Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hunt, the tyranny of the
Speaker 1: interagency consensus, Elizabeth Warren's healthcare debacle, the Katie Hill lies,
Speaker 1: threats about outing the whistleblower, and Zuckerberg shoots down Sorkin
Speaker 1: that in more coming off the buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American. Again the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being here. Great to have a chance to address you
Speaker 1: all across the country and in some cases all around
Speaker 1: the world. We have a lot of stuff to get
Speaker 1: to for a Friday, so I feel like shouldn't stand
Speaker 1: too much on ceremony and just get right to it.
Speaker 1: I do want to note, though, that one of my
Speaker 1: predictions came true. In fact, many of my predictions come true,
Speaker 1: but this one in particular, I'm proud of. I told
Speaker 1: you that as soon as everybody learned about Conan the
Speaker 1: bar Carrian, as we are calling him Conan the Hero Dog,
Speaker 1: there would be a surge in interest in Belgian Malinois,
Speaker 1: the breed of dog that Conan happens to be one of.
Speaker 1: And now ABC News had a story this morning. I
Speaker 1: remember I told you the people are gonna want to
Speaker 1: start getting the Belgian Malinois. It's going to become very trendy.
Speaker 1: ABC predicted this morning. Thousands now want the breed of
Speaker 1: hero dog involved in the Al Baghdaddy raid, but experts
Speaker 1: warn that they are too much for most people. Who
Speaker 1: told you, folks who told you not only that they
Speaker 1: were too much for most people, but that there would
Speaker 1: be this surge in interest. So as beautiful and incredible
Speaker 1: as Belgian Malinois and even German shepherd's Dutch Shepherds, these
Speaker 1: different working dog breeds are. They are not something that
Speaker 1: you want to just pick up and bring home to
Speaker 1: the kids. You're gonna have your hands more than full.
Speaker 1: Important safety tip from the Freedom Hut today. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to the tyranny of the interagency consensus. Fantastic
Speaker 1: piece today from my friend Mark Hemingway, husband of Molly Hemingway.
Speaker 1: Mark is a great writer in his own right over
Speaker 1: at the Federalist, and his piece is called Donald Trump
Speaker 1: versus the Interagency Consensus. And this is a particularly important
Speaker 1: time for this because as part of all of this
Speaker 1: impeachment stuff, you see going on bruhaha, which is a
Speaker 1: fun word to say, this impeachment frakis ruckis. I think
Speaker 1: those are all words that we could use. You are
Speaker 1: seeing people come forward who can't help. But let it
Speaker 1: be known that while they are government employees, they think
Speaker 1: that the bosses within the government that are elected by
Speaker 1: the people to oversee the federal bureaucracy, the machinery of
Speaker 1: the day to day of the federal government, that the
Speaker 1: people who work inside the machinery think that they're not
Speaker 1: just executing on orders, they're really there to drive things,
Speaker 1: and that the elected officials come and go, but the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy is forever. This is troubling stuff. And when you
Speaker 1: add that to the admission more recently of the former
Speaker 1: I think he was the former acting CIA director John McLaughlin,
Speaker 1: when he was being asked by a CBS one of
Speaker 1: the liberal CBS journals about Trump's impeachment, here is what now.
Speaker 1: I know people will take this in different ways. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you how I'm going to take it, but here
Speaker 1: is what the former CIA director John McLaughlin, who is
Speaker 1: a guy from inside the bureauxy for a very long time.
Speaker 1: Here's how he talks about the deep state. Play for Please,
Speaker 1: you'd have to agree that naturally the impeachment inquiry is underway,
Speaker 1: sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: It feeds the president's concern and often use term about
Speaker 1: a deep state being there to take you know, thank
Speaker 1: God for the deep state. I mean, I think you
Speaker 1: know everyone here has seeing this progression of diplomats and
Speaker 1: intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill right now and saying, these are people who are
Speaker 1: doing their duty, who are responding to a higher call.
Speaker 1: Think about it for a minute. With all of the
Speaker 1: people who knew what was going on here, it took
Speaker 1: an intelligence software to step officer to step forward and
Speaker 1: say something about it, which was the trigger that then
Speaker 1: unleashed everything else. Now, why does that happen? What I'm
Speaker 1: tell American people why that happens is this is the
Speaker 1: institution in the US government that, with all of its
Speaker 1: flaws and it makes mistakes, is institutionally committed to objectivity
Speaker 1: and to telling the truth. I will tell you, as
Speaker 1: somebody who used to work in the CIA, that that's
Speaker 1: a very rosy picture of what the institutional commitment of
Speaker 1: that organization, or any part of the intelligence bureaucracy, what
Speaker 1: the day to day really is something quite different from that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of complexity involved here. There are concerns
Speaker 1: about access, how do you shape policymaker beliefs without actually
Speaker 1: telling policymakers what to do. These are the back and
Speaker 1: forth that you'll hear about from people who've actually worked
Speaker 1: the intelligence community. But I'm also going to tell you
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of people who work in
Speaker 1: the federal government who really think that. First of all,
Speaker 1: they're overwhelmingly personally politically Democrats and in some cases really leftists.
Speaker 1: They've gone into government work because they believe in the
Speaker 1: power of government to do good things. And they also
Speaker 1: think that if we're going to have this big shiny
Speaker 1: toy that that is the federal government, they want to
Speaker 1: be in control of it, and they want to do
Speaker 1: the things that they are ideologically aligned with it doing that.
Speaker 1: The mission is not top down from the president as
Speaker 1: the head of the executive branch. A mission is what
Speaker 1: the people inside the walls of whatever this federal agency
Speaker 1: is think it should be, and they give lip service
Speaker 1: to the guy who's or has always been a guy
Speaker 1: up to date, lip service to the guy who is
Speaker 1: giving the orders. Yeah, sure, sure, we'll do what you say,
Speaker 1: but we're also going to be working to do things
Speaker 1: differently in our own way. And in no presidency has
Speaker 1: this been more clear than the presidency of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I think it's also worth noting that we were initially
Speaker 1: told that talk of a deep state was a conspiracy theory,
Speaker 1: that if you spoke of bureaucrats inside the federal government
Speaker 1: who thought they had a mission apart from what the
Speaker 1: actual mission from the commander in chief was, you were
Speaker 1: engaged in some misdirection fantasy. You were misled. You must
Speaker 1: have been a consumer of fake news. And then we
Speaker 1: found out about McCabe and Comy and Page and Struck
Speaker 1: and Yates and Brennan and Clapper and the top echelon
Speaker 1: of federal law enforcement and the intelligence community under the obamaministration,
Speaker 1: none of whom are supposed to be explicitly political, and
Speaker 1: now beyond any reasonable doubt we know that they were
Speaker 1: deeply political. Objected to Trump, not just on specific issues,
Speaker 1: but in general, objected to his elevation to the role
Speaker 1: of commander in chief and believed that they had a
Speaker 1: duty to thwart his desires, his directives, his mission, his
Speaker 1: promise to the American people. They never really accepted that
Speaker 1: he won the election, and therefore the will of the
Speaker 1: American people expressed through that election should be pursued. There
Speaker 1: should be efforts made to execute upon that plan, not
Speaker 1: the plan of the bureaucrats who had been there for
Speaker 1: a very long time in DC. And this is where
Speaker 1: we get to the the consensus views of the interagency.
Speaker 1: What does that really mean? That came up recently in
Speaker 1: the testimony of Vindeman, and this was from his written statement.
Speaker 1: Now you would find that that's a a troubling thing
Speaker 1: for someone to use as a justification for objection to
Speaker 1: the President of the United States as a policy matter
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. The views of the inter agency, this, I
Speaker 1: can tell you, is also really a misnomber. What ends
Speaker 1: up happening in the intelligence community is that there will
Speaker 1: be an expression of one point of view from one
Speaker 1: agency that is the best approximation of what a majority
Speaker 1: of the senior people in that organization, leveraging some of
Speaker 1: the expertise of the younger people think of an issue,
Speaker 1: and then it will often be as part of the
Speaker 1: interagency process, balanced with the views of other agencies, many
Speaker 1: of whom have different equities, have different mission sets and
Speaker 1: tools at their disposal and expertise, And at the end
Speaker 1: they kind of just blurred out this product or this
Speaker 1: briefing or this decision on a specific issue to the
Speaker 1: President of the United States that represents the so called consensus.
Speaker 1: But by the time it gets to that level, it's
Speaker 1: often so watered down as to be largely meaningless. And
Speaker 1: also momentum carries the day. What does CIA think now?
Speaker 1: What does DIA or NSA or any of these agencies,
Speaker 1: what do they think now? Chances are it's kind of
Speaker 1: similar or whatever they thought a year ago or five
Speaker 1: years ago or ten years ago about the issue, unless
Speaker 1: there's been some massive change, right. They tend to have
Speaker 1: their own customs and ways of doing things, ways of
Speaker 1: thinking about things, institutional biases about different problem sets around
Speaker 1: the world. What do we think of talking to North Korea?
Speaker 1: What do we think of engaging China in a trade war?
Speaker 1: What do we think of counter terrors? I mean, all
Speaker 1: across the board, And I know because I sat in
Speaker 1: meetings where important issues were discussed in the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: and we're trying to find some consensus ish position, and
Speaker 1: there's really no such thing. There's really no such thing.
Speaker 1: It doesn't the consensus on Ukraine, well, there was no
Speaker 1: consensus on you crane policy because the Obama administration refused
Speaker 1: to give them lethal aid. Then the Trump administration came
Speaker 1: in and did give them lethal aid. So that was
Speaker 1: a change from the commander in chief. Were there a
Speaker 1: lot of complaints before about Obama's unwillingness to do what
Speaker 1: was necessary to really help the Ukrainians, No, of course not.
Speaker 1: And then we get to what the real consensus of
Speaker 1: the interagency, and what we find is the consensus of
Speaker 1: the deep state. It's anti Trump. That was the only
Speaker 1: thing that they all really could agree on. Is what
Speaker 1: was motivating so much of what we saw in terms
Speaker 1: of the actions of these senior bureaucrats to frustrate the
Speaker 1: president's decision making, and beyond that, to destroy the president,
Speaker 1: to undermine the president, to work with reporters and the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and whomever, to work with foreigners, in the
Speaker 1: case of Christopher Steel, assembling the dossier and using Russian
Speaker 1: or Ukrainian or whatever sources and running that laundering, that
Speaker 1: DNC paid for a document through our own intelligence community,
Speaker 1: and then starting spy as a warn on Carter page
Speaker 1: a full field investigation on George poppadopplas. This stuff is insane.
Speaker 1: They didn't just oppose in principle. They opposed by taking
Speaker 1: it upon themselves to use the power within the government
Speaker 1: that they had to wage a political war, a political
Speaker 1: vendetta against Donald Trump, because the consensus of the deep
Speaker 1: state was and is that Donald Trump is unfit, unacceptable,
Speaker 1: and did not really win the twenty sixteen election. So
Speaker 1: they are under no obligation. We often hear the Democrats
Speaker 1: now talking about how Trump swore an oath he has
Speaker 1: to uphold and defend the Constitution. Well, guess what part
Speaker 1: of that constitution establishes President Trump as the commander in
Speaker 1: chief of the executive branch and of the military. And
Speaker 1: they don't get to in the deep state just decide
Speaker 1: that they wash that away. They pushed that aside, and
Speaker 1: their mission then becomes whatever they say it is. They're
Speaker 1: giving their own orders. Now, you know, the bureaucracy has
Speaker 1: become self aware, kind of like Skynet and the Terminator movies.
Speaker 1: And that didn't end well for us. The only consensus
Speaker 1: opinion that they're really sure of is that they have
Speaker 1: to do everything they can to stop Donald Trump. They
Speaker 1: used to say there was no deep state. Then they said, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: there are a few people in the deep state. Now
Speaker 1: they're saying, thank God for the deep state. And it's like,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to pretend that we didn't know this was
Speaker 1: coming all along, and they haven't been lying to us
Speaker 1: all along. First they insisted that the president is a
Speaker 1: Russian agent. Then they claimed he's a money launderer and
Speaker 1: a tax cheat and a fraudulent businessman. And now they've
Speaker 1: decided they don't like the way he talks to foreign leaders.
Speaker 1: But they have no evidence and no argument to support impeachment.
Speaker 1: All they have is the unconditional cooperation of the media
Speaker 1: and their advanced to advance their preposterous narrative. What is
Speaker 1: more likely to repeat one of my favorite challenges here
Speaker 1: on the show, what's more likely that President Trump is,
Speaker 1: at the same time, according to Democrats, guilty of all
Speaker 1: of these horrible offenses and congress of newness, they're laid
Speaker 1: out a number of them. Some have gone away as
Speaker 1: a result of finding out more facts others have been
Speaker 1: stretched out now and they've added to it, or they've
Speaker 1: moved the goalposts, they found some way to keep the
Speaker 1: allegation alive. But what is more likely that Trump is
Speaker 1: the idiot that the left says he is, but also
Speaker 1: able to do all these things and get away with them,
Speaker 1: or that Democrats have abandoned reason, fairness, and decency and
Speaker 1: are just throwing every allegation they can against the President
Speaker 1: that they just can stand. They hate this guy. They
Speaker 1: hate him because of what his ascent means about the
Speaker 1: way they view the world. They hate him because it
Speaker 1: means that there's someone who will challenge some of the
Speaker 1: not just political but some of the cultural norms out
Speaker 1: there that have affected politicians, especially on the right, for
Speaker 1: a long time, that he'll take the fight right to
Speaker 1: the media. They can't stand this guy, and the only
Speaker 1: way that they could stop being so crazy about him
Speaker 1: would be to come to grips with all the lies
Speaker 1: that they've told so far, and they won't do that.
Speaker 1: And the people that have believed this, the people that
Speaker 1: have been spoon fed the nonsense from CNN and from MSNBC,
Speaker 1: those who've been lied to by The New York Times,
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, all these expectations about the Muller probe
Speaker 1: ending the Trump presidency, freeing us all from the long
Speaker 1: dark night of trumpness. Turns out that that wasn't true.
Speaker 1: But the people that believed it to be true can't
Speaker 1: be told that. They have to be told. Don't worry,
Speaker 1: it's coming just around the corner. And that's where Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and all the Democrats come in. That's where the
Speaker 1: people who are part of very much at the top
Speaker 1: of the establishment, and who often conflate credentials with credibility
Speaker 1: or credentials with competence, And just because you're the boss
Speaker 1: of something or the head of something, you're the speaker
Speaker 1: of something, doesn't mean that you're a good person, a
Speaker 1: knowledgeable person, or a wise person. The elites don't like
Speaker 1: that though. They don't like the challenge of somebody coming
Speaker 1: forward to say, hey, I know you've all made fun
Speaker 1: of me. You thought I was a joke. Here I
Speaker 1: am that people have empowered me, and I'm now as
Speaker 1: Donald Trump pointing fingers at people and saying, well, who
Speaker 1: are you exactly? Why should you be in this elevated position?
Speaker 1: Why should you be able to walk around so smug
Speaker 1: and dictatorial at the same time based on what a
Speaker 1: lot of people, a lot of people in the media,
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrats, and academia and the legal profession
Speaker 1: in Hollywood, and they don't have good answers for that,
Speaker 1: and it unsettles them. It really bothers them at a
Speaker 1: core level. And so that's why Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying along and you listen to the show,
Speaker 1: you know, I try not to be that guys, as
Speaker 1: I predict the future. A lot of people do this
Speaker 1: on radio, and it's annoying to me because they just
Speaker 1: tell you about their winners. They don't tell you about
Speaker 1: their losers. But I tend to be right. Hopefully. It's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why you listen to the show.
Speaker 1: I've always been saying, Nancy Pelosi, she's going to make
Speaker 1: sure that this president is impeached. That's stretching back for
Speaker 1: two years now. She's going to impeach this president. Why
Speaker 1: because of the emotional psychological need of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and the people who run it to lash out at
Speaker 1: Trump to have yet another moment of not my president.
Speaker 1: This is not any cause for any glee or comfort
Speaker 1: this is something that is it's very solemn, that it's
Speaker 1: something prayerful, and that we had to gather so much
Speaker 1: information to take us to this next step. I rise
Speaker 1: in strong support, but I do not take any pleasure
Speaker 1: in the events that have made this process necessary. I
Speaker 1: rise in strong support of the resolution, but I do
Speaker 1: so with an understanding that the task before us is
Speaker 1: a solemn one. How each member of this Chamber approaches
Speaker 1: the vote this morning and the days and weeks ahead
Speaker 1: maybe the most important service as members of Congress we
Speaker 1: will ever pay to the country and constitution that we
Speaker 1: all love and have pledged to defend. Oh, these Democrats
Speaker 1: are so it's just they really don't want to do
Speaker 1: this to Trump. It's just so serious and they know
Speaker 1: how serious it is. And there's no joy, No, there's
Speaker 1: no schadenfreude at Trump's misfortune. There's no sense of ha ha.
Speaker 1: We're pulling off another scam against this guy because he
Speaker 1: keeps beating us, and we can't accept the reality of
Speaker 1: what's going on in the country under a Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: We have to keep creating this fake world of Trump
Speaker 1: is destroying everything and everybody. Does anyone believe these idiots
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Chiff and all the rest of them. Oh, no,
Speaker 1: we take no joy in this whatsoever. Really, why are
Speaker 1: they doing it? It's preposterous. Schiff ran around for two
Speaker 1: years saying that there was evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.
Speaker 1: Schiff ran around promising his constituents and all Democrats and
Speaker 1: left us across the country that President Trump's day would
Speaker 1: come when finally he could no longer hide from his treason. Remember, folks,
Speaker 1: that is what they were accusing this president of. Is
Speaker 1: there any reflection that comes from being wrong for two years,
Speaker 1: Madam Chiff, Of course not. He served his purpose if
Speaker 1: nothing else, And the Democrats won't admit this publicly. The
Speaker 1: Muller probe, in a sense worked. It obstructed the president,
Speaker 1: slowed down his administration, kept good people from going to
Speaker 1: work in this administration. The Democrats have already managed to
Speaker 1: rob Trump of some of the powers of his office
Speaker 1: by running around with these insane, deceptive, destructive narratives. But
Speaker 1: then to have the temerity to have the brazenness to
Speaker 1: sit there and act like they don't want to do this. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't want to do this. I just Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is forcing my hand. Ah, it's weak stuff. We all
Speaker 1: know exactly what's going on here. You had the House
Speaker 1: vote yesterday two hundred and thirty two to one hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety six to approve the resolution setting out rules
Speaker 1: for an impeachment process. So now there's some rules of
Speaker 1: the road that they have agreed to in the House.
Speaker 1: How many Republicans went along with this in whatever we're
Speaker 1: calling this vote to begin an impeachment inquiry that we
Speaker 1: were told had already begune a couple weeks ago. How
Speaker 1: many Republicans have defected? Zero? This is an entirely partisan vote,
Speaker 1: which is new, which is new in the history of impeachments.
Speaker 1: Republicans had turned on and we're turning on Nixon, and
Speaker 1: some Democrats went along with the Republicans and the impeachment
Speaker 1: proceedings against Bill Clinton. So this strictly party line vote
Speaker 1: shows you exactly what's going on here. This is just
Speaker 1: a power played by the Democrats seeking to undo an
Speaker 1: election that they did not like in advance of just
Speaker 1: barely another election of a president that they say is
Speaker 1: so stupid and so dangerous that it should be obvious
Speaker 1: the American people wouldn't reelect him. Here's what we all
Speaker 1: know they are terrified that this president will get reelected.
Speaker 1: Why shouldn't they be. Look at the jobs numbers today,
Speaker 1: look at what's going on in the country. Oh, we
Speaker 1: were told if Trump move troops out of that part
Speaker 1: of SyRI there'd be genocide and Isis would rebound and
Speaker 1: a huge terrorist army would sweep across. Or we'd find
Speaker 1: out that Abubakher al Buaghdaddy was dead a week later,
Speaker 1: thanks to our special operators, some good work by folks
Speaker 1: in the national security realm at the direction of the
Speaker 1: President of the United States. Economy is still doing very well.
Speaker 1: The biggest problem now is they're so little in the
Speaker 1: way of unemployment. They're so little for Democrats to sink
Speaker 1: their teeth into as criticism against Trump, that they just
Speaker 1: have to keep repeating these crazy narratives. And we have
Speaker 1: to sit here and spend time shooting down the insanity,
Speaker 1: impeaching the president for what. What's the purpose of this inquiry?
Speaker 1: How many of you even heard about the NSC staffer
Speaker 1: who came forward and said that as soon as he
Speaker 1: heard this was yesterday when he heard the initial Trump
Speaker 1: phone call with Zelenski, that he thought there was nothing illegal.
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with it? What law? What law was broken?
Speaker 1: And at the end of all this, you have to
Speaker 1: remember the aid was not cut off. The investigation to
Speaker 1: Biden did not occur. So we're going to criminalize a
Speaker 1: conversation between two heads of state that resulted in no action,
Speaker 1: nothing done, and that he was completely within his constitutional
Speaker 1: rights to do in the first place. This is what
Speaker 1: it is. If the Democrats did not have they're just
Speaker 1: quizzling little media toadies in their pockets. They would never
Speaker 1: be able to try to pull this off. It's so flimsy.
Speaker 1: There's no there there, There's just nothing to speak of.
Speaker 1: That's why they worked so hard at pushing stories that
Speaker 1: any person who spends any time digging into says, is
Speaker 1: this it? This is really what's happening. There are some
Speaker 1: Republicans who, it does seem to me, have an understanding
Speaker 1: of what is really going on here. Representative Cheney, by
Speaker 1: the way, has some fire. Resentative McCarthy has quite a
Speaker 1: lot to say about this too. Producer Mark, please do
Speaker 1: five and six for me, if you would, sir. This
Speaker 1: is a process that has been fundamentally tainted. The president
Speaker 1: has had no rights inside these hearings. His counsel has
Speaker 1: not been able to be present. So for them now
Speaker 1: to claim that they're suddenly going to open the process up, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, this resolution does not do. The resolution
Speaker 1: says that they're going to continue doing what they want
Speaker 1: to do. It gives authority for open hearings, but they
Speaker 1: cannot go back and fix what is a fundamentally tainted
Speaker 1: and unfair record. Elections have consequences, our furollo. Americans use
Speaker 1: their vote to choose who will work for them. So
Speaker 1: I ask you all a simple question, especially to my colleagues,
Speaker 1: is that what is happening here today? Are we gathered
Speaker 1: in these final moments before we depart for a week
Speaker 1: to fund our government to pay our troop. Are we
Speaker 1: gathered today to prove a new trade deal? Are we
Speaker 1: gathered to debate the critical national security issues regarding China
Speaker 1: r Iran? Well, that answer would be unanimously no, we
Speaker 1: are not working for the American people. Those items would
Speaker 1: resemble the achievements of a productive Congress, a Congress that
Speaker 1: truly works for the people. What is this Congress doing
Speaker 1: with the Democrats in the majority. It is working in
Speaker 1: the deeply undemocratic fashion that we currently see under way
Speaker 1: where they're trying to undo an election from twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: That's it. We have the American people lined up and ready.
Speaker 1: In almost exactly twelve months, we'll be able to decide
Speaker 1: what they really think of a Trump presidency. But Democrats
Speaker 1: seek to short circuit this by putting forward a process
Speaker 1: that could, in theory remove the president from office. And
Speaker 1: they want to do this based on something that we've
Speaker 1: all heard about and that anyone who is looking at
Speaker 1: honestly says does not rise to the level of a
Speaker 1: high crime or misdemeanor. If you don't like it, vote
Speaker 1: against Trump. That's why we have elections. If you think
Speaker 1: that it was unfair in some way, but not illegal,
Speaker 1: there is a process for that vote. Democrats pretend to
Speaker 1: care so much about voting. They say, if only they
Speaker 1: can get more people to vote, of course they would win.
Speaker 1: They're always the majority, even when the votes come in
Speaker 1: short of what they need for power. Pelosi in particular,
Speaker 1: I wonder when I could meet somebody who would tell
Speaker 1: me that Nancy Pelosi is someone that you could feel
Speaker 1: good about supporting as a powerful politician. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats. They all seem understand that Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: serves a role, but she'll just say whatever. She'll say anything,
Speaker 1: whatever she has to say at any point in time.
Speaker 1: That is what Nancy Pelosi will do. You had an
Speaker 1: example of that last night when she was on the Colbet.
Speaker 1: Oh no, it's not the Colbert rapport anymore. That was
Speaker 1: the old show, right truthiness. That was actually a much
Speaker 1: better show. Now he does the Late Show in New York,
Speaker 1: which I can't imagine. How many nights in a row
Speaker 1: can someone just do the same tired Trump jokes before
Speaker 1: people get tired? But the answer is that audience, the
Speaker 1: leftists people live in New York, LA, San Francisco, DC,
Speaker 1: never never get tired of Trump jokes. Doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: they're funny, it doesn't matter if they've heard them before.
Speaker 1: Just keep it coming. Anti Trump is m is a
Speaker 1: compulsion for these people. It's like they have an addiction
Speaker 1: to people trashing Trump from whatever platform they can. But
Speaker 1: one thing that you'll never have on the right, You'll
Speaker 1: never have an conservatism, at least not any time in
Speaker 1: the near future. And maybe things will change dramatically in
Speaker 1: my lifetime, although I doubt it. When Democrat politicians go
Speaker 1: on these late night shows. The whole point of it
Speaker 1: is to massage, massage some of the propaganda, to let
Speaker 1: the Democrats have their say, and also have somebody who's
Speaker 1: cool and has a lot of cultural residence and a
Speaker 1: big platform a lot of people watching, like Colbert does
Speaker 1: make that Democrat just seem cool. You know, they do this.
Speaker 1: They'll have CNN anchors onto who are overwhelmingly unimpressive dorks,
Speaker 1: but they'll have them on and make them seem cool.
Speaker 1: You know. Yeah, when they're done with that show, like
Speaker 1: then they're gonna go hang out at a big fancy
Speaker 1: cocktail party on the Upper West Side or something with
Speaker 1: all the other very cool people and media and intelligency
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. There's a lot there's
Speaker 1: a cultural blessing, although I don't think they like the
Speaker 1: term blessing. There's a cultural blessing that occurs on that
Speaker 1: show for Democrats that never extends to Republicans, never extends
Speaker 1: to them. An example was last night when you had
Speaker 1: Pelosi on with Colbert. And unfortunately a lot of people
Speaker 1: still get their news from these stupid, hackneyed late night shows.
Speaker 1: But here's what she said about I mean, you guys
Speaker 1: all know that at least doesn't even listen to me
Speaker 1: for a long time. I have some rules, right, what's
Speaker 1: one of my rules about politicians. Whenever they say it's
Speaker 1: for the children, you know, they're pretty much lying to you. Right,
Speaker 1: Whenever they say it's for the children, they're trying to
Speaker 1: manipulate your emotions and they're being shameless. Oh look at
Speaker 1: this Nancy Pelosi, What does she think about what's going
Speaker 1: on right now? Play twenty two. Look, because they said,
Speaker 1: what advice would you get people who want to run
Speaker 1: for office? And I told them they have to have
Speaker 1: their vision and their knowledge and their strategic thinking and
Speaker 1: their connection to the aspirations of their constituents. But I said,
Speaker 1: it's this is not for the faint of heart. So
Speaker 1: if you want to go into the arena, you have
Speaker 1: to be paired to take a punch. You also have
Speaker 1: to be prepared to throw a punch for the children.
Speaker 1: Throw a punch more than children. Madame Speaker, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being here on this momentous day. Good
Speaker 1: luck to the constitution. There we are, throw a punch
Speaker 1: for the children, everybody. If that's what they're doing in
Speaker 1: this impeachment hearing, they're throwing punches for the kids. It's
Speaker 1: for the kids, you see. That's why they're doing all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Not so that Nancy Pelosi's fancy liberal friends
Speaker 1: in San Francisco and New York and DC can think
Speaker 1: that she's doing a good job. Give her a high five.
Speaker 1: I don't know if she does high fives, but whatever
Speaker 1: it is. At the next cocktail party, which are real things,
Speaker 1: and people say, oh, stop talking about liberal cocktail parties. No,
Speaker 1: they exist, trust me. I don't get invited to them,
Speaker 1: but I know they exist. I have friends who go
Speaker 1: to them. This is just shameful. This whole thing is shameful,
Speaker 1: and the acromotive that you're going to see as a
Speaker 1: result of it is only going to get worse. There's
Speaker 1: no effort here to restore norms, to bring us back
Speaker 1: to a place where at least we can count on
Speaker 1: Democrats to play by some of the rules, or think
Speaker 1: that some of the rules are important, even when the
Speaker 1: rules are not favorable to what a Democrat or the
Speaker 1: Democrat majority wants. That's what it means to have a principle.
Speaker 1: That's what it means to respect the system. They speak about,
Speaker 1: respect for the system. They speak about, respect for the Constitution,
Speaker 1: which is laughable, by the way, to anybody who remembers
Speaker 1: what was going on with Democrats during the eight years
Speaker 1: of the Obama presidency. And Democrats went forward with a
Speaker 1: law that regulates inactivity, and then a five four decision
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court keeps that grossly unconstitutional legislation alive.
Speaker 1: And they want to tell us about the Constitution and
Speaker 1: about individual rights and liberty. I mean, it's a joke.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's deeply unfunny. We're going to see
Speaker 1: this now with very few surprises. It's just a shouting
Speaker 1: match Left on one side, the Democrats on one side,
Speaker 1: Republicans on the other. Whatever they can do that hurts
Speaker 1: the president is what they will do. Everything else is
Speaker 1: a distant concern for them, including throwing a punch for
Speaker 1: the children. Founding fathers understood that a leader might take
Speaker 1: hold of the oval office, who would sacrifice the national security,
Speaker 1: who would fail to defend the constitution, who would place
Speaker 1: his personal or political interests above the interests of the country.
Speaker 1: They understood that might happen, and they provided a mechanism
Speaker 1: to deal with it. And that mechanism is called impeachment.
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff invoking the Founding Fathers. I don't want to
Speaker 1: throw up because you would hear it on radio and
Speaker 1: you would see it all the Pluto channel, which that
Speaker 1: would be bad. But I did feel my stomach turn
Speaker 1: a little bit. This guy, the one who lied to
Speaker 1: American people for two years saying the president was a trader,
Speaker 1: a trader, folks working with Russia, betraying the United States
Speaker 1: of America. And now it's oh, he puts his interest
Speaker 1: above US national security interests. I have a question fadom
Speaker 1: Ship who determines US national security interests? In Ukraine? President
Speaker 1: of United States. They run into some problems here. Anybody
Speaker 1: who understands the way our system of government is really
Speaker 1: built quickly figures out that they're just making this stuff up.
Speaker 1: They have no idea what they're really saying. It's all
Speaker 1: just blah blah constitution blah blah, our democracy. Trump is bad,
Speaker 1: Throw Trump out of office. All the rest of it
Speaker 1: is just noise. It's dressing up a flimsy case, which
Speaker 1: is what they currently have against the president. I'm annoyed
Speaker 1: that we have to spend as much time as you
Speaker 1: do as a country going into an election year where
Speaker 1: there are some big things to talk about, like Medicare
Speaker 1: for all. Elizabeth Warren will get to that, don't warrant
Speaker 1: that's coming up when we should be having very serious
Speaker 1: discussions about things that will affect you. That will be
Speaker 1: the difference between you sitting in a waiting room and
Speaker 1: finding out that you can see the doctor you want
Speaker 1: when you want, or you sitting in a waiting room
Speaker 1: and being told sorry, it's gonna be nine months. I
Speaker 1: know your arm really hurts and maybe you need surgery,
Speaker 1: but Elizabeth Warren's plan doesn't allow you to see a
Speaker 1: specialist that quickly. Because we're overwhelmed. But don't you feel
Speaker 1: good because illegal aliens now have healthcare that you're paying for,
Speaker 1: that's in your future if these Democrats when instead of
Speaker 1: talking about that, though it's all impeachment, Trump, treason, lies,
Speaker 1: lies and more lies from the Democrats. I suppose we
Speaker 1: should not be surprised. Welcome back to the Box Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren has a plan. Oh yeah, she has a
Speaker 1: plan for a lot of but how to pay for
Speaker 1: Medicare for all? A signature issue of her presidential run
Speaker 1: is not one of them. Until today, Elizabeth Warren everybody
Speaker 1: wants to tell you that you're gonna have free healthcare
Speaker 1: for the rest of your life, and basically none of
Speaker 1: you are going to have to pay for that. I
Speaker 1: hate to say this, but we do reach a point
Speaker 1: at which if somebody is so stupid as to believe
Speaker 1: a thing, I wonder if it's possible that they're smart
Speaker 1: enough to believe why that thing is wrong in any capacity.
Speaker 1: No matter what I tell them, no one should really
Speaker 1: think it is possible. As a function of math, goods
Speaker 1: and services, basic economics, supply and demand, any of them.
Speaker 1: No one should think that what Elizabeth Warren says is
Speaker 1: even vaguely possible. Remember it's not just that she says
Speaker 1: it's going to be really good health insurance is not
Speaker 1: gonna pay But then the middle class. No tax hikes
Speaker 1: on the middle class despite a fifty two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: Medicare for All plan. All right, Elizabeth Warrent tweeter at today, today,
Speaker 1: I'm relashing my plan to pay for Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: I'll stop. Here's the headline. My plan won't raise taxes
Speaker 1: one penny on middle class families. In fact, we'll return
Speaker 1: about eleven trillion dollars to the American people. That's bigger
Speaker 1: than the biggest tax cut in our history. Here's how
Speaker 1: my friends, this is. This is utterly absurd. She's not
Speaker 1: only telling you that she's not going to pay or
Speaker 1: she's not going to raise taxes on the middle class.
Speaker 1: She's telling you that she's going to engage in a
Speaker 1: tax cut. How is that possible? Here's what she writes
Speaker 1: on Twitter. I asked top experts to examine my Medicare
Speaker 1: for All plan. They concluded, we can cover everyone, and
Speaker 1: this is from Elizabeth Warren, all right, cover everyone and
Speaker 1: give them vastly better coverage without a tax increase on
Speaker 1: middle class families. This analysis was done by doctor Donald Berwick,
Speaker 1: one of the nation's top experts in Medicare and Medicaid
Speaker 1: programs under President Obama, and Simon Johnson, the former chief
Speaker 1: economist at the International Monetary Fund and a professor at MIT.
Speaker 1: In addition to providing coverage for everyone, they concluded that
Speaker 1: my plan would slightly reduce the amount of money of
Speaker 1: the United States would otherwise spend on healthcare over the
Speaker 1: next ten years. I am fighting for Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: I have the only detailed plan to pay for it.
Speaker 1: And we're the only Democratic primary campaign that has laid
Speaker 1: out the true full cost of any healthcare plan medicare. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: I look forward to others doing the same, my friends. Oh,
Speaker 1: and here you go. Also, we cover the remaining eleven
Speaker 1: trillion dollars with taxes on big corporations, Wall Street and
Speaker 1: the one percent and enforcing a tax laws we now have,
Speaker 1: adding a targeted cut to a Defense department slush fund.
Speaker 1: And that's it. This is just insane, my friends. This
Speaker 1: is completely and utterly bonkers. And she's supposed to be
Speaker 1: the super smart policy wonk of the Democrats who are
Speaker 1: running her and Buddha Judge, who are both he's also
Speaker 1: a Medicare for all guy. They really think that they
Speaker 1: can do this. They think they can do this in
Speaker 1: a way that's so efficient that you could have Sweden
Speaker 1: or Denmark levels of universal healthcare without their levels of taxation.
Speaker 1: How would that be possible? Why would we be so
Speaker 1: much better at this and than it's been. Keeping mind
Speaker 1: when we're comparing ourselves, which the Democrats love to do,
Speaker 1: to countries like Sweden that have let's say, twenty million
Speaker 1: people in it, Okay, America has three hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: million people. The healthcare system here is much more complex,
Speaker 1: much larger, and is dealing with all kinds of complexities.
Speaker 1: No one sitting around saying, when are the Swedes gonna
Speaker 1: cure cancer? I mean maybe, but it's going to be
Speaker 1: America most likely. So we have a lot of things
Speaker 1: to think about for our healthcare system that other countries
Speaker 1: don't really or they're free riders on our system. But
Speaker 1: the claim that she can do this without raising taxes
Speaker 1: in the middle class and without destroying the rest of
Speaker 1: the economy is utterly absurd. Here's how Fox News writes
Speaker 1: this up today on It's the main story on the
Speaker 1: website Warren's Project Warren projects no new tax burden for
Speaker 1: the middle class. The Warren campaign claims those eleven trillion
Speaker 1: in individual costs would drop to practically zero while the
Speaker 1: plan maintains and boosts a funding pipeline from other sources.
Speaker 1: The plan carries a total price tag of just under
Speaker 1: fifty two trillion dollars over the next ten years, or
Speaker 1: slightly less than cost projections for the current system that
Speaker 1: factors in current and additional spending. New spending alone would
Speaker 1: be in the twenty trillion dollar range. Compared with roughly
Speaker 1: thirty two trillion dollars for Sanders plan. Now, so let's
Speaker 1: be clear, the fifty two trillion is all in healthcare
Speaker 1: spending under this plan, right, The twenty trillion is in
Speaker 1: excess of current government healthcare expenditures. So the government's going
Speaker 1: to spend, according to Warren, an additional twenty trillion dollars
Speaker 1: over ten years, basically going to double what the government
Speaker 1: spends every year for ten years. Bernie Sanders saying it's
Speaker 1: thirty trillion, which would be doubling with the government spends
Speaker 1: every year. We're going to put these people in charge
Speaker 1: of this much of the economy, the genius of our
Speaker 1: system economically, and we see this now we've got great
Speaker 1: job numbers. Isn't it so amazing too? Obama, we suffered
Speaker 1: through a recession for years and they kept calling it
Speaker 1: a recovery. Trump. All we have is a booming economy,
Speaker 1: and we keep being told any minute now, it's going
Speaker 1: to change, any minute now, it's going to change. Hasn't
Speaker 1: changed yet, almost like they're trying to play games with
Speaker 1: the public's expectations for political reasons. But let's get back
Speaker 1: now for a second. Why is America so rich. You
Speaker 1: could argue that Soviet Union, for example, had better strategic geography,
Speaker 1: natural resources. I mean, you could argue that why is
Speaker 1: America so wealthy? America has done as well as it
Speaker 1: has done because it has harnessed individual ingenuity, individual initiative,
Speaker 1: people pursuing their own self interest economically, and in doing so,
Speaker 1: becoming more productive, more efficient, inventing stuff, being entrepreneurs, being
Speaker 1: good employees because it benefits them. Human beings, we are
Speaker 1: all inherently self interested creatures. This is just a fact.
Speaker 1: I know, the Marxists, others a sea, they're admitting it.
Speaker 1: The fat Cats, they're so selfish holdership with warrants like say,
Speaker 1: they're just they don't want to give all the money
Speaker 1: from the Wall Street to the poor people. Elizabeth Warren's
Speaker 1: worth about ten million dollars, by the way, but she
Speaker 1: cares so much about poor people. But the system we
Speaker 1: have rewards people for doing good, smart, efficient things, providing services,
Speaker 1: coming up with new technologies, being better at stuff. We're
Speaker 1: just being good at stuff. And I think that one
Speaker 1: one important lesson that we all have is, you know,
Speaker 1: you can be the person who works at the gas
Speaker 1: station who does a great job, and everybody's happy to
Speaker 1: see and is efficient and quick, and you know, maybe
Speaker 1: you get more tips and then maybe you become a manager,
Speaker 1: and then maybe you become a regional manager. You know
Speaker 1: you or you'd be a person who shows up and
Speaker 1: hates their job and is bad at it. We want
Speaker 1: a system that that advantage is one person over the
Speaker 1: other person based on what they do. That that is
Speaker 1: the system that we want. And Democrats also refuse to
Speaker 1: understand that because of the market signals, because of price.
Speaker 1: And this now goes back into the central planning, which
Speaker 1: is I know a recurring theme that I've been bringing
Speaker 1: up with you here, but the government is not good
Speaker 1: at determining how many different kinds of milk we should have,
Speaker 1: who should make the milk, where should the milk go?
Speaker 1: Walk into a whole foods now you'll see not just
Speaker 1: moo cow milk. I don't know why I did a
Speaker 1: move there, but I just came to my mind. You'll have,
Speaker 1: you know, almond milk and soy milk and hazelnut milk,
Speaker 1: and five different providers of a few of those, and
Speaker 1: they'll be in different sizes, in different colored boxes. And
Speaker 1: what would happen if the government was saying, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: just gonna be your milk provider. Do you think you'd
Speaker 1: have better, tasting, cheaper milk, does anybody? Elizabeth Warren thinks
Speaker 1: the answers yes, Elizabeth Warren, And they would deny this
Speaker 1: because it makes it it clarify the situation. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: wants you to believe that if the government was in
Speaker 1: charge of what milk you could buy in the store,
Speaker 1: the government was the only person paying for milk. The
Speaker 1: government got to regulate what kind of milk was out
Speaker 1: there and determine what the price of milk was, that
Speaker 1: you'd be able to go in there and you'd I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean I drink milk sometimes. Now that's so fancy,
Speaker 1: I feel bougie. The first sip I was drinking walnut milk,
Speaker 1: you'd dat even though they made that till recently. It's
Speaker 1: kind of good. Healthcare is even more complicated than the
Speaker 1: dairy or the milk industry. And put aside for a
Speaker 1: moment that almond milk is almond juice. That's lying about
Speaker 1: being milk. We have very clear lessons for why we
Speaker 1: have had more people taken out of poverty in the
Speaker 1: last fifty years than in all of human history before
Speaker 1: it combined. It is because of markets, because of individual incentive,
Speaker 1: and because we have a system that leverages the desire
Speaker 1: within human beings to do well and to do better,
Speaker 1: and a system that inherently elevates the good, the efficient,
Speaker 1: the smart, the hard working, and does not similarly elevate
Speaker 1: those who don't really care, don't want to do a
Speaker 1: good job, don't want to do it the right way. Now,
Speaker 1: if you apply Elizabeth Warren's thinking about or rather our
Speaker 1: discussion about milk, to Elizabeth Warren's thinking about healthcare, all
Speaker 1: the things that I'm telling you're everything that we said
Speaker 1: was true about Obamacare, that conservative said was true about
Speaker 1: Obamacare turned out to be true. Yes, it was a
Speaker 1: stepping stone to single pair. They said that was a lie. Yes,
Speaker 1: it was a stepping stone to socialism. They said that
Speaker 1: was a lie. Now we have open socialists running in
Speaker 1: the Democratic ticket. Oh what a shock. Yes, it would
Speaker 1: be mostly a massive expansion of Medicaid. You know, when
Speaker 1: I was debating healthcare at Politicon with a bunch of
Speaker 1: leftists and my man Glenn Jacobs, who's awesome he was.
Speaker 1: He was on my team he's a libertarian perspective, but
Speaker 1: libertarians also like markets. But we're debating. As I said
Speaker 1: to them, just explain this to me, and this this
Speaker 1: really in including the MD. But he's a psychiatrist, so
Speaker 1: we know he's a little leftist wacky. Not all of them,
Speaker 1: but like ninety five percent of them are. I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you it's true. I said to them, why why
Speaker 1: go through all of this? If the real problem is
Speaker 1: the uninsured in this country, why not just expand Medicaid
Speaker 1: to cover anybody who's uninsured? There's no such thing. If
Speaker 1: you don't have health insurance, now you have Medicaid. Why
Speaker 1: not just do that? Wouldn't that take care? If it's
Speaker 1: really just about insuring everybody, just tell any anyone who
Speaker 1: walks in and says, oh, you don't have insurance, Well
Speaker 1: now you have Medicaid. I mean, it can't be because
Speaker 1: it's too expensive. If they're talking about thirty trillion dollars
Speaker 1: twenty twenty to thirty trillion dollars of new government spending,
Speaker 1: I mean, and you're only really looking at about fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty million Americans roughly who aren't covered in Medicaid
Speaker 1: don't have insurance. Or you have a problem, why radically
Speaker 1: transform the whole system. Well, because they want you to
Speaker 1: go to the doctor. And they won't say this, but
Speaker 1: they want your insurance to be no better than Medicaid,
Speaker 1: and somebody on Medicaid's insurance to be no better than yours.
Speaker 1: You're all going to be the same. Think about how
Speaker 1: what that means for people right now. They are used
Speaker 1: to having insurance, used to having options going to see
Speaker 1: private doctors. You think your insurance is going to get better.
Speaker 1: You think that's gonna be fun. Oh, and Democrats want
Speaker 1: to make sure that illegal aliens are also right there
Speaker 1: with you now, so they have the same insurance that
Speaker 1: you do too. Everyone's gonna have the same insurance, be
Speaker 1: government mandated. This is what the government will pay for.
Speaker 1: Go back to the milk on the shelves in the store.
Speaker 1: Government's the only person that pays for milk in the
Speaker 1: whole country. The government decides what's acceptable for the size
Speaker 1: of milk, the taste of milk. It's gonna get better,
Speaker 1: it's gonna get a cheaper you're gonna have more options.
Speaker 1: They are fundamentally wrong, Just like what they said about
Speaker 1: how Obamacare is going to be amazing and great. Yeah,
Speaker 1: some people get subsidies, some people get free stuff from
Speaker 1: the government. Other people have to pay for that free stuff.
Speaker 1: Not good for them. I thought this was going to
Speaker 1: fix the problem of the unashored. Why didn't obamacare, Obamacare
Speaker 1: fix the problem of the unashured. Oh, now we need
Speaker 1: single pair. They told us we wouldn't need single pair,
Speaker 1: and now we do. The people who are right the
Speaker 1: last time, people like me, among many others. They should
Speaker 1: be listened to. Now. The people that are promising the
Speaker 1: magical chocolate cake that never runs out, that cost you nothing,
Speaker 1: that you can eat tons of and never get fat,
Speaker 1: they should Honestly, their ideas should be ridiculed. Elizabeth Warren's
Speaker 1: ideas is ridiculous. This is absurd, And no tax increases
Speaker 1: on the middle class to pay for this. That's you know,
Speaker 1: you know, comprises the tax based people that make money.
Speaker 1: And yeah, there's there's a class of rich people in
Speaker 1: this country who already, by the way, pay a lot
Speaker 1: of taxes, but everybody else because there's so many of them.
Speaker 1: That's where the real money is. Got to make everybody
Speaker 1: pay value added tax, consumption tax, whatever it may be,
Speaker 1: They're gonna throw all these things into the mix. It's
Speaker 1: a nightmare. So just the next time you're in the store,
Speaker 1: look at the shelves and think about what would these
Speaker 1: shelves look like if Elizabeth warrener Bernie Sanders got their
Speaker 1: way in the Congress, which is also here. That's a
Speaker 1: whole I mean, politically, this all that's never gonna happen, folks,
Speaker 1: They're not going to get there. So why would you
Speaker 1: elect somebody that's got a stupid plan, that's crazy, that
Speaker 1: will bankrupt the country and the Congress won't even go
Speaker 1: along with at least I don't think they would. Well,
Speaker 1: this is because I live in the real world. It's
Speaker 1: very frustrating to live in the real world these days.
Speaker 1: It's much more fun to live in liberal fantasyland where
Speaker 1: everything would just be fine if it wasn't for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, every we could fix everything, give everyone great healthcare.
Speaker 1: Nobody should be held responsible for their bad decisions, Nobody
Speaker 1: should feel like they're being left out of the economy,
Speaker 1: no matter how little they do, or it's just the
Speaker 1: difference between reality and reality. You know what side of
Speaker 1: this I want to be on. It wasn't until I
Speaker 1: heard of a man by the name of Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: always began to question and assert and recognize my inherent
Speaker 1: value as a human being that deserves healthcare, housing, education,
Speaker 1: and a living way. Wasn't until Bernie Sanders came along
Speaker 1: that AOC who's endorsed Bernie Sanders said she understood or
Speaker 1: rather began to a question and assert and recognize her
Speaker 1: inherent value as a human being, and that means healthcare, housing, food, everything.
Speaker 1: Have we learned nothing from the experiment of the Soviet Union?
Speaker 1: The answer with someone like Bernie Sanders is they have
Speaker 1: learned nothing. They don't understand. And you could say, but buck,
Speaker 1: they're not going to be as radical as the Soviets were. Well, one,
Speaker 1: that's because of political possibility. They can't even if they
Speaker 1: wanted to go as radical as a Soviets, where they
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to get there. We are in a
Speaker 1: very different place culturally and just as a country, and
Speaker 1: within our economy much richer by the way as well.
Speaker 1: One of the problems we run into with liberals is
Speaker 1: that even when they're destroying something, if it's rich enough,
Speaker 1: it can take a while for us to figure out
Speaker 1: that they're destroying that thing, and they argue all along
Speaker 1: that they're not destroying it, and by the time it's
Speaker 1: unavoidable to come to the conclusion that they've ruined it,
Speaker 1: like California, it's too late. So then it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: that we were right. That's I think what you can
Speaker 1: expect for the healthcare system with Democrats, if they were
Speaker 1: to get their way with Medicare for all. We have
Speaker 1: to take this very seriously because two of the three
Speaker 1: top candidates, Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren, believe that this is
Speaker 1: the way to go. In fact, Buddha Judge, who was
Speaker 1: a top four or five candidate, also thinks that Medicare
Speaker 1: for all is the way to go. But o'canzio cortez,
Speaker 1: I mean that almost sounded like idol worship. Until Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders came along. She didn't understand her full inherent value
Speaker 1: as a human being. She needed a gotta come around
Speaker 1: to say, you're gonna have the rich people paying more,
Speaker 1: you're gonna pay less, you're gonna have for housing, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have food, all the things, and then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden you recognize your inherent values of human being.
Speaker 1: That's both bizarre and kind of sad. So I wasn't
Speaker 1: planning to spend much time here talking about Congresswoman Katie Hill.
Speaker 1: And I don't really particularly like to get involved in
Speaker 1: the personal life stuff of public figures. I mean just
Speaker 1: I don't find it all that interesting. And it was
Speaker 1: already pretty clear to me that she was going to
Speaker 1: have to resign, and now she has resigned. It's a
Speaker 1: congresswoman from California. We had Tiana Lowe from The Examiner
Speaker 1: on her own of the Week talking about this. But
Speaker 1: now I've got a problem. Now I've got a problem
Speaker 1: with this because it's quite clear what happened. She messed up,
Speaker 1: she did think she wasn't supposed to do, and then
Speaker 1: because she associates with some bad people, including apparently her
Speaker 1: ex husband, there was embarrassing stuff that happened to her.
Speaker 1: But on the way out, instead of just accepting responsibility
Speaker 1: for what happened, understanding that she messed up, she made
Speaker 1: a mistake, she's now trying to do what Democrats love
Speaker 1: to do, which is rewrite the narrative, blame their political enemies,
Speaker 1: and then try to probably down the line, resurrect some
Speaker 1: kind of public public life, public career for oneself, just
Speaker 1: to review the facts here. Katie Hill had a had
Speaker 1: multiple set well, she denies one and accepts the other one.
Speaker 1: There's photos though of at least one of them naked
Speaker 1: and brushing each other's hair or something. She had a
Speaker 1: sexual relationships as a member of Congress with people who
Speaker 1: were on her payroll work for her, and she has
Speaker 1: the power to hire and fire. Now, Congress established rules
Speaker 1: that you These are congressional rules, specific Congress. You can't
Speaker 1: do that. So, just by way of a comparison here,
Speaker 1: you know, I if I walk into a country club
Speaker 1: and I insist on walking around the dining room using
Speaker 1: my cell phone, some of you people along the country
Speaker 1: clubs will know that's a big someplaces that's a big
Speaker 1: no no. And they decide that, okay, we have a
Speaker 1: rule against this. If you're not gonna get up your cellphone,
Speaker 1: we're gonna kick you out of the club. And you
Speaker 1: keep talking on your cell phone, that's on you. Those
Speaker 1: are the rules of the club. You won't obey them.
Speaker 1: The club has the right to say these are the rules.
Speaker 1: You're gone. She broke house rules, no question, there's no
Speaker 1: there's no debate about whether or not g and it's
Speaker 1: a pretty serious rule too. I mean, I know the
Speaker 1: cell phone things, but I just mean that different bodies
Speaker 1: have the right to declare, you know, this isn't a
Speaker 1: criminal proceeding. No one saying she sho's going to prison
Speaker 1: for this, but the Congress can say that this is
Speaker 1: the way we're going to conduct ourselves. This is now
Speaker 1: a rule they've come up within the me too era,
Speaker 1: and she broke that rule. This is very this is
Speaker 1: very straightforward, but now it ends up happening. Is it's
Speaker 1: it's about other things she's saying, Oh, he's saying, it's
Speaker 1: about revenge porn. Okay. There is a lack of wisdom
Speaker 1: I think that some people have when they especially if
Speaker 1: you're a person in public life and you're taking these
Speaker 1: kinds of photos, but that's a personal I just I
Speaker 1: think it's a bad move, that's said somebody using that,
Speaker 1: especially anybody who is in a trusted and perhaps an
Speaker 1: intimate setting with someone. I mean, using that against a
Speaker 1: human being is a despicable thing. And do I think
Speaker 1: that there was perhaps a little bit too much in
Speaker 1: some places, at some publications, a little bit of quiet
Speaker 1: glee at being able to share what we're clearly humiliating
Speaker 1: photos of a Democrat. Yeah, probably, and I think there
Speaker 1: was a little too much. Hey, look at this revenge
Speaker 1: porn that we're reporting on. By the way, did we
Speaker 1: tell you this revenge porn things? Now step back for
Speaker 1: a second. If this were a Republican female there, you know,
Speaker 1: the New York Times would have been running the photos
Speaker 1: in the front page, right, it would have been a
Speaker 1: totally different situation. So I'm aware of that, right, I
Speaker 1: trust me. The double standard here couldn't be any more clear.
Speaker 1: But if it's because it's a Democrat, they're downplaying it.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that it's a free for all.
Speaker 1: Either people should be able to just or people should
Speaker 1: feel ethical as journalists spreading this stuff all over the place.
Speaker 1: But my problem here is that Katie Hill, I mean,
Speaker 1: I've got an obviously a bunch of problems with this.
Speaker 1: Katie Hill, Democrat, former Democrat congressman from California, is blaming
Speaker 1: other people for this. She's climbing that there's a double standard,
Speaker 1: that there's sexism at work here. Play clip two. Please.
Speaker 1: I will never shirk my responsibility for this sudden ending
Speaker 1: to my time here, But I have to say more
Speaker 1: because this is bigger than me. I am leaving now
Speaker 1: because of a double standard. I'm leaving because I no
Speaker 1: longer want to be used as a bargaining chip. I'm
Speaker 1: leaving because I didn't want to be peddled by papers
Speaker 1: and blogs and websites used by shameless operatives for the
Speaker 1: dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen, and the right
Speaker 1: wing media to drive clicks and expand their audience by
Speaker 1: distributing intimate photos of me taken without my knowledge, let
Speaker 1: alone my consent, for the sexual entertainment of millions. I'm
Speaker 1: leaving because of a misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my
Speaker 1: naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality, and enabled my abusive
Speaker 1: X to continue that abuse, this time with the entire
Speaker 1: country watching. Nope, that's not why she's leaving. None of
Speaker 1: that is true. She's leaving because she had sex with
Speaker 1: people that she was paying with public funds as a
Speaker 1: member of Congress in her office. That's unacceptable. That's it. Oh,
Speaker 1: she can try to do all this other stuff. Oh,
Speaker 1: and I'll look at this over here. No, can't do it.
Speaker 1: Not allowed to do it. And the Democrats know that
Speaker 1: if they let her. I want to talk about a
Speaker 1: double stuff. What is the double standard? If they let
Speaker 1: her stay, then there'd be a double standard. So and
Speaker 1: the Democrats now still like to keep this stuff. They're
Speaker 1: waiting for a Republican to mess up in this way.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine what the media frenzy would be. Could
Speaker 1: you imagine the news coverage that would occur if this
Speaker 1: had been Congressman, you know, Newness or Crenshaw or Gates
Speaker 1: brushing a female aid's hair, you know whatever, Like I
Speaker 1: actually I will tell you I didn't even see the photos.
Speaker 1: I didn't think I needed to, but whatever was going
Speaker 1: on in those photos, can you imagine the frenzy. Oh,
Speaker 1: the late night jokes, Oh Stephen, Colbert and Kimmel will
Speaker 1: be making all they'd be having a great time with
Speaker 1: this one. The double standard if a male, and particularly
Speaker 1: a male Republican was doing this. By the way, I'm
Speaker 1: not even getting into the thrupple stuff, which I didn't
Speaker 1: even know what that was. It's like a threesome couple.
Speaker 1: You're a three person couple, so you all get to
Speaker 1: have sex with each other. I mean, you know, consenting
Speaker 1: adults can do what they want to do. But if
Speaker 1: it wasn't a Democrat doing that stuff, I assure you
Speaker 1: there would have been a whole lot more interest. So
Speaker 1: there she starts off that that clip and that was perfect.
Speaker 1: This is classic. This is Democrat at mister directured propaganda.
Speaker 1: One on one. Really, she starts up by saying that
Speaker 1: she would never shirk responsibility. Nope, she is trying to.
Speaker 1: She couldn't get out of this entirely, but she is
Speaker 1: trying to shirk responsibility because the next thing that comes
Speaker 1: out of her mouth is basically, this is bigger than me. No,
Speaker 1: no it's not. It's actually it's actually not bigger than
Speaker 1: her stuff. Don't have sex with people when you're a
Speaker 1: congress person who work for you, on your congressional staff,
Speaker 1: who are being paid with public funds, and who you
Speaker 1: are entrusted to behave professionally around as a as a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, an elected official in the United States government.
Speaker 1: That's it. This is now the standard. By the way,
Speaker 1: if a Republican comes out and has some affair, you know,
Speaker 1: and I, by the way, it's just I think a
Speaker 1: matter of time, let's be realistic, before some Republican member
Speaker 1: is having some something or other going on with his staffer.
Speaker 1: There are some very lovely staffers on Capitol Hill. I've
Speaker 1: spent some time around there. It would not be surprising
Speaker 1: to anybody that guy's gonna have to go. These are
Speaker 1: the rules, now, right, These are the rules. Members of
Speaker 1: Congress agree, agree to buy by the rules. But I
Speaker 1: hope that person, whoever it is, and maybe I'm wrong
Speaker 1: and this won't happen, but I hope that Republican member
Speaker 1: of Congress doesn't turn around and say, but but you know,
Speaker 1: there was a conspiracy against me, or there was a
Speaker 1: double standard, and then for her to turn this into
Speaker 1: a for Katie Hill to say this is about the
Speaker 1: right wing media, Well, why is it their fault. They
Speaker 1: didn't make you. They didn't make Katie Hill break the rules,
Speaker 1: they didn't make her act in this way. But really,
Speaker 1: what we know is that she's trying to establish, on
Speaker 1: her way out the ultimate currency on the left, victimhood status.
Speaker 1: She gets to become a victim, well then you know
Speaker 1: she'll be able to rewrite the narrative in time, and
Speaker 1: that she was a victim of a misogynist, you know,
Speaker 1: right wing media attack. And it is this almost like
Speaker 1: Hillary playbook back in the day, the vast right wing
Speaker 1: conspiracy right, just make something up, blame blame some enemies
Speaker 1: out there, and act like your conduct had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with any of it. Oh and if you really
Speaker 1: want to make sure that you can still get some
Speaker 1: speeches on the speaker circuit, maybe get a book, be
Speaker 1: invited to fancy luncheons, maybe get a board seat somewhere
Speaker 1: or something. You really, you know what, what's the one
Speaker 1: thing she hasn't done yet? Katie Hills on the way
Speaker 1: out because of her own actions admitted, proven done. But
Speaker 1: she's saying all this other stuff. What's the one thing
Speaker 1: that she hasn't done yet that other than saying that
Speaker 1: she's going to fight the NRA for the rest of
Speaker 1: her life, which is that's the classic that is adjustin
Speaker 1: Trudeau move. I want to take all of yourselftwife weapons
Speaker 1: or the Harvey Weinstein. You know, yeah, I'm going to
Speaker 1: dedicate myself to fighting the NRA. No, how about Harvey Weinstein.
Speaker 1: Dedicate yourself to not being a sexual predator. But what
Speaker 1: is the one thing that she hasn't done? Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: she has not yet attacked Donald Trump. Play clip through. Please,
Speaker 1: I'm leaving. But we have men who have been credibly
Speaker 1: accused of intentional acts of sexual violence and remain in
Speaker 1: boardrooms on the Supreme Court, in this very body, and
Speaker 1: worst of all, in the Oval office. Wow, just in time.
Speaker 1: There what slander? Now? I will just put aside for
Speaker 1: a second the fact that you've had all these people
Speaker 1: come out and accused Trump of this or that. Do
Speaker 1: we know any of the who's the really credible source
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump engaged in sexual violence against a woman?
Speaker 1: And don't tell me this thing about he said he
Speaker 1: would grab I know what he said. He was saying
Speaker 1: that they let they let you, was what he said.
Speaker 1: He says, when you're a star, you can be sexually
Speaker 1: aggressive with women and they let you, because that is
Speaker 1: he was saying, they're consenting to it. Okay, that was
Speaker 1: locker room talk. We know that. Who was it the
Speaker 1: woman who came forward and wrote that book? And then
Speaker 1: on Anderson Cooper so a show on Live TV CNN
Speaker 1: said that rape is sexy quote unquote rapist sexy. That
Speaker 1: is what she said. She's the credible story. Who's the
Speaker 1: credible source for the President the United States as a rapist?
Speaker 1: Do I believe the presence of Philanderer? Yes? Have I
Speaker 1: ever for one second, believed that he's a rapist based
Speaker 1: on the allegations, the stories, the fact pattern. No, I
Speaker 1: don't believe it. Sorry, and to put Kavanaugh in there too.
Speaker 1: We are not at a point where if you think
Speaker 1: that Kavanaugh assaulted these women, you're just not very smart.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else to say, or you've deceived
Speaker 1: yourself so much that you're incapable of rational thought on
Speaker 1: this issue. They can't even prove that blasi Ford met him.
Speaker 1: She can't even tell a convincing story about meeting him. Where, when, how,
Speaker 1: who took you home? That's not credibly accused. It's the
Speaker 1: opposite of credibly accused. I don't one more thing in
Speaker 1: this since I'm talking about Blassie Ford. She just I
Speaker 1: saw yesterday she I'm trying to think of what the
Speaker 1: what the award was called? Hold on, let me see
Speaker 1: if I can find this Christine blasi Ford, she got
Speaker 1: an award. Daily Wire reporting on this, had he give
Speaker 1: us an acceptance speech. She was in the cover of
Speaker 1: what was it? Time magazine? Here we Go, accepted an
Speaker 1: empowerment award from the YWCA Silicon Valley, gave a speech, etc. Etc. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, my friends, I'm just gonna I'm not letting
Speaker 1: this go because it's appalling what they did. The Kavanat's
Speaker 1: one of you. It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen
Speaker 1: in American politics. To this day. Still, I'm not letting
Speaker 1: go that the press pretended. And I remember having this
Speaker 1: dispute publicly with people. The press pretended at the time
Speaker 1: to be so dumb that they really didn't think that
Speaker 1: there was any upside for Christine blasi Ford for accusing Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Why would she lie? She has nothing to gain, they
Speaker 1: kept saying. I looked around, saying other than being famous,
Speaker 1: being revered, being rich, being a hero to the left,
Speaker 1: and fulfilling her own ideological beliefs to stop kavan Off
Speaker 1: from being on the court, to protect Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: most likely, those are all obvious things. And I was
Speaker 1: saying at the time, of course, she's gonna be she's
Speaker 1: gonna get a book deal, she's gonna be on the
Speaker 1: cover of Vanity Fair. All these things will happen. But
Speaker 1: they pretended because it was just necessary for the storyline
Speaker 1: at the time, trying to fool stupid people. The media
Speaker 1: pretended across the board to be a bunch of morons.
Speaker 1: Why would she lie? She has nothing to gain, She's
Speaker 1: got a ton of stuff to gain. Who the heck
Speaker 1: NoHo Christine blasi Ford was before? Now we all know
Speaker 1: her name. Now she gets awards. Now she's in the
Speaker 1: covers of magazines. Now, I'm sure wherever she goes, women
Speaker 1: who are leftists who don't know any better approach her
Speaker 1: and say thank you so much for what you did.
Speaker 1: You know, thank you for making up a story and
Speaker 1: trying to ruin a guy's life in front of his
Speaker 1: wife and children and all of America, because you know,
Speaker 1: Rovie Wade sacred. That's why, that's what she had to gain.
Speaker 1: This was obvious. Who didn't know that? I knew it,
Speaker 1: You knew it. Getting awards, I would just wait for
Speaker 1: the book to come out. Oh that'll be just give
Speaker 1: that some time. Ah. This is why, this is why
Speaker 1: no one is why you can't trust the media, can't
Speaker 1: trust the Democrats. If nothing else, take that from today.
Speaker 1: He recently attended the wedding there was also attended by
Speaker 1: Avanka Trump. What did you talk about? I was I
Speaker 1: was a little drunk. I expect nothing, and I was
Speaker 1: with Orlando Bloom, who I think was equally, if not
Speaker 1: slightly less drunk than I was. And we were stood
Speaker 1: at the bar and what did you say? And if
Speaker 1: Ana was also at the bar, and I can't I
Speaker 1: can't one hundred percent remember it, but I remember that
Speaker 1: that we were quite drunk, and we started going, if
Speaker 1: anky you can do something, you can do something, you
Speaker 1: can do something, you can make a difference, you can
Speaker 1: make a difference, you can make it better. And if
Speaker 1: Anker stuff was I remember if Unka was going, I'm trying.
Speaker 1: And then the night carried on. I kept drinking, and
Speaker 1: then the next day it was like a two day wedding.
Speaker 1: And the next day there was like a drinks thing
Speaker 1: in the afternoon, and I'd forgotten all about it until
Speaker 1: I saw her across this sort of garden and it
Speaker 1: all came back and she just said, I bet you've
Speaker 1: got a headache this morning, and like I just was like,
Speaker 1: can you just like do something. It's like, I'm not
Speaker 1: even from this country, but I just I believe that
Speaker 1: liberal narrative of you know, if Vunka could like maybe
Speaker 1: stop or Dad from being, you know, such a lunatic,
Speaker 1: And so I was this is I just I wish
Speaker 1: I could be and I would be so much more
Speaker 1: fun to be a left wing newsperson, a left person
Speaker 1: in the media, on the left, because you just walk
Speaker 1: around and you know that everyone's kind of gonna just
Speaker 1: love whatever stupid thing you say about this. All you
Speaker 1: can do is all you can do is come over
Speaker 1: into the darkness, just be anti Trump, and you just
Speaker 1: be like I want to. It was like you can
Speaker 1: do something. And I was drunk, and everyone's like, Oh,
Speaker 1: that's like awesome, because it's like it's like drunk hashtag resistance,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. It's fantastic. Yeah, not so much.
Speaker 1: I'm starting to like Mark Zuckerberg. His unorthodox haircut is
Speaker 1: something that might take him getting used to for me still.
Speaker 1: But but I like that he now has perhaps seen
Speaker 1: enough of the leftism out there and the desire for
Speaker 1: censorship which comes from the left, the desire for domination
Speaker 1: of information and speech and dissemination of all of that
Speaker 1: which comes from the left, that now he's like, Wow,
Speaker 1: these people are crazy. We got to figure out a
Speaker 1: way to allow for the exchange of ideas in what
Speaker 1: is a massively powerful platform Facebook. So he's been better.
Speaker 1: I think that what he's doing for example, on political
Speaker 1: ads is better than what Jack Dorsey's doing over at Twitter,
Speaker 1: which is, yeah, we're gonna let people pay for political ads,
Speaker 1: like we're not gonna do what the left wants here
Speaker 1: and try to rely on the built in, the built
Speaker 1: in advantages that the left tends to have in these
Speaker 1: platforms to make it organic, because it's never really organic.
Speaker 1: It's never really what it's just supposed to be. There's algorithms,
Speaker 1: and there's upgrading and downgrading and all these things. But
Speaker 1: some of you probably are familiar with Aaron Sorkin. Aaron
Speaker 1: Sorkin has made quite a name for himself as a
Speaker 1: screen He actually wrote The Social Network, the movie The
Speaker 1: Social Network, which was not particularly favorable to Mark Zuckerberg,
Speaker 1: by the way, but it's very It is a very
Speaker 1: entertaining movie for what it is, justin Timberlake, husband of
Speaker 1: Jessica Biel, did do a pretty good job in it,
Speaker 1: much to my chagrin anyway. But Aaron Sorkin in the
Speaker 1: New York Times has written an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 1: Facebook isn't defending free speech, it's assaulting the truth. M
Speaker 1: let's take a look at this, shall we. Mister Sorkin,
Speaker 1: who you know, and by the way, for making his
Speaker 1: name in Hollywood, for writing very snappy, witty dialogue between people.
Speaker 1: No one really talks like the way that the characters
Speaker 1: and Aaron Sorkin shows or movies talk. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just it's the weird. I mean, I guess some people
Speaker 1: find entertaining, but just it's very forced. I think. Here's
Speaker 1: what he writes in this EDITORI though, where he's telling
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg that it is assaulting truth instead of defending
Speaker 1: free speech. Quote, this is Aaron Sorkin. Most people don't
Speaker 1: have the resources to employ a battalion of fact checkers. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: while testifying before a congressional committee two weeks ago, Representative
Speaker 1: Alexandria Occasio Cortez asked you the following, do you see
Speaker 1: a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact
Speaker 1: checking on political advertisements? Then, when she pushed you further,
Speaker 1: asking you a Facebook would or would not take down lies,
Speaker 1: you answered, Congresswoman, in most cases, in a democracy, I
Speaker 1: believe people should be able to see for themselves what
Speaker 1: politicians they may or may not vote for are saying
Speaker 1: and judge their character for themselves. Now, if you tell me. Now,
Speaker 1: you tell me. If I'd known you felt that way,
Speaker 1: I'd have had the Winklevoss Twins invent Facebook. Ooh, burn
Speaker 1: burn the Winklevoss Twins and many Facebook. Oh no, that's
Speaker 1: because you know, the winkle Vast Twins are supposed to
Speaker 1: be the preppy elite, always get their way and don't.
Speaker 1: By the way, they're worth a ton of money now,
Speaker 1: not just from Facebook, but from cryptocurrency. They crushed it
Speaker 1: and being early in the cryptocurrency world. So those guys
Speaker 1: are you know, I don't know. They want to start
Speaker 1: a conservative Hey, Winklevoss Twins, you want to start a
Speaker 1: conservative media outlet? I know I know a guy. We
Speaker 1: could do some things. This guy's got cash to burn.
Speaker 1: But here's how Mark Zuckerberg responded, And like I said,
Speaker 1: I kind of like Zuck unleashed here. Zuck and Buck
Speaker 1: could be good. That may be fun. I gotta be
Speaker 1: fun guy to interview. Actually, America isn't easy. America is
Speaker 1: advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad because it's gonna
Speaker 1: put up a fight. It's gonna say you want free speech.
Speaker 1: Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your
Speaker 1: blood Boil who's standing center stage and advocating at the
Speaker 1: top of his lungs, which you would spend a lifetime
Speaker 1: opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim
Speaker 1: this land as the land of the free, then the
Speaker 1: symbol of your country can't be a flag just a flag.
Speaker 1: The symbol also has to be one of its citizens
Speaker 1: exercising his right to burn that flag and protest. Show
Speaker 1: me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then
Speaker 1: you can stand up and sing about the land of
Speaker 1: the free. That's what Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook. You
Speaker 1: know where it comes from. It was written by Aaron
Speaker 1: Sorkin in the movie The American President. Yeah, so clear
Speaker 1: that was meant to be a soaring moment of oratory
Speaker 1: in the film written by Aaron Sorkin, and so to that,
Speaker 1: I would just want to ask, hold on a moment,
Speaker 1: what changed between that movie, which I think came out
Speaker 1: in probably nineteen ninety eight or something. It was quite
Speaker 1: a bit old now and today that seems also true.
Speaker 1: In fact, these principles about I don't have to like
Speaker 1: your speech, but I'll defend to the death your right
Speaker 1: to say it. You know that this is what old
Speaker 1: school liberals used to say this was the standard way
Speaker 1: that they would approach these topics. You know, it became cliche,
Speaker 1: that phrase idea of whatever. I forget what the exact
Speaker 1: one is, but you know, you have these these old
Speaker 1: school liberals who believed in the freedom to burn flags
Speaker 1: and burn bras, and the freedom to say really bad stuff,
Speaker 1: and the freedom to march and to be you know,
Speaker 1: and to be racist. And you know they used Now
Speaker 1: you have in the pages of the most revered liberal
Speaker 1: outlets in the news outlets in the country, people on
Speaker 1: the editorial boards of the New York Times Washington Post
Speaker 1: advocating for hate speech laws criminalizing it. Now liberals will
Speaker 1: say that a couple of stupid and I believe drunk
Speaker 1: white kids walking across a campus and I think I
Speaker 1: can't remember they drunk or not, doesn't matter. And yelling
Speaker 1: the N word isn't just stupid and something that should
Speaker 1: be condemned, but should be criminal. You go to prison
Speaker 1: for that, for saying a word. And then I can
Speaker 1: go into a gym, as I did yesterday, to try
Speaker 1: to work out a little bit, and hear people blasting
Speaker 1: over the PA system songs with lots of people saying
Speaker 1: the N word. So some people can say it, it's fine,
Speaker 1: other people go to prison for it, and liberals today
Speaker 1: will say, yeah, that's the way it should be. Really,
Speaker 1: I thought freedom of speech was something we all agreed on.
Speaker 1: Here's the troubling reality. It's not just Aaron Sorkin. There
Speaker 1: are others too. Freedom of speech when it really matters,
Speaker 1: it's not something the left believes in anymore. They believe
Speaker 1: in power. They believe that they know what is right,
Speaker 1: that government should be empowered to do what they think
Speaker 1: is right, and anyone who stands in the way of
Speaker 1: that is bad, not just wrong, but bad. And all
Speaker 1: decision making, all policy disputes are taken through are pulled
Speaker 1: through that filter. First. This is troubling. This is not
Speaker 1: the way it's supposed to be, and this is not
Speaker 1: the way liberals were even going back a few you know,
Speaker 1: maybe five or ten years. It's it's been getting worse,
Speaker 1: I mean progressively with college campuses. They have the speech codes,
Speaker 1: and they've been trying to silence people that liberals now
Speaker 1: want censorship, and they want censorship help from the most
Speaker 1: powerful platforms of information exchange in the history of the world.
Speaker 1: And you have to remember that too. This isn't just
Speaker 1: you know, one abusive cleric in one town of Renaissance
Speaker 1: era Italy or something saying, no, we're going to burn
Speaker 1: these books. Okay, that's bad, but that's one town. This
Speaker 1: now would be information dominance and control of the dissemination
Speaker 1: of information on a global scale, much more powerful, much
Speaker 1: more far reaching. And what's at stake here is the
Speaker 1: perception of millions, hundreds of millions of people on any
Speaker 1: number of issues. And the left will not give this up.
Speaker 1: They want it the way they want it. They will
Speaker 1: not adhere to the principle here. They do not believe
Speaker 1: that people should have their say on this. There's only
Speaker 1: one say what they say. That's it. Mark Zuckerberg gets
Speaker 1: credit here. Man, that was a fantastic response to Aaron
Speaker 1: Sorkin calling him out. Aaron Sorkin's a sanctimonious lib. There's
Speaker 1: no surprise Mark Zuckerberg, I would think is a Democrat.
Speaker 1: But he seems to at least be a Democrat who,
Speaker 1: having built a very large company and having seen what
Speaker 1: the left of his own party believes about how that
Speaker 1: company should be run, now understands that the so called
Speaker 1: liberals and I hate that term for them, but they've
Speaker 1: used it specifically as a way of throwing us off
Speaker 1: the truth. They're not liberals. They are statists, they are progressives,
Speaker 1: they're leftists, they're socialists. But they are a threat to liberty.
Speaker 1: And that's not the talking point, that's not exaggeration. What
Speaker 1: liberties do we really have if we don't have the
Speaker 1: liberty to say things that liberals don't like, so called liberals,
Speaker 1: how can we be considered a free people if we're
Speaker 1: not free to say things that are offensive. This was central,
Speaker 1: This was taught in schools. This was one of the
Speaker 1: few areas where left and right could really come together
Speaker 1: and agree. They could coincide, they could have a worthwhile
Speaker 1: discussion about this, and at the end of the day
Speaker 1: they tended to be at least willing to adhere to
Speaker 1: the basic principle of free speech. It's gone now. It's
Speaker 1: just a question of how long it'll be on life
Speaker 1: support before liberals can completely eliminate it. They don't even
Speaker 1: aspire to share the basic tenets of free speech with us.
Speaker 1: They don't even they don't. They've openly embraced censoring things
Speaker 1: they don't like. They've openly embraced control of the government
Speaker 1: so that they can shut down things that they say
Speaker 1: are offensive. Mark Zuckerberg credit where it's due, not only
Speaker 1: just for slapping down Aaron Sorkin, who's just really insufferable.
Speaker 1: Just go watch a little bit of the West Wing.
Speaker 1: It's so cute, both sides presented. But like the Left
Speaker 1: is always a little smarter, a little better, a little
Speaker 1: more moral, a little more courageous. And the Democrats are
Speaker 1: always the good guys. Really, the Conservatives are basically all
Speaker 1: being paid off by big oil or something, or they
Speaker 1: just need some really clever lib to explain to them. Why,
Speaker 1: you know, drooling in anmore is a terrible idea, And
Speaker 1: I remember that one in that show. I would try
Speaker 1: to watch some of it, but I've seen a few
Speaker 1: episodes and it's just a fantasy land for liberals where
Speaker 1: they win every argument. And John Stewart basically took that
Speaker 1: format of the Daily Show. Let's have a comedy show
Speaker 1: where we talk about the issues of the day and
Speaker 1: just make fun of the other side and present straw
Speaker 1: man arguments and our side always wins. People love this stuff.
Speaker 1: They love it. I loved it during the Bush administration
Speaker 1: to pretend that there was really an alternative presidency on TV.
Speaker 1: That's what it was, with Martin Sheen in the role
Speaker 1: of the what was it Jeff Bartlett I think was
Speaker 1: his name or something. Brilliant all American professor from New
Speaker 1: Hampshire who's a Democrat. Yeah, I wonder if Jeff Bartlett
Speaker 1: thinks that they're two genders. Would be a fun question
Speaker 1: to ask on that show. But the show's gone. Now, Well,
Speaker 1: it's happening, my friends. President Trump is moving to Florida.
Speaker 1: That's right. It has been established now that the President
Speaker 1: of the United States is officially changing his personal residence.
Speaker 1: Obviously technically lives in DC, but he would he now
Speaker 1: will be a resident of the great State of Florida.
Speaker 1: Reasons for this are pretty clear, right, Florida no state
Speaker 1: income tax. Florida is a place that has better weather
Speaker 1: than New York, I'll just admit it, and better politics
Speaker 1: than New York. At least there's some red parts of Florida.
Speaker 1: There's some real conservatism, some Republican politics that matter in Florida.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately here in DC, I'm sorry, in New York. Also
Speaker 1: true in DC where I used to live. Here in
Speaker 1: New York, that is not the case. There is, in fact,
Speaker 1: no real Republican party in New York City that really
Speaker 1: does very much or does much of anything. So I
Speaker 1: just wanted to share this with those looking for this.
Speaker 1: So you got the President United States saying that he's
Speaker 1: leaving the place that he's called, the state that he's
Speaker 1: called his primary home for his entire adult life. He's
Speaker 1: from here. Everyone's forgets that eighty percent of New York
Speaker 1: City voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election. I
Speaker 1: think so many people forget that somehow Hillary Clinton a total,
Speaker 1: you know, transplant to New York, a fraud in that
Speaker 1: regard one a lot of regards. She's more embraced by
Speaker 1: New York than a guy who's a native born New
Speaker 1: Yorker who's lived here his whole life and been really
Speaker 1: a part of the city his whole life. Just goes
Speaker 1: to show you the power of Democrat narrative in politics.
Speaker 1: But in response to this, you had a mayor Build
Speaker 1: a Blasio tweet out, don't let the door hit you
Speaker 1: on the way out or whatever. Andrew Cuomo, the Governor
Speaker 1: of New York, good riddance. It's not like real Donald
Speaker 1: Trump paid taxes here. Anyway, He's all yours Florida. The
Speaker 1: first Lady of New York City, Charlaine McCray, the wife
Speaker 1: of Mayor Bill de Blasio, just wrote boy bye in
Speaker 1: reference to Donald Trump leaving, and Mayor Bill de Blasio
Speaker 1: also wrote our deepest condolences to the good people of
Speaker 1: Florida as Trump attempts to outrun his past and near future.
Speaker 1: So here you have the politician, politicians for the City
Speaker 1: of New York and for the State of New York,
Speaker 1: who are celebrating the loss of probably the most well
Speaker 1: I think you could say now, no question, the most
Speaker 1: famous New Yorker alive. And because of the tax situation,
Speaker 1: and also I'm sure at some level, because of the
Speaker 1: insane politics of this city, which increasingly people don't realize.
Speaker 1: Wall Street is liberal. Everybody needs to get this through
Speaker 1: their heads. Most people on Wall Street, most of these
Speaker 1: hedge fund billionaires, these people they like Hillary, they donate
Speaker 1: to Democrats. Wall Street is liberal. It's not some bastion
Speaker 1: of right wing stuff. Yeah, they want lower taxes, maybe
Speaker 1: that's it. They want to keep more of their money
Speaker 1: on everything else. Trust me, they're socially liberal. They're probably
Speaker 1: all about climate change. This is just you know, the
Speaker 1: rest of the country. Because you hear hell hush about
Speaker 1: the Warren Whyn't she talks about, huh, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a tax on Wall Street? People say, oh yeah, those
Speaker 1: right wingers on there's the right wing Wall Street. They're
Speaker 1: people who are on Wall Street. But overwhelmingly golden sacks,
Speaker 1: liberal liberal place, left wing donates. The Dems. You got
Speaker 1: on the line, these big financially, these megabanks, financial institutions,
Speaker 1: they're all about supporting Democrats, all about supporting the left.
Speaker 1: So you just look at the donations. Somehow rich people
Speaker 1: gets conflated with Republicans all the time, and it's it's
Speaker 1: total nonsense. This is where I have to think, Man,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it'd be kind of nice to move
Speaker 1: down to Florida got better weather. I have to think
Speaker 1: of where i'd go. Miami comes to mind from because
Speaker 1: I'm a single guy and that would be kind of fun.
Speaker 1: But Palm Beach, I hear is very very nice. West
Speaker 1: Palm Beach, I hear is very nice. Other places in
Speaker 1: Florida that are, you know, more up and coming or
Speaker 1: a little less a little less bougie. Perhaps what's there
Speaker 1: where would you if you had to move a Tampa
Speaker 1: has some great places. Naples has some great stuff. Where's
Speaker 1: the where if you had to move to Florida to
Speaker 1: Marrow producing Mark, where to be? I'd like the West
Speaker 1: Palm area. West Palm. I have some family down there.
Speaker 1: Really nice. Yeah. I used to live in Coral Springs, Florida.
Speaker 1: Actually from middle and high school. I I live there.
Speaker 1: How was it? I mean, as a kid, it's a
Speaker 1: lot different, just because I couldn't drive a lot of
Speaker 1: old people stuff like that. So as a kid, I
Speaker 1: would say it was bad. But now that there's no
Speaker 1: state income tax in Florida, I'd go in a second.
Speaker 1: I probably need to spend time in the pan Handle,
Speaker 1: right Jacksonville and places like that that are up in
Speaker 1: the red part of Florida. Don't go to Key West.
Speaker 1: They get obliterated by hurricanes all the time. I've been
Speaker 1: then there a couple of times. Don't move there. Yeh,
Speaker 1: don't move there. You can go to Key West. Nice
Speaker 1: place to visit. That's where the party ad anytime you
Speaker 1: want to move the Freedom Hut down there. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: want to move to Florida. You're good, I'm some I'm
Speaker 1: gonna think about. But no state income tax. That's all
Speaker 1: that matters New York City. I think it's like, what
Speaker 1: is it twelve or thirteenth or something ridiculous? Outrageous for
Speaker 1: what I did. I mean the stuff you have to
Speaker 1: deal with here in this city sometimes. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of your saying, buck, come out to wherever. Probably
Speaker 1: got a great place, man, I don't even want to
Speaker 1: know how far my money would go. And a wonderful
Speaker 1: city like Omaha be great. I have a great time there.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call, man. I can't believe another
Speaker 1: week of fantastic shows done here in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for listening. I hope you're enjoying
Speaker 1: also watching us on the first which is on Pluto
Speaker 1: TV and you can watch the channel two forty eight.
Speaker 1: If you're listening on the radio or the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can watch a video live stream of the radio show.
Speaker 1: Please do check it out, and thank you so much
Speaker 1: for that. I also want to say today, in case
Speaker 1: she is listening, happy birthday to my mom, Missus Sexton.
Speaker 1: She is the only Missus Sexton running around right now.
Speaker 1: Because some of the kids are taking you know, not,
Speaker 1: We're not The boys are not married yet so Mom,
Speaker 1: Happy birthday or the best mom in the world. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for our support. Love you and you
Speaker 1: know like a day over thirty five. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get to what we have going on here in the
Speaker 1: role call inbox Wayne, Hey Buck. I started listening to
Speaker 1: your show recently from Denver. I've gotten tired of Hannity, etc.
Speaker 1: Because they all seem to allow the leftist to control
Speaker 1: the game by going into defense mode for Trump even
Speaker 1: though he's done nothing. It reminds me of the years
Speaker 1: I've spent in Ukraine listening to and reading Ukrainian, American
Speaker 1: and Russian media. Putin would commit crimes and incursions against Ukraine,
Speaker 1: then immediately accused Kiev. It's actually they say, Kiev, I
Speaker 1: believe over there of the crime, or justify the crime
Speaker 1: as a protection of Russian families in Ukraine. Ukraine would
Speaker 1: go right into defense mode and try to explain what
Speaker 1: really happened, sometimes making themselves seem like a guilty party,
Speaker 1: falling all over themselves in reactive response. Putin owned them
Speaker 1: every time, running the game as a propaganda master. Kiev, Brussels,
Speaker 1: Washington would all scramble. When Putin went to lunch in
Speaker 1: Sochi with his twenty five year old mistress. My question,
Speaker 1: when will we stop reacting to kremlines strategy and start
Speaker 1: controlling the game? Hearing all the punts squawking about what
Speaker 1: the Dems are doing, the Dems are playing everyone for
Speaker 1: idiots and winning the pr game. Thanks Buck, Wayne. If
Speaker 1: you're asking me when, Wayne, I think the answer is
Speaker 1: it may never happen. Democrats excel at propaganda. Democrats have
Speaker 1: control of the media, They've control of the academy, they
Speaker 1: have control of most of these social media platforms that
Speaker 1: really move the conversation. Right now, how do we go
Speaker 1: on offense? And we just keep fighting, just keep fighting.
Speaker 1: It's never this battle has never done. There's no victory.
Speaker 1: There's only just you know, the day to day who's
Speaker 1: winning right now? The score changes all the time, and
Speaker 1: the stakes are the future of this country and in
Speaker 1: some ways the future of the of the world. So
Speaker 1: it matters. It certainly matters, Michael. Let's see here. Indeed,
Speaker 1: the Trump legacy may very well become his unprecedented effective
Speaker 1: outing double agent statists, swampers, and leftists from their cozy
Speaker 1: little fiefdoms, if only enough voters would recognize them. At
Speaker 1: primary time instead of being played by the state committees.
Speaker 1: Don't really like mandatory term limits, but I'm all into
Speaker 1: the current agenda of Convention of States. Thanks for all
Speaker 1: the great radio work, Mike in Pennsylvania. Well, Mike, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for writing in. And yes, Trump has
Speaker 1: definitely had this side effect of exposing people, in some
Speaker 1: cases people who have been supposedly conservatives for a very
Speaker 1: long time. That's been interesting to see that happen. And yes,
Speaker 1: I would have to agree with you that there's there
Speaker 1: are a lot of benefits of Trumpism that I could
Speaker 1: not have even expected from the beginning. I think he's
Speaker 1: done quite a good job with them. Uh let's see,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, it's from marine and producer Mark Human of
Speaker 1: Mystery about that whole polyamory thing. Oh no, this sorry,
Speaker 1: we already read this one. This was about the book
Speaker 1: wants to talk about polyamory and Polly something or other
Speaker 1: another one. What's this polyandry? What was the other one?
Speaker 1: We learned this other one though, poly andry. That's one
Speaker 1: woman with more than one husband. Yeah. I just want
Speaker 1: to point out you were reading the email where we
Speaker 1: learned it. Yeah, so you could have just looked down Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I know. I'm just that's what I'm That's what I did.
Speaker 1: Took me a second. Polyandry was the new one that
Speaker 1: I learned about. That one sounds the worst. You learn
Speaker 1: something new every day. I'm gonna have a wife and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna sharing it with multiple dudes. This is the worst.
Speaker 1: Now do you have to be intimate with the other dudes?
Speaker 1: I don't know. That's a that's an interesting question. That
Speaker 1: is another if Maureene can write in and tell us
Speaker 1: that in other part of it? Right? Or is it
Speaker 1: just like a harem, except you're it's a it's a dude,
Speaker 1: it's a man harem. You know what I mean, like
Speaker 1: you take turns. Yeah, yeah, I know. To look and
Speaker 1: the people are pushing this lifestyle these days of Polly whatever,
Speaker 1: and I'm just trying to learn. I'm just trying to Oh,
Speaker 1: we got somebody else who wrote it on this, Jacob
Speaker 1: writes Buck, I'm a millennial six months older than you,
Speaker 1: os Team Buck, Las Vegas. Here, I'm listening to Friday's
Speaker 1: show as I write this. I've seen a show on
Speaker 1: polyamory already. About twelve years ago, the Learning Channel ran
Speaker 1: a documentary series that followed a couple of polyamorous relationships.
Speaker 1: There was a married couple who shared a girlfriend and
Speaker 1: a woman who had two line a live in boyfriends.
Speaker 1: I watched it once out of curiosity and couldn't make
Speaker 1: myself watch it again. I thought, you want to know
Speaker 1: you're right without knowing it. Keep it up. PS, The
Speaker 1: La Panto Show is the coolest two hours in the
Speaker 1: history of digital media. And long live commy bearra Man Jacob,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Yeah, we didn't talk about La
Speaker 1: Panto Day October seventh this year, but you can still
Speaker 1: find it on the internet. We should just drop that
Speaker 1: into the feed. It'd be fun get everyone to listen to.
Speaker 1: Next year, we'll just drop the La Panto Show as
Speaker 1: an extra into the into the feed. And why not.
Speaker 1: I'll be fun. I think, yeah, we could definitely do that.
Speaker 1: I miss it. I miss it. Little Panto Show was
Speaker 1: good times. Chuck rhymes with buck. So if Trump is
Speaker 1: impeached by the super secret impeachment, will he even know
Speaker 1: he is impeached? I realized that we should expect a
Speaker 1: trial or something, but the way the Dems are doing things,
Speaker 1: why should that happen? Everon agrees and impeaching would be
Speaker 1: destructive to our democracy, so wouldn't For the sake of
Speaker 1: the country, it'd be better to keep the whole process secret.
Speaker 1: This is no more ridiculous than many other claims they
Speaker 1: have made recently. That leads back to the question what
Speaker 1: Trump even no he was impeached? What might that look like?
Speaker 1: What do you think, Buck? I'm not really sure what
Speaker 1: we're being asked. I'm not really sure whether if Trump
Speaker 1: is impeached, will he even know he is impeached? Yes,
Speaker 1: I think he would know if he's impeached. So and
Speaker 1: then right, I think he's asking me if the Dems
Speaker 1: are even gonna do a trial with Trump there like
Speaker 1: they did with it. I believe they did that. Within
Speaker 1: if they're even going to do a trial, they're just
Speaker 1: impeach him with that him even there. I think that's
Speaker 1: what he's getting at. Yeah, Okay, Well the answers I
Speaker 1: don't know, so we'll have to see what they end
Speaker 1: up doing. I gotta go back. I was too young
Speaker 1: to remember much of the Trump, I mean, the Clinton
Speaker 1: impeachment stuff, so I should go and check some of
Speaker 1: that stuff out. This is where being a graybeard millennial
Speaker 1: is not fantastic because you don't have the institutional knowledge
Speaker 1: of being an adult who is politically involved at that
Speaker 1: point in time. All right, my name is Hunter and
Speaker 1: I am twelve. I really enjoy your show. I listen
Speaker 1: to it every day after school. You've really helped me
Speaker 1: enjoy politics. I've been listening for about a year now.
Speaker 1: I heard my dad listen to it and I thought
Speaker 1: it was cool. Well, Hunter, I think you're cool. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for listening to the show. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Give your dad a big high five and a hug
Speaker 1: from all of us here in the Freedom Hunt. And
Speaker 1: it's great to have so many twelve years old man
Speaker 1: listen to the show every day. That's really really cool.
Speaker 1: I am humbled and very appreciative. So thank you so much. Hunter.
Speaker 1: Stay with it. You'll never turn into a crazy lib
Speaker 1: like the rest of them. Dan, Hey Buck, I am.
Speaker 1: I am original Saturday Squad from Green Bay, Wisconsin. Was
Speaker 1: having dinner with my wife the other night and found
Speaker 1: this gluten free beer had a pine felt that had
Speaker 1: to be a serviceable alternative. If you're ever in the
Speaker 1: Green Bay area, let me know I'll buy you one. Dan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I have never been up to
Speaker 1: a Green Bay, but if I get up there, I
Speaker 1: will certainly reach out. And I appreciate very much hearing
Speaker 1: from you, my man. And gluten free beer is okay
Speaker 1: if you really, if you're going to go that route,
Speaker 1: somebody who has ciliac disease. I've had to think about
Speaker 1: this stuff. Cider producer, Mark is what you because cider
Speaker 1: is naturally gluten free. I was just going to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that cider, it can be fan to actually have. I
Speaker 1: have some tart cider in my fridge. That's really excellent.
Speaker 1: There's actually a place out on Long Island and Riverhead
Speaker 1: called the Riverhead Cider House. Really they have They make
Speaker 1: their own ciders. They're delicious. Yeah, no ciders like candy. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's yeah. I was gonna say, don't know how to
Speaker 1: sugars there, that's the problem. You're basically drinking like Mott's
Speaker 1: apple juice with a little bit of booth thrown into it. Basically, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's still good though. It's delicious, delicious, It's delicious. Gina, Gina,
Speaker 1: here we go. Watching you on the Blaze about four
Speaker 1: to five years ago, while living in Texas was a
Speaker 1: start of my political awakening. I've not stopped searching since
Speaker 1: that time thanks to you. I've also called you twice
Speaker 1: while I lived in Charlotte's. So happy to finally see
Speaker 1: you on TV again, Gina. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: watching me on TV again. Thank you for being a
Speaker 1: part of what we do here in the Freedom Hut.
Speaker 1: I very much appreciated. It really means a lot. Noah, Wow,
Speaker 1: here we go. Oh no, Noah rode in. Some of
Speaker 1: these are old emails that look like their new emails.
Speaker 1: Why did that happen? He was fifteen? He's writing in
Speaker 1: about minimum wage. We got I've got to do a
Speaker 1: better job. Okay, you know what, I'm just gonna go.
Speaker 1: Let's do some Facebook. All right. Now we get into
Speaker 1: the Facebook portion of this and homage in a sense
Speaker 1: to Mark Zuckerberg, who we had to give a high
Speaker 1: five to today for slapping down sanctimonious Aaron Sorkin on
Speaker 1: the show. All right, let us let us get let
Speaker 1: us get two itch my friends. Uh, let's see where
Speaker 1: are we here? We're doing the Facebook? Okay, yes, par
Speaker 1: pardon me. We have Alex who writes, hey, Buck, I
Speaker 1: worked for a congressman, and he recently quoted Buck during
Speaker 1: a floor speech in Congress. He'd like to send Buck
Speaker 1: a copy of the speech. Is there a mailing address
Speaker 1: that I could send this too? I'm very happy to
Speaker 1: verify everything, so you know this is in some sort
Speaker 1: of scam. Sure I got quoted by re member Congress
Speaker 1: on the floor. Look at that. Yeah, we can DM
Speaker 1: him personally. Yeah, we'll send the stuff. Yeah, the congressman
Speaker 1: can call on Buck. I loved your quote or whatever
Speaker 1: it was. The Buck is very quotable. Charlie, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: Charlie from Penn State. My question is how do you
Speaker 1: go to a wedding without a date. That's sad haha,
Speaker 1: jokes aside, I'm a big fan shield Side. Well, sorry
Speaker 1: that some of us have had to go to weddings
Speaker 1: without a date. Sometimes, you know, it's a thing that
Speaker 1: can happen. I'll never have to worry about this again
Speaker 1: because you will be married very soon. Yeah. The only
Speaker 1: weddings I've gone too, at least as an adult. I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about as a kid, I've had a date. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean if it's a family wedding, though in your situation,
Speaker 1: it's not that big of a deal. But like my
Speaker 1: wedding for example, you're not gonna go without a day.
Speaker 1: You only know me, exactly, You're not gonna see me, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: you got every the other else. You're just like a
Speaker 1: stranger wander around the no anybody at all, No I know,
Speaker 1: I know. Well. Also, wedding crashers is propaganda, damn it.
Speaker 1: That's not that's not how it works. You don't go
Speaker 1: to a wedding and you don't know anybody's remember they're
Speaker 1: crashing weddings. They don't know. You don't go to wedding,
Speaker 1: you don't know anybody, and there's nothing but beautiful bridesmaids
Speaker 1: who are like, I just like really need someone to
Speaker 1: give me some love and attention. Now, Like, that's not
Speaker 1: how it happens. The bridesmaids are all being shuttled by
Speaker 1: Bridezilla back in fourth for photos and gotta be in
Speaker 1: place at the time, and the whole thing. It's not
Speaker 1: You're not like dancing around with a bunch of sports
Speaker 1: illustrated swimsuit models who are like, I just feel the
Speaker 1: need for some love because I'm not getting married and
Speaker 1: she is. That's not how it works. That's what it
Speaker 1: looks like. A wedding crashers the anger and your voice
Speaker 1: makes me think that you don't understand the concept of
Speaker 1: a movie. Buck, No, because I saw wedding Crashers and
Speaker 1: I thought to myself, this is the way it's supposed
Speaker 1: to be. But it's not a documentary. Yeah, but no
Speaker 1: one thinks it's a documentary. Obviously. Just made me sad.
Speaker 1: Could you start a fraternity like an old school? Yes,
Speaker 1: you could, if you wouldn't be that much fun. Probably not.
Speaker 1: I'm just I think it was false promises. That's all
Speaker 1: I'm trying to say. Braham Rights. You keep saying you
Speaker 1: don't have a college team to cheer four, You're more
Speaker 1: than welcome to cheer for the Oklahoma Sooners. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, man. I will, I will when I found
Speaker 1: What is a Sooner? I don't know, but I know
Speaker 1: it's the nickname for the team. I figured out out too,
Speaker 1: Thanks Sherlock. But I'm just saying there's I don't know
Speaker 1: what a Sooner is. We'll figure that out. I'll go
Speaker 1: for it. Here we go, Jeremy writs, Buck. If you're
Speaker 1: over the age twenty five and don't have or work
Speaker 1: with kids, you should be banned from wearing Halloween costumes. Also,
Speaker 1: even as a graduate of a Big ten school and
Speaker 1: with an above average basketball program. I agree with you
Speaker 1: that school should be for school. If people are so
Speaker 1: bent on college athletes getting paid, maybe they can be
Speaker 1: compensated for how far they go in their respective college tournament,
Speaker 1: something crazy like rewarding excellent, since that's how the real
Speaker 1: world works. Shields High Jeremy, Yeah. I mean, people will
Speaker 1: get very emotionally attached to college athletics, and so when
Speaker 1: I tell them that, I'm not saying we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: college sports or college competition. I'm just saying we shouldn't
Speaker 1: do this thing. We shouldn't do this thing where we
Speaker 1: pretend that people that are coming to these schools are
Speaker 1: students when they're really just athletic mercenaries who are brought
Speaker 1: in to do that. And some of them can barely read,
Speaker 1: can barely do the most basic of classes in college.
Speaker 1: And it's just it. Also, the whole focus of these
Speaker 1: schools on, oh, is our team winning. The focus should
Speaker 1: be on like what's the average sat the incoming class,
Speaker 1: and what jobs are people getting when they graduate and
Speaker 1: how much are they earning, and like that should really
Speaker 1: be the school pride. I hate the school pride to
Speaker 1: me about how good is this school at preparing people
Speaker 1: to be successful and excellent adults. Not? Yeah a team
Speaker 1: went nine and pool last year? Yea, who cares? And
Speaker 1: I know I get I can hear the booze. Who cares.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying don't watch and enjoy. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: when you're a student in the school. You know, if
Speaker 1: they win, they lose. Fine, you know, school pride is fine.
Speaker 1: But I know it's like it's like I'm a communist
Speaker 1: now everyone hates this. Why can't you do both? Fuck?
Speaker 1: Why can't you be invested in the college sports teams
Speaker 1: and be a good student. I'm gonna say you can't
Speaker 1: be a good student to be invests in college sports.
Speaker 1: That would be crazy. I'm saying the focus of the
Speaker 1: school and administrators is too heavily on their athletic programs
Speaker 1: at some of these big major schools, and it's just
Speaker 1: not what school is supposed to be. I mean saying, like,
Speaker 1: let's take Ohio State for example, We're going to go there.
Speaker 1: They're a good school too. Yeah, it's a good school too,
Speaker 1: but most of the top programs are also good schools. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just add why can't they just
Speaker 1: have like people show up and do tryouts. Why do
Speaker 1: they have to have all this recruiting and all this nonsense?
Speaker 1: Who cares? Because they need to make money. I mean
Speaker 1: there is a saying that's the big schools. It's not
Speaker 1: all the schools. And what I'm really talking about is like,
Speaker 1: why does Princeton recruit for the squash team? Who the
Speaker 1: hell cares? It makes no sense. Princeton and other Ivy
Speaker 1: League schools don't allow scholarships, Yeah, but they still recruit,
Speaker 1: they still bring but get in otherwise top tier. Not necessarily.
Speaker 1: It depends on the sport. Look at you with the
Speaker 1: sports knowledge over here, actually know some stuff. Yes, yea
Speaker 1: my background in sportspot I remember this night. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: it's you know, I went to Amherst and we had
Speaker 1: guys who are on the football team who could who
Speaker 1: could like barely put a sentence together. And I was
Speaker 1: always like, what four it's a D three school. They stink?
Speaker 1: Who cares? But that was my experience. That was my experience.
Speaker 1: What what do I what I know except about everything?
Speaker 1: Please tell people this weekend. First of all, right, in
Speaker 1: to tell producer Mark that he's wrong and Buck is right.
Speaker 1: That's always important, so that he knows that Teambucket. iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: dot com, Facebook dot com, Slashbuck Sexton, please tell somebody
Speaker 1: about the show this weekend. I hope you're enjoying the
Speaker 1: Pluto stream Channel two forty eight, the first on Pluto TV.
Speaker 1: And uh oh yeah, that's right, Shields High