Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. When is a lie
Speaker 1: a lie? Well, if you go buy what we're seeing
Speaker 1: from the Mother's Special Council and just the way that
Speaker 1: prosecutor's offices at top levels act in general in this country,
Speaker 1: it seems like when conservatives lie, it's a crime. When
Speaker 1: liberals lie, they're just you know, doing their thing. We'll
Speaker 1: break down how this affects the whole Trump resistance and
Speaker 1: everything else around it. Coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again. The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins the Sectimics, No, Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. We are in a freestyle Friday mode now,
Speaker 1: which means we're about to kick off the weekend. Those
Speaker 1: are listening live, I know, we're all excited. We're about
Speaker 1: to go have a couple of days off. Hopefully some
Speaker 1: of you probably work weekends, but hey, you know, at
Speaker 1: least at least we get to hang out on Friday.
Speaker 1: That's nice. And if you're listening on the podcast Letter On,
Speaker 1: obviously you're probably already I was gonna say, sitting by
Speaker 1: the pool, but not too many places in the country
Speaker 1: where you can do that right now, Maybe you're I
Speaker 1: don't know, is there any snow anywhere, producer Mike. I
Speaker 1: feel like there's not any snow anywhere RelA right now either. Well,
Speaker 1: there's always snow in some places. So let's get into it,
Speaker 1: shall we. It's been quite a week, been a tough
Speaker 1: week for the administration. A lot of people are doing
Speaker 1: an early victory dance that it's just a matter of
Speaker 1: time here, just a matter of weeks perhaps before that
Speaker 1: that final revelation comes out that's going to prove the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion conspiracy. Theorists were right all along. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna happen, So don't don't worry about that. It's just
Speaker 1: not But we have been shown definitively, in my view,
Speaker 1: that there is a very real bias in this country
Speaker 1: when it comes to how lying is treated, and I
Speaker 1: mean how it's treated at the upper reaches of the government.
Speaker 1: We have an entire judicial system, right we have a
Speaker 1: legal system that has premised upon finding the truth as
Speaker 1: a means of achieving justice. But justice is the ultimate ends.
Speaker 1: It's not just the process for its own sake. All
Speaker 1: the processes, the legal processes that we have in place
Speaker 1: are geared toward geared toward justice. That's that's why they
Speaker 1: call it the justice department. Right, they don't call it
Speaker 1: the process department, although they probably should. But that's why
Speaker 1: when you have somebody, for example, who technically violates a
Speaker 1: law but did not have intent, or it was an accident,
Speaker 1: or all these things are taken into account. And on
Speaker 1: the issue of lying, especially lying in testimony, yes, there
Speaker 1: has to be enforcement of this. You can't. You can't
Speaker 1: say things under oath that are not true without consequence,
Speaker 1: because then saying things under oath has no legal meaning. Really,
Speaker 1: but there are gray areas here, there is discretion. And
Speaker 1: what we know from progressives because they are they are
Speaker 1: ideological hardliners and believe that whatever they have to do
Speaker 1: to achieve power and for their side to win is
Speaker 1: inherently moral. I mean, I want our side to win,
Speaker 1: but I don't want our side to do anything and
Speaker 1: everything to get there. The left doesn't have the same compunction. Really,
Speaker 1: they don't have the same problems with this. And we
Speaker 1: see this with lying and what has gone on this week.
Speaker 1: You remember when James Comey speaking about people who are
Speaker 1: full of it. James Comey a while ago admitted that
Speaker 1: there was a fair amount of lying. Go on, flip forward, John,
Speaker 1: your second in McCann McCabe in command. McCabe was fired
Speaker 1: for lying multiple times within the FBI. You defended his
Speaker 1: character on Twitter. That's okay. Lying is okay internally, No,
Speaker 1: it's definitely not. In fact, the McCabe case illustrates what
Speaker 1: an organization that's committed to the truth looks like. We
Speaker 1: investigate and hold I ordered that investigation. We investigate and
Speaker 1: hold people accountable. Good people lie. I lay out on
Speaker 1: the book. I think I'm a good person. Where I've lied.
Speaker 1: I still believe Andrew McCabe is a good person. But
Speaker 1: the Inspector General found that he lied, and there's severe
Speaker 1: consequences in the Justice Department for lying, as there should
Speaker 1: be throughout the government. Yeah, what are those of your consequences?
Speaker 1: McCabe going to prison because he lied under oath, he
Speaker 1: lied under sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury? Is he
Speaker 1: going to prison? Who wants to bet that former FBI
Speaker 1: director McCabe is not going to prison? Anyone plays bets
Speaker 1: on that one Now, how do I know that, do I?
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, I've got some DJ sources. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that at another time. But do I have any
Speaker 1: side information on that? No? I do not. But I
Speaker 1: know that McCabe's not going to prison for this. I
Speaker 1: know he's not. Why because he's on team left wing
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that he's left wing ideologically, but he's on
Speaker 1: team left wing on this one. He's anti Trump, so
Speaker 1: he's gonna be fine, just like I know that for example, Brennan,
Speaker 1: Brennan's not going to prison for lying. But hmmm, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, what did Brennan say to Trey Goudy
Speaker 1: under oath in Congress play clip three? Do you know
Speaker 1: if the Bureau ever relied on the Steel dossier any
Speaker 1: as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings. I
Speaker 1: have no awareness. Did the CI rely on it? No,
Speaker 1: it was not in any way used as a basis
Speaker 1: for the Intel's community assessment that was done. Huh. So
Speaker 1: the Steel Dossier was the Steel Dusty was part of
Speaker 1: the FISA, A big part, probably the biggest part of
Speaker 1: the FISA request. But the entire community didn't you know
Speaker 1: about that? Hmm? That doesn't strum. That doesn't strect me
Speaker 1: as believable at all, does it? And then there's a
Speaker 1: clapper and Comy talking about well, two different issues. One
Speaker 1: is spying on Americans and two whether Comy is ever
Speaker 1: an anonymous news source, both under oath play clip two.
Speaker 1: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all
Speaker 1: on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans? No, sir,
Speaker 1: it does not, not wittingly. Director Comey, have you ever
Speaker 1: been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating
Speaker 1: to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? Never have
Speaker 1: you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be
Speaker 1: an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation
Speaker 1: or the Clinton investigation? No? Okay, So those are both
Speaker 1: lies to Congress. Now that's particularly worth pointing out this
Speaker 1: week because, as we know, Michael Cohen Poles, who's Poles.
Speaker 1: He just pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, a felony,
Speaker 1: which maybe added on top of his already I think
Speaker 1: eight felony charges that he pleaded guilty too over the summer.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know they're they're they're lining Cohen up
Speaker 1: to send him away, you know, like he's a mafia
Speaker 1: don here. I mean, he's he's going away for years,
Speaker 1: and you have to wonder. Okay, well fine, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: all for it. Congress. You shouldn't lie to Congress. You
Speaker 1: can't lie to Congress under oath. But if Congress asked me,
Speaker 1: you know, when was the last time that you spoke
Speaker 1: to you know, you spoke to your uncle, and I
Speaker 1: said it was I think it was two weeks ago,
Speaker 1: you know, Congressman so and so. And it turns out
Speaker 1: it was, well, technically two weeks and three days, which
Speaker 1: is really three weeks ago. Should I go to prison
Speaker 1: for that? I mean, that is that a lie that matters?
Speaker 1: I think most fair minded people would say no. It
Speaker 1: has to be a material a lie about a material fact,
Speaker 1: an issue of importance, and it has to be done
Speaker 1: willingly and knowingly. But that hasn't been the standard that's
Speaker 1: applied to some of the people caught up in the
Speaker 1: Muller pro They all get sent away for minor things
Speaker 1: related to non crimes. They all get sent away for
Speaker 1: how they or rather they have to plead guilty. Some
Speaker 1: of them haven't. Although I think Papadopoulos is in prison
Speaker 1: as we speak, that's not fun, but they end up getting.
Speaker 1: And remember it's not even just the prison sentence, it's
Speaker 1: the decision to charge or not. One of my biggest
Speaker 1: objections to the obvious double standard in our justice system
Speaker 1: was it was that it's not that Hillary Clinton didn't,
Speaker 1: you know, with the whole locker up thing and all
Speaker 1: that locker up. You know, it's not that she didn't
Speaker 1: go away for decades, because I don't think she was
Speaker 1: going to get time, you know, in a fair system
Speaker 1: where she wasn't Hillary Clinton, based on what other people
Speaker 1: have gotten. She wasn't gone away for long. She might
Speaker 1: have gone away for a little while, but I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been a long sentence. But the fact that she
Speaker 1: didn't even have to face charges, and that's a huge
Speaker 1: part of the punishment in itself. That the decision to
Speaker 1: prosecute is the decision to destroy, or at least the
Speaker 1: decision to harm. And so a non prosecution decision is
Speaker 1: a is an enormous stroke of good fortune for somebody.
Speaker 1: And yet you'll see a clapper Combie Brandon, you go
Speaker 1: to this Listen, these guys are lying about things all
Speaker 1: over the place under oath to Congress. They're not gonna
Speaker 1: get charged. McCabe lied multiple times under oath during the
Speaker 1: Inspector General investigation the FBI, and he's not He's not
Speaker 1: going to prison. It is not going to happen. Maybe
Speaker 1: he'll get some sweetheart, you know, plea deal where he did,
Speaker 1: but he's not going to spend it. What I mean,
Speaker 1: he's like, he's not gonna even get the Popadappolis deal,
Speaker 1: you know, a week or two in prison. Nothing, He's
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go to prison. Why is this? The Left
Speaker 1: likes to lecture us with tremendous sanctimony about how important
Speaker 1: the truth is and then turn around and say, well,
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton lied about sex, so he shouldn't have been prosecuted.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but they have no ground to stand on here.
Speaker 1: There's no principle that they are defending or forwarding. This
Speaker 1: is just what they want when they want it. Muller
Speaker 1: is using many minuscule lies about unimportant things in order
Speaker 1: to create the appearance of a worthwhile prosecutorial effort and
Speaker 1: to try to build more and more witnesses to take
Speaker 1: down Trump. And it is a disgrace because we know
Speaker 1: that the Democrats who are getting caught up in this,
Speaker 1: or rather Democrats who should be caught up in all this, aren't.
Speaker 1: We know that they didn't take this approach, that Komy
Speaker 1: and the FBI didn't take this approach when Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: was being asked about her emails. They've ben over backwards
Speaker 1: to avoid perjury traps. Just like you know, who gets
Speaker 1: prosecuted and who doesn't, Who is putting in jeopardy for
Speaker 1: perjury and who is not. These are decisions that are
Speaker 1: being made at the top level with politics in mind,
Speaker 1: and it is undermining our faith in the American judicial system.
Speaker 1: It's undermining our faith in the legal system in prosecutors.
Speaker 1: That's what is happening. And the left doesn't care because
Speaker 1: if it helps them get Trump, they'll just burn the
Speaker 1: whole thing down the dish. By the way, I think
Speaker 1: made a very it has been making good points about
Speaker 1: this all week, and I look, I give him credit
Speaker 1: for being willing to stand up. And you know, he's
Speaker 1: he's a heavy hitter on the legal scene. Whether you
Speaker 1: like him or not, he is and he's saying what's
Speaker 1: true here, which is that you know, mull what Mueller's
Speaker 1: doing is really just unethical, and the Left doesn't care
Speaker 1: about it because it allows them to get to at
Speaker 1: least increase pressure on Trump and those around him, so
Speaker 1: they don't care about the damage that's being done to
Speaker 1: the whole system. These are the same people who tell
Speaker 1: us all the time, oh, Trump is undermining our democracy
Speaker 1: and he's undermining the system. Oh my gosh, this is
Speaker 1: destroying our system, this is throwing our faith in it.
Speaker 1: To be sure, I don't talk about undermining institutions. I
Speaker 1: don't think that as a conservative I would get fair
Speaker 1: treatment now if I ever came into the cross there's
Speaker 1: the DOJ. I do not believe it at all. And
Speaker 1: I could cite Chapter and Versus to why that is
Speaker 1: what the precedents are here. I don't think denish de
Speaker 1: su as it thinks that he got fair treatment from
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, because he didn't. And here's what
Speaker 1: the dirsh is saying about how Mueller has been conducting himself,
Speaker 1: about the truth and about lies. Play six And when
Speaker 1: prosecutors offer incentives to witnesses, they're bribing them. Prosecutors offer bribes.
Speaker 1: If you offer to bribe and go to j Lee.
Speaker 1: But if a prosecutor off as a bribe, it's regarded
Speaker 1: as good conduct. It shouldn't be legal. Tragically it is.
Speaker 1: But what we're seeing now is case after case being
Speaker 1: built against people simply for lying. These are not crimes
Speaker 1: that occurred before the special prosecutor camped office. He's supposed
Speaker 1: to have uncovered crimes that it occurred in the past. Instead,
Speaker 1: he's facilitating and incentivizing the crimes by creating these perjury traps.
Speaker 1: Virtually all of his indictments and please come from people
Speaker 1: who he got to lie in front of investigators by
Speaker 1: setting perjury traps for them. Where is the crime? Where
Speaker 1: is the crime? Laverunty Barrier, secret secret police chief in
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union KGB guy, he said, you show me
Speaker 1: the man, and I'll show you the crime. That's exactly
Speaker 1: what Muller's been doing all along here. And the man
Speaker 1: is Donald Trump and all those around him. They are
Speaker 1: manufacturing a criminal justification here, or rather a justification for
Speaker 1: taking action against Trump and those around him as though
Speaker 1: they are criminals. And they're tearing the country apart over this,
Speaker 1: and liberals should really be ashamed. But I think unfortunately,
Speaker 1: especially the ones who are cheering this on, they're incapable
Speaker 1: of shame. But lies are not punished equally on both sides.
Speaker 1: Just like the media is biased, just like campuses are biased.
Speaker 1: There is now a bias in how we are to
Speaker 1: treat lies under oath in this country. Lies under oath
Speaker 1: made by those who are on the left, who are
Speaker 1: anti Trump. They're given the benefit of the doubt, They're
Speaker 1: given leeway, and they get by without any punishment. Lies
Speaker 1: that have anything to do with Trump or defending Trump
Speaker 1: or in Trump's vicinity. The full weight of the prosecutors
Speaker 1: weaponry is brought to bear against them. This is what
Speaker 1: keeps happening. We see it happening. Lies are not treated
Speaker 1: as bad equally on both sides. And this goes to
Speaker 1: a fundamental lack of fairness and lack of well lack
Speaker 1: of truth that's occurring right now before our very eyes
Speaker 1: in the justicepartment with the smaller probe. It is appalling.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk a lot about speech, by the way
Speaker 1: on the show today and the fight for free speech,
Speaker 1: because there's a bunch of new stories ranging from treating
Speaker 1: immigration criticism has hate speech to more social media platform
Speaker 1: censorship of conservatives. So we're gonna get really get into that,
Speaker 1: and then also how the left is attacking Rudolph the
Speaker 1: Red Nose Reindeer because he's not woke enough. We'll get there.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Sorry to spoil the surprise, but if
Speaker 1: you're getting gift from me this Christmas, you're getting coffee
Speaker 1: from my favorite coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee. Every morning
Speaker 1: when I go into the hill, I have a steamy, hot,
Speaker 1: delicious cup of Black Rifle, just black, and that's also
Speaker 1: how I drink it. And the name of the coffee.
Speaker 1: By the way, it is delicious, Okay. The aromas, the
Speaker 1: different taste profiles that come through are incredible. Oh and
Speaker 1: by the way, this is a company run by and
Speaker 1: four veterans, including veterans of the United States Special Forces.
Speaker 1: These guys are amazing. Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things
Speaker 1: so easy. Just pick your blend amount you want and
Speaker 1: they'll ship the coffee right to your door. Check this
Speaker 1: out for yourself. They offer three, six, and twelve month
Speaker 1: prepaid and pays you go subscriptions. The best tasting, most
Speaker 1: energizing coffee imaginable, and they help veteran first responder causes.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee is the gift that keeps on giving.
Speaker 1: Visit Black Riflecoffee dot Com. Slash buck for fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck
Speaker 1: for fifteen percent off. It's Shakespearean because somebody who said
Speaker 1: he would take a bullet for Donald Trump yea, is
Speaker 1: now pointing the gun of them. Michael Cohen could be
Speaker 1: the most single most terrify fine person for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: the single most destructive person for Donald Trump going forward.
Speaker 1: Everything is aiming right at the President personally, and that's
Speaker 1: got to be very unsettling for them. Today is a
Speaker 1: good day for Donald Trump to resign. I really believe
Speaker 1: that the President's reaction to Michael Cohen's the news about
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen today was exactly what we as prosecutors always
Speaker 1: hear from mob bosses and drug kingpins. That is that
Speaker 1: the cooperators lying. He's just saying these things about me
Speaker 1: that aren't true to get a lighter sentence. And so
Speaker 1: this is kind of playing out exactly like a significant,
Speaker 1: complicated organized crime prosecution would play out. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: These people are nuts. None of what they're saying is
Speaker 1: fair or true, and that they just get they can't
Speaker 1: help themselves. But there's one there's one one component of
Speaker 1: all this that. I feel like we haven't really spent
Speaker 1: much time, you know, we haven't talked about in a while,
Speaker 1: maybe ever. That is, do these people realize how grotesque
Speaker 1: they sound when they celebrate what they think in their
Speaker 1: minds just going to be the complete destruction, humiliation, and
Speaker 1: incarceration of a human being who you know as a father,
Speaker 1: as a wife, as kids, and and and really is
Speaker 1: trying to trying to help the country. Donald Trump didn't
Speaker 1: need this job. He's not a Clinton. This wasn't Also
Speaker 1: he could get you know, a big book deal and
Speaker 1: do expensive speeches afterwards. You know, he's not a bad guy.
Speaker 1: And yet they just just want to see him completely
Speaker 1: and utter the humility. And I'll say this, I never
Speaker 1: once in all the years, and I was a very
Speaker 1: outspoken critic, as those who've been listening me now for
Speaker 1: almost eight years, no of the Obama administration, I never
Speaker 1: fantasized about Obama going to prison. I never sat there
Speaker 1: and gleefully hoped for the day when an Obama family
Speaker 1: member would get locked up for something, you know, get
Speaker 1: get get locked away in a cage somewhere in some
Speaker 1: federal prison. I didn't like Obama on policy. I thought
Speaker 1: he was a bad president. I think he's arrogant, I
Speaker 1: think he's overrated. But oh, he's a guy who's got
Speaker 1: a nice family life and he's got cute kids. And
Speaker 1: you know, I wasn't wishing incarceration. I wasn't wishing imprisonment
Speaker 1: on my political enemy. The left is just and the
Speaker 1: media has completely embraced us with Trump, and what is
Speaker 1: wrong with them. It's not enough to just hope to
Speaker 1: beat him an election. They really want this guy to
Speaker 1: get sent to prison. Well, the good news is, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to assure you this. They're going to be
Speaker 1: a bunch of cry babies who are very disappointed in
Speaker 1: that hope. The president is right to be nervous right
Speaker 1: now because it appears that the time is running out
Speaker 1: when he can hold himself above the law. And obviously
Speaker 1: the development's help with that. The significance of the developments
Speaker 1: this week is that one of the central focuses of
Speaker 1: of the investigation is we have known it's become very
Speaker 1: clear that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians and
Speaker 1: trying to subvert the election. The question has been was
Speaker 1: the president? The question has been, how is that? How
Speaker 1: can you say that? So definitively that they've colluded. Well,
Speaker 1: the fact that the fact that the Manafort and Trump
Speaker 1: Junior met with Russian agents who told them that they
Speaker 1: wanted to give them dirt on Hillary as part of
Speaker 1: the Russian government's attempt to help them, and that they
Speaker 1: said fine. I mean, it's it's clear that the campaign colluded.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of evidence of that. Get ready for this,
Speaker 1: Get ready for it. I'm here to tell you to
Speaker 1: prepare for what's coming on this whole Russian investigation. There's
Speaker 1: not going to be a bombshell. They don't have Trump
Speaker 1: because Trump didn't do anything, and they can't they can't,
Speaker 1: you know, go after Trump with some criminal charge that
Speaker 1: they fabricated because it would be too obvious and Trump
Speaker 1: can fight back, and then it'll be clear to everybody
Speaker 1: the whole thing is just a scam, right. There won't
Speaker 1: even be a facade of honesty and legality for this
Speaker 1: Muller witch hunt. But what Congressman Nadler just did there
Speaker 1: is what the future of this is going to be,
Speaker 1: which is even when finally, and I don't I know,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of maybe taken away from some of you
Speaker 1: that we're all waiting for that day when this thing
Speaker 1: ends and we can look around and say, what a
Speaker 1: bunch of crap, this was, what a waste of the
Speaker 1: country's time, what a waste of the taxpayer's resources, all
Speaker 1: because Libs are a bunch of cry babies who can
Speaker 1: handle that. Hillary lost because she's a corrupt, venal, self dealing,
Speaker 1: quasi evil candidate, and so they had to put the
Speaker 1: country through this. We had to have all these stories,
Speaker 1: you know, the news media essentially lighting its credibility on fire,
Speaker 1: all in the hopes of propping up this narrative to
Speaker 1: take down Trump with this. Right, we've been through all
Speaker 1: of this, and you know what's going to happen. There's
Speaker 1: never going to be and I'm here to just be
Speaker 1: honest with you about this, There's never going to be
Speaker 1: that day when we get to say, you know what,
Speaker 1: Trump has been cleared, it's all over. Because what Nadler
Speaker 1: let out there is the line collusion has already been proven.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of can it be proven in
Speaker 1: a quart of oh oh okay. So what we're waiting
Speaker 1: for now is not the information that I mean, they're
Speaker 1: gonna keep saying it's a bombshell, it's a bombshell because
Speaker 1: they want to get themselves excited about it, and they
Speaker 1: think that it creates pressure on the administration. It justifies
Speaker 1: this continued joke of a special counsel, highly politicized hackery
Speaker 1: on display. It justifies all of it. But when we
Speaker 1: actually get to the end of this path and there
Speaker 1: is no pot of gold, I guess that would be
Speaker 1: a rainbow. I'm kind of mixing metaphors here. You know,
Speaker 1: yellow brick road, rainbow, pot of gold, you know all
Speaker 1: that stuff. But there isn't that administration destroying revelation that
Speaker 1: they're all sitting and waiting for. They're not going to apologize.
Speaker 1: They're not going to scale this back and say, you
Speaker 1: know what, maybe maybe we got a little ahead of
Speaker 1: ourselves here. May maybe this was a bad idea, and
Speaker 1: we should opposed Tromp on policy. We should make arguments.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't just try to hold out this hope that
Speaker 1: we're going to have a couple of pro Hillary lawyers
Speaker 1: come in and, with the help of the media, nullify
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. No, they're gonna say that it's
Speaker 1: already been proven. They're gonna say that this is the facts.
Speaker 1: We're already in it's just what could be proven in court.
Speaker 1: So we will never have the satisfaction of looking at
Speaker 1: the left and have them say, hey, you know what,
Speaker 1: you're right, You're right on this one. They think they
Speaker 1: have enough to go on right now, They think that
Speaker 1: they're they're basically already there, and that's it's going to
Speaker 1: be frustrating. But I cannot I cannot tell you this
Speaker 1: is going to go any other way. There's gonna go
Speaker 1: any other way. You know, they're going to forget about,
Speaker 1: for example, what Rod Rosenstein said on July thirteenth, year
Speaker 1: play fourteen. There's no allegation in this indictment that any
Speaker 1: American citizen committed a crime. There's no allegation that the
Speaker 1: conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.
Speaker 1: That was about indicting those Russians, you know, all those
Speaker 1: Russian Facebook sock puppets, none of whom have seen the
Speaker 1: inside of a US court, I would not right, None
Speaker 1: of whom have actually and never will face any kind
Speaker 1: of justice. But that had to do with election interference,
Speaker 1: very minimal, ineffective, ridiculous election interference. But that that's what
Speaker 1: that was all about. All all the things that they're
Speaker 1: pushing for now have to do with process crimes, process
Speaker 1: crimes that have been incredibly aggressively pursued by Special Counsel Muller,
Speaker 1: And that's what's been that's what's at the heart of
Speaker 1: all this, that's what's really going on here, and I
Speaker 1: just I find it very, very troubling. You also, I
Speaker 1: find troubling the rise of these progressives in Congress who
Speaker 1: are are in favor of of us essentially a false socialism.
Speaker 1: They really are trying to convince as many people as
Speaker 1: possible that the government could pay for all these things
Speaker 1: that people want, free college, free healthcare, and it's not
Speaker 1: going to hurt the people that have to pay the government,
Speaker 1: which is the taxpayer. They don't have a very basic
Speaker 1: understanding of economics, but then again, a Barack Obama didn't
Speaker 1: have a foundational understanding of economics either. But I think
Speaker 1: there are a few who are on this and who
Speaker 1: are more egregiously ignorant than Ocazio. Quartz playclibate every moment
Speaker 1: when our country has reached the depths of darkness, in
Speaker 1: every moment when we were at the brink, at the
Speaker 1: cusp of an abyss, and we did not know if
Speaker 1: we would be capable of saving ourselves. We have. We've
Speaker 1: done it. We've dug deep, and we've done what we
Speaker 1: thought was impossible. We went to the moon, we electrified
Speaker 1: the nation, we established civil rights, we enfranchised the country.
Speaker 1: We dig deep and we did it. We did it
Speaker 1: when no one else thopped that we could. That's what
Speaker 1: we did when so many of us won an election
Speaker 1: this year. Yeah, that's right. Ocazio Quartz winning a congressional
Speaker 1: seat in very very blue New York City is like
Speaker 1: the civil rights struggle and going to the Moon all
Speaker 1: in one. Man. Now, I know that there's going to
Speaker 1: be a moderating, a moderation in the tone of some
Speaker 1: of these progressives when they get into Congress, because Pelosi,
Speaker 1: Pelosi knows the country's not ready to vote for full on,
Speaker 1: full on liberal whackados right there. They know that the
Speaker 1: country's not ready to go all out socialism, but they're
Speaker 1: gonna try to take us there in baby steps. And
Speaker 1: someone like in Okazio Cortes, who is you know, the
Speaker 1: left is so incredibly enamored with anything sort of said
Speaker 1: running what is this based on? What? Okay, she ran
Speaker 1: a campaign and beat a very non charismatic. I mean
Speaker 1: a politician that quite this guy Crowley, unless you were
Speaker 1: really following Congress close and you didn't know how this
Speaker 1: guy was. Shouldn't it matter more that that Okazio Cortez
Speaker 1: hasn't really done or accomplished anything and doesn't have a
Speaker 1: a very very basic understanding of economics or even the
Speaker 1: policies in general that she described. Oh no, because she
Speaker 1: sounds the part to the left, She looks the part
Speaker 1: to the left of reformer, of social justice hero and
Speaker 1: that's all that really matters to them. Is this president
Speaker 1: trying to impersonate Hugo Chavez? Rest up, tie up, urawan,
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin? What a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
Speaker 1: He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what
Speaker 1: he's doing with the president. When do we see almost
Speaker 1: a shadow government come out and say we cannot side
Speaker 1: with the government. Why is President Trump showing sympathy for
Speaker 1: white nationalists and other hate groups? What does that tell
Speaker 1: you in America that one that in one generation called you,
Speaker 1: What does that tell you? Don We can surely say
Speaker 1: his words have absolutely emboldened white supremacists. Sixteen tweets today
Speaker 1: to start the new year. Some of them deeply disturb it.
Speaker 1: These are the messages from a person who is not well,
Speaker 1: from a leader who is not fit for office. Now
Speaker 1: he's president, snowflake, okay, everything he's a Oh, they're mean
Speaker 1: to me and they don't like me, and I just
Speaker 1: don't understand it. And it's not just there. CNN is
Speaker 1: a filthy dumpster fire of idiocy these days. It has
Speaker 1: been for a while now, but it keeps getting worse
Speaker 1: and worse. I mean, we just want to share these
Speaker 1: some of the worst stuff that has been said on CNN,
Speaker 1: for example, about about the president. You know, the president
Speaker 1: is effectively supporting Neo Nazis. The president is you know,
Speaker 1: he's a terrible human being. I mean, they'll they'll say
Speaker 1: all this stuff all the time, and then they'll turn
Speaker 1: around and they'll be like, well, but we're an objective
Speaker 1: news network. And I feel badly for the delusional people
Speaker 1: in CNN's I suppose loyal audience. I don't know anybody
Speaker 1: these days who still watch the CNN by choice. I
Speaker 1: mean I don't know the other people I know watch
Speaker 1: I know people watch MSNBC. I'm not saying I know
Speaker 1: a lot of libs. I just feel like, I don't
Speaker 1: know who watch the CNN, because it's just liberalism without
Speaker 1: the without the honest about it being liberalism. At least
Speaker 1: MSNBC says what it is. But they say terrible things
Speaker 1: all the time. And I think that's why there's some
Speaker 1: surprise about what happened with Mark Lamont Hill. And you
Speaker 1: know Charlie Cook. Remember Mark lan Hill was a CNI
Speaker 1: contributor who went before the UN and he's very pro Palestinian.
Speaker 1: We actually debated radical Islam once on CNN and he
Speaker 1: got I mean on I wouldn't say he got smoked,
Speaker 1: but like I am better on the issue than he is.
Speaker 1: There there you go. But you know we, I mean,
Speaker 1: others have gotten totally smoked. He just got. He just
Speaker 1: got defeated. But he he's an adept debater. I mean
Speaker 1: he's he's not. He's not some joke when he's arguing
Speaker 1: with people. And he'll get dirty too, he'll fight dirty
Speaker 1: when he wants to. But he was at the UN
Speaker 1: and he said this. They remember this was the rant
Speaker 1: that got him. It wasn't even a ranch. I shouldn't
Speaker 1: even say that. This was what the prepared remarks were
Speaker 1: that got him fired at this un pro Palestinian thing.
Speaker 1: Play ten. If we are standing in solidated with Palestinian people,
Speaker 1: we must recognize the right of an occupied people to
Speaker 1: defend it. We must prioritize peace, we must, but we
Speaker 1: must not romanticize or fetishize it. Commit to political action,
Speaker 1: grassroots action, local action, an international action that will give
Speaker 1: us what justice requires, and that is a free Palestine
Speaker 1: from the river to the sea. And Palestine from the
Speaker 1: river to the sea means no Israel. So I mean
Speaker 1: he's he's calling for the I mean, he's calling for
Speaker 1: the eradication of Israel. I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: what Hama says. And I know that I talked about
Speaker 1: this yesterday, but you know, and I had this feeling of, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't like people that can fire for
Speaker 1: what they say. But you know, I also look, you know,
Speaker 1: I have limits, right the First Amendment is not as
Speaker 1: not a it's not a free speech suicide pact either.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know I have my limits too. But
Speaker 1: you know, Charlie Cook over at a National Review, who's
Speaker 1: like I talked to him there day. By the way,
Speaker 1: he's living down in Florida. He's you know, married got
Speaker 1: a cute kaid. He's doing well, He's doing really well.
Speaker 1: I'm glad Charlie was in my real news day. Is
Speaker 1: such a nice guy. Charles Cooking such a talented writer.
Speaker 1: And I know some of you probably aren't that big
Speaker 1: in a national review, but Charlie stuff is worth reading
Speaker 1: just because of the skill of his writing. But Charlie,
Speaker 1: Charlie wrote a piece on this, and he he pointed
Speaker 1: this out. I didn't even really know this. I kind
Speaker 1: of remember this about Mark lamont Hill, but I didn't
Speaker 1: know some of the details. Mark lamont Hill is one
Speaker 1: of the worst offenders for the Oh that guy's doing
Speaker 1: a dog whistle, so he's you know, go after him.
Speaker 1: So there is some there's some particular justice in this
Speaker 1: and the firing of Mark lamont Hill for saying what
Speaker 1: he said. You know there there is some uh, you
Speaker 1: know that there is some degree of he finally got
Speaker 1: his come upance here because, for example, when when Ron
Speaker 1: des Santis said about this about socialism in the state
Speaker 1: of Florida, that quote, we don't want a monkey it up,
Speaker 1: speaking specifically about socialism, I would note that there were
Speaker 1: a lot of people that said that that was you know,
Speaker 1: that was a racist dog He wasn't speaking about Andrew Gillham,
Speaker 1: he wasn't speaking about that person, but he was speaking
Speaker 1: about socialism in the state of Florida. And there were
Speaker 1: a lot of people who jumped onto Santis for that.
Speaker 1: And you know who was one of them, Mark Lamont Hill.
Speaker 1: It's you know, it's it's obviously a racist dog whistle.
Speaker 1: Mark Lamont Hill said, So, while I I, you know,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of complexity in this discussion
Speaker 1: about how do we how do we foster and how
Speaker 1: do we I wouldn't even say maintain, how do we
Speaker 1: recreate a robust culture of free speech in this country?
Speaker 1: How do we do that? How do we go about it?
Speaker 1: And you know, because the left, now the left has
Speaker 1: abandoned it, the left is no longer trying to achieve
Speaker 1: the same ends. And I think that people who in particular,
Speaker 1: people who used language like oh that's a dog whistle,
Speaker 1: Oh that's racist, even when there's no racist intent, that's
Speaker 1: subconsciously racist, I think they have to be held to
Speaker 1: the same extreme standard as individuals that they try to
Speaker 1: hold others too. You know, if you have no good
Speaker 1: faith and no grace in dealing with others. I think
Speaker 1: it's a lot harder to ask for good faith than
Speaker 1: to end grace yourself when you run a foul of
Speaker 1: these ever changing and ever tightening speech codes. Just speaking
Speaker 1: about CNN being a dumpster fire of crap, lousy idiocy,
Speaker 1: Jim Shooto actually went to my high school. I could
Speaker 1: tell he didn't really like me. We never really, never
Speaker 1: really saw it. I I'm not gonna say that I
Speaker 1: was ever sad about that. This guy would I used
Speaker 1: to work at CNN. Always struck a little pompous and
Speaker 1: a little a little full of a little full of
Speaker 1: of bull crap. You are a rude, terrible person. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you, John, exactly. That's right. Shooto said this on
Speaker 1: climate change, you know, because because I talk about climate
Speaker 1: change and I say the left has lost their mind,
Speaker 1: that I used some pretty strong, strong language on it.
Speaker 1: Here is former Obama a pointee, by the way, who
Speaker 1: is allowed to now just be a journalist at CNN.
Speaker 1: Former Obama pointee Jim Shootout Plate twelve keep saying, well,
Speaker 1: we have record clean environment. Doesn't get to the temperature
Speaker 1: we got kids. We don't want to be, you know,
Speaker 1: slowly burned to death. On our own planet here, we
Speaker 1: don't want to be I mean, speaking about climate change,
Speaker 1: we don't want to be slowly burned to death on
Speaker 1: our own planet. Is Jim Shooto Is he just incapable
Speaker 1: of reading anything from history about how wrong all the
Speaker 1: predictions about that have been? Or is he pandering to
Speaker 1: an audience full of the worst kind of idiots, which
Speaker 1: is what you get on the left. On the left,
Speaker 1: you have people who think they are really smart but
Speaker 1: are actually idiots. That's that's the tough kind of idiot
Speaker 1: to deal with, because they don't believe it they have
Speaker 1: There's no humility, there's no desire to learn more or
Speaker 1: to learn anything. They think they already know all they
Speaker 1: have to know about everything because they take the positions
Speaker 1: that are that are dominant on the left, that have
Speaker 1: become that have been held up throughout our culture as
Speaker 1: what the smart, nice, good people think. But that's how
Speaker 1: you get to a point where an adult, you know,
Speaker 1: ivy league educated male like Jim Shudo will say something
Speaker 1: on air that is just so dumb that it really
Speaker 1: forced me to to just stare at the ceiling and say,
Speaker 1: I don't understand how these people even tie their shoes
Speaker 1: in the morning. Just this week, I have grilled up
Speaker 1: a couple of surloins. I've made some delicious burgers, all
Speaker 1: from Omaha Steaks. The quality is incredible. I've got them
Speaker 1: in my fridge right now. I love it and right now,
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks is given an amazing limited time offer to
Speaker 1: my listeners. When you go to Omaha Staaks dot com
Speaker 1: and enter code Buck into the search bar, you'll get
Speaker 1: seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package, originally
Speaker 1: one hundred and ninety five dollars, now only forty nine
Speaker 1: ninety nine. With this Stakes Family Gift Package, you'll get
Speaker 1: four handcut top sirloins, two savory Premium pork chops, four
Speaker 1: chicken fried steaks, four Omaha Steaks burgers, four snappy Kilbasa sausages,
Speaker 1: all beef meatballs, four perfectly brown potatoes, oh grats half
Speaker 1: four made from scratch caramel apple tartlets, plus four more
Speaker 1: burgers free. It's a fifth generation family owned company, Folks,
Speaker 1: Omaha Steaks is the best that delivering perfectly aged beef
Speaker 1: handcut by master butchers. Go to Omaha Steaks dot com
Speaker 1: type Buck in the search bar to send the Omaha
Speaker 1: Steaks Family Gift package today only forty nine ninety nine
Speaker 1: Again Omaha Steaks dot Com. Type buck in the search bar.
Speaker 1: When free speech is censorship and censorship is free speech,
Speaker 1: this is this is quite orwellian. People overuse that term
Speaker 1: a lot, but in this case I think it is apt.
Speaker 1: It was only a matter of time before we got here.
Speaker 1: The left's desire to shut down free and open debate
Speaker 1: and discussion is now. It is unavoidable. No one can
Speaker 1: pretend that this is not happening. It is, in fact happening.
Speaker 1: We are seeing it happen before our very eyes. And
Speaker 1: whether it's the social media platforms, college campuses, this is
Speaker 1: just a part of the culture. There's one side that
Speaker 1: wants to tell the other side what terms can and
Speaker 1: cannot be used, to change terms that have been in
Speaker 1: use for a long time. And they know that Americans,
Speaker 1: in particular, the left knows that we have of a fondness,
Speaker 1: a cultural affinity, a deep and abiding connection to and
Speaker 1: respect for free speech. We understand that. You know, yeah,
Speaker 1: you need the second Amendment to give you the first,
Speaker 1: but you need the first for all the other ones.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? You need to have an
Speaker 1: ability to share ideas freely, to live in a free society.
Speaker 1: This is every kid in school needs to be taught
Speaker 1: this and needs to forget just being taught it, and
Speaker 1: needs to understand it, needs to believe it. What is
Speaker 1: really different about America from all these other countries? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we've got a lot of resources, and you know,
Speaker 1: our rule of law is pretty good. But quite honestly,
Speaker 1: you know, Japan has better rule of law in terms
Speaker 1: of obedience than we do. Now some European countries have
Speaker 1: better rule of law adherents, right, I mean, fewer people
Speaker 1: breaking laws than we do. What really separates us is
Speaker 1: our focus on individual rights, the right of the individual,
Speaker 1: and our cultural and legal and and you know, spiritual
Speaker 1: connection to freedom. Without freedom, what do we have. We
Speaker 1: are all just living at the whim of the state
Speaker 1: without freedom to express ideas. The state is determining what
Speaker 1: our freedoms are. And that's why I find it troubling,
Speaker 1: to say the least, when you see this argument being
Speaker 1: made the New York Times, and you know, I'm glad
Speaker 1: the arguments at least being made of the open Now,
Speaker 1: there was a time when they would have tried to
Speaker 1: avoid this. But essentially the argument they're making now is
Speaker 1: that by banning certain speech that the left does not like,
Speaker 1: they are promoting free speech. That's right. Censorship encourages discussion.
Speaker 1: This is where the left is now because they can't
Speaker 1: they can't avoid the reality that they want to stop
Speaker 1: you from being able to say certain things. They want
Speaker 1: to stop me from being able to tell you certain things.
Speaker 1: And they can't win the arguments on this. I mean
Speaker 1: this is we're about to talk about transgenderism here. They
Speaker 1: can't win the argument on transgenderism. They're just wrong. They're
Speaker 1: wrong on the science, they're wrong on the ethics. They
Speaker 1: are just wrong. And so what are they doing. They're
Speaker 1: trying to the same way that the left never won
Speaker 1: the debate on abortion. They never convinced the country, They
Speaker 1: never convinced fifty one percent of the country that abortion
Speaker 1: for all nine months of a pregnancy should be a
Speaker 1: considered a constitutional right. They just rammed it all down
Speaker 1: our throats with the force of a politicized and activist
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and then they act like it's sacred, always
Speaker 1: in forever. They're trying to do the same thing with transgenderism.
Speaker 1: They can't win this debate. They can't win this argument,
Speaker 1: so they plan to use the force of the state
Speaker 1: to just jam it down our throats, and we cannot
Speaker 1: allow this to happen. I don't want to be a
Speaker 1: party to a fraud. But more to the point, I
Speaker 1: don't want to be forced into falsehoods by the state
Speaker 1: on false pretil on false premises, essentially me being told
Speaker 1: by the government you have to refer to somebody who
Speaker 1: is female as male or else, really or else? What
Speaker 1: I get fined? Well, if I don't pay my fine,
Speaker 1: do I go to prison? If I don't show up
Speaker 1: to prison voluntarily, do you send people with sticks and
Speaker 1: guns to physically force me? To Remember that behind every
Speaker 1: dictate of the state there is at least the threat
Speaker 1: of the force of the state, and then ultimately the
Speaker 1: state is built upon a monopoly of violence. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get into this New York Times piece how twitters
Speaker 1: ban on dead naming promotes free speech, written by a
Speaker 1: transgender named Parker Malloy. Miss malloy. New York Times refers
Speaker 1: to miss Malloy. No, it's it is, in fact not
Speaker 1: miss Malloy. This individual's name. Can you know he can
Speaker 1: call himself whatever he wants, but that doesn't change the reality.
Speaker 1: It does not change the reality. And if we're going
Speaker 1: to then base government policies upon gender, which we do.
Speaker 1: There are many government policies on gender that are gender related,
Speaker 1: then we have to actually deal an objective reality. But
Speaker 1: here's what the reference is to Twitter. How Twitter will
Speaker 1: now look. I might get I'm just telling you this
Speaker 1: in advance. Twitter may kick me off at some point
Speaker 1: because I will not go along with this. Quietly, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to go along with being told that a
Speaker 1: mail is a female and as a female's a male,
Speaker 1: and I just have to accept that. I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: do not accept that. But here's Twitter's new policy quote.
Speaker 1: We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes, or other
Speaker 1: content that intends to dehumanize, degrade, or reinforce neg or
Speaker 1: harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted mis gendering,
Speaker 1: or dead naming of transgender individuals. Now, as I've told you,
Speaker 1: dead naming is when you refer to someone by their
Speaker 1: previous name, which I would note as a journalist, for example,
Speaker 1: or as a government body. You are going to have
Speaker 1: to do this in certain circumstances. Right, the charges were
Speaker 1: brought against Bradley Manning for leaking of vastrove of classified information.
Speaker 1: Charges were not brought against Chelsea Manning. Okay, his name
Speaker 1: at the time was Bradley. Now that Bradley wishes to
Speaker 1: be called Chelsea now was fine, I'd go by Buck.
Speaker 1: Buck is short for Buckman, which is my middle name.
Speaker 1: I've always been called Buck, but that's really just kind
Speaker 1: of a courtesy. If people really wanted to insist, I
Speaker 1: guess they could call me James, but that would be
Speaker 1: kind of jerk like. So I'm not about to tell
Speaker 1: somebody what their name is. Chelsea Manning. I always refer
Speaker 1: to Chelsea Manning as such, but I will not refer
Speaker 1: to Chelsea Manning as her, because Chelsea Manning is not
Speaker 1: a her. But Twitter is. Now Twitter is telling us
Speaker 1: that their policies. I mean, this is a very political decision.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is as political as the decision gets.
Speaker 1: So now we know that their terms of service. This
Speaker 1: is a social media platform and the president uses them,
Speaker 1: and this is increasingly becoming a center of public debate
Speaker 1: and discussion. They are weighing in on this in a
Speaker 1: political fashion and doing so in a way that will
Speaker 1: punish conservatives. That's what this means. So dead naming, I
Speaker 1: would note though, isn't just refer Rather, it isn't just intentionally.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't be just me saying Bradley Manning Bradley Manning
Speaker 1: when today he goes by Chelsea. They say that even
Speaker 1: bringing up the person's previous name. So if I said
Speaker 1: formerly Bradley Manning, Comma now Chelsea, that is dead naming.
Speaker 1: There's a huge no no. This all just comes from
Speaker 1: the transgender community, which is a very obviously a community
Speaker 1: that has a lot of very fragile people who are delusional.
Speaker 1: So they don't like it when you bring up, just
Speaker 1: again a fact, which is that they used to be
Speaker 1: called something else. I don't get offended when someone says
Speaker 1: my first name is James. I say, yes, you're correct,
Speaker 1: that is a fact. My first name is James. The
Speaker 1: irs knows me as James. You know, if somebody really
Speaker 1: wants to call me that, fine, it's kind of weird,
Speaker 1: but now you know that's it is what it is.
Speaker 1: But this has led to some bizarre This new Twitter
Speaker 1: policies led to some crazy stuff. I actually have Megan Murphy,
Speaker 1: who's a huge feminist, and I'm sure we agree on nothing,
Speaker 1: just based on what left wing feminism is these days.
Speaker 1: But Murphy was kicked off of Twitter entirely because she
Speaker 1: calls transwomen he and him and did that referring to
Speaker 1: a journalist, so they kicked her off. They kicked her
Speaker 1: off of Twitter. So now the left is having to
Speaker 1: live by these rules. But the way they're getting around
Speaker 1: what is obviously politicized censorship, or rather this one person
Speaker 1: who is a where does where does he work? Oh?
Speaker 1: Media Matters, park A molloy works for Media Matters, among
Speaker 1: the most distasteful, disgusting, stupid loser organizations in America. I mean,
Speaker 1: Media Matters is a grotesque, festering, oozing boil on the media.
Speaker 1: So start with that. But this, this individual, Parker malloy
Speaker 1: goes at length this article to say, well, because it's
Speaker 1: so mean to dead name or misgender just means you
Speaker 1: refer to them by somebody by a different gender than
Speaker 1: what they want to be. You're hurting debate and discussion
Speaker 1: because you're shutting discussion down. So now you see free
Speaker 1: speech to the left, they're trying out this new argument.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is. It's intellectually flims. It's garbage. But
Speaker 1: they're trying, right, They'll throw anything at the wall and
Speaker 1: see what sticks. Free speech is premised upon not taking
Speaker 1: a position that the other side finds offensive from the
Speaker 1: from the outset. But if we continue with this, if
Speaker 1: we were to agree to these terms, let's just all
Speaker 1: understand that it would also mean that you'd have to
Speaker 1: use terms like undocumented. Well, I can't have a discussion
Speaker 1: about I can't have a discussion about immigration if you're
Speaker 1: going to say things like illegal alien. They say, because
Speaker 1: that's just so rude and dehumanizing, you can't be dehumanizing.
Speaker 1: Well to that, I say no, because illegal alien is
Speaker 1: the legal term, So that is an issue of fact.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to use some make believe language that
Speaker 1: the other side comes up with, because in doing so,
Speaker 1: I am conceding their point that this is merely a
Speaker 1: question of a lack of documents, not a question of
Speaker 1: violation of law. Take that same logic and apply to transgenderism.
Speaker 1: The moment that you start to say that somebody didn't
Speaker 1: have a former name that they did have, and that
Speaker 1: somebody should be referred to a pronoun that is a
Speaker 1: factual issue of he or she not a preference. You've
Speaker 1: already conceded the argument the other side, and that's what
Speaker 1: this is really all about. They will censor, they will bully,
Speaker 1: they will verbally bludgeon until they get their way, And
Speaker 1: that The New York Times would print something like this
Speaker 1: just goes to show what an intellectual abomination The New
Speaker 1: York Times has been for decades. It really, I think
Speaker 1: ever since the nineties, you could argue that The New
Speaker 1: York Times has been essentially just, you know, the intellectual
Speaker 1: equivalent of Media Matters, just with better writers, at least
Speaker 1: people the New York Times can write. I'll give them that.
Speaker 1: They're skilled writers. Media Matters just a bunch of idiots.
Speaker 1: We'll be back Google, Facebook, Twitter. They're all bunch of progressive,
Speaker 1: left wing monopolies. My friends. Do you want to that monopoly?
Speaker 1: Go to snippy dot com. If you've looked at snippy
Speaker 1: dot com in the past and left, go back again
Speaker 1: and check it out for yourself. Okay, Snippy is an
Speaker 1: unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community,
Speaker 1: and then not only encourage freedom of expression, but they
Speaker 1: guarantee users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. Snippy is a place where everyone's free to
Speaker 1: express their thoughts and share their opinions and tell the
Speaker 1: world what makes them maybe a little snippy all right.
Speaker 1: Discussion is all about openness and that's what's valued at Snippy.
Speaker 1: No shadow banning, no suppression of conservative thoughts. Ever. Snippy
Speaker 1: dot com now has an updated user interface and exciting
Speaker 1: new features, also available in the Apple App Store and
Speaker 1: now available for Android. Snippy dot com totally free to join.
Speaker 1: Check it out yourself. Snippy dot com is your new
Speaker 1: alternative social media. Continue on with our discussion here of
Speaker 1: bias and censorship and how the after just playing the
Speaker 1: game these days really interesting report out of the out
Speaker 1: of the Daily Caller. You know, we had Benny Johnson
Speaker 1: over this week. Daily Caller is great. I mean I
Speaker 1: would beat any of them in ping pong, and I
Speaker 1: keep I'm trying to talk enough smack that they finally
Speaker 1: they Daily Caller allegedly has a ping pong tournament every
Speaker 1: year for all of its employees. And I'm not an
Speaker 1: employee Daily Caller, but I just want to go over
Speaker 1: there representing the hill where I work, and take you know,
Speaker 1: I want to take the belt. You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Isn't John right like the WWE belt, there's a big belt.
Speaker 1: I want to take the ping pong belt from the
Speaker 1: Daily Caller. Do you support this idea? Whatever makes you happy?
Speaker 1: Thank you? All right, whatever makes me happy, I'll take
Speaker 1: that for now. So, but but the Daily Caller had
Speaker 1: had this story they broke today, and let me just
Speaker 1: let me give you some of the some of the
Speaker 1: details or some of the headlines, and then well then
Speaker 1: we'll get into the nitty gritty of why this matters.
Speaker 1: Although I think it's pretty obvious. Google and employees debated
Speaker 1: whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company's search
Speaker 1: function as a response to President Donald Trump's election in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Internal Google communications obtained by the Daily Caller
Speaker 1: News Foundation reveal the Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically
Speaker 1: singled out as outlets to potentially bury the communication to
Speaker 1: burry rather. Trump's election in twenty sixteen shocked many Google
Speaker 1: employees who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: to win. Communications obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation
Speaker 1: show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over
Speaker 1: Clinton's loss to actually discussing ways to show them up
Speaker 1: from showing in search results. That's what they're This is
Speaker 1: what they're doing, folks. This is what they are up to.
Speaker 1: This is not surprising at all, is it. We think
Speaker 1: of these platforms as just that. I mean, I'm even
Speaker 1: using the term platform. These are media companies. These are massive,
Speaker 1: massive distribution platforms for content, and they can make minor,
Speaker 1: minor changes to the way that they do business that
Speaker 1: could have a massive, massive impact on just how well, honestly,
Speaker 1: how issues are discussed in this country and and going forward,
Speaker 1: what the future of the country is going to be like,
Speaker 1: because they can change, you know. Bripe Art used to say,
Speaker 1: and he was right. The politics is downstream from culture. Well,
Speaker 1: cultures downstream from media platforms. Culture is downstream from social
Speaker 1: media now because the social media outlets that we have,
Speaker 1: especially for younger people, influence so much of their thinking
Speaker 1: and how they approach topics and what they see reflected
Speaker 1: in their peer group and how they see people around
Speaker 1: them talking about things. This is the biggest media challenge
Speaker 1: that we have now. I mean, the fact that there
Speaker 1: is not a single right of center major social media
Speaker 1: platform is a huge problem because you see on our
Speaker 1: This would be like the way that we have. You know,
Speaker 1: there are conservative judges, but to be a conservative judge
Speaker 1: just means that you apply the law as it is.
Speaker 1: A conservative social media platform wouldn't be what the libs have,
Speaker 1: meaning that they are trying to stack the deck all
Speaker 1: the time. You could have a right of center version
Speaker 1: of let's say Facebook, a right of center version of
Speaker 1: Google could entail just we're going to be a platform.
Speaker 1: We're not going to manage the content unless there's an
Speaker 1: imminent threat or there's you know, or you know, pornography
Speaker 1: or profanity or something that's an objective standard that can
Speaker 1: be applied to content. We are not getting involved in
Speaker 1: any kind of political speech policing. That would actually be
Speaker 1: a right of center social media company. Now, that would
Speaker 1: be a place where you could go and say and look,
Speaker 1: we've obviously partnered with one on this show. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're starting to this is starting to happen now. People
Speaker 1: are realizing this. But we can't live we can't live
Speaker 1: at the whims of the progressive left online anymore. We're
Speaker 1: just gonna keep losing. We can't allow them to dictate
Speaker 1: the terms the actual I mean literally the terms of discussion.
Speaker 1: Can't do that. We're never gonna be able to turn
Speaker 1: this around. Think of the advantage that the left has
Speaker 1: going into elections. When every time somebody does a new search,
Speaker 1: let's say, for caravan, do they get the stories about
Speaker 1: how there are guys with MS thirteen faced tattoos walking
Speaker 1: around in the caravan? No, they don't get those stories.
Speaker 1: What stories pop up at the top? Oh, women were
Speaker 1: women and babies were tear gays, These big mean border patrol,
Speaker 1: all these quote racists in the border patrol who are
Speaker 1: almost half Latino themselves and about twenty five percent military veterans.
Speaker 1: So you've got a lot of Latino military vets trying
Speaker 1: to defend our country at the border, and the left
Speaker 1: is essentially spitting on them. They're they're, you know, rhetorically
Speaker 1: spitting on them while the caravan people are throwing rocks
Speaker 1: at them. And if Google can, under the auspices of
Speaker 1: trying to, you know, defend migrant identity or something, If
Speaker 1: Google is able to make sure that the only stories
Speaker 1: that the average person wants to learn about the New
Speaker 1: Seas are left wing propaganda New York Times, Washington Posts, etc.
Speaker 1: They're gonna start. They're gonna even though they're losing these
Speaker 1: arguments on the merits, they're going to win them in
Speaker 1: terms of popular opinion. That's the power. These platforms have
Speaker 1: some big stories this week, including the reality of Twitter's
Speaker 1: terms of service and how it is weaponized against conservatives. Also,
Speaker 1: more and more of this feverish delusion from the left.
Speaker 1: But they finally got not just Donald Trump, but maybe
Speaker 1: even his family. To address this, we have with us
Speaker 1: the great constitutional and conservative enforcer in the social media realm,
Speaker 1: the one on only Sean Davis. He is a co
Speaker 1: founder of the Federalists. You all know I plugged the
Speaker 1: Federalist dot com here on radio on a regular basis. Sean,
Speaker 1: great to have you back, man. How are you doing
Speaker 1: great to be here? I'm doing great. How are you?
Speaker 1: I'm good mane. So tell me what happened with the
Speaker 1: way NPR is running this story on Don Junior's testimony
Speaker 1: and you're just calling out, You're saying it's a straight
Speaker 1: up lie. Well, what's going on here? Yeah? They lied?
Speaker 1: So this morning NPR breathlessly reported a piece claiming that
Speaker 1: Don Junior had lied about the Trump organization's business dealings
Speaker 1: in Moscow, in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen. Specifically, NPR
Speaker 1: claim that when Don Junior was asked whether these business
Speaker 1: feelings were ongoing in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, that
Speaker 1: he said, certainly not in twenty sixteen. It had ended
Speaker 1: way before in twenty fourteen. And they claimed that this
Speaker 1: contradicts testimony from Michael Cohen, who's engaged in a plea
Speaker 1: deal with Mueller, and proves that Donald Junior committed a
Speaker 1: felony by lying to Congress. The reality is the NPR
Speaker 1: lied to its entire audience, and that if you actually
Speaker 1: look at his transcript, he was explicitly asked, Hey, were
Speaker 1: you working on a Trump tower deal or was Trump
Speaker 1: or working on a Trump tower deal in Moscow in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, and he said yes, absolutely.
Speaker 1: He told them about the letter of intent that the
Speaker 1: president had signed, he offered to give that to them.
Speaker 1: And it turns out that the question that he was
Speaker 1: actually asked the NPR mis characterized was not whether he
Speaker 1: was doing a business deal or whether his organization was
Speaker 1: doing a deal in Moscow in twenty or fifteen or
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, but whether he had been working with a
Speaker 1: specific individual on that deal, and he said, no, I
Speaker 1: worked with that guy back in twenty fourteen. NPR blatantly
Speaker 1: mischaracterized it. They clipped out all the context, they butchered
Speaker 1: the actual question, and then they made sure that nobody
Speaker 1: saw in their story that Trump Junior had actually admitted
Speaker 1: to the very thing that they claimed he was lying about.
Speaker 1: It was shameless, deceitful fake news from top to bottom.
Speaker 1: What's your sense of the Cohen situation from this week?
Speaker 1: I saw a little bit of that glee returning to
Speaker 1: the eyes of some of the most fervent Russia collusion
Speaker 1: fantasists out there. Do you have any does any of
Speaker 1: this strike you as really concerning for those of us
Speaker 1: who are supporters of the administration. Is there anything that
Speaker 1: we need to be aware of here that we're not
Speaker 1: already seen? Or is the left is completely insane? Well, so,
Speaker 1: the news on Cohen this week was that he pled
Speaker 1: guilty to one count to lying to Congress. Now is
Speaker 1: somebody who believes very fervently in the importance of constitutional
Speaker 1: congressional oversight. If he lied to Congress, he should get
Speaker 1: rung up. But as to your question, should anyone be
Speaker 1: disturbed we should be disturbed that that there seems to
Speaker 1: be a real dubber standard when it comes to lying
Speaker 1: to Congress. For example, Glen Simpson lied to Congress. He
Speaker 1: told him that he hadn't spoken to Bruce Orr at
Speaker 1: a certain point in twenty sixteen, when we now know
Speaker 1: he had. James Clapper lied to Congress about master valence
Speaker 1: on Americans. John Brennan, the CIA director who cooked up
Speaker 1: this entire Russia conspiracy hoax, he lied to Congress about
Speaker 1: spying on Congress. So to the extent we should be concerned,
Speaker 1: it shouldn't be that Michael Cohen might get rung up
Speaker 1: for lying to Congress. It's that all the other people
Speaker 1: who lie to Congress with impunity can somehow do it
Speaker 1: just as long as they have the right politics. And
Speaker 1: that's a really, really dangerous place to be in in
Speaker 1: this country where you have one system of justice for
Speaker 1: people who share the political beliefs of the elite powerbrokers,
Speaker 1: and another system of just for the rest of us.
Speaker 1: You know, the Comey attorneys who are arguing that Republicans
Speaker 1: had abused abused their powers with selective leaks, right, This
Speaker 1: is because Comy's asking a judge to block GOP efforts
Speaker 1: for closed door testimony. This is just more sancticomy wanting
Speaker 1: to grandstand, isn't it. Oh No, I think it's I
Speaker 1: think it's a lot worse than that for coomy. So
Speaker 1: he was subpoena to come testify and to clarify some
Speaker 1: previous testimony he gave to Congress under oath that seems
Speaker 1: to have been contradicted by a lot of things he
Speaker 1: said publicly. Since the box that Comey's in is that
Speaker 1: when he goes in there, if his answers this time
Speaker 1: don't match up with his answers last time, or match
Speaker 1: up with his answers that he's given on TV during
Speaker 1: his publicity book tour, he is in real trouble. So
Speaker 1: I got to give his lawyers some credit that their guy,
Speaker 1: their clients, who by the way, stole government records, leaked
Speaker 1: them several which were Class of five, and then had
Speaker 1: a buddy of his give them to the New York
Speaker 1: Times so he could get revenge on the guy who
Speaker 1: fired him. Now says he can't comply with the congressional
Speaker 1: subpoena because he's worried people might lead his testimony like
Speaker 1: my irony meter just exploded all over the place. Also,
Speaker 1: I don't think that that is a really valid you know, like,
Speaker 1: if I were called to testify, let's say, in front
Speaker 1: of a grand jury, I couldn't just say, well, I'm
Speaker 1: concerned that the sealed grand jury testimony he may leak
Speaker 1: to the public. So I'm just not showing up. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that there was an exemption for that. There's not.
Speaker 1: In what Comy is very trying to cynically do here
Speaker 1: while posturing is this boy scout, this ethical power ranger.
Speaker 1: He's actually trying to run out the clock. He knows
Speaker 1: that whatever crimes he may have committed aren't going to
Speaker 1: come to light. His buddy Bob Muller is not going
Speaker 1: to do anything to him. His buddy Rod Rosensen's not
Speaker 1: going to do anything to him. His only risk right
Speaker 1: now is a Congress that actually cares about doing oversight
Speaker 1: on abuses of power, ADA, jn FBI, and those guys
Speaker 1: are about to get bounced from power in the next
Speaker 1: month or two. So all Coomy is trying to do
Speaker 1: right now is run out the clock and get to
Speaker 1: a Democrat Congress, because he knows once that happens, he
Speaker 1: will never be accountable for what he did during the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election and afterwards. What's your take on this
Speaker 1: idea that the Senate should Now I'm going to guess
Speaker 1: that you're like me. You think that it's a stupid
Speaker 1: idea and they shouldn't do it. But just on the
Speaker 1: constitutionality of it. I've been hearing people all week talking
Speaker 1: about how there needs to be this and when I
Speaker 1: say people, I mean senators and people on TV. There
Speaker 1: needs to be this protect Muller Act. I don't understand
Speaker 1: how they think that the constitution works. If the Senate,
Speaker 1: if Congress can just say, well, this thing that the
Speaker 1: president has power to do, we're just going to say
Speaker 1: he can't do anymore. I mean, could they pass a
Speaker 1: law that says the president no longer has pardon power
Speaker 1: because they don't want him to pardon anybody. I mean,
Speaker 1: they keep talking about constitutional crisises in a crisis in
Speaker 1: other circumstances where it's clearly not constitution To me, this
Speaker 1: actually is a constitutional problem. I don't think you can
Speaker 1: pass laws that say the president can't do what he's
Speaker 1: constitutionally allowed to do. No, we have three branches of
Speaker 1: government in this country. The judiciary, the executive, and the legislative.
Speaker 1: What people in the never Trump resistance are wanting to
Speaker 1: do is create an unaccountable fourth branch of government, which
Speaker 1: is what they think they have in Bob Mueller. And
Speaker 1: it's interesting to me to see people say that somehow
Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General Matt Whittaker's appointment is unconstitutional even though
Speaker 1: it's temporary because he hasn't been Senate confirmed, when Bob Mueller,
Speaker 1: who has been confirmed by the Senate to do absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing right now has the full powers of the CIA director,
Speaker 1: nigh close to the Attorney General and the FBI director.
Speaker 1: After all, this is a man who's been running a
Speaker 1: counter intel an FBI investigation by his lonesome for the
Speaker 1: past year and a half. So you can't come and say, oh,
Speaker 1: the acting AGA, he's unconstitutional. But Bob Mueller, he needs
Speaker 1: to have permanent, untouchable powers that make him accountable to
Speaker 1: no one in the Senate doesn't have to confirm him
Speaker 1: at all. That's nonsense, and it just proves that the
Speaker 1: only constitutional crises were actually seeing are those deliberately created
Speaker 1: by the Never Trump resistance left. You know, there's been
Speaker 1: We're speaking to Sean Davis everyone co founder of The Federalist.
Speaker 1: You can read his latest and the many other talented
Speaker 1: writers there at the Federalist dot com. Sean a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff on Twitter, really starting last weekend when Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 1: who's a buddy of mine, I know he writes for
Speaker 1: you guys the Federalist, when he got temporarily banned. Then
Speaker 1: they said suspended. There's also a feminist I can't remember
Speaker 1: her name. She was suspended or banned whatever it was,
Speaker 1: for saying that a man is not a woman. That's
Speaker 1: apparently now a kind of firing offense from Twitter, or
Speaker 1: at least from getting fired from their platform. And then
Speaker 1: there's this Laura Lumur thing too. Before I ask you
Speaker 1: about Jack Dorsey and what's really going on Twitter? What
Speaker 1: do you know, Laura Lumer? I feel like I'm a
Speaker 1: guy who works in conservative media and I don't really, Well,
Speaker 1: who is this person that's been kicked off on Twitter
Speaker 1: who's chaining herself the Twitter headquarters? Are you know any
Speaker 1: about her? Yeah, she's I'd say she's a right wing provocateur.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with what a lot or what she does.
Speaker 1: I didn't agree with a lot of what Alex Jones
Speaker 1: did either. But I do know that nothing that Jesse
Speaker 1: Kelly or Alex Jones or Megan Murphy who's the Canadian
Speaker 1: feminist who is banned. There we go, yeah, Megan Murphy, yeah,
Speaker 1: man or Jesse Kelly, they didn't do anything that was
Speaker 1: actually against the rules. Okay. And that's the problem with
Speaker 1: Twitter is that Twitter wants to have it both ways.
Speaker 1: It wants to have a complete stranglehold over the content
Speaker 1: that shows up on there. It wants to control what
Speaker 1: people can say. It wants to control who can say it.
Speaker 1: Yet on the flip side, it doesn't want any accountability
Speaker 1: for the things that it decides can be published on
Speaker 1: its own platform. And that comes under the purview of
Speaker 1: a law called the Communications Decency Act, which gives a
Speaker 1: third party tech service providers why the immunity from liability
Speaker 1: for things that are published on their site. But what
Speaker 1: Twitter wants is they want to be a publisher. They
Speaker 1: want to control who can say things and what things
Speaker 1: they can say, but they don't want any liability for it.
Speaker 1: And that's the problem here is that there are no standards,
Speaker 1: there are no rules. It's Calvin Ball all the way down.
Speaker 1: But Twitter won't just own up and say yep, we
Speaker 1: want to be a publisher and we want to be
Speaker 1: in control of what people can say. They can't have
Speaker 1: it both ways. I think that there's just too much
Speaker 1: social pressure on the people. You know, we could say, oh,
Speaker 1: but they're so powerful and wealthy. I mean, these guys
Speaker 1: who are either running or or just early, you know,
Speaker 1: early involved in some of these massive platforms are obviously
Speaker 1: incredibly rich and very influential, which sean at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I think that they just can't they
Speaker 1: can't stomach not having the you know, New York Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley DC industrial complex embrace them. I just think that
Speaker 1: they have an issue with it. Well. I think that's
Speaker 1: probably the most generous explanation. A less generous one would
Speaker 1: be that they're actually pushing for it. That these are
Speaker 1: all extremely ideological left wing social justice warriors who think
Speaker 1: that if you have wrong thoughts in wrong words, that
Speaker 1: you don't deserve a place in the public square. That
Speaker 1: that's increasingly where we're going. Whether it's Google contemplating centering
Speaker 1: Brightbart and Daily Caller, whether it's Twitter banning people like
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly, or whether it's Facebook going out of its
Speaker 1: way to spike conservative website results in its trending sidebar.
Speaker 1: We are seeing this across the board from these monopolistic
Speaker 1: tech giants, and it's bad for America, it's bad for discourse,
Speaker 1: it's bad for all of us. It really does feel
Speaker 1: like we've we've reached almost a correction, like a stock
Speaker 1: market correction, in terms of freedom of speech and the
Speaker 1: dissemination of information that the Internet unleashed. You know, originally
Speaker 1: it was so much information show, so much communication and
Speaker 1: freedom from the restraints of the past. You know, you
Speaker 1: don't obviously need to have a printing press, you don't
Speaker 1: need to have a radio station or a TV channel
Speaker 1: to get your information out there or just to get information.
Speaker 1: Now it's we're entering a new phase where they really
Speaker 1: are clamping down on things and acting, I think, to
Speaker 1: tilt the deck. And when you look at something like
Speaker 1: even the twenty sixteen election, there's been so much focus on,
Speaker 1: you know, how Russia has been involved in the election.
Speaker 1: One thing that I always want to know is how
Speaker 1: much did like Facebook and Twitter decide to help Hillary
Speaker 1: in a way that okay, maybe it's legal, but we
Speaker 1: don't even know about. No, you're you're exactly right. We
Speaker 1: are in a place now where the public square isn't
Speaker 1: so much public as it is controlled by four to
Speaker 1: five major left wing tech monopolies. It's not good. And
Speaker 1: what we've had started with i'll say fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: years ago, was we had this massive democratization of the Internet,
Speaker 1: and what that did was it removed the power of
Speaker 1: controlling information from the gatekeepers. And the result of that
Speaker 1: was that it empowered conservatives, especially because it was liberals
Speaker 1: who had all ways controlled the information gates. And I
Speaker 1: think the left wingers in the tech world realize, wait,
Speaker 1: the democratization of information. Yeah, in theory it looks kind
Speaker 1: of good, but in practice, all it's doing is leveling
Speaker 1: the playing field with our enemies, and we can't have that.
Speaker 1: And so now they've dedicated themselves to making sure that
Speaker 1: can't happen going forward. Yeah, you're right, I completely endorse
Speaker 1: all that's absolutely what they're doing. Sean Davis. Everyone, if
Speaker 1: you're not already following them on Twitter and you're on Twitter,
Speaker 1: you're missing out and check out his stuff on The Federalist. Sean,
Speaker 1: have a great weekend and come back soon. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: Take care all right, team. We got more on the
Speaker 1: way on our freestyle Friday. They stay with me. I
Speaker 1: have leverage because we have a narrow majority on the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee, and so I'm using it. You use leverage
Speaker 1: to get votes to the floor that should be on
Speaker 1: the floor. You use them, but people often use them
Speaker 1: most when they're not running again. And I will never
Speaker 1: forget your interview recently with sixteen Minutes Ever with Center
Speaker 1: Coon's where you said I couldn't have done this. I
Speaker 1: couldn't have reached across the aisle if I were running again.
Speaker 1: Could you have done this with the judges if you
Speaker 1: were running against Senator? Probably not. But it's not that
Speaker 1: it shouldn't be done. I just felt that it was
Speaker 1: important to do. You have to take a stand, and
Speaker 1: we've got to protect the Special Council. We don't want
Speaker 1: to provoke a constitutional crisis. Flake is an idiot. I
Speaker 1: don't know who votes for this guy. I don't know
Speaker 1: what they were thinking. I don't know how Flake managed
Speaker 1: to fool people into casting a vote for him. But
Speaker 1: you know, the one good news after the mid term
Speaker 1: is that the Republicans still have a majority in the Senate,
Speaker 1: and we'll have a majority in the Senate going forward now,
Speaker 1: and Flake is trying to take away the most important
Speaker 1: thing that that can do, which is continue to get
Speaker 1: conservative judges elevated onto the federal judiciary federal bench. And
Speaker 1: this week you had one of Trump's nominees managed to
Speaker 1: manage to clear this one man, a judge Farr, I
Speaker 1: believe is his name. He managed to get through, Thomas Farr.
Speaker 1: He's going to be a district court judge North Carolina.
Speaker 1: The seat's been Vagasin's two thousand and five. The only
Speaker 1: way he got through was a tie breaking vote in
Speaker 1: the Senate from Vice President President of the Senate Mike Pence.
Speaker 1: So because of clowney mcclown, clown Jeff Flake, we've gotta
Speaker 1: have the VP step in and be a tiebreaker. It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, what does he think he's doing. First of all,
Speaker 1: he says he's worried about a constitutional crisis. The constitutional
Speaker 1: crisis is the idea that you can pass laws that
Speaker 1: tells the president how he can and cannot use his
Speaker 1: constitutionally constitutionally afforded discretion. Right, the president has the right
Speaker 1: to make certain decisions. Right the president shall, the president may,
Speaker 1: The president ken that doesn't mean the Senate gets to
Speaker 1: just take that away. These are independent and coequal branches
Speaker 1: of government. Right. What would happen if the President all
Speaker 1: of a sudden just said, you know what, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: just write a budget. Thanks, guys, don't need you help anymore.
Speaker 1: I got my own people. Everybody'd say, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it's so unconstitutional. Well, guess what when it comes to
Speaker 1: whether the president's going to fire an employee. Because as
Speaker 1: much as the Left doesn't want to believe this, Muller
Speaker 1: is an employee. He works for the executive branch. His
Speaker 1: authority comes from the executive branch. To tell him that
Speaker 1: he can't fire him is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just bonkers.
Speaker 1: It is just simply bonkers. But this is what they do.
Speaker 1: There's no principle, there's no consistency, and they know they
Speaker 1: can count on getting flaked out here my people, like
Speaker 1: Jeff Lake. Democrats never do this. You know, a Democrat
Speaker 1: never defects at that key moment from their side. It's
Speaker 1: only our side that just has all these political cowards,
Speaker 1: so called moderate Republicans. Christmas came early this year from
Speaker 1: my crew at the Hill because I gave a bunch
Speaker 1: of them some of my Black Rifle coffee today. That's right.
Speaker 1: I got an extra case of it, and I wanted
Speaker 1: to hook some people up. And they're like, Buck, what
Speaker 1: do you drink every morning? And I tell them Black
Speaker 1: Rifle coffee because it is the most delicious, freedom loving,
Speaker 1: pro veteran, pro patriotism coffee you can possibly drink, and
Speaker 1: the quality of the coffee is amazing. Have it delivered
Speaker 1: to your door every month. It's so easy. Just joined
Speaker 1: the coffee club. Black Rifle makes the gift of great
Speaker 1: tasting coffee easy by offering three, six, and twelve month
Speaker 1: prepaid and pay as you go subscriptions and you can
Speaker 1: gift them. Okay, so try this for yourself, folks. Easy,
Speaker 1: great gift going to the holidays, for anybody out there.
Speaker 1: The best tasting, most energizing, most veteran America loving patriotic
Speaker 1: coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Go to Black Riflecoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck and you'll receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck. And although
Speaker 1: this joint agreement isn't binding. It's still meant to be
Speaker 1: the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves
Speaker 1: to build new legislation. And one basic element of this
Speaker 1: new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.
Speaker 1: The agreement want to criminalize migration speech. Criticism of migration
Speaker 1: will become a criminal offense, and media outlets and that
Speaker 1: also concerns you that give room to criticism of migration
Speaker 1: can be shut down. The compact for migration is legalization
Speaker 1: of mass migration. So that's EU bureaucrat there and a meeting.
Speaker 1: They're talking about a compact of EU nations that are
Speaker 1: going to be taking up this idea of well, criticizing
Speaker 1: immigration is a punishable offense. This has been gaining steam
Speaker 1: for a while among the internationalist, cosmopolitanist left, this notion
Speaker 1: that criticizing immigration policy is a form of hate speech.
Speaker 1: This is why I would just say I've always been
Speaker 1: very against the idea of hate speech in general, because
Speaker 1: the moment that you establish a precedent that there's such
Speaker 1: a thing as speech that is just so distasteful, because
Speaker 1: remember that's not hate speech, is not the same things
Speaker 1: as speech that puts somebody in imminent danger. Right, hate
Speaker 1: speech is not the same as telling an attack dog
Speaker 1: to go kill someone. That that's just murder, right, But
Speaker 1: that's you can't say, well, I just use words, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. You know, hate speeches is not prevent
Speaker 1: rather not what you would use as the prosecutorial tool
Speaker 1: for a mafia boss who calls on the phone and says,
Speaker 1: you know, take care of that thing with that guy.
Speaker 1: You don't get to say, well, I just said to
Speaker 1: take care of a thing. No. If if that means
Speaker 1: an assassination and that's what you just ordered, well then
Speaker 1: you're you've ordered a murder and you should be punished
Speaker 1: accordingly hate speeches. I don't like the thing that you said.
Speaker 1: It's really mean and degrading. Therefore, I'm going to use
Speaker 1: the law to prevent you from saying it, or to
Speaker 1: punish you after you've said it. And this is a
Speaker 1: precedent that the left was. It was inevitable that they
Speaker 1: were going to abuse this, and they've been abusing it
Speaker 1: for years. But now it's gone even beyond just protecting
Speaker 1: favorite groups to now hate speech is a categorization that
Speaker 1: the left is using in order to protect favored policy.
Speaker 1: You see, so now it's if you criticize immigration, you
Speaker 1: are engaging in hate speech, which is interesting because baked
Speaker 1: into that premise is the idea that immigrants and immigrant
Speaker 1: flows are going to be non white. So I suppose
Speaker 1: they would considered hate speech even if let's say you
Speaker 1: had a lot of refugees from a possible war in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: which I will tell you is increasingly looking likely with
Speaker 1: Russia at least has been looking very likely the last
Speaker 1: few days. If you had a refugee inflow from Ukraine
Speaker 1: because of a terrible war with Russia, haven't forbid any
Speaker 1: of this happens. I guess that would still be considered
Speaker 1: hate speech if you're criticizing it, because they've established this principle.
Speaker 1: And then you just say, well, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: our immigrants a protected category now on the left, and
Speaker 1: the answers, yes, immigrants have become migrants. Refugees are a
Speaker 1: special and protected category. There are additional laws that are
Speaker 1: in place specifically because they want to make sure that
Speaker 1: you not just treat immigrants a certain way. We're not
Speaker 1: talking about conduct, that you speak about them a certain way.
Speaker 1: And this is why you've had this rise of yes
Speaker 1: nationalism in Europe and also here in America, because the
Speaker 1: elites in our societies have, by and Lars decided that
Speaker 1: immigration is not something that the people in a country
Speaker 1: are allowed to have a say over, that the elites
Speaker 1: know better than us on this issue, and they don't
Speaker 1: understand that there is in fact a social cost to
Speaker 1: all of this, a political cost to this, and that
Speaker 1: ultimately a nation state is just an idea. Yeah, there's enforcement,
Speaker 1: and there's there's a military, there's police, and there are
Speaker 1: there's the apparatus of the state, but it really is
Speaker 1: just a concept. And the concept falls apart when you
Speaker 1: have people who are able to become a part of
Speaker 1: that state without respecting its laws from the get go,
Speaker 1: and also when you are overwhelming the processes of assimilation.
Speaker 1: You know, we've seen this many times throughout history, where
Speaker 1: if you have a large enough a large enough group
Speaker 1: of people who have a culture and identity, and particularly
Speaker 1: a language that is distinct from the overall culture and language,
Speaker 1: you often have separatist movements, and yes, violence breaks out.
Speaker 1: This is the case throughout history. You know, unless you
Speaker 1: have common bonds among people of culture and language and
Speaker 1: rule of law and an understanding of what that means
Speaker 1: a country will eventually dissolve. This is what the history
Speaker 1: shows us. I mean, the left thinks about this like
Speaker 1: it's oh, it's just so funny. They think of states
Speaker 1: as being static, you know, once a state is established
Speaker 1: then or maybe they don't. I mean, some of you're
Speaker 1: probably yelling right now wherever you're listening to the show,
Speaker 1: saying no buck, they know it's going to dissolve the state,
Speaker 1: and that I think is also true. In many cases.
Speaker 1: This is a very effective way not just of transforming America,
Speaker 1: but really dissolving America into something else. It becomes something
Speaker 1: different over time. And you've been look at the history
Speaker 1: of Europe. We think of Europe now as some kind
Speaker 1: of a monolith. First all, Europe is not even a
Speaker 1: true political union. It's an economic union, and it's and
Speaker 1: it's a geographic designation. I mean, Europe is geography. Europe
Speaker 1: is not really a cohesive political identity, although we tend
Speaker 1: to talk about it and many people think about it
Speaker 1: that way. But go back one hundred years and Europe
Speaker 1: was you know, states were being dissolved, states were being
Speaker 1: you know, consumed by other states, States were falling apart.
Speaker 1: You know, there's all kinds of coming and going. And
Speaker 1: by the way, one of the reasons that was happening,
Speaker 1: one of the main reasons that you had these states
Speaker 1: at each other's throats. It wasn't just fighting over resources,
Speaker 1: it wasn't just fighting over boundaries in an arbitrary fashion.
Speaker 1: It was the conflicts of cultures within the European geographic designation,
Speaker 1: and the French fighting against the Germans and all these
Speaker 1: different Eastern European factions, and the Brits fighting against the Germans,
Speaker 1: and the Italians fighting against the this and that that,
Speaker 1: and the Spanish fighting against each other. You know, the
Speaker 1: idea of nation states of post Soviet stability is very new,
Speaker 1: and we have this idea that the left. I think
Speaker 1: that there's the good faith open borders, or at least
Speaker 1: well intentioned that's a better way to put it. There's
Speaker 1: the well intentioned open borders crowd, and then there's the
Speaker 1: sorrows burn it all down, open open borders crowd. And
Speaker 1: on the well intentioned side of it, I don't believe
Speaker 1: that they have enough of a knowledge of history to
Speaker 1: understand that states that don't have the ability to to
Speaker 1: propagate themselves, and people think of propaganda but I mean
Speaker 1: to continue with what they are to perpetuate the ideas
Speaker 1: of the state, they eventually come to a halt because
Speaker 1: we've never really had in this country an ethnic cohesiveness
Speaker 1: that is never existed in America. We've never been, you know,
Speaker 1: a Slavic people. We've never been a you know, go
Speaker 1: down us. We've never been a people that were tied
Speaker 1: to one ethnicity, one identity. That way, We've always been
Speaker 1: an idea, and increasingly we're bringing in people in such
Speaker 1: large numbers that you know, maybe they don't adopt that idea.
Speaker 1: And you can live in America now and and probably
Speaker 1: never speak in the should speak any one of a
Speaker 1: couple of one hundred different languages and get around just fine,
Speaker 1: and you don't have to buy into any of the
Speaker 1: stuff that makes US America. Necessarily, you just you know,
Speaker 1: just do your own thing and get the benefits from
Speaker 1: the state that you can and view this essentially as
Speaker 1: an economic And that's what's happening for a lot of
Speaker 1: migrants who are coming here. And this is what Europe
Speaker 1: has figured out the hard way too, because they're coming
Speaker 1: in such large numbers with such frequency, being told that
Speaker 1: they are owed, this being told that America, because of
Speaker 1: its imperialism and because it is the inheritor of Great
Speaker 1: Britain's colonial past and colonial sins that that America owes
Speaker 1: all of this to its immigrant population, that any anyone
Speaker 1: who can come here, I'm talking illegal immigrants, anyone who
Speaker 1: comes here and just shows up, can demand the resources
Speaker 1: of the state, which means your resources, my resources, because
Speaker 1: there's some kind of moral obligation that we have to
Speaker 1: fulfill to them. Now that that is not conducive to
Speaker 1: a process of cultural and political assimilation that will allow
Speaker 1: us to continue to live together in relative peace and
Speaker 1: tremendous prosperity in this country. It's just there's not that
Speaker 1: much that's holding us all together. If we keep allowing
Speaker 1: this to happen. Not only do you have a polarization
Speaker 1: between left and right occurring, and we have tens of
Speaker 1: millions of people in this country who have very limited,
Speaker 1: certainly legal ties to it in the sense that they're
Speaker 1: here illegally, but also you start to wonder what kind
Speaker 1: of real love for this country do they have, and
Speaker 1: how much do they buy into constitutionalism, limited government, respect
Speaker 1: for the rule of law. The founding fathers when they're
Speaker 1: constantly being told the founding fathers were racist, that America
Speaker 1: is forever and unalterably scarred and irredeemable because of its
Speaker 1: history of slavery. And this is what a lot of
Speaker 1: if you're a new arrival into America, this is what
Speaker 1: the left is telling you. And they don't even want
Speaker 1: this discussion to happen. And that's why in Europe, and
Speaker 1: increasingly you're seeing it with the way that the media
Speaker 1: covered the caravan here, they want to make criticism of
Speaker 1: immigration a hate crime. That's the goal. They want to
Speaker 1: shut down the conversation because ultimately, if people knew what
Speaker 1: was going on, they would agree much more with you
Speaker 1: and me on this than with the Democrats and with
Speaker 1: the left. You might think there are some areas of
Speaker 1: culture that would not be subject to liberal whims and
Speaker 1: the destruction of things that we could all celebrate. Right,
Speaker 1: you might think that, I don't know, Christmas movies, for example,
Speaker 1: are beyond the left's ever pathetic asp But you'd be wrong,
Speaker 1: that's right. The huff Post has a problem with the
Speaker 1: Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer movie. It's kind of a
Speaker 1: live action movie from a long time ago. Remember this
Speaker 1: one Rudolf. Rudolf, Well, what do you want? You promised
Speaker 1: to walk me home? Aren't you gonna laugh at my
Speaker 1: nose too? I think it's a handsome nose, much better
Speaker 1: than that silly false one you were wearing. It's terrible.
Speaker 1: It's different from everybody else's, but that's what makes it
Speaker 1: so grand. Why any doe would consider herself lucky to
Speaker 1: be with you? Where did they come up with this guy?
Speaker 1: Aren't you go to laugh at my nose too? Rudolph
Speaker 1: sounds kind of weird. You know, my nose a bitch nose.
Speaker 1: But where'd they come up with this? Rudolph sounds like
Speaker 1: a curmudgeedi seventy five year old to be. Yeah, wish
Speaker 1: your head. It better knows you and your little red
Speaker 1: nose you've got. And I also liked that the female deer,
Speaker 1: the dough whatever her name is, just like, oh, Rudolph,
Speaker 1: it is just ground is Rudolph? You know, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden being invited to finishing school here's it seems
Speaker 1: kind of strange. But you know, you're like Buck, why
Speaker 1: why are we talking about Rudolph other than obviously you know,
Speaker 1: Rudolph the red nose reindeer Christmas time, well, the holiday
Speaker 1: TV classic Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer, according to the
Speaker 1: Huffington Post, is quote seriously problematic because Rudolph has been marginalized.
Speaker 1: That's right. They think that Rudolph goes to, you know,
Speaker 1: the core of American society now and power imbalances because
Speaker 1: they're saying that the tail is not as jolly as
Speaker 1: some thought before. They're sharing their observations now about this online.
Speaker 1: According to huff Post, for example, somebody wrote that the
Speaker 1: yearly reminder that Rudolph the Red Noose Reindeer is a
Speaker 1: parable on racism and a homophobia with Santa as a
Speaker 1: as a bigoted, exploitative jerk. I didn't know that anyone
Speaker 1: thought of Santa that way. Another one wrote in to
Speaker 1: say Santa's operation is an hr nightmare and in serious
Speaker 1: need of diversity and inclusion training. I'm not making I'm
Speaker 1: not making this up. By the way, former Rudolph fans
Speaker 1: are pointing out Rudolph's father verbally abuses him, which I
Speaker 1: did not know that was a thing that happened either.
Speaker 1: And you know this is I think that the dad
Speaker 1: tells him that he has to put a fake nose
Speaker 1: on so we can fit in with the other reindeers,
Speaker 1: and Rudolph says, it's not very I can't believe we've
Speaker 1: been talking about this on radio. Santa Claus brates don
Speaker 1: Or the reindeer for his son nose, Son's nose, and
Speaker 1: the school coach encourages bullying in the Rudolph movie, and
Speaker 1: they go on that they do this whole analysis of
Speaker 1: it all, and then they say that there's what is
Speaker 1: this if you don't fit in, you know, don't be
Speaker 1: a jerk. Speaking of Rudolph, yearly reminder, deviation from the
Speaker 1: norm will be punished unless it is exploited. That's right.
Speaker 1: Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer. According to some people on
Speaker 1: the left, it seems, is a parable about the exploitation
Speaker 1: of modern society. Yeah, yeah, it's the d Rudolph the
Speaker 1: Red Nose. They late be like, why can these news
Speaker 1: just you know, they be bright and whatna if you're
Speaker 1: seeing it, Slee man, he doesn't have to, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. I guess I do know what you mean. Yeah, Rudolph.
Speaker 1: Rudolph is not something we can all just celebrate in
Speaker 1: peace anymore. They do this with everything though, with every
Speaker 1: show now they go back and they apply their wokeness.
Speaker 1: Right woke means socially justice aware or social justice aware.
Speaker 1: They apply their wokeness to the issue, and we're all
Speaker 1: supposed to just fall in line right away and be like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, I don't want to get in trouble
Speaker 1: with the woke police. This is all also just to
Speaker 1: say that the best you know, I know it's a
Speaker 1: little early maybe for this talk, but since I brought
Speaker 1: up what the best Christmas movie of all time? As
Speaker 1: a movie is Diehard? You know you can yell at
Speaker 1: me say buck Diehart is an action movie, and I
Speaker 1: would say, yes, that's fine, and probably if you're a
Speaker 1: purist you would say a wonderful life. Although some of
Speaker 1: you are going to come at me with a Christmas story,
Speaker 1: which is also a good movie. As long as you
Speaker 1: don't say Love Actually, we can still be friends. Love
Speaker 1: Actually is an annoying movie. And I know so many
Speaker 1: women in my life have loved that movie and I
Speaker 1: don't know what to say to them about it. It
Speaker 1: is just simply unacceptable. There should also be better Thanksgiving movies.
Speaker 1: You know, when you think about a great Thanksgiving movie,
Speaker 1: there are probably some that are set during Thanksgiving, but
Speaker 1: there's nothing really that that hits it. I thought Elf
Speaker 1: with Will Farrell was actually was actually pretty good. You
Speaker 1: know what, I've never seen The Nightmare before Christmas. I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's really my jam or not. Miracle
Speaker 1: on thirty fourth Street is obviously a great one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: which is better? Oh? Which is better? I can get?
Speaker 1: I can get you movie purists, you know, going after
Speaker 1: each other on this one. I bet better movie Miracle
Speaker 1: on thirty fourth Street or It's a Wonderful Life. You
Speaker 1: can tear each other apart with that one. And you
Speaker 1: know it's also a great Christmas movie for what it is.
Speaker 1: Home Alone, you know, Yes, I know McCauley culkin. Now
Speaker 1: we all think of him as like the twenty five
Speaker 1: year old who had kind of a patchy beard and
Speaker 1: ten million dollars in the bank and maybe some bad habits,
Speaker 1: but or not twenty five year old, fifteen year old,
Speaker 1: but you know, he's he's a pretty good movie. Actually,
Speaker 1: I mean Home Alone really really holds up over over
Speaker 1: to So the Rudolph movie is not one that I
Speaker 1: could put at the very top of the list. But
Speaker 1: I don't think that Rudolph is a parable about exploitation
Speaker 1: because it's about imaginary animals and it's for kids. One
Speaker 1: of the areas that conservatives need the most work on
Speaker 1: is the fight over language. First of all, understanding why
Speaker 1: it's important not to concede terms to the other side
Speaker 1: that are used specifically because it makes it harder to
Speaker 1: have an honest discussion about something. And in the area
Speaker 1: of the gender rights struggle, particularly transgender rights, this is
Speaker 1: something that everyone needs to pay much more attention to
Speaker 1: than they generally do. And I also enjoy listening to
Speaker 1: British people fight because I do. How dare you say?
Speaker 1: What are you doing? What are you saying? Excuse me? Say? Who? What? What?
Speaker 1: This was on an H Julia on HB one. I
Speaker 1: don't know what this is. It's a it's a radio
Speaker 1: show in the UK. I don't even realize they have
Speaker 1: talk radio there the way we do here, Although that
Speaker 1: that makes sense now that I say it out loud,
Speaker 1: But I want to play this whole clip here. Here's
Speaker 1: a discussion about just the usage of the term cys gender. Now.
Speaker 1: They had been talking about how in prisons now there
Speaker 1: are people who think we're rather the people that are
Speaker 1: making policy think that in prisons, a transgender female meaning
Speaker 1: a biological male also known as a male, should be
Speaker 1: able to be housed with female inmates if they're transgender,
Speaker 1: And this is obvious safety and other risks, and there's
Speaker 1: a whole lot of stuff that comes with this, and
Speaker 1: it's just crazy. Here is how a few British for people.
Speaker 1: Oh hello, let's let's have a discussion about transgender rights,
Speaker 1: shall we. But there is also a broader question here,
Speaker 1: which is about whether we believe it is possible or
Speaker 1: indeed necessary to have female only spaces. If you are
Speaker 1: physically intact as a man and biologically exactly you, you're
Speaker 1: not in a women's prison. End off, but nothing to discuss.
Speaker 1: But also, if you are a woman in a woman's prison,
Speaker 1: you should be safe from being attacked by a sist
Speaker 1: or a trans woman. So actually everyone should be safe.
Speaker 1: Can I just say you're not an out come on
Speaker 1: my show and say a CIS or a trans woman
Speaker 1: a woman it is trans? No, no, no, there's a
Speaker 1: you don't. I'm not a CIS woman. Vanessa is not
Speaker 1: a CIS woman. We are women, we are biologically women.
Speaker 1: I am not going to have that BBC claptrap on
Speaker 1: my show. I'm just using a bit of just a differentiate. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to have it. I'm a woman. I'm
Speaker 1: not a CIS woman woman. I was born a woman.
Speaker 1: Fifty percent of this population are women. We're not CIS women.
Speaker 1: We don't have to adjust what we're called for a
Speaker 1: tiny minority of activists who don't even represent trans I said,
Speaker 1: non trans woman, would that be? That would be equally
Speaker 1: If you say that, I'm going to ask you to
Speaker 1: leave my studio. I'm absolutely serious. I'm not having it.
Speaker 1: I'm not having I'm not having our language in this
Speaker 1: country introduced in this way. I'm a woman, you are
Speaker 1: a man. I'm quite happy for someone to be a
Speaker 1: trans woman or trans man, but you don't take away
Speaker 1: what I am because you choose to change your gender.
Speaker 1: But you get there was something using it in that
Speaker 1: sentence to point out the two groups and trans woman,
Speaker 1: you don't take away what I am. That's completely unacceptable
Speaker 1: that BBC claptrap. I kind of like this feisty British lady.
Speaker 1: But I'm not even sure that we should concede that
Speaker 1: there is something known as a as a trans woman.
Speaker 1: I think you might have to say a transgendered individual,
Speaker 1: but to say a trans woman. He notice how you
Speaker 1: end up with this is a kind of woman, when
Speaker 1: in reality there are really just men and women. There
Speaker 1: is man, there is woman. There is not some other
Speaker 1: form of those two genders. There is nothing else. And
Speaker 1: no matter how much they try to emotionally or psychologically
Speaker 1: blackmail people, no matter how much the progressive left makes
Speaker 1: noise about this, they are flying in the face of reality.
Speaker 1: I mean, what they are saying is just simply flatly
Speaker 1: not true. And one of the things that I'm going
Speaker 1: to try always very hard to accomplish here in the
Speaker 1: Hut is we will not say things that we know
Speaker 1: to be untrue, even if everyone else is saying them.
Speaker 1: And this is going to come with consequences. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is also why when you hear about banning, criticism
Speaker 1: of immigrants, banning talk about Islam. These are all areas
Speaker 1: where you see debates, people want to shut down debates,
Speaker 1: and and they realize that this is in most cases
Speaker 1: anti free speech. I mean, some of the left is
Speaker 1: just so stupid and so ignorant that they don't even
Speaker 1: know what free speech is. In fact, a lot of
Speaker 1: the left these days, but many of them, if you
Speaker 1: were to ask away from the cameras, would say, well,
Speaker 1: even if we know we're violating the principle of free speech,
Speaker 1: even if we know we are shutting down debate, it's
Speaker 1: for a righteous cause, whether it's transgenderism or immigrant rights,
Speaker 1: or whatever the case may be, and therefore the violations
Speaker 1: of principle are justified. This is one of the root
Speaker 1: fallacies of the leftists. The ends always justify the means
Speaker 1: when morality is relative. Time to spread some freedom coast
Speaker 1: to coast. He's a lean, mean analysis machine. Team Buck.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Friday. Roll call is always
Speaker 1: a little bitter sweet because it does mean that the
Speaker 1: weekend is here, but it means it's the last time
Speaker 1: I get to talk to you for a couple of days.
Speaker 1: That's no fun. I hope you have excellent weekend plans.
Speaker 1: Mine will include a little birthday celebration with Miss Molly,
Speaker 1: and other than that, probably some Netflix and eating some
Speaker 1: good food and catching up on sleep. I've got a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of books and reading these days, including one
Speaker 1: on this guy who stole a billion. They didn't even
Speaker 1: know how much, billions of dollars. It's called a billion
Speaker 1: dollar whale. I gotta tell you, it's really really entertaining.
Speaker 1: It's a true story and it's a recent story. So
Speaker 1: that's I'll let you know how that one goes. I
Speaker 1: also have to finish season three of The Last Kingdom.
Speaker 1: I am Utred, son of Utred. Very few of you
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about with that, but some of
Speaker 1: you will, and those of you who do understand, Last
Speaker 1: Kingdom is one of the most underrated shows I think
Speaker 1: on TV these days. All Right, your thoughts, not mine,
Speaker 1: Roll Call Time, Joe Right. Mark Stein would be an
Speaker 1: amazing fill in host for the Hut. Joe. I appreciate that,
Speaker 1: and Mark is great, but Mark is a Rush fill in,
Speaker 1: and Rush is the Rush is the general of the
Speaker 1: talk radio Army, so he gets his pick. And Mark
Speaker 1: is very happy to fill in for Rush on the EIB.
Speaker 1: So I think we're gonna have to get him here
Speaker 1: anytime soon. But I do think we got Harlan Hill,
Speaker 1: Benny Johnson, and Raheem Kassam. I'd love to get a
Speaker 1: lady in the mix on the radio, so I'm thinking
Speaker 1: about who might who that might be. I might see
Speaker 1: if maybe Molly Hamingway over at the Federalist would be interested.
Speaker 1: She's in high demand these days, but it might be
Speaker 1: fun if I could get her to carve out the time.
Speaker 1: Carolyn right or as I would agree, everyone is entitled
Speaker 1: to a legal defense, it would appear more that the
Speaker 1: dirsh participated in a severe miscarriage of justice that would
Speaker 1: make any decent person's skin crawl. Just curious about your
Speaker 1: thoughts shields high now, Carolyn is referring to the billion
Speaker 1: dollar or the billionaire pedophile at Epstein, and it is.
Speaker 1: It is an incredibly disturbing and disgusting story. Miami. Harold
Speaker 1: put it out earlier this week. I would recommend it
Speaker 1: to you if you have not read it. Epstein was
Speaker 1: a serial pedophile. Epstein was having relationship He's a billionaire,
Speaker 1: lived in Palm Beach, was having not even relationships. He
Speaker 1: was engaged in essentially child trafficking thirteen year olds, fourteen
Speaker 1: year olds, and he was having you know, illegal relations
Speaker 1: with them on a regular basis, dozens of them. Close
Speaker 1: to one hundred I think is the total number of victims.
Speaker 1: He got two years in prison, two years in Palm
Speaker 1: Beach County jail, really in a halfway house situation. In
Speaker 1: the Palm Beach County jail. So and it was in fact,
Speaker 1: a now Trump appointee, Alexander Acosta, who played a critical
Speaker 1: role when he was US attorney for that district in
Speaker 1: Florida to give an incredibly or actually he's sorry, he
Speaker 1: was district attorney rather and gave an incredibly soft deal
Speaker 1: to this guy, and a lot of this guy was
Speaker 1: friends with the Clintons, he's friends with Trumps, he's he
Speaker 1: was a very prominent fellow and credibly rich circles. And
Speaker 1: he's a true sexual predator in the worst kind of
Speaker 1: in the worst way. And I think that it's important
Speaker 1: that people understand this story. So I'm not going to
Speaker 1: get into the full details now. Maybe it will another time.
Speaker 1: Miami Harold though on it's how a future Trump cabinet
Speaker 1: member gave a what is it, gave Jeffrey Epstein the
Speaker 1: deal of a lifetime. It's it's a remarkable story that
Speaker 1: came out this week. Definitely, it's troubling. That's tough reading.
Speaker 1: When you read it, you it's disturbing. So I'm not
Speaker 1: reckonmen read the billion dollars a wail. If you want
Speaker 1: to enjoy yourself and have some time off read this
Speaker 1: story if you want to take a tour into the
Speaker 1: darkest recesses of a corrupted human soul. All right, Roberto, right, chill,
Speaker 1: tie book. The line you offer you use from office space.
Speaker 1: So what would you say you do here? Oh? Well,
Speaker 1: you caught that, Roberto. Also, I can't decide which impression
Speaker 1: I like better, your Hillary or your Cuomo. Your Cuomo
Speaker 1: is more accurate, but your Hillary is funny because it
Speaker 1: captures her crookedness and insincerity. Great show, as always, Thank you,
Speaker 1: Roberto that I completely agree the Cuomo. The Cuomo is
Speaker 1: more in line with how he sounds, which is both
Speaker 1: aggressive and stupid. But you know, the Hillary one really
Speaker 1: captures a certain essence of basically Hilly walking around saying
Speaker 1: I'm terrible. So there's that. Sorry, I gotta keep you awake.
Speaker 1: It's late in the show. I don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1: You might be if you're listening to show driving home
Speaker 1: or something. I want you to be totally you know, odds,
Speaker 1: wide open, hands on the wheel. That's what I'm here for.
Speaker 1: Safety first, Adam writes Buck. The process will pull as
Speaker 1: much carbon out of the airs you can feed at.
Speaker 1: Energy diamond is Oh, this is more on the diamond thing. Adam. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got to read about this man. You're you're Adam
Speaker 1: is the science guy. Apparently, I am not. I am not,
Speaker 1: so I have to read this is about how you
Speaker 1: make diamonds somehow interesting stuff. Cheryl writes, I love imitations.
Speaker 1: I have to say your best imitations are Christian amumpor
Speaker 1: number one, the Cuomos, and then Hillary. Okay, I'll take it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you very much. You know you're not
Speaker 1: the only Someone told me recently, very very soon, very
Speaker 1: close to me, said that Christianamumpo, with her incredibly arrogant,
Speaker 1: overwrought accent, was his favorite too. So because if you
Speaker 1: really listen to you're like, no one actually talks that way.
Speaker 1: But mister ambassador, is it, in fact the case that
Speaker 1: you can't have this discussion without speaking in a way
Speaker 1: that sounds like you're just running out of breath? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Christian Mumport's true. Tyson writes, the best steaks in the
Speaker 1: world come from Nebraska, so you're right to promote Omaha steaks.
Speaker 1: If you need some help of sauces or any type
Speaker 1: of cooking, checkout food Wishes on YouTube. Tyson turns out
Speaker 1: food wishes is what I used for that bourbon pepper sauce.
Speaker 1: So you are a step ahead, my friend, Tyson. You
Speaker 1: and I are man. We are linked psychically. So the
Speaker 1: bourbon pepper steak sauce was was very good. I just
Speaker 1: somehow it kind of it's separated. I think it was
Speaker 1: the heat and it's separated. At the end, it was
Speaker 1: looking perfect, and then I added a little more cream
Speaker 1: because I like heavy cream, and that messed it all up,
Speaker 1: and then it separated out and then it burned and
Speaker 1: I had problems. But next week I'm gonna be defrosting.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be defrosting. I think it's a New York No,
Speaker 1: it's a New Yark strip or filet that I have
Speaker 1: from Omaha Steaks. I had Omaha Steaks burgers. Yes, I
Speaker 1: crushed that. I'm great at burger cooking now. And I'll
Speaker 1: probably do a steak next week and I'll sear that one.
Speaker 1: I'll probably just do an herb butter with that, because
Speaker 1: you know, that's all you need with a steak. But
Speaker 1: I'll make a pork chop and I'll probably do some
Speaker 1: kind of a maple glaze on that pork chop. Because
Speaker 1: Oh it's delicioso, Sandy rides Buck. It's Thursday, November twenty ninth.
Speaker 1: I'm listening to your show and I'm laughing out loud
Speaker 1: at your Cuomo imitation about being an undocumented Italian immigrant.
Speaker 1: You're the best, Well, Sandy, thank you. I had fun
Speaker 1: with that one too. I really like letting it letting
Speaker 1: a rip with the Cuomo impersonation. I can also tell
Speaker 1: you that I have it on very good I have
Speaker 1: it on very good sourcing and authority that Cuomo is
Speaker 1: not a nice guy. People have actually referred to him
Speaker 1: as like the medest guy in politics who've worked around him.
Speaker 1: So I particularly enjoy doing the impersonation then, because some
Speaker 1: of these guys, like you know, when I give someone
Speaker 1: like Paul Ryan a little bit of a hard time
Speaker 1: on radio, Paul Ryan's a nice guy. Everybody who knows
Speaker 1: him says he's a nice guy. It's a lot easier
Speaker 1: when the person's actually a jerk, you know. So that's
Speaker 1: why Christian I'm apor not a nice person. So from
Speaker 1: what I'm told, I don't know her personally, but this
Speaker 1: is what I'm told by people who know and I trust.
Speaker 1: So it's fun to make fun of people when you
Speaker 1: hear that they're actually not very nice. Lisa rights sauce
Speaker 1: pans high for sauce done right, you can't beat Julia
Speaker 1: Child's mastering the art of French cooking. She's all about
Speaker 1: the sauces and how to do them right. It's not
Speaker 1: a fancy picture book, but truly great directions. You'll be
Speaker 1: a master in no time. Bonapati, Lisa, Thank you, Lisa.
Speaker 1: I'll check that out. I'd like to kick it old school,
Speaker 1: because when you think about it, I really I can't
Speaker 1: do breads and I can't do pastas, and so I'm
Speaker 1: really proteins and veggies is a majority of my diet,
Speaker 1: and so I'm just trying to think of new and
Speaker 1: interesting ways to make that, and I'm trying to limit
Speaker 1: my sugar intake. Guys, I hate to be the one
Speaker 1: to say this in case you don't know what I'm
Speaker 1: sure you'll do. In the food world, sugar really is,
Speaker 1: unfortunately the enemy. Sugar is where the real problems coming from.
Speaker 1: And refine carbohydrates that your body effectively breaks down as sugar.
Speaker 1: That's the bad stuff. All meat, butter fat, oil. I've
Speaker 1: gone through phases where I've just been eating basically eggs, bacon,
Speaker 1: red meat, and greens and gotten in really good shape
Speaker 1: and felt really good and had local lesterol and everything else.
Speaker 1: It's it's when you know, I get a little too
Speaker 1: aggressive with Yeah, I have a chocolate stash. It's true.
Speaker 1: Right now, I've got some Icelandic pink sea salt chocolate
Speaker 1: in my cupboard. That bar did not last very long.
Speaker 1: Sea salt chocolate gets me really excited. Look, I got weaknesses. Okay,
Speaker 1: I don't drink much. I don't do any drugs. I
Speaker 1: don't gamble, but you know, I got my I need
Speaker 1: my coffee black rifle obviously, and I need my chocolate.
Speaker 1: Those are two of my weaknesses. I can't really help it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: sugars is just bad. It's just bad. It's bad for you.
Speaker 1: I mean, small doses, it's fine, but it's bad for you.
Speaker 1: Jeff writes, I met Mark Warner's father. He was a
Speaker 1: neighbor of mine. He was the most decent people I
Speaker 1: ever met. I don't know what happened to Mark. A
Speaker 1: real disappointment. Yeah, you know, I don't know. Man, Maybe
Speaker 1: Mark Warner is a good guy. I don't have much
Speaker 1: of a much of a background on him. But it's disappointing,
Speaker 1: you know, disappointing to say he says some things that
Speaker 1: it's just not good, not good, not smart stuff from him.
Speaker 1: Here we go, Buck, Please don't admit in public you
Speaker 1: haven't seen the Western once upon a time in a West.
Speaker 1: This is from Chris, but not heard of it. That
Speaker 1: man card is about to be pulled. It's been argued
Speaker 1: by some to be the greatest Western ever. You know,
Speaker 1: Chris Man, you sound like a great American. But I
Speaker 1: just gotta tell you I'm not. I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: is up on Westerns. I just don't. I know. This
Speaker 1: is where there's some parts about me. And you guys
Speaker 1: all know this who listen to across the country. I
Speaker 1: am born and raised in America, obviously, and I love
Speaker 1: his country. I love the founding, and I'm all about
Speaker 1: patriotism and all kinds of stuff. But you know there's
Speaker 1: I don't like baseball, for example. I'm just gonna say it,
Speaker 1: I don't really like baseball, and I don't really watch Westerns,
Speaker 1: so I don't know how American I really am. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I'm some sort of hybrid or something. So all right,
Speaker 1: Team that's gonna be it for this freestyle Friday. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for hanging out. It is an honor. Please,
Speaker 1: if you get a chance you're talking to somebody about podcasts,
Speaker 1: be like, hey, check out the Buck Sexton Show. It
Speaker 1: really does spread the word. It helps so much. We
Speaker 1: need our audience to keep growing so we can keep
Speaker 1: this freedom hunt rocking. I will talk to you all Monday.
Speaker 1: Shields High. Just think about how many times you're going
Speaker 1: to be doing some shopping for family members this holiday,
Speaker 1: I think. But all the times you're gonna use credit
Speaker 1: card information, you're gonna be sending sensitive stuff back and
Speaker 1: forth on your computer. You're probably gonna be traveling a
Speaker 1: little bit too, and that means you might be using
Speaker 1: public WiFi. That means that you're putting all of your
Speaker 1: information at risk, yes, from hackers, but also from these
Speaker 1: different sites that track your information and sell it. And
Speaker 1: then that's how you get these harassing emails and phone calls.
Speaker 1: Protect yourself online with Express VPN. ExpressVPN has easy to
Speaker 1: use applications that will run the background of your computer, phone,
Speaker 1: and tablet. Once you turn on Express VPN protection, you
Speaker 1: are secure anonymizes your Internet browsing and encrypt your data
Speaker 1: and hide your public IP address. Okay, So protect your
Speaker 1: online activity today like I do. And find out how
Speaker 1: you can get three months free at ExpressVPN dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck that's Express vpn dot com slash buck for
Speaker 1: three months free with a one year package ExpressVPN dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck