Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Trump administration is
Speaker 1: trying to make a change to immigration policy that would
Speaker 1: accomplish what we've been told has been happening all along.
Speaker 1: But there are no public charges who are coming into
Speaker 1: this country will break down? Why the Libs are freaking
Speaker 1: out about that? Plus a major showdown underway between Hong
Speaker 1: Kong protesters there and the Chinese mainland government. Is this
Speaker 1: a moment where freedom will win out or will it
Speaker 1: be crushed? We've got that, Plus updates on the Epstein
Speaker 1: case coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake America, You're a great American Again, the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show begins. Remember would you also do that? M Allowzarus's
Speaker 1: words etched on the Statue of Liberty, give me you're tired,
Speaker 1: your poor are also part of the American eCos. They
Speaker 1: certainly are give me you're tired and you're poor. Who
Speaker 1: can stand on their own two feet and who will
Speaker 1: not become a public charge That that plaque was put
Speaker 1: on the Statue of Liberty at almost the same time
Speaker 1: as the first public charge, whiways passed. Very interesting timing.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, where we talk about
Speaker 1: things that actually matter instead of what the news cycle
Speaker 1: sometimes wants us all to talk about. Yes, yes, I know,
Speaker 1: later on, because I'm sure some of you might be
Speaker 1: a bit curious, we are going to have Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: and Sean Parnell, my friends, both of them step into
Speaker 1: the thunderdome to you know, to men enter, one man
Speaker 1: leaves situation just kidding. They love each other too, to
Speaker 1: talk about the Chris Cuomo bro Cuomo getting very upset
Speaker 1: Fredo Gate. Perhaps we could call it that now, it's
Speaker 1: the Fredo debacle that storm social media. And some of
Speaker 1: you are like, Buck, what are you talking about? I'm
Speaker 1: here to say, Look, it's later on in the show,
Speaker 1: so you know, I'll tell you about it then, because
Speaker 1: it is not important interesting to talk interesting water cooler conversation.
Speaker 1: I almost said wine cooler conversation, but I haven't had
Speaker 1: one of those in a long time. Although I did
Speaker 1: try a white claw recently. Producer Mark, do not make
Speaker 1: fun of me. It was pretty good. I love white claws.
Speaker 1: See they're pretty delicious. I understand. It's like the new Zema,
Speaker 1: but it's still pretty good. So everyone's focused on the
Speaker 1: Tapper thing, I mean not Tapper things, sorry, different guy
Speaker 1: Cuomo thing. Where there's video and we'll play the video
Speaker 1: for you later. We'll have Jesse and Sean because they
Speaker 1: have different opinions as to whether Cuomo handled us the
Speaker 1: right way. It's interesting to talk about. It doesn't really
Speaker 1: matter what we came into at the top of the show.
Speaker 1: Does matter, which is the administration trying to change an
Speaker 1: important component of immigration policy. And here's the short version
Speaker 1: of it. Ken Cuccinelli is out there saying things like,
Speaker 1: we invite people to come here and join us as
Speaker 1: a privilege. Not everyone has the right to be an American.
Speaker 1: That's a very straightforward, you can say, very basic statement.
Speaker 1: How could anyone be upset at that? Where's the problem
Speaker 1: with that? Isn't our immigration system. Don't we have immigration
Speaker 1: laws specifically so that we can control who comes into
Speaker 1: this country, but as importantly make sure that those who
Speaker 1: are coming into this country are brought in primarily for
Speaker 1: the benefit of the people already here. That America does
Speaker 1: not owe the world anything. We can make choices about
Speaker 1: how many people from the rest of the world we
Speaker 1: want to take in as immigrants, and that's why we
Speaker 1: have immigration law. This is very fundamental, very basic stuff,
Speaker 1: also very important because the left now has adopted a
Speaker 1: position that any restrictions of any kind on immigration, any
Speaker 1: enforcement of immigration laws, is more or less rooted in
Speaker 1: white nationalism and hatred. Wow, that's been quite a shift
Speaker 1: from even the Obama years, when the Obama administration was
Speaker 1: deporting hundreds of thousands of people. Now we're told that
Speaker 1: if you still think that that's a good idea, it
Speaker 1: must be because of white nationalism. And the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: has gone crazy fast. And one of the ways that
Speaker 1: they've been able to go so crazy is by covering
Speaker 1: up their progression into insanity on immigration issues with lie
Speaker 1: after lie after lie. And here we see yet another
Speaker 1: one where we have decided we are essentially going to
Speaker 1: do what the administration is claiming, they're gonna do what's
Speaker 1: already the law. They put out a statement, the White
Speaker 1: Hospital of a statement saying the following, preserving the social
Speaker 1: safety net, we must ensure that non citizens do not
Speaker 1: abuse our public benefit programs and jeopardize the social safety
Speaker 1: net needed by vulnerable Americans. And then they have data
Speaker 1: points here large numbers of non citizens and their families
Speaker 1: have taken advantage of our generous public benefits, limited resources
Speaker 1: that could otherwise go to vulnerable Americans. Seventy eight percent
Speaker 1: of households headed by a non citizen with no more
Speaker 1: than a high school education use at least one welfare program.
Speaker 1: Fifty eight percent of all households headed by a non
Speaker 1: citizen use at least one welfare program. So almost six
Speaker 1: out of ten and half of all non citizen headed
Speaker 1: households include at least one person who uses Medicaid. My friends,
Speaker 1: this is already the law. It already says in our
Speaker 1: immigration statutes that you are not to people are not
Speaker 1: allowed to be a public charge, meaning to be on
Speaker 1: the public dole if they're going to immigrate, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about legal immigrants to the country. It's not supposed
Speaker 1: to happen. This is of course not enforced. And what
Speaker 1: would it mean to enforced. They would mean, okay, well
Speaker 1: they're going to take away They're either going to say
Speaker 1: you can't get a green card, or they'll take away
Speaker 1: a green card if you continue to get public benefits. Now,
Speaker 1: this should be a pretty straightforward conversation, but we're always
Speaker 1: being lied to by liberals. That's why I like talking
Speaker 1: about immigration situation because I tell you the truth here
Speaker 1: about it. You're being lied to by the by the
Speaker 1: corporate mainstream media all the time on immigration constantly. How
Speaker 1: many of you have heard just just think, just go
Speaker 1: back in your own memory, how many of even heard, Oh,
Speaker 1: immigrants they pay more in in taxes than they take
Speaker 1: out in benefits. They don't take any government benefits. They
Speaker 1: they're the ones that are We hear this all the time.
Speaker 1: They're the ones keeping Social Security afloat. Okay, if this
Speaker 1: is true, then what's the big problem with us saying
Speaker 1: that the law which currently says you can't be a
Speaker 1: public charge if you're going to be a legal immigrant
Speaker 1: the United States? What's the problem with enforcing that If
Speaker 1: all they're doing is keeping US afloat? Immigrants of all
Speaker 1: kinds were always told are are better than Americans, right,
Speaker 1: particularly illegal immigrants better than Americans. That's the Democrat talking point.
Speaker 1: And I mean better by you know, they do the
Speaker 1: jobs that Americans won't do, they pay more in taxes
Speaker 1: than they then they take out of the system and
Speaker 1: all these other things. But if you cut off there,
Speaker 1: if you threatened to cut off the benefits of the member.
Speaker 1: The welfare benefits as what we're talking about, the welfare
Speaker 1: benefits of immigrants in this country. You're a monster. Well,
Speaker 1: which is it, folks, It can't be both. We are
Speaker 1: being lied to on this issue, just like we're being
Speaker 1: lied to on so many other components of immigration, and
Speaker 1: yet Democrats are not held responsible for all these misrepresentations,
Speaker 1: all these slogans that are just meant to be propaganda
Speaker 1: to divert the American people from really knowing what's happening.
Speaker 1: The law is currently that you cannot be a welfare
Speaker 1: case and come into this country as an immigrant. That is,
Speaker 1: that is what the law is supposed to accomplish. It
Speaker 1: is obviously not doing that. And I saw I think
Speaker 1: it was was it? I forget it. I think it
Speaker 1: was David Horowitz, But I'm I'd have that I might
Speaker 1: be confusing with someone else. Put this out on Twitter today,
Speaker 1: because you know this, we invite people to come here
Speaker 1: and join us as a privilege. Not everyone has a
Speaker 1: right to be an American. That's what Ken Cuccinelli said
Speaker 1: on an NPR radio show, and everyone on the left
Speaker 1: freaked out about that, and they all point to the oh,
Speaker 1: and he said, quote, give me you're tired, and your
Speaker 1: poor who can stand on their own two feet and
Speaker 1: who will not become a public charge. That's the acting
Speaker 1: US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cucinelli talking about
Speaker 1: this Trump administration policy, and also the poem which we're
Speaker 1: always told about, this Mma Lazarus poem, which is attached
Speaker 1: to the Statue of Liberty, as though that's one of
Speaker 1: the amendments of the Constitution. It's a poem at a
Speaker 1: tourist attraction. It does not have the force of what
Speaker 1: doesn't mean anything. It's for it's for school kids to
Speaker 1: look at it and hopefully memorize so their teachers will
Speaker 1: be happy with them. That's it. But Horowitz pointed this
Speaker 1: out today. One year before Emma Lazarus's poem in the
Speaker 1: Statue of Liberty, it Congress overwhelmingly passed the Immigration Act
Speaker 1: of eighteen eighty two, barring any public charge from even
Speaker 1: stepping foot on US soil, and the Act instructed Treasury
Speaker 1: Official section two of it that if on such examination
Speaker 1: there shall be found among such passengers any convict, lunatic, idiot,
Speaker 1: or any person unable to take care of himself or
Speaker 1: herself without becoming a public charge. Such persons shall not
Speaker 1: be permitted to land. So this whole Oh, but what
Speaker 1: about the Statue of Liberty and nation of immigrants? Then
Speaker 1: also on. Until recently, it was just understood that we
Speaker 1: were going to accept some immigrants and not others. And
Speaker 1: is it a fair world we live in? No? Is
Speaker 1: it fair that some people are born into crappy countries
Speaker 1: other people get born into America? No, or even countries
Speaker 1: that are just kind of okay, But people want to
Speaker 1: be American because it's the best country. No, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of unfairness in the world. It's not fair that
Speaker 1: I'm not, you know, six five and jaw droppingly handsome.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of unfairness in the world. But that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that we can abandon the rule of law
Speaker 1: because one political party feels good making a case about how, oh,
Speaker 1: things are unfair. Therefore, let's just pretend that we can't
Speaker 1: make rules about these things. This is I think this
Speaker 1: is a more important story than anything else going on
Speaker 1: to accept Hong Kong. Hong Kong protesters facing off with
Speaker 1: the Chinese government. We'll get into that in the second hour.
Speaker 1: My friend Steve Yates, we'll be joining to discuss that.
Speaker 1: I have a lot of thoughts on it, and then
Speaker 1: also we will as I mentioned, we'll get into you know,
Speaker 1: Fredo Gate, Chris Cuomo being called Fredo. I've never seen
Speaker 1: somebody in the media lose their cool as much as
Speaker 1: he did. But you know, we'll have a lot. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you'll have different thoughts on this and opinions, and
Speaker 1: we have both sides of it. Sean takes a well,
Speaker 1: I won't spoil it. I'll let Champarnell and Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: address it themselves later on. We also have some follow
Speaker 1: up on the Epstein case for you. So a varied
Speaker 1: show today, going to cover a lot of ground, a
Speaker 1: lot of territory, as we always do. But there's also
Speaker 1: another story that is in the realm of immigration and
Speaker 1: more specifically immigration and custom enforcement customs enforcement that I
Speaker 1: bet none of you, Hulton said, none of you, A
Speaker 1: very small percentage of you have heard about because it's
Speaker 1: not getting much media coverage at all, and it is
Speaker 1: indicative of the enormous double standard about rhetoric and leading
Speaker 1: to violent action. I will tell you what it is
Speaker 1: in just a moment. Stay with me. I just want
Speaker 1: to establish before I tell you about this news store
Speaker 1: were still getting updates on that. All last week. We
Speaker 1: were told by some of the wealthiest, most prominent, biggest
Speaker 1: platformed individuals in the media and the Democratic Party that
Speaker 1: Trump's rhetoric led to violence. That's what they were saying.
Speaker 1: It was Trump's fault. What happened in El Paso. They
Speaker 1: made Dayton just fade out very quickly, didn't they? The
Speaker 1: leftist who supported Elizabeth Warren, who was all about socialist
Speaker 1: policies of one kind or another, that that didn't really
Speaker 1: get much attention at all. It did it El Paso though,
Speaker 1: That was Trump's fault. That was the talking point for
Speaker 1: the week. That was the narrative, that was the storyline.
Speaker 1: If you wanted to get on TV at CNN, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: just say that Trump had blood on his hands in
Speaker 1: one way or another. That's what they were saying, was
Speaker 1: directly responsible for the violence. That was the message. That
Speaker 1: was the propaganda effort last week. Okay, how many of
Speaker 1: you have heard that in San Antonio, Texas police had
Speaker 1: to make an arrest because somebody fired off rounds into
Speaker 1: an Ice Immigrations and Customs Enforcement building there. Why isn't
Speaker 1: that getting more attention? Oh, because I wonder when they
Speaker 1: finally get to a question this suspect. They have one
Speaker 1: suspect and custody. I'm not sure if they think they
Speaker 1: if they know they have the right guy yet or not.
Speaker 1: Of course, everyone's presumed innocence until proven guilty. But I
Speaker 1: would wonder if this individual would say that he fired
Speaker 1: off rounds into a there were people in it, by
Speaker 1: the way, there were people in the facility, fired bullets
Speaker 1: through the window of a federal law enforcement building. If
Speaker 1: it was because he had heard from prominent the most
Speaker 1: prominent Democrats really in the country that ICE was operating
Speaker 1: the equivalent of Holocaust concentration camps, because that's what AOC
Speaker 1: had said, which would make the people working for Immigration
Speaker 1: and Customs enforcement morally on the same plane as Nazi
Speaker 1: prison guards at the concentration camps. And if somebody really
Speaker 1: believed that, and remember, she's never apologized, they've doubled down
Speaker 1: on it, they haven't walked away from that unbelievably reckless,
Speaker 1: stupid slander. I wonder how many people in the country
Speaker 1: hear that and think that they are righteous if they
Speaker 1: take action against the government. There has been a series
Speaker 1: of events folks and Washington Examiner pull them together. You
Speaker 1: had last month protesters with Never Again blocked the entrances
Speaker 1: to ICE's national headquarters in Washington. D C. Okay blocked
Speaker 1: the entrance. I mean, that's not as serious as some
Speaker 1: of these other things, but it's there's an escalating effect here.
Speaker 1: In July, police in Tacoma, Washington had to fatally shoot
Speaker 1: an armed man after he hurled molotov cocktails at an
Speaker 1: Immigration Customs enforce in building trying to set the propane
Speaker 1: tanks alike I believe, blow up the building. Also in July,
Speaker 1: a group of protesters in Aurora, Colorado, took down an
Speaker 1: American flag and two other flags from outside an ICE facility,
Speaker 1: raised a Mexican flag and a defaced thin blue line
Speaker 1: flag commemorating law enforcement. This is hostility to federal law enforcement,
Speaker 1: in some cases violent felonious criminal hostility to federal law enforcement. Now,
Speaker 1: I just would like to know, before anything terrible does
Speaker 1: happen here, is this in fact? Is this in fact
Speaker 1: a standard that will be applied by the Democrats on
Speaker 1: their side of things? Are we going to hear them say,
Speaker 1: you know, what AOC and the rest of these Democrats
Speaker 1: out there, including many of the Democrats who are running
Speaker 1: for president right now, they need to tone it down.
Speaker 1: They need to stop saying terrible things about immigration and
Speaker 1: cust enforcement, saying that it's humane, we're locking children in cages.
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe it's still sitting on the bill Marshow
Speaker 1: recently I had the former governor of Michigan start shrieking
Speaker 1: at me, kids in cages, kids in cages. I wasn't
Speaker 1: even I wasn't even talking about to tension at the board.
Speaker 1: I was trying to talk about paying for healthcare for
Speaker 1: illegal aliens. But it's just But that's the point, though,
Speaker 1: is that now anytime a anytime a lib here's you
Speaker 1: talk about immigration, they've just been programmed as they kids
Speaker 1: in cages, kids in cages. Okay, what about what about
Speaker 1: rule of law? What about deporting MS thirteen gang members?
Speaker 1: Healthcare for illegal aliens? How expensive will that be? What
Speaker 1: will how will that tax the current healthcare system? What
Speaker 1: does it mean for schools? And they have to devote
Speaker 1: a huge proportion of their resources to English as a
Speaker 1: second language training because of recent arrivals under the asylum rules.
Speaker 1: I mean, just normal questions you'd want to discuss in
Speaker 1: a society that you hope to be functional and well ordered.
Speaker 1: You look at a lot of liberal Democrats now a
Speaker 1: lot of leftists, and they just they look at you this,
Speaker 1: that's a very You raise a very interesting point about
Speaker 1: what it will do if we start paying for healthcare
Speaker 1: for illegal aliens out of the treasury, which is money
Speaker 1: taken from citizens. But kids in cages, kids in cages,
Speaker 1: that's all you're gonna hear, that's the response. That's all
Speaker 1: they need. What's going to happen When we ask democrats
Speaker 1: if there is a terrible, infinite an ICE facility, which
Speaker 1: looks like it's just a matter of time, Now, what
Speaker 1: are they going to tell us if something happens kids
Speaker 1: in cages? I think so. Also, first of all, I
Speaker 1: never said that of the raiges you call we're focused
Speaker 1: on violent criminals. I've never said that. And also I
Speaker 1: think words matter. These aren't raids. These are targeted in
Speaker 1: law enforcement operations, and in this case, this was a
Speaker 1: joint criminal investigation with ICE and the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: targeting work site enforcement, meaning companies that knowingly and willfully
Speaker 1: hire illegal aliens so that in most cases they can
Speaker 1: pay them reduced wages exploit them further for their bottom line.
Speaker 1: That's what this investigation was about, a criminal investigation, Jake.
Speaker 1: Mark Morgan slapping down some of Jake Tapper's propaganda. There
Speaker 1: another guy, you know, lives in a mansion and wants
Speaker 1: to lecture the rest of America about how we're not
Speaker 1: welcoming enough. We've taken a million immigrants a year legally
Speaker 1: and are going to have close to a million illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants from just Central America alone this year. But we
Speaker 1: all need the constant lecture from the CNN, the CNN
Speaker 1: live millionaires about how we're just not open minded enough.
Speaker 1: And it's any objection to the current immigration situation and
Speaker 1: enforcement of the laws. It's based in white nationalism. Mark Morgan,
Speaker 1: there's a guy's running ice. He's right, running sorry BECAU
Speaker 1: border control, whatever it is. He's right. Words do matter.
Speaker 1: This is why I refuse to say undocumented, although I
Speaker 1: wonder if at some point I'll be in a place
Speaker 1: where they'll just mandate that I have to say it
Speaker 1: or else. That's what the Libs always do. At first,
Speaker 1: it's suggested you use their terminology and then it's you
Speaker 1: better say this or else. Just like with the pronouns,
Speaker 1: the transgender fights all that stuff, they don't leave it
Speaker 1: to your discretion. They want to control the language. But
Speaker 1: he also brought up there what I think is a
Speaker 1: very bipartisan issue of sensitivity, which is that you have
Speaker 1: these employers who are exploiting, exploiting illegal aliens and paying
Speaker 1: them below what the wages are they should. And keep
Speaker 1: in mind, if they're paying them off the books, then
Speaker 1: these employers are getting a competitive advantage versus those who
Speaker 1: are legally employing individuals. And you might say, oh, buck, well,
Speaker 1: isn't that what the market will bear now? Because guess
Speaker 1: what all the social costs of illegal immigrants in this country,
Speaker 1: all the things we're talking before, being a public charge,
Speaker 1: welfare benefits, and all the rest of it that they
Speaker 1: voice that onto the general public, and they just pay
Speaker 1: them very very low wages and they're and a lot
Speaker 1: of the illegals are just happy to be here getting
Speaker 1: those wages because they know that the rest of the
Speaker 1: benefits of being in America come along with just being
Speaker 1: in America. So I mean to call them raids. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're hearing these stories they make it sound like Ice
Speaker 1: is busting through doors with flash bangs and you know,
Speaker 1: firing warning shots with MP fives everywhere, just like you know,
Speaker 1: freak everybody out. They're showing up as a law enforcement operation,
Speaker 1: and they're saying, Okay, who is here legally? Who is
Speaker 1: here illegally? We're going to enforce the law. But the
Speaker 1: liberal media cheers against law enforcement. The liberal media cheers
Speaker 1: against every aspect of law enforcement except for investigations of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and those are sacro sancte. The only law
Speaker 1: enforcement officials that I have heard in recent years anybody
Speaker 1: in the elite media in favor of are those who
Speaker 1: are deep state coup plotters against Donald Trump. Any other
Speaker 1: aspect of law enforcement, local law enforce and immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement, you know, cops, border patrol. Libs can't stand them,
Speaker 1: can't stand them. Think they're racist, Think they're bad, think
Speaker 1: they're thugs. Just look at what Warren and Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: said about about Officer Wilson up in Ferguson, formerly of
Speaker 1: the Ferguson Police Department, to leave his job, lying about
Speaker 1: him being a murderer. Just pandering, just pandering. But that's
Speaker 1: what we expect from libs lots and lots of pandering.
Speaker 1: By the way, as an assign here, I just wanted
Speaker 1: to say, welcome to one of our newest affiliates here,
Speaker 1: w r aw in Reading Pennsylvania. So if you're listening
Speaker 1: on w thank you so much for tuning in. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Team Buck, Welcome to the Freedom Hunt. Now. I
Speaker 1: did tell you all that later on in the show
Speaker 1: we would address is it Fredo Gate or Cuomo Gate
Speaker 1: or whatever we're calling it now, which is it's fun
Speaker 1: to talk about, although it's not an important story. We're
Speaker 1: going to spend the next hour much more in depth
Speaker 1: on Hong Kong, China. Steve Yates, who he's a Mandarin speaker,
Speaker 1: spend a ton of time in China and Taiwan and
Speaker 1: as well, and it was a policy expert in this
Speaker 1: region for many, many years working for the government. So
Speaker 1: you know, he's someone that I think you should hear
Speaker 1: from on this. But later on in the show we
Speaker 1: will get into what happened with Chris Cuomo. I did
Speaker 1: want to just before we get there, I'll play the
Speaker 1: clip for you where he's going completely bonkers on this
Speaker 1: guy that a costed him in public which is not cool,
Speaker 1: but we do have. The whole problem was they called
Speaker 1: him Fredo. They called Chris Cuomo, a brother of New
Speaker 1: York's governor, um Andrew Cuomo. The guy who talks like
Speaker 1: this on this show is his brother. Don't call my
Speaker 1: little brother Fredo. It makes him very, very met which means,
Speaker 1: of course we're all gonna call him Fredo now. But
Speaker 1: there's this dispute over whether or not it's an ethnic
Speaker 1: slur to call him Italian person Fredo. Here's the problem.
Speaker 1: C N used the term Fredo on air to make
Speaker 1: fun of people for being the wayward family member quite frequently.
Speaker 1: Play clip two, Fredo, he's from the Godfather Here was
Speaker 1: a weak brothers Italian okay, Saltan people people's word for us, Lenny.
Speaker 1: I mean, he kind of makes Don Junior to be
Speaker 1: Fredo and godfather too. It was Michael Flynn, Don Corleone
Speaker 1: or at Rofia fam where run by Michael Corleone or
Speaker 1: one run by his weakling brother Fredo. Look, Devin Nudez,
Speaker 1: he's privy himself again and again to be the Fredo
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party. Cruelly compare Donald Trump Junior to
Speaker 1: Fredo Corleone vivately refers to President Trump's son in law
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner as Fredo, right, because Bennet has broke my heart.
Speaker 1: Fredo so is just the Cuomo. This is a preface
Speaker 1: because later on we'll get into this in more detail.
Speaker 1: Cuomo's contention at CNN backed him up and use the
Speaker 1: term ethnic slur is that Fredo's an ethnic slur. CNN
Speaker 1: uses it all the time. So this is a little
Speaker 1: bit apart from the ethics of how to confront somebody
Speaker 1: who's being rude to you in public for no reason.
Speaker 1: But just remember that Fredo is not an ethnic slur.
Speaker 1: That's not up for debate. We've got more coming up.
Speaker 1: Team stay with me, Yes going out for a long
Speaker 1: time episode, and I know it's under investigation by his
Speaker 1: journey General Bart. I'm sure you're gonna be handling again
Speaker 1: the Reek, which is why I was from somebody that
Speaker 1: very respected to gernat abundance. So I think that was
Speaker 1: fun Yew. Basically, what we're zegas do you want an investigation?
Speaker 1: I want a full investigation. That's what I absolutely ever demanded.
Speaker 1: That's what our attorney general, our great Attorney general, is
Speaker 1: doing he's doing a full investigation. You really think that
Speaker 1: Clinton turn called the Epidas death. I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I know he was going to plane twenty seven times,
Speaker 1: and he said he was on the plane four times.
Speaker 1: But when they checked the plane love Bill Clinton, who
Speaker 1: was a very good friend of Epistein, he was on
Speaker 1: the plane about twenty seven or twenty eight times. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to drop the Epstein case, Attorney General Barr
Speaker 1: says he's not going to drop the Epstein case. Let's
Speaker 1: see if we can get some more answers here. That
Speaker 1: was the president speaking in front of marine one. I
Speaker 1: do wish that the president would I don't could they
Speaker 1: have him turned down the engines or something. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: that some of that audio. I just like to share
Speaker 1: the what we call the news actuality from the day,
Speaker 1: so you can hear the president himself, but not audio quality.
Speaker 1: We got to get them to tone those those jet
Speaker 1: engines or the helicopter rotors, whatever it is, tone it
Speaker 1: down a little bit. So that's I think an aside.
Speaker 1: We could both push that aside for a second. A
Speaker 1: few things in what he said here. One he doubles
Speaker 1: down on this tweet, saying the tweet that he shared
Speaker 1: about how maybe the Clintons were involved, we didn't really know.
Speaker 1: And look, that's the that's the president. Sometimes he's a
Speaker 1: little ambish, you know. Sometimes the President likes to just
Speaker 1: poke people a bit. And I know some of you
Speaker 1: probably find it very amusing. Some of you probably think
Speaker 1: it's absolutely crazy that he does that. But that's something
Speaker 1: that really does happen. Where the president decides that he's
Speaker 1: just gonna troll I think is what the what the
Speaker 1: kids called, He's gonna troll people. But then he also
Speaker 1: brought up something that I tweeted about today. And even
Speaker 1: though the President was going to bring this up or no,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I tweeter about in response the President bringing
Speaker 1: it up, but I didn't know that it was going
Speaker 1: to come up today. And that is the number of
Speaker 1: times that Bill Clinton was on Epstein's plane, his official
Speaker 1: the Clinton spokesperson. That's got to be quite a job.
Speaker 1: You got to shovel a lot of stuff around there.
Speaker 1: The official spokesperson had said that it was four times,
Speaker 1: and the President went out and said it was twenty seven.
Speaker 1: I brought this up. I feel like this should be
Speaker 1: an issue where we have absolute clarity and there's been
Speaker 1: some dueling numbers out there. What I've been told by
Speaker 1: other journals or I'm not a journal, but by journals,
Speaker 1: is that it was four trips with a total of
Speaker 1: twenty seven legs different flights. Now to this, I say,
Speaker 1: those must have been some trips. You got seven flights
Speaker 1: per trip? I mean, you know how many places are
Speaker 1: we really going here? What are these trips? Four? That's
Speaker 1: one quick observation about this. Another one is, well, if
Speaker 1: it's twenty seven flights, why not just say twenty seven flights?
Speaker 1: Because if that's what it is, that's what it is.
Speaker 1: To say four trips, that to me seems like they're
Speaker 1: trying to downplay the amount of time that Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: spent with this man, because if if you're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, when people bring up a flight, it does
Speaker 1: make a difference at least if you're thinking about what
Speaker 1: kind of association they had. Hey are you going to DC?
Speaker 1: I'm going to DC. We're in Palm Beach hop on
Speaker 1: my plane. That's one thing. Hey are you you want
Speaker 1: to come with me to Tokyo and we're gonna make
Speaker 1: six stops on the way. I'm not saying he went
Speaker 1: to Tokyo. But wherever they went, that's a different thing.
Speaker 1: That's a greater level of familiarity and friendship that Clinton
Speaker 1: and Epstein would have had. So I just would like
Speaker 1: more more clarity on that. Trump think that there's something
Speaker 1: up here for sure, And I can tell all these
Speaker 1: libs try to tie Trump into this stuff. But as
Speaker 1: I've said, he's the only one that before before the
Speaker 1: sort of democles of all the information and all the
Speaker 1: evidence came down on Epstein's neck, which it should have
Speaker 1: long before it happened. Before that happened and he was
Speaker 1: finally prosecuted, Trump was the one who said, get out
Speaker 1: of my club. You're a sicko, you're a weirdo, and
Speaker 1: I'll waant you here now. I also so we need
Speaker 1: clarity on the flights and what happened there. Then there's
Speaker 1: another thing, what is the reality of Epstein's funds, his
Speaker 1: money and all this other stuff. I don't know if
Speaker 1: we're ever going to find out. I think that he
Speaker 1: was very adept at hiding money, hiding funds. We'll find
Speaker 1: out some stuff, but I mean, there's no way this
Speaker 1: guy was a great money manager. The one thing that
Speaker 1: I saw was he invested. I think he invested in
Speaker 1: some fund that lost forty or fifty million dollars. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy was not some ace investor, all right. He
Speaker 1: didn't make all of his money by making great calls,
Speaker 1: no way. So how did he make his money? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a vanity Fair piece, and usually I
Speaker 1: wouldn't psyche Vanity Fair here about. Sometimes they write interesting
Speaker 1: stuff and this is how it opened. And then I
Speaker 1: want to dive into this with you a little bit.
Speaker 1: Is it possible prosecutors have lost track of Geelane Maxwell,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein's alleged co conspirator in his pedophile ring. For
Speaker 1: the past few weeks. Rumors have circulated that she's four
Speaker 1: hundred pounds and living in Florida, or that she's living
Speaker 1: the high life in London or the continent. But according
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post, authorities are having a hard time
Speaker 1: locating her. Those who know her say that it's possible
Speaker 1: she is as much of a Houdini as Epstein. Both
Speaker 1: of them liked having secrets and the way those secrets
Speaker 1: kept people off balance. Jeffrey always wanted to give the
Speaker 1: impression he was an international man of mystery. I control
Speaker 1: everyone and everything. I collect people, I own people. I
Speaker 1: can damage people, says an ex girlfriend. I can damage people,
Speaker 1: I own people, I collect people. This is a recurring
Speaker 1: theme for anybody that knew this guy. And now there
Speaker 1: are some people who are early stage reporting because there
Speaker 1: was this FBI raid on the Pedophile Island. People are
Speaker 1: saying that it was all set up for very detailed surveillance.
Speaker 1: Pedophile Island, the island that he owned in the Caribbean.
Speaker 1: And there are some who are saying that this may
Speaker 1: have been the center in many ways of the black
Speaker 1: mail ring that I do believe was very much what.
Speaker 1: Maybe it wasn't all of what Epstein's financial gain came from,
Speaker 1: but I do think that this was a substantial portion
Speaker 1: of it. You know, give me that money to invest,
Speaker 1: because I'm a great investor, slash, I have blackmail material
Speaker 1: that could ruin your life. Epstein would have said to people.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty easy financial proposition to get done, isn't it. Hey,
Speaker 1: give me that one hundred million dollars to do whatever
Speaker 1: I want with. Never mind, just invest I'll invest it,
Speaker 1: you know, but maybe I'll do some other stuff with
Speaker 1: it or else. You know, I have video of the
Speaker 1: time that so and so that you came to Pedophile Island.
Speaker 1: That seems given everything we know about this guy, wouldn't
Speaker 1: that track? Doesn't that make sense to you that this
Speaker 1: is what he was up to and what we're being
Speaker 1: told the people who were around him, they'd like to
Speaker 1: collect people that he'd like to have leverage over people
Speaker 1: he wanted to influence over very wealthy, very powerful, individal jewels.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that make sense given everything else that we know?
Speaker 1: So I'm I'm wondering how much more information we're going
Speaker 1: to get here about his finances, because I do think
Speaker 1: that that's more than anything else, going to illuminate what
Speaker 1: was really happening. But I also think that Epstein Epstein
Speaker 1: was running I would wonder if anyone's going to prove
Speaker 1: me wrong, that would be of interest to me. I
Speaker 1: think Epstein was running a blackmail ring of the global elite.
Speaker 1: That's what I think was going on. And he had
Speaker 1: people who were incredibly wealthy and powerful that he did
Speaker 1: collect and in a sense own, and that that was
Speaker 1: that was reality this guy had, Because what do you
Speaker 1: what would you do? There's there's some blackmail where you
Speaker 1: would take a okay, you know what, Fine tell people
Speaker 1: that you're going to tell them, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: live my life this way. If you're a prominent if
Speaker 1: you were any person, but particularly if you're a prominent
Speaker 1: public figure and someone has video of you with underage girls,
Speaker 1: I think you're going to probably do what that person says,
Speaker 1: because if you go to the FBI, you're in a
Speaker 1: whole lot of trouble. Right So I do think that
Speaker 1: this is I think this is where it's all. It's
Speaker 1: all heading. There's this report that Maxwell told a friend
Speaker 1: that Epstein's entire island was wired for video, presumably for
Speaker 1: blackmail purposes. This was on a hotair dot com today,
Speaker 1: citing the Vanity Fair piece the entire island was wired
Speaker 1: for video? Who would do that? Maybe for paranoid security purposes,
Speaker 1: but none on that on a private island in the Caribbean.
Speaker 1: When you're a billionaire, you have private security. You don't
Speaker 1: need all that blackmail. That makes a lot more sense.
Speaker 1: We're gonna stay on this, folks, I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: leaving this case behind. Organ worked out. I hope it
Speaker 1: worked out for everybody, By the way, I hope they
Speaker 1: worked out for everybody. As the President talking about the
Speaker 1: very tense situation right now in Hong Kong with the
Speaker 1: Chinese government cracking down. You had riot police inside Hong
Speaker 1: Kong's airport, one of the largest and busiest airports in
Speaker 1: the world, which has been shut down for the past
Speaker 1: two days, hundreds and hundreds of flights having to be canceled,
Speaker 1: chaos at the airport. Protesters had been mostly peaceful, they
Speaker 1: had effectively locked down and blocked the airport from functioning,
Speaker 1: but then the violence happened when you had riot police
Speaker 1: show up with shields and batons and started hitting people
Speaker 1: and protesters. We're heading back. That was the President weighing
Speaker 1: in on this. He said, Hong Kong's a very tough situation.
Speaker 1: We'll see what happens. I'm sure it will work out.
Speaker 1: I hope it works out for everybody, including China. President
Speaker 1: very noncommittal here. I was a little surprised, given that
Speaker 1: the president is tough on China. As a general rule,
Speaker 1: this president has been willing to stare down the Chinese
Speaker 1: government on issues that they needed to be stared down on,
Speaker 1: like intellectual property theft, like predatory trading practices, cyberespionage, Refusing
Speaker 1: to abide by what they said they would to be
Speaker 1: part of the international trade agreements that have been in
Speaker 1: effect for a long time. Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, patent infringeman,
Speaker 1: you name it all. I mean, the Chinese has just
Speaker 1: been cheating and stealing all over the place, and it's
Speaker 1: been working. I gotta remember that it's been working in
Speaker 1: our government in this country has been saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: what are we really what are we really going to
Speaker 1: do about it? Well, now you have Hong Kong, which
Speaker 1: is the single most and I'm so annoyed that I
Speaker 1: didn't get to go to Hong Kong. I was in
Speaker 1: Beijing and Beijing and Shanghai a few months ago. Hong
Speaker 1: Kong was also part of that trip, but I couldn't
Speaker 1: get the time off from from work from both of
Speaker 1: my jobs to go. But but Hong Kong is the
Speaker 1: great economic success story. And you know, there was a
Speaker 1: there was an agreement here the the one country two
Speaker 1: systems or one state two systems, and it's not supposed
Speaker 1: to end until roughly twenty fifty, where Hong Kong gets
Speaker 1: a kind and no one knows what happens then, by
Speaker 1: the way, but Hong Kong is supposed to have its
Speaker 1: own legislative body that sets its own laws, and it
Speaker 1: has the Chinese government for defense. So just so it
Speaker 1: is a possession of the People's Republic of China, but
Speaker 1: it has been able to continue as a very western
Speaker 1: eyes highly developed. I mean, my friends who were just
Speaker 1: there were telling me about how it's incredibly wealthy. I mean,
Speaker 1: the concentration of wealth in Hong Kong right now is insane,
Speaker 1: and it's also relatively liberal. Or you can go there
Speaker 1: as an American and not feel the big brother state
Speaker 1: that you'd feel and say Beijing, where I was. But
Speaker 1: we have the people of Hong Kong who see this
Speaker 1: not just as pushback against the extradition law, which is
Speaker 1: what sparked this whole thing, which would have meant that
Speaker 1: the mainland communist Chinese government would be able to take
Speaker 1: anybody effectively in Hong Kong. Say you're coming back to
Speaker 1: mainland China for trial, which means Communist Party can do
Speaker 1: anything they want with you. I mean, now you're done,
Speaker 1: they'll just seize you in Hong Kong and now you
Speaker 1: go into the Communist party system. Good luck with that,
Speaker 1: and good luck with your trial or whatever they decide
Speaker 1: to do with you. We have protesters though, who are
Speaker 1: waiving American flags, and I mean, here's video of Chinese
Speaker 1: protesters in Hong Kong singing our national anthem, Play nine
Speaker 1: and the rock cast time on passing in that game
Speaker 1: bran than a fast dude that we say uses ringle
Speaker 1: beare they understand that America is still the beacon of
Speaker 1: global freedom and they want greater liberty and at least
Speaker 1: the protesters do. They want individual liberty. And because they're
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong and not on the mainland, they've had
Speaker 1: some taste of that. They've had economic freedom, they've had
Speaker 1: a more liberal rule of law, and they've been able
Speaker 1: to experience life without the just the crushing hand of
Speaker 1: the communist regime able to come down to them at
Speaker 1: any point in time. Now, Mainland China's obviously had a
Speaker 1: lot of economic prosperity. That's been the bargain that the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party has made over the last thirty years
Speaker 1: or so, which is, we're in charge, you do what
Speaker 1: we say, but you're going to have greater prosperity and
Speaker 1: wealth you're going to have wherever you are in China.
Speaker 1: Now you're all more access to you know, like even
Speaker 1: if you're from the poorer ranks, particularly in the poor ranks,
Speaker 1: you'll have more access to electricity, to schooling, to new vehicles,
Speaker 1: to safer food, to a better paying job, to all
Speaker 1: these different benefits. But you don't have freedom. And China
Speaker 1: has been making that bargain, but the Chinese have been
Speaker 1: making have been going forward with that bargain for a
Speaker 1: long time. Now. Hong Kong has a different bargain, which is,
Speaker 1: you do the things that you've been doing in Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: and China will still be the country that you belong to,
Speaker 1: but you can do things your way in Hong Kong
Speaker 1: as Chinese there. This is a real inflection point for
Speaker 1: freedom on a global scale. What happens in Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: we'll have ramifications that the rest of the world will
Speaker 1: see and will certainly affect our trade deal with China,
Speaker 1: how that comes about or not. My friends, Steve Yates
Speaker 1: is going to join in a moment to way and more.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. I wanted to
Speaker 1: bring in my friend Steve Yates here to give us
Speaker 1: his take on everything that's going on in Hong Kong
Speaker 1: with the Chinese government and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Steve is formerly a Deputy National Security Advisor for Vice
Speaker 1: President Dick Cheney. He is currently the CEO of DC
Speaker 1: International Advisory. Great to have you, Steve. Thanks, good to
Speaker 1: be with you. Buck All right, Steve, So, what do
Speaker 1: you make of what's going on right now? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's I know, it was very early in the morning.
Speaker 1: It's very morning, well early in the morning, I should
Speaker 1: say in Hong Kong right now. Things that quieted down
Speaker 1: overnight a bit, but there were some people who were
Speaker 1: tweeting out some pretty ominous photos and there were concerns
Speaker 1: about a violent crackdown. Do you think that's going to happen?
Speaker 1: I mean, makes them actions here and if you're right,
Speaker 1: we'll bring you back on no pressure on that. But
Speaker 1: there's for sure this is something that's trending in a
Speaker 1: dangerous direction because there's history of the Communist Party of
Speaker 1: China being very, very willing, due to politics and other interests,
Speaker 1: to kill other Chinese people. They did it in the
Speaker 1: June fourth, nineteen eighty nineteen Square massacre. That was after
Speaker 1: weeks and weeks of demonstrations against corruption inflation, and a
Speaker 1: number of other grievances against the government. At the time,
Speaker 1: the people of Hong Kong were promised not that far
Speaker 1: from that period of time, that they would have a
Speaker 1: high degree of autonomy, they'd be able to govern their
Speaker 1: own affairs, that Chinese would assume sovereignty and defense. But
Speaker 1: the Hong Kong people had universal suffrage at some point
Speaker 1: be able to elect their own leaders, and especially the
Speaker 1: young generation, but not just the young generation of Hong
Speaker 1: Kong now sees that that was not an honor bargain,
Speaker 1: and the Chinese Communist Party is pushing hard for them
Speaker 1: to submit and just be a part of one China.
Speaker 1: And this is I think the last stand for freedom
Speaker 1: for the people of Hong Kong. Will the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: the People's Liberation Army or security forces, the Party ultimately
Speaker 1: crack down and injure main, mass arrest or even murder
Speaker 1: people to impose some kind of stability. That's what they're threatening,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're waiting to see happen. But my
Speaker 1: prediction is this is heading in a dangerous direction. The
Speaker 1: young people are prepared to stand up for their freedom
Speaker 1: and fight. On the long term. I bet on the
Speaker 1: side of the people. So I say, at some point
Speaker 1: they're going to win their freedom. Well, that's at least hopeful.
Speaker 1: I would actually take the other side of that bargain
Speaker 1: given what we've seen in China. But I guess it
Speaker 1: depends on the horizon we're talking about here, So who
Speaker 1: really knows. We gotta have my friend Gordon Chang back
Speaker 1: on the coming collapse of China. Could be any day now,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's going to be any time soon.
Speaker 1: I want to ask about what else the protesters wont
Speaker 1: Initially this was all kicked off because of the extradition
Speaker 1: law from Hong Kong. What can you tell us about
Speaker 1: this is now that plus it's more than just that.
Speaker 1: It's more than just that. But that really is much
Speaker 1: bigger than it sounds. I mean, fundamentally, Hong Kong is
Speaker 1: the golden Goose for China. It's separate rule of law
Speaker 1: under a common law system. It's separate currency, it's high
Speaker 1: degree of autonomy. It allowed for Hong Kong to be
Speaker 1: a major, major international financial center. It also enabled Hong
Speaker 1: Kong to be basically a through port to open up
Speaker 1: Chinese markets, connect it to be a global trading and
Speaker 1: economic power, and so that separate status is exceedingly important
Speaker 1: to China's rise as an economic power, and the extraditial
Speaker 1: treaty or the extradition law would basically mean that if
Speaker 1: any American, Canadian, Australian other CEO were to enter Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: they could on a whim be snatched up and tried
Speaker 1: inside China. And also protesters who are trying to pursue
Speaker 1: their own rights could also, instead of being tried under
Speaker 1: common law in the Hong Kong separate system, could be
Speaker 1: tried in mainland courts. And so they see this as
Speaker 1: fundamentally erasing the two systems from the bargain of one country,
Speaker 1: two systems. It just becomes one country, one system, and
Speaker 1: it's all in favor of the artificial intelligence, tech inspired
Speaker 1: control regime. But as the CCP on China, now give
Speaker 1: me your sense of why China won't just get you know,
Speaker 1: there is international attention on this, not as much as
Speaker 1: Fredo Gate with Chris Cuomo, but there is international attention.
Speaker 1: People are finally looking at this now because of some
Speaker 1: of the violence in the airport, what's gone on there
Speaker 1: and those photos of what looked like armored personnel carriers.
Speaker 1: I know it's supposed to be for the People's Police,
Speaker 1: People's armed police force of China, but it's paramilitary. They're
Speaker 1: gonna look like they're gonna roll in there and crack skulls. Literally.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't the Chinese just say, you know what, the
Speaker 1: heat's the heat's up right now. Why don't we just
Speaker 1: you know, back off, let things cool down a bit,
Speaker 1: and then just use our tremendous economic and political and
Speaker 1: other powers of persuasion behind the scenes to essentially slowly
Speaker 1: consume Hong Kong. Anyway, Well, that would be exceedingly rational,
Speaker 1: and that's what a lot of us thought for a
Speaker 1: long time, and in reality, that's what was happening and
Speaker 1: what was working in many ways, whether it was the
Speaker 1: Chinese occupying and what we would call simifying or turning
Speaker 1: Chinese territories like to bet the far West, Chin Johns,
Speaker 1: the majority Muslim the slow cook pressure on Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: the pressure on Taiwan and trying to bully them and
Speaker 1: push them out of international bodies and things like. All
Speaker 1: of this on a slow pressure cooker was actually kind
Speaker 1: of trending Beijing's way as long as they held out
Speaker 1: the promising vision of what China was becoming, and the
Speaker 1: world was very accommodating to China doing these things. And
Speaker 1: that's been essentially the last several decades since the Tenement
Speaker 1: Square massacre, and so really in the last year, for
Speaker 1: reasons that are not directly apparent to a lot of
Speaker 1: outside observers, things seem to be worse for the Communist
Speaker 1: Party inside China, or there's no rational reason for them
Speaker 1: to have to push for these things now. If they
Speaker 1: were a confident power, if they were secure in their
Speaker 1: economic model, not feeling the pressure of the Trump tariffs
Speaker 1: and the other inconsistencies of their economy, if they really
Speaker 1: believed their people were behind them, they could allow for
Speaker 1: time and be patient, but changed inside China. This is
Speaker 1: not a US or externally induced movement, and it's not
Speaker 1: just a trade war. This is a comprehensive war by
Speaker 1: the Communist Party of China to impose control on as
Speaker 1: much as it possibly can right now. How much by
Speaker 1: fear on their part, how much does a independence contagion
Speaker 1: affect the thinking in your mind of the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party right now? Meaning if they do you think that
Speaker 1: their perception is if they backed off of Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: There are other parts of China that aren't quite as
Speaker 1: on board for the whole communist mission as the Central
Speaker 1: Committee wants them to be right, and certainly Taiwan comes
Speaker 1: to mind, which is a whole other category, but there
Speaker 1: are even parts of mainland China that are at issue.
Speaker 1: Here does that factor in or where would you put that? Well,
Speaker 1: it is certainly logic that they deploy and at some
Speaker 1: level they set it so long, so much to so
Speaker 1: many people. I think they leave their own propaganda at
Speaker 1: this point, but it isn't empirically or logically true. Hong
Speaker 1: Kong is very very different from all other parts of China.
Speaker 1: After all, it was a British colony for a very
Speaker 1: long time, and they can talk about how important it
Speaker 1: was to bring back to China, so to speak, but
Speaker 1: it is a very very different place, and so any
Speaker 1: kind of an exception that was made for Hong Kong
Speaker 1: is easily justified, as it's for a place that was
Speaker 1: under exceptional circumstances. So all of you other parts of
Speaker 1: China that were a long term British colony, yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: give you an audience, but that literally no other part
Speaker 1: of the current People's Republic of China. So there's other
Speaker 1: logic for why they're having to do this. There's no
Speaker 1: question that they have built in almost like a sixth
Speaker 1: sense movie issue of everywhere they look, they see dead people,
Speaker 1: they see color revolutions, they see some kind of group
Speaker 1: that's going to come take them down. But that's, like
Speaker 1: I said, they are insecure at some level. We have
Speaker 1: assumed level of maturity, security, durability in this regime that
Speaker 1: they don't even seem to assume themselves. But it's this
Speaker 1: color revolution contagion that they're talking up now and then
Speaker 1: labeling the Hong Kong protesters as terrorists that does, in
Speaker 1: fact sound like they're setting up for some kind of
Speaker 1: a crackdown. Very worrying if they do it, it's ken
Speaker 1: Anman Square massacre of nineteen eighty nine times ten, because
Speaker 1: more of the world is watching. And as much as
Speaker 1: we like to kick the journalist profession around and it's
Speaker 1: easy to do a lot, there's actually a respectable number
Speaker 1: of journalists that have gone into Hong Kong and they're
Speaker 1: doing what they're supposed to do. They're reporting the truth
Speaker 1: on the scene, unfiltered, and it's almost the only place
Speaker 1: in the planet that's happening right now. Steve the administration
Speaker 1: weighing in on this one today, Trump said he hopes
Speaker 1: no one dies, basically, and that this will somehow work out.
Speaker 1: And it was very it was just neutral. Really, it
Speaker 1: didn't really take a position either way. Is how do
Speaker 1: you view that? Meaning? Does does Trump just see this
Speaker 1: as he doesn't have a hand to play here right
Speaker 1: now because he has to worry about the trade agreement
Speaker 1: or should he see this as leverage or what should
Speaker 1: Trump be doing? Well, the first thing, I mean, I
Speaker 1: obviously I can't program what our great president is going
Speaker 1: to say by way of Twitter or otherwise. My hope
Speaker 1: would be the first thing anybody from the United States
Speaker 1: can do is say we stand for people who are
Speaker 1: prepared to make the sacrifices that Americans before us made
Speaker 1: to secure our own freedom. So, I mean, we have
Speaker 1: to at some levels that you know, whether we're prepared
Speaker 1: to intervene or help that completely aside, we should at
Speaker 1: least say I have nothing but respect for the people
Speaker 1: that are willing to stand up and maybe even pay
Speaker 1: the ultimate price to pursue truis Zoo freedom, the blessings
Speaker 1: of liberty for ourselves and our posterity ether things we
Speaker 1: believe in. It's what's American makes us special. And then
Speaker 1: beyond that, I think that we should be giving some
Speaker 1: cautionary words to Beijing that there's going to be costs
Speaker 1: to them greater than this tariff escalation in recent times.
Speaker 1: If they try to pull off some kind of a
Speaker 1: tan on, then again that there are measures that are
Speaker 1: ready to go, and so we really urge them to
Speaker 1: exercise caution. After all, it is they who pushed the
Speaker 1: extradition law. It is they who crank up the pressure cooker,
Speaker 1: and now they're trying to show us the result and
Speaker 1: say that's the problem, when really that's just the symptom
Speaker 1: of what they have done. I would like the President
Speaker 1: to see through the shade and be able to speak
Speaker 1: directly to that. Steve and Yates, everybody DC International Advisory,
Speaker 1: he is the CEO, and Steven always appreciate you joining
Speaker 1: to share your Asia expertise, sir, talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Buck tick here all right, team, we got
Speaker 1: more to stay with me. Just a few more thoughts
Speaker 1: on what's going on in Hong Kong. But in a
Speaker 1: historical sense, I have a dear for an approach to this.
Speaker 1: I wanted to share with you because you know, in
Speaker 1: this country right now we are in the midst of
Speaker 1: whether we understand or accept this or not we are
Speaker 1: we are in the midst of a debate over whether
Speaker 1: we're going to go socialist or not. That is happening.
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is a socialist party. They advocate for socialism
Speaker 1: in a broad scale manner, full spectrum socialism in a
Speaker 1: democratic socialist model openly now. But they've been advocating for
Speaker 1: central planning and the implementation of socialist programs within a
Speaker 1: more liberal and free market economy for as long as
Speaker 1: I've been at FIR, as long as really they've been
Speaker 1: around in the twentieth century into the twenty first. So
Speaker 1: now what we have is a Democratic Party that is
Speaker 1: effectively socialist. I look at what's going on in Asia,
Speaker 1: and I think that there's a lesson from all this.
Speaker 1: People often point conservatives in particularly do this. They'll point
Speaker 1: of Venezuela and they'll say, look at what socialism does
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. It has tremendous natural resources, particularly oil, which
Speaker 1: is the one we're really talking about. All though does
Speaker 1: have some of the best cacao in the world. Those
Speaker 1: who like chocolate. I'm a bit of a chocolate chocolate
Speaker 1: o file, it's probably a better word, a chocolate file.
Speaker 1: Is that a thing? I do love chocolate. But they
Speaker 1: have more proven oil reserves than even Saudi Arabia. This
Speaker 1: is the fact, the statistic that everybody who talks about
Speaker 1: this on TV throws out. So it sounds like they
Speaker 1: know something about Venezuela. But you can look at what's
Speaker 1: happened in the Far East over the last fifty years
Speaker 1: or so, and all you have is case study after
Speaker 1: case study of what central planning and socialism, the heart
Speaker 1: of socialism in central planning, these two things have to
Speaker 1: go together. What central planning and socialism have done to
Speaker 1: economies in the Far East, and what free trade and
Speaker 1: liberalism and free markets have done in the Far East.
Speaker 1: And you just look at country after country and it
Speaker 1: tells you the whole tale. I mean, China was a
Speaker 1: desperately poor country until about the nineteen eighties when all
Speaker 1: of a sudden they decided, you know what, we're going
Speaker 1: to adopt free market reforms. And they've had their own
Speaker 1: way of doing it with state supported entities, but they
Speaker 1: have created something of an economic miracle, that is by
Speaker 1: adopting a market based model, because that its core, socialism
Speaker 1: has to fail, whether it's in a specific sector, a
Speaker 1: specific policy, or an entire program for a national economy,
Speaker 1: it has to fail because it does not have the
Speaker 1: market signal of price, for one, and there's no way
Speaker 1: that you could ever centrally plan effectively on a scale
Speaker 1: of any major national economy. It just can't happen. So
Speaker 1: these different programs of socialism in the Far East. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: we talk about North Korea, but that's also a Stalinist,
Speaker 1: a stalinist totalitarian gulag state. So that feels like the
Speaker 1: more extreme version. But look at India, look at China,
Speaker 1: look at Hong Kong, look at Taiwan. All of these
Speaker 1: different countries tell the tale of why socialism fails and
Speaker 1: what happens when you adopt free market based economic policies.
Speaker 1: And with the free market, you also have the Once
Speaker 1: you have individual liberty in business, individual liberty in your
Speaker 1: economic daily life, it then is a much greater likelihood.
Speaker 1: Although this is really the this is where the rubber
Speaker 1: meets the road. In China, it's much greater likelihood you'll
Speaker 1: have individual rights across the board later on for free
Speaker 1: speech and religious practice and everything. But but first you
Speaker 1: need those economic those economic rights, or at least this
Speaker 1: state has to respect your ability to pursue international markets
Speaker 1: and competition in order to grow capital to a mass
Speaker 1: capital and to prosper as a business every I mean,
Speaker 1: Hong Kong is an excellent example of this. Why is
Speaker 1: Hong Kong so much wealthier, so much more prosperous even
Speaker 1: today than the rest of China. I mean, Shanghai is
Speaker 1: now catching up to it, but Hong Kong is still
Speaker 1: the financial center of China. And the reason for that is, oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. The British were running it for a long time.
Speaker 1: It had English common law in some capacity, English courts.
Speaker 1: You know, there was all this this leave behind of
Speaker 1: the British Empire that created an infrastructure that was something
Speaker 1: that the Chinese people, with all their intelligence, ingenuity and
Speaker 1: work ethic, could quickly build on. So Hong Kong was
Speaker 1: way ahead of the rest of China even before the
Speaker 1: Chinese and his Party adopted market market reforms. Look at
Speaker 1: the state of Taiwan, which is another big open question
Speaker 1: about how this part of the world is going forward.
Speaker 1: I mean, Taiwan. The joke in America in the nineties
Speaker 1: was that everything was made in Taiwan, right, Well, how
Speaker 1: is that possible? The regime in Taiwan had been the
Speaker 1: national government of mainland China. But then you know, Mao
Speaker 1: in his guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare, defeated schen Kai
Speaker 1: Shek and they fled to Taiwan. But Taiwan adopted market
Speaker 1: based economic policies and market based reforms time and time again.
Speaker 1: Look at how wealthy South Korea has become and Japan.
Speaker 1: All these different Asian Asian nations that pursued a free
Speaker 1: market based economic policy had explosions of growth and wealth.
Speaker 1: And it always directly coincides with with scaling back or
Speaker 1: eliminating the central planning, opening markets, and allowing the business
Speaker 1: of the people to be business. In a case after case,
Speaker 1: not a single Asian country did you have a socialist
Speaker 1: did you have a free market program? That they switched
Speaker 1: to a socialist program and all of a sudden things
Speaker 1: looked really great, and now everybody was happy and had
Speaker 1: free healthcare and free medical care. In fact, in the
Speaker 1: case of India, we think of India as a third
Speaker 1: world country that just recently, again in the last thirty
Speaker 1: years or so, has become much wealthier. And that is
Speaker 1: accurate in so far as it's representative what's recently happened.
Speaker 1: But India, up until the British leap was for the region,
Speaker 1: a pretty wealthy country, huge textile industry. India was again
Speaker 1: speaking from a regional perspective, doing pretty well. But then
Speaker 1: when you had the British and their rule, they left
Speaker 1: behind a lot of again English common law, the courts, infrastructure.
Speaker 1: You had a socialist program instituted by Nehru Socialism and
Speaker 1: it was this village based socialism and it was Gandhi
Speaker 1: as much as he's the national hero of India, had
Speaker 1: some very sketchy economic ideas, didn't really understand economics, but
Speaker 1: he was really a nation state founder slash saint in India.
Speaker 1: So they pursued all these socialist policies and India became
Speaker 1: an economic basket case full of corruption and just you
Speaker 1: couldn't get anything done. Nothing worked, no market signals, central
Speaker 1: planning all over the place, prices or whatever they say,
Speaker 1: they are a disaster. So you know the case of
Speaker 1: Hong Kong, this is true across Asia's why I'm bringing
Speaker 1: this up. But socialism destroys economies and puts people into misery,
Speaker 1: and it's true everywhere. And people who bring up Sweden
Speaker 1: don't know what the heck they're talking about because Sweden
Speaker 1: became socialists and was getting poor and poor. Do you
Speaker 1: have to remember that some of these countries that had
Speaker 1: been that had been more liberal in their economies. It
Speaker 1: takes a while to run through everything you got stored
Speaker 1: in the cupboard, so to speak, when you go to socialism.
Speaker 1: But now Sweden has been liberalizing its economy and has
Speaker 1: been changing its policies to make them more free market
Speaker 1: because it wasn't working. It doesn't work, it never works.
Speaker 1: This is so yes, the case of individual freedom for
Speaker 1: the people. The freedom of individuals in Hong Kong matters
Speaker 1: to us global freedom. It's helpful for the economy, it's
Speaker 1: helpful for humankind and all that. That's true. But also
Speaker 1: just remember Hong Kong is a case study in why
Speaker 1: free markets work and why socialism fails, because Hong Kong
Speaker 1: was way ahead of all the socialist countries of Asia
Speaker 1: and has been for a long time. So I know
Speaker 1: we mentioned it the top of the show. This was
Speaker 1: the biggest trending news story in the country today, getting
Speaker 1: more attention than anything else, hundreds of thousands of posts
Speaker 1: on Twitter and Facebook, everyone weighing in on the different
Speaker 1: aspects of Fredo Gate. I guess we could call it that.
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo, who we have referred to as Bro Cuomo,
Speaker 1: as he is the bro of the governor of New
Speaker 1: York State as well as a bro yo do you
Speaker 1: even live? Bro? We've been referring to him as that
Speaker 1: for a while. I did not realize he is quite
Speaker 1: sensitive about that. And last night he was I'm not
Speaker 1: sure exactly where, but he was in New York City
Speaker 1: with his wife and his child. I think that's important
Speaker 1: for context, and he ended up being accosted by somebody
Speaker 1: as yet not really named from what I understand, but
Speaker 1: this is how I want to play the exchange. I look,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of profanity. We cut out the profanity,
Speaker 1: but this was filmed. This is in a public place.
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo of CNA and the CNA anchor, Bro Cuomo
Speaker 1: is approached by some guy, and all we really know
Speaker 1: is that this guy called him Fredo, a reference to
Speaker 1: the weaker dumber brother from The Godfather movies, which of course,
Speaker 1: is about the Sicilian mafia. Uh. Some people say the
Speaker 1: greatest two of the greatest movies of all time. I
Speaker 1: leave that to you. But Fredo, you know, he's a
Speaker 1: brother's like, I'm good enough, I'm smart, you know. And
Speaker 1: then he Michael has the Uh. I don't want to
Speaker 1: give anything away, but he ends up on a boat
Speaker 1: and it's the last thing that ends up happening. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo is very very sensitive about this situation, and
Speaker 1: just they'll be bleeps, but you can imagine what the
Speaker 1: real thing was like. This is Cuomo getting called Fredo.
Speaker 1: Play it like that that it was. You did not
Speaker 1: think my name was Frado. Don't be alive? Said, hey,
Speaker 1: you said you're gonna have but what are you all about?
Speaker 1: Throw you down these stairs? Please do so you don't consume?
Speaker 1: Why don't you do so you get the idea. We
Speaker 1: actually didn't even play the opening part of it where
Speaker 1: he says that it's like being called that. Being called
Speaker 1: Fredo for an Italian is a racial slur, and it
Speaker 1: is the equivalent for Italians of being called the N word. Uh.
Speaker 1: That is not true. Okay, that is a class This
Speaker 1: is a classic liberal tactic. Of because I think the
Speaker 1: Cuomo has the moral high ground here in the sense
Speaker 1: that he was approached. He's with his wife and kids,
Speaker 1: or with his wife and kid, and he's at a
Speaker 1: public place, and from what we understand, he didn't incite
Speaker 1: this at all. Someone came up to him and just
Speaker 1: called him Fredo and obviously wanted to film this and
Speaker 1: creates some sort of incident, which is a lame, loser
Speaker 1: thing to do and conservatives a lot of them. I
Speaker 1: will note a lot of people that I like in
Speaker 1: this business have come out and said that you shouldn't
Speaker 1: do this. It's not cool, it's rude, and you also
Speaker 1: might spark a situation where you're getting a lot more
Speaker 1: than you asked for, which I think is pretty much
Speaker 1: what happened here with these guys that said to claim
Speaker 1: that this is a racial slur is just excessive and nonsensical,
Speaker 1: which is what Cuomo said. Fredo is not a racial slur.
Speaker 1: It's a reference to a movie character, and the whole
Speaker 1: point of referencing the character is that it's the weaker,
Speaker 1: dumber brother. No one really cares that Fredo is Italian.
Speaker 1: They care about the fact that Michael Corleone is the
Speaker 1: godfather boss and Fredo is his wayward, stupid brother, and
Speaker 1: no one you know that that's what that's all about.
Speaker 1: So we understand that one and you know this is
Speaker 1: as a conservative, I feel like we have principles and standards,
Speaker 1: and a principle and a standard that we can all
Speaker 1: get behind is that you shouldn't harass public figures for
Speaker 1: no reason. You shouldn't go up to them in public.
Speaker 1: There's plenty of ways to reach out, you know, if
Speaker 1: we're going to allow everyone to say what they want
Speaker 1: on Facebook and Twitter and email people, and you don't
Speaker 1: have to also physically accost anyone and make it impossible
Speaker 1: for the have a nice night with their wife and kids.
Speaker 1: I also think that that's an escalation. If you go
Speaker 1: up to somebody in there alone. If you go to
Speaker 1: a guy, a woman is a different category, she might
Speaker 1: feel even more threatened. But if you go up to
Speaker 1: a guy in media and he's alone, that's bad. If
Speaker 1: you go up to somebody and he is with his
Speaker 1: wife and or children, and you're gonna start saying stuff,
Speaker 1: now you really have Now you really have a problem,
Speaker 1: and now you're somebody who has no no decency, no
Speaker 1: sense of honor. It's a gross thing to do. But
Speaker 1: Cuomo sounded like a complete lunatic. I mean, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to discount this either, you know, so like go
Speaker 1: throw you down? Oh and you clo It's like, all right, dude,
Speaker 1: calm down. I mean, it's one thing if you want
Speaker 1: to tell him to go blank himself. Oh yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: that's what a normal person would say. But to get
Speaker 1: up in his face that you're going to throw him
Speaker 1: down a flight of stairs because he called you Fredo,
Speaker 1: it was it was a little excessive. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a little excessive. You know. I've had people say things
Speaker 1: to me that I didn't like in public, in private,
Speaker 1: on social media. I'm not running around threatening to throw
Speaker 1: people down a flight of stairs, and I could. One
Speaker 1: of my biggest frustrations is that I know that this
Speaker 1: solidarity with with Cuomo that you've seen from most of
Speaker 1: the media, including a lot of conservatives. Look, Sean Hannity
Speaker 1: said that he did nothing wrong. Sewan tweeted that out
Speaker 1: last night and that he would have reacted the same way.
Speaker 1: I mostly agree with Sean, except I think that that
Speaker 1: Cuomo went a little He went too far, and I
Speaker 1: think Cuomo was also a jerk, but that's I guess,
Speaker 1: beside the point. But you know, Conservatives, I can tell
Speaker 1: you this. If someone ever comes up to me and
Speaker 1: I think that they see the like the side swoop,
Speaker 1: and they figure, oh, he's probably and I'm very nice.
Speaker 1: Usually I have a whole other gear too, not just
Speaker 1: a salty language gear, but a you know, the the
Speaker 1: Anglo Irish equivalent of are you talking to me? So
Speaker 1: you know, I just know that if I got into
Speaker 1: it with somebody like this, I could not expect the
Speaker 1: media to come to my defense and say, you know,
Speaker 1: if I was out with let's say a girlfriend and
Speaker 1: somebody said something rude to me and then I got
Speaker 1: into it with them and they videotaped it, I just
Speaker 1: know the conservatives were held to a different standard. So
Speaker 1: that's always what's hard for me with these situations, that
Speaker 1: the the real standard should be don't bother people in public,
Speaker 1: but also a little bit don't be a complete maniac
Speaker 1: if somebody's not really crossing the line that badly. But
Speaker 1: the standard is gonna be Chris Colm was a Democrat,
Speaker 1: a LIB and he's resistance. He's anti Trump, so they'll
Speaker 1: back him up. But if anybody who's pro Trump and
Speaker 1: a conservative and on the right does this, you can
Speaker 1: watch as the mainstream media circles the wagons against that person.
Speaker 1: But I want to bring in our friends Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: and Sean Parnell. We haven't had them on the show
Speaker 1: in a little bit, and they're two great guys. Don't
Speaker 1: tell them I said that though they already both have
Speaker 1: very healthy egos, but they really are great dudes, and
Speaker 1: they're gonna be coming on here in a minute. We'll
Speaker 1: talk to them about their take on this, and then
Speaker 1: also an important news story, which is the possibility of
Speaker 1: an end of the war in Afghanistan and a full
Speaker 1: US military withdrawal because of an agreement with the Taliban.
Speaker 1: That's coming up. All right, team, we got a special
Speaker 1: treat for you here it away and on some of
Speaker 1: the most important news of the day. We're joined by
Speaker 1: our friends Kelly and Sean Parnell. Jesse Kelly is, of
Speaker 1: course the host of the Jesse Kelly Radio Show down
Speaker 1: on KPRC Houston, and we've also got Sean Parnell. His
Speaker 1: latest book, All Out War, is available on Amazon and
Speaker 1: whatever wherever books are sold. Of course, Jesse's a former marine.
Speaker 1: Sean's a former army ranger. They're both great patriots and
Speaker 1: entertaining individuals. They joined us. Now, gentlemen, great to have
Speaker 1: you on the Buck Sexton Show. Yes, well, I'm great
Speaker 1: to be here the very special favorite of your audience
Speaker 1: that I'm here, not so much for the shot. And
Speaker 1: so I saw the YouTube, guys, I want to have
Speaker 1: you way in because you had different takes which I
Speaker 1: did find a little surprising, different takes on the whole
Speaker 1: Fredo Cuomo fiasco. And I wanted to start with the
Speaker 1: what is the Sean Parnell reaction to what? By the way,
Speaker 1: based on Twitter and social media, is being treated like
Speaker 1: it's the single biggest news story in the world right now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it really is. I mean my thing is is that,
Speaker 1: you know, I thought that Cuomo's response was entirely inappropriate.
Speaker 1: You know, while it is, it kind of sucks that
Speaker 1: this guy approached him and sigated everything. You know, My
Speaker 1: position is, he's a public figure. It's part of public life.
Speaker 1: In a perfect world, everybody when you're off the clock,
Speaker 1: everybody can go about their business and not be bothered.
Speaker 1: But when you're called a name, an appropriate response is
Speaker 1: not threatening harm or physical violence on somebody. You know,
Speaker 1: there is a line. I don't think that this guy
Speaker 1: crossed it. He didn't. He wasn't bowing up on Cuomo
Speaker 1: and in sort of aggressive way. He just sort of
Speaker 1: stood there. And by the way that Cuomo responded, he
Speaker 1: branded himself Fredo for Life. And if you look what
Speaker 1: happened in the wake of that video being released and
Speaker 1: going viral, even conservatives and liberals alike started going on
Speaker 1: the Wikipedia page and Google searches for Cuomo and started
Speaker 1: naming him Chris Fredo Cuomo precisely because react. You only
Speaker 1: need to have siblings to know that. If people know
Speaker 1: what truly bothers you, it becomes your tagline life. And
Speaker 1: had Clomo jes walked away and just ignored it, just
Speaker 1: acted like the bigger person, this wouldn't even be an
Speaker 1: incident and he wouldn't be fraid over life. All right.
Speaker 1: We have an opening sta from Sean Parnell. Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 1: you take a more, you mess with the big dog,
Speaker 1: you get bit approach. All right. I disagree with everything
Speaker 1: Sean said except for one thing. Yes, Chris Croomo is
Speaker 1: now able to Praido for life. And he did that
Speaker 1: by his reaction. That's the fact I totally disagree with
Speaker 1: this one. Was Chris Plumo fall The guy didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong? I think that is in a third take.
Speaker 1: Chris Klomo was out by himself or supposedly with his kids,
Speaker 1: maybe he was friends. It doesn't even matter who he
Speaker 1: was with. Chris Klumo was outminding his own business in public.
Speaker 1: If you then choose on your own to pull out
Speaker 1: your nerid cell phone camera or your little man per
Speaker 1: cell phone camera, roll up to somebody who's minding his
Speaker 1: own business, start chirping at him, throw an insult his way,
Speaker 1: then you get what you get. Don't throw for it.
Speaker 1: Chris Bowing did not hit the guy in the mouth
Speaker 1: or anything like that. But frankly, if I was approached
Speaker 1: by somebody out in public and I saw he was
Speaker 1: insulted me, maybe I'd try to walk away. But I
Speaker 1: guarantee how I tell you to tell him one thing, bro,
Speaker 1: you stay arms light away from me, or you're going
Speaker 1: to pay the penalty for it. Stay away, back off.
Speaker 1: We have a serious black of punching people in the
Speaker 1: mouth in this country. And I say that not because
Speaker 1: I think he should have hit him. He should not have.
Speaker 1: But I'm talking about we have terble band and demonized
Speaker 1: kids fighting when they're younger that now we have grown
Speaker 1: adult little snots who think it's funny to do this thing.
Speaker 1: When I see someone who does that, I see somebody
Speaker 1: who didn't get punched in the nose enough in his life,
Speaker 1: because that's exactly who that guy is. So I need
Speaker 1: to I need to ask you. I mean, the part
Speaker 1: of this that got at least initially that I was well,
Speaker 1: I was taken aback just by how completely rageful quote
Speaker 1: was over being called Fredo. But but I would go
Speaker 1: a step further. He said that, uh, that that calling
Speaker 1: him Fredo is like calling somebody the N word. But
Speaker 1: for Italians this is just lunacy. I don't know what
Speaker 1: else to say about it. Well, it's it's dominant thing. Ever,
Speaker 1: And let me let me just say I agree with you,
Speaker 1: Buck and Jesse, I agree with you as well. I
Speaker 1: don't think our points are mutually exclusive. So, like there's
Speaker 1: a line here. This guy called him Fredo, he didn't
Speaker 1: call him anything inflammatory. If you're a public fee, if
Speaker 1: you're a public figure, you have to assume that sometimes
Speaker 1: things are going to get flung at you is only
Speaker 1: you can control how you react. I thought that he
Speaker 1: was totally out aligne. Fredo is obviously obviously not a
Speaker 1: racial slur. It is a term meant to imply weakness, right,
Speaker 1: he was calling Chris Cuomo weak, and what Chris Cuomo
Speaker 1: did was demonstrate his weakness by responding in the way
Speaker 1: that he did, therefore branding himself Fredo for Life. And
Speaker 1: if you look no further than the best branding expert
Speaker 1: in the country. And look how Donald Trump responded. He's
Speaker 1: already got merchandise out there, calling Chris Cuomo Fredo that
Speaker 1: he's selling on the Donald Trump website for reelection. I
Speaker 1: mean it's and he branded himself Fredo for Life through
Speaker 1: his ridiculous reaction to something that he should have just
Speaker 1: walked away from. Now, I'm not saying that you can't
Speaker 1: defend your family. I mean, look, if the guy accosted him,
Speaker 1: if he said something truly inflammatory, if he said something
Speaker 1: about his wife, if he said something about his get
Speaker 1: that's different. I do agree that I have no issue
Speaker 1: with standing up for the people that you love and
Speaker 1: you care about in public places. But this was not
Speaker 1: one of those instances. Yeah, but Momo was way over
Speaker 1: the top, go for a jesse. Here's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: It may they have been over the top, but I
Speaker 1: would do with you. I can't see myself ever reacting
Speaker 1: that way. I've been shouted at plenty of times in public.
Speaker 1: I can't see anything. So if you see me to
Speaker 1: have me react that way, that's not what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is, well, who should be attacking today
Speaker 1: is the moron who approached him at all? Why don't
Speaker 1: approached him at all? Unless you're going to sheepishly walk
Speaker 1: up and ask for a picture or an ironograph or
Speaker 1: something like that, why not leave the freaking guy. I
Speaker 1: can answer that. I can answer that question. I'll tell you,
Speaker 1: Ah tell you, I'll tell you exactly why. Because Cuomo
Speaker 1: gods on a show every single night and calls Trump
Speaker 1: supporters racist, xenophobic, biggest, and that Trump supporter is probably
Speaker 1: feeling a little bit under assault from Cuomo and felt
Speaker 1: like he wanted to call him weak. My point is
Speaker 1: is that Chris Cuomo is the He calls people names
Speaker 1: every day on a show from a platform that's ten
Speaker 1: times as big as that guy with a cell phone camera,
Speaker 1: And so Cuomo is asking for this type of behavior
Speaker 1: because he goes on TV every night and calls Trump
Speaker 1: supporters racist. I mean, almost the biggest defender of these.
Speaker 1: I'm just I have a little bit of a just
Speaker 1: real question. I want to bring Jesse back into a second.
Speaker 1: The problem with making this based on what someone says
Speaker 1: on their show, and this will actually transition to what
Speaker 1: I want to pass to Jesse in a second, is
Speaker 1: that the left is going to say, well, every conservative,
Speaker 1: whether on radio or TV, is engaging in the you know,
Speaker 1: propaganda for genocide on a nightly basis, and so anything
Speaker 1: that you could say to a conservative. So so, Sean,
Speaker 1: I'm while I agree with you from an editorial standpoint,
Speaker 1: I think that if we open it up to well,
Speaker 1: he says this crappy stuff. That's why I went up,
Speaker 1: and that's what libs say all the time. And you
Speaker 1: can respond on a second. But I did want to
Speaker 1: bring Jesse in on this. Jesse, my concern is, you know,
Speaker 1: let's say somebody goes up, which would be I mean,
Speaker 1: both of you are are large individuals. Sean is not
Speaker 1: quite six to eleven though, so it would be a
Speaker 1: little surprising if if somebody decided to go up to Jesse. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: I mean either of you guys, they would probably have
Speaker 1: a very bad day. Point here being that if Jesse, Jesse,
Speaker 1: if some lib went up to you and got on
Speaker 1: your face and actually said something really nasty, you know,
Speaker 1: like you know, said something about your wife or something else,
Speaker 1: and it did go to fisticuffs in some capacity, I
Speaker 1: guarantee you all the libs that are out there right
Speaker 1: now would switch and say, well, I mean, Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: is a conservative maniac and clearly he you know, should
Speaker 1: be fired and all the other stuff. You're right, but
Speaker 1: I'm not playing with the left double standard to be
Speaker 1: honest with you, and this is to the point you
Speaker 1: just made, and to respond to Shaun's point, I'm not
Speaker 1: even playing with politics. If we're I think it's a
Speaker 1: dangerous game to say, well, I mean if you do X,
Speaker 1: then it's okay to approach somebody. We're gonna do that
Speaker 1: now with actors. I mean, look, you were in a
Speaker 1: film that had too much custing, so I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I'm allowed to approach you that you install this person,
Speaker 1: I'm allowed to approach you. My point of view was
Speaker 1: not left or right. It's not lybs are Republicans or
Speaker 1: Trump supporters or anyone else. This applies to everybody in
Speaker 1: every walk of life. Leave people all the hell alone.
Speaker 1: We leave the hell alone. I'll leave you the henlone.
Speaker 1: I don't approach people if the person I hated the
Speaker 1: most in the world, I wouldn't it wouldn't edit my
Speaker 1: mind to approach them and say anything vaguely insulting to them.
Speaker 1: I mean, business didn't leave people alone. Sean. I get
Speaker 1: frustrated just because I think that there are very few
Speaker 1: organizations in media, uh that would back anyone on the
Speaker 1: right as quickly and as all in as CNN back.
Speaker 1: I mean, I give the left credit. They take care
Speaker 1: of their own. It's something that we we leave people
Speaker 1: high and dry on the right all the time. CNN
Speaker 1: PR had a statement out in defense of him, saying
Speaker 1: we're with him one hundred percent within like an hour
Speaker 1: of a story breaking, and not only saying that they
Speaker 1: were in defense of him, that the man that filmed
Speaker 1: him used an ethnic slur, which is preposterous. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: is preposterous. Look, you know, I don't I don't disagree
Speaker 1: with anything that Buck you were saying, or Jesse you're
Speaker 1: saying as well. I mean, I think the points that
Speaker 1: we're making aren't mutually exclusive, I will say, but to
Speaker 1: address your point, you know, I think that conservatives for
Speaker 1: a long time is thought under attacked by the by
Speaker 1: the media for decades, right, And so I think that
Speaker 1: all plays into this man's response. The mainstream media or
Speaker 1: most in the media, or liberal mosta entertainment or liberals.
Speaker 1: There was just this movie come out about elite hunting down,
Speaker 1: you know, deplorables or maybe even Trump supporters under attack. Yeah,
Speaker 1: conservatives have felt under attack for a long time. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying that that might have played into this guy's
Speaker 1: mentality a little bit. Was he right in doing it?
Speaker 1: Probably not. But the only thing that we can control
Speaker 1: was how we respond to things. I have no issue
Speaker 1: with defending one's family, wife, kids, But it didn't cross
Speaker 1: that line. Cuoma could have walked away and it would
Speaker 1: all have gone away, and he wouldn't be fraid over life.
Speaker 1: We're talking to Jesse Kelly and Sean Parnell. We're going
Speaker 1: to come back in a moment team and discuss the
Speaker 1: possibility of a deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban. So
Speaker 1: we're going to switch to a topic that actually matters
Speaker 1: from one that's just sort of fun to mess around
Speaker 1: talk about. We'll get into something real here in a moment,
Speaker 1: so stay with us for that. All right, everyone, we're
Speaker 1: back with my friends Sean Parnell, author of All Out War,
Speaker 1: which you can get on Amazon or anywhere books are sold.
Speaker 1: Also our friend Jesse Kelly, host of the Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: Show in Houston on KPRC Radio. Guys, looks like we
Speaker 1: may have in the emphasis on May, a deal to
Speaker 1: end the war in Afghanistan. But the deal is mostly okay,
Speaker 1: So we're gonna leave Taliban, and here's what the phases
Speaker 1: are going to be. Let's start with Let's start with
Speaker 1: Jesse here. I mean, you guys both are former military.
Speaker 1: Jesse was a marine, Sean was an Army ranger. But Jesse,
Speaker 1: what do you think about about if if it does
Speaker 1: turn into we're just leaving, is that the right move
Speaker 1: under whatever circumstances? DoD Yes, Let's get out before we
Speaker 1: lose another single troop over there. Let's get out now,
Speaker 1: right now. I know it's going to be a deal
Speaker 1: with the Taliban and people are gonna yell about that,
Speaker 1: but let me inform all of you something and I
Speaker 1: know this is going to make you uncomfortable. The Taliban
Speaker 1: are going to win. We are not going to win.
Speaker 1: The Taliban or one hundred percent committed. They're as strong
Speaker 1: now as they've ever been. They're going to win. We
Speaker 1: know this already, which makes every single loss of life
Speaker 1: over there ten times as tragic when you already know
Speaker 1: the war is lost. Pe allowed get out. It's been
Speaker 1: two decades there, Cyanara. Hopefully we never seen it yet.
Speaker 1: San what you got well? I mean, how does that
Speaker 1: make it any different than Saigon? You know, than us
Speaker 1: leaving Saigon in the Vietnam War. I mean I think
Speaker 1: that I would like, Look, I'm with you. I want
Speaker 1: out of Afghanistan just as bad as you do, Jesse,
Speaker 1: I really do. I think that if you want to
Speaker 1: have a peace deal, though, the thing that bothers me
Speaker 1: the most are two things about this afgan peace deal.
Speaker 1: The fact that there is not good there's no ceasefire required, Okay, yaw.
Speaker 1: Can you have a peace deal if there's not a
Speaker 1: comprehensive ceasefire in the wake of signing that treaty or
Speaker 1: in the wake of signing that deal. Number one, Number two,
Speaker 1: it's the Taliban. As you might say, yeah, the feminists,
Speaker 1: not the ek but but so yeah, but listen, But
Speaker 1: that's my point. My point is a peace deal has
Speaker 1: to require a ceasefire, and you cannot put on the
Speaker 1: table from the very beginning that you're withdrawing one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of US troops the people who would essentially be
Speaker 1: the strength and the piece behind any deal that you sign.
Speaker 1: And the third point that I'm gonna make is that
Speaker 1: this deal only only, and it only calls to the
Speaker 1: table the Afghan Taliban. It doesn't call into question the
Speaker 1: Pakistani Taliban, and the Pakistani Taliban are the ones that
Speaker 1: are calling all the problems on the border. They're the
Speaker 1: ones striking into the heart of Afghanistan. This, this piece
Speaker 1: treaty does not speak for them and therefore not worth
Speaker 1: the paper that it's written on. I want to get
Speaker 1: out out of Afghanistan just as much as you do, Jesse.
Speaker 1: But I think the way we withdraw matters, and I
Speaker 1: think the way that we're doing it now is going
Speaker 1: to be a short term victory for Trump, right, but
Speaker 1: it will be a nightmare for him in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: You watches every Democratic candidate throws this the monumental failure
Speaker 1: that Afghanistan will become of America pulls out. You're gonna
Speaker 1: see one base topple after the next, and you're gonna
Speaker 1: see entire candex turnover to the Taliban side if it's
Speaker 1: a wholesale withdrawal there. Part Part two, Jesse, what do
Speaker 1: you got? I'd say the real tragedy of Hugh mentioned
Speaker 1: a solid of the fall of Saigon and Vietnam? Part two?
Speaker 1: Do you know what those Vietnam guys saying? I know, Sean?
Speaker 1: Does I know you? You talked to them all the time.
Speaker 1: The major major tragedy of Vietnam was not losing the war.
Speaker 1: It was all the guys we lost in the last
Speaker 1: two or three years. We know the war was already lost.
Speaker 1: Throwing bodies at people for a cause that is lost.
Speaker 1: The cause is already lost. Get them out now. Afganiston
Speaker 1: is a dump. Now there was a dump before, and
Speaker 1: it'll be a dump after we leave. That sucks. It
Speaker 1: doesn't an account of pleasure to say so. But I
Speaker 1: don't want a single other parent to get a notification
Speaker 1: in the mail that they just lost their baby. Bring
Speaker 1: them all home with the chiss bowl, their mad anything
Speaker 1: to close on that, Sean Well, I would say that
Speaker 1: the tragic loss of life life in Vietnam is because
Speaker 1: the last two years of the war the politicians were
Speaker 1: right in the middle and they weren't fighting it the
Speaker 1: right way. I mean, I would call in our politicians
Speaker 1: to really come up with a good, comprehensive and for
Speaker 1: withdrawing Afghanistans so that our troops aren't fighting with both
Speaker 1: hands behind their back, They're not throwing their body needlessly
Speaker 1: into a meat grinder where they where any parents is
Speaker 1: going to get a letter home from another loss of life.
Speaker 1: My point is is that this Afghan deal has to
Speaker 1: be worth the paper that is printed on and right
Speaker 1: now isn't. And I'd rather see us withdraw under the
Speaker 1: right circumstances than withdraw under circumstances that feed all of
Speaker 1: Afghanistan back to the Taliban wholesale. All right, gentlemen, we'll
Speaker 1: have to see how how it actually shakes out. By
Speaker 1: the way, just give us a little bit of an update, Sean,
Speaker 1: you got any book signs and then coming up, Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 1: you just walking around being Jesse Kelly Shawn You first, Well,
Speaker 1: I've got a brand new book coming out and jess
Speaker 1: under three weeks. It's all out war. It's available for
Speaker 1: pre order and Amazon or anywere books are sold. It
Speaker 1: would mean the world to me if you want out
Speaker 1: and pre ordered it. Pre Orders are important for young
Speaker 1: authors like me, so anything that you could do to
Speaker 1: support my cause would be greatly appreciated. Alrighty, and mister
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly, look, I'm already important enough. It would just
Speaker 1: be in the lot to me of someone out and
Speaker 1: bib there we go. Look at that reaching across all
Speaker 1: six foot six foot eleven of him. To make sure
Speaker 1: that our buddy Sean Parnell sells some books. And by
Speaker 1: the way, you better have cool people play both of
Speaker 1: us in the movie, Sean. That's all I'm telling you know,
Speaker 1: I will, You know I will. I've made this promise before. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's you know, I don't know. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have to find one of those one of those guys
Speaker 1: from Eastern Europe who's in the NBA for Jesse Kelly.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know, you know, I can't think
Speaker 1: of anything little the top of my head, but there
Speaker 1: are a few of them. And then for me, you know,
Speaker 1: we could do the guy from Parks and rec I'm
Speaker 1: playing myself. I don't know what you're talking about. There
Speaker 1: we go, Gentleman, Always a pleasure. Sean Parnell, author of
Speaker 1: Total All Out War rather UH and Total War All
Speaker 1: Out War, which you can get on Amazon. And then
Speaker 1: our friend Jesse Kelly listened to his show Dan and
Speaker 1: KPRC Houston. You can also download Jesse Kelly show on podcast. Gentleman,
Speaker 1: A pleasure. Thank you so much for joining to take
Speaker 1: care man. We got a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: dudes talking in the third hour here in the Buck
Speaker 1: Saccon show tonight. We covered a lot of ground, lot
Speaker 1: of territory. There. We one serious subject and one just
Speaker 1: I'm amazed at how much people really seem to care
Speaker 1: about the whole Fredo Chris Quomo. This is this is
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo's viral moment being a total maniac. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I I'm you know how I feel about this. I
Speaker 1: think that speaking the way that he did was excessive,
Speaker 1: But I also think that people shouldn't act like jerks
Speaker 1: in public. So we got more coming up before we
Speaker 1: get a roll call. I wanted to bring a new
Speaker 1: story to your attention that is a harbinger of things
Speaker 1: to come and it matters. It's important. You have had
Speaker 1: in the last week or so a number of high
Speaker 1: profile Senate Democrats who have been warning that the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court needs to get itself together to quote take steps
Speaker 1: to heal or else people will the Democrats, I assume here,
Speaker 1: will take action. The Supreme Court is not well and
Speaker 1: the people know it. According to a brief filed that
Speaker 1: was on Monday, this was in a case related to
Speaker 1: a New York City gun law. You had Sheldon white House, Bloomenthal, Horrono,
Speaker 1: Richard Durban, and Kirsen gillibrand all of them part of
Speaker 1: this brief, and they're saying the Supreme Court has an
Speaker 1: affliction that must be addressed. This, my friends, is a
Speaker 1: straight up nice Supreme Court. There be a shame if
Speaker 1: something happened to it. Warning this is trying to influence
Speaker 1: the Court from the outside by threatening openly. And these
Speaker 1: are members of the United States Senate. This is not
Speaker 1: just some random group of trolls coming together who think
Speaker 1: that they're going to be able to frighten Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justices into acting differently than they would otherwise. These are
Speaker 1: people who have the power, at least theoretically the legislative
Speaker 1: branch could take action to reform the court. This is
Speaker 1: talked about with some regularity by liberals. Anytime there's a
Speaker 1: decision from the Supreme Court they don't like. Anytime there
Speaker 1: is a problem, they don't get the ruling that they want.
Speaker 1: It's not based on what the laws, it's based on
Speaker 1: what they want the law to be. They start talking
Speaker 1: about court packing. And some of the twenty twenty candidates
Speaker 1: have been part of this conversation. The Democrats have been
Speaker 1: part of this conversation in the past. You've had candidates
Speaker 1: including Beto O'Rourke, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Ris Kirsten,
Speaker 1: Julia Brand. They've all talked about a willingness to change
Speaker 1: the number of Supreme Court justices, to rebalance it, as
Speaker 1: they would put it, so that it's liberal folks. That's
Speaker 1: all that means, balance to what they want, a left
Speaker 1: wing majority on the court, or else they'll change the court.
Speaker 1: These are the same people, the same politicians. Is the
Speaker 1: same political party, the Democrats, the left that lecture us
Speaker 1: constantly about how Trump is undermining institutions. What institution is
Speaker 1: a more is it more dangerous or more egregious danger
Speaker 1: of violation than the Supreme Court when you have members
Speaker 1: of the United States Senate who are openly talking about
Speaker 1: changing it because they don't like the decisions that it makes.
Speaker 1: You might recall that many of you who look back
Speaker 1: in your history will remember that was discussed openly also
Speaker 1: by FDR, who had more than a bit of a
Speaker 1: tyrannical streak in him. As much as we're supposed to
Speaker 1: think that he's the savior of America and the New
Speaker 1: Deal and all this other really hagiography around him. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he also put Japanese Americans in interman camps, but that's
Speaker 1: always a footnote for the Libs. They don't really care.
Speaker 1: He created the massive federal bureaucracy that now seeks to
Speaker 1: control every day to day aspect of our lives, at
Speaker 1: least if we let it. But I just think this
Speaker 1: is fascinating. This is such a delusion. Pete Buddha Judge,
Speaker 1: for example, has proposed a plan to have some justices
Speaker 1: appointed by the president and others selected by other judges.
Speaker 1: So he's got a whole other plan here to quote,
Speaker 1: de politicize it. Depoliticize the Supreme Court. The people that
Speaker 1: want to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. Are
Speaker 1: the same ones who think that Roe v. Wade is
Speaker 1: sound law. Again, forget about what your policy preference may
Speaker 1: be for abortion or no abortion. Roe v. Wade is
Speaker 1: alchemy with the law. It's fakery. It created a right,
Speaker 1: a constitution right where none existed before, because they wanted
Speaker 1: it to be there. And that's it. And they've done
Speaker 1: it with other things too. And if the law doesn't
Speaker 1: mean what it says, then what are we even talking about?
Speaker 1: Then the law is just, and then everything is mob
Speaker 1: rule and the Supreme Court just becomes a weather vein
Speaker 1: that goes in whatever direction mob opinion wants it to
Speaker 1: at any point in time. It's not what it's supposed
Speaker 1: to do. But clearly that is what liberals wanted to do.
Speaker 1: They are still seething over the dcv. Heller decision, which
Speaker 1: could not be more clear. Speaking of Cuomo, he really
Speaker 1: does have the constitutional jurisprudence of an eighth grader who
Speaker 1: has never read the Constitution. He thinks that the right
Speaker 1: to bear arms was never a private right. This was
Speaker 1: before his whole blow up on social media. He was
Speaker 1: saying that just a few days ago, I saw this.
Speaker 1: This is such idiocy that the Bill of Rights is
Speaker 1: about individual rights of people. The right to bear arms
Speaker 1: in a group as defined by the government would be
Speaker 1: no right to bear arms at all. This is absurd,
Speaker 1: but they try to contort the law to mean whatever
Speaker 1: they want it to mean. Keep in mind, you also
Speaker 1: have people now that believe that the laws that we
Speaker 1: currently have on the books for immigration don't count. Why
Speaker 1: because they say so. Nothing more sophisticated than that. But
Speaker 1: now you have Democrats trying to at least appeal to
Speaker 1: their base. I think they are serious. I think if
Speaker 1: they had the votes to do this, they would. There
Speaker 1: are plenty of Democrats who are such petty authoritarians that
Speaker 1: they would restructure the Supreme Court itself to suit their
Speaker 1: policy desires and think that they were the ones who
Speaker 1: were defending our institutions in the process because they're delusional.
Speaker 1: Rock and roll, fellow patriots, we made ours go up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll call Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton. That is how you get in on
Speaker 1: the roll call action, as you know. So here we go,
Speaker 1: Sean writes, Hey, Buck, not sure why, but I'm seeing
Speaker 1: any I'm not seeing any new podcasts on Google play
Speaker 1: Music after June twenty seventh, did you stop posting to them? Sean,
Speaker 1: I think we are no longer on Google play Music,
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure. Producer Mark can probably answer that question.
Speaker 1: But yeah, if you're not seeing it, we're probably probably
Speaker 1: got to get on the iHeart app platform or iTunes
Speaker 1: or I think we're on Soundcinding Stitcher. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: There's so many of them out there these days. Tough
Speaker 1: to know. I got to figure out where we are up.
Speaker 1: I'll learn all these things. Jim, your analysis is spot
Speaker 1: on as usual, Buck, as a medical professional working for
Speaker 1: a very large insurance company, the only way to control
Speaker 1: prices is to remove all the government intrusion and let
Speaker 1: the free market work. It's magic. Very Welsh said, Shields
Speaker 1: High from Dallas. Well, Jim, thank you very much, and
Speaker 1: yeah that the economics on this are pretty clear. That's
Speaker 1: the now. Next up here we have Harry Harry Rights. Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: you speak about the federal budget and disregard for fiscal prudence.
Speaker 1: It is important to keep in mind how news speak
Speaker 1: has crept into the discussion. They talk about mandatory and
Speaker 1: discretionary spending went constitutionally pretty much everything that is now
Speaker 1: classified as discretionary is mandated by the US Constitution, military,
Speaker 1: national security, Post Office, Rhodes, custom patents, immigration, naturally, well,
Speaker 1: all that is considered mandatory, there are expenses that are
Speaker 1: added by various mostly unconstitutional Acts of Congress, social Security, Medicare,
Speaker 1: and medicaid. I believe this is important to keep in mind.
Speaker 1: Shields Hi, Harry, all right, Harry, thank you, Patrick. Rights.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Jason Isabel yesterday, not Isabel. He was a
Speaker 1: former member of the band Drive By Truckers. His comment
Speaker 1: on guns is very hypocritical. I'll give you a short
Speaker 1: quip of their lyrics. Don't blank off the boys from Alabama.
Speaker 1: You know they won't let it slide. They might find
Speaker 1: your body in the Tennessee River, or they might not
Speaker 1: find you it up. Blah blah blah. Okay. A lot
Speaker 1: of people will say that they're ashamed to have been
Speaker 1: They're ashamed Jason is from Alabama. Okay, Patrick, thank you
Speaker 1: for sending us in appreciated Karen, you're talking to yesterday
Speaker 1: about some of Trump's personal choice a personnel pardon me,
Speaker 1: personnel choices is a very different topic. Just found out
Speaker 1: that Betsy Divas and James Madis both were investors in Pharaonos.
Speaker 1: Divas lost one hundred million dollars, only a small part
Speaker 1: of her wealth. But still, I listened to all the
Speaker 1: episodes of the Dropout podcast produced by ABC, fascinating Karen.
Speaker 1: A lot of very sophisticated and wealthy people lost a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of money in that pharaonostibacle. I believe Rupert
Speaker 1: Murdoch lost over one hundred million dollars. The person that,
Speaker 1: for me in that whole situation comes out looking like
Speaker 1: he had the word judgment is the former Secretary of
Speaker 1: State Schultz, George Schultz, just because he went against his
Speaker 1: own family. He thought his grandson was the crazy one.
Speaker 1: And Elizabeth Holmes was this magician who was going to
Speaker 1: change global change, global medicine. And I would just note that,
Speaker 1: you know, you look at Elizabeth Holmes a video of her,
Speaker 1: I still don't understand she must have some secret power
Speaker 1: that she can use with certain people, because to me,
Speaker 1: she always seemed like a crazy person who was putting
Speaker 1: on a character act. And there's nothing confidence inspiring or
Speaker 1: appealing about her, and yet everybody who was around her
Speaker 1: seemed to fall for this or at least most of
Speaker 1: them did. It's just absolutely bizarre. So yeah, let's see Katie.
Speaker 1: She writes something about a here we Go Today. Rush
Speaker 1: was talking about the political capital the media is raising
Speaker 1: with their reporting. Makes people feel helpless, so they say,
Speaker 1: what can we do? So the social justice war organizations say,
Speaker 1: give us money after the ice rates here in Mississippi,
Speaker 1: they are raising capital with things like the Mississippi Center
Speaker 1: for Justice. Well, yeah, absolutely, and people try to get
Speaker 1: their organizations bottom line looking better as soon as they
Speaker 1: have a news story that fits into a narrative that
Speaker 1: they can use. So I think that's very much the case, David,
Speaker 1: hey Buck, In a perfect world, wouldn't they just release
Speaker 1: the video from Epstein's cell Instead the powers that be
Speaker 1: have to take us on this wild media circus and
Speaker 1: all the giant talking heads get involved and everybody attacks Trump.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work, brother, Take care of Dave. Dave.
Speaker 1: My understanding is they don't have a cell camera. They
Speaker 1: didn't have them in the cells. They have them for
Speaker 1: entry and exit to the cells, but they don't actually
Speaker 1: have the person constantly under a camera surveillance. I do
Speaker 1: believe that in reality TV shows even they have cameras
Speaker 1: in the bedrooms, but they promise not to show any
Speaker 1: naughty stuff, but they don't have them in cells, So
Speaker 1: that's what we've been led to believe. There wasn't a
Speaker 1: camera malfunction that was an issue reported on the whole
Speaker 1: Epstein suicide. There was just the absence of camera recording
Speaker 1: inside the cell. So take that as you will. My friends, Angela,
Speaker 1: Hi Buckshields hide not surprised Jeff Epstein is dead. Can
Speaker 1: we ever go on offense? Seems like we're always defending?
Speaker 1: Did you read the article on the Baltimore cleanup? Are
Speaker 1: the dam's ever going to be truthful? Angela, I don't
Speaker 1: know if we're I mean, I think Trump is the
Speaker 1: closest thing you're ever going to get to the right
Speaker 1: on going on offense. So if you don't feel like
Speaker 1: we're on offense now, you're gonna have to wait a
Speaker 1: long time. And I did not see the Baltimore clean up,
Speaker 1: but I appreciate it's from the Washington Examiner. I see
Speaker 1: it here. I will take a look. Thank you for
Speaker 1: sending it my way. Case Buck, I've been following this
Speaker 1: Epstein deal and from working in a jail system, a
Speaker 1: person doesn't get pulled off suicide Watch. I wonder if
Speaker 1: the government will deal with these prison guards and prison
Speaker 1: officials like they did the jailers and county officials in
Speaker 1: Waller County, Texas after Sandra Bland. Probably not, Thanks and
Speaker 1: keep up the good work, Shields High case man. I've
Speaker 1: always thought that the sketchiest decision in the Epstein suicide
Speaker 1: was the decision to take him off of suicide Watch.
Speaker 1: I mean, if someone's already tried suicide, you're really going
Speaker 1: to say, oh no, but that person's learned their lesson
Speaker 1: a week or two later. It just seems very strange,
Speaker 1: very strange to me. Oh, Gina, right, Haygan Buck, I'm
Speaker 1: under you said Azar was the Labor secretary who let
Speaker 1: Epstein off in the case, it was actually a Costa, right,
Speaker 1: hate hate to correct you. Maybe I stand corrected, Shields High, No, Gina,
Speaker 1: you're correct. Sorry, it's it's a Costa. If I said Asar,
Speaker 1: I apologize. A Costa was the US attorney for Miami
Speaker 1: who let Epstein off initially. So yep, there you there
Speaker 1: you have it. Benny all Rights, Hey Buck, when you
Speaker 1: were talking about the new movie The Hunt, and you
Speaker 1: said it reminded me of another movie you. I knew
Speaker 1: you were going to say, Ice TV. You said, Jean Claude.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that one, but I could swear iceed
Speaker 1: he was kidnapped and taken out in a wooded area
Speaker 1: and was hunted. Love your show and listen to you
Speaker 1: and Dan Hope that's not considered heresy Shields high Benny Well, Benny, No, absolutely, man,
Speaker 1: it's a thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it,
Speaker 1: and you know I am in good company with mister
Speaker 1: Bongino there, And thank you for writing in. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: movie that you're referred to, whoever else has been talking about.
Speaker 1: I can't even know what it's called right now, but
Speaker 1: we were talking about earlier in the week. But yeah,
Speaker 1: the one that I've seen more is The Van dem One.
Speaker 1: But hunting human Beings is not a new plot line.
Speaker 1: It's happened many, many times, and in fact, if you
Speaker 1: look at the basic storyline, I mean, yeah, I know
Speaker 1: it's future and dystopia and all that, but even the
Speaker 1: Hunger Games, which I did not understand why anybody thought
Speaker 1: that that was a good movie, but people did. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Hunting Humans. Leonard Rights on the Hills Have Eyes. The
Speaker 1: first and only time I watched that movie was two
Speaker 1: thousand and six while I was at Officer Candidate school.
Speaker 1: We had just completed our final field exercise and we're
Speaker 1: allowed to watch TV for the first time about three
Speaker 1: months while we cleaned our weapons and equipment. The ready
Speaker 1: room was well lit and the audience was about half
Speaker 1: new guys to the army and half hardened veterans former NCOs,
Speaker 1: almost all of whom had deployed in the Jewod, including me.
Speaker 1: It was like a scene from Mystery Science Theater three thousand.
Speaker 1: As the group found more and more outlandish ways to
Speaker 1: parody the violence on scene, it is one on screen. Rather,
Speaker 1: it is one of the best OCS memories I have.
Speaker 1: All Right, Leonard, Well, I'm glad you enjoyed watching that
Speaker 1: at least some of the circumstances. Sounds like you managed
Speaker 1: to get something out of the situation. So there is that. Valerie,
Speaker 1: Right's buck. Your show keeps me safe and warm at night.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's awesome. Well, Valorie, that's the perfect way
Speaker 1: for us to settle things down here in the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt today. That's a great message to close on. Thank
Speaker 1: you everybody for listening. Like I said, we will be
Speaker 1: out of New York City and wow, it'll be less
Speaker 1: than two weeks now. So there my last days in
Speaker 1: the swamp. If you have any swamp requests, if you
Speaker 1: want to see video of Buck in a Mancini going
Speaker 1: down the National Mall en route to the Jefferson Memorial
Speaker 1: waving American flags in both hands, eating a cheeseburger while
Speaker 1: he has hands holding flat I'm just trying to think
Speaker 1: of something crazy, folks. I don't know what I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: but my last few days in the swamp coming up here.
Speaker 1: So I got that going for me, which is nice.
Speaker 1: Please do tell somebody about the Bucks acton show. Best
Speaker 1: thing you can do for me, most helpful thing you
Speaker 1: can do for Team Buck. I will talk to you
Speaker 1: all tomorrow. Shields high,