Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Iranians shoot down
Speaker 1: a US drone. President Trump says it was a big mistake.
Speaker 1: Are we heading toward a military conflict of some kind
Speaker 1: with the Mullahs in Tehran? We'll get into that whilst
Speaker 1: everything else going on today on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Magno mistake, American. You're a great American. Again, the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, Lauran made
Speaker 1: a big mistake. This drone was in international waters. Clearly,
Speaker 1: we have it all documented. It's documented scientifically, not just words.
Speaker 1: And they made a very bad mistake. Okay, you'll find out.
Speaker 1: You'll find out. You'll find out, obviously, obviously you know
Speaker 1: we're not going to be talking too much about it.
Speaker 1: You're gonna find out. They made a very big mistake,
Speaker 1: a very big mistake, the President says about Uranians. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the buck sex and show everybody. Great to have
Speaker 1: you here. Privilege and the pleasures always. So here's what
Speaker 1: we've got going on. Possibility of a millet, not just
Speaker 1: a military showdown, but real military action here. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that some in the news business because they
Speaker 1: tend to reach out ahead of time and want to
Speaker 1: know availability for folks like me who have a national
Speaker 1: security background to speak to these issues. There's at least
Speaker 1: a a preparation for a getting ready for the possibility
Speaker 1: of US strikes. Don't know when, don't know where, don't
Speaker 1: know if they'll happen at all, but there are whisperers
Speaker 1: of it right now in DC. We may fire a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of missiles or who knows what and who
Speaker 1: knows where, But that the Iranians need to be taught
Speaker 1: a lesson here that they're lashing out against the Trump
Speaker 1: administration in response to yes to pull out from the
Speaker 1: Iran nuclear Deal, but also the crippling sanctions Irani and
Speaker 1: economies in really rough shape right now, that we need
Speaker 1: to send the Iranians a message that this will not
Speaker 1: be tolerated. This is not going to not going to fly.
Speaker 1: Pardon the expression, because they shot a drone out of
Speaker 1: the sky. There's no human casualty in this. But the
Speaker 1: drone they shot out of the sky was a hundred
Speaker 1: million dollar p of equipment flying in international airspace. Shot
Speaker 1: down by a sophisticated surface to air missile system. This
Speaker 1: was the drone was an RQ for a Global Hawk,
Speaker 1: which gives intelligence, real time surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence gathering capability. Clearly,
Speaker 1: the US wants to keep an eye on what's going
Speaker 1: on in the Strait of Hormus, and so that's why
Speaker 1: we had this one hundred and thirty million dollar playing
Speaker 1: with a wingspan of about one hundred and thirty feet,
Speaker 1: flying around trying to keep an eye on things. The
Speaker 1: Iranian shot it out of the sky. This is what
Speaker 1: you would call in the history textbooks an international incident,
Speaker 1: and these are the types of incidents that can lead
Speaker 1: to much more severe, much more serious conflicts. Depends on
Speaker 1: how one side chooses to escalate and how the other
Speaker 1: side retaliates. Here's just my baseline on all of this.
Speaker 1: I think that a war with Iran would be a
Speaker 1: terrible idea. I think that we should have learned at
Speaker 1: this point the lessons of a Rock and Afghanistan. It
Speaker 1: is not only is it not our job to try
Speaker 1: and overthrow the government in Iran and rebuild that country
Speaker 1: and help them bring about a multi confession, well just
Speaker 1: a multi ethnic if not multi confessional democracy. That's not
Speaker 1: our mandate, that's not our job. And not only should
Speaker 1: we not try it, but I would offer to you
Speaker 1: that we would be foolish to try it, given what
Speaker 1: we already know about our efforts in that part of
Speaker 1: the world. I would really like to have a whole
Speaker 1: generation pass where we don't have a real war going
Speaker 1: on in the Middle East that we are fighting. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: that be nice? We have since I was in college,
Speaker 1: and I'm now getting to be old enough that I
Speaker 1: can't I can't even find all the gray hairs my beard.
Speaker 1: We have been at war in the Middle East in
Speaker 1: some capacity now, stretching back for almost twenty years. I
Speaker 1: really don't think we should be adding another war on
Speaker 1: our play now. This is where a lot of people
Speaker 1: that are very hawkish on the issue of Iran would
Speaker 1: come forward and say, but we're not saying that it
Speaker 1: would be a war. We're just saying, if to do something,
Speaker 1: you have to send a message, all right. I can
Speaker 1: understand that we did have the Trump administration fire a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of missiles into Syria after children had been
Speaker 1: gassed there. So the president United States did that, and
Speaker 1: we're not at war with the Assad regime as a result,
Speaker 1: even though that is certainly an active war, but they
Speaker 1: did not declare war on us. We're not at war
Speaker 1: with the Assad regime. How would the Iranians react, though
Speaker 1: nobody really particularly knows. I'm not even sure in some
Speaker 1: ways the Iranians know. But Trump is going back and
Speaker 1: forth in public on this a bit. He's saying that, well, Wan,
Speaker 1: he's making sure it is known that there will be
Speaker 1: action taken against the irudience that this happens again, or
Speaker 1: perhaps he'll already be reaction to this one incident. As
Speaker 1: it is, he has said that this was a He
Speaker 1: keeps saying it's a mistake, it's a mistake. Well, we'll
Speaker 1: see what exactly he means by that. Play eleven. I
Speaker 1: have a feeling I may be wrong, and I may
Speaker 1: be right, but I'm right a lot. I have a
Speaker 1: feeling that it was a mistake made by somebody that
Speaker 1: shouldn't have been doing what they did. I think they
Speaker 1: made a mistake, and I'm not just talking to the
Speaker 1: country made a mistake. I think that somebody under the
Speaker 1: command of that country made a big hip. Let's just
Speaker 1: see what happens. She just let's see what happens. It's
Speaker 1: all going to work out. I find it hard to
Speaker 1: believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth.
Speaker 1: I think that it could have been somebody who was
Speaker 1: loose and stupid that that it will be able to
Speaker 1: we put back and you'll understand exactly what happened. But
Speaker 1: it was a very foolish move, that I can tell you.
Speaker 1: So the President saying here that he finds it hard
Speaker 1: to believe it was intentional, says it was a very
Speaker 1: foolish move. Well, I think what he's saying is that
Speaker 1: he doesn't believe that this order was necessarily given from
Speaker 1: the very top of the Iranian government, and I think
Speaker 1: that they's probably wrong on that. I think the Iranians
Speaker 1: this is exactly this is exactly what you would expect
Speaker 1: as an escu esculatory measure against us from the Iranians.
Speaker 1: It doesn't no casualties because I think they realize if
Speaker 1: they kill a bunch of American sailors or airman airman,
Speaker 1: or or anybody for that matter, there's a very real
Speaker 1: chance that the US response would be severe, that we
Speaker 1: would come back and hit them in ways that would
Speaker 1: be way worse than anything they've experienced up to this point.
Speaker 1: So if you're looking for a measured response to the Iranians,
Speaker 1: you have to keep in mind that it's likely the
Speaker 1: Iranians themselves we're taking a measured response here. There are
Speaker 1: other things that they could do, the other ways that
Speaker 1: they could hit us. But then there's this. It's in
Speaker 1: the area you're hearing about it that there are people
Speaker 1: you have to remember, who are very senior in the
Speaker 1: national security complex in this country. There are people who
Speaker 1: have been hoping to get to a new Iranian regime somehow.
Speaker 1: They've been hoping to push us towards, push the Iranians
Speaker 1: toward that for the better part now of thirty or
Speaker 1: forty years. And some of those who have been working
Speaker 1: the issue at least for a few decades are still
Speaker 1: in Capitol Hill, are still in the White House, in
Speaker 1: the National Security apparatus. They really want that to happen.
Speaker 1: And Trump is being asked about this a little bit.
Speaker 1: Trump is being asked questions like, are you on board
Speaker 1: with all of your advisors? Is there anybody who's pushing
Speaker 1: you in directions that you're uncomfortable with? In terms of
Speaker 1: your Iran response, and here's the presence that played twelve. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that has of your administration. Who are I find to
Speaker 1: push you into No, not at all, not at all.
Speaker 1: In fact, in many cases it's the opposite. But I
Speaker 1: will say, look, I said I want to get out
Speaker 1: of these endless wars. I campaigned on that. I want
Speaker 1: to get out. We've been in Afghanistan for nineteen years.
Speaker 1: As you know, we've reduced very substantially in Afghanistan. We
Speaker 1: beat the Caliphate. We took back one hundred percent of
Speaker 1: the Caliphate when it was ninety nine percent. Justin I
Speaker 1: said we're gonna get out, We're gonna start peeling back,
Speaker 1: and everybody went crazy because it was ninety nine. So
Speaker 1: I said, all right, so we'll finish it up. So
Speaker 1: we got one hundred percent, and we're pulling that back
Speaker 1: out of Syria. We're pulling a lot of people back.
Speaker 1: But this is something, this is a new wrinkle, this
Speaker 1: is a new fly in the ointment. What happened shooting
Speaker 1: down the drone and this kind will not stand forth
Speaker 1: that I can tell you. Thank you very much. I
Speaker 1: appreciate that the president understands that part of his mandate,
Speaker 1: part of what got him elected and it wasn't. An
Speaker 1: insignificant way that he separated himself from the rest of
Speaker 1: the republican field was that he was willing to say
Speaker 1: the Iraq war was a bad idea and that we
Speaker 1: should not be engaged in these wars for regime changed
Speaker 1: purposes in the Middle East. I know that the the
Speaker 1: regime change advocates, and there are many of them out there,
Speaker 1: they will generally not say, let's land one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand soldiers in Iran and do this whole thing
Speaker 1: all over again that we've done before. But I also
Speaker 1: note that there's a there is a correlation, not a causation,
Speaker 1: but there are certainly there's a momentum to we're going
Speaker 1: to start with some military strikes against Iran, and then
Speaker 1: if that isn't enough, then what if we just side
Speaker 1: that Iran has to be stopped or Iran has to
Speaker 1: be punished severely enough that they will change their behavior,
Speaker 1: and they don't change their behavior. How far away are
Speaker 1: we really becoming much more heavily invested in in Iranian
Speaker 1: regime change than we want to be? It is true,
Speaker 1: and I just because Democrats are even some very far
Speaker 1: left to say it doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong.
Speaker 1: It is true that a war in Iran would be
Speaker 1: a disaster, one for which this country has no stomach.
Speaker 1: We just it's not our fight. Stopping the Iranians from
Speaker 1: bad behavior by being willing to slap at them when
Speaker 1: necessary with military precision strikes, the continued crush of sections
Speaker 1: on their economy, freezing them out from the international community.
Speaker 1: That all makes sense, But this is the blunder I
Speaker 1: just don't want Trump to make. He's in such a
Speaker 1: good position going into this twenty twenty election. There's so
Speaker 1: much about everything that he's done up to this point.
Speaker 1: I think he should be proud of, and that has
Speaker 1: really shown the American people the kind of results that
Speaker 1: would make us want to vote for him again. But
Speaker 1: a way to throw it all in the trash been
Speaker 1: very quickly is to find himself dragged into some war
Speaker 1: in the Iran. Look in the early days with Obama
Speaker 1: and Syria, I was I was writing pieces about how
Speaker 1: we can do a little bit here, a little bit there,
Speaker 1: but it better be very minimal, no ground troops. Syria
Speaker 1: is not our war, and I stand behind that, and
Speaker 1: that's the case in Iran. This is not. It's it's
Speaker 1: our fight when they do things to us, and we
Speaker 1: need to respond to that. But the overall narrative of
Speaker 1: events for our relationship or lack thereof, with Iran can't
Speaker 1: be that we really are just trying to find a
Speaker 1: way to overthrow their government and help get something else
Speaker 1: going there. That's just a terrible idea, and it's a
Speaker 1: way for the president to lose the second term of
Speaker 1: his presidency. If Trump gets dragged into a protracted conflict
Speaker 1: with Iran, I don't know if he can win re election.
Speaker 1: I think people are we're all so tired of it.
Speaker 1: We're all so sick of it. We don't want to
Speaker 1: hear it anymore. And for those of you were saying, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: but you don't want to be don't do Neville, chamberlain
Speaker 1: an appeasement, everything else. Okay, Well, you know, if I'm
Speaker 1: not saying if the Iranian start blowing civilian airliners out
Speaker 1: of the sky, or if the IRGC starts landing in
Speaker 1: rubber Dinghy's on Long Island trying to do sabotage operations,
Speaker 1: that we don't do whatever we have to do. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, insofar as we have a choice in these matters.
Speaker 1: In so far as this is not yet determined that
Speaker 1: we have to go to a full scale military conflict
Speaker 1: with Iran, we need to avoid it at almost all costs,
Speaker 1: not at all costs, at almost all costs. My generation,
Speaker 1: the generation above me, the generation below me, many of
Speaker 1: us have spent way too much time already in parts
Speaker 1: the Middle East that he didn't want to visit and
Speaker 1: really don't want to go back to. And I certainly
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to. I'll tell you this, all of you
Speaker 1: who are listening this. I know many of you who
Speaker 1: listen serve yourselves, but I wouldn't want to be the
Speaker 1: officer or the I wouldn't want to be the commander
Speaker 1: in chief. That's a better way of saying it. That
Speaker 1: told your son or your daughter, yeah, you're going to
Speaker 1: now go and be part of the provincial reconstruction team
Speaker 1: for Tehran, you know, because we just took over that
Speaker 1: country again. It's just it's very unnerving that we could
Speaker 1: even be having a discussion about that as a possibility.
Speaker 1: That's where we are. I think that Trump's got this though.
Speaker 1: I think he knows that you can project strength, you
Speaker 1: can do things without doing everything and as long as
Speaker 1: that's his mantra and that's his focus, I think he'll
Speaker 1: come out of this okay. But everyone is a bit
Speaker 1: on edge over this right now, and I can understand why,
Speaker 1: because there's the Iranian response. We have to consider perhaps
Speaker 1: to talk a bit more about that. On the flip side,
Speaker 1: Stay with me. A US Navy RQ four was flying
Speaker 1: over the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormus
Speaker 1: on a recent surveillance mission in international airspace in the
Speaker 1: vicinity of recent IRGC maritime attacks when it was shot
Speaker 1: down by an IRGC surface to air missile fired from
Speaker 1: a location in the vicinity of Goruk, Iran. This was
Speaker 1: an unprovoked attack on the US surveillance asset that had
Speaker 1: not violated Iranian airspace at any time during its mission.
Speaker 1: This attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to
Speaker 1: monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and
Speaker 1: the free flow of commerce. Iranian reports that this aircraft
Speaker 1: was shot down over Iran are categorically false. The aircraft
Speaker 1: was over the Strait of Hormuz and fell into international waters.
Speaker 1: I mean, Trump, I think said that he doesn't believe
Speaker 1: that this was intentional from the Iranians at the very
Speaker 1: top of the command chain to give the Iranians a
Speaker 1: chance to back down. That would be my guess as
Speaker 1: to why Trump would say that, because this was clearly
Speaker 1: the Iranians and very likely that they did get this
Speaker 1: order from the very top. I don't think there's some
Speaker 1: rogue Samsite operator who's like, Yeah, I'm just gonna blow
Speaker 1: a one hundred and thirty million dollars us playing out
Speaker 1: of the sky and see what that does for me,
Speaker 1: See what that does for my career. But it is
Speaker 1: interesting to watch the media go back and forth, depending
Speaker 1: on the hour of the day between Trump is a
Speaker 1: warmonger who wants to go to war with Iran and
Speaker 1: Trump isn't being strong enough in response to the Iran
Speaker 1: of to Iran. There's never any wow. Trump is handling
Speaker 1: this the way we want him to. And that just
Speaker 1: goes to show you that the press isn't even rooting
Speaker 1: for an outcome here. The press is rooting for something
Speaker 1: to be bad for Trump. The press is rooting for
Speaker 1: the Trump. For President Trump to have some negative result,
Speaker 1: that's the most important thing. So it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: he does. They're going to be opposed to it. They're
Speaker 1: going to say that's that's bad and we should all
Speaker 1: be very, very concerned about this. I will say Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi surprisingly is willing to say that Trump does not
Speaker 1: want to go to war. So play clip five. I
Speaker 1: think it's a dangerous situation. The high tension wires are
Speaker 1: up in the region. We have to be strong and
Speaker 1: strategic about how we protect our interest. We also cannot
Speaker 1: be reckless in what we do. So it would be
Speaker 1: interesting to see what they have to say whether the
Speaker 1: I don't think the president wants to go to war.
Speaker 1: There's no appetite for going to war in our country.
Speaker 1: The president doesn't want to go to wars. She said,
Speaker 1: there's no appetite for going to war in our country. Um, true,
Speaker 1: that is true. I think the country does not want
Speaker 1: to go to war. The president does not want to
Speaker 1: go to war. I don't think we're going to go
Speaker 1: to war. We just need to urge caution here. There's
Speaker 1: another component of this, though, and that is remember they
Speaker 1: were telling us the Iran deal with some great deal.
Speaker 1: Isn't that a laughable proposition in retrospect, isn't that And
Speaker 1: that's absolutely ridiculous when you see what this Iranian regime,
Speaker 1: how it acts and what it's doing. We'll get the
Speaker 1: more this coming up. They made a big mistake by
Speaker 1: shooting our drone down in and of itself to tweet that, no,
Speaker 1: pus provocative is to shoot the drone down. PUS provocative
Speaker 1: is to blow up a Japanese oil tanker with a
Speaker 1: Japanese prime minister in your office trying to start negotiations
Speaker 1: with the United States. Push provocative is having your proxy
Speaker 1: shoot into Saudi Arabia. Trump's not the problem. The Iranians
Speaker 1: are the problem, which will be easy to forget in
Speaker 1: the days ahead as the media covers this, they will
Speaker 1: use every opportunity. Look, this is where you really do
Speaker 1: see the mainstream media rooting against the country and rooting
Speaker 1: against America, because the interests of this country right now
Speaker 1: are to have some calm restored to the situation in
Speaker 1: the Middle East and have the Iranians back down and
Speaker 1: stop acting like this belligerent party. You know, we don't
Speaker 1: have sanctions against Uruguay. We're not bullying Thailand all the time,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't. America doesn't just pick random countries
Speaker 1: to say, hey, you know what, we just want you
Speaker 1: to do some things differently. So we're going to cut
Speaker 1: you off from the international financial system and have you know,
Speaker 1: military might right next door in case you really step
Speaker 1: out of line. I mean, that's not how we operate.
Speaker 1: We're in this situation because the Iranians are the largest
Speaker 1: state sponsor of terror in the world, and the Iranian
Speaker 1: regime very much wants to continue acting in this way
Speaker 1: even though they got this sweet deal from the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: You know, if the Iranians had a different mindset, if
Speaker 1: the Iranian leadership a different mindset, once Trump walked away
Speaker 1: from the deal, they should have just gone to the
Speaker 1: European European partners and said, guys, come on, we sign
Speaker 1: this in good faith. We you know, you need to
Speaker 1: work with us here. We need to But no, I
Speaker 1: mean their response is, Okay, you're gonna do that. We're
Speaker 1: gonna put limpet minds on the side on the wholes
Speaker 1: of ships and international waters. In the straighter horror moves,
Speaker 1: We're gonna threaten the whole world. I mean, remember, the
Speaker 1: the oil issue as it pertains to the straighter horror
Speaker 1: moves is way more than just a US issue, where
Speaker 1: every major country in the world is affected by this.
Speaker 1: So this isn't something the Iranians can just do and
Speaker 1: then say, well, we're trying to upset the Americans. This
Speaker 1: very quickly would turn into Iran versus the world. In
Speaker 1: Iran doesn't have the doesn't have the fight for that.
Speaker 1: So here we have a circumstance where the Trump administration
Speaker 1: may get the Mullahs to back down, and it may
Speaker 1: require us to slap them down first. I think that's very,
Speaker 1: very possible. But the Obama administration deal that so many
Speaker 1: of us were deeply critical of at the time, it
Speaker 1: was a bad deal. That is a true thing. It
Speaker 1: was a very poorly conceived, poorly constructed deal that was
Speaker 1: all about getting a foreign policy legacy for President Obama,
Speaker 1: and it did not solve any of our problems in
Speaker 1: Ita East. In fact, I think you could argue very
Speaker 1: clearly it made them worse. There were decisions made by
Speaker 1: the Obama administration about foreign policy that revolved around how
Speaker 1: the Iranians would react to this. In essence, we don't
Speaker 1: want the Iranians to be too upset with us, so
Speaker 1: we won't do this in Syria or that in Yemen,
Speaker 1: or this in Iraq. That was the approach for years,
Speaker 1: and that's how you have in Iran that was emboldened
Speaker 1: and felt like it was in its best strategic position
Speaker 1: in decades in the Middle East, which I think you
Speaker 1: could vary. Now with the Iraqi rival taken out, Egypt
Speaker 1: is really a shadow of it of its former self
Speaker 1: in terms of military force projection and then broader Middle East,
Speaker 1: and our only real counterbalance against the Iranians is Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: which as we all know, brings its own huge set
Speaker 1: of problems. The Iranians felt like they were making real
Speaker 1: progress and if you look at a map in the
Speaker 1: Middle East where they had proxy armies, whether it's Hezbollah
Speaker 1: in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza and
Speaker 1: the West, the Houthy militia and Yemen, the Shia Militia's
Speaker 1: and mulkata Alsader's outfit of THEO the Soders have had
Speaker 1: a break with the Iranians. But in Iraq, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of places where Iran has been able to extend
Speaker 1: its influence pretty dramatically, and it had an economic recovery
Speaker 1: because of what Obama was willing to do. Now Trump
Speaker 1: has turned that around at some point, the Iranians may
Speaker 1: decide that it's just worth it to do what the
Speaker 1: president do what Trumps is telling them to do, and
Speaker 1: that's how you win. You know, this is one part
Speaker 1: of Trump's approach on foreign policy, on all policy issues,
Speaker 1: is he has an understanding of the need for leverage
Speaker 1: and pressure that you can only get so far by
Speaker 1: asking really politely, by going up, whether it's dealing with
Speaker 1: the political opposition Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats and Schumer, or
Speaker 1: it's dealing with Kim Jong owner. Although look the Kim
Speaker 1: jong un stuff with Trump, I can and explain it,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know why he thinks it's a
Speaker 1: good idea to be so tight and so cozy with
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un. I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 1: It strikes me as odd. But I give him a
Speaker 1: lot of leeway because everyone else has failed an issue.
Speaker 1: But on these other foreign policy matters, dealing with Mexico
Speaker 1: and the migrant issue, threatened to put tariffs in place,
Speaker 1: tariffs with China, and the trade war. If you want
Speaker 1: people to do stuff that they're not just willing to do,
Speaker 1: you have to have some reason for them to do it.
Speaker 1: Because Trump has negotiated deals before. He has an understanding
Speaker 1: of this, and there's winners and losers. It's not you
Speaker 1: know that the congressional version of negotiating deal is Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll spend the taxpayers money, and you'll spend the taxpayers money,
Speaker 1: and we'll just all spend a lot of their money
Speaker 1: and then let's push it all through and then we'll
Speaker 1: pretend at election time that you know, we did everything
Speaker 1: right and didn't mess up. Has Trump died everything right
Speaker 1: on Iran? Right now? I don't know. We have to see.
Speaker 1: I think that there's going to be a response in
Speaker 1: the next forty eight hours. I really do. I think
Speaker 1: something's going to happen. Something is going to change in
Speaker 1: the next forty eight hours here. I don't know what
Speaker 1: it's going to be. I've heard some things, but I'm
Speaker 1: obviously not on the inside anymore, so I can't tell you.
Speaker 1: And if I wasn't the inside, I definitely couldn't tell you.
Speaker 1: So there's keep your fingers, keep your fingers crossed. Are
Speaker 1: better than that prey, and we have that the commander
Speaker 1: in chief has the right response here and that we
Speaker 1: don't get into something we don't want to get into
Speaker 1: that this doesn't escalate beyond what we want. A friend,
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaefer is going to join and give
Speaker 1: his thoughts on this. Then we'll switch past the Iron
Speaker 1: topic for the second hour. Stay with me. So here's
Speaker 1: the deal. Trump's not the problem, Ditele is this drone
Speaker 1: was in international waters. We've been flying patterns like this
Speaker 1: for months. We're trying to collect intelligence to make informed decisions.
Speaker 1: We've told the Iranians before they shot the drone down
Speaker 1: that I can engage against American personnel or assets. You
Speaker 1: do so at your own peril. The present does not
Speaker 1: want a war with Iran anybody else. President doesn't want
Speaker 1: a war the Iran. Lindsey Graham is saying, So what
Speaker 1: do we want? What should happen here? We have our friend,
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer joining us now. Is the author
Speaker 1: of Operation dark Heart. He is a fellow at the
Speaker 1: London Center and he joined us to talk about what's
Speaker 1: going on. Tony, thanks so much, Hey, Buck, always great
Speaker 1: to be on with you. Thanks for having me. All right,
Speaker 1: so they shot they shot our drone down. What should
Speaker 1: we do now? Well? I think there's two things. First,
Speaker 1: we need to state our objectives one last time. I
Speaker 1: think this is an I agree with Senator Graham President Trump,
Speaker 1: based on folks I've talked to at a tooral about
Speaker 1: this today, I think he President Trump's been completely right
Speaker 1: about Iran with us said, there's nothing in a case
Speaker 1: to me that we want to go to war. But
Speaker 1: after we make that second warning, Buck, I think we
Speaker 1: have to be prepared for military action. And I don't
Speaker 1: want to say this in a threatening way, but if
Speaker 1: the President says he's done with the Iranians their navy,
Speaker 1: their navy will be pretty much evaporated in about twenty
Speaker 1: four hours. So I think we can safely use military
Speaker 1: precision strikes against specific military targets which have been used
Speaker 1: as part of the Iranian effort in the Gulf of
Speaker 1: Oman and in the Straits of Homoth to cause problems.
Speaker 1: So you know, I'm not one for war, but I
Speaker 1: am one to say, if you continue to poke me
Speaker 1: in the eye with a stick, I'm going to take
Speaker 1: that stick, break it in half, and put it in
Speaker 1: your ear. And I think that's to the point where
Speaker 1: we're at right now. Now, what would you say to
Speaker 1: the concerns from from some including on the right that
Speaker 1: if we do that. Let's say, if we, as you
Speaker 1: pointed out, made the Iranian navy effectively no more. Iran
Speaker 1: has a whole bunch of other things that they could do,
Speaker 1: ground based missiles, firing them at ships in the Straits
Speaker 1: of Straight, of Hormos, firing it off at oil tankers.
Speaker 1: You know, if they're what do we do if they
Speaker 1: escalate in response to our escalation or how concerned are
Speaker 1: you that they would do that? At this point? I
Speaker 1: got to be honest with you, I don't think that
Speaker 1: they would respond in that level of kind. I think
Speaker 1: the more we appease them, And I think President Trump
Speaker 1: has tried to kind of split the baby here. He's
Speaker 1: trying to say, look, I don't want to go to war,
Speaker 1: don't push me. At the same time, if you push me,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go to war. In this case, they
Speaker 1: have continued to ratchet up their bad behavior. And by
Speaker 1: the way, this drone being down, this is not the
Speaker 1: first time that they've harassed drones over international waters in
Speaker 1: the past. The Obama administration just kind of gave in.
Speaker 1: So this is where I think Uranians are trying to
Speaker 1: push the president to the point of where they think
Speaker 1: you'll get in. I just don't think the understanding is
Speaker 1: not going to get in. And while I don't believe
Speaker 1: we need to be looking at military troops on the ground, again,
Speaker 1: if the moment a military weapon is used against a
Speaker 1: commercial entity, I think we have the right to attack it.
Speaker 1: So if the Rainings do what you stipulate Buck is
Speaker 1: they start firing missiles off and commercial ships, I think
Speaker 1: those those missile sites need to be dealt with very
Speaker 1: quickly and very effectively. And so this is why I
Speaker 1: don't think the Rains are going to do that, because
Speaker 1: the more they deal with us militarily, the more they're
Speaker 1: going to lose capability, which makes them more vulnerable to
Speaker 1: others who you know, may not be as welling as
Speaker 1: us to restrain ourselves. So I don't think they want
Speaker 1: to do that, and I think they'll recognize I'd like
Speaker 1: to believe they'll be rational and understanding that if they
Speaker 1: use military force, we're going to be forced to use
Speaker 1: force back. What do you think is the proportional response?
Speaker 1: What is a proportional response to them shooting a one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar drone out of the sky. Look like
Speaker 1: my response would be to take out every like weapon side.
Speaker 1: That is, say, if they use, say, for example, the
Speaker 1: Chinese made surface to air missile that comes off the
Speaker 1: shore one of the ships, then we take them all out.
Speaker 1: And that's why I'm saying, you know, if the navy
Speaker 1: continues to be a problem, we take out the entire navy.
Speaker 1: And so it's one of those things where I don't
Speaker 1: believe for a minute we will be we will benefit
Speaker 1: from just HIG one site. I think if if you
Speaker 1: continue to do things to the level of attacking commercial entities,
Speaker 1: we need to do it, you know, kind of take
Speaker 1: out the whole capability. And let me say something else here,
Speaker 1: which may seem a bit odd, but the Chinese have
Speaker 1: been stalking up on oil. The reason the Chinese are
Speaker 1: stocking up on oil is because they have an economy
Speaker 1: that has no more than two or weeks supply of
Speaker 1: oil in a given time. So I think others that
Speaker 1: would not normally be on our side on this may
Speaker 1: well be on our side on this because while we
Speaker 1: don't need a rainy and oil, while we don't need
Speaker 1: oil from any source, we don't want to see commercial
Speaker 1: entities attacked in the Gulf, which result in the diminishing
Speaker 1: and other parts of the world's economy crashing. So and
Speaker 1: I don't think the Chinese want their economy to crash either.
Speaker 1: So what I'm saying is we have to be very
Speaker 1: clear on our result, and there may be a need
Speaker 1: for some level of military force. And again, let me
Speaker 1: be clear on this, I'm not proposing a military invasion.
Speaker 1: I don't think we want booths on the ground. At
Speaker 1: the same time, we cannot allow the Iranians to continue
Speaker 1: unimpeded to act badly and try to interferece with an
Speaker 1: interfere with commercial operations within the Gulf. You hear a
Speaker 1: lot about John Bolton's influence on the president's national security policy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what do you think of John generally, Tony And should
Speaker 1: this be the concern that a lot of people make
Speaker 1: it out to be? Essentially that Look, I'll just say
Speaker 1: that they say that John is a warmonger. Now that's
Speaker 1: obviously a slur, but you think he's a little too
Speaker 1: quick to go for the go for the you know,
Speaker 1: the fire button. I think in the past John has
Speaker 1: had a record of encouraging military operations against Iran which
Speaker 1: would have not produced good results. And I'm one of
Speaker 1: those where you know. Remember but back during the time
Speaker 1: that John was most vocal, he was trying to encourage
Speaker 1: the Bush forty three administer Creation to go in and
Speaker 1: do air strikes against nuclear sites. I was opposed to
Speaker 1: that because, first off, we just don't know how many
Speaker 1: sites they have, how many you know, if we miss one,
Speaker 1: what happens if you know, they continue to do it.
Speaker 1: So I think there was a lot of issues that
Speaker 1: we just didn't know enough to do accurate air strikes.
Speaker 1: And I think that could have resulted in a larger
Speaker 1: war because that would have been an active aggression. In
Speaker 1: this case we're talking about here, if the Iranians shoot first.
Speaker 1: And this goes back to I use the Reagan metaphor
Speaker 1: in Libyan. You know, the Libyans were in the Mediterranean
Speaker 1: essentially shooting at our airplanes, and when Reagan was asked
Speaker 1: by my friend Budd McFarland, what do you want to do?
Speaker 1: Regan says, shoot them down. So I'm not for aggressive
Speaker 1: offensive operations. I am for very aggressive defensive operations. It's
Speaker 1: based on the predicate of someone shooting at us or
Speaker 1: interfering with our commerce. And I think this is where
Speaker 1: maybe in the past, John there was a little bit
Speaker 1: too aggressive regarding trying to create offensive operations without a
Speaker 1: clear predicate, and I think that's where John got a
Speaker 1: bad rep. Is John doing better now and that I
Speaker 1: think John is being much more in tune with what
Speaker 1: President Trump would want done. I really do believe that.
Speaker 1: Talking Lieutenant Colonel Tony Schaeffer, author of Operation dark Heart
Speaker 1: also you know him from the London Center for Policy Research.
Speaker 1: All right, Tony, what about if the Iranians follow through
Speaker 1: on their threat to enrich uranium? What is it up
Speaker 1: to twenty percent? Which puts them in very quick striking
Speaker 1: distance of weaponizing uranium? What should should our policy just
Speaker 1: be keep the sanctions on, be patient, keep the squeeze on,
Speaker 1: or should it be stronger than that? Now? I'm one
Speaker 1: of those again that I think the sanctions and the
Speaker 1: very severe economic restrictions we've placed on them are actually
Speaker 1: having an effect. And I again, I've never been one
Speaker 1: for the idea of air strikes buck because we just
Speaker 1: don't know what we don't know to kind of do
Speaker 1: a quote of Don Rumstone, there's no unknowns and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff. So I'm not comfortable with the idea
Speaker 1: of going in there and trying to bomb these things.
Speaker 1: So I think the use of sanctions to strangle their
Speaker 1: ability to do things. And by the way, that infusion
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars the Obama administration aid them did
Speaker 1: not help us and help them move their weapons programs along.
Speaker 1: So I think the best thing we can do is
Speaker 1: try to get them back to the negotiating table and
Speaker 1: go from there. But I'm not for military action at
Speaker 1: this point regarding a nuclear program. What that said, the
Speaker 1: other thing we should be encouraging, and I'm saying this
Speaker 1: as Tony Shaper, Senior fellow at the London Center, not
Speaker 1: as a member or not as someone who advises the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, but I think we need to encourage a
Speaker 1: regime change. A democratic Iran run by someone like the
Speaker 1: Green Movement, who are predisposed to not be trying to
Speaker 1: develop weapons of mass structure would be in our ent
Speaker 1: and the Green Movement back in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: I would argue the Obama administration made a huge problem
Speaker 1: by not supporting the Persian Spring. They supported the Arab Spring,
Speaker 1: but the Persians they had a Green movement who was
Speaker 1: seeking democracy, and the Obama administration had absolutely nothing to
Speaker 1: help them. There's still a very strong movement within Iran
Speaker 1: that wants to get rid of the Molas to move
Speaker 1: towards democracy. I think we should encourage that. And frankly,
Speaker 1: if they're having their own internal problems, it gives them
Speaker 1: less opportunity to terrorize or be troublesome to their neighbors
Speaker 1: around them. Well, Tennant, Colonel Tony Shaff for everybody. Tony,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us. Always appreciate your insights,
Speaker 1: Sir hey Buck, always great to be on with you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, all right, team, We'll be right back about
Speaker 1: our ABC News investigation this morning. And did Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: son Hunter and questions about money he made from foreign
Speaker 1: business dealings while his father was Vice president? Was Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden profiting off his dad's work as vice president? And
Speaker 1: did Joe Biden allow it? We're talking about millions of
Speaker 1: dollars in at least two countries. Mister Vice President Tom
Speaker 1: Yamas with ABC News, How you doing. I got a
Speaker 1: quick question for you. It's a question we tried to
Speaker 1: ask repeatedly. Can we ask you about Ukraine and China?
Speaker 1: But kept getting blocked questions about foreign deals? His son
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden pursued my father Joden in countries where Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was working as a Miracle's top diplomat. How do
Speaker 1: you judge what Hunter Biden was doing. I think that
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden did a very bad thing and he was
Speaker 1: very wrong. He allowed his name to be abused. ABC
Speaker 1: News here doing a little rundown on some of the
Speaker 1: problems facing Hunter Biden, whom I believe is the same
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden who took up a relationship with the widow
Speaker 1: of Bobiden, his brother, after Bobiden died, which that strikes
Speaker 1: me as a quite odd thing to do. But at
Speaker 1: issue here is that Hunter Biden may have been receiving
Speaker 1: money that was really just an influence peddling scheme. What
Speaker 1: does Hunter Biden have to do with these deals in
Speaker 1: Ukraine and in China where he was making millions of dollars?
Speaker 1: What expertise does he bring to them? Why would they
Speaker 1: put him on either the board of any of these
Speaker 1: companies or involved in deals with these companies. Why would
Speaker 1: they do any of that unless it was because they
Speaker 1: were trying to buy favor and buy access to his father.
Speaker 1: And this is what I will never let this go.
Speaker 1: The Clintons were so corrupt, They were so completely brazenly
Speaker 1: willing to sell access to themselves and to sell access
Speaker 1: to the Clinton enterprise, that it was hard to keep
Speaker 1: up with it. And they almost created a perception of
Speaker 1: that activity in those behaviors as normal on their own,
Speaker 1: just by being so flagrant in their violations of those laws.
Speaker 1: How is it that the guardians of our republic, the
Speaker 1: mainstream media that always pretends to be willing to speak
Speaker 1: truth to power, how is it that they were unable
Speaker 1: or uninterested in figuring out what was really going on?
Speaker 1: To the Clinton Foundation? How the heck did Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and it being worth and her husband worth over a
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars, never mind the I think it was
Speaker 1: two billion that they raised for the Clinton Global Initiative.
Speaker 1: How did all that happen? Why was all of that happening?
Speaker 1: These were questions that journalists knew. If they wanted advancement,
Speaker 1: if they wanted to keep their privilege purchase, if they
Speaker 1: wanted to just be on the upward trajectory, they had
Speaker 1: to completely forget, completely abandon any pretense of neutrality of journalism,
Speaker 1: of honesty and earnestness in their endeavors, and cover for
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and everywhere that they could.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they'll be quite as willing to
Speaker 1: do that for the Biden family. The Bidens have shown
Speaker 1: that they are very interested in making money. For all
Speaker 1: the talk about being public servants. I mean, Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: here shown up in foreign countries. Well, think about this,
Speaker 1: what would he have to bring to the table, and
Speaker 1: with some oil company in Ukraine, or of course is
Speaker 1: that his dad's a vice president. There's nothing else here.
Speaker 1: There's nothing else that makes any sense. We know what
Speaker 1: this was all about, We understand what the game was
Speaker 1: that was being played. Just be better if we could
Speaker 1: be honest about it, and if our journalists would be
Speaker 1: a bit honest about it. My old colleague, former colleague
Speaker 1: at the Hill, John Solomon, he's been breaking stories on
Speaker 1: this and he's saying, look this, this stuff is real.
Speaker 1: He says that Joe Biden made sure that there was
Speaker 1: the firing of a prosecutor who was looking into in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor was looking into a fossil fuel production company
Speaker 1: that a Hunter Biden was on was involved with in
Speaker 1: some capacity I think consulting and getting some fat fees,
Speaker 1: and Biden shut the whole thing down. But these people
Speaker 1: want to want to get mad if someone from like
Speaker 1: the Embassy of Japan buys a hamburger the Trump International Hotel.
Speaker 1: I think that's a violation of the emoluments Clause. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so. I don't think we
Speaker 1: should accept that kind of nonsense at all. By the way,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that we're starting to also see
Speaker 1: that people are running out of patients with this continued
Speaker 1: discussion over reparations. And I didn't get to play this
Speaker 1: for you yesterday, but because the reparation ideas, it's never
Speaker 1: going to go anywhere significant. It really is just for show.
Speaker 1: It is moral theater, and really mostly moral theater for
Speaker 1: white liberals who want to feel like they're doing the
Speaker 1: right thing and they feel good about themselves. But here's
Speaker 1: what Burgess Owens, who is a former NFL player we've
Speaker 1: had on the show many times. Here's what he says
Speaker 1: about reparations. Play clip two. How about a Democratic party
Speaker 1: pay for all the misery brought to my race and those,
Speaker 1: after we learn our history decide to stay there, they
Speaker 1: should pay. Also, they're complicit, and every white American Republican
Speaker 1: or democrat, it feels guilty because they'll be your white skin.
Speaker 1: You should need to pony up also the guilt, my friends,
Speaker 1: It's very powerful tool in the hands of liberals. They
Speaker 1: use it on any number of things. They use it
Speaker 1: with trying to push for things that are essentially racial
Speaker 1: preferences or some form of racial distinction within the law.
Speaker 1: They use it to convince us all that environmental policy
Speaker 1: should be dictated from a kind of green priesthood that
Speaker 1: thinks that they're saving the world, even if they won't
Speaker 1: change their own behavior, and make no effort to be
Speaker 1: part of the solution other than to make everybody else
Speaker 1: part of a solution that will never happen, that will
Speaker 1: never really, never really occur. I think that in the
Speaker 1: aftermath of yesterday's hearing, a lot of people on reparations,
Speaker 1: A lot of people walk around saying, why was that
Speaker 1: hearing even necessary? What would it mean for English common
Speaker 1: law based American law? I should say it was comona,
Speaker 1: But what I mean for English commonla based American law,
Speaker 1: if all of a sudden you could be held responsible
Speaker 1: for the sins of your parents, or your grandparents or
Speaker 1: your great grandparents, you personally could be it could be
Speaker 1: held out that you were going to be the one
Speaker 1: that had to pay the price. That would very quickly
Speaker 1: erode our entire system of jurisprudence, whereby you can only
Speaker 1: be guilty if you've done something wrong. You can only
Speaker 1: be the person who has to be has to be
Speaker 1: punished if you've taken some action, If there's some part
Speaker 1: of this process where you have an you're an active
Speaker 1: participant in it. But I just thought that the reparations
Speaker 1: case that was being made yesterday in Capitol Hill, it
Speaker 1: was very weak and just does not make any sense.
Speaker 1: And I didn't even get into yesterday, And this was
Speaker 1: a part of it that I always think about, Well,
Speaker 1: what if you're what if you're somebody who's half black,
Speaker 1: half white, somebody like Barack Obama, Where does do reparations
Speaker 1: go to you directly if you're from a mixed racial background,
Speaker 1: in the same to you to the same percentage as
Speaker 1: somebody that comes from an entirely African American background? Would
Speaker 1: that be there? You know, who would qualify for this?
Speaker 1: And at ultimately that's when you realize it's just going
Speaker 1: to be a slush fund. It's just gonna be money
Speaker 1: set aside for left wing causes and the promotion of
Speaker 1: left wing ideas and everything else very quickly just would
Speaker 1: be meaningless. It would be billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 1: for progressive institutions, the kind that build really fancy mansions
Speaker 1: here in DC and you walk past them and you
Speaker 1: say yourself, what an organization is that? Did they have
Speaker 1: this kind of money throw around? Well, a lot of unions,
Speaker 1: by the way, some of these unions AFLCIO and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, I know they would say, oh, we represent
Speaker 1: huge memberships. Man, They've got fancy buildings down here in DC,
Speaker 1: very very fancy indeed. So oh, one more thing, do
Speaker 1: you want to get a quick lesson from AOC on? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't have time for the Yeah, no, enough time
Speaker 1: for it. We'll have to hold that one for tomorrow. Corruption, though,
Speaker 1: is this is one of the clear worst areas of
Speaker 1: the law, where there's a Republican standard and a Democrat standard.
Speaker 1: And you're seeing this with the hunter Biden thing. Why
Speaker 1: didn't we know about this before? It's only breaking now
Speaker 1: because hunter Biden has become more expendable with the left.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: on the left that want Biden to step aside. I
Speaker 1: do think that the smart people on the left realize
Speaker 1: that Biden just does not does not have it in
Speaker 1: any sense. He will not be able to beat President Trump.
Speaker 1: And so that means that the same left that was
Speaker 1: willing to fight so dirty with you and me, they're
Speaker 1: going to start fighting dirty with their own And I
Speaker 1: think you saw that with Kamala Harris and Corey Booker.
Speaker 1: They're going to be willing to really take it up
Speaker 1: a notch here. So team, we have a much more
Speaker 1: show coming up in just a moment. Somebody running for
Speaker 1: president United States, somebody running to be the leader of
Speaker 1: our party should know that using the word boy and
Speaker 1: the way he did can cause hurt and pain, to
Speaker 1: coddle the reputations of segreds of people who, if they
Speaker 1: had their way, I would literally not be standing here
Speaker 1: to remember le and I've state Senate is I think, um,
Speaker 1: it's just it's misinformed. What happened all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are going and turning on Biden. Some of
Speaker 1: the prominent, i would say, the most prominent establishment connected
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates here, Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, I'd say
Speaker 1: they're two of the very top, both US senators from
Speaker 1: big blue states, very friendly with the media, very cozy
Speaker 1: with the Democrat media establishment. They're going after Biden here
Speaker 1: and let's just go over a little well, well, let's
Speaker 1: just set the stage and then I'll tell you what's
Speaker 1: what's really happening here. So Biden recently said of some
Speaker 1: of his colleague He was at a New York fundraiser
Speaker 1: yesterday when he pointed to the relationship he had with
Speaker 1: senators like James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of
Speaker 1: Georgia to say that DC or Washington, the swamp used
Speaker 1: to function with more civility and more smoothly than it
Speaker 1: does today. He was effectively a decrying the hyperpartisan atmosphere
Speaker 1: of the current moment we are in now. Put aside
Speaker 1: whether or not you agree with that, or that's a
Speaker 1: worthwhile thing for Biden is SAA or whether everyone should
Speaker 1: care about any of that. The problem here is that
Speaker 1: Senators James Eastland and Herman Talmadge are or well they're
Speaker 1: not long dead, but they were segregationists. Ah, so you
Speaker 1: have Joe Biden who's saying that these two segregation of senators.
Speaker 1: We worked together really closely, and it was great because
Speaker 1: there was a lot of civility. There were civility, we
Speaker 1: got things done, he said. And man, did his Democrat
Speaker 1: colleagues begin this pylon all of a sudden, quote Corey
Speaker 1: Booker jumped in, I have to tell Vice President Biden,
Speaker 1: as someone I respect, that he's wrong for using his
Speaker 1: relationship with Eastland and Talmadge as examples of how to
Speaker 1: bring our country together. New York City mayor build a Blasio,
Speaker 1: who is also Democratic Candidate's a mayor. He's married to
Speaker 1: a black woman in New York City, he tweeted out, quote,
Speaker 1: it's twenty nineteen and Joe Biden is longing for the
Speaker 1: good old days of civility typified by James Eastland. Eastland
Speaker 1: thought my multi racial family should be illegal. California Senator
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, a black presidential candidate, said Biden was coddling
Speaker 1: segregationist in a way that suggests that he doesn't understand
Speaker 1: the dark history of our country. And then Beto O'Rourke,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, what did Biden say? What do you
Speaker 1: do for the Vice president to somehow say that we're
Speaker 1: seeing in this country today is a function of partisanship
Speaker 1: or of bipartisanship, completely ignores the legacy of slavery, the
Speaker 1: active suppression of African American and community of colors, communities
Speaker 1: of color right now. So they're all jumping in here, folks,
Speaker 1: they're all pilot on with Biden saying, oh, how could
Speaker 1: he say that he worked with these senators back in
Speaker 1: the day and that they were civil to each other.
Speaker 1: That's not allowed, that's unacceptable. Biden has perhaps learned a
Speaker 1: little bit since the last time he was the subject
Speaker 1: of a pylon, which was over whether there should be
Speaker 1: a repeal of the High Amendment. Remember, the High Amendment
Speaker 1: prevents federal funding for abortions. Taxpayer dollars to go to abortions,
Speaker 1: which is really a giveaway with no substance. Because your
Speaker 1: tax dollars, I can tell you do you go to abortion?
Speaker 1: They go to planned parenthood. And Planned parenthood may say
Speaker 1: that money doesn't go to abortions, but yeah, if you
Speaker 1: give me ten thousand dollars and I tell you that
Speaker 1: it's not going to my new sports car, it's going
Speaker 1: to my education, well okay, but you just give me
Speaker 1: ten thousand dollars, So I can spend the money on
Speaker 1: whatever I want. That doesn't really make all that much difference.
Speaker 1: That Biden got caught being somebody without much in the
Speaker 1: way of principles or any particular core and so now
Speaker 1: he's decided that he's not going to apologize for this
Speaker 1: latest moment, this latest gaff. Play clip four. Corey should apologize.
Speaker 1: He knows better. There's not a racist bone in my body.
Speaker 1: I've been involved in civil rights my whole career. Period, period, period.
Speaker 1: It's kind of going on offense a little bit there.
Speaker 1: Corey should know better. Although I don't think that's I
Speaker 1: don't think that's gonna cut it. I don't think Corey
Speaker 1: and Kamal and the rest are going to say, oh, okay, well,
Speaker 1: if Biden wants us leave us alone, we will. Let
Speaker 1: me say this, Where does the left draw the line here?
Speaker 1: If you were a senator, and you've been a senator
Speaker 1: for a very long time, and you had to serve
Speaker 1: with fellow senators who were not just people who are segregationists,
Speaker 1: but what about people who, oh, give it some time,
Speaker 1: what about people who are for a traditional marriage in
Speaker 1: the Senate? Will that be considered a mark against senators
Speaker 1: decades from now, What also do we say about the
Speaker 1: fact that then anybody who served in the Senate at
Speaker 1: that time on the Democrat side and worked with these
Speaker 1: two segregationists, because they would have had to work with
Speaker 1: them if they're going to be in the same party
Speaker 1: and they're going to try to get bills past, are
Speaker 1: they all guilty of being allies or activists or supporters
Speaker 1: of the segregationist senators? Is that is that what we're
Speaker 1: supposed to take from this. The left doesn't really establish
Speaker 1: any clear guidelines. It's it's often just left to be
Speaker 1: whatever it is, that's what it's going to be. They
Speaker 1: make it up as they go along, and on this
Speaker 1: you just have some Democrat candidates who are clearly upset,
Speaker 1: not about what Joe Biden said so much as they're
Speaker 1: upset I think that their campaigns haven't caught on more,
Speaker 1: and that Joe Biden's getting so much of the attention
Speaker 1: and so much of the money. He managed without an
Speaker 1: endorsement from Obama and without any particularly impressive career of
Speaker 1: his own, he managed to put himself in a position
Speaker 1: where he's just the he is the front runner, he
Speaker 1: is the guy. And based on what I mean that
Speaker 1: it's based on eight years of Obama is pretty stunning
Speaker 1: because Biden didn't do all that much to speak of
Speaker 1: in those Obama years, and usually a vice president like
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily just get to be at the very
Speaker 1: very front of the pack in a crowded field in
Speaker 1: the next general election. But Biden, I've been you know,
Speaker 1: I've been saying all along. He's a weak candidate. He's
Speaker 1: not going to be stronger as a candidate. There's no
Speaker 1: way that Joe Biden can beat Donald Trump in my opinion,
Speaker 1: unless something just completely unforeseen, unforeseeable and crazy happens. There's
Speaker 1: just no way, because why why would anyone vote for
Speaker 1: this guy change his positions on a whim? What ideas
Speaker 1: it does? Does he have? Oh, I'm gonna be more civil,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be more friendly people by the team. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry my voice. I'm I've got a cold in June,
Speaker 1: which is really I don't know, that's the thing that
Speaker 1: really happened to people. So my voice keeps cracking and
Speaker 1: my head's all stuffed up, and you know, I'm on
Speaker 1: taking some meds to try to get through the show.
Speaker 1: But I apologize if you hear my voice crack or
Speaker 1: something bad goes down during the show like that. I'm
Speaker 1: fighting through a team because neither rain nor snow nor
Speaker 1: sleet or whatever that is. Blah blah, I have a cold.
Speaker 1: I'll keep doing my show. We'll grab back, Congresswoman. Tens
Speaker 1: of thousands were also brutalized, tortured, starved, and ultimately died
Speaker 1: in concentration camps camps like Takau. If you want to
Speaker 1: criticize the shameful treatment of people at our southern border, fine,
Speaker 1: they'll have plenty of company, but be careful comparing them
Speaker 1: to Nazi concentration camps, because they're not at all comparable
Speaker 1: in the slightest But here's where upsetting as are comments.
Speaker 1: Some Democrats have been relucting to condemn her remarks, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to get criticized on Twitter. Fellow New
Speaker 1: Our Congressman Jerry Nadler tweeted in response, one of the
Speaker 1: lessons from the Holocaust is never again. We fail to
Speaker 1: learn that lesson when we don't call out such inhumanity
Speaker 1: right in front of us. Darry Nadler Shirley knows migrant
Speaker 1: detainment camps are not the same as concentration camps. So
Speaker 1: why didn't he just say that? Why are we so
Speaker 1: cheapest calling out people we agree with politically these days?
Speaker 1: So Chuck Todd maybe accidentally is engaging in an active,
Speaker 1: somewhat sane journalism here Chuck Todd NBC? Why does this
Speaker 1: guy have the job he has? What is he particularly
Speaker 1: good at? Why shouldn't even listen to him? I can't
Speaker 1: answer any of those questions for you, folks. I don't know.
Speaker 1: You get a lot of these guys that we're just
Speaker 1: supposed to listen to because they've been around for a
Speaker 1: while and they're friends with the execs that run these companies. Basically,
Speaker 1: what is it about Chuck Tbwell, who cares Chuck Todd?
Speaker 1: Meanwhile he's calling out AOC, and who wants to just
Speaker 1: in their own head here for a second, just just
Speaker 1: give it a little guess. Did Chuck Todd get treated
Speaker 1: like he was doing the right thing for calling out
Speaker 1: of Casey Cortez? Or was the response response to him
Speaker 1: that he's a terrible person and he's the worst and
Speaker 1: he's a sellout and everything else. Oh, that's right, it's
Speaker 1: defend AOC no matter what time. That's where the left
Speaker 1: is that is where the left heart and soul is
Speaker 1: right now, whatever it has to be, defend AOC. She
Speaker 1: tripled down yesterday. She keeps going with this concentration thing.
Speaker 1: She said, we are calling these camps. We're calling these
Speaker 1: camps what they are because they fit squarely in an
Speaker 1: academic consensus and definition. History will be kind to those
Speaker 1: who stood up to this injustice. So say what you will.
Speaker 1: Kids are dying, and I'm not here to make people
Speaker 1: free feel comfortable about that. Okay, Again, just demagoguery, I
Speaker 1: mean shameless demagoguery when she says kids are dying. There
Speaker 1: are no kids who are dying in the detention facilities
Speaker 1: because of the conditions or because of unsafe you know,
Speaker 1: unsafe holding cells or anything like that. The kids who
Speaker 1: have died have showed up at the border incredibly sick
Speaker 1: because they're going through a dangerous passage to get there
Speaker 1: in the first place. Those kids have showed up, they've
Speaker 1: been very ill, and they've been immediately taken to get
Speaker 1: first world taxpayer funded American healthcare right away. But if
Speaker 1: you show up with the kid who was one hundred
Speaker 1: and four fever and is dehydrated, and you know, bad
Speaker 1: things can happen. It's terrible, it's a tragedy, but that's
Speaker 1: what has been happening. But see her suggestion question here
Speaker 1: is that the kids are dying because of immigration and
Speaker 1: custom enforcement or because of border patrol, which is just wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's wrong on the facts. It's also
Speaker 1: morally wrong. It's wrong to suggest that to make it
Speaker 1: seem like the men and women or border patrol are
Speaker 1: killing kids. Don't even get me started on how AOC
Speaker 1: and so much of the left only cares about kids
Speaker 1: in the context of migrants, not in the womb. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a really interesting Cleveland Clinic video that they
Speaker 1: put out showing a cartoon essentially or a visualization of
Speaker 1: a spina bifida surgery being done on a fetus. And
Speaker 1: it's incredible and they just did the first successful one ever.
Speaker 1: And this was making the rounds on Twitter and on
Speaker 1: social media because people were asking the obvious question, if
Speaker 1: this is basically this fetus is basically a tumor or
Speaker 1: a parasite or a clump of cells or the other stuff,
Speaker 1: the other deeply disingenuous, non scientific stuff that is said
Speaker 1: about it by libs who just want to justify what
Speaker 1: they're doing. Why are they doing a very complicated spina
Speaker 1: bifitous surgery on that fetus. You don't do a spina
Speaker 1: as in spine surgery on a clump of random cells.
Speaker 1: Who certainly wouldn't do that on a tumor. But this
Speaker 1: is this is where we are now. The people that
Speaker 1: claim to embrace science reject science so blatantly in the
Speaker 1: case of life and the fight over life. Oh wait,
Speaker 1: here we go, there's more from me. I'm sorry, there's
Speaker 1: This is from Walter shab who is the Office of
Speaker 1: Government Ethics, former director of that. Okay, oh yeah, he's
Speaker 1: one of these guys who's always coming out now out
Speaker 1: to say like Trump is breaking this law or that laws.
Speaker 1: There's a whole industry of people that come up with
Speaker 1: obscure laws or bizarre interpretations of laws that allows someone
Speaker 1: to try to throw Trump in prison. That's what they try,
Speaker 1: that's what they want, or at least tell themselves they
Speaker 1: maybe do that one day. Sky Walter Shaubs wrote here
Speaker 1: about the AOC dust up in the future of the
Speaker 1: history books, if there are history books, will have much
Speaker 1: to say about the people who did the normalizing this phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Is not notable for its uniqueness of the times that,
Speaker 1: similar to other periods of darkness, the lessons have not
Speaker 1: been learned. And that's in response to a Kazi Ortel's
Speaker 1: writing to Chuck Todd. The fact that you slipped in
Speaker 1: Nazi when I never said that is pretty unfortunate, Almost
Speaker 1: as unfortunate as the fact that you spent this whole
Speaker 1: time without discussing DHS, freezers, dog pounds, missing children, and
Speaker 1: human rights abuses that uphold use of this term. She's
Speaker 1: not backing off of saying concentration camps at the border.
Speaker 1: She's not, folks, After all the information that has been
Speaker 1: pushed her way, after all the free history lessons that
Speaker 1: she's been given, she's still saying concentration camps. Why because
Speaker 1: ultimately this is not really about those kids. It's not.
Speaker 1: She might say it is, she pretends it is. But
Speaker 1: by calling what's going on in a southern border concentration camps,
Speaker 1: it serves two very important purposes for the left. One
Speaker 1: is that it ties into the whole Trump is basically
Speaker 1: basically Hitler is a fascist. And two, it keeps the
Speaker 1: focus off of the fact that the Democrats have no
Speaker 1: answers as to what should be done at the border,
Speaker 1: have no theories about how we can make this better,
Speaker 1: and so all they would like to do is continue
Speaker 1: to point the Republicans and say, see, these guys are bad.
Speaker 1: They don't like the migrants. Bad, bad, bad, and that's
Speaker 1: what they're doing. AOC is an intellectual abomination, but she's
Speaker 1: very powerful and has a lot of people. Wow, four
Speaker 1: point four three million Twitter followers, she has a massive audience.
Speaker 1: I mean for somebody who is a third tier intellect,
Speaker 1: I mean somebody who's just not impressive at all in
Speaker 1: terms of the grasp of information and knowledge and her
Speaker 1: synthesis of all of that. It's appalling. But people are
Speaker 1: still backing her up. People are still pretending that what
Speaker 1: she said was not the outrageous and stupid comparison that
Speaker 1: it was. But Chuck Todd, I'm surprised to see that
Speaker 1: he was willing to be not even a journalist, just
Speaker 1: be normal for a moment, just to speak the truth
Speaker 1: about something like this. So many journalists are just running
Speaker 1: scared from AOC all the time. They think that they
Speaker 1: have to constantly prop her up. They have to find
Speaker 1: some way to justify whatever it is that she says
Speaker 1: it's pretty pathetic. It is pretty pathetic. And I know
Speaker 1: that the left would say, oh, but the right, or
Speaker 1: at least the conservative journals do that for Trump. It's
Speaker 1: not true. I know a lot of people on the
Speaker 1: right who will disagree with something Trump said or how
Speaker 1: he said it. They just support Trump as the movement.
Speaker 1: They don't think that everything he does is perfect. We
Speaker 1: don't have some Messiah complex with Trump. I think they do.
Speaker 1: With AOC coming up in a few moments, we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about the injustice of the exoneration and now
Speaker 1: the lionization of the Central Park five, the individuals who
Speaker 1: are initially convicted of a brutal rape and attempted murder
Speaker 1: in Central Park back in nineteen eighty nine. They're now
Speaker 1: being turned into civil rights icons, folk heroes, and Hollywood
Speaker 1: is just completely completely changing the history and the facts
Speaker 1: to suit this this narrative. We all know what the
Speaker 1: narrative is. The narrative is that evil white cops who
Speaker 1: were racist just grabbed the nearest black boys that they
Speaker 1: could in order to try and you know, get false
Speaker 1: confessions out of them because of pressure from city hall.
Speaker 1: You know that that's the narrative. That's the thing that
Speaker 1: they tried to do, and that's not what reality was.
Speaker 1: But I will get into that a few minutes. But
Speaker 1: I do have some good news here today from the
Speaker 1: legal front, because that that is bad news, that does
Speaker 1: not work. But some good news from the legal front
Speaker 1: would be that the you may recall this, I talked
Speaker 1: about the story here on the show, the Sheila Jackson
Speaker 1: Lee staffer who decided to docks meaning to share the
Speaker 1: private information of members of the Republican Senate in order
Speaker 1: to do them harm just because they're Republicans. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was a this was a political hit, and this
Speaker 1: happened during the final hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: That Democrat congressional staffer has just been sentenced to four
Speaker 1: years in prison. This from the Daily Daily Wire today.
Speaker 1: Jackson Costco was described by prosecutors as having self righteous
Speaker 1: entitlement and believing that he could violate the sanctity of
Speaker 1: the United States Senate at will and threaten individual senators
Speaker 1: as he pleased. Prosecutors sought to make an example of
Speaker 1: Costco because his crime allegedly led to other incidents of
Speaker 1: attacks on political opposition. Costco is the son of the
Speaker 1: CEO of a major construction company who has ties to
Speaker 1: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Diane Feinstein. He had
Speaker 1: previously worked as a staffer in Maggie Hassan's office, but
Speaker 1: has since moved on to working for Lee. While Senator's
Speaker 1: Question cabin On, doctor Christine Blasi Award Costco snuck into
Speaker 1: his former boss's office to use a computer to publish
Speaker 1: the private information of senators who supported Kavanaugh. Now, this
Speaker 1: should not be surprising in a sense that this happens
Speaker 1: because the Left has adopted very much an attitude of
Speaker 1: anything that hurts the opposition is good. There are no
Speaker 1: more rules that we have to abide by. There's no
Speaker 1: more decency that we have to strive for or try
Speaker 1: to hold ourselves too. It's just about how do you
Speaker 1: crush the other side? How do you mess the other
Speaker 1: guy up who disagrees with you? And doxing, which is
Speaker 1: the release of private information into a public domain in
Speaker 1: order to create harassment, threats, embarrassment. Doxing is a tactic
Speaker 1: that mainstream media outlets will use. I will never forget
Speaker 1: that CNN because somebody created a meme that CNN didn't like,
Speaker 1: you know, pro Trump meme that they threatened to docks
Speaker 1: the person, like, we're gonna we found out who you are,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna tell everybody unless you take this down
Speaker 1: and do what we say. That's a major media organization.
Speaker 1: I mean, CNN is also a terrible joke and a
Speaker 1: festering boil on American journalism. But it is a big
Speaker 1: place with a lot of money and a lot of influence,
Speaker 1: a lot of reach. But if you really believe the rhetoric,
Speaker 1: and I keep coming back to this because it's so important,
Speaker 1: if you believe the rhetoric of the left, that we
Speaker 1: are in an existential fight for the future of this country,
Speaker 1: that Trump is a threat to this republic, that anybody
Speaker 1: who stands with Trump needs to be made an example of. Well,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't you do this? Isn't it more important to
Speaker 1: defeat such a terrible opposition. Isn't it more important to
Speaker 1: do that than to play by whatever the Senate rules are? Well,
Speaker 1: this guy's gonna find four years. By the way, that's
Speaker 1: a pretty that's a real sentence. I mean, that's real,
Speaker 1: that's real prison time. That's not messing around, but it's
Speaker 1: deserved you have to make an example of somebody like
Speaker 1: this that he would use his government access in this
Speaker 1: way for such a petty, spiteful part as an operation.
Speaker 1: And by the way, he even went further. He according
Speaker 1: to according to here in the Daily Wire, he threatened
Speaker 1: somebody who knew what he tried to do and said
Speaker 1: that he would release all of the stuff as essentially
Speaker 1: was holding the information hostage. Costco pleaded guilty in April
Speaker 1: to crimes related to an unparalleled effort to ransaka Senate office,
Speaker 1: extorting a Democratic senator, illegally harming Republicans for their political views,
Speaker 1: and blackmailing a witness. Here you go, another staffer and
Speaker 1: Hassen's office recognized Costco and reported him. So he sent
Speaker 1: that staffer an email threatening to quote leak it all
Speaker 1: if the staffer told anyone what he had done. He said, emails,
Speaker 1: signal conversations, gmails, senators, children's health information, and social security numbers.
Speaker 1: This guy, Costco wrote, what a sick maniac. He knew
Speaker 1: exactly what he was doing. He knew exactly what the
Speaker 1: results of this would be, which was just a total
Speaker 1: nightmare for the people that would have been affected by
Speaker 1: it and all their socials and everything out there, or
Speaker 1: their phone numbers, their home addresses, everything to violate the
Speaker 1: trust of the United States Senate in that way. Why
Speaker 1: isn't the medium more interested in this story? We know why.
Speaker 1: I mean, I asked that. I asked that question rhetorically,
Speaker 1: but it's so fascinating that's someone who was entrusted with
Speaker 1: that access on Capitol Hill would go to these lengths.
Speaker 1: But Kavanaugh, I keep coming back to it. Cavanaugh was
Speaker 1: a turning point in my mind in American politics. Cavanaugh
Speaker 1: was something else. It was different. It was proof of
Speaker 1: what many of us had known was there for a
Speaker 1: long time, but now it was staring us in the
Speaker 1: face that the Left will do anything to destroy people
Speaker 1: that stand in the way of their power, that they
Speaker 1: have no demands of honor or decency in the way
Speaker 1: that they fight, and that they were cheering on that
Speaker 1: destruction of Cavana. I mean, anyone in public life who
Speaker 1: was a part of defaming Brett Kavanaugh, who was hoping
Speaker 1: for and advocating for him to be destroyed, should be
Speaker 1: deeply ashamed. It was grotesque. It was grotesque. But the
Speaker 1: left's response to all this is not to try to
Speaker 1: clean up their act. It's not to be better going forward.
Speaker 1: They just feel like they lost that one, but they'll
Speaker 1: win the next one. And that's how you have people
Speaker 1: like this Costco guy who figure, well, if we can't
Speaker 1: get our way and stop Kavanaugh, we might as well
Speaker 1: create problems, personal problems, put the safety of senators families
Speaker 1: in jeopardy. Given the that moment in politics, you think
Speaker 1: it's really a good idea to put the Republican senators
Speaker 1: who are willing to stand out for Kavanaugh do the
Speaker 1: right thing to put their information out there in the
Speaker 1: public domain for anyone to see, not just their address,
Speaker 1: of their phone numbers, their kids health information. Does this
Speaker 1: stuff happen on the right, folks, because I never see
Speaker 1: it. It It always seems to happen the left. The really vicious, vindictive,
Speaker 1: crazy stuff seems to be stuck on the left. I
Speaker 1: don't think I'm imagining that. I don't think that's just
Speaker 1: my perception. Here, you and us, who you were in
Speaker 1: the park with, oh names, I's got a loss. Where
Speaker 1: did you see the lady one lady, the female charger.
Speaker 1: It was severely beaten and raped. Every blackmail who was
Speaker 1: in the park last night is a suspect. I need
Speaker 1: all of them. What's going on with my son? Your
Speaker 1: certains are involved and we're rape in Central part they
Speaker 1: saw you rape the lady. Didn't see a lady or
Speaker 1: hit anyone. I didn't see any lady, Kevin, I didn't
Speaker 1: see any I want to see my son right now,
Speaker 1: right now. Whatever they said I did, I didn't. So
Speaker 1: in These Boys State Matches the central facts of the crime.
Speaker 1: Let Netflix show when they see us about the Central
Speaker 1: Park what people known as a Central Park five. And
Speaker 1: this is a very politically charged documentary on a very
Speaker 1: politically charge, a very sensitive case that I remember, even
Speaker 1: though I was quite young at the time, I was
Speaker 1: eight years old, but I remember people talking about it.
Speaker 1: I grew up three blocks from Central Park in New
Speaker 1: York City. I used to go into the park for
Speaker 1: all of my school years to play sports. And when
Speaker 1: I was growing up, you were told that if you
Speaker 1: went into Central Park at night, bad things were likely
Speaker 1: to happen, which in retrospect is just that's almost like
Speaker 1: saying that there's a whole area of a city that's
Speaker 1: been ceded to you know, bad guys or insurgents or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was just completely insane. I couldn't go
Speaker 1: to a park at night, a park in what is
Speaker 1: a very wealthy part of New York City, because there
Speaker 1: was a real threat of physical violence against you. Central
Speaker 1: Park is not that big. I mean it's a really
Speaker 1: maybe four or five miles north to south and maybe
Speaker 1: two miles across. It's not that big of an area.
Speaker 1: So when you when you look at what the city
Speaker 1: was like at this time and the feelings that people had.
Speaker 1: As a native New Yorker growing up there, there was
Speaker 1: a sense that there was this lawlessness and this violence.
Speaker 1: I could break it at any moment. And that's why
Speaker 1: when the Central Park jogger case happened, where a young
Speaker 1: woman who was jogging in the park was just viciously, brutally,
Speaker 1: horrifically beaten to within an inch of her life, raped horribly.
Speaker 1: The whole the whole incident just appalled and shocked the city.
Speaker 1: And you had these this group of of they were kids,
Speaker 1: I mean, they were young, young, predominantly black. I think
Speaker 1: one of them was Hispanic men who were all arrested
Speaker 1: and prosecuted and convicted for their role in the Central
Speaker 1: Park jogger case. And now Hollywood has decided that this
Speaker 1: is all a racial injustice, and this is something that
Speaker 1: we have to we have to look back on and
Speaker 1: have a full accounting of the racism that led to
Speaker 1: this outcome. I mean, I'm here to tell you that
Speaker 1: based on the facts as I know them, it could
Speaker 1: not be more clear to me that the people that
Speaker 1: did this were the people who were initially arrested and convicted,
Speaker 1: and that politics, not the justice system, dictated that they
Speaker 1: would be quote exonerated, and this has now turned into
Speaker 1: a disgraceful injustice that we are we are to treat
Speaker 1: these individuals like they are civil rights heroes, and I
Speaker 1: give when they are anything but that they committed a
Speaker 1: Haines sack. I mean, I know there were fourteen fifteen.
Speaker 1: One was sixteen years old when they were a part
Speaker 1: of this. But if a sixteen year old holds a
Speaker 1: woman down while she's being rape, I want that sixteen
Speaker 1: year old to suffer very serious consequences, decades in prison
Speaker 1: at a minimum. That's what I believe should happen. And
Speaker 1: there are very few voices right now, because there's such
Speaker 1: a breathtaking rewriting of history that's going on here, there
Speaker 1: are very few voices that will speak honestly about this case.
Speaker 1: And that's why I just so appreciate and I'll reach out.
Speaker 1: She's tough to get on radio sometimes she's a very
Speaker 1: busy lady. But I really do appreciate the work that
Speaker 1: Ann Coulter does on this because she'll just tell you
Speaker 1: this is all a lie, folks, This is a lie.
Speaker 1: Then a whole generation now that wasn't around during the
Speaker 1: Central Park jogger case, that doesn't have any that doesn't
Speaker 1: have any connection in any knowledge of what New York
Speaker 1: City was like at the time and what the atmosphere was.
Speaker 1: They are being told old through movies, through Hollywood, through Netflix,
Speaker 1: and now that the press and these different I think
Speaker 1: there's a Ken Burns documentary, and it as well that
Speaker 1: this was essentially racism, that the Central Park jogger case
Speaker 1: was about racism from the police force, that they just
Speaker 1: grabbed whatever black men they could to pin it on
Speaker 1: and they coerced confessions and this was an injustice. The
Speaker 1: injustice is that these men are now being treated like
Speaker 1: heroes and are given tens of millions of dollars for
Speaker 1: being a part of one of the most heinous acts
Speaker 1: that anybody can think of. In the recent history of
Speaker 1: New York City. That's the injustice and we all need
Speaker 1: to be very clear on that. I watched this play
Speaker 1: out and I think to myself, how long is it
Speaker 1: before the narrative of the OJ Simpson case turns into
Speaker 1: OJ was really innocent? You see. It's just that there
Speaker 1: were all these very racist white people in the District
Speaker 1: Attorney's office in Los Ange Jellis County, and they tried
Speaker 1: to pin it on OJ, who was an innocent man.
Speaker 1: You hear me say that, and you probably think that's absurd. Buck.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows OJ's guilty. Well at the time, everybody knew
Speaker 1: that these young men were guilty too. These young boys,
Speaker 1: they were boys at the time when they were arrested,
Speaker 1: fourteen years old. They were guilty. What's the evidence for this?
Speaker 1: Ane's got a column out today that picks that picks
Speaker 1: from important evidence in this trial. I mean, a few
Speaker 1: things that we all need to know before we even
Speaker 1: get into the evidence. Is that one Michael Bloomberg, whom
Speaker 1: I worked for at the NYPD, he refused to give
Speaker 1: these individuals any money from the city, and the City
Speaker 1: of New York paid forty million dollars as soon as
Speaker 1: de Blasio came into office. That was just a payment,
Speaker 1: that was just essentially a white guilt payment from Deblasio
Speaker 1: to try and buy support from the minority community, to
Speaker 1: try to buy support from white liberals who always feel
Speaker 1: guilt in any of these these situations. They feel like
Speaker 1: there's something that they've they have to atone for, they
Speaker 1: have to make up for it, even if they had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with it. So here's some of what
Speaker 1: Anne talks about on this column today. And you really
Speaker 1: need to know this because you're you're being lied to
Speaker 1: you right now about the Central Park five. I mean,
Speaker 1: these these kids were out there and the Anna isn't
Speaker 1: even get into all the evidence against the First of all,
Speaker 1: they were out there attacking people. They put people in
Speaker 1: the hospital that weren't even this woman. They were out
Speaker 1: there engaging in gang violence effectively in the park at night, attacking,
Speaker 1: attacking people, mugging people. So these are not these were
Speaker 1: not these were not good kids. Start. Let's start with that.
Speaker 1: Let's understand these were not kids that were pulled out
Speaker 1: of their beds at night and made to, you know,
Speaker 1: confess to something they had nothing to do with. They
Speaker 1: were in the park, they were attacking people. Now that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they were guilty of a gang rape.
Speaker 1: But let's just understand they were in the park that
Speaker 1: night and they were attacking people, So they were criminals.
Speaker 1: They were criminals. Attacking somebody's a criminal act. So the
Speaker 1: question is just what degree of criminal are we really
Speaker 1: talking about here? Here's what Anne writes. The five accused rapists,
Speaker 1: Kevin Richardson, Anton McCrary, A McCray, Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salam,
Speaker 1: and Carrie Wise were convicted of the nineteen eighty nine
Speaker 1: Central Park rape, as well as other assaults in the
Speaker 1: park that night. They were quote exonerated thirteen years later,
Speaker 1: and more than a decade after that, paid forty million
Speaker 1: dollars by the City of New York to settle a
Speaker 1: malicious prosecution case within months of Buildablasia becoming mayor, despite
Speaker 1: city lawyer's confidence that they would win at trial. Today,
Speaker 1: they are treated as civil rights heroes to Hollywood airheads
Speaker 1: and others completely unfamiliar with the facts of the case.
Speaker 1: So here is some of the evidence against them. You
Speaker 1: know what, team, let me let's hit a quick take,
Speaker 1: a quick breather. I want to come back on the
Speaker 1: other side here, and I want to I want to
Speaker 1: work through the piece of evidence that are in the
Speaker 1: record that these young men initially were convicted based on,
Speaker 1: and then we can all come to our own decisions
Speaker 1: as to whether this is just the most despicable rewriting
Speaker 1: of history that's going on, and that to me seems
Speaker 1: quite quite clear. But let me come back to the
Speaker 1: start of this break and we'll talk about what is
Speaker 1: the evidence of guilt of the so called Central Park Five.
Speaker 1: Stay with me, all right, team, We're talking about the
Speaker 1: evidence in the Central Park Jogger case that it involves
Speaker 1: the Central Park Five as they are now known, And
Speaker 1: I want you to really think about how could it
Speaker 1: be possible that this evidence is what it is. But
Speaker 1: now we are supposed to believe that these these men,
Speaker 1: who at the time we're boys, were teenagers, were not
Speaker 1: involved in the raven Keep in mind, if you hold
Speaker 1: somebody down during a rape, even if you're not the
Speaker 1: one who does the penetration, you are culpable. You are
Speaker 1: guilty of that rape. That is the way the law sees,
Speaker 1: at least law in New York in New York State.
Speaker 1: So there's not this Oh, they were just there, you know,
Speaker 1: holding her down while this was happening. By the way,
Speaker 1: just as a as a little bit of a fair
Speaker 1: warning here some of this. I'm not going to use
Speaker 1: any improper words, but this is tough stuff to hear about.
Speaker 1: So just a little bit of a content warning on that.
Speaker 1: So he mentioned the names of the boys, Kevin Richardson,
Speaker 1: Anton McCray, Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salam and carry wise are
Speaker 1: those in the names. Here's some of the evidence that
Speaker 1: Ann Coulter has pulled together on her in her most
Speaker 1: recent column dealing with this issue. Santana was one of
Speaker 1: the first boys picked up in the dark the night
Speaker 1: of the attacks on April nineteenth, nineteen eighty nine. While
Speaker 1: being driven to the precinct, he blurted out, quote, I
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with the rape. All I did
Speaker 1: was feel the woman's blank. The police didn't even know
Speaker 1: at that point that there had been a jogger even
Speaker 1: found that the police knew nothing about the rape when
Speaker 1: he said that. So in the record, we now have
Speaker 1: a teenager in the park that night, picked up in
Speaker 1: the park, who says he's obviously scared because he realizes
Speaker 1: that he might be in trouble for something he doesn't
Speaker 1: know what, doesn't know what the police know. He says,
Speaker 1: I didn't rape her. I just felt her. I just
Speaker 1: felt her chest. It's a very strange thing to say
Speaker 1: for an innocent young man who wasn't there to nothing
Speaker 1: to do with it, right, that's a that's a very
Speaker 1: weird thing for him to have said. Richardson quote road
Speaker 1: to the precinct with another boy who announced the police
Speaker 1: that he knew who the murder, naming Anton McCrary I mcray.
Speaker 1: Richardson concurred, saying, yeah, that's who did it. Keep in
Speaker 1: mind the police did not know about the jogger yet.
Speaker 1: Over the next five days, five teenage boys gave detailed
Speaker 1: confessions about the attack on the woman, as well as
Speaker 1: the other attacks. All five made their confessions in the
Speaker 1: presence of their parents or guardians. It is absolute madness
Speaker 1: to imagine these officers did anything to coerce these confessions.
Speaker 1: Culter rights. When the boys confessed, No one, not that
Speaker 1: I'm not the prosecutors, not the police interviewing them, had
Speaker 1: any idea whether the jogger would emerge from her coma
Speaker 1: remembering everything. Mercifully, she remembered nothing Why on earth would
Speaker 1: cops bully five random teenagers into false confessions knowing the
Speaker 1: victim might wake up at any moment and announced my
Speaker 1: boyfriend did it. That would be rather awkward for any
Speaker 1: cop who'd gotten someone else to confess. Does anybody want
Speaker 1: to try to explain that one? So these confessions were
Speaker 1: allegedly coerced. They were coerced in the presence of adult
Speaker 1: relatives of the accused, and the police would have been
Speaker 1: coercing them with the possibility that the woman who was
Speaker 1: in a coma therefore was alive and still did live
Speaker 1: after this incident, could have woken up and destroyed all
Speaker 1: the confessions that they had allegedly coerced. Right, because they
Speaker 1: weren't coerced. Folks, We're not idiots, right, We all understand this.
Speaker 1: They were not coerced. These kids admitted it. They admitted
Speaker 1: that they had a role in this. But there's more.
Speaker 1: The police had incriminating testimony from friends and acquaintances of
Speaker 1: the defendants. Quote Dennis Comedo, one of the boys who
Speaker 1: was part of the larger group, told the police that
Speaker 1: when he ran in Richardson in the park that night,
Speaker 1: he'd said, quote, we just raped somebody, Carrie Wise, told
Speaker 1: a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger,
Speaker 1: He only quote held her legs down while Kevin Richardson
Speaker 1: blanked her. Jackson volunteered this information to police, thinking it
Speaker 1: would help Wise. That's right. Somebody thought, oh, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: help my friend out by telling the cops, Well, he
Speaker 1: didn't actually rape her, he just held her down. Was
Speaker 1: she was she part of the coerced confession too? I
Speaker 1: just want to know. Was that was that the big, bad,
Speaker 1: mean white cops that were doing that? Okay? Two of
Speaker 1: Wise his friends, Carrie Wise, remember, one of the cues,
Speaker 1: said the next day he told them, you heard about
Speaker 1: that woman that was beat up and raped the park
Speaker 1: last night. That was us. Another boy arrested for the
Speaker 1: attacks but not the rape, told the detectives on videotape
Speaker 1: that he overheard Santana and a friend and laughing in
Speaker 1: the park about how they'd quote made a woman bleed.
Speaker 1: The defendants also new facts about the attack that only
Speaker 1: someone who had been there could possibly know. Two of
Speaker 1: the boys, Santana and Richardson, independently pointed out the exact
Speaker 1: location where the rape had occurred wide Wise told the
Speaker 1: detective interviewing him that someone he thought was named Rudy
Speaker 1: had stolen the joggers walkman. The officer notes state quote
Speaker 1: persons present when girl raped Rudy took walkman. At that point,
Speaker 1: the jogger was still in a coma. Police investigators had
Speaker 1: no way of knowing that she'd been carrying a walkman.
Speaker 1: Thirteen years later, the sixth rapist, Matthias Reyes, the only
Speaker 1: rapist according to Hollywood and former District Attorney Robert Morgenthaw,
Speaker 1: told police that in addition to raping the jogger, he
Speaker 1: had stolen her walkman. Someone explained to me, how would
Speaker 1: the cops be so slick, so smooth in they're set
Speaker 1: up here that they would have contemporaneous notes about somebody
Speaker 1: at the attack stealing or walkman, and then only thirteen
Speaker 1: years later did they have anybody confirming that, yes, in fact,
Speaker 1: they stole a walkman. Unless the kids who were saying
Speaker 1: they were there at the time knew that this guy
Speaker 1: stole or walkman. These people were part of a vicious
Speaker 1: gang rape less than two miles from where I grew up,
Speaker 1: right in an area where I spent many years of
Speaker 1: my life playing sports, going for walks. They were a
Speaker 1: part of a heinous incident, and now they're being treated
Speaker 1: as heroes. There was no adjudication of their innocence. There
Speaker 1: was just DNA exoneration. That is an exoneration and a
Speaker 1: politicized decision by a mayor who is a left wing
Speaker 1: idiot to write a massive check to them. And now
Speaker 1: you have Hollywood all jumping on this bandwagon too. There
Speaker 1: is real racism in America. There is a long history
Speaker 1: of very real and very disgraceful racism in this country.
Speaker 1: When the left creates stories like this, they undermine our
Speaker 1: ability to see and tackle and deal with the real
Speaker 1: racings out that's out there. This was not a case
Speaker 1: of racism. This wasn't just the police acting out and
Speaker 1: grabbing five black boys to make an example of them.
Speaker 1: These people confessed they were guilty. They did a horrible thing.
Speaker 1: And now the media that is so unconcerned with real
Speaker 1: innocence or guilt pat themselves on the shoulders because they
Speaker 1: say that this is now justice. This is a grave
Speaker 1: injustice that is being done with this rewriting of history
Speaker 1: of the Central Park. Five very important question I'm about
Speaker 1: to pose to all of you, what is your comfort
Speaker 1: food of choice? Now? I can't necessarily hear your answers,
Speaker 1: although you could all write into me on Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slashbuck Sexton. That's one way to go, Mark, what
Speaker 1: is your comfort food of choice? Don't think, just give
Speaker 1: me the answer. The first thing that popped into my
Speaker 1: head was mac and cheese. Very solid choice, very solid
Speaker 1: I mac and cheese. I think I have to put
Speaker 1: in my number two spot. I do love and people
Speaker 1: super poking to you mac and cheese. There's excellent gluten
Speaker 1: free mac and cheese. It's all over the place. It's
Speaker 1: very easy to find. It's very good. It tastes exactly
Speaker 1: the same. Some of you're saying, no, it doesn't. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you it does. Excellent mac and cheese in the
Speaker 1: gluten free community. Does gluten free you get to call
Speaker 1: itself a community? Now? I hope so. But the different
Speaker 1: twenty twenty candidates have had their various comfort foods of
Speaker 1: choice compiled here by The New York Times. And there
Speaker 1: are some excellent choices, and there are some choices that
Speaker 1: are so terrible. It's important we talk about them because
Speaker 1: it tells you a lot about the candidate that would
Speaker 1: ever say such a thing. I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: winner is Kamala Harris who said fries, because that's mine
Speaker 1: as well. French fries, for me, are the perfect food.
Speaker 1: I love French fries. I eat them too often. I'd
Speaker 1: probably be about five or ten pounds lighter if I
Speaker 1: did not eat French fries because I just love French
Speaker 1: fries and it's a weakness. French fries, chocolate, I got
Speaker 1: a few things, but French fries are very high on
Speaker 1: my list. It reminds me when I was a teenager,
Speaker 1: people say, don't eat chocolate or French fries, you'll get pimples.
Speaker 1: Such a stupid wives tale. Has nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1: It's hormonal and oil and secretion on the skin base
Speaker 1: that has nothing to do with chocolate or french But
Speaker 1: did you ever hear that mark was or is that
Speaker 1: my just tool? I definitely heard that, Yeah, right, don't
Speaker 1: eat chocolate you'll get ziz. It's not true. There's no
Speaker 1: basis and science for that whatsoever. People are just absurd.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's just because people want to be
Speaker 1: mean to teenagers all the time. They'll tell us not
Speaker 1: to have any fun. Uh, so Warren said fries, which
Speaker 1: is a very solid choice. Mark said mac and cheese,
Speaker 1: also very solid, but no one on this list said
Speaker 1: mac and cheese. I'm sorry, Harris said fries. Warren said
Speaker 1: chips and guac. Chips and guac. That's now, first of all,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren. Once again, I'm just saying cultural appropriation from
Speaker 1: Lizabeth Warren, culturally appropriating from Mexico. But chips and guac
Speaker 1: is a very solid choice. Buddha Judge said beef jerky, which, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not a beef jerky guy, but you know, he's
Speaker 1: from Indiana and he served overseas and they probably ate
Speaker 1: a lot of beef jerky. I can I can respect that.
Speaker 1: Jillah Brand Kristen Jillibrand said whiskey. She's just trying to
Speaker 1: sound cool, not think that that is our comfort food.
Speaker 1: But that's a very Gilibrand answer. What can I say
Speaker 1: that will make people think I'm more interesting than I am?
Speaker 1: Tulsi Gabbard said vegan cupcakes, which I can believe. I
Speaker 1: can believe that that's something that she's really into vegan
Speaker 1: cupcakes or I've had vegan cupcakes that are good. You know,
Speaker 1: the thing is. I don't know if people who are
Speaker 1: vegan or people who are keto are more excited about
Speaker 1: telling you their dietary restrictions and plans, but there's keto
Speaker 1: and vegan people. And then Klobaschar said a baked potato,
Speaker 1: which that's you know. I think Klobaschar's candidacy is about
Speaker 1: as exciting as a baked potato. But the worst dancer
Speaker 1: on here, well, the second worst answer was Mary and Williamson,
Speaker 1: who said quote, I have no comfort food, which is
Speaker 1: such an annoying and weird thing to say. I mean,
Speaker 1: everyone has some kind of a comfort food. But the
Speaker 1: single worst answer given by a candidate who should be
Speaker 1: doing so much better than he is, but when he
Speaker 1: says things like this, it's clear to me why he's
Speaker 1: not doing better than he is. The worst answer on here,
Speaker 1: Corey Booker said, veggis. That's disgusting. Veggis what is wrong
Speaker 1: with him? Veggis are not a com First of all,
Speaker 1: veggis is so broad that it doesn't even mean anything,
Speaker 1: saying well, veggies are not a comfort food. I know
Speaker 1: he's a is he a vegetarian? I think he's a vegan. Actually,
Speaker 1: that's all you have to know. I you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think I think that this country could handle somebody
Speaker 1: who was an atheist to be president long before they
Speaker 1: could handle a vegan, because at least with an atheist,
Speaker 1: you know what's going on vegans? I don't know. Something
Speaker 1: something funky there, something I'm inevitably going to get people
Speaker 1: reading to me. Who are vegans listening to the show.
Speaker 1: What's wrong with you? Buck? I'm just kidding. I love
Speaker 1: you vegans. Calm down, and you love yourselves, that's for sure,
Speaker 1: because you like to talk about your veganism. Oh we'll
Speaker 1: be right back, team Buck. It's time for roll call. Team.
Speaker 1: Sorry if my voice is a little bit less powerful
Speaker 1: than it usually is. I managed to get a cold
Speaker 1: in mid June. We look up this morning. I was like,
Speaker 1: I don't understand. How do I have a cold. This
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. I know that it's a virus
Speaker 1: that has nothing to do with the temperature outside, but
Speaker 1: who gets a cold virus in June? I'm uh, it
Speaker 1: is what it is? Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: that's where you throw the roll call noise and let's
Speaker 1: get into it. Owen right, Hey, Buck, My eleven year
Speaker 1: old son has named his baseball player for the PS
Speaker 1: four game The Show twenty eighteen. He's named the player
Speaker 1: Buck Shields High. Well, that's awesome, Owen. It's a great name.
Speaker 1: It's a strong name. It's a name that people will remember, hopefully,
Speaker 1: so I appreciate that. I'm not even sure if it's
Speaker 1: named for me, but I'll take it. I'll take it.
Speaker 1: It's a good name. You gotta you gotta lean into it. Though.
Speaker 1: If your name is Buck, you can't shy away from it.
Speaker 1: There's no easy way to be Buck. You got you
Speaker 1: gotta be Buck all the time. Claudia, Hello Buck. Just
Speaker 1: a quick note regarding free Medicare for all, it is
Speaker 1: not free. My husband, who will be turning sixty five
Speaker 1: in November, has a work history of fifty years and
Speaker 1: is paid into the Medicare fund. He will be eligible
Speaker 1: for coverage in November, and the governmentill begin automatically taking
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty eight dollars per month from his
Speaker 1: Social Security check, as done to all persons on Medicare.
Speaker 1: In addition, Medicare does not cover all his health needs.
Speaker 1: We will need to add an additional supplement at a
Speaker 1: few hundred dollars a month. Again, Medicare is not free
Speaker 1: and does not cover all one's needs. Claudia, I know
Speaker 1: that that is all true, and I appreciate you walking
Speaker 1: us all through some of the realities of the Medicare program.
Speaker 1: But that's why I've always said that what Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: has often talked about is really a true single payer program,
Speaker 1: which is different than Medicare because Medicare has a lot
Speaker 1: of cost sharing. You spend money from your tax or
Speaker 1: you pay money through your taxes into Medicare for a
Speaker 1: long time. And then beyond that there is also a
Speaker 1: state and local government that excuse me, that will be
Speaker 1: a part of the whole Medicare situation. So there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of different things coming together there. And you are
Speaker 1: right that Medicare is not It's certainly not free, and
Speaker 1: it does not cover everything. Fill up. A few days ago,
Speaker 1: you were searching for Howard Dean's yeah A moment. The
Speaker 1: reason for his instantaneous implosion was it reminded everyone of
Speaker 1: Slim Pickens writing an a bomb in doctor Strange Glove. Well,
Speaker 1: this is where I have to admit that I've never
Speaker 1: seen doctor Strange Glove. So Mark, should I go back
Speaker 1: and watch this one. Are we talking about Doctor Strange
Speaker 1: the Marvel movie or Doctor Strange Glove? No, Doctor Strange Glove.
Speaker 1: They've never heard of it. It's an older one. And
Speaker 1: I'm somebody that gets into a lot of trouble, I know,
Speaker 1: with this audience, because I think that there is a
Speaker 1: bias in favor of older movies. I think that people
Speaker 1: tend to just assume, oh, if it's if it's an
Speaker 1: old classic, then it has to still be really worth
Speaker 1: watching today. Truth is that a lot of older movies
Speaker 1: don't really hold up. I know, I know people can
Speaker 1: get mad at me and say, oh, back, that's terrible
Speaker 1: and how could you say such a thing, And but no,
Speaker 1: that's that's just the way it is, folks. A lot
Speaker 1: of older movies, the acting is kind of lame. There's
Speaker 1: just there's just stuff going on that's not it's not great.
Speaker 1: So there there you have it. I know people get
Speaker 1: mad at me, but I speak the truth. It is
Speaker 1: what I do here on the show. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of indicating instead of act right, yeah, thank you Mark.
Speaker 1: A lot of this stuff people go, oh, it's black
Speaker 1: and white, it's got to be good. False. The storylines
Speaker 1: are cheesy. It's ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. Joey writes you just uh oh, No,
Speaker 1: Joey has fallen up on his message from yesterday. Okay, Joey,
Speaker 1: thank you. Kristin. Listen to Rush live on Newstalk twelve
Speaker 1: ninety whichtop Falls and heard your Trump twenty coin commercial.
Speaker 1: So cool to hear your voice when listening to someone else. Well,
Speaker 1: christ and that is cool. I'm glad that people get
Speaker 1: to hear me on some of the other platforms out there.
Speaker 1: That's kind of fun. That's very cool. So yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: James Rights, hey Buck, bring back the haya buck slap sound?
Speaker 1: I chuckle to myself every time I hear it. Do
Speaker 1: we have that one? Mark we hand? Exactly? There we go.
Speaker 1: That's the that's got to be the buck slap sound,
Speaker 1: even though it makes no sense, like if you're gonna
Speaker 1: slap somebody, I don't think you'd go hey, But that's
Speaker 1: that is the buck slap because it's so powerful that
Speaker 1: even though it's just a slap, you have to psych
Speaker 1: yourself up for it. There we go, Glenn Rights, hey Buck.
Speaker 1: I live in Massachusetts and I do believe it is
Speaker 1: part of the state electoral compact. Was curious if the
Speaker 1: compact is constitutional, whether anyone has looked at a class
Speaker 1: action lawsuit to revoke it. Things like this really make
Speaker 1: my blood boil. Anyway, great show, keep up the good work.
Speaker 1: We'll Glenn, thank you so much. I don't know anything
Speaker 1: about the electoral Compact, so I don't have a smart
Speaker 1: thing to say here. I just will say that I
Speaker 1: appreciate you writing in and you listen to the show,
Speaker 1: and you're a great guy and a great American. Michael
Speaker 1: A right, Buck, I love these solidad O'Brien buck slap story.
Speaker 1: The only thing missing was the he have producer Mike
Speaker 1: teed up next time field tie from Lost Us. Yeah. See,
Speaker 1: people really like it. We gotta Mark, you gotta have
Speaker 1: that one ready going forward when I call for the
Speaker 1: buck slap, now you know, man, that's the one. So
Speaker 1: that's the new buck slap. That is the one that
Speaker 1: is the one that people like. Here we go, Robert, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'd love to have a serious conversation about reparations for
Speaker 1: the descendants of slaves without turning it into a name
Speaker 1: calling session. How are today's African Americans harmed by slavery.
Speaker 1: An argument can be made that they about whoa Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna at Robert, I don't have to dive into
Speaker 1: this one little bit more. Thank you for writing in though, Carla,
Speaker 1: hey Buck, I'm wondering if AOC truly believes all the
Speaker 1: propaganda she is spewing her if she's just trying to
Speaker 1: get a reaction out of everyone, like a child looking
Speaker 1: for attention. I wonder if the best way for us
Speaker 1: to handle her is to write her off and ignore her,
Speaker 1: dismiss her as a child, or to recognize her as
Speaker 1: a real threat and continue to vocally oppose her. What
Speaker 1: your thoughts. Thank you for always speaking the truth, sending
Speaker 1: you prayers for wisdom and encouraged to keep on keeping on. Carlo,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for the kind note. You know,
Speaker 1: I think that AOC the problem with trying to ignore
Speaker 1: her is that she has such a large social media
Speaker 1: following that if you ignore her, what often ends up
Speaker 1: happening is you allow her to preach to her side unopposed.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that that's a good thing, because
Speaker 1: there are a lot of very impressionable Unfortunately, a lot
Speaker 1: of very ignorant people out there who if they hear
Speaker 1: AOC able to say things without someone pointing out that
Speaker 1: what she says is nonsense and lies, they're more likely
Speaker 1: to believe it. So I don't think we can just
Speaker 1: write her off. I do believe that she is the
Speaker 1: future of the Democratic Party, not necessarily just her personally,
Speaker 1: but her view of the world and the way that
Speaker 1: she approaches governance, and her thoughts on things like social
Speaker 1: justice and socialism and the size and mission of the state.
Speaker 1: I think that the Democratic Party is trending toward AOC
Speaker 1: and not the other way around. So I don't think
Speaker 1: we can ignore her. I do think there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of a right wing media fixation on diving into
Speaker 1: everything that she says, and occasionally it has backfired. I mean,
Speaker 1: the people that were getting all upset about her, well, no,
Speaker 1: that's not even true, because no one really got upset
Speaker 1: about her dance video. That was a lie. That was
Speaker 1: fake news. There was I never saw a single person
Speaker 1: who was upset about her having a dance video, but
Speaker 1: the left created this all. Oh, they're just upset about
Speaker 1: her video where she's dancing. Why would anyone be upset
Speaker 1: about that? There's nothing people out to dance and have fun.
Speaker 1: This is one thing I wish conservatives did a better
Speaker 1: job of promoting, just as publicly as they can do
Speaker 1: as many people as they can. Conservatives want people to
Speaker 1: have fun. I want people to enjoy themselves. I want
Speaker 1: them to enjoy their lives. I think joy is a
Speaker 1: very important part of life, and you know, I'm all
Speaker 1: for it. I like people to dance. I like people
Speaker 1: to have fun, drink responsibly, eat delicious food, go out
Speaker 1: see friends, you know, if you're not married, you know,
Speaker 1: go out on dates, meet new people. You know. I'm
Speaker 1: a big believer in all this. You know, the left
Speaker 1: is able to get away with creating this, this perception
Speaker 1: that conservatives don't like fun, don't want people to smile,
Speaker 1: don't want people out the I don't think it's really true.
Speaker 1: And one example of all this is that all the
Speaker 1: or one example of how this is the perception doesn't
Speaker 1: match up with the reality is that people who are conservatives,
Speaker 1: and I believe this the statistic or the studies that
Speaker 1: conservatives who are married enjoy sex more than people who
Speaker 1: are not married. And it really makes a lot of
Speaker 1: sense when you think about it. I mean, people that
Speaker 1: are married are going to feel more comfortable, and that's
Speaker 1: a very important part of it. There's going to be
Speaker 1: much greater connection and appreciation between those individuals for what
Speaker 1: they're doing. There's not the tremendous anxiety of like what
Speaker 1: if this goes wrong or what if this person doesn't
Speaker 1: call me, or any of those things. So conservatives in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways do have more fun, and we
Speaker 1: certainly have more fun in the realm of ideas. I
Speaker 1: think that the funniest people I know now are all conservatives.
Speaker 1: I mean, the people that are the most entertaining are
Speaker 1: all the funniest people I know in life. This is
Speaker 1: I've never really thought about this until now. All of
Speaker 1: my funniest friends now are conservatives, none of them. None
Speaker 1: of the funniest people I know are liberals. And I
Speaker 1: and some of the people I know who would have
Speaker 1: considered themselves liberal who are very funny are now pretty
Speaker 1: much conservatives, And they've kind of switched over a little
Speaker 1: bit because there's just been this change. If you're going
Speaker 1: to be a little bit provocative, a little bit contrarian,
Speaker 1: different in your thinking, willing to push some buttons, you're
Speaker 1: going to be a conservative these days because the Libs,
Speaker 1: they all they're all just repeating the same crap to
Speaker 1: each other all the time, and it's all very disingenuous,
Speaker 1: and it's it's not clever, it's not funny. It's really
Speaker 1: often just quite nasty. So yeah, the funniest people I know,
Speaker 1: I mean, the people that can make me laugh very
Speaker 1: very hard, are my friends who are a right wing
Speaker 1: And you know, I've got a great right wing posse.
Speaker 1: So a lot of right wing, right wing, right wing
Speaker 1: squad down here in DC is a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: Let's see here. Gina hey Buck Opera. I love opera.
Speaker 1: I love a wide variety of music, from Volbeat to
Speaker 1: Fleetwood Mac to Counting Crows to def Leopard, But lately,
Speaker 1: when I'm cooking or stressed, it's labo am. I love
Speaker 1: this opera. My favorite version on YouTube is with Paparatti
Speaker 1: the Full Opera. It's musically perfect, gets me from pasta
Speaker 1: to parmesan at a salad, Dude brusqueta, brilliant and probably
Speaker 1: designed that way. My next go to is Mozart the
Speaker 1: Full Opera Requiem, darker but so moving, chow and as
Speaker 1: always shields high. It's a nice one to end on today. Team,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for hanging out with me. Always
Speaker 1: great to be with you. The Freedom Hut Talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow. She'll tie