Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you're
Speaker 1: satisfied with Trump is not president of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank. Together. We will make America
Speaker 1: great again. You'll never sharender. It's what you've been waiting
Speaker 1: for all day The buck Sexton Show. Join the conversation
Speaker 1: called buck Toll free at eight four four nine hundred Buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine hundred to eight to five
Speaker 1: The Future of talk radio buck Sexton. Ultimately, you and
Speaker 1: other like minded people on your board feel that sanctuary
Speaker 1: status is unc institutional. Well, it is unconstitutional. I mean
Speaker 1: I realized there are a lot of states that don't
Speaker 1: care to live by certain rules in the federal government
Speaker 1: or or the Constitution if they disagree with it. Last
Speaker 1: I checked, it's not optional even if you don't like
Speaker 1: the outcome, and it puts our law enforcement personnel in
Speaker 1: a very awkward spot. They have to uphold the Constitution
Speaker 1: and the log They swear to do that. I swore
Speaker 1: to do that when I took the oath, and uh,
Speaker 1: California has decided to poke the President and his administration
Speaker 1: in the eye, and I'd rather they just not involve us.
Speaker 1: The Sanctuary City showdown continues. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everyone.
Speaker 1: Great to have you here, oh man. The fight over
Speaker 1: immigration is intensifying. Now, a few things to put out
Speaker 1: there right right away. I've got to look a bit
Speaker 1: deeper into whether Trump has a means of building building
Speaker 1: the wall without actually having to get specific congressional funds
Speaker 1: for I know every bee saying it. I don't see
Speaker 1: how it's possible. But I'm I'm seeing stuff left and
Speaker 1: right about how we're not not I'm on the political left,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. I'm seeing reports out there
Speaker 1: of Trump could do this in Amat. We'll see that
Speaker 1: would be some amazing. That would be four D chess,
Speaker 1: it would it will be eight D chess. I don't
Speaker 1: even know what that looks like, but it's some crazy chest.
Speaker 1: It looks like it's out of a nightmare. But there
Speaker 1: there'll be nuts if he could pull that off. I
Speaker 1: don't know how he's gonna do that. But there's another place,
Speaker 1: or a couple of places where the immigration fight continues on,
Speaker 1: and if nothing else, it is important for us to
Speaker 1: have clarity on it going into the mid terms. I
Speaker 1: mentioned the issue of sanctuary cities, and be very careful
Speaker 1: as I say that, especially when you say sanctuary city
Speaker 1: showdown on a live radios. That's not something you want
Speaker 1: to say ten times real fast. Trust me, don't do it, folks,
Speaker 1: Trust me on that one. You're gonna have to apologize
Speaker 1: in front of your kids. Whoops, mommy said something she
Speaker 1: didn't mean to. Uh. But sanctuary city showdown is ongoing,
Speaker 1: and you've got actual cities in California that are saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, we want to opt out of this mess.
Speaker 1: We we don't believe that California's state legislature should be
Speaker 1: able to pass laws that directly contravene the spirit, if
Speaker 1: not the law, of the federal government when it comes
Speaker 1: to immigration. Now, I'm gonna I'm gonna tell it to
Speaker 1: you straight. I like the resistance here, hashtag crazy sts no,
Speaker 1: the hashtag resistance. I like what they're doing. I like
Speaker 1: that it's part of conversation. But states have police powers,
Speaker 1: not cities. States are gonna win this fight. I think
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you the truth. And you know what,
Speaker 1: we should get My buddy Jeff, you know, the big
Speaker 1: big j Mr Sessions. We'll have the Attorney General come
Speaker 1: back on the show and explain to us how he
Speaker 1: thinks this can play out legally in the course, because
Speaker 1: I completely agree with him that this is just utter lawlessness.
Speaker 1: In the case of California, it's just sheer utter lawlessness
Speaker 1: that they are totally okay with because they're like Hemi
Speaker 1: and they live everybody like Langy. By the way, my
Speaker 1: ratings in California are probably going off a cliff right now,
Speaker 1: But you know, I love you, my fellow California Conservatives.
Speaker 1: Don't you understand You're like me, but the West Coast version.
Speaker 1: You're a Republican behind enemy lines or Conservative behind enemy lines.
Speaker 1: You're like Buck but with a tan and eating more healthfully.
Speaker 1: You know that's you're You're the West Coast branch of
Speaker 1: the freedom Hunt. So I'm not I'm not making fun
Speaker 1: of you, guys and gals. I'm talking about your friend Tad.
Speaker 1: You know, who drives a Prius, were's a lot of
Speaker 1: hemp based clothing as a pet therapist, drinks a lot
Speaker 1: of things that require a blender but just look like
Speaker 1: green mush and thinks he knows about politics based on
Speaker 1: the latest Kardashian tweet, that's not who you should be
Speaker 1: getting your political analysis from. As you know. Unfortunately, those
Speaker 1: folks make up a plurality of your state, a massive
Speaker 1: majority of your state, and they're the ones determining policy.
Speaker 1: So the sanctuary issue, I think in California, the fight
Speaker 1: between the state and the federal government is going to
Speaker 1: be a close from the fight between some of these
Speaker 1: cities and the state, I think the state's gonna win.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, you can do things that the state
Speaker 1: doesn't mind. So New York City, for example, has even
Speaker 1: more restrictive gun laws than New York State does because,
Speaker 1: to borrow from Governor Cuomo, nobody needs a bazooka to
Speaker 1: kill a deer. Fact check true, um, but nonetheless, and
Speaker 1: no one has a bazooka. But you get all that. Uh,
Speaker 1: you look at what New York City does. New York
Speaker 1: State's okay with it. That's why if they thought it
Speaker 1: contradicted what was coming out of our state capital, Albany.
Speaker 1: In the case of California, Sacramento be an issue. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, though, there's another big area of immigration focus
Speaker 1: right now that is fascinating for what it says about
Speaker 1: the political parties and our our national conversation right now.
Speaker 1: And I think the federal government will win. The state
Speaker 1: of California is challenging the federal government including a question
Speaker 1: in our ten years census. Right constitutionally mandated. You gotta
Speaker 1: have a census every ten years. Gotta do apportionment of
Speaker 1: the various uh members of the House or the seats
Speaker 1: for the House of Representatives. You don't actually apportion the members.
Speaker 1: That would be weird, like put me down, but you
Speaker 1: know you've got actually on a map decide where which
Speaker 1: dates have which representatives and where what the districts are.
Speaker 1: This matters a lot for that. It also matters a
Speaker 1: whole lot the census data for federal funds for grant money,
Speaker 1: so that the stakes here are pretty high. Last time
Speaker 1: we had this was by the way, it costs thirteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars. It seems like a lot for handing out
Speaker 1: a questionnaire. I mean, there's a lot of people in
Speaker 1: this country, but there it is done on paper. I
Speaker 1: think maybe you can do it online now too. I
Speaker 1: gotta check, but you would think that the thirteen billion
Speaker 1: with a B is a it's a lot of money
Speaker 1: for a census. I think that at six and workers
Speaker 1: as well. The Census, uh, the Census Bureau. You know,
Speaker 1: it's this like they're Super Bowl folks. Is it's big
Speaker 1: time for them. They want to take it from the
Speaker 1: friend zone to the end zone in game time. The
Speaker 1: song Lyric'm assuming some of you will get anyway, it's
Speaker 1: a big deal for them. And the big problem right
Speaker 1: now is over the inclusion of a question about citizenship. See,
Speaker 1: this is what's so fascinating right the way the census works.
Speaker 1: And I really dug into this one today. I may
Speaker 1: have spent way too much time reading about the census.
Speaker 1: And you know where it comes from. By the way,
Speaker 1: it used to have a question about citizenship of some
Speaker 1: kind or another from like eighteen. So there's a long
Speaker 1: period there where hey, like, are you actually a citizen?
Speaker 1: Because they do just count persons. And then the strateches
Speaker 1: stretches back all the way to the clause of the
Speaker 1: Constitution about three fits. And you know, there's there's a
Speaker 1: whole other part of the American legacy that you see
Speaker 1: in the in the issue of this is you know
Speaker 1: what an Article two, Section one. I think I'm doing
Speaker 1: that from memory. Don't yell at me. Constitution super geniuses.
Speaker 1: If I got that one wrong. I think it's Article two,
Speaker 1: Section one. Um. But the census is necessary for apportionment
Speaker 1: of the House. It's also, you know, we have to
Speaker 1: worry about what the Senate because, as we all know,
Speaker 1: even Rhode Island gets two senators. Why, it's a little
Speaker 1: quirk of history. That's right. We don't have an affiliate
Speaker 1: and Rhode Island right now. So I'm just like, whatever, whatever,
Speaker 1: Rhode Island take your two senators speak grateful. Um, Actually
Speaker 1: we might have it. I'm sorry if we do have
Speaker 1: a Rhode Island affiliate. I love you guys that I'm
Speaker 1: totally kidding about your two senators that you probably don't need. Um.
Speaker 1: Massachusetts is not just gonna swallow you up any day now.
Speaker 1: But back to the census. The question about citizenship has
Speaker 1: set off all kinds of alarms and problems and oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, because here's what the Democrat Party really has become.
Speaker 1: It is no longer just a pro amnesty party. It
Speaker 1: is a pro illegal immigration party. They don't think illegal
Speaker 1: immigration is a crime, they don't think it's a problem.
Speaker 1: They want all people that are currently quote undocumented, which
Speaker 1: is a term they've invented for people who are legal
Speaker 1: aliens to be legalized, and any future illegal aliens they
Speaker 1: will also make an effort to legalize. So they are
Speaker 1: ideologically and open borders party, although they're not a day
Speaker 1: a de jure open borders party, right. They won't advocate
Speaker 1: for the laws to change to make us open borders,
Speaker 1: but they want the continuation of what we have, which
Speaker 1: is legal immigration amnesty, illegal immigration amnesty. That's the cycle
Speaker 1: that they like. It empowers them. So why are they
Speaker 1: so upset about the census, Well, they don't want to
Speaker 1: question about illegal well about citizenship status, because they say
Speaker 1: it will frighten people in and not answering the question.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you there's a whole another reason
Speaker 1: why they don't want the question about citizenship to be
Speaker 1: on the Census Bureau in the Census Bureau data. And
Speaker 1: that's why the state of California and now Eric Schneiderman,
Speaker 1: the very annoying attorney genre from the state of New York,
Speaker 1: some of the most populous states in the country, are
Speaker 1: challenging the federal government on this preemptively to stop it
Speaker 1: from being included in the Census. I will tell you
Speaker 1: why they're doing this, but I'm gonna have to tell
Speaker 1: you after the break because we are deep dive. We
Speaker 1: are going wild here. We're having a census party, and
Speaker 1: it's getting Craig Kray up in the Freedom hund Right now.
Speaker 1: We will be back with much more on that eight
Speaker 1: four four to five. If you want to call in
Speaker 1: eight four four nine buck, stay with me. This is
Speaker 1: a question that's been included in every census since nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five, with the exception of when it was removed. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is we've contained this question that's provided data that's
Speaker 1: necessary for the Department of Justice to protect voters, uh
Speaker 1: and specifically to help us better comply with the Voting
Speaker 1: Rights Act, which is something that is important in a
Speaker 1: part of this process. UH. And again, this is something
Speaker 1: that has been part of the census for decades and
Speaker 1: something that the Department of Commerce felt strongly needed to
Speaker 1: be included. Against. So they have the Press Secretary Sarah
Speaker 1: Cooby Sanders talking about the the justification for including the question,
Speaker 1: which is that historically it has generally overwhelmingly been included,
Speaker 1: but also it's necessary under I think Section two of
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act has to do with minority representation
Speaker 1: and protecting minority voting. They have to know what's going
Speaker 1: on in different districts if they're going to be in
Speaker 1: compliance the federal government complying with the Voting Rights Act,
Speaker 1: the parts of it that still apply. Remember there was
Speaker 1: a truncation of the Voting Rights Act a few years back,
Speaker 1: which sent the left into fits of frenzy. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: here's what's really going on. Though, you guys ready for this?
Speaker 1: Y'all ready for this? Do do? There's a music thing
Speaker 1: we didn't have it. I don't have it. I can't
Speaker 1: make the music sound. Let's just get past that buck.
Speaker 1: So here's what's really going on with the census. Democrats
Speaker 1: want the number to be as high as possible, which
Speaker 1: means they want as many illegals as possible, especially in
Speaker 1: a place like California. They want the number high as
Speaker 1: possible for the reasons of apportionment, but also federal funding
Speaker 1: and all the different good is the federal government distributes. Right,
Speaker 1: if you've got a county that has a hundred thousand people,
Speaker 1: well that's you get stuff based on the formula that
Speaker 1: the government has for those hundred thousands. If you have
Speaker 1: a hundred fifty thousand, you're gonna get more stuff. So
Speaker 1: if California wants the other states, including states that are
Speaker 1: not sanctuary jurisdictions that are not full of millions of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, to pay for their or emergency room visits,
Speaker 1: to pay for their school system, to to be giving
Speaker 1: them additional federal funds, they need the illegals to be counted.
Speaker 1: They want the illegals to be counted the problem. So
Speaker 1: so they don't want the inclusion, they say, because it'll
Speaker 1: scare people off. I don't know if it'll really scare
Speaker 1: anybody from answering one or the other one. I think
Speaker 1: you can just leave the question blank. And two it's
Speaker 1: the last question on the survey, so people have already
Speaker 1: filed out all this stuff, and the last one they'll
Speaker 1: have a thing about citizenship status. And I'm sure they'll
Speaker 1: just have a you know, uh, you know, a little
Speaker 1: clause about you know neither or does not apply or
Speaker 1: no answer or whatever, or you just leave it blank.
Speaker 1: You know what, really scary thing happens to you if
Speaker 1: you don't fill out your citizenship I'm sorry, you're a
Speaker 1: census forms. I think they can send someone to hand
Speaker 1: it to you, and then if you really want to
Speaker 1: play hardball, they can find you a hundred dollars. No
Speaker 1: one's going to prison over this one. Folks when they
Speaker 1: start talking about ever so scared, Oh, I'm so scared,
Speaker 1: the census workers are coming for me. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're worrying about the census workers coming for you need
Speaker 1: to have a whole other bunch of talks. Time to
Speaker 1: check and see how you're doing. Um. But the other
Speaker 1: part of it is that if you had let's say
Speaker 1: a high degree of compliance with the census in California,
Speaker 1: including the question about illegal aliens um, including that question,
Speaker 1: then you'd be able to see how many illegals are
Speaker 1: actually in California. And you know, we're told time and
Speaker 1: time again all the government has a number. They know
Speaker 1: the number. The numbers clear, you know, the worry about it,
Speaker 1: They've got it, and no big deal. Come out to
Speaker 1: the coast, have a few laughs. They pretend like they
Speaker 1: have a really good hand on this. I'm of the
Speaker 1: school and I know that some of our esteemed friends
Speaker 1: in this debate, who are true experts market corpying from
Speaker 1: Center Immigration Studies, among others, believe that the eleven and
Speaker 1: twelve million number is is accurate. I think it's higher
Speaker 1: than that UM, and I have a whole rationale or
Speaker 1: reasoning of as to why that is. UM. Whenever there's
Speaker 1: something the government wants to be a lower number, trust me,
Speaker 1: they undercount it, right. So that's just a basic rule.
Speaker 1: Whenever that's it's bad for the number to be higher,
Speaker 1: the government magically finds a way to pretend the number
Speaker 1: is lower, uh than it actually is. So I think
Speaker 1: illegal immigrations know different than that. But also if people
Speaker 1: really had a renewed sense of how many illegals are
Speaker 1: in for example, Los Angeles County, then I think they
Speaker 1: want to know, well, what is this costing us folks? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and and if there's federal dollars being directed See
Speaker 1: this is one really comes down to, if there are
Speaker 1: federal dollars that are specifically being increased for these areas
Speaker 1: of the country because of their illegal alien populations, which
Speaker 1: in a state like California, it's in the millions. I
Speaker 1: don't know how many millions, but in terms of the percentages,
Speaker 1: it's a large percentage of the overall state now is illegal.
Speaker 1: I don't want to throw out a number because I
Speaker 1: might be overestimating it in my head. And while I
Speaker 1: like to think I'm human Google, occasionally I do make mistakes.
Speaker 1: But there are some There are some people who are
Speaker 1: seeing what's happened in California and understanding that they want
Speaker 1: the money, but they don't want the data, meaning they
Speaker 1: don't want people to really know how many illegals are.
Speaker 1: Actually what do we got, producer Mike uh And this
Speaker 1: is going back to the estimated between two point three
Speaker 1: five and two point six million undocumented immigrants. In fairness,
Speaker 1: I was gonna say three millions, so, you know, close,
Speaker 1: But that's you're you're you're looking at getting in the
Speaker 1: neighborhood of me. You know what, what what's the population
Speaker 1: of California? I'm gonna keep a human Google needs to
Speaker 1: keep turning to actual Google here. I think it's thirty
Speaker 1: five million, nish thirty to thirty five million? What do
Speaker 1: we got, producer Mike millionamn, close enough that I give
Speaker 1: it to myself. I showed my war work. I get
Speaker 1: half credit at least on the math test. Thirty thirty
Speaker 1: nine millions, So let's say it's roughly three million. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's but that's a large portion of
Speaker 1: the state, but that number is low. That number is low,
Speaker 1: No way, it's actually and they say two points six,
Speaker 1: but I think they're unaccount undercounting by at least would
Speaker 1: be my guests, and they don't want people to really know.
Speaker 1: But here's what you see happening. The Democrat Party is
Speaker 1: now the party of illegal aliens, which means the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party privileges the interests of non citizens or in the
Speaker 1: country illegally over legal US citizens. And if this fight
Speaker 1: over the census question continues, that we may also see
Speaker 1: is in fact a situation where the government is privileging
Speaker 1: the interests of order. The government in California would be
Speaker 1: privileging the interests of illegal aliens over the interests of
Speaker 1: minority communities in this country who are specifically protected under
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act. It just goes to show you
Speaker 1: where the priorities the Democrat Party are. Now. Forget about Americans,
Speaker 1: forget about minorities, forget about African Americans. In this context,
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party concerned first and foremost with non American
Speaker 1: illegal aliens. We'll be back. Fox News has the conservative
Speaker 1: piece of the Real Estate sewed up and has thrived
Speaker 1: on that and done incredibly well. I will say what
Speaker 1: has happened there in the post Roger Rails world is
Speaker 1: somewhat shocking. Frankly, it is really state run TV. It
Speaker 1: is a pure propaganda machine and I think does an
Speaker 1: incredible disservice to this country. Oh boy, I'm excited. Time
Speaker 1: for some bucks laps here for Mr Mr Zucker, there
Speaker 1: we go. Who is the my technically my four were
Speaker 1: boss at CNN, although I don't know if he would
Speaker 1: know me if I walked into the room, and I
Speaker 1: don't care, But but he threw the first punch here
Speaker 1: in the Fox News wars. You know, usually the corporate
Speaker 1: executive types stay out of this because they understand that
Speaker 1: the moment the guys at the very top start rolling
Speaker 1: up the sleeves and throwing punches, the second this turns
Speaker 1: into a bit of rhetorical pugilism. It's a throwdown. Um.
Speaker 1: That's when you, in fact, can have all the rest
Speaker 1: of the organization deciding that they're also going to get
Speaker 1: in on it, if you know what I mean, They're
Speaker 1: also going to throw down quite a bit. And there's
Speaker 1: so much that's a problem here. Okay, there's so much
Speaker 1: that's wrong with what was just said, but let me
Speaker 1: just start from the perspective of what CNN was for
Speaker 1: the eight years of the Obama administration. If you went
Speaker 1: on CNN and you were insufficiently uh favorable towards Obama,
Speaker 1: if you did not show him reverence, you were automatically
Speaker 1: suspect in the eyes of the entirety of the leadership there,
Speaker 1: and the producers that would book you for the shows,
Speaker 1: and as all the different hosts. In fact, the hosts
Speaker 1: of the various CNN shows were incredibly close to senior
Speaker 1: Obama administration officials, both personally in many cases professionally. It
Speaker 1: was as close as you can be in the media,
Speaker 1: I think, without actually working in the West wing. That's
Speaker 1: where CNN was an MSNBC during the Obama years. There
Speaker 1: was no effort whatsoever to really call to account the
Speaker 1: Obama administration lies. He was like, oh what lies. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, Like, if you like your health care plan,
Speaker 1: you can keep it. And also if you were and
Speaker 1: I was so I speak from experience here, if you
Speaker 1: were a conservative over at CNN, you were always being
Speaker 1: either subtly or not so subtle a fashion undermined. You
Speaker 1: were contly being underlined. You were there to be a
Speaker 1: clay pigeon. If you did too well, you would get
Speaker 1: put on ice, you'd be sent on injured Reserve. And
Speaker 1: for CNN right now to have its head haunt show
Speaker 1: out there throwing stuff in the direction of Fox News,
Speaker 1: when CNN has just engaged in among the most appalling
Speaker 1: weeks of journalism or months of journalism I've ever seen
Speaker 1: with regard to the gun issue, is particularly rich. It's
Speaker 1: crazy that CNN thinks they can lecture anyone on anything
Speaker 1: at this point in time, considering that they set up
Speaker 1: a gun town hall that was the the equivalent of
Speaker 1: some kind of show trial. It really was. It was
Speaker 1: a show trial. It was let's bring out people who
Speaker 1: will defend the Second Amendment, who will have an honest
Speaker 1: conversation with this frenzied anti gun mob. And do you
Speaker 1: have to remember what I say and you know it's true,
Speaker 1: because when I say it, left just get really mad
Speaker 1: at me. When I talk about the truth of the
Speaker 1: anti gun movement, I get all this victriol from the
Speaker 1: left when I say things like anti gun sentiment is
Speaker 1: really about anti gun owner sentiment. They get so angry
Speaker 1: because it's true, and they don't like it when people
Speaker 1: speak the truth about what's really going on in their minds,
Speaker 1: why they take the positions they do, why they feel
Speaker 1: the way they do about all these various gun control
Speaker 1: issues and debates that come up. But you had Marco Rubio,
Speaker 1: Dana Lash, you had individuals showing up for that CNN
Speaker 1: town hall, which was really, as I said, a televised
Speaker 1: show trial and just a a two minutes hate against
Speaker 1: gun owners. It's not gonna change any policy in any
Speaker 1: meaningful sense. It's not gonna save anyone's lives, any lives.
Speaker 1: It's just going to be exactly what it was, an
Speaker 1: effort to play Kate the frenzied, ignorant anti gun base
Speaker 1: that comprises most of CNN's viewership. They're proudly ignorant. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are the chainsaw batonet people, right. Oh, why do
Speaker 1: I gotta know about the chan saw band nuts with
Speaker 1: the Buzuka machine lasers on it. You say, well, that's
Speaker 1: not really a thing. Oh, it's always about the minutia
Speaker 1: with you children are dying. Well, I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: be clear. If you want to pass a lot of
Speaker 1: band something you should probably know what you're trying to ban, right.
Speaker 1: You know, this would be like if somebody said, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's just let's just ban let's just ban opioids. This
Speaker 1: is ban them all, And I said, well, hold on
Speaker 1: a second. Some opioids are actually really useful for people
Speaker 1: for medicinal purposes. Some give people their lives back, allow
Speaker 1: them to function instead of being chronic pain. Some opioids
Speaker 1: are incredibly useful during and after or after generally but surgery. Right,
Speaker 1: Oh no, let's just ban them. Don't you care about
Speaker 1: all the people losing their lives, Well, of course I
Speaker 1: care about the people losing their lives. But you know,
Speaker 1: if you're saying, just ban opioid, I'm gonna say that's
Speaker 1: a bad idea. If you're saying just band guns or
Speaker 1: band handguns or band rifles, I'm gonna say that's a
Speaker 1: bad idea. But CNN doesn't want to get lost in
Speaker 1: those distinctions. It's a network that has just gone from
Speaker 1: one storyline to another. Not meant to illuminate different aspects
Speaker 1: of Democrat policy. Not meant to give people a both
Speaker 1: sides understanding of what the Trump administrations up to. They
Speaker 1: are a political Action Committee devoted to undermining and destroying
Speaker 1: this presidency. That's it. They will do fake news as
Speaker 1: they have in the past, in order to get there.
Speaker 1: They are unapologetic about the bias that they have. In fact,
Speaker 1: they unlike MSNBC, which will kind of sort of admitted.
Speaker 1: I mean, they know they're leftist at MSNBC, CNN doesn't
Speaker 1: think it has a bias, which in many ways makes
Speaker 1: it even worse. In many ways, I find that more
Speaker 1: bothersome than what we see from other places. You know, no,
Speaker 1: no one admits that. No one thinks I should say
Speaker 1: that Vox or Slate or the Huffing and Post doesn't
Speaker 1: have a point of view. They don't understand that their
Speaker 1: point of view is insane and they're practically communists. But
Speaker 1: nonetheless they've got a point of view. CNN thinks it's
Speaker 1: still the gold standard in journalism. I could say here
Speaker 1: and just tell your story after story about the stuff
Speaker 1: that I heard on air, off air, behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: always playing games. They didn't realize what they were doing.
Speaker 1: And this is fundamental, This is important for all of
Speaker 1: you listening. They kept putting the Trump people on TV, yes,
Speaker 1: because of ratings, but also they thought that Trump and
Speaker 1: all of his defenders in the media, of which I
Speaker 1: was won by the way after the primary. Uh, they
Speaker 1: thought that they were creating us and and and idiotic,
Speaker 1: and if they would just put them on air, it
Speaker 1: would expose how awful they were to the people that
Speaker 1: watch CMN. So it was a two fur. You get
Speaker 1: great ratings and you're just letting these these pro Trump
Speaker 1: clowns embarrassed themselves. What they didn't understand was that people
Speaker 1: saw this and they thought, Wow, this guy's actually really
Speaker 1: he's really making sense, He's got something. What they didn't
Speaker 1: understand was that when they had their anchors say things like, oh,
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper, Mr super journalist, Donald Trump would take a
Speaker 1: dump on a desk, and you would defend it. That's
Speaker 1: a quote from him when he was on air on
Speaker 1: National TV. Oh yeah, this this the second coming of
Speaker 1: Edward R. Murrow right there, Anderson Cooper, when he's not
Speaker 1: drunk on New Year's Eve, he's doing a great job
Speaker 1: on air. You know, he said that on TV. And
Speaker 1: it's because over time it just became hard to get
Speaker 1: attention for the different ways that people at CNN could
Speaker 1: try to undermine and humiliate Trump. Supporters on air, and
Speaker 1: so he finally just lent one fly there. But there
Speaker 1: were other times too. I remember when he went after
Speaker 1: Andy Dean and basically said, you know, your little punk life,
Speaker 1: you've never done any thing like I've done. It was
Speaker 1: a really nasty exchange with Andy Dean, who's a friend
Speaker 1: of mine, a good guy. By the way, I actually
Speaker 1: used to be a host of radio show. UM, so
Speaker 1: the bias is very clear. And then just real quickly.
Speaker 1: I won't spend much time on this, but Fox News
Speaker 1: has people who are very supportive of Trump, people who
Speaker 1: are kind of supportive of Trump, people who are opposed
Speaker 1: to Trump, and they are all on air and they
Speaker 1: are all treated with respect. I cannot say the same
Speaker 1: thing for CNN. Pro Trump people are ridiculed there. And
Speaker 1: it's CNN's fault and CNN's loss and CNN's poor judgment
Speaker 1: that they thought by putting Trump people on TV during
Speaker 1: the campaign, they were assuring Hillary's victory and whoops, it's
Speaker 1: not how it turned out as uh, as you can see.
Speaker 1: I do not I do not appreciate. I do not
Speaker 1: think we all need to hear the lecture from Mr
Speaker 1: Zucker on Fox News as state TV and it's it's
Speaker 1: particularly galling a team. We've got a lot more show
Speaker 1: coming up here. Uh, phone lines are open eight four
Speaker 1: five eight four four. Buck Also, don't forget you can
Speaker 1: tweet at me throughout the show if you'd like at
Speaker 1: buck Sexton on Twitter. I'm hoping some of you sign
Speaker 1: up for Twitter. It's actually really cool platform. Hce you
Speaker 1: start using it, and certainly Facebook, Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. We'll be right back. Do you think in
Speaker 1: showing these kids so often as often as we we
Speaker 1: all do, we're doing actually them a disservice because the
Speaker 1: policy is actually what's going to change this The passion
Speaker 1: I fear will just sound like noise after a while
Speaker 1: and people will tune it out. Disservices is a strong word.
Speaker 1: But when I was interviewing David Hogg only ten days
Speaker 1: after the massacre, Uh, there were a few times I
Speaker 1: wanted to jump in and and say, let's let's correct
Speaker 1: that fact. That's so interesting. And at one of the
Speaker 1: times I did, and other times I did not. So
Speaker 1: there you have my friend sc cup over at over
Speaker 1: at hl N sister network, CNN, who is one of
Speaker 1: the very few loan conservatives over there and and she
Speaker 1: is treated with respect. She has her own show on
Speaker 1: hl N, so it's the sister network to see an N.
Speaker 1: But she's asked a very important question of Brian Salter,
Speaker 1: who has a show of Mind You on CNN and
Speaker 1: whom I My one experience with him was was he
Speaker 1: tried to ambush me in a taped interview and got
Speaker 1: so buck slapped and so taken to school that the
Speaker 1: the interview never saw the light of day. They never
Speaker 1: aired it, and wouldn't even tell me they weren't going
Speaker 1: to air it two days later when I said, hey,
Speaker 1: whatever happened that interview was overtaken by breaking news. It's
Speaker 1: a Sunday morning. This was supposed to air on Sunday morning.
Speaker 1: I don't think there was any breaking news in the
Speaker 1: last couple of hours since you guys were all planning
Speaker 1: on running this. Because he keep it as like that,
Speaker 1: But well, what do you know about terrorism? Then why
Speaker 1: would this be a terrorisis? Like, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: might have brief the president on issues relating to counter
Speaker 1: terrorism when I was in the Central Intelligence Aide, see
Speaker 1: his Office of counter Terrorism and then the Office of
Speaker 1: a Rock Analysis. Maybe I might know something about it
Speaker 1: enough to talk about it on CNN without an anchor
Speaker 1: coming at me with that stuff that that my week's
Speaker 1: us has been thrown back at my face. I'm so sad.
Speaker 1: Now Stelter is not not among the more impressive journalists
Speaker 1: over there. He also walks around all the time wearing
Speaker 1: new balanced sneakers with his suit on. Which are you,
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs? No wear some real shoes, all right, Stelter,
Speaker 1: I'm somebody's all about comfortable shoes. Don't wear shoes that say, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm too cool at my place of work to have
Speaker 1: to wear real shoes with this suit. You can say
Speaker 1: this is petty, but I'm just enjoying making fun of
Speaker 1: Selter a little bit. Okay, So, uh we we have
Speaker 1: the admission there though, and this was what was important,
Speaker 1: admission that they just don't really challenge the kids. You see.
Speaker 1: That's why the kids are so perfect for the purposes
Speaker 1: of the propaganda that's out there, the uh March for
Speaker 1: Our Lives and then never again moving all this different
Speaker 1: stuff because the demo crats can use it in whatever
Speaker 1: way they want whenever they want. You know, they're experts
Speaker 1: when they sound good, they're just kids. When they make
Speaker 1: fools of themselves. They're people of great gravitas and authority
Speaker 1: when they're pushing the left wing line. There, He'll be
Speaker 1: me into the kids that whenever the media decides on
Speaker 1: on the one hand, of the voices of reason and
Speaker 1: wisdom on the other hand, that is going to change
Speaker 1: a generation. On the other hand, uh, they are the
Speaker 1: kids who we can't be mean to because they've been
Speaker 1: through a trauma. Right. So looking at this now you
Speaker 1: see the way the game is playing out time and
Speaker 1: time again with this. It's not new. They did this.
Speaker 1: The Democrats did this with a handful of nine eleven widows,
Speaker 1: and everyone was very, oh gosh, how could you call?
Speaker 1: You know, there are a few people that are in
Speaker 1: campaign commercials for John Kerry and acting like they can't
Speaker 1: be challenged on foreign policy because there are among the
Speaker 1: thousands of people who lost family members on on eleven
Speaker 1: and now here we are at this And I would
Speaker 1: note that the one of the survivors of the Bota
Speaker 1: Clon massacre, which saw I believe over a hundred killed
Speaker 1: that day you had suicide bombing at the Stad de France,
Speaker 1: I was actually at seeing then covering it as an
Speaker 1: analyst at the time when it was breaking news and
Speaker 1: you had all these so I remember the night very well,
Speaker 1: and you had all these different stories about how horrific
Speaker 1: the Bota Clon massacre was. And you've got a survivor
Speaker 1: of that saying that he thinks these kids are acting
Speaker 1: like they're acting like, uh, you know, punks. Basically, he
Speaker 1: thinks it's completely He calls them pathetic. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find the oh and and and vile. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find the direct quotes from him. Now. It was the
Speaker 1: Eagles of Death metal frontman Jesse Hughes. He's been getting
Speaker 1: attention now for so so what do we say to
Speaker 1: this in response? He was there from one of the
Speaker 1: most horrific brutal terrorist massacres who happen in the West
Speaker 1: in memory, all right, other than nine eleven and Battle
Speaker 1: Clown massacres up there, and like probably the top ten
Speaker 1: or fifteen in terms of number killed. And so does
Speaker 1: does he get a special place in terms of his
Speaker 1: opinions on this is? Is he treated with reverence and deference?
Speaker 1: Of course not, because he's not a useful tool for
Speaker 1: the left. He is not someone who does what they
Speaker 1: want him to do. Therefore, he does not get the
Speaker 1: special protections. One more. I wanted to get this in
Speaker 1: before we get to the next hour. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about Russia coming up, right, I know, get excited Russia time.
Speaker 1: Uh here is uh CNN, I'm really going after see
Speaker 1: it is. I've got some unresolved CNN issues. Apparently I
Speaker 1: need to go sit down with my therapist and be like,
Speaker 1: CNN was so mean to me, and I just feel
Speaker 1: like I just want some CNN closure because they just
Speaker 1: were I mean, it's not really like that. I smacked
Speaker 1: around all the people that they actually let me get
Speaker 1: near in terms of on air, but they kept mending
Speaker 1: of them away from me. You know, they were smart.
Speaker 1: I give him credit for that. There were some that
Speaker 1: were we're dodging me on the Hillary Clinton story in particular,
Speaker 1: because it's like, well, I had a t S clearance
Speaker 1: and actually know the rules in the law on this.
Speaker 1: You're putting a bunch of political hillary hacks on TV
Speaker 1: who want jobs. Who do you think is going to
Speaker 1: look smarter on TV? Like, let's keep this buck kid
Speaker 1: off to the side. Please. Uh he he looks twenty
Speaker 1: maybe on a good day. But they'll still believe him
Speaker 1: because he actually knows what the heck he's talking about.
Speaker 1: But polling says some things that they don't like over
Speaker 1: at CNN, so uh of people, despite allegations of affairs,
Speaker 1: forty two of people UM are approving of Trump at
Speaker 1: this point in time, UM, which is actually right about
Speaker 1: right about where he was, right about where he's been
Speaker 1: all along. So they keep running these stories. They keep
Speaker 1: running the different iterations of you know, playboy bunny and
Speaker 1: the affair and all this other stuff off and it
Speaker 1: doesn't affect Trump's approval, right, And the ratings are terrible
Speaker 1: over at CNN, by the way, So what are they
Speaker 1: really doing. They are on an a hab like quest.
Speaker 1: Trump is CNN's white whale. We could have a lot
Speaker 1: of fun with that, and CNN is a hab and
Speaker 1: they are never given this thing up. The polling shows
Speaker 1: that's not working so far, but they don't care. They
Speaker 1: don't care. Our maytee with the higher poon. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's really what they have sounds like, but
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Our to Russia coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. He's back with you now, because when
Speaker 1: it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: This is twenty nations, including many nations in Western Europe,
Speaker 1: which is a history of being somewhat soft on Russia,
Speaker 1: as well as the Stern Block nations for the former
Speaker 1: Soviet satellite states, and the United States is leading the
Speaker 1: way in this in terms of the number of expulsions. Look, Eric,
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm an old piece through strength guy, and
Speaker 1: I always will be. When one nation does something inappropriate,
Speaker 1: messes with international order and law, it is entirely right
Speaker 1: and you must retaliate. We retaliated. We need to do more.
Speaker 1: But this is very appropriate, felt familiar, felt a bit
Speaker 1: like old times. Now, look look at what just happened.
Speaker 1: We're tough on Russia. We acted in concert with our
Speaker 1: allies globally. The United States took a leadership role, very
Speaker 1: untrumpion and so I'm I'm very happy to see it.
Speaker 1: In response to the President's leadership, several additional countries and
Speaker 1: NATO have followed up with similar actions since our announcement.
Speaker 1: As of this morning, over twenty five countries all around
Speaker 1: the world have expelled one hundred and fifty Russian intelligence
Speaker 1: officers hiding under diplomatic cover in their countries. As we
Speaker 1: have said before the United States is open to building
Speaker 1: a better relationship with Russia, but the Russian government must
Speaker 1: understand that there are serious consequences for its destabilizing actions.
Speaker 1: Trump takes on the bear, welcome back to the buck,
Speaker 1: Sex and show everybody we had just in that little
Speaker 1: little sound bite we ran there, we had a former
Speaker 1: Bush administration, White House Press secretary, former CIA director in fact,
Speaker 1: my boss, I remember Mike. There's a good dude. Actually,
Speaker 1: I like Mike. I want to be Remember I want
Speaker 1: to be like Mike. By the way, that was such
Speaker 1: a big campaign. I didn't want to be like Mike
Speaker 1: in that I wanted to run the agency. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: Hayden was a good guy. And uh then you also
Speaker 1: sarahuckeby Sanders of this administration. But you're noticing a trend here, folks.
Speaker 1: Not a surprise at all. Right, A lot of action
Speaker 1: taken on Russia by this administration. Action that is real.
Speaker 1: It's not just words. It's not sitting around talking go
Speaker 1: under summits giving interview, used to friendly press outlets, going
Speaker 1: on MSNBC. You know we're gonna work together, bambministration is
Speaker 1: gonna do things. We're gonna make it better. We're gonna
Speaker 1: work and we're gonna stop Russian. Uh. This is actually
Speaker 1: Trump saying, okay, you know, you want to poison somebody
Speaker 1: with nova chalk in the UK, one of our closest
Speaker 1: allies in the whole world. There's there's gonna be consequences,
Speaker 1: and they're going to be tailored to what is a
Speaker 1: a response one would expect in this situation. Right, We're
Speaker 1: not just it's not okay they use nova chalk. Now
Speaker 1: we're about to, you know, land a marine expeditionary force
Speaker 1: in St. Petersburg. But it is saying, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: this is not okay. You guys gotta knock this stuff off.
Speaker 1: See it's interesting, isn't it. You have so many people
Speaker 1: that refer to Putin as a thug. You'll hear that
Speaker 1: a lot. You'll hear about how You'll hear about how
Speaker 1: Putin is such a thug, he's such a bad guy.
Speaker 1: And then what they don't understand is they want a
Speaker 1: you win, multi e lateral, sit down, drink tea Davo
Speaker 1: style push back to whatever Putin is doing. And the
Speaker 1: trump bean approach is much more you know, look, I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna sit here and give all kinds of bluster
Speaker 1: about how I don't like what Putin did in the elections,
Speaker 1: I don't think. But when he steps out of line,
Speaker 1: you know, he steps out of line, he's gonna get smacked.
Speaker 1: And that's what happened here, right, This is I'm sure,
Speaker 1: producer Mike, these are the same rules in certain neighborhoods
Speaker 1: in Philly. You go to the outer boroughs in New York,
Speaker 1: in Staten Island, for example, you step out of line,
Speaker 1: you get smacked. Right, This is the Trump approach to
Speaker 1: dealing with Russia. And sometimes there's a genius in simplicity,
Speaker 1: or at least there's an effectiveness in simplicity. And I
Speaker 1: think with with Trump on international affairs, because he isn't
Speaker 1: trying to trying so hard to impress people with these
Speaker 1: degrees from various UH international relations institutes. A Fletcher School
Speaker 1: at Toughs, George George Town's School of Foreign Service, the
Speaker 1: Walsh School, JOHNS. Hopkins School of Advanced in International Studies,
Speaker 1: Columbia's School of International Public Affairs SEA. But I mean,
Speaker 1: go through all these places, You're like, Buck, why do
Speaker 1: you know about these things? Who do you think you know?
Speaker 1: These are people who go work in government. They're working.
Speaker 1: They go from these schools and they go they become
Speaker 1: the bureaucrats. Who are, you know, working at the State Department,
Speaker 1: working at the you name it. And the truth is,
Speaker 1: for a lot of them, it would just be better
Speaker 1: to have some to focus on a life experience instead
Speaker 1: of getting a master's degree. That's the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: lot of reading assignments that you could do on your
Speaker 1: own if you just had the time and the discipline.
Speaker 1: That's that's just that's the deal. So Trump is taking
Speaker 1: this approach, and now you're seeing a shift in at
Speaker 1: least that the punditocracy on the Russia issue. For now.
Speaker 1: They will abandon this in a few weeks and we'll
Speaker 1: be back to you know, Trump. You know, it's like
Speaker 1: miss It's like Colonel Mustard with the candlestick in the silarium.
Speaker 1: You know, it'll be Trump and putin stuffing ballot boxes
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin. That's gonna be where they take us. Just
Speaker 1: give it some time for now. Though there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of mm hmmm, what are we to make of this?
Speaker 1: What are we supposed to do about the fact that
Speaker 1: one of the dominant narratives from the media all along
Speaker 1: has been, oh, do we have it Erry, the hunt
Speaker 1: for Roud October M's like always gets me in the
Speaker 1: mood for Russia analysis. So thank you Brandon on the board.
Speaker 1: Now I'm now, I'm really ready to go. So one
Speaker 1: of the main storylines all along has been that the
Speaker 1: Trump approach to Russia is tainted by either their ability
Speaker 1: to blackmail him or some bizarre and inexplicable favoritism that
Speaker 1: Trump has when it comes to Russia. You know, all
Speaker 1: these different things, and yet all in the actual policy issues,
Speaker 1: Trump has been willing to do things that his predecessor
Speaker 1: Obama was not willing to do. And I think it's
Speaker 1: in part because of the my my thesis here for
Speaker 1: Trumps international relations. What pulse? Who's pulse? Or that. That
Speaker 1: was one of my favorite moments with now famous for
Speaker 1: very different reasons, lawyer Michael Cohen's who's pulse? You've got poles?
Speaker 1: I got pulse? Who's pulse? On CNN? It was great.
Speaker 1: The anchor was like, the pulse, who's pulse? You've got poles?
Speaker 1: They're wrong by the way those poles, Uh, the step
Speaker 1: out of line, you get smacked. That's how you deal
Speaker 1: with bullies. That's actually how you deal with a KGB thug.
Speaker 1: You get all these reporters running around saying he's a thug,
Speaker 1: he's a thug, and yet you don't have any way
Speaker 1: to deal with that that's effective. And you've also got
Speaker 1: to look at this from the perspective of let's assume
Speaker 1: that what we all hear about Putin all the time
Speaker 1: is is true. All all I can know about Putin
Speaker 1: is what I've read about him. I have not yet,
Speaker 1: despite comy bears and treatise on my behalf, I have
Speaker 1: not yet gotten an invitation to the Kremlin to hang
Speaker 1: out with Putin, to go shirtless, uh, deer hunting and
Speaker 1: go right around on. I don't know, elephants, whatever else
Speaker 1: he's got. I know they don't have elephants in Russia,
Speaker 1: but you know he does all those cool things all
Speaker 1: over the world. Right this is they've created a cult
Speaker 1: of personality around him. It's a it's very clear that
Speaker 1: he is the guy. He has now melded into the
Speaker 1: state in a similar way to the Chinese premier Hijin Ping.
Speaker 1: But how do you deal with somebody who is aggressive
Speaker 1: in a bully, Well, you stand up to them, you
Speaker 1: don't give them a you don't give them an excuse
Speaker 1: to escalate necessarily. But if a bully pushes you, you
Speaker 1: push back. If if a bully pushes you, you you don't
Speaker 1: necessarily try to wind up and give him a Chuck
Speaker 1: Norris style roundhouse kick to the nose, because one you'll
Speaker 1: probably miss. Because high kicks are generally very ineffective in
Speaker 1: street fights from what I've seen and been told by
Speaker 1: people who are trained in these matters. And if you
Speaker 1: think about it, it it makes sense. If I tried to
Speaker 1: throw a high kick, I would pull a hammy, no doubt.
Speaker 1: You know I'm getting up there, I'm getting all and
Speaker 1: that's not cool. No matter what kind of fights you're in,
Speaker 1: you'ren't gonna go hold up, hold up, I just pulled something.
Speaker 1: But you don't want to escalate beyond what the bully
Speaker 1: is already doing. And that's why we're expelling diplomats. This
Speaker 1: is there aren't that many things in our tool kit.
Speaker 1: Keep that in mind. We were already doing sanctions punishing
Speaker 1: Russia economically, we are already taking diplomatic actions against them.
Speaker 1: And remember that the single most important thing we have
Speaker 1: done to box in the Russian States ambitions abroad and
Speaker 1: to push back on Putin's belligerence. The single most important
Speaker 1: thing I would argue is the share revolution in this
Speaker 1: country that has brought the price of oil down so
Speaker 1: much that the Russian economy, which is really a one
Speaker 1: trick pony, I mean, Russia is kind of like Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia plus the kgb um. That's the most important thing
Speaker 1: that we've done, and that was done. Remember this, what
Speaker 1: is it. The barrel of oil right now is sixty
Speaker 1: four dollars. I Remembermber when it was like a hundred
Speaker 1: twenty dollars. Yeah, and you you'd actually fill up a
Speaker 1: gas tank. You're like, my camera, just eight fifty dollars.
Speaker 1: You're like, oh my gosh, very expensive stuff. Uh. The
Speaker 1: most important thing we've done is through essentially US prosperity, technology, innovation, ingenuity, energy.
Speaker 1: That's been more important than any other policy we've had.
Speaker 1: It's also the reason now Venezuela is in a terrible
Speaker 1: place of despair. But it's what's collapsed the Venezuelan regime,
Speaker 1: the Iraqi regime. People don't often give them credit for this,
Speaker 1: and this is just an aside for those of you
Speaker 1: who are rock watchers and care but the Iraqis were like, no, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to budget for a very high price
Speaker 1: of oil going into the future. At least some years ago.
Speaker 1: They seemed to have a little bit of foresight with
Speaker 1: their budgeting, right, they didn't prepare for nothing but high
Speaker 1: prices and oil for the foreseeable. It also is bringing
Speaker 1: about some degree re of reform in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: I would note there's more of that, and this is
Speaker 1: all the result of the private sector really in the
Speaker 1: United States. So our most formidable weapon against a country
Speaker 1: that still has thousands of nuclear weapons, a very capable
Speaker 1: advanced military, and not necessarily delusions of grandeur, but defer
Speaker 1: definitely an inflated sense of its importance on the world stage,
Speaker 1: has just been allowing our oil companies and our technology
Speaker 1: to bring down the price of oil dramatically. Because remember this,
Speaker 1: the Russian oil industries are are state essentially state owned,
Speaker 1: state backed enterprise. I mean there's some private sector of
Speaker 1: a near but it's really the state makes all the decisions.
Speaker 1: State is ros Neft in these other oil oil conglomerates.
Speaker 1: They are essential for funding Russian government operations. I think
Speaker 1: Russia has a flat tax by the way, I think
Speaker 1: it's like ten or fiftent Hey if it works for Russia, um,
Speaker 1: but they have not been able to refit and and
Speaker 1: build out their military the way they'd like to because
Speaker 1: they don't have the capital to do it. So I
Speaker 1: just think that's a story that doesn't get told very much.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, one of the reasons it's
Speaker 1: not told to you and we we don't you don't
Speaker 1: have a media telling this is to the United States.
Speaker 1: Has thanks to all the folks listening who work in
Speaker 1: the ural industry, and thanks to those scientists in the
Speaker 1: private sector and and researchers who have created this revolution
Speaker 1: in shale oil technology, we can get so much more
Speaker 1: and it's so it gets put on the market cheaply.
Speaker 1: And uh, this has changed geopolitics more than any policy
Speaker 1: I can think of in the last well in the
Speaker 1: post nine eleven era, really and for the better. And
Speaker 1: you don't hear about it because, oh, that's right, the
Speaker 1: Obama administration opposed it every step of the way. No
Speaker 1: no offshore drilling, no drilling on federal land, no drilling
Speaker 1: on in or fracking is bad. Remember when there was
Speaker 1: that whole effort to say that fracking was gonna poison
Speaker 1: all of our drinking water. There was a guy who
Speaker 1: made some documentary, total total wacko, by the way, I've
Speaker 1: seen him on I can't remember his name right now,
Speaker 1: but it was gas Land. I think it was gas
Speaker 1: Land was the name of the documentary. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's like maybe ten years ago. You know, I'm human Google,
Speaker 1: but I'm imprecise. You know, you gotta fact check the
Speaker 1: human Google over here, which I guess it means I'm
Speaker 1: not actually Google. But the whole premise is that you
Speaker 1: got everybody with all this gas underground and shale oil,
Speaker 1: and we're all gonna it's all gonna poison us, right, Mike, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that guy running around, We're all are drinking water is
Speaker 1: all getting poisoned because of shale. Oh, we need to
Speaker 1: pass legislation in New York to protect the well the
Speaker 1: New York Watershed from shale. It's it's all. It's not true.
Speaker 1: This has all been complete. Sky is falling. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say Silence of the Lambs, it was actually boy
Speaker 1: who cried wolf. That's what I meant to say. I'm
Speaker 1: getting my I'm mixing metaphors in a big way. No, no no,
Speaker 1: sid it uses the low shot or it gets the hose.
Speaker 1: That's a very different, very different metaphor to use. So yeah,
Speaker 1: um boy, who cried wolf? Though with the shale oil situation,
Speaker 1: is is apt. They were saying it would be so
Speaker 1: bad it would poison our drinking water. Meanwhile, if you
Speaker 1: want to see why Vladimir Putin is a lot of
Speaker 1: bluster and isn't nearly as effective on the world stage
Speaker 1: as he would like to be, forget about anything and
Speaker 1: including honestly, Trump policy up to this point. And Trump's
Speaker 1: done good stuff, but he hasn't been in office that long.
Speaker 1: Bringing the price of oil down dramatically and having the
Speaker 1: United States become the world's energy producing superpower is a
Speaker 1: single most important thing, and that was done over the
Speaker 1: strenuous objections of the Obama administration, of the environmentalist lobby
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party. So thanks for nothing, lefties, No
Speaker 1: surprise there. I don't mean that like for people who
Speaker 1: are left handed. Although if we're really going to get
Speaker 1: into it, the term sinister comes from the Latin on left,
Speaker 1: and those of you who remember your Bible know that
Speaker 1: one of the ways that an assassination was pulled off
Speaker 1: was by hiding a weapon on the left side because
Speaker 1: they only checked the right. It was considered kind of
Speaker 1: cheating to be left handed. So there's that. I gotta
Speaker 1: go to our sponsor this half hour before we move on,
Speaker 1: and it's G four Tequila. Look, I am a guy
Speaker 1: who enjoys kicking back with a delicious adult beverage after
Speaker 1: a long day or at the end of the week,
Speaker 1: and you just can't do any better than G four tequila.
Speaker 1: This stuff is absolutely delicious. It comes from the L.
Speaker 1: Pandillo Distillery. These are people who take their tequila very,
Speaker 1: very seriously. They honor the traditional methods of making tequila
Speaker 1: and the master tequila distiller here is a guy who's
Speaker 1: been in the business for years. They cooked their agave evenly.
Speaker 1: It takes twenty two hours. Folks, this process, I mean
Speaker 1: they this is painstaking. They are craftsmen. This is artisan tequila.
Speaker 1: If you try it, it's my favorite, and I think
Speaker 1: it's gonna be your favorite. To give it a shot.
Speaker 1: G four Tequila, craft your own luxury. G four Tequila.
Speaker 1: Give it a shot and a team will be right back.
Speaker 1: What his names that I can say you a fact
Speaker 1: that names of Justice phone members of who you in
Speaker 1: an affair way, it wouldn't make it true. It is
Speaker 1: completely If you went on the radio and said that
Speaker 1: Blue Clinton is the father mallegitimate black child, you would
Speaker 1: be laughed at. People would think you're crazy. I guarantee
Speaker 1: you that if you do this, you'll never work in
Speaker 1: democratic politics again. Maybe you don't want it. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it matters. You will be embarrassed before the National
Speaker 1: Press Corps, people will think nobody will believe you, and
Speaker 1: people will think you're scumming that. The alternative is you
Speaker 1: don't do it. It causes you some temporary pain with
Speaker 1: people who tomorrow aren't gonna matter, and you have a
Speaker 1: campaign that understands it. In a difficult time. You did
Speaker 1: something right. Um, and you know that's important. I mean
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean anything. We can't do anything for you
Speaker 1: specifically or anything like that, but you, uh, you know
Speaker 1: that you did the right thing. So that's George Stephanopolis.
Speaker 1: As a flashback included in the Freedom Hunt packet Today
Speaker 1: producer Mike what what was the context for this? By
Speaker 1: the way, when when was this going on? This is
Speaker 1: way back in the day. This is Stephanopolis, the political
Speaker 1: operative threatening a journalist. It sounds like, yeah, it's actually
Speaker 1: from thementary called the War Room. Um it was. It
Speaker 1: took place during um the president presidential campaign. Interesting, Yes,
Speaker 1: Stephanopolis a guy who was somehow able to transition from
Speaker 1: being a straight up political operative to to a newsman.
Speaker 1: And everyone's like, oh, he's just a newsman. H Mmm,
Speaker 1: how does that work? That reminds me. You know what
Speaker 1: I got this week? Actually, I'm gonna see chap a Quittic.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna that is on my list of things that
Speaker 1: I need to see. I'm excited that someone made her,
Speaker 1: or I'm thankful probably even a better word, that somebody
Speaker 1: made a movie about what happened in Chapa Quittic with
Speaker 1: Teddy Kennedy. It is somewhat astonishing, though, that here we are,
Speaker 1: this many years later, and it's only after Teddy Kennedy
Speaker 1: has passed away and there's really not a Kennedy that's
Speaker 1: in the stable that's supposed to take over. You know
Speaker 1: that the Kennedy throne and the fact that there's even
Speaker 1: a Kennedy throne is terrible, folks. I am opposed to
Speaker 1: political dynasties, I really, you know, it's one of the
Speaker 1: one of the big problems I have with with Jeb.
Speaker 1: I didn't like it about George w not gonna lie.
Speaker 1: I hated about the Clintons, And I think we need
Speaker 1: to be consistent on this one. One of the biggest
Speaker 1: things that separates the right from a left in this country,
Speaker 1: conservatives from liberals, is our are our willingness to say
Speaker 1: things even when we don't want to or even when
Speaker 1: it's not the most fun thing to say, because we
Speaker 1: don't want to be hypocrites. Right, we need to hold
Speaker 1: onto that. It's important. I'm saying we're perfect. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying the left embraces hypocrisy means to an end whatever
Speaker 1: you know, what's fine in one case is not fine,
Speaker 1: and the other depends on whether it's a D or
Speaker 1: an R by the person's name. And we see this
Speaker 1: with the whole fiasco over Trump and the alleged affairs
Speaker 1: versus the way they treated Clinton, the way they treated Kennedy,
Speaker 1: the JFK and Teddy Kennedy Um, the way that they
Speaker 1: covered for uh. John Edwards wouldn't touch that story for
Speaker 1: the longest time, and that was really he is the
Speaker 1: fact that he was so close to being president is
Speaker 1: really to this day still one of the one of
Speaker 1: the moments where I start to question this, this whole
Speaker 1: experiment we call America, like, you're gonna make this ambulance
Speaker 1: chaser who's lying to everybody repeatedly all TV about cheating
Speaker 1: on his cancer stricken wife who he uses at campaign
Speaker 1: rallies for sympathy. I mean, the whole thing was just
Speaker 1: beyond appalling. But the media was, you know, they do
Speaker 1: whatever they want to do. All this stuff. The Stephanopolis thing,
Speaker 1: I just I never heard Stephanopolis gets so fierce. That
Speaker 1: was that was interesting. He's back with you now, because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. Oh boy, the Facebook stuff continues here. I've
Speaker 1: I will give myself a little paddle the pack because
Speaker 1: while everybody else was, oh my gosh, Facebook is combing
Speaker 1: for you, I was like, Facebook has been doing this
Speaker 1: all along, folks. It's not new. There is There is
Speaker 1: nothing about Facebook aggregating your your data and using it
Speaker 1: and trying to sell it at a profit that is
Speaker 1: it any way different. And I'm happy that we're finally
Speaker 1: seeing what's going on here. By the numbers those of
Speaker 1: you listening to this show, I think I want to
Speaker 1: say of the Country is on the problem with doing
Speaker 1: statistics off the top of your head. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: just it's a freestyle three hour radio show and I
Speaker 1: just say things. I think of the Country has a
Speaker 1: Facebook account. Maybe it's I don't know. I'm gonna take
Speaker 1: a mulligan on this one. It's a lot though most
Speaker 1: of you listening have a Facebook account. I don't know
Speaker 1: how much you use it or not, but it is.
Speaker 1: It is the dominant social media platform by far in
Speaker 1: terms of overall usage and percentage of people who are
Speaker 1: are involved with Facebook in some way. So it's it's
Speaker 1: a b a myth, okay, and it's got a tremendous
Speaker 1: it really. It has the budget of a pretty good
Speaker 1: sized country. And it is a a force in economics,
Speaker 1: a force in in our economy in ways that we're
Speaker 1: just beginning to really understand. But here's the latest on this,
Speaker 1: and this one's courtesy of p J Media. I saw this, um,
Speaker 1: I saw this one on Drudge and he goes as
Speaker 1: follow us quote Cambridge Analytical Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wiley appearing
Speaker 1: before a committee of British MPs on Tuesday. So that
Speaker 1: Facebook has the ability to spy on users in their
Speaker 1: homes and offices. The British Parliament is investigating Cambridge Analytica's
Speaker 1: involvement in the Brexit election. MP Damian Collins, who chaired
Speaker 1: the committee, asked, why is you know, Wiley? Yeah, whether
Speaker 1: Facebook has the ability to listen to what people are
Speaker 1: talking about in order to better target them with ads. Quote,
Speaker 1: There's been various speculation about the fact that Facebook can,
Speaker 1: through the Facebook app on your smartphone, listen into what
Speaker 1: people are talking about and discussing and using that to
Speaker 1: prioritize the advertising as well. Other people would say no,
Speaker 1: they don't think it's possible. It's just that the Facebook
Speaker 1: system is so good at predicting what you're interested in
Speaker 1: that it can guess. He asked for Wiley's thoughts on
Speaker 1: the possibility, and Wiley said, there's audio that could be useful,
Speaker 1: just in terms of are you in an office environment,
Speaker 1: are you outside? Are you watching TV? Facebook mean, while
Speaker 1: denies allegations that its app listens in on people. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this, Siri, I don't trust Siri,
Speaker 1: I don't trust Alexa. I turn all those things off
Speaker 1: because when series on on my phone and I'm not
Speaker 1: some paranoid guy. Are you paranoid? Sexton? Are you ready
Speaker 1: for what's coming? Bill? The Burgh's camp trails. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: it's nothing. Just look at them up at the sky.
Speaker 1: There's nothing there, just camp trails. Nothing, nothing happened. But no, seriously,
Speaker 1: I turn off of what what not? Alexa? Alexe is
Speaker 1: the other one, right? Alexe is all it? Alexa? Are
Speaker 1: you working for the government? Alexa? That was one of
Speaker 1: my favorite clips. If we have that, By the way,
Speaker 1: should we should play that just because it's fun. He's
Speaker 1: an incredible performance artist. I give him credit for that. Um.
Speaker 1: But the serie thing, the serie thing, I sound like, oh,
Speaker 1: the serie thing on my phone. It's hard to press
Speaker 1: the buttons and I can't get it to work. Dad,
Speaker 1: nabb it. But the serie whatever it is, app function.
Speaker 1: I believe the serie function did this thing when I
Speaker 1: got a phone that actually had it on, where all
Speaker 1: of a sudden it would go like no, like I
Speaker 1: do not know where the pizza party is. I'm like, whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: No one's talking to you. It would it's occasionally maybe
Speaker 1: this is just a malfunction on my phone, but it
Speaker 1: would pick up, you know, if you left it on,
Speaker 1: or if I left it on, it would pick up
Speaker 1: what I had said and would respond to it. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's some techy explanation for this or whatever,
Speaker 1: but that to me means it has to have an
Speaker 1: active microphone on while I'm talking. And if it has
Speaker 1: an active microphone on, you've got a couple of possibilities.
Speaker 1: One is that at least it is very possible that
Speaker 1: somebody could hack into your phone and be listened to everything,
Speaker 1: and they would hear my long conversations, uh with miss
Speaker 1: Molly about how I really just think that this is
Speaker 1: the best aoli for my frozen chicken tenders, which is
Speaker 1: pretty much my I have a few weaknesses in life. Bacon,
Speaker 1: frozen chicken tenders, chocolate, whole milk, tequila that's pretty and
Speaker 1: wine those are that's the list. Really. If you give
Speaker 1: me all that, I'm in pretty owing steak, obviously, but
Speaker 1: I'm in pretty good shape. If you're giving all those things,
Speaker 1: maybe you can put some greens on my plate so
Speaker 1: I seem healthy. Uh. But I didn't like that this
Speaker 1: would pick up the words that I was that are
Speaker 1: were the words that I was saying the things that
Speaker 1: I was saying, and it would get processed through some
Speaker 1: kind of you know, computer algorithm, and it would it
Speaker 1: would make decisions based on what I was saying, and
Speaker 1: it did necessarily wait for me to prompt it. So
Speaker 1: if we were thinking about this from a counterintelligence perspective,
Speaker 1: let me just say this would be you have to
Speaker 1: think of this as a nightmare. Right. You're gonna walk
Speaker 1: around with it with a microphone that is always enabled
Speaker 1: and that is always connected to the web or to
Speaker 1: your cell phone, to the cell towers, and you're just
Speaker 1: hoping that not only is there good enough encryption to
Speaker 1: stop hackers, but you're trusting any company that you put
Speaker 1: an app on your phone that they're not going to
Speaker 1: misuse or abuse this data. Now, you know, I would
Speaker 1: say that I'm sounding a little paranoid, but I also
Speaker 1: know people who really do the thing. And producer Mike
Speaker 1: Brandon either you do this where they put the piece
Speaker 1: of tape on there on the top of their computer
Speaker 1: where the camera is because they know that it can
Speaker 1: be turned on and turned off. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of this is kind of like the local news stories
Speaker 1: you'll see where it's like can somebody hack into your
Speaker 1: baby monitor and they had put up a photo of
Speaker 1: like some creepy guy in a sweatshirt and just you know,
Speaker 1: you can't see his face. They're like News at eleven.
Speaker 1: It's like, yeah, of course somebody could hack into a
Speaker 1: a baby monitor, I guess technologically speaking, but I think
Speaker 1: they're doing a bit of fearmongering to get people to
Speaker 1: tune in. You know, it's like is your toothpaste killing you?
Speaker 1: News at eleven. There's a lot of that. But you know,
Speaker 1: you start thinking about what is really possible in this
Speaker 1: world we live in now and how we all uh
Speaker 1: we all carry around with us active microphones, we carry
Speaker 1: surveillance devices on us. You know, if you were if
Speaker 1: you were trying to walk around East Germany Circle and
Speaker 1: Vistazi was able to give you a device that could
Speaker 1: that was a recording device, a locational device, a video device,
Speaker 1: and you could have it with you at all times.
Speaker 1: The Stasi would have been like, oh my gosh, this
Speaker 1: is crazy, but they would have been very happy because
Speaker 1: it's much more, uh, it is much more effect of surveillance.
Speaker 1: And they were even able to do with their enormous
Speaker 1: network of informants, which I then, now I have to
Speaker 1: give you my requisite plug for the Lives of Others
Speaker 1: das Leben Derander. In a few of you actually speak
Speaker 1: fluent German, and whenever I do anything in German on
Speaker 1: the show, you completely call me out on Facebook. So
Speaker 1: I'm prepared for that. That's fine, but it's it's a
Speaker 1: wonderful movie The Lives of Others. Highly highly recommended. I
Speaker 1: recommend that it to somebody recently and he told me
Speaker 1: he fell asleep during it. I'm not gonna lie to you.
Speaker 1: I'm never gonna think of the same way again. He's
Speaker 1: off the list now now I don't know. I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not recommending any to him anymore. I recommended Win
Speaker 1: River and he's all like, oh, book, you're a genius.
Speaker 1: Then I'm like, all right, we're gonna bring up to
Speaker 1: the big time. Now we're gonna put you in a
Speaker 1: foreign language situation with the lives of others, things like yeah,
Speaker 1: I fell asleep during it. I was like, oh, you
Speaker 1: insult me, sir. If you get a chance, I would
Speaker 1: highly recommend you see it. But we need to understand
Speaker 1: that these platforms like Facebook and the technology that we
Speaker 1: carry around with us. It all comes with risks. It
Speaker 1: all is changing the way we interact, you know, I
Speaker 1: keep saying it, and it's gonna it's gonna be like
Speaker 1: the drug cartels and opiate overdoses. I was saying that
Speaker 1: for quite a while on the show. I'm like, no
Speaker 1: one else is saying it. Now everyone's saying so like, wow, Buck,
Speaker 1: how'd you know? Uh, the biggest change in crime and
Speaker 1: criminal behavior in this country we've seen over the last
Speaker 1: thirty or forty years is there. I don't care anyone
Speaker 1: said they could talk broken windows theory. They you know,
Speaker 1: you could. You could read freakonomics and which I think
Speaker 1: is garbage on this issue. But there's a and you
Speaker 1: can say whatever you want. It's technology. It's that you
Speaker 1: are carrying around the ability to in real time photograph,
Speaker 1: live stream video, communicate with text, message with GEO, locate
Speaker 1: all of us all the time, and we're all connected.
Speaker 1: You can speak to a non one one operator in
Speaker 1: a matter of seconds. All of us can all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe this is a bad thing. And heaven
Speaker 1: forbid any of these stuff about radiation and like carrying
Speaker 1: radiation in your pocket. You know, it's there's there's some
Speaker 1: there's actually some you want to talk about conspiracy, oh,
Speaker 1: I got one for you. But if you want to
Speaker 1: talk about conspiracies, the possible destructive effects of selling their
Speaker 1: technology as it as it uh as it affects uh
Speaker 1: tumor growth and and cancer and things like that. That's
Speaker 1: people say it's it's not bad for you, and it's fine,
Speaker 1: But then all the people are like, well there was
Speaker 1: this study, and you know, who really knows how all
Speaker 1: this stuff affects you. I have big concerns about it.
Speaker 1: Um Over the long term, I started to see people
Speaker 1: who who are like carrying around radiation shielded phones now
Speaker 1: and stuff. I've seen some there's some stuff out there
Speaker 1: which hey, at least it is definitely a conversation start.
Speaker 1: If you're on a date, she's like, what's that, and
Speaker 1: you're like, don't worry about that, honey, it's my radiation shield,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. I've got one that's actually
Speaker 1: from my computer that I you know, I guess you
Speaker 1: gotta protect what's precious in life. So I put it.
Speaker 1: You gotta put it across your lap. We put the
Speaker 1: laptop on top of it. There you go. Um. We
Speaker 1: were talking about Facebook. I think in Facebook Analytica. But
Speaker 1: things took a little of a turn, and I just
Speaker 1: was sharing you some of Buck's philosophy of all the things,
Speaker 1: Buck's theory of everything. If you will probably too soon, um,
Speaker 1: eight four four to five eight four buck, I'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Yeah. Occasionally I like to share some stories
Speaker 1: with you that are are uplifting, actually, um, and I
Speaker 1: like to be able to sit here and tell you
Speaker 1: about something that makes us off a little bit good.
Speaker 1: You know. Usually Facebook is is a a place, UM,
Speaker 1: a place or or a Twitter is a place where
Speaker 1: you'll see all kinds of nastiness and people just say
Speaker 1: that they say really mean things to each other and
Speaker 1: they're just big, mean meanings and it's not cool. You know.
Speaker 1: You get a lot of that. Um. Usually that's the
Speaker 1: case with Facebook. But sometimes, as you know, I was
Speaker 1: beating up on it a lot before, but sometimes they
Speaker 1: can be a place for good. Nice things happen, right,
Speaker 1: People actually build there. And I'm being smug about all this.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people. They're nice. People are nice
Speaker 1: on social media. That's what you're kind of funding out.
Speaker 1: People who are actually good people in their day to
Speaker 1: day lives are good people on social media, people who
Speaker 1: are angry and hateful and spiteful that tends to come
Speaker 1: across in the way that they interact with others. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure all of you listening know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: It has never crossed my mind. For example, two even
Speaker 1: before I was in public life in some capacity, you know,
Speaker 1: being a radio dude, But it would never cross my
Speaker 1: mind to write something really mean about public figures appearance
Speaker 1: and send it to them, right, particularly to do that
Speaker 1: for a lady. I just think that's terrible. And people
Speaker 1: do that stuff, do it all the time. I used
Speaker 1: to see. I used to get angry on behalf of
Speaker 1: some of my colleagues at The Blaze who were women
Speaker 1: who would get stuff written to them that was there
Speaker 1: was just it would embarrass any normal person to write
Speaker 1: such a thing. But there's good stuff too that happens
Speaker 1: in social media. And I just wanted to note, Uh,
Speaker 1: this is a this is a nice a nice story. Um.
Speaker 1: This comes courtesy of Fox News and Shannon Bream, who
Speaker 1: is over at Fox and has her own show at
Speaker 1: eleven o'clock at eleven o'clock at night and is one
Speaker 1: of the there there are some very very nice people
Speaker 1: in this business. Shannon is one of the nicest people
Speaker 1: I have met in in media, and she's very likely
Speaker 1: one of the nicest believe I think you would meet anywhere.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's a really, really kind, down to earth person. Um.
Speaker 1: She put out the following on Twitter. Need your help,
Speaker 1: Twitter Verse, trying to help a young boy who is dying.
Speaker 1: He probably has just days and all he wants is
Speaker 1: a greeting from one of the Avengers. If you have
Speaker 1: a celebrity connection, please let me know. Otherwise, could you
Speaker 1: please help out with a retweet? So forty thousand plus people.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what the numbers right now, but
Speaker 1: as of this article, forty thousand plus people and this
Speaker 1: was from five hours or no a few hours ago,
Speaker 1: had retreated it. I was among them. Um. If I
Speaker 1: had a connection to Holly what I would have reached out,
Speaker 1: But I don't. But within a few hours, Chris Evans,
Speaker 1: who plays Captain America, and Paul Bettany, who played Vision
Speaker 1: in The Avengers, reached out publicly to Shannon and said
Speaker 1: that they were uh willing to help. Chris Evans said
Speaker 1: happy to d M me and Paul Bettany said, I'm
Speaker 1: the purple one. Dm ME, and then Ryan Reynolds, who's Deadpool,
Speaker 1: said I'm more of a reverse a reserve Avenger, but
Speaker 1: happy to help h d m ME And I also
Speaker 1: saw uh, the guy from and I feel badly now
Speaker 1: that I forget Jeremy Renner who's from wind River, but
Speaker 1: he's also of the you know, the guy with the
Speaker 1: bow and arrow Avenger. He wrote, I saw the tweet
Speaker 1: that he put out, you know, suited up and and
Speaker 1: ready to go. Um. So you know, people are are
Speaker 1: stepping up, and it was just it was really nice.
Speaker 1: It was a really nice thing to see. I know
Speaker 1: this isn't gonna change the world or national policy, but
Speaker 1: you know, you've got a boy who's running short on
Speaker 1: time and his and his wish, his his biggest wish
Speaker 1: right now is to meet one of the Avengers. And
Speaker 1: it's uh, you know, we beat up on Hollywood a lot,
Speaker 1: as we should, and I hold them to account for
Speaker 1: the things they say in public life, but it's it's
Speaker 1: nice to see that some of these guys and and
Speaker 1: gals uh stepped up. Fox News is reporting that a
Speaker 1: batch of videos have been sent from the various Avengers,
Speaker 1: so they've recorded videos, you know, suited up and Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Olsen who was Oh she was also I think in
Speaker 1: uh she was in wind River. Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch,
Speaker 1: Paul Rudd as Aunt Man. They're all sending greetings to
Speaker 1: this boy, and uh, it's very nice to see this happen.
Speaker 1: Shannon tweeted out, thank you everyone. Major progress has been
Speaker 1: made because of you. A special assist coming in from
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper. Hey, thanks to Jake Tapper. You know I've
Speaker 1: I will say this. I don't know. Jake never had
Speaker 1: me on the show, we've never interacted. I've actually heard
Speaker 1: he's a good guy. So you know, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: talk smack about him other than criticizing some of his
Speaker 1: positions on air. But I've heard he's a good He's
Speaker 1: a good guy. See. I'll say this about democrats I
Speaker 1: disagree with. They won't say it about people like me,
Speaker 1: even if they don't know me, or even if they
Speaker 1: know that everyone who's pretty much ever worked with me
Speaker 1: is like, yeah, he's he's at least honorable and trustworthy
Speaker 1: and a good dude. You know, you don't have to
Speaker 1: like me, but there are some things that are just true. Um,
Speaker 1: but God bless Shannon for getting this going. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's one of the great ones over at Fox. If
Speaker 1: you guys, I'm basically doing a you know, a little
Speaker 1: public service announcement for her now too. But if you haven't,
Speaker 1: you know, check out her show. She's she's everything that
Speaker 1: you'd expect from TV, and she's helping out this young
Speaker 1: boy and it's a really nice thing. And thanks to
Speaker 1: all the Avengers who are doing it too, And I
Speaker 1: just hope that it brings a lot of joy to
Speaker 1: this young man who you know, has had a has
Speaker 1: had a tough go um and it's just nice to
Speaker 1: see social media being used to not tear someone down
Speaker 1: and do damaging, nasty things. Everything got said. You know,
Speaker 1: we we can leverage these technologies for good things. We
Speaker 1: can use these technologies to make people feel better about themselves,
Speaker 1: feel a little happier, to be in touch with loved ones,
Speaker 1: with friends, teach people thing, to spread knowledge to It's
Speaker 1: amazing easy, but it's just a reflection of who we
Speaker 1: are and how we choose to act. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot more coming up, team, including a zinky Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Interior and the diversity issue. G four Tequila is
Speaker 1: the pinnacle of Master distiller Felipe Camarina's passion for crafting
Speaker 1: truly great. He's back with you now because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: This is a wom star. Why are we giving it
Speaker 1: any credibility? The fact that she now wants to come
Speaker 1: out with a story because she's afraid of her children? Goodness,
Speaker 1: would you tell the kiddos about your full time job.
Speaker 1: I know that when I voted for him, I wasn't
Speaker 1: voting for a quiet boy. Someone is looking shopping for
Speaker 1: these people to come out of the woodwork because it
Speaker 1: is demeaning to our president. You can throw all that
Speaker 1: stuff up in our face as many times as you want,
Speaker 1: but that means that we will work harder for Trump.
Speaker 1: Is that not so, lady? That's correct. This is the
Speaker 1: media defining the narrative the people. We the people are
Speaker 1: ready to define the narrative. You're looking for a way
Speaker 1: to impeach my president that I worked very hard for.
Speaker 1: Welcome to our three of the buck Sexton showing my
Speaker 1: friends that was a collection of Trump supporters, Lady, Trump
Speaker 1: supporters who are just not having it with the whole
Speaker 1: story d annuals narrative. They do not care, or if
Speaker 1: they care, it would be fair to say they only care,
Speaker 1: and so much as they think that the media is
Speaker 1: being deeply hypocritical about this and the allegations are either
Speaker 1: unfounded or unimportant to them as voters for for Trump.
Speaker 1: There is a special kind of gall that is on
Speaker 1: display when you see a situation like this where you
Speaker 1: have many of the people pushing the story over at
Speaker 1: the different networks a non Fox media. Many of those
Speaker 1: who are pushing the story the hardest were among the
Speaker 1: most stalwart defenders of Clinton during the effort to try
Speaker 1: and cover up what was really going on with Clinton,
Speaker 1: and not just the philandering, but the sexual harassment lying
Speaker 1: under oath, the sexual assaults. This they don't care though,
Speaker 1: now that they were covering up for Clinton and that
Speaker 1: now they're on on the war path against the Trump
Speaker 1: administration doesn't matter to them. It's all about a purpose.
Speaker 1: You know, we had a clip that I didn't get
Speaker 1: a chance to play for you yesterday, but there was
Speaker 1: a young journalist who's talking about how journalism is actually activism.
Speaker 1: Can producer, Mike, if you if you grab that one
Speaker 1: from yesterday, let me know, because I thought it was
Speaker 1: so important for everyone to hear that that's really the
Speaker 1: mentality now, and that's becoming more and more the case
Speaker 1: that it's out there for us all to see journalism
Speaker 1: as activism is becoming the inescapable reality of a vast
Speaker 1: majority of the media outlets that are out there. So
Speaker 1: when that all of a sudden is the case, when
Speaker 1: you don't have professional ethics anymore, you have ideological goals?
Speaker 1: What is not what? What is no longer acceptable? If
Speaker 1: it is okay for people to do whatever they can
Speaker 1: to stop Trump, then isn't it fair to say that
Speaker 1: we've seen the end of the notion of journalism as
Speaker 1: a major force in American politics? Right? If they embrace activism,
Speaker 1: they're openly about being activists because they can't hide it anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean, they can only play games for so long.
Speaker 1: If they do that, then don't we think it's fair
Speaker 1: to say that journalism is really atory, it's it's an
Speaker 1: anachronism or becoming an anachronism. Now on the actual story
Speaker 1: Daniels thing for a second a few days. One is
Speaker 1: I gotta say, if if in fact that that this
Speaker 1: is true, let's all let's all get on the same
Speaker 1: page without I know you already. It's it's it's bad conduct.
Speaker 1: It is. It is reprehensible, it's not okay, it's not
Speaker 1: a not a not an all right thing to do.
Speaker 1: To be a married man with a newborn baby. Be
Speaker 1: a merryman, period, but merryman, newborn baby, and you're running around.
Speaker 1: So if you believe that Trump did this, we all
Speaker 1: need to understand it's reprehensible behavior. But it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that I can't support the agenda anymore and that he's
Speaker 1: no longer a good politician doesn't change the view of
Speaker 1: what the actual platform is and what the goals are
Speaker 1: for the country. If you don't believe it, of course,
Speaker 1: well then you just think this is a media smear campaign.
Speaker 1: And but i's we can all agree the conduct is bad. Oh,
Speaker 1: we've got this play play the activist. This is she's
Speaker 1: from like the the Eagle journal or something. What was
Speaker 1: it called Eagle I believe it was the Eagle Eye. Oh,
Speaker 1: that sounds kind of intense. Play it out of Parkland
Speaker 1: students becoming activists journalists. Do you see a difference right
Speaker 1: now between journalism and activism and what you're doing? I
Speaker 1: think that for me, the purpose of journalism is to raise,
Speaker 1: you know, the voices of people that maybe don't have
Speaker 1: a voice. And so I think that in its own right,
Speaker 1: journalism is a form of activism. And I think that
Speaker 1: there is distinctions for me, um, you know, as a
Speaker 1: journalist and also as someone that wants to demand change.
Speaker 1: But I think that the partnership of the two is
Speaker 1: the only reason that we are able to make a change.
Speaker 1: Journalisms great. Can you answer this Christian from me? I'm
Speaker 1: the one with the show one seeing variance, doth reportice
Speaker 1: what she said, journalism is a form of activism. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: in that case, journalism is a form of politics. Journalist
Speaker 1: was a former propaganda. You know, we we could play
Speaker 1: this game all day. But I actually, I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to put that young woman down. I think she's articulating
Speaker 1: what they all think. She's just saying it. And you
Speaker 1: see it with everything we talked about here on the show,
Speaker 1: whether it's all the way from Stormy Daniels to Trump
Speaker 1: is in Russia's pocket too, Oh my gosh, the trade
Speaker 1: war is gonna destroy this country. Oh my gosh. Trump
Speaker 1: is you know, the worst president in the history of presidence,
Speaker 1: all of it. You see it on display constantly, and
Speaker 1: it's it's never going to be the same. There's no
Speaker 1: putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Is that a microaggression now, by the way, the whole
Speaker 1: genie in a bottle thing is that like an appropriation
Speaker 1: of of Mid East culture. It's so few people even
Speaker 1: know it comes from Arabian nights. And you know, there's
Speaker 1: actually a backtra It's not from Aladdin. Disney didn't just
Speaker 1: come up with this out of nowhere, but Arabian Nights.
Speaker 1: Remember that. It's amazing. That was like not really close,
Speaker 1: but it was okay. It kind of it kind of
Speaker 1: gotten you in the mood for a second for some
Speaker 1: Aladdin I had a professor a long time ago who
Speaker 1: used to go on this this tirade or Tara Day
Speaker 1: if you're really fancy. Uh no one says that book.
Speaker 1: But he used to go on this tirade where he
Speaker 1: would talk about how uh there was so much of
Speaker 1: what Edward said the Columbia University professor of Middle East
Speaker 1: from Studies called Orientalism, which is the other iizing of
Speaker 1: those from the East. And like Princess Jasmine in the
Speaker 1: movie Aladdin is basically dressed as a as a bellied
Speaker 1: answer slash harem girl, which the princess would not dress
Speaker 1: like effectively A yeah, yeah, Maybe we'll talk about the
Speaker 1: all the ways that Aladdin is offensive to the left
Speaker 1: another day. That's kind of a fun conversation. That's a
Speaker 1: fun one too, they get into So anyway, team, I've
Speaker 1: got a whole lot more for you this hour, including
Speaker 1: Zinky is in trouble for not loving diversity enough. He's
Speaker 1: the Secretary of the the Interior. Well he's also a former
Speaker 1: steal a guy is awesome. We'll talk about that and
Speaker 1: much more coming up here in just a few minutes.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. You have to have the best information possible,
Speaker 1: my friends, if you want your business to be successful,
Speaker 1: if you want to be successful in any commercial venture.
Speaker 1: That's where Global Verification Network comes in. They're the only
Speaker 1: dual certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company, and
Speaker 1: they are independently certified by the National Veteran Business Development Council,
Speaker 1: which is the only minority spend certification recognized by the
Speaker 1: Billion Dollar round Table. That's a long way of saying
Speaker 1: these guys come at it from many different angles. They
Speaker 1: are the best in the business they are certified and
Speaker 1: they are ready to rock for you. Go to my
Speaker 1: g d N dot com or called eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: They are the best veteran owned background investigation and vetting
Speaker 1: company out there. Go to my GVN dot com or
Speaker 1: call eight seven seven six nine five one seven nine
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network. So there's this editorial in the New
Speaker 1: York Times, and you know what, it's a it's important.
Speaker 1: It's a good one. It's important for us to see
Speaker 1: it because it's the truth about all this gun grabber stuff.
Speaker 1: You know that they play the same game every time.
Speaker 1: We know what the game is, right, Oh no, we
Speaker 1: just want common sense gun reforms. And you know whose
Speaker 1: streets are streets? You know, they say it's about activism
Speaker 1: and listen to the youth and a revolution against violence
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah all that. But then you start
Speaker 1: to see some people that are actually advocating from prominent positions. Uh.
Speaker 1: You see some people who are well clear on what
Speaker 1: they want, which is they want to repeal the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: They don't want to tinker with it, they don't wanna
Speaker 1: nibble around the edges. They don't want to cut the
Speaker 1: cookie into pieces. They wanted to be gone, Googie monster.
Speaker 1: They wanted to be gone. And The Times published in
Speaker 1: order to make that case as strongly as they possibly could,
Speaker 1: The Times published in editorial by none other then the
Speaker 1: retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Now in perfect
Speaker 1: this is as as classic as it gets. Folks, John
Speaker 1: Paul Stevens, repeal the Second Amendment is the title. But
Speaker 1: this is the most New York Times thing ever. At
Speaker 1: the top of the article they and this is featured
Speaker 1: on their editorial page. It just went up. What was
Speaker 1: it today? I think, um, they've got a picture of
Speaker 1: a must get in a picture of and a R
Speaker 1: fift or maybe it's a holl whatever they're calling it.
Speaker 1: It's all rifle. But at the bottom they had to
Speaker 1: append this correction to this New York Times piece. An
Speaker 1: earlier version of a picture captioned with this article misidentified
Speaker 1: the eighteenth century firearm depicted It is a musket, not
Speaker 1: a rifle. What a shock here we have the New
Speaker 1: York Times in an editorial. They're literally saying they want
Speaker 1: to get rid of the Second Amendment. I mean they
Speaker 1: are actually just coming out and saying it, you know,
Speaker 1: get rid of the Second Amendment. And they misidentify a
Speaker 1: firearm at the top of the article, and not by
Speaker 1: like a little bit. You know. It's not like they said, oh,
Speaker 1: it's an A R fifteen and it's actually an M
Speaker 1: for you know, something like that. No, no, no, you know,
Speaker 1: people make mistakes. I used to remember when I worked
Speaker 1: at The Blaze, at the website, and we would all
Speaker 1: joke around about how you could get away with typos
Speaker 1: here and there. You know, you make an error. We're
Speaker 1: posting a lot of stories all day. This was the
Speaker 1: old days, the Blaze dot com. And uh, you know
Speaker 1: I was. I was hired as an assistant assistant editor
Speaker 1: for Nashal for intelligence and technology, I think, And I
Speaker 1: was like, all right, first of all, I don't really
Speaker 1: know any about technology. Second of all, I'm the national
Speaker 1: security guy, so why don't we call it that? So
Speaker 1: we changed it in time. But anyway, uh, but I
Speaker 1: remember the one thing that you could not could not
Speaker 1: get away with making any mistakes on was firearms related.
Speaker 1: If you found yourself, if you find yourself riding in
Speaker 1: fields with the sun on your face. Do not be
Speaker 1: alarmed for you r in Elysium. No, but if you
Speaker 1: found yourself writing something that was incorrect about firearms, um,
Speaker 1: then you would very quickly have a pie the pylon
Speaker 1: to end all pylons of how could you be so stupid?
Speaker 1: Like people would completely lose it on you, and you know,
Speaker 1: sure enough you would change it and it'd be fine.
Speaker 1: I think somebody once identified a two forty two forty
Speaker 1: golf it as a an M sixty and that and
Speaker 1: that was an issue that was a problem. So but
Speaker 1: now I want to get in the substance of this
Speaker 1: editorial that John Paul Stevens actually wrote for The Times.
Speaker 1: So hey, yeah, this uh, as I was saying this,
Speaker 1: this John Paul Stevens thing is is amazing. But um,
Speaker 1: let me let me read you a little bit of
Speaker 1: of the case that he makes in it, and then
Speaker 1: we'll get into it in some more detail. Uh. He writes. Quote,
Speaker 1: during the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice
Speaker 1: from nineteen sixty, no judge federal or state, as far
Speaker 1: as I'm aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited
Speaker 1: coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle
Speaker 1: Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign. Began
Speaker 1: their campaign claiming that federal regulations of farms curtailed Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights. Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the n r
Speaker 1: A as perpetrating quote, one of the greatest pieces of fraud.
Speaker 1: I repeat the word fraud on the American public by
Speaker 1: special interest interest groups I've ever seen in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: So he cites this what one judge was saying back
Speaker 1: in you know, I don't know wherever it was, nineteen
Speaker 1: sixties or something. And then he goes into the d
Speaker 1: C v. Heller decision two thousand and eight, the one
Speaker 1: time the Supreme Court has really looked at the issue
Speaker 1: specifically of ken a municipality in that case, the District
Speaker 1: of Columbia where our federal government space. Can it just
Speaker 1: say no guns, no guns for you? Can I do that?
Speaker 1: And d C v. Hellertel told us that no, in fact,
Speaker 1: the government can't just say you do not have any
Speaker 1: right to own a firearm because we say so. And
Speaker 1: that I think it's something that particularly added tates and
Speaker 1: irritates liberals now, um, because uh, because now they have
Speaker 1: to just be very wildly hypocritical returning to a theme here,
Speaker 1: folks about whether or not Supreme Court precedent is settled.
Speaker 1: Is it settled? You'll notice they'll say Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: is a constitutional right. Now, Roe v. Wade is a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision. It's not a constitutional right. And no realistic,
Speaker 1: honest assessment of what the Constitution says in any way
Speaker 1: indicates that Roe v. Waight is, or that the right
Speaker 1: to abortion is a constitutional right. But they'll speak of
Speaker 1: it as though this is as settled as it gets.
Speaker 1: This is as settled as the you know, the world
Speaker 1: is not flat, but d c. Heller, which just happened
Speaker 1: a few years ago, so it's happening in our current
Speaker 1: political context. Right, it's not doesn't feel like a long
Speaker 1: time ago because it wasn't a long time ago. That
Speaker 1: doesn't how that doesn't really count the same way for them.
Speaker 1: That doesn't really uh doesn't really rate for them. That's
Speaker 1: just a bad decision. Well, which is it is a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision on something like the right to bear
Speaker 1: arms binding and important going forward? Or is it just
Speaker 1: important when you think it is when you say it is.
Speaker 1: There's such a dishonesty at the heart of a lot
Speaker 1: of what goes on with the liberal discussion about firearms.
Speaker 1: And that's why I like to see the John Paul
Speaker 1: Stevens column, because he's just coming out and saying it.
Speaker 1: His argument is crap. They can't even get the name
Speaker 1: of a frigging gun right at the top of the thing.
Speaker 1: But at least he's like, you know, I would just
Speaker 1: like to ban firearms. I want to ban the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: get it, get rid of it, no more repeal it.
Speaker 1: You say to yourself, all right, well, at least we're
Speaker 1: gonna have a discussion now about whether or not that
Speaker 1: should happen. There's such a dishonesty at work with the
Speaker 1: liberal efforts to do the incremental Oh, no more magazines
Speaker 1: with more than ten rounds. They love to call them clips,
Speaker 1: and we love to make fun of them when they do.
Speaker 1: But you know what I mean, no more magazines above
Speaker 1: ten rounds. No more uh cosmetic features on a are
Speaker 1: variant rail systems, you know, no more four grips, no
Speaker 1: more uh well, no more bump stock. I'm actually okay
Speaker 1: within no more bump stocks. You know, some some people
Speaker 1: yell at me for that, but I'm like, you know what,
Speaker 1: bump stock is kind of ridiculous. It's really a technique
Speaker 1: for firing more than it is actually in addition to
Speaker 1: a weapon. And nonetheless, but this is this is a
Speaker 1: reminder that those of us who say to you they
Speaker 1: actually want to just band guns and they should be
Speaker 1: honest about it, are telling you the truth. They're the
Speaker 1: ones who are dissembling. They're the ones who are not
Speaker 1: telling the truth when they pretend that all they really want,
Speaker 1: all they really want is common sense gun reform. All
Speaker 1: they want is some changes around the margins that won't
Speaker 1: really affect anything, that won't really upset anyone, and it's
Speaker 1: just not that big a deal. That's a very big
Speaker 1: deal actually, because the incrementalism is meant to change the
Speaker 1: culture around guns. It's meant to change the way you
Speaker 1: think about firearms. And as I keep saying to you,
Speaker 1: it's more that they just don't like the people that
Speaker 1: own guns than anything else. And I get in trouble
Speaker 1: for it. That's fine, it's the truth. They think that
Speaker 1: gun owners are toothless hillabilities who watched Nascar, and so
Speaker 1: if they can antagonize gun owners by saying that the
Speaker 1: second ammage should be repealed or even just more limited
Speaker 1: than any other constitutionally protected right. They're more than willing
Speaker 1: to do so, more than willing, you know, they are
Speaker 1: absolutely in favor of doing everything that they can up
Speaker 1: to and including lying pressure campaigns. And you've got a
Speaker 1: former Supreme Court justiceh's just saying with all the other
Speaker 1: all the other lives out there, belief really, which is
Speaker 1: that the right to bear arms is not really a right,
Speaker 1: that the n r A is effectively a domestic terrorist
Speaker 1: or zation or whatever the latest defamatory statement is. And uh, ultimately,
Speaker 1: as we look at this, we need to understand what
Speaker 1: the other side really wants and what we're dealing with here.
Speaker 1: So I think that, uh, it's good, it is good,
Speaker 1: and you should read this. It's good that we saw this,
Speaker 1: and you should read this. At a tromp in the
Speaker 1: New York Times where we finally get some honest in
Speaker 1: the left. They don't want common sense gun reforms. They
Speaker 1: want to ban your guns. Were right back with Zinky
Speaker 1: and diversity, stay with me. He's holding the line for America,
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, his back. I knew that they would go
Speaker 1: after Secretary of Interior Zinky. I mean, the guy's uh
Speaker 1: a former Navy Seal. He's way too pro America and
Speaker 1: pro freedom for the Democrat left to just let things slide. Right,
Speaker 1: he's got he's tied to the Trump administration. They're gonna
Speaker 1: find a way to go after him. But if you
Speaker 1: look at this guy's record, if you know his background,
Speaker 1: there's really not much of an opening. He's clearly a patriot,
Speaker 1: He's an honorable guy, well respected. I've actually done a
Speaker 1: podcast or two with him in the past as we
Speaker 1: were co guests, and he's a it's just a good man,
Speaker 1: a good American, and they're going after him, folks, on
Speaker 1: on what grounds? By the way, what is the easiest
Speaker 1: way to attack any member of the administration who is
Speaker 1: in a position of managerial authority? What do you know
Speaker 1: you'll be able to make a case about insufficient devotion
Speaker 1: to diversity? Oh? Yes, of course. It's just always there
Speaker 1: for them, isn't it. You know, whenever they need some
Speaker 1: way to attack, they know that insufficient devotion. Remember, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying even uh, dismissing diversity. I'm not even saying
Speaker 1: being an opponent of diversity outright is what they're looking for.
Speaker 1: You just if you don't pray to the diversity gods,
Speaker 1: so to speak. If you aren't someone who bends the knee,
Speaker 1: you are a target. If you speak out about the
Speaker 1: witch hunt mentality surrounding anyone in any federal agency or
Speaker 1: really anywhere who is not sufficiently devoted to diversity, then
Speaker 1: you get yourself into trouble. And I always start with, well,
Speaker 1: what is diversity exactly? They talk about insufficient diversity at
Speaker 1: these institutions, and then I'll say, like, for example, the
Speaker 1: Department of the Interior, which is what Ryan Zinky is
Speaker 1: in fact the director of our secretary of And when
Speaker 1: you look at the numbers, there is minority representation or
Speaker 1: minority employees at these places, at places like the Interior Department. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're just saying it's insufficient. Well, I always want to say,
Speaker 1: how do we know if it's sufficient? Folks? We can't
Speaker 1: have quotas. Remember, quotas are unacceptable because quotas are an
Speaker 1: open admission of the elimination of merit in the process.
Speaker 1: You can't say we have to have a certain number
Speaker 1: of X and Y and z and not say that
Speaker 1: you're adjusting the merit requirements for getting different jobs. And
Speaker 1: so what you have is okay if only of the
Speaker 1: Department of the Interior's minority and thirty four percent of
Speaker 1: the United States is minority. Let's I'm making those numbers up,
Speaker 1: by the way, but they're roughly there there in the
Speaker 1: in the ballpark of accurate. So you're saying that's insufficient
Speaker 1: minority representation. But do we have to have the exact number?
Speaker 1: Do we have to have more than the number would
Speaker 1: be as a percentage of the U s population to
Speaker 1: make up for historical wrongs? Who decides what sufficient attention
Speaker 1: and devotion to diversity really is? The answer is it's
Speaker 1: really just a dividing line between left and right in
Speaker 1: this country. It is used as a concept against conservatives.
Speaker 1: It's not really a concept that actually has any definable
Speaker 1: limits or definable goals. And by the way, what does
Speaker 1: Zinky even do to come under fire, so to speak?
Speaker 1: From the left? Here? CNN writes this piece sources Zinky
Speaker 1: tells employees diversity isn't important. That's not really what he said.
Speaker 1: According to the piece itself, let me read to you
Speaker 1: from this CNN hit piece, because that's what it is. Quote.
Speaker 1: Three high ranking Interior Interior officials from three different divisions
Speaker 1: said that Zinki has made several comments with a similar theme,
Speaker 1: saying diversity isn't important, or I don't care about diversity,
Speaker 1: or I don't really think that's important anymore. Each time,
Speaker 1: Zinki followed with something along the lines of what's important
Speaker 1: is having the right person for the job, or I
Speaker 1: care about excels and I'm going to get the best
Speaker 1: people and you'll find we have had the most diverse
Speaker 1: group anyone's ever had. Uh So, what's the problem, folks?
Speaker 1: This was a big story yesterday they were covering on CNN,
Speaker 1: covering in other places. When you look at what was
Speaker 1: actually said here, not only is it not a problem
Speaker 1: I agree with Zink, does that mean I'm insufficiently devoted
Speaker 1: to diversity. He's saying that he wants the best people
Speaker 1: for the job, and he said we have the most
Speaker 1: diverse group anyone's ever had. So he's saying I look
Speaker 1: for the best and and we actually have a very
Speaker 1: diverse staff relative to other Department of Interior staffs. And
Speaker 1: he's still in trouble though, because he's not allowed to
Speaker 1: say things like I don't care about diversity. You know,
Speaker 1: this whole notion of social justice versus merit is at
Speaker 1: the heart of so many leftist policies. It's clearly at
Speaker 1: the heart of affirmative action and the concept of diversity.
Speaker 1: The look I saw it. I remember when I was
Speaker 1: overseas and seeing up on the walls of military bases
Speaker 1: in a war zone, my friends posters with things like
Speaker 1: diversity is our strength. No, that's not true. The strength
Speaker 1: of the United States military and military is the courage, bravery,
Speaker 1: and skill of those wearing the uniform, those carrying arms
Speaker 1: for their country. Uh. Diversity is not the strength of
Speaker 1: the United States military. And that kind of brainless propaganda
Speaker 1: is pretty widespread within the diversity movement. It's really not
Speaker 1: unusual at all to read slogans about diversity that make
Speaker 1: you think to yourself, this is idiotic, This makes no sense.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what they're really trying to say,
Speaker 1: other than to hammer at home that you have to
Speaker 1: you have to be part of team diversity, which really
Speaker 1: just means you will do whatever is necessary to play
Speaker 1: kate the politically correct dictates of the left, whatever their
Speaker 1: whims may be, at any point in time, you have
Speaker 1: to say sir, yes sir, or ma'am yes, ma'am, or there, yes,
Speaker 1: there because with a Z now or or an X
Speaker 1: by the way, because I don't want to be mis
Speaker 1: gendering people. Right, Yeah, big D diversity. We're going to
Speaker 1: continue to fight against the nonsense concept here in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut. Uh. We will be right back with some
Speaker 1: roll call. Oh man, it's been a long day. It's
Speaker 1: been fun here in the Hut though, but just a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. I did America's Newsroom this morning, Brett
Speaker 1: Bears Panel tonight, and then Kennedy Show How Do I
Speaker 1: Do It? All the magic of media, My friends. I
Speaker 1: hope you got a chance to check that out, and
Speaker 1: if you didn't, we'll put it up on Facebook so
Speaker 1: you can see the latest analysis and all things that
Speaker 1: I'm up to. And with that, let's hear what you're
Speaker 1: up to. Oh, you know what means it's time for
Speaker 1: some row call. Team, It's time for roll call. All right.
Speaker 1: We have Isaac who has written about the uh, the
Speaker 1: what he calls the white South African genocide, and it
Speaker 1: is about the white farmers in South Africa. He says,
Speaker 1: please try to get the media to start talking about this. Well, Isaac,
Speaker 1: I've been talking about the violence against white farmers. Genocide
Speaker 1: would be too strong and an inaccurate a term at
Speaker 1: this point. But there has been a long and concerted
Speaker 1: campaign of violence and intimidation against white farmers in Zimbabwe
Speaker 1: formerly Rhodesia under the reign of Mugabe, who just came
Speaker 1: to an end some months ago. So this is something
Speaker 1: we have to be on the lookout for, um and
Speaker 1: I will continue to talk about it here in the Hut.
Speaker 1: We have next up here Susannah, who says, hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: passing along a message from my original Saturday Squad husband Oss,
Speaker 1: who introduced me to you regarding music for Roll Call.
Speaker 1: He likes the original drumming, bringing everyone to attention, I'm
Speaker 1: okay with anything, just you don't go anywhere. Love the
Speaker 1: show and appreciate you and your insight shields. Hi Susannah,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. And yeah, well we'll mix it
Speaker 1: up a bit. We could get a little bit of
Speaker 1: that old school drummer music thrown in there for you.
Speaker 1: So we will keep everyone on their toes because that
Speaker 1: is how we roll in the hut. That's how we do,
Speaker 1: as the kids say. Jen writes the following, Buck, is
Speaker 1: this a budget or a bill? It seems from what
Speaker 1: I've read, Trump does not have to spend the money
Speaker 1: as allocated because this is not truly a budget per se. A.
Speaker 1: You know, Jen, I'm digging down into this because I
Speaker 1: want to make sure that I know the full facts
Speaker 1: about what level of discretion the president has within the
Speaker 1: budget that had or within the the bill that has
Speaker 1: been passed which contains many budgetary measures. So this is
Speaker 1: a level of uh intra governmental complexity that I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to deep dive into this and spend a bit
Speaker 1: more time on it. But you raise a very important point,
Speaker 1: and thank you for your support of the show. Chris
Speaker 1: writes what Happened to Shields High Podcast. I drove a
Speaker 1: truck at night and really enjoyed it. Chris, it's coming back.
Speaker 1: If I could only just lay out all of the
Speaker 1: First of all, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for I
Speaker 1: love doing it. It just takes up my entire well
Speaker 1: part of the week and then weekend. I end up
Speaker 1: reading multiple books for each episode, and I love doing it.
Speaker 1: But it will come back and it will be a
Speaker 1: whole series, and you're just you're just gonna have to
Speaker 1: ask for your patients. I hope you all and forget
Speaker 1: about the shields high podcast, and uh we we will
Speaker 1: get that. I can't leave it with the the Ottoman
Speaker 1: Turks taking Constantinople and that's just the end, right, Oh No,
Speaker 1: in the wars of Christendom and Islam in the Renaissance period,
Speaker 1: we are gonna, We're gonna make our way through the
Speaker 1: whole thing. So I'm getting there, thank you very much. So,
Speaker 1: Chris James writes, low gluten hosts are available, but not
Speaker 1: gluten free hosts. My wife has very bad Cilia celiac disease,
Speaker 1: and she can receive a gluten free host or low
Speaker 1: gluten host once a week without ill effects. But there
Speaker 1: there is not a gluten free host available. The bread
Speaker 1: cannot be pure wheat and stick together without gluten. A
Speaker 1: good traditional priest will be happy to provide it. I'm
Speaker 1: not taking I'm look, folks, I'm gonna. I'm not taking
Speaker 1: any chances on low gluten. I want no gluten. So
Speaker 1: bucks tummy is very important. I of my eternal salvation
Speaker 1: is also really important, But so is my tummy. So
Speaker 1: I gotta figure out a way to handle this, and
Speaker 1: I'll get back to you when I have more answers.
Speaker 1: Uh Dale rites, Hey Buck thanks so much for the
Speaker 1: tip on the New York Times series on the Vegas Shooter.
Speaker 1: It was eerie all right, especially so since I was
Speaker 1: staying at the Attached Delano and hanging at the Mandalay
Speaker 1: and quite possibly had passed this creep in the passageways
Speaker 1: while I was there on business. I came back Thursday morning,
Speaker 1: I never realized he had been the place all week. Dale.
Speaker 1: I do recommend that everybody who has the time and
Speaker 1: inclination check out those New York Times video pieces that
Speaker 1: have been put up on the website that have to
Speaker 1: do with, uh, the Vegas shooters seven day just calm
Speaker 1: walking around preparation for his mass murder spree. It's I
Speaker 1: don't know why The New York Times got the exclusive
Speaker 1: on It's another thing that just somewhat surprised me. But
Speaker 1: it's worth watching if you get a chance. It really is.
Speaker 1: Kevin is up next, Hey Buck, great show as always.
Speaker 1: Uh since the o G Saturday shows, Oh Wow, o
Speaker 1: G Saturday or OSS, I just want to let you
Speaker 1: know that your oh for two With answering that roll
Speaker 1: call question about the Twitter thread from Friday three three.
Speaker 1: It was by Alexandra de Sanctis of National Review. Uh,
Speaker 1: to revisit the error. Wow, Kevin's plunging a knife in
Speaker 1: and twisting it now you had said Daily Wire or
Speaker 1: the Federalist. Nice try. Mr Sanctus is one of the
Speaker 1: most prodent up prodent pardon me ardent pro life voices
Speaker 1: out there in case you want to have someone talk
Speaker 1: about such issues. All the best, Kevin. Kevin is completely correct.
Speaker 1: He's calling me out, and he's right to do so.
Speaker 1: I was wrong. It wasn't the Federalist. It was National Review,
Speaker 1: and it was Alexander de Sanctists and it's a very
Speaker 1: important Twitter thread. Uh. Next we have Heidi, who writes
Speaker 1: just recently transfer here to University of Southern Florida, and
Speaker 1: I am in the United States Marine Corps Officer program here,
Speaker 1: like I was at my last university. Here, I find
Speaker 1: myself the only conservative and the only Christian in the program,
Speaker 1: which is somewhat surprising considering most of the people I
Speaker 1: know in the military are conservative Christians. Anyway, thanks for
Speaker 1: all you're doing. I don't know what I do without
Speaker 1: the daily broadcast from the Freedom Hut, Truth to Power
Speaker 1: and Shields High. Thank you so much. Hidi. First of all,
Speaker 1: thank you for what you're doing in the USMC Officer program.
Speaker 1: Great to hear that young ladies patriots like yourself are
Speaker 1: joining up in the core. So that's just really cool.
Speaker 1: And uh, thank you very much for your support of
Speaker 1: the show. And you know, you're probably you probably have
Speaker 1: more like mine conservatives around you than you can tell
Speaker 1: right now. It's often just a question of whether they're
Speaker 1: willing to expose themselves, you know, whether they're willing to
Speaker 1: be public about it. A lot of people keep it quiet,
Speaker 1: and I know I do. And in social settings, people
Speaker 1: would generally have very little idea until I know them
Speaker 1: about what I think of the world. I've gotten very
Speaker 1: good as a New Yorker at I'm talking about in
Speaker 1: superficial quick you know, hey, how you doing? Oh hey,
Speaker 1: I'm fine. You know when your voice goes all high
Speaker 1: when you say, oh hey, what's going on? Oh hey,
Speaker 1: how are you? You know, one of those greetings, not
Speaker 1: like an old friend or someone you know, but oh hey, Bob,
Speaker 1: it's been a while. What's going on Bob? You know?
Speaker 1: Oh hey, Buck, hey how are you? Uh? I tend
Speaker 1: not to get into the gosh, can you believe what's
Speaker 1: going on with these uh gun marches across the country
Speaker 1: anti gun marches. It's just not worth it to put
Speaker 1: myself through the frustration of listening to all the ignorance. Hey,
Speaker 1: how are you doing? Oh yeah, it's great. You know, Buck,
Speaker 1: What are you working on these days? Oh? You know,
Speaker 1: lots of stuff, real busy. I've gotten really good at that,
Speaker 1: at the non conversation conversation when I'm in a very
Speaker 1: blue place like New York City, and unless I know
Speaker 1: it's a friendly I just keep it all on the
Speaker 1: I'm polite. I talked about dogs and food and I
Speaker 1: leave it there. You know, maybe the weather, but I
Speaker 1: try not to get into the global warming part of
Speaker 1: the weather. Next up here we have Doug, who writes
Speaker 1: Hi Buck. After suffering through the hype and rhetoric surrounding
Speaker 1: Saturday's events in d C, I just wanted to suggest
Speaker 1: our word for the day should be occuocracy. It gives
Speaker 1: me chills each time I see a clip showing these
Speaker 1: kids were setting the mantra this is what democracy looks like.
Speaker 1: No children are constitutional. Republic incorporates a democrats structure of
Speaker 1: represent democratic structure of representative government, not dictate via mob rule. Yes,
Speaker 1: Oculocracy is actually something I wrote about in Occupy American
Speaker 1: Spring and the book I wrote as a cub reporter
Speaker 1: at The Blaze Gosh almost seven years ago. Now, I
Speaker 1: specifically got into the ococracy of Occupy Wall Street. So
Speaker 1: I was oclocracy before oclocracy was cool. It's a fun
Speaker 1: word to say, by the way. With that, I think
Speaker 1: we're in a perfect place for me to close down
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt for the evening. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here with me team. It is the best
Speaker 1: part of my day every single day. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: home now and probably eat a whole bunch of red
Speaker 1: meat because I have some very delicious grass fed hamburger
Speaker 1: beating the fridge that I'm going to just probably eat
Speaker 1: about a pound up and uh, and then I'll get
Speaker 1: ready for tomorrow's show. I usually fall asleep reading for
Speaker 1: this show and I look forward to it every night.
Speaker 1: Please tell your friends download the podcast. It's just on
Speaker 1: iTunes at the Buck Sexton Show until tomorrow night, my friends,
Speaker 1: No matter what comes your way, Shields high