Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with is not the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank. Together, we will make America
Speaker 1: great again. It's what you've been waiting for all day.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck toll
Speaker 1: free at eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred to eight to five. The future
Speaker 1: of talk radio, Buck Sexton and the worst twenty minutes
Speaker 1: of my life. I thought that we are disappointed and
Speaker 1: angry that this happened. We do know that everyone on
Speaker 1: the island was affected in some way. Very frightening, traumatized, scared.
Speaker 1: I didn't know if if I was going to die
Speaker 1: a second or die in the the next five minutes. It
Speaker 1: was horrifying. I came across to our phones that there
Speaker 1: was a missile that was gonna hit, and nobody knew
Speaker 1: what to do. I filled up fields of water, and
Speaker 1: I filled up the bathtub just so we would have water.
Speaker 1: I got caught in clothes on so that way, if
Speaker 1: there was hot air fire, it wouldn't melt my skin,
Speaker 1: and I sat in the bathtub that I made for
Speaker 1: myself and cried. I called my mom. She wouldn't let
Speaker 1: me hang up on the phone with her. She said,
Speaker 1: I want to be here just in case it happens.
Speaker 1: And it was really sad. A ballistic missile threat to
Speaker 1: Hawaii that was totally fake, false in error. Buck Sex
Speaker 1: in here with you all. Thanks for joining me in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut. We have got much to discuss today,
Speaker 1: my friends. So this is what happened. That that was
Speaker 1: some reaction to a text message that got sent out
Speaker 1: two people in Hawaii by a state government agency. And
Speaker 1: here's what the message said. Emergency alert, ballistic missile threat
Speaker 1: inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill. Now.
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who I think is prone to getting
Speaker 1: overly anxious or or scared or freaked out about the
Speaker 1: possibility of a terror attack or any number of things
Speaker 1: out there. I used to work in counter terrorism, and
Speaker 1: so if I saw something that I look like it
Speaker 1: was fake to me, I'd probably ignore it. This was
Speaker 1: an official message, and Hawaii, it is believed, is within
Speaker 1: missile range of North Korea nuclear range who knows, but
Speaker 1: certainly within missile range. And whatever we think we know
Speaker 1: about North Korea could also be wrong. And if I
Speaker 1: had gotten this message, I would have been quite anxious
Speaker 1: about it, understandably, so I think anybody would be. Now
Speaker 1: people already are calling for greater accountability and saying we
Speaker 1: need to make sure this never happens again. I understand
Speaker 1: all that, and I agree this can't happen again, because
Speaker 1: let's just start with a one thing that I think
Speaker 1: has not nearly gotten enough attention in the media. This
Speaker 1: happened in Hawaii, which is a relatively uh small state
Speaker 1: in terms of population, and it happened on a Saturday,
Speaker 1: and it didn't go out to everybody in the island,
Speaker 1: only some, and only one over some text message carriers,
Speaker 1: I forget which ones. And they tried to sound the alarm,
Speaker 1: literally sound alarms in Hawaii, and only some of them
Speaker 1: went off on the streets, you know, ambulance kind of
Speaker 1: alarm sounds, and so it could have been much more
Speaker 1: of a panic than it even was. Imagine if this
Speaker 1: had happened for a moment, if you were in the
Speaker 1: state of well here in New York City or in Philadelphia,
Speaker 1: or in Dallas, or you know, you name it, where
Speaker 1: you might have had panic in densely packed civilian areas.
Speaker 1: It could have been at a at a football stadium.
Speaker 1: It could have been and and people could have been hurt,
Speaker 1: And the possibility of widespread panic turning into loss of
Speaker 1: life is very very real. In fact, recently, when the
Speaker 1: wild five fires were burning in California, state authorities there
Speaker 1: chose not to send in at least one instance, a
Speaker 1: messages out because they weren't sure which direction the wildfire
Speaker 1: was going in. And they also didn't want to possibly
Speaker 1: tell people to evacuate only to put them in the
Speaker 1: path of a wildfire by trying to get out of
Speaker 1: a certain area. And they didn't want to further congest
Speaker 1: egress routes without knowing where the fire was going to burn.
Speaker 1: So there are some complexities here. There are people who
Speaker 1: are paid at the state government level to try and
Speaker 1: handle this stuff so that we can all have some
Speaker 1: hope of getting out of a other of an otherwise
Speaker 1: life and death situation. But people are clearly upset about
Speaker 1: this TULSEI Gabbert, who it's among, Well, I was gonna
Speaker 1: say among my favorite Democrats. Why because I like her policies.
Speaker 1: She said, well, no, that's actually not really true. She's
Speaker 1: just kind of charming in her own way. But she
Speaker 1: said the following about this, and our leaders have failed us.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is taking too long, he's not taking this
Speaker 1: threat seriously, and there's no time to waste. We've got
Speaker 1: to get rid of this nuclear threat from North Korea.
Speaker 1: We've got to achieve peace. Not played politics, but achieve
Speaker 1: peace because this is literally life and death that is
Speaker 1: at stake for the people of Hawaii and the people
Speaker 1: of this country. So it's about getting peace with North Korea.
Speaker 1: I mean, sure, we would like to achieve peace with
Speaker 1: North Korea, but North Korea is the problem. They're not us.
Speaker 1: And as much as getting a lecture from a Democrat
Speaker 1: rap out in Hawaii may make the left feel kind of, uh,
Speaker 1: kind of warm and fuzzy about all things, this isn't
Speaker 1: all that all that useful. Uh, this is not all
Speaker 1: that helpful. The media did manage quite quickly to tie
Speaker 1: Trump into this. I think there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people out there, and I don't want to be flip
Speaker 1: about this. I think there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: He's going to be flip about it or happy that
Speaker 1: this at least didn't happen while President Trump, while watching
Speaker 1: was watching Fox and Friends, and instead it happened when
Speaker 1: he was out on the golf course and he was
Speaker 1: informed about this by by layers of advisors and such. Um.
Speaker 1: I think he's being flip about it. You know, I
Speaker 1: was not watching Fox and Friends. You could do that
Speaker 1: to anyone at any time. You all, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: not just sitting there. You know, it's not like Bucks
Speaker 1: sitting there in his sweatpants eating chicken nuggets at one
Speaker 1: o'clock in the morning because he didn't make himself dinner
Speaker 1: because he was working on a history podcast blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: and yeah, that that could have happened. I did have
Speaker 1: chicken nuggets for dinner at one point this weekend. But
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper is out there saying, oh, it's a good
Speaker 1: thing Trump. Yeah, because let's focus on whether Trump is
Speaker 1: the problem here or not. Um, how could this happen?
Speaker 1: You know, look, people ask me this. Look, you're working
Speaker 1: kind of terrorism at the A couple of friends asked
Speaker 1: me or counter terrorism at the m Y p D.
Speaker 1: I was like, look, I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: how the Hawaii Ballistic Incoming Ballistic Missile system warning works.
Speaker 1: I have no idea. I'm gonna lie, you know. I
Speaker 1: wish I knew about all these things. I wish I
Speaker 1: knew about some of the other government stuff that goes on.
Speaker 1: But no, I have no idea how Hawaii system works.
Speaker 1: So I can't give you some inside analysis of whether
Speaker 1: or not Hawaii has a bad system other than the
Speaker 1: fact that clearly it's not a very good one. Here's
Speaker 1: what the Hawaiian Emergency Emergency Management spokesperson, I suppose, this
Speaker 1: is what Verne Miyagi is the gentleman. This is what
Speaker 1: he said about it. It's a human era. There is
Speaker 1: there is a screen that says are you Are you
Speaker 1: sure you want to do this? Okay? And I think
Speaker 1: that's already in place. We had one person, human arrow,
Speaker 1: and that thing was was pushed anywhere, so they not
Speaker 1: only triggered the alert, they also pressed yes. Yes. There
Speaker 1: wasn't two steps process. There was a press yes in
Speaker 1: both situations. Now, I think it's fair to ask. I
Speaker 1: think it's fair to ask, uh, okay, if it was
Speaker 1: just a button, somebody could push the button. You know
Speaker 1: you're not paying attention. You got your coffee, you know,
Speaker 1: you throw a little you know, non dairy coconut creamer
Speaker 1: in there, maybe a little Stevia if you're feeling fancy
Speaker 1: and you know, you knock it over and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden whoops in you you hit the button. But
Speaker 1: if you hit one button and then there's another button
Speaker 1: that you have to hit in order to make it
Speaker 1: go mm hmm, a little strange. I can't go as
Speaker 1: far as to say that a person would intentionally do
Speaker 1: this because I really can't, off the off the top
Speaker 1: of my head, I can't think of why somebody would
Speaker 1: want to do this. I've seen a lot of outrage
Speaker 1: about how the government employee needs to be reassigned here,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, sorry, fired instead of reassigned. Re assigned
Speaker 1: not good enough. I always just want to note that,
Speaker 1: you know, that's not really the unless the person acted
Speaker 1: with malfeasance or or true. Well, I think in competence
Speaker 1: is very likely here, but it doesn't really matter. It
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter if there's one person gets fired or not.
Speaker 1: It is very likely if the person did get fired
Speaker 1: that he or she might be able to sue and
Speaker 1: claim that the system was faulty in some way, and
Speaker 1: that would just be then a problem for the taxpayers
Speaker 1: to deal with. But something weird happened here, for sure.
Speaker 1: I woke up on Saturday. I was up. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: keep talking about it. I make it sound like my
Speaker 1: weekend was interesting or actually, no, I guess I make
Speaker 1: it sound like it's even more boring than it was
Speaker 1: because I didn't do anything other than research and study
Speaker 1: and right. But Ms Molly's was on her way to
Speaker 1: Hawaii when this happened in the air in a plane,
Speaker 1: and I didn't I knew she was all right. I
Speaker 1: didn't know what exactly. You know, I don't check and
Speaker 1: see when her flight's gonna land. She just usually text
Speaker 1: me to let me the flight was fine. So I
Speaker 1: don't know when she whether she had or if she
Speaker 1: was landing or anything else. Um. It's it's it's amazing
Speaker 1: that this thing, that this happened the way that it did.
Speaker 1: Look the good news is written as far I understand.
Speaker 1: Nobody was hurt. Clue, there's no ballistic missile. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: also nobody was hurt. Um, so that's good. Although people
Speaker 1: were terrified, there was an emotional distress that many of
Speaker 1: us would certainly feel, but it brings up the the
Speaker 1: bigger issue there. There's there's two levels here. On one hand,
Speaker 1: there's the or on the one level, I'm mixing my
Speaker 1: metaphors here. There's two levels with one hand. Uh. On
Speaker 1: the one on the one you have the ineptitude the
Speaker 1: Hawaii state government with this system and they messed up
Speaker 1: big time. Uh. Wasn't it some years ago? I forget
Speaker 1: what happened? Wasn't there Uh? What administration was it? When
Speaker 1: the plane was supposed to do a fly by? I
Speaker 1: guess it was Air Force one was supposed to fly
Speaker 1: by the Statue of Liberty and you know down lower
Speaker 1: Manhattan planes close to ground that everything was. It was
Speaker 1: it Obama, but I don't remember now, but there was
Speaker 1: a plane that that flew it was a government plane.
Speaker 1: I think it was Air Force one that flew too
Speaker 1: close to Uh. Um, let me know, guys, let me know.
Speaker 1: We got producer Mike in uh in the chair today,
Speaker 1: so he's he's with us now. We've had some changes
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom Hut, which I'll also talk to
Speaker 1: you about later on. I want to get a chance.
Speaker 1: But yeah, producer Michael, let me know what the what
Speaker 1: the deal is with that. I'm pretty sure it was.
Speaker 1: I think I see. I don't want to say it
Speaker 1: was Obama because then it's like I'm blaming the Obama
Speaker 1: administration more than I already do for things. But I
Speaker 1: think it was that. I mean, they flew a plane
Speaker 1: close to Statue of Liberty, but it also frightened some
Speaker 1: people because it was there, we go That's what I thought. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So Lower Manhattan was hit on nine eleven by two
Speaker 1: planes find close to skyscrapers, so they decided to fly
Speaker 1: Air Force one for a photo op very close to
Speaker 1: Statue of Liberty, which people that remember are people who
Speaker 1: remember what happened that day eleven. When you have a
Speaker 1: jumbo jet that's getting pretty close to to ground down there,
Speaker 1: that that weirded some people out. Understandably, this is, you know,
Speaker 1: similar to that in terms of the ineptitude, the foolish
Speaker 1: decision making and all that. But then it also raised
Speaker 1: the issue of wow um. One of the reasons this
Speaker 1: was so frightening was that it's conceivable, right. One of
Speaker 1: the problems here is that if you were to get
Speaker 1: a message those of you listening to the show, uh,
Speaker 1: those of you who are listening to the show in
Speaker 1: the Midwest. If you've got a message that you know
Speaker 1: China was invading, you might be like, well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think they're gonna have I'm not sure they'd get
Speaker 1: here first, you know, I'm sure the Chinese invasion force
Speaker 1: is gonna have, you know, paratroopers over Omaha first. They
Speaker 1: probably have to go to one of the coasts. There's
Speaker 1: there's other stuff that would happen that wouldn't concern you,
Speaker 1: But Hawaii a nuclear missile that's actually concerning because it
Speaker 1: could happen because it's within range and there's a belligerent
Speaker 1: power there. So we should talk a bit about this
Speaker 1: because there's a new era we have entered now of
Speaker 1: perhaps having to think again about the possibility of a
Speaker 1: conventional military strike, even a nuclear military strike against the homeland.
Speaker 1: That's very different from where we have been psychologically as
Speaker 1: a country for a long time, for almost all of
Speaker 1: my adult life. We will get into that and much
Speaker 1: more after the break. What do you think about this Hawaii? Thank?
Speaker 1: Am I missing something? Is there a part of this,
Speaker 1: that part of this that I've left out that you
Speaker 1: think is important here? Do you do you think of
Speaker 1: some of some of suggested that this could not have
Speaker 1: been a mistake, that maybe this was either a really
Speaker 1: dumb prank or or a sending some kind of a message.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm just wondering if you have you've
Speaker 1: got thoughts out there about this? Eight four to five,
Speaker 1: eight four buck. We have much more show coming up,
Speaker 1: my friends, So stay with me instant. The launches made,
Speaker 1: we know it, and then will very quickly make a
Speaker 1: judgment about whether we're being threatened or not. And then
Speaker 1: a notified appropriate command, and it's that command that would
Speaker 1: marry up with local state emergency management centers. In this case,
Speaker 1: of course, there was no launch, and that emergency management
Speaker 1: center acted on their own without a military command advising
Speaker 1: them that they have detected the launch. Not only detected
Speaker 1: a launch, but it's a threat to them. The emergency
Speaker 1: management center in Hawaii, they know full well that they
Speaker 1: should not be providing an alert to their citizens without
Speaker 1: the military command advising. And that's such a thing actually exists,
Speaker 1: and it's actually threatening to the people in Hawaii, and
Speaker 1: that did not happen. Jack Keene over Fox News saying
Speaker 1: how an actual missile launch would be, well, how we
Speaker 1: know about it? What would happen. What we would uh,
Speaker 1: how how that chain of information would work. Oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, before producer Mike told me that it was Obama,
Speaker 1: he gave me the date too, but I just said,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, I forgot he wasn't on air. So but
Speaker 1: the point is that, yes, it was the Obama administration
Speaker 1: that flew a flue Air Force one too close to
Speaker 1: the Statue of Liberty, and it gave some people quite
Speaker 1: a jolt and lower Manhattan because it reminded them of
Speaker 1: what happened on eleven. Mike in uh Winston Salem, North
Speaker 1: Carolina got some ideas about what happened. Mike. Good to
Speaker 1: have you. Hey, how are you doing tonight? I'm all right,
Speaker 1: thank you for calling. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm programmed
Speaker 1: PLCs and and things like that. And got a theory
Speaker 1: that may play into here. Um, there's a couple of
Speaker 1: problems that I'm hearing this was a training exercise, if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken where I've heard. And it's possible that
Speaker 1: whoever programmed this PLC or touch screen is what I'm
Speaker 1: assuming it is. I don't think it's actually manual buttons anymore.
Speaker 1: My guess is that this was a PLC or PC
Speaker 1: that had a touch screen, and somebody hit the screen,
Speaker 1: and when it came up to do the next step,
Speaker 1: they did it, and from there in a training exercise.
Speaker 1: My assumption is that they wouldn't actually be able to
Speaker 1: trigger the alarms that would go into a another mode,
Speaker 1: and that was probably where the problem is going to
Speaker 1: be found out. That's my opinion. Just feel like you're
Speaker 1: gonna see that this was a programming issue or an
Speaker 1: h m I issue human human machine interface was not
Speaker 1: connected correctly, or a procedure issue. I don't. I think
Speaker 1: they panicked the first time and tried to correct it
Speaker 1: so fast that they hit it again. That's just where
Speaker 1: I'm seeing right now. And and it's sad, But so
Speaker 1: do you so, Mike, You've got you look, I appreciate
Speaker 1: your expertise here. You think that the individual who is responsible,
Speaker 1: who has been reassigned, maybe didn't mess up quite so
Speaker 1: much as people think in terms of how much responsibility
Speaker 1: is on him or her as opposed to the system. Right?
Speaker 1: Is it? Is? It? Is it your analysis that the
Speaker 1: system maybe here was part of the problem. The programming
Speaker 1: of the system. There there were some fail safes that
Speaker 1: were in place that did fall in there. What happened
Speaker 1: was I feel that the that what happened is the
Speaker 1: is the programmer didn't follow through with his programming. They
Speaker 1: didn't check the system to see if this would happen, because,
Speaker 1: like I said, I feel I've heard that this is
Speaker 1: a training exercise, and a training exercise should never be
Speaker 1: allowed to go to the final point. It should show
Speaker 1: up on the screen or you should show up on
Speaker 1: the PLC or whatever that there that this can happen.
Speaker 1: But it's supposed to be locked out, so it can't happen.
Speaker 1: So I don't thought this person not I'm not saying
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that the system isn't broke, but I
Speaker 1: think it's a programming issue as much as anything else.
Speaker 1: Right now, all right, Mike, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: the call. Good to have you an sir. All right, man,
Speaker 1: I appreciate thank you. Eight four N two five. You
Speaker 1: got any more thoughts? A little more just on the
Speaker 1: implications of living in a world where we actually have
Speaker 1: to be concerned about nuclear weapons aimed at us, because
Speaker 1: that's new for us, isn't it, folks? That? And then
Speaker 1: the latest on the budget ceiling fight, and also Docca
Speaker 1: and some what's the other thing I'm leaving off here
Speaker 1: that I want to talk to you about. I'm forgetting
Speaker 1: what it was. Oh yeah, someone got uh well, it's
Speaker 1: kind of complicated. Let's just say that I'm gonna talk
Speaker 1: to you about Azizon. Sorry. Later in the show you'll
Speaker 1: see why they're right there. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton his back understanding why North Korea has developed
Speaker 1: and is holding on so tightly to these nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: because they see it as the only deterrent against the
Speaker 1: US coming in and overthrowing the regime there. So that
Speaker 1: exists as a result again of our decades long regime
Speaker 1: change war policies around the world, that North Korea is
Speaker 1: now in a position where Kim Jong un is saying,
Speaker 1: no way, I'm not going to give up these nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons because he doesn't see that credible message coming from
Speaker 1: the United States that we don't We're not interested in
Speaker 1: overthrowing your government. We're interested in removing this nuclear threat
Speaker 1: from our country in the world. All right, I take
Speaker 1: it all back. That was representative from Hawaii, Tulsei Gabert
Speaker 1: and and everything she said was idiotic there, and she
Speaker 1: has no idea what she's talking about, And forget about
Speaker 1: me saying that she's a democrat. She's one of the
Speaker 1: democrats that I like more than other democrats. I take it,
Speaker 1: I take it all back. She's that was That was
Speaker 1: a terrible display of ignorance. There few things the idea
Speaker 1: that North Korea has nukes because of us. The only
Speaker 1: way somebody could think that is if they have not
Speaker 1: even the faintest familiarity with the ideological origins of the
Speaker 1: North Korean state, with the Kim dynasty, with the functioning
Speaker 1: of North Korea, with the reason for that state's existence.
Speaker 1: No one could say that North Korea wants nukes because
Speaker 1: of us if they knew any of that other stuff.
Speaker 1: Because the truth is that North Korea wants to invade
Speaker 1: South Korea, and North Korea can prevent a US invasion
Speaker 1: of South Korea. It doesn't need a nuclear deterrent for
Speaker 1: US to be uh stopped from going in Militarily, they
Speaker 1: can destroy most of for all of Seoul, South Korea
Speaker 1: very rapidly with conventional artillery. Plus North Korea has chemical
Speaker 1: and biological weapons. At least we think who knows, We don't.
Speaker 1: We don't really know what it has, but I'm sure
Speaker 1: it's got all kinds of nasty stuff. Plenty of reason
Speaker 1: to believe that North Korea has managed to hide away
Speaker 1: all kinds of w m D that aren't even the
Speaker 1: nuclear variety. But this is a little guy. I understand
Speaker 1: for some people who are ignorant about foreign policy and
Speaker 1: how the world works, it's great to just find some
Speaker 1: tie in to blame Trump in this administration. But this
Speaker 1: phrases in a more serious way, putting aside Gabbard's nonsense.
Speaker 1: In a more serious way, it's worth noting, Uh, they're
Speaker 1: our concerns now about what the future looks like in
Speaker 1: the world that's going to have more states with nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: Here's what people don't want to say out loud, but
Speaker 1: most of the folks that I know who have some
Speaker 1: idea what they're talking about will will say at least
Speaker 1: offline or you know, away from microphones. Very likely that
Speaker 1: North Korea is going to get nuclear weapons that could
Speaker 1: hit anywhere in the world soon, and it is very
Speaker 1: unlikely that anyone's going to do anything about it. It
Speaker 1: is also likely that Iran will get nuclear weapons at
Speaker 1: a more distant point in the future. Of the North
Speaker 1: Korea is completion of its ballistic and nuclear weapons programs,
Speaker 1: and I don't think anyone will do anything about Iran
Speaker 1: having it. And at that point you have major not
Speaker 1: just problems of dealing with the missile threat, but also
Speaker 1: non proliferation issues. And you know, what do we do
Speaker 1: within Iranian regime that wants to give Let's say the
Speaker 1: Assad regime in Syria which has still state in power.
Speaker 1: You don't hear much about it these days, but what
Speaker 1: do we do if the Iranian get nukes and then
Speaker 1: sneak them nukes? And where does that stop? You know
Speaker 1: who else is gonna want to get it? And clearly,
Speaker 1: if the Irani's get nws societies, you're gonna want to
Speaker 1: get nukes. And at some point in the relatively near future,
Speaker 1: the Japanese may decide, you know what, North Korea is
Speaker 1: going to be pointing weapons that are capable of eradicating us,
Speaker 1: pointing them at us. Then we will have to do
Speaker 1: something ourselves. We can't just count on the good word
Speaker 1: and good graces of the United States of America to
Speaker 1: back us up on that. These are very real concerns
Speaker 1: and we are entering a world where I think much
Speaker 1: more so than many are willing to say right now
Speaker 1: we're going to be relying on missile defense systems instead
Speaker 1: of no one else can have missiles other than who
Speaker 1: already has them. The pace this the spread of information,
Speaker 1: including highly sensitive information, much of it pillaged via cyber
Speaker 1: means from places like the United States, but from all
Speaker 1: over the world's accelerating all the time. And nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: really are are a knowledge issue as much as the
Speaker 1: material one, and once they have the knowledge, there's really
Speaker 1: not much we can do about it to stop them
Speaker 1: unless we're really going to threaten military action. Does anyone
Speaker 1: really believe that the Iranians have given up their quest
Speaker 1: for nukes? I don't think so, does anyone, Well maybe
Speaker 1: some former Obama administration officials, but does anybody with uh
Speaker 1: an i Q that reaches in the high two digits
Speaker 1: and above. I mean, this is really not overly complicated
Speaker 1: stuff when you try to look at it from a
Speaker 1: realistic point of view. I mean, it's very complicated as
Speaker 1: an issue, But I'm saying, whether the Iranians want nukes
Speaker 1: or not, they want nukes, it's not that hard. They
Speaker 1: want nukes. North Korea wants nukes that can hit us,
Speaker 1: and the belligerent posture of North Korea. To take us
Speaker 1: back to what Miss Gabber, Representative Gabber said at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the segment, Now, the war like pose of
Speaker 1: North Korea is not our fault. It is really the
Speaker 1: only posed North Korea knows. It's the only one that
Speaker 1: it has. It is all that it can offer. And
Speaker 1: when you have a state that doesn't have a second dear,
Speaker 1: if it doesn't have another speed, it doesn't have another path,
Speaker 1: it's just it exists to be a military force and
Speaker 1: and an absolutism, a dynasty that has a despotism. What
Speaker 1: are we really hoping it turns into regime change that
Speaker 1: would be such a blessing for the world. We're gonna
Speaker 1: give up the idea of regime change in North Korea.
Speaker 1: What's the point of what's the point of international relations?
Speaker 1: You're just gonna sit around and say, yeah, sure, North Korea,
Speaker 1: you get to keep you, do you? North Korea keep
Speaker 1: being a prison camp above ground in a concentration camp
Speaker 1: below it. It's astonishing to see how many people in
Speaker 1: this country and elected office and positions of power would
Speaker 1: rather use North Korea as an opening or use this
Speaker 1: missile test debacle as an opening to criticize the president
Speaker 1: then to address very real problems that we face. I
Speaker 1: didn't ever have to do the I know many of
Speaker 1: you listening did. I'm sure I never had to do
Speaker 1: the drill where we got under the desk. I've seen
Speaker 1: the videos of it, and I would note that, sure,
Speaker 1: depending on how close you were to a nuclear blast,
Speaker 1: being under the desk wouldn't really save you. But if
Speaker 1: you're at a certain distance, actually I believe the shock
Speaker 1: wave could possibly hit the building and maybe debris would fall.
Speaker 1: So hiding under the desk was not necessarily always as
Speaker 1: foolish as it looked, but it looked pretty foolish as
Speaker 1: a means of trying to save people. And also, you
Speaker 1: look at a situation like Hawaii. If there were a
Speaker 1: ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead through an I CBM
Speaker 1: en route two North Korea, I mean, too uh Hawaii,
Speaker 1: and we hadn't stopped it in flight. What procedures do
Speaker 1: we really have in place? What would we do? I
Speaker 1: think the answer is that very few people would have
Speaker 1: the means, the ability, the lead time to get to
Speaker 1: a safe haven underground. A lot of people would die
Speaker 1: so it's disturbing. It's disturbing. It's a reminder of why
Speaker 1: we need to take all of this so seriously. But
Speaker 1: it's disturbing that we don't have great answers to many
Speaker 1: of these questions right now. So the good news is
Speaker 1: there was no ballistic missile going toward Hawaii. And actually
Speaker 1: just got a text message a minutego from Miss Molly.
Speaker 1: She sent me a photo where she is. Hawaii is beautiful.
Speaker 1: Aloha Hawaii. It's a great state. Not great politicians or
Speaker 1: judges out there, but a great state. And I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to go back out there and check it out.
Speaker 1: Roll into a break here, we're gonna talk a bit
Speaker 1: about the fight that is just getting just getting rolling
Speaker 1: right now because it's a federal holiday, so the government's
Speaker 1: on a break. But the fight over Dacca and the
Speaker 1: debt ceiling this week, where do I think all of
Speaker 1: that is going? Plus this the story about his zase
Speaker 1: On Sorry, who's an actor who's gotten caught up in
Speaker 1: the Me too movement in a way that we're we're
Speaker 1: going to work. We're gonna work through this. We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk with this together because I think we've seen yet
Speaker 1: an yet another instance of someone who is guilty based
Speaker 1: upon accusations in the eye of the public, and in
Speaker 1: this case it's worth even visiting. What are these accusations
Speaker 1: all about. I don't know how many of you know.
Speaker 1: He's a very well known stand up comedian and he
Speaker 1: was in the show Parks and Wreck, which I like
Speaker 1: very much. Somebody wrote a just a a character assassination
Speaker 1: piece about the guy. I don't know if it's true
Speaker 1: or not, but it's it's meant to take him down
Speaker 1: how much I do know. We'll talk about that coming
Speaker 1: up in the next hour. So stay right there, team
Speaker 1: be back. Honestly, I don't think you do want to
Speaker 1: make it feel I think they talked about God, but
Speaker 1: they don't want to help the daughter of people now
Speaker 1: looking to shake and said, it's not the builders, the
Speaker 1: kildre are Gilder. Well, listen, I think you have a
Speaker 1: lot of sticking points, but the roll down agraph taken
Speaker 1: points because we already you will. You can able to
Speaker 1: make a deal, but they don't want to. They don't
Speaker 1: want security as a border to get people pouring in.
Speaker 1: They don't want superior as to border. They don't want
Speaker 1: to stop a drugs and they want to take money
Speaker 1: away from a military's thinking not to do don't throws
Speaker 1: to some of these change the other hurt. Did you
Speaker 1: see what various senators in the room set about my commence?
Speaker 1: They were a man we only didn't very complete. No, No,
Speaker 1: I'm not a racist. I had the least racist person.
Speaker 1: You have better figured that I can tell you. Are
Speaker 1: you gonna make it feel miser President? I don't know
Speaker 1: that a shut down the should be because it there
Speaker 1: is a military dead. Do you think ability to make
Speaker 1: a deal and that your return and we're ready will
Speaker 1: get able to make a deal on doc But I
Speaker 1: don't think the Democrats want to make a dealt the
Speaker 1: poach from doctors. You know, the Democrats are the ones
Speaker 1: that aren't going to make a deal. Thank you everybody
Speaker 1: hearing yourself, Thank you Democrat version of a deal on DOCCA.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry if if you had troublesom that audio was
Speaker 1: not great today. You know that was the best we
Speaker 1: could do, was out in whatever it was, out in
Speaker 1: the gallery or wherever it was. But the Democrat version
Speaker 1: of a deal on DOCCA goes something like this, Uh,
Speaker 1: give us DOCCA and then fund the government the end
Speaker 1: and that's not a deal. This is gonna be very
Speaker 1: interesting because there's really no way, in my mind, there
Speaker 1: is no way that the Trump administration, there's no way
Speaker 1: that the Republicans can lose this argument over DOCCA if
Speaker 1: they stick to the script, if they stay on message,
Speaker 1: because I haven't heard anything that Democrats are willing to
Speaker 1: do to meet them, never mind halfway, just to do
Speaker 1: something in response to what what they want. Right, they
Speaker 1: want DOCCA, and that's the way it's going to be,
Speaker 1: and then everything else has to get funded if the
Speaker 1: GOP goes along with this. By the way, we really
Speaker 1: have to start asking the question, what's the point of
Speaker 1: voting in a lot of these Republicans. Okay, sure they'll
Speaker 1: the tax cuts. Tax cuts are good, that's all. That's
Speaker 1: all fine, But if unrestricted illegal immigration becomes the norm
Speaker 1: for this country, we're gonna have much bigger problems in
Speaker 1: the long run than just what the tax rate is.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I haven't given up yet on
Speaker 1: the notion of a flat tax, are a fair at tax.
Speaker 1: I'm not yet in a place where I'm just gonna say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, so I dropped the corporate rates, so everything's
Speaker 1: great now. Yeah, we still pay too much in taxes everybody.
Speaker 1: The I R. S is still a monstrosity. It's still
Speaker 1: far too big, still far too powerful. So there's this
Speaker 1: DOCCA thing, and then there's also they're back and forth
Speaker 1: over the well, why don't I'll hold that? Actually they
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, did you hear what Trump's out over
Speaker 1: the weekend? Oh my gosh, Well, not over the weekend,
Speaker 1: but that's what they were saying over the weekend. Are
Speaker 1: It's so terrible. I I want to get to it,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna hold off on that for right now.
Speaker 1: I think that we can stay on the issue of
Speaker 1: DOCA in the dead ceilings. So here's my here's my
Speaker 1: prediction if I can make one. Uh well, actually, you
Speaker 1: know what, No, I'm not as certain this time. I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, they're just gonna kick the can down
Speaker 1: the road. There's not gonna be a shutdown. Maybe there
Speaker 1: will be a shutdown this time because Democrats aren't gonna
Speaker 1: budge a Republicans truly hold them to what the initial
Speaker 1: asks were from Trump, border security and to chain migration,
Speaker 1: uh funding for a wall, any of that stuff, particularly
Speaker 1: those two chain migration a wall. Oh e verify should
Speaker 1: really be at the top of that list too. If
Speaker 1: Trump insists on that and the Republican Congress insists on it,
Speaker 1: guess what Democrats won't budge on it. They are absolutists
Speaker 1: on their quasi open borders policy. They're they are absolutists
Speaker 1: on amnesty and then on open borders. You know that
Speaker 1: they want people to have to stop and check in
Speaker 1: so that you know the government is more able to
Speaker 1: give them taxpayer provided services and register them to vote
Speaker 1: for Democrat. But everyone gets to come in and stay right.
Speaker 1: No one should be prevented from going in the United
Speaker 1: States based on the Democrat view. But this is really
Speaker 1: going to force their hand. There's no way that we
Speaker 1: get past this point in the debate, in the discussion
Speaker 1: without no ing whether or not one Republicans are serious
Speaker 1: and to our Democrats just completely intransigent. Do they merely demand,
Speaker 1: even in the minority policy concessions from Republicans and get them.
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, we should all sit around
Speaker 1: and ask ourselves why, why is that true? Why is
Speaker 1: that happening? So we will see if there's a shutdown,
Speaker 1: though this might be the first time that the X
Speaker 1: factor really comes into play the X factor being Trump.
Speaker 1: With Trump as the Republican Party leader in a shutdown
Speaker 1: center the reason why in the past, despite all the stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, Ted Cruise is really think I want to
Speaker 1: have a shutdown. I mean, you know, despite all that
Speaker 1: stuff in the past, Uh, I mean I like I
Speaker 1: like Takers. I I was supportive of Ted Cruise. Here's
Speaker 1: a little story. I interviewed Ted Cruise when he was
Speaker 1: trying to I did a very nice profile of him
Speaker 1: when he was running in the Republican primary against Dewhurst
Speaker 1: in Texas. But I don't I don't really spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time chasing down politicians to be on on
Speaker 1: this show because I just I don't care all that much.
Speaker 1: If they say something interesting, I'll use the sound bite
Speaker 1: on the show. But interviewing them, I feel like everyone's
Speaker 1: interviewing politicians all the time. I don't. I don't find
Speaker 1: it that worthwhile away for us to spend our time here.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I was with Ted Cruise really on. I
Speaker 1: did always think it was funny though, that some people
Speaker 1: figured out in time that Ted Cruise only had one
Speaker 1: speed and it was Constitution. I love the Constitution. I
Speaker 1: was having my quarter Fleix yesterday, and it was as
Speaker 1: though George Washington and John Adams were right there with
Speaker 1: me with the Constitution. You know, he's very he's got
Speaker 1: one speed. He's a good guy, smart guy, but not
Speaker 1: a charming guy at the national political level. And that
Speaker 1: was one of his problems. Trump. Trump can fight, Trump
Speaker 1: can charm. Trump has all kinds of speeds. And if this,
Speaker 1: and the reason this matters so much, is that the
Speaker 1: dead ceiling fight turns if it turns into a government shutdown,
Speaker 1: that is a public perception battle. Who's responsible for the shutdown?
Speaker 1: Or a better way of saying it is, why are
Speaker 1: we in this situation right now? Who gets blamed for
Speaker 1: the shutdown? And in the past it had always been
Speaker 1: Republicans are gonna get blamed. Republicans are gonna get blamed
Speaker 1: if we go into a government shutdown scenario because Democrats
Speaker 1: say they want DOCCA and will give nothing in exchange.
Speaker 1: And Trump is out there banging the drum, so to speak,
Speaker 1: you know, making a lot of noise, making sure that
Speaker 1: everyone understands what's going on here. Maybe Republicans will have
Speaker 1: some stiffened spines and realize that they're the majority party,
Speaker 1: right now they should be able to inact laws and policy,
Speaker 1: and it shouldn't be dictated to them by the Democrats
Speaker 1: who just get to sit there and say, now, I
Speaker 1: don't want that, Noah, unacceptable, unacceptable. I would also note
Speaker 1: that DOCCA is a trojan horse for much of the
Speaker 1: rest of the Democrat amnesty and I have concerns about
Speaker 1: whether the Republicans should give into DACA in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. Here. I know that's a little intense
Speaker 1: for some people, but I could work through why that
Speaker 1: is for you curious eight four eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four four nine buck our two is upon us. So
Speaker 1: if you're right back, he's back with you now, because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. Welcome to the Buck, Sex and Show, everybody.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck section show from any of you.
Speaker 1: So I was just talking about policy before. What should
Speaker 1: we do on immigration? What should be about DOCCA? I
Speaker 1: don't know why Republicans feel like they have to give in.
Speaker 1: Don't we have the majority in the House, the Senate,
Speaker 1: doesn't Trump have the White House. Why why are we
Speaker 1: just talking about doing what the Democrats want? I am
Speaker 1: hoping that there will be a reckoning within the GOP
Speaker 1: and a reckoning for Democrats that they do not have
Speaker 1: to do with the other side tells them to. But
Speaker 1: you can see where Democrats are going with all this,
Speaker 1: the comments about a a whole. I keep saying craphole
Speaker 1: because I believe it was somebody was on air over
Speaker 1: the weekend. I forget it was now who said who
Speaker 1: used the letter s and then also instad of that
Speaker 1: hole and then people said it sounded like something else,
Speaker 1: And so I'm not gonna pull the CNN here and
Speaker 1: just start cursing up the joint. That's not okay. Let's
Speaker 1: see an end love doing that last week. But they
Speaker 1: were talking about this all weekend and it was clearly
Speaker 1: something of a competition among the various pundits posing as
Speaker 1: journalists at CNN and be like, oh my gosh, I'll
Speaker 1: get Trump saying this. It's the most it's the sadest thing.
Speaker 1: It's like these like these countries are amazing, and like
Speaker 1: every country is equally amazing, and like, you know, that's
Speaker 1: a good way to look. They add zeros, add zeros
Speaker 1: the contract. I'm sure you know they get they get
Speaker 1: a bigger check at the next negotiation for their contract
Speaker 1: if they they play the game just right over there, right,
Speaker 1: Trump is like, such a racist. I go home at
Speaker 1: nine nine nightmares because it's such a racist. A lot
Speaker 1: of that, a lot of that going on over there,
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, the left is there's a
Speaker 1: lot of weeks week sauce. I'll just put it that
Speaker 1: with a lot of week sauce. You had John Berman. Hi,
Speaker 1: John Berman. He's over there and and he got a
Speaker 1: little he got a little feisty over this whole thing.
Speaker 1: He's a see the way, you're like, who's John Berman?
Speaker 1: You don't have to know, but he works at CNN. So, Josh,
Speaker 1: I'm tempted to say that Republican Senators Perdue and Cotton
Speaker 1: are going on TV denying the comments were said, and
Speaker 1: they're hanging it on the difference between a blank hole
Speaker 1: and a blank house. One might reasonably ask, are you
Speaker 1: effing and kidding me? Well, I'm not going to to
Speaker 1: to get into that. There there you have it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Republicans are the ones that are are so great.
Speaker 1: Trump is the one that's causing all the problems here
Speaker 1: because he said some some crappy countries are actually crappy.
Speaker 1: He didn't say that we we've made this distinction right away.
Speaker 1: He didn't say the people were crappy. Okay, that would
Speaker 1: be wrong. That's not that's not okay, that's not right.
Speaker 1: So the countries are and there are crappy countries, I said.
Speaker 1: I didn't hear many people making this argument. I think
Speaker 1: it's a good one. If I said North Korea was crappy,
Speaker 1: no one's gonna say, oh, book, that's so racist. No,
Speaker 1: South Korea is great, right, I mean, it's not about
Speaker 1: Korean people or Asian people anything else. North Koreai is
Speaker 1: a bad country. In fact, I think the crappy country
Speaker 1: debate can. I think a great way to look at
Speaker 1: it is to look at the Korean peninsula. Right. It's
Speaker 1: about the country, not the people, not the way they look,
Speaker 1: not the ethnicity they're religious, back or anything else. We're
Speaker 1: just talking about the country here. North Korea very crappy.
Speaker 1: South Korea great. Difference of government, difference of state. That's it.
Speaker 1: So it's not about being mean or nasty or undermining
Speaker 1: anyway or you know. I mean, I'm I'm from New
Speaker 1: York City, and I mean I would say there are
Speaker 1: parts of New York City that are crappy, A lot
Speaker 1: less crappy now than they used to be. But there
Speaker 1: are parts of the city they're crappy. I mean, I
Speaker 1: live here, I can say it was. What's the problem.
Speaker 1: There's some parts with that are wonderful. Right, it depends.
Speaker 1: But a plane spoken and dare I say, blunt residency
Speaker 1: on issues that so many of us feel like we've
Speaker 1: had to dance around for such a long time is
Speaker 1: refreshing Trump. I have not met a single I said this.
Speaker 1: When I say met, I haven't spoken to a single
Speaker 1: Trump supporter who after those comments like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: that's too much for me, sir, how dare you now
Speaker 1: there's none of that. They're like, yeah, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe be a little more cautious about what you
Speaker 1: say in front of uh Durban. But Trump is saying,
Speaker 1: by the way, that Durban lied. Here's his tweet Senator
Speaker 1: Dicky Durbin, Oh, is that is that another nickname? Have we?
Speaker 1: Has he been dubbed? Has the has the derbs been
Speaker 1: dubbed Dicky Durban? Look at that. Senator Dicky Durbin totally
Speaker 1: misrepresented what was said at the Docka meeting. Trump tweeted
Speaker 1: deals can't get made when there is no trust Durban
Speaker 1: Ludaca and is hurting our military. So Trump is saying
Speaker 1: that it's not true. And then they got on this
Speaker 1: fight over the specifics of the words. You know, they're
Speaker 1: not allowed to say on Thursday or Friday whenever it
Speaker 1: broke Democrats and not allowed to say, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: did you hear the words that he said? It was
Speaker 1: like so upsetting, like the words he used, like I
Speaker 1: was just like, oh my gosh, like I'm so sad.
Speaker 1: And then when Trump says, well, actually didn't use those words,
Speaker 1: they go, well, excuse me, mister, write and use those words.
Speaker 1: But it's not the words. Well is it the words
Speaker 1: or not? Is it? Was it the profanity or the
Speaker 1: sentiment if it's a sentiment, if it's just criticizing the countries.
Speaker 1: There are countries that deserve criticism. They're also countries that
Speaker 1: are just in a very desperate situation because of stuff
Speaker 1: that's happened to the to the country. Right, I mean,
Speaker 1: natural disaster is different than say, you know, a bloody
Speaker 1: reign of narco terrorism or something. But you know, bad
Speaker 1: things happen in in good in good countries, bad things
Speaker 1: happen to good people. The media freaking on this. It's
Speaker 1: just the divide between people that don't want to hear
Speaker 1: it anymore about how much the left hates Trump and
Speaker 1: the people who just want Trump hatre It just gets
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger all the time. I don't even want
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with some of these people out
Speaker 1: there in the media, particularly because I come across them,
Speaker 1: We're just like, oh gosh, Trump is the worst. It's
Speaker 1: just any day now. And I was like, any day now,
Speaker 1: what any day now? What Trump's gonna He's gonna tweet
Speaker 1: something offensive? Oh No, maybe there should stop and just
Speaker 1: think it's possible Democrats leftist. It's possible that all that
Speaker 1: uh flowery rhetoric from the Obama administration, all of his
Speaker 1: uh pseudo intellectual prose about policy, was meaningless. Maybe it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter quite as much as so many seemed to
Speaker 1: think it does to have a president who sounds like
Speaker 1: he knows what's going on right. The perception of eloquence
Speaker 1: is much less important than the reality of policy. Trump
Speaker 1: is giving us the reality of policy. I don't really
Speaker 1: care much about the tone. People can complain about it. Sure,
Speaker 1: I sometimes say I wish he would say things a
Speaker 1: little bit differently, but you know, I'm not expecting him
Speaker 1: to be perfect. He's not perfect. We know that it's
Speaker 1: far from it. But nobody would think that that was
Speaker 1: a fair gauge, a fair standard for what's going on here.
Speaker 1: They just though they just hate this guy. By the way,
Speaker 1: you even had Alveda King come out on Fox News
Speaker 1: to say that it is outrageous who called Trump a racist?
Speaker 1: What is so outrageous to call a man a racist
Speaker 1: who continues to acknowledge the significant work of Dr Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King Junior, Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Junior, my
Speaker 1: uncle in a positive way, and he puts his money
Speaker 1: where his mouth is, he puts his energy behind it
Speaker 1: and in making America great again, you know, perhaps saying
Speaker 1: that in Haiti and in Africa, so you know, Africa
Speaker 1: is a huge continent with many nations, that was no
Speaker 1: offense to the people, a lot of dignity to the people.
Speaker 1: But the hell holes in that some of their own
Speaker 1: leaders in Africa and Haiti have have taken advantage of
Speaker 1: them and the area and done a disservice to the people.
Speaker 1: Yet they're all running around in the media saying Trump
Speaker 1: is such a racist. I can tell you one thing,
Speaker 1: Trump is not a racist. There are plenty of places
Speaker 1: where one could direct criticism of Trump personally or professional.
Speaker 1: Otherwise I'd say, well, you know, it's a that's a
Speaker 1: fair critique. Trump is not a racist. And the more
Speaker 1: the media latches onto that as their primary method of
Speaker 1: pushing back against this this presidency, I think I don't
Speaker 1: know how much more trust they can lose, because I
Speaker 1: don't know if we trust them at all. But it
Speaker 1: is it is frustrating. It is frustrating, and you know,
Speaker 1: for the president to have say things like this, I'm
Speaker 1: not a racist, it's a shame that the media perpetuates
Speaker 1: all this. It's a shame the TV journalists go on
Speaker 1: air and tell their viewers that the President United States
Speaker 1: is a racist, the President United States hates or thinks
Speaker 1: less of, or treats people differently because of the color
Speaker 1: of their skin. They have no evidence of this whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They just have statements that they don't like. They don't
Speaker 1: understand that many of us have rejected the culture of
Speaker 1: calling everything racist that we don't like that has existed
Speaker 1: on the American left for so many years. That the
Speaker 1: hypersensitivity around issues of race has been counterproductive, and then
Speaker 1: we rejected. They don't accept any of this, the laft,
Speaker 1: the Democrats, the media, but we don't have to accept
Speaker 1: server of events either. It's a shame. The president should
Speaker 1: be able to focus on other things, but they would
Speaker 1: rather just continue to debate racism. All right, we'll take
Speaker 1: uh if you want to call in talk about what
Speaker 1: you think about DACA or Trump or anything else going
Speaker 1: on in that world. Eight four four, eight to five.
Speaker 1: I've kind of talking about this as he's on, sorry
Speaker 1: thing because it ties right into the Me Too movement
Speaker 1: in a way that deserves some of our attention. And
Speaker 1: we'll have much more Buck, and we'll be right back
Speaker 1: fake news better running high because the Buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: is back. Gary in Biloxi, Mississippi. Gary, welcome to the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. Yes, but thank you for turking my call, buddy.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I hope that they don't do anything but
Speaker 1: get these people from Daka out of here, because all
Speaker 1: that's nothing but a big fraud. And they've had a
Speaker 1: lot of people on t V that's explained who they
Speaker 1: are and why they're doing this. The other thing, Buck
Speaker 1: is I'm wanting to shout out to Jeff Sessions in
Speaker 1: Washington to do how about enforcing the law, because we
Speaker 1: are being flooded the Southeastern states with the illegals and
Speaker 1: the body they bringing everybody with them, everybody, but there's
Speaker 1: never any enforcement. I mean, I don't care how many
Speaker 1: people you speak to. Nobody ever sees nobody being checked out,
Speaker 1: nobody's going through their house, nobody's checked I mean, you
Speaker 1: you know who they are. And just like, for example,
Speaker 1: in walmarts, I mean you can talk to some of
Speaker 1: the employees there, man, and it's just it's just crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, where where's all these people? And so finally
Speaker 1: one of the one of the employees there said that
Speaker 1: they think there's gonna be an amnesty. Well they they're
Speaker 1: right in thinking that, because that's what Democrats are promising everybody.
Speaker 1: Well yes, but I mean you know there's nothing being done,
Speaker 1: no bucks what I'm saying, Oh of course, Well there's
Speaker 1: no political will Gary from for the no political will
Speaker 1: for the Democrats, in fact, the opposite of it, to
Speaker 1: enforce the law. And let's be very clear, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans are not just okay with the
Speaker 1: status quo. They really secretly favorite. You know, they like
Speaker 1: they like the inexpensive labor. It's good for corporate interests,
Speaker 1: good for the donor class, and that's a big problem.
Speaker 1: Doesn't get much attention. That's my other point book. Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan should be run out of town and all his buddies,
Speaker 1: his close buddies, like the guy that hangs with him,
Speaker 1: all of tame. They're not Republicans, they're not conservatives. They're
Speaker 1: just a ryhano I would say. The communists. Really, they're
Speaker 1: coming there. There's a lot of rhine. I can accept. Commune.
Speaker 1: Maybe a little far there, Gary, but I know where
Speaker 1: I think I know where your heart is on this one.
Speaker 1: But he needs to go. He needs to gool man.
Speaker 1: I mean, people should realize that. I've heard some people,
Speaker 1: intelligent people, talking to some of these other people on
Speaker 1: the on their shows, and they got Ryan picked out too.
Speaker 1: They know what he is. He's a fraud and a phony.
Speaker 1: Well he's on immigration, Gary, And thank you so much
Speaker 1: for your calling from Missisippi. I appreciated my friend on immigration.
Speaker 1: Ryan's terrible. He takes this point of view. I've been
Speaker 1: exposed to it from friends of mine who are from
Speaker 1: the more libertarian side. Uh. He takes this point of
Speaker 1: view that if you just bring in more and more labor,
Speaker 1: there's more productivity GDP growth and it's good for everybody.
Speaker 1: But if that were the case, why have any immigration laws.
Speaker 1: You know, you can just reason your way through why
Speaker 1: you're or how and why you're being lied to about
Speaker 1: immigration all the time. If I'm restricting And there are
Speaker 1: people the Cato Institute, for example, it's a libertarian think
Speaker 1: tank in DC. Uh, there's one guy forget his name,
Speaker 1: He goes on TV sometimes and it's just he's a
Speaker 1: hardliner on open borders and he's a libertarian. And I
Speaker 1: would say, oh, but you know, the more people we
Speaker 1: take in, the better it is for the economy. And
Speaker 1: you say to yourself, hold on a second, we're twenty
Speaker 1: We're twenty in debt, mostly because of obligation sens to seniors. Right.
Speaker 1: That's the biggest single driver of the dead is entitlements.
Speaker 1: And the unfortunate truth is that a lot of people
Speaker 1: are going to take out about twice what they paid
Speaker 1: into medicare over the course of their life once they
Speaker 1: are eligible for medicare, which means you're getting more money
Speaker 1: than you gave, which means somebody else is going to
Speaker 1: have to pay for the money. Right, somebody else has
Speaker 1: got to pick up those expenses. How is bringing in
Speaker 1: people who are even less productive and less likely to
Speaker 1: be net contributors to society? How is that going to
Speaker 1: help this situation? So you can't tell me that open
Speaker 1: borders is a good thing and the welfare state can
Speaker 1: stay as is. You can't tell me that open borders
Speaker 1: is a good thing and the entitlement state that we
Speaker 1: have can stay. And this is what all the Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan's and the Cato that they never addressed this. And
Speaker 1: then there's an even and that's just on a purely
Speaker 1: economic level. When you go to the more recent debate,
Speaker 1: it's about what is it due to a country when
Speaker 1: you reach a critical massive individuals who are there illegally
Speaker 1: or even legally, but just who are new immigrants in
Speaker 1: very large numbers from countries that are culturally quite desparate.
Speaker 1: You know, this kind of reminds me of the whole
Speaker 1: crappy country conversation. I think that there are Democrats who
Speaker 1: will tell you that culturally the United Kingdom is, you know,
Speaker 1: people from the UK are not culturally more able to
Speaker 1: assimilate in the United States than say people from Somalia
Speaker 1: or people from North Korea or you know, name a country.
Speaker 1: They say, oh, no, no, no, you can't say that.
Speaker 1: You can't say that their cultures aren't. Of course, that's nonsense, right,
Speaker 1: some cultures are more similar to ours than others when
Speaker 1: you take in large numbers of immigrants from cultures that
Speaker 1: not just are dissimilar, but that clash with ours. And yes,
Speaker 1: this is what Europe is dealing with with the large
Speaker 1: numbers of Muslim immigrants from war torn, in many cases,
Speaker 1: very poor, very violent countries. You know you're you're importing
Speaker 1: in large numbers people who are disproportionately going to have
Speaker 1: certain attitudes, beliefs, and yes, problems. It doesn't mean everyone.
Speaker 1: It just means policy needs to be a function or
Speaker 1: you need to view policy in the aggregate based on
Speaker 1: the overall numbers. Right, we make laws not with the
Speaker 1: idea that each and every individual human being that maybe
Speaker 1: gets caught up in a certain law is a bad person.
Speaker 1: But look, we got we gotta make laws, we gotta
Speaker 1: have punishments. On balance, are some people going to get
Speaker 1: in trouble because they violate certain laws? Even though they
Speaker 1: are otherwise good people. Yes, sure, but if our approach
Speaker 1: is just well, you know, everyone makes mistakes, there's no will,
Speaker 1: there's no desire to enforce the law. What are we
Speaker 1: left with as a country. And it's true of our borders,
Speaker 1: and it's true of our sense of self to whether
Speaker 1: we have a political culture that can be sustained. You know,
Speaker 1: you look at Canada for example, Hey Canada, what's up?
Speaker 1: You look at Canada that they free speeches is dying
Speaker 1: in Canada and it's happening rapidly, free speech going away.
Speaker 1: How far is that from happening here? Once free speech goes,
Speaker 1: I would note, then anything, then anything is really up
Speaker 1: for grabs. Then they could push any number of things
Speaker 1: on you. So James in Newport News, Virginia, what's up, James? Hi? Um?
Speaker 1: I just wanted to call. I was for military and
Speaker 1: wasn't uncommon if you got a duty station that was
Speaker 1: not in a good place, like it was remote and
Speaker 1: it was not a whole lot of services there. You know,
Speaker 1: you know, we would call. So I would ask you
Speaker 1: what do you think about? You would say it's an
Speaker 1: S whole or an A whole. I mean, it's that
Speaker 1: language has nothing to do as the people that live there. Um.
Speaker 1: It has totally to do with, uh, the situation about
Speaker 1: living here. And if anybody wants to argue that Somalia
Speaker 1: is a hard place, you know, I'm guess hiving an
Speaker 1: example having against Somalia is is not a bad place,
Speaker 1: a hard place to live in, um or a place
Speaker 1: that you wouldn't want to live. I don't know how
Speaker 1: they can make that argument, but UM, I guess that's
Speaker 1: one thing I wanted and um to talk about. And
Speaker 1: then I guess the other was just you know, I
Speaker 1: think Trump needs to to speak more to these issues,
Speaker 1: uh around racism. First, his seven years old, right, I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: anyone ever called him a racist when he was you know, anywhere,
Speaker 1: know when he was working in media, when he was
Speaker 1: in New York City and a very public figure. No
Speaker 1: one ever thought he was a racist until he ran
Speaker 1: as a Republican, right, like a New York Liberal is
Speaker 1: probably not a racist, particularly if he's in business. No,
Speaker 1: I doubt it. And I guess the other thing is, um,
Speaker 1: what he was trying to stay with this statement? What
Speaker 1: do you you know? They he needs to talk about
Speaker 1: his his plan for America and He's talked about trying
Speaker 1: to alleviate the poverty in the cities, and they're giving
Speaker 1: those people opportunities just like other Americans. I'm with you, James,
Speaker 1: We've got to ruling to break though. Thank you, my friend.
Speaker 1: Team will be back with much more other shows. Just
Speaker 1: talk at you in the Freedom hund We have a mission.
Speaker 1: We fight for the truth in a team effort, and
Speaker 1: buck us back with our next play team. You know
Speaker 1: that four months now I've been warning about the inevitable
Speaker 1: excesses injustices and politicization of the me too movement. I
Speaker 1: knew it would happen, and it is already happening. You
Speaker 1: had some very odious sexual predators who were thankfully outed
Speaker 1: and received at least some measure of justice, or perhaps
Speaker 1: they're they're victims, received some as a measure of justice
Speaker 1: by the public humiliation of individuals who clearly were acting
Speaker 1: and atrocious and maybe even a felony criminal fashion. But
Speaker 1: there are other people who have been in trouble, and
Speaker 1: you say, we'll wait a second, what exactly did they
Speaker 1: do here? And the commentary around some of the very
Speaker 1: big cases of the me too movement has been troubling,
Speaker 1: not all of it, but some of it you'll hear
Speaker 1: things like, well, we we need to make sure that
Speaker 1: men don't ask women out in the workplace anymore. Is
Speaker 1: that is that the rule is that the world we
Speaker 1: want to live in now men can't lean in for
Speaker 1: a kiss without asking permission first. Is that the world
Speaker 1: that we're trying to construct, is that the America we
Speaker 1: think is best? I know you know that, of course not.
Speaker 1: But Democrats don't necessarily understand that at all leftists. It's
Speaker 1: really more leftists than anything else. Democrats are leftists. But
Speaker 1: this is within uh, a contingent. This is a contingent
Speaker 1: of the Democrat party. And then this piece came out
Speaker 1: about a Zas on Sorry and Now I'm I'm familiar
Speaker 1: with his work. I've seen him as a stand up
Speaker 1: comedian briefly on one of his specials. He was not funny,
Speaker 1: but he was very good in the show Parks and Recreation, which,
Speaker 1: for those who haven't seen it, you should watch it.
Speaker 1: It's really great, very well written, very funny, but started
Speaker 1: season two because they change some things. The first season
Speaker 1: is not good. It's like a bad version of the Office.
Speaker 1: The second season it really comes into its own as
Speaker 1: a show should just skip the first season. You don't
Speaker 1: need to see it. Go to season two. It's on Netflix.
Speaker 1: Something else as he's on. Sorry, is already good in
Speaker 1: the show, so you know he's he's a pretty talented actor.
Speaker 1: He's a young guy. He's close to my age, and
Speaker 1: over the weekend a and he's I feel like, I
Speaker 1: don't know how many of you know him, but he's
Speaker 1: he's pretty famous, pretty well known, particularly and well among
Speaker 1: among media types. He's very well known. He wrote a
Speaker 1: book I think also was a bestseller about romance called
Speaker 1: Modern Romance, and it was an international bestseller, so or
Speaker 1: whoever wrote it for him did a very good job. Anyway,
Speaker 1: A woman claimed in a piece over the weekend for
Speaker 1: what I believe is a feminist website called Babe, which
Speaker 1: is I guess there's a there's some I don't know
Speaker 1: why that that doesn't seem like what you would call
Speaker 1: a feminist website necessarily, but a feminist website called babe.
Speaker 1: And this woman claimed that his easy. She's a young
Speaker 1: photographer twenty three years old, or she was twenty two
Speaker 1: at the time, Um, he was thirty something, and not
Speaker 1: that that doesn't it's just a detail, right, doesn't mean
Speaker 1: she's completely of age and she's an adult and everything's fine, right,
Speaker 1: But anyway, just trying to give you some of the context.
Speaker 1: And she saw him and they I'm gonna skip because
Speaker 1: it's it was a tough read because she gives you
Speaker 1: every she changes her name, so it's an anonymous accusation
Speaker 1: in print against an actor where she walks you through
Speaker 1: every detail of what she says happened in this one
Speaker 1: night was supposed to be something of a well. Mr
Speaker 1: on Sarry. He was trying to make it an amorous evening,
Speaker 1: that's one way to say it. And so she met
Speaker 1: him and then they end up going out for dinner.
Speaker 1: They exchanged phone numbers, you know, etcetera, etcetera. The night
Speaker 1: in question, she called it. The title of this piece,
Speaker 1: you wrotis I went a date with his ease. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry it turned into the worst night of my life.
Speaker 1: Now I'm thinking that, you know, well, wow, this must
Speaker 1: be really terrible. I'm expecting to read in here that
Speaker 1: disease I'm sorry, was uh yeah, slip something into her
Speaker 1: drink and she woke up with no clothing on. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm assuming I'm gonna read some truly horrible stuff.
Speaker 1: And I, like a lot of other people, this piece
Speaker 1: one totally viral over the weekend, and I did take
Speaker 1: a short break from my crusades research for Shields High
Speaker 1: the podcast that I'm hoping all of you listening to
Speaker 1: the show will download on iTunes today, UH, to read
Speaker 1: this piece. And the woman walks through a whole series
Speaker 1: of events from the in in every detail, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's all accurate or not, I'm just saying. She
Speaker 1: goes into excruising detail. You know, he put his hand here,
Speaker 1: he touched me here, he said this to me then
Speaker 1: and he put me up on the counter, and then
Speaker 1: he tried to do X to me, and I tried
Speaker 1: and I and he goes through all this and at
Speaker 1: the end of it, it's clear that she's unhappy with
Speaker 1: the situation. But she says that that she had it
Speaker 1: took her wealth fair that she'd been sexually assaulted. And
Speaker 1: what's amazing to many people, and and finally you've had
Speaker 1: something of a a backlash against this anonymous assault. What's
Speaker 1: amazing here is that this woman or this anonymous accusation
Speaker 1: of sexual assault, UH, from everything that was apparent in
Speaker 1: the article. Just didn't like what was going on, and
Speaker 1: I saw a woman in the Atlantic called this a
Speaker 1: form of revenge porn against disease on sorry, just meant
Speaker 1: to humiliate and degrade him. He never used force against her.
Speaker 1: When she said I don't want to do that, he
Speaker 1: said okay, and they went and put their clothing on
Speaker 1: and sat on the couch. You know, the there's a
Speaker 1: difference between gross and criminal, or there's a difference between
Speaker 1: uh on gallant or you know, maybe even a little
Speaker 1: sleazy and being a predator. And this is a very
Speaker 1: important one that society needs to be clear on. Right.
Speaker 1: We need to have an understanding of it's not the
Speaker 1: same thing leaning in for a kiss and then if
Speaker 1: you don't get it, saying oh whatever, I don't want
Speaker 1: to kiss you anyway, that's a jerk thing to do.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make you a rapist, right, we all understand this.
Speaker 1: Barry Weiss over the New York Times, in response to
Speaker 1: this piece, wrote this quote, I'm apparently the victim of
Speaker 1: sexual assault. And if if you're a sexually active woman
Speaker 1: in the twenty one century, chances are that you are too.
Speaker 1: That is what I learned from the expose a of
Speaker 1: disease on Sorry, published this weekend by the feminist website Babe,
Speaker 1: arguably the worst thing that has happened to the Me
Speaker 1: Too movement since it began in October. It transforms what
Speaker 1: ought to be a movement for women's empowerment into an
Speaker 1: emblem for female helplessness. The victim in this three thousand
Speaker 1: words stories called Grace, not her real name, and her
Speaker 1: saga with Mr Ansarry began at a seventeen Emmy's after party.
Speaker 1: As recounted by Grace to the reporter Katie Way, she
Speaker 1: approached him, but he brushed her off at first. Then
Speaker 1: they bonded over their vintage cameras, etcetera, etcetera. After arriving
Speaker 1: at his Tribeca apartment on the appointed evening, she was excited,
Speaker 1: having carefully chosen her outfit after consulting with friends. They
Speaker 1: exchanged small talk and drank wine. It was white, she said,
Speaker 1: I didn't get to choose and I prefer red, but
Speaker 1: it was white wine. Yes, we are apparently meant to
Speaker 1: read into the non consensual wine choice. There is a
Speaker 1: type of young So that's the quote from Barry Weiss,
Speaker 1: who female editorial columns for the New York Times. There
Speaker 1: is a type of young millennial feminists out there now
Speaker 1: that has embraced this idea that men are a problem,
Speaker 1: and that men have to be curtailed, tamed, shamed, punished,
Speaker 1: and the men are the cause of so many of
Speaker 1: the problems in women's lives these days. Their minds have
Speaker 1: been poisoned. I mean, I've actually come across them before.
Speaker 1: I've come across near peers of mind who are just
Speaker 1: so bitter towards men in general, not to one man,
Speaker 1: towards men, and blame many of their problems on those
Speaker 1: men or on men in general, And it just exudes
Speaker 1: from them. You're you're very aware of it all the time,
Speaker 1: and they have these feminist ideas and philosophies about how
Speaker 1: you know, rape is always is always an act of force,
Speaker 1: and and sexual all happens to everybody all the time,
Speaker 1: and men are all predators. You just have to give
Speaker 1: them enough drinks before you see it. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: all this stuff. It comes out that they believe that
Speaker 1: campuses are so dangerous, there's a campus rape frenzy out
Speaker 1: there at all this it's not true. Statistics prove it's
Speaker 1: not true. My own lived reality on Compass Compass campus
Speaker 1: as a resident advisor who we call it resident counselor,
Speaker 1: who was very familiar with all the on campus statistics
Speaker 1: and cases and everything else we all knew about whenever
Speaker 1: anything went bad. Stuff goes bad, but it was rare
Speaker 1: and if anyone knew about it, it was very severely punished.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are predators, it's just the difference between
Speaker 1: there are predators and or or whatever of all men
Speaker 1: are predators, and some women have been brainwashed into thinking this,
Speaker 1: particularly young women right now. I mean, the the feminists
Speaker 1: of the Hillary Clinton era have further polluted them lines
Speaker 1: of the elder millennial feminists that that I'm personally familiar with,
Speaker 1: who are just hateful towards men. This whole I almost
Speaker 1: I hesitated to tell you to read this piece by
Speaker 1: his he on his ease, and not by on his ease.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry and this exchange because I feel like it
Speaker 1: almost makes the problem worse and that more people. This
Speaker 1: guy is just getting humiliated. And there's also something really
Speaker 1: grotesque about writing about a personal encounter like this that
Speaker 1: was not criminal. This guy based on all of the
Speaker 1: based on everything that was written here in this article,
Speaker 1: he did nothing criminal and and honestly not even close.
Speaker 1: She got mad at him in a text message after
Speaker 1: this because she said that he did not understand her
Speaker 1: nonverbal cues. Well, what is that supposed to me? You're
Speaker 1: an adult, You're in an apartment with somebody who's sexually
Speaker 1: interested in you. You are not incapacitated. She wasn't saying
Speaker 1: she couldn't consent because she was too drunk anything else.
Speaker 1: You can use your words. You could say I don't
Speaker 1: want to do this, you could say stop, you could
Speaker 1: say I'm leaving, and then you know the moment someone
Speaker 1: grabs your wrist and says, no, you're not anything else. Well,
Speaker 1: now we got a problem. Now we got a predator.
Speaker 1: Now we've got to take action as a society. And
Speaker 1: you know, if you're a male that happens to be
Speaker 1: in the woman's life who has been assaulted in such
Speaker 1: a way, you know you may be taking action on
Speaker 1: your own. But up to that point, it's up to her.
Speaker 1: Meaning that you know, she's got to say no, I
Speaker 1: don't want to do that, I'm gonna leave, don't do that.
Speaker 1: I'm not interested in that. She can't just sit there
Speaker 1: and let a guy do things that he wants to
Speaker 1: do and then say afterwards, you didn't read my nonverbal cues,
Speaker 1: you know, I would note that, yeah, there can be
Speaker 1: physical cues too. She didn't push him away, she didn't
Speaker 1: say no, She just kind of let him do stuff
Speaker 1: and then stopped him at one point, and when she
Speaker 1: said stop, he stopped. And she's accusing him in print
Speaker 1: of sexual assault and humiliating him by saying, you know,
Speaker 1: embarrassing things that he said to her. You know, there's
Speaker 1: private stuff that everybody says to people in there, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: what is it inflict? Rante de looked at whatever. I mean,
Speaker 1: people say things. This is uh, this is troubling. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is now. This is not turning into a a
Speaker 1: very destructive form of of political sport for some feminists
Speaker 1: and it needs to stop. And I look, I feel
Speaker 1: I don't know as he's on. Sorry, I'm sure we
Speaker 1: would disagree on on everything pretty much based on what
Speaker 1: I have heard of his politics, and he might be
Speaker 1: he comes across like kind of a jerk in this article.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's not a jerk. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: to call him uh a effectively call him a rapist,
Speaker 1: which this article does or an attempted rapist, even though
Speaker 1: he didn't attempt to rape anything or anyone is this
Speaker 1: is scary stuff. I mean, any guy, I gotta say,
Speaker 1: any young guy out there who's unmarried and out on
Speaker 1: the scene, you might want to read this and just
Speaker 1: be aware that this is not this mentality has now
Speaker 1: been aggravated. This this hyper feminist anti mail. You didn't
Speaker 1: read my nonverbal cues, so you're a rapist and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna publicly call you that or sexual assaulter. Now that's
Speaker 1: out there. Guys, you know you gotta be careful because
Speaker 1: they're getting the media running arounds like, oh yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: me too. Every women need to be believing. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is all happening. There's a mobilization here of a
Speaker 1: mob mentality, and a lot of innocent guys are going
Speaker 1: to get ruined by it too. And it's already happening. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of bad ones have but a lot of
Speaker 1: innocent ones are going to as well. All right, I've
Speaker 1: got lines lit. We gotta take some calls. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Chuck in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Chuck, you're talking
Speaker 1: to Buck? Hey, Buck, how's it gone. It's good brother,
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling in excellent. Say, could I make
Speaker 1: just one fast comment about the Hawaii situation? Yeah, you
Speaker 1: can make a medium link comment about it if you
Speaker 1: want a right Well, actually it can be done in one,
Speaker 1: well two words, I guess MAUI WOWI Oh what is that? Uh?
Speaker 1: That's one of those strains of high altitude pot that
Speaker 1: they grow over. Oh I was unaware of that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with. This could just be like there was a
Speaker 1: movie apocalypse WAU or something like that. Uh, you know
Speaker 1: where people just made a lot of mistakes and whoops.
Speaker 1: I was high. That's a whoops apocalypse. There's what we're
Speaker 1: dealing with out there. But that's really not the main point. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: what is the main point? Chuck? Yeah, what I'd like
Speaker 1: to talk to you about it is something that's really
Speaker 1: been on my mind for quite some time, and that
Speaker 1: is we always talk about the founders not paying attention
Speaker 1: to are not being aware of machine guns in the
Speaker 1: second amendments out of step, But what they forget about
Speaker 1: is that I think that these guys really didn't foresee
Speaker 1: and couldn't have foreseen these info entertainment giants that have
Speaker 1: come on the scene that control so much of what
Speaker 1: we see in both entertainment and news. And that's why, um,
Speaker 1: you make the point about I can't think of her
Speaker 1: name from Hawaii gets to come on air and say
Speaker 1: idiotic is because she's totally covered. She does not have
Speaker 1: to fear that under Spiek and some of these other
Speaker 1: guys that made these morning shows, she would have been
Speaker 1: that would have been a career ending statement. And likewise,
Speaker 1: on the uh, the immigration, we're not getting good information,
Speaker 1: So how do we fight back? Well, an immigration you
Speaker 1: fight back by listening to this show is a good start.
Speaker 1: But also you would hope that the Republican Congress that
Speaker 1: we just elected the last in the last national election,
Speaker 1: we'll actually get some results this year. And that's the
Speaker 1: way it's supposed to work. There's only so much you
Speaker 1: and I Chuck can do. Right. We can learn about it,
Speaker 1: we can know about it, we can spread the word,
Speaker 1: but we don't actually have any power to change immigration
Speaker 1: policy in this country. So we can hope that the
Speaker 1: Republican Congress gets it together. We can push them to
Speaker 1: do so. We can spread the word and the truth
Speaker 1: and that's what we do. But on immigration, it I
Speaker 1: am um, I am a skeptic about the GOP doing
Speaker 1: what needs to be done on immigration. But Chuck, thank
Speaker 1: you for calling in from Michigan. Very much appreciate hearing
Speaker 1: from your brother. Thank you. Yeah. I would like to
Speaker 1: say that I'm, you know what, cautiously optimistic or something
Speaker 1: on immigration, but I just can't. I there are too
Speaker 1: many ways that it goes bad with with the GOP.
Speaker 1: Too many Republicans who just prefer, well, they prefer to
Speaker 1: say one thing when they have to get elected and
Speaker 1: then do another when it comes to casting their votes
Speaker 1: on immigration. And you know, it's isn't it isn't an
Speaker 1: astonishing that we're in a country that takes in a million,
Speaker 1: that that brings in a million legal permanent immigrants a
Speaker 1: year or makes them permanent a year. We have a
Speaker 1: million new permanent residents of this country each year from
Speaker 1: outside of America, and we have to get lectures from
Speaker 1: arrow media about how we're xenophobic or because we want
Speaker 1: to get rid of the chain chain migration or the
Speaker 1: diversity lottery system, we're all bad people or something. It's
Speaker 1: it's a sign of the times. Unfortunately've lost it. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about currency and Currency Wars. In just a
Speaker 1: few moments here, let me ask you this question. We'll
Speaker 1: set us up for what's coming up next. What would
Speaker 1: happen if China dumped all of our U S treasury bonds?
Speaker 1: So far, it has been a very strong year for
Speaker 1: the US economy, and many people are looking back on
Speaker 1: President Trump's first year in office and thinking that it's
Speaker 1: been excellent for markets, and for employment and for business.
Speaker 1: But what would happen if China decided that it wasn't
Speaker 1: going to keep buying US treasuries. That's a story that's
Speaker 1: been printed by numerous news outlets in the last week
Speaker 1: or so. Hasving gotten that much attention, but it could
Speaker 1: be a really big deal. Well, to help us look
Speaker 1: at what it would mean, we've got New York Times
Speaker 1: bestselling author James Rickard's on the phone. He is the
Speaker 1: author of Currency Wars, The Making of the Next Global Crisis. James,
Speaker 1: Great to have you, Great to be with you, Buck, James,
Speaker 1: tell me what would happen? Let's just start with that
Speaker 1: before we get into more of the thesis of your
Speaker 1: of your book. What would happen if China decided to
Speaker 1: stop buying US treasures? Well? At the March, and they're
Speaker 1: the largest fignholder of US Treasury's actually the print The
Speaker 1: people with the most treasuries are the US Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: Sal print money. When they print money, they buy US treasury.
Speaker 1: So they've got about four trillion on their books, but
Speaker 1: China has over one trillion. So between the FED and China,
Speaker 1: you've got five trillion dollars of the total twenty trillion
Speaker 1: dollars of US national death. So China's huge player. At
Speaker 1: the margin. It would tend to make interest rates go higher.
Speaker 1: That means every day Americans would pay more for their mortgages,
Speaker 1: credit card rates would go up, and we definitely have
Speaker 1: a slowing effect on the US economy. But when I
Speaker 1: saw that, I saw the same story you're referring to
Speaker 1: her obviously watched it closely. To me, it wasn't something
Speaker 1: they were actually going to do anytime soon. It was
Speaker 1: more of a shot across the bottle warning to the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, don't mess with us on trade, because we
Speaker 1: can hit you back in the treasure market. So this
Speaker 1: is what the kind of financial warfare is all about.
Speaker 1: Tell me about what an actual currency war with China
Speaker 1: would look like, and how would it. How would it
Speaker 1: start first, Well, we actually have some experience with this.
Speaker 1: In two thousand nine, I was asked by the Pentagon
Speaker 1: to help facilitate it was their first ever financial war game.
Speaker 1: As you know, war games are conducted all the time,
Speaker 1: but this was the first financial w Again, the only
Speaker 1: weapons are stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, and derivatives. We did
Speaker 1: it at the Warfare Analysis Laboratory down in near Washington,
Speaker 1: the Applies Physics Lab. We have participation from you know,
Speaker 1: the Uniform Military, CIA, the Fed, the Treasury, a lot
Speaker 1: of outside experts. We did it for two days, and
Speaker 1: in that scenario, China Russia teamed up to acquire gold,
Speaker 1: have a new gold back currency issued out of London,
Speaker 1: and basically run the dollar off the road. We got
Speaker 1: kind of laughed out at the time. A lot of
Speaker 1: people said, oh, that would never happen. But since then,
Speaker 1: since we did that with the Pentagon in two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: China and Russia have tripled their gold reserves. So things
Speaker 1: are actually playing out the way we told the Pentagon
Speaker 1: at the time. But right now it could happen on
Speaker 1: a lot of fronts. It could happen with gold, it
Speaker 1: could happen with cryptocurrencies, that could happen with treasuries. China
Speaker 1: is very unlikely to dump their treasuries. That you know.
Speaker 1: The oldest joke in banking is, if I owe you
Speaker 1: a million dollars, I have a problem. But if I
Speaker 1: owe you a billion dollars, you have a problem because
Speaker 1: you have to collect it from well. Right now, in
Speaker 1: the United States owes China a trillion dollars over a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars, So I would say China has the problem
Speaker 1: because the president with one phone call could freeze the
Speaker 1: Chinese treasuries if they ever did anything kind of on
Speaker 1: toward or disorderly in the treasury market. The president of
Speaker 1: the authority, with one phone call called the FED and
Speaker 1: the Treasury to freeze those securities. He wouldn't have fault
Speaker 1: on them, and he would say that. The Chinese say,
Speaker 1: we'll keep paying interest, but we're just going to freeze
Speaker 1: them from now until you get back on your best behavior.
Speaker 1: So that's one way currency war financial work can play out.
Speaker 1: What is happening right now with our currency though, I
Speaker 1: mean a lot of people will be asking questions, like
Speaker 1: we're at twenty trillion in debt. There's been all this gamesmanship,
Speaker 1: all this stuff going on with the Fed and monetary policy.
Speaker 1: But for most folks James, right now, it feels like
Speaker 1: everything's fine. How would things not go How would things
Speaker 1: all of a sudden not be fine when we're talking
Speaker 1: about US currency. Well, you know, but when you say
Speaker 1: gamesmanship by the by the central banks and the treasure,
Speaker 1: that's exactly the right word. They've been kind of manipulating
Speaker 1: things behind the scene. C Right, we say the economy
Speaker 1: is fine, I think what you really mean is that
Speaker 1: the stock markets going up. Well, that's for sure, stock
Speaker 1: markets going up, I think about thirty since President Trump
Speaker 1: was elected. That feels good to a lot of people. Um,
Speaker 1: but you know, the economy is doing a little better,
Speaker 1: but not a lot better. Very skeptical of the impact
Speaker 1: of this the tax bill. But but the problem from
Speaker 1: the from the Chinese perspective, you know this, uh, this
Speaker 1: whole financial war is coming to a head. The President
Speaker 1: has been issuing to do something on the trade front.
Speaker 1: Remember he said he was gonna, you know, tear up
Speaker 1: and after he has not done that, uh he um,
Speaker 1: you know, he said he was going to build a
Speaker 1: wall in Mexico that hasn't happened yet. So a lot
Speaker 1: of things that Trump has talked about that that he
Speaker 1: hasn't actually done. But one of the things he would
Speaker 1: like to do is hit China with some sanctions on steel, aluminum,
Speaker 1: and some other solar panels and some other things. The
Speaker 1: problem is the President needs China's help on North Korea.
Speaker 1: So the reason the President has held off on the
Speaker 1: trade war with China is because we're looking for their
Speaker 1: help with North Korea and US so to you've been
Speaker 1: following closely, but China hasn't really done that much. They're
Speaker 1: they're talking a good game, but they haven't really done
Speaker 1: that much. Oil is still getting into the North Korea's
Speaker 1: still being smuggled in. They haven't really put the strangleholds
Speaker 1: in North Korea. So I think the president is getting
Speaker 1: fed up with that. Trade Representative Lightheiser has been itching
Speaker 1: to put on sanctions WI over ross degree. So I
Speaker 1: think we'll see a trade war with China and then
Speaker 1: that we'll just kind of fight it out in the
Speaker 1: currency market. In in the bottom market, we're speaking to
Speaker 1: James Rickard's New York Times bestselling author of Currency Wars,
Speaker 1: The Making of the Next Global Crisis, James, I've got
Speaker 1: your book right in front of me here, and it
Speaker 1: certainly makes one thing that we could face a global
Speaker 1: crisis when it comes to currency. How do you think
Speaker 1: that is most likely to happen. How would it happen? Well,
Speaker 1: see right now, because the dollar is getting a lot weaker,
Speaker 1: and we see that in the price of gold. Everyone says,
Speaker 1: you know, the price of gold has going up over
Speaker 1: a hundred dollars an ounced in the past few weeks.
Speaker 1: People go, oh, goals going up. By the way I
Speaker 1: think about it, goal, it's not really going up. What's
Speaker 1: happening is the dollar is going down. So you have
Speaker 1: dollar the dollar price of goal is higher. But that's
Speaker 1: just like a symptom that the dollar is getting weaker.
Speaker 1: Believe it or not, The Fed wis are actually likes that.
Speaker 1: The reason is it increases the price of imports. It
Speaker 1: actually brings some inflation into the U. S. Economy. The
Speaker 1: Fed once inflation they've been they've spent five years trying
Speaker 1: to hit their target. They have not hit their target
Speaker 1: of two percent inflation in five years. So the so
Speaker 1: the week dollar actually helps them to meet their target
Speaker 1: a little bit less and keep on track to to
Speaker 1: keep raising interest rates. But the problem is the inflation
Speaker 1: is mostly a psychological phenomena. It takes a long time
Speaker 1: to turn the ship, but once you do, inflation can
Speaker 1: spin out of control. We saw this in late nineteen seventies.
Speaker 1: So yeah, there hasn't been any inflation through all this
Speaker 1: money printing in the last eight years. But the reason
Speaker 1: is that people have not had inflationary expectations. They're still
Speaker 1: kind of looking at their wounds. Found the melt down
Speaker 1: to two thousand and eight. But if that changes, it
Speaker 1: would be very hard for the FED to contain the change.
Speaker 1: It can change very quickly. Again, we saw that in
Speaker 1: the late seventies. So one of the things one of
Speaker 1: the dangers here is that the FED plays the weak
Speaker 1: currency game, fights the currency wars with a cheap dollar,
Speaker 1: and again we see that in the higher price of gold.
Speaker 1: But then the inflation actually kicks in and expectations change,
Speaker 1: and then people start to dump dollars to buy you know,
Speaker 1: other hard assets, gold, silver, land, fine art, anything, and
Speaker 1: turn over increases. So that I think the plans the
Speaker 1: FED is playing with fire here in terms of setting
Speaker 1: off a potentially dangerous inflationary cycle. In Layman's terms, James,
Speaker 1: what is the currency war? The currency war is two
Speaker 1: countries who cheapen their currency to still trade advantage from
Speaker 1: their partners. So we're not always in a currency war.
Speaker 1: But when currency wars began, they can last for ten
Speaker 1: or fifteen years. And I talked about that in my book.
Speaker 1: The book came out of my book Currency Wars came
Speaker 1: out in two thousand eleven. Here we are in two
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen, and we're still in the same currency war. Reporters,
Speaker 1: there's a new currency where well, now, I say, no,
Speaker 1: it's the same one. It's just been going back and forth.
Speaker 1: Currency wars happened when there's too much debt not enough growth.
Speaker 1: It's exactly the situation we're in today. Too much that
Speaker 1: not enough growth, the same situation the world was in
Speaker 1: the nineteen nine after World War One. So what countries
Speaker 1: do is they try to get a little growth by
Speaker 1: stealing it from their trading partners. So if I cheapen
Speaker 1: the dollar, we'll guess what my bowing aircraft exports are there,
Speaker 1: they're a little cheaper to foreign buyers. All US exports
Speaker 1: are cheaper. Imports are more expensive because we're trying to
Speaker 1: buy them with a cheaper currency, so that improves the
Speaker 1: trade deficit. That's good for growth, and like I say,
Speaker 1: it helps big exporters like General Electric and Bowing and
Speaker 1: so forth. So that's the theory. The problem is that
Speaker 1: there's retaliation. So I cheapen the dollar. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: Europe comes along and they try to cheapen the euro,
Speaker 1: and China comes along and they try to cheapen the
Speaker 1: yuan and so forth. So it just goes back and
Speaker 1: forth and back and forth like two kids on a seesaw,
Speaker 1: and it's a negative some game. Everybody ends up worse off.
Speaker 1: Nobody wins, but the temptation is always there to give
Speaker 1: your economy a boost with the cheap currency. So the
Speaker 1: Fed's doing that right now. Today the dollar is getting weaker,
Speaker 1: and you know, maybe the US is getting a little
Speaker 1: boost to go side by side with the stimulus and
Speaker 1: the tax cut, but it won't last again. There'll be
Speaker 1: some retaliation from China sooner or later, and that's how
Speaker 1: the currency wears play out. If Trump could, uh from
Speaker 1: read your book, and maybe he has, by the way,
Speaker 1: but I just mean if you were to read it again,
Speaker 1: let's say, and was to take one thing from it,
Speaker 1: that he could do or that the government could do
Speaker 1: right now to try and address some of the problems
Speaker 1: that you've described for US, James, what would it be
Speaker 1: Probably by gold. Russia's doing it, China's doing it. You
Speaker 1: have to ask yourself, Buck, Russia and China have tripled
Speaker 1: their gold reserves in the last nine years. Russia has
Speaker 1: gone from about six hundred tons to almost two thousand tons.
Speaker 1: China has gone from again around six hundred times to
Speaker 1: almost two thousand tons. About China has a lot more
Speaker 1: than that because they're non transparent about it. So you
Speaker 1: have to ask yourself, you know, are the Russians Chinese
Speaker 1: stupid or do they see something we don't. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: in the Moscow and Beijing. I'm sure you have to
Speaker 1: They're not stupid. They know what they're doing. And if
Speaker 1: they are acquiring that much gold, they have to be
Speaker 1: getting ready for some kind of international monetary collapse at reset.
Speaker 1: And I would say one thing the U s could
Speaker 1: do to increase its strength and beyond playing defense actually
Speaker 1: as strength in its hand, would be to get more
Speaker 1: gold itself. Is the music going to stop on the
Speaker 1: US economy? James? Uh? It will sure these these financial
Speaker 1: crisis come along almost like clockwork, every seven eight years.
Speaker 1: You get back October seven stock market fell in one day.
Speaker 1: That would be the equivalent of five thousand doll points today,
Speaker 1: not five thousand. The Mexican crisis seven, the Asian crisis,
Speaker 1: the Russia crisis two thousand, the dot com meltdown two
Speaker 1: thousand seven, the mortgage mountdown two thousand and eight. Leman
Speaker 1: Hi g We haven't had one since two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: But as they say that history says they come along
Speaker 1: every seven eight years. We're not in a good position
Speaker 1: for one right now. But whether it's the currency wars,
Speaker 1: natural disaster, shooting, war with North Korea, trade war with China,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of catalysts out there in the stock
Speaker 1: mark you could drop like a stone. James Rickards, author
Speaker 1: of Currency Wars The Making of the Next Global Crisis. James,
Speaker 1: great to have you, Thanks so much. Thanks all right, team,
Speaker 1: We're gonna goroll into a break. When we come back,
Speaker 1: I am going to talk to you about a lot
Speaker 1: of things, including, uh, there's Shield Time podcast this week,
Speaker 1: the First Crusade. It's out today checking out on iTunes.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. It was a pretty crazy weekend
Speaker 1: in the news cycle. I was deep in my history books.
Speaker 1: Actually had a few of my books from one of
Speaker 1: my favorite classes in college at Amherst, which was the
Speaker 1: First Crusade. So actually took I took an entire semester
Speaker 1: on course on the First Crusade. It was some time ago,
Speaker 1: but it was an excellent professor. He was Irish and
Speaker 1: he was from the University of Massachusetts and was just
Speaker 1: teaching a class on Amherst campus. But I was all
Speaker 1: immersed in that world. I was. I was just rocking
Speaker 1: out in the eleventh century slash early twelfth century, as
Speaker 1: one does. And I saw the talk to you about
Speaker 1: the Hawaii bomb or missile threat warning, which just is
Speaker 1: baffling that that could happen the way that it did.
Speaker 1: And then I saw something else, and I should I
Speaker 1: had to assume right away that this is a joke
Speaker 1: or no way, But it turns out it's not. Chelsea
Speaker 1: Manning is running for office, and it is for the
Speaker 1: it's for a Senate seat. And I just think to myself,
Speaker 1: you know, we've really just as a society, it seems
Speaker 1: to me entirely and completely, uh lost some sense of
Speaker 1: objectivity when you not when you have somebody who has
Speaker 1: no accomplishments or resume to speak of a part from
Speaker 1: committing treason against his country. And that is for the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, at least some Democrats like Chelsea Manning is
Speaker 1: not gonna win. But that is taken seriously as as
Speaker 1: a possibility by some within the party, by some people
Speaker 1: inside of the American Left. And I just don't know
Speaker 1: how that's I was gonna say, know how it's possible.
Speaker 1: But sure enough, here we are, um running for Senate
Speaker 1: in Maryland. This is a This is a little bit
Speaker 1: of the news background of this. The transgender uh former
Speaker 1: Army officer who was convicted of leaguing classified documents, filed
Speaker 1: her statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday.
Speaker 1: The Washington Post reported Saturday that Manning will challenge Democrat
Speaker 1: Ben Cardon. He has served two terms and is an
Speaker 1: overwhelming favorite to win. The three year old. Manning list
Speaker 1: that a North Bethesda address in her FEC filing. She
Speaker 1: is running as a Democrat. Manning was convicted of leaking
Speaker 1: classified information and spent more than six years behind bars. Um, okay,
Speaker 1: A few things, a few things here, and that's all.
Speaker 1: From some NBC affiliate down in Maryland. Okay, she's not
Speaker 1: gonna see I just did it. He's not gonna win.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna win. I know, people yell your miss gendering. No,
Speaker 1: you can change your name, you can't change your gender.
Speaker 1: This is a debate now that has turned into Democrats
Speaker 1: not just yelling, but trying to use the force of
Speaker 1: law against reality, against what is obvious and apparent to
Speaker 1: anybody who cares to pay attention, that is that Chelsea
Speaker 1: Manning is a male. There's there's there's not a scientific
Speaker 1: debate or dispute about this. It is as clear as
Speaker 1: any objective reality can be. And yet here you have
Speaker 1: this and be and so many of them. Now I
Speaker 1: even see conservatives doing it. And I'm telling you, if
Speaker 1: I start doing it, it's only because I'm being threatened
Speaker 1: with either like legal action or some kind of HR
Speaker 1: sanction from somewhere or someone, because it's just crazy to me.
Speaker 1: But that's where we're heading. I mean, now, in an
Speaker 1: office environment and a workplace, you're gonna have to say
Speaker 1: she when it's a he, and he when it's a she.
Speaker 1: Why because someone says so? Now, it would be one
Speaker 1: thing if, like I said, if this were just about choice,
Speaker 1: your name is a choice. If somebody wants to be
Speaker 1: called lothar Key, Master of Gozer, which is actually a
Speaker 1: pretty badass name, I will call them that if that
Speaker 1: is in fact their name, right, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you have to. But you know, then again, if it's
Speaker 1: not on your driver's license or or your passport or something.
Speaker 1: If you're just changing your name every five minutes, you know,
Speaker 1: at some point you can also say to somebody, what's
Speaker 1: your real name? Right? But you can change your name.
Speaker 1: You're allowed to decide this is what I would this
Speaker 1: is what I would like to be called. But you
Speaker 1: can't change your gender. And forcing people to recognize an
Speaker 1: unreality or a falsehood is a very dangerous game for
Speaker 1: society to play, and it's getting crazier and crazier. I
Speaker 1: remember five or six years ago, if you said that
Speaker 1: Democrats would be pushing for boys to be able to
Speaker 1: use the girls bathroom in high school and vice versa,
Speaker 1: based upon gender identity, you would have been called a fearmongerer. Nonsense,
Speaker 1: you're just being you're just being a big it, and
Speaker 1: you're also I mean, and now here here we are
Speaker 1: we're already at the point where that's the case, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to forget that it wasn't long ago at
Speaker 1: all that the very people pushing for this were saying
Speaker 1: that it was crazy and never going to happen. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess times changed rather quickly, didn't they. But it
Speaker 1: is a matter of time. I think that we will
Speaker 1: all be forced. There will be an effort two eliminate
Speaker 1: people from the public sphere who refused to play this
Speaker 1: preposterous game when it comes to pronouns. But back to
Speaker 1: Chelsea Manning specifically formerly known as Bradley Manning. You know
Speaker 1: that's called when you refer to a transgender person's a
Speaker 1: previous name that is tied to their previously identified self
Speaker 1: identified gender. They call that dead naming, and it's a
Speaker 1: terrible insult. Do you think why is it such an insult?
Speaker 1: Right If somebody says says, you know, Buck, your name
Speaker 1: is actually James, and I say, well, Buck is part
Speaker 1: of my middle name, and it's been my name son
Speaker 1: as a kid. But saying that my first name is
Speaker 1: James is not an insult. It's just just true. Saying
Speaker 1: that somebody's name was something else is not an insult.
Speaker 1: You can say it's dead naming, but the problem that
Speaker 1: they have with it is just that it points out
Speaker 1: how absurd the whole situation is that, you know, they
Speaker 1: don't want any reminders of what has happened here. Someone
Speaker 1: has decided, oh I'm actually you know, my name isn't Bob,
Speaker 1: my name is Susie and I'm a woman. Okay, why
Speaker 1: how when did that happen? And we're supposed to celebrate
Speaker 1: this too. Look, people can do whatever they want. Somebody
Speaker 1: wants to go around where addressed, you know or not?
Speaker 1: Or what people can dress how want. They can do
Speaker 1: what they want. You know, do your thing, you do
Speaker 1: you I get all that, but to force me to
Speaker 1: be complicit in a delusion is wrong. And Chelsea Manning
Speaker 1: is still celebrated by some on the left for what
Speaker 1: I have. Well, I have some idea. They think that
Speaker 1: those leaks were exposing war crimes, and I was going
Speaker 1: to say to them, really, what what war crimes were
Speaker 1: exposed by the leaks? Exactly that mistakes happen in war,
Speaker 1: that Chelsea Manning formerly Bradley Manning could embarrassed people who
Speaker 1: are actually fighting the war out there. It's just it
Speaker 1: enrages me. But I'll tell you this, Chelsea Manning is
Speaker 1: gonna get some votes, not a lot, but there will
Speaker 1: be people who vote for Chelsea Manning. Make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it. Obama commuted this guy's sentence. All right, We're
Speaker 1: going to get into uh much more coming up here,
Speaker 1: and stay with me the battles of the past to
Speaker 1: find the president. This is Shields High. Gather around, friends,
Speaker 1: for I have a story to tell. A thousand years ago,
Speaker 1: a military force assembled in Europe and rallied under the
Speaker 1: banner of the Cross. This Christian army believed no less
Speaker 1: than their eternal salvation was at stake the team. That's
Speaker 1: the beginning of this week's episode of Shields High. We
Speaker 1: have gone from the Battle of Tour, the victory of
Speaker 1: Charles Martel the Hammer over the Franks, to the First Crusade.
Speaker 1: I think you will really enjoy this episode. It gets
Speaker 1: into a bit more of the context of the First
Speaker 1: Crusade that I think you'll hear almost anywhere else. I'm
Speaker 1: always amazed at how incorrect so much of the historical
Speaker 1: analysis is of the Crusades that's out there, that the
Speaker 1: conventional wisdom is largely nonsense. But first please do download
Speaker 1: the Shields High Podcast. It is available on the iTunes app.
Speaker 1: We are on episode two this week. We're having episodes
Speaker 1: coming out each Monday for the foreseeable future. Next week
Speaker 1: is gonna be the Fall of Constantinople, which is big,
Speaker 1: gonna be awesome. You're gonna definitely gonna want to hear
Speaker 1: that episode. And then after that we get into some
Speaker 1: of our favorites like Malta and Vienna and La Panto,
Speaker 1: et cetera. It's gonna be really really interesting stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: all excited about it. I've been telling everybody that the
Speaker 1: Shields High Podcast is kind of like my version for
Speaker 1: those of you who have seen the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall,
Speaker 1: this is my Dracula opera. In that movie, the guy
Speaker 1: who is he is broken up with by his celebrity girlfriend.
Speaker 1: He's really bummed out and his passion project. He's a musician,
Speaker 1: but his passion project is a Dracula puppet opera and
Speaker 1: he just really wants to do it. Well, this is
Speaker 1: my Dracula opera. The the I can't and if I
Speaker 1: see Van Helsing, I'll slay him. Ha ha ha. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got to see the movie to understand. It sounds
Speaker 1: like I'm having some kind of an uh A breakdown here,
Speaker 1: but I'm actually just quoting from the movie forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Speaker 1: But do please check out the podcast. I know a
Speaker 1: lot of you are listening to show live on radio,
Speaker 1: like why podcast? Come on? It's fun. You can listen
Speaker 1: to it whenever you want, and you can share it
Speaker 1: with friends, and it stays good for a while or
Speaker 1: well forever actually, And it's also something where there's information,
Speaker 1: so it's not just somebody roll look a construit totion,
Speaker 1: not America and everything that's falling apart and rah bah
Speaker 1: blah blah. You know, you listen to the Shield High podcast,
Speaker 1: you learned some cool stuff. One of the things that
Speaker 1: I wanted to get across with the First Crusades, Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, with the First Crusade, they teach kids
Speaker 1: in school that the Crusades were just these these barbarians
Speaker 1: that wanted to destroy this wonderful, peaceful Muslim civilization that
Speaker 1: you know, had just been chilling in Palestine and the
Speaker 1: surrounding areas for you know, for for as long as
Speaker 1: anybody could remember. But the truth is that these were
Speaker 1: all Christian lands we're talking about here, and that will
Speaker 1: come across on the podcast. What is now Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan's, Egypt,
Speaker 1: all of the above of course Israel. Uh. These were
Speaker 1: areas under Christian control and before that areas under the
Speaker 1: control of the Roman Empire. And when I say Christian control,
Speaker 1: it was predominantly the Eastern Byzantine Christian Empire that was
Speaker 1: running the show and these areas. But then the Muslim
Speaker 1: onslaught came. But there's notion that the Crusades were offensive
Speaker 1: and that jihad is defensive, right, it only happens to
Speaker 1: defend people. That's complete and utter garbage. And they teach
Speaker 1: kids this all the time, and there are academics. I'm
Speaker 1: sure I'd go on TV and oh no, tree hards.
Speaker 1: They'll have to tell me it's internal struggling, yeah, or
Speaker 1: they'll tell me that it is only defensive, not true.
Speaker 1: But also other than the fact that you have the
Speaker 1: Crusades not coming out of some vacuum, but actually has
Speaker 1: a response to repeated efforts by the Islamic forces to
Speaker 1: try and conquer more and more of Europe. Remember Charles Martel.
Speaker 1: They came up through Spain, all the way into really
Speaker 1: the center of France and had to be turned back.
Speaker 1: And the only thing that kept them from a full
Speaker 1: scale invasion through the east was Constantinople, right the the
Speaker 1: massive city, the fortress of Constantinople, that was the bulwark
Speaker 1: of Christianity. And so when it became clear that it
Speaker 1: was threatened and that the surrounding territory had fallen into
Speaker 1: the hands of the various well various caliphates, notably the
Speaker 1: selgiant Turks in the eleventh century, that's when they had
Speaker 1: to reach out for help to the Christians and all
Speaker 1: this I get into some detail about in in the podcast,
Speaker 1: but it's also why we have to talk coming up
Speaker 1: about the fall of Constantinople, and that will be a
Speaker 1: history deep dive next Monday, and I think you'll definitely
Speaker 1: want to That will be the first time we haven't
Speaker 1: talked about that one before on the show, so I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to it. And then I think after that
Speaker 1: we're going to do an official Shields high on Malta,
Speaker 1: and then yeah, I got a whole lot more planned.
Speaker 1: So there's that also, just the notion that the crusade
Speaker 1: was such a long shot that you would send at
Speaker 1: this period in time we're talking about now, the Council
Speaker 1: of Claremont, they get into Asia, minor contents, the noble,
Speaker 1: but that you would be able to get a force
Speaker 1: of roughly fifty thousand and move them over land all
Speaker 1: the way into hostile territory and deep in into Islamic
Speaker 1: controlled land, and that they could win. He's astonishing, really.
Speaker 1: I this is a period in time when most warfare
Speaker 1: was conducted based upon grarian schedules. That the harvest season,
Speaker 1: so you couldn't raise, you couldn't levy, and you couldn't
Speaker 1: raise a force and use it for more than a
Speaker 1: certain period of time because people would starve. They have
Speaker 1: to get back to their families, to their farms. So
Speaker 1: you had a campaign season that was in no way
Speaker 1: flexible really. I mean you could try if you were
Speaker 1: going to insist on keeping your army in the field,
Speaker 1: but they would they would dessert, they would mutiny. It
Speaker 1: was just not they were They were not professional armies
Speaker 1: year round at the time. And you had a lot
Speaker 1: of conscripts, people using very basic weapons without much, if
Speaker 1: anything in the way of training, so that they marched
Speaker 1: from different parts of Europe, but marched from Europe all
Speaker 1: the way across eastern Europe, the Straits or the the
Speaker 1: Dardan else right the crossing point the Bossphorus where Constantinople is,
Speaker 1: and then into Asia Minor. It's just an incredible story
Speaker 1: and incredible journey, and that they won numerous battles when really,
Speaker 1: if you look, and you'll get this from this show,
Speaker 1: they should have been annihilated. I don't mean they should have.
Speaker 1: Isn't that would have been the right thing. But I'm
Speaker 1: saying they were outmatched and outnumbered numerous times, and it
Speaker 1: was certainly quite a bit of luck and just sheer
Speaker 1: will and determination that let them take Jerusalem. So I
Speaker 1: think you really enjoy this week's episode of Shields Ye,
Speaker 1: and also those of you who have been sharing it
Speaker 1: with friends and family. I can't thank you enough. We
Speaker 1: did tens of thousands of downloads of the first episode.
Speaker 1: I can tell you that. Um, I don't want to
Speaker 1: give you an exact number yet because it's still it's
Speaker 1: still happening, but we we are doing very well on
Speaker 1: that podcast because of all of you. So those of
Speaker 1: you have and listened, please do, and those of you
Speaker 1: who are passing around the word, I really do. Thank
Speaker 1: you for that. It means a lot. And I spent
Speaker 1: my whole weekend working on this thing. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is all I did. It's and it's only about thirty
Speaker 1: forty minutes long. But to script it and audio edit
Speaker 1: it and just do this properly, do the research is
Speaker 1: It's a labor love like I said, so please do
Speaker 1: Shields hie on iTunes, also on the I Heart app.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe on iTunes and uh new episode out
Speaker 1: today and another one coming up next week. We're back
Speaker 1: with some Team buck roll call. Stay right there, Welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 1: It's time for some team buck roll call. Love getting
Speaker 1: to hear from all of you. Went through as many
Speaker 1: messages as I could. I think I'm almost caught up
Speaker 1: in the inbox on Facebook for like the last week
Speaker 1: or so. So that's that's good. That's uh, what happened
Speaker 1: to you? Spend the whole weekend Ms Molly's in Hawaii.
Speaker 1: Uh fortunately there's no actual ballistic missile issue, but seas
Speaker 1: in Hawaii, So that means this past weekend I just
Speaker 1: got to well study and eat a lot. So that
Speaker 1: was what I did. I had that going for me,
Speaker 1: which is nice. But I also got a chance to
Speaker 1: catch up in your messages. If you want to send
Speaker 1: me your thoughts, you can at Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton or also official Team Buck at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: So with all that, let's get into it, shall we.
Speaker 1: Let's see we let's see what we got. First one
Speaker 1: up this week in Team Buck roll call on at Nazio.
Speaker 1: He writes, Hey, man, saw you on Fox News Channels.
Speaker 1: Greetings from Spain. God bless America. Well at Nazio. Uh
Speaker 1: comyta and uh that's about as much spanished as I speak.
Speaker 1: I hope you're doing well. Thank you for the Coli message.
Speaker 1: Nice that we've got some Team Buck Spain in effect.
Speaker 1: This week we got Gregg up next. Buck. It's really
Speaker 1: great seeing you on Fox from time to time. I
Speaker 1: was actually on twice today. Um retiring on February. Brother,
Speaker 1: if I get up to the city, do you have
Speaker 1: a moment to get a beer? Rangers lead the way,
Speaker 1: shields high. Well, Greg, I will respond here. I may
Speaker 1: not be in the city that week, but I will
Speaker 1: let you know, and maybe you can have your swing
Speaker 1: by the hut and meet everybody here. But I will
Speaker 1: have the team respond a set, all right, and thank
Speaker 1: you for your service, sir. Next up this week, we
Speaker 1: are this week. I keep saying this week today. Pardon me.
Speaker 1: I know it's Martin Luther King Day. It's a holiday,
Speaker 1: and I am not not always registering that because I
Speaker 1: have to be at work. A j with the following.
Speaker 1: Your show is the best I'm listening since before the
Speaker 1: American Now broadcast when I find you. I found you
Speaker 1: after you subbed in for Rush Limbaugh. I listened by
Speaker 1: podcast and it gets me through my daily workout. Um.
Speaker 1: I sometimes struggle with the volume levels during the show.
Speaker 1: Thanks and Shields High a J. It's weird with podcast
Speaker 1: volume stuff. A lot of people in the past have
Speaker 1: told me they've had an issue with with that, but
Speaker 1: I we look at it here. I have the tech
Speaker 1: team check it out, and it is, uh how do
Speaker 1: always say it? Uh? Individual based. It depends on someone's
Speaker 1: gear and what they've got going on, so it's a
Speaker 1: little bit different there. Um. But I will take a
Speaker 1: look again because I always do. Dust In, hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I just finished the first episode of Shields High, and
Speaker 1: I loved it. I can't wait to share it with
Speaker 1: my son once he's older. I hope it will inspire
Speaker 1: him to search out and understand the truth of history
Speaker 1: for himself as he gets older. Well dust it. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much for your kind note. Uh. We've also
Speaker 1: got one in here from Adam, who writes, Crisper could
Speaker 1: cure everything in response to your rant on infections. Adam,
Speaker 1: I don't know what that means, but I will look
Speaker 1: into it. I'm not familiar. I'm not familiar with Crisper.
Speaker 1: I'll have to look at it and thank you for
Speaker 1: bringing it to my attention. All right, we have Lauren
Speaker 1: who writes in oh wow, this is uh, this is
Speaker 1: a long one, Buck. I just listen to history podcast
Speaker 1: and actually liked it, which is saying something because I've
Speaker 1: never been interested in history, so thank you for peaking
Speaker 1: my interest. I also have a random question about the
Speaker 1: Harry Potter's storyline. Have you read all the books or
Speaker 1: seen all the movies. I was really confused to find
Speaker 1: out that the author is a progressive, because when I
Speaker 1: read the books, I thought for sure the author must
Speaker 1: be a conservative. I saw so many parallels in the storyline.
Speaker 1: I saw the main characters and Dumbledore to be the
Speaker 1: conservatives who are willing to acknowledge that evils exist, call
Speaker 1: it by name, and fight back against it. I saw
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Magic as the leftist bureaucracy who pretend
Speaker 1: evil doesn't exist, don't want to give students the tools
Speaker 1: to fight it, want them to be in effect unarmed,
Speaker 1: and I saw members in that bureaucracy as full blown
Speaker 1: to talitarians. Wow, this is some like next level Harry
Speaker 1: Potter analysis here, folks. So I was curious if I'm
Speaker 1: the only one who saw this angle of the books,
Speaker 1: would be interested to hear your take on it if
Speaker 1: you have time to get through this series. Well, Lauren,
Speaker 1: thank you for your very kind note. I have never
Speaker 1: read a Harry Potter book, and I have I think
Speaker 1: I think in college a uh a date made me
Speaker 1: go to a Harry Potter movie once. I do not
Speaker 1: really remember it. I mean, I'm obviously familiar with Harry Potter,
Speaker 1: but I haven't. I don't think I've ever sat through
Speaker 1: an entire episode, or not episode, an entire film with
Speaker 1: Harry Potter as the subject matter. So I can't give
Speaker 1: you any good analysis on that. But you did get
Speaker 1: it read on air for a national coast to coast
Speaker 1: radio audience, So that's that's kind of cool. You know
Speaker 1: what I mean. Uh, let's see what else we got here. Uh.
Speaker 1: Friendly OSS message for your team, buck your bumpers, This
Speaker 1: from Jim are coming in hot. I just thought you
Speaker 1: guys would want some professional technical insight to your brilliant show.
Speaker 1: Great job, Okay, Jim, we'll check out the bumpers. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't need I that's a little bit
Speaker 1: beyond my my skill set here in terms of what
Speaker 1: we do technically. Um Corny writes in with the following book,
Speaker 1: I've quickly become a huge fan and listened to your
Speaker 1: podcast daily on my commute to work. Your show was
Speaker 1: the best thing I got out of my LA relationship.
Speaker 1: But I digress. I work in healthcare, and I've seen
Speaker 1: firsthand the gradual decline in the health care system since
Speaker 1: I graduated in two thousand and eight. Often those with
Speaker 1: the best health care benefits are those who have barely
Speaker 1: ever contributed to society. They are also often the most
Speaker 1: non compliant. For example, I had a patient with luring
Speaker 1: luringual cancer uh and at tracheost to me who was
Speaker 1: smoking through his stoma four to five times a day
Speaker 1: while his insurance company was paying for expensive chemotherapy and
Speaker 1: radiation treatments. It just doesn't make sense. I'd love to
Speaker 1: hear more on your take regarding the healthcare healthcare and
Speaker 1: how we can better improve the system. Socialized healthcare is
Speaker 1: not the answer, and it truly scares me that anyone
Speaker 1: could think that's a viable solution. Thanks Courtney. Uh well, Courty.
Speaker 1: First of all, I'm so glad you enjoy the podcast,
Speaker 1: and then I get to keep you company on your
Speaker 1: way to work on your commute, So I am honored.
Speaker 1: And healthcare is gonna be as it always is, a
Speaker 1: big topic of political debate and discussion, and I'd love
Speaker 1: to see the GEOP actually do something this year that's
Speaker 1: worthwhile on healthcare. I I'm a little disappointed at what
Speaker 1: we've seen so far from this Goop Congress, obviously on
Speaker 1: healthcare and repeal in the place of Obamacare. The reality
Speaker 1: is that we have to to get to where we
Speaker 1: want to be as conservatives with healthcare, we would have
Speaker 1: to do things that would be seen by many as
Speaker 1: radical because right now, having any actual let's get in
Speaker 1: the game, so to speak, to care where your dollars go,
Speaker 1: those are all differences, Those are all Uh that's not
Speaker 1: the case with our current healthcare system. Our system right
Speaker 1: now is based on healthcare is kind of a right.
Speaker 1: How much healthcare is a political decision and somebody else
Speaker 1: will always pay for it. It's just not the way
Speaker 1: that it is supposed to be. And that's why I
Speaker 1: think we have a lot of folks with very frustrating,
Speaker 1: very frustrating circumstances. And it's also a situation where or
Speaker 1: it's also the only industry I can think of where
Speaker 1: you don't know what the price is. The price changes
Speaker 1: all the time, and price sensitivity is not a part
Speaker 1: of the health care purchasing process. So I got a
Speaker 1: lot of thoughts on healthcare, but they'll be uh coming
Speaker 1: out in bits and pieces throughout the year as we
Speaker 1: follow it in the news cycle. So tomorrow I'll try
Speaker 1: to get some of the team buck emails going here,
Speaker 1: so that will be coming up for us next or
Speaker 1: tomorrow at least. And UH, thank you again for all
Speaker 1: the kind words about the History show. I'm gonna keep
Speaker 1: it going. As long as you keep listening passing it around,
Speaker 1: we'll we'll keep it going. So thank you for that. Uh,
Speaker 1: have a very happy and RESTful rest of your Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King Holiday and tomorrow. I'm sure it's gonna be
Speaker 1: very interesting with the possibility of that government shutdown in
Speaker 1: a few days. Lots of stuff that, lots of stuff
Speaker 1: to chat about, so do check out all the latest
Speaker 1: on iTunes for the show and Shields High and until tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Shields High