Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Democrats trying to get
Speaker 1: a resolution together to oppose Trump's National Emergency declaration, a
Speaker 1: lot of posturing from them, Will it mean anything? Also,
Speaker 1: Smallets melt down over his hoax continues. We've got updates
Speaker 1: for you on that and the possibility of a legal
Speaker 1: defense for him, And what does it mean to have
Speaker 1: a good job? And how can you make any job
Speaker 1: you have meaningful? It's all coming up later in the show.
Speaker 1: Bucks Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again.
Speaker 1: This is the Bucks Sexton Show. CIA analysts, I can
Speaker 1: speak for three hours without a phone call. Try doing
Speaker 1: that sometimes it is Bucks. No. Do you see every
Speaker 1: single day that President Trump is trying to undermine our constitution?
Speaker 1: I thought an emergency was floods in Iowa, Okay. I
Speaker 1: thought that an emergency was wildfires in Colorado or a
Speaker 1: hurricane in Florida. But he has put that on its head.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to be found constitutional, but
Speaker 1: that's the kind of games that he is playing with
Speaker 1: our constitution. Will you definitely vecho that resolution? It was
Speaker 1: introduced today that would block your national emergency if it
Speaker 1: happens on the wall. Yes, welcome to the buck Sex
Speaker 1: and show my friends. Great to have you with me
Speaker 1: on Friday. So the Democrats are trying to do their
Speaker 1: usual maneuvering. Um. They're trying to figure out some way
Speaker 1: to make the president look bad on this declaration of
Speaker 1: national emergency because they won't really, they can't stop the declaration.
Speaker 1: The President has the right to declare. But what they're
Speaker 1: going to do is try to make it look bad
Speaker 1: and fight against it, and then legally there will be
Speaker 1: a challenge in the courts the moment funding is moved
Speaker 1: and they start trying to use it at the wall.
Speaker 1: So you know, you have emergency powers have been invoked.
Speaker 1: I believe under this statute. Since the seventies, fifty nine
Speaker 1: national emergencies have been declared. Thirty one of them have
Speaker 1: been renewed each year. So you've got things like the
Speaker 1: you know this is all just just from a quick
Speaker 1: Google search. You see this stuff. You have things that
Speaker 1: range from suspending all laws regulating chemical biological weapons, suspending
Speaker 1: any Clear Air Act implementation, authorizing constructing military projects using
Speaker 1: existing defense appropriate creations, for construction, draft drafting, retired Coast
Speaker 1: Guard officers. I mean a lot of stuff from emergency
Speaker 1: powers here, stretching back for a long time. But you
Speaker 1: notice that you know how much of that is really
Speaker 1: an emergency? Or you know where? Where's the emergency there?
Speaker 1: Where's the house on fire? There? We started off with Klobaschar,
Speaker 1: best known for being unknown except for when she throws
Speaker 1: things at members of her staff and treats them horribly.
Speaker 1: As an aside, I am unable to and I shouldn't.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't start with this, but I have it on
Speaker 1: very good authority that at some point you will hear
Speaker 1: that Kirsten Gillibrand is not only a phony, but he
Speaker 1: is a very nasty person. I have. I have an
Speaker 1: anecdote that is amazing to show the one she's a
Speaker 1: phony and she's really mean, just like Klobaschar. But I
Speaker 1: can't tell it because the person it's the person who
Speaker 1: told me about it as a Democrat, and I am
Speaker 1: I am for now sworn to secrecy and until that
Speaker 1: person is willing to come forward and share the story
Speaker 1: about his or her interactions with Kirsten jilla Brand as
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Mind you, I can't. You know, I can't
Speaker 1: because that person if they won't back up my oh,
Speaker 1: but I want to because she's such a phony and
Speaker 1: she's a terrible, terrible person from what I understand. But
Speaker 1: Klobash are also really nasty. Look at all these really mean,
Speaker 1: really mean elected Democrats. Not a surprise, is it? You know?
Speaker 1: I think there are Republicans that are an elected office
Speaker 1: that are not my cup of tea. But most of
Speaker 1: the ones that I come across are pretty nice people.
Speaker 1: Most of the ones that I've dealt with are rand
Speaker 1: Paul is chill. I would not call him warm and fuzzy. However,
Speaker 1: he can be a little can be a little prickly.
Speaker 1: But you know, by and large, most of the republic
Speaker 1: lookings that I've dealt with in the Senate and in
Speaker 1: the House are are pretty are pretty nice. I think
Speaker 1: I'm actually having I'm doing a bucket a bar segment
Speaker 1: soon with Congressman Duffy. I believe, I think that that's
Speaker 1: going to happen. So I got I got things, I
Speaker 1: got things going on, things going on. I'll tell you
Speaker 1: about them, all right. But back to the Trump national
Speaker 1: emergency situation here. So they're hoping to put this in
Speaker 1: front of him, so he has to veto it. So
Speaker 1: essentially it'll be the Congress disagreeing with the President on
Speaker 1: this issue. But you know what's funny about about an
Speaker 1: executive executive authority is that so what unless they're going
Speaker 1: to repeal the law that gives him the authority, This
Speaker 1: is just like their opinion, man. And ultimately, I think
Speaker 1: that it looks bad for Congress to be out there
Speaker 1: making the case the American people that what's going on
Speaker 1: in the southern border is not an emergency. How could
Speaker 1: it not be an emergency. You're on track for half
Speaker 1: a million people coming into the country falsely claiming asylum,
Speaker 1: abusing our system, abusing the generous and kind nature of
Speaker 1: the American people for their own purposes. These are economic migrants,
Speaker 1: and they're showing up with families because they know they're
Speaker 1: more likely to be in this country if they show
Speaker 1: up as a family. And you have the drugs pouring
Speaker 1: into there's there's meth pouring into the country, and in
Speaker 1: levels that are that are mind blowing. In fact, I
Speaker 1: believe meth. Now they're dropping the price of meth. The
Speaker 1: cartels are dropping methamphetamine prices just so they can maintain
Speaker 1: some of the markets they have, even if they're selling
Speaker 1: some of it at a loss based on their you know,
Speaker 1: importation illegal importation fees. So there are other drugs that
Speaker 1: they're trying to pile into the country other than just
Speaker 1: pentinol and and and the opioids that have been killing
Speaker 1: over seventy thousand Americans a year. Now, that's not an urgency,
Speaker 1: you know, that doesn't matter. Think about the communities across
Speaker 1: the country where these drugs are flooding in. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to believe that that doesn't qualify for an executive action
Speaker 1: like this. I really, you know, this is it. If
Speaker 1: we can't win this argument on If we can't win
Speaker 1: this argument on the border under the Trump administration, we're
Speaker 1: never gonna win this argument. It turns into something similar
Speaker 1: to what we have with the national debt, which is
Speaker 1: where there's really only one side of this that's right,
Speaker 1: But it's a long term, structural, strategic, foundational issue that
Speaker 1: you know, to deal with it now is painful, so
Speaker 1: much more popular to procrastinate, say it's not a big deal.
Speaker 1: We are heading toward a day facto open borders state,
Speaker 1: and if we don't establish secure borders under the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: it's never going to happen. In fact, only they will
Speaker 1: not be secure. We're just going to have a policy
Speaker 1: where people can come and go. You know, essentially anyone
Speaker 1: who can get here can stay. And you know, you
Speaker 1: talk about things like sovereignty, the cohesion of a polity,
Speaker 1: of the political unit. You know, what is a country?
Speaker 1: We can take this down to a very distill this
Speaker 1: down to its essets. A country is an idea. You know,
Speaker 1: we're Americans because of the culture and the and the
Speaker 1: the people around us and the ideology of this country
Speaker 1: that we buy into that we believe is important to
Speaker 1: us as individuals and as a nation, which is a
Speaker 1: group as a group as well. And you know, you
Speaker 1: can always make the case, well, why why can't you
Speaker 1: be a citizen of any country? It's not fair? Why
Speaker 1: can't you just pick the whole nation? State system is
Speaker 1: based on the largely based on the accident of birth.
Speaker 1: It's unfair. It's inherently unfair. So if fairness is going
Speaker 1: to be the governing standard for who gets to stay
Speaker 1: and who doesn't get to stay, and it's a fairness
Speaker 1: not based on the law, but based on what feels
Speaker 1: good to people. You're an open border state. I don't
Speaker 1: want to tell anybody you're not allowed to be here
Speaker 1: in America. I mean, well, criminals obviously, but I don't
Speaker 1: want to look Honduran migrants in the eye. I don't
Speaker 1: want to look some twenty two year old woman who arrives,
Speaker 1: you know, with her with her two kids under the
Speaker 1: age of tenants as you know, all I want to
Speaker 1: do is be in America. I don't want to look
Speaker 1: at her and say, sorry, you gotta go. That's not
Speaker 1: going to feel good. But if you look at what
Speaker 1: it means, if our law enforcement is I mean, then again,
Speaker 1: I also don't want to arrest people for simple drug possession.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things I don't want to do.
Speaker 1: If our law enforcement, though he isn't able to tell
Speaker 1: that woman who's not legally allowed to be in the country,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. You know, we're gonna make or you're safe
Speaker 1: and take care of you and get you medical care,
Speaker 1: but you gotta go. Then everyone can come and stay.
Speaker 1: And if everyone can come and stay, we don't really
Speaker 1: have a country anymore. We have a kind of economic
Speaker 1: opportunity zone that has no particular character or ethos or
Speaker 1: sustainable version of itself. It just will be in a
Speaker 1: constant flux of well, you know, you know, and you
Speaker 1: look at the numbers and look at how countries change
Speaker 1: over time, and there can be profound shifts, profound si.
Speaker 1: I think that a lot of Americans have this idea
Speaker 1: that the immigration that we're dealing with now is similar
Speaker 1: to immigration way from the past, and that's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: By the percentages, it's We've never had anything like this.
Speaker 1: We've never had a larger illegal alien population in the country.
Speaker 1: We've also never had a larger legal immigrant population. And
Speaker 1: I would just note that while I'm in favor of
Speaker 1: of legal immigrants and we welcome legal immigrants into our
Speaker 1: American family, there's an assimilation process that has to happen
Speaker 1: there too. Maybe this is, you know, getting too deep
Speaker 1: into the issue, but there is a limit to how
Speaker 1: many legal immigrants you'd want to bring in as well.
Speaker 1: And for people that that sounds that sounds crazy too. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: let's let's assume that let's talk about a smaller country, right,
Speaker 1: Let's take it out of the context of America for
Speaker 1: a second. If if the Netherlands allowed eight million Rockies
Speaker 1: to immigrate to the Netherlands. Is the Netherlands still the Netherlands? No,
Speaker 1: it is not, It is something else, right, it would
Speaker 1: it would overwhelm the character and the legal and cultural
Speaker 1: foundations of that country. It would overwhelm the assimilation system.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about a legal immigration way. Now. I don't
Speaker 1: think we're quite there with legal immigration year a year,
Speaker 1: but we're not far off off either. I mean, I
Speaker 1: do think that a million a year is at is
Speaker 1: a pretty high number. It is a lot of people
Speaker 1: that bring into a country to go through the assimilation process,
Speaker 1: especially when you have a lot of them are being
Speaker 1: brought here through chain migration because of family connections. Now,
Speaker 1: the system is the system, So I have no problem
Speaker 1: with anybody who's going through system legally. But we also
Speaker 1: as a country and those people who are legal immigrants
Speaker 1: who become citizens to the country, they get to be
Speaker 1: part of this conversation too. We get to have a
Speaker 1: discussion as a nation about well, how many how many
Speaker 1: legal immigrants do we really want to take in? And
Speaker 1: I understand that for people that their primary political motivation
Speaker 1: is to feel good about themselves and to take the
Speaker 1: position of the greatest generosity and never have to say
Speaker 1: no to people and just want to see the good
Speaker 1: in people and not look at how things can go wrong.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't you want to be open borders, you know?
Speaker 1: And this is why I try to ask democrats questions
Speaker 1: like why why is a legal immigration from a Democrat
Speaker 1: perspect active wisely illegal immigration bad? And the answers they
Speaker 1: don't think it is. There's no And you'll never get
Speaker 1: them to say, Well, if you have a country of
Speaker 1: three hundred and twenty million Americans and you were to
Speaker 1: allow the importation of the immigration of you know, ten
Speaker 1: million Hondurans, which is basically the population of Honduras because
Speaker 1: their country is so crappy, does that change? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's certainly going to change the political direction of the country.
Speaker 1: It's going to change, you know. This is what we
Speaker 1: have to look at and and do people when they
Speaker 1: come in large enough numbers, does that affect their desire
Speaker 1: to assimilate when they're here? These are all these are
Speaker 1: all serious discussions about the future of the country and
Speaker 1: as it is affected by immigration. But it's so much
Speaker 1: easier to just say where a nation of immigrants, you know,
Speaker 1: they're doing the jobs Americans won't do just let people in.
Speaker 1: Illegal immigrants are more American than Americans, all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and this is where the Democrats have gone with this.
Speaker 1: So Trump is Trump is right about securing the border.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's gonna win this fight. I
Speaker 1: don't know if he's gonna win this fight. It might
Speaker 1: be that the Democrats may have their long term strategy
Speaker 1: to change the demographics of this country such that there's
Speaker 1: a permanent left of center majority for the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: and that enough Republicans have been bought and paid for
Speaker 1: on the immigration issue that they won't stand for the law.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's kind of a bummer thing to
Speaker 1: tell you on a Friday, but we may be too
Speaker 1: late on this issue. I don't know if anybody's gonna
Speaker 1: get it done. If Trump can't get it done. So
Speaker 1: I hope that he's able to prevail on this one
Speaker 1: in the courts, in public opinion in twenty twenty. But
Speaker 1: there's some concerning signs here. All right, we gotta roll
Speaker 1: into a quick break. I will be back with you
Speaker 1: with so much were we gotta talk about the smallette smolette,
Speaker 1: monsieur smolet. That whole situation stay with me. What do
Speaker 1: you staying on some form of reparations for black people. Well, look,
Speaker 1: I think that we have got to address that. Again,
Speaker 1: it's back to the inequities there through. Look, America has
Speaker 1: a history of two hundred years of slavery. We had
Speaker 1: Jim Crow. We've got to recognize back to that earlier point,
Speaker 1: people aren't starting out on the same base in terms
Speaker 1: of their ability to succeed, and so we have got
Speaker 1: to recognize that and give people a lift up. We
Speaker 1: have a history of racism in America. So you are
Speaker 1: for some type Yes I am, Yes, I am. That's
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, prime top tier candidate from the Democrats for
Speaker 1: the presidency. So far, a lot of establishment folks excited
Speaker 1: about her candidacy. You know, there's definitely a buzz around
Speaker 1: her saying that she is in favor of reparations. I
Speaker 1: do not now I could be wrong here, so one
Speaker 1: of you could point this out. I do not remember
Speaker 1: hearing a president in recent memory, any any Democrat presidential
Speaker 1: candidate that I can think of. Again, this is just
Speaker 1: off top of my head that was in favor, openly
Speaker 1: in favor of reparations for slavery. The federal government stepping
Speaker 1: in with reparations, and I would be very curious to
Speaker 1: know what that would look like. What is she really
Speaker 1: talking about here? We already have affirmative action. Affirmative action
Speaker 1: is running into some problems now because of the discriminatory
Speaker 1: effect against Asians that affirmative action has resulted in. And
Speaker 1: affirmative action has been has been extended way beyond African Americans,
Speaker 1: to Latinos, to Native Americans, to transgender individuals, to LGBT me.
Speaker 1: I mean, affirmative action is now everything that's not essentially
Speaker 1: an Asian or a you know why mail. So that's
Speaker 1: that's where a firm invaction has gone. But I also
Speaker 1: noted in this and that was I think an interview
Speaker 1: on this radio show, The Breakfast Club. But she mentioned this,
Speaker 1: the inequities. You remember this, This is important. I brought
Speaker 1: this up, I think yesterday here on the show. Not inequalities.
Speaker 1: You have to pay attention to the words that leftist
Speaker 1: used inequities. Inequality is the way it is treated in
Speaker 1: public policy discussions. Is about the law. Right are you
Speaker 1: equal in the law? Equal is rights? Equal is you
Speaker 1: know you are treated the same way by the state.
Speaker 1: Inequity Inequity is the absence of fair ends. Not fair process,
Speaker 1: but fair ends, fair results. Do you have the same
Speaker 1: that what somebody else has? Forget about the decisions you've made,
Speaker 1: forget about the work you've done, forget about your skills
Speaker 1: and abilities. Do you have the same that somebody else has?
Speaker 1: Oh you don't. That's inequity in the eyes of the left.
Speaker 1: And if you are in a protected category, you should
Speaker 1: not have to suffer inequity. And in fact, this state
Speaker 1: should have to come in to give you the same ends,
Speaker 1: the same results and benefits that somebody else has because
Speaker 1: of your identity group. This is gonna you're gonna see
Speaker 1: more of this. Pay attention to that term inequity versus inequality.
Speaker 1: The Left is going to be all about this. Somebody
Speaker 1: tweeted yesterday of the day before, and I thought it
Speaker 1: made a lot of sense. So this is a police
Speaker 1: department that has had some issues. I think there are
Speaker 1: issues with the Chicago Police Department as a general proposition,
Speaker 1: whether or not they are alleged to have treated people
Speaker 1: of color fairly, other or not, they are capable of
Speaker 1: doing an investigation without any difficult issues arising. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got to be kidding me. Smolette's attorneys there, Garrigos
Speaker 1: and Benjamin Brafman, are starting to do the whole Well,
Speaker 1: maybe Chicago PD is racist. Maybe maybe that's really the
Speaker 1: problem here. I mean, this guy, if the maximum he
Speaker 1: can serve us three years, I think he should get
Speaker 1: three years. You really got to make an example of
Speaker 1: this idiot. What he did is disgusting, it's wrong, and
Speaker 1: that he's got his attorneys out there now saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe Chicago Police Department's racist. I'm sorry. They gave this guy,
Speaker 1: this utter moron, Chelsea Small, this spoiled brat by the way,
Speaker 1: who was upset that he didn't get paid more money
Speaker 1: for their show he was on. They gave him more
Speaker 1: than the benefit of the doubt. They gave him every
Speaker 1: opportunity to not just explain his side of story, but
Speaker 1: to come clean. He did neither of those things, and
Speaker 1: now here we are. It's it's appalling. Ed Davis, the
Speaker 1: former Boston Police commissioner, saw this for what it is
Speaker 1: play six. When defense attorneys don't have any facts, they
Speaker 1: go to process and they're trying to throw enough smoke
Speaker 1: up there to establish reasonable doubt in the minds of
Speaker 1: the prospective jurors. That's what this is all about. But
Speaker 1: you know Ed described this very well yesterday. He called
Speaker 1: it a despicable crime. And when you hear his presentation
Speaker 1: and the presentation of the state's attorney, there's almost an
Speaker 1: embarrassment of evidence here against Smalllett couldn't be any more obvious,
Speaker 1: and I think it's it's just reprehensible that lawyers are
Speaker 1: going out there now and are just are essentially saying Chicago,
Speaker 1: Chicago is racist, the country's racist, Chicago police are racist.
Speaker 1: If that defense would work for Smallett, then what you're
Speaker 1: really or Smollette, then what you're really saying is that
Speaker 1: no African American in Chicago could be committed of any
Speaker 1: crime because the police department's just so racist that even
Speaker 1: when the evidence is overwhelming, as we already know it is.
Speaker 1: I mean, this this guy, it could not be more
Speaker 1: obvious that this is a hoax, and more clear this
Speaker 1: is a hoax. If he gave us a signed confession
Speaker 1: with videotape, then maybe it'd be more obvious, but it's
Speaker 1: still I'm sure lawyers would say he was coerced. He
Speaker 1: was coerced into his confession. At this point, some lawyers
Speaker 1: are great. Some lawyers men. No shame, no shame at all.
Speaker 1: You know, the guy should be punished. I saw today
Speaker 1: that there was some beginnings of a narrative that, oh,
Speaker 1: maybe he's got a drug problem or something. I'm sorry, no,
Speaker 1: let's not. Let's not do that one now either. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is these are all just desperation maneuvers. These are
Speaker 1: all these are all hail mary's to avoid accountability. And
Speaker 1: you know it's just it's I hope I was gonna
Speaker 1: say it's not gonna work. I hope none of this works.
Speaker 1: But you know, with our justice system sometimes sometimes things
Speaker 1: can be surprisingly illogical and unfair. He should serve time,
Speaker 1: he should spend some time in a prison cells. The
Speaker 1: drsh weight on this one, and I think the dursh
Speaker 1: just got this one correct. Play for if the facts
Speaker 1: are as the police say they are, if actually payments
Speaker 1: were made and a plan was hacked to put a
Speaker 1: rope around the neck, and a police report was filed,
Speaker 1: then we have a potential for a serious a crime.
Speaker 1: I think people who make false reports or to go
Speaker 1: to jail. I think you know in the Bible, if
Speaker 1: you falsely accused somebody, you get the penalty that the
Speaker 1: person would have gotten had the accusation been true. So
Speaker 1: if in fact these people had attacked him in this
Speaker 1: racist way and put a noose around his neck, they
Speaker 1: would have gotten some years in jail. If you're going
Speaker 1: to follow the Bible, this guy ought to get the
Speaker 1: same penalty that he falsely accused other people of getting.
Speaker 1: Totally agree with the dersh on this. And let me
Speaker 1: also say that we have been treated to lecture after
Speaker 1: lecture from partisans in the media and in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party about how lying to the system destroys the system.
Speaker 1: So even a relatively minor lie in the course of
Speaker 1: a federal investigation, oh, I don't know, like the Muller probe,
Speaker 1: for example, even a relatively minor lie is unacceptable because
Speaker 1: that lie makes the work of the entire system harder
Speaker 1: and so people have to be held accountable for this,
Speaker 1: and there has to be there have to be consequences
Speaker 1: for this. Right. Well, if that's the case for lie,
Speaker 1: false accusation is just a form of lying. It's no different.
Speaker 1: You know, if you sit there and say I never
Speaker 1: spoke to Putin and you did speak to Putin, and
Speaker 1: they're going to throw you in prison for that, saying, well,
Speaker 1: I didn't speak to Putin, but this other guy did,
Speaker 1: and he should go to jail for that, and he didn't.
Speaker 1: That's just another form of line. A false report is
Speaker 1: an official lie that hurts the system. So if you're
Speaker 1: somebody who thinks that George Papadappolis should have gone to prison,
Speaker 1: you better darnwell think that jose Smalllett should go to prison,
Speaker 1: or else you're gonna have some explaining to do. As
Speaker 1: far as I am concerned with all of this, it's
Speaker 1: amazing the oh wait, Smallett's statement that we have that,
Speaker 1: all right, we have Smallett's statement to the prosecution here
Speaker 1: plicklip two. Smalletts stated that he wanted them to adhere
Speaker 1: to attack him. Defendant Smalett also stated he wanted the
Speaker 1: brothers to catch his attention by calling him an empire
Speaker 1: f empire n Defendant Smollett also included that he wanted
Speaker 1: Ola to place a rope around his neck, pour gasoline
Speaker 1: on him, and yell this is mega country. Astonishing, isn't
Speaker 1: it astonishing? Um? But yet here here we are that oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, CNN of course trying to cover for
Speaker 1: CNN and m SMC trying to cover for him. Play
Speaker 1: clip one. If we're going to see um, conservative media
Speaker 1: probably play this up a bit. Sean Hannity is gonna
Speaker 1: eat Jessie Smalett's lunch every single second. Tucker Carlson is
Speaker 1: gonna et just Smalllet's lunch every single second. President nine
Speaker 1: is stas is gonna eat his lunch, Eat his lunch. Uh,
Speaker 1: eat his lunch every single second. Well doesn't that isn't
Speaker 1: that kind of deserving? Isn't that kind of deserving? Isn't
Speaker 1: that isn't that a air thing for for this to
Speaker 1: turn into? I mean, you know, why was I talking
Speaker 1: about this actor? Why was I able to know that
Speaker 1: everything was fine? Why was I able to know that
Speaker 1: there was really no truth in this story? And all
Speaker 1: these different media companies, the big media apparatus, they couldn't
Speaker 1: figure it out. Oh, Republicans, pounce is the story? I
Speaker 1: see right? Ah, they're being mean to to Jussie. They're
Speaker 1: being mean to JUSSI no, no, no, I don't think
Speaker 1: so this is a guy who should go to prison.
Speaker 1: We call this one team right all along? So we
Speaker 1: do a little victory dance on that when we've known
Speaker 1: all along that that was the case, and we also
Speaker 1: now should expect there to be accountability in this whole process.
Speaker 1: We should expect that somebody who was willing to draw
Speaker 1: resources off of investigations of homicides in a city with
Speaker 1: a serious homicide problem should not go unpunished and should
Speaker 1: not go unscathed. But you know, the sad part about
Speaker 1: this is the media is not going to learn a thing.
Speaker 1: They're not going to change at all. And here's what
Speaker 1: I can tell you. The next and there will be one,
Speaker 1: the next big hate crime hoax that comes along, the
Speaker 1: same script for the media will be in play. They
Speaker 1: won't change their coverage, they won't be more skeptical. And
Speaker 1: it's because that, ultimately they really think that they did
Speaker 1: this the right way, even though they were totally wrong.
Speaker 1: They think the mainstream media believes when it comes to
Speaker 1: hate crime hoaxes, even when they're wrong, they're still right
Speaker 1: because they've raised awareness. Be right back. So a lot
Speaker 1: of people have talked about small at this week. One
Speaker 1: of the best, and I want to give you a
Speaker 1: good chunk of it. Charles Barkley is one of the
Speaker 1: more entertaining TV commentators around period. You know, you don't
Speaker 1: always get great stuff from Charles, but you do get
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of gems. I mean, Charles
Speaker 1: Barkley comes up with stuff. I don't even really care
Speaker 1: about professional basketball very much. I used to watch it,
Speaker 1: but I don't have the time these days. But Charles
Speaker 1: Barkley is so amusing when he talks about professional basketball,
Speaker 1: and not even just that, just just topics in general,
Speaker 1: that I will sometimes watch. I will sometimes watch Charles
Speaker 1: Barkley on his panel on TNT just because I know
Speaker 1: he's so funny. The stuff that he said about Smoletts
Speaker 1: today though, because we got the we got Friday coming
Speaker 1: up here, we got a weekend. I just figured be
Speaker 1: fun to share some of this with you. Here's what
Speaker 1: Charles Barkley said about this play eighteen. Just if you
Speaker 1: wasted all that damn time of money, you know what
Speaker 1: you should have did. That's what I'm really a Mason's neighborhood.
Speaker 1: This one over there that you would say has no
Speaker 1: chance of happening. Um, two black guys being the black
Speaker 1: guy and have figured out loud, that's us not on here, man.
Speaker 1: I think that's probably I think that's probably it. Okay,
Speaker 1: the Lakers will not make the playoffs. The King's Will
Speaker 1: is the latest edition. Go ahead, Kenny, I can't leave
Speaker 1: your chuck here with caster check America. Let me just
Speaker 1: tell you something that do not commit crimes with checks.
Speaker 1: If you're gonna break the law, do not write a check.
Speaker 1: Because you're writing a check that what get cashed? Man, Paul,
Speaker 1: stop literally now, I got one more question. Be by
Speaker 1: the face mask, the rope and the thing in the
Speaker 1: same story. They get it. You think they put that
Speaker 1: on a receipt, face mask, the rope, bleach the store.
Speaker 1: So they're obviously having some fun there on the set
Speaker 1: of TNT with Charles Barklay, just really going after the
Speaker 1: smolette thing. But I think I think you have to man,
Speaker 1: I don't think that this is a situation where we
Speaker 1: should all pretend like this isn't completely preposterous, that what
Speaker 1: he isn't absolutely ridiculous, uh, you know, and and and
Speaker 1: damaging and wrong, but also so stupid. This is real,
Speaker 1: real buffoon kind of stuff. I mean, it's really astonishingly dumb.
Speaker 1: I mean, writing a check, buying the stuff from the
Speaker 1: store on video, bringing in two other guys to be
Speaker 1: a part of this, and all of it. It just
Speaker 1: makes no sense. It's somebody who's clearly not very smart. Um,
Speaker 1: and yet there are some people out there believe it,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, believe it or not. There are
Speaker 1: some people out there who aren't yet convinced, aren't yet
Speaker 1: entirely convinced. If in fact, this guy Smolett did this
Speaker 1: whole thing play clip seven here, Maxie Waters ways in.
Speaker 1: I don't think we can at this point it makes
Speaker 1: sense of it. There's still some questions that we have,
Speaker 1: some answers that have to be given. He's a friend,
Speaker 1: he was at my office, we marched in the Pride
Speaker 1: Rate for get Together. He introduced me at Black Girl's Rock,
Speaker 1: and so I believed him when I heard about it.
Speaker 1: I still don't know all of the details. I'm waiting
Speaker 1: for the final results of all of this. If in
Speaker 1: facts it's the hoax, of course I would be disappointed,
Speaker 1: But I'm just hopeful that whatever goes on, and if
Speaker 1: he finds that he's in trouble, that his life will
Speaker 1: be changed, then he has to redo it all over again.
Speaker 1: How much more does she need in terms of facts,
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering what the facts from? Does she not
Speaker 1: believe the Chicago Police Department. Does she not believe Eddie
Speaker 1: Johnson is CPD superintendent who's speaking yesterday? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what this is what Eddi Johnson said yesterday play
Speaker 1: three to let pay thirty five hundred dollars to stage
Speaker 1: this attack and dragt Chicago's reputation through the mud in
Speaker 1: the process. And why this stunt was orchestrated by Smilette
Speaker 1: because he was dissatisfied with his salary, so he concocted
Speaker 1: a story about being attacked. Is there any part of
Speaker 1: that that Maxine Waters thinks he's a lie? Is there
Speaker 1: some is there some aspects of this that she Let's
Speaker 1: all be very clear. The chance that the Chicago Police
Speaker 1: Department would come out and say these things about a
Speaker 1: gay African American actor who claimed to have been attacked.
Speaker 1: Did the fact that they're coming out to say that
Speaker 1: this is a hoax? They are they have this thing
Speaker 1: as air tight as you could have anything, as air
Speaker 1: tight as you could have anything. So that's let's start
Speaker 1: with that. But if he does face charges, there are
Speaker 1: some people who are saying, you know, crazier things have happened,
Speaker 1: and you start to think about some cases that have
Speaker 1: come up. This is Sonny Houstin on the View nineteen.
Speaker 1: He is going to mount a vigorous defense, and he's
Speaker 1: made it very clear that Jesse is still entitled to
Speaker 1: a presumption of innocence. And I think we do need
Speaker 1: to remember that for the police department to come out
Speaker 1: and lay this all out, we have to still be skeptical.
Speaker 1: We don't know what's going to happen. I mean, did
Speaker 1: everybody think Casey Anthony was going to be found guilty, yes?
Speaker 1: Did everybody think O J was going to be found guilty? Yes?
Speaker 1: And those people were not found guilty. She's confusing analysis
Speaker 1: of the news with the legal process a little bit.
Speaker 1: There By the way, he's not going to mount a
Speaker 1: vigorous defense if he if he goes to trial, he's
Speaker 1: going to lose. He's going to take a plea bargain.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna mount no if they charge him, he's
Speaker 1: gonna plead it out. No way, he's going to mount
Speaker 1: a vigorous defense. But to her point about Casey Anthony
Speaker 1: and o J. Yeah, I mean there are people that
Speaker 1: get away with crimes all the time. Unfortunately, I see
Speaker 1: that R. Kelly today was charged with ten counts of
Speaker 1: some kind of sexual misconduct. I don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: it is. R Kelly's ten counts of sexual misconduct. R
Speaker 1: Kelly was charged, and the documentary on him, I think
Speaker 1: it's on Lifetime that I've watched. It's a series of
Speaker 1: like six or seven episodes, is very good and disturbing.
Speaker 1: R Kelly was prosecuted for underage sex and making child pornography.
Speaker 1: He was They had a video of him with the
Speaker 1: underage girl. They showed it to the jury and r
Speaker 1: Kelly said it might be his brother, that it wasn't
Speaker 1: him in the video, and he was found not guilty.
Speaker 1: How could a jury be so stupid? I don't know
Speaker 1: the OJ jury, I don't think. I think the OJ
Speaker 1: jury always knew that he did it. They just thought
Speaker 1: that this was some getting back at, getting back at,
Speaker 1: you know, at the racist oppressors in this country. No
Speaker 1: one with you know, a functioning brain thought that OJ
Speaker 1: didn't do it. So is there a chance that Smalette
Speaker 1: would get off. Well maybe, But he's also he's not
Speaker 1: some hero to any community. I mean, this is all
Speaker 1: the whole thing is just is just grotesque, right, So
Speaker 1: I think he's going I think he's going to the
Speaker 1: slammer if if he tries to fight this thing. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network the only duel certified veteran owned background investigation
Speaker 1: and vetting company out there. Background checks are very important
Speaker 1: for every business, no matter what side your business. If
Speaker 1: you've got a startup, if you're an entrepreneur, you're just
Speaker 1: bringing in a few people, well they're obviously critical employees.
Speaker 1: But if you're a big company and you're working in
Speaker 1: the HR department, you know you've got to make sure
Speaker 1: that your background checks are done quickly and efficiently and correctly.
Speaker 1: That's where Global Verification Network comes in. A lot of
Speaker 1: the people in this space will outsource the work to
Speaker 1: companies overseas. They don't really have control over the information.
Speaker 1: The servers that they're using are overseas as well. Forget
Speaker 1: all that. Go with a veteran owned and operated company.
Speaker 1: That's all about the states here in America, all right,
Speaker 1: call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven
Speaker 1: nine again eight seven seven six nine five one one
Speaker 1: seven nine, Or go to my GVN dot com again,
Speaker 1: that's my GVN dot com. At some point, I guess
Speaker 1: I'll be talking about it. But you know, the nice part.
Speaker 1: There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, there was
Speaker 1: no anything, So that's the nice part. There was no
Speaker 1: phone calls, no nothing. We have a I won a race.
Speaker 1: You know why I won the race because I was
Speaker 1: a better candidate than she was and had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Russia. And everybody knows it's a hoax. It's
Speaker 1: one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on this country.
Speaker 1: So I look forward to seeing the report. If it's
Speaker 1: an honest report, it will say that. If it's not
Speaker 1: an honest report, it won't. Yeah, we may in fact
Speaker 1: be in the last days of Mullermania. Mullermania. I could
Speaker 1: do some cool we could do some cool theme music
Speaker 1: for Mullermania. I am so happy for well at least
Speaker 1: this reason. And maybe this is a little bit selfish,
Speaker 1: but I just don't want to have to talk about
Speaker 1: this case anymore. It's so obviously stupid. It's such a
Speaker 1: political hatchet job. It has been from the start. The
Speaker 1: people involved, or unseemly they're dishonor they're bad people. They've
Speaker 1: tried to undo the results of a democratic election, you know,
Speaker 1: And I just feel like we've talked this thing to death.
Speaker 1: The whole country has. I mean, you turn on CNN
Speaker 1: and most nights there's a Russia story and a lot
Speaker 1: of nights and this is for the last two years,
Speaker 1: a lot of nights they lead with a Russia story
Speaker 1: and they bring people on who go, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't know yet, and we don't know yet, and
Speaker 1: all this It was the speculation Olympics for two years
Speaker 1: about whoa, maybe maybe Mueller's got this up as sleep
Speaker 1: and maybe now all of a sudden they're starting to
Speaker 1: try to manage expectations a bit now, and now they're
Speaker 1: changing the whole tone, the whole vibe of the Mueller probe.
Speaker 1: And our friend Kim Strassel, who you know is a
Speaker 1: frequent visitor here on the show, wrote a great piece
Speaker 1: shifting sci f F TI N to phase two of collusion.
Speaker 1: Conspiracy theorists look for something new anticipating a Muller letdown,
Speaker 1: and let me just get Ki. Kim just nails it
Speaker 1: in this piece. Let me give you someone what she
Speaker 1: gets into here. Quote There's been no more reliable regurgitator
Speaker 1: of fantastical Trump Russia collusion theories than Democratic Representative Adam Schiff.
Speaker 1: So when the House Intelligence Committee chairman sits down to
Speaker 1: describe a new phase of the Trump investigation. Pay attention.
Speaker 1: These are the fever swamps into which we will descend
Speaker 1: after Robert Muller's probe. The collusionists need a new phase
Speaker 1: as signs grow that the Special Council won't help realize
Speaker 1: their revelries of a Donald Trump takedown. They had said
Speaker 1: mister Muller would provide all the answers. Now that it
Speaker 1: seems they won't like his answers, Democrats and media insist
Speaker 1: that any report will likely prove anticlimactic and inconclusive. This
Speaker 1: is merely the end of chapter one, said Nato Mariotti,
Speaker 1: a CNN legal analyst. Mister Schiff turned this week to
Speaker 1: a dependable scribe, the Washington Post, David Ignatius to lay
Speaker 1: out the next chapter of the Penny Dreadful, by the way,
Speaker 1: a very good TV show on Cinemax. I think if
Speaker 1: you haven't seen it. Mister Ignatius was the original conduit
Speaker 1: for the League about former National Security Advisor Mike Flinn's
Speaker 1: conversations with a Russian ambassador and the far fetch claims
Speaker 1: that mister Flinn had violated the Logan Act. Of seventeen
Speaker 1: ninety nine. Mister Schiff has now dictated to mister Ignatius
Speaker 1: a whole new collusion theory. Forget Carter Page, Paul Manafort,
Speaker 1: George Papadopoulos, whoever the real Trump Russia canoodling rests in
Speaker 1: Trump's finances. The future president was doing business with Russia
Speaker 1: and seeking Kremlin help. End quote. Guys, these people are shameless,
Speaker 1: aren't they. I mean, Kim totally nails it. She's right.
Speaker 1: I mean I've been saying this too, But this is
Speaker 1: this is where all of this is heading. We're just
Speaker 1: gonna start to hear now about how we need Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns, We need to know more about about Trump's
Speaker 1: business dealings. And you see, this is just going to
Speaker 1: be an investigation of Trump the person. That's what they're
Speaker 1: going to transition to. This is an investigation of Donald Trump. There.
Speaker 1: You know, they can try to say it's about Russia,
Speaker 1: collusion anything else. But now, I mean, if they're talking
Speaker 1: about his business dealings, what is that If they didn't
Speaker 1: find collusion as in Trump and Trump's campaign actively contacting
Speaker 1: and working with the Russians to help steer the election
Speaker 1: to Trump, if they didn't find that then looking at
Speaker 1: Trump's finances can't be a part of that investigation because
Speaker 1: obviously Trump's finances, as it affects the Russia collusion narrative
Speaker 1: would have already been covered. It would have already been
Speaker 1: there if they had any evidence of this what's whatever.
Speaker 1: So now they have no evidence of collusion. What they're
Speaker 1: saying is, let's just turn Trump's finances upside down and
Speaker 1: then we'll find evidence of collusion. You know, this is
Speaker 1: the throw the witch out in the lake, tire down
Speaker 1: with stones. If she drowns, she's innocent. If she floats,
Speaker 1: she's a witch. Trump can't win. Trump can't win. Don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on that scary movie The Witch.
Speaker 1: I've been having nightmares the movie scary, too scary, man,
Speaker 1: too scary. But this is, this is what we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: These these people are the Democrats, their little media allies,
Speaker 1: little media stooges. They're they're utterly shameless. I mean, Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow has been doing these. Now we have this really
Speaker 1: interesting revelation that's gonna blow your mind about Russia. Every night,
Speaker 1: you know, she takes a little pen out, she taps
Speaker 1: on the table, the whole stick. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know who finds Rachel Maddow's show interesting. I really don't.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just more people speculating abou Russian night
Speaker 1: after night who don't know anything. There's no information. It's
Speaker 1: just speculations. Well maybe maybe yes, no kind of so
Speaker 1: they have nothing to offer in terms of knowledge, in
Speaker 1: terms of actual transmission of useful information or real information. No,
Speaker 1: it all just becomes the same old nonsense about how well,
Speaker 1: if this happened, then maybe that happened, then maybe this
Speaker 1: other thing happened. You know, anybody? This is like when
Speaker 1: McCabe goes on TV and says Trump still could be
Speaker 1: a Russian asset. McCabe still could be a Russian asset.
Speaker 1: Can he prove to us that he's not a Russian asset?
Speaker 1: How do we know? Oh, let's investigate him. This is
Speaker 1: the essence of police state tactics. This is what happens
Speaker 1: in countries where there is no rule of law and
Speaker 1: where the people who have the ability to exercise judicial
Speaker 1: and prosecutorial discretion do not act in faith. The bar
Speaker 1: for a counterintelligence investigation, as we've seen from McCabe and
Speaker 1: Coombe and others is essentially we think maybe this thing
Speaker 1: could have happened, so we're going to start pulling people's
Speaker 1: phone calls and emails and surveiling them because of counterintelligence concerns.
Speaker 1: This is a massive abuse, This is an enormous scandal,
Speaker 1: and that the Democrats are just unwilling to see what
Speaker 1: is plainly staring all of us in the face here
Speaker 1: just goes to show that you can't trust these people
Speaker 1: with power, their ideology, their party is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Speaker 1: You don't want these people to be in charge. You
Speaker 1: do not want Democrats to be in a position to
Speaker 1: sick the irs, the DOJ, the f behind people. Notice
Speaker 1: how who is Trump sicked the prosecutorial arm of the
Speaker 1: government on you know, you know, the Clintons used to
Speaker 1: have the IRS go after people. The IRS went after
Speaker 1: conservatives under the Obama administration, conservatives. Somehow, Republicans, this doesn't
Speaker 1: happen from our side. I wonder why that is. We
Speaker 1: don't weaponize the apparatus of the government the way the
Speaker 1: left does, you know. And and for for people who
Speaker 1: are going to say, well what about the Clintons, Buck
Speaker 1: and Whitewater, the Clintons should have gone the Clintons should
Speaker 1: have been criminally prosecuted. The Clintons actually broke the law.
Speaker 1: We all know they broke the law in a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of ways, both of them more than once. So
Speaker 1: you know, that's that's not a witch hunt. That's actually yeah,
Speaker 1: you're that's that's just a hunt that's finding illegal behavior.
Speaker 1: But this sole Muller thing, it's not. It's going to
Speaker 1: end next week. And Kim's right. Kim Strauss's right just
Speaker 1: means collusion. Chapter two begins. That's a woman who inflicted
Speaker 1: enormous rescue on American soldiers, on American citizens. She's a terrorist.
Speaker 1: She's not coming back. President Trump made clear that she
Speaker 1: wasn't coming back. She's not a US citizen, she has
Speaker 1: not entitled to US citizenship, and she's not coming back
Speaker 1: to our country to pose a threat. Secretary of State
Speaker 1: is not messing around when talking about Hodah Muthana. This
Speaker 1: is the case. I believe we spoke to my friend
Speaker 1: Rahim Kasam about this one earlier in the week. But
Speaker 1: this is the case of a woman who was a
Speaker 1: I think thrice married isis bride. So she went off
Speaker 1: to join the Islamic State. Now and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of details I want to get into it. Let me
Speaker 1: start with this. Who sees the snuff videos, the the
Speaker 1: horrific murder videos that are out there of the Islamic
Speaker 1: State orchering people, mutilating people, murdering people. Who sees that
Speaker 1: stuff and and then says I want to go join
Speaker 1: that group? Who sees that? What kind of a person
Speaker 1: would want to go be a part of that and
Speaker 1: marry fighters for this? I mean, this woman, you know
Speaker 1: she's a terrorist, folks, She is a terrorist. I know
Speaker 1: you know that. But we need to make sure we
Speaker 1: keep a close eye here on the T word because
Speaker 1: there are some very interesting and shady and slimy figures
Speaker 1: that are emerging who all of a sudden are trying
Speaker 1: to make a case that, you know, maybe she wasn't
Speaker 1: that bad, or we should bring her back and she
Speaker 1: should have her day in court. Now. I think there
Speaker 1: are some legal issues here where, you know, it can
Speaker 1: go either way. I mean, in my opinion, if you
Speaker 1: wage war against your country, you should be able to
Speaker 1: have your citizenship stripped from you. This woman not only
Speaker 1: not only joined the Islamic State in Syria, married multiple
Speaker 1: Isis men, was a bride for them. She was tweeting
Speaker 1: out ISIS propaganda and encouraging people on behalf of the
Speaker 1: Islamic State and posting online on behalf of the Islamic
Speaker 1: State to kill Americans here at home, not just on
Speaker 1: the battlefield, here at home. She was one of the
Speaker 1: people who was encouraging who you could say was was
Speaker 1: digitally conspiring with individuals to radicalize on their own here,
Speaker 1: to mow people down with cars, to stab people, and
Speaker 1: just do all these disgusting, horrific terrorist things that we
Speaker 1: know the Islamic State has been doing. And now she's
Speaker 1: being held by Kurdish forces, she's in a refugee camp,
Speaker 1: she has a child. She says she wants to come home.
Speaker 1: She said, quote, I know I've ruined my future, in
Speaker 1: my son's future, and I deeply regret it. And now
Speaker 1: people referring to as the Isis bride, and there's going
Speaker 1: to be I tell you this, the social justice left
Speaker 1: is going to start saying, oh, she was brainwashed and
Speaker 1: it wasn't her fault, and that she should be allowed
Speaker 1: back in the country. The Trump administration has just said,
Speaker 1: as you heard it there from a Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: she's not a citizen is not a citizen quote. The
Speaker 1: State Department maintains that no such process is required. As
Speaker 1: Muthana is not, and never has been, an American citizen,
Speaker 1: she stands outside of the Fourteenth Amendments guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1: The government argues because her father, who is now a
Speaker 1: naturalized citizen, was formerly a Yemeni diplomat under the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: of his home country, that's right like in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: subject to the jurisdiction thereof US citizenship and Immigration Services
Speaker 1: guidelines specify an exception to birthright citizenship for children not
Speaker 1: born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as
Speaker 1: the Fourteenth Amendment requires, she may have been born here,
Speaker 1: Pompeio said, she is not a US citizen, nor is
Speaker 1: she entitled the US citizenship. Muthana's lawyers, however, are indicating
Speaker 1: that her father has been was discharged from his diplomatic
Speaker 1: position by the time of her birth, by which point
Speaker 1: her mother had gained permanent residency status. When the government
Speaker 1: revoked the young woman's passport in January, it stated that
Speaker 1: she hadn't was not a birthright citizen because her father's
Speaker 1: termination had not officially been documented until February nineteen ninety five.
Speaker 1: So you know, look, this is where you're going to
Speaker 1: get into. You know, if the papers weren't signed in time,
Speaker 1: the laws, the law, and if your citizenship papers didn't
Speaker 1: go through, guess what. Sorry. And I hope that nobody's
Speaker 1: really gonna lose too much sleep over this one. But
Speaker 1: you know, the left, they see they see a Muslim minority,
Speaker 1: you know, Muslim minority female, and they are immediately trying
Speaker 1: to find ways to, if not openly take her side,
Speaker 1: certainly defend her, defend some aspects of her position. I
Speaker 1: saw the Council on Arab Islamic Relations. I only see
Speaker 1: the Council CARE. They call it the Council on Arab
Speaker 1: Islamic I'm sorry, Council on American Islamic Relations. Pardon me.
Speaker 1: I only see CARE though. When it's like, hey, does
Speaker 1: anybody want to defend this terrorists and they're like, yes,
Speaker 1: we are from CARE. We would like to defend the terrorists.
Speaker 1: Like who is that really the only the only time
Speaker 1: we get to hear from you guys? Or if somebody
Speaker 1: leaves a mean voicemail on an imam's you know, phone
Speaker 1: message and then we get to hear about it. I'll
Speaker 1: never forget that I was in I was at CNN
Speaker 1: once and it was after one of the I think
Speaker 1: it might have been after the Pulse nightclub shooting. I
Speaker 1: pretty but I forget. I was over there analyzing so
Speaker 1: many terror incidents. I think it was a Pulse nightclub shooting.
Speaker 1: And they brought me on and the segment before me
Speaker 1: was about the shooting, which had just happened maybe a
Speaker 1: couple of days before, and they wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: me about how is this going to spur arise in
Speaker 1: hate crimes because somebody left a mean voicemail on an
Speaker 1: EMMS on an emom's answering machine at a mosque somewhere.
Speaker 1: I remember thinking, this is how CNN priorities work. You
Speaker 1: have a terrible attack with dozens and dozens of gay
Speaker 1: men slaughtered while they're trying to just have a night out,
Speaker 1: have a night of fun and enjoyment, and you know,
Speaker 1: killed for the crime of trying to dance and listen
Speaker 1: to some music by this Islamic state supporting psychopath. Remember
Speaker 1: when the FBI redacted information from the transcript to the
Speaker 1: Obama FBI. There have been some big big signs out
Speaker 1: there that the FBI is not this UH team of
Speaker 1: crack gum shoes that a lot of people would like
Speaker 1: to believe they were. They were retracting things or redacting
Speaker 1: things like I'm doing this in the name of the
Speaker 1: Blank State, and I pray to Blank that I will
Speaker 1: be a martyr. I mean, I think we could do
Speaker 1: the film remember that with the UH. That was a
Speaker 1: real thing during the aftermath of Pulset nightclub shooting. But
Speaker 1: they immediately wanted to talk to me about is there
Speaker 1: going to be a rise in hate crimes? And who
Speaker 1: are saying? You know, can we focus on the actual
Speaker 1: crime here? Can we actually talk about the Terrorist Act
Speaker 1: and not immediately switch this into like, well, like we
Speaker 1: don't want, you know, we don't want to talk about
Speaker 1: this hate crime, which is what it was. We want
Speaker 1: to talk about the possible hate crime against the Islamic
Speaker 1: community later on. And back to this this woman who's
Speaker 1: trying to come back from the Islamic State. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: you you joined the enemy. You have no rights in
Speaker 1: this country as far as I'm concerned. You're not a citizen,
Speaker 1: so I mean government that the government says you're not
Speaker 1: a citizen and you don't have citizenship. What we're gonna
Speaker 1: give her citizenship now? So she wasn't a citizen when
Speaker 1: she went there, she's not a citizen now. And I
Speaker 1: think that the Trump administrations right on this one. Notice,
Speaker 1: how though, they'll be plenty of Democrats that say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's tyranny and it's terrible what Trump is doing because
Speaker 1: they just opposed Trump, no matter what it is. It's
Speaker 1: one of the more remarkable tests of the left delusion
Speaker 1: here is that no matter what the circumstances may be.
Speaker 1: You know, if Trump came out and said that he
Speaker 1: has managed to find a way that you could eat
Speaker 1: all the cheeseburgers you want, never gained a pound, that
Speaker 1: it would be healthy for you, the left would be
Speaker 1: anti cheeseburger. They would say that cheeseburgers are racist and
Speaker 1: evil and destroying the planet. So that's what we're up against,
Speaker 1: your folks. More national security, come out up here in
Speaker 1: just a moment to talk to you about the troop
Speaker 1: draw it out in Syria and the Vietnam Kim Summit
Speaker 1: coming up. You are now entering the Freedom hug Dable
Speaker 1: Operation Center. All SENSI programs. Musky Caps strictly need to
Speaker 1: know Team Buck is cleared and ready for a Buck brief.
Speaker 1: This is a rough estimate about two hundred, not a
Speaker 1: specific number. We're gonna We're in constant contact with our allies.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, the President wants to
Speaker 1: bring our troops home, and he's working towards that. He
Speaker 1: wants to do that in a safe and peaceful way.
Speaker 1: I'm always going to be happy with the President pulling
Speaker 1: our men and women in harm's way out of harm's way,
Speaker 1: and also doing so responsibly. I agree. I believe that
Speaker 1: the two hundred that are remaining will keep Turkey out
Speaker 1: of the Syrian conflict, will also keep Iron's ambitions at bay.
Speaker 1: So this President, you deserve a lot of credit for
Speaker 1: destroying the Caliphate, but we need an insurance policy to
Speaker 1: make sure that they don't come back. And the Kurds
Speaker 1: who helped us in the eyes of Turkey, THEYPG Kurds
Speaker 1: or part of the PKK, we need a buffer zone
Speaker 1: between Turkey and the Syrian Democratic forces so they don't
Speaker 1: go to war. You don't want to end one war
Speaker 1: and start another. We want to make sure is Sist
Speaker 1: never comes back and Iran cannot get these old fills
Speaker 1: that are in Syria. So by having a small US
Speaker 1: presence will attract a lot of Europeans. It's time for
Speaker 1: the Europeans to take the lead here, and that's what
Speaker 1: this plan's about, is to put them in the lead
Speaker 1: with our help. News today that President Trump is going
Speaker 1: to keep two hundred troops in Syria. Obviously that's a
Speaker 1: that's a small contingent. We have a much larger contingent
Speaker 1: of a few thousand troops next door in Iraq. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind, giving US navy and aerial assets that
Speaker 1: can be deployed in the Mediterranean as well as other
Speaker 1: bases in the region, we have no shortage of ways
Speaker 1: to blow up stuff in Syria if we want to,
Speaker 1: all right. So that's that's one thing that I think
Speaker 1: often gets you know, Oh, if we don't have troops there,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? Point it's thing on a
Speaker 1: map America in Syria, and America can destroy it if
Speaker 1: we want to. It's not always a good thing for
Speaker 1: us to do it, but we have that capability to
Speaker 1: keep this contingent of troops there. I understand the reasoning
Speaker 1: behind this, and I understand why A lot of people
Speaker 1: are favorable to it right now. We heard there from
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham, John James, Sarah Huckabee. Sanders announced this today,
Speaker 1: and it's a slight shift in the presidents. Well, it
Speaker 1: wasn't really a plan. It was a tweet from a
Speaker 1: few weeks back where he said that we need to
Speaker 1: get out of Syria and get out of Syria as
Speaker 1: fast as possible. Here's why, here's the argument for us
Speaker 1: to keep these troops in Syria. And then I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make my argument as to why we need to get
Speaker 1: out of Syria. We need, we need to leave Syria.
Speaker 1: I think we can handle all of the different concerns
Speaker 1: without a US military presence in Syria, because the presence
Speaker 1: that we have now may seem small and manageable and fine.
Speaker 1: When you have a small presence, the ability for that
Speaker 1: to become a large presence is very real. And the
Speaker 1: necessity for it to become a large presence under circumstances
Speaker 1: that are not far fetched is also very real. Here's
Speaker 1: why they want to step troops. There number one reason
Speaker 1: that comes to mind, Although I think if you speak
Speaker 1: two people on the military side, as I have recently,
Speaker 1: they'll say that the biggest concern that they have is
Speaker 1: they don't want to abandon the Kords who are fighting
Speaker 1: alongside us in Iraq. I'm sorry, well, interroctive done the
Speaker 1: two in Syria and fought bravely and fought well against
Speaker 1: the psychopaths of the Islamic State. Okay, So, and that's
Speaker 1: a real thing and American honor. There are global implications
Speaker 1: for the honor that we either gain or lose in
Speaker 1: the treatment of battlefield allies. I don't mean allies that
Speaker 1: are like, Hey, we're gonna go to a Davos, a
Speaker 1: Davos forum and talk about how we're going to ally
Speaker 1: with you on climate change. I mean Kurds, and some
Speaker 1: of you who are listening to the show, I know
Speaker 1: for a fact have been out there with them, so
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about better than anybody else.
Speaker 1: I mean Kurds who are on the front lines, taking incoming,
Speaker 1: laying down fire against our enemy, alongside special US Special
Speaker 1: Forces operators and alongside our guys. Those are allies, real allies,
Speaker 1: and there's an understandable concern that if we weren't there,
Speaker 1: then the Turks would launch air strikes against them because
Speaker 1: they think that they are essentially the same. The Turks
Speaker 1: believe that our Syrian allies, Kurdish Syrian allies, and the
Speaker 1: Syrian democratic forces in Eastern Syria and Eastern and Northern
Speaker 1: Syria predominantly are the same as the PKK Marxist separatist
Speaker 1: terrorists that have been waging a thirty plus year struggle
Speaker 1: against the Turkish government. So the Turks have a very
Speaker 1: big problem with them. And this I understand all this.
Speaker 1: That's the one part of it. The other part of
Speaker 1: it is the fear that the Islamic State is going
Speaker 1: to make some kind of a major comeback if we're
Speaker 1: not there all right now. So that's really the read.
Speaker 1: Oh and then there's another set of reasons that I
Speaker 1: don't think are good reasons. But there are people who
Speaker 1: say that we need to be there to counter Iranian influence.
Speaker 1: I think that's unrealistic, and I think it's also a
Speaker 1: dangerous expansion of the mission set and the strategy that
Speaker 1: we're approaching all this with that we're there because we're
Speaker 1: going to try to broker a peace agreement with Assad.
Speaker 1: I think that's misplaced. I think that's just wrong. It's
Speaker 1: not going to work, it's not going to happen. Assad
Speaker 1: is not going anywhere. He's not going to negotiate with
Speaker 1: Assyrian Democratic forces for you, for him stepping down or
Speaker 1: anything else else. I mean, Syria, it was through a
Speaker 1: civil war and the country has been chopped up into pieces.
Speaker 1: But there is this notion of what we need to
Speaker 1: counterbalance the other bad players Russia, Iran, Assad, Hesbollah. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think that we should be getting to that
Speaker 1: game because they all already have troops on the ground
Speaker 1: there ford operating bases. The Russians have had a naval
Speaker 1: base in Tartus for I don't know how many decades
Speaker 1: now in Syria, So we're not counterbalancing. How then, on
Speaker 1: the way that we could do this without a true
Speaker 1: presence there, meaning that we should scale down this two
Speaker 1: hundred to essentially zero as soon as we can, That's
Speaker 1: my opinion. We use the all the different military assets
Speaker 1: that we have in the region if we need to
Speaker 1: to back up Kurdish fighters on the ground, the Syrian
Speaker 1: Democratic forces there, and keep in mind, we could always
Speaker 1: have troops there that are non you know that that
Speaker 1: are not being reported on, right, I mean, we could
Speaker 1: always have operations going on there. That are not being
Speaker 1: publicized quite the way. What we're talking about this contingent
Speaker 1: is advisors and so on and so forth. But as
Speaker 1: as long as we have the military presence that we
Speaker 1: do in the region, we can give air cover, give
Speaker 1: material support. We knew whatever we want in the in
Speaker 1: this part of Syria, and I think we can accomplish
Speaker 1: it without a troop presence there in terms of the
Speaker 1: Turkish Kurdish, and that's necessary for the suppression of ISIS, right.
Speaker 1: So this is people's worry about Iceis coming back, and
Speaker 1: to that, I say, you're never going to completely eradicate
Speaker 1: the Islamic State. A lot of them have apparently moved
Speaker 1: into Iraq. Our foothold in Iraq is not as permanent
Speaker 1: as some people think. I think the Iraqis get restless
Speaker 1: with our presence there. So that's also worth keeping in mind.
Speaker 1: And that's not a reason to try to You know,
Speaker 1: right now we think Syria is more Syria we can
Speaker 1: be in with troops because we're so stable in Iraq. Well,
Speaker 1: what happens if that gets upended. I wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: be that US troop contingent in Syria. If all of
Speaker 1: a sudden we have to pull out of a rock.
Speaker 1: So there's that, and then there's also trying to keep
Speaker 1: the Turks out of the Syrian conflict and out of
Speaker 1: air strikes on our our Kurdish friends and the Syrian
Speaker 1: Democratic forces. Now, then I just say, we got to
Speaker 1: make it clear to the Turks that you know, they're
Speaker 1: not going to keep being a NATO country. We're not
Speaker 1: going to play ball with them and help them out
Speaker 1: on things that matter to them if they are going
Speaker 1: to be spoilers and refuse to respect some of our
Speaker 1: app Look, it's a request, it's an ask. We can't
Speaker 1: make them do this, and we're certainly not gonna take
Speaker 1: any military action against the Turkish Turkish forces on behalf
Speaker 1: of Kurdish allies. I think. So then you get into
Speaker 1: do you really want US troops to be a trip
Speaker 1: wire there for the Turks? Essentially the Turks won't bomb
Speaker 1: some of these encampments because they don't want to kill
Speaker 1: American soldiers. Well, you're gonna keep American soldiers they're in
Speaker 1: harms way, and the hopes of the Turks don't do that.
Speaker 1: I don't like that plan. The biggest thing though, for me,
Speaker 1: I mean, so I try to work through some of
Speaker 1: the pieces there, because it's obviously a very complicated situation.
Speaker 1: The biggest thing for me is we need to stop
Speaker 1: Our leadership needs to stop thinking that the answer to
Speaker 1: problems abroad all the time is to send United States
Speaker 1: military forces to calm things down, to chill things out,
Speaker 1: to make problems go away. We don't need to do that.
Speaker 1: We should not do that. And I think that Syria
Speaker 1: is the beginning of the turning of the tide away
Speaker 1: from Iraq, which has not been successful. Okay, we can
Speaker 1: talk about Iraq as much as anybody wants. I was
Speaker 1: in the CIA's Iraq office for years. Iraq is not
Speaker 1: the success that we were promised, and it is not
Speaker 1: a particularly stable country. It's okay, But Afghanistan, which we
Speaker 1: are losing. We are losing in Afghanistan. We are going
Speaker 1: to We're going to try to create some face saving
Speaker 1: agreement with the Taliban where the Taliban is essentially left
Speaker 1: in control of the country or part of the country,
Speaker 1: and then eventually we'll be in control of half of
Speaker 1: the country. All the Pashtun parts of Afghanistan are going
Speaker 1: to be Taliban run. It's just a matter of when.
Speaker 1: So that didn't work out for us. Enough is enough.
Speaker 1: And I do think that there's a class of elites
Speaker 1: in this country. And I mean that pretty specifically. I
Speaker 1: mean I can actually name some of them, the Bill
Speaker 1: Crystal and Max Boot. You know. Tucker Carlson wrote an
Speaker 1: article about them recently where he referred to them as
Speaker 1: the professional war peddlers, many of these Bush era, very
Speaker 1: muscular foreign policy neocon types. I think that their ideas
Speaker 1: have largely been or should be repudiated. I think that
Speaker 1: they've dragged us into conflicts that have been far too
Speaker 1: costly in terms of lives and in terms of blood
Speaker 1: and treasure for the United States, and for what. For what?
Speaker 1: We should be putting our troops in harm's way when
Speaker 1: there is a clear US national security interest that we
Speaker 1: must defend and that we know we're going in hard
Speaker 1: and we're going in furiously. We should not be leaving
Speaker 1: troops in places in unstable countries where the host government
Speaker 1: either doesn't want us or there is no host government
Speaker 1: really to speak of. We're propping up a host government
Speaker 1: and hoping that we can cobble these countries together on
Speaker 1: our own. That's just it's not a good policy. It's
Speaker 1: not a good idea, and I think Syria is the
Speaker 1: turning of the tide. I think people are going to
Speaker 1: realize that Syria is a place where finally we start
Speaker 1: to draw down. Don't allow this to drag on forever.
Speaker 1: Draw down the Syrian our contingent in Syria, and let
Speaker 1: this be someone else's problem. If it's going to be
Speaker 1: a problem, I think that that's now. I know there's
Speaker 1: a lot of good faith debate on this. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of ways you can take this argument. But the
Speaker 1: problem with you know, it's never going to be easy
Speaker 1: to end an endless war, but the alternative is to
Speaker 1: keep fighting an endless war. I'm not saying it's risk free.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying there's no chance Isis could come back.
Speaker 1: I'm saying we need to not make Syria our mission
Speaker 1: open ended for the foreseeable. It's a bad idea. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. We're making progress the presence in no hurry.
Speaker 1: Particularly as long as things continue to move forward in
Speaker 1: a positive manner and as long as the conversations continue
Speaker 1: to go well again, we'll see what happens. I think
Speaker 1: that the only one setting high expectations is probably the media,
Speaker 1: because they're looking for reasons to attack this president. So
Speaker 1: we have this summit coming up in Vietnam, where the
Speaker 1: media is I mean, that was Sara Hugaby Sanders setting
Speaker 1: it up properly. The media is going to do everything
Speaker 1: they can to tell us that Trump has failed with
Speaker 1: North Korea so far, and his summit is a bad idea,
Speaker 1: this one on one meeting in Vietnam, and you know,
Speaker 1: he's a fool on foreign policy and this is going
Speaker 1: to be a disaster. That's what they're gonna say. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't believe it. That is the case. I can't
Speaker 1: tell you what's going to happen quite yet because I'm
Speaker 1: obviously it hasn't happened, and I don't believe anybody can
Speaker 1: predict the future. Here's what Lindsey Graham Lindsey Graham his
Speaker 1: expectations for this, Lindsay Graham getting on a play in
Speaker 1: the media these days, play fourteen. My expectations are to
Speaker 1: give up his nuclear weapons over time, to convince him
Speaker 1: that he is better off without a nuclear arsenal Denny
Speaker 1: is with one, his nuclear weapons could fall in the
Speaker 1: hands of people would actually use him if he would not.
Speaker 1: The president is right to want this transition from a
Speaker 1: nuclear North Korea to a non nuclear North Korea. Chairman
Speaker 1: Kim's at the table because he's afraid of Trump. We
Speaker 1: broke the Iran nuclear Agreement, which was putting Iron on
Speaker 1: a pathway to the nuclear weapon, and we destroyed the
Speaker 1: Caliphate and we got the Taliban at the table in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Why we've been strong in the face of adversity. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has been the opposite of Barack Obama. The reason
Speaker 1: the Taliban's at the table. Kim's at the table as
Speaker 1: Trump has shown strength. Now we've got to close the deal.
Speaker 1: I appreciate what Lindsay Graham is staying there. He's wrong
Speaker 1: on Afghanistan. That's and anybody I know who knows Afghanistan
Speaker 1: well and whose opinion that's respect. I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: we are not at the table in Afghanistan because we're
Speaker 1: doing so much better. Obama raised the troop levels to
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand there, took the fight to the
Speaker 1: Taliban in Kandahar, and Helmond did not. You know, yeah,
Speaker 1: our troops beat our troops beat their guys. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, we didn't stabilize the country.
Speaker 1: But back to North Korea here, So I just I
Speaker 1: have to know Lindsay Graham. I think I think Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham is wrong. Sometimes it's not wrong on Kavan, although
Speaker 1: I love you forever for that. With Lindsay, Lindsay gets
Speaker 1: a big he gets a big special paddle the back
Speaker 1: for that one. But on North Korea, I can't say
Speaker 1: he's wrong. I don't think that Kim Jong gun will
Speaker 1: give up his nuclear weapons. I think that nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: are central to the belief system of the North Korean
Speaker 1: Communist Party. I think that nuclear the nuclear deterrent is
Speaker 1: really the reason for that and the reunification of the
Speaker 1: Korean peninsula by force. By the way, that is why
Speaker 1: the North Korean regime exists. So it will not eliminate
Speaker 1: it's reason for being. It will not give it up.
Speaker 1: I know that that. And you might ask me a buck,
Speaker 1: where does that leave us? I don't know, But I
Speaker 1: don't think the North I don't think that Kim jongan
Speaker 1: is gonna give up their nukes. I just don't see
Speaker 1: it happening. That said, I think that Trump is right
Speaker 1: to try, and if I or him, I would certainly
Speaker 1: want to try, because the alternative is pretty horrific down
Speaker 1: the line, pretty horrific. He also hasn't given up anything
Speaker 1: in the process this whole thing of Oh by meeting
Speaker 1: with him, you legitimize him. He's the leader of North Korea.
Speaker 1: We can hold our breath and pretend he's not the
Speaker 1: leader of North Korea. But what good does that do.
Speaker 1: He is the leader of North Korea, and I think
Speaker 1: we do well to live in that reality. He has
Speaker 1: not fired off any missile since Trump approach him with
Speaker 1: these overtures. I think that that's at least some version
Speaker 1: of progress here, and we'll have to see. But I'm
Speaker 1: not going to blow smoke here. Do I think the
Speaker 1: North kore is gonna give up their nukes? No? I
Speaker 1: do not. I do not see that happening, And I
Speaker 1: think that Trump is going to make a very good
Speaker 1: faith effort to get there. We will see how it goes.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't lose anything by trying, because he's kept
Speaker 1: all the sanctions in place and he's not buying off
Speaker 1: the North Koreans like Obama bought off the Iranians. Got
Speaker 1: a really interesting idea to talk to you about in
Speaker 1: a moment here. What makes a good job and how
Speaker 1: do you make a job better that's coming up. AARP
Speaker 1: is a big organization. People have heard about it. It's
Speaker 1: been around for a long time. But you know what
Speaker 1: people don't know about AARP. It's actually pretty left wing supported.
Speaker 1: Obamacare used its sway and its access on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: to push for the Affordable Care Act and has stood
Speaker 1: against tax cuts for middle class Americans and small business owners.
Speaker 1: That's why I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC well. AMAC is
Speaker 1: all about value for its members. That means discounts on
Speaker 1: car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance, and it advocates for seniors
Speaker 1: with conservative policies that you agree with. They want to
Speaker 1: fix social Security, they want to fix the border, They
Speaker 1: want to put us on a sustainable footing when it
Speaker 1: comes to government spending. This is the seniors organization for you.
Speaker 1: Stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight by
Speaker 1: becoming a member today. Join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. That's am AC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: AMAC is better, better for America. What makes people happy?
Speaker 1: It's an existential question if one ever existed, right, why
Speaker 1: are we here? What are we trying to accomplished? Don't worry,
Speaker 1: I don't think that here on this radio show right now.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be able to solve that. I know
Speaker 1: there are some hosts. You'd be like, WHOA, let me
Speaker 1: tell you I know everything. No, I don't actually have
Speaker 1: all the answers. I have a lot of them, but
Speaker 1: I don't have all of them. I read this piece
Speaker 1: though it was actually it was in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: I must I must admit I do read the Times.
Speaker 1: I read the enemy's publications. Don't think that, you know.
Speaker 1: I leave that undone. But the piece is called Wealthy,
Speaker 1: Successful and Miserable, The Future of Work, Wealthy, Successful and Miserable,
Speaker 1: and it says that the upper echelon it's by Charles
Speaker 1: Duhigg says the upper echelon is hoarding money and privilege
Speaker 1: to a degree not seen in decades. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to make them happy at work. And it just
Speaker 1: goes into a story about a guy who went to
Speaker 1: Harvard Business School, graduated in the early two thousands, when
Speaker 1: there was a sense of just incredible optimism, hyper capitalism
Speaker 1: in America, so much wealth creation, and if you were
Speaker 1: on a certain track, if you went to these Ivy
Speaker 1: League schools, and by the way, this is all for
Speaker 1: those of you who don't care about any of that stuff.
Speaker 1: We'll get to what this matters for all of us
Speaker 1: in a moment. But went to these fancy schools, you
Speaker 1: were on this pathway to extreme wealth and happiness and
Speaker 1: access and freedom and all these great things. Well, this
Speaker 1: individual has written this piece about how he went to
Speaker 1: his Harvard MBA Harvard Business School reunion. It's fifteenth reunion.
Speaker 1: He just went to it this past summer. And what
Speaker 1: was so interesting is that here is this group of
Speaker 1: people who, if you were to segment off a cohort
Speaker 1: of individuals who have just been incredibly lucky to have
Speaker 1: graduated from Harvard Business School in America in the early
Speaker 1: two thousands, you are in the one one millionth of
Speaker 1: one percent of humanity. I mean you are super lucky,
Speaker 1: I mean for all time in terms of the prospects
Speaker 1: that you have for wealth, for opportunity and just But
Speaker 1: what's so interesting, and many of you know where this
Speaker 1: is going, is guess what a lot of really unhappy
Speaker 1: people in his Harvard Business School class fifteen years later.
Speaker 1: A lot of people who, despite what would be referred
Speaker 1: to as privilege by many people on the left these days,
Speaker 1: despite this, what is true privilege, going to Harvard and
Speaker 1: the business school and graduating and getting all these big jobs.
Speaker 1: But there are people that are still miserable. He said
Speaker 1: that there were people who quote complained about jobs that
Speaker 1: were unfulfilling, tedious, or just plain bad. One classmate described
Speaker 1: having to invest five million dollars a day, which didn't
Speaker 1: sound terrible until he explained that if he put only
Speaker 1: four million dollars to work on Monday, he had to
Speaker 1: scramble to play six million dollars on Tuesday, and his
Speaker 1: co workers were constantly undermining one another in search of
Speaker 1: the next promotion. It was insanely stressful work done among
Speaker 1: people he didn't particularly like. He earned about one point
Speaker 1: two million dollars a year and hated going to the office.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm wasting my life, he told me.
Speaker 1: When I die, is anyone going to care that I
Speaker 1: earned an extra percentage point of return? My work feels
Speaker 1: totally meaningless. He recognized the incredible privilege of pay and status,
Speaker 1: but his anguish seemed genuine. If you spend twelve hours
Speaker 1: a day doing work you hate, at some point it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what your paycheck says. He told me, there's
Speaker 1: no magic salary at which a bad job becomes good. Now,
Speaker 1: I think this probably has It's probably really resonates with
Speaker 1: a lot of you listening. It resonates with me and
Speaker 1: I you know, as early don't make one point two
Speaker 1: million dollars a year. But the point is that if
Speaker 1: you are spending a lot of your time doing something
Speaker 1: that you that you don't have a passion for, you
Speaker 1: feel as meaningless. It ceases to matter what they're paying
Speaker 1: you for it, because this is your life, this is
Speaker 1: your time, this is what you are doing with yourself.
Speaker 1: Time is the one commodity that you cannot get more
Speaker 1: of and you can never get back. So what do
Speaker 1: you do every day? And this is why I think
Speaker 1: our society, as much as I'm not somebody that goes
Speaker 1: on and rails against a materialism in American society, it
Speaker 1: is a problem. It is a problem. I can tell
Speaker 1: you that I've had jobs. You know, one of the
Speaker 1: most fulfilling and fun jobs I ever had was being
Speaker 1: a JV soccer coach, high school soccer coach for my
Speaker 1: high school. In two thousand and four, I was a
Speaker 1: JV soccer coach at Regis High School in New York
Speaker 1: City and I think I was paid for the season.
Speaker 1: I forget it might have been like twelve hundred dollars
Speaker 1: or something like that. It wasn't, you know, a twelve
Speaker 1: week season, and maybe maybe it was two grand I
Speaker 1: don't know it was. It was a little honorarium. It
Speaker 1: was not a salary salary, but it was a great gig.
Speaker 1: I was doing another gig at the Council on Foreign
Speaker 1: Relations at the time, Council on Four Relations, the Illuminati,
Speaker 1: the Builderbergs, but I was there, and then I did
Speaker 1: the whole coaching thing. And coaching was great, and if
Speaker 1: I could make a living doing it, I would love
Speaker 1: to do it. But I don't think I could have.
Speaker 1: And I also think that there were limitations on how
Speaker 1: good a coach I would have been able to I
Speaker 1: would have been able to become give and that I
Speaker 1: wasn't a college or professional athlete myself, unless you count rowing,
Speaker 1: which is not really You're not really an athlete. You're
Speaker 1: just a masochist who wants to ruin ruin your days.
Speaker 1: But the point about wasting your life no matter how
Speaker 1: much money you make, I think that really should matter
Speaker 1: to people. But it matters up to a point. You
Speaker 1: need there are all these different studies about happiness and
Speaker 1: about fulfillment, and you need a certain amount of money
Speaker 1: because I've also been in the position where you don't
Speaker 1: have money for things you need money for, you know,
Speaker 1: I have been in my late twenties when I realized
Speaker 1: I can't do you know, I can't afford to have
Speaker 1: a surgery for example, that a doctor has recommended that
Speaker 1: I have. I just don't have the money. So I
Speaker 1: know what that's like. That's stressful. You don't want that either. See,
Speaker 1: I think most of the studies I've seen say that
Speaker 1: you know your your relative happiness, and you know, up
Speaker 1: to fifty or seventy five thousand dollars a year of
Speaker 1: income in America, you know it's making seventy instead of sixty.
Speaker 1: That feels good. You like that, you know, making sixty
Speaker 1: instead of fifty, you know, making fifty and so on
Speaker 1: and so forth, but making you know, one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty instead of one hundred and fifty. Hey, it doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter that much. And once you can imagine you
Speaker 1: get up into the millions, it really doesn't matter that
Speaker 1: much to people. I mean, it's the work is the work,
Speaker 1: and if you hate what you're doing and you think
Speaker 1: it's meaningless. You can't get around that. And it was
Speaker 1: interesting that there are all these people that he goes
Speaker 1: through in this in this article who have had the
Speaker 1: most on a resume basis, on a you know, looking
Speaker 1: at their their pathway from an outsider's perspective, they've had
Speaker 1: this incredible run and they hate it and they hate it.
Speaker 1: An overall job satisfaction has gone down. In the mid
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties, According to this piece, sixty one percent of
Speaker 1: workers said that they were satisfied with their jobs. Since then,
Speaker 1: as of twenty ten, forty three percent of workers are satisfied.
Speaker 1: That's a big that's a big drop. Only forty three
Speaker 1: percent of workers are satisfied, less than half. I think
Speaker 1: that there's a lot that drives this um. There are
Speaker 1: there are people that will point you to two different things.
Speaker 1: You know, they'll they'll point you to how you're always
Speaker 1: uh here. He mentioned some of this article oppressive hours,
Speaker 1: political in fighting, the competition created by globalization, the internet,
Speaker 1: and the always on culture. You carry your phone around,
Speaker 1: they can reach you. You carry your email around, they
Speaker 1: can reach you. Right, You've got that going on all
Speaker 1: the time. Something more more to this as well, though
Speaker 1: I think that we are increasingly as a society people
Speaker 1: are seeing the financial where with all of those around
Speaker 1: them that they're seeing, you know, it's like keeping up
Speaker 1: with the Joneses thing. They see what other people do
Speaker 1: and what they can do, and they think to themselves,
Speaker 1: why don't I have that, instead of thinking do I
Speaker 1: have what I need and what I want? And understanding
Speaker 1: that your own expectations are the only expectations that really
Speaker 1: matter for these things. But dissatisfaction, even for people who
Speaker 1: are very financially well off, is pervasive. Now I want
Speaker 1: to pause because I want to come back and say
Speaker 1: that there's some real upside that there are two lessons
Speaker 1: that he gets into in this piece, which I will
Speaker 1: post on Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton so you
Speaker 1: can all see it. But there are these two lessons
Speaker 1: that he gets into that I think will really stick
Speaker 1: with because we're not going to talk anymore about oh,
Speaker 1: the hedge fund manager who says his life is meaningless
Speaker 1: but he's worth millions of dollars. You may find that interesting,
Speaker 1: you may not, but it's just a way of getting
Speaker 1: into this piece because there are other people who find
Speaker 1: their lives really interesting and really have meaning. Their work
Speaker 1: lives have meaning in a way that may be surprising
Speaker 1: to hear, probably be inspiring to hear. And then also
Speaker 1: the people that find work and find their roles that
Speaker 1: are the right ones for them. There's something very interesting
Speaker 1: that they all have in common, or that many of
Speaker 1: them have in common, and it's not what you would expect.
Speaker 1: And I think that will also this article. I found
Speaker 1: this article inspiring, not the part I've told you about
Speaker 1: so far, but see, this is how we do radio teases,
Speaker 1: the part when we come back stay with me. When
Speaker 1: do you want to spot that burglar when he's casing
Speaker 1: your home or after he's in. Ask John who's Blink
Speaker 1: camera alerted him to burglars trying to break in while
Speaker 1: he and his family were home, or Shannon, who's Blink
Speaker 1: camera caught a thief stealing packages. Both times, Blink video
Speaker 1: clips were sent to police to help convict the crooks.
Speaker 1: Blink motion activated indoor and outdoor cameras are wire free,
Speaker 1: set up in minutes, and run on two double A
Speaker 1: batteries at last up to two years. And if you're traveling,
Speaker 1: blinks live feed option lets you monitor your home and
Speaker 1: check it on pets from anywhere using the Blink smartphone app.
Speaker 1: No contracts, no subscriptions, totally of affordable, and Blink works
Speaker 1: with Alexa. Blink camera systems make great gifts and they're
Speaker 1: a brilliant way to monitor your package deliveries. Visit Blink
Speaker 1: Protect dot Com, slash Buck, Blink Protect dot Com, slash
Speaker 1: Buck again, Blink Protect dot Com, slash Buck, protect those
Speaker 1: packages on your porch, my friends, protect your whole family
Speaker 1: and all your possessions at home. Check out Blink. It's
Speaker 1: an Amazon company. So how do you manage to one
Speaker 1: have a fulfilling job and to find a fulfilling job
Speaker 1: and then to be fulfilling in that role? Right? What
Speaker 1: do you? What are some of the lessons from this
Speaker 1: piece team that was written in the New York Times
Speaker 1: about how there are a lot of wealthy elite professionals
Speaker 1: who are really miserable with what they do even though
Speaker 1: they're financially successful. Money. You need enough money to be happy.
Speaker 1: This is my This is my role. This is not
Speaker 1: from the species. You need enough money, but money doesn't
Speaker 1: make you happy. Tons of times I've known people who
Speaker 1: are who are deeply unhappy. I've known people who were
Speaker 1: incredibly wealthy, who are like Trump level wealthy. I've known,
Speaker 1: you know, children of Trump's generation who are incredibly wealthy,
Speaker 1: and they were on all kinds of you know, serious medication,
Speaker 1: or they were self medicating with drugs. You'd say, how
Speaker 1: is that? Well, you know your life is so easy,
Speaker 1: why aren't you happy? Because it's not enough. People need purpose.
Speaker 1: And one of the things I talk to you about
Speaker 1: is and it's a lot of things that I say
Speaker 1: on this radio show are also ways to solidify my
Speaker 1: own thinking. And it's my own way of reminding myself.
Speaker 1: How do you derive happiness, enjoy from your day to day?
Speaker 1: How are you making yourself better? How are you treating
Speaker 1: the people around you? How are you contributing in a
Speaker 1: way that is positive? Right? And I don't get into
Speaker 1: the spiritual side of it as well, but I think
Speaker 1: when you're doing those things, you're also obviously serving, serving
Speaker 1: God and being a good Christian, and you know, these
Speaker 1: things all tied together. But a couple of things come
Speaker 1: up in this piece that really were noted in me.
Speaker 1: One is he cites this study about again, this isn't
Speaker 1: this New York Times piece about a bunch of janitors,
Speaker 1: janitors who were working in a hospital, and some of
Speaker 1: them were incredibly happy with their jobs and their janitors.
Speaker 1: Now janitors, and I always and I say this, and
Speaker 1: I mean this, you know I any work that you
Speaker 1: do that is contributing and that is honorable and you
Speaker 1: were receive a paycheck for is something that deserves respect.
Speaker 1: And janitors are certainly in that capacity. In fact, janitors
Speaker 1: in New York City, not to get into this, they
Speaker 1: make over one hundred grands, So start with that. I
Speaker 1: know in New York City public school janitors make with
Speaker 1: overtime over one hundred thousand dollars. Let that one sit
Speaker 1: there for a second. It's a lot more money than
Speaker 1: I made in my first many years of work. But
Speaker 1: so janitors, though, in this one hospital, they love their job.
Speaker 1: Why because they didn't see their job, according to this study,
Speaker 1: as just tidying up in this hospital unit for people
Speaker 1: that were dealing with really serious brain injuries. A lot
Speaker 1: of the patients were actually in comas. The janitors, Yes,
Speaker 1: they changed the bed pans, they picked up trash, but
Speaker 1: some of the janitors would move pictures around on the
Speaker 1: wall and would try to leave things in the room
Speaker 1: looking particularly nice and make little changes because they believed
Speaker 1: quote a subtle stimulation in the unconscious patients environment might
Speaker 1: speed their recovery. One of the janitors also said, quote,
Speaker 1: I enjoy entertaining the patients. That's not really part of
Speaker 1: my job description, but I like putting on a show
Speaker 1: for them. She would dance around, tell jokes, tell jokes
Speaker 1: to families sitting doing bedside vigils. She would try to
Speaker 1: cheer them up. She would try to distract them from
Speaker 1: the pain and uncertainty that surrounded them. That's right, janitors
Speaker 1: who were showing up with their job and doing a nest,
Speaker 1: sorry job with just the usual janitorial stuff, but also
Speaker 1: view themselves as healers, view themselves as helpers. And for
Speaker 1: any of you who have ever been by a sick relative,
Speaker 1: you know that human decency and human contact and warmth
Speaker 1: and kindness even from strangers can really mean a lot.
Speaker 1: So that's one part of this is that you know
Speaker 1: you can be a janitor, which is great. You can
Speaker 1: also be a janitor who views himself or herself as
Speaker 1: someone who is contributing beyond their role, and that's where
Speaker 1: a lot of happiness comes from. I'll tell you this
Speaker 1: in my high school, there was a janitor named Jimmy.
Speaker 1: And anybody who's listening to went to my high school
Speaker 1: knows I'm talking about. There was a janitor named Jimmy.
Speaker 1: And every single morning when I was when I was
Speaker 1: a student at this high school, he would wait outside
Speaker 1: for he was cleaning the street and know tiding up
Speaker 1: in things, but he would and every kid who walked
Speaker 1: into that school he would high five on the way
Speaker 1: and say, how you doing. He high fived everybody who
Speaker 1: went in. And I'm gonna tell you, I had some
Speaker 1: days in that school where I wasn't particularly happy to
Speaker 1: be there. I was always happy to see Jimmy, and
Speaker 1: you always felt like, it's all right, I got Jimmy here,
Speaker 1: and he would give you a high five. Jimmy was
Speaker 1: a janitor. Jimmy was a lot more than a janitor,
Speaker 1: though not that just being a janitor is not enough,
Speaker 1: but he chose to make it more. We all can
Speaker 1: make that choice to be more. One other interesting lesson
Speaker 1: in this piece that I think really matters, really really
Speaker 1: struck a note with me because I've had a non
Speaker 1: traditional career and I've had as many rejections and letdowns
Speaker 1: and shutdowns as as anybody could in media. Oh maybe
Speaker 1: one day I'll tell you about all the people in
Speaker 1: media who should have hired me, who should have hired me,
Speaker 1: who didn't, who passed me over, who promised me. And
Speaker 1: I've only been doing this for about nine years at
Speaker 1: eight and nine years now, and even before that, all
Speaker 1: the jobs I applied for that I didn't get, or
Speaker 1: you know, tons of that. What this one author says, though,
Speaker 1: is that when he found people who were really happy
Speaker 1: in their jobs, really happy and they felt like they
Speaker 1: had a good job, not just because the pay a
Speaker 1: good job, because they felt it was meaningful, they tended
Speaker 1: to be the people who had to struggle to figure
Speaker 1: out who they were and how they were going to
Speaker 1: get there. That the people that went through these elite
Speaker 1: institutions and had these gold plated resumes and went to
Speaker 1: the most esteemed institutions, they didn't really they didn't really
Speaker 1: care that much about their jobs. They get paid a lot,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't really feel like much to them. But
Speaker 1: the people who end up getting rejected and they fail
Speaker 1: and they have to find that avenue, that that pathway
Speaker 1: for themselves. They have to be creative, they have to
Speaker 1: be entrepreneurial, they have to take risks, they have to
Speaker 1: try things that people that are handed or that earned
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to say they were handed, but that
Speaker 1: earned their gold plated opportunities through the systems in place,
Speaker 1: would never take too risky. Look, I got into and
Speaker 1: this is I got into some of the best business
Speaker 1: schools in the world. So the NBA program thing here
Speaker 1: really really struck a chord with me, and I said,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm going to roll the dice on
Speaker 1: this media thing. If I had spent years at a
Speaker 1: hedge fund before that, would I have done that? Probably not.
Speaker 1: Now I do a job that I can honestly say,
Speaker 1: doing this radio show, I love my job. And I
Speaker 1: don't love all the things I do in media. This
Speaker 1: radio show, I love my job. It matters to me,
Speaker 1: This audience matters to me, and that is something that
Speaker 1: is really special and I recognize it a special and
Speaker 1: it was really hard to get here. But this notion
Speaker 1: that the struggle, the struggle to find that meaningful position
Speaker 1: for yourself and by though it's not just professional, I
Speaker 1: think this is true of people's lives, to the struggle
Speaker 1: to find out who you are and what makes you
Speaker 1: happy is a necessary part of the process for most people,
Speaker 1: and I think I think at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: to embrace that idea of fighting to get where you
Speaker 1: need to be. That there's going to be setbacks, that
Speaker 1: they're going to be problems. It's not all going to
Speaker 1: be clear guys and wonderful sailing. Just know that if
Speaker 1: you stick to who you are and your values, and
Speaker 1: you're resilient and you fight, you'll get to a place
Speaker 1: where you're happy. Which doesn't mean we don't all get
Speaker 1: to be president. We all don't all get to be
Speaker 1: professional athletes, but we can't all be the best version
Speaker 1: of ourselves if we keep trying. That's what I took
Speaker 1: away from this. We can be the janitor who's helping
Speaker 1: to heal people with brain damage. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for a roll call. Doesn't
Speaker 1: that guy kind of sound like optis Prime? It's time
Speaker 1: for roll call? You know what I mean? Anybody John?
Speaker 1: Do you ever watch The Transformers? Yeah? Did years ago?
Speaker 1: Michael Bays stuff? No, all right, I mean if we really,
Speaker 1: if we really have to get into it, Transformers or ThunderCats.
Speaker 1: I really like ThunderCats too. I think that would have
Speaker 1: to be my choice, ThunderCats. I think I go ThunderCats
Speaker 1: over Transformers. But I know we've just probably set the
Speaker 1: airwaves on fire. People like no Transformers, optimist Prime, and
Speaker 1: some of you are like Buck, what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton. Because it is a Friday,
Speaker 1: and because I am excited to get to the weekend,
Speaker 1: We're gonna do a double roll call where we get
Speaker 1: to because you have so many messages in the inbox
Speaker 1: here that we have not gotten to from the week
Speaker 1: so we'll try to get to a bunch of them.
Speaker 1: So easy, just go to Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton
Speaker 1: and send a message. Let me know what you think
Speaker 1: of the show. Things we've been working on. Come out
Speaker 1: to the coast, A few laughs, all that good stuff,
Speaker 1: All right, Seth writes Buck. Did you know the Wendy
Speaker 1: Walls that advertises a podcast in between your segments is
Speaker 1: the same Wendy Walls who accused O'Reilly of sexual harassment
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. What is she doing on your show?
Speaker 1: Even so, I'm enjoying your show as much as ever.
Speaker 1: From seth M. Yeah, I don't know what ads are
Speaker 1: running on some of them. I mean, there are sponsors,
Speaker 1: my friend, and then there are radio ads that run
Speaker 1: on stage, and so I don't I'm on one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty five six something like that, one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty some odd stations across the country. I do not know.
Speaker 1: So if you're if you're calling me, or if you're
Speaker 1: gonna send me a message because Bob's Waterbed in East
Speaker 1: Tallahassee is not getting it done for you, they're probably
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know. They're not a sponsor of mine.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to Bob's Waterbed of East Tallahassee, So
Speaker 1: I don't you know what I mean? Like this is
Speaker 1: local stations can do different things. The sponsors that I know,
Speaker 1: I know the CEOs, I know the companies I use,
Speaker 1: the products. That's a different that's a different situation. So
Speaker 1: I can't speak to this. I don't know who Wendy
Speaker 1: Walsh is. I don't know any about what you're talking about,
Speaker 1: and I really don't. I'm not trying to be coy,
Speaker 1: but yeah, ads they're a good thing capitalism. I love
Speaker 1: I love all sponsors for shows like this that are
Speaker 1: good shows. Brad right, dear Buck. With all the talk
Speaker 1: from democratic hopeles about how great socialism is and how
Speaker 1: great it will be to stand in breadlines like the
Speaker 1: past days of the USSR, I haven't heard one word
Speaker 1: on how they or any other politician plans to tackle
Speaker 1: our raising or our rising rather national debt crisis. At
Speaker 1: what point are they going to realize these spend spend
Speaker 1: spend mentality is killing our economy and our nation. I
Speaker 1: hate to sound like an alarmist, but the hens are
Speaker 1: going to come back to rouse someday. But there's a
Speaker 1: fox in the henhouse waiting for them. Would you like
Speaker 1: your I would like your thoughts on this and what
Speaker 1: we can do to help this great nation of ours
Speaker 1: before it's till it. Have a great week in Shields High. Brad.
Speaker 1: You're correct, I mean, you're right. The spending is out
Speaker 1: of control. And when people would argue, oh, it's not
Speaker 1: out of control, book, well, it's about a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: this year, close to a trillion dollars this year, or
Speaker 1: I should say for the last fiscal year. We're twenty
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars in debt, and this much is for sure.
Speaker 1: When a financial crisis of that magnitude, that is that
Speaker 1: structural and foundational, when it is clear to anybody who's
Speaker 1: paying attention that it's a really, really big problem, it
Speaker 1: has to be dealt with. It's too late now, the
Speaker 1: problem we have in this country. And remember I came
Speaker 1: into media, I left the CIA and came into media
Speaker 1: at the time of the rise of the Tea Party.
Speaker 1: So I remember when conservatives were very much concerned with
Speaker 1: the debt and the deficit, and this was a major
Speaker 1: national issue. That issue has only gotten worse, my friends,
Speaker 1: and I do think that there's a disconnect here between
Speaker 1: the recognition of national debt as a structural and strategic
Speaker 1: not just economic, but national security threat as well. My friends,
Speaker 1: if our economy starts to crap out, guess what you
Speaker 1: think that China becomes more or less emboldened, You think
Speaker 1: that other enemies around the world are more or less
Speaker 1: likely to move against us in all kinds of ways.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a very Look, your point is
Speaker 1: very well taken, and you're not an alarmist, You're correct.
Speaker 1: I bring it up here on the show but you know,
Speaker 1: it's tough I discuss issues I compared to other radio
Speaker 1: shows that I don't listen to often, but I've listened
Speaker 1: to enough to know I try to cover. I try
Speaker 1: to cover as much as I can in terms of
Speaker 1: subject matter. A lot of people just go either all
Speaker 1: in on how much they love Trump, are all in
Speaker 1: and how much they hate Trump, and that's a successful
Speaker 1: and radio it's mostly how much they love Trump, and
Speaker 1: that's a successful business model for them. And I am
Speaker 1: a capitalist, so I can appreciate that. But I know
Speaker 1: that I feel like when I talk about the debt,
Speaker 1: people just it's not in the zeitgeist right now. It's
Speaker 1: twenty two trillion dollars. You know, maybe it is worth it.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is the show. And I have as you know,
Speaker 1: I've worked with Stansbury, research with Porter Stansbury. He's a
Speaker 1: brilliant financial mind. His whole team incredibly brilliant guys. They know,
Speaker 1: I mean, they'll tell you they publish on this that
Speaker 1: we are heading for an economic and financial calamity, so
Speaker 1: you know, and so I can leverage their research and
Speaker 1: their knowledge and I'm just telling you it's coming. But
Speaker 1: I feel like, you know, people there's so much that
Speaker 1: I want to talk to this audience about. And I
Speaker 1: don't want to go too deep on a subject or
Speaker 1: hit a subject too often that people just, you know,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, they don't really want to hear about it.
Speaker 1: But maybe maybe that should change here, maybe we get
Speaker 1: it going. And I am here in DC, in the swamp.
Speaker 1: I have a lot of swamp contacts. I have friends
Speaker 1: in the White House. I mean, you know it. I
Speaker 1: can get word up the chain. But the politics of
Speaker 1: this are it is popular to spend money on the
Speaker 1: stuff that you want to spend money on. You know,
Speaker 1: That's that's the reality. It is popular to spend money
Speaker 1: on stuff you and and it's unpopular to say, let's
Speaker 1: raise the retirement age, let's have means testing for Social Security,
Speaker 1: Let's you know, change Medicare so there's more cost saving.
Speaker 1: You know, all this, all this stuff, no one wants
Speaker 1: to hear that. Nobody wants to hear that, even my own,
Speaker 1: even my generation, the generation below me, who are the
Speaker 1: ones that are going to be saddled with those debts? Anyway,
Speaker 1: as you can tell, I've been brad. You touch the
Speaker 1: nerve here because I've been rambling on about your question
Speaker 1: about the debt for some time, but I have not
Speaker 1: forgotten the Tea Party movement and what it stood for
Speaker 1: and the truth of the message. And they were right.
Speaker 1: They were right. They won't necessarily they weren't necessarily right
Speaker 1: within eight years, but on a longer horizon they are correct.
Speaker 1: It is a mathematical certainty. And if the US all
Speaker 1: of a sudden runs into a debt crisis where people
Speaker 1: no longer believe that we can pay our obligations, we
Speaker 1: lose our reserve currency status. We are in a world
Speaker 1: I've heard. Okay, I must move on. I cannot keep
Speaker 1: drilling down into this, David writes the Buckman, which is
Speaker 1: indeed my legal name, buck the You don't have to
Speaker 1: do but Buckman shields ye podcast listener, love the show.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate your your segment last then, and how
Speaker 1: fundamentalist Islam is by far a more immediate threat to
Speaker 1: this nation than white nationalists. Are there any civilian accessible
Speaker 1: resources for those kind of statistics and numbers anywhere or
Speaker 1: that you specifically recommend? Well, Dave, the FBI stats are
Speaker 1: a good place to start. I will just tell you,
Speaker 1: though you have to read into the stats. For example,
Speaker 1: you look at hate crimes and you see, and this
Speaker 1: isn't about radical Islam or white nationalist terrorism, but you
Speaker 1: look at the hate crime statistics and you'll see, wow,
Speaker 1: eight thousand hate crimes. That's more than you probably would
Speaker 1: have guessed, right there, eight thousand hate crimes the year.
Speaker 1: But then when it does the breakdown, something like twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty five percent of them are essentially comments, and
Speaker 1: then another fifteen or twenty percent I mean, I'm forgetting
Speaker 1: the specific numbers, but vandalism, so it's comments, vandalism and
Speaker 1: simple assault, and assault does not necessarily include a physical assault, right. Oh,
Speaker 1: And that's a huge portion of them, so the number
Speaker 1: when you really get down to it, is a lot less.
Speaker 1: And then and if you're talking about hate crimes that
Speaker 1: end in a murder, now you're fortunately, thankfully for this country.
Speaker 1: But then the numbers actually quite small. But when people
Speaker 1: think hate crimes, they don't think somebody scrawled a swastika on,
Speaker 1: you know, a cemetery in some small town somewhere. That's
Speaker 1: usually not what they're thinking, and that is counted as
Speaker 1: a hate crime. They're thinking, you know, someone is brutally
Speaker 1: attacked because they're gay or somebody is is attacked by
Speaker 1: racists who don't like somebody, you know, who are hateful
Speaker 1: towards somebody because they're black. I mean, that's what hate
Speaker 1: crime makes you think of, right, and those are obviously heinous.
Speaker 1: Hate crime is not usually what you think of when
Speaker 1: you're talking about somebody who takes a roll of toilet
Speaker 1: paper and makes a swastika in a dorm on the floor,
Speaker 1: probably late at night to be an idiot. That was
Speaker 1: a real thing, by the way, that that was investigated
Speaker 1: as a hate I remember there was a hate crime
Speaker 1: at Georgetown University many years ago where a guy who
Speaker 1: was and I might get some of the details wrong
Speaker 1: here because this was I don't know, over maybe maybe
Speaker 1: almost twenty years ago now, a guy grabbed a manure
Speaker 1: and just like ran across campus with a manure in
Speaker 1: his hand, and he was really drunk, and they thought
Speaker 1: that and I think he'd opt it when they were
Speaker 1: chasing him, and so it was a hate crime. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a big variation of hate crimes, so
Speaker 1: you have to look into the statistics and you'll see
Speaker 1: what I mean. Same with terrorism. Terrorism, And this is
Speaker 1: why I got on this rent terrorism for example, can
Speaker 1: cover eco terrorists who let a few ferrets out of
Speaker 1: their cages at a testing facility. Well, okay, that's not good.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, obviously you shouldn't. That's property, and
Speaker 1: what's going to happen to the wall. I guess the
Speaker 1: ferrets are better off not being tested on. But you
Speaker 1: get what I'm saying. But when you think of ideological terrorism,
Speaker 1: you're thinking of murder, bombing, attempts, you know, assassinations. You're
Speaker 1: not thinking of lighting an suv on fire somewhere, or
Speaker 1: engaging in some form of hateful, you know, hateful conduct.
Speaker 1: That's usually what we think of his terrorism. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm going to let our wonderful sponsors get a word
Speaker 1: in here for just a moment, and when we come back,
Speaker 1: we'll finish up Roll Call and I'll send you off
Speaker 1: on a fantastic weekend. All right, back with part two,
Speaker 1: Partdieu of Roll Call. Whatever I think of Partdieu, I
Speaker 1: think of hot Shots, Part Dieu. Man Charlie Sheen, I
Speaker 1: remember when Charlie Sheen was really like in his heyday.
Speaker 1: Wall Street is one of the movies I've seen as
Speaker 1: many as any other movie in existence. And now Charlie Sheen.
Speaker 1: What a what a fall from I don't know if
Speaker 1: it was from Grace, but just what a fall that
Speaker 1: guy's had. All Right, Max writes, Hi, Buck, could you
Speaker 1: explain to me something I'm confused about with the investigations
Speaker 1: into Trump? I assume the government can't legally investigate someone
Speaker 1: for purely political reasons. What is required to open a
Speaker 1: criminal versus counterintelligence versus congressional investigation? What is needed in
Speaker 1: these cases to issue a subpoena. Since you've worked in
Speaker 1: law enforcement, the CIA and as a journalist covering politics,
Speaker 1: I figured you are unusually qualified to explain this well, Max,
Speaker 1: thank you, and I think that is correct. I am
Speaker 1: more qualified then certainly about ninety five percent of the
Speaker 1: pundits and journals out there on this matter. And what
Speaker 1: I can tell you is that we are now seeing
Speaker 1: that the bar for our counterintelligence investigation is actually very low.
Speaker 1: That it's really up to the discretion of the people
Speaker 1: in positions of authority at places like the FBI, And
Speaker 1: if they want to push for a counterintelligence investigation, they
Speaker 1: can do it, you know, they can get account There
Speaker 1: were reports in ABC News from months ago, and it's
Speaker 1: resurfaced recently that the FBI opened up a counterintelligence probe
Speaker 1: into Jeff Sessions. Now that hasn't been confirmed, but that
Speaker 1: was the ABC News report Jeff Sessions, folks for being
Speaker 1: a Russian, a Russian agent. If you think that Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions is a Russian agent, you are not smart. I
Speaker 1: don't care what title you have, I don't care how
Speaker 1: many years on the job you have at the FBI.
Speaker 1: If you think, and let me also say this, people say, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: you haven't seen the evidence. Oh if there was evidence
Speaker 1: that would make the investigation of Jeff Sessions as a
Speaker 1: Russian asset not seem crazy, trust me, you would know
Speaker 1: about it. Trust me, that would have been leaked. So Max,
Speaker 1: the answer your question is that there's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of specific standards for a criminal, a criminal versus counterintelligence
Speaker 1: versus congressional investigation. You get into reasonable suspicion and probable cause,
Speaker 1: and there are terms of art that apply here. But
Speaker 1: for counterintelligence specifically, it's really up to the discretion of
Speaker 1: the people at the FBI, at the DOJ. It is
Speaker 1: a discretionary issue. And remember, not only is there discretion involved,
Speaker 1: they also can hide the information. They can hide the
Speaker 1: investigation as classified from the public. So there's almost no
Speaker 1: accountability for counterintelligence investigations, almost none, which is why we've
Speaker 1: also seen Will bring up, oh the fiz accord, the
Speaker 1: fisichord authorize these investigations of Carter Page. That I always
Speaker 1: want to say, Okay, so what anybody who thinks that
Speaker 1: Carter Page is a Russian asset is also a moron,
Speaker 1: an absolute moron. And you see them, they go on TV,
Speaker 1: they think they're so smart. They're not. Alan writes Buck,
Speaker 1: you were spot on regarding Jesse Smollett. Thank you, Alan,
Speaker 1: I'm glad it's nice to get a little credit for it.
Speaker 1: I doubt if any of the MSM or celebs who
Speaker 1: commented early on will apologize. My big question is where
Speaker 1: is Jesse getting the money to pay for all his
Speaker 1: lawyers and his crisis management teams. He doesn't have a
Speaker 1: lot of personal wealth, any ideas, Alan, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what his personal wealth is. I do
Speaker 1: know that for some people there's probably just a professional
Speaker 1: incentive to be a part of the Jusse team in
Speaker 1: some way, and he was making from what I saw you,
Speaker 1: close to a million dollars a year on that show,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure he does some other things here and there,
Speaker 1: so I mean he's got some resources. This guy's not poor.
Speaker 1: It's got a lot more money than I do. So
Speaker 1: you know, I'm sure he can manage to pay some
Speaker 1: lawyers for a bit. But we'll see. Brittany writes, can
Speaker 1: you recommend some books on American history? Nothing too dry? Please? Well, Brittany,
Speaker 1: I would also recommend that you, you know what, I
Speaker 1: will I will post your I will post your ask
Speaker 1: on the Facebook page, and so other people on the
Speaker 1: team can weigh in as well, because we have so
Speaker 1: many astute I mean, there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: listen to the show who are deeper on I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna bit a deeper on American history than I am.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really get into it, especially certain periods.
Speaker 1: Civil War. I like the Revolutionary period a lot. That
Speaker 1: one I'm pretty good on, but my Civil War knowledge.
Speaker 1: Everybody thinks our World War two expert, and very few
Speaker 1: people actually are. But I'm pretty good on World War
Speaker 1: two and World War One. If you're looking for a
Speaker 1: book on American history, here's one. American Caesar by William Manchester.
Speaker 1: It's about Douglas MacArthur. It's a phenomenal book. Phenomenal book
Speaker 1: and really will tell you some naching stuff about the
Speaker 1: Second World War. So my pick for this week would
Speaker 1: be American Caesar by William Manchester, Professor Emeritus at Wesleyan University.
Speaker 1: I think he died. Also is a great two biography
Speaker 1: or two volume biography of Churchill that I'd recommend you,
Speaker 1: but try American Caesar. Let me know what you think.
Speaker 1: That's it for today's show. Team, have a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: Shield's high