Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A bomb show. Ruling
Speaker 1: from a federal court laid on a Friday afternoon, my friends,
Speaker 1: the judges said that DOCTA, deferred action for childhood rivals,
Speaker 1: must be restored in its entirety. I want to wonder
Speaker 1: out loud here, folks, why do we even have a president?
Speaker 1: I guess all we needs a couple of left wing
Speaker 1: federal judges who will overrule the president on areas of
Speaker 1: his authority. We'll get into that. And also, the espionage
Speaker 1: threat from China is escalating. DAT and more coming up
Speaker 1: on the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Former CIA
Speaker 1: analysts Remember the MD when they said, sir, we're better
Speaker 1: off if we wait till last, and I say it's
Speaker 1: better before. Let's do it before, sir, we're better off.
Speaker 1: You know who thinks that should before. Rush Limbaugh thinks
Speaker 1: it should be before before the election. You know who else?
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity, a lot of them. They said, look, we
Speaker 1: have the best economy ever we're doing great. Maybe we
Speaker 1: don't want to complicate it, and I understand it. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm a little torn myself. I would personally prefer before.
Speaker 1: But whether it's before or after, we're either getting it
Speaker 1: or with closing down government. We need to order security.
Speaker 1: We need order security. I think the President was gonna
Speaker 1: throw my name in there right after Russian Sean, but
Speaker 1: you know he's got a country to run and the
Speaker 1: country to save. Welcome the Bucks Section Show, everybody. Great
Speaker 1: to have you here with me on a Friday. Appreciate
Speaker 1: the chance to address you live from the swamp. I
Speaker 1: am your humble host from the the filthiest, stinkiest swamp
Speaker 1: there is, Washington, d C. And I do have some
Speaker 1: some breaking news for you to share on the show,
Speaker 1: which is always fun for a Friday. Usually you get
Speaker 1: the the document dump on a Friday, especially if it's
Speaker 1: something the government doesn't want people to spend much time
Speaker 1: thinking about. Are talking about this one though, is a
Speaker 1: federal judge who has weighed in on DOCTA and the
Speaker 1: Deferred Action for Childhood Rivals program. Right this is the
Speaker 1: Dreamer's program where you get, you get to stay, you
Speaker 1: are free from deportation, and you also can get a
Speaker 1: work permit. Ah. This is yeah, renewable grants of deferred
Speaker 1: action to non citizen parents. Oh sir, now that's stop.
Speaker 1: I'll get to that in a moment. So this is
Speaker 1: how we got to this point, because we need a
Speaker 1: little bit of backstory before we get to where we
Speaker 1: are now. President of Obama was in the eight years
Speaker 1: of his presidency, including two years where he had both
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate and where they rammed through
Speaker 1: a massive entitle and programing his Obamacare without a single
Speaker 1: Republican vote. So we know they were willing to play
Speaker 1: hardball on stuff. Not a not an ounce of bipartisan effort,
Speaker 1: not an ounce of reaching across the aisle. But Obama
Speaker 1: did nothing on the issue of immigration, nothing, no legislation whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's only executive orders that Obama took any action on immigration.
Speaker 1: And you know you'd say, oh, back, well, the Congress,
Speaker 1: they would work with them. Or he was president for
Speaker 1: eight years, his party was in power, uh and majority
Speaker 1: both the House and the Senate. The first two of
Speaker 1: those eight years did not lead the Democrats to reform
Speaker 1: immigration or do anything substantive on that issue. Even he
Speaker 1: only waited until his second term to start just with
Speaker 1: these proclamations, these pen and phone proclamations and saying things
Speaker 1: like I'm just gonna go around Congress if Congress won't act.
Speaker 1: They won't say that that was tyrannical. They won't say
Speaker 1: now you know that, the media won't say, oh, that's
Speaker 1: that's undermining our norms of democracy, that is undermining our institutions.
Speaker 1: What Obama did was in fact dangerous to separation of powers.
Speaker 1: Trump has done nothing like that. Trump has respected the
Speaker 1: process at every step of the way. Every you know,
Speaker 1: random flimsy federal judge who decides to engage in a
Speaker 1: little hashtag resistance Trumps and Trump at administration go all right, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll take this to court. It doesn't just
Speaker 1: come up with another executive order to go around them
Speaker 1: or tell them just to go forward to remember this,
Speaker 1: a federal judge actually under Obama had to stop the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security under j. Johnson from giving I
Speaker 1: D S and work permits to a lot of people
Speaker 1: covered under DAPPA, the Deferred Action for the parents of arrival.
Speaker 1: So not just dreamers now, it's dreamers parents. Now it's
Speaker 1: gonna be dreamers, uncles, that it's gonna be dreamers friends,
Speaker 1: then it's gonna be people that saw dreamers that live
Speaker 1: in their neighborhood that also want to be dreamers. That's
Speaker 1: the way the Democrats play the game. We know this,
Speaker 1: We've seen it in the past, no surprises. But a
Speaker 1: federal judge in Texas had to step in and stop
Speaker 1: the Obama administration from giving ideas to DAPPA recipients because
Speaker 1: they knew that once they had done that, if they
Speaker 1: were able to just print and they were gonna go
Speaker 1: forward it right, it was supposed to be decided by
Speaker 1: a court that is no, no, we're just gonna go
Speaker 1: with this anyway that they would make it a fatal complee.
Speaker 1: Once it's finished, there's no way of turning it back.
Speaker 1: So that was what Obama was doing. He was you
Speaker 1: weren't talking about running through democratic norms and and undermining
Speaker 1: our system of government by refusing to accept the fact
Speaker 1: that the legis slaterre can act or not act, and
Speaker 1: that's just the way it is. Obama put us in
Speaker 1: this position where by presidential proclamation, almost like you're in
Speaker 1: a monarchy or something. By presidential proclamation, it was decided
Speaker 1: that the law which says you cannot be in this
Speaker 1: country illegally and if you are, you are subject to deportation.
Speaker 1: That is the law. No one denies that that as
Speaker 1: the law. But the law didn't count anymore because Obama
Speaker 1: said so. The law didn't matter because it was inconvenient
Speaker 1: for the Democrats and because President Obama wanted to burnish
Speaker 1: his legacy of being favorable towards illegal aliens, people that
Speaker 1: have broken the law in this country. And that was
Speaker 1: a decision that that president made. Now we have a
Speaker 1: new president and this is you know, we can get
Speaker 1: into all the legal complexities of this, and I won't.
Speaker 1: You know, it's Friday. We got a lot of talk
Speaker 1: about I got Chinese espionage case. To bring your attention.
Speaker 1: There's some really interest stuff going on. We'll also take
Speaker 1: the the liars in the quote neutral media to task.
Speaker 1: We're not a busy show. But here's the very basic
Speaker 1: way we can all understand and approach this issue. Because
Speaker 1: this DOCCA DOCCA is very important. It's very important that
Speaker 1: we don't cave on this. You are Trump saying we
Speaker 1: gotta build a wall. This was a This was all
Speaker 1: central to the promise of Trump is um, no amnesty,
Speaker 1: A wall will be built, there will be a secure border.
Speaker 1: We will not have millions and millions of people in
Speaker 1: the next ten or twenty years coming to the country
Speaker 1: illegally overstaying their visas. All these different games that are played,
Speaker 1: and that was what President Trump promised, and we are
Speaker 1: going to hold them to that with DOCCA. Though it's
Speaker 1: very clear that the Obama administration decided to do this
Speaker 1: for political reasons, but it was a president it was
Speaker 1: a presidential decision. Obama said, it's within my discretion, essentially
Speaker 1: abusing prosecutorial discretion. Because Obama, the president, is the top
Speaker 1: of the executive branch, so he's also the highest law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer in the country. It's also why he can
Speaker 1: pardon people, right, So Obama abused that authority under under
Speaker 1: the notion of discretion, and who do you prosecute? Who
Speaker 1: do you not prosecute? You said, well, we're not gonna
Speaker 1: prosecute any of these people, and we're gonna confer a
Speaker 1: special status to them by executive decree. Trump has come
Speaker 1: along and decided, you know what, I don't agree with that,
Speaker 1: and now I'm the president and I'm going to stop that. Program,
Speaker 1: and you've got federal judges who are saying, no, sorry,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter that you're the president. You don't get
Speaker 1: to stop this program. Oh I'm sorry, how is that
Speaker 1: supposed to work? And I'm looking at the at the
Speaker 1: judgment right here, or at the the opinion rather right here,
Speaker 1: and when you read into it it's quite clear. I
Speaker 1: mean they say that quote for the reasons explained the government,
Speaker 1: that motion will be denied. Although the Nielsen memo members
Speaker 1: she's running DHS purports to offer further explanation of DHS
Speaker 1: decision to ver sind Dhaka, it fails to meaningfully elaborate
Speaker 1: on the agency's primary rationale for its decision, the judgment
Speaker 1: that the policy was unlawful and unconstitutional. And while the
Speaker 1: memo offers several additional policy grounds for docca's decision, most
Speaker 1: of these simply repackaged legal arguments previously made and hence
Speaker 1: are insufficiently independent from the evaluation of docca's legality to
Speaker 1: preclude judicial review or to support the agency's decision. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of fancy legalis for them saying yeah, we
Speaker 1: don't think, we don't we don't think that you get
Speaker 1: to make this call. We're not persuaded, but it's not
Speaker 1: your call. This is in the world of presidential power.
Speaker 1: Let's let's really boil this down to its its essence.
Speaker 1: This would be like if if you many many of
Speaker 1: you listening, because you know you've chosen to live in
Speaker 1: places where you can do this, unlike me, who will
Speaker 1: probably never own property in this whole life, but many
Speaker 1: of you live in places where you know you you
Speaker 1: own a house. You're the owner of the house. You
Speaker 1: can paint that house whatever color you want, right, you can.
Speaker 1: You can paint that house blue, let's say. And then
Speaker 1: I know some of you, like Buck, who paints the
Speaker 1: house blue. Just stay with me on this, all right,
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter, all right, that's that's your right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And and let's put aside whether or not that's a
Speaker 1: good idea. But you can paint your house blue. The
Speaker 1: next owner comes along, they buy that house, you think
Speaker 1: that they have the right to paint it whatever they want, right,
Speaker 1: But if they went to paint it, uh green, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be right for you to say you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to do that. That's pretty much what's going on here now,
Speaker 1: except it's with the presidency and amnesty for millions of people.
Speaker 1: That's at stake if it was, if it was a
Speaker 1: presidential decision, a presidential prerogative to extend DOCCA. There is
Speaker 1: no reasonable explanation how it cannot be a presidential decision
Speaker 1: to rescind DOCCA. Remember, the president cannot confer citizenship. So
Speaker 1: this is not like, oh, well that you can't pull
Speaker 1: away citizenship once it's been granted or something, which is
Speaker 1: also not entirely true. But this is just the president
Speaker 1: was saying, uh, here's here's a better version of this.
Speaker 1: Forget about the painted houses things somebody like. But come on,
Speaker 1: it's Friday. I know. I'm trying to make it very basic.
Speaker 1: Though this would also be like saying, James Comey, that
Speaker 1: partisan hack helped push the decision with Loretta Lynch also
Speaker 1: obviously very partisan pro Obama not to prosecute Hillary for
Speaker 1: her clear violations of the Espionage Act. It is not
Speaker 1: up to a judge in the era of Trump. If,
Speaker 1: in fact of Jeff Sessions and Christopher Ray, the FBI director, decided,
Speaker 1: you know what, actually we we we do think that
Speaker 1: she needs to executed for that. That is their call.
Speaker 1: There's no there a judge has no role in this,
Speaker 1: you see, And a judge has no role in overruling
Speaker 1: an issue of presidential discretion. This would be like a
Speaker 1: federal judge saying, what's going on here with Dhaka. It
Speaker 1: would be like a federal judge coming out and saying, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: the president, I'm gonna put it in junction. The president
Speaker 1: can't pardon that person, you'd say to yourself. But wait,
Speaker 1: presidential pardon is a their enumeratd power. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the president can do this and it's the president's choice.
Speaker 1: Oh no, some federal judge says, no, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: convinced that the president has the power to do it
Speaker 1: this time. So now this is how you create a
Speaker 1: real constitutional crisis, folks. And this you want to talk
Speaker 1: about undermining institutions and Americans faith in the governing apparatus
Speaker 1: around them. What is this all about. This is just
Speaker 1: hashtag resistant judiciary at work. This is left wing judges
Speaker 1: on the federal bench who think that it is their
Speaker 1: moral obligation, even when they know they are doing violence
Speaker 1: to the law and the process, they think it's their
Speaker 1: moral obligation to do everything they can to block the
Speaker 1: president's agenda to stop the president from exercising his constitutional
Speaker 1: authority granted him by the people of this country. And
Speaker 1: they don't care that they will be overturned eventually. They
Speaker 1: don't care that there's no way the Supreme Court could
Speaker 1: look at this and not come away it will be
Speaker 1: five four because there's a bunch of hashtag resistance judges
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court to unfortunately, but there's not five
Speaker 1: of them. Well, I hope we'll see what ends up
Speaker 1: happening here with Kavanah'm assuming that will all be fun.
Speaker 1: But this, this is what we're up against. The federal
Speaker 1: bench stacked with Obama appointees. By the way of the
Speaker 1: federal bench right now, people Obama put in place. Now
Speaker 1: Trump is changing that. Trump's put a lot of judges
Speaker 1: in place too. But they have been a primary, a
Speaker 1: a frontline offensive against President Trump's agenda. And they don't
Speaker 1: care that their reasoning is complete and utter garbage. They
Speaker 1: don't care that they're going to be overturned as it
Speaker 1: makes its way up to the either Appeals Court or
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. They just want people to think that
Speaker 1: they're part of the resistance. And this under if you
Speaker 1: want to dalk about undermining the rule of law. This
Speaker 1: undermines the rule of law. This is a garbage decision.
Speaker 1: It is full of crap, lousy reasoning and rationale. And
Speaker 1: the the judge here, uh, where is this judge's name?
Speaker 1: Oh well, whatever, the judge wrote it, and we'll find
Speaker 1: it at the bottom in a second. Should be a shame,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure it's not, which is not surprising. Yeah,
Speaker 1: John Bates, United States District Judge, John Bates, Big surprise there,
Speaker 1: eight four four to eight to five four four, Buck
Speaker 1: will be right back. You know, they keep they keep
Speaker 1: getting mad. Whatever Trump talks about Russia as a hoax,
Speaker 1: What is he supposed to say about the Russian nonsense?
Speaker 1: At this point? Play cliff five please, Now we're being
Speaker 1: hindered by the Russian hopes just a hoax. Okay, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what. Russia is very unhappy that Trump won.
Speaker 1: That I consent, But I got along great with Tom.
Speaker 1: I used to study not too much diplomacy. I said,
Speaker 1: whatever happened to getting everything you want? Now? Something you
Speaker 1: have to be rough, some you have to be nice.
Speaker 1: But whatever happened, And let me tell you, if I
Speaker 1: did go up and start screaming, they would have said
Speaker 1: he was terrible. He was so rude, it was horrible.
Speaker 1: His performance was horrible. Whatever happened to fair press, whatever
Speaker 1: happened to honest reported. It's a good question. And by
Speaker 1: the way, his his point there, and we'll return to
Speaker 1: this later on about the National Security meeting that was
Speaker 1: held yesterday at the at the in the White House
Speaker 1: press conference and here from a CNN analyst version what's
Speaker 1: going on, which will really which I think, really show
Speaker 1: you exactly what I'm talking about. But they don't offer
Speaker 1: criticism of the president as guidance. They just offer criticism
Speaker 1: as uh, this is an itch that they must scratch.
Speaker 1: This makes them feel better because they hate Trump so much.
Speaker 1: So it's not that they get angry a Trump because
Speaker 1: they want him to do things differently. They have to
Speaker 1: pretend that that's how they feel, because otherwise it's just
Speaker 1: verbalizing their Trump's arrangement, right. But they they absolutely do,
Speaker 1: and I really believe it's They absolutely will change their
Speaker 1: position on whatever the issue is based on whatever Trump
Speaker 1: is for or against. If he's for it, there against it,
Speaker 1: he's against it there for, they'll move on anything. If
Speaker 1: he's tough with Russia, he's pushing US toward war. If
Speaker 1: he's nice to Russia, he's a stooge in the Kremlin's pocket.
Speaker 1: We just keep saying this play out all the time.
Speaker 1: I do hope that the Republicans understand that immigration is
Speaker 1: a winning issue for them. Returning to that for a
Speaker 1: moment here, and this this whole breaking news about DACA.
Speaker 1: Remember now they're saying that the president has to that
Speaker 1: we have to re implement DACA. So I guess we're
Speaker 1: DACA is now a law. You see, it was never
Speaker 1: passed as a law, but it was an Obama pronouncement.
Speaker 1: It's important to Democrats, So now it's a law. That's
Speaker 1: pretty scary. That's not the way this is supposed to work.
Speaker 1: That's not how any of this is supposed to work.
Speaker 1: That's not the system that we have. But the same
Speaker 1: liberals who are going to tell you, the same media
Speaker 1: that's neutral, yeah right, the same neutral media that's going
Speaker 1: to say to you that they just want the president
Speaker 1: to restore presidential norms, right to just acted with it.
Speaker 1: They'll also look at this and say, well, yeah, this
Speaker 1: is the president's decision to make, but we don't think
Speaker 1: you should make it because we don't like it. I
Speaker 1: want to talking about espionage. That's a couple of big cases,
Speaker 1: not involving Russia, not involving Russian collusion or interferencing election,
Speaker 1: involving China and what they're doing. We've got that a
Speaker 1: more coming up. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton is back. So the media, because of Hillary's loss
Speaker 1: in ten and their need for some kind of an
Speaker 1: excuse and escapegoat, They've got everybody all all freaked out
Speaker 1: about Russia. Got this huge problem of Russia. And if
Speaker 1: you're in our elections and Russia collusion allegations, all all
Speaker 1: this stuff that you hear, all this that's going on.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile some of us are saying, well, if we're
Speaker 1: really going to take the notion of cyber theft and
Speaker 1: espionage and trade secrets being stolen, all that stuff, if
Speaker 1: we're really going to focus in on this as a country,
Speaker 1: the bigger concern is China. The bigger concern is what's
Speaker 1: going on with a massive kind of hybrid communist country
Speaker 1: that has over a billion people, And uh we we
Speaker 1: I have you know, this is something that we really
Speaker 1: need to spend more time on in general in the media.
Speaker 1: I think you know. Never mind the fact that, as
Speaker 1: I pointed out, well everyone's talking about Acosta's whining. You've
Speaker 1: got Yemen, which is host to the most active Al
Speaker 1: Qaeda franchise in the world, still one that's you know,
Speaker 1: that consistently is in the is in the top of
Speaker 1: the threat matrix of the counter terrorism agencies, and it's
Speaker 1: trying to blow up planes and do all the terrible
Speaker 1: terrors stuff that You'll notice this lesson dramatically in the
Speaker 1: last eighteen months, hasn't it. You don't hear much about
Speaker 1: isis anymore? Do you seems curious, isn't it. It's almost
Speaker 1: like somebody came in and has a different approach to
Speaker 1: these things, somebody who can make a difference on those matters.
Speaker 1: But we don't hear much about the millions of people
Speaker 1: who may be starving to death in Yemen unless some
Speaker 1: dramatic action is taken on their behalf soon. We hear
Speaker 1: a lot about Jim Acosta whining, and we don't hear
Speaker 1: all that much about the following two stories, both involving
Speaker 1: Chinese espionage efforts. In one case is alleged in another
Speaker 1: I think I believed to have already been proven, so
Speaker 1: I'll start with the one that you're I'll start with
Speaker 1: the one they're gonna make go away even more quickly.
Speaker 1: How many of you knew that Senator Diane fin Stein,
Speaker 1: who was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so
Speaker 1: has oversight, has an oversight roll over what the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: intelligence community is doing. Therefore, can see whatever she wants
Speaker 1: to see, access to whatever government programs that she wants.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that is too sensitive for the chairwoman of
Speaker 1: the Senate Finance I'm sorry, Senate Intelligence Committee, Finance Committee,
Speaker 1: show me those spreadsheets. How is the economy doing? Um? So,
Speaker 1: it is known that five years ago the story first
Speaker 1: broke where where fine Stein had a driver four years
Speaker 1: twenty years in fact, who was with Senator fine Stein
Speaker 1: traveling around with her all the time and was a
Speaker 1: mole for the Chinese government. Oh yeah, that's right, a
Speaker 1: Chinese spy in San Francisco was driving, uh, Senator fine
Speaker 1: stunt around. Now. You know San Francisco, by the way,
Speaker 1: does have a fair amount of espionage stuff going on
Speaker 1: that you had the Russian consul there shutdown, you guys,
Speaker 1: remember that, and there was the the burning of documents
Speaker 1: going on. People could see it from the facility, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, fine Stein's office of course not commenting on this,
Speaker 1: but you would think that given how much focus there's
Speaker 1: been on the possibility of anyone in Trump's orbit talking
Speaker 1: to a Russian ordering a white Russian, you know, doing
Speaker 1: any of these things, that a senior intelligence uh or sorry,
Speaker 1: a c A senior senator, UM, a senior senator here
Speaker 1: on the Intelligence committee. UH had a spy next door
Speaker 1: for a long time and apparently never never thought that
Speaker 1: this was a bad idea. I never thought that they
Speaker 1: should have this person more thoroughly vetted that to me,
Speaker 1: she there's a double standard at work here. I think
Speaker 1: we can all agree with that. This would be if
Speaker 1: this were not fine Stein, if this person were a
Speaker 1: Russian and this person were you know, imagine the storyline
Speaker 1: right now if instead of it being a Chinese spy
Speaker 1: who was very close to fine Stein during a lot
Speaker 1: of conversations, sure she was on her cellphone lot in
Speaker 1: that car, or the very valuable information was being exchanged
Speaker 1: in a regular basis. You know, you're driver or somebody
Speaker 1: who It's kind of like the media business, the hair
Speaker 1: and makeup folks here and know everything. You always gotta
Speaker 1: be aware of that. I know that sounds trite. It's
Speaker 1: really true though, because people just talk in front of
Speaker 1: them like they're not there, and so they'll hear everything.
Speaker 1: People have negotiated their divorces in front of hair and
Speaker 1: makeup and think that they can't hear anything. Uh. The
Speaker 1: imagine the storyline if instead of it, uh, instead of
Speaker 1: the situation we talked about right here, you had a
Speaker 1: Russian driver who was Mitch McConnell's driver for the last
Speaker 1: you know, for for twenty years, folks, who was a
Speaker 1: spy for the Kremlin. Do you think that that would
Speaker 1: be a bigger story? Do you think that you'd be
Speaker 1: here in this one and you know ABC News tonight
Speaker 1: in all these places. Oh, you know, the Russian espionage
Speaker 1: efforts at the heart of the Republican Party. That's the storyline.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're going crazy over Maria Boutina, who
Speaker 1: was walking around like I'm Russian and would like to
Speaker 1: be friends with powerful people to know the direction of
Speaker 1: American politics, and maybe even did some shadier stuff, uh
Speaker 1: than that from what we're told, And that's a huge deal.
Speaker 1: You know. They act like she perhaps was practically running
Speaker 1: the n r A. I mean, she had some meetings
Speaker 1: in some places, and they're getting her on a far
Speaker 1: registration crime essentially or being an unregistered foreign agent in
Speaker 1: this country. Feinstein's driver for twenty years was a Chinese
Speaker 1: spy and no one is really saying boo about it.
Speaker 1: Not not not a whole lot, so, you know, and
Speaker 1: then just I'm just putting this out there. This is supposition.
Speaker 1: I can't prove this, but the reality of operational and
Speaker 1: information security really, as we've seen with Hillary Clinton, was
Speaker 1: that she was reckless, didn't care, and thought she was
Speaker 1: above the rules for classified that applied to the little people.
Speaker 1: People like me. When I was in the community, was
Speaker 1: lived in constant terror of saying one wrong thing or
Speaker 1: doing one wrong thing. Hillary Clinton thought she was above
Speaker 1: that and don't Fortunately, when she thought she was above
Speaker 1: the law, she was correct because she was so important
Speaker 1: to the Democrat Party and the deep state bailed her out.
Speaker 1: So we know that that's what happened. I'm really not
Speaker 1: I'm really not up for debating that proposition with anymore
Speaker 1: because that is what happened. But when you look at
Speaker 1: this situation now with fine Stein and a Chinese spy
Speaker 1: driving around everywhere. Do we think that fin Stein was like,
Speaker 1: oh well, I just you know, did do you do
Speaker 1: you think that she had some pretty loose lips about
Speaker 1: some stuff in that car, thinking, you know, who cares?
Speaker 1: Who knows? I can't prove it, but I'm just telling
Speaker 1: you that's where my mind goes, massive, massive counterintelligence nightmare
Speaker 1: in my mind. Who knows what was said by fine
Speaker 1: Stein in that car? He said, oh, buck, she's I'm
Speaker 1: sure she was really careful. Really, do you think fine
Speaker 1: Stein is so much more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton, so
Speaker 1: much more responsible and ethical than Hillary Clinton. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure she's a little bit more ethical, but that's
Speaker 1: not saying much. There's another Chinese espionage story here, And
Speaker 1: who's been telling you folks that this is this is where,
Speaker 1: this is where it's all going. Because now people are saying,
Speaker 1: oh wait a second, cyber and spycraft and intellectual espionage
Speaker 1: and all this stuff, intellectual property theft. They they've raised
Speaker 1: our awareness about this on the Russia front, but China
Speaker 1: is where the real action is. Ge engineer linked to
Speaker 1: China stole power plant technology. According to the FBI, this
Speaker 1: just broke. This is the story from last twenty four hours. Um,
Speaker 1: here's what it says. A General Electric Company engineer with
Speaker 1: ties to Chinese companies was arrested and accused of stealing
Speaker 1: files related to proprietary power turbine technology, which the FBI
Speaker 1: says he elaborately concealed to avoid detection. Uh Shao Jing Zengg,
Speaker 1: a u S citizen, was hired by g E in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight to work and its power division
Speaker 1: and schennected in New York. According to an affidavit by
Speaker 1: an FBI agent filed Wednesday in federal court, the FBI
Speaker 1: is conducting a wider inquiry into the suspected theft and
Speaker 1: use of g S trade secrets. Agent search Mr Zenk's
Speaker 1: house Wednesday and sees his passport, electronic devices, and a
Speaker 1: handbook that explains the type of resources the government of
Speaker 1: China will give to individuals or entities who can provide
Speaker 1: certain technologies. Mm hmm, like a bounty list. Get us this,
Speaker 1: We'll give you that. Very interesting. Also, to conceal the documents,
Speaker 1: mr Zang embedded encrypted file encrypted files into the code
Speaker 1: of a seemingly innocuous image of a sunset to send
Speaker 1: them to a personal email address. The FBI alleged he
Speaker 1: told FBI agents that use similar techniques to take GE
Speaker 1: materials on five to ten previous occasions. Uh. Mr Zank's
Speaker 1: attorney says he disputes the allegations. Blah blah, okay, all
Speaker 1: that stuff, so, you know, innocent until proven guilty. We'll
Speaker 1: see what happens here. But it doesn't look good, right,
Speaker 1: doesn't look good renaming files, encrypting them. Uh you know
Speaker 1: that that seems like that's like using bleach bit and
Speaker 1: hammers to destroy hard drives. Right, that's not normal stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna hide data in an image that looks innocuous
Speaker 1: and send it to a private email address. Why would
Speaker 1: you do that? I can't think of a a normal
Speaker 1: reason unless you're trying to hide sort of the old
Speaker 1: school micro film, Right, unless you're trying to be the
Speaker 1: guy that is stealing information for the Chinese government, Right,
Speaker 1: that that would make some sense. GE. These private companies,
Speaker 1: these massive private corporations, are huge sieves of information, and
Speaker 1: they don't even know the full extent of how much
Speaker 1: is being stolen from them, how sensitive the information that's
Speaker 1: getting out there really is. And why do we think
Speaker 1: that we're gonna have you know, right now, I think
Speaker 1: the assumption that every American goes to bed with every
Speaker 1: night is we have better, better computers, faster, faster planes,
Speaker 1: more powerful missiles, and and just we're we're just if
Speaker 1: we have to, we could kick China's but because we've
Speaker 1: got better stuff. And yeah, we've got a better military.
Speaker 1: But on the stuff front, I'm having better stuff front.
Speaker 1: That's just technology, folks. They can create a lot of
Speaker 1: industrial output to they they're there, we're not. Our advantage
Speaker 1: is in the realm of information and technology, and if
Speaker 1: they can steal enough of that, our advantage goes away.
Speaker 1: And the world when we can't really tell ourselves credibly well,
Speaker 1: we've got to. You know, our our navy is orders
Speaker 1: of magnitude better than their's are. You know, fifth generation
Speaker 1: fighters are way better than there's. That then changes the
Speaker 1: geopolitical calculation in massive ways. And that's what we're heading towards.
Speaker 1: I've been telling you that there is a there is
Speaker 1: a civilization changing theft of intellectual intellectual property, technology and
Speaker 1: information from the United States to China. That has been
Speaker 1: going on for decades and we you know, yeah, we've
Speaker 1: got the FBI on this. How effective do you think,
Speaker 1: and not to like start trashing the FBI, given what
Speaker 1: we've seen with the FBI and their focus on Struck
Speaker 1: and Page and Carter and all this other stuff, or
Speaker 1: Struck with one of them. But you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. You think that they you think that they're
Speaker 1: outsmarting highly trained Chinese espionage Asians on a regular basis
Speaker 1: for everyone they catch. I'd be willing to bet there
Speaker 1: a whole bunch that they don't. And once you add
Speaker 1: into this the ability to you know, whole third party
Speaker 1: meetings overseas, and once you start adding some real tradecraft
Speaker 1: into the equation, we got we got no idea what's
Speaker 1: really going on here? No idea. And if you go
Speaker 1: back and look at the the KGB archives I've been mentioning,
Speaker 1: do you'll see that the KGB was stealing us, stealing
Speaker 1: from us in ways that we've still not really come
Speaker 1: to grips with. And anyway, So I just think this
Speaker 1: is it's a it's a big story. There should be
Speaker 1: more focused on this. And you've been hearing about this here, folks.
Speaker 1: Uh first, folks, so that's important too. We're gonna we're
Speaker 1: all into a whole bunch of say, oh, we got
Speaker 1: Denisse the SUSA joining. By the way, I have a nice,
Speaker 1: nice chat with Denish about his new movie, Death of
Speaker 1: a Nation's a title to grab your attention. We'll talk
Speaker 1: to Danish for for quite a bit about that. That's
Speaker 1: coming up in just a few moments, So stay there.
Speaker 1: I was about fifteen minutes early, and I'm waiting with
Speaker 1: my wife and that's fine. Hey, it's the queen, right,
Speaker 1: we can win. But I'm a little early. So I
Speaker 1: then go up and meet the queen and she is fantastic.
Speaker 1: That lasted for like an hour because we got along.
Speaker 1: So here was the story by the fake news, the
Speaker 1: President was fifteen minutes late for the queen. Wrong. And
Speaker 1: then here's the rest of the story. Now here's the rust.
Speaker 1: Here's the rest of the story. So they said I
Speaker 1: was late when I was actually early. Number one, number two,
Speaker 1: I guess the meeting was scheduled for fifteen minutes and
Speaker 1: it lasted for almost an hour. The president overstate, so
Speaker 1: I was late, And I always say, and honestly, folks,
Speaker 1: it was such a beautiful, beautiful visit in afternoon. But
Speaker 1: they can make anything bad because they are the fake, fake,
Speaker 1: disgusting news. I mean the presidents amazing folks, you know there,
Speaker 1: Why does the president? Why should previous It's always Republicans
Speaker 1: that have to deal with this. Why should Republican presidents
Speaker 1: sit there and just get abused by the press corps
Speaker 1: all the time? Bush did that? He just got abused.
Speaker 1: Bush got abused by the press. He's a war criminal.
Speaker 1: It's all about patting his friends pockets and Haliburton. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, he just got Fahrenheit nine eleven. That Michael
Speaker 1: Moore trash heap. Also the movie was bad. Um. You
Speaker 1: know you you look at this stuff and what purpose
Speaker 1: does it serve to sit there and just allow yourself
Speaker 1: to get punched in the face by the left and
Speaker 1: do nothing about it. Trump has revolutionized politics because of
Speaker 1: this on the right. He has changed the way that
Speaker 1: we view everything about the discourse, and I think a
Speaker 1: very good way. You and I know, sitting around and
Speaker 1: just having to take it because we take the hy road,
Speaker 1: because we're the principal ones, because we're you know, where
Speaker 1: does that get you? Talking about words? Here? A lot
Speaker 1: of fight back with words. I'm not talking about violence,
Speaker 1: We're not talking about or hurting anybody. We're talking about
Speaker 1: pushing back verbally. That's what Trump does. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that want to be violent. They want us to do
Speaker 1: to be verbally abused and suffer violence in silence, not
Speaker 1: on Trump's watch. It's a great thing. It really is.
Speaker 1: Like I said, we've got to Nish coming up here
Speaker 1: in a few minutes. We'll talk to him about his
Speaker 1: movie where he's saying that Trump might be saving America.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's really he's going all in on it.
Speaker 1: So I'm looking forward to talking to Nish about that,
Speaker 1: um and I'm also hoping that you will. I've getten
Speaker 1: a lot of really positive feedback both about the Sean
Speaker 1: Parnell Jesse Kelly interview from last week on the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt podcast and this week with Raheem Kassam. Raheim and
Speaker 1: I had a great chat. The podcast just went up
Speaker 1: last night. If you're looking for something to listen to
Speaker 1: this weekend, it's a little over thirty five minutes. I
Speaker 1: think we're looking at someone. Just listen. There's no commercials,
Speaker 1: no nothing, okay, just just having a chat with Rahim
Speaker 1: about all the things Fortnite, a Costa, A, Lynsky, all
Speaker 1: this different stuff. I think you'll really, really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: It's on iTunes. Just type in it's in the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton show feed, but you can also type in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt and it will pop up. You can just
Speaker 1: click and listen, and soon enough we'll have the Buck
Speaker 1: sex and dot com up. You'll just be able to
Speaker 1: listen to this there too, and uh, we'll get gone
Speaker 1: with it. Jnistasus are coming up momentarily, uh, and a
Speaker 1: whole lot of other stuff, So please do stay with me, team,
Speaker 1: And the third hour is also gonna be fantastic as
Speaker 1: it always is. You're putting in long days at the
Speaker 1: office or at home, if you wanted to get a
Speaker 1: little bit of a of a boost, get even more
Speaker 1: fired up at the gym, or you just need something
Speaker 1: to help you push through and be as productive as
Speaker 1: possible and get it done. Strike Force Energy is there
Speaker 1: for you. Strikeforce is fuel for the fight, my friends.
Speaker 1: It's a veteran owned, American made energy product, and it's
Speaker 1: this liquid that you can put in anything you want, water, tea, lemonade, yogurt,
Speaker 1: you can even put it in a nice cold beer.
Speaker 1: And it comes in four different flavors, zero sugar, zero calories.
Speaker 1: It is delicious, just pour some strike Force Energy liquid
Speaker 1: into whatever you want and you will get fired up
Speaker 1: and fueled up. And by the way, when you go
Speaker 1: to strike Force Energy dot com and energiscount code buck
Speaker 1: at checkout. For every packet you buy, Strikeforce will donate
Speaker 1: a packet to military members around the globe. Strikeforce Energy
Speaker 1: dot Com discount code b U c K because strike
Speaker 1: Force Energy is fuel for the fun buck Sexton mission,
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, American rank You're a great American again. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show at former CIA analysts. No,
Speaker 1: Republicans just passed the biggest tax cuts in the history
Speaker 1: of our country, and the Democrats want to lift them
Speaker 1: way up. Remember that when you go to vote, they
Speaker 1: want to end your tax cuts and they want to
Speaker 1: lift it up so they can waste your money on
Speaker 1: a lot of nonsense. We really at a high plateau. Uh.
Speaker 1: The day to day manufacturing was strong, professional services unemployment
Speaker 1: went down and it's very nice report Atlanta fed GDP
Speaker 1: now model preliminary is predicting five for Q three. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would be happy with three, but they're predicting five.
Speaker 1: So We're off to a good start. The Chinese had
Speaker 1: better not underestimate the determination of President Trump to follow
Speaker 1: through and seek zero tariffs and non tariff barriers and subsidies,
Speaker 1: and a level playing field and major reforms in i
Speaker 1: P theft and force transfer of technologies. You know, the
Speaker 1: the economy is doing so well, folks, and I just
Speaker 1: I like to take some time, especially on Friday's when
Speaker 1: we when we have the numbers in, because that's when
Speaker 1: that's when you get these things like the unemployment numbers
Speaker 1: and the jobs reports and all this stuff. And the
Speaker 1: economy is doing really well. And I know that that's
Speaker 1: not a segment that's gonna get people, you know, jumping
Speaker 1: out of their seats and cheered. Right It's we're not
Speaker 1: we're not owning the Libs right now. We're not taking
Speaker 1: it to them. But I feel a need to bring
Speaker 1: it up because I just think I have to do
Speaker 1: my part to make sure that you're all hearing this
Speaker 1: because you may not be hearing it elsewhere, no matter
Speaker 1: how how much you're reading and seeing and watching. There's
Speaker 1: so little focus on what really does matter with this president.
Speaker 1: There's such a an unwillingness to look at the things
Speaker 1: that the president is doing that are having a positive
Speaker 1: impact on the economy, and and to just you just
Speaker 1: tell us what the numbers are, right, let's judge this
Speaker 1: president by his results. I will say early on, that
Speaker 1: was what I told myself. I said that, Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: you know Trump personally, I don't know how this is
Speaker 1: gonna work out with him, and but you know, he
Speaker 1: he beat Hillary, and like, I'm with him. Let's let's
Speaker 1: give this a shot. Let's see if Trump can get
Speaker 1: it done. That was that was eighteen months ago. Now
Speaker 1: I'm yeah, about to get Maga tattooed on my back anyway.
Speaker 1: The economic numbers, though, are so strong that Democrats can't
Speaker 1: even come up with a coherent narrative about why they're
Speaker 1: not good. Can't even tell us why we shouldn't feel like.
Speaker 1: Trump is doing a very very good job with this.
Speaker 1: And He's also got other plans. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: are you are you hearing about the workforce training initiative
Speaker 1: that he's put out there? Play clips six poor than
Speaker 1: four million Americans are going to receive job training under
Speaker 1: our new workforce initiative. Manufacturing, consumer and business confidence has
Speaker 1: reached the highest level in the history of our country.
Speaker 1: I'd say that's pretty good. You know, a lot of
Speaker 1: the numbers he's talking about, he said, consumer confidence, manufacturing, UH, unemployment,
Speaker 1: Hispanic unemployment, lack unemployment. He's not just talking about the
Speaker 1: low in a while. We're not just talking about strong
Speaker 1: numbers on the economy in a relative sense or in
Speaker 1: a near historical sense, near term historical sense. We're talking
Speaker 1: about ever, So, how can that be explained? Oh, it's
Speaker 1: just I've actually heard some people say recently, well, it's
Speaker 1: just the continuation of the Obama economy. Yeah. Right, we
Speaker 1: saw the Obama economy for eight years. Remember what the
Speaker 1: first Remember the first couple of years were like after
Speaker 1: we're being told, yeah, you know, the country is never
Speaker 1: really gonna have strong GDP growth again, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: kind of just limping along. And they were downgrading our
Speaker 1: expectations for our future as a means of explaining away
Speaker 1: Obama's failures to be failures on the economy, and those
Speaker 1: failures just come from a philosophy that is hostile to business,
Speaker 1: hostile to individual achievement, hostile to people being able to
Speaker 1: pursue their dreams through their own means. In the in
Speaker 1: the market. Yeah's individual initiative and keeping the fruit of
Speaker 1: your labor without the government. I believe in the declaration
Speaker 1: independence is therefore just you know, eating out our substance.
Speaker 1: That was what the Brits were doing to the colonies.
Speaker 1: And you know we don't want that now either, We
Speaker 1: really don't. You know, Trump has got workforce training. By
Speaker 1: the way, You've got a hundred and fifty five million
Speaker 1: people employed in the country right now, which is a record. Um,
Speaker 1: You've got a hundred and fifty seven thousand jobs in July,
Speaker 1: thirty seven thousand manufacturing jobs. The U six unemployment rate
Speaker 1: is the lowest it's been since two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: I could go on and on and on. Wages have
Speaker 1: started to rise, very tougher, wages to rise, and it
Speaker 1: has to do with outsourcing and globalism and productivity and
Speaker 1: a globalization rather but no globalization. And there's a lot
Speaker 1: of factors in play. But I I'm looking at these numbers,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at what's going on, and you know, you
Speaker 1: can try to argue that, but you'll lose. You know,
Speaker 1: you can try to say that something that this has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Trump. I mean, that's that's where
Speaker 1: we are now, folks, only with this president. Do you
Speaker 1: hear the following, Oh, well, his Russia policies are actually
Speaker 1: very firm and and taking Russia to task and holding
Speaker 1: them to account. But he's not responsible for that. It's
Speaker 1: happening in spite of him. Oh, the economy is booming
Speaker 1: and unemployment is super low, and it looks like we're
Speaker 1: heading into new a new era of incredible prosperity right now.
Speaker 1: But it has nothing to do with Trump. That's happening
Speaker 1: in spite of him. They say, it's just pathetic. Right,
Speaker 1: in what other circumstance do you have people saying that
Speaker 1: a president should not be judged by what is happening
Speaker 1: in the country during his administration. And I will keep
Speaker 1: returning to they've they've got They've just got nothing. They've
Speaker 1: got nothing, And one of the reasons that they've got
Speaker 1: nothing is because Trump's got their number. I really liked
Speaker 1: this line. By the way, this was gonna use in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania that rally play for for generations. Pennsylvania Steel and
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania coll made this state the center of the industrial world.
Speaker 1: The workers of Scranton and beth Land and Allantown and
Speaker 1: Wiks Far where the backbone of American might, but the
Speaker 1: loyalty of our workers was repaid with betrayal. You would
Speaker 1: be traded by our politicians. You will be traded by
Speaker 1: the people that ran our country. But do not be
Speaker 1: traded anymore. Yeah, the people at the top weren't concerned
Speaker 1: about American workers, and Trump saw that, and that's why
Speaker 1: he's president. Folks. That and and the border workers and immigration.
Speaker 1: That isn't all about everybody but Americans. That's that's how
Speaker 1: Trump became president. So we we have a lot more
Speaker 1: to discuss here, but if you want a chat eight
Speaker 1: four four nine to eight to five eight four four
Speaker 1: nine buck, I will return with some additional thoughts, not
Speaker 1: right away, but some additional thoughts on that New York
Speaker 1: Times writer. The more bad tweets. Oh, she hates cops too,
Speaker 1: What a shock. They're not gonna fire her because she's
Speaker 1: a liberal and she's a female and she's a minority.
Speaker 1: And then also Jannis to Susa, we'll be joining talking
Speaker 1: about his movie. Will have a great chat that will
Speaker 1: be coming up in just a bit. I love the
Speaker 1: taste of black rifle coffee, my friends, taste like freedom. Literally,
Speaker 1: this is the coffee I drink every day, and I'm
Speaker 1: making converts here in the offense. They thought, oh, I
Speaker 1: had to get my coffee from a bunch of commie lefties. Right,
Speaker 1: the people that are all about Latte's and voting for
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders must know more about the best roast false.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee is delicious, and it's a company run
Speaker 1: by veterans who love this country and are building a
Speaker 1: great American brand. I get Black Rifle delivered to my
Speaker 1: front door, couldn't be any easier. I get my cake
Speaker 1: cups sent to me. And I'm also about to get
Speaker 1: the delivery of Whole Beam coffee too, because I want
Speaker 1: to start making some French press stuff at home on
Speaker 1: my own. You can do all of these things. When
Speaker 1: you get a Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck,
Speaker 1: you receive fifteen percent off your order. And that's Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck fifteen percent off. Folks.
Speaker 1: Check it out this weekend. Go do it. Trust me,
Speaker 1: you'll love this site. You'll love this company and this coffee.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck. Trump wins the presidency,
Speaker 1: so help me god. They say he's killing America. There
Speaker 1: will be a vote impeach. They say he's a racist,
Speaker 1: This is a white lash and a fascist. Who are
Speaker 1: the real racists? Who are the real fascists? A nation
Speaker 1: dies when it's people are not free. That is from
Speaker 1: the trailer of a new Death of a Nation? Can
Speaker 1: we save America a second time? We have the filmmaker
Speaker 1: Mr janesse to Suza with us now. He is, of
Speaker 1: course the best selling author, columnist, uh, filmmaker, all of
Speaker 1: the above Danish. Thanks for making some time for us,
Speaker 1: and there you've got a lot going on. Hey, it's
Speaker 1: great to be on the show. Very excited about the
Speaker 1: new movie and of course as a book of the
Speaker 1: same title also detamination out in stores. So tell me
Speaker 1: tell me about that. Let let's start with the basic premise.
Speaker 1: Then we can drill into some of the details and
Speaker 1: also some of the pushback some of the media reviews,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure are not surprising to you at all, donation.
Speaker 1: But let's just start with the overall premise of this
Speaker 1: movie so folks can know what they're getting into when
Speaker 1: they go see it. Well, the you know, the movie
Speaker 1: poster basically morphs the head of Abraham Lincoln and Trump.
Speaker 1: But I think many people are surprised, but even some
Speaker 1: Republicans do a double take on that. How can you
Speaker 1: compare Trump to Lincoln? Now, you know, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that the same type of guy, and then Lincoln was
Speaker 1: of course brooding and philosophical, melancholy. Trump is none of that.
Speaker 1: But there's situations have a kind of eerie similarity. I mean,
Speaker 1: Lincoln was an outsider. He was elected in eighteen sixteen,
Speaker 1: a three man race that he won very narrowly, and
Speaker 1: the moment that he was elected, even before he assumed
Speaker 1: the presidency, you may say all hell broke loose. I mean,
Speaker 1: in the North, Democrats were calling for him to be
Speaker 1: stabbed and for his assassination, which actually happened later. In
Speaker 1: the South, they were willing to break up the country
Speaker 1: rather than endure his election. So I don't think, I mean,
Speaker 1: we are facing some of that same craziness now. And
Speaker 1: by the way, it's the same party, the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: that this time to not abide the election of Trump,
Speaker 1: looking for any device, as they put it, by any
Speaker 1: means necessary to get rid of them. So this is
Speaker 1: the backdrop against which I made this movie, and I
Speaker 1: focused in the film on two things, racism and fascism,
Speaker 1: which are the two incendiary bombs that are dropped on
Speaker 1: Trump to try to prove that he's somehow, regardless of
Speaker 1: whether the American people support him, ineligible to be president. Now,
Speaker 1: how does that Let's let's start with racism. How do
Speaker 1: you you tackle that in the movie UM and and
Speaker 1: draw either parallels or just conclusions from from history that
Speaker 1: affect the way that Trump. What happened with Lincoln then
Speaker 1: now affects Trump today? And what is the connective tissue there? Well,
Speaker 1: the connected tissue is this the Democratic Party, UM is
Speaker 1: the party of bigotry. This seems like a shocking to say,
Speaker 1: because of course Democrats present themselves as the opposite. They're
Speaker 1: the party of civil rights. We'll wait a minute. The
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is the party of the old slave plantation.
Speaker 1: I mean, Lincoln recognized that after slavery, the Democrats became
Speaker 1: the party of segregation. Every segregation law in the South
Speaker 1: was passed by a Democratic legislature signed by a Democratic governor. UM.
Speaker 1: The Democrats also started the Ku Klux Plan. The Republicans
Speaker 1: shut it down the first time, and then a progressive Democrat,
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson, showed a racist movie in the White House
Speaker 1: called Birth of a Nation, and that led to a
Speaker 1: national Klan revival to the sort of second flu Klux
Speaker 1: Plan was, according to progressive historian Eric Fowner quote, the
Speaker 1: domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party end quote. So
Speaker 1: this is our actual history. Even when you come to
Speaker 1: the civil rights movement of the nineteen sixties, it was
Speaker 1: Republicans who got those laws passed. More Republicans proportionally voted
Speaker 1: for those laws. If the Congress had been made up
Speaker 1: solely Democrats, neither the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: four nor the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five
Speaker 1: would have gotten through. So this is the actual history.
Speaker 1: It's not taught that way because a lot of the
Speaker 1: narrative is spun by progressives who are eager to minimize
Speaker 1: the culpability of the Democratic Party. But that's history the
Speaker 1: way it is, and that's the history I tell, both
Speaker 1: in the book and the movie. Yeah, and then to
Speaker 1: this this point about the history I people don't seem
Speaker 1: I see the challenges against you. I've seen some of
Speaker 1: them up close and personal recently, but but people don't
Speaker 1: tend to say that what you're the history, you're presenting
Speaker 1: in this project or in others is factually inaccurate. But
Speaker 1: they go into a fit of rage, saying that it's unfair.
Speaker 1: It's unfair that you're telling these facts what I think
Speaker 1: that's right. The only way that people are attacking me
Speaker 1: is by misdscribing what I'm actually saying. And so, for example,
Speaker 1: it's now commonly set out there as the Washing Post
Speaker 1: article about this basically saying the nest claims in his
Speaker 1: movie that Hitler was a liberal Democrat. Now that's nonsense.
Speaker 1: I never say that. I don't even get close to
Speaker 1: saying that. What I do say, and this is actually
Speaker 1: the chilling historical truth, is that the Nazis and Hitler
Speaker 1: did get some of their disturbingly bigoted and even murderous
Speaker 1: schemes from American progressive and from the Democratic Party. This
Speaker 1: is dramatized in my movie. You see a group of
Speaker 1: senior Nazis sitting around the table. They have in their
Speaker 1: hands the democratic laws of the Jim Crow South. They're
Speaker 1: using those laws as a model for their own Nuham
Speaker 1: birth laws, which made Jews into second class citizens. So,
Speaker 1: but this is actually right from the transcripts of the
Speaker 1: historical record and relying on the work of an eminent
Speaker 1: Yale legal scholar, James Whitman and his book Hitler Is
Speaker 1: American Model, where he describes all of this and kind
Speaker 1: of lurid and excruciating details. So again, no one questions
Speaker 1: my sources. They can't, so instead of attacking what I
Speaker 1: actually say, they go, oh geez, then't just thing that
Speaker 1: Hitler was a liberal? That's prime a facis. This is
Speaker 1: the way the left is finding discouraged people from actually
Speaker 1: reading my book, actually seeing my movie and then thinking
Speaker 1: about it. I don't know if you've ever if you've
Speaker 1: seen the interview with Professor Jordan Peterson and the BBC
Speaker 1: interviewer where she just dozens of times comes back to you, well,
Speaker 1: what you're really saying is and he used to say, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what I'm really saying. It seems like that's
Speaker 1: what ends up happening to you. Wait, Denis, I don't
Speaker 1: mean to cut you off, but we're having a little
Speaker 1: trouble hearing you. Can you get a little closer to
Speaker 1: your phone there, everyone's gonna want to hear what you're saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Is that better? Yes? Yeah, much better? Dereka,
Speaker 1: So are you're saying to Chlottesville near and this is big.
Speaker 1: People want to hear what you're saying. You're go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 1: What I was saying is that the Charlottesville narrative. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Charlottesville tragedy was a tragedy. Obviously a person got
Speaker 1: killed and run over. I don't dispute the tragedy in
Speaker 1: the slightest. What I'm disputing is the ideological meaning of
Speaker 1: Charlotte's Ville. And what the left basically says is, look
Speaker 1: all those guys, those white nationalists, they're right wingers and
Speaker 1: they're or bigot treat today is on the right. And
Speaker 1: what I do is I dispute this. I showed that
Speaker 1: Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Charlottesville white supremacist rally,
Speaker 1: is a an Obama activist and an Occupy Wall Street activist,
Speaker 1: a left winger. So you then may ask, wow, you know,
Speaker 1: how does an Obama vote or an Obama activists become
Speaker 1: a white supremacist. Something seems really fishy. Um. And the
Speaker 1: media knew about this at the time. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was reported on the Southern Property Law Center website, but
Speaker 1: they suppressed it because it was inconvenient to their Charlottesville
Speaker 1: narrative And in the movie Buck, I interview Richard Spencer,
Speaker 1: the poster boy of white supremacy, and I we just
Speaker 1: get into his politics in some detail, and it becomes
Speaker 1: sort of dismainly obvious as you listen to him that
Speaker 1: this guy is not only on the left, he's on
Speaker 1: the far left. I asked him simple things like do
Speaker 1: you mean do you do you believe all them in
Speaker 1: a created equal No? Do you believe our rights come
Speaker 1: from God? No? Well who do our rights come from?
Speaker 1: Where where do we get them? Well, our rights come
Speaker 1: from the state. Where else can we get them? The
Speaker 1: state is the source of all rights. It becomes clear
Speaker 1: this guy's a collectivist. He believes in the all powerful state.
Speaker 1: Ask him, what do you think the Reagan terrible president?
Speaker 1: Who are your favorite presidents? And he names a bunch
Speaker 1: of Democrats, starting with Andrew Jackson, And then I said,
Speaker 1: well these are Democrats and he goes, well a party.
Speaker 1: Who cares about party? And I go, well, Jackson is
Speaker 1: the founder of the Democratic Party. So what really Again?
Speaker 1: For the audience, it's eye opening because you suddenly realize
Speaker 1: that this guy, who is routinely described as a right
Speaker 1: Winger is not a right winger at all. He's no conservative.
Speaker 1: He's you know, he's in a sense, a pawn of
Speaker 1: the big lie. And so I think what I'm trying
Speaker 1: to do in the movie is is not just through arguments,
Speaker 1: but through investigative reporting, through the horse's mouth, enable people
Speaker 1: to see the way in which not only bad things
Speaker 1: have been done by the Democrats, but then progressive scholars
Speaker 1: and historians have covered this stuff up, and we have
Speaker 1: to we have to confront the reality of America today.
Speaker 1: We're dealing not just with fake news, but fake scholarship
Speaker 1: and fake history. Death of a Nation is the film, everybody.
Speaker 1: It's in a thousand theaters across the country. Uh janesh.
Speaker 1: Will there be a plan for a further rollout? People
Speaker 1: will eventually be able to download this Where should people
Speaker 1: go also to find out more information? Yes, so obviously
Speaker 1: eventually it'll it will come out in home box office
Speaker 1: and so on. But don't wait for that. I would
Speaker 1: urge people to go see it soon. Go see it
Speaker 1: this weekend. Really, the fate of a movie depends on
Speaker 1: the opening weekend. In the opening week because of our
Speaker 1: movie as well, it explodes to more theaters. It spreads
Speaker 1: out to more people. So take your family and friends
Speaker 1: and go see it. And this is how you see it.
Speaker 1: Go to tickets dot Death of a Nation movie dot com.
Speaker 1: So tickets dot Death of a Nation movie dot com.
Speaker 1: And if you enjoy the movie, there's a book of
Speaker 1: the same title out in the bookstores. All right, everybody
Speaker 1: go check it out for yourselves. Jennessia Susa, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for making the time so good to talk to you,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk soon. My pleasure. He's back with you now,
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. That was not a security meeting yesterday.
Speaker 1: Let me throw a penalty flag here, and that was
Speaker 1: not a red light. That was the White House using
Speaker 1: a bunch of people. So for the next two months
Speaker 1: they can use a talking point that said, hey, every
Speaker 1: time somebody raises Russia at Sarah Sanders, she's gonna say, look,
Speaker 1: the President directed those guys you saw and and also
Speaker 1: those women you saw on the podium to go do something.
Speaker 1: That was just the PR stunt. That the PR stunt,
Speaker 1: can you break? Yes, they got used. That's the dumbest
Speaker 1: thing I've heard on on TV and in at least
Speaker 1: a couple of days, which is saying a lot. That's
Speaker 1: one of the favorite national security ellis over at CNN,
Speaker 1: by the way, when he used to go on that's
Speaker 1: Phil Mud. I know Phil a little bit. I've worked
Speaker 1: with him over there once or once or twice. Very periphectly.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've spoken the guy, you know, maybe two
Speaker 1: times in my life. But initially he was like the
Speaker 1: way they brought me in, which was national security, this
Speaker 1: is counters investigations. But he realized if you want Zucker
Speaker 1: and the rest of the the higher up that's like you,
Speaker 1: you have to be hashtag resistance, you have to be
Speaker 1: anti Trump. And so he's now be he's the guy
Speaker 1: who was yelling about the s whole countries and you know,
Speaker 1: he's gone completely full on polemicis pundit, you know, the
Speaker 1: whole thing and the analysis there is just tainted by
Speaker 1: it because it's a moronic thing to say. It was
Speaker 1: a stupid thing to say. It's the White House, White
Speaker 1: House Press conference with the heads of the most important
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies in the country going into some detail about
Speaker 1: the reality of the threat from Russia as well as
Speaker 1: other countries, by the way, and all the things that
Speaker 1: are going on right now and what you know what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do to thwart it? And are so
Speaker 1: are they all traders? Mr Mudd? Are are they all
Speaker 1: in Trump's pocket? To the Russians have something on all
Speaker 1: of them? I said last night on Shannon brim since
Speaker 1: Shannon brim Show that with Trump and Russia, he's damned
Speaker 1: if he does, damned if he doesn't. And I said
Speaker 1: that last night, And here we have somebody who's actually
Speaker 1: coming out saying, oh, yeah, it was it was a
Speaker 1: PR stunt. Does anyone think for a moment that if
Speaker 1: Trump did not have the premier national security figures of
Speaker 1: his administration out there talking about this? They say, why
Speaker 1: doesn't he talk more about it? Why don't talking more
Speaker 1: about Russia? Why don't he talking about the threat to
Speaker 1: our democracy? These people are hacks. They can't approach this
Speaker 1: issue with with any honesty. They are hacks. Just so
Speaker 1: frustrating me. This is supposed to be an area where
Speaker 1: we all come together and we're on the same team
Speaker 1: and we're trying to stop Russia. And like I'm the
Speaker 1: one who's been telling you and you're seeing more stories
Speaker 1: rolling out now, China is the real concerned, folks. Anyone
Speaker 1: you here's like, oh, Russia is all focused on Russia.
Speaker 1: That's just political hackery. If you should if I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you things, or if we're gonna talk about things
Speaker 1: that should keep us worried from the PROSPECTI give of
Speaker 1: what country is gonna overtake us economically, have a much
Speaker 1: bigger population and a male skewed population, young males without
Speaker 1: enough females because of the one child policy in China. Folks.
Speaker 1: People don't often talk about this or think about this.
Speaker 1: That demographic reality alone is reason for serious concern when
Speaker 1: it comes to major Well, and then there's Trump yelling China,
Speaker 1: but no, I'm being I'm being serious with you, folks, though,
Speaker 1: And there's the Chinese. The threat to our national security
Speaker 1: from China is a much more substantial one than what
Speaker 1: we have from Russia. But you know, then you get
Speaker 1: the CNN analysts just saying it's it's a photo op.
Speaker 1: They're giving information to the public and it was good information,
Speaker 1: and they say they're taking the steps that the Democrats
Speaker 1: pretend they want them. So now when they now when
Speaker 1: they're saying what they're supposed to say, according to Democrats,
Speaker 1: Russia is still interfering. Russia is still a threat. They're
Speaker 1: saying what they're supposed to say. They're telling the American
Speaker 1: people what the Democrats want them to be doing, which
Speaker 1: is all we're you know, working with state and local
Speaker 1: partnerships and all this other stuff. And it's still it's
Speaker 1: a photo op. It's it's a scam. Everything Trump does
Speaker 1: is a scam. The unemployment numbers, which are incredibly low, scam,
Speaker 1: the GDP numbers which are incredibly high, scam, the fact
Speaker 1: that commerce and industry and capitalism are thriving and people
Speaker 1: are getting wealthier and doing better, and scam. It's all
Speaker 1: a scam, folks. This is Trump derangement syndrome exemplified. I
Speaker 1: can't even have a press conference addressing in a very
Speaker 1: professional way with people who are career intelligence professionals what's
Speaker 1: been going on here with Russia and what they're doing
Speaker 1: to stop Russia into it too calm the American people's concerns,
Speaker 1: which have been wildly exaggerated in the media. Um and
Speaker 1: and as you know, the media exaggerates both how concerned
Speaker 1: that the American people are and tried to create exaggerated
Speaker 1: concern in the American people over the Russia election middlength threat.
Speaker 1: But even when even when they hold the press conference
Speaker 1: like this, it's not good enough. It's a scam, it's
Speaker 1: a photo op. It's these people cannot get Bill mud
Speaker 1: on this issue just now, un serious, do not take
Speaker 1: him seriously and this kind of unfocused, visceral anger. At
Speaker 1: the other side, are really neutral people like folks on
Speaker 1: the press corps, it can lead to this, They're not neutral. Look.
Speaker 1: According today is Washington Post, President Trump has made four
Speaker 1: thousand twitter and twenty nine false from misleading claims in
Speaker 1: five days in office. There's an average of seven point
Speaker 1: six a day. This is not a normal We shouldn't
Speaker 1: be in the business of just shrugging our shoulders and
Speaker 1: normalizing it, normalizing nice progressive term there. You know, don't
Speaker 1: normalize Trump. He's the president. But this is not This
Speaker 1: is not normal. You know what also is not normal.
Speaker 1: See if they're gonna play the whole oh, we're we're
Speaker 1: the we're the guardians of truth and they're actually the
Speaker 1: enemy of truth, then I like to point out things
Speaker 1: like the following uh The Washington Post fact checker claimed
Speaker 1: that when someone said that they wanted to squeeze Sarah
Speaker 1: Sanders neck or to start to ring her neck. That
Speaker 1: is this is a fact check. The Washington Post fact
Speaker 1: checker ran, Okay, someone said that she wanted to ring
Speaker 1: Sarah sanders neck, and the and when then when Sarah
Speaker 1: Sanders said somebody threatened to choke me or said they
Speaker 1: wanted to choke me, the fact checker said that Sarah
Speaker 1: Sanders was wrong. You see, because because ringing somebody's neck
Speaker 1: and choking them are not the same thing. According to
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, Folks, this is what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: This is where you get these smug, snide punks, these
Speaker 1: jackasses just down the street from me at plays like
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, who are all, Oh, were about truth
Speaker 1: and we're just being fair and neutral press corps. How
Speaker 1: do people even say this garbage a neutral press corps?
Speaker 1: Does anyone think that a single person at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN,
Speaker 1: MSNBC that has their own show voted for Trump and
Speaker 1: his pro Trump Someone's gonna be about there's nobody who's
Speaker 1: out at eight a month Sundays once a month when
Speaker 1: there's like not a baseball game. I mean no, I
Speaker 1: mean that you can actually think of off the top
Speaker 1: of your head. I mean someone that we would know,
Speaker 1: we would know who it is, Mike, let me know
Speaker 1: if we we got Anna Navarro I think is the
Speaker 1: worst politic all anialist on TV, which is saying something
Speaker 1: the least informative, the least insightful. Uh. And also as
Speaker 1: as just as a person very rude and and not
Speaker 1: not not pleasant to work with or be around. Uh.
Speaker 1: Do we have the clip of uh, well, well, well
Speaker 1: we'll get there. I'll come back into that one I can.
Speaker 1: But this notion of the neutral press corps and this
Speaker 1: is what got me so so riled up yesterday. And
Speaker 1: I really haven't I haven't shaken it off. I'm still
Speaker 1: sitting here and thinking to myself, this is just they're
Speaker 1: just they're just lying to you. They're lying to me,
Speaker 1: they're lying to you, and they're not backing off any
Speaker 1: of this. They're not backing off. Okay, here here we go,
Speaker 1: like here's another. So so they notice that they call
Speaker 1: out Trump for lying, but that's what they say, Oh,
Speaker 1: he lies seven times a day. But then when you
Speaker 1: see what the Washington Washington Post considers a lie, they're
Speaker 1: lying about lies. You know, they like to do this
Speaker 1: this is a new game with journalists because there's still
Speaker 1: much about fact, there's still much about truth, where they
Speaker 1: they become obtuse hyper literalists. Yeah, I mean I remember
Speaker 1: I actually had an exchange the Washington Post journalist and
Speaker 1: he was like, well, you you know, what you should
Speaker 1: is not specifically true, and I responded, or you know,
Speaker 1: he said, there's been literally endless coverage of something. What
Speaker 1: you said is not true, and I responded, well, it's
Speaker 1: not literally endless, jackass, So what you said is not true.
Speaker 1: I can do that. I can play this game too,
Speaker 1: if we if we want to forget how speak people
Speaker 1: actually speak and what what the message of what they're
Speaker 1: conveying is and pretend that we're going to take everything
Speaker 1: absolutely literally word for word, then we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: change our our way of communicating. Right. You know, if
Speaker 1: I say, oh, man, you know, I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm so I'm so tired, I don't think I can
Speaker 1: get up out of bed tomorrow. And it's I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not threatening suicide, right, I'm just saying I'm really tired.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just people are idiots. They're so and
Speaker 1: they like to play this game. They think because they can't,
Speaker 1: they can and attack Trump on his accomplishments as president.
Speaker 1: They can attack Trump in an open debate on these
Speaker 1: issues and not have him spank them like a bunch
Speaker 1: of little children. So what they do is say, well,
Speaker 1: he's just not he's not factual, he's not factual. It's
Speaker 1: not true. It's not true. It's not factual. Well, what's
Speaker 1: he's saying. That's not factual, that's not true. They think
Speaker 1: that an opinion that they disagree with is a lie,
Speaker 1: and there are others. This is a common thing CNN,
Speaker 1: Washington Post. They think that someone saying, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't believe North Korea is a threat anymore, or North
Speaker 1: Korea is not a threat anymore, Okay, you can say
Speaker 1: that that's not true, but that's a statement of opinion
Speaker 1: because there's no actual factual basis for whether North Korea
Speaker 1: could not be a threat today and tomorrow we could
Speaker 1: be in the midst of a nuclear war. You know,
Speaker 1: these are these are opinions that that people are giving,
Speaker 1: that they're saying are factually incorrect. Here's another, but here's
Speaker 1: a fun opinion. If we're gonna talk about things that
Speaker 1: aren't true, and are accurate. This is on the View,
Speaker 1: Anna Navarrow, I think is apparently is she now on
Speaker 1: the View permanently? I mean not that I watched the View,
Speaker 1: but gosh, h Megan, if you're listening, we gotta We're
Speaker 1: gonna have to have to get you some some time
Speaker 1: to do some yoga or some relaxation techniques. I don't
Speaker 1: know how you can put up with Anna Varro every day.
Speaker 1: That's just but we'll see. Um. Here here's Anna Navarrow
Speaker 1: and Megan going back and forth on the View on
Speaker 1: this notion of oh yeah, CNN, that's right. A lot
Speaker 1: of really respected Trump people over there who are treated
Speaker 1: with respect play it tries to be very balancede and
Speaker 1: then has commentators on like me and every time my
Speaker 1: mom and my somebody that is defending Trump, CNN tries
Speaker 1: to be very balanced. I mean, is she delusional? I
Speaker 1: know they're writing, I know the writing paychecks for her,
Speaker 1: and I generally think that, you know, it's unfair. And
Speaker 1: this is only by the way people do this to me.
Speaker 1: Sometimes when they disagree with me, they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, why won't you why don't you criticize Fox News?
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, one I've never been paid a dollar
Speaker 1: by Fox News, but too, I like Fox News and
Speaker 1: respect it, and I agree with I agree with what
Speaker 1: they're doing. I agree with their approach to the news.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't. I don't agree to and I'm
Speaker 1: honest about that. I don't pretend to be like, well,
Speaker 1: I'm wake up every day, I read CNN, I read Fox,
Speaker 1: and I make a judgment call about who I think
Speaker 1: has done a better job with the news that day.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I'm I already know what CNN
Speaker 1: is doing, but there's notion that CNN tries to be balanced.
Speaker 1: I mean Navarro, Oh boy, that's a funny one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: who are who are the the Trump defenders that are
Speaker 1: on air? You'll notice nobody When was the last time
Speaker 1: that they put oh, let's just run through some people here,
Speaker 1: that would be what was the lost time they put
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro on air or Dan Bongino on air, or
Speaker 1: um Ben dominanch over at the Federalist or Seawan Davis
Speaker 1: at the Federalist or you know, Vince Colonies from the
Speaker 1: Daily Caller or I mean, I'm I'm just running off
Speaker 1: top of my head here, but I mean, all the
Speaker 1: any of those folks on in a debate segments at CNN.
Speaker 1: When was the last time you saw that? Oh that's right,
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen. Why is that now? You can say, buck?
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe they won't take it. Um. I'd be willing
Speaker 1: to bet right now, and I could probably I could
Speaker 1: not just tweet him, I could text Dan. I bet
Speaker 1: if they offered to have a debate between Dan Bongino
Speaker 1: and any uh and any anchor at CNN, he'd take
Speaker 1: it up in a heartbeat. They won't do it because
Speaker 1: they're scared. They won't do it with me anymore. They
Speaker 1: went from you know, oh, you know, we'll put you
Speaker 1: on like a third year show sometimes and you can
Speaker 1: talk national security and you know, we'll pay you a
Speaker 1: pittance to do it to uh Now they realize, uh no,
Speaker 1: if if I'm not if I'm not professionally attached to
Speaker 1: the organization, I will verbally skewer people over there. And
Speaker 1: they know that. So I don't even didn't even bother anymore.
Speaker 1: They used to bother about last CNN invite I got
Speaker 1: was um, But remember they're invites, and their invites I
Speaker 1: never get asked to come on. I would never get
Speaker 1: asked to come on one on one with any of
Speaker 1: these anchors. Ever, that's too dangerous from they know that.
Speaker 1: What they'll do is they'll put you on a panel
Speaker 1: with two or three other people and then you just
Speaker 1: don't get much time to talk, get shouted down, and
Speaker 1: the whole thing is essentially an ambush, and you'll get
Speaker 1: talked over and the ankle will disagree with you, and
Speaker 1: the'll misconstrue what you say, and you know that that's what. Yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe they'll let me do that, but you know, me
Speaker 1: versus Tapper, me versus Cooper, me versus Lemon. Never, never,
Speaker 1: on any of these issues, they would get smoked. They
Speaker 1: would get schooled. They know that, right. They know that
Speaker 1: there's no future for them in having to actually defend
Speaker 1: the ideas that they propagate through this pretense of neutral
Speaker 1: or objective news. And they're losing ground here. This is different.
Speaker 1: There is a sea change that's in effect right now
Speaker 1: that I hope continues on. We're not there yet, but uh,
Speaker 1: CNN and some of these other places are are are
Speaker 1: really no longer able to continue with this facade of oh,
Speaker 1: we're just we're just like journalists man. People. People are
Speaker 1: really catching on in a way that I hope they
Speaker 1: will never forget. And I hope this is the beginning
Speaker 1: of the end for all these uh so called journalistic
Speaker 1: outfits that hide behind this uh, this lie of objectivity
Speaker 1: when they are partisan, they're actually they're not just partisan,
Speaker 1: their activists. I mean the New York Times has even published, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, Obamacare might get repealed. I think it was Obamacare.
Speaker 1: Here are the numbers of people you should call, huh
Speaker 1: like members of Congress. I mean that's activism. I mean
Speaker 1: the New York Times is engaged in falling activism sometimes
Speaker 1: and I just I'm not having it, folks, not having anymore,
Speaker 1: not not playing the game. UM. I Am through playing
Speaker 1: the game their way at least. And we'll see um.
Speaker 1: And that. The good news is that I think in
Speaker 1: this digital era we are in, um, in this era
Speaker 1: of digital uh mass communication, the people are key and
Speaker 1: the democratization of media platforms that is occurring right now
Speaker 1: will be a very good It will be a very
Speaker 1: good thing for me, very good thing for people who
Speaker 1: do their own work, do their own research brings something
Speaker 1: substantive to the table. And for the overly tanned, overly
Speaker 1: hair sprayed Alpha News anchors like, what's that guy's name,
Speaker 1: Brian Williams. I was gonna say Brian Jennings. Different guy, Uh,
Speaker 1: Brian Williams. Um not going to be the future? Is is?
Speaker 1: I think pretty bleak? Actually? Is that that whole that
Speaker 1: whole sketch, sketch, that whole skit, that premise of the
Speaker 1: objective news man. I think it's gone away. I hope
Speaker 1: that it does. Our third and I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about how Trump is doing with the African
Speaker 1: American community. Will also talk about about racism and whether
Speaker 1: racism can be anti white. Uh here's a oh. I
Speaker 1: mentioned the Washington Post before, By the way, here's how
Speaker 1: because they're so objective. Remember what I told you yesterday
Speaker 1: about that woman at the New York Times who set
Speaker 1: all the terrible anti white stuff. Their piece today says
Speaker 1: this an Asian American woman. This is the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: an Asian American Woman's tweets ignited debate. Is it okay
Speaker 1: to make fun of white people online? Yeah, that's what
Speaker 1: she was doing, just making fun of white people. Ha ha.
Speaker 1: It was all such a joke, right, No, the joke
Speaker 1: is the Washington Post. But we will get into all
Speaker 1: this and much more, and of course some roll calls,
Speaker 1: So stay right there. To all the business owners out
Speaker 1: there and people who work in HR folks, I just
Speaker 1: want to say that if you are looking for somebody
Speaker 1: for your business, I don't care what business it is,
Speaker 1: large or small, you need to make sure that the
Speaker 1: person you're bringing into your company that's gonna be in
Speaker 1: your workplace is uh squared up with the law, is
Speaker 1: who they say they are, has no problems, has no
Speaker 1: red flags in their background. Global verifica network is the
Speaker 1: only help you need to answer all of those questions.
Speaker 1: Global Verification is the only dual certified and veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. Look. I know Mark Buckman,
Speaker 1: the CEO personally. This is the guy that I call
Speaker 1: up sometimes when I've got a question about cybersecurity, when
Speaker 1: I wanna just run something by him as a sanity check.
Speaker 1: He is an expert and his risk mitigation folks are
Speaker 1: the best you can find. Trust me. If you have
Speaker 1: any neative background investigations or vetting, go to my g
Speaker 1: VN dot com. That's my g VN dot com or
Speaker 1: call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven
Speaker 1: nine buck Sexton Mission decoding the news and disseminating information.
Speaker 1: Who is actionable intelligence bank magnor mistake American? You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show, analysts.
Speaker 1: No man attacked on bus for being white. That's the
Speaker 1: headline here, folks from Fox five New York. In my hometown,
Speaker 1: New York City, cops are looking for a guy who
Speaker 1: attacked a stranger for being white. This is according to
Speaker 1: the police. Uh, this guy walked up to someone punched
Speaker 1: him in the face, making an anti white comment. Uh.
Speaker 1: And the attacker then got off the bus. They don't
Speaker 1: know anything about it yet. Um. I think what's fascinating
Speaker 1: about this is that they don't call this racist. Is
Speaker 1: not amazing, folks. Isn't that astonishing? So you can be
Speaker 1: assaulted in this country now because someone does not like
Speaker 1: the color of your skin as long as it is white.
Speaker 1: They will not call that racist. They will just call
Speaker 1: it anti white or attacked or being white. And this
Speaker 1: is a reflection. And you can say, Buck, why are
Speaker 1: you talking about this, this local crime story? You know this,
Speaker 1: What does this have to do with any No? No, no,
Speaker 1: no no. This is in fact a reflection of exactly
Speaker 1: what I've been talking to you about here. This is
Speaker 1: a reflection of this idea that is very common among progressives,
Speaker 1: that is very widespread on the left, that you should
Speaker 1: that that there's no such thing as anti white racism.
Speaker 1: This is now become something that you see in the
Speaker 1: culture in coming out in many different ways. This is
Speaker 1: not something that's just a progressive pundits or others say,
Speaker 1: this is the This is the reality of how newspapers
Speaker 1: are poor on this, and sometimes even how the law
Speaker 1: treats these things. You know, sometimes it's even a function
Speaker 1: of when you look deeper into this, you find out
Speaker 1: that they won't even press hate crime charges against somebody
Speaker 1: for an anti white attack. And I feel like, given
Speaker 1: given what's going on with the New York Times in
Speaker 1: the last twenty four hours, it's it's worth taking a
Speaker 1: look at at some of this. It's it's worth uh
Speaker 1: looking a little deeper and see how we could be
Speaker 1: in this place. By the way, in case you were wondering, Joan,
Speaker 1: who is this woman who just got hired by the
Speaker 1: New York Times, and that they they stayed, they stayed
Speaker 1: with her right there, not firing her. It's not just
Speaker 1: the anti white comments. For you know here and there
Speaker 1: that got her in trouble. You have her saying things
Speaker 1: like that this has come out today. F the police,
Speaker 1: cops are a holes, all kinds of antique cop profanity. Uh.
Speaker 1: She she refers to as I said, blank the police,
Speaker 1: and then um oh. Also she wrote kill more men.
Speaker 1: Uh in response to somebody, I mean this woman is
Speaker 1: is her Twitter account. It's not that she's woke, it's
Speaker 1: not that she made a mistake. It seems like she's deranged.
Speaker 1: It's now a New York Times editorial member, the most
Speaker 1: prestigious in its own mind at least newspaper in the country,
Speaker 1: has higher this person and kept her on board. And
Speaker 1: I think that we are allowed to ask the question,
Speaker 1: if you know, break this down into layers, you know,
Speaker 1: let let's do some real analysis of the concept here. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I reject the notion there's anti there's no such thing
Speaker 1: as anti white racism as we see as it's reported.
Speaker 1: You know, well, you can be attacked for you know,
Speaker 1: it's anti whiteness, but it's not racism. Let's let's unpack
Speaker 1: why they think this is the case. Um. And I
Speaker 1: would also note that one thing that you don't you
Speaker 1: don't ever hear the meeting talking about this. There were
Speaker 1: race riots under Obama. Now I know it's early the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, but there haven't been any race riots under Trump.
Speaker 1: And to be told constantly that the uh that that
Speaker 1: race relations in the country right now are so much
Speaker 1: worse because of Trump and they've previously been. I sit
Speaker 1: here and I think to myself, well, I don't really
Speaker 1: see the Black Lives Matter movement is not out in
Speaker 1: the streets largely agitating. It was largely agitation that was
Speaker 1: going on. And I'll debate that premise with anyone because
Speaker 1: I saw the rallies myself. I was there, What do
Speaker 1: we want dead cops when we want them now? Things
Speaker 1: like that were said, cops are racist murderers. It was
Speaker 1: not we just want police reform. That's not what the
Speaker 1: movement was. It wasn't what it was telling people. And
Speaker 1: maybe that's what they were hoping for, but that wasn't
Speaker 1: what they were saying. You know, we're do words have
Speaker 1: meaning or not? But let's let's step back and look
Speaker 1: at this premise. There's no such thing is anti white racism.
Speaker 1: New York Times has made that abundantly clear. They do
Speaker 1: not believe that's a thing. As I told you yesterday.
Speaker 1: This is because the left views all race relations as
Speaker 1: existing within a a hierarchy. And this is true of
Speaker 1: also just different groups of people in general. But everything
Speaker 1: is about intersectionality and where you fall on this scale,
Speaker 1: and it's about degrees of oppression, and if you are
Speaker 1: at the very top of the oppression pyramid, as they
Speaker 1: say white males are in our society, it is impossible
Speaker 1: for someone to engage in racism against you. They have
Speaker 1: they have actually redefined the term racism. Racism no longer means,
Speaker 1: you know, negative judgments or treatment on the basis of
Speaker 1: skin color or race. Racism is now some progressive well
Speaker 1: it has to do with hierarchies of power and thinks. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: I want to know what we should teach kids about
Speaker 1: race and racism now when it comes to white people.
Speaker 1: I mean, I want to know how far they really
Speaker 1: take this. I want to know what the limits are,
Speaker 1: because if white privilege results in constant oppression, are we
Speaker 1: supposed to then be pleased? In fact, is it just
Speaker 1: to be unjust to white people in American society because
Speaker 1: of all of the injustice that whiteness perpetrates, all the time.
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of progressives who wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to answer that question the affirmative publicly, but absolutely
Speaker 1: believe it. They absolutely believe it. And I remember, and
Speaker 1: I some of you may even know where I'm going
Speaker 1: with this one, but I remember hearing from friends of mine, uh,
Speaker 1: and hearing from people that I knew well, including some
Speaker 1: friends of mine who were black at at the time
Speaker 1: and then years after as well, that the whole notion
Speaker 1: of of the o J trial, for example, UH was
Speaker 1: was it was not just the idea of racism American
Speaker 1: deciety that o J couldn't get a fair trial even
Speaker 1: though he was the guiltiest human being anybody could have
Speaker 1: ever conjured up right, but that it was payback, that
Speaker 1: there was some justification for him uh slaughtering the mother
Speaker 1: of his own children with a with a knife and
Speaker 1: and brutally murdering her and also a random stranger by
Speaker 1: the way, but they were both white, and there was
Speaker 1: this notion that, uh, this was payback. I was told
Speaker 1: this by people will if it's it's payback for racism,
Speaker 1: And I think you can all see how that goes
Speaker 1: down a very dangerous and destructive path, very quickly, and
Speaker 1: I look at where what the state of race relations
Speaker 1: are right now in this country as put forward by progressives,
Speaker 1: as put forward by the left, and I think to myself,
Speaker 1: they're now openly saying that whiteness is almost an affliction,
Speaker 1: that whiteness is something for which you must be sorry
Speaker 1: and and you have to uh be pen for your whiteness.
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, also wonner, well then should
Speaker 1: we also suffer? Is suffering just for being white now
Speaker 1: an acceptable situation? And a lot of people on the
Speaker 1: left are saying that it is a lot of people
Speaker 1: are are are making claims that could only lead you
Speaker 1: to believe it that is what they think. Uh And
Speaker 1: and the closest you I mean here, here's here's for example,
Speaker 1: Um what a woman who is a New Yorker writer,
Speaker 1: another very prestigious publication wrote today on Twitter, Sarah Jong
Speaker 1: will outright outthink and outlast all you m effers. But
Speaker 1: good luck being fragile racist misogynists. When they refer to fragility,
Speaker 1: by the way, this is another term. This is another
Speaker 1: buzzword on the left. It's white fragility. That white people
Speaker 1: are fragile. This is a term if you're not yet
Speaker 1: acquainted with it. That's I'm glad to bring you into
Speaker 1: the the bowels of the progre restive status left. They'll
Speaker 1: refer to white fragility as a means of saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's it's essentially them calling white people snowflakes, right, which
Speaker 1: also I would note, is a racist term that used
Speaker 1: to be used on a pretty read a regular basis.
Speaker 1: People white people were referred to snowflakes. That's been lost
Speaker 1: now snowflake. I understand, the definition or the the terminology
Speaker 1: has changed, and now we use snowflake to be somebody
Speaker 1: that's easily offended in general. But snowflake and other words
Speaker 1: certainly evolved with usage. But this notion of white fragility
Speaker 1: is just that white people, when they object to things
Speaker 1: like white privilege, or when they object to affirmative action,
Speaker 1: when they object to negative treatment on account of their
Speaker 1: skin color, that's not evidence of them just being normal
Speaker 1: and not thinking that's fair and understanding that's immoral and
Speaker 1: that that's not that's not justifiable. Uh, that's evidence of
Speaker 1: their fragility. Why fragility. I mean, if you go and
Speaker 1: you do a you do a quick Google search, you
Speaker 1: will see this term popping up, and you'll see how
Speaker 1: it is. In fact, there's a white fragility wicki uh.
Speaker 1: The New Yorker on July, a sociologist examines white fragility.
Speaker 1: This is I'm telling you, folks, this is the new
Speaker 1: term white fragility. Why it's so hard for people to
Speaker 1: talk about racism, It just goes down to down essentially. Now,
Speaker 1: if you don't agree with the lefts completely uh, irrational, unreasonable,
Speaker 1: self refuting conceptions of race and race relations in this country,
Speaker 1: things like, well, it's okay to discriminate it against Asian
Speaker 1: people in college emissions. Why, Well, we haven't really out
Speaker 1: the why, but we know it's okay because we say so.
Speaker 1: All right, it's okay to be nasty to white people,
Speaker 1: to assault them, to hurt them because they're white. Well
Speaker 1: it's not that, it's okay, but it's not that bad
Speaker 1: and it's not racism because you know, white people are
Speaker 1: in this higher they've constructed I mean, they this stuff,
Speaker 1: this stuff is is garbage thinking, but they are coming
Speaker 1: up the sugar coated language of white fragility. The Huffington
Speaker 1: Post a cure for white fragility, The Pacific Standard White
Speaker 1: fragility on the rules of engagement. And just you do
Speaker 1: you do a search, you'll see this term ali. This
Speaker 1: is this is a new thing, folks. It was white privilege,
Speaker 1: and now that people are pushing back on white privilege,
Speaker 1: it's white fragility. Uh. And and and then they tell us, well,
Speaker 1: let's just have a constructive conversation on race. The fact
Speaker 1: that matters that the the Left, because it has no
Speaker 1: moral philosophical underpinnings, because it really just seeks self righteousness
Speaker 1: and self actualization through power, can just can change its
Speaker 1: beliefs on a dime, can can be in a constant
Speaker 1: state of both hypocrisy. As I always tell you, hypocrisy
Speaker 1: is a defining characteristic characteristic of the left and also
Speaker 1: self refuge uting ideology, meaning that they believe one thing here,
Speaker 1: which means they can't believe it there, but they'll believe
Speaker 1: it there anyway because they don't care because it were
Speaker 1: it works that day and that at that point in time.
Speaker 1: Contradictory beliefs, hypocritical beliefs and contradictory beliefs. That's what you
Speaker 1: have with the Left, and particularly the issue of race
Speaker 1: and racism. Uh. The the speed with which they have
Speaker 1: acted like this writer Jong is somehow covered by the
Speaker 1: discrimination and the the historical experience of African Americans. They
Speaker 1: just acted well, you know, it's it's all a person
Speaker 1: of color. So so she's allowed to do this because
Speaker 1: she's Asian. Now that's she's allowed to act in this
Speaker 1: way and be a maniac on Twitter without consequence. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you this is it's gonna get worse and you're
Speaker 1: gonna see this term white fragility more. And it's something
Speaker 1: that we need to stamp out. It's it's a term
Speaker 1: a conjured up by cowards and idiots in order to
Speaker 1: silence people that are better than themselves. And we can't
Speaker 1: let this become a part of discourse that is unchallenged.
Speaker 1: All Right, I'll be right back. African Americans, so many others,
Speaker 1: I said, what do you have to lose? You have
Speaker 1: high crime rates, you have horrible education, you have this.
Speaker 1: I went through a list of ten that's what happened,
Speaker 1: African American, Hispanic Asian. You have the lowest level of
Speaker 1: unemployment in the history of our country. What how does
Speaker 1: somebody fight that? Right? How does somebody find it? To
Speaker 1: be honest? This is probably going to be them. And
Speaker 1: I'm gonna saying this at this table, the most pro
Speaker 1: black president that we've had in our lifetime because and
Speaker 1: I try to you know, adn't the people that I encowner.
Speaker 1: This president actually wants to prove something to our community,
Speaker 1: our faith based community, and our ethnic community. The last
Speaker 1: president didn't feel like he had He felt like even
Speaker 1: he got a past. This president is, this administration is
Speaker 1: probably going to be more proactive. We got in revitalization
Speaker 1: and prison we formed than any president in your lifetime.
Speaker 1: President Trump has been making overtures from the very beginning
Speaker 1: to the black community and and I really do believe
Speaker 1: that he is hoping to prove prove his good faith
Speaker 1: to the black communitiest country through results. And I there
Speaker 1: there's some reason to believe there's some evidence to show
Speaker 1: that this is starting, this message is starting to get through. Uh.
Speaker 1: For example, I believe that his according to the latest
Speaker 1: Rasmus and Pull on this look, it's his support among
Speaker 1: African Americans is tiny. Al Right, It's it's small or
Speaker 1: relatively speaking to well, I mean, it's basically a lot
Speaker 1: of Republicans have But I'm saying it's it's a it's
Speaker 1: a fraction of of overall African Americans in the country.
Speaker 1: It's something on the on the order of uh ten
Speaker 1: or twelve percent, I think, and I and according to
Speaker 1: the most recent Rasmus and poll, which I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find right now is I'm on air, but I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure I read it earlier today. I had to read
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff. Uh, it's basically doubled. You know,
Speaker 1: it's now somewhere in the in the low twenties um,
Speaker 1: which is substantial. And Republicans have always have had a
Speaker 1: hard time, They've had a hard time bringing the black
Speaker 1: community onto their side of the of the aisle. And
Speaker 1: I just think that the numbers right now don't lie.
Speaker 1: I mean, Hispanic unemployment is that a record low? Black unemployment?
Speaker 1: Is that a record low? And when you when you
Speaker 1: listen to all the all the people talking about how
Speaker 1: Trump is he's so racist, he's so racist, I just
Speaker 1: think to myself, why why did they come up with
Speaker 1: this narrative and never give me any of the details
Speaker 1: of what he has done? One that makes him a
Speaker 1: rate By the way, that's a terrible charge, isn't it.
Speaker 1: This is thrown around by the media. I mean, people
Speaker 1: will go on CNN and freely say that the president
Speaker 1: is a racist, he's a massogist. They'll say these things,
Speaker 1: denigrating the current commander chief, denigrating the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, and they don't feel the least bit strange
Speaker 1: about it. By the way, there's one more thing here.
Speaker 1: I this. This is a black veteran who I wish
Speaker 1: this would this would go viral. This black veteran slamming
Speaker 1: Democratic Councilwoman Melissa Slag because she was kneeling during the
Speaker 1: national anthem. Here's what this black veteran had to say.
Speaker 1: Playclip one. You're right to protest, to take any the
Speaker 1: layout black, to do whatever it is that you should please. Okay,
Speaker 1: but if that's what you would like to do, do
Speaker 1: that on your own time. Kneel at your sun or
Speaker 1: daughter's little league game. When you become a selected, an
Speaker 1: elected official, you become a representative of all of Adam
Speaker 1: and all the constituencies. There's the reasons why the lady
Speaker 1: that represent justice has scaled in one hand and thought
Speaker 1: of the other in a blind vote. She does not
Speaker 1: look to see who she's gonna stand just for and
Speaker 1: who not. But unfortunately one of us that person decided
Speaker 1: to pull down the flint bote and start peaking. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's that you ran at a Democrat, But once you
Speaker 1: became elected, unfortunately, you have to represent all of their constituencies.
Speaker 1: Last week, in this week, you've told at least after town,
Speaker 1: I don't care whether all Yeah, I'm mo powerful stuff
Speaker 1: there from a veteran an American remember the black community.
Speaker 1: I thought that was something worth hearing. Before we get
Speaker 1: closer to our weekend, folks, we will be back in
Speaker 1: just a moment. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: sex in his back there? How could be standards? Was
Speaker 1: asked about this in today's briefing. Her first answer was
Speaker 1: a recounting of the responsibilities of the press. So they
Speaker 1: tried again, we support that or not. While we certainly
Speaker 1: support freedom of the press, we also support freedom of speech. Uh,
Speaker 1: and we think that those things go hand in hand.
Speaker 1: Now New York Times chief point, you know we're not
Speaker 1: gonna air that anymore. Let's snake that the last there,
Speaker 1: how could be Sanders clip everywhere at four o'clock. That's it.
Speaker 1: You know what makes me sweat? That is vilent I.
Speaker 1: You know previously the previous answer, who complains about a
Speaker 1: restaurant that exercises their first member to kick out someone
Speaker 1: that they think is obliterating democratic norms s. What the
Speaker 1: what the heck is this obliterating democratic norms talking point?
Speaker 1: Did you keep hearing from imbeciles like Nicole Wallace? What
Speaker 1: does that even mean? Democratic norms that the president has
Speaker 1: to agree with you? Civility has been a one way
Speaker 1: street with Democrats for decades. Now, Finally we have a
Speaker 1: president who's like, you know what, not playing that game anymore.
Speaker 1: You slap at me, I'm gonna slap back, no more
Speaker 1: turning the other cheek for the commander in chief. And
Speaker 1: then they talk about They talk about things like, oh,
Speaker 1: there's undermining our democratic norms, undermining our institutions, putting our
Speaker 1: democracy at risk. How how you know what of cowards
Speaker 1: at the enemy of the truth media. Also the CNN
Speaker 1: won't tell you or don't want to talk about, is
Speaker 1: that Obama use the Justice Department two to make sure
Speaker 1: that there were no leaks about how craptacular his national
Speaker 1: security policy was. That's why they went on into all
Speaker 1: the different agencies, more prosecutions under the Espionage Act, and
Speaker 1: every other president before Obama combined and included in at
Speaker 1: least one indictment a a Fox News reporter as a
Speaker 1: co conspirator, and also pulled pulled phone records of reporters.
Speaker 1: I mean, just did things that were beyond the pale
Speaker 1: of what we expect for. You know, if you want
Speaker 1: to talk about a free press, that's threatening a free press,
Speaker 1: Calling Jim Acosta a clown is not threatening anything. Jim
Speaker 1: Acosta is a clown. Why is this so hard for
Speaker 1: these morons to figure out? He is not somebody that
Speaker 1: we all have to sit around and clap for because
Speaker 1: he's doing such a hard job. These are not are jobs, folks.
Speaker 1: I've been deployed to two war zones with members of
Speaker 1: the United States military. I was assisting them as a civilian.
Speaker 1: I saw what they were doing. That's a hard job.
Speaker 1: I worked in the NYPD. I saw what those guys
Speaker 1: were and gals were doing day in and daut. That's
Speaker 1: a hard job. Wearing a suit and sitting in the
Speaker 1: White House and getting to ask questions and be on
Speaker 1: TV is a privilege. And any one of those people
Speaker 1: and this is what they're They're this noxious combination in
Speaker 1: the elite echelons of media of tremendous arrogance and tremendous insecurity.
Speaker 1: So you never really know what you're dealing with, right
Speaker 1: They they think they're amazing, but deep down and they
Speaker 1: want ever to treat them like that, But deep down
Speaker 1: they know that they're completely replaceable and not a person
Speaker 1: of much substance at all. And Nicole Walls and the
Speaker 1: fact that she was formally uh a Republican obviously still
Speaker 1: considers herself for a Republican. But she just goes on
Speaker 1: MSNBC and does the liberals bidding for them. I mean,
Speaker 1: how does she feel about that? She really feels good,
Speaker 1: you know, she she she was such a conservative or
Speaker 1: she believes so much then GP that now she's willing
Speaker 1: to go to the other side and cheer for the
Speaker 1: other team. Folks, this stuff, this cannot be allowed to
Speaker 1: continue on like this. We we we need to fight,
Speaker 1: we need to fight back. You know, I'm saying that
Speaker 1: she's gonna ban the White House Press Secretary from being
Speaker 1: on her show. First of all, it's a it's a
Speaker 1: completely idle threat. I mean, it's totally but you know,
Speaker 1: to say that it was vile and to pile on
Speaker 1: with Sarah Sanders, what was Sarah Sanders really gonna do
Speaker 1: in that press commerce with Acosta? I mean, this is,
Speaker 1: by the way, can I get a buck slap John
Speaker 1: for Nicole Wallace here? I need some kind of a
Speaker 1: for her comments exactly. Um, I I gotta say, you know,
Speaker 1: what was? What was Sarah Sander's gonna say. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: undermine the President. I'm gonna say what he said was wrong.
Speaker 1: She's his spokesperson. The President speaks for himself. She speaks
Speaker 1: for the White House on matters of policy. This isn't
Speaker 1: supposed to be a gotcha game. She goes out there
Speaker 1: and reporters are playing gotcha all day. They think that's
Speaker 1: speaking truth to power. They're not asking important questions about policy.
Speaker 1: In many cases, sometimes they are. I'm not gonna look,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm focusing on the bad behavior because the
Speaker 1: bad behavior is what overwhelms everything else. Yeah, they're journalist
Speaker 1: who do good stuff. I saw my buddy Sager from
Speaker 1: The Daily Caller over at Fox last night. We're on
Speaker 1: the Shannon Bream Show together or right one after the other,
Speaker 1: not together, but we're at the same show. And you know,
Speaker 1: he asked a very good question in the White House
Speaker 1: Press briefing, and then I'm seeing all these people that
Speaker 1: will just they'll just pile on and say the Daily
Speaker 1: Caller is not real journalist. I'm like, the Daily Caller
Speaker 1: has got a lot of really smart, hard working, talented people. Um. Oh,
Speaker 1: producer might just told me that Wallace calls herself a
Speaker 1: nonpracticing Republican. Yeah, no, crap, you're a nonpracticing Republican. You're
Speaker 1: a you're a turn coat. Actually, people are turn coats
Speaker 1: for paychecks, folks, lots of them over at MSNBC. Turncoats
Speaker 1: on the GOP, turncoats on conservatism. They should they should
Speaker 1: not be welcomed back into the echelons of power of
Speaker 1: the party. Ever. Ever, we should remember this moment. We
Speaker 1: got a roll call coming up. We'll have some fun.
Speaker 1: You know. We did a story today on my TV
Speaker 1: show about dogs that are a little pudgy, and pudgy
Speaker 1: dogs are cute, but it's bad for them, it's unhealthy.
Speaker 1: But just because dogs puggy doesn't be the kid dig
Speaker 1: you know, it might just make the whole a little bigger.
Speaker 1: And if you've got a yard and you've got a fence,
Speaker 1: I don't care if Fido's put on some extra l
Speaker 1: B s. If he wants to, he'll start digging and
Speaker 1: he'll make the hole so that he can get out.
Speaker 1: And now you've got a problem on your hands. All right,
Speaker 1: don't let your pet, skinny or fat, slip through the fence. Okay.
Speaker 1: Dig Defense is what you need. It is genius. It
Speaker 1: extends the protection of your fence underground. You installed at
Speaker 1: the base of any fence, and it will protect both
Speaker 1: your pet and your property. No more chasing Fido as
Speaker 1: he runs around once he gets outside the fence like
Speaker 1: he's on some kind of jail break show. None of that.
Speaker 1: All right, stop the dig now with dig Defense. It's
Speaker 1: available online at Lows Tractor Supply Menhard's wayfair and stop
Speaker 1: the dig dot com for the month of Argust. Use
Speaker 1: promo code buck for ten percent off. That's right, Go
Speaker 1: to stop the dig dot com promo code buck for
Speaker 1: ten percent off. Ain't no party, look a Team Buck party,
Speaker 1: because a Team Buck party. Don't stop. Yeah, we got
Speaker 1: bucks turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: I'm excited for roll call, excited for the weekend to come,
Speaker 1: my friends. Let me just note that the Raheem Kassam
Speaker 1: guest appearance in the podcast this week I think has
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of folks excited about The Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: If you are not a podcast listener, I think this
Speaker 1: is a good one for you to try. Try your
Speaker 1: first shot on this one. Try it and see what
Speaker 1: you think. It's so easy. You just go to stitcher
Speaker 1: dot com and it's free. Type in Freedom Hunt or
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show and you'll see it'll pop up
Speaker 1: there or on iTunes. You can listen that way. Raheem
Speaker 1: and I had a lot of fun talking about things.
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly and Sean Parnell will be back later this
Speaker 1: month on The Freedom Hunt. I'm taking suggestions for guests
Speaker 1: next week. Send me your thoughts on Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton. Okay, we have first up here Stacy,
Speaker 1: who writes Buck, I haven't heard you this fired up,
Speaker 1: but I can't agree with you more about the press,
Speaker 1: they are a little cry babies. You're my hero for
Speaker 1: speaking speaking out about the things you do Shields High. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Stacy. I do feel passionately about this subject.
Speaker 1: I think that a lot of people in the press
Speaker 1: are um. I don't know that there's lacking in courage,
Speaker 1: decency and virtue and and they need to be called
Speaker 1: out for it. I think there's a lot of punks
Speaker 1: in the media, I really do. They're not good for
Speaker 1: and I know them, I know who they are, So
Speaker 1: it gets me particularly aggravated when I see them engaging
Speaker 1: in just a lot of public dishonesty. That's that's just
Speaker 1: meant to advance their advanced themselves in their own careers. Pablo,
Speaker 1: next up here, whoa, here we go, Pablo. Seven chipmunks
Speaker 1: turning on a branch eating a lot of sunflowers all
Speaker 1: my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tail from
Speaker 1: the sea. It's like dreaming about Gorgonzola cheese when it's
Speaker 1: clearly breed. Time baby stepping into my office. There's something
Speaker 1: about Mary. Pablo, you are right. I will see your
Speaker 1: quote and raise you. One that came to mind as
Speaker 1: people in the gym, we're looking at me for laughing
Speaker 1: out loud as you busted out the above yesterday. You're
Speaker 1: making me look stupid, you panded jerk, thanks to laugh
Speaker 1: this morning. Shields high brother o Paplo. I'm glad you
Speaker 1: gotta laugh out of that one. And uh, I don't
Speaker 1: know what you're making me look like you're making me
Speaker 1: look stupid. You panted jerk. I don't know what that's from,
Speaker 1: so I'm gonna have to uh, I'm gonna have to
Speaker 1: hit the map, hit the buzzer on that one. But
Speaker 1: thank you for writing anybody. Always good to hear from you.
Speaker 1: My brother Darby from Texas. The next step here something
Speaker 1: about Mary. Yep, he got it right. Step in my office.
Speaker 1: You're fired. Ha well played, Buck Well, thank you, thank you, sir,
Speaker 1: well played for you two for getting it right. Next
Speaker 1: we have Lanny Lanny Rides greetings from Arizona, Buck, first
Speaker 1: time I ever watching your TV show today. I watched
Speaker 1: the interview you did with the Nisha Susia. Wish you
Speaker 1: spoke up more than your co host did. The interview
Speaker 1: hasn't even started, and that smug look she had was
Speaker 1: truly annoying and obnoxious. I give credit to to Nish
Speaker 1: for keeping it will and collected the whole time. Enjoy
Speaker 1: your weekend and shields high uh from Lanny. Lenny. You
Speaker 1: know I didn't. I didn't really know that there was
Speaker 1: going to be quite the amount of tension in that
Speaker 1: interview that there was with Denish and Crystal and I
Speaker 1: can tell you that when you're in a co host
Speaker 1: position with somebody and you're not on the same team ideologically,
Speaker 1: it can be a very delicate thing because if if
Speaker 1: she feels like I'm jumping in to take Denish's side,
Speaker 1: that could make the situation more tense, and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you got TV that's going off the rails. Uh.
Speaker 1: And also I would say that Denish needs no one's
Speaker 1: help and and didn't need my help clearly, So it
Speaker 1: wasn't a uh, it was not the the The interview
Speaker 1: did not go as planned in that sense, and I
Speaker 1: am I'm glad that we've uh got a chance to
Speaker 1: talk about a little bit here. I don't really This
Speaker 1: is the tough part of doing a left right show
Speaker 1: is when one person is particularly um ideologically opposed to
Speaker 1: a certain guest, how do you handle that? Because if
Speaker 1: it turns into a two on one, that breaks down
Speaker 1: the whole dynamic of the show, which is that we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about it from both sides. But I did
Speaker 1: not get a chance to talk to Denise enough in
Speaker 1: the TV interview, which is why we've invited which is
Speaker 1: why we invited him on radio. Also just because I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk to him on radio and general. Glenn writes, Uh, Buck,
Speaker 1: I love hearing what you have to say on all
Speaker 1: the news happening every day, as well as your thoughts
Speaker 1: on the swamp and the swamp monsters. Even though I
Speaker 1: listen to the podcast, so I'm a day behind. Since
Speaker 1: you love movie quotes so much, I have three quotes
Speaker 1: for you to guess. They all come from action movies.
Speaker 1: He's good with cooking knives. Well, that's from Under Siege obviously.
Speaker 1: Next one here is Ranger. Uh, Colonel, it's the major. Thanks.
Speaker 1: I don't know any of those, man, you got me
Speaker 1: on those quotes. You guys are writing in. Really really Ranger,
Speaker 1: that's one. That's that's a quote. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: a word. I don't know if that's a quote. Thank
Speaker 1: you for all you do, Black. I look forward to
Speaker 1: more Shields High and more of what you have to say.
Speaker 1: Glenn from North Carolina. Well, Glenn, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for writing in. And yeah, I'm actually even though it's
Speaker 1: a lot of work, I'm looking forward to getting the
Speaker 1: Shields Hie up and running again. It's just something I
Speaker 1: do for this audience. Like I said, I don't do
Speaker 1: enough of them that we can schedule, at least not
Speaker 1: yet we can schedule advertising on it. So it's it's
Speaker 1: just a It really is a labor of love. There
Speaker 1: is not there's no capitalist impulse yet behind doing Shields High.
Speaker 1: Hopefully one day that will change, but we will see.
Speaker 1: Jason writes, uh, gotta be something about Nary as, something
Speaker 1: about Mary with the serial killer. My movie quote for you,
Speaker 1: how dare you sir? Man? Guys, you're you're crushing me
Speaker 1: with these like very vague short movie quotes today. I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know. How dare you? Sir? Oh?
Speaker 1: You know what? Actually, I think I've got that one.
Speaker 1: And then does Harrison Ford returned with how dare you? Sir?
Speaker 1: And and it's it's right, I got this one. It's uh,
Speaker 1: Clear and Present Danger, Harrison Phone, Harrison Ford, the old
Speaker 1: Potomac two step Jack. You're going to put this one away,
Speaker 1: keep this card for later. It's uh, it's a great
Speaker 1: that's actually like a pretty memorable scene in that movie.
Speaker 1: I think that movie is good. The only part of
Speaker 1: Clear and Present Danger that I really have a tough
Speaker 1: time with is when the deputy director of the c
Speaker 1: I a goes operational and is carrying, you know, carrying
Speaker 1: a weapon, and that doesn't happen. Guys, I can tell
Speaker 1: you this right now that you know that the CIA director,
Speaker 1: whoever that person may be at any point in time,
Speaker 1: is not somebody that you want to have next to
Speaker 1: you in a in a gunfight or a bar fight. Okay,
Speaker 1: CI director is basically a super nerd Uh, Travis writes
Speaker 1: original squad here heard you first on Rush. I will
Speaker 1: buy a CNN sucks t shirt or two. Love the show,
Speaker 1: keep it up, Travis, Well, thank you, Travis. Um I
Speaker 1: I think that those shirts would sell out rather quickly.
Speaker 1: In fact, we should get some of those shirts going.
Speaker 1: I think that would be fun. Uh. Next here, Jeremy
Speaker 1: um Buck really enjoying the freedom on interviews you've had
Speaker 1: last few episodes. I'm getting a little worried about our
Speaker 1: friend Comy Bear. We haven't heard from him in sometime.
Speaker 1: We all know those winners in fladi Astak can be brutal.
Speaker 1: Can we get a brief update from him in the
Speaker 1: next Freedom Hut podcast. If we need a crowdfunding a
Speaker 1: care package abortion vodka, let him Let Team Buck know
Speaker 1: from Jeremy. Jeremy man, you are you're keeping You're keeping
Speaker 1: us honest here. You are correct, Uh that we have
Speaker 1: not had some comy bear in awhile the bear will
Speaker 1: be back. Man. God Uh, I got so many projects,
Speaker 1: so many things I'm trying to stay up on, and
Speaker 1: that's one of the comy bear is very important. We
Speaker 1: will get back to it. Uh, Willie rants Hey, Buck
Speaker 1: Costa seems to have had a bad memory. Not long
Speaker 1: ago Republican was badly wounded and the media went too
Speaker 1: far a long time ago. Look, I agree, Willie. That's
Speaker 1: why I said that on the show. It's Republicans that
Speaker 1: have to fear for their safety in general in this country.
Speaker 1: It's it's Trump supporters who have to be concerned about
Speaker 1: being assaulted or denigrated or uh just in general attacked
Speaker 1: in public for supporting the the the sitting president the
Speaker 1: United States. Folks. Uh, this is a this is a
Speaker 1: big problem in this country when when the culture is
Speaker 1: so divided that there seems to be this acceptance of
Speaker 1: of pretending. I mean that's what really what liberals do.
Speaker 1: Liberals pretend that supporting Trump is is something akin to
Speaker 1: supporting the KKK, or supporting Nazism, or supporting some horrific
Speaker 1: violence and evil ideology, and he's the president United States,
Speaker 1: and he's doing a great job, and the country is
Speaker 1: in really good shape, and they just don't they pretend
Speaker 1: not to care about any of that. It's it's really bizarre.
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, uh Sterling. Next up here, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I have a friend from Austria, and back in the
Speaker 1: nineties we talked about his education. He told me that
Speaker 1: by the age of fourteen he had to choose a
Speaker 1: career path and the rest of his education is geared
Speaker 1: in that direction. I imagine it's the only affordable way
Speaker 1: to make education available for the whole population. Do you
Speaker 1: know of any studies or information about countries with public
Speaker 1: higher learning that described this type of plan. I bet
Speaker 1: liberal arts isn't on the list of available degrees, Sterling, Sterling.
Speaker 1: It's a great question, and I can't say that I
Speaker 1: have much background in how other countries do their their
Speaker 1: schooling in terms of how are you picked. I know
Speaker 1: that in uh in France, for example, you take tests,
Speaker 1: and not everybody you I know there are countries. Let
Speaker 1: me just put it this way, where you have to
Speaker 1: essentially take a standardized test for college level stuff, and
Speaker 1: people get tracked toward more trade school, and some people
Speaker 1: get tracked toward a specific area of study in the
Speaker 1: sciences or in the humanities. But yeah, um, that's a
Speaker 1: very good question. It's something that I will look into.
Speaker 1: Next up here we get aries. Who writes l O
Speaker 1: l you've got CNN on. I hear a baby crying
Speaker 1: in the background. Uh CNN. CNN got called out this week.
Speaker 1: Thank heavens for that. Uh. Larry writes Buck your show
Speaker 1: is awesome. I listened to you in Boston. Keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, Larry. Hey, Larry, you're awesome. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to my brother up in Boston. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it from the Hut for this week, folks,
Speaker 1: another one live from the Swamp in the books. Please
Speaker 1: do check out their Freedom Hut podcast. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: it's a great listen. You'll enjoy it this weekend on
Speaker 1: iTunes or Stitcher. I'll see you next week. Every day,
Speaker 1: She'll ti