Speaker 1: Mr garbutschaf teared down this wall. Either you're with us
Speaker 1: or you were with the terrorists. If you've got healthcare
Speaker 1: all with it, then you can keep your plan. If
Speaker 1: you are satisfied with it is not to be president
Speaker 1: of the United States. Take it to a bank. Together.
Speaker 1: We will make America great again. We'll never sharender. It's
Speaker 1: what you've been waiting for all day. The Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show joined the conversation called Buck Toll Free at eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred. Buck that's eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred to eight to five The Future of talk radio.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. Welcome to Buck Sexton Show. Everybody. Great to
Speaker 1: have you with me in the Freedom Hunt. Much to
Speaker 1: discuss today, a lot of actionable intelligence to present, many
Speaker 1: things that I'm excited to get into here in the Hut.
Speaker 1: First off, the Senate has opened debate on immigration, so
Speaker 1: we'll see how that goes. I don't want to make
Speaker 1: any cynical predictions right off the bat, but I suppose
Speaker 1: I will. The Democrats will not budge on this. They're
Speaker 1: going to go into their whole purpose here is to
Speaker 1: go into the mid terms as the great defenders of
Speaker 1: non Americans, the legal aliens, and they think that that's
Speaker 1: going to rally their base and that they will win
Speaker 1: and when the mid terms and then they won't have
Speaker 1: to negotiate with Republicans, or at least they'll be able
Speaker 1: to completely stymy them if they win the Senate or
Speaker 1: the House or who knows. Is it a good plan? No,
Speaker 1: but I think that may in fact be the plan,
Speaker 1: especially when you look at some of the folks who
Speaker 1: involved Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and all the rest. So
Speaker 1: we'll talk about that Senate immigration debate as much as
Speaker 1: we we can, really, not just today, but this week.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a big policy issue. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: spend a good portion of time today on the complete
Speaker 1: and utter debacle that has been mainstream media coverage of
Speaker 1: North Korea's presence at the Winter Olympics in pyeong Chang
Speaker 1: in South Korea. I wrote about this for The Hill
Speaker 1: dot Com today. Um I referred to the media's uh,
Speaker 1: north Korea's appalling American media boosters thanks you can read
Speaker 1: on the Hill. I think that that says a lot
Speaker 1: of what I'm gonna get into the headline carries a
Speaker 1: fair amount of it. But it's important that we look
Speaker 1: at why they would all of a sudden turn into
Speaker 1: cheerleaders for the most vile and brutal dictatorship on the planet.
Speaker 1: Why is that the case. Here's a hint. Has to
Speaker 1: do with what they think of Trump. Here's an even
Speaker 1: better hint. How's to do with how they viewed Trump
Speaker 1: versus Kim Jong un. And you know, they think it's
Speaker 1: pretty close in terms of how awful one is to
Speaker 1: the other. And I'm talking about the New York Times,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about CNN. This is not left wing crazy sites.
Speaker 1: This is well maybe, but this is basically the the
Speaker 1: the heart of the hashtag resistance in the media. So
Speaker 1: we'll get into all things going on in North Korea.
Speaker 1: Um with well in South Korea, but regarding the North,
Speaker 1: because it's chilling. I mean, they're celebrating, they're given the
Speaker 1: celebrity star treatment to Kim Jong LUN's sister. Utterly appalling,
Speaker 1: utterly appalling, And they are favorably comparing Kim Jong UN's sister.
Speaker 1: And she is not just some person who happens to
Speaker 1: be related to perhaps the most evil dictator on the planet.
Speaker 1: She is a member of the polite Borrow. She is,
Speaker 1: in fact, in charge of the literally in charge of
Speaker 1: the propaganda apparatus of the Communist Party of North Korea.
Speaker 1: She is the chief propagandist, and she is at the
Speaker 1: Winter Olympics. And I understand South Korea is trying to
Speaker 1: be as constructive as it can with its neighbors to
Speaker 1: the north and all of that. But to say that
Speaker 1: she is winning a diplomacy gold medal that is a quote,
Speaker 1: or that she has outshined Mike Pence, our vice president.
Speaker 1: They did that too, is completely beyond the pale. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is bonkers, bonkers level crazy. But the media is
Speaker 1: they've got Trump. When when I say Trump derangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to overstate it for effect. I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to say, oh, yeah, it's like they're crazy, man. No, No,
Speaker 1: I mean they're actually something's wrong. They've had a break
Speaker 1: with reality. They need they need some assistance, they need
Speaker 1: some help, they need to talk it through. So that
Speaker 1: will all be coming up later, as well as the
Speaker 1: the show that was put on today at the White
Speaker 1: House Press conference with a series of questions about now
Speaker 1: resigned White House aid Rob Porter. It's as though that's
Speaker 1: the and I'm not exaggerating. I watched twenty minutes of
Speaker 1: the White House Press conference today, maybe it was fifteen.
Speaker 1: I didn't I wasn't watching the clock, but I watched
Speaker 1: a good chunk of it. And it's just one Rob
Speaker 1: Porter question after another. Now, I think that domestic abusers
Speaker 1: are scum, and I don't think that any man with
Speaker 1: any honor integrity whatsoever would either hit a woman or
Speaker 1: defend somebody who does hit a woman. That said, Rob
Speaker 1: Porter is not the most important news story on planet Earth.
Speaker 1: I would go so far as to say, Israel blowing
Speaker 1: up a bunch of a bunch of bad guys in
Speaker 1: Syria and saying, yeah, we know they're Iranians there too.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's a bigger story, which we will talk about
Speaker 1: here on this show. Yeah, that's right, these really air
Speaker 1: force launching strikes in Syria everyone and making it clear
Speaker 1: they know that, Yeah there's Iranians that are involved there too.
Speaker 1: That's a big deal. But no media only wants to
Speaker 1: ask about Rob Porter. It's only only White White House. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean one question to question five questions. Fine, I
Speaker 1: think I heard about twenty questions that are up from
Speaker 1: the press corps about Rob Porter. I follow politics for
Speaker 1: a living. I mean, I do follow other things too,
Speaker 1: but it is part of my job. And I will
Speaker 1: tell you I did not know who Rob Porter was
Speaker 1: until this. He's a guy who carries papers to and
Speaker 1: from the president. He's in He's in the White House.
Speaker 1: He's part of the White House. How is this such
Speaker 1: an important story to the media. Well, it falls into
Speaker 1: the narrative of Trump is a Trump protects abusers, Trump
Speaker 1: is in abuser. They'll even tell you they think Trump
Speaker 1: is a serial sexual assaulter. I mean, that's that's what
Speaker 1: this is all really about. It It's not about them
Speaker 1: taking us down on this issue for the sake of
Speaker 1: women's rights or anything else. It's it's to bash Trump.
Speaker 1: This is a This is all about trying to bash Trump.
Speaker 1: So we'll discuss that in in a little bit. But
Speaker 1: first I have to say I wanted to get into
Speaker 1: the latest on the hashtag memo or the memos that
Speaker 1: are out there, the Russia collusion story, all this stuff
Speaker 1: that's going on right now, and maybe later we'll talk
Speaker 1: about budget and infrastructure. Infrastructure is not going anywhere. That's
Speaker 1: gonna be a topic we've got for a long time.
Speaker 1: So I don't think we have to spend too much
Speaker 1: in infrastructure today. I know Trump gave a speech on it.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get into something else first, also an
Speaker 1: area where I can bring a little little special something,
Speaker 1: a little little extra sizzle to the analysis in that
Speaker 1: I actually know what I'm talking about with this because
Speaker 1: I used to do analysis inside the intelligence community with
Speaker 1: the security clearance, So I know when the clowns are
Speaker 1: lying to us. I know when they're saying things that
Speaker 1: are just patently false. And that's helpful because a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff is not adding up on the whole Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation. And we've got a big report out right now,
Speaker 1: just broke before I came on air about an hour
Speaker 1: or two before um about what the Obama administration was
Speaker 1: doing in those early days of transferring power over to
Speaker 1: the Trump administration on Russia collusion specifically, let me give
Speaker 1: you a little bit of details here. This courtesy of
Speaker 1: Fox News dot com X National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
Speaker 1: Remember Susan Rice, Remember all the unmasking talk around Susan Rice.
Speaker 1: We never really found out what was going on there?
Speaker 1: Did we keep that in mind? Susan Rice sent an
Speaker 1: unusual by the way. I was out at Stanford like
Speaker 1: six months ago, and I passed her on the stairs,
Speaker 1: and I'm telling she looked at me and as one
Speaker 1: of those things were like, She's not supposed to know
Speaker 1: who I am, but I've trashed Obama enough on CNN's
Speaker 1: air waves that she knew who I was. And she
Speaker 1: just looked right down. Yeah, that's right, I know, Susan. Right,
Speaker 1: you're she's too important to know who I am. But
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, she gave me a look. She knew
Speaker 1: who I was. We did not talk. There was no
Speaker 1: friendly there was no friendly banter like, Yeah, what's up.
Speaker 1: I'm here at Stanford two, sus what's going on? Anyway?
Speaker 1: Back to Susan Rice, former National security advisor, an unusual email.
Speaker 1: She sent an unusual email to herself the day President
Speaker 1: Trump was sworn into office, documenting former President Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: guidance at a high level meeting about how law enforcement
Speaker 1: should investigate Russian interference in the presidential race. According to
Speaker 1: two Republican senators earlier today, Senator or Senate Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham Um said that
Speaker 1: the partially unclassified email was sent partially unclassified, was sent
Speaker 1: by Rice on January inauguration day everybody and appears to
Speaker 1: document a January five meeting that included Obama, then FBI
Speaker 1: Director James Comey, then Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then
Speaker 1: Vice President Joe Biden, and Rice, also known as a
Speaker 1: meeting of the Five Families of the Existance. Who's going up?
Speaker 1: What territory? What a Russia collusion narrative? Uh? Turns out
Speaker 1: this is an email that doesn't really make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense to me. I don't know if my godfather
Speaker 1: impression there even really came through. It just sounded like
Speaker 1: I was having some kind of an event over here.
Speaker 1: But uh, here's what's going on in this email. Rice
Speaker 1: wrote that quote, Obama wants to be sure that as
Speaker 1: we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to
Speaker 1: ascertain if there's any reason we cannot share information fully
Speaker 1: as it relates to Russia. Now this goes in the
Speaker 1: excuse me, that's not your call, That's not how it works, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: For for example, you can't have one president who's like, well,
Speaker 1: we've got some super secret covert action thing we're doing,
Speaker 1: and like, you know, the new president doesn't get to
Speaker 1: know about it. Nope, that that that's not how this
Speaker 1: game goes, or maybe they think it does. But that's
Speaker 1: not legitimate, that's not that's not ethical or legal. Um.
Speaker 1: They don't have the right to do that. And yet
Speaker 1: she seemed to think that they did, which is quite strange.
Speaker 1: Isn't it for a national security advisor? Um? And then
Speaker 1: there's more. And this is the part of it that
Speaker 1: is in fact the weirdest. And this this falls into
Speaker 1: the category of and remember Susan Rice very close to
Speaker 1: Barack Obama personally as well. She wrote the following President
Speaker 1: Obama began the conversation, this is about her meeting with Comy, Yates,
Speaker 1: Biden Rice. Okay, this is all all those yeah, all
Speaker 1: those names, right, Yates hates Trump, Comy hates Trump, Biden
Speaker 1: is Biden, Rice hates Trump? Right, m hmm. Isn't an
Speaker 1: interesting that they would have all had a meeting about
Speaker 1: Russia collusion where they're trying it's almost like they're trying
Speaker 1: to get on the same sheet of music about you
Speaker 1: know what, what what what's going to happen now? Because
Speaker 1: they maybe we're assuming they were going to be in
Speaker 1: charge and so now not only they're not in charge
Speaker 1: of that investigation with a Hillary presidency, but also what
Speaker 1: do they do about the stuff that was done before
Speaker 1: when they were assuming Hillary was going to be president.
Speaker 1: How do you cover the tracks, my friends? How do
Speaker 1: you make all the all the sketchy stuff you did
Speaker 1: go away? It's tough to cover your tracks. It's tough
Speaker 1: to you know. You gotta do things like delete thirty
Speaker 1: emails and use bleach bit on a server and set
Speaker 1: up a home server and send emails with such reckless
Speaker 1: disregard for what's contained in them that they end up
Speaker 1: on a convicted pedophiles laptop that is married to you,
Speaker 1: you know, who's married to your top eide. I mean,
Speaker 1: those are the sorts of things, and one does one
Speaker 1: is trying to cover up something. But so we have
Speaker 1: this email that that she writes to herself, mind you,
Speaker 1: which I would not. It is a way of establishing
Speaker 1: a record. It's almost like establishing an alibi. Right. This
Speaker 1: to me strikes me as this strikes me as the
Speaker 1: equivalent of, you know, showing up to the bar at
Speaker 1: midnight like, hey, everybody, my name is Buck Sexton. I'm
Speaker 1: in this bar. Note the time. Note the time it
Speaker 1: is midnight. It is midnight, and I will not be
Speaker 1: on the other side of town in fifteen minutes or
Speaker 1: so committing a heinous crime, because we're just going to
Speaker 1: assume that I've established my alibi and you know, there
Speaker 1: you have it. Here's what Rice writes in this email.
Speaker 1: President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment
Speaker 1: to ensuring that every aspect of this issue, Russia collusion
Speaker 1: everybody is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities
Speaker 1: by the book. The President's stress that he is not
Speaker 1: asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.
Speaker 1: He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed
Speaker 1: as it normally would by the book. You repeated by
Speaker 1: the book twice. I think I think you guys are
Speaker 1: all seeing what I'm putting down here. It's a little convenient,
Speaker 1: isn't it a little strange. It's almost like she's trying
Speaker 1: to create a trail that would support the case if
Speaker 1: in fact, things started to go awry, if the d
Speaker 1: o J could no longer run interference for the anti trumpers,
Speaker 1: if we started to get to the truth, like say,
Speaker 1: if we found out that the Fusion GPS dossier was
Speaker 1: in fact paid for by Hillary Clinton and the d
Speaker 1: n C. If it became increasingly clear that James Comey
Speaker 1: is really first and foremost concerned with himself and his power,
Speaker 1: and he was willing to break the rules in favor
Speaker 1: of Hillary and break the rules against Trump. It's almost
Speaker 1: like she's trying to establish here that if everything started
Speaker 1: to fall apart. Look at this email President Obama on
Speaker 1: his last day in office, folks, or last days. This
Speaker 1: was on the last day. She wrote this in the
Speaker 1: last day in reference to an earlier meeting, but in
Speaker 1: the very final moments of this administration after eight years,
Speaker 1: Obama just wanted everyone to know it's all done by
Speaker 1: the book. There's been no political bias here at all. Oh,
Speaker 1: I think we all know that Susan Rice doth protest
Speaker 1: the by the book too much. This is as we
Speaker 1: would say on in my next there was this strikes
Speaker 1: me as quite shady, my friends. This is very weird.
Speaker 1: And when you added into everything else that we're finding out,
Speaker 1: everything else that is going on around this Russia collusion narrative,
Speaker 1: it is increasingly clear to me that what we are
Speaker 1: facing is in fact, the most sweeping, egregious, and corrupt
Speaker 1: political hit ever in modern American history. That's what This
Speaker 1: was cooked up by people with power and influence who
Speaker 1: did not want to see either of those things go
Speaker 1: away of Hillary lost, and who hate Trump and everything
Speaker 1: he stands for. And we are getting closer, We're getting
Speaker 1: closer to be able to prove all of this. So
Speaker 1: at very injuring piece up on Fox news dot com
Speaker 1: eight four eight four buck, we have much more coming up,
Speaker 1: my friends. We will be right back. Absolutely, James Comey
Speaker 1: should be back to give answers to the Congress about
Speaker 1: why his prior testimony was not truthful. He was making
Speaker 1: claims about the dossier before Congress that now through the
Speaker 1: investigation and discovery of evidence, we know may not have
Speaker 1: been accurate regarding what he was doing. The House of
Speaker 1: Representatives has subpoena power, and we absolutely got subpoena James Comey.
Speaker 1: He's sort of gone from the hero of the left
Speaker 1: to the demon of the left now to like, you know,
Speaker 1: the greatest troll on Twitter. So I suspect that it
Speaker 1: would be better to have him before the Congress answering
Speaker 1: questions about what in the world was going on that
Speaker 1: allowed cash at a political party to be convertible into
Speaker 1: a government sponsored warrant to spy on Donald Trump's transition
Speaker 1: to I want to hear Comey answer some questions under
Speaker 1: oath about all this stuff too, now that we have
Speaker 1: more information. I want to see smug Comey sit there
Speaker 1: and simmer a bit. I'd like to see what that's like,
Speaker 1: a bit of a bit of sizzling Comey on the
Speaker 1: hot seat. It would be. You know, although the smugness
Speaker 1: may overtake the whole room, like Comy's cloud of smug
Speaker 1: may just may cause an evacuation. They just can't handle it.
Speaker 1: It's just too much for them. I was just noting
Speaker 1: with the guys before we got into a break. I said,
Speaker 1: you know this old Susan Rice email where you know
Speaker 1: Obama said, by the book, just by the book, totally
Speaker 1: by the book, which was written, as I said, which
Speaker 1: was written on sent written and sent on January so
Speaker 1: and documenting a January five meeting. But on the very
Speaker 1: last day where where she would be, you know, where
Speaker 1: the transition has happened with That was an inauguration day, right,
Speaker 1: or it was close to it. It was than a
Speaker 1: day or two of them. This would be the equivalent
Speaker 1: of all of a sudden, if I were out with
Speaker 1: let's say, Mike and John. Neither of you guys like me.
Speaker 1: You're unmarried, right, unmarried as of yet. Okay, we're working
Speaker 1: out the guys, all three of us. So if we
Speaker 1: were out and but we had wives, and all of
Speaker 1: us all of a sudden, had all these text messages
Speaker 1: about how we had a guy's night, but you know,
Speaker 1: we weren't. We weren't at the casino or anything. I'm
Speaker 1: so glad, And all the text messages said the same
Speaker 1: thing to each other. So glad guys that we didn't
Speaker 1: go to the casino, uh or or the you know,
Speaker 1: gentlemen's club afterwards, because that would have been so bad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm so glad we didn't make that decision. It would
Speaker 1: have been such a bad decision to make to do
Speaker 1: that thing. We just hung out in eight cheeseburgers. You know,
Speaker 1: some of the I assume are our theoretical wives would
Speaker 1: find that a bit suspicious. Why are you guys just
Speaker 1: writing yourself? Why are you creating this strange record, this
Speaker 1: this archive, if you will, of of how great and
Speaker 1: righteous you were? Allowed to night. That doesn't really seem
Speaker 1: necessary unless you're hiding something. See what I mean, Susan
Speaker 1: Rice writing to herself. You know, Oh Obama wanted everything
Speaker 1: by the book. Oh it has to be so by
Speaker 1: the book. And by the way, Comey was in that meeting.
Speaker 1: We know how by the book Comey really is right.
Speaker 1: Comey was Mr America's greatest g man. And then he
Speaker 1: decided to like leak some stuff to the New York
Speaker 1: Times and get an investigation started on a sitting president
Speaker 1: out of spite. So maybe we should start rethinking all
Speaker 1: these h wonderful and decent public servants like Rice and
Speaker 1: Comey and others. The President doesn't want the public to
Speaker 1: see the underlying facts what is revealed in our memo
Speaker 1: or quotations from the very fast application that really demonstrate
Speaker 1: just how misleading the Republicans have been. Their goal here
Speaker 1: is to put the FBI on trial, to put Bob
Speaker 1: Mueller's investigation on trial, and the President is only too
Speaker 1: happy to accommodate. Republicans voted in the Congress to at
Speaker 1: least both the publican and Democrat memo. Democrats only vote
Speaker 1: release their memos. There is enormous hypocrisy here, because this
Speaker 1: is all political. What this really is is they intentionally
Speaker 1: put sources and methods in the document knowing that the
Speaker 1: White House wouldn't be able to release it, and then
Speaker 1: they could. They could basically go on TV and say
Speaker 1: that we were adding the document. I think the President
Speaker 1: made the right decision to say, look, if that's the
Speaker 1: game you're gonna play, I'm gonna send it back to you.
Speaker 1: You clean it up, and you work with the FBI,
Speaker 1: send it back to us, and we'll be happy to
Speaker 1: release it. I believe I said exactly that would happen
Speaker 1: here on the show, that the Democrats would see their
Speaker 1: memo with intentionally classified. Remember we had this whole conversation.
Speaker 1: They'll just write so then this guy super Secret Squirrel
Speaker 1: did this super secret Squirrel thing, and then more super
Speaker 1: secret Squirrel, and they'd have to block out all of that.
Speaker 1: That would be redacted, it would be classified, or there
Speaker 1: be a need to redact it. You could not release
Speaker 1: that out there as it was. And that's a way
Speaker 1: of making it seem as the Republicans don't want the
Speaker 1: facts to come out, they don't want the truth to
Speaker 1: be shared with the American people. When as was pointed
Speaker 1: out there, that was Shift versus Short, Adam Schiff, whom
Speaker 1: you all know, of course, the Democrats. It's tough to
Speaker 1: call him an attack dog, you know, it's more like, uh,
Speaker 1: he seems a bit more reptilian, right, so he's more
Speaker 1: like an attack iguana. Perhaps I don't know. Um, I
Speaker 1: like dogs, so I don't like say Adam Shift is
Speaker 1: an attack dog. But Mark Short, the White House Legislative Director,
Speaker 1: was one responding there, and he's just saying, look, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't even vote to release the original memo, which had
Speaker 1: nothing classified and which the FBI at the senior level,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats just flat outlide. Remember I told you
Speaker 1: it's good to know when there's lies there. There's no way,
Speaker 1: there's no way that that meant that anybody who had
Speaker 1: any familiarity with the laws and regulations around classified information
Speaker 1: would have thought that the Republican memo was a problem.
Speaker 1: So everyone who saw it and said otherwise a liar,
Speaker 1: there's lying to you, right, I would know it. Also,
Speaker 1: you live the FBI, you go to prison. FBI lies
Speaker 1: to all the American people. You know, stuff barely not
Speaker 1: a big deal. So will we see this Democrat memo
Speaker 1: or not. I think we clearly will um. But the
Speaker 1: game has already been put into place here, and they're
Speaker 1: going to say, no matter what's in this memo now,
Speaker 1: if it's not potent enough, and I think it really
Speaker 1: won't be, they're gonna say, well, the really good stuff,
Speaker 1: the really juicy stuff, was removed by those big, bad,
Speaker 1: mean Republicans who don't want to know the truth about
Speaker 1: the pies application on Carter Page. As I've said to you,
Speaker 1: if they had really strong stuff on Carter Page, two
Speaker 1: things would be true. One, they wouldn't have needed to
Speaker 1: include the dossier at all. Two, it would have leaked.
Speaker 1: We would know if there were some guys somewhere who
Speaker 1: was tight with Putin, who was, you know, a senior
Speaker 1: FSB officer or something who was talking to Carter Page.
Speaker 1: We would have heard I'm sorry, they can get the
Speaker 1: never Trump hashtag resistance squad inside of the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice or the FBI or maybe even the CIA. Some
Speaker 1: very interesting stuff coming out about former Agency director Brennan recently.
Speaker 1: He said some very some quite strange stuff. I know
Speaker 1: it's been forgotten that Brennan is very tight with Obama
Speaker 1: and he wasn't just a SEI director. He's a political
Speaker 1: infighter and is known to be a very partisan guy
Speaker 1: and has a reputation for leak and stuff to the
Speaker 1: media too, by the way, and not a reputation just
Speaker 1: from people in the media. Some other folks I know
Speaker 1: are like, yeah, Brennan leaks. But here's the thing, as
Speaker 1: we continue to look at the carter page fives a warrant,
Speaker 1: as we see what's around it. If there was good information,
Speaker 1: as I said, they wouldn't needed the dossier. And if
Speaker 1: there was good information, we would have already heard because
Speaker 1: they would have leaked it to the Washington Post or
Speaker 1: somewhere else. Even more than that, though, and then we
Speaker 1: got a whole another level that comes into play here. Okay,
Speaker 1: So let's say they did have some good reason to
Speaker 1: or some reasonable reason to monitor carter pages communications. What
Speaker 1: does that say about the FISA process? Because I could
Speaker 1: come up with a hundred different reasons why a lot
Speaker 1: of people I know in the press could fall under
Speaker 1: a FISA could fall under a fis a warrant, you know,
Speaker 1: I can think of a lot of different reasons why
Speaker 1: different people I know in the media that talked to
Speaker 1: have you know, foreign sources or try to talk to
Speaker 1: even openly or not openly, but try to approach you know,
Speaker 1: foreign military, foreign intelligence to get information for their stories.
Speaker 1: Are they all subjectifies a because from what I'm seeing
Speaker 1: Carter pay establish as a press didn't hear everybody that
Speaker 1: if the federal government and by that I really mean
Speaker 1: the deep state Democrats who like to abuse the federal
Speaker 1: government's powers for stuff like this, if they decide that
Speaker 1: they want to monitor your communications and therefore the communications
Speaker 1: of really everyone you're in touch with, because that's what
Speaker 1: it means, they can find a pretext to do it.
Speaker 1: It's not hard. What does the fourth demon really even mean? That?
Speaker 1: This is a very important concept that uh, I want
Speaker 1: to bring into our discussion in the show. It's something
Speaker 1: I want you to keep in mind, and that is
Speaker 1: that that mass surveillance is unsettling, but ruthless individual surveillance, right,
Speaker 1: individual surveillance that is really targeted, that breaks down Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment protection. That's what's that's what's actually terrifying. Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: if they if they're getting all of your stuff and
Speaker 1: they're they're getting the metadata and all that, that's that's bad.
Speaker 1: But if they can target people for political reasons and
Speaker 1: look at all their communications. I mean, foreign federal government
Speaker 1: can do that. I mean folks founding fathers went to
Speaker 1: war over general warrants, right, they were like going through
Speaker 1: the customs house looking for stuff and trying to tax
Speaker 1: you more. We we're we're gonna be okay with a
Speaker 1: situation where the federal government can decide that that literally
Speaker 1: a presidential candidate can be surveilled by finding someone near
Speaker 1: him for whom they can create some pretext for that surveillance,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to be okay with that. Think about this,
Speaker 1: Carter Page is the way of getting to everybody on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. I know, I've read the the reports.
Speaker 1: At least you know Steve Bannon was caught up in
Speaker 1: that surveillance, and I mean, yeah, I really want to know.
Speaker 1: I want to know who. I don't know what If
Speaker 1: I'm carter Page, by the way, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: another way to go. I don't know if he'd be
Speaker 1: willing to do this I'm carter Page, then maybe I
Speaker 1: would say, you know what, I want the federal government
Speaker 1: to release all of the surveillance information on me because
Speaker 1: I don't believe he does have anything to hide. I
Speaker 1: don't I think that. You know, he could say, show
Speaker 1: all the communication, show everything gets out there, you know
Speaker 1: all the different contacts that I had, and you'll see
Speaker 1: it's all Nothing's Nothingsville, it's who cares. But it would
Speaker 1: matter to us a lot because it would show us
Speaker 1: that this was, like I said, a political hit. And
Speaker 1: the Democrats know that if the American people really figure
Speaker 1: this out, they will hold it against the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: as they should for a very very long time. And
Speaker 1: you know, I just see what's going on here with
Speaker 1: this Carter Page thing. Adam Ship's defense right now, the
Speaker 1: Democrats defense is, oh no, there's other stuff that made
Speaker 1: it okay for us to target this Carter Page guy
Speaker 1: who was on the FBI's radar, And that was the
Speaker 1: big thing they were saying. Yeah, he's on the FBI's
Speaker 1: radar before, and he worked with the FBI to help
Speaker 1: them track down some some shady Russians. So apparently the
Speaker 1: thanks he gets for that is that the FBI later
Speaker 1: on is miking him up, so to speak. But if
Speaker 1: he's such a bad guy, if he was doing shady things,
Speaker 1: can I just see one criminal charge even mentioned never
Speaker 1: mind brought just the basis of an indictment maybe against
Speaker 1: Carter Page if they can target his communications and everyone
Speaker 1: who talked to him there for indirectly surveilling them too.
Speaker 1: That's the way this works, based on on suspicion. With
Speaker 1: there's no charges. What what does this mean? Folks? Where
Speaker 1: are the limits? Really? Were the lines the boundaries that
Speaker 1: prevent the federal government from doing this the next time around?
Speaker 1: And here's a really scary thought. All this stuff we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, it's all kind of jammed up in
Speaker 1: the world that classified and everything else. This might have
Speaker 1: happened in other cases we don't even know about. I
Speaker 1: don't know that's they'll they'll do it to a presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: But they would no, they'd never do it. Just come on,
Speaker 1: let's really think about this one. You don't think that
Speaker 1: maybe some senior folks at d o J you want
Speaker 1: to keep an eye on somebody else somewhere. Now you
Speaker 1: start getting into some you know, we'd like to think
Speaker 1: that we're beyond the realm of police state tactics and
Speaker 1: the surveillance state and using that for you know, the
Speaker 1: Russians are the ones to do comproma the Russians are
Speaker 1: the ones who put video cameras in people's hotel rooms
Speaker 1: just to catch them doing what people do, and then
Speaker 1: you know, threatened to release that to embarrass them. Right,
Speaker 1: that's like the Russians. We wouldn't I mean, we don't
Speaker 1: do that in this country. I mean, the d O
Speaker 1: j FBI, it wouldn't do that. Are you sure. I'm
Speaker 1: a lot less shure now than I used to be,
Speaker 1: and I used to work on the inside, So that
Speaker 1: does not speak well about this whole situation. Eight four
Speaker 1: or four n eight to five. You've got thoughts on this?
Speaker 1: We are going to get into the whole North Korea
Speaker 1: media debacle. Wow, that's gonna be quite a discussion, so
Speaker 1: stick around for that. Will be right back. Welcome back team.
Speaker 1: Let's take a call from Tom in Youngstown, Ohio. Hey, Tom, alright, block,
Speaker 1: good afternoon. Uh. Two things. Number One, you mentioned Carter Page,
Speaker 1: and you were supposing that as a result of using
Speaker 1: the FIS warrant against him, they could do it against
Speaker 1: different groups and included the press. They did it against
Speaker 1: the press. Remember James Rosen and his parents, they used
Speaker 1: the fives A warrant to monitor them. I think that
Speaker 1: was the title. Uh. I think that was a criminal
Speaker 1: I think that was a criminal ward. I don't think
Speaker 1: they used I don't believe that was I don't believe
Speaker 1: that was a fisor warrant. From what I know, I
Speaker 1: think it was a criminal war but they but they
Speaker 1: went after the press anyway, based on the press doing
Speaker 1: their job. They as they also seized the Associate im
Speaker 1: Presses records. So the the Obama administration had to pass
Speaker 1: to do uh, to break down that wall, which look,
Speaker 1: it's always a little bit murky, but they just shattered
Speaker 1: it of you don't go after journalists for doing their jobs.
Speaker 1: Obama's folks did it, and people did not care. I
Speaker 1: mean when I mean people, the media did not remember. Uh.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General tone uh Sheryl Atkinson that she could
Speaker 1: no longer go to the into the Justice Department. Uh
Speaker 1: and and uh that was her job. So she was
Speaker 1: basically out of a job. CBS, what did she do?
Speaker 1: The Justice Department under Eric Holder? Remember remember she was
Speaker 1: the Justice Department corresponded first and Eric Holder, Yeah, she
Speaker 1: was exposing Yeah, Sharyl Atkinson was exposing some of the
Speaker 1: stuff that the the Holder d o J was up
Speaker 1: to and they did not like that over and she
Speaker 1: was like a career. CBS report that she'd been there
Speaker 1: a very long time, it was very well regarded, and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden she's gone, yeah, hey, one other
Speaker 1: thing you mentioned Susan Rice, and that Obama's said to
Speaker 1: go by Susan Right, she's by the book. He's all
Speaker 1: by the book. Only by the book. The book happened
Speaker 1: to be rules for radicals, that that he wanted them
Speaker 1: to go by. I like what you I like what
Speaker 1: you did there, Tom Shields high and thank you very
Speaker 1: much for the call my friend speaking about like what
Speaker 1: you did there. We got our friend, uh representative Louis Gohmert.
Speaker 1: I am shocked, really shocked that no fight sad judge
Speaker 1: has put anybody in jail yet. Yet we have found
Speaker 1: total disregard for a propriety before the fight of courts,
Speaker 1: and somebody should have been in jail long before now
Speaker 1: over the over the improprieties that were submitted to the court.
Speaker 1: Somebody's got to go to jail or our system is over.
Speaker 1: It is done. Louis Colmert. Congresson Goman, I like cogreson
Speaker 1: going by the way. I've been a bunch of fives
Speaker 1: and Funny's fun dude. I like him, but I think
Speaker 1: he's wrong here. No one's going No one's go to prison.
Speaker 1: And I know I say that, and I can already
Speaker 1: people like click, I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go listen
Speaker 1: to somebody who's like, they're all going to jail. Everybody,
Speaker 1: it's all coming down. Colly's gonna get frog marks. Nope,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna happen, folks. I'm not saying we won't
Speaker 1: get to the truth. I'm not saying there won't be
Speaker 1: any consequences, but it is overwhelmingly likely, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: it will be political consequences. Understand who we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: who we're dealing with, people that know what you can
Speaker 1: do that's unethical versus what you can do or what
Speaker 1: you would do that it's prosecutable. Right, Although I will
Speaker 1: say that James call me with the classified thing to me,
Speaker 1: I don't know how he's getting to pass on that one,
Speaker 1: meaning Comey had notes for meeting with the White House
Speaker 1: that at least one senator I think it was grassly,
Speaker 1: but I forget now. One senator has said the information
Speaker 1: was classified, called me linked to the press. That's a
Speaker 1: that's a crime. You're not allowed to do that. But somehowever,
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, it's it's Comy. You know, Comey's out there.
Speaker 1: I stare across the Crystal Clear Lake, fine ending that truth,
Speaker 1: justice in the American way grows with each beat of
Speaker 1: my heart. Comey is such a weirdo. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you look at this, if you're not on Twitter, you
Speaker 1: should get on Twitter just to see what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: With Comy, You're gonna be like, who is this guy?
Speaker 1: He's like six nine. I bet he can't even dunk.
Speaker 1: I bet he never could dunk. That's right, I said it.
Speaker 1: So he's like six eleven. If you're six eleven, you
Speaker 1: should be able to dunk, darn it. But yeah, Comey
Speaker 1: is a big weirdo. Oh by the way, the literally
Speaker 1: a large weirdo. Uh. Top Justice Department official that quit,
Speaker 1: Like I I can understand this one. She quit over
Speaker 1: quote fear she might be asked to oversee Russia probe.
Speaker 1: Rachel Brand was her name, Associate Attorney General. And I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, you know what, I'm sure she's probably
Speaker 1: a Democrat. You know, she's probably standing with Hillary so
Speaker 1: to speak, the whole thing. But apart from all that,
Speaker 1: for a moment, you gotta assume you really don't want
Speaker 1: that job. You really don't want to be the person
Speaker 1: oversee sing the d J investigation at this at this
Speaker 1: point of Russia, because you're gonna be at a rough
Speaker 1: spot no matter what, unless you're a true ideologue who
Speaker 1: wants to use this to continue to use this as
Speaker 1: the primary means of going after the Trump administration, and
Speaker 1: you're gonna take the heat that comes along with that
Speaker 1: because we're finding out now much more of what's true
Speaker 1: and what really happened and what was really going on
Speaker 1: with all this. But yeah, that's not a job that
Speaker 1: I would be like running to sign up for. Yes
Speaker 1: I would. I would love to be the person who,
Speaker 1: depending on the day, is gonna get trashed by one
Speaker 1: network or the other based on whatever moves she makes.
Speaker 1: So I'm thinking this memo, do we have we we
Speaker 1: don't know you read this week? Maybe? Yeah, I'm not
Speaker 1: talking to producer. Mike is telling me maybe this week,
Speaker 1: but we're not sure yet. Um it looks like it
Speaker 1: the some version, but be released. As I said to you,
Speaker 1: they've already played the classification games, which I knew it happened.
Speaker 1: I think the memo is going to be underwhelming. I
Speaker 1: mean the fact that it's ten pages also just seems
Speaker 1: strange to me. Why do you need a ten page
Speaker 1: memo to a fete the four pages of what was
Speaker 1: already released. Uh, but it's not gonna stop. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna stop anything. We need to find more information anyway.
Speaker 1: I get kind of radical on this one, and people
Speaker 1: get mad at me, like Buck, do you understand the
Speaker 1: sensitivity of sources and methods. Yeah, I know I do.
Speaker 1: I get it, But I get radical in so far
Speaker 1: as I want I want the president to just put it.
Speaker 1: I wanted to be put out there. What are we
Speaker 1: really gonna find out? Carter Page talk to some shady
Speaker 1: Russian dudes, you know? Okay, and unless we're really worried
Speaker 1: about the safety of those specific Russians, by the way,
Speaker 1: could we just do block out their last names, give
Speaker 1: them pseudonyms, you know, give them fake names. Who cares,
Speaker 1: But just let's see what they're really working with here,
Speaker 1: you know, that would be it, you know called one uh,
Speaker 1: you know person a and the other person be you know,
Speaker 1: person a spoke a carter Page person b met with
Speaker 1: them here, you know, you can still protect the identities
Speaker 1: and the safety of individuals that maybe, and I'm assuming
Speaker 1: there are people. I'm not even sure there is anybody.
Speaker 1: I think it's like the dossier and then some news
Speaker 1: reports and then oh yeah, the FBI knew that he
Speaker 1: talked to some Russians years ago and he helped them,
Speaker 1: But maybe he was still shady. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Not a lot, not a lot here that I think
Speaker 1: could be a big, a big problem, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: Carter Page wasn't like, you know, an agent living in
Speaker 1: deep cover in Bin Lawden's house or something, and if
Speaker 1: anyone finds out, you know, like, that's not what was
Speaker 1: happening here, folks. So anyway, we're gonna get into the
Speaker 1: North Korea thing here, because this is you're gonna enjoy
Speaker 1: this one. I mean, it's on the one hand, kind
Speaker 1: of terrifying how delusional the media really is in that
Speaker 1: they seem to believe that Trump is pretty much on
Speaker 1: the same plane as Kim Jong own. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: reason that I'll make the case as to why I
Speaker 1: think they think that. Stay with me. Kim Jong's sister
Speaker 1: Kim Yo jong sitting near directly behind the Vice president
Speaker 1: of the United States. It provides legitimacy. Oh, it's absolutely significant,
Speaker 1: the symbolism. She's about to emerge on the world's largest
Speaker 1: television stage. Her star has risen meteorically over the past
Speaker 1: four years. Kim Yo jong is the real power just
Speaker 1: under her brother. With the world watching the Olympics, she
Speaker 1: will put a young, telegenic face on the regime. It's
Speaker 1: a way to showcase North Korea on a world stage.
Speaker 1: Kim is the perfect counterpart to this, and it also
Speaker 1: is a signal that North Korea is not um, you know,
Speaker 1: this crazy, weird former Cold War state, but that it
Speaker 1: too has young women that are capable and are the
Speaker 1: future leadership. Welcome to ours here. The Buck Sexon show.
Speaker 1: That was a whole bunch of reporting. I think it's
Speaker 1: from CNN, but from mostly yes CNN, about about a
Speaker 1: regime that is in fact a ghoulish like of the
Speaker 1: Soviet era. Um that is the most totalitarian and brutal
Speaker 1: and repressive government on the planet. And yet the press
Speaker 1: coverage of a woman who is directly involved in that
Speaker 1: apparatus is like, yeah, look at her, She's telegenic and
Speaker 1: great and what a moment for North Korea. Uh, there
Speaker 1: is no way two make sense of how the media
Speaker 1: could be so foolish in their coverage of North Korea
Speaker 1: and North Korea without understanding that really this is at
Speaker 1: least in part about Trump. And I'm not just coming
Speaker 1: up with that. It's quite clear there were comparisons in
Speaker 1: the media between Kim Yo jung and remember that's the
Speaker 1: that's the sister of Kim Jong un. Kim Yo Jung
Speaker 1: is also in the polite borrow the scene, your communist
Speaker 1: senior communist entity that runs North Korea. She is the
Speaker 1: head of propaganda for the North Korean regime. She is
Speaker 1: personally technical title is director of the Propaganda and Agitation
Speaker 1: Department of the Workers Party of Korea. That sounds like
Speaker 1: a fun place to show up to work, and she
Speaker 1: is overseeing the brainwashing and psychological terror apparatus of the
Speaker 1: North Korean state. That's who this woman is. That they're
Speaker 1: all like, Oh, she's amazing. What are you wearing that door?
Speaker 1: That's Chanel. Well, when she goes back home, there will
Speaker 1: still be the multigenerational concentration camps where North Korean intelligence
Speaker 1: and military agents forced children to inform on their parents
Speaker 1: political beliefs inside these camps, and then the parents are
Speaker 1: mutilated and tortured to death on the evidence provided by
Speaker 1: their own children. That's North Korea. He didn't really get
Speaker 1: that sense of it though, from CNN's media coverage of it.
Speaker 1: And in fact, they were all too quick, and let's
Speaker 1: just see it as New York Times to their number
Speaker 1: of them, they were all too quick to talk about
Speaker 1: how North Korea was winning a gold medal for diplomacy.
Speaker 1: To compare Kim Yo jung when I just gave you
Speaker 1: some stats on sanctioned by the Treasury Department, by the way, hattle,
Speaker 1: that gets everybody excited at the dinner party. I just
Speaker 1: got my Treasure Department sanction for crimes against humanity. How's
Speaker 1: your day going? Compared to Ivanka Trump saying she's the
Speaker 1: Avanca of North Korea, which is quite a slight. If
Speaker 1: you don't think that's a slight, imagine for one moment
Speaker 1: that it was not the Trump administration. We were talking
Speaker 1: about the Obama administration, and any member of the press
Speaker 1: had ever, even for a moment, made a comparison between
Speaker 1: an active member of North Korea's apparatus of terror, repression,
Speaker 1: and murder with a member of Barack Obama's family. Right.
Speaker 1: You know, if someone had said Kim Yo Jong has
Speaker 1: any similarity to Michelle Obama, for example, in any way,
Speaker 1: I think people would have lost their minds. And I
Speaker 1: would agree with that actually, but you'll just note that
Speaker 1: with Ivanka, it's like, yeah, you know, young telogenic one's
Speaker 1: a part of a homicidal, maniacal regime. And you know,
Speaker 1: the other is Warden Grad who is an advisor to
Speaker 1: her dad in the White House and has like a
Speaker 1: you know, some nice kids and is a nice person
Speaker 1: trying to be a part of the U. S administration.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm sort of where's the comparison exactly? But
Speaker 1: they were saying that, oh, yeah, she's the Avanka of
Speaker 1: of North Korea. Uh. They're also was it particularly particularly
Speaker 1: annoying thing done by I think it was that they
Speaker 1: think this one was the New York Times where they
Speaker 1: they compared Pence's diplomacy to Kim Yo Jung's diplomacy in
Speaker 1: order to make it seem like Kim Yo Jung, Kim
Speaker 1: Jong Lund's sister is the one who you know, really
Speaker 1: gets it, you know, she's the savvy diplomat. Pence is
Speaker 1: just some rube, some you know, some hay seed, some hillbilly.
Speaker 1: He doesn't he doesn't get it. Yeah, they thought that
Speaker 1: she came off better in the comparison of the two.
Speaker 1: We're trying to find the I mean, I'm just so
Speaker 1: you get a sense of exactly whether or not I'm
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm exaggerating here anything else. The press is
Speaker 1: called North Korea's uh, north North Korea's efforts at the
Speaker 1: Olympics at charm offensive. Okay, fine, But they've also written
Speaker 1: headlines like this one from the New York Times, Kim
Speaker 1: Jong Own's sister turns on the charm, taking Pence's spotlight.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. And as I said that the Times referred
Speaker 1: to North Korea's Ivanka, Uh, this is some pretty heinous stuff, folks.
Speaker 1: When you get into what North Korea is really like,
Speaker 1: what the regime is all about. You can complain about
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, you can think they're terrible. You know,
Speaker 1: this is America. You're allowed to have You're allowed to
Speaker 1: have dumb political opinions. Many millions of our fellow Americans do.
Speaker 1: But if you think that there is any moral equivalency
Speaker 1: or any comparison to be drawn between any member of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration of the Republican Party and what is
Speaker 1: going on in North Korea. You are, in fact, a
Speaker 1: a dangerous moron. Um it is, it is aggressively stupid
Speaker 1: to draw any comparisons or parallel between our our government,
Speaker 1: our administration, Donald Trump, and North Korea. And people were
Speaker 1: doing it. I mean, I'm giving you the big newspapers
Speaker 1: and news sites out there, I mean some of the largest,
Speaker 1: the most mainstream of the mainstream media. But once you
Speaker 1: get into the opinion level, the opinion sections and you know,
Speaker 1: the commentary at on Twitter and elsewhere that the blue
Speaker 1: check peanut gallery, they're all, oh, yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: well Trump, North Korea is better at this diplomacy thing
Speaker 1: than Trump. You know, Trump is so terrible, He's the worst.
Speaker 1: Trump's guilty of American fascist and North Korea just has
Speaker 1: its own version of People say communism, but it's really
Speaker 1: more like a more like a religious cult than communism,
Speaker 1: but that's a different discussion. They were delusional. And then
Speaker 1: there was just some other little aspects of how they
Speaker 1: approached North Korea, like, for example, the North Korean cheer squad.
Speaker 1: So they all were addressed exactly the same and moving
Speaker 1: in complete at unison. And here's what it sounded like.
Speaker 1: They were the North Korean cheerleaders who were going, I mean,
Speaker 1: I've never seen anything like that. First they started, they
Speaker 1: were cheering one Korea. Then they were cheering when when
Speaker 1: when it was a remarkable scene, they really look a
Speaker 1: sports commentator, I guess that was Mary Carell and NBC. Look,
Speaker 1: she's allowed to say whatever she wants, and she's also
Speaker 1: just saying that it was a remarkable cy and that's fine.
Speaker 1: I have no problem with that. It's the political press,
Speaker 1: it's the newspapers out there that are talking about the
Speaker 1: diplomacy and the effectiveness of North North Korean diplomacy here
Speaker 1: that I inc was particularly egregious. And I think it's
Speaker 1: only they're blind spots on this issue, or there the
Speaker 1: obtuse nature of the media's coverage such that they wouldn't
Speaker 1: seem or they wouldn't decide it was necessary to point
Speaker 1: out that, yes, the North Korea cheer squad at the
Speaker 1: Olympics moved in with tremendous precision and everything else, probably
Speaker 1: because they were threatened with constant beatings at home, and
Speaker 1: that's not an exaggeration. If they didn't get it exactly right,
Speaker 1: maybe worse than beatings, maybe the starvation of their families.
Speaker 1: If you haven't seen it. I mean, there are a
Speaker 1: series of documentaries on North Korea that are all that
Speaker 1: are actually quite good. There's one in particular where they
Speaker 1: bring in doctors from the outside outside North koreas borders
Speaker 1: I forget. I saw it many years ago, and they
Speaker 1: bring in all these doctors and they're fixing I problems,
Speaker 1: a lot of cataracts, I believe, which is a pretty
Speaker 1: straightforward surgery. But if you don't get the surgery, you
Speaker 1: go blind. And so they're they're actually restoring sight to
Speaker 1: North Koreans and their foreign doctors that are doing this
Speaker 1: because North Korean medicine is obviously garbage, barely exists, and
Speaker 1: but they're just trying to bring in as many of
Speaker 1: these uh as many of these doctors or as many
Speaker 1: patients these doctors as possible, and they're literally people have
Speaker 1: been blind, some of them for years, and now they're
Speaker 1: able to see again because their eyes are fine. They're
Speaker 1: just covered because of the counteracts. And what's remarkable. And
Speaker 1: then and I'm kind of giving away. Where the documentary
Speaker 1: goes here is that you have people whose site has
Speaker 1: been restored by the doctor, and they all know. They
Speaker 1: all know right away once they can see again. They
Speaker 1: don't say thank you to the doctor. They don't hug
Speaker 1: the doctor. They turn, they kneel, they grovel, they cry,
Speaker 1: and they beg for thanks. From a portrait of it
Speaker 1: was at the time Kim Jong Ilk, Kim Jong N's
Speaker 1: father on the wall. Yeah, I forget about the doctor
Speaker 1: that actually like changed my life. Thank you, dear leader. Oh,
Speaker 1: dear leader, You're so amazing. And here's what's even more
Speaker 1: sick about it. I can't blame them at all. Not
Speaker 1: only they brainwashed, they know that if they give insufficient thanks,
Speaker 1: especially because their foreigners present, it might be off to
Speaker 1: the might be off to the concentration camp for them
Speaker 1: for insufficient thanks, for insufficiently saying thank you to the
Speaker 1: dear leader who has created this environment in the country
Speaker 1: where you know, the Kim dynasty, where people are unable
Speaker 1: to get medical care or starving or living under complete
Speaker 1: tyranny and oppression. And you would think that this context
Speaker 1: would inform some of the way that season Journalists in
Speaker 1: New York Times CNN et cetera. Would discuss the North
Speaker 1: Korean propaganda offensive at the Olympics, because that's what it is.
Speaker 1: Nothing has changed, folks. This is not a big thaw
Speaker 1: in relations. They're not gonna be buddies after this. North
Speaker 1: Korea is not going to give up its nuclear program.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna stop testing missiles. Okay, I'm not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: In fact, the ignorance of the media out in North
Speaker 1: Korea was particularly on display when it came to the
Speaker 1: signature of Kim Joe young or Kim Yo jong rather,
Speaker 1: who was making some you know, write writing down some
Speaker 1: remarks about a unified Korea, looking forward to a unified
Speaker 1: Korea in the future, and a lot of press were like,
Speaker 1: see it's this is great. This is like the unified
Speaker 1: Korea and they're marching under unified flag every well, for
Speaker 1: decades now, North Korea has been talking about a unified Korea.
Speaker 1: It will come through either submission or conquest. That is it.
Speaker 1: It's going to be unified under the North Korean model,
Speaker 1: not the South Korean model, and the North Koreans would
Speaker 1: be all too happy if they could to do that
Speaker 1: by force. In fact, I think you can make a
Speaker 1: very convincing argument that the entire structure of the North
Speaker 1: Korean state exists so that it can take over South Korea,
Speaker 1: it's just at some point in the future, and that
Speaker 1: it's nuclear program is not just an external deterrent but
Speaker 1: to blackmail the South into eventually being subsumed into the North.
Speaker 1: But the journalis done. They're like, oh the warm greeting
Speaker 1: she wrote, it was so nice about a unified Korea.
Speaker 1: H They they are, but they are uncurious about this.
Speaker 1: Why because they view it as in some ways an
Speaker 1: opportunity to take cheap shots at Trump, which is what
Speaker 1: happened um. And also, whenever the current administration is evolved, whatever,
Speaker 1: there's a question of foreign policy, anything like, that's an issue.
Speaker 1: It has to be taken the the issue must be
Speaker 1: put in the context of, well, Trump is really bad too,
Speaker 1: you see, So we can't really blame this country for
Speaker 1: acting only that it does. Because Trump trumps arrangement syndrome
Speaker 1: is a very real thing, and it has infected the
Speaker 1: minds of the media more so than even many of
Speaker 1: our you know, everyday American leftists that are around us,
Speaker 1: especially in places like New York City, where I'm doing
Speaker 1: this show right now, So it was disconcerting to see it. Um,
Speaker 1: it's not something that we should excuse or allow. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's fine to report on North Korea's Olympic cheer squads,
Speaker 1: as weird and unsettling as they are. But no matter
Speaker 1: how much they hate Trump, the media never has an
Speaker 1: excuse to be a North Korean cheer squad. And that's
Speaker 1: what we saw over the weekend. And it was pathetic
Speaker 1: that they will slam the vice president of the United
Speaker 1: States while praising the sister and enabler of the worst
Speaker 1: dictator on the planet, and think that somehow that's normal.
Speaker 1: We don't pick up on this. They are an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: We will be right back. We have supported regimes like this,
Speaker 1: like Russia for many many that are still doing it.
Speaker 1: And so it's very interesting that he didn't take a knee,
Speaker 1: because you wouldn't have known if he was paying homage,
Speaker 1: because taking a knee is not disrespectful, you know, because
Speaker 1: you can. You can take a knee to propose to somebody,
Speaker 1: take anit to to to pray to somebody. So I
Speaker 1: think him not taking a knee, what him sitting down
Speaker 1: was more of the nonverbal spit in your face. It's
Speaker 1: interestingly that Donald Trump revers Russia so much over the
Speaker 1: United States very often, and so it's kind of hypocritical
Speaker 1: for Pence. All I hear from Trump is how great
Speaker 1: Russia is. He never says a bad word about Putin.
Speaker 1: That really is on American I mean, those are something.
Speaker 1: Those are the different opinions you get on on the view,
Speaker 1: uh about about North Korea and Russia. And look, to
Speaker 1: be fair, it's a little bit like you know, asking
Speaker 1: the Kardashians for their their thesis on nuclear physics in
Speaker 1: the twenty one century. I mean, it's it's a little beyond,
Speaker 1: you know, this is the this is a little beyond
Speaker 1: I think the wheelhouse you could say of joy Beha.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump reves Russia, and you know Alwa's it's
Speaker 1: just un American and you've got I don't know who
Speaker 1: the host was, but saying that Pence sitting down was
Speaker 1: a non verbal spit on your face. Let's just look
Speaker 1: at the other side of this. If Pence was walking
Speaker 1: up to North Korea's emissary to the Olympics being all chummy,
Speaker 1: what do we think what do we think the media
Speaker 1: is response to that? Would be, Oh, he's being the
Speaker 1: bigger man. He's really taking the long view. It's really
Speaker 1: amazing the kind of diplomatic acumen that Mike Pence brings
Speaker 1: to the scene. Here, look at look at what he's doing.
Speaker 1: He's a great statesman. You know, he's looks like a
Speaker 1: like a leading man in Hollywood and has the diplomatic
Speaker 1: tact of Henry Kissinger. They'd be like, oh, my gosh,
Speaker 1: Mike Pence is like loves North Korea and he's like
Speaker 1: so evil and I'm like sad. I'm like literally shaking
Speaker 1: right now because of what Mike Pence just did with
Speaker 1: North Korea. That is what they would do. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe not in those exact words or telling, but pretty
Speaker 1: close to that. And we know they're just looking for
Speaker 1: a chance to take take shots at Pence, but let's
Speaker 1: understand that this is in the context of some really
Speaker 1: serious stuff. Um and you know, the the media's fan
Speaker 1: girling over North Korea's so called charm offensive is a
Speaker 1: real embarrassment for this country. And I would say it's
Speaker 1: embarrassing for places like seeing in the New York Times,
Speaker 1: but I don't know if they're even capable of it anymore.
Speaker 1: I don't know if if if they're capable of feeling
Speaker 1: ashamed of the way that they cover issues and the
Speaker 1: way that they are so skewed in their approach to
Speaker 1: all this. Trump has thrown them so Trump has made
Speaker 1: them so unhinged that nothing is uh for them. There's
Speaker 1: no issue you can look at and say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we can all agree that that's worse. You know that guy,
Speaker 1: That guy's worse than Trump. They act like they have
Speaker 1: discovered with this Kim Jong un emissary, the sister of
Speaker 1: Kim Jong and Kim Yo jung, they have discovered some
Speaker 1: new opening with North Korea. It's just all a line.
Speaker 1: It's all crap. North Korea is the most evil despotism
Speaker 1: on the planet, and that they don't understand this and
Speaker 1: that they would allow Remember, they are enabling you want
Speaker 1: to talk about being complicit, they are enabling North Korea's
Speaker 1: propaganda to be more effective. What message is this sending
Speaker 1: to our South Korean allies who are looking at this like,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess they're allowed to be at the Olympics,
Speaker 1: but you know, let's not let's not all take a
Speaker 1: knee for them, right, Let's not all kneel in front
Speaker 1: of them. What are the messages that are being sent here? Well,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, the media hates Trump more than Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un. Other shows just talk at you in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hud. We have a mission. We fight for the
Speaker 1: truth in a team effort, and buck us back with
Speaker 1: our next play. That's some lines. Let let's take Steve
Speaker 1: in New York Casety, Hey, shield side Buck. Thanks for
Speaker 1: taking my call, shield Tide buddy, appreciate it. I just
Speaker 1: had a quick question for you. I wanted to get
Speaker 1: your perspective as a former member that on YPD about
Speaker 1: you believe the Trump administration has started to prepare some
Speaker 1: of the damage has done between UM American law enforcement
Speaker 1: and uh, the American public, some of the stuff that
Speaker 1: was done under the the Obama administration. Or is that
Speaker 1: an issue that's yet to have been tackled. I think absolutely.
Speaker 1: I mean I think if nothing else, Trump has verbalized
Speaker 1: a restoration of respect for law enforcement that was very
Speaker 1: much needed. Look, we were and I remember seeing the rallies,
Speaker 1: and I remember hearing President Obama the way he would
Speaker 1: speak but law enforcement, it was, you know, he'd say, yeah,
Speaker 1: we'd like law enforce and but you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of bad stuff and distrust, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of racism. And it was always whoa you know, a
Speaker 1: whole a whole lot of second and that was the
Speaker 1: the media narrative was that police forces across the country
Speaker 1: were full of of of of systematically racist procedures and
Speaker 1: racist officers, and it was very damaging. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I will never forget the night of the well the
Speaker 1: conflagrations in in Ferguson, and I also remember the nights
Speaker 1: of the riots in Baltimore and the way the media
Speaker 1: was covering it. There was a lot of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, this is this is because law enforcement does
Speaker 1: bad stuff. I'm like, no, people aren't looting a CVS
Speaker 1: because of what law enforcement did. And I think it
Speaker 1: was very damaging. And the obaministration played really, uh, really
Speaker 1: dirty politics with this issue. And Trump is restoring. And
Speaker 1: now there is one little wrinkle here, or one in
Speaker 1: a sting unanticipated shift, and that is that the press
Speaker 1: is now I mean, they still think the cops are basically,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of them are racist. That's what
Speaker 1: the media thinks. They think a lot of cops are racists.
Speaker 1: And by the way, including officers who are black and
Speaker 1: Latino themselves, right, they're part of the racist problems too.
Speaker 1: It's not just oh, the white cops are racist, it's
Speaker 1: just cops in general are racist. That's one of the
Speaker 1: media narratives. But the thing with the FBI is really
Speaker 1: funny because now all of a sudden, you've got the
Speaker 1: major media outlets who are like, oh, FBI beyond suspicion.
Speaker 1: You know, the FBI would never do anything wrong on
Speaker 1: I didn't realize the FBI was was basically perfect, you know.
Speaker 1: Is some of the FBI guys must be feeling like, hey,
Speaker 1: CNN likes us all of a sudden, but they know
Speaker 1: because their FBI guys, that CNN is gonna hate them
Speaker 1: as soon as it's they go back to their usual right.
Speaker 1: But so that's the only thing I think, Steve, that
Speaker 1: people weren't expecting. Absolutely absolutely, I couldn't agree more. And
Speaker 1: just as as a Fox enforcement officer, I see it's
Speaker 1: nice to have have kind of bounced back from that,
Speaker 1: you know, the five officers down in the last five days.
Speaker 1: As money, I mean, it's it's it's becoming a problem.
Speaker 1: But it definitely seems like I think Trump's on the
Speaker 1: right track and thoughts and prayers the families those offers
Speaker 1: who were lost in a line of duty, and Steve
Speaker 1: Shields High thank you very much for calling in. So
Speaker 1: you know, I here's where I am on the on
Speaker 1: the Rob Porter issue, and I'm not gonna take a
Speaker 1: much time with this. We've got our friend Sean Parnell,
Speaker 1: who's an Army ranger, author, public speaker. It's all around great,
Speaker 1: great dude. He's gonna be he's in studio with us,
Speaker 1: he's gonna be joining us here in just a second.
Speaker 1: But I did need to address really the way people
Speaker 1: in the press are so focused on this issue of
Speaker 1: of of Rob Porter. So this was a guy who,
Speaker 1: as I said, and maybe I'm not paying close enough
Speaker 1: attention to what's going on inside the White House day
Speaker 1: in the day out, I don't even know he was.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think I had seen him before and
Speaker 1: photos in on tip, but like it was not. He's
Speaker 1: not somebody with a job that you're like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: is he qualified. I think it's basically handing folders to people.
Speaker 1: And I know that he has access and he's in
Speaker 1: the White House and he had an in terms of
Speaker 1: security clearance and all that. But I was and look,
Speaker 1: if he's a if he's a spouse abuser, if he
Speaker 1: beat his wives, I mean, it's one of the most
Speaker 1: grotesque things any human being can do. And you know,
Speaker 1: the the guy should yeah, he should be gone. And
Speaker 1: if they knew, they never should have hired him. But
Speaker 1: they're saying they didn't know. And he's also saying he's
Speaker 1: not guilty. So and I that's the situation we're in
Speaker 1: right now. Uh, but the press has made this into
Speaker 1: a a huge national story. Um, and today during the
Speaker 1: White House Press conference, I was, it was it was
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable. Folks, if you didn't want, I know, mostly
Speaker 1: have jobs in lives, so you don't sit around like
Speaker 1: I do watching the White House press conferences. But uh,
Speaker 1: you figure that with all things going on in the world,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of stuff to talk about, a lot
Speaker 1: of questions that they might want to pose the administration,
Speaker 1: many many things happening in this universe of ours. Here
Speaker 1: is what it was like during the White House Press
Speaker 1: conference today. It seems like the President who was believing
Speaker 1: Mr Porter as opposed to his alleged victims, he rob
Speaker 1: Porter as accusers or are they lying still wish Rob
Speaker 1: Porter well, prime candidate for blackmail and you have someone
Speaker 1: like Rob Porter who didn't have permident security there and
Speaker 1: what kind of We heard the President say that he
Speaker 1: takes domestic violence very seriously. I spoke with the president.
Speaker 1: Those are actually directly his works that he gave me. Mills's.
Speaker 1: That was just a smattering a selection of the various
Speaker 1: members of the White House Press Corps who just all
Speaker 1: they want to do is ask more questions. But Rob Porter,
Speaker 1: Rob Porter, Rob Porter, the guy resigned, He's gone. He
Speaker 1: wasn't important. Who cares at this point? Right? I don't
Speaker 1: know why does the press care so much? Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: because they have a narrative. They have a storyline that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is the abuser in chief. That's what they say.
Speaker 1: They actually had a guy or MSNBC. I saw this
Speaker 1: over the weekend. He referred to I mean, this was
Speaker 1: this was disrespectful and gross, even for MSNBC, which is
Speaker 1: saying a lot. But one of their analysts in MSNBC
Speaker 1: referred to Trump as the commander in chief of rape culture.
Speaker 1: Let that let that one just sinking there for a second.
Speaker 1: I mean, really unfounded, disrespectful and messed up stuff to say.
Speaker 1: You know, someone who says that tells you a lot
Speaker 1: more about themselves than they do the president or anything
Speaker 1: else that's going on. That's just just an offsides things
Speaker 1: to say. Man, it was crazy, but that's the narrative.
Speaker 1: That's the storyline that Trump is the is the you know,
Speaker 1: the commander in chief of the sexual abusers or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's really heinous, but the media believes it. I'm not
Speaker 1: just picking up random stuff from the blogs or from
Speaker 1: a Twitter or something. The media believes it. They think
Speaker 1: that this is true, and that's why they run with
Speaker 1: the story. They also then because they have some awareness
Speaker 1: that they are really digging into this story a lot.
Speaker 1: The White House is said over and over again, abuse,
Speaker 1: you know, in domestic abuse is disgusting, It's disgraceful. Trump says,
Speaker 1: it's disgusting and disgraceful. This guy's gone, and he keeps saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know he said he wished him, Well, what is he?
Speaker 1: Is it now? The situation is is it now the
Speaker 1: expectation that when someone is accused of something, they are
Speaker 1: to be without proof or rather without a proceeding. I
Speaker 1: should say, because I know there was proof, without a proceeding.
Speaker 1: Uh there, what is he never allowed to work again?
Speaker 1: Does he? Everyone has to say that this person is disgusting,
Speaker 1: they can't talk to him, irrespective of Rob Porter's innocence
Speaker 1: or guilty here that that strikes me as a very
Speaker 1: trouble blink standard we're setting up in the public sphere.
Speaker 1: But they knew they were digging into this story too much,
Speaker 1: so that's when they started to turn it into oh,
Speaker 1: the security clearance, he had an interm security clearance? What's
Speaker 1: going on with the security clearance all stuff? Look, the
Speaker 1: security clearance process is it is not great, all right.
Speaker 1: It's not controlled by the White House either. It's a
Speaker 1: very very imperfect system. And you know, there's only so
Speaker 1: much they're gonna be able to do and find out anyway.
Speaker 1: They can usually find the really big red flags. Maybe
Speaker 1: this time they miss something. But trying to blame the
Speaker 1: White House for security clearance process is like blaming the
Speaker 1: White House for the slow speeds at the d m
Speaker 1: V or something. It just has nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1: The White House is not in charge of security clearances.
Speaker 1: So they're running with that story because they just want
Speaker 1: to talk about this more. And I just find the
Speaker 1: overwhelming disrespect that the media and look, the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: quite honestly has for this president to be yet another
Speaker 1: reason to just get alongside him in the trench and
Speaker 1: be like, all right, you know, well, I'm on this
Speaker 1: team because I just can't take what they're doing on
Speaker 1: the other side anymore. If they're gonna put people on
Speaker 1: TV that call our president the commander in chief of
Speaker 1: rape culture, I am going to disregard and or fight
Speaker 1: against all the other stuff those same people are saying
Speaker 1: because they're dishonest and they're destructive in their commentary and
Speaker 1: their thoughts and in what they're trying to spread on
Speaker 1: the airwaves across the country. So as for the Rob
Speaker 1: Porter thing, yeah, I don't know. The guy looks bad
Speaker 1: to me. He resigned, he's gone, and he has been
Speaker 1: publicly shamed, that is for sure. Why did the White
Speaker 1: The number one issue today at the White House Press
Speaker 1: Conference was Rob Porter? Beyond everything else, Beyond a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars of infrastructure spending, Beyond the millions of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: who may be legalized if Congress actually gets together with
Speaker 1: the Democrats and Republicans have a deal in place, right
Speaker 1: for Dreamers, beyond the difficulties facing our veterans and the
Speaker 1: v A system, beyond the U. S. Troops in Iraq
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan. And no, no, let's let's talk about Rob
Speaker 1: Porter for about twenty or thirty minutes. Let's focus on that.
Speaker 1: You know, we remember this stuff, folks. This is why
Speaker 1: when they want to be all serious, big ja journalism tomorrow,
Speaker 1: we'll be like, now, I think we know who you are.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be back with my buddy Sean Parnell here
Speaker 1: in just a second. He is going to talk to
Speaker 1: us about his new book as well as we're gonna
Speaker 1: discuss the issue about Afghanistan, what we're doing over there.
Speaker 1: So stay with me. We'll be right back. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to the Freedom How everybody. We've got Sean Parnell with
Speaker 1: us here in studio in New York City. He is
Speaker 1: a former U. S. Army Airborne ranger who served in
Speaker 1: the tenth Mountain Division for six years, retiring as account happen.
Speaker 1: He received two Bronze Stars and the Purple Heart. He's
Speaker 1: a pastiorate supporter of Americans military. He's the author of
Speaker 1: the bestseller Outlaw Platoon, which I have on my kindle
Speaker 1: and have read on in its entirety. I did not
Speaker 1: know that most toasts do not irk. This is a gift.
Speaker 1: I'm one of these rare hosts who actually reads a lot.
Speaker 1: You gave me a gift tonight. There. I should have
Speaker 1: brought my kindle to really prove it, just to sort
Speaker 1: of bring if you haven't, Guys, Outlaw Platoon is actually
Speaker 1: a great book, and I would really recommend it to
Speaker 1: all of you. You've got a new book coming out,
Speaker 1: I do, Yes, Why at we talking about that. We're
Speaker 1: gonna keep you through at the top of the hour.
Speaker 1: We're talking about some policy stuff too, but for now,
Speaker 1: just tell me about the new book. Yes, So I
Speaker 1: made the jump from nonfiction to fiction and I wrote,
Speaker 1: you know, and what I think is uh a military
Speaker 1: thriller about a guy named Eric Steele. It's faction, right.
Speaker 1: So the whole plot is centered around the disaster Serrani
Speaker 1: and nuclear deal, which is of course not just a
Speaker 1: not just a disaster for US, but a disaster for
Speaker 1: the entire world. Uh. And and the basic premises is
Speaker 1: that what would happen if they if they developed a
Speaker 1: man portable nuclear weapon and a vacuum CEO, and that
Speaker 1: weapon just so happened to fall into the wrong hands.
Speaker 1: How would the United States stop it? Track the weapon,
Speaker 1: defeat the threat. And Eric Steele, he's a guy that
Speaker 1: cut his teeth in Afghanistan fighting jihadis for fifteen years
Speaker 1: in the Special Forces and transition to a secret colandestine
Speaker 1: program called the Alpha Program. Or he tracks down and
Speaker 1: and neutralizes America's threats on behalf of the president. So
Speaker 1: it's a guy that that obviously will will eliminate the
Speaker 1: enemies of America with extreme prejudice, but also believes deeply
Speaker 1: in the war ethos and protecting the innocent. And so
Speaker 1: man of War is the title, and that's what the
Speaker 1: book is about, which is also by the way, I
Speaker 1: believe a very large, stingy jellyfish. Yes it is. It
Speaker 1: is delicious seafood if you're into that sort of thing,
Speaker 1: right or or a in the era of great wooden ships,
Speaker 1: I know, a man of war. But but it's also
Speaker 1: for people like me that get scared at the beach.
Speaker 1: You know, it's I I get scared. I want to
Speaker 1: get entangled up in a man of war. You don't,
Speaker 1: you don't, But in this case it refers to a
Speaker 1: man that was weren't of wars his entire adult life,
Speaker 1: just like me. The only profession I've known has been
Speaker 1: warrior because we've be don't We've been at war for
Speaker 1: over a third of my whole life. I was gonna
Speaker 1: ask you, what is the highest number of deployments at
Speaker 1: this point that you have heard of? Oh, I mean,
Speaker 1: it really depends what unit you're talking about, but twelve. Like,
Speaker 1: there are guys that are in ranger units that do
Speaker 1: three to six month deployments that do I mean, no'll
Speaker 1: come back say they have eighteen deployments, you know. But
Speaker 1: guys in the conventional infantry, that's where you really want
Speaker 1: to talk about. Guys that are in a conventional infantry.
Speaker 1: Asked him how many deployments they have If they if
Speaker 1: they say seven or eight deployments a year and a
Speaker 1: half a year to a year and a half each,
Speaker 1: that that is like where the rubber meets the road. Stuff.
Speaker 1: Like those old grizzled twenty plus year noncommission officers to
Speaker 1: spend their entire career in the light infantry. Those those
Speaker 1: are the guys that the army rides hard and puts
Speaker 1: away wet. These guys are are living a good portion
Speaker 1: of their lives in downrange. Man, my Peltoon sergeant, his
Speaker 1: name is Greg Greenson, was the best non commission officer
Speaker 1: that you could ever imagine. Was in Panama with the
Speaker 1: seventh Infantry Division. The seventhy Infantry Division is not a
Speaker 1: thing anymore, like they did the activity the Union a
Speaker 1: long time ago. I think they still have a headquarters
Speaker 1: element somewhere. But he was in Panama, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean in the early nineties. He was my patoon sergeant.
Speaker 1: He was forty two, forty three years old around was
Speaker 1: the twenty four year old, brand new lieutenant. So just
Speaker 1: to give you a sense of how many deployments this
Speaker 1: guy has gone through a career noncommission officer. And of
Speaker 1: course the non commission officers are really the backbone of
Speaker 1: our military. They're the guys that really make things happen.
Speaker 1: But yeah, these guys have done a lot. They've been there,
Speaker 1: done that, and they've got the stories, and um, these
Speaker 1: are the kind of guys that I served with. We're
Speaker 1: gonna do a first here in the Freedom Hub where
Speaker 1: we actually have somebody in studio. But we also have
Speaker 1: a caller that I think is a particularly good fit
Speaker 1: for our guest here, So we're gonna bring Steve in
Speaker 1: from Charlotte, North Carolina. Steve, how you doing great? But
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. Thank you. So you wanted to
Speaker 1: tell us about the fort anniversary of POW release out
Speaker 1: of Hanoi. That is correct. My dad was like, I
Speaker 1: think the third one off the plane, right behind the
Speaker 1: guy with the crutches. That's an amazing story. So tell
Speaker 1: me about tell us more about this. I mean, what
Speaker 1: how long was he? How long was he in captivity?
Speaker 1: And what happened? Seven years, ten months and nine days?
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, shut down sixty five April three, came
Speaker 1: back to day seventy three. Wow, Steve. Uh. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, guys, guys like your dad are are the
Speaker 1: reason why I joined in the in the legacy that
Speaker 1: we inherited from men like that who never got the
Speaker 1: welcome home that they deserve. Um. I'm so blessed to
Speaker 1: be able to inherit, inherit the inherit the uniform from
Speaker 1: guys like that. And so please, I mean, is your
Speaker 1: is your dad still around? Yeah? I still around? Please
Speaker 1: please tell him welcome home from me? Great? Yeah. Colonel Morgan,
Speaker 1: Scotty Morgan Uh, let's see. Quincy Collins was a cellmate
Speaker 1: to his, as was Norm McDaniel, and uh yeah, pretty exciting.
Speaker 1: Does he doesn't talk about his son was born? Does
Speaker 1: he talked about Uh yeah, he talks about it, um um,
Speaker 1: you know, not every day. But you know, it's funny
Speaker 1: if I have a cousin that served in de Nang
Speaker 1: in six and they have a conversation. I learned more
Speaker 1: by listening, then Uh yeah. I mean, isn't that isn't
Speaker 1: that an interesting commentary on America too? I feel like
Speaker 1: this country would learn more by listening to our veterans. Yeah. Absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 1: So he Uh, let's see, at one point he was
Speaker 1: under a hundred pounds and they actually moved him out
Speaker 1: of the Hilton to another place because I thought he
Speaker 1: might die and they didn't want to die around the
Speaker 1: other prisoners. He actually lived and they brought him back.
Speaker 1: How's this today? Pilot shot down? Second one captured? Wow,
Speaker 1: So how's this help today? Is he doing okay? Pretty good?
Speaker 1: Pretty tough? You know, survived to days? Oh my god.
Speaker 1: One they worked on at books Army Medical Center before
Speaker 1: it first and then uh he didn't monitors blood pressure
Speaker 1: too good and had one rup. You know, that's one
Speaker 1: of those things where you you're walking by the e
Speaker 1: R and you know about folks live and h let
Speaker 1: he survived two of them. Well, Steve, I appreciate you
Speaker 1: calling in to remind us of the anniversary of the
Speaker 1: POW release from Hanoi, and also thank you, thank your
Speaker 1: dad please for a for a service. Absolutely thanks Steve,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Wow. Amazing. You know, there're there
Speaker 1: are the things you hear about and you try to
Speaker 1: run through and look, I know you are a frontline
Speaker 1: soldier in combat, um, but the notion of spending years
Speaker 1: in captivity in the enemy's hands, it's something that I
Speaker 1: I feel like if you haven't done that, you don't
Speaker 1: know what that's like. It's it's truly unbelievable. I'm still
Speaker 1: reeling a little bit from just the brief time that
Speaker 1: we were on the phone with him. But I mean,
Speaker 1: guys like that, I mean, they are the guys who
Speaker 1: built this country, and I just feel so grateful to
Speaker 1: be in the even talked about in the same sentence
Speaker 1: as them. We're gonna come back with Sean Parnell, author
Speaker 1: of Outlaw Platoon. We're gonna talk to him about what's
Speaker 1: going on now in Afghanistan. And also if you got
Speaker 1: any calls, you can talk to me, talk to Sean
Speaker 1: eight four eight to five eight four four buck our
Speaker 1: three in effect, stay with me. Other shows just talk
Speaker 1: at you in the Freedom Hud. We have a mission.
Speaker 1: We fight for the truth in a team effort, and
Speaker 1: buck us back with our next play. Welcome to our
Speaker 1: three team Quick Freeview. This hour, we'll be talking with
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell here in just a moment, more on Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and just what's going on in the world around us.
Speaker 1: And then we'll discuss the two portraits that were unveiled
Speaker 1: today of the Obama's maybe even get Shawn's take on
Speaker 1: some of that for a bit of a lighter fare.
Speaker 1: And then I've got the top five dogs of Instagram
Speaker 1: and talk to you about that's right. We've we've compiled
Speaker 1: the numbers, we've done the research one of the most
Speaker 1: popular dogs on Instagram. And then we'll get into some
Speaker 1: roll call. So I'm looking forward to all of that.
Speaker 1: I might even have a little bit of a shark
Speaker 1: carpet shark story for you later on too, so you
Speaker 1: gotta stay tuned. But we've got our friend with a
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell, former Army ranger, author of Outlaw Platoon, which
Speaker 1: is a great book you should all read, and also
Speaker 1: upcoming Man of War which is outer or soon to
Speaker 1: be out. It's out on Patriots Day. So we did
Speaker 1: a little So we did a little something that was
Speaker 1: not customary. We did an exclusive title and cover cover
Speaker 1: launch today, uh, and trying to rack up those pre
Speaker 1: orders prior to the book actually going on sale. And
Speaker 1: the reason we're doing is because we're going to donate
Speaker 1: a significant portion of the proceeds of the sales to
Speaker 1: my charity, the American War Or Initiative, where we turn
Speaker 1: around and give service dogs to vets. So, um, it's
Speaker 1: a good mission. We like it. There's a dire need
Speaker 1: for service dogs and we like to fulfill it. Service
Speaker 1: dogs are incredible, totally serious question. What's the primary breed?
Speaker 1: Is it mostly Belgian melon wall? It? Totally? It totally
Speaker 1: depends on what you need the dog for. I mean
Speaker 1: this program, first of all, it's in dire need. The
Speaker 1: v A doesn't really support it. Uh. There are veterans
Speaker 1: that set on wait lists for six years to get
Speaker 1: a service dog. But that's the program is so much
Speaker 1: more sophisticated now than it was in years past. The
Speaker 1: breed is dependent on what the ailment is. So um
Speaker 1: they found for example that black labs are great for
Speaker 1: post traumatic stress and trauma, and other dogs are different
Speaker 1: for brain injury. And then see some some dogs can
Speaker 1: smell seizures and the chemicals in the body. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just it's very very sophisticated. But also what comes
Speaker 1: with that is that these dogs are very expensive as well.
Speaker 1: So you know, what do they run? What's what's I
Speaker 1: mean there are organizations out there that will charge about
Speaker 1: for a dog just because of the training that has
Speaker 1: to go in and you're talking like for a full
Speaker 1: legitimately service dog trained and certified dog, I mean two
Speaker 1: years of training, uh, constant supervision. It's just expensive. And
Speaker 1: so what we do is we come in and we
Speaker 1: fund it fully. My organization is is not top heavy,
Speaker 1: so we have very little red tape. We see a need,
Speaker 1: we fill it, and it's it's easy, you know. It's
Speaker 1: it's not like some of these other big organizations who
Speaker 1: would all do a lot of great work. Um, but
Speaker 1: we just we see a need, we fill it. We
Speaker 1: don't need much recognition. But in this case with Man
Speaker 1: of War and the launch of it. We want to
Speaker 1: give ourselves time to raise some serious money to do
Speaker 1: some serious good in the lives of vets. Fantastic um.
Speaker 1: Moving to the policy side of things for a second,
Speaker 1: or by the American Warrior Initiative dot org. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: American Warrior Initiative dot com, dot org. It's all there,
Speaker 1: all directly the same spot. Now I want to ask
Speaker 1: you about this, and I share this with you before
Speaker 1: I I write columns for the Hill Um And I
Speaker 1: saw one, obviously not one that I wrote that that
Speaker 1: got me thinking. I thought you'd be a particularly good
Speaker 1: person to talk to about this one. And the title
Speaker 1: is America has done all it ken in Afghanistan. More
Speaker 1: troops won't win us anything. And in the opening paragraph
Speaker 1: and this is it's written by a Vett, written by
Speaker 1: an Army major, I believe uh. And he writes, falling
Speaker 1: there reports the US Armies read readying about a thousand
Speaker 1: additional troops for deployment to Afghanistan, where they will link
Speaker 1: up with some fourteen thousand or other U S service members.
Speaker 1: Tasks with an unachievable mission, and he goes on to
Speaker 1: say the persistence of violence after sixteen years of US intervention,
Speaker 1: raises serious questions about the need for and ability of
Speaker 1: the United States military to address what is at root
Speaker 1: an internal Afghan security problem increasingly disconnected from core American
Speaker 1: security interests. Sean, I'm very sympathetic to a lot of
Speaker 1: his argument. In fact, I say I agree with a
Speaker 1: lot of what he is getting at here. If the
Speaker 1: idea is that we're gonna we're gonna win, the Taliban
Speaker 1: will be done, there's gonna be some surrender, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a happy place in Afghanistan, I don't see
Speaker 1: that ever happening. But you, as a guy who was
Speaker 1: out there doing this work, and what provilence. By the way,
Speaker 1: I forget from the book you were. I was in
Speaker 1: Burmel District, Pactica Province, right in the border. We controlled
Speaker 1: about a hundred and thirty five mile a border area
Speaker 1: between Afghanistan and Pakistan. What do you what do you
Speaker 1: think about? I mean, it's hard to disagree with this
Speaker 1: with his his his policy argument is substantive. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know this. I have been saying things like this
Speaker 1: for a long time, that it is not about politicians
Speaker 1: get this wrong all the time. It is not about
Speaker 1: how many soldiers you have in Afghanistan. It is about
Speaker 1: the mission that they are performing in Afghanistan. Back in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six and two thousand and seven, the
Speaker 1: eyes of the nation were whole hearted, wholeheartedly focused on Iraq.
Speaker 1: You remember the surge was happening around that time. Wasn't
Speaker 1: going to be successful, wasn't going to be an abject failure?
Speaker 1: We didn't know, um. I mean around the clock news
Speaker 1: media coverage on it. But at that time in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: the war was particularly deadly and we were in direct
Speaker 1: fire contact with the enemy every day. But war fighters
Speaker 1: were making decisions at the lowest level possible when we
Speaker 1: were doing it's a great effect. And at the end
Speaker 1: of two thousand and seven, we were getting intelligence from
Speaker 1: the State Department passed down through the chain of command
Speaker 1: to us on the ground where they were monitoring Taliban
Speaker 1: and Alqairic communications on the border, saying hey, look, we
Speaker 1: are broken. We are no longer going to commit our
Speaker 1: sons to this fight. It's just not worth it for
Speaker 1: us anymore. Let's go fight the Americans somewhere else. And
Speaker 1: then we change strategy from counter terroritor counter insurgaency we
Speaker 1: try to basically take a cookie cutter solution that worked
Speaker 1: in Iraq transplanted to Afghanistan and it did not work off.
Speaker 1: And we've talked about this before, Buck, It's you know,
Speaker 1: nation building in Afghanistan is fundamentally flawed. There never really
Speaker 1: has been a nation been trying to reconstitute a nation
Speaker 1: exact and you're trying to build it from them from
Speaker 1: the start, from scratch. Yeah, it's like Joe bat you
Speaker 1: you I mean that the Romans were more advanced than
Speaker 1: the Afghans are right now. I mean, if you talk
Speaker 1: to Afghans on the border in the country of Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: they don't even know that their country is called Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: It's crazy. So um, circling back to the point that
Speaker 1: I made initially, it's not about how many troops are there,
Speaker 1: is about what mission they're performing. If if I am
Speaker 1: making the decisions in the White House right now, what
Speaker 1: we do is we go back to a counter terror strategy.
Speaker 1: We put we rotate ranger battalion's in augmented by special
Speaker 1: forces so they can work with some of the special
Speaker 1: ops Afghan guys on the ground, and all we do
Speaker 1: is target the worst of the worse, and that way
Speaker 1: we secure the Republic of Afghanistan. They can do business
Speaker 1: the way that they want, like we're not building their nation.
Speaker 1: They can be as corrupt as they want. But we
Speaker 1: are conducting and planning missions Kinnectic missions in Afghanistan to
Speaker 1: kill terrorists to keep that country from going back to
Speaker 1: being a Petri dish for you know, and a global
Speaker 1: Islamic Hottest All Star team from where they can plan
Speaker 1: and attack the United States. That's the goal should be
Speaker 1: to keep it from going back to that. One of
Speaker 1: the troubling legacies of the Obama administration on foreign policy.
Speaker 1: And that's just a fun way to start a lot
Speaker 1: of different sentences, but one of the ones that really
Speaker 1: comes to mind is the idea. And I know that. Look,
Speaker 1: people the immediate the Democrats who know enough to know
Speaker 1: this would jump back at me with oh, but Petraeus
Speaker 1: is on board with this. I think MC crystals on
Speaker 1: board this. The notion of a negotiated settlement with the
Speaker 1: Taliban and this conflict that can happen, and maybe that's
Speaker 1: the only way we leave in which there is a
Speaker 1: lull in the conflict, but that is actually going to
Speaker 1: end in an abject failure. There is no way the
Speaker 1: Taliban became something other than what it is once they
Speaker 1: are left in charge of some portion of the country,
Speaker 1: and they will march on cobble and we will have
Speaker 1: the Taliban again in six months after we strike a
Speaker 1: quote unquote piece deal with the Taliban or whatever deal
Speaker 1: you want to cut, the the Afghan government as it
Speaker 1: stands right now will all be hanging from lamp posts
Speaker 1: and cobble. There is no there is no question that
Speaker 1: the Taliban retake that country. And I don't care what
Speaker 1: generals say about this. I don't and most of them
Speaker 1: are center left for some inexplicable reason. Anyway, I don't
Speaker 1: know why we could we just delve into that for
Speaker 1: a second. I've I've recently been explaining to folks that
Speaker 1: there needs to be in all, in all of the
Speaker 1: minds of of my fellow Americans, here a separation between
Speaker 1: people who have been doing the job and often people
Speaker 1: who are in charge of those doing the job within
Speaker 1: the federal government. From my side of things, when you
Speaker 1: get people like James Colemy, for example, head of the FBI,
Speaker 1: people think of them like, oh, he's an FBI guy.
Speaker 1: He's put in the time, and I'm like, James Comey
Speaker 1: is a rich lawyer. Everybody he has. He is not
Speaker 1: an FBI. He's not a law enforcement kicking the door,
Speaker 1: wrestling the crackhead to save Grahama from a terrible fate. Like,
Speaker 1: that's not who he is. He's a very political guy.
Speaker 1: Brendan at the c i A, you go through a
Speaker 1: whole list of previous ci directors, a lot of them
Speaker 1: very political. And I just think it's interestingly because people
Speaker 1: see what's done day in and day out, and I look,
Speaker 1: I see this with the military too. I never serve,
Speaker 1: but with the generals, people see what the rank and file,
Speaker 1: what they accomplish, and what their mission is and what
Speaker 1: their ethos is, and they feel like whoever runs the
Speaker 1: place is the pinnacle of that. And that's not always
Speaker 1: the case. A lot of times they're politicians. It's true,
Speaker 1: and it's so true. Generals have to be politicians. Um,
Speaker 1: but if you also think about and I'm not specifically
Speaker 1: referring to M. A. Crystal or Portrays here, right, these
Speaker 1: guys are unbelievably accomplished guys. A lot of these guys
Speaker 1: have combat experience on the ground, and our ack Afghanistan
Speaker 1: in other places. But the vast majority of generals for
Speaker 1: a long time in the military came up during and
Speaker 1: a largely peace time, right, and so for me, I
Speaker 1: almost a hundred percent of my experience in the terry
Speaker 1: has been combat, boots on the ground combat, And so
Speaker 1: you can imagine it's almost like if you spent your
Speaker 1: whole life as an infantry officer coming up in the
Speaker 1: ranks and never had a bullet cracked by your head.
Speaker 1: It's almost like being a painter and never having painted
Speaker 1: a painting. You can imagine the divide that exists between
Speaker 1: someone that's been there and someone that hasn't. But the
Speaker 1: people that haven't been there for the longest time in
Speaker 1: our military, we're the ones calling all the shots, and
Speaker 1: to our discussion, before much of the metro of the
Speaker 1: rank and file, they're going on decades of combatics in
Speaker 1: the military. Is hemorrhaging those people precisely because almost their
Speaker 1: entire career they served under commanders who had zero combat
Speaker 1: experience ever, and they had a bad experience. Seriously, the
Speaker 1: military in general is hemorrhaging small unit leaders that are saying, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't want to live my life on a constant
Speaker 1: rotation to Iraq or Afghanistan year on year off. I'm
Speaker 1: never gonna have a lot. I'm gonna go through five
Speaker 1: different wives, six different divorces. I'm gonna have five different
Speaker 1: kids that are never gonna see me. I'm gonna say, hey,
Speaker 1: I'll see you have a good first grade year in
Speaker 1: second grade, and so on and so forth. They don't
Speaker 1: want to do that, So they're getting out in large
Speaker 1: numbers and and in large part of the military suffered
Speaker 1: because of it. What can be done to make this better? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, at this point, I think that the army
Speaker 1: really needs to focus on building up the ranks with
Speaker 1: quality soldiers. I mean, in two thousand and six and
Speaker 1: two thousand seven, the army was, the military in general,
Speaker 1: was so strapped for people that we opened our arms
Speaker 1: to everybody, and so we got a lot of people
Speaker 1: in that should have never been involved in the military
Speaker 1: in the first place. And what ended up happening is
Speaker 1: they'd spent two or three years in and we chaptered
Speaker 1: them out in the military for some disciplinary action, or
Speaker 1: they just didn't they just couldn't carry their own weight.
Speaker 1: So I think we just there just needs to be
Speaker 1: a hyper focus on like, as we pour money into
Speaker 1: the military to recruit more soldiers, those soldiers need to
Speaker 1: be the cream of the crop that absolutely want to
Speaker 1: raise the right hand to serve this country. They believe
Speaker 1: in the mission. They're not just doing it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, who knows. I mean who knows. I mean
Speaker 1: there are a lot of There are a lot of
Speaker 1: people that join the military in two thousand and six
Speaker 1: and two thousand seven that had no other option. It's
Speaker 1: just I hate to say it. It's it's not it's
Speaker 1: a stereotype that's too often used. But it did happen,
Speaker 1: it um and so I think we just need to
Speaker 1: focus on the best of the best as we bring
Speaker 1: these guys in and rebuild our military. Rebuild. Rebuilding our
Speaker 1: military doesn't simply just mean the infrastructure and equipment. It
Speaker 1: means bringing in good quality soldiers that can perform a
Speaker 1: a high speed mission. And that's really where the focus
Speaker 1: needs to be on recruiting good people. Sean Parnell is
Speaker 1: author of Outlaw Platoon, which you can get on Amazon
Speaker 1: right now download on Kindle. Some of you have listened
Speaker 1: to me on that one already and said, wow, Buck
Speaker 1: it's a great recommendation. So some of the team is
Speaker 1: I am so grateful to the Team Buck. We need
Speaker 1: more militarized name for you. What we do do roll
Speaker 1: call at the end of the show on their suggestion
Speaker 1: when they get to read their we read them is
Speaker 1: you got that on lockdown? That's a great name. Team
Speaker 1: Buck is great. But I think I am going to
Speaker 1: personally come up with a militarized name for you. I
Speaker 1: love it all right, Well, if he passes it on
Speaker 1: to us, then it's like it's like when when my
Speaker 1: Southern Team Buck brothers and sisters say I can say y'all,
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, now I have permission, right, so then
Speaker 1: then I'm okay, I've been blessed. Good um. Also his
Speaker 1: book Man of War Amazon and bookstores. Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: anywhere books are sold. It's out right now for pre order. Now,
Speaker 1: help us buy the book. I'm donating to to buy
Speaker 1: service dogs. So help us help us accomplish that mission.
Speaker 1: And Sean and I are going to go and talk
Speaker 1: about solving all the world's problems over some well for me,
Speaker 1: tequila for him, beer and some burgers here in a
Speaker 1: few minutes. Sean great to have you in studiento ment.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much to hang out here. And we're
Speaker 1: gonna roll in a quick break. Now. We're in the
Speaker 1: third hour, friends, and that means sometimes I'm gonna talk
Speaker 1: to you about things that are not exactly at the
Speaker 1: at the top of the list of solving world problems
Speaker 1: or anything like that. I am, in fact going to
Speaker 1: tell you about the top dogs of Instagram coming up
Speaker 1: here at you just because I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about dogs. I went and visit some puppies over
Speaker 1: the weekend. Ms Molly's We're we're revisiting that issue about dogs.
Speaker 1: I know I've talked to you about it before. Um,
Speaker 1: but this is the third hour. We get into some
Speaker 1: other topics, right, That's what we like to do. This
Speaker 1: is a news topic. I don't know how much I
Speaker 1: have to add to the currents conversation other than just
Speaker 1: my my take. Right, there's not in depth analysis of this.
Speaker 1: I am not somebody who has a particular eye for
Speaker 1: portraiture or or the the the arts in that way. Um.
Speaker 1: But today the the two official portraits for the Smithsonian's
Speaker 1: National Portrait Gallery of former President Barack Obama and uh
Speaker 1: former First Lady Michelle Obama were unveiled I guess kind
Speaker 1: of literally, right, they had them covered up and then
Speaker 1: they took them, they unveiled them. Uh, so we got
Speaker 1: to see them, and there was quite an interruption of
Speaker 1: responses about them. The biggest issue was why is it
Speaker 1: that the portrait of um Michelle Obama does too many
Speaker 1: of us, I think, not especially uh look like Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1: You know, in in an era of of constant photography
Speaker 1: and image retrieval and everything, we have, our minds, I
Speaker 1: think are also much more attuned to someone's facial likeness.
Speaker 1: We really know what people look like now, right. It's
Speaker 1: not like this is America and you know a couple
Speaker 1: of hundred years ago where you'd like read you'd read
Speaker 1: a news story and maybe they have some kind of
Speaker 1: an an etching, a drawing of a political figure we
Speaker 1: all we all have in our minds. I think a
Speaker 1: picture of what Michelle Obama looks like, certainly what Barack
Speaker 1: Obama looks like as well. And now the Barack painting
Speaker 1: looks looks just like Barack Obama. Right, Fine, so no
Speaker 1: I should We'll talk about the other interesting part of
Speaker 1: that artistic project in a moment. But the Michelle Obama
Speaker 1: panting didn't particularly look like her. And what I think
Speaker 1: was interesting was that this then turned into an issue
Speaker 1: of whether or not people were supportive of Michelle Obamas
Speaker 1: as a public figure. Like if you say the portrait
Speaker 1: doesn't look like her, it's somehow you know, not like
Speaker 1: on team Obama. And I just want to say that
Speaker 1: I have got no particular felix one way or the
Speaker 1: other about about Michelle Obama at this point, i just
Speaker 1: don't think it looks like her. And I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to make some political statement. I'm just sitting here like
Speaker 1: a portrait doesn't really look like her. I mean, does
Speaker 1: anyone really care? I don't know. But it turned into
Speaker 1: a big thing today and there was a lot of
Speaker 1: of back and forth between Obama supporters and Obama detractors
Speaker 1: and and if if you generally speaking, oh no, not everyone.
Speaker 1: If you were a Democrat and you support the obamaistration,
Speaker 1: you're like, it looks just like Michelle Obama. And if
Speaker 1: you're a critic, or maybe just somebody who calls it
Speaker 1: like you see it, you're like, it doesn't really look
Speaker 1: like Michelle Obama. So anyway, that got a lot of
Speaker 1: attention today for me, and maybe there's I will plead
Speaker 1: some degree of ignorance on this. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the official symbolism is of of Barack Obama's painting. If
Speaker 1: you haven't seen these, by the way, you should. You
Speaker 1: should really go check them out, because you'll go and
Speaker 1: then you can listen to the segment again back on
Speaker 1: the podcast, and you'll really be able to follow along
Speaker 1: with what I'm saying more more clearly. Barack Obama sitting
Speaker 1: in a chair, arms crossed, looked, spitting image of Obama, right,
Speaker 1: it looks just like him. Um, it's totally him. And
Speaker 1: the the backdrop is a bunch of his leaves, but
Speaker 1: like a lot of leaves. It looks like this is
Speaker 1: the portrait that you would expect if somebody was the
Speaker 1: president of the National Florists Association or something like this
Speaker 1: is uh, it is hard to fathom, at least from again,
Speaker 1: maybe there's some symbolism here that I don't understand. Hard
Speaker 1: to fathom from an outsider's point of view, somebody who
Speaker 1: doesn't know what the the official storyline is. Why you'd
Speaker 1: have a president that is surrounded with with lee with
Speaker 1: all these leaves just just because maybe it's some part
Speaker 1: of the maybe the White House provided the backdrop or something.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it looks a little bit, it
Speaker 1: looks a little bit unusual. So you've got some You've
Speaker 1: got some portraits today of the President of the President,
Speaker 1: the first Lady, and uh, you know, it was it
Speaker 1: was the thing that people were talking about. Like I said,
Speaker 1: I don't have a lot to add to it other
Speaker 1: than I just felt like this was the biggest news
Speaker 1: story of the day this morning. I was, oh, my gosh,
Speaker 1: you know that the portraits. Everybody was spending a lot
Speaker 1: of time on them. Um. I will say the the
Speaker 1: dress that Michelle Obama was wearing, it is very elegant,
Speaker 1: so that's nice. And the the likeness of Barack Obama
Speaker 1: is quite good. So there's that. But you know, here
Speaker 1: we are art, my friends. You know, it's it's in
Speaker 1: the eye of the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Speaker 1: And it was interesting to see how politics influenced so
Speaker 1: clearly the way that people were responding to these paintings.
Speaker 1: I would just like to think that we're beyond the
Speaker 1: point where if you if you criticize anything having to
Speaker 1: do with the Obama's you will come under attack for
Speaker 1: being a hateful, mean, bad person because, like I said,
Speaker 1: I mean Brock's painting, you know, other than the weird backdrop,
Speaker 1: I thought was pretty good. But Michelle Obama's painting was
Speaker 1: just it's just not good. You know. It's just not
Speaker 1: a good painting of her. I think it doesn't I
Speaker 1: think it doesn't do her justice. I will say, I
Speaker 1: think it did not do Michelle Obama justice. Um, and
Speaker 1: that's this is one of the very rare times where
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be a makeshift art critic here on the show.
Speaker 1: I promise you all except for Netflix, and like that,
Speaker 1: I'm I am a ninth degree black belt in Netflix.
Speaker 1: But portraiture is not really not really my jam um,
Speaker 1: But dogs are. And I'm gonna talk to you about
Speaker 1: the top dogs of Instagram and then we'll do some
Speaker 1: Team buck roll call coming up, and I will all
Speaker 1: so make a brief apology for not having a Shields
Speaker 1: High episode up for today soon soon, I promise Malta
Speaker 1: and the good guys win that one, so you'll want
Speaker 1: to hear that Shield High episode. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: So over the weekend, Team I managed to actually relax
Speaker 1: a bit I pretty much stayed off of social media
Speaker 1: for the weekend, or at least I didn't write any
Speaker 1: tweets on Saturday. I'm gonna try to get to a
Speaker 1: point where I at least don't don't create or or
Speaker 1: or do any content on social media Facebook and Twitter
Speaker 1: and this stuff on the weekends. It's such a psychological
Speaker 1: uh drag, I think, after all, to feel like you
Speaker 1: always have to be, you know, getting in there, getting
Speaker 1: in there, getting in there. I feel like for my
Speaker 1: profession in particular commentary and analysis of the news, and
Speaker 1: just in general, it's like we're all being forced to
Speaker 1: be street performers. Not that there's anything wrong with being
Speaker 1: a street performer, but you know, instead of focusing on
Speaker 1: doing uh uh Shakespeare or a Broadway play, we're all
Speaker 1: constantly running around in the street trying to do whatever
Speaker 1: it is, you know, our mime routine, or dressed in
Speaker 1: some kind of a big furry suit and passing the
Speaker 1: hat around and not even passing the hat around because
Speaker 1: social media is really for free on the commentary side,
Speaker 1: So I just try to get away from a little
Speaker 1: bit more now, and I think I think rules. You know,
Speaker 1: I used to think things like limiting yourself to a
Speaker 1: certain amount of TV watching. When I was a kid,
Speaker 1: that just sounded like a prison sentence. But now I
Speaker 1: think it's good to have some of those As an adult,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to force these guidelines on myself. I had
Speaker 1: the situation of being at a at a dinner recently,
Speaker 1: and sure enough, I was a dinner and uh, a
Speaker 1: friend of mine was across table from me, and he
Speaker 1: he left his phone out. We're we're in a pretty
Speaker 1: nice not a fancy, but a nice sit down restaurant,
Speaker 1: and he puts his phone down on the table and
Speaker 1: it goes on. Uh uh, I mean his phone is
Speaker 1: you know, someone's emailing him or texting him or whatever
Speaker 1: it is, but it's it's it's on the table, lighting
Speaker 1: up and and vibrating i'd say about every every two
Speaker 1: minutes or so. And I'm looking at I'm just like,
Speaker 1: you know, can I And he doesn't like this other thing.
Speaker 1: He doesn't like to have his phone in his pocket
Speaker 1: because he doesn't like the radiation, which I people have
Speaker 1: been reading about this, and I know there's radiation, but
Speaker 1: I had to say, hey, I'll keep your phone in
Speaker 1: my pocket. How about that. I just don't want it
Speaker 1: on the table. I'd like to be having a meal
Speaker 1: on a conversation and not seeing a from I mean,
Speaker 1: I just get this drives me insane. Everywhere you go
Speaker 1: now you cannot escape the devices. I really want to
Speaker 1: start a restaurant chain that is that is device free.
Speaker 1: I see people that are pulling out iPads at restaurants.
Speaker 1: Give them the kid. Look, that's that's what you want
Speaker 1: to do. Fine, but you gotta have headphones. Okay, you
Speaker 1: can't have like SpongeBob square Pants blasting over the iPad
Speaker 1: at a at a restaurant where people are actually trying
Speaker 1: to have a some kind of an experience, right, I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about Chuck E Cheese. That's a different kind
Speaker 1: of experience anyway. So I managed to pretty much stay
Speaker 1: off the social media this weekend and hang out and
Speaker 1: um is Molly and I we had really big plans
Speaker 1: to cook on Saturday because she's been just cooking up
Speaker 1: a storm recently. I mean, I told her though, she
Speaker 1: has to lay off, like she can't make gluten free.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we technically call it ZD or lasagna.
Speaker 1: It was kind of a combination because I just ate
Speaker 1: all of it, and then it's like, why am I
Speaker 1: even trying to go to the gym or be healthy? Right,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna eat all of Molly's lasagna's um. But anyway,
Speaker 1: we we ordered an Indian food, which I hadn't had
Speaker 1: a long time, which was great, a little spicy, but great.
Speaker 1: And that night, Saturday night, we're sure enough, we're we're
Speaker 1: outside for second, we're actually gonna drop something off for
Speaker 1: her parents downstairs in our building, and I see an
Speaker 1: ancient looking carpet shark, also known as a docks in.
Speaker 1: And as you know, I've had my experiences with carpet
Speaker 1: sharks in recent months. And this one has long hair
Speaker 1: and has cataracts over both eyes, and very reminiscent of
Speaker 1: the carpet shark that like a little great white tried
Speaker 1: to take a chunk out of my face when I
Speaker 1: was just trying to gently lift it up in the air.
Speaker 1: And get to know the little guy at a at
Speaker 1: a party in New Jersey and ms Molly and makes
Speaker 1: jokes about it. She says, you know, you're scared of
Speaker 1: the carpet shark. I said, no, it's all right, you know,
Speaker 1: I understand now, you just gotta give a carpet shark,
Speaker 1: it's space. But this stocks and I mean the woman
Speaker 1: has to carry it because it has We actually talked
Speaker 1: to her a little bit. It's a nice lady who
Speaker 1: lives in our building, and she has arthritis in its
Speaker 1: legs and it has cataracts on both eyes. And I
Speaker 1: mean this, you know when it when it moves, it
Speaker 1: kind of shuffles, it doesn't move very and she carries
Speaker 1: it in and out of the building because it's so
Speaker 1: harvard to So, you know, I feel for a little
Speaker 1: little furry guy, but I'm still you know, I still
Speaker 1: gotta be careful. You know, even a even an aged
Speaker 1: carpet shark could be could be a problem, you know,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden gets one last bite out on you.
Speaker 1: And so the next day, sure enough, we're walking around,
Speaker 1: we're looking for a place to go to brunch, and
Speaker 1: and we we pass there's really only a couple of
Speaker 1: them now in the city, but we passed one of
Speaker 1: those stores. And I know everyone says adopts don't shop
Speaker 1: the New York City codes though, because there's been so
Speaker 1: much pressure on puppy mills, and they're they're actually very
Speaker 1: strict laws. I've I've read about this now in the
Speaker 1: city where they have to do the City of New York.
Speaker 1: If you're going to sell a dog in New York
Speaker 1: has to send inspectors to the breeder and has to
Speaker 1: license the breeder and make sure that you know that
Speaker 1: it's a well run operation where the dogs aren't in
Speaker 1: duress or distress and everything else. So that all said,
Speaker 1: whether you buy that or not. We weren't going in
Speaker 1: there to buy a dog. It's just because there happened
Speaker 1: to be two baby carpet sharks in the window, a
Speaker 1: little little almost like little minnows, but with teeth, you know,
Speaker 1: a little baby carpet trucks, and Miss Molly happens to
Speaker 1: kind of like Dockxin's I'll use their real name badger
Speaker 1: Hounds docks homes, and sure enough for and people have
Speaker 1: yelled at me and they've said that it's not badger hound,
Speaker 1: it's badger dog, because hound in German is dog, hound, dog, tomato,
Speaker 1: tomato whatever. So we we go in there and we
Speaker 1: we play with the little docksins for a while. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, they're actually pretty cute. So the carpet
Speaker 1: sharks when their babies they're fine. When they get older,
Speaker 1: you gotta watch out. You gotta look for the the
Speaker 1: dorsal fin moving around the cocktail party. If it comes
Speaker 1: directly at you, you could be in some trouble. But
Speaker 1: the carpet sharks were cute, and I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: getting one, but you know, I'm I'm opening my mind
Speaker 1: a little bit too. At least now maybe I'll say
Speaker 1: hi to them on the street. You know, I've I've
Speaker 1: been a little anti anti docks that ever since my
Speaker 1: incident haunts me to this day. Well, you know what
Speaker 1: got me thinking about this now I've gone on way
Speaker 1: too long about my my docks in story, is that
Speaker 1: there's a New York Times Beast the five most popular
Speaker 1: dogs on Instagram drum roll. And I thought this was
Speaker 1: this was really funny because it tells you a lot.
Speaker 1: This is a real commentary on what's going on in
Speaker 1: the country right now. So you have the five most
Speaker 1: commonly uh posted pooches, five dogs that are top five,
Speaker 1: and so think right now and let's get the drum roll. Going.
Speaker 1: Number five is the husky, which I'm was surprised because
Speaker 1: huskies are big dogs that need a lot of exercise.
Speaker 1: Generally and their work dogs. But I suppose the husky
Speaker 1: is the one representative of dogs outside of of urban
Speaker 1: centers in terms of you know, people that if you
Speaker 1: if you live in an area where you've got trees
Speaker 1: and grass and a lot of you are like, yeah, buck,
Speaker 1: it's called America. If you live in a place where
Speaker 1: there's trees and grass, you might have a husky. And
Speaker 1: that's number five on the list of it's the scientific
Speaker 1: stuff that they crunched all the numbers on Instagram, and
Speaker 1: that's the fifth most popular dog, the husky. Number four,
Speaker 1: no surprise here is the chihuahua. Now, I think that
Speaker 1: is in part because Chihuahuas are incredibly common in cities
Speaker 1: right there, They're among the most common dogs and cities.
Speaker 1: They are actually among the most common shelter dogs too.
Speaker 1: Chihuahuas and pit bulls of all kinds, pitball mixes and
Speaker 1: just any kind of pit bull. Uh, those are the
Speaker 1: two most common shelter dogs. With chihuahuas, it's generally because
Speaker 1: people think that because they're small, there'll be a lot
Speaker 1: less work. But you still gotta walk them, you still
Speaker 1: gotta take them to the vet, you still gotta get
Speaker 1: them the shots. They're easier in some ways, but the
Speaker 1: responsibility of this little furry friend is still very much
Speaker 1: the same as if you had a Saint Bernard, Right,
Speaker 1: you gotta walk it, you gotta feed it, you gotta
Speaker 1: be there, you gotta take care of it. So a
Speaker 1: lot of people get over their heads with a chihuahua
Speaker 1: and they give it to the shelter. Very sad. But
Speaker 1: the good news is that chihuahuas and shelters get get
Speaker 1: usually picked up right away. They don't last very long
Speaker 1: from a reputable shelter, they get picked up. Number three
Speaker 1: on the most Popular Dogs of Instagram. Oh and also
Speaker 1: with chihuahuas, by the way, because there's a lot of
Speaker 1: like bedazzling of chihuahuas that goes on. A lot of
Speaker 1: little put your little gold chains and earrings, and you know,
Speaker 1: people like to dress up their chihuahua. So that's why
Speaker 1: they're so Instagram friendly. Remember, these aren the most popular
Speaker 1: dogs in the country. These are the most posted dogs
Speaker 1: in the country. Number three is the terrier. And first
Speaker 1: of all, terrier is is a type. It's not really
Speaker 1: you know, not really a specific so I don't know
Speaker 1: what I don't have much to say on this other
Speaker 1: than I don't know which terrier they're really referring to
Speaker 1: the Karen Terrier. Is it a you know, white terrier?
Speaker 1: Is that? Who knows? But they say number three is
Speaker 1: a terrier here, So whatever. Number two my personal favorite,
Speaker 1: the bulldog. Bulldogs are the second most posted dogs on Instagram.
Speaker 1: And it's because their droopy faces are adorable. And we
Speaker 1: all know that that is just a fact. And one
Speaker 1: day I will get a bulldog. And I already have
Speaker 1: five different names in my head for the bulldog and
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen. It's been a constant negotiation with Miss Milly.
Speaker 1: She wants to adopt. I want to get a bulldog
Speaker 1: from a breeder, and we're going back and forth on this.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll do both, but there's a whole lot of
Speaker 1: there's a lot of territory that we need to work
Speaker 1: through before we get two dogs. Iwout one and then
Speaker 1: the number one most popular dog posted on Instagram is,
Speaker 1: in fact, the pug. I followed Doug the Pug on Instagram.
Speaker 1: He's very cute. He's a dapper little fellow. You know.
Speaker 1: One moment they've got him, you know, dressed up like
Speaker 1: a surfer dude another moment, he's like snowshoes and out
Speaker 1: on the slopes, Doug. You know the pug and pugs
Speaker 1: are are very cute, very friendly little fellows, and they
Speaker 1: make great companions and apparently great Instagram post dogs. So
Speaker 1: that's number one. So with that, my friends, I've told
Speaker 1: you about pups. Let's get into what you think. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about some well, let's get into some team buck
Speaker 1: roll call coming up right after the break. So before
Speaker 1: we get into roll call, everybody, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: say I've I have seen and read the messages, and
Speaker 1: I promise I will soon come up with the next
Speaker 1: episode of Shields High. It's just a heavy lift, and
Speaker 1: I've enjoyed having a weekend or two of I'm still
Speaker 1: doing the research, I'm reading, I'm taking notes, but I
Speaker 1: have not been able to bring myself to just spend
Speaker 1: the better part of a weekend pulling together the history
Speaker 1: show for last week or two. But it's happening. It's happening.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get one coming up here. I'm shooting for Monday.
Speaker 1: I've been thinking, is it going to be the gonna
Speaker 1: jump right to Malta or do I need to do
Speaker 1: the Siege of Vienna nine as a preamble of sorts,
Speaker 1: as a as A as a getting ready for pre
Speaker 1: heating the oven, if you will, for the Battle of
Speaker 1: of Malta. So that's that's what's you know. I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about that stuff. And then let's get into some Oh wait,
Speaker 1: here we go roll call please, sir. Oh yeah, Team Buck,
Speaker 1: it's for roll calls. Oh, Paul, we'll get some history
Speaker 1: stuff soon. Let's see what we have here in the
Speaker 1: mailbag via roll call. Um M David with the filling. Uh,
Speaker 1: I have a huge favor to ask. Uh. My wife
Speaker 1: and I are huge fans. And oh no, this is
Speaker 1: a shout out request for February third up. I gotta
Speaker 1: hold this one. I gotta hold this one. There's a
Speaker 1: shout out request for tomorrow. Producer, Mike, can you please
Speaker 1: remind me that we have a we have a shout
Speaker 1: at request for the thirtieth wedding anniversary tomorrow via via
Speaker 1: roll call. We will make that one tomorrow. So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna whoop. We're gonna put a hole on that one.
Speaker 1: We're gonna let that one simmer overnight and then we'll
Speaker 1: get back to it tomorrow. I think that's our first.
Speaker 1: That's the first request for a wedding anniversary shoutout. I've
Speaker 1: had birthday request before, and I've always tried to honor
Speaker 1: those because, hey, team, if it's your birthday, I'm happy
Speaker 1: for you. Hey, team, it's your birthday. Your going a
Speaker 1: party like it's your your birthday. You know how it goes?
Speaker 1: Um Brad writes in Buck, where I knew these were
Speaker 1: gonna start coming? In Buck, where are you on the
Speaker 1: Shields High series? You tell a good story, my friend,
Speaker 1: and I already know the history, and I'm joining your
Speaker 1: take on these events. Well, Brad, Um, thank you for
Speaker 1: the kind words. And it's it's coming back. It's just
Speaker 1: in a little tempor little temporary hiatus right now, a
Speaker 1: little a little bit of a Hey, you know, Buck
Speaker 1: needs to tend to some other things in life before
Speaker 1: he gets more. Look, I I'm gonna finish. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get to ten episodes of Cross Versus Crescent and and
Speaker 1: then what's gonna end up happening is we're gonna figure
Speaker 1: out where the best home should be for the Shields
Speaker 1: High podcasts going forward, because I already have I have
Speaker 1: some American history ideas for the podcast that will be
Speaker 1: a whole lot, and I think that will be a
Speaker 1: even more uh resounding success with all you folks who
Speaker 1: like history. So we're gonna move into that realm Um,
Speaker 1: that's the plan at least. I think the only question
Speaker 1: is do I do Ancient Greece and Rome those battles first,
Speaker 1: or American stuff? And I feel like you'll all tell
Speaker 1: me American history. So that's that's the plan. But I
Speaker 1: gotta finish Cross versus Christ and first, all right, here
Speaker 1: we go. Um, hold on a second, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: pull him up. And I swear my computer always freezes
Speaker 1: whenever I want to do a roll call with you
Speaker 1: guys live radio. It's it's a it's a thing that
Speaker 1: can be difficult. Jeff writes, just listening to the show
Speaker 1: from Friday. Oh man, it's about the hamster, and I
Speaker 1: was sad about the hamster. Dude, this woman. First of all,
Speaker 1: if my hamster is my pet, I'm going down with
Speaker 1: the hamster. If the ship is sinking or if the
Speaker 1: plane is crashing or whatever, like, the hamster does not
Speaker 1: get flushed down the Toilet's your little buddy, your tiny
Speaker 1: little it's like half the size of a Chihuahua. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get some angry emails from chihuahua owners out there,
Speaker 1: but it really is. Hamster is a good little fella,
Speaker 1: you know, And I feel bad anyway. So Jeff writes,
Speaker 1: I wonder if that poor hamster that was flushed at
Speaker 1: the air sport knows any sweet martial arts skills and
Speaker 1: could maybe round up a gang of teenage mutant ninja
Speaker 1: turtles down in the airport sewer shields. Ye, well well played, Jeff,
Speaker 1: well played Splinter. The sense of the teenage mutant ninja
Speaker 1: turtles was very wise and very very skilled in the
Speaker 1: martial arts. Um. And that's where I'm just gonna And
Speaker 1: for those of you who don't wrote teenage muntja Turtles,
Speaker 1: I don't know what to say. Um. That's it's a
Speaker 1: weird It's a really in retrospect, very weird show, very
Speaker 1: weird show. Taylor writes the falling buck your backup deeper
Speaker 1: noise is the same voice as Hillary, and for dan
Speaker 1: good reason, both are equally as wretched. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: very much, Taylor. I appreciate that as long as we
Speaker 1: get the basics of it, basically, I think that's good.
Speaker 1: Uh t j writes in Buck I enjoyed the Buck
Speaker 1: Peeve segment about air dryers. Maybe make it a weekly segment.
Speaker 1: I kind of like the idea of on Friday just
Speaker 1: doing this agrament on something that annoys me. I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about this. I'm gonna talk to producer Mike and John
Speaker 1: about it. But I feel like it could be a
Speaker 1: thing we do right Like, for example, right now, just
Speaker 1: off top of my head, people that on the subway
Speaker 1: decide that they're gonna walk to the top of the
Speaker 1: subway steps, stop and then look at their phone with
Speaker 1: about a hundred people behind them trying to walk up
Speaker 1: the stairs just and and there are people that just
Speaker 1: do this. They're like, oh my gosh, I finally have
Speaker 1: WiFi or you know, I have signal, and you know,
Speaker 1: unless you're like it like an e er doc and
Speaker 1: you can't find the hospital or something, which would be
Speaker 1: a whole other set of problems. I feel like you
Speaker 1: can wait the extra three seconds, move to the side,
Speaker 1: and let pc I'm already doing one of them. Now.
Speaker 1: We gotta find a uh, you know, Bucks grumble cast
Speaker 1: or something like that we'll do like a Friday. I
Speaker 1: think that'd be fun on the Friday's, so then people
Speaker 1: will know that I'm you know, it's like get off
Speaker 1: my lawn kind of stuff, which is good. Let's see
Speaker 1: what else we got here. I think it timefully. One
Speaker 1: more show is flown by today as it up, Jeff Holland,
Speaker 1: what's with the following? Quit slacking, Sexton. We need those
Speaker 1: history podcasts. Hope you have a blessed and find someday, Jeff,
Speaker 1: I know, I'm sorry I've created I've created a situation
Speaker 1: where the only way through shields high is to do
Speaker 1: shields high, and that is what will happen. That's what's
Speaker 1: I've I've been putting them out there, but I've taken
Speaker 1: a little break. He's just been a little quality time
Speaker 1: with Ms Molly, And now that we've had a couple
Speaker 1: of good weekends together, I'm gonna have to tell her, Honey,
Speaker 1: this weekend you can go do fun, normal person things.
Speaker 1: I'm going to uh lock myself to the desk with
Speaker 1: a bunch of old dusty books and write about how
Speaker 1: the Sultan was trying to invade the heart of Christianity
Speaker 1: and destroy the Western world. You know, as one does
Speaker 1: with that, my friends, it's gonna be it for our
Speaker 1: freedom Hut Extravaganta today. I'm excited about each day with
Speaker 1: you this week, so please do uh tune in, tell friends,
Speaker 1: share the podcast, and she'll tie