Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A horrific mass shooting
Speaker 1: targeting Muslims in New Zealand has politics inflamed in this country.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about what this terrorist was trying to accomplish,
Speaker 1: what we can do to stop future acts like this,
Speaker 1: and also all the latest from politics here in the
Speaker 1: Swamp and on Capitol Hill. That and more coming up
Speaker 1: on the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show where the mission or mission is to decode what
Speaker 1: really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember
Speaker 1: this was an attack aimed deliberately at Muslims. A live
Speaker 1: streaming the massacre via a camera mounted on his head.
Speaker 1: We are not showing any of that video at this point,
Speaker 1: but I have watched it for the sake of our reporting.
Speaker 1: It shows the gunman driving calmly toward a mosque playing music,
Speaker 1: talking to himself saying, let's get this party started. He
Speaker 1: then takes weapons from his trunk. He walks toward the mosque,
Speaker 1: which was filling up for Friday prayers. He opens fire,
Speaker 1: gunning down at least two men at the doorway. Then
Speaker 1: he walks inside, he shoots every single person he can see.
Speaker 1: He reloads several times, and at one point goes back
Speaker 1: into a room where two large groups are laying on
Speaker 1: the floor, many of them clearly already dead, some just wounded,
Speaker 1: and he walks calmly around taking kill shots, finishing off
Speaker 1: his victims with head or body shots. It's a tragic
Speaker 1: day for the whole world today because of what has
Speaker 1: happened here in New Zealand. People are understandably rattled, shocked, outraged, furious.
Speaker 1: Forty nine people dead at prayer, forty over forty people wounded,
Speaker 1: and clearly this is one of these national international news
Speaker 1: stories that is going to force a lot of conversations,
Speaker 1: some of them constructive, most of them not. Though within
Speaker 1: minutes of this incident first coming up, within minutes of
Speaker 1: this first becoming something that people were talking about, there
Speaker 1: was an effort to begin to pin to pin blame
Speaker 1: to find. You know, the blame should be pretty straightforward
Speaker 1: in these situations, and I think you all know that
Speaker 1: it is the shooter, the terrorists, the person who engaged
Speaker 1: in these violent acts is the person that we all
Speaker 1: should first and foremost think about as the one deserving
Speaker 1: of blame. They're now in There are a few people
Speaker 1: in custody in New Zealand. But we didn't even have
Speaker 1: the details in fully on this. We did not have
Speaker 1: all that much information when it came about that you
Speaker 1: had some of the most prominent Democrat politicians in the
Speaker 1: country deciding that they would find a way to make
Speaker 1: this about Trump, that this was Trump's fault. Now, I
Speaker 1: read through the entire manifesto of the shooter, as is
Speaker 1: becoming a custom of people in the media. Now, I
Speaker 1: don't know how useful it really is. I don't know
Speaker 1: that it will work. Although there is some research to
Speaker 1: show that these mass shooters crave fame and attention, and
Speaker 1: so the more you give them, the likelier there'll be
Speaker 1: other people that follow when their foots steps. But so
Speaker 1: I won't name him. I don't feel particularly strongly about
Speaker 1: naming one way or the other. But there's there seems
Speaker 1: to be a movement among people in the media that
Speaker 1: I respect, and then I think have good judgment to
Speaker 1: try to avoid just repeating over and over again the
Speaker 1: name of the person who is responsible for this. And
Speaker 1: I did, however, read the manifesto, and there are parts
Speaker 1: in it that were seized upon immediately by Democrats and
Speaker 1: by the mainstream media in this country as a see
Speaker 1: this is tied to the right. The guy said that
Speaker 1: he did not like Trump's policies at all, but he
Speaker 1: likes Trump as a symbol of white nationalism something along
Speaker 1: those lines. He also had a bizarre reference in his manifesto,
Speaker 1: which has been making a lot of This reference in particular,
Speaker 1: has got a lot of attention that I to Candice Owens,
Speaker 1: who I know her work. I know Candice a little bit.
Speaker 1: I've worked with her before. She has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with targeting Muslims or violence or any I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just the guy might as well have said, you know
Speaker 1: a person whose work I really admire is you know,
Speaker 1: Luciano Pavaratti. I mean, it has nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1: But people seized on that and they tried to say
Speaker 1: that this is just indicative of the way that the
Speaker 1: right wing is fanning these flames of resentment and violence.
Speaker 1: You know, let's let's now take a look, let's step
Speaker 1: back from what the media narrative is of this and
Speaker 1: try to get to a bit more of what the
Speaker 1: truth is here. There are billions of people in the world.
Speaker 1: The truth is that mass shootings on a percentage basis
Speaker 1: around the world are actually are actually quite rare, and
Speaker 1: that a shooting like this by a self described white nationalist,
Speaker 1: as horrific and deeply disturbing as it is, is fortunately
Speaker 1: also very rare. This shooter viewed Anders Brevic, who was
Speaker 1: the shooter in Norway some years ago, as an inspiration
Speaker 1: for him. Bravick was, I think almost a decade ago.
Speaker 1: Now this is a rarity. Doesn't mean it's not horrible.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that there won't be and should not
Speaker 1: be follow on consequences and conversations to this. But the
Speaker 1: effort to make this somehow Donald Trump's fault is just
Speaker 1: unfair in every respect. The media and the people in
Speaker 1: the media who are the different different outlets who are
Speaker 1: taking this as an opportunity to score cheap points against
Speaker 1: President Trump, I think they do a disservice to everyone
Speaker 1: right now because there are some things that are not
Speaker 1: political at all. There are some things that aren't about
Speaker 1: where you stand on the US or any other political spectrum. Really,
Speaker 1: it's just about being a human being, and no person
Speaker 1: who was decent, who is moral, who is in his
Speaker 1: or her right mind has anything but contempt for somebody
Speaker 1: who would go into a house of a worship, a
Speaker 1: house of prayer and gun down completely innocent and totally
Speaker 1: helpless people. Instead of uniting in this country and condemnation
Speaker 1: of what happened here, there has been a very clear
Speaker 1: immediate backlash against anybody who is a political target of
Speaker 1: the left. They are playing this game that I've seen
Speaker 1: many times before. Whenever there is jee hottest terrorism, they
Speaker 1: immediately want to explain to us all that gee hottests
Speaker 1: are a very small percentage, that this is not the
Speaker 1: true Islam, that has nothing to do with Islam. And
Speaker 1: I actually think there's a much more in depth conversation
Speaker 1: to be had about whether it has to do with
Speaker 1: Islam or not, and whether you know that there's there's
Speaker 1: real discussion to be had there, and the left never
Speaker 1: wants to have it. They say even bringing that up
Speaker 1: is racist. You know when Obama said famously, the Islamic
Speaker 1: State is not the Islamic North State, Uh, you know
Speaker 1: that that's that was a very debatable proposition. And there
Speaker 1: are a lot of groups all over the world that
Speaker 1: seem confused and regimes that run whole countries that seem
Speaker 1: confused about what the true Islam is. Um. That's not
Speaker 1: to say that Muslims around the world are all radicals,
Speaker 1: quite the quite the opposite, ninety nine plus percent of them,
Speaker 1: or just folks like you and me just trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, take care of the families, feed the kids,
Speaker 1: go about their day to day lives. But an ideology
Speaker 1: of over a billion people is going to have, Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: even with a very small percentage, a large contingent of
Speaker 1: radicals that can be very disruptive, as we saw as
Speaker 1: we have seen in recent years, and horrifically destructive as
Speaker 1: we saw on nine to eleven. White nationalists as a
Speaker 1: as a terror group are in my view, exaggerated as
Speaker 1: a threat in most public discourse and most of the
Speaker 1: news media's mind. And the notion that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: somehow a white nationalist. I mean, this is a guy
Speaker 1: who is born and raised in New York City and
Speaker 1: no one ever thought he was a white nationalist until
Speaker 1: he ran for president. And now they really think this.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they believe it or if it's
Speaker 1: just useful for them to pretend. On the front page
Speaker 1: of the Washington Post right now, Trump downplays the risk
Speaker 1: of white nationalism. Quote, it's a small group of people.
Speaker 1: That's what the Washington Post is saying. The truth is,
Speaker 1: it is a small group of people. You know, I
Speaker 1: work in conservative media. I know a lot of very
Speaker 1: hardline right wingers. A lot of them are my friends,
Speaker 1: and we all have absolute contempt for white nationalists, neo Nazis,
Speaker 1: anybody like that. We think that not only we have
Speaker 1: contempt for them, we think they're losers. We think they're idiots.
Speaker 1: They don't know anything. Their ideology is really just based
Speaker 1: on resentment of everything because their lives aren't what they
Speaker 1: think they should be, and so they look for answers,
Speaker 1: they look for explanations for that. But there is no
Speaker 1: global support for white nationalism. There is no global threat
Speaker 1: of white nationalism taking over a country. You know, Look
Speaker 1: what you have in Iran, Look what you had in
Speaker 1: the Islamic State in Syria, Look what you had an Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: In these other plays, white nationalism is not about to
Speaker 1: take over a country and maybe get nukes. And these
Speaker 1: are not equivalent forces for global destabilization and for violence
Speaker 1: and causing violence around the world. They're not even they're
Speaker 1: not even close. But right now, what we are being
Speaker 1: told is that President Trump is in some way partially
Speaker 1: responsible for this, and it's so deeply destructive and the
Speaker 1: people who are saying it should be ashamed of themselves
Speaker 1: because there's nothing to back this up whatsoever. But they
Speaker 1: know that the hatred of this president is such that
Speaker 1: they won't even give him. They won't even give him
Speaker 1: the good faith of what is obviously the case that
Speaker 1: President Trump hates what happened in New Zealand, despises this shooter,
Speaker 1: and were it in his powers, commander in chief would
Speaker 1: have done anything and everything to stop this person. But
Speaker 1: of course this was on New Zealand, so I'm not
Speaker 1: on us soil, and that they don't believe that is
Speaker 1: deeply troubling to me. That the left thinks that this
Speaker 1: is an opportunity to tear down this president, and that's
Speaker 1: really their first inclination, and not just President Trump. By
Speaker 1: the way, there are other targets that have also come
Speaker 1: under attack from the left that I have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with this, this terrible event, this mass shooting in
Speaker 1: New Zealand, Alexandriocazzio Cortez has written. She wrote on Twitter
Speaker 1: that thoughts and prayers is a reference to the n
Speaker 1: NRA's phrase used to deflect conversation away from policy change
Speaker 1: during tragedies. That is so insidious and incorrect and stupid,
Speaker 1: it's hard to know where to start. Thoughts and prayers,
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Okazio Cortes, is a reference to thoughts and prayers.
Speaker 1: It's a reference to people wanting to send you know,
Speaker 1: their their prayers of God's grace and support and help
Speaker 1: to individuals in a terrible circumstance and to the families
Speaker 1: left behind. And it's an expression of basic human solidarity
Speaker 1: and goodwill and decency. Thoughts and prayers is not an
Speaker 1: NRA phrase used to stop policy solutions to stop gun violence.
Speaker 1: New Zealand has almost no gun violence as a country,
Speaker 1: has less than less than fifty murders a year in
Speaker 1: a country of five million. There's almost no gun violence
Speaker 1: in New Zealand anyway, So what is the what is
Speaker 1: the policy solution supposed to be for a case like this?
Speaker 1: Don't allow a mass murderer to be a mass murderer
Speaker 1: and to ever exist in the first place. I mean,
Speaker 1: as manifesto is a rambling and incoherent mess of bitterness
Speaker 1: and hatred and disdain for his fellow human beings. And
Speaker 1: yet we're supposed to think that he is connected to
Speaker 1: American conservatism or he doesn't like conservatives. He even says
Speaker 1: in the manifesto he doesn't like Trump on policy. He
Speaker 1: says in the manifesto. I read the whole thing today,
Speaker 1: about seventy pages. He's a racist, He's a true white
Speaker 1: nationalist racist. He's a disgusting discredit to humanity. And he
Speaker 1: killed all these people today of the mosque, and it's horrible,
Speaker 1: and I wish that somebody had been able to interview
Speaker 1: even sooner. It is worth. It is worth I think,
Speaker 1: noting that the reports, at least so far that I've seen,
Speaker 1: or that a Muslim meant who was a legal gun
Speaker 1: owner did manage to return fire on them and may
Speaker 1: have saved a lot of lives in the process. So
Speaker 1: a Muslim hero, he'd step up here. I just wish
Speaker 1: he could have been there at the very beginning and
Speaker 1: stop this whole thing and put two in this shooter's
Speaker 1: head before he was able to hurt anyone. But there
Speaker 1: was there was action, there was heroism, and you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I've thought about whether I would watch
Speaker 1: the video I've just seen so many of these terrorist
Speaker 1: videos and beheadings and tortures and everything, and it stays
Speaker 1: with you. And I think we all know, and I
Speaker 1: think that the shooter wants us to watch, And I
Speaker 1: don't know if that really adds a necessary context to it.
Speaker 1: There are no solutions. I don't have any solutions for you.
Speaker 1: People say in back, you worked in counter terrors, and
Speaker 1: what should we do. There's evil in the world, my friends.
Speaker 1: There are evil people who will do evil things. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it will be in the form of a mass shooting.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it will be in the form of a bombing,
Speaker 1: or it will be a militia that goes into a
Speaker 1: village and slaughters everybody, or it will be a systematic
Speaker 1: torture of political opponents. Or there is evil in this world.
Speaker 1: The choice that we make every day is in our
Speaker 1: own way. Do we fight against it? Do we do
Speaker 1: what we can to make sure that evil does not triumph.
Speaker 1: You have a role to play in this. I have
Speaker 1: a role to play in this, all of us do
Speaker 1: every day. Are we kind? Are we decent? Are we honorable?
Speaker 1: Do we treat each other well? Do we stand up
Speaker 1: for one another? Do we show bravery? Do we have integrity.
Speaker 1: That's how we fight evil. Doesn't mean you're going to eliminate.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean we're gonna win every battle. But we
Speaker 1: do the best we can. And to those on the
Speaker 1: other side of the world who are mourning right now,
Speaker 1: we do send thoughts and prayers. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: And who is going to be the boogeyman of the
Speaker 1: next ten to twenty years. Who's going to be the
Speaker 1: great rival to the United States in the eyes of
Speaker 1: American society China? That's right, And so what do you
Speaker 1: think the attitude is going to be over time for
Speaker 1: the shrinking in secure, a white majority that's losing their jobs,
Speaker 1: for let's say, Chinese Americans or Asian Americans. I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm like I personally, I said to a group at Harvard,
Speaker 1: I think we're one generation away from falling into the
Speaker 1: same camps as the Jews who were attacked in the
Speaker 1: synagogue in Pittsburgh, like just a couple of months ago.
Speaker 1: It's like, we're probably one generation away from Americans shooting
Speaker 1: up a bunch of Asians saying like, you know, damn
Speaker 1: the Chinese because there's a giant cold war. Even more
Speaker 1: with China That is the great danger that I fear
Speaker 1: that my children are going to grow up in. That's
Speaker 1: Andrew Yang, who's a presidential candidate. He's concerned that the
Speaker 1: competition with China is going to lead to people going
Speaker 1: in and shooting, shooting Asian Asian Americans, shooting up Asian churches.
Speaker 1: You know this, This is not helpful. I mean, what
Speaker 1: you're hearing from people now, what you're hearing from Democrats
Speaker 1: is not in any way adding anything into this conversation
Speaker 1: that will help avert something like this in the future,
Speaker 1: that will help heal. This shooter wanted to create divisions.
Speaker 1: That is what he wanted to do. It was explicit
Speaker 1: in his very manifesto. And by acting like this is
Speaker 1: somehow the fault of conservatives in America, they are giving
Speaker 1: the shooter exactly what he wanted to accomplish from this,
Speaker 1: other than the horrific mass carnage. This guy was a terrorist.
Speaker 1: Let's not give the terrorist what he wants. We'll be back.
Speaker 1: Why pay your hard earned money to join an organization
Speaker 1: that fought tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system,
Speaker 1: one that scripted portions of White House speeches behind closed
Speaker 1: doors to ensure the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: The organization that stood against tax cuts from middle class
Speaker 1: Americans and small business owners. You know that's AARP. Join
Speaker 1: AMAC instead. The conservative alternative AMAC offers the same kinds
Speaker 1: of money saving benefits of AARP without the liberal agenda.
Speaker 1: Become an AMAC member right now at AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMAC fights for your values, protecting our borders
Speaker 1: by enforcing common sense immigration laws, supporting small business, and
Speaker 1: standing up for your individual God given freedoms. AMAC is
Speaker 1: the way to go. Stand with AMAC as they fight
Speaker 1: the good fight. By becoming a member today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are great, but the cause is even greater. Join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, better
Speaker 1: for America. I don't really I think it's a small
Speaker 1: group of people that have very very serious problems. I
Speaker 1: guess if you look at what happened in New Zealand,
Speaker 1: perhaps that's a case. I don't know enough about it yet.
Speaker 1: They're just learning about the person and the people involved,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly a terrible thing, terrible thing. It is
Speaker 1: a small group of people, and you look at the
Speaker 1: grand scheme of things that this violent white nationalists who
Speaker 1: engage in terrorism on a global scale. It is a
Speaker 1: very small group of people, but the President gets a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of heat for this. People want
Speaker 1: they want to believe that there is some connection to
Speaker 1: President Trump. They want to believe that he is because
Speaker 1: of his rhetoric. You know, he's the reason that this
Speaker 1: is going on. He said, I think it's a small
Speaker 1: group of people that have very very serious problems. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, that is true. And I've been seeing and
Speaker 1: i haven't have watched some of them because I'm on
Speaker 1: air with you, but there have been some panels on
Speaker 1: CNN in the last hour where they're just all coming
Speaker 1: up with ways that you know, Trump's rhetoric inspires this
Speaker 1: and Trump, Trump gives cover to these white nationalists. And
Speaker 1: you know, Trump has said that white nationalists are losers.
Speaker 1: He says that they're they're a joke, that there are
Speaker 1: bad people. It doesn't matter what he says, though, they're
Speaker 1: still going to take this position that Trump is in
Speaker 1: some way a white nationalist sympathizer or you know, he's
Speaker 1: created this this new environment where white nationalists can thrive.
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna just note that whenever, whenever we talk
Speaker 1: about radical Islamic terrorism, that the script is entirely flipped.
Speaker 1: It's it's not the fault of the ideology, it's not
Speaker 1: the fault of anyone on the left for being weak
Speaker 1: on dealing with radical Islam, you know. And in fact,
Speaker 1: they'll often say that the reason for radical Islamic terrorism
Speaker 1: is because of the insufficiently what's the word, the the
Speaker 1: insufficient desire to cave in and do what Islamists want,
Speaker 1: or the inability or the unwillingness of European countries to
Speaker 1: better assimilate their European I mean, there are Islamic minorities
Speaker 1: in Europe. That's that's always a part of that debate
Speaker 1: as well. So I don't have much more to share
Speaker 1: view on this shooting, because, you know, the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of New Zealand says that gun laws will change. New
Speaker 1: Zealand already has pretty strict gun laws. They don't have
Speaker 1: a full registration the way that the way that Australia does.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind that you won't read this in the
Speaker 1: news coverage of this at all, but Australia's buyback program
Speaker 1: is always listed as being so successful after a mass
Speaker 1: shooting in Australia. They did a buyback, a forced buyback,
Speaker 1: which is confiscation with compensation. That's what that is. And yes,
Speaker 1: there was a decline in violence in Australia. But guess what.
Speaker 1: There are now more guns in circulation in Australia in
Speaker 1: private hands than there were before the buyback program and
Speaker 1: there is less violence. So someone would need to explain
Speaker 1: to me how the buyback program is the cause for
Speaker 1: this drop in violence when there are even more guns
Speaker 1: now in private hands. Look, there's the emotions that people
Speaker 1: have after a mass shooting like this are such that
Speaker 1: they want to take action, especially people who believe that
Speaker 1: their political positions are an extension of their goodness or
Speaker 1: their worthiness as a person. And they also it fits
Speaker 1: in with a view of how we should relate to
Speaker 1: our states, how we should relate to our federal government,
Speaker 1: such that guns are a little private rebellion in the
Speaker 1: hands of citizens. Every gun in the hands of a
Speaker 1: law abiding citizen is a private rebellion against the authority
Speaker 1: of the state. They know that, and people are uncomfortable
Speaker 1: with that. A lot of people do not like that.
Speaker 1: The left in this country has really made guns a
Speaker 1: dividing issue for culture as much as for the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: The manifesto writer understood this. In fact, he wants this
Speaker 1: to create. In his manifesto, he said he wanted this
Speaker 1: to create a Second Amendment battle in the United States
Speaker 1: that would further divide the country and would lead to
Speaker 1: inflict and civil war. Here, I mean the guy's a
Speaker 1: loon too. Let's remember that. I mean the guy's a loon.
Speaker 1: But there's now this big debate, this big discussion about
Speaker 1: gun control and what we can do next for gun control.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure Democrats will seize on this. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you this as well, Nothing in this country I
Speaker 1: think will change. It's just not going to Why also
Speaker 1: would anything, Why would our laws change in response to
Speaker 1: what happened in New Zealand. There are still calls for
Speaker 1: this from Democrats because it's such an emotional issue today
Speaker 1: and because people are obviously so psychologically wounded by this.
Speaker 1: But what exactly are we supposed to do. We have
Speaker 1: different laws than New Zealand, we have a different gun situation,
Speaker 1: we have a different constitution than New Zealand, and yet
Speaker 1: we're still going to be told that there needs to
Speaker 1: be immediate action, and if you stand against it, if
Speaker 1: you think that action that will help no one and
Speaker 1: will infringe on rights is a bad idea, they're going
Speaker 1: to say you're a bad person. You're a bad person.
Speaker 1: That's where this is all going next. Because there are
Speaker 1: a gun control efforts from the left. It's not just
Speaker 1: about the guns. It's about their contempt for the people
Speaker 1: who own guns. They don't like gun owners. It is
Speaker 1: a separation between right and left now in this country.
Speaker 1: If you own a gun, the overwhelminglihood is that you
Speaker 1: are more conservative and more likely to be conservative. That's
Speaker 1: just the way it is. I want to switch to
Speaker 1: the border just for a second here, because we got
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other topics. We'll talk about Beto
Speaker 1: klobishar more Democrat candidates out there in the mix. We'll
Speaker 1: have the latest on the cheating scandal with my friend
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly. He'll join later on the show. Just we're
Speaker 1: gonna need to lighten things up a little bit, right
Speaker 1: It's it's obviously been an emotionally draining day in the
Speaker 1: news cycle, and I know it's Friday. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: Jesse join us. We'll have some fun. We'll do some
Speaker 1: roll calls, so things will definitely move in that direction
Speaker 1: as we move along in the show. But I have
Speaker 1: to know this was a piece today in the Daily
Speaker 1: Mail that Trump's border agency. He says he has built
Speaker 1: zero new walls, despite claiming otherwise for months. As a
Speaker 1: president prepares to veto, lawmakers attempt well, he did ardie veto.
Speaker 1: So the veto happened. The presidential veto happened. But now
Speaker 1: you are starting to see US Customs and Border Protection
Speaker 1: just coming out and saying, look, people should know what's
Speaker 1: really going on here. And there is not new barrier
Speaker 1: that is going up there. There's better barrier where there
Speaker 1: already is some kind of a physical structure to prevent
Speaker 1: illegal crossings. But there is not, on a massive scale,
Speaker 1: a lot of new barrier construction that is happening. It's
Speaker 1: just not happening. And this is where a president Trump's salesmanship,
Speaker 1: I think can be a little bit of a little
Speaker 1: bit of a liability because he wants to say that
Speaker 1: it's happening, because he wants to keep people engaged, and
Speaker 1: he wants to build the wall. And I think that
Speaker 1: he given him is given his druthers, he would follow
Speaker 1: through on that promise, but it hasn't happened yet, and
Speaker 1: I don't believe that we can be supportive of the
Speaker 1: presidents saying that it is happening when it is not.
Speaker 1: That's why when he tweeted out that wacky nut job
Speaker 1: and Coulter, who still hasn't figured out that despite all odds,
Speaker 1: an entire Democrat party of far left Democrats against me,
Speaker 1: including Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight, I am
Speaker 1: winning on the border. Major sections of wall are being
Speaker 1: built and renovated, with much more to follow shortly. Tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of illegals are being apprehended at the border,
Speaker 1: and it's just like responding, Okay, tell me where this
Speaker 1: new border fence is. Give me the latitude and longitude.
Speaker 1: Tell me exactly where the new border fence is. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you on this one. Miss Coulter raises a
Speaker 1: very important point, and we need the President to stay
Speaker 1: focused on this and follow through. We also have a
Speaker 1: whole lot more show coming up for your team in
Speaker 1: just a moment, so stay with me. Today's votes cap
Speaker 1: a week of something the American people haven't seen enough
Speaker 1: of in the past two years. Both parties in the
Speaker 1: United States Congress standing up to Donald Trump. In two days,
Speaker 1: Congress has delivered three three major rebukes to the president
Speaker 1: and stood up for transparency, accountability, and the constitutional powers.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, my stomach just turns a little bit when
Speaker 1: you've got Chuck Schumer talking about transparency, the separation of powers,
Speaker 1: as if he cares about any of that stuff. This
Speaker 1: is what the Republicans that voted against Trump and with
Speaker 1: the Democrats on this resolution, this is what they've done.
Speaker 1: They've given the Democrats a victory lap opportunity here and
Speaker 1: for what it's certainly not smart. It's certainly not smart
Speaker 1: from the perspective of enacting the Trumpet agenda, and it
Speaker 1: gives Chuck Schumer this moment where he gets to point
Speaker 1: out the divisions on the Republican side. Look, Trump's already
Speaker 1: he's vetoed this thing, so it doesn't doesn't go anywhere,
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean anything, doesn't do anything. But I find
Speaker 1: it just beyond beyond irritating when you have someone like
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer who gets to have some fun at the
Speaker 1: expense of the fractured Republican Party, because you've got some
Speaker 1: Republicans that their first concern, really and truly is how
Speaker 1: they how they appear, not just to their constituents, but
Speaker 1: to the media. I think you get a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans that don't really don't really care as much about
Speaker 1: what this means for them back home in the short
Speaker 1: term as they do about what the what the mainstream
Speaker 1: will say about them. And then that brings me to this,
Speaker 1: and this is courtesy of our friend Sean Davis over
Speaker 1: at the Federalist that Bill priests tap. The top FBI
Speaker 1: counterintelligence official told a federal court last August in a
Speaker 1: sworn declaration that John McCain passed the Steel Dossier to
Speaker 1: James Comey on December nine, twenty sixteen, and that the
Speaker 1: FBI briefed Obama on it even though the FBI had
Speaker 1: not verified its claims. The Steel Dossier was an orchestrated
Speaker 1: media opposition operation, Sean writes from the beginning, and that
Speaker 1: everything done by Clapper and Comy was done to provide
Speaker 1: media in an excuse to publish defamatory claims to damage Trump.
Speaker 1: I think that that is all correct. It is absolutely
Speaker 1: insane that James Comey took it upon himself in an
Speaker 1: intelligence briefing to present an unclassified, unsourced, unverified document to
Speaker 1: the President United States saying that he had Russian prostitutes
Speaker 1: engaging in all kinds of reprehensible behavior with him, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, gross things that was only done
Speaker 1: to create the perception that this is real. But I
Speaker 1: also have to wonder. I know that some people get
Speaker 1: very touchy about this, but John McCain, Why did John
Speaker 1: McCain pass the Steel dossier to James Coomey in December
Speaker 1: of twenty sixteen after the election. What is John McKinnon.
Speaker 1: Did he really think that it was real? Did he
Speaker 1: did he think that that was something that should be
Speaker 1: should be done? I mean, why would he share opposition
Speaker 1: research on the President United States with the FBI director
Speaker 1: at the time? And why haven't we heard more about
Speaker 1: what Obama knew about all of this, which he definitely did.
Speaker 1: And you they always keep Obama out of this situation.
Speaker 1: They always pretend that Obama had, you know, no knowledge,
Speaker 1: didn't order anybody to do anything. And I didn't didn't
Speaker 1: know a thing about this old dossier. And I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: the behind the scenes here with these Democrats was unseemly.
Speaker 1: Doesn't even begin to cover it. But I also stopped
Speaker 1: and thought to myself, McCain at so many different points
Speaker 1: was willing to abandon his side at a at a
Speaker 1: key moment to help the Democrats and the aftermath of
Speaker 1: the election defeat of Hillary Clinton by a Republican nominee,
Speaker 1: that McCain would pass this to KOMEI Why didn't McCain.
Speaker 1: Let's really ask this, If McCain had to steal dossier,
Speaker 1: why didn't he call for a private meeting with the
Speaker 1: President United States himself? Man? Demand wouldn't that have been
Speaker 1: the honorable thing to do? It was already out there
Speaker 1: in circulation. There's not some sources and methods concern, there's
Speaker 1: no I mean, it's the presid the United States. He
Speaker 1: can see anything. But this is an unclassified document that's
Speaker 1: circulating among the media and circulating among the media as
Speaker 1: part of a plan by the Democrat operatives that created
Speaker 1: this whole thing to defame and destroy the President United States.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't McCain say, mister President, I need to talk
Speaker 1: to you about something and sit down with him. Because
Speaker 1: if he believed this was real, why wouldn't John McCain
Speaker 1: do that? Why give it to James Comey? And be
Speaker 1: a part of this scheme, this scheme to nullify the
Speaker 1: election defeat of Hillary Clinton by President Trump. Why everyone
Speaker 1: I know in politics feels very they're very passionate feelings
Speaker 1: about John McCain. I know people that all they ever
Speaker 1: want to talk about is his honorable military service in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: and you know, nobody questions that, nobody disputes that. I
Speaker 1: also know a lot of people who feel like his
Speaker 1: legacy is one of turning on Republicans at key moments
Speaker 1: and not being somebody that has owned I could count on.
Speaker 1: And also you want to talk about people that surrounded
Speaker 1: themselves with bad individuals from it during the campaign. I've
Speaker 1: heard his campaign was it was an absolute mess, and
Speaker 1: people have told me he was also. I won't I
Speaker 1: won't get further into it beyond that, but McCain sure
Speaker 1: enough shows up in this circumstance as someone who was
Speaker 1: part of this whole artifice, this whole scheme to create
Speaker 1: a Russia collusion narrative where there wasn't one. This was
Speaker 1: all just made up whole cloth. There was nothing, There
Speaker 1: was nothing there. They they made this like a fairy tale,
Speaker 1: and then they weaponized the intelligence community and the collection
Speaker 1: platforms that it has all because they were so so
Speaker 1: upset that Hillary Clinton wasn't going to be the president
Speaker 1: of the United States. This is the biggest scandal of
Speaker 1: my lifetime. And nothing you know, Monica and and you know,
Speaker 1: you name it. I mean, there's there's no scandal that
Speaker 1: I have lived through an American politics that comes anywhere
Speaker 1: near what's going on here, and that the people who
Speaker 1: are at the heart of it not only won't be
Speaker 1: punished but are going to be celebrated as some kind
Speaker 1: of heroes when what they did has torn at the
Speaker 1: very as the very fabric of this country as a
Speaker 1: place that has rule of law that isn't based in politics,
Speaker 1: that isn't based in what political party you happen to
Speaker 1: be a part of. It has undermined that in profound ways.
Speaker 1: And there will be no accountability for the men that
Speaker 1: did this, and Trump and his presidency. Who knows what
Speaker 1: would have been different if he hadn't had to carry
Speaker 1: around this burden. Who knows what would have happened if
Speaker 1: he had not been in a situation where he had
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel harassing him, haranguing him and the people
Speaker 1: around him. The Legal Bill the anxiety, the lost sleep,
Speaker 1: the prospect of all of this just destroying whatever feelings
Speaker 1: of goodwill he could ever have from the other side,
Speaker 1: or that the other side could have about him, and
Speaker 1: McCain was involved in it. I think that I think
Speaker 1: that people will look back on a lot of what
Speaker 1: John McCain did as a politician with far greater criticism
Speaker 1: than we have been allowed up to this point, when
Speaker 1: we have a bit of distance and honesty. Our two
Speaker 1: is coming up. Whether you like Donald Trump or you
Speaker 1: dislike Donald Trump, the one thing that I think we
Speaker 1: can all agree on is that Donald Trump has made
Speaker 1: American journalism great again. The other thing we can agree
Speaker 1: on is that the media is not the enemy of
Speaker 1: the people. At CNN, our core mission is to tell
Speaker 1: the truth, to hold those in power accountable, even when
Speaker 1: it's uncomfortable, especially when it's uncomfortable. Last November, we made
Speaker 1: the most uncomfortable and the easiest decision of my career.
Speaker 1: We sued the President of the United States for taking
Speaker 1: away the press cidential of our chief White House correspondent,
Speaker 1: Jim Accosta, all because he didn't like the questions that
Speaker 1: Jim was asking him. We didn't pick that fight We
Speaker 1: didn't want that fight, but the decision to fight for
Speaker 1: our right was easy. That's CNN chief Jeff Zucker, in
Speaker 1: a moment of preening and delusion, or a few moments
Speaker 1: of it, talking about how Trump has made journalism great again.
Speaker 1: I think that's quite the opposite. I think Trump has
Speaker 1: exposed American journalism for the shallow cast of nasty, want
Speaker 1: to be cool high school kids at all just want
Speaker 1: to sit at the same table. Because I think that's
Speaker 1: what it really is. And I think that they have
Speaker 1: not learned any lessons. They do not care that the
Speaker 1: general public doesn't believe them, does not trust them, does
Speaker 1: not think that they engage in their profession honestly, and
Speaker 1: the public should not think that they engage in their
Speaker 1: profession honestly because they don't. They are activists pretending to
Speaker 1: be journalists. And then CNN's Zucker complains a bit more
Speaker 1: about this seven. The President has treated our CNN journalists
Speaker 1: with disrespect on more than one occasion. The name calling
Speaker 1: and the insults are sadly something that has become the
Speaker 1: norm when covering him. We don't like it, and it
Speaker 1: is wrong. What we do has never been more important.
Speaker 1: This administration need not like what we say, but they
Speaker 1: should respect our right to say it. The President has
Speaker 1: treated our CNN journalists with disrespect on more than one occasion.
Speaker 1: The name calling and the insults are sadly, yeah, we
Speaker 1: get it, we get it. So we heard, we heard that.
Speaker 1: So is he just is he just completely delusional? Because
Speaker 1: CNN journalists have been not just disrespectful to this president.
Speaker 1: CNN journalists have been at the heart of the effort
Speaker 1: to destroy this president. CNN journalists were the ones involved
Speaker 1: in the early days of leaking the meeting between come
Speaker 1: and Trump about the dossier that Big Bag oh Lies
Speaker 1: known as the Dossier. They were hoping to turn it
Speaker 1: into a news story and they have been running with
Speaker 1: it ever since. SNI has had to fire journalists for
Speaker 1: fabricating news stories about Trump and the people around him,
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to phase them one bit. I guess how
Speaker 1: many news how many journalists has seen have to fire
Speaker 1: for a hit piece on Obama, This pretense that Zucker there.
Speaker 1: We try to hold people to account, Well, they'll hold
Speaker 1: Republicans to account. They'll do more than that. They'll do
Speaker 1: everything in their power to destroy a Republican. They will
Speaker 1: try to ruin a presidency. They drunk with power and
Speaker 1: their own self righteousness, are willing to lie, are to
Speaker 1: stack the deck against a president, whether it's in a
Speaker 1: debate or just in their day to day news coverage.
Speaker 1: They will take an activist role in this whole situation.
Speaker 1: And then there's this latest addition to the many, many
Speaker 1: complaints of journalism about Trump, that he puts lives at
Speaker 1: risk placlip eight. This administration has made it abundantly clear
Speaker 1: that they do not have respect for or tolerance of
Speaker 1: a free and independent press. They call us the enemy
Speaker 1: of the people. They limit our access, They selectively grant interviews,
Speaker 1: most often the outlets that have assured them that they
Speaker 1: will follow the script. Quite literally, they put our lives
Speaker 1: at risk with their words and their actions. That's just insane.
Speaker 1: They're not putting CNN journalists lives at risk anymore so
Speaker 1: than journalists who are spreading lies about Trump and his
Speaker 1: supporters are putting lives at risk when they are saying
Speaker 1: the president's a trader, guilty of treason, which they have done.
Speaker 1: They've asked this question. They they've gone on TV and
Speaker 1: said is the president a trader? Well, wouldn't that mean
Speaker 1: that if you voted for him, you've supported a trader.
Speaker 1: What if you still support that trader. They take no
Speaker 1: responsibility for the toxic politicization that they have engaged in
Speaker 1: and the political advocacy that they've done under the falsehood
Speaker 1: that this is journalism. They take no responsibility for this whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the head of CNN. He's one of
Speaker 1: the most powerful people in the news business in the world.
Speaker 1: And you know, do you get the sense are we
Speaker 1: supposed to believe that CNN is fair to the president.
Speaker 1: The head of CNN is out there trashing the president
Speaker 1: on a regular basis. Trash is Fox News as well.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you, in a state run media environment,
Speaker 1: you don't have one outlet that is favorable to you know,
Speaker 1: favorable to the regime in power, and then a hundred
Speaker 1: that are just trying to destroy the regime in power
Speaker 1: all the time. That's not all. That's not an authoritarian
Speaker 1: regime situation. No. What's much It's a much greater threat
Speaker 1: to your liberty is when you have a united front
Speaker 1: of support for the regime from all of the different
Speaker 1: media outlets that will cover up the abuses, that won't
Speaker 1: dig deep that don't want accountability. That's a far greater
Speaker 1: threat to liberty and freedom than one media outlet that
Speaker 1: gives voice to half the country essentially. I mean, I
Speaker 1: do believe I wish that there were there was another
Speaker 1: channel like Fox out there, just so that we'd have
Speaker 1: more bandwidth, so that there'd be more shows, there'd be
Speaker 1: more of a conservative voice and even more diverse Republican
Speaker 1: and conservative position in this country. You know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: a little more libertarian flavor in some of there too.
Speaker 1: You know that I think that would be great, But
Speaker 1: we don't have that. But we have is a vast
Speaker 1: media conglomerate that all works together, that's really just a
Speaker 1: wing of the DNC and is doing everything it can
Speaker 1: to destroy a presidency. And I know some of these people,
Speaker 1: so I know that they want Donald Trump's children to
Speaker 1: go to prison. They want people like Manafort to die
Speaker 1: in prison for tax fraud. They think that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, what happened. And you know, we've actually actually
Speaker 1: got a Democrat, a Democrat former federal prosecutor come on
Speaker 1: Rising today and he was willing to admit and I
Speaker 1: give him credit for this, that what the Cyrus Evans
Speaker 1: in New York State did by adding the Manhattan District
Speaker 1: Attorney's office by adding charges when they're already two guilty
Speaker 1: either verdicts or please from men Afford and two other
Speaker 1: federal trials for a seven year old man is just
Speaker 1: the most blatant politics imaginable. And what you know now
Speaker 1: from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is that if you're
Speaker 1: a high profile Republican, you're not going to get a
Speaker 1: fair shake. If you get you can't. Look what happened
Speaker 1: to Gennesta SUSA. That was Preet Barrara. Oh where did
Speaker 1: Preet Barra, the US Attorney for the Southern District of
Speaker 1: New York. What did he do as soon as Trump
Speaker 1: got rid of him? Oh he went to work at
Speaker 1: CNN and to start a podcast. That's right, he's a
Speaker 1: left wing media guy. Well, he used to be able
Speaker 1: to determine how many decades you go to prison for
Speaker 1: for white collar crime. That was his job. And Preet
Speaker 1: was a big fan of purp walks for white collar criminals,
Speaker 1: people who were not in any way a physical danger
Speaker 1: to anyone. Berrara really wanted to parade them around. Why
Speaker 1: because it made him look tough on white collar crime,
Speaker 1: and that's what he really cared about. That's what really
Speaker 1: got him excited. These people have no appreciation for how
Speaker 1: much damage they're doing to the good faith that a
Speaker 1: lot of us would like to have in these different
Speaker 1: institutions and these mechanisms of government, and yes, in the media,
Speaker 1: I would think it was a fantastic thing if we
Speaker 1: had an honest news media. I mean, I can tell
Speaker 1: you that even well, I was going to tell you
Speaker 1: some stories about some of the stuff I deal with
Speaker 1: the media, but I don't have to hold on some
Speaker 1: of that. But the assumption, the assumption is that when
Speaker 1: you're in a newsroom, you're dealing most unless you're at
Speaker 1: Fox or maybe the Wall Street Journal a few other places,
Speaker 1: but when you're in your typical newsroom, most of the
Speaker 1: people in there are woke left wingers, and so they
Speaker 1: don't just disagree with your point of view, but have
Speaker 1: this professional approach what they're doing. They think that they
Speaker 1: are on a mission, a mission from the depths of
Speaker 1: their own self righteousness to destroy people who are on
Speaker 1: the other side, including people who work with them, who
Speaker 1: are colleagues of theirs, who are good people and who
Speaker 1: are just trying to do their job. You know, you
Speaker 1: cannot trust libs in the media. Unfortunately, I wish you
Speaker 1: know some of them. You get to know well enough
Speaker 1: you can maybe trust, But in general it's a very
Speaker 1: unwise thing to do because they're zealots, they're true believers,
Speaker 1: and they control that they control the narrative, they have
Speaker 1: the most outlets, and then they get Zucker to get
Speaker 1: up there and wind for them, talk about how their
Speaker 1: lives are at risk and Trump is so terrible and
Speaker 1: how could he do all these bad things? And Jim
Speaker 1: accost some kind of American here, and now you've got
Speaker 1: to be kidding me, right, this is a joke. Unfortunately
Speaker 1: it's not a joke. This is how the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: all these pampered millionaires, this is how they see themselves.
Speaker 1: There's a legal sentence, and there's a sentence of shame.
Speaker 1: Anytime he walks into a green room, which we have
Speaker 1: here at CNN for the next twenty years, when every
Speaker 1: he gets out, he cannot look at a single member
Speaker 1: of the press, court, a single politician without shame. He
Speaker 1: can't walk out of a room again to regardless of
Speaker 1: whether he gets out of a jail, without shame. People
Speaker 1: in this town are going to dishonor him. So that's
Speaker 1: one of the favorite national security analysts over at CNN,
Speaker 1: Phil Mud talking about Maniford, and notice the real sense
Speaker 1: of sanctimony but also vindictiveness, talking about how Maniport will
Speaker 1: feel shame. He's gonna feel shame. Can't go into a
Speaker 1: green room with that. And this is the greatest fear
Speaker 1: for people that really like your CNN is you're not
Speaker 1: going to be welcome in the CNN green room. Oh oh,
Speaker 1: that's really that's a scary universe to live in, right,
Speaker 1: you can't have that. Paul Metaphord's going to prison for
Speaker 1: seven and a half years. He's a seventy year old man.
Speaker 1: He's going to serve that seven and a half There's
Speaker 1: now the possibility of additional state charges hanging over his head.
Speaker 1: They're doing that just so that the president can't pardon him.
Speaker 1: So that's an end run on the president's pardon power.
Speaker 1: It is explicitly and obviously political. It's disgraceful. What exactly
Speaker 1: did Manaphort do that makes feel Mud so angry at him? What? What?
Speaker 1: What is Manaford's great crime? Not paying his taxes? I mean,
Speaker 1: he's making twenty five million dollars of restoration payments to
Speaker 1: the government. Okay, so he's paying the taxes and then
Speaker 1: some I think that in most tax cases that should
Speaker 1: be I that should really be sufficient. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you can make the government whole and you can pay
Speaker 1: massive fines on top of it, maybe a six months
Speaker 1: and it's just as kind of a you know, don't
Speaker 1: be naughty. But seven and a half years they hate
Speaker 1: manap it because he worked for the president. He has
Speaker 1: become a scapegoat for all the rage they have and
Speaker 1: at also, I think all the intellectual insecurity that they
Speaker 1: try to suppress about Russia collusion that never happened, it
Speaker 1: didn't exist. But Manaford is now a convicted felon facing
Speaker 1: almost a decade in prison. So he's the one to
Speaker 1: direct all of their anger to. You know who else
Speaker 1: should be a convicted felon and in prison, or at
Speaker 1: least should have faced the possibility of being a convicted
Speaker 1: felon in prison. Hillary Clinton, I've not forgotten this. Why
Speaker 1: should we accept different standards of justice for the right
Speaker 1: and the left. Why should we accept that Democrats get
Speaker 1: away with everything Republicans don't. Just it's not just that
Speaker 1: they don't get away with anything. They're destroyed for nothing.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should. I don't think that should
Speaker 1: be acceptable to anyone. Lindsey Graham brought up the possibility
Speaker 1: of maybe taking some action on this when it comes
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton. Play clip one. Any American out there
Speaker 1: who did what Secretary Clinton did good be in jail now.
Speaker 1: The question I want to know is, does anybody other
Speaker 1: than me believe that. I don't ask you to believe me.
Speaker 1: We let Muller look at all things Trump related to collusion,
Speaker 1: and otherwise somebody needs to look at what happened on
Speaker 1: the other side and find out if the FBI in
Speaker 1: the DOJ had two systems, one supporting the person they
Speaker 1: wanted to win, a one out to get the person
Speaker 1: they wanted to lose. Some of these people have been
Speaker 1: fired for lying, and it's now time to have a
Speaker 1: special counsel looking all things twenty sixteen, not just Trump.
Speaker 1: How about some accountability for the other side. I can
Speaker 1: already tell you that the plan is to let, for example, McCabe,
Speaker 1: who was acting FBI director, who is clearly a Hillary
Speaker 1: partisan and a bad guy, let him just fade off
Speaker 1: into the sunset and not bring any charges against him
Speaker 1: he lied under oath. I thought lying under oath was
Speaker 1: a heinous crime. I thought you should never lie under
Speaker 1: oath because you're going to go to prison for it.
Speaker 1: But not if you're somebody that was playing for the
Speaker 1: right team. This has gotten to the point where it
Speaker 1: is not just too obvious to ignore, but I think
Speaker 1: it's too dangerous for us to ignore. I think that
Speaker 1: the willingness of the Democratic Party he used a legal
Speaker 1: system as a weapon against their political allies, has to
Speaker 1: be met with a commensurate response. And yeah, that might
Speaker 1: mean a special counsel on Hillary Clinton. Why not. We've
Speaker 1: just found out this past week, based on the LEASA
Speaker 1: page closed door testimony, that the decision was made very
Speaker 1: high up in Lauretta Lynch's DJ that they were never
Speaker 1: ever going to bring charges against Hillary Clinton, didn't matter
Speaker 1: what they found in the investigation. The investigation was all
Speaker 1: for show. It was a sham. We just found that out.
Speaker 1: So since that now is a matter of record, that
Speaker 1: now as a function of testimony from somebody who was
Speaker 1: under oath, and who would know, what else can we
Speaker 1: find out. I'm hoping that President Trump is holding back
Speaker 1: for example, the declassified FISA application or the declassification of
Speaker 1: the FISA application on Carter Page and more of the
Speaker 1: Russia Investigation origin documents. I hope that he's hanging back
Speaker 1: on that in case they try to pull some nonsense
Speaker 1: with the Muller probe, in case they decide that they're
Speaker 1: going to, even though they don't have any charges against him,
Speaker 1: they're going to take some kind of action men to
Speaker 1: undermine his presidency, make him seem like he's a bad guy,
Speaker 1: because what he should do in that case is unleash
Speaker 1: what he knows, what he has access to as a
Speaker 1: commander reprief about what happened there. And I really do
Speaker 1: believe that it would be a jaw dropping moment if
Speaker 1: we found out how much these guys in the most
Speaker 1: sensitive positions in law enforcement in our government. I think
Speaker 1: it will be a jaw dropping for us to find
Speaker 1: out just how much they were abusing their power and
Speaker 1: going after Trump. I really do. I think that this
Speaker 1: is one of those moments that it will be hard
Speaker 1: for us to take in at first, so because it'll
Speaker 1: be so overwhelming and so obvious, and it'll be hard
Speaker 1: to believe even when we have the evidence that we
Speaker 1: know we should believe it. I want Trump to release
Speaker 1: that information. I want Trump to put it out there,
Speaker 1: but he may be he may be holding back on
Speaker 1: it until he needs it. You know, it's essentially the
Speaker 1: bazooka he's keeping the media bazooka that he's keeping in
Speaker 1: his pocket in the case that he might need something
Speaker 1: to talk about. So, you know, I want to discuss
Speaker 1: presidents with you coming up here in presidential candidates, because
Speaker 1: you've got some very how should we say it, I've
Speaker 1: got some real losers on the Democrats side, they're already
Speaker 1: in the mix, and I just start to think more
Speaker 1: and more about how I think that people don't even
Speaker 1: really know what they wanted a president anymore. I think
Speaker 1: the rules have changed about what's acceptable for a president,
Speaker 1: and what certainly the Democrats and the Left desires in
Speaker 1: a president is now kind of fuzzier than it's ever been.
Speaker 1: They kind of just want an emotion, not a person.
Speaker 1: Her campaign was shaken up in the early days by
Speaker 1: multiple reports, negative reports of how you've treated some of
Speaker 1: your staff in the past. Your answer to that, which
Speaker 1: you've given many times many people have asked about this,
Speaker 1: you said, look, I can be too hard. What's too hard?
Speaker 1: Well to me, If you are a boss, you have
Speaker 1: to have high standards, and that is what I have
Speaker 1: always had. And that doesn't mean it's a popularity contest
Speaker 1: all the time. And so I've had high standards for myself,
Speaker 1: high standards for our staff, and mostly I'm going to
Speaker 1: have high standards for the country. But one can always
Speaker 1: do better, and that means you want to be sure
Speaker 1: that you are listening to people if you know they
Speaker 1: felt that something was unfair or they felt bad about something.
Speaker 1: But I still think that you have to demand good
Speaker 1: product when you're out there on the world stage and
Speaker 1: dealing with people like Vladimir Putin. Yeah, you want someone
Speaker 1: who's tough. You want someone that demands the answers and
Speaker 1: that's going to get things done. Yeah, that's that's Klobischer
Speaker 1: running for president there. And I wanted to really get
Speaker 1: to the end because you know, you got you gotta
Speaker 1: have her hear it, her say it. You got to
Speaker 1: hear it from her. Uh, that's right, She's gonna take
Speaker 1: care of Putin. Maybe she'll throw a hairbrush at Putin. Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe she'll make Putin eat salad with a with a
Speaker 1: hairy comb and then make him clean it off in
Speaker 1: front of her. It's so gross. It is so gross.
Speaker 1: Amy klobashchar famously famously abusive to her staff, nasty, nasty
Speaker 1: person when it comes to what I was working for,
Speaker 1: And I always think it's it's so it's so cute
Speaker 1: when people after they've been accused by a lot of
Speaker 1: their former staff of being really terrible to work for,
Speaker 1: and then they'll get some group to come forward that
Speaker 1: is all looking to advance themselves most like, I'm sure
Speaker 1: some of them probably think that she's actually nice. You know.
Speaker 1: Usually a mean boss isn't mean to everybody. It's very
Speaker 1: rare and that's why. And usually mean people aren't mean
Speaker 1: to everybody. So it's really the absence of mistreating any employee,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, the presence of treating mistreating any employees is
Speaker 1: all you have to find. Because if you're mistreating any employees,
Speaker 1: then you're a bad employer. You're always going to be
Speaker 1: able to find usually some people who feel like you
Speaker 1: weren't that bad, you know, And this is kind of
Speaker 1: a version of you know, even even Hitler loved his dog, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, people always everyone has some kind of level
Speaker 1: I think that's a Bill Mark quote, by the way,
Speaker 1: But you know, as people have some level of humanity
Speaker 1: and kindness, even the very very worst people. So just
Speaker 1: because somebody isn't terrible that everybody doesn't mean they're not
Speaker 1: a terrible boss. But I was thinking about this a
Speaker 1: little bit today because with klobaschar on this huge group
Speaker 1: of all the different candidates out there, and Bajo, who
Speaker 1: just like I just want the whole country to hold hands,
Speaker 1: close their eyes and feel the power of the power
Speaker 1: from within where your power center is. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: with all this stuff that's going on, I think it's
Speaker 1: fair to ask, what do we really wanted a president?
Speaker 1: You know? I used to say that what we want?
Speaker 1: And look, I'm going to support Trump for reelection obviously,
Speaker 1: so it's not it's not that important to think about
Speaker 1: this in the immediate term on the Republican side, But
Speaker 1: I do think that it shifted someone. I think that
Speaker 1: our perception of what a great commander in chief would
Speaker 1: be is very different these days from what it would
Speaker 1: have been when I was at least a young kid,
Speaker 1: you know, in the era of Reagan. I feel like,
Speaker 1: now you want somebody who is a fighter on social media.
Speaker 1: You want somebody who is very much I you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what the Democrats really want, and I
Speaker 1: think the Democrats don't really know what they want. They
Speaker 1: want they want a set up policies. But is character
Speaker 1: even important any more? Does character matter? How can we
Speaker 1: as a country, given recent presidential choices, how can we
Speaker 1: say that we think that character is an important presidential trait?
Speaker 1: I mean, the Clinton machine was premised on the eradication
Speaker 1: of character as something that is necessary for anyone to
Speaker 1: run for for public office. That just I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting we've changed on this without really stopping to think
Speaker 1: about how much we've changed and how, you know, and
Speaker 1: what we've changed. And that's just that's what I get
Speaker 1: from the klobaschar fiasco. Where Why does she think because
Speaker 1: she's a Midwestern senator and maybe she'll be able to
Speaker 1: bring this is just a profile raising exercise for her.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not going to say it's to sell
Speaker 1: more books, because I don't think she has. Actually everybody
Speaker 1: these days has a book. You know what also bothers me.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm in a mood as a Friday of
Speaker 1: a letter rip. Why is everyone okay with other people
Speaker 1: writing books under their name, and why do I You know,
Speaker 1: there are a few areas where I'm an odd duck
Speaker 1: and I know it, and I get shouted down by people,
Speaker 1: even people I like in respect a lot. They think
Speaker 1: that I'm totally crazy. But you know, these these politicians,
Speaker 1: they have these books that they put out and this
Speaker 1: has become commonplace. The politicians put out of a book.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying none of them write them, but
Speaker 1: I think almost none of them really write them. Maybe
Speaker 1: some of them consult and they work with the ghostwriter.
Speaker 1: Why isn't that plagiarism? You know? This is where you
Speaker 1: know and you see. This is on the issue of
Speaker 1: plagiarism and books. On getting rid of recruiting. Remember, I'm
Speaker 1: fine with college athletics recruiting as long as you're not
Speaker 1: going to change the academic standards for the admission. So
Speaker 1: if you can find a straight A student who's also
Speaker 1: you know, a world class defensive lineman, great, you know,
Speaker 1: take them for your school. I'm not saying you can't
Speaker 1: try to find I'm just saying the system as it
Speaker 1: works right now, where you can override the overall academic
Speaker 1: system in order to get a certain kind of athlete.
Speaker 1: I think that that's crazy. I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: there are some other areas where I'm I'm alone, John,
Speaker 1: what was I talking about just second ago? I just
Speaker 1: lost my own train of thought on that one where
Speaker 1: what was I saying I'm crazy? On anyway, there's there's
Speaker 1: a lot of oh, writing books, writing books that that
Speaker 1: it's okay if you pay someone else to write a
Speaker 1: book under your name, that's somehow that's not a not
Speaker 1: a big deal. I don't know why we think that
Speaker 1: this is a normal thing to do. If I kept
Speaker 1: publishing editorials under my name that I paid someone else
Speaker 1: to write for me, wouldn't people think that I was
Speaker 1: not a very good writer. And that's a strange thing,
Speaker 1: a strange thing to do. And this is where we
Speaker 1: get into the conversation also about what's going on with
Speaker 1: this school system, that school school system scamming, the emission scams,
Speaker 1: where I take the point of view that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of very shady reasons that people get into school.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of ways that people gain the system.
Speaker 1: So why are we so outraged right now that this
Speaker 1: particular system, which is more brazen than others. I admit
Speaker 1: that but that this particular system existed in the way
Speaker 1: that it did. I just I would note this is all.
Speaker 1: This is all where people break from me and say, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: you just don't really understand what's going on. You don't
Speaker 1: understand what's going on. But I think I do understand.
Speaker 1: I think I know what's up. I think I know
Speaker 1: what time it is. What kind of president do you want, Well,
Speaker 1: maybe you want a president who just like connects and
Speaker 1: you know, was in a punk rock band. But also
Speaker 1: it was like the hunky o pair on the Upper
Speaker 1: West Side that everybody wanted to hang out with. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was an opair of the true story. He was
Speaker 1: an opair on the Upper West Side of New York City.
Speaker 1: So Becho and Betto and I were in New York
Speaker 1: at the same time. But speaking of Betcho and what
Speaker 1: you want for a pres if you're a Democrat, what
Speaker 1: we want is for Trump to win another term. Although
Speaker 1: I would like to have a little more focus from
Speaker 1: the Trumpster on enacting the agenda. I think the Trumpster
Speaker 1: lacks a little bit of focus. I know he's got
Speaker 1: a lot of the Russia collusion thing drags around him,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of stuff I know I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be unfair to the man, but the agenda
Speaker 1: is not nearly as as enacted as I would like
Speaker 1: to be at this point. But this was interesting. This
Speaker 1: was from a Reuter's profile today on Peto quote. Arguably,
Speaker 1: there has been no better time to be an American
Speaker 1: politician rebelling against business as usual. There is no indication
Speaker 1: that O'Rourke himself ever engaged in the edgiest sorts of
Speaker 1: hacking activity. He was a hacker, breaking into computers or
Speaker 1: writing code that enabled others to do so. Still, it's
Speaker 1: unclear whether the United States is ready for a presidential
Speaker 1: contender who, as a teenager, still long distance phone service
Speaker 1: for his dial up modem wrote a murder fantasy in
Speaker 1: which the narrator drives over children on the street and
Speaker 1: mused about a society without money. You know, I've I'm
Speaker 1: in a weird spot here with some of this stuff, folks,
Speaker 1: because I've been saying, you know, you can't hold against
Speaker 1: people stuff that they said ten years ago, and and
Speaker 1: I agree. And I'm not saying Bettos should be fired
Speaker 1: from a job or that he should be kicked out
Speaker 1: of the public square for this stuff, but murder fantasy
Speaker 1: where the narrators running over children on the street. That's
Speaker 1: a weird that's a weird move. They the long distance
Speaker 1: cell phone service thing, that's nothing. I mean, everybody who's
Speaker 1: my age, You guys all remember Napster and what was
Speaker 1: the LimeWire which everyone was just downloading all kinds of stuff,
Speaker 1: including a lot of naughty stuff, a lot of I
Speaker 1: was he was astonished at how much how much porn
Speaker 1: was on the shared Amherst College server. And I of
Speaker 1: course never watched any of it, but there was all
Speaker 1: this port on the server, and I guess they just
Speaker 1: didn't know how to like get it all out. But
Speaker 1: people would would upload stuff to the to the college
Speaker 1: server that was portgred. This is a lot. This is
Speaker 1: earlier in the early days of the Internet, and there
Speaker 1: was all kinds of stuff on there, you know, some
Speaker 1: really really funky, funky stuff. So anyway, children on the
Speaker 1: street getting run over sidey without money. I think betto
Speaker 1: is kind of a weirdo. But a weirdo is no
Speaker 1: longer a problem when you're running for president. In fact,
Speaker 1: we've really changed the nature of what opo research can
Speaker 1: be at this point. I mean, unless you have and
Speaker 1: Bettos duy. People are going to point to that when
Speaker 1: he ran across the median and ran into another car,
Speaker 1: unless you killed somebody and something like that, which he
Speaker 1: did not. He did not severely injure anybody, including himself.
Speaker 1: But unless you're talking about a situation like that, just
Speaker 1: just doesn't move the doesn't move the needle. It's not
Speaker 1: going to prevent him from running, it's not going to
Speaker 1: prevent him from from possibly winning. So we have we
Speaker 1: have very much changed. You know that that that Amy
Speaker 1: clovischar could be known as a serial abuser of staff
Speaker 1: and to make people clean off the comb that she
Speaker 1: ate a salad with, which is still just the grossest thing.
Speaker 1: You know. It's I don't know what it is about
Speaker 1: using a comb to eat your salad, you know, but
Speaker 1: you know, you find a spoon or a fork, for
Speaker 1: heaven's sakes, it just strikes me so gross. But betto
Speaker 1: being a weirdo who was a hacker and wrote murder
Speaker 1: fantasies that where people are running over children, none of
Speaker 1: that's going to even that's not even gonna register. Folks.
Speaker 1: We are in a brave new world where we're weird
Speaker 1: and crazy seems kind of an asset. I'm Don blank
Speaker 1: chef candidate for US Senate, and I approved us message.
Speaker 1: Politicians are running a lot of crazy ads. They blew
Speaker 1: up the coal mine and then put me in prison.
Speaker 1: Now they're running the ads to say the coal mine
Speaker 1: blew up and I went to prison. There's no surprise there.
Speaker 1: But if you want jobs, if you want to end
Speaker 1: the drug epidemic, and you want to protect you unborn,
Speaker 1: you need to vote for me. One of my goals
Speaker 1: as US senator who will be to ditch cocaine Mitch.
Speaker 1: When you vote for me, you're voting for the sake
Speaker 1: of the kids. So that's Don Blankinship, and that's where
Speaker 1: the whole cocaine Mitch joke comes from. Right. So when
Speaker 1: people some have asked me, Buck, why do you called
Speaker 1: cocaine Mitch? And why are there all these memes about
Speaker 1: cocaine Mitch, because it comes from this ridiculous ad from
Speaker 1: now failed Republican Senate candidate Don Blankinship. So one this
Speaker 1: gives us an opportunity to play that ad, so you
Speaker 1: can hear it again because it's kind of fun. Coquerine
Speaker 1: Mitch gotter rout of Coquine Mitch. And then there's also
Speaker 1: a news reason for this, which is that Don Blanketship
Speaker 1: has sued not a twelve million dollar defamation lawsuit against
Speaker 1: the biggest media outlets in the country. Don Blanketship has
Speaker 1: filed a twelve billion dollar eleventy billion dollars, a twelve
Speaker 1: billion dollars defamation lawsuit against major media outlets. Now they
Speaker 1: say it's or he says it's because dozens of news
Speaker 1: outlets and media personalities referred to him as a felon
Speaker 1: back in twenty eighteen when he was running in the
Speaker 1: West Virginia primary. Now Blanketship was the was the CEO
Speaker 1: formerly of Massey Energy, and he did have a little
Speaker 1: stint where he went to prison for a while, but
Speaker 1: he was acquitted of all felony charges. Turns out, so look,
Speaker 1: I don't think he's kint a twelve billion dollar case,
Speaker 1: but I wonder if he won't get entirely laughed at
Speaker 1: a cored all the merits based on that he's if
Speaker 1: he's not technically a felon and they're all calling him
Speaker 1: a felon's that is the kind of thing that is
Speaker 1: actionable sometimes in a in a defamation case for what
Speaker 1: I understand. I mean, defamation is usually very hard to prove,
Speaker 1: especially if you're a public figure and you're running for office.
Speaker 1: And remember, you don't really prove it. You just kind
Speaker 1: of have to convince a jury. And it's a civil issue,
Speaker 1: but defamation can be very hard. The cocaine Mitch thing
Speaker 1: is because Mitch McConnell and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chow, who
Speaker 1: I'm just this is what blanketship. Blanketship referred to are
Speaker 1: as quote, a wealthy China person. That's what he said,
Speaker 1: and he referred to China people on in his ads.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy is really out there that they
Speaker 1: owned a shipping company that McConnell's wife or tied to
Speaker 1: a shipping company, and some in the shipping company I
Speaker 1: think there was a cocaine seizure, and so he was
Speaker 1: saying that Mitch is tied. It's just crazy, and that
Speaker 1: that a guy who would accuse the speaker of the
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, the Senate Majority leader of in any way
Speaker 1: being tied to drugs. There are some people in the
Speaker 1: Senate who I could see, maybe even decades ago, being
Speaker 1: tied to drugs, probably not today. Mitch McConnell is not
Speaker 1: one of them. I think he's probably the most straight
Speaker 1: edge guy that you would find in the Senate. Well,
Speaker 1: Mike Lee is a little more straight edge, but Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell's pretty straight edge. And I just think this whole
Speaker 1: thing's got a funny And now you know, if I
Speaker 1: refer to cocaine Mitch, I am not, in fact suggesting
Speaker 1: that he is the second coming of Pablo Escobar and
Speaker 1: has been part of some incredible plot to be the
Speaker 1: most powerful Republican senator of his generation. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: it was all a joke, a joke from this guy
Speaker 1: blanket Ship who I'm sure. I'm sure some of you
Speaker 1: know a bit about a bit more than I do.
Speaker 1: But it's looking very unlikely that he will. I know
Speaker 1: this for sure. He's not going to get twelve billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I just wish I could see how they came up
Speaker 1: with that number. Not five billion, not ten billion, twelve
Speaker 1: billion dollars in a defamation lawsuit. Very very unlikely to
Speaker 1: see that. And keep in mind that there's a there's
Speaker 1: a large two hundred and fifty million dollar defamation lawsuit
Speaker 1: by one of those students from Cummington High school. I
Speaker 1: don't know how much money he's actually going to get,
Speaker 1: but it's that's a lawsuit that they better take very
Speaker 1: seriously because I think he does have a case. I
Speaker 1: think he does have the ability to get damages from CNN.
Speaker 1: He's not a public person. They were reckless in their reporting,
Speaker 1: along with other places Washington Post. So he may be
Speaker 1: a very rich young man, which would be great. Maybe
Speaker 1: he'll start a conservative free speech foundation with his millions
Speaker 1: and millions that he is definitely owed got. Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: joining shortly Team stay with me special Friday treat for
Speaker 1: all of you listening. My friend that the tallest conservative
Speaker 1: man I've ever met, Jesse Kelly, is joining us now.
Speaker 1: He clocks in at at seven to six I think.
Speaker 1: But he's also a fantastic radio host and podcaster in
Speaker 1: his own right, host of the Jesse Kelly Show. He's
Speaker 1: down on KPRC in Houston. That is his radio station.
Speaker 1: You can follow him on Twitter if you want to
Speaker 1: be highly amused. Mister Kelly, great to have you six
Speaker 1: foot eight. Buckets six foot eight, but it's seventh sick.
Speaker 1: Did you count the ego exactly? There you go. That's
Speaker 1: what I always say. I'm six feet tall, but you
Speaker 1: throw the hair in there on a good day. Six
Speaker 1: one son? What's up? So, so, Jesse, tell me, tell
Speaker 1: me a bit about your take on this, on this
Speaker 1: college admission scandal that has rocked to the nation. You must,
Speaker 1: you must watch this with a much amusement. I do well.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I'm pretty pretty highly educated. I
Speaker 1: don't like to rub my education in everyone's space, but
Speaker 1: I have almost three years of accredited community college credits,
Speaker 1: So I mean, I don't. I don't. I don't want
Speaker 1: to make other people feel bad, but so I've got
Speaker 1: I've got some pels in the wall. Let's just say.
Speaker 1: And I look at this and all I do is
Speaker 1: laugh like I don't find it scandalous, even buck, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't see what the big deal is.
Speaker 1: Rich people pay money to get their kids access to
Speaker 1: things that poor people don't get access to. That's called
Speaker 1: the history of the world. Yeah, yeah, I get it
Speaker 1: was a scam and this kid didn't get in or
Speaker 1: that kid didn't get in. The how does this anymore
Speaker 1: scandalous than Harvard not letting Asian kids in? And it's
Speaker 1: the same thing. That's what universities do they screw some
Speaker 1: deserving kids over in the favor of the undeserving, and
Speaker 1: they do it for nefarious reasons. That's the college university system.
Speaker 1: I thought it was pretty amazing. When I'm with you,
Speaker 1: I can't get nearly is. I find it more kind
Speaker 1: of amusing and and telling that anything else. I mean
Speaker 1: this is I also have been saying on radio this
Speaker 1: is not the only one of these scams in college
Speaker 1: that there's no way that this is the only one
Speaker 1: of these there's this has been an underground industry for
Speaker 1: I'd say the last at least the last ten, maybe
Speaker 1: the last twenty years that nobody's really thought much about.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure there's more of this. But when I've
Speaker 1: I've said to people, you know, do we really want
Speaker 1: federal criminal charges against somebody for giving a check to
Speaker 1: the uh, you know, the men's swim team coach or something,
Speaker 1: or the track and field coach. And people act like
Speaker 1: I'm I'm defending a mass murderer. That they really get
Speaker 1: mad at me. How dare you the deserving spots? I'm like,
Speaker 1: the deserving spots they go to idiot kids whose parents
Speaker 1: donate buildings. They go to minorities that are a standard
Speaker 1: deviation in terms of their SATs and grades below the
Speaker 1: average for the class they go to. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: they go to people for all kinds of reasons, and
Speaker 1: the whole athletic recruit thing, I would say is subject anyway.
Speaker 1: So you know, I think it's kind of people freaking
Speaker 1: out about nothing, but they thinking I'm the crazy person. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's because people adhere to the old waves and they
Speaker 1: don't realize that the just how much awful things go
Speaker 1: on behind closed doors when it comes to universities. And
Speaker 1: you know what's funny you brought it up about how
Speaker 1: this isn't the only one. I guarantee you one, there
Speaker 1: are lots of people out there sweating bullets right now
Speaker 1: because they have done and or are doing the exact
Speaker 1: same thing. I mean, they didn't get busted, they didn't
Speaker 1: get swept up, and this is one. They were in
Speaker 1: different universities to doing different things that just they're just
Speaker 1: waiting for the shoe to drop. This is what happens. Man,
Speaker 1: Kids who don't rate get into great colleges because he
Speaker 1: can swing a baseball bat or throw great passes. That
Speaker 1: this is This is the university system and on top
Speaker 1: of that, we need to have a completely new discussion
Speaker 1: about the university system at all the United States. Why
Speaker 1: does every kids feel like he has to go to college.
Speaker 1: There are a bunch of kami trade in camps at
Speaker 1: this point in time. I'm not going to push my
Speaker 1: kids for college. If you have something specific you want
Speaker 1: to go for, fine, But we have all these kids
Speaker 1: graduating in four years with one hundred thousand dollars and
Speaker 1: the students loaned it, and they're bigger morons than they
Speaker 1: were going in with middle life skills. There's actually a
Speaker 1: piece from Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute that I
Speaker 1: read today where they gave and this was at elite schools,
Speaker 1: they gave students a basic American history test when they
Speaker 1: entered as freshman, and then gave them the same the
Speaker 1: same test when they left as seniors. They did better
Speaker 1: as entering freshman. So essentially, all the drinking and all
Speaker 1: the wheat smoking for four years did not in fact
Speaker 1: make them smarter. Of course, you know, I went to
Speaker 1: college for one year when I got out of high school,
Speaker 1: like a real college, not the community college version, and
Speaker 1: I got a zero point zero grade point average. My
Speaker 1: first semester, I drank and partied like you would not believe.
Speaker 1: I was easily way more dumb when I left them
Speaker 1: when I got there. I did not get any knowledge
Speaker 1: about the real world until the Marine Corps, until she
Speaker 1: started reading books and things like that. There is an
Speaker 1: endless world out there of knowledge that you can get
Speaker 1: where you don't have to spend twenty five thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year to get. I think you raise a very
Speaker 1: interesting point, which I know doesn't surprise you, Jesse, because
Speaker 1: you probably recognize all of your points is very interesting.
Speaker 1: But we are at a time when you have greater
Speaker 1: access and easier access to information, to self teaching, to
Speaker 1: learning about things on your own that at any point
Speaker 1: in human history, it's not even close, right, And there's
Speaker 1: no question if you want to nerd out sometime and
Speaker 1: I don't know if Jesse would ever do this, guys,
Speaker 1: but those are you listening. If you want to nerd out,
Speaker 1: you can watch. There are whole lectures by revered Yale
Speaker 1: professors online that you can watch. I mean, there's whole
Speaker 1: courses that they put up for free. You can want
Speaker 1: this stuff and can learn. You can see all the
Speaker 1: stuff that they're doing. This is all free, and yet
Speaker 1: while that's going on, the price of four year college
Speaker 1: tuition goes up and up and up. I think that
Speaker 1: these places are operating kind of like quasi government backed cartels,
Speaker 1: and there's just so many bloated administrators, and you've got
Speaker 1: a lot of professors that are teaching two hours a week.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a scam on that side
Speaker 1: of it that nobody ever focuses on. Well, yeah, and
Speaker 1: you're right about the wealth of knowledge at your fingertips.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've got two sons. They're eight and ten
Speaker 1: and a million times a day. Now, you know, they'll
Speaker 1: want to know about this or that. Shockingly I know
Speaker 1: is it may be to your listeners, I'm not all
Speaker 1: knowing and we don't know. We stop. Okay, let's stop,
Speaker 1: go to the computer, let's google it, let's watch YouTube video,
Speaker 1: let's figure it out. There's no question you have that
Speaker 1: is not a quick Google search away from finding the
Speaker 1: answer to and endless amounts of reading material. The knowledge
Speaker 1: is out there. You don't have to pay and go
Speaker 1: do it, and I'll tell you something else. We're going
Speaker 1: to see a flip to this system. One of these days. Soon,
Speaker 1: the corporations, the businesses in this country are going to
Speaker 1: figure out quickly. You don't have to wait for a
Speaker 1: kid to be twenty two. Talent is talent. Go snatch
Speaker 1: up a high school graduate, beg him sign a contract
Speaker 1: that he's going to stay for so many years, and
Speaker 1: give him me on the job training he needs right
Speaker 1: in your place, and skip the whole university racket. I
Speaker 1: don't think that four year college degrees are are worth
Speaker 1: as much in actual skills as our society pretends that
Speaker 1: they are. I just think that they are a credentialing system,
Speaker 1: and when they're trying to sort people out from each other,
Speaker 1: they they set this bar up. But I also would
Speaker 1: note that the bar because so many more people are
Speaker 1: going to four year undergraduate schools, and now the bar
Speaker 1: keeps getting higher, and now you got people that are
Speaker 1: supposed to get advanced degrees, master's degrees, all this you know,
Speaker 1: MBA's jds, all this other stuff. So I think it's
Speaker 1: kind of out of control. But Jesse, I need to
Speaker 1: I need to ask you, because you are a Texan
Speaker 1: and not far from ground zero of Beto Mania, what
Speaker 1: is your take on the men, the myth, the emo
Speaker 1: songwriter Beto roork Let me let me preface this by
Speaker 1: saying I can't stand him. I cannot stand in his voice.
Speaker 1: I don't like watching him speak. I don't like anything
Speaker 1: about Bedo O Roorke. So everybody stayed your hate man.
Speaker 1: Bedo Rourke is a phenomenal candidate, an absolute superstar, and
Speaker 1: somebody that Republicans should fear a lot more than they do.
Speaker 1: He is the next Obama. You can laugh at these
Speaker 1: morons doing their Beeto songs and things like that. Have
Speaker 1: you seen any Elizabeth Warren's song or Kamala Harris songs.
Speaker 1: That's the exact kind of idiocy that Obama could inspire him. People.
Speaker 1: He came within three points of beating Ted Cruz in
Speaker 1: a year where Greg Abbott beat hit opponent by double
Speaker 1: digit The guy is a tireless worker. He's gonna have
Speaker 1: Obama behind him. He's got national name. I d can
Speaker 1: raise money, his family has money. He's not gonna beat Trump.
Speaker 1: If the economy stays this way, nobody can. But you
Speaker 1: watch out for this guy. He is going to be
Speaker 1: trouble for us in the future. Wow, you think he
Speaker 1: can make it all the way through? Oh? I think
Speaker 1: he's In fact, I've been telling him as the Democrat
Speaker 1: nominee for six seven eight months. He was about a
Speaker 1: month into his Senate run and I was the first
Speaker 1: one to call it. He came out hard anti gun
Speaker 1: in Texas, which means you're not really running to win
Speaker 1: in Texas. You can't do that. But I knew right
Speaker 1: then he was running for president. And I'm telling you
Speaker 1: he is going to be a contender. He's going to
Speaker 1: be the nominee. Huh, Jesse Kelly Man dropping a marker
Speaker 1: here on this one. I'm messing around, really saying that. Bettos.
Speaker 1: I said this yesterday. And you know, we had our
Speaker 1: mutual friend Rahim Kassamon, and he takes your your a
Speaker 1: version of your point of view, at least where he
Speaker 1: agrees that he's While he's goofy, he is formidable. And
Speaker 1: you know, in the era of AOC, another politician that
Speaker 1: I know you must have some thoughts on in the
Speaker 1: era of AOC being a goofy, Ignoramus seems to be
Speaker 1: an asset. Yeah. Look, he understands very much the two
Speaker 1: thousand nineteen Democrat voter. He does on his website, he
Speaker 1: did his campaign, launched, launched his website. He has merchandise
Speaker 1: for sale and not a single policy position. The man
Speaker 1: knows exactly what he's doing. It's brilliant. It's brilliant, and
Speaker 1: he is able to for whatever reason, just because you
Speaker 1: can't see it and I can't see it, for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: he is able to inspire some kind of loyalty and
Speaker 1: enthusiasm and people that makes them want to lay down
Speaker 1: in traffic for him. That's the same stuff Obama used
Speaker 1: to do. You remember we used to make fun of
Speaker 1: all those idiots that would go to Obama's speeches and
Speaker 1: they'd pass out because they were so excited and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. That's Beto Aurora, I'm telling you fear this guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the left wing mind these days really does. That
Speaker 1: is what they want. They don't want someone to come
Speaker 1: in who's a technocrat who has sound policies and ideas,
Speaker 1: even if I don't like them, at least they're sensible.
Speaker 1: I mean, they don't want someone like Howard Schultz who's
Speaker 1: gonna say, you know, we can't actually at tax millionaires
Speaker 1: at ninety percent and expect us to have any kind
Speaker 1: of product productive economy. They don't want him. They want
Speaker 1: somebody they can pass out at rallies and that they
Speaker 1: can think is some kind of a messiah. So, Jesse,
Speaker 1: I think I think your analysis this one to sound
Speaker 1: before we let you get back to all things Texas.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, by the way, is it Camela or Kamala?
Speaker 1: Because I hear it both ways, and I feel like
Speaker 1: since you're so close with her, you would know. Well, obviously,
Speaker 1: as everybody knows, we're super tired. I mean, I'm sure
Speaker 1: she has a crush on me too. I mean we're
Speaker 1: just not talking about it. I call her Kamala or kay,
Speaker 1: you know for short, But I mean everyone else can
Speaker 1: call her what holla, what they want. That's just her
Speaker 1: and I and our kinship. How's her? How's her campaign
Speaker 1: coming along? You think? I just I think she's too
Speaker 1: boring to win. Well, she's clearly the media darling though
Speaker 1: it was the thing, or at least she was before
Speaker 1: Beto got in. I think he's gonna take that from
Speaker 1: her and that was going to carry her far. You
Speaker 1: saw them swooning over a buck. They're going shopping with her.
Speaker 1: We had Medium members bragging about helping Samala Harris pick
Speaker 1: out a new jacket to buy. So that alone is
Speaker 1: going to get her a long away look. She does.
Speaker 1: I joke around a lot because she does have the look.
Speaker 1: She speaks really well, because of her background, she's she
Speaker 1: has a lot of things the other candidates don't. I mean,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth warrens a terrible candidate. Coloba shar is a terrible
Speaker 1: The Democrats have some really bad candidates. I actually think
Speaker 1: Kamala is a very good one. And head Beto not
Speaker 1: gotten in out of said she's going to be the nominee.
Speaker 1: But we'll see you now what happens when Kamala asked
Speaker 1: you to be a part of her campaign? Jesse, will
Speaker 1: you will you for your fondness of Kamala? Will you
Speaker 1: will you sell out your country? Absolutely in a heartbeat,
Speaker 1: I mean the heart ones with the heart once book.
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't do anything about that. He's an
Speaker 1: honest man, folks. Jesse Kelly the one and only KPRC
Speaker 1: down in Houston. Listened to him on radio there. You
Speaker 1: can follow him on the Twitter look for the Jesse
Speaker 1: Kelly Show. Jesse, my friend, great to have you have
Speaker 1: a fantastic weekend. Be good brother. An interesting story today
Speaker 1: to put in the free speech wars category. Guardians of
Speaker 1: the Galaxy director James Gunn was fired by Disney some
Speaker 1: months back because of offensive tweets that were unearthed of
Speaker 1: his that made light of pedophilia and rape from a
Speaker 1: decade old I think they were a decade old. So
Speaker 1: this is a guy who they did the whole tweet
Speaker 1: deep dive thing, and they were able to dig up
Speaker 1: some stuff that was bad enough on him that he
Speaker 1: was then fired from his job. Well, it turns out
Speaker 1: that now after the interceding or intervening months, he is
Speaker 1: back on. They have rehired him, and he's also attached
Speaker 1: to the upcoming Suicide Squad sequel for Warner Brothers, and
Speaker 1: after that, Guardians the Galaxy three will commence. I thought
Speaker 1: Guardians of Galaxy one had some good stuff. It was
Speaker 1: a little a little too a little too noisy on
Speaker 1: screen for my taste. It just was a little too
Speaker 1: much stuff going on sometimes. But I thought there were
Speaker 1: some good things in Guarding the Galaxy. I have a
Speaker 1: I do like Chris Pratt, and he's does a good job.
Speaker 1: I liked him in Parks and rerec I like him
Speaker 1: now as as a leading man. He does a good job.
Speaker 1: Suicide Squad was an unbelievably bad movie. Though Suicide Squad
Speaker 1: was a shock because how hard can it be to
Speaker 1: make a movie that, you know, how hard can it
Speaker 1: be to make a movie about that kind of superhero
Speaker 1: stuff that's at least watchable. I'm not saying it has
Speaker 1: to be Citizen Kane, but can it just not be
Speaker 1: horrifyingly terrible? That is that really asking too much? Apparently, answers, Yes,
Speaker 1: it is. It is asking. It is asking too much
Speaker 1: to have a reasonable viewing experience with Suicide Squad. I mean,
Speaker 1: will Will Smith in it was terrible and anyway, it
Speaker 1: just was bad. Man, The whole thing was bad. Anyway,
Speaker 1: enough of my movie reviews on the free speech issue.
Speaker 1: You know, now we're gonna start to see this happen,
Speaker 1: and I wonder how we should react to it because
Speaker 1: he's a leftist who has been reinstated by Disney, which
Speaker 1: is a liberal run company, I mean the executives at
Speaker 1: Disney or liberals. And he is a leftist and he
Speaker 1: is now reinstated in this and so does that mean
Speaker 1: that the old model of apology and contrition and then
Speaker 1: you can keep your job and you can move forward
Speaker 1: in your life. Is that coming back or is it
Speaker 1: only coming back for leftists? You know, there was such
Speaker 1: a frenzy and it's worse. It's been worse in the
Speaker 1: last twelve months than it's ever been in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: A frenzy of find something bad that someone said and
Speaker 1: destroy them, destroy their livelihood, you know, destroy their reputation.
Speaker 1: There's been so much of it that I think that
Speaker 1: the left realized they were going to be in a
Speaker 1: in a mode of self consumption unless they tried to
Speaker 1: figure something else out. But they didn't want to give
Speaker 1: up the standard that they had put in place because
Speaker 1: it's so useful for trying to crush conservatives. It's so
Speaker 1: useful for them to weaponize against their political opponents. Now
Speaker 1: we're seeing a high profile leftist get a second chance.
Speaker 1: I think that this will just be used to say,
Speaker 1: see the next conservative if they go after they'll say
Speaker 1: he wouldn't even apologize, and they'll hope that we take
Speaker 1: the bait and start apologizing again, because I still think
Speaker 1: they'll Prince Jeoffrey Us. I think that if you're a
Speaker 1: conservative and you say I'm really sorry for what happened,
Speaker 1: unless I mean unless you are, I hate you know,
Speaker 1: I've got some never trumpers, some blue check never trumpers
Speaker 1: that come after me and say, you know, you think
Speaker 1: you should never apologize. Obviously, if you stepped out a line,
Speaker 1: you know you should apologize. That guy, Congressman Gates, you
Speaker 1: know what he publicly tweeted about about Michael Cohen and
Speaker 1: his wife and how maybe his wife would cheat on
Speaker 1: him when he's in prison. I mean, that's just out
Speaker 1: a line. It's just not okay. And he apologized for
Speaker 1: and that's the right move. It wasn't the right move
Speaker 1: because the mob said he should apologize. It was the
Speaker 1: right move because it was a dirt bag thing to
Speaker 1: tweet and he knew it, and he stepped back. I mean,
Speaker 1: he got a lot of heat and he stepped back.
Speaker 1: But you know that's that's when honor calls for an apology.
Speaker 1: When you should apologize for something, Not when you make
Speaker 1: a joke that is a little offensive or lands the
Speaker 1: wrong way. Not when you you know, made comments ten
Speaker 1: years ago that were politically incorrect. No, No No, that's that's
Speaker 1: just caving to the mob. We'll see if John, did
Speaker 1: you see Guardians the Galaxy too? Yeah? I didn't see
Speaker 1: it either. I don't know. It's a little just look,
Speaker 1: look a little too noise at me. I came to
Speaker 1: there making Guardians of the Galaxy three, and the best
Speaker 1: thing in Guardians of the Galaxy was the little the
Speaker 1: little tree, you know, root or is it grout or root?
Speaker 1: I don't know, I guess it grout. Yeah, that was
Speaker 1: the best thing Guardians and Galaxy for me. I didn't
Speaker 1: like the raccoon as much as I wanted to. Whatever
Speaker 1: his name is. He found him. That Bradley Cooper who
Speaker 1: does the voice for that too. It's such a weird
Speaker 1: what a weird call, you know, learns that the new
Speaker 1: every day. But we'll see where this goes in the
Speaker 1: free speech wars. The left will now start to take
Speaker 1: contrition from some on their own side. I wonder if
Speaker 1: I'll do it on the other side. Roll call coming
Speaker 1: up like soft butter on warm toast. Time to spread
Speaker 1: some freedom coast to coast. It's time for roll call
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton for roll call action
Speaker 1: where I get to hear from all of you over
Speaker 1: the weekend. I am planning, I don't know about you.
Speaker 1: I'm planning on lame pretty low this weekend, going to
Speaker 1: try to regroup and recharge. Been quite a week, friends,
Speaker 1: A lot of stuff going on, a lot of things
Speaker 1: to handle. You know, sometimes it's just not your week.
Speaker 1: This week just wasn't my week. But we got good
Speaker 1: things to hear from all of you, good things to read.
Speaker 1: That's fun. Matthew rights buck. As a trucker and managing
Speaker 1: a small trucking company, I welcome automation. There is a
Speaker 1: severe lack of drivers and the insane level of logging
Speaker 1: regulation we are under makes it very difficult to get
Speaker 1: loads moved in the time shipper's desire. Just having a
Speaker 1: truck that can drive interstate and highways between cities while
Speaker 1: the drivers sleeps would be a major benefit. That still
Speaker 1: leaves us skilled drivers to handle the difficult in city
Speaker 1: pickups and deliveries thanks to the great show shield Tai. Matthew,
Speaker 1: see this is this is why I always appreciate the
Speaker 1: expertise from this audience of people who really know these
Speaker 1: issues because they're living these issues, are dealing with the
Speaker 1: reality of the challenges that we talk about on a
Speaker 1: daily basis. And you raise a great point about essentially
Speaker 1: the ability to have drivers who would be it would
Speaker 1: be really a partially AI partially AI situation not entirely,
Speaker 1: so that way they could sleep overnight, and if they're
Speaker 1: on highways, you know, they could eliminate the need to
Speaker 1: stay up for highway driving, which is obviously a huge
Speaker 1: portion of interstate trucking and travel in general. So you know,
Speaker 1: you see, this is what we can't tell right now,
Speaker 1: which is how well the technology can be integrated and
Speaker 1: how people can continue to have jobs with the technology anyway.
Speaker 1: But you obviously have a good sense of that, and
Speaker 1: I think that's a very interesting, very interesting idea you
Speaker 1: have there, sir. Thank you, Amy, writes Ha. The movie
Speaker 1: references Archimedes in Disney's Sword in the Stone that was
Speaker 1: from yesterday. Also, thanks for not hammering my Senator Mike
Speaker 1: Lee for voting his principles. I like that someone in
Speaker 1: DC is wanting to do that. Mitt Romney, however, does
Speaker 1: not have a constitutional foundation, as shown by his governance.
Speaker 1: Feel free to take a swing. We all know he's
Speaker 1: a progressive and highly political you know, Amy, I think
Speaker 1: that there are people that in the Senate who believe
Speaker 1: that what they did was trying to turn back executive
Speaker 1: over region, and there were definitely good faith arguments about that. Yesterday.
Speaker 1: I was a little frustrated about it, and probably a
Speaker 1: little more harsh across the board about the senators that
Speaker 1: voted in favor of the resolution of condemnation that I
Speaker 1: should have been. But the president needs all the help
Speaker 1: he can get these days, and I do think that
Speaker 1: Republicans suffer from a bit of a grandstanding complex and
Speaker 1: a self righteousness complex, where when it's really important that
Speaker 1: they're all, you know, trying to run the ball up
Speaker 1: the middle together, some of them will say, no, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to because I'm so special, and that's not helpful.
Speaker 1: But Mike Lee, he may in fact sleep on a
Speaker 1: bed with sheets made from copies of the Constitution. If
Speaker 1: I found that out about Senator Mike Lee, it would
Speaker 1: not surprise me. I've interviewed Mike a bunch of times,
Speaker 1: haven't interviewed him in a while, though, should probably try
Speaker 1: to get him on one of my shows. Adam, Hello, Adam,
Speaker 1: on the Trump's first veto. It reveals for all that
Speaker 1: we have a single party establishment. Both party elites work
Speaker 1: only for themselves, and there's little, if anything we can
Speaker 1: do without tremendous cost to ourselves. Dark times shields high Adam,
Speaker 1: the political elite is a real thing. There are certainly
Speaker 1: real concerns about what Kennon should be done by those
Speaker 1: of us who have to live in a country where
Speaker 1: the laws are written by generally self interested men and women.
Speaker 1: There has not been as much movement on the Trump
Speaker 1: agenda as I would have liked in these last two years.
Speaker 1: There's no question about that. Congress has played a role.
Speaker 1: I think a lack of focus from the White House,
Speaker 1: or perhaps a focus on some of the wrong things,
Speaker 1: has played a role. And now we are heading into
Speaker 1: a very bitter election season with incredibly important consequences. Whether
Speaker 1: the country will be socialist or not is essentially what
Speaker 1: is at stake, and that's going to be a tough
Speaker 1: time to make the case. Well, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: really like socialism, but I wish Trump had followed throwing
Speaker 1: even more of US campaign promises. I'm not sure that's
Speaker 1: going to be a sound way to approach it. So
Speaker 1: I think you'll see a lot of Trump supporters willing
Speaker 1: and desiring to give him another four years. As for
Speaker 1: what the Republican Party will do, it is true, and
Speaker 1: you're seeing more of this lately, people repeating this. Politicians
Speaker 1: will always disappoint you. They will always disappoint you, even
Speaker 1: the good ones, even the ones who are trying, because
Speaker 1: they are men and women, they are flawed, they have
Speaker 1: their own interests, and the system itself is such that
Speaker 1: I think it grinds down even the best men and women.
Speaker 1: I think that the swamp has a kind of toxic effect,
Speaker 1: and it certainly weak is the backbones of many a
Speaker 1: member of Congress. Chuck, all right, did you notice that
Speaker 1: the Spanish version says betto for all? And he sent
Speaker 1: me a link to something Beto o'rourkey, Chuck, I did
Speaker 1: not notice that. I did not see that, Chuck. But
Speaker 1: your Betto is gonna push a lot on the fact
Speaker 1: that he is bilingually speaks Spanish, and that will certainly
Speaker 1: be something you're hearing a lot more of or from
Speaker 1: him on. So there you go, Mark Buck. The only
Speaker 1: thing better than Hillary doing single nasal breathing yoga is
Speaker 1: the Betto impression, followed by de Blasio Wilhelm. Even my
Speaker 1: nine year old loss it with the Hillary single nasal
Speaker 1: breathing yoga impersonation. Thanks Mark, I don't even remember. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we've done a lot of Hillary stuff on the show.
Speaker 1: I don't this single single name. We gotta, we gotta John.
Speaker 1: Do you remember that Hilary single nasal breathing impression? I
Speaker 1: know I did it. I just can't remember what I did.
Speaker 1: Some days, I'm I'm overtaken by a bit of wackiness
Speaker 1: that can kind of happen. Tends to be more I
Speaker 1: was gonna say tend to be more on Friday. I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure that's really true, Mary, Rights, Buck, you
Speaker 1: are right about recruiting for sports in college. Only a
Speaker 1: small amount a small amount go on to go pro.
Speaker 1: The ones that don't need to be able to read
Speaker 1: and do well in school to have a career after
Speaker 1: college needs to start before college. It needs to start
Speaker 1: in school, Mary. People sometimes say, here's an unpopular opinion,
Speaker 1: and then they share an opinion that most people that
Speaker 1: they want to agree with and will agree with them on.
Speaker 1: You know, here's an unpopular opinion, folks. I really respect
Speaker 1: the constitution, right, No, Buck, that's that's not an unpopular
Speaker 1: opinion with people you're talking to, But a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of media folks do that these days. My
Speaker 1: position on ending college athletics recruiting is legitimately an unpopular opinion.
Speaker 1: There are some people who agree with me, but there
Speaker 1: are a few and far between. From what I can
Speaker 1: see and the editorial I wrote today in the Hill people,
Speaker 1: I can tell a lot of people that commented on
Speaker 1: it didn't even read it. They just think there's kind
Speaker 1: of this like, oh, whatever, nerd, you know what, you're
Speaker 1: such a nerd, Why do you not want sports. I've
Speaker 1: never said we shouldn't have sports in college. I just
Speaker 1: think it's so funny that the culture is such that
Speaker 1: right now we're supposed to think it's normal that if
Speaker 1: you are a great water polo player, you should maybe
Speaker 1: get into Stanford even if you don't have great grades.
Speaker 1: Why who the heck cares about water polo? And for
Speaker 1: the really big sports teams, really football, basketball, maybe put
Speaker 1: a few others in there that do draw major crowds,
Speaker 1: that do get big NCAA ratings. I think that those
Speaker 1: students should be treated as semi pro athletes, so that
Speaker 1: they would be essentially athletic Academy admits, and they would
Speaker 1: have still they would still have access to the same
Speaker 1: classes and everything else. But we should just be one
Speaker 1: less exploitative of people in the the nc double A,
Speaker 1: which is what's going on right now. It's a multi
Speaker 1: billion dollar business. And if one of these NC Double
Speaker 1: A players, you know, takes a ham sandwich from a booster,
Speaker 1: we are all supposed to get so outraged that this
Speaker 1: kid who doesn't have any money and is an incredible athlete,
Speaker 1: you know, and people are making a lot of money
Speaker 1: off of his skills. You know. I think that's a
Speaker 1: big problem. But also D three schools recruiting is just ridiculous,
Speaker 1: and I don't care. I don't care anybody because I
Speaker 1: went to a D three school and it was bizarre.
Speaker 1: There was no reason for they were recruiting for team.
Speaker 1: They had dozens of different teams. They're recruiting for the
Speaker 1: women's softball team, they're recruiting for the men's crew team,
Speaker 1: they're recruiting for the you know, the lacrosse team, men's
Speaker 1: and women's. If it, why, why can't we just have
Speaker 1: people show up? The school of sixteen hundred kids show up.
Speaker 1: Each sport has tryouts, They last a few days, You
Speaker 1: play your sport, and you know, you go about your life. Man,
Speaker 1: I just why can't we do it the way they
Speaker 1: do it in high school? I don't understand people. I
Speaker 1: keep in mind that people are getting into the school
Speaker 1: that don't have the academic skills and then they struggle,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of bitterness from some of the
Speaker 1: especially the big sport athletes who don't do well in school.
Speaker 1: But Mary, I appreciate you are the one of the
Speaker 1: very few that has reached out to me today and
Speaker 1: that has agreed with me on this at all. I
Speaker 1: got I didn't get dragged on this today, but I
Speaker 1: definitely people were just, oh, whatever, shut up, nerd. Sports
Speaker 1: are cool. It's like I played sports in college. I
Speaker 1: played sports, and I love sports. I'm not anti sports.
Speaker 1: I'm anti people cheating the system by being great fencers,
Speaker 1: which is not exactly a highly competitive sport in this country.
Speaker 1: And hate to break it to you, not a lot
Speaker 1: of people spending hours and hours a day doing fencing
Speaker 1: so that they can get into Harvard. Okay, I think
Speaker 1: that's just stupid anyway. And then I think that the
Speaker 1: big sports at the big school should be semipro. Don't
Speaker 1: And I don't understand why this is such a oh oh,
Speaker 1: and here's the crazy idea. And the universities and collegists
Speaker 1: auld first and foremost be concerned with educating students. Wow,
Speaker 1: it's not insane. They're educational institutions. Maybe they maybe they shouldn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, you think of a lot of these schools
Speaker 1: and you you name them, and people immediately think football
Speaker 1: or basketball or you know, whatever sport they're best known for.
Speaker 1: That's not which that's not good. Schools should want to
Speaker 1: be known for being great, great institutions of learning. And
Speaker 1: I know I do sound like a hull modern or
Speaker 1: nerd here, like, oh, schools wan be good learning? But
Speaker 1: it's true. Schools are about learning. Why is it so
Speaker 1: hard for people to understand and believe schools are about learning? Anyway?
Speaker 1: Seeing I've been thinking of this for a long time,
Speaker 1: but the American culture does not want to agree with
Speaker 1: me and telling people that, you know, Texas Tech is
Speaker 1: going to have a great football team even if they
Speaker 1: don't break academic standards for students and recruit like a
Speaker 1: professional team, they don't want to hear that. I mean,
Speaker 1: they'd still have great football. They still have great football
Speaker 1: games to watch. What's the difference. But people, you know,
Speaker 1: people don't want to hear what buck as to say
Speaker 1: on this one, except the ones who want the truth.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back, and we're back with Roll Call
Speaker 1: Part two on our Friday show. Here the way, take
Speaker 1: off the weekend, everybody. I hope you've enjoyed hanging out
Speaker 1: with me today here in the Freedom Hut on the
Speaker 1: buck Sex didn't show. You know, it'd be fun one
Speaker 1: day to just do like a third hour where I
Speaker 1: get to just be one of those radio hosts who's like, hey,
Speaker 1: bringing you the smoothest hits circa nineteen ninety three, you know,
Speaker 1: and just like play the music and be the guy
Speaker 1: who you know, the original on air? They said, right, John,
Speaker 1: isn't that how like radio? That's what people used to do,
Speaker 1: And then talk radio started really in the well, I
Speaker 1: forget what it was. I should so much should write
Speaker 1: a book about the radio industry, because there's really no
Speaker 1: place to go to. Are there books about the radio industry? Really?
Speaker 1: Oh okay, we'll see that's not something I've ever seen,
Speaker 1: so I don't have to learn about this. Like people
Speaker 1: bring up Bob Grant and I'm like, I don't know
Speaker 1: who Bob Grant was? Am I supposed to move Bop?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know he's a radio host, but I
Speaker 1: don't know anything other than that. So I gotta I
Speaker 1: gotta learn some of these things. Let's see we have, Aaron,
Speaker 1: college sports need to be suspended for ten years to
Speaker 1: give everyone involved time to find a new career. Afterwards,
Speaker 1: it can be restored on a commertly, completely non commercial
Speaker 1: volunteer basis. No paid coaches, no athletics scholarships, no broadcast
Speaker 1: of games, no charge for admission. Aaron, you know that's
Speaker 1: a pretty radical take, but I can you know how
Speaker 1: I feel about this. I think that college sports in
Speaker 1: general are completely out of control and that everyone needs
Speaker 1: to get a grip and this is just it's just
Speaker 1: too much at this point, like it needs to not
Speaker 1: be what it is, and there's a lot of complexity
Speaker 1: to it. It's different at the D one the D
Speaker 1: three level. I think that you know, athletic scholarships, if
Speaker 1: you're going to do the semipro league in the university,
Speaker 1: call them scholar or you know, sports academy admits, so
Speaker 1: people that are there primarily for sports but also are
Speaker 1: being taught and going into class. I just think there
Speaker 1: are ways to structure that are different, you know, think
Speaker 1: about it this way, my friends. I mean, our university
Speaker 1: system is really based on the European university system split
Speaker 1: this out there. Yeah, Oxford has sports clubs. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a soccer club team, and there's rowing teams and
Speaker 1: there's But Oxford and Cambridge don't have a few dozen,
Speaker 1: highly recruited, highly competitive sports programs that have enormous stadiums
Speaker 1: that they play in and you know, ten tens of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars on facilities now that they don't have that,
Speaker 1: and it's okay. They still have lots of sports leagues
Speaker 1: in the country, and you know, I think people increasingly
Speaker 1: should if you want to pursue first of all, if
Speaker 1: you want to pursue professional sports, then there's a lot
Speaker 1: of argue. There's a lot of argument made that with
Speaker 1: the exception of football, you really want to do it
Speaker 1: by the time you're eighteen, you're basically ready to go
Speaker 1: pro by eighteen, so and in tennis, for example, it's
Speaker 1: a lot earlier than that. I just think it needs
Speaker 1: a rethink. And you know, that's such a big system,
Speaker 1: there's so many people that make money off it. Nobody
Speaker 1: really wants to to change it. But I think I'm
Speaker 1: right on this one. I know that I'm a little
Speaker 1: bit of a sports flat earther. But I'm telling you
Speaker 1: the Earth is flat. I'm telling you this is on
Speaker 1: this issue. Don't don't quote me. Oh my gosh, this
Speaker 1: is like media matters of book Sucsten's a flat Earth
Speaker 1: or no. No. I just meant I was taking the
Speaker 1: analogy further. Darn it. Joey, big fan of your radio show.
Speaker 1: I hear you are a dog lover. I have a
Speaker 1: Belgian Shepherd, a TerVeer in best dog ever. What do
Speaker 1: you think about the breed? Well, Joey, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being a fan of the show. I do
Speaker 1: absolutely love dogs. I think dogs are one of the
Speaker 1: great joys in life. I think that dogs are great companions,
Speaker 1: and if I had a more set schedule and a
Speaker 1: little bit more time and resources to devote to it,
Speaker 1: I would get a dog and a heartbeat, I do
Speaker 1: plan at getting a dog one day. As for Belgian Shepherds,
Speaker 1: if they are the dog I think they are, which
Speaker 1: I think people sometimes confuse with Belgian Malinois, But I'd
Speaker 1: have to look up the specific breed, but I'm sure
Speaker 1: Shepherds are usually great dogs. Team. That's gonna be it
Speaker 1: for the show today. Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: Really Please do have a great weekend, rest up, take
Speaker 1: care of yourself. We'll talk Monday. Shields Hie