Speaker 1: Mr Garbutschof teared down this wall. Either you're with us
Speaker 1: or you were with the terrorists. If you got healthcare
Speaker 1: all it, then you can keep your plan. If you're
Speaker 1: satisfied with Trump is not. When President of the United
Speaker 1: States take it to a bank together, we will make
Speaker 1: America great again. You'll never sharend It's what you've been
Speaker 1: waiting for all day. The buck Sexton Show joined the
Speaker 1: conversation called Buck toll free at eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred Buck. That's eight four four nine hundred to eight
Speaker 1: to five. The future of talk radio buck Sexton. Yes,
Speaker 1: in our country closed, shuttered, gone six million jobs at least, God,
Speaker 1: and now they're starting to come back. You see what's
Speaker 1: happening with Chrysler, with Fox con with so many other
Speaker 1: companies wanting to come back into the United States. But
Speaker 1: we have one particular problem, and I view them as
Speaker 1: a friend. I have tremendous respect for President she We
Speaker 1: have a great relationship. But there's gonna be some tariffs
Speaker 1: and there's gonna be some pushback on the theft of
Speaker 1: intellectual property. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show, my friends,
Speaker 1: Thank you for being here. The market has had kind
Speaker 1: of an interesting ride today down down seven points, which
Speaker 1: many are understandably a little little freaked out about my
Speaker 1: My four oh one k is now a one oh
Speaker 1: one k uh and and it wasn't much to begin with.
Speaker 1: So it's been a rough been a rough day for
Speaker 1: retirement plans and people with with stock stock park of accounts. Well,
Speaker 1: this was absolutely necessary. Look, yeah, two major things happened
Speaker 1: today with the administration, well with the government. One is
Speaker 1: China tariffs, trade, intellectual property theft, and actually the last
Speaker 1: part of that I think is the most important. We're
Speaker 1: gonna get into that in just a second. And then
Speaker 1: also this omnibus spill, which is a disaster, it really is.
Speaker 1: It's it's frustrating that this is where we are and
Speaker 1: that so many Republicans are comfortable going on TV saying yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, it's great, it's great. No problem. Not nothing
Speaker 1: to see here, folks, No problem. We will talk about
Speaker 1: that too later on the show. I have updates for
Speaker 1: you on the Austin serial bomber. We also have a
Speaker 1: breaking news story on former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapperman.
Speaker 1: I will talk to you about and the Vegas shooter.
Speaker 1: There's video of him now, and I watched it all
Speaker 1: today and I'll talk to you about that as as
Speaker 1: well as some other topics that will come up over
Speaker 1: the course of our discussions. But first on China. China,
Speaker 1: there you go. The President is pushing back finally against
Speaker 1: our nearest competitor. And there's a lot of freak out
Speaker 1: about this. But let's understand that there is this notion, uh,
Speaker 1: there is this notion that we can be in a
Speaker 1: world where competition just benefits everyone and there's really no
Speaker 1: winners and losers between nation states, and that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: It's not really true. Yes, free trade is great. It's
Speaker 1: made a lot of people very wealthy, and the last
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years has pulled globally more people out
Speaker 1: of poverty than all the years of human history before.
Speaker 1: So I'm all about all about capitalism. I love commerce, baby,
Speaker 1: it's great, But there are other considerations for nation states
Speaker 1: as well. It can't always just be driven by quarterly
Speaker 1: earning statements. And when we're looking at China specifically and
Speaker 1: what they've been doing, now there's a problem. And I'm
Speaker 1: trying to to piece by piece take apart the conventional wisdom.
Speaker 1: I can tell you more or less what a lot
Speaker 1: of conservative journals of opinion out there, various columnists are
Speaker 1: going to say, because it's the same stuff they've been
Speaker 1: saying for twenty years about China, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: let's just trade relationship, everything will be cool, just give
Speaker 1: it time. And things aren't getting better in fact, from
Speaker 1: the perspective of politics in China. From if you're looking
Speaker 1: at this from the angle of is our nearest competitor
Speaker 1: on the world stage becoming a more free and less
Speaker 1: bellicost place or not? Uh, the answer is that it
Speaker 1: is not becoming a more free and less bellicost place.
Speaker 1: So that's it's not working for us. Um it is
Speaker 1: something that needs to be addressed. I would recommend if
Speaker 1: you have some time. This is a little a little digression,
Speaker 1: but it's it's important, it's powerful. I think if you
Speaker 1: have the time to go back, read a bit about
Speaker 1: the Venona project. Lots of books written about it. The
Speaker 1: Venona was started because the well, because we wanted to
Speaker 1: have a sense the US military and national security complex
Speaker 1: wanted to have a sense that's what the Soviets we're
Speaker 1: really up to. And then we figured in terms of
Speaker 1: the Second World War and what the what their plans
Speaker 1: were visavi Germany, where they're going to have a separate piece,
Speaker 1: and and we we kept it going because we figured out,
Speaker 1: wait a second, there's a lot of Soviet agents that
Speaker 1: had penetrated the United States government. Now this is pre internet,
Speaker 1: this is pre mass communication other than radio and printing press, right,
Speaker 1: I mean some some television coming into into the scene
Speaker 1: pretty pretty soon. But you had to have people in
Speaker 1: place to steal a lot of the info that you
Speaker 1: wanted to steal. And the long term ramifications of that
Speaker 1: theft were severe. We know that it accelerated a Russian
Speaker 1: nuclear bomb, for example, by at least I think eighteen
Speaker 1: to twenty four months they estimate, They don't really know.
Speaker 1: This is just an estimate. What how quickly could they
Speaker 1: have gotten there if they hadn't been purloining our nuclear secrets?
Speaker 1: And think about that for a moment. The Soviets were
Speaker 1: actually getting the Crown Jewels stuff. What could be more
Speaker 1: sensitive than our nuclear technology in the you know, late
Speaker 1: nineteen forties, early nineteen fifties, Soviets got into that. They
Speaker 1: had a lot of fellow travelers, people who ideologically were
Speaker 1: aligned with them, be because they felt like the Soviets,
Speaker 1: for one, had been the force that had truly defeated
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany. And this is not talked to kids in
Speaker 1: school these days, but that was common among American leftists
Speaker 1: that it was really the Soviet Union. Now, I know,
Speaker 1: the battlefield losses on the Eastern Front were orders of
Speaker 1: magnitude larger than the Western Front, but they didn't think
Speaker 1: of that as well. The Soviets had a terrible war
Speaker 1: machine to use because of the purges of Stalin. Stalin
Speaker 1: got rid of all the good generals. That was a problem.
Speaker 1: You're gonna fight Nazi Germany, you probably want to have
Speaker 1: your best general's right A Stalin was had already eliminated them,
Speaker 1: liquidated them, and that led to many of the disasters
Speaker 1: on the Eastern Front, but not nonetheless the back to
Speaker 1: the theft of intellectual property that occurred there. It was
Speaker 1: civilization changing. It allowed the Soviets to punch well above
Speaker 1: their weight when it came to the military in particular,
Speaker 1: but also in economic espionage, industrial output, things like that.
Speaker 1: Their system eventually collapsed because it was obviously on faulty foundation.
Speaker 1: And you know what you mean to tell you that,
Speaker 1: but this is still not really understood in the American
Speaker 1: consciousness that that the theft of information from US by
Speaker 1: the Soviets was a a massive national security not just vulnerability,
Speaker 1: but loss. The same things happening with China right now.
Speaker 1: I keep repeating it because it is so important that Chinese.
Speaker 1: We don't even know how much the Chinese are stealing.
Speaker 1: And the difference now is that they don't have to
Speaker 1: have people working in the Manhattan projects, right they don't
Speaker 1: have to, although, by the way, the extent of old
Speaker 1: school Chinese espionage too. I'm sure there's a lot going
Speaker 1: on that not just the public doesn't know about, but
Speaker 1: nobody in this country knows about, including the people whose
Speaker 1: jobs are to prevent any theft of intellectual property or
Speaker 1: or military or intelligency secrets by the Chinese. This has
Speaker 1: been their m O for decades now. This has been
Speaker 1: going on for quite a while, and because of the
Speaker 1: Internet and because of connectivity, a lot of it can
Speaker 1: be accomplished via cyber and what would have taken one person.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've gone back and I've told you before
Speaker 1: about the Metroken Archives. It's worth it. Get it that
Speaker 1: you can get a copy. I think you can even
Speaker 1: a lot of it's been posted on the internet for free.
Speaker 1: You want to see the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: What what do the KGB really do? What were their
Speaker 1: operations really like during the Cold War? You can find
Speaker 1: out because we have their archive. We have the KGBS archive.
Speaker 1: It was uh, it was published years ago after the
Speaker 1: wall fell. And when you see the extent and also
Speaker 1: honestly the risk taking of the operations they were willing
Speaker 1: to engage in, it's it's pretty breathtaking. But it was
Speaker 1: going after everything because they were trying to beat us,
Speaker 1: and they knew that if they add the economic if
Speaker 1: they had economic advantages military advantages, that was going to
Speaker 1: be critical. You know, we're both big countries with a
Speaker 1: lot of natural resources and devoted you know, devoted populations
Speaker 1: at the time two one ideology or the other. So
Speaker 1: what we see with China right now is at that level.
Speaker 1: We don't think of it that way. We got all
Speaker 1: the free traders people think tanks in DC are sitting
Speaker 1: around talking about how, oh, it's so great and look
Speaker 1: at all the cheap stuff in Walmart. That's true, but
Speaker 1: that comes with a cost, and not just a cost
Speaker 1: to your credit card. It's a cost of the US
Speaker 1: as the global superpower over the long run if we
Speaker 1: don't do something about it, and that is what the
Speaker 1: president is up to now. And go back and look
Speaker 1: at the Clintons didn't want to stand up to China, pushes,
Speaker 1: didn't want to stand up to China, the Obama Obama years,
Speaker 1: no standing up to China. Finally, now we were presidents
Speaker 1: saying we're we're going to change things, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: hold them accountable for this policy of just outright theft.
Speaker 1: It is stealing. It's interesting me that we have a
Speaker 1: country where people seem to understand that if you were
Speaker 1: to take all the you know, if you were to
Speaker 1: to set up your own network and you were to
Speaker 1: call it BNN for the Buck News Network, and all
Speaker 1: I did was just take everything that was on CNN
Speaker 1: and run it on BNN, You'd say, well, you're you're stealing.
Speaker 1: You can't do that. I'd say, well, but does it
Speaker 1: really matter because I just have it and they have it,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna monetize it and they're gonna have it. And
Speaker 1: And he said, well, yeah, of course it matters. Right,
Speaker 1: It is theft. It is stealing. Although the Buck News Network,
Speaker 1: I think I'm onto something. I think that would BNN
Speaker 1: we could do like a whole series of parody skits.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, let's interview a few more porn stars.
Speaker 1: Maybe they met Donald Trump at one point in time. Hey,
Speaker 1: do you ever meet him? You know, let's go to
Speaker 1: some strip clubs in Florida and just see if anybody
Speaker 1: happens who have ever met Donald Trump. That'll be a
Speaker 1: great assignment for our reporters. That actually happened, by the way,
Speaker 1: at CNN, not at BNN. So there you go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the producer Mike is saying that you know, this
Speaker 1: is this we were onto something here, but theft of
Speaker 1: inntellectual property we understand as actual theft and something that
Speaker 1: we people be sued for it and there has to
Speaker 1: be protection of it because otherwise, what's the what's the
Speaker 1: point of R and D, what's the point of putting
Speaker 1: forward all of this, all the resources to create, to
Speaker 1: be a producer if you can just steal, well that
Speaker 1: Chinese even getting a free ride on a lot of
Speaker 1: this stuff for a long time, they've been stealing. That's
Speaker 1: it is theft. It is theft. And our companies go
Speaker 1: up against their companies. They are now putting restrictions on
Speaker 1: the kind of exactly the kind of projects. Remember, I
Speaker 1: think it was a week or two ago I said
Speaker 1: that what the what the Chinese love to do is say, hey, ge, hey, IBM,
Speaker 1: let's do a joint venture. We're going to give you
Speaker 1: access to our huge market. You're gonna sell a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff which will make your shareholders have but you're
Speaker 1: also gonna have to give us your semiconductor technology. You know,
Speaker 1: you're also gonna have to show us how small you
Speaker 1: can really make those microchips for that project or whatever
Speaker 1: the case may be. This is this is meaningful and
Speaker 1: what it what it really comes down to is there
Speaker 1: are considerations that have to go into our discussions of
Speaker 1: trade with China that aren't just about how do we
Speaker 1: make the most money the fastest. You know, you you
Speaker 1: might have a great business plan for selling PlayStation four
Speaker 1: in Iran, but if you try, you're well, actually, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the laws are right now based on
Speaker 1: the Obama air sections, but they're generally speak if you try,
Speaker 1: you're probably gonna go to prison because there's all all
Speaker 1: kinds of criminal restrictions on what kind of business you
Speaker 1: can do with the Iranians. Right, So we understand that
Speaker 1: there's more than just how do you make money here?
Speaker 1: We understand that there is a long term plan that
Speaker 1: has to put into effect. Does that mean it's gonna
Speaker 1: come without some pain in the show? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I think this is gonna be It's gonna be rough.
Speaker 1: You better strap in here because the Chinese are gonna
Speaker 1: push back. It's like we finally decided no more free ride,
Speaker 1: no more free ride. And a lot of folks who
Speaker 1: just like the status quo because the status quo was
Speaker 1: enriching them personally or riching their business are going to
Speaker 1: kick and scream about this. But we need to understand
Speaker 1: what's really at stake here. And uh, well, I don't
Speaker 1: think that we are quite as on a dangerous path
Speaker 1: as you were with the Soviets, with the with the Chinese.
Speaker 1: Give it some time. History tends to suggest that it's
Speaker 1: unlikely that two superpowers are gonna stay best buddies for
Speaker 1: all that long. We got a whole lot more show.
Speaker 1: I gave you a sense what's coming up. If you
Speaker 1: want to weigh in by all means eight four five
Speaker 1: eight four four n buck, we will hit a break.
Speaker 1: I gotta talk to you you us Omnibus Bill. We've also
Speaker 1: got Gordon Chang who will be joining us shortly to
Speaker 1: talk about what he thinks of all this China. Massy's
Speaker 1: my among my very favorite analysts on all things China,
Speaker 1: so we'll have him joining us a few minutes. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. We're losing three hundred and seventy five billion
Speaker 1: dollars with China. It could be five hundred and four billions,
Speaker 1: depending on the way you count, a lot of different
Speaker 1: ways of counting, but no matter how you count, it's bad,
Speaker 1: and we're doing something that will be the start of
Speaker 1: making trade with China more fair. It was so far
Speaker 1: down and our presidents, frankly, our past president should never
Speaker 1: have allowed this to happen. This has been many, many
Speaker 1: years now. I think there's another another approach or another
Speaker 1: way to analyze what we're doing to China how it
Speaker 1: could respond, which is, you know, how outrage can they
Speaker 1: really be that if they're going to charge a you know,
Speaker 1: a fifteen percent terraf on something, we'll charge a fiften
Speaker 1: terrafons if we catch them stealing our intellectual property, we're
Speaker 1: gonna retaliate. But on the trade issue, where it really
Speaker 1: is about the numbers. Seems to me that this should
Speaker 1: be reasonable minds could prevail here. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think they will on the Chinese side of things, because
Speaker 1: they like the advantage that they've had and they've got
Speaker 1: their own domestic political considerations to worry about. Very interesting
Speaker 1: I mentioned I like to talk about the Soviets because
Speaker 1: I think that puts it into that starts to put
Speaker 1: us in the frame of mind here where. But instead
Speaker 1: of thinking about it first and foremost as a military
Speaker 1: competition between two superpowers, were an economic competition between two superpowers.
Speaker 1: But this was a quote that I saw online is
Speaker 1: actually in The Times from a former China analyst for
Speaker 1: the FBI who said the following The Times quote. If
Speaker 1: a beach were a target, the Russians would send in
Speaker 1: a sub frogmen would steal ashore in the dark of
Speaker 1: night and collect several buckets of sand and take them
Speaker 1: back to Moscow. The US would send over satellites and
Speaker 1: produce reams of data. The Chinese would send in a
Speaker 1: thousand tourists, each assigned to collect a single grain of sand.
Speaker 1: When they returned, they would be asked to shake out
Speaker 1: their towels and they would end up knowing more about
Speaker 1: the sand than anyone else. In other words, the Chinese
Speaker 1: have infinite patients end quote. Uh, that's what we're up
Speaker 1: against now you're starting now. It all makes sense, right,
Speaker 1: A cyber theft here, economic espionage, They're all the things
Speaker 1: that we're seeing over the long term. China wants to
Speaker 1: be able to dictate global economic policy. China thinks that
Speaker 1: it wood in the future become the country that everyone
Speaker 1: turns to for leadership, for direction, for orders. However, however
Speaker 1: it all shakes out. Um, So I think we need
Speaker 1: to start looking at this in that context, and everything
Speaker 1: I'll started to make a lot more sense. We've got
Speaker 1: Gordon joining us. I know, I meant to get to
Speaker 1: the Omnibus bill. I will right after Gordon joins us here,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna get into this. Look, guys, you know,
Speaker 1: I voted for Trump because he's a vessel for an agenda.
Speaker 1: He's agenda and it needs to be enacted. And I
Speaker 1: don't want to hear all the kind of both sides
Speaker 1: of the mouth talk from Paul Ryan about how you
Speaker 1: know this is a good spending bill, because it's not.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about that though. Stay with me. I've
Speaker 1: been speaking with the highest Chinese representatives, including the President,
Speaker 1: and I've asked them to reduce the trade deficit immediately
Speaker 1: by one billion dollars. It's a lot, so that would
Speaker 1: be anywhere from twenty five percent, depending on the way
Speaker 1: you figure two maybe something even more than that. But
Speaker 1: we have to do that. The word that I want
Speaker 1: to use as reciprocal. When they charge for a car
Speaker 1: to go in and we charge two percent for their
Speaker 1: car to come into the United States, that's not good.
Speaker 1: That's how China rebuilt itself. President Trump speaking about China
Speaker 1: and tariffs and closing the trade gap earlier today. As
Speaker 1: you know, uh, markets not reacting so well to it,
Speaker 1: at least for today. But we take a longer view here,
Speaker 1: and to help us take that long view, we've got
Speaker 1: Gordon Chang on the line. He is the author of
Speaker 1: The Coming Collapse of China. Also you can go to
Speaker 1: Gordon Chang dot com for all of his latest Gordon,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining. Thank you so much. Buck. What do
Speaker 1: you think about the President's announcement? Let's just start there.
Speaker 1: I think it was absolutely necessary. You know, no one
Speaker 1: wants to um engage in what could be the beginning
Speaker 1: of a very long cam pain and struggle with China.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, um, you know, we've tried every other thing
Speaker 1: trying to accommodate the Chinese, and it hasn't worked. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, we had that September two thousand fifteen agreement
Speaker 1: between President Obama and Sie Jumping announced in the Rose
Speaker 1: Garden that neither country would steal the commercial secrets of
Speaker 1: the other. Well, you know, the Chinese just continued to
Speaker 1: do that, and so, um, you know, at this point,
Speaker 1: we have no choice but to impose severe costs on China.
Speaker 1: No one likes it, but unfortunately there's no choice. What
Speaker 1: do you think the Chinese reaction to this is going
Speaker 1: to be, Well, they said that they don't want to
Speaker 1: see the start of a trade war, which is incorrect
Speaker 1: because you can accuse President Trump with many things, but
Speaker 1: you can't accuse him of starting a trade war with
Speaker 1: China because the Chinese have been engaged in a trade
Speaker 1: war against us for decades and we have been oblivious. So, um,
Speaker 1: you know, the Chinese will huff and puff, but we
Speaker 1: got to remember they don't really have very many cards
Speaker 1: to play, because last year, eighty eight point eight percent
Speaker 1: of their overall merchandise trade surplus related to sales to
Speaker 1: the United States, and that's up from an already astounding
Speaker 1: sixty eight point zero percent in two thousand sixteen. You
Speaker 1: just can't battle with them a trade deficit country and
Speaker 1: expect to win. Gordon, we know that China has been
Speaker 1: engaging in currency manipulation. It has tariffs up. Trump has
Speaker 1: been sounding the alarm about this actually not just during
Speaker 1: his presidency in campaign, but for a long time before
Speaker 1: that as well. Uh. Do do you think that this
Speaker 1: is going to affect the way that we deal with
Speaker 1: China though? On other issues? I mean, essentially, are are
Speaker 1: they going to make our lives harder now dealing with
Speaker 1: North Korea and in other places? I mean, or is
Speaker 1: this going to be mostly restricted to a trade to
Speaker 1: trade issue? I don't think it will be restricted. You know,
Speaker 1: the US for a very long time has tried to
Speaker 1: stove pipe, as they say, in other words, to not
Speaker 1: let trade disputes effect, for instance, cooperation on climate control
Speaker 1: or whatever. Um. You know, at this particular time, though, UM,
Speaker 1: I don't think the Chinese think that way, and I
Speaker 1: don't think we should think that way either, um. But
Speaker 1: I do believe that if we impose costs on Beijing
Speaker 1: that are so severe that they very well may have
Speaker 1: no choice but to be better on other issues such
Speaker 1: as North Korea. You know, this is gonna get very difficult, UM,
Speaker 1: but we hold high cards. And the only way Chinese,
Speaker 1: the Chinese, can win a trade war with us is
Speaker 1: if we refuse to exercise the political will. Um. That's necessary,
Speaker 1: but we have all the tools in the toolbox, as
Speaker 1: they say, so we should win this one now for
Speaker 1: people out there, just so everyone understands what the likely
Speaker 1: near term ramifications are. And everyone're speaking to Gordon Chang.
Speaker 1: He's the author of The Coming Collapse of China and
Speaker 1: he also writes for various publications. You can see everything
Speaker 1: at Gordon Gordon Chang dot com. Uh Gordon. The paying
Speaker 1: for the Chinese side of the equation will be what, well,
Speaker 1: it could very well be UM throwing their economy into um,
Speaker 1: you know, into chaos and turmoil. Could be the end
Speaker 1: of the Chinese political system as we know it. Um.
Speaker 1: All sorts of things could happen because right now China
Speaker 1: is not growing at the six point nine pace that
Speaker 1: they claim for last year. It's actually growing at less
Speaker 1: than half that which means the U s economy is
Speaker 1: legitimately growing faster than China's. Um. They've got a lot
Speaker 1: of debt. They're accumulating debt at the pace of about
Speaker 1: a year. They're in trouble and UM so anything that
Speaker 1: Trump can do to um undermine confidence in China will
Speaker 1: go a very long way to changing the Chinese political system. UM.
Speaker 1: That's not our goal, of course, but UM, we have
Speaker 1: the ability to put c jumping out on the street.
Speaker 1: What's the good side of this? Now? So let's let's
Speaker 1: say that Trump nax I mean, you already did sign
Speaker 1: today some of these these actions. But if he continues
Speaker 1: on this path and things go as well as they
Speaker 1: could be reasonably expected to go for the American side,
Speaker 1: the folks listening to us right now across the country, Gordon, Um,
Speaker 1: is there is there a light at the end of
Speaker 1: the tunnel, because right now people are just seeing the
Speaker 1: Dow get pummeled hundreds and hundreds of points today and
Speaker 1: they're saying, what the heck is going on? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, the markets don't like uncertainty, they don't like disruptions.
Speaker 1: But the current relationship with China where they take somewhere
Speaker 1: between two hundred billion dollars of US intellectual property a
Speaker 1: year is completely unsustainable. Um so Um, this trade relationship,
Speaker 1: and indeed the relationship with Beijing in general, has got
Speaker 1: to change. Um so. Um. You know, the markets won't
Speaker 1: like it, um and they could very well get worse.
Speaker 1: But um, you know, the Chinese know that Trump held
Speaker 1: um ways to really cause extreme pain for China. So, uh,
Speaker 1: is this more of an I mean, Gord, is this
Speaker 1: more of a national secure already imperative in your mind?
Speaker 1: Or is it an economic imperative or is it just
Speaker 1: a straight up combination of both fifty It's certainly both because, Um,
Speaker 1: the way we pay for our military, the way we
Speaker 1: defend ourselves is having a vibrant economy, and the Chinese
Speaker 1: are taking intellectual property, which is the heart of the
Speaker 1: American economy. We don't make things as we used to.
Speaker 1: What we do as we innovate, we create technology, and
Speaker 1: the Chinese are stealing it. And that is a mortal
Speaker 1: threat to the United States. It's not just economy, it's
Speaker 1: national security as well. So um, it's a combination of both.
Speaker 1: And so this is an existential challenge to American society.
Speaker 1: We actually had the FBI Director Christopher Ray talking about
Speaker 1: this exact issue ultimately is going to have a real
Speaker 1: impact on American jobs, American businesses, and American consumers. So
Speaker 1: is that, in fact, Gordon, your read too that that
Speaker 1: this is going to have down the line impacts that
Speaker 1: will be helpful? Well, I think it has to be
Speaker 1: helpful because we can't really be any worse than we
Speaker 1: are at this particular time. Um. And I actually think
Speaker 1: because we I think the Chinese are going to be
Speaker 1: low to retaliate if they believe that President Trump is political.
Speaker 1: Will you know, they have been um successful at a
Speaker 1: trade war or whatever you want to call it for
Speaker 1: a very long time because Americans have tried to integrate
Speaker 1: China into the international system, not imposed costs, try to
Speaker 1: be accommodating. Um. But um, you know, if the President
Speaker 1: of the United States is willing to use all the
Speaker 1: elements of American power, the Chinese are going to realize
Speaker 1: that they can no longer continue to do what they've done,
Speaker 1: I mean increasingly predatory trade practices, closing off the Chinese
Speaker 1: market to American companies, stealing US intellectual property. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's there to like with about this? Is there a way,
Speaker 1: is there a future in which you see Gordon a
Speaker 1: China that is no longer in the grips of authoritarianism?
Speaker 1: Is this also going to have a long term political
Speaker 1: effect if the United States, as you say, uses all
Speaker 1: the tools it's this at its disposal and sees this
Speaker 1: through well. First of all, Buck, China is not in
Speaker 1: the grips of authoritarianism. It's now in the grips of totalitarianism.
Speaker 1: Siejun Paying, the current Chinese ruler, has taken China back
Speaker 1: to more control. Um. His belief is that he should
Speaker 1: have absolute control over the party at the Communist Party,
Speaker 1: and the Communist Party should have absolute control over society.
Speaker 1: And he's been very effective in both of those goals.
Speaker 1: So this is a very different China than it was
Speaker 1: five ten years ago. UM. And yes, Um, that system
Speaker 1: is fragile. Um. We know that there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people in China who don't like what's going on.
Speaker 1: Siejun Paying has been destabilizing the Communist Party's relatively stable
Speaker 1: institutionalized system that we've seen over the last five ten years.
Speaker 1: So a lot of things could go very wrong, especially
Speaker 1: if Trump decides that he is not going to take
Speaker 1: it anymore and I think that probably our president is
Speaker 1: getting there. May not be there yet, Buck, but um,
Speaker 1: you can see with the way we've defined China as
Speaker 1: a threat in the national security strategy and in the
Speaker 1: national defense strategy, and with what he's been doing on
Speaker 1: tariffs and trade, it's very much a different relationship, and
Speaker 1: I think Beijing has got to be extremely alarmed at
Speaker 1: these developments. Gordon Chang is the author of the Coming
Speaker 1: Collapse of China. Also follow him on Twitter as well. Gordon,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for for being with us here
Speaker 1: in the show. We always appreciate it. Thank you. Buck.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, we're gonna roll into a quick break.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be back with a whole lot more, including
Speaker 1: some updates on on the Vegas shooter coming later on
Speaker 1: in the show. On the Vegas shooting from some time ago.
Speaker 1: You're you're gonna want to hear that we've got some
Speaker 1: new information to share. We'll be right back. Wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: I've actually got something else breaking news here. Oh my,
Speaker 1: oh my Bolton to replace Nick Master as National Security Advisor.
Speaker 1: Another exit from the White House happening live as we
Speaker 1: are on air. Oh my, I Bolton to replace McMaster,
Speaker 1: the mustache is replacing Mr Clean. That's right, that's my
Speaker 1: national security analysis. All right, we got more. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. So McMaster is out and Ambassador Bolton is
Speaker 1: in as the National Security Advisor. That is the breaking
Speaker 1: news I have for you here on the show. Um.
Speaker 1: I will tell you that McMaster always had a good reputation.
Speaker 1: But there are a few things. One is, he was
Speaker 1: one of these guys who was I'm pretty sure he
Speaker 1: was in the don't say radical Islamic terror camp, which
Speaker 1: I just disagree with and always have and always will.
Speaker 1: So that's that's already. That's strike one from from my perspective. Um,
Speaker 1: But he was a well respected and smart guy. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna there's nothing nothing but um from people that
Speaker 1: I know who worked with them, And this isn't like
Speaker 1: I've I've heard from fellow journalists. I'm talking about people
Speaker 1: that either worked on the Mill or Intel side who
Speaker 1: knew new McMaster. They said he was a sharp guy,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure he did a good job for the president,
Speaker 1: and you know it's not. But we're seeing the realignment
Speaker 1: based on on policy and vision. So you know, McMaster
Speaker 1: is not being asked to depart or is not departing
Speaker 1: of his own volition. I'm not sure how the the
Speaker 1: change happened. I don't know if there was a an
Speaker 1: actual a request for resignation. We'll see. I just know
Speaker 1: this has literally been breaking while we're on air here.
Speaker 1: But NC Master was was a good man and I
Speaker 1: think served as well as he could and I think
Speaker 1: probably did a very competent job as a national Grey advisor.
Speaker 1: But Bolton is gonna be very much aligned with Trump
Speaker 1: on issues like North Korea, on the Iran deal, which
Speaker 1: is gonna be a whole that's a whole new ball
Speaker 1: game for Iran. You want to talk about disrupting the
Speaker 1: status quo, um, Bolton is not going to take the
Speaker 1: nonsense on on Iran. And he has a mustache that
Speaker 1: really is it should be able to be trademarked. His
Speaker 1: mustache is awesome. I heard somebody say that Trump said
Speaker 1: that he wanted to be shaved once. I remember that
Speaker 1: was like a rumor out there. I completely disagree. The
Speaker 1: Bolton stash is a great thing. It's up there with
Speaker 1: the bernankey beard, which was also I mean the thing
Speaker 1: about Bernanky without the beard, it's like Samson without the hair.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't work, It doesn't make sense. I think
Speaker 1: Bolton will do a good job and this is gonna
Speaker 1: have in terms of what this means, why why should
Speaker 1: we all care Iran deal that's on the table now
Speaker 1: in a way that it wouldn't have been with McMaster
Speaker 1: in uh in the role of national security advisor, or
Speaker 1: at least now you have a national security advisor who's
Speaker 1: gonna be working with the president tighten, tighten the screws
Speaker 1: on Iran and also on North Korea. Bolton knows a
Speaker 1: North Korea shoe backwards and forwards. One more note, I'll say,
Speaker 1: on the good side of things for Bolton, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of national security analysts who go on TV
Speaker 1: who honestly aren't very smart. I'm not gonna name names,
Speaker 1: because that would be mean. You want me to name names.
Speaker 1: I'll name names. I'll name him. No, No, I won't,
Speaker 1: I won't name him. Uh. But there are a lot
Speaker 1: of nashcurity advisors, I mean the national security analysts noted,
Speaker 1: a lot of national security advisors. A lot of these
Speaker 1: analysts go on TV and I'm like, well, the person
Speaker 1: may have spent a long time working for the government,
Speaker 1: and their service may have been honorable, but they don't
Speaker 1: have very much to add to the conversation right now.
Speaker 1: A Bolton is not is not in that category. He's
Speaker 1: a very smart guy. Um, I know who the phone are.
Speaker 1: Bolton is not a phony. I think it's really interesting
Speaker 1: that CNN and the announcement refer it says Fox News
Speaker 1: analysts becoming national Security advisor. It's like or former US
Speaker 1: ambassador to the United Nations. It's like a guy who's
Speaker 1: been in the government game for decades or or that.
Speaker 1: You know, you can take this one or two ways here,
Speaker 1: you know, would be like saying man with prominent white
Speaker 1: mustache becomes national security advisor or the former United States
Speaker 1: ambassador at the United Nations. You know, career lawyer and
Speaker 1: diplomat who served in a bunch of Republican administrations. You
Speaker 1: take it either way. CNN take it either way. So
Speaker 1: there we have it. And also this is just a
Speaker 1: little aside, but I think this is really meaningful. In
Speaker 1: the early days of my career, there was a show
Speaker 1: that I used to do with Fox called Red Eye.
Speaker 1: Many of you are probably familiar with it. I really
Speaker 1: I it was a joy to do that show. It
Speaker 1: was a really funny good show with a great energy
Speaker 1: and it. Uh, I learned a lot. I'm doing it
Speaker 1: early on in my career allowed me to have a
Speaker 1: little fun. Initially, they all wanted me to be very
Speaker 1: sort of serious journalist when I got into this game,
Speaker 1: and I was like, no, I've I've got other speeds, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean you all know that, but I'm talking about
Speaker 1: early on, and Red Eye was a place where we
Speaker 1: all got to. There was the there were jokes made
Speaker 1: that kind of continued on. You know, people learned that
Speaker 1: the name of my vehicle in college was in fact
Speaker 1: the Shagging Wagon. For example, that was on Red Eye. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's because it was a wood paneled station wagon that
Speaker 1: was not something that you would call a babe mobile. Uh.
Speaker 1: It was great though. Whenever somebody wanted to move their furniture,
Speaker 1: I was the coolest guy on campus because that thing
Speaker 1: had that thing had a caboose, had a caboose on it.
Speaker 1: The big it looked it's kind of like a wagon.
Speaker 1: The here it was actually a Roadmaster. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you familiar Roadmaster, but that was that was my whip.
Speaker 1: And you know, if there was if there was any
Speaker 1: rain and you tried to come to a quick stop,
Speaker 1: you were very likely to hydro playing through the intersection.
Speaker 1: But you know it was it was a good, good situation.
Speaker 1: Um So the shagging wagon that came from Red Eye,
Speaker 1: these people still tweet shagging wagon at me, like that's
Speaker 1: a that's a meme that has lasted to this day.
Speaker 1: Um But Bolton, why am I talking about this? Because Bolton,
Speaker 1: as serious a career and as serious a man as
Speaker 1: he is, he was actually a guy who would do
Speaker 1: Red Eye. And I you know what, I always respected
Speaker 1: that I was he was he was willing to uh
Speaker 1: have a little fun and play along with everyone and
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, let the stash be the stash,
Speaker 1: you know, let him do his thing. So I always
Speaker 1: like that about him, and I wish him all the best.
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's great. I wholeheartedly support
Speaker 1: support this choice by President Trump. I think it's it's
Speaker 1: a it's a wise decision. And he's got he's putting
Speaker 1: pieces around him right now in terms of senior policy
Speaker 1: personnel that are really going to um see things his way.
Speaker 1: And I'm I'm thinking that this is gonna be good
Speaker 1: because it's like a stormy sees ahead, not just with China,
Speaker 1: Iran too, and North Korea. Whoa, I'm taking along. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now, because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops. The American people
Speaker 1: didn't elect Democrats to control the United States Congress. They
Speaker 1: elected Republicans. I don't think we told the voters when
Speaker 1: we were running for the job, and they gave us
Speaker 1: the privilege to come here and serve that we were
Speaker 1: going to continue to fund planned parents who We're gonna
Speaker 1: restrict Second Amendment liberties. Let some bureaucrats take away your
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights, not a court of law. I don't
Speaker 1: think they said we were gonna fund this Gateway Earmark
Speaker 1: boondoggle project and not fund the border wall. I mean,
Speaker 1: the one thing we don't have fund is the one
Speaker 1: issue we all campaigned on, a border security wall, and
Speaker 1: that is not in the legislation. So it can't get
Speaker 1: any worse than this bill. I like Representative Jim Jordan,
Speaker 1: by the way, I like him, guy. Guy, rolls up
Speaker 1: the shirt sleeves and get it done. Welcome to our
Speaker 1: two of the Buck Sexton Show. By the way, that
Speaker 1: was that was Jim. That was JJ right there, dropping
Speaker 1: some truth bombs because this omnibus bill which they passed
Speaker 1: in the night, you know, and and they it's two thousand,
Speaker 1: two hundred and thirty two pages by the time the
Speaker 1: bill was passed to the time that it will go well,
Speaker 1: assuming it makes through the Senate what we run out
Speaker 1: of money tactic. We don't really want out of money,
Speaker 1: but the government is no longer funded as of what Saturday, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so no one read this thing. It's literally not possible
Speaker 1: for the members of Congress who voted on it to
Speaker 1: read it. But everyone just looks at the top line
Speaker 1: numbers and if they get the little thing that they want,
Speaker 1: they're happy. This is not the way it's supposed to run, folks.
Speaker 1: This is not the way this is supposed to happen.
Speaker 1: And I like talking about all the good things. I'm
Speaker 1: willing to take the heat for Trump's for Trump's policies
Speaker 1: on China and North Korea, and the the breaking with
Speaker 1: consensus and the shattering of the echo chamber. I'm all
Speaker 1: for it, but there also has to be some consistency
Speaker 1: here for spending for the wall, for all of the
Speaker 1: other stuff that we were promised. As I said, I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of the Trump at Jenna. Do I find
Speaker 1: Trump to be highly entertaining and in many ways just
Speaker 1: a force of nature. Absolutely, But first and foremost, I
Speaker 1: want what he said he would accomplish during his campaign.
Speaker 1: I am all in favor of it, and I wanted
Speaker 1: to happen. And I know many of you listening, most
Speaker 1: of you listening due too. I cannot sit here in
Speaker 1: good conscience and say to myself, yeah, this is this
Speaker 1: is what this is what we sign up for. I mean,
Speaker 1: Mick mulvaney, who's a sharp guy. By the way, mcmulvedy's
Speaker 1: smart dude, but you know he he likes it. But
Speaker 1: what what choice does he really have trying to get
Speaker 1: the president's priorities funded? And this omnibus bill does that.
Speaker 1: It funds national defenses, you're Sarah mentioned, It give the
Speaker 1: troops the increase that we were trying to get them
Speaker 1: in their in their compensation. It funds opioids, it fund
Speaker 1: school safety. It's a tremendous increase in workforce development, something
Speaker 1: that doesn't get a lot of attention, but this administration
Speaker 1: has been pushing since we got here. It actually starts
Speaker 1: taking a look at funding infrastructure um and it also
Speaker 1: does a lot of what we wanted, not everything we wanted,
Speaker 1: but a lot of what we wanted on immigration. I
Speaker 1: think that's a little I think he's being a bit
Speaker 1: of a salesman there, be honest with you, you know,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't doesn't really do what they wanted immigration. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's get into some of these numbers here. So
Speaker 1: we're we're gonna look at this from their perspective of
Speaker 1: two important areas or two Maine, two main regions. One
Speaker 1: you have on the one side, you have president's priorities. Right.
Speaker 1: I've actually got a little pad in front of me
Speaker 1: so I can make sure I don't going to one
Speaker 1: of my digressions where I forget what I was talking
Speaker 1: about and all of a sudden we're having a discussion
Speaker 1: about hop light tactics circa. You know. Um, but here
Speaker 1: we go. Uh, you've got priorities the president, and then
Speaker 1: you've also got the debt, which we'll talk about two
Speaker 1: debt and spending. Okay, so presidential priorities. Yes, it gives
Speaker 1: more funding for the troops, and I can be persuaded
Speaker 1: that that is a good idea, although keep in mind
Speaker 1: that the decrease in military funding was primarily a function
Speaker 1: of the sequester, which was a decrease in the increase
Speaker 1: in the rate of federal government spending that Republicans agreed
Speaker 1: to some years ago after Democrats assumed they would not,
Speaker 1: and then very rapidly thereafter. Republicans are like, whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: that's way too much, way too much austerity in terms
Speaker 1: of this. So we're just looking at priorities. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna get into the debt and spending side of a second.
Speaker 1: I know this is this is it's like we're having
Speaker 1: a wild and wild and crazy party right now. This
Speaker 1: is this is like a Malibu beach party we're having
Speaker 1: talking about the debt and the deficit. But it's important,
Speaker 1: it's important stuff. So what do we have here? We
Speaker 1: have thirty three miles of border fence in Texas, one
Speaker 1: point five billion dollars for the wall. That is. To
Speaker 1: call that a start is a little bit like me saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I am going to buy a house, so
Speaker 1: I am going to put three dollars in this piggy bank.
Speaker 1: It is true that that is a start, but it's
Speaker 1: tough for me to get all that excited about that.
Speaker 1: I think that's fair right, thirty three miles, got a
Speaker 1: lot more miles to go, and we got a mid term.
Speaker 1: Come it up. We do not have and endless uh
Speaker 1: an endless array of options, especially if the mid terms
Speaker 1: don't go our way to get this thing done. Show
Speaker 1: you got thirty three miles in Texas one point five
Speaker 1: seven billion for the wall. No one's read. This thing
Speaker 1: still has to go through the Senate, and like Trump
Speaker 1: could veto it, but I don't think he will because
Speaker 1: all of his White House is saying very nice things
Speaker 1: about it. We do. We have Paul Ryan talking, talking,
Speaker 1: whispering sweet nothings about the omnibus bill. You know, Mr
Speaker 1: like fiscal sanity. You know, he's not much of a fighter,
Speaker 1: you know, Oh he's yeah, we got let's let's hear
Speaker 1: Mr Ryan has to say, the Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: about the wall, play it on one point six billion.
Speaker 1: The one point six billion is the total? Is that wrong?
Speaker 1: Because I only heard six d fifty million total six
Speaker 1: for the entire but the voter also, you need you
Speaker 1: need fences, you need cameras, you need electronic devices. You
Speaker 1: need these, you need the air real devices to be
Speaker 1: at the police and in the mountainous areas. You can't
Speaker 1: build the wall over a mountain, so you need cameras
Speaker 1: and you need drones up there. So it's a border
Speaker 1: wall system that the Border Patrol tells us they need,
Speaker 1: and so we fund their request based on what they
Speaker 1: say they need to secure the border. And it's different
Speaker 1: kinds of all based on different kinds of conditions on
Speaker 1: the ground. And that's what we fund with a billion dollars.
Speaker 1: It's a big border there, Paul, it's a big border.
Speaker 1: Let's not let's not be silly. One point five seven
Speaker 1: billion is not going to get it done at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know he's not saying the whole wall
Speaker 1: is gonna be built, but this is this is a
Speaker 1: drop in the bucket. So let's not pretend. It also
Speaker 1: doesn't do anything about sanctuary cities. So to say, I
Speaker 1: guess they're just gonna fight that out in the courts exclusively.
Speaker 1: But to say that that is um, you know, just
Speaker 1: say that that's getting our immigration priorities is I think
Speaker 1: a stretch. I think that's a stretch. And no one
Speaker 1: has read this thing, which is also just fundamentally an
Speaker 1: issue and in terms of the priorities, the President you know,
Speaker 1: not a lot of enforcement dollars here for immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement. Nothing really new on that. Look tough to
Speaker 1: get excited about. I'll be honest with you, and I
Speaker 1: know we're supposed to say no, like this is all
Speaker 1: gonna be great. Maga, everything's gonna be amazing. You got
Speaker 1: two or fifty six to one or sixty seven was
Speaker 1: the vote in the House. Chuck Schumer likes it. I
Speaker 1: don't know, how does that make you feel about it,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer. Let's see what he asked to say. Overall,
Speaker 1: we Democrats are very happy with what we've been able
Speaker 1: to accomplish on a number of very important priorities to
Speaker 1: the middle class in America. Infrastructure, education, opioid treatment, mental health, childcare.
Speaker 1: This spending agreement brings that era of austerity to an
Speaker 1: unceremony send and represents one of the most significant investments
Speaker 1: in the middle class in decades. If that doesn't put
Speaker 1: you on edge, folks, I don't know what will. If
Speaker 1: it doesn't make you think twice about this that you've
Speaker 1: got Chuck Schumer who's basically talking about how amazing it is.
Speaker 1: We gotta have a long talk the debt is twenty
Speaker 1: one trillion dollars. I got involved in politics and media
Speaker 1: at the height of the Tea Party, really right all right,
Speaker 1: right right around that And when I when I first
Speaker 1: started doing this, it was when the Tea Party had
Speaker 1: just had that massive wave in the midterm election, and uh,
Speaker 1: it was all about the debt, the depths in and spending,
Speaker 1: and Obama was spending us into oblivion and he was
Speaker 1: trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. We understood then
Speaker 1: that this was a problem. Mathematically, it is a problem
Speaker 1: one that will eventually choke out, uh, block out and
Speaker 1: choke off a lot of I guess choke out if
Speaker 1: I want to get really aggressive about it. You know,
Speaker 1: there's that private sector spending one that is going to
Speaker 1: mean the service on the debt is going to be
Speaker 1: more than military spending within ten years on our current trajectory.
Speaker 1: So paying back the interest on this debt is going
Speaker 1: to be more than we are spending on the military
Speaker 1: within a decade. It is too much. As I've been
Speaker 1: saying to you, this does not become obvious until it
Speaker 1: is too late. It is a a problem that will
Speaker 1: require a mass of political will to tackle in advance
Speaker 1: of the crisis, or we can just wait for the crisis.
Speaker 1: What I see with this spending bill, this may be
Speaker 1: unpopular some folks, but this is what I see is
Speaker 1: just let's have a spending free for all, spending bonanza.
Speaker 1: What are you? What are the Democrats want? What do
Speaker 1: the Republicans want? Let's just get it. You know, this
Speaker 1: is sending the kids into the toys. R us may
Speaker 1: at rest in peace. Yeah, I know, it's sad, right,
Speaker 1: It's like a part of my childhood's going away, uh,
Speaker 1: sending him in and saying, you know, well, you all
Speaker 1: get to don't worry about the credit card bill. You
Speaker 1: all get to get whatever you want. Of course, everyone's
Speaker 1: gonna be happy. What happens when that bill comes to.
Speaker 1: What happens when the bill comes to, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: be on us. It's gonna be on on the generation below,
Speaker 1: the below, the boomers, the generation below, the millennials, the
Speaker 1: generations that are coming up that we haven't even named yet.
Speaker 1: They're gonna have to pay back higher taxes, slower growth,
Speaker 1: more all kinds of government restrictions and regulations in order
Speaker 1: to try to deal with the economic dislocations that will
Speaker 1: come from this. It's bad. It is bad, and I'm
Speaker 1: you know, I see a willingness to speak the truth
Speaker 1: and to be politically brave and to show leadership from
Speaker 1: this administration on a number of it. Look, immigration is
Speaker 1: a totally different discussion now because of Donald Trump. I'm
Speaker 1: not forgetting how we got here. I respect that and
Speaker 1: I know that. But he's gotta you know, you can't
Speaker 1: get that excited just because you know the quarterback is
Speaker 1: taking you fifty yards down the field. Right you gotta
Speaker 1: put points on the board. It has to be more
Speaker 1: than just the effort. And with immigration, this is not
Speaker 1: putting points up on the board. And with spending, this
Speaker 1: is I'm gonna really belabor the football analogy or this
Speaker 1: is this is a fumble. This is not good. Umm.
Speaker 1: I think Rand Paul, we can. Rand Paul has been
Speaker 1: so I picture him right now in like a montage
Speaker 1: in a track suit, you know, just just training and
Speaker 1: getting all fired up for what will inevitably be a
Speaker 1: lot of news hits and you know, maybe some filibustering
Speaker 1: or you know whatever he's got up his sleeve, because
Speaker 1: this is this is his sweet spot right now. And
Speaker 1: the problem is he's right we can't keep doing this.
Speaker 1: Why aren't we hearing more people say that. I understand,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of issues where you gotta give
Speaker 1: you gotta get the Trump administration leeway to do things differently,
Speaker 1: do things their way. You know, the our goals are aligned.
Speaker 1: I want success for them. I want success for all
Speaker 1: of us. So I'm like, all right, let's see, let's
Speaker 1: see if he can get it done. He's he's the
Speaker 1: guy that had a ninety five percent chance of losing
Speaker 1: the election according the New York Times and Election Day.
Speaker 1: He's we gotta give him a wide berth to get
Speaker 1: some things done. Spending is spending twenty one trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: Twenty one trillion dollars. This is not. This is not
Speaker 1: responsible for our government right now. It just isn't. It isn't,
Speaker 1: And I know that's not people want to hear. It's
Speaker 1: like saying that the party is out of beer. I
Speaker 1: am the waha showing up, turning off the music, telling
Speaker 1: everybody they have school tomorrow. But that's what's happening right now.
Speaker 1: We cannot keep doing this. And just for understand this,
Speaker 1: Schumer and all the rest of them, if we hit
Speaker 1: a big correction, in the market, and there's an economic downturn,
Speaker 1: and we see some rising unemployment, and you know, we
Speaker 1: have a I'm not even talking about some big reset
Speaker 1: what some people think is coming, but that's a whole
Speaker 1: separate discussion, you know, or or or a jubilee even um.
Speaker 1: But I'm talking about just a real shift in the
Speaker 1: economic wins. They're gonna Oh my gosh, they're gonna all
Speaker 1: make it Trump's fault. It's all Trump's fault, all the spending.
Speaker 1: It's so irresponsible. It's all look at what he's done,
Speaker 1: all this military spending, everything else. So I don't think
Speaker 1: that they're in this too. That's not how it's gonna
Speaker 1: play out, all right, eight four four nine hunder two
Speaker 1: eight two five. You want to call in, I've I
Speaker 1: appreciate a lot of you have called it. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: I have not gotten to your calls on the lines,
Speaker 1: but we will try to get some if you're if
Speaker 1: you're willing to be patiently, we'll try to get some
Speaker 1: coming up here in a little bit. Oh wait, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: there's one more thing before we I know we're going
Speaker 1: really late. John, pardon me for a second here, Why
Speaker 1: are we funding planned parenthood. Why is the government funny plan? Parent?
Speaker 1: If we have a Republican House, republican Senate, Republican president,
Speaker 1: why I need I need an answer to that question, folks.
Speaker 1: That's about a lot more than money. When do we
Speaker 1: fight on that? We're gonna wait till after the mid terms.
Speaker 1: Lives are at stake there, You notice, well as I do,
Speaker 1: All right, now we'll hit a break. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: So I asked the team in here on the Omnibus sill.
Speaker 1: I figured that there must be some entertaining Rand Paul
Speaker 1: audio out there, because, as we know, this is where
Speaker 1: this is where Rand steps in, This is where Rand
Speaker 1: goes big. He puts away the surfboard, and just I
Speaker 1: just always think he's like a surfer. I don't know why.
Speaker 1: I know he's from Kentucky. Not a lot of waves there.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, do you'd hanged in? He's very mellow, but
Speaker 1: he writes he's been live tweeting as he read through
Speaker 1: the two thousand, two hundred and thirty two page long
Speaker 1: Omnibus bill. And here are some of the here are
Speaker 1: some of the Randy, Randy and pardon me highlights. On
Speaker 1: page two oh seven, he writes two thousand plus pages
Speaker 1: to go reading about the ever wastefull six billion dollar
Speaker 1: National Science Foundation. He also put a photo of himself
Speaker 1: with the printed out bill, which he said took over
Speaker 1: two hours to print in his office. And I will
Speaker 1: I will tell you it is quite large. If you
Speaker 1: lifted this thing, you could wail on your packs and
Speaker 1: get bulging biceps. Bro, do you even live? Bro? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's serious. It's a big it's a big bill.
Speaker 1: You will be amazed when you see how how many
Speaker 1: pages it is and when was the last time you
Speaker 1: had a two thousand page But I've actually never read
Speaker 1: a two thousand page books, So you could tell me
Speaker 1: if you've ever done that. I think maybe I've gotten
Speaker 1: up into like the eight hundreds or nine hundreds once
Speaker 1: or twice. I don't think of ever. I don't think
Speaker 1: I've ever broken four digits with a book. Um, I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, true true confessions by Bucks accident
Speaker 1: on air so uh Page to forty oh, here's a
Speaker 1: here's a bright spot. Good news for states rights. No
Speaker 1: funds will be spent to prevent any states medical marijuana initiatives.
Speaker 1: Page to seventy eight nine hundred and sixty one million
Speaker 1: dollars to destroy our chemical weapons. Who wasn't exactly who
Speaker 1: convinced our government to pay billions to develop weapons we
Speaker 1: now find deplorable. He's got more. Here are some highlights.
Speaker 1: This is from Senator Paul's account Twitter. He's he's live
Speaker 1: tweeting his reading of the two thousand, two two page bill.
Speaker 1: One million dollars for the Cultural Antiquities Task Force. I
Speaker 1: will be honest with you, I did not I was
Speaker 1: not aware of that that we had that six point
Speaker 1: to five million for the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation,
Speaker 1: twenty million dollars for countering foreign state propaganda, twelve million
Speaker 1: dollars for countering disinformation and pressure. What does that even mean?
Speaker 1: Five million dollars for Vietnam Education Foundation grants, fifteen million
Speaker 1: dollars for U s a i D. Promoting international higher
Speaker 1: education between universities. Wow. Fifty one million dollars to promote
Speaker 1: international family planning? Why why are we paying for other
Speaker 1: places family planning? This is your tax dollars. I mean
Speaker 1: I could go, I could go all day with this rand.
Speaker 1: Paul literally is going all day with this folks, My friends,
Speaker 1: fellow conservatives patriots, Americans, do we care about this? Yes
Speaker 1: or no? He's back with you now, because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for the funk never stops. The
Speaker 1: Facebook is a is a wonderful American company, but it's
Speaker 1: no longer accompanies to it. It's a country, and they
Speaker 1: have enormous power. They knew enormous good. But we need
Speaker 1: to talk about whether Facebook has been a good steward
Speaker 1: of of our data. We need to talk about how
Speaker 1: we can preserve the good, good aspects of Facebook while
Speaker 1: stopping the corrosive effects. Their platform was weaponized by a
Speaker 1: foreign adversary, and there's still many questions about whether that
Speaker 1: adversary worked with the Trump campaign and whether that whether
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign used Facebook to amplify stolen, hacked information
Speaker 1: that the Russians were using in their campaign. Facebook at
Speaker 1: the center of the news this week for a bunch
Speaker 1: of different reasons. For Democrats, it's just Facebook is no
Speaker 1: longer among their favorite companies because they blame Facebook for
Speaker 1: Hillary's loss at some level, and so there's this surge
Speaker 1: of we need to do something about facebooks. It's been weaponized.
Speaker 1: It's an information weaponization platform that's just doing terrible things
Speaker 1: to us all over the place, and yeah, what is
Speaker 1: that Representative Swallwell, Eric Swalwell, I actually don't even know
Speaker 1: who that Yeah, that's Representatives swallow must be Okay, I
Speaker 1: don't even know what that guy is, to be honest
Speaker 1: with you, fot five of these folks run around a
Speaker 1: lot of them. So uh And that was also I
Speaker 1: was Senator Kennedy before that. Here's things going on right now.
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg has been making the rounds doing interviews, talking
Speaker 1: to people, and he is showing some showing some I
Speaker 1: don't know remorse is the right word, but he's definitely saying,
Speaker 1: you know, okay, I know, we're we're we're sorry for
Speaker 1: what's what's happened here. Um, this was a major breach
Speaker 1: of trust, and and I'm really sorry that this happened. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, we have a basic responsibility to protect people's
Speaker 1: data and if we can't do that, then then we
Speaker 1: don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people. So
Speaker 1: our responsibility now is to make sure that this doesn't
Speaker 1: happen again. And there are a few basic things that
Speaker 1: I think we need to do to ensure that. One
Speaker 1: is making sure that developers like Alexander Cogan, who got
Speaker 1: access to a lot of information and then um improperly
Speaker 1: used to just don't get access to as much information
Speaker 1: going forward. I mean, Zuckerberg has all the charm of
Speaker 1: a pungent burp, so I don't think his political future
Speaker 1: is what some others do. Although then again, how some
Speaker 1: people get really far without having much the way a charm. Um,
Speaker 1: But Zuckerberg is not a guy that I think is
Speaker 1: going to get the masses on his side. It's it's
Speaker 1: also hard to It's it's hard to pull off the
Speaker 1: everyman routine of a politician if you're wealthy. It's really hard.
Speaker 1: If you're like seventy billion dollars wealthy, that's gonna be
Speaker 1: a tough one. Min. I've struggled with bills too. It's difficult. Um.
Speaker 1: But why he is taking this position is a is
Speaker 1: a surprise to me because Facebook didn't really do anything wrong. Um.
Speaker 1: Facebook could also very easy to say everyone needs to
Speaker 1: calm down and stop acting like this is such a
Speaker 1: big deal. Instead though they are, and this is from
Speaker 1: the CEO on down saying oh no, well we'll address
Speaker 1: this right away. Now. There are a couple of things here.
Speaker 1: Maybe this is just the pr strategy. Maybe this is
Speaker 1: just about not wanting to upset users and look bad,
Speaker 1: and the Silicon Valley companies spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: trying to convince everybody that they're just these forces for good. Um,
Speaker 1: So there's that, There's that aspect of it, but there
Speaker 1: might be something else at work here. I just want
Speaker 1: to just want to experiment this for a second, because
Speaker 1: there's some other stuff that Zuckerberg said like this. I
Speaker 1: actually I am not sure we shouldn't be regulated it. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think in general technology is an increasing
Speaker 1: um increasingly important trend in in the world, and I
Speaker 1: actually think the question is more what is the right
Speaker 1: regulation rather than yes or no should it be regulated?
Speaker 1: Why would the CEO of one of the most profitable
Speaker 1: companies in the history of a planet. The capital efficiency
Speaker 1: of Facebook is is like a wonder of the modern age.
Speaker 1: How much money it makes on the money it spends.
Speaker 1: It's incredible. It is a like the biggest a T
Speaker 1: M machine to have ever been built. Why would the
Speaker 1: CEO be saying this regulations? Maybe it's because the ideologically
Speaker 1: is just inclined to accept state intervention in his enterprise.
Speaker 1: That's possible. That's possible. And right now he's just kind
Speaker 1: of saying this stuff because Facebook has gotten a bit
Speaker 1: of heat. People are, Oh, but but he's going to
Speaker 1: pass because it's all about Trump. And now now the
Speaker 1: Camera j Analytica is increasingly looking like it's not even
Speaker 1: a good psychological warfare operation. I mean, it's such nonsense.
Speaker 1: And I knew it was nonsense from the start. I've
Speaker 1: known people who have been like, Oh, we're gonna take this,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna anytime somebody tells you they've got an
Speaker 1: algorithm for you that's gonna answer some question that nobody
Speaker 1: else has been able to answer, you need to be
Speaker 1: very skeptical. All Right, it's not that easy. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna have an algorithm's gonna tell you know everything you
Speaker 1: need to know. Nope, very difficult to do. Um. But
Speaker 1: there's another possibility here, which is that Facebook understands that
Speaker 1: government regulation, that big government and big business go hand
Speaker 1: in hand. This has been very true of banks and
Speaker 1: investment banking, a lot of the other financial sector activities
Speaker 1: out there. They're like, yeah, DoD Frank, it's very expensive,
Speaker 1: it's bad for us, but it also is anti competitive
Speaker 1: because regulatory costs, as we all know, are quite real.
Speaker 1: And if Facebook has to deal with all these regulations,
Speaker 1: and if that then involves you know, legal costs and
Speaker 1: just compliance costs for the for the staff and everyone else,
Speaker 1: it just means that the likelihood of their being competitor
Speaker 1: social media networks is lessened. There's nothing that Facebook does,
Speaker 1: it's all that that that's all that magical. It's just
Speaker 1: the best of what has been tried in this realm.
Speaker 1: Wasn't even the first, as you know, sorry friends, turn
Speaker 1: my space. Um, it wasn't the first one, but it
Speaker 1: was one that caught on the most. And it hasn't
Speaker 1: really evolved in amazing way since the initial first few
Speaker 1: years of it. I mean, it's you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of other places where you can do pretty similar stuff,
Speaker 1: but it is right now the dominant force. It is
Speaker 1: the eight pound guerrilla in the social media space. And
Speaker 1: so the mere invitation for government regulation to me seems
Speaker 1: to be indicative of, yeah, let's regulate it, and let's
Speaker 1: let's make it so that any other company that wants
Speaker 1: to do this is gonna have incredible compliance costs, have
Speaker 1: real liability under the FTC. For example, for any any
Speaker 1: misuse of data. Compliance with data misuse issues gonna go skyrocketed,
Speaker 1: And the more the government gets involved, the higher the
Speaker 1: cost of business becomes. As you know, Facebook can handle
Speaker 1: any cost of business. Really, I mean, realistically, could somebody
Speaker 1: who wants to create something that's better than Facebook, which
Speaker 1: right now we think, oh, that's not possible, but the
Speaker 1: history of innovation tells us it's just a matter of
Speaker 1: time and it is quite possible. I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: reach a place where there's a political schism in the
Speaker 1: social media world, meaning people are just realized that you
Speaker 1: can't build a business around YouTube and Facebook, or you
Speaker 1: can't be reliant on YouTube and Facebook for your business,
Speaker 1: when in fact they can decide to shut you off
Speaker 1: because they've changed their mind about firearms, that changed their
Speaker 1: mind about servative speech, or any number of things. So
Speaker 1: there's gonna be more of a push for this, and
Speaker 1: everything seems like it's gonna last forever until it doesn't,
Speaker 1: and nothing lasts forever. So that's what I have to
Speaker 1: say about Facebook. And I've got some other news that
Speaker 1: I meant to get to earlier. I'm gonna return to now.
Speaker 1: On James Clapper, I almost said Jake Tapper, because it
Speaker 1: rhymes with Clapper. That's a different dude on on Clapper,
Speaker 1: the former d N I might be this is the
Speaker 1: this is one of these stories I read, I go.
Speaker 1: You know, it doesn't seem like a big deal. This
Speaker 1: could be a very big deal. Actually, what am I
Speaker 1: talking about? Well, as though we're finding out who's gonna
Speaker 1: get the final rows, you're gonna have to wait until
Speaker 1: after the break. So James Clapper is very on me
Speaker 1: with the press. Um. I don't know if he's now
Speaker 1: officially a SCENA contributor, but he's on CNN all the time.
Speaker 1: And I know that former CI director Brennan is an
Speaker 1: NBC senior national security analyst. I think class Clapper. I
Speaker 1: think Clappers on contract with CNN now very chummy with
Speaker 1: and very anti Trump, very chummy with journalists, and has
Speaker 1: a history of difficulty with the truth in public. Regarding
Speaker 1: the public, Clapper is nonetheless very welcome over at CNN,
Speaker 1: where they think that bureaucrats of long service equals genius
Speaker 1: and on unimpeachable integrity, which is unfortunately not the case.
Speaker 1: But something very interesting came up today about Clapper specifically,
Speaker 1: and this is Katherine Herrod from Fox News reporting on it.
Speaker 1: The allegation is that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper,
Speaker 1: this is the person who oversees all of the intelligence
Speaker 1: agencies and whose primary responsibility is the protection of gasified information.
Speaker 1: They say the following that he quote provided inconsistent testimony
Speaker 1: about contacts with the media, including CNN. Of course, he
Speaker 1: is now a CNN contributor. And based on our reporting,
Speaker 1: the line of questioning by the committee focused on that
Speaker 1: Trump Tower briefing in January, which is when the president
Speaker 1: was told for the first time about the unverified Trump dossier.
Speaker 1: And as you remember, that briefing was leaked to the
Speaker 1: media and that's really how the dossier story got into
Speaker 1: the mainstream. The efforts of Fusion, GPS and the fall
Speaker 1: of to do that really had not been successful. But
Speaker 1: the leaking of the briefing at Trump Tower really accomplished that.
Speaker 1: One thing that has been lost somewhat in all the
Speaker 1: discussions over Russia collusion and all that is where did
Speaker 1: the leaks come from? The leagues to the New York Times,
Speaker 1: Washington Post and some others CNN, uh, and I mean
Speaker 1: leak leaks like classified information and finding its way to reporters,
Speaker 1: all in an effort to hurt the Trump administration, undermines
Speaker 1: specific individuals and the Trump administration, most notably the president himself.
Speaker 1: Where did all that come from? How many people have
Speaker 1: been found as the source of those leagues? Zero so far,
Speaker 1: But that may change. I don't believe that mid level
Speaker 1: people at d O J or or you know, any
Speaker 1: of the intel agencies are deciding to take it upon
Speaker 1: themselves to wage one man or one woman warfare against
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. The seniors do that. At the top level,
Speaker 1: the executive suite, the people with a lot of access
Speaker 1: who are already used to interacting with the media in
Speaker 1: a way that the rank and files don't. The rank
Speaker 1: and file risk their jobs for hanging out with the
Speaker 1: media in some of these places. I mean, you cannot
Speaker 1: do it. But the top folks, you know, they go
Speaker 1: to fancy parties and they'll go to the correspondence dinner
Speaker 1: and all that. How is it that we haven't found
Speaker 1: any of them yet? Well, I think the answer to
Speaker 1: that is that we haven't looked particularly hard. Well, that
Speaker 1: might be changing. I know Attorney General Sessions, friend of
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt, I know that he is looking into
Speaker 1: this matter specifically because the crimes were committed, no question,
Speaker 1: crimes were committed. Assuming that information was classified, and we
Speaker 1: have every reason to believe it is, then that would
Speaker 1: be illegal. But wouldn't it be interesting to see if
Speaker 1: the former Director of National Intelligence may have may have,
Speaker 1: I can't say did, but may have leaked information about
Speaker 1: a dossier to get the whole thing started. Um, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry the briefing on the dossier specifically, like like told
Speaker 1: the media that Trump had to be told about the dossier.
Speaker 1: That is a form in itself of recular reporting. Right.
Speaker 1: If you are the d n I and you are
Speaker 1: making the choice of what goes into the president's folder,
Speaker 1: and you include some crap, lousy dossier that you know
Speaker 1: includes this stuff about the Golden showers and all that
Speaker 1: just garbage, but you make that decision, and then you
Speaker 1: also you also decide to tell the press that the
Speaker 1: decision was made to include that in the briefing. You've
Speaker 1: created that news cycle, You've created that story wholesale. Right.
Speaker 1: Not only are you telling the press something you shouldn't,
Speaker 1: but you are the reason that that thing happened in
Speaker 1: the first place. That you then chose to tell the
Speaker 1: press about almost like what we've seen all along with
Speaker 1: the dossier and the efforts to use it in the
Speaker 1: files a court and everything else. Right the you know,
Speaker 1: one source was used to support another source, which was
Speaker 1: used to report the initial source which was used to
Speaker 1: get it. I mean, it's just all running around in
Speaker 1: a circle, and it's a pretty tight knit group that
Speaker 1: we're really looking at for this stuff. And I just
Speaker 1: think there's the very real possibility that we may at
Speaker 1: some point have someone who was a senior Obama administration official,
Speaker 1: very very senior, would have betrayed his or her oath
Speaker 1: and violated the law in a fit of Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: It's gonna happen. We're gonna we're gonna get somebody, and
Speaker 1: it's not gonna be some some rando that no one
Speaker 1: cares about it. It's gonna be a name, you know,
Speaker 1: And it will be very interesting to see the Democrats
Speaker 1: circle the rank and they will that person will be
Speaker 1: treated as a martyr of the of the greatest caliber.
Speaker 1: That person will be treated like the true patriot by
Speaker 1: most of the media because they're gonna their their opinion
Speaker 1: of this is, yeah, you gotta break the law. To
Speaker 1: stop Trump. Go for it, whatever you have to do,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. They're gonna be all in favor of it.
Speaker 1: So we need to keep an eye, keep an eye
Speaker 1: on that story. Um. I can't say that we know
Speaker 1: yet exactly what's going to happen, but there's the very real,
Speaker 1: very real chance that at some point it will be
Speaker 1: it will be unearthed, it will emerge that one of
Speaker 1: Obama's top people was playing dirty, and I mean top
Speaker 1: people in government, in the intelligence positions. This has always
Speaker 1: been my problem with Brennan for the last week or
Speaker 1: so and before that. I expect something different from people
Speaker 1: in the intel community and people in the military. And
Speaker 1: to see all these former senior intelligence chiefs that are
Speaker 1: just partisan hacks who are leveraging that they were recently
Speaker 1: at the top of the intelligence chain for petty partisan ends.
Speaker 1: This is this is unacceptable, It is gross, and people
Speaker 1: should know that. All Right, we gotta we got a
Speaker 1: big third hour coming up here in a few moments.
Speaker 1: I just want to tell you what what we've got.
Speaker 1: I've got the update on the Las Vegas shooter case.
Speaker 1: The videos have been released. I watched them. I'll talk
Speaker 1: you through what you see in them some new information,
Speaker 1: but a lot of it is confirming what was already believed.
Speaker 1: We also will discuss some of the new information about
Speaker 1: the Austin Cereal bomber. And then I'd like to, if
Speaker 1: I have time, get to the latest on some of
Speaker 1: the what do they what do we have like a
Speaker 1: turd of the Parkland uh political movement? I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the never again kids whatever we're calling them,
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're hashtag the hashtag never you know,
Speaker 1: Hog and company. We've seen some very interesting, um, we've
Speaker 1: seen some very interesting commentary from from him recently. And
Speaker 1: the way the media is, the media is exploiting these
Speaker 1: kids in ways that I think that the kids are
Speaker 1: bringing a lot of all themselves by the media is
Speaker 1: exploiting them in ways that's really unethical. So we'll talk
Speaker 1: about that. And then also, of course I would I
Speaker 1: would be remiss if I did not note that Trump
Speaker 1: may have had his greatest single tweet ever today, which
Speaker 1: is really saying something for this president. But it is
Speaker 1: quite possible that Trump had, in the history of his
Speaker 1: Twitter account, his single best moment. That the p Stilla
Speaker 1: Trump or de la Raisi stance or whatever. You know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, We'll be back. He's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck Sexton his back. Welcome to our three
Speaker 1: of The Buck Sexton Show. We have the video to
Speaker 1: talk about from the Las Vegas mass shooting from many
Speaker 1: months ago now, but first, just some updates on the
Speaker 1: Austin serial bomber, so Mark Anthony Condite year old. We
Speaker 1: know that he blew himself up, we know he was
Speaker 1: the bomber, and now we're trying to go through the well,
Speaker 1: who was this guy? And how did this happen? How
Speaker 1: did we find ourselves in a place where this individual
Speaker 1: was trying to engage in mass murder, mass murder by bombing,
Speaker 1: And so far not a whole lot of information that
Speaker 1: suggests that we could have known that not we, but
Speaker 1: that the people around him could have known that this
Speaker 1: was happening. He was part of a Christian survivalist group
Speaker 1: I've seen that reported called riot righteous Invasion of Truth.
Speaker 1: And he was homeschooled and was taught gun skills. But
Speaker 1: there are millions of kids who are taught gun skills.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't even know how many kids
Speaker 1: are at home school. Do you have any idea. How
Speaker 1: many kids are in home skilling on It's a lot, um,
Speaker 1: But none of that sticks out, does anything to be
Speaker 1: anything unusually need to be concerned about. Just okay, So
Speaker 1: he played role playing video games. He sometimes talked about
Speaker 1: weapons and explosives, but so do a lot of people
Speaker 1: I know, Um, I mean, especially in the circles that
Speaker 1: I used to travel. And but you know this is
Speaker 1: this is not anything about him that seems to be remarkable.
Speaker 1: In the run up to this, he has extended family
Speaker 1: in Colorado. They say that nothing really about this. They
Speaker 1: didn't see it coming, and they're shocked and they don't
Speaker 1: know what the motive is. There's a twenty five minute
Speaker 1: video on his phone where he confesses to the attacks.
Speaker 1: I just had producer Mike check that no snow clips
Speaker 1: in the video are out yet. I've been looking for
Speaker 1: them all day. Um, but there's nothing. There's nothing that
Speaker 1: we can say about the video other than he admits
Speaker 1: to the attacks. I'm assuming he rambles on about a
Speaker 1: whole lot of other things. We don't have details on
Speaker 1: law enforcement from that just just yet. Um. He was
Speaker 1: caught because of his FedEx office stop. The CCTV footage
Speaker 1: and that was very important track him down, as I
Speaker 1: thought was the case at the time, and that's really
Speaker 1: all we have. Otherwise people say he's quiet, relatively you know,
Speaker 1: relatively normal, harmless, seeming twenty three year old, and turned
Speaker 1: out he was a serial bomber. How he could have
Speaker 1: how he could have transitioned into that that kind of evil,
Speaker 1: that level of darkness I have, I don't know, you know,
Speaker 1: with with Jee Hottest, I'll say this, there's a a
Speaker 1: whole psychological seduction that goes into the radicalization of of
Speaker 1: of Gee Hottests. You know, they're they're shown videos of
Speaker 1: terrible atrocities, you know, abroad, and they're they're told that
Speaker 1: that American soldiers and our allies are killing women and
Speaker 1: children and discriminately doing all kinds of terrible things, and
Speaker 1: that is there. It is their moral obligation to be
Speaker 1: a righteous soldier for for Allah and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And it's it's wrong and it's crazy, but at least
Speaker 1: it it follows a pattern, It follows the past. You
Speaker 1: understand how they do this, right, You understand how the
Speaker 1: brainwashing occurs. All of a sudden, someone could think that
Speaker 1: it would be moral or ethical or even a a
Speaker 1: necessity to kill innocent people with a suicide bomb or
Speaker 1: anything like that overseas as a gee hottest with someone
Speaker 1: like condit Ah. No history of abuse that we know about,
Speaker 1: no um, no history of severe mental illness. They're just
Speaker 1: they're just saying that he was kind of a quiet,
Speaker 1: nerdy kid and decided to become a serial bomber and
Speaker 1: went went through a lot of trouble and planning and
Speaker 1: everything else to do this. So I don't have much
Speaker 1: more for you other than that. I think we'll have
Speaker 1: a lot when the twenty five minute video is released.
Speaker 1: And also, as I mentioned, we have the video now
Speaker 1: and you can see that of the Vegas mass shooter.
Speaker 1: So that's what I've got for you on the Austin
Speaker 1: serial bomber case. I want to switch switch gears for
Speaker 1: a moment though, because and so this is a usually
Speaker 1: I don't I don't mix stories in one segment, but
Speaker 1: I just wanted to mention that there's still this movement
Speaker 1: of foot to use the some of the more visible
Speaker 1: youths from the Parkland school that was the scene of
Speaker 1: that mass school shooting for the purposes of curtailing the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment for gun confiscation or gun restriction, all that,
Speaker 1: all that stuff, and they appeared, some of those students
Speaker 1: appeared on MSNBC last night. Well, I wish you guys success,
Speaker 1: I wish you resilience. I wish you'd be continuing and
Speaker 1: lifelong ability to laugh at people who use opinions you
Speaker 1: don't care about them with you anyway, They're right here
Speaker 1: start started a Jackie car and nevs right here. They're
Speaker 1: here for me, that's right, ten million dollar a year.
Speaker 1: News anchor Rachel Maddow says she's star struck by the Parkland.
Speaker 1: Remember this is just some of the Parkland kids that
Speaker 1: got a lot of media attention because I say, what
Speaker 1: the media likes. We have an interview. This just came
Speaker 1: through and this courtesy of the Daily Wire there where
Speaker 1: I found this with David Hogg, who's probably Gonzalez is
Speaker 1: also very well known of these students pushing this anti
Speaker 1: gun agenda, but Hogg is the one who's the most
Speaker 1: well known, I think. And he gave an interview to
Speaker 1: one of these new liberal sites. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the site is even, what's it called The Outsider or something,
Speaker 1: The Outsider, the Outsider, Okay, I got it right. Look
Speaker 1: at that he gave an interview. We had to bleep
Speaker 1: it out. But this is what he says. That This
Speaker 1: is what this person who is elevated by the media
Speaker 1: by the likes of matt Ow and others, says about
Speaker 1: the nrright play the pathetic that want to keep killing
Speaker 1: our children. They could have blood from children spattered all
Speaker 1: over their face and they wouldn't take action. When you're
Speaker 1: oldest parents like I don't know how to send an
Speaker 1: I message and just like give me the phone and
Speaker 1: you take in You're like, okay, let me handle it,
Speaker 1: and you get it done in one second. Sadly, that's
Speaker 1: what we have to do with our government because our
Speaker 1: parents don't know how to use the democracy, So we
Speaker 1: have to. I think, what secrets are out there that
Speaker 1: want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children
Speaker 1: and honestly just get reelected. Where what type of person
Speaker 1: are you when you want to see more money than
Speaker 1: children's lives? What type of person does that? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the that's the vanguard now of the anti gun movement
Speaker 1: after Parkland. That's the person who's been on He was
Speaker 1: on the Bill Maher show. Of course, he's on CNN
Speaker 1: m SEC all the time. Here's what I can say. Um,
Speaker 1: he's not very smart and he's disrespectful. So you have that.
Speaker 1: That's just the truth. Uh, And the fact that all
Speaker 1: these news organizations have been elevating them up while he
Speaker 1: says things like the n r A wouldn't change their
Speaker 1: minds if they had the blood of children splattered on
Speaker 1: their faces. You a week later he'll be saying, we
Speaker 1: need respectful dialogue. But just don't forget who these people
Speaker 1: are and the adults who are putting them forward as
Speaker 1: victims to shame politicians into taking action. All those media
Speaker 1: outlets CNN, the Bill Maher Show, they should be ashamed,
Speaker 1: but they're not capable of shame. Clown shows, that's what
Speaker 1: they are. The surveillance footage is remarkable in its banality.
Speaker 1: It shows Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas gunman, in the
Speaker 1: days before his mass shooting. He cuts a lonesome figure
Speaker 1: as he moves through the Mandelaide Bay Hotel, playing video
Speaker 1: poker for hours in the casino, buying snacks at a newsstand,
Speaker 1: watching a Lebron James interview in a restaurant and The Times,
Speaker 1: chatting with hotel stuff. The Las Vegas shooter who killed
Speaker 1: fifty eight people, injured over five hundred wounded, over five hundred. UM.
Speaker 1: He there is now shown in videos that I've been
Speaker 1: released from the mental a Bagasino exclusively to the New
Speaker 1: York Times, which put out a video series on it today,
Speaker 1: which I've watched, and it's, uh, it's eerie. UM. I
Speaker 1: have to tell you, if you get the chance to
Speaker 1: watch and would, I would recommend it. You have Stephen
Speaker 1: Paddock looking like just another somewhat schlubby guy at the
Speaker 1: slot machines, you know, walking right, He's going to a
Speaker 1: sushi restaurant. He's he's playing the slots, He's going about
Speaker 1: his business, talks to some employees, every everything seems completely normal.
Speaker 1: And now we have the surveillance footage that we've all
Speaker 1: known has been around for a while, the surveillance footage
Speaker 1: of Paddock moving bag after bag after bag into his
Speaker 1: two rooms that he actually booked in the corner of
Speaker 1: the Mentelai Bay on the thirty second floor, from which
Speaker 1: he unleashed the thousand or so rounds on the music
Speaker 1: festival across the street. He planned this meticulously. He planned
Speaker 1: this meticulously, and ah, he absolutely measured it out he
Speaker 1: made some stops that you see on these videos. He
Speaker 1: made some stops at a residence that is outside I
Speaker 1: forget the name of the town, that was outside of
Speaker 1: Las Vegas. He bought a bolt action rifle, went to
Speaker 1: a shooting range. Guy like has spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time at the range. But in this video what you
Speaker 1: see or just all of these bags coming in one
Speaker 1: after another, and the rollerbags, it just it just looked
Speaker 1: like luggage. There. People were saying originally, oh, he couldn't
Speaker 1: have brought this all by himself. No, he did it
Speaker 1: over seven days, peace by peace. He's just rolling in
Speaker 1: one bag after another, rolling in one bag after another,
Speaker 1: and they're helping him with it. The staff there has
Speaker 1: no reason to believe them, and there's no signs of
Speaker 1: any kind that it is a situation that they should
Speaker 1: be concerned about. And then you just see him walking
Speaker 1: around as though he doesn't have a care in the world.
Speaker 1: Guy has all the urgency of somebody who's, yeah, a
Speaker 1: retiree who's just kind of hanging out shooting the breeze.
Speaker 1: I mean he's not. There's nothing about him. It's from
Speaker 1: couple except that the entire time, because he was he
Speaker 1: moved the weapons in over seven days. It had to
Speaker 1: be on his mind what he was gonna do. He
Speaker 1: also rented a room up the street that overlooked another festival,
Speaker 1: another music festival that was up the Las Vegas Strip,
Speaker 1: and he maybe was planning to hit that one first,
Speaker 1: or he he did. I would assume that he did
Speaker 1: reconnaissance of both and figured that the Mandalay Bay gave
Speaker 1: him a better vantage point. And then that horrific scene
Speaker 1: ensued where he just let out one once, one blast,
Speaker 1: one one series arounds after another, burst after burst after burst.
Speaker 1: You see all these modified A R s in the room.
Speaker 1: Um well, I can't actually tell the photos if they're
Speaker 1: which ones have bump stocks and which ones don't. But
Speaker 1: he's got I think at least nine long guns in there.
Speaker 1: He had extended extended magazine. I think he had a
Speaker 1: hundred round drum, but I might I might have. I
Speaker 1: might be mistaken on that one. It was methodically planned though,
Speaker 1: and there was no one helping him bring the stuff
Speaker 1: into the room, And he kept a separate room next
Speaker 1: door to the suite where he did most where he
Speaker 1: did the firing. Oh, he kept a separate room next door.
Speaker 1: You have to watch it because it is incredibly unnerving
Speaker 1: that any human being remember this way. He didn't snap.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a spur of the moment thing. He didn't.
Speaker 1: It wasn't that his wife just left him and he
Speaker 1: just wanted to kill as many people as possible any
Speaker 1: beginning of the shooting. And this this is all on
Speaker 1: video as well. It's it's tough to watch. I'll I
Speaker 1: want to be clear about that the moments the stuff
Speaker 1: in the in the casino is not at the moment
Speaker 1: he opens up, because there's a lot of first person
Speaker 1: footage from the uh the grounds of the music festival,
Speaker 1: and initially there's a couple of very faint pops. He
Speaker 1: fires off a few rounds at a time. There are
Speaker 1: two theories they talk about as to why he did this.
Speaker 1: One is that he was just trying to see if
Speaker 1: he had measured out the range properly, so he was
Speaker 1: zeroing in in before he wanted to unleash bursts, extended bursts,
Speaker 1: and the other is that he might have actually been
Speaker 1: trying to see if he could to start this whole
Speaker 1: thing off hit these fuel tanks of a jet fuel
Speaker 1: that were beyond the beyond the actual grounds of the
Speaker 1: music festival. Um, they have nothing to share at this
Speaker 1: point still about motive. It's hard to believe, but they
Speaker 1: really don't have anything to share when it comes to motive.
Speaker 1: They don't know why they don't. There's no insights that
Speaker 1: I've seen that were worth anything in terms of the
Speaker 1: analysts that are out there. Um, they've done a brain
Speaker 1: exam on him, and they just have nothing but questions here.
Speaker 1: I'd like to tell you that I have a an
Speaker 1: analysis of this that will explain things that I I
Speaker 1: think that I've got this one nailed down, and I
Speaker 1: just don't never seen anything like this. The biggest smash
Speaker 1: shooting in modern American history. And no, no, there's nothing
Speaker 1: about this guy's past, nothing about his background that would
Speaker 1: make you think, oh, well, you know he was someone
Speaker 1: to be on the lookout for. It's in that sense
Speaker 1: it's additionally terrifying. I always feel like when we know
Speaker 1: that somebody was problem, we just failed to deal with them. Well,
Speaker 1: we gotta make we gotta figure out better procedures we have,
Speaker 1: we have to come up with a way to deal
Speaker 1: with deal with them, right. But at least we know
Speaker 1: that we could have done something with this guy, I
Speaker 1: don't know, there weren't teams of people that The teams
Speaker 1: of people helping him were the bell boys, the bellhops,
Speaker 1: the you know, the staff in the Mandalay Bay that's
Speaker 1: it was helping him. They didn't know the response, and
Speaker 1: I don't know, we'll see some of you in the
Speaker 1: law enforcing community may really disagree with me here, but
Speaker 1: the response seems pretty I'm talking about in the hotel outside.
Speaker 1: You just gotta get to cover, get people to safety.
Speaker 1: Understand it's mayhem, it's carnage, and it's it's horrifying. Inside
Speaker 1: the hotel, the security response from the security guards still
Speaker 1: seems to me to be just weirdly slow. They couldn't
Speaker 1: figure out where well. I mean, they got a guy
Speaker 1: who's shooting through a door at them, and it took
Speaker 1: of I think seven minutes before they got police up there.
Speaker 1: I have to go back and even look at the timeline.
Speaker 1: I also don't understand why we were given so much
Speaker 1: incorrect information about this in the the not just the
Speaker 1: first few days, but in the really the first two
Speaker 1: weeks after. We've given timelines that were wrong. So I
Speaker 1: would recommend it if you if you are someone who
Speaker 1: still wants to know what really happened here. I mean,
Speaker 1: he transported twenty one bags over the course of seven days.
Speaker 1: He jokes with staff, he passes out tips. He's just
Speaker 1: hanging out, playing slots, eating sushi, bringing bag after bag
Speaker 1: of various semi automatic rifles into a hotel suite overlooking
Speaker 1: a concert the whole time, planning to just shoot as
Speaker 1: many innocent people as possible. It is. It is as
Speaker 1: dark and evil as it gets, and nobody could have
Speaker 1: seen this thing coming from what you see in these videos.
Speaker 1: Nobody wouldn't know. They didn't have the bright neon signs here,
Speaker 1: they didn't have the red flags, none of that. He
Speaker 1: was taking his time, and it seems to me that
Speaker 1: maybe this was just person who wanted to go out
Speaker 1: in a in a blaze of evil glory, and that's
Speaker 1: that was the only motivation that I can see to this.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. I wanted
Speaker 1: to get into if you notice in the national press
Speaker 1: talking about Trump's behavior, his personal behavior, but what he said,
Speaker 1: he did and does is a textbook definition of sexual
Speaker 1: assault and thinking, then we will think about this so
Speaker 1: he's going to talk about his person than that he said,
Speaker 1: because about famous, because I'm a star, because get a billionaire,
Speaker 1: I can do things other people can't can't. What a
Speaker 1: disgusting assertion. Gosh dang, the press always asked me, don't
Speaker 1: I wish I were debating him? No, I wish you
Speaker 1: were in high school. I could take it behind the gym.
Speaker 1: That's what I wish. Take him behind the gym, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden says. I gotta say, of all of the Trump
Speaker 1: feuds so far, this one is among my very favorite,
Speaker 1: because first, well you get Biden there, who's clearly trying
Speaker 1: to to give his his lungs of workout in preparation
Speaker 1: for a run. These guys all have the Larry King disease. Folks,
Speaker 1: they think they're the only and it's true of ladies
Speaker 1: in the profession too, but they think they're the only
Speaker 1: ones who can do the job and that they're needed.
Speaker 1: Oh where would America be without blue color? Joe Biden?
Speaker 1: The answer is exactly where we are right now, because
Speaker 1: we don't care and we don't need him. But he
Speaker 1: thinks we do, and he went after Trump there, Take
Speaker 1: him behind the high school. He says, you guys ready
Speaker 1: for the for the Trump response. First of all, I
Speaker 1: I gotta say, of all the Trump tweets, this is
Speaker 1: among my very favorite from from this morning Market down
Speaker 1: on your calendars, March, the day of the greatest Trump
Speaker 1: tweet of all time, Crazy Joe Biden. This is what
Speaker 1: Trump wrote, Crazy Joe Biden is trying to act like
Speaker 1: a tough guy. Actually he is weak, both mentally and physically,
Speaker 1: and yet he threatens me for the second time with
Speaker 1: physical assault. He doesn't know me, but he would go
Speaker 1: down fast and hard, crying all the way. Don't threaten people, Joe.
Speaker 1: I was reading this this morning. I just kept reading
Speaker 1: it over and over, and I think it might be
Speaker 1: the only tweet that I've read aloud to myself, just
Speaker 1: because I it's so fun each time you read it.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's a part of me that wanted
Speaker 1: to wanted to yell the Trump uh sweep the leg,
Speaker 1: sweep the leg. No mercy, no mercy. These guys are
Speaker 1: like ready to just tussle out there. I think they're
Speaker 1: both in there seventies. And while there is such a
Speaker 1: thing as as old man strength, I don't know if
Speaker 1: you ever come across it. But those of you who
Speaker 1: ever got on the wrong side of your grandpa, you
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about. Old man strength is a
Speaker 1: real thing. It's fierce, it's there, and it surprises you.
Speaker 1: But I, first of all, if we if we did
Speaker 1: go back in time, Trump, Trump is like six three
Speaker 1: and he's actually a pretty big dude. So way back
Speaker 1: I see. But now I was gonna say, way back
Speaker 1: in the day, clearly Trump would be victorious if they
Speaker 1: were to have gaged engaged in pugilistic combat of some
Speaker 1: kind high school Biden, I'm talking about now in high
Speaker 1: school Trump, Um, But now I think they should be
Speaker 1: a little bit, a little bit beyond this. Uh. It's
Speaker 1: a little bit like the scene and step Brothers and
Speaker 1: I have you seen that movie where they're just like
Speaker 1: wrestling out in the lawn and it's all going crazy
Speaker 1: and haywire. But of all of the all of the
Speaker 1: Trump tweets all time quote, he doesn't know me, but
Speaker 1: he would go down fast and hard, crying all the way.
Speaker 1: Don't threaten people. Joe is among my very favorites. Reminds
Speaker 1: me this this kid that I knew growing up. His
Speaker 1: name was his name was Kyle, and we were all
Speaker 1: at the gym once and we saw his dad, and
Speaker 1: his dad had old man strength. You know. His dad
Speaker 1: was one of these guys who would be out there
Speaker 1: and you could see like there was a fierceness. There
Speaker 1: wasn't a lot of we weren't a lot of weight
Speaker 1: plates moving, but there was a fierceness in all of
Speaker 1: the Cibex machine, you know, all the Nautilus machine movements
Speaker 1: that he was doing. You know, like like he was angry.
Speaker 1: You know, he was in his fifties and he was angry.
Speaker 1: Um and I was like a teenager. We're talking about
Speaker 1: back in the day here, And I just remember he said,
Speaker 1: is the son walked over to dad and he's like,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, Dad, you know you keep working out
Speaker 1: and you may be able to actually, you know, go
Speaker 1: a few rounds with me. You said something kind of
Speaker 1: you know, Josh and him just messing around a little bit,
Speaker 1: and his dad goes, kylie, oh, if if if it
Speaker 1: were you and me, there'd be two sounds, me hitting
Speaker 1: you and you hitting the floor. I always remembered that.
Speaker 1: I was like, okay, gets the point across the silly
Speaker 1: tough guy talk from any any politician at this point,
Speaker 1: it's pretty pretty funny. Um, I just like that Trump
Speaker 1: told Trump called him uh mentally and physically weak. Just
Speaker 1: look across the board. Don't get into an insult contest
Speaker 1: with Trump. This is like getting into a prickly contest
Speaker 1: with a porcupine. Folks, you will lose. Trump is better
Speaker 1: at the insults. He is just better at the insults
Speaker 1: than the opposition. They of all the places they're gonna go,
Speaker 1: this is the one that they should be the most
Speaker 1: certain they will lose. He really has a gift for
Speaker 1: nicknames and slapping people down. For for buckslapping people if
Speaker 1: you will. It was like you never is gonna get
Speaker 1: John's actually very simple, although I guess we'd have to
Speaker 1: call it a Trump slab. I guess. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: hit a break here, will be back with roll call.
Speaker 1: Let's get right to it because we have a lot
Speaker 1: of great messages today. Let's hop in to the roll call,
Speaker 1: Team Buck. It's time for roll call. All right. These
Speaker 1: are coming to us courtesy of our email box, which
Speaker 1: is official Team Buck at gmail dot com. And you
Speaker 1: shall now hear from yourselves out there across the country.
Speaker 1: We have Ryan in New York who writes, Hello Buck,
Speaker 1: love the show, love your insight, and maybe above all else,
Speaker 1: love the wit. Well. Thank you, Ryan. I'm typically a
Speaker 1: day or two behind because I primarily listened to your podcast,
Speaker 1: and most often doing that during my commutes to and
Speaker 1: from work. On the subject of school safety, I've often
Speaker 1: wondered why we aren't simply uh coside ring an approach
Speaker 1: whereby we bulletproof walls, windows and doors. Perhaps there's even
Speaker 1: a cost sensible approach to it. For example, is there
Speaker 1: such a thing as a kevlar membrane that would be
Speaker 1: installed beneath a layer of sheet rock hurricane proof windows
Speaker 1: would stop small caliber bullets, the point being that the
Speaker 1: school would become a safe haven rather than shooting a
Speaker 1: fish in a barrel. With that set, I'm very much
Speaker 1: in favor of concealed carry for license gun owners, which
Speaker 1: would also be a deterrent. Of course, like any rational person,
Speaker 1: I know that nothing will stop a highly motivated psycho.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being a voice of reason in a
Speaker 1: world of lunacy and deception. Shields high from Ryan, Ryan,
Speaker 1: I'm with you on the concealed carry, and we obviously
Speaker 1: just saw a couple of days ago a armed school
Speaker 1: resources officer who stopped a shooting and confronted and killed
Speaker 1: a school shooter. So the evidence is clear on that
Speaker 1: it can work, It can help, It can stop mass
Speaker 1: loss of life in a school. In terms of hardening
Speaker 1: the targ it as a function of the facility making
Speaker 1: the walls bulletproof. It's just cost prohibitive for one, and
Speaker 1: I don't know that that would really stop all that
Speaker 1: much because remember, sure people can be hit through doors
Speaker 1: and through walls, but for the most part, a shooter
Speaker 1: is going to be trying to shoot the people that
Speaker 1: he sees out in the hallway in a school. And
Speaker 1: on top of it, I just am one of the
Speaker 1: few people I feel like he's willing to say it.
Speaker 1: But it is true. School shootings are not as common
Speaker 1: and as a large a problem from a policy perspective
Speaker 1: as the media would have us believe. This is about guns.
Speaker 1: The narrative is about stopping people from owning guns. It
Speaker 1: is not primarily concerned with stopping school shootings. So thank
Speaker 1: you very much for your note. My friend um Brandy
Speaker 1: is next up here. Hi, Buck, love your show and
Speaker 1: I'm Oss original Saturday Squad. I'm a podcast listener and
Speaker 1: just now matching up on Friday show, including the Irish
Speaker 1: movie quotes. I recall a listener once suggest that you
Speaker 1: check out the movie Boondocks Saints, so I have to
Speaker 1: reiterate that suggestion because that has to be the best
Speaker 1: Saint Patrick's movie out there, although as an animal lover,
Speaker 1: I would recommend just fast forwarding through the cat scene
Speaker 1: as it is pretty awful. Well, Brandy, thank you for
Speaker 1: the note. I have never seen Boondocs Saints. I had
Speaker 1: some friends in college who were big fans of the movie,
Speaker 1: and somehow it escaped some of my weekend movie binge
Speaker 1: sessions when I was an undergrad. I believe it's ultra violent,
Speaker 1: so I might have to either fast forward or skip
Speaker 1: around a bit. Uh. But well, I'll check it out.
Speaker 1: I'll see if I can get it on demand on
Speaker 1: my TV. Here, and thank you very much Brandy for
Speaker 1: being oss and for your note. We have another email
Speaker 1: in here, remember official Team Buck at gmail dot com
Speaker 1: if you want to send us your thoughts. Greetings Buck,
Speaker 1: Hope you're well. Um, this comes what was a lot
Speaker 1: in here. This is from Dave. Very glad to hear
Speaker 1: your comments about the land situation in South Africa. It
Speaker 1: is not surprising this is not covered in the news.
Speaker 1: Maybe when the slaughter starts, but I have been aware
Speaker 1: of this for some time. Ms Molly is also very
Speaker 1: popular here in Alabama, Alabama. Let her know this. Some
Speaker 1: of the things and these emails will not be appropriate
Speaker 1: for her. And don't be a fool. Marry the girl
Speaker 1: if she will have you. Um, okay, thank you. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'm gonna skip around here, and uh, I appreciate
Speaker 1: very much the kind note from the Alabama self titled
Speaker 1: Bucks Alabama Fan Club Shields High. And then we get
Speaker 1: one more coming up here on school safety. I'll wait, no,
Speaker 1: that was we already did that one. Excuse me, folks. Uh,
Speaker 1: here we go, Daniel, right hey, Buck love the show.
Speaker 1: I've been a podcast listener since you first filled in
Speaker 1: for Rush. I love the history podcast. But I get
Speaker 1: us that's dead. Now. It's not dead, Daniel, we are.
Speaker 1: I've just pulled in many directions. It's not dead. I
Speaker 1: promise you. It's gonna come back, and it's going to
Speaker 1: have a place where it will live. Uh. And we're
Speaker 1: gonna add more to it and we I just needed
Speaker 1: to do a test run of it. And then I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go back and figure out a way to continue
Speaker 1: it and make it sustainable. And it really has to
Speaker 1: do with the time that we're spending on it and
Speaker 1: whether we go with a a subscription model for the
Speaker 1: podcast or an advertiser model, because I can't have uh,
Speaker 1: the studio time and the things that I do for
Speaker 1: it if it's gonna just gonna continue on as a
Speaker 1: as a product that we don't treat as a business,
Speaker 1: right that that's really the issue with the podcast. We
Speaker 1: have enough downloads for it to be a business. We
Speaker 1: just need to figure out which side of the business
Speaker 1: we're gonna go in. But that's what it is. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it just comes down to dollars and cents in life.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm hoping that there will be just
Speaker 1: a few thousand folks out there even if we do
Speaker 1: go subscription route, uh, and it would be the price
Speaker 1: of a cup of coffee once a month. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what we're talking about, Um, that there'll be enough
Speaker 1: folks that really appreciate it that if we did it
Speaker 1: once weekly, they'd be willing to subscribe. So that's the hope,
Speaker 1: and that's we're working on it. Just trying to fill
Speaker 1: in the back inside of that. Alright. Next up here
Speaker 1: we have Daniel Hey Buck Love the show. No sorry,
Speaker 1: it's a continuation of my bad Daniel. I've got coffee
Speaker 1: brain right now. I've been drinking too much caffeine and
Speaker 1: it means that the synapses are firing too quickly. Anyway,
Speaker 1: black and white movie recommendation is Doctor Strange Glove. Honestly,
Speaker 1: it is inexcusable that you haven't seen it yet. Also,
Speaker 1: in the war against the Dad Bod, you need to
Speaker 1: enlist the Jocko podcast. You had him on the show.
Speaker 1: Truly a great and inspirational guy. He's got my lazy
Speaker 1: self up and getting after it at oh four hundred
Speaker 1: every day. Thanks for the great show, Shields high and
Speaker 1: never forget it's all in the reflexes from Daniel. And
Speaker 1: now we will get into the Facebook of part of
Speaker 1: Roll Call for a couple of minutes at least we'll
Speaker 1: have a big round up of Facebook messages. We got
Speaker 1: a ton this week on Friday for our freestyle. But
Speaker 1: here's what we get it. If you want to join
Speaker 1: in the fun Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton I'm
Speaker 1: in writes Hello, Mr Sexton, just wanted to say I
Speaker 1: love your show. Always a thriller every night I listened
Speaker 1: on I Heart Radio, still trying to get a handle
Speaker 1: on the times you guys come on, meaning Beck, Hannity,
Speaker 1: Rush and you podcast. My ten year old showed me
Speaker 1: what it was and I'm only thirty seven. But I
Speaker 1: have to ask, are you the secret brother of Chucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: You guys look so much alike. I don't believe Tucker
Speaker 1: and I are related, but you got Tucker in Buck.
Speaker 1: Sounds like a great buddy cop show maybe or something
Speaker 1: Tucker and Buck or I don't know, maybe not a
Speaker 1: cop show, but some kind of a show. It was
Speaker 1: very nice to Tucker to have me on this show
Speaker 1: earlier on in the week. As to when I him
Speaker 1: on six to nine. Easter is when I'm on. That's
Speaker 1: when I'm on the I Heart app. You can also
Speaker 1: always listen to my going to Buck Sexton dot calm
Speaker 1: uh here we go, Hold on a second, um whoa
Speaker 1: uh oh boy, Bud, don't know where to start with
Speaker 1: your coverage of Marcus meet him tonight. First off, I
Speaker 1: will say I love your show. You're even keeled. Don't
Speaker 1: resort to add homed this is from Gentry. Don't resort
Speaker 1: to add hominem often, and your points are well researched
Speaker 1: and thought out normally. That being said, he was not
Speaker 1: making a Nazi joke. He was, in every sense of
Speaker 1: the actual context, making an anti Nazi joke. As a
Speaker 1: Jew myself, I found it hilarious, as the video clearly
Speaker 1: starts with them saying his girlfriend loves the dog, so
Speaker 1: he wants to make it the least cute thing he
Speaker 1: can think of. This is no different than Mitchell and
Speaker 1: Webb playing s S officers when one ponders to the other,
Speaker 1: are we the batties? Because of this skull insignia, the
Speaker 1: Nazis were obsessed with his screen name, Count Dankila has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with marijuana. It has to do with
Speaker 1: dank memes. Well, Gentry, do you know where dank Originally?
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna jump in here for a second. Dank
Speaker 1: memes is what people say now. Before that it was
Speaker 1: dank marijuana, Sir, I'm just talking about the derivation of
Speaker 1: the word um. And this goes on for quite some length. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a lot going on here. My friend Shields Higbuck,
Speaker 1: keep up the good work. Otherwise her coverage. Wasn't that bad? Um? Okay,
Speaker 1: so a few things. Gentry sank he is Jewish. He's
Speaker 1: saying it's not offensive. Look, you know, some people find
Speaker 1: it really He said he's making Joe gas the Jews.
Speaker 1: That was one of the things that he said. I
Speaker 1: think that's in really poor taste. So but I will
Speaker 1: note that I'm doing I'm doing a segment on a
Speaker 1: national radio show about this guy in the UK because
Speaker 1: I think it's crazy that he's in trouble for this.
Speaker 1: I think it's crazy that he's been kicked off of you.
Speaker 1: You've been going to prison for this. So I'm I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of the free speech here. I think that
Speaker 1: was clear from the segment. If we're gonna go back
Speaker 1: and forth a little bit on whether you think that
Speaker 1: joke is offensive or not, Um, you know, to each
Speaker 1: his own on that one. And an offensiveness is is subjective,
Speaker 1: although I think this one is stretching the limits of
Speaker 1: subjectivity at some level. Um. And I also love pugs,
Speaker 1: so I hate that a pug is somehow brought into
Speaker 1: the middle of this mess. Uh So, anyway, I I
Speaker 1: appreciate it, um, and thank you for writing me and
Speaker 1: so there we get it. Some people think that it
Speaker 1: was not even offensive folks according to my inbox here, Um,
Speaker 1: I have to agree to disagree on that one. But
Speaker 1: that's actually gonna have to close out the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: for today. Although I've got about a hundred other notes
Speaker 1: here that I'd love to get to. Will pick them
Speaker 1: out for tomorrow, a bunch of them. Actually, maybe we'll
Speaker 1: do uh an elongated segment towards the end of the
Speaker 1: show tomorrow in the Freedom Hunt of just Team Bucks weeks.
Speaker 1: This is one of my look this is the part
Speaker 1: of the show that I always look forward to. So
Speaker 1: with that, I'm gonna say we'll close it out. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being here with me Tomorrow Freestyle
Speaker 1: Friday and Yes in appearance by Commie Bear Shields High