Speaker 1: Mr Garbatschev, tear down this wall. Either you're with us
Speaker 1: or you were with the terrorists. If you got healthcare
Speaker 1: all it, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with Trump is not president, take it to
Speaker 1: a bank. Together, we will make America great again. Shard.
Speaker 1: It's what you've been waiting for all day. The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Join the conversation called Buck toll free at
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred buck. That's eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred to eight to five The Future of talk radio.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, Welcome to Buck Sex this show. Everybody missed
Speaker 1: you for the last couple of days. Excited to get
Speaker 1: a chance to chat with you here in the Freedom Hut.
Speaker 1: As is our custom, we have a phone here that
Speaker 1: you can call in. Are actually many phones eight four
Speaker 1: four to eight to five, eight four four nine hundred buck.
Speaker 1: And we should definitely chat about whatever you've got on
Speaker 1: your mind. Um, we have more information now too. Well,
Speaker 1: let me let me just give you a quick roadmap
Speaker 1: to the show before I get into that and try
Speaker 1: to talk about a whole array of issues today. I
Speaker 1: really want to mix it up because I feel like
Speaker 1: there's been a understandably but there's been a very singular
Speaker 1: focus to the news cycle in last week or so.
Speaker 1: I'd like to get to the possibility of a slapdown
Speaker 1: to public sector unions requiring people to pay dues whether
Speaker 1: they want to or not. Spreme Courts, UH. Spreme Court
Speaker 1: heard oral arguments on that earlier today. We'll discuss that. Also,
Speaker 1: some stuff on sanctuary cities, including the mayor of Oakland
Speaker 1: who's warning people about impending ice raids. You know this,
Speaker 1: this gets interesting, folks, because sometimes law enforcement will even
Speaker 1: make arrests and they'll claim obstruction of either government administration
Speaker 1: or obstruction of law enforcement duties. And they've even done that.
Speaker 1: There was a case a while back where a guy
Speaker 1: was flashing his lights to warn somebody of a speed trap.
Speaker 1: Now I think that's law enforcement overreach and arrest that guy,
Speaker 1: but they did. Um interesting to see a in an
Speaker 1: elected official in a in a major city like Oakland
Speaker 1: giving people, giving people their heads up. Hey, hey, people
Speaker 1: breaking the law. Federal government's gonna come in and I
Speaker 1: want to talk to some of you. So there's debt,
Speaker 1: and then also the Democrat memo. We've got our buddy
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy will be joining on that later on in
Speaker 1: the show. I'm not opening with it or getting into
Speaker 1: in the first hour because my predictions about it were
Speaker 1: essentially entirely spot on, as tends to be my tends
Speaker 1: to be my habit here, which is that it's there's
Speaker 1: really no new information. All the good stuff is blocked out,
Speaker 1: and what's left is talking points from Adam Schiff, partisan
Speaker 1: whining and a repeat of what you'd see on MSNBC
Speaker 1: or or CNN or any given night with regard to
Speaker 1: FIS abuse, the targeting of the Trump administration, the targeting
Speaker 1: of those officials. Right. This is it was just Adam
Speaker 1: shift talking points, although they do admit that they oh yeah,
Speaker 1: there was Papadopoulis and Carter and the dossier. Those are
Speaker 1: all things that are oh yeah, the stuff you know
Speaker 1: about that, that's that's a real thing that those names
Speaker 1: appear in the dossier. I mean those names appeared rather
Speaker 1: in the memo. The dossier was in fact used for
Speaker 1: the FIES warrant. This is all very important and very
Speaker 1: troubling stuff that we will get there in the third
Speaker 1: hour with our friend Andy McCarthy and then end up
Speaker 1: the show with some crazy left wing actually shutting down
Speaker 1: speech by turning off the speakers. You're gonna have to
Speaker 1: stay with me for that one. We'll have some fun
Speaker 1: with that in the third hour. But the biggest story
Speaker 1: in the country still right now is the aftermath of
Speaker 1: a terrible shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida,
Speaker 1: and the gun controlled debate and discussion has been moving forward,
Speaker 1: all moving forward. Despite all the uh bad arguments that
Speaker 1: we've heard in the past, it seems this time around
Speaker 1: there there will in fact be some changes. There's already
Speaker 1: been changing state of Florida, and we need to look
Speaker 1: at what's coming right now. We also have more information
Speaker 1: or at least more soundbites from Sheriff Israel, Sheriff Scott
Speaker 1: Israel of Broward County, who is looking like such a disgraceful,
Speaker 1: distasteful o leagans fellow in all this just just slippery dissembling.
Speaker 1: I gotta stop using all the different words. But you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, the guys, the guys coming off
Speaker 1: like a jerk and a liar. There we go, Buck
Speaker 1: use the good words jerk and liar. That's accurate. And look,
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper had that CNN town hall which as I
Speaker 1: told you what was It was a debacle and it
Speaker 1: was just people shouting and yelling and Dana lash looking
Speaker 1: at everybody saying, Okay, let's talk about policies. Oh burn her,
Speaker 1: she's terrible murderer, you know. No, let's talk about policies
Speaker 1: that will make everyone safe for the oh burn her.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just crazy what was going on there.
Speaker 1: I mean, see, I would say CNN should be ashamed.
Speaker 1: Let's see, Ann has no shape. Come on, I'm not
Speaker 1: ashamed about this. I'm sure the ratings are pretty good.
Speaker 1: I ended up watching it on replay, which was a
Speaker 1: painful experience, but it was a real thing that I
Speaker 1: had to do. And you had Tapper, Jake Tapper over
Speaker 1: at CNN who got the big interview, which what everybody
Speaker 1: wanted UH to hear this weekend, which was Sheriff Scott Israel.
Speaker 1: And here is because this goes to the whole notion
Speaker 1: of law enforcement's role in this and I will say it.
Speaker 1: I mean, law enforcement in this case messed up big time.
Speaker 1: That's not new. You already know that, right, but we
Speaker 1: need to understand the degree, the scale, and the specifics
Speaker 1: of the mess up because we're gonna have any kind
Speaker 1: of a serious discussion about stopping the next one, or
Speaker 1: at least having a chance of stopping the next one.
Speaker 1: We gotta know what happened this time around, right, You
Speaker 1: need to be very honest me to do an after
Speaker 1: action report, and that's what we are doing here on
Speaker 1: this show. What could have been different? What could have
Speaker 1: been done to avoid this? From a law enforcement perspective.
Speaker 1: I'll get into the gun stuff later, and I also
Speaker 1: want to talk about the Australia comparison, because I'm seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of that right now. We even had some
Speaker 1: former Australian pms on TV, you know, talking about how
Speaker 1: they think that maybe maybe we should follow in their
Speaker 1: footsteps when it comes to guns. You know, look, we
Speaker 1: all know alls. These are great people. I've always wanted
Speaker 1: to go to Australia, never been, but I've met lot,
Speaker 1: I know lots of Australians. I love Aussies, um, But
Speaker 1: I don't need to hear from their Prime ministers on
Speaker 1: guns because not surprisingly, they don't know what the heck
Speaker 1: they're talking about. So we'll get into that aspect of
Speaker 1: this as well. But first on law enforcements responsibility here,
Speaker 1: what happened. I mean dozens and dozens of calls to
Speaker 1: the house Nicolas Cruz, people saying that he was going
Speaker 1: to be a shooter. FBI got the most detailed tip,
Speaker 1: the most detailed information imaginable. You know, here's his name,
Speaker 1: Here's where he lives, Here's why I think he's a threat.
Speaker 1: Here are people you can talk to about this. How
Speaker 1: that does not get moved up the chain of command,
Speaker 1: How that's not considered a a major issue is a problem.
Speaker 1: You see? This is This is I know, a tense
Speaker 1: play for some people to go, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: go there. I'm not saying that the Counterintelligence Division of
Speaker 1: the FBI has anything to do with the field office
Speaker 1: in Miami or Brower County, or whichever specific FBI office
Speaker 1: was handling this, or the FBI office that took the tip,
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. Right, fbis field offices across the country.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that, oh, well, one office was doing
Speaker 1: one thing, another office was doing another. At zero sum.
Speaker 1: So now I understand they handled thousands and thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of cases, so it wasn't a resources went into
Speaker 1: the FISA dossier. Carter Paige surveillance situation and therefore did
Speaker 1: not go And I mean, that's a that's a nonsense argument.
Speaker 1: I understand that. Of course. I always love it as well.
Speaker 1: And people who have never worked in intelligence or law
Speaker 1: enforcement to get all mad at me on Twitter, well
Speaker 1: maybe if you understood the different field office separation from
Speaker 1: the group. Thanks uh thanks, you know, women's in gender
Speaker 1: studies professor, like, I got this, Okay, I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't really need the the unnecessary lecture where you don't
Speaker 1: know what you're saying and I do. Um. Here's why
Speaker 1: I will say, though there are protocols in place, there
Speaker 1: are rules so to speak, for how much attention and
Speaker 1: how rapid the escalation should be when law enforcement is
Speaker 1: presented with different situations. Right if, for example, somebody called
Speaker 1: in an active shooter situation anywhere across the country, Right
Speaker 1: if somebody said, you know, there's an active shooting going
Speaker 1: on at X place, you would expect that there would
Speaker 1: be or you know, and aiven an active shooter situation
Speaker 1: even you would expect there would be a rapid response
Speaker 1: of what we call e SU here in New York
Speaker 1: City Emergency Services units basically swat UM. But that's what
Speaker 1: you would expect and if that didn't happen, you'd want
Speaker 1: to know why. And if you called in a uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a lost cat up a tree, although I
Speaker 1: guess that is maybe a fire department issue, right, does
Speaker 1: in the fire department whatever, Let's say, let's say in
Speaker 1: your locality, that's a police matter. A officer so and
Speaker 1: so has it the feeline has escalated the arboreal sanctuary
Speaker 1: in Yeah, but let's say that the officer has that one, right,
Speaker 1: you would expect that the officer to go help the
Speaker 1: cat in the tree. You know, I'm being a little
Speaker 1: facetious here, but you get what I'm saying. You expect
Speaker 1: that there would be a guy who or gal who
Speaker 1: would show up when they could as they could, in
Speaker 1: no particular hurry or rush. He has to do with priority, right,
Speaker 1: It's not that one. There's resources for one, there's no
Speaker 1: resources for the other. It's just a question of what
Speaker 1: gets attention and movement at what speed? Right, serious crime,
Speaker 1: you know, felony in progress, cops sirens blazing, and I
Speaker 1: know that is the protocol, and the FBI has said
Speaker 1: the protocol was not followed with the active shooters with
Speaker 1: the tip about the would be active or in Florida.
Speaker 1: But that still doesn't make me feel like it's it's
Speaker 1: it's out of line then to say, you know, Carter Page,
Speaker 1: still not convicted of a crime, still not accused of
Speaker 1: a crime, no evidence presented of a crime, and just
Speaker 1: you know, surveillance and you know FBI and all the
Speaker 1: stuff that's going on, and with all the different tips
Speaker 1: and all the different red flags we've have with Nicholas Cruz,
Speaker 1: somehow it was not I'm sorry, but it was not
Speaker 1: prioritized the way that it should have been. So you see,
Speaker 1: that's the difference between it's it's not a resources it's
Speaker 1: not a zero sum resources argument. It's a what gets
Speaker 1: people in law enforcement, in the different agencies and departments
Speaker 1: involved to move to go to take something seriously, and
Speaker 1: a tip about an active shooter is a much more serious,
Speaker 1: much bigger deal than some clown who's hanging out with
Speaker 1: Russians and may or may not you know, want to
Speaker 1: help them set up some sock puppets to say mean
Speaker 1: things about hill Alory. I'm that that's just the reality
Speaker 1: of the situation. People got very mad at me for
Speaker 1: saying it wrote something, you know, let something rip over
Speaker 1: the weekend on this one, Um, I should stay off
Speaker 1: social media the weekends because it's just you need to,
Speaker 1: I need to dial it down a little bit, but
Speaker 1: or dial it off. But that's one thing that really
Speaker 1: struck me here is that you see that we have
Speaker 1: this vast law enforcement apparatus. We have the best police
Speaker 1: in the world, uh and dealing with incredibly difficult circumstances
Speaker 1: and policing communities and doing it so well. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, New York City is almost as safe as Tokyo,
Speaker 1: our largest city, not just because I'm here and I
Speaker 1: know it the best of the various law enforcement challenges,
Speaker 1: but you know, cities and a lot of you are
Speaker 1: sitting around you're like, yeah, buck well, where I live,
Speaker 1: where I'm listening to this show right now. You know,
Speaker 1: we average about in this county, you know, one murder
Speaker 1: year maybe, and it's generally a domestic dispute gone wrong,
Speaker 1: gone wrong. Right. I mean, there's we are. We are
Speaker 1: overall a very very safe country. In fact, once you
Speaker 1: start taking drug related violent crime out of the situation,
Speaker 1: which means that unless you generally speaking people I know
Speaker 1: get hitting the cross fire. And but unless you are
Speaker 1: around that in one way or another, UM, it's unlikely
Speaker 1: to affect you. Um, we are actually a very very
Speaker 1: safe country and our law enforcement does an incredible job.
Speaker 1: Go spend some time in Mexico, talk to some journalists
Speaker 1: there or or just average every day Mexicans about what
Speaker 1: they think of their police and how their police are doing.
Speaker 1: And it's just known that in and there are whole counties,
Speaker 1: were states they would call them, but their whole states
Speaker 1: where you can't trust the local police. You can only
Speaker 1: trust the federal police. The federalists, you can't trust the
Speaker 1: local police. So we have a debt of gratitude to
Speaker 1: law enforcement this country day in and day out. With
Speaker 1: that said, Sheriff Israel and his entire sheriff's department and
Speaker 1: the folks that showed up from his department on the
Speaker 1: scene immediately, including that one officer Peterson who did not
Speaker 1: go in, are a disgrace to the profession. A disgrace
Speaker 1: to the profession. And I mentioned Jake Tapper before he
Speaker 1: he at least asked the relevant questions here. Do you
Speaker 1: think that the Broward Sheriff's office had done things differently,
Speaker 1: this shooting might not have happened. Listen, if ifs and
Speaker 1: butts were candy and nuts. Uh you know Uh O J.
Speaker 1: Simpson would still be in the record book. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that means. Dead people. And there's a whole
Speaker 1: long list of things your department could have done differently.
Speaker 1: How could listen? Uh, that's what that's what after action
Speaker 1: reports are, that's for Lessons learned reports are for. Is
Speaker 1: this guy Israel? Is he an imbecile? If if ifs
Speaker 1: and butts were candy and nuts, what the heck is
Speaker 1: he talking about? This guy is in charge of one
Speaker 1: of the largest sheriff's departments in the country. You gotta
Speaker 1: be kidding me. The only way this is possible. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, he's elected. He's a politician. Okay. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: in Debbie Wasserman Schultz's district. Oh. And there's some other
Speaker 1: stories about this district that have been bubbling up over
Speaker 1: the weekend. There's some other information about this that we
Speaker 1: should all know. Give us a better sense of how
Speaker 1: was it possible that there could be such incompetence and
Speaker 1: such cowardice in a sheriff's department in a major county
Speaker 1: in Florida. We'll get into all that a much more
Speaker 1: eight four to five eight four four nine. Buck will
Speaker 1: be right back. Are you really not taking any responsibility
Speaker 1: for the multiple red flags that were brought to the
Speaker 1: attention of the Broward Sheriff's Office about this shooter before
Speaker 1: the incident, Jake, I could only take responsibility for what
Speaker 1: I knew about. I exercises my my due diligence. I've
Speaker 1: given amazing leadership to this agent. Amazing leaders I've worked, Yes, Jake,
Speaker 1: you don't measure a person's leadership by a deputy not
Speaker 1: going into These deputies received the training they needed. Maybe
Speaker 1: you measue somebody's leadership, but whether or not they protect
Speaker 1: the community. Maybe. Like at Jake Tapper, I think that
Speaker 1: he knew that he had he had to come out
Speaker 1: swinging after that town hall fiasco or yeah, the town
Speaker 1: hall thing whatever they called it. Um, but he did
Speaker 1: a good job here. I I call it like I
Speaker 1: see it. And I think that Tapper pushed back in
Speaker 1: this interview amazing leadership. You know, my my leadership has
Speaker 1: been amazing. This guy Scott Israel, He's what is amazing
Speaker 1: is how quickly he'll throw anybody else under the bus.
Speaker 1: There's that, right, So you know what this guy you
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about him getting tripped up in
Speaker 1: ethical questions because his first move is gonna be whatever
Speaker 1: is best for Sheriff Israel. That's that's how he's gonna roll.
Speaker 1: That's how he's gonna do things. As I said, I'm
Speaker 1: the sheriff. My name's on the door. The people responsible
Speaker 1: are the ones who took the calls and didn't follow
Speaker 1: up on him, as it was with the FBI, as
Speaker 1: it was with with anyone, with any person. Leaders cannot.
Speaker 1: Leaders are responsible for the agency, but leaders are not
Speaker 1: responsible for a person. I gave him a gun, I
Speaker 1: gave him a badge, I gave him a training. If
Speaker 1: he didn't have the heart to go in, that's not
Speaker 1: my responsibility. Oh I, I I have to disagree Sheriff Israel.
Speaker 1: You know, if you'd like a dump coward and like
Speaker 1: I don't do nothing about it. You know, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep my job, my my parks and my big pension,
Speaker 1: and that's how we're gonna do it. I disagree with
Speaker 1: Sheriff Israel here um. And I think that let many
Speaker 1: of you listening who are current or former military be saying,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, I'm from the officer and one of one
Speaker 1: of my men does something terrible under my command, I'm
Speaker 1: in trouble. Actually. In fact, I had a friend many
Speaker 1: years ago who in combat and our hawk was wrongfully
Speaker 1: at one point associated with conduct that had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with him, but it was meant under his command,
Speaker 1: and he was in some real legal jeopardy for a
Speaker 1: short while there until it was all cleared up. But
Speaker 1: he no one ever thought he had done anything wrong.
Speaker 1: He just was the officer and it was in and
Speaker 1: it was in combat, it was in an intense firefight,
Speaker 1: and he was a buddy of mine. I remember we
Speaker 1: had a long talk. We spent a whole night just
Speaker 1: drinking beers, back when I used to be able to
Speaker 1: drink beer, and he told me about everything. And that
Speaker 1: was after the legal jeopardy had passed. But that's how
Speaker 1: it's the military and law enforcement. Guess, you know, pardon
Speaker 1: the phrase, where does the buck stop? Early? Doesn't stop?
Speaker 1: A sheriff Israel? That that much he's clear about. You know,
Speaker 1: he's keeping his job. He's not stepping down. He's not resigning.
Speaker 1: I think quite clearly, Sheriff, it's got Israel should resign
Speaker 1: if there is to be any accountability for this situation,
Speaker 1: it should be with first and foremost by many, many miles,
Speaker 1: in many orders of magnitude, the shooter h even though
Speaker 1: the press likes to pretend that number two on that
Speaker 1: list is the n r A, and this has led
Speaker 1: down to some corporate backlash that we'll get into in
Speaker 1: a moment. I think number two on the list should
Speaker 1: be the guy who stood outside didn't do anything, and
Speaker 1: number three should be Sheriff Israel himself. That's how I
Speaker 1: see it. What do you think we'll be right back?
Speaker 1: You know, I got to watch some deputy sheriff's performing
Speaker 1: this weekend. They weren't exactly Medal of Honor winners, all right.
Speaker 1: The way they performed was frankly disgusting. They were listening
Speaker 1: to what was going on. The one in particularly he
Speaker 1: was then he was earlier than you had three others.
Speaker 1: You know, I really believe you don't know until you
Speaker 1: test it. But I think I really believe I'd run
Speaker 1: into even if I didn't have a weapon, And I
Speaker 1: think most of the people in this room would have
Speaker 1: done that too, because I know most of you. But
Speaker 1: the way performed was was really a disgrace. I've got
Speaker 1: to agree with the president, and I've agreed with them
Speaker 1: all along. And I've seen a lot of people who
Speaker 1: have come forward who are current or former law enforcement,
Speaker 1: current or former military people who have run toward the gunfire.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say before and in some cases, men,
Speaker 1: you men, you many times before those you listening to
Speaker 1: who you are and just saying that you know this
Speaker 1: is this is completely unacceptable. The government doesn't allow me
Speaker 1: right in New York City, in New York State even
Speaker 1: as well, doesn't allow me to carry around a firearm.
Speaker 1: I've had enough weapons training in my day that anyone
Speaker 1: around me would be safer from the prospect of violent
Speaker 1: crime if I were armed. But I'm not allowed to
Speaker 1: be armed here, and I live in a state that
Speaker 1: that's not going to change anytime soon, right, So I
Speaker 1: can't walk around with a arm on my hip. And
Speaker 1: part of the contract here, if you will, is that
Speaker 1: the government will provide people, sworn law enforcement officers who
Speaker 1: will risk themselves to save the lives of those of
Speaker 1: us who are not allowed to carry. And I know
Speaker 1: in some places you are allowed to carry. Is different,
Speaker 1: but it's it's particularly feels particularly egregious. You know, when
Speaker 1: you start to think about what this would mean nationwide
Speaker 1: and across the country. Oh now, oh well, you know,
Speaker 1: we can't. We can't expect law enforcement to to put
Speaker 1: themselves at risk. They're putting themselves at risk every day,
Speaker 1: put themselves at risk during traffic stops, when they go
Speaker 1: into domestic domestic disputes. I think, actually, just recently, an
Speaker 1: officer was killed in Baltimore, Maryland. He was off duty.
Speaker 1: It was just intervening in a domestic dispute, which is
Speaker 1: the way of saying, you know, I think a husband
Speaker 1: and wife or a girlfriend and boy from her fighting,
Speaker 1: you got killed. The law enforcement was taking risks all
Speaker 1: the time. Why would we not in full? Was that
Speaker 1: expectation on people who are sworn law enforcement, who are
Speaker 1: armed in the circumstances where they have the most obligation,
Speaker 1: the most clear obligation to protect life out of school shooting?
Speaker 1: What could be more obviously and more obvious and cut
Speaker 1: and driving that. I was very surprised at some of
Speaker 1: the pushback that I was initially hearing over this, but
Speaker 1: I think it is that has died down a bit,
Speaker 1: and so now we can just I I wanted to
Speaker 1: spend some time with you all on this law enforcements
Speaker 1: failures here are being pushed aside by the left because
Speaker 1: the narrative has to be about gun control, not about
Speaker 1: law enforcement. Failed at every level at every opportunity in
Speaker 1: the Stoneman Douglas shooting, and they did. They failed that
Speaker 1: at every single juncture, at every opportunity. But also note
Speaker 1: and others have been pointing this out, it is strange
Speaker 1: to me. I look, I don't do the conspiracy thing here.
Speaker 1: You guys all know that, and gals, I don't mind
Speaker 1: a microaggression, um, but I don't do the thing where
Speaker 1: I just come up with some conspiracy that I think
Speaker 1: will get people. Who is and I want to hear
Speaker 1: more about this crazy thing this guy is saying, right,
Speaker 1: because I try to give you objective truth as much
Speaker 1: as possible all the time. But it is hard not
Speaker 1: to notice that in the Las Vegas shooting, which killed
Speaker 1: a few dozen more people and hit five people I
Speaker 1: believe wounded all in how quickly the media moved on
Speaker 1: from that. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying it is strange. And perhaps it's because what's been
Speaker 1: so important to the media this time around is that
Speaker 1: they have young people that they are pushing forward. They're
Speaker 1: pushing them forward to be the kind of official spokespersons,
Speaker 1: if you will, of gun control. And they are victims.
Speaker 1: There are those who had been in the past. There
Speaker 1: are those who had been at the at the shooting, right,
Speaker 1: So that's one difference here, so that maybe it it's
Speaker 1: just at this time around, there's a more effective mechanism
Speaker 1: for making the argument about gun control, which is you
Speaker 1: have traumatized kids push forward by the media really being
Speaker 1: used as political props. I'm sorry, but that is what
Speaker 1: is happening. Because the kids that want to say thank
Speaker 1: you to the first responders who did risk themselves, who
Speaker 1: did run in, who did save lives, and and you know,
Speaker 1: and I do believe that armed teachers are a good idea,
Speaker 1: They're they're getting way less play. There are a few favorites.
Speaker 1: The media has picked some favorites here, some spokespersons for
Speaker 1: the group hashtag never again. And that is a distinct
Speaker 1: change between what we're seeing here and what we have
Speaker 1: seen what we saw at Las Vegas, where we still
Speaker 1: don't know the motive, and there's and law enforcement just
Speaker 1: flat out said a bunch of stuff right after that
Speaker 1: that was not true. Um, isn't it amazing to see
Speaker 1: in the case of Florida, though the Democrats who are
Speaker 1: so quick to usually pick a very small incident or
Speaker 1: a very specific incident, I should say, not a small incident.
Speaker 1: Scratch that from a very specific incident though, of local
Speaker 1: law enforcement in one place, and extrapolate from that a
Speaker 1: problem with law enforcement across the whole country. All law enforcement,
Speaker 1: to see what this one cop did. All law enforcements
Speaker 1: so racist. We'll see what this one cops said in
Speaker 1: these text messages. All law enforcements all racist, including non
Speaker 1: white law enforcement. They'll say that they're part of the
Speaker 1: racist system too, which is I mean, I I would
Speaker 1: find just I find offensive on many levels. Right. But
Speaker 1: in Florida, though, with the bumbling and the mess ups
Speaker 1: and the miss missteps and all the stuff that we've seen,
Speaker 1: the media is no interest in talking really about the
Speaker 1: takeaways from the law enforce and failures they have to
Speaker 1: report them. Although I will know they held it. I
Speaker 1: don't care if anybody says they held it. There were
Speaker 1: four deputies on the scene until Friday, and they told
Speaker 1: us at six pm Friday that was held. People had
Speaker 1: that information now wasn't just the Sheriff's verminent had it
Speaker 1: or was with other people, but it was held. It
Speaker 1: was also help ul after the town hall that there
Speaker 1: was a sheriff's deputy on the scene who was outside,
Speaker 1: who's now saying, oh, he didn't know. It's just so obvious, man.
Speaker 1: I've seen the the transcript of him trying to defend
Speaker 1: his actions here or his inactions, and it just couldn't
Speaker 1: be anymore obvious to me. What's going on. He's like, oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't know if the gunfire was inside or outside,
Speaker 1: so I took a defensive position outside, because that's what
Speaker 1: we're trained to do. Trying very hard to come up
Speaker 1: with it, you know, and have a few days here
Speaker 1: to think this one over. And look, if we have
Speaker 1: a a sheriff's deputy on the scene who's got a firearm,
Speaker 1: who doesn't know the difference between gunfire from inside of
Speaker 1: building and gunfire that is outside of a building, I
Speaker 1: think we got a whole of separate set of problems.
Speaker 1: Um you're canna tell me, is no ability to to
Speaker 1: differentiate that? I mean, does he ever hear? What? What's
Speaker 1: what are we to make of this? Um? Anyway? That's
Speaker 1: that's a non starter. I wanted to get into some
Speaker 1: of the some of the policies here. I will say
Speaker 1: I was a little the gun control policies that are
Speaker 1: being but for I was a little surprised that the
Speaker 1: President said this today. I'm wondering if you all have
Speaker 1: thoughts on it. Don't worry about the n RA there
Speaker 1: on our side, you guys here, for you are so
Speaker 1: afraid of the n RA. There's nothing to be afraid of.
Speaker 1: And you know what I've done with you. We have
Speaker 1: to fight him every once in a while. That's okay.
Speaker 1: They're doing what they think is right. I will tell
Speaker 1: you they are doing what they think is right. But
Speaker 1: sometimes we're gonna have to be very tough and we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to fight them. I don't see the place
Speaker 1: where there's any need to fight the n r A
Speaker 1: on this issue. I don't see where that the n
Speaker 1: r A is uh. And it's particularly clear for me.
Speaker 1: As many of you know, I used to work with
Speaker 1: Dana Lash who's the n r AS spokesperson when I
Speaker 1: was at the Blaze. I know Dana well. I worked
Speaker 1: with Dana or the years, countless hours now and she's
Speaker 1: out there saying on behalf of the NRA A, yeah,
Speaker 1: we should do a better job with background checks, information
Speaker 1: from the states get to the federal level. Yeah, and yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we should consider mental health legislation that might be,
Speaker 1: you know, the way ways we can get mental health,
Speaker 1: the mental health system to be able to deal with
Speaker 1: this and an imminent threat. Um. I've been proposing or
Speaker 1: proposing trying to support the idea of temporary restraining orders
Speaker 1: for people that are believed to be imminent violent offenders
Speaker 1: with with guns. We've had David French on talk. I
Speaker 1: think that's also very worthwhile proposal. I haven't heard the
Speaker 1: n R A say boo hoo to that. So what
Speaker 1: do we have to fight the NR and raising the
Speaker 1: age limit? I mean, come on, raising the age limit
Speaker 1: is penalizing many millions of people for their Second Amendment
Speaker 1: rights and it is not going to do anything to
Speaker 1: stop a determined school shooter. Um. But I suppose that's
Speaker 1: the one place maybe where there's some disconnect between the
Speaker 1: White House and the n RA on this, you know,
Speaker 1: at the age limits twenty one. I'm just I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be the one who says it right now. They they
Speaker 1: if they make the age limit twenty one for semi autos.
Speaker 1: Not long before they're gonna say, you know, maybe it
Speaker 1: should be like renting a car. Maybe you should be
Speaker 1: like twenty five, you can get a semi auto. Let's
Speaker 1: let's make it and then there'll be another shooting. Let's
Speaker 1: make it thirty. As long as the focus is on
Speaker 1: the firearm and not the problems around it and problems
Speaker 1: surrounding it, and law enforcements obligation to at least have
Speaker 1: own semblance of competence in dealing with the issue, we
Speaker 1: will not get very far with lessening the probability of
Speaker 1: a mass shooting event like this. UM. All right, well,
Speaker 1: let's take some calls on flip side of this break.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the Australia model. I think
Speaker 1: we actually had a caller from Australia a minute ago
Speaker 1: who wanted to talk about that specifically. So I saw
Speaker 1: you drop off. If the hopefully the charge there's no
Speaker 1: like charges for calling in from Australia. UM. But we'll
Speaker 1: get into all this in more. Eight four to five.
Speaker 1: We got a lot of lines lit. We have a
Speaker 1: spot I think open, so we got room for one more.
Speaker 1: If you want to jump in the conversation and the
Speaker 1: next hour we'll talk more about the gun control policies,
Speaker 1: maybe some Democrat memo stuff. Oh, public sector unions. We're
Speaker 1: gonna beat up on some public sector unions. That's gonna
Speaker 1: be fun. You're ready for that if you work for
Speaker 1: like the you know, teachers unions or something. Might not
Speaker 1: be your favorite segment, but maybe you'll like it, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe you're maybe you're like the Ron Swanson of the
Speaker 1: teachers union and hope the whole thing comes crumbling down.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that more coming up. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, team. I know we've got a lot of lines,
Speaker 1: let people have. Everyone's got a lot to say on
Speaker 1: this issue, as you should, so let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Joy in Mississippi, Hey, Joy, hip up. Hello. I have
Speaker 1: a simple question, Yes, ma'am. Uh. Why is it when
Speaker 1: a drunk driver runs into people, it's the driver's fault,
Speaker 1: And when hi hijackers fly a plane in the World
Speaker 1: Trade Center, it's the hijacker's fault. When a cop sheets
Speaker 1: an unarmed black man in the back, it's the cops fault.
Speaker 1: But when some jerk shoots up the school, it's the
Speaker 1: gun fault. Yeah, It's a very good question, and I
Speaker 1: think we know the answer is because of the gun
Speaker 1: has a gun? Guns have become a cultural and political
Speaker 1: symbol much more than a tool that can be used
Speaker 1: for good or used for evil right in the in
Speaker 1: the eyes of the left, guns are symbolic of much more.
Speaker 1: They're symbolic of state power, or really the refusal to
Speaker 1: completely submit to state power. Guns are a little active
Speaker 1: personal revolution, each one of us willing to say there
Speaker 1: are lines you cannot cross. Uh. And for statuss and
Speaker 1: for progressives, that's a that's just crazy thinking, Joy, that's unacceptable. Yes,
Speaker 1: could I add one thing? He asked about Trump's comments
Speaker 1: to the n R A UM. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: quote by Benjamin Franklin in seventeen fifty nine that said
Speaker 1: they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
Speaker 1: little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. That's something
Speaker 1: people should keep in mind. I agree, Joy, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much for the call. Appreciated. Charlie in Ocean City, Maryland. Hey, Charlie, Hey,
Speaker 1: glad to talk to you, you too, Yeah. Hey, on
Speaker 1: just sure of Israel. I think he's uh, he's completely
Speaker 1: missed everything. He's a lefty. We know that four of
Speaker 1: his deputy did not perform and he had to sign
Speaker 1: off on their training. He had to put the stamp
Speaker 1: of approval on their training, so he's accountable. Then then
Speaker 1: you go to these kids, and I'm a grandfather of
Speaker 1: ten and most of them are teenagers. And when they
Speaker 1: do something wrong, I confronted with it. They when I
Speaker 1: go visit them, they love to sit down and talk
Speaker 1: to me. So these kids bully this other boy beyond belief.
Speaker 1: And I don't hear any reports about that. Why is that?
Speaker 1: You know, I can't give you much of a profile
Speaker 1: of his interactions with the other students because, as you're saying,
Speaker 1: I think it's true, I haven't read that much about that.
Speaker 1: I think that people would be very hesitant to you know,
Speaker 1: nobody wants in any way excuse or downplay or try
Speaker 1: to mitigate the evil that Nicholas Cruz committed that day,
Speaker 1: And I think for some it might feel like a
Speaker 1: distraction from the real responsible party here to say that
Speaker 1: there were others who were bullying him. But he was
Speaker 1: clearly a kid that had problems, and I'm sure had
Speaker 1: all kinds of issues with his fellow students. And we've
Speaker 1: seen some reporting about that. Um, but Charlie, you know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of kids who are bullied who
Speaker 1: don't do thank thank heavens, don't do what this guy did.
Speaker 1: So bullying is not a as I know, you know,
Speaker 1: bullying is not an excuse. I haven't seen much of
Speaker 1: a much reporting on it, though, So I'd be curious
Speaker 1: to see some of these kids though, And thank you
Speaker 1: for calling it, Charlie. Some of these uh, Trench Code
Speaker 1: mafia types which if you remember, the Columbine Shooters were
Speaker 1: in this group called the Trench Code Mafia, and there
Speaker 1: was a term the people in the late nineties and
Speaker 1: early two thousands, people would use. Some of these They
Speaker 1: actually have a when you go and you read about them,
Speaker 1: and uh, there's a a separation sure, and and maybe
Speaker 1: some signs of some signs of sociopathy or even psychopathy
Speaker 1: being a psychopath. Although some a lot of school shooters
Speaker 1: were able to function pretty or at least come across
Speaker 1: as pretty normal when they wanted to right beforehand. Um,
Speaker 1: but these kids also separate themselves and to develop an
Speaker 1: aggressive arrogance as part of the profile. You know, they
Speaker 1: become disdainful. Now you could say, that's just a defense
Speaker 1: mechanism to being rejected by their peers. May that may
Speaker 1: very well be the case, but they become aggressive, arrogant,
Speaker 1: and disdainful of their peers and choose to separate themselves
Speaker 1: and choose to look down on and want In the
Speaker 1: case the Columbine kids, it was well known. I mean
Speaker 1: they wanted to get they there was a want to
Speaker 1: get even with the with the popular kids aspect of
Speaker 1: that heinous crime. Mark in North Carolina. We got a
Speaker 1: little time here. Mark wanted to get you in. How
Speaker 1: much is a little time? Mark? We've got about a
Speaker 1: minute and thirty seconds, which is which is a lifetime
Speaker 1: on radio, my friends. So go ahead, yes, yes, I've
Speaker 1: got a little thing and a big thing. Which would
Speaker 1: you rather have? Let's let's give me the little thing. Okay.
Speaker 1: We are told that this guy is the shooter, actually
Speaker 1: arrived at school with an uber driver, okay. And of
Speaker 1: course he owns ten guns and ammunition and lord knows
Speaker 1: everything else he had at his house. But apparently this
Speaker 1: kid could never afford a car, which is also a
Speaker 1: kind of Bodi's nineteen And I don't know what you
Speaker 1: do in the United States if you're nineteen without a car. Well,
Speaker 1: he actually got a twenty five thar check I think
Speaker 1: from the insurance after his mother passed away, and he
Speaker 1: used that, from what I read, to buy some of
Speaker 1: his fires. But go ahead, grands enough money to get
Speaker 1: a car, as you know, and get a car for
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand these days. But anyway, there's a report
Speaker 1: for one of the teachers who actually we saw him
Speaker 1: and was shot in the arm. The teacher was and
Speaker 1: she said that she saw the man in full metal
Speaker 1: guard with a helmet, face masks, bulletproof armor, shooting a
Speaker 1: rifle she'd never seen before. Okay, then if you go
Speaker 1: back to the official timeline, one of the Broward County sheriff,
Speaker 1: he was dropped off at two nineteen and at three
Speaker 1: three he's firing in the halls. Mark, I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to revisit this, my friend. I'm sorry we actually are
Speaker 1: at time. Welcome back to the Buck Section show. Everybody
Speaker 1: our two has already gotten going our tours here. We
Speaker 1: have much much to discuss, and I would note that
Speaker 1: over the weekend, the Sunday shows, the weekend shows, they
Speaker 1: try to set the political tone the conversation for the week,
Speaker 1: and as we knew, it was on me all about
Speaker 1: gun control. I'm gonna talk about the Australia problem in
Speaker 1: just a moment here, and I will I will not.
Speaker 1: We're not the Australia problem, the Australia h car which
Speaker 1: is often played here. Oh, we should be like Australia,
Speaker 1: except Australia didn't work out the way they said it would.
Speaker 1: They're lying about it and we could never do it
Speaker 1: here even if we wanted to. But put that on
Speaker 1: hold for just a moment first. And also the public
Speaker 1: sector union thing, we're gonna take them to task in
Speaker 1: a few minutes. First year. It's something that's been going
Speaker 1: on here. I've been mentioning to you that in the
Speaker 1: gun control vanguard you have children who are handpicked by
Speaker 1: the media teenagers. Really to call them children is a
Speaker 1: little you know, I think we should have some This
Speaker 1: would be more precise than the terminology here. Right, eighteen
Speaker 1: plus you're an adult, not a teenager. When you're eighteen,
Speaker 1: you're an adult. Okay, I mean technically you're a teenager,
Speaker 1: but a lot of things are technical. Um, if you're
Speaker 1: you know, sixteen seventeen, you know you're you're an adolescent,
Speaker 1: you're a young adult whatever, call them children is I
Speaker 1: think a little I'll be honest with you, I think
Speaker 1: that's a little bit. That's a little disparaging. It's a
Speaker 1: little condescending. They're not tentent, they're not eight. But do
Speaker 1: you have these young people there? You go, these young
Speaker 1: people who are out there making the case, and some
Speaker 1: of them are very much pro gun control, some of
Speaker 1: them are not. Some of them want to talking about
Speaker 1: law enforcement and the job they did and other issues here.
Speaker 1: But there's one in particular, this young man named Hog.
Speaker 1: David Hogg. Is that right? I think it's David Hogg. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And he has every right to say what he's saying,
Speaker 1: just as I have every right to say that I
Speaker 1: disagree with him. But it's more than just saying that
Speaker 1: he's wrong on the facts and ignorant of the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment and gun control, which he is. This guy with
Speaker 1: the media as enablers, they are really handlers and enablers
Speaker 1: for some of these hashtag never again uh teenagers who
Speaker 1: are pushing this gun control narrative and who now you know,
Speaker 1: I think Hogg has like three thousand Twitter followers now right,
Speaker 1: I mean they're they're becoming let's be honest, they're becoming
Speaker 1: political celebrities in this process. That is what is happening here. Um.
Speaker 1: They are also to be held to account for their words. Right,
Speaker 1: just because you have suffered a a very traumatic situation,
Speaker 1: I would know that. In In the case of a hog,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't believe he was uh, And I
Speaker 1: could be wrong here. I don't. I don't believe he
Speaker 1: was wounded, although he's gone through the trauma of losing
Speaker 1: of classmates and friends and teachers. Um. But there are
Speaker 1: limits to what we can excuse based upon age and
Speaker 1: based upon our desire to be understanding of what some
Speaker 1: of these young people are going through, even though they're
Speaker 1: now making themselves public figures and going on national television.
Speaker 1: And I think we've crossed some of those limits here.
Speaker 1: She wants Congress to take action, and she says that
Speaker 1: they won't. Are you kidding me? She owns these congressmen.
Speaker 1: She can get them to do things. It's just she
Speaker 1: doesn't care about these children's lives. That is a slander.
Speaker 1: That's not okay to say. He was speaking about Dana lash,
Speaker 1: the n r A spokesman and also a former colleague
Speaker 1: and friend of mine. Um, that's not okay to say.
Speaker 1: It's not true, and it's a gross thing to say,
Speaker 1: and it's not something that should be I don't care
Speaker 1: what this kid has been through or what what has
Speaker 1: You're not allowed to accuse people of terrible things with
Speaker 1: no evidence just because you don't like them or their
Speaker 1: political positions. And you're seeing this now where they say, oh,
Speaker 1: how how dare you look what he's been through? It's
Speaker 1: I'm not No one's commenting one way or the other
Speaker 1: on the the trauma of being a student at a
Speaker 1: school that's just suffered this mass casualty incident. I'm going
Speaker 1: to comment on the fact that his knowledge of gun
Speaker 1: control and gun control policies is almost zero, and more
Speaker 1: importantly to me, he's going around and saying things about
Speaker 1: people that are disparaging, that are false, that are defamatory.
Speaker 1: That's not okay. You don't just get to do that.
Speaker 1: And this is the danger of using victims as political tools,
Speaker 1: which Democrats have been doing openly and shamelessly for as
Speaker 1: long as I've been alive. Right, this is one of
Speaker 1: their favorite things to do. Find someone who has suffered
Speaker 1: a tragedy, put them forward, and then assume that they
Speaker 1: are inoculated from any criticism or any pushback of any kind.
Speaker 1: And with with Hog, they're saying that, you know, Dana
Speaker 1: she doesn't care about first of all, saying that she
Speaker 1: owns Congress. I mean, look, Dana is an influential lady
Speaker 1: and everything, but give me a break. She doesn't own
Speaker 1: hasn't own Congress. There's an't own members of Congress. It's
Speaker 1: just a that's a foolish thing to say. And then
Speaker 1: to say she doesn't care about dead kids is an
Speaker 1: unfair thing to say. It's wrong. An anchor should if
Speaker 1: they were going to be journalists, say hold on a second,
Speaker 1: Mr Hog, you know that's do you have any evidence
Speaker 1: for that? That's that's going too far. You know, that's
Speaker 1: just using a national platform to smear someone. And I
Speaker 1: can tell you this. They you know, they wouldn't allow concerned,
Speaker 1: They wouldn't allow a conservative point of view. Two, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't allow a conservative victim to go on TV and
Speaker 1: just slander somebody. You know, they wouldn't allow something to
Speaker 1: go on TV and say, you know, Nancy Pelosi doesn't
Speaker 1: care about dead children, right, And they shouldn't unless there's
Speaker 1: a real reason for her saying that. I mean, if
Speaker 1: they're talking about Nancy pelosi support for planned parenthood, well
Speaker 1: then yes, in fact, actually Nancy Pelosi doesn't really care
Speaker 1: about that children. But that's a different discussion, and that's
Speaker 1: completely That's an argument I'm willing to have with anybody.
Speaker 1: It's not just Nancy Pelosi either, But I will get
Speaker 1: very much separated from the issue at hand if I
Speaker 1: don't go back to this gun control discussion that we're
Speaker 1: having right now. So, uh, the Australia case. I want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about this. We will get into
Speaker 1: the Australia situation because this is what's used as the
Speaker 1: the favorite talking point now for see all the stuff
Speaker 1: that we've been discussing, all the different policy proposals that
Speaker 1: either the n r A is okay with or Republicans
Speaker 1: are putting forward or all that is, uh, not really
Speaker 1: what the left wants. What the left wants is something
Speaker 1: more like Australia. In fact, what the left really wants
Speaker 1: is something more like Japan, where they truly are almost
Speaker 1: I mean not no guns, but very very very few
Speaker 1: guns in private hands. Um, But they stay away from
Speaker 1: Japan for a whole bunch of reasons. There are historical
Speaker 1: reasons why comparing the US to Japan and the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment would be less of a less of a compelling cell.
Speaker 1: I think for them a whole, you know, allied with
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany thing and tyranny and imperialism and everything else,
Speaker 1: and the resistance against tyranny from people who are armed
Speaker 1: as something you can have a discussion about in the
Speaker 1: context of the Second World War pretty easily. Um. But
Speaker 1: back to Australia, which is a much there's a reason
Speaker 1: that he is Australia. It's a society that minds a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans, very much of our own, you know,
Speaker 1: we speak the same language, shared shared cultural traditions. England
Speaker 1: was our you know, our our our granddaddy. And the
Speaker 1: Australian model does not work the way they say it does,
Speaker 1: and it would not work for us, and I will
Speaker 1: I will explain why after the break, and then I
Speaker 1: think we'll move on to some talk about public sector
Speaker 1: unions because I don't want to skip that. That is,
Speaker 1: it's kind of like redistricting in that you bring it
Speaker 1: up and people are like, no, I want to hear
Speaker 1: more about Russia collusion or like, you know, whatever other
Speaker 1: things that get much more attention in the conservative media world. Um,
Speaker 1: but there are things that that actually do matter a lot.
Speaker 1: Redistricting matters to who's going to run the country, and
Speaker 1: public sector unions in much the same way, and their
Speaker 1: power also matters. I think they gave a hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars in the last election cycle two candidates public so
Speaker 1: employees of the state are donating over a hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars to campaign of people who are going to run
Speaker 1: the state. What could go wrong? Obviously a lot of things.
Speaker 1: So Australia public safe unions and more. Democrat files a
Speaker 1: memo by the way, which is not that exciting. One
Speaker 1: would open the show with it. But we've got some
Speaker 1: super some worthwhile stuff too to talk about on that Um,
Speaker 1: that's all coming up. So we've got a show that's
Speaker 1: ready to rock and roll. Stay with me. One of
Speaker 1: the things that people don't talk about a lot of
Speaker 1: these schools, Sandy Hook had an all female faculty from
Speaker 1: principle to teachers. And for a woman, were you going
Speaker 1: to hide that gun during the day. You can't put
Speaker 1: it in your desk, Droyer, somebody might steal it, and
Speaker 1: you can't get to it. You're not going to have
Speaker 1: it in a safe in the principal's office. You can't
Speaker 1: get to it on your person, hiding it if you
Speaker 1: wear a dress, if you wear a skirt, are you
Speaker 1: gonna have to wear a jacket every day with a
Speaker 1: belt and a holster the way a detective you know,
Speaker 1: I'm duty would do. Um, It's it's not a real
Speaker 1: practical solution. You have this guy Tom Fuente is over
Speaker 1: at CNN, who's used to in the FBI, who's just
Speaker 1: I don't know. This is analysis Apparently because there are
Speaker 1: a lot of women in different schools, then it's impractical
Speaker 1: for some teachers one teacher, five teachers, who knows how many,
Speaker 1: depends on the size of school, to conceal carry because
Speaker 1: women who are wearing who wear, you know, a skirt,
Speaker 1: can't conceal carry. This is he really not familiar with
Speaker 1: how this stuff works. Career FBI official, I will say this, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's important to remember that government is think of government,
Speaker 1: especially these government bureaucracies. True of the c I A,
Speaker 1: true of the FBI, true of all these large bacs.
Speaker 1: Think of it like a state's like a state school, right,
Speaker 1: just your your average state school, the very large state school. Though,
Speaker 1: you know, with tens of thousands of students, there are brilliant,
Speaker 1: amazing people there, there are also morons. And as we
Speaker 1: see this uh now revolving door, it seems to people
Speaker 1: that working and you know, look, I'm I was a
Speaker 1: part of it, right of people that work in government,
Speaker 1: go to media, go back to government, go to media.
Speaker 1: Just understand that just because you work for a place
Speaker 1: for just because someone worked for a place for a
Speaker 1: long time that has a you know, a robust history. Right,
Speaker 1: just because somebody went to a reputable state school, doesn't
Speaker 1: mean they're not a moron. I'm gonna want to tell
Speaker 1: you this. And so in this case, state schools think
Speaker 1: of it like CIA, FBI, d O J, all this stuff. Um,
Speaker 1: there are plenty of very very unimpressive dumb people at
Speaker 1: all of those places. I'm and I know, I'm not guessing,
Speaker 1: I'm not theorizing. I know, and they're also incredibly brilliant pople.
Speaker 1: People know way more about a whole lot of things
Speaker 1: than than me or anybody else I know in media. Right,
Speaker 1: So it runs the gamut. I just feel that a
Speaker 1: lot of us have this impression, well a career law
Speaker 1: enforcement's career law enforcement. Any must really don't know his stuff.
Speaker 1: Maybe some of them do, some of them don't. And
Speaker 1: if Fuentes was actually I'll tell you a quick little
Speaker 1: little side note here went is I remember was one
Speaker 1: of the people who when I was at CNN and
Speaker 1: you will recall the redactions of the Pulse Nightclub shooters
Speaker 1: transcript and I'm on air in Fuentes is on air.
Speaker 1: We're doing you know, our analysis. I'm you know, former
Speaker 1: analysts CI analyst box exid and he's like junior FBI
Speaker 1: like blah blah blah, and he's taking the position that
Speaker 1: the redactions in that transcript were not Remember this was
Speaker 1: Obama administration stuff. We're not about political correctness. We're not
Speaker 1: mandated from the top. Nobody at d o J even
Speaker 1: knew about it that they were going to release redacted
Speaker 1: phone transcripts from the Pulse Nightclub shooters call and that
Speaker 1: it had nothing to do with politics and that this
Speaker 1: was just a call made by the by the FBI
Speaker 1: field agents that were there. And I'm like, dude, are
Speaker 1: you saying it because the people paying want you to
Speaker 1: or you are you not smart? It's one or the other.
Speaker 1: I spoke to other FBI folks who are like, including
Speaker 1: people still in the FBI, who were like, uh, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: that's not how it's something at that level. Wouldn't just
Speaker 1: be something that an FBI guy did. Yeah, I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna redact. Remember what they were redacting? I pledge allegiance
Speaker 1: to redacted. And America is like, yeah, isis I'm doing
Speaker 1: this in the name of blank America. I'll right, I
Speaker 1: we we They were redacting things that everybody and then
Speaker 1: they changed the decision, they went back on it. But
Speaker 1: I remember Fuentes was giving me, giving me a hard time.
Speaker 1: Decision being made by the people in the field. There's
Speaker 1: no politicization here as soon as not did you. Jay
Speaker 1: wouldn't even know. Laura Lynch wouldn't even know about this.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even know. I know nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: Oh really, really, Fuentes, why don't you explain to me
Speaker 1: how women can't conceal carry if they were a skirt dummy? Okay,
Speaker 1: We're was that? Oh gosh, Australia. Gun control in Australia.
Speaker 1: Um well. The one thing is one of those sad
Speaker 1: things about punditry is that when you're on air and
Speaker 1: you say things and you're right. They never bring you
Speaker 1: back and they're like, oh, by the way, when we
Speaker 1: were piling on you and saying you were wrong and
Speaker 1: you were right, we just wanted to apologize for being
Speaker 1: so weird and nasty to you on air during that
Speaker 1: because that actually that would have been great because I
Speaker 1: would have been on seen and all the time they're like, wow, Buck,
Speaker 1: you were right. How did you know? Oh that thing
Speaker 1: when you said it was the gee hottest terrorist, you
Speaker 1: were right? How did you know? You know? That would
Speaker 1: have been a fun recurring segment. But they don't. They
Speaker 1: don't do that. How dare you? We found this. We
Speaker 1: found this person who was the assistant Deputy under Secretary
Speaker 1: of something or other who worked for Loretta Lynch for
Speaker 1: a few months and and he says, you know, oh my,
Speaker 1: um okay, So Australia, here's what you need to know.
Speaker 1: Here's here's here's the short version of my friends, or
Speaker 1: maybe actually even the long version. I'll give you the
Speaker 1: short version. There are two ways to look at the
Speaker 1: gun control model of Australia. One is on the question
Speaker 1: of efficacy or effectiveness. Right, did it did it achieve
Speaker 1: the desired purpose in Australia, and the other is could
Speaker 1: we do it here? Is it realistic? So let me
Speaker 1: start with what Australia's gun control policy is was and
Speaker 1: what people say about it, and then what the reality is.
Speaker 1: So they had a mass shooting in Tasmania at a
Speaker 1: resort I think over thirty people killed. I forget now,
Speaker 1: I was back in the seven and they instituted a
Speaker 1: mandatory gun buyback program, which is a gentle way of
Speaker 1: saying confiscation with confiscation, um with compensation. That's what that is.
Speaker 1: It's confiscation with compensation, gun buy back. But they're saying
Speaker 1: give me your weapon, I'll give you a hundred bucks,
Speaker 1: are two hundred bucks or whatever it is. Whatever they're
Speaker 1: going great is they did that with about a million
Speaker 1: firearms and the murder rate went down and they haven't
Speaker 1: had another mass shoting. Sense. Okay, now people pointed this,
Speaker 1: they say, see Australia did it, we can do it too.
Speaker 1: That's just complete nonsense. Let me just start with what
Speaker 1: really happened in Australia. Australia's crime rate, to begin with,
Speaker 1: was very low. Australia's rate of mass shootings to begin with,
Speaker 1: was basically non existent. That's why this shocked the country
Speaker 1: so much. Right, they had this one big mass shooting,
Speaker 1: but they hadn't had one before it for years, maybe
Speaker 1: even decades. So that one incident and then they said, well,
Speaker 1: we didn't have another one for a long time after it.
Speaker 1: There must be some correlation, but there's not enough of
Speaker 1: the data said, it's not like they were having three
Speaker 1: or four mass shootings like this. And then they did
Speaker 1: this buyback program and it stopped. No, they just didn't
Speaker 1: have any mass shootings. They had one, they had a
Speaker 1: buyback program and they didn't have any mass shootings after
Speaker 1: and they said, we'll see, we solved it. But no,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not actually addressing whether or not at work.
Speaker 1: That's just much more to do with Australia and how
Speaker 1: many mass shootings it has um. They also point to
Speaker 1: it though, for a violent crime and this is another
Speaker 1: place where if you look at the trend the trend
Speaker 1: line for violent crime in Australia, which was already very low,
Speaker 1: was going down, going down, going down in the eighties
Speaker 1: and the nineties, trending down each year. And you're really
Speaker 1: talking about I think a few hundred homicides max in
Speaker 1: the country. In the country, Okay, So you're talking to
Speaker 1: a very small sample set to begin with in Australia.
Speaker 1: And then they institute this gun buyback program and guess what.
Speaker 1: It actually kind of trended up a little bit for
Speaker 1: a year or two after that in terms of violent
Speaker 1: crime and holeda, but it just continued. It's it's downward decline.
Speaker 1: And now Australia is at a point with uh, you know,
Speaker 1: about one in a hundred thousands a murder, a murder
Speaker 1: rate of one a hundred thousand, I think something like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's tiny, tiny, okay. So there's no
Speaker 1: way to look at this and say that the gun
Speaker 1: buyback program did anything. And here's the part that they
Speaker 1: really don't tell you is that, in fact, gun ownership
Speaker 1: currently in Australia when it's at its lowest violent crime
Speaker 1: rate in I don't know, fifty years or something, and
Speaker 1: probably since they were keeping records of it, and Australia
Speaker 1: is very very safe. So good job Australians. Uh, the
Speaker 1: ownership of guns is actually greater than it was when
Speaker 1: they did the buyback program. So they've even got more
Speaker 1: guns in circulation now in private hands. They did then
Speaker 1: because of some changes in the laws, and people actually
Speaker 1: got firearms. And so it can't be that less guns
Speaker 1: equals less crime because there are more guns now and
Speaker 1: less crime. And it can be the less guns equal
Speaker 1: less crime because the crime rate went down at about
Speaker 1: the same what you would with same trend that you
Speaker 1: would expect even if they didn't do a buy back program.
Speaker 1: It was already happening. So there's nothing to point to
Speaker 1: here and say, oh yeah. And and also note that
Speaker 1: there's some European countries Belgium, France, uh all in Germany
Speaker 1: that have very restrictive gun laws. Actually Belgium doesn't really
Speaker 1: have very restrictive, but let's let's consider that an outlier.
Speaker 1: The Netherlands. Germany friends very restrictive gun laws, and they've
Speaker 1: still had mass shootings. Nonetheles and I haven't gotten into
Speaker 1: the part of this where we talk about how in
Speaker 1: the US you've got not a couple of million guns,
Speaker 1: three million plus guns. And I've even gotten into discussion
Speaker 1: about the Second Amendment and its role in our civic
Speaker 1: life and in our founding and as part of our
Speaker 1: culture and our political heritage and the natural law reasons
Speaker 1: for protection of the south as well as a protection
Speaker 1: against tyranny. The Australia model could never work here, and
Speaker 1: it didn't even work the way they say it did
Speaker 1: in Australia. That's what you need to know about that.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back, we'll team. I've got some very
Speaker 1: significant legal cases to talk to you about. I mean,
Speaker 1: the kind of stuff that affects your community wherever you
Speaker 1: are across the country, certainly affects national level of politics, um,
Speaker 1: and so matters to all of us. But I am
Speaker 1: not a lawyer, and I do not play one on radio.
Speaker 1: But I do know a lot of stuff about some things,
Speaker 1: including reading uh Supreme Court cases and knowing about how
Speaker 1: all the ins and outs goes. You know, there was
Speaker 1: a time when you could actually become a lawyer, true story,
Speaker 1: without going to law school. If you pass the bar exam.
Speaker 1: Many states allowed you. Uh yeah, many states would allow
Speaker 1: you to practice law in that state without having to
Speaker 1: go to law school. But now law schools like a cartel,
Speaker 1: a three year, hundred and eighty thousand dollar plus cartel,
Speaker 1: and you have to just accept it. I did not.
Speaker 1: Maybe I should have, but I didn't. But Before I
Speaker 1: get to that, Brian Ohio wants to speak about the
Speaker 1: Australian model for a second. Brian, go ahead, Hey, but
Speaker 1: first of all, that last guy clip you had on
Speaker 1: that was probably one of the most sexist things they
Speaker 1: ever heard in the first place. In the way stream
Speaker 1: it isn't that crazy by the guys on CNN, he's
Speaker 1: like career Mr Law Enforced and Scott He's like, he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: women were skirts, they can't carry uns. Like wow, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've seen a lot of very flattering ladies. You know,
Speaker 1: we're flattering clothing and they are packing and you would
Speaker 1: know a moment about it. So um, I had, by
Speaker 1: the way, I had a buddy who was who was
Speaker 1: a world class firearms expert who always told me that
Speaker 1: he was of all the different ways to draw, he
Speaker 1: was faster out of any time that he was faster
Speaker 1: out of a Fannie Pack holster than anything else. Well yeah,
Speaker 1: well any more of these days, if you see somebody
Speaker 1: wearing a Fannie Pack, you know they're carrying. So let's
Speaker 1: just the way it is, uh, because you know, or
Speaker 1: maybe they're just like retro and it's you know, they
Speaker 1: want to go with more of an eighties vibe. But
Speaker 1: you know who knows? Yeah right, Uh, Well, onto Australia
Speaker 1: real quick. Like you know, there's three points you're Australia.
Speaker 1: One is its population. The other one is its immigration
Speaker 1: population of twenty million instead of the US which has
Speaker 1: three million. That's another I wanted to get there. Your
Speaker 1: right to remind me of it. Yeah, yeah, well if
Speaker 1: you look at it that right now. I did this
Speaker 1: the numbers the other day in a conversation like this,
Speaker 1: and the population of the US is one thousand, three
Speaker 1: hundred fifty greater than Australia. So if you assume that
Speaker 1: mental health illness is linear, that means the US is
Speaker 1: one thousand, three hundred fifty more likely to have an issue.
Speaker 1: Now you add in our various degregation of the family,
Speaker 1: Uh you're looking at other electronics influences, Hollywood influences, and
Speaker 1: so forth. I would bet this more of like worth
Speaker 1: three thousand percent more likely to have a violent incident. Uh,
Speaker 1: just regarding population. Um. Also, they have a very strict
Speaker 1: immigration policy. They don't allow people in from countries that
Speaker 1: have a lot of violence in the country without just
Speaker 1: completely uh complete immigration check. Uh. They're very strict on
Speaker 1: their immigration. Yeah, and Brian, can I just add into this.
Speaker 1: I mean, everything everything you're saying is is correct. I
Speaker 1: just want to add in that. Can you imagine if
Speaker 1: for some let's just say and Trump's not gonna do this,
Speaker 1: and the Congress is not gonna do this, but let's
Speaker 1: just say they said, you know what, Yeah, we've just
Speaker 1: decided that we are elected representatives are going to gut
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment and pass a band on all semi
Speaker 1: automatic firearms in the United States, which people have been
Speaker 1: talking about. Right, Rubio got booed when he said that
Speaker 1: that was impossible or unlikely or whatever at the CNN
Speaker 1: town hall. If they did that, all they would do
Speaker 1: is make tens of millions of Americans criminals by FIAT. Uh.
Speaker 1: Never mind the whole Second Amendment violation, because people just
Speaker 1: aren't going to give up their guns. And then what
Speaker 1: are you gonna do? I mean, I've talked about this
Speaker 1: in californiaan not California. In Connecticut alone, there are I
Speaker 1: think it's around a hundred thousand people that they think
Speaker 1: have what are now banned semi automatic rifles and state
Speaker 1: in Connecticut. But you know, they're not like going in
Speaker 1: kicking indoors and going after them because one that on
Speaker 1: the resources and too they realized none of those people
Speaker 1: are actually a threat exactly. And you know the other
Speaker 1: other side of the coin is just because somebody suffers
Speaker 1: from hopophobia, which is the fear of guns. Uh you
Speaker 1: know that is two in itself is a mental amalfillments
Speaker 1: that needs to have therapy in order to have a
Speaker 1: complete and healthy life. Yeah, so you look, but the
Speaker 1: Australia is not gonna work here. Thank you for calling in,
Speaker 1: Brian from Ohio, going to talk to you. Australia thing,
Speaker 1: it's just they throw that in there because they you know,
Speaker 1: they want to say, well we do this another countryuis
Speaker 1: and no sorry, fun fact that Australia. I think it
Speaker 1: got more a greater inflow of millionaires immigrated to Australia
Speaker 1: than any other country in the world last year. I
Speaker 1: think that's I think that's true. I think the greatest
Speaker 1: number left France. They now have a very high millionaire's tax.
Speaker 1: It's almost like people don't like it when the government
Speaker 1: takes too much of their money. Um or they just
Speaker 1: also like really like kangaroos and great barrier reef um
Speaker 1: I'll have to get to Australia one day. Alright, So
Speaker 1: into these big policy law things that I want to
Speaker 1: talk to about. Two of them DACCA and public sector unions.
Speaker 1: Both big news on both of these today, and i'll
Speaker 1: cover them in a we'll do kind of a twofer here,
Speaker 1: hit them both too. Two birds, one segment of legal analysis.
Speaker 1: So the first one is the Supreme Court and they're saying, oh, look,
Speaker 1: the Spring Court. The Supreme Court has refused to hear
Speaker 1: the Trump administration challenge on DOCCA. All this means and
Speaker 1: people are running with this and Lebrons is that's a
Speaker 1: big deal. All this means is that the actual process
Speaker 1: that's in place which would mandate that this now go
Speaker 1: up to the Ninth Circuit, which is the Ninth the superliberal,
Speaker 1: left wing circuit that gives all the terrible decisions. So
Speaker 1: we know how this is gonna go, right, We know
Speaker 1: some judge and California is gonna say DACCA is a
Speaker 1: constitutional right. The Founding Father sat around and all that
Speaker 1: cared about was DACA. That's what the fight against the
Speaker 1: British was started on. The Brits were unwilling to adhere
Speaker 1: to DACA principles anyway, Um, they're gonna completely make up
Speaker 1: some crap and then it will go to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and then I think it will be reversed. I think
Speaker 1: the Trump administration will be correct. But the problem in
Speaker 1: the short term is that one we know what the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit is gonna do, right, that's a given. Um,
Speaker 1: there is no question that they're gonna be in favor
Speaker 1: of It doesn't matter what iteration or what what specific
Speaker 1: judge you're gonna get out there, they're gonna say, yea DACA.
Speaker 1: And in the meantime, you had a circuit court I
Speaker 1: mean a just a federal john, not an appeals court judge,
Speaker 1: but if a federal judge who had already yeah, circuit
Speaker 1: court judge, um, who had already decided that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration does not have in its discretion the right to
Speaker 1: undo a position of discretion taken by the Obama administration. Right.
Speaker 1: So just just think about this for a second. If
Speaker 1: it is you know up to uh, you know, if you,
Speaker 1: for example, are the landlord of a property, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: try to put this in terms that we can all
Speaker 1: kind of Ye, I've had good landlords, I've had many
Speaker 1: more bad landlords. Unfortunate man landlords, especially in New York
Speaker 1: or brutal. But if you were a landlord for property
Speaker 1: and you had an agreement with the tenant that you
Speaker 1: were going to let them, um, you know, pay a
Speaker 1: a tem percent reduction in the market rate because I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, you feel you feel bad further
Speaker 1: in ethel or something, who knows. But if if you
Speaker 1: were getting that reduction and then somebody else came along
Speaker 1: and bought the property and they were a lawful owner
Speaker 1: of it, and they said, you know what, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna honor that previous agreement anymore. I'm the new owner.
Speaker 1: It's now up to me. It's up to my discretion.
Speaker 1: You think that would be a pretty straightforward thing, right
Speaker 1: the new owner says no. Or if the old owner
Speaker 1: let you smoke in the house and now the new
Speaker 1: owner says, no smoking in the house. I don't think
Speaker 1: a lot of people will be able to win a
Speaker 1: court case like well the old owner said that I could, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's not how it works. Well, the
Speaker 1: the current occupant of the White House says one thing
Speaker 1: about DOCCA, and a circuit court judge was like, nah,
Speaker 1: because the Obama administration said something else, and I like
Speaker 1: what the Obama administration said. So I'm gonna take away
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's ability to fully execute the their Trump's authority,
Speaker 1: specifically as commander in chief and as as the president.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna take away his authority on this issue because
Speaker 1: you know, I don't like it. It's a disgrace. I
Speaker 1: mean legally that they're gonna lose. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: because the way our courts have been stacked in certain
Speaker 1: parts of the country with left it to just rewrite
Speaker 1: the laws they see fit. You're you have this already
Speaker 1: Circuit Court judge who said, yep, Trump can't undo what
Speaker 1: Obama did, even though it's Trump's right and prerogative to
Speaker 1: undo it if he wants to. And Supreme Court didn't
Speaker 1: step ahead of the Ninth Circuit. So it's gonna have
Speaker 1: to go to the Ninth Circuit. How probably happens to
Speaker 1: spraining is gonna be delayed. In the meantime, you know,
Speaker 1: they've stopped the Trump administration um from winding down the
Speaker 1: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. This look, this is
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance at work here, my friends. So that's what
Speaker 1: that is that's the one. We got one down, we
Speaker 1: got one more to go. Um and we get into
Speaker 1: this this situation about public sector unions and this, I
Speaker 1: know this sounds a little you're not super excited to
Speaker 1: hear me talk about public section unions. I understand that,
Speaker 1: all right. I I think that it's easy to view
Speaker 1: some of these cases about organizing and unions and everything
Speaker 1: is you know, what's really the big deal? But this
Speaker 1: is a big deal. This is a big deal. But
Speaker 1: I can't tell you why until after the breaks. You
Speaker 1: have to stay with me, and then I'll tell you why.
Speaker 1: That's that is that that is the the deal that
Speaker 1: we have on the table right now, be right back.
Speaker 1: So public sector unions are possibly going to be in
Speaker 1: a tight spot here or a different spot when it
Speaker 1: comes to their their fees, um when it comes to
Speaker 1: the money that they collect. Because here's what's going on.
Speaker 1: And you've got a case the Supreme Court just heard
Speaker 1: and it is Janice the f S A F S
Speaker 1: C M E. And here's what's going on. Uh, some
Speaker 1: of these public sector unions they force you to pay
Speaker 1: membership dues even if you don't want to um it.
Speaker 1: And it's a large it's a large part of what
Speaker 1: funds them. And because of some previous Supreme Court decisions,
Speaker 1: this has been okay up to this point in time.
Speaker 1: But here's the here's the issue. Mark Jannis, hence Janice
Speaker 1: fee Offs asked me, Uh, Mark Jannis says, you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't want to do this. I don't want money
Speaker 1: going towards I don't want my money going toward a
Speaker 1: public sector union that is going to be advocating against
Speaker 1: what I want. And here's here's where this really comes
Speaker 1: into play. A public sector union is different than a
Speaker 1: private sector union because public sector unions are inherently, inherently
Speaker 1: political in their actions. This is not like a private
Speaker 1: sector union where if you get a bunch of guys
Speaker 1: who all get together and you're gonna be demanding certain
Speaker 1: wages for carpenters or welders or you know, you name it, plumbers. Uh,
Speaker 1: then do they create prevailing wage and that affects state
Speaker 1: and local law and so you benefit from that. Now,
Speaker 1: people can argue whether that's fair either that you can
Speaker 1: be forced together this right to work states now and
Speaker 1: this is a whole other, very complicated ball wax, but
Speaker 1: with public sector unions, the only payer is the taxpayer.
Speaker 1: That's where they get their money, and their actions there
Speaker 1: for their their efforts are effectively government lobbying because they
Speaker 1: are trying to get more money for the government and
Speaker 1: they're trying to change government policy. So there's no way
Speaker 1: you have a public sector union, whether it's teachers or
Speaker 1: you know, you know, municipal employees, whatever it may be,
Speaker 1: there's no way you have a public sector union that
Speaker 1: is not inherently engaged in political activity, not just economic
Speaker 1: activity or economic lobbying, because they're going to the government.
Speaker 1: They are they they are the government right there involved
Speaker 1: in government activity. So it seems pretty straightforward. People get
Speaker 1: very upset about this and they make it much more
Speaker 1: complicated than it should otherwise be. And here's why private
Speaker 1: private unions are. Private sector unions are way down in
Speaker 1: membership now. UM and there's a lot of right to
Speaker 1: work states that have popped up, and there's any number
Speaker 1: of UM. Well, you point to some of the large unions,
Speaker 1: you realize that they're losing members um and and the
Speaker 1: unions don't have the power they used to. UH. Public
Speaker 1: sector unions have actually gotten to be a much bigger
Speaker 1: part of the union pie and as you may guess,
Speaker 1: they are financially pretty substantial when it comes to donations
Speaker 1: and political elections. In the last cycle, I think I
Speaker 1: said close to a hundred million. I overstated a little bit.
Speaker 1: It was more like sixty three million. But that's a
Speaker 1: lot of money. Sixty three million dollars into lot cycle,
Speaker 1: sixty three million dollars alone, and the number has been
Speaker 1: ramping up to I see this. It was sixty three
Speaker 1: and then the election before that, it was fifty three
Speaker 1: before that, forty five before that before that, nineteen before that, seventeen.
Speaker 1: You know, every two years you're seeing jump, jump, jump,
Speaker 1: big jumps in these public sector unions and the money
Speaker 1: that they're giving for these different election cycles. And here's
Speaker 1: the other part of this that really matters now, I
Speaker 1: mean the free speech part of it or not. I
Speaker 1: mean that's it's going down on free speech grounds. That's
Speaker 1: where I think the problem is, because you are taking
Speaker 1: money from somebody and forcing them to subsidize what is
Speaker 1: inherently a a form of compulsory first timement activity. Right,
Speaker 1: You're saying, I'm gonna take your money and give it
Speaker 1: to this group that wants more government, and you know
Speaker 1: is engaged in government big government lobbying activities, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So there's that. But the part of this that gets
Speaker 1: the left so upset and the reason why they're gonna
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, I mean, almost as many people are
Speaker 1: going to die as a result of this change that
Speaker 1: I think the Supreme Court is going to visit upon
Speaker 1: public sector unions. Almost as many millions will die as
Speaker 1: died from the Republican tax cut, which I know left
Speaker 1: left mad Max like devastation in many parts of this country. Um,
Speaker 1: sorry about that, guys. I know that tax cut, that
Speaker 1: that thousand dollar bonus you may have gotten from your company.
Speaker 1: You know that. That's just it's the reason why all
Speaker 1: the houses around you have burned down and then and
Speaker 1: there's now just you know, flame tornadoes everywhere, and mad
Speaker 1: Max Like I said, Ah, but they public sector unions,
Speaker 1: they give their money to Democrats. Ah, now we know
Speaker 1: why the media cares so much. This is a huge
Speaker 1: source of big money for Democrat candidates. In fact of
Speaker 1: public sector unions donations and the last political cycle went
Speaker 1: to Democrat candidates. So that's sixty million dollars in cash
Speaker 1: that they're getting from people who are basically unfire able
Speaker 1: and work for the government. And you see this self
Speaker 1: licking ice cream cone of government employees who are trying
Speaker 1: to do everything they can do. Elect representatives who will
Speaker 1: make sure the government employees get the most money and
Speaker 1: the most benefits they possibly can, and that means Democrats.
Speaker 1: This is how the part, this is how Democrats became
Speaker 1: the party of the state, and the state became full
Speaker 1: of statists, as in, people who work for the government
Speaker 1: tend to be not everybody, but tend to be pro government, right,
Speaker 1: thinking that government solved problems, then the government does good things.
Speaker 1: And especially at the federal level, you've got a lot
Speaker 1: of this, a lot of that sentiment going on. But
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party is clearly the party that is most
Speaker 1: concerned with the expansion of the state, the expansion of
Speaker 1: the ranks of bureaucrats and government employees as much as
Speaker 1: it possibly can, because it has become an important, uh
Speaker 1: an important way of getting support for Democrat politicians. All right,
Speaker 1: this is now a source of considerable power, and the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court isn't going to eliminate it or eradicate it,
Speaker 1: but may put quite a dent in it because a
Speaker 1: lot of people are gonna say no, I don't want
Speaker 1: to do that. I don't want to do that. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe the folks who work for the government, who aren't Democrats,
Speaker 1: who aren't statuss will have a little more say in
Speaker 1: their affairs. Maybe we'll see that the donation numbers will
Speaker 1: change too. And McCarthy's joinings in a few minutes here
Speaker 1: to talk about the Democrat memo short version, Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: is a punk and he's not telling the truth. We
Speaker 1: have more. Welcome to our three of the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Great to have you here. We've
Speaker 1: got Anie McCarthy. We'll be with us in just a
Speaker 1: few more. Went to go into a bit of a
Speaker 1: deep dive on the Democrat fis memo. What he saw there?
Speaker 1: What I saw there? Well, we'll have an exchange on that,
Speaker 1: but first lighten it up for a few minutes. Just
Speaker 1: get into a bit of a buck slap situation here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna come up with a cooler you know, I
Speaker 1: think we should do like a montage of you know,
Speaker 1: the old Kung Fu movies where all that's like, you know,
Speaker 1: all the different I didn't do a very good job,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about, right we should do
Speaker 1: something like that, really lean into the bucks lap, because
Speaker 1: right now a solo slap is not enough. It needs
Speaker 1: to be more than just a solitary solitary slab um.
Speaker 1: But I had two things. These don't really go together
Speaker 1: other than just giving a buck slap to the media.
Speaker 1: The first is you will recall that guy, Michael Wolfe,
Speaker 1: who wrote the book Fire and Fury, which my favorite
Speaker 1: part of that whole story, by the way, was that
Speaker 1: Fire and Fury, a book about the Second World War
Speaker 1: and an aerial campaign. I think it was the bombing
Speaker 1: of Berlin, but I forget, but you know, aerial combat
Speaker 1: in the Second World War that was published like many
Speaker 1: years ago, went to the top of the New York
Speaker 1: Times bestseller list because of Fire and Fury. The other book, Yes,
Speaker 1: the Amazon effect, but this guy wrote Fire and Fury,
Speaker 1: Michael Wolfe, and he had an interview recently where he
Speaker 1: pulled one of the great media things that you'll see
Speaker 1: people do, which is when you get a question that
Speaker 1: you don't like, just do the whole Well, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I can't what was that is that? Like you got
Speaker 1: he's trying to ask me. No, it's all fuzzy, Roy,
Speaker 1: it's fuzzy in me. He doesn't sound like that, but
Speaker 1: I just want to do that voice. Go ahead and
Speaker 1: play it. You see during a TV interview just last
Speaker 1: month that you are absolutely sure that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: currently having an affair while president behind the back of
Speaker 1: the First Lady, and I repeat, you said you were
Speaker 1: held Yeah, I can't. Last week, however, you beg flipped instead.
Speaker 1: I quote, I do not know if the president is
Speaker 1: having an affair? Do you over the president and the
Speaker 1: First Lady? An apology? Mr Wolf? I can't hear you.
Speaker 1: I can't hear you. Hello. Last month, you said you
Speaker 1: were absolutely sure that the president was having an affair.
Speaker 1: I'm not getting I'm not getting anything. I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not hearing him anymore. I'm not getting anything now. I'm
Speaker 1: not getting you know, we were hearing each other well
Speaker 1: just before. I'm not hearing me, Mr Wolf. Do you
Speaker 1: do you hear I'm not now. I'm just I'm not
Speaker 1: hearing anything. Wolf was hearing me before hearing me. I'm
Speaker 1: not hearing anything. It looks all right. Can we stop
Speaker 1: this for a second because this is let me tell
Speaker 1: you something, he's hearing him. You know how I know.
Speaker 1: He keeps waiting from stop saying, excuse me, slimy, shifty,
Speaker 1: grotesque character named Michael Wolfe, can you answer the question please?
Speaker 1: I'm not He waits till he stops each time. If
Speaker 1: you couldn't hear him, he would just be sitting you, Guys,
Speaker 1: I got no thing, and there'd be cross dok, guys,
Speaker 1: I got nothing. I'm sorry, I can't you know, excuse me,
Speaker 1: excuse me a pile of human refuse. You made unsubstantiated
Speaker 1: and grotesque allegations against the president. Could you please tell
Speaker 1: us if you owe him a retraction and apology. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I can't. I don't know. I can't hear um.
Speaker 1: If he couldn't hear, folks, and I want to play
Speaker 1: it for you. If if Michael wolf couldn't hear guess what,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't have waited until the question ended each time
Speaker 1: to say I can't hear you notice, And there are
Speaker 1: a couple of times there's a little cross talk, but
Speaker 1: he kept waiting. You know. This would be this would
Speaker 1: be like me walking around saying I'm gonna hold my breath.
Speaker 1: I'm holding my breath. I'm holding it right now. And
Speaker 1: you're like, wait, but Buck, you're talking. How can you
Speaker 1: be holding your breath? Shut up? I'm holding my breath
Speaker 1: so that he gets a buck slap for that. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: come on, John slap him, Yes, exactly. And then in
Speaker 1: some guy who looks like the mean fraternity brother from
Speaker 1: an eighties movie. Uh, and that looks like that comes
Speaker 1: from somebody who looks like the nice fraternity brother from
Speaker 1: an eighties movie, namely me, it's some guy named Peter
Speaker 1: Alexander at the Today Show asked Ivanka the following question,
Speaker 1: do you believe your father's accusers? I think it's a
Speaker 1: pretty inappropriate question to ask a daughter if she believes
Speaker 1: um the accusers of her father when he's affirmatively stated
Speaker 1: that there's no truth to it. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: a question you would ask many other daughters. I believe
Speaker 1: my father. I know my father, so I think I
Speaker 1: have that right as a daughter, um, to believe my father.
Speaker 1: Oh that's actually a buck slap courtesy of Ivanka too,
Speaker 1: the punk Peter Alexander, Papa, Ivanka just buck slapped him.
Speaker 1: She bucks slapped him. It was amazing because, by the way,
Speaker 1: completely true. Show me where some NBC glorified frat boy
Speaker 1: is asking Chelsea Clinton if her dad's a rapist on
Speaker 1: on TV while he's president or at any time. I
Speaker 1: just want to know, Hey, Chelsea Clinton, sit down, talk
Speaker 1: to me for a second. Is your dad a rapist?
Speaker 1: That's not a question she's ever been asking. That would No,
Speaker 1: that's not a fair question to ask her, you know,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not a question. That's not a question
Speaker 1: that should be posed to anybody in that situation. But
Speaker 1: they'll pose it to Avanca because at NBC they are
Speaker 1: in the tank with the never Trump, anti Trump hashtag resistance.
Speaker 1: So Buck slaps a plenty there, and we're gonna have
Speaker 1: Anny McCarthy joining in just a moment. Welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 1: So here we are our three of the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: and I've been promising you that we would have the
Speaker 1: one and only the McCarthy to weigh in on the
Speaker 1: memo that dropped over the weekend. It it dropped with
Speaker 1: a bit of a of a whimper. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: it did not exactly have the splash of the Republican memo.
Speaker 1: But we should get into why and whether that is
Speaker 1: in fact even a fair assessment of it. We've got
Speaker 1: Andy with us now. He is a former Assistant U
Speaker 1: S Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He
Speaker 1: is also a senior writer at National Review and at
Speaker 1: the National View Institute. Andy, thanks so much for joining Buck.
Speaker 1: It's my pleasure. All right, Den memo, what were your thoughts? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think you're right that it landed with
Speaker 1: a whimper, although you know, to be fair to uh
Speaker 1: the the it was a Saturday, so we can start
Speaker 1: with that. Well, yeah, it was a Saturday, and it
Speaker 1: was also in the midst of this uh hubbub of
Speaker 1: the shooting in Florida, which really hasn't died down, and
Speaker 1: that's I think taken a lot of the oxygen up.
Speaker 1: But I also think that UM for their own and
Speaker 1: they have they have a motive to kind of soft
Speaker 1: peddle this because, uh, despite everything that Representative shift is
Speaker 1: out there saying. His memo does concede the two main
Speaker 1: allegations in the majority memo that's known as the New
Speaker 1: Neez Memo. Namely, they did use the Steel dossier, and secondly,
Speaker 1: they didn't disclose to the court that the Steel dossier
Speaker 1: was a Hillary Clinton campaign product. So you know how
Speaker 1: much they want to have all the back and forth
Speaker 1: when those two major allegations have actually been confirmed. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's a lot of people who who aren't loving
Speaker 1: that end of the argument. And the one part of
Speaker 1: it that really jumped out to me was that there
Speaker 1: was a place at which they said the Steel dossier
Speaker 1: and I'm paraphrasing here, but it was the Steel dossier
Speaker 1: was later verified. I buy blacked outline, blocked outline, etcetera,
Speaker 1: etcetera about you know, twenty blacked outlines in a row.
Speaker 1: I feel like that would be the thing that we
Speaker 1: really need to see and to know. Yeah, I agree
Speaker 1: with you about that for a few reasons. Number one, um,
Speaker 1: you know the obvious, which which is that, um, you know,
Speaker 1: if there really was probable cause, then we should see
Speaker 1: what the basis of it was. And obviously they should
Speaker 1: preserve whatever they can of of methods and sources and
Speaker 1: sensitive intelligence secrets. And I understand they don't want to
Speaker 1: blow things that we know about Russia. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, at the same time, you know, this is
Speaker 1: now enough of a thing where it certainly seems that
Speaker 1: the first memo, the first plies of warrant at the
Speaker 1: very least was largely dependent on the dossier. Uh So
Speaker 1: you would think that if there's better justification for it
Speaker 1: out there, that would be a good thing to dough
Speaker 1: And I guess the second thing, Buck is that I
Speaker 1: don't really think I'm ready to take Adam Schiff's word
Speaker 1: that what he thinks is corroboration is what would satisfy
Speaker 1: me as corroboration, because he has an idea about corroboration
Speaker 1: based on what else is in his memo that's pretty skewed. Um,
Speaker 1: So I'd like to see it for myself and make
Speaker 1: up my own mind about whether it really corroborates the
Speaker 1: idea that that page was an agent of a foreign power.
Speaker 1: And in one section, and everyone we're talking about this
Speaker 1: the Democrat response to the FISA abuse memo. This was
Speaker 1: the one that had been there's some back and forth
Speaker 1: over it in recent weeks, Um and Andy, Before I
Speaker 1: actually get in the specifics of this one subsection, do
Speaker 1: we know where the blackdown lines in this? Who's to
Speaker 1: blame for them so to speak? Or who is the
Speaker 1: final say? I mean, essentially, why were some of the
Speaker 1: lines about sources blacked out? Was it Republicans demanding them
Speaker 1: because I've seen a lot of Democrats saying that or
Speaker 1: is it the FBI or do we not know? Well,
Speaker 1: we know, but that the Republican members of the Committee
Speaker 1: voted to release shifts memo from the from the start.
Speaker 1: They wanted it out there. Um, so I don't think
Speaker 1: it's the Republicans on the committee who are doing this. Uh.
Speaker 1: Then there was a lot of negotiation between as I
Speaker 1: understand that the FBI on behalf of the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, the White House, and Shift and the
Speaker 1: Democrats on the Committee trying to uh come to accommodations
Speaker 1: that would allow Shift to make the arguments that he
Speaker 1: wanted to make without exposing methods and sources of intelligence
Speaker 1: and important intelligence secrets. And I think, you know, members
Speaker 1: of Congress, can they really do have immunity under the
Speaker 1: Constitution and they could go up on the on the
Speaker 1: floor of the House and say whatever is in the redaction.
Speaker 1: They don't do that because if it would harm the country,
Speaker 1: obviously it would be very politically damaging for them to
Speaker 1: do that. So I think this is a matter of
Speaker 1: them accommodating or or deferring to the judgment of the
Speaker 1: FBI in particular that exposing what's blacked out would be
Speaker 1: bad for the country. All right, now, this part of
Speaker 1: the the memo says the following, FB this is under
Speaker 1: FBI's counterintelligence investigation. In its October fives application and subsequent renewals,
Speaker 1: d o J accurately informed the FBI. UH, the FBI
Speaker 1: initiated its counter intelligence investigation on julyeen after receiving information,
Speaker 1: and then it's blocked out. George Papadopoulis revealed blocked out
Speaker 1: that individuals linked to Russia who took interest in Papadopolis
Speaker 1: as a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor informed him in
Speaker 1: late April that Russia it's blocked out. Okay, that's you know.
Speaker 1: I'm putting it out there just because what do you
Speaker 1: make of this? It seems to me like this it
Speaker 1: reads like what we already knew about Papadopolis based on
Speaker 1: that news report that's out there, that he was talking
Speaker 1: some stuff to some people. But is this the best
Speaker 1: they can do on Papadopolis Because to me, the the
Speaker 1: inclusion of this guy in here makes the whole case
Speaker 1: seem kind of flimsy. Yeah, well, I think the case
Speaker 1: is flimsy, But let me um let me just and Buck,
Speaker 1: you probably have even more experience with this than I do.
Speaker 1: But um let me say what I think is happening
Speaker 1: here in good faith, and that is you know, I
Speaker 1: remember years ago in the blind Shake case, I had
Speaker 1: to try to get in some information about what the
Speaker 1: CIA was doing in Afghanistan, including the fact that we
Speaker 1: used Pakistan as kind of the cutout. And even though
Speaker 1: there had been books written about that, uh and it
Speaker 1: was a well known fact, I was not able are
Speaker 1: allowed to disclose it in formally as a representative of
Speaker 1: the government because the the intelligence community in our government
Speaker 1: never acknowledges who gives us information. So I think what's
Speaker 1: going on there is that even though everybody knows the
Speaker 1: Australians gave us that information and everybody knows what the
Speaker 1: information was, because it's all right, this is this is
Speaker 1: the government pretending something is still not known, that that
Speaker 1: everybody that that is considered common knowledge, which they which
Speaker 1: they do everybody for you, those of you you are listening.
Speaker 1: The government will still say things are classified that are
Speaker 1: literally what you would see if you googled it, but
Speaker 1: they still pretend that right, And I think that's done
Speaker 1: for good reason. That's done so that we can look
Speaker 1: Pakistan or Australia or anyone else in the eye and say,
Speaker 1: if you cooperate with us, we will always protect you,
Speaker 1: and we will always keep it confidential, no matter who
Speaker 1: knows it. All right, So, what is the single biggest
Speaker 1: part of the memo Andy that that did or this
Speaker 1: thing the biggest question that remains un answered for you
Speaker 1: at this point. I think there are two questions. But
Speaker 1: the first is, um, was there any other information besides
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier, which was completely uncorroborated that made out
Speaker 1: the very demanding standard under five of when you want
Speaker 1: to get a warrant on an American citizen that he
Speaker 1: was acting as an active knowing agent of a foreign
Speaker 1: power whose planned destined activities violated federal criminal law. I'd
Speaker 1: like to know if there's anything else, because it sure
Speaker 1: looks like the Steel DOSSI was the only thing they
Speaker 1: had along those lines. And secondly, whenever the government gets
Speaker 1: an eavesdropping warrant, whether it's in FISA National security stuff
Speaker 1: or Title three criminal stuff, you always have to demonstrate
Speaker 1: to the court that alternative uh investigative techniques, that is,
Speaker 1: tactics other than surveillance, which is very intrusive. Um could
Speaker 1: not work to get you the information that you need.
Speaker 1: And the reason I think it's important, and this is
Speaker 1: something that really hasn't been addressed to this point, is
Speaker 1: that we now know that Paige had a relationship with
Speaker 1: the FBI that went back to two thousand thirteen. He
Speaker 1: was an informant for them in a case against Russian spies.
Speaker 1: They used his information in a complaint, and they interviewed
Speaker 1: him again as late as March of So he's someone
Speaker 1: who's been very available to them, and that there's no
Speaker 1: reason to believe, at least based on what we know publicly,
Speaker 1: that he's ever been untruthful with them as a as
Speaker 1: an informant. So the question I'd have is why get
Speaker 1: a surveillance warrant on him when if you wanted to
Speaker 1: know whether he met with these two top Russian guys
Speaker 1: or not, you could bring him in an interview him
Speaker 1: and ask them. Yeah, the whole carter page component of
Speaker 1: this Andy strike me as as such a such a stretch,
Speaker 1: the notion that this guy was at the heart of
Speaker 1: some international conspiracy and that therefore there had to be
Speaker 1: as you said, very intrusive and very high level surveillance
Speaker 1: techniques used against him. It seems much more likely me
Speaker 1: at this point that some of the people who understand
Speaker 1: how this process works, and as you have pointed out,
Speaker 1: once you get somebody's calms and their communications, their previous
Speaker 1: stored stuff, stored email, stored text messanges are fair game too.
Speaker 1: They wanted to do some poking around Carter Page had
Speaker 1: these previous fuzzy, weird Russia contacts, and it looks like
Speaker 1: it's it looks like a pretext. Andy. I know you
Speaker 1: can't say it was because we don't know yet, but
Speaker 1: to me, it looks like it was done as a
Speaker 1: pretext for surveillance. Yeah, and Buck, and I want to
Speaker 1: be clear because I agree with that, um, but I
Speaker 1: am not one of these people who says like I'm
Speaker 1: so like a fervently died in the world Trump person
Speaker 1: that it would have been outrageous for the Obama administration
Speaker 1: to conduct this investigation. To the contrary, I've said, if
Speaker 1: they had real evidence here of collusion of a corrupt
Speaker 1: nature between the campaign, the Trump campaign, and the Russians,
Speaker 1: then it would have been irresponsible not to investigate that.
Speaker 1: And if it turns out that there are other bases
Speaker 1: for Carter Page to have been thought to be an
Speaker 1: agent of a foreign power, and they had real evidence
Speaker 1: of that. I'm all for it. I'm I'm like, you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: whoever we need to surveil, we should all that too. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying that this I'm not one of
Speaker 1: these people who was who was saying this was an
Speaker 1: illegitimate thing from the get go. I'm somebody who has
Speaker 1: reluctantly been dragged to the point of saying something really
Speaker 1: bad went on here. And this is after months of
Speaker 1: telling people. You know, look, the FBI and the Justice
Speaker 1: Department don't do that kind of stuff. They don't go
Speaker 1: to a court with uncorroborated hearsay from unidentified sources that
Speaker 1: comes from political sources. They go out and do independ
Speaker 1: an investigation, and when they got in the fives the court,
Speaker 1: they make sure that what they've given the court is
Speaker 1: vetted and they make every proper disclosure they can make,
Speaker 1: because that's the Justice Department. I know, and I've told
Speaker 1: people for months that what it looks like happened here
Speaker 1: couldn't happen here. All right, We'll have to see, We'll
Speaker 1: keep an eye on it, Andy McCarthy. Everybody read his
Speaker 1: latest at National Review dot com. They actually just updated
Speaker 1: the site. Looks great. Go check it out. Also follow
Speaker 1: Andy on Twitter. Mr riccarty. Always appreciate you making the time, sir,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for hanging out with us. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. Buck. See, we're gonna roll into a quick
Speaker 1: break here. When we come back, I'm going to have, oh,
Speaker 1: some things to talk to you about. You're going to uh,
Speaker 1: you're gonna want to hear them because we have some
Speaker 1: some audio of them talk about diversity that oh guess what,
Speaker 1: it went off the rails that's coming up. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: You can be irritated by it. You could be irritated
Speaker 1: by the fact that women have to be the one
Speaker 1: suggest Tait and lacktate. You could be irritated by a
Speaker 1: lot of trip. But taking offense is a is a
Speaker 1: response that is rejection of reality. So men and women
Speaker 1: are different on height, they're different on muscle mass, they're
Speaker 1: different on where fact is deposited on our bodies. Right,
Speaker 1: our brains are also different. So there's some fine areas security.
Speaker 1: This is this is what happens until they shut off
Speaker 1: the violet. Can you hear, can can everybody here? So
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, guys, this is at at at
Speaker 1: Portland's State University, and it is a it was a forum,
Speaker 1: a college form, and these things are great, a college
Speaker 1: form where you have people who are supposed to discuss
Speaker 1: ideological diversity, the diversity of ideas. And this may not
Speaker 1: u come as a shock to you. There are people
Speaker 1: at Portland State University who do not want to hear
Speaker 1: about this, who have no interest whatsoever in hearing about things.
Speaker 1: And even to the point where a and you've got
Speaker 1: a few different individuals joining together here. You had ex
Speaker 1: Google engineer James Day Moore, um, he was part of
Speaker 1: this panel. And you had a few other scholars, you know,
Speaker 1: people that are from Portland State University. And you had
Speaker 1: evolutionary biologist Heather Heying there among others. So and Peter
Speaker 1: Peter Brigoesian. Now you just heard some pretty straightforward stuff
Speaker 1: about how men and women are biologically physically different, different
Speaker 1: in terms of muscle mass, different in terms of fat deposits,
Speaker 1: different in terms of a whole bunch of things. And
Speaker 1: people in attendance weren't just content to go. They actually
Speaker 1: I mean, I wish you could see the video, but
Speaker 1: I'm just playing the audio for you. They pulled the
Speaker 1: audio on the way out, like they pulled the plugs
Speaker 1: out of the speakers and throw a fit as they
Speaker 1: were leaving, so that they forced they forced the panel
Speaker 1: to come to a stop. And then what you had
Speaker 1: is these panelists who had to stand up and just
Speaker 1: do what acapella style, and they decided to just keep
Speaker 1: going with the rest of of their speech. But I
Speaker 1: don't want to stop it with just they pulled the plugs,
Speaker 1: literally pull the plug on the speech. Okay, remember men
Speaker 1: and women are biologically different. That gets people upset. That's
Speaker 1: that's a microaggression. You're not allowed to say that. Every
Speaker 1: single one of you, sitting, listening, standing, running, wherever you
Speaker 1: are across the country knows men and women are different.
Speaker 1: You're not in your head like yeah, of course, Buck.
Speaker 1: That has now become a politically incorrect thing to say.
Speaker 1: This has been going on for a few years now,
Speaker 1: but but it is now part of the leftist orthodoxy.
Speaker 1: It is dogma on the left that you are simply
Speaker 1: fundamentally not allowed to claim that there are any differences
Speaker 1: of any kind between men and women. Rooted in biology.
Speaker 1: How one makes that argument, don't this is this is
Speaker 1: the equivalent of saying, you know, an apple is a banana.
Speaker 1: To borrow from CNN, It's not, you know, I call
Speaker 1: this an apple. You call that an apple. No, no,
Speaker 1: an apple is a banana. It is the It is
Speaker 1: forceful falsehood, right. It is so wrong that the purpose
Speaker 1: of it seems to be two force people to agree
Speaker 1: in the wrongness of it as a as a form
Speaker 1: of intellectual submission. But they they freaked out, and I
Speaker 1: know it's a brain now. They had a few of them,
Speaker 1: a bunch of you know, blue haired anarchists, and they
Speaker 1: they left, They pulled the all goodul the stuff, and
Speaker 1: then they continue to throw a bit of a fit outside.
Speaker 1: And I just want to share some of these are
Speaker 1: the These are the folks that are the future of
Speaker 1: this country. This is the the campus elite, if you will,
Speaker 1: sharing their thoughts on a whole bunch of stuff. When
Speaker 1: it comes to diversity. Should not listen to fascism. I
Speaker 1: should not be tolerated in civil society. Nazis are not
Speaker 1: welcome in civil society. Alright, Well, we're gonna raise our voices.
Speaker 1: The conversation is going to go on, all right, let's
Speaker 1: let that sort of behavior is unacceptable in civilized societies,
Speaker 1: and if that person is a student, they should be
Speaker 1: given a warning, and if they do it again, they
Speaker 1: should be expelled from the university. Expelled from the university.
Speaker 1: That's where this should be. Now, I would know that
Speaker 1: it's not an overreach at all. That consequences for violating
Speaker 1: the central goal of a college campus should be something
Speaker 1: that colleges embrace. And to anyone who say that's so harsh,
Speaker 1: you can know they're they're creating a disturbance, They're just
Speaker 1: they're at least destroying public property, and they are shutting
Speaker 1: down the right of others to speak. If you were
Speaker 1: to hand in somebody else's term paper, you could get expelled, right,
Speaker 1: plagiarism get expelled. It's not a it's not a crime,
Speaker 1: but it's still a violation of academic ethics. What could
Speaker 1: be a more clear violation of the ethics of the
Speaker 1: academy than trying to shut down a speech with people
Speaker 1: who are trying to engage in important ideas of the
Speaker 1: time in a respectful way. That is the definition of
Speaker 1: discourse and dialogue. But this is what we are up against.
Speaker 1: Now this is where the left has taken much of
Speaker 1: this country. You heard that guy talking about how this
Speaker 1: is fascism, this is it's fascism. When you have college
Speaker 1: professors Heather Haying, Brett Weinstein, former Googler, James Daymore, and
Speaker 1: Peter Rogosian speaking to an audience about what diversity really is,
Speaker 1: that now has become fascism, It has become triggering, to
Speaker 1: borrow a term from the left. It triggers people, It
Speaker 1: forces their emotional outburst when somebody says that men and
Speaker 1: women are different xx chromosome x y chromosome. You know,
Speaker 1: I've heard people saying recently that on guns, on guns,
Speaker 1: falsehood is excused, and that is true. If you were
Speaker 1: on the left and you are anti gun, you can
Speaker 1: say things that are untrue, and it's okay, it's fine
Speaker 1: as long as it serves the greater purpose. But in
Speaker 1: some ways it's even worse when you talk about gender
Speaker 1: and gender identity issues, because it's not that falsehood is excused.
Speaker 1: They're not saying, oh, it doesn't matter if you say
Speaker 1: clip or magazine. Ban the Second Amendment right, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, is the thing that I've seen and heard
Speaker 1: people saying recently. It doesn't matter if you say Clipper magazine.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you say auto or semi auto.
Speaker 1: Ban all autos. But wait, autos are banned. Oh, you
Speaker 1: don't care about the children with the gender identity issues.
Speaker 1: What you see is that falsehood is not excused. Falsehood
Speaker 1: is embraced. It's embraced. Yes, we are going to lie,
Speaker 1: Yes we're going to tell you things that are not true.
Speaker 1: The movement rests on lies. The movement rests on the
Speaker 1: opposite of reality. And they just hope that the brainwashing
Speaker 1: and the political mobilization of the forces of the academy
Speaker 1: and the media and the Democrat Party and the American
Speaker 1: left will be enough. I we'll spend some time coming
Speaker 1: up in the weeks ahead. When I can. I'll just
Speaker 1: go on some some buck digressions here about how central
Speaker 1: falsehood was to the Soviet system and to communism. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we're about to have communist country,
Speaker 1: but it's just philosophically, it's important to understand that it
Speaker 1: wasn't It went from excuse making to the active embrace.
Speaker 1: In fact, the forced embraced embracing falsehood. At the end
Speaker 1: of a rifle or with a rifle pointed. Actually that
Speaker 1: was the Soviet Union. Yeah, you know, this is the
Speaker 1: quota for potatoes. We hit the potato quote. Uh no,
Speaker 1: you didn't. Actually people are starving. Well, this is the
Speaker 1: quota actually, and yes we did hit it, or else
Speaker 1: you're going to be shot. Guess what A lot of
Speaker 1: people say, Okay, all the potatoes we need. That's what's
Speaker 1: going on ideologically on college campuses across the country. It's
Speaker 1: also reflected in the media, and it is soon to
Speaker 1: be reflected in our laws. In fact, I think already
Speaker 1: you can make the case that there are ways in
Speaker 1: which the left mentality about gender identity has manifested itself
Speaker 1: in law. And while I can look at people screaming
Speaker 1: fascist because a couple of social sciencests are saying men
Speaker 1: and women are different, people who literally have PhDs in
Speaker 1: the subject matter are trying to tell an audience that
Speaker 1: men and women are different. And you have people screaming, disrupting,
Speaker 1: acting like children. These are adults that are people in
Speaker 1: their late twenties from what I can see, and they're
Speaker 1: upset by this. It bothers them. They don't want to
Speaker 1: be told this. They have embraced some alternate reality. And
Speaker 1: it's not just on gender identity. Where this is the case,
Speaker 1: that's the problem. Once truth is a casualty, the casualty
Speaker 1: numbers just rise. Once it doesn't matter anymore what's true
Speaker 1: and what's false, then anything becomes possible and anything becomes permissible.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the reason why the left
Speaker 1: is so very, very dangerous. Um the momentum of progressivism
Speaker 1: or left leftism in this country always points towards always
Speaker 1: results in tyranny. It can't help, but do that, and
Speaker 1: sure we can make fun of some shrieking, blue haired
Speaker 1: pseudo hippie hipster types who don't think they should have
Speaker 1: to hear any bad things, but understand the political ideology
Speaker 1: they represent is actually quite dangerous and does need to
Speaker 1: be confronted on the battlefield of ideas. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: into some roll call coming up. Stay with me. I
Speaker 1: want to tell you about some fun ahead over the weekend.
Speaker 1: I like to share with you some of my adventures,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to tell you the truth about it
Speaker 1: as well. Because I thought I was pretty slick, pretty
Speaker 1: cool guy, you know, like I can make things happen.
Speaker 1: I was planning it for some time. Miss Molly and
Speaker 1: I we're gonna go to the Metropolitan Opera, which is very,
Speaker 1: very fancy. You know, it's a it's a fancy thing.
Speaker 1: It's a once a year thing for me. You know.
Speaker 1: I save up, I take the piggy bank, I break
Speaker 1: the piggy bank. We go to the Metropolitan Opera and
Speaker 1: I get to go check out one of the most
Speaker 1: I don't know, revered cultural institutions of New York City.
Speaker 1: For for some look, I I love it. Opera is enchanting.
Speaker 1: It is pretty incredible. It is also very long for
Speaker 1: those of you who have not been exposed to it.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've ever been, but sometimes it
Speaker 1: can run in the neighborhood of three and a half
Speaker 1: hours ish, maybe four, which is a long time. I mean,
Speaker 1: Brave Heart is three hours plus, but it flies by
Speaker 1: in five minutes because it's the greatest movie of all time.
Speaker 1: But opera, you gotta be into it, and you also
Speaker 1: want to know what's going on because you've got a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of people seeing in a different language. So
Speaker 1: I make my plans with I'm making my plans with
Speaker 1: Miss Molly. Two uh, to go to the opera, and
Speaker 1: and she's all excited because I've told her she's cooler
Speaker 1: than I am and more in touch with pop culture.
Speaker 1: But I've told her that that the opera we're going
Speaker 1: to see, La bo m is more or less the
Speaker 1: basis for the broad with the hit Broadway musical rent Um,
Speaker 1: which is true, it's sort of loosely based on or
Speaker 1: loosely derived from. But and so we're talking, and we
Speaker 1: had dinner beforehand, and we're all excited, and we're going,
Speaker 1: I'm going over the characters from Labo M and and
Speaker 1: sure enough when we sit down, we managed to get
Speaker 1: we have great seats and the opera is just wherever
Speaker 1: you are across the country should go to the opera
Speaker 1: telling I'm telling you, don't knock it till you try.
Speaker 1: The operas is pretty cool. Let's saying go every weekend.
Speaker 1: That can be a lot, but it's a it's a
Speaker 1: real experience. And if you love music, I mean the
Speaker 1: the pit, the orchestra that they have is philharmonic quality, right,
Speaker 1: so the orchestra is amazing, the music is incredible to
Speaker 1: set the set design um and if you want, if
Speaker 1: you're ever in New York City, you can actually go
Speaker 1: and get like standing room tickets for a lot of
Speaker 1: the operas, which, by the way, stay for half of
Speaker 1: it and you'll be plenty happy. You'll have been there
Speaker 1: for two hours, so you know, stay for an hour
Speaker 1: and a half. And if you get standing room only
Speaker 1: the back, I think those tickets are twenty five or
Speaker 1: thirty bucks. Yea, So it's it's it's doable, uh, in
Speaker 1: a in a less expensive way instead of a few
Speaker 1: hundred bucks, which is what it can run to go
Speaker 1: to sit in a chair and actually sit for the
Speaker 1: whole thing. Anyway, So I'm there with Ms Molly, and
Speaker 1: I think I'm pretty cool. I think this is a
Speaker 1: it's a good date that I've set up. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get some some buck points here, you know,
Speaker 1: for being a good guy, good boyfriend. And she's she's
Speaker 1: all excited. She looks very very pretty, you know, she's
Speaker 1: all dressed up. And I'm excited too. And we've been
Speaker 1: talking about Labom and I know some of the difference
Speaker 1: in arias from Labo M And I'm all excited. That's
Speaker 1: a very it's the most popular opera of all time.
Speaker 1: It's very accessible, shorter, and you know, if you're gonna
Speaker 1: go see one, by the way, go see marriage a figure. Oh,
Speaker 1: go see La bo m. Go see one of one
Speaker 1: of the ten grades. You know, people love men and butterfly.
Speaker 1: I don't know that one for me wasn't really getting
Speaker 1: it done anyway. I think it's a lot that the
Speaker 1: curtain goes up and all of a sudden, I'm like,
Speaker 1: this isn't eighteen thirties Paris. What's going on here? Like,
Speaker 1: I don't understand. There are tombs like out of ancient Egypt.
Speaker 1: There dudes standing around with swords. There's like some kind
Speaker 1: of high priest with a scepter. I'm like, whoa Limrae
Speaker 1: district in Paris just got freaky, Like this is not
Speaker 1: what I you know, I'm always looking at me like
Speaker 1: what the heck is this because we're sitting there. Have
Speaker 1: you ever had the thing where you walk into a
Speaker 1: movie and and it's actually not the movie you think
Speaker 1: it is, and but for the first minute you're like, well,
Speaker 1: I guess, like I thought it was a movie about
Speaker 1: combat pilots. But maybe that movie starts out with like, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a bunch of people, you know, at a
Speaker 1: bar doing shots, playing rock and roll I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, you kind of convince yourself. So I have
Speaker 1: that going on with this opera. I'm sitting there and
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, somehow, maybe it's like a retro thing
Speaker 1: where it's Labo M but in eight hundred BC. Maybe.
Speaker 1: But no, no, I had actually book tickets to the
Speaker 1: wrong opera. I had book tickets to go see and
Speaker 1: I didn't know this because the the matinee was Labo M.
Speaker 1: So I'm not crazy. I just assumed when I booked
Speaker 1: tickets for the later show, because I didn't read the
Speaker 1: fine print or the print that I was gonna go
Speaker 1: see Labo. I'm sure it was Semi Ramada, which is
Speaker 1: some people. I think we'd call it the last of
Speaker 1: the great Baroque operas. EIGHTI is long, and it's one
Speaker 1: of those opera situations where it's like our Sace is
Speaker 1: vying for the queen's hand, but Azure wants the queen's
Speaker 1: daughter's hand, but it's pretending to want the queen's hand
Speaker 1: because Azure was part of getting rid of the king.
Speaker 1: But then Arsace is actually the son of the queen
Speaker 1: and the king and the uncle. And I'm sitting there
Speaker 1: and I'm trying to show Ms Molly the program. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to disturb anybody. I'm shining my little light
Speaker 1: on her. For a second, I realized I can't do that.
Speaker 1: She's looking at me like, what the heck am I watching? This?
Speaker 1: Is like King tut and I you know, I look.
Speaker 1: We leaned into it, and we fortunately were able to
Speaker 1: catch ourselves at the breakpoint. Um, we were able to
Speaker 1: catch ourselves at intermission. Breakpoint. Gosh, sounds like a savage
Speaker 1: at the intermission when I had a chocolate soufla. That's right,
Speaker 1: I felt bougie. I wanted to do it, so I
Speaker 1: had a chocolate soufla at intermission, because they can do
Speaker 1: that sort of thing at the opera. Have it waiting
Speaker 1: for you even I know, I know I should just
Speaker 1: I should punch myself. But we were able to catch
Speaker 1: up a little bit with the plot afterwards, and sure enough,
Speaker 1: you know, the the dead king is avenged and the
Speaker 1: good guy beats the bad guy, but the girl dies,
Speaker 1: but the good guy. And opera plots, if you think that, like, uh,
Speaker 1: some of those telenovelas can get complicated. Opera plots put
Speaker 1: all that stuff to shame. Man, it was it was
Speaker 1: a thing. So yeah, Semi Ramda based on the Voltaire
Speaker 1: based on Voltaire Voltaire's work semi Ramas, which was about
Speaker 1: a Babylonian Babylonian succession struggle with the Queen. Semi Ramda.
Speaker 1: Uh so yeah, we were in it. We're rocking out
Speaker 1: in ancient Babylon Saturday night. Didn't know it. I thought
Speaker 1: we're gonna be hanging out in eighteen thirties Paris with
Speaker 1: a bunch of bohemians. But you know, life's crazy, my friends,
Speaker 1: Things happen. You gotta adapt, gotta be ready for it.
Speaker 1: So with that, I'll just tell you go check out
Speaker 1: the opera. It's worth it at some points wherever you are,
Speaker 1: if you can go, do it. And I'm sorry I've
Speaker 1: skipped over roll call, but I promise you will do
Speaker 1: it tomorrow and we'll hear from all of you until then.
Speaker 1: My friends, colleagues, patriots, fellow freed mut dwellers, Shields high