, Buck, how does this how does this really matter? Well,
Speaker 1: one keep in mind that this week there is a
Speaker 1: very serious UH lawsuit that's not not even lost to try,
Speaker 1: I should say, that's underway where Harvard University has to
Speaker 1: defend itself against claims of racial bias against Asian Americans.
Speaker 1: And if there's any justice, Harvard will lose. So the
Speaker 1: the racial entitlement state is very real, and the Left
Speaker 1: is supportive of it, and they have created this system
Speaker 1: that is going to always fall into self contradiction. It
Speaker 1: just doesn't really make sense. You know what, what does
Speaker 1: it require? How do you get to claim a a
Speaker 1: a status that a firm of action will help for
Speaker 1: college applications? What has to be in your background? We'll
Speaker 1: get into more of this team. Stay with me. Father
Speaker 1: was born in eastern Oklahoma. It had been Indian territory
Speaker 1: until just a few years earlier, when it had become
Speaker 1: a state. My daddy always said he fell head over
Speaker 1: heels in love with my mother the first time he
Speaker 1: saw her. But my daddy's parents, the Herrings, were bitterly
Speaker 1: opposed to their marrying because my mother's family the Reads Park,
Speaker 1: Native America. This sort of discrimination was common at the time,
Speaker 1: So when my mama was nineteen and my daddy was twenty,
Speaker 1: they eloped. So sure enough, Warren put out a video
Speaker 1: today about all this stuff. Elizabeth Warren decided that the
Speaker 1: best thing for her to do would be to actually
Speaker 1: create some kind of a a little propaganda film for
Speaker 1: herself where she would have different members of her family
Speaker 1: and different different people all involved in this. And I
Speaker 1: feel I feel like there should be some degree of
Speaker 1: of embarrassment here. There should be some oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what am I doing? But then again, when you when
Speaker 1: you look at what's really happening on across the board
Speaker 1: right now, with with the media and with the efforts
Speaker 1: to take down Trump, anything is acceptable as long as
Speaker 1: it is for the cause. I mean, anything is going
Speaker 1: to be considered okay here as long as it is
Speaker 1: uh evidence or useful in the anti Trump cause. I
Speaker 1: just I've reached a kind of a new a new
Speaker 1: level here, in a new degree of understanding of just
Speaker 1: where the media is taking all this stuff and what
Speaker 1: they're willing to do and what they're willing to put
Speaker 1: the American people through in terms of propaganda and the lies.
Speaker 1: And there's no way that a normal person could have
Speaker 1: read that Boston Globe report today and come away from
Speaker 1: it with anything other than wow. That is a massive
Speaker 1: mistake that Warren has made here. And she's clearly not
Speaker 1: Native American. She never should have claimed to be Native American.
Speaker 1: There's nothing about her that justifies this notion of being
Speaker 1: Native American. And yet you know all I see right
Speaker 1: now on the on the front page of CNN. Here's
Speaker 1: a perfect example. I see nothing in their main headlines.
Speaker 1: It's all about the Saudi guy got, which we'll talk
Speaker 1: more about Jamaica show you later, but nothing about that.
Speaker 1: You go down one to three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
Speaker 1: eight stories down the CNN front page right now, and
Speaker 1: you get quote, Warren's DNA never mattered to Trump? How
Speaker 1: How is this Trump's fault? In what world? Is the
Speaker 1: is the takeaway here that Trump isn't, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: accepting her DNA results or something? These people are insane,
Speaker 1: they really are or there, it's just impossible for them
Speaker 1: to be uh embarrassed. Here's another here's another version. Huffington
Speaker 1: Post Trump denies. This is their top story about this.
Speaker 1: Trump denies making charity pledge tied to Elizabeth Warren DNA
Speaker 1: test Trump said and was it was very specific. Trump
Speaker 1: said that if she makes it through the primaries and
Speaker 1: is the Democrat nominee, and then and then and she
Speaker 1: proves that she has Native American heritage, in that case,
Speaker 1: he'll give a million dollars to your favorite charity. So
Speaker 1: that's what he said. Okay, he denies what they're saying
Speaker 1: he said, which is he would just give her a
Speaker 1: million dollars if she proves she's Native American. And that
Speaker 1: even is not the point, because if she's Native American,
Speaker 1: everybody's Native American, and anyone who's trying to be honest,
Speaker 1: anybody who's looking at this from the perspective of I
Speaker 1: would like to really present the facts and and get
Speaker 1: to the truth here, would automatically understand this. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just pathetic. It is absolute nonsense that I'm
Speaker 1: seeing here from all these different all these different sources,
Speaker 1: the way that they're covering this. I mean they're they're
Speaker 1: trying so hard to actually cover is the right word,
Speaker 1: because they're really covering for Warren and this because what
Speaker 1: they think happened today is, uh, what they think happened
Speaker 1: today is that she's no longer are really going to
Speaker 1: be a serious contender for this is laughable. She's a clown,
Speaker 1: She's a joke. She's a joke. She should be at
Speaker 1: least here's ABC News, which is supposed to be unbiased.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren releases DNA results on Native American ancestry. Trump says, quote,
Speaker 1: who cares? That's their headline, That's the headline that see.
Speaker 1: This is a perfect case of media bias at work.
Speaker 1: They think that they're progressive. Great hope for is in
Speaker 1: jeopardy right now because of her own just bone headed stupidity.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just unthinkably dumb, unthinkably dumb. And
Speaker 1: they're gonna do whatever they can to try and lessen
Speaker 1: the damage to her. That they're gonna try to keep
Speaker 1: her brand, keep her hopes for going. And that means this,
Speaker 1: That means all these different headlines where they're focused in
Speaker 1: on either Trump's response out of context or just that
Speaker 1: she released her DNA results. This is a this is
Speaker 1: an embarrassment. She's one one thousand Native American. Maybe they
Speaker 1: think that proved that she's Native American. And and now
Speaker 1: you take it to what are we really going to do?
Speaker 1: What are really the results going to be here of
Speaker 1: this in the long term? And I would say this
Speaker 1: if someone if I, for example, I believe and this
Speaker 1: is based on family members of mine who have gone
Speaker 1: through this process, I don't know, but I believe that
Speaker 1: I probably would have something around the around the lines
Speaker 1: of a one percent African DNA. And now you might
Speaker 1: say a buck I think everybody, Yeah, maybe every but
Speaker 1: I'm just talking about me. I'm speaking from the eye perspective. Okay,
Speaker 1: I think I've got about one percent African DNA if
Speaker 1: I applied to college. Remember that's not a that's not
Speaker 1: a federal criminal law issue or anything, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, but you know she she didn't get
Speaker 1: any bet of a No. She was hired through a
Speaker 1: firm of action. That's why she did this because it
Speaker 1: was a huge career boost all through her career. And
Speaker 1: it's a way of getting through the admissions process or
Speaker 1: getting through the hiring process. Much more easily if I
Speaker 1: applied to Harvard where she was a law professor, which
Speaker 1: is an embarrassment to Harvard, by the way, Harvard should
Speaker 1: be embarrassed, and I said that I was African American,
Speaker 1: people would rightly, I think that that was disgusting and
Speaker 1: I would be roundly criticized for that. And I think
Speaker 1: that that's that's fair, that's true, that's accurate. I'm not
Speaker 1: African American, and and it's a dishonest thing. And it
Speaker 1: would be a dishonest thing for me to claim that
Speaker 1: I was African American. Okay, But why is that a
Speaker 1: terrible thing deserving of opprobrium? Why is that something that
Speaker 1: we can all agree the media would get so upset
Speaker 1: about and Elizabeth Warren doing the exact same thing with
Speaker 1: the Native American ancestry because I could claim one percent
Speaker 1: African and I'm American, so aren't I African American? Elizabeth
Speaker 1: warren't do the exact same thing. They're willing to try
Speaker 1: to excuse. They're trying to find some way to tell
Speaker 1: us all that it's not really that it either didn't
Speaker 1: matter or it's not true, or she is Native. The
Speaker 1: craziest is she is native American. I mean, no, no
Speaker 1: serious person takes that should take that perspective. But lots
Speaker 1: of media outlets are I mean, I mean the biggest ones, folks,
Speaker 1: I mean the biggest ones, the same ones that that
Speaker 1: treated the Kavanaugh allegations as fact without any evidence. Those
Speaker 1: same media outlets, now, oh, surprise, surprise, are acting like, yeah,
Speaker 1: she's she's proven her case here, she's clearly she's clearly
Speaker 1: Native American. Not nothing to nothing to point out beyond
Speaker 1: that the media should be oh so deeply embarrassed all this,
Speaker 1: But as we know, they're not. They are running interference.
Speaker 1: They are activists. They have chosen a side here and
Speaker 1: right now they're gal Is in some trouble. So what
Speaker 1: are they doing? Are they being fact finders? Are they
Speaker 1: speaking truth to power? Are they doing the best analysis
Speaker 1: and reporting they can? No, of course not. They're throwing
Speaker 1: up smoke screens, even if they're flimsy, even if they
Speaker 1: know that they won't withstand scrutiny. They're doing everything that
Speaker 1: they can to give her either a little bit of
Speaker 1: wiggle room to get out of this jam she's put
Speaker 1: herself in, or just to delay the full force and
Speaker 1: fury of the news cycle against her and hope that
Speaker 1: something else comes up tomorrow. That's what they're trying to
Speaker 1: do here. That's what the that's what the real plan is.
Speaker 1: So I would just note that whenever Trump calls them
Speaker 1: fake news and they get so upset, maybe they should
Speaker 1: just stop being fake news and then he won't call
Speaker 1: them that anymore. And then you also have just Trump's
Speaker 1: instinctual political brilliance here by calling Elizabeth Warren out and
Speaker 1: not being afraid to use the word pocahunt is or
Speaker 1: the name pocahunt is, not being afraid to go where
Speaker 1: people say, oh, you can't do that. He has exposed
Speaker 1: her for a pathetic phony and a fraud, an absolute
Speaker 1: fraud about two minutes. That's what's what's gonna be here. Antifa.
Speaker 1: You guys remember antifa, right, That used to be a
Speaker 1: big thing. They used to get a lot of media attention.
Speaker 1: At least conservative media would sometimes talk about them. The
Speaker 1: left doesn't seem to want to talk about them. That
Speaker 1: was some audio that we played for you of the
Speaker 1: latest Antifa incident out on the I don't do it
Speaker 1: as well as Trump. Trump's Antifa is better than my antifa,
Speaker 1: but I don't do it as well as he does
Speaker 1: out on the West coast in a Portland, which strikes
Speaker 1: me as a strange place for it to be quite
Speaker 1: so much political extremism. But but that's I suppose it
Speaker 1: is what it is, right that is going on there.
Speaker 1: But you've got these people with with this Antifa group
Speaker 1: that we're squaring off against some I think it's called
Speaker 1: a group for Patriots and Prayer or something. I forget
Speaker 1: exactly even what the what the group was called. Um,
Speaker 1: let me do a quick refresher on that one. But
Speaker 1: you know, sure enough, you had you had this, uh,
Speaker 1: this violent incident where you have protesters and counter protesters
Speaker 1: here we go bear spray and bloody brawls at patriot Yeah,
Speaker 1: patriot prayer, law and order march in Portland. You have
Speaker 1: to be very careful, my friends, when you see the
Speaker 1: way that these kinds of stories are covered. You have
Speaker 1: to pay really really close attention because there's a lot
Speaker 1: of political hedging that goes on. There's a lot of usage,
Speaker 1: a kind of weasel words, and what they leave in
Speaker 1: what they take out of these options. For example, just
Speaker 1: because the a c l U and by the way,
Speaker 1: I know nothing about this Patriot Prayer group. I can't
Speaker 1: keep up with all the Although a group that's called
Speaker 1: Patriot Prayer and has a lot of American flags sounds
Speaker 1: cool to me, but I don't know. They could be wackos.
Speaker 1: I have no idea. There are too many of these little,
Speaker 1: you know, local political groups for me to know every
Speaker 1: single one of them. But I just would I would
Speaker 1: caution you all that the a c l U is
Speaker 1: not a reliable source at all. I'm sorry, a c
Speaker 1: l U. Southern Poverty Well that the true about the
Speaker 1: a c l U as well, so yes, you can
Speaker 1: keep that, keep that in. The Southern Poverty Law Center
Speaker 1: is not a reliable source when it comes to deciding
Speaker 1: who is a a political extremist or a right wing extremist,
Speaker 1: a white nationalist, any any of those things. You cannot
Speaker 1: trust the Southern Populty Law Center. It has become a
Speaker 1: massive fundraising organization and a left wing really a left
Speaker 1: wing hit group in a lot of cases. I mean,
Speaker 1: any group that has to pay a multimillion dollar settlement
Speaker 1: to Magi NOAs for being an anti Muslim extremist when
Speaker 1: he's a Muslim, is a group that you probably want
Speaker 1: to take with a grained salt whenever it comes to these, uh,
Speaker 1: these different demonstrations and how they're reporting on who's there
Speaker 1: and what's going on. So that's that's one part of it.
Speaker 1: But then there's the other, which is just this idea
Speaker 1: that it is a normal thing to want to show
Speaker 1: up and do these counter protests, and they call them
Speaker 1: counter protests. But when people show up to a demonstration, right,
Speaker 1: and they're all wearing black, and they have gas masks
Speaker 1: and shields and and and homemade weapons, they're not showing
Speaker 1: up because they want to engage in a battle of ideas.
Speaker 1: They want to engage in a battle. They want to
Speaker 1: fight people. And the fact that they showed up with
Speaker 1: bear spray and these other things tells you all that
Speaker 1: you need to know. But I just think it's so
Speaker 1: interesting which media outlets will and will not cover this.
Speaker 1: This makes for really compelling footage. This is a story
Speaker 1: that you think they'd want to tell. You have almost
Speaker 1: entirely white by the way, Antifa radicals who are attacking this,
Speaker 1: this patriot prayer group, by the way, that they're called
Speaker 1: a law and order group, or rather they wanted to
Speaker 1: march for law and order. I've gotta. I've got to
Speaker 1: wonder is that just a is that a euphemism? Are
Speaker 1: they actually white nationals? I mean, I have no idea,
Speaker 1: and I know that I can't trust um. I can't
Speaker 1: trust the mediator to produce honest assessments of this and
Speaker 1: tell us what really happened. For example, just that they
Speaker 1: accept that there are counter protesters and that you know,
Speaker 1: the kind of protests just like showed up and like
Speaker 1: they didn't want any problems, man, but you know there
Speaker 1: were problems. Well maybe it's because they showed up in
Speaker 1: the whole purpose of their presence was to ignite some
Speaker 1: kind of a confrontation. Right, these guys are they gave man,
Speaker 1: they gave Jason back because they just gonna be fansy
Speaker 1: want to hang out, you know, to pality aches. And no,
Speaker 1: they're showing up. They're screaming about fascism and trumping a
Speaker 1: Nazi and they want it. They want to hit people
Speaker 1: and they want to attack people, and they want to
Speaker 1: do these little home videos of this because these are radical,
Speaker 1: their political radicals. And you know, you could argue that
Speaker 1: the only thing that really separates them from a domestic
Speaker 1: terrorist organization is that to date, Antifa has put a
Speaker 1: limit on the degree of their violence, right, they have
Speaker 1: not engaged, into my knowledge, I might be forgetting something
Speaker 1: lethal action against them yet, but they have engaged in
Speaker 1: violent action. And keep in mind that that violent action
Speaker 1: if you have a very different, very different political circumstances,
Speaker 1: that could escalate, It could escalate rather rapidly and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, A group that has eschewed lethality in
Speaker 1: the past when it comes to with violence, maybe in
Speaker 1: a position where they feel like that is open to them,
Speaker 1: and in fact that's the pathway that they take. So
Speaker 1: I would just note that that's something that that I
Speaker 1: want everyone to be aware of. It that just because
Speaker 1: Antifa has not been to this point a group that
Speaker 1: is engaged in straight up terrorism. It used to be
Speaker 1: that the anarchists, who remind me a lot of Antifa,
Speaker 1: the anarchists in this country were the real terrorists. I
Speaker 1: mean the sort of when I mean real terrorists, I
Speaker 1: mean they were the primary terror threat. They were the
Speaker 1: ones who were assassinating presidents, trying to blow up the
Speaker 1: stock exchange. That's right. It was anarchists, not Islamic radicals.
Speaker 1: There was another incident, by the way, I know I
Speaker 1: would get hit if I didn't bring this one up.
Speaker 1: There's another incident on Friday in New York City, actually
Speaker 1: right in the neighborhood I think where I grew up.
Speaker 1: In fact, when I looked at the videos, I could
Speaker 1: tell even the videos didn't show you much what street
Speaker 1: I think they were on when they had this fight. Uh,
Speaker 1: there was this this group that the Proud Boys, and
Speaker 1: I've never really understood who they are or what what
Speaker 1: they are. I've heard that they have they have some
Speaker 1: I should actually probably just call Gavin McInnis and ask him.
Speaker 1: And the Metropolitan Republican Club invited the Proud Boys, which
Speaker 1: is called a quote right wing fraternal organization in this
Speaker 1: in this one piece I'm reading, and there were two
Speaker 1: or three counter protesters that were beat up. Now I
Speaker 1: don't know, I wasn't there, and I haven't seen much.
Speaker 1: I've only seen a little bit of footage. But were
Speaker 1: these counter protesters who were just there to have a discussion?
Speaker 1: I think if you show up when if you think
Speaker 1: that these are right wing radicals, which obviously the counter
Speaker 1: protesters do, and you show up at one of their events,
Speaker 1: are you planning to antagonize them? And try to incite
Speaker 1: a confrontation, or you really just want to share your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Do they think that they're going to scare the proud boys?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is where you have. That's
Speaker 1: the question. What are they really doing there? With all
Speaker 1: the recent news about online security breaches, it's hard not
Speaker 1: to worry about where my data goes. Making an online
Speaker 1: purchase or simply accessing your email could put your private
Speaker 1: information at risk. You're being tracked online by social media sites,
Speaker 1: marketing companies, and your mobile internet provider. Not only can
Speaker 1: they record your browsing history, but they often sell it
Speaker 1: to other corporations who want to profit from your information.
Speaker 1: That's why I decided to take my privacy back by
Speaker 1: using Express vpn. Express vpn has easy to use apps
Speaker 1: that run seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone,
Speaker 1: and tablet, and turning on Express VPN protection only takes
Speaker 1: one click. Protect yourself with Express vpn for less than
Speaker 1: seven dollars a month and protect your online activity today
Speaker 1: and find out how you can get three months free
Speaker 1: at Express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express vpn
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for three months free with a
Speaker 1: one year package again visit Express VPN dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck to learn more. The other thing I've really learned
Speaker 1: is I never knew how dishonest the media was. I
Speaker 1: really mean it. I'm not saying that as a sound bite.
Speaker 1: I never knew how to change the subject. Again. No,
Speaker 1: but even the way you asked me a question like
Speaker 1: about separation, When I say, Obama, I did it. You
Speaker 1: don't want to talk about your answer, but you did
Speaker 1: it four times. I'm just telling you that you treated
Speaker 1: me much differently on the subject. I disagree, but I
Speaker 1: don't want to have that fight with you. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: I'm president and you're not sure. The first lady, yes, Milanna.
Speaker 1: She said that there are still people in the White
Speaker 1: House that she doesn't trust and that you shouldn't trust.
Speaker 1: I feel the same way. I don't trust everybody in
Speaker 1: the White House. I'll be honest with you. What about
Speaker 1: General Maddis is he going to leave? Well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: He hasn't told me that to relationship with him, it
Speaker 1: could be that he is. I think he's sort of
Speaker 1: a Democrat if you want to know the truth. But
Speaker 1: General Matters is a good guy. We get along very well.
Speaker 1: He may leave. I mean, at some point everybody leaves.
Speaker 1: Everybody people leave. That's Washington. Quite an interview over the
Speaker 1: weekend on A sixty. It's Trump just laying it down.
Speaker 1: I love it. I love it when Trump goes into
Speaker 1: lines down with some of these libs and they think
Speaker 1: they're gonna trip him up, and they think they're gonna
Speaker 1: get him, and and they think, oh, yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: I'll find some way to make him look ridiculous and
Speaker 1: I'll get this big moment out of it. And He's like, look,
Speaker 1: what are you doing here? Why are you showing up
Speaker 1: and coming in with such a clear agenda. We know
Speaker 1: what all the questions are gonna be before, and we
Speaker 1: know what positions they're gonna take on this stuff. So
Speaker 1: and we find ourselves watching this and and just waiting
Speaker 1: for the moment when Trump decides, you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna say it like it is. And it's amazing.
Speaker 1: It's an amazing thing. I really do enjoy it every time.
Speaker 1: Every time Trump just lets it ripping and trumpifies the
Speaker 1: whole thing. And this, this interview with sixteen minutes of
Speaker 1: the weekend was was quite an example that where he says,
Speaker 1: you know, on the president and you're not to her.
Speaker 1: That's a great that's a great moment because he's just saying, look,
Speaker 1: you know, back off me. She got on him on
Speaker 1: the whole Kim Jong Un thing. Oh He's saying, look,
Speaker 1: I was, I was really just sort of speaking. I
Speaker 1: was kind of kidding about it. And they they pretend
Speaker 1: not to understand what Trump is trying to say when
Speaker 1: he says things. They're actually not that the media is
Speaker 1: not as dumb. I mean, they're not as smart as
Speaker 1: I think they are, but they're also not as dumb
Speaker 1: as they want us to believe they are on these things.
Speaker 1: There's there's just no no way around it. They would
Speaker 1: rather just do the whole pearl clutching. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: did you hear the latest thing that Trump said. It's
Speaker 1: so horrifying, instead of addressing what's really going on and
Speaker 1: what the real backstory is to whatever comment he's making
Speaker 1: or whatever policy he's discussing. Um. The only real surprise
Speaker 1: I had was that comment he made about whether Maddis
Speaker 1: General Maddis is is sort of a Democrat and said
Speaker 1: that that he may leave. I have to wonder what
Speaker 1: that's all about. I wonder what's really being said there.
Speaker 1: And this is where I could get myself into a
Speaker 1: little bit of trouble. Will some of you on this one,
Speaker 1: But I have always had a new look. Mattis has
Speaker 1: an impeccable reputation. I've started a million times. He's a
Speaker 1: general's general. All that still is true. And maybe maybe
Speaker 1: Trump was just speaking off hand. Maybe he was just
Speaker 1: kind of messing around. I have no idea. I have
Speaker 1: no idea, but I will say this in my experience,
Speaker 1: and I mean some of my personal experience, the generals
Speaker 1: who are well or really well thought of by the
Speaker 1: media tend to be people who want cultivate a certain
Speaker 1: persona with the media. And two also are a little more,
Speaker 1: shall we say, willing to take a a point of
Speaker 1: view that would be well received by academia and the
Speaker 1: media on a whole. A bunch of things, you know.
Speaker 1: And I've noticed this before. Generals start to get very
Speaker 1: political and generals like to be loved. Is this true
Speaker 1: of madness? I have no idea. I am just saying
Speaker 1: that I'm aware of this as a phenomenon. Uh that
Speaker 1: for example, a lot of the stuff that came out
Speaker 1: about General Petreus, I was not surprised by at all,
Speaker 1: because I had known for a long time that he
Speaker 1: was a a guy who was seeking out the media
Speaker 1: and very much trying for his own purposes to create
Speaker 1: this narrative of Petrayus as the greatest military mind of
Speaker 1: his generation. I would I would just point out that
Speaker 1: before even being brought low by the extra meerial affair
Speaker 1: and the woman and the classified information that he didn't take,
Speaker 1: you know, all the stuff that you already know about,
Speaker 1: and he had to plead guilty and pleaded guilty. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, he he was credited with fixing Irock, which
Speaker 1: Y has the surge work, but it was really are
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand troops and people that were on
Speaker 1: the front lines that fixed a rock. But his strategy
Speaker 1: was successful there, but there were some very important ingredients
Speaker 1: that were in place for that strategy to work. I
Speaker 1: would note that the strategy that he tried in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: did not work, was not working and was never going
Speaker 1: to work, and he was not really willing to hear
Speaker 1: about how that was the case. So while I think,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you know, he gets all this
Speaker 1: credit for a Rock, Well, if he gets all this
Speaker 1: credit for Rock we also have to look and see
Speaker 1: the situation Afghanistan. Understand that he's not that portrayus was
Speaker 1: not this uh Men beyond reproach when it came to
Speaker 1: his strength, well certainly not beyond approach period, but also
Speaker 1: when it came to a strategy. So that's that's my saying,
Speaker 1: I need to do a little more. I need you
Speaker 1: a little more analysis of what's going on here with
Speaker 1: with that Maddis comment that that called me off guard
Speaker 1: because I've heard so much positive stuff about Mattis for
Speaker 1: so long, and maybe he just rubbed the president the
Speaker 1: wrong way recently and he just wanted to call him
Speaker 1: the Democrat. I also think it's kind of funny that
Speaker 1: the president uses calling somebody an Mamocrat has kind of
Speaker 1: a little sly, you know, a little bit of SmackDown.
Speaker 1: You know. He's like, hey, guys, kind of a democrat.
Speaker 1: You know. It's like when I say in my in
Speaker 1: my media life, I'm like, that guy's okay, he's kind
Speaker 1: of a communist. So Trump says he he's kind of
Speaker 1: a democrat. He also said, as you know that Trump
Speaker 1: said that he does not trust everybody in the White House,
Speaker 1: and this is this falls into that that category of
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, the palace intrigue here. You know, we
Speaker 1: we we need to we need to make sure that
Speaker 1: we run all these stories about how Trump can't trust
Speaker 1: the people around him, and there's all this stuff about
Speaker 1: how Trump is, you know, unable to manage, and he's
Speaker 1: bringing in all these people that don't have the right
Speaker 1: requirements and backgrounds and skills and everything else. They love
Speaker 1: these White House dysfunction stories and anything that plays into
Speaker 1: that we tend to hear a lot about. Right, So
Speaker 1: then I take a step back. Then I say, hold
Speaker 1: on a minute. Given what we know about all the
Speaker 1: different leaks and all the people that are in the
Speaker 1: White House, including Republicans who are holdovers from the Bush
Speaker 1: I shouldn't say from the Bush administration, but from the
Speaker 1: Bush era of the Republican Party, people that are not
Speaker 1: on board with Trump at all. We know that there's
Speaker 1: somebody right now who wrote, if you if you believe
Speaker 1: the New York Times, and I don't take that for granted,
Speaker 1: but if you believe the New York Times, there is
Speaker 1: a senior White House administration official right now who wrote
Speaker 1: an op ed effectively saying that we are working against
Speaker 1: the commander in chief behind the scenes, to thwart his
Speaker 1: decision making, to act like he's not really the president,
Speaker 1: and to go to these you can go to these
Speaker 1: extreme lengths because we know what's best for the country.
Speaker 1: We will undermine the express will of the American people
Speaker 1: through their elections because we know better. And that's really
Speaker 1: the position. That's really what there, that's really what they're
Speaker 1: they're saying about this. And this guy wrote this editorial.
Speaker 1: We never found by the way, the a non editorial list,
Speaker 1: we never found out who this guy was, the anonymous
Speaker 1: editorial writer. But then of course Trump. Of course Trump
Speaker 1: shouldn't trust everybody in his White House. Of course he'd
Speaker 1: be silly to do that. And that's also why I
Speaker 1: give him more leeway than I would in other circumstances.
Speaker 1: And maybe you can say that's a little bit of
Speaker 1: you know, self justifying here, or that's convenient not self justifying. Uh,
Speaker 1: But I understand why he wants to have family members
Speaker 1: around because he feels like at least he can trust them.
Speaker 1: And if you're Trump, and you've seen what's gone on
Speaker 1: with a lot of not just the opposition, but the
Speaker 1: people that are ostensibly supposed to be on your side
Speaker 1: of the fence, people who are supposed to be Republicans
Speaker 1: helping you out, you know, your your battle buddy, so
Speaker 1: to speak. And how many of them have become turn
Speaker 1: coats on him? How many Republicans have we seen, including
Speaker 1: people with some pretty decent recognition within party circles. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can talk about like Bill Crystal, the Weekly A, Conservatives,
Speaker 1: right wingers, whatever you want to call them that I've
Speaker 1: openly said, yeah, I'm actually just not even opposing Trump anymore.
Speaker 1: I'm a Democrat. In that kind of an environment, which
Speaker 1: is the environment President Trump is in. I think it
Speaker 1: would be insane for the President say yeah, I trust
Speaker 1: everybody in the White House. Of course, he doesn't trust
Speaker 1: everyone in the White House. This reminds me of some
Speaker 1: of the politicians that I've I've been able to interview
Speaker 1: in the last few months, and I love when they
Speaker 1: do the you know, okay off the record, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: you're not telling me anything that's really some of them,
Speaker 1: you know, they're not telling you anything that's really off
Speaker 1: the record. What they're doing is saying off the record
Speaker 1: to create the facade of you know, I'm really giving
Speaker 1: you some access and insight here and I'm trying to
Speaker 1: build this rapport, and then they say things that if
Speaker 1: I were to violate off the record, which I never would,
Speaker 1: but if I were to violate off the record, it
Speaker 1: would make them look even better. You know. They're like,
Speaker 1: off the record, volunteered at a soup kitchen last weekend
Speaker 1: and save some puppies from a burning building. Is that really?
Speaker 1: Did that? Did that really have to be off the record?
Speaker 1: Senator so? And so? I guess so? Uh? And then
Speaker 1: you know, the the one, the really contentious exchange, the
Speaker 1: really contentious exchange that Trump had here with Leslie Stall
Speaker 1: in this interview had to do with immigration, because I
Speaker 1: think that is the one area where the left and
Speaker 1: the media allies that they have have felt like they've
Speaker 1: been in the strongest position since the summer to just
Speaker 1: just pound Trump on this. And what I think is
Speaker 1: so so fascinating here is that you know, Stalled did
Speaker 1: this anything They always do, Well, it's your policy. It's
Speaker 1: your policy to separate parents from children at the border.
Speaker 1: You did it. It's on you. It's your fault. And
Speaker 1: Trump says, well, no, it's the law. And I don't
Speaker 1: think that they even I don't think his media critics
Speaker 1: even really understand that to say that it's the law
Speaker 1: is to say that it's actually the Congress that does
Speaker 1: bear some of, if not the lion's share, of the
Speaker 1: responsibility for this whole situation, That that that the Congress
Speaker 1: is either inept or cowardly, or for whatever reason, just
Speaker 1: unwilling to do what they're supposed to do in these circumstances,
Speaker 1: which is to find a way to adjust a law
Speaker 1: that it's a bad law, or to repeal it entirely.
Speaker 1: Is it really the president's role? I mean, this is
Speaker 1: how much damage I think Obama did to the rule
Speaker 1: of laws of concept. It became normal during the Obama
Speaker 1: administration for him when he felt frustrated with Congress, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go rock Congress. Congress, I don't like what they do.
Speaker 1: Look what that sorry, He would go around them and
Speaker 1: do this whole executive order routine, which was an abuse
Speaker 1: of executive orders because what he was just doing was
Speaker 1: usurping the legislative branches authority and pretending the laws were
Speaker 1: what he wanted them to be and saying, well, it's
Speaker 1: just about enforcement. It's not just about enforcement. When you
Speaker 1: don't or something at all. It's not just about enforcement
Speaker 1: when you exempt an entire class of people that are
Speaker 1: explicitly not exempted by Congress. And I think that's part
Speaker 1: of this that just immediately the press puts aside, pushes aside,
Speaker 1: and they really assumed, I mean, they really thought that
Speaker 1: they would uh, they would be in a place where
Speaker 1: Trump and the Republicans would just get hammered on immigration.
Speaker 1: They would be they would be just crushed because of
Speaker 1: what had been going out of the border. And I
Speaker 1: think that they miscalculated that for a lot of Americans,
Speaker 1: enough is enough. They don't really want to keep being
Speaker 1: told that, you know, immigrants do jobs, and which I
Speaker 1: mean illegals now, folks, not immigrants. Illegal immigrants do the jobs.
Speaker 1: Americans won't do that illegal immigrants are nothing but a
Speaker 1: net positive for the economy, and they would like to
Speaker 1: have some re establishment of the rule of law. It
Speaker 1: comes to the border. And I know that Trump hasn't
Speaker 1: built a wall yet, and there's a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: that remains remains to be done, and I have a
Speaker 1: lot of concerns whether it will even happen, especially if
Speaker 1: the Democrats take the House. But on this, on this
Speaker 1: issue of the border. You can tell Leslie still, Oh,
Speaker 1: she just wants to Oh. The parents being separated from
Speaker 1: their children, it happened under Obama. It's a law that's
Speaker 1: stole in the books. It was the law when Obama
Speaker 1: was in office. And oh, by the way, the people
Speaker 1: that were getting separated from their children at the border
Speaker 1: were overwhelmingly explicitly trying to break US law. They were
Speaker 1: being picked up after crossing illegally then claiming asylum. And
Speaker 1: this is after they had essentially ignored the laws of
Speaker 1: this country because they think that, you know, they don't
Speaker 1: have to pay any attention to it. You know, if
Speaker 1: there's not going to be any consequences, is off at
Speaker 1: all of that? We should ask the question why I
Speaker 1: think that's fair. There's something really terrible and discus thing
Speaker 1: about that if that were the case. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: have to see. We're going to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of it, and there will be severe punishment. What happened
Speaker 1: to journalist Jamal Kashogi, The entire world seems absolutely said
Speaker 1: on trying to get an answer to that question, what
Speaker 1: what what happened to this man? How? How was it
Speaker 1: that he was able to disappear from the Turkish consulate
Speaker 1: in Istanbul were rather from a consulate, the Saudi consulate
Speaker 1: in Istanbul. And now we have this very real, looming
Speaker 1: international relations crisis on our hands. How did we how
Speaker 1: did we get to this point? How do we find
Speaker 1: ourselves in this situation where we have to now deal
Speaker 1: with this? You know, the President has raised this possibility
Speaker 1: of rogue killers because the President, I'm sure he said
Speaker 1: that he spoke to King Solomon behind the scenes. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, the king in Saudi Arabia is a pretty
Speaker 1: uh what's the word infirm old man. At this point,
Speaker 1: it's really uh mbs Mohammed been Salmon, who is the
Speaker 1: thirty three year old crown Prince. He's the guy who
Speaker 1: runs stuff, and he's the one who has done this
Speaker 1: whole charm offensive in this country. And big business and
Speaker 1: big media and big government all being buddy buddy with
Speaker 1: m b s. So that's why this has sent such
Speaker 1: a shock wave through the elite communities. The the Davos
Speaker 1: set is a little oh my gosh, what will we
Speaker 1: do now? We can't we can't have the Saudies funding
Speaker 1: trips for us anymore. Uh. And and there's there's the
Speaker 1: reality of what this tells us of Saudi Arabia, which
Speaker 1: is interesting and I'll get to that, um. And there's
Speaker 1: also the pending probably will be the case at some
Speaker 1: point when you watch this show, when you listen, not watch,
Speaker 1: when you listen to this show, I will have confirmation
Speaker 1: of it. But as of right now, it sounds like
Speaker 1: they are planning to say that this was a rogue
Speaker 1: element within the Saudi government. That's the latest reporting here,
Speaker 1: and the plan is for the Saudi government to throw
Speaker 1: some intelligence official under the bus. I've also seen early
Speaker 1: reports that it maybe maybe the Saudi government's position that
Speaker 1: an intelligence official decided to interrogate and it went over
Speaker 1: the line. Um. But the Saudiast can't hide anymore that
Speaker 1: this guy was killed, was killed in there custody. They're calling, quote,
Speaker 1: an interrogation that went wrong. That's that's the latest on this.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't really seem like, uh, there's any room
Speaker 1: for the Saudi East to keep dissembling on this, that
Speaker 1: they're they're caught the Saudia's ear in a jam here um,
Speaker 1: as they should be. The Saudi regime is a terrible
Speaker 1: and uh and disgusting government. But we're not really often
Speaker 1: told that because they have a tremendous amount of sway
Speaker 1: even in our own media. They own a lot of
Speaker 1: shares and a lot of very important media companies. But
Speaker 1: here's what you see the pivot that the pivot that's
Speaker 1: going to happen, It's already started to happen. As you
Speaker 1: have this issue of a repressive, totalitarian Muslim. How often
Speaker 1: do you hear about that a Muslim majority nation, not
Speaker 1: just a Muslim majority nation, an entirely Muslim nation, the
Speaker 1: most Muslim country by percentage, I believe in the world.
Speaker 1: I mean maybe Somalia, and there are a couple other
Speaker 1: countries that are right up there. But the Saudis do
Speaker 1: not allow non Muslims to be, you know, citizens of
Speaker 1: the peninsulum, and the Saudis are do They do not
Speaker 1: allow Christian worship or ceremonies or houses of worship to
Speaker 1: be to even be built on on Saudi lands. So
Speaker 1: this is a hyper Islamist government, which you don't ever
Speaker 1: hear a hyper Islamist regime. Um And I talked to
Speaker 1: you a little bit about that holy but unholy alliance
Speaker 1: between the Wahabis Uh, the sala Fist fundamentalist Islam and
Speaker 1: this Bedouin tribe, the House of Sad that is the
Speaker 1: Saudi regime, Saudi royal family. So you know, there's all
Speaker 1: this complexity on the issue. But but here's what what's
Speaker 1: happening right now. This is going to quickly become a
Speaker 1: crisis that that is much more about what Trump does
Speaker 1: for our media than what it really means. I'm already hearing,
Speaker 1: you know, because Trump cozies up with dictators. That's why
Speaker 1: this happens. This is the line. You hear this all
Speaker 1: the time. Trump is so it's coddle's dictators. Here. Here's
Speaker 1: what I want to say to anybody in response to that,
Speaker 1: because you'll hear this all over the place the media
Speaker 1: the next few days. I don't think it's possible to
Speaker 1: caddle dictators more than Obama did. I think it would
Speaker 1: be very hard. You have to work really hard to
Speaker 1: do so. Because Obama made some very clear errors in
Speaker 1: dealing with authoritarians and strongmand for one is, his word
Speaker 1: didn't mean anything when it came to consequences. The erasing
Speaker 1: of the Red Line in Syria led to a free
Speaker 1: for all by the Assad regime but also by the Russians.
Speaker 1: That we're backing up assad regime by the Iranians who
Speaker 1: sent in troops into Syria. Obama's unwillingness to enforce a
Speaker 1: red line in Syria had tremendous consequences. Now you can
Speaker 1: say that he wasn't really coddling that dictator, but he
Speaker 1: certainly made it a lot easier for him. Obama and
Speaker 1: the left along with him do coddle all Marxist revolutionary
Speaker 1: style dictators in the Western hemisphere. They did coddle Fidel
Speaker 1: Castro's Cuba. The communist Cuba was receiving all kinds of
Speaker 1: favorable treatment under the abministration and and no punishments really
Speaker 1: doled out, no carrot and stick, just carrots when the
Speaker 1: Obama administration was dealing with them. And the same thing
Speaker 1: could be said of Venezuela, where yes, Obama was not
Speaker 1: increasingly over time was less favorable towards the regime of
Speaker 1: first Chavez and then Maduro. But you know Obama had
Speaker 1: a soft spot for these Marxist revolutionary types, no question,
Speaker 1: no question. And then of course the Mullahs in Tehran.
Speaker 1: You know, you want to talk about a soft spot,
Speaker 1: how about giving them a deal that effectively prevents any
Speaker 1: Israeli or other allied military action against the Iranic nuclear
Speaker 1: program and lets them get wealthy, and lets them keep
Speaker 1: their nuclear program until they decide that they want to
Speaker 1: have a breakout, and at that point it's too late
Speaker 1: and they'd have too much money and we're not gonna
Speaker 1: be able to stop them. You know, you look at
Speaker 1: all these things, you look at all of these issues,
Speaker 1: and you think to yourself, hold on a second, what
Speaker 1: how do I even hear this line? What is this
Speaker 1: line about how Trump is coddling dictators, he's too favorable
Speaker 1: toward dictators, when when the reality as we see it is, oh,
Speaker 1: you mean, nothing Trump does will ever quiet these critics.
Speaker 1: Nothing Trump could ever say will ever get them to
Speaker 1: stop claiming that he is in the pocket of of
Speaker 1: of either Putin or Kim Jong on. I mean he
Speaker 1: said it in the interview over the weekend with Leslie
Speaker 1: Stall and she goes, well, you said your you said
Speaker 1: you're in love with Kim Jong lady. Because look, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm talking here, you know, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: I'm saying we've got a good rapport. You know, what
Speaker 1: do you want me to say? You're not gonna get anywhere.
Speaker 1: He was saying, he's a a filthy, evil, murdering, you know,
Speaker 1: piece of human garbage. I mean, you can't say that
Speaker 1: about Kim Jong un. I mean that's I can say it.
Speaker 1: You can say it. But if you're gonna then sit
Speaker 1: down with the guy and try to get a major
Speaker 1: diplomatic breakthrough, I think you're probably going about it the
Speaker 1: wrong way, right. I think that's probably not a smart
Speaker 1: decision to make. But they try to go Trump into this,
Speaker 1: they try to use it. It's just all partisan, it's
Speaker 1: just all Oh, Trump is bad on this issue once again.
Speaker 1: Somehow the Saudias, who have been a repressive, intolerant regime
Speaker 1: for as long as they've existed, Somehow the Saudi's killing
Speaker 1: a dissident in in in the consulate in Istanbul is
Speaker 1: Trump's fault. It's always Trump's. Everything comes back to Trump
Speaker 1: for these people. You know. Oh, it's because of the
Speaker 1: tone set by the Trump administration. No, maybe it's just
Speaker 1: because the Saudias are repressive and the regime things that
Speaker 1: can get away with anything, because it has gotten away
Speaker 1: with pretty much anything for a very long time. Maybe
Speaker 1: they think that we need them too much as a
Speaker 1: counterbalance to iron for us to do anything real to
Speaker 1: stop them. Now, these are all these are all very
Speaker 1: real things to keep in mind here. And you know, Trump,
Speaker 1: I just I just gotta say, it's it's all about
Speaker 1: how he's not doing enough, how Trump's a bad guy,
Speaker 1: boo who Trump is too too friendly with dictators and
Speaker 1: all this, and it's just nonsense, it's just nonsense. What
Speaker 1: should he do in response, here's I'll tell you shouldn't do.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't do anything that puts a single US troop
Speaker 1: and harm's way over this, and I mean even up
Speaker 1: to and including the fact that the Saudiast can you know,
Speaker 1: open up the spigots for funding too Sunni extremist groups
Speaker 1: throughout the Middle East and around the world. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't want to make such a big deal out
Speaker 1: of this that all of a sudden our people start
Speaker 1: to suffer consequences abroad. It's just not worth it to
Speaker 1: the American people. I know. We're not allowed to say
Speaker 1: this now because journalism are all, Oh a journalist, something
Speaker 1: terrible happening to journalists. It's really bad. I agree wholeheartedly
Speaker 1: on that. Immoral, it's wrong. But I don't think that
Speaker 1: the entirety of US foreign policy visa vis Saudio, Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: and therefore the broader Middle East along with it, should
Speaker 1: turn entirely on what happened with this guy, not an
Speaker 1: American citizen, not on our soil. They're trying to make
Speaker 1: it a much bigger problem, make it seem like a
Speaker 1: much bigger problem for US than it is. You know,
Speaker 1: it's more of a general moral problem, right, But it's
Speaker 1: not America's problem. But they want to make it seem
Speaker 1: like it's America's problem because in doing so, then they'll
Speaker 1: be in a position to say Trump hasn't done enough here,
Speaker 1: Trump hasn't taken enough action. Trump is a problem when
Speaker 1: it comes to this. Uh So, once again it all
Speaker 1: comes back to bashing Trump because Shogi is killed in
Speaker 1: a consulate in Istanbul and our media wants to say
Speaker 1: that Trump is the problem. We'll be right back. What role,
Speaker 1: if any, did you play in criticizing the character of
Speaker 1: the women who have accused Bill of sexual misconduct? None?
Speaker 1: In retrospect, do you think Bill should have resigned in
Speaker 1: the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scamp. Absolutely not. It
Speaker 1: wasn't an abusive power. There are people who look at
Speaker 1: the incidents of the nineties and they say a president
Speaker 1: of the United States cannot have a consensual relationship with
Speaker 1: an intern. The power imbalance is to wasn't adult. But
Speaker 1: let me ask you this, where's the investigation of the
Speaker 1: current incumbent, against whom numerous allegations have been made and
Speaker 1: which he dismisses, denies, and ridicules. That's right, she had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with anything. You see. It was only
Speaker 1: her husband who was a serial abuser of women, who
Speaker 1: was credibly accused of sexual assault by women on the record,
Speaker 1: with full facts and stories ready to go. Media didn't
Speaker 1: want to cover that. You see, this is where I
Speaker 1: I just I take a moment because I want to
Speaker 1: step back and make sure we all are on the
Speaker 1: same page when it comes to the narrative of the moment. Here, see,
Speaker 1: the narrative of the moment from the left is that, oh,
Speaker 1: what Bill Clinton did then, he would never be able
Speaker 1: to do now. You see, it's different because of this
Speaker 1: me too movement. It's different now Bill Clinton's what will
Speaker 1: we call them? What is the left like to call them?
Speaker 1: His his personal failings? Very calm way of saying Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton being a predator. That's right, I was a predator.
Speaker 1: I was just you know, I just couldn't help myself.
Speaker 1: And I'll just you know, I'm in an okny. I
Speaker 1: said a curse word in the Oval office, but I
Speaker 1: did much much worse stuff in the Oval office. You know,
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton's disgrace is something that the left was not just.
Speaker 1: They didn't just turn a blind eye to it. They
Speaker 1: aggress of lee aggressively and with all they could muster them,
Speaker 1: with all the help they could get in the media.
Speaker 1: And you know, people like Stephanopolis. I mean Stephanopolis was
Speaker 1: part of the Clinton machinery, for example, and he is
Speaker 1: treated with defferent He's a hundred million dollar man now
Speaker 1: at ABC, a news anchor. That has to I mean,
Speaker 1: who decides to pay him that much money. It's it's
Speaker 1: it's an astonishing thing, it really is. Oh without Stephanopolis,
Speaker 1: who would watch these shows? Everybody would watch these shows.
Speaker 1: These are platforms. Whoever they put in these roles is
Speaker 1: going to get a certain amount of viewership. But he
Speaker 1: seems to get excused from being a part of the
Speaker 1: Clinton machinery. And Hillary, who just had her clearance taken away,
Speaker 1: I want it back. I mean, Hillary just was finally
Speaker 1: told you don't get to have a security clearance anymore
Speaker 1: for serial and flagrant violations of national security protocol for
Speaker 1: anybody who has a clearance. She was just told that.
Speaker 1: Now she still hasn't, still hasn't achieved even a modicum
Speaker 1: of honesty, you could say to bar from Obama, not
Speaker 1: a smudge, not a smudge of honesty. She doesn't have
Speaker 1: a smission of honesty. She's such a liar and she
Speaker 1: knows that she well, she still thinks that she has
Speaker 1: a political future, and it would be a problem for her.
Speaker 1: The left has gone so all in on this whole
Speaker 1: Me Too movement. They've made this such a prominent part
Speaker 1: of what what the left stands for now. It's the
Speaker 1: movement of the moment. Right, we've had Black Lives Matter,
Speaker 1: we've had Occupied Wall Street, We've had these different political
Speaker 1: sort of quasi revolutionary leftist movements in this country, and
Speaker 1: right now it's the May Too movement. It will change,
Speaker 1: They will move to some other intellectual fat or fashion
Speaker 1: in sometime. Just just wait for it. But in the
Speaker 1: meantime they have to make sure that they don't have
Speaker 1: the weaponization of some of these things occurring back on
Speaker 1: them like they don't want to score any own goals
Speaker 1: here with the Me too movement, and that the enablers.
Speaker 1: And I've always felt that the enablers in this whole process,
Speaker 1: we're getting off far too easy. You know, the people
Speaker 1: men and women around someone like Harvey Weinstein, the people
Speaker 1: men and women around someone like Les Moonvess, you know,
Speaker 1: those who were necessary in this whole process of predation
Speaker 1: that they don't get in trouble, they don't really get
Speaker 1: called out. And Hillary was the ultimate in that. Not
Speaker 1: only did she stand by her man, of course, as
Speaker 1: we know, for the most obvious and self interested political
Speaker 1: reasons imaginable, but she went on the attack against these women.
Speaker 1: And whenever I hear people say things like don't they
Speaker 1: have a right to be believed? I always want to respond, well,
Speaker 1: did the women that Hillary demeaned? I mean, didd the
Speaker 1: women that were completely attacked verbally in the media down
Speaker 1: to their very character? They were all considered to be
Speaker 1: fighters for the cause at the time, And there has
Speaker 1: been no accountability for that whatsoever. And there's no accountability
Speaker 1: to the stay for Hillary. When was she held accountable
Speaker 1: for the fact that she was essential in her husband's
Speaker 1: not just denials, but continued flagrant violations of the public
Speaker 1: trust and of the law. I mean, Bill Clinton was
Speaker 1: accused of rape, folks, rape, not just you, And I
Speaker 1: really don't like and this happens, you know that this
Speaker 1: usage of the term sexual assault and sexual harassment being
Speaker 1: conflated with sexual assault, and all of a sudden, people
Speaker 1: are like, well, you know, both sides have their problems.
Speaker 1: You've got Clarence Thomas on one side, Bill Clinton on
Speaker 1: the other. No, Clarence Thomas was accused, and I don't
Speaker 1: think particularly credibly accused of saying some inappropriate stuff in
Speaker 1: the office. In a worst case basis, Clarence Thomas should
Speaker 1: have been pulled aside by HR and told hey, you know,
Speaker 1: knocked that off for those going to be professional consequences.
Speaker 1: That's if he did it. I even think he did it.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton could have spent decades in prison for what
Speaker 1: he did. The allegations against Bill Clinton were of of
Speaker 1: rape by force. I mean, that's that's going to send
Speaker 1: you to prison for a very long time. I mean,
Speaker 1: your your life is essentially over. And he went on
Speaker 1: to be the president United States for eight years. So yes,
Speaker 1: I mean Hillary coming out now and saying that she
Speaker 1: wasn't a part of any of this. She lies now
Speaker 1: with such fluidity and so shamelessly. I would tell you all,
Speaker 1: if you if you want to have a quick and
Speaker 1: fun read, go back and read Christopher Hitchens No One
Speaker 1: Left to Lie To. Hitchens was one of these. He
Speaker 1: was a leftist in the nineties and was still really
Speaker 1: a socialist, kind of a reformed socialist all the way
Speaker 1: to the very end, and clearly an atheist. But he
Speaker 1: was somebody who just couldn't stomach the lies of the
Speaker 1: Clintons and the big lies, I mean the very obvious,
Speaker 1: uh in your face, self interested lying of the Clintons.
Speaker 1: And he wrote a book called No One Left to
Speaker 1: Lie To and he just goes through how the glints
Speaker 1: which just lie about stuff. Snippy dot com friends, remember
Speaker 1: that name. This is a new social media site where
Speaker 1: you can post, you can write, you can follow me,
Speaker 1: you can follow each other, exchange information, do whatever you
Speaker 1: can do on your run of the mill social media site.
Speaker 1: Except at snippy dot Com does not have any of
Speaker 1: the left wing conversational health nonsense going on. Okay, there's
Speaker 1: no bias, there's no effort to try and steer the
Speaker 1: conversation one direction. If you are sick of shadow banning,
Speaker 1: if you're sick of things not popping up in your
Speaker 1: feed on Facebook or wherever you want, to try snippy
Speaker 1: dot com. It's also placed by the way where conservatives
Speaker 1: can have a real voice and grow their movement and
Speaker 1: not have to worry about getting trash by the left
Speaker 1: wing administrators. Snippy dot com. That's s n i p
Speaker 1: p y dot com, totally free to join, free to post,
Speaker 1: just sign up to give it a shot. Team s
Speaker 1: n I p p y dot com. This is the
Speaker 1: most transparent, accountable president perhaps we've ever seen, definitely in
Speaker 1: modern times. He doesn't fear the media. He uses the
Speaker 1: media as a platform, one of many platforms I wished
Speaker 1: to communicate his message. He also has said that he
Speaker 1: thought after he got elected, the press would become more fair,
Speaker 1: would sort of dial it back a little bit and
Speaker 1: try to at least cover the policies, cover the great
Speaker 1: success in progress. So this president and his administration has
Speaker 1: had to work a little bit harder, a little bit smarter,
Speaker 1: if you will, to make sure that Americans know exactly
Speaker 1: what is happening, even if they don't hear enough of it.
Speaker 1: I mean, can we just cut all the nonsense here.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that Kelly and Conway has to she has
Speaker 1: to deal with this press all the time, right, so
Speaker 1: she has to speak to them with a certain a
Speaker 1: certain degree of decorum, and she does that. You know,
Speaker 1: Stelter there was the President of the States is something
Speaker 1: to the press, and then it does to the press.
Speaker 1: He's putting those digit a measure in the air. The
Speaker 1: fact that Brian Selter has a show at CNN is
Speaker 1: all all you have to know about CNN. That's all
Speaker 1: you have to know about that place. Well, who who
Speaker 1: sees Brian Salter and goes, yeah, give that guy a
Speaker 1: cable news show. Excuse me that sapt had new Balance
Speaker 1: Snickers with my ill fitting suit. And then I'd like
Speaker 1: to call out whether is they're really a bias in
Speaker 1: the media. I don't know it still try to figure
Speaker 1: it out. Who thought that that was a good idea?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe Zucker. Apparently very powerful people at
Speaker 1: CNN were of the impression that this was a guy
Speaker 1: who really needed to show America. America needs to hear
Speaker 1: from Stelter. Um. Of course I find that to be
Speaker 1: shockingly a shockingly ill advised decision. But that's that's me.
Speaker 1: What can I say. But you'll notice the the the
Speaker 1: continued theme here is that whatever Trump does, they are
Speaker 1: opposed to it. They say that Trump wasn't accessible enough
Speaker 1: to the press, and they complained about it. In fact,
Speaker 1: it was probably a threat to democracy. They were so
Speaker 1: concerned about it. And then when you have Trump being
Speaker 1: more accessible and you have more uh action, more activity
Speaker 1: involving Trump and the press, the response becomes, well, he's
Speaker 1: not he's not uh you know, he's not telling the
Speaker 1: information that we want him to. He's not sharing the
Speaker 1: information that we would if we got to tell the
Speaker 1: president what to say. So that's right, no matter what
Speaker 1: he does, no matter what he does, they find this
Speaker 1: whole situation with the president to be unacceptable. They really do.
Speaker 1: Um And and that's that brings me to what what
Speaker 1: happened with NBC over the weekend. I mean, this was
Speaker 1: truly astonishing stuff. What happened with NBC. I mean this
Speaker 1: was really next level, you know. They there was this
Speaker 1: speech that Trump gave and he said something about he
Speaker 1: said he's trying to compare General Grant and General Lee
Speaker 1: and the true is that he was obviously trying to
Speaker 1: make this comparison between Grant and Lee. But the way
Speaker 1: NBC News reported an initially they said Roberty Lee was
Speaker 1: a great general, calling the Confederate leader incredible. I mean,
Speaker 1: they just went with the usual Trump likes the Confederacy,
Speaker 1: Trump is an evil racist, Trump is this really bad
Speaker 1: guy because they figure too well. I think there's two
Speaker 1: parts of this. One is that they understand that their
Speaker 1: audience wants to hear that, and so they're giving their
Speaker 1: audience what they want, which is that's maybe the biggest
Speaker 1: part of it, though it's tough, you could argue this
Speaker 1: either way. And the other is that they really believe
Speaker 1: that this president is so racist and is such a
Speaker 1: bad guy, is so disreputable and so disgraceful, that they
Speaker 1: find it completely within the realm of of not just possibility,
Speaker 1: but they find it likely that the President United States
Speaker 1: would just go off and start praising a Confederately as
Speaker 1: he as they're saying he did in this Ohio rally
Speaker 1: over the weekend. Uh. And then it took them two days.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was a stunt. It took them two days.
Speaker 1: October twelve, the correction post that in October. Here's the
Speaker 1: NBC News correction and earlier tweet misidentified the general President
Speaker 1: Trump described as incredible at a rally in Ohio. It
Speaker 1: was General Ulysses Grant, not Robert E. Lee. An attached
Speaker 1: video clip lacked the full context for Trump's remark. Here's
Speaker 1: the full clip. Now, this is where you have to
Speaker 1: start playing the game of probability. Is it likely that
Speaker 1: all of these major media corrections could be due to
Speaker 1: good faith error in covering the president? Or is it
Speaker 1: more likely that what we see happening here is a
Speaker 1: Trump arrangement syndrome as it plays out in the media
Speaker 1: in front of all of us all the time. Which
Speaker 1: of those things is the more likely scenari mean, I
Speaker 1: think you really do have to ask the question, and
Speaker 1: the answer is obvious. The press is dare I say,
Speaker 1: on a jihad against the President United States. They will
Speaker 1: take any opportunity to try to tear him down and
Speaker 1: try to add one more data point into the narrative
Speaker 1: that he is a racist, that he's evil, that he's
Speaker 1: a bad guy. And this is also compounded by the
Speaker 1: incentive structure that we have in the media in general.
Speaker 1: Right now, where the initial lie gets twenty tho retweets
Speaker 1: or you know, a hundred thousand retweets, and then the
Speaker 1: correction gets two and so you get the benefit of
Speaker 1: all that traffic, of all that attention, because now in
Speaker 1: the digital era of media, you really are measuring it
Speaker 1: down very precisely. You know how many people read this,
Speaker 1: how many people are going to your site, how many
Speaker 1: people saw this. You get all the upside and your
Speaker 1: audience gets what they want. And then if you have
Speaker 1: to correct it, okay, well it turns out, you know
Speaker 1: that was a misfire, But your audience has never mad
Speaker 1: at you for bashing Trump with a correction. I mean,
Speaker 1: this audience would be But if you're NBC, if you're MSNBC,
Speaker 1: if your CNN, if you're any of those networks, audience
Speaker 1: doesn't turn on you for that. They understand what you're
Speaker 1: trying to do. They know that you have bigger things
Speaker 1: in mind. They know that you have, you know, other
Speaker 1: things that you're trying to do. Trying to take down
Speaker 1: the president United States, that's gonna be a difficult thing,
Speaker 1: difficult thing to do, and you're gonna you're gonna have
Speaker 1: some missus if you're doing that right, so that's that's
Speaker 1: just it's just in more of the medium malpractice that
Speaker 1: we keep seeing. And that's why when the President calls
Speaker 1: them fake news, when he says things like, you know,
Speaker 1: they are fake news, and they get so upset. If
Speaker 1: they want him to stop calling them fake news, maybe
Speaker 1: they should stop being fake news. You know, if they
Speaker 1: would like the President United States to no longer uh
Speaker 1: push back on them for their obvious partisan smears and
Speaker 1: their partisan campaigns, well, then my recommendation to them would
Speaker 1: be that, you know, he shouldn't. They shouldn't act in
Speaker 1: this way. You know, do you think anyone will will
Speaker 1: apologize when Beto O'Rourke loses by ten or eleven points,
Speaker 1: which he's going to. Do you think any of the
Speaker 1: pollsters and any of the media people that a month
Speaker 1: ago was saying it's gonna be a really close race
Speaker 1: with Beto and Ted Cruz, they're gonna come out and
Speaker 1: say maya culpa. I don't think so, because they're they're activists.
Speaker 1: Once you understand that they're activists, then you realize that
Speaker 1: there's none of this is even a little bit surprising anymore.
Speaker 1: None of this is is a shock, and and then
Speaker 1: you know then you can at least anticipate their next moe.
Speaker 1: Probably the I mean, the Leslie Stall interview was was
Speaker 1: great because, first of all, I find her whole, her
Speaker 1: whole demeanor. She's just so serious and so much gravitas.
Speaker 1: Mr President, I'm doing this very professional interview, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know a certain point, you think to yourself, Okay,
Speaker 1: I just asked a question like a normal person. Do
Speaker 1: you have to do this very affected sixty minutes. I'm
Speaker 1: so in depth here. Oh, I'm just going so in
Speaker 1: depth on the issue. I mean, I loved it when
Speaker 1: he said, Leslie, it's okay. In the meantime, I'm the
Speaker 1: president and you're not. They're not used to this. Most
Speaker 1: presidents are, certainly all Republican presidents stretching back for my
Speaker 1: whole lifetime, were in a position where they felt they
Speaker 1: had to suck up the media. Maybe the only exception
Speaker 1: was Reagan, but the rest of them felt like they
Speaker 1: had to suck up to the media or else their
Speaker 1: presidency would really suffer because the media had so much
Speaker 1: power and so much ability to sway public opinion. Instead,
Speaker 1: Trump is like, you know what, you think you're gonna
Speaker 1: push me around I'm just gonna push back, and he did.
Speaker 1: He did a fantastic job in that Leslie Stall interview.
Speaker 1: But they still can't lay a glove on him. And
Speaker 1: this media is coming at him with everything they've got.
Speaker 1: They lie about him, they do publish fake news, they
Speaker 1: say fake news, they do all kinds of things. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the president's just got it's
Speaker 1: got too many skills. They can't handle it. If you've
Speaker 1: ever found yourself wincing at that weak taste of coffee
Speaker 1: from one of those comi corporate brands, you probably thought,
Speaker 1: I wish they spent less time on meetingless bias training,
Speaker 1: bathroom policy reform, and things that to find common sense,
Speaker 1: add more time on their coffee. That's why you need
Speaker 1: to start every day with Black Rifle coffee. I find
Speaker 1: Black Rifle absolutely delicious, and not only is it fantastic coffee,
Speaker 1: I like that I'm supporting a company founded by veterans,
Speaker 1: the Special Operations community, guys who love his country, love
Speaker 1: what they do for their fellow veterans, and are all
Speaker 1: about delicious, small batch roacht to order coffee. Everybody listening
Speaker 1: to this should make Black Rifle Coffee their coffee brand,
Speaker 1: no reason not to. Folks got a Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck received fifteen percent off your order
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash Buck. Be sure you
Speaker 1: use that code Black Rifle Coffee dot Calm slash book.
Speaker 1: There were so much talker, There is so much talk
Speaker 1: about the blue wave. When we all went through the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh experience in the last few weeks, many people said
Speaker 1: this is going to drive more Democrats to go out
Speaker 1: and vote. But if you actually look at the polls,
Speaker 1: they've tightened. They've tightened. This Kavanaugh situation has hurt Democrats
Speaker 1: in the way that they handled it. We knew that
Speaker 1: Democrats were excited to vote before we know through the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh confirmation. Now a lot more Republicans are excited to vote.
Speaker 1: One of the things Democrats have been pushing, uh is
Speaker 1: they're sort of the moral leaders, and they have been
Speaker 1: pointing the finger at Republicans and something sort of got
Speaker 1: muzzled in the last few weeks that when you sit
Speaker 1: down with with even a centrist and you talk about
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh confirmation, whether it's my feelings or not, they're
Speaker 1: quickly saying it's not just dirty politics. On one side
Speaker 1: and Merrick Garland on one side. The way Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: handled it. More and more people are saying they don't
Speaker 1: like the way Democrats handled it. The Senate Democrats were
Speaker 1: incredibly ineffective in the Kavanaugh hearings. Ineffective. Huh, that's the
Speaker 1: story that we're gonna get told now that that it's
Speaker 1: because they were ineffective. No, it's because what they did
Speaker 1: was disgusting. It's because it was obvious. It's because they
Speaker 1: think that they can still get away with things now
Speaker 1: that they could get away with twenty years ago, maybe
Speaker 1: even ten or fifteen years ago more easily. They can't
Speaker 1: get away with it anymore. And yet they cling to
Speaker 1: this notion that they can completely and utterly rewrite the
Speaker 1: rules as they go along. This is the most interesting
Speaker 1: aftermath assessments you can possibly, uh imagine with the Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: hearing now in the rear view mirror. Although the Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: issue is certainly not going away anytime soon, they are
Speaker 1: just beginning. The Democrats are just really beginning to realize,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, not only did we overplay our hand,
Speaker 1: not only did we miscalculate how this whole process would go, oh,
Speaker 1: but we didn't understand what the public reaction to it
Speaker 1: would be. It turns out there are a lot of
Speaker 1: Americans who did not enjoy the televised ritual humiliation and
Speaker 1: denigration of a devoted dad, husband, son. It turns out
Speaker 1: there are a lot of folks who didn't think that
Speaker 1: the elimination of any due process, the elimination of any
Speaker 1: presumption of his innocence as a principle, was something that,
Speaker 1: you know, something that people would have a problem with. Oh, no,
Speaker 1: they do have a problem with it. You know, the
Speaker 1: Democrats and the media are effectively Democrat activists, So they
Speaker 1: think like activists do, and they travel in circles surrounded
Speaker 1: by other people with this echo chamber effect, and that's
Speaker 1: why they can get completely caught unaware of something like this.
Speaker 1: The Kavanaugh situation is not only now, of course, a
Speaker 1: conservative on the Supreme Court. It's not just that that
Speaker 1: has come from all of this. There is and they
Speaker 1: don't want to talk about it. You know, they don't
Speaker 1: know what to do because they don't want to mention this.
Speaker 1: But they also can entirely ignore it. And it is
Speaker 1: that the possibility of the Republican Party keeping a majority
Speaker 1: in the House of Representatives is very real. They are
Speaker 1: within striking distance, and it will be largely because I
Speaker 1: think of what we witnessed in the whole Cabinaugh hearing.
Speaker 1: So not only will they have lost the battle to
Speaker 1: stop a highly qualified conservative constitutionalists from being on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, they lost that battle. They may have also
Speaker 1: lost we'll see. I'm not saying it's happened yet, but
Speaker 1: they may have also lost a House majority because of
Speaker 1: their hardball tactics, because of the way that they have
Speaker 1: approached this entire situation. That's stunning, and it just goes
Speaker 1: to show you that while the other side is bereft
Speaker 1: of print simple, while the Democrats will do whatever they
Speaker 1: want to do whenever they want to do it. It's
Speaker 1: not like there's some genius hive brand that's running this
Speaker 1: whole thing. They did everything that they could that they
Speaker 1: thought would work. They held it to the very last minute.
Speaker 1: They had the media completely in their pocket. They came
Speaker 1: very close to derailing the Cabinal nomination. They did so
Speaker 1: in a sense, you have to give these these devious
Speaker 1: evildoers credit on the left for almost accomplishing their goal.
Speaker 1: But they never thought what happens if we fail. They
Speaker 1: must have assumed that. I think it is the case
Speaker 1: that they assumed all along. Well, if somehow this does
Speaker 1: not work out, we will be a lauded as heroes
Speaker 1: on the left. We will be considered we the Senate Democrats,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm Spartacus, Corey Booker and feine Stein and
Speaker 1: the rest of the swamp dwelling swamp creatures. They would
Speaker 1: all be viewed as going to the mat for a
Speaker 1: righteous cause. They would all be viewed as having done
Speaker 1: the right thing, even if they hadn't come out vicorious
Speaker 1: in the end. And now what we see is, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: sure the left is excited about this, but the left
Speaker 1: wing base already hated capital they already hated Trump. They
Speaker 1: already were gonna do anything that they could to vote
Speaker 1: for Democrats. What they didn't anticipate was that normal Americans, yes,
Speaker 1: dare I say, even some undecided and independence, saw the
Speaker 1: way the Democrats were acting in that whole process, and
Speaker 1: they came away from it thinking, I don't think we
Speaker 1: should hand over power to crazy. I don't think we
Speaker 1: should hand over power to crazy. I don't think that
Speaker 1: makes sense. It's a bad idea. If you're not going
Speaker 1: to hand over power to crazy. That means you gotta
Speaker 1: keep the Republicans in charge. That means that all of
Speaker 1: the media's efforts to create this Russia collusion narrative and
Speaker 1: all these other stories about Trump and the Amendment and
Speaker 1: all of that will have been for naught. It will
Speaker 1: have been for naught because instead of just understanding that
Speaker 1: it was a do or die political issue for the
Speaker 1: republic Republicans to not cave when it came to Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: they thought if they were willing to take the gloves
Speaker 1: off and take the gloves off and do anything, they
Speaker 1: would of course come out the victors in the end.
Speaker 1: That was the that was the assumption that they were making,
Speaker 1: and it was a very bad assumption as we see now.
Speaker 1: But I just think it's interesting there you had an
Speaker 1: MSNBC host thinks, you know, wow, it's like you mean,
Speaker 1: like they're people are like upset about the Kavanaugh thing,
Speaker 1: and like think the Democrats. But of course what they
Speaker 1: want to say is Democrats weren't effective, which is really
Speaker 1: almost a version of well, you know, communism is just
Speaker 1: not implemented well enough. Right, It's not that what the
Speaker 1: Democrats did with Kavanaugh was, on its face, in its essence,
Speaker 1: at its foundation, a complete in a completely immoral disgrace.
Speaker 1: It was. But that's not what they're taking away from this.
Speaker 1: What they're taking away is, oh, I guess Democrats didn't
Speaker 1: play there and play their hand enough. I guess maybe
Speaker 1: they didn't, you know, strategize this thoroughly enough for strategicy.
Speaker 1: As Bush would have said, strategy and decider are great
Speaker 1: words that that Bush gave us. So I would note
Speaker 1: that this is this is a very real sentiment, folks.
Speaker 1: The houses in play. Senate is gonna be Republican. We're
Speaker 1: good to go. We're you and I are gonna be
Speaker 1: high fiving all November six when the Senate results come in,
Speaker 1: the Senate's good to go. So we're clear that, which
Speaker 1: also means that the president is in no danger whatsoever
Speaker 1: of being removed. I mean, not that he really was anyway,
Speaker 1: But you know, you have a Republican majority, never mind
Speaker 1: getting to two thirds. You want to get fifty one
Speaker 1: to get the president out. But on the House side
Speaker 1: of things, we have been led to believe all along
Speaker 1: that there was almost no chance the Republicans would keep
Speaker 1: the House. Now we see hold on a second, not
Speaker 1: only is the overstating their case thing true when it
Speaker 1: comes to Beato the Irishman pretending to be his Bannack guy,
Speaker 1: they may have overstated their advantage and their case when
Speaker 1: it comes to a whole lot of other stuff, like
Speaker 1: the entire house or representatives. Maybe I'm particularly attuned to
Speaker 1: this right now because of the madness that we have
Speaker 1: seen just just today with regard to this Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: d n a fiasco, this this self inflicted wound that
Speaker 1: that Elizabeth Warren now has, and and it reminds me
Speaker 1: though that that the left really is increasingly, uh, just
Speaker 1: just losing its mind. I mean, there's nothing that you
Speaker 1: can really say anymore that is an extension of their
Speaker 1: previous beliefs. There's there's nothing that you can really say
Speaker 1: and think, well, there's no way they'd ever make that.
Speaker 1: You know, if I'm trying to make a point about
Speaker 1: the extremes of what they believe and what they think,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't go that far. Well, it turns out that
Speaker 1: we're running out of areas where that is still true.
Speaker 1: It turns out that there are very few things that
Speaker 1: we can point to and say, oh, they would never
Speaker 1: they would never allow that thing to happen anymore, because
Speaker 1: those examples that we used to use are increasingly now
Speaker 1: the reality on the left. Alright, So this is the
Speaker 1: this is the perfect example. You have the Daily COLLII
Speaker 1: over the piece that a biological male who identifies as
Speaker 1: a transgender woman one a woman's World championship cycling event
Speaker 1: on Sunday. You know, Rachel McKinnon, a professor at the
Speaker 1: College of Charleston, won the women's sprint thirty five to
Speaker 1: thirty nine age bracket at the u see I Masters
Speaker 1: Track Cycling World Championship in Los Angeles. So we have
Speaker 1: somebody who's the first transgender woman world champion ever, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to celebrate this. Do they really expect us
Speaker 1: to celebrate this? This is supposed to be treated like
Speaker 1: it is in some way a victory, a victory for whom,
Speaker 1: a victory for transgender rights, certainly not a victory for women.
Speaker 1: The reason that we have sex segregated sports is not
Speaker 1: because of sexism. And maybe this is where progressives just
Speaker 1: can't follow the logic train here, and maybe they just
Speaker 1: are unable to understand this. But the reason we have
Speaker 1: sex segregated sports is because men are overwhelmingly and invariably
Speaker 1: biologically larger, heavier, stronger, and faster than women as a
Speaker 1: function of hormones and genetics. That's just that's the truth, right,
Speaker 1: I mean I I used to occasionally with some friends
Speaker 1: of mine, uh scrimmage with some of the women's varsity
Speaker 1: teams when I was in college, and then I could
Speaker 1: tell you that a reasonably athletic college male would probably
Speaker 1: be a three sports superstar for most female programs if
Speaker 1: he had had some of the of the same skills
Speaker 1: by playing, let's say, on a high school team. I
Speaker 1: mean that that's just the truth. But that's why we
Speaker 1: have sex segregated sports. But the left is so devoted
Speaker 1: to this idea of transgender rights and transgenderism as something
Speaker 1: that must be celebrated. Remember I've told you the way
Speaker 1: that the progressives approach these issues is it starts with
Speaker 1: just just tolerant, be tolerant, and then it's you know,
Speaker 1: be inclusive, and then it's celebrate it, and then it's
Speaker 1: you know, except except this or else, which is basically
Speaker 1: a version of celebrated. But they they always have this
Speaker 1: sliding scale and it will start us with oh, just tolerated.
Speaker 1: That's the first thing. And and then you have to
Speaker 1: you know, later you'll affirm it, and then you'll be
Speaker 1: told to celebrate it. That's I skipped affirmed to celebrate
Speaker 1: there before. But here we have it. I mean, if
Speaker 1: I had told you five years ago that we would
Speaker 1: see pieces about how men could compete in female sporting
Speaker 1: of ends because they say they're transgender, and that would
Speaker 1: be considered fair somehow. On the left, you'd say, buck,
Speaker 1: that's just crazy, and I would say, well, yes, it's crazy,
Speaker 1: but now it's true. Now it's happening. Uh, this is
Speaker 1: that's right. Here you have this is the yep, this
Speaker 1: is the Women's World Championships, Women's World Championships, and uh,
Speaker 1: you have you have men competing in these events. Now,
Speaker 1: then the whole notion that we have to say biological male,
Speaker 1: I would note, is a misnomer because male is a
Speaker 1: function of biology, as is female. We can pretend that
Speaker 1: these things are separate, we can pretend that they are distinct,
Speaker 1: but we are just only fooling ourselves. And and it
Speaker 1: can't be a shock to anybody that on on a day,
Speaker 1: or it shouldn't come as a shock that on the
Speaker 1: same day when we're told that somebody can claim to
Speaker 1: be Native American because they are point point you know,
Speaker 1: point zero zero zero zero zero one seven whatever, Native American,
Speaker 1: and not even really Native American, but actually from Hispanic
Speaker 1: or Latino, uh, you know background. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: even clear that it's actually the Native American. That same day,
Speaker 1: when science no longer matters, is a day when we're
Speaker 1: told that we have to celebrate this, this madness of
Speaker 1: transgenderism as somehow the best thing possible for the future
Speaker 1: of the civil rights movement in this country. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the new civil rights movement. That's why the
Speaker 1: left is so devoted to it. It's the new civil
Speaker 1: rights movement. But also there's a an underlying antipathy, there's
Speaker 1: an underlying disdain that the progressive left has for the
Speaker 1: distinctions between sexes, for male female gender roles, or even
Speaker 1: male female gender stereotypes. They hate all of it. They
Speaker 1: think they can eradicate it. And this is where people
Speaker 1: would say it's really a form of a kind of
Speaker 1: radical cultural Marxism. But they just believe in this abs
Speaker 1: a lute equality such that now we can have people
Speaker 1: who have x Y chromosome they are males, and they
Speaker 1: are competing against females in major sporting events. Liberty, truth
Speaker 1: and great hair. Feel those funky beats. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. Alright, roll call. It is time to get
Speaker 1: into it. Everyone. Thank you so much for being here,
Speaker 1: Thank you for sending all of your thoughts into the show.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash Buck section. It has been pointed
Speaker 1: out by some of you, some of my trusted friends
Speaker 1: and fellow patriots, that I should probably do some roll
Speaker 1: call via Snippy because I have a Snippy account, and
Speaker 1: I'm getting all of you to you Snippy, and they're
Speaker 1: a wonderful sponsor the show. So we're gonna start doing
Speaker 1: some of that and as we can get folks to
Speaker 1: write in there. So start your snippy dot com account
Speaker 1: and you can send me messages via Snippy and I
Speaker 1: will add that into Facebook and there you go, and
Speaker 1: then we'll hopefully transition away and start using more and
Speaker 1: more Snippy over time. That's the plan, alright, Candice writes Buck,
Speaker 1: I agree with you on almost everything except meat and music.
Speaker 1: Twenty seven years meatless. As for music, has your brother
Speaker 1: ever heard Muffin Man by Frank Zappa? He might appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good work, Brother Shields High, Candice Oss Well,
Speaker 1: Candice Shields, how to you. I don't know why you're
Speaker 1: asking about my brother and muffin Man, but perhaps there's
Speaker 1: something I need to learn, something I need to know
Speaker 1: that I don't already, and I'm always down to to
Speaker 1: learn more new and interesting and exciting things. So I
Speaker 1: will check out this, Mr Frank Zappa and his muffin Man.
Speaker 1: Trevor rights yesterday's episode maybe think of this show from
Speaker 1: days gone by? And he sent me something with celebrity
Speaker 1: celebrity deathmatch? Is that what this is called? Mr t
Speaker 1: Fighting Marilyn Manson? You are very creative, Trevor, thank you
Speaker 1: for sending this through. Let's see what we have here.
Speaker 1: Chad right Buck love your show. Heard your conversation on
Speaker 1: kitchen knives and keeping them smart smart sharp not smart
Speaker 1: work sharp knife and tool sharpener is a game changer.
Speaker 1: Oss Shields High Well, Chad, thank you for writing in
Speaker 1: with this, and I will look into this sharpener. Paul
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, Now that Red Eye has gone to the
Speaker 1: big broadcast booth in the sky, can you tell me
Speaker 1: why Andy didn't get that job? Tom was very funny,
Speaker 1: but just too darn nice. Red Eye was pissing vinegar
Speaker 1: and he turned it into a white wine spritzer. Keep
Speaker 1: up the good work, Shields high. Uh. You know, Paul,
Speaker 1: I don't know why Andy Levy uh did not become
Speaker 1: the host of Red Eye, So I really would just
Speaker 1: be speculating if I said anything here. I've always really
Speaker 1: enjoyed working with Andy. I think he's a good dude,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure he would done a good job. But
Speaker 1: there's a lot that goes into that decision making, including
Speaker 1: sometimes the people that are up for the for one
Speaker 1: job or another, it turns out they don't even really
Speaker 1: necessarily want that job. They want a different job. You
Speaker 1: just don't know, uh with unless you know, and I don't.
Speaker 1: So there you have it. Chris buck love the show.
Speaker 1: It's my sanity. Whooby, I don't know what a woody is,
Speaker 1: but sounds nice. I would have gone ape crap from
Speaker 1: the start. Just in case you are totally unaware, I
Speaker 1: have noticed you went from very constrained to very noticeably
Speaker 1: vocal anti left commentator. I totally agree with you and
Speaker 1: would have been banned from the airwaves in week one.
Speaker 1: Just want you to be aware of the shift and
Speaker 1: audience perception. I'm not knocking you at all, but a
Speaker 1: new listener would could be jarred by the change in
Speaker 1: your tone. I love it, Chris, you know, Chris, I
Speaker 1: just I think that there's a there's an adaptation going
Speaker 1: on in my thinking. And it's maybe something I've been
Speaker 1: a little slower than some of my uh other colleagues
Speaker 1: on the right to adopt in some ways because I
Speaker 1: come from this perspective of well, this will sound self aggrandizing,
Speaker 1: but knowledge, having a background in in the actual work
Speaker 1: that I do, especially in the national security side, Knowledge
Speaker 1: and facts and wisdom. That's how I try to approach
Speaker 1: what I do. And and so I always want to
Speaker 1: think that I could have liberals listen to this show,
Speaker 1: and I certainly hope to all the liberals who are
Speaker 1: listening that they still feel this way, but I want
Speaker 1: them to know that I I want to bring them
Speaker 1: over to my side. Uh And I don't want to
Speaker 1: be too strident. That has always been my approach, but
Speaker 1: recently the left has gone insane, and so I am
Speaker 1: separating out in my mind. I want to say insane,
Speaker 1: I mean more insane than usual. I separated in my
Speaker 1: mind how I speak to Democrats really in general, from
Speaker 1: how I'm now speaking to the hardcore left, because I
Speaker 1: am at ideological war with the hardcore left centrist Democrats.
Speaker 1: I want to come over to my side, not necessarily
Speaker 1: even on everything, but on whatever they're willing to. But
Speaker 1: the hardcore left just must be ideologically smashed and destroyed.
Speaker 1: It must be defeated. You know, the anti fuzz, the uh,
Speaker 1: the people that are running around with the pink hats
Speaker 1: on and that are saying due process doesn't count anymore.
Speaker 1: And they are the ones who are doing deep platforming
Speaker 1: and want people to be boycotted and to be fired
Speaker 1: from their jobs for you know, expressing conservative opinions. We
Speaker 1: have to fight that ideology, not not meet it in
Speaker 1: a gentlemanly contest, but we actually have to throw some elbows.
Speaker 1: And that that maybe has been a a learning process
Speaker 1: for me in this era of Trump, because I've seen
Speaker 1: more and more of what the left, not just what
Speaker 1: the left is, but how much of the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: and how much of the ideological uh center to left
Speaker 1: they control. And the hard left, I mean, the progressive
Speaker 1: vanguard is way too prominent, way too powerful, and and
Speaker 1: cannot be just wished away anymore. So if I sounded
Speaker 1: all like I'm a little more strident or a little
Speaker 1: more fired up about things in the last few months,
Speaker 1: it's really because I've seen what this battle we're entering
Speaker 1: into is all about. And this is political total war.
Speaker 1: This is not uh, you know, may the best man win.
Speaker 1: This is one man will win, and one man will
Speaker 1: not leave the octagon, so to speak. And in that
Speaker 1: kind of political environment, you you have to be ready
Speaker 1: to go bare knuckle. And in a sense, that's really
Speaker 1: what I've learned from Trump. You know, there there have
Speaker 1: been some things that Trump has done and Trump has said,
Speaker 1: and I've thought, oh my gosh, that's such a mistake.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, how could Trump if have gone with that?
Speaker 1: That's so that's so foolish of him, that's so silly.
Speaker 1: And then within a few and this happens less and
Speaker 1: less now because I realize who we're dealing with with Trump, uh.
Speaker 1: And then time passes and I realized, wait a second,
Speaker 1: he was right not to apologize for that. They would
Speaker 1: have just mauled him like a like a I was
Speaker 1: gonna say, a flock of piranhas. But now I'm mixing
Speaker 1: things up like a school of angry raging piranhas uh
Speaker 1: that they would have torn him apart if he had
Speaker 1: agreed to what they said he should agreed to about
Speaker 1: one statement he made or another. Better to stand and
Speaker 1: fight and constantly push back on these issues. These are
Speaker 1: things that I'm learning from. Trump is just like all
Speaker 1: of you. I have to adapt my approach and my
Speaker 1: thinking for the current moment. I have to actually think
Speaker 1: about what's working, what's not working, and I I reevaluate.
Speaker 1: I'll say one of the most important lessons I've seen,
Speaker 1: one of the biggest differentiators when it comes to whether
Speaker 1: someone is successful or not is do they have the
Speaker 1: capacity for self correction? Do they have the ability to
Speaker 1: look at whatever they're doing in life, how they are
Speaker 1: treating themselves, how they're treating other people, how they are
Speaker 1: doing their work or whatever, how how they're taking care
Speaker 1: of their health, and and objectively assess what is going right,
Speaker 1: what is not, what is going wrong or not going well,
Speaker 1: and make changes. And I'm constantly making changes. I mean,
Speaker 1: I have core principles and a and an approach and
Speaker 1: an ethos, but I'm constantly making changes to what I
Speaker 1: think is going to to work best in this this
Speaker 1: ideological fight. I mean, that's really what I do here
Speaker 1: every day. Yes, I like to present information, And there's
Speaker 1: an aspect of this that's really just about dare I
Speaker 1: say to bar from the left community? Right? We are
Speaker 1: all a community here on the show. Um, But there's
Speaker 1: also how can I equip those who listen to this
Speaker 1: show with the best arguments possible and equip them also
Speaker 1: with the knowledge that they are in act correct in
Speaker 1: their beliefs? Right, explain not just what we should all
Speaker 1: think about different issues, but why we should think that way.
Speaker 1: So I think that's all very very important. Um and
Speaker 1: uh and yeah. I am also in a process of
Speaker 1: of learning all the time. I don't want to ever
Speaker 1: make it seem like I'm just the one guy who
Speaker 1: thinks that he's doing it the right way and and
Speaker 1: it is never adjusting. I'm adjusting all the time, Brad. Right,
Speaker 1: dear Buck, I just read that Hillary clinton security clearance
Speaker 1: was revoked at her request. I was wondering what your
Speaker 1: thoughts on this are and why in the world would
Speaker 1: she make such a request, especially if she's planning on
Speaker 1: running again. In I'm a Loyal Podcast, listener and wanted
Speaker 1: to thank you for releasing your podcast earlier so us
Speaker 1: folks up here in Alaska can listen to it on
Speaker 1: the way home. Shield Ziant thanks for keeping us in
Speaker 1: the know, Brad Well, Brad, first of all, I'm so
Speaker 1: glad you liked the podcast is out sooner, and I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that everybody in the West Coast knows that we're
Speaker 1: pretty much now our podcast is going up for this show,
Speaker 1: for the Buck Sexton Show in drive time on the
Speaker 1: West Coast. So you know, there's no problem with you
Speaker 1: deciding that you're gonna just get a little bit ahead
Speaker 1: of the game and and listen to it little early.
Speaker 1: You don't have you don't have to wait. You don't
Speaker 1: have to wait for it to be rebroadcast or to
Speaker 1: be broadcast on whatever stations near you. You can listen
Speaker 1: to it on the on the podcast however you consume podcasts, uh.
Speaker 1: And so that's great news that you're listening up in
Speaker 1: Alaska that way. And as for keeping everybody in the know,
Speaker 1: I certainly try. Hillary and her security clearance. Look, let's
Speaker 1: just let's just call it what it is. Hillary should
Speaker 1: never have been able to keep a security clearance after
Speaker 1: the debacle that occurred with her private email server, private
Speaker 1: email acount all that stuff. I mean, that was just
Speaker 1: completely It should have been horrifically embarrassing for anybody not
Speaker 1: just associated with Hillary Clinton, but who was willing to
Speaker 1: defend that nonsense. That she held a new clearance until
Speaker 1: this point just goes to show you how broken the
Speaker 1: system is. I want to remind you all that this
Speaker 1: Friday I will be doing an event with my friends
Speaker 1: at Stansbury Research. It will be about what's coming next
Speaker 1: in the markets and big, big things to tell you about.
Speaker 1: I'll be joining them for a full live event this Friday.
Speaker 1: Just go to buck event dot com free to register folks,
Speaker 1: totally free. You can watch the whole thing. Register forward
Speaker 1: free all free, buck event dot com again b U
Speaker 1: c K E V e n T dot com. That's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for today's addition in the freedom my friends,
Speaker 1: I will see you tomorrow. Shields high background checks can
Speaker 1: be a sensitive business. You want to make sure you
Speaker 1: get the right information, you get it in a timely
Speaker 1: fashion and as you can trust the people who are
Speaker 1: doing them, because when you're hiring or you're looking for someone,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be a tenant for a property you're renting out.
Speaker 1: You need somebody that you can trust and who gets
Speaker 1: the job done. That's Global Verification Network. Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: is the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. They have headquarters in Chicago, offices throughout the country,
Speaker 1: and they work with startups all the way up to
Speaker 1: fortune ones. Unlike a lot of their competitors in the
Speaker 1: background investigation space, no data or client information is ever
Speaker 1: off short. These guys should be your vetting company of choice.
Speaker 1: They are absolutely the best when it comes to making
Speaker 1: sure your data is secure and that whenever you have
Speaker 1: a question you get an answer on the phone. Go
Speaker 1: to my g VN dot com. Again, that's my g
Speaker 1: VN dot com or call eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine