Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hunch. Tonight's the night we
Speaker 1: find out who President Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: This is going to drive the Libs absolutely wild, and
Speaker 1: We're going to enjoy every second of it. Plus, we
Speaker 1: have some more incivility courtesy of the Democrats and the Left.
Speaker 1: No surprises, but one of them, at least one of
Speaker 1: the incidents ends a bit differently than expected. Plus, is
Speaker 1: breastfeeding now political because of the era of Trump. That
Speaker 1: and so much more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American Great, You're a great American Again
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show begins. Sexton Sexton, No, I am
Speaker 1: officially running for President of the United States. Could he
Speaker 1: actually win? No freaking Republican candidate has the best chance
Speaker 1: of winning the general election? Donald Trump. There's not going
Speaker 1: to be a president. Donald Trump. Trump will not be
Speaker 1: Trump will never be elected president United States's not going
Speaker 1: to be president? Then? Who will never be President of
Speaker 1: the United States? Donald Trump is not going to be
Speaker 1: President of the United States. Take it to then she
Speaker 1: will never be president. Ul Trump is not going to
Speaker 1: become president of the United States. She's a plus nineteen.
Speaker 1: Do you think it takes me in a difference? Of course,
Speaker 1: they made all the difference. This race is over. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton has raised more than double Donald Trump, vastly outspending him.
Speaker 1: The presidency at about eight nine for Hillary Clinton. Your
Speaker 1: analytical model has never been wrong for ject's Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: to win presidential election percent chance? Do you still think
Speaker 1: she has a hundred percent chance to winning the election?
Speaker 1: I do? And what would Donald Trump have to do
Speaker 1: to turn things around? Prayer and hope for a Festivus miracle.
Speaker 1: This is CNN's coverage of election Night in America, the
Speaker 1: fight for the presidency. Because we don't care? Okay, have Kentucky,
Speaker 1: Kentucky and Indiana don't care? Indiana with it's West, Virginia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska's and why y'all being with
Speaker 1: its vote in North Dakota and South Dakota, Texas, up
Speaker 1: and down the middle of the country already, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Speaker 1: the state of Montana, Missouri. It was an hour ago
Speaker 1: for Clinton. What is it? Okay? Goddamn it. I'm nervous.
Speaker 1: Hold Ohio. God, yeah, I don't see a lancelight, dude,
Speaker 1: I don't see it at all. North Carolina, God damn it.
Speaker 1: If we need Florida, are you Florida? Georgia now the
Speaker 1: favorite to win The President's New York Times Now has
Speaker 1: it at nine percent. Champion you talk and still win,
Speaker 1: But in order to do so, she has to win Wisconsin, Wisconsin, goddamn, Arizona, Alaska, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: What a night? How did this happen? Welcome to the
Speaker 1: buck sex and show everybody. The President tweeted that one
Speaker 1: out over the weekend. I just wanted to start it.
Speaker 1: Wasn't that just wasn't that incredible? A little trip down
Speaker 1: memory lane for all of us. I felt like it
Speaker 1: was a fitting way for us to get started tonight,
Speaker 1: given that tonight's the night when we find out who
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court nominee is that President Trump is going
Speaker 1: to be offering up uh And it's just a reminder
Speaker 1: of what we were facing in the past, was going
Speaker 1: on before. Right. Trump's never gonna win. He can't win.
Speaker 1: I'm a honey percent sure Trump can't win anything. That
Speaker 1: election night, I woke up the next day. I've told
Speaker 1: people this before, and I know, look, it's not like
Speaker 1: Trump has one re election again, and there's they're gonna
Speaker 1: be other times to celebrate. But the night before this
Speaker 1: Supreme Court nominee gets or the day rather the night
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court nominee gets named, it's worth just
Speaker 1: taking that moment to bask in this, to take it
Speaker 1: all in. And just remember how they said we'd never
Speaker 1: be here. They said this would never happen. They promised
Speaker 1: their constituencies that just wasn't gonna happen. There was no chance.
Speaker 1: And here we are. Not only has it happened, but
Speaker 1: Trump's actually doing really well. He's about to put a
Speaker 1: second true conservative constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, one who
Speaker 1: will be there for decades, God willie uh, and that
Speaker 1: will have such a long and lasting legacy. And if
Speaker 1: nothing else, it's not what happened Hillary Clinton. So there's
Speaker 1: so much to be pleased about here. There is so
Speaker 1: much for us to uh to be thankful for in
Speaker 1: this regard. And look, I'm gonna right now. It was
Speaker 1: one of these days where the news cycle is completely
Speaker 1: caught up in you know, the big announcement, the big announcement.
Speaker 1: This is turned into the last episode of Survivor or
Speaker 1: The Bachelor, where it's like who's gonna get the final
Speaker 1: rows or who's going to get the mike? What do
Speaker 1: they give the person who wins? You know that, don't
Speaker 1: you get like an emulator or something if you win
Speaker 1: on Survivor? Isn't there something that they hand you? You
Speaker 1: know what? I mean? What is it? I always thought
Speaker 1: it was money? No, No, I know you thanks Mike,
Speaker 1: I know you win money. I mean, isn't there like
Speaker 1: a tangible thing that they hand you, you know, one
Speaker 1: of those things? Yeah? I don't know. I mean, man,
Speaker 1: I don't know either. I don't watch I don't watch
Speaker 1: much TV. So you know that we've got the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court nomination and people are freaking out about it, which
Speaker 1: you know is going to be the case. Uh, You've
Speaker 1: got uh Dick Durbin out there saying that this is
Speaker 1: a really but you know, you gotta everyone's gonna get
Speaker 1: on them. Well, we'll hear from some of them here.
Speaker 1: Let's hear from sevent team. Mr Dick durban himself. Staying
Speaker 1: united to stop the Supreme Court pick could cost you
Speaker 1: Red state senators not fighting it as hard might allow
Speaker 1: the red state senators to get reelected and get Democrats
Speaker 1: in control the Senate. That's your dilemma. I will tell
Speaker 1: you the men and women that I work with on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side really take this seriously. They understand it's
Speaker 1: an historic decision. It's about more than the next election.
Speaker 1: It's about what in country, the United States of America
Speaker 1: is going to chart as its course in the future.
Speaker 1: And this Supreme Court. I think each and every one
Speaker 1: of them take that seriously. That personally it goes beyond
Speaker 1: the next election. It takes that he's saying, They all
Speaker 1: take its terously right. So Democrats in red or red
Speaker 1: ish states, they're gonna fight over this issue, but they
Speaker 1: understand the implications here. They understand what it will mean.
Speaker 1: If they don't fight, then they could be seen as
Speaker 1: weak by their inside. If they do fight, they could
Speaker 1: lose Senate seats. So it's gonna be Uh, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a tough one for some of the Democrats on
Speaker 1: the Court and not the Court, pardon me, Democrats in
Speaker 1: the Senate. Uh. And there is that possibility where you
Speaker 1: get it's gonna be a very thin margin. I think
Speaker 1: you're looking at fifty votes might even be a fifty
Speaker 1: fifty with Pence wouldn't be awesome. Pence got to walk
Speaker 1: in there, just sort of stroll and be like boom,
Speaker 1: scoat is done. But it's gonna be something like that.
Speaker 1: If you do have that, you also may have Democrats
Speaker 1: along the way who have damaged themselves. So you could
Speaker 1: have a conservative constitutionalist on the court and Democrats scoring
Speaker 1: an own goal where they may lose control of the
Speaker 1: Senate because of the actions they took to unsuccessfully block
Speaker 1: the nominated Supreme Court. What a time to be a
Speaker 1: lot What a time to be an American. It's good,
Speaker 1: it's good things all around. Um, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: effort to scare us all about this, like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen? Play clip too, what's the look like?
Speaker 1: The next thirty we're looking at a destruction of the
Speaker 1: constant City, United States. This nomination to move the chord
Speaker 1: in a really dangerous struction. Clean air and water that
Speaker 1: you use and breathe is at stake. In essence, we
Speaker 1: go to fifty civil wars in each of the states
Speaker 1: plus the District of Columbia. As the end of the
Speaker 1: world as we know it. They also want to criminalize
Speaker 1: abortion in this country. They're literally trying to punish women.
Speaker 1: We are in an unparalleled moment of assault on the
Speaker 1: rule of law, of rights, equal freedoms, equal liberty. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's an issue of life and death for a
Speaker 1: lot of women. I mean, we might lose some of
Speaker 1: the most precious ideals of our country. Women. So basically,
Speaker 1: if you are not a straight white male in America
Speaker 1: right now, you're probably freaking out. This is not a
Speaker 1: fire drill. This maybe the pull the viral alarm moment
Speaker 1: that you have been expecting. This is definitely break the
Speaker 1: glass moment. Yes, what it means as a woman of
Speaker 1: color to be denied equity and justice in the system
Speaker 1: of justice in the United States. Everything is at stake.
Speaker 1: When you're looking at this God to spake, abortion, workers rights, everything,
Speaker 1: same sex marriage, l g p t Q riots, We're
Speaker 1: actually screwed for generations. You know what's amazing how clear
Speaker 1: it becomes that deliberal left relies so much on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. You look at some of the most important
Speaker 1: I mean, this is why there's such a freak out.
Speaker 1: You look at some of the biggest quote unquote wins right.
Speaker 1: Some of the biggest issues that went for the progressive
Speaker 1: side in this country in recent decades, and they are
Speaker 1: things that were handed to the left by the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: issues that would have been better decided and should have
Speaker 1: been decided at the state level. We're not, uh abortion
Speaker 1: top of that list. You also had same sex marriage,
Speaker 1: I mean some of the very big and then there's
Speaker 1: all these other cases that people don't even really think
Speaker 1: about all that much. I would also note that there's
Speaker 1: such a a focus on Row and Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: that case, but also Casey v. Planned Parenthood is really
Speaker 1: and had to have to Andy McCarthy for actually writing
Speaker 1: on that over the course of the weekend. Casey is
Speaker 1: much more likely to be at issue than Row, but
Speaker 1: Casey is lesser known as a case. So the left
Speaker 1: has relied on the Supreme Court as their super legislature
Speaker 1: for a long time. And the left has also been
Speaker 1: able to get bailed out by the Supreme Court in
Speaker 1: recent years because remember, folks, you know they said, oh,
Speaker 1: Roberts is so conservative. Roberts saved Obamacare by changing the
Speaker 1: plain text of legal language to mean something other than
Speaker 1: what it says. That is what happened it cannot be
Speaker 1: a penalty one day and attacks the next day and
Speaker 1: a penalty the day after that. That was what he
Speaker 1: did to say Obamacare. Without that, we would not have
Speaker 1: this healthcare monstrosity that now this point people can think about.
Speaker 1: I've met people who have Obamacare and overwhelming I know
Speaker 1: there's some people that say, oh, well, I couldn't get
Speaker 1: insured before and everything else, but I may people have
Speaker 1: had to go through Obamacare exchanges and they're like, this
Speaker 1: is terrible. I'm paying all especially if you're young and healthy,
Speaker 1: it is a terrible deal for you. That's why seeing
Speaker 1: all these millennials running around, you know, don't touch our Obamacare,
Speaker 1: it's terrible for them. They're getting a really bad deal.
Speaker 1: But the court has given the left some of its
Speaker 1: most important victories. Which is so interesting, isn't the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is really the top down elitist party. They would
Speaker 1: rather have five judges tell all of America how to live,
Speaker 1: what they can do, what their rights are, what sacred,
Speaker 1: who's protected. Then let the American people decide, then let
Speaker 1: our legislature decide. They're fine as long as it goes
Speaker 1: their way. I mean, this the most dishonest argument you
Speaker 1: will see is this whole Ah, well, it's it's decided.
Speaker 1: It's decided. Really, we're gonna play that game now. It's
Speaker 1: decided until it's not. I mean, I can't take people
Speaker 1: seriously with this. Yes, there's a the deference to precedent.
Speaker 1: Star A decisives if you want to sound cool and legal. Uh,
Speaker 1: star decises it exists, meaning that yeah, you shouldn't have
Speaker 1: a court come in and flip what was done last
Speaker 1: year and then flip after that. And but if something
Speaker 1: was wrong, they decided it's wrong. They decided that the
Speaker 1: point of the justice system and and the court system
Speaker 1: is justice. It's not process. It's not well this was
Speaker 1: done then, So that's all that it's going to be.
Speaker 1: So we we will see. We will see what ends
Speaker 1: up happening here. Um, and uh, there's no shortage of
Speaker 1: panic on the left also because of a particular conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory that I want to tell you about that shows
Speaker 1: you so much of what liberal Democrats really believe. Somehow,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court pick it's not bad. It's not just
Speaker 1: bad because it's a conservative constitutionalist based on the list
Speaker 1: that we've seen, and I know tonight will the named
Speaker 1: person I'm guessing by the time some of you here this,
Speaker 1: it will already have been named. But I'm guessing Barrett,
Speaker 1: even though I know people's in Kalvanaugh was in a
Speaker 1: black suv and broad broad Barrett. I'm saying Barrett, it
Speaker 1: should be Barrett. I'm hoping it's Barrett. We'll see um.
Speaker 1: But there's a conspiracy theory out there right now that's
Speaker 1: just so crazy and it's being fluttered around by media folks.
Speaker 1: Do that goes right to the heart of how even
Speaker 1: in this instance, in this case, it's not just about
Speaker 1: out the pit to the court, it's also somehow about
Speaker 1: Trump specifically, because the Trump arrangement syndrome is such that
Speaker 1: all issues inherently go back to being about Trump because
Speaker 1: people are crazy on the left. Eight four four eight
Speaker 1: to five eight four, Buck, I have so much more
Speaker 1: for your teams. You want to call in, please do.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about this, and then I've got more,
Speaker 1: uh politically motivated stalking by leftists to talk about with you, socialism.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'll tell you about what's going on in Nicaragua.
Speaker 1: This is the coolest show on radio, So that's how
Speaker 1: we're gonna roll. When we come back. I really don't
Speaker 1: think they can afford to filibuster Supreme Court nominee. It
Speaker 1: would be the first filibuster in history. But I wouldn't
Speaker 1: put anything past them because they they just hate the
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has stay right to a point. Uh this next, sir,
Speaker 1: friend Court nomination of the nominee, and it's really hard
Speaker 1: for them to swallow. But you know, Uh, these people
Speaker 1: are all really outstanding people. And you never know how
Speaker 1: a person's going to room when they get on the court.
Speaker 1: And we've we've been both placed from this place some
Speaker 1: of them. Yeah, these are great nominees, folks. I'm not
Speaker 1: looking for conservatives to be on the court who just
Speaker 1: give me what I politically want. I'm just looking for
Speaker 1: people to be on the court who like, this is
Speaker 1: the law, let's supply the law. That that is a
Speaker 1: revolutionary concept right now, and that it upsets liberals so
Speaker 1: much tells you a great deal about what's really going
Speaker 1: on here. But then there's this other issue. You know,
Speaker 1: you've got bloom what is this a Bloomenthal over in
Speaker 1: Congress talking about how there's a sweet this is a
Speaker 1: theory for You're gonna see more and more this there's
Speaker 1: a theory out there that the real reason Trump is
Speaker 1: making this pick has to do with keeping Trump himself.
Speaker 1: I can't make this stuff up out of liberal out
Speaker 1: of legal jeopardy or liberal jeopardy because liberals abused the
Speaker 1: legal system. Here is what Blumenthal had to say, play
Speaker 1: clip seven. This next nominee will be the swing vote
Speaker 1: to overturn Roe v. Wait. The next justice appointed by
Speaker 1: this president ought to recuse her or himself Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 1: raising the possibility of a pardon. This next justice will
Speaker 1: sit on the issue of whether or not the president
Speaker 1: can pardon himself, probably a swing vote in deciding whether
Speaker 1: he has to comply with this again, along with whether
Speaker 1: or not he has to stop define the chief and
Speaker 1: coruption provisions of constitution that forbids him from taking payments. Mhm,
Speaker 1: that's right, folks. It's about trying to Trump's main main
Speaker 1: position here, as the left is saying it is he
Speaker 1: needs to pick a Supreme Court justice that will keep
Speaker 1: him out of prison and that will not make him
Speaker 1: comply with the emoluments clause because you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: own hotels where foreigners stay and run for president. Right,
Speaker 1: This is what it's so pathetic I mean this is
Speaker 1: these are not And recently I've been talking to some
Speaker 1: friends of mine who are here on the some Hill
Speaker 1: staffers and people I work with and are not work
Speaker 1: with the people that I know. I work at the Hill,
Speaker 1: but I speak to people from the Hill, which is
Speaker 1: a place is supposed to the Hill where I work
Speaker 1: in media, and the only way that we among ourselves
Speaker 1: can describe a lot of this stuff, whether it's the
Speaker 1: screeching and the freaking out about the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: everything goes, these are unserious people making unserious arguments that
Speaker 1: we have to take seriously because they're damaging and they
Speaker 1: can be dangerous. That's what's really happening here. These are
Speaker 1: not serious arguments. These are not serious people. This notion
Speaker 1: that the president's first first priority here is to pick
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice that's basically gonna like save his
Speaker 1: bacon if he gets in a position of of criminal
Speaker 1: legal jeopardy. It's like, this just isn't gonna happen. This
Speaker 1: is some left wing liberal fantasy, and they need to stop.
Speaker 1: But they can't stop because they've dug themselves so deep
Speaker 1: into this hole that to be normal now would just
Speaker 1: blow their minds. Oh, CNN Zone, Jim Acosta, it's Trump.
Speaker 1: Scotis team has looked at Kavanaugh's past comments on indicting
Speaker 1: a sitting president. See that they're spreading this all over
Speaker 1: the place, folks. The Freedom Hunt powered by Liberal Tears, Liberty, Truth,
Speaker 1: and great Hair. The Sexton Show is back. I'm kind
Speaker 1: of pills the Campus Reform say. We're in New York
Speaker 1: City talking to students to about President Trump's Supreme Court pick.
Speaker 1: The only thing is he hasn't made that pick yet. Well,
Speaker 1: people still have opinions on who it was, though, let's
Speaker 1: find out. I think the big thing that's been in
Speaker 1: the news today spring Court Justice Kennedy stepping down. So
Speaker 1: there's a vacancy. All week people were worried about who
Speaker 1: was going to be this week he made his announcement.
Speaker 1: What's your reaction to the justice that he nominated today.
Speaker 1: I'm honestly not surprised by his choice, but that's just
Speaker 1: worse for us. I'm like, I just saw a pick
Speaker 1: and I was like, like, it's almost at a point
Speaker 1: where you kind of expect that's something. It's not going
Speaker 1: to be what you want. He's quite you know, extreme
Speaker 1: in his views. Yeah, I don't know who. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it would make the spring Court very even
Speaker 1: see it all over the news that like he's He's
Speaker 1: like this newcom is very very away, something something very negative,
Speaker 1: and I'm really scared about what happened in the future
Speaker 1: and what choices he will make. So what reaction have
Speaker 1: you seen on social media today after the news? Outrage
Speaker 1: as it should be if this is a surree current thing.
Speaker 1: He keeps doing this with different positions and just doing
Speaker 1: whatever he wants of using his power. Do you feel
Speaker 1: like his pick is an abusive power? Basically, his entire
Speaker 1: cabinet and everyone he's chosen has been the white supremacist
Speaker 1: legion the doune, and it's dangerous to everyone who looks
Speaker 1: like me. Do you feel like the spring Court nominee
Speaker 1: today kind of falls in that same line. They should
Speaker 1: all wear white hoods and burn acrosses at the Capitol
Speaker 1: because that's exactly that's exactly the move, that's what they're
Speaker 1: going for. Yeah, that's right. They think the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: pick that hasn't happened yet is a terrible pick. They
Speaker 1: think it's it's the worst pick of all picks, even
Speaker 1: though there is no pick. That was an n y U.
Speaker 1: By the way, that was an n y U. And uh,
Speaker 1: sure enough, um, sure enough. We have all these college
Speaker 1: kids who are paying I think n YU costs sixty
Speaker 1: thousands a year now, and they don't spend a lot
Speaker 1: of time actually reading the newspaper there, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: You get all these colleges like it's just the worst.
Speaker 1: He's just like the worst pick I've ever all the
Speaker 1: picks out there, this is the worst one. Well, it
Speaker 1: hasn't happened yet, folks. I know they're only college kids,
Speaker 1: But isn't it fascinating that this is really a view
Speaker 1: into how effective the propaganda is because they're saying exactly
Speaker 1: what they are supposed to say, and in fact, in
Speaker 1: a matter of hours or depending when you listen to this,
Speaker 1: it will have just occurred. Everything that they've said will
Speaker 1: be considered correct by their peers. But this is a
Speaker 1: window into how the propaganda works because they know what
Speaker 1: they are supposed to say, regardless of who the pick
Speaker 1: actually is. Now, I know it's unlikely that all of
Speaker 1: a sudden Trump will be like, you know, and here
Speaker 1: he is Merrick Garland, right, I mean that would that
Speaker 1: would be crazy but it's theoretically possible, but you would
Speaker 1: think that they should at least hold off. Is anyone
Speaker 1: that Trump is, anyone on Trump's list inherently a racist?
Speaker 1: Is anyone that Trump is going to pick inherently a
Speaker 1: man splain? Or even if it's a woman, what if
Speaker 1: it's Barrett, Well, she's just like man splaining because like
Speaker 1: she's taking like the man's splainer view on things, and
Speaker 1: like she's part of the patriarchy, even though she's a woman,
Speaker 1: because like the patriarchy has women who fell out. Uh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter that it hasn't happened. They already know
Speaker 1: what they're going to say about it. They already know
Speaker 1: what they're supposed to think about it, because they are automatons.
Speaker 1: They've been programmed. And that's why, as much as part
Speaker 1: of it is just it's fun to hear people describe
Speaker 1: an event that hasn't happened as though they know about
Speaker 1: the event it is. It isn't entertaining. And look, they
Speaker 1: do this on some of the late night comedy shows too,
Speaker 1: write but in this case, you're on a college campus.
Speaker 1: The political tensions around this issue could not be any higher.
Speaker 1: I am certain that every single key there has been told,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, the country's at stake, you know. There
Speaker 1: if they are taking a class that is not a
Speaker 1: pure math or pure science class and an undergraduate campus
Speaker 1: right now, they have probably uh, they have probably been
Speaker 1: in a situation where, uh, they've probably been a situation
Speaker 1: where they've been told that they need to be deathly
Speaker 1: opposed to what's going on right now. Right Everything that's
Speaker 1: happening right now is terrible. Everything that's happening right now
Speaker 1: is the worst thing that's ever going to happen to
Speaker 1: them with the Supreme Court right, Oh my gosh, it's terrible.
Speaker 1: So I don't really blame these kids. They are reflecting
Speaker 1: back to us what is being put out there, but
Speaker 1: it is. It is pretty amusing. Are we got lines late?
Speaker 1: Let's get to some of that. Lonnie in West Virginia? Hey, Lonnie,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, how you doing, Budy, I'm good, my friend.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your call. Hey, So imagine this and
Speaker 1: know you already have because I told your strainer you're
Speaker 1: a genius. Um. Trump's gonna wear him out and the
Speaker 1: old lady, so he's gonna get to pick again, and
Speaker 1: it could be what do you think about that. I
Speaker 1: think it's possible. I mean, RBG probably there was some
Speaker 1: I don't know how this happened, but some news reporter
Speaker 1: did rbgs apparent workout today and he's like, I'm exhausted. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I'm like, you're exhausted by the seven year old
Speaker 1: woman's workout. But anyway, Uh, you know Ruth Bader Ginsberg,
Speaker 1: you know, she's she's they're they're trying to tell her
Speaker 1: to hold that Trump's gonna be president for six more years. Folks.
Speaker 1: So your question, Lonnie is a very astute one. I
Speaker 1: think it's very possible that you have a another Supreme
Speaker 1: Court pick after this for Trump and then of another
Speaker 1: conservative constitutions, which remember, it's not gonna be radical change
Speaker 1: across America. It's going to stop more radical change across
Speaker 1: America via the Supreme Court. That's the big difference here. Okay, yeah, right, yeah, yep,
Speaker 1: that's right lyon in West Virginia. You sound like a
Speaker 1: great American surch Shieldside, and thank you for calling in.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Wade in Mississippi, Brandon, to be specific,
Speaker 1: good to have you, Wade Shields Hi brother, shield Side brother,
Speaker 1: what's up? Man? I just I've been investigating the pics
Speaker 1: here for a few days, and Uh, Kavanaugh is the
Speaker 1: only one that scares me. Everybody else is good. Um
Speaker 1: He's a He's a bush, Kavanaughs a bush. Uh New
Speaker 1: World Order guys, He's just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Speaker 1: The rest of them, I'm good on UM. I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you about Manafort and this twenty his twenty
Speaker 1: three hour uh solitary confinement and Harvey Weinstein getting to
Speaker 1: walk around and go home. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: I think, I think what's happening with I think what's
Speaker 1: happening with Manaford is it is an utter and complete disgrace.
Speaker 1: I think that. I'm I'm note there's a difference between
Speaker 1: ad SAG or administrative segregation and solitary. Anybody who's working
Speaker 1: law enforcement knows, for example, that in many facilities, when
Speaker 1: cops go in, if a copy you don't want to
Speaker 1: put a cop in general population, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the cop is held in solitary. So you know what, Wade,
Speaker 1: it's a very excellent question. I want to come back
Speaker 1: on the other side of this break and address it. Okay,
Speaker 1: So thank you for the call. Think it's it's very important.
Speaker 1: I want to lay into this little more because there's
Speaker 1: a few other things that have gone on to shield
Speaker 1: high Wade. When we come back, why is Manafort sitting
Speaker 1: in solitary and what is this telling us about the
Speaker 1: Justice Department and what's really going on right now? The
Speaker 1: d o J, all of that is coming up. The
Speaker 1: reality is that there are biases that have to be
Speaker 1: explored surrounding Molark. How how you could end up hiring
Speaker 1: a group of people that are as prejudiced and biased
Speaker 1: as this group in the record at least is extraordinary.
Speaker 1: And then how you can expect us to just walk
Speaker 1: up our client is like a lamb going to the squatter.
Speaker 1: What is it going to take after a year and
Speaker 1: a half for the special prosecutor for for Bob Mueller
Speaker 1: to prove that there was a crime uh directly related
Speaker 1: to or by the President. He hasn't. He hasn't come
Speaker 1: close to it. Remember that there is a really high
Speaker 1: chance that Peter and his cohorts, again and again and
Speaker 1: again we see they're creating the appearance of wrongdoing in
Speaker 1: order to to do this spying and in order to
Speaker 1: do this investigation. This is just a continuation of it
Speaker 1: unless Mueller comes up with some actual fact, and he
Speaker 1: hasn't been able to do it. He you know, he's
Speaker 1: been indicting people for things fifteen years old, rather than
Speaker 1: finding any crime that occurred during the the election other
Speaker 1: than Hillary Clinton's people clearly uh distorting the facts, with
Speaker 1: people like Peter Struck being enablers. I'm really starting to
Speaker 1: worry about the long term perception the American people have
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Justice Department. I'm starting to
Speaker 1: worry that we we will never really be able to
Speaker 1: recover from what we are seeing happening here. And I
Speaker 1: mean that I'm I'm not trying to be provocative. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to just you know, get everyone all, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, inflamed over this issue. I really say that
Speaker 1: at this point, it seems like the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: is almost a government unto itself on political issues, on
Speaker 1: politically sensitive stuff. I'm not talking about you to forget
Speaker 1: about the run of the milk crime stuff. By the way,
Speaker 1: the federal government involves itself in a lot of criminal
Speaker 1: activity that state officials and state law law enforce and
Speaker 1: could deal with it, but doesn't deal with right, So
Speaker 1: there's that a lot and this is a diversion, but
Speaker 1: a digression, just so you know, a lot of federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor's time is taken up on gun charges. Not something
Speaker 1: that gets talked about all that much, but depending on
Speaker 1: what part of the country ran a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: felon in possession of a firearm, somebody with drugs and
Speaker 1: also a firearm, a lot of you know, domestic abuser
Speaker 1: in possession of a firearm, things that local law enforcement
Speaker 1: really could handle, but the federal government likes. And there's
Speaker 1: a a t F and there's you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of federal stuff going on anyway, But we're seeing this
Speaker 1: police state activity that's been going on here trying to
Speaker 1: stop Trump from being president. Obvious at this point that
Speaker 1: there was collusion between the Hillary campaign and law enforcement
Speaker 1: and the media to try and stop Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just what we see. This is just the reality.
Speaker 1: Then you add into it this uh Manafort situation. Now,
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort, I I understand he seems like a shady
Speaker 1: guide to a lot of folks. And did he pay
Speaker 1: all of the taxes he was supposed to pay it?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Does he strike me as any more unethical.
Speaker 1: Then a lot of people that are currently operating in
Speaker 1: d C, as you know, lobbyists registered and unregistered. Did
Speaker 1: are there a lot of people that should be under
Speaker 1: pharaoh the Foreign Agent Registration Act? Who aren't? I mean,
Speaker 1: you started to look at this and he's a guy
Speaker 1: that I think they're gonna get on tax from. They're
Speaker 1: gonna say, why are fraud and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: But you know he's trying to hide money and not
Speaker 1: pay taxes on it. That's what I think they're gonna
Speaker 1: get him on. The fairer thing. Foreign Agent registration is
Speaker 1: just a joke. I mean, that's the That's the DC
Speaker 1: equivalent of a speeding ticket. No one usually goes to
Speaker 1: prison for that because it's a judgment call. It's not
Speaker 1: mallem in say, meaning something that's obviously bad. It's mallem prohibitum,
Speaker 1: meaning something that the government says is bad. But you're like,
Speaker 1: is it really bad? I mean, I guess so because
Speaker 1: the government says so. But Manaford is currently in solitary confinement. Folks, Okay,
Speaker 1: paum and a fort is sitting in solitary confinement for
Speaker 1: twenty three hours a day. He's being held at a
Speaker 1: facility two hours away from his legal team, and the
Speaker 1: only people that really get to see him are his
Speaker 1: legal team, and they're saying that he's being held there
Speaker 1: for his own safety. Now, a few things on this one.
Speaker 1: I know he's been denied bail because he they say
Speaker 1: he engaged in witness tampering. All right, fine, you can't
Speaker 1: do that. You can't violate the cognicitions of your bail.
Speaker 1: So I understand that he's being held, but twenty three
Speaker 1: hours a day in solitary. Some of you listening maybe
Speaker 1: have more experience. Some of you listening may in fact
Speaker 1: be uh people who work for Bureau of Prisons, or
Speaker 1: you may know more of the specifics of this than
Speaker 1: I do. But I do know that from the law
Speaker 1: enforcement side, you will be kept in administrative segregation, which
Speaker 1: is different. You have different privileges and different access, and
Speaker 1: you're treated differently than if you are in solitary for
Speaker 1: bad behavior. I I can't seem to see how Manifold
Speaker 1: is not being held in solitary in the most punitive fashion,
Speaker 1: as though mana for it is some kind of you know,
Speaker 1: mass murderer. And I can't help but think that DJ
Speaker 1: is trying to make an example of this guy. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people, a lot of careers, are
Speaker 1: riding on complete destruction of Paul Manafort. Get him on
Speaker 1: this the count of countless counts, you know, get him
Speaker 1: on as many different charges as possible, because you know
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen. The imbeciles over at the CNN news
Speaker 1: desk and the the anchors over there, look at me.
Speaker 1: I'm an honest news anchor. They're gonna say thirty criminal charges.
Speaker 1: Play pleaded guilty to thirty criminal charges. Yeah, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be you know, tax fraud, wall on tax fraud, to
Speaker 1: lying on a form, lying on a form, wire fraud,
Speaker 1: you know, and eventually he's gonna have to plead to
Speaker 1: this stuff. I think maybe they won't even let him though,
Speaker 1: they may say a please off the table, just so
Speaker 1: they can get him on as many things as possible.
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm looking at this maniform situation and
Speaker 1: I can't help but feel like, here's a guy who
Speaker 1: they are throwing the book at. They're nailing on everything
Speaker 1: they can because he's tied to Trump, and it just
Speaker 1: reminds me of the Scooter Libby thing. It really does.
Speaker 1: Now I don't think Libby did anything wrong, but Libby
Speaker 1: became the scapegoat for all of the anti Bush you know,
Speaker 1: Iraq war, rage of the left, and I Maniforts a
Speaker 1: shady guy, but he's becoming the scapegoat for the anti
Speaker 1: Trump insanity and hatred and rage of the left. Your
Speaker 1: children are not going to sleep more soundly at night.
Speaker 1: You are not safer in your home because Paul Manaford
Speaker 1: is sitting in a cell for twenty three hours a day, folks,
Speaker 1: solitary confinement. This guy is charged with like not paying
Speaker 1: enough taxes. Basically, that's it. Nothing else, No collusion, no spying,
Speaker 1: no espionage, nothing taxes. You want to talk about a
Speaker 1: crime where it's difficult to prove damages, let me tell
Speaker 1: you something here. You know people always said with Hillary Clinton, oh,
Speaker 1: the classified information thing, it didn't really matter. Uh, national
Speaker 1: security being national security secrets being exposed in that way
Speaker 1: is a way bigger deal to you and me than
Speaker 1: whether somebody doesn't pay enough other taxes. And keep in mind, okay,
Speaker 1: you didn't pay his taxes in a lot of countries,
Speaker 1: civilized places, I would note, first world countries. Do you
Speaker 1: know what happens when you don't pay enough of your taxes.
Speaker 1: They come after you and they say, excuse me, sir,
Speaker 1: you are tax money and you're paying penalties. And maybe
Speaker 1: they'll like garnish your wages, maybe they'll seize your house
Speaker 1: if they're gonna get really aggressive. They don't lock you
Speaker 1: up in a hole somewhere, which is what they are
Speaker 1: doing to Paul Manafort. I'm sorry, but this is not justice.
Speaker 1: And I'm not some metaphord fan. I know he's shady.
Speaker 1: I'm sure he's broken laws, and I'm sure he's done
Speaker 1: sketchy stuff, but come on, we've seen so much of this.
Speaker 1: Look at the evidence. They they he was complying or
Speaker 1: his legal team was complying with the request from the
Speaker 1: Muller team, and they did a no knock right on
Speaker 1: his house at like four o'clock in the morning, you know,
Speaker 1: basically kicking in the doors, guns drawn because of Manafort.
Speaker 1: What they think he was gonna do, like throw his
Speaker 1: Gucci slipper at them or something. This is preposterous. This
Speaker 1: is an embarrassment. And they'll tell you that this is
Speaker 1: a real window into the mindset of the left, and
Speaker 1: it it's chilling for you and for me. Because I
Speaker 1: am seeing people cheer the annihilation of this guy Manafort,
Speaker 1: just because he's tied to Trump and just because they
Speaker 1: want someone to suffer for trumps sins. If they can't
Speaker 1: get Trump, they'll get someone else. Folks that the parallels
Speaker 1: to the Scooter Libby situation with Bush are so clear,
Speaker 1: you know, and Libby didn't do anything wrong. I mean Libby,
Speaker 1: they just fabricated nonsense to get him with. With Maniford,
Speaker 1: you know, they're taking some things and they're just you know,
Speaker 1: they're taking a guy who's done the equivalent of, you know,
Speaker 1: a speeding ticket, and they're making it sound like he
Speaker 1: was trying to you know, more people down or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is just nuts what's going on to them.
Speaker 1: And we need to pay close attention to this because
Speaker 1: the deep state really is the upper echelon of the
Speaker 1: federal judiciary and law enforcement bureaucracy that has been weaponized
Speaker 1: only against one side and has been weaponized against conservatives.
Speaker 1: In the age of the Internet. You need to make
Speaker 1: sure that you have the best information possible at your hands,
Speaker 1: because you know, the guy at the other side of
Speaker 1: the negotiating table, the person who's on the other side
Speaker 1: of that lease, of that property, of whatever it is
Speaker 1: that you need to do for your business. They're leveraging
Speaker 1: all the information then they can. That's why you need
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network on your side. They are the only
Speaker 1: dual certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company and
Speaker 1: they take each case in a very individual, very tailored basis.
Speaker 1: You check them out for yourself and see they work
Speaker 1: with startups all the way up to Fortune one companies.
Speaker 1: Unlike a lot of the other guys, they don't offshore
Speaker 1: your data. They don't send your client stuff to someone
Speaker 1: else and pretend they did it themselves. You call Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network, you're speaking to a g v N employee,
Speaker 1: and you know who's working on your case. Go to
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com. That's my GVN dot com or
Speaker 1: call eight seven seven, six nine, five eleven seventy nine
Speaker 1: for all your background investigation and vetting company needs Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Buck Sexton Mission decoding the news and disseminating information.
Speaker 1: Who is actionable intelligence? Make no mistakes, American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts, No,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the buck Sexton Show. Oh my We've
Speaker 1: got things to discuss this now. I know. I know that.
Speaker 1: You know I'm trying not to play the like, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm I'm hearing I'm hearing things. I'm hearing
Speaker 1: things about the Supreme Court nominee. But this is pretty legit.
Speaker 1: It's from Wall Street Journal reporter. Word is this makes
Speaker 1: me sad. No tears producer Mike no tears. Amy Coney
Speaker 1: Barrett is out corners Wall Street Journal reporter. Which makes
Speaker 1: me super super sad. What are you are you in?
Speaker 1: What's going on? You're not in favor of this? You
Speaker 1: know she was the best, she was gonna be great.
Speaker 1: You know who would be an amazing pick for the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, just to really just to really own the libs,
Speaker 1: Hope Hicks, bring her out of retirement. Just make a
Speaker 1: Hope Hicks as Scotus. It would be amazing. Dude. Think
Speaker 1: about it for a second. Think about how fashionable the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would be with Justice Hicks. I think it
Speaker 1: could be. I think I could be onto something here.
Speaker 1: She'd be very fair, she'd be very fair minded in
Speaker 1: the law. She's got a lot of clerks and stuff.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it, Okay, crazy idea, yes, but a
Speaker 1: fun idea for sure. So Comey Cony Barrett is out
Speaker 1: um according to Senator or in Hatch. But the upside
Speaker 1: we're being told here again this from Walshing turn report
Speaker 1: could be totally wrong. I'm still holding out hope that
Speaker 1: it's gonna be buried. Upside is that she may be
Speaker 1: the justice picked the next time because Trump's gonna get
Speaker 1: three ladies and gentlemen. Boo. Yeah, that's what I think
Speaker 1: is gonna happen. That's what I believe will happen. So
Speaker 1: it might not be here this time. They give her
Speaker 1: a little more time on the six or seventh circuit.
Speaker 1: I forget what circuit she's on. She's uh gosh, I
Speaker 1: think it's the seventh circuit. Thank you, thank you, Proucer,
Speaker 1: John um So, I think it's seventh circuit. Anyway, that's
Speaker 1: where that is, Folks. If I get any well, I know,
Speaker 1: I don't get to make another another conservative puned it
Speaker 1: with very good hair and overall and overall sartorial style.
Speaker 1: He'll be the one making the where the announcement is
Speaker 1: made tonight, I don't get to make the announcement. It
Speaker 1: makes me sad. But at least it's going to a
Speaker 1: conservative who loves a mirror gun has a pretty good
Speaker 1: swoop of his own. He'll be making right. Isn't Tucker
Speaker 1: making the announcement of his show? Am I crazy? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I thought it was being announced on
Speaker 1: Tucker Show. Is it being Oh it's being Ance at nine. No,
Speaker 1: that's not Tucker Show. All right, forget that, folks. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm getting I'm getting off the rails. I'm forgetting what's
Speaker 1: going on here? So important stuff happened over the weekend. Civility,
Speaker 1: in civility, all things that we discussed here going on.
Speaker 1: You know, you would think that the left would have
Speaker 1: figured out at this point, don't mess with with Mitch.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, aren't are no? Is not order dractly imposing
Speaker 1: figure himself? I don't know. You look at him, you
Speaker 1: think maybe he'd beat you in a staring contest, but
Speaker 1: not not a whole lot of other things. But Elaine shout,
Speaker 1: she was she wants a piece. You don't mess with Elane.
Speaker 1: You don't get up in Mitch's grill because the lane
Speaker 1: will come at you. As you know, we saw that
Speaker 1: video last week. But in Louisville, which is one of
Speaker 1: those places that I know people make a lot of
Speaker 1: determinations about you based on how you say it. I know,
Speaker 1: as long as I don't say Louisville, I'm told I'm okay.
Speaker 1: You can say Louisville if you're from the East coast Louisville,
Speaker 1: or you can say, uh, Louisville, or if you're really
Speaker 1: from there, I think it's Louisville. It's kind of all
Speaker 1: like goes together. I don't know, I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: just I know there's a lot of different ways to
Speaker 1: say it. But he was there. And my understanding of
Speaker 1: Louisville is that the rest of the state pretty much
Speaker 1: loves America, but in in Louisville, you basically got a
Speaker 1: fair see now, my now, my New Yorkers coming out
Speaker 1: in Louisville, you've got a fair amount of like Antifa,
Speaker 1: left wing crazies. Why do they get to own all
Speaker 1: the city's folks. Can we do some kind of you
Speaker 1: know project here, Yes, there's some great ideas out there.
Speaker 1: How about we take a major federal department and move
Speaker 1: it somewhere out of d C. Right, you get like
Speaker 1: agriculture department, goes to Iowa. Uh, you know, education apart
Speaker 1: meant Antarctica. I mean, you know, like we moved departments,
Speaker 1: as in it doesn't exist anymore, but we moved departments
Speaker 1: to the other parts of the country. I think that's
Speaker 1: a good idea. Uh. I had another one that I
Speaker 1: was gonna say in just a moment, and I just
Speaker 1: completely what was I talking about? I just lost Antifa.
Speaker 1: That's right at Louisville. Thank you. Um so I got
Speaker 1: all these different ideas there, but you know, Louisville, oh
Speaker 1: oh hey, thank you, thank you Antifa. That just jogged
Speaker 1: my memory. Can we conservative? Can we just take over
Speaker 1: one city, folks? Can we just have one city where,
Speaker 1: you know, we we don't have to like feel under
Speaker 1: siege as conservatives, you know, Can we just have one place?
Speaker 1: Run down a list of the of the fifty largest
Speaker 1: cities in the country, and I'll be like, liberal liberal, liberal, liberal, crazy, crazy,
Speaker 1: commy commy liberal, liberal, all of it. You know, they
Speaker 1: might as well have Antifa as the main political party.
Speaker 1: That might as well have an Antifa guy as the
Speaker 1: mayor some of them basically do. And Louisville another one.
Speaker 1: I'm like, come on, we can't even have a conservative
Speaker 1: city in Kentucky, in Kentucky, but no, sure enough, we don't.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell's walking around there and and he's I forgetting
Speaker 1: what he was doing there. And he got he got
Speaker 1: threatened and followed. This is more of the politically motivated
Speaker 1: stalking that I've been talking about, right, he got threatened,
Speaker 1: he got followed around the place, you know, and it's
Speaker 1: just like, when does this stuff stop. We've got some
Speaker 1: audio of it. Play the clip. Please sell you out,
Speaker 1: the baby you out. Yeah, we know where you live.
Speaker 1: You know where you live. Yeah, we know where you live.
Speaker 1: With no comfort for fascists, no comfort, no just no peek,
Speaker 1: no just no peace, no comfort for fascists. Now there
Speaker 1: are things you could say about Mitch McConnell. The guy
Speaker 1: is not a fascist, you know, Like this is just
Speaker 1: at some point, it's like people yelling at me saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, Buck is a professional bullfighter, Like it's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: That's not a true thing. So why are you saying it.
Speaker 1: Calling Mitch McConnell a fascist isn't even a good insult.
Speaker 1: It's really an i Q test, and it's one that
Speaker 1: the person yelling is failing. They're failing this, I Q
Speaker 1: test he is not a fascist. A very stupid thing
Speaker 1: to say. But I would note that they took it
Speaker 1: even further here. They took it even further when they said,
Speaker 1: does anyone really care about the difference in further and
Speaker 1: further anymore further relates to distance right far? I forget
Speaker 1: what it is. It's in that movie with Sean Connery
Speaker 1: and uh Rob Brown. By the way, Rob Brown went
Speaker 1: to my college. We actually were pretty friendly. Uh he
Speaker 1: he lived on my girlfriend's floor, so you know, I
Speaker 1: knew some celebrities. No, no big, no big thing. And
Speaker 1: his that movie Finding Forrester was filmed in part in
Speaker 1: my high school. Fun side note for all of you
Speaker 1: that you don't care about. All right, let's get back
Speaker 1: to this. Uh, they're yelling, we know where you live. Now,
Speaker 1: I will just tell you if a couple of guys
Speaker 1: just just just so why I can give you how
Speaker 1: I'm approaching this the context that I see for this.
Speaker 1: A couple of guys walked up to your your business.
Speaker 1: Then they said, uh, I see you haven't been up
Speaker 1: to date on your payments for the you know, local
Speaker 1: security organization here. You know you're a little behind on
Speaker 1: your payments. You gotta tell you, you you know, we know
Speaker 1: where you live. You wouldn't feel good about that, right
Speaker 1: if some guy named Tony and some guy named Rocco
Speaker 1: showed up at your place of business and one had
Speaker 1: a bat and the other had brass knuckles. Something particularly
Speaker 1: intimidating about brass knuckles. You know, it's like, really you're
Speaker 1: gonna use those? I don't know, it's just scares me,
Speaker 1: like a guy walking around who's like carrying a headsman's
Speaker 1: axe or something like whoa. I mean, a gun is
Speaker 1: one thing, but like, we don't need to, you know,
Speaker 1: we need to get crazy. Heren't get medieval on each other.
Speaker 1: Rass knuckles. It looks like it would hurt. Uh. But
Speaker 1: if a guy was doing that and he said, you
Speaker 1: know what, you don know where you live, you would
Speaker 1: understand that as an implied threat, right. I think that
Speaker 1: is quite clear. It is an implied threat to be like,
Speaker 1: we know where you live, to a public figure and
Speaker 1: that this is now where we are. That people who
Speaker 1: are I'm sure all those people that are running saying
Speaker 1: you know, no, no, Josh, that's for fascist abolished ice
Speaker 1: abolished by the way I want them. I want to
Speaker 1: abolish ice rallies all across the country because these idiots
Speaker 1: are a reminder, folks, we cannot the other side is
Speaker 1: un serious. We cannot allow them to be in power.
Speaker 1: They are they are foolish, they are children. In fact,
Speaker 1: they want children to be in power. Literally, they think
Speaker 1: that we should be listening to children about national level policy.
Speaker 1: I was a very precocious twelve year old. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you did not want me determining what was i'd
Speaker 1: be like. This country shall be renamed buck Topia, and
Speaker 1: all of my subjects shall bring me ample amounts of
Speaker 1: chocolate and French fries. Herewith it shall be written and done.
Speaker 1: You would not want twelve year old Buck running the country,
Speaker 1: just as I do not want any other kids to
Speaker 1: be in charge of running the country. But the the
Speaker 1: childish mentality is very widespread among progressives, this notion that
Speaker 1: if they're angry enough about something, if they wind enough
Speaker 1: that they yell enough, they should get their way. And
Speaker 1: when you have this, I mean, this is the folkes,
Speaker 1: this is the majority leader in the United States Senate
Speaker 1: can't go out in public now without a bunch of
Speaker 1: idiots basically threatening him and calling him a fascist based
Speaker 1: on what Mitch McConnell does not determined border policy. Mitch
Speaker 1: mcca donald is not the guy behind you know what.
Speaker 1: You know what another name for zero tolerances at the
Speaker 1: border and forcing the law. All zero tolerance just means
Speaker 1: is we're not gonna stop enforcing. This is again the
Speaker 1: left one, this verbal fight being the fight over words.
Speaker 1: They won the fight over verbiage, and we let them
Speaker 1: get away with this time and timing. That's why I
Speaker 1: will not let them get away of this undocumented immigrant crap.
Speaker 1: It is crap, but we let You'll notice that when
Speaker 1: the fact they're calling it, I mean, it was a
Speaker 1: mistake even for um, who's my favorite guy again Jeff said,
Speaker 1: just because he calls and he's my buddy, Jeff Sessions.
Speaker 1: But lel enfolded the boat. You know now he he
Speaker 1: called a zero tolerance and I'm like, Jeff, buddy, Uh,
Speaker 1: you guys shouldn't be calling it zero tang You should
Speaker 1: just be like, we enforced the law. We have this
Speaker 1: radical idea and the Trump administration of the law should
Speaker 1: be enforced. You guys, the Democrats can be the law
Speaker 1: doesn't count people, but we're gonna be the law should
Speaker 1: be enforced people, how about that? And you know that's why.
Speaker 1: But the moment you call it zero tolerance, it sounds oh, no,
Speaker 1: no tolerance. Who notice who wants to be for zero tolerance?
Speaker 1: Oh that sounds bad. But Mitch McConnell is not responsible
Speaker 1: for it. So they're saying, where are the babies, Mitch,
Speaker 1: where are the babies? It's not Mitch's problem, it's not
Speaker 1: Mitch's fault, but they don't care. It's all about just
Speaker 1: anybody who's a Republican right now becomes a figure of raye.
Speaker 1: You know, a person on whom rage can be taken
Speaker 1: out right becomes a pinata for anti Trump hatred. And
Speaker 1: I guess saying piniata is some kind of cultural appropriation
Speaker 1: by me, but you know, it's the best thing I
Speaker 1: could think of on the spot. That's what's happening. And
Speaker 1: and I find it really worrisome, you know, and none
Speaker 1: they're starting to write articles now about how Steve, uh,
Speaker 1: Steve miller Um and and that's the guy's name, right,
Speaker 1: I forget that, the the guy with the with the stair, Yeah, yes,
Speaker 1: Steve miller Um. You know that they can't walk around
Speaker 1: d C without being harassed. I'm like, what is this.
Speaker 1: You can't be a senior administration figure in the unit
Speaker 1: figure in the United States government and walk around our
Speaker 1: nation's capital without people harassing you. This isn't folks, this
Speaker 1: is new. This is a now thing. This was not
Speaker 1: the case before, and we should make Democrats own it
Speaker 1: because what they've done is terrible, and what the media
Speaker 1: has done is terrible, and CNN is a disgrace, an
Speaker 1: out and out disgrace. They have fanned the flames of
Speaker 1: this animosity that hatred the goal we're just fact checking Trump.
Speaker 1: There are a bunch of clowns and liars. It's completely unacceptable.
Speaker 1: I actually hope, I hope for a better CNN in
Speaker 1: the future. I hope the CNN will return to just
Speaker 1: trying to present as neutral and factual a storyline as
Speaker 1: it can about what's happening day to day. I think
Speaker 1: it can happen. I think it might happen. I don't
Speaker 1: think it'll ever be impartial, but I think at least
Speaker 1: it can be not hashtag resistance central. But they have
Speaker 1: had a hand in this and and going after Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell and all the stuff that's been going on here.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this right now, and you know we
Speaker 1: should mark this down. This politically motivated stalking that the
Speaker 1: media has basically encouraged and that they now cover for,
Speaker 1: meaning make it seem like it's not that bad. This
Speaker 1: politically motivated stalking is going to lead to tragedy, and
Speaker 1: then the left and CNN and all the others will
Speaker 1: just be they will be gas sliding the crap out
Speaker 1: of the rest of us, being like, we didn't you know,
Speaker 1: this wasn't we never saw this coming. We have no
Speaker 1: idea this whatever happened, I'm telling you, that's what we're
Speaker 1: heading for. Unless there is real social, societal, and uniform
Speaker 1: pressure against this kind of idiocy, we actually have a
Speaker 1: happier ending one coming up here in a second, then,
Speaker 1: of all of Steve Bannon, Well, I gotta go, I
Speaker 1: gotta go chat. You know, I've I've actually never met Bannon.
Speaker 1: I think I just need to. I need to put
Speaker 1: out the buck signal here. I'd be like, Bannon, we
Speaker 1: gotta talk. I gotta see what that guy's got planned.
Speaker 1: We never crossed, you know, because when I was at
Speaker 1: the Blaze, the Brighte Bar Blaze, relationship was not amazing,
Speaker 1: so I never I never got to meet bandits maybe
Speaker 1: one point. But we got a Bannon story coming up,
Speaker 1: and then I've got a North Korea update for you,
Speaker 1: and then I've got the battle over breast milk. It
Speaker 1: was intense. It was It involved boobs in public and
Speaker 1: policy at the national international level. The bo the breast
Speaker 1: milk battle, I don't know, I gotta think of another
Speaker 1: name for it. We got that and more. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Strike Force Energy veteran owned, American made, and one of
Speaker 1: the hottest new energy products on the market. Strike Force
Speaker 1: was developed by veterans for one simple reason. Fight will
Speaker 1: always follow you, and it waits for no one. This
Speaker 1: is buck sex in here and I love strike Force.
Speaker 1: I use it to fuel my day and get me
Speaker 1: through the fight. And over the last three years, by
Speaker 1: the way, Strikeforce has been giving back to America's troops
Speaker 1: as well. Strike Force Energy has shipped millions of packets
Speaker 1: to our troops both at home and abroad. And now
Speaker 1: we're bringing this battlefield proven liquid directly to your door.
Speaker 1: Strike Force Energy is available in four flavors, zero sugar,
Speaker 1: zero calories, made with only the finest ingredients, all you
Speaker 1: have to do is add strike Force to sixteen to
Speaker 1: twenty ounces of water, tea, lemonade, yogurt, even an ice
Speaker 1: cold beer. Go to strike Force Energy dot com and
Speaker 1: our discount code buck at checkout, and for every packet
Speaker 1: you buy, we will donate a packet to military members
Speaker 1: around the globe. Again, strike Force Energy dot com discount
Speaker 1: code buck fuel for the fight strike Force m So
Speaker 1: it's not just active members of the Trump administration who
Speaker 1: get heckled. It's a former one sto apparently, so Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon dressed in his uh classic hobo chic attire. I'm
Speaker 1: sure five or six shirts piled on top of each other,
Speaker 1: hair pulled back and and askew and ruffled all at
Speaker 1: the same time. But he's got a silvermin you know,
Speaker 1: he's got his own swoop. I gotta give him credit.
Speaker 1: He is. He was at a at a bookstore, Black
Speaker 1: Swan Books, over the weekend and a woman began verbally
Speaker 1: accosting him and called him a quote piece of trash.
Speaker 1: Now you might say, oh, Bannon had stumbled into a
Speaker 1: den of the hasht resistance. Ah, But oh, contrail monsieur,
Speaker 1: that is not what happened. It turns out that Nick Cook,
Speaker 1: the owner of Black Swan Books, feels that a bookstore
Speaker 1: should be quote all about ideas on tolerating different opinions,
Speaker 1: and not about verbally assaulting somebody, which is what was happening.
Speaker 1: So Mr Cook asked crazy lady who was assaulting Bannon
Speaker 1: verbally a costing Bannon, not assaulting, but verbally accosting Bannon,
Speaker 1: be rating Bannon. Mr Cook said, hey, crazy lady, I
Speaker 1: would like you to leave my establishment because this is
Speaker 1: a private establishment, is private property, and I do not
Speaker 1: want you here anymore. And she refused, at which point
Speaker 1: he said, all right, well then I will call the
Speaker 1: police because this is private property, it is my establishment,
Speaker 1: and you were no longer welcome here. And it was
Speaker 1: amazing to see all the libs over the weekend. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, you're such an overreaction calling the proof. You'll notice,
Speaker 1: I want to concern over it. It It is asked to
Speaker 1: leave an establishment, they do so they can be unhappy
Speaker 1: about it. They can exchange words in the way out,
Speaker 1: but they don't stand in pout. But the liberal here,
Speaker 1: no surprise, decided that she was going to make a
Speaker 1: left wing stand after being just so rude, I mean,
Speaker 1: what what person is rude to a complete stranger that
Speaker 1: she knows nothing about? Really and does she really? What
Speaker 1: is this supposed to accomplish? What does this idiocy do
Speaker 1: for these people? But I'm just telling you it is.
Speaker 1: This is a mass hysteria. This is a widespread psychological
Speaker 1: issue that the Democrat Party has now and the media
Speaker 1: has created. They have created a hysteria. You know this,
Speaker 1: you know in in in you know the medieval times,
Speaker 1: they started burning witches, right and this actually happened very
Speaker 1: large numbers in some parts of Europe. You know, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: black magic burning witches. They have created an antique Trump hysteria.
Speaker 1: And that's why you get people that are maybe otherwise
Speaker 1: normal going up to bannon enacting like total idiots. Recently,
Speaker 1: I've been receiving all my style tips from the clothing
Speaker 1: experts at Peter Millar. Look, if you're a golfer like me,
Speaker 1: you know the name. If you don't, you should, because
Speaker 1: Peter Millar is all about quality, value and style. It's
Speaker 1: the most comfortable clothing I've ever worn. Right now, I'm
Speaker 1: wearing their five pocket pants. I tell you they have
Speaker 1: perfect stretching them. The fit couldn't be any better. They
Speaker 1: look stylish. You can wear them around the office, you
Speaker 1: can wear them out on the town, and the whole
Speaker 1: time you're just like, Wow, you might as well be
Speaker 1: wearing sweatpants in terms of the field, but the look
Speaker 1: is all style. You're gonna love them. Check it out
Speaker 1: for yourself. The five pocket pants I'm wearing are the
Speaker 1: most comfortable pair of pants I've ever worn. And I
Speaker 1: can say that about everything I've got from Peter Millar.
Speaker 1: And right now you can head over Peter Millar dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck, Peter m I L l a r dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Book check out some of my Peter Millar favorites.
Speaker 1: Be sure to use my link and you'll receive some
Speaker 1: complementary shipping and a free hat. That's Peter Millar dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck, Peter Millar dot com, slash Buck, Liberty, Truth
Speaker 1: and great Hair. The Buck Sexton Show is back well.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of what we need to talk
Speaker 1: about is what values are. Immigration system has been legislated
Speaker 1: on the original roots of the U S immigration system.
Speaker 1: The first immigration law is a Chinese Exclusion Act, and
Speaker 1: our immigration system is built on a premise of exclusion.
Speaker 1: It's built on a premise of choosing who we want
Speaker 1: out instead of who we want in. And I think
Speaker 1: that really we need to re examine the values on
Speaker 1: which and values of inclusion and values of what this
Speaker 1: country is about when we talk about immigration pobms. Yeah, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's that's not what we should do. That's ah and
Speaker 1: how Undrakasio Cortes, can we just do we? Can we
Speaker 1: agree that hyphenated names, it's just asking a lot Can
Speaker 1: we just pick a last name, folks, I know something
Speaker 1: like bunk I have a hyphenated name and your name
Speaker 1: isn't even pocket streams. Yeah, fair point, but hyphenated names
Speaker 1: are long. But here she is saying talking about immigration
Speaker 1: and saying that it should be more about inclusion. Which
Speaker 1: is really saying is that immigration policy should be guided
Speaker 1: by the left wing, dictated and very malleable, very you
Speaker 1: know that they change it as they see fit. Conception
Speaker 1: of diversity alright, we forget about the diversity lottery. The diversity,
Speaker 1: if the left has its way, is going to be
Speaker 1: a primary a primary goal of all immigration. And by
Speaker 1: diversity they mean non white. That is what the left
Speaker 1: means by diversity in the context of immigration. They're very
Speaker 1: open about this on MSNBC. They're very open about this
Speaker 1: in many different networks. In fact, you'll notice that whatever
Speaker 1: we talk about English being the primary language of America, though, oh,
Speaker 1: you're just you're just saying that because it's all white people,
Speaker 1: it's no. I think, go to Nigeria, which I think
Speaker 1: is a hundred and eighty million people and the national
Speaker 1: language is English. You know, it's actually not about skin color.
Speaker 1: It's just about trying to have a cohesive culture and
Speaker 1: linguistic foundation for a society. But they they very much
Speaker 1: see this in racial and ethnic The left seasist in
Speaker 1: racial and ethnic terms, and they want to counteract what
Speaker 1: they view as predominantly European immigration for a long time
Speaker 1: in this country, with also the uh importation of enslaved Africans,
Speaker 1: which why African Americans have been a part of you know,
Speaker 1: they've been a part of our history for as long
Speaker 1: as there's been in America. But the on on the
Speaker 1: immigration front, it's been very different in the twentieth century
Speaker 1: than it was in any century, and really the mid
Speaker 1: delay twentieth century it was any time before we've had
Speaker 1: a massive influx of Latin American immigrants in this country
Speaker 1: unlike anything else we've ever seen in our history. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind that we also have contiguous territory with
Speaker 1: the Latin American country, and so that changes things. That's different.
Speaker 1: You know, when somebody is from India, they come to
Speaker 1: America there, you know, they got to embrace what's going
Speaker 1: on here that they can't just you know, take a
Speaker 1: quick drive back to Indian any point time, right, So
Speaker 1: that that matters for the purposes of assimilation, it matters
Speaker 1: for immigration policy discussion. But you know, Occasio Cortez Is
Speaker 1: is a radical who was being embraced by the fashionable
Speaker 1: left right now and certainly by the media. And I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering when we get to revisit. Remember, we used
Speaker 1: to talk about how Obama had socialist tendencies and people
Speaker 1: would people would say that was racist. You're just trying
Speaker 1: to other rise him. You're trying to say he's a socialist.
Speaker 1: Now I'm just saying he's got some socialist tendencies and
Speaker 1: this oh that you can't say that's terrible. Now it's
Speaker 1: just true. And now we're seeing that the mask has
Speaker 1: dropped with Democrats and we're seeing that they are more
Speaker 1: open about socialism the ever before. In fact, professor at
Speaker 1: I Think at Princeton right Cornell West has said this
Speaker 1: about part of the problem is the brother that any
Speaker 1: time there's been attempts of ordinary people to engage in
Speaker 1: self determination, they can get crushed by external nation. Look
Speaker 1: at US policies towards Venezuela has been very very ugly
Speaker 1: Nicaragua in the same way. We saw that in so
Speaker 1: many other instances where countries try to engage in self
Speaker 1: determination and they either get crushed, they either get coerced,
Speaker 1: and they end up oftentimes responding to that kind of
Speaker 1: authoritarian treatment. So we've never had a chance to really
Speaker 1: pull it off. So it's only been a movement so far.
Speaker 1: It's an attempt to resist the greed at the top,
Speaker 1: the racism, the sexism, the homophobia, the various ways in
Speaker 1: which human manity is violated, rather than affirmed. He's oppressor, Harvard.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's hard for so much wrong to
Speaker 1: be in one sound bite. Notice how socialism in the
Speaker 1: context that he uses. Now, socialism is something the left.
Speaker 1: It is a an economic philosophy that the left then
Speaker 1: uses to justify any political goal that it wants intersectionality,
Speaker 1: you know, gender identity, fight, whatever it is. Socialism becomes
Speaker 1: the vessel for all of this. When socialism is really
Speaker 1: about class struggle and economics. Uh, they've they've layered on
Speaker 1: all of this other additional ideology because they're looking just
Speaker 1: for a a counter paradigm to liberal capitalism, which is
Speaker 1: what we have as long as we can keep it,
Speaker 1: if we you know, keep fighting for it. But he
Speaker 1: says all these things about how oh, that's it's just
Speaker 1: a struggle for justice for the oppressed. That's what socialism
Speaker 1: really is. That's not socialism is government control of the
Speaker 1: means of production and the distribution of good sir versist wealth. Right.
Speaker 1: You you can actually look when you look at a
Speaker 1: definition of socialism, it is not what the left refers
Speaker 1: to these days. Here it is here, here's the first thing.
Speaker 1: Comes a political and economic theory of social organization that
Speaker 1: advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should
Speaker 1: be owned or regulated by the community. It's not even
Speaker 1: a great definition of it, but that that's what it is.
Speaker 1: It's about the means of production and the distribution of
Speaker 1: goods and wealth. It is not thirty seven genders on
Speaker 1: your college application. But somehow that gets folded into this right,
Speaker 1: somehow that becomes a part of the discussion. And then
Speaker 1: just to hear he's a Harvard professor, by the way,
Speaker 1: not Princeton. Uh, to hear a person like corner West
Speaker 1: of his stature with his following to say that the
Speaker 1: promise socialisms is that it hasn't been implemented. I don't
Speaker 1: know how to put this. How many societies, how many
Speaker 1: countries have to be destroyed before we all accept the
Speaker 1: problem with socialism is that it ignores and tries to
Speaker 1: override basic truths about humanity and liberty. Socialism is failed,
Speaker 1: not in practice, but from the root to stem. Socialism,
Speaker 1: top to bottom, bottom to top, is wrong. It is bad.
Speaker 1: It is a failed ideology and will always be a
Speaker 1: failed ideology because the failure is in the thoughts itself.
Speaker 1: It's not the implementation of it. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: breast milk war. It's a thing. It's coming up, Team Buck.
Speaker 1: Is there any issue that goes outside the bounds of
Speaker 1: Trump derangement syndrome? You know, Is there's something where I
Speaker 1: can point to the issue and say, you know what,
Speaker 1: at least we can all agree that this is just
Speaker 1: something that isn't being politicized by for or about Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: Isn't it possible? Isn't theoretically possible that there's that area?
Speaker 1: And I was thinking today, I was doing my my
Speaker 1: deep dive last night into, you know, research on what's
Speaker 1: going on in in the world, so I can do a
Speaker 1: good show here on radio and also on my morning
Speaker 1: TV show, Hill dot TV slash Rising BYO. We had
Speaker 1: a fun show today. We had Breet Peyton from The
Speaker 1: Federalist on You guys should really check it out. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you, I'm hoping the team Buck starts being regular
Speaker 1: morning watchers. Don't watch Morning, don't watch that Morning Joe stuff. Alright,
Speaker 1: watch Morning Buck also known as Hill dot TV slash Rising.
Speaker 1: I know there's some progressive stuff on there too, but
Speaker 1: I do a good job of keeping it, keeping it
Speaker 1: real and keeping it light and making sure the conservative
Speaker 1: case is heard, but in a way that you can
Speaker 1: handle in the morning, right, in a way you can
Speaker 1: handle the morning. But but I was doing this research
Speaker 1: and I thought to myself, is this can't be real.
Speaker 1: You know, this is one of these stories where come on, really,
Speaker 1: I started to see the headlines, A started to see
Speaker 1: what people were talking about. And and sure enough, breast
Speaker 1: milk and breastfeeding has become a contentious political issue. Now
Speaker 1: you may think, well, Buck, is this about whether or
Speaker 1: not women should show their boobies in public? And I
Speaker 1: would say no. And in fact, that's an entirely separate
Speaker 1: discussion what I'm happy to engage in another time. Where
Speaker 1: does Buck stand on boobies in public? Well, you'll have
Speaker 1: to wait on that one. But or what's the prop breasts? Sorry,
Speaker 1: you should not call them boobies. This is a we'll
Speaker 1: be there having a serious discussion here. This is we're
Speaker 1: talking about. We're not talking about them in the case
Speaker 1: of a ghoul. Look at the boobs. But like memory
Speaker 1: glands for the raising of children, darn it, or the
Speaker 1: nourishment of children, I guess the memory gland itself can't
Speaker 1: raise the kids. You know what I mean? You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? The World Health Assembly, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: a This is one of these bodies that comes to
Speaker 1: gather and tries to convince people like, hey, you know
Speaker 1: that you know, make sure that you boil water if
Speaker 1: you're in certain areas, and you know, really it does
Speaker 1: important stuff. I tries to pass wisdom around and do
Speaker 1: some health stuff and making the world healthy, which is
Speaker 1: a good thing. But the story, and this is reported
Speaker 1: by the Associated Press and all these other places, was
Speaker 1: that the the World Health Organization was trying to get
Speaker 1: out there a a resolution to encourage um to encourage
Speaker 1: the usage of breast or the the practice of breast
Speaker 1: feeding over formula. Now this gets into by the way,
Speaker 1: I know, with this audience, whatever I get into health.
Speaker 1: And because you guys all do your own research and
Speaker 1: your own thinking on this, as you should. By the way,
Speaker 1: I've learned so much more from learning than I have
Speaker 1: from asking doctor's questions. M d s get picked off
Speaker 1: at me sometimes with my own stuff. I don't go
Speaker 1: on air and try to pretend I'm an m D.
Speaker 1: But I mean when I've asked them questions because I
Speaker 1: do my research and I don't like nonsense questions, I
Speaker 1: can also sit here and tell you, by the way,
Speaker 1: one of the more important things you may even hear
Speaker 1: on tonight's show is that they've done studies that show
Speaker 1: that when you have to go to see a specialist,
Speaker 1: the number of times you will get a different diagnosis
Speaker 1: or a you know, a different recommendation for treatment when
Speaker 1: you see a specialist is very when you see a
Speaker 1: second specialist is very high. So just remember that the
Speaker 1: next time you go to a specialist and you're like,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm gonna go get a second opinion if you're
Speaker 1: not completely satisfied. Always always get a second opinion, and
Speaker 1: don't tell your current doctor. They don't have to know.
Speaker 1: You're allowed to get a second opinion without telling anybody
Speaker 1: about it other than your you know, your HMO or
Speaker 1: you're insurer, right, But you don't have to because because doctors,
Speaker 1: like everybody else. You know, I love, I love my
Speaker 1: m d s out there right, high five all you guys.
Speaker 1: But doctors have egos to They don't like to be
Speaker 1: told that maybe they don't know something, they're wrong anyway.
Speaker 1: You just like to pass along a little bit of
Speaker 1: wisdom that I've that I've learned the hard way. Um.
Speaker 1: I remember being once. I was like, wouldn't wouldn't taking
Speaker 1: antibiotics in this case? Doctor actually make make it worse.
Speaker 1: She's like, I'm sorry, do people tell you how to
Speaker 1: do your job that they know nothing about? Turned out
Speaker 1: a week later I had to call that doctor. But like,
Speaker 1: so I was right, and you were wrong and maybe
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have spoken me that way. Story for another time.
Speaker 1: So where are we? Oh? Yes, uh, the World Health Assembly.
Speaker 1: So they wanted this thing on breastfeeding. And the idea
Speaker 1: here is that breastfeeding is you know, better for the baby,
Speaker 1: more nutritious, and and just the main thing is that
Speaker 1: there's a passage of antibodies in the mother's milk to
Speaker 1: the baby that makes for a better immune system and
Speaker 1: a happier, healthy, healthier baby. Right, And then there's also
Speaker 1: people who just say that even being against the mother's
Speaker 1: breast is you know, is the better and more comfortable.
Speaker 1: I I look, I am I can tell you this.
Speaker 1: You can you can you know you can call me controversial, folks.
Speaker 1: I am not a breastfeeding expert. Okay, I have no
Speaker 1: experience in this realm, don't know anything about this and
Speaker 1: never will. So despite the fact that the left things
Speaker 1: there are thirty seven genders, I'm very confident I will
Speaker 1: never actually personally experience, uh, breastfeeding. And but but it
Speaker 1: is thought, it is believed that breastfeeding is a a
Speaker 1: more healthy approach than two give formula. And so the
Speaker 1: big story that you're like Buck why are we talking
Speaker 1: to The big story is people said that Trump and
Speaker 1: big formula, right, you heard of big Pharma. Big Formula
Speaker 1: was out there Kai bosh ing, you know, slapping down
Speaker 1: this resolution to encourage breastfeeding because of all the money
Speaker 1: that goes into baby food and baby formula. Right, it's
Speaker 1: essentially in the US is a major producer of these things.
Speaker 1: And so the idea here was that, you know, the swamp,
Speaker 1: the tentacles of the SUA extends so far there even
Speaker 1: involves what you're putting in your baby's mouth, right that
Speaker 1: the UH and and the Trump administration is just in
Speaker 1: the pocket of of industry so much that they're willing to,
Speaker 1: you know, stop women from doing what's best for their babies.
Speaker 1: And people really ran with this. I'll tell you on
Speaker 1: I didn't really know much about this story. So this
Speaker 1: morning when when Crystal brought it up on on Hill
Speaker 1: Dot TV, I was like, really, that doesn't seem that
Speaker 1: seems kind of weird. I mean, I read the initial
Speaker 1: news report, but as I said, there's some things folks
Speaker 1: I could just you know, if you want help on
Speaker 1: your trigonometry homework, don't ask me. And if you want
Speaker 1: to know the ins and outs of breastfeeding and how
Speaker 1: to raise babies. I am I'm pretty much a zero,
Speaker 1: you know, I know, like cradle the head and make
Speaker 1: sure the baby is like safe. That's beyond that. I
Speaker 1: don't know really anything about babies. And but those the
Speaker 1: whole story was that this is Trump's fault though, right,
Speaker 1: That's why this is so fascinating. The World Health Assembly
Speaker 1: is getting together to talk about breastfeeding versus formula, and
Speaker 1: there's all these different countries sending representation san there, and
Speaker 1: you know it, it turns out that's uh, that's not
Speaker 1: really you know, they're saying that you know, Trump was, um,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump's people that well, basically the US was
Speaker 1: not playing ball here. And and Trump says, this is
Speaker 1: just a lie, that we weren't trying, that the US
Speaker 1: wasn't trying to slap down this notion. Here's what he
Speaker 1: tweeted out, quote the failing Remember this, this made its
Speaker 1: way all the way up to the presidential Twitter account. Friends,
Speaker 1: So it's clearly an issue, right, the failing New York
Speaker 1: Times fake news story today about breastfeeding must be called out.
Speaker 1: The US strongly supports breastfeeding, but we don't believe women
Speaker 1: should be denied access to formula. Many women need this
Speaker 1: option because of malnutrition and poverty. See this is you know,
Speaker 1: this is what this is what the the additional layer
Speaker 1: is here. This is when you see that the media
Speaker 1: they jumped on this story and and didn't give it
Speaker 1: the full context. Because whenever there's an opportunity to hit Trump,
Speaker 1: even if you're just hitting Trump over breastfeeding resolutions and
Speaker 1: some health organization that most people have never heard of. Uh,
Speaker 1: if it's an option to hit Trump, you run with
Speaker 1: that story. I will also tell you that I did
Speaker 1: little research into this today, and it turns out that
Speaker 1: most of from what I read again not not an
Speaker 1: m D, not not playing at m D on radio.
Speaker 1: From what I read, most of the antibodies that babies
Speaker 1: have actually come to them in the uh, in the
Speaker 1: womb via the mother. And you know, you had your born,
Speaker 1: you have an immuneism that has to grow and mean,
Speaker 1: but you already have a lot of antibodies there, and
Speaker 1: there's not that much that comes via milk, according to
Speaker 1: some according to some studies, according to some study. I
Speaker 1: know what scientific studies, you can always, you know, find
Speaker 1: one that contradicts another one and now we get into
Speaker 1: a whole other realm of you know, who's telling the
Speaker 1: truth and who's not and all that stuff, so or
Speaker 1: who's right and who's wrong. But but this is just
Speaker 1: in the era of Trump. Even breastfeeding is very political.
Speaker 1: And it just goes to show, you know, when we
Speaker 1: say that nothing can be outside the realm of Trump
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome. At this point, I really feel like it's nothing.
Speaker 1: You know, now baby food is part of hashtag resistance.
Speaker 1: It's crazy. All right. We've got a big Hour three
Speaker 1: coming up, including Oh, you're gonna you're gonna want to
Speaker 1: get ready for this one. Is it really possible that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton may run for a third time? Folks, I
Speaker 1: told you a while ago. We'll even play the audio
Speaker 1: for you now. Others are jumping on the Buck train
Speaker 1: here saying that Mada, I'm secretary, might want to run,
Speaker 1: might want to do it, but we will see. Stay
Speaker 1: around for that. I'll tell you what's happening and what
Speaker 1: the evidence is in just a moment. Buck Sexton decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, This is the Buck Sexton show,
Speaker 1: no being welcome to our three here. And I don't know.
Speaker 1: I like to sometimes just come right out and say it.
Speaker 1: I saw it coming, all right. I I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: say I'm a visionary, but I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: I'm not a visionary. You see, I've had this premonition.
Speaker 1: I've got a superstition. Black cats and voodoo dolls. You guys,
Speaker 1: remember that. Everybody sits around acting like they hated that song,
Speaker 1: but everybody knows the words to that song. It's it's
Speaker 1: a terrible song that's incredibly catchy. It burrows itself living
Speaker 1: Levita Loca, burrows itself into your brain like some kind
Speaker 1: of parasite you can't get rid of anyway. But I
Speaker 1: had a premonition. I had a prediction a while back.
Speaker 1: In fact, we have it here for you. This is
Speaker 1: what I said. Uh it is now July nine, this
Speaker 1: is what I said just back on June. Play clip
Speaker 1: one please. And this is a little crazy. I know.
Speaker 1: I think somewhere in her mind she has the belief
Speaker 1: that she's still going she's still going to be president.
Speaker 1: I think she still thinks that. And I also think
Speaker 1: that if right now, you're like but come on, come on,
Speaker 1: I think if you opened, if there was a pathway
Speaker 1: open for her to try and run a third time
Speaker 1: for the presidency, she would do it in a heartbeat.
Speaker 1: This is who she is. Oh my gosh, it's that
Speaker 1: he reads my thoughts. Turns out that I'm not the
Speaker 1: only one who thinks this is possible. In fact, if
Speaker 1: you happen to flip open your computer over the weekend,
Speaker 1: you may have seen that the uh the main headline
Speaker 1: on the Drudge Report was about Hillary Clinton possibly running
Speaker 1: in tw oh Here we go, folks, here we go,
Speaker 1: third times a charm? Is Hillary Clinton's secretly plenty to
Speaker 1: run in twenty That's the column by our friend Michael Goodwin.
Speaker 1: In fact, you know what, note to self, guys, let's
Speaker 1: get Michael on this week to talk about this because
Speaker 1: I am as you know, I said it before, right,
Speaker 1: I said it. What a lit over week you go,
Speaker 1: I said, guys, I think this is And now here
Speaker 1: we got Michael. Michael has been a political observer, analyst,
Speaker 1: commentator for UH for for decades and here's what he writes. Quote.
Speaker 1: The messages convey a sense of urgency and are coming
Speaker 1: with increasing frequency. They are short, focus reactions to the
Speaker 1: latest outrage committed by President Trump. Some end by asking
Speaker 1: for money, some urge participation in protests. All read as
Speaker 1: if they are sent from the official headquarters of the resistance.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton is up to something. Five times in the
Speaker 1: last month alone, she sent emails touting her super PACs
Speaker 1: role incombating President Trump, most seized on headline events such
Speaker 1: as etcetera. Okay, there you have it. Anyway, that's Michael's
Speaker 1: column up in the New York Post. Guys, you cannot
Speaker 1: put the perfidious nous, the deceitfulness, the odiousness of the
Speaker 1: Clintons out of your minds now, because you gotta think
Speaker 1: of it this way. I know what people would say
Speaker 1: to me, right, They would say, Bob, come on, Hillary, Uh, Hillary.
Speaker 1: You know she didn't win the first time, she lost
Speaker 1: her brock, he cheated. She didn't win. The second time
Speaker 1: hes she lost it, she lost the Trump Russia. And
Speaker 1: now you know the third time she's gonna run. It's
Speaker 1: just crazy. Are times a charm? So I I sit
Speaker 1: here and I think to myself, there's no way except
Speaker 1: for the fact that this is who Hillary Clinton is,
Speaker 1: you might say that she's gonna try to play the
Speaker 1: role of kingmaker here, right. I think that's what most people.
Speaker 1: That's the conclusion a lot of people would jump to,
Speaker 1: and they would say, okay, Buck, it's not about It's
Speaker 1: not that she's uh going two run. She wants to
Speaker 1: be the person who kind of holds power in the
Speaker 1: hed and see what the problem is all Barack Obama
Speaker 1: has to do. It's kind of like, you know, lift
Speaker 1: his hand up in the air and say, actually, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna play kingmaker and everyone, everyone, media and everyone be like, yep,
Speaker 1: it's Barack. Right. The media's love affair with Hillary in
Speaker 1: this last election was only because Barack couldn't run for
Speaker 1: you know, the mainstream media, the Democrat media, because Barack
Speaker 1: Obama couldn't run for a third term. They they prefer Barack,
Speaker 1: no question about it. So she can't really be a
Speaker 1: kingmaker because that role isn't really open to her. In fact,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people in the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party, and it annoys them so much when
Speaker 1: you say Democrat don't know why it's shorthand why can't
Speaker 1: they call us the GOP? And that's all fine, grand
Speaker 1: old party, right, But why is the goop five. But
Speaker 1: Democrat isn't fine Democratic. You know, if they wanted to
Speaker 1: call us the republic Party, I'd be like, it sounds
Speaker 1: like a fun island somewhere. Hey, you going to the
Speaker 1: republic Party and a republic Um, which I know was
Speaker 1: a place before, well it was a line in a
Speaker 1: book before it was actually a store, a store that
Speaker 1: I've never been able to understand how it was different
Speaker 1: from the Gap or any of the other stores that
Speaker 1: were very similar to it. But I digress, all right. So,
Speaker 1: so you might say, Hillary Kingmaker, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: She also really does believe. I think I think she
Speaker 1: believes that she was that this was stolen from her,
Speaker 1: that she was the rightful heir to the throne, so
Speaker 1: to speak, and that usurper in this case, that Donald
Speaker 1: took it from her. And in her mind and maybe
Speaker 1: even in the minds of some of her most ardent
Speaker 1: and connected Hillary supporters, the only way to make this
Speaker 1: right would be to make her president right. That's the
Speaker 1: only if you're a true believer in the progressive left,
Speaker 1: in the American Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, you know,
Speaker 1: of all theo if you checked all those boxes, the
Speaker 1: only way for you to restore justice in your mind,
Speaker 1: is if you have Hillary become president because they think
Speaker 1: it was stolen from her. Notice how in my lifetime
Speaker 1: I keep any pointing this out, not once, but twice,
Speaker 1: we've had major national narratives created, constructed by the media
Speaker 1: that a Democrat had the election stolen from him or
Speaker 1: her right before it was Al Gore, Now it's Hillary.
Speaker 1: What's more likely that Republicans are that machiavellian and brilliant
Speaker 1: or that Democrats just lost elections and are huge babies.
Speaker 1: I think we know the answer. But here's the other
Speaker 1: part of this. I want now, is he really gonna
Speaker 1: run around? I'm not saying she's announced or something, right,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that I was early on here noticing
Speaker 1: a fact pattern that others are noticing too, and paying
Speaker 1: attention to this. And when you start to add it up,
Speaker 1: you know, and you say, especially guys, especially if you
Speaker 1: see some stuff at the end of the Mueller probe
Speaker 1: about you know, there wasn't criminal obstruction, but there was
Speaker 1: a will to obstruct or you know, if the Muller
Speaker 1: probe is essentially a political hit job on the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: which I think it will be, no one's gonna go
Speaker 1: to prison. There's gonna be charges. I mean, people go
Speaker 1: to prison for a little Mickey mouse stuff, which is
Speaker 1: what's happening now. Uh. But you know, no one is
Speaker 1: going No one in the Trump administration is going to
Speaker 1: prison for collusion. But there's gonna be some stuff in
Speaker 1: there just to just because, just out of bitterness, that'll
Speaker 1: be asked you about Trump, and then you get the
Speaker 1: whole Oh. Hillary comes and she's the only one who
Speaker 1: can set it right. Equilibrium, that's what she'll want to
Speaker 1: re establish, she will say. Uh. But here's my other
Speaker 1: thought for this, something that I think very very important. Um,
Speaker 1: I want Hillary out there as much as possible, reminding
Speaker 1: Republicans of what Donald Trump saved us from. Hillary is
Speaker 1: great for us because she helps base turnout on the
Speaker 1: right and she suppresses based turnout on the left. In
Speaker 1: my opinion, I know she gets people fired up on
Speaker 1: the right. I mean the fact that as Secretary of
Speaker 1: State she presided over the fatal debacle of Benghazi and
Speaker 1: suffered no political consequences for that whatsoever. None. At this point,
Speaker 1: what difference does it make, right none that she would
Speaker 1: use being Secretary of State as a resume bullet. She
Speaker 1: just used the State Department as a personal travel service
Speaker 1: and essentially the character to to cover her bills while
Speaker 1: she was out there pitching the Clinton Foundation. That's what
Speaker 1: was really going on. But she harnessed the the State
Speaker 1: Department for private gain in a way that's jaw dropping
Speaker 1: to this day. And and she paid no real price
Speaker 1: for this whatsoever. In fact, she became fabulously wealthy without
Speaker 1: building a company, without creating a product, just by being Hillary.
Speaker 1: I'm invaluable. So I do hope she runs because I
Speaker 1: think it would be it would be good for the GOP.
Speaker 1: I think it would help us in the mid terms.
Speaker 1: And and even if she doesn't run, and now obviously
Speaker 1: that's so it's not so much a midterms issue, but
Speaker 1: I just want her out there. I just want her
Speaker 1: to be for sheer reasons of ego, presenting herself as
Speaker 1: a prominent player, as a power broker in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: So you have to say Democratic now, because I do
Speaker 1: a show with the Progressive every morning and they get
Speaker 1: mad at me when I say Democrats. So I'm switching
Speaker 1: back and forth, like there's a little bit of a
Speaker 1: split personality thing with with me. Now I'm just like, Uh,
Speaker 1: I just want to say what I want to say,
Speaker 1: but on TV have to be polite. All right, quick
Speaker 1: break team, We'll be right back. You're probably sick and
Speaker 1: tired of having to worry about this problem, so I'm
Speaker 1: gonna help you forget about dealing with it forever. Okay,
Speaker 1: I got a solution for you. When pets are digging
Speaker 1: under your fence, don't waste your time trying to get
Speaker 1: bricks and wood and concrete and other stuff underneath. There
Speaker 1: go with dig Defense. Dig Defense extends the protection of
Speaker 1: your fence underground. You see. You install it at the
Speaker 1: base of any fence and will protect your pet and
Speaker 1: your property. It's so easy to install. All he needs
Speaker 1: a hammer and gloves. You don't have to chase around
Speaker 1: fight Oh or Maximilian anymore. As he runs around the yard,
Speaker 1: you can stop him. Now with dig Defense stop all
Speaker 1: the digg and it's available online. It lows tractor supply
Speaker 1: Menard's Wayfair and stop the dig dot com and now
Speaker 1: for the month of July as it stopped the dig
Speaker 1: dot com and use promo code buck for ten percent
Speaker 1: off that stopped the dig dot com. Use promo code
Speaker 1: buck b u c K for ten percent off your
Speaker 1: entire order stop the dig dot com promo code buck.
Speaker 1: So we got this huge announcement tonight amount President Trump's
Speaker 1: nominee for the highest court in the land. Just so
Speaker 1: we're all clear, what are some of the differences between
Speaker 1: some of those candidates who were close. Remember, even just
Speaker 1: because one is gonna get named doesn't mean that another
Speaker 1: one won't get named later on. You could have another
Speaker 1: opening in this presidency. So I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you a bit about some of the the differences in
Speaker 1: the top three, such as they are, and then also
Speaker 1: what we can expect once we get another conservative seated
Speaker 1: on the High Court. To help us through that, we
Speaker 1: have Adam White with us. He is Hoover Fellow and
Speaker 1: Director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative
Speaker 1: State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia School of Law. Adam,
Speaker 1: great to have you. It's great to be here. So, uh, first,
Speaker 1: just you've got these picks Catholedge, uh, Kavanaugh and Raymond.
Speaker 1: What do you think? I mean, you know, of the
Speaker 1: top choices right now, and I'm actually not even sure
Speaker 1: that those are necessarily the big three, but of the
Speaker 1: big three. What are the differences that we can see? Well,
Speaker 1: let me cheat and talk about four. Um Kavanaugh Judge,
Speaker 1: Jamie Coney Barrett of Notre Dame, Raymond Catholedge of from
Speaker 1: Michigan and the on the US Court of Appeals for
Speaker 1: the Sixth Circuit, and Thomas Hardeman UH, federal judge from
Speaker 1: US cordrom Fields with the Third Circuit. I mean, the
Speaker 1: list have been sort of fluid, but all four of
Speaker 1: those names have been bounded about. Now. These judges have
Speaker 1: a lot in common, right. They are all basically UH
Speaker 1: variations on on conservative judges and conservative jurisprudence, and their
Speaker 1: records are colored in some ways by their experiences so
Speaker 1: far right. We don't know necessarily that they agree or
Speaker 1: disagree so much as we know that some some of
Speaker 1: them have had, you know, specific areas of focus where
Speaker 1: others haven't. Let's start with some of Brett Kavanaugh the
Speaker 1: d C Circuit. He's the one with the longest record. UM.
Speaker 1: He's been on the U S Court of Appeals for
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit since President George W. Bush put him there.
Speaker 1: Before that, he worked in the Bush White House, and
Speaker 1: before that he was on Ken Stars UH Investigation of
Speaker 1: the Whitewater crimes during the Clinton ears, and so Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: since he serves on the DC Circuit, has had a
Speaker 1: very regulation heavy docket. The DC Circuit gets a lot
Speaker 1: of regulatory and constitutional cases, and Kavanaugh has shown a
Speaker 1: lot of respect for the constitutions, separation of powers, the
Speaker 1: importance of constitutional structure right, and the importance of not
Speaker 1: delicate of Congress not delegating overbroad powers to agencies, or
Speaker 1: at least the Court's not deferring to the agencies too much.
Speaker 1: So that's that's an area of Kavanaughs emphasis. And in
Speaker 1: terms of Barrett, by the way, my my favorite choice,
Speaker 1: what can you tell us about her jurisprudence? Well, Barrett
Speaker 1: doesn't have much jurisprudence, so to speak, because she's only
Speaker 1: been on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Speaker 1: Circuits since November she was appointed by Trump. But she
Speaker 1: does have nearly two decades of really serious scholarship as
Speaker 1: a law professor at Notre Dame. She's written widely on
Speaker 1: really fundamental questions of the respective roles of the court
Speaker 1: in Congress and so on. She's written papers about what
Speaker 1: we lawyers call starry decisives, which is another way of
Speaker 1: saying the weight of precedent. She's written about notions of
Speaker 1: du pros sess. She's also written sort of famously, or
Speaker 1: to the eyes of Democrats, infamously on the obligations or
Speaker 1: or challenges for a Catholic judge. And so she's written,
Speaker 1: you know, fewer judicial opinions, but she's written very broadly
Speaker 1: and very deeply on these these fundamental questions of what
Speaker 1: it means to be a judge, of what it means
Speaker 1: to have a constitution that will last to uh. Keitholedge
Speaker 1: and Hardeman they have a little more in common with
Speaker 1: one another. They both have been on the US Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals again, Keitholedge on the sixth Circuit from Michigan,
Speaker 1: Hardeman from the Third Circuit from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They have
Speaker 1: had more traditional legal careers. They've been practicing lawyers. They
Speaker 1: don't come from elite legal background, so to speak. Harder
Speaker 1: Than went to Georgetown. Keith Ledge went to Michigan, which
Speaker 1: some have seen as as being very appealing to President
Speaker 1: Trump given his his popularity and the in rust belt
Speaker 1: and in the West. And they've had traditional legal careers
Speaker 1: that they've touched on a variety of issues, not really
Speaker 1: emphasizing on one specific subject. The way that Kavanaugh's DC
Speaker 1: Circuit docket sets up, They've had a lot of cases
Speaker 1: touching on religious liberty, a little bit of a Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: and so on, and they've shown by and large, conservative
Speaker 1: instincts and a conservative approach that takes constitutional texts seriously
Speaker 1: and also takes precedent seriously. What of the conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: that I'm seeing out there? A lot are people are saying, well, who,
Speaker 1: and I'm I mean folks in the media with some
Speaker 1: large platforms who were supposed to be responsible about this
Speaker 1: kind of thing. They're they're reporting on how the president
Speaker 1: is very concerned at him with whether or not the
Speaker 1: particular judge that he would appoint would allow a sitting
Speaker 1: president to be indicted, putting aside whether any of the judges,
Speaker 1: whether any of the judges actually have opinions on that
Speaker 1: yet or not. What's your take on that, can a
Speaker 1: sitting president be indicted? What's funny I'm writing about that
Speaker 1: right now for the Weekly Standard A little bit um.
Speaker 1: That's a profoundly challenging question. I tend to be persuaded
Speaker 1: by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel's memo from
Speaker 1: the Clinton years saying that a sitting president cannot be
Speaker 1: indicted because the president himself is ultimately in charge of
Speaker 1: the of the the federal system for prosecutions, and so
Speaker 1: a president can only be indicted by lead of the president,
Speaker 1: which which won't happen. But I think this is raising
Speaker 1: this issue is important in this context because it reminds
Speaker 1: us of something important about confirmation hearings. All modern Supreme
Speaker 1: Court confirmation hearings, they end up touching on the familiar
Speaker 1: hot button issues, most famously abortion, Roe v. Wade, and
Speaker 1: so on, But each confirmation hearing becomes itself a bit
Speaker 1: of a time piece from the moment in which it arrives.
Speaker 1: So the the Roberts and Alito hearings they focused, especially,
Speaker 1: you know, um on presidential power. This happened in the
Speaker 1: aftermath of the attacks of Not eleven and in the
Speaker 1: middle of the global War on terrorism. A few years
Speaker 1: later with Kagan and so do Mayor you had more
Speaker 1: focus on campaign financial on issues like that. Again, not
Speaker 1: exclusively even predominantly on those issues, but those issues arose
Speaker 1: because they were in the political atmosphere. And then more recently,
Speaker 1: you've had Justice Score as such, who has asked questions
Speaker 1: about about campaign finance regulation, He's asked questions about President Trump,
Speaker 1: and so with who whoever is nominated right now, and
Speaker 1: whoever it gets the next nomination, if there is another
Speaker 1: nomination in the years to come, they will be asked
Speaker 1: questions about the most salient political and constitutional issues of
Speaker 1: our time, which include presidential power. Um, probably not impeachment,
Speaker 1: but those issues surrounding the exercise of presidential power, maybe
Speaker 1: the president pardoning himself and so on. All right, Adam White,
Speaker 1: everybody of the antonin Scalias School of Law at George
Speaker 1: Mason University, Adam fun fact, George Mason is a direct
Speaker 1: relative of mine, or I'm a direct relative of his
Speaker 1: side note. I thought i'd just throw that in there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got that going for me, which is nice. Adam,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us, and we'll have
Speaker 1: you back. We get the first big court and a big,
Speaker 1: big case in front of the new court. Looking forward
Speaker 1: to it. Thanks so much. Team. We have a whole
Speaker 1: bunch more show coming, including your favorite, my favorite laurole
Speaker 1: call coming up, Liberty, Truth, and Great Hair. The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show is back. So Jeam, I was. I was
Speaker 1: in uh, you know, I was down in DC over
Speaker 1: the weekend and I found uh. I was trying to
Speaker 1: find a quiet place to do some reading because I'm
Speaker 1: a really exciting guy who does really exciting things. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I I found this this area near my well,
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of a secluded area of the building.
Speaker 1: I live in this apartment complex and there's a secluded
Speaker 1: area and and they have this little grassy knoll and
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, this is perfect. You know, I just
Speaker 1: can lie in the grass, read my book, get some raise.
Speaker 1: And sure enough I get closer to go. Wait a second,
Speaker 1: it looks like there's a bunch of dog poop on
Speaker 1: this grassy knoll area. And uh. And then I realized, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a dog run. Now you have buildings, and
Speaker 1: I've seen this in other places. This is big in
Speaker 1: d C. I've never seen this before. In New York.
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, I've never seen it before
Speaker 1: because I think real estate is probably too expensive. But
Speaker 1: now you've got amenities for pets in buildings. You know
Speaker 1: it used to be they have amen and easily those
Speaker 1: of you who live in apartment homes that I'm talk
Speaker 1: talking about, Oh, you know, you've got a gym. Usually
Speaker 1: the gym is like two ancient Nautilus machines from the
Speaker 1: eighties and like a rack of you know, rusty freeweights
Speaker 1: that only go up to fifteen pounds, and they're like,
Speaker 1: look at our amazing fitness center. But you know, some
Speaker 1: some buildings are super fancy. They got like swimming pools
Speaker 1: and roof deck patio stuff with you know, barbecues and
Speaker 1: all this. But I was just looking around for a
Speaker 1: little grassy area or just an area to read my
Speaker 1: book quietly, you know, outside, get some sun turned my
Speaker 1: pasty irish skin a nice shade of red. And I
Speaker 1: find this dog run and it's kind of like this
Speaker 1: hidden away part. It's up on the rooftop near some
Speaker 1: elevator machineries. I'm like, we're building little special areas for
Speaker 1: the doggies now, and of course the dogs are up
Speaker 1: there going we wei and poopa all the time, and
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just thinking this is crazy. But then
Speaker 1: I saw today. I't even know how this cross my radar.
Speaker 1: We talked, well, we talked about it on on Rising
Speaker 1: Hill dot tv slash Rising those of you who want
Speaker 1: to see it or haven't seen it yet, that Americans
Speaker 1: are spending about out seventy billion dollars a year on pets,
Speaker 1: seventy billions. You know, I really want a dog. I've
Speaker 1: talked about it here before on the show. But I've
Speaker 1: known that my career is crazy and I gotta move
Speaker 1: around a lot, and I got a lot of things
Speaker 1: going on. But seven zero billion seems like a ton
Speaker 1: of money. And then when you dig into it a
Speaker 1: little bit, they're not just spending money on the usual
Speaker 1: dog stuff. I mean people are spending money on and
Speaker 1: like doggie daycare, and then there's doggy day cares now
Speaker 1: where they have like doggie yoga and they do like
Speaker 1: doggy stretching classes, and you know, dogs are like basically
Speaker 1: being taught how to you know, do tai chi now.
Speaker 1: I mean, they got all this stuff going on. But
Speaker 1: there's also some industries that have popped up, like people
Speaker 1: get plastic surgery for their dogs, which I had never
Speaker 1: that to me, I've just never even you know, there's
Speaker 1: some dogs that have the squiggly tail, for example, and
Speaker 1: you've got to snip the tail or else it gets
Speaker 1: in the way of natural processes. I'm just saying there's
Speaker 1: even something out there now, folks, I bring you the
Speaker 1: truth and only the truth. There's something called nuticals and
Speaker 1: these are trying to think of how to describe this
Speaker 1: on radio. These are for dogs when you have your dog,
Speaker 1: you know fixed, which is a very polite way of
Speaker 1: saying what's actually going on here? Uh? Notice with we
Speaker 1: say fixed for dogs. With farm animals, we have a
Speaker 1: different word for it that starts with the sea. That's
Speaker 1: much more whoa, but with dogs. But neuticles are and
Speaker 1: they're selling these. This is a product, you see, This
Speaker 1: is I did. I did this whole deep dive into
Speaker 1: how expensive for dogs basically because I'm like, can I
Speaker 1: even afford a dog? I don't know. You know that
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt I need you guys to to buy
Speaker 1: more gear the Freedom The Freedom Hunt can't afford a dog,
Speaker 1: although we do have cash as our unofficial official mascot.
Speaker 1: So that's a producer Mike can afford a dog. So
Speaker 1: that's I must be must be nice producer Mike. Um.
Speaker 1: But but they had this thing called neuticles and they're
Speaker 1: fake dog testies that people give their dog to make
Speaker 1: the dog feel better. And I don't. I'm actually I can't.
Speaker 1: I won't even google this because I'm just like, whoa,
Speaker 1: that's too weird. But that's the thing that people sell now,
Speaker 1: and I see here, I'm like, what is this country
Speaker 1: coming to? You know, I'm reading a lot on on
Speaker 1: some of the conquistadors right now. I want to do
Speaker 1: some history deep dives on that. Yeah, that's right, folks,
Speaker 1: haven't forgotten about my history stuff with all of you,
Speaker 1: and you know, you go back, you read about the
Speaker 1: Aztecs and some of the stuff that they were doing,
Speaker 1: which was just horrific. Um. I wonder future generations are
Speaker 1: gonna look back at us and be like, yeah, they
Speaker 1: were selling fake dog test ese to help the dog's
Speaker 1: esteem after they've snipped the dog. Pretty weird, right, That's
Speaker 1: how we get to seventy billion a year, folks. Roll
Speaker 1: call coming up, Team Buck, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get into it. Time for some of
Speaker 1: the role call you and I love oh so much,
Speaker 1: my friends. What a day, Quite a day, Supreme Court
Speaker 1: pick all kinds of interesting stuff happening in the world.
Speaker 1: I want to hear what you have to say. By
Speaker 1: the way, the freedom hum with Buck section will be
Speaker 1: out this week. I'm so sorry for the delay, but
Speaker 1: stand by and stand ready for that one. It will
Speaker 1: be really good. Decided that I'm gonna make sure it's
Speaker 1: good and then we will release it. So you you
Speaker 1: guys know, it's busy times down here in the swamp,
Speaker 1: all right. First up, we have Erica, who writes I
Speaker 1: have to agree with you on concerts, I just don't
Speaker 1: get it. For the cost of just one concert ticket,
Speaker 1: you could buy every single release of an artist or
Speaker 1: band and this sound level. The last concert I attended
Speaker 1: was Peter Gabriel Chicago suburb. I lucked out and found
Speaker 1: shooting ear plugs in my purse, but I still spent
Speaker 1: most of the night in the hallways to get away
Speaker 1: from the deafening music. Erica, you and I are very
Speaker 1: sympathical on this one. I've actually been that nerd who
Speaker 1: goes to concerts and brings ear plugs, which I know
Speaker 1: sounds so counterintuitive, but it's always so loud, and folks,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this, it damages you're hearing. It
Speaker 1: really does. It's not a good thing if you have
Speaker 1: ringing in your ears, and you know, temporary deafness from
Speaker 1: music you've been listening to that's really bad. That's something
Speaker 1: that if you do it enough times, you will be
Speaker 1: in a situation where you can't here as well. So
Speaker 1: I'm all about protecting my ears. It's one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why even in this business, I only put an
Speaker 1: earpiece because you know, with TV and rad in one ear,
Speaker 1: because I'm protecting one of my ears. You know, at
Speaker 1: least I figure if the constant noise being close to
Speaker 1: my ear, if it hurts one ear drama, at least
Speaker 1: the other one will be fine. And so I'll be
Speaker 1: Mr Magoose style on one side, but the other one
Speaker 1: I'll be able to hear uh ed and Rachel right
Speaker 1: Buck Rising is slamming all caps must watch Appointment TV
Speaker 1: that I haven't had four years. One thing, please use
Speaker 1: your questions to include true information that is not commonly
Speaker 1: known by people like Crystal. She uses her talking time
Speaker 1: to get in the insane progressive perspective and assumption of
Speaker 1: false information. Please use your talking time, even your question
Speaker 1: of guests, to include the truth as a given as
Speaker 1: an assumption, so that she has to let it stand
Speaker 1: or question and get further schooled along with any other
Speaker 1: progressives or never trumpers who might be watching. Hopefully there
Speaker 1: are some and the Rise is not just preaching to
Speaker 1: the choir. Well Edin, Rachel, thank you first of all.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you're enjoying the show. I think we're getting
Speaker 1: stronger each week. I think we're getting into a good
Speaker 1: groove with it, So thank you for watching it. Those
Speaker 1: of you who haven't seen it yet, hill dot tv
Speaker 1: slash Risings where you can watch it. Here we go.
Speaker 1: We got Carrie lean rights. Are you paying attention to
Speaker 1: the walk away movement? It is absolutely amazing. I'm just
Speaker 1: looking at the hashtag on Facebook. Wow. Uh well, Carrie,
Speaker 1: I have paid attention to it a little bit. I've
Speaker 1: talked about it here on the show. Um, I don't
Speaker 1: know if there've been any I guess what you'd call
Speaker 1: high level defections. I'm not sure we've had anybody who
Speaker 1: has been part of the Walkaway movement who has gotten
Speaker 1: a lot of headlines. But I do know it's a
Speaker 1: It's a thing on social medium. People are talking about it,
Speaker 1: so I'll I'll keep an eye on it and thank
Speaker 1: you for raising it to my attend. Shin Kyle Buck,
Speaker 1: I was listening to your show from the five of July.
Speaker 1: Amen on your bid about parades and fireworks. I had
Speaker 1: the same conversation a day or two ago with my wife.
Speaker 1: I love your show, but with you from near the beginning,
Speaker 1: I feel like we could be friends. Shields High, Kyle,
Speaker 1: what Kyle? We are friends? Thank you for being a
Speaker 1: part of oss original Saturday Squad when I started my
Speaker 1: radio career. Now feels like many eons ago. But yeah, look, parades,
Speaker 1: anything can be pretty much fun if you're in the
Speaker 1: right mood and it's the right circumstance, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. But with parades, I just find that we're
Speaker 1: all led to believe that they're so great, and they
Speaker 1: are just not really that great. They are not as
Speaker 1: awesome as people want to say they are. That's that's
Speaker 1: my interpretation of it. At least you know, we're we're
Speaker 1: all we're socially pressure into liking parades, and we shouldn't.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't feel socially pressured into such a thing. Uh,
Speaker 1: Lenny Rights, you talked about working long hours. I'm working
Speaker 1: forty twelve hour nights in a row, and we will
Speaker 1: do it again three weeks later. I love the show. Well, Lenny,
Speaker 1: you got me beat there. My friend, congrats on getting
Speaker 1: it done, commerce, baby, I love it. But you know,
Speaker 1: make sure you get some rest to my friend, alright,
Speaker 1: make sure you take care of yourself. It's very important,
Speaker 1: you know, the same way that if you're gonna be
Speaker 1: a you know, if you're gonna be an athlete, it's
Speaker 1: not just about the performance on the field. That's also about,
Speaker 1: you know, stretching and taking care of yourself off the field,
Speaker 1: and getting enough rest and getting enough water. You know,
Speaker 1: with any job you need, I don't care what your
Speaker 1: job is. I don't care if you know you're stay
Speaker 1: at home parents, stay at home mom or dad, or
Speaker 1: if you're out there, you know, chopping down huge trees
Speaker 1: for a living. You've got to be I made it
Speaker 1: sound like people are doing that with like an ax,
Speaker 1: but you know, I guess you use a chainsaw. Uh.
Speaker 1: You've got to be able to rest and recuperate. You've
Speaker 1: got to give yourself. You gotta give yourself that space
Speaker 1: because you're no good to anyone else if you get
Speaker 1: broken down. So whatever it is you do me time
Speaker 1: is not a selfish thing. Look when I was when
Speaker 1: I was spending time with the military, overseas. You know
Speaker 1: they had the n w R right mental Wealth and
Speaker 1: Recreation Room. I hope I'm getting that acronym right. But
Speaker 1: you know, the m w R was a place where
Speaker 1: you know, you you needed to be able to, you know,
Speaker 1: email the family, give a call to your give a
Speaker 1: call to your wife, you know, see your kids on skype. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, play Halo. A lot of Halo overseas and
Speaker 1: a lot of guitar hero in the m w R.
Speaker 1: Do you remember that? Um? I remember I used to
Speaker 1: play Down from the Mountain, I think a lot, which
Speaker 1: was a gosh, who is it Alice in Chains? I think? Anyway,
Speaker 1: So yeah, there you have it, but you gotta take
Speaker 1: care of yourself. Next up, we have so much in
Speaker 1: the roll Call here, Gail right love the podcast listening
Speaker 1: to the fifth of July podcast. The duke reference is
Speaker 1: from The Shootiest. I think it's the best movie by
Speaker 1: the Duke, although it was his last. The quote is
Speaker 1: from his conversation with his landlady Lauren Bacall Gail in
Speaker 1: Boston's Metro area. Well, Gail, you you get the movie
Speaker 1: quote Award for today. I did not know that and
Speaker 1: you did, so thank you for bringing that knowledge. Brittany writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: you are seriously amazing. Thank you for everything you do. Well, Brittany,
Speaker 1: you are very kind and you have brightened up my
Speaker 1: day a little bit. Question. Is the president required to
Speaker 1: release tax returns? If so, why hasn't Trump done that?
Speaker 1: And is that a problem? I love, love, love you well, Brittany,
Speaker 1: love you too, Thank you so much for writing in.
Speaker 1: And the president is not required. It is a tradition
Speaker 1: that the president releases his tax returns. It is not
Speaker 1: a law. There's no legal mandate, there's no process to
Speaker 1: force him to do so. And you know, I think
Speaker 1: that in part the reason Trump hasn't released his tax
Speaker 1: returns is because it upsets the other side so much.
Speaker 1: I know that may sound a little simplistic, but I
Speaker 1: think that Trump the more you tell him he has
Speaker 1: to do something, the less likely he is to do it.
Speaker 1: At least that's my sense. Dawn writes, Wow, Uh, first
Speaker 1: time I ever made the radio and I'm impressed you
Speaker 1: got my name correct. Uh most people don't, Well, Dawn,
Speaker 1: I did so yeah for me and thank you for
Speaker 1: writing it. Writing in again. Um, Bob right, it's on.
Speaker 1: Disagree with you Mountain Dew is awesome. Shields High, Bob,
Speaker 1: you are entitled to your wrong opinion on this one.
Speaker 1: You know you are entitled to think that Mountain Dew,
Speaker 1: which has a flavor that is indescribable and which is
Speaker 1: actively rotting your teeth every second you spend drinking it, is,
Speaker 1: is good for you. Now, if Mountain Dew or to
Speaker 1: sponsor this radio show, would I be willing to try
Speaker 1: it once again and give it a fair hearing. Sure,
Speaker 1: Mountain Dew. Sure, I will not bow to any sponsor.
Speaker 1: But I will give a sponsor like Mountain Dew a
Speaker 1: fair hearing, and maybe I will decide that I love it. Uh.
Speaker 1: Next up here is Jeremy, who writes the basic what
Speaker 1: a burger is a very simple burger, But add green chili,
Speaker 1: cheese and bacon and you've got a great burger. Also,
Speaker 1: there shakes and malts are good. Shields High, Jeremy, Jeremy,
Speaker 1: I I had a water burger down in Dallas. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you I was really unoppressed with it. Man.
Speaker 1: And I'm a I'm a burger aficionado. I think the
Speaker 1: burger is always a good idea. I love hamburgers. I
Speaker 1: eat a lot of burgers without buns, obviously, because I
Speaker 1: cannot eat the gluten shakes and malts. I will tell
Speaker 1: you I pretty much don't drink milkshakes because I love
Speaker 1: them so much that I feel like if I start
Speaker 1: having milk shakes, I'm just gonna start having them a lot.
Speaker 1: You know. Remember the thing with what is it the
Speaker 1: Derrito's once you pop you can't stop with me, it's
Speaker 1: once I take a milkshake and like a snake eating
Speaker 1: a you know, a large peccary or something, I unhinge
Speaker 1: my jaw. I do that with with milkshakes, and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, I'm just seven hundred calories goes down
Speaker 1: so fast, you know, probably not not good for me
Speaker 1: to be doing that. Uh, Ruban, rights, I see your
Speaker 1: very busy person I have seen in your profile. Could
Speaker 1: you please help me to contact Oprah, Sir, please reply,
Speaker 1: this is not a fraud message. I am not a
Speaker 1: fraud person, um Ruban. I don't know Oprah, but I
Speaker 1: will pass this on to producer Mike and maybe we
Speaker 1: can help out somehow. I don't know what else to
Speaker 1: say about that other than that's what we'll do, and
Speaker 1: I wish you all the best. Al writes him and
Speaker 1: Z versus teen story. So his new standard in lawful
Speaker 1: behavior if someone says something offensive or hateful, you can
Speaker 1: steal their property and assault them. Probably pronounced him and Z,
Speaker 1: not Jim and Z. Yeah, I know, I know, uh Al.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's the new standard, as I think
Speaker 1: I was quite clear during the during the course of
Speaker 1: what I said about that issue. I'm just that that,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't assaw people who can't steal their stuff.
Speaker 1: But it does change the public perception if there's any
Speaker 1: racial angle that has thrown into any racial incitement that's
Speaker 1: thrown into it. But you'll notice I haven't heard anything
Speaker 1: else about that. I remember my my analysis of that
Speaker 1: I think was pretty spot on. Meaning if the person
Speaker 1: that did the assaulting is not claiming a justification based
Speaker 1: on a response to racism, uh, then I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty clear that's not what happened. But we'll see. I'll
Speaker 1: continue to follow that. That's gonna be it for today
Speaker 1: in the Hut team. Thank you so much for hanging
Speaker 1: out with me. Be sure to subscribe to The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show on Apple Podcasts. Let's see those numbers go
Speaker 1: up this month, folks, tell a friend about it until
Speaker 1: next time hill's high.