Speaker 1: Mr garbusch 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 Trump is not president of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank together. We will make America
Speaker 1: great again. You'll never sharend It's what you've been waiting
Speaker 1: for all day. The buck Sexton Show joined the conversation,
Speaker 1: called Buck toll free at eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four, nine hundred to eight to five,
Speaker 1: the Future of talk radio. Buck Sexton Department SWAT team
Speaker 1: approached the vehicle. The suspect detonated a bomb inside the vehicle,
Speaker 1: knocking one of our SWAT officers back, and one of
Speaker 1: our SWAT officers fired at the suspect as well. The
Speaker 1: suspect is deceased UH and has significant injuries from a
Speaker 1: blast that occurred from detonating a bomb inside his vehicle.
Speaker 1: Welcome to buck Sexton Show everyone. You heard it there
Speaker 1: from the Austin Police Chief. The serial bomber has been caught,
Speaker 1: or rather he's no longer with us. He is UH.
Speaker 1: He has been found, He detonated a bomb, he killed
Speaker 1: himself and looks like the terror that was visited upon
Speaker 1: the city of Austin in recent weeks is most likely over.
Speaker 1: There still could be some bombs circulating out there, but
Speaker 1: right now we are praying and fingers crossed and very
Speaker 1: hopeful that this has all come to an end. Here
Speaker 1: here's what we know about this particular mad bomber. His
Speaker 1: name is Mark Anthony Condit. He's twenty three years old.
Speaker 1: He was homeschooled, grew up in the Austin area. Had
Speaker 1: spent some time on Internet sites doing a research for
Speaker 1: his bomb making. It's believe that he did this all himself,
Speaker 1: that he just created these. He ordered some batteries, unusual
Speaker 1: batteries online from Asia as part of his bomb making.
Speaker 1: According to the Daily Mail, bought some equipment from a
Speaker 1: home depot store. This was all uh D I y
Speaker 1: serial murder from Mark Anthony Condit. They were able to
Speaker 1: zero in on him because of his FedEx. His FedEx
Speaker 1: stop so, as many of us said, including uh when
Speaker 1: it initially happened, I was over at Fox, I said,
Speaker 1: I think FedEx is going to be what what breaks
Speaker 1: this case open? And sure enough it was because they
Speaker 1: had cameras in place, and once you had him on
Speaker 1: although he was in disguise. It kind of a wig
Speaker 1: and a hole this guy set up. But once you
Speaker 1: knew where the suspect was at the time, you could
Speaker 1: then use cell phone data. And also I've seen reports
Speaker 1: that they looked up his Google search history became a
Speaker 1: person of interest. The digital footprint here was what did
Speaker 1: him in. Well, homemade bomb that he didn't it himself
Speaker 1: really did him in. But I mean his he was
Speaker 1: captured because of the Internet and because of technology. So
Speaker 1: that was the hope all along here. I think that
Speaker 1: it was not well, it was possible maybe, but it
Speaker 1: was unlikely that the serial bomber would be able to
Speaker 1: stay out of closed circuit television surveillance, that he would
Speaker 1: be able to evade all of the mechanisms that are
Speaker 1: in our day to day lives now as a result
Speaker 1: of the technology all around us. And so we don't
Speaker 1: have him a testy on our hands. You know, the
Speaker 1: mad bomber in New York City, as I mentioned in
Speaker 1: the fifties, almost I think for around a decade terrorized
Speaker 1: New York City thirty three bombs. The UNI bomber ted
Speaker 1: Kazinski sixteen years I think it took before they finally
Speaker 1: got him. Um. Now, this bomber didn't have quite the
Speaker 1: ops sack, perhaps of of a Kazinski Um, but we
Speaker 1: were we were were lucky we got him when we did,
Speaker 1: because he could have put many more of these bombs
Speaker 1: out there if he If he had just stayed with
Speaker 1: delivering bombs to doorsteps in the initial way, it might
Speaker 1: have taken a lot longer to get him, and the
Speaker 1: more people's lives could have been ended. I mean, what
Speaker 1: a what's just a terrible waste Um that people were maimed,
Speaker 1: people were killed by this maniac. It's it is heart wrenching,
Speaker 1: it really is. It's a gut punch. Um. In terms
Speaker 1: of motive, I still don't know. This kid was homeschool
Speaker 1: a bunch of community college um, unemployed at the time
Speaker 1: of his I was gonna say at the time of
Speaker 1: his arrest, but it's really at the time of his detonation,
Speaker 1: and they don't have much on They say he was quiet,
Speaker 1: They say that he um was reasonably polite, kind of
Speaker 1: a loner and comes from a nice family. They're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, this is not what would have fit the
Speaker 1: profile in a lot of ways. I think people were
Speaker 1: expecting a different a different character here. Yeah, he's a
Speaker 1: he's a single white male. He's a little on the
Speaker 1: younger side I think for cerial bombers. But single white male, loner,
Speaker 1: well not even really a loner. He lived with roommates,
Speaker 1: just quiet, perhaps better way to put it. Uh, something
Speaker 1: was deeply wrong here, something was twisted in his mind.
Speaker 1: He had he had chosen the darkness, my friends, he
Speaker 1: had chosen evil, gone down a path of evil. And
Speaker 1: we know this from his actions. We also know that
Speaker 1: he used the alias Kelly Kilmore uh for his FedEx packages,
Speaker 1: Kelly kill Moore. So this was all premeditated. Obviously, he
Speaker 1: thought a lot about it, He prepared for it, he experimented,
Speaker 1: and this was a plot that he put into motion.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was you know, we we'd like to
Speaker 1: call him a madman because in some ways it maybe
Speaker 1: feels more manageable for us to just think that he's
Speaker 1: that the synapses in his brain were misfiring, that that
Speaker 1: there was something clinically medically wrong with him. Maybe he
Speaker 1: just chose evil. We don't have enough of a psychological
Speaker 1: profile on him to know really what his background was
Speaker 1: or how he was, I was gonna say, pushed into it.
Speaker 1: That's the how he made this choice. How he made
Speaker 1: this choice. Ah, it's a reminder as well of what
Speaker 1: we face. This is a kid who didn't have anywhere
Speaker 1: near the red flags and warning signs of the Parkland shooter,
Speaker 1: Nicolas Cruz. Right in that case, you look at it,
Speaker 1: you say to yourself, well, they should have done more.
Speaker 1: And now we find out that law enforcement on the scene,
Speaker 1: and I think that's very important. We're just trying it out.
Speaker 1: What I'm criticizing what happened at Parkland in terms of
Speaker 1: law enforcement response. It's just some who were there. Others
Speaker 1: who were there showed bravery and and skill in their professions.
Speaker 1: But there were some who clearly did not get another
Speaker 1: one today that this was no and I'm sure right away,
Speaker 1: but they waited and waited and waited. He found out
Speaker 1: that one of the deputies was asleep in his patrol car,
Speaker 1: the one who was supposed to be posted at the
Speaker 1: very entrance that Nicholas Cruz used to go into the
Speaker 1: building asleep in his car when this happened. I remember
Speaker 1: when I was a the technical title, by the way,
Speaker 1: because sometimes I'm on TV, they say different things that
Speaker 1: are are close to the technical title was Intelligence research specialist.
Speaker 1: It's is fancy way of saying an analyst or the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Division, the NYPD. But I remember that the guys
Speaker 1: told me, They're like, one thing we promise you is
Speaker 1: if you're found sleeping on this job, you will be
Speaker 1: suspended and you might be fired. You cannot get you
Speaker 1: are a law enforcement entity here. You cannot literally be
Speaker 1: asleep on the job. And I always remember that, and
Speaker 1: and they were, they were absolutely serious about it. It
Speaker 1: was like there was that rule, and there was if
Speaker 1: you well failed the drug test. They had another term
Speaker 1: that they used for it that was a little crasp,
Speaker 1: but if you failed the drug test, you all you
Speaker 1: were automatically suspended pending termination. That was it. There was
Speaker 1: no like, oh, let's talk about this or give me
Speaker 1: a second chance. Sleeping was the same thing a Parkland deputy, well,
Speaker 1: i should say a Broward County deputy at the shooting
Speaker 1: in Parkland was literally a leap on the job. But
Speaker 1: you look at this, you say, okay, law enforcement failed. Uh,
Speaker 1: there were all these missigns. FBI missed the tips with
Speaker 1: Mark Anthony Condit and the Austin SIRA bombing. Mark Anthony Condit,
Speaker 1: twenty three years old. I'm not seeing the red flags anywhere,
Speaker 1: And I'm not even sure which which is really scarier, folks,
Speaker 1: The evil maniact that everyone knows about that no one
Speaker 1: can stop, or the quiet, sadistic killer that you can't
Speaker 1: see coming. I think you can make a case it's
Speaker 1: worse either way. I mean they're just both evil and
Speaker 1: both things that we have to be vigilant against and
Speaker 1: fight against. And people who are now I saw the
Speaker 1: beginnings of the conversation about well, you know, we have
Speaker 1: to do more to stop somebody from being able to
Speaker 1: build bombs. Now you're talking about just regulating everyday chemicals
Speaker 1: out of exist. I mean, it's just not possible. This
Speaker 1: guy did not have any military story an, did not
Speaker 1: have any intelligence training. He was able to figure this out.
Speaker 1: And if he, by the way, if if he had
Speaker 1: had any real professional background in explosives, tactics, techniques and procedures,
Speaker 1: if he had had any tradecraft operational security taught to him,
Speaker 1: he would have been a much more lethal serial bomber
Speaker 1: than he was. But he figured out the bomb components
Speaker 1: of this himself. And you know, people I saw a
Speaker 1: lot of folks going on TV saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: clearly there's a sophisticational level of expertise. No, this is
Speaker 1: not hard to do. You know, there's a whole span
Speaker 1: I mean bomb making and expert explosives like any other area.
Speaker 1: There's there's familiarity, I have familiarity EXPI explosives, and then
Speaker 1: there's real expertise, which only comes from dealing with them,
Speaker 1: handling them, defusing them. Right, that's the level you get
Speaker 1: at SWAT teams EO D, military e O D. You
Speaker 1: know they and they'll tell you that once you learn
Speaker 1: the basics of how to do this, it's not hard
Speaker 1: to do to build a bomb like this to kill
Speaker 1: innocent people. There's a whole the whole range of bomb
Speaker 1: maker skill and bomb diffusal skill out there. So this
Speaker 1: guy was was low on the skill spectrum, but enough
Speaker 1: to be lethal in the context of just trying to
Speaker 1: blow up people in the Austin area. We don't know
Speaker 1: anything about the targets set yet. Um, we don't know
Speaker 1: anything about I want to say anything. We know who's
Speaker 1: hit obviously, but we don't have any analysis of why
Speaker 1: not that I've seen law enforcement. They don't know what
Speaker 1: the motive is, but they also don't even know what
Speaker 1: would cluster together the addresses that he chose, not not
Speaker 1: something that has been made clear, so we'll continue to
Speaker 1: follow this. The good news is, uh, this evil piece
Speaker 1: of refuse is gone, blew himself up in the car
Speaker 1: when police confronted him, and assuming that there are no
Speaker 1: more of these devices out there, but we have to
Speaker 1: hope that that is the case, and law Enforce is
Speaker 1: working very hard to figure out if that is the
Speaker 1: case or not. This has finally come to an end.
Speaker 1: So we're very thankful for the people of Austin that
Speaker 1: this nightmare is hopefully over and that the country can
Speaker 1: breathe a sigh of relief. UM. But as with so
Speaker 1: many of these cases, will not be the last, so
Speaker 1: we should just be psychologically prepared for that, and you
Speaker 1: have to maintain a level of vigilance. UM. Give you
Speaker 1: a sense of where we're going here. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: the Attorney General joining us to talk about battling the
Speaker 1: opioid crisis, or Jeff Sessions will be our guests coming
Speaker 1: up here in just a few minutes. I'll give you
Speaker 1: more of my thoughts on the opioid crisis as well,
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk about the uh situation of former
Speaker 1: senior intelligence officers from the Obama administration who are now
Speaker 1: popping up on TV left and right and just trashing Trump.
Speaker 1: That's very It's not just that it annoys me. I
Speaker 1: think what they're saying is untrue. I think it's unethical.
Speaker 1: I've got a big problem with it. Also, the call
Speaker 1: to Russia, with the call to putin and the leak
Speaker 1: about what Trump said or did not say, we'll address that.
Speaker 1: We got follow up on the Facebook Cambridge Analytica story.
Speaker 1: Here's a short version. Everything I told you is looking
Speaker 1: more and more accurate in terms of the analysis with
Speaker 1: each passing day. Now, so I was right and the
Speaker 1: entire mainstream media was wrong. There's no surprise there. But
Speaker 1: we'll give you some of the details. And we've got
Speaker 1: basically a lot more show and and some free speech
Speaker 1: issues coming up later in the show too. YouTube kicking
Speaker 1: firearms videos off the platform, and a guy in the
Speaker 1: UK who is heading to prison or making an offensive video.
Speaker 1: We'll hit that and more. We come back, stay, wouldn't
Speaker 1: he y? So we're about to talk about the opioid crisis.
Speaker 1: Here on the show, we have Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: will be our guests in just a few moments. We're
Speaker 1: looking forward to asking him about what the administration is
Speaker 1: going to do when it comes to, uh, the pandemic
Speaker 1: of overdoses, and we will get to get to that
Speaker 1: with him shortly. Here we have but there's a story
Speaker 1: that I just want to note I I saw and
Speaker 1: here's I'm kind of in shock. I missed this somehow.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike brought it to my attention. It's from CNN.
Speaker 1: A Florida judge said bond Tuesday at five thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for Zachary Cruise, the younger brother of Parkland shooter Nicholas Cruz,
Speaker 1: for a misdemeanor trespassing charge, despite protestations from his de
Speaker 1: vents attorney, who said his client was being punished for
Speaker 1: his brother's crime. Appearing via video before the same judge
Speaker 1: and in the same quard room as his brother had
Speaker 1: days earlier, Zachary Cruise stood shackled in a brown jump
Speaker 1: student sandals. He was surrounded by three deputies. Seven hundred
Speaker 1: He's got a seven hundred fifty dollar bond. Uh. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, that's for the Younger Cruises release. WHOA. I
Speaker 1: was like, that is um, that's wait, no, is that
Speaker 1: the is the brother older or younger? Is it the
Speaker 1: older brother younger brother? Mike hold on making Oh no,
Speaker 1: yeah it was it was the younger brother. Seven fifty
Speaker 1: dollar bond. Wow for I mean obviously the other I
Speaker 1: had to think about this for a second, but yeah,
Speaker 1: the Nicholas Cruise has no bond. I mean he's probably
Speaker 1: facing the death penalty, but that's a lot. That's a
Speaker 1: big price tag for what, as I understand as a
Speaker 1: trespassing charge. The Wow, they're throwing the book at this guy.
Speaker 1: They're not messing around. But here's what happened, uh after cruises.
Speaker 1: Back to the CNN piece here after Cruises arrest. This
Speaker 1: is re member the Younger Cruise, the younger brother, Nicholas Cruise,
Speaker 1: the shooter at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. There's all
Speaker 1: kinds of problems and warning signs with this guy too.
Speaker 1: After cruising arrest Monday in Parkland, the eighteen year old
Speaker 1: told police he wanted to reflect on the school shooting
Speaker 1: and soak it in the team had no ties to
Speaker 1: Broward County, and then he surpassed all locked doors and
Speaker 1: gates and proceeded to ride his skateboard through school grounds.
Speaker 1: So Nicholas cruise the school shooters younger brother who's eighteen,
Speaker 1: so he's an adult. I thought that it would be
Speaker 1: a good idea to trespass on Marjorie Stoneman Douglas grounds
Speaker 1: and go skateboarding through the school to soak it all
Speaker 1: in in reference to the shooting. Wow, uh, they they
Speaker 1: need to keep an eye on this guy. Well, I
Speaker 1: guess they're going to he's got a seven our bond.
Speaker 1: I wonder what the I'm trying to look and see here.
Speaker 1: I just Mike just told me about this before we
Speaker 1: went into the break. I wasn't planning and discussing this.
Speaker 1: I'm just seeing the story in in the last few
Speaker 1: minutes here. But I'm wondering how long what kind of
Speaker 1: charges he faces Right now? He had a bunch of
Speaker 1: theft and criminal mischief please from his juvenile record, So
Speaker 1: they're trying they're using that to say, wow, yeah, here
Speaker 1: we go, guys. That the the usual trespassing bond is
Speaker 1: twenty five dollars. That's what That's what it usually costs
Speaker 1: to get out on bond. For trespassing and uh in
Speaker 1: Brower Counties twenty five dollars. They're holding this guy in
Speaker 1: seven and fifty thousand dollars bond. Ah there, whoa, this
Speaker 1: is interesting, But he violated I'm sorry, he's got an
Speaker 1: ankle monitor on here. He was instructed to have no
Speaker 1: contact with what you got, Mike. They they're holding him,
Speaker 1: uh involuntarily and uh under evaluation under the Baker Act.
Speaker 1: So they're holding a brother under the Baker Act. Ah. Wow,
Speaker 1: they're not gonna I'm not gonna let that slip through
Speaker 1: the cracks this time. Okay, So this, this is a
Speaker 1: this is a big update to the story. Thank you
Speaker 1: for bringing this to my attention. I didn't I didn't
Speaker 1: know about this one. So the younger brother now being
Speaker 1: held and there they're trying to see if he's a
Speaker 1: risk to the public as well. Um, this, this shooting
Speaker 1: in Parkland is the story is still moving, still moving
Speaker 1: along here. Um, all right, we got to the attorney
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to switch topic because we have the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States calling in a few
Speaker 1: minutes talk to us about the opioid crisis. We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about that, So stay with me. Welcome back everyone.
Speaker 1: The administration is tackling the opioid crisis and they are
Speaker 1: taking real tangible steps to save lives in this country.
Speaker 1: Right now, De douce with smart and sensible policy. To
Speaker 1: tell us what some of those steps are. We are
Speaker 1: joined by the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions. UH,
Speaker 1: Mr Attorney General, thank you so much for calling us.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. Well, thank you. It's good to talk
Speaker 1: with you, and it is indeed an important subject. Tell
Speaker 1: us what the administration. I know you've been outlining the plans,
Speaker 1: but for those listening, what are the main points of
Speaker 1: assault on this epidemic right now that you and the
Speaker 1: rest of the administration are engaged into to save lives
Speaker 1: and to to deal with the sixty four thousand dead
Speaker 1: in the last complete year of opioid overdoses, um buck.
Speaker 1: We are determined to bring those death numbers down. They
Speaker 1: went up from fifty two thousand to sixty four thousand
Speaker 1: to sixty six thousand. We think in seventeen we need
Speaker 1: to bring those numbers down, not just play around with
Speaker 1: this problem, but actually first these trends. The President declared
Speaker 1: a health emergency, a national health emergency. And he was
Speaker 1: with the first Lady in New Hampshire earlier in the
Speaker 1: week and I was with him there with several Cabinet members,
Speaker 1: and he made clear that this is a top priority
Speaker 1: for him. The first Lady had been through a knee
Speaker 1: on natal unit where babies are being born addicted to drugs,
Speaker 1: and she talked about that. UM and UH, I remember
Speaker 1: being in New Hampshire earlier last year when UH we
Speaker 1: stood with nine thousand high school students that d e
Speaker 1: A had had put the event together with fifty mothers
Speaker 1: holding up fifty and large portraits one of their children
Speaker 1: who had died from a drug overdose. UH. He was
Speaker 1: a moving, moving thing. So you are right, it's a big, big,
Speaker 1: big issue. What are we doing. We're gonna have a
Speaker 1: new data analytics program. We think a lot of the
Speaker 1: addiction starts with prescription drug addiction. So this program kicks
Speaker 1: out how many drugs are given doctor or hospital or
Speaker 1: or pharmacy has dispensed. Some of them are shockingly outliers,
Speaker 1: way above any normal expectation of prescriptions. UH. And they
Speaker 1: even contract how many people are tied who've died from overdose,
Speaker 1: who may have been getting drugs from that facility, so
Speaker 1: it helps our agents identify corrupt uh people who are
Speaker 1: moving these drugs. We're moving forward with civil litigation against
Speaker 1: Big Farmer in some of the things that they're doing.
Speaker 1: We're determined to bring down the number of prescriptions that
Speaker 1: are actually properly prescribed. The presidential goal is to bring
Speaker 1: those numbers down. We know that uh, these opioid prescripture
Speaker 1: and pain killers can create addiction themselves. UH. Can you
Speaker 1: speak the searchery gentle to the the issue specifically of
Speaker 1: of enforcement when it comes to traffickers, because that's gotten
Speaker 1: a lot of press attention recently, specifically with regard to
Speaker 1: enhance penalties for drug trafficking. Where where's the DJ on
Speaker 1: that word's administration on it? We are a hundred percent
Speaker 1: behind that. We've got to get stronger sentences for fentanyl,
Speaker 1: which is a number one killer drug, and we believe
Speaker 1: and support the Sentencing Commission to raise uh the guidelines
Speaker 1: for senacing, but we really need Congress to to improve
Speaker 1: sentencing for that. The President has called for considering the
Speaker 1: death penalty for some of these gangs and some of
Speaker 1: these uh drug killers who are moving these drugs that
Speaker 1: are causing so much death. Uh, and we support that.
Speaker 1: I sent out a memo yet today to our every
Speaker 1: United States attorney to consider the death penalty wherever it
Speaker 1: was appropriate and if we think that that will go up. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we have in every United States Attorney's office around
Speaker 1: the country, ninety four of them an opioid specialists that
Speaker 1: I've required them to establish. We have an opioid leader
Speaker 1: here in Washington, UM that supports our prosecutors, and we
Speaker 1: expect to continue to see a surge in prosecutions and
Speaker 1: in fact, as you let me just advise you, but
Speaker 1: over the last four or five years, UH, we've seen
Speaker 1: a drop in prison population, in a drop an average
Speaker 1: sentence for anyone convicted in federal court. We think that's
Speaker 1: gone too far, and we're asking our prosecutors to identify
Speaker 1: these uh big time gang don't bigglers, to prosecute them fully,
Speaker 1: and if they deserve the death penalty, to speak that.
Speaker 1: Attorney General Jeff Sessions is with us now here team
Speaker 1: Attorney General. I've been looking for a while at the
Speaker 1: connection between cartels and the opioid epidemic, and this is
Speaker 1: a theory. It's something I've been working on trying to
Speaker 1: do research for. I'm wondering if you can speak to
Speaker 1: what what the connections are. I mean, do we have
Speaker 1: some sense of the role and responsibility of Mexican based
Speaker 1: drug car tells of the MS thirteen gang here in
Speaker 1: the States and this huge surge because from the data
Speaker 1: I'm seeing from various, uh you know, national government sources,
Speaker 1: it seems like a lot of the overdoses we mentioned
Speaker 1: sixty four thousand, a lot of the overdoses come from heroin,
Speaker 1: which is always illegal, and fentonel, which is often illegal,
Speaker 1: which to me suggests that the role of the cartels
Speaker 1: in the opioid epidemic is much bigger than the media
Speaker 1: is leading many of us to believe. You're exactly correct
Speaker 1: about this. Almost all centinnel and almost all heroine now
Speaker 1: is coming across the border from Mexico. Mexico is a
Speaker 1: growing poppy and record amounts. They need to spray more
Speaker 1: of this poppy plant. Uh, and that would be a
Speaker 1: big help and bus some more labs. But uh, they
Speaker 1: make meth in unlimited amounts in Mexico. Now all our
Speaker 1: met is not homemade, but almost all of it is
Speaker 1: being transported across the border from big laboratories. The same
Speaker 1: is true with heroin. We're seeing a lot of white
Speaker 1: powder heroine. Uh even the heroine that's are driven and
Speaker 1: distributed by the the UH Domedicans of Dominican Republic gangs
Speaker 1: in the northeast UH is actually coming out of Mexico
Speaker 1: and actually across the Mexican border. UH So heroin, cocaine, meth,
Speaker 1: m fed amine centinel is overwhelmingly coming across the border
Speaker 1: from Mexico. And the amount of being produced that are
Speaker 1: being produced are greater than what we've ever seen in general.
Speaker 1: And you've given us a lot of time, and I
Speaker 1: don't I don't want to hold you up before we
Speaker 1: let you go. If you can just tell me, what
Speaker 1: do you think about some of these cities in California
Speaker 1: that are trying to hold their own municipal referendums to
Speaker 1: opt out of sanctuary city status. Well, we salute that
Speaker 1: and we encourage that. It's just such a fundamental violation
Speaker 1: of the One of the greatest things that's happened in
Speaker 1: law enforcement over the last forty years is cooperation between federal,
Speaker 1: state and all the local agencies. And what they're doing
Speaker 1: is they won't even tell the federal of ice officials
Speaker 1: that they have an illegal alien that they have condicted
Speaker 1: of a drug crime, for example, and do to be released,
Speaker 1: convicted of an assault, convicted of rate. They won't even
Speaker 1: tell the federal officers who want to pick them up
Speaker 1: and deport them. Uh. In California, I had to soothe
Speaker 1: them last a week two weeks ago over there state
Speaker 1: law that says a private business who's approached by an
Speaker 1: ice officer to enquire about illegal aliens in the workforce, uh,
Speaker 1: they cannot allow on their own property the ice officer
Speaker 1: to come on on the premises. It's some really extreme
Speaker 1: action being taken in California. The gist of it is
Speaker 1: they want to eviscerate the law. They really believe in
Speaker 1: open borders, and anybody that gets across the border, uh,
Speaker 1: they believe should not be ever to be deported. It's
Speaker 1: really a radical thing, and and I'm so proud that
Speaker 1: a number of the cities are standing up. Attorney General
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions. We really appreciate your time, sir, thank you
Speaker 1: for all you're doing, and thanks for joining us well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and I appreciate your interest in study in
Speaker 1: this matter. Thank you very much, sir. Seeing we're gonna
Speaker 1: roll into a break. We'll be back in just a
Speaker 1: few moments eight four four to five, buck, We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. This epidemic can affect anyone, and that's why
Speaker 1: we want to educate everyone. The second part of our
Speaker 1: initiative is to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. Of
Speaker 1: the heroine in America comes from our southern border, where
Speaker 1: eventually the Democrats will agree with us and we'll build
Speaker 1: the wall to keep the damn drugs out. President Trump
Speaker 1: is right on this one, and he's been right for
Speaker 1: a long time. I told you I've been looking at
Speaker 1: the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. We've actually seen
Speaker 1: a decrease in the last few years in prescriptions written
Speaker 1: for opioids. People have been overdosing on pain medication, one
Speaker 1: kind or another opioid based for quite a few years.
Speaker 1: When you look at the statistics, what you find out
Speaker 1: is that, sure enough, the enormous spike over the last
Speaker 1: three or four years in opioid deaths has resulted from
Speaker 1: fentanyl on heroin. And I just asked the attorney generally
Speaker 1: United States, and he said, yes, this is true. It
Speaker 1: is from fentyl and heroin. Illegal drugs are actually what
Speaker 1: are what is killing a vast majority of the people
Speaker 1: that are overdosing. Now, there's sometimes fentinyl. I've known people
Speaker 1: that have said that fentinyl can be prescribed in certain circumstances,
Speaker 1: but a vast majority of the fentanyl the people are
Speaker 1: getting is a version that's made in labs illegally and
Speaker 1: distributed illegally. So it's the illegal drug trade, folks, that
Speaker 1: is the reason we have sixty four thousand dead Americans
Speaker 1: in the last year. It's a lot. I don't have
Speaker 1: to tell you that, but you look at it up
Speaker 1: against other figures of what is causing deaths in this country.
Speaker 1: It's the reason why you've actually had a decline in
Speaker 1: life expectancy for for American males in recent years. Uh or,
Speaker 1: I think it might have stalled out. Life expectancy is
Speaker 1: something you wouldn't expect to see in any direction except
Speaker 1: a positive one in this country. But I put all
Speaker 1: this together a while ago. Remember we had our friend
Speaker 1: from Mexico City to journalist to you own Grillo joined.
Speaker 1: I said, you Own, there's more violence in Mexico and
Speaker 1: there's ever been before. The cartels are more powerful than
Speaker 1: they have ever been. Right now, you have news stories
Speaker 1: coming out of Mexico that looked like they were written
Speaker 1: by some fantasy assist thriller novel writer, and they're real.
Speaker 1: You know, thirty forty man assault teams on the cartel
Speaker 1: side with automatic weapons and RPGs going up against federalist
Speaker 1: going up against Mexican Marines. You're not hearing about it
Speaker 1: here in this country, but that's happening, and that's been
Speaker 1: happening last year or so in Mexico. You also have
Speaker 1: these gangs like MS thirteen that are becoming more brazen
Speaker 1: and more distributed in cities across the country. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, the human smuggling networks for legal immigration
Speaker 1: and the illegal immigrant diasper communities, that's right. That means
Speaker 1: sanctuary cities, my friends. Illegal immigrant diaspora in the United
Speaker 1: States is a highway now for the illegal drugs coming
Speaker 1: into this country that are killing over sixty thousand Americans
Speaker 1: a year. I knew that there was something wrong going
Speaker 1: on here, and the media doesn't want to talk about
Speaker 1: this because the moment, illegal immigration is undeniably a security
Speaker 1: issue with tens of thousands of American lives at stake.
Speaker 1: Doesn't that change the whole conversation, my friends, doesn't make
Speaker 1: it a little harder. Just trot out a few people
Speaker 1: here and there and say, look at this valedictorian who
Speaker 1: was brought here illegally. How don't you feel terrible for
Speaker 1: the valedictorian. Well, that's not really what we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: are we. That's not really the policy issue that's at hand.
Speaker 1: You can do that with any number of issues. You know.
Speaker 1: They're nice, they're wonderful people who don't pay their taxes.
Speaker 1: They go to prison for it. You don't see them
Speaker 1: getting on CNN. Look at the wonderful guy that this is.
Speaker 1: He just didn't pay his taxes for last ten years.
Speaker 1: They do this with the legal imigration. They lie about it.
Speaker 1: They try to twist the language and try to force
Speaker 1: us to have discussions that aren't based in fact. And
Speaker 1: they've been hiding this from you because the statistics in
Speaker 1: Mexico are clear. The cartels are more violent, more dangerous
Speaker 1: than they've ever been. There are a whole new cartels
Speaker 1: popping up that people have even heard of this country
Speaker 1: that are more powerful and more violent than some of
Speaker 1: the ones they've supplanted and they are running heroin into
Speaker 1: this country because they are growing it. Now they are
Speaker 1: vertically integrated as a international drug commercial enterprise. They're not
Speaker 1: just moving that. They used to move cocaine through Mexico
Speaker 1: and the United States and marijuana and a lot in
Speaker 1: the cocaine was grown in primarily Colombia, Peru, some in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Now they're just growing the heroine right in Mexico. And
Speaker 1: what you find are, yes, there's a tie into the
Speaker 1: prescription issue in this country with doctors putting out too
Speaker 1: many prescriptions for opioids. But the time is that well,
Speaker 1: when you start to shut this stuff down, now be
Speaker 1: bull that have a need, a biological physical need for
Speaker 1: opioids unless they're going to go through a proper detox
Speaker 1: and get clean. They figure, well, I mean the heroine
Speaker 1: is readily available and that I don't go into withdrawal
Speaker 1: if I get the heroine. So gangs like m S.
Speaker 1: THIRTEENA flooded the streets with heroin. Now it's cheaper, more
Speaker 1: readily available than it has ever been in this country.
Speaker 1: And that's happening despite the fact that we have, as
Speaker 1: we've been talking about with the serial bomber case law
Speaker 1: enforcement technology deployed that has made much easier to attract
Speaker 1: organized crime. It's made it much more effective too, to
Speaker 1: deal with violent crime of all kinds. Meanwhile, heroin is
Speaker 1: flooding into the country. It's being grown across the border
Speaker 1: in Mexico, the Mexic I mean, there are so many
Speaker 1: levels where this is a problem, folks. The Mexican President
Speaker 1: of Penyaeto, he's part of the pre the p r I.
Speaker 1: They are the Mexican Revolutionary Party. They were the one
Speaker 1: party in control of Mexico for over seven years. You
Speaker 1: know what their policy was with the cartels, not really
Speaker 1: a problem, just you know, don't cause too much issue
Speaker 1: for us. And then they went out of power and
Speaker 1: you had Vincente Fox and Calderone and they Mexican government
Speaker 1: took on the drug cartels and lost fifty thousand plus
Speaker 1: Mexicans doing it. Now you've got the party in in
Speaker 1: place that was like, hey, why don't we try to
Speaker 1: turn more of a blind eye to cartel activity and
Speaker 1: the violence between much of the violences between the cartels
Speaker 1: because they're fighting over turf, but they're flooding our streets.
Speaker 1: The heroin that is being sold in Los Angeles Chicago
Speaker 1: and the surrounding cities. Right, it's a hub spoke system
Speaker 1: that's being sold in New York City, right where I am,
Speaker 1: that's being sold in Long Island MS thirteen gangs penetrating
Speaker 1: out in Long Islands, being sold all across the country
Speaker 1: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Phoenix, New Orleans. I mean,
Speaker 1: name a place. It's coming from Mexico and it's using
Speaker 1: the same smugglers that are bringing in a legal immigrants.
Speaker 1: We'll keep following this team. He's back with you now
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. Welcome to our two of the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Thank you so much for being here. You've
Speaker 1: got a lot to get to, including the former CIA
Speaker 1: director my old home agency, although I left before he
Speaker 1: was running the show there, Uh Brennan speaking out on Trump.
Speaker 1: Speaking out's a polite way of saying, and he's really
Speaker 1: uh dumping on Trump in a way that is completely
Speaker 1: unacceptable in my opinion for a former intelligence chief, particularly
Speaker 1: one that just finished the job. Right. But I'll get
Speaker 1: into why that bothers me so much a bit later on. Also,
Speaker 1: the heat that Trump continues to get on Russia and
Speaker 1: his call to Putin when Obama made the same call,
Speaker 1: because I mentioned yesterday, and I also want to challenge
Speaker 1: this on on policy grounds to what do they really
Speaker 1: think the answer is to the difficult and delicate relationship
Speaker 1: that the President United States has to have with the
Speaker 1: Russian premiere. Mm hmm. We will ponder that one together.
Speaker 1: And then the absolutely disgraceful leak of the president's phone
Speaker 1: call and the instructions given to him from what is
Speaker 1: believed one of his top aids. It has to be
Speaker 1: somebody close to him. The reports are that's a small
Speaker 1: number of folks around. We'll get to all of that,
Speaker 1: and then by the way third hour, you definitely should
Speaker 1: stick around. Well, well, that's what I'm gonna be addressing.
Speaker 1: The Brennan issue, and also a free speech case out
Speaker 1: of the UK that is bizarre. Um, someone's going to
Speaker 1: jail for a OK A comedian going to jail for
Speaker 1: teaching his pug two raise its paw in response to
Speaker 1: anti to an anti anti Semitic Nazi propaganda. Essentially he's
Speaker 1: going to prison for that. And then also what YouTube
Speaker 1: is doing to videos that try to show people how
Speaker 1: to um fire guns and how they're blocking access to
Speaker 1: websites that sell guns via YouTube. Now, this is active
Speaker 1: censorship on the social media platforms, censorship along political lines
Speaker 1: the mainstream media. We will wake up one day soon
Speaker 1: and find out that the mainstream media is no longer dominant,
Speaker 1: that its air of dominance is over, and we will
Speaker 1: also realize that the era of progressive social media dominance
Speaker 1: is now the new fight, and it is upon us.
Speaker 1: Because they will have a huge headstart at that point.
Speaker 1: Facebook is one of the most valuable companies in the world,
Speaker 1: to Google not far behind. Twitter has also got quite
Speaker 1: a bankroll. These are progressive, ideologically driven organizations. These social
Speaker 1: media platform companies have every bit the same sense of
Speaker 1: left wing evangelism that journalists working at the big three
Speaker 1: networks for decades when they had a monopoly on TV news.
Speaker 1: They had the same sense of purpose that was had
Speaker 1: then they have now, and in many ways I think
Speaker 1: they haven't even more powerful grip on the public because
Speaker 1: you're interacting with this stuff all the time, which now
Speaker 1: brings me to you just I'm hoping this will be
Speaker 1: one of the last updates on the Cambridge Analytic story,
Speaker 1: because I have been right on this one all along.
Speaker 1: I will power myself on the back a little bit.
Speaker 1: I said the initial headlines, Oh they have they've weaponized,
Speaker 1: they've weaponized information about people. They're doing micro targeting. That's terrified. I'
Speaker 1: cheological warfare weapon you mean marketing, you mean advertising campaigns
Speaker 1: that try to base themselves upon information, demographic info, the
Speaker 1: very broad stuff that's out. Well, it's worse than that.
Speaker 1: It's psychological warfare through Facebook or all. Yeah, I knew
Speaker 1: this would happen at the moment that people started to
Speaker 1: say that, they thought that, And I mean people, I'm
Speaker 1: talking even about some conservatives out there who think they
Speaker 1: who think they know the constitution of the law really
Speaker 1: well and think they understand things. They're like, oh, the
Speaker 1: Mueller charge against Russia is really a shot across the
Speaker 1: bow for democracy. It's like, well, I'm not sure that
Speaker 1: Facebook accounts constitute a foreign foreign government engaging in information
Speaker 1: warfare against the United States U. And I also think
Speaker 1: that calling it a conspiracy to defrau the United States
Speaker 1: based upon a conception of fraud as something you don't
Speaker 1: like that interferes with what the governed does like is
Speaker 1: not a good precedent descent. But putting that aside for
Speaker 1: a moment here. Cambridge Analytic story is supposed to be
Speaker 1: as follows. All this information was taken and this is
Speaker 1: the summary version of what the media has been and
Speaker 1: this has been like a top story if it if
Speaker 1: it wasn't for the Austin Cereal bomber case, this would
Speaker 1: have been the biggest news story this week so far.
Speaker 1: I mean CNN this and CNN is Cambrage Analytica and
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels very different, very different stories. Uh that we
Speaker 1: could that we can say, um yeah, But the storyline
Speaker 1: they were running with was that Facebook allowed a breach,
Speaker 1: a breach of information, and Cambrage Analytical, these super geniuses
Speaker 1: of algorithms and manipulation, social media, manipulation of the masses,
Speaker 1: elicitly used information from Facebook to micro target people in
Speaker 1: the United States and cost Hillary the election. That was
Speaker 1: the storyline. The reality is much more nuanced and much
Speaker 1: less important. That's what it really comes down to. You
Speaker 1: at Anderson Cooper, who over at CNN, they love Anderson Cooper.
Speaker 1: I have never once seen Anderson Cooper give an interview
Speaker 1: or do anything where I was impressed. I will say that,
Speaker 1: and I've actually seen him act really poorly on TV
Speaker 1: a number of times. I can even cite some of
Speaker 1: the examples if I chose to. But he is that
Speaker 1: the single biggest name at CNN for reasons I could
Speaker 1: not conjure on the spot. I'm not really clear on
Speaker 1: why he looks. He looks the part of news man um.
Speaker 1: But he's interviewed. He interviewed one of the guys involved
Speaker 1: with this whole camera ge analytical thing, and just let
Speaker 1: let's go through this together from a moment, and he'll
Speaker 1: you'll notice something as he's asking these questions. Go ahead,
Speaker 1: please play. Did they tell you what they were going
Speaker 1: to do with their data? Now? I knew it was
Speaker 1: for political consulting, but beyond ah, no idea. So but
Speaker 1: you knew it would be used to maybe target voters
Speaker 1: or find out information about voters. My recollection is now,
Speaker 1: I mean, the we knew they wanted to use it
Speaker 1: for political political purposes, but there was a lot of
Speaker 1: ambiguity of what that meant. So, I mean, what did
Speaker 1: political purposes mean to you? Give me a lot of things.
Speaker 1: I mean, the actually use case for this data, I
Speaker 1: already told you that it's just not that accurate at
Speaker 1: the individual level. Is aggregate when you look at groups,
Speaker 1: if you want to understand, hey, what's the personality of
Speaker 1: New Yorkers, it's actually pretty good. If you want to
Speaker 1: look at you know, Anderson Cooper, it's not great. Um,
Speaker 1: that would have been a really great use case, I think.
Speaker 1: So just be clear. I mean, as far as you know,
Speaker 1: were there any illicit activities anything untoward the transpired between
Speaker 1: Camerage Analytica and the Trump campaign concerning the election? Uh no,
Speaker 1: I don't even know if they actually worked for Trump
Speaker 1: or use the data. Okay, all right, everybody, so can
Speaker 1: we just take a over here together and just basking
Speaker 1: the glory of what was just said on National TV
Speaker 1: on CNN in front of in front of an audience
Speaker 1: in the in the you know, low thousands in the demo. Um,
Speaker 1: the the guys is saying, so let's just be honest
Speaker 1: here for second, folks, the data is not that good.
Speaker 1: But we were told, oh my gosh, like Bannon and
Speaker 1: Mercer and and Data and Russia and Facebook and bra No,
Speaker 1: the information is just not that good. As I told you,
Speaker 1: they would have to be geniuses. Everyone else is trying
Speaker 1: to do the same stuff, trying to target. Remember when
Speaker 1: you say target that's also even oh my gosh, like
Speaker 1: they're targeting. No, this isn't targeting like we're you know,
Speaker 1: hurting people. This is trying to give them information they
Speaker 1: want to see, that they want to click on, that
Speaker 1: they will take action on. It's advertising. We are literally
Speaker 1: talking about political advertising everyone. That's it. They're not they're
Speaker 1: not turning people's computers into active listing devices when they're
Speaker 1: not around. They're they're not stealing your credit card information.
Speaker 1: They're sending you stuff like hey Hillary, maybe he's not
Speaker 1: a good presidential candidate, hashtag Hillary for prison. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: but this was like some big breakings for what have
Speaker 1: they done with the data? Well, people were giving this
Speaker 1: to a third party. You just did the third party
Speaker 1: then give it to Cambridge Analytica. I also told you
Speaker 1: the journalists who are honest and cover the political campaign
Speaker 1: cover the presidential campaigns accurately, like Cambra Jenera isn't even
Speaker 1: considered good at this. But all of a sudden, you'll
Speaker 1: notice that they cast aside any skepticism. You know, all
Speaker 1: we hear is that Trump is Trump, and all of
Speaker 1: us people are such a buffoons. They're so they're so dumb. Oh,
Speaker 1: but they had the genius social media people working for
Speaker 1: that Cambridge. Oh my gosh, it's a secret weapon. No,
Speaker 1: it's not. It's obvious that it's not. But if that
Speaker 1: wasn't enough for you, if you're not already like wow, buck,
Speaker 1: like this is a real This is a huge story
Speaker 1: in that it was made a huge story when it's
Speaker 1: actually a non story or a very low level, unimportant
Speaker 1: story at best. What it really is a story about
Speaker 1: the delusions of the media, about how they're so willing
Speaker 1: to either lie or be fooled easily into propagating a
Speaker 1: lie because it excuses Hillary's loss and it bashes Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, this has become a fixation. They have turned
Speaker 1: this into some kind of O. C. D tick. You know,
Speaker 1: Hillary didn't lose. Trump's a cheater. Hillary didn't lose. Trump's
Speaker 1: a cheater. They can't let it go. But as as
Speaker 1: though it's not enough to just know the data is
Speaker 1: not what they said it was, then yeah, that guy
Speaker 1: would be like, I don't even think they used it,
Speaker 1: So what the heck have all these news networks been
Speaker 1: running for the last few days. That seems to be
Speaker 1: pretty by the way this was reported in The New
Speaker 1: York Times other places too, but they always reported very
Speaker 1: unlike there's no clear events even use the data. So meanwhile,
Speaker 1: we've got people that are are all they're freaking out
Speaker 1: about Mark Zuckerberg. This is from the Hill or to Day.
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg is drawing intense scrutiny from lawmakers demanding that
Speaker 1: the Facebook founder testified a Congress about the Cambridge Analytic
Speaker 1: a controversy. Facebook's data practices are under the microscope like
Speaker 1: never before, following report the British research firm connected to
Speaker 1: President Trump's campaign improperly obtained information fifty million Facebook users
Speaker 1: as it's sought ways to influence the minds of voters
Speaker 1: the polls. Now that you know that the information is
Speaker 1: not good, that nothing that we know of illegal was
Speaker 1: done in obtaining the information in the first place. It
Speaker 1: might have been a violation of Facebook terms of service maybe,
Speaker 1: and the information wasn't even used. But Mark Zuckerberg has
Speaker 1: got to be putting out this fire. And look, I'm
Speaker 1: not some big Zuckerberg fan. You know everyone's demanding Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: give us answers. Facebook has been selling your day to
Speaker 1: This is how they make all their money. This is
Speaker 1: what they do. This is how you know, those of
Speaker 1: you who are listening to this show in Texas on Facebook,
Speaker 1: it might be like, oh, like, you know, what would
Speaker 1: you like to would you like to buy this delicious
Speaker 1: barbecue sauce? You know, if you if you live up
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin, you know, they may be saying, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: would you like this cheese to go with your meal?
Speaker 1: I don't know whatever, I'm trying to think of things randomly.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're in California, you're like, you know,
Speaker 1: find the best pet therapists in your neighborhood. Like they
Speaker 1: can do this because they know where you are, because
Speaker 1: Facebook is sharing pretty general data about you with different
Speaker 1: advertisers what they do. But this goes also into a
Speaker 1: broader there's the category of the Trump delusion Trump arrangement
Speaker 1: syndrome that the whole camerage analytic a thing just fits
Speaker 1: right into. But then there's also something else. There is
Speaker 1: this game that the Democrat media plays where a problem
Speaker 1: that has existed all along, when a Republican is in office,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden becomes a an out and out crisis.
Speaker 1: This has been exposed in the past, I think even
Speaker 1: back in the day Bernie Bernie Goldberg in his book
Speaker 1: Bias wrote about this. Uh and from his time at CBS.
Speaker 1: And I was a little intern at CBS when Dan
Speaker 1: Rather was there. It was my first, my first real
Speaker 1: experience in learning to distrust and despise the mainstream media. Uh.
Speaker 1: But CBS would was one of many that would do
Speaker 1: this thing where all of a sudden, Republican administration comes
Speaker 1: into office and there's just all these stories about the
Speaker 1: problem of homelessness. They wouldn't tell you in the stories
Speaker 1: that the homelessness hasn't gotten worse. It's just we're telling
Speaker 1: you about it now. So homelessness exists, It's a problem
Speaker 1: should be dealt with, we should be helping people, helping
Speaker 1: get back to the fear all that. But you have
Speaker 1: a Republican and when in the first six months of
Speaker 1: republic administration, it's like, let's turn out the stories about homelessness. There.
Speaker 1: There's not more of them now, it's just that we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about them. That's like the Facebook data sharing issue.
Speaker 1: They've been doing this four years? Is it creepy? Does
Speaker 1: a bother people? Sure? Is there a whole other discussion
Speaker 1: we should probably have about how social media is in
Speaker 1: many ways, disconnecting us from each other as human beings.
Speaker 1: It connects us as digital entities and presences, but it
Speaker 1: disconnects us from each other's human beings. It creates artificial
Speaker 1: connectivity between us. When we really need is human connection,
Speaker 1: being around each other, being with each other, seeing each
Speaker 1: other's people. That's a whole other discussion, maybe one worth
Speaker 1: having later in the week. But this whole Cambridge analytic
Speaker 1: thing through the election cheated. It's a big scandal. Guys, gals,
Speaker 1: this is a joke. It's a joke, and why was
Speaker 1: I able to see it right away? And other people
Speaker 1: were like, well, we really need to go to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this, or no, we really don't. We really don't.
Speaker 1: Eight four four two five eight four four nine hundred
Speaker 1: buck team, I'll be right back. Are we got a
Speaker 1: bunch of lines lit. I want to take some calls
Speaker 1: from you team. Let's see who's up here. We've got
Speaker 1: George in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Hey George, fuck, you nailed it.
Speaker 1: You said that the freezer you used this is targeted advertising.
Speaker 1: When I heard this going on, all I could think
Speaker 1: it was that I heard exactly the same thing from
Speaker 1: the Obama the political operatives when he was running. It's
Speaker 1: and and which are the which are the parties? Is
Speaker 1: ginning up hate? Trump has scum? Trump is ain't I Jew,
Speaker 1: not a part of his family's Jewish. It doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: uh you name it. Their their whole mode, their whole
Speaker 1: operandi right now is jinning up hate and personal destruy
Speaker 1: option what they should what we should be looking at.
Speaker 1: The thing that really matters is the judges usurping the
Speaker 1: authority of the executive branch. They're creating laws out of
Speaker 1: whole class. They're not ruling on the law anymore. They're
Speaker 1: you know, they're they're blocking Trump, the executive branch, the
Speaker 1: Trump and the executive branch from stopping illegal executive orders
Speaker 1: that Obama passed. It's amazing, isn't it with with DACA?
Speaker 1: That one president breaks the law and then the next
Speaker 1: president is unable to stop breaking the law. Based on
Speaker 1: what the courts are saying right now, it's crazy. And
Speaker 1: collusion collusion, there's no crime. Everybody says collusion would have
Speaker 1: been is no crime. But it's the biggest thing on
Speaker 1: the planet right now. Collusion, collusion, collusion. Yeah, Well, I've
Speaker 1: always said this they used collusion and not conspiracy, because
Speaker 1: conspiracy is actually a criminal statute that can be proven
Speaker 1: or or not. Collusion is whatever they say it is, right.
Speaker 1: Collusion is when they find nothing with the Mullet probe.
Speaker 1: You know what they're gonna say, George, Well, the neednt
Speaker 1: get Trump Tower is all we really needed to know
Speaker 1: there was collusion. We just haven't found it. They're never
Speaker 1: gonna stop, so we just need to be prepared for that.
Speaker 1: But thank you for your calling my friend Shield. Say, uh,
Speaker 1: let's take John in Gulfport, Mississippi. Hey John, Hey Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm a victim and I believe some of your listeners
Speaker 1: are victims as well of this targeting that just you're
Speaker 1: talking about. I don't know if it was Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 1: or so, it was a outfit similar to them. But
Speaker 1: if you've ever gone to any webs website, say it's
Speaker 1: a Gateway Pundit or a CNN, and you have targeted
Speaker 1: advertising aimed on you that they that they picked up
Speaker 1: because you you may have maybe you decided you wanted
Speaker 1: to go to a Little Rock, Arkansas and stay in
Speaker 1: the Holiday Inn. Well, when you go to your favorite website,
Speaker 1: the advertisement that pops up is low. Behold right, well, John,
Speaker 1: this is how the internet. This is how the Internet works. Now,
Speaker 1: this is why people think it's free. It's not really free.
Speaker 1: You're trading information and access to you as a consumer
Speaker 1: for the services that are offered on the Internet, whether
Speaker 1: it's uh Internet search like Google or websites. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well this is I mean that's so you're not really
Speaker 1: I mean you're not a Oh you're I think you're
Speaker 1: saying that. Are you saying? It's sarcastic? I mean you're
Speaker 1: you're a victim of this the way anybody uses the
Speaker 1: internet's a victim of Okay, I'm sorry, Right, I'm like, John,
Speaker 1: You're gonna be okay, Right, the Little Rock Arkansas trip
Speaker 1: is gonna be fine. No, I hear you, man. It's
Speaker 1: just that that's what you're saying. Though. It's very important here.
Speaker 1: They're complaining about the Internet, John, That's what they're really
Speaker 1: doing there. They're mad about how people use the internet.
Speaker 1: Shield tie and thank you, thank you for giving me
Speaker 1: a ring. Um, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: Media angry about usage of data for advertisements. Well, if
Speaker 1: that's the case, every news website I know of is
Speaker 1: pretty much toast. So there's that. We've got a lot more,
Speaker 1: including the fight over Russia and Brennan's nasty comments about Trump.
Speaker 1: That's all coming up. He's holding the line for America,
Speaker 1: buck Sexton his back. He admitted to doing things objectively
Speaker 1: and independently and violent book. I think that has to
Speaker 1: extend not just to our investigations are intelligence analysis, but
Speaker 1: also has to extend to personnel decisions and disciplinary decisions.
Speaker 1: My commitment to making sure that our process is followed,
Speaker 1: that it relies on objective input, and that most importantly,
Speaker 1: it is not based on political or partisan influence is
Speaker 1: something I am utterly unyielding on it. That is the
Speaker 1: FBI director, Christopher Ray, he's got a he's got a
Speaker 1: tough job these days, trying to uh maneuver. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: sure it's always a tough job. Although people say this,
Speaker 1: I'm like, you know, to be the head of one
Speaker 1: of these agencies, it's tough, but it's all so got
Speaker 1: it's very rewarding. You've got a lot of influence and power,
Speaker 1: and you've got fantastic private sector opportunities waiting for the
Speaker 1: moment you decided to stop. But maneuvering through the political
Speaker 1: mind fields right now for the FBI director would be
Speaker 1: particularly tough. And then also the what would happen if
Speaker 1: some were to get their way, or if if the
Speaker 1: advice the council off somewhere listened to when you had
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Mueller get fired from his post because for example,
Speaker 1: as I've been said, I'm I'm a little bit of
Speaker 1: a h a pendulum on this. When I'm swinging back
Speaker 1: and forth, I'm like, no, maybe you get fired out, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe not. It's a judgment call, folks, It's a judgment call,
Speaker 1: because you gotta look at this as do we let
Speaker 1: this grind on forever or do and and just wait
Speaker 1: it out? Or do you deal with the backlash now
Speaker 1: and know that it can't be used to cripple the
Speaker 1: administration and to stop Trump from enacting policies that would
Speaker 1: benefit the country and the reason that he's in the
Speaker 1: White House right now? Uh, you got represented Louis Gomant,
Speaker 1: who I I gotta say, I am. I'm a Gomert.
Speaker 1: I'm a Gomert believer. I like I like Representative Gomer.
Speaker 1: He's a good dude. He's just a good dude. Uh.
Speaker 1: He thinks he should be fired, though he thinks Mueller
Speaker 1: should be should be uh well toast from office play it.
Speaker 1: I think Mueller should be fired. He should be he
Speaker 1: should never have been, he should never been appointed, and
Speaker 1: he should never have accepted. He should be fired. We
Speaker 1: have some establishment Republicans in the House and Senate that say,
Speaker 1: oh gee, if he were to fire Mueller, you know
Speaker 1: that that might we might need to impeach the president,
Speaker 1: even one senator saying that may be an impeachable offense. No,
Speaker 1: it's not. I don't understand. Where are these republicans. Why
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham get this notion that it's a it's a
Speaker 1: good idea to put out there that there's a red
Speaker 1: line that if Trump crosses a political red line, that
Speaker 1: if Trump crosses, then then impeachment would be on the table.
Speaker 1: And Lindsay Grant the other day said something like, if
Speaker 1: Trump were to do this, it would be the beginning
Speaker 1: of the end of his presidency. If you were fired,
Speaker 1: and it would have to be not specifically Trump out
Speaker 1: fire Muller, right, Rod rosensteinmon have shut it down. Maybe
Speaker 1: you'd have a new Attorney general who wouldn't recuse himself,
Speaker 1: or maybe you'd have the current Attorney General unrecused himself.
Speaker 1: Whatever the process, maybe if you shut down the Muller probe,
Speaker 1: you got Lindsay Graham and other Republicans were saying that
Speaker 1: that's a red line. And I'm just sick of how
Speaker 1: when you see how the Obama administration dealt with scandals,
Speaker 1: it was putting on a clinic for the Republicans. You
Speaker 1: never had damaging leaks. I'm just gonna be honest with
Speaker 1: you here, Okay. You never had damaging leaks from the
Speaker 1: senior Democrats. You never had damaging leaks from White House
Speaker 1: appointees of of influence meant to undermine President Obama himself,
Speaker 1: and you have so much of that going on here now.
Speaker 1: I guess some Republicans feel like they're doing what they
Speaker 1: ethically have to by saying that they would consider impeachment
Speaker 1: of I mean, or do they just want to have
Speaker 1: nice editorials written about them the New York Times. I
Speaker 1: think it might be the latter. I think this might
Speaker 1: be a case where as we look further into it,
Speaker 1: we'll just see that they were grandstanding. And the swamp
Speaker 1: is swampy, my friends, The swamp is indeed a swampy thing.
Speaker 1: So I'll continue to look at this. I'm just wondering if,
Speaker 1: in fact, you know I I like this issue just
Speaker 1: because I I'm very persuadable. Some of you write me
Speaker 1: emails you say, you know, Bock, he should really as
Speaker 1: firemallers should get this over it, and others are like, no,
Speaker 1: it's crazy, don't do it. And I, oh, man, I
Speaker 1: have a tough one here, because I think the Mueller
Speaker 1: probe is gonna go on for a very long time.
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't even think it's gonna finish
Speaker 1: this year. I think you're looking at Mueller probe for
Speaker 1: a a long time. I mean, it's pretty much gonna
Speaker 1: be the whole first term that Trump's in office because
Speaker 1: Democrats are gonna They're incentivized to keep it going. They're incentivized.
Speaker 1: So that's something else that you've gotta keep in mind,
Speaker 1: is that there's gonna be efforts to push this along.
Speaker 1: Just before, I just wanted to know something. I really
Speaker 1: want Hillary Clint Hill. I really want her to get
Speaker 1: as much media attention as possible because Pelosi, her policies
Speaker 1: are odious, but she knows to stay out of the
Speaker 1: public public eye close to election time. In some places
Speaker 1: and in some ways, she'll she'll come out and attack
Speaker 1: the Republican, she'll attack Trump, but she won't say, you know,
Speaker 1: Amosa pushing for far left policies that are just crazy. Uh,
Speaker 1: She's not gonna do that. So we need Hillary to
Speaker 1: be the one out there who is the face, so
Speaker 1: to speak, of the Democrat Party. That would be great,
Speaker 1: whether the Muller probe ends or not. I want Hillary
Speaker 1: to be standing up there talking as much as she can,
Speaker 1: as often as she can, about well, whatever she can.
Speaker 1: And and here's a little taste of what's going to
Speaker 1: happen or what it sounds like when he has uh
Speaker 1: uh undermined the office and used it to enrich himself
Speaker 1: and his family, uh, disregarded laws, ethical standards. He's crossed
Speaker 1: into a territory of behavior and actions that are unpredictable,
Speaker 1: that are erratic, that are undermining the stability of uh,
Speaker 1: the global order. Folks, very add Hillary Clinton casting aspersions
Speaker 1: on Trump for in for using political office to enrich
Speaker 1: his family. I mean, the Clintons did this in a
Speaker 1: way that would have maked that would have made like
Speaker 1: the Medici family of the Italian Renaissance feel like WHOA,
Speaker 1: Maybe we should be a little less self indulgent here.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Clintons are worth a hundred million dollars plus,
Speaker 1: not from giving speeches. Folks. No one's speeches are worth
Speaker 1: that much money. No one is worth a hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars because of speeches. They were. They were used speeches
Speaker 1: as a carve out, as a cutout for political influence, peddling,
Speaker 1: getting big checks written to them so that people would
Speaker 1: have access us or even the even the belief that
Speaker 1: they would have access later on. But she's gonna go
Speaker 1: out there and lecture the Trump campaign and lecture the
Speaker 1: public on what the Trump administration's ethics or lack of ethics.
Speaker 1: It's just astonishing. But we need, we need more Hillary.
Speaker 1: We need her out there as much as possible. I
Speaker 1: want more Hillary, and maybe, you know, maybe should invite
Speaker 1: her on the show. Hi, welcome to the Freedom Hot
Speaker 1: It will be amazing to get Hillary to come hang
Speaker 1: out here. I doubt she'll join because I'm not going
Speaker 1: to pay her thirty five thousand dollars a minute or
Speaker 1: whatever her going great is, or at least that was
Speaker 1: her rate. Now you know what, I think we get
Speaker 1: it out of bargain. Right now, I think Hillary's price
Speaker 1: points gone down considerably since she's no longer gonna be
Speaker 1: president United States. Two for one special it's gonna be amazing.
Speaker 1: We'll see. I'm gonna talk to you about Russia and
Speaker 1: the criticisms of Trump surrounding Russia in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Stay with me for that. As each member of this
Speaker 1: committee knows in the Russian government, at the direction of
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyber attacks on our nation for
Speaker 1: the purpose of influencing the election that year. Playing and simple.
Speaker 1: That was a former UH Chief of Homeland Security, J Johnson,
Speaker 1: Director of Homeland Director of DHS UH, and he's thinking
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin order the attack on the U S. Election. Now,
Speaker 1: Johnson was testifying today before Congress about this. I just
Speaker 1: want to ask a really straightforward question, and what are
Speaker 1: we going to see the Mueller charge against Putin? If
Speaker 1: he's indicting all these people. If you have the former
Speaker 1: secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, right cabinet level
Speaker 1: national security official who's saying that Putin ordered the attack
Speaker 1: on the U S election, plan and simple, they must
Speaker 1: know that, where are the charges We've charged thirteen Russians
Speaker 1: setting up troll accounts, stock puppet accounts, doing all that stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, the day that Mueller brings a formal federal
Speaker 1: indictment against the president of Russia is gonna be lit
Speaker 1: in the media. It's gonna be quite a day. I
Speaker 1: know what you're saying right now, or what you're thinking.
Speaker 1: Maybe you're saying it if you're really fired a book,
Speaker 1: what are you saying? Uh, They're never going to do that.
Speaker 1: That's crazy, right, because there are limits on how much
Speaker 1: we should poke or even swipe at the Russian bear,
Speaker 1: so to speak. There is a place that whether there's
Speaker 1: a time and a place at which it just becomes
Speaker 1: too much. But you'll notice the say this about Russia,
Speaker 1: and they will make this claim. But if I were
Speaker 1: to have forced their hand, if I would have forced
Speaker 1: the Democrats, the media apparatus is hand right now and
Speaker 1: say all right, so, why don't we have a federal
Speaker 1: criminal indictment against Ladimir Putin personally and try to get him,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know, extradite into the United States.
Speaker 1: They said, well, that's stupid, buck, And I'd say exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: But this week Putin is once again public enemy number
Speaker 1: one in the United States. Well, maybe after Trump, because
Speaker 1: Trump made a phone call to him. Journalists didn't even
Speaker 1: stop for a second to think about who else made
Speaker 1: a phone call to Putin after an election victory. Yeah,
Speaker 1: to congratulate the Russian premier on his election. But I
Speaker 1: actually remember that phone call from two thousand and twelve,
Speaker 1: and there was some internal gnashing of teeth about the
Speaker 1: fact that President Buma did call to congratulate him, among
Speaker 1: among the president's communication steth. But what also happened will
Speaker 1: It was you had a stepment from the State Department
Speaker 1: raising legitimate concerns about the way that that that election
Speaker 1: was conducted and about the broader human rights situation inside
Speaker 1: of Russia. Yeah, standard from the state departments, a legitimate concerns.
Speaker 1: It's very different, as is, very upset about it, very
Speaker 1: scared because it a statement from the State Department. This
Speaker 1: guy serious, That was Josh Ernis, that was White House
Speaker 1: Press secretary under Obama for part of the time. A
Speaker 1: State Department very strangly worded. That is very very aggressive.
Speaker 1: That you'll notice the key part of what he said,
Speaker 1: though Obama called to congratulate Vladimir Putin. That is what happened.
Speaker 1: They can try to spin it now and say the
Speaker 1: State Department, they can do all that other stuff, which
Speaker 1: you just heard a little bit of there. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, all that really matters is
Speaker 1: that they ran with a story because they thought it
Speaker 1: was bad for Trump, and they didn't even stop to think, well,
Speaker 1: what about my guy, what about Obama? What did he
Speaker 1: do when it came to Putin? Uh? And by the way,
Speaker 1: for the for those who are always running around talking
Speaker 1: tough on Russia, now Obama called Obama called Putin after
Speaker 1: the conflict in Georgia, basically the Russian invasion of Georgia,
Speaker 1: after Putin had imprisoned a group that I will call
Speaker 1: p riot, even though it is not actually it's called
Speaker 1: something else close enough, um. And also Putin had had journalists,
Speaker 1: you know, thrown in prisons, and there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: very very bad stuff that Putin had been doing when
Speaker 1: Obama called to congratulated, but the oppression was already there, right,
Speaker 1: there's this is nothing different. So the make believe with
Speaker 1: journalists now is oh, Putin was like not that bad
Speaker 1: and now it's really bad. No, he's always been really bad.
Speaker 1: I would also note that the leak about do not congratulate.
Speaker 1: People are now saying Trump is really furious about it.
Speaker 1: Of course you should be furious about it, whether it's
Speaker 1: true or not. By the way, a very small number
Speaker 1: of people would have had access to those kinds of
Speaker 1: presidential notes for a phone call between the president of
Speaker 1: the US the president of Russia that somebody would, in
Speaker 1: a blatant effort to undermine the president, break the trust
Speaker 1: that the President of the United States should be able
Speaker 1: to have as advisors. You know, if you if you're
Speaker 1: listening out there, if you happen to be that advisor,
Speaker 1: if you don't like the president, quit, don't be a coward,
Speaker 1: and don't be a backstabber. And that is exactly what
Speaker 1: happened here with this league. I will even note there
Speaker 1: are some never trumpers that I have seen today who
Speaker 1: have reasonable ethics sometimes who have been willing to say
Speaker 1: you can't have top advisors leaking this kind of stuff
Speaker 1: to the media. I mean, this is just you know,
Speaker 1: what's next? Are we gonn have advisers who go in
Speaker 1: and record record private conversations with the president and just
Speaker 1: lead it to the media. I mean that that would
Speaker 1: be the next step. It's a it's a disgrace. It's
Speaker 1: another disgrace. One more thing I wanted to get to
Speaker 1: on this point. Uh, you'll notice how there's so much
Speaker 1: tough talk on Russia right now and not nearly anything
Speaker 1: even the same stratosphere of tough talk from the media
Speaker 1: when it comes to China. He was like, oh my gosh, Prutent,
Speaker 1: he's an autocrat and he's so his human rights record.
Speaker 1: Why didn't Trump call him out for his human rights record?
Speaker 1: Apply that logic for a moment to China? Why should
Speaker 1: President Trump if he's going to constantly harangue and personally
Speaker 1: embarrass and be hostile toward the president of Russia. And
Speaker 1: by the way, I think he's a bad guy. I'm
Speaker 1: not sitting here saying Putin is not a bad guy.
Speaker 1: I'm saying we've gotta be smart about this. But if
Speaker 1: he's going to do that because as a human rights record,
Speaker 1: because of autocracy and all the other things that journalist
Speaker 1: is week or whining about, what about shij and ping
Speaker 1: the president for life officially now in China and he's
Speaker 1: actually the head of the Communist Party in China, but
Speaker 1: he's there, he is the Chinese premier. He's been a
Speaker 1: part of a communist government that has presided over the
Speaker 1: mass slaughter of unborn girls because the one one child
Speaker 1: policy in China stretched on for decades. I mean, let's
Speaker 1: let's not pretend that there's not a case you made
Speaker 1: that China's human rights record he's much worse than Russia's
Speaker 1: human rights record over the last twenty or thirty years,
Speaker 1: because it is there and the autocracy is there. So
Speaker 1: what's the difference. Oh, it's not smart to antagonize China
Speaker 1: in that way right now. It's not smart for our
Speaker 1: leader to personally get into it with their leader. No,
Speaker 1: I agree, that's true. How come the media can't figure
Speaker 1: that out when it comes to Russia? Though? Why is
Speaker 1: it that this is only a placa? Oh that's right,
Speaker 1: all sense, all common sense gets cast aside if it
Speaker 1: can hurt Trump. That's how they approach everything, including the
Speaker 1: former CI director who spoke out this morning. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take him to task with a buck slap that was
Speaker 1: like you never seen to cat John, Thanks, very simple
Speaker 1: buck slab for the former director of the c I
Speaker 1: A coming up in just a few he's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America, Buck Sex in his back. Welcome to
Speaker 1: our three of the Buck Sexton Show. Everyone, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being here. Covered a lot of ground
Speaker 1: today on the show. Later on, I'll have some thoughts
Speaker 1: for you on affirmative action and uh a case, a
Speaker 1: free speech case in the U k of a man
Speaker 1: who taught his pug to do hate speech. I guess
Speaker 1: I'll have to walk you through this one. O don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm saying he's going to prison for it. He taught
Speaker 1: his pug to do a Hitler salute, he put it
Speaker 1: on YouTube, and now he is going to prison in
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom. We will talk about that story later
Speaker 1: on this hour too, and will of course finish up
Speaker 1: with a roll call. But first, the former CIA director
Speaker 1: has been making the rounds. He's now an NBC senior
Speaker 1: national security analysts. There's been a glut you'll notice of
Speaker 1: these former senior Obama administration muckety MUCKs. You know, these
Speaker 1: guys that mostly guys, there's some gals to who used
Speaker 1: to run different Obama era agencies and now they're all
Speaker 1: becoming talking heads. They're not, you know, they're not They're
Speaker 1: not going into teaching the same way they used to do.
Speaker 1: They're not going into the corporate sector and scessarily they're
Speaker 1: they're just running on TV and running their mouths a lot.
Speaker 1: And Brennan has been particularly out of line recently. Here
Speaker 1: is what he said about the president earlier this week
Speaker 1: or earlier this this uh, this day, I meant this morning.
Speaker 1: Another way of saying earlier this day would be this
Speaker 1: morning Buck, good job, good with the English. But here's
Speaker 1: what he said on Morning Joe, which is like a
Speaker 1: show with like we're like Joe is just he's just
Speaker 1: so cool and laid back and politically savvy. You know,
Speaker 1: he just looks like he rolled in off the beach
Speaker 1: from Nantucket. Man, he's got he's got his lady there,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, they're a thing. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you know they're married now. And uh he puts
Speaker 1: aside the guitar and the surfboard and just drop some
Speaker 1: political bombs. Is that some Morning Joe does it? Anyway,
Speaker 1: Here's what Brennan, though, the former CIA director, had to
Speaker 1: say about our current president. Is America being tried um
Speaker 1: at this point, especially in terms of its place in
Speaker 1: the world. Is this president letting our country down? Well?
Speaker 1: I think the president has shown a lack of understanding
Speaker 1: of international affairs as well as a real um ignorance
Speaker 1: of what it takes to be president of the United States.
Speaker 1: And that's what prompted my tweets. Um. He is a
Speaker 1: mean spirited um. He is dishonest. He has shown a
Speaker 1: lack of integrity, and he has continued too. I think
Speaker 1: to be in the office of the presidency, and so
Speaker 1: I've decided to put my silence aside and to speak
Speaker 1: up and speak out put his silence aside. Silence didn't
Speaker 1: last very long. Mr I would see eye director until
Speaker 1: like a year ago. It wasn't much in the way
Speaker 1: of silence. He's literally saying that America will triumph over
Speaker 1: the current president. This is this has banana Republic stuff.
Speaker 1: This is tinpot dictatorship rhetoric from the former director of
Speaker 1: the premier in Intelligence Agency. Sorry n s a uh
Speaker 1: in the United States, this isn't acceptable. This is actually
Speaker 1: really problematic. And you'll notice that this is happening now
Speaker 1: with so many of these former Obama administration officials. You
Speaker 1: didn't have all the former Bush administration intel directors. Now
Speaker 1: I put intel people in a different category. They're supposed
Speaker 1: to be in a different category then White House communications folks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're they're partisan, they're political, they're supporting, they're tied to
Speaker 1: an administration. But we were always told that our intel
Speaker 1: professionals are nonpartisan. Just about the facts, man, just about
Speaker 1: the truth the information. And they usually say this to
Speaker 1: us right before they tell us, how dare you criticize
Speaker 1: this former director of insert three letter agency? He's just
Speaker 1: speaking the truth about Russia collusion. Oh really, So, why
Speaker 1: is it that now we've seen beyond any reasonable doubt
Speaker 1: that Clapper and Brandon and yes, McCabe and comey there
Speaker 1: FBI is part of the intelligence community to access to
Speaker 1: incredibly sensitive information. Why and running national security investigations? We're
Speaker 1: seeing that they're anti Trump partisans. We're not supposed to
Speaker 1: take note of this. There has been a change, is
Speaker 1: what I'm really trying to hammer home here. There has
Speaker 1: been a shift. The former Intel directors now become partisan
Speaker 1: pugilists right away. They just want to roll up their
Speaker 1: sleeves and get into the cable news fisticuffs a S
Speaker 1: A P. With Brennan. It gets even worse though, from
Speaker 1: Morning Joe. Here's what he said about Trump and vulnerabilities.
Speaker 1: What do you chuck it up to, Why won't the
Speaker 1: president confront Vladimir Putin? Why won't he read the cards
Speaker 1: and the things that you say need to be said
Speaker 1: to Vladimir Putin? Do you believe he is somehow in
Speaker 1: debt to the president of Russia. I think he's afraid
Speaker 1: of the president of Russia. Well, I think one can
Speaker 1: speculate as to why that the Russians may have something
Speaker 1: on him personally that they could always roll out and
Speaker 1: make his life more difficult. They have something on him personally,
Speaker 1: They may have something on him personally. Let's all understand,
Speaker 1: my friends, this is not a former senior White House advisor,
Speaker 1: you know, political advisor. This is not the equivalent of
Speaker 1: of David axel Rod or you know, even a Podesta
Speaker 1: or some of these other slimy characters out there. Valerie
Speaker 1: Jarrett going on TV and and taking taking cheap shots
Speaker 1: at the president. This is the former director of the
Speaker 1: Central Intelligence Agency who's taking a cheap and yes it
Speaker 1: is a cheap shot. If the former CIA director has
Speaker 1: information to show that the President of the United States
Speaker 1: betrayed his country on behalf of Russia, I don't give
Speaker 1: a Damn what the regulations tell him? What people are
Speaker 1: gonna say, But oh, it's all classified. He has an
Speaker 1: obligation to go through the process, speak to Congress behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, do whatever he has to do to get
Speaker 1: that information out to the American public. And here's the
Speaker 1: other part of this. He doesn't have it. Of course,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have it. Oh, this is the one case
Speaker 1: when it comes to information about President Trump that would
Speaker 1: truly bring down the whole administration. This is the one
Speaker 1: case where it's not leaking. Right, they'll leak Flynn's phone
Speaker 1: call to a to a Russian ambassador, do harmed in
Speaker 1: national security in the process, and ruin a man's career
Speaker 1: and commit a felony. They'll do that. But this information,
Speaker 1: Oh no, this is sacred. There's a process here, there's
Speaker 1: a process. How convenient that the former director of my
Speaker 1: my employer, my agency, the place that trained me, that
Speaker 1: taught me aircraft, that taught me the skills of an
Speaker 1: analyst in the intelligence world, is now out there and
Speaker 1: playing the dirtiest of dirty politics. You know, they might
Speaker 1: have something on him personally. Oh, what do you mean,
Speaker 1: like the dossier, Brennan is the dossier true? Is that
Speaker 1: what you're saying. If that's the case, come out and
Speaker 1: say it. You know, this is it's one of the
Speaker 1: grossest things that you will come across in a public servant.
Speaker 1: The well, I have I have information that would completely
Speaker 1: change this conversation and would destroy a political party and
Speaker 1: destroy a presidency, but I just can't share it with
Speaker 1: you because you're not cleared for that. Okay, look at that.
Speaker 1: It's so cute. Uh. This is this is a very
Speaker 1: troubling trend of former senior intelligence officers, directors of the agency,
Speaker 1: and very senior FBI people you know, and others who
Speaker 1: become partisan hit men right away new administration comes in.
Speaker 1: Oh you know, well, if you only knew about this
Speaker 1: president what we know about this president, There's been so
Speaker 1: much of that and it needs to stop. It also
Speaker 1: is a window into the kind of people that President
Speaker 1: Obama was putting in senior national security roles. He was
Speaker 1: picking partisan hitman to take those jobs. We know this now,
Speaker 1: Clapper Brennan McCabe comy partisan hitman, and it's a disgrace
Speaker 1: to a community of which I belonged to which I
Speaker 1: belonged at one point. It really is just one more
Speaker 1: thing don't ever forget, my friends, that while they're making
Speaker 1: all this noise about how Trump called Putin and he's
Speaker 1: not supposed to um, they have no answers whatsoever to
Speaker 1: what to do about Russia, how to make things better.
Speaker 1: All they can do is tear down and criticize and belittle.
Speaker 1: They think they think if they continue this they will
Speaker 1: win politically. But in the short term, and I believe
Speaker 1: in the long term you will see this is actually
Speaker 1: harming the country. These people think that they're being patriots.
Speaker 1: They pretend to be patriots by tearing down the very
Speaker 1: system that we have right now in order to get
Speaker 1: at those they do not like. And when I see
Speaker 1: this filtering into the well at the top level of
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, in the bottom aginistration, it's really troubling
Speaker 1: and it's disgraceful. Brennan making these insinuations about Trump and
Speaker 1: then not backing them up is disgraceful and unethical, and
Speaker 1: he should be ashamed. That's the truth. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Girlfriend is always runding Raven about how cute and adorable
Speaker 1: how we argas, and so I thought I would commiment
Speaker 1: in the least cute thing that I could think of
Speaker 1: which as a Nazi do I guess the Jews do?
Speaker 1: I guess the Jews wants the juice Kazi kau see
Speaker 1: kay in. So there you have some very offensive stuff.
Speaker 1: You have a pug being taught to salute like a
Speaker 1: Nazi in response to that guy who's making you know, look,
Speaker 1: he's he thinks he's being a provocative jokester, and he
Speaker 1: says really really heinous things. His name is Marcus Meechen,
Speaker 1: and he's got this, like I said, he's got this
Speaker 1: pug who's doing this, and he uploaded a video of
Speaker 1: this to YouTube. And you would think, okay, well, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of really dumb stuff is being put on YouTube,
Speaker 1: a lot of nasty things are written on Twitter and
Speaker 1: on Facebook and all these places all the time. What
Speaker 1: are we gonna do about this other than say, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not as you know, I love pugs, so I
Speaker 1: hate that a pug is being dragged. It's not the
Speaker 1: pug's fault, right, I feel bad. It is a really
Speaker 1: cute pug, but this guy is saying stuff that's grotesque
Speaker 1: and he shouldn't be doing it. And now you think
Speaker 1: that okay, So our role as a society that believes
Speaker 1: in free speech is to say that this is not
Speaker 1: and it's not. It's not funny, it's not cute, it's
Speaker 1: not I mean, the pug is cute, but what he's doing,
Speaker 1: what the human being is doing, is is not okay.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't be saying these things. It is deeply offensive.
Speaker 1: And you can think of other For example, if somebody
Speaker 1: you know trained their dog to respond to certain racial
Speaker 1: epithets in this country, people would be or including the
Speaker 1: ones that we just heard, but people would be really outraged.
Speaker 1: So outrage is fine in a free society. Shouting down
Speaker 1: so well, I should say, shouting down, but counter speech
Speaker 1: is fine. Also, ignoring speech you don't like it's fine.
Speaker 1: But that's not what's happened in the United Kingdom. And
Speaker 1: I think this is this is a vision of our
Speaker 1: own future, folks, with what's going on now with social media.
Speaker 1: YouTube is blocking conservatives in all kinds of ways, including
Speaker 1: right now, you do well, I'm gonna get ahead of myself,
Speaker 1: but before we talk about the American side of YouTube censorship,
Speaker 1: just understand that this guy is not just being kicked
Speaker 1: off YouTube. He is being sent to prison for this
Speaker 1: now in the United Kingdom, what is your exact crime
Speaker 1: that they're claiming it's an offensive communication? I communicating an
Speaker 1: offensive message and through the hate crimes. Yeah, and you
Speaker 1: actually believe you are going to go to jail. So
Speaker 1: potentially today in five minutes, when we walked back in there,
Speaker 1: they could tell you you have to go to jail.
Speaker 1: Why do you believe that? I think it's because the
Speaker 1: way that child has been like laid out. Also the
Speaker 1: fact that the police stepped the press off when they
Speaker 1: were coming to arrest me. They're making a show. That's
Speaker 1: they're making a right show. That's the funny thing is
Speaker 1: the Nuremberg trials didn't even take that's long. So that's
Speaker 1: why I'm just sitting there like this is a show,
Speaker 1: Like I'm pretty sure that failed. It was already to
Speaker 1: say before I was even in court. This is just
Speaker 1: a publicity. They found him guilty by the way. They
Speaker 1: found him guilty of a hate crime for teaching, uh,
Speaker 1: teaching his pug to make a little pa. Look, the
Speaker 1: pug is moving its paw up again. I love I
Speaker 1: really love pugs. So I hate that there's a pug
Speaker 1: in the center. That it's so unfair that this is
Speaker 1: you know that pugg is being dragged into this. They're like,
Speaker 1: I really, I really believe pugs are a symbol of
Speaker 1: love and harmony and they're wonderful as you can tell.
Speaker 1: I'm a fan of all squashed faced dogs. But this
Speaker 1: guy said really bad things. Do I think you should
Speaker 1: do it? No? Do I think you should go to prison? No?
Speaker 1: There is no free speech in the UK anymore. This
Speaker 1: is it's this is it is official. It's beneficial for
Speaker 1: a while maybe, but now you see it once again
Speaker 1: that a guy in the video was posted in September
Speaker 1: of on his YouTube channels. This has been going on
Speaker 1: for a long time, that's why he mentioned the trial.
Speaker 1: He posted under the name Count Dankula. Now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go out on a limb here. For those of you
Speaker 1: who may not know this, dank is often a word
Speaker 1: that is used by the by the youth to refer
Speaker 1: to marijuana. That dank weed is particularly pungent, aromatic, ke
Speaker 1: HC laden marijuana, and so Count Dankula, Count Duncula. He
Speaker 1: obviously eats a lot of chocolate, chip art, peanut m
Speaker 1: and m's, but Count Dankula was the name of the
Speaker 1: account that it was posted to, and it was viewed
Speaker 1: a few million times. YouTube pulled it down. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: it violents YouTube's terms of service, pull it down. But
Speaker 1: prison is too much. Prison goes too far. And to
Speaker 1: say that this violates a hey crime, when it's the
Speaker 1: guy's clearly making a very unfunny and nasty but he's
Speaker 1: clearly making a joke. Uh, just goes to show you
Speaker 1: that this is the direction for social justice warriors. Now
Speaker 1: they're gonna make speech they do not like illegal. They're
Speaker 1: going to make it criminal. It's not going to be
Speaker 1: enough for them to just say that. You you that
Speaker 1: platforms can police this stuff. The police are gonna police speech.
Speaker 1: I wanted to add in something else here for a moment.
Speaker 1: You're seeing videos that are pulled from YouTube now based
Speaker 1: upon anything having to do and this is in this country, folks. Uh,
Speaker 1: in this country, YouTube is pulling ads that have to
Speaker 1: do with guns. YouTube is deciding that there are limits
Speaker 1: to what firearm demo videos you're allowed to see. They're
Speaker 1: ban in firearm demo videos. This is from This is
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg, um and this was just posted earlier today. YouTube,
Speaker 1: a popular media site for firearms enthusiasts, quietly introduced tighter
Speaker 1: restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in
Speaker 1: the U S Gun controlled debate. YouTube will ban videos
Speaker 1: that promote or linked to websites selling firearms and accessories,
Speaker 1: including bump stocks, which allow a semi automatic rifle to
Speaker 1: fire faster. Additionally, YouTube said will prohibit videos with instructions
Speaker 1: on how to assemble firearms. Uh. The video site has
Speaker 1: faced intense criticism for this. They are banning websites that
Speaker 1: sell up firearms and accessories from from the YouTube platform.
Speaker 1: The right to bear arms folks in the constitution. They're saying, basically, no,
Speaker 1: no more. YouTube is getting rid of that whole notion. Okay, Uh,
Speaker 1: this is why we can't trust the all. We're just
Speaker 1: want to stop violence movements that are out there. No,
Speaker 1: they want to ban guns, and the massive social media
Speaker 1: platforms out there are taking action to try and push
Speaker 1: the culture toward banning guns. Because after the culture goes there,
Speaker 1: guess what politics will go there. Two, Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: on YouTube, you can still see uh all, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure you can still see beheading videos, although maybe those
Speaker 1: are now violent terms of service. You can definitely find
Speaker 1: people building, or you can definitely find on the internet.
Speaker 1: You know, the anarchist Cookbook. I mean, there's all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff that you can find on YouTube that's quite
Speaker 1: nasty and is repugnant. But they're getting rid of people
Speaker 1: that want to show you how to fire certain guns.
Speaker 1: They're getting rid of those videos. So censorship in the
Speaker 1: UK means you go to prison. Censorship here means they
Speaker 1: demonetize you in deep platform you But you know what
Speaker 1: comes after YouTube and social media decides to demonetize and
Speaker 1: deep platform deep freedomize, which means sending you to prison.
Speaker 1: That's the next step we gotta be on watch for
Speaker 1: this year. Let a quick break, we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back.
Speaker 1: One of the big fights that you're going to see
Speaker 1: during this administration with the social justice left. He's going
Speaker 1: to be over affirmative action. Now. I'm not sure when
Speaker 1: exactly it's going to come to a head. I just
Speaker 1: I just know that this is looming in the background,
Speaker 1: and you have cases that pop up here and there
Speaker 1: that are let's just say, harbingers of things to come.
Speaker 1: You have and this has published a National review just
Speaker 1: last couple of days, and it was about a professor
Speaker 1: at the University of Pennsylvania. The Yeah, the piece is
Speaker 1: called the Truth Hurts at penn Law. Let me share
Speaker 1: with you a little bit of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: This is by Jason rich Wine. Quote. One are the
Speaker 1: chief criticisms of affirmative action is that a devalued credentials
Speaker 1: that minorities could otherwise use to distinguish themselves. If college
Speaker 1: admissions were purely merit based, employers would have no reason
Speaker 1: to discount an impressive degree just because it is held
Speaker 1: by a black or Hispanic applicant. Under our system of
Speaker 1: racial preferences. However, it is not merely understandable but rational
Speaker 1: to suspect that minority applicants are less qualified than their
Speaker 1: paper credentials, imply for some proponents of a firm of action,
Speaker 1: the response to this problem is simple, ban those rational thoughts.
Speaker 1: Everyone must act as if we have a purely merit
Speaker 1: based admission system, even though everyone knows that we do not.
Speaker 1: The success of affirmative action depends on it. University of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Law professor Amy Wax refuses to go along with
Speaker 1: the charade or the charade, as some say, and now
Speaker 1: she's in trouble. For it. As part of a critique
Speaker 1: of race based admissions. Professor Wax observed that black students
Speaker 1: at Penn Law rarely graduate in the top half of
Speaker 1: their class. Her observation is almost certainly correct, but Penn
Speaker 1: Law Dean ted Ruger declared it is false without providing
Speaker 1: any evidence. This is classic, folks. Okay, so that's the
Speaker 1: end of the quote there for a moment. So here
Speaker 1: you have a system and this is true of a
Speaker 1: furtherve action across the board at the elite universities, a
Speaker 1: system that explicitly privileges certain races over others. They just
Speaker 1: aren't allowed to use quotas. Somehow the numbers stay the
Speaker 1: same every year. But they're not using quotas. They're taking
Speaker 1: a holistic approach. This is guard it. It's not honest.
Speaker 1: It's not what's happening. But they say, oh, we just
Speaker 1: take a holistic approach. These schools make decisions based upon
Speaker 1: skin color and based upon racial preference, and then on
Speaker 1: top of that they insist that no one talked about
Speaker 1: the very system they have in place. This is going
Speaker 1: on at the University of Pennsylvania and Ivy League School.
Speaker 1: In fact, one of my brothers went there, and this
Speaker 1: is what the dean in this case has given as
Speaker 1: his explanation for why they have forbiddenness. Professor who is tenured,
Speaker 1: by the way, so they can't really fire as much.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'd love to tenure occasionally bites back. But
Speaker 1: Professor Wax is banned from teaching any mandatory first year courses.
Speaker 1: And here is the reasoning for quote. In light of
Speaker 1: Professor Wax's statements, black student assigned to her class in
Speaker 1: their first year at Penn Law may reasonably wonder whether
Speaker 1: their professor has already come to a conclusion about their presence, performance,
Speaker 1: and potential for success in law school, and thereafter, they
Speaker 1: may legitimately question whether the inaccurate and belittling statement she
Speaker 1: has made may adversely affect their learning environment and career prospects.
Speaker 1: These students may also reasonably feel an additional and unwarranted
Speaker 1: burden to perform well so that their performance may not
Speaker 1: be used or misused by their professor in public discourse
Speaker 1: about racial inequality and academic success. More broadly, this dynamic
Speaker 1: may negatively affect the classroom experience for all students, regardless
Speaker 1: of race or background. Um, this is amazing folks, that's
Speaker 1: the end of the quote. There. Here you have a
Speaker 1: dean at the University of Pennsylvanian Ivy League law school
Speaker 1: who is making the case. Remember this is a this
Speaker 1: is a dean of a law school. You think he
Speaker 1: kind of knows logic and reason making the case that
Speaker 1: this professor made a statement that is very easy to
Speaker 1: prove false if it were false. He will not provide
Speaker 1: that evidence, though, because if he were to provide the evidence,
Speaker 1: then it would well, we all know, right, then you'd
Speaker 1: have to provide the evidence for other things in the
Speaker 1: affirmative action policy spectrum too, and then people would have
Speaker 1: an expectation arts. So we're allowed to see the numbers,
Speaker 1: were allowed to talk about it. They can't provide the
Speaker 1: evidence because if they concede that there's evidence that proves
Speaker 1: this is true one way or the other, then they
Speaker 1: concede it's a rational point of discussion or reasonable point
Speaker 1: of discussion. And they refuse to do that, you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to talk about it. Affirmative action is now a
Speaker 1: policy in colleges and universities, and yes, in hiring for corporations, folks.
Speaker 1: It is true in in corporate America as well. This
Speaker 1: is now filtered throughout the entire system. But it exists,
Speaker 1: and it exists under the totalitarian impulse to tell you
Speaker 1: that it does not exist, to make you say it
Speaker 1: does not exist, and that's the only way that it
Speaker 1: can all be held together. They won't allow you to
Speaker 1: question it or even discuss it as a system. This
Speaker 1: has to stop. This goes to the intellectual rock that
Speaker 1: has is at the heart of so much of what's
Speaker 1: going on on campuses these days. They won't even engage
Speaker 1: with the ideas they are promoting because they're so clearly dubious.
Speaker 1: And look, if Professor Wax's statement is untrue, they should
Speaker 1: just provide the data it's untrue. If it's not untrue,
Speaker 1: well then guess what. You have a professor of law
Speaker 1: who is making a blatantly clear, factual statement that goes
Speaker 1: right to the heart of affirm of action policy at
Speaker 1: University of Pennsylvania Law School, and for making a statement
Speaker 1: of fact, she is being singled out, belittled, and punished
Speaker 1: by her peers. That is the modern affirmative action system
Speaker 1: we have in this country. Under the Trump administration, with
Speaker 1: this Department of Justice, I am hoping we can turn
Speaker 1: this around it is a corrupt system. It's wrong, it's unethical.
Speaker 1: It needs to stop. And the Left is in the
Speaker 1: wrong on this by a mile. By a mile. It's
Speaker 1: not even close. We're gonna have to hit a roll
Speaker 1: call here. Stay with me. It is a straight up
Speaker 1: blizzard here in New York City and along much of
Speaker 1: the East Coast. I think I'm gonna have to ski
Speaker 1: home tonight. I remember when, um, when the Nordic Track
Speaker 1: was the fitness craze I was putting in a lot
Speaker 1: of late hours at the office. The pressure was really
Speaker 1: getting to My doctor told me if I didn't get
Speaker 1: some exercise, I'd be a prime candidate for a heart attack.
Speaker 1: That's why I got on track. Nordic Track. Nordic Track
Speaker 1: was just what I needed to work off stress. My
Speaker 1: doctor says, my blood pressure is lower two oh man.
Speaker 1: I mean. There still are some pretty lame late night
Speaker 1: fitness craze items that you see out there, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'm gonna confess I actually owned a few of them.
Speaker 1: But the Nordic Track, you know, oh yeah, just sort
Speaker 1: of against no resistance, stand and move your arms and
Speaker 1: legs back and forth in an effortless motion and you
Speaker 1: too can look like this fitness model in the commercial.
Speaker 1: That stuff is so effective, I mean not shake weight effective,
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong. Shake weights clearly will give you
Speaker 1: a six pack or uh, ladies, that beach body is
Speaker 1: just one shake weight away, you know, Oh my gosh. Uh.
Speaker 1: The lamest, though, were always the the ones that were
Speaker 1: meant for your abs specifically, and I definitely owned a
Speaker 1: few of these when I was maybe a senior in
Speaker 1: high school. I feel like I went in the back
Speaker 1: of some mail order catalog in Maxim magazine and got
Speaker 1: one of those things that I don't remember what it
Speaker 1: was called. The it was like the ab cruncher or
Speaker 1: something that you would hold this It looked almost like
Speaker 1: a spaceship and you would just sort of hold it
Speaker 1: in your into your gut, and that was supposed to
Speaker 1: make you get six pack abs. Well, this is gonna
Speaker 1: blow that right out of the water. Listen to this
Speaker 1: seven minute apps. Think about it. You walk into a
Speaker 1: video storey, you see eight minute abs sitting there, there's
Speaker 1: seven minute abs right beside it. Which one are you
Speaker 1: gonna pick? Man? I'm I would go for the seven Yeah,
Speaker 1: Bingo man, bingo seven minute apps and we guarantee. Just
Speaker 1: too good a workout is the eight minute folk. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you see, just just as good a workout as the
Speaker 1: eight minute folk. I love. There's Something about Mary is
Speaker 1: a guilty pleasure, a movie that could never be made today,
Speaker 1: but we're still allowed to like it because the social
Speaker 1: justice warriors haven't figured out that it's on demand and DVD.
Speaker 1: And with that, let's get into Roll Call team. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll Call. First up in Roll Call today,
Speaker 1: in the Hut, we have Steve, who has a moose
Speaker 1: cooking follow up for us. Okay, Steve, moose meat is
Speaker 1: the best meat on the planet. Harvest a moose and
Speaker 1: you will have enough hormone free wild game meat to
Speaker 1: feed your family for an entire year. And he has
Speaker 1: in fact given me a guide to how to cook
Speaker 1: moose meat. Okay, Steve, Hey, hey, look, you're the expert, buddy,
Speaker 1: so I'll take your word for it. And based on
Speaker 1: this photo I'm looking at moose meat and roast beef
Speaker 1: seemed very similar. So seems delicious. Oh wow, Nathan sent
Speaker 1: me something here, a bird been that is called the Sexton.
Speaker 1: The Sexton single malt Irish whiskey. Nathan, I gotta check
Speaker 1: this out, and maybe we could get them to be
Speaker 1: a sponsor on the show, because I mean, heaven, for
Speaker 1: Heaven's sake, my name is Sexton. The Burmans called Sexton
Speaker 1: makes sense to me. Let's give it a shot. Next
Speaker 1: up here we have t J, who writes in awesome
Speaker 1: show buck Well, thank you, t J. T J knows
Speaker 1: how to butter me up at the beginning of the comments,
Speaker 1: so I appreciate that. Or he just listens to me
Speaker 1: when I say, if you want me to read your
Speaker 1: comments on air, say something nice about the show right away.
Speaker 1: But he writes awesome show buck. I think I'd like
Speaker 1: to expand on your bacon steak and egg breakfast idea.
Speaker 1: When I do dear steak and eggs, I typically bread
Speaker 1: the steak and then fry them. What if you cook
Speaker 1: the bacon first, fry the breaded steak in the bacon grease,
Speaker 1: and follow up with the eggs fried in the bacon grease.
Speaker 1: Mind blown? Also, my go to seasoning for everything is
Speaker 1: Tony ch Chairs Creole seasoning. It's great on everything, even
Speaker 1: says so on the can well t J. I will
Speaker 1: have to check that out. I am unfamiliar with it,
Speaker 1: but I like your plan for what would that be?
Speaker 1: That would be bacon steak. I'm sorry, dear steak and eggs,
Speaker 1: d s E Dear steak and eggs. Sony. Next up here,
Speaker 1: she writes, Buck is already working. She said this this morning,
Speaker 1: five am. I'm going to the gym, and you're already
Speaker 1: doing your best. Thank you so much, well, Sony, thank you.
Speaker 1: It was very kind of you to write me the note.
Speaker 1: It was also very kind of Brian Kilmeade and Ainsley
Speaker 1: ear Heart and the whole rest of the Fox and
Speaker 1: Friends crew to have me on this morning, really on
Speaker 1: and off for the whole three hours. So it was
Speaker 1: very very much appreciate it, and it was important to
Speaker 1: be able to weigh in with analysis on the breaking
Speaker 1: news out of Austin. So I really did appreciate and Sony,
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed it as well. Uh. Paul is
Speaker 1: next up here, He writes, Hey, Buck, I grew up
Speaker 1: a few minutes from Los Alamitos, California. It has been
Speaker 1: a family oriented neighborhood for generations. The politicians in California
Speaker 1: are missing it. The population wants criminals out of our state,
Speaker 1: but the politicians continue to move rough shot over popular wishes.
Speaker 1: This includes my Mexican American friends, some of whom are
Speaker 1: currently in the country illegally. This will bite them in
Speaker 1: the end. They will miss it, much like Trump was
Speaker 1: a surprise. They will not see the wave until it
Speaker 1: was all over for them. Um, all right, Paul, Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for weighing it. Appreciate it. Rain is next
Speaker 1: up here. I love the show is always I was
Speaker 1: only able to listen to the first hour yesterday. Not
Speaker 1: sure if you cover the story about the YouTuber convicted
Speaker 1: in the UK for making an offensive video. I'll have
Speaker 1: to catch up on the podcast. Well, Rain, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for listening to the show, and I covered
Speaker 1: it today in fact, so hopefully you're hearing this. And
Speaker 1: also earlier in the show you heard me discussing the
Speaker 1: conviction in the UK of this YouTube joke prankster guy
Speaker 1: who taught his pug to make a uh well to
Speaker 1: make a hit Laryan gesture when he would say seeing Hyle,
Speaker 1: as well as a few other very very bad and
Speaker 1: inappropriate things. Ali or I don't know if it's Ali
Speaker 1: or Ali want to start this. I think it's Ali.
Speaker 1: Oh No, it's Ali. It is Ali. Ali writes book,
Speaker 1: how are the March for Life kids going to be
Speaker 1: protected with guns? Well, my friend, you you have a
Speaker 1: point there. I think they probably will be protected by
Speaker 1: law enforcement officials with guns. Um, and I hope that
Speaker 1: there is a March for Life that happens with school
Speaker 1: age students for a whole unsure of reasons. Um, let's
Speaker 1: see we got here. Next up is James kind of
Speaker 1: like me. My first name is James. For those of
Speaker 1: you to know a little a little buck Freedom Hunt trivia,
Speaker 1: He writes, great show. I listened every night at work
Speaker 1: eight ten w g Y. That's up in Albany. One
Speaker 1: of our fantastic affiliates saw you on Fox. Is Bob
Speaker 1: Gates your old boss? Uh? Well, there were a few
Speaker 1: agency directors during my time. When I began, it was
Speaker 1: Porter Goss and by the time I finished, it was Panetta,
Speaker 1: So that should give you. And was there somebody else
Speaker 1: in between? I can't even remember now. I can't even
Speaker 1: remember all the directors, but there's a whole portrait gallery
Speaker 1: on the first floor Langley of them. So there's that.
Speaker 1: But thank you for listening up in w g Y, Albany,
Speaker 1: And I hope other folks up in Albany. Know that
Speaker 1: if they want to weigh in, they want to let
Speaker 1: me know what they're thinking about the show. Uh, they
Speaker 1: can send me a message at acebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. Um here we go, uh Hannah from Israel,
Speaker 1: she writes on Monday's show, you said the media is
Speaker 1: clearly their team, my team, concerning how the media presents
Speaker 1: news while they themselves professed to be impartial. It is
Speaker 1: so clearly true. Why do you think they don't just
Speaker 1: come out and say they represent the left when it
Speaker 1: hurt them financially? What's the downside? How can they think
Speaker 1: they came to appeal to anyone who is not on
Speaker 1: the left? You know, Honna, I do think about this
Speaker 1: with some regularity, because you know, CNN, for example, is
Speaker 1: delusional about its political leanings. A lot of journalists I
Speaker 1: know over there, and I know them, some of them
Speaker 1: I know well personally. They think that they're impartial. A
Speaker 1: lot of them know I think that this is all
Speaker 1: a game and that they act with him. They say
Speaker 1: they're impartial because it gives them mark ravitas. But I
Speaker 1: think some of them have have bought into this and
Speaker 1: they believe it is a short answer to your question,
Speaker 1: at least enough of them do, let the rest go
Speaker 1: along with it. All right, that's gonna be it for
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut today. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: me here on the Buck Sexton Show. Please download the
Speaker 1: podcast it is on iTunes, subscribe to it as well.
Speaker 1: Subscribe to The Buck Sexton Show on iTunes. We've got
Speaker 1: much more coming up tomorrow. Until then, she'll tigh